United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

MILITARY 

OPERATIONS 

The Department of 

Defense’s Use of 

Solatia and 

Condolence Payments 

in Iraq and 

Afghanistan 

May 2007 

 

GAO-07-699 
Contents 

Letter 1

Summary 3

Recommendations for Executive Action 5 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 6 

Enclosure I Scope and Methodology 7 

Enclosure II Briefing to Congressional Requesters 10 

Enclosure III Comments from the Department of Defense 54 

Enclosure IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56 

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 i GAO-07-699 Military Operations
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 23, 2007

The Honorable Edward Kennedy 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Seapower 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

There are a number of ways that the U.S. government provides assistance 

to Iraqi or Afghan civilians who are killed, injured, or suffer property 

damage as a result of U.S. and coalition forces’ actions. For instance, the

U.S. Agency for International Development funds projects to assist Iraqi 

and Afghan civilians and communities directly impacted by actions of U.S. 

or coalition forces. Also, the Department of State administers a program 

that makes payments, in accordance with local custom, to Iraqi civilians 

who are harmed in incidents involving U.S. protective security details. In

addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) administers a program that 

provides compensation under the Foreign Claims Act to inhabitants of 

foreign countries for death, injury, or property damage caused by 

noncombat activities of U.S. military personnel overseas.1

 Further, DOD 

provides monetary assistance in the form of solatia and condolence 

payments to Iraqi and Afghan nationals who are killed, injured, or incur 

property damage as a result of U.S. or coalition forces’ actions during 

combat. From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, DOD has reported about 

$1.9 million in solatia payments and more than $29 million in condolence 

payments2

 to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who are killed, injured, or incur 

 1

10 U.S.C. § 2734. 

2

Guidance issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) establishes 19 

uses for Commander’s Emergency Response Program funds including condolence 

payments and battle damage payments. For purposes of this report, we use the term 

condolence payment to refer to condolence payments and battle damage payments which

we have combined when calculating total condolence payments. We did this because DOD

guidance does not clearly define when payments for property damage should be recorded 

as condolence payments or as battle damage payments. 

Page 1 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
property damage as a result of U.S. or coalition forces’ actions during 

combat. 3

 These payments are expressions of sympathy or remorse based 

on local culture and customs, but not an admission of legal liability or 

fault. Commanders make condolence payments using funds provided by 

Congress for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), 

whereas solatia payments are funded from unit operations and 

maintenance accounts. Pub. L. No. 108-106 (2003) requires DOD to provide 

quarterly reports on the source, allocation, and use of CERP funds. To 

administer the CERP, DOD has established 19 project categories for the 

use of funds, including categories for condolence payments and battle 

damage payments. 

At your request, we reviewed DOD’s solatia and condolence payment 

programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, we examined the following 

questions: (1) To what extent has DOD established guidance for making 

and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and 

Afghanistan? (2) How are commanders making and documenting solatia 

and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan and what factors do 

commanders consider when determining whether to make payments or 

payment amounts? (3) To what extent does DOD collect and analyze 

solatia and condolence payment data? We also are providing information 

on the other aforementioned programs established by the U.S. government 

to provide assistance to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have been affected 

by U.S. or coalition forces’ actions. These programs include (1) DOD’s 

Foreign Claims Act, (2) the Department of State’s Claims and Condolence 

Payment Program, and (3) the U.S. Agency for International 

Development’s Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund and the Afghan 

Civilian Assistance Program. 

To address your questions, we identified and reviewed guidance for solatia 

and condolence payment programs and interviewed knowledgeable 

officials at commands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, we 

interviewed officials from selected units that returned recently from Iraq 

and Afghanistan about their experiences making and documenting solatia 

and condolence payments. We obtained payment information for solatia 

payments in Iraq and Afghanistan and found these data sufficiently reliable 

for purposes of this report. Additionally, we obtained summary obligation 

 3

Condolence payments have been made in Iraq since March 2004 and in Afghanistan since 

November 2005. Solatia payments were made in Iraq from June 2003 to January 2005. 

Solatia payments have been made in Afghanistan since October 2005. 

Page 2 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
and disbursement data for condolence payments made in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. To gain an understanding of the reliability of these data, we 

spoke with knowledgeable officials about how these data were generated. 

Additionally, we compared condolence payment documentation from one 

unit with data contained in quarterly reports provided by the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) to 

Congress. Of the files we compared, we found a minor discrepancy in one 

record of about $30. However, we did not compare other records from 

other units because information needed to do so is generally not available 

from a centralized source. The recommendations we make in this report 

address this limitation. Finally, we interviewed officials at the Department 

of State and U.S. Agency for International Development about assistance 

these agencies provide to Iraqi and Afghan civilians affected by U.S. and 

coalition actions. A detailed scope and methodology is included in 

enclosure I. We conducted our review from September 2006 through May 

2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

On February 28, 2007, we briefed your offices on the results of this review. 

