SECURITY FORCE 

ASSISTANCE

The Army and Marine 

Corps Have Ongoing 

Efforts to Identify and 

Track Advisors, but 

the Army Needs a 

Plan to Capture 

Advising Experience

Report to Congressional Committees

July 2014

GAO-14-482

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-482, a report to 

congressional committees

July 2014

SECURITY FORCE ASSISTANCE

The Army and Marine Corps Have Ongoing Efforts to 

Identify and Track Advisors, but the Army Needs a 

Plan to Capture Advising Experience

Why GAO Did This Study

SFA—DOD activities that contribute to 

supporting the development of foreign 

security forces and their supporting 

institutions—is a key component of 

U.S. efforts to create sustainable 

security around the world. These 

activities are carried out by DOD 

personnel serving as advisors who 

may have SFA-related training, 

education, and prior experience to 

conduct the advising mission.

GAO was mandated to review the 

Army’s and Marine Corps’ approaches 

to the SFA mission. GAO assessed the 

extent to which the Army and Marine 

Corps (1) identify and track personnel 

with SFA-related training, education, 

and experience and (2) consider SFArelated training, education, and

experience in the promotion process. 

This report also describes the Army’s 

process for preparing units to perform 

their core mission while some 

members are deployed to support SFA 

activities. GAO reviewed DOD policies, 

directives, and other documents and 

interviewed cognizant DOD and 

service officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Army 

develop and implement a plan, with

goals and milestones, for how it will 

develop the means for systematically 

identifying and tracking personnel with 

SFA-related experience. DOD partially 

concurred with the recommendation, 

stating that sufficient guidance and 

direction exists for the Army to 

continue refining its processes and 

procedures. GAO continues to believe 

the recommendation is valid, as 

discussed in the report.

What GAO Found

The Army and Marine Corps have taken steps to identify and track personnel 

with Security Force Assistance (SFA)-related training, education, and 

experience, but the Army does not have a plan with goals and milestones to fully

capture advising experience. A key element in conducting SFA missions is being 

able to identify the right personnel with the right training, education, and 

experience to execute SFA activities. The Department of Defense (DOD) 

established a requirement for the services to identify and track personnel with 

SFA-related training, education, and experience. Although the Army is able to

identify and track soldiers with certain SFA-related training and education, it does 

not have a mechanism to identify and track SFA-related experience. Moreover, 

the Army has not developed a plan with goals and milestones on how it will 

capture this information. As a result, it is unclear how long it will take the Army to 

implement DOD’s requirement and be able to readily identify the right personnel 

to serve in the SFA mission. The Marine Corps is implementing a mechanism to 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and experience

that is planned to be available in October 2014. 

The Army and the Marine Corps have taken steps to ensure the consideration of 

SFA-related training, education, and experience in the promotion process. Both 

services have incorporated language into the guidance given to promotion 

boards to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to individuals who have 

served on advisor teams. However, opinions differ regarding the effect the 

guidance has had on the manner in which individuals with SFA-related training, 

education, and experience are considered during the promotion process. Some 

officials said that serving in an SFA role could potentially negatively affect career 

progression. Others noted that the promotion process considers the entirety of an 

individual’s career and not just the time spent as an SFA advisor. However, 

because the Army and Marine Corps do not yet have comprehensive information 

on SFA advisors, officials are unable to determine whether promotion rates differ 

for people who served on SFA advisor teams versus those who did not. Such 

differences could be a potential indicator that servicemembers with SFA-related 

experience were negatively affected during the promotion process. 

According to Army officials, the Army has taken a number of actions to ensure 

that units are prepared to perform their core mission when part of the unit is 

deployed in support of SFA activities. Officials stated that some actions taken to 

manage units that remain at the home station, also known as the rear 

detachment, when part of the unit deploys include consolidating units so that they 

can conduct training, ensuring the right personnel are left behind to lead the rear 

detachment, developing training plans for what the rear detachment would train 

to, and reporting on the availability of all personnel and equipment. 

View GAO-14-482. For more information, 

contact Cary Russell at (202) 512-5431 or 

russellc@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Letter 1

Background 4

The Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Steps to Identify and 

Track Personnel with SFA-Related Training, Education, and 

Experience, but the Army Does Not Have a Plan or Time Frame 

for Completion 5

The Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Steps to Ensure the 

Consideration of SFA-Related Training, Education, and 

Experience in the Promotion Process 15

The Army Continues to Manage the Large Rear Detachments 

That Result from Deploying Personnel to Support SFA Missions 19

Conclusions 21

Recommendation for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 25

Appendix II Comments from Department of Defense 28

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 30

Related GAO Reports 31

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Abbreviations 

DOD Department of Defense

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

MOS Military Occupational Specialties

PDSI Personnel Development Skill Identifier

SFA Security Force Assistance

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 11, 2014

Congressional Committees

Security Force Assistance (SFA) is a key component of U.S. efforts to 

create sustainable security around the world. SFA is defined as 

Department of Defense (DOD) activities that contribute to unified action 

by the U.S. government to support the development of the capacity and 

capability of foreign security forces and their supporting institutions. 

Advising is a primary type of SFA.1 Over the course of the military 

conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other locations, the Army and 

Marine Corps have used company- and field-grade officers and senior 

enlisted personnel2 to form advisor teams to support SFA missions 

focused on advising and assisting partner-nation military forces.3

Currently, to meet the requirements for SFA missions in Afghanistan, the 

Army deploys SFA brigades, which include advisor teams that are 

primarily created using personnel from the SFA brigade. The Marine 

Corps creates advisor teams using nondeployed personnel from across 

the Marine Expeditionary Forces4

We have issued several reports about DOD’s implementation of SFA. In 

2013, we reported that the Army and Marine Corps have been able to fill 

who then deploy as formed teams.

 1

Advising is the use of influence to teach, coach, and advise while working by, with, and 

through the foreign security force. Advising helps foreign security forces conduct 

independent decision making and operations, and advisors may also provide foreign 

security forces with direct access to joint and multinational capabilities, such as air 

support, artillery, medical evacuation, and intelligence.

2

Company-grade officers are those in the pay grades of O-1 to O-3 (e.g., lieutenants and 

captains), and field-grade officers are those in pay grades O-4 to O-6 (e.g., majors, 

lieutenant colonels, and colonels). Senior noncommissioned officers are those in the pay 

grades of E-7 to E-9 (e.g., sergeants first class, first sergeants, and sergeants major). 

3

As we have previously reported, while the Army and Marine Corps have provided the 

majority of U.S. advisor personnel to Afghanistan, the Navy and Air Force also have 

contributed personnel to advise the Afghan National Security Forces. See GAO, Security 

Force Assistance: More Detailed Planning and Improved Access to Information Needed to 

Guide Efforts of Advisor Teams in Afghanistan, GAO-13-381 (Washington, D.C: Apr. 30, 

2013).

