Page 1 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

November 29, 2004 

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld 

Secretary of Defense 

Subject: Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Strengthen the Annual 

Review and Certification of Military Personnel Obligations

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Each year, Congress appropriates billions of dollars to pay and support 

U.S. military personnel at home and overseas. In fiscal year 2003, military 

personnel (MILPERS) appropriations amounted to more than $109 billion.1

Once the funds are appropriated, the military services are responsible for 

ensuring that the funds are properly obligated and disbursed. Their efforts 

include conducting an annual review and certification to ensure that 

obligations are still needed in the amounts and for the purposes obligated 

and that disbursements are supported by a proper obligation of funds. 

The end-of-the-fiscal-year review is critical to the next year’s budget 

formulation process because the services use the obligations for the most 

recent fiscal year completed as a point of reference in developing their 

new budgets, and Congress uses this information as a point of comparison 

in its review of the new budget requests. 

In our prior work for the House and Senate appropriation and 

authorization committees, reviewing the services’ budget justifications, we 

found that although the services were conducting annual reviews and 

certifications, the services did not review transactions by matching 

obligations to individual disbursements in all of the years that 

disbursements can occur, as required by the Department of Defense 

(DOD) Financial Management Regulation.2

 We also found that the services 

disbursed some obligations for purposes other than those reported in their 

budget submission, but their year-end reviews did not show how these 

funds were actually disbursed. Specifically, the year-end reviews did not 

 1

 MILPERS appropriations are used for pay, benefits, incentives, allowances, housing, 

subsistence, travel for military personnel, and reserve training. 

2

 DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 3, chapter 8, paragraph 080402.B(2), November 2000; chapter 11, 

paragraph 110301, January 2001. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

provide transparency over disbursements that occurred after the first year 

of the appropriation. As a result of our work, the report by the conferees 

for the House and Senate defense appropriations committees for fiscal 

year 2004 directed “the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the services 

strengthen the annual review process by including a review of the 

accuracy of prior year appropriations below the budget activity level. To 

facilitate this review, the financial management improvement initiative 

should include financial decision-making processes that provide 

transparency of disbursements at the same level as the budget 

submission.”3

 In its report for fiscal year 2005, the House Appropriations 

Committee reiterated this direction.4

For this letter, we examined whether the military services are reviewing 

the accuracy of their MILPERS obligation balances as required by DOD’s 

Financial Management Regulation and as directed by congressional 

conferees, and, if not, what factors are preventing the services from 

doing this. 

To answer this objective, we reviewed applicable Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) regulations and the services’ procedures for performing 

the reviews; interviewed OSD officials in the Office of Accounting, 

Finance, Policy and Analysis, within the office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer), as well as service 

Comptroller officials; and reviewed Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service (DFAS) financial reports. We conducted our review from August 

2004 to October 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. We determined that the data used in this letter are 

generally reliable for the purposes for which we used them. (See encl. I for 

more information on our scope and methodology.) 

The military services are not matching obligations to disbursements at the 

individual disbursement transaction level in all of the years that 

disbursements can occur as required by the Financial Management 

Regulation. Additionally, the services are not reporting the obligation 

balances at the budget submission level as directed by congressional 

conferees. This has made it difficult, if not impossible, for decision makers 

to oversee how the services actually use MILPERS funds. One reason for 

 3

 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-283, 62 (2003). 

4

 H.R. Rep. No. 108-553, 20 (2004). 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

this is that OSD has not provided the services with explicit instructions in 

the Financial Management Regulation requiring them to review MILPERS 

obligations at the budget justification level, especially as related to 

disbursements made after the first year of the appropriation. Moreover, 

OSD has not effectively monitored the services’ compliance with the 

Financial Management Regulation’s requirement to review obligation 

balances. Unless the services strengthen their year-end reviews and 

certification processes, the actual use of MILPERS funds will continue to 

be masked and the baseline for future budget requests may be inaccurate. 

In addition, OSD has not ensured that the detailed financial data from 

DFAS that the services need to conduct their reviews have been readily 

available. DFAS only produces the detailed data for the first year of the 

appropriation. Nevertheless, some of the services have begun to gather 

MILPERS budget execution data at the budget justification level for 

all years of the appropriation. For example, the Army and Marine Corps 

have started to obtain needed data from DFAS to improve their review and 

follow the congressional direction. Until all the services can strengthen 

their budget execution accounting and related year-end review process to 

ensure that their MILPERS obligations are valid, accurate, and matched to 

individual disbursements and summarized at the level at which funds were 

justified to Congress, decision makers will find it difficult, if not 

impossible, to properly oversee how the services actually use the 

appropriations. As a result, neither DOD nor the Congress has reliable 

information on the status of MILPERS appropriations and future budget 

submissions could be over- or understated. 

We are recommending that OSD clarify the Financial Management 

Regulation provisions applicable to the year-end review and certification 

process for MILPERS obligations, monitor the services’ annual review 

results, and take steps to ensure that the services have the financial 

information they need to conduct proper reviews. 

MILPERS appropriations are available for obligation for a period of 1 year 

(or for the duration of the fiscal year in which the budget authority was 

appropriated). However, the appropriated funds remain available for 

5 additional fiscal years for the payment of obligations (e.g., for permanent 

change-of-station contracts or pay adjustments that were incurred during 

the year of appropriation). Thus, the military services can disburse 

MILPERS obligations over a period of up to 6 years. For example, about 

94 percent of fiscal year 2003 MILPERS obligations were disbursed during 

the first year. The remaining 6 percent, or about $6.5 billion, was not 

disbursed (i.e., remained as unliquidated obligations) and is available to 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

disburse for up to 5 additional fiscal years. MILPERS obligations differ 

from other obligations such as for operations and maintenance and 

procurement where payments are made for specific transactions, such as 

under a contract. MILPERS individual payments are made against a 

planned level of obligations for like items,5

 such as incentive bonuses and 

payroll checks. The MILPERS fund manager allots an amount to DFAS to 

expend for like disbursements. 

The annual review and certification process for MILPERS appropriations 

serves as an important oversight and internal control tool for decision 

makers in OSD, the military services, and the House and Senate 

appropriation and authorization committees, as well as input to financial 

statements, to ensure that appropriated funds are properly obligated and 

disbursed at the end of each fiscal year. OSD officials responsible for 

Financial Management Regulations (the Office of Accounting, Finance, 

Policy and Analysis) within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer) stated that the services are required 

to review commitments and obligation transactions for timeliness, 

accuracy, and completeness and ensure that unliquidated amounts are 

valid.6

 The review covers the obligation balances for each year, starting 

with the appropriation year plus 5 years to expend until the appropriation 

cancels.7

 Only the first year of the appropriation is reviewed at the line 

item level. The subsequent 5 years of obligations can only be reviewed at 

the budget activity and subactivity level because of data limitations. Based 

on this review, the services must then certify to the President and the 

Secretary of the Treasury8

 that obligations are accurate and that 

disbursements from the account are supported by an obligation and are 

otherwise proper.9

 When the year-end reviews identify funds that are no 

 5

 OSD and service officials referred to this as an open allotment where the fund manager 

provides DFAS with authority to make appropriate disbursements for transactions that 

meet the criteria. 

6

 DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 3, chapter 8, paragraph 080401, and paragraph 080403, 

November 2000. 

7

 As of October 2004 (fiscal year 2005), for example, the services would have obligation 

balances subject to review for prior-year appropriations for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, and 2004. 

8

 31 U.S.C. § 1554(b)(1). 

9

 31 U.S.C. § 1554(b)(2)(E). 
Page 5 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

longer needed, the services should deobligate the funds and make them 

available for other permissible purposes.10

In our prior work on MILPERS budgets, we found that the obligations 

reported at the end of the appropriation year were not always disbursed as 

reported. In researching some of the differences, we also found that the 

services’ obligation reviews for the 5 years after the obligations were made 

could not identify the changes at the same level of detail as that used in 

the budget request to Congress. Moreover, the reports used for the review 

did not provide information on where the funds were moved or an audit 

trail to the disbursements. 

DOD submits its MILPERS budget request, including a report of actual 

obligations for the fiscal year just completed, at three levels of detail. The 

broadest level is the budget activity (BA), followed by subactivity groups 

(SAG) and line items.11 As an example, table 1 shows these three levels in 

the Air Force’s fiscal year 2003 budget request to Congress. The fiscal year 

2003 budget data is the most recent year available for which the services 

have certified their obligations as valid and accurate. 

Table 1: Examples of Levels of Budget Submission in the Air Force’s Fiscal Year 2003 MILPERS Budget Justification Book 

Dollars in millions 

Levels of budget submission Title 

Actual 

FY 2001

Estimate 

FY 2002 

Requested 

FY 2003

Budget activity Pay and allowance for officers $6,129.5 $6,609.0 $7,204.3

Subactivity group Basic allowance for housing, officers 642.8 717.8 778.9

Line item Domestic with dependents, officers 421.4 473.4 517.7

Source: Air Force. 

 10 Funds also can be released to OSD for transfer into the Foreign Currency Fluctuation 

account if they are transferred within 2 years after the appropriation year; this account 

exists to minimize the effect to the Operations and Maintenance and the MILPERS 

accounts of unanticipated declines in the value of the dollar vis-à-vis foreign currencies. 

11 The services use different terms to denote these levels. For example, the Air Force refers 

to subactivity groups as project codes and line items as subproject codes; the Army refers 

to them as subactivity groups and program elements; the Navy refers to them as subactivity 

groups and summary account identifiers; and the Marine Corps refers to them as 

subactivity groups and line items. We use budget activity, subactivity, and line item to 

generically describe these various levels within a budget request. 
Page 6 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

• The Air Force requested nearly $7.2 billion in the Pay and Allowance 

budget activity for officers. Within this broad budget activity were several 

SAGs, one of which was Basic Allowance for Housing. Finally, within this 

SAG were several different line items, one of which was Domestic with 

Dependents. 

• The Air Force also included the amount it certified as obligated for each of 

the three levels of detail for (1) the fiscal year that was just completed 

(2001) as a point of comparison for the budget request and (2) the estimate 

of how much it planned to use for the current fiscal year (2002). 

Table 2 shows how the military services would review their obligations at 

the three levels of budget detail for the prior-year 2001 appropriation and 

the subsequent 5 years before the appropriation cancelled. For example, 

the services would track the fiscal year 2001 obligations at all three levels 

of detail, but they would track the fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2006 

obligations at only the budget activity and subactivity levels and not at the 

line item level. Thus, the way that obligations are disbursed after the initial 

year of appropriation is not transparent. For example, Congress and 

decision makers in OSD and the services would assume that the 

$421.4 million obligation for the line item “Domestic with Dependents” 

which was certified as correct at the end of the fiscal year would disburse 

for this purpose. However, because disbursements are not tracked at this 

level after the first year, the Air Force cannot determine if the 

$421.4 million obligated was actually disbursed for Domestic with 

Dependents in fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Consequently, if the 

$421.4 million is not dispersed, or is dispersed differently, the baseline of 

the budget will be incorrect and may mask true requirements and actual 

spending patterns. 
Page 7 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

Table 2: Financial Tracking of Services’ Disbursements to Obligations for Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations 

 Financial tracking of disbursements to obligations 

Levels of budget 

submission Title 

Fiscal year of 

appropriation 5 years to expend (fiscal years) 

 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Budget activity Pay and allowance 

for officers 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Subactivity group Basic allowance for 

housing, officers 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Line item Domestic with 

dependents, officers 

Yes No No No No No 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information. 

Note: The line item level is usually a summary level of like disbursements. Fiscal years 2005 and 

2006 are displayed as if the services followed the current reporting format. 

The Army had financial information at the line item level, but the information was cumbersome to 

crosswalk to the budget submission level of detail. Starting in fiscal year 2004, a new accounting 

structure will allow the Army to compare disbursement data to the budget submission level of detail. 

The military services are not reviewing the accuracy of their MILPERS 

obligation balances, as required by the Financial Management Regulation 

and as directed by congressional conferees. OSD has not provided the 

services with explicit instruction in the Financial Management Regulation 

to guide them in their year-end reviews and has not effectively monitored 

their compliance with the regulation as it is currently written. Also, OSD 

has not ensured that the services have available the detailed financial data 

they need for their annual reviews. Despite this, some of the services have 

begun to gather the necessary financial reporting data. Until the services 

can strengthen their year-end review process, the actual use of MILPERS 

funds will continue to be masked and the baseline for budget requests may 

be inaccurate. Additionally, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for 

decision makers to oversee properly how the services actually use 

MILPERS funds. 

Services Are Not 

Reviewing the 

Accuracy of 

Obligations Because 

OSD Has Not 

Provided Instructions, 

Monitored 

Compliance, or 

Ensured Access to 

Detailed Data 
Page 8 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

DOD’s Financial Management Regulation sets out general instructions on 

the review process that DOD components are to follow. The services are 

responsible for conducting reviews of outstanding commitments and 

obligation transactions for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness.12 As 

part of this process, they are to perform a review of obligations that have 

not disbursed (unliquidated obligations).13 Even though DOD’s Financial 

Management Regulation requires that the services review and match 

individual disbursements to obligations, 14 it does not provide explicit 

instructions requiring them to review MILPERS appropriations at the 

transaction level until the appropriation cancels. 

OSD officials who are responsible for the financial management regulation 

on obligation reviews told us that they are considering revisions that 

would require the services to review MILPERS obligations three times a 

year, as they require for other appropriation accounts. The triannual 

review would enhance DOD’s and the services’ ability to ensure that 

individual disbursements are being matched to obligations and are 

complying with DOD regulations and sound accounting and internal 

control requirements. Showing budget execution data at the same level of 

detail at which it was requested would be useful for both agency and 

congressional oversight and financial decision-making. However, OSD 

officials said that specific instructions on how MILPERS obligations 

should be reviewed are not needed because they believe the regulation is 

adequate. We found that the regulations do not specifically state how 

MILPERS obligations are to be reviewed. Specific language on how 

MILPERS obligations reviews are to be conducted would make clear to the 

services how detailed the reviews should be. But the officials agreed that a 

revision requiring DOD components to submit copies of their review 

results to OSD for monitoring purposes is needed.15 In addition, OSD 

officials told us they are considering whether to follow the congressional 

conferee’s direction, which calls for providing transparency of 

 12 DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 3, chapter 8, paragraph 080401, November 2000. 

13 DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 3, chapter 8, paragraph 080403, November 2000. 

14 DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 3, chapter 11, paragraph 110302(D), January 2001. 

15 The regulation requires the services’ fund managers to confirm to their assistant 

secretaries (Financial Management and Comptroller) that a review has been performed, 

but it does not require them to notify OSD. DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 3, chapter 8, paragraph 

080405(B), November 2000. 

OSD Has Not Provided 

Clear Guidance or 

Monitored Annual Reviews 
Page 9 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

disbursements at the same level (line item level) as the budget submission 

until the appropriation cancels. 

The financial information provided by DFAS does not provide the detailed 

information that the services need to match obligations to disbursements 

at the budget submission (or line item) level for the 5 years after the year 

of appropriation, nor does it provide an audit trail to the individual 

disbursements, required for sound management and internal control. The 

services’ fund holders use monthly reports (Accounting Report M-1002)16

provided by DFAS to review their obligation balances and disbursements. 

While these reports contain summaries of obligations and disbursements 

for all 6 years of the appropriation, they do not include data down to the 

line item level (budget submission level) for any of the years. For the first 

year of appropriation, the services have relied on other financial data 

(i.e., summaries of like items) to perform their year-end reviews to the line 

item level. However, they do not have similar data to make the review at 

the line item level for the subsequent 5 years that funds can be disbursed 

or until the appropriation cancels.17 Moreover, OSD and service officials 

acknowledge that there is no requirement that the services use funds 

remaining after the year of appropriation for the purposes obligated and 

reported in the budget submission. If funds are used differently than 

reported, the actual use of funds is masked, and the baseline for the 

budget requests may be inaccurate and/or misleading. For example, 

obligated MILPERS funds that are not disbursed for officers’ basic pay in 

the year of appropriation could be used for another authorized purpose for 

that year of appropriation, such as enlisted personnel bonuses, within the 

next 5 years of availability. However, current financial reports would not 

show this variance. As a result, the reported obligations in the budget 

submission may not represent how the services actually expend the funds 

and may not be an accurate point of comparison for future budget 

requests. 

 16 DOD 7000.14-R, vol. 6A, chapter 4, paragraph 0406, January 2002. 

17 DOD is also working to implement a new military personnel and payroll system—the 

Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System (DIMHRS). DIMHRS eventually will 

provide uniform personnel and payroll services to each of the Services, the Reserves, and 

the Air and Army National Guard, but this review did not cover the extent it will interface 

with the DFAS financial systems and provide the type of reports discussed in this letter. 

OSD Has Not Ensured 

Availability of Detailed 

Financial Data, but 

Services Have Taken Steps 

to Obtain Data 
Page 10 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

Recently, the military services have taken steps—albeit different ones—to 

get access to the detailed financial information they need to strengthen 

their review of the accuracy of obligation balances. Officials in each 

service provided the following descriptions on what they are currently 

doing and their limitations for making a more detailed review. 

• The Air Force has started to review the accuracy of prior-year obligations, 

but it does not yet have the financial information needed to make the 

review at the line item level. Air Force comptroller officials told us that 

DFAS will be able to provide financial reports at the line item level by 

November 2005 and will be able to match obligations to disbursements at 

this level beginning in fiscal year 2006. 

• Beginning with the fiscal year 2004 appropriations, the Army has been able 

to match disbursements to obligations at the line item level because the 

service built a data warehouse that can be used to research and summarize 

obligations and disbursements. Army officials told us that, starting with 

the fiscal 2004 MILPERS appropriation, they would be able to produce 

financial reports at the budget submission level. 

• The Marine Corps has a different DFAS system than the other services. It 

has an integrated personnel and pay system and data history that allows it 

to compare disbursements to obligations at the most detailed level of each 

individual disbursement. The Marine Corps also has a data warehouse that 

can be used to research obligations and individual disbursement 

transactions that make up the financial reports. Officials told us that, 

although they do not currently get financial reports from DFAS at the line 

item level after the year of appropriation, DFAS could revise its reporting 

format to provide such detail for a one-time cost of about $90,000. With 

revised reports (M-1002) and the data warehouse, the Marine Corps could 

review and certify the accuracy of outstanding obligations at the line item 

level and research related transactions by matching disbursements to 

obligations. 

• Although the Navy has taken a number of steps to improve its review of 

the accuracy of obligations in the year of appropriation, Navy officials told 

us they have no plans to request a change in the monthly account reports 

(M-1002) to show obligations and disbursements at the line item level for 

the additional 5 years. Navy comptroller officials do not view the improved 

oversight that such information would provide as either necessary or 

required. 
Page 11 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

Each year, transparency over the disbursement of several billion dollars of 

MILPERS appropriations is placed at risk because the military services are 

not reviewing the accuracy of their obligation balances at the level of 

detail required by DOD’s Financial Management Regulation and as 

directed by congressional conferees. Although the services conduct the 

annual reviews, it is OSD’s responsibility to ensure that the services have 

clear guidance and sufficiently detailed data to undertake these reviews at 

the level of detail required. Although three of the four services have 

initiated steps to obtain financial data at the necessary level of detail, their 

efforts have varied. Until OSD can ensure that the services are doing the 

reviews as required, the actual use of some MILPERS funds will continue 

to be masked and the baseline for budget requests may be inaccurate. 

We are making two recommendations to ensure that the services are 

reviewing the accuracy of MILPERS obligations and disbursements as 

required. You should direct the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer) to require 

• the Office of Accounting, Finance, Policy and Analysis to monitor the 

services’ review results and to clarify the regulation that applies to the 

review and certification of the accuracy of MILPERS obligations, by 

including MILPERS accounts in its triannual review requirements and 

providing specific guidance to the services to match obligations to 

individual disbursement transactions until the appropriation cancels and 

• the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to change the format in the 

monthly financial reports for MILPERS appropriations to include 

information at the line item level (budget submission level) for all 6 years 

that funds can be disbursed until the appropriation cancels. 

Title 31 U.S.C. § 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a 

written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations to the 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on 

Government Reform no later than 60 days after the date of this letter. A 

written statement must also be sent to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for appropriations made 

more than 60 days after the date of this letter. 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 12 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) provided written comments 

to a draft of this letter. The Department of Defense’s comments are 

included in enclosure II. DOD concurred with both of our 

recommendations. DOD concurs with the intent to clarify the 

requirements of the year-end certification process by requiring triannual 

reviews for MILPERS accounts. DOD stated that it will include MILPERS 

appropriations in the triannual review requirements of the Department of 

Defense Financial Management Regulation. DOD also concurs with the 

intent to ensure that the services have the financial information they need 

to conduct proper reviews of MILPERS accounts. DOD stated that it will 

direct the departments of the Navy and the Air Force, in conjunction with 

the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, to conduct a study of the 

feasibility of modifying the financial systems to record and report prior 

year disbursements at the budget submission level. 

We are sending copies of this letter to House and Senate appropriation and 

authorization committees. We will also make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, this letter is available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions concerning this 

letter, please contact me on (202) 512-5559. Key contributors to this 

assignment were Don Snyder, Tom Pantelides, Gary Billen, Pawnee Davis, 

and Nancy Benco. 

Sincerely yours, 

Derek B. Stewart, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosures 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 13 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

To identify the reasons why the military services were not properly 

conducting annual reviews of MILPERS obligation balances, we reviewed 

applicable Financial Management Regulations, the services’ procedures 

for performing the reviews, and monthly financial reports issued by DFAS. 

We reviewed the results of our prior budget justification issue papers that 

were provided to the House and Senate appropriation and authorization 

committees. We also interviewed Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps 

comptroller officials to determine what actions they were taking to 

improve their year-end review and certification process and what 

limitations they were encountering in these efforts, including problems in 

obtaining needed financial information from DFAS. To determine the 

ability of DFAS to provide the military services with needed financial 

information, we interviewed DFAS and service officials responsible for 

financial information used in the review of obligations and disbursements 

and reviewed existing financial reports on the status of MILPERS 

appropriations and obligations. We conducted our review from August 

2004 to October 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. We determined that the data used in the letter are 

generally reliable for the purposes for which we used them. 

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 14 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

Enclosure II: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 15 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft letter may differ 

from those in this letter. 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 16 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 17 GAO-05-87R Military Personnel (350489) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

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

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

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

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

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

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

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548