GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 26, 2007 

Congressional Committees: 

Subject: Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps’s Individual Body Armor 

System Issues. 

Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces have been 

subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from insurgents using various weapons such 

as improvised explosive devices (IED), mortars, rocket launchers, and increasingly 

lethal ballistic threats. Since 2003, to provide protection from ballistic threats, U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and other areas, has required service members and Department of 

Defense (DOD) civilians in its area of operations to be issued the Interceptor Body 

Armor (IBA) system.1

 Used by all U.S. military service members and DOD civilians in 

the area of operations, the IBA consists of an outer tactical vest with ballistic inserts 

or plates that cover the front, back, and sides. As the ballistic threat has evolved, 

ballistic requirements have also changed. The vest currently provides protection 

from 9mm rounds, while the inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armorpiercing rounds. Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder, throat, 

and groin areas. 

Concerns also regarding the level of protection and amount of IBA needed to protect 

U.S. forces have occurred in recent years, prompted by a number of reports, 

newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body armor by both the Army and the 

Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine Corps recalled body armor because it 

concluded that the fielded body armor failed to meet contract specifications, and in 

November 2005, the Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed 

original ballistic testing.2

 Additionally, in April 2005,3 we reported on shortages of 

critical force protection items, including individual body armor. Specifically, we 

found reasons for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages, 

production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In the report, we did not 

make specific recommendations regarding body armor, but we did make several 

recommendations to improve the effectiveness of DOD’s supply system in supporting 

deployed forces for contingencies. DOD agreed with the intent of the 

 

1

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is one of DOD’s five geographic combatant commands, whose 

area of responsibilities encompasses 27 countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, in Southwest Asia, 

South and Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa. Combatant commanders are responsible for 

overseeing U.S. military operations that take place in their geographic area. 2

Army and Marine Corps officials told us they took actions to address the reasons the lots failed. 3

GAO, Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future 

Operations, GAO-05-275 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2005). 
Page 2 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

recommendations and cited actions it had or was taking to eliminate supply chain 

deficiencies. 

Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring that body armor protects ground 

forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor DOD’s and the services’ actions 

to protect deployed ground forces, we reviewed the Army and Marine Corps’s actions 

to address concerns regarding body armor to determine if they had taken actions to 

address these concerns. Because of broad congressional interest in the adequacy of 

body armor for the ground forces, we prepared this report under the Comptroller 

General’s authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative. Our objectives for 

this review were to determine to what extent the Army and Marine Corps (1) are 

meeting the theater requirements for body armor, (2) have the controls in place to 

assure that the manufacturing and fielding of body armor meet requirements, and 

(3) are sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic 

requirements and testing. We are addressing this report to you because of your 

committee’s oversight responsibilities. 

On February 22, 2007, we briefed congressional staff on our preliminary observations. 

This report expands on the information delivered in that briefing and includes 

additional information concerning whether contractors or non-DOD civilians obtain 

body armor in the same way as U.S. forces and DOD civilians given the number of 

contractors and non-DOD civilians in CENTCOM’s area of operation. We are 

attaching the slides from the briefing as enclosure I. 

 

Scope and Methodology 

Our audit work primarily focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor systems for 

U.S. service members and DOD and non-DOD civilian personnel deployed within 

CENTCOM’s area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. To determine 

whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting the theater ballistic and inventory 

requirements for body armor, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials 

from key DOD, Army, and Marine Corps organizations, such as the Office of the 

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

Logistics Agency, and CENTCOM, which are responsible for managing theater 

ballistic and inventory requirements. We visited the Army and Marine Corps body 

armor program offices to obtain and analyze overall development and management of 

their systems. We analyzed the ballistic requirements and compared these 

requirements to the body armor systems provided to personnel. The DOD operations 

officials and the Army and Marine Corps body armor program officials provided us 

with information about both theater requirements and body armor systems available 

worldwide for the Army and the Marine Corps. We analyzed this information to 

determine if the amount of body armor available would meet the amounts needed in 

theater. Their information included the quantities of the outer tactical vests and its 

subparts provided to military personnel as well as DOD civilians and contractors 

embedded in deployed units.4

 We also visited the following sites—Fort Stewart, 

Georgia; Fort Lewis, Washington; the Naval Station and the Amphibious Base in 

Norfolk, Virginia; and the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. At Fort Stewart 