This report summarizes the information discussed at that briefing, 

transmits the briefing slides describing our work at that point 

(see enclosure II), and provides updated information. 

We found that DOD has established guidance for making and documenting 

solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that 

guidance has changed over time primarily in Iraq in terms of condolence 

payment amounts, approval levels, and payment eligibility. Within 

parameters established by guidance, commanders exercise broad 

discretion for determining whether a payment should be made and the 

appropriate payment amount. While guidance does not require 

commanders to make payments, commanders may do so if they choose. 

When determining whether to make payments and payment amounts, 

commanders told us they consider the severity of injury, type of damage, 

and property values based on the local economy as well as any other 

applicable cultural considerations. According to unit officials with whom 

we spoke, units generally follow a similar process for making solatia and 

condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials told us that they 

generally make payments to civilians at Civil Military Operations 

Centers—ad hoc organizations established by military commanders to 

assist in the coordination of civilian-related activities—or during personal

visits. 

Summary 

Page 3 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
DOD requires units to collect various types of detailed information related 

to condolence payments and, based on this information, reports certain 

summary level data to Congress. However, because its current guidance

does not clearly distinguish between the types of payments to be reported

under certain CERP categories, reporting entities are interpreting the 

guidance differently, and therefore inconsistent reporting has occurred. 

When a condolence payment is made, units record, among other data, 

information on the 

• unit that made the payment, 

• number of civilians killed or injured or whose property was damaged,4

• location of the incident, and 

• dollar value of the payment. 

Each payment also is assigned a document reference number for tracking 

purposes. In reporting to Congress on the use of CERP funds, DOD 

provides summary data on obligations, commitments, and disbursements 

for each of the 19 project categories, and by major subordinate command5

in Iraq or task force in Afghanistan. The project categories include (1) 

condolence payments to individual civilians for death, injury, or property 

damage and (2) repair of damage that results from U.S., coalition, or 

supporting military operations that is not compensable under the Foreign 

Claims Act, known as battle damage payments. Within the condolence 

payment category, DOD reports total dollar amounts and does not 

distinguish between payments made for death, injury, or personal property 

damage. Because DOD guidance does not clearly define when payments 

for property damage should be recorded as condolence payments or as 

payments for battle damage, some units are recording property damage as

condolence payments while others record property damage as battle 

damage payments. Additionally, neither DOD nor the Army—which is the 

executive agent for CERP6

—can easily determine that property damage is 

 4

While data from condolence payment records include information on Iraqi civilians, these 

data do not provide a complete picture of the number of civilians affected by U.S. forces’ 

actions for various reasons, such as Iraqi civilians not reporting incidents or accepting 

payments. 

5

Iraq is divided into major areas of responsibility referred to as major subordinate 

commands. These include (1) Multinational Division—Baghdad, (2) Multinational 

Division—North, (3) Multinational Force—West, (4) Multinational Division—Central 

South, and (5) Multinational Division—Southeast. 

6

As the executive agent for CERP, the Secretary of the Army promulgates detailed 

procedures to ensure that unit commanders carry out CERP in a manner consistent with 

applicable laws, regulations, and DOD guidance, including rules for expending CERP funds. 

Page 4 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
categorized appropriately because guidance does not require units to 

report certain detailed information, such as document reference numbers, 

which would facilitate verification. 

In addition to solatia and condolence payments, there are a number of 

other ways the U.S. government provides assistance to Iraqi or Afghan 

civilians or communities affected by U.S. and coalition forces or who are 

harmed during incidents involving U.S. protective security details. The 

maximum dollar amount of assistance and the process for providing 

assistance differs among programs. For instance, foreign claims 

commissions adjudicate foreign claims generally up to $100,000 for death,

personal injury, or property damage caused during noncombat activities 

by U.S. military personnel overseas. In comparison, the Department of 

State’s Claims and Condolence Payment Program generally provides up to 

$2,500 for each instance of death, injury, or property damage to Iraqi 

civilians harmed in incidents involving protective security details. 

Department of State officials told us that payment amounts are based on 

the totality of facts surrounding the incident, such as degree of fault and 

the extent of the damage. Under programs administered by the U.S. 

Agency for International Development, projects do not have a monetary 

limit and no money is provided directly to Iraqi or Afghan civilians. 

Instead, the agency provides funds to its partner organizations that 

implement projects, such as vocational training and infrastructure 

development. Additional details on these programs are provided in 

enclosure II.

To provide greater transparency on the use of CERP funds for condolence 

payments, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to take the following two 

actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Revise CERP guidance to clarify the definitions as to what is reported 

in the two CERP categories: (1) condolence payments and (2) battle 

damage payments. 

• Require that document reference numbers be provided for payments to 

allow DOD to determine whether expenditures of CERP funds are 

appropriately categorized and to permit DOD to obtain detailed 

information for analysis and reporting, as appropriate. 

Page 5 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report (see enclosure 

III) and concurred with both recommendations. In its comments, DOD 

noted that it had issued revised guidance to reflect our recommendations. 

DOD also provided technical comments, which we included in the report,

as appropriate. Additionally, officials from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development and Department of State provided technical 

comments on a draft of this report that we incorporated, where 

appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date 

of this report. We will send copies to others who are interested and make 

copies available to others who request them. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Key contributors to this report may be found in 

enclosure IV. 

Sharon L. Pickup, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosures 

Page 6 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

To assess the extent to which DOD has established guidance for making 

and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and to determine factors commanders consider when 

deciding whether to make payments and appropriate payment amounts, 

we obtained and reviewed guidance for these payment programs in Iraq 

and Afghanistan from 2003 to the present and assessed changes in 

guidance over time. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials at 

commands in Afghanistan and Iraq—including the former commander of 

Multinational Corps Iraq—as well as at the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, among other 

organizations, regarding changes in guidance over time, processes for 

making and documenting payments, and the tracking and reporting of 

payment information. Additionally, we interviewed commanders, judge 

advocates, comptrollers, and civil affairs teams from selected units that 

were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005 and 2006 regarding changes 

in guidance over time, processes for making and documenting payments, 

and the tracking and reporting of payment information. We selected these 

units (1) based on their dates and locations of deployment in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, (2) to ensure that we obtained information from officials at 

the battalion, brigade, and division levels that had direct experience 

approving, documenting, and making payments, and (3) because unit 

officials had not yet redeployed or been transferred to other locations 

within the United States.

To determine the extent to which DOD collects and analyzes solatia and 

condolence payment data, we interviewed officials at Multinational 

Forces—Iraq, Multinational Corps—Iraq, and the Combined Joint Task 

Force-76 in Afghanistan, as well as units that were deployed to Iraq and 

Afghanistan from 2005 to 2006. Because solatia payments are made using 

unit operation and maintenance funds, we obtained solatia payment data

for Iraq directly from the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters, and similar 

data directly from the Combined Joint Task Force-76 in Afghanistan that 

compiled data from task forces. To assess the reliability of solatia payment 

data, we spoke with knowledgeable officials and found these data 

sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report. In addition, we obtained

and reviewed summary obligation and disbursement data for condolence 

payments from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial 

Management & Comptroller). To gain an understanding of the reliability of 

these data, we spoke with knowledgeable officials about how these data 

were generated. Additionally, we compared condolence payment 

documentation from one unit with data contained in quarterly reports 

provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial 

Management & Comptroller) to Congress. Of the files we compared, we 

Page 7 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

found a minor discrepancy in one record of about $30. However, we did 

not compare other records from other units because information needed 

to do so is generally not available from a centralized source. The 

recommendations we make in this report address this limitation. 

We also discussed the extent to which DOD conducted trend analysis of 

condolence payment data and potential reasons for changes in payments 

over time. We analyzed the aforementioned data to determine trends by 

fiscal year and country. For payments within Iraq, we further analyzed 

data to identify trends by location. For purposes of this report, we use the 

term condolence payment to refer to condolence payments and battle 

damage payments which we have combined when calculating total 

condolence payments. We did this because DOD guidance does not clearly 

define when payments for property damage should be recorded as 

condolence payments or as battle damage payments. Some DOD officials 

indicated confusion regarding when to use each category to record 

property damage. For instance, an official in the comptroller’s office at 

one major subordinate command in Iraq told us that he categorized all 

property damage as battle damage payments. Furthermore, major 

subordinate commands in Iraq and task forces in Afghanistan reported 

property damage in both the condolence payment and battle damage 

CERP categories. We also obtained some financial documentation for 

condolence payments processed by units that recently returned from Iraq, 

including payments made by coalition forces using appropriated CERP 

funds. We reviewed these documents to determine the type of information 

and level of detail documented by units that made payments. We also 

reviewed Significant Activity Reports to gain an understanding of other 

types of information that is available to commanders for use in assessing 

trends and modifying operations. 

