a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Subcommittees on Defense, 

Committees on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

September 2004 DEFENSE 

ACQUISITIONS

Better Information 

Could Improve 

Visibility over 

Adjustments to DOD’s 

Research and 

Development Funds

GAO-04-944
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-944.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Paul L. Francis 

at (202) 512-4841 or francisp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-944, a report to the 

Subcommittees on Defense, Committees 

on Appropriations, U.S. Senate and House 

of Representatives 

September 2004

DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS 

Better Information Could Improve 

Visibility over Adjustments to DOD’s 

Research and Development Funds 

DOD’s recent reports to Congress provide BTR information of limited quality 

and do not contain data about funds withheld from DOD’s research and 

development programs in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. DOD delivered its 

reports to Congress months after the time that Congress began 

considerations for the new budget, and accessibility was limited because the 

reports were classified. BTR data in the reports to Congress were derived 

through subtraction, rather than totaling the actual value of BTR 

transactions. The reports do not provide a complete picture of how BTRs are 

implemented on a program-by-program level. DOD has no overall system for 

maintaining detailed BTR and withhold data across organizations, although 

such data can be reconstructed from DOD’s multiple data collection 

systems. 

GAO found that DOD organizations used BTRs frequently to increase or 

decrease research and development program funding levels. The Air Force, 

Army, Navy, and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) executed 1,927 BTRs, 

amounting to about $1 billion in fiscal year 2003. This amounted to about 

2 percent of the research and development funds for these organizations. 

Among the programs affected by BTRs, about half lost funds and more than 

one-fourth gained funds. While the dollar amounts and frequency differed for 

fiscal year 2002, the patterns were similar. Although GAO did not observe 

any instances in which DOD’s use of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, GAO’s 

work was not conclusive on this point, as GAO did not design steps to assess 

compliance with thresholds. 

Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and Development Programs 

Organization 

Number of 

programs

Number of 

BTRs 

Total value of 

BTRs

Air Force 174 286 $211,236,000

Army 165 312 105,652,000

Navy 194 932 330,316,000

MDA 12 397 335,870,000

Office of the Secretary 

of Defense 64 N/Aa

 N/Aa

Total 609 1,927 $983,074,000

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense (data); GAO (analysis). 

a

Office of the Secretary of Defense data for BTRs were not available. 

DOD withheld about $2.8 billion in funds in fiscal year 2003. Officials cited 

several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds, including 

accommodating unanticipated changes or events, implementing 

congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds, controlling the 

execution of individual programs. Congress has required DOD to provide 

better and more timely information on reprogramming and withhold 

activities. 

Congress recognizes that the DOD 

needs some flexibility to adjust 

research and development program 

levels. A key mechanism—below 

threshold reprogramming (BTR)—

enables DOD to adjust program 

funding levels without seeking 

prior congressional approval as 

long as a certain dollar amount or 

percentage threshold is not 

exceeded. 

In response to a mandate by the 

appropriations committees, this 

report addresses (1) the quality of 

the information available about 

DOD’s use of BTRs and withheld 

funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 

and (2) the amount and volume of 

BTRs and temporarily withheld 

funds for those years. The report 

also addresses recent 

congressional direction on 

providing information on funding 

adjustments. 

DOD disagreed that its recent 

reports to Congress provide BTR 

information of limited quality but 

noted that the issues GAO raised in 

this regard can be addressed and 

that DOD was open to suggestions 

and will gladly work with 

committee staff to satisfy their 

needs. DOD also offered 

suggestions to clarify language on 

certain issues and to put its use of 

BTRs more in context. DOD’s 

willingness to work with Congress 

is a constructive response that can 

lead to reporting changes that can 

meet the needs of both Congress 

and DOD. GAO has made 

appropriate clarifications of 

language and overall BTR context. 
Page i GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

DOD Collects and Provides BTR Information of Limited Quality for 

Congress and Does Not Provide Congress with Withhold Data 9

BTRs and Withholds Used Frequently to Adjust or Control Programs’ 

Funding Levels 13

Recent Congressional Direction for Better Information 26

Conclusions 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 30

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 32

Appendix III: Additional Data 35

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 54

Related GAO Products 55

Tables Table 1: Summary of Features of Data Collection Systems for 

Military Departments and MDA 11

Table 2: Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research 

and Development Programs 15

Table 3: Effect of BTRs on Funding Levels for Two Air Force 

Programs in Fiscal Year 2003 16

Table 4: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Reductions in 

Fiscal Year 2003 17

Table 5: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Additions in 

Fiscal Year 2003 18

Table 6: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003 20

Table 7: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003 20

Table 8: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2003 

Programs 22

Table 9: Appropriations for Research and Development 

Programs 35

Table 10: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars 

for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 36
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 11: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars 

for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 37

Table 12: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 38

Table 13: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 38

Table 14: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 39

Table 15: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 40

Table 16: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 40

Table 17: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 41

Table 18: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 11 BTR Reductions, 

5 BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2003 42

Table 19: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 10 BTR Reductions, 

Zero BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2002 42

Table 20: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 4 BTR Reductions, Zero 

BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2003 43

Table 21: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 11 BTR Reductions, Zero 

BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2002 43

Table 22: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002 44

Table 23: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002 44

Table 24: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Reductions 

in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 45

Table 25: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 46

Table 26: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 47

Table 27: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 48

Table 28: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 48

Table 29: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 49

Table 30: Top 10 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 50

Table 31: Top 8 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002 50

Table 32: Programs with Highest Combined Number of BTRs in 

Fiscal Year 2003 51
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 33: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2002 

Programs 53

Figures Figure 1: Time Frame from the Start of Budget Development to the 

Start of Budget Execution 6

Figure 2: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net 

Loss, Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in 

Fiscal Year 2003 16

Figure 3: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only 

BTR Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions 

in Fiscal Year 2003 21

Figure 4: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net 

Loss, Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in 

Fiscal Year 2002 36

Figure 5: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, 

Only BTR Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and 

Additions in Fiscal Year 2002 45

Abbreviations

BTR below-threshold reprogramming

DOD Department of Defense

MDA Missile Defense Agency

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.
Page 1 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 17, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel Inouye

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jerry Lewis

Chairman

The Honorable John P. Murtha

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $59 billion for defense research 

and development overall. Most of this amount was appropriated for 

research and development accounts for the military departments and 

Defense-wide, including the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. While such funds are designated for hundreds 

of individual programs, Congress recognizes that the Department of 

Defense (DOD) needs to have some flexibility to adjust these funds for 

unexpected needs or for other valid reasons.1

 In fiscal year 2003, DOD 

adjusted several billion dollars worth of appropriated research and 

development funds for the military departments, MDA, and the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense.

DOD uses two key mechanisms to adjust the distribution of research and 

development funds—reprogramming and withholding. In this report, 

reprogramming refers to the shifting of funds by DOD within individual 

research and development accounts for purposes other than those 

contemplated when Congress appropriated the funds, such as to different

1

 The funds are appropriated in a lump sum for each of the research and development 

accounts (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide) and the conference report 

accompanying the annual DOD appropriations act designates both the individual programs 

to receive the funds and the amount each program is to receive.
Page 2 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

programs. Congressional defense committees have established 

reprogramming guidelines, including setting dollar thresholds, that direct 

DOD to seek the prior approval of the committees before executing the 

movement of funds. In accordance with these guidelines, DOD regulations 

require that when the amount to be reprogrammed falls below the 

threshold, referred to as a below-threshold reprogramming (BTR), DOD 

generally does not need congressional committee approval. DOD 

regulations also provide that reprogrammings above the threshold do 

require prior congressional committee approval.2

 A single reprogramming 

transaction adjusts at least two programs—the donor and the recipient.3

Often, several programs can be adjusted. In this report, we treat each 

adjustment as a BTR. Withheld funds are those funds appropriated to 

programs that DOD temporarily holds back for some period of time during 

the funds’ period of availability before releasing them to research and 

development programs.4

 Withheld funds are eventually either released to 

the designated programs or reprogrammed for other uses.

The appropriations committees have expressed concern about how DOD is 

reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds for research and 

development and that DOD has not kept Congress adequately informed 

about such actions. The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 

2004 DOD Appropriations Act (P. L. 108-87) mandated that GAO review 

DOD’s movement and withholding of research and development funds.5

In response to the mandate, this report addresses (1) the quality of the 

information available about DOD’s use of BTRs and withheld funds in 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and (2) the amount and volume of BTRs and 

withheld funds for those years. The report also addresses recent 

congressional direction on reprogramming and withholding defense 

research and development funds.

2

 Above-threshold reprogrammings are not a focus of this report because they are visible 

to Congress.

3

 By donor we mean the program(s) from which funds are shifted and by recipient we mean 

the receiving program(s).

4

 As used in this report, the term withholding does not refer to withholdings of budget 

authority as defined under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

5

 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-283, at 231. The Conference Report used the term “taxes” or 

“taxing” to refer to reductions by DOD to the levels of funding appropriated to a program. To 

avoid confusion, this report does not use these terms as they are not used in DOD’s 

Financial Management Regulation. Instead, we use the terms reprogramming or withholds.
Page 3 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

We focused our review on the military departments—the Air Force, Army, 

and Navy (including the Marine Corps)—as well as MDA and the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense. To determine the quality of the information 

available about DOD’s use of BTRs and withholds, we reviewed the DOD 

Financial Management Regulation and congressional reports; DOD internal 

reports and reports to Congress; financial reports; data collection systems; 

and financial records for all of the research and development programs 

from the Army, Air Force, Navy, MDA, and Office of the Secretary of 

Defense. In accordance with federal internal control standards, we have 

defined quality of information as measured by such factors as timeliness, 

accessibility, accuracy, and appropriateness of content.6

 To determine the 

amount and volume of BTRs and withheld funds, we obtained available 

data from the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA’s data collection systems on 

actual BTRs and withholds and developed a database containing data on 

each research and development program. We conducted multiple analyses 

about BTRs. We interviewed DOD policymakers and decision makers to 

gain an understanding of how various reports are prepared and to obtain 

information about BTRs and withholds. To gain insight into program-level 

activities, we interviewed program managers and collected data from at 

least three selected research and development programs in each of the 

three military departments. We selected the programs on the basis of three 

criteria: a laboratory, a program with significant net reduction or addition 

of funds through BTRs, and a program with a relatively high number of 

both reductions and additions of funds through BTRs. We performed our 

review from November 2003 to July 2004 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. More details about our 

methodology are in appendix I.

