GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

July 2000 MILITARY BASE

CLOSURES

Unexpended Funds

Raise Questions About

Fiscal Year 2001

Funding Needs

GAO/NSIAD-00-170

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 16

Appendix II: Status of Funds in the 1988 Base Closure Account 18

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Defense 20

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 21

Tables Table 1: DOD’s Evaluation of How Much Slower BRAC

Environmental Liquidations Were Than Non-BRAC

Environmental Program Liquidations, Fiscal Years 1992-98 10

Table 2: DOD Adjustments to the Components’ Fiscal Year 2001

BRAC Program Estimates 11

Figures Figure 1: BRAC Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990-2000, Fiscal

Year 2001 BRAC Budget Request, and Future Program

Estimates Through 2005 7

Figure 2: Unobligated Balances in the 1988 Base Closure

Account Since September 30, 1997 18

Abbreviations

BRAC base realignment and closure

DOD Department of Defense
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-285293 Letr

July 7, 2000

Congressional Committees

The Congress enacted base realignment and closure legislation that

instituted four realignment and closure rounds between 1988 and 1995 to

help the Department of Defense eliminate excess military bases. To fund

costs for base closures and realignments, the Congress established two

base closure accounts: the first to implement decisions resulting from the

1988 round and the second, referred to as the 1990 account, to fund base

closure actions resulting from the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds. Although

the Department’s authority to obligate 1988 base closure account funds

expired on September 30, 1995, funds in the second account are available

for use indefinitely. The Congress, recognizing the complexities of

realigning and closing bases and of providing environmental restoration

and mitigation, allows the Department the flexibility to allocate funds by

military service, budget function, and installation. Also, with congressional

approval, the Department can redistribute unobligated balances as

appropriate to avoid delays in implementing closures and realignments.

Federal agencies must obtain budget authority before incurring obligations

of appropriated funds. Obligations are the amounts of orders placed,

contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during an

accounting period that will require payment during the same or a future

period. As services are rendered or goods delivered, an agency makes the

required outlays (i.e. payments) to liquidate the obligations; otherwise, the

balances of the obligations remain unliquidated. The process of liquidating

obligations from the 1990 base closure account funds can result in excess

funds that may be deobligated and then obligated elsewhere to meet other

needs. Funds that have never been obligated or have been deobligated from

prior requirements are referred to as unobligated.

Senate Report 106-74, dated June 10, 1999, on the fiscal year 2000 military

construction appropriation bill requested that we review the Department’s

base closure accounts and its budget request for base closure activities.

This report examines (1) how trends in base realignment and closure

appropriations in recent years and estimates for future years compare to

the fiscal year 2001 budget request and (2) unliquidated obligations and

unobligated balances from prior years’ appropriations and the extent to

which the Department considered these balances and obligations in
B-285293

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

preparing the fiscal year 2001 budget request. See appendix I for a

description of the scope and methodology for this report.

Results in Brief Appropriations for the 1990 base closure account have declined steadily

since 1996 as more base closure and realignment actions have been

completed. However, for fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting

about $1.2 billion in new budget authority, significantly more than last

year’s appropriation of about $700 million. A larger, $1.6-billion budget

request was initially planned for fiscal year 2001, but the final $1.2-billion

request resulted from several downward adjustments made as the budget

request was being developed. Of particular note was a decision by

Department officials to reduce the planning estimate for fiscal year 2001 by

$363 million because they did not believe the larger amount could

reasonably be executed in fiscal year 2001. Additional reductions were

made primarily because prior years’ environmental cleanup funds were

being expended at a slower pace than anticipated.

At the time the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate was being developed, the

Department had about $500 million in reported unobligated balances from

previous years’ appropriations in the 1990 account, about $114 million of

which was appropriated in fiscal year 1998 or earlier. Additionally, it had

$1.6 billion in reported unliquidated obligations from prior appropriations

in the 1990 account, of which about $115 million were appropriated in 1995

or earlier. The majority of the $115 million unliquidated funds resulted from

environmental cleanup activities that were carried out more slowly than

planned, especially by the Air Force. Available data indicate that only the

Navy provided documentation that it had considered unobligated and

unliquidated balances in formulating its portion of the budget request. In

finalizing the fiscal year 2001 budget request, Defense Comptroller officials

initially proposed reductions of over $200 million because of concerns over

slow budget execution and large amounts of unliquidated obligations, but

only $53.4 million of these proposed reductions were ultimately approved.

The Army and the Air Force have recently initiated actions to reexamine

their prior years’ unobligated and unliquidated balances.

This report contains matters for consideration by the Congress in assessing

the Department’s fiscal year 2001 base realignment and closure budget

request and a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense concerning the

need for timely liquidation of obligations, the deobligation of funds where

appropriate, and the consideration of these funds in formulating new

budget requests. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department
B-285293

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

concurred with our assessment of the Base Realignment and Closure

program and our recommendation.

Background In the late 1980s, changes in the national security environment resulted in a

Defense infrastructure with more bases than the Department of Defense

(DOD) needed. To enable DOD to close unneeded bases, the Congress

enacted legislation that instituted base realignment and closure (BRAC)

rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. For the 1988 round, legislation

required DOD to complete its closure and realignment actions by

September 30, 1995. For the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds, legislation

required DOD to complete all closures and realignments within 6 years

from the date the President notified the Congress of the recommended

base realignments or closures.

DOD’s authority to obligate 1988 base closure account funds to close or

realign bases expired on September 30, 1995. After that date, funds in the

1988 account ceased to be available for new obligations and may be used

only to adjust and liquidate obligations already charged to the account. Any

unobligated funds in the 1988 account must remain there until the Congress

transfers them or the account is closed. According to DOD officials, the

1988 account will be closed on September 30, 2000, when the remaining

obligated and unobligated balances will be permanently canceled. Any

subsequent obligation adjustments or payments incurred against the 1988

account will be funded with current appropriations. As of February 2000,

the 1988 base closure account contained $65.2 million in reported

unobligated funds. Appendix II describes the status of funds in the 1988

account.

A different set of rules applies, however, to the 1990 base closure account.

Funds in that account are available until expended. As of December 1999,

reported unliquidated and unobligated funds in the 1990 base closure

account totaled about $1.6 billion and $500 million, respectively. These

amounts included $672 million appropriated in 1999 for fiscal year 2000.

New obligations may be incurred and old obligations liquidated against the

account until the funds are expended.1

1

The Secretary of Defense may close the account under certain circumstances.
B-285293

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

According to the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-34,

Instructions on Budget Execution, deobligated funds are available for new

obligations if their period of availability has not expired. Although the DOD

Financial Management Regulation provides policy and procedures for base

closure and realignment actions, it does not specify procedures for

reviewing (1) unobligated balances and using these funds for valid new

requirements or (2) unliquidated obligations and using these funds for new

requirements when final outlays have been recorded.

Fiscal Year 2001 BRAC

Budget Request

Departs From Recent

Pattern of

Appropriations

Annual appropriations for DOD’s 1990 base closure account have declined

steadily since 1996, as more BRAC actions have been completed. Figure 1

shows the trend in BRAC appropriations for fiscal years 1990-2000, the

fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request, and future estimates through 2005.

The illustration shows that DOD’s budget request for fiscal year 2001

deviates from the historical pattern of declining budget requirements

subsequent to fiscal year 1996. Appropriations for BRAC accounts have

totaled about $20 billion since 1990.
B-285293

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Figure 1: BRAC Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990-2000, Fiscal Year 2001 BRAC Budget Request, and Future Program

Estimates Through 2005

Note: Current DOD extended planning estimates show BRAC funding requirements through 2008.

Source: Appropriations laws, fiscal year 2001 budget request, and fiscal year 2001 Future Years

Defense Program.

