United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on National Security, Committee on

Appropriations, House of

Representatives

September 1996 DEFENSE BUDGET

Trends in Reserve

Components’ Military

Personnel

Compensation

Accounts for 1990-97

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-226

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-274130 

September 19, 1996

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) budget request for fiscal year 1997

includes almost $70 billion for pay and allowances for active and reserve

military personnel, which represents about 30 percent of DOD’s total

budget request. DOD estimates that in 2001, pay and allowances will

continue to represent about 30 percent of the total budget. Because the

military personnel accounts represent such a large share of DOD’s budget,

we reviewed them to determine (1) the various pay categories included in

the accounts, (2) the trends of those pay categories, and (3) how changes

in the budget compared with changes in service force levels.1

 We also

inquired into the reasons for some of the service trends and differences

among the services and have included the explanations when available.

Our analyses and discussions in this report focus primarily on pay and

allowances for the reserve components, which for fiscal year 1997

comprise over $9 billion of the $70 billion requested. We reported

separately on the active components because the budget categories for the

active are considerably different from the reserve components.2

Our review was performed under our basic legislative responsibilities.

Because of your expressed interest in the military personnel accounts, we

are addressing the report to you.

Background Military pay and allowances for active and reserve personnel are funded

through the military personnel accounts. Military personnel is one of six

major account groups for DOD.

3

 It is the second largest of DOD’s account

1

Our analysis used actual obligations for fiscal years 1990 to 1995 and budget estimates for fiscal years

1996 to 1997.

2

Defense Budget: Trends in Active Military Personnel Compensation Accounts for 1990-97

(GAO/NSIAD-96-183, July 9, 1996).

3

The other major account groups are operation and maintenance; procurement; research,

development, test, and evaluation; military construction; and family housing.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

groups after operation and maintenance and is expected to remain second

through 2001.

The major budget categories for reserve component military personnel

accounts are unit and individual training; administration and support;

other training and support, including mobilization training, school training,

special training, Army branch officer’s basic course, health professions

scholarship program, Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), and

Army chaplain candidate program; education benefits; and Senior ROTC.

4

These categories are listed in detail in appendix I.

The reserve components of the Army and the Air Force include both the

National Guard and the reserves. These components account for about

85 percent of the total reserve personnel. The Navy, the Marine Corps, and

the Coast Guard have only reserves. Because the Coast Guard Reserve is a

small force—about 8,000 personnel in 1996—and is under the Department

of Transportation, it was not included in our analyses. The change in

personnel levels for each of the reserve components between fiscal years

1990 and 1997 is shown in table 1.5

Table 1: Personnel Levels for DOD’s

Reserve Components Reserve component 1990 1997 Difference

Army National Guard 436,964 366,758 (70,206)

Air National Guard 116,968 108,018 (8,950)

Total guard 553,932 474,776 (79,156)

Army Reserve 299,145 214,970 (84,175)

Air Force Reserve 80,602 73,281 (7,321)

Naval Reserve 149,352 95,941 (53,411)

Marine Corps Reserve 44,530 42,000 (2,530)

Total reserve 573,629 426,192 (147,437)

Total guard and reserve 1,127,561 900,968 (226,593)

Note: Personnel levels are for the selected reserve. Fiscal year 1990 end strength excludes

personnel serving on active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield.

Source: Services’ budget estimates.

4

These categories represent direct costs. Total military personnel obligations also include

reimbursable costs to the services, such as personnel support provided to depot maintenance activities

under the Defense Business Operations Fund. Reimbursable costs represent under 1 percent of the

military personnel accounts.

5

Personnel levels are as of the end of the fiscal year, or end strength.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

The distribution of personnel budgets by component for fiscal years 1990

and 1997 is shown in table 2.

Table 2: Personnel Budgets for Guard

and Reserve (Constant 1996 dollars in millions)

Reserve component 1990 1997 Difference

Army National Guard $3,992 $3,156 ($836)

Air National Guard 1,290 1,273 (17)

Total guard $5,282 $4,428 ($854)

Army Reserve 2,667 1,989 (678)

Air Force Reserve 803 755 (48)

Naval Reserve 1,901 1,352 (549)

Marine Corps Reserve 381 371 (10)

Total reserve $5,752 $4,467 ($1,285)

Total guard and reserve $11,034 $8,895 ($2,139)

Note: Differences in addition and subtraction are due to rounding.

Source: Services’ budget estimates.

Results in Brief Discounting for inflation by using constant 1996 dollars, there has been a

relatively close correlation since 1990 between the decline in the reserve

components’ portion of the military personnel accounts and the reduction

in reserve components’ personnel. Specifically, the National Guard’s

military personnel accounts are projected to decline between fiscal years

1990 and 1997 by 16 percent, compared to a 14-percent personnel

reduction. During the same period, the reserve’s military personnel

accounts are projected to decline by 22 percent, or about 3 percent below

the rate of decline in the reserve’s force level. (See app. II for an overview

of the National Guard’s military personnel budget and personnel level

changes from 1990 through 1997 and app. III for a similar overview of the

reserve’s budget and personnel.)

About 93 percent of the National Guard’s military personnel accounts for

fiscal year 1997 consist of two categories: individual and unit training

(50 percent) and administration and support (43 percent). These two

categories account for about 87 percent of reserve military personnel pay

and allowances (49 percent for individual and unit training and 38 percent

for administration and support). No other category in either the National

Guard’s or reserve’s personnel budgets comprises over 5 percent of the

total. The reserve components’ budget categories, in turn, consist of

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

servicemembers’ pay costs, of which the largest element is basic pay.

Basic pay represents 60 percent of National Guard budget obligations and

57 percent of reserve budget obligations. Retired pay, basic allowances for

quarters, variable housing allowance, and travel comprise an additional 22

to 23 percent of the reserve components’ total military personnel costs.

The cost of each servicemember in fiscal year 1997 is projected to increase

for all reserve components, except the Army National Guard. Because

Army National Guard costs are projected to decline by over $300 per

person between fiscal years 1990 and 1997, total National Guard costs per

person are projected to decline from about $9,300 in fiscal year 1990 to

about $9,200 in fiscal year 1997, despite a projected increase of nearly 

$650 per person in Air National Guard costs. Increases in the reserve’s

costs range from about $225 per person for the Marine Corps Reserve to

about $1,500 per person for the Naval Reserve. Overall Reserve personnel

costs per member are projected to increase from about $9,700 in fiscal

year 1990 to about $10,300 in fiscal year 1997.

There are marked differences in the reserve components’ budgets for

several categories. The Naval Reserve’s share of the fiscal year 1997

administration and support budget is twice its share of total reserve

personnel, while the Air Force Reserve has budgeted a minimal percentage

for administration and support in relation to its personnel level. The Air

Force Reserve has budgeted more for special training than the other

services combined. The Air National Guard’s fiscal year 1997 special

training budget is three times that of the Army’s, even though the Army has

over 75 percent of the personnel. The Army National Guard has budgeted a

much higher percentage for education benefits than the Air National

Guard.

Decrease in Personnel

Budget Closely

Follows Decrease in

Personnel

The reserve components’ military personnel budgets, adjusted to 1996

constant dollars, are projected to decrease at about the same rate as

personnel level reductions between fiscal years 1990 and 1997. As shown

in figure 1, the National Guard’s budget is projected to decrease by 

17 percent, from $5.3 billion to $4.4 billion, while personnel levels are

projected to decline by 14 percent, from 554,000 to 475,000. The military

personnel budget for the reserve, as shown in figure 2, is projected to

decline by 22 percent, from about $5.8 billion to $4.5 billion, while

personnel levels are projected to decline by 26 percent, from about 574,000

to about 426,000.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 1: Decline of National Guard Personnel Budgets and Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

Fiscal year

Constant 1996 dollars in billions Personnel in thousands

Personnel Budget

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 2: Decline of Reserve Military Personnel Budgets and Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

400

450

500

550

600

Fiscal year

Constant 1996 dollars in billions Personnel in thousands

Personnel Budget

The reductions in budget and personnel between fiscal years 1990 and

1997 vary for each reserve component. Figure 3 shows that the Army

National Guard’s budget is projected to decrease to a greater extent than

its personnel, whereas the Air National Guard is projected to have minimal

budget reductions but larger personnel reductions. In contrast, as shown

in figure 4, the reserve components are projected to have greater

personnel decreases than budget decreases. The decreases in the Army

and the Naval Reserves’ budgets and personnel are projected to be

considerably greater than those of the Air Force and the Marine Corps

Reserves.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 3: Reductions in National Guard Personnel Budgets and Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

Army National Guard Air National Guard Total

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percentage reduction

Budget Personnel

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 4: Reductions in Reserve Military Personnel Budgets and Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

Army Navy Air Force Marine Corps Total

0

10

20

30

40

Percentage reduction

Budget Personnel

Military Personnel

Account Primarily

Comprised of Unit

and Individual

Training and

Administration and

Support Costs

The vast majority of the reserve components’ military personnel budgets

are comprised of two categories: unit and individual training and

administration and support. Much of these two categories provide for pays

and allowances associated with training activities and for personnel

assigned to active duty in support of the reserve components.6

 Pays and

allowances are predominantly entitlements. Generally, once

servicemembers meet certain criteria such as years of service or military

rank, they are entitled to certain benefits.

