DOD FINANCIAL 

MANAGEMENT

The Army Faces Significant 

Challenges in Achieving 

Audit Readiness for Its 

Military Pay

Statement of Asif A. Khan, Director 

Financial Management and Assurance

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services and International Security, Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; 

and the Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and 

Financial Management, Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, March 22, 2012

GAO-12-501T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
 

Page 1 GAO-12-501T 

Chairmen Carper and Platts, Ranking Members Brown and Towns, and 

Members of the Subcommittees:

It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss our work on the significant 

challenges the Army faces in achieving audit readiness for its military pay. 

The Army’s military pay is material to the Army’s financial statements. 

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended, established 

requirements for 24 agencies, including the Department of Defense 

(DOD), to prepare annual financial statements and have them audited.1

Further, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 

2010 mandated that DOD be prepared to validate (certify) that its 

consolidated financial statements are ready for audit by September 30, 

2017.2 On October 13, 2011, the Secretary of Defense directed the 

department to achieve audit readiness for the Statement of Budgetary 

Resources, one of the principal financial statements, by the end of fiscal 

year 2014 as an interim milestone for DOD to meet the legal requirement 

in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 to achieve full audit readiness for all 

DOD financial statements by 2017.3

The Army’s active duty military payroll, comprising about 20 percent of its 

reported $233.8 billion in fiscal year 2010 net outlays,4

 

1

Pub. L. No. 101-576, § 303, 104 Stat. 2838, 2849 (Nov. 15, 1990), codified, as 

amended at 31 U.S.C. § 3515. 

is significant to 

both Army and DOD efforts to meet DOD’s 2014 Statement of Budgetary 

Resources auditability goal as well as the mandate to achieve full audit 

readiness for all DOD financial statements by 2017. For years, we and 

others have reported continuing deficiencies with the Army’s military 

2

Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 1003, 123 Stat. 2190, 2439-40 (Oct. 28, 2009). 

3

DOD, Secretary of Defense Memorandum, “Improving Financial Information and 

Achieving Audit Readiness,” October 13, 2011. 

4

Outlays during a fiscal year may be for payment of obligations incurred in prior 

years or in the same year. Net outlays are disbursements net of offsetting 

collections.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-501T 

payroll processes and controls.5

My remarks today are based on our report, DOD Financial Management: 

The Army Faces Significant Challenges in Achieving Audit Readiness for 

Its Military Pay, which is being released today.

These reported continuing deficiencies in 

Army payroll processes and controls have called into question the extent 

to which the Army’s military payroll transactions are valid and accurate, 

and whether the Army’s military payroll is auditable. Further, other military 

components, such as the Air Force and the Navy, share some of the 

same process and system risks as the Army.

6

Our work on which this testimony is based was conducted 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 the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit

objectives. Our published report contains additional details on our scope 

and methodology for this audit.

I will focus on problems 

that impede the Army’s ability to (1) identify a valid population of military 

payroll transactions and (2) provide documentation that supports the 

validity and accuracy of payments for Army military payroll.

For fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated more than $52 billion to the 

Military Personnel, Army appropriation primarily for Army active duty 

 

5

DOD Inspector General, Active Duty Military Personnel Accounts Were 

Generally Valid and Secure, but DoD May have Made Improper Payments, D- 2011-093 (Arlington, VA: July 27, 2011); GAO, Military Pay: The Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service–Indianapolis Could Improve Control Activities 

over Its Processing of Active Duty Army Military Personnel Federal Payroll 

Taxes, GAO-09-557R (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2009); Military Pay: Hundreds 

of Battle-Injured GWOT Soldiers Have Struggled to Resolve Military Debts, 

GAO-06-494 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2006); Military Pay: Army National 

Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay 

Problems, GAO-04-89 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2003).

6

GAO, DOD Financial Management: The Army Faces Significant Challenges in 

Achieving Audit Readiness for Its Military Pay, GAO-12-406 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 22, 2012).

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-501T 

military personnel costs.7 The Military Personnel, Army appropriation is a 

1-year appropriation available for the pay, benefits, incentives, 

allowances, housing, subsistence, travel, and training primarily for Army 

service members on active duty. According to the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service in Indianapolis, Indiana (DFAS-IN), of the $52 billion 

in fiscal year 2010 military personnel appropriations, the Army’s nearly 

680,000 service members received $46.1 billion in pay and allowances. 

Army Human Resources Command, unit commanders, and training 

certification officials, among others, are responsible for providing DFASIN with accurate and timely information regarding changes in individual 

military member status necessary to maintain accurate and timely payroll 

accounts. DFAS-IN is responsible for the accounting, disbursement, and 

reporting for the Army’s military personnel costs using the Defense Joint 

Military Pay System-Active Component (DJMS-AC).

We found that the Army could not readily identify a complete population of 

Army payroll accounts for fiscal year 2010, given existing procedures and 

systems. The Army and DFAS-IN did not have an effective, repeatable 

process for identifying the population of active duty payroll accounts. In 

addition, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), DOD’s central 

source for personnel information, did not have an effective process for 

comparing military pay account files to military personnel files to identify a 

valid population of military payroll transactions.8 For example, it took 3 

months and repeated attempts before DFAS-IN could provide a 

population of service members who received active duty Army military 

pay in fiscal year 2010. Similarly, it took DMDC over 2 months to compare 

the total number of fiscal year 2010 active duty payroll accounts to its 

database of personnel files. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government requires all transactions and other significant events to be 

clearly documented and the documentation readily available for 

examination.9

 

7

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-118, 123 Stat. 

3409, 3410, 3458 (Dec. 19, 2009); Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. 

L. No. 111-212,124 Stat. 2302, 2305 (July 29, 2010). 

DOD’s Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) 

8

DFAS-IN processes military payroll for the Army, and DMDC supports audits by 

performing analyses of Army military personnel files and data.

9

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

Process and System 

Weaknesses Hindered 

Army’s Ability to 

Identify a Valid 

Population of Military 

Payroll Transactions
 

Page 4 GAO-12-501T 

Guidance sets out key tasks essential to achieving audit readiness, 

including defining and identifying the population of transactions for audit 

purposes.10 The GAO/PCIE Financial Audit Manual provides guidance 

concerning typical control activities, such as independent checks on the 

validity, accuracy, and completeness of computer-processed data.11

Without effective processes for identifying a complete population of Army 

military pay records and comparing military pay accounts to personnel 

records, the Army will have difficulty meeting DOD’s 2014 Statement of 

Budgetary Resources audit readiness goal and its 2017 goal for a 

complete set of auditable financial statements.

DFAS-IN made three attempts from November 2010 through early 

January 2011 to provide us a Defense Joint Military Pay System-Active 

Component (DJMS-AC) file extract of Army service members who 

received active duty pay in fiscal year 2010. The first attempt included 

11,940 duplicate pay accounts, and the total number of pay accounts 

included in the second attempt increased by 28,035 records over the first 

attempt, necessitating a third attempt to establish the population of fiscal 

year 2010 active duty pay records. We requested that DMDC compare 

the results of DFAS-IN’s third attempt to identify the population of Army 

fiscal year 2010 payroll accounts against DMDC’s compilation of monthly 

active duty payroll data that it received from DFAS-IN. Of the 677,024 

Army active duty pay accounts, per DJMS-AC, we were able to reconcile 

all but 1,025 pay accounts (less than 1 percent of the total active duty pay 

accounts to pay account data that DFAS-IN had previously provided to 

DMDC. However, as discussed later, we were unable to verify the validity 

of the records. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

requires all transactions and other significant events to be clearly 

documented and the documentation readily available for examination.12

 

10DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/CFO), Financial 

Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance, December 2011.

In 

11GAO/PCIE, Financial Audit Manual, Volume 1, GAO-08-585G (Washington, 

D.C.: July 2008). The President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) was 

replaced by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

(CIGIE). CIGIE was statutorily established as an independent entity within the 

executive branch by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-

409, § 7, 122, Stat. 4302, 4305-4313 (Oct. 14, 2008) (codified at 5 U.S.C. App., § 

11).

12GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

DFAS-IN Did Not Have an 

Effective Process for 

Identifying the Population 

of Army Military Payroll 

Records 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-501T 

addition, DOD’s Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) 

Guidance states that being able to provide transaction-level detail for an 

account balance is a key task essential to achieve audit readiness.

At the time we initiated our audit, Army officials told us that they had not 

yet focused on this area in their audit readiness efforts because the target 

date for Army military pay was not until the first quarter of fiscal year 

2015.13 The inability to readily provide a population of military pay 

accounts impeded our efforts to accomplish our audit objectives and, if 

not effectively addressed, will impede the Army’s ability to meet DOD’s 

new Statement of Budgetary Resources audit readiness goal of 

September 30, 2014.

The Army’s pay and personnel systems are not integrated, which can 

lead to differences between the systems and potential errors. Therefore, 

an audit of military pay would include comparisons of military payroll 

accounts to personnel records to identify discrepancies. However, we 

found that DMDC did not have an effective process for comparing military 

pay account files with military personnel files. While DMDC was ultimately 

able to confirm that all 677,024 service members who received fiscal year 

2010 active duty Army military pay14 from the DJMS-AC had an active 

duty personnel file in one of the multiple personnel systems, the 

reconciliation process was labor intensive and took over 2 months to 

complete. For example, DMDC’s initial comparison of active duty Army 

military pay accounts to personnel records identified 67,243 pay accounts 

that did not have a corresponding active army personnel record on 

September 30, 2010.15

 

13Subsequent to this discussion, the Secretary of Defense issued a memo 

accelerating the Statement of Budgetary Resources audit readiness goal from 

2017 to 2014.

Labor-intensive research was necessary to 

reconcile the differences between DJMS-AC pay records and Army 

personnel files compiled by DMDC. According to DMDC, these 

differences related primarily to personnel who had either left or were 

scheduled to leave the service, were reserve component soldiers 

14Fiscal year 2010 was the most recently completed fiscal year at the time of our 

audit.

15The personnel file used for comparison included service members who were 

still on active duty in the Army on September 30, 2010, and did not cover the 

entire fiscal year. 

System Weaknesses 

Hindered the Matching of 

Army Pay Accounts to 

Personnel Files
 

Page 6 GAO-12-501T 

released from active duty, or were soldiers who had died during fiscal 

year 2010.

DMDC attempted to complete our requested comparison of active duty 

Army pay accounts to military personnel records in January 2011, but 

was unable to complete the reconciliation until early March 2011. DMDC 

officials told us that the reasons for the delays included mainframe 

computer issues,16 staff illness and turnover, and management data 

quality reviews of the file comparison results, including additional file 

comparisons to resolve differences. We referred six duplicate Social 

Security numbers in personnel account records that we confirmed with 

the Social Security Administration to DMDC and the Army for further 

research and appropriate action.17 The absence of an effective process 

for confirming that the Army’s active duty payroll population reconciles to 

military personnel records increases the risk that the Army will not meet 

DOD’s Statement of Budgetary Resources auditability goal of September 

30, 2014.

We identified deficiencies in DFAS-IN and Army processes and systems 

for readily identifying and providing documentation that supports 

payments for Army military payroll. First, DFAS-IN had difficulty retrieving 

and providing usable Leave and Earnings Statement files for our sample 

items. Second, the Army and DFAS-IN were able to provide complete 

documentation for 2 of our 250 military pay account sample items, partial 

support for 3 sample items, but no support for the remaining 245 sample 

items. Because the Army was unable to provide documents to support 

reported payroll amounts for our sample of 250 soldier pay accounts, we 

were unable to determine whether the Army’s payroll accounts were valid 

and we could not verify the accuracy of payments and reported active 

duty military payroll. Further, because military payroll is significant to the 

financial statements, the Army will not be able to pass an audit of its 

Statement of Budgetary Resources without resolving these control 

weaknesses.

 

16DMDC and other DOD agencies use the Navy Postgraduate School mainframe 

computer to support their activities and share data processing priorities.

17The six duplicate personnel records related to Social Security numbers that 

were assigned to two different service member names.

The Army Was Unable 

to Provide 

Documentation to 

Support the Validity 

and Accuracy of a 

Sample of Payroll 

Transactions 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-501T 

DFAS-IN staff experienced difficulty and delays in providing usable Leave 

and Earnings Statement files to support our testing of Army military 

payroll. We selected a sample of 250 Army active duty soldier pay 

accounts and in April 2011 requested the relevant Leave and Earnings 

Statement files for fiscal year 2010. Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government requires internal control and all transactions and 

other significant events to be clearly documented and the documentation 

readily available for examination.18 DOD Regulation 7000.14-R, Financial 

Management Regulation (FMR), requires the military components to 

maintain documentation supporting all data generated and input into 

finance and accounting systems or submitted to DFAS.19 After multiple 

discussions and requests, we ultimately obtained usable Leave and 

Earnings Statement files for our sample items—5 weeks after our initial 

request. DFAS-IN took over 2 weeks to provide the initial set of Leave 

and Earning Statement files because it needed to retrieve files from two 

areas of the Defense Joint Military Pay System-Active Component 

(DJMS-AC). The DJMS-AC database holds the current month plus the 

previous 12 months’ data. Data older than this are archived and need to 

be retrieved from the archived database. In addition, the first set of Leave 

and Earnings Statement files that DFAS-IN provided included statements 

outside the requested fiscal year 2010 timeframe of our audit. It took 1 

week, including our data reliability review, to obtain the second set of 

DFAS-IN Leave and Earnings Statement files consisting of 445 separate 

files containing monthly statements for 250 service member pay accounts

in our sample. We determined that the Leave and Earnings Statement 

files for an individual service member generally were in two or more of the 

files provided. Consequently, we had to combine these files into a format 

with each service member’s Leave and Earnings Statement files grouped 

together to include all of the pay and allowance information for the service 

members in our sample. This combining and formatting required 2 

additional weeks.

 

18GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

19DOD, FMR, Volume 6A, Chapter 2, “Financial Reports Roles and 

Responsibilities,” ¶ 020201.B. (rev. August 2011). 

DFAS-IN Could Not 

Readily Provide Usable 

Leave and Earnings 

Statement Files for Sample 

Items
 

Page 8 GAO-12-501T 

We found that the Army’s inability to locate personnel documents to 

support its military payroll transactions was primarily the result of 

weaknesses in Army procedures. Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government requires internal control and all transactions and 

other significant events to be clearly documented and the documentation 

readily available for examination.20 DOD Regulation 7000.14-R, Financial 

Management Regulation (FMR), requires the military components to 

maintain documentation supporting all data generated and input into 

finance and accounting systems or submitted to DFAS.21 This regulation 

also requires the components to ensure that audit trails are maintained in 

sufficient detail to permit tracing of transactions from their sources to their 

transmission to DFAS. Audit trails are necessary to demonstrate the 

accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of transactions as well as to 

provide documentary support for all data generated by the component 

and submitted to DFAS for recording in the accounting systems and use 

in financial reports. Further, DOD’s FIAR Guidance states that identifying 

and evaluating supporting documentation for individual transactions and 

balances, as well as the location and sources of supporting 

documentation and confirming that appropriate supporting documentation 

exists, is a key audit readiness step.22

As of the end of September 2011, 6 months after receiving our initial 

request, the Army and DFAS-IN were able to provide complete 

documentation for 2 of our 250 sample items, partial support for 3 sample

items, and no support for the remaining 245 sample items. As shown in 

figure 1, our review of the partial documentation provided for 3 sample 

items showed that the Army was unable to provide supporting 

documentation for common elements of its military pay, including basic 

allowance for housing, cost of living allowance, hardship duty paylocation, and hostile fire/imminent danger pay.

Without the capability to readily 

locate and provide supporting documentation for military pay transactions, 

the Army’s ability to pass a financial statement audit will be impeded.

 

20GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

21DOD, FMR, Volume 6A, Chapter 2, “Financial Reports Roles and 

Responsibilities,” ¶ 020201.B. (rev. August 2011). 

22DOD, Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) 

Guidance, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/CFO) 

(Arlington, VA: May 15, 2010). 

The Army Was Unable to 

Locate Supporting 

Documentation for 

Military Pay Account 

Sample Items
 

Page 9 GAO-12-501T 

Figure 1: Test Results for 5 of 250 Soldier Pay Account Sample Items

One of the factors impeding the Army’s ability to provide supporting 

documentation is that it does not have a centralized repository for payaffecting documents. Army personnel and finance documentation 

supporting basic pay and allowances resides in numerous systems, and 

original hard copy documents are scattered across the country—at 

hundreds of Army units and National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) federal records centers. According to Army and 

DFAS-IN officials, there are at least 45 separate systems that the Army 

uses to perform personnel and pay functions with no single, overarching 

personnel system. Although these systems contain personnel data on 

Army active duty military members and their dependents and feed these 

data to DJMS-AC, the systems do not contain source documents.

Further, we found that the Army had not established a mechanism for 

periodic monitoring, review, and accountability of the Interactive 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-501T 

Personnel Management System (iPERMS) to ensure that personnel files 

are complete. Army Regulation No. 600-8-104, Military Personnel 

Information Management/Records, establishes requirements for the 

Army’s Official Military Personnel File.23 The Army deployed iPERMS in 

2007 and designated it as the Army’s Official Military Personnel File. 

However, when we attempted to find supporting documents in iPERMS, 

we found that this system had not been consistently populated with the 

required service member documents, resulting in incomplete personnel 

records. For example, when testing our sampled transactions, we 

discovered that documents, such as orders to support a special duty 

assignment, permanent change of station orders, and release or 

discharge from active duty, that should have been in iPERMS were not. 

The Army has designated the Human Resources Command as the owner 

of iPERMS; however, local installation personnel offices across the 

country are responsible for entering most documents into individual 

service member iPERMS accounts. We found that documents needed to 

support pay transactions are not in iPERMS because (1) Army Regulation 

600-8-104 does not require the specific personnel forms to be included 

and (2) some pay-supporting documents are finance documents and are 

not considered personnel documents.24

In addition, the Army’s efforts to achieve auditability are compounded by 

payroll system limitations. DJMS-AC, used to process Army active duty 

military pay, is an aging, Common Business Oriented Language 

(COBOL)

We believe these finance 

documents should also be maintained in the Army’s central repository of 

pay-supporting documentation.

25

 

23Department of the Army, Army Regulation No. 600-8-104, Military Personnel 

Information Management/Records (Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2004).

mainframe-based system that has had minimum system 

maintenance because DOD planned to transition to the Forward 

Capability Pay System and then to the Defense Integrated Military Human 

24These documents include the Department of the Army (DA) Form 5960, 

Authorization to Start, Stop or Change Basic Allowance for Quarters and/or 

Variable Housing Allowance; the Department of Defense (DD) Form 1561, 

Statement to Substantiate Payment of Family Separation Allowance (FSA); and 

the DD Form 2367, Individual Overseas Housing Allowance. 

25COBOL is one of the earliest high-level programming languages. It was 

developed in 1959, and the language continues to evolve.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-501T 

Resources System.26

Another factor in the Army’s inability to provide support for military payroll 

is that the Army has not adequately documented its personnel processes 

and controls related to military pay. During our audit, we spent 

considerable time attempting to identify the range of personnel and 

finance documents that would be needed to support basic military pay 

and allowances reported on service members’ Leave and Earnings 

Statements and the appropriate office responsible for providing the 

documentation. According to Internal Control Standards, written 

documentation should exist covering the agency’s internal control and all 

significant transactions and events.

DJMS-AC lacks key payroll computation abilities to 

pay active duty Army service members. To address these functionality 

limitations, DFAS has developed approximately 70 workaround 

procedures that are currently being used to compensate for the lack of 

functionality in DJMS-AC. An audit of Army military pay would necessitate 

an evaluation of these procedures and related controls.

27 The documentation for internal 

control includes identification of the agency’s activity-level functions and 

related objectives and control activities and should appear in 

management directives, administrative policies, accounting manuals, and 

other such guidance.

DOD’s November 2011 FIAR Status Report includes DOD’s goal of 

achieving audit readiness for its Statement of Budgetary Resources by 

the end of fiscal year 2014. DOD and the Army have established interim 

goals for meeting the fiscal year 2014 Statement of Budgetary Resources 

audit readiness goal. For example, the Army plans to assert audit 

readiness for its General Fund Statement of Budgetary Resources, 

including military pay, by March 31, 2013, and have its assertion tested 

and fully validated by June 30, 2014. Army officials stated that military 

pay audit readiness poses a significant challenge and acknowledged that 

the success of the Army’s efforts will be key to meeting DOD’s 2014 

Statement of Budgetary Resources audit readiness goal. To meet this 

goal, the Army has several military pay audit readiness efforts planned or 

 

26The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System was terminated due 

to the differences in the business processes, operations, and information 

required by each Service. 

27GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

Army Military Pay Audit 

Readiness Efforts 

Currently Under Way
 

Page 12 GAO-12-501T 

under way, such as developing a matrix of personnel documents that 

support military pay and allowances and developing the Integrated 

Personnel and Payroll System-Army.28

In our report, we recommend that the Army document and implement a 

process for identifying and validating the population of payroll 

transactions and identify, centrally retain, and periodically review key 

finance and personnel (i.e., pay-affecting) documents that support military 

payroll transactions. The Army agreed with our recommendations to 

improve the controls and processes related to active duty military. Our 

report more fully describes the Army’s comments and our evaluation of 

them.

However, many of these efforts 

are in the early planning stages.

Active Army military payroll, reported at $46.1 billion for fiscal year 2010, 

is material to the Army’s financial statements and, as such, will be 

significant to DOD’s audit readiness goals for the Statement of Budgetary 

Resources. The Army has several military pay audit readiness efforts that 

are planned or under way. Timely and effective implementation of these 

efforts could help reduce the risk related to DOD’s ability to achieve its 

2014 Statement of Budgetary Resources audit readiness goal. However, 

most of these actions are in the early planning stages. Moreover, these 

initiatives, while important, do not address (1) establishing effective 

processes and systems for identifying a valid population of military payroll 

records, (2) ensuring Leave and Earnings Statement files and supporting 

personnel documents are readily available for verifying the accuracy of 

payroll records, (3) ensuring key personnel and other pay-related

documents that support military payroll transactions are centrally located, 

retained in service member Official Military Personnel Files, or otherwise 

readily accessible, and (4) requiring the Army’s Human Resources 

Command to periodically review and confirm that service member Official 

Military Personnel File records in iPERMS or other master personnel 

record systems are consistent and complete. These same issues, if not 

effectively resolved, could also jeopardize the 2017 goal for audit 

 

28Currently under development, the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) 

is intended to be the Army’s future web-based Human Resources management system. 

The goal of IPPS-A is to standardize, streamline, and integrate critical soldier personnel 

and pay processes and data across the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army 

Reserve.

Concluding 

Observations 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-501T 

readiness on the complete set of DOD financial statements. In addition, 

the Army’s military pay auditability weaknesses have departmentwide 

implications for other military components, such as the Air Force and the 

Navy, that share some of the same military pay process and systems 

risks as the Army.

Chairmen Carper and Platts, Ranking Members Brown and Towns, and 

Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared statement. I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members 

of the subcommittees may have.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9869 or khana@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this testimony. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this testimony are Gayle L. Fischer, Assistant Director; Carl S. Barden; 

Lauren S. Fassler; Wilfred B. Holloway; Julia C. Matta, Assistant General 

Counsel; Sheila D. M. Miller, Auditor in Charge; Margaret A. Mills; 

Heather L. Rasmussen; James Ungvarsky; and Matt Zaun.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(197116)
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.