4

A Marine Expeditionary Force is a combined-arms force consisting of ground, air, and 

logistics forces that possesses the capability for projecting offensive combat power ashore 

while sustaining itself in combat without external assistance for a period of 60 days.
Page 2 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

requests for SFA advisor teams using various approaches, such as 

tasking nondeployed brigades to form advisor teams or creating teams 

using personnel already deployed in Afghanistan.5 We also reported that 

the Army’s reliance on brigades to provide a portion of their personnel to 

form advisor teams has enabled them to meet requirements but has 

resulted in leaving large numbers of personnel at the brigades’ home 

stations, known as rear detachments. To manage these large rear 

detachments, brigades have undertaken significant planning to ensure 

that enough stay-behind leadership existed to maintain a sufficient 

command structure and provide certain training. In 2012, we reported on 

the actions needed to guide geographic combatant commands and 

service efforts in regard to SFA.6

House Armed Services Committee Report 113-102

Specifically, we reported that DOD had 

taken steps to establish its concept for conducting SFA, including broadly 

defining the term and identifying actions needed to plan for and prepare 

forces to execute it. We further reported that geographic combatant 

commands face challenges that limit their ability to plan for and track SFA 

as a distinct activity. In the 2012 report, we recommended that DOD 

develop or modify existing guidance that further defines the department’s 

intent for SFA and what additional actions are required by the geographic 

combatant commands to plan for and conduct SFA beyond their existing 

security cooperation efforts. We also recommended that DOD take 

actions to ensure that updates to the Global Theater Security Cooperation 

Management Information System and the business rules being developed 

provide a mechanism and guidance to stakeholders to specifically identify 

and track SFA activities. DOD partially concurred with our 

recommendations, noting that it believed that the department had taken 

some steps to address some of the issues identified in our report. For 

example, DOD stated that additional guidance to the geographic 

combatant commands and services would be useful to promote 

understanding of SFA but noted that recently published strategic and 

planning guidance incorporated SFA planning requirements.

7

 5

accompanying a bill 

for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 mandated 

GAO-13-381.

6

GAO, Security Force Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to Guide Geographic 

Combatant Command and Service Efforts, GAO-12-556 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 

2012).

7

H.R. Rep. No. 113-102, at 127-128 (2013).
Page 3 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

GAO to review the Army’s and Marine Corps’ approaches to the SFA 

mission. We assessed the extent to which (1) the Army and Marine Corps 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and 

experience; and (2) the Army and Marine Corps consider SFA-related 

training, education, and experience in the promotion process. In addition, 

we describe the process the Army uses to prepare units to perform their 

core missions while some unit members are deployed to support SFA 

activities.

To determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps identify and 

track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and experience, we 

reviewed relevant policies, directives, and other documents and 

interviewed Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, and Marine Corps 

officials to ascertain whether they have developed indicators to define 

SFA-related training, education, and experience and mechanisms for 

identifying and tracking personnel with such training, education, and 

experience. To determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps 

consider SFA-related training, education, and experience in the promotion 

process, we analyzed guidance and other documents that identify critical 

elements of a career path and reviewed guidance provided to promotion 

boards to instruct them on how to incorporate SFA-related training, 

education, and experience in their evaluation of individuals for promotion. 

In addition, we interviewed Department of the Army Headquarters officials 

from the Personnel and Operations and Plans directorates, Army Human 

Resources Command, Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group, and 

Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs. To describe the process 

that the Army uses to prepare units to perform their core missions when 

some unit members are deployed to support SFA-related activities, we 

reviewed documentation and interviewed knowledgeable officials from 

four selected SFA brigades to ascertain any potential readiness 

challenges to units having the ability to train and manage their readiness 

for core and assigned missions; and we reviewed what mitigation 

strategies, if any, they developed. We consulted with Army Forces 

Command officials to identify brigades that recently deployed as SFA 

Brigades. From the list these officials provided, we contacted brigades to 

identify which ones had a large rear detachment and had personnel 

available to speak with us. We then selected which brigades to visit. 

Officials from these brigades were also able to provide their perceptions 

of the effect that serving in an SFA-related role may have on promotion 

opportunities. We did not report on the readiness of the rear detachment 

for the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps’ sourcing approach does 

not create the same type of large rear detachments that result from the 
Page 4 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Army’s use of SFA brigades. More detailed information on our scope and 

methodology is provided in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to July 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Army and Marine Corps use established mechanisms that allow them 

to categorize and track personnel with specific skill sets. Specifically, 

each service uses Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) and additional 

skill identifiers to categorize the specific jobs and skill sets of officers and 

enlisted servicemembers. Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3, 

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25, Department of the Army 

Pamphlet 611-21, and the Marine Corps’ Military Occupational Specialties 

Manual outline the MOS and skill identifiers for officers and enlisted 

personnel.8

 8

Headquarters Department of the Army, Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3, 

Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 1, 2010); Headquarters Department of the Army, Department of the Army 

Pamphlet 600-25, U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Guide 

(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2008); Headquarters Department of the Army, Department of 

the Army Pamphlet 611-21, Military Occupational Classification and Structure

(Washington, D.C.: July 2009); and Department of the Navy, Headquarters United States 

Marine Corps, Military Occupational Specialties Manual, MCO 1200.17E (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 8, 2013).

The MOS describes a set of related duties and tasks that 

extend over one or more grades. For instance, infantrymen in the Army 

have an MOS of 11B, while those in the Marine Corps have an MOS of 

03. Each MOS outlines a path for career development and management 

of each MOS by grade. This path helps direct the training, education, and 

experience that will guide a servicemember in career development, but it 

does not guarantee that individual’s success. Instead, it describes the full 

spectrum of development opportunities that an officer or enlisted 

servicemember is expected to pursue throughout his or her career. For 

example, majors seeking promotion to lieutenant colonel in the field 

artillery branch of the Army are expected to continue their professional 

development by completing certain required military education and 

serving in key assignments such as fires brigade S3, as well as 

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

developmental assignments such as training developer. Further, these 

majors are expected to continue self-development efforts to build 

organizational leadership and strategic perspective, and to hone 

operational skills.

In addition to the MOS, a skill identifier is a career-management tool that 

identifies specific skills that are required to perform the duties of a 

particular position and are not related to any one branch, functional area, 

or career field. For example, all Army infantry officers who have met 

ranger training requirements will have a skill identifier of 5R, and those 

who have met parachutist training requirements will have a skill identifier 

of 5P. As servicemembers obtain additional skills not related to their 

primary skill set, they can be awarded an additional skill identifier 

associated with that skill set, based on their meeting criteria laid out in 

training standards or manuals. MOS and additional skill identifiers are 

maintained in the personnel data systems for the Army and Marine Corps 

and can be searched to identify personnel with certain experience.

