MILITARY 

READINESS

Opportunities Exist 

to Improve 

Completeness and 

Usefulness of 

Quarterly Reports to 

Congress

Report to Congressional Committees

July 2013

GAO-13-678

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-678, a report to 

congressional committees

July 2013

MILITARY READINESS

Opportunities Exist to Improve Completeness and 

Usefulness of Quarterly Reports to Congress

Why GAO Did This Study

Congress and DOD need relevant, 

accurate, and timely readiness 

information to make informed decisions 

about the use of military forces, and 

related resource needs. To that end, 

Congress requires DOD to submit a 

quarterly readiness report addressing 

various elements related to overall 

readiness, personnel, training, and 

equipment. A committee report 

accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

mandated GAO report on the type of 

readiness information available to 

Congress and DOD decision makers 

and the reported readiness of U.S. 

forces. In May 2013, GAO provided a 

classified report on readiness trends of 

DOD forces. For this report, GAO 

evaluated (1) the extent to which DOD 

addressed required reporting elements 

in its quarterly readiness reports to 

Congress, and (2) what additional 

information, if any, could make the 

reports more useful. GAO analyzed 

various readiness reports and 

supporting documentation, and 

interviewed cognizant officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD analyze 

alternative sources of information that 

could be used to meet the required 

reporting elements, issue guidance on 

the type and amount of information to 

be included by each service, and 

incorporate contextual information to 

improve the clarity and usefulness of 

reported information. DOD generally 

agreed with the recommendations.

What GAO Found

In its quarterly readiness reports that covered the period from April 2012 through 

March 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) addressed most but not all

required reporting elements. Section 482 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code requires 

DOD to report on 26 elements including readiness deficiencies, remedial actions, 

and data specific to the military services in the areas of personnel, training, and 

equipment. In analyzing DOD’s reports, GAO found that DOD addressed 18 of 

the 26 elements, partially addressed 3 elements and did not report on 5 

elements. For the elements partially addressed—personnel stability, training 

operations tempo, and deployed equipment—reporting was incomplete because 

some services reported information and others did not report. When all the 

services reported on an element, they at times did so inconsistently, with varying 

amounts and types of information. For example, the services all reported 

information on training commitments and deployments, but used different 

timeframes when providing information on planned training events in the future. 

The services reported differently because DOD has not provided guidance on the 

information to be reported. For the elements that DOD did not address, including

borrowed manpower and training funding, GAO found that information may exist 

in the department but is not being reported to Congress. For example, the Army

now requires commanders to report monthly on the readiness impacts of 

borrowed military manpower and DOD’s budget requests include data on training 

funding. However, DOD has not taken steps to analyze whether this information 

could be used to meet the related reporting element. Without issuing guidance on 

the type and amount of information to be included by each service and analyzing 

alternative information it could provide to meet the required elements, DOD risks 

continuing to provide inconsistent and incomplete information to Congress.

DOD has taken steps to improve its quarterly readiness reports to Congress, but 

additional contextual information would provide decision makers a more 

complete picture of DOD’s readiness. Over time, based on its own initiative and 

congressional requests, DOD has added information to its reports, such as on 

operational plan assessments. In its most recent report, DOD added narrative 

information detailing the impact of readiness deficiencies on overall readiness 

and a discussion of how the services’ budgets support their long-term readiness 

goals. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need 

complete and relevant information to manage risks, and GAO found several 

areas where DOD could provide Congress with more comprehensive and 

understandable information if it added some additional context to its reports. For 

example, in some instances, the services report significant amounts of 

quantitative data, but do not include information on benchmarks or goals that 

would enable the reader to determine whether the data indicate a problem or the 

extent of the problem. For example, the Marine Corps and Air Force report 

mission capable rates for their specific equipment items, but do not provide 

information on related goals, such as the percentage of the inventory that should 

be kept at various capability levels. In other instances, the services have not fully 

explained any connections between the voluminous data they report on the 

required elements and the information DOD provides in the report on unit and 

overall readiness ratings. Without providing additional contextual information, 

DOD’s quarterly reports may not provide clear information necessary for 

congressional oversight and funding decisions.

