SEQUESTRATION

Comprehensive and 

Updated Cost Savings 

Would Better Inform 

DOD Decision Makers 

If Future Civilian 

Furloughs Occur

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2014

GAO-14-529

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-529, a report to 

congressional committees

June 2014

SEQUESTRATION

Comprehensive and Updated Cost Savings Would 

Better Inform DOD Decision Makers If Future Civilian 

Furloughs Occur

Why GAO Did This Study

In March 2013, DOD’s discretionary 

budget was reduced by $37 billion as a 

result of sequestration—across-theboard spending reductions to enforce 

certain budget policy goals. In 

response, the Secretary of Defense 

implemented an administrative 

furlough, among other things by 

placing most of DOD’s civilian 

personnel in a temporary nonduty, 

nonpay status. An administrative 

furlough is a planned event by an 

agency to absorb reductions due to

budget situations other than a lapse in 

appropriations. 

GAO was mandated to review DOD’s 

implementation of its administrative 

furlough. This report (1) examined how 

DOD implemented its furloughs and 

any reported cost savings, 

(2) examined the extent to which DOD 

utilized up-to-date cost-savings 

information in the planning and 

implementation of furloughs, and 

(3) identified any reported examples of

impacts that resulted from the 

furloughs. GAO reviewed DOD 

furlough guidance, interviewed 

officials, and conducted visits at 

selected sites that were selected to 

represent different categories of 

furlough exceptions and potential 

sequestration impacts, among other 

things.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD update 

and utilize its furlough cost-savings 

information as it becomes available in 

the event that it decides to implement 

another administrative furlough in the 

future. DOD partially concurred. GAO 

continues to believe the findings and 

recommendation are valid, as 

discussed in the report.

What GAO Found

In January 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) instructed components to 

plan for the possibility of up to a 22-day administrative furlough of civilian 

personnel. On May 14, 2013, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum 

directing up to an 11-day furlough of most of DOD’s civilians, and on August 6, 

2013, reduced the number of furlough days to 6, resulting in a cost savings of 

about $1 billion from civilian pay, excluding implementation costs. DOD officials 

stated the decision to reduce the number of furlough days was due to DOD 

gaining greater flexibility from fund transfers and reprogrammings that occurred 

towards the end of the fiscal year. DOD identified categories of furlough 

exceptions for personnel including those assigned to a combat zone and those 

necessary to protect safety of life and property. Clarifying guidance was issued to

help ensure that borrowed military personnel were not used to compensate for 

work resulting from the furlough, and to prohibit contracted support from being 

assigned or permitted to perform additional work or duties to compensate for 

workload or productivity loss resulting from the furlough. Ultimately, DOD 

furloughed 624,404 civilians and excepted 142,602 civilians for 6 days. 

DOD developed its initial estimated cost savings for the furlough without 

excluding pay for those excepted from the furlough and did not update its 

estimate throughout the furlough period as more information became available, 

such as real-time cost savings and when subsequent decisions were made to 

reduce the number of furlough days. The initial estimated cost savings were

calculated at $300 per person per furlough day, totaling about $2.1 billion for 11 

furlough days. When DOD reduced the furlough from 11 to 6 days, the estimated 

cost savings were reduced by about $900 million. However, the estimated 

savings per person per day was not updated to reflect actual payroll reductions, 

in part because, according to DOD officials, there was only 1 week’s worth of 

payroll data available at the time the decision was made. While officials stated 

that the estimated savings per person per day was not updated because they 

thought it was sufficient for their purposes and that the decision to reduce the 

number of furlough days was primarily based on funding received from transfers 

and reprogramming actions, the determination of exceptions was made 3 months 

earlier. If this initial estimate had been updated it may have provided morecomprehensive information for DOD officials to consider regarding the length of 

the furlough and DOD’s cost-savings estimate. As DOD continues to face 

budgetary uncertainty, and in the event of a future furlough, having 

comprehensive and updated cost information may help better inform decision 

makers.

Officials at selected sites GAO visited noted a number of actions taken to 

prepare for the furlough and described impacts of the furlough, such as decline in 

morale, mission delays, and inconsistencies and clarification issues with the 

furlough guidance. However, attributing these impacts directly to the furlough is 

difficult given other factors, such as a civilian hiring freeze and pay freeze that 

may also have contributed to declining morale. For example, satisfaction with the 

organization had declined from 63 percent in 2010 to 55 percent in 2013. 

Furthermore, a longer term impact may result from DOD civilians filing over 

32,000 appeals related to the administrative furlough in 2013, most of which have 

not yet been resolved.

View GAO-14-529. For more information, 

contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 

farrellb@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Letter 1

Background 4

DOD Implemented a 6-Day Administrative Furlough of Its Civilian 

Personnel and Reported Approximately $1 Billion in Savings 8

DOD Did Not Use Comprehensive and Updated Information on 

Estimated Cost Savings to Inform Its Decisions 14

Wide Range of Impacts Reported from the Implementation of the 

Administrative Furlough 18

Conclusions 26

Recommendation for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II Department of Defense (DOD) Exceptions Granted to the Civilian 

Workforce in a May 14, 2013 Memorandum 35

Appendix III Analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) Civilian Personnel 

Attrition Rates 38

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 40

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43

Related GAO Products 44

Tables

Table 1: Number of Civilians DOD Reported Were Furloughed and 

Excepted from Furlough in Fiscal Year 2013, by DOD 

Component 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Table 2: Actions Related to DOD’s Sequestration and 

Administrative Furlough Implementation in Fiscal Year 

2013 16

Figures

Figure 1: Appeals Process and Status of DOD Civilian Appeals to 

the Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Figure 2: Army Medical Command Attrition Rates from Fiscal Year 

2009 to Fiscal Year 2013 38

Figure 3: DOD Component Attrition Rate from Fiscal Year 2009 to 

Fiscal Year 2013 39

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

EHRI Enterprise Human Resources Integration

FMR Financial Management Regulation

OPM Office of Personnel and Management

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-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 17, 2014

Congressional Committees

The Department of Defense (DOD) is one of the largest and most 

complex organizations in the federal government, with a total workforce 

consisting of civilians, military personnel,1

Through most of fiscal year 2013, federal agencies faced uncertainty 

about funding levels associated with the automatic, across-the-board 

cancellation of budgetary resources, known as sequestration.

and contracted support. DOD’s 

civilian personnel are critical to achieving the department’s missions by 

performing a wide variety of duties including, among other things, 

providing care for active-duty personnel and their dependents and 

wounded servicemembers, gathering intelligence, managing financial 

accounting systems, and providing mission-essential combat-support 

functions that traditionally have been performed by military personnel, 

such as logistics support and maintenance.

2

 1

Military personnel include active, reserve, and guard forces.

In March 

2013, the President ordered the sequestration of budgetary resources, 

which resulted in approximately $80.5 billion in reductions across federal 

government accounts. DOD’s discretionary budget was ultimately 

reduced by $37 billion. As part of its effort to reduce its budget in the last 

7 months of fiscal year 2013, the Secretary of Defense decided to 

implement an administrative furlough (throughout the remainder of the 

report we use the term furlough to refer to administrative furlough, unless 

otherwise noted) by placing most of its civilian personnel in a temporary 

nonduty, nonpay status. The other two major components of the total 

workforce, military personnel and contracted support, were not subject to 

the furlough. Specifically, DOD’s military personnel accounts were 

exempted from sequestration, and for that reason military personnel were 

2

Sequestration—the process of presidentially directed, largely across-the-board spending 

reductions under which budget authority is reduced to enforce certain budget policy 

goals—was a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112-25 (2011), as 

amended). The Budget Control Act of 2011, as implemented by the Office of Management 

and Budget, required spending cuts of $37 billion from DOD’s budget in fiscal year 2013 

through across-the-board, proportional reductions in funding provided in the 

appropriations acts for most defense accounts, including accounts related to DOD’s 

civilian workforce and contracted services. 
Page 2 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

not included in the scope of the furlough. In addition, while DOD 

continued to use contracted support under existing contracts, and those 

employees were not subject to the furlough, according to DOD officials 

DOD took actions, such as adjustments to the scope of contracts or 

delays in letting new contracts, as part of its efforts to achieve 

sequestration reductions.

Recently, we reported on DOD’s approach to sequestration and, as a part 

of that review, we provided a brief overview of DOD’s implementation of 

the furlough of its civilian personnel.3

We conducted this review in response to House Report 113-102 of the 

House Armed Services Committee, accompanying the bill for the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which mandated that we 

assess how DOD planned for, implemented, and monitored furloughs of 

its civilian workforce to include what challenges the department faced in 

its implementation and cost savings realized. This report (1) examines 

how DOD implemented its civilian workforce furloughs and any reported 

cost savings, (2) examines the extent to which DOD utilized up-to-date 

cost-savings information in the planning and implementation of civilian 

workforce furloughs, and (3) identifies any reported examples of impacts 

that resulted from the DOD civilian workforce furloughs.

Specifically, we reported that DOD 

spending reductions under sequestration affected DOD’s civilian 

workforce and many programs and functions, which required DOD to 

accept some risk in maintaining the readiness of military forces.

To address how DOD implemented its civilian workforce furlough, we 

obtained and analyzed information and interviewed knowledgeable 

officials from the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (hereafter 

referred to as Office of the Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, and the Departments of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force. We obtained and analyzed guidance and policy documents 

outlining the furlough decisions. To understand how the civilian workforce 

furlough was implemented at a local level, we conducted site visits of a 

selected shipyard, medical facility providing 24-hour support, and air 

 3

GAO, Sequestration: Observations on the Department of Defense’s Approach in Fiscal 

Year 2013, GAO-14-177R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2013). We also issued a report 

examining the government-wide implementation of sequestration, see GAO, 2013 

Sequestration: Agencies Reduced Some Services and Investments, While Taking Certain 

Actions to Mitigate Effects, GAO-14-244 (Washington, D.C: Mar. 6, 2014). 
Page 3 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

operations center. Specifically, we visited Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Brooke 

Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, and Air Mobility Command at 

Scott Air Force Base. These sites were selected on the basis of DOD’s 

memo outlining categories of personnel for exceptions to the furlough, 

DOD statements about potential sequestration impacts, and missioncritical occupations as outlined in DOD’s Strategic Workforce Plan. 

Information from these site visits is not generalizable, but provides 

examples of how the furlough was implemented at these locations. To 

examine any reported cost savings that resulted from the DOD civilian 

workforce furloughs, we obtained and analyzed information and 

interviewed officials from the Office of the Comptroller regarding DOD’s 

calculations of the actual cost savings as a result of the administrative 

civilian workforce furlough. We assessed DOD’s methods for calculating 

actual cost savings for the furlough; however, we did not independently 

verify these calculations. The cost savings were calculated from the 

civilian pay from those who were furloughed and did not account for other 

costs from implementing the furlough, such as administrative costs.

To determine the extent to which DOD utilized up-to-date cost-savings 

information in the planning and implementation of civilian workforce 

furloughs, we obtained and analyzed information and interviewed officials 

from the Office of the Comptroller regarding how the department 

calculated the estimated cost savings for the furlough of civilian personnel 

in fiscal year 2013. We examined DOD’s methods for calculating 

estimated cost savings for the furlough; however, we did not 

independently verify the accuracy of these calculations.

To identify any reported examples of impacts that resulted from the DOD 

civilian workforce furloughs, we obtained and analyzed information and 

interviewed knowledgeable officials at the three selected sites—Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard, Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, and 

Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base. Further, we interviewed 

officials and obtained information from the Merit Systems Protection 

Board providing the status of appeals filed by DOD civilians regarding the 

furlough in fiscal year 2013.

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 
Page 4 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

conclusions based on our audit objectives. For further details, please see 

appendix I.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has identified two different 

kinds of furloughs—an administrative furlough, which is a planned event 

by an agency designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, 

reduced funding, lack of work, or other budget situation other than a lapse 

in appropriations, and a shutdown furlough, which results from a lapse in 

appropriations.4 DOD had not implemented a department-wide 

administrative furlough prior to 2013, according to officials within the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 

however, DOD has implemented shutdown furloughs—once in 1995 and 

again in 2013. Since 1980, DOD has conducted furloughs based on gaps 

in appropriation during November 14–17, 1995, and during October 1–17, 

2013.5

DOD’s total workforce has grown since the events of September 2001. 

The civilian workforce has grown from about 687,000 full-time equivalents 

in fiscal year 2001 to about 782,000 full-time equivalents projected in 

fiscal year 2015.6

 4

Office of Personnel Management, Guidance for Administrative Furloughs (June 10, 

2013). 

DOD’s active and reserve military workforce grew 

between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2011 from about 2.25 million to 

about 2.27 million, with a budgeted request for a military workforce of 

about 2.13 million for fiscal year 2015. Further, DOD has increasingly 

relied on contracted support both overseas and in the United States to 

perform many of the same functions as civilian employees, including 

management support, communication services, and intelligence. DOD’s 

total obligations for contracted services grew from about $96 billion in 

5

A total of 399,539 DOD employees were furloughed beginning October 1, 2013, and 

391,318 were recalled on October 7, 2013. DOD was able to recall staff from furlough 

based on its interpretation of the provisions of the Pay Our Military Act that provided 

appropriations, among other things, for civilian personnel and contracted support who 

provided support to members of the armed forces performing active service during that 

period. Pub. L. No. 113-39 (Sept. 30, 2013). No military personnel were furloughed.

6

A full-time equivalent is a standard measure of labor that equates to 1 year of full-time 

work. Civilian personnel include foreign nationals, who can be hired directly by DOD or 

indirectly hired under agreement or contract with foreign governments to provide

personnel services to the U.S. government. 

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

fiscal year 2001 to about $174 billion for an estimated contracted services 

workforce of about 670,000 full-time equivalents in fiscal year 2012.7

For over a decade, strategic human capital management for all federal 

civilians—including those at DOD—has been on our High-Risk list 

because of the long-standing lack of leadership in this area. We have 

conducted assessments of DOD’s strategic workforce plans since 2008, 

and our body of work has found that DOD’s efforts to address mandated 

strategic workforce planning requirements have been mixed. In our most 

recent report in September 2012 on the department’s overall civilian 

strategic workforce plan, we recommended that DOD take a number of 

actions, including to provide guidance for developing future strategic 

workforce plans that clearly directs the functional communities

However, with the drawdown in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as 

well as changing priorities and missions, most military services project a 

decrease in their military and civilian workforce through fiscal year 2017.

8

DOD’s civilian workforce has been affected by a changing operational 

and fiscal environment for a number of years. For example, DOD civilians 

underwent a 3-year pay freeze between 2011 and 2013 along with the 

to collect 

information that identifies not only the number or percentage of personnel 

in its military, civilian, and contractor workforces but also the capabilities 

of the appropriate mix of those three workforces. DOD either concurred or 

partially concurred with our recommendations, stating that, among other 

things, the department was deliberate in applying lessons learned from 

previous workforce plans and identifying specific challenges and the 

actions being taken to address those challenges to meet statutory 

planning requirements by 2015.

 7

Comparable historical data on the contracted support component of DOD’s total 

workforce are not available from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2007, in part because DOD 

was not required to compile contracted support full-time equivalent estimates until 2008. 

Fiscal year 2013 contracted support data were not available at the time we conducted this 

review. DOD is required to compile annually an inventory of contracted services, pursuant 

to 10 U.S.C. § 2330a, to include, among other data, the functions performed, the number 

of contractor full-time equivalents performing the function, and the total dollar amount of 

the services purchased. However, we have previously reported issues with the accuracy 

and completeness of the inventory data. See, for example, GAO, Defense Acquisitions: 

Continued Management Attention Needed to Enhance Use and Review of DOD’s 

Inventory of Contracted Services, GAO-13-491 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2013).

8 DOD defines a functional community as employees who perform similar functions; 

functional communities are discussed further in the background section of this report.
Page 6 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

rest of the federal civilian workforce. DOD was also affected by a 

Continuing Resolution that held funding at fiscal year 2012 levels through 

March 27, 2013, even though DOD had requested funding increases in 

most areas of operations for fiscal year 2013. In addition, in January 

2013, DOD reduced its spending to prepare for a potential sequestration, 

a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions 

under which budgetary resources are permanently canceled to enforce 

certain budget policy goals.9 DOD took several actions to prepare for a 

potential sequestration, such as authorizing components in January 2013 

to initiate a hiring freeze as needed,10

We reported in November 2013 that DOD’s efforts to address 

sequestration—a reduction of $37 billion in DOD’s discretionary budget—

was a short-term response focused on addressing the immediate funding 

reductions for fiscal year 2013.

releasing term and temporary 

employees, and instructing components to draft plans to include the 

possibility of furloughs of up to 22 workdays. On February 20, 2013, DOD 

provided Congress with notice of its intent to furlough.

11 As a result of sequestration and 

increased Overseas Contingency Operations requirements, on March 13, 

2013, DOD issued guidance for components to plan for a furlough of its 

civilian personnel for up to 22 workdays.12 On March 28, 2013, DOD 

reduced the number of planned furlough days from 22 to 14, in response 

to the enactment of a defense appropriations act 13

 9

Sequestration was first established by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 to enforce discretionary spending limits and control the deficit. See 2 

U.S.C. § 900, et seq. This budgetary enforcement mechanism was recently revived by the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, which provided the legal basis for the fiscal year 2013 

sequestration. Pub. L. No. 112-25 (2011).

for the remainder of 

fiscal year 2013. The Secretary of Defense also decided to apply the 

furlough across the department to allow for a reallocation of resources 

throughout the department to address national security priorities. DOD 

10Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memorandum, Handling Budgetary Uncertainty in Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Jan. 10, 2013). 

11GAO-14-177R. 

12OPM regulations provide that furloughs of longer than 30 consecutive calendar days or 

22 workdays if done on a discontinuous basis are covered by the Reduction in Force 

procedures of 5 C.F.R. part 351. See 5 C.F.R. § 351.203.

13 The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6 

(2013).
Page 7 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

also took other actions across the department to reduce its budget in 

response to the sequestration, such as curtailing training for certain units 

and postponing planned maintenance.

The size and complexity of DOD’s worldwide operations—involving a 

requested base budget of approximately $495.6 billion in fiscal year 

201514—and the need to reduce its budget in an ongoing fiscally 

constrained environment, require that DOD have accurate, complete, and 

timely financial information available to make management decisions. We 

have placed DOD on our High-Risk List for financial management 

beginning in 1995 because of financial management weaknesses that 

affect its ability to control costs; ensure accountability; anticipate future 

costs and claims on the budget; detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and 

prepare auditable financial statements. DOD is one of the few federal 

entities that cannot accurately account for its spending or assets.15 We 

have reported that while DOD has made efforts to improve financial 

management, it still has much work to do if it is to meet its long-term 

goals of improving financial management and achieving full financial 

statement auditability.16

 14The President’s budget request for DOD in fiscal year 2015, released on March 4, 2014, 

notes that the administration plans to submit details of the DOD Overseas Contingency 

Operations supplemental budget request as a budget amendment after making a 

determination on enduring force levels in Afghanistan. 

15GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

16GAO, Financial Audit: U.S. Government’s Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Consolidated 

Financial Statements, GAO-13-271R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2013); Financial and 

Performance Management: More Reliable and Complete Information Needed to Address 

Federal Management and Fiscal Challenges, GAO-13-752T (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 

2013).
Page 8 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

On May 14, 2013, the Secretary of Defense, in an effort to minimize 

adverse affects on military readiness, issued a memorandum that 

directed a furlough of most of its civilian personnel in response to major 

budgetary shortfalls from the sequestration.17 The memorandum required 

most civilians to be furloughed for up to 11 days beginning on July 8, 

2013, typically for 1 day per week until September 30, 2013. The 

Secretary of Defense also directed all components to monitor funding 

closely for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 so that, if the budget situation 

permitted, DOD could shorten the length of the furloughs. The 

memorandum listed categories of exceptions to the furlough, including 

personnel assigned to a combat zone, those necessary to protect the 

safety of life and property, and Navy shipyard employees.18 See appendix 

II for a complete list of exceptions granted.19

Additionally, the Secretary of Defense’s May 14, 2013, memorandum 

included an associated schedule for issuance of furlough proposal notices 

at least 30 days in advance of the furlough, allowing at least 7 days for 

 17Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Furloughs (May 14, 2013).

18OPM’s Guidance for Administrative Furloughs (June 10, 2013) explains that agencies 

are responsible for identifying the employees affected by administrative furloughs based 

on budget conditions, funding sources, mission priorities, and other mission-related 

factors.

19DOD did not furlough non-appropriated-fund civilians as they are not funded from 

appropriations, and furloughing them would not have reduced DOD’s direct spending. In 

addition, DOD did not furlough civilian foreign nationals outside of the contiguous United 

States due in part to special agreements with host governments.

DOD Implemented a 

6-Day Administrative 

Furlough of Its 

Civilian Personnel 

and Reported 

Approximately $1 

Billion in Savings

DOD Issued Guidance 

Directing the 

Implementation of an 

Administrative Furlough of 

Its Civilian Personnel
Page 9 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

response by the employee. The memorandum also identified the following 

key dates:

• May 28–June 5: Furlough proposal notices were to be served to 

individual employees subject to furlough.

• June 4–June 12: Individual employee reply periods—time allotted for 

employees to acknowledge receipt of the furlough proposal notice, 

among other things—ended 7 calendar days from when the proposal 

was received, unless component procedures allowed for a different 

reply period.

• June 5–July 5: Furlough decision letters were to be served to 

individual employees subject to furloughs, depending on when the 

proposal was received and prior to the first day of furlough.

• July 8: Furlough period was to begin no earlier than this date.

An attachment to the memorandum noted that defense agencies and 

military services should designate a Deciding Official who would be 

accountable for making final decisions on furloughs for individual 

employees after carefully considering the employee’s reply, if any, and 

the needs of the department.20

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force 

Management issued clarifying guidance throughout the planning and 

implementation of the furlough that, among other things, provided 

standard templates for the proposal and decision notice letters to prepare 

and issue to civilian employees.21

 20According to Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Furloughs, the designated Deciding 

Official would be no lower than a local Installation commander, senior civilian, or 

equivalent who would be in the best position to determine the fair and equitable 

application of the furlough and would have the authority to execute the full range of 

options with respect to providing relief in individual employee cases. This authority 

included, but was not limited to, reducing the number of days/hours an individual 

employee was furloughed or granting the individual employee an exception from the 

furlough altogether.

In addition, guidance was issued to 

provide clarification on the use of leave without pay during the time of the 

21Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, 

Guidance for the Administrative Furlough Process (Mar. 13, 2013); Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, Updated Guidance and 

Templates for Fiscal Year 2013 Furlough (May 3, 2013). 
Page 10 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

furlough; to help ensure that borrowed military personnel were not used to 

compensate for work resulting from the furlough;22 and to prohibit 

contracted support from being assigned or permitted to perform additional 

work or duties to compensate for workload or productivity loss resulting 

from the furlough.23

Based on the Secretary of Defense’s May 14, 2013, memorandum, 

managers were given the authority to develop specific furlough 

procedures in order to minimize adverse mission effects and limit the 

harm to morale and productivity. The memorandum also noted that 

bargaining with unions may be required.24 As a result, military 

departments developed implementing guidance based on the Secretary 

of Defense’s memorandum requiring the furlough. For example, the Army 

issued a memorandum on command reporting requirements for the 

furlough to capture information on the issuance of furlough proposal 

notices and decision letters.25 Also, the Navy issued supplemental 

guidance on the scheduling of furloughs that included details on 

commander authorities to make decisions on the scheduling of furlough 

days for each employee, subject to union negotiation, as appropriate.26

 22We have an ongoing review to examine DOD’s use of borrowed military personnel to 

determine whether it is having an effect on readiness.

In 

addition, the Air Force excluded from furlough those civilian employees 

whose homes were destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by the 

Oklahoma tornadoes in 2013.

23Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, 

Supplemental Guidance on Leave Without Pay Status for the Department of Defense 

Civilian Employees during an Administrative Furlough (May 21, 2013); Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, Civilian Furloughs and 

Total Force Management (June 28, 2013).

24DOD civilian employees generally have the right to respond to or rebut a furlough 

proposal to their command, grieve a furlough decision to their union, or appeal a furlough 

decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

25Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, 

Memorandum, Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Administrative Furlough Reporting Requirements

(May 30, 2013).

26Department of the Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs), Memorandum, Department of the Navy Supplemental Guidance on the 

Scheduling of Furloughs (May 21, 2013).
Page 11 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

On August 6, 2013, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum 

reducing the number of furlough days from 11 to 6 days for most civilians. 

This action also cancelled furloughs for Department of Defense Education 

Activity instructional and support staff on 10-month contracts, and 

required new hires whose furlough period began after July 8, 2013, to 

take 2 furlough days per pay period between their furlough start date and 

August 17, 2013.27 As discussed in greater detail later in the report, the 

department was able to reduce the number of furlough days after 

completing several transfer and reprogramming actions, which gave the 

department additional flexibility and resulted in substantial realignment of 

funds—about $8.6 billion.28 Additional guidance was issued after the 

reduction in furlough days to address those who took more than 6 days of 

furlough, by allowing them to substitute any excess furlough days for 

leave. In the event an employee did not have sufficient leave accrued, or 

the employee elected not to substitute leave, excess furlough time 

remained as unpaid time.29

 27Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Reducing Furlough Days, (Aug. 6, 2013). 

Ultimately, DOD reported that it furloughed 

624,404 civilians and excepted 142,602 from furlough. Specifically, of the 

DOD civilians furloughed, the Army furloughed about 221,000; the Navy 

furloughed about 153,000; the Air Force furloughed about 157,000; and 

the other DOD agencies furloughed about 93,000 (see table 1 below).

28Transfer of funds is shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one appropriation or 

fund account to another, and requires specific statutory authority. GAO-05-734SP Budget 

Glossary. Reprogramming, by contrast, is the shifting of funds within an appropriation 

account for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of appropriation. 

GAO-05-734SP. While GAO’s definitions of transfer and reprogramming are mutually 

exclusive, the DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) takes a broader view of 

reprogramming, defining it as “[r]ealignment of budget authority from the purpose for 

which appropriated to finance another (usually emergent, unfunded) requirement.”

DODFMR 7000.14-R, Glossary (December 2008). In keeping with this broader view, the 

DODFMR requires that all transfers of funds not directed by Congress be accompanied by 

a reprogramming action. DODFMR 7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 3, § 030404 (January 

2011).

29Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, 

Furlough—Treatment of Excess Furlough Hours (Sept. 19, 2013). Any furlough hours that 

exceed the 6-day (48 hour) requirement could be replaced, upon an employee’s request, 

by annual leave, military leave, home leave, compensatory time-off, credit hours, or timeoff awards, provided the employee had sufficient leave in the category requested at the 

time of the furlough occurrence. Any leave substitution for furlough hours will be 

calculated at the same rate of pay the employee would have received had he or she used 

the leave category at the time. 
Page 12 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Table 1: Number of Civilians DOD Reported Were Furloughed and Excepted from 

Furlough in Fiscal Year 2013, by DOD Component

Department of Defense 

(DOD) component

Total number of 

furloughed civilians

Total number of civilians 

excepted from furlough

Army 221,322 45,469

Navy 152,890 53,646

Air Force 157,468 23,080

DOD Agencies 92,724 20,407

Total 624,404 142,602

Source: DOD. | GAO-14-529

Note: The total number of civilians furloughed and excepted from furlough as reported by the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness does not include those paid with 

nonappropriated funds or by foreign military sales, nor those not paid directly by DOD funds.

Based on the Secretary of Defense’s May 14, 2013, memorandum 

initiating the furlough, managers carried out the planning and 

implementation of the furlough for their respective offices. Specifically, in 

addition to the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s efforts to notify its 10 

unions with national consultation rights about the decision to furlough, 

managers carried out negotiations with over 1,500 local bargaining units 

on the implementation of the furlough of civilians, which included issues 

such as who would be furloughed, who would be excepted from furlough, 

and the scheduled furlough days. Officials at Brooke Army Medical 

Center, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Air Mobility Command described the 

following actions they took to implement the furlough at their sites:

• Notification letter process: Officials at these sites described their 

process for designating a Deciding Official and the distribution, 

receipt, and tracking of furlough notification letters. For example, at 

Brooke Army Medical Center, the Deciding Official hand-signed each 

furlough notification letter for over 2,700 civilians that were then 

distributed to the medical departments to be handed out by the 

civilians’ supervisors. If the supervisor was unable to hand-deliver the 

notification letter, the letter was mailed to the civilian via regular and 

certified mail. The supervisors then followed up with the civilians who 

received the letters to obtain their signature or acknowledgement of 

receipt of the notification and provided copies to the civilians and 

copies to the human resources office to be placed in the official 

personnel files.

• Work schedules: Civilian personnel were assigned varying schedules 

for the furlough, depending on negotiations with unions and 

Managers Were 

Responsible for 

Implementing the 

Administrative Furlough
Page 13 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

consideration of mission requirements. For example, officials at these 

sites said that some offices implemented Friday as civilian furlough 

day, while other offices spread out the furlough days of their civilians 

across the work week. In addition, some civilians took their furlough 

days in clusters rather than just 1 day a week.

• Tracking of furlough days: Officials at these sites explained that they 

monitored the timecards of civilians who were furloughed to ensure 

that they were taking the required number of furlough days and in 

order to know when the furlough would end for each civilian based on 

their individual schedule or circumstance. For example, officials at Air 

Mobility Command explained that their office of financial management 

generated reports on the number of furlough hours taken based on 

timecard reporting, and when the number of furlough days was 

reduced to 6 days, officials audited the timecard system to ensure 

civilians under their purview had taken the correct number of furlough 

days.

• Exceptions process: The exceptions determination process varied at 

these sites, and additional exceptions to the furlough were sought and 

granted as the department clarified the personnel covered under 

categorical exceptions and as commands granted individual 

exceptions. For example, officials at Brooke Army Medical Center set 

up a team early on to identify and prioritize department needs within 

the hospital to ensure they were able to meet the mission of providing 

adequate staff and high-quality care to patients. This allowed Brooke 

Army Medical Center to identify civilian personnel to except from the 

furlough based upon prioritized needs, such as evening shift 

supervisors within its nursing department. Also, the Public Works 

office at Norfolk Naval Shipyard requested exceptions for some of its 

mechanics and utilities staff to provide 24-hour support.

As a result of DOD furloughing 624,404 civilians, the Office of the

Comptroller reported that the department saved approximately $1 billion

from the furlough. These cost savings were calculated using Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service–reported payroll data by summing the 

result of each employee’s hourly pay rate multiplied by the number of 

furlough hours recorded in his or her time card. Office of the Comptroller 

officials reported they provided DOD components with Defense Finance 

and Accounting Service payroll data reports for their respective civilian 

employees and requested that they validate the data to ensure that all 

employees who were required to be furloughed correctly recorded their 

furlough days in the timekeeping systems. The cost savings calculation 

DOD Reported Cost 

Savings of Approximately 

$1 Billion from the 

Administrative Furlough
Page 14 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

did not include the last week of the fiscal year because the last pay period 

of the fiscal year—which ran from September 22–October 5, 2013—

overlapped with the first week of fiscal year 2014 and included leave 

without pay recorded for the government shutdown.30

DOD’s reported cost savings of $1 billion does not account for other costs 

the department incurred while implementing the furlough, such as 

administrative costs from processing furlough notification letters or 

developing furlough guidance, as well as costs from the loss of

productivity due to civilians being furloughed. For example, officials we 

interviewed at Brooke Army Medical Center stated that many hours were 

spent on administrative tasks to prepare for and implement the furlough. 

In addition, officials from Army Medical Command explained that there 

was a loss of productivity, as staff set aside their primary tasks to 

concentrate on implementing the furlough. Further, Marine Corps officials 

stated that they spent a majority of their time dealing with the furlough 

rather than focusing on day-to-day business, such as developing critical 

skills training.

Office of the 

Comptroller officials stated that the savings amount from the final pay 

period in the fiscal year was expected to be minimal as the majority of the 

furlough savings were realized by August 24, 2013, when most 

furloughed civilians would have taken their required 6 furlough days.

DOD developed an estimated cost-savings for the furlough to assist in 

planning efforts to meet sequestration cost-reduction targets; however, 

DOD did not exclude pay for those excepted from the furlough and did not 

update its estimate throughout the furlough period as more information 

became available, such as real-time cost savings and when subsequent 

decisions were made to reduce the number of furlough days. As noted 

earlier, the Secretary of Defense directed a furlough of most of the 

department’s civilian personnel in response to major budgetary shortfalls 

from the sequestration. The Office of the Comptroller developed an 

average estimated cost savings per person per furlough day of 

approximately $300.31

 30Leave without pay, regardless of whether it is for a furlough or other event, is recorded 

in federal agency timekeeping systems with the same code. Therefore, the administrative 

furlough and the furlough resulting from the government shutdown in 2013 was recorded 

with the same leave without pay code. 

Officials within the Office of the Comptroller stated 

31In developing its cost estimate, DOD did not consider other potential costs beyond 

payroll, such as those described above.

DOD Did Not Use 

Comprehensive and 

Updated Information 

on Estimated Cost 

Savings to Inform Its 

Decisions
Page 15 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

that the estimate was developed in order to provide senior leaders within 

DOD with information in a short time frame to consider how much could 

be saved through a furlough as part of an effort to meet sequestration 

cost-reduction targets. The average estimated cost-savings per person 

per day was developed prior to the identification of exceptions to the 

furlough and used aggregated payroll data from Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service and civilian personnel data from the Defense Civilian 

Personnel Data System. Upon directing a furlough of 11 days for most 

civilian personnel in May 2013, the Office of the Comptroller estimated a 

cost savings of approximately $2.1 billion. The Office of the Comptroller 

developed the $2.1 billion estimate by multiplying the estimated average 

savings of $300 per person per day by the estimated total number of 

civilians being furloughed. In the same memorandum directing the 11 day 

furlough, the Secretary of Defense included categories of exceptions to 

the furlough. When the Office of the Comptroller developed the $2.1 

billion estimated savings it accounted for exceptions in their estimated 

total number of civilians being furloughed, but not in its average estimated 

cost-savings per person per day.

DOD’s total estimated cost savings was not as accurate as it could have 

been because it did not account for excepted employees in its average 

per person per day estimated cost-savings. As stated above, DOD 

excepted142,602 civilian employees, or approximately 18 percent of the 

civilian workforce from the furlough. The civilians who were excepted may 

have had higher salaries or lower salaries; thus, these exceptions may 

have affected the average per day savings. Further the per person per 

day cost savings effects the total estimated savings. For example, 

assuming the same number of civilians DOD used to calculate its 

estimated cost savings were furloughed for 11 days, a $10 difference in 

estimated average savings per person per day changes the total 

estimated savings by approximately $72 million.

On August 6, 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced a reduction in 

the number of furlough days from 11 to 6 days, and the Office of the 

Comptroller adjusted the estimated cost savings to about $1.2 billion 

using the original estimated cost savings of $300 per person per day. 

Officials within the Office of the Comptroller stated that the decision to 

reduce the number of furlough days was based on fund transfers and 
Page 16 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

reprogrammings32

Table 2: Actions Related to DOD’s Sequestration and Administrative Furlough 

Implementation in Fiscal Year 2013 

that occurred towards the end of the fiscal year. In 

September 2013, DOD stated that the relevant congressional committees 

had approved about $8.6 billion of DOD’s total transfer and 

reprogramming requests. These reprogrammings and fund transfers 

allowed DOD the flexibility to reverse some actions taken to achieve 

spending reductions to address sequestration. Among actions taken, 

DOD reduced the number of furlough days from 11 days to 6 days. Table 

2 shows the actions related to DOD’s implementation of sequestration 

and the furlough.

Date Action

January 10, 2013 The Deputy Secretary of Defense instructed components to draft 

plans to include the possibility of furloughs of up to 22 workdays.

February 20, 2013 The Department of Defense (DOD) provided Congress with notice 

of its intent to furlough. 

February 2013 The DOD Office of the Comptroller began calculating cost 

estimates for a potential furlough of civilian personnel based on 

various scenarios. 

March 1, 2013 The President issued the sequestration order. 

March 26, 2013 The 2013 full-year appropriations act provided DOD with $7.5 billion 

in broad transfer authority.

May 14, 2013

a

The Secretary of Defense announced an administrative furlough of 

11 days for most of DOD’s civilian personnel and identified broad 

categories of exceptions to the furlough.

May 17, 2013 DOD submitted two requests to Congress totaling $9.4 billion to 

transfer and reprogram funds that had been appropriated for fiscal 

year 2013.

July 8, 2013

b

DOD began to furlough most of its civilian personnel. 

July 19, 2013 DOD submitted two additional requests to Congress for transfer 

and reprogramming of funds totaling about $1.5 billion.

 32Subject to law and DOD financial management regulation, DOD has the authority to 

transfer funds between appropriation accounts and to reprogram funds within an 

appropriation account. DOD guidance requires that it seek approval from the 

congressional defense committees to reprogram funds above certain thresholds. This 

guidance also specifies circumstances where the department can reprogram funds without 

prior congressional approval if the cumulative increase or decrease of funds is within 

established thresholds.

c
Page 17 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Date Action

August 6, 2013 The Secretary of Defense announced a reduction in the number of 

furlough days from 11 to 6 days for civilian personnel and canceled 

the furlough for certain positions. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information and congressional actions. | GAO-14-529

a

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6 (2013). Of this 

amount, $3.5 billion was special transfer authority for purposes related to Overseas Contingency 

Operations and $4 billion was general transfer authority. These amounts were generally consistent 

with the amounts of broad transfer authority that Congress provided to DOD in fiscal years 2011 and 

2012.

b

These requests proposed to transfer about $7.3 billion between accounts using DOD’s broad 

transfer authorities, and, according to DOD officials, the remaining $2.1 billion represented large 

reprogrammings within budget accounts and transfers from DOD’s foreign currency fluctuations 

account.

c

These requests identified replacement sources for the transfer or reprogramming requests originally 

submitted on May 17, 2013, but disapproved at that time by the congressional defense committees, 

as well as new requests to transfer and reprogram fiscal year 2013 funds.

According to GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government,33

 33GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

pertinent information should be identified, captured, and 

distributed to the right people in sufficient detail, in the right form, and at 

the appropriate time to maintain its relevance and value to management 

in controlling operations and making decisions efficiently and effectively. 

As part of planning initiated in January 2013 for the components to 

prepare for furloughs up to 22 days, the Office of the Comptroller began 

developing a cost-savings estimate. Between the time that the Office of 

the Comptroller produced the initial cost-savings estimate of $2.1 billion in 

May 2013 and when the department carried out the furloughs beginning 

July 8, 2013, the Office of the Comptroller did not update the average 

estimated cost-savings per person per day to exclude from the cost 

savings the pay of those civilians excepted from the furlough—142,602. 

Further, the Office of the Comptroller did not update its cost-savings 

estimate based on reported payroll data showing real-time furlough cost 

savings between July 8, 2013, and the time that the furlough days were 

reduced in August 6, 2013, even though the estimate was used in 

continuing discussions. Officials within the Office of the Comptroller 

stated that they did not update the estimate because the actual payroll 

data were not available until July 23, 2013. While officials within the Office 

of the Comptroller stated that the decision to furlough was just one action 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Nov. 1, 1999); and Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G 

(Aug. 1, 2001).
Page 18 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

in response to DOD’s effort to meet sequestration cost-reduction targets, 

they also pointed out that the military services used the cost-savings 

estimate in meetings with DOD leadership that contributed to the 

reduction in furlough days.

Office of the Comptroller officials stated that they did not update the 

estimate because they decided to wait until the actual cost savings were 

achieved once all furloughed personnel had taken the required number of 

furlough days by the end of the fiscal year. In addition, officials within the 

Office of the Comptroller explained that DOD did not track the cost 

savings from the furlough in real time because the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service reports payroll data on a biweekly basis and there 

was only 1 week’s worth of payroll data available from the July 8 pay 

period at the time that the decision was made to reduce the number of 

furlough days on August 6, 2013. However, the determination of 

exceptions was made 3 months earlier and was not considered in the 

initial $300 estimated average cost-savings per person per day nor was 

the estimated average cost-saving per person per day ever updated. 

Officials reiterated that the decision to reduce the number of furlough 

days was primarily based on additional funding flexibility resulting from 

transfer and reprogramming actions, as well as reduced Overseas 

Contingency Operations funding requirements. While it is unknown 

whether DOD officials’ decisions would have been affected had they 

received comprehensive and updated cost-savings estimates, 

incorporating such comprehensive and updated information in its cost 

savings estimates in the future, in the event that a furlough is again 

necessary, may help better inform decision makers.

Officials from selected sites discussed examples of impacts that resulted 

from the furlough. Specifically, some officials we interviewed at selected 

sites discussed actions taken to prepare for or mitigate potential impacts 

resulting from the furlough such as proactive planning efforts, identified 

efficiencies, and use of cost savings to offset unfunded requirements. 

Officials we interviewed also described specific impacts that they believe 

can be attributed to the furlough, such as decline in civilian morale, 

attrition, mission delays, inconsistencies and clarification issues with the 

furlough guidance, and impacts on servicemembers’ morale. However, 

measuring the direct impact of the furlough is difficult since it was a part 

of a broader set of sequestration actions that included a civilian hiring 

freeze, limits on overtime, and termination of temporary and term hires, 

as well as other non-sequestration-related personnel actions, such as a 

3-year pay freeze between 2011 and 2013. Further, DOD civilians filed 

Wide Range of 

Impacts Reported 

from the 

Implementation of the 

Administrative 

Furlough
Page 19 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

over 32,000 appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board related to the 

furlough in 2013.

The following are examples of actions taken to prepare for or mitigate 

potential impacts reported by officials at the locations we visited from the 

implementation of the furlough:

• Proactive Planning and Furlough Tracking—Some officials described 

proactive planning efforts that took place at their sites to prepare for 

the furlough. For example, Brooke Army Medical Center officials 

reported setting up a team in February 2013 to conduct worst-case 

scenario planning and determine mission priorities for adequate 

staffing to help ensure high quality of patient care for a potential 

furlough. This team was then able to identify individuals for exception 

to the furlough based on their planning efforts once they received the 

furlough guidance designating 11 furlough days and categories of 

exceptions. Some officials from all three sites also described efforts to 

capture potential and realized impacts from the furlough through 

various reporting mechanisms, such as a furlough impact log.

• Identification of Efficiencies—Some officials provided examples of 

individual command efforts to identify and implement efficiencies 

during the furlough. For example, some officials at all three sites 

noted that because of the limitations placed on overtime during 

sequestration and the added impact of the furlough on civilian staff, 

approval of overtime was scrutinized at a higher level than before. As 

a result, officials at these sites gained a better awareness of the 

appropriate use of overtime and reported reductions in the use of 

overtime. In addition, officials from Brooke Army Medical Center’s 

Emergency Medicine Department stated that they were able to defer 

the size of their routine supply purchases after prioritizing spending on 

mission-essential needs during the furlough.

• Use of Cost Savings to Offset Unfunded Requirements—Some 

officials at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Air Mobility Command 

described using the cost savings realized from the reductions in 

civilian pay due to the furlough to apply towards other unfunded 

requirements. Officials from the Department of the Navy stated that 

the individual commands were allowed to use the money saved from 

the furloughs based on individual priorities. Brooke Army Medical 

Center reported an estimated return of about $3.4 million as furlough 

days were reduced from the initially planned 22 days to 6 days. Army 

Medical Command initially withheld civilian pay from the medical 

facility to account for the estimated cost of furloughing staff for 22 
Page 20 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

days and later returned the funds to Brooke Army Medical Center as 

the length of the furlough was reduced.

The following are examples of impacts reported by officials at the 

locations we visited that they believe can be linked to the implementation 

of the furlough:

• Decline in Morale—Officials at all three sites stated that civilian 

morale declined due to the civilian workforce furlough that resulted in 

a 20 percent reduction in pay per week for 6 weeks. This was further 

exacerbated as some civilians were excepted from furlough while 

other civilian colleagues were not, contracted support staff continued 

working, and some civilians who were historically deemed “mission 

essential” and required to report to the office for events, such as snow 

days, were now furloughed. For example, officials at Norfolk Naval 

Shipyard reported civilians furloughed within the supporting 

commands experienced frustration and a decline in morale as their 

civilian colleagues working in the shipyard were not only excepted but 

were also working overtime during the furlough period. Officials at 

Brooke Army Medical Center described a decline in morale within the 

Army inpatient nursing staff because the Air Force excepted its 

inpatient nursing staff from furlough while the Army did not.34

Officials at the sites we visited stated that they followed the Secretary of 

Defense’s guidance and did not use borrowed military personnel to 

compensate for work that would have been conducted by furloughed 

Further, 

some officials at Brooke Army Medical Center indicated that the 

furlough affected some patients who tried to get refills on their 

medication prior to the furlough out of fear that they would not have 

access to care during the furlough period. In addition, officials at Air 

Mobility Command described a decline in morale among civilian staff 

who had to take a pay cut while contracted support staff did not. 

Further, officials at Air Mobility Command described instances where 

some civilians historically considered “mission essential,” such as air 

traffic controllers and firefighters, were now furloughed.

 34According to officials at Brooke Army Medical Center, the Air Force transitioned its inpatient staff from Wilford Hall to Brooke Army Medical Center as part of the Base 

Realignment and Closure process, but consolidation of the management of the two 

workforces had not been completed at the time of the furlough. For information about the 

Base Realignment and Closure process see our report GAO, Military Bases: DOD Has 

Processes to Comply with Statutory Requirements for Closing or Realigning Installations, 

GAO-13-645 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2013).
Page 21 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

civilians. Some officials stated that servicemembers experienced a 

decline in morale as they worked longer hours to complete their missions 

in the absence of civilians who were furloughed. For example, at Brooke 

Army Medical Center, officials stated that they relied on their military 

medical staff to work during the furlough. Officials stated that their use of 

military personnel only extended to those personnel who were assigned 

to their unit and that they did not borrow personnel from other units. While 

the term “borrowed military personnel” is not defined in Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management’s June 2013 

memorandum, the Army’s definition of “borrowed military personnel” only 

includes certain uses of military personnel outside of the unit to which 

they are assigned.35

In December 2013, DOD reported to Congress that the results of OPM’s 

recent annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey showed its civilian 

workforce morale had continued to decline, and that DOD expected the 

furloughs to affect employee recruiting and retention in the future.36 Of 

note, the survey showed a decline in satisfaction among DOD 

respondents to questions that dealt with job satisfaction (decline from 71 

percent in 2010 to 64 percent in 2013), pay (decline from 65 percent in 

2010 to 53 percent in 2013), and satisfaction with the organization 

(decline from 63 percent in 2010 to 55 percent in 2013).37

 35Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, 

Civilian Furloughs and Total Force Management; and Army Regulation 570-4, Manpower 

and Equipment Control: Manpower Management (Feb. 8, 2006). The Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Readiness and Force Management’s memorandum and Army Regulation 

refer to “borrowed military manpower” which we refer to as borrowed military personnel.

DOD identified 

36On December 20, 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

responded to congressional direction in the House Report accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees on the steps that the department is taking to minimize any negative 

impact on the morale of the civilian workforce and long-term consequences on recruiting 

and retention of the civilian workforce.

37Office of Personnel Management, 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results: 

Department of Defense Agency Management Report. The survey was administered from 

April 23, 2013, to June 14, 2013, and had a response rate of 38 percent with 65,007 out of 

172,632 employees responding to the survey. Of note, declines in satisfaction to the 

questions noted could be due to a number of factors beyond the furlough, such as the 

sequestration, 3 years of pay freezes, and limited hiring. Statisticians weighted survey 

data to adjust for differences between characteristics of the respondents and the 

population of employees surveyed. All estimates have a margin of error of less than +/- 1 

percentage point.
Page 22 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

several examples of efforts it was taking to minimize any negative impact 

on the morale of the civilian workforce and long-term consequences on 

recruiting and retention of the civilian workforce. Most of these actions 

were high-level, such as continuing to focus on the Strategic Workforce 

Plan and conducting leadership development programs for entry, mid-, 

and senior-level personnel. Other examples of actions DOD noted it was 

taking to address morale included initiating an enterprise strategic 

recruitment effort and the development of a new performance appraisal 

system. However, the letter does not provide specifics about these 

actions. For example, it does not address how the Strategic Workforce 

Plan would minimize the negative impact on morale of the civilian 

workforce. The letter also does not provide time frames for when these 

actions will be completed.

• Attrition as a Result of the Furlough: Officials at Brooke Army Medical 

Center and Norfolk Naval Shipyard stated a number of examples 

where employees left as a result of the furlough. For example, some 

officials at Brooke Army Medical Center we interviewed stated that 

they knew of colleagues who left the hospital to work at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs since it did not furlough its staff. In 

August 2013, the Army Surgeon General made a statement that, 

during 2013, 2,700 Army civilian medical doctors, nurses, and other 

health workers left their jobs for work elsewhere due to the furlough, 

many transferring to the Department of Veterans Affairs. We 

examined the attrition rate of civilian personnel at Army Medical 

Command and DOD between fiscal years 2009 and 2013. 

Specifically, for the Army Medical Command, we found that attrition 

rates for on-board civilian medical officers and nurses peaked at 22 

percent in fiscal year 2011. For more information on Army Medical 

Command and DOD component attrition rates, see appendix III.

• Mission Delays—While none of the selected sites we visited indicated 

mission failure as a result of the furlough, some officials described 

increased challenges in meeting their missions.

• Defense Logistics Agency, Maritime support command, officials 

from the Norfolk Naval Shipyard stated that, during the furloughs, 

they experienced an increased backlog in providing goods and 

services in support of shipyard operations. Specifically, the 

Defense Logistics Agency, Maritime support command, reported 

that the backlog of requests to provide goods and services nearly 

doubled during the furlough period, from 330 outstanding requests 

on July 3, 2013, to a peak of 614 outstanding requests on July 29, 
Page 23 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

2013, before dropping down to 465 outstanding requests by 

August 13, 2013, as the furlough drew to an end for most civilians.

• Norfolk Navy Shipyard officials stated that a building had a fire 

alarm malfunction on a Friday during the furlough period and, 

because civilian staff were furloughed, no one was able to fix it 

until the following Tuesday, so the building had to establish a 24-

hour watch over the weekend to ensure a potential fire could be 

reported.

• Air Mobility Command officials described delays in permanent 

changes of station because the furlough occurred in summer—the 

peak season for such moves. These officials explained that delays 

in permanent changes of station can impact a military 

servicemember’s ability to report to his or her next installation on 

time.

• Guidance Challenges—Some officials stated that they were confused 

by the guidance that was provided on implementing the furlough, 

while others expressed frustration at the volume of updates to the 

guidance. For example, at Brooke Army Medical Center, the Air Force 

had not yet transitioned its civilians to Army control through the Base 

Realignment and Closure process,38

 38According to officials at Brooke Army Medical Center, the Air Force transitioned its inpatient staff from Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center to Brooke Army Medical Center 

as part of the Base Realignment and Closure process, but consolidation of the 

management of the two workforces had not completed at the time of the furlough. For 

information about the Base Realignment and Closure process see 

and therefore Army and Air 

Force civilians were operating under separate guidance during the 

furlough. This added to the administrative burden of management at 

Brooke Army Medical Center and confusion among staff who work 

side-by-side. Specifically, Air Force staff decided to except all of their 

in-patient nurses from furlough, while the Army furloughed its inpatient nurses. Further, officials at Brooke Army Medical Center and 

Air Mobility Command stated that they received numerous updates to 

the furlough guidance, often on a daily basis and from multiple 

sources. Officials expressed confusion and sought clarification over 

the terms used in the furlough guidance, such as “borrowed military 

personnel,” “mission essential,” and “24-hour emergency care.” For 

example, the term “borrowed military personnel” was not defined in 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force 

GAO-13-645.
Page 24 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Management’s June 2013 memorandum regarding the use of 

borrowed military personnel during the furlough.39

• Longer Term Impact from DOD Civilian Appeals Filed to Merit 

Systems Protection Board—DOD federal civilians filed 32,259 

appeals regarding the administrative furlough to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. Once DOD began implementing the furlough on 

July 8, 2013, DOD civilians were then eligible to file appeals of the 

furlough action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Figure 1 

illustrates the process for filing and adjudicating appeals with the Merit 

Systems Protection Board and the status of the DOD civilians’

appeals to the administrative furlough as of March 31, 2014.

 39Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management Memorandum, 

Civilian Furloughs and Total Force Management. The guidance refers to “borrowed 

military manpower” which we refer to as borrowed military personnel.
Page 25 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Figure 1: Appeals Process and Status of DOD Civilian Appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board

a

Numbers in figure may not add due to rounding.
Page 26 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

All of the 1,101 cases that have been adjudicated to date have been 

decided in DOD’s favor, though the Merit Systems Protection Board has 

received 8 petitions for review from DOD civilians who have chosen to 

appeal the Administrative Judge’s decision in their case. According to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board, their current workload is unprecedented, 

as they received over 32,000 furlough appeals from DOD employees 

alone in 2013—approximately 5 times the number of personnel appeals 

they typically receive in 1 year. As a result, the Merit Systems Protection 

Board is unable to predict how long it will take to adjudicate all of the 

DOD furlough appeals, but the Merit Systems Protection Board has 

committed to issuing initial decisions in all furlough appeals by the end of 

fiscal year 2015.

In light of ongoing fiscal uncertainty, and given the toll that furlough 

actions can have on mission needs and employee morale, among other 

things, it is important that DOD accurately estimate financial actions that 

affect its personnel and update these estimates to ensure the most timely 

and reliable information is available for effective planning. This includes 

taking actions aligned with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, such as identifying, capturing, and distributing information to 

the right people in sufficient detail and at the appropriate time to maintain 

its relevance and value to management in controlling operations and 

making effective and efficient decisions. DOD’s approach to furloughing 

did not adjust to accommodate decisions made to except certain civilian 

employees from furlough. Further, because DOD only had 1 week’s worth 

of civilian payroll data at the time it reduced the number of furlough days, 

it did not track cost savings in real time. Such information could be 

considered during any future administrative furlough deliberations to 

enable DOD leadership to make informed decisions by having reliable 

and accurate cost-savings information as it becomes available. In light of 

the current fiscal environment, it is even more critical for DOD to 

accurately identify its current and future total workforce priorities and 

associated costs. While DOD was able to mitigate the furlough as a result 

of transfer and reprogramming actions, DOD may face future furloughs 

where it may be limited in how much funding is available to transfer and 

reprogram and the length of a potential furlough period may be longer, 

thus having comprehensive, up-to-date information for decision makers 

would be important.

Conclusions
Page 27 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

To help ensure that DOD is better informed in its decision-making 

processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

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

for Personnel and Readiness to utilize comprehensive and up-to-date 

furlough cost-savings information as it becomes available in the event 

that DOD decides to implement another administrative furlough in the 

future.

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

written comments, DOD partially concurred with the recommendation to 

utilize comprehensive and up-to-date furlough cost-savings information as 

it becomes available in the event that DOD decides to implement another 

administrative furlough in the future. DOD’s comments are summarized 

below and reprinted in appendix IV. 

In its written comments, DOD did not elaborate on why it partially 

concurred with the recommendation. DOD stated that it had several 

concerns with the findings in the report. The department stated that 

important contextual information regarding the size of the total force was 

not included in the draft report and elaborated on reasons for growth in 

the civilian workforce after the events of September 11, 2001. DOD stated 

that without context, readers may believe that the DOD civilian workforce 

is not thoughtfully and purposefully sized. However, we disagree with 

DOD’s characterization of the draft report. The draft report states that 

DOD’s civilian personnel are critical to achieving the department’s 

missions by performing a wide variety of duties, and the report

acknowledges that civilians have expanded their responsibilities. Further, 

the focus of this report was not on DOD’s total workforce management 

but how DOD planned for, implemented, and monitored furloughs of its 

civilian workforce to include any challenges the department faced in its 

implementation and cost savings realized. Nonetheless, we have 

conducted assessments of DOD’s strategic workforce plans since 2008, 

and our body of work has found that DOD’s efforts to address strategic 

workforce planning requirements, including assessing the appropriate mix 

of civilians, military and contractor personnel, have been mixed. For 

example, in our most recent report in September 2012, on the 

department’s overall civilian strategic workforce plan, we recommended 

that DOD take a number of actions, including providing guidance for 

developing future strategic workforce plans that clearly directs the 

functional communities to collect information that identifies not only the 

number or percentage of personnel in its military, civilian, and contractor 

workforces, but also the capabilities of the appropriate mix of those three 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 28 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

workforces. DOD either concurred or partially concurred with our 

recommendations, stating that, among other things, the department was 

deliberate in applying lessons learned from previous workforce plans and 

identifying specific challenges and the actions being taken to address 

those challenges to meet statutory planning requirements by 2015. Our 

review on DOD’s latest strategic workforce plan will be issued in July 

2014.

Although DOD did not specifically state in its letter why it partially 

concurred with the recommendation, DOD provided comments related to 

the recommendation, and we have addressed them throughout the report 

as appropriate. However, we disagree with two of DOD’s specific 

comments as discussed below:

• DOD commented that we should delete the report’s discussion 

regarding DOD being placed on our High Risk List because of 

financial management weaknesses that affect its ability to control 

costs; ensure accountability; anticipate future costs and claims on 

the budget; detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and prepare auditable 

financial statements. DOD stated in its comments that this 

paragraph “is unrelated to this report on administrative furloughs.” 

We disagree. We believe that having accurate financial 

information is not only related but very important to the report on 

administrative furloughs. Specifically, DOD made the 

determination to furlough civilians in response to budgetary 

shortfalls, which was part of a larger effort to achieve specific 

funding reductions resulting from sequestration. This decision 

affected its approximately 770,000 civilian workers – which 

included 642,404 civilians being furloughed for 6 days and 

142,602 civilians being excepted. We believe that when making 

decisions with the goal of reaching a financial target that 

negatively affects so many people—including a 20 percent 

reduction in pay for 6 weeks—DOD’s ability to accurately account 

for spending or assets is an important factor related to this report. 

Further, in DOD’s comments, it states that it could not track cost 

savings in real time due to system and process limitations. We 

believe that this further illustrates the relevance of having 

accurate, complete, and timely financial information available to 

make management decisions. 

• DOD commented that we misrepresented information regarding 

DOD’s cost savings estimates and recommended alternative 
Page 29 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

language for the report. Specifically, DOD stated that it excluded 

employees categorized as exempt from the cost savings estimate 

of $2.1 billion provided to Congress as well as the known 

exceptions as part of the per day cost projection developed using 

March payroll data. Similarly, DOD commented that the report 

misrepresented information provided during various meetings. We 

disagree.

We disagree with DOD’s characterization of our report. Our report 

accurately reflects information included in DOD’s documents 

related to how it calculated its estimated furlough savings and 

associated documentation it provided to Congress. As we stated 

in the report, DOD calculated a cost estimated savings of $300 

per person per day and used this estimate in discussions including 

the initial decision to furlough until it decided to reduce the number 

of furlough days from 11 to 6 days even though additional 

information was available regarding which civilians DOD 

excepted, as the exceptions decision was made 3 months earlier. 

However, DOD did not initially include or update the estimated 

savings per person per day of $300 to account for the 142,602 

civilians that were excepted from the furlough. These civilians 

excepted from the furlough represent approximately 18 percent of 

the total civilian workforce.40

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

parties; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the U.S. Army, the 

U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force; and, the Commandant of the U.S. 

To calculate the estimated cost 

savings as a result of the civilian workforce furlough, DOD 

multiplied the estimated number of civilians to be furloughed by 

the estimated savings of $300 per person per day. While DOD did 

adjust the numbers of civilians it included in its calculated cost 

savings, it never adjusted the per person per day estimate of $300

to account for the 18 percent of the civilian workforce excepted 

from the furlough. Further, as we state in the report, should DOD 

need to furlough civilians in the future, the incorporation of 

information as it becomes available would better inform decision 

makers because actions taken regarding DOD’s civilian workforce 

affects approximately 770,000 civilians.

 40 Appropriated funds workforce
Page 30 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Marine Corps. In addition, this report will be 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) 512-3604 or at farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix V.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 31 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

This report: (1) examines how the Department of Defense (DOD) 

implemented its civilian workforce furloughs and any reported cost 

savings, (2) examines the extent to which DOD utilized up-to-date costsavings information in the planning and implementation of civilian 

workforce furloughs, and (3) identifies any reported examples of impacts 

that resulted from the DOD civilian workforce furloughs.

To address how DOD implemented its civilian workforce furlough, we 

obtained and analyzed information and interviewed knowledgeable 

officials from the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (hereafter 

referred to as Office of the Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, and the Departments of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force. We obtained and analyzed guidance and policy documents 

outlining the furlough decision and subsequent reduction in the number of 

administrative furlough days. The guidance and policy documentation 

included the numbers of civilians furloughed, the categorical exceptions 

granted, and the numbers of civilians provided exceptions. In addition, we 

examined guidance outlining the decisions directly related to the decision 

to implement a furlough as well as guidance imposing limitations on 

utilizing other personnel within the department to augment the civilian 

workforce during the furlough. We also reviewed the Office of Personnel 

and Management’s (OPM) Guidance for Administrative Furloughs, June 

10, 2013,1 and prior GAO reports on sequestration and furloughs within 

the federal government, including GAO’s reports on the 2013 

sequestration and DOD’s implementation of the sequestration.2

To understand how the civilian workforce furlough was implemented at a 

local level, we conducted site visits of a selected shipyard, a medical 

facility providing 24-hour support, and an air operations center. 

Specifically, we visited Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Brooke Army Medical 

Center at Fort Sam Houston, and Air Mobility Command at Scott Air 

Force Base. These sites were selected on the basis of the Secretary of 

Defense memorandum outlining categories of exceptions to the furlough, 

DOD statements about potential sequestration impacts, and mission-

 1

Office of Personnel Management, Guidance for Administrative Furloughs (June 10, 

2013).

2

GAO, 2013 Sequestration: Agencies Reduced Some Services and Investments, While 

Taking Certain Actions to Mitigate Effects, GAO-14-244 (Washington, D.C: Mar. 6, 2014). 

and GAO, Sequestration: Observations on the Department of Defense’s Approach in 

Fiscal Year 2013, GAO-14-177R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2013).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

critical occupations as outlined in DOD’s Strategic Workforce Plan. We 

developed a standard set of interview questions to use in discussions with 

officials at selected sites regarding what policy and guidance was 

generated and how the furlough was implemented, such as information 

about employee furlough notification and scheduling of furlough days, 

among other things. Information from these sites is not generalizable, but 

provides examples of how the furlough was implemented at these 

locations.

To examine any reported cost savings that resulted from the DOD civilian 

workforce furloughs, we obtained and analyzed information and 

interviewed officials from the Office of the Comptroller regarding DOD’s 

calculations of the actual cost savings as a result of the administrative 

civilian workforce furlough. We assessed DOD’s methods for calculating 

actual cost savings for the furlough; however, we did not independently 

verify these calculations. The cost savings were calculated from the 

civilian pay from those who were furloughed and did not account for other 

costs from implementing the furlough, such as administrative costs.

To determine the extent to which DOD utilized up-to-date cost savings 

information in the planning and implementation of civilian workforce 

furloughs, we obtained and analyzed information and interviewed officials 

from the Office of the Comptroller regarding how the department 

calculated the estimated cost savings for the furlough of civilian personnel 

in fiscal year 2013. We examined DOD’s methods for calculating 

estimated cost savings for the furlough; however, we did not 

independently verify the accuracy of these calculations. We also reviewed 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government for best 

practices on using information in decision-making processes.

To identify any reported examples of impacts that resulted from the DOD 

civilian workforce furloughs, we obtained and analyzed information and 

interviewed knowledgeable officials at each of these sites—Norfolk Naval 

Shipyard, Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, and Air 

Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base. We developed a standard set 

of interview questions to use in discussions with selected site officials 

regarding any impacts from the furlough in areas such as morale, 

guidance, communication, and mission, among other things. Information 

from these sites is not generalizable, but provides examples of impacts of 

the furlough reported at these locations. We also reviewed the results of 

OPM’s 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for DOD. While not 

specifically addressing sequestration, the survey captures employees’

general perceptions in areas including their work experiences and their 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

agency that could be affected by sequestration. To assess the reliability 

of the survey data, we reviewed reports and other descriptions of the 

survey methodology available on the OPM website: 

http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2013/.

To analyze workforce and turnover trends from fiscal year 2009 through 

2013, we used OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration 

Statistical Data Mart (EHRI-SDM), which contains personnel action and 

on-board data for most federal civilian employees. We analyzed agencylevel EHRI-SDM data for all DOD departments (Army, Navy, Air Force, 

and other DOD agencies). We focused on career permanent employees 

in our analysis of on-board and separation trends because these 

employees represent the long-term employee population and constitute 

most of the workforce. To calculate attrition rates, we added the number 

of career permanent employees with personnel actions indicating they 

had separated from one of the DOD departments (for example, transfers, 

resignations, retirements, terminations, and deaths) and divided that by 

the 2-year on-board average. We assessed the reliability of the EHRI 

data through electronic testing to identify logical inconsistencies, and 

followed up with DOD, where necessary, to understand these issues. We 

also reviewed our prior work assessing the reliability of these data. On the 

basis of this assessment, we believe the EHRI data we used are 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. Further, we interviewed 

officials and obtained information from the Merit Systems Protection 

Board on the appeals adjudication process and the status of appeals filed 

by DOD civilians regarding the furlough in fiscal year 2013.3

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.

 3

We previously reported that government-wide data from CPDF were 96 percent or more 

accurate. See GAO, OPM’s Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable 

to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998). 

Also, in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM official confirmed that OPM 

continues to follow the Central Personnel Data File data-quality standards and procedures 

contained in our 1998 report.
Appendix II: Department of Defense (DOD) 

Exceptions Granted to the Civilian Workforce 

in a May 14, 2013 Memorandum

Page 35 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

In order to minimize adverse effects on mission, the Secretary of Defense 

memorandum issued on May 14, 2013,1

• Combat Zone: All employees deployed (in a Temporary Duty status) 

or temporarily assigned (to include Temporary Change of Station) to a 

combat zone.

granted exceptions to the 

furlough. Below are the categories of exceptions outlined in the 

Secretary’s memorandum:

2

• Safety of Life and Property: Those employees necessary to protect 

safety of life and property, including selected medical personnel. The 

exceptions were to be granted with the understanding that these were 

the minimum exceptions needed to maintain operations and provide 

security on a 24/7 basis. Similarly, the exceptions for the medical 

category were to be approved with the understanding these 

exceptions preserve the minimum level of personnel needed to 

maintain quality of care in 24/7 emergency rooms and other critical 

care areas such as behavioral health, wounded warrior support, and 

disability evaluation.

• Shipyards: Employees in Navy shipyards. All other depot employees, 

whether mission-funded or working capital fund employees, were 

subject to furlough.3

• Intelligence: Furloughs for employees funded with National 

lntelligence Program funds were determined by the Director of 

 1

Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Furloughs (May 14, 2013).

2

Combat zone is defined as those locations listed as combat zones in Executive Orders 

12744, 13119, or 13239, and locations where military personnel are eligible for combatzone tax benefits under law or because DOD has certified that they are providing direct 

support to military operations. 

3

In response to congressional inquiry regarding the furlough of working capital fund 

employees, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in a letter dated July 5, 2013, 

addressed to Congressman Derek Kilmer, responded that working capital fund employees 

were furloughed based on reduced funding and reduced maintenance workloads resulting 

from reductions in funding. According to DOD’s letter, furloughing indirectly funded 

government employees was expected to result in a significant reduction of personnel 

costs to help offset sequestration reductions.

Appendix II: Department of Defense (DOD) 

Exceptions Granted to the Civilian Workforce 

in a May 14, 2013 Memorandum
Appendix II: Department of Defense (DOD) 

Exceptions Granted to the Civilian Workforce 

in a May 14, 2013 Memorandum

Page 36 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

National Intelligence.4 Employees funded with Military Intelligence 

Program funds were subject to furlough.

• Foreign Military Sales: Foreign Military Sales employees whose 

positions were exclusively funded from Foreign Military Sales 

Administrative case funds, Foreign Military Sales case funds, and 

from Foreign Military Financing accounts. In addition, the Foreign 

Military Sales case-funded positions funded in whole or part by DOD 

appropriations (to include “pseudo–Foreign Military Sales” cases) 

were subject to furlough.

• All individuals appointed by the President, with Senate confirmation, 

who were not covered by the leave system in title 5, U.S. Code, 

chapter 63, or an equivalent formal leave system.

• All employees funded by nonappropriated funds (regardless of source 

of nonappropriated funding).5

• All outside-the-contiguous United States foreign national employees.

• Any employees who were not paid directly by accounts included in the 

Department of Defense–Military budget, such as employees funded 

by the Arlington National Cemetery and DOD Civil Works programs.

• The exception for Child Development Centers was granted with the 

understanding that this was the minimum level needed to maintain 

accreditation and maintain high-quality care for children in military 

families. Some Department of Defense Education Activity employees, 

while not excepted from furlough, may have only been furloughed 

 4

On May 15, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence issued a statement announcing 

that civilians funded with National Intelligence Program funds were not subject to furlough.

5

Non-appropriated-fund employees are not covered by the requirements and procedures 

applicable to furloughs of appropriated-fund employees under fiscal year 2013 

sequestration. However, non-appropriated-fund employees may be furloughed under DOD 

non-appropriated-fund and component policies and procedures for business-based 

reasons.
Appendix II: Department of Defense (DOD) 

Exceptions Granted to the Civilian Workforce 

in a May 14, 2013 Memorandum

Page 37 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

when they were in a pay status. Therefore, they were only subject to 

furlough for up to 5 days at the beginning of the 2013 school year.6

• The Secretaries of the military departments and the Principal Staff 

Assistants for the defense agencies and field activities, may have 

approved up to 50 additional individual, mission-based, exceptions as 

needed.

 6

On August 6, 2013, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum entitled Reducing 

Furlough Days, which reduced the number of furlough days from 11 to 6 days for most 

civilians. This action also cancelled furloughs for Department of Defense Education 

Activity instructional and support staff on 10-month contracts, and required new hires 

whose furlough period began after July 8, 2013, to take 2 furlough days per pay period 

between their furlough start date and August 17, 2013.
Appendix III: Analysis of Department of 

Defense (DOD) Civilian Personnel Attrition 

Rates

Page 38 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

In examining the attrition rate for on-board civilian medical officers and 

nurses at Army Medical Command between fiscal years 2009 and 2013, 

we found that the attrition rate of on-board civilian nurses and medical 

officers at Army Medical Command peaked in fiscal year 2011 at 22 

percent and rose again in fiscal year 2013 to 14 percent after declining in 

2012, compared to a 10 to 11 percent attrition rate in fiscal year 2009 

(see fig. 2 below). Many factors can affect attrition which may be 

unrelated to job satisfaction and events such as the furlough. For 

example, according to Army Medical Command officials, the command 

was affected by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process, the 

deadline for completion of which was in September of fiscal year 2011. 

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission’s recommendations 

included transferring personnel from Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

and Belvoir Army Community Hospital to the purview of what is now 

Defense Health Agency’s National Capital Region Medical Directorate.

Figure 2: Army Medical Command Attrition Rates from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2013

Note: Information is based on the 2-year, on-board average of career permanent, civilian medical 

officers and nurses in Army Medical Command with any type of separation. This information does not 

include transfers within a department; however, it does include transfers from one department to 

another. Therefore, such interdepartment transfers would not result in a loss to the Department of 

Defense (DOD) as a whole, though they do count as attrition as the actions are recorded as 

separation actions within the Office of Personnel Management’s Enterprise Human Resources 

Integration data. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Appendix III: Analysis of Department of 

Defense (DOD) Civilian Personnel Attrition 

Rates
Appendix III: Analysis of Department of 

Defense (DOD) Civilian Personnel Attrition 

Rates

Page 39 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

In further examining attrition rates across the DOD components between 

fiscal years 2009 and 2013, we found the Army overall experienced a 

similar peak in attrition rates in 2011, at 11 percent. In addition, the Air 

Force’s attrition rates peaked in fiscal year 2012 (9 percent), with the 

Navy’s attrition rates increasing between fiscal years 2010 and 2011 

(from 6 to 7 percent). Overall, during fiscal year 2013, DOD components 

had an attrition rate between 7 percent and 9 percent of on-board civilian 

employees, compared to an attrition rate between 6 percent and 8 

percent in 2009; see figure 3 below.

Figure 3: DOD Component Attrition Rate from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2013

Note: Information is based on the 2-year, on-board average of career permanent, DOD civilian 

employees with any type of separation from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or DOD agency. This 

information does not include transfers within a department; however, it does include transfers from 

one department to another. Therefore, such inter-department transfers would not result in a loss to 

the Department of Defense (DOD) as a whole, though they do count as attrition as the actions are 

recorded as separation actions within the Office of Personnel Management’s Enterprise Human 

Resources Integration data. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 40 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 41 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 42 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 43 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Lori Atkinson, Assistant Director; 

Arkelga Braxton; Tim Carr; Grace Coleman; Cynthia Grant; Amber Lopez 

Roberts; Rebecca Shea; Norris “Traye” Smith; Amie Steele; John Van 

Schaik; and Michael Willems made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 44 GAO-14-529 DOD Civilian Furlough

2013 Sequestration: Agencies Reduced Some Services and Investments, 

While Taking Certain Actions to Mitigate Effects. GAO-14-244. 

Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2014.

Sequestration: Observations on the Department of Defense’s Approach in 

Fiscal Year 2013. GAO-14-177R. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 2013.

Financial and Performance Management: More Reliable and Complete

Information Needed to Address Federal Management and Fiscal 

Challenges. GAO-13-752T. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2013.

Human Capital: Additional Steps Needed to Help Determine the Right 

Size and Composition of DOD’s Total Workforce. GAO-13-470. 

Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2013.

Related GAO Products

(351837)
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.