Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Military personnel"
GAO-20-320, Jun 25, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. It stated that its ongoing efforts could be better integrated to allow for greater analysis in tracking progress toward meeting the combat-to -dwell policy. DOD also stated that it results from an ongoing study will inform the analysis for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of the study and any other actions the department takes to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. It noted that it is planning to conduct a study on the appropriate pilot and sensor operator instructor manning. The department estimated that they study would be completed in about a year. We will continue to monitor the status and results of the study.
GAO-20-335, Jun 17, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and indicated that it would develop and apply a single set of financial and medical standards across the Department. DOD indicated that these standards would be published in an upcoming policy memorandum.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and noted that existing instructional tools exist to help families navigate the dependency determination process. However, DOD indicated that a Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness user group will identify additional means to improve the information available to military families.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that while current DOD guidance does not include specific oversight responsibilities for the incapacitated adult child program DOD concurred with the need for a single office to provide oversight of the program. DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness would identify the office and assign responsibility within 60 days of our report.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, however DOD noted that it would address the recommendation after it takes action on our recommendation related to defining oversight responsibilities for the incapacitated adult child dependency determination process.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will review its policy to determine if the definition of a nondependent family member continues to be current and appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that if DOD determines the current definition of a nondependent family member is no longer appropriate, it will ensure that Service-level policies will be revised to be consistent with the definition.
GAO-20-61, May 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-281, Mar 26, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD (S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance requiring the military departments to monitor work order completion for housing privatized under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative based on a combination of resident input, timeliness of work order completion, and number of repeat work orders for the same repair. The guidance also required increased tracking of MHPI project work orders by installation staff. Moving forward, the ASD(S) plans to issue quarterly program review guidance that establishes oversight objectives for the military departments to monitor the physical condition of MHPI housing over the duration of their project ground leases, formalizing the requirement that the data be monitored by the Chief Housing Officer. DOD expects this to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Secretary of the Army has taken several steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the Army published the Portfolio and Asset Management Handbook creating a multi-tiered assessment approach of performance metrics to measure the health of each privatized home through inspection, assessment, satisfaction, and feedback. The Army and the private housing partners revised the Incentive Fee Performance Management Plan, placing increased emphasis on resident satisfaction and work order/maintenance management. The Army also put Commanders in charge, ensuring Army leadership at every Army installation is tracking housing quality and safety. In late 2020, the Army plans to review and evaluate these actions and make a determination by 31 Jan 2021 if any changes or revisions are needed to best implement the recommendation. As such, we will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Air Force is engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the Air Force tasked each of the Military Housing Offices to inspect all move-in, move-out, and change of occupancy maintenance events and all emergency, urgent, and life, health, and safety work orders, which is outlined in Air Force guidance. The Air Force is also engaging in several ongoing actions. In response to a memo to the military departments to provide consistency of performance incentive fees, the Air Force was negotiating with the privatized housing project owners to update performance incentive fee metrics in accordance with ASD directed categories and weightings. As of August 2020, agreements had been finalized with 2 partners and work was ongoing with the remaining partners. In addition, the Air Force was working with the project owners to deploy Satisfacts, a survey tool to independently measure resident satisfaction with projects' work order performance, across all Air Force projects with an expected completion by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these recommendations.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy and Marine Corps are engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a centralized electronic data warehouse, which receives data from privatized housing partner maintenance systems to display work order and survey performance dashboards. By February 2021, the Navy expects to complete the development of metrics displayed by the data warehouse to include key service call performance metrics and resident feedback data. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing a web-based monitoring matrix tool housing officials can use to evaluate the performance of privatized housing partners. The tool is intended to provide improved tracking capabilities and improved accessibility to information, thus providing more consistent oversight and improved advocacy service members and their families. The Navy is also working to hire 247 additional Navy and Marine Corps housing staff to review and analyze private partner provided recurring maintenance and customer satisfaction reports in an effort to strengthen oversight and monitoring, with an estimated completion of September 2020. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the status of these and other efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: e Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD stated that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, plans to issue a policy directing the military departments to establish, to the maximum extent practical, minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for MHPI housing unit work order collection to aid in comparability across installations and projects, and for tracking trends over time. However, DOD noted that the department cannot mandate changes to existing MHPI project legal documents. DOD estimates that this effort will be completed by December 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance directing the military departments to exercise proper oversight to ensure Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects perform in accordance with legal agreements, to include due diligence in monitoring and auditing project maintenance records and other project performance data. The guidance also required military departments to review their entire portfolios of MHPI projects to ensure accurate and appropriate work order management processes. In response to the new guidance, DOD noted that the military departments put in place appropriate oversight measures and undertook the required reviews, though the investigations of project business practices were ongoing in some cases. As another step, the ASD(S) plans to issue guidance directing the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by their respective MHPI Project Owners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. DOD expects this to be completed by the end of September 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation based on the fact that the draft report listed the incorrect office as the source for addressing the deficiency, but subsequently changed its response to concur after the recommendation was directed to the appropriate office in the final report. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) plans to issue guidance establishing a department-wide process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way effective with the survey collection effort in Fiscal Year 2021. The department expects this effort to be completed by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) would provide additional explanation of the MHPI resident satisfaction data collected and reported in future annual Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) reports to Congress, effective with the annual report covering fiscal year 2019. DOD noted that the additional information will include, among other things, an explanation of the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data. As of August 2020, the annual MHPI report covering fiscal year 2018 was in final coordination and the department noted that the report would addresses a vast majority, but not all, of the requirements identified in our recommendation. DOD noted that the additional information would be provided in the next annual MHPI report. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its response, DOD noted that the Army developed a "Plain Language" briefing as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that included the Army Housing Office's roles, responsibilities, location, and contact information at each privatized housing project site. DOD noted that the intent of the briefing was to ensure that all residents were aware of their ability to directly contact Army Housing Office and/or the Garrison Commanders. DOD stated that the briefing was disseminated to all of the Military Housing Offices, who are using it in newcomer briefings, and stated that the briefing would be provided to all current residents of privatized military housing, but that measure would not be tracked due to attrition. In addition, DOD noted that Headquarters, Department of the Army was tasking Army Materiel Command to develop a more detailed plan to communicate to residents the difference between the Army Housing Office and the private housing partner. The Army's intent is to not only capture residents upon their arrival at an installation, but making the services of the MHO known over the duration of a resident's time on at installation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy has taken various steps to address this recommendation, with additional steps planned. For example, the Navy has ensured that each installation has a specific issue resolution process description marketing flyer available, both in hard copy and on the public housing websites, with a reminder that residents can contact both the privatized housing property manager and the Navy housing office with any issues. Moreover, every housing unit has been provided with a refrigerator magnet reminding residents that they can and should contact the Navy housing office if they have any issues with their home. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have established a requirement to contact each privatized housing resident not later than 15 days after move-in and again 60 days after move-in to provide an opportunity to request assistance and remind them of available support. Moving forward, the Navy has an ongoing effort to require private housing companies to market the same messaging as the service issue resolution processes for the MHOs that they support, for consistent advocacy messaging to the tenants. The information will be added to PPV partner websites, printed material and resident handbooks. The Navy also plans to use its annual survey to tracks resident satisfaction and awareness of the Navy's issue resolution process, with expected completion by October 2020. In addition, the Marine Corps has identified a near-term initiative to procure name tags for all MHO employees to wear, identifying themselves as distinct and separate from privatized housing property management company, which will be standardized across all USMC installations. The Marine Corps also plans to develop a standard welcome aboard package to include magnets and other items with key point of contact information. The Marine Corps expects these efforts to be completed by the end of September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, as the Chief Housing Officer, planned to issue a policy establishing the assessment of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project financial viability as part of quarterly program reviews as a long-term requirement. The department noted that the program review data would be augmented by input from the MHPI companies, who are assessing the likely impact of proposed initiatives in conjunction with their third party lenders. The department expected this effort to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-20-316, Mar 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-323, Feb 20, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-90, Dec 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-698, Sep 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Army has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Air Force has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Navy has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of Defense has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
GAO-19-556, Sep 5, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any necessary actions to implement it. In its concurrence, DOD noted that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) would develop and provide the guidance and job specialty descriptions for DOD components to use for identifying acquisition and non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions. DOD also noted that the Director of Human Capital Initiatives has deployed an enterprise-wide coding capability for components to use in identifying acquisition and non-acquisition civilians across DOD. A DOD official stated that during 2020, both OSD and the Office of Human Capital Initiatives have developed reports that discuss issues related to the identification and training of non-acquisition personnel, including those supporting services acquisitions. This official noted that both of these reports are going through the coordination and staffing process and have not been issued. Additionally, DOD has not yet designated an accountable official responsible for efforts to help identify non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, a DOD official stated that DOD is planning a revision to its instruction related to the education and training of DOD's acquisition workforce. The official said the revision is intended to help define the acquisition and non-acquisition workforces and the responsibilities for their respective training needs, among other things. However, the revision is in the planning stages and not be expected to be completed until the end of 2021. As a result, DOD is still not ensuring that Component Acquisition Executives provide non-acquisition personnel training needs to the Defense Acquisition University.
GAO-19-649, Aug 22, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-344, May 30, 2019
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Army officials said that the Army was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity and the ability to aggregate the data, in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to implement these categories in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Air Force officials said that the Air Force was working to implement uniform standards for collection of military justice data and records in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to implement these standards in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity in their new case management system which was currently under development, and may implement changes to interface with Navy investigations and personnel databases. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In May 2019, the Coast Guard stated that it would implement modifications to the Coast Guard's military justice database to support the tracking of race, ethnicity and gender information as part of a longer term initiative to capture all of the data elements required by the uniform standard adopted by the Department of Defense. They estimated this would be completed in September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, agreeing with the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendation to direct it to more appropriate entities. That change was made before the report was issued. In October 2019, DOD officials said that the department was exploring the feasibility of conducting relevant research to inform implementation of this recommendation. They said that this research will explore differences in military justice data, seek to identify potential factors that contribute to observed racial/ethnic disparities, and develop standardized tracking elements so trends can be monitored across DOD. They estimated that this research may be concluded in March 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Army officials said that the Army was developing the capability to collect data of race, ethnicity, gender, offense and punishment imposed for nonjudicial punishments in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to complete this action in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was refining its processes to standardize the documentation and reporting requirements of all nonjudicial punishment cases. They further stated that the Marine Corps currently has the ability to capture this information, but in two different systems that could be extracted and assimilated with any system as required. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In May 2019, the Coast Guard stated that it would consider the feasibility of collecting and maintain complete information for all nonjudicial punishments cases through a military justice and personnel work group. The estimated completion date for this action was not yet determined.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, agreeing with the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendation to direct it to more appropriate entities. We made that change before the report was issued. In October 2019, DOD officials said that the department was exploring the feasibility of conducting a research project to delve into the differences in military justice data to inform implementation of this recommendation. They said that this research will explore differences in military justice data, seek to identify potential factors that contribute to observed racial/ethnic disparities, identify potential disparity indicators, and develop standardized tracking elements so trends can be monitored across DOD. They estimated that this research may be concluded in March 2021.
GAO-19-386, May 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with GAO's May 2019 recommendation that ASD-SO/LIC update existing guidance or develop new guidance to clarify the roles and responsibilities of ASD-SO/LIC and relationships with DOD components that have vested interests in the SOF enterprise-such as the military services and SOCOM to name a few. In September 2020, ASD-SO/LIC officials stated that DOD is in the process of revising guidance that would help clarify ASD- SO/LIC's roles and responsibilities. DOD estimated that this will not be completed until January 2025.
GAO-19-206, Feb 21, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to department officials, as of November 2019, they are drafting a report that will address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to department officials, as of November 2019, they are drafting a report that will address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts. .
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to department officials, as of November 2019, they are drafting a report that will address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts..
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of November 2019, DOD has not taken any actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation.
GAO-19-155, Feb 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: In S. Rpt. 116-48 accompanying the FY 2019 NDAA, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) directed the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a mechanism to review the justifications for non-operational staff positions requiring pilot expertise at regular intervals and to report to the committee by September 30 2020, on the mechanism to be established to accomplish these periodic reviews. The Secretary's review and report shall include evaluation of the mix of positions requiring pilot expertise as well as the mix of operational positions and support positions required to support operations. Because the SASC has directed further action related to the Air Force's ability to review the justifications of its non-operational staff positions which require pilot expertise and that action is not directed to be completed until the end of fiscal year 2020, this recommendation should remain open pending any actions taken by the Air Force.