As shown in figure 1, annual appropriated amounts for closure and

realignment activities peaked at about $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 and

have declined steadily each year through fiscal year 2000. However, for

fiscal year 2001, DOD’s budget request of about $1.2 billion is significantly

higher than the 2000 appropriation and estimates for future years.

Specifically, the request is about $500 million more than the fiscal year 2000

appropriation and about $700 million more than DOD’s current program

estimate for fiscal year 2002. The request differs from the general trend,

which shows declining requirements after 1996 as more BRAC-related

military construction and operation and maintenance actions are

completed. Approximately $865 million of the $1.2 billion fiscal year 2001

budget request is for environmental cleanup, $294 million is for operation

and maintenance, and $13 million is for military construction.
B-285293

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Although DOD’s fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request is substantially

higher than that of fiscal year 2000, the 2000 program estimate for the year

2001 was even higher—about $1.6 billion. The higher estimate reflected a

budget strategy used by the Department in 1999 to shift a portion of the

fiscal year 2000 funding requirement to fiscal year 2001. However, in

preparing its fiscal year 2001 budget request, DOD made a major downward

revision to the initial $1.6-billion program estimate. DOD officials told us

that a revalidation of the BRAC program indicated that the $1.6-billion level

of funding could not reasonably be executed in fiscal year 2001. Therefore,

the BRAC program estimate, and the corresponding budget request, were

reduced to $1.2 billion.

Large Amounts of

Funds Accumulated

From Previous Years

but Only Small

Adjustments Were

Made to Fiscal Year

2001 Budget Request

As of December 1999, the Department had about $500 million in reported

unobligated balances, of which about $114 million were appropriated in

fiscal year 1998 or earlier. The Department also had $1.6 billion in reported

unliquidated obligations from prior appropriations, of which about

$115 million were appropriated in 1995 or earlier.2 DOD Comptroller

officials analyzed the environmental unliquidated obligations and

concluded that they were being liquidated much more slowly than in other

non-BRAC environmental activities.3 On the basis of this analysis, the DOD

Comptroller initially proposed significant reductions to the components’

(particularly the Air Force’s) requests for fiscal year 2001. Ultimately,

however, the Comptroller reduced his proposed reductions by about half,

primarily because of Air Force concerns that the reductions would have

too great an impact on its program. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary of

Defense reduced the overall proposed reduction to the components’ budget

estimates by about another half.

Unobligated Balances As previously noted, appropriations to the 1990 base closure account are

available for indefinite use. According to DOD Comptroller officials,

although BRAC funds are available for obligation in any fiscal year, the

general rule still applies that only those funds that are required in the fiscal

2

Represents data from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Navy data are limited to

reported unobligated and unliquidated fund balances from its primary base closure

executing command—the Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

3

DOD officials did not complete a similar analysis of the operation and maintenance and

military construction accounts.
B-285293

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

year that is being budgeted should be requested. Therefore, according to

DOD officials, it is reasonable to expect that BRAC funds be fully obligated

in the first 2 years of availability. DOD’s budget execution data indicated

that, as of December 1999, $114 million in reported unobligated balances

were appropriated in fiscal year 1998 or earlier.

Financial management officials in each of the services told us that they had

considered prior year fund balances when preparing their fiscal year 2001

budget requests. However, only the Navy could provide documentation

demonstrating that it had offset its fiscal year 2001 budget request (by

$67 million) as a result of funds available from prior years’ appropriations.

Unliquidated Obligations In July 1999, we reported that DOD had about $455.9 million in unliquidated

obligations from the 1991 and 1993 BRAC round environmental activities

alone, suggesting that some funding might be available to offset the

Department’s fiscal year 2000 BRAC budget request.4 Commenting on that

report, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) stated that the issue

was under review and that DOD was collecting data to determine whether

there was indeed a problem.