To gain an understanding of other types of assistance the U.S. government 

provides to Iraqi and Afghan nationals affected by U.S. and coalition 

forces’ actions, we interviewed officials at DOD, the Department of State, 

and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We obtained 

information from the U.S. Army Claims Service on claims paid under the 

Foreign Claims Act. We also obtained and reviewed summary project 

information from the U.S. Agency for International Development including 

the project types, descriptions, costs, and locations. We also obtained and 

reviewed documentation, including the rationale for making payments and

the payment amounts, for eight claims approved by the Department of 

State for payment to Iraqi civilians. 

We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review: 

Page 8 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

• Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate, 

and the Force Structure Resources and Assessment Directorate, 

Pentagon, Virginia. 

• Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Rome, New York. 

• Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, Pentagon, 

Virginia. 

• Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Pentagon, Virginia. 

• United States Army Central Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia. 

• United States Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. 

• 1-25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Fort Wainwright and 

Fort Richardson, Alaska. 

• 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. 

• 10th Mountain Division, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1-87th Infantry 

Battalion, Fort Drum, New York. 

• 10th Mountain Division, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Fort Polk, Louisiana. 

• 25th Infantry Division, 1st Brigade, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 

Fort Lewis, Washington.

• 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

• Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & 

Comptroller), Pentagon, Virginia. 

• Center for Law and Military Operations, Charlottesville, Virginia. 

• Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

Rosslyn, Virginia. 

• United States Army Claims Service, Fort Meade, Maryland. 

• 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California. 

• United States Marine Corps, Headquarters, Programs and Resource 

Department, Arlington, Virginia. 

• Combined Joint Task Force-76. 

• Multinational Force—Iraq. 

• Multinational Corps—Iraq. 

• Multinational Division—Baghdad. 

• Multinational Division—North. 

• Multinational Forces—West. 

• United States Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C., 

and Kabul, Afghanistan.

• United States Department of State, Washington, D.C. and Iraq.

Department of Defense 

Department of the Army 

Department of the Navy 

Afghanistan 

Iraq 

Other government 

agencies 

We conducted this review from September 2006 through May 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 9 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enclosure

Requesters 

 II: Briefing to Congressional

Page 10 GAO-07-699

Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional 

Requesters 

Briefing to Congressional Requesters

February 28, 2007

Preliminary Observations on the Department 

of Defense’s Use of Condolence and Solatia 

Payments in Iraq and Afghanistan

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Introduction

Page 11 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 12 GAO-07-699

• There are a number of ways that the U.S. government may

compensate or provide assistance to Iraqi or Afghan 

nationals for damage, injury, or death that occurs due to

U.S. or coalition forces’ actions:

• Foreign Claims Act (DOD)

• Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund (USAID)

• Afghan Civilian Assistance Program (USAID)

• Claims and Condolence Payment Program (Department

of State)

• Solatia payments (DOD)

• Condolence payments (DOD)

• At your request, we focused on solatia and condolence

payments for death, injury, and property damage.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 13 GAO-07-699

• Afghanistan November 2005 to present October 2005 to present

March 2004 to present June 2003 to January 2005

Countries

and dates

used

• Iraq

Iraq: Up to $2,500 for death; up to $1,500 for 

serious injury; and $200 or more for minor injury.

Afghanistan: Up to 100,000 Afghani ($2,336+/-) for 

death; up to 20,000 Afghani ($467+/-) for serious 

injury; and up to 10,000 Afghani ($236+/-) for 

nonserious injury or property damage.

Up to $2,500 for each instance of death, injury, or

property damage

Payment 

levels

Unit Operations and Maintenance funds C b ommander’s Emergency Response Program 

(CERP) fundsa

Funding

Token or nominal payment for death, injury, or

property damage caused by coalition or U.S. forces 

during combat. Payment is made in accordance with 

local custom as an expression of remorse or

sympathy toward a victim or his/her family. Payment 

is not an admission of legal liability or fault.

Expression of sympathy for death, injury, or 

property damage caused by coalition or U.S.

forces generally during combat. In addition, at 

commander discretion, payments may be made to

Iraqi civilians who are harmed by enemy action

when working with U.S. forces. Payment is not an 

admission of legal liability or fault.

Purpose

Condolence payments Solatia payments

Source: DOD. aPrior to the authorization of appropriated CERP funds (Pub. L. No. 108-106, §1110 (2003)), Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) and seized Iraqi assets were available for MNC-I to fund CERP projects in Iraq. DFI is a fund established by the United Nations to assist with reconstruction and recovery operations in Iraq. Seized Iraqi

assets are funds that have been captured during ongoing combat operations. Currently, funds are appropriated under Pub. L. No. 109-289, §9006 (2006). bSolatia payments are made under the authority to use appropriated funds found in 10 U.S.C. §2242.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 14 GAO-07-699

Objectives, 

scope, and methodology

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 15 GAO-07-699

Objectives:

(1) To what extent has DOD established guidance for 

making and documenting solatia and condolence 

payments in Iraq and Afghanistan?

(2) How are commanders making and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

what factors do commanders consider when

determining whether to make payments and payment 

amounts?

(3) To what extent does DOD collect and analyze solatia 

and condolence payment data?

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 16 GAO-07-699

To meet our objectives, we:

• identified and reviewed guidance for solatia and condolence payment

programs in Iraq and Afghanistan

• met with or talked to officials about how programs work

• higher headquarters and major subordinate commands in Iraq and

Afghanistan

• units recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan

• determined extent to which individual solatia and condolence payment

documents are available from DOD

• obtained and reviewed some financial documentation for condolence

payments from units recently returned from Iraq

• gathered information on assistance the U.S government provides through

other programs to Iraqi and Afghan civilians affected by U.S. or coalition 

actions

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 17 GAO-07-699

Figure 1: Organizations Contacted:

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 18 GAO-07-699

Background

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 19 GAO-07-699

1. water and sanitation

2. food production and distribution

3. agriculture

4. electricity

5. healthcare

6. education

7. telecommunications

8. economic, financial and 

management improvements

9. transportation

10. rule of law and governance

11. irrigation

12. civic cleanup activities

13. civic support vehicles

14. repair of civic and cultural 

facilities

15. battle damage—repair of damage that results from U.S., coalition, or 

supporting military operations and is

not compensable under the Foreign Claims Act

16. condolence payments to individual 

civilians for death, injury, or property damage resulting from U.S., coalition or supporting military operations

17. payments to individuals upon 

release from detention

18. protective measures to enhance the 

durability and survivability of a 

critical infrastructure site

19. other urgent humanitarian or 

reconstruction projects

Guidance establishes 19 uses for Commander’s Emergency Response Program funds

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 20 GAO-07-699

Figure 2: Condolence Payments Comprise a Small Percentage of Annual CERP Disbursements

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 21 GAO-07-699

Objective 1

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 22 GAO-07-699

Objective

To what extent has DOD established guidance for making 

and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq 

and Afghanistan?

Findings

DOD has established guidance for making and 

documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and

Afghanistan. In Iraq, guidance has changed over time in 

terms of payment amounts, approval levels, and payment 

eligibility. In Afghanistan, condolence payment guidance 

has not changed over time, whereas solatia payment 

guidance has become more descriptive. 

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 23 GAO-07-699

Guidance for making solatia payments has become more specific in terms of

payment amounts in Iraq. In Afghanistan, guidance has become more 

descriptive.

• In Iraq, solatia payment levels became more specific over time. 

• In 2003, $2,500 was the maximum payment level regardless of type of 

harm.

• In 2004, maximum payment levels were based on type and degree of

harm:

• death ($2,500)

• disabling injuries resulting in permanent disability or significant

disfigurement ($1,500) 

• minor injuries ($200+)

• In Afghanistan, guidance for making and documenting solatia payments has

become more descriptive in terms of processes and roles and 

responsibilities, but payment amounts have not changed over time.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 24 GAO-07-699

Over time, maximum condolence payment amounts have become more

flexible in Iraq.

• Initially (September 2004) MNC-I established maximum condolence

payment levels in Iraq for each instance of death ($2,500), serious

injury ($1,000), and property damage ($500). 

• In November 2004 guidance, MNC-I raised maximum condolence

payment amounts for injury and damage in Iraq to match the 

maximum payment amount for each instance of death ($2,500). According to guidance and officials, this change

• provides commanders more flexibility,

• acknowledges the serious nature of injuries and property damage, and

• provides urgent and immediate humanitarian relief to minimize

the impact of U.S. and coalition forces’ actions on the Iraqi 

people.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 25 GAO-07-699

Example: Two members of the same family are killed in

a car hit by U.S. forces. The family could receive a 

maximum of $7,500 in CERP condolence payments 

($2,500 for each death and up to $2,500 for vehicle 

damage).

• In April 2006, MNC-I guidance permitted the division 

commanding general to approve in extraordinary 

circumstances condolence payments up to $10,000 for

each instance of death, injury, or property damage. 

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 26 GAO-07-699

Over time, the use of condolence payments in Iraq has expanded.

• MNC-I expanded the use of condolence payments to allow 

payments to Iraqi security forces.

• Prior to April 2006, condolence payments were not permitted to 

be made to Iraqi security forces except in rare circumstances and 

with the approval of the commanding general of Multinational 

Corps—Iraq. 