GAO-19-160, Feb 5, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, the Air Force stated that it was analyzing a more deliberate promotion rate to fill maintainer staffing gaps at the 5- and 7- levels within the next three years while retaining experienced maintainers longer in those skill levels.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, the Air Force stated that it was developing monetary and non-monetary levers that incentivize behaviors to influence retention as well as unit level retention programs and tools, a "Master Technician" Program, and repurposing selective reenlistment bonuses to target mission generation functions versus inventory numbers.
GAO-19-50, Dec 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-102, Nov 27, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-53, Oct 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to responses provided by DOD officials in December 2019, the department provided guidance on the division of the 16 operational readiness and installation-specific medical functions in a March 2019 memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. However, further detail is needed regarding what analysis DOD completed to assess the 16 functions for duplication.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD conducted a review of the DHA personnel requirements and that the military departments also conducted reviews. DOD officials also stated that DOD will continue to evaluate the mix of contractors, military, and civilian employees during and after the transition. However, the review of DHA personnel requirements DOD officials referenced in their December 2019 responses, as GAO previously reported in GAO-19-53, did not validate personnel requirements. Further information is needed regarding what steps DOD is taking to validate headquarters-level personnel requirements.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that through the review of the budget development process, DOD transferred 1,900 personnel to the military departments for the management of their respective readiness missions. Further, DOD officials mentioned a 2018 report concerning a review of DHA personnel requirements. As reported in GAO-19-53, the report on DHA personnel requirements was specific to DHA and did not include information regarding the military departments' headquarters and intermediate commands. Further information is needed to determine whether DOD's efforts included a comprehensive review that considers the least costly mix--per DOD guidance--of military, civilian, and contractor personnel.
GAO-19-116, Oct 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated DOD advisors will continue to work with their Afghan counterparts to build their capacity to reliably report information on equipment status. As of September 2020, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken in response to this recommendation.
GAO-18-424, Aug 8, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials stated that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials estimate completing this by 9/30/2022.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials said that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials said that after agreement on the new funding targets is reached, work will begin to develop measurable performance goals. OSD officials estimate that this work will be completed by 9/30/2022.
GAO-18-439, Jun 21, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD officials stated that the Air Force plans to make changes to its upcoming business case analysis to break out control grade from field grade officers to better delineate the staffing challenges it faces as well as the targeted effect of aviation bonus offerings. Officials stated that this change is part of an ongoing study with RAND that should be completed in early summer 2020.
GAO-18-348, May 8, 2018
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted they plan to pilot a staffing tool that will help the Services determine the number of family support providers needed at each installation. The pilot currently includes multiple Services and is expected to last two years. DOD officials also noted that DOD is in the process of standardizing its case management processes for military families with special needs through its family needs assessment form. Among other things, this form is meant to help family support providers address requirements for individualized services plans and gain a better understanding of each family's current needs and goals. In its 2018 annual report to the congressional defense committees, DOD noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requirement to develop and continuously update an individualized services plan for each military family with special needs. However, DOD said OSN may propose legislative changes to this requirement that would require an individualized services plan to be developed and updated only for those families that request services from family support providers. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when the staffing tool is finalized and OSN has assessed each Service's number of family support providers and efforts to develop services plans.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted that each Service submits data for assignment coordination and family support to the EFMP data repository on a quarterly basis. According to DOD officials, in 2018, the data repository was expanded to include a full year of quarterly data for each Service, and OSN is currently developing additional performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support. DOD also noted that it will continue to use the data repository to identify gaps and trends related to assignment coordination and family support, including collecting data from each installation. As of June 2020, we await documentation that OSN has developed performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support and uses them to identify gaps and trends across the Services.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD said the family support component is monitored and evaluated through the each Service's certification process which includes specific standards for the EFMP. In addition, OSN participated in a monitoring site visit to Marine Corps Base Quantico in December 2018 and plans to participate in additional site visits that are coordinated by each Service's certification team. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when DOD implements a process to evaluate the results of each Service's certification process.
GAO-18-253, Apr 25, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3489
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department concurred with this recommendation. In July 2019, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R) issued a memo that, among other things, directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to (1) direct the Military Departments to comply with reporting of the military personnel data and reporting requirements necessary to support the measurement and reporting of the perstempo of the military forces as laid out in DoDI 1336.07; and (2) develop threshold policies for perstempo events. In addition, it stated that the OUSD/P&R will chair a working group to refine optempo and perstempo policy proposals for inclusion into a formal policy document(s). In November 2019, the OUSD/P&R issued another memo that provided broad perstempo policy and emphasized adherence to modified guidance codified in DODI 1336.07, which as of July 2020 is undergoing DOD directives review for issuance. The OUSD/P&R memo further directed the military departments to provide service-level perstempo guidance, to include thresholds and compliance measures, for their components. We will continue to monitor these actions and update the status of our recommendation as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department concurred with this recommendation. In July 2019, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R) issued a memo that, among other things, directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) to develop policies for the accurate measurement and reporting of unit operational deployment data. In addition, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) will (1) conduct department-wide coordination to develop the necessary technical capabilities for DOD to collect, monitor, and evaluate optempo and perstempo data; (2) develop procedures for perstempo and operational deployment data validation to ensure quality checks are conducted regularly and feedback mechanisms to the military departments for error detection and correction are in place, if necessary; and (3) ensure coordination efforts for optempo and perstempo data collection efforts do not duplicate or interfere with current systems collecting such information. In November 2019, the OUSD/P&R issued another memo that provided broad perstempo policy and emphasized adherence to modified guidance codified in DODI 1336.07, which as of July 2020 is undergoing DOD directives review for issuance. This memo and draft instruction provide direction on the reporting of perstempo events and emphasize the collection of complete and reliable perstempo data. Additionally, to enhance data processing and rectify data quality issues, DOD has drafted Uniformed Services Human Resources Information System Procedures, which is also undergoing DoD directives review for official issuance, and DMDC has worked with the services to make specific data improvements. We will continue to monitor for the issuance of the draft DODI and System Procedures and update the status of our recommendation as appropriate.
GAO-18-113, Apr 11, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Air Force, many organizations and offices, in addition to the Director of Operations and Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency will play integral roles in determining the future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter pilot squadrons. DOD also noted that the Air Force will review fighter wing manpower determinants to accurately account for fighter pilot workloads and analyze support organization manning to ensure adequate support to operational units. In December 2018, the Air Force provided a report to Congress on the efforts to implement GAO's recommendation, among other things. The report noted that an Air Force reevaluation of pilot staff requirements resulted in a reduction to requirements of 106 positions (4 percent). In addition, the report discussed how fighter pilot workload is impacted by UAS platforms, specifically that the growth of UAS platforms has allowed the Air Force to reduce the need for fighter aircraft operations in uncontested environments, and that the growth of the UAS pilot community has allowed that community to begin filling staff positions that would formerly have been filled by fighter pilots. Further, the report stated that the Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency - in coordination with other Air Force offices - was conducting a study of fighter squadron workloads, anticipated to be completed in mid-2019. We requested a copy of the Air For Manpower Analysis Agency study in March 2020, and again in August 2020 - but as of September 2020 a copy has not been provided. Once we have an opportunity to review the study we will update the status of this recommendation as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Navy, many organizations and offices including the resource sponsor (Naval Air Forces) will play integral roles in determining the future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter pilot squadrons. As of August 2020, DOD officials told us that the Navy has updated most of the fighter pilot requirements for most squadrons, is taking action to update requirements for the remaining squadrons, and will provide us with documentation when the process is complete. When we obtain documentation of the updates to fighter pilot squadron requirements we will update the recommendation status as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Marine Corps, many organizations and offices in addition to the Deputy Commandant for Aviation play integral roles in the continuous evaluation and determination regarding current and future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter and attack squadrons. As of August 2020 DOD has not taken actions in response to this recommendation.
GAO-18-221, Apr 3, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions to update Volume 6A, Chapter 7 of the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) with guidance on rates for disbursement to ensure all components are utilizing the most cost-effective rates while balancing mission requirements and time required to process transactions. DOD estimates that the FMR revision will be completed by October 31, 2020. Until the revision to the FMR is completed, DOD risks paying more to disburse funds for overseas expenditures than would otherwise be required.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. However, as of August 2019, DOD had not planned any actions intended to implement this recommendation. According to DOD, projecting foreign currency gains or losses to determine the necessary size of the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (FCFD) account balance would only be possible if foreign currency rates do not fluctuate. DOD states that if projected gains or losses are used to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account when foreign currency rates are volatile, it would expose the department to additional risk. In our report, we acknowledged the inherent challenge in projecting foreign currency gains or losses. However, we also noted that DOD already projects foreign currency gains or losses as the basis for transfers out of the FCFD account but does not use the same analysis to inform its transfers into the account. Further, DOD has the flexibility to make multiple transfers of funds to the FCFD account in a fiscal year in response to any unforeseen foreign currency fluctuations. Without an analysis of projected losses to determine the necessary size of the account balance, DOD may be maintaining the account at a higher balance than is necessary and losing opportunities to more efficiently use funds.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions to revise Volume 6A, Chapter 7 of the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) to ensure reporting is complete and accurate and assign responsibilities to DOD components for data correction. DOD estimates that the revision to the FMR will be completed by October 31, 2020. Without updated guidance to ensure that the data that tracks foreign currency gains and losses are complete, DOD and Congress will continue to lack quality information with which to make decisions and exercise stewardship over resources for managing foreign currency fluctuations.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions intended to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Secretary of the Army intended to develop a Systems Change Request for how disbursements are recorded in the General Fund Enterprise Business System to be consistent with DOD's Financial Management Regulation. DOD estimates that the system changes will be complete by the second quarter of FY 2020. Until DOD completes its planned actions to address this recommendation, the Army and DOD will continue to lack accurate information for tracking and helping to manage foreign currency gains and losses.
GAO-18-217, Feb 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and indicated the Department of the Navy plans to improve its civilian and military program manager training, mentoring, retention, and selection programs across the program management community and the acquisition workforce as a whole. Regarding training, in January 2019 the Navy sent its first cohort of participants to a DOD talent exchange program with industry, open to both civilian and military acquisition personnel, and including a focus on the program management workforce. Of the second Navy cohort that started in this program in early 2020, eight were civilians in the program management career field. Regarding mentoring, in October 2018 the Department of the Navy issued a program management career field guidebook that included career path roadmaps and descriptions of skills and competencies - such as mentoring individuals and teams - needed to advance for program management personnel across the Navy. Regarding selection, the Navy is developing a talent management system to enable talent identification, career development, and succession management across the acquisition workforce. A pilot of this system started in 2020, and includes the program management career field. The Navy expects to complete this pilot in fiscal year 2021, and to use data from the system to support the selection of key leadership positions including program managers and deputy program managers.
GAO-18-162, Feb 6, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.
GAO-18-33, Dec 18, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In written comments on the draft report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2020, officials with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness stated that development of a new sexual harassment prevention strategy was complete and going through DOD's internal review process. The officials stated that the Undersecretary's review and approval of the assessment report will be complete before the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the status of this recommendation as more information becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments on the draft report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to officials with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, development of a new sexual harassment prevention strategy is complete and the strategy is going through DOD's internal review process. Additionally, a Defense Equal Opportunity Reform Group assessment report containing a review of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment was also submitted to the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The official's stated that the Undersecretary's review and approval of both the new strategy and assessment report should be completed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation and will update its status when more information becomes available.
GAO-18-81, Oct 27, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment (DFE) concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.
GAO-18-181, Oct 16, 2017
Phone: (213) 830-1011
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the National Guard Bureau and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Integration) commissioned the Institute for Defense Analyses to conduct a study to address our recommendation. According to DOD officials, the study was completed in September 2019 but has not yet been published, and an implementation plan is currently being developed. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-17-527, Jul 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments to this recommendation, DOD concurred with this recommendation and said that the database was inoperable but that it was being reviewed as part of a multi-year information technology modernization effort to transition all military medical records to a new system known as MHS (Military Health System) GENESIS. They noted that the capability for USMEPCOM to conduct EPTS medical records review would be available within MHS GENESIS' business intelligence tools once implemented. When asked about the status of any actions taken to address this recommendation by preparing a schedule as to when this internal database would be repaired, DOD responded in January 2018 that USMEPCOM is unable to expend any funds to repair or replace the EPTS database system as this functionality is to be incorporated into the upcoming MHS GENESIS program. DOD officials confirmed that USMEPCOM's initial site testing will occur in FY 2019. While DOD officials are not able to repair its current internal database needed to complete its statistical analysis of these particular medical records, MHS GENESIS will be able to provide USMEPCOM with this capability. In August 2019, a senior DOD official confirmed that using MHS GENESIS is still the primary course of action to address this recommendation. He said that its implementation is planned for 2020/2021; however, there has been another delay and the department is waiting for a new implementation date to be established. In May 2020, this same official provided updated information that said MHS Genesis was delayed until 2021. Therefore, until further progress is made in implementing MHS GENESIS, this recommendation should remain open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments to this recommendation, DOD partially concurred and stated that it began fielding MHS GENESIS and anticipated issuing a Full Deployment Decision (FDD) certification in 2018 to proceed to the remaining sites. Further, when asked about the status of any actions taken to address this recommendation, DOD responded in January 2018 that USMEPCOM's inclusion in MHS GENESIS is scheduled for approval in late fiscal year 2018 with initial MEPS site testing in fiscal year 2019. According to DOD, USMEPCOM officials are working closely with the program management officials and the MHS GENESIS team to develop information requirements for approval and inclusion in the MHS GENESIS deployment plan once FDD is granted. The estimated completion date for the roll out to all remaining MEPS locations is fiscal year 2021. In August 2019, a senior DOD official confirmed that the department's primary course of action for addressing this recommendation remains the use of MHS GENESIS. However, he said that DOD has experience a delay and in May 2020, he stated that MHS Genesis had been delayed until FY 21. Given that DOD is still in the process of deploying MHS GENESIS, we believe this recommendation should remain open until progress has been made in implementing the MHS Genesis within the MEPS locations.
GAO-17-542, Jun 8, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that the Armed Forces Sports Council approved performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program at a council meeting held in April 2018. Officials said the approved performance measures went into effect in January 2019 in conjunction with the Armed Forces Sports Program's 2019 calendar year. Officials said that the baseline year for the performance measures is 2019 which they are currently collecting data for. Officials plan to provide an update on the program once they have collected and reviewed the 2019 baseline year performance measures. Additionally, officials said that OSD is working to update DOD Instruction 1330.04 to require the Armed Forces Sports Council to develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program and review and track performance metrics annually. The DOD Instruction language has been updated and is currently pending review prior to the start of formal coordination.
GAO-17-260, May 16, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: At the time of report publication DOD indicated it did not concur with this recommendation. However after publication, the department indicated it concurred with the recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD is continuing to take actions to address this recommendation. When actions have been completed, GAO will update the status of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2018, the department indicated that it was addressing the recommendation by requiring the military services to submit a report in March 2018 and March 2019 on how they are monitoring adherence to policies related to screening certain servicemembers for PTSD and TBI prior to separation for misconduct. In August 2020, the department indicated it completed a cycle of compliance reporting by the military services in April 2020. DOD stated it would conduct a final compliance reporting cycle in March 2021. GAO maintains that monitoring of compliance on a routine basis (i.e., ongoing) is necessary and will keep the recommendation open until the department indicates that routine monitoring will occur.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, the department is continuing to take actions to address this recommendation. When actions have been completed, GAO will update the status of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2018, the department indicated that it was addressing the recommendation by requiring the military services to submit a report in March 2018 and March 2019 on how they are monitoring adherence to policies related to counseling about VA benefits and services during the process of separating certain servicemembers for misconduct. In August 2020, the department indicated it completed a cycle of compliance reporting by the military services in April 2020. DOD stated it would conduct a final compliance reporting cycle in March 2021. GAO maintains that monitoring of compliance on a routine basis (i.e., ongoing) is necessary and will keep the recommendation open until the department indicates that routine monitoring will occur.
GAO-17-39, Feb 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that it will maintain its focus on the recruiting and retention pays for both the active and reserve components, and will continue to work with the Reserve Components to strengthen the collection of the remaining special and incentive pays. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken action on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that DOD does use key principles of effective human capital management, and although not articulated as GAO's principles, DOD's and GAO's principles share common goals and results. In addition, DOD stated that it will support the opportunity to review and improve upon the principles and methods to assess the efficiency of its S&I pay programs, and, where appropriate, will incorporate these principles in future DOD policy issuances and updates. In May 2018, DOD stated that it believed it was in compliance with this recommendation and that the action was complete. DOD stated that this assessment was based on our finding that most of the Department's S&I pay programs either met or partially met the key principles of effective human capital management. But our finding was on select pay programs. Further, DOD's response did not document what actions the Department has taken to ensure all programs fully meet the key principles. As of November 2019 DOD had not taken action on this recommendation. We continue to believe that fully implementing the key principles of effective human capital management that we identified would help DOD and the services to ensure that S&I pay programs are effectively designed and that resources are optimized for the greatest return on investment.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2017, DOD had submitted a proposal to conduct a study focused on aviation officers that will examine the military services' methodologies used to accomplish their retention goals to determine the primary reasons aviation officers remain or leave the service and the degree to which these reasons affect their retention decisions. According to DOD officials, a portion of the study will consider the interaction between monetary and non-monetary incentives such as duty assignments, flying opportunities, reduced administrative burdens, and quality of life. In May 2018, DOD stated that the Military Departments continue to utilize non-monetary incentives as their first approach to access and retain quality servicemembers. DOD added that these incentives consist of choice of career path, duty assignment, selective military training, educational benefits, as well as the career intermission program. DOD noted that the Army's Career Satisfaction Program is just one example of using non-monetary pay incentives to improve retention. According to DOD, this program increases the retention of Army officers at no additional cost to the Army by offering academy cadets and senior ROTC cadets the choice of occupational specialty and assignment location upon commissioning in exchange for extending their active duty service obligation for an additional 3 years. DOD also stated that the Navy currently uses both monetary and non-monetary incentives to retain its surface warfare officer (SWO) community to ensure it retains adequate numbers of officers to fill critical SWO Department Head positions in the rank of Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander. The Department concluded that it believes the recommendation is closed, as it has offered and continues to offer non-monetary incentives as part of its S&l pay program, and continues to encourage the use of non-monetary incentives as an alternative to cash incentives. While the programs DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that the services are responsible for developing their personnel requirements in order to meet individual service needs and that it has provided the services with the necessary staffing tools to recruit and retain servicemembers in the cybersecurity skill sets. DOD also noted that it is crucial for the services to retain their flexibility to utilize these pays and benefits to address service-specific shortfalls within their cybersecurity workforce and noted that it will assist the services in growing and maintaining their cybersecurity workforce through existing and future DOD policies. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that the services have responsibility for developing their manpower requirements and employing the necessary manpower tools, such as bonuses and incentives, to achieve their goals, including those for the cybersecurity workforce. DOD added that the current suite of special and incentive pays already provides the services the necessary authorities and flexibilities to access and retain servicemembers in their cybersecurity communities. DOD concluded that it believed their actions to address this recommendation were complete. We recognize that the services are responsible for their specific personnel requirements and that flexibility is important. However, as noted in our report, each military service has assigned cybersecurity personnel to military occupational specialties that include other types of personnel skill sets, such as intelligence or information technology. As a result, because the services offer SRBs by military occupational specialty, the services may award SRBs to specialties that include non-cybersecurity personnel for whom the SRB is unneeded. Therefore, we continue to believe that there are benefits to developing approaches to target cybersecurity personnel in non-designated cybersecurity fields and that this recommendation should remain open. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.
GAO-17-114, Jan 30, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non-concurred with this recommendation. However, the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act mandated that DOD implement this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had modified the Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS) to include questions on gambling and DOD and the Services are in the process of updating the electronic Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) assessment forms to capture the gambling screening data required by the legislation. Once the PHA is updated to include the gambling screening data, we will be able to close this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD stated that this guidance is still in internal DOD coordination. Moreover, guidance related to gambling disorder screening, referral, and treatment needs to be coordinated with the Addictive Substance Misuse Advisory Committee (ASMAC) before issuance, which is anticipated to be July 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, the Army did not have any updates to provide on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, Navy officials stated that the draft Navy instruction was returned back to the Navy's Drug Detection and Deterrence Program Office to add language regarding the Secretary of the Navy's ban on hemp/CBD products that was announced this month. The Navy has added the language and pushed the instruction out to the main stakeholders for coordination. It is due back to the Director, Navy Staff no later than 30 August 2019 where it will go back into the queue for signature. Navy officials anticipate signature sometime later this fall.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Coast Guard/DHS concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, the Coast Guard stated that updates to this manual are ongoing. According to Coast Guard officials, including gambling disorder in this manual is one of many significant updates the program is adjudicating for this manual and it's a lengthy clearance process. No timeline was provided for expected issuance.
GAO-17-4, Nov 15, 2016
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with this recommendation believing it to be unnecessary because it is already providing accurate information. Specifically, DOD noted that the information provided in several documents GAO reviewed is accurately based on statute whereas Education's updated requirement to automatically apply the cap is based on policy that could change in the future. Moreover, the automated process applies only to federal and commercial FFEL student loans in contrast to other types of debt. DOD said that providing information based on statute rather than policy would cause less confusion and was a better approach than what we recommend. However, our report noted that Education formalized the automated process through federal regulations, effective July 2016, which legally require servicers to use this process for all federal and commercial FFEL loans. In addition, DOD said it was unable to verify whether DOD's Military OneSource website inaccurately states that the SCRA rate cap does not apply to commercial FFEL loans. However, our searches of the website still turned up this inaccuracy. DOD said it would look into a means of verifying website information but that in the meantime, it is satisfied that its training provides correct information. Given that Military OneSource is a key source of information for servicemembers and that some documents DOD provided state that the SCRA rate cap does not apply to student loans, we continue to believe that servicemembers are not always receiving accurate and up-to-date information. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that it continues to disagree with this recommendation based on the rationale above. DOD did not provide an update for 2020.
Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that its current package of proposed legislative changes provides benefits to servicemembers with all kinds of loans, including private student loans. Rather than requiring servicemembers to submit written notice and a copy of military orders, they need only give oral or written notice of eligibility for the cap to their creditors. Creditors would then have to search the Department of Defense's records to verify the servicemembers' military service and apply the SCRA interest rate cap, when applicable. DOJ believes that these changes would significantly benefit all servicemembers with loans while providing a uniform standard for all types of creditors. The department added that it will consider its proposed changes to SCRA in future legislative proposals and plans to obtain feedback from stakeholders on how to improve SCRA's protections for servicemembers. However, as stated in our report, servicemembers with private student loans would still need to be aware of the rate cap in order to give notice, whether written or oral. Therefore, we encourage DOJ to consider updating its current proposal to require use of the automatic eligibility check by all student loan lenders and servicers. Not only would this ensure that servicemembers with private student loans receive a benefit for which they are eligible, but also that the interest rate cap is applied consistently across all types of student loans. DOJ did not provide an update for 2020.
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stated that it is committed to working with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal financial regulators, when possible, to facilitate oversight of SCRA compliance and that it will support all relevant federal agencies in using their respective authorities to identify and address SCRA violations as efficiently and effectively as possible. While CFPB coordinates with DOJ and other federal regulators in general, there is still no single agency authorized to enforce SCRA compliance among nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers, and no entity is conducting onsite supervisory reviews of these lenders and servicers. In addition, while CFPB may refer complaints from servicemembers about the SCRA rate cap for private student loans to DOJ and other financial regulators, we believe this does not constitute routine, proactive oversight and also presumes servicemembers are aware of the SCRA rate cap. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when the bureau has provided evidence of actions it has taken to facilitate routine oversight of SCRA compliance for all nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers. CFPB did not provide an update for 2020.
Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) believes that it is in full compliance with this recommendation and that the four federal financial regulators do not have statutory authority to examine nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers unaffiliated with a depository institution. DOJ stated that it already coordinates extensively with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the financial regulators concerning SCRA compliance through such mechanisms as referrals from CFPB for any SCRA-related violations and access to its consumer complaint database, and regular meetings with CFPB, and that it will continue to be built upon these efforts. While these mechanisms are commendable, GAO believes they do not constitute exercising routine oversight of nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers who are not affiliated with a depository institution. We believe that additional interagency coordination, including working with CFPB to seek additional statutory authority, as needed, is necessary to ensure routine SCRA compliance. DOJ did not provide an update for 2020.
GAO-17-133, Oct 17, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to develop and implement performance measures for its credentialing program. In its response to the recommendation, DOD stated that servicemembers are not required to earn credentials and more than half of the credentials earned by servicemembers are voluntary. Therefore, establishing criteria that might create an incentive to force servicemembers into earning voluntary credentials would be counterproductive. DOD also stated that a basic reporting system is in place that captures credential attainment and associated costs that provides basic information to gauge the program's performance. As of April 2020, the department still does not plan to develop performance measures for the program.
