jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING COMMAND\n\n\n\nReport Number 98-145 June 3, 1998\n\n\n\n\n Offke of the Inspector General\n Department of Defense\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additionai copies of this evaluation report, contact the Secondary Reports\n Distribution Unit of the Analysis, Planning, and Technical Support Directorate at\n (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or FAX (703) 604-8932 or visit the Inqector\n General, DOD, Home Page at: WWW.DODIG.OSD.MIL.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits or Evaluations\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits or evaluations, contact the Planning\n and Coordination Branch of the Analysis, Planning, and Technical Support\n Directorate at (703) 604-8908 (DSN 664-8908) or FAX (703) 604-8932. Ideas and\n reqUestsCXUlalsobemailedto:\n\n OAIG-AUD (ATTN: APTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General, Department of Defense\n 400 Axmy Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, Virginia 22202-2884\n\n Defense Hotline\n\n To report fkaud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling\n (800) 424-9098; by sending an electronic message to Hotline@DODIG.OSD.MIL;\n,or by writing to the Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-1900.\n The identity of each writer and caller is fully protected.\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nASVAB Anned Services Vocational Aptitude Battery\n Command Logistics Evaluation and Assistance prOgram\n Education Services Specialist\n Management Assistance and Training Team\n Military Entranw Processing station\n U.S. Military Entranw Processing Command Integrated\n Resources System\nUSMEPCOM U.S. Military &rance Processiq command\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202\n\n\n\n\n June 3, 1998\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL\n AND READINESS\n AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\n COMMANDER, UNITED STATES MILITARY\n ENTRANCE PROCESSING COMMAND\nSUBJECT: Evaluation Report on the U. S. Military Entrance Processing Command\n (Report No. 98-145)\n\n We are providing this evaluation report for review and comment. We\nconsidered management comments on a draft of this report in preparing the final\nreport.\n\n DOD Directive 7650.3 requires that all unresolved issues be resolved promptly.\nComments from the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command were partially\nresponsive. Therefore, the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command is requested\nto provide additional comments on Recommendations B.3.) B.4. and C. and comment\non the potential monetary benefits related to Recommendations A. 1. and B. 1. and the\nrevised potential monetary benefits related to Recommendation B.3. by July 3, 1998.\n We appreciate the courtesies extended to the evaluation staff. Questions on the\nevaluation should be directed to Mr. Richard A. Brown at (703) 604-9483\n(DSN 664-9483) (rbrown@dodig.osd.mil). See Appendix D for the report distribution.\nThe evaluation team members are listed inside the back cover.\n\n\n\n\n Robert J: Lieberman\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Auditing\n\x0c\x0c Office of the Inspector General, DOD\nReport No. 98-145 June 3,199s\n (Project No. 7RB-9035)\n\n U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command\n\n Executive Summary\n\nIntroduction. The U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM) is a\njointly staffed field operating agency of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force\nManagement Policy), under the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness).\nUSMEPCOM is a part of the DOD Accession Triad that includes the Military\nRecruiting Services and the Military Training Reception Centers. USMEPCOM\ncomprises a headquarters, located in Chicago, Illinois; 2 sector (regional) offices\nlocated in Chicago, Illinois, and Denver, Colorado; and 65 military entrance processing\nstations (MEPS) located in commercial facilities, Federal space, and on military\ninstallations throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.\nThe primary mission of USMEPCOM is to administer enlistment qualification tests and\na medical examina tion to all applicants for enlistment in the Services, to include the\nReserve components and the U.S. Coast Guard and, when required, Selective Service\nSystem registrants. During FY 1997, USMEPCOM conducted 529,000 enlistment\ntests and 401,000 medical examinations and 364,000 applicants were enlisted into the\nMilitary Services. The budget and staffing for USMEPCOM in FY 1997 was\n$138 million and 2,661 civilian positions and military billets, respectively.\n\nEvaluation Objectives. The evaluation objective was to determine the efficiency and\neconomy of USMEPCOM operations. We also reviewed the adequacy of the\nmanagement control program related to the evaluation objective.\n\nEvaluation Results. USMEPCOM was accomplishing its mission in accordance with\nestablished operational requirements. However, the following areas needed\nimprovement.\n\n - The organizational structure of USMEPCOM needed to be streamlined and\nmade more efficient. In addition, leased facility costs of about $387,000 over the\nFuture Years Defense Program (FYs 1999 through 2004), starting in FY 2oo0, could\nbe avoided (Finding A).\n - Of the 834 civilian positions and military billets reviewed at the\nUSMEPCOM, 355 either lacked consistency with the duties assigned, were\nunsupported, were not .aligned to provide equal support to each DoD student testing\nprogram market, or were not mission essential. As a result, USMEPCOM could\nelimiite 65 to 75 civilian positions and put about $12 million over the Future Years\nDefense Program to better use, realign 130 civilian positions to promote expansion of\nthe DOD Student Testing Program and maximize efficient use of the positions, and\nreassign 66 military personnel to more essential functions within the Services and put\nabout $15 million over the Future Years Defense Program to better use (Finding B).\n - USMEPCOM had not complied with DOD requirements governing the\nCommercial Activities Program. Specifically, USMEPCOM did not submit the\nFY 1996 inventory of commercial activities to the Office of the Under Secretary of\nDefense for Acquisition and Technology. As a result, DOD could not assess the extent\nto which commercial and industrial functions at USMEPCOM were being performed\nby DOD civilian employees or private contractors (Finding C).\n\x0cManagement Controls. Management controls applicable to USMEPCOM fimctions\nwere inadequate (Findings B and C). See Appendix A for details on the review of the\nmanagement control program.\nSummary of Recommendations. We recommend that the Commander,\nUSMEPCOM, review the Command\xe2\x80\x99s internal missions and organizations; consolidate\nand reduce the number of oversight functions; conduct an independent review to\neliminate budget positions, realign education services specialist and test coordinator\npositions, determine the appropriate number of health technician positions, and reassign\nmilitary laboratory technician billets to their respective Services; and modify the\nexisting contract for Human Immunodeficiency Virus screening to include syphilis\ntesting, if the test is not eliminated from MEPS medical processing. Finally, we\nrecommend that the Commander, USMEPCOM, implement the requirements\ngoverning the Commercial Activities Program.\n\nManagement Comments. The USMEPCOM concurred with the recommendation to\nperform a functional review of its Headquarters and sector elements and their missions.\nIt stated that the recommendation will be pursued from two directions. IntemalIy, by\ncontinuing to implement the USMEPCOM Strategic Plan, which calls for identifying\ncommand-wide processes for possible reengineering and outsourcing to cost-effectively\nmeet customer needs. Externally, the Army Manpower Analysis Agency was contacted\nregarding manpower reviews. The strategic plan initiative and manpower reviews will\nbegin the process of determining the correct number and need for positions. Regarding\nthe military laboratory technicians and syphilis testing, USMEPCOM concur& and\nstated that the decision to eliminate the syphilis test is under review within the Office of\nthe Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). If the deletion is approved,\nthe military laboratory technician billet will be negated, but that function wiIl remain.\nFinally, USMEPCOM concurred with the recommendation to implement the\nrequirements governing the Commercial Activities Program. See Part I for the\ndiscussion of management comments and Part III for the complete text of comments.\n\nEvaluation Response. We generally consider the USMEPCOM comments on the\nrecommendations to be responsive; however, USMEPCOM did not comment on the\nassociated potential monetary benefits, which have been revised. USMEPCOM\ncomments to determine the appropriate number of health technicians needed for each\nMEPS ark not fully responsive. We believe the recommendation is still valid because\nUSMEPCOM has not performed a manpower review to determine if replacement with\nmilitary health technicians would be required considering each MEPS has at least one\nhealth technician assigned. Also, USMEPCOM did not comment on what course of\naction it would take if the syphilis test is not eliminated from MEPS medical processing\nof recruits. Although USMEPCOM concurred with the recommendatkzi goveming the\nCommercial Activities Program, it did not indicate what actions it has u&en or plans to\ntake to comply with the program or specify a date by which actions would be complete.\nTherefore, we request that the Commander, USMEPCOM provide additional comments\non three recommendations and the revised potential monetary benefits by July 3, 1998.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\nExecutive Summary i\nPart I - Evaluation Results\n Evaluation Background 2\n Evaluation Objectives 3\n Finding A. U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command Organizational\n Structure and Oversight Efficiency 4\n Finding B. U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command Staffmg\n Efficiency\n Finding C. Inventory of Commercial Activities ::\n\nPart II - Additional Information\n Appendix A. Evaluation Process\n Scope and Methodology\n Management Control Program 4:\n Summary of Prior Coverage\n Appendix B. Other Matters of Interest z\n Appendix C. U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command\n Organizational Structure 28\n Appendix D. Report Distribution 30\n\nPart III - Management Comments\n U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command Comments 34\n\x0c\x0cPart I - Evaluation Results\n\x0cEvaluation Background\n\n History of U.S. Mllltary Entrance Pr ocesdng Command. The U.S. Military\n Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM) was established on July 1, 1976,\n as a Department of the Army field operating agency. It was established under\n the jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters,\n Department of the Army. In FY 1993, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for\n Force Management Policy assumed the operation and organization management\n of USMEPCOM, thus making it a field operating agency of the Assistant\n Secretary. The Assistant Secretary placed policy guidance and the immediate\n management of USMEPCOM under the jurisdiction of the Director for\n Accession Policy. The Army retained executive agent responsibilities for\n administrative and resource support. On October 1, 1997, executive agent\n responsibilities were transferred from the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for\n Personnel to the Army Training and Doctrine Command(see Appendix C). In\n its over N-year history, USMEPCOM has undergone several major\n reorganizations and internal realignments to meet future challenges, to gain\n efficiencies, or to reduce costs. USMEPCOM comprises a headquarters,\n located in Chicago, Illinois; 2 sector (regional) offices located in Chicago,\n Illinois, and Denver, Colorado; and 65 military entrance processing stations\n located in commercial facilities, Federal space, and on military installations\n throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.\n\n Mission and Functions. The primary mission of USMEPCOM is to provide\n qualification tests and a medical e xamination to all applicants for enlistment in\n the Services, including the Reserve Components and the U.S. Coast Guard.\n When required, USMEPCOM will process Selective Service System registrants\n and induct them into the military. The function of Headquarters, USMEPCOM\n and its two sectors is to command and control all USMEPCOM organizations.\n Headquarters establishes policy; develops and manages the overall requirements,\n plans, programs, and budget; maintains liaison with other DOD, Federal, and\n commercial activities; and provides the overall supervision of assigned civilian\n and military personnel. Headquarters also operates the Joint Computer Center,\n which processes and maintains the USMEPCOM Integrated Resources System\n (MIRS) and Selective Service System records.\n\n The eastern and western sectors provide day-today command and control of the\n operations of each assigned Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). The\n sectors also perform staff assistance visits and provide operational advice and\n assistance to the MEPS.\n The mission and function of a MEPS is to operationally process an applicant by\n administering the preenlistment tests, performing a medical examination, and\n conducting a background screening. If an applicant successfully completes each\n of the phases, then the applicant takes the enlistment oath and is transported to\n the respective Service training reception center. Administrative processing of\n applicants is performed through MlRS. The MEPSs also provide financial\n management services for control of the meals and lodging program; coordinate\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c contract negotiations; and serve as the contracting officers representative, as\n well as perform contract quality assurance functions for services or support\n provided under commercial contract.\n\n\nEvaluation Objectives\n The evaluation objective was to determim the efficiency and economy of the\n USMEPCOM operations. We also reviewed the management control program\n related to the evaluation objective. See Appendix A for a discussion of the\n scope and methodology, a discussion of our review of the management control\n program, and a summary of prior coverage. See Appendix B for a discussion of\n USMEPCOM actions to become Year 2000 compliant and explore available\n options for outsourcing medical examinations.\n\x0c Finding A. USMEPCOM Organizational\n Structure and Oversight Efficiency\n The organizational structure of USMEPCOM could be streamIined.\n Specifically, the use of decentralized sectors did not provide the most\n efficient organization structure. Further, oversight was duplicated. This\n occurred because USMEPCOM made organization and management\n decisions without clearly defining organizational responsibilities and\n without conducting thorough analyses. As a result, the organizational\n structure of USMEPCOM did not lend itself to economies and was\n inefficient. In addition, leased facility costs of about $387,000 over the\n Future Years Defense Program (FYs 1999 through 2004), starting in\n FY 2000, could be avoided.\n\n\nReview and Inspection Policies\n\n DOD Policy. DOD Instruction 5010.37, \xe2\x80\x9cEfficiency Review, Position\n Management, and Resource Requirements Determination,\xe2\x80\x9d November 17, 1987,\n provides the criteria, guidance, policy, and procedures for implementing the\n DOD efficiency review process, in support of the DOD Productivity Program.\n The Instruction provides policy for managing, providing resources, and\n evaluating DOD organizations based on output performance requirements and\n standards documented in performance work statements. It states that the\n efficiency review process shall be the basis for continued and directed efforts\n for effectiveness, efficiency, improvement, performance, and productivity.\n\n Inspection Policy. The Department of the Army is the executive agent for\n USMEPCOM. Therefore, USMEPCOM uses Army Regulation 20-l.\n \xe2\x80\x9cInspector General Activities and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d March 15, 1994, to provide\n guidance for implementing an organization inspection program. The Regulation\n states that an inspection program will be conducted through a deliberate process\n to identify, evaluate, and prioritize potential inspections; that analysis and\n planning should ensure that inspection resources are employed in areas that\n provide the highest payoff to the commander; and that inspections should\n attempt to determine the magnitude of the deficiency, identify substandard\n performance and seek the root cause, pursue systemic issues, and identify\n responsibility for corrective action. Accordingly, USMEPCOM should conduct\n general inspections as part of an organization inspection program, on individual\n MEPS.\n\n\nOrganizational Structure and Management\n\n Structure of USMEPCOM. The organizational structure of USMEPCOM\n could be streamlined. Specifically, the use of decentralized sectors did not\n provide the most efficient organization structure. In response to the dynamics\n 4\n\x0cFinding A. USMEPCOM Organizational Structure and Oversight Efficiency\n\n\n\nof its mission, USMEPCOM affected three major reorganizations during the\npast 5 years. In each case, the justification for those changes was to improve\nmanagement structure and responsiveness to the immediate needs of the\ncommand and to eliminate duplication and overstaffing. However,\nreorganization decisions were made without thorough analyses. Specifically,\nthe Command\xe2\x80\x99s procedures and processes have not been fully measured and\ncomplete workload evaluations have not been performed. As a result, the\norganizational structure of USMEPCOM did not promote efficient command\nand control.\nManagement Within USMEFCOM. The management functions of\nHeadquarters, USMEPCOM and the eastern and western sectors were not\nclearly defined. Headquarters is responsible for developing policies and plans\nfor implementation of mission requirements and conducting analyses to improve\nthe command\xe2\x80\x99s processes and procedures. The sectors affect command and\ncontrol and provide day-today management of their assigned MEPS operations.\nExamples of unclearly defti management functions follow. The sectors were\nfrequently bypassed during coordination of applicant processing functions\nbetween Headquarters and the individual MEPS. In addition, the MEPS were\noften told to contact Headquarters directly, because the necessary ftmctional\npersonnel were not available at the sector. Also, Headquarters added to the\nconfusion by occasionally tasking MEPS directly and without sector knowledge,\nthereby circumventing the established chain of command. Because of the\nperceived chain of command, operations personnel at Headquarters, frequently\nresponded to questions from MEPS pxsonneA regarding day-today and routine\noperations. Another example of functions not clearly defined was the Saturday\nopenings of MEPS for applicant processing. Although the responsibility for\ncoordinating MEPS Saturday processing lies with the sectors, we found that\nHeadquarters mandates the actual schedule.\n\nDecentraked Sectors. Decentralized sectors did not provide the most efficient\norganization structure. USMEPCOM believed that sectors were necessary to\nprovide effective command and control. We agree that the sectors are\nnecessary, but we believe that a centralized sector facility could provide greater\neconomies and effkiencies. The sector could use Headquarters, USMEPCOM\nexpertise and supporting resources and could help ensure that Headquarters and\nall sectors speak with one voice. Collocating the western sector headquarters in\nChicago with the eastern sector and using Headquarters, USMEPCOM\npersonnel would also allow sector personnel the opportunity to accomplish\nrequired assistant visits with staffii augmented by Headquarters personnel,\nwhile maintaining a sufficient number of operations personnel at the office to\nsupport assigned MEPS.\n\nPotential Benefits. The collocation of the sector headquarters could allow\neconomies to be achieved and funds to be put to better use. Using\nHeadquarters, USMEPCOM, staff and support resources could allow for a\nreduction of each sector\xe2\x80\x99s staff. The western sector\xe2\x80\x99s leased facility costs of\nabout $387,000 over the Future Years Defense Program (FYs 1999 tbrougb\n2004), starting in FY 2000, could be put to better use.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cFinding A. USMEPCOM Organizational Structure and Oversight Effkiency\n\n\n\nOversight and Review Functions\n Oversight Entities. Four USMEPCOM entities were conducting duplicate and\n overlapping oversight and performing review and train@ functions. In\n addition, the MEPSs were conducting self evaluations of their operations by\n way of the Command Inspection Program. The entities and their associated\n functions include the USMEPCOM Inspector General, the OBice of Internal\n Review and Audit Compliance, the Command Logistics Evaluation and\n Assistance Program (CLEAP), and the Sector Assistance Visit teams. Also,\n another headquarters USMEPCOM review and oversight entity, the\n Management Assistance Training Team (MATT) was being proposed for\n reinstatement.\n\n Oversight Functions. The Inspector General reports to the Commander,\n USMEPCOM, on matters pertinent to the performance of mission and the state\n of discipline, economy, efficiency, and morale of USMEPCOM; performs\n inquiries, inspections, and investigations; provides assistaxe; teaches; and\n trains. As part of its mission, the Inspector General performs general\n inspections at MEPSs. Because the Inspector General implements the\n Organization Inspection Program, the general inspections should be\n systematically focused and cover mission programs and significant functions.\n The Office of Internal Review and Audit Compliance performs single-point\n audits and functional reviews and advises and assists the Commander on the\n state of Command internal controls. The CLEAP team conducts logistics\n reviews of the MEPS whereas the MATT is being proposed to provide\n management, technical assistance, and tmining to the MEPS, through the\n conduct of work flow and regulatory compliance reviews on the MEPS\n operations, processes, and procedures. The sector assistance visit team analyzes\n and evaluates the MEPS operation and support missions and provides individual\n and mission-related train@ to MEPS personnel. Finally, the individual MEPS\n command inspection programs promote a self-evaluation process.\n\n R&viewSimilarities. The USMEPCOM Inspector General and the Office of\n Internal Review and Audit Compliance conducted oversight on the same\n functional areas; general inspections and sector assistance visits were similar in\n scope. The CLEAP and MATT functions will be conducted similar to both\n Inspector General and Internal Review programs and will review the same\n operational and functional areas.\n\n Roth the USMEPCOM Inspector General and the Office for Internal Review\n and Audit Compliance performed reviews on MEPS functional areas to include\n medical examina tion procedures, the Amusement Vending Machine Fund\n Program, financial management operations, and other logistic and support\n functions. Roth entities conducted checklist type reviews that were oriented and\n based on compliance with USMEPCOM regulations.\n The USMEPCOM general inspection and sector assistance visits were similar in\n scope and reflected a duplication of effort. Roth programs utilized the same\n checklist from Headquarters, USMEPCOM 20-series Circular, \xe2\x80\x9cAssistaixe,\n Inspections, Investigations, and Follow-up, USMEPCOM Checklist,\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 6\n\x0cFinding A. USMEPCOM Organizational Structure and Oversight Efficiency\n\n\n\nFebruary 1, 1996, to report on the MEPS compliance with individual functional\nprocesses and procedures. In addition, the guidance and training provided\nduring the reviews were duplicated.\nThe intent of the CLEAP and the MATT were similar to both the inspection and\ninternal review process. Both the CLEAP and MATT looked at some of the\nsame operation and functional areas that are looked at during an inspection or\ninternal review. The CL was conducted at a MEPS by headquarters\nlogistics personnel, who reviewed the logistic functional areas, identified\nproblems, and initiated corrective action on the identified procedural\ndeficiencies. At least one-third of the MEPS are covered each year. The\nMATT, after being reinstated, will be conducted by headquarters personnel and\nwill look at some of the same operational areas to determine whether the MEPS\nis in compliance with regulatory guidance, suggest changes to processing\nprocedures, and provide training to correct identified processing problems.\n\nGiven those c\xe2\x80\x99ncumstances, the same MEPS functional areas could be reviewed\nby USMEPCOM organizations up to four times in 2 years. For instance, at\nMEPS Albuquerque, New Mexico, a sector assistance visit was performed in\nNovember 1996 and a general inspection was performed in January 1997. That\nsame MEPS is scheduled to receive a CLEAP in May 1998 and another\nassistance visit in November 1998. See Table 1 for additional examples of\nredundancy among USMEPCOM oversight entities.\n\n Table 1. USMEPCOM Oversight and Review Functions\n\n Section or Function Review Headquarters Organizations Sector\n (Stxcific Process Reviews) @\xe2\x80\x99 I&& CLEAP MAT? &&\n Administrative Function X X\n Personnel management X X X\n Logistics Functions X X\n AVlUti Program X X X\n IMPAC\xe2\x80\x99 Program X X x -\n Property summary X X X\n Reports of Survey X X X\n Medical Section X X X\n Applicant processing X X X\n DAT/HIV logs X X X\n Operation Section X X X\n Automation Security X X X\n Testing Section X X X\n (corrective training provided) X X X X\n\n \xe2\x80\x99 Inspector General\n \xe2\x80\x99 Internal review and audit compliance.\n 3 Management assistance and training teams, proposed for reinstatement.\n \xe2\x80\x99 Staff assistance visits.\n \xe2\x80\x99 Amusement and Vending Machine fund.\n 6 International merchant purchase authorization card.\n \xe2\x80\x98IDrug and alcohol testing and Human Immunodefkiency Virus.\n\x0cFinding A. USMEPCOM Organizational Structure and Oversight Effkiency\n\n\n\n Conflicting Guidance for MEPS Personnel. The MEPS personnel\n received conflicting guidance from the headquarters and sector review\n personnel. For example, during a FY 1996 general inspection, the MEPS\n Kansas City, Missouri, was found to be noncompliant in the conduct of a\n physical examina tion procedure. Citing Atmy Regulation 40-501,\n \xe2\x80\x9cMedical Services: Standa& of Medical Fitness,\xe2\x80\x9d August 30, 1995, as\n the criteria, the inspection reported that the MEPS physician did not\n examine the nasal passages of applicants. However, the western sector\n chief medical officer found the procedures for required medical\n examinations to be in compliance because USMEFCOM Regulation 40-1,\n \xe2\x80\x9cMedical Services: Medical Processing and Examinations,\xe2\x80\x9d January 29,\n 1997, did not require examina tion of nasal passages. Also, as part of the\n USMEPCOM review process, MEPS personnel received on-site train&\n to correct identified deficiencies. However, this has been an additional\n source of confusion. As reflected in the case of MEPS Kansas City,\n Missouri, the reports of an inspection and a staff assistant visit conducted\n on the same MEPS, showed that the noncompliance was attributed to\n conflicting guidance and train& provided during the review process.\n\n Effkiency Review Process. A thorough review and analysis of headquarters\n and sectors oversight entities had not been performed to clearly define\n organizational responsibilities. Also, a functional review and analysis of each\n oversight entity\xe2\x80\x99s mission and responsibilities, its methodology and planning\n criteria, and the sources and deconfliction of on-site training had not been\n performed. Specifically, a review of the execution, focus, planning, and\n reporting associated with the oversight entities could provide more substantial\n support to USMEPCOM review and oversight functions. The review could\n refine the organization\xe2\x80\x99s oversight program and associated report formats in a\n systematic manner to provide the Commander, USMEPCOM with an adequate\n assessment of mission programs and significant related programs, and reduce\n redundancies. By conducting the analysis, USMEFCOM could consolidate\n oversight functions and reduce the number and diversity of oversight visits to\n MEPSs. Finally, additional benefits, without a loss of mission effectiveness,\n may be achieved by refocusing the role and responsibilities of the USMEPCOM\n Inoector General, the Office of Internal Review and Audit Compliance,\n CLEAR, the proposed MATT, and Sector Assistance Visit teams; by reducing\n the number of assistance visits, inspections, and reviews and the number of\n personnel associated with the oversight and review functions; and by eliminating\n th redundancy of USMEPCOM Headquarters directorate review programs.\n\x0c Finding A. USMEPCOM Organizational Structure and Oversight Efficiency\n\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Evaluation\nResponse\n A. We recommend that the Commauder, U.S. Military Entrance\n Processing Command:\n 1. Conduct a functional review of its Headquarters and sector\n elements and their missious and individual programs to maximize economy\n aud effkieucy of operations and make organizational and staffiig changes\n as appropriate.\n\n 2. Consolidate oversight functions and reduce the number and\n diversity of oversight visits to Military Entrance Processing Stations.\n\n Management Comments. The USMEPCOM concurred with comment, stating\n that the recommendations will be pursued from two directions. Internally, by\n continuing to implement the USMEPCOM Strategic Plan, which calls for\n identifying command-wide processes for possible reengineering and outsourcing\n to cost-effectively meet customer needs. USMEPCOM will also explore the\n recommendations from an external direction and has contacted the Army\n Manpower Analysis Agency. A representative from the Manpower Analysis\n Agency met, with USMEPCOM offkials on May 12, 1998, and presented a\n proposed method for addressing USMEPCOM needs and suggesting means of\n accomplishing a functional review.\n\n In addition to agreeing with the recommendations, USMEPCOM suggested\n changes to Table 1. While agreeing that the MA\xe2\x80\x99IT was being considered for\n reinstatement, USMEPCOM stated that such action did not occur.\n\n Evaluation Response. While USMEPCOM recognized the potential for cost\n savings, it did not specifically comment on the identified monetary benefits\n through collocation of the Headquarters and western sector. Therefore, in\n response to this fina report, we request the Commander, USMEPCOM to\n provide comments on the potential monetary benefits or, alternatively, indicate\n that the monetary benefits will be provided at the completion of the ongoing and\n planned internal and external functional reviews.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Finding B. USMEPCOM Staffing\n Efficiency\n Of the 834 civilian positions and military billets reviewed at\n USMEPCOM, 355 either lacked consistency with the duties assigned,\n were unsupported, were not aligned to provide equal support to each\n DOD student testing program market, or were not mission essential.\n This occurred because USMEPCOM had not performed staffing and\n workload assessments. As a result, USMEPCOM could eliminate 65 to\n 75 civilian positions and put about $12 million over the Future Years\n Defense Program to better use and realign 130 civilian positions to\n promote expansion of the DOD Student Testing Program and maximiz\n efficient use of the positions. Further, 66 military personnel could be\n reassigned to more essential functions within the Services and about\n $15 million could be put to better use over the Future Years Defense\n program.\n\n\n\n\nEvaluation of USMEPCOM Personnel\n From our review of 834 civilian positions and military billets, 355 either lacked\n consistency with assigned duties, were not aligned to provide a balanced pursuit\n of assigned duties, or were not mission essential, as follows.\n\n - MEPS budget analyst positions were not consistent with the duties\n assigned and were not supported.\n\n - There was an inability to provide equal support to each DOD student\n testing program market and to satisfy the basic requirements of the education\n services specialist and test coordinator positions.\n\n - Military billets were authorized for laboratory technician duties that\n were not essential for the accomplishment of the command\xe2\x80\x99s mission.\n\n\nNumber of Budget Personnel\n The number of budget and assistant budget analysts assigned to USMFEOM\n was clearly excessive. Budget position authorizations lacked consistency with\n the duties assigned and were not supported. This occurred because\n USMEPCOM had not performed a staffimg and workload assessment to justify\n the establishment and allocation of budget positions at each MEPS and\n Headquarters. A manpower review could result in a minimum of 65 to\n 75 positions being eliminated and funds of about $12 million over the Future\n Years Defense Program (FYs 1999 through 2004) could be put to better use.\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Finding B. USMEPCOM Staffing Efficiency\n\n\n\n\n Budget Position Authorizations. A manpower review was not accomplished\n to justify or support the establishment of 159 civilian budget positions at\n USMEPCOM. A manpower review involves work measurem ent, time\n evaluation, and correlation of work load with standards. During FY 1992, the\n Manpower Section, USMEPCOM, initiated a study to justify the number of\n budget positions at the MEPSs but the review was not completed.\n Funds Admhished. The USMEPCOM managed a budget of $123 million\n and $138 million for FYs 1996 and 1997, respectively. It operates 2 sector\n headquarters and 65 MEPSs nationwide. It employs 159 civilian budget\n personnel at those locations and USMEPCOM headqnarters.\n The amountof funds administered at each MEPS was not commensurate with\n the assigned budget positions. During FYs 1996 and 1997, the total funds\n administered by 130 budget personnel (2 per MEPS) were $28 million and\n $30 million, respectively. For FY 1997, the amount of funds administered by\n the individual MEPS ranged from $146,000 to $987,000. The funds were for\n operating expenses of the MEPS, excluding centralized procurements, lease,\n and personnel costs. In comparison with other Defense agencies, the\n USMEPCOM alignment and ratio of the number of budget positions to the\n amount of funds being adminismred was extraordinarily high. For example, the\n Defense Commissary Agency manages a worldwide account of approximately\n $6 billion with 44 budget personnel located at its Headquarters and 4 separate\n regions. Also, the DOD Educational Activity manages a budget of $1.3 billion\n and operates 118 schools overseas. It employs 13 budget personnel at\n 13 subordinate districts and 10 budget analysts at its headquarters.\n\n Other Streamlining Iufluences. USMEPCOM has taken action to streamline\n accounting and payment procedures for meals and lodging. Assistant budget\n analysts performed the daily accounting for meals and lodging transactions and\n the monthly processing of contractors\xe2\x80\x99 invoices. The USMEPCOM proposed\n the use of the international merchant purchase authorization card by the Military\n Recruiting Services, on a direct fund cite basis, as the instrument to pay for\n meals and lodging expenses. Contractors would be paid by the credit card\n issuer, who in turn would bill the Services directly. The procedure would\n eliminate most if not all of the accounting work presently performed by one of\n the two budget positions at each MEPS. Absorbing remaining duties into\n functions of other MEPS personnel could result in eliminating 65 to 75 budget\n positions. With an annual salary and benefits cost of $2 million annually,\n $12 million over the Future Years Defense Program could be put to better use.\n\n\nEducation Services Specialists and Test Coordinators\n The 65 education services specialist (ESS) and the 65 test coordinators were not\n aligned to provide equal support to each DOD Student Testing Program market\n and satisfy basic requirements. The USMEPCOM had not performed a staffmg\n and workload assessment to identify the positions needed based on strategic\n\n\n 11\n\x0cFinding B. USMEPCOM Staffing Efficiency\n\n\n\n goals and a realistic analysis of work required to accomplish its mission. As a\n result, the allocation of USMEPCOM ESS and test coordinator positions did not\n promote expansion of the DOD Student Testing Program and maximize efficient\n use of the positions.\n DoD Student Testing Program. In accordance with Army\n Regulation 601-222, \xe2\x80\x9cArmed Services Military Personnel Accession Testing\n Program,\xe2\x80\x9d October 7, 1994, USMEPCOM administers the DOD Student\n Testing Program. DOD Directive 1304.12, \xe2\x80\x9cDOD Military Personnel Accession\n Testing Programs, n June 22, 1993, states that the Manpower Accession Policy\n Working Group, chaired by a representative from the Office of the Assistant\n Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), is responsible for the Armed\n Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) development, implementation,\n and maintenance. The ASVAB, part of the DOD Student Testing Program, is\n offered primarily to high school juniors and seniors. Its purposes include\n providing the Services with access to the high school markets and recruiters\n with prequalified recruiting leads. In addition, it assists students in performing\n civilian and military career exploration.\n History of ESS and Test Coordinator Positions. The ESS position evolved\n from the need for a dedicated representative to promote expansion of the DOD\n Student Testing Program throughout the MEPS geographical area of\n responsibility. The requirement for a dedicated representative of the ASVAB\n increased during the 1970s when the test was used in high schools to screen\n possible candidates for military enlistment. At that time, the psychometric\n credibility of the ASVAB test and the associated role of military recruiters were\n criticized by the academic community and by some members of Congress. The\n criticism prompted the employment of one ESS at each MEPS. The major\n duties of the position included promoting expansion of the DOD Student Testing\n Program. In addition and concurrent with the development of the ESS position,\n an administrative assistant position, the ASVAB test coordinator, was created to\n provide clerical support for the DOD Student Testing Program. Like the ESS,\n one test coordinator was assigned to each MEPS, regardless of the size of the\n individual Student Testing Program market. All 65 ESS positions are pay grade\n General Schedule-11, and all 65 test coordinator positions are pay grade General\n Schedule-5.\n\n Assignment of ESSs and Test Coordinators. The allocation of BSS and test\n coordinator positions did not promote efficient employment of the personnel and\n maximum market coverage. In recent years, the requirements of the DOD\n Student Testing Program have been relatively constant whereas the duties to\n support it have increased. Although BSS responsibilities have remained\n consistent, test coordinator duties have expanded to include administering the\n ASVAB test, managing the MEPS Student Testing Program database, and\n scheduling all arrangements with high schools and recruiting service\n representatives.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Finding B. USMEPCOM Staffing Efficiency\n\n\n\n Market Coverage. The market coverage provided by the ESS and test\ncoordinator varied across the nation, as depicted in Table 2.\n\n Table 2. Results of School Year EM/97 Student Testing Program\n (~v~v&~S coverage)\n Schools 11th and 12th\n Eligible 11th and 12th Tested and Graders Test\n MEPS* Schools Graders Ipercent) Tested Sessions\n\n\n LOW\n Honolulu 100 32,524 80 (80) 5,026 125\n Albuquerque 103 24,495 89 (86.4) 5,079 114\n El Paso 114 35,043 95 (83.3) 6,041 117\n\n MEDIUM\n Little Rock 325 50,094 270 (82.8) 13,232 289\n Harrisburg 333 105,472 255 (76.5) 14,639 283\n New Orleam 342 82,371 237 (69.2) 18,238 251\n\n HIGH\n D&S 523 131,115 281 (53.7) 15,706 297\n Los Angeles 687 302,170 268 (39) 37,993 353\n New York 776 292,809 198 (25.5) 8,864 241\n\n Mean: 332 90.161 207 (62) 11,842 242\n\n *MEPS categorized by number of eligible schools.\n\nThe test coordinator is tasked with conducting all necessary pre- and post-\nASVAB test session support. Table 2 demonstrates the varied magnitude of that\neffort. As a result, the ESSs and test coordinators supporting the DOD Student\nTesting Program markets, with the highest number of high schools and students,\nwere unable to fully support their respective markets, as reflected in the case of\nMEPS New York City. Conversely, ESSs supporting medium and low markets\nare able to provide more comprehensive support to the DOD Student Testing\nProgram, but still did not maxim& market coverage.\nUse of Previous Analysis. Citing possible market saturation, the effects of\nprevious canvassing efforts, and other issues, USMEPCOM developed criteria\nduring 1989, to determine the appropriate number of ESSs at each MEPS. A\nresulting study applied the criteria and identified seven MEPSs that should\nincrease their number of ESS positions from one to two, and five that should\ndecrease their number of ESS positions from two to one. However, the criteria\nand all of the recommendations of that study were not implemented. At the\ntime of our review, we noted that there was one ESS position at each MEPS.\nWe believe that the USMEPCOM should revisit the work load of each ESS and\ntest coordinator and make staffi adjustments where appropriate.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cFading B. USMEPCOM Staffing Effkiency\n\n\n\nMilitary Laboratory Technicians\n\n The USMEPCOM was authorized 66 military laboratory technician billets that\n were not essential for the accomplishment of its mission. The duties and\n responsibilities of those billets did not support the need or the classification and\n could be accomplished by lesser-skilled health technicians with no loss of\n effectiveness or efficiency. The command had not performed a manpower\n review to identify laboratory technician billets needed based on a realistic\n analysis of work done and that the work be essential to accomplishing the\n mission of the command. If the command performed a study and adjusted\n authorization documents as required, military laboratory technicians could be\n available for reassignment to more essential functions within the Services.\n\n Laboratory Requirements. Each MEPS performed syphilis testing. DOD\n Instruction 6440.2, \xe2\x80\x9cClinical Laboratory Improvement Program,\xe2\x80\x9d April 20,\n 1994, implements Public Law 100578, \xe2\x80\x9cClinical Laboratory Improvement\n Amendments of 1988,\xe2\x80\x9d which establishes policy, prescribes procedures to\n implement and administer the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Program within\n DOD, and establishes the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Program Office at\n the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The Office serves as the DOD Clinical\n Laboratory Amendment program manager and is responsible for identifying,\n registering, and certifying cliuical laboratory testing sites within DOD.\n Registration to certify a DOD clinical laboratory testing site as a moderate\n complexity testing site requires a certified laboratory technician to conduct rapid\n plasma reagin testing such as syphilis. The MEPS are considered moderate\n complexity testing sites. MEPS medical laboratories fulfiied the requirement\n by employing military medical laboratory technicians in their laboratories to\n conduct the syphilis testing.\n\n Laboratory Technician Adgnments. There are 66 military laboratory\n technicians assigned to USMEPCOM. Of that number, the Army provides 24,\n the Navy provides 30, and the Air Force provides 12. Within the military force\n structure, the Army had no shortages of military laboratory technicians. The\n Navy had a 6-percent shortfall of laboratory technicians, and its total\n requirement will increase by 15 percent on October 1, 1998, due to the\n increased training requirements of Public Law 100578, as implemented by\n DOD Instruction 6440.2. The Air Force had a lo-percent shortfall of laboratory\n t&UiCians.\n\n Laboratory Technician Skills. The duties and responsibilities of the laboratory\n technician billet did not support the need or the classification and could be\n accomplished by lesser-skilled health technicians with no loss of effectiveness or\n efficiency. To meet the requirements of DoD Instruction 6440.2, military\n laboratory technicians must fulfii extensive educational requimments. In the\n case of the Navy, the laboratory technician rating requires 12 months of\n training, at a cost of $85,000. However, the higher-skilled military laboratory\n technicians assigned to the 65 MEPS perform the same functions as the lesser-\n skilled health technicians. At least one civilian or militaxy health technician is\n also assigned to each MEPS. With the exception of syphilis screening, the\n health technicians perform all medical tests and examinations on military\n\n 14\n\x0c Finding B. USMEPCOM Staffii Efficiency\n\n\n\napplicants, not performed by a physician. Therefore, during the course of a\n3-year assignment to a MRPS, the skills of a military laboratory technician can\ndecrease, and the technicians can require recertification training at their next\nduty station.