Page 1 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 9, 2017

Congressional Committees

Military Readiness: DOD Has Not Incorporated Leading Practices of a Strategic 

Management Planning Framework in Retrograde and Reset Guidance

Following operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is in the 

process of reconstituting, retrograding, and resetting forces to a desired level of combat 

effectiveness in line with current mission requirements and available resources. Reconstitution 

is a broad term that generally refers to the process of making a unit or activity available for 

operational commitment again after a contingency or surge operation. It includes such planning 

factors as maintenance of equipment, training, and an examination of the effect of operations on 

personnel and on attrition rates. Retrograde refers to the movement of non-unit equipment and 

materiel from a forward location to a reset program or to another directed area of operations. 

Reset refers to a set of actions to restore equipment to a desired level of combat capability 

commensurate with a unit’s future mission. It includes maintenance and supply activities that 

restore and enhance combat capability to unit and pre-positioned equipment that was 

destroyed, damaged, stressed, or worn out beyond economic repair during combat operations 

by repairing or rebuilding it or by procuring replacement equipment. In fiscal year 2016, DOD 

identified $10.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funding related to equipment reset 

and readiness and requested an additional $9.5 billion for reset and readiness in overseas 

contingency operations funding for fiscal year 2017.1

Section 324 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 required 

DOD to establish a policy regarding the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of units and 

materiel used to support overseas contingency operations and to submit a plan for 

implementation of the policy within 90 days of the enactment of the NDAA. The act required 

DOD to submit annual updates for the next 3 years on its progress toward meeting the goals of 

the plan. The act also included a provision for us to review and report on DOD’s policy and 

implementation plan and its annual updates.

2 In May 2016, we completed our initial review of 

DOD’s policy and implementation plan and its first annual update, issued in November 2014 and 

April 2015 respectively.

3 We recommended that (1) DOD establish a strategic policy that 

incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to 

inform the military services’ plans for retrograde and reset, (2) DOD develop and require the use 

 1

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2017 

Budget Request Overview: Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment (Nov. 2016). 

2

See Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 324 (2013). 

3

GAO, Military Readiness: DOD Needs to Incorporate Elements of a Strategic Management Planning Framework into 

Retrograde and Reset Guidance, GAO-16-414 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2016). We reported that since DOD and 

the military services do not track reconstitution as a separate activity, the focus of the report was on retrograde and 

reset activities. According to service officials, the parts of reconstitution that include personnel and training costs and 

efforts are integrated into each service’s force generation model and are not separately tracked like retrograde and 

reset. 
Page 2 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in 

relevant policy and other guidance, and (3) the Army, Navy, and Air Force develop servicespecific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading 

practices for sound strategic management planning.

4 In May 2016 DOD issued its second 

annual update.5

For this report on DOD’s second annual update, we evaluated the extent to which DOD has 

addressed our May 2016 recommendations. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which (1) 

DOD has established a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic 

management planning for the retrograde and reset of operating forces that support overseas 

contingency operations, (2) DOD has developed and required the use of consistent information 

and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and other 

guidance, and (3) each of the services has developed and implemented a service-specific plan 

consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning for the retrograde 

and reset of operating forces that support overseas contingency operations.

For objective one, we reviewed DOD’s May 2016 updated report to the congressional defense 

committees in response to the requirements in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.6 We also 

interviewed relevant officials from various offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and the Joint Staff. For objective two, we reviewed and analyzed guidance and other documents 

identified by DOD and the services to determine whether key terms and information relating to 

retrograde and reset were used consistently. For objective three, we reviewed DOD and service 

guidance and plans for retrograde and reset and interviewed officials from each service on the 

progress they have made toward developing service-specific plans. The enclosure discusses 

our scope and methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to June 2017 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief

DOD has not established a strategic policy for retrograde and reset consistent with leading 

practices on sound strategic management planning. In addition, DOD has not yet determined 

which DOD organization will lead its effort to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading 

practices. Furthermore, we found that there was no consensus among the officials we spoke 

with regarding which organization should lead the effort. We continue to believe that our May 

2016 recommendation for DOD to develop a strategic policy for retrograde and reset that 

incorporates key elements of strategic management planning remains valid. 