GAO-16-546, Jul 19, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: At the time of our report, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation but stated that it did not believe convening a forum was the most strategic use of resources because agencies were not far enough along with their data collection efforts. We disagree with OMB's assertion because 7 of the 10 data collection efforts have been in place for more than 10 years, and several have been in place for multiple decades. As of December 2019, OMB has not provided information on any new efforts to establish a federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics.
GAO-16-583, Jul 12, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, an Army Medical Command official stated that the Warrior Transition Unit manpower model is under review by the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency and that the scheduled date for the release of the review is unknown.
GAO-16-226, Feb 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In February 2018 DOD issued a policy on harassment prevention and response in the armed services that defined hazing as one form of harassment, and required each military department secretary to provide a plan to implement the policy. As of October 2020, DOD stated that it had assessed that the military services had fully implemented DOD's hazing policy by September 2020. This determination was based on an assessment of military service implementation plans for DOD's harassment prevention and response policy, which includes prevention of hazing. Through ongoing work on hazing in the military, we continue to monitor the extent to which DOD has regularly monitored the extent to which the military services have implemented its hazing policy.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. As of September 2017, DOD had added questions to its survey of servicemembers that would facilitate an evaluation of hazing prevalence but had not yet conducted the evaluation. In October 2020, DOD stated that it need to conduct additional analysis on its survey data and on a hazing/bullying metric developed for DOD by the RAND Corporation, and estimated it would implement this recommendation by October 2023.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In 2017 the Coast Guard surveyed servicemembers on hazing and stated that it planned to, but had not yet conducted an evaluation of prevalence. However, in July 2018, the Coast Guard stated that no further analysis was planned for the 2017 survey data. The Coast Guard stated that a second survey was planned for 2019, but did not identify any plans to evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard. As of October 2020, the Coast Guard has not provided a requested update on the status of the implementation of this recommendation or indicated any ongoing plans to implement it.
GAO-16-158, Jan 5, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that any policy that it may issue related to the monitoring of prescribing practices would be directed toward all of the military services. In May 2018 DOD stated that it planned to (1) conduct a comprehensive review of existing prescribing practices for the treatment of PTSD; (2) develop policy guidance for addressing prescribing practices for the management of PTSD that deviate from the clinical practice guideline; and (3) implement an automated dashboard that will flag medications that the PTSD guideline discourages from use. In its February 26, 2020 response, DOD stated that July 30, 2020 is the estimated completion date for these planned actions. To close this recommendation, DOD needs to implement its planned actions and provide documentation showing that the Department is monitoring medications discouraged from use under the PTSD guideline and addressing identified deviations.
GAO-16-55, Nov 13, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not state whether it concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.
GAO-16-61, Nov 4, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD will take to implement the prevention strategy. In March 2020, DOD officials stated that they had chartered a Prevention Collaboration Forum, which consists of subject matter experts, to address destructive behaviors which may share the same risk and protective factors as sexual assault. Additionally, DOD officials stated that research had begun on identifying the department's risk and protective factors. The officials expected the completed risk studies to be published internally in April 2020 and June 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the recommendation's status when more information becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for a strategic approach to preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD plans to take to implement the prevention strategy, and instructs DOD to continuously evaluate sexual assault prevention activities. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that they were in the process of conducting an assessment of each of the services' efforts to implement the prevention strategy. Additionally, DOD officials stated that they are developing a milestone report to be issued by the end of fiscal year 2020 that will include updates on all of the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. DOD is also planning to issue a report in fiscal year 2023 that will include a complete evaluation of the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the recommendation's status when more information becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for a strategic approach to preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD will take to implement the prevention strategy. The PPoA also directs the military services to review and revise their policies to reduce sexual assault and execute prevention activities. According to DOD officials, these efforts are currently underway. We will update the status of this recommendation when more information becomes available.
GAO-15-713, Sep 9, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. However, as of September 2018 DOD stated that the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) was continuing to coordinate with the military services to synchronize and clarify budgetary reporting requirements. As such, we believe that this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
GAO-15-711, Sep 3, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that the department will submit its Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1, 2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that existing Army practice is consistent with the intent of departmental guidance for command climate survey utilization. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it concurs with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback assessments, where they are not already being performed, but that it believes that it should only do so for general and flag officers at the three star ranks and below. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. At that time, DOD also stated that it believes in a holistic approach to developing and assessing professionalism, noting, as an example, the Joint Staff's use of staff assistance visits and Senior Leader "roundtables" to complement the use of 360-degree assessments. In April 2018, DOD stated that each military department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had implemented a 360-degree assessment requirement for all general and flag officers. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries regarding documentation in support of these actions. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred, with comment, with this recommendation, noting that the office of the Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism is a temporary office established by Secretary Hagel for a two year term ending no later than March of 2016. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. In April 2018, DOD identified activities it had undertaken in the spirit and intent of the recommendation. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries for documentation in support of these actions and the related development of intermediate goals and performance metrics. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-15-349, Jun 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation and noted that it has an existing process for oversight and reporting of the use of soldiers replacing or converting functions previously performed by contractors and planned to develop a similar policy to address oversight on soldiers replacing or converting functions previously performed by civilians. As of July 2019, the Army has not provided an update on the development of this policy.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation and noted that it would be unreasonable to require tracking the amount of time soldiers are used as borrowed military personnel because it would be overly burdensome and that Army Regulation 570-4 allows for the use of soldiers for training purposes or for temporary functions. In July 2019, the Army indicated that the revision to Army Regulation 570-4 will be issued in December 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army partially concurred with our recommendation. In their comments the Army noted that it has issued guidance establishing the appropriate use of military manpower and was in the process of incorporating this guidance into Army Regulation 570-4. In July 2019, the Army indicated that the revision of Army Regulation 570-4 would be issued in December 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. However, the Army noted that it already has a process requiring that a cost analysis take place. Additionally, the Army stated that the process of conducting a cost analysis should be conducted at the headquarter level and that the Army will issue policy to institute this. As of July 2019 the Army has not provided an update on the status of this policy or a status on implementing the recommendation.