\nManpower Review. USMEPCOM had not performed a manpower review to\nidentify laboratory technician billets needed based on a realistic analysis of work\ndone and the need for the work in accomplishing the USMEPCOM mission. In\nJuly 1997, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research did publish a cost-\neffectiveness analysis of syphilis screening in military recruit applicants. The\nstudy revealed that over a 4-year period the prevalence of final positive syphilis\ntests was 0.021 percent. It also stated that modifying the existing USMEPCOM\ncontract for Human Immunodeficiency Virus screening to include syphilis\ntesting was more cost-effective than the current method of screening all\napplicants at the MEPSs. However, because no screening is significantly more\ncost-effective, the study\xe2\x80\x99s fti recommendation was that the screening of\nrecruit applicants for syphilis cease at the MRPSs. In response to the study, in\nSeptember 1997, USMEPCOM recommended to the Deputy Assistant Secretary\nof Defense (Military Personnel Policy) that syphilis screening be eliminated\nfrom MEPS medical processing. A final decision on the recommendation is\npending. Further, MRPS chief medical officers acknowledged that if the\nsyphilis screening was eliminated or outsourced and the military laboratory\ntechnicians were reassigned, there would be no loss of MEPS laboratory testing\nefficiency or capacity.\n\n\n\n\nReview of Budget Positions. We believe that a manpower review needs to be\nperformed to ensure staffing and organizational placement of the budget\npersonnel are efficient and effective. A minimum of 65 to 75 positions could be\neliminated at a savings of about $12 million over the future years defense\nprogram.\nAnal@ of ESS and Test Coordinator Positions. Given the success of the\nDOD Student Testing Program and its role in support of the recruiting services\xe2\x80\x99\nmissions, the employment of the ESS and test coordinator warrant further\nanalysis. An analysis of the size of MEPSs markets and staffing will afford\nUSMEPCOM the opportunity to enhance the overall effectiveness and efficiency\nof the DOD Student Testing Program. In addition, USMRPCOM will gain\neconomy through the realignment of manpower assets and corresponding areas\nof responsibility.\n\nReassignment of Military Laboratory Technkhs. Finally, requirements of\nthe Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act can be satisfied by outsourcing or\neliminating syphilis testing. The policy assigning active duty military laboratory\ntechnicians to individual MEPS did not efficiently employ the technicians\xe2\x80\x99\ntraining. The policy also negatively affected both the readiness and personnel\nmanagement of the Active Forces. Because most of the duties performed by the\n\n 15\n\x0cF\xe2\x80\x99inding B. USMEPCOM Smmg Effkiency\n\n\n\n laboratory technicians were not directly related to their primary specialty, their\n work load could be assumed by a health technician. The 66 military laboratory\n technician billets could be reassigned to more essential functions within the\n Services and about $15 million could be put to better use over the Future Years\n Defense Program.\n\n\nConclusion\n Based on the personnel positions in the areas that we looked at, USMEPCOM\n could realize additional manpower efficiencies and put additional funds to better\n use by reviewing the entire staffing of the organization. In fact, the\n streamlining issues cited in this finding reflect only the tip of the iceberg.\n Further, we believe that USMEPCOM should use the services of an expert\n outside organization, such as the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency, under\n the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), to\n conduct the manpower review.\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Evaluation\nResponse\n B. We recommend that the Commander, U.S. Military Entrance\n Processing Command:\n\n 1. Obtain tbe services of an independent agency to conduct a\n manpower review of the budget personnel positions at the Military\n Entrance Processin g Stations and within the Command Headquarters and\n eliminate unsupported positions.\n\n 2. Obtain the services of an independent agency to conduct a\n manpower review of both the education services specialist and test\n coordinator positions and develop an alignment that economically,\n effectively, and effkiently supports the DoD Student Testing Program.\n\n 3. Obtain the services of an independent agency to conduct a\n manpower review to determine the appropriate number of health\n technicians needed for each Military Entrance Processing Station and\n reassign all active duty military laboratory technicians to their respective\n Services as soon as practicable.\n 4. Modify the existing contract for Human Immunodeficiency Virus\n screening to include syphilis testing, if the test is not eliminated from\n Military Entrance Processing Station medical processing.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c X?inding B. USMEPCOM Staffing Efficiency\n\n\n\n\nManagement Comments. The USMEPCOM concurred with\nRecommendations B. l., B.2., and B.3., stating that the internal strategic plan\nand the external Army Manpower Analysis Agency review wi.lI allow\nUSMEPCOM to reach its maximum efficiencies and economies of operation.\nWith regards to Recommendation B.2.) USMEPCOM stated that\nparagraph D.2.m. of DOD Directive 1304.12 mandates one ESS per MEPS, and\nany change to the Directive would require action above its scope of authority.\nIn addressing both Recommendations B.3. and B.4., USMEPCOM stated that a\ntentative decision to eliminate the rapid plasma reagin or syphilis test at the\nMEPS is under review within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense\n(Personnel and Readiness) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health\nAffairs/Clinical Services). USMEPCOM further stated that if the deletion is\napproved, the need for a military laboratory technician at each MEPS will be\nnegated. However, the laboratory technician must be replaced by a service\nmedical specialist [mibtary health technician] because the laboratory function\n(less the syphilis test) would remain.\n\nEvaluation Response. We consider the comments from USMEPCOM to meet\nthe intent of Recommendations B. 1. and B-2.; however, the USMEPCOM did\nnot comment on the associated potential monetary benefits, which we revised.\nWe agree with USMEPCOM that Recommendations B.3. and B.4. are tied\ntogether in that they both involve syphilis testing of military applicants. We\nalso acknowledge that the tentative decision is under review within the Office of\nthe Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). However, the\nUSMEPCOM comments to Recommendation B.3. are not fully responsive and\nit did not directly comment on Recommendation B.4. or state what course of\naction it would take if the test is not eliminated from the MEPS medical\nprocessing of applicants. We believe that Recommendation B.3. is still valid\nbecause USMEPCOM has not performed a manpower review to determine if\nreplacement with military health technicians would be required considering that\neach MEPS has at least one civilian or military health technician assigned.\nTherefore, we request that USMEPCOM provide comments on\nRecommendations B.3. and B.4. and the potential monetary benefits in response\nto the final report.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c Finding C. Inventory of Commercial\n Activities\n USMEPCOM had not complied with DOD requirements governing the\n Commercial Activities Program. Specifkally, USMEPCOM did not\n submit the FY 1996 inventory of commercial activities to the Office of\n the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. This\n condition occurmd because USMEPCOM was neither aware of the\n inventory requirement nor who its senior commercial activities point of\n contact was. As a result, DOD could not assess the extent to which\n commercial and industrial functions at USMEPCOM were being\n performed by DoD civilian employees or private contractors.