GAO-12-191R Military Training

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 16, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Military Training: Observations on the Army's Implementation of a 

Metric for Measuring Ground Force Training

In 2008, the Army issued a field manual that identified the need to expand its training 

focus so units would be trained and ready to operate across a full spectrum of 

operations including offensive, defensive, stability, and civil support operations.1 To 

support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the last several years, the Army has 

focused its ground force training on preparing units for counterinsurgency operations. 

With the withdrawal from operations in Iraq, fewer units are engaged in 

counterinsurgency operations and now have more time to train for full spectrum 

operations. 

To reflect the shift in training focus, the Army, in April 2011, updated its training 

strategy and also established a new metric to measure training activity—referred to as 

the full spectrum training mile metric. This metric replaced the Army’s traditional tank 

mile metric, which represented the average number of miles the Army expected to drive 

its tanks while conducting training. In its fiscal year 2012 budget materials, the Army 

provided background information on its transition to the new metric, and, starting in 

fiscal year 2012, began using the new metric. 

House report 112-782 directed GAO to review the Army’s transition to the full spectrum 

training mile metric and report its findings by February 28, 2012. To address this 

mandate, we determined (1) how the Army's full spectrum training mile metric differs 

from its traditional tank mile metric; (2) the key assumptions associated with the full 

spectrum training mile metric and to what extent these assumptions reflect actual 

conditions; and (3) to what extent the Army uses the full spectrum training mile metric 

to measure training execution and develop training cost estimates and related funding 

needs. Additionally, for background purposes, this report includes information on how 

training is reflected in the Army’s operation and maintenance budget-justification 

materials. 

We briefed the congressional defense committees in January 2012 and have included 

the briefing in enclosure 1 of this report.

 1

Army Field Manual 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum Operations (Dec. 2008). 2

H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, which accompanied a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, 

Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011). 
2 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Scope and Methodology

To address our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed a number of training- and 

budget-related documents including the Army’s: training strategy, field manual for full 

spectrum operations training, relevant Army guidance, the Army’s fiscal year 2012 

operation and maintenance budget request and supporting budget-justification books, 

and several briefings that described the tank mile and full spectrum training mile 

metrics. We also reviewed recent evaluations of Army training, including prior GAO 

reports, and discussed all of these issues with responsible Department of the Army 

headquarters officials. Because it is used in developing cost estimates for training, we 

briefly discuss the Army’s Training Resource Model in this report. However, we did not 

fully analyze the model or its output estimates. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to March 2012 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 any findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Summary

The full spectrum training mile metric is similar in some ways to the tank mile metric 

and dissimilar in other ways. Both metrics measure training activity of nondeployed 

units associated with recommended training events based on the Army's approved 

training strategy. Specifically, they both calculate the average number of miles a unit is 

expected to drive its vehicles on an annual basis for training that occurs during the 

reset and train/ready stages of the Army’s Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle.3 

However, the full spectrum training mile metric applies to all Army components (active 

component, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard) while the tank mile metric does 

not apply to the Army Reserve, because the Army Reserve does not have tanks. The 

full spectrum training mile metric also is based on multiple vehicles including the M1 

Abrams tank, M2/M3 Bradley, Stryker, up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled 

vehicle, medium tactical vehicle, and palletized load system, while the tank mile metric 

is limited to the M1 Abrams tank. According to Army officials, the full spectrum training 

mile metric—and its incorporation of a wider array of vehicles—is more reflective of the 

type of vehicles the Army is actually using to train its ground forces for full spectrum 

operations. 

The Army’s full spectrum training mile metric is based on certain assumptions 

associated with standards set in the Army’s training strategy and force-generation 

model. Because the metric is a standard for actual training to be measured against, the

metric’s assumptions are based on desired or expected conditions and may not fully 

 3

The Army issued Army Regulation 525-29, Army Force Generation (Mar. 14, 2011), institutionalizing the 

Army Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN) and process in March 2011. The ARFORGEN model helps

the Army manage its personnel and equipment, coordinate training, and prioritize resources. Under this 

model, units progress through a series of three stages—reset, train/ready, and available—and training 

varies during each of the stages.

 
3 GAO-12-191R Military Training

align with actual conditions. For example, the Army made certain assumptions about 

the length of time units would spend in each stage of the ARFORGEN cycle, assumed 

that units would have all the vehicles that were included in their modified table of 

organization and equipment,

4 and assumed units would accomplish all the training in 

the Army’s training strategy. However, prior GAO reports and Army readiness reports 

have both shown that units do not always have all the equipment, including vehicles 

included in their modified table of organization and equipment, available when they are 

conducting training. Army officials have also acknowledged that many units are not 

currently executing the ARFORGEN training cycle and the Army’s training strategy as 

envisioned. To the extent that units do not have all of their equipment, including 

vehicles, or complete all recommended training, the units’ actual miles driven may differ 

from the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric. According to a responsible Army 

official, the Army tracks historical data on actual miles driven and has, in the past, 

adjusted assumptions used to develop its tank mile metric to more closely reflect actual 

conditions. The Army plans to continue this practice now with the new metric in place. 

For example, when conducting its 2010 training strategy review, the Army reduced its 

estimated miles per training day and event to more closely reflect actual miles driven. 

The Army uses the full spectrum training mile metric to measure training activity. 

Specifically, the Army compares the actual miles its units have driven to conduct 

ground force training to its full spectrum training mile metric to determine how well it 

executed its training strategy. However, the Army does not use the full spectrum 

training mile metric to develop its training cost estimates or related funding needs. The 

Army uses its Training Resource Model, rather than its full spectrum training mile 

metric, to develop its training cost estimates and funding needs. While some of the 

inputs to the full spectrum training mile metric and the Training Resource Model are the 

same (i.e., the number and duration of training events and the numbers of units and 

vehicles available for training) the Training Resource Model contains unique inputs, 

such as cost factors that are not related to the full spectrum training mile metric. 

Specifically, the cost calculation in the Training Resource Model includes the cost to 

drive a vehicle, expressed as cost per mile, that are linked to the number of units and 

vehicles, as well as other indirect nonmileage support costs, such as civilian pay. The 

Training Resource Model, like the full spectrum training mile metric, assumes, among 

other things, that all recommended training events will be fully executed. To the extent 

that all training does not occur or other assumptions do not hold true, requirements 

could differ from estimates derived from the Training Resource Model. According to an 

Army official, the Training Resource Model is one of several sources of information the 

Army considers when developing its funding requests for training. For example, the 

official stated the Army uses historical data on actual miles driven to adjust its funding 

requests to more closely reflect actual conditions. 

We provided a copy of this report to the Department of Defense for review. The 

department declined to comment on the report. 

 4 The Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) is a document that prescribes the wartime 

mission, capabilities, organizational structure, and mission essential personnel and equipment 

requirements for military units.
4 GAO-12-191R Military Training

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

Army, and to the appropriate congressional committees. The report also is available at 

no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have 

any questions concerning this report, please contact me on 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. GAO staff who contributed 

to this report are listed in enclosure II. 

Sharon L. Pickup

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosures - 2
5 GAO-12-191R Military Training

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

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 Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Enclosure I

6 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Briefing for the Congressional Committees

Army Full Spectrum Training Mile Metric 

Briefing for the Congressional Committees
Enclosure I

7 GAO-12-191R Military Training

2

Background

• In 2008, the Army issued Field Manual 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum 

Operations, which identified the need to expand its training focus so units 

would be trained and ready to operate across a full spectrum of operations 

including offensive, defensive, stability, and civil support operations. The 

manual noted that “the Army learned that [its previous focus on] developing 

proficiency in performing offensive and defensive tasks does not 

automatically develop proficiency in performing stability or civil support 

tasks.” (FM 7-0, page 2-6, paragraph 2-31).

• To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the last several years, 

the Army has focused its ground force training on counterinsurgency 

operations.

• With the withdrawal from operations in Iraq, fewer Army units are engaged 

in counterinsurgency operations and now have more time to train for full 

spectrum operations. 
Enclosure I

8 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Background

• In April 2011, the Army updated its training strategy to reflect the shift in 

focus away from the counterinsurgency-based demand-driven training 

strategy to a strategy supporting training for full spectrum operations.

• In light of the Army’s shift in focus, and in an effort to establish more 

accurate training requirements and measure related training activity, the 

Army has transitioned from the traditional tank mile metric to a full 

spectrum training mile metric, which applies to a wider array of vehicles.

• According to Army officials, the full spectrum training mile (FSTM) metric— and its incorporation of a wider array of vehicles—is more reflective of the 

vehicles the Army is actually using to train for full spectrum operations. 

• Both the tank mile and FSTM metrics represent the average number of 

miles a unit is expected to drive its vehicles on an annual basis. According 

to Army officials, the Army measures actual training activity (miles driven) 

against these metrics.

• In fiscal year 2012, the Army began using the FSTM metric. 

3
Enclosure I

9 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Background

• In March 2011, the Army issued Army Regulation 525-29 institutionalizing the 

Army’s Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process. 

 ARFORGEN is the Army’s force-generation model. Under the model, units 

progress through a series of three stages—reset, train/ready, and 

available—in either a 36 month (active units) or 72 month (reserve and 

guard units) cycle. 

 Unit availability and training activity vary during each of the stages. 

• Both the tank mile and FSTM metrics establish ground force training 

requirements based on an average of the miles expected to be driven while 

conducting recommended training during the ARFORGEN cycle.

4
Enclosure I

10 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Background

• H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, which accompanied a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for 2012, directed GAO to review the Army’s transition 

to the full spectrum training mile metric including elements such as the 

methodology, assumptions, and use of the metric. 

• GAO is to report to the congressional defense committees by February 

28, 2012.

5
Enclosure I

11 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Objectives 

1) How does the Army’s FSTM metric differ from its traditional training metric, 

the tank mile? 

2) What are the key assumptions associated with the FSTM metric and to 

what extent do these assumptions reflect actual conditions? 

3) To what extent does the Army use the FSTM metric to evaluate training 

and develop related funding needs? 

In addition, we are providing information on how training is reflected in the 

Army’s operation and maintenance budget justification materials. 

6
Enclosure I

12 GAO-12-191R Military Training

• The tank mile and FSTM metrics are similar in some ways, including:

 Both metrics capture training activity (miles) required for ground force training. 

 Both capture average miles associated with recommended training events based on the 

Army’s approved training strategy and do not include training accomplished while units are 

deployed.

 Both metrics serve as a training-strategy standard and the Army uses actual miles driven 

to assess training activity against that standard.

• The two metrics differ in several ways, including:

 FSTM applies to all Army components (active, Reserve and National Guard), whereas tank miles 

did not apply to the Army Reserve because the Army Reserve does not have tanks. 

 The M1 tank was the only vehicle considered in the tank mile metric. FSTM takes into 

consideration the M1 tank as well as other vehicles. 

 The only consideration when computing the tank mile metric was the training strategy (number and 

duration of training events). FSTM also takes into account force structure changes (number of 

units and number of vehicles) and deployment schedules (number of units available for training). 

• The two metrics are compared in more detail on the next slide.

Objective 1: How does the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric 

differ from the tank mile metric?

7
Enclosure I

13 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Objective 1: How does the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric 

differ from the tank mile metric? (cont’d)

Comparison of the Tank Mile and Full Spectrum Training Mile Metrics 

8
Enclosure I

14 GAO-12-191R Military Training

• The Army used certain assumptions in establishing its FSTM 

requirements. For example: 

 Units will accomplish all recommended training. 

 Units will have all the vehicles that are included in their modified table of 

organization and equipment. 

 Units will deploy as scheduled.

Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum 

training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions

9
Enclosure I

15 GAO-12-191R Military Training

• Because the FSTM metric is a standard to measure actual training 

against, the metric’s assumptions are based on desired or expected 

conditions and may not fully align with actual conditions. For example:

 Units may not fully execute recommended training. 

• GAO has previously reported that unit training has focused on 

preparing for ongoing operations, often at the expense of training for 

full spectrum operations.

• Army officials acknowledge that, although deployment commitments 

are not as high as in past years, they are still not executing 

ARFORGEN and the associated training strategy as envisioned. For 

example: 

 Many units are not currently progressing through the ARFORGEN cycle 

in the projected time intervals envisioned. 

 Because of ongoing operations in Afghanistan, some units that are 

getting set to deploy there are focusing their training on more-limited 

missions rather than full spectrum operation missions.

Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum 

training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions 

(cont’d)

10
Enclosure I

16 GAO-12-191R Military Training

 Units may not have all the equipment, including vehicles, in their 

modified table of organization and equipment for use during training.

• GAO has previously reported that the Army has transferred equipment 

from nondeploying units to support deploying units, affecting the 

availability of items for nondeployed units to meet other demands such as 

training. 

• GAO’s ongoing work examining the Army’s process for resetting, or 

restoring equipment to combat capability, indicates units in training rely on 

several sources to augment their equipment inventory and lessen the 

effect of equipment shortages.

Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum 

training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions 

(cont’d)

11
Enclosure I

17 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum 

training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions 

(cont’d)

• To the extent that some units: focus on counterinsurgency or training 

other than the full spectrum training called for in the Army’s training 

strategy; progress through the ARFORGEN cycle slower or quicker 

than the time intervals envisioned; and lack equipment, including 

vehicles that are included in their modified table of organization and 

equipment, when conducting training, their actual miles driven may 

differ from the Army’s established FSTM requirement. 

• According to a responsible Army official, the Army tracks historical 

data on actual miles driven and has, in the past, adjusted 

assumptions used to develop its tank mile metric to more closely 

reflect actual conditions. The Army plans to continue this practice 

now that the new metric is in place. 

 For example, in its 2010 training strategy review, the Army reduced its 

estimated miles per training day and event to more closely reflect actual 

miles driven.

12
Enclosure I

18 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Objective 3: To what extent does the Army use the full spectrum 

training mile metric to evaluate training and develop related funding 

needs? 

• The Army establishes FSTM requirements and then compares actual 

full spectrum training miles to the FSTM requirement to determine how 

well the Army executed its training strategy. The FSTM metric is not a 

model for developing training cost estimates or funding needs.

 The Army uses its Training Resource Model (TRM) rather than FSTM to 

develop its training cost estimates and related funding needs. 

 While FSTM is not used to develop the Army’s training cost estimates and 

related funding needs, both FSTM and TRM consider some of the same 

mileage-related inputs (training strategy and force structure).

 Unlike FSTM, TRM also incorporates other cost factors (the cost to drive a 

vehicle, expressed as cost per mile), and other indirect costs that are not 

directly associated with vehicle mileage, such as support costs for civilian 

pay, when determining training cost estimates and related funding needs. 

13
Enclosure I

19 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Objective 3: To what extent does the Army use the full spectrum 

training mile metric to evaluate training and develop related funding 

needs? (cont’d)

• The graphic below shows the inputs that are used to calculate FSTM 

mileage requirements and the mileage-related inputs within TRM that are 

used to calculate training funding needs. 

14
Enclosure I

20 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Objective 3: To what extent does the Army use the full spectrum 

training mile metric to evaluate training and develop related funding 

needs? (cont’d)

• TRM calculations, like the FSTM metric, are based on some of the 

same assumptions such as that units will complete all of the training 

called for in the Army’s training strategy, which as we previously 

stated, may not be occurring. To the extent that all training does not 

occur or other assumptions do not hold true, requirements could differ 

from estimates derived from the TRM. 

• According to an Army official, TRM is one of several sources of 

information the Army considers when developing its funding requests 

for training. For example, the official stated that the Army uses 

historical data on actual miles driven to adjust its funding requests to 

more-closely reflect actual conditions. 

15
Enclosure I

21 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s 

Budget Justification Materials

• The Army’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for operation and maintenance 

was about $44.9 billion (active, Reserve and National Guard). 

• Army training expenses, including those for ground forces training, are 

reported in the operations tempo (OPTEMPO) subactivity groups (SAG) 

111-116. 

• About 21 percent, or $9.5 billion, of the $44.9 billion requested was for 

OPTEMPO SAGs 111-116.

• Activities other than those associated with training, such as costs to 

operate Army headquarters are also funded in SAGs 111-116. 

Direct Costs  Fuel and oil

 Repair parts

 Depot level repairs

 Contractor logistics support

Indirect Costs  Combat training center support

 Soldier support (e.g., clothing, tools, admin. supplies)

 Fixed wing aircraft maintenance (contractor logistics support)

 Equipment contract logistics support

 Civilian pay

Note: OPTEMPO is a term used within the Department of Defense to refer to the pace of operations. Funding in SAGs 111-116 

is referred to as “OPTEMPO funding.”

16
Enclosure I

22 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s 

Budget Justification Materials (cont’d)

• The Army fiscal year 2012 budget justification materials noted some 

training-related adjustments as compared to previous levels of activity. For fiscal year 2012,

 $127 million reduction due to the transition to full spectrum operations 

training, and 

 $611 million increase to support increased number of units available to 

conduct home-station training.

• In addition, the Army anticipates $1 billion savings in OPTEMPO 

funding in fiscal years 2012-2016 as a result of the shift in the Army’s 

training strategy, including the move from major combat operations to 

full spectrum operations training. 

 According to the Army, several factors contribute to the estimated savings 

including: implementation of reduced training during the 6-month 

ARFORGEN reset period; and a reduction in the use of tanks—among the 

most expensive of the Army’s vehicles to operate—in training. 

 Estimated savings are spread as follows: $182 million in 2012, $175 million 

in 2013, $193 million in 2014, $232 million in 2015, and $301 million in 

2016. 

17
Enclosure I

23 GAO-12-191R Military Training

18

Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s 

Budget Justification Materials (cont’d)

• When funds are appropriated for the Army’s operation and maintenance 

functions, the Army then allocates those funds to organizations within the 

various subactivity groups, including the OPTEMPO SAGs (SAGs 111- 116) that fund training. 

• The Army might request OPTEMPO funding at a certain level, but then 

reprogram OPTEMPO funds to other operation and maintenance non- training-related SAGs. 

• As shown on the graphic on the following page, over the last 5 years the 

Army has not consistently executed its OPTEMPO dollars, which could 

occur for various reasons including the following:

 Reprogramming funds between SAGs to meet unanticipated or emergent 

requirements,or both, that were not addressed in the initial budget request.

 DOD typically has authority to reprogram funds among SAGs, subject to 

certain conditions.
Enclosure I

24 GAO-12-191R Military Training

Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s 

Budget Justification Materials (cont’d)

Army Execution of Training Funds

Obligations Compared to Funds Requested and Designated by the Department

Note: Data are from Army fiscal year 2006-10 operation and maintenance budget justification materials. The term “designated” above refers to the 

amounts set forth at the subactivity group-level in an appropriation bill’s conference report. These recommended amounts are not binding unless they 

are incorporated directly or by reference into an appropriation act or other statute. DOD adjusts the initial amounts that Congress designates for SAGs 

to reflect congressional intent, undistributed adjustments, and general provisions directed by Congress. We refer to these amounts as “adjusted 

designations” above. The above numbers do not include funding requests or obligations related to overseas contingency operations. 

•

19
GAO-12-191R Military Training

Enclosure II

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

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

Staff Acknowledgments

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

Ferren, Assistant Director; Bruce Brown; Grace Coleman; Donna Evans; Charles 

Perdue; Steve Pruitt: Sharon Reid; Amie Steele; Susan Tindall; and Nicole Willems.

 

(351632)
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.
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 (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 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: 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.