GAO-15-487, May 22, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2016, DOD officials told us that a new DOEHRS version was released that contained several system enhancements and defect corrections to improve overall data quality in the system. However, as of July 2020, DOD had not provided specific information on these system enhancements, which would allow us to determine whether our recommendation has been fully addressed.
GAO-15-477, May 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD officials concurred with this recommendation and provided an update in May 2019, in which they stated that the office was preparing an issuance for coordination that will direct the services to follow standardized investigation stages and guidance clarifying how the stages are defined. DOD officials estimated that the issuance would be completed by December 31, 2019.
GAO-15-284, Mar 19, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. In October 2016, DOD published its plan for preventing and responding to sexual assaults of military men. In that plan, DOD generally outlined its intent to develop metrics to assess prevention and response efforts pertaining to males who experience sexual assault. In July 2019, officials from DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office stated that DOD's efforts outlined in the October 2016 plan include data-driven decision making. However, DOD has not provided evidence that it has developed a plan for data-driven decision making to prioritize its sexual assault prevention efforts. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. In October 2016, DOD issued a plan to prevent and respond to sexual assault of military men. In August 2018, DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) stated that objectives 1-4 of this plan constitute DOD's goals to address sexual assaults of military men. However, the plan does not contain metrics; one of the plan's objectives is to develop metrics to assess prevention and response efforts pertaining to men who experience sexual assault. In July 2019, SAPRO officials stated that they are waiting to complete most actions for objectives 1-3 of the plan before developing associated metrics, and that completion of the metrics is expected by 2024. We will continue to monitor DOD's planned development of metrics for its prevention and response efforts for sexual assault of male servicemembers.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. DOD's October 2016 plan to prevent and respond to sexual assault of military men included objectives to develop a unified communications plan tailored to men across DOD, and to improve servicemember understanding of sexual assault against men. Officials of DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office stated in July 2019 that DOD estimates that it will complete this task in 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. DOD's October 2016 plan to prevent and respond to sexual assault of military men contained objectives to develop research-informed training for servicemembers involved with sexual assault prevention and response to improve understanding of male victimization and how to prevent the crime, commander/supervisor training; and gender-responsive treatment guidelines for providers, among other things. Officials of DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office stated in July 2019 that DOD expects to complete these tasks in 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. In August 2018, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs stated that DOD is writing an Instruction and two accompanying Defense Health Agency Procedural Instructions that will delineate gender-specific distinctions and care regimens where appropriate. The guidance will incorporate the findings of a report by the Psychological Health Center of Excellence of the Defense Health Agency resulting from a planned study of the patterns of health care utilization of servicemembers reporting a sexual assault, including any gender differences. As of September 2019, DOD had not yet issued the guidance. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.
GAO-14-529, Jun 17, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, but did not elaborate as to why. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented an administrative furlough since our 2014 report nor has it produced any guidance regarding the recommendation. We will continue to monitor for the development of guidance or a potential DOD administrative furlough.
GAO-13-212, Feb 8, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD has taken steps to focus OCS training to all planners, including those outside the logistics directorate. In December 2015, the Joint Staff J7 certified the Joint OCS Planning and Execution (JOPEC) course of instruction for Joint training. The Joint Staff, per this training certification, is working with the Joint Deployment Training Center and the Joint Force Staff College to provide student administrative and course catalog support for future JOPEC training. Additionally, OSD officials stated in August 2019 that the updated OCS instruction will also address training for planners beyond the logistics directorate; officials anticipated the instruction being issued in 2020 but as of September 2020, it had not yet been issued. We will continue to monitor these efforts and this recommendation will remain open at this time.
GAO-11-809, Sep 21, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3604
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that leadership accountability is essential to the success of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and released an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (ODMEO), to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate, at a minimum, compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing polices, plans, and programs. The updated instruction also directs the Commandant, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), to tailor training materials to servicemember professional development levels and associated leadership duties and responsibilities. As of February 2020, DOD had not completed development of the compliance standards or training materials. We will monitor DOD actions on this issue.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has updated its guidance on sexual harassment, including a requirement for sharing the results of command climate assessments with the next higher level of command, but has not yet implemented an oversight mechanism to verify and track commanders' compliance with requirements to conduct such assessments. DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement the recommendation through revisions to its guidance. According to DOD, a 2013 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on sexual assault prevention and response outlined requirements addressing leadership accountability for preventing sexual harassment. The memorandum included a requirement that the results of command climate surveys be provided to the next level up in the chain of command, and it directed service chiefs, through their respective military department secretaries, to develop methods to assess the performance of commanders in establishing command climates of dignity and respect. The Secretary of Defense also issued a memorandum addressing prevention and response of sexual harassment in 2014, and DOD updated its guidance on sexual harassment in 2015. In 2016, DOD stated that further revisions to guidance were forthcoming to provide a framework for oversight of sexual harassment. This framework, among other things, would address standards for holding leaders accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing sexual harassment policies. DOD issued a new DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, in February 2018 but has not implemented an oversight framework as of February 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that as part of its revised guidance it proposed to strengthen and institutionalize the responsibilities and authorities needed for successful implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and issued an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate , at a minimum, (1) long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; (2) results-oriented performance measures to assess effectiveness; and (3) compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing policies, plans, and programs. As of February 2020, DOD has not developed and aggressively implemented an oversight framework, as we recommended. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.
GAO-11-55, Oct 22, 2010
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
GAO-10-56, Nov 19, 2009
Phone: (206)287-4860
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments to this report, the Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. On October 2009, DOD's Force Health Protection and Response Office sent a memo to each of the military service Surgeons General emphasizing the need for the post-deployment health reassessment (PDHRA) to be offered to all service members who are eligible to complete the assessment. In 2010, DOD's noted that the services would work with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) repository to ensure PDHRAs are submitted correctly, without transmission errors. DOD's 2011 case records showed that the Air Force and Army had developed data verification processes to ensure that AFHSC received PDHRAs. Further, the Defense Medical Data Center (DMDC) had planed to create a file consisting of the date of deployment for deployed personnel, and that the file would be available to the services in order to match DMDC with data from each of the service-specific systems, in accordance to requirements. In September 2011, although DMDC and the services had agreed to match rosters of deployed service members, there were still inconsistencies in deployment dates. In March 2012, DOD was still verifying data inconsistencies which, until resolved, leads to inaccurate reporting based on errors in the deployment dates. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.