6

Reserve personnel serving on active duty for contingencies and peace operations are paid through

active component military personnel accounts.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

As shown in figure 5, approximately half of the projected military

personnel costs for fiscal year 1997 are comprised of unit and individual

training, while administration and support absorb most of the remainder

of the respective accounts. These two budget categories comprise about

93 percent of the National Guard’s military personnel budget and about

87 percent of the reserve’s military personnel budget. The proportion of

the budget allocated to administration and support costs is projected to

increase between fiscal years 1990 and 1997. Administration and support

costs were 35 percent of the total personnel budget for the National Guard

in fiscal year 1990, compared to 43 percent estimated for fiscal year 1997,

and were about 33 percent of the total personnel budget for the reserve in

fiscal year 1990, compared to 38 percent estimated for fiscal year 1997.

The proportion of the budget allocated to unit and individual training is

projected to decrease by about 3 percent for both the National Guard and

the reserve.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 5: Allocation of Fiscal Year 1997 Military Personnel Budget for National Guard and Reserve

50%

43%

3%

2%

2%

National Guard

49%

38%

3%

5%

5%

Reserve

Training Administration School training Special training Other

Viewed differently, basic pay and four other entitlements—which are

incorporated within the National Guard’s and the reserve’s budget

categories—are projected to comprise about 80 percent of the reserve

components’ fiscal year 1997 military personnel budgets. Basic pay alone

comprises 60 percent of the National Guard budget and 57 percent of the

reserve’s budget. (See fig. 6.)

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal Year 1997 Reserve and National Guard Budgets Related to Basic Pay, Retired Pay Accrual,

Basic Allowances for Quarters, Travel, and Other

60%

11%

7% 3%1%

18%

National Guard

57%

10%

5% 7% 1%

20%

Reserve

Basic Pay Retired Pay Quarters Travel Housing Other

Note: The other category includes clothing, subsistence, separation benefits, reserve incentives,

disability and hospitalization, education benefits, reserve officer training corps summer camp,

other training and support costs, and reimbursable costs.

Per Person Costs for

Most Components Are

Projected to Increase

Despite an overall decline in the reserve components’ military personnel

budgets and personnel, per person costs are projected to increase for all

components, except the Army National Guard.7

 As shown in figure 7, the

total National Guard budget and per person costs are declining (due to the

7

For per person calculations, we used the average yearly strength reported by the services in their

budget submissions (fiscal year 1990 personnel levels exclude reserve personnel who served on active

duty in support of Operation Desert Shield). The proportion of full-time reservists included in the

average strength varies by service, thereby affecting per person costs differently.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

projected decline in Army National Guard costs). The projected decline in

Army National Guard costs per person is shown in figure 8, as well as the

upward trend in Air National Guard costs per person.

Figure 7: Trend in National Guard Total and Per Person Budgets

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

8,800

9,000

9,200

9,400

9,600

9,800

10,000

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

Fiscal year

Per person cost in dollars Total budget in billions

Total budget Per person cost

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 8: Trend in National Guard Per Person Budget, by Service

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

Fiscal year

Per person cost in dollars

Army National Guard Air National Guard

The downward trend in the total reserve budget compared to the increase

in total per person costs is shown in figure 9, while the services’ generally

rising trends in per person costs are shown in figure 10.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 9: Trend in Reserve Total and Per Person Budgets

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

9,200

9,400

9,600

9,800

10,000

10,200

10,400

10,600

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

Fiscal year

Per person budget in dollars Total budget in billions

Total budget Per person cost

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Figure 10: Trend in Reserve Per Person Budget, by Service

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Fiscal year

Per person cost in dollars

Army Navy Air Force Marine Corps

As table 3 shows, the per person costs for the Army National Guard are

projected to decrease by $339 from fiscal years 1990 to 1997, whereas the

costs per person for the other components are projected to increase

during the same time period. The table also shows that those projected

cost increases range from $224 for the Marine Corps Reserve to $1,475 for

the Naval Reserve. The total projected increase for the National Guard and

the reserve is $256 per person, or about 2 percent.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Table 3: Per Person Costs by

Component Reserve component 1990 1997 Difference

Army National Guard $8,822 $8,483 ($339)

Air National Guard 11,035 11,675 640

Total guard $9,276 $9,206 ($70)

Army Reserve 8,499 9,030 530

Air Force Reserve 9,578 10,285 707

Naval Reserve 12,409 13,884 1,475

Marine Corps Reserve 8,664 8,887 224

Total reserve $9,671 $10,321 $651

Total guard and reserve $9,478 $9,734 $256

Note: Rows may not subtract due to rounding.

Source: Our analysis based on services’ budget estimates.

Administration and

Support Category

Accounts for Most of

the Per Person

Increase

The administration and support budget category is projected to receive the

largest dollar increase for all components from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. A

comparison of the per person costs by National Guard component and

major budget category for fiscal years 1990 and 1997 is shown in table 4.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Table 4: Per Person National Guard

Personnel Costs by Service and

Budget Category

Budget category Fiscal year Army Air Force

Unit/individual training 1990 $4,706 $5,592

1997 4,448 5,228

Administration and support 1990 3,134 3,784

1997 3,736 4,876

Education benefits 1990 75 121

1997 106 35

School training 1990 498 695

1997 126 727

Special training 1990 393 815

1997 51 582

Reimbursable costs 1990 15 28

1997 15 228

Total obligations 1990 $8,822 $11,035

1997 $8,483 $11,675

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: Our analysis based on services’ budget estimates.

The table shows the following for each category.

• Unit/individual training. The Air Force’s costs per person are about

18 percent greater than the Army’s costs in fiscal years 1990 and 1997.

Both the Army’s and the Air Force’s costs are projected to decline by

about 5 percent from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. Air Force budget officials

explained that Air Force training requirements are intensive; for example,

aircrew members perform 48 additional flying training periods each year

for proficiency.

• Administration and support. The Air Force’s costs per person are about

21 percent greater that the Army’s costs in fiscal year 1990 and are

projected to increase to about 31 percent greater than the Army’s in fiscal

year 1997. Costs for both services are projected to increase from fiscal

years 1990 to 1997: the Army’s by 19 percent and the Air Force’s by

29 percent. Army budget officials stated that the Army’s projected cost

increase is due to increases in the student loan program, retention

bonuses, and the initiation of the transition benefit program.8

 Air Force

budget officials stated that pay and allowances for members on active duty

8

Full-time support personnel are authorized to receive the same transition enhancements and

initiatives as active personnel. These benefits include special separation benefit, voluntary separation

incentive, temporary early retirement authority, reserve involuntary separation pay, and reserve

special separation pay.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

comprise the major portion of this category and that these members are

projected to increase from about 8,640 in fiscal year 1990 to 10,130 in fiscal

year 1997. Also, the increase is partially due to incentive pays for aircrew

members.

• Education benefits. The Army’s costs per person are projected to increase

by 41 percent, whereas the Air Force’s costs are projected to decrease by

71 percent from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. Army budget officials stated that

the DOD Board of Actuaries determines the rate per eligible soldier and that

the actuarial rate and the amortization amount have increased

substantially since fiscal year 1994. The amortization payment rose from

zero to $6.2 million. Air Force budget officials stated that the fiscal year

1997 budget for education benefits is understated by about $6 million and,

therefore, the per person decrease is in error.