• Beginning in April 2006, MNC-I guidance established martyr

payments as a subset of condolence payments to permit 

payments for Iraqi army or police or government civilians who are 

killed as a result of U.S., coalition, or supporting military

operations. Payments require approval by general officers and 

are authorized in the same amounts as other types of 

condolence payments.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 27 GAO-07-699

Approval authority levels for condolence payments in Iraq 

have become more specific over time.

• Initially, guidance specified that commanders must 

approve condolence payments and payment amounts.

• Beginning in April 2006, MNC-I established approval 

authority levels based on the amount and type of

payment.

• Brigade (regiment) commanders approve condolence

and battle damage payments up to $2,500.

• General officers approve payments between $2,500 

and $10,000 and all martyr payments regardless of

payment amount.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 28 GAO-07-699

• Per guidance, approval authority for condolence 

payments cannot be delegated below the brigade 

(regiment) commander.

• However, in practice the Marine Corps Regiment 

Commander in Anbar Province has delegated

authority for battle damage payments of $500 or less 

to company commanders who are advised by project 

purchasing officers (generally judge advocates). 

• Although this practice does not comply with MNC-I 

policy, the Marine Corps is using CERP for 

approved purposes.

• MNC-I anticipates providing a waiver to permit this 

practice for the Marine Corps.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 29 GAO-07-699

Documentation requirements for condolence payments have not 

changed over time.

• In October 2004, guidance established documentation requirements

for condolence payments:

• Financial documentation that provides

• name of the recipient

• amount of payment and

• signature indicating receipt of payment.

• Descriptive memorandum signed by commander describing incident, including

• name of recipient 

• date of incident 

• location where incident occurred and

• detailed description of incident

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 30 GAO-07-699

Objective 2

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 31 GAO-07-699

Objective

How are commanders making and documenting solatia 

and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

what factors do commanders consider when determining 

whether to make payments and payment amounts?

Findings

Within parameters established by guidance, commanders 

exercise broad discretion for determining whether a

payment should be made and appropriate payment 

amount. When determining whether to make payments

and payment amounts, commanders consider the severity 

of injury or type of damage and property values based on

the local economy.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 32 GAO-07-699

Units generally follow a standard process for making condolence

payments:

• Guidance does not require commanders to make payments, but 

instead permits commanders to make payments if they choose. 

• Unit may provide claims card to a victim or family member or the

victim or family member brings incident to attention of U.S. military.

• Judge advocates or project purchasing officers (PPO) review

evidence and claims card and verify location and circumstances of 

incident against significant activity reports and determine whether a 

payment can be made under the Foreign Claims Act.

• If payment cannot be made under the Foreign Claims Act because 

harm resulted from combat activities, the judge advocate or PPO

determines whether a condolence payment is appropriate. 

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 33 GAO-07-699

• If a condolence payment is appropriate, the judge advocate or PPO

recommends to the commander a payment amount based on the 

severity of injury or type of damage and local market value of 

property. Trusted local Iraqi nationals (attorneys and interpreters) provide input on local market values.

• According to unit officials and guidance, commanders review and 

approve all condolence payments. For approved payments, units

document payment information including location, date, type of 

payment (death, injury, or property damage), and payment amount.

• Generally, payments are made at Civil Military Operation Centers

(CMOC) or during personal visits. Less frequently, units in Iraq may make payments on-the-spot with the commander’s verbal approval

and financial documentation is completed at a later time.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 34 GAO-07-699

Commanders consider a variety of factors when determining 

whether to make condolence payments and payment

amounts.

• Commanders make final determinations about the 

appropriateness of payments and payment values within 

parameters of the guidance.

• Condolence payments for each instance of death are 

generally $2,500.

• Condolence payments for each instance of injury and 

battle damage are generally less than $2,500.

• Commanders consider the severity of injury or type of 

damage, cost of living in the local community, and any other applicable cultural considerations.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 35 GAO-07-699

Solatia and condolence payment program and process for

making payments in Afghanistan is similar to program and

process in Iraq.

• Factors commanders consider when determining 

whether to make a solatia or condolence payment and 

the payment amounts are similar in Afghanistan and 

Iraq. As noted earlier, these factors include

• severity of injury, 

• cost of living in the local community, and 

• any other applicable cultural considerations.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 36 GAO-07-699

• Approval and payment process in Afghanistan is also 

similar to condolence payment program in Iraq except

• condolence and solatia payments in Afghanistan are 

generally made during personal visits to recipients,

• guidance requires solatia payments to be made within 

48 hours of an incident, and 

• regardless of payment amount, approval authority 

cannot be delegated below the battalion commander.

