Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to determine and identify in final guidance for middle-tier acquisition programs the metrics that will be used to assess the performance of middle-tier acquisition programs across the military departments, including whether programs are meeting statutory objectives. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it planned to determine performance metrics in coordination with its release of its final guidance on middle-tier programs, which DOD expected to release in late 2019. In December 2019, Congress passed the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 837 in the Conference Report accompanying the Act requires DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 15, 2019, that includes guidance on the use of middle-tier acquisition authority and the metrics required to assess the performance of such a program, among other topics. DOD's report, provided to Congress in January 2020, identified metrics that DOD planned to use to assess the performance of these programs. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment subsequently leveraged these metrics in its March 2020 bi-annual review of middle-tier acquisition programs to assess program execution. However, DOD has yet to identify these metrics in guidance as we recommended, which we continue to believe is important to facilitate consistent reporting across the military departments and DOD components.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should develop a plan for how the department will assess the effect of recent acquisition reforms, including identifying who will be responsible for the assessment and what data will be needed. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it has included a division in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to analyze the effect of recent acquisition reforms and other high-level oversight and policy issues. In December 2019, Congress took additional action. The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to submit a report with the budget for fiscal year 2021 on the progress of implementing acquisition reform initiatives. In response, DOD provided a report to Congress in March 2020 that includes how the Secretary will identify, quantify, assess and manage program risk, describes changes to DOD's data collection and sharing processes, and describes new acquisition frameworks to be implemented. However, the report does not address how DOD will assess the acquisition reforms, what data is needed, or who is responsible. Additionally, in August 2020, the Assistant Secretary of Defense approved a plan for assessing the implementation of new acquisition pathways at DOD. However, DOD is still identifying the specific data needed to assess each acquisition pathway, as well as determining how to assess the remaining acquisition reforms we covered in our June 2019 report. Therefore, we will continue to monitor DOD efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should develop and implement a process to systematically review the reliability of the data used in its Border Security Metrics Report and comprehensively identify any limitations with the data and methodologies that underlie its metrics. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and in a May 2020 update stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure the communication of the limitations of the metrics identified through the systematic review in the department's annual Border Security Metrics Report. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In its comment letter, DHS concurred with the recommendation and requested that we consider it closed as implemented because the department already detailed some of the limitations in its fiscal year 2017 report, and plans to continue to identify known limitations and the progress made to mitigate previously identified limitations in future reports. As discussed in the report, we agree that DHS identified and disclosed limitations for some metrics in its fiscal year 2017 Border Security Metrics Report; however, we identified at least one additional limitation for 21 of the 35 metrics on which DHS reported that DHS did not disclose or about which it could have been more transparent. To address the intent of this recommendation, once DHS has implemented a process to systematically review the reliability of the data used in its report and comprehensively identified related limitations, it should disclose those limitations in its annual Border Security Metrics Report. In a May 2020 update, DHS stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans should include the results of sensitivity analyses to key assumptions in its statistical models of unlawful entry estimates in its annual Border Security Metrics Report. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and in a May 2020 update stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans should include measures of statistical uncertainty for all metrics based on estimates derived from statistical models in its annual Border Security Metrics Report. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and in a May 2020 update stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue a more detailed implementation plan or include implementation plan details in identified formal department-wide guidance to include a description of the resources (i.e., relevant operational and financial information) required to implement the plan including dollar and personnel amounts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan. However, the updated plan did not include a description of the resources-- including dollar and personnel amounts--required to implement the plan. Instead, the updated plan states that no additional personnel or resources will be required to execute and manage the plan, and that those personnel executing and managing the plan are expected to do so in addition to their normal duties. In May 2020, DOD stated it intends to include additional information about the required resources in the plan's next revision. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the next iteration of the plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, take steps to fully implement joint oversight of DODs prepositioned stock programs, including providing detailed information on how to implement such an oversight approach in department guidance and reviewing other joint oversight efforts, in order to synchronize the military services' preposition stock strategies to avoid fragmentation. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan which lays out a method for joint oversight. While GAO is encouraged and will monitor DOD's implementation efforts, it is too soon to determine the extent to which these efforts-when completed-will address DOD's fragmented management of its prepositioned stock programs. To fully address this recommendation, DOD needs to fully implement the joint oversight method outlined in the plan.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should enhance the guidelines for agencies to establish the controls required by FRDAA, by clarifying the difference between FRDAA and ERM requirements, and through collaboration with agencies to determine what additional information agencies need to implement the controls. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) was enacted to improve efforts to identify and reduce government-wide improper payments, including payments that are the result of fraud. PIIA repealed and replaced FRDAA. However, OMB and the other agencies subject to PIIA essentially must satisfy the same requirements established under FRDAA, including adhering to OMB's related guidelines. OMB has not updated its published guidelines for FRDAA as we recommended. If OMB takes additional actions to supplement guidelines under PIIA, we will review the guidelines to determine whether it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should enhance FRDAA reporting guidelines by directing agencies to report complete and detailed information on each of the reporting elements specified by FRDAA, which should include information related to financial and nonfinancial fraud. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) was enacted to improve efforts to identify and reduce government-wide improper payments, including payments that are the result of fraud. PIIA repealed and replaced FRDAA, but maintained similar reporting requirements for federal agencies regarding fraud risks and also extended the time line for reporting by a year. OMB did not update its previous reporting guidance for FRDAA as we recommended. If OMB takes additional actions to supplement reporting guidelines under PIIA, we will review the guidelines to determine whether it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction should develop a strategy and implementation plan to help the Department of Homeland Security, among other things, guide, support, integrate and coordinate its chemical defense programs and activities; leverage resources and capabilities; and provide a roadmap for addressing any identified gaps. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DHS agreed with GAO's September 2018 recommendation and is taking actions to address it. Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) officials stated in December 2018 that CWMD plans to develop a strategy and implementation plan to help DHS guide, support, integrate and coordinate its chemical defense programs and activities; leverage resources and capabilities; and provide a roadmap for addressing any identified gaps. According to CWMD officials, the implementation plan would broadly address DHS chemical defense activities and programs to prevent, protect against, and respond to chemical incidents, including support to federal, state, tribal, and territorial operators and agencies, as well as the private sector. CWMD officials provided GAO with the completed strategy in December 2019 and plan to complete the implementation plan by December 2020. The strategy includes four overarching goals that will drive CWMD's mission in protecting American safety and security from chemical threats and incidents. We will continue to monitor the status of the implementation plan, as completion of both documents is essential to help the CWMD Office guide DHS's efforts to address fragmentation and coordination issues and would be consistent with the office's aim to establish a coherent mission.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should improve its estimate of children's participation in the SFSP by focusing on addressing, at a minimum, data reliability issues caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-day letter and a subsequent response to report recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it anticipates completing an evaluation of how they calculate SFSP participation by summer 2020. GAO will continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation, including the status of its evaluation and steps taken to improve the agency's estimate of children participating in SFSP. GAO will consider this recommendation closed when FNS provides documentation that it has addressed, at a minimum, data reliability issues in the participation estimate caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should communicate to all SFSP stakeholders the circumstances it considers in approving requests for flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence, taking into account the feasibility of accessing data needed for approval, to ensure safe delivery of meals to children. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In late May 2018, the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provided guidance to states regarding changes in policies related to SFSP waivers and demonstration projects and held a webinar to clarify the changes. In March 2019, FNS reported that this guidance and the webinar provided information about participation in the demonstration for exceptional circumstances, which is the means through which FNS had granted states and program providers flexibility for children to consume SFSP meals off-site in areas that had experienced crime and violence. However, the guidance documents do not directly acknowledge that FNS includes areas with crime and violence as exceptional circumstances for purposes of the demonstration, and neither the guidance nor the webinar provided new information about the circumstances FNS considers when granting the flexibility for such areas. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation and consider it closed when the agency communicates the circumstances it considers in approving such requests for flexibility with response to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should evaluate and annually report to Congress, as required by statute, on its use of waivers and demonstration projects to grant states and sponsors flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas experiencing crime or violence, to improve its understanding of the use and impact of granting these flexibilities on meeting program goals. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported that it had drafted the report to Congress to meet its statutory requirement summarizing the use of waivers and demonstration projects. FNS also indicated that the report was being reviewed internally, and planned to submit the final report to Congress following that review. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when FNS submits the final report to Congress. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should disseminate information about existing flexibilities available to state agencies to streamline administrative requirements for sponsors participating in the SFSP and other child nutrition programs to help lessen the administrative burden. For example, FNS could re-distribute existing guidance to state agencies that explains available flexibilities and encourage information sharing. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-letter and a subsequent response to recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it plans to address streamlining flexibilities that impact the SFSP and other child nutrition programs in a future regulatory action. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS's progress with this rule-making and any other actions taken to address this recommendation. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: To provide greater assurance that the Interagency Rotation Program for national security personnel will be implemented as provided in section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in collaboration with the Committee on National Security Personnel, should establish a clear leadership and oversight structure to guide future implementation efforts.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: OPM generally concurred with the recommendations, but raised issues primarily about the roles and responsibilities that GAO addresses in the report. As of November 2019, OPM has not taken any action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide greater assurance that the Interagency Rotation Program for national security personnel will be implemented as provided in section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in collaboration with the Committee on National Security Personnel, should work with the departments and agencies to identify and take action on necessary next steps to proceed with the program's implementation, including developing and issuing required guidance for implementation within identified timeframes.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: OPM generally concurred with the recommendations, but raised issues primarily about the roles and responsibilities that GAO addresses in the report. As of November 2019, OPM has not taken any action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: If, in the next authorization for FAA, Congress chooses to mandate that FAA take actions to streamline and reform the agency, Congress may wish to consider requiring FAA to (1) track measures of and (2) report to Congress on the actual results of such efforts.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2019, Congress has passed several FAA authorization extensions and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 that did not include any actions related to this matter. We will continue to monitor legislation, and when we determine what steps the Congress has taken regarding this matter, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: If cost savings are to be a goal of any future BRAC round, Congress may wish to consider amending the BRAC statute by elevating the priority DOD and the BRAC Commission give to potential costs and savings as a selection criterion for making base closure and realignment recommendations.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: If Congress authorizes additional BRAC rounds, it may wish to consider amending BRAC legislation by requiring the Secretary of Defense to formally establish specific goals that the department expects to achieve from a future BRAC process.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: If Congress authorizes additional BRAC rounds, it may wish to consider amending BRAC legislation by requiring the Secretary of Defense to propose selection criteria as necessary to help achieve those goals, if necessary and appropriate.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: If Congress decides to authorize a future base closure round, it may want to consider whether to limit or prohibit the BRAC Commission from adding a contingent element to any recommendation and, if permitted, under what conditions.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their timeliness and certainty, the EPA Administrator should require the Office of Research and Development, should different time frames be necessary, to establish a written policy that clearly describes the applicability of the time frames for each type of IRIS assessment and ensures that the time frames are realistic and provide greater predictability to stakeholders.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of March 2020, we have not seen a formal written memo from the IRIS program laying out this information - in detail - publicly, or how timelines for assessments are influenced by various criteria. While IRIS program staff have discussed this issue, no written guidance has been created. Such communication from the IRIS Program, as well as more frequent updates of the timelines for chemicals currently in assessment and projected starting dates for every chemical listed as "under assessment" is needed.

Recommendation: To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users--including stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public--the EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Research and Development to annually publish the IRIS agenda in the Federal Register each fiscal year.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has established the priority chemicals it is working on, and has published some timelines via the IRIS Program Outlook document. However, this information has not been published as an agenda in the Federal Register.

Recommendation: To improve leadership's commitment to preventing and responding to incidents of sexual harassment, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop a strategy for holding individuals in positions of leadership accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing the department's sexual harassment policies and programs.

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.

Recommendation: To improve implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies and programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the service secretaries to verify or track military commanders' compliance with existing requirements that commanders periodically determine their organizational health and functioning effectiveness by periodically assessing their equal opportunity climate through "command climate" assessments.

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.

Recommendation: To enhance oversight of the department's program to help prevent and to address incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure that the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity develops and aggressively implements an oversight framework to help guide the department's efforts. At a minimum, such a framework should contain long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; strategies to accomplish goals; criteria for measuring progress; and results-oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the department's sexual harassment policies and programs. Such a framework should also identify and include a plan for ensuring that adequate resources are available to carry out the office's oversight responsibilities.

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.

Recommendation: To establish accountability for meeting the programs' goal of increasing the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups in the highway construction workforce, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FHWA Administrator to create and implement an oversight mechanism that (1) holds states accountable for meeting federal training criteria and (2) clearly stipulates how FHWA will assess state program effectiveness, including what type of program achievement data states are to submit and how such data will be used. This oversight mechanism should include assessing the effectiveness of its division offices in overseeing state activities.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FHWA has taken initial steps to implement a mechanism for state oversight, which includes collecting program implementation information from each state. FHWA plans to convene a working group to review this information and provide feedback to states on their programs. FHWA officials then anticipate sharing best practices and essential requirements for the program through webinars and other technical assistance. As of August 2019, FHWA has gathered information from states and is in the early stages of implementing this oversight mechanism.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Department of Defense is taking full advantage of the cost savings that can be achieved by implementing CPC projects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) to update applicable guidance, such as DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure or the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan to further define the responsibilities of the military departments' Corrosion Executives, to include more specific oversight and review of the project proposals before and during the project selection process.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has not updated DOD Instruction 5000.67 - Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, or other applicable guidance since the publication of our report. DOD did not concur with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. Corrosion Office officials agree that Corrosion Executives' responsibilities in the Corrosion Prevention Project selection process have to be further defined. They plan to clearly document the selection procedures and participation of the Corrosion Executive in an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) and in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOD obtain reasonable assurance that all active and Reserve component servicemembers to whom the PDHRA requirement applies are provided the opportunity to have their health concerns identified, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the military services should take steps to ensure that PDHRA questionnaires are included in DOD's central repository for each of these servicemembers.

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.