View GAO-13-678. For more information, 

contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or 

pickups@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Letter 1

Background 3

DOD Addressed Most, but Not All, Required Elements in Its Recent 

Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress 7

DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Quarterly Readiness Reports to 

Congress, but Additional Contextual Information Would Be 

Useful 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 17

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 21

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 23

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 26

Table

Table 1: Section 482 Required Reporting Elements 4

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress 

Inputs and Format 6

Figure 2: Overview of the Extent to Which DOD’s Four Quarterly 

Readiness Reports for the April 1, 2012 through March 31, 

2013 Period Addressed Section 482 Reporting Elements 9

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Abbreviation 

DOD Department of Defense

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-13-678 Military Readiness

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 26, 2013

Congressional Committees

Congressional and Department of Defense (DOD) officials need relevant, 

accurate, and timely information on the readiness status of U.S. forces to 

help them make decisions about the deployment and use of military 

forces and related resource needs. As a result, the Congress has enacted 

laws and DOD has instituted policies that require defense organizations 

to collect, analyze, and report readiness information. For example, 

section 482 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires DOD to report 

quarterly to Congress on military readiness,1

The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated that GAO 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the types of 

readiness information available to Congress and DOD decision makers 

and on the reported readiness of U.S. forces.

which DOD does in its 

Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress. DOD must report on 26 

elements including each readiness problem and deficiency, key indicators 

and other relevant information related to these problems and deficiencies, 

and planned remedial actions, as well as service-specific information in 

the areas of personnel, training, and equipment such as historical and 

projected personnel trends, training operations tempo, and equipment 

availability.

2

For our first objective, we reviewed legislation governing DOD readiness 

reporting, including section 482 of Title 10, and interviewed DOD officials. 

We analyzed DOD’s four most recent quarterly readiness reports, which 

covered the period from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013, and 

compared the reported readiness information in these reports to the Title 

10 requirements to identify any trends, gaps, or reporting 

In May 2013, GAO 

provided a classified report on the readiness trends of DOD forces to the 

defense committees. For this report, we evaluated (1) the extent to which 

DOD addressed required reporting elements in its quarterly readiness 

reports to Congress, and (2) what additional information, if any, could 

make the reports more useful.

 1

10 U.S.C. § 482.

2

H.R. Rep. No. 112-479, at 128 (2012). 
Page 2 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

inconsistencies.3

For our second objective, we reviewed the types of readiness information 

DOD uses internally to manage readiness contained in documents such 

as the Joint Force Readiness Review and various service-specific 

readiness products and compared their formatting and contents to the 

four reports identified above. We reviewed the content of these reports in 

the context of federal internal control standards, which state that decision 

makers need complete and relevant information to manage risks.

We also interviewed officials from the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Joint Staff 

Readiness Division, and each of the military services to obtain additional 

information and the officials’ views of our assessments, as well as obtain 

explanations for why certain items were not addressed or not fully 

addressed.

4

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through July 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more detailed 

discussion of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix 1.

We 

interviewed officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, the Joint Staff Readiness Division, and each of 

the military services to discuss the procedures for submitting readiness 

information for inclusion in the quarterly readiness reports and the 

process for compiling the full report. We also identified adjustments DOD 

has made to its reports, including changes the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness made in preparing the 

January through March 2013 report, and the underlying reasons for these 

adjustments, as well as obtained the views of officials as to opportunities 

to improve the current reporting.

 3

At the time of our review, DOD had compiled the report covering January to March 2013 

and expected to provide it to Congress by the end of July 2013. DOD officials stated that 

the content and structure of this draft report provided a valid basis for our assessment.

4

GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Page 3 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Section 482 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires DOD to report 

quarterly to Congress on military readiness.5 The report is due to 

Congress not later than 45 days after the end of each calendar-year 

quarter (i.e. by May 15th, August 14th, November 14th, and February 

14th of each year). Congress first mandated the report in 1996 to 

enhance its oversight of military readiness, requiring that DOD describe 

each readiness problem and deficiency, the key indicators and other 

relevant information related to these problems and deficiencies, and 

planned remedial actions.6 DOD submitted its first quarterly report in May 

1996. Since that time, Congress has added additional reporting 

requirements. Specifically, in 1997, the initial reporting requirement was 

expanded to require DOD to include additional reporting elements in the 

quarterly reports.7 Examples of these additional reporting elements 

include historical and projected personnel trends, training operations 

tempo, and equipment availability. In 2008, an additional reporting 

element was added to require the inclusion of an assessment of the 

readiness of the National Guard.8 For a listing of the 26 reporting 

elements currently required by section 482, see table 1.