• According to Combined Joint Task Force-76 officials, 

commanders prefer to make solatia payments rather 

than condolence payments and use CERP funds for

other types of assistance.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 37 GAO-07-699

Objective 3

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 38 GAO-07-699

Objective

To what extent does DOD collect and analyze solatia and condolence

payment data?

Findings

For approved payments, DOD documents information on the number of 

civilians killed or injured or whose property is damaged and the dollar

value of payments, among other data. However, DOD does not track

the number of requests for payment that are submitted or denied. DOD 

reports some information on condolence payment data to Congress.

DOD does not analyze condolence payment data to determine reasons

for payment fluctuations and uses other data to modify operations.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 39 GAO-07-699

• Specific data are documented for individual condolence and solatia

payments.

• Individual condolence and solatia payment records for each incident 

identify:

• dates of incident and payment 

• location of incident

• names of each recipient

• individual dollar value of payments

• reasons for making payments (death, injury, damage)

• brief explanation of circumstances surrounding incident

• unit making payment 

• approving official

• document reference number that identifies the type of transaction 

and unit 

• DOD does not collect or maintain information on the number of 

condolence or solatia payments submitted or denied.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 40 GAO-07-699

DOD reports some summary information to Congress on condolence payments, but is not

required to report information on solatia payments.

• Over time, DOD has changed the information it reports on condolence payments to

Congress:

• During fiscal year 2004, DOD reported 

• total obligated funds

• unit that made payment

• date 

• location of payment

• Since fiscal year 2005, DOD has reported 

• total committed, obligated, and disbursed funds for condolence and battle 

damage payments

• DOD does not break out values for death versus injury

• location of payment

• organization (major subordinate command or task force) that made payment

• project numbers

• Beginning in fiscal year 2006, DOD stopped reporting payment dates. According to a DOD official, these data were inaccurate because some units reported the 

payment date and other units reported the date paperwork was processed.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 41 GAO-07-699

• DOD does not report other information such as the total 

number of civilians who receive payments or the number of

condolence payments made for death, injury, or property

damage.

• As of September 2006, DOD reported data that would 

facilitate obtaining documentation for individual payments. These data could enable DOD to determine the total 

number of condolence payments made, but gathering this

information for past payments would be difficult. 

• There is no requirement for DOD to report data for solatia

payments, and the department does not do so although 

commands in Afghanistan track this information. 

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 42 GAO-07-699

Solatia payments were used in Iraq for a short

period of time. The Marine Corps reported that units 

in Iraq made $1,732,002 in solatia payments 

between fiscal years 2003 and 2005.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 43 GAO-07-699

Condolence payment levels have varied in Iraq over time.

Table 1: Reported condolence payments in Iraq by major subordinate

command, fiscal years 2005 and 2006

Total $21,528,664 $7,311,911 -66%

Other commands 368,500 309,366 -16

Multinational Force— 9,637,262 4,033,272 -58

West

Multinational Division— 9,645,772 1,866,966 -81

North

Multinational Division— $1,877,139 $1,082,307 -42%

Baghdad

Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006

Percentage change 

fiscal years 

2005 to 2006

Major subordinate Disbursements (in dollars)

commands

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 44 GAO-07-699

Data for solatia and condolence payments made in Afghanistan are

available beginning in fiscal year 2006.

Table 2: Reported solatia payments in Afghanistan, fiscal year 2006

2006 $141,466

Fiscal year Obligations

2006 $210,758

Fiscal year Disbursements

Table 3: Reported condolence payments in Afghanistan, fiscal year 2006

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 45 GAO-07-699

Condolence payment levels have fluctuated over time, but DOD does not 

analyze underlying reasons.

• DOD has not analyzed fluctuations in condolence payment levels to 

determine potential causes.

• However, command and unit officials with whom we spoke 

suggested several factors that could affect payment levels.

• Nature of operations has changed, including number of major

military offensives and tactics.

• Iraqi security forces assumed more responsibility for security.

• Number of units within an area of operations changed.

• We are unable to determine the extent to which these factors

affected aggregate condolence payment levels.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 46 GAO-07-699

While data from condolence payment records in Iraq include information on Iraqi civilians, these data do not provide a complete picture of the number of civilians affected by U.S. forces’ actions. For example:

• Commanders may decide not to make payments, therefore no records exist.

• Condolence payment records identify only those civilians who received payments.

• Iraqi civilians may not report incidents or accept payments.

• Despite investigations by unit officials, some payments may be duplicative due to 

misrepresentations by Iraqi civilians.

• Records include payments made by coalition forces for harm they cause.

• Commanders may approve payments in some instances when U.S. forces did not

cause harm:

• Iraqi civilians are affected by enemy action as a result of employment with U.S. armed forces.