DOD has established a requirement for the services to identify and track 

personnel who have completed SFA-related training, education, or 

experience in the Defense Readiness Reporting System with a relevant 

skill-designator indicating their SFA qualifications. According to 

Department of the Army headquarters officials, the Army has developed a 

mechanism to identify and track personnel who have completed certain 

SFA-related training and education and is considering steps to take 

toward identifying and tracking personnel with SFA-related experience, 

but it has not made a decision on what approach it will take. Further, the 

Army has not developed a plan with goals and milestones to identify and 

track personnel with SFA-related experience. The Marine Corps is in the 

process of implementing a means to identify and track individuals with 

SFA-related training, education, and experience.

The Army and Marine 

Corps Have Taken 

Steps to Identify and 

Track Personnel with 

SFA-Related Training, 

Education, and 

Experience, but the 

Army Does Not Have 

a Plan or Time Frame 

for Completion
Page 6 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

In October 2010, DOD issued an instruction—DOD Instruction (DODI) 

5000.68— that broadly defines SFA and outlines responsibilities for key 

stakeholders to plan, prepare for, and execute SFA activities.9 The 

instruction states that DOD shall develop and maintain the capability 

within DOD general purpose forces, special operations forces, and the 

civilian expeditionary workforce to conduct SFA activities in support of 

U.S. policy and in coordination with the relevant U.S. government 

departments or agencies. The instruction further states that DOD shall 

conduct SFA activities with the appropriate combination of general 

purpose forces, special operations forces, and civilian expeditionary 

workforce under a variety of conditions that include: (1) politically 

sensitive environments where an overt U.S. presence is unacceptable to 

the host-country government; (2) environments where a limited, overt 

U.S. presence is acceptable to the host-country government; and (3) 

environments where a large-scale U.S. presence is considered necessary 

and acceptable to the host-country government. The instruction further 

requires that the secretaries of the military departments identify and track 

individuals who have completed SFA-related training, education, or 

experience in the Defense Readiness Reporting System10

 9

Department of Defense Instruction 5000.68, Security Force Assistance (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 27, 2010).

with a relevant 

skill-designator indicating their SFA qualifications. According to DODI 

5000.68, the secretaries shall develop, maintain, and institutionalize 

capabilities of servicemembers to support DOD efforts to organize, train, 

equip, and advise foreign military forces. Having the ability to identify and 

track individuals with SFA-related training, education, and experience will 

assist DOD in institutionalizing SFA capabilities. Officials at the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Department of the Army, and Headquarters 

Marine Corps stated that it was important to be able to identify and track 

servicemembers with SFA-related training, education, and experience so 

that they could be utilized for future SFA missions. Having this tracking 

capability will assist the Army and Marine Corps in identifying the right 

people to carry out SFA activities.

10The Defense Readiness Reporting System measures and reports on the readiness of 

military forces and the supporting infrastructure to meet missions and goals assigned by 

the Secretary of Defense.

DOD Has Established a 

Requirement for the 

Services to Identify and 

Track Personnel with SFARelated Training, 

Education, and 

Experience
Page 7 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

In April 2011, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council issued a 

memorandum11 endorsing certain recommended SFA actions. As we 

reported in 2012, the memorandum identified 25 tasks related to the 

implementation of SFA across DOD in the areas of doctrine, organization, 

training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities.

According to SFA Working Group officials, this memorandum does not 

constitute policy. However, like DODI 5000.68, it emphasizes the need to 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and 

experience. For example, one of the tasks that was emphasized for the 

services was the need to establish skill identifiers for military personnel 

with SFA-related training and experience, and the need to track these 

personnel. According to the memorandum, this task was to be completed 

by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the 

services, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and United States 

Special Operations Command by April 2013. According to officials, an 

SFA Steering Committee and Working Group were established in January 

2011 to coordinate the department’s efforts to develop SFA policy and 

capabilities and manage the implementation of DODI 5000.68.12

According to officials with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, SFA continues to be a priority for DOD. As a 

result, officials stated that an instruction on irregular warfare13 and SFA is 

being drafted in order to emphasize how DOD will conduct SFA activities.

Among other things, according to officials, the instruction will reiterate the 

importance of identifying and tracking personnel with SFA-related 

training, education, and experience so that they can be utilized for future 

missions.

 11The Joint Staff, Security Force Assistance DOTMLPF Change Recommendation, Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 050-11 (Washington, D.C: Apr. 19, 2011).

12These committees were dissolved in January 2014 and their functions are now 

encompassed in the Irregular Warfare Working Group.

13Irregular warfare is defined as a violent struggle among state and nonstate actors for 

legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations. It favors indirect and asymmetric 

approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capacities, in order 

to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will. 
Page 8 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

The Army has taken steps toward identifying and tracking personnel with 

certain SFA-related training and education, but efforts to identify and track 

SFA-related experience are incomplete. Officials told us that since 2008, 

they have been identifying and tracking soldiers who attend certain SFA 

training with a Personnel Development Skill Identifier code. The Army 

uses Personnel Development Skill Identifier codes in combination with an 

area of concentration14 or MOS to identify unique skills, training, and 

experience personnel may obtain during their careers.15

• successfully completing a resident advisor training course at Fort 

Riley and Fort Polk;

Normally, the 

principal organizations or agency may request establishment of a 

Personnel Development Skill Identifier code for tracking unique skills, 

training, or experience where identification of qualified personnel would 

be beneficial to the Army. Personnel Development Skill Identifier codes 

identify skills, training, and experience that do not meet the minimum 

standards for establishment of an additional skill identifier or have too few 

individuals meeting the qualifications to warrant the creation of an 

additional skill identifier. For example, the Army has created Personnel 

Development Skill Identifier codes to identify and track soldiers who have 

completed congressional fellowship training, completed training and 6-

month deployment in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations, 

and completed training for the maintenance of various weapons systems.

With regard to certain SFA-related training and education, the Army has 

established Personnel Development Skill Identifier codes for the following 

training activities:

• successfully completing an advisor training course at the Phoenix 

Academy in Iraq; and

• successfully completing advisor training offered by the mobile 

training team from Fort Polk.

Army officials acknowledged that while these Personnel Development 

Skill Identifier codes can be used to identify and track soldiers who attend 

these SFA-related training courses, the codes do not identify and track 

 14Area of concentration identifies a requirement and an officer possessing a requisite area 

of expertise within a branch or functional area. An officer may possess and serve in more 

than one area of concentration.

15Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21.