 5

10 U.S.C. § 482.

6

Pub. L. No. 104-106, § 361 (1996).

7

Pub. L. No. 105-85, § 322 (1997).

8

Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 351 (2008).

Background
Page 4 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Table 1: Section 482 Required Reporting Elements

Each readiness problem and deficiency identified using internal DOD assessments

Planned remedial actions to address readiness problems and deficiencies

Key indicators and other relevant information related to each identified problem and 

deficiency

Readiness of the National Guard to support the National Response Plan in support of 

civil authorities

Personnel status, including the extent to which personnel are in positions outside of their 

specialty and/or above their grade

Historical data and projected trends in personnel strength and status

Recruit quality

Borrowed manpower

Personnel stability

a

Personnel morale

Recruiting status

Training unit readiness and proficiency

Training operations tempo

Training funding

Training commitments and deployments

Deployed equipment

Equipment availability

Equipment that is not mission capable

Age of equipment

Condition of nonpacing items

Maintenance backlog

b

Availability of ordnance and spares

Status of prepositioned equipment

Overall readiness rating for units rated C-3 or below for the quarter and each month of 

the quarter by unit designation and level of organization

c

Resource areas that adversely affected the readiness rating for units rated C-3 or below

Reasons why the unit received a readiness rating of C-3 or below

Source: 10 U.S.C. § 482.

a While personnel can, at times, be temporarily diverted from the normal duties of their assigned 

positions, DOD does not have a common definition of borrowed manpower.

b According to DOD officials, there is no joint definition of nonpacing item. The Army defines pacing 

items as major weapon systems, aircraft, and other equipment items that are central to the 

organization’s ability to perform its core functions/designed capabilities.

c DOD positions materiel and equipment at strategic locations around the world to enable it to field 

combat-ready forces in days rather than the weeks it would take if equipment had to be moved from 

the United States to the location of a military conflict.
Page 5 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Since DOD provided its first quarterly readiness report in May 1996, DOD 

and the services have invested significant resources in upgrading the 

systems they use to collect and report readiness information. As a result, 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant 

commands, and the services have added numerous new readiness 

reporting capabilities such as the capacity to assess the ability of U.S. 

forces to meet mission requirements in specific operational plans. In 

addition, the services have also refined their respective service-specific 

metrics to enhance their ability to measure the readiness of their forces.

The Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress is a classified report that 

includes a summary of the contents of the report and multiple classified 

annexes that provide the required information. The report is typically 

hundreds of pages long. For example, the July through September 2012 

Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress totaled 443 pages and the 

January through March 2013 report is 497 pages long. The Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness assembles and 

produces the quarterly report to Congress. To do so, it compiles 

information from multiple DOD organizations, including the Joint Staff and 

military services, and its own information such as a summary of overall 

readiness status and prepares a draft report. It then sends the draft report 

to DOD components to review it for accuracy, and coordinates any 

comments. Once finalized, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness officials provide the report to the congressional 

defense committees (see figure 1).
Page 6 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Figure 1: Overview of Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress Inputs and Format

a Section 117 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff conduct a quarterly joint readiness review to assess the capability of the armed forces to 

execute their wartime missions based upon their posture at the time the review is conducted. This 

review is prepared by the Joint Staff.

b

We have previously examined the extent to which DOD’s quarterly 

readiness reports met section 482 reporting elements, and found that 

DOD’s reports lacked detail, or in some cases, information required by 

law. For example:

Cannibalization is defined as removing serviceable parts from one piece of equipment and installing 

them in another.

• In 1998, we reported that DOD’s quarterly readiness reports did not 

discuss the precise nature of identified readiness deficiencies, and 
Page 7 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

information on planned remedial actions could be more complete and 

detailed to include specifics on timelines and funding requirements.9

• In 2003, we reported that DOD’s quarterly reports still contained broad

statements of readiness issues and remedial actions, which were not 

supported by detailed examples. We also identified gaps in the extent 

to which DOD addressed the required reporting elements. For 

example, DOD was not reporting on borrowed manpower, personnel 

morale, and training funding.10

In both reports, we recommended actions DOD could take to improve its 

readiness reporting. Since our 2003 review, DOD has made adjustments 

and expanded its readiness reporting to Congress in some areas.

