United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

June 1998 DEFENSE

INFRASTRUCTURE

Central Training

Funding Projected to

Remain Stable During

1997-2003

GAO/NSIAD-98-168

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-278555 

June 30, 1998

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) budget request for fiscal year 1999

includes about $20.1 billion (in fiscal year 1998 dollars) for formal training

and education of military and civilian personnel, referred to as central

training, or about 8 percent of DOD’s fiscal year 1999 budget. Central

training is the third largest of eight DOD infrastructure categories, and

accounts for 14.4 percent of the $139.6 billion (in fiscal year 1998 dollars)

that the Department has budgeted for infrastructure in fiscal year 1999.1

Because central training activities represent a significant part of DOD’s

infrastructure, you requested that we identify trends in central training

funding and causes for those trends. You also requested that we identify

DOD’s initiatives to reduce central training funding requirements or

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of central training programs and

DOD’s management of those initiatives.

Our work was based primarily on data from the fiscal year 1998 and earlier

Future Years Defense Programs (FYDP) because the fiscal year 1999 FYDP

did not become available until after we had completed our detailed

analyses. Our preliminary analysis of the fiscal year 1999 FYDP identified

significant reductions in central training infrastructure funding. We believe

this report represents an excellent baseline to evaluate projected changes

in the central training infrastructure budget resulting from DOD’s 1997

Quadrennial Defense Review and DOD cost saving initiatives. We plan to

further analyze the changes in the fiscal year 1999 FYDP, determine DOD’s

rationale for them, and determine DOD’s plans for implementing these

changes.

This report highlights trends in the central training infrastructure that

Congress can use in its deliberations on the Defense budget and the

direction of Defense central training programs and initiatives. We present

service trends and their explanations for those trends. We did not validate

1

DOD defines infrastructure as activities that provide support services to mission programs and

primarily operate from fixed locations. The other infrastructure categories are installation support;

acquisition infrastructure; central logistics; central medical; central personnel; central command,

control, and communications; and force management.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

the services’ explanations for the trends, although they generally appear to

be consistent with the trends. Nor did we compare trends across the

services because the training categories do not contain the same programs

and activities within each service, and this might distort the comparisons.

Background Since its Bottom-Up Review in 1993, DOD has repeatedly stated that it must

reduce its infrastructure to offset the cost of future modern weapon

systems. Our analysis of DOD’s FYDPs for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998

showed that DOD continued to allocate about the same percentage of its

budget for infrastructure activities as it did at the time of the Bottom-Up

Review and that planned funding increases for weapon systems had

repeatedly been shifted further into the future with each succeeding FYDP.

2

In its May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD recognized

that the downsizing of its infrastructure had fallen behind the downsizing

of its force structure. In that report, DOD proposed some actions to reduce

its infrastructure, including personnel reductions, base closures and

realignments to reduce additional excess facilities, and streamlined

operations. Actions and initiatives as a result of the Quadrennial Defense

Review were to be reflected in the fiscal year 1999 budget and FYDP for

fiscal years 1999-2003.

Central training programs include individual training activities such as

new personnel training, skill and proficiency training, initial pilot and

navigator training, management of the central training system, and the

support of central training installations. These programs provide training

for active military personnel, reserve component personnel, and DOD

civilians. These programs are categorized by DOD for budgetary purposes

as follows: (1) administrative support, (2) installation support,

(3) command managed training programs, (4) general central training,

(5) training of new personnel, (6) officer training and academies,

(7) aviation and flight training, and (8) professional and skill training.

Although DOD categorizes health personnel training in its central medical

infrastructure category, we included it in our analysis because it is nonunit

training. The central training categories are described in appendix I.

2

Future Years Defense Program: DOD’s 1998 Plan Has Substantial Risk in Execution

(GAO/NSIAD-98-26, Oct. 23, 1997); Future Years Defense Program: Lower Inflation Outlook Was Most

Significant Change From 1996 to 1997 Program (GAO/NSIAD-97-36, Dec. 12, 1996); Defense

Infrastructure: Costs Projected to Increase Between 1997 and 2001 (GAO/NSIAD-96-174, May 31, 1996);

and Future Years Defense Program: 1996 Program Is Considerably Different From the 1995 Program

(GAO/NSIAD-95-213, Sept. 15, 1995).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Most central training activities are managed by the services’ major training

commands and conducted at the commands’ training installations.

According to DOD and service training officials, although these commands

do not manage the military personnel appropriations portion of central

training funds (used for instructor and student salaries), the commands

are responsible for course operations (i.e. the development of course

curricula, course books and supplies, etc.); the maintenance of training

facilities; and the administration of the training programs.

Central training is different from unit mission training. Unit mission

training is undertaken by operational units to maintain the units’ required

readiness in their primary combat, combat support, or combat service

support missions. Central training is the training of individual military

members in formal courses.

The services consider a number of factors in formulating their central

training requirements. Factors include projected authorized end strength,

losses in each occupational specialty/category by grade and years in grade,

accessions, promotions, and reenlistments. Therefore, a change in end

strength levels may not lead to a proportional change in training

requirements. For example, higher than expected separation rates may

require increased training requirements despite programmed lower

personnel levels. The services compile “training workload” to determine

resources (people, funds, material, and facilities) required to conduct

training. Training workload measures the output (work years) of the

services’ institutional training programs.

Most funds for central training are derived from DOD’s military personnel

and operation and maintenance appropriation categories. Appendix II

describes the distribution of funds for each training category.

Results in Brief Funding for central training activities declined between fiscal year 1992

and 1997 by almost $4.5 billion.3

 A combination of factors led to this

decline. During this period, the services reduced accessions to meet

lowered personnel levels, closed and consolidated training installations,

and outsourced base maintenance. Decreases in Navy and Army central

training programs accounted for about 90 percent of the decline.

3

Unless otherwise stated, the dollar values shown in this report are in constant 1998 dollars and on a

fiscal year basis.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

No additional funding decline was programmed through 2003 in the 1998

FYDP. From 1997 through 2003, funds were projected to remain stable at

about $21.5 billion. Hence, DOD did not project further savings from this

infrastructure category to help pay the cost of future modern weapon

systems.

The projected stability in overall funding after 1997 was primarily a result

of several projections, including (1) relatively steady state military

personnel levels; (2) relatively steady state accessions after having

increased considerably at the end of the earlier period; (3) continued

funding declines in professional and skill training, installation support, and

the training of new personnel; and (4) funding increases in command

managed training and aviation and flight training. The Navy and the Army

accounted for most of the projected decrease in the professional and skill

training category. The Navy transferred funding for several programs from

this category to the command managed training category and reduced

workloads. The Army planned to consolidate and restructure professional

and skill training courses to reduce training time and expand the use of

technology. Installation support for all of the services was projected to be

lower in 2003 than in 1997 because they planned to continue to outsource

and replace military personnel with civilians to perform base maintenance.

The projected funding increases were due primarily to projected increases

in aviation training workload for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army,

and the purchases of the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System by the Air

Force and the Navy.

Funding for central training was highly concentrated in three training

categories—professional and skill training, command managed training,

and installation support. These three categories received and were

projected to receive almost two-thirds of DOD’s central training funds over

the 1992-2003 period. Funding for all three categories declined through

1997. Although funding was projected to continue to decline for

professional and skill training and installation support, funding for

command managed training was projected to increase because of growth

in Air Force and Navy programs.

The Army had the largest share of training funds, about one-third of the

total. The Air Force was projected to overtake the Navy in 1998 for the

second largest share of training funds. The Air Force’s share was projected

to grow because its training budgets were projected to increase while the

Navy’s budgets were projected to continue to decline. According to Air

Force training officials, the projected growth in the Air Force budget was

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

due primarily to increases in pilot accessions that resulted in increases in

aviation and flight and command managed training. The Marine Corps’

share of training funds has been and was projected to be less than

10 percent.

DOD and the services have programs and initiatives to improve the quality

of training and bring about greater efficiency in training programs. These

efforts are designed to consolidate intra- and inter-service courses;

improve the effectiveness of instruction through computer-based training

and distance learning (i.e. structured training that can take place almost

anywhere and anytime without the physical presence of an instructor);

and foster cooperation with the private sector to accelerate the

applications of new learning technologies. DOD and the services have not

projected the total investment required for these initiatives or the total

savings that might accrue from them. Both could be substantial. According

to the services, these initiatives will require upfront investments, and

savings may occur later, some beyond 2003. For example, DOD estimates

that service investments in distance learning could reach $2 billion by

2007. The Army estimates that it will achieve over $900 million in savings

and cost avoidances by 2010 through its distance learning efforts.

Historically, the military services have managed training initiatives, but the

Office of the Secretary of Defense is now assuming a greater role. The

Office has endorsed the Army’s distance learning plan as a model for all of

the services. It has also led the Advanced Distributed Learning program

from its genesis to identify and promote collaborative opportunities within

DOD as well as with the private sector, other federal agencies, and

educational institutions.

Funding and

Personnel Levels

Declined Through

1997 but Were

Projected to Remain

Stable Thereafter

Funds for central training declined $4.5 billion, or 17.3 percent, between

1992 and 1997. Most of this decline, $3.2 billion, or 12.4 percent, occurred

between 1992 and 1993. From 1997 through 2003, funds were projected to

average about $21.5 billion. Military personnel levels decreased by

19.4 percent during the 1992-97 period. As with funding, military personnel

levels were projected to remain stable through 2003. (See fig. 1.)

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 1: Annual DOD Central Training Funding and Personnel Levels for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Dollars Personnel (in millions)

Training funds Active military Reserve component

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Three Training

Categories Received

Majority of Funds

Three training categories—professional and skill training, command

managed training, and installation support—received and were projected

to receive over 60 percent of DOD’s annual central training funds over the

1992-2003 period. This concentration continued despite a projected

19.6-percent decline in funds for these categories over the period. Figure 2

shows the distribution of funds by category for 1998.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 2: Distribution of Central Training Funds by Training Category for 1998

Admin Support

Installation Support

Cmd Managed Trng

Gen Cent Trng Activ

alth Personnel Trn

Personnel

rng/Academ

Aviation/Flight Trng

Prof/Skill Trng

1.2%

15.8%

16.1%

3.2%

5.0%

11.0%

4.8%

11.4%

31.4%

Command managed training 16.1%

Installation support for training 15.8%

Administrative support for training 1.2%

Professional and skill training 31.4%

Aviation and flight training 11.4%

Officer training and academies 4.8%

Training of new personnel 11.0%

Health personnel training 5.0%

General central training activities 3.2%

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The annual funding levels for the three largest training categories are

shown in figure 3.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 3: Annual Funding for Three Largest Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Dollars

Professional and

skill training

Command managed 

training programs

Installation support 

for training

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The professional and skill training category was projected to receive

almost one-third, about $7 billion, of central training funds in 1998.

Funding for this category was at its highest level in 1992, $8.3 billion, and

was projected to decline by over 20 percent to $6.6 billion by 2003. Most of

this decline, 18.6 percent, occurred between 1992 and 1995.

Command managed training was projected to receive, on average, about

16.3 percent of central training funds. Other than a 9.1-percent funding

increase in 1995, funding for this category fell 20.5 percent from $4 billion

to $3.2 billion between 1992 and 1997. Funding was expected to grow to

$3.6 billion, or by 11.7 percent, between 1997 and 2001, and stabilize at

that level through 2003.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Installation support received 15.8 percent, $3.4 billion, of training funds in

1998. Between 1992 and 2003, annual funding for this category was

expected to fall almost 25.8 percent, from $4.2 billion to $3.1 billion,

respectively. This was the largest percentage decrease of these three

training categories, and according to the services, this decrease resulted

from base closures and increased outsourcing of support functions. For

example, the Navy closed recruit training centers at Orlando, Florida, and

San Diego, California, and the Air Force will contract maintenance at

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, by 2000.

The next two largest training categories, aviation and flight training and

training of new personnel, accounted for about 23 percent, on average, of

central training funds between 1992 and 2003. As figure 4 shows, annual

funding for aviation and flight training decreased from $3.2 billion to

$2.3 billion, 26.9 percent, during the 1992 and 1996 period and, thereafter,

was projected to grow to $2.8 billion, by 18.6 percent, through 2003. The

Air Force and the Army accounted for the majority of the growth with

planned funding increases of 46.7 and 18.6 percent, respectively, between

1996 and 2003. Funding for the training of new personnel was expected to

decline by 12.8 percent over the 1992-2003 period, but annual funding

levels fluctuated significantly. For example, funding declined 26.6 percent

between 1992 and 1995, but grew almost 30 percent over the 1995-97

period. The decline was due to a reduction in personnel levels, and the

increase was due to a growth in accessions to meet end strength goals.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 4: Annual Funding for Two Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Dollars

Aviation and flight training Training of new personnel

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The four remaining categories—health personnel training, officer training

and academies, general central training, and administrative support for

training—accounted for less than 15 percent of central training funds in

1998. Figure 5 shows the annual funding levels for these categories.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 5: Annual Funding for Four Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Dollars

Administrative support 

for training

General central 

training activities

Health personnel 

training

Officer training 

and academies

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Army Had Largest

Share of Training

Funds and Air Force

Projected to Overtake

Navy for Second

Largest Share

The Army had the largest portion of central training funds over the

1992-2003 period—about one-third of the total. Although the Navy

received 30 percent of the training funds and the Air Force received

23 percent in 1992, by 1998, the Air Force’s portion was projected to

increase to 27 percent, and the Navy’s portion was projected to decrease

to 25 percent. The shift occurred because the Air Force’s funding level fell

9 percent while the Navy’s fell 30.1 percent between 1992 and 1997. The

Air Force was the only service that projected an increase in funding from

1997 to 2003. The Marine Corps’ portion was expected to remain less than

10 percent. Besides being the smallest service, most Marine Corps training,

other than basic military training, is conducted by other military services.

For example, over 60 percent of enlisted skill training and 40 percent of

officer skill training are completed at other service schools. Defense-wide

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

programs accounted for about 6 percent of annual central training funds

after 1993. The military personnel costs associated with Defense-wide

programs are funded by the services. About 85 percent of that funding was

for health personnel training. Figure 6 shows funding by DOD component

for selected years.

Figure 6: Central Training Funding by Component for Selected Years (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1996 1998 2003

0

2

4

6

8

10

Dollars

Army Navy Air Force Marine Corps Defense-wide

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Army Funding

Projected to Remain

Stable After

Substantial Drop

The Army’s central training funds for 2003 were projected to be about 

22 percent below 1992 levels. Most of the decline occurred from 1992

through 1994 when funding dropped from $9.2 billion to $7 billion and

military personnel levels also fell sharply.4

 Figure 7 shows funding and

personnel levels for the 1992-2003 period.

4

Unless otherwise stated, our reference to military personnel includes active military and reserve

component personnel.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 7: Army Training Funds and Personnel Levels for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

200

400

600

800

Dollars Personnel (in thousands)

Training funds Active military Reserve component

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Three training categories—professional and skill training, installation

support, and training of new personnel—consistently commanded the

majority of the Army’s central training funds and accounted for over

79 percent of those funds in 1998, as shown in figure 8. Appendix III

provides a detailed analysis of Army funding trends by training category.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 8: Distribution of Army Central Training Funds by Training Category for 1998

Admin Support

Installation Support

Gen Cent Trng Activ Cmd Managed Trng

sonnel

em

ght Trn

Prof/Skill Trng

1.8%

21.8%

5.5% 1.8%

19.7%

5.4%

6.4%

37.6%

Command managed training 1.8%

Installation support for training 21.8%

Administrative support for training 1.8%

Professional and skill training 37.6%

Aviation and flight training 6.4%

Officer training and academies 5.4%

Training of new personnel 19.7%

General central training activities 5.5%

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The largest of the Army’s funding decline was in installation support.

According to Army training officials, the decline reflected savings from

efficiency efforts such as outsourcing/privatizing installation support

functions and upgrading installation utilities. After 1995, the Army

transferred 80 percent ($600 million) of the funding in command managed

training to operating forces, which accounted for the substantial decline in

its command managed category. The Army held accession rates below

what was required to maintain a level end strength between fiscal 

year 1992 and 1995, which contributed to the decline in the following

categories: training of new personnel, officer training and academies,

professional and skill training, and aviation and flight training. Accession

rates subsequently increased, which led to a substantial increase in the

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

funding for the training of new personnel. The Army is implementing new

distance learning technology and the Total Army School System, which the

service considers essential to improving readiness and reducing training

costs.

Navy Projected

Substantial Decline in

Training Funds

Funding for the Navy’s central training was projected to decline by about

$2.7 billion (34 percent) over the 1992-2003 period. Most of this decline,

which was the largest of any service, occurred from 1992 to 1997 when

funding slipped by over 30 percent. As figure 9 shows, the decline in funds

followed the decline in personnel.

Figure 9: Navy Training Funds and Personnel Levels for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

2

4

6

8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Dollars Personnel (in thousands)

Training funds Active military Reserve component

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Three training categories, professional and skill training, command

managed training, and aviation and flight training, consistently

commanded the majority of the Navy’s central training funds. These

categories accounted for about 73 percent of the Navy’s central training

funds in 1998, as shown in figure 10. Appendix IV provides a detailed

analysis of Navy funding trends by training category.

Figure 10: Distribution of Navy Central Training Funds by Training Category for 1998

Admin Support

Installation Support

Cmd Managed Trng 

n Cent Trng Activ

Personnel

adem

Flight Trng

Prof/Skill Trng

0.4%

13.8%

22.6%

2.9%

4.8%

5.6%

17.6%

32.2%

Command managed training 22.6%

Installation support for training 13.8%

Administrative support for training 0.4%

Professional and skill training 32.2%

Aviation and flight training 17.6%

Officer training and academies 5.6%

Training of new personnel 4.8%

General central training activities 2.9%

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The majority of the Navy’s funding decline was in the professional and

skill training category, which was funded at about $2.7 billion in 1992 but

was expected to fall to about $1.7 billion in 2003, a 39-percent decline.

Navy training officials stated that the training establishment has

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

undergone significant changes in the 1990s as a result of decreases in end

strength and force structure. End strength decreased by 29.7 percent. Also,

several training commands or training courses have been consolidated or

eliminated and new technologies have been incorporated in the Navy’s

schools to more efficiently use scarce training resources.

Despite the overall continued decline in projected funding for most Navy

central training programs throughout the period we reviewed, funding for

aviation and flight and command managed training was projected to grow

after 1998. Funding for aviation and flight training was projected to

increase by 8.7 percent ($82.9 million) between 1996 and 2001 due in part

to procurement of new training aircraft and increased training workload.

Annual command managed training funding was projected to grow by

7.5 percent ($86.2 million) between 1997 and 2001 as a result of increased

costs for aviation depot level repairables and the transfer of new programs

into this category from the professional and skill training category.

Air Force Funding

Level Projected to Be

About the Same in

2003 as in 1992

Although the Air Force’s funding for central training has fluctuated over

the years, it was projected to be at the same level in 2003 as it was in 1992,

about $6 billion. During this period, personnel levels were projected to

decline by 18.8 percent. The Air Force was the only service that projected

higher funding for training in 2003 than in 1997. Figure 11 shows the

funding and military personnel levels.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 11: Air Force Training Funds and Personnel Levels for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

100

200

300

400

500

Dollars Personnel (in thousands)

Training funds Active military Reserve component

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

In 1998, almost 90 percent of the Air Force’s central training funds were

programmed for four categories: command managed training, professional

and skill training, aviation and flight training, and installation support, as

shown in figure 12. Appendix V provides a detailed analysis of Air Force

funding trends by training category.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 12: Distribution of Air Force Central Training Funds by Training Category for 1998

Admin Support

Installation Support

Cmd Managed Trng

Activ

nnel

Academ

Aviation/Flight Trng

Prof/Skill Trng

1.9%

14.1%

33.9%

1.1%

3.0%

5.3%

15.7%

25.1%

Command managed training 33.9%

Installation support for training 14.1%

Administrative support for training 1.9%

Professional and skill training 25.1%

Aviation and flight training 15.7%

Officer training and academies 5.3%

Training of new personnel 3.0%

General central training activities 1.1%

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Between 1992 and 1997, central training funding fell by 9 percent,

primarily during the first year we reviewed. During 1992-96, enlisted

workload declined as end strength fell, resulting in decreased funding

levels for the training of new personnel. Installation support fell

8.5 percent between 1992 and 1996 due to the closure of two technical

training bases and two flying training wings in 1993 and 1994. In addition,

aviation and flight training declined 31 percent since the Air Force had to

train fewer pilots during this period as it drew pilots out of its excess pilot

inventory. Offsetting some of this decline were some significant increases

in other categories. For example, professional and skill training funding

increased 10.7 percent between 1993 and 1996. In fiscal year 1992, the Air

Force initiated servicewide improvements in its training establishment,

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

called the “Year of Training” initiatives. These initiatives, most of which

were implemented beginning in fiscal year 1994, required additional

funding for professional and skill training above prior year levels to

develop new courses, and cover additional student workloads.

Funding for the training of new personnel and officer training and

academies was projected to increase during the 1997-2003 period because

the Air Force increased enlisted personnel accessions annually after 1996,

and officer accessions after 1994. According to the Air Force, during the

force drawdown, the service did not access enough personnel to meet

outyear end strength requirements. Also, retention rates decreased,

especially for pilots, resulting in significant projected funding increases for

aviation and flight (32.9 percent) and command managed (16.6 percent)

training.

Marine Corps Funding

Projected to Be Only

Slightly Higher in 2003

Than in 1992

The Marine Corps’ level of annual central training funding was projected

to increase 1.1 percent over the 12 years we reviewed. Between 1992 and

1997, the Marine Corps individual training funding grew 2 percent, while

its end strength fell 4.9 percent as shown in figure 13. After fiscal

year 1997, funding was planned to fall about 1 percent as personnel levels

stabilized.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 13: Marine Corps Training Funds and Personnel Levels for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

50

100

150

200

Dollars Personnel (in thousands)

Training funds Active military Reserve component

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

In fiscal year 1998, over two-thirds of the Marine Corps’ central training

funding was planned to pay for professional and skill training

(39.8 percent) and training of new personnel (27.6 percent), as shown in

figure 14. Appendix VI provides a detailed analysis of Marine Corps

funding trends by training category.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Figure 14: Distribution of Marine Corps Central Training Funds by Training Category for 1998

Admin Support

Installation Support

Cmd Managed Trng Gen Cent Trng Activ

ersonnel

adem

ght Trng

Prof/Skill Trng

0.1%

13.9%

8.8%

4.2%

27.6%

1.6%

4.0%

39.8%

Command managed training 8.8%

Installation support for training 13.9%

Administrative support for training 0.1%

Professional and skill training 39.8%

Aviation and flight training 4.0%

Officer training and academies 1.6%

Training of new personnel 27.6%

General central training activities 4.2%

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The slight growth in the Marine Corps’ central training funding was due to

a planned increase in enlisted turnover rates, resulting in increased annual

accession requirements. This increase in accessions was reflected in the

23-percent increase in funding for the training of new personnel over the

1992 to 1997 period. The Marine Corps instituted the Enlisted Career

Force Controls program to achieve equitable promotion opportunity and

control the flow of Marines into the career force structure. In addition, this

program would save personnel costs as the percentage of first-term

Marines increased by about 10 percent to 69 percent of the enlisted force.

Between 1997 and 2003, the Marine Corps’ annual central training funding

was projected to fall by less than 1 percent, even though officer accessions

were planned to increase, and the recruit training program was lengthened

by 1 week.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

Initiatives to Reduce

Training Costs or

Enhance Training

Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

The Secretary of Defense’s April 1997 Annual Report to the President and

the Congress stated that “The key to ensuring a trained, ready force in the

future is to develop ways to train the force in more efficient and less costly

ways.” The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the services have

used and plan to use techniques, such as (1) course consolidations and

more extensive use of technology, in programs and initiatives to bring

about intra- and inter-service course consolidations; (2) computer-based

training and distance learning to improve the efficiency of instruction;

(3) the acquisition of new equipment and technology to support joint

training, interservice training, and reduce the total cost of training; and

(4) private sector cooperation to accelerate the applications of new

learning technologies. See appendix VII for more detail.

Interservice Training

Review Organization

The Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO), an organization of

the military services, was established in 1972 to improve the

cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service training consistent with

individual service requirements. ITRO is a voluntary organization that relies

on mutual agreements between the services for consolidation5

 and/or

collocation6

 of training courses. In 1992, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of

Staff, directed the service chiefs, through ITRO, to take the lead in a Military

Training Structure Review to determine if they could eliminate duplication

in military training and create cost savings. The Review resulted in the

consolidation/collocation of 128 courses from which DOD estimated annual

recurring savings of $8.2 million after a one-time upfront cost of

$9.4 million as courses were converted.7 ITRO is currently focusing on ways

to improve the efficiency/effectiveness of training through more extensive

use of technology and continuing efforts to consolidate courses.

Distance Learning Distance learning initiatives are used to move training and education from

residential training base settings to operating unit levels. Although the

concept of distance learning is not new (e.g., correspondence courses),

the services have recently undertaken efforts to make their training

5

A consolidated school or course has a curriculum developed by two or more services. The school or

course faculty includes fair share instructor representation from all participating services and the host

service. The curriculum may be common throughout or consist of a common core plus service unique

tracks. Training policies, directives, materials, and personnel requirements are determined by mutual

agreement between the services involved.

6

A collocated school or course is used by one or more services on another service’s installation in

which classroom facilities and equipment may be shared. Training policies, curriculum, and instructor

requirements are determined by the service(s) conducting the training.

7

Cost and savings estimates are in fiscal year 1996 dollars.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

programs more cost-effective by incorporating technology into their

training programs. As we reported, although the full scope of the services’

planned distance learning activities has not been identified, OSD officials

estimated in August 1997 that the services would obligate at least

$100 million in 1998 and as much as $2 billion over the next 10 years for

such activities.8

 The Army is the only service that has formally

documented its distance learning plan, which DOD endorsed as a model for

developing and implementing distance learning. Although OSD officials

have actively promoted collaboration among the services, it has not yet

developed a departmentwide strategy to focus service distance learning

efforts. As a result, each of the services currently is pursuing its own

distance learning strategy.

Service Initiatives Each of the military services completed reviews of its training structure to

improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the training of its members.

At the time of our review, the services had not estimated the total costs

nor the savings from these improvements. The Army is consolidating its

training structure for both its active and reserve components into a “Total

Army School System.” The Navy’s Training Baseline Assessment

Memorandum is a plan for investing in new technologies to accommodate

fiscal constraints while, among other things, increasing training

efficiencies. The Air Force implemented its “Year of Training” initiatives

plan between fiscal year 1992 and 1996. The plan restructured the Air

Force’s training establishment to improve the quality of its education and

training programs by consolidating training within the service and

developing additional formal training courses to teach skills rather than

using on-the-job training. The Marine Corps is introducing distance

learning into its training establishment to provide more effective training

with fewer resources, and it plans to build its distance learning program

around currently funded infrastructure upgrades to save money.

Advanced Distributed

Learning

The most recent DOD initiative is Advanced Distributed Learning. DOD

envisions the initiative to be the next generation of more cost-effective

learning technologies. The initiative is intended to accelerate the

application of new learning technologies to reduce the total cost of

training, enhance performance, and maintain readiness. The concept will

exploit network technologies for development, delivery, and management

of education and training. Advanced Distributed Learning envisions a

8

Distance Learning: Opportunities Exist for DOD to Capitalize on Services’ Efforts

(GAO/NSIAD-98-63R, Dec. 18, 1997).

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

partnership among DOD, other federal agencies, private-sector technology

suppliers, the broader education and training community, and industry.

The initiative not only encompasses military training and the development

of job performance aids, but also elementary, high school, university, and

industry education and training. OSD and the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy sponsored a “kick-off” meeting in

November 1997 to form working groups to identify functional

requirements, to determine market requirements, to develop common

technical frameworks, and to identify and prioritize research

requirements. According to OSD training officials, guidelines for the fiscal

year 1999 development and implementation of Advanced Distributed

Learning modules will be published in October 1998.

Conclusions DOD is searching for infrastructure savings to pay for modernization, but it

did not program any savings in central training infrastructure in its fiscal

year 1998 FYDP. The services reduced their central training infrastructure

between 1992 and 1997, and DOD and the services are currently

implementing programs and initiatives to contain or reduce costs further.

Overall central training funding was not projected to continue to decline

because growth in pilot training requirements for the Air Force, the Navy,

and the Army offset decreases in other training categories.

Agency Comments In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred

with the report. DOD made some general observations on central training

funding trends, which we incorporated in the report where appropriate.

DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VIII.

Scope and

Methodology

To identify trends in annual funding for central training and personnel

levels, we analyzed funding and personnel data from the 1998 FYDP for

1997-2003 and data obtained from prior years FYDPs for 1992-96.9

 We did

not test DOD’s management controls of the FYDP data. We adjusted the

nominal dollars to constant 1998 dollars using 1998 DOD inflation indexes.

To identify trends in workload data, we used data contained in each of the

services’ annual Operation and Maintenance Justification of Estimates

budget books submitted to Congress for fiscal years 1994-98. The services

do not project workload past the budget years and told us we should use

the last budget year’s values for the remainder of the period we reviewed.

9

FYDP is the most comprehensive and continuous source of current and historical defense resource

data, and is used by DOD for analytical purposes and for making programming and budgeting

decisions.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

The training programs analyzed were those that DOD categorized as central

training infrastructure and Defense-wide support training mission.

Essentially, we accepted DOD’s allocation of central training infrastructure

programs to the training categories. We assigned defensewide support

training mission programs, including health personnel training, that were

not already categorized as central training infrastructure to the most

appropriate training categories. These Defense-wide support training

mission programs accounted for about 7 percent of the total value of

central training in 1998.

We do not compare the training categories among the services because the

training categories do not contain the same programs and activities within

each service. According to OSD and service training officials, these

differences would distort the comparisons.

To determine the causes for the annual funding and workload trends and

to identify OSD and service efficiency and effectiveness initiatives for

central training programs, we interviewed officials in OSD, and the Army,

the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force headquarters training

divisions and training commands. We did not validate costs and savings

associated with the initiatives. Additionally, we examined numerous DOD

documents, including the Military Manpower Training Report, the Military

Training Structure Review, DOD and service training directives and

instructions, and DOD and service budget documents. We also reviewed

reports that pertained to military training that had been issued by us and

by other organizations. In addition, we provided each of the services with

copies of our data analyses and questions about the trends. We have

included their responses throughout the report, as appropriate.

Our work was conducted from May 1997 through April 1998 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are providing copies of this report to appropriate congressional

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and the

Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of

Management and Budget. We will also provide copies to other interested

parties upon request.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
B-278555 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on

(202) 512-3504. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Davis

Director, National Security

 Analysis

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Central Training

Categories

34

Appendix II 

Two Appropriation

Categories Account

for Most Funds

36

Appendix III 

Analysis of Army

Central Training

Categories

37

Professional and Skill Training and Training of New Personnel 37

Installation Support 40

Aviation and Flight Training 40

Officer Training and Academies 42

General Central Training, Command Managed Training, and

Administrative Support

43

Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy

Central Training

Categories

46

Professional and Skill Training 46

Command Managed Training 47

Aviation and Flight Training 48

Training of New Personnel 49

Installation Support 50

Officer Training and Academies 51

General Central Training and Administrative Support 52

Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force

Central Training

Categories

54

Command Managed Training 54

Professional and Skill Training 55

Aviation and Flight Training 57

Installation Support 59

Officer Training and Academies 61

Training of New Personnel 63

Administrative Support and General Central Training 64

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Contents

Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine

Corps Central

Training Categories

66

Training of New Personnel 66

Professional and Skill Training 67

Installation Support 68

Command Managed Training 70

Aviation and Flight Training 71

Officer Training 72

General Central Training and Administrative Support 73

Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce

Training Costs or

Enhance Training

Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

75

Interservice Training Review Organization 75

Distance Learning 77

Advanced Distributed Learning 80

Appendix VIII 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

82

Appendix IX 

Major Contributors to

This Report

83

Table Table II. 1: Central Training Funding by Training and

Appropriation Category for 1998

36

Figures Figure 1: Annual DOD Central Training Funding and Personnel

Levels for 1992-2003

6

Figure 2: Distribution of Central Training Funds by Training

Category for 1998

7

Figure 3: Annual Funding for Three Largest Central Training

Categories for 1992-2003

8

Figure 4: Annual Funding for Two Central Training Categories for

1992-2003

10

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Contents

Figure 5: Annual Funding for Four Central Training Categories

for 1992-2003

11

Figure 6: Central Training Funding by Component for Selected

Years

12

Figure 7: Army Training Funds and Personnel Levels for

1992-2003

13

Figure 8: Distribution of Army Central Training Funds by

Training Category for 1998

14

Figure 9: Navy Training Funds and Personnel Levels for

1992-2003

15

Figure 10: Distribution of Navy Central Training Funds by

Training Category for 1998

16

Figure 11: Air Force Training Funds and Personnel Levels for

1992-2003

18

Figure 12: Distribution of Air Force Central Training Funds by

Training Category for 1998

19

Figure 13: Marine Corps Training Funds and Personnel Levels for

1992-2003

21

Figure 14: Distribution of Marine Corps Central Training Funds

by Training Category for 1998

22

Figure III.1: Funding and Workload for the Army’s Professional

and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003

38

Figure III.2: Funding and Workload for the Army’s Training of

New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003

39

Figure III.3: Funding for the Army’s Installation Support for

Training for 1992-2003

40

Figure III.4: Funding and Workload for the Army’s Aviation and

Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003

41

Figure III.5: Funding, Workload, and Average Annual ROTC

Enrollment for the Army’s Officer Training and Academy

Programs for 1992-2003

42

Figure III.6: Funding for Three Army Central Training Categories

for 1992-2003

44

Figure IV.1: Funding and Workload for the Navy’s Professional

and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003

47

Figure IV.2: Funding of the Navy’s Command Managed Training

Programs for 1992-2003

48

Figure IV.3: Funding and Workload for the Navy’s Aviation and

Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003

49

Figure IV.4: Funding and Workload for Navy’s Training of New

Personnel Programs for 1992-2003

50

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Contents

Figure IV.5: Funding of the Navy’s Installation Support for

Training for 1992-2003

51

Figure IV.6: Funding and Workload for the Navy’s Officer

Training and Academy Programs for 1992-2003

52

Figure IV.7: Funding for Two Navy Central Training Categories

for 1992-2003

53

Figure V.1: Funding of the Air Force’s Command Managed

Training Programs for 1992-2003

55

Figure V.2: Funding and Workload for the Air Force’s

Professional and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003

56

Figure V.3: Funding and Workload for the Air Force’s Aviation

and Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003

58

Figure V.4: Funding for the Air Force’s Installation Support for

Training for 1992-2003

60

Figure V.5: Funding, Workload, and Average Annual ROTC

Enrollment for the Air Force’s Officer Training and Academy

Programs for 1992-2003

62

Figure V.6: Funding and Workload for the Air Force’s Training of

New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003

64

Figure V.7: Funding for Two Air Force Central Training

Categories for 1992-2003

65

Figure VI.1: Funding and Workload for the Marine Corps’

Training of New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003

67

Figure VI.2: Funding and Workload for the Marine Corps’

Professional and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003

68

Figure VI.3: Funding for the Marine Corps’ Installation Support

for Training for 1992-2003

69

Figure VI.4: Funding for the Marine Corps’ Command Managed

Training Programs for 1992-2003

71

Figure VI.5: Funding for the Marine Corps’ Aviation and Flight

Training Programs for 1992-2003

72

Figure VI.6: Funding and Workload for the Marine Corps’ Officer

Training Programs for 1992-2003

73

Figure VI.7: Funding for Two Marine Corps Central Training

Categories for 1992-2003

74

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Contents

Abbreviations

ADL Advanced Distributed Learning

AFROTC Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps

DOD Department of Defense

FYDP Future Years Defense Programs

ITRO Interservice Training Review Organization

ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I 

Central Training Categories

Central training consists of programs that furnish funding, equipment, and

personnel to provide nonunit, or central training of defense personnel.

Central training activities provide for the training of new personnel,

multiple types of skill and proficiency training, management of the central

training system, and support of central training installations.

Administrative Support: Includes management headquarters and visual

information activities that support central training activities.

Installation Support: Includes base operations and support, real

property maintenance activities, and base communications for central

training infrastructure.

Command Managed Training Programs: Includes nonunit training

activities managed by the operational commands. These activities include

transition training into new weapon systems, supplemental flying to

maintain pilot proficiency, graduate flight training in operational aircraft,

and specialized mission flight training.

General Central Training Activities: Includes general support to the

training establishment and training developments. These resources

provide training aids for troop schools and training schools.

Health Personnel Training: Includes the education and training of

health personnel at military and civilian training institutions, health

professional scholarship programs, University of the Health Sciences, and

other health personnel acquisition programs. Although the Department of

Defense (DOD) categorizes these programs as central medical

infrastructure, we included them in central training because DOD considers

health personnel training a segment of its central training mission.

Training of New Personnel: Includes recruit or accession training and

One-Station Unit Training.

Officer Training and Academies: Includes reserve officer training

corps, other college commissioning programs, officer training schools, and

the service academies.

Aviation and Flight Training: Includes flight screening, undergraduate

pilot training, navigator training, North Atlantic Treaty Organization pilot

training, and procurement of new training aircraft.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I 

Central Training Categories

Professional and Skill Training: Includes academic and professional

military education programs as well as multiple types of skill training. This

category includes DOD’s civilian training, education and development,

language training, undergraduate space training, acquisition training,

general skill training, and other professional education.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II 

Two Appropriation Categories Account for

Most Funds

Most funds for central training were in the military personnel and

operation and maintenance appropriations, 54.7 and 40.1 percent in 1998,

respectively. Military personnel appropriations fund pay and allowances of

instructors, support personnel, students, and trainees. The operation and

maintenance appropriations fund civilian pay and benefits, trainee

support, resident instruction, local preparation of training aids and

training literature, procurement of supplies and equipment, and

contractual services. The other appropriations that fund central training

are military construction; procurement; and research, development, test,

and evaluation. These three were projected to fund only about 5.3 percent

of the total central training budget in 1998.

Four training categories—health personnel training, training of new

personnel, officer training and academies, and professional and skill

training—received most of their funds from military personnel

appropriations. Four other training categories—administrative support,

installation support, command managed training, and general central

training—received most of their funds from operation and maintenance

appropriations. The remaining training category—aviation and flight

training—received over 75 percent of funding from operation and

maintenance and military personnel appropriations, and over 20 percent

from procurement appropriations. Table II.1 shows this distribution for

1998.

Table II. 1: Central Training Funding by Training and Appropriation Category for 1998 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

Appropriation categories

Training categories

Military

construction

Military

personnel

Operation and

maintenance Procurement

Research,

development,

test, and

evaluation

Administrative support $96.1 $170.5

Installation support $224.5 624.9 2,522.9 $1.3

Command managed training 1,277.9 2,050.4 102.9 $20.9

General central training 191.0 484.4 11.1

Health personnel training 827.0 249.2

Training of new personnel 2,289.9 52.8 1.8

Officer training and academies 5.6 614.2 406.3 1.1

Aviation and flight training 2.5 847.6 993.0 506.5 84.9

Profesional and skill training 4,915.1 1,631.0 168.0 1.4

Total $232.6 $11,683.7 $8,560.5 $792.7 $107.2

Source: Our analysis of DOD Future Years Defense Programs (FYDP) data.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

In 1998, the Army programmed approximately $7.3 billion for central

training programs and activities. Most of these programs and activities are

managed by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and are

conducted at Army schools. The following provides a detailed description

of the Army’s funding trends for the training categories.

Professional and Skill

Training and Training

of New Personnel

Funding for the professional and skill training category was projected to

fluctuate between 1992 and 1999, with declines from 1992-94 and

1997-2001 but increases from 1994-97 (see fig. III.1). From 1999 through

2003, funds are projected to stabilize at about $2.6 billion. Funds follow

workload closely except for the 1994-96 period when workload continued

to decline and funding increased. During this period, the Army transferred

Fort Ord, California, from U.S. Army Forces Command to the Army’s

Training and Doctrine Command.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Figure III.1: Funding and Workload for the Army’s Professional and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Funds for the training of new personnel category fluctuated between 1992

and 1999, with declines from 1992-95 and 1997-99 but increases from

1995-97. From 1999 through 2003, funds are projected to stabilize at about

$1.4 billion. Funds appear to follow workload closely, as shown in figure

III.2.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Figure III.2: Funding and Workload for the Army’s Training of New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars

in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Recruit workload OSUT workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Note: Army One-Station Unit Training [OSUT] combines recruit training and initial skill training in

certain skills into a single course conducted by a single training unit at a single training

installation.

According to Army training officials, the jump in funding for these two

categories after 1995 and 1996 was the result of increased accessions to fill

a void left from 1992 to 1995 when the Army held accession rates below

what was required to maintain a level end strength. The lower accession

rate allowed the Army’s end strength to decline to 495,000. The Army later

increased accession rates to maintain a level end strength, which raised

the workload for training of new personnel and professional and skill

training.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Installation Support From 1992 to 2003, installation support funding was projected to decline

by about $634.9 million (31.2 percent), as shown in figure III.3. Funding for

this category declined $432.8 million (21.3 percent) between 1992 and

1993. For the 1994-2003 period, annual funding was planned to fluctuate

slightly between $1.6 and $1.4 billion. Army training officials stated that

the reduction was due to savings resulting from efficiency efforts such as

outsourcing/privatizing installation support functions and upgrading

installation utilities such as central heating plants.

Figure III.3: Funding for the Army’s Installation Support for Training for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Aviation and Flight

Training

Annual funding for the aviation and flight training category decreased

from $620.1 million in 1992 to $461.5 million in 1998, but then increases by

about $163 million (35 percent) through 2002, as shown in figure III.4. The

projected increase is in the procurement accounts.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Figure III.4: Funding and Workload for the Army’s Aviation and Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

The Army projected that the 2003 workload for aviation and flight training

would be 12.9 percent lower than in 1992. Workload decreased between

1992 and 1996, but subsequently increased through 1999. According to

Army training officials, the Army trained fewer pilots than necessary to

sustain level end strengths in the 1992-96 period. During those years, the

workload for aviation and flight training decreased from 1,235 work years

to 955 (a 22.7-percent decline) as shown in figure III.4. After 1996, the

workload was projected to increase to 1,076 work years (12.7 percent). To

compensate for the low accession rates in the earlier years and to sustain

projected end strengths, the Army expects to train more Warrant Officer

pilots.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Officer Training and

Academies

Funding for the officer training and academies category declined from

$447.5 million in 1992 to $381.8 million in 1996, a 14.7-percent decrease.

Afterwards, annual funding was projected to remain relatively constant at

almost $400 million, as shown in figure III.5, to maintain accessions at a

rate that will support the authorized end strength. According to Army

training officials, the funding decreases resulted from lower accession

rates for officers, and a congressionally mandated reduction in U.S.

Military Academy cadet end strength. As shown in figure III.5, workload

for officer training and academies was projected to fall by 541

(11.5 percent) work years from 1992 to 1999. Average Reserve Officer

Training Corps (ROTC) enrollment declined over the 1992-97 period by

3,618 students (8.6 percent).

Figure III.5: Funding, Workload, and Average Annual ROTC Enrollment for the Army’s Officer Training and Academy

Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Dollars Work years/enrollment

Funding Workload ROTC enrollment

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

General Central

Training, Command

Managed Training,

and Administrative

Support

General central training activities, command managed training, and

administrative support for training activities consume the remainder of the

Army’s central training funds (an annual average of 11.5 percent). As

shown in figure III.6, funding for the general central training category

declined from $650.3 million in 1992 to $303.2 million in 1997, a decrease

of 53.4 percent. Subsequently, through 1999, funding was projected to

increase by about $134 million (44 percent) to $437.5 million, before

stabilizing at $431.3 million in 2003. According to Army training officials,

the increase in funds will be used to support the training development of

courseware that supports the Army Distance Learning Plan and to

implement the Total Army School System. The Army considers these

programs essential to improving the readiness of the Army personnel

while reducing training costs.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Figure III.6: Funding for Three Army Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

200

400

600

800

Dollars

Administrative support 

for training

Command managed 

training programs

General central 

training activities

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

From 1992 through 1995, the Army funded command managed training at

levels that ranged from about $574 million to $754 million; afterwards

funding was projected to remain below $150 million, as shown in

figure III.6. According to Army training officials, the decrease resulted

from transferring funds from the central training infrastructure to the

direct support forces infrastructure. These funds were used for combat

training centers, force training support, and combat development

activities.

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Analysis of Army Central Training

Categories

Annual funding for the administrative support category is also shown in

figure III.6. This funding decreased from $133.4 million in 1992 to

$131.2 million in 2003, or about 1.6 percent.

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training Categories

The Navy programmed $5.3 billion of its 1998 budget for central training

programs. Most of these programs, except for graduate pilot training

activities, are managed by the Chief of Naval Education and Training. The

following sections provide a detailed description of the Navy’s funding

trends for the training categories.

Professional and Skill

Training

The majority of the Navy’s central training funding decline was in the

professional and skill training category, which was funded at about

$2.7 billion in 1992 but was expected to fall to about $1.7 in 2003, a decline

of about 39 percent, as shown in figure IV.1. According to Navy training

officials, this reduction in funding resulted from (1) base realignment and

closure actions, which resulted in the closing of major training centers and

consolidating courses,1

 (2) reduced accessions and end strengths, and

(3) the transfer of some advanced skill training courses from this category

to the command managed training category. Over the 1992-2003 period, the

Navy’s workload for this category declined every year except in 1996 for

an overall decrease of 12,157 (35.2 percent) work years, which reflects the

decrease in funding, as shown in figure IV.1.

1

For example, the Navy closed major training centers at Treasure Island, California, Charleston, South

Carolina, and Mare Island, California. The Navy also consolidated air warfare training at Pensacola,

Florida.

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

Figure IV.1: Funding and Workload for the Navy’s Professional and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Command Managed

Training

Between 1992 and 1997, funding for command managed training dropped

by over $300 million, but was projected to increase by about $80 million by

2003, as shown in figure IV.2. According to Navy training officials, the

funding decrease through 1997 resulted from force structure reductions,

which led to a decrease in training workload. This decrease allowed the

Navy to consolidate some training activities. According to the same

officials, the growth in funding after 1997 is related to the transfer of some

courses previously funded under the professional and skill training

category and the expected increased costs for aviation depot level

repairable parts.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

Figure IV.2: Funding of the Navy’s Command Managed Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Aviation and Flight

Training

Funding for the aviation and flight training category was projected to

decline from 1992 to 2003, except for a slight increase in the 1999-2001

period due primarily to growth in operation and maintenance funding

(see fig. IV.3). The funding decline was projected to be 32.2 percent. Navy

training officials stated that an increase in the pilot training rate increases

operation and maintenance requirements. According to the officials, the

pilot training rate had been deliberately set below a level that would

maintain a steady state force structure in order to reduce the number of

aviators in the training pipeline. However, by 1994, the Navy had

determined that the rate was too low and that there were not enough

pilots in training to accommodate increased pilot requirements. Also, the

Navy increased pilot requirements in 1995 by adding two F/A-18

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

squadrons, retaining two F-14 squadrons that had been scheduled for

retirement, and increasing the number of pilots required for P-3 squadrons.

Another factor leading to increased operation and maintenance

requirements was the outsourcing or the conversion of Navy air traffic

controller positions from military to civilian personnel.

Figure IV.3: Funding and Workload for the Navy’s Aviation and Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Training of New

Personnel

Funding for the training of new personnel was projected to fall

$455 million (65.5 percent) between 1992 and 1999, and then to increase

slightly through 2003, as shown in figure IV.4. According to Navy training

officials, the service reduced its end strength for recruit accessions by

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

over 50 percent from 1992 to 2003 and closed two recruit training centers

as a result of base closure and realignment actions,2

 which resulted in the

funding decline. The workload for this category decreased by 

585 work years (6.2 percent) from 1992 to 2003. Between 1992 and 1996,

workload decreased by 1,206 work years (12.8 percent), but after 1996, it

increased by 7.5 percent, as shown in figure IV.4.

Figure IV.4: Funding and Workload for Navy’s Training of New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in

millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

200

400

600

800

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Installation Support Funding for this category was projected to decline by about $227 million

between 1992 and 2003, as shown in figure IV.5. Military personnel and

operation and maintenance funding for the category declined by

2

During this period, the Navy closed recruit training commands, Orlando, Florida, and San Diego,

California, and consolidated recruit training at Great Lakes, Illinois.

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

approximately $174 million and $31 million, respectively. According to

Navy training officials, these decreases resulted from base closure and

realignment actions discussed earlier, civilianization or contracting out of

military billets, and reduced accessions and training requirements.

Figure IV.5: Funding of the Navy’s Installation Support for Training for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Officer Training and

Academies

As shown in figure IV.6, funding for this category was projected to decline

from $371.5 million in 1992 to $277.9 million in 2003, a 25.2-percent

reduction. The largest annual decline (10.7 percent) occurred between

1992 and 1993. For the remainder of the period, the decline was expected

to be gradual. The overall workload for this category was projected to fall

by 1,677 work years (13.6 percent) over the 1992-2003 period, as shown in

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

figure IV.6. This decline was the result of reducing the number of

(1) midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy from 4,500 to 4,000 between

fiscal year 1990 and 1995, as statutorily required and (2) military staff and

military students in other college commissioning programs.

Figure IV.6: Funding and Workload for the Navy’s Officer Training and Academy Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

100

200

300

400

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Officer accession ROTC

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

General Central

Training and

Administrative

Support

The two remaining training categories—general central training and

administrative support—receive only 3.2 percent of average annual Navy

central training funds. Funding for the general central training category

declined from $240.6 million in 1992 to $148 million in 2003. Most of this

decline occurred between 1992 and 1993 ($78.9 million of the total

$92.6 million falloff). For the remainder of the period we reviewed, the

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Analysis of Navy Central Training

Categories

funding level for this category fluctuated. Administrative support was

planned to receive only $23.3 million in 1998, and has averaged less than

one-half of a percent of annual Navy central training funding.

Administrative support programs declined more than 55 percent over the

12 years we reviewed (see fig. IV.7).

Figure IV.7: Funding for Two Navy Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Dollars

General central

training activities

Administrative

support for training

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

In 1998, the Air Force planned to spend approximately $5.8 billion on

individual training programs. Most of these programs, except specific

graduate flight training, supplemental flying to maintain pilot proficiency,

and specialized mission flight training, are managed by the Air Force’s Air

Education and Training Command. The following provides a detailed

description of the Air Force’s funding trends for the training categories.

Command Managed

Training

The majority of funds in the command managed training category are for

graduate flight training, training used to familiarize new crewmembers

with the missions of their operating squadrons, and supplemental flight

training. As shown in figure V.1, funding for this category was projected to

increase from $1.7 billion to $2 billion (15 percent) between 1992 and 2003,

and fluctuate substantially during the 1994 to 1998 period. According to

Air Force training officials, pilots trained during the force structure

drawdown that were excess to the Air Force’s needs were “banked” by

placing them in nonflying positions. During the 1994-96 period, these pilots

were requalified using funds from this category. Pilot production was

reduced, and the drawdown of the banked pilots was accelerated so that

the “bank” was depleted by the end of fiscal year 1996. Beginning in fiscal

year 1998, graduate pilot training workload was projected to increase as a

larger number of pilots complete undergraduate pilot training.

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Figure V.1: Funding of the Air Force’s Command Managed Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Professional and Skill

Training

Funding for the professional and skill training category was projected to

remain relatively stable throughout the period reviewed, as shown in

figure V.2. Although there have been some slight shifts in funding from

year to year, the Air Force projected funding at $1.4 billion for 2003, the

same as the 1992 level. Although the Air Force’s end strength has declined,

and was projected to continue to decline, the student workloads for this

type of training were projected to increase after fiscal year 1996.

According to Air Force training officials, since 1989, Guard and Reserve

training requirements have increased, and the Air Force has taken the lead

in providing training to other servicemembers (3,000 additional students

annually) for such programs as navigator training, fire protection, air base

ground defense, law enforcement and correction, and air intelligence.

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Between 1994 and 1999, the workload for this category was projected to

increase 36.6 percent.

Figure V.2: Funding and Workload for the Air Force’s Professional and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

In fiscal year 1992, the Air Force initiated broad, servicewide

improvements in its training establishment, called the “Year of Training”

initiatives, which helped maintain the stable annual funding level of

professional and skill training between 1992 and 1996 as workload and end

strength fell. The objective of the training restructuring effort was to build

a coherent education and training architecture to improve the quality of

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

education and training programs. Two key components of this plan were

the establishment of an initial and advanced skills training course for each

Air Force specialty. The training restructuring effort required additional

funding above prior year levels to pay for the development of new courses,

increase course frequency, and additional student workloads. According

to the Air Force, centralizing this training has reduced the need for

on-the-job training at operational units and produced more graduates

capable of functioning at the apprentice level upon arrival at their first

duty station.

Aviation and Flight

Training

Funding for aviation and flight training was projected to be at about 

$1.1 billion in 2003, the same level as in 1992, as shown in figure V.3.

Funding fell between 1992 and 1996, from $1.1 billion to $747.2 million, or

about 31 percent, and then increased thereafter. As mentioned previously,

the Air Force had banked pilots in nonflying positions during the force

drawdown. Due to the availability of banked pilots, new pilot production

reached its lowest level since 1950. Flight training workloads fell

32 percent between fiscal year 1992 and 1995, from 1,945 work years to

1,323 work years. According to the Air Force, during this time period, the

Air Force started its new specialized undergraduate pilot training program

and introduced a new flight screening aircraft, both of which lowered total

flight training costs.

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Figure V.3: Funding and Workload for the Air Force’s Aviation and Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in billions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Funding for flight training was projected to increase annually between

1996 and 2003, for a total increase of almost 50 percent to $1.1 billion.

During this period, workload was projected to increase by 40.2 percent.

The closure of the pilot bank in fiscal year 1996, and greater stability in the

force structure, required the Air Force to increase undergraduate pilot

production to maintain a projected force of 14,000 pilots. Also, due to low

retention rates, the Air Force determined that it needed to produce 1,145

pilots annually, but it currently only produces about 650 a year due to

training capacity constraints and instructor pilot shortages. The service

plans to increase the number of pilots trained annually until it reaches its

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

annual goal. Also, as part of the Air Force’s consolidation of training

functions, the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals program was

transferred to the Air Education and Training Command from the Air

Combat Command in 1996. The transfer included aircraft, instructors,

contract support, other manpower support, and supplies/equipment.

Installation Support Funding for installation support for training was projected to fall almost

annually over the 1992 to 1999 period, from $1.1 billion in 1992 to

$769.6 million in 1999, a 27.7-percent decline (see fig. V.4). The Air Force

closed/realigned two technical training bases and two flight training bases

during fiscal years 1993 and 1994, which substantially reduced base

operating costs.1

 In addition, funding for real property maintenance and

base operations was deliberately lowered in 1997 to pay for other high

priority mission requirements, but no funds were provided in 1998 and

1999. During the 1992-99 period, the Air Force also planned to contract out

workload through A-76 contracts at all training bases.

1

The two technical training bases closed were Chanute Air Force Base (AFB), Illinois, and Lowry AFB,

Colorado. The training missions supported by these bases were realigned to the remaining four

training centers. The two flying training wings closed were at Williams AFB, Arizona, and Mather AFB,

California. Pilot production from Williams AFB was spread among the remaining flying training wings,

and navigator training was relocated from Mather AFB to Randolph AFB, Texas.

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Figure V.4: Funding for the Air Force’s Installation Support for Training for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

1,050

1,100

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

After 1999, installation support funding was projected to increase slightly

each year to $849.3 million by 2003. Air Force training officials stated that

this increase is due to two factors. First, the majority of the increase is for

the migration of base support requirements to Lackland Air Force Base,

Texas, an Air Education and Training Command installation, due to the

closure of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas. Second, contracting for real

property maintenance was funded at less than normal levels from 1997-99

and at “normal” levels thereafter.

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Officer Training and

Academies

Annual funding for the officer training and academies category, officer

accession workload,2

 and average Air Force Reserve Officer Training

Corps (AFROTC) enrollment were planned to remain relatively stable as

shown in figure V.5. Funding for this category averages 5.3 percent of the

Air Force’s annual central training funding. Over 90 percent of the funding

for this category pays for the U.S. Air Force Academy and the AFROTC. Air

Force training officials stated that during the drawdown, to minimize

involuntary separations, the Air Force accessed officers at only 85 percent

of what was required to sustain projected outyear end strength. In

addition, the U.S. Air Force Academy reduced its annual cadet end

strength by 10 percent, to about 4,000, as mandated by Congress. To meet

officer requirements, the Air Force increased funding annually for more

AFROTC scholarships from fiscal year 1994 onward. The increase also paid

for higher tuition costs. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, some of the

increased AFROTC scholarship costs were offset by closures/consolidations

of some AFROTC detachments.

2

Officer accession workload includes the U.S. Air Force Academy and the Officer Candidate School.

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Figure V.5: Funding, Workload, and Average Annual ROTC Enrollment for the Air Force’s Officer Training and Academy

Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Dollars Work years/enrollment

Funding Workload ROTC enrollments

Source: GAO analysis of DOD FYDP data.

During the period reviewed, the proportion of annual officer training and

academy funding from military personnel and operation and maintenance

appropriations changed substantially, and a greater proportion of funding

for this category was projected to come from operation and maintenance

appropriations. Military personnel and operation and maintenance

appropriations provided about 74 and 22.8 percent, respectively, of

funding for this category in 1992, but by 2003, the proportion of funding

from these appropriation categories was projected to be 63.4 and

36 percent, respectively. According to the Air Force, much of this change

is due to two directives. The Fiscal Year 1993 Defense Authorization Act

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

directed the U.S. Air Force Academy to increase the ratio of civilians on

the faculty. In addition, an Inspector General audit directed the Academy

to convert 196 military positions to civilians. The civilian faculty

conversion began in fiscal year 1993, and it is planned to continue through

fiscal year 2000, increasing annual operation and maintenance funding,

while decreasing military personnel appropriations.

Training of New

Personnel

Recruit training was projected to receive, on average, about 3.2 percent of

annual individual training funds between 1992 and 2003. The annual level

of funding for this category was projected to be lower in 2003 than in 1992,

as shown in figure V.6. However, recruit training workload was projected

to be slightly higher (7.4 percent) in the 1999-2003 period than in 1992.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Figure V.6: Funding and Workload for the Air Force’s Training of New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Administrative

Support and General

Central Training

These two categories were projected to receive, on average, less than

2 percent each of annual Air Force central training funds. The annual

funding levels for these two categories are displayed in figure V.7. Most

administrative support funds are for training headquarters and visual

information activities for training. The general central training category

includes funding for training aids/literature for schools and the

development of training technology and instructional systems.

Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix V 

Analysis of Air Force Central Training

Categories

Figure V.7: Funding for Two Air Force Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

40

60

80

100

120

140

Dollars

Administrative

support for training

General central

training activities

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Page 65 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

The Marine Corps projected that it would spend $1.8 billion on individual

training programs in 1998. The Commanding General of the Marine Corps

Combat Development Command manages the Marine Corps’ schools. The

following provides a detailed description of the Marine Corps’ funding

trends for the training categories.

Training of New

Personnel

Funding for recruit training was projected to increase annually (except for

1994) between 1992 and 1999, from $388.6 million to $497.3 billion 

(see fig. VI.1). Workload was also projected to increase over this period

from 7,270 to 9,168 work years. Recruit training workload and funding

reflect the Marine Corps’ plan to increase the percentage of first term

enlistees in the Marines. The consequence of this increase in the

percentage of enlistees is a higher turnover rate, which requires more

accessions and recruit training to meet targeted end strength. Another

major reason for the growth in the planned cost of recruit training is the

increase in the course length of basic military training from 77 days to 88

days, implemented in fiscal year 1997.

Page 66 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.1: Funding and Workload for the Marine Corps’ Training of New Personnel Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998

dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Professional and Skill

Training

Funding for professional and skill training programs was projected to

decline by 15 percent over the 1992-2003 period, from $837.7 million to

$711.7 million, while workload was projected to grow from 7,878 to 

10,348 work years, as shown in figure VI.2. This increase in workload was

offset by a 16.1-percent fall off in the number of military personnel

assigned to this training category.

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.2: Funding and Workload for the Marine Corps’ Professional and Skill Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant

1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Installation Support Installation support funding was programmed to fall 6 percent between

1992 and 2003 (see fig. VI.3). Between 1992 and 1995, funding fell

$29.3 million (11.6 percent); over three-quarters of this decline occurred

between 1992 and 1993 due to sharp decreases in annual funding of both

environmental compliance and base operations. According to the Marine

Corps, some of the continued decline was due to a realignment of base

support resources. For example, in 1994, the Marine Corps reduced its

funding for the support of training bases to increase funding for basic and

advanced skills initiatives at Marine Corps detachments. According to the

Marine Corps, prior to 1996, there were also declines in the costs of base

support contracts and in base support equipment purchases, utilities, and

supplies in 1994 and 1995.

Page 68 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.3: Funding for the Marine Corps’ Installation Support for Training for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

In 1996, funding for base support grew 13.6 percent over the 1995 level to

$253.4 million, slightly higher than the funding level for this category in

1992. According to the Marine Corps, this increase was due to several

factors. First, the Marine Corps planned to procure new and replacement

furniture and equipment in bachelor quarters, administrative offices, and

mess halls. Second, funding was added for maintenance, repairs, and

minor construction for the revitalization of bachelor enlisted quarters and

the historical buildings at the Marine Corps Barracks in Washington, D.C.

Third, environmental compliance funding increased significantly to meet

more stringent federal, state, and local regulations for air pollution control

and wastewater discharge limits as well as improvements to underground

Page 69 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

storage tank equipment. Finally, during 1996 there was a one-time cost

associated with the move of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and

Reserve Affairs Department from Headquarters, Marine Corps, in

Washington, D.C., to Marine Corps Combat Development Command,

Quantico, Virginia.

Command Managed

Training

Annual funding for the command managed training category grew

56.7 percent, from $118.1 million in 1992 to $185.2 million in 1997, due to

increases in procurement of training systems but was planned to drop in

both 1998 and 1999 (16.5 and 3.6 percent, respectively). After 1999, the

funding was projected to increase slightly through fiscal year 2003 to

$176.3 million. These trends are shown in figure VI.4.

Page 70 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.4: Funding for the Marine Corps’ Command Managed Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in

millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

100

120

140

160

180

200

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Aviation and Flight

Training

The aviation and flight training category was projected to receive less

funding in 2003 than in 1992, as shown in figure VI.5. The Marine Corps’

flight training is provided by the other services. The Marine Corps

provides a minimum amount of funds for operation and maintenance to

administratively support Marine officers assigned to duty in undergraduate

flight training at other services’ bases.

Page 71 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.5: Funding for the Marine Corps’ Aviation and Flight Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in

millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

70

75

80

85

90

Dollars

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Officer Training Funding for this category was projected to fall by 28.6 percent between

1992 and 2003, primarily between 1992 and 1997, as shown in figure VI.6.

Workload for the Marine Corps’ commissioning program actually

increased from 364 work years in fiscal year 1992 to 380 work years in

fiscal year 1997. The Marine Corps projected that the workload would

continue to increase through fiscal year 2003 to 426 work years.

Page 72 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.6: Funding and Workload for the Marine Corps’ Officer Training Programs for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in

millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

10

20

30

40

0

100

200

300

400

500

Dollars Work years

Funding Workload

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

General Central

Training and

Administrative

Support

General central training activities and administrative support for training

were collectively projected to receive an average of about 4.2 percent of

annual Marine Corps central training funds and less than $75 million

annually (see fig. VI.7). Administrative support for training was projected

to receive less than one-quarter of 1 percent throughout the entire period

reviewed.

Page 73 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI 

Analysis of Marine Corps Central Training

Categories

Figure VI.7: Funding for Two Marine Corps Central Training Categories for 1992-2003 (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0

20

40

60

80

100

Dollars

General central

training activities

Administrative

support for training

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Page 74 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

DOD and the services have used or plan to use several programs to make

training more effective, less costly, or both. Three major efforts discussed

below are designed to bring about intra- and inter-service course

consolidations; distance learning to improve the efficiency of instruction;

the acquisition of new equipment and technology to support training and

reduce the total cost of training; and private sector cooperation to

accelerate the applications of new learning technologies.

Interservice Training

Review Organization

DOD established the Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO) in

1972 to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service training

consistent with individual service requirements. ITRO’s role is to facilitate

the consolidation/collocation of similar occupational and training courses

managed by the services. Participation in ITRO is voluntary, and therefore,

a service can reject recommended course consolidations. The

implementing regulations make no provision for oversight by the Office of

the Secretary of Defense (OSD) or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Regulations,

however, discourage major capital investments for consolidation and state

that if major capital investment is required, savings should offset the

investment within 10 years. Today, ITRO is focusing on ways to improve

training efficiency/effectiveness through more extensive use of

technology, and continuing efforts to consolidate courses.

Interservice training regulations govern the process to

consolidate/collocate courses. Serviceable training materials and

equipment are transferred to a host service without reimbursement to the

donating services. The participating services should provide the

proportionate share of instructor and school support personnel to the host

service in order to support consolidated training. When a course is

consolidated, the host service is responsible for making changes to the

course so that it complies with the new curriculum that all of the

participating services have approved. The participating services must also

provide the host service with an estimate of their need for school

graduates (estimated trained personnel requirements). The host service

will, in turn, provide training positions and facilities for students from

other participating services.

ITRO is working to overcome some obstacles to the consolidation of

courses. The host service historically has not been reimbursed for the

additional costs of training the other services’ personnel. Recent draft ITRO

regulations have established ground rules for resource transfers. Also, the

services have not always provided their proportionate share of support.

Page 75 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

For example, the Army, following a base closure, agreed informally with

the Navy to relocate two courses to Fort Eustis, Virginia, where Army and

Navy students would be trained. A study in 1997 established the Navy’s fair

share bill for these courses, and the Navy training command agreed to pay.

Later, Navy headquarters told the Navy training command that it would

not receive funding for the joint courses, and now the Navy wants to

establish its own version of the same courses at a Navy facility using

different resources.

One factor limiting course consolidations is the unavailability of facilities

for interservice classes. While it may seem logical to consolidate similar

courses at one location, it may be costly to build the facilities necessary

for the increased training workload from consolidated courses. Also,

different service standards impact consolidation decisions. For example,

the services have different housing standards for their students. The cost

to consolidate a course would be affected if the host service has to

upgrade existing housing facilities to accomodate higher standards.

As part of the Roles and Missions effort, in November 1992, the Chairman,

Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked the service chiefs, through ITRO, to conduct a

thorough review of all technical and operations technical training across

three functional areas: combat service support, combat support, and

combat operations. This review, known as the Military Training Structure

Review, was conducted over 3 years, January 1993 to December 1995, to

eliminate unnecessary duplication of like training across the services. Of

the two types of training, institutional and unit, only institutional or formal

school training programs were reviewed to meet the prescribed 3-year

time constraint. The Review’s scope was limited to initial/entry-level

training.

Four tenets were established to guide the review. First, eliminate

duplication, create cost savings, and develop single-site training where

feasible. Second, use a systems approach that considers factors such as

cost, personnel, and infrastructure and their impact on the services. Third,

establish an essential long-term perspective, unconstrained by a

short-term initial startup cost, to posture for optimum out-year training

capability. Finally, provide recommendations consistent with the

readiness, responsibilities, and requirements of the services.

Page 76 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

ITRO identified similar courses for possible consolidation/collocation. ITRO

identified 49 occupational training areas,1 consisting of 1,517 military

training courses,2

 for possible consolidation/collocation. Of the courses

considered, 128 were consolidated/collocated. ITRO reported that nearly

50,000 students would be trained in a consolidated/collocated

environment—41 percent of that number from the Army, 24 percent Air

Force, 20 percent Navy, and 15 percent from the Marine Corps. As a result

of the Review, DOD reported it will realize an estimated annual recurring

savings of $8.2 million for a one-time cost of $9.4 million, with a payback

period of 1.1 years.

A specific example where ITRO directed consolidations involves dental

technicians. The Army trained dental specialists, the Air Force trained

dental assistant specialists, and the Navy trained dental technicians,

before the Review. The ITRO Executive Board recommended that all of

these courses, plus several similar ones, be consolidated at Sheppard Air

Force Base, Texas. The Board determined that there would be a one-time

cost of $633,000 for this consolidation but annual recurring savings of

$218,000 would accrue.

Today, ITRO is monitoring the implementation of the Review’s

recommendations, evaluating training technology initiatives, and

continuing efforts to consolidate courses.

Distance Learning Distance learning is structured training that can take place almost

anywhere and anytime without the physical presence of a student at a

resident training institution. Distance learning can be facilitated by newer

technology such as computers, video conferencing, the Internet, and

satellite communications, or older means such as correspondence courses.

DOD is emphasizing distance learning concepts today for several reasons.

First is the changing nature of the tasks assigned to the U.S. military.

Missions other than war, such as peacekeeping, drug interdiction, and

disaster relief, may require rapid ad hoc preparations for unusual

contingencies. Distance learning can rapidly disseminate information

developed for those missions. Second, it can increase force readiness by

1

Examples of occupational training areas include aviation maintenance, basic medical specialist,

calibration, transportation, and law enforcement/corrections.

2

Examples of specific military courses include aviation munitions, aircraft systems, medical specialist,

calibration, micro measurements, traffic management, military police training, and Navy security guard

personnel training.

Page 77 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

providing geographically dispersed personnel better access to training.

Finally, DOD believes that downsizing means that it is less able to afford the

time and resources needed to assemble students in a single location to

provide training. Distance learning can increase the cost-effectiveness of

training delivery systems by reducing the central training infrastructure

and eliminating some of the travel costs associated with individual

training.

To implement a distance learning program, we reported that a substantial

investment will be required.3 OSD officials estimated that DOD would need

to invest as much as $2 billion for distance learning over the next 

10 years. Even though estimated savings through the increased use of

distance learning is an important factor in justifying the programs, the

services have not developed a method to quantify the total savings.

However, the Army estimates that it will achieve over $900 million in

operation and maintenance savings and cost avoidances from 1998 to

2010.

OSD has facilitated the coordination of the services’ distance learning plans

and activities by sponsoring working groups to facilitate the increased use

of distance learning and publishing specifications and guidance for

military training products. For example, DOD issued an instruction that

mandated standards for interactive courseware. Although OSD has actively

promoted collaboration among the services, it has not developed a

departmentwide strategy to focus service efforts. As a result, each of the

services is pursuing its own distance learning strategy. Service officials

noted that having a departmentwide strategy could prevent duplicative

efforts, and inadequate sharing of resources and attention to the needs of

both active and reserve forces.

Not all courses, however, can be taught by distance learning. The services

must review thousands of courses to determine which can be taught via

distance learning technologies. After reviewing 2,000 courses, the Army

plans to convert about 525 traditional courses to distance learning and has

estimated that it would cost about $20 million in 1998 to convert 31 of

these courses. The Air Force has about 4,000 courses that it must review

for conversion. In fiscal year 1999, the Air Force plans to fund one-time

start up funding for distance learning equipment and software. The Navy is

reviewing about 4,000 courses and the Marine Corps plans to review about

250 courses for conversion to distance learning.

3

Distance Learning: Opportunities Exist for DOD to Capitalize on Services’ Efforts

(GAO/NSIAD-98-63R, Dec. 18, 1997).

Page 78 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

In addition to determining the number of courses that can be taught

through distance learning, training developers must determine the best

and most cost-effective media for delivering distance learning. From 1989

to 1994, the Army conducted pilot studies to determine the effectiveness of

training with five distance learning technologies: video teletraining,

computer conferencing, computer-based instruction, voice-based

computer-based instruction, and desktop video production. The Army

concluded that the instructional delivery medium would not significantly

affect training effectiveness compared with traditional face-to-face

training and that distance learning could significantly decrease the time a

soldier is absent from his home station, thereby reducing travel and per

diem costs.

Along with developing the distance learning courses, the services must

establish facilities and acquire the necessary communications equipment

to transmit their distance learning courses. The Army, for example, is

planning to establish 745 distance learning classrooms that will be linked

through a commercial telecommunications network. The Army currently

has 100 television network sites that have delivered 30,000 hours of

training to at least 100,000 Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and

civilian students in fiscal year 1996.

Today, all of the services have begun to incorporate distance learning

technology into their training programs. The Army is the only service that

has a formally documented distance learning plan, which has been

endorsed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense as a model for developing

and implementing the concept. The plan establishes critical milestones

and funding requirements for both active and reserve forces.

The Air Force has used a satellite broadcast network for distance learning

since 1992. The Air Force has increased the amount of network broadcast

hours from less than 500 in 1992 to 2,000 in 1996, and it projects that it will

use 4,500 broadcast hours by 1999. Today, the network reaches every U.S.

base.

The Air Force Reserve leases its satellite network equipment from the

Army and uses the Army’s television network system. The Air Force

Reserve has 46 Army video teletraining sites that are capable of both

two-way video and audio and has five Air Force network sites that receive

programs from the active Air Force satellite broadcast network. The Air

Force Reserve system broadcasted 2,800 hours in fiscal year 1996. The Air

National Guard uses the same satellite broadcast system as the active Air

Page 79 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

Force and maintains 202 of its own sites that can receive broadcasted

courses.

The Navy has a video teletraining network that is used for both distance

learning and teleconferencing. The system uses satellites to broadcast to

ships at sea and telecommunication lines to deliver courses on shore. The

system, which consists of 19 sites and 25 classrooms, is available 24 hours

every day and is used an average of 10 hours per day, 5 days a week. In

1997, the Navy offered 52 courses through its network. Also, in 1997, the

Marine Corps established the Marine Corps Institute On-Line learning

capability, which will make courseware accessible to all Marines via

interactive courseware across the Internet.

Advanced Distributed

Learning

On November 4, 1997, the White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy and DOD launched the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL)

initiative. The purpose of the ADL initiative is to ensure access to high

quality education and training materials that can be tailored to individual

needs and can be made available whenever and wherever they are

required. The initiative is intended to accelerate application of new

learning technologies to reduce the total cost of training, enhance

performance, and maintain readiness. ADL supports the development of

distance learning, as well as programs that enhance job performance.

The origins of ADL, however, can be traced to the Quadrennial Defense

Review in which DOD reviewed America’s defense needs from 1997 to 2015.

The Review looked for high-payoff opportunities for modernizing training

while enhancing future readiness. It called for distributed and just-in-time

training wherever possible, as well as Internet-based development,

delivery, and feedback for training. The ADL initiative is part of the strategy

to accomplish these goals.

The ADL initiative is designed to accelerate large-scale development of

dynamic and cost-effective learning software and to stimulate an efficient

market for these products in order to meet the education and training

needs of the military and the nation’s workforce in the 21st Century. It

hopes to do this through the development of a common technical

framework for computer and network-based learning that will foster the

creation of reusable learning content as instructional modules. DOD

envisions ADL as a collaborative effort among DOD, other government

agencies, education communities, and the private sector. It also thinks that

many university and business training organizations are interested in the

Page 80 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VII 

Initiatives to Reduce Training Costs or

Enhance Training Efficiency and/or

Effectiveness

same kind of system. Several public and private organizations have

expressed an interest in the ADL initiative, including Boeing, General

Motors, IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Oracle, Sun, and universities in North

Carolina, Florida, California, and Massachusetts.

On January 30, 1998, the President issued a memorandum to the heads of

all executive branch departments and agencies that addressed enhancing

learning and education through technology. The President tasked agencies

to develop a model technical approach to facilitate electronic instruction

and offered the ADL initiative as an example to follow.

ADL’s strategy is to (1) promote widespread collaboration, (2) exploit

Internet technologies, (3) develop the next generation of learning

technologies, (4) create reusable modular courseware, and (5) lower total

costs of training and education.

According to OSD training officials, the heart of the ADL initiative will be the

development of reusable modular courseware that will be available to all

through the Internet. Since a portion of DOD training is core material that

does not change over time, DOD will be able to reuse these core modules,

as well as many applications and utilities. Only certain modules would

need to be updated regularly, which would be less costly than completely

revising an entire course.

Some of the courseware will be applicable to private training needs as well

as DOD’s needs. For example, the services train personnel in wheeled

vehicle maintenance, as does General Motors. Therefore, courseware and

job performance aids might be developed jointly to meet the needs of both

parties and be network-based for delivery, feedback, and management.

Some of the courseware may already be developed, and through

collaboration with industry, DOD may be able to capitalize on what is

available in private industry.

The ADL participants have established a three-phased approach for

designing the ADL concept that will run through June 1999. During 

Phase I, participants will develop and refine functional and technical

requirements and identify opportunities for collaboration. Phase II is

expected to consist of issuing initial guidelines for a common ADL

framework and building and testing pilot models. During Phase III, the

participants will finalize an ADL framework and build and test additional

modules. At the time of our review, DOD had not estimated the costs nor

the savings from implementing the ADL initiative.

Page 81 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 82 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix IX 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Robert Pelletier

Edna Thea Falk

Dale Wineholt

Norfolk Field Office Gaines R. Hensley

Patricia Lentini

(701118) Page 83 GAO/NSIAD-98-168 Defense Infrastructure
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100