 

4

Subparts include protectors for the upper arms and side of the torso in addition to sets of ballistic 

inserts for the vests. 
Page 3 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

and Fort Lewis, we interviewed Army officials to determine if body armor was being 

distributed to service members. To determine the distribution practices for those 

preparing to deploy, including contractor and non-DOD civilians, we reviewed 

documentation and interviewed officials at these sites in addition to CENTCOM 

officials. We analyzed the distribution practices to assure that personnel were 

receiving body armor systems that met ballistic theater requirements and that these 

systems were available for those preparing to deploy. We also met with DOD 

Inspector General staff who have worked on body armor issues, and obtained and 

reviewed reports they have issued. We selected and analyzed Army classified 

readiness reports,5 from December 2006 to February 2007 and two months of Marine 

Corps reports from December 2006 and January 2007 for deploying and deployed 

combat units. Our analysis was to determine whether commanders were reporting 

problems with body armor, such as shortages, or whether the Army identified it as a 

critical item affecting unit readiness.6

 

To assess the extent to which the services have controls in place during 

manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements, we 

reviewed documentation and discussed the services’ ballistic test processes and 

procedures with their program and technical officials. We analyzed these test 

processes and procedures to determine if there are controls in place that assure body 

armor meets ballistic requirements during manufacturing and after fielding. Our 

analysis included ballistic test methods for the tactical vests and the protective plate 

inserts; however, we did not independently verify test results. In addition, we 

reviewed the services’ past experiences where the services concluded that fielded 

body armor systems failed to meet contract specifications and ballistic testing 

requirements. We analyzed the services’ actions to determine if their actions 

corrected the failures. We also reviewed documentation and interviewed Army and 

Marine Corps body armor program officials who provided manufacturer production 

quality and ballistic testing lot failures for early 2006 through early 2007. 

To identify the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps share information 

regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic requirements and testing, we analyzed 

the services’ body armor programs and policies and discussed with service officials 

whether there is a requirement to share information between the services regarding 

their separate programs. We also discussed with officials and reviewed 

documentation to determine whether the services do share information and if shared, 

what specific actions they take. To determine whether contractors or non-DOD 

civilians obtain body armor in the same way as U.S. forces and DOD civilians in 

CENTCOM’s area of operations, we obtained and analyzed DOD and CENTCOM 

policy regarding personal protection for contractors and non-DOD civilians. We also 

interviewed Army, Marine Corps, and CENTCOM officials on this issue. 

We found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review and this report. 

We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 

5

We searched commanders’ classified comments contained in the Status of Resources and Training 

System (SORTS) for entries related to body armor and its parts. 

6

To determine the reliability of the unit readiness reports, we spoke with key DOD and service officials 

and found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review and this report. 
Page 4 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

Summary

In this review, we found that the Army and Marine Corps have taken several actions 

to meet theater requirements, assure testing, and share information on body armor. 

We also found that contractors and non-DOD civilians receive body armor if this 

provision is included in a negotiated contract. Specifically, we found that the Army 

and Marine Corps 

• are currently meeting theater ballistic requirements and the required amount 

needed for personnel in theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of 

troops into Iraq; 

• have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body 

armor meets requirements; and 

• share information regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and the 

development of future body armor systems, although they are not required to do 

so. 

Regarding contractors or non-DOD civilians, we found that DOD Instruction 3020.41 

allows DOD to provide body armor to contractors where permitted by applicable 

DOD instructions and military department regulations and where specified under the 

terms of the contract. CENTCOM’s position is that body armor will be provided to 

contractors if it is part of a negotiated contract. 

More detailed information on each of these areas is presented below. 

• Requirements: Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting theater 

ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in theater, 

including the amounts needed for the surge of troops into Iraq. Page 13 of the 

enclosed briefing details Army and Marine Corps theater requirements and 

worldwide inventory quantities of the body armor systems. CENTCOM requires 

that all U.S. military forces and all DOD civilians in the area of operations receive 

the body armor system. Currently, service members receive all service-specific 

standard components of the body armor system prior to deploying. For example, 

the Army issues the shoulder protection equipment to all its forces; however, 

Marine Corps personnel receive this equipment item in theater on an as-needed 

basis. The Army and the Marine Corps provide the DOD civilians with 

components of the armor system. However, the timeframe for receipt of these 

items varies as some receive the body armor prior to deploying and others upon 

arrival in-theater. 

Army unit commanders only reported one body armor issue in their December 

2006 to February 2007 classified readiness reports. This one issue did not raise a 

significant concern regarding the body armor. Moreover, Marine Corps 

commanders’ comments contained in the December 2006 and January 2007 

readiness reports did not identify any body armor issues affecting their units’ 

readiness. In December 2006 and January 2007, the Army, in its critical equipment 

list did not identify body armor as a critical equipment item affecting its unit 

readiness. 
Page 5 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

• Testing: The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during 

manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. 

Both services conduct quality and ballistic testing prior to fielding and lots are 

rejected if the standards are not met. They both also conduct formal testing on 

every lot of body armor (vests and protective inserts) prior to acceptance and 

issuance to troops. During production, which is done at several sites, the lots of 

body armor are sent to a National Institute of Justice certified laboratory for 

ballistic testing and to the Defense Contract Management Agency for quality 

testing (size, weight, stitching) prior to issuance to troops. Once approved, the 

body armor is issued to operating forces. Currently, both Army and Marine Corps 

personnel are issued body armor prior to deployment. The Army lot failure rate 

from January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32 percent for the enhanced small arms 

inserts, and there were no failures for the outer tactical vests.7 From February 

2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot failure rate was 4.70 percent for the 

outer tactical vests. 

Although not required to do so, after the systems have been used in the field, the 

Army does limited ballistic testing of outer tactical vests and environmental 

testing of the outer tactical vests and the inserts. The Marine Corps visually 

inspects the vest and the plates for damage. According to Army officials, there 

has been no degradation of body armor based on ballistic and environmental 

testing results. Additionally, to determine future enhancements and 

improvements, the Army and the Marine Corps body armor program offices 

monitor and assess the use of body armor in the field, including the review of 

medical reports from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. For example, the 

Army and Marine Corps added side plates and throat protection based on body 

armor usage in the field. 

DOD has a standard methodology for ballistic testing of the hard body armor 

plates, but not for the soft body armor vest. Currently, DOD’s Director, 

Operational Test and Evaluation, office is developing a standard methodology for 

ballistic testing of the soft body armor to eliminate discrepancies in testing 

methodologies. The new standard is expected to be issued sometime in 2007. 

• Information Sharing: The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding 

ballistic requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor 

systems, although they are not required to do so. For example, in August 2006 the 

Marine Corps attended the Army’s test of next generation body armor types at 

Fort Benning, Georgia. Similarly, the Army sent representatives to attend the 

Marine Corps’s operational assessment of the new Modular Tactical Vest. DOD 

officials indicate that there is no requirement to share information. Title 10 of the 

U.S. Code allows each service to have separate programs, according to Army and 

Marine Corps officials. Nevertheless, the services are sharing information 

 

7

The lot failure rate is calculated by dividing the total lots rejected by the total lots tested. A lot is a 

pallet or grouping of manufactured items varying in number per lot. For example, the Army’s outer 

vest lots range from 1,100 to 1,200. A lot is manufactured within a specific period of time, at a 

common location. 
Page 6 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

regarding ongoing research and development for the next generation of body 

armor. 

• Contractors and non-DOD civilians: Regarding contractors or non-DOD 

civilians, we found that DOD Instruction 3020.41 allows DOD to provide body 

armor to contractors where permitted by applicable DOD instructions and 

military department regulations and where specified under the terms of the 

contract. It is CENTCOM’s position that body armor will be provided to 

contractors if it is part of the terms and conditions of the contract. According to 

CENTCOM officials, non-DOD government civilians such as State Department 

civilians are expected to make their own arrangements to obtain this protection. 

However, the officials indicated that commanders, at their discretion, can provide 

body armor to any personnel within their area of operation. 

Agency Comments 

DOD officials did not provide written comments to the draft but provided specific 

technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional committees; 

the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics); the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies of this report will also be made available 

to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8365 

or solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made 

major contributions to this report includes Tracy Burney, Grace Coleman, Alfonso 

Garcia, Jennifer Jebo, Lonnie McAllister, Terry Richardson, Lorelei St. James, and 

Leo Sullivan. 

William M. Solis, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosure 
Page 7 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

Congressional Committees 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel Inouye 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Duncan Hunter 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Chairman 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 
Enclosure I 

Page 8 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

1

GAO Review of Body Armor

Preliminary Observations 

February 22, 2007

2

Background

• Since October 2003, CENTCOM required that service members 

and DOD civilians in its area of operations be issued the 

Interceptor Body Armor (IBA).

• The Army and Marine Corps use the Interceptor Body Armor 

system. The protective capability of the system is enhanced 

with each additional piece.
Enclosure I 

Page 9 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

3

Background - Interceptor Body Armor System

(Army Basic System represented below. Marine Corps Basic System 

excludes deltoid protector.)

Source: PEO Soldier

Outer Tactical

Vest (OTV)

ESAPI Ballistic 

Inserts (set)

Deltoid Axillary Protector 

(DAP)

Side Plates

Outer Tactical

Vest (OTV)

ESAPI Ballistic 

Inserts (set)

4

Background

• The Outer Tactical Vest can defeat fragmentation and ballistic 

protection from 9 mm rounds. Enhanced Small Arms Protective 

Inserts can defeat 7.62 armor piercing rounds while the Side 

Ballistic Inserts provide flank protection from 7.62 armor piercing 

rounds. Other Components of the Outer Tactical Vest include the

shoulder protection, throat protector assembly, yoke and collar 

assembly, and groin protector assembly.

• As the ballistic threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have

changed. The initial requirement for the body armor was the 9mm 

ball, which evolved to include 7.62 armor piercing rounds used by 

snipers. The body armor is currently designed to defeat some 

fragmentation and blast protection from improvised explosive 

devices provided. As the threat evolves, the Army and the Marine 

Corps seek solutions to counter the threat.
Enclosure I 

Page 10 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

5

Background

• Concerns about body armor have occurred in recent years.

• In February 2005, an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 

report found that body armor did not provide side protection.

• In April 2005, GAO reported that there were shortages in body 

armor due to material shortages, production limitations, and 

in-theater distribution problems.

• In May 2005, Marine Corps recalled body armor because it 

concluded that the fielded body armor failed to meet contract 

specifications; public concern raised.

• In November 2005, Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots 

of body armor that failed original ballistic testing, but were 

accepted by DOD. 

• In January 2006, a New York Times article reported on the 

Institute of Pathology report and the recalls, raising public 

concern again. 

6

Background

• Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring body armor 

protects ground troops including the amount and level of ballistic 

protection, testing of body armor before and after fielding, and

coordination of requirements and testing between the Army and 

Marine Corps.

• GAO has conducted prior and ongoing work concerning force 

protection for ground forces, including truck armor to protect forces

from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

• GAO began review of body armor as part of its review of protection 

of ground forces.
Enclosure I 

Page 11 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

7

Objectives

• Our overall objective was to determine if the actions of the Army 

and Marine Corps have addressed body armor concerns. Specific 

objectives were to determine the extent to which the Army and 

Marine Corps are 

• meeting the theater requirements for body armor,

• have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding 

to assure that body armor meets requirements, and 

• sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor 

ballistic requirements and testing.

8

Scope and Methodology

• Our review focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor for personnel 

deployed within the Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Area of Operation 

including Iraq and Afghanistan.

• We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review:

• Office of the Secretary of Defense

• Army Headquarters Operations & Army Program Executive Office 

(PEO) Soldier

• Marine Corps Systems Command & Marine Corps Combat 

Development Command

• Air Force Security Force Requirements Branch

• Naval Expeditionary Combat Command & Navy Fleet Forces 

Command

• Defense Logistics Agency

• CENTCOM
Enclosure I 

Page 12 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

9

Scope and Methodology

• To determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting 

the theater requirements for body armor, we interviewed DOD 

officials and reviewed the CENTCOM policy on body armor. In 

addition, we reviewed Army and Marine Corps requirements 

specifying the amount of body armor needed and the ballistic 

specifications needed for protection against the theater threat.

• We interviewed service officials and discussed ballistic test 

processes and procedures, to determine the extent of Army and 

Marine Corps body armor tested during production and in the 

field. We did not independently verify test results.

10

Scope and Methodology

• To determine the extent the Army and the Marine Corps share information 

regarding their efforts on body armor, we interviewed service officials to 

determine if there is a policy that requires the services to coordinate, and if 

not, whether they do, and what actions they take to coordinate.

• We selected and analyzed Army classified unit readiness reports for 

deployed and deploying units to CENTCOM’s Area of Responsibility from 

December 2006 to February 2007 and Marine Corps units for December 

2006 and January 2007 to determine if commanders’ comments reported 

body armor as an issue. From the classified data, we also extracted and 

analyzed the total Army’s critical equipment items list that identify items 

that may impact unit readiness—as of December 2006 and January 2007 

to determine if body armor was reported as a critical equipment item. 

• We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Enclosure I 

Page 13 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

11

Preliminary Observations Summary

• The Army and Marine Corps have taken several actions to meet 

theater requirements, assure testing, and share information on body 

armor.

• Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting theater 

ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for 

personnel in theater, including the amounts needed for the surge

of troops into Iraq.

• The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during 

manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets

requirements. The Army and the Marine Corps conduct quality 

and ballistic testing prior to fielding. Lots are rejected if the 

standards are not met.

• The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic 

requirements and testing, and the development of future body 

armor systems, although they are not required to do so. 

12

Preliminary Observations Requirements

• The Army and the Marine Corps have body armor to meet the 

theater ballistic requirement and the amount needed for personnel 

in theater. They also have sufficient quantities of body armor for the 

surge of troops in Iraq.
Enclosure I 

Page 14 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

13

Preliminary Observations

Requirements as of February 2007

Source: Army Operations, PEO Soldier and Marine Corps Systems Command.

Army and Marine Corps amounts include service personnel, DOD civilians, and contractors embedded with units. 

For the Army, shoulder protection is issued, but its use is optional. Shoulder protection is not issued to all Marine 

Corps personnel. It is only issued to specialized personnel such as Marine Corps turret gunners.

Body

armor

systems

Outer

tactical

vest

Enhanced small

arms inserts

Side

protection

Shoulder

proctection

Amount

needed in

theater

154,000

154,000

154,000

154,000

Current

worldwide

available

inventory

198,088

56,970

50,500

4,600

Amount

needed in

theater

23,000

23,000

23,000

4,600

Current

worldwide

available

inventory

991,580

402,369

244,192

243,229

Army Marine Corps

14

Preliminary Observations Requirements

• CENTCOM requires that all U.S. military service members and DOD 

civilians in the area of operations be issued Interceptor Body Armor. 