In November 1999, DOD Comptroller officials affirmed that the services

still had substantial unliquidated obligations (particularly in the BRAC

environmental sub-accounts) that the rate of liquidation lagged behind

established performance measures, and that funds were either unneeded or

being requested in advance of needs. According to DOD’s established

spending rates for environmental programs, liquidations should be

finalized by the end of the fifth year, as contracts are closed out. Also,

according to these officials, in view of the emphasis on fast-track cleanup

of bases affected by BRAC, environmental programs should exceed rather

than lag behind in budget execution when compared to non-BRAC

environmental programs. However, DOD Comptroller officials also stated

that the closing of completed contracts and the corresponding finalization

of liquidations and recoupment of excess funds were proceeding at a much

slower rate than for similar activities in non-BRAC accounts. Accordingly,

they measured the extent to which BRAC environmental liquidations had

lagged behind non-BRAC programs since 1992. The numbers in

parentheses in table 1 indicate the extent to which liquidations lagged

4

Military Base Closures: Potential to Offset Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request

(GAO/NSIAD-99-149, July 23, 1999).
B-285293

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

behind established liquidation rates. Positive numbers indicate where

liquidations exceeded established liquidation rates. DOD’s analysis showed

that the execution of the base closure environmental program budget alone

lagged behind the established liquidation rates of non-BRAC environmental

programs by over $271 million between 1992 and 1998. About $187 million

of the variance was attributed to the Air Force.

Table 1: DOD’s Evaluation of How Much Slower BRAC Environmental Liquidations Were Than Non-BRAC Environmental

Program Liquidations, Fiscal Years 1992-98

Source: Department of Defense data.

DOD officials concluded that the components had emphasized getting

funds obligated on contracts for new work rather than liquidating and

closing out completed contracts. DOD officials also concluded that it was

likely that a substantial portion of the unliquidated balances in accounts

that were 5 or more years old could be in excess of requirements when the

contracts were closed out and could be applied toward current

requirements.

On the basis of this analysis, DOD officials initially proposed reducing the

components’ BRAC budget requests for fiscal year 2001 by over

$200 million—up to $161 million for the Air Force. The Air Force argued

against the proposed adjustment, stating that it would put its BRAC

environmental program further behind and that some “must pay” bills—

such as long-term monitoring and program management—would not be

covered. Consequently, DOD officials reduced the overall proposed cuts to

$108.2 million, including $74.5 million from the Air Force. Subsequently,

however, the Deputy Secretary of Defense further reduced the proposed

overall cut to $53.4 million ($25.9 million from the Air Force). Table 2

Dollars in millions

Fiscal years

Component 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Army ($0.3) ($1.6) ($4.0) ($2.9) ($14.2) ($7.8) ($19.5) ($50.3)

Navy (0.6) (4.7) (5.4) (1.2) (1.8) (20.7) 11.2 (23.2)

Air Force (9.6) (8.7) (10.4) (43.5) (28.2) (30.4) (56.4) (187.2)

Defense Logistics

Agency

0 0 (0.3) (3.1) 0.3 (5.4) (2.4) (10.9)

Total ($10.5) ($15.0) ($20.1) ($50.7) ($43.9) ($64.3) ($67.1) ($271.6)
B-285293

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

shows the adjustments the Department made to its prior year program

estimate for fiscal year 2001 to arrive at its final budget request.

Table 2: DOD Adjustments to the Components’ Fiscal Year 2001 BRAC Program Estimates

Source: DOD’s BRAC Executive Summary & Budget Justification Data, submitted to the Congress

February 1999 and February 2000, and other DOD budget data.

As shown in table 2, the initial BRAC program estimate of about $1.6 billion

was reduced by about $363 million because DOD officials did not believe

the larger amount could reasonably be executed in fiscal year 2001. An

additional reduction of $53.4 million was made primarily to account for

slow prior years’ budget execution and large amounts of unliquidated

obligations. Documentation from the Army and the Air Force shows that

specific actions to identify potentially idle funds were generally not

conducted until most internal deliberations of the fiscal year 2001 budget

request were completed.

