United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Military Personnel, Committee on

National Security, House of

Representatives

February 1996 MILITARY PERSONNEL

REASSIGNMENTS

Services Are Exploring

Opportunities to Reduce

Relocation Costs

GAO/NSIAD-96-84

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-270790 

February 16, 1996

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan

Chairman

Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In fiscal year 1995, the military services spent $2.9 billion to move nearly

850,000 servicemembers and their families. In response to your request,

we reviewed the services’ practices for relocating personnel. Our

objectives were to determine whether

• opportunities exist to reduce the costs of permanent change-of-station

moves,

• the number of moves and related costs have decreased in proportion to

the reductions in military end strengths, and

• frequent reassignments significantly impair military readiness.

Background According to federal laws and Department of Defense (DOD) policy,

servicemembers are entitled to permanent change-of-station (PCS)

benefits—paid moving expenses—when assigned to a location for longer

than 20 weeks. These moving expenses are paid from each service’s

military personnel appropriation. For fiscal year 1995, the $2.9 billion in

PCS expenditures represented nearly 4 percent of DOD’s total military

personnel appropriation.

The services classify each PCS move into one of six budget categories:

accessions, separations, organized unit moves, overseas rotational moves,

operational moves, and training moves. Accessions and separations refer

to servicemembers’ entrance into and departure from the service.

Organized unit moves occur when facilities are closed or moved (for

example, due to Base Realignment and Closure Commission decisions).

The remaining three categories include moves to and from overseas

locations (rotational), moves that occur between installations and do not

require transoceanic travel (operational), and moves to and from training

schools. Appendix I contains a full description of each PCS budget category

and elements of PCS expenditures within the military personnel

appropriation.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

Results in Brief Few opportunities exist to reduce PCS costs because federal laws entitle

servicemembers to certain relocation benefits. Overseas commitments and

other laws also require the services to move a large number of

servicemembers each year. Despite these constraints, the services are

taking steps to reduce the number of PCS moves and thereby reduce annual

costs. Each service has already made at least one major assessment of its

PCS policies and practices and has changed some of them to create

efficiencies. To further reduce costs, the services are encouraging

consecutive assignments in certain geographic locations and increasing

tour lengths where possible. Finally, according to an October 1995

Defense task force report, DOD could further decrease its overseas military

requirements and costs by hiring overseas contractors.

The number of relocations, but not their costs, decreased in proportion to

the large reductions in military end strengths from fiscal year 1987 (the

beginning of military downsizing) through fiscal year 1995. Some variation

exists among the categories of PCS moves and the military services. For

example, PCS moves within the United States increased slightly in recent

years because of turbulence caused by military downsizing and personnel

returning from Europe. The main reasons PCS costs did not decrease were

inflation, changes in some entitlements, and an increase in the number of

servicemembers with dependents.

According to service officials, the frequency of PCS moves is only a minor

contributor to readiness problems in military units. Other factors,

especially the increase in deployments for operations other than war, have

a greater impact on readiness.

PCS Entitlements Are

Provided by Law, and

Few Opportunities

Exist to Reduce Costs

The military services have limited control over the costs of relocating

servicemembers because most relocation entitlements are provided in U.S.

laws and DOD policies. The services also have limited control over the

number of servicemembers they must move each year because of

agreements with foreign countries and requirements of some U.S. laws.

Other moves are made to maintain readiness throughout the force.

Title 37 of the United States Code provided that, without regard to the

comparative costs of the various modes of transportation, a member of a

uniformed service is entitled to travel and transportation allowances for

travel performed under authorized orders. Title 37 specifies several

conditions for such allowances, including a permanent change of station,

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

enlistment or induction into a uniformed service, and separation or

retirement from active duty.

Accordingly, DOD policies require the services to pay the cost of moving

recruits to their first duty station. The services must also pay relocation

costs for members separating from the service, whether involuntarily or

voluntarily. Nearly 58 percent of the PCS moves in fiscal year 1995 were for

personnel entering and leaving the military. Another 3 percent required the

movement of entire units because of force structure changes, such as the

changes resulting from the Base Realignment and Closure Commission

decisions.

