United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

March 1996 DOD TRAINING

Opportunities Exist to

Reduce the Training

Infrastructure

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-93

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-270976 

March 29, 1996

Congressional Committees

One source of funds to pay for the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

acceleration of its modernization efforts is to reduce infrastructure. This

report summarizes the status of DOD’s efforts to reduce its formal training

infrastructure—a small but important part of the total infrastructure. More

specifically, our objectives were to determine the (1) size of the active

forces’ formal training infrastructure and (2) actions planned, completed,

or ongoing to reduce and/or streamline the training infrastructure.

We conducted this review under our basic legislative responsibilities. We

are addressing this report to the committees of jurisdiction because it

identifies problems and calls for corrective action that the agency has

indicated an unwillingness to take. We are suggesting that Congress may

wish to take the necessary action to ensure that the agency addresses the

problems we have identified.

The scope and methodology of our review are shown in appendix I.

Background DOD defines its training infrastructure to include billeting, mess facilities,

classrooms, equipment, software packages, and instructors used to

provide, facilitate, or support training of the military forces. There are

essentially three types of training: unit training, civilian, and formal

training and education for military personnel. Unit training consists of

military mission-type training performed at the unit level under the control

of the unit commander. Civilian personnel training consists of various

training courses offered to civilian personnel to enhance their job

functions. This type of training does not have a formal training structure

and, therefore, does not have a definable training infrastructure. The third

type of training—formal education and training of military personnel—has

a definable training infrastructure and is managed by the services’ training

commands. Our review focused on the third type of training.

DOD has the following six categories of formal training and education

programs for military personnel.

• Recruit training: includes introductory physical conditioning and basic

military indoctrination and training.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

• One-station unit training: an Army program that combines recruit and

specialized skill training into a single course.

• Officer acquisition training: includes all types of education and training

leading to a commission in one of the services.

• Specialized skill training: provides officer and enlisted personnel with

initial job qualification skills or new or higher levels of skill in their current

military specialty or functional area.

• Flight training: provides the flying skills needed by pilots, navigators, and

naval flight officers. It does not include formal advanced flight training,

which is provided by the services’ advanced flight training organizations.

• Professional development education: includes educational courses

conducted at the higher-level service schools or at civilian institutions to

broaden the outlook and knowledge of senior military personnel or to

impart knowledge in advanced academic disciplines.

Results in Brief The cost of providing formal military training and education to individuals

increased significantly between fiscal years 1987 and 1995. During this

period, the training cost per student increased from $53,194 to $72,546.

After considering the effects of inflation, the cost per student increased

about $4,200. This cost differential, when multiplied by the fiscal year 1995

training workload, shows that since fiscal year 1987, training costs have

increased about $745 million more than normal inflation, even though the

training workload has decreased. Officials told us that the primary reason

that training had become more expensive was the increased use of

government civilian and private-sector instructors and facilities rather

than military instructors.

DOD and the services have completed several actions to reduce the training

infrastructure, and even more actions will be implemented over the next

several years. The actions are intended to (1) reduce the number of

locations where a particular course is taught, (2) increase interservice

training, and (3) increase the use of private-sector instructors and

facilities. However, an overall plan to guide and measure the progress of

reducing the training infrastructure is lacking. Additionally, actions by the

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission to close and realign

bases where training is conducted are also expected to reduce the training

infrastructure.

The lack of a management information system with reliable cost data

within the various training categories makes it difficult for DOD to

(1) evaluate the overall effectiveness of alternate methods of providing

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

training and (2) assess whether actions taken to reduce costs are

achieving the expected results. The need for reliable data and a system for

evaluating it has become even more critical because excess training

infrastructure identified in the future will be difficult to eliminate in the

absence of a BRAC-like process.

Changes in DOD’s End

Strength and Training

Budget

Analysis of DOD’s end strengths, training workloads, and overall training

budgets between fiscal years 1987 and 1995 showed that end strengths and

training workloads have decreased at much greater rates than the training

budget. Between fiscal years 1987 and 1995, the number of Army, Navy,

Marine Corps, and Air Force active duty personnel decreased from about

2.2 million to about 1.5 million—a reduction of about 30 percent.

During the same period, the training workloads for formal training and

education programs decreased from about 248,000 to about 178,000—a

reduction of about 28 percent. However, military personnel funding, which

is used to pay military students, instructors, and training support and

management personnel, decreased by only about 15 percent, and

operation and maintenance (O&M) funding, which is used to pay DOD

civilian and contractor instructors and to operate, maintain, and support

training facilities and equipment, increased about 30 percent.

Figure 1 shows trends in military end strengths, training workloads, and

funding between fiscal years 1987 and 1995. Training workload and

funding information is broken out by the six formal training and education

categories in appendix II.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

Figure 1: Trends in Active Duty Military

End Strengths, Training Workloads,

and Training Funds—Fiscal Years

1987-95

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

Fiscal year

MILPERS funding ($)

O&M funding ($) 

End strengths 

Training workloads 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

9,679,226 8,950,775 9,208,000 8,912,304 8,775,995 9,475,448 8,906,389 8,652,695 8,252,939

3,598,700 3,470,073 3,568,309 3,895,700 3,891,824 4,139,864 4,502,426 4,556,006 4,669,000

2,163,752 2,123,845 2,115,411 2,029,749 1,971,552 1,793,473 1,692,678 1,596,694 1,508,940

248,147 229,223 222,562 227,803 185,031 177,421 168,660 162,591 177,819

Dollars in thousands Number of military personnel

Dollars in thousands

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center.

As shown above, the decreases in military end strengths and training

workloads are fairly consistent over the period. However, the funding

trends—especially the increase in O&M funds—are at variance with the

downward trends for military end strengths and the training workloads.

On a per student training year basis, the fiscal year 1987 cost per student is

$53,194 and for fiscal year 1995 is $72,546. When the fiscal year 1987 rate is

inflated to fiscal year 1995 dollars, the fiscal year 1987 per student cost is

$68,354, or about $4,192 less than the actual cost in fiscal year 1995. This

cost differential, when multiplied by the fiscal year 1995 training

workload, shows that since fiscal year 1987, training costs have increased

about $745 million more than normal inflation even though the training

workload has decreased.

Officials told us that the increase in O&M training funding was due

primarily to the increased use of contractor personnel to teach the courses

that were previously taught by the military services and paid for with

military personnel appropriations funds. Other reasons included

(1) increased use of private-sector facilities, (2) civilian personnel pay

increases, (3) increased costs of operating training bases and facilities, and

(4) temporary-duty allowances or permanent change of station costs for

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

students and training personnel. Officials attributed the smaller reduction

in military personnel funding mainly to increases in military pay and

allowances for students and military personnel supporting formal training

and education activities.

Cost data was not available that would allow us to determine the extent to

which each of the above reasons affected costs. Without this type of

information, it was not possible to determine whether decisions affecting

the current or planned method of providing training are the correct

decisions or whether some alternative means of providing the same

training would be more cost effective.

Actions to Decrease

the Training

Infrastructure

Actions already implemented or planned for implementation by the

services, DOD, and the BRAC over the next several years are expected to

further reduce and streamline the training infrastructure for military

personnel by

• reducing the number of locations at which a service teaches a particular

course;

• increasing interservice training for similar curricula;

• increasing the number of private sector instructors, courses, and training

facilities; and

• closing or realigning bases at which formal training is now provided.

According to DOD officials, many of the actions to reduce and streamline

the training infrastructure are still ongoing and the effect of these actions

will not be known until after fiscal year 1996. Consequently, we could not

quantify either the expected reduced infrastructure or the savings.

Adding to the difficulties of evaluating DOD’s planned and ongoing actions

is the lack of a plan to guide and measure progress in terms of how much

reduction is needed, how will the reductions be achieved, what will they

cost, and when will they be accomplished.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

Changes in the Number of

Formal Training Locations

The number of locations at which training is provided decreased from 

265 to 172 from fiscal years 1987 to 1995, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Training Locations by Category, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1995

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Total

Training locations

Training

program FY87 FY95 FY87 FY95 FY87 FY95 FY87 FY95 FY87 FY95

Recruit training 7 4 3 1 2 2 1 1 13 8

One-station unit

training 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5

Officer

acquisition 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 9 9

Flight training 1 1 7 5 0 0 9 10 17 16

Specialized skill

training 30 21 30 28 7 7 9 10 76 66

Professional

development 6 5 3 3 17 6 118 54 144 68

aThe total training locations refer to the number of sites at which the course is taught, not the

number of individual installations or bases. Thus, recruit training and officer acquisition could be

taught at the same installation or base. In such a case, each course would be counted

separately.

As shown in the table, the number of formal training locations has

decreased rather significantly, with professional education being the area

where the largest decreases occurred. In certain cases, the reductions

were achieved by redefining the courses and consolidating the training

locations. For example, the Marine Corps decreased the number of its

professional education courses from 17 to 6 by redefining and renaming

the courses and reducing the number of training locations.

Increases in Interservice

Training

Since 1972, the services have participated in a voluntary process

conducted by the Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO) to

identify opportunities to consolidate and/or collocate existing initial skills

training. Between 1972 and 1992, ITRO focused primarily on individual

courses rather than all courses in a functional training area—families of

similar types of tasks and training courses. DOD estimated that ITRO’s

recommended consolidations and collocations of training courses have

resulted in approximately $300 million in savings.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

In 1993, in response to a Commission on Roles and Mission

recommendation, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed ITRO to

conduct a thorough review of all initial and follow-on technical training to

identify additional areas for consolidation and/or collocation. ITRO’s

Military Training Structure Review, which was completed in 1995,

identified opportunities to reduce the number of training locations for 

10 functional areas from 35 to 18, involving 101 courses as shown in 

table 2.

Table 2: Military Training Structure

Review Course Consolidations and

Collocations

Number of

locations

Functional area

Number of

courses

in area

Prior to

review

After

review

Projected

implementation year

Air crew 10 3 2 1997

Calibration 13 4 1 1996

Civil construction

engineering 37 8 6 1996

Food service 6 4 2 1995

Helicopter maintenance 2 2 1 1994

Law enforcement 21 2 1 1994

Motor vehicle operator 5 3 1 1996

Supply/logistics 2 2 1 1998

Water survival 1 2 1 1996

Welder 4 5 2 1995

Based on DOD projections, most of the recommended course

consolidations and collocations will not be implemented until fiscal 

year 1996 or later. DOD estimates that full implementation of the

recommendations for the functional areas would result in a one-time

savings of about $2.4 million and annual recurring savings of about

$680,000. According to Marine Corps officials, when all the training

consolidations are completed, about 77 percent of all Marine Corps formal

school training will be conducted at other service locations.

In addition to these reductions in training locations, ITRO projects

additional savings will be achieved based on its recommendations for the

communications functional area. Although the number of training

locations will remain the same, ITRO projects that its proposed location

changes will achieve a one-time savings of approximately $2 million and

annual recurring savings of about $6.6 million. Data, however, was not

available to enable us to confirm those projections.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

Use of Private-Sector

Instructors and Facilities

To date, DOD officials noted that the Navy has been the most active user of

private-sector instructors, replacing about 700 of its military instructors

with contractor personnel and exploring opportunities to further privatize

additional courses and instructor positions. The Navy’s goal is to replace

an additional 2,000 military instructors with private-sector instructors.

DOD and service officials told us that the services, on a very limited basis,

contract with community colleges and universities to provide training to

their personnel. However, DOD officials said that they could not quantify

the extent to which the services use private-sector instructors and

facilities. Additionally, DOD and service officials have expressed concerns

about contractor-provided training in a civilian environment, particularly

for newly enlisted personnel. The service officials believe they need to

maintain a military environment for new personnel. The officials said that

the services are more receptive to contractor-provided training for

follow-on training and professional development education because by the

time the military personnel are ready for these advanced courses, they

have been acclimated to the military environment.

The officials also expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in using

contractor personnel, noting that factors such as deployments and

changes to training requirements frequently require changes to training

schedules. If contractor personnel are providing the training, changes of

this type result in contract adjustments, which often translate into more

money. Service officials pointed out, however, that contractor-provided

training is advantageous when the required training equipment is

expensive, the training course is offered infrequently, and the number of

attendees is relatively small.

DOD, as part of a recommendation by the 1995 Commission on Roles and

Missions, is looking for additional opportunities to privatize training

functions. To provide technical assistance in this process, DOD contracted

with the Logistics Management Institute. At the time we completed our

review in January 1996, the effort had not been completed. Consequently,

we could not quantify the additional opportunities for privatization or the

savings that such actions would produce.

BRAC Impacts on DOD

Training Infrastructure

Since 1987, BRAC has recommended base closures and mission

realignments that, when fully implemented, will reduce the number of

locations where the services provide formal training for military

personnel. As shown in table 3, the Commission has recommended 

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

25 mission realignments and 17 installation closures that impact where the

services provide formal military training.

Table 3: Impacts of the BRAC Commission Recommendations on the DOD Training Infrastructure

BRAC realignments BRAC closures

1988 1991 1993 1995 Total 1988 1991 1993 1995 Total

Army 9 3 2 1 15 0 3 0 2 5

Air Force 4 2 1 0 7 2 2 0 1 5

Navy 0 1 1 1 3 0 2 5 0 7

Marine

Corps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Despite the BRAC actions, DOD senior officials recognized that excess

infrastructure would remain even after completion of the 1995 BRAC round.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on March 1, 1995, testified

before the BRAC Commission that excess capacity would remain after the

1995 BRAC. He cited the need for future base closure authority and said that

opportunities remain regarding cross-servicing, particularly in the area of

joint-use bases and training facilities.1

Our examination of the 1995 BRAC recommendations identified several

Army training related installations with relatively low military value that

were not proposed for closure because of the up-front closure costs,

despite projecting savings in the long term. The Navy’s analysis indicated

that its primary pilot and advanced helicopter training requirements were

19 to 42 percent below peak historic levels. However, BRAC 1995 did little

to change this situation because only one Navy air training facility was

slated for realignment, none for closure. Further, the services could not

agree on an alternative for consolidating rotary wing training at one

central location. As a result, they were left with capacity for rotary-wing

training that was more than twice the ramp space needed.

According to service training officials, if downsizing continues, it will be

more difficult to eliminate any excess training capacity that is identified

now that the BRAC process is over.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the DOD Comptroller,

as part of the Department’s efforts to improve its finance and accounting

1

The 1995 BRAC was the last round of base closure reviews authorized under the 1990 legislation that

authorized a special commission to review proposed closures and realignments.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

systems, to provide for the centralized accumulation and tracking of

information on institutional training costs. As a minimum, such

information should capture and report the costs in each category in terms

of military and civilian instructors, student stipends, facilities,

contractor-provided services, and base O&M for the training facilities. This

information would allow decisionmakers to evaluate the cost of each

alternative when deciding the best method for providing training in each

category.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop a long-range

plan to guide and measure the services’ efforts to reduce the training

infrastructure. The plan should identify (1) how much the training

infrastructure should be reduced, (2) how the reductions will be achieved,

(3) what it will cost to achieve the reductions, and (4) when the reductions

will be accomplished. We further recommend that the Secretary of

Defense develop a plan that identifies how DOD will deal with excess

installations and facilities that are being funded by the training account

after the BRAC process is completed.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD did not agree with our recommendations. It said that the

recommendation to improve its finance and accounting system to

accumulate and track cost data on institutional training would incur

additional unnecessary costs, be incompatible with existing financial data

systems, and would require rule-of-thumb allocations of facilities and

training resources.

We agree that the accumulation of such cost data may be incompatible

with DOD’s existing systems; however, as it goes forward with its efforts to

improve the existing systems, DOD should make adjustments to accumulate

training cost data. Without such data, DOD cannot determine whether the

current method of providing training is the most cost effective or whether

an alternative method would be more cost effective. DOD also did not agree

with our recommendation for developing a long-range plan that would set

out how much the training infrastructure should be reduced, how the

reductions will be achieved, what it will cost to achieve the reductions,

and when the reductions will be accomplished. DOD officials said that they

already assess the services’ plans for accomplishing their training

requirements as part of the annual budget process and Future Years

Defense Program. They said that the report assumes that further

infrastructure reductions can be made and that the report does not

adequately consider the reduction initiatives already accomplished or in

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

process. The officials said that they were not convinced that further

reductions are possible and were unsure how to go about setting long-term

reduction objectives. The officials also said that the report does not

recognize factors that could increase the need for training resources even

though there has been a reduction in military end strength and accessions.

DOD is correct that we believe further training infrastructure reductions are

possible. As our report notes, DOD continues to seek opportunities for

reductions and DOD officials have testified that further reductions are

possible. With regard to a possible need for additional training resources,

even with a reduction in end strength and accessions, our analysis of the

Future Years Defense Program shows that training costs remain fairly

constant with a slight decrease during the program period. We do not

agree with DOD’s position regarding establishing long-term infrastructure

reduction objectives. In our opinion, unless DOD establishes objectives that

set forth how much the infrastructure should be reduced, how the

reductions will be accomplished, what it will cost, and when it will be

accomplished, it will not know when it has reached the optimal

infrastructure size. Reviewing and assessing training requirements on an

annual basis as part of the budget process will not accomplish these

objectives.

Regarding our recommendation that a plan be developed that shows how

DOD will deal with excess training installations after the BRAC process is

completed, DOD said that the report provides little data and no examples to

support this recommendation.

DOD is correct that our report does not identify excess installations or

facilities. It was not our intent to single out specific facilities as being

excess to the training needs. The intent of the recommendation was to

develop a process that DOD could use when it identifies excess training

installations and facilities. Throughout our review, a common concern

expressed by training officials responsible for managing and providing the

training was that after the BRAC process is completed, there would still be

excess training facilities and installations. The officials said that it will

become extremely difficult to dispose of the unneeded facilities in the

absence of a BRAC-like process. The complete text of DOD’s comments are

in appendix III.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

Because DOD has indicated that it will not take action to correct the

problems we have identified, and the problems are significant, Congress

may wish to ensure that DOD address the identified problems.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense and the

Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Director of the

Office of Management and Budget; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority

Members of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, Senate

Committee on Armed Services, and House Committee on National

Security; and other interested congressional committees. Copies will also

be made available to others upon request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-5140 if you have any questions concerning

this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

List of Congressional Committees

Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Readiness

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Military Readiness

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
B-270976 

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

18

Appendix II 

Training Workloads

and Funding for

Formal Education and

Training Programs,

Fiscal Years 1987 and

1995

20

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

21

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

25

Tables Table 1: Training Locations by Category, Fiscal Years 1987 and

1995

6

Table 2: Military Training Structure Review Course

Consolidations and Collocations

7

Table 3: Impacts of the BRAC Commission Recommendations on

the DOD Training Infrastructure

9

Figure Figure 1: Trends in Active Duty Military End Strengths, Training

Workloads, and Training Funds—Fiscal Years 1987-95

4

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Contents

Abbreviations

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure Commission

DMDC Defense Manpower Data Center

DOD Department of Defense

ITRO Interservice Training Review Organization

O&M operation and maintenance

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

To determine the size of the Department of Defense (DOD) training

infrastructure in fiscal year 1995 and what changes have occurred to it

since fiscal year 1987, we interviewed and obtained documentation from

personnel in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense and the training

commands of the four services. In addition, we obtained and analyzed

information from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) on military

end strengths, student entrants into the six formal training and education

categories, and funding through the operation and maintenance (O&M) and

the military personnel appropriations. To identify specific changes in the

number of locations where formal training and education were provided,

we compared the breakouts of the training facilities shown in DMDC’s

Military Manpower Training Reports for fiscal years 1987 and 1995.

To identify actions taken since fiscal year 1987 to reduce the training

infrastructure, we interviewed DOD and the services’ training command

officials and analyzed information on course offerings, locations, and

attendance for fiscal years 1987 and 1995. We also obtained and analyzed

internal studies performed to identify opportunities to consolidate and

collocate training facilities and courses. Additionally, we held discussions

with responsible officials to determine what future plans and initiatives

DOD has to further the privatization of military training. Along these same

lines, we assessed the impact of the Base Realignment and Closures’

(BRAC) recommendations on the DOD training infrastructure by comparing

the Commission’s recommended closures and realignments to the list of

installations where formal training and education were being provided in

fiscal year 1987. We also held discussions with service officials to identify

the specific actions and training reorganizations taken by the services to

comply with BRAC recommendations.

We performed our review at the

• Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Exercise and Training Division,

Washington, D.C.;

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness,

Washington, D.C.;

• Headquarters, Air Education and Training Command, Randolph Air Force

Base, Texas;

• Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe,

Virginia;

• Office of the Chief of Naval Education and Training, Naval Air Station,

Pensacola, Florida; and

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

• Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Training and Education

Division, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia.

We performed our review from July 1995 to February 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix II 

Training Workloads and Funding for Formal

Education and Training Programs, Fiscal

Years 1987 and 1995

Training workloads Funding

Military personnela O&Mb

Dollars in millions

Category 1987 1995

Percent

change 1987 1995

Percent

change 1987 1995

Percent

change

Recruit training 52,930 33,178 (37.3) $1,505.6 $1,084.4 (28.0) $26.4 $20.6 (22.0)

One-station

unit training 13,478 8,966 (33.5) 525.5 214.4 (59.2) 28.3 15.5 (45.5)

Officer

acquisition 17,563 16,149 (8) 373.5 418.5 12.1 113.5 155.5 37.0

Specialized

skillc training 147,944 103,234 (30.2) 4,349.8 3,446.0 (20.8) 610.8 753.5 23.4

Flight training 7,613 4,645 (39) 971.4 670.6 (31.0) 653.5 849.2 30.0

Professional

developmentc 8,619 11,647 26 818.5 1,449.7 77.1 187.9 223.8 19.1

Costs not directly allocated to individual training categories

Direct support 256.7 162.2 (36.8) 560.8 362.0 (35.4)

Base training

support 802.0 731.0 (8.9) 1,337.4 2,230.5 66.8

Training

management

support 76.4 76.1 (0.4) 80.1 59.0 (26.3)

aIncludes the pay of students as well as military instructors.

bIncludes the pay of instructors who are civilian service employees.

cFor specialized skill and professional development training, the student workload figures are

somewhat understated in 1987 because they do not include all Air Force programs now reported

in 1995. In addition, some reported data has been realigned to different reporting categories

since 1987; that is, the Air Training Command Noncommissioned Officer Academy student

production was reported as specialized skill training in 1987 but is now reported under

professional development.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 9-10.

Now on p. 10.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training Infrastructure
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala

Robert J. Lane

Robert L. Self

W. Bennett Quade

Irene A. Robertson

(703109) Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-93 Training 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 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