\n\n\nLaw and Regulations\n Title 10 United States Code, Section 2461.10 U.S.C. 2461, \xe2\x80\x9cCommercial or\n Industrial Type Function: Required Studies and Reports Before Conversion to\n Contractor Performance, n delineates the requirements for converting\n commercial or industrial type functions being performed by DOD civilian\n employees to performance by a private contractor. Section 2461(c) requires the\n Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress, no later than February 1 of each\n fiscal year, a written report describing the extent to which commercial and\n industrial type functions were performed by DOD contractors during the\n preceding year. Additionally, the Secretary is required to include in each such\n report an estimate of the percentage of commercial and industrial type functions\n of DOD that will be performed by DoD civilian employees, and the percentage\n of such functions that will be performed by private contractors, during the fiscal\n year in which the report is submitted.\n\n Of&e of Management and Budget Guidance. Offke of Management and\n Budget Circular No. A-76, \xe2\x80\x9cPerformance of Commercial Activities,\xe2\x80\x9d August 4,\n 1983, implements the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2461. It requires Federal\n agencies to acquire commercial products or services if they can be procured\n more economically from commercial sources. The circular defines a\n commercial activity as the process resulting in a product or service that is or\n could be obtained from a private sector source. One of the steps in complying\n with the requirement of the circular is the identification of commercial activities\n within an agency and making a determination if the commercial activities are\n not inherently governmental functions, in which case the commercial activities\n could be contracted out. For the nonexempt commercial activities, agencies are\n required to perform a cost comparison study to determine if the function should\n be performed by in-house employees or by contractors. The circular also\n requires agencies to maintam a baseline of all in-house commercial activities\n performed by the agency, and to report, when required by the Office of\n Management and Budget, on their inventories of commercial activities that are\n exempt from the cost comparison requirement and the status of activities that are\n subject to a cost comparison.\n\n 18\n\x0c Finding C. Inventory of Commercial Activities\n\n\n\n\n DoD Guidance. DOD Instruction 4100.33, \xe2\x80\x9cCommercial Activities Program\n Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d September 9, 1985, is the implementing instruction for the\n Commercial Activity Program within DoD. The Instruction requires each DOD\n Component to update at least annually its commercial activity inventory to\n reflect changes to its review schedules and the results of reviews, cost\n comparisons, and direct conversions and submit the updated inventory within\n 90 days after the end of each fiscal year.\n\n The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology\n memorandum, \xe2\x80\x9cCommercial Activities Inventory and Annual Report to\n Congress,\xe2\x80\x9d November 27, 1996, directed DOD Components to submit the\n number of workyears that were performed by m-house employees and by\n contractors in FY 1996, as well as the projected workyears to be performed\n in-house and by contractors in PY 1997. Further, the memorandum required\n that the requested information be submitted for the 12 functional areas defined\n in the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 \xe2\x80\x9cRevised\n Supplemental Handbook,\xe2\x80\x9d March 1996.\n\n\nUSMEPCOM Inventory of Commercial Activities\n USMEPCOM had not complied with DOD requirements governing the\n Commercial Activities Program. Specifically, USMEPCOM did not submit the\n FY 1996 inventory of commercial activities as required. Our review of the\n DOD Inventory of Commercial Activities gave no indication that USMEPCOM\n submitted its inventory of commercial activities as required by the Office of the\n Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology memorandum.\n USMEPCOM personnel explained that they were neither aware of the\n requirement to submit the inventory nor who its point of contact was within\n DOD. The purpose of the DOD request for commercial activities inventory was\n to develop a data base that would be used to comply with the reporting\n requirement to Congress, as required by 10 U.S.C. 2461. The DOD also used\n the inventory to assess the extent to which commercial and industrial type\n functions were being performed by civilian employees or by DOD contractors\n and its compliance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76.\n The primary aim of the Commercial Activities Program is to encourage\n competition between in-house resources and private contractors in the\n management and performance of commercial activities. Economy is achieved\n by reducing the cost of operating commercial activities by implementing in-\n house most efficient organizations or by contracting out the commercial\n activities. Because the required information was not prepared and submitted,\n DOD could not assess the extent to which commercial and industrial type\n functions at USMJZPCOM were being performed by DOD civilian employees or\n private contractors. Without the commercial activity inventory of\n USMEPCOM, the FY 19% report to Congress was not complete and there was\n no assurance that commercial and industrial type functions of USMEPCOM\n were being performed in the most economical and efficient mr.\n\n\n 19\n\x0cFinding C. Inventory of Commercial Activities\n\n\n\nRecommendation, Management Comments, and Evaluation\nResponse\n C. We recommend that the Commander, U.S. Military Entrance\n Processing Command implement the requirements governing the\n Commercial Activities Program.\n Management Comments. The USMEFCOM couured with the finaing and\n recommendation.\n Evaluation Response. Although USMEFTOM concurred with the\n recommendation, we do not consider its comment responsive. USMEFCOM\n did not indicate what actions it has taken or plans to take to resolve the\n problems or specify a date by which the actions would be complete. Therefore,\n we request that USMEPCOM provide comments on the final report.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cPart II - Additional Information\n\x0cAppendix A. Evaluation Process\n\nScope and Methodology\n Evaluation Process. We obtained and reviewed DOD, Federal, military, and\n USMEPCOM policies and regulations, as well as public laws. We interviewed\n DOD managers who control and manage USMEPCOM programs and mission\n functions. We obtained and reviewed USMEPCOM historical documentation,\n facial records, instructions, procedures pertaming to all aspects of the\n operation and administration of USMEPCOM and staffmg from FYs 1993\n through 1997. We used those documents as criteria for measuring the efficiency\n and economy of operations and USMEPCOM readiness to meet mission\n requirements. We compared oversight missions for the various USMEPCOM\n entities to identify duplication. We also compared the staffii of budget\n personnel at USMEPCOM with other DOD agencies to determine consistency\n with the duties assigned.\n\n We visited the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military\n Personnel Policy); Headquarters, USMEPCOM; both sector headquarters; and\n 11 judgmentally selected MEPS. At Headquarters, USMEPCOM, we evaluated\n key operation and administrative functions in the command group and in the\n operation and support