U.S. national security commitments require the services to station about

250,000 military personnel overseas for tours of 1 to 3 years. Mutual

defense agreements between the United States and members of the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization require the United States to maintain about

100,000 uniformed servicemembers in Europe. Similar agreements with

Asian-Pacific nations require the United States to maintain nearly 100,000

servicemembers in Asia, especially Korea and Japan. Each overseas

position requires two PCS moves: one to fill the position and one for the

servicemember leaving the position. About 22 percent of the PCS moves in

fiscal year 1995 were for overseas rotational moves in direct support of the

military services’ required overseas presence.

As table 1 shows, cumulatively, accessions, separations, unit moves, and

overseas rotational moves accounted for almost 83 percent of the services’

PCS moves in fiscal year 1995 and over three-quarters of their costs.

Table 1: Number and Cost of PCS Moves for All Services (fiscal year 1995)

Dollars in thousands

Budget category

Number

of moves

Percentage

of moves

Cumulative

percentage Costs

Percentage

of costs

Cumulative

percentage

Accessions 208,821 24.7 24.7 $234,763 8.2 8.2

Separations 277,581 32.8 57.5 491,226 17.2 25.4

Unit moves 25,513 3.0 60.5 95,656 3.3 28.7

Overseas rotational moves 186,754 22.1 82.6 1,371,150 48.0 76.7

U.S. operational moves 108,141 12.8 95.4 515,367 18.0 94.7

Training moves 39,760 4.7 100a 151,259 5.3 100

Total 846,570 100a $2,859,421 100

aTotal does not add due to rounding.

Source: Service budget submission data.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

As table 1 also shows, reassignments of servicemembers between military

installations within the United States (operational moves) make up nearly

13 percent of all PCS moves. Sometimes, these operational moves are

required to fill about 21,000 joint duty positions required under the

Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.1

Each service also must move personnel within the United States to meet

requirements placed upon them by law and DOD and service policies. For

example, the Army anticipates relocating nearly 5,000 active duty

personnel to help train reserve forces as required under the Army National

Guard Combat Readiness Reform Act of 1992. Other moves occur to fill

positions the services designate as having high priority duties, such as

recruiters, drill instructors, and command infrastructure and management

positions.

In addition, personnel separations and overseas reassignments have a

ripple effect on units based in the United States and may require other PCS

moves to ensure readiness at all levels. For example, personnel returning

from overseas assignments cannot always fill the specific position of

another individual selected to go overseas. The services must match

grades, skills, and experience requirements of positions with the personnel

being assigned. Thus, some additional PCS moves may occur as the

services make such matches.

Finally, table 1 shows that nearly 5 percent of the services’ PCS moves in

fiscal year 1995 were for servicemembers to attend specialized schools or

training courses for 20 weeks or longer. Some training is necessary to

meet the educational requirements of selected military positions and the

minimum standards established by the services.

Services Have Taken Steps

to Reduce PCS Costs

The services acknowledge that limiting the frequency of PCS moves would

reduce costs and improve the quality of life for servicemembers.

Consequently, the services are reviewing and revising their PCS policies

and practices. Each service is examining ways to increase the time a

servicemember remains in a geographic area, also known as

time-on-station. In some instances, changes have been made.

1

Joint duty positions include those controlled by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and other

positions in consolidated defense agencies and activities. Title IV of the Goldwater-Nichols

Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 specifically requires the Secretary of Defense to

define a joint duty assignment and publish a list of such assignments. According to the act, joint duty

has to provide significant experience in “joint matters” and cannot be in an officer’s own military

department.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

Services Have

Implemented Some Policy

Changes

In February 1995, the Air Force began restricting the ability of major

command officials to transfer military personnel between installations

within the command unless the receiving installation was staffed below

the Air Force’s average “fill rate.”2

 The Air Force estimates that, as a result

of this change, it reduced its fiscal year 1995 PCS expenditures by

$8 million, or about 4 percent of total Air Force operational PCS costs.

The Chief of Naval Operations encourages multiple tours in the same

geographic location whenever possible—commonly referred to as

“homesteading.” In September 1995, the Navy initiated a program to permit

eligible enlisted sailors stationed at south Texas installations to homestead

when possible. The Chief of Naval Operations instructed the Bureau of

Naval Personnel to develop options expanding homesteading to as many

Navy locations as possible. In December 1995, several options were given

to the Chief of Naval Operations for review.

In October 1995, the Commandant of the Marine Corps directed personnel

managers to increase the number of enlisted personnel assigned to

consecutive tours in three geographic locations—North Carolina,

Southern California, and the Washington, D.C., National Capital area. They

believe this program will increase the time a marine is stationed in a

geographic area, improve the family’s quality of life, reduce the number of

PCS moves, and save money.

Services Are Studying

Additional PCS Policy

Changes

In June 1995, the Air Force initiated a systematic review of its PCS program

to identify ways to reduce expenditures. The initial phase of this study will

examine tour lengths. The goal is to reduce the number of positions with

maximum tour lengths. Maximum tour lengths limit how long a person

may stay in one location. In addition, the Air Force is considering

increasing the number of minimum tour lengths where practicable. Longer

tours mean fewer PCS moves and reduced expenditures.

The Army contracted with the Rand Corporation to help determine how

the Army could address personnel management issues, including

suggestions to help reduce its PCS moves.3

 Only one of the alternatives

studied reduced the number of PCS moves and saved costs. That alternative

was to reduce the number of soldiers stationed overseas. Rand

Corporation’s December 1995 draft report noted, however, that the

2

“Fill rate” refers to the percentage of authorized positions with personnel assigned to them.

3

See draft report. Assignment Stability: A Briefing on PCS Moves in the U.S. Army (Rand Corporation,

DRR-1161-A, Dec. 1995). This report is the first in a series of four reports for the Army.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

number of soldiers the Army must station overseas is beyond the Army’s

control.

All services offer incentives to personnel on overseas tours if they extend

their tour or remain for a second tour. Servicemembers electing to remain

overseas for a second tour receive one round-trip airfare for themselves

and their authorized dependents to their home in the United States.

Servicemembers electing to extend their tour by 1 year receive either

additional monthly pay, 30 days of special leave, or 15 days of special leave

and round-trip airfare to the nearest U.S. port of entry. According to

service officials, the collective cost of the incentives is less than the two

moves that would be required to replace the servicemember. The special

leave and additional monthly pay incentives are funded by the services’

military personnel appropriation. In some instances, the round-trip airfare

is funded by command operation and maintenance appropriations.

For extension programs with allowances funded from their operation and

maintenance appropriation, Army overseas commanders were reluctant to

encourage a soldier to extend a tour. In these instances, the commanders

believed other items funded from the operation and maintenance

appropriation, such as gasoline, spare parts, and training, were higher

priorities. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, all incentives will be funded from

the services’ military personnel appropriation, although the Army began

implementing the program in January 1996.

Additional Opportunities

Exist for Cost Savings

The services believe their ongoing studies could lead to reduced costs and

less frequent PCS moves. We agree with the services. In addition, in several

of our prior reports on other subjects, we have identified opportunities to

improve operations, which could also reduce PCS costs.

We reported in October 1994 that the services could cut military personnel

costs by using civilians for certain positions.4

 Civilians can more

effectively provide continuity and institutional memory because they are

less subject to frequent reassignments. Yet, the services assign thousands

of military personnel to support functions such as personnel management,

finance, and data processing that are typically performed by civilian

personnel and do not require knowledge or skills acquired through

military experience. In some instances, valid reasons exist for not

replacing military support personnel with civilians. For example, some

4

DOD Force Mix Issues: Greater Reliance on Civilians in Support Roles Could Provide Significant

Benefits (GAO/NSIAD-95-5, Oct. 19, 1994).

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

military positions are needed to provide time in the United States for

servicemembers rotating from tours abroad. In other instances,

replacements that should be made are impeded by factors such as

downsizing and funding. In commenting on a draft of this report, service

officials expressed concerns about continuing reductions in funds for

civilian personnel.

We reported, in December 1994, that the services maintain more recruiting

stations throughout the United States than they need.5

 For example, the

offices in 50 percent of the counties recruit only 13.5 percent of the

recruits. Closing those less productive offices and relying on alternatives

could eliminate or reduce the need for 2,800 active duty recruiters. Such

closures could also eliminate over 1,800 PCS reassignments each

year—nearly a 2-percent reduction in operational PCS moves—because the

typical tour to a recruiting station is 3 years.

In addition, we have just initiated a related review on first-term attrition.

That review will examine steps DOD and the services are taking to reduce

the attrition rate for first-term enlistees. Because many recruits do not

complete their first tour of duty, the services may unnecessarily incur

relocation expenses. Accordingly, any improvement in the attrition rates

should reduce the services’ $700 million PCS budget for accessions and

separations. We expect to complete this work in late calendar year 1996.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life reported in

October 1995 that hiring contractors overseas to replace departing active

duty personnel would reduce forward presence requirements and costs

associated with maintaining military personnel in foreign countries.6

 The

task force identified several major U.S. and foreign corporations already

providing contracted housing and family services and made several

recommendations for additional overseas contracting opportunities, such

as cooking and delivering supplies. In commenting on a draft of this

report, service officials agreed that some contracting is possible. They

noted, however, that status of forces agreements with foreign countries

also limit the total number of employees the United States can maintain

within a country.

5

Military Recruiting: More Innovative Approaches Needed (GAO/NSIAD-95-22, Dec. 22, 1994).

6

Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life, Final Report (Oct. 19, 1995).

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

Number of PCS Moves

Declined With the Size

of the Force, but

Variations Exist by

Category and Military

Service

For fiscal years 1987 through 1995, total PCS moves declined with the size

of the force and changes in U.S. overseas presence. However, PCS moves

between U.S. installations increased because of turbulence from the

services’ downsizing programs, the European drawdown, and increased

personnel demands of joint duty positions. The Army was most impacted

by the European drawdown, while the Navy had more PCS moves within

the United States than the other services and also experienced the largest

decline in training moves.

Total PCS Moves and

Overseas Reassignments

Declined

For fiscal years 1987 through 1995, PCS moves declined by 26 percent while

the services’ end strengths declined by 30 percent. Figure 1 shows that

service end strengths declined from 2.2 million in fiscal year 1987 to

1.5 million in fiscal year 1995, while the number of PCS moves declined

from 1,145,442 to 846,570.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

Figure 1: Comparison of Services’ End Strengths and PCS Moves (fiscal years 1987-95)

'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95

800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

1,150,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

1,800,000

1,900,000

2,000,000

2,100,000

2,200,000

Fiscal year

Number of PCS moves End strength

PCS Moves End strengths 

Note: The spike in fiscal year 1992 occurred because of Operation Desert Storm.

Source: DOD Comptroller and service budget submission data.

During fiscal year 1991, most Army units in Europe were deployed to

Operation Desert Storm, and the Army delayed overseas PCS moves to and

from all overseas areas until fiscal year 1992. This delay, combined with

the European drawdown, temporarily increased total PCS moves during

fiscal year 1992.

PCS moves to and from overseas installations also declined at nearly the

same rate as reductions in U.S. overseas presence. As figure 2 shows,

overseas PCS moves declined from 306,212 in fiscal year 1987 to 186,754 in

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

fiscal year 1995, or by 39 percent, while overseas requirements declined by

49 percent, from 593,058 to 304,448 over the same period.

Figure 2: Comparison of U.S. Overseas Requirements and Transoceanic PCS Moves (fiscal years 1987-95)

'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000

300,000

320,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Fiscal year

Moves End strength

PCS Moves End strength

Note: Peaks and valleys in fiscal years 1991 and 1992 occurred because of delayed relocation of

European forces and Operation Desert Storm, particularly for the Army.

Source: DOD Comptroller and service budget submission data.

The Army is most impacted by overseas assignments because it must fill

the largest share of the positions, especially in Europe. In this regard, we

have previously reported that the Army is using the most advantageous

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

system to fill overseas positions.7 In that report, we studied several

alternatives to the Army’s individual replacement system and determined

that it had advantages over other alternatives for maintaining the Army’s

European presence. The primary reason is that the Army did not have

enough units in the United States to rotate entire units to Europe.

Downsizing Turbulence

Increased Moves Between

U.S. Installations

Although overall PCS moves declined since fiscal year 1987, PCS moves

between U.S. installations increased by 16 percent, from 93,430 in fiscal

year 1987 to 108,141 in fiscal year 1995, as figure 3 shows. Service officials

predict that, when downsizing concludes in 1999, there will be fewer

operational moves in the United States than there were in 1987. The larger

increases occurred in fiscal years 1989 and 1991 when downsizing

accelerated and in fiscal year 1993 when the European drawdown

accelerated.

7

Army Force Structure: Current System for Assigning Troops to Europe Has Advantages Over

Alternatives (GAO/NSIAD-94-42, Nov. 10, 1993).

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

Figure 3: PCS Moves Between U.S. Installations DOD-Wide (fiscal years 1987-95)

'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

Fiscal year

Moves

Operational moves

Source: Service budget submission data.

We reported on the impact of downsizing turbulence from another

perspective in June 1995.8

 We stated that policies for relocating personnel

returning from Europe and general downsizing created personnel

imbalances at some U.S. military installations that needed to be corrected.

For example, personnel stationed in Europe less than a year were

reassigned to other units and remained in Europe when their units were

returned to the United States. Thus, some units returned to the United

States with fewer personnel than authorized. Also, some units were under

staffed because participation in the downsizing programs was voluntary

8

Military Personnel: High Aggregate Personnel Levels Maintained Throughout Drawdown

(GAO/NSIAD-95-97, June 2, 1995).

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

and the services had limited control over who left individual units and

installations. To correct the shortages and to maintain the personnel

readiness levels of the affected units, the services relocated personnel

from other U.S. installations—a process called force leveling.

Furthermore, part of the increase in U.S. operational PCS moves resulted

from increased personnel demands on the services to fill joint positions

pursuant to the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization

Act of 1986. When DOD centralized several functions, formerly conducted

by the individual services, the functions became joint duty positions. In

April 1987, the Secretary of Defense published a joint duty assignment list

that contained over 8,000 positions. By 1994, this list contained over 

21,000 positions. While directly under the services’ control, the functions

were often staffed at less than 100 percent of their authorized levels; the

same functions must be filled at 100 percent under joint duty. In addition,

the services must fill these positions from a smaller pool of personnel and

may incur more PCS moves to meet the staffing demands.

As shown in figure 4, the Navy consistently had the largest number of PCS

moves between U.S. installations. This is because the Navy routinely

rotates sailors between an assignment aboard a ship (sea duty) and a port

or an inland installation (shore duty) approximately every 3 years. In many

instances, these rotations require a PCS move because the Navy’s major

U.S. ports have more sea duty positions than shore duty positions. When

the sea-to-shore rotation occurs in the same geographic location, such as

Norfolk, Virginia, a no-cost PCS move results. In fiscal year 1995, about

27,000 no-cost, sea-to-shore rotations were made, but these figures are not

included in the PCS data shown in figure 4.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

Figure 4: PCS Moves Between U.S. Installations by Service (fiscal years 1987-95)

'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Fiscal year

Moves

Army Air Force Navy Marine Corps

Source: DOD Comptroller and service budget submission data.

PCS Training Moves

Declined

For fiscal years 1987 through 1995, the percentage of servicemembers

relocated to attend training for 20 weeks or longer declined from

3.1 percent to 2.6 percent. This represents a 41-percent decrease in PCS

training moves.

As figure 5 shows, the Navy had the largest decline in PCS training moves,

while training moves in the other services remained fairly constant. The

number of sailors relocated for training declined from 35,338 (6 percent of

the Navy’s end strength) in fiscal year 1987 to 16,940 (3.9 percent in

1995)—a 52-percent change compared with 41 percent DOD-wide. In the

past, the Navy’s practice was to send sailors to school before their next

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

sea tour. Due to budgetary constraints, the Navy began using more

on-the-job training and relying less on formal training.

Figure 5: PCS Training Moves by Service (fiscal years 1987-95)

'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Fiscal year

Moves

Army Air Force Navy Marine Corps

Source: DOD Comptroller and service budget submission data.

Several Factors

Account for Increase

in Average Cost of

Each Move

The actual expenditures for PCS moves and the average cost of each move

increased between fiscal year 1987 and fiscal year 1995. When the cost

data were adjusted for inflation, however, total costs decreased slightly

and the cost per move still increased.9

 For instance, actual expenditures

increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1987 to $2.9 billion in fiscal 

9

To account for inflation, each year’s total PCS costs were adjusted to 1987 constant dollars using the

Gross Domestic Product Deflator.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

year 1995, but the inflation-adjusted total costs decreased from $2.3 billion

to $2.2 billion over the same period.

Average cost per move increased from $2,006 in fiscal year 1987 to $3,378

in fiscal year 1995, a 68-percent increase. When the increase due to

inflation was removed, the average cost of a PCS move still increased by

30 percent, from $2,006 in fiscal year 1987 to $2,611 in fiscal year 1995, as

figure 6 shows.

Figure 6: Comparison of Actual Cost of Each PCS Move With Costs Adjusted for Inflation (fiscal years 1987-95)

'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95

$1,800

$2,000

$2,200

$2,400

$2,600

$2,800

$3,000

$3,200

$3,400

Fiscal year

 Average cost per PCS move

Actual Constant fiscal year '87

Source: GAO computation based on service budget data.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

According to service officials, changes in relocation entitlements

accounted for most of the 30-percent cost increase. In fiscal year 1989, for

instance, the Congress authorized increases in the shipping weights for

household goods. Recently, the basis for determining allowances to cover

incidental expenses doubled (called a dislocation allowance), a temporary

lodging expense was added as an entitlement, and servicemembers were

allowed to move two privately owned vehicles instead of one.

An increase in the number of dependents that moved with servicemembers

accounts for the remainder of the increase. Service officials stated that the

average age of force members increased because of downsizing and that

older servicemembers are more likely to have dependents. Therefore, the

percentage of servicemembers with dependents increased and the number

of servicemembers moving with dependents also increased. For instance,

in fiscal year 1989, 33 percent of the Navy’s servicemembers moved with

dependents; that number increased to 48 percent in fiscal year 1994.

Personnel officers in the other services noted that their services also

experienced an increase in the number of servicemembers moving with

dependents, but to a lesser degree than the Navy.

PCS Moves Have

Limited Impact on

Unit Readiness

While personnel changes within a military unit (including PCS

reassignments) influence that unit’s readiness, PCS moves are not a major

contributor to readiness problems.10 According to commanders and

personnel officers at the Army’s Fort Hood and Air Force’s Dyess Air

Force Base, uncontrolled and unplanned personnel absences, such as

deployments, special duty assignments, and health problems, adversely

impact unit readiness more than PCS moves. Commanders receive advance

notice of PCS moves and often know precisely when unit personnel will be

replaced. Thus, the commanders can control the impact of such moves on

their units’ readiness. According to Marine Corps officials, however, the

frequency of staff turnover associated with 12-month unaccompanied

tours adversely affects the readiness of some support units, especially

those in Japan.

A major cause of personnel turbulence in recent years has been

deployments for operations other than war. We previously reported that

the rate of deployments for peace operations is beginning to challenge

10“Unit readiness” is an assessment of a unit’s capability to complete a specific mission. Such

assessments consider the number of personnel assigned to the unit, the availability and capability of

equipment, and the training level of unit members.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

service capabilities to remain ready to respond to major conflicts.11 In

some instances, the services have transferred individuals from

nondeployed units to ensure that deployed units were fully staffed. Thus,

units providing personnel to the deploying units experience personnel

shortages that degrade their readiness.

Agency Comments In oral comments, DOD agreed with this report’s findings and conclusions.

The comments dealt primarily with technical accuracy and clarification.

We have changed the report, as appropriate, to respond to these

comments.

Scope and

Methodology

We interviewed DOD and service officials and reviewed policies,

regulations, procedures, related DOD studies, and data on the number and

costs of PCS moves. We analyzed PCS cost data by budget category, officer

and enlisted status, and by service for fiscal years 1987 through 1995. We

adjusted the nominal dollars to constant fiscal year 1987 dollars using the

Gross Domestic Product Deflator.12 We developed and analyzed various

categories of trend data and interviewed service officials to explain

anomalies.

Information was obtained from the following Washington, D.C.,

metropolitan area DOD officials: the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Force Management Policy; Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Under

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the DOD Comptroller;

the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, the Army Budget Office,

and the U.S. Army Total Personnel Command; the Air Force’s Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel and the Air Force’s Budget Office; the Navy’s

Bureau of Naval Personnel and the Navy’s Budget Office; and the Marine

Corps’ Operation and Support Branch.

To obtain operational perspectives on the impact of PCS moves on unit

readiness, we visited the following locations: Dyess Air Force Base, Texas;

Fort Hood, Texas; and Army’s Forces Command, Fort McPherson,

Georgia. We discussed the key factors affecting unit readiness and

obtained some limited readiness data from operational groups and

11Peace Operations: Heavy Use of Key Capabilities May Affect Response to Regional Conflicts

(GAO/NSIAD-95-51, Mar. 8, 1995).

12The Gross Domestic Product Deflator is a broad-based price index of all goods and services

produced in the United States. We used this index to provide the most comprehensive picture of

changes in the purchasing power of the dollar over the 9-year period covered by our review because it

includes all goods and services produced in the United States.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
B-270790 

personnel officers at each location. We also reviewed several of our prior

reports on this subject.

We performed our review from May through November 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Permanent

Change-of-Station

Budget Categories

22

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

24

Table Table 1: Number and Cost of PCS Moves for All Services 3

Figures Figure 1: Comparison of Services’ End Strengths and PCS Moves 9

Figure 2: Comparison of U.S. Overseas Requirements and

Transoceanic PCS Moves

10

Figure 3: PCS Moves Between U.S. Installations DOD-Wide 12

Figure 4: PCS Moves Between U.S. Installations by Service 14

Figure 5: PCS Training Moves by Service 15

Figure 6: Comparison of Actual Cost of Each PCS Move With

Costs Adjusted for Inflation

16

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

PCS permanent change-of-station

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
Appendix I 

Permanent Change-of-Station Budget

Categories

All PCS moves are classified into one of six budget categories. The

following three categories account for permanent change-of-station (PCS)

moves associated with end strengths and force structure changes.

• Accessions include moves from a servicemember’s home of record upon

entry into the service to the member’s first permanent duty station,

including assignments overseas or in schools for 20 weeks or longer.

• Separations include moves from the servicemember’s duty station at the

time of the member’s separation or retirement from the service, including

overseas assignments, to either a home of record or point of entry into the

service. Members retiring from the service can select another city that is

neither a home of record nor an original hometown.

• Unit moves occur when servicemembers assigned to organizations that are

relocated because of force structure changes, Base Closure and

Realignment Commission decisions, or decisions associated with the

changing security environment.

The remaining three budget categories make up the majority of PCS moves

that can be considered as reassignments from one installation to another.

Those budget categories include the following:

• Rotational moves occur between duty stations outside the continental

United States (defined as overseas or transoceanic locations, including

Alaska and Hawaii).

• Operational moves are made between two continental U.S. duty stations or

non-transoceanic moves between two duty stations outside the

continental United States. The majority of operational moves occur within

the United States.

• Training moves are made to and from training schools or courses lasting

more than 20 weeks.

The order in which the budgeted categories are listed indicates their

relative importance when determining which one to select in situations

where more than one category may apply. For instance, if a

servicemember was returned from an overseas assignment to a school of

over 20 weeks, the PCS move would be categorized as rotational.

The costs of PCS moves are paid from each service’s military personnel

appropriation. While numerous categories of expenses are covered, the

larger categories include the following:

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
Appendix I 

Permanent Change-of-Station Budget

Categories

• travel to the new location, specifically mileage or costs of common carrier

and per diem allowance for subsistence while in a travel status for the

military member;

• travel for dependents, that is, mileage or cost of common carrier;

• transportation of household goods and privately owned vehicles;

• packing, crating, handling, and storage of household effects;

• incidental costs associated with relocating one’s household, such as

security deposit or activating a telephone or other utilities; and

• temporary lodging.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala

Valeria G. Gist

James A. Driggins

Mae F. Jones

Julio A. Luna

Charles W. Perdue

Dallas Regional Office Thomas W. Barger, Jr.

Robert D. Malpass

(703101) Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-84 Military Personnel Reassignments
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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

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