 4

We found that the Marine Corps had developed an implementation plan that incorporated the elements of sound 

strategic planning. 

5

DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Retrograde, Reconstitution, and 

Replacement of Operating Forces Used to Support Overseas Contingency Operations, report (May 2016) (S//NF). 

6

Consistent with our previous report, as noted in footnote 2 above, the focus of our report is on retrograde and reset 

activities. 
Page 3 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

DOD has not developed and required the use of consistent information and descriptions of key 

terms regarding retrograde and reset in policy and guidance. Thus, descriptions of retrograde 

and reset still vary and the services use the same terms differently. We continue to believe that 

our May 2016 recommendation for DOD to develop and require the use of consistent 

information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and 

other guidance remains valid. 

The Marine Corps is implementing its plan to complete the retrograde and reset of its 

equipment, but the Army, Navy, and Air Force have not developed plans. According to Marine 

Corps officials, as of January 2017 the Marine Corps’ equipment reset efforts were 92 percent 

complete, and officials stated that the service is on track to accomplish the goal in its plan to 

complete reset in May 2019.7 However, as of March 2017, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have 

not developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment and do not 

have plans to do so, according to service officials. Navy and Air Force officials cited the need for 

a DOD-wide policy. We continue to believe that our May 2016 recommendation for the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force to develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset 

remains valid and reinforces the importance of DOD establishing a strategic policy consistent 

with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the 

services’ plans. 

Background

Section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 required DOD to establish a policy setting forth 

the programs and priorities of the department for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement 

of units and materiel used to support overseas contingency operations. The policy is to take into 

account national security threats, combatant command requirements, current readiness of 

military department operating forces, and risk associated with strategic depth and the time 

necessary to reestablish required personnel, equipment, and training readiness in such 

operating forces.8 Additionally, section 324 required DOD to submit a plan for implementation of 

the policy within 90 days of enactment and to provide an update on progress toward meeting 

the goals of the plan not later than one year after submission and annually thereafter for two 

years.9

We reported in April 2014, however, that DOD had not established a policy or submitted an 

implementation plan to congressional committees within the mandated time limit, but we noted 

that DOD was in the process of developing these documents and that we would continue to 

monitor DOD’s progress and review the policy and implementation plan as they became 

available.10 In November 2014, DOD completed a classified report and subsequently submitted 

it to the congressional defense committees in response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal 

 7

According to Marine Corps officials we met with, the Marine Corps’ Operation Enduring Freedom Ground Equipment 

Reset Strategy and Ground Equipment Reset Playbook have not changed much since our previous review. As we 

found in our May 2016 report, these two documents constitute a service-wide plan for the retrograde and reset of 

Marine Corps ground equipment used in overseas contingency operations that largely incorporates all of the 

elements of sound strategic planning. 

8

Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 324(a).

9

§ 324(b)(1), (3).

10GAO, Warfighter Support: DOD Policy and Implementation Plan for Reconstitution of Forces, GAO-14-530R

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2014).
Page 4 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

Year 2014.11 In April 2015, DOD submitted the first of its three required annual updates.

12

Consequently, in May 2016, we issued a report based on our review of both DOD’s initial

(November 2014) report and its first (April 2015) update.

13 This report covers DOD’s second 

(May 2016) update. As in DOD’s previous reports, the May 2016 update provides broad 

information about each of the services’ efforts concerning various activities, such as reset and 

readiness. It also provides some budget information related to reset and high-level information 

on progress made since the previous update.

In our May 2016 report we found that, instead of developing new policies for retrograde and 

reset, DOD identified in the November 2014 classified report it submitted to the congressional 

defense committees existing guidance documents that, taken together, comprise its policy. The 

documents DOD identified were the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Guidance for the 

Employment of the Force, and the Defense Planning Guidance.

14 However, we found that these 

documents did not include key elements for sound strategic management planning of retrograde 

and reset activities in support of overseas contingency operations. We also found that DOD’s 

guidance has not ensured the use of consistent information and descriptions in policy and other 

departmental documents that are used to inform budget estimates on retrograde and reset 

costs. Lastly, we found that the Marine Corps had published an implementation plan for the 

retrograde and reset of operating forces, but the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not developed 

implementation plans.15 As previously discussed, we made three recommendations to DOD to 

address these issues. 

DOD Has Not Established a Strategic Policy for Retrograde and Reset that is Consistent 

with Leading Practices on Strategic Management Planning

DOD has not established a strategic policy for retrograde and reset consistent with leading 

practices on sound strategic management planning.16 In addition, DOD has not yet determined 

which DOD organization will lead its effort to establish a strategic policy that is consistent with 

these practices. As previously discussed, in May 2016 we recommended that the Under 

 11DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Retrograde, Reconstitution, and 

Replacement of Operating Forces Used to Support Overseas Contingency Operations, report (November 2014) 

(S//NF).

12DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Retrograde, Reconstitution, and 

Replacement of Operating Forces Used to Support Overseas Contingency Operations, report (April 2015) (S//NF). 

13GAO-16-414. 

14DOD, Quadrennial Defense Review 2014, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 2014); DOD, Guidance for the Employment 

of the Force (S//NF), 2015 version; and DOD, Defense Planning Guidance, Fiscal Years 2017–2021 (Mar. 23, 2015) 

(S//NF). 

15As we reported in May 2016, DOD officials indicated that the military services are responsible for developing 

implementation plans related to retrograde and reset. DOD reports in response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal 

Year 2014 describe overall service goals and objectives, among other things, but service-specific implementation 

plans that incorporate best practices could better position the services to plan, carry out, and track the further 

implementation of these overarching goals and objectives. 

16We identified six elements of strategic management planning that are key for establishing a comprehensive, 

results-oriented strategic planning framework: (1) mission statement, (2) long-term goals, (3) strategies to achieve 

goals, (4) external factors that could affect goals, (5) use of metrics to gauge progress, and (6) evaluations of the plan 

to monitor goals and objectives. Several of these elements correspond to some of the requirements in section 324 of 

the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 for the policy and implementation plan. 
Page 5 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics establish a strategic policy that 

incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning. DOD 

concurred with our recommendation but did not agree that the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should be the lead organization for 

developing this policy. DOD instead stated that it would select the appropriate organization to 

lead the development of a strategic policy. However, as of March 2017, DOD had not yet 

determined which office would lead the effort to establish a strategic policy for retrograde and 

reset that is consistent with leading practices.

Furthermore, we found that there was no consensus among the officials we spoke with 

regarding which organization should lead the effort to establish this strategic policy. For 

example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and

Readiness told us they believed the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics should lead the effort, because equipment maintenance—including 

depot maintenance—falls under that office’s responsibilities. Officials from the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, however, stated that the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness would be better suited to 

lead the effort, since it has more holistic responsibilities related to readiness, including 

responsibilities for personnel and training. An official from the Office of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation suggested that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics—particularly the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and 

Materiel Readiness—should be leading the effort to develop the department’s policy for 

retrograde and reset, since that office writes policy regarding the retrograde and disposition of 

equipment. Joint Staff officials stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy should be responsible for writing the policy for equipment management. An official we 

spoke with from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, however, stated that in 

his opinion, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should 

be responsible for developing a strategic policy for retrograde and reset. 

We continue to believe that without a strategic policy for retrograde and reset that incorporates 

key elements of strategic management planning, DOD cannot ensure that its efforts to develop 

retrograde and reset guidance provide the necessary strategic planning framework to inform the 

military services’ implementation plans for retrograde and reset. A necessary first step, as DOD 

has indicated and as we stated in our May 2016 report, is the selection of an appropriate 

organization to lead the development of the policy. For this reason, we continue to believe that 

our prior recommendation remains valid.

DOD Has Not Developed and Required the Consistent Use of Information and Key Terms 

Regarding Retrograde and Reset in Policy and Guidance

DOD has not developed and required the use of consistent information and descriptions of key 

terms regarding retrograde and reset in policy and guidance. Thus, descriptions of retrograde 

and reset still vary, and the services use the same terms differently even though, as we reported

in May 2016, it is DOD policy to improve communications and mutual understanding within the 

department, with other agencies, and with international partners through the standardization of 

military and associated terminology.17 Specifically, during this review we found that while the 

Marine Corps uses the definition of reset found in the DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated 

Terms, the Army uses several different definitions for reset, including one that is similar to the 

 17See DOD Instruction 5025.12, Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, para. 3 (Aug. 14, 2009)

(incorporating change Apr. 11, 2017).
Page 6 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

DOD definition.18 According to Navy budget officials we met with, however, the Navy uses the 

definition of reset put forth by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in 

2016, which is expanded and more detailed than the definitions used by the Marine Corps or the 

Army.19 We also found that the Army and Marine Corps’ documents use different definitions for 

retrograde. While the Army’s definitions are more aligned with DOD’s current definition, the 

Marine Corps’ document uses an older DOD definition that references movement of a command 

and personnel in addition to equipment.20 We could not compare the Air Force’s definitions for

retrograde and reset against DOD’s or the other services’ definitions because Air Force officials

were unable to identify any policy or other guidance documentation related to retrograde and 

reset in which definitions were provided. 

As previously discussed, in May 2016 we recommended that DOD develop and require the use 

of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in 

relevant policy and other guidance. In its written comments on our report, DOD partially 

concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Financial Management Regulation had 

recently been updated to include the definitions of both reset and retrograde that will be used to 

estimate and report Overseas Contingency Operations costs starting in Fiscal Year 2018, 

referencing the chapter on Contingency Operations. However, contrary to the department’s 

claim, as of April 2017, the Financial Management Regulation chapter regarding Contingency 

Operations has not been updated since September 2007.21 An official we met with from the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us that this office will be updating 

DOD’s Financial Management Regulation to include the expanded definition of reset that was 

published in the Comptroller’s publication of Cost Breakdown Structure codes for Fiscal Year 

2016.

22 According to this official, the updated Financial Management Regulation will likely not 

 18DOD components—including the military departments—are instructed to use the DOD Dictionary of Military and 

Associated Terms as the primary terminology source when preparing correspondence, including policy, strategy, 

doctrine, and planning documents. See id. The DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines reset as a 

set of actions to restore equipment to a desired level of combat capability commensurate with a unit’s future mission. 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (as of Mar. 2017). 

19In March 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) issued an updated definition for reset in 

its publication of cost breakdown structure codes for Fiscal Year 2016. Navy budget officials stated that they use 

these codes to categorize line items in budgets. 

20The DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines retrograde as the process for movement of non-unit 

equipment and materiel from a forward location to a reset (replenishment, repair, or recapitalization) program or to 

another directed area of operations to replenish unit stocks, or to satisfy stock requirements. 

21See DOD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, vol. 12, ch. 23, Contingency Operations (Sept. 2007). As 

we noted in our previous report, while the DOD Financial Management Regulation chapter on Contingency 

Operations from 2007 contains several distinct cost categories for various kinds of reset, it does not provide a single 

definition of reset.

22According to a DOD official, the Financial Management Regulation, vol. 12, ch. 23, will be updated to include the 

following definition for reset: “Reset includes a series of actions taken to restore units that have participated in 

contingency operations to a desired level of combat capability commensurate with the units’ future mission. It 

encompasses both maintenance and supply activities that restore and enhance combat capability to unit and prepositioned equipment that was destroyed, damaged, stressed, or worn out beyond economic repair due to combat 

operations by repairing, rebuilding, or procuring replacement equipment. These maintenance and supply activities 

involve both recapitalization and Depot and Field Level repairs/overhauls centrally managed to specified standards. 

Included are Procurement and Operation and Maintenance funded major repairs/overhauls and recapitalization 

(Rebuild or Upgrade) that enhance or restore existing equipment inventories through the insertion of new technology 

or restoration of selected equipment to a zero-miles/zero-hours condition. Reset includes replacement of equipment 

lost during operations in theater.”
Page 7 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

include a definition for retrograde. As we reported in May 2016, major operations typically 

involve retrograde. However, the chapter of the DOD Financial Management Regulation specific 

to contingency operations does not provide a definition of retrograde or include any information 

describing how retrograde costs should be considered or calculated. 

We continue to believe that if DOD does not ensure the use of consistent terms—especially 

retrograde and reset—and descriptions in policy and other departmental documents used to 

inform budget estimates on retrograde and reset, Congress may not receive the consistent and 

accurate information that it needs to make informed decisions concerning retrograde and reset.

For this reason, we continue to believe that our prior recommendation remains valid.

The Marine Corps Is Implementing Its Plan to Complete the Retrograde and Reset of Its 

Equipment, but the Army, Navy, and Air Force Have Not Developed Plans

The Marine Corps is implementing its plan for retrograde and reset; however, the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force have not developed implementation plans. According to Marine Corps officials, as 

of January 2017 the Marine Corps’ equipment reset efforts were 92 percent complete, and 

officials stated that the service was on track to accomplish the goal in its plan to complete reset 

in May 2019.23 However, as of March 2017, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have not yet 

developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment, according to 

service officials.

24 As previously discussed, in May 2016 we recommended that the Secretaries 

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde 

and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management 

planning. In its response to our recommendation, DOD partially concurred, stating that the 

department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development 

and application of service-related implementation plans. However, DOD has not identified a lead 

for this effort and, as of March 2017, the Army, Navy, and Air Force still have not developed

implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment.

Army: Army officials told us that the Army does not have a single guidance document 

for reset and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation 

plan.

25

Navy: The Navy has not yet taken any actions to develop an implementation plan

related to retrograde and reset efforts and has no plans to do so. A Navy official we met 

 23According to Marine Corps officials we met with, the Marine Corps’ Operation Enduring Freedom Ground 

Equipment Reset Strategy and Ground Equipment Reset Playbook have not changed much since our previous 

review. As we found in our May 2016 report, these two documents constitute a service-wide plan for the retrograde 

and reset of Marine Corps’ ground equipment used in overseas contingency operations that largely incorporates all of 

the elements of sound strategic planning. 

24As noted above, DOD officials indicated that the military services are responsible for developing implementation 

plans related to retrograde and reset. Moreover, as we reported in May 2016, DOD reports in response to section 324 

of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 describe overall service goals and objectives, among other things, but servicespecific implementation plans that incorporate best practices could better position the services to plan, carry out, and 

track the further implementation of these overarching goals and objectives. 

25The Army uses a variety of documents that address reset. For example, in 2012 the Army published its Ground 

Equipment Retrograde and Reset Handbook, which describes the Army’s retrograde and reset program, process, 

roles, and responsibilities for ground equipment. In addition, Army officials identified financial management guidance 

for contingency operations that is used to determine whether a particular repair, recapitalization, or replacement 

qualifies for reset funding. 
Page 8 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

with stated that since the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not developed a 

strategic policy for retrograde and reset that includes consistent definitions and key 

terms, it would be difficult for the services to develop their own plans for implementing 

retrograde and reset efforts.

