DEFENSE 

HEADQUARTERS

Guidance Needed to 

Transition U.S. 

Central Command’s 

Costs to the Base 

Budget

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2014

GAO-14-440

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-440, a report to 

congressional committees

June 2014

DEFENSE HEADQUARTERS

Guidance Needed to Transition U.S. Central 

Command’s Costs to the Base Budget

Why GAO Did This Study

CENTCOM is one of six geographic 

combatant commands that DOD 

operates to perform its military 

missions. CENTCOM’s geographic 

region is composed of countries 

located in the Middle East, North 

Africa, and Central and South Asia. 

CENTCOM and each of its service 

component commands’ headquarters 

are composed of military and civilian 

personnel and receive millions of 

dollars in funding each year to 

accomplish assigned missions. GAO 

was mandated to review CENTCOM’s 

resources.

This report (1) identifies trends in 

personnel devoted to CENTCOM and

its service component commands

since fiscal year 2001 and any steps 

DOD is planning to take for reducing 

personnel in the future, and (2) 

assesses how DOD funds CENTCOM 

and its service component commands’ 

headquarters costs. GAO analyzed 

data on authorized positions, 

temporary personnel, and 

headquarters costs for CENTCOM and

its service component commands from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2013. GAO 

also interviewed DOD officials about

commands’ resources and plans for 

funding headquarters costs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop 

guidance for transitioning costs funded 

by overseas contingency operations

appropriations to DOD’s base budget.

DOD partially agreed stating that the 

transition’s time frame depends on 

enduring missions and the criteria for 

future budgets. GAO continues to 

believe the recommendation is valid, 

as discussed in the report.

What GAO Found

GAO analysis of U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) and its service 

component commands’ data shows considerable increases in the number of 

authorized positions over the past decade. The Department of Defense (DOD) is 

planning reductions, but the extent of these reductions has not been finalized. 

The number of authorized military and civilian positions at CENTCOM grew

about 70 percent from almost 1,590 in fiscal year 2001 to almost 2,730 in fiscal 

year 2013, primarily driven by increases in the number of positions within 

CENTCOM’s intelligence directorate and its theater special operations command.

However, focusing solely on trends in authorized military and civilian positions

provides an incomplete picture of the personnel dedicated to CENTCOM 

because the command relies heavily on temporary personnel and contractors to 

augment its headquarters. GAO analysis of CENTCOM’s data found that the 

command headquarters had about 550 temporary personnel, who officials stated 

are primarily responsible for supporting the command’s operations in Afghanistan

and do not fill any permanent authorized positions, and 1,100 contractor 

personnel in fiscal year 2013. Additionally, GAO found that authorized military 

and civilian positions at CENTCOM’s Army and Marine Corps service component 

commands had also increased. In response to the Secretary of Defense’s 

direction to reduce headquarters spending, DOD is planning to decrease

personnel at CENTCOM and its service component command headquarters. For 

example, CENTCOM is planning to reduce its total authorized positions by 353

positions from fiscal years 2015 through 2019.

As DOD’s headquarters reduction efforts continue and contingency operations in 

Afghanistan wind down, the department has recognized that CENTCOM and its 

service components’ have enduring headquarters costs that are expected to 

continue after ongoing operations end, but the majority of the costs to operate 

and support CENTCOM, two of its service component commands, and its theater 

special operations command headquarters are funded with overseas contingency 

operations appropriations. For example, CENTCOM’s Marine Corps service 

component command funded $34 million out of a total of $42 million in 

headquarters costs in fiscal year 2013 with overseas contingency operations 

appropriations. CENTCOM and its components have determined some of these 

costs are enduring and expected to continue after the end of contingency 

operations, such as for Isa Air Base in Bahrain, but the military services have not 

transitioned or developed a time frame to transition these enduring costs to 

DOD’s base budget. DOD’s base budget contains the department’s priorities for 

allocating resources. DOD officials stated that the department has not issued 

guidance that addresses how to fund these costs or established a time frame for 

when to transition them from DOD’s overseas contingency operations budget to 

its base budget because DOD is waiting on decisions about future military 

involvement in Afghanistan. Officials also stated that the constrained fiscal 

environment has contributed to the department’s reluctance to transition 

overseas contingency operations costs to DOD’s base budget. However, without 

guidance that addresses how to pay for enduring headquarters costs funded by 

overseas contingency operations appropriations and a time frame to transition 

these costs to DOD’s base budget, DOD may not be able to fully resource these 

activities once the funding decreases or ceases.

View GAO-14-440. For more information, 

contact John Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 

pendletonj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Letter 1

Background 6

CENTCOM and Its Service Components’ Personnel Have Grown 

Considerably over the Past Decade, and the Extent of 

Reductions Is Unclear 12

CENTCOM and Its Components Rely Heavily on Overseas 

Contingency Operations Appropriations to Operate Their 

Headquarters, and Plans for Transitioning These Costs Have 

Not Been Developed 24

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33

Appendix II Headquarters Costs in Nominal Terms 37

Appendix III Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command and Its Service 

Component Commands 39

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 42

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables

Table 1: Examples of Activities for Which Overseas Contingency 

Operations Funding Is Available 11

Table 2: Number of Temporary and Contractor Personnel at U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM) in Fiscal Year 2013 18

Table 3: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions and 

Temporary Personnel at U.S. Central Command’s 

(CENTCOM) Service Component Commands in Fiscal 

Year 2013 20

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Table 4: Summary of Planned Reductions in Authorized Positions 

at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Its Service 

Component Commands as of April 2014 22

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2013 Headquarters Costs and Appropriations 

Source for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Some 

Service Component Commands, and Special Operations 

Command Central 25

Table 6: Base-Budget Funded Headquarters Costs at U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM), Its Service Component 

Commands, and Theater Special Operations Command in 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 37

Table 7: Overseas Contingency Operations—Funded 

Headquarters Costs at U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM), Its Service Component Commands, and 

Theater Special Operations Command in Fiscal Years 

2008 through 2013 37

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Countries within U.S. Central Command’s 

(CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility 7

Figure 2: U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM), Service 

Component Commands’, and Theater Special Operations 

Command’s Headquarters and Command Locations 8

Figure 3: U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Organizational 

Structure 10

Figure 4: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions at 

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2013 13

Figure 5: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions at U.S. Central 

Command’s (CENTCOM) Service Component 

Commands 19

Figure 6: Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) and Its Service Component Commands 

(Part 1 of 3) 39

Figure 6: Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) and Its Service Component Commands 

(Part 2 of 3) 40

Figure 6: Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) and Its Service Component Commands 

(Part 3 of 3) 41
Page iii GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command

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.
Page 1 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 9, 2014

Congressional Committees

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is one of six geographic combatant 

commands that the Department of Defense (DOD) operates to perform its 

military missions around the world.1 CENTCOM also has four service 

component commands and a theater special operations command that it 

uses to support, plan, and conduct military operations in its geographic 

region, which includes countries within the Middle East, North Africa, and 

Central and South Asia. CENTCOM and each of its service component 

commands has its own headquarters composed of both military and 

civilian personnel and each receives millions of dollars in funding each 

year to accomplish assigned missions. Since 2001, CENTCOM and its 

service component commands have been responsible for conducting 

overseas contingency operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, which 

includes managing large numbers of deployed personnel and equipment 

throughout the Middle East and South and Central Asia.2 As of 

September 2013, the department has spent over $1.2 trillion on these 

operations.3 With the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq and the 

impending drawdown of forces in Afghanistan, CENTCOM plans to 

transition from conducting contingency operations to normal, or steadystate, operations and reexamine its resource requirements.4

 1

Each of DOD’s six geographic combatant commands has defined areas of operation and 

a distinct regional military focus. The five other geographic combatant commands are U.S. 

Africa Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific 

Command, and U.S. Southern Command. 

2

Contingency operations are designated by the Secretary of Defense and may include 

military operations combating transnational terrorism or an opposing military force, 

conducting international disaster-relief missions, or other operations to protect U.S. 

interests.

3

Department of Defense, Cost of War Update as of September 30, 2013, (Oct. 1, 2013). 

4

According to DOD’s Joint Publication 5-0: Joint Operation Planning, steady-state 

operations are normal and routine military activities performed to dissuade or deter 

potential adversaries and to assure or solidify relationships with allies.
Page 2 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

In January 2012, the administration released defense strategic guidance 

to direct defense priorities and spending over the coming decade.5 The 

guidance states that the United States will emphasize its presence in 

partner nations in the Middle East, but that U.S. forces there will no longer 

be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations, such as 

the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, the guidance 

states that DOD must reduce the cost of doing business by reducing 

growth in personnel costs and identifying efficiencies in overhead and 

headquarters, including headquarters such as CENTCOM and its service 

component commands. In July 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed a 

20 percent cut in management headquarters spending and stated that the 

department should strive for reductions in headquarters staffs throughout 

DOD, to include spending at the headquarters staffs of the combatant 

commands and service component commands.6

We have issued several reports related to defense headquarters and the 

department’s ability to determine the appropriate size and resourcing of 

its combatant commands to perform various functions. In May 2013, we 

found that authorized military and civilian positions

DOD will decide the 

allocation of cuts among the various headquarters staffs. These cuts are 

designed to streamline DOD’s management through efficiencies and 

elimination of lower-priority activities. At a time of increasing fiscal 

constraints, it is critical that DOD ensure the geographic combatant 

commands and their respective service component commands meet 

mission requirements in the most-efficient and most-effective manner 

possible.

7 at the geographic 

combatant commands—excluding CENTCOM—had increased by about 

50 percent from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2012.8

 5

Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century 

Defense, (Jan. 3, 2012). 

We also found 

6

Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities (Dec. 1, 

2007) (incorporating change June 12, 2012) defines major headquarters activities as 

headquarters that are primarily responsible for overseeing, directing, and controlling 

subordinate organizations or units; these responsibilities include developing guidance, 

reviewing performance, allocating resources, and conducting mid- to long-range 

budgeting. 

7

For the purposes of this report, authorized positions refer to permanent military and 

civilian positions that have been approved by DOD components for funding for a specific 

fiscal year.

8

GAO, Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility 

of Combatant Commands’ Resources, GAO-13-293 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2013).
Page 3 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

that DOD’s process for sizing its geographic combatant commands had 

several weaknesses, including the absence of a comprehensive, periodic 

review of the existing size and structure of these commands and 

inconsistent use of personnel-management systems to identify and track 

assigned personnel. DOD concurred with our recommendation that it 

improve its visibility over its headquarters personnel, but did not concur 

with our recommendation that it conduct comprehensive and periodic 

reviews of the geographic combatant commands’ existing size and 

structure, as we discuss later in this report. We are following up with DOD 

about its actions in response to our recommendations. In March 2012, we 

found that DOD had challenges in identifying and tracking personnel and 

other resources devoted to headquarters because it did not have 

complete and reliable headquarters data.9

Mandates from the House and Senate Armed Services committees

required GAO to review the resources of CENTCOM.

We recommended that the 

Secretary of Defense revise DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD 

Headquarters Activities, to include all major DOD headquarters activity 

organizations; specify how contractors performing major DOD 

headquarters activity functions will be identified and included in 

headquarters reporting; clarify how components are to compile the major 

DOD headquarters activities information; and establish time frames for 

implementing actions to improve tracking and reporting headquarters 

resources. DOD generally concurred with the findings and 

recommendations in this report. In response to these recommendations, 

DOD officials stated that several efforts have been made to consolidate or 

eliminate commands, or centralize administrative and command support 

services, functions, or programs. DOD has also begun efforts to assess 

what organizations are not currently included in its guiding instruction on 

major headquarters activities, but it has not completed its update of the 

instruction to include these organizations.

10

 9

GAO, Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource Needs and Improve 

Data Could Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost Savings, 

This report (1) 

identifies the trends in personnel devoted to CENTCOM and its service 

component commands since fiscal year 2001 and any steps DOD is 

planning to take for reducing personnel in the future, and (2) assesses 

GAO-12-345 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012). 

10See H. Rep. No. 113-102, at 223-224 (2013) and S. Rep. No. 113-44, at 85-86 (2013) 

accompanying bills for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Page 4 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

how DOD funds CENTCOM and its service component commands’

headquarters costs.

To identify the trends in personnel devoted to CENTCOM and its 

supporting service component command headquarters and any steps 

DOD is planning to take for reducing personnel in the future, we obtained 

and analyzed available authorized military and civilian position data for 

each command from fiscal years 2001 through 2013. Since historical data 

were unavailable in some cases, we limited our analysis of changes to 

authorized military and civilian positions at the service component 

commands to the fiscal years for which both authorized military and 

civilian positions data were available. Specifically, U.S. Air Forces Central 

Command and Marine Corps Forces Central Command data were 

available beginning in fiscal year 2001, U.S. Army Central data were 

available beginning in fiscal year 2002, and U.S. Naval Forces Central 

Command data were available beginning in fiscal year 2005. In addition, 

we collected data on the number of temporary personnel assigned to the 

headquarters of CENTCOM and its service component commands for 

fiscal year 2013 because historical data on temporary personnel are 

limited.11

To assess how DOD funds headquarters costs of CENTCOM and its 

service component commands, we collected and analyzed data on 

obligations of operation and maintenance funding from the military

We incorporated data-reliability questions into our datacollection instruments, performed logic checks, and compared the 

multiple data sets received from the organizations against each other to 

ensure that there was consistency in the data provided. We assessed the 

reliability of the data given these and other limitations and we determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also reviewed 

and analyzed the results of studies and analyses DOD has conducted 

related to the size and structure of CENTCOM and its supporting service 

component commands. We interviewed officials from CENTCOM and its 

service component commands to discuss the personnel trends indicated 

by the data; reasons why changes in the data or size and structure of the 

organization have occurred; and any future plans for sizing and 

restructuring these organizations.

 11Temporary personnel include individual augmentees—individuals who meet the 

temporary personnel requirements or tasks of a combatant command to supplement 

permanent staff for operations—civilian temporary hires, activated reservists, liaison 

officers, and personnel from government agencies. 
Page 5 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

departments’ base and overseas contingency operations appropriations 

for each command from fiscal years 2001 through 2013, because these 

obligations reflect the primary headquarters costs of CENTCOM, its 

service component commands, and the theater special operations 

command.12 We did not include costs funded through the Military 

Intelligence Program or the National Intelligence Program. All 

headquarters costs in this report are in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars 

unless otherwise noted.13

 12Headquarters costs reflect the costs for civilian personnel and contract services, among 

others, and do not include the costs associated with military personnel basic pay and 

allowances and other military personnel costs. The military departments obligate operation 

and maintenance funds for these headquarters costs.

Due to limitations in the availability of data, we 

confined our analysis of the operations and maintenance obligations at 

the service component commands to fiscal years 2008 through 2013. To 

assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed DOD officials and 

analyzed relevant financial-management documentation to ensure that 

the data on operation and maintenance obligations that the organizations 

provided were tied to headquarters costs. We also incorporated datareliability questions into our data collection instruments, performed logic 

checks, and compared the multiple data sets received from the 

organizations against each other to ensure that there was consistency in 

the data provided. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for our purposes. In addition, we obtained and analyzed DOD’s budgetrelated regulations and guidance including DOD’s Financial Management 

Regulation, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

guidance for the department’s war/overseas contingency operations 

funding request, and guidance for DOD’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

We also interviewed DOD officials, or where appropriate obtained 

documentation, from CENTCOM, its service component commands, the 

military service headquarters, and the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Comptroller) on operation and maintenance obligation trends, 

reasons for changes in the data, and whether any plans have been made 

to transition enduring headquarters activities funded by overseas 

contingency operations funding into DOD’s base budget request. We also 

compared the information we obtained about plans on transitioning 

components’ headquarters activities funded by DOD’s overseas 

contingency operations appropriations to the information found in Office 

of Management and Budget and DOD guidance and policy documents.

13Costs were adjusted for inflation using the Fiscal Year Chain-Weighted GDP Price 

Index. 
Page 6 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to June 2014 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. More details on our objectives, 

scope, and methodology can be found in appendix I.

Established in 1983, CENTCOM is responsible for conducting military 

operations in its respective geographic region, which includes 20 

countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central and South Asia. 

DOD’s Unified Command Plan sets forth basic guidance for CENTCOM 

and establishes its missions, responsibilities, and area of geographic 

responsibility.14

 14DOD’s Unified Command Plan is a key strategic document prepared by the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the President. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff is required by statute to review the mission responsibilities including geographic 

boundaries and force structure of each combatant command not less often than every 2 

years, and to recommend any changes to the President through the Secretary of Defense. 

10 U.S.C. § 161(b).

CENTCOM’s mission is to promote cooperation among 

nations, respond to crises, deter or defeat state and nonstate aggression, 

and support development and reconstruction within its assigned area of 

responsibility. Figure 1 provides a map of the countries within 

CENTCOM’s area of responsibility.

Background
Page 7 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 1: Map of Countries within U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Area of 

Responsibility

As noted above, CENTCOM has four service component commands and 

a theater special operations command, which it uses to support and 

conduct military operations within its geographic region. These 

organizations also provide and coordinate service-specific forces, such as 

units, detachments, organizations, and installations to help fulfill the 

commands’ current and future operational requirements. Figure 2 

contains the headquarters and command locations within the area of 

responsibility for CENTCOM, its four service component commands, and 

its theater special operations command.
Page 8 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 2: U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM), Service Component Commands’, and Theater Special Operations Command’s 

Headquarters and Command Locations

Generally, the commander of each combatant command has the authority 

to organize the structure of each command as necessary to carry out its 

assigned missions and maintain staff to assist in exercising authority, 

direction, and control over subordinate commands and other assigned 

forces.15

 15See, e.g., §10 U.S.C. 164(c); Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, Functions of 

the Department of Defense and Its Major Components (Dec. 21, 2010).

The staff of a combatant command is composed of military and 
Page 9 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

civilian personnel drawn from the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine 

Corps, other DOD components or interagency partners, and personnel 

providing services under contract with the department. Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel 

Program states that the commands are to consider a number of factors 

when determining personnel requirements, including the total number of 

positions and the mix of military, civilian, and contracted services 

needed.

16 After the commands’ manpower requirements have been 

determined and validated, the requirements are documented on each 

command’s manning document, called the Joint Table of Distribution, 

which contains authorized positions for military, civilian, and other 

personnel responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the 

command.17

 16According to Department of Defense Instruction 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for 

Determining Workforce Mix (Apr. 12, 2010), DOD’s workforce shall be established to 

successfully execute missions at a low-to-moderate level of risk. The instruction 

establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for determining the 

appropriate mix of military and civilian manpower and contracted services within the 

department. 

Figure 3 shows the organizational structure of CENTCOM.

17The Joint Table of Distribution is a manpower document that identifies positions and 

enumerates the spaces that have been approved for each organizational element of a 

joint activity for a specific fiscal year and those spaces that have been accepted for 

planning and programming purposes for the subsequent 5 fiscal years.
Page 10 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 3: U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Organizational Structure

Note: According to Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces, commands’ structures can 

include a principal staff officer, personal staff to the commander, a special staff group for technical, 

administrative, or tactical advice and other groups of staff that are responsible for managing 

personnel, ensuring the availability of intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, 

preparing long-range plans or future plans, and integrating communications systems.

According to DOD Directive 5100.03, Support of the Headquarters of 

Combatant and Subordinate Unified Commands, the military 

departments—as combatant command support agents—are assigned 

responsibility for programming, budgeting, and funding the administrative 

and logistical support of the headquarters of specific combatant 

commands and subordinate unified commands.18

 18Subordinate unified commands are established by commanders of unified commands to 

conduct operations on a continuing basis in accordance with the criteria set forth for 

unified commands. Commanders of subordinate unified commands exercise operational 

control of assigned commands and forces within the assigned operational area.

On an annual basis, the 

three military departments assess needs and request funding as part of 

their respective operation and maintenance budget justification to meet 

the requirement to support the combatant commands and subordinate 

unified commands. The Secretary of the Air Force is the support agent for 

CENTCOM and is responsible for funding CENTCOM headquarters 

administrative and logistical support.
Page 11 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

While funding requested as part of DOD’s base budget supports the 

normal, day-to-day operations of the department, DOD also receives 

additional funds, referred to as overseas contingency operations 

appropriations, to pay for incremental costs19 that have resulted from the 

war in Afghanistan and other contingency operations.20

Table 1: Examples of Activities for Which Overseas Contingency Operations Funding Is Available

Table 1 gives 

examples of the type of allowable activities for which overseas 

contingency operations funding can be requested.

Activity Description of activity

Military Entitlements Premium pay and hazardous-duty pay.

Military Personnel Travel and per diem of active military personnel and costs of reserve component personnel.

Civilian Personnel Wages, travel, and per diem of temporary DOD civilian personnel.

Transportation Costs of moving personnel, material, equipment, and supplies to the contingency area.

Contract Services Cost of work, services, training, and materiel procured under contract for the specific purpose of providing 

assistance in a contingency.

Operations Various costs, to include flying hours’ costs in excess of those programmed and budgeted; costs for the 

transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies to, from, and within the theater of operations; and 

deployment-specific training and preparation for personnel to assume their deployed missions.

Source: Department of Defense (DOD). | GAO-14-440

Additionally, budget guidance issued by the Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense (Comptroller) and Office of Management and Budget sets 

parameters for the military services about which overseas contingency 

operations—related activities should be included in the overseas 

contingency operations funding request for each fiscal year. The 

President’s fiscal year 2015 budget included a request for $495.6 billion in 

funding for DOD’s base budget and $79.4 billion for overseas contingency 

operations funding, but it did not include supporting details for this request 

or a time frame for when it would submit a more detailed request.

 19Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, vol 12 ch 23 “Contingency 

Operations” (September 2007), defines incremental costs as costs that would not have 

been incurred had the contingency operation not been supported.

20For the purposes of this report, overseas contingency operations—funded costs that are 

expected to continue after contingency operations end are referred to as enduring costs.
Page 12 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Our analysis of data provided by CENTCOM shows considerable 

increases in the number of authorized military and civilian positions within 

the command’s headquarters. Specifically, the number of authorized 

military and civilian positions grew from almost 1,590 in fiscal year 2001 

to almost 2,730 in fiscal year 2013, which is about a 70 percent increase 

over the period. Figure 4 shows the changes in total authorized military 

and civilian positions at CENTCOM in fiscal years 2001 through 2013. 

See appendix III for the resources devoted to CENTCOM and its service 

component commands.

CENTCOM and Its 

Service Components’

Personnel Have 

Grown Considerably 

over the Past 

Decade, and the 

Extent of Reductions 

Is Unclear

The Number of Authorized 

Military and Civilian 

Positions at CENTCOM 

Has Grown
Page 13 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 4: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2013

Note: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, funded manpower requirements 

at CENTCOM.

CENTCOM’s intelligence directorate and the theater special operations 

command drove the change in authorized positions for the command 

since fiscal year 2001.21

 21The geographic combatant commands’ intelligence directorates are composed of 

personnel from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency funded through the Military Intelligence Program and the Foreign Counter

Intelligence Program. 

CENTCOM’s intelligence directorate’s authorized 

military and civilian positions doubled, increasing from 554 positions in 

fiscal year 2001 to 1,169 in fiscal year 2013. According to CENTCOM 

officials, the growth in authorized positions within the command’s 

intelligence directorate is attributable to a realignment of intelligence 

support required for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 

command is planning future reductions due to mission changes and 

priority shifts. Within CENTCOM’s theater special operations command, 

authorized military and civilian positions more than quadrupled, 

increasing from 70 positions in fiscal year 2001 to 304 in fiscal year 2013. 

According to Special Operations Command Central officials, the increase 
Page 14 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

in authorized positions was attributable to the creation of the Joint Special 

Operations Air Component and a cultural engagement group, as well as 

the in-sourcing to civilian positions of services performed by contractor 

personnel. Special Operations Command Central’s authorized positions 

are included on CENTCOM’s manning document; however, in February 

2013 the Secretary of Defense reassigned the theater special operations 

commands—including Special Operations Command Central—to U.S.

Special Operations Command and the command’s authorized positions 

will be transferred to U.S. Special Operations Command’s manning 

document in fiscal year 2016, according to U.S. Special Operations 

Command officials.

Since fiscal year 2001, CENTCOM has become more reliant on civilian 

personnel. Specifically, we found that the number of authorized civilian 

positions at CENTCOM increased about sixfold, from about 190 positions 

in fiscal year 2001 to about 1,120 positions in fiscal year 2013. In 

contrast, the number of authorized military positions increased by 15 

percent, from about 1,400 positions to 1,610 positions in the same period. 

The increased reliance on civilian personnel also changed the 

composition of the command. In fiscal year 2001, civilian positions 

constituted about 10 percent of total authorized positions at CENTCOM, 

with the proportion growing to about 40 percent by fiscal year 2013. 

According to DOD officials, the increase in authorized civilian positions is 

the result of attempts to rebalance workload and become a cost-efficient 

workforce, namely by converting positions filled by military personnel or 

in-sourcing services performed by contractors to civilian positions.

In recent years, DOD has taken some steps to limit additional growth in 

personnel at the unified combatant commands, including CENTCOM. In 

2009 and 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established personnel 

baselines for the number of major headquarters activity positions at the 

combatant commands to provide more predictability over requirements for 

military and civilian positions.22

 22Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandums, Combatant Command Management 

Headquarters Manpower Baseline (January 2009 and February 2010).The 2010 memo 

set CENTCOM’s baseline at 1,383 positions (522 military and 861 civilian full-time 

equivalents). The memos state the Military Intelligence Program, defense health program, 

and counter-narcotics are not included in the baseline.

Later in 2010, as part of the Secretary of 

Defense’s 2010 efficiency initiative, the department was directed to take a 

number of steps to limit personnel growth, including instituting caps on 
Page 15 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

authorized civilian personnel for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, including 

civilians at the combatant commands and service component 

commands.23 To more-effectively manage combatant-command 

personnel levels and funding, in June 2011 the Secretary of Defense set 

limits for major headquarters activity civilian personnel at the combatant 

commands for fiscal years 2013 through 2017.24 Any growth above these 

limits in fiscal years 2013 through 2017 has to be validated by the Joint 

Staff and military services, and must be based on workload and funding 

considerations.25

Our prior work on defense headquarters found weaknesses in the 

process DOD uses to review and validate authorized civilian and military 

positions at the geographic combatant commands.

In establishing the limits, the Secretary of Defense also 

stated that the major headquarters activity baselines and business rules 

established for military positions in 2009 and 2010 were to remain in 

effect. These steps to limit growth in civilian positions are reflected in our 

analysis of the number of authorized positions at CENTCOM, which 

showed the number of civilian positions holding steady from fiscal years 

2011 through 2013.

26

 23Secretary of Defense, Guidance on DOD Efficiency Initiatives with Immediate 

Application, (Aug. 20, 2010) and Under Secretary of Defense, Implementation of 

Secretary of Defense Efficiency Initiatives–Re-sizing the Joint Intelligence Operations 

Centers (JIOCs) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Forward Support to Combatant 

Commands (COCOMS), (Jan. 28, 2011). As part of the 2010 efficiency initiatives, the 

department also reduced the size of the geographic combatant command intelligence 

directorates. Specifically, the Deputy Secretary of Defense authorized 943 positions for 

CENTCOM’s intelligence directorate.

Specifically, in May 

2013 we found that DOD has a process for evaluating requests for 

additional authorized positions, but it did not periodically evaluate the 

commands’ authorized positions to ensure they are needed to meet the 

commands’ assigned missions. Therefore, we recommended that the 

department require a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the 

24Secretary of Defense, Combatant Command (COCOM) Civilian and Contractor 

Manpower Management, (June 29, 2011). The memo set CENTCOM’s major 

headquarters activity civilian personnel baseline at 468 full-time equivalents. The memo 

states the Military Intelligence Program, defense health program, transportation working 

capital fund, special operations—specific appropriations, and service component 

command personnel levels are excluded from the caps and baselines.

25Authorized positions found on the commands’ Joint Table of Distribution are for normal, 

day-to-day operations. 

26GAO-13-293. 
Page 16 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

size and structure of the combatant commands meet assigned missions. 

DOD disagreed with our recommendation, stating that the combatant 

commands had already been reduced during previous budget reviews. 

Our May 2013 report acknowledged and described several of the actions 

DOD had taken to manage growth at its combatant commands. However, 

we continue to maintain that these actions do not constitute a 

comprehensive, periodic review because the department’s actions have 

not included all authorized positions at the combatant commands. 

Consequently, we continue to believe that institutionalizing a periodic 

evaluation of all authorized positions would help to systematically align 

personnel with those missions and add rigor to the process. 

Focusing solely on trends in authorized military and civilian positions 

provides an incomplete picture of the personnel dedicated to 

CENTCOM’s headquarters because the command relies heavily on 

temporary personnel and contractors to fulfill its mission requirements. 

Temporary personnel include individual augmentees, civilian temporary 

hires, and activated reservists. According to CENTCOM officials, these 

temporary personnel do not fill any permanent authorized positions and 

are primarily responsible for supporting the command’s contingency 

operations in Afghanistan. Our analysis of CENTCOM’s temporary 

personnel data found that CENTCOM had about 550 temporary 

personnel in fiscal year 2013. About 35 percent of the temporary 

personnel were supporting CENTCOM’s theater special operations 

command, while 52 percent were assigned throughout CENTCOM’s other 

headquarters directorates, and the remaining 13 percent were supporting 

CENTCOM’s intelligence directorate.

We also found that CENTCOM relies heavily on contractors to support 

and fulfill its mission requirements at headquarters. CENTCOM reported 

having about 1,100 contractor personnel on hand in fiscal year 2013.27

 27CENTCOM’s contracted services are generally funded using base or overseas 

contingency operations appropriations.

Our work over the past decade on DOD’s contracting activities has noted 

the need for DOD to obtain better data on its contracted services and 

personnel to enable it to make more-informed management decisions, 

ensure department-wide goals and objectives are achieved, and have the 

CENTCOM Relies on 

Temporary and Contractor 

Personnel to Augment the 

Command Headquarters
Page 17 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

resources to achieve desired outcomes.28

As with its military and civilian positions, DOD has taken steps to limit 

additional growth in contracted services at combatant commands, 

including CENTCOM. For example, in a June 2011 memo, the Secretary 

of Defense directed reductions in funding for service support contractors 

for all combatant commands including CENTCOM and military services.

In response to our past work, 

DOD has outlined its approach to document contractor full-time 

equivalents and collect personnel data from contactors. However, DOD 

does not expect to fully collect data on contractor personnel until fiscal 

year 2016.

29

Specifically, the memo directed the combatant commands and military 

services to limit total expenditures on service support contracts. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 also imposed 

limits on DOD’s contract services for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, to 

include limiting DOD’s total obligations for contract services in each fiscal 

year not to exceed the amount requested for these services in the fiscal 

year 2010 President’s Budget Request.30 Furthermore, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 extends these limits into 

fiscal year 2014.

31 Table 2 shows the number of temporary and contractor 

personnel at CENTCOM headquarters, and separately, those within its 

intelligence directorate and its theater special operations command in 

fiscal year 2013.

 28See GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Further Actions Needed to Improve Accountability for 

DOD’s Inventory of Contracted Services, GAO-12-357 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2012); 

Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource Needs and Improve Data 

Could Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost Savings, GAO-12-345 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 21, 2012); and Defense Acquisitions: Further Action Needed to Better Implement 

Requirements for Conducting Inventory of Service Contract Activities, GAO-11-192 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2011). 

29Secretary of Defense, Combatant Command (COCOM) Civilian and Contractor 

Manpower Management.

30Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 808 (2011). 

31Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 802 (2013). 
Page 18 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Table 2: Number of Temporary and Contractor Personnel at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Fiscal Year 2013

U.S. Central Command 

Headquarters

U.S. Central Command 

Intelligence Directorate

Special Operations Command 

Central Total

Temporary personnel 287 69 192 548

Contractor personnel 677 357 60 1,094

Total 964 426 252 1,642

Source: Department of Defense (DOD) data. | GAO-14-440

Note: This table includes actual temporary and contractor personnel at CENTCOM.

In addition to CENTCOM’s temporary personnel, there were another 

1,400 personnel located at CENTCOM headquarters in fiscal year 2013. 

These additional personnel represent defense combat support agencies 

such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, other government 

agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, liaison officers, 

and non-U.S. personnel from coalition partner nations. The personnel, 

while physically located at CENTCOM, do not report to the CENTCOM 

commander and are not funded by CENTCOM.

Our analysis of data provided by CENTCOM’s service component 

commands shows that total authorized military and civilian positions 

increased at the Army component command since fiscal year 2002 and at 

the Marine Corps component command since fiscal year 2001; however, 

the availability of data varied among the commands, which limited our 

analysis in some cases.32

 32U.S. Naval Forces Central Command was unable to provide data on its authorized 

civilian positions prior to fiscal year 2005 because the command does not have access to 

these data within their personnel system. U.S. Army Central was unable to provide data 

on its authorized positions for fiscal year 2001 given limitations within the Army’s 

personnel database. Prior to fiscal year 2005, Marine Corps Forces Central Command 

was part of Marine Corps Forces Pacific Command and the mission requirements in 

Marine Corps Forces Central Command’s area of responsibility were also supported by 

personnel from Marine Corps Forces Pacific Command. 

At U.S. Army Central, authorized military and 

civilian positions more than doubled from about 620 in fiscal year 2002 to 

about 1,255 positions in fiscal year 2013. At Marine Corps Forces Central 

Command, authorized military and civilian positions grew from 27 in fiscal 

year 2001 to 150 in fiscal year 2013. According to service component 

command officials, the primary reason for the increases in authorized 

positions at U.S. Army Central and Marine Corps Forces Central 

Command was to support contingency operations in Iraq and 

Growth in the Number of 

Authorized Positions at 

CENTCOM’s Service 

Component Commands 

Varied
Page 19 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Afghanistan. U.S. Army Central officials stated that its growth was also 

attributable to a doctrinal shift that designated U.S. Army Central as a 

stand-alone Army service component command to CENTCOM and a 

direct reporting unit to Army headquarters. Marine Corps Forces Central 

Command officials also stated that the command was designated as an 

independent component in fiscal year 2005 and this designation 

contributed to the growth in its headquarters personnel.

Our analysis of data provided by the Navy and Air Force service 

component commands shows that total authorized military and civilian 

positions decreased at the Navy component command since fiscal year 

2005 and the Air Force component command since fiscal year 2001. 

Specifically, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command headquarters positions 

decreased from 763 authorized military and civilian positions in fiscal year 

2005 to 738 authorized positions in fiscal year 2013. In addition, U.S. Air 

Forces Central Command’s authorized military and civilian headquarters 

positions decreased from 1,267 in fiscal year 2001 to 1,127 authorized 

positions in fiscal year 2013. Figure 5 below shows changes in the 

number of authorized military and civilian positions at CENTCOM’s 

service component commands over time, based on our analysis of 

available data. 

Figure 5: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions at U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Service Component Commands
Page 20 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Note: U.S. Naval Forces Central Command was unable to provide data on its authorized civilian 

positions prior to fiscal year 2005 because the command does not have access to these data within 

their personnel system; therefore we limited our analysis of the command’s authorized positions to 

fiscal years 2005 through 2013. U.S. Army Central was unable to provide data on its authorized 

positions for fiscal year 2001 given limitations within the Army’s personnel database; therefore we 

limited our analysis of the command’s authorized positions to fiscal years 2002 through 2013. Prior to 

fiscal year 2005, Marine Corps Forces Central Command was part of Marine Corps Forces Pacific 

Command, and the mission requirements in Marine Corps Forces Central Command’s area of 

responsibility were also supported by 75 personnel from Marine Corps Forces Pacific Command.

Similar to CENTCOM, the service component commands rely on 

temporary personnel to augment their commands. Our analysis shows 

that the Marine Corps and Navy service component rely heavily on 

temporary personnel to support the commands’ headquarters. Marine 

Corps Forces Central Command augmented its 150 authorized military 

and civilian positions within its headquarters with an additional 88 

temporary personnel in fiscal year 2013. According to Marine Corps 

Forces Central Command officials, the temporary personnel fulfill critical 

requirements for building partner-nation military capabilities across the 

region. Similarly, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command augmented its 738 

authorized military and civilian positions within its headquarters with an 

additional 286 temporary personnel. According to U.S. Naval Forces 

Central Command officials, temporary personnel provide short-term 

support with a clearly defined goal, to include special projects; exerciserelated functions; and emerging and unplanned mission requirements. 

Table 3 shows the number of authorized military and civilian positions and 

the temporary personnel at each service component command in fiscal 

year 2013.

Table 3: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions and Temporary Personnel at U.S. Central Command’s 

(CENTCOM) Service Component Commands in Fiscal Year 2013

U.S. Army Central

U.S. Air Forces Central 

Command

U.S. Naval Forces 

Central Command

Marine Corps 

Forces Central 

Command Total

Authorized positions 1,253 1,127 738 150 3,268

Temporary personnel 34 57 286 88 465

Total 1,287 1,184 1,024 238 3,733

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. | GAO-14-440

We found that the data on contractors at the service component 

commands varied or were unavailable, and thus trends could not be 

identified. We found that some service component commands do not 

maintain data on the number of contractor personnel on hand and others 

used varying methodologies to track these personnel, counting the 

number of contractors on hand or the number of identification badges 
Page 21 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

issued. For example, U.S. Army Central officials stated that the command 

counts contractors by identification badges issued for the current fiscal 

year and cannot provide historical data on the number of contactor 

personnel, while U.S. Naval Forces Central Command officials said that 

the command tracks the costs of the contract and not the personnel 

performing the contract service. As stated above, our work over the past 

decade on DOD’s contracting activities has noted the need for DOD to 

obtain better data on its contracted services.33

DOD is taking steps to examine the size and structure of CENTCOM and 

its service components’ headquarters, but the extent of reductions and 

their timing had not been finalized at the time of this report’s issuance. 

Specifically, in response to the Secretary of Defense’s 2013 direction to 

reduce management headquarters, CENTCOM is planning to reduce its 

total positions by 47 civilian and 80 military positions from fiscal years 

2015 through 2019. Prior to the Secretary’s 2013 headquarters 

reductions, CENTCOM was in the process of conducting an analysis to 

better prepare the command to manage its resources for normal 

operations, but CENTCOM officials stated the results of this analysis 

were overcome by the Secretary of Defense’s directed reductions to 

headquarters. The command’s intelligence directorate is also reducing a 

portion of its authorized positions from 1,169 authorized positions in fiscal 

year 2013 to 943 over fiscal years 2015 to 2019. The military services 

have also taken some steps to resize CENTCOM’s Army and Air Force 

service component commands to a standardized structure for the future, 

but these steps have not been finalized. In total, CENTCOM and its 

service component commands are planning on a 20 percent reduction for 

a total of 1,194 reductions to authorized military and civilian positions. As 

table 4 shows, the commands’ efforts vary, with U.S. Army Central 

planning to reduce the most authorized positions.

In response to our past 

work, DOD has outlined its approach to document contractor full-time 

equivalents and collect personnel data from contactors. However, DOD 

does not expect to fully collect data on contractor personnel until fiscal 

year 2016.

 33See GAO-12-357,GAO-12-345, and GAO-11-192 

DOD Is Planning 

Reductions to CENTCOM 

and Its Components, but 

the Extent of Reductions 

and Timing Have Not 

Been Finalized
Page 22 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Table 4: Summary of Planned Reductions in Authorized Positions at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Its Service 

Component Commands as of April 2014 

Command

Fiscal year 2013 

authorized 

positions Description of planned actions

Planned reduction 

in authorized 

positions

Percentage of planned 

reduction compared to 

authorized positions

U.S. Central 

Command

2,729 Reduce its authorized positions by 47 

civilian and 80 military management 

headquarters positions by fiscal year 2019 

in response to Secretary of Defense’s 

directed headquarters reductions. The 

command is also reducing its intelligence 

directorate positions from 1,169

authorized positions in fiscal year 2013 to 

943 by fiscal year 2019. 

353 13%

U.S. Army Central 1,253 Reduce authorized positions to 620 by 

fiscal year 2017 as a result of the Army’s 

service component command 

standardized structure.

633 51

U.S. Air Forces 

Central Command

1,127 Reduce authorized positions to 956 as a 

result of the standardized structure 

created, but the Air Force has not given a 

time frame to complete this reduction.

171 15

U.S. Naval Forces 

Central Command

738 Reduce authorized positions by 5 percent 

over the period fiscal year 2015 through 

fiscal year 2019 in response to Secretary 

of Defense’s headquarters reductions.

37 5

Marine Corps 

Forces Central 

Command

150 Freeze the number of authorized positions 

at Marine Corps Forces Central to the 

fiscal year 2013 levels in response to 

Secretary of Defense’s reductions in 

headquarters budgets.

Total 5,997 1,194 20%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) information. | GAO-14-440

Note: Percentages in the table are rounded to the closest whole number.

• Army: In response to the Secretary of Defense’s direction in 2013 to 

reduce headquarters budgets, the Department of the Army directed a 

review to reduce Army headquarters by 25 percent. According to U.S. 

Army Central officials, the command was already in the process of 

planning to reduce its 1,253 total authorized positions to 620 by fiscal 

year 2017 as a result of previous Army guidance directing all of its 

service component command to conform to a standard structure. U.S. 

Army Central officials stated that the guidance to reduce positions will 

create operational risk because the command will have to request 

additional personnel to address another contingency operation. 

Command officials also stated that the command’s 25 percent 
Page 23 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

reduction will be in addition to the previously directed standardized 

command structure.

• Air Force: In 2010, Air Force headquarters issued a directive 

establishing U.S. Air Forces Central Command at 956 authorized 

positions, but did not include a timeframe for when the command was 

supposed to reach this number of positions. This direction was 

designed to improve operational support and planning for all Air Force 

components. In order to reach the 956 authorized positions, U.S. Air 

Forces Central Command will have to reduce its 1,127 total 

authorized positions. However, U.S. Air Forces Central Command 

officials are not certain how this reduction will affect future steadystate missions since they do not know how many personnel will be 

needed to support missions like the command’s Combined Air and 

Space Operations Center once operations in Afghanistan drawdown.

• Marine Corps: According to Marine Corps’ headquarters officials, the 

Marine Corps has directed Marine Corps Forces Central Command to 

freeze the number of authorized positions at its fiscal year 2013 level 

of 150 positions. Marine Corps Forces Central Command officials also 

stated that the command was directed to cancel planned growth of 32 

positions in its headquarters staff. Marine Corps Forces Central 

Command officials stated that the command would also like to move 

its U.S.-based headquarters to a location within CENTCOM’s 

geographic region and consolidate with its existing headquarters 

command elements in theater, which could affect the command’s 

resource requirements. However, Marine Corps’ headquarters officials 

stated that the decision to move the headquarters will be dependent 

on extensive analysis.

• Navy: In response to the Secretary of Defense’s 20 percent 

reductions, Navy officials stated that the Department of the Navy has 

directed U.S. Naval Forces Central Command to reduce its 738 

authorized positions by 5 percent, in recognition of the command’s 

continued level of operations in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. 

The 5 percent reduction is planned to take place from fiscal years 

2015 through 2019 in accordance with the Secretary of Defense’s 

direction. U.S. Naval Forces Central Command is also in the process 

of conducting a study to determine the command’s future missions so 

that it can determine personnel requirements for peacetime 

operations, but the study has not been completed.
Page 24 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

We found that CENTCOM, two of its service component commands, and 

its theater special operations command primarily use overseas 

contingency operations appropriations to operate their headquarters. 

CENTCOM and its components have determined some of their costs are 

enduring and thus are expected to continue after the end of contingency 

operations, but the military services have not transitioned these enduring 

costs to DOD’s base budget.34 However, because the department is 

waiting on decisions about military involvement in Afghanistan and how 

the administration plans to fund enduring costs, it has not issued 

guidance that addresses how to pay for these enduring costs or 

established a time frame for when to transition them from DOD’s 

overseas contingency operations appropriations to DOD’s base budget, 

and the services have not included these costs in their base budget 

plans.

We found that the majority of the costs to operate and support 

headquarters for CENTCOM, two of its four service component 

commands, and its theater special operations command were funded with 

overseas contingency operations appropriations in fiscal year 2013. Of 

the $793 million in total headquarters costs for CENTCOM,35

 34For the purposes of this report, enduring costs refer to costs expected to continue after 

overseas contingency operations in Afghanistan end. 

its Navy and 

Marine Corps service component commands, and its theater special 

operations command for fiscal year 2013, about 76 percent, or $600 

million, was funded using overseas contingency operations 

appropriations. Comparable data for CENTCOM’s Army and Air Force 

service component commands were not available, as discussed below. 

Table 5 provides the fiscal year 2013 headquarters costs and 

appropriations source (base and overseas contingency operations 

appropriation) for CENTCOM, two of its service component commands, 

35Costs for the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, which is responsible for conducting 

security cooperation activities and building partner capacity in Iraq were $383 million of 

CENTCOM’s $501 million total overseas contingency operation costs in fiscal year 2013.

CENTCOM and Its 

Components Rely 

Heavily on Overseas 

Contingency 

Operations 

Appropriations to 

Operate Their 

Headquarters, and 

Plans for 

Transitioning These 

Costs Have Not Been 

Developed

CENTCOM and Some of 

Its Components Primarily 

Use Overseas 

Contingency Operations 

Appropriations to Operate 

Their Headquarters
Page 25 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

and its theater special operations command. See appendix II for nominal 

obligations.

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2013 Headquarters Costs and Appropriations Source for U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM), Some Service Component Commands, and Special 

Operations Command Central 

Current-year dollars, In 

millions

Command Total Base Overseas 

contingency 

operations 

Overseas 

contingency 

operations as a 

percentage of 

total 

U.S. Central Command $648 $147 $501 77%

Marine Corps Forces Central 

Command

42 8 34 81

U.S. Naval Forces Central 

Command

83 31 52 63

Special Operations Command 

Central

20 7 13 65

Total $793 $193 $600 76%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. | GAO-14-440

Note: The headquarters costs reflect obligations for operation and maintenance reported by DOD. 

Dollars are rounded to the closest whole number.

U.S. Army Central and U.S. Air Forces Central Command were not able 

to provide specific data on the costs to operate and support their 

headquarters funded by overseas contingency operations appropriations. 

According to U.S. Army Central officials, the command was not able to 

separate its overseas contingency operations—funded headquarters 

costs because the Army’s financial management system did not begin to 

separate these costs until fiscal year 2011. The officials stated that 

headquarters costs to support overseas contingency operations were 

accounted for within various operations and directed missions and the 

Army used a different accounting method to track these costs than what 

is used to track base budget–funded costs. Officials stated that the Army 

instituted specific accounting codes for overseas contingency operations 

funding and this improved accounting was incorporated within the Army’s 

financial management system in fiscal year 2012. U.S. Army Central has 

identified enduring activities funded with overseas contingency operations 

appropriations and continues efforts to move these costs to the Army’s 

base budget. These officials also stated that all of the command’s 

activities in support of U.S. Central Command are almost entirely 
Page 26 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

resourced with overseas contingency operations appropriations.36 U.S. 

Air Forces Central Command officials also told us that the command was 

not able to separate its overseas contingency operations costs for the 

headquarters because these costs also include consolidated sustainment 

costs for all of the commands’ bases and units throughout the area of 

responsibility. These officials also stated that a large majority of the 

command’s activities are funded through overseas contingency 

operations appropriations.37

DOD has recognized that funding for overseas contingency operations is 

expected to decrease as operations in Afghanistan draw down, and 

CENTCOM and its components have determined that some headquarters 

activities will be enduring and expected to continue after the end of 

ongoing contingency operations. The military services’ planning guidance 

and posture statements report that overseas contingency operations 

appropriations will end and that they are currently funding enduring costs 

with these appropriations. For example, the Army’s 2013 Strategic 

Planning Guidance states that it is critical for the Army to examine which 

activities are relevant for future operations and need to be moved to the 

base budget, and which can be eliminated with the expected decrease or 

elimination of overseas contingency operations appropriations. In 

addition, the Air Force’s 2013 Posture Statement states that numerous Air 

Force activities are funded through overseas contingency operations 

appropriations, but the costs for these activities must migrate to the base 

budget in order for them to be retained. Further, the Fiscal Year 2014 

Department of Navy Posture hearing statement notes that the Navy is 

dependent on overseas contingency operations funding and needs to 

develop a more-enduring funding strategy in order to maintain its current 

readiness and level of overseas presence in the future. Guidance 

provided to the Marine Corps by the Department of the Navy also states 

that as overseas contingency operations appropriations are reduced, 

some enduring activities that have been covered with overseas 

contingency operations appropriations may have to transition to the base 

budget.

 36U.S. Army Central obligated about $13 billion in overseas contingency operations 

appropriations in fiscal year 2013 across the command.

37U.S. Air Forces Central Command obligated over $1.3 billion in overseas contingency 

operations appropriations in fiscal year 2013 across the command.

Plans for Transitioning 

Enduring Costs to DOD’s 

Base Budget Have Not 

Been Developed
Page 27 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

In some cases, CENTCOM’s service components have moved forward in 

identifying enduring activities, but the military services have not approved 

these requests to transition costs for enduring activities to DOD’s base 

budget, and these activities continue to be funded by overseas 

contingency operations appropriations. For example, U.S. Army Central 

officials stated they identified command and control functions in the 

region as enduring activities and that the command submitted a request

to transition these costs to DOD’s fiscal year 2014 base budget request. 

However, U.S. Army Central officials stated that Army headquarters did 

not approve this request because it believes the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should increase the Army’s base 

budget before the Army attempts to transfer these enduring costs. 

Further, U.S. Air Forces Central Command officials identified several 

enduring costs, including $113.5 million in costs for its Combined Air and 

Space Operations Center in fiscal year 2013 and requested that these 

costs be included in DOD’s fiscal year 2015 base budget, but Air Force 

headquarters did not approve this request.38

 38According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command officials, this cost figure does not 

include various contracts and services that are centrally managed and consolidated at Air 

Force headquarters for efficiency purposes.

According to an Air Force 

headquarters official, the Air Force is waiting on decisions about military 

involvement in Afghanistan to determine which costs are enduring. 

Marine Corps Forces Central Command officials stated that Marine Corps 

headquarters reviewed all overseas contingency operations requirements 

in fiscal year 2012 in preparation for transitioning enduring activities to 

DOD’s base budget. The officials stated that they plan to request to 

transition these enduring activities into DOD’s fiscal year 2016 budget 

request. U.S. Naval Forces Central Command officials also told us that 

Isa Air Base in Bahrain is an enduring activity and obligated 

approximately $11 million in overseas contingency operations 

appropriations to fund services provided by Bahrain’s military, such as 

physical security for the air base in fiscal year 2013. According to U.S. 

Naval Forces Central Command officials, the command submitted a 

request to the Department of the Navy to transfer the enduring costs for 

the air base to DOD’s fiscal year 2014 base budget, but this request was 

denied, and a Navy headquarters official stated that the Navy will not 

make any further attempt to transition U.S. Naval Forces Central 

Command’s enduring costs to DOD’s base budget until it receives 

direction from DOD to do so.
Page 28 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

DOD’s base budget contains the department’s priorities for allocating 

resources, supports the normal, day-to-day operations of the department 

and, along with the rest of the federal budget, is the primary vehicle by 

which the President and Congress select among competing fiscal 

demands.39

DOD headquarters officials stated that the constrained fiscal environment 

created by sequestration and DOD’s subsequent base-budget cuts have 

contributed to the department’s reluctance to transition overseas 

contingency operations costs to DOD’s base budget. Additionally, 

according to DOD officials, the department has not issued any guidance 

on how to pay for enduring costs funded by overseas contingency 

operations appropriations or established a time frame to transition these 

costs to DOD’s base budget because the department is waiting on 

decisions surrounding future U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and 

how the administration plans to fund enduring costs in its base budget. In 

the absence of such guidance, service component command officials 

stated that the military services have denied requests to transition 

enduring costs to DOD’s base budget and instead have continued to fund 

these enduring costs using DOD’s overseas contingency operations 

appropriations. However, continuing to fund enduring activities with 

overseas contingency operations appropriations does not provide a 

complete picture of the department’s future resource requirements and 

avoids making trade-off decisions at time of increasing fiscal constraints. 

Without guidance that addresses how to pay for enduring headquarters 

costs funded by overseas contingency operations appropriations and 

establishes a time frame to transition these costs to DOD’s base budget, 

It is the President’s proposed plan for managing funds, 

setting levels of spending, and financing the spending of the federal 

government, and the budget’s importance makes it essential that it be 

comprehensive and clear. DOD’s request for overseas contingency 

operations appropriations reflects the additional costs tied to ongoing 

military operations, like those in Afghanistan. However, according to DOD 

officials, DOD and the military services have funded enduring costs 

expected to continue after the end of these operations with overseas 

contingency operations appropriations and have not included time frames 

for transitioning these enduring costs to their base budget plans.

 39Office of Management and Budget, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 

Budget, Circular No. A-11, (July 2013). GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal 

Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).
Page 29 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

DOD may have difficulty fully resourcing these activities once the funding 

decreases or ceases.

Since October 2001, DOD has relied on overseas contingency operations 

appropriations to support its operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In the 

intervening years, the number of authorized positions and the 

headquarters costs of CENTCOM, its service component commands, and 

its theater special operations command have increased considerably. As 

military operations in Afghanistan drawdown, DOD faces a reduction in 

funding for overseas contingency operations, while similarly grappling 

with anticipated fiscal pressure. It is important that DOD have a clear 

means of determining how to pay for enduring costs and provide the 

military services, CENTCOM, and its service component commands with 

time frames for when these enduring costs will be transitioned to DOD’s 

base budget once decisions have been made about the military 

involvement in Afghanistan and how the administration plans to fund 

enduring costs. Without guidance on how to pay for enduring costs, and a 

time frame for transitioning the costs for enduring activities to the base 

budget, DOD may have difficulty sustaining these activities moving 

forward or it may face difficult resource trade-off decisions.

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation to develop guidance on 

transitioning enduring activities that have been funded with overseas 

contingency operations appropriations to DOD’s base budget, including a 

time frame for this transition.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD 

provided written comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in 

appendix IV. In its written comments, DOD partially concurred with the 

report’s recommendation to develop guidance on transitioning enduring 

activities that have been funded with overseas contingency operations 

appropriations to DOD’s base budget, including a time frame for this 

transition. 

In its comments, the department agreed that the process of determining 

what overseas contingency operations-funded activities will endure and 

the timeline for transitioning those costs to the base budget is critical. 

However, DOD stated that this process cannot be accomplished at a 

single point in time due to uncertainty over the evolution of threats in 

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 30 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

CENTCOM’s area of responsibility and the impact of the caps enacted in 

the Budget Control Act of 2011 on its ability to migrate additional 

requirements to the base budget. DOD stated that providing guidance will 

be a multiyear process that will be refined as it gets a clearer picture of 

CENTCOM’s enduring missions as well as the criteria for and scope of

future overseas contingency operations budgets. DOD further stated that 

it plans to issue guidance for the fiscal year 2016 base budget request by 

the end of July 2014 and this guidance will contain information on 

transitioning enduring activities from the overseas contingency operation 

budget. 

DOD’s plan to issue guidance regarding the transition of enduring 

requirements to DOD’s base budget request for fiscal year 2016 is a 

positive step. Further, as noted in the report, we recognize that the 

department is waiting on decisions surrounding the future U.S. military 

involvement in Afghanistan and how the administration plans to fund 

enduring costs before it issues guidance on how to pay for these costs. 

We also note in the report that DOD officials cited the constrained fiscal 

environment created by sequestration as a factor in DOD’s reluctance to 

develop guidance to transition overseas contingency operations costs to 

DOD’s base budget. We understand the transition cannot be 

accomplished at a single point in time; however, an extended multiyear 

effort may not be available to the department if there are significant 

decreases in overseas contingency operations appropriations. Therefore, 

we continue to believe that a time frame for the transition is needed so 

the department can start making trade-off decisions at a time of 

increasing fiscal constraints. In addition, by continuing to fund these 

enduring activities with overseas contingency operations appropriations 

DOD is not providing decision makers with a complete picture of the 

department’s future resource requirements. Thus, without guidance that 

addresses how to pay for enduring activities, and a time frame for 

transitioning these costs to DOD’s base budget, the department may face 

difficulties in sustaining these activities in the future and further delay 

difficult resource trade-off decisions by DOD and Congress.

DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated, as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the Commandant of 
Page 31 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

the Marine Corps. In addition, this report is 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 (202) 512-3489 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 key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V.

John H. Pendleton, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 32 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Mandates from the House and Senate Armed Services committees

required GAO to review the resources of U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM).1

To identify the trends in personnel devoted to CENTCOM and its 

supporting service component commands headquarters and any steps 

DOD is planning to take for reducing personnel in the future, we obtained 

and analyzed available authorized military and civilian position data for 

each command from fiscal years 2001 through 2013. In addition, we 

collected data on the number of temporary personnel assigned to the 

headquarters of CENTCOM, its service component commands, and its 

theater special operations command for fiscal year 2013. Since historical 

data were unavailable in some cases, we limited our analysis of changes 

to authorized military and civilian positions at the service component 

commands to the fiscal years for which both authorized military and 

civilian position data were available. Specifically, U.S. Air Forces Central 

Command and Marine Corps Forces Central Command data were 

available beginning in fiscal year 2001, U.S. Army Central data were 

available beginning in fiscal year 2002, and Naval Forces Central 

Command data were available beginning in fiscal year 2005. To assess 

the reliability of the data, we interviewed DOD officials and analyzed 

relevant personnel documentation to ensure that the authorized positions 

were associated with headquarters operations and support. We also 

incorporated data-reliability questions into our data-collection instruments, 

performed logic checks, and compared the multiple data sets received 

from the organizations against each other to ensure that there was 

consistency in the data provided. We determined the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also reviewed and analyzed the 

results of various studies and analyses DOD has conducted related to the 

size and structure of CENTCOM and its supporting service component 

commands, including plans for the future size and structure of these 

This report (1) identifies the trends in personnel devoted to 

CENTCOM and its service component commands since fiscal year 2001 

and any steps the Department of Defense (DOD) is planning to take for 

reducing personnel in the future, and (2) assesses how DOD funds 

CENTCOM and its service component commands’ headquarters costs. 

To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified sources of 

information within DOD that would provide data on the resources devoted 

to CENTCOM and its supporting service component commands.

 1

See H. Rep. No. 113-102 (2013) and S. Rep. No. 113-44 (2013).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

organizations. In addition, we interviewed CENTCOM and its service 

component command officials to discuss the personnel trends indicated 

by the data, reasons why changes in the data or size and structure of the 

organizations have occurred, and any future plans for sizing and 

restructuring these organizations.

To assess how DOD funds CENTCOM and its service component 

headquarters costs, we collected and analyzed data on the obligations of 

operation and maintenance funding from the military departments base 

and overseas contingency operations appropriations for CENTCOM, its 

service component commands, and its theater special operation 

command from fiscal years 2001 through 2013. We focused on these 

obligations because they reflect the primary headquarters costs of these 

organizations, to include the costs for civilian personnel, contract 

services, travel, and equipment, among others. We did not include costs 

funded through the Military Intelligence Program or the National 

Intelligence Program. Since historical data were unavailable in some 

cases, we confined our analysis of the operations and maintenance 

obligations at the service component commands to fiscal years 2008 

through 2013.2

 2

All headquarters’ costs in this report are in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars unless 

otherwise noted. Costs were adjusted for inflation using the Fiscal Year Chain-Weighted 

GDP Price Index.

We analyzed CENTCOM, its supporting service 

component commands, and its theater special operations command 

obligations data to determine the amount of obligations funded by 

overseas contingency operations appropriations. We also obtained and 

analyzed various Office of Management and Budget and DOD budgetrelated documents including regulations, guidance, and criteria for the 

fiscal year 2015 President’s budget request. To assess the reliability of 

the data, we interviewed DOD officials and analyzed relevant financialmanagement documentation to ensure that the data on operation and 

maintenance obligations that the organizations provided were tied to 

headquarters costs. We also incorporated data-reliability questions into 

our data-collection instruments, performed logic checks, and compared 

the multiple data sets received from the organizations against each other 

to ensure that there was consistency in the data provided. We determined 

the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Additionally, we 

interviewed DOD officials, or where appropriate obtained documentation, 

from CENTCOM, its service component commands, the military service 

headquarters, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

(Comptroller) on operation and maintenance obligation trends, reasons 

why changes in the data have occurred, and whether any plans have 

been made to transition enduring headquarters activities funded by 

overseas contingency operations funding into DOD’s base budget 

request. We compared the information we obtained about plans on 

transitioning components’ activities funded by DOD’s overseas 

contingency operations appropriations to the information in the Office of 

Management and Budget and DOD guidance and policy documents.

We interviewed officials, or where appropriate obtained documentation, at 

the organizations listed below:

Office of the Secretary of Defense

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Joint Staff

• Manpower and Personnel Directorate

• Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate

Department of the Air Force

• Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Personnel

Department of the Army

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial 

Management and Comptroller, Army Budget Office

• Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G-1, Plans and 

Resources Directorate

• Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, G3/5/7; Operations and Plans, Force Management Directorate

• Training and Doctrine Command

Department of the Navy

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial 

Management and Comptroller), Office of Budget

• Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

CENTCOM

• U.S. Air Forces Central Command

• U.S. Army Central
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

• U.S. Naval Forces Central Command

• Marine Corps Forces Central Command

• Special Operations Command Central

We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to June 2014 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.
Appendix II: Headquarters Costs in Nominal 

Terms

Page 37 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Table 6: Base-Budget Funded Headquarters Costs at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Its Service Component Commands, 

and Theater Special Operations Command in Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013

Nominal 

dollars

Command Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013

U.S. Central 

Command

$150,827,243 $165,703,537 $185,949,618 $181,411,132 $193,030,403 $146,639,406 

U.S. Army 

Central

9,160,945 17,420,504 13,119,935 15,991,763 14,542,677 12,758,000

U.S. Air Forces 

Central 

Command

40,484,913 37,197,881 35,132,465 41,548,369 37,998,823 46,540,677

U.S. Naval 

Forces Central 

Command

31,855,000 33,192,000 30,112,000 38,425,000 32,676,000 31,189,000 

Marine Corps 

Forces Central 

Command

7,075,585 6,124,488 6,410,810 4,861,053 5,403,496 8,314,447

Special 

Operations 

Command 

Central

5,021,617 11,543,896 6,700,998 4,751,018 7,236,331 6,600,000

Total $244,425,303 $271,182,305 $277,425,826 $286,988,335 $290,887,731 $252,041,531

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. | GAO-14-440

Note: Headquarters costs reflect obligations for operation and maintenance reported by DOD 

components in nominal terms.

Table 7: Overseas Contingency Operations—Funded Headquarters Costs at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Its Service 

Component Commands, and Theater Special Operations Command in Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013

Nominal 

dollars

Command Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013

U.S. Central 

Command

$67,163,784 $121,930,346 $222,207,493 $222,424,489 $579,589,726 $500,917,305 

U.S. Army 

Central

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

U.S. Air Forces 

Central 

Command

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

U.S. Naval 

Forces Central 

Command

$18,176,000 $30,693,000 $42,373,000 $42,397,000 $51,410,000 $51,973,000

Appendix II: Headquarters Costs in Nominal 

Terms
Appendix II: Headquarters Costs in Nominal 

Terms

Page 38 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Nominal 

dollars

Marine Corps 

Forces Central 

Command

n/a n/a $23,744,733 $32,955,198 $34,555,491 $33,823,547

Special 

Operations 

Command 

Central

$8,944,975 $11,996,100 $22,331,336 $15,966,290 $14,107,212 $12,900,000

Total $94,284,759 $164,619,446 $310,656,562 $313,742,977 $679,662,429 $599,613,852

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. | GAO-14-440

Note: U.S. Army Central and U.S. Air Forces Central Command were not able to separate 

headquarters costs covered by overseas contingency operations funding. Marine Corps Forces 

Central Command was unable to separate headquarters costs covered by overseas contingency 

operations funding prior to fiscal year 2010. Headquarters costs reflect obligations for operation and 

maintenance reported by Department of Defense components in nominal terms.
Appendix III: Resources Devoted to U.S. 

Central Command and Its Service Component 

Commands

Page 39 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 6: Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Its Service Component Commands (Part 1 of 3)

Note: Mission and headquarters-support costs reflect obligations for operation and maintenance and 

are represented in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars. These costs include civilian pay, contract 

services, travel, and equipment, among other costs. The mission and headquarters-support costs for 

CENTCOM intelligence support, security cooperation organizations, and some costs for Special 

Operations Command Central are programmed and budgeted for by other organizations and those 

costs are not reflected in this appendix.

Appendix III: Resources Devoted to U.S. 

Central Command and Its Service 

Component Commands
Appendix III: Resources Devoted to U.S. 

Central Command and Its Service Component 

Commands

Page 40 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 6: Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Its Service Component Commands (Part 2 of 3)

a

Other includes the following organizations: Security Cooperation Offices, CENTCOM Joint Rear Area, CENTCOM Forward Headquarters, Host Nation 

Support Division, Combined Joint Task Force–Kuwait, Joint Task Force–South West Asia and the Combined Air and Space Operations Center.
Appendix III: Resources Devoted to U.S. 

Central Command and Its Service Component 

Commands

Page 41 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Figure 6: Resources Devoted to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Its Service Component Commands (Part 3 of 3)

Note: The combatant commanders have broad authority to organize and structure their commands as 

they deem necessary to achieve their assigned missions. The commands’ structure may include a 

principal staff officer, personal staff to the commander, a special staff group for technical or tactical 

advice, and other groups of staff who are responsible for managing personnel, ensuring the 

availability of intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, preparing long-range or future 

plans, and integrating communications systems. The commands may also have subordinate unified 

commands, joint task forces, and other activities, each with their own staff, which support the 

combatant commands in conducting their operational missions.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 42 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense

Note: GAO received the Department of Defense’s comments on May 30, 2014.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 43 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 44 GAO-14-440 Defense Headquarters

John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report 

include Richard K. Geiger (Assistant Director), Richard P. Burkard, 

Jonathan Harmatz, Tobin J. McMurdie, Jamilah L. Moon, Carol D. 

Petersen, Erika A. Prochaska, Michael D. Silver, and Erik S. WilkinsMcKee.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(351838)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.