Conclusions There is no assurance that all the funds DOD is requesting for fiscal

year 2001 are needed or can be liquidated within the Department’s

established budget execution time frames. Even though base closure

actions are drawing to a close, the Department’s fiscal year 2001 budget

request includes a substantial increase in BRAC funding for the first time

since 1996. At the same time, Department officials have identified a

significant buildup of unobligated balances and unliquidated obligations,

resulting primarily from slow budget execution extending as far back as

1992. Despite this buildup, the Department has made only limited

reductions to the services’ BRAC budget estimates, taking into account the

potential availability of some of these funds for current requirements.

Dollars in millions

Component

DOD budget

justification data

February 1999

Reductions made

because of budget

execution concerns

Reductions made due

to large unliquidated

balances

DOD budget

justification data

February 2000

Army $412.7 ($87.1) ($22.3) $303.3

Navy 603.5 (126.4) (5.0) 472.1

Air Force 545.1 (149.5) (25.9) 369.7

Defense Logistics Agency 25.4 0 (0.2) 25.2

Total $1,586.7 ($363.0) ($53.4) $1,170.3
B-285293

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Matter for

Congressional

Consideration

In appropriating base realignment and closure funds for fiscal year 2001,

the Congress may wish to take into consideration the large balances of

unexpended funds, particularly in the Department’s environmental

sub-accounts, and the Department’s limited action in taking into account

the potential availability of some of these funds to offset its 2001 budget

request.

Recommendation We recommend that the Secretary of Defense require that the services

perform complete and timely reviews of all base realignment and closure

unliquidated balances, close out completed contracts, identify potentially

idle funds, deobligate funds where appropriate, and consider the

availability of these funds in formulating new budget requests.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, the DOD Comptroller

concurred with our assessment of the base realignment and closure

accounts and fiscal year 2001 budget request. DOD agreed that action was

needed and would be taken to ensure unobligated balances and

unliquidated obligations are thoroughly reviewed during the formulation of

future budget requests. At the same time, DOD believed that some

additional explanation should be provided in the report regarding the

reason for the substantial increase in the fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget

request over the appropriated level in fiscal year 2000. In its comments, the

Department stated that the fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request reflects

increased funding to account for military construction funds that DOD

wanted to defer to 2001 in order to shift several hundred million dollars in

fiscal year 2000 BRAC funding to meet readiness requirements.

We understand the circumstances surrounding the strategy DOD employed

for its fiscal year 2000 BRAC budget request. However, these alone give an

incomplete picture of the factors that led to the Department’s higher

funding request of $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2001. As explained in our

report, the shift in funding initially pushed DOD’s fiscal year 2001 program

estimate to about $1.6 billion. Prior to this adjustment, the program

requirements for fiscal year 2001 were estimated to be about

$1.1 billion. However, during its budget preparation, DOD subsequently

removed virtually the entire increase resulting from the funding shift

because it determined that the $1.6-billion funding could not reasonably be

executed in fiscal year 2001. We also note in our report that,

notwithstanding progressively lower BRAC funding levels since 1996, DOD
B-285293

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

officials identified slow budget execution extending as far back as 1992,

resulting in a large buildup of unobligated balances and unliquidated

obligations. However, the Department took only limited action to offset its

fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request to take into account the potential

availability of some of these funds to meet current requirements. DOD’s

comments are reprinted in full in appendix III.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman, and

Senator Daniel K Inouye, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on

Defense, Committee on Appropriations; Representative Jerry Lewis,

Chairman, and Representative John P. Murtha, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations; the Honorable

William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable William J. Lynn,

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Honorable F. Whitten

Peters, Secretary of the Air Force; the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary

of the Army; the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; and the

Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

GAO contacts and other key contributors to this report are listed in

appendix IV.