Air Force: According to Air Force officials, the Air Force does not have an 

implementation plan, nor will any office be tasked to develop an implementation plan 

until DOD has developed a unified strategic plan for the services. Officials stated that

they did not believe it would make sense to develop an Air Force plan until they obtain

direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

We continue to believe that Army, Navy, and Air Force service-specific implementation plans

that articulate goals and strategies for retrograde and reset of equipment, among other things, 

are important and that reset-related maintenance costs may not consistently be tracked, and 

resources and funding for retrograde and reset may not be consistently or effectively budgeted 

for and distributed within each service. For this reason, we continue to believe that our prior 

recommendation remains valid and reinforces the need for DOD to establish a strategic policy 

consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform 

the services’ plans. 

Agency Comments 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD provided technical 

comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary 

of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the 

Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5431 or 

russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 

may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report include Guy LoFaro (Assistant Director), Martin De Alteriis, Pamela Nicole Harris, Joanne 

Landesman, Benjamin Licht, Camille Pease, and Mike Shaughnessy.

Cary Russell 

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 9 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

List of Committees 

The Honorable John McCain 

Chairman 

The Honorable Jack Reed 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

Chairman 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Kay Granger

Chairwoman 

The Honorable Pete Visclosky 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives
Page 10 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

Enclosure: Scope and Methodology

To evaluate the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has developed a policy 

consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning for the retrograde 

and reset of operating forces that support overseas contingency operations, we reviewed DOD’s 

May 2016 updated report to the congressional defense committees in response to the 

requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. We also reviewed 

other relevant DOD documents related to retrograde and reset. Further, we interviewed relevant

officials from the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics; Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation; Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; and the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy; and the Joint Staff. 

To evaluate the extent to which DOD has developed and required the use of consistent 

information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and 

other guidance, we reviewed and analyzed guidance and other documents identified by DOD 

and the services to determine whether key terms and information relating to retrograde and 

reset were used consistently. We also reviewed DOD Instruction 5025.12 on the 

Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, which emphasizes the standardization 

of military and associated terminology and the use of Joint Publication 1-02 by DOD 

components when they are preparing policy, strategy, doctrine, and planning documents.26 We 

interviewed DOD and military service officials to assess their progress in developing and 

requiring consistent information and descriptions of key terms. In instances where we found that 

information and key terms were not being used consistently, we interviewed officials to 

determine the reason for the inconsistency and whether there were any plans to revise their 

documentation to make information and key terms consistent. 

To evaluate the extent to which each of the services has developed and implemented a servicespecific plan consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning for the 

retrograde and reset of operating forces that support overseas contingency operations, we 

reviewed DOD and service guidance and plans for retrograde and reset and interviewed officials 

from each service on the progress they have made toward service specific plans. For the 

services that did have plans, we interviewed key officials about any progress they have made 

toward implementing their plans. For the services that did not have plans, we interviewed key 

officials to determine whether the service has made any progress or intends to develop a plan in 

the future. 

We interviewed service officials from several offices, asking them to define and identify 

retrograde and reset guidance and implementation plans and relevant offices related to these 

efforts, and we contacted the offices they identified for interviews as well. These offices include 

the following: Department of the Army Headquarters, Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial 

Management & Comptroller); Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and 

Training (G-3/5/7); Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Army Logistics (G-4); Office of the 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Force Development Operational Integration (G-8); Marine Corps 

Enterprise Ground Equipment Management Team; Marine Corps Logistics Command; Assistant 

 26See DOD Instruction 5025.12, Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology (Aug. 14, 2009)

(incorporating change Apr. 11, 2017); Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated 

Terms (as of Mar. 2017). 
Page 11 GAO-17-530R Military Readiness

Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller); Chief of Naval Operations, 

Navy-Joint Capabilities and Integration (N83); Air Force Operations, Plans and Requirements 

(AF/A3); and Air Force Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection (AF/A4). 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to June 2017 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

(101182)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.

The published product 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.
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.

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

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

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

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.