According to Army and Marine Corps officials, all service members 

currently receive body armor components before they deploy. The Marines 

receive components prior to deployment, except the shoulder protection, 

which is provided in theater, if needed. 

• DOD civilians receive components from the Army and the Marine Corps. 

Some receive the body armor prior to deploying, while others may receive 

it in theater. 

• According to Army and Marine Corps officials, CENTCOM tactical-level 

commanders will prescribe the use of the body armor components based 

on their estimate of the situation. Situational factors include assessments 

of enemy threat, environmental conditions, and the tactical missions 

assigned to their units.
Enclosure I 

Page 15 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

15

Preliminary Observations Requirements

• In our review of Army unit readiness data from December 2006 to 

February 2007 and Marine Corps data for December 2006 and 

January 2007, only one body armor issue was reported in the 

commanders’ comments. During the December 2006 to February 

2007 time period, the five Army brigades identified for the Iraq

surge did not indicate that body armor was a problem.

• In our review of Army critical equipment items impacting readiness 

as of December 2006 and January 2007, body armor was not 

identified as a critical equipment item impacting unit readiness.

16

Preliminary Observations Testing

• The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing and 

after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The Army and the 

Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior to fielding. Lots are rejected 

if the standards are not met.

• The Army and the Marine Corps conducts formal testing on every lot of body 

armor (Vests and Protective Inserts) prior to acceptance and issuance to 

troops. The body armor vests and plates are manufactured at several sites. 

• During production, the lots of body armor are sent to a National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) certified laboratory for ballistic testing and DCMA for quality 

testing (size, weight, stitching) prior to issuance to troops. Once approved, the 

body armor is issued to operating forces. Both the Army and the Marine Corps 

are issued body armor prior to deployment. 

• Army lot failure rate from January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32% for the 

Enhanced Small Arms Inserts and no failures for the outer tactical vests. From 

February 2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot failure rate was 4.70% 

for the outer tactical vests. 
Enclosure I 

Page 16 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

17

Lot Acceptance Process for Army and

Marine Corps Body Armor

Source: GAO and Art Explosion.

Army/MC

Oversight

18

Preliminary Observations

Testing

• After fielding, the Army conducts testing on body armor on an ad hoc 

basis including ballistic testing of deployed outer tactical vests and 

environment testing of the affects of extreme temperature variations 

and exposure to the elements. For example, cold weather testing is 

conducted in Alaska, tropical weather testing is done in Panama, and 

hot weather testing is performed in Yuma, Arizona. Army officials 

reported no degradation of body armor during environmental testing.

• The Marine Corps does not conduct testing on body armor after 

fielding, but they visually inspect the vests and the plates for damage.

• Based on feedback from the medical community and from the field, the 

Army and the Marine Corps monitor and assess body armor usage to

continue improvements.
Enclosure I 

Page 17 GAO-07-662R Review of Body Armor

19

Preliminary Observations

Testing

• The DOD has had a standard methodology for ballistic 

testing of hard body armor (plates) since December 1997.

• DOD’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation office is 

currently developing a standard methodology for ballistic 

testing of soft body armor (vests). The new standard will 

eliminate discrepancies in testing methodology that 

resulted in inconsistent ballistic results contributing to the 

November 2005 recall. The new standard is expected to 

be issued sometime in 2007.

20

Preliminary Observations

Information Sharing

• The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic 

requirements and testing, and the development of future body 

armor systems, although they are not required to do so. 

• The Army and Marine Corps officials said that Title 10 of the

U.S. Code allows each to have separate programs.

• The Army and Marine Corps are sharing information regarding 

ballistic requirements and testing, and the development of 

future body armor systems. 

• The Army and Marine Corps informally share information 

regarding on-going research and development for the next 

generation of body armor.

(350794) 
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. 
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