Page 1 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 28, 2009 

Congressional Committees 

Subject: Warfighter Support: Information on Army and Marine Corps Ground Combat 

Helmet Pads

Combat soldiers operate in diverse environments and face injury threats that place demands 

on the protective equipment systems they use to provide consistent protection throughout a 

range of temperatures and threat magnitudes. Protective helmets are one of those systems. In 

addition to protecting against ballistic threats, Army and Marine Corps ground combat 

helmets are now designed to absorb energy in order to reduce head injury risk from blunt 

impacts; previous combat helmets, such as the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops 

helmet in use until 2002, were not designed to provide any tested levels of blunt impact 

protection.1

 The currently used Army Advanced Combat Helmet and Marine Corps Light 

Weight Helmet are outfitted with a pad suspension system to protect against these threats. 

These pad suspension systems have been found to offer superior blunt impact protection over 

the older sling suspension systems. 

The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 

and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 directed GAO to review ground combat helmet 

pads. In response, this report focuses on two objectives: (1) Who currently provides the pads 

used in Army and Marine Corps ground combat helmets, and how were they chosen? and (2) 

What efforts and research have been undertaken by the Army and Marine Corps to improve 

helmet pad performance and helmet technology? In addition, we have included information 

on servicemembers’ use of helmet pads that are not approved. A timeline of events regarding 

helmet technology is included in the attached enclosure. 

In April 2009, we provided congressional staff with a preliminary overview of our work, 

including our scope and methodology. This report summarizes that briefing and includes 

additional information subsequently obtained from Department of Defense officials. To 

conduct our review, we interviewed officials from the Army, Marines, and Defense Logistics 

Agency, as well as representatives from National Industries for the Blind, which packages 

and supplies helmet pads to the Army and Marines. We also met with representatives from 

two helmet pad manufacturers at their request. Further, we reviewed and analyzed test 

reports and other documentation related to helmet pad performance, although we did not 

evaluate the reliability or validity of the testing or test results. A detailed scope and 

 

1

Examples of blunt impacts include trips and falls while maneuvering by foot, airborne (parachutist) operations, 

and motor vehicle or aircraft accidents where body flail and vehicle structural deformation could produce a head 

impact. 
Page 2 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

 

methodology is included at the end of this report. We conducted this review from December 

2008 through July 2009. 

Results in Brief 

Both the Army and the Marine Corps currently use pads that are manufactured by Team 

Wendy, a company based in Cleveland, Ohio, and are supplied through National Industries 

for the Blind, an organization that packages and supplies helmet pads to the Army and 

Marines through the AbilityOne program. These pads were selected based on the results of 

prior Army testing, as well as value. Helmet systems, including helmet pads, have undergone 

a variety of tests, including tests to judge their relative protection in comparison with the 

sling suspension system and tests to judge comfort and ease of use. 

The Army and Marine Corps are actively seeking new options to improve helmet technology. 

In 2007, in an effort to spur industry to design a more effective pad system, the Army issued 

a request for information seeking an off-the-shelf technology solution that could increase 

blunt impact protection over the current performance standard. The current testing standard 

for blunt impact protection requires that a helmet dropped at a speed of 10 feet per second be 

able to diminish the force to which the wearer’s head accelerates to under 150 g.2

 According 

to Army officials, the request for information called for the same degree of protection at a 

drop speed of 14.1 feet per second, with the ultimate objective of increasing this drop speed 

to 17.3 feet per second. To date, no manufacturer has submitted a pad system that passes the 

testing at 14.1 feet per second, but the Army believes that this call for an improved 

technological solution will motivate industry to develop better performing pads. 

Additionally, the services are looking for new alternatives for protecting against blunt impact 

injury. This effort includes outreach to other countries and sports organizations, and research 

into the causes of traumatic brain injury. 

Background 

Prior to 2002, both the Army and the Marine Corps used the Personnel Armor System for 

Ground Troops helmet that was equipped with a sling suspension system consisting of an 

adjustable leather band fastened around the head, as well as other supporting straps. Starting 

in 2002, however, the Army began evaluating new helmets and eventually fielded the 

Advanced Combat Helmet. The Advanced Combat Helmet uses a seven-pad suspension 

system affixed to the inside of the helmet using hook pile tape and was modeled after a 

similar helmet, the Modular Integrated Communications Helmet, then in use by Special 

Operations Command soldiers. Figure 1 shows the differences between the sling suspension 

and pad suspension systems. 

2

 The notation of g or G denotes an acceleration equal to the acceleration of gravity, 980 centimeter per second 

squared, or approximately 32.2 feet per second per second at sea level. It is used as a unit of stress measurement 

for bodies undergoing acceleration. 
Page 3 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

Figure 1: Sling and Pad Suspension Systems 

Sling suspension 

 

Concurrently, the Marine Corps also adopted a new helmet—called the Light Weight 

Helmet—to replace its Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmets. Although the 

Light Weight Helmet has a shell shape similar to that of the Personnel Armor System for 

Ground Troops helmet and provides the same coverage, it is constructed with lighter weight 

ballistic material that provides equivalent ballistic protection. When initially fielded, the 

Light Weight Helmet also used a sling suspension system, albeit somewhat modified. In 

2006, however, the Marine Corps replaced this modified sling suspension system with the 

same pad suspension system used in the Army’s Advanced Combat Helmet. 

The Army and the Marines Currently Use Team Wendy Pads Supplied by National 

Industries for the Blind on the Basis of Army Testing, Approval, and Value 

Both the Army and the Marine Corps currently use pads that are manufactured by Team 

Wendy, a pad manufacturing company based in Cleveland, Ohio, and are supplied to them 

through National Industries for the Blind on the basis of Army testing, approval, and value. 

Helmet systems, including helmet pads, underwent a variety of tests, including tests to judge 

their relative protection in comparison with the sling suspension system. In 2005, the U.S. 

Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory reported on its evaluation of the blunt impact 

protection offered by pad suspension systems versus sling suspension systems. In that 

evaluation, the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory tested the Advanced Combat 

Helmet with its standard pad configuration against two types of Personnel Armor System for 

Ground Troops helmet sling suspension systems: that of the infantry and that of the 

paratrooper, of which the latter includes some padding in addition to the sling. The U.S. 

Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory found that the pad suspension system offered 

superior blunt impact protection to either of the sling suspension systems. Again in 2006, the 

U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory tested pad suspension systems against sling 

suspension systems, this time assessing six different pad systems from five different 

manufacturers against the sling suspension system then used in the Marine Corps Light 

Weight Helmet. The U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory found that while all but 
Page 4 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

 

one of the pad systems passed the Army’s blunt impact protection requirements, the Marine 

Corps Light Weight Helmet sling suspension system did not pass. Furthermore, while the test 

did not explicitly state which pad system performed the best, the data presented in the report 

indicate that Team Wendy pads were the all-around best performing pad system. 

In addition to the blunt impact protection performance of helmet pads, the services also 

consider the comfort and ease of use of helmets, and they conducted user evaluations to 

assess the form, fit, and function of helmets. In March 2009, the Department of Defense 

reported on the most recent user evaluation of helmets. This limited user evaluation tested 

four helmet pad sets from four different manufacturers in both the Army Advanced Combat 

Helmet and the Marine Corps Light Weight Helmet. The evaluation found there was no 

significant difference in the form, fit, or function of the helmet pads tested. 

To date, based on the results of the testing performed, the Army has approved pad systems 

made by two manufacturers—Team Wendy and Mine Safety Appliances—for use in its 

Advanced Combat Helmet, while the Marine Corps has chosen to limit its approval to one 

pad, and has approved only Team Wendy pads for use in its Light Weight Helmet. The 

approved pads used by the Army and the Marine Corps are consistent with the 2006 U.S. 

Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory testing results in that they showed the best 

performance relative to the other pads tested. 

Administrators of the AbilityOne Program have identified helmet pads as appropriate for 

production by blind or severely disabled individuals and placed them on the Procurement 

List.3

 Pursuant to the Javits Wagner O’Day Act, ordering offices are required to purchase 

supplies on the Procurement List from participating nonprofit agencies if they are available 

within the period required.4 The AbilityOne Program negotiated a contract for the National 

Industries of the Blind to be the nonprofit agency to produce helmet pads. National 

Industries of the Blind chose Team Wendy as its subcontractor, on the basis of value and the 

potential added value that it could contribute, to produce the pad components from among 

the Army-approved pad manufacturers. 

Once National Industries for the Blind employees receive the pad components from Team 

Wendy, they cut and assemble pad sets, stamp required identification information on the 

individual pads, and assemble the pad systems in preparation for distribution. The completed 

pads sets are then sent to one of three places: Defense Logistics Agency depots, for Army 

and Marine sustainment stocks; the Army’s Natick Soldier Research, Development, and 

Engineering center, for further testing and evaluation; or the helmet shell manufacturers, for 

insertion into helmets before distribution. 

3

The Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled administers the AbilityOne 

Program and selects for the Procurement List goods that can be produced according to the customer’s quality 

and quantity standards, with at least 75 percent of direct labor being performed by blind or severely disabled 

individuals. 

4

41 U.S.C. 46-48c (2008). According to officials with the National Industries for the Blind, within 30 days after 

a good is added to the Procurement List, a contract is negotiated with a nonprofit agency to manage production 

of the good. 
Page 5 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

 

The Army and Marine Corps Are Actively Seeking More Effective Pad Systems 

The Army and Marine Corps are actively working to improve helmet technology. In an effort 

to spur industry to design a more effective pad system, in November 2007 the Army issued a 

request for information seeking an off-the-shelf technology solution that would increase 

blunt impact protection over the current performance standard. The current testing standard 

for blunt impact protection requires that a helmet dropped at a speed of 10 feet per second be 

able to diminish the force to which the wearer’s head accelerates to under 150 g. The request 

for information called for the same degree of protection at a drop speed of 14.1 feet per 

second, with the ultimate objective of increasing this drop speed to 17.3 feet per second. To 

date, no manufacturer has developed a pad system passing the 14.1 feet per second test, but 

the Army believes that this call for an improved technological solution will motivate industry 

to develop better performing pads. 

In addition to improving helmet pads, the services are also looking into new alternatives for 

protecting against blunt impact injury, including a one-piece helmet liner currently used in 

some North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries, as well as a fluidic helmet liner. They 

have also reached out to sports and motor sports organizations that use protective helmets, 

although with the understanding that there are important differences between military 

helmets and sports helmets.5

 Moreover, the services’ efforts to develop new blunt impact 

protection mechanisms are performed in conjunction with research to better understand the 

causes of traumatic brain injury and how blast overpressure experienced during an explosion 

affects servicemembers. To this end, both the Army and Marine Corps recently deployed 

units to Iraq and Afghanistan with sensor-equipped helmets in order to gather useful data 

toward developing better protection against blunt impact. Additionally, the services are 

presently engaged in efforts to improve the ballistic protection of helmets, working to design 

helmets that can withstand impacts from higher-caliber weapon rounds. 

Army and Marine Corps Are Aware of Use of Unapproved Pads and Have Taken Steps 

to Rectify This Practice 

During the course of our engagement we became aware of the use of unapproved pads by 

soldiers and Marines, although the extent and impact of unapproved pad use is unknown. 

According to our limited work, such unapproved use occurs primarily in two ways. The first 

is through the purchase of pads by military personnel from the General Services 

Administration catalogue, which lists an assortment of pads intended for use by a variety of 

federal agencies. The second is through the procurement of pads by individuals or their 

family members or friends from commercial sources. Both the Army and the Marine Corps 

are aware of this problem and have issued directives specifically precluding the use of 

unapproved pads or other personal protective equipment.6

5

Two important differences are that unlike sports helmets, combat helmets are designed to provide ballistic 

protection and may have to accommodate peripheral equipment such as night vision and communication 

devices. 

6

The Army and Marines have each issued directives that preclude the use of unapproved pads or other personal 

protective equipment and/or provide guidance on obtaining approved pads, including a 2004 Army Maintenance 

Advisory, a 2005 Army Safety of Use Message, a 2007 Marine MARADMIN notice, and a 2009 Army memo 

warning against the use of unapproved protective equipment. 
Page 6 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

Scope and Methodology 

During this engagement, we gathered information on which pads were currently used by the 

Army and the Marine Corps and how they were tested and selected by reviewing documents 

and speaking with officials from the U.S. Army, Program Executive Office—Soldier; the 

U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center; the U.S. Marine 

Corps, Program Manager Infantry Combat Equipment; the Defense Logistics Agency; 

National Industries for the Blind; and two helmet pad manufacturing companies, at their 

request. Additionally, we analyzed documents related to the selection and testing of helmet 

pads in use by the Army and the Marine Corps, including reports from the U.S. Army 

Aeromedical Research Laboratory. We gained an understanding of the testing and evaluation 

efforts by conducting extensive interviews with agency officials who either conducted or had 

expertise on the tests and evaluations. We did not, however, observe testing or evaluate test 

results, given the considerable lapse in time since such tests had occurred. We also did not 

evaluate the validity of the military specifications. 

To gain a greater understanding of blunt impact protection mechanisms for future use in 

ground combat helmets, we spoke with the U.S. Army, Program Executive Office—Soldier; 

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command; and the U.S. Marine Corps Program 

Manager Infantry Combat Equipment. We also analyzed documents related to future 

methods for blunt impact protection, including materials supplied by helmet pad 

manufacturers, as well as presentation slides prepared for GAO by the services. We 

conducted our work from December 2008 through July 2009 in accordance with all sections 

of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework 

requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate 

evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe 

that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable 

basis for any findings and conclusions. 

Agency Comments 

DOD was given an opportunity to review and comment on a written draft of this report, and 

it provided only technical comments. We incorporated these into the body of the report as 

appropriate. 

------------------------- 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional committees; the 

Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

8365 or solisw@gao.gov. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report include 
Page 7 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

Cary Russell, Assistant Director; Guy LoFaro; Emily Norman; Maria Storts; Karen 

Thornton; Cheryl Weissman; and Gerald Winterlin. 

William M. Solis 

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosure 
Page 8 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

Congressional Committees 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel Inouye 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard McKeon 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Chairman 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 
Page 9 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

Enclosure: Timeline of Events Regarding Helmet Technology

2001

- U.S. Army Special Operations Command approves Modular Integrated Communications 

Helmet; Army study reports that soldiers notice benefits. 

2002

- Program Executive Office—Soldier surveys field and directs Advanced Combat Helmet 

testing. (March) 

- Program Executive Office—Soldier conducts a limited user test of the Advanced Combat 

Helmet with Oregon Aero pads. (December) 

2003

- Advanced Combat Helmet tested and approved to meet Army standards. (January)

2004

- Neurosurgeon in theater estimates there could be more head wounds due to limited 

coverage provided by Advanced Combat Helmet as compared with Personnel Armor System 

for Ground Troops helmet. (January – September) 

- The Vice Chief Staff of the Army orders holistic review of Advanced Combat Helmet 

based on neurosurgeon’s estimate. (October) 

2005

- Combat Helmet Study released demonstrating Advanced Combat Helmet with pads to be 

superior to Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmet with sling suspension. (May) 

- Army adopts Team Wendy pads. 

2006

- House Armed Services Subcommittees write to Kenneth Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, about helmets, citing that pads are being supplied by 

non-military sources and request independent testing of helmets. (June) 

- Advanced Combat Helmet non-ballistic impact requirement raised from 150g average and 

300g maximum at 10 feet per second to 150g maximum. (November) 

- U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory technical memorandum issued showing that 

pads provide better protection than suspension system. (December) 

2007

- Undersecretary Krieg replies to House Armed Services subcommittees, and includes results 

of non-ballistic impact testing. (February) 

- Ballistic neck protection introduced for Advanced Combat Helmet. (March) 

- Testing of pads under new standard proposed in Army Request for Information for nonballistic impact protection for Advanced Combat Helmet to maximum 150g at 17.3 feet per 

second (objective) and 14.1 feet per second (threshold). (November) 
Enclosure 

Page 10 GAO-09-768R Warfighter Support

2008 

- Army conducts a multi-organizational Criteria Review Board and subjects pad systems 

from five vendors to additional evaluation. (April) 

- Army conducts congressionally directed ACH pad assessment on several manufacturers’ 

pads, as well as a Limited Soldier Evaluation. (July-August) 

2009 

- Army continues to test for viability of a commercial pad system to provide increased nonballistic protection to 150g maximum at an impact velocity of 17.3 feet per second 

(objective) or 14.1 feet per second (threshold). (February) 

- DOD’s Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation compiles a Limited Field User 

Evaluation to assess the relative form, fit, and function of four helmet pad systems. (March) 

 

(351296) 
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. 
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper