U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

72–936 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–98] 

UPDATE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AT 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MEETING JOINTLY WITH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 3, 2012 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

PAUL LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

JIM WEISS, Staff Assistant 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

MICHELE PEARCE, Professional Staff Member 

PAUL LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

ARTHUR MILIKH, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2012 

Page 

HEARING: 

Friday, February 3, 2012, Update on Accountability at Arlington National 

Cemetery ............................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Friday, February 3, 2012 ........................................................................................ 25 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

UPDATE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations ......................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Condon, Kathryn A., Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery ............ 10 

Lepore, Brian J., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 8 

Martin, Belva M., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 6 

Vangjel, LTG Peter M., USA, Inspector General, Office of the Secretary 

of the Army ........................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Condon, Kathryn A. .......................................................................................... 77 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 32 

Martin, Belva M., joint with Brian J. Lepore ................................................ 55 

Vangjel, LTG Peter M. ..................................................................................... 36 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 29 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 34 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

UPDATE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AT ARLINGTON 

NATIONAL CEMETERY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED

SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, MEETING JOINTLY WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC, Friday, 

February 3, 2012. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 11:51 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for 

being here today. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee and 

the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee continue their 

oversight of actions to improve the operation and sustainment of 

the Arlington National Cemetery, a national shrine which indicates 

our sincere appreciation of service members, military families, and 

veterans. 

The testimony today is based on reports directed by the Congress 

and delivered in December by the Army and the Government Accounting Office. In general, both reports reflect substantial improvement in a number of areas of management and contracting 

execution. That progress reflects not only the personal commitment 

of our former colleague Secretary John McHugh, but also the professionalism and commitment of Ms. Kathryn Condon, the Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program, and Mr. 

Patrick Hallinan, the Superintendent of Arlington Cemetery. 

As I look at the issues that still must need to be addressed, these 

two appear to rise above all the rest: First, what is the corrective 

action and funding that will be required to resolve the nearly 

14,000 critical deficiencies cited in the Arlington grave accountability effort? And second, should the Department of Veterans Affairs assume responsibility for Arlington National Cemetery and 

the cemetery at the Soldiers’ Home here in the District of Columbia? 

Before I introduce our witnesses, let me recognize in turn Representative Susan Davis, the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee; and Chairman Rob Wittman of the Oversight 

and Investigations Subcommittee; and Mr. Jim Cooper, the ranking 

member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, for any 

opening remarks they might wish to make. 
2 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing 

today. 

General Vangjel, I wanted to welcome you. I understand you recently took over from General McCoy as the Army inspector general. 

Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore, I look forward to hearing the Government Accountability Office [GAO] assessment of the Army’s efforts with respect to Arlington. 

And, Ms. Condon, welcome back. We have had a chance to see 

each other quite a bit, and I really appreciate your efforts. 

Arlington National Cemetery, as we all know, is one of the most 

hallowed grounds of this Nation, and we must hold it to the highest standards of performance. Members of the Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel in conjunction with the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee are interested in the actions taken by the 

Army to improve its accountability of Arlington National Cemetery 

since our hearing in September. 

Ms. Condon, I recognize the hard work you and Mr. Hallinan 

have done to turn around the cemetery, and I know that you could 

not have done it alone. There are probably a number of people that 

should be acknowledged for their efforts that could not all be recognized here today. 

But I do believe that there is still more to be done to ensure that 

we maintain and build upon the achievements that have been 

made, and to ensure, above all, accountability of those who were 

involved in the missteps at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore, I am interested in learning from the 

GAO what issues and concerns should the committee be aware of 

as the Army works to develop a strategic plan for Arlington. What 

signs, if any, should we be tracking as the Army moves forward on 

its efforts to continue to improve Arlington? And I would also like 

to hear your thoughts on what concerns we should be aware of if 

there is an effort to transfer the management of Arlington from the 

Army to the Veterans Administration. 

General Vangjel, I would be interested in the IG’s perspective on 

Arlington and what can be done to build upon the improvements 

that have recently been made. 

Thank you all for being here. This is an important issue and one 

that touches all who serve our Nation in uniform. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 32.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

And Chairman Wittman. 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Mr. WITTMAN. Panel members, welcome. I want to thank my cochair, Chairman Joe Wilson, and our ranking members, Jim Cooper and Susan Davis, for their steadfast commitment and their 

focus on this extraordinarily important issue. It has been an honor 

to work with you over the months, and we look forward as we continue along this journey of making sure that collectively we all do 

what is necessary to make sure Arlington maintains its rightful 

place in honoring this Nation’s heroes. 

I would also like to extend a very warm welcome to General 

Vangjel. Thank you so much for your leadership and for your oversight of Arlington. We know it is a new challenge for you, but one 

that you are ready and up to the task. 

Ms. Condon, I want to thank you and your team, who have met 

with us on a monthly basis to keep us apprised of progress. We appreciate your dedication. We know it has been a long, arduous journey, with more steps to come. I would like to also highlight my appreciation for what you do in total for the Army, what you have 

done through your career, and what you have done to this point. 

Army leadership has done a lot to change the culture and climate 

at Arlington. 

And I also want to thank Secretary McHugh. He is a person of 

steadfast devotion on getting this issue solved. He is certainly a 

man of his word. He said early on that this was going to be his 

focus. I admire him for that focus, for his commitment, for his dedication to making sure that Arlington again goes back to its rightful 

place in honoring this Nation’s heroes. So I want to thank the Secretary for that. 

This was an organization that was characterized by deficiencies 

and mismanagement that has since been transformed into a stable, 

functioning, and professional organization that is finally setting a 

new standard for how we care for our fallen heroes. 

Mr. Brian Lepore and Ms. Belva Martin, thank you for coming. 

We appreciate your efforts there at the GAO. And we know, as always, the GAO does an excellent job, and we appreciate your service. 

We are here today for two very important reasons: First, to figure out what progress has been made with respect to accountability 

issues at Arlington, and to determine what challenges remain that 

need to be addressed moving forward. 

I have said many times how important it is to me personally that 

we work to achieve 100 percent accountability, and the Army has 

done a great job with helping us get there with the Gravesite Accountability Task Force. Validating almost 200,000 gravesites was 

difficult and challenging, but you, your staff, and the Old Guard 

got it done. 

However, I do remain concerned about a number of issues. First, 

the lack of accountability with respect to former officials for their 

misconduct. It is my understanding that no criminal action has 

been taken, and that investigations are ongoing and open. I find 

this very, very difficult to believe and unacceptable, and I will continue to follow this very closely. 
4 

Second, despite the great amount of time that has elapsed since 

initial allegations came to light, management and contracting 

issues persist at Arlington. To highlight just a few, I am concerned 

about the GAO’s findings regarding the lack of a strategic plan, the 

lack of IT [information technology] organizational architecture, 

which call into question whether we are effectively and efficiently 

spending taxpayers’ dollars at the cemetery when millions of dollars have already been spent. I hope this panel will address these 

issues. And I also hope you will tell us what progress has been 

made and what you believe we will find in finally trying to resolve 

these remaining matters. 

We cannot close the door on this terrible chapter at Arlington 

until all of these issues are resolved. We owe it to our Nation’s heroes who have sacrificed their lives on our behalf, and continue to 

make this a top priority, and as you have done in the past, we need 

to get this done. And we owe it to our future generations of heroes 

who deserve the honor of being buried here and knowing that Arlington is again assuming its rightful place as the hallmark of honoring this Nation’s heroes. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 34.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening statement. 

Mr. WILSON. And at this time we will proceed with our witnesses. The order would be Lieutenant General Peter M. Vangjel, 

the Inspector General of the U.S. Army. Next would be Ms. Belva 

Martin, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office; and third we would have 

Mr. Brian J. Lepore, Director of Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and fourth and finally, we would have Ms. Kathryn Condon, who is the Executive 

Director of the Army’s National Cemeteries Program. 

And so, General, thank you for beginning. 

STATEMENT OF LTG PETER M. VANGJEL, USA, INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

General VANGJEL. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 

Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Cooper, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak to you today, and thank you for your oversight and support 

over the past 18 months. It has made a difference at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Since assuming the duties of the Army Inspector General in November, I have reviewed our previous inspections, met with the Executive Director and her team and other stakeholders who have 

been involved in correcting the deficiencies found at Arlington. I 

think to fully appreciate the progress that has been made, one only 

has to review the 2010 IG report, which identified 61 deficiencies, 

among them being a deplorable organizational climate, archaic recordkeeping and automation systems, uncontrolled contracting and 
5 

budgeting processes, and significant problems with gravesite accountability. 

In contrast, you may recall from General McCoy’s testimony that 

the 2011 IG report identified no deficiencies, and noted significant 

progress at the cemetery largely due to the course set by the Secretary of the Army’s Directive 2010–04, the efforts of the Executive 

Director and her team, and the support from the Department of the 

Army’s staff. In short, the mismanagement reported to you in the 

June 2010 IG report has been relegated to the past, and Arlington 

is beginning to transition from successful crisis management to 

sustained excellence. 

Allow me to just share a few specifics. The previous insular environment that contributed to mismanagement and substandard performance at Arlington has improved significantly. The Executive 

Director has established a positive work environment, emphasizing 

cooperation, collaboration, and coordination. Workforce surveys 

taken as part of the 2011 inspection did reflect steadily improving 

morale, unity, and organizational effectiveness. 

The cemetery now possesses a functional information technology 

infrastructure, supported by a service agreement with the Army’s 

Information Technology Agency. Arlington has leveraged the Agency’s Consolidated Customer Service Center to more effectively monitor and respond to customer calls, which is increasing customer 

service. A new computer application for digitizing burial records 

has been critical in establishing the accountability baseline for each 

gravesite and inurnment niche. 

In the contracting arena, new acquisitions are subjected to rigorous analysis, pre-award compliance checks, and contract packet 

reviews for quality assurance. While we still noted some deficiencies and errors within contracts, the number was significantly 

less than 2010, mostly administrative in documentation. 

Arlington now works closely with the Office of the Administrative 

Assistant and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial 

Management to ensure improved oversight of the cemetery’s budget 

formulation and execution. The transition to the General Fund Enterprise Business System has provided full visibility and transparency of cemetery expenditures. 

Finally, with respect to improvements, the Executive Director 

has recently published a campaign plan which includes major efforts to complete gravesite accountability, complete the documentation of policies and procedures, and addresses long-term expansion 

of the cemetery. It assigns responsibilities for these and other tasks 

as well, with metrics and timelines to measure progress. 

While these developments are encouraging, there is still much 

more work to do. The 2011 Army IG inspection report provided 53 

recommendations for continued improvement at Arlington. I will 

highlight a few required key actions. 

First of all, Arlington’s leadership and the Army must finish updating relevant policies and regulations. Further, the Arlington 

leadership must complete the documentation and validation of internal oversight processes and controls. The recent work to establish the gravesite accountability baseline must continue to resolve 

the nearly 47,000 cases that remain. 
6 

The Executive Director must coordinate with the Army staff to 

establish and document enduring external oversight processes to 

prevent the recurrence of past shortcomings. 

The Department of the Army must also finalize and implement 

enduring jurisdictional, organizational, and support relationships of 

the Army National Cemeteries Program. 

As we look to our inspection this summer, we intend to conduct 

assessments in several areas: first of all, compliance with Army Directive 2010–04; progress in addressing the recommendations from 

our 2011 report; compliance with the Executive Director’s campaign plan; the gravesite accountability process validation; and we 

are collaborating with the Army Audit Agency, the VA, and the 

United States Army Force Management Support Agency for their 

participation as well in this year’s inspection. 

In conclusion, Arlington remains a priority for the Secretary and 

for the Army. The significant progress observed by the Army IG 

validates the Secretary’s approach to creating the processes, systems and management that we found to be lacking at Arlington in 

2010. This strategy, executed according to the Executive Director’s 

campaign plan, with the support of the Army, the Defense Department, other Federal agencies, and Congress, has set the conditions 

for continued improvement and ultimately sustained excellence. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today. I look 

forward to answering your questions and working with the committees in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of General Vangjel can be found in the 

Appendix on page 36.] 

Mr. WILSON. General, thank you very much. 

And Ms. Belva Martin. 

STATEMENT OF BELVA M. MARTIN, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION 

AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. MARTIN. Chairmen Wilson and Wittman, Ranking Members 

Davis and Cooper, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss GAO’s work at Arlington. 

Our reviews found that Arlington has taken significant actions to 

address its problems, and that the path forward, as you stated, 

Chairman Wilson, is for Arlington to sustain progress through improved management and oversight. My colleague Mr. Lepore will 

discuss GAO’s work on management issues. 

On the contracting side, GAO identified 56 active contracts over $100,000 that supported cemetery operations, construction and facility maintenance, and new efforts to enhance IT systems for the 

automation of burial operations. Arlington does not have its own 

contracting authority, but relies on relationships with contracting 

offices to award and manage its contracts. These contracting authorities obligated roughly $35.2 million in support of the 56 contracts that were included in our review. 

And as the IG has noted, the Army has taken a number of positive steps since June 2010 at different levels to provide for more 

effective management and oversight of contracts, including improv-
7 

ing contracting policies and practices, establishing new support relationships, formalizing policies and procedures, and increasing the 

use of dedicated contracting staff to manage and improve its acquisitions. 

However, GAO found three areas at Arlington where additional 

improvements are needed: first, maintaining complete data on contracts; second, defining responsibilities for contracting support; and 

third, determining contract staffing needs. I will briefly summarize 

key findings in these three areas. 

First, with respect to maintaining complete data, when we did 

our review, we were able to pull together information on Arlington 

contracts from various sources, including support organizations, 

but there were shortcomings with each of these sources. To be able 

to identify, track, and ensure the effective management and oversight of its contracts, Arlington leadership needs complete data on 

all contracts. 

Second, with respect to support relationships, the Army has 

taken a number of steps to better align Arlington contract support 

with the expertise of its partners. For example, Arlington has 

agreements with the Army Information Technology Agency, ITA, 

and the Army Analytics Group to help manage its IT infrastructure. While these agreements spell out the services that ITA will 

provide to Arlington, and performance metrics against which ITA 

will be measured—these are all very positive steps—these agreements do not specifically address ITA’s contract management roles 

and responsibilities in support of Arlington’s requirements. Although officials told us that they were aware of their roles and responsibilities, the question is, what happens when personnel 

changes? Going forward, sustained attention on the part of Arlington and its partners will be important to ensure that contracts of 

all types and risk levels are managed effectively. 

Third, with respect to dedicated contract staffing arrangements, 

three contract specialist positions have been identified for Arlington, but have not been filled. Arlington is presently receiving support from Fort Belvoir’s contracting office in the form of 10 positions, 5 funded by Arlington and 5 by Fort Belvoir. Arlington officials have identified the need for a more senior contracting specialist and are developing plans to fill this new position in fiscal 

year 2013. 

In closing, the success of the Army’s efforts to improve contracting and management at the cemetery will depend on management’s sustained attention and efforts to institutionalize positive 

steps taken to date. Accordingly, we made a number of recommendations in our December 2011 report to improve contract 

management and oversight in the three areas where we found 

shortcomings. For the most part, DOD agreed with our findings 

and that there is a need to take actions, and provided timeframes 

for doing so. We will continue to monitor their progress. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes 

my short statement. I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Martin and Mr. Lepore can 

be found in the Appendix on page 55.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Martin. 

We now have Mr. Brian Lepore. 
8 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. LEPORE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. LEPORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman Wittman, 

and Ranking Member Cooper, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present 

our findings from our review of oversight and management of Arlington National Cemetery. 

As you know, we issued our report on the management and oversight of Arlington on December 15 of last year. My testimony is 

based on our report, and I will make two points today. First, I will 

discuss the policies and procedures that the current leadership 

team at Arlington has put into place to begin to address the deficiencies that became apparent, and I will identify some of our recommendations to help assist in that endeavor. And secondly, I will 

discuss some factors that could potentially affect the feasibility and 

advisability of transferring Arlington from the Army to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA. 

Here is the bottom line: I think it is fair to say the current leadership team at Arlington has taken many positive steps at the cemetery to address the deficiencies and make improvements. The 

Army has made progress in a range of areas, including chain-ofcustody procedures, to ensure a proper accountability over remains, 

better providing information assurance, and improving procedures 

to address inquiries from the families and the public. However, we 

believe some steps are still needed to ensure that these changes are 

institutionalized and will prove lasting for the long term, long after 

the spotlight has faded. Therefore, we have made recommendations 

in six areas. 

First, we believe they should complete the enterprise architecture to guide new investments in information technology to ensure 

the investments are aligned with the future operational requirements; second, an updated workforce plan to ensure the workforce 

is properly sized and trained; third, an internal assessment program to gauge how the cemetery is doing, and making any improvements that may be warranted; fourth, improving coordination 

with the cemetery’s operational partners, the Military District of 

Washington, the military honor guards, and Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall to ensure, for example, that scheduling conflicts are 

avoided and the right honor guards are available when needed; 

fifth, a strategic plan or campaign plan with expected outcomes, 

performance metrics, and milestones; and sixth, written policies explaining how to assist the families when such assistance is warranted. 

The cemetery leadership has generally concurred with our recommendations and has begun to implement them. We are encouraged by this. 

Now my final point: the question of the feasibility and advisability of transferring Arlington from the Army to the VA. It is certainly feasible. As you know, Congress transferred more than 80 

national cemeteries managed by the Army to the VA in the 1970s. 

However, several factors could affect the advisability of this. Such 

a change can have potential costs and benefits challenges. It can 
9 

lead to certain transition challenges, and can affect the characteristics that make Arlington unique among our national cemeteries. 

Thus, it may be premature to change jurisdiction right now since 

the Army has significantly improved its management of Arlington. 

Here are some of the specific challenges that could arise in a jurisdictional change. First, simply identifying the goals of the transfer. 

Second, the Army and the VA have their own staff, processes, 

and systems to determine burial eligibility, and scheduling and 

managing burials. As an example, Arlington has more restrictive 

eligibility for in-ground burials than the VA. 

Third, Arlington’s appropriations structure is different than the 

VA’s, and should you make a jurisdictional change, the Congress 

may wish to review that and determine what is the right course 

of action. 

Fourth, Arlington provides military funeral honors, but the VA 

does not. 

Fifth, Arlington hosts many special ceremonies every year, some 

involving the President and visiting heads of state. 

And sixth, Arlington is one of the most visited tourist destinations in Washington, hosting over 4 million visitors a year. 

Finally, we do think opportunities exist for the Army and the VA 

to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of both organizations, 

but, most importantly, for the benefit of our Active-Duty service 

members, our veterans, and their families. 

Here are some examples. VA has staff dedicated to establishing 

eligibility for burial in their cemeteries and a central scheduling 

center that could assist Arlington. Conversely, VA officials are examining whether geographic information system or global positioning system technology should be used in their cemeteries, but 

the Army already does this and could conceivably provide assistance to the VA. Since no formal mechanism exists yet to identify 

collaboration opportunities, we recommended that the two departments establish one, and they agreed. 

In conclusion, we believe the Army has worked through the crisis 

and taken steps to put Arlington National Cemetery on a sustainable path to ensure effective cemetery operations. Our recommendations are offered in the spirit of assisting that process 

along so that we never have to come before you again to have this 

conversation. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you or the other members 

of the subcommittee may have. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Lepore and Ms. Martin can 

be found in the Appendix on page 55.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Director Lepore. And I want to thank 

Director Martin. Both of you were very helpful. And I even appreciated your final comment that you didn’t want to have to come 

back. Truly, you are helping make that possible. So thank you. 

The Arlington Executive Director Ms. Kathryn Condon. 
10 

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN A. CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY 

Ms. CONDON. Chairman Wilson, Chairman Wittman, and distinguished members of both subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the progress that we 

have made at Arlington National Cemetery. As both of the chairmen and Ranking Member Davis and Cooper both know from our 

monthly updates, there still is a lot of work left that we have to 

do at Arlington, but the Army and the entire cemetery are prepared to address the challenges that remain. But today, significant 

progress has been made, progress as a result of our concerted focus 

on establishing repeatable standards, measures, and operating procedures that emphasize safety, proficiency, professionalism, and accountability. 

The implementation of state-of-the-art technology now makes the 

hallowed grounds of Arlington one of the most technologically advanced cemeteries in the country, a different perspective than 19 

months ago, when the cemetery lacked fiscal stewardship; was a 

paper-based operation using a typewriter and having only one fax 

machine; when calls were not answered; and the workforce was not 

properly manned, trained, or equipped. But practicing sound fiscal 

stewardship and displaying transparency of cemetery operations is 

paramount in our effort to restore the faith, trust, and honor our 

veterans and their families so rightfully deserve. 

A formal chain-of-custody process has been implemented to maintain positive, verifiable control of remains throughout both the interment and inurnment process at the cemetery. And we have reviewed years of financial records and recovered funds, $26.8 million 

to be exact, funds that were fully used to fully fund, as you know, 

Chairman Wittman, the construction of the ninth columbarium and 

to make the necessary improvements to years of backlogs of maintenance and repair. You have my commitment that we will continue to examine prior-year funding records to see if there are more 

dollars that can be recovered to put back into Arlington. 

In the accountability report recently submitted to this Congress, 

we have examined and photographed 259,978 gravesites, markers, 

and niches. The Accountability Task Force compiled those photos 

and coupled them with our existing records, and for the first time 

we now have consolidated 147 years of cemetery records, records 

that were created from logbook entries, our paper-based records of 

interment and grave cards that we used to have in our interment 

scheduling base but are no longer there, and the automated records 

that we did have, and we now have them into a single, accountable 

database. 

Since the submission of the report, the total validated gravesites 

without any burial discrepancies in evidence is now 212,674, and 

we are working diligently to continue to close the remaining 18 

percent of the cases to bring our efforts on accountability to closure. 

The creation of the single, complete, verifiable database will soon 

allow families and other stakeholders with Internet access to 

search and produce a picture of each and every marker in the cemetery, and to review that with publicly available information pertaining to each gravesite. They can do this on our state-of-the-art 
11 

Web site and soon-to-be smartphone application that we will be 

launching to the public. 

In the area of contracting, we have made significant progress in 

contract management, transforming our contracting activities to 

position the Army National Cemetery’s program for long-term 

sustainment. The Army has resourced our contracting support and 

oversight, adding skilled acquisition support personnel to support 

my staff, and properly training the workforce involved in the acquisition process. 

In order to orchestrate the many activities required to effectively 

run Arlington, we have developed the Army National Cemeteries 

Campaign Plan, which codifies in one strategic document the longterm vision for the operation of the cemetery at both Arlington and 

the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home. It is the vehicle that the superintendent Pat Hallinan and I will use to ensure that we do achieve 

our future vision for the cemetery. It incorporates the significant 

guidance, support, and recommendations we have received from 

Secretary McHugh, from the GAO, from the Army inspector general, from the Army Audit Agency, from the Northern Virginia 

Technology Council, and from distinguished Members of Congress, 

in particular members of this committee. 

Coupled with the campaign plan, we are developing our Enterprise Architecture and Technology Acquisition Roadmap, which will 

serve as our IT blueprint and ensure our IT investments are effectively and efficiently meeting the needs of the organization well 

into the future. 

In conclusion, I personally wish to thank both committees again 

for your leadership and monthly guidance as we restore honor and 

dignity to Arlington National Cemetery. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Condon can be found in the Appendix on page 77.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And at this time we will proceed to questions from each member 

of both of the subcommittees, and we will be on a strict 5-minute 

rule. This will be upheld by Mr. John Chapla, who is a professional 

staff member of the Armed Services Committee and above reproach. He is very good about keeping the 5-minute rule, including 

with both chairmen. 

And at this time I would like to ask Ms. Condon, first of all, it 

is exciting, and I hope people do hear the good news that you can 

access records now by the Internet. As a person who has a direct 

family member there, it means a lot to me as a citizen of our country and also as a Member of Congress. 

In your report you have identified that more than 57,000 grave 

discrepancies still have to be resolved. I would like you to focus on 

what the most serious are, and particularly the 14,000 critical discrepancies. What is the corrective action timeline and funding required to address the critical deficiencies? 

Ms. CONDON. Mr. Chairman, in our accountability what we have 

done is we started the process with business rules. And one of our 

business rules, to match the photo that the Old Guard took of each 

and every gravesite and niche, was that we had to match that with 

at least two records. Most of those 14,000 discrepancies, which are 
12 

really not discrepancies per se, means that we didn’t have two 

records; we only had one record. We are finding that from the Civil 

War we only had one document, which was the document in the 

handwritten transcribed logbook. 

But what our Accountability Task Force did, and they ended at 

the 22nd of December, but we now have 45 analysts. Most of them 

are temporary employees, who have dedicated themselves to looking at the Social Security Death Index, to look at census data, to 

look at military records, to go on Ancestry.com to make sure that 

we could find another record so that we could validate the information that we have on the gravesite and headstone. And that incorporates most of what that 14,000 is. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, that is very creative, and I am delighted to 

hear that. 

Additionally, there have been press reports that $12 million of 

what were previously appropriated funds could not be found. And 

then you have indicated that you have recovered $26.8 million. 

Could you tell us how the recovery was done, whether there are 

any other unobligated funds still to be found? And how is this situation of unobligated funds to be prevented in the future? 

Ms. CONDON. Well, sir, I can first start by talking how the $12 

million came about. 

On page 15 of Ms. Martin’s GAO report on contracting, they cited a 2010 Army audit that said that $15 million was—of unliquidated 

obligations was recovered. So if you take the total of the amount 

that we have found and subtract the $15 million, you get $12 million that they said was unaccounted for. Sir, that was not unaccounted for. We recovered all of that $26.8 

million, because the IG reports, the Army audit reports, and the 

GAO reports were all snapshots in time. And that data, you know, 

we were continuing to recover those funds. How did the staff? My 

resource management staff has been working meticulously to look 

at each and every contract to make sure that we close out those 

contracts and recover funds, and to also look at each and every 

MIPR [Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request], which is 

when you give money out to an organization to provide support, to 

make sure that we close out and bring back those dollars. That is 

how we were able to recoup the $26 million that we found. 

Mr. WILSON. I want to congratulate you. I can’t imagine recovering that much money. So I am very, very pleased. 

For everyone, and it can be very brief since my time is brief, 

should the Department of Veterans Affairs assume responsibility 

for Arlington National Cemetery and the cemetery at the Soldiers’ 

Home here in the District of Columbia? And we will begin this time 

with General Vangjel. 

General VANGJEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that we need to take a good look at this and a more detailed look. I concur with what the GAO has brought up already. 

As I take a look at it, I think, though, that right now the Army 

should keep it. And the bottom line is collaboration is probably better at this point, at least for the next few years, and then we will 

take another look. And we will do whatever the President and Congress want us to do. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 
13 

Ms. MARTIN. I will defer to my colleague. 

Mr. LEPORE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As we noted in our report, 

given the progress the Army has made, and given the potential 

short-term costs of actually doing a transfer, it seemed to us that 

it might be more prudent to give the Army a chance to see if they 

can complete their progress and bring this through to a successful 

conclusion. And you will have a pretty good idea how they do when 

General Vangjel and his team come back in later this year. So it 

seemed to us that right now making that decision might be a little 

premature. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And Ms. Condon. 

Ms. CONDON. Chairman Wilson, I am not going to answer this 

parochially. My job was to put in place, to fix Arlington for our veterans and their loved ones. The decision on where Arlington is 

placed, all I can tell you, sir, is if it is transferred, you will have 

a fixed, much improved Arlington. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you all. And we now proceed to the 

ranking member, Susan Davis of San Diego, California. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

To you, General Vangjel, if you were to give Arlington a grade 

right now, what would that be? 

General VANGJEL. I have had a chance to go down and essentially talk to some people, and I have looked at some past reports. 

I haven’t had a chance to look at it in depth like I am going to do 

this summer with the inspection team as we go down. What I can 

say is that being deployed for the past 2 years, as I heard what 

was going on at Arlington, I would have to give them a zero with 

what I heard. I have to be honest with you, because it is just not 

something—it was inconceivable that that was happening, because 

what I saw was there were very respectful ceremonies. It seemed 

to be going well. 

I will say, though, that looking at the progress that has been 

made, and, as I say, I go back and look at the reports that the Department of the Army IG has done, there have been two now, there 

has been significant progress. So if you are asking me to put it on 

a number scale, ma’am, that would be difficult for me to do at this 

point because I don’t usually give tens. So I would have to say that 

they are probably around—they are better than five. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Of what you know, and certainly from the testimony 

today, one of the things I kept hearing was about staffing issues 

and making sure that the issues around that are really sustained 

so that no matter who is there, you know, that those issues are addressed. Is that one that would certainly improve their grade, or 

is there anything else that really stands out to you from all that 

has been said? 

General VANGJEL. In 2010, we identified the fact that they just— 

the staff wasn’t robust enough to be able to do the jobs that they 

were being asked to do, particularly from an oversight function. We 

recommended that the Army Force Management Support Agency 

and the United States Army Manpower Analysis Agency come 

down, take a look. They did. They made recommendations. And the 

Secretary of the Army authorized an increase of about 63 per-
14 

sonnel, I believe. And Ms. Condon has been hiring folks. I don’t believe she has got them all yet. I defer to her for the actual status. 

In my mind, it is the documentation of SOPs [standard operating 

procedures], internal process controls. If I had to say what really 

in my mind influences the score, if you will, the service to the families is remarkable. They are doing a good job with that. Ceremonies 

have always been done well. In fact, in one circumstance you could 

argue that the fact that they were done well caused a lack of oversight in some other areas. There was an assumption that everything was okay. And as you take a look at that, though, I think 

at the end of the day, it really is about establishing, documenting, 

and routinizing these processes that they have made so much 

progress with so far. But it is all about making sure that the SOPs 

match execution right now. That is where we are at. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Martin, you mentioned in your testimony the need for contracting specialists and certainly for senior staffers as well. And I 

am just wondering what do you think is a reasonable timeframe 

to—if we look back 6 months from—or look forward 6 months from 

now, should those issues be addressed by then, or should it be 3 

months, a year? What is reasonable to assume that a lot of these 

areas have been addressed? 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, Congresswoman, I would certainly have to 

defer to the leadership at Arlington. To her credit, Ms. Condon has 

identified the need for a more senior contracting specialist, and she 

has taken some steps to get that in 2013. My understanding is 

there is a process to do that. So she has already put the steps in 

place. 

The fact that she is getting the support that she needs from Fort 

Belvoir at the present time is certainly a positive. But our point 

would be that at some point if there is another urgent need within 

the Army, that support may not be there for Arlington. So as we 

have been saying, that it is important, again, to put the policies, 

procedures, have the right people in place in order to sustain. So 

sustainment, again, is the key. But Ms. Condon has certainly, and 

her team have certainly taken the steps to identify what she needs, 

and to hopefully bring those people on board. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Condon, what do you think is a reasonable timeframe to 

come back and be sure that, you know—6 months? Is that reasonable? Or 3 months? 

Ms. CONDON. Six months is fair. Ma’am, we are currently in the 

process of hiring that senior contracting professional to be personally on my staff. The reason why I am very comfortable with the 

agreement we have now with the Army Contracting Command, 

with having them provide our contracting support, because that 

means that we have trained acquisition professionals who are in 

the acquisition chain, so that I will make sure that they have the 

right training, the right credentials, the right levels of certification, 

and the right warrants. Because Arlington really isn’t that large of 

an organization to have a large contracting structure embedded in 

our TDA [Table of Distribution and Allowances]. So if I have the 

one senior professional on the staff personally and then reach back 

to the Contracting Command for support, I think that will satisfy 
15 

the contracting oversight and requirements that we will need at 

the cemetery. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

And we proceed now to Chairman Rob Wittman of Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Martin, I want to begin with you. I find it interesting in the 

report you speak about contract management and deficiencies there 

at Arlington with contract management. Specifically in the area of 

IT, it appears as though about $5 million spent in IT contracts that 

appear to be wasteful and haven’t produced any results. And on 

page 9 of the report, you have said that the IT contract management system is not guided by a modernization blueprint, and that 

it is duplicative, poorly integrated, and unnecessarily costly to 

maintain. 

From that standpoint, what did your review uncover in specific 

terms about why you believe that was occurring, as well as what 

are the current efforts to overcome those deficiencies? Where are 

they in this modernization effort to make sure there is not duplication and that systems aren’t unduly costly to maintain those efforts? 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. And it actually spans both of the reports. The external reviews found that the 

over $5 million that had been spent to try to modernize the IT systems really didn’t get us very much. And there were a number of 

reasons, starting from some basic stuff like the people who were 

executing the contracts were not properly trained and did not have 

the right experience. And Ms. Condon kind of referred to the importance of doing that up-front planning for contracts. 

And a couple of the systems really did not get us very much in 

terms of trying to modernize. As a part of the mandate, we were 

required to look at five particular systems that were called out, and 

what we found is that two of these systems are active, and those 

two are the interment scheduling system and the geographic information system. That is the one that Ms. Condon and my colleague 

referred to to be able to use GPS to do the mapping, et cetera. One 

system is in use, the BOSS [Burial Operations Scheduling System] 

system. And that is a VA system. So it is not really an Arlington 

contract, but Arlington does use that system to order the 

headstones and the grave markers, but there is no payment to VA 

under that contract. And then the last two, the interment management system and the total cemetery management system, are the 

ones that we basically got nothing for in terms of the moneys that 

were spent. 

So there were a number of reasons in terms of, you know, the 

contracts not having the specific, again, oversight, the deliverables 

not being very clear, documentation, planning, oversight. So it 

spanned the gamut in terms of things that you would not want to 

do for contracts. And so in the oversight and management report, 

we made some specific recommendations in terms of having an architecture, and Mr. Lepore can talk a bit more about that. 

Mr. LEPORE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The point that my colleague 

Ms. Martin is making is we had made the point in our report that 

the cemetery staff took some very reasonable initial steps to deal 
16 

with sort of immediate deficiencies, ensuring you have got a good 

firewall, and virus protection, and some pretty fundamental stuff, 

probably the things that needed to be done urgently. Very reasonable steps. 

Our point then was as the cemetery staff begins to transition to 

putting the organization on a long-term sustainable path, having a 

good plan that ties the future operational environment back to the 

technology investments will be needed, or what we call an enterprise architecture, would be an important step to make sure that 

for the long term the cemetery is on a sustainable path. They have 

begun that process and expect to complete it later this year. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Let me follow up on that long-term sustainable 

path. You also point out in the report that there is a lack of a strategic plan. It seems like to me an organization can’t get to where 

it needs to be without a clear vision that is stated in the strategic 

plan. Can you tell me where you believe the deficiencies lie as far 

as not having that plan, what that means, and really where the organization there at Arlington needs to go with that plan? 

Mr. LEPORE. Yes, I would be happy to. When we did the work, 

there wasn’t a plan at that time. It turns out that the cemetery 

was working on one. Just a couple of weeks ago really we saw for 

the first time the Army’s campaign plan as they call it, which is— 

that is their jargon, okay, good enough. And among the kinds of 

things we look for in a strategic plan are goals and objectives, 

where are you trying to take the organization; performance metrics 

so you have some way of knowing did I get there or not; and milestones that sort of force you—as sort of a forcing action to help you 

get there; and then a process to go back and look at yourself and 

figure out, did I get where I need to go? 

We just saw the campaign plan for the first time a couple of 

weeks ago. Ms. Condon and her staff were gracious enough to 

share it with us. So we haven’t had a chance to fully review it yet 

since we just got it, but I can tell you it does seem to have the 

basic fundamentals that we would look for in such a plan. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Wittman. 

And we now proceed to Ranking Member Jim Cooper of Tennessee. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The title of this hearing is an ‘‘Update on Accountability at Arlington National Cemetery.’’ I am worried that we are hearing a 

whole lot more about accounting and bureaucracy than we are 

hearing about accountability. 

When I talk to folks back home, they think accountability means 

that somebody was in charge, and they had to account for what 

they did or did not do while they were in charge, and we are not 

hearing much about that. And to refresh everybody’s memory, in 

July and August of 2009, the newspaper, the Washington Post, discovered irregularities at the cemetery. I think it was June 2010, almost a year later, that the Secretary of the Army responded. We 

have had a hearing in 2011. Now it is 2012. We are years into this, 

and to my knowledge not one person, either military or civilian, 
17 

has been punished in any way for one of the worst scandals in the 

150-year history of Arlington National Cemetery. 

Now, as this was going on, we have learned from the news media 

that the Air Force has apparently improperly disposed of the remains, the ashes, of over 200 airmen and women. To my knowledge, there has been no accountability there either. Now, that is a 

newer scandal. But what is going on here? 

And I love your new systems. And I think accountants are great, 

and I love software, and accurate recordkeeping is great. But we 

must remember this is a core function of the U.S. military, and has 

been since the founding of the services. There is no more premier 

location than Arlington, and no reprimand, no punishment, no accountability. We haven’t even, in this hearing at least, identified 

the folks to be held accountable. And I love looking forward, and 

I love optimism, and I do think great progress has been made by 

the current folks. But how do I look folks in the eye back home and 

say there has been accountability? 

When you talk about whether it should be an Army or a VA facility, who in the Army was in charge? And this is way beyond the 

realm of the GAO and folks like that, and you are excellent witnesses, and I appreciate the limits on your supervision, but this 

hearing is about accountability at Arlington, and the best I can tell, 

there is none, at least in terms of holding the wrongdoers accountable. 

So what are we going to do about this? This is years into the investigation. Members of Congress that run for office hoping to hold 

investigative hearings on cemetery accountability, presumably this 

will be handled responsibly. But I am getting tired of waiting years 

into the investigation. Now, I want to be fair to all involved, but 

this is years that have passed. Is it going to take 3 years to find 

out what happened to the ashes of the airmen that were apparently dumped in a dumpster? What is going on here? 

So I hope that these committees will not be part of any sweeping 

under the rug, any whitewash. But as the years click by, shouldn’t 

there be not just an accounting, but accountability? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I did not take an opening statement. I did not want to stress the committee here. But I 

think we have more work to do in this area. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much for your inquiries, which certainly need to be addressed. 

At this time we have Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cooper is a hard act 

to follow. 

I am a CPA, and I am trying to figure out the recordkeeping 

process, which I do think is core to some of the stuff that went on. 

The report went through an era-based model where the various 

eras, and starting in 1999, there is something called the BOSS system that is, I guess, a VA cemetery system. And did you have anybody look at kind of the state of the art for—I mean, there are people who control cemeteries and burials, you know, all over the 

United States, and there is a full industry of that that does it. 

There is nothing unique about handling remains and burying folks 

to the military. We honor those folks a little bit more than the general. So help me understand what the current BOSS system is 
18 

versus a system you would normally find in a relatively modern 

cemetery operation. 

Ms. CONDON. Congressman Conaway, the BOSS system is the 

Veterans Affairs system, their Burial Operations Scheduling System that the VA—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Which is just scheduling. 

Ms. CONDON. It does scheduling. And it also is the system that 

the gravestones, the markers, are ordered from. So that is how Arlington uses the BOSS system. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. So it is not—well—— 

Ms. CONDON. It is a scheduling system that VA uses. 

Mr. CONAWAY. What is ISS? 

Ms. CONDON. Interment Scheduling System was the scheduling 

system that Arlington—it was something that I inherited on June 

10, and that is the scheduling system that we use at Arlington to 

schedule our services. The difference between that and the BOSS 

system is the variables for a burial at Arlington are somewhat different. It is because you are coordinating the chapels and all the 

services and so forth. But, Congressman Conaway, we are working 

with VA on the interface between the two systems that are required. 

Mr. CONAWAY. If BOSS is just scheduling, why do you need two? 

Ms. CONDON. It is the system that you—we don’t need two. The 

bottom line is we need a scheduling system. But more than that, 

we just need accountable data. So it doesn’t matter what system 

you use there to schedule a service, it is all about the data. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. So services are being held at Arlington 

today. Help us understand what the records look like for a particular service. And is it a combination of handwritten records, or 

is it all automated? It is all captured electronically? Or what is the 

current state of affairs? 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, I am very proud to state for those members of 

the committee who have actually been to Arlington and actually 

saw the paper records and the Kardex machine, our interment 

scheduling branch right now does not have one paper record in it. 

Everything is digital. All of the records now are digital. 

Mr. CONAWAY. I understand scheduling, but somewhere in your 

records you keep track of who is buried where. 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. There are services being held today. And so those 

long-term records—once the services are done, the scheduling to 

make sure that the honor guard was there and everything got 

taken care of, going forward, though, we need to keep track of who 

is buried where. What does that data set look like? 

Ms. CONDON. That data set, sir, follows the exact data that we 

reported in the December 22 report to this Congress. This way forward, we will have a photo of the front and back of every gravesite 

and niche, and electronically attached to that will be all of the 

records pertaining to that service. That is how we are accounting 

for each and every burial not only for the report that we did to 

Congress, but from this day forward. So our employees, now when 

a headstone is set, take the photo of the front and back of that 

headstone and attach that digitally to the records. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And the record is all electronic. 
19 

Ms. CONDON. The record is all electronic. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So this is a little crude. Maintaining the inventory 

of folks who are buried where, that is fully electronic now for all 

new interments? 

Ms. CONDON. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Conaway. 

We proceed to Mr. Critz of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to get my 

arms around this. Mr. Lepore, you said that in the 1970s at some 

point, jurisdictional responsibility for—is it every other national, or 

any other veterans cemetery was transferred to the VA? 

Mr. LEPORE. The Army at that time managed 82 national cemeteries, and under the 1973 National Cemeteries Act, those cemeteries transferred to the Department of what was then just the VA, 

now the Department of Veterans Affairs, except for two. Arlington 

did not transfer, and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National 

Cemetery here in Washington did not transfer. The Army retained 

those. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Is there any trouble like we are experiencing 

at Arlington at any of these other cemeteries? 

Mr. LEPORE. We have not audited anybody beyond the activities 

at Arlington, so I really can’t say. I certainly have seen some press 

accounts, but we have not—our audit was focused on Arlington. 

Mr. CRITZ. Prior to what was reported, what is that, almost 4 

years ago, had there ever been an audit of Arlington’s recordkeeping prior? 

Mr. LEPORE. I am not aware of one by GAO. I do not know 

whether the inspector general had ever done one, but we had not, 

to my knowledge. 

Mr. CRITZ. Was Arlington’s, we will call it for lack of a better 

term, management required to report, at the end of fiscal years or 

at any point, back to the Army budgetary processes, anything that 

had happened during the year? 

Mr. LEPORE. I am not aware of that, but Ms. Condon may be in 

a better position to answer that than I am. 

Ms. CONDON. Sir, Arlington, the management of Arlington, you 

know, as you do your research has to report to the Department of 

the Army. 

Mr. CRITZ. So, but it is just gross numbers, we had this many 

ceremonies, not specifics? 

Ms. CONDON. It would be from a resource standpoint—— 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. 

Ms. CONDON [continuing]. It would be the resources required to 

run the cemetery. 

Mr. CRITZ. Going through the gravesite accountability study findings, you know, obviously, this is a complex issue. As you read 

through subsections that—you know, sections within, and then subsections within, if they are not clearly marked, there are going to 

be issues. 

Do we have any recollection of anywhere before 2008, any report 

where we have some issues because we are finding sections that 

have people in them that aren’t supposed to have them, or we are 
20 

finding grave markers that have no people there? Is there anything 

prior to this 2008 sort of disaster? 

I guess the question would be: How long have you folks been involved in this other than just since we started this process? 

Ms. CONDON. Well, sir, I can start with that one. My first day 

was on June 10, 2010, when Secretary McHugh created the executive director position—Mr. Cooper—to be accountable for the management and the operation of Arlington. 

Mr. CRITZ. So everyone is just pretty much just since 2008. And, 

sir, you just came on board very recently. 

General VANGJEL. Personally, yes, sir, but I do know that there 

were operational assessments that were conducted at Arlington 

Cemetery based on my document research that I did as I have 

come on the job, 1996, 1997, 1998, by the Military District of Washington, because they had, in fact, had oversight responsibility at 

that time. 

Mr. CRITZ. And nothing was reported in any of those reports? 

General VANGJEL. Nothing that had to do with any kind of 

mismarked graves or accountability of graves was reported during 

that particular time, no, sir. 

Mr. CRITZ. Since the digital system came on in 1999, is there any 

documentation of issues of mismarked graves since 1999 forward? 

Maybe in your audit report, is there anything? Now, prior to 1999, 

obviously, we have some issues because of paper records, and, you 

know, hopefully there are cemeteries across the country that have 

existed prior, but notwithstanding that, anything since 1999 when 

we went digital where there has been an issue? 

Mr. LEPORE. We did not attempt to go back that far, and let me 

tell you, Congressman, the reason we didn’t. The Gravesite Accountability Task Force was in the process of reviewing all 350,000 

or so records. There are some differences on what the actual number is, as it turns out, but they were in the process of reviewing 

every record, and so it didn’t seem very fruitful for us to do that 

work since we already had an organization doing that, and, as you 

know, the Gravesite Accountability Task Force report was just 

issued late December, I believe it was. 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. Right. 

Well, you know, I am new to the committee, but obviously, I am 

listening to Mr. Cooper because we are talking about accountability, and we have—these issues should have come up long before. I am sure that someone knew this. This just didn’t pop up 

since 2008, and it is interesting to me that we have no players that 

have been identified as having gross mismanagement of that, and 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Critz. 

We proceed to Mr. Coffman of Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all of 

you, for your testimony and for your service to our country. 

My concern as a Marine Corps combat veteran is specific to the 

remains of those who have been lost particularly in Afghanistan, 

or Iraq, and certainly anyone lost in combat. And I can remember 

being in Iraq that there was extraordinary care and respect paid 

to those that have—that fell on the battlefield. And where I see the 

breakdown, whether it is with the Air Force at Dover, or the Army 
21 

at Arlington, is the fact that you have civilian personnel, whether 

by the Army or by the Air Force, that, number one, come from a 

different culture where that respect may or may not be there, but 

it is not necessarily shared, but, more importantly, are not subject 

to the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ]. 

When there is a violation of a regulation, it is, in effect, a lawful 

order, and uniform military personnel can be prosecuted under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, where civilian personnel are not 

accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the violation of the same regulation. And I really think that if anything 

comes out of these hearings, that the chain of custody for those 

who have fallen in battle, that chain of custody for the remains of 

those who have fallen must be by uniformed military personnel 

only. And because that is what is most upsetting about this is that 

we are in this discussion saying, oh, things are getting better; oh, 

things are changing. Let me tell you this: If this all were handled— 

and I understand support services, and so I am narrowly defining 

something that I really think ought to be changed in respect for 

those who have fallen on the battlefield—that I just don’t believe 

we would be in this situation right now, having had a career between the United States Army and the Marine Corps. We are in 

the kind of discussions that we have had about the kind of dereliction of duty that has befallen Arlington, and Dover—I know Dover 

is not a part of this discussion today—but I simply don’t believe we 

would be here today if we were doing that. 

Now, I understand there is a broader question, and we are talking about retired military personnel. We are talking about dependents. We are talking about other things. But if there is anything 

that as a combat veteran that I believe must come out of these 

hearings, it is, again, that only U.S.—uniformed U.S. military personnel handle the remains of those who have fallen in battle. And 

I open it up if anybody would like to comment on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Coffman, and you raise 

a really good point about the UCMJ. 

We proceed to Mr. Runyan, of New Jersey. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I somewhat agree with what my colleague Mr. Coffman has 

kind of said. I think we all agree, we kind of have our arms around 

this. But we have to put teeth to it. 

We talk about accountability, and I have had the fortunate opportunity to actually chair the VA Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorials, so I obviously have dual jurisdiction here. 

And we are beginning, obviously, with Sam Houston Cemetery, experiencing some of these same pitfalls that we have here at Arlington, unfortunately. Again, the word ‘‘accountability’’ comes up time 

and time again. And if there are no teeth to anything we are doing, 

actions have consequences. No one has the fear of a consequence 

coming down; whether it is through contracting, whether it is 

through your predecessor. How do we do this? Do we do it through 

the contractor? Do we have to do it through legislation, through 

this committee? 

I mean, obviously, my colleague Mr. Coffman has a legitimate 

pathway to address that issue, but I think there are multiple fac-
22 

tors that have to be in there. But we have to hold the people accountable. At the root of it, I think most of these problems go away. 

And I think also, and I think as we are moving forward, Ms. 

Condon, with how our—our plan, and I know you are still building 

the roadmap of ‘‘you can take this manual and hand it to your 

predecessor.’’ I know we are building that, but to have those teeth 

in those procedures also, and, throughout the process of gaining the 

information and the pitfalls that you are finding from your predecessor, to make sure that all of that information is in there. 

Because it truly is a disgrace what we have done to this cemetery 

and, frankly, to what I am finding in the VA. And I know, being 

briefed by the VA people, that you guys are working very closely 

together because you have a lot of similar problems and to share 

those experiences. And I hope we can work together on that aspect 

because I know how a lot of this—how a lot of this works: This is 

my problem; that is their problem. No. It is the American people’s 

problem. It is our soldiers. It is our taxpayers at the end of the day. 

And there are people that need to be held accountable, and I think 

that as a committee we have to find a way to do that. 

And I applaud you all for your efforts here, but there are a lot 

of things that it hurts. It hurts people every day when these loved 

ones call up and say, I don’t know if my loved one is buried where 

you say they are buried. And there are some of them that we can’t 

even prove. It is heartbreaking to have to go through that kind of 

stuff. 

So I know we have our arms around it. I think we truly, and I 

will say it again, sink our teeth into it and make sure that this 

never happens again. And I thank you all for your testimony, and, 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much for your heartfelt comments, 

Mr. Runyan, and at this time, unless there is any further question, 

we shall again thank the witnesses for being here, thank you for 

making a difference. Again, Arlington, the shrine of our country, 

the respect that we have for our service members, military families, veterans, this is so important. 

And I would like now to proceed to Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to 

thank the witnesses. 

I think there are a couple of things here that all of us on the 

committee would like to know today. I think Mr. Cooper brings up 

a great point on accountability, and about past actions, current investigations. I think all of us feel like a sufficient amount of time 

has passed where those investigations should have reached their 

conclusion. There should be findings, and there should be actions. 

So I think I know that our committee would expect from you, General Vangjel, and from you, Ms. Condon, some indication about 

where that is. 

And I realize it may not be under your direct jurisdiction. I realize it is probably internal investigations within the Army, but I am 

sure that you can pass on to the Army leadership there that I 

think both of our committees would like a definitive answer as to 

where that goes on. And I realize Mr. Cooper’s frustration, because 

at our last meeting, at our last hearing, the same questions were 

asked about when we could expect findings and actions. And as Mr. 
23 

Cooper pointed out, they spent a long time, and I think all of us 

think it is very reasonable that a conclusion should have been 

reached by this particular point in time. 

So I hope that that comes back to both of our committees so we 

understand where things are. I think that is an extraordinarily important question. We talked about some of the nuts and bolts 

today. That is one of those efforts hanging out there that I think 

leaves us all in a very uncomfortable position. I thank Mr. Cooper 

for bringing it up. I know it is a difficult, but a very, very important issue for this, and we look forward to hearing something definitive back from the Army as to where that is. And—— 

Mr. WILSON. I believe, excuse me, General Vangjel wanted to 

comment on that. 

General VANGJEL. Yes, Congressman, if I could, please. As we 

went through the investigation for what we have with the two outstanding issues, the urns and gravesite reservations in particular, 

as we move forward, we look at violations of policy guidance. If it 

is criminal, we hand it over to the Criminal Investigation Division 

[CID]. They have completed their investigations with the Department of Justice now. So that is the decision, and that is what we 

are told in the Army, they are making the determination on prosecution. So what we will do is we will do the best we can to get 

information from them, and we can provide that to the committee. 

But ultimately, right now, it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice [DOJ]. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I think that would be great. If you could let us 

know when CID passed it over to the Justice Department, and who 

it is there so these committees can communicate with the Justice 

Department to get from them an idea about timeframe. 

General VANGJEL. Absolutely, Congressman, I will do. 

Mr. WILSON. Thanks. I look forward to working with Chairman 

Wittman and our ranking members, too, in regard to possible CID 

and DOJ officials to come and let us know what the status is, because this would be beyond your purview, but there should be accountability, and we can’t proceed without it. 

General VANGJEL. Yeah. 

Mr. WITTMAN. And I think, too, another thing to take from today 

that I ask all of you to consider, I think the suggestion that the 

leadership chain include somebody in uniform to make sure the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice is something that reigns, that is 

something that is a very, very significant suggestion, one that, as 

strategic planning and organization plans are looked at, that—I 

mean, it is something that garners your serious consideration. I 

want to thank Mr. Coffman for bringing that up. 

Mr. WILSON. Any further? If not, we shall be adjourned. Thank 

you, again, everyone, for being here today. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Æ