In its quarterly readiness reports that covered the period from April 2012 

through March 2013, DOD addressed most of the 26 reporting elements 

required by section 482 but partially addressed some elements and did 

not address some other elements. We found that, for the areas that were 

addressed or partially addressed, the services submitted different 

amounts and types of information because the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense has not provided guidance on the information to be included in 

the quarterly reports. Further, we found that information may exist in the 

department on some of the reporting elements DOD did not address, but 

that DOD has not analyzed alternative information that it could provide to 

meet the required reporting elements.

DOD’s four quarterly readiness reports that cover the period from April 1, 

2012 through March 31, 2013 mostly addressed the 26 required reporting 

elements. In analyzing the three reports that covered the period from April 

1 through December 31, 2012, we found that DOD addressed 17 

elements, partially addressed 3 elements, and did not address 6 

elements. In the January 1 through March 31, 2013 report, DOD’s 

reporting remained the same except that it addressed an additional 

element that had not previously been addressed. As a result, our analysis 

 9

GAO, Military Readiness: Reports to Congress Provide Few Details on Deficiencies and 

Solutions, GAO/NSIAD-98-68 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1998).

10GAO, Military Readiness: New Reporting System is Intended to Address Long-Standing 

Problems, but Better Planning is Needed, GAO-03-456 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2003).

DOD Addressed Most, 

but Not All, Required 

Elements in Its 

Recent Quarterly 

Readiness Reports to 

Congress

DOD Addressed Most but 

Not All Required Reporting 

Elements in Its Readiness 

Reports for the April 2012 

through March 2013 Period
Page 8 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

for this report showed it addressed 18 elements, partially addressed 3 

elements and did not address 5 elements. Figure 2 summarizes our 

assessment of the extent to which DOD’s quarterly reports addressed the 

section 482 reporting elements.
Page 9 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Figure 2: Overview of the Extent to Which DOD’s Four Quarterly Readiness Reports for the April 1, 2012 through 

March 31, 2013 Period Addressed Section 482 Reporting Elements

a Units report an overall readiness category level (C-level) that reflects their current status of 

resources (personnel and equipment) and training versus requirements for wartime missions the units 

are designed to perform. A unit reporting C-3 possesses the required resources and is trained to 

undertake many, but not all, portions of the wartime mission(s) for which it is organized or designed 

and would require significant compensation for deficiencies. A unit reporting C-4 requires additional 

resources or training to undertake its wartime mission(s), but it may be directed to undertake portions 

of its wartime mission(s) with resources on hand.
Page 10 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

We assessed elements as being addressed when the information 

provided in the report was relevant to the reporting elements set out in 

section 482. For example, for training unit readiness and proficiency, 

each of the services provided their current and historical training 

readiness ratings. Similarly, for recruit quality, each of the services 

provided high school graduation rates of recruits.

For some of the elements, DOD reported information that was incomplete 

or inconsistent across the services. Specifically, as shown below, for the 

three required reporting elements that DOD partially addressed, the 

information was incomplete, with only some services providing 

information on personnel stability, training operations tempo, and 

deployed equipment:

• Personnel stability: The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy provided 

information on retention rates, but the Army did not provide any 

information on this element.

• Training operations tempo: The Marine Corps and Navy provided 

information on the pace of training operations, but the Army and Air 

Force did not provide any information on this element.

• Deployed equipment: The Navy provided information on the number 

of ships deployed, but the other three services did not provide any 

information on this element.

Further, in instances when the services reported information on a 

required element, they sometimes did so inconsistently, with varying 

amounts and types of information. For example:

• The Air Force and Marine Corps both reported information on the age 

of certain equipment items, but they did not report the same amount 

and type of information. The Air Force reported the average age of 

equipment by broad types of aircraft (e.g., fighters, bombers), while 

the Marine Corps reported average age of specific aircraft (e.g., F/A18, MV-22), as well as the age of its oldest equipment on hand, 

expected service life, and any impact of recapitalization initiatives on 

extending the expected service life of the equipment.

• The services all reported information on training commitments and 

deployments, but did not report the same amounts and types of 

information. First, the services used different timeframes when 

providing information on training commitments and deployments. The 

In Addressing Some 

Reporting Elements, DOD 

Reported Incomplete or 

Inconsistent Information
Page 11 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Army provided planned training events for fiscal years 2012 through 

2018, the Air Force and Marine Corps provided planned training 

events for fiscal years 2012 through 2014, and the Navy did not 

provide any information on planned training events in the future. 

Second, the Air Force and the Navy provided information on the 

number of training events executed over the past two years, while the 

Army and Marine Corps did not.

We found that the services have submitted different amounts and types of 

information to meet reporting elements because the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense has not provided guidance on the information to be 

included in the quarterly reports. Service officials told us they have 

received informal feedback from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

regarding the data and charts they submit for inclusion in the quarterly 

readiness reports. For example, they have received informal suggestions 

for changes to how the readiness information is presented. However, 

service officials explained that they have not received clear guidance or 

instructions on the type and amount of information to present. As a result, 

the services have used their own judgment on the scope and content of 

readiness information they provide to meet the required reporting 

elements.

Because the services report different types and amounts of information 

and DOD has not clarified what information should be reported to best 

address the required elements, the users of the report may not be getting 

a complete or consistent picture of the key indicators that relate to certain 

elements.

For its three quarterly readiness reports that covered the period from April 

1 through December 31, 2012, DOD did not provide any information on 6 

of the 26 required elements, although in its January through March 2013 

report DOD did provide information on 1 previously unaddressed element, 

specifically planned remedial actions. The required elements that remain 

unaddressed are personnel serving outside their specialty or grade, 

personnel morale, training funding, borrowed manpower, and the 

condition of nonpacing items. We found instances where information may 

exist within the department for some of these elements DOD did not 

report on. For example:

• Extent to which personnel are serving in positions outside their 

specialty or grade: The Navy internally reports fit and fill rates, which 

compare personnel available by pay grade and Navy skill code 

against the positions that need to be filled. Such information could 

DOD Did Not Report on 

Some Elements, Although 

Relevant Information May 

Be Available
Page 12 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

potentially provide insight into the extent to which the Navy fills 

positions using personnel outside of their specialty or grade.

• Personnel morale: We found multiple data sources that provide 

information related to this required reporting element. For example, 

DOD’s Defense Manpower Data Center conducts a series of Webbased surveys called Status of Forces surveys, which include 

measures of job satisfaction, retention decision factors, and perceived 

readiness. Also, DOD’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Customer 

Satisfaction Surveys regularly provide information on retention 

decision indicators. Finally, the Office of Personnel Management 

conducts a regular survey on federal employees’ perceptions of their 

agencies called the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey; the results 

of this survey are summarized in an Office of Personnel Management 

report, and provide insights into overall job satisfaction and morale at 

the department level.

• Training funding: DOD’s fiscal year 2014 budget request contained 

various types of information on training funding. For example, the 

request includes funding for recruit training, specialized skills training, 

and training support in the Marine Corps and similar information for 

the other services.

• Borrowed manpower: We found that the Army now requires 

commanders to report on the readiness impacts of borrowed military 

manpower in internal monthly readiness reports. Specifically, on a 

quarterly basis, beginning no later than June 15, 2013, senior leaders 

will brief the Secretary of the Army on borrowed manpower with a 

focus on training and readiness impacts.11

For the condition of nonpacing items element, officials from the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness noted that 

there is not a joint definition of nonpacing items across the services. The 

Army defines pacing items as major weapon systems, aircraft, and other 

equipment items that are central to the organization’s ability to perform its 

core functions/designed capabilities, but service officials reported that 

they do not collect any information related to nonpacing items.

 11Secretary of the Army, Memorandum on Special Duty (Borrowed Military Manpower and 

Troop Diversion), Temporary Suspension of Certain Army Policy Constraints and Temporary 

Delegation of Certain Exception and Other Approval Authorities. Mar. 11, 2013.
Page 13 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

As noted previously, section 482 requires that DOD address all 26 

reporting elements in its quarterly readiness reports to Congress. When 

asked why DOD did not provide information on certain required reporting 

elements, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness cited an analysis included in the 

implementation plan for its readiness report to Congress in 1998. This 

analysis concluded that DOD could not provide the required data at that 

time because, among other reasons, they lacked the metrics to capture 

the required data.12 In the 1998 implementation plan, DOD noted that 

addressing the section 482 reporting elements was an iterative process, 

recognizing that the type and quality of readiness information was likely to 

evolve over time as improvements to DOD’s readiness reporting and 

assessment systems came to fruition. DOD stated that it intended to 

continue to review and update or modify the readiness information as 

necessary to improve the report’s utility in displaying readiness. However, 

since it issued its initial implementation plan, DOD has not analyzed 

alternative information, such as Navy fit and fill rates or satisfaction 

survey results, which it could provide to meet the required reporting 

elements. DOD officials told us they intend to review the required 

reporting elements to determine the extent to which they can address 

some of the elements that they have consistently not reported on and, if 

they still cannot address the elements, to possibly request congressional 

modifications on the required content of the reports. However, they said 

that they had not yet begun or set a specific timetable for this review. 

Without analyzing alternative information it could provide to meet the 

required reporting elements, DOD risks continuing to provide incomplete 

information to Congress, which could hamper its oversight of DOD 

readiness.

 12Department of Defense, Expanded Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress 

Implementation Plan. Feb. 17, 1998. 
Page 14 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

DOD has taken steps to improve the information in its Quarterly 

Readiness Reports to Congress over time. However, we found several 

areas where additional contextual information, such as benchmarks or 

goals, and clear linkages between reported information and readiness 

ratings, would provide decision makers a more complete picture of DOD’s 

readiness.

Over time, based on its own initiative and specific congressional requests 

for information, DOD has added information to its reports. For example, in 

2001, it added data on cannibalizations—specifically the rates at which 

the services are removing serviceable parts from one piece of equipment 

and installing them in another. This information was added in response to 

a requirement in the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act that the 

readiness reporting system measure “cannibalization of parts, supplies, 

and equipment.”13

In compiling its January through March 2013 Quarterly Readiness Report 

to Congress, DOD made several structural changes to expand its 

reporting on overall readiness. Specifically, the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense added narrative information and other sections, and made more 

explicit linkages between resource needs and readiness deficiencies in 

order to convey a clearer picture of the department’s readiness status and 

concerns. In that report, DOD added:

In 2006, DOD added capability-based assessment 

data from the Defense Readiness Reporting System and detailed 

information on operational plan assessments. Operational plan 

assessments gauge combatant commands’ ability to successfully execute 

key plans and provide insight into the impact of sourcing and logistics 

shortfalls and readiness deficiencies on military risk. In 2009, it added 

brigade and regimental combat team deployment information.

• Narrative information detailing the impact of readiness deficiencies on 

overall readiness.

 13Pub. L. 106-398, § 1 [Div. A. Title III, § 371], 2000 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 117(c)).

DOD Has Taken Steps 

to Improve Quarterly 

Readiness Reports to 

Congress, but 

Additional Contextual 

Information Would Be 

Useful

DOD Has Taken Steps to 

Add Information to Its 

Quarterly Readiness 

Reports to Congress
Page 15 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

• Discussions of how the military services’ fiscal year 2014 budgets 

support their long-term readiness goals.

• Examples of remedial actions to improve service readiness.

• A section highlighting significant changes from the previous quarter.

Office of the Secretary of Defense officials told us that they plan to 

sustain these changes in future quarterly readiness reports to Congress.

We found several areas where adding contextual information to the 

quarterly readiness reports, such as benchmarks or goals, and clearer 

linkages between reported information and readiness ratings, would 

provide Congress with a more comprehensive and understandable report. 

Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need 

complete and relevant information to manage risks.14

In some instances, the services report significant amounts of quantitative 

data, but do not always include information on benchmarks or goals that 

would enable the reader to distinguish between acceptable and 

unacceptable levels in the data reported. For example, when responding 

to the required reporting element on equipment that is not mission 

capable:

This includes 

providing pertinent information that is identified and distributed in an 

understandable form.

• The Marine Corps and Air Force report mission capable rates for all of 

their equipment, but do not provide information on related goals, such 

as the percentage of each item’s inventory that should be kept at 

various mission capability levels.

• The Navy reports on the number of ships that are operating with a 

mechanical or systems failure. While the Navy explains that this may 

or may not impact the mission capability of the vessel, it does not 

provide what it considers an acceptable benchmark for the number of 

ships that operate with these failures or the number of failures on 

each ship.

 14GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Additional Contextual 

Information in the 

Quarterly Reports Would 

Be Useful
Page 16 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

In the absence of benchmarks or goals, the reader cannot assess the 

significance of any reported information because it is not clear whether 

the data indicate a problem or the extent of the problem.

In other instances, the services have not fully explained the voluminous 

data presented on the required reporting elements or set the context for 

how it may or may not be connected to the information DOD provides in 

the report on unit equipment, training, and personnel readiness ratings 

and overall readiness. For example:

• The services provide detailed mission capable rate charts and 

supporting data for dozens of aircraft, ground equipment, and other 

weapons systems. For example, for the January through March 2013 

readiness report, the services collectively provided 130 pages of 

charts, data, and other information on their mission capable 

equipment rates; this accounted for over 25 percent of the entire 

quarterly report. However, the services do not explain the extent to 

which these mission capable rates are, or are not, linked to equipment 

readiness ratings or overall readiness that is also presented in the 

quarterly reports.

• In the area of training, the Navy provides data showing the number of 

training exercises completed over the past two years, but does not 

provide any explanation regarding how this information affects training 

readiness ratings that are also presented in the quarterly reports.

• In the area of logistics, although the Army and the Air Force provide 

depot maintenance backlogs, they do not explain the effect the 

backlogs have on unit readiness that is also discussed in the report. 

Specifically, those services do not explain whether units’ readiness is 

affected or could be affected in the future because maintenance was 

not accomplished when needed.

Without providing additional contextual information, such as benchmarks 

and clearer linkages, it is unclear how, if at all, the various data on the 

required elements affected unit and overall readiness.

To oversee DOD’s efforts to maintain a trained and ready force, and 

make decisions about related resource needs, congressional decision 

makers need relevant, accurate, and timely readiness information on the 

status of the military forces. DOD continues to address many of the 

required reporting elements in its quarterly readiness reports to Congress 

and has periodically revised the content of the information it presents, 

Conclusions
Page 17 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

which is an important step to making the reports more useful. However, 

as reflected in its more recent reports for 2012 and 2013, DOD has not 

always reported or fully reported on some elements, and sometimes 

presents detailed readiness data without sufficient context on how this 

information relates to or affects the information it provides on overall 

readiness or readiness in specific resource areas, such as equipment, 

personnel, and training. Without further analyzing whether information is 

available within the department to address the elements that it is not 

currently addressing, DOD cannot be sure that it has the information it 

needs to enhance the quality of its reporting or present options to the 

Congress for adjusting reporting requirements. Furthermore, unless DOD 

provides guidance to the services on the amount and types of information 

to be included in the quarterly reports, including requirements to provide 

contextual information such as criteria or benchmarks for distinguishing 

between acceptable and unacceptable levels in the data reported, DOD is 

likely to continue to be limited in its ability to provide Congress with 

complete, consistent, and useful information.

To improve the information available to Congress in its quarterly 

readiness reports, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness to take the following three actions:

• Analyze alternative sources of information within DOD that it could 

provide to meet required reporting elements that DOD has not 

addressed in past reports;

• Issue guidance to the services on the type and amount of information 

to be included in their submissions for the quarterly readiness report; 

and

• Incorporate contextual information in the quarterly readiness reports 

such as clear linkages between reported information on the required 

elements and readiness ratings, and benchmarks for assessing 

provided data to enable the reader to distinguish between acceptable 

and unacceptable levels in the data reported.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with two 

recommendations and partially concurred with one recommendation. 

DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 18 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

provided technical comments during the course of the engagement, and 

these were incorporated as appropriate.

In its overall comments, DOD noted that the goal of DOD is to provide the 

most accurate and factual representation of readiness to Congress 

through its quarterly reports and their ability to accomplish this relies upon

our recommendations, which should facilitate improvements. DOD stated 

that our recommendations will be incorporated in the ongoing process of 

producing the quarterly readiness reports and will hopefully improve the 

ability to interpret the product while assisting the services in relaying their 

readiness concerns.

DOD also provided detailed comments on each of our recommendations. 

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness to analyze alternative sources of information within DOD 

that it could provide to meet required reporting elements that DOD has 

not addressed in past reports. DOD stated the iterative process that is 

used to improve quarterly readiness reports to Congress will continue to 

seek alternative sources of information that could provide a more holistic 

picture of readiness across the force and that improvements in reporting 

capabilities and adjustments to reported readiness information should be 

available to provide all of the information required by section 482 of Title 

10. DOD noted that it provides information on one required element, 

training funding, within its annual budget requests. DOD stated it will 

investigate ways to incorporate surrogate methods of reporting in future 

reports.

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness to issue guidance to the services on the type and amount of 

information to be included in their submissions for the quarterly readiness 

report. DOD stated that it will continue to issue guidance to the individual 

services regarding types and amounts of information that may improve 

the readiness analysis and advance the comparative nature of separate 

services. DOD stated that the individual services may use distinct 

measures to determine specific levels of their readiness and the ability to 

compare these measures may not be possible or occur quarterly. Where

feasible, DoD stated it will continue to attempt to align information and 

improve the clarity of readiness throughout the department. 
Page 19 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness to incorporate contextual information in the quarterly readiness 

reports such as clear linkages between reported information on the 

required elements and readiness ratings, and benchmarks for assessing 

provided data to enable the reader to distinguish between acceptable and 

unacceptable levels in the data reported. DOD stated that a concerted 

effort is made to continuously improve the quality of analysis as well as 

assist with the explanation of linkages between raw data and readiness. 

DOD stated that this effort is tempered with the need to reduce the 

volume of information and provide sound examination of the effects of this 

data on the force. DOD noted a succinct version of readiness is provided 

in the executive summary included in recent reports. DOD also noted that 

a longer narrative supplement will continue to be provided in an attempt 

to enhance the clarity of the linkages and judgment of acceptability 

regarding the reported readiness across the force.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Secretary 

of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, and appropriate congressional 

committees. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions 

about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619 or 

pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 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 III.

Sharon L. Pickup

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 20 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Dick Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. “Bill” Young

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) 

addressed required reporting elements in its quarterly readiness reports 

to Congress, we reviewed legislation governing DOD readiness reporting, 

including provisions in Title 10, and interviewed DOD officials. We 

analyzed the four most recent Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress 

that covered the period from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013 and 

compared the reported readiness information in these reports to the Title 

10 requirements to identify any trends, gaps, or reporting 

inconsistencies.1

To determine what additional information, if any, could make the reports 

more useful, we reviewed the types of readiness information DOD uses 

internally to manage readiness contained in documents such as the Joint 

Force Readiness Review and various service-specific readiness products, 

and compared their formatting and contents to the four reports identified 

above. We reviewed the content of these reports in the context of federal

internal control standards, which state that decision makers need 

complete and relevant information to manage risks.

Specifically, we developed an evaluation tool based on 

Title 10 section 482 reporting requirements to assess the extent to which 

the April through June 2012, July through September 2012, October 

through December 2012, and January through March 2013 Quarterly 

Readiness Reports to Congress addressed these elements. Using 

scorecard methodologies, two GAO analysts independently evaluated the 

quarterly readiness reports against the elements specified in section 482. 

The analysts rated compliance for each element as “addressed” or “not 

addressed.” After the two analysts completed their independent analyses, 

they compared the two sets of observations and discussed and 

reconciled any differences. We also interviewed officials from the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Joint 

Staff Readiness Division, and each of the military services and obtained 

additional information and the officials’ views of our assessments, as well 

as explanations of why certain items were not addressed or not fully 

addressed.

2

 1

At the time of our review, DOD had compiled the report covering January to March 2013 

and expected to provide it to Congress by the end of July 2013. DOD officials stated that 

the content and structure of this draft report provided a valid basis for our assessment.

This includes 

pertinent information that is identified and distributed in an 

understandable form. We interviewed officials from the Office of the 

2

GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Joint Staff 

Readiness Division, and each of the military services and discussed the 

procedures for compiling and submitting readiness information for 

inclusion in the quarterly readiness reports, changes in the reports over 

time, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s process for compiling 

the full report. We also identified adjustments DOD has made to its 

reports, including changes the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness made in preparing the January through 

March 2013 report, and the underlying reasons for these adjustments, as 

well as obtained the views of officials as to opportunities to improve the 

current reporting.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through July 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 23 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 24 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 25 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 26 GAO-13-678 Military Readiness

Sharon Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Michael Ferren, Assistant 

Director; Richard Burkard; Randy Neice; Amie Steele; Shana Wallace; 

Chris Watson; and Erik Wilkins-McKee made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(351821)
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.