United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

February 1999 DEFENSE

INFRASTRUCTURE

Funding Risks in

Services’ 1999 Central

Training Programs

GAO/NSIAD-99-56

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-281814 

February 24, 1999

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In a June 1998 report on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) formal training

and education programs, referred to as central training, we stated that our

preliminary analysis of DOD’s fiscal year 1999 Future Years Defense

Program (FYDP) identified significant reductions from the fiscal year 1998

FYDP in the funds programmed for central training.1 Because central

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

is looking, in part, to infrastructure savings and efficiencies to buy modern

weapons, you requested that we examine the significant differences in the

two central training programs.2

 Specifically, you requested that we identify

the (1) training categories and military services with the most significant

funding changes from the 1998 to the 1999 FYDP, (2) bases for the changes,

and (3) potential impact of the changes on the services’ future training

budgets. We included the entire fiscal year 1999-2003 period in our

analysis.

Central training programs include individual training activities that

provide training for active military personnel, reserve component

personnel, and DOD civilians. 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.

Results in Brief Our analysis shows that total funding for central training was projected to

be $8.4 billion less in the 1999 FYDP than the 1998 FYDP.

3

 Army funding

changes account for $7.2 billion of this reduction. The categories with the

1

Defense Infrastructure: Central Training Funding Projected to Remain Stable During 1997-2003

(GAO/NSIAD-98-168, June 30, 1998).

2

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.

3

Unless otherwise stated, the dollar values shown in this report are in constant 1999 dollars and on a

fiscal year basis.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

most significant changes in each of the services were the Army’s training

of new personnel; the Army’s, the Navy’s, and the Air Force’s professional

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

the Navy’s command managed training. We describe these and all of the

other central training categories in appendix I.

The majority of the $8.4-billion decrease was due to changes in the Army’s

central training program. According to Army officials, $4 billion of the

decrease in Army funding was to correct for an error in the 1998 FYDP that

overstated the cost of enlistees’ student salaries. Another $1.1 billion of

the decrease related to the realignment of Army aviation procurement out

of central training. The remaining $3.3 billion primarily came from

projected savings from (1) the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force reducing

the number of personnel projected to be trained; (2) all of the military

services contracting some installation support functions with lower cost

providers; and (3) the Army and the Navy implementing training initiatives

that utilize technology and other cost savings measures. Additionally,

some of the $3.3 billion came from cuts by the Army and the Navy in

funding levels for installation support and underfunding by the Army of

some of its training programs.

The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force may not be able to accomplish their

central training programs at the funding levels in the 1999 FYDP. Service

training officials told us that some training categories are underfunded and

may require higher funding levels in future FYDPs for the following reasons.

First, the services are experiencing lower-than-expected retention rates

for enlisted personnel, which most likely will require increased accessions

and additional funds for new personnel and skill training. Second, the

services projected savings in installation support and funded real property

maintenance at minimum maintenance levels. If the programmed savings

do not materialize, the services will need additional funds to maintain the

current low levels of maintenance or add to the existing backlog of real

property maintenance. Third, the Army did not fully fund training

initiatives, such as the Army’s human relations training in new recruit

training, but it plans to fully fund these initiatives in the future. Fourth, the

Army already had to request supplemental funding for fiscal year 1999 for

the Army Reserve professional development training programs because it

found that programmed reductions adversely affected the programs. The

Army plans to increase funding for this program in the future. Fifth, the

Army’s actual aviation training workloads are higher than those used to

develop the 1999 FYDP. These additional training workloads may require

additional training funds. Finally, the Army and the Navy programmed

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

savings from training initiatives that use technology to reduce training

costs. Since these initiatives have not been fully implemented, there is risk

that the savings may not materialize to the level programmed. If the

services are not able to accomplish their central training programs at the

funding levels in the 1999 FYDP, DOD may have to provide additional funds

for this infrastructure category, which could contribute to a transfer of

procurement funds that would have been used to pay for weapons

modernization.

Background DOD stated in its May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review

(QDR) that a steady increase in investment in modern equipment to an

annual level of $60 billion is required to fulfill the defense strategy. To

achieve modernization goals, DOD plans to reduce the cost of its

infrastructure, which includes central training. A focus of the QDR was to

build a solid financial foundation for a modernization program that could

reliably support future war-fighting capabilities. The key to that

foundation was to stop the chronic diversion of procurement funds to pay

for underestimated operating costs, unrealized savings, and new program

demands by properly projecting and funding DOD’s operating and support

activities. To address the problem of the migration of these procurement

funds to other activities, the QDR redirected resources to modernization

through program adjustments that streamline infrastructure as well as

reduce force structure and revise modernization plans. For example, the

QDR proposed reducing active military personnel by 61,700 and reserve

component personnel by 54,000. These QDR actions and initiatives were

reflected in the fiscal year 1999 FYDP and caused some of the net decrease

in central training funding.

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, lower-than-expected retention rates may

necessitate increased training requirements even though personnel levels

are lower. The services compile “training workload” to determine

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

training. Training workload measures the output of the services’ central

training programs.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Army Funding

Changes Account for

Largest Share of

Projected Decrease

DOD’s 1998 FYDP projected a 1-percent increase in funding for central

training between 1999 and 2003, while the 1999 FYDP projected a

2.5-percent decrease in funding for the same period. The total decrease in

funding between the two FYDPs was $8.4 billion. Figure 1 compares the

annual funding levels for the two FYDPs.

Figure 1: Comparison of the 1998 and

1999 FYDPs’ Funding for Central

Training in Billions of Fiscal Year 1999

Dollars

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

14

16

18

20

22

24

Fiscal year

Dollars in billions

1998 FYDP 1999 FYDP

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Army funding changes account for $7.2 billion (86 percent) of this

projected decline. The Air Force projected slightly lower funding levels in

the 1999 FYDP. Although Navy funding in the 1999 FYDP shows an increase

for 1999 and 2000, it too fell below projected 1998 FYDP levels in 2001

through 2003. Annual funding for the Marine Corps, which accounted for

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

less than 9 percent of central training funding in 1999, was projected to

decrease by less than 3 percent annually in the 1999 FYDP from the levels

projected in the 1998 FYDP. Defense-wide training, which fell each year of

the 1999 FYDP, accounted for less than 6 percent of central training funding

in 1999. Figure 2 shows the funding changes by component between the

1998 and 1999 FYDPs.

Figure 2: Changes in Annual Central Training Funding by Component Between the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs (in billions of

fiscal year 1999 dollars)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

Fiscal year

Dollars in billions

Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy Defense-wide

Source: Our analysis of DOD FYDP data.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Army Budget Is

Smaller Primarily Due

to Errors in 1998

FYDP

The 1998 FYDP projected that Army central training funding would remain

relatively stable over the 1999-2003 period, while the 1999 FYDP projected a

decline of $7.2 billion over the same period. The most significant

reductions in the Army’s budget were in four categories—training of new

personnel, professional and skill training, aviation and flight training, and

installation support for training. Most of the reductions were made to

correct errors in the 1998 FYDP. Other contributing factors were personnel

reductions as a result of the QDR, programmed reductions for planned

efficiencies, shifts in programs from central training to other parts of the

budget, and reduced funding for installation support and professional

development training. Table 1 lists the amounts programmed for the four

categories that changed the most between the two FYDPs.

Table 1: Comparison of Funding for Selected Army Training Categories in the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs

Fiscal year

In millions of fiscal year 1999 dollars

Training category FYDP 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Training of new personnel 1998 $1,390 $1,410 $1,448 $1,480 $1,465 $7,194

1999 654 620 605 618 614 3,112

Change –736 –790 –843 –862 –851 –4,081

Professional and skill training 1998 2,718 2,709 2,706 2,742 2,756 13,631

1999 2,572 2,476 2,461 2,457 2,458 12,425

Change –146 –233 –245 –285 –297 –1,206

Aviation and flight training 1998 561 594 622 640 597 3,015

1999 423 401 405 412 414 2,056

Change –138 –193 –218 –228 –182 –959

Installation support for training 1998 1,493 1,424 1,399 1,385 1,419 7,120

1999 1,422 1,407 1,289 1,323 1,244 6,684

Change –71 –17 –110 –62 –175 –435

Total Army central traininga 1998 $7,305 $7,243 $7,304 $7,342 $7,345 $36,540

1999 $6,080 $5,909 $5,776 $5,805 $5,746 $29,316

Change $-1,225 $-1,335 $-1,528 $-1,537 $-1,599 $-7,223

Note: Category totals may not add due to rounding.

aIncludes funding for all nine training categories.

Source: Our analysis of 1998 and 1999 FYDPs.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Training of New Personnel Funding for the training of new personnel in the 1999 FYDP was projected

to be about $4.1 billion less in total than projected in the 1998 FYDP. Most

of the decrease ($4 billion) was to correct an error in the Army’s allocation

of military salaries. During the development of the 1999 program, Army

personnel found that they had been overestimating the salaries of enlisted

trainees that were allocated to new personnel training and

underestimating salary costs in other programs. An Army official stated

that the error had no impact on the Army’s budget requests for military

personnel salaries and benefits. Moreover, there were funding reductions

due to programmed personnel cuts from the QDR. According to Army

training officials, instructors and training support staff will be reduced as a

result of consolidating training functions and increased contractor

support.

According to Army training officials, the Army did not fully fund several

training initiatives in the 1999 FYDP such as improvements in the Army’s

human relations training. Because these are high priorities for the Army,

the Army officials expect that these initiatives will be fully funded in the

2000 FYDP, probably at the expense of other major commands.

Further, Army training officials stated that the funding levels in the 1999

FYDP do not fully support a projected increased workload. The Army

projected that workload for the training of new personnel would increase

because of increased attrition and a 1-week extension of recruit and

One-Station Unit Training. As a result, the Army’s Training and Doctrine

Command has already requested additional funds for the 1999 budget year

and the Army will likely have to increase the funding levels for this

training category in the 2000 FYDP.

Professional and Skill

Training

The 1999 FYDP programmed $1.2 billion less in total for this category than

the 1998 FYDP. Several factors contributed to the lower projected funding.

Programmed personnel reductions (a result of the QDR) contributed to a

decrease in Army Reserve funding. In addition, as part of the

implementation of the Total Army School System program,4

 the Army

Reserve reviewed its professional development training programs and cut

its budget for students, instructors, and overhead. However, according to

Army training officials, the Army Reserve underestimated its training

4

The Army consolidated its training structure for both its active and reserve components into a Total

Army School System.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

requirements, and as a result, requested and received a $48-million

increase in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations that offset the shortfall

programmed in the 1999 FYDP. Army training officials stated that funding

for Reserve professional and skill training in the 2000 FYDP will be

increased.

Changes in and programmed savings from the Army’s Distance Learning

Program also contributed to lower programmed funding for professional

and skill training.5

 In 1998, funding for the management of this program

was moved from the central training infrastructure to another

infrastructure category. In addition, funding was reduced beginning in

1999 to reflect both training load decreases and projected savings through

the Army’s ongoing investment in distance learning technology. These

savings are to accrue as classroom training time is shortened and student

travel and per diem costs are reduced. Army training officials informed us

that the Army continues to fully implement its Distance Learning Program,

so the service can achieve the savings planned from the program, but

substantial savings are not projected to begin until 2004 because of the

lengthy implementation process.

The decline in Army funding would have appeared even greater if the

Army had not received additional funding for its professional and skill

training programs from Defense-wide central training activities. The

Defense Reform Initiative6

 directed the transfer of the National Defense

University operation and maintenance funding from the Defense-wide

accounts to the Army. This increased Army funding by $111 million in

1999.

Aviation and Flight

Training

Total funding for aviation and flight training was projected to be about

$1 billion lower in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP. This occurred

primarily because planned procurement funding in the Army’s

undergraduate pilot training program was transferred to programs that are

not included in central training. Army training and budget officials stated

that the funding will be allocated to line units based on Army priorities,

although training programs will still receive equipment that is excess to

the line units’ needs.

5

Distance learning is structured training that can take place almost anywhere and anytime without the

physical presence of an instructor.

6

Announced in November 1997, the Defense Reform Initiative requires DOD to adopt those business

practices that American industry has successfully used to become leaner and more flexible in order to

remain competitive.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

According to Army training officials, the Army is experiencing high

attrition rates for Apache helicopter pilots because of an increased pace of

operations and more requirements for Apache battalions outside of the

United States than inside the United States. As a result, the aviation and

flight training workload will be even higher than projected in the 1999

budget to meet the increased demand for training new pilots. Increased

workload may result in increased funding requirements for this training

category in the 2000 FYDP. In an effort to increase pilot retention and

reduce flight training requirements, the Army recently received approval

for Apache pilot retention bonuses.

Installation Support for

Training

Funding for installation support for training was projected to be about

$435 million less in total in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP. The

projected reduction is primarily due to planned efficiencies from DOD’s

reinvention initiatives. The efficiencies are projected to result from such

efforts as the outsourcing and privatization of installation support

functions, lower lease costs, the elimination of less energy-efficient

structures, and the upgrade of existing utilities. The Army has assumed

some risk by making these projections because it does not know whether

the savings can be achieved.

The Army is also assuming risk by delaying some real property

maintenance to free up additional funds for modernization and readiness.

Army training officials stated that the Army knowingly underfunded some

training installation support programs, adding to the existing maintenance

backlog. For example, the Army reduced funding for its barracks

conversion program. The training officials noted that several commanders

have stated that the real property maintenance shortfall is adversely

affecting morale.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Changes in Navy

Funding Primarily

Due to Surge in New

Recruits, Personnel

Reductions, Planned

Savings From Training

Initiatives, Deferred

Maintenance, and

Higher Flying-Hour

Costs

Although both the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs projected a net decrease in Navy

central training funding, there were some substantial changes within

several training categories in the 1999 FYDP. The most significant changes

between the two FYDPs were in four categories—professional and skill

training, aviation and flight training, command managed training, and

installation support for training. These changes were primarily due to

personnel reductions, planned savings from training initiatives, deferred

real property maintenance, planned savings from changes in the

procurement profile for trainer aircraft, higher flying-hour costs, and

planned savings from competitive sourcing and regionalization initiatives.

Table 2 lists the amounts programmed for the four categories that changed

the most between the two FYDPs.

Table 2: Comparison of Funding for Selected Navy Training Categories in the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs

Fiscal year

In millions of fiscal year 1999 dollars

Training category FYDP 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Professional and skill training 1998 $1,743 $1,771 $1,750 $1,727 $1,705 $8,696

1999 1,779 1,783 1,686 1,653 1,659 8,561

Change 36 12 –63 –74 –46 –135

Aviation and flight training 1998 985 1,053 1,061 1,042 964 5,105

1999 1,041 1,089 1,011 982 854 4,977

Change 56 35 –50 –60 –109 –128

Command managed training 1998 1,265 1,239 1,256 1,251 1,248 6,258

1999 1,313 1,305 1,308 1,301 1,298 6,525

Change 48 66 52 50 51 267

Installation support for training 1998 693 751 684 697 675 3,499

1999 680 683 692 672 619 3,345

Change –13 –68 8 –25 –56 –154

Total Navy central training

fundinga

1998 $5,413 $5,543 $5,475 $5,436 $5,309 $27,175

1999 $5,567 $5,617 $5,443 $5,352 $5,173 $27,152

Change $155 $74 $-32 $-84 $-135 $-23

Note: Category totals may not add due to rounding.

aIncludes funding for all nine training categories.

Source: Our analysis of 1998 and 1999 FYDPs.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Professional and Skill

Training

Projected total funding for professional and skill training shows a

decrease of $135 million from the 1998 FYDP to the 1999 FYDP, with

increases in the earlier years and decreases beginning in 2001. Beginning

in 1999, the Navy has programmed savings due to QDR-directed personnel

reductions and various initiatives. One such initiative, the Training

Technology Initiative, plans to upgrade classrooms and produce

interactive software to enhance instruction and reduce the overall cost

and time of training. Until the initiatives are implemented, it is difficult to

determine if and how much savings will accrue from the initiatives. The

Navy projected reduced workload levels between 2001 and 2003 for

professional and skill training as a result of force structure reductions and

military personnel reductions identified in the QDR. The Navy is also

reducing the numbers of professors and academic support personnel at

the Naval Postgraduate School in conjunction with the reduced student

levels.

In September 1998, the Chief of Naval Operations testified before the

Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Navy is experiencing

shortfalls in its recruiting and retention rates. If enlisted retention rates

continue to fall below the Navy’s goals, additional recruits will be required,

resulting in higher than projected surges in training. As in 1997 and 1998,

the Navy may look to real property maintenance as a source of funds to

pay for this additional training workload.

Aviation and Flight

Training

Total funding levels for aviation and flight training were projected to be

lower by $128 million in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP primarily due

to changes in the procurement profile of the T-45 trainer aircraft.

According to the Navy, Congress added three T-45 aircraft to the 1998

procurement plan and changed the acquisition program to a multiyear

procurement contract, which added three aircraft per year through 2002.

The number of aircraft planned for procurement in fiscal year 2003

dropped from six to four. Planned procurement funding in 2001 and 2002

is projected to be lower in the 1999 FYDP, even though the number of

aircraft increased, because of projected savings from the multiyear

procurement contract. Funding is projected to drop further in 2003

because of the procurement contract savings and the reduction in the

number of aircraft to be purchased that year. The grounding of the T-2

trainer aircraft from April to November 1997 because of flight control

problems caused a decrease in workload and associated funding for 1997

and 1998, but workload and funding were projected to increase for 1999 to

make up some of the shortfall in pilot production in the previous 2 years.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Command Managed

Training

Total funding for command managed training was projected to be

$267 million higher in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP. The higher

funding projections were due to the increasing cost of flying aircraft.

Actual flying-hour costs experienced in 1997 were higher than those

projected in the 1998 FYDP. The funding levels were adjusted upwards in

the 1999 FYDP to reflect these higher estimates.

Installation Support for

Training

Total funding levels for installation support for training were projected to

be lower by $154 million in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP primarily

due to projected savings from Navy-wide competition sourcing and

regionalization initiatives, the shifting of some funds for installation

support activities from the training mission to the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, and the use of some installation support funds for

skill training programs, a higher Navy priority. The Chief of Naval

Education and Training is currently in the process of developing a

regionalized base operating support organization and conducting a

competitive sourcing analysis. Since these initiatives have not been fully

implemented, there is risk that the savings may not materialize to the level

programmed.

Air Force Funding

Changes Primarily

Due to Projected

Lower Attrition,

Increases in Pilot

Production, and

Increases in Real

Property Maintenance

and Cost of Studies

Although both the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs projected an overall increase in Air

Force central training funding over the 1999-2003 period and both

projected about the same annual funding levels, there were significant

funding shifts among three categories—professional and skill training,

aviation and flight training, and installation support for training. The

funding changes were primarily due to projected lower attrition, increases

in pilot production, and increases in real property maintenance funds and

the cost of outsourcing/privatizing studies. Table 3 lists the amounts

programmed for the three categories that changed the most between the

two FYDPs.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

Table 3: Comparison of Funding for Selected Air Force Training Categories in the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs

Fiscal year

In millions of fiscal year 1999 dollars

Training category FYDP 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Professional and skill training 1998 $1,528 $1,465 $1,499 $1,474 $1,478 $7,444

1999 1,483 1,385 1,382 1,361 1,361 6,972

Change –45 –80 –117 –113 –117 –472

Aviation and flight training 1998 968 994 1,016 1,036 1,124 5,139

1999 1,017 1,034 1,033 1,108 1,202 5,394

Change 49 40 17 71 78 255

Installation support for training 1998 786 797 833 850 866 4,132

1999 828 830 879 905 939 4,381

Change 43 33 46 55 73 250

Total Air Force central training

fundinga

1998 $5,942 $5,948 $6,087 $6,051 $6,192 $30,221

1999 $5,933 $5,934 $6,014 $6,046 $6,172 $30,099

Change $-9 $-14 $-73 $-6 $-20 $-122

Note: Category totals may not add due to rounging.

aIncludes funding for all nine training categories.

Source: Our analysis of 1998 and 1999 FYDPs.

Professional and Skill

Training

Total funding for professional and skill training was projected to be

$472 million lower in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP. The Air Force

programmed lower funding because it estimated lower attrition rates. The

Air Force testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in

September 1998 that overall retention is a serious concern and that the

retention of mid-level noncommissioned officers is of special concern

because they are experienced and provide an important leadership base

critical to force readiness. The Air Force has developed new programs to

lower attrition, but these programs have not yet been approved and

implemented, introducing risk into its central training program. If

retention rates do not improve, the Air Force will need to increase

accessions, which leads to higher costs for recruit, initial skills, and

professional development training. For example, attrition rates increased

more than the Air Force projected in 1998, requiring additional funding for

recruit and professional and skill training. Air Force training officials

stated that because 1999 recruit and professional and skill training

programs are also underfunded due to lower than projected retention

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

rates, the training officials requested additional funding for these programs

and shifted funds from other training areas, such as installation support, to

these programs.

Aviation and Flight

Training

Total funding for aviation and flight training in the 1999 FYDP was projected

to be $255 million more than that projected in the 1998 FYDP. The increases

were for additional pilot production to alleviate the pilot shortage

resulting from lower than expected retention rates. The Air Force expects

pilot retention problems to continue for the foreseeable future.

The Air Force plans to increase the number of pilots trained annually until

it reaches a maximum training rate of 1,100 active duty pilots in fiscal

year 2000, based on capacity constraints such as the number of training

aircraft, runways, and instructor pilots. According to Air Force training

officials, this rate of 1,100 pilots will not be sufficient to alleviate the Air

Force’s pilot shortage. Because of the overall shortage, the Air Force

intends to forego filling some staff positions that the service says require

rated pilots so that it can fill all operational, training, and joint positions.

According to Air Force training officials, programmed funds in fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 were lower than required to fund the planned increase

in pilot production. The shortfalls in 1998 and 1999 were funded from

transfers from other training activities, such as installation support.

According to the officials, the 2000 FYDP, as currently planned, will have

higher funding levels for this training category to fully fund the

undergraduate pilot training program.

Installation Support for

Training

Funding for installation support in the 1999 FYDP was projected to be

$250 million more than that programmed in the 1998 FYDP. According to Air

Force training officials, the Air Force increased programmed funds for real

property maintenance at Air Education and Training Command bases,

which funds maintenance and repair at minimum levels—only necessary

repairs will be completed, no preventative maintenance will be done.

According to the officials, the increase brings these bases up to the same

level of maintenance as other Air Force Commands.

Funding was also increased to pay for studies to determine if installation

support functions should be performed under contract with commercial

sources (outsource) or in-house using government facilities and personnel.

The Air Force plans to begin studies for outsourcing base support

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

functions for several bases over the 2000-2003 period. However, the Air

Force programmed expected savings from these efforts using an almost

40-year old Air Force model. Even with the programmed savings, the

one-time costs of the studies result in a net increase in funding for this

training category over the 1999 FYDP period. If the savings do not

materialize, and the Air Force wants to maintain installations at the level

they programmed, the Air Force will need to look elsewhere for this

funding. Air Force training officials believe that if additional funding is

needed, it will come from reductions in its weapon system modernization

programs.

Conclusions Funding for central training in the 1999 FYDP was projected to be

considerably lower than that projected in the 1998 FYDP primarily because

of the adjustments by the Army for previous errors. Other factors

contributing to the programmed reductions were projected personnel

reductions as a result of the QDR, optimistic personnel retention rates,

projected savings from competitive sourcing of installation support

activities and technological advances in training, and lower installation

support funding. The services are accepting risk in their central training

programs with this lowered funding level. If retention rates do not

improve, savings and efficiencies are not fully realized, and real property

maintenance can no longer be delayed, there will be little or no reduction

in central training infrastructure and DOD will likely will require an

increase in funds. Therefore, DOD will not be able to shift funds from this

infrastructure category to modernization.

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

report. DOD provided some technical comments, which we incorporated in

the report where appropriate. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their

entirety in appendix II.

Scope and

Methodology

To compare the funding levels for central training, we analyzed funding

data from the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs for 1999-2003. We did not test DOD’s

management controls of the FYDP data. We adjusted the nominal dollars to

constant 1999 dollars using 1999 DOD Comptroller inflation indexes. To

identify trends in workload data, we used data contained in the Army’s,

the Navy’s, and the Marine Corps’ annual Operation and Maintenance

Justification of Estimates budget books submitted to Congress for fiscal

years 1998 and 1999. Because the Air Force was unable to provide

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

workload data for several training categories from the fiscal year 1999

Justification of Estimates book, we obtained the Air Force’s fiscal

year 1998 and 1999 workload submissions for the annual DOD Military

Manpower Training Report. 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 Defense-wide 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 less than

8 percent of the total value of central training in 1999. In cases where DOD

recategorized program elements, we made adjustments to both the 1998

and 1999 data to ensure that all programs were placed in the same training

categories to make accurate comparisons between the two FYDPs.

To determine the causes for the changes in annual funding and workload

trends for central training categories between the two FYDPs and the

impact of the changes on future central training funding levels, we

interviewed officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in the

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

divisions. Additionally, we examined numerous DOD documents, including

annual Military Manpower Training Reports, the Report of the Quadrennial

Defense Review, the Defense Reform Initiative Report, and service

budgets. 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 changes between the two FYDPs. We have included their responses

throughout the report, as appropriate.

Our work was conducted from July 1998 to February 1999 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 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
B-281814 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call Robert

Pelletier on (202) 512-4032. Major contributors to this report are Edna

Thea Falk and Gaines R. Hensley.

Sincerely yours,

Henry L. Hinton, Jr.

Assistant Comptroller General

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 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 systems, 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: include 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: include general support to the

training establishment and training developments. These resources

provide training aids for troop schools and training centers.

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 categorizes these programs as central medical infrastructure, we

included them in central training because the Department 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: include 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 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 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 the Department’s civilian training, education and

development, language training, undergraduate space training, acquisition

training, general skill training, and other professional education.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

(701145) Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-56 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