The Army Is Able to 

Identify and Track 

Personnel with Certain 

SFA-Related Training and 

Education, but It Lacks a 

Mechanism to Identify and 

Track SFA-Related 

Experience
Page 9 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

the actual experience that a soldier obtains from serving in an SFArelated role or any other SFA-related training and education that soldiers 

might receive. For example, according to an Army official, one brigade 

that is regionally aligned to Africa receives SFA-related training through a 

course called Dagger University at Fort Riley that is not captured by any 

of the existing Personnel Development Skill Identifier codes. Further, 

Army officials noted that some personnel trained in these activities might 

not have actually served in these roles.

Army officials stated that the Army has been considering steps to take 

toward identifying and tracking personnel with SFA experience, but has 

not yet developed a mechanism with which to do so. Officials from 

Department of the Army Headquarters Operations and Plans office stated 

that they have ongoing efforts to identify the best approach, which may 

include developing or expanding on existing Personnel Development Skill 

Identifier codes, or creating an additional skill identifier or MOS to meet 

the requirement in DODI 5000.68 to identify and track personnel with 

SFA-related experience. Army officials told us that they could create new 

SFA-related Personnel Development Skill Identifier codes or expand 

existing ones to identify and track personnel with SFA-related experience.

The officials stated that they use a similar process to capture not only the 

education and training, but also the experience of individuals who have 

served in the Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands Program.16

 16The Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands Program was established in 2009 and deploys DOD 

civilians for 5 years to serve as experts on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to engage 

directly with host-nation officials to enhance government, interagency, and multinational 

cooperation in an effort to support the counterinsurgency strategy.

For example, 

Personnel Development Skill Identifier code T2A identifies soldiers who 

completed language, counterinsurgency, and culture training as part of 

that program. Personnel Development Skill Identifier code T2B identifies 

the soldiers who successfully completed a 1-year deployment to 

Afghanistan or Pakistan and utilized skills and training from the 

Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands Program. Officials indicated to us that they 

could potentially enhance existing SFA-related Personnel Developer Skill 

Identifier codes to capture the SFA-related experience of soldiers.

However, as of the time of our review, Army headquarters officials stated 

that the Army had not decided which approach it would use. As a result, 

while they can identify personnel with certain SFA-related training and 

education, they have not developed a mechanism to identify and track 

personnel with SFA-related experience.
Page 10 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Army officials knowledgeable about these efforts told us that they have 

not yet determined what mechanism they might use to identify and track 

personnel with SFA-related experience for several reasons, including a 

lack of clarity regarding what activities and experience constitute SFA. 

For example:

• Determining activities that constitute SFA. According to officials

from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and 

Readiness, SFA continues to evolve to meet emerging threats. Army 

officials stated that they are still trying to determine what activities 

constitute SFA. An Army headquarters official stated that identifying 

an activity as SFA is subjective and the Army is still trying to figure out 

how SFA fits into irregular warfare.

• Determining SFA experience. Army officials with whom we spoke 

stated that they are trying to determine the level of SFA responsibility 

that a soldier must assume in order for it to be recognized as sufficient 

for SFA experience and thereby tracked. For example, some 

individuals serve as junior members on SFA teams and may not 

continually engage in an advising role, whereas the leader of the SFA 

team is continuously advising foreign military officials.

Officials from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness office told us they do not intend to issue any more prescriptive 

guidance to the services about SFA. Similarly, members of the SFA 

Working Group stated that the information available on SFA is adequate 

and they believe it is unnecessary to provide the services with any 

additional SFA guidance. We found several issued documents that define 

SFA or identify the characteristics that individuals conducting SFA 

activities should possess. These documents include the following:

• The 2013 Army Field Manual on Army Support to Security 

Cooperation, which provides details on the advisor roles, 

considerations for working effectively with foreign security forces, and 

personality traits of advisors. According to this manual, not every 

soldier is well suited to be an advisor.17

 17Headquarters Department of the Army, Field Manual No. 3-22, Army Support to Security 

Cooperation (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2013).

It identifies tolerance for 

ambiguity, open-mindedness, and empathy, among others, as traits 

that greatly enhance the advisor’s ability to adapt and thrive in a 

foreign culture.
Page 11 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

• The Security Force Assistance Lexicon and Framework, issued in 

November 2011, was intended to promote a common understanding 

of SFA and related terms by providing greater clarity on the definition 

of SFA and how it relates to other existing terms, such as security 

cooperation and security assistance.18

• The International Security Assistance Force Guide 2.0, which was 

updated in January 2014, defines SFA and provides information about 

advisor characteristics for the advising mission in Afghanistan.19

According to this guide, not everyone is qualified to perform advisory 

functions. Similar to the Army Field Manual on Army Support to 

Security Cooperation, it identifies a tolerance for ambiguity, empathy, 

and open-mindedness, among others, as characteristics that will 

enhance an advisor’s ability to adapt and thrive in a foreign culture.

• In January 2014, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness issued a memorandum with guidance that identifies the 

common training standards for the SFA mission.20

In 2012, we reported that combatant commanders lacked a clear 

understanding of SFA and therefore DOD made efforts to clarify the 

meaning of SFA.

The memorandum 

lays out a list of skills—such as patience, adaptability, judgment, and 

initiative—related to SFA that are common across the forces, as well 

as standards that can be used as guidelines for measuring the 

qualifications of individuals and collective forces. It identifies a set of 

benchmarks for the services to use to identify, train, and track 

individuals and collective forces conducting SFA activities. For 

example, according to the memorandum, a servicemember should be 

proficient in cross-cultural communications, which include the ability to 

identify and discern cultural differences, and should demonstrate 

adaptability to engage in unfamiliar situations.

21

 18Department of Defense, Security Force Assistance Lexicon and Framework (Nov. 1, 

2011).

In spite of DOD’s efforts, Army officials with whom we 

19International Security Assistance Force, Security Force Assistance, ISAF Security Force 

Assistance Guide 2.0 (Kabul, Afghanistan: Jan. 1, 2014).

20Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Common Training Standards 

for Security Force Assistance Mission (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2014). 

21GAO-12-556.
Page 12 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

spoke stated that confusion still remains regarding what constitutes SFA. 

According to SFA Working Group members, there may be a need for 

additional education regarding available resources that define and list 

activities that constitute SFA.

Although Army officials stated that the Army has considered steps to 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related experience, the Army has 

not established a plan with goals and milestones for how or when these 

steps will be completed. Since the Army does not have a mechanism to 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related experience, the Army would 

have to review duty descriptions in personnel files individually in order to 

determine which servicemembers have SFA-related experience. Manually 

reviewing files can be a laborious, time-consuming effort. Some DOD 

officials told us that it is not an efficient way to conduct business. Further, 

reviewing personnel files individually to identify servicemembers with 

SFA-related experience does not meet the requirement to identify and 

track individuals who have completed SFA-related training, education, or 

experience in the Defense Readiness Reporting System with a relevant 

skill-designator indicating their SFA qualifications. According to DODI 

5000.68, individuals with SFA-related training, education, or experience 

were to be identified and tracked in the Defense Readiness Reporting 

System. However, since the Army has not established a method to 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related experience, this information 

is not being integrated into that system. Instead, personnel at Human 

Resources Command said they are able to manually review personnel 

files in order to identify servicemembers with SFA-related experience.

As noted above, the Army has not decided what approach it will take to 

identify and track personnel with SFA-related experience. Further, 

according to a headquarters Army official, no time frame has been set for 

meeting this requirement. Standard practices for project management call 

for agencies to conceptualize, define, and document specific goals and 

objectives in the planning process, along with appropriate steps, 

milestones, time frames, and resources to achieve those results.22

 22Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge 

(PMBOK® Guide), 2000 ed. (Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: 2000).

Without goals and milestones, it is unclear how long the Army’s 

implementation of the DODI 5000.68 requirement to identify and track 

personnel with SFA-related experience might take. As a result, the Army 

is at risk for not being able to readily identify the right personnel with the 
Page 13 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

right SFA-related skills and experience to serve in an SFA mission. This 

could potentially limit the effectiveness of the advisor teams and the 

Army’s ability to develop, maintain, and institutionalize the capabilities of 

servicemembers to conduct SFA activities to build the capacity and 

capability of foreign military forces.

The Marine Corps has approved and is in the process of implementing an 

officer and enlisted Free MOS to identify and track personnel with SFArelated training, education, and experience. A Free MOS is an auxiliary 

MOS that can be assigned to any Marine to reflect the acquisition of 

certain skill sets beyond those related to the primary MOS. Initially, in 

2011, the Marine Corps developed an online irregular-warfare skills 

tracker to provide this capability, and the information in it was not readily 

accessible, could not be grouped by unit, and was not integrated with any 

other system in the Marine Corps. While the tracker met the intent of 

DODI 5000.68 to identify and track personnel with SFA-related 

experience and will be developed to meet emerging irregular warfare 

requirements, it was not sufficient in helping the Marine Corps assign 

servicemembers to SFA positions. As a result, in April 2013, the Marine 

Corps decided to develop a Free MOS that could be used to identify and 

track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and experience. The 

Marine Corps currently uses Free MOS to capture personnel with other 

skill sets and experience, such as personnel who have served as foreign 

area officers and regional area officers. The Marine Corps tasked its 

human resources command—Manpower and Reserve Affairs— as the 

lead to integrate the Free MOS into existing personnel systems in 

accordance with standard procedures for the creation of a new Free 

MOS.

In December 2013, the Commanding General of the United States Marine 

Corps Training and Education Command approved the Foreign Security 

Force Advisor Free MOS for officers and enlisted personnel. The Free 

MOS is currently being finalized and is expected to be included in the 

Marine Corps fiscal year 2015 MOS Manual.23

 23Headquarters United States Marine Corps, MCO 1200.17E.

The Marine Corps is 

planning for the Free MOS to be available by October 1, 2014, to assign 

to those Marines who meet specified qualifications. Those qualifications 

are identified as follows in the memorandum that approved the language 

for the Free MOS that will be added to the MOS manual:

The Marine Corps Is 

Establishing a Free 

Military Occupational 

Specialty to Identify and 

Track Personnel with SFARelated Training, 

Education, and 

Experience
Page 14 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

• Prerequisites. The Marine must complete the appropriate Regional, 

Culture, and Language training for that Marine’s grade. In addition, 

the Marine must have an endorsement from a battalion- or squadronlevel commanding officer certifying that the Marine has met the 

prerequisites, is mature, and is capable of independent operations.

• Requirements. The Marine must complete the Marine Corps Advisor 

Course. Alternatively, if the Marine does not complete the Marine 

Corps Advisor Course, the Marine can be certified by a commanding 

officer after demonstrating sufficient expertise in advising foreign 

security forces in an on-the-job training environment spanning a 

cumulative period of at least 6 months while still serving in the 

position.

According to the Marine Administrative Message that the Marine Corps 

has developed to announce approval of the Free MOS, Marines who 

have already graduated from an advisor course or who have 6 months or 

more of cumulative on-the-job experience advising foreign security forces 

may apply to be grandfathered in to receive the Free MOS. The Marine 

Corps Security Cooperation Group will convene a panel in order to review 

these applicants’ packages, which should include a letter from the 

applicant to the commanding officer of the Marine Corps Security 

Cooperation Group, endorsement from battalion- or squadron-level or 

higher commanding officer, and documentation demonstrating that the 

Marine graduated from an advisor training course, among other things. 

The Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group is responsible for 

managing the Foreign Security Force Advisor MOS and the Marine 

Advisor Course. In the event that the Marine Corps Security Cooperation 

Group is disbanded, the Training and Education Command commanding 

officer would be responsible for determining who would provide the 

training going forward.
Page 15 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

The Army and Marine Corps have established processes to guide and 

evaluate career progression. Both services have taken a number of 

actions to give consideration to those serving in SFA-related positions 

during the promotion process. However, DOD cannot evaluate the effect 

that serving in an SFA-related role could have on career progression 

because the Army and Marine Corps have not established a mechanism 

to identify and track servicemembers with SFA-related experience.

The Army and Marine Corps convene promotion boards to review 

personnel for career advancement. These promotion boards consist of 5 

to 21 servicemembers whose rank is above that of the promotion 

candidates. The promotion cycles for officers and enlisted personnel 

occur throughout the year. The promotion process is confidential, and 

each board member is briefed on and reviews the same information for 

each candidate, to include performance evaluations, assignment history, 

and professional development and education. According to DOD officials, 

board members review the entirety of servicemembers’ careers when 

making decisions about promotions.

Both the Army and the Marine Corps provide guidance to promotion 

boards to assist them in their deliberations. Specifically, the Army 

provides every promotion board member with a Memorandum of 

Instruction signed by the Secretary of the Army for officers and the Army 

Chief of Staff for enlisted personnel. Similar to the Army, the Marine 

Corps provides every promotion board member with instructions, also 

referred to as precepts, that are signed by the Secretary of the Navy for 

officers and the Commandant of the Marine Corps for the enlisted 

personnel. According to the Memoranda of Instruction and precepts, 

promotion board members should not consider demographic information 

such as gender and ethnic background when making promotion 

decisions, as they have no bearing on servicemembers’ merit and 

abilities. However, they should consider education, experience, and 

physical fitness in their deliberations. More specifically, for example, one 

of the Army’s Memoranda of Instruction that we reviewed states that it is 

important that officers selected by board members for promotion possess 

the right mix of field and headquarters experience, as well as the training 

and education to meet current and future leadership requirements.

The Army and Marine 

Corps Have Taken 

Steps to Ensure the 

Consideration of SFARelated Training, 

Education, and 

Experience in the 

Promotion Process

The Army and Marine 

Corps Have Established 

Processes to Guide and 

Evaluate Career 

Progression
Page 16 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Further, it states that all assignments are important to sustain a trained 

and ready Army.

The Army and the Marine Corps have taken a number of steps to ensure 

that servicemembers with SFA-related experience receive consideration 

for serving in these positions during the promotion process. Both services 

have incorporated language into the guidance given to each promotion 

board member every time a promotion board is held to ensure that 

appropriate consideration is given to individuals who have served on 

advisor teams. For example, both the Army’s Memoranda of Instruction 

and the Marine Corps’ precepts for promotion boards state that, given the 

current operational environment, promotion board members should pay 

particular attention to servicemembers with unique key and 

developmental positions, to include serving on an advisor team.

Specifically, as it relates to SFA, one of the Army’s Memoranda of 

Instruction states that the absence of command, combat experience, or 

support of deployed forces should not be a basis for nonselection for 

promotion. With regard to service as an advisor, the memorandum cites 

the important role that advisor teams play in enabling the United States to 

hand over security responsibilities to host-nation security forces and 

notes that advisor teams operate under very austere conditions and 

coach, teach, and mentor host-nation security forces while simultaneously 

conducting combat operations as they are embedded with host-nation 

security forces. The memorandum instructs the promotion board to 

appreciate the challenging nature of demands of advisor team jobs and to 

provide appropriate consideration in the overall evaluation of the record of 

each officer and enlisted servicemember who has served on these teams.

Similarly, the Marine Corps’ precepts direct each promotion board to be 

especially diligent in weighing the qualifications of officers and enlisted 

personnel serving in advisor teams. They further state that, in board 

deliberations, service in these critical positions should be weighted 

equally with traditional Marine Corps officer and enlisted positions in the 

operational forces supporting overseas contingency operations because 

assignments are made in the best interest of the Marine Corps. To 

emphasize the importance of giving proper consideration to 

servicemembers who have served in SFA positions, according to a 

Marine Corps official, the Marine Corps is planning to draft additional 

language that will be briefed to members of each promotion board prior to 

their ranking of servicemembers for promotion.

The Army and Marine 

Corps Have Taken a 

Number of Actions to Give 

Consideration to Those 

Serving in SFA-Related 

Positions during the 

Promotion Process
Page 17 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

In addition, according to an Army headquarters official, in an effort to 

ensure that servicemembers who serve on advisor teams are given credit 

for SFA-related experience, the Army made changes to its MOS 

publications. In 2008, the Army Chief of Staff stated that soldiers who 

served on advisor teams were developing the skills and experience that 

are vital for the Army to accomplish tasks from direct combat to stability 

operations, recognizing that these skills will be a major part of military 

operations in the future. To ensure that majors serving on advisor teams 

receive recognition and credit for their service, the Army Chief of Staff 

directed the Army to designate service on an advisor team as a key 

assignment for infantry majors in Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-

3. For majors, serving on a brigade or battalion advisor team is therefore 

comparable to being assigned as, among other things, a battalion 

executive officer or brigade operations officer. According to an Army 

personnel official, the Army Chief of Staff’s statement also served as a 

driver for the Army not only to change Department of the Army Pamphlet 

600-3, but also to change Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25, as 

well as the Memorandum of Instruction provided to promotion board 

members. The pamphlets have been updated to indicate that service in 

an advisor role is a key developmental opportunity. For example, the 

MOS of Army infantry majors and lieutenant colonels now reflect that 

service on advisor teams can be considered part of their key 

developmental assignments.24

We found differing opinions regarding the effect that Army and Marine 

Corps guidance have on the manner in which individuals with SFA-related 

training, education, and experience are considered during the promotion 

process. Several officials from the SFA brigades as well as officials at the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army and Marine Corps headquarters, 

Human Resources Command, and Manpower and Reserve Affairs stated 

that serving as an SFA advisor could negatively affect career progression. 

Specifically, in 14 of the 24 interviews we conducted at these 

organizations, officials stated that serving in an SFA-related role could 

potentially negatively affect career progression, or that their own careers 

had been negatively affected as a result of serving in an SFA-related role. 

According to officials, serving in an SFA-related position could cause a 

 24A key developmental position is one that is deemed fundamental to the development of 

officer or enlisted personnel in his or her core branch or functional area competencies or 

deemed critical by the senior Army leadership to provide experience across the Army’s 

strategic mission.

Opinions Differ Regarding 

the Effect of Serving in an 

SFA-Related Position on 

Career Progression
Page 18 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

servicemember to miss or be delayed in completing a key developmental 

step outlined in the MOS publication, which could negatively affect the 

member’s career progression. For example:

• One servicemember stated that he was taken out of company 

command to serve on an advisor team. This cut his company 

commander time down, which he believed made him less competitive 

compared to other servicemembers in his year group who had 

completed company command in accordance with the professional 

development outlined for his MOS.

• One soldier said that he wanted to apply for an opportunity that would 

allow him to transfer from a combat arms position into the Foreign 

Area Officer branch. According to the soldier, the time spent serving 

on an advisor team shortened the amount of time he could spend 

completing key developmental steps that were a prerequisite for him 

to transfer. The soldier stated that as a result of not completing the 

key developmental steps in his MOS, he did not qualify to apply for 

the transfer.

Conversely, some servicemembers with whom we spoke stated that they 

felt their careers had not been negatively affected. For example, one 

servicemember told us that he served on an advisor team and is now a 

colonel. He stated that serving in an SFA-related role is viewed in a 

positive manner and that soldiers seek these positions. Similarly, officials 

from the Army’s Operations and Plans office stated that some soldiers’

careers could potentially be enhanced as a result of serving in an SFArelated position.

In addition, officials from Army Human Resources Command and Marine 

Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs, as well as officials from the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

Department of the Army Headquarters, and the Marine Corps Security 

Cooperation Group, stated that other factors likely play into decisions not 

to promote an individual. They noted that the promotion process 

considers the entirety of an individual’s career and not just the time spent 

as an advisor. According to the Army’s MOS manual, success does not 

depend on the number or type of positions held, but rather on the quality 

of duty performance in every assignment. As a result, officials stated that 

serving as an advisor was unlikely to be the sole explanation for a failure 

to be promoted. According to officials, if a soldier performs well, that 

soldier will be promoted regardless of the role he or she was assigned.
Page 19 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

According to DOD officials, it is difficult if not impossible to determine why 

a servicemember did not get promoted, because the promotion boards do 

not maintain a record of or discuss the reasons why a person did not get 

promoted. Officials from the Army Human Resources Command and the 

Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department informed us 

that they monitor where servicemembers are in their career to try to 

ensure that servicemembers are able to obtain a key developmental step 

that may be missed. Although some servicemembers stated that their 

careers could potentially be negatively affected as a result of serving in 

an SFA-related role, the Army and Marine Corps are currently unable to 

assess this potential negative effect or to take any needed corrective 

actions. Specifically, information about who has SFA-related experience 

is necessary in order to isolate this population from those who have not 

served in an SFA-related role. As noted above, while the Army has 

developed a Personnel Development Skill Identifier to identify and track 

soldiers with SFA-related training and education, the Army has not 

developed a mechanism with which to identify and track personnel with 

SFA-related experience, and the Marine Corps’ mechanism will not be 

available until October 2014. As a result, officials are not able to conduct 

an assessment of personnel to determine whether there are different 

promotion rates for people who served on advisor teams versus those 

who did not, which could be a potential indicator that servicemembers 

with SFA-related experience were negatively affected during the 

promotion process.

We recently reported that the Army’s use of SFA brigades to form advisor 

teams has enabled it to meet requirements, but this practice results in 

those brigades leaving behind large numbers of personnel at the 

brigades’ home stations. Officials from each of the four SFA brigades with 

whom we met confirmed that this continues to be the case and said that 

they left behind a large rear detachment when they deployed. For 

example, according to officials from one of the brigades we visited, the 

brigade deployed approximately 500 people to create advisor teams, 

leaving approximately 3,000 personnel behind at their home station. 

Officials from another brigade that deployed as an SFA brigade stated 

that approximately 1,900 personnel were deployed, leaving behind about 

the same number in the rear detachment. In 2013, we reported that 

because the advisor team requirement calls for high numbers of 

company- and field-grade officers and senior noncommissioned officers, 

staffing the teams requires the brigades to deploy a significant portion of 

The Army Continues 

to Manage the Large 

Rear Detachments 

That Result from 

Deploying Personnel 

to Support SFA 

Missions
Page 20 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

their leadership and expertise, including the brigade commanders and 

many battalion, company, and platoon commanders, for the advisor 

mission.25

The rear-detachment commanders and other SFA brigade officials with 

whom we spoke stated they faced numerous challenges with managing 

personnel who were left at home stations. Officials from two of the SFA 

brigades we spoke with stated that their biggest challenge stemmed from 

effectively managing medical, legal, and other administrative issues while 

concurrently maintaining readiness and responding to installation tasks.

These officials also stated that another challenge they faced was 

ensuring that equipment was accounted for properly.

Army Forces Command officials confirmed that this continues 

to be the Army’s process and that as a result, in providing these senior 

servicemembers to the advisor teams, the brigades are forced to rely on 

more junior officers and enlisted personnel at their home stations to 

manage the rear detachment. For example, according to SFA brigade 

officials we interviewed, in some cases they relied on captains, who 

would typically be responsible for leading a company, to serve as reardetachment battalion commanders.

During this review, officials from the SFA brigades we met with stated that 

the brigades’ predeployment planning efforts ensured that the brigades 

left behind sufficient leadership to manage the rear detachments and

develop training plans to maintain readiness. A number of other actions 

were also taken to maintain readiness that included the following:

• Consolidating Units: According to officials from two of the brigades we 

spoke with, to ensure that leadership is available to conduct training, 

some brigades consolidated units. For example, one rear-detachment 

battalion commander told us that his battalion teamed up with another 

battalion to ensure they could conduct training to maintain their 

readiness.

• Leaving Key Leadership Personnel: Officials told us that leaving the 

right personnel behind to manage the rear detachment is just as 

important as deploying the right personnel. Officials from the four SFA 

brigades we met with stated that brigade leadership had to undertake 

significant planning to ensure that the right leadership remained at the 

home station. One SFA brigade official with whom we spoke said that 

 25GAO-13-381.
Page 21 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

rear-detachment leadership candidates were interviewed prior to 

being assigned as rear-detachment commanders to ensure that they 

had the personal and professional attributes needed to effectively 

manage the rear detachment. Officials from two of the SFA brigades 

we met with stated that the right leadership was needed to manage 

the training, legal, medical, and other administrative issues of the 

soldiers who remained at the home station.

• Conducting Training and Maintaining Readiness: Army Forces 

Command issued guidance for the training and employment of rear 

detachments during advisor team deployments, including missions the 

force may be assigned to, training expectations, and equipment 

maintenance responsibilities. According to Army Forces Command 

officials, Army Forces Command allowed the brigade leadership to 

determine the type and amount of training that could be conducted 

based on the number of personnel remaining at the home station. For 

example, officials from each of the four SFA brigades with whom we 

met stated that they developed training plans for what the rear 

detachment would train on while the rest of the brigade was deployed.

• Reporting Readiness: Prior to October 2013, brigades were required 

to report only on the status of deployed forces and equipment. The 

Department of the Army issued guidance in October 2013 to gain 

better visibility over all available personnel and equipment. It required 

units to report on personnel and equipment that were deployed and at 

the rear detachment. However, it is still up to the rear-detachment 

brigade leadership to determine the level of readiness that they can 

achieve with the personnel and equipment remaining at the home 

station.

SFA has been and continues to be an enduring part of the U.S. military 

effort in Afghanistan and other locations around the world. Accordingly, 

DOD wants to ensure that it has the ability to develop, maintain, and 

institutionalize the capabilities of servicemembers to provide SFA to 

foreign military forces. To ensure that the Army and Marine Corps have 

the right people with the right skill sets to serve in an SFA mission, DOD 

must be able to identify and track personnel with SFA-related training, 

education, and experience. Without a systematic means to identify and 

track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and experience, the 

Army and Marine Corps (1) cannot monitor the career progression of 

servicemembers with SFA-related experience; and (2) are limited in their 

ability to evaluate the effectiveness of their guidance. Currently DOD 

lacks this capability, and the Army has not developed a plan—including 

Conclusions
Page 22 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

goals and milestones—to complete the implementation and 

institutionalization of its ability to identify and track personnel with SFArelated experience. Until the Army develops such a plan, it is at risk of not 

being able to readily identify the right personnel with the right skills and 

experience to serve in an SFA mission. Further, the absence of such a 

plan could limit the effectiveness of the advisor teams and DOD’s ability 

to develop, maintain, and institutionalize the capabilities of 

servicemembers to provide SFA to foreign military forces.

To enable the Army to address the requirement to identify and track 

personnel with SFA-related experience, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to develop and 

implement a plan with goals and milestones for how it will develop the 

means for systematically identifying and tracking personnel with SFArelated experience.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In 

written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with 

the report’s recommendation. DOD’s comments are summarized below 

and reprinted in appendix II. 

DOD partially concurred with the recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement a 

plan with goals and milestones for how it will develop the means for 

systematically identifying and tracking personnel with SFA-related 

experience. In its letter, DOD stated that it concurred with our underlying 

assessment that the Army has had difficulty in systematically identifying 

and tracking personnel with SFA-related experience. However, DOD 

stated that sufficient guidance and direction exists for the Army to 

continue refining its processes and procedures. Specifically, DOD stated 

that the Army, through the application of its Personnel Development Skill 

Identifier (PDSI), is capable of identifying and designating all soldiers who 

have satisfactorily completed SFA training. DOD stated that it will 

continue to work with the Army in this important area. 

We agree that the Army may have sufficient guidance to continue refining 

its processes and procedures. As noted in the report, the Army uses 

PDSI codes to capture certain SFA-related training activities; however, 

some SFA-related training and education may not be captured. Moreover, 

as noted in the report, the PDSI codes do not capture SFA-related 

experience. DODI 5000.68, which was issued in October 2010, requires 

the Army to, among other things, identify and track individuals with SFARecommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 23 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

related training, education, and experience. As noted in the report, Army 

officials told us that they were discussing the best method to identify and 

track personnel with SFA-related experience, but the Army has not 

established a plan with goals and milestones to develop this capability. 

Such a plan will provide the necessary direction to enable the Army to 

develop the means for systematically identifying and tracking personnel 

with SFA-related training, education, and experience, as required by 

DODI 5000.68.

DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. The report is also available at no 

charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

III.

Cary Russell

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 24 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Serves

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 25 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

The objectives of this engagement were to assess the extent to which (1) 

the Army and Marine Corps identify and track personnel with SFA-related 

training, education, and experience; and (2) the Army and Marine Corps 

consider SFA-related training, education, and experience in the promotion 

process; and to describe the process the Army uses to prepare units to 

perform their core missions while some unit members are deployed to 

support SFA activities.

To determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps identify and 

track personnel with SFA-related training, education, and experience, we 

reviewed relevant policies, directives, and other documents. The 

documents that we reviewed included the Department of Defense 

Instruction 5000.68, the 2013 Army Field Manual on Army Support to 

Security Cooperation, International Security Assistance Force SFA Guide 

2.0, and Marine Corps memorandum approving a Free MOS for SFA, as 

well as other memorandums as appropriate. We also interviewed officials 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of the Army, and 

Headquarters Marine Corps, and personnel from Army Human Resources 

Command and Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

To determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps consider 

SFA-related training, education, and experience in the promotion process, 

we analyzed guidance and other documents that identify critical elements 

of a career path and reviewed guidance provided to promotion boards to 

instruct them on how to incorporate advisor experience in their evaluation 

of individuals for promotion. In addition, we interviewed Department of the 

Army, Headquarters Marine Corps, and service-level officials about the 

promotion process. We discussed their concerns about the potential 

negative effect of serving in SFA-related positions on their careers and 

the careers of others. Information that we received is not generalizable.

To describe how the Army prepares units to perform their core missions 

when some unit members are deployed to support SFA activities, we 

reviewed documentation and interviewed knowledgeable officials from 

four SFA brigades, and Army headquarters and service-level officials to 

ascertain any potential challenges to units having the ability to train and 

manage their readiness for core missions and mitigation strategies, if any, 

they developed. As part of this review, we selected an illustrative, 

nongeneralizable sample of brigades that sent SFA advisor teams to 

Afghanistan. We worked with Army Forces Command officials to identify 

brigades that recently deployed as SFA Brigades in Afghanistan and left a 

large rear detachment. Army Forces Command provided us with a list of 

five brigades that had recently served as SFA brigades in Afghanistan 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

and had left a large rear detachment. From the list that it provided, we 

contacted the five brigades, but only four of them were available for us to 

interview. We could not conduct interviews with the fifth one due to 

conflicts with its deployment. From the four brigades that left a large rear 

detachment when they deployed and that were available to meet with us, 

we interviewed officials from the division, brigade, and battalion levels 

that were responsible for managing the rear detachment at each of the 

brigades we visited. We obtained testimonial evidence from the four 

selected brigades to ascertain any potential readiness challenges 

presented by the need to meet SFA requirements. Officials from these 

brigades were also able to provide information about their perceptions of 

the effect that serving in an SFA-related role has on promotion 

opportunities. We did not report on the readiness of the rear detachment 

for the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps’ sourcing approach does 

not create the same type of large rear detachments that result from the 

Army’s use of SFA brigades.

We visited or contacted officials from the following organizations during 

our review:

• Office of the Secretary of Defense, Arlington, Virginia

• Personnel & Readiness

• Military Personnel and Policy

• Security Force Assistance Steering Committee and Working 

Group

• United States Army

• Department of the Army Headquarters, Office of the Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Personnel (G-1), Arlington, Virginia

• Department of the Army Headquarters, Operations and Plans (G3/5/7), Arlington, Virginia

• Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky

• 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky

A. 1/101st Brigade Combat Team

B. 2/101st Brigade Combat Team

C. 3/101st Brigade Combat Team

D. 1/101st Combat Aviation Brigade

• 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia

• 1st Infantry Division, Regionally Aligned Forces, Fort Riley, 

Kansas
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

• United States Marine Corps

• Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group, Arlington, Virginia

• Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department, Quantico, Virginia

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to July 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Defense

Page 28 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Defense
Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Defense

Page 29 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 30 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Cary B. Russell, (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, James A. Reynolds, Assistant 

Director; Emily Biskup; Richard Burkard; Michael Silver; Sonja Ware; and 

Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Reports

Page 31 GAO-14-482 Identifying and Tracking SFA Advisors

Security Force Assistance: More Detailed Planning and Improved Access 

to Information Needed to Guide Efforts of Advisor Teams in Afghanistan. 

GAO-13-381. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2013.

Building Partner Capacity: Key Practices to Effectively Manage 

Department of Defense Efforts to Promote Security Cooperation. 

GAO-13-335T. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2013.

Afghanistan: Key Oversight Issues. GAO-13-218SP. Washington, D.C.: 

February 11, 2013.

Afghanistan Security: Long-standing Challenges May Affect Progress and 

Sustainment of Afghan National Security Forces. GAO-12-951T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2012.

Security Force Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to Guide 

Geographic Combatant Command and Service Efforts. GAO-12-556. 

Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2012.

Iraq and Afghanistan: Actions Needed to Enhance the Ability of Army 

Brigades to Support the Advising Mission. GAO-11-760. Washington, 

D.C.: August 2, 2011.

Related GAO Reports

(351486)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.