• School training. The Army’s costs per person are projected to decline by

75 percent, whereas the Air Force’s costs are projected to increase by

5 percent from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. In 1990, the Air Force’s costs

were about 40 percent greater than the Army’s; however, in 1997, the Air

Force’s costs are projected to be about 477 percent greater than the

Army’s. According to Army budget officials, a decrease is projected

because this is one of two discretionary categories (the other being special

training), and available funds must be applied to statutory requirements

such as increases to the GI Bill. Air Force budget officials explained that

costs are driven by aircraft and mission changes. For example, the

addition of a second bomber unit had a major influence on costs for fiscal

year 1997.

• Special training. The Army’s costs per person are projected to decline by

87 percent, whereas the Air Force’s costs are projected to decline by

29 percent from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. Although the Air Force’s costs

per person were about twice that of the Army’s in 1990, they are projected

to be 11 times greater than the Army’s costs in 1997. Army budget officials

stated that costs are projected to decrease because this category is

discretionary and funds were needed to meet statutory requirements.

• Reimbursable costs. The Army’s reimbursable costs are projected to

remain the same, but the Air Force’s costs are projected to increase over

700 percent. Also, in 1990, the Air Force’s reimbursable costs were about

twice as high as the Army’s, but in 1997 they are estimated to be over 

14 times higher. According to Air Force budget officials, costs have

increased because of a substantially larger role in the training of foreign

military pilots in conjunction with foreign military sales programs.

• Total costs. The Army’s costs per person are projected to decline by

4 percent, whereas the Air Force’s costs are projected to increase by

6 percent from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. Although the Air Force’s per

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

person costs were 25 percent greater than the Army’s costs in 1990, they

are projected to be 38 percent greater than the Army’s in 1997. Air Force

budget officials stated that increased costs are due largely to higher

numbers of full-time personnel. They further explained that budget

differences with the Army occur for a variety of reasons, chiefly because

Air Force training requirements are greater and because the Army

practices tiered resourcing, whereby units that are designated as first to

fight receive higher priority for resources. (Tier I receives 100 percent of

resource requirements whereas tier IV receives 40 percent.) Because of

mission differences, training, schooling, recurring training, travel, and

other budgeted costs also differ. Other variables affect the services’

budgets as well, such as officer to enlisted ratios, the full-time/part-time

mix, demographics, participation rates, clothing rates, and service

initiatives.

Table 5 compares the per person costs by reserve component and major

budget category for fiscal years 1990 and 1997. The largest dollar increase

is in the administration and support category.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Table 5: Per Person Reserve Personnel Costs by Service and Budget Category

Budget category Fiscal year Army Air Force Navy Marine Corps

Unit/individual training 1990 $4,480 $6,147 $5,366 $5,314

1997 4,573 6,112 5,162 5,149

Administration and support 1990 2,477 616 6,264 2,230

1997 3,381 876 7,841 2,758

Education 1990 84 142 69 145

1997 115 63 71 235

Senior ROTC/Platoon leader 1990 171 221 132 134

1997 211 274 123 118

Mobilization training 1990 139 26 46 89

1997 36 42 25 62

School training 1990 404 649 87 218

1997 296 822 60 144

Special training 1990 394 1,465 311 484

1997 222 1,649 225 338

Junior ROTC 1990 21 50 25 34

1997 65 147 101 72

Health professions 1990 65 239 109 N/Aa

1997 80 290 220 N/A

Branch officers 1990 237 N/A N/A N/A

1997 23 N/A N/A N/A

Chaplains 1990 6 N/A N/A N/A

1997 10 N/A N/A N/A

Reimbursable 1990 23 23 1 18

1997 17 12 56 12

Total obligations 1990 $8,499 $9,578 $12,409 $8,664

1997 $9,030 $10,285 $13,884 $8,887

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

aNot applicable.

Source: Our analysis based on services’ budget estimates.

The table shows the following for each category.

• Unit/individual training. The change in the individual services’ per person

costs is projected to vary by about 5 percent or less from fiscal years 1990

to 1997. The Air Force’s 1997 estimated costs are about 34 percent greater

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

than the Army’s estimate and about 18 percent greater than the Navy’s and

the Marine Corps’ estimates. Air Force budget officials stated that costs

are affected by (1) the percentage of personnel in different training

categories and (2) the officer/enlisted mix and grade structure. Moreover,

the Air Force Reserve may have a higher percentage of officers and a

higher grade structure, which would result in higher costs.

• Administration/support. Individual service increases are projected to

range from 24 percent for the Marine Corps to 42 percent for the Air Force

between fiscal years 1990 and 1997. However, the Air Force has the lowest

per person costs, and the Navy has the highest. The Navy’s cost estimate

for fiscal year 1997 is about eight times higher than the Air Force’s and is

more than twice as high as the Army’s. According to Navy budget officials,

training administration and support personnel constitute about 15 to

17 percent of the Naval Reserve end strength. The cost increase stems

from the aggregate of pay increases for such personnel. Further,

differences among the services in the number, type, and funding source of

full-time personnel result in the Navy’s costs being higher than the other

services’ costs (along with the Naval Reserve, including a large portion of

contributory support travel in this budget category). According to Air

Force officials, the projected increase for the Air Force is due in part to

increases in reserve incentives, the health professions training program,9

and the involuntary separation pay program. They stated that Air Force

costs are lower possibly because of fewer full-time personnel or because

of differences among the services in categorizing administrative and

support costs. Marine Corps budget officials stated that costs are

projected to increase due to pay raises and increases in related categories.

• Education benefits. The Air Force projects a 56-percent reduction in

education benefits, whereas the other services project increases. The

Marine Corps and the Army estimate increases of 62 percent and

37 percent, respectively, but the Marine Corps has budgeted twice as much

per person as the Army and over three times as much as the other two

services. The Navy has projected a slight increase. Marine Corps budget

officials explained that the Marine Corps has a higher rate of

servicemembers taking advantage of educational benefits. Because this

level of participation was not estimated in earlier years, the DOD Board of

Actuaries directed amortization payments to bring the Marine Corps’

portion into balance. Air Force officials said the Air Force’s decrease is

due to lowering the actuaries’ rate from $546 in fiscal year 1990 to $192 in

fiscal year 1997, as well as to fluctuations in enlistments, reenlistments,

and extensions. Army budget officials explained that changes in the law

9

The program provides financial assistance to students undertaking training as physicians or in other

medical-related fields.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

increased participation rates and allowances and resulted in higher costs.

For example, under the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, the

Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance allowance

provides up to a 284-percent increase in the monthly allowance for critical

skills or specialties.

• Senior ROTC and Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class. Air Force and Army

increases are similar, at 24 and 23 percent, respectively. However, in fiscal

year 1997, the Air Force has budgeted about 30 percent more than the

Army and over twice as much as the Navy and the Marine Corps.

According to Army and Air Force budget officials, costs are projected to

rise due to an increase in the monthly stipend rate, from $100 to $150. Air

Force officials pointed out that the number of students may vary among

the services and that the number of Air Force students have decreased.

Army officials said that a decrease in summer training sites resulted in

increased travel costs.

• Mobilization training. Mobilization training costs have fluctuated since

fiscal year 1990. The Army’s costs were highest in fiscal year 1990, but they

are projected to be second lowest in fiscal year 1997. In fiscal year 1997,

the Navy’s costs are projected to be the lowest, and all services but the Air

Force estimate decreases ranging from the Marine Corp’s 29 percent to the

Army’s 74 percent. The Marine Corps’ cost per person for fiscal year 1997

is about 48 percent higher than the Air Force’s. Army budget officials

explained that budget cuts have led to the tiered resourcing whereby units

that are designated as first to fight receive higher priority for resources.

Air Force officials said that increases in the health professions training

program affected mobilization training costs, as well as administration and

support costs, because participants are required to undergo mobilization

training. According to Navy officials, the Navy’s costs are projected to

decrease because of shifting priorities and declining end strength,

particularly among individuals in the Ready Reserve and Voluntary

Training Units.

• School training. The Air Force had the highest per person costs in fiscal

years 1990 and 1997, and it is the only service to project an increase, about

27 percent. The other services estimate reductions between 27 percent and

34 percent. In fiscal year 1990, the Air Force’s costs were about 61 percent

higher than the next highest, the Army’s, and in fiscal year 1997, its costs

are projected to be about 178 percent higher than the Army’s. The Navy

had the lowest costs in both years, about 93 percent lower than the Air

Force’s costs in fiscal year 1997. Air Force officials cited the need to train

personnel in operating and maintaining Air Force weapon systems as a

likely reason for costs that are higher than the other services. Also,

according to the officials, the Air Force’s projected cost increase is due to

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

an increase in officer training days and a decrease in enlisted training

days. Specifically, there were significant costs increases in officer training

school, undergraduate pilot/navigator training, unit conversion training,

and initial skills acquisition training. According to Navy budget officials,

resources have been prioritized to provide maximum support to the active

forces.

• Special training. The Air Force’s costs in fiscal year 1997 are projected to

be over seven times higher than the Army’s and the Navy’s and almost five

times higher than the Marine Corps’. The Air Force was the only service to

project a cost increase between fiscal years 1990 and 1997, which amounts

to 12 percent per person. The other services have projected decreases

ranging from the Navy’s 28 percent to the Army’s 44 percent. Army budget

officials stated that budget constraints required a decrease in the special

training category, including tours of duty in support of exercises,

operational training, command and staff support, and recruiting and

retention support.

• Junior ROTC. All services estimate higher costs of between two to four

times the fiscal year 1990 level. The Air Force had the highest costs in

fiscal year 1990, and it is projected to have the highest costs in fiscal year

1997, about 46 percent higher than the Navy and over 100 percent higher

than the Army and the Marine Corps. Army budget officials stated that

under congressional direction, the number of units rose from 865 to 1,380

since fiscal year 1990, and the number of students increased from about

130,700 to about 206,100. Air Force officials stated that Air Force costs

rose due to (1) an increase in the number of students from about 45,000 in

fiscal year 1990 to about 81,000 projected for fiscal year 1997, (2) a near

doubling in the number of detachments to over 600, and (3) cadets’ travel

to Air Force locations. Navy officials said that the Navy’s program also has

expanded, with the number of students increasing from about 29,500 to a

projected 55,500 and that the annual inflation applied to uniform costs

totaled over 17 percent. Marine Corps units are projected to increase from

80 to almost 175.

• Health Professions Scholarships. Although the Air Force had the highest

costs per person in fiscal year 1990, and they are projected to remain the

highest in fiscal year 1997, the Navy’s costs are projected to more than

double. Navy budget officials explained that the program has expanded

and that such programmatic increases, along with over a 20-percent

increase in annual pay raises provided in student stipends, resulted in the

projected cost increase. The Army and the Air Force estimate increases of

24 and 22 percent, respectively. For fiscal year 1997, Air Force costs are

projected to be about 32 percent higher than the Navy’s and over three

times higher than the Army’s. Army budget officials stated that the number

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

of students in the program decreased by 110, but stipend, clothing, pay,

and travel rates increased. According to Air Force officials, the number of

Air Force students might be higher than other services, and the addition of

a financial assistance program grant in fiscal year 1991 contributed to

higher costs.

• Branch Officers Basic Course. Army costs are projected to decrease by

90 percent because budget constraints have required limiting the course to

those who have a relevant unit of assignment, according to Army budget

officials. Army officials explained that formerly, all newly commissioned

officers attended the course regardless of their future participation in the

Army Reserve (e.g., nonscholarship officers without a follow-on unit and

officers entering branches that were not in the Army Reserve).

• Chaplain candidates. Army costs are projected to increase by about

67 percent. Army budget officials explained that the estimated number of

chaplains has increased by 32 percent since fiscal year 1990. Further, the

average number of days that chaplain candidates serve on active duty for

training has increased to meet new training requirements, and the training

often takes place in high-cost areas.

• Reimbursable costs. Costs are projected to decrease in all services except

the Navy, which had virtually no costs in fiscal year 1990 but about three

to four times the cost of the other services in fiscal year 1997. According to

Navy budget officials, the costs resulted from transferring about 1,500

reservists into the Defense Business Operations Fund system, which is

scheduled to end in fiscal year 1998.

• Total per person costs. The Navy has the highest and the Marine Corps the

lowest per person costs. Total per person costs are projected to increase

for all the services, with the Navy having the largest increase since fiscal

year 1990, about 12 percent, and the Marine Corps having the smallest,

about 3 percent. The Navy’s personnel costs, at about $13,900 per

servicemember, are projected to be about 35 percent more than the Air

Force’s, which is next highest, about 54 percent more than the Army’s, and

about 56 percent more than the Marine Corps’. Army budget officials

stated that different decisions have been made for each category based on

the number of its population, criticality of the population to the mission,

and availability of funds. Additionally, each category has its own set of

“cost drivers.” One major reason for the overall increase is separation

benefits, which did not exist in fiscal year 1990 but represent over

2 percent of the fiscal year 1997 budget. Air Force budget officials

explained that fluctuations in military personnel costs are expected due to

officer/enlisted mix changes, grade structure changes, and changes in

training requirements driven by weapon system and support changes.

According to Navy officials, the Naval Reserve is a more senior force than

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

the Army and the Marine Corps Reserves, and there is a large disparity

with the Air Force in terms of full-time support personnel levels and

funding. Consequently, the Naval Reserve has a higher overall cost.

Per Person Costs for

Basic Pay and

Allowances Differ

Basic pay and four allowances imbedded within reserve and National

Guard budget categories comprise about 82 percent of the National

Guard’s military personnel budget and about 80 percent of the reserve’s

budget. The National Guard’s and the reserve’s costs for basic pay, retired

pay accrual, basic allowances for quarters, variable housing allowance,

travel, and other costs for fiscal years 1990 and 1997 are shown in tables 6

and 7.

Table 6: Per Person National Guard

Personnel Costs by Service and

Budget Category

Budget category Fiscal year

Army

National

Guard

Air

National

Guard

Basic pay 1990 $5,244 $6,620

1997 5,105 7,098

Retired pay accrual 1990 1,158 1,456

1997 919 1,274

Basic allowances for quarters 1990 646 727

1997 584 857

Variable housing allowance 1990 74 112

1997 92 175

Travel 1990 393 563

1997 209 488

Other 1990 1,307 1,557

1997 1,574 1,783

Total 1990 $8,822 $11,035

1997 $8,483 $11,675

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: Our analysis based on services’ budget estimates.

Table 6 shows the following for each category.

• Basic pay. The Army’s costs per person are projected to decrease by about

3 percent, while Air Force costs are projected to increase by 7 percent.

The Air Force’s estimate is about 39 percent higher than the Army’s for

fiscal year 1997, compared to 26 percent higher in fiscal year 1990.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

According to Air Force budget officials, a 1,500-person increase in the

number of full-time personnel since fiscal year 1990 accounts for the cost

increase.

• Retired pay accrual. The Army estimates a decrease of about 21 percent

from fiscal years 1990 to 1997, and the Air Force estimates a decrease of

about 13 percent. The Air Force’s costs were about 26 percent higher than

the Army’s in fiscal year 1990, and they are projected to be about

39 percent higher for fiscal year 1997. Air Force budget officials said that

the cost increase stems from the increased number of full-time personnel.

• Basic allowances for quarters. The Army projects a 10-percent decrease

for fiscal year 1997, but the Air Force projects an 18-percent increase. The

Air Force’s estimate is about 47 percent higher than the Army’s for fiscal

year 1997. Air Force budget officials stated that increased costs are related

to an increase in full-time Air National Guard personnel as a percentage of

the total force.

• Variable housing allowance. Both services project increases for fiscal year

1997, the Army by 23 percent and the Air Force by 56 percent. The Air

Force’s estimate for fiscal year 1997 is 90 percent higher than the Army’s,

compared to fiscal year 1990 when the Air Force’s costs were 51 percent

higher. Army budget officials stated that the proportion of officers to

enlisted personnel entitled to the allowance has increased, as well as the

average grade of the officers, thereby resulting in increased costs. Air

Force budget officials stated that increased costs are related to an

increase in Air National Guard full-time personnel as a percentage of the

total force.

• Travel. Both services project decreases for fiscal year 1997, the Army by

47 percent and the Air Force by 13 percent. The Air Force’s estimated

costs per person are over twice the Army’s. Army budget officials stated

that costs are projected to decrease as a result of congressional intent, DOD

directive, and the force reduction. According to Air Force budget officials,

travel costs are related to training requirements and pilot training and

exercises require travel costs.

• Other. Remaining costs are projected to increase by about 21 percent for

the Army and about 15 percent for the Air Force.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

Table 7: Per Person Reserve Personnel Costs by Service and Budget Category

Budget category Fiscal year Army Air Force Navy Marine Corps

Basic pay 1990 $4,880 $5,754 $6,779 $4,923

1997 5,238 5,946 7,528 5,281

Retired pay accrual 1990 1,014 848 1,846 1,002

1997 874 639 1,621 849

Basic allowances for quarters 1990 403 370 735 464

1997 366 485 909 564

Variable housing allowance 1990 61 12 216 105

1997 78 20 266 94

Travel 1990 641 1,093 1,107 707

1997 434 1,285 1,200 595

Other 1990 1,501 1,501 1,727 1,461

1997 2,039 1,911 2,360 1,506

Total 1990 $8,499 $9,578 $12,409 $8,664

1997 $9,030 $10,285 $13,884 $8,887

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: Our analysis based on services’ budget estimates.

Table 7 shows the following for each category.

• Basic pay. Projected increases per person range from 3 percent for the Air

Force to 11 percent for the Navy. The Navy’s estimate is about

(1) 27 percent more than the Air Force’s, which is next highest;

(2) 43 percent higher than the Marine Corps’; and (3) about 44 percent

higher than the Army’s, which is projected to have the lowest. The Navy

also had the highest cost in fiscal year 1990. Navy budget officials

explained that the difference in per person costs among the services is due

to their respective grade mixes and numbers and types of full-time support

personnel. Specifically, the Naval Reserve is predominantly grade E-5 and

above, and full-time support personnel, in particular, are above E-4 and

O-3. Civilian support is minimal in the Naval Reserve but is prevalent in

the Air Force Reserve as full-time technicians (who are also reservists).

Such civilian support is funded from operation and maintenance accounts

rather than military personnel accounts. Consequently, cost comparisons

among the services are rendered difficult because the personnel

requirements and sources are so different.

• Retired pay accrual. The services’ estimated decreases range from

12 percent for the Navy to 25 percent for the Air Force. The Navy’s per

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

person costs are projected to be 85 percent higher than the Army’s,

91 percent higher than the Marine Corps’, and about 154 percent higher

than the Air Force’s. The Navy also had the highest cost in fiscal year 1990.

Navy budget officials stated that the Naval Reserve has large numbers of

higher-graded career personnel who require larger retired pay accruals

than do the more junior personnel in the Army and the Marine Corps. Also,

many full-time support personnel in the Air Force are civilian; thus, they

are not paid through the military personnel account and do not require the

accrual.

• Basic allowances for quarters. Only the Army estimates a decrease

(9 percent). The other services project increases of 22 to 31 percent. The

Navy is projected to have the highest per person cost in fiscal year 1997,

which is 61 to 148 percent higher than the other services’ estimates. The

Navy also had the highest cost in fiscal year 1990. Air Force budget

officials stated that the percentage of personnel in different training

categories and the officer/enlisted grade mix and grade structure affect

costs. Further, the Air Force may have a higher percentage of officers as

well as a higher grade structure compared to the other services. Marine

Corps budget officials stated that costs have been affected by an increased

number of active reserves, the grade structure, and pay increases.

• Variable housing allowance. The Marine Corps is projected to have about

an 11-percent decrease between fiscal years 1990 and 1997, but the other

services project increases of 23 percent for the Navy, 28 percent for the

Army, and 71 percent for the Air Force. Although the Air Force is

estimated to have the largest percentage increase, it has the least cost per

person of the four services. Specifically, the Navy’s costs are projected to

be 13 times higher than the Air Force’s, over 3 times higher than the

Army’s, and over twice as high as the Marine Corps’. Army budget officials

stated that the number of personnel qualified to receive the allowance has

increased. Air Force officials stated that total variable housing costs are

relatively low ($1 million in fiscal year 1990 and $1.5 million projected for

fiscal year 1997) and that small dollar changes can reflect large percentage

changes. According to Navy officials, the Naval Reserve’s costs are

attributable to rate increases and a more senior force, particularly full-time

support personnel. They added that Army and Marine Corps support

personnel are more junior and more likely to have government quarters

available and that many Air Force support personnel are civilian.

• Travel. The Air Force and the Navy are projected to have higher costs in

fiscal year 1997. The Air Force, with about an 8-percent increase, and the

Navy, with an 8-percent increase, are estimated to have twice the cost of

the next highest—the Marine Corps—and almost three times the cost of

the Army. The Army’s and the Marine Corps’ budgets project decreases of

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

32 and 16 percent, respectively. Air Force officials stated that changes in

travel costs are most likely due to a change in the location for school and

special training. The Navy is projecting an increase because of a growing

role in contributory support to the active component. According to the

budget officials, as the reserve with its more senior force has increasingly

participated in exercises, contingencies, and contributory support, travel

outside the continental United States has risen proportionally. Such travel

increased over threefold between fiscal years 1993 and 1996. Also, active

naval units worldwide have reserve personnel on annual training and

special training throughout the year. Consequently, Naval Reserve costs

are two to three times higher than the other services.

• Other. Remaining personnel costs are projected to increase. The Army’s,

the Air Force’s, and the Navy’s costs are projected to rise between 27 and

37 percent, but the Marine Corps’ increase is slight.

Some Components’

Budget Categories Are

Disproportionate With

Personnel Levels

In a number of categories, the services’ budgets do not reflect their

respective shares of personnel levels. For example, the Naval Reserve has

45 percent of the $1.7 billion estimated fiscal year 1997 budget for

administration and support, but its share of the personnel level is under

23 percent. However, the Navy plans to allocate only 37 percent of its

budget to unit and individual training, while the other services plan to

allocate between 50 and 60 percent of their budgets for training. In

contrast, the Air Force’s budget comprises less than 4 percent, and the

Marine Corps budgets less than 7 percent, of the total administration and

support budget.

The Air Force Reserve, with 17 percent of the reserve personnel, projects

that it will spend 59 percent of the $206 million special training category in

fiscal year 1997. Special training includes activities such as command and

staff supervision, competitive events, exercises, management support,

operational training, and service and mission support. Similarly, the Air

National Guard projects a 77-percent share of the $83 million special

training category in fiscal year 1997, although the Army National Guard

has 77 percent of the personnel level. And, the Army National Guard

projects over a 90-percent share of the $43 million education benefits

category.

There are also differences among the services in the pay, allowances, and

travel categories. With about 23 percent of the fiscal year 1997 reserve

personnel level, the Naval Reserve has an estimated 54-percent share of

the variable housing budget, about a 35-percent share of the travel budget,

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

a 39-percent share of the basic allowances for quarters, a 37-percent share

of the retired pay accrual, and a 29-percent share of basic pay.

The Air National Guard has a disproportionate share of the total National

Guard budget for pay, allowances, and travel projected for fiscal year

1997. With 23 percent of the personnel level, the Air National Guard

comprises about 41 percent of the travel category, about 36 percent of the

variable housing allowance, 30 percent of basic allowances for quarters,

and about 29 percent of basic pay and retired pay accrual.

Agency Comments We have incorporated informal comments on a draft of this report from

DOD, National Guard, and reserve officials, where appropriate.

Scope and

Methodology

To identify budget trends and differences in costs among the services, we

analyzed each service’s annual military personnel budget estimate

submission to the Congress. For fiscal years 1990 through 1995, we used

actual costs. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, we used estimated costs. We

adjusted the nominal dollars to constant fiscal year 1996 dollars using 1996

DOD inflation factors for military personnel costs. We did not analyze or

verify the services’ assumptions supporting the estimates, nor did we

verify the accuracy of the data presented in their budget estimate

submissions. We asked National Guard and reserve officials to explain

some of the trends and differences among the services and incorporated

the explanations that we considered relevant. We did not verify the

services’ explanations. We conducted our work from October 1995 to

July 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

We are providing copies of this report to appropriate congressional

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and the

Navy; the National Guard Directors; the Reserve Chiefs; and the Director,

Office of Management and Budget. We will also provide copies to other

interested parties upon request.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
B-274130 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on

(202) 512-3504. Major contributors to this report were Robert Pelletier and

Richard McGeary.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Davis

Director, National Security

 Analysis

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Reserve Component

Military Personnel

Budget Categories

34

Appendix II 

Services’ Share of

National Guard

Personnel Budget,

Fiscal Years 1990-97

38

Appendix III 

Services’ Share of

Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years

1990-97

42

Tables Table 1: Personnel Levels for DOD’s Reserve Components 2

Table 2: Personnel Budgets for Guard and Reserve 3

Table 3: Per Person Costs by Component 16

Table 4: Per Person National Guard Personnel Costs by Service

and Budget Category

17

Table 5: Per Person Reserve Personnel Costs by Service and

Budget Category

20

Table 6: Per Person National Guard Personnel Costs by Service

and Budget Category

25

Table 7: Per Person Reserve Personnel Costs by Service and

Budget Category

27

Figures Figure 1: Decline of National Guard Personnel Budgets and

Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

5

Figure 2: Decline of Reserve Military Personnel Budgets and

Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

6

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Contents

Figure 3: Reductions in National Guard Personnel Budgets and

Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

7

Figure 4: Reductions in Reserve Military Personnel Budgets and

Personnel Levels Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1997

8

Figure 5: Allocation of Fiscal Year 1997 Military Personnel Budget

for National Guard and Reserve

10

Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal Year 1997 Reserve and National

Guard Budgets Related to Basic Pay, Retired Pay Accrual, Basic

Allowances for Quarters, Travel, and Other

11

Figure 7: Trend in National Guard Total and Per Person Budgets 12

Figure 8: Trend in National Guard Per Person Budget, by Service 13

Figure 9: Trend in Reserve Total and Per Person Budgets 14

Figure 10: Trend in Reserve Per Person Budget, by Service 15

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

ROTC Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix I 

Reserve Component Military Personnel

Budget Categories

The following budget categories apply to all services, except where

parentheses specify the applicable services. National Guard budget

categories are similar to the Army and the Air Force Reserve budget

categories, but exclude Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), Junior

ROTC, Health Professions Scholarship Program, Chaplain Candidates, and

Branch Officers Basic Course.

Unit and individual training

• Pay group A (assigned to reserve unit for annual training and inactive duty

training)

• active duty training/annual training

• inactive duty training

• subsistence

• clothing

• travel

• Pay group F (initial active duty training for non-prior service enlistees)

• pay and allowances/active duty training

• clothing

• subsistence

• travel

• Pay group P (inactive duty for training while awaiting initial active duty for

training) (Army, Navy, and Marine Corps)

• inactive duty training

• clothing (Marine Corps)

• subsistence

• Pay group B (inactive duty training and annual training for individual

mobilization augmentees)

• annual training/active duty training

• inactive duty training (Army and Air Force)

• subsistence

• clothing (Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps)

• travel

Administration and support

• Active duty pay and allowances

• Subsistence (Army and Navy)

• Individual uniform gratuities/clothing (Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps)

• Continental United States cost-of-living allowance (Army and Navy)

• Travel

• Child adoption expenses (Army and Navy)

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix I 

Reserve Component Military Personnel

Budget Categories

• Separation/transition benefits

• Death gratuities

• Disability/hospitalization

• Reserve incentives

• Health profession stipend (Air Force)

• Naval ROTC nuclear bonus (Navy)

• Active duty for special work (Navy)

Education benefits

• Amortization payment/benefits accrual

• Officer/enlisted (Army)

• Reenlistment (Army)

Senior ROTC (Army, Navy, and Air Force)

• Nonscholarship program

• subsistence

• travel

• uniforms issue-in-kind

• uniforms (commutation)

• summer camp training (pay and allowances)

• Scholarship program

• subsistence

• travel

• uniforms issue-in-kind

• uniforms/commutation

• summer camp training/pay and allowances

Platoon leaders class (Marine Corps)

• Uniforms issue-in-kind

• Summer camp training

• Subsistence allowance, subsidy

• Subsistence of enlisted personnel

• Travel

Other training and support

• Mobilization training

• operational training/readiness training (Army and Air Force)

• exercises (Army)

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix I 

Reserve Component Military Personnel

Budget Categories

• service mission/mission support (Army and Air Force)

• career development/career enhancement (Army and Air Force)

• management support (Army)

• individual ready reserve screening/muster/training (Army, Navy, and Air

Force)

• competitive events (Army)

• health profession training (Air Force)

• annual training/active duty training (Navy and Marine Corps)

• clothing (Navy)

• subsistence of enlisted personnel (Navy and Marine Corps)

• travel (Navy and Marine Corps)

• merchant marine training (Navy)

• School training

• career development

• initial skill acquisition

• officer candidate school/officer training school (Army and Air Force)

• prior service training (Army)

• refresher/proficiency

• undergraduate pilot/navigator (Army and Air Force)

• recruiter (Air Force)

• unit conversion (Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps)

• continuing medical education (Navy)

• individual ready reserve training (Marine Corps)

• Special training

• command/staff support or supervision (Army, Air Force, and Marine

Corps)

• competitive events

• exercises

• management support

• operational training

• recruiting

• service mission/mission support

• retention

• environmental compliance (Army)

• unit conversion (Navy and Air Force)

• drug interdiction activity (Air Force)

• conferences and visits (Navy)

• additional/extended active duty training (Navy)

• Branch officers basic course (Army)

• active duty training

• uniform allowance

• travel

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix I 

Reserve Component Military Personnel

Budget Categories

• Health professions scholarship program (Army, Navy, and Air Force)

• pay and allowances/active duty training

• initial clothing allowance/uniform allowance

• additional clothing allowance

• stipend

• travel

• financial assistance program pay and allowances

• financial assistance program stipend

• financial assistance program travel

• nurse candidate bonus (Navy)

• Junior ROTC

• uniforms, issue-in-kind

• subsistence (Army)

• transportation/billeting, travel (Army and Air Force)

• Chaplain candidate program (Army)

• pay and allowances

• uniform allowance

• travel

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix II 

Services’ Share of National Guard Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1990 1991 1992 1993

Fiscal year

Dollars and personnel in millions and shares in percent

Budget Category Service Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount

Unit/individual training Army 76.5 $2,129 75.4 $1,886 75.1 $1,924 74.1 $1,780

Air Force 23.5 654 24.6 617 24.9 639 25.9 624

Total 100.0 $2,783 100.0 $2,503 100.0 $2,563 100.0 $2,403

Administration and

support Army 76.2 $1,418 75.0 $1,366 75.1 $1,425 74.7 $1,395

Air Force 23.8 442 25.0 455 24.9 472 25.3 473

Total 100.0 $1,860 100.0 $1,821 100.0 $1,896 100.0 $1,869

Education benefits Army 70.7 $34 74.9 $36 0.0 $0 0.0 $0

Air Force 29.3 14 25.1 12 100.0 7 100.0 2

Total 100.0 $48 100.0 $48 100.0 $7 100.0 $2

School training Army 73.5 $225 72.6 $243 67.9 $229 71.3 $208

Air Force 26.5 81 27.4 92 32.1 108 28.7 84

Total 100.0 $307 100.0 $335 100.0 $337 100.0 $292

Special training Army 65.1 $178 72.0 $250 70.0 $233 66.4 $243

Air Force 34.9 95 28.0 97 30.0 100 33.6 123

Total 100.0 $273 100.0 $348 100.0 $333 100.0 $365

Total direct program $5,272 $5,054 $5,137 $4,932

Reimbursable costs Army 67.9 $7 55.3 $7 61.3 $6 60.0 $6

Air Force 32.1 3 44.7 5 38.7 4 40.0 4

Total 100.0 $10 100.0 $12 100.0 $10 100.0 $10

Total obligations Army 75.6 $3,992 74.8 $3,788 74.2 $3,817 73.5 $3,633

Air Force 24.4 1,290 25.2 1,278 25.8 1,330 26.5 1,309

Total 100.0 $5,282 100.0 $5,066 100.0 $5,147 100.0 $4,942

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix II 

Services’ Share of National Guard Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1994 1995 1996 1997 1990-97

Fiscal year

t Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Change Percent

0 74.5 $1,815 74.3 $1,741 74.1 $1,682 74.4 $1,655 ($475) –22.3

4 25.5 621 25.7 601 25.9 589 25.6 570 (84) –12.8

3 100.0 $2,436 100.0 $2,343 100.0 $2,270 100.0 $2,225 ($558) –20.1

5 73.9 $1,423 73.3 $1,413 72.6 $1,379 72.3 $1,390 ($28) –2.0

3 26.1 502 26.7 515 27.4 520 27.7 532 89 20.2

9 100.0 $1,925 100.0 $1,927 100.0 $1,899 100.0 $1,921 $61 3.3

0 92.0 $13 90.4 $16 89.3 $33 91.2 $39 $5 15.6

2 8.0 1 9.6 2 10.7 4 8.8 4 (10) –73.2

2 100.0 $14 100.0 $18 100.0 $37 100.0 $43 ($5) –10.4

8 68.5 $179 66.4 $168 59.7 $118 37.3 $47 ($178) –79.1

4 31.5 82 33.6 85 40.3 80 62.7 79 (2) –2.6

2 100.0 $261 100.0 $253 100.0 $197 100.0 $126 ($180) –58.8

3 64.3 $193 65.1 $195 32.0 $32 23.2 $19 ($159) –89.2

3 35.7 107 34.9 104 68.0 68 76.8 63 (32) –33.4

5 100.0 $300 100.0 $299 100.0 $99 100.0 $83 ($191) –69.8

2 $4,936 $4,839 $4,502 $4,398 ($874) –16.6

6 46.7 $6 41.3 $6 30.0 $6 18.2 $6 ($1) –19.7

4 53.3 7 58.7 8 70.0 13 81.8 25 22 661.6

0 100.0 $13 100.0 $14 100.0 $19 100.0 $30 $20 199.3

3 73.3 $3,629 72.9 $3,539 71.8 $3,248 71.3 $3,156 ($836) –20.9

9 26.7 1,320 27.1 1,315 28.2 1,273 28.7 1,273 (17) –1.4

2 100.0 $4,949 100.0 $4,853 100.0 $4,521 100.0 $4,428 ($853) –16.2

Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix II 

Services’ Share of National Guard Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1990 1991 1992 1993

Fiscal year

Dollars and personnel in millions and shares in percent

Personnel level Service Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel

End strength Army 78.9 0.4370 79.0 0.4413 78.1 0.4258 77.8 0.4099

Air Force 21.1 0.1170 21.0 0.1176 21.9 0.1191 22.2 0.1172

Total 100.0 0.5540 100.0 0.5589 100.0 0.5449 100.0 0.5271

Average strength Army 79.5 0.4525 79.1 0.4440 78.7 0.4373 77.7 0.4116

Air 20.5 0.1169 20.9 0.1170 21.3 0.1182 22.3 0.1179

Total 100.0 0.5694 100.0 0.5610 100.0 0.5555 100.0 0.5295

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix II 

Services’ Share of National Guard Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1994 1995 1996 1997 1990-97

Fiscal year

l Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel Change Percent

9 77.7 0.3969 77.3 0.3749 76.8 0.3730 77.3 0.3668 (0.0702) –16.1

2 22.3 0.1136 22.7 0.1098 23.2 0.1127 22.7 0.1080 (0.0090) –7.7

100.0 0.5105 100.0 0.4847 100.0 0.4857 100.0 0.4748 (0.0792) –14.3

6 77.9 0.4040 77.6 0.3851 77.2 0.3741 77.3 0.3720 (0.0805) –17.8

9 22.1 0.1149 22.4 0.1114 22.8 0.1104 22.7 0.1090 (0.0079) –6.8

5 100.0 0.5189 100.0 0.4965 100.0 0.4845 100.0 0.4810 (0.0884) –15.5

Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1990 1991 1992 1993

Fiscal year

Dollars and personnel in millions and shares in percent

Budget Category Service Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount

Unit/individual training Army 47.2 $1,406 47.4 $1,222 48.0 $1,364 47.7 $1,259

Navy 27.6 822 29.2 753 26.8 763 26.5 700

Air Force 17.3 515 16.6 428 17.4 495 17.9 474

Marines 7.9 234 6.8 175 7.8 222 7.8 206

Total 100.0 $2,977 100.0 $2,578 100.0 $2,843 100.0 $2,639

Administration and Army 41.2 $777 40.4 $781 39.7 $795 40.3 $760

support Navy 50.9 960 51.2 991 52.1 1,042 51.2 966

Air Force 2.7 52 2.9 56 2.9 57 2.9 55

Marines 5.2 98 5.5 107 5.4 108 5.5 105

Total 100.0 $1,887 100.0 $1,935 100.0 $2,002 100.0 $1,886

Education benefits Army 47.8 $26 48.2 $22 66.8 $29 47.3 $15

Navy 19.1 11 10.3 5 9.7 4 16.3 5

Air Force 21.5 12 24.2 11 3.1 1 4.1 1

Marines 11.6 6 17.3 8 20.4 9 32.3 10

Total 100.0 $55 100.0 $45 100.0 $44 100.0 $32

Senior ROTC/Platoon

leader

Army

54.6 $54 53.6 $41 53.3 $37 53.7 $35

Navy 20.6 20 23.3 18 21.6 15 19.4 13

Air Force 18.8 19 17.6 14 17.7 12 18.7 12

Marines 6.0 6 5.6 4 7.4 5 8.1 5

Total 100.0 $98 100.0 $77 100.0 $70 100.0 $65

Mobilization training Army 76.8 $44 80.2 $46 63.7 $28 58.3 $23

Navy 12.6 7 14.3 8 19.4 9 19.3 8

Air Force 3.8 2 0.6 0 3.3 1 9.6 4

Marines 6.8 4 4.9 3 13.6 6 12.8 5

Total 100.0 $57 100.0 $57 100.0 $45 100.0 $40

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1994 1995 1996 1997 1990-97

Fiscal year

t Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Change Percent

9 46.6 $1,179 48.0 $1,108 47.2 $1,066 46.4 $1,007 ($398) –28.3

0 26.1 661 22.7 523 23.1 522 23.1 503 (319) –38.8

4 19.3 487 20.7 477 20.6 465 20.6 449 (67) –12.9

6 7.9 201 8.6 198 9.2 207 9.9 215 (19) –8.2

9 100.0 $2,528 100.0 $2,307 100.0 $2,259 100.0 $2,173 ($803) –27.0

0 42.5 $797 44.5 $795 45.9 $801 44.1 $745 ($32) –4.2

6 49.0 919 46.3 829 44.3 774 45.2 764 (196) –20.4

5 3.0 56 3.2 58 3.5 61 3.8 64 13 24.5

5 5.5 104 5.9 106 6.3 111 6.8 115 17 17.3

6 100.0 $1,875 100.0 $1,788 100.0 $1,748 100.0 $1,688 ($199) –10.5

5 44.2 $11 55.7 $20 57.5 $28 54.3 $25 ($1) –4.2

5 18.6 5 13.2 5 11.8 6 14.8 7 (4) –34.4

12.6 3 7.2 3 10.2 5 9.8 5 (7) –61.5

0 24.7 6 23.9 9 20.5 10 21.1 10 3 53.1

2 100.0 $24 100.0 $36 100.0 $48 100.0 $47 ($9) –15.6

5 56.1 $35 52.9 $36 54.1 $43 55.6 $46 ($7) –13.3

3 16.7 11 14.0 10 15.6 12 14.4 12 (8) –40.4

2 20.2 13 26.2 18 24.5 19 24.1 20 2 8.7

5 7.0 4 6.8 5 5.8 5 5.8 5 (1) –18.0

5 100.0 $63 100.0 $68 100.0 $79 100.0 $83 ($15) –15.0

3 68.6 $25 78.5 $29 54.4 $9 49.1 $8 ($36) –82.0

8 12.9 5 7.3 3 16.3 3 15.2 2 (5) –66.0

4 6.0 2 7.5 3 12.5 2 19.4 3 1 42.8

5 12.6 5 6.7 2 16.9 3 16.4 3 (1) –32.2

0 100.0 $37 100.0 $37 100.0 $16 100.0 $16 ($41) –71.8

(continued)

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1990 1991 1992 1993

Fiscal year

Dollars and personnel in millions and shares in percent

Budget Category Service Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount

School training Army 62.2 $127 65.0 $137 56.6 $114 54.6 $94

Navy 6.5 13 6.5 14 6.2 13 6.3 11

Air Force 26.7 54 24.7 52 32.5 66 33.8 58

Marines 4.7 10 3.8 8 4.6 9 5.3 9

Total 100.0 $204 100.0 $211 100.0 $202 100.0 $172

Special training Army 39.2 $123 46.8 $157 37.8 $139 30 $90

Navy 15.1 48 14.3 48 13.3 49 17.3 52

Air Force 38.9 123 31.7 107 41.6 153 45.0 135

Marines 6.8 21 7.2 24 7.3 27 7.7 23

Total 100.0 $315 100.0 $336 100.0 $368 100.0 $299

Junior ROTC Army 40.6 $7 43.0 $8 47.7 $12 35.0 $13

Navy 24.1 4 22.8 4 21.3 5 30.5 12

Air Force 26.3 4 24.1 4 23.6 6 26.3 10

Marines 9.0 1 10.1 2 7.4 2 8.1 3

Total 100.0 $16 100.0 $18 100. $24 100.0 $38

Health professions

scholarship program Army 35.7 $20 37.9 $24 35.3 $22 30.9 $18

Navy 29.3 17 29.9 19 32.7 20 31.9 19

Air Force 35.0 20 32.2 20 32.0 20 37.2 22

Total 100.0 $57 100.0 $62 100.0 $62 100.0 $60

Branch officers basic

course Army 100.0 $74 100.0 $83 100.0 $59 100.0 $42

Chaplain candidates Army 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2

Total direct program $5,742 $5,405 $5,722 $5,275

Reimbursable costs Army 70.6 $7 66.3 $6 69.9 $7 66.7 $7

Navy 2.4 0 6.3 1 7.2 1 3.2 0

Air Force 18.8 2 18.8 2 14.5 1 22.6 2

Marines 8.2 1 8.8 1 8.4 1 7.5 1

Total 100.0 $10 100.0 $9 100.0 $9 100.0 $10

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1994 1995 1996 1997 1990-97

Fiscal year

t Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Change Percent

4 42.0 $65 45.8 $71 51.6 $86 47.5 $65 ($61) –48.5

4.7 7 4.3 7 3.8 6 4.2 6 (7) –55.8

8 48.0 74 42.9 66 37.7 63 43.9 60 6 10.9

9 5.3 8 7.0 11 7.0 12 4.4 6 (4) –37.0

2 100.0 $155 100.0 $155 100.0 $167 100.0 $137 ($66) –32.6

0 25.1 $77 35.8 $115 21.4 $51 23.7 $49 ($75) –60.4

2 12.8 39 12.4 40 10.3 25 10.6 22 (26) –54.1

5 51.9 158 43.6 140 57.3 136 58.8 121 (2) –1.5

3 10.1 31 8.3 27 10.9 26 6.8 14 (7) –33.8

9 100.0 $305 100.0 $321 100.0 $238 100.0 $206 ($109) –34.7

3 47.3 $18 42.1 $17 32.6 $13 37.7 $14 $8 118.7

2 20.1 8 30.6 13 27.7 11 25.9 10 6 153.5

0 25.3 10 19.0 8 27.2 11 28.5 11 7 154.7

3 7.3 3 8.3 3 12.6 5 7.9 3 2 107.5

8 100.0 $39 100.0 $41 100.0 $41 100.0 $38 $22 135.5

8 29.7 $18 29.4 $18 28.9 $18 29.3 $18 ($3) –13.0

9 32.9 20 34.9 21 34.8 21 35.4 21 5 28.1

2 37.5 22 35.6 22 36.3 22 35.3 21 1 6.6

0 100.0 $60 100.0 $61 100.0 $62 100.0 $60 $3 5.9

2 100.0 $31 100.0 $18 100.0 $6 100.0 $5 ($69) –93.1

2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 $0 20.5

5 $5,118 $4,833 $4,665 $4,456 ($1,285) –22.4

7 31.1 $5 32.6 $5 38.2 $3 35.5 $4 ($3) –47.8

0 55.4 9 58.3 9 47.2 4 51.8 6 5 2189.3

2 8.8 1 5.6 1 9.0 1 8.2 1 (1) –54.8

4.7 1 3.5 1 5.6 1 4.5 0 0 –42.6

0 100.0 $16 100.0 $15 100.0 $9 100.0 $11 $0 4.0

(continued)

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1990 1991 1992 1993

Fiscal year

Dollars and personnel in millions and shares in percent

Budget Category Service Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount

 Total obligations Army 46.4 $2,667 46.7 $2,529 45.5 $2,609 44.6 $2,359

Navy 33.1 1,901 34.4 1,860 33.5 1,921 33.8 1,785

Air Force 14.0 803 12.8 694 14.2 813 14.6 773

Marines 6.6 381 6.1 332 6.8 389 7.0 368

Total 100.0 $5,752 100.0 $5,414 100.0 $5,731 100.0 $5,285

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1994 1995 1996 1997 1990-97

Fiscal year

t Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Change Percent

9 44.1 $2,262 46.1 $2,234 45.5 $2,126 44.5 $1,989 ($678) –25.4

5 32.8 1,682 30.1 1,458 29.6 1,384 30.3 1,352 (549) –28.9

3 16.1 827 16.4 795 16.8 785 16.9 755 (48) –5.9

8 7.1 362 7.5 361 8.1 379 8.3 371 (11) –2.8

5 100.0 $5,133 100.0 $4,848 100.0 $4,674 100.0 $4,467 ($1,285) –22.3

Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1990 1991 1992 1993

Fiscal year

Dollars and personnel in millions and shares in percent

Personnel level Service Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel

End strength Army 52.1 0.2991 51.8 0.2999 53.2 0.3027 52.0 0.2759

Navy 26.0 0.1494 26.0 0.1505 25.0 0.1423 25.0 0.1324

Air Force 14.1 0.0806 14.6 0.0843 14.4 0.0819 15.2 0.0806

Marines 7.8 0.0445 7.6 0.0440 7.4 0.0422 7.9 0.0417

Total 100.0 0.5736 100.0 0.5787 100.0 0.5691 100.0 0.5306

Average strength Army 52.8 0.3138 53.1 0.3071 52.3 0.3066 52.9 0.2862

Navy 25.8 0.1532 26.7 0.1545 26.3 0.1453 24.8 0.1340

Air Force 14.1 0.0838 12.4 0.0719 14.0 0.0820 14.6 0.0792

Marines 7.4 0.0440 7.8 0.0452 7.4 0.0434 7.7 0.0416

Total 100.0 0.5948 100.0 0.5787 100.0 0.5773 100.0 0.5410

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Appendix III 

Services’ Share of Reserve Personnel

Budget, Fiscal Years 1990-97

1994 1995 1996 1997 1990-97

Fiscal year

l Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel Share Personnel Change Percent

9 53.3 0.2599 52.3 0.2413 51.7 0.2300 50.4 0.2150 (0.0841) –28.1

4 22.1 0.1076 21.8 0.1006 22.2 0.0989 22.5 0.0959 (0.0535) –35.8

6 16.3 0.0796 17.0 0.0783 16.6 0.0740 17.2 0.0733 (0.0073) –9.1

7 8.3 0.0407 8.9 0.0409 9.5 0.0423 9.9 0.0420 (0.0025) –5.6

6 100.0 0.4878 100.0 0.4611 100.0 0.4452 100.0 0.4262 (0.1474) –25.7

2 52.2 0.2619 52.8 0.2481 51.8 0.2331 50.9 0.2203 (0.0935) –29.8

0 24.1 0.1206 21.7 0.1022 22.2 0.0997 22.5 0.0974 (0.0558) –36.4

2 15.5 0.0779 16.9 0.0777 16.9 0.0759 17.0 0.0734 (0.0104) –12.4

6 8.2 0.0409 8.6 0.0402 9.2 0.0412 9.6 0.0417 (0.0023) –5.2

0 100.0 0.5013 100.0 0.4682 100.0 0.4499 100.0 0.4328 (0.1620) –27.2

Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.

(701097) Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-96-226 Defense Budget
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. 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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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.

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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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. G100