Results in Brief In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD provided to Congress information about 

BTRs that had several limitations, which reduced the quality of the 

information. For both years, DOD provided reports on these adjustments 

several months after Congress began the budgeting process for the next 

budget year. The reports were classified, which limited their distribution 

and accessibility. In addition, we found a number of discrepancies between 

the BTR data in the reports for both years and the information on actual 

BTRs in DOD organizations’ data collection systems. For example, the 

Army, Navy, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s BTR 

6

 GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G

(Washington D.C.: August 2001).
Page 4 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

information was not based on actual BTR transactions; instead, the BTR 

information was derived by subtraction, versus totaling the actual value of 

individual BTRs. In addition, the Air Force, Army, and Navy’s data on actual 

BTRs did not reconcile with their BTR information in the annual reports to 

Congress. Information about funds withheld from programs for some 

portion of their availability period was not reported to Congress. While 

better and more detailed information on BTRs and withholds is available 

within DOD, it is not readily accessible. DOD has no overall system or 

database for maintaining detailed information on BTRs and withhold data. 

Instead, the three military departments, MDA, and the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense use multiple, independent data collection systems 

that are not integrated with one another. These systems range widely in 

their level of automation, detail, and accessibility. The data needed to 

determine the amount and volume of BTRs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 

were not readily available from some of the systems and some manual data 

collection was necessary.

We found that in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD organizations used BTRs 

and withholds frequently to adjust funding for research and development 

programs. In fiscal year 2003, the military departments and MDA used 

BTRs to reprogram about $1 billion of the $47 billion appropriated to them 

by Congress for research and development programs. This amounted to 

about 2 percent of their research and development funds. Of the programs 

affected, about half lost funds and more than one-fourth gained funds. On 

occasion, BTRs substantially altered, or redirected, a program’s designated 

funding level. For example, the Air Force used BTRs to nearly double the 

funding for its KC-10S aircraft program and to reduce its C-130J aircraft 

program by 81 percent.7

 Of the programs affected, 76 percent had at least 

1 BTR, and 14 percent had 6 or more. Among the most active examples, the 

Air Force and Navy executed a total of 20 BTRs on the Joint Strike Fighter 

aircraft program. Although we did not observe any instances in which 

DOD’s use of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, our work was not conclusive 

on this point as we did not design steps to assess compliance with 

thresholds. In addition to BTRs, DOD withheld about $2.8 billion in fiscal 

year 2003. Officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and 

withholds, including accommodating unanticipated changes or events, 

implementing congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds, 

controlling the execution of individual programs.

7

 The KC-10S program was canceled shortly after this increase in funding.
Page 5 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Congress has continued to express concerns over how DOD is adjusting 

appropriated funds for research and development programs and over the 

adequacy of information from DOD about such actions. In the Conference 

Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 DOD Appropriations Act 

(P. L. 108-287), Congress revised the reprogramming guidelines, including 

new direction on reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds for 

research and development programs.8

 Specifically, Congress directed DOD 

to report on the adequacy and use of DOD’s current reprogramming and 

withholding practices, to work with congressional defense committees on 

ways to provide timely and accurate data on reprogrammings and 

withholds; to increase the reporting of reprogramming information on a 

monthly basis, if not more frequently; and to transmit the data 

electronically, if feasible, to congressional defense committees. The 

direction to DOD to work with the committees provides an excellent 

opportunity for DOD to make changes that can serve mutual needs for 

information on reprogramming and withholds.

DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR information 

of limited quality but noted that the issues we raised in this regard can be 

addressed and that DOD was open to suggestions and will gladly work with 

committee staff to satisfy their needs. DOD also offered suggestions to 

clarify language on certain issues and to put its use of BTRs more in 

context. DOD’s willingness to work with Congress is a constructive 

response that can lead to reporting changes that can meet the needs of both 

Congress and DOD. We have made appropriate clarifications of language 

and overall BTR context. 

Background The funds that DOD managers need for their research and development 

programs first must be considered by DOD for inclusion in the President’s 

Budget. If the President includes the funds in the budget he transmits to 

Congress, then Congress considers the request. If Congress approves the 

request, it appropriates funds for the programs in the annual DOD 

appropriations act that is signed into law by the President. Three years can 

lapse from the time a program manager begins formulating a research and 

development program budget request to the time that funds are included in 

an appropriations act that is signed into law and designated for the 

8

 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-622, at 68.
Page 6 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

program in the accompanying conference report. Figure 1 shows a typical 

scenario for the research and development program budgeting process.

Figure 1: Time Frame from the Start of Budget Development to the Start of Budget Execution

Note: In some years, Congress does not complete budget action by October 1 for the start of the new 

fiscal year. In such cases, one or more continuing resolutions are typically enacted, enabling the 

military departments and defense agencies to continue with program activities.

The resulting appropriations act typically specifies a lump sum for several 

different accounts, including the research, development, test and 

evaluation appropriation account of each of the military departments as 

well as separately for DOD-wide research and development activities.

The account for research, development, test, and evaluation (referred to in 

this report as research and development) is further broken down into 

budget activities, such as basic research and advanced technology 

development. Each budget activity is then subdivided into program 

elements, which we refer to as programs in this report. The conference 

report that accompanies the appropriations act lists the amounts Congress 

designated for each activity and program. An individual program can be 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Managers in each 

military department and 

defense agency set 

guidance for estimating 

research and development budgets; program 

offices use guidance to 

estimate budget needs

Managers within 

each department or 

defense agency 

review program office

estimates and make

adjustments

DOD and top managers

in the departments and 

defense agencies

review budget estimates 

for research and 

development programs 

as well all other 

appropriations; DOD 

and other federal 

agencies submit

detailed requests to

Office of Management

and Budget

Office of 

Management

and Budget 

and President

make final 

decisions;

President

sends budget

proposal to

Congress by

first Monday

in February

Congressional committees

send estimates to budget

committees; Congress adopts

budget resolution; House and 

Senate act on appropriations 

bill; conference report 

produced and regular 

appropriations enacted 

for new fiscal year (starting

October 1)

Start of

budget development

Start of

budget execution

Almost 3 years from the time program managers start estimating budget needs until appropriations are enacted 

Sources: Defense Acquisition University, May 2004; Congressional Research Service; The Brookings Institution (data); GAO (analysis).
Page 7 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

further subdivided by DOD into projects or other activities. Following the 

annual enactment of the appropriations act, the Office of Management and 

Budget apportions the funds and DOD allots the funds and—except for 

those being withheld—makes the money available or releases it to 

managers for executing programs. Managers generally have 2 years to 

obligate research and development funds before the funds expire.

By the time the budget approval process is complete and the funds are 

made available, several things can be said about the appropriated amounts 

for the individual program: (1) they represent decisions by Congress to 

approve programs as requested, create new programs, and adjust the 

requested amounts for others; (2) because of the elapsed time from the 

point the program manager began formulating the budget request until 

enactment of the appropriations act, situations may have changed that 

cause a misalignment between the approved funds and the actual status of 

the program; (3) the inherent unknowns in research and development will 

result in some programs not being executed as contemplated by the 

budget; and (4) unanticipated events will develop during the execution year 

that were not anticipated in the budget.

It is for these and other reasons that Congress recognizes that DOD needs 

some flexibility to adjust research and development funds after they are 

appropriated. A primary vehicle for exercising this flexibility is 

reprogramming. DOD can also withhold funds from programs prior to 

reprogramming or releasing the funds. The Air Force and MDA restrict the 

authority to reprogram or withhold funds to their headquarters staffs, while 

the Army and Navy grant their subordinate commands and program 

executive offices this authority.

This report defines withheld funds—or a withhold—as appropriated DOD 

research and development funds that are not released by DOD to a 

designated program for part of the 2-year period of availability of those 

funds. Prior to being released for execution, funds may be withheld by the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters for the military 

departments and MDA. DOD withholds funds for a variety reasons and 

does not seek prior congressional approval for these transactions. While 

funds are withheld, the funds are still designated for the program but not 

yet released to that program.
Page 8 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

In contrast, reprogramming of appropriated funds is a mechanism for 

which DOD has established a formal process for internal review and 

approval and, when necessary, congressional notification and approval.9

For fiscal year 2003, to implement congressional guidelines, DOD’s 

reprogramming policy required prior written approval from congressional 

defense committees for any research and development reprogramming 

increase of at least $10 million to an existing program and for any decrease 

of at least $10 million or 20 percent of the program’s appropriation, 

whichever was greater. In fiscal year 2002, the threshold for increases was 

$4 million, and, for decreases, $4 million or 20 percent of the appropriated 

amount, whichever was greater. These thresholds are applied at the 

program level of the budget. According to DOD’s Financial Management 

Regulation and congressional guidelines, DOD generally does not have to 

seek prior congressional approval for reprogrammings that do not exceed 

the threshold; hence, these are BTRs. The threshold applies to both 

individual BTRs and the cumulative amount of BTRs in each program 

element. Thus, multiple BTRs for the same program must not exceed the 

threshold in total. If congressional committees have denied a 

reprogramming request above the threshold, DOD policy prohibits the use 

of a series of BTRs to achieve the denied request.

DOD submits a number of reports to Congress each year to convey 

appropriations-related information for each research and development 

program. One of these reports, the DD 1416, is intended to capture all 

changes made to the amount designated by Congress for a program, 

including BTRs. The DD 1416 is Congress’s primary vehicle for information 

about BTR changes by DOD to the amount designated for a program. The 

annual DD 1416 report for Congress covers the entire fiscal year ending 

September 30. A DOD regulation requires that the annual report for 

Congress be sent by DOD components to the DOD Comptroller within 

30 working days after September 30 for review prior to submission to 

Congress. However, the DOD regulation does not specify a date by which 

the report must be sent to Congress.

9

 DOD’s instructions for the congressional notification process for reprogrammings are 

contained in the DOD Financial Management Regulation, vol. 3, chapter 6 (August 2000), as 

supplemented by the DOD Comptroller. Reprogramming differs from a transfer, which is the 

shifting of funds between appropriations. For example, a military service receives an 

appropriation for research and development but transfers the funds out of research and 

development to operations and maintenance. Transfers require specific statutory authority. 

DOD has multiple statutory transfer authorities.
Page 9 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

DOD Collects and 

Provides BTR 

Information of Limited 

Quality for Congress 

and Does Not Provide 

Congress with 

Withhold Data

DOD’s primary vehicle for reporting BTRs to Congress, the DD 1416 report, 

has several limitations that reduce the report’s quality as a source of 

information. DOD provided the DD 1416s for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to 

Congress several months after Congress began considering the new 

budget. Because the reports contained classified information, their 

distribution was limited. We found a number of discrepancies between the 

BTR data in the DD 1416s and the information on actual BTRs in DOD 

organizations’ data collection systems. Further, the reports did not include 

detailed information about BTR activity on a program-by-program level, 

such as whether programs gained or lost funding, and provided no 

withhold data.

Data on actual BTRs in DOD are not centralized but rather are contained in 

the individual data collection systems maintained by the military 

departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These 

systems range widely in their level of automation, detail, and accessibility. 

The data needed to determine the amount and volume of BTRs for 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 were not readily available from some of the 

systems and some manual data collection was necessary. Information on 

actual BTRs did not always reconcile with the data contained in the 

DD 1416 report to Congress.

DOD’s Reports to Congress 

Have Shortfalls

For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD delivered the DD 1416s to Congress 

several months after Congress began deliberations on the new budget year. 

Each report was dated in April the year following the end of the fiscal year, 

and was not delivered to Congress until May, according to a DOD official. 

Thus, the report covering the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, was 

sent to Congress in May 2003, and the report for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2003, was sent to Congress in May 2004. It appears that until 

the reports were received, congressional committees were less informed 

about the funds that were moved from one research and development 

program to another when considering program budgets for the following 

year. In addition, the reports were classified because of the sensitive nature 

of some of the DOD programs. Classification restricts the ease with which 

reports can be accessed by and circulated among congressional staff.

The data contained in the DD 1416s to Congress for both years had several 

limitations. The reports listed a net amount intended to represent all BTRs 

for each program—after all BTR increases and decreases were 

calculated—that occurred in the fiscal year. We found that, except for the 
Page 10 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Air Force, the net amounts were not based on actual BTR transactions. 

Rather, the net amounts in the DD 1416s were derived by subtracting all 

adjustments from the balance of programs’ funds, whether the adjustments 

were BTRs or not. In addition, when we compared BTR information in the 

DD 1416s with the BTR data provided to us by the DOD organizations, we 

found that, except for MDA, the information did not match. The military 

departments were not able to reconcile the data. In addition, the reports 

did not contain detailed, continuous data on BTRs. For example, the 

DD 1416s did not contain the total number of BTRs for each program, 

whether funds were added or reduced, reasons for BTRs, or the donor or 

recipient programs. Thus, the reports could not be used to understand what 

changes occurred in an individual program during the year of execution.

Information about funds withheld from programs for some portion of their 

availability period was not reported to Congress.

Data Collection Systems 

and Quality of Source Data 

Vary Widely

DOD does not have a single, centralized, integrated data collection system 

to record, manage, and report on funds that have been reprogrammed 

through BTRs or withheld. Rather, such information is maintained by the 

individual organizations with responsibility for managing the funds 

appropriated for each program. To satisfy the requirements of the mandate, 

we developed a single database that contains information on research and 

development funds reprogrammed and withheld in fiscal years 2002 and 

2003 from the three military departments and MDA.

These organizations employ different systems to track and monitor BTRs. 

Most but not all systems are centralized, and some organizations have 

separate systems for recording funds withheld from programs. The quality 

of BTR and withhold data varied across the three military departments and 

MDA. We found several features of data collection systems that appeared 

to be important to generating quality information. These included whether: 

a centralized record and approval system was in place to track changes 

within programs; reasons for changes were recorded; data on both donors 

and recipients were included; details on transactions were easily 

retrievable; and data reconciled with amounts reported in the DD 1416 

report. Table 1 summarizes these features for the individual data collection 

systems.
Page 11 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 1: Summary of Features of Data Collection Systems for Military Departments 

and MDA

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: We did not review the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s data collection system because it was 

still being implemented.

Details on each of the systems follow.

Army The Army uses DOD’s computerized Program Budget Accounting System to 

record and track BTRs. The accounting system is accessible at Army 

headquarters and at all of the subordinate organizations. Although the 

system provides the net dollar amount of the BTRs for each program and 

project, the system has several limitations. For example, the system does 

not show the details of each BTR transaction, such as the donors and 

recipients of each transaction or the purpose. To identify the donors and 

recipients, the Army must resort to paper records produced by the system 

for each transaction. Furthermore, the system does not have the capability 

to electronically retrieve information about prior individual BTRs because 

the system only shows the cumulative net BTR balances. Prior individual 

balances are overwritten after 10 days. Once 10 days have passed, if budget 

officials do not print a record, the opportunity to save that data is lost. If 

paper records were printed, budget officials can manually assemble and 

analyze the records about individual BTR transactions. We found that 

nearly 41 percent of the Army’s BTR data contained in the DD 1416 for 

Army programs in fiscal year 2002 did not match the BTR data contained in 

the paper records produced by the Army’s data collection system, and 

nearly 46 percent of DD 1416 BTR data did not match for fiscal year 2003.10

Features Army Navy Air Force MDA

Centralized system for tracking individual BTRs x x x

Reasons for BTRs are recorded x x

Donors and recipients are recorded x x x

Detailed data are easily retrievable x x

Data reconcile with DD 1416 x

10 At the request of Army budget officials, we also compared the data contained in the 

DD 1416 with electronic data from the Program Budget Accounting System. However, the 

accounting system’s electronic data did not match the data contained in the DD 1416s. 

The percentage of mismatches was 32.5 percent in fiscal year 2003 and 22.9 percent in fiscal 

year 2002.
Page 12 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

With regard to withholds, the data collection system provides some data on 

funds withheld from Army programs by the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Army headquarters, and subordinate organizations, but the 

system only shows the cumulative amount of the withheld funds, not the 

information for each BTR and withhold. Army Budget Office officials said a 

report is produced with this information each month. Also, a user of the 

system can, at any time, print a report that shows cumulative withhold 

amounts up to the date of printing. However, as with the individual BTR 

data, the individual withhold data gets overwritten after 10 days and cannot 

be retrieved afterward. Thus, the Army has to rely on paper-based reports 

to form an audit trail.

Navy The Navy utilizes multiple systems to manage appropriated funds. Separate 

systems are used at the headquarters level to record and track BTRs and 

withholds. Another is used to allocate statutory obligations. Multiple 

subordinate organizations have developed similar systems to record the 

BTRs and withholds that they authorize. The Navy required about 10 weeks 

to gather information about BTRs and withholds from subordinate 

organizations and to consolidate that information with data maintained by 

headquarters.

The Navy data collection systems identified all funding level changes, as 

well as the programs from which funds were taken and added. The systems 

did not identify the reasons for these changes. The Navy had detailed 

records identifying the specific programs that were subject to BTRs and 

withholds, including the donor or recipient for each BTR transaction, but 

the reasons for reprogramming transactions were not available. While most 

of the totals provided to us matched those included in the DD 1416, there 

were discrepancies for some Navy programs.

Air Force The Air Force uses a single, computer-based, data collection system to 

manage adjustments to the funding level for each program. This system 

was designed and is maintained by a contractor. The system is used to 

record, track, and manage all changes to Air Force research and 

development funding levels for headquarters and subordinate 

organizations, including system program offices and laboratories. The 

system maintains multiple years of information on research and 

development funds withheld and reprogrammed. For most 

reprogrammings, the system records the purpose of the changes and 

identifies the programs from which funds were decreased and increased. 

The system is updated about once a month and available principally to 

those in the headquarters management unit. The system maintains data for 
Page 13 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

multiple years, and the data are easily retrievable. The Air Force had 

detailed electronic records identifying the specific programs that were 

subject to BTRs and withholds, including the donor or recipient for each 

BTR transaction and the reasons for most of them. The information on 

BTRs and withholds was not available below the program level, such as for 

a project within a program. Some of the BTR data did not match the data 

contained in the DD 1416s for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Air Force officials 

attributed the discrepancies to adjustments that had been made to BTRs in 

its management information system and said the problem has been 

corrected for fiscal year 2004.

MDA MDA utilizes a single, computerized data collection system to record and 

manage changes to program funding levels. The system records BTRs and 

withholds for all of its programs, including the donors and recipients for 

BTRs and the reasons for them. The system operates on a real-time basis 

and is available to all participants from the headquarters unit to the 

individual program offices. The system maintains multiple years of data, 

and the data are electronically retrievable. MDA’s BTR data reconciled with 

the DD 1416s for fiscal year 2003.

Office of the Secretary of 

Defense

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has data collection systems for 

tracking BTRs and withholds for the research and development programs it 

manages, but these systems were not available to record BTRs for fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003 appropriations. Consequently, the office did not 

provide records of individual BTRs. Officials managing these programs 

stated that a data collection system to record and manage appropriated 

funds would be helpful, and they are working to improve the system they 

installed for fiscal year 2004.

BTRs and Withholds 

Used Frequently to 

Adjust or Control 

Programs’ Funding 

Levels

We found that the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA executed 1,927 BTRs in 

fiscal year 2003, totaling about $1 billion. This amounted to about 2 percent 

of their research and development funds. These transactions either 

reduced or added to most research and development programs’ funding. 

Although we did not observe any instances in which DOD’s use of BTRs 

exceeded the thresholds, our work was not conclusive on this point as we 

did not design steps to assess compliance with thresholds. Of the programs 

affected by BTRs, 48 percent experienced a net loss in funding after 

accounting for additions and reductions. The effect of BTRs on some 

programs was so significant that the programs were essentially redirected. 

With regard to withheld funds, the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the 
Page 14 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Office of the Secretary of Defense withheld a total of about $2.8 billion in 

fiscal year 2003. The Office of the Secretary of Defense withheld 56 percent 

of the funds, while the military departments withheld the rest. MDA did not 

report withhold data except for those funds withheld from MDA by the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense. Because DOD organizations have 

learned to expect a volume of changes each year—although the specifics 

are unpredictable—they have developed strategies to anticipate possible 

DOD decisions to reprogram or withhold portions of their funding. Officials 

noted that one strategy involves increasing programs’ budget requests to 

cover anticipated BTRs and withholds so programs can continue to 

perform at planned levels. Officials from the military departments, MDA, 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense cited several reasons for 

implementing BTRs and withholds, including accommodating 

unanticipated changes or events, implementing congressional mandates, 

and, in the case of some withholds, controlling the execution of individual 

programs.

Wide Use of BTRs and 

Withholds

In fiscal year 2003, DOD reprogrammed about $1.7 billion in research and 

development funds. About $1 billion of this money—59 percent—was 

reprogrammed by the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA using BTRs.11 This 

amounted to about 2 percent of the research and development funds for 

these organizations. The number and amount of BTRs executed in fiscal 

year 2003 varied by organization, as shown in table 2. Additional details for 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are contained in the appendixes.

11 Reprogramming of the remaining 41 percent, or about $700 million, was above the 

threshold, required prior congressional approval, and was visible to Congress.
Page 15 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 2: Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and Development Programs

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Data were not available because the Office of the Secretary of Defense said its system for collecting 

BTR information for fiscal year 2003 was not yet implemented.

MDA, which has a total of 12 programs (or 2 percent of the total), 

accounted for 34 percent of the total dollar value of BTRs and 21 percent of 

the total number of BTRs. MDA programs generally have larger research 

and development budgets than other DOD organizations’ programs. MDA 

programs in fiscal year 2003 ranged in size from about $7.5 million to about 

$3.2 billion, while the smallest program among the three military 

departments amounted to $313,000 and the largest was about $1.7 billion. 

Additional details are shown in appendix III, table 9.

Of the programs that experienced BTRs in fiscal year 2003, 48 percent had 

BTRs that resulted in a net loss of funds, while 28 percent had BTRs that 

resulted in a net gain, as figure 2 shows. The percentage of programs 

gaining and losing funds through BTRs varied across organizations. These 

percentages—and the specific programs involved—also varied from year to 

year. (App. III, fig. 5, shows percentages for fiscal year 2002.)

Organization Number of programs Number of BTRs Total value of BTRs 

Air Force 174 286 $211,236,000

Army 165 312 105,652,000

Navy 194 932 330,316,000

MDA 12 397 335,870,000

Office of the Secretary of Defense 64 N/Aa N/Aa

Total 609 1,927 $983,074,000
Page 16 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Figure 2: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss, Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2003

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

Some programs lost or gained such a substantial portion of their designated 

funding that they were essentially redirected. For example, in fiscal year 

2003, the Air Force’s KC-10S aircraft program was increased by 92 percent 

through four BTRs. In contrast, the Air Force’s C-130J aircraft program was 

reduced by 81 percent through four BTRs. More details on these programs 

are shown in table 3.

Table 3: Effect of BTRs on Funding Levels for Two Air Force Programs in Fiscal Year 2003

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Other reductions include rescissions (or congressionally directed actions) and above-threshold 

reprogrammings.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Gain

Loss

No change

Total Air Force Army Navy MDA

48%

24%

28%

43%

28%

29%

43%

29%

49%

22%

54%

14%

32%

33%

17%

50%

Program

Original 

designated 

funding level BTR amount

Number of 

BTRs

Other 

reductionsa

Revised funding 

level 

Percentage 

change

KC-10S $10,506,000 $9,999,000 4 –$356,000 $20,149,000 92

C-130J Program 10,000,000 –7,611,000 4 –499,000 1,890,000 –81
Page 17 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

The five programs in each of the three military departments and MDA with 

the largest funding reductions and additions through BTRs during fiscal 

year 2003 are shown in tables 4 and 5.12 Additional details are shown in 

appendix III, tables 10-17. Again, patterns vary from year to year, as a 

comparison of these appendix tables shows.

Table 4: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Reductions in Fiscal Year 2003

12 A program with BTRs may have experienced a net loss, a net gain, or no change in funds, 

depending on how the BTRs were applied.

Organization Reductions

Air Force

Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing Development –$24,177,000

C-130 Airlift Squadrons –21,037,000

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

–17,957,000

B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber –17,770,000

Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures –10,833,000

Army

Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development –8,677,000

Support of Operational Testing –7,822,000

End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities –6,127,000

Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment –5,420,000

Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation –5,199,000

Navy

V-22A –21,492,000

Power Projection Advanced Technology –11,806,000

Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology –9,531,000

Guided Missile Submarine Design –9,402,000

Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology –9,175,000
Page 18 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

Table 5: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Additions in Fiscal Year 2003

MDA

Ballistic Missile Defense System –121,249,000

Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater Missile DefenseEngineering and Manufacturing Development–61,318,000

Midcourse Defense Segment –50,273,000

Sensors –31,497,000

Boost Defense Segment –26,119,000

Organization Additions

Air Force

C-5 Airlift Squadrons $11,000,000

KC-10S 10,220,000

Initial Operational Test & Evaluation 10,153,000

Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 9,898,000

Advanced Weapons Technology 9,500,000

Army

Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced 

Technology

9,999,000

Joint Simulation System Core Program 9,555,000

Technical Information Activities 8,919,000

Advanced Tank Armament System 6,004,000

Army Evaluation Center 5,903,000

Navy

Power Projection Advanced Technology 18,018,000

Guided Missile Submarine Design 13,194,000

Special Processes 12,800,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

Ship and Aircraft Support

10,347,000

Other Helicopter Development 10,199,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Organization Reductions
Page 19 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR additions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

Funds taken from programs through BTRs may be applied to multiple other 

programs. For example, in 2003, the Air Force and the Navy reprogrammed 

a combined total of about $29 million from the Joint Strike Fighter to 

15 other programs. Additional details are provided in appendix III, 

tables 18-21. Similarly, the Army reprogrammed almost $8.7 million from 

the Logistics and Engineer Equipment Program to 12 other programs in 

fiscal year 2003, and the Navy reprogrammed almost $21.5 million from the 

V-22 aircraft program to 8 other programs.

Overall, 76 percent of all research and development programs had at least 

1 BTR, and 54 percent had more than 1, and 14 percent had 6 or more in 

fiscal year 2003, as table 6 shows. The Navy and MDA had more programs 

with substantial numbers of BTRs than did the Air Force or the Army. 

Specifically, 27 percent of Navy programs and 66 percent of MDA programs 

had 6 to 35 or more BTRs. Only 3 percent and 6 percent of Air Force and 

Army programs, respectively, had this many. Additional details are shown 

in table 7 and in appendix III, tables 22 and 23.

MDA

Ballistic Missile Defense System 126,078,000

Midcourse Defense Segment 60,281,000

Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

60,026,000

Sensors 33,163,000

Boost Defense Segment 18,447,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Organization Additions
Page 20 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 6: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

a

Total percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table 7: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

As figure 3 shows, 42 percent of programs had both BTR reductions and 

additions in fiscal year 2003. The percent of such programs ranged from 

28 percent in the Army to 80 percent in MDA. Additional details are shown 

in appendix III, figure 5 and tables 24-32. Patterns vary from year to year, as 

those tables show.

Organization 0 BTRs 1 BTR 2-5 BTRs 6-15 BTRs 16-35 or more Total percentage

Air Force 29 30 38 3 0 100

Army 28 25 40 6 0 99a

Navy 14 14 44 23 5 100

MDA 17 0 17 17 50 101a

Total 23 22 40 11 3 99a

Organization 0 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

35 or 

more Total

Air Force 51 52 27 24 10 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 174

Army 47 42 29 23 7 7 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 165

Navy 28 28 35 23 21 6 29 15 6 1 1 0 1 194

MDA 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 12

Total 128 122 92 71 38 18 41 20 6 3 2 0 4 545
Page 21 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Figure 3: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in 

Fiscal Year 2003

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

In fiscal year 2003, the DOD organizations we reviewed withheld a total of 

about $2.8 billion in appropriated funds. The amounts withheld varied 

widely, as table 8 shows. MDA officials said that while MDA does not 

always release all appropriated funds immediately to its programs, MDA 

does not consider such non-releases to be withholds and did not provide 

this data to us. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, which withheld 

substantially more than other organizations, accounted for 56 percent of 

the total amount withheld. Withholds amounts for fiscal year 2002 are in 

appendix III, table 33.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Programs that incurred additions

Programs that incurred reductions

Programs that incurred both reductions and additions

Total Air Force Army Navy MDA

10% 5%

42% 48% 33% 51%

16%

28%

60%

12%

56% 39%

80%

20%
Page 22 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 8: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2003 Programs

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

a

MDA officials said that they did not withhold funds from MDA programs.

DOD’s Rationale for BTRs 

and Withholds

The military departments, MDA, and Office of the Secretary of Defense 

officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds. 

Generally, the reasons involved accommodating unanticipated changes or 

events, implementing congressional mandates, and, in the case of some 

withholds, controlling the execution of individual programs.

Unanticipated Changes or 

Events

Officials from each of the DOD organizations noted that because they need 

to estimate research and development program needs and budgets 2 or 

more years in advance of receiving appropriated funds, by the time the 

funds are actually received, factors upon which estimates are based may 

have changed and unforeseen events may have occurred. Officials also 

noted that current levels of flexibility are too limited given the adjustments 

that may be needed to deal with such changes. For example, testing on a 

program may have been accelerated or delayed; new requirements may 

have arisen; design changes may be required; a program’s costs may have 

increased; new technologies may have emerged; priorities may have 

shifted; and unexpected events, such as operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, 

may have occurred. Consequently, funding changes may be needed after 

funds are appropriated.

Military department and MDA officials stated that having the flexibility to 

adjust funding in such circumstances allows them to make better use of 

available funds by fixing a problem promptly, taking advantage of an 

opportunity, or responding to an unexpected contingency. For example, in 

fiscal year 2003, the Air Force reprogrammed almost $10 million to the 

KC-10S program to address unexpected cost increases in the cockpit 

modernization program. According to Air Force officials, obtaining these 

Organization Value of withholds 

Air Force $149,342,000

Army 475,710,000

Navy 626,055,000

MDA N/Aa

Office of the Secretary of Defense 1,580,443,000

Total $2,831,550,000
Page 23 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

funds when they were needed avoided contract and schedule issues that 

would have been detrimental to the program. Ultimately in this case, the 

cockpit modernization program continued to experience unexpected cost 

increases and schedule slippages, and the Air Force later cancelled the 

program. In another example, Army officials stated that the presence of 

improvised explosive devices in the Iraq conflict has made explosive 

disposal robots more important than the budget preparation process 

anticipated 3 years ago. They noted that the Army is using some of its BTR 

flexibility to address this higher priority need.

Military department officials told us they also withhold funds for 

unexpected events or opportunities that may arise during the fiscal year. 

These withheld funds are then available for reprogramming as needed. For 

example, the Army withheld and subsequently reprogrammed about 

2.3 percent of funds from most programs in fiscal year 2003 to cover 

expenses of ongoing operations. Officials said that this is the only year the 

Army instituted a general withhold on its programs. The Navy withheld 

2 percent from most research and development programs in fiscal year 

2002 and 1 percent in fiscal year 2003. These funds were used to address 

unexpected contingencies and emerging technological requirements. While 

Air Force officials stated that they do not routinely withhold funds from all 

programs, the Air Force Research Laboratory withholds about 5 percent 

from all laboratory programs to provide for its headquarters unit. The 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, Research and Development, withholds 

and subsequently reprograms as necessary about 10 percent from the 

research and development programs it manages to provide for 

contingencies and to cover reductions resulting from statutory 

requirements.

Implementing Statutory 

Obligations

Military department officials also use withholds to fund statutory 

obligations. For example, DOD is required by statute to set aside research 

and development funds for small business concerns to conduct research 

projects that have the potential for commercialization. Two programs are 

supported with these funds: the Small Business Innovation Research 

Program, which stimulates early-stage research and development by small 

business concerns; and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, 

which funds cooperative research and development projects involving a 

small business and a research institution. The military departments and 

MDA vary in the way they set aside the funds for these statutory 

obligations. This variation provides these organizations with additional 

flexibility in adjusting appropriated research and development funds. In 

2003, the Army and the Navy exempted some intelligence programs from 
Page 24 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business 

Technology Transfer assessments. They then withheld the funds needed to 

cover these assessments from the remaining programs. Air Force officials 

informed us that they reallocate the assessments during the fiscal year to 

adjust funds available to programs. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Air 

Force used a BTR to restore the Small Business Innovation Research 

assessment it had earlier made against the B-2 program, to provide the 

program with more money. Other programs were assessed a higher amount 

to make up the difference.

In addition, military department officials use withholds to allocate 

rescissions and reductions that are included in appropriations acts and 

cancel appropriated funding.13 Rescissions or reductions may apply 

specifically to some or all research and development accounts or acrossthe-board to other appropriations accounts. For example, for fiscal year 

2003, because of a change in projected inflation estimates, Congress 

directed a reduction of $1.4 billion across all operations and maintenance, 

procurement, and research and development appropriations accounts, with 

the reduction to be applied proportionally to each program within each 

account.14 To implement this reduction, the Air Force and Navy used 

withholds to reduce research and development programs’ appropriations 

by $105.6 million and $78.2 million, respectively.

Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense noted that they 

withhold funds from research and development programs to make certain 

programs achieve a particular milestone or other event and to assure that 

additional funds appropriated by Congress beyond the program’s requested 

budget reach the intended program and can be used effectively. For 

example, the Office of the Secretary of Defense sometimes withholds a 

portion of a program’s appropriation to assure the program completes a 

report, accomplishes a test, or complies in some other way with 

headquarters’ direction. Often, these withholds are in response to a 

congressional directive contained in authorization or appropriations report 

language. Funds are usually released once the program has accomplished 

the required task. Each year, Congress adds funds to certain programs’ 

requested budgets. Officials observed that there is often some uncertainty 

13 Specifically, rescissions and reductions cancel appropriated funding by canceling the 

availability of budget authority provided by law before the authority would otherwise lapse.

14 P. L. 107-248, section 8135(a).
Page 25 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

as to which program Congress intended these funds to benefit and whether 

those programs can effectively use the funds. Consequently, they withhold 

the funds until they can determine which programs are to receive the 

additional funds and to ensure that those programs can use the money 

effectively before releasing the funds. In fiscal year 2002, these types of 

withholds represented a large percentage of the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense withholds, amounting to nearly $2.7 billion. However, the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense has subsequently reduced its withholds of 

congressional additions, while some of the departments have increased 

theirs.

Managers Have Adopted 

Strategies for Anticipating 

BTRs and Withholds

DOD, military department, MDA, and program officials informed us that 

while they can expect with some confidence that reprogramming and 

withholds will occur during the budget year, they cannot predict the timing 

or amount. In anticipation of these funding adjustments, program and 

military department officials noted that program budgets are often 

increased during preparation. While this does not appear to be an unusual 

practice, we did not assess its extent or magnitude. This practice allows 

programs to perform at planned levels if and when these actions actually 

occur. Program officials stated that in cases for which anticipated 

reductions were underestimated, schedules are sometimes slowed down in 

response to BTRs and withholds. For example, tests or other scheduled 

events may be delayed until withheld funds are released or the funds lost 

through BTRs are paid back. If funds are not paid back, program schedules 

may be permanently slowed. For example, according to Air Force officials, 

when the Air Force reduced the C-130 avionics modernization program’s by 

$35 million in fiscal year 2003, the program manager extended the 

development program and renegotiated the development contract.

Funds also may be informally held back after they have been released to 

programs. That is, program managers may be told not to spend some 

portion of the funds that have actually been released to their programs in 

order to provide funds for later reprogramming. This differs from 

withholds because withholds can only be implemented before funds are 

released to programs. The informal holding back of funds occurs after 

funds are released, is done verbally, and is not recorded. This essentially 

creates a pool of reserved funds that can be used to meet anticipated but 

not fully identified requirements. MDA officials informed us that the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense requires them to informally hold millions of 

dollars each year in anticipation of the annual omnibus reprogramming. 

Omnibus reprogramming is a compilation of several above-threshold 
Page 26 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

reprogrammings sent to Congress late in the fiscal year. For example, in 

fiscal year 2003, the Office of the Secretary of Defense required MDA to 

informally hold about $23 million and later used about $6 million of this 

money for omnibus reprogramming. The remaining funds were then 

released to MDA.

Recent Congressional 

Direction for Better 

Information

Congress has continued to express concerns about how DOD is adjusting 

funding for research and development programs and about the adequacy of 

information from DOD about such actions. Congress recently revised its 

guidance to DOD on reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds 

for research and development and on keeping Congress adequately 

informed about such actions.

For fiscal year 2004, congressional guidelines had tightened the threshold 

for decreases to $10 million or 20 percent of the program’s appropriation, 

whichever was less, rather than the greater provision of fiscal year 2003.15

For fiscal year 2005, Congress maintained the tightened thresholds of 2004 

and added new direction on the reprogramming and withholding of 

appropriated funds for research and development programs.

Furthermore, Congress directed DOD to provide better information on 

reprogrammings and withholds both in the short- and the long-term. 

Specifically, Congress directed:

• the Secretary of Defense to provide data by January 31, 2005, on the 

adequacy and use of the DOD’s current reprogramming and withholding 

practices;

• DOD to work with congressional defense committees on a method 

providing timely and accurate data on reprogramming activity (both 

below and above the threshold) and the application of statutory and 

administrative withholds;

15 Memorandum from DOD Comptroller, Nov. 4, 2003, FY 2004 Below Threshold 

Reprogramming (BTR) Authority Policy, implementing direction of H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 108-283, at 60.
Page 27 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

• that reprogramming data be available on a least a monthly basis, 

potentially in conjunction with DOD’s DD 1002 reports; and

• that DOD should transmit the data electronically, if feasible, to 

congressional defense committees.16

Conclusions DOD has a legitimate need for a degree of flexibility to adjust the funding 

levels designated for individual research and development programs. 

Congress has a legitimate need to maintain oversight over the funds it has 

appropriated. Ideally, both sets of needs can be met through a combination 

of approval thresholds for adjusting funding levels and reports on how 

funds have been adjusted. However, DOD has not provided information of 

sufficient quality and detail to Congress on how it adjusts appropriated 

research and development funds through BTRs and withholds. In reaction, 

Congress has tightened thresholds to a level of flexibility DOD officials 

believe is too limited.

In passing the fiscal year 2005 DOD Appropriations Act, Congress has 

directed DOD to take several actions to improve the information it provides 

to Congress regarding DOD’s use of reprogrammings and withholds. The 

direction for DOD and the congressional defense committees to work 

together provides an excellent opportunity for DOD to make changes that 

can serve the needs of both Congress and DOD. These changes may not be 

difficult to make, as much of the desired information already exists within 

DOD and some of the existing data collection systems are already 

automated and contain more detailed information than currently reported. 

How DOD responds to this direction will be critical to realizing this 

opportunity.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. The 

comments appear in appendix II.

DOD commented that our report should note more prominently that we 

found no evidence the department violated existing congressionally 

approved reprogramming thresholds. DOD expressed concern that 

Congress had a misconception that the department had violated existing 

16 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-622, at 68.
Page 28 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

threshholds and policies and had used the BTR process to initiate new start 

programs. DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR 

information of limited quality and cited other information it provides to 

Congress in addition to the DD 1416. It pointed out that the formats for the 

information were developed with and approved by committee staff to

satisfy Congress’s needs. DOD did note that the issues we raised on the 

quality of information it provides can be addressed, and that DOD was 

open to suggestions and will gladly work with the committee staff to satisfy 

its needs.

DOD offered several suggestions to put the findings of the report more in 

context. These included providing the percentage value of BTRs along with 

the dollar value, and noting the reasons DOD uses BTRs. DOD also noted 

that the issue of withholds is separate from BTRs and that they are used 

primarily to temporarily hold funding from execution until adequate 

justification is provided that the resources will be executed efficiently and 

effectively as intended by Congress. DOD stated that it was unaware of the 

practice of increasing of budget requests to cover anticipated BTRs and 

withholds and that this was against DOD policy.

DOD’s willingness to work with Congress is a constructive response that 

can lead to reporting changes that can meet the needs of both Congress and 

DOD. While current reporting formats may have been developed with 

committee staff to meet its needs, recent congressional direction suggest 

these needs have changed. Congress has required DOD to provide better 

and more timely information on reprogramming and withhold activities. We 

have clarified the language in the report that we did not observe any 

instances in which DOD’s use of BTRs exceeded thresholds, but we cannot 

be conclusive on this point as we did not design steps to assess compliance 

with thresholds. The same observation and qualification applies to whether 

BTRs were used to start new programs.

We did analyze the additional information DOD provides to Congress on 

BTRs, specifically budget exhibits and monthly accounting reports. 

However, in their current format, these reports do not provide detailed 

information on individual BTRs or any information on withholds. To 

provide additional context for our findings, we have added the percentage 

value of BTRs in addition to their total dollar value, however, we do not 

believe it is necessary for individual programs. While the draft report does 

present the reasons DOD uses BTRs and withholds, we have added 

language earlier in the report to highlight these reasons. We believe the 

distinction between BTRs and withholds is adequately clear in the report. 
Page 29 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

We note that while withholds are used to ensure programs are properly 

executed, we did find instances in which withholds were used to make 

funds available for reprogramming. 

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

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

Defense Agency; and interested congressional committees. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-4841 or D. Catherine Baltzell at (202) 512-8001. Other 

contacts and key contributors are listed in appendix IV.

Paul L. Francis

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Page 30 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To determine the quality of the information available about the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) use of below-threshold reprogrammings (BTR) and 

withholds, we reviewed the DOD Financial Management Regulation and 

recent congressional guidelines on reprogramming and withholds; various 

DOD internal reports and reports to Congress; and data from financial 

management systems recorded for the research and development programs 

from the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Missile Defense Agency (MDA). We 

reviewed DOD policy and interviewed decision makers to gain an 

understanding of how various reports are prepared and to obtain 

information about BTRs and withholds. Our interviews included officials in 

the research and development and financial management offices of the Air 

Force, Army, Navy and MDA; financial management and acquisition policy 

decision maker offices including the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller); Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 

Director of Plans and Programs; Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Acquisition; Office of the Naval Research Controller; Aeronautical Systems 

Command Financial Management office; Air Force Research Labs 

Headquarters, Propulsion Directorate, and Sensors Directorate; Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, 

Investment Division-Army Budget Office; Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, for Plans, Programs, and Resources Office; Army Science and 

Technology Integration Office; and Army Research Laboratory 

Headquarters. In accordance with federal internal control standards, we 

defined quality of information as measured by such factors as timeliness, 

accessibility, accuracy, and appropriateness of content.

In addition, we interviewed program officials and collected data from 

13 research and development programs: Air Force (5), Army (4), and Navy 

(4). The programs were selected on the basis of three criteria: a laboratory, 

a program with significant net reduction or addition of funds through 

BTRs, and a program with a relatively high number of both reductions and 

additions of funds through BTRs. We interviewed program officials for the 

Air Force’s C-130 Airlift and C-130J, and KC-10S; the Air Force Research 

Lab’s Aerospace Propulsion and Aerospace Sensor’s Labs; the Army’s 

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile 

program offices; the Army’s Research Lab’s Weapons and Materials 

Research, and Survivability/Lethality Directorates; the Navy’s Ocean 

Engineering Technology Development, and Consolidated Training Systems 

Development Program; the Office of Naval Research Systems Advanced 

Technology program; and the Naval Ship and Aircraft Support program.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

To determine the amount and volume of BTRs and withheld funds, we 

obtained available data from the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA data 

collection systems on actual BTRs and withholds and developed an 

integrated, electronic database on adjustments to designated funding levels 

for each research and development program. In developing our database, 

we assessed the reliability of the available data, which includes recognizing 

the limitations of the data as we have discussed in this report. We 

performed electronic testing of required data elements, reviewed existing 

information about the data and the systems that produced them, and 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We 

conducted multiple analyses of BTR amounts and volume. We used readily 

available, off-the-shelf commercial software to develop and analyze our 

database. We performed our review from November 2003 to July 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 32 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 33 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 34 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds
Page 35 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Appendix III

Additional Data ApendxiI

Table 9: Appropriations for Research and Development Programs

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

Organization Appropriation Number of programs

Lowest designated 

funding level for a 

program

Highest designated 

funding level for a 

program

Fiscal year 2003

Air Force $18,822,569,000 174 $313,000 $1,733,668,000

Army 7,699,656,000 165 489,000 914,932,000

Navy 13,699,864,000 194 422,000 1,747,250,000

MDA 6,896,186,000 12 7,457,000 3,185,504,000

Office of the Secretary of Defense 2,381,413,000 64 700,000 263,058,000

Total $49,499,688,000 609 Not applicable Not applicable

Fiscal year 2002

Air Force 14,699,931,000 163 472,000 881,556,000

Army 7,106,074,000 168 785,000 787,866,000

Navy 11,335,350,000 198 428,000 769,759,000

MDA 7,069,425,000 12 6,571,000 3,820,534,000

Office of the Secretary of Defense 1,711,504,000 58 1,165,000 250,877,000

Total $41,922,284,000 599 Not applicable Not applicable
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 36 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Figure 4: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss, Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2002

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data not available.

Table 10: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Total

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Gain

Loss

No change

Air Force Army Navy MDA

50%

17%

33%

28% 34%

38%

41% 52%

33%

59%

28% 61%

7% 11% 8%

Value of BTR reductions

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

–$24,177,000 B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber –$26,168,000

C-130 Airlift Squadrons –21,037,000 Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

–19,637,000

Intercontinental Ballistic MissileEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

–17,957,000 Navigational Satellite Timing and 

Ranging Global Positioning System III

–10,578,000

B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber –17,770,000 Intercontinental Ballistic MissileEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

–10,478,000

Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter 

Measures

–10,833,000 C-130 Airlift Squadrons –8,675,000

Fighter Tactical Data Link –8,758,000 Satellite Control Network (Space) –8,458,000

C-130J Program –7,611,000 Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter 

Measures

–8,155,000

B-1B –7,270,000 Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles –8,035,000
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 37 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Table 11: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR additions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Region/Sector Operations Control 

Center

–6,741,000 Joint Direct Attack Munition –7,821,000

Advanced Extremely High Frequency 

Military Satellite Communications 

(Space)

–6,499,000 Aerospace Propulsion –5,500,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Value of BTR reductions

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

C-5 Airlift Squadrons $11,000,000 B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber $21,541,000

KC-10S 10,220,000 C-5 Airlift Squadrons 10,190,000

Initial Operational Test & Evaluation 10,153,000 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar 

System

8,139,000

Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 9,898,000 Military Strategic and Technical Relay 

Low Data Rate/Medium Data Rate 

Satellite Communications (Space)

7,928,000

Advanced Weapons Technology 9,500,000 Navigational Satellite Timing and 

Ranging Global Positioning System 

(Space)

6,653,000

Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter 

Measures

9,455,000 Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 6,530,000

Support Systems Development 8,949,000 Small Diameter Bomb 

(Demonstration/Validation)

6,300,000

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar 

System

8,830,000 Support Systems Development 6,000,000

Civilian Compensation Program 7,132,000 KC-10S 5,986,000

Nuclear Detonation Detection System 

(Space)

5,600,000 Global Combat Support System 5,887,000
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 38 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 12: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Table 13: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Logistics and Engineer EquipmentEngineering Development–$8,677,000 Other Missile Product Improvement 

Programs

–$13,207,000

Support of Operational Testing –7,822,000 Global Combat Support System –12,258,000

End Item Industrial Preparedness 

Activities

–6,127,000 Landmine Warfare/Barrier-Engineering 

Development

–12,252,000

Combat Feeding, Clothing, and 

Equipment

–5,420,000 Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition –12,072,000

Artillery SystemsDemonstration/Validation–5,199,000 Support of Operational Testing –7,428,000

Night Vision Systems-Engineering 

Development

–4,878,000 Joint Network Management System –4,031,000

Major Test & Evaluation Investment –4,090,000 Management Headquarters (Research 

& Development)

–4,008,000

Aircraft Avionics –3,570,000 Night Vision Systems-Engineering 

Development

–3,717,000

Digitization –3,464,000 Joint Tactical Radio –3,600,000

Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile –3,051,000 Artillery SystemsDemonstration/Validation–2,619,000

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Combat Vehicle and Automotive 

Advanced Technology

$9,999,000 Logistics and Engineer EquipmentEngineering Development$6,006,000

Joint Simulation System Core Program 9,555,000 Technical Information Activities 4,596,000

Technical Information Activities 8,919,000 Army Test Ranges and Facilities 4,003,000

Advanced Tank Armament System 6,004,000 Global Surveillance/Air 

Defense/Precision Strike 

Technology Demonstration

4,000,000

Army Evaluation Center 5,903,000 Artillery Systems-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

4,000,000

Armored Systems ModernizationEngineering Development4,599,000 Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile 3,999,000

Logistics and Engineer EquipmentAdvanced Development3,912,000 Landmine Warfare 3,999,000
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 39 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR additions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Table 14: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Artillery Systems-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

3,900,000 Missile and Rocket Advanced 

Technology

3,999,000

Joint Service Small Arms Program 3,500,000 Landmine Warfare and BarrierAdvanced Development3,999,000

Firefinder 3,500,000 Multiple Launch Rocket System 

Product Improvement Program

3,999,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

V-22A –$21,492,000 V-22A –$16,915,000

Power Projection Advanced Technology –11,806,000 Joint Strike Fighter –13,546,000

Warfighter Sustainment Advanced 

Technology

–9,531,000 Radio Frequency Systems Advanced 

Technology

–13,013,000

Guided Missile Submarine Design –9,402,000 Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft –11,115,000

Radio Frequency Systems Advanced 

Technology

–9,175,000 Undersea Warfare Advanced 

Technology

–9,632,000

Tactical Command System –8,546,000 New Design SSN –8,800,000

Surface and Shallow Water Mine 

Countermeasure

–7,977,000 Warfighter Sustainment Advanced 

Technology

–8,615,000

Consolidated Training Systems 

Development

–6,890,000 SC-21 Total Ship System Engineering –8,567,000

Common Picture Advanced Technology –6,657,000 Land Attack Technology –8,053,000

Force Protection Advanced Technology –6,070,000 Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Test & 

Evaluation

–7,371,000
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 40 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 15: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR additions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Table 16: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Power Projection Advanced Technology $18,018,000 Radio Frequency Systems Advanced 

Technology

$15,911,000

Guided Missile Submarine Design 13,194,000 Land Attack Technology 11,547,000

Special Processes 12,800,000 Warfighter Sustainment Advanced 

Technology

10,287,000

Research, Development, Test & 

Evaluation Ship and Aircraft Support

10,347,000 Navy Information Technology 

Development/Modification

7,353,000

Other Helicopter Development 10,199,000 Marine Corps Advanced Technology 

Demonstration

7,110,000

Electronic Warfare Development 10,019,000 Force Protection Advanced Technology 7,075,000

Ocean Engineering Technology 

Development

10,000,000 Research, Development, Test & 

Evaluation Ship and Aircraft Support

5,679,000

Force Protection Advanced Technology 9,685,000 V-22A 5,375,000

Warfighter Sustainment Advanced 

Technology

9,188,000 Common Picture Advanced Technology 5,084,000

Radio Frequency Systems Advanced 

Technology

8,809,000 Navy Warfighting Experiments and 

Demonstrations

4,874,000

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Ballistic Missile Defense System –$121,249,000 Midcourse Defense Segment –$123,849

Theater High Altitude Area Defense 

System-Theater Missile DefenseEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

–61,318,000 Ballistic Missile Defense System –61,267

Midcourse Defense Segment –50,273,000 Sensors –37,785

Sensors –31,497,000 Theatre High Altitude Area Defense 

System-Theater Missile DefenseEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

–33,343

Boost Defense Segment –26,119,000 Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense 

Segment

–30,907

Terminal Defense Segment –14,785,000 Navy Area –16,897

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology –13,777,000 Terminal Defense Segment –7,360
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 41 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Table 17: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR additions. Both BTR reductions 

and BTR additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. 

A program’s net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

–10,252,000 Ballistic Missile Defense Technology –5,303

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

Demonstration/Validation

–6,440,000 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

–3,701

Management Headquarters-Missile 

Defense Agency

–160,000 Pentagon Reservation –2,471

(Continued From Previous Page)

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Ballistic Missile Defense System $126,078,000 Midcourse Defense Segment $131,035

Midcourse Defense Segment 60,281,000 Ballistic Missile Defense System 65,145

Theater High Altitude Area Defense 

System-Theater Missile DefenseEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

60,026,000 Boost Defense Segment 38,411

Sensors 33,163,000 Sensors 28,077

Defense Boost Defense Segment 18,447,000 Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 12,456

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 16,983,000 Theater High Altitude Area Defense 

System-Theater Missile DefenseEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

10,758

Terminal Defense Segment 15,467,000 Management Headquarters-Missile 

Defense Agency

10,270

Management Headquarters-Missile 

Defense Agency

10,078,000 Terminal Defense Segment 6,879

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

0 Navy Area 2,456

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

Demonstration/Validation

0 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

10
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 42 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 18: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 11 BTR Reductions, 5 BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2003

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10 million were still within the threshold 

for BTR reductions if the net value did not exceed 20 percent of the program’s designated funding.

Table 19: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 10 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2002

BTR reductions: Total –$24,177,000 BTR additions: Total $500,000

Recipient program Value Donor program Value

F-22 Squadrons –$3,999,000 F-16 Squadrons $100,000

Multi-sensor Command and 

Control Constellation

–3,999,000 B-52 Squadrons 50,000

F-22 Squadrons –3,900,000 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff 

Missile

 250,000

Warfighter Rapid Acquisition 

Program

–3,999,000 Combat Training Ranges 50,000

F-15E Squadrons –2,000,000 Hard and Deeply Buried Target 

Defeat System

 50,000

Life Support Systems –2,160,000

A-10 Squadrons –1,758,000

Joint Direct Attack Munition –440,000

F-117A Squadron –450,000

Advanced Medium Range Airto-Air Missile–970,000

Electronic Warfare 

Development

–502,000

BTR reductions: Total –$19,635,932 BTR additions: Total 0

Recipient program Value Donor program Value

Rand Project Air Force –$3,999,000

A-10 Squadrons –3,922,000

Joint Direct Attack Munition –683,000

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff 

Missile

–3,999,999

Joint Surveillance Target Attack 

Radar System

–250,000

Distributed Common Ground 

Systems

–500,000

Joint Surveillance Target Attack 

Radar System

–150,000
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 43 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2002, BTRs with a net value greater than $4 million were still within the threshold 

for BTR reductions if the net value did not exceed 20 percent of the program’s designated funding.

Table 20: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 4 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2003

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10 million were still within the threshold 

for BTR reductions if the net value did not exceed 20 percent of the program’s designated funding.

Table 21: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 11 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2002

Joint Surveillance Target Attack 

Radar System

–966,933

F-15E Squadrons –4,165,000

Initial Operational Test & 

Evaluation

–1,000,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

BTR reductions: Total –$19,635,932 BTR additions: Total 0

Recipient program Value Donor program Value

BTR reductions: Total –$3,613,000 BTR additions: Total 0

Recipient program Value Donor program Value

Anti-Submarine Warfare & 

Other Helicopter Development

–$1,700,000

H-1 Upgrades –849,000

V-22, and Joint Direct Attack 

Munition 

–694,000

Anti-Submarine Warfare & 

Other Helicopter Development

–370,000

BTR reductions: Total –$13,546,000 BTR additions: Total 0

Recipient program Value Donor program Value

Electronic Warfare 

Development

–$2,943,000

Joint Precision Approach and 

Landing System

–2,860,000

AIM-9X –1,278,000

Lapsed Liability –128,000

Standards Development –800,000

Active Electronically Scanned 

Array

–1,894,000
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 44 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2002, BTRs with a net value greater than $4 million were still within the threshold 

for BTR reductions if the net value did not exceed 20 percent of the program’s designated funding.

Table 22: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Total percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table 23: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Standards Development –1,681,000

Aviation Survivability –48,000

Test and Evaluation Support –608,000

Carrier Systems Development –300,000

Carrier Systems Development –1,006,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

BTR reductions: Total –$13,546,000 BTR additions: Total 0

Recipient program Value Donor program Value

Organization 0 BTRs 1 BTR 2-5 BTRs 6-15 BTRs 16-35 or more Total percentage

Air Force 28 29 37 6 0 100

Army 7 12 47 30 5 101a

Navy 9 5 44 28 15 101a

MDA 8 0 8 17 67 100

Total 14 14 42 22 8 100

Organization 0 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

35 or 

more Total

Air Force 45 47 20 28 8 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 163

Army 11 20 15 27 24 13 44 6 6 1 0 1 0 168

Navy 17 9 32 18 27 11 32 23 23 1 2 2 1 198

MDA 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 4 12

Total 74 76 68 73 59 29 88 29 30 4 2 4 5 541
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 45 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Figure 5: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in 

Fiscal Year 2002

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

Table 24: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, (data); GAO (analysis).

Programs that incurred additions

Programs that incurred reductions

Programs that incurred both reductions and additions

Total

36% 41%

23%

55% 41%

4%

Air Force Army Navy MDA

58%

21%

21%

9%

74% 91%

22%

4%

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

11 Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

10

Joint Tactical Radio Systems 10 Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures 9

C-130 Airlift Squadrons 6 Joint Direct Attack Munition 7

B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber 6 Satellite Control Network (Space) 7

Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures 6 Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global 

Positioning System III

7

B-52 Squadrons 5 Test and Evaluation Support 6

Fighter Tactical Data Link 5 B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber 5

C-130J Program 4 Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 5

CV-22 4 F15E Squadrons 5

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile–Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

4 KC-10S 5

B-1B 4 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

5
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 46 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 25: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Support Systems Development 4 Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global 

Positioning System (Space)

4

Global Combat Support System 4 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 4

Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 3 KC-10S 4

KC-10S 3 Support Systems Development 3

Rand Project Air Force 3 Polar Military Satellite Communications (Space) 3

E-4B National Airborne Operations Center 2 Military Strategic and Technical Relay Low Data 

Rate/Medium Data Rate Satellite Communications 

(Space)

3

Life Support Systems 2 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation 3

Joint Direct Attack Munition 2 Wideband Gapfiller System (Research, 

Development, Test & Evaluation) Space

3

Dragon U-2 (Joint Military Intelligence Program) 2 Global Combat Support System 2

U.S. Air Force Modeling and Simulation 2 Electronic Warfare Development 2

Distributed Common Ground Systems 2 Small Diameter Bomb (Demonstration /Validation) 2

C-5 Airlift Squadrons 2 Armament/Ordnance Development 2

C-17 Aircraft 2 Combat Identification Technology 2

KC-135S 2 F15E Squadrons 2

Intelligence Advanced Development 2 U.S. Air Force Modeling and Simulation 2

Manned Reconnaissance Systems 2 C-5 Airlift Squadrons 2

Theater Battle Management Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers and Intelligence

2 Joint Direct Attack Munition 2

Common Low Observable Verification 2 Distributed Common Ground Systems 2

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 2 Airborne Reconnaissance Systems 2

F-15E Squadrons 2 Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 2

Test and Evaluation Support 2 Advanced Spacecraft Technology 2

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 2 Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence 

Advanced Development

2

Theater Battle Management Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers and Intelligence

2

Test and Evaluation Support 2
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 47 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 26: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering 

Development

12 Defense Research Sciences 14

End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities 6 End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities 13

Warfighter Advanced Technology 6 Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering 

Development

13

Medical Technology 6 Global Combat Support System 11

Defense Research Sciences 6 Programwide Activities 11

Military Engineering Technology 5 Support of Operational Testing 10

Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment 5 Environmental Quality Technology 

Demonstration/Validation

9

Support of Operational Testing 5 Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety 9

Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade & Below 4 Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology 9

Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile 4 Command, Control, Communications Technology 8

Night Vision Systems-Engineering 

Development

4 Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development 8

Sensors and Electronic Survivability 8

Landmine Warfare/Barrier-Engineering Development 8
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 48 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 27: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

Table 28: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Technical Information Activities 15 Army Test Ranges and Facilities 29

Advanced Tank Armament System 6 Canceled Account Adjustments 21

Closed Account Adjustment 5 Army Evaluation Center 10

Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced 

Technology

4 University and Industry Research Centers 10

Line-of-Sight Technology Demonstration 4 Sensors and Electronic Survivability 9

Joint Simulation System Core Program 4 Programwide Activities 9

Management Headquarters (Research and 

Development)

4 Technical Information Activities 8

Programwide Activities 4 Advanced Concepts and Simulation 6

Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Advanced 

Development

3 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck 6

Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology 3 Information Technology Development 5

University and Industry Research Centers 3 Command, Control, Communications Advanced 

Technology

5

Aircraft Modifications/Product Improvement Program 3

Digitization 3

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms 

Systems

19 Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology 21

Marine Corps Communications Systems 19 Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration 19

Navy Information Technology 

Development/Modification

17 Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology 17

Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology 15 Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms 

Systems 

17

Common Picture Advanced Technology 13 Marine Corps Communications Systems 16

Warfighter Protection Advanced Technology 12 V-22A 16

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and 

Aircraft Support 

12 Defense Research Sciences 16

Tactical Command System 11 Satellite Communications (Space) 15

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System 11 Navy Information Technology Development/ 

Modification

15
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 49 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Table 29: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration 10 Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology 14

Carrier Systems Development 13

(Continued From Previous Page)

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms 

System

16 Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology 19

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Science 

and Technology Management

12 Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations 16

Marine Corps Communications Systems 10 Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms 

System

15

Force Protection Advanced Technology 9 Power Projection Advanced Technology 13

Marine Corps Program Wide Support 9 Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology 11

Marine Corps Information Technology 

Development/Modification

9 Marine Corps Communications Systems 11

Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology 8 Force Protection Advanced Technology 11

Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations 7 Marine Corps Program Wide Support 11

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System 7 Marine Corps Information Technology 

Development/Modification

10

Marine Corps Combat Services Support 6 Common Picture Advanced Technology 9

Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology 6 Force Protection Applied Research 9

Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration 6 Studies and Analysis Support-Navy 9

Undersea Warfare Applied Research 6 Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research 9

Space and Electronic Warfare 

Architecture/Engineering Support

6 Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System 9

Tactical Command System 9
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 50 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Table 30: Top 10 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Table 31: Top 8 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Ballistic Missile Defense System 129 Ballistic Missile Defense System 170

Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

30 Midcourse Defense Segment 51

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 18 Boost Defense Segment 41

Midcourse Defense Segment 17 Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

28

Sensors 14 Sensors 27

Boost Defense Segment 12 Terminal Defense Segment 19

Terminal Defense Segment 8 Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 13

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile 

Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

3 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile 

Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

7

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

Demonstration/Validation

2 Navy Area 5

Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency 1 Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency 4

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

Ballistic Missile Defense System 64 Ballistic Missile Defense System 81

Midcourse Defense Segment 35 Midcourse Defense Segment 47

Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

24 Boost Defense Segment 19

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 9 Sensors 14

Boost Defense Segment 9 Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency 12

Sensors 8 Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 12

Terminal Defense Segment 7 Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

4
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 51 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Table 32: Programs with Highest Combined Number of BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003

Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency 7 Terminal Defense Segment 4

Navy Area 2

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile 

Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development

1

(Continued From Previous Page)

Program name 2003 Program name 2002

BTR reductions BTR additions Total

Program name Value Number Value Number

Net 

value

Net 

total

Air Force

Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

–$24,177,000 11 $500,000 1 –$23,677 12

Joint Tactical Radio Systems –3,539,000 10 284,000 1 –3,255,000 11

C-130 Airlift Squadrons –21,037,000 6 2,805,000 1 –18,232,000 7

Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures –10,833,000 6 9,455,000 1 –1,378,000 7

B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber –17,770,000 6 0 0 –17,770,000 6

B-52 Squadrons –1,102,000 5 0 0 –1,102,000 5

Global Combat Support System –284,000 1 1,989,000 4 1,705,000 5

Fighter Tactical Data Link –8,758,000 5 0 0 –8,758,000 5

Support Systems Development –974,000 1 8,949,000 4 7,975,000 5

C-5 Airlift Squadrons –3,157,000 3 11,000,000 2 7,832,000 5

Army

Technical Information Activities 0 0 8,919,000 15 8,919,000 15

Logistics and Engineer EquipmentEngineering Development–8,677,000 12 0 0 –8,677,000 12

Medical Technology –1,667,000 6 934,000 1 –733,000 7

End Item Industrial Preparedness 

Activities

–6,127,000 6 260,000 1 –5,867,000 7

Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced 

Technology

–2,585,000 3 9,999,000 4 7,414,000 7

Programwide Activities –345,000 3 2,169,000 4 1,824,000 7

Defense Research Sciences –2,593,000 6 50,000 1 –2,543,000 7

Warfighter Advanced Technology –1,370,000 6 0 0 –1,370,000 6
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 52 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Advanced Tank Armament System 0 0 6,004,000 6 6,004,000 6

University and Industry Research Centers –800,000 3 1,766,000 3 966,000 6

Navy

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting 

Arms Systems

–3,674,000 19 2,938,000 16 –739,000 35

Marine Corps Communications Systems –5,759,000 19 1,963,000 10 –3,793,000 29

Navy Information Technology 

Development/Modification

–4,075,000 17 1,145,000 4 –2,930,000 21

Radio Frequency Systems Advanced 

Technology

–9,175,000 15 8,809,000 4 –366,000 19

Common Picture Advanced Technology –6,657,000 13 5,321,000 5 –1,336,000 18

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support 

System

–2,346,000 11 3,299,000 7 953,000 18

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation 

Ship and Aircraft Support 

–5,806,000 12 10,347,000 5 4,541,000 17

Marine Corps Advanced Technology 

Demonstrations

–2,440,000 10 2,468,000 6 28,000 16

Warfighter Sustainment Advanced 

Technology

–9,531,000 8 9,188,000 8 -343,000 16

Force Protection Advanced Technology –6,070,000 6 9,685,000 9 3,615,000 15

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation 

Ship and Aircraft Support

–5,806,000 11 10,347,000 5 4,541,000 16

MDA

Ballistic Missile Defense System –121,249,000 129 126,078,000 64 4,829,000 193

Theater High Altitude Area Defense 

System Theater Missile DefenseEngineering and Manufacturing 

Development

–61,318,000 30 60,026,000 24 –1,292,000 54

Midcourse Defense Segment –50,273,000 17 60,281,000 35 10,008,000 52

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology –13,777,000 18 16,983,000 9 3,206,000 27

Sensors –31,497,000 14 33,163,000 8 1,666,000 22

Boost Defense Segment –26,119,000 12 18,447,000 9 –7,672,000 21

Terminal Defense Segment –14,785,000 8 15,467,000 7 682,000 15

Management Headquarters-Missile 

Defense Agency

–160,000 1 10,078,000 7 9,918,000 8

(Continued From Previous Page)

BTR reductions BTR additions Total

Program name Value Number Value Number

Net 

value

Net 

total
Appendix III

Additional Data

Page 53 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10 million were still within the threshold 

for BTR reductions if the net value did not exceed 20 percent of the program’s designated funding.

Table 33: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2002 Programs

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

a

MDA says that while it does not always release all appropriated funds immediately to its programs, it 

does not consider these actions to be withholds and did not provide this data to us.

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater 

Missile Defense-Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development

–10,252,000 3 0 0 –10,252,000 3

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

Demonstration/Validation (Program 

Definition/Validation)

–6,440,000 2 0 0 –6,440,000 2

(Continued From Previous Page)

BTR reductions BTR additions Total

Program name Value Number Value Number

Net 

value

Net 

total

Organization Value of withholds 

Air Force N/A

Army $140,126,000

Navy 1,090,670,000

MDA N/Aa

Office of the Secretary of 

Defense

2,742,580,000

Total $3,973,376,000
Page 54 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contacts Paul L. Francis (202) 512-4841

D. Catherine Baltzell (202) 512-8001

Acknowledgments In addition, key contributors to the report include Lily J. Chin, 

Christopher A. Deperro, Joseph E. Dewechter, Alan Frazier, Ivy Hubler, 

Matthew R. Mongin, Bonita J.P. Oden, Katrina D. Taylor, Bradley L. Terry, 

and Adam Vodraska.
Page 55 GAO-04-944 DOD Reprogrammings and Withholds

Related GAO Products

Coast Guard: Station Spending Requirements Met, but Better Processes 

Needed to Track Designated Funds. GAO-04-704. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 

2004.

Military Housing: Opportunities Exist to Better Explain Family 

Housing O&M Budget Requests and Increase Visibility Over 

Reprogramming of Funds. GAO-04-583. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004.

Future Years Defense Program: Actions Needed to Improve Transparency 

of DOD’s Projected Resource Needs. GAO-04-514. Washington, D.C.: 

May 7, 2004.

Budget Issues: Reprogramming of Federal Air Marshal Service Funds in 

Fiscal Year 2003. GAO-04-577R. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004.

Budget Process: Long-Term Focus Is Critical. GAO-04-585T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2004.

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Defense. GAO-03-98. Washington, D.C.: January 2003.

Defense Budget: Improved Reviews Needed to Ensure Better Management 

of Obligated Funds. GAO-03-275. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2003.

Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges. GAO-02-1106T. 

Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.

Congressional Oversight: Challenges for the 21st Century. 

GAO/T-OCG-00-11. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000.

Managing in the New Millennium: Shaping a More Efficient and 

Effective Government for the 21st Century. GAO/T-OCG-00-9. Washington, 

D.C.: March 29, 2000.

Congressional Oversight: Opportunities to Address Risks, Reduce Costs, 

and Improve Performance. GAO/T-AIMD-00-96. Washington, D.C.: 

February 17, 2000.

(120280)
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 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00