• In rare cases, commanders may approve payments for harm caused by insurgents (e.g., child harmed when U.S. forces clear incendiary explosive

devices set by insurgents).

• Iraqi civilians are affected by Iraqi security forces conducting combined 

operations with U.S. forces.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 47 GAO-07-699

.

Commanders rely on information other than condolence 

payments to modify military operations.

• Military officials in Afghanistan and Iraq told us they rely on “significant activity” (SIGACT) reporting that could be

used to adjust operational activities.

• For example, in Iraq DOD tracks numerous types of

events that may result in civilian death or injury, including:

• enemy-initiated attacks against U.S. and coalition 

forces and their Iraqi partners

• escalation of force incidents involving U.S. and 

coalition or Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 48 GAO-07-699

Additional information

Description of other programs established by the U.S. government to

provide assistance to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have been

harmed by U.S. or coalition actions.

Findings

The U.S. government has established several programs to provide

program or monetary assistance to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have

been affected by U.S. or coalition actions. These programs include:

• Foreign Claims Act (DOD)

• Claims and Condolence Payment Program (Department of State) in 

Iraq

• Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund (USAID)

• Afghan Civilian Assistance Program (USAID)

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 49 GAO-07-699

Foreign Claims Act (DOD) in Iraq and Afghanistan

• Compensates inhabitants of foreign countries for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by noncombat activities of U.S. 

military personnel overseas. 

• Foreign claims commissions adjudicate claims up to $100,000 in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. Settlement approval based on dollar limits and 

composition of the adjudicating teams.

• One-member commissions without attorneys can award up to $2,500. 

• Judge advocate one-member commissions can award up to $15,000.

• Three-member commissions can award up to $50,000.

• U.S. Army Claims Service or Judge Advocate General’s office 

adjudicates claims of $50,000 to $100,000.

• The Army General Counsel approves claims greater than $100,000.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 50 GAO-07-699

Foreign Claims Act (DOD) in Iraq and Afghanistan (continued)

• Claimants are responsible for providing evidence to substantiate

claims under the Foreign Claims Act.

• DOD paid about $26 million to settle approximately 21,450 claims

filed between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006 in Iraq and 

Afghanistan.

• According to the U.S. Army Claims Service, the primary reasons

DOD paid claims under the Foreign Claims Act in Iraq include 

(1) automobile accidents,

(2) detainee property claims or injuries, and 

(3) damage resulting from negligent discharges.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 51 GAO-07-699

Claims and Condolence Payment Program (Department of State) in

Iraq

• Initiated in 2005, makes condolence payments, in accordance 

with local custom, to Iraqi civilians for death, injury, or damage

resulting from harm caused in incidents involving Department of

State protective security details (PSD).

• No maximum payment level, but generally follow maximum 

condolence payment amount ($2,500) established by DOD.

• Payment amount is based on the totality of facts surrounding

the incident, such as degree to which PSDs or Iraqi civilians 

involved in the incident are at fault and the extent of damage.

• By accepting payment, claimant releases the U.S. 

government, and its employees and contractors, from future

liability or claims.

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 52 GAO-07-699

Claims and Condolence Payment Program (Department of State) in 

Iraq (continued)

• According to the Department of State, it has not generated its

own written policies or procedures for this program. 

• Since fiscal year 2006, the department approved payment for

8 claims totaling $26,000.

• No comparable program exists in Afghanistan. 

Military Operations
Enclosure II: Briefing to Congressional

Requesters 

Page 53 GAO-07-699

• Fund projects to assist Iraqi and Afghan civilians, institutions, and 

communities directly impacted by actions of U.S. or coalition forces. 

• Projects include medical assistance, vocational training, and infrastructure

projects.

• No money is provided directly to Iraqi or Afghan civilians. The U.S. Agency

for International Development provides funds to its partner organizations in

country.

• No written program guidance or spending ceilings for individual project. 

Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund

• Initiated in 2005

• 768 projects totaling more than

$17.8 million

Afghan Civilian Assistance Program

• Initiated in 2003

• 51 projects totaling $2.3 million

United States Agency for International Development

Military Operations
Enclosure III: Comments from the Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Department of Defense 

Page 54 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enclosure III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 

Page 55 GAO-07-699 Military Operations
Enc

A

losure IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 56 GAO-07-699

Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Sharon L. Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov 

In addition to the person named above, Carole F. Coffey, Assistant 

Director; Kelly Baumgartner; Krislin Bolling; Alissa Czyz; K. Nicole Harms; 

Ronald La Due Lake; Marcus L. Oliver; and Jason Pogacnik also made 

major contributions to this report. 

Military Operations

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(350895) 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER