GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

August 25, 2005 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Defense Management: Assessment Should Be Done to Clarify Defense 

Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Personnel and Funding Needs

In response to congressional concerns about the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

performance in accounting for missing personnel, DOD established the Defense 

Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office in July 1993. This office is now called the 

Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO). DPMO’s original mission 

was to provide centralized management of prisoner of war/missing in action affairs 

throughout DOD, and the office initially focused on missing service personnel from 

the Vietnam War and, to a lesser extent, incidents during the Cold War. Since its 

inception, Congress and DOD have expanded DPMO’s mission and responsibilities. 

Concerned about the level of DPMO’s resources, Congress in 2002 directed the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that DPMO was provided with sufficient military and 

civilian personnel and funding to enable the office to fully perform its mission.1

 

Specifically, Congress established minimum levels of resources for DPMO, providing 

that the military and civilian personnel levels, as well as funding, would be not less 

than requested in “the President’s budget for fiscal year 2003.” On the basis of this 

congressional direction, DOD concluded that these minimum levels were: 46 military 

 

1

 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 551(a) 

(2002). 
Page 2 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

and 69 civilian personnel and $15.974 million in operation and maintenance (O&M) 

funding. 2 We used these minimum levels in our analysis. 

The fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act3 required that we review the 

missions, staffing, and funding of DPMO. As we discussed with your offices, our 

objectives were to (1) identify changes in DPMO’s mission from the inception of the 

office to the present; (2) compare DPMO personnel and funding requests with actual 

staffing and funding levels from inception through fiscal year 2004, and determine 

whether the actual levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were consistent with the 

minimum levels established by law; and (3) assess the extent to which DOD has 

evaluated any need for adjustment in personnel and/or funding levels, given changes 

in DPMO’s mission. In May 2005, we provided your offices with information 

summarizing our observations in a briefing format. This letter summarizes and 

updates the information in the briefing (see enclosure I). 

To perform our work, we assessed DOD directives and federal laws that either 

assigned missions to DOD that were later delegated to DPMO, or assigned missions 

directly to DPMO. We conducted interviews with DPMO officials and other officials 

in DOD components that also have responsibility for personnel accounting, recovery, 

and/or budgetary issues. We analyzed staffing data and budget materials from the 

President’s budget requests, as well as the Future Years’ Defense Program and other 

DOD sources, and we determined that the reliability of these data was sufficient for 

our purposes. We performed our work from January 2005 through June 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Further details 

about our scope and methodology are provided at the end of this report. 

Results in Brief 

Since its inception, DPMO’s mission has expanded from initially accounting primarily 

for missing personnel from the Vietnam War era to accounting for missing personnel 

from past and current conflicts. Furthermore, in addition to performing its 

accounting function, DPMO has also become DOD’s principal policy and oversight 

office for the rescue and return of live personnel to friendly control – that is, 

recovery. As of July 2005, DOD is revising DPMO’s charter, which codifies DPMO’s 

roles and missions. 

After an initial consolidation period immediately following DPMO’s inception, total 

personnel and current-dollar funding requests and actual levels have increased 

slightly. The total number of civilians in DPMO has declined, reflecting the overall 

DOD downsizing, with little difference between requested and actual numbers, 

 

2 With respect to the minimum level for military personnel, we found no specific number in the 

President’s budget for fiscal year 2003. Other supporting documents included various levels of military 

personnel for the DPMO. For example, a budget justification document submitted to Congress by 

DOD included 46 military personnel for DPMO, and DOD’s Future Years Defense Program submitted 

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 221 indicated 19 military personnel for DPMO. The Conference Report for the 

Authorization Act states that the “conferees note that the budget request for fiscal year 2003 provides 

for 46 military personnel.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-772, at 648 (2002). In an April 27, 2004 

memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that Congress had directed that DPMO’s 

military manpower should be at least 46 billets. 

3

 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, §582 

(2004). 
Page 3 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

whereas the number of military personnel working in DPMO has exhibited more 

fluctuation, with varying differences between requested and actual numbers. 

However, since fiscal year 2003, actual civilian and military personnel totals have not 

met the congressionally directed minimums. Actual civilian totals in fiscal years 2003 

and 2004 were about 6 percent below the 69 minimum personnel--65 in both years. 

Actual military personnel totals in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were 30 percent or more 

below the 46 minimum personnel--32 and 29, respectively. Between fiscal years 1996 

and 2005, DPMO funding increased in both constant and current dollar terms, and a 

close balance was kept between requested and actual funding. Operations and 

Maintenance (O&M) funding (which pays civilian salaries and other expenses) was 

similar in both requested and actual amounts, and it offset fluctuations in military 

personnel funding. Since fiscal year 1994, DPMO’s O&M requested and actual 

funding levels increased, in current dollar terms. Except for fiscal year 2003, DPMO’s 

funding has not met the congressionally directed minimum levels. In fiscal years 

2004 and 2005, DOD requested and received slightly less than the congressionally 

directed minimum of $15.974 million--$174,000 (about 1 percent) and $10,000 (about 

.06 percent) respectively. 

The extent to which there is any need for adjustments in personnel or funding levels, 

given changes in DPMO’s mission, cannot be determined because DPMO has not been 

subjected to a formal needs assessment since 1998. Until DPMO’s charter is finalized 

and an assessment is performed, neither Congress nor the Secretary of Defense will 

have sufficient information to determine what the appropriate personnel and funding 

levels for the office should be. 

We are making recommendations to improve DOD’s ability to determine what 

resources are needed for DPMO and how they can best be allocated. 

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report and concurred with each of 

our recommendations. DOD also provided technical comments on the report and we 

made changes where appropriate. 

Background

In 1993, DOD established DPMO by combining four separate offices within DOD. The 

personnel and funding resources of the four offices transferred to DPMO; however, 

many of the people did not transfer with their positions. Since its creation in 1993, 

DPMO has been headed by a Director, who also serves as a Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

International Security Affairs. The Assistant Secretary, in turn, reports to the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy. 

DPMO’s functions are divided between accounting and recovery missions. With 

respect to a person in a missing status, accounting takes place when (1) the person is 

returned to United States control alive, (2) the remains of the person are recovered 

and are identified through visual or forensic means, or (3) credible evidence exists to 
Page 4 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

support another determination of the person’s status.4 Recovery refers to actions 

taken to rescue or extract personnel for return to friendly control.5 

Other DOD components and organizations also have roles in accounting and/or 

recovery. The military services and the office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Personnel and Readiness) provide casualty and family support, handle mortuary and 

funeral issues, and maintain personnel casualty databases. The Joint Prisoner of 

War/Missing in Action Accounting Command, which is subordinate to U.S. Pacific 

Command, also focuses on accounting issues. Teams from this command also 

conduct operations to recover and identify personal remains. Finally, the Joint 

Personnel Recovery Agency, which is subordinate to the U.S. Joint Forces Command, 

advises the military on personnel recovery matters such as training, planning, 

intelligence, and operations; and coordinates personnel recovery issues throughout 

DOD and other government agencies. 

DPMO’s Mission Has Expanded 

DPMO’s roles and missions have expanded since the office was established in July 

1993, although there is no single, up-to-date document that enumerates and describes 

them. DPMO responsibilities are delineated in 10 DOD directives and instructions, 

not including the original charter. Mission growth has occurred incrementally, with 

DOD missions having been added by legislation and delegated to DPMO by the 

Secretary of Defense, without corresponding revisions having been made to the 

overall mission statement or charter directive. As of August 2005, DOD is revising 

DPMO’s charter, which codifies DPMO’s roles and missions as currently delineated. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the charter directive should 

be published later this summer. 

DPMO’s original missions were set out in its charter directive. The office originally 

had several main responsibilities, including participating in negotiations with foreign 

governments in efforts to account for missing American servicemembers and 

providing representation to U.S. government forums; assembling and analyzing 

information, and maintaining databases on U.S. military or civilians who are or were 

POW/MIAs; declassifying documents in accordance with the law and communicating 

with affected families; and providing a statement of intelligence collection 

requirements to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Over time, due to a series of laws 

and DOD directives and instructions, DPMO’s missions gradually expanded. In 1994, 

Congress directed DOD to establish liaisons with family members of unaccounted-for 

Korean War and Cold War personnel.6

 In 1996, Congress further directed DOD to 

establish an office to have responsibility for DOD policy on both accounting for and 

recovery of missing persons.7 That year Congress also expanded the scope of 

personnel considered covered to include DOD contractors. 

 

4

 Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 2310.5, Accounting for Missing Persons, section E2.1.1 

(Jan. 31, 2000) (hereinafter DOD Instruction 2310.5). 

5

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated 

Terms, (May 9, 2005). 

6

 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Pub. L. 103-337, § 1031 (1994). 

7

 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. 104-106, § 569 (1996). 
Page 5 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

During 1996, the Secretary of Defense issued two messages that directed DPMO to 

assume the new missions identified by Congress. An additional series of DOD 

Directives and Instructions that further delineated DPMO’s responsibilities was 

issued between 1997 and 2003. By 2003, these included: setting personnel recovery,8

repatriation,9 and isolated personnel training10 policy; conducting interagency 

coordination on all matters concerning covered persons;11 and organizing and leading 

the DOD response cell established to manage recovery of missing personnel.12 One of 

these instructions also designated DPMO as the central point of contact in the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense for training and education measures necessary to support 

the Code of Conduct—the code outlining the expected behavior for captured military 

personnel.13 Once the DOD directives and instructions were completed, DPMO 

undertook an effort to update its original charter to reflect its designated missions. 

DPMO’s original emphasis was accounting for personnel who were still missing from 

the Vietnam War era, which gave the staff a caseload at that time of about 2,000. In 

contrast, the current accounting caseload, which includes personnel missing from 

past and current conflicts, is about 88,000. 

Two recent documents have implications for further expanding DPMO’s mission. 

First, DPMO’s strategic plan, issued in January 2005, specified a goal of implementing 

an organizational structure that would unify government missing personnel 

accounting efforts. DPMO officials have proposed that their office lead the 

unification efforts, but without necessarily changing the organizational structure. 

The second document, which was still in draft form as of August 2005, would update 

DPMO’s charter directive. Consistent with the goal in the strategic plan, the initial 

version that we reviewed would have given the office control over the entire process 

of recovery of personnel missing as the result of hostile action, designate DPMO as 

the single point of contact with other parts of the U.S. and foreign governments on all 

accounting matters, and assign DPMO the leading role in family outreach. Reactions 

to early versions of the draft were mixed, with some organizations expressing 

concern that DPMO would assume more of an operational role than it has previously 

played, particularly in the areas of family outreach and live recovery. A senior DOD 

official told us that all DOD stakeholders need to reach a common understanding of 

the extent of DPMO’s operational responsibilities and authorities before the 

document can be finalized. At the time this report was issued, the charter directive 

had not been finalized, but DOD noted the directive should be published later this 

summer. DOD also noted that the latest draft does not expand DPMO’s roles beyond 

those it is currently performing and has been revised to show DPMO as the “primary 

DOD representative and point of contact” rather than the “single point of contact” on 

all accounting matters. 

 

8

 DOD Instruction 2310.6, Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery in the Department of Defense (Oct. 13, 

2000). 

9

 DOD Instruction 2310.4, Repatriation of Prisoners of War (POW), Hostages, Peacetime Government 

Detainees, and Other Missing or Isolated Personnel (Nov 21, 2000). 

10 DOD Instruction 1300.23, Isolated Personnel Training for DOD Civilian and Contractors (Aug. 20, 

2003). 

11 DOD Instruction 2310.5. 

12 DOD Instruction 2310.3, Personnel Recovery Response Cell (PRRC) Procedures (Jun 6, 1997). 13 DOD Directive 1300.7, Training and Education to Support the Code of Conduct (CoC) (Dec. 8, 2000). 
Page 6 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

DOD Has Not Met Congressionally Directed Personnel and Funding Levels 

After an initial consolidation period immediately following DPMO’s inception, total 

personnel and current-dollar funding requests and actual levels have increased 

slightly. Civilian requested and actual personnel numbers have declined while 

military personnel numbers have increased. In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, civilian 

and military actual levels did not meet the congressionally directed minimum levels. 

O&M funding has slightly increased since inception, but it missed the minimum level 

in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 by $174,000 (about 1 percent) and $10,000 (about .06 

percent) respectively. 

Personnel 

Overall, after an initial consolidation period immediately following DPMO’s inception, 

total personnel levels have increased slightly from 84 in 1995 to 94 in fiscal year 2004. 

DPMO’s requested civilian personnel total fell steadily from 1994 through 2001, 

consistent with overall DOD downsizing, and since then has stabilized at 69 requested 

personnel. Throughout these years, most of the requested positions were filled.14 In 

fiscal years 2003 and 2004, DPMO’s actual civilian personnel level did not meet the 

congressionally directed minimum of 69 personnel. In both fiscal years, the actual 

number was 65, about 6 percent less. According to a DPMO official, the office tries to 

stay at the 69-person level; however, retirements, hiring actions, transfers, and other 

personnel issues result in fluctuations in the actual number of civilian personnel in 

DPMO at any one time. DPMO officials said that they plan to request an increase to 

114 civilian positions after fiscal year 2006 on a basis of 4 additional positions per 

year. After they complete development of the strategic plan tasks and subtasks and 

resource estimates, they will refine their projections and submit requirements for 

future funding. 

The number of military personnel requested, on the other hand, has fluctuated 

considerably over time because of confusion within the department as to whether 

temporary positions assigned to DPMO should be included in the number requested. 

Specifically, while DPMO had 19 permanent military positions after the initial 

consolidation period, it also had 27 additional military positions that were 

temporary.15 These temporary positions have been included in the number of 

positions officially requested in some years, but excluded in others. As a result, there 

is little correlation between the number requested and the actual number of military 

personnel positions. 

Specifically, in fiscal year 2003, the year that Congress established the minimum 

number of military personnel for DPMO, DOD included the 19 permanent positions 

but did not include the 27 temporary positions in data that it sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget for inclusion in the President’s budget request. However, 

 

14 As of June 2005, DPMO’s 69 civilian positions were graded as follows: GS-15, 14 positions; GS-14, 17 

positions; GS-13, 22 positions; GS-12, 6 positions; GS-11, 6 positions; GS-9, 1 position; and GS-8, 3 

positions. 

15 DPMO identified the 27 temporary military positions as necessary to provide support to the U.S.-

Russia Joint Commission, which was established in 1992 to account for and recover missing American 

servicemembers in the former Soviet Union, but, over time, these positions have evolved to support 

other aspects of DPMO’s work. 
Page 7 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

the 19 positions were included in the more detailed budget justification materials that 

are submitted by DOD to Congress. As a result, the Office of the Comptroller within 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense initially thought the congressionally directed 

number was 19, while DPMO believed it to be 46. 

In an April 2004 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that the total 

number of military personnel positions in DPMO should be 46. While the number of 

positions requested has remained at 46 since that time, the actual total has been 

lower than the congressionally directed minimum of 46 in both fiscal years 2003 (32 

actual, about 30 percent below) and 2004 (29 actual, about 37 percent below). The 

military services are responsible for providing personnel to fill these positions and 

have not always provided the full complement of 46 servicemembers to fill DPMO’s 

positions. According to DOD, the positions have not always been filled because of 

competing priorities, such as the global war on terrorism. In commenting on a draft 

of this report, DOD stated that, although DPMO’s military personnel positions are not 

currently filled at the congressionally directed minimum, DPMO continues to meet its 

mission successfully. 

Funding 

DPMO’s O&M funding requests, which pay chiefly for civilian salaries, travel, and 

facilities, have increased slightly in current dollars since fiscal year 1994, the first 

year for which some data were available. The actual amounts received have closely 

followed the requests. It should be noted that DPMO funding requests included in the 

President’s Budgets for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 were slightly lower than the 

$15.974 million congressionally directed minimum for O&M, $174,000 and $10,000, 

respectively. DPMO officials stated they did not know why this occurred. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that, although the FY 2004 and FY 

2005 funding was slightly less than the congressionally directed minimum, it 

completely funded the DPMO mission requirement. 

DPMO has no control over military personnel funding, which is appropriated to the 

services; in any event, there is no legislated minimum dollar requirement for military 

personnel funding. We were able to obtain some aggregated data from DOD that 

allowed us to compare the military personnel funding that would support DPMO’s 

number of military personnel positions. Because DOD did not have specific data, we 

were unable to trace military personnel funding for fiscal years prior to 1996 (when 

the first unified DPMO budget was presented), but we found that military personnel 

requests and actual amounts have fluctuated since that year. For example, the actual 

amounts have ranged from a low of $1.17 million in fiscal year 1996 to a high of $3.31 

million in fiscal year 1997. 

 

DPMO Lacks a Recent Needs Assessment 

Congress has stated that government organizations should define their mission, 

measure performance, and use performance information to self correct.16 Without 

 

16 Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993); GAO, Executive Guide: 

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 

(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996). 
Page 8 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

such a roadmap, agencies can find it difficult to make appropriate resource decisions, 

especially important in a time of overall resource decline.17 With regard to DPMO, 

Congress specifically required that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the office has 

adequate resources to accomplish its mission and established the minimum 

personnel and funding levels discussed above. 

DPMO has not been subject to a comprehensive needs assessment since 1998. That 

assessment, done by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, evaluated each 

directorate and recommended personnel levels for each; however, while the study 

acknowledged the need for more resources, it recognized the constrained DOD fiscal 

environment and recommended that DPMO make better use of the personnel and 

funding that were already available. However, the study did not link its survey of 

DPMO’s activities to a roles-and-missions baseline, such as an existing strategic plan. 

Other studies have analyzed aspects of DPMO’s mission without providing a 

systematic evaluation of what staff or budgetary resources are needed to accomplish 

the mission. For example, a study done by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) 

and published in 2004 considered only selected aspects of DPMO’s activities and 

recommended that DPMO add personnel to work on recovery aspects of its mission 

without considering how this would affect other DPMO roles and responsibilities. In 

its written comments on our draft report, DOD noted that the IDA study linked the 

need for additional DPMO resources to issuance of a National Security Presidential 

Directive, which has not yet been issued. The Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation recommended in 2003 that 

a comprehensive study be undertaken, but its recommendation was not approved by 

DOD management on the grounds that legislation had already established a floor 

level of personnel and funding, and therefore a study would be redundant. 

While DPMO does have a new strategic plan that includes a mission statement, the 

office has not taken three key steps that constitute the core of output-based 

performance management: define all desired outcomes, establish metrics to measure 

performance, and use performance information to make adjustments and link 

resources to performance goals. For example, DPMO has not defined metrics to 

measure its performance, and, since there are no metrics to measure performance, 

DPMO has insufficient information on performance. Within DPMO, budget requests 

are made when division directors argue for their particular initiatives before a 

management panel; however, the panel does not link its resource decisions to a 

strategic plan. 

Conclusions

DOD has not clarified the precise scope of DPMO’s roles and missions. Moreover, 

the recently issued strategic plan lacks key elements, such as performance metrics 

and linkages between resources and performance goals. As a result, neither the 

Secretary of Defense nor the Congress have sufficient knowledge about how DPMO 

intends to accomplish its current missions or, if it is assigned new missions, how the 

office intends to apportion its resources. Until a formal needs assessment for 

DPMO’s workload is conducted, Congress and DOD cannot make informed decisions 

 

17 GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2005). 
Page 9 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

about what level of resources to assign to DPMO or encourage it to assume additional 

responsibilities, nor can the Secretary of Defense fulfill his statutory responsibility to 

ensure that DPMO has adequate resources. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy to (1) determine the scope of DPMO’s missions and 

responsibilities, and revise DPMO’s charter accordingly; (2) based on the results of 

this determination, undertake a formal needs assessment of DPMO’s workload to 

determine both what resources are needed and how they can best be allocated among 

the various mission areas, taking into account how DPMO fits within the overall 

spectrum of DOD organizations that have accounting or recovery missions; and (3) 

incorporate that information into a revised strategic plan that links goals and 

objectives to performance metrics and resource needs. 

Scope and Methodology 

To identify changes in DPMO’s mission from the inception of the office to the 

present, we interviewed DPMO officials; service representatives in the offices of 

headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.; The Army Adjutant 

General, Alexandria, Virginia; and officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Washington, D.C.; the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy; and the Joint Staff (J-5), Washington, D.C. We also 

conducted telephone interviews with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, 

Honolulu, Hawaii; Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; and 

Navy Personnel Command, Millington, Tennessee. 

To compare DPMO personnel and funding requests with actual personnel and funding 

levels since DPMO’s inception, we interviewed officials in the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Program Analysis and Evaluation and Program 

and Financial Control; Washington Headquarters Services; and the Directorate for 

Administration and Management. We also reviewed personnel and budget data from 

the Defense Manpower Data Center, Future Years’ Defense Program (FYDP), Defense 

Manpower Requirements reports, and DOD Program Budget Decisions and Program 

Decision Memoranda; annual President’s budget requests; and Congressional Budget 

Presentation justification materials. For purposes of assessing actual personnel 

levels, we used end-strength data – that is, the number of personnel who were on 

board as of September 30 of each year, which is the last day of the fiscal year. We 

encountered discrepancies in the data when comparing different sources’ information 

for both civilian and military actual (on-board) personnel, and so although our chart 

is correct to the extent possible using official DOD sources, we cannot be sure that 

each data point represents the exact end-strength for each year. However, any errors 

are modest, given the low total numbers involved. To assess funding levels for 

military personnel, we used FYDP data. This database provides information that is 

calculated according to the number of personnel and whether they are officers or 

enlisted, rather than by adding up the compensation of each individual who occupied 

a particular position for all or part of the year. We determined that the reliability of 

these data was sufficient for our purposes. 
Page 10 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

To assess the extent to which DOD has evaluated any need for adjustment in staffing 

or funding levels given changes in DPMO’s mission, we interviewed officials at 

DPMO, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Program Analysis 

and Evaluation, and the Research and Studies Office within the office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy. We obtained and analyzed reports on DPMO’s 

structure, staffing, and resource needs. We reviewed reports that were prepared 

within DOD, such as the Directorate for Administration and Management’s 1998 

staffing study and Army Manpower Analysis Agency’s 1999 study, and external 

reports, such as the Institute for Defense Analyses’ 2004 report on creating a 

personnel recovery architecture. 

 

We performed our work from January 2005 through June 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report and concurred with each of 

our recommendations. 

With regard to our first recommendation that DOD determine the scope of DPMO’s 

mission and responsibilities and revise DPMO’s charter accordingly, DOD stated that 

a revised charter directive reflecting DPMO’s responsibilities and functions should be 

published later this summer. 

With regard to our second recommendation that DOD undertake a formal needs 

assessment of DPMO’s workload to determine what resources are needed and how 

they should be allocated, DOD stated that DPMO has contracted with the Institute for 

Defense Analyses to develop an overall organizational plan for the personnel 

accounting mission that unifies DOD’s personnel accounting efforts. DOD also stated 

that this study would not be completed until September 30, 2006 and any changes 

“would not be implemented until after it is reviewed, changes proposed and decisions 

implemented, a time-consuming process. Consequently, DOD will weigh the costs 

and benefits of conducting a needs assessment now versus waiting until after the 

community is reorganized.” We believe that, given DOD’s statement that the 

directive outlining DPMO’s responsibilities and functions should be published later 

this summer, DOD has sufficient basis for conducting a needs assessment in the near 

term. We note that DPMO has not been subject to a comprehensive assessment of its 

workload and resources in its 12 years of existence. Should the ongoing study result 

in changes affecting DPMO, DOD could then reexamine DPMO’s needs and make 

adjustments accordingly. 

With regard to our third recommendation that, after a formal needs assessment is 

done, DOD revise DPMO’s strategic plan to link goals and objectives to performance 

metrics and resource needs, DOD stated that DPMO is currently developing an 

implementation plan that would link the strategic plan’s goals and objectives to 

performance metrics and resource expenditures. We continue to believe that a 

formal needs assessment must be done to determine DPMO’s resource requirements, 

based on DPMO’s stated mission and responsibilities in the charter directive being 

finalized, before this information can be linked in any meaningful way to the goals 

and objectives in a strategic plan. 
Page 11 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

DOD also provided technical comments on the report and we made changes where 

appropriate. We have reprinted DOD’s comments in enclosure II. 

——————————————————————— 

Should you or your staff have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

9619. 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 were 

Ann Borseth, Jonathan Clark, Sally Newman, Paul Newton, Maria-Alaina Rambus, 

Cheryl Weissman, John Van Schaik, and R.K. Wild. 

Sharon L. Pickup 

Director, Defense 

 Capabilities and Management 

Enclosures 
Page 12 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

1

Observations: Defense Prisoner of 

War/Missing Personnel Office 

(DPMO)

Briefing to 

Senate and House Armed Services 

Committees
Page 13 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

2

Mandate and GAO Objectives

PL 108-375, Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, requires GAO 

to assess DPMO’s mission, personnel, and funding.

GAO’s objectives are to:

• Identify changes in DPMO’s mission from the inception of the 

office in 1993 to the present; 

• Compare DPMO personnel and funding requests with actual 

personnel and funding levels since inception, and whether 

actual levels met congressional minimum levels; and

• Assess the extent to which DOD has evaluated any need for 

adjustment in personnel and/or funding levels given changes 

in DPMO’s mission.
Page 14 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

3

Observations

• DPMO was originally established to account for missing personnel from 

Vietnam and, to a lesser extent, the Cold War. However, the mission has 

expanded to include accounting for missing personnel from past conflicts 

as well as becoming DOD’s principal policy and oversight office for 

personnel recovery.

• Total personnel and current-dollar funding requests and actual levels have 

increased slightly since DPMO’s inception.

– DOD did not meet P.L. 107-314 requirement to sustain actual 

personnel at the FY 2003 President’s Budget level (69 civilian/46 

military) in FY 2003 and FY 2004, and missed the funding target 

($15,974,000) in FY 2004 and FY 2005.

• DPMO has not been subject to a formal needs assessment since 1998. 

DPMO’s recent strategic plan set goals and objectives, but did not quantify 

personnel needs. New draft directive codifies scope of DPMO’s 

responsibilities, but DPMO has not quantified how many staff will be 

needed.
Page 15 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

4

Background: Origin of DPMO

• Established on

July 16, 1993, by

DOD directive.

• Four existing offices 

combined to create 

DPMO. These offices 

worked to resolve 

cases from Russia 

and Southeast Asia.

• Personnel and 

funding transferred 

from component 

offices to DPMO.

DIA Special

Office for

POW/MIA

ASD (C3I)

Central

Documentation

Office

DASD

(POW/MIA

Affairs)

Army Task

Force

Russia

DPMO
Page 16 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

5

Background: DOD Components Sharing 

Recovery and/or Accounting Mission

X X Recovery 

operations

X X

Survival, Evasion, 

Resistance, 

Escape Policy

X X Personnel

Recovery Policy

Family Support X X X

X X X

Missing Personnel 

policy (past and 

current)

X X Mortuary

Affairs

Casualty support X X

Joint Personnel 

Recovery Agency 

(Joint Forces 

Command)

Joint POW/MIA 

Accounting Command

(Pacific Command)

Service Casualty

Offices

Military Community & Family Policy

(Personnel and 

Readiness)

Mission DPMO

Source: GAO Analysis of DOD Data.
Page 17 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

6

Background: Total Personnel 

Unaccounted For (as of July 2005)

• World War II

• Korea/Cold War

• Vietnam War

• Gulf War

• Current Conflicts

(to include Colombia, OIF/OEF)

Source: DPMO

about 78,000

more than 8,300

more than1,800

3

12
Page 18 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

7

DPMO Mission Requirements

1991

P.L. 102-190

Requires DOD to 

create library on 

Vietnam POW/MIA’s 

for families.

Applicable 

Laws

Changes in 

DPMO 

Responsibilities

1990 1995 2000 2005

1993

DOD establishes DPMO and 

assigns it policy, 

representational, analytic, 

research, and intelligence 

missions pertaining to 

POW/MIA accounting.

1994

P.L. 103-337

Requires DOD to 

designate a single 

office to contact Korean 

War and Cold War-era 

POW families.

1996

P.L. 104-106

Requires Secretary of Defense

to establish policy office for all

missing personnel matters.

1999

P.L. 106-65

Definition of recovery 

expanded to include certain 

WWII-era servicemen in 

Pacific theater.

2000-2003

DPMO given 

responsibility for 

various aspects of 

recovery and 

accounting.

2003

DPMO to develop policy 

for training for DOD 

civilians, contractors, 

and other personnel.

2005

DOD circulating draft charter 

update to assume all aspects of 

recovery and accounting.

1996 

Secretary of Defense assigns live 

recovery policy and accounting 

for Korean War missing to DPMO.

Source: GAO analysis of public laws and DOD directives/instructions. 
Page 19 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

8

Total Personnel

• After the initial consolidation of offices into DPMO

• Personnel numbers requested have fluctuated over time due to civilian downsizing and uncertainty of 

military positions. 

• Actual total personnel numbers have increased slightly.

• P.L. 107-314 established minimum requirements for 

personnel for DPMO at the level of the FY03 President’s 

Budget request, which were set at 69 civilians and 46 

military.
Page 20 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

9

Civilian Personnel: Comparison of 

Requested and Actual Personnel Levels

• DPMO started with 122 

positions (some vacant) in 

August 1993, but many staff 

remained with original 

agencies.

• Personnel levels decreased 

over time due to overall DOD 

downsizing.

• P.L. 107-314 established 

personnel level of 69 civilians 

as a minimum. Actual levels 

were about 6 percent less--65 

civilians in FY2003 and FY 

2004.

• Civilian totals exclude 29 

information technology support 

contractors on-board since 

2000 and small numbers of 

intermittent contractors.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Requested Actual 

Sources: President’s Budget Requests and justification books, Program Budget 

Decisions, Defense Manpower Data Center SR-113 pay records.

Number of civilian personnel
Page 21 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Requested Actual

Military Personnel: Comparison of 

Requested and Actual Personnel Levels

• At inception, DPMO had few 

permanent military positions.

• Requests for military positions 

fluctuated due to uncertainty of 

authorization of 27 temporary 

military positions.

• P.L. 107-314 established 

minimum requirement for 

military positions. DOD 

confirmed congressional 

direction that requirement is 46.

• In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 

actual levels (32 and 29 

respectively) did not meet 

minimum. Actual levels depend 

on availability of military 

personnel.

Number of military personnel

Sources: President’s Budget requests and justification books, Future Years Defense 

Program (FYDP).
Page 22 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

11

O&M Funding: Comparison of 

Requested and Actual Levels

Sources: President’s Budget Request, Future Years Defense Program. Actual data for 

FY94-95 not available.

10

12

14

16

18

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Requested Actual 

Current dollars in millions • DPMO’s overall Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) 

funding request initially 

decreased, but then steadily 

increased, in current dollars, 

from about $15.5 million in 

FY 1994 to almost $16 

million in FY 2005. 

• P.L. 107-314 requires DOD 

to maintain DPMO funding at 

least at level of FY 2003 

President's Budget ($15.974 

million).

• DOD met target in FY03, but 

requested and received 

slightly less funding in FY04 

and FY05. 
Page 23 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

12

Military Personnel Funding: Comparison 

of Requested and Actual Levels

• DPMO gets no military 

personnel funding; services 

pay those costs.

• Requested military personnel 

funding has fluctuated because 

of the uncertainty of 

authorization of 27 temporary 

military positions.

• Actual military personnel costs 

have fluctuated due in large 

part to the number of 

authorized positions filled.

• At times, actual is greater than 

requested because the 27 

temporary positions were 

reauthorized too late to be 

reflected in a request.

1

2

3

4

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Requested Actual

Current dollars in millions

Source: GAO analysis of President's Budget Request and Future Years Defense 

Program. Data for 1994-1995 are unavailable.
Page 24 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

13

DPMO Actual Funding by Account, in 

Constant FY2005 Dollars

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

O&M

Military 

Personnel

Total

Dollars in millions

Source: Future Years Defense Program.
Page 25 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

14

DOD Evaluation of Personnel and 

Funding Needs

• OSD’s Directorate for Administration and Management study done in 1998 

acknowledged DPMO’s need for more resources, but recommended that DPMO 

make maximum use of existing resources.

• DPMO-sponsored studies concluded that DPMO needed more resources, but did 

not conduct formal needs assessments.

– Army Manpower Analysis Agency, 1999

• Study to determine combined personnel needs if DPMO were to absorb 

Army Central Identification Laboratory and Joint Task Force Full Accounting. 

• DPMO has not absorbed these organizations.

– Interagency National Personnel Recovery Architecture, 2004

• Study was funded by Congress and conducted by Institute for Defense 

Analyses.

• Recommended increasing personnel subject to issuance of new National

Security Presidential Directive.

• OSD’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation sought unsuccessfully in 2003 to 

initiate comprehensive needs assessment.
Page 26 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure I 

15

DOD Evaluation of Personnel and 

Funding Needs (cont.)

• DPMO issued Strategic Plan in January 2005 that set forth goals and 

objectives, but not metrics for personnel needs.

• DOD is currently reviewing a draft update to the DPMO directive that 

codifies its roles and missions, to include:

– Central management, policy control, and oversight of the entire process for 

investigation and recovery related to personnel missing as a result of hostile 

action.

• includes: repatriation/reintegration; non-conventional assisted recovery; 

combat search and rescue; survival, evasion, resistance, and escape 

(SERE); operational POW/missing personnel matters; isolated personnel 

training and training on related matters such as Code of Conduct; and DOD 

support to civil search and rescue.

• DPMO has not quantified how many staff will be needed nor determined 

how to allocate resources to meet these responsibilities.
Page 27 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 

Comments from the Department of Defense 
Page 28 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 
Page 29 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 
Page 30 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 
Page 31 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 
Page 32 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 
Page 33 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 
Page 34 GAO-05-756R Defense Management 

Enclosure II 

(350632) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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.