GAO-13-183R Force Structure

January 16, 2013

Congressional Committees

Subject: Force Structure: Army’s Annual Report on Modularity Progress Needs More 

Complete and Clear Information to Aid Decision Makers

The Army considers its modular force transformation, which began in 2004, the most 

extensive restructuring it has undertaken since World War II. The foundation of the modular 

force is the modular brigade combat team. A primary goal of the restructuring effort was to 

increase the number of available brigade combat teams to meet operational requirements 

while maintaining combat effectiveness equal to or better than previous division-housed 

brigades. Restructuring the Army from a division-based force to one with the smaller 

modular brigade combat team as the standard combat unit has required an investment in 

“key enabler” equipment and personnel. “Key enabler” equipment and personnel—including 

those used for embedded combat support functions such as military intelligence, 

reconnaissance, and logistics—are defined as equipment and personnel that make a 

modular force or unit as capable as or more capable than the non-modular force or unit it 

replaced. 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,1 which amended 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,2 directed the 

Army to report annually on its progress in fulfilling the key enabler requirements of its 

modular units and in repairing, recapitalizing and replacing items used in support of 

overseas contingency operations. Specifically, the law required the Army to include, among 

other things, a comparison of the authorized level of key enabler equipment with the level of 

such equipment on hand and planned purchases; an identification of the risks associated 

with shortfalls, as well as mitigation strategies for addressing those risks; and the results of 

Army assessments of modular force capabilities. See enclosure I for the full text of the 

statutory reporting requirements. The law also directed us to review the report and to 

provide information and recommendations deemed to be appropriate in light of our review. 

The Army issued its fiscal year 2012 report in May 2012. In reviewing the Army’s fiscal year 

2012 report, we evaluated the extent to which the Army included information in response to 

the statutory reporting requirements and demonstrated progress in meeting modular force 

requirements.

In our review of the Army’s fiscal year 2012 report on progress in fulfilling modularity 

requirements, we reviewed the reporting requirement enacted by section 323 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as amended by section 

332 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The current 

 

1 Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 332 (2011). 

2 Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 323 (2006).

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

requirements are set out in a note following 10 U.S.C. §229 (see encl. I). To determine the 

extent to which the Army included information in response to the statutory reporting 

requirements and demonstrated progress in meeting modular force requirements, two GAO 

analysts independently reviewed the fiscal year 2012 report, comparing it with each element 

required by the law and determining whether each required reporting element was included. 

In the case of any conflicting determinations, a third GAO analyst adjudicated the difference. 

To gain a full understanding of the elements included in the annual report and to discuss the 

methodology used for collecting information and reporting on the Army’s progress toward 

modular restructuring, we met with Army officials knowledgeable about compiling 

information for the report, key enabler personnel and equipment, equipment reset,3 doctrine, 

and force structure changes. We also reviewed the Army’s fiscal year 2011 report on 

progress in fulfilling modularity requirements to determine the extent to which the report 

could be compared with the fiscal year 2012 report to determine the extent of progress in 

fulfilling modularity requirements between fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Finally, we compared 

information in the Army’s fiscal year 2012 report with our prior work on the usefulness of 

agency performance information.4 For the purposes of our review, we defined “performance 

information” as data collected to measure progress toward achieving an agency’s 

established mission or program-related goals. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to January 2013 in accordance with 

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

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief

In its fiscal year 2012 report, the Army included information that responded to some of the 

statutory reporting requirements, but did not include required information on the risks 

associated with, and mitigation strategies for, any shortfalls in key enabler personnel and 

equipment and a schedule for meeting personnel and equipment needs. The report 

included, among other things, an assessment of the status of key enabler personnel and 

equipment and information on assessments of modular force capabilities. However, the 

Army did not present the information it included in a way that clearly demonstrated the 

extent of progress toward meeting modular force requirements. While not explicitly required 

by law, there were also a number of ways in which the Army could have presented the 

information to better demonstrate the extent of progress toward meeting modularity 

requirements. For example, the Army could have provided more explicit comparisons with 

prior years to demonstrate the trend toward meeting key enabler equipment and personnel 

requirements, but instead presented limited data for only one year. Army officials agreed 

that some of the required information was omitted and that some of the information could 

have been presented in a manner to more clearly demonstrate the extent of progress. A key 

reason for the limitations in presentation, according to the officials in charge of compiling the 

report, was that the various offices tasked with providing information needed to respond to 

the statutory requirements used their own judgment about the amount and format of 

 

3 Reset is defined as the repair, recapitalization, and replacement of equipment and materiel.

4 GAO, Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote 

Greater Use of Performance Information, GAO-09-676 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2009). 
Page 3 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

information they included, which resulted in inconsistencies in the level of detail provided 

and the degree to which information was explained. Further, the Army did not ensure that 

performance information was reported in a consistent manner and that all issues were 

addressed and sufficiently explained by providing guidance on the level and type of detail 

required or taking steps to ensure the information was clear and consistent. To be useful, 

performance information must meet users’ needs for completeness, accuracy, consistency, 

and ease of use.5 Without guidance on how information should be reported to ensure the 

collection of more complete and clear information, the Army’s future annual reports may not 

provide clear and complete information that is useful to congressional decision makers.

Background

A significant change of the Army’s transition to a modular design was that each modular 

brigade combat team would include two combat-focused, or maneuver, battalions, as 

opposed to the three maneuver battalions that made up a combat brigade in the previous 

divisional structure. However, the new modular brigades were envisioned to be just as 

capable due to different equipment—including key enabler equipment such as advanced 

communications and surveillance equipment—and specialized personnel. The Army 

planned to reconfigure its total force—including both active and reserve components—into a 

standardized modular design. These standardized modular unit designs were implemented 

in the Army Reserves and National Guard with the same organizational structure, 

equipment, and personnel requirements as active duty units. The Army expects that all its 

brigades will convert to modular designs as of fiscal year 2013.

In September 2011 the Army issued a report that should have responded to section 332 of 

the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which amended the 

reporting requirements in section 323 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007. In our review of that report,6 however, we noted that the report had 

addressed the outdated requirements set out in the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, rather than the amended requirements. Army officials 

agreed, and in May 2012, the Army reissued the fiscal year 2011 report along with the fiscal 

year 2012 report. The fiscal year 2012 report is based on data from the fiscal year 2013 

President’s budget submission, and does not reflect any anticipated changes to the Army 

budget or modular force structure not reflected in that budget. Through an initiative called 

Army 2020, the Army is studying its future operational environment, roles and missions, and 

changes to the structure of the modular forces. However, the Army has not yet made 

decisions about the modular forces’ future organization and requirements.

Army Included Some Statutorily Required Information in Fiscal Year 2012 Report but 

Did Not Clearly Demonstrate Extent of Progress Toward Meeting Modularity 

Requirements

The Army included information related to the status of key enabler personnel and 

equipment, assessments of modular force capabilities, the status of doctrine for the modular 

forces, and comments of the Army Reserve and National Guard in its fiscal year 2012 report 

in response to the statutory reporting requirements, but omitted other required items, such 

 

5 GAO-09-676.

6 GAO, Force Structure: Assessment of Army Report on Fiscal Year 2011 Progress in Modular Restructuring, 

GAO-12-527R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 26, 2012).
Page 4 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

as the risks and mitigation strategies associated with shortfalls in key enabler personnel and 

equipment. In addition, the performance information the Army included did not clearly 

demonstrate the extent to which the Army has made progress in meeting modular force 

requirements. We have previously reported that to be useful, performance information must 

meet users’ needs for completeness, accuracy, consistency, and ease of use.7 We have 

also reported that even in instances where agencies produce a great deal of performance 

information, this information may not be presented in a manner that is useful for 

congressional decision making.8 Because the Army did not provide guidance on the level 

and type of detail to be included in the report or take additional steps to ensure clarity and 

consistency of information, the various offices providing information for the report used their 

own judgment as to the amount and format of information. In the following sections we 

examine the extent to which the Army included the statutorily required information as well as 

the extent to which the information was presented in a way that is useful for assessing 

progress in meeting modularity requirements.

Army Included Required Assessment of Key Enabler Equipment and Personnel, but Did Not 

Clearly Communicate the Extent of Progress

The law required the Army to include in the report an assessment of the key enabler 

personnel and equipment of the Army, including a comparison of the authorized levels of 

key enabler equipment, the levels of key enabler equipment on hand, and the planned 

purchases of key enabler equipment set forth in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

It also required the Army to include a comparison of the authorized and actual personnel 

levels for personnel with key enabler personnel specialties with the requirements for those 

specialties. In addition, the law required the Army to identify any shortfalls revealed by these 

comparisons, and to include an assessment of the number and type of key enabler 

equipment that the Army projects it will have on hand by the end of the FYDP that will 

require repair, recapitalization, or replacement at or before the end of the time period 

covered by the FYDP.

In response to the statutory requirement to include an assessment of key enabler personnel, 

the Army included a discussion of a number of key enabler specialties, providing 

percentages of the personnel on hand for these specialties relative to the requirement. 

However, while not explicitly required by the legislation, the Army’s progress in meeting 

personnel requirements was not as clear as it could have been because the Army did not 

include how many persons in the specialties are required or the actual numbers of persons 

performing in these specialties. For example, the report stated that the number of 

counterintelligence agents increased to 71 percent of the requirement. Without the number 

of counterintelligence agents, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the effect of the gap 

in agents on the forces or the resources required to close the gap. The Army’s report stated 

that overall, key enabler requirements stabilized after fiscal year 2011, allowing the Army to 

progress in closing the gap in key enabler personnel shortfalls. However, the Army did not 

provide comparisons with information from previous years on each personnel specialty, 

which while not required by the legislation, would have more clearly demonstrated the extent 

of progress. Further, inconsistencies in reporting on the personnel specialties with gaps 

 

7 GAO-09-676.

8 GAO, Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional 

Decision Making, GAO-12-621SP (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2012).
Page 5 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

between the fiscal year 2011 report and the fiscal year 2012 report hindered the ability to 

assess progress by comparing the two reports. 

The Army included required information on equipment levels in the following forms:

• a section entitled “Army Equipment Modernization Update,” which listed 10 systems 

in the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request that the report said are critical to 

the Army’s success in current and future operations

• two appendixes listing key enabler systems, ranging from tractors to unmanned 

aerial vehicles, with their associated funding levels for fiscal year 2012 and the 

requested funding levels for fiscal year 2013

• an appendix showing fiscal year 2017 (the end of the then-current FYDP) authorized 

equipment, on-hand equipment, planned procurements, and anticipated shortages 

for the Army’s “major capabilities” and “families of systems,” which the Army officials 

told us are major groupings that encompass all the Army’s equipment spending and 

include various systems. 

However, the way the information was presented did not clearly communicate the extent to 

which the Army has made progress toward meeting key enabler personnel and equipment 

requirements. For example, the extent to which shortfalls exist for specific key enabler 

equipment is not clearly demonstrated because the shortfalls are only shown by major 

groupings of systems, thereby masking whether shortfalls exist in specific items that might 

be critical to mission success. In addition, the report does not provide comparisons with 

previous years, so it is difficult to determine from the report alone whether the Army has 

made progress in fulfilling key enabler equipment requirements. Since the report does not 

list shortfalls for specific key enabler systems, it is not possible to make a comparison with 

the fiscal year 2011 report in order to observe a trend. While comparisons with prior years 

were not explicitly required by the law, the ability to observe a trend would provide a better 

picture of the extent to which progress has been made. 

Army Included Information on Assessments of Modular Force Capabilities and Doctrine, but 

Provided Few Details

The law required that the report include information about the results of Army assessments 

of modular force capabilities, including lessons learned from existing modular units and any 

modifications that have been made to modularity, and a description of the status of 

development of doctrine on how the modular forces will train, be sustained, and fight.

The report stated that the results of Army assessments of modular force capabilities, 

including lessons learned from existing modular units, have driven several modifications to 

modularity but the report did not clarify the nature of the lessons learned from the 

assessments and the nature of the doctrinal changes the Army has made. To date these 

modifications have required only minor alterations to the design of modular units, although 

the Army is studying the possibility of more significant changes, such as adding an 

additional maneuver battalion to the modular brigade combat teams, bringing the total 

number of maneuver battalions in each brigade combat team to three. According to the 

report, one result of lessons learned was the identification of the need for increases in the 

number of medical specialists, electronic warfare specialists, company intelligence support 

teams, and unit supply specialists. Lessons learned have also led to changes in the way 
Page 6 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

modular forces are equipped and trained and to doctrinal changes. The Army has an 

ongoing process to collect and analyze lessons learned which has informed the revision of 

Army doctrine, as well as training and educating the modular force in its core competencies. 

However, beyond the details noted above, the report did not elaborate on the nature of the 

lessons learned from assessments or the experiences of modular forces on the battlefield, 

nor give examples of the changes made to doctrine. Army officials told us that they track all 

lessons learned from experience with the modular forces, as well as all changes made to 

modular force structure as a result of lessons learned. As a result, additional information is 

available and could be reported. In addition, Army officials said that it would be possible to 

provide details of the doctrinal changes in future annual reports.

Army Reserve and National Guard Commented on Some Aspects of the Report

The law required that the report include comments from the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau and the Chief of the Army Reserve on each of the other required reporting elements. 

The Army’s report included the comments of the Director of the Army National Guard and 

the Chief of the Army Reserve. Army officials told us that they included the comments of the 

Director of the Army National Guard rather than the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

because the National Guard Bureau is a coordinating organization that includes both the 

Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, while the Army National Guard has the 

responsibility of training and equipping Army National Guard forces. 

Both the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve provided comments on some of the 

required reporting elements, but some issues were not addressed. For example, the Army 

Reserve stated that for key enabler equipment, it continues to improve equipment on hand 

and modernization levels, and that by the end of fiscal year 2012, it expects to have 86 

percent of equipment on hand and 66 percent modernization levels. The Army National 

Guard also provided information on key enabler equipment, stating that equipment on hand 

is at 89 percent and will continue to improve. However, the reserve components did not 

comment on each of the required reporting elements. For example, the reserve components 

did not comment on the comparison of actual personnel levels for key enabler specialties 

with the requirements for those specialties. 

Army Did Not Consistently Itemize Information by Component or Employ a Consistent 

Definition of Key Enabler

The law requires the information presented in the report to be itemized by active component 

and reserve component, and provides a definition of key enabler equipment and personnel 

for purposes of the report. However, information was not clearly itemized throughout the 

report, and it was unclear as to whether a common definition of key enabler was used 

consistently. The Army itemized some of the information on key enabler equipment status by 

component in the report, but Army officials told us that personnel information presented in 

the report reflected only the active component. The Army did not clarify this in the report, 

however. In addition, Army officials told us they tasked the personnel section of the report to 

the personnel office of Army headquarters staff, which does not have access to all reserve 

component personnel data. Finally, Army officials told us that the information reported on 

the status of equipment reset reflected all Army components combined. The Army did not 

clarify this in the report, however.

Regarding the statutory definition of “key enabler,” it was also unclear whether the Army 

used a common definition of key enabler, consistent with the definition provided in the law, 
Page 7 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

for the purposes of the report because information on equipment is presented inconsistently 

throughout the report. One section of the report lists 10 key systems, two appendixes 

provide longer lists of systems in which some but not all of the 10 key systems are included, 

and another appendix lists major groupings of systems encompassing all the Army’s 

equipment spending. As a result, it is unclear which systems are the key enablers and 

whether the systems listed fit within the definition provided in the statute.

Army Did Not Address the Requirement to Identify Risks Associated with Shortfalls and 

Strategies for Mitigation or Provide a Schedule for Meeting Personnel and Equipment Needs 

The law required an identification of risks associated with identified shortfalls and mitigation 

strategies to address those risks, as well as a schedule for fulfilling key enabler equipment 

requirements and equipment reset. 

While the Army’s fiscal year 2012 report did provide some information on shortfalls in key 

enabler personnel and equipment, it did not discuss the risks, if any, to the forces of these 

shortfalls, and did not identify a strategy by which the Army mitigates any such risks. Army 

officials we spoke with agreed that this discussion was missing from the report and stated 

that in future reports they would include this information. Furthermore, they told us some 

reasons for shortfalls and steps the Army has taken to mitigate these shortfalls. In the case 

of key enabler personnel, Army officials said that shortfalls have been caused by the growth 

in requirements for certain key specialties needed for modular units, and that the Army has 

had difficulty meeting these needs due to the time required to develop specialized skills. 

Army officials told us that to compensate the Army has adopted strategies such as 

increasing the personnel deployment tempo for key specialties or substituting with personnel 

from related fields. In the case of key enabler equipment, officials said that the Army has in 

some cases deliberately chosen not to meet stated requirements due to the costs involved. 

Also, to meet deployed units’ equipment needs in these areas, the Army has positioned 

some key equipment in theater, allowing units rotating into theater to obtain the equipment 

there, and has positioned some of the same equipment at major training centers in the 

United States to enable units to train with the equipment. Modular equipment requirements 

were established in order to meet the needs of high-intensity combat, officials noted, 

whereas in recent years the Army has been predominantly occupied with other types of 

operations that had different equipping needs than those originally planned for.

In addition, the Army did not include a schedule for fulfilling key enabler equipment 

requirements and for repairing, recapitalizing, and replacing equipment and materiel used in 

support of overseas contingency operations and their associated sustainment. Army officials 

stated that the Army has chosen to equip forces as efficiently as possible by selectively 

purchasing key enabler equipment to share among units for training and by meeting 

deployed forces’ needs by providing key enabler equipment in the theater of operations. 

Because the Army does not intend to purchase equipment to meet all key enabler 

requirements, officials said they have not developed a schedule to meet all key enabler 

equipment requirements. The Army presented its total planned procurements through fiscal 

year 2017 in an appendix of the report. However, the information is not broken out by fiscal 

year in the report, and it is not clear what percentage of the requirement for specific key 

enabler systems the Army plans to acquire. Additionally, with regard to equipment reset, 

Army officials stated that contingency operations and thus equipment repair or replacement 

needs are unpredictable–such as the number of battle losses and the related amount of 

wear-and-tear on equipment. The officials stated that this lack of predictability makes it 

impossible to forecast future requirements for repair, recapitalization, and replacement of 
Page 8 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

equipment used in contingency operations. Therefore, Army officials stated that the Army 

cannot develop a schedule for meeting such future requirements. 

Lack of Supplemental Guidance to Ensure Completeness Led to Insufficient Information

Army officials told us that they compiled the report using information they received from 

Army offices with expertise in relevant areas such as personnel and equipment. Specifically, 

the officials in these offices were provided with copies of the statute setting out the 

requirements for the Army’s report, but the officials were not given additional guidance 

specifying the format they should use when providing information to the officials compiling 

the report or the level of detail expected. Army offices interpreted the statutory requirements 

for themselves when concluding what information they should provide, and, as a result, the 

information provided by the various offices was inconsistent in format and detail. Army 

officials agreed that some of the required information was omitted and that some of the 

information could have been presented in a manner to more clearly demonstrate progress. 

Without more detailed guidance to the various offices providing the information, future 

annual reports may not provide congressional decision makers with a clear understanding of 

the extent to which the Army has made progress in meeting modular force requirements.

Conclusions

The Army expects that its forces will have completed the transition to modular designs by 

the end of fiscal year 2013, and has received substantial funds to restructure and rebuild its 

forces. However, the Army still has not reported clearly and completely on its progress in 

meeting modularity requirements. The Army’s fiscal year 2012 report included some of the 

information required by law, but the extent to which progress has been made is still unclear, 

as are the types of tradeoffs and risk mitigation strategies the Army has adopted to meet the 

needs of ongoing operations. Until the Army provides guidance to the offices submitting 

information for the report specifying the level and type of detail required, decision makers in 

Congress will not be in the best position to make program and funding decisions as the 

Army considers and adopts further changes to its organization and force structure.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To better provide Congress with information needed to conduct oversight and make 

decisions on programs and funding, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army provide 

guidance on the level and type of detail needed to each office within the Army responsible 

for providing information to officials compiling the annual report on the Army’s progress in 

meeting modular force requirements. Such guidance should at a minimum ensure that future 

reports provide comparisons with information from prior years to identify trends and 

therefore the extent of progress made in fulfilling modular force requirements; identify 

specific lessons learned and link them to key modifications made to modular forces; identify 

key doctrinal changes made and their significance to the modular forces; use a consistent 

definition of “key enabler” equipment and personnel, consistent with the statutory definition, 

throughout the report; and include both active and reserve component information 

throughout the report.
Page 9 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Army for comment. In its written 

comments, reproduced in enclosure II, the Army generally concurred with our findings that 

additional, and more detailed, information could have added clarity to its report, but did not 

identify any actions it planned to take in response to our recommendation. The Army 

provided some additional information related to the legislative reporting requirements, but 

did not specifically respond to our recommendation to provide guidance to each office within 

the Army responsible for providing data for the report. In its comments, the Army identified 

five items as GAO recommendations. Although each item was related to the contents of our 

report, we did not make these specific recommendations. For example, the Army said that 

GAO had recommended that the Army’s report include input from the Army Reserve and 

Army National Guard leadership and stated that the Army did not agree because it had 

included comments from the Army Reserve and Army National Guard leaders. However, we 

made no such recommendation and noted that the Army’s report had included comments 

from the Army Reserve and Army National Guard on some of the required reporting 

elements. Instead, we noted that some areas of the Army’s report did not include reserve 

component data, such as the comparison of key enabler personnel. We continue to believe 

that the Army should develop guidance to ensure that future reports are clearer and more 

complete. We have revised the wording of our recommendation to clarify that we are 

recommending that the Army provide guidance on the level and type of detail required for 

future reports. We also revised the wording of the recommendation to specify that the Army 

should include both active and reserve component data throughout the report. 

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Army and appropriate 

congressional committees. The report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-

1816 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

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

contributions to this report are listed in enclosure III.

John H. Pendleton, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures - 3 
Page 10 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. “Bill” Young

Chairman

The Honorable Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Enclosure I

Page 11 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

Statutory Reporting Requirements

The following is the text of the legislative mandate for the Army’s annual report on progress 

in meeting modularity requirements as well as the mandate for GAO to review the report.

9

(c) Annual report on Army progress.--(1) On the date on which the President submits to 

Congress the budget for a fiscal year under 31 U.S.C. §1105, the Secretary of the Army 

shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the progress of 

the Army in fulfilling the key enabler equipment requirements of modular units and in 

repairing, recapitalizing, and replacing equipment and materiel used in support of overseas 

contingency operations underway as of the date of such report, and associated sustainment. 

Any information included in the report shall be itemized by active duty component and 

reserve component.

“(2) Each such report shall include the following:

“(A) An assessment of the key enabler equipment and personnel of the army, including— 

“(i) A comparison of— 

“(I) the authorized level of key enabler equipment; 

“(II) the level of key enabler equipment on hand; and 

“(III) the planned purchases of key enabler equipment as set forth in the future-years 

defense program submitted with the budget for such fiscal year; 

“(ii) a comparison of the authorized and actual personnel levels for personnel with key 

enabler personnel specialities with the requirements for key enabler personnel specialties; 

“(iii) an identification of any shortfalls indicated by the comparisons in clauses (i) and (ii); 

and 

“(iv) an assessment of the number and type of key enabler equipment that the Army 

projects it will have on hand by the end of such future-years defense program that will 

require repair, recapitalization, or replacement at or before the end of the time period 

covered by such future-years defense program (which assessment shall account for 

additional repair, recapitalization, or replacement resulting from use of key enabler 

equipment in overseas contingency operations). 

“(B) If an assessment under subparagraph (A) identifies shortfalls that will exist within the 

period covered by the future-years defense program submitted in such fiscal year, an 

identification of the risks associated with such shortfalls and mitigation strategies to address 

such risks. 

“(C) A schedule for the accomplishment of the purposes set forth in paragraph (1). 

 

9 Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 332 (2011), which amended Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 323 (2006). This language can be 

found in a note following 10 U.S.C. §229.
Enclosure I

Page 12 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

“(D) The results of Army assessments of modular force capabilities, including lessons 

learned from existing modular units and any modifications that have been made to 

modularity. 

“(E) A description of the status of the development of doctrine on how modular combat, 

functional, and support forces will train, be sustained, and fight. 

“(F) The comments of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Chief of the Army 

Reserve on each of the items described in subparagraphs (A) through (E). 

“(d) Annual Comptroller General report on Army Progress.--Not later than 180 days 

after the date on which the Secretary of the Army submits a report under subsection (c), the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense 

committees a report setting forth the Comptroller General's review of such report. Each 

report under this subsection shall include such information and recommendations as the 

Comptroller General considers appropriate in light of such review.

“(e) Definitions.--In this section:

“(1) The term ‘contingency operation’ has the meaning given that term in 10 U.S.C. 101 

(a)(13). “(2) The term ‘key enabler’, in the case of equipment or personnel, means 

equipment or personnel, as the case may be, that make a modular force or unit as capable 

or more capable than the non-modular force or unit it replaced, including the following: 

“(A) Equipment such as tactical and high frequency radio, tactical wheeled vehicles, battle 

command systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, all-source analysis systems, analysis and 

control elements, fire support sensor systems, firefinder radar, joint network nodes, longrange advanced scout surveillance systems, Trojan Spirit systems (or any successor 

system), and any other equipment items identified by the Army as making a modular force or 

unit as capable or more capable than the non-modular force or unit it replaced. 

“(B) Personnel in specialties needed to operate or support the equipment specified in 

subparagraph (A) and personnel in specialties relating to civil affairs, communication and 

information systems operation, explosive ordinance disposal, military intelligence,

psychological operations, and any other personnel specialties identified by the Army as 

making a modular force or unit as capable or more capable than the non-modular force or 

unit it replaced. 
Enclosure II

Page 13 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

Comments from the Department of the Army
Enclosure II

Page 14 GAO-13-183R Force Structure
Enclosure II

Page 15 GAO-13-183R Force Structure
Enclosure III

Page 16 GAO-13-183R Force Structure

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

John H. Pendleton, (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Margaret Morgan, Assistant Director; Chaneé 

Gaskin; Simon Hirschfeld; Ashley Houston; Mae Jones; Kelly Rubin; and Nicole Willems 

made significant contributions to this report.

(351756)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.