David R. Warren, Director

Defense Management Issues
B-285293

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Conrad Burns

Chairman

The Honorable Patty Murray

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable David L. Hobson

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Olver

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures
Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To identify opportunities to offset the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

budget request for fiscal year 2001 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

activities, we focused on appropriations of prior fiscal years that were

unobligated or unliquidated and that may be available to fund BRAC

activities during fiscal year 2001. We also identified trends in

appropriations since 1990. Because most actions for the 1991 and 1993

BRAC rounds were required to be completed by July 1997 and July 1999,

respectively, we sought to determine the need for the unobligated funds

and unliquidated obligations that were still allocated to these rounds and

the extent to which they were considered when developing the fiscal year

2001 budget request. We examined a variety of DOD and military service

budget and financial documents, and we examined budget execution data

for BRAC military construction, operations and maintenance,

environmental, and undistributed funds.

In performing this review, we used the same accounting systems, reports,

and statistics the military services use to monitor their BRAC programs. To

obtain the outstanding balances in the various BRAC accounts from prior

years, we used data available from the Defense Finance and Accounting

Service. We also used data from the information systems of the Army

(Corps of Engineers Financial Management System) and the Navy (Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, Facilities Information System). Although

we did not independently determine the reliability of this information in

this review, our prior reports and testimonies have raised questions about

the reliability of DOD’s reported data on obligations, disbursements and

costs associated with its environmental liabilities.1

To evaluate DOD’s budget request for fiscal year 2001, we reviewed fiscal

year 2001 and prior fiscal year budget requests and supporting

justifications from DOD and the military services, applicable Future Years

Defense Program documents, program budget decisions, and other related

documents.

We interviewed and obtained data from DOD officials, including officials

from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the DOD

Inspector General, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. Within the Air

1

Department of Defense: Progress in Financial Management Reform

(GAO/T-AIMD/NSIAD-00-103, May 9, 2000); Defense Transportation: More Reliable

Information Key to Managing Airlift Services More Efficiently (GAO/NSIAD-00-6, Mar. 6,

2000).
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Force, we met with or contacted officials from the Office for Financial

Management and Comptroller, the Air Force Base Conversion Agency, the

Air Force Base Transition Division, and the Air Force Center for

Environmental Excellence. Army organizations we met with included the

Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (Army

BRAC Office), the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Financial Management, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Within the Navy,

we met with officials from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and the Navy Financial

Management and Comptroller. We also attended several weekly briefings

by an accounting consultant hired by the Air Force.

We conducted our review from October 1999 through May 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Appendix II

Status of Funds in the 1988 Base Closure

Account ApendxiI

Unobligated funding balances in the 1988 base closure account continue to

grow. As of February 29, 2000, the account contained $65.2 million in

reported unobligated funds. As shown in figure 2, the unobligated amount

has risen by about $30 million since the end of fiscal year 1997. According

to program officials, the increase occurred because the military services

deobligated funds from requirements that no longer existed. Program

requirements tend to change, and in some cases disappear, as BRAC

actions are implemented. As the services’ deobligation process continues,

the unobligated balance in the 1988 account will increase.

Figure 2: Unobligated Balances in the 1988 Base Closure Account Since

September 30, 1997

Note: Unallocated amounts are amounts of funds held at the Department level that have not been

allocated to a particular service component.

Source: Appropriations Status by Fiscal Year Program and Subaccounts, Form (DDCOMP (M)) 1002s,

as dated above, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Appendix II

Status of Funds in the 1988 Base Closure

Account

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

As we reported in 1998, program officials stated that pursuant to a DOD

Office of General Counsel memorandum, the unobligated funds in the 1988

account are used only to adjust and liquidate obligations that have already

been charged to the account. According to DOD officials, the 1988 account

will be closed on September 30, 2000, when the remaining obligated and

unobligated balances will be permanently canceled.
Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Defense ApendxiI
Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-170 Military Base Closures

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contacts Barry Holman, (202) 512-5581

William Crocker, (202) 512-4533

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Jerry Thompson, Joe Faley, Larry Kiser,

and Adam Vodraska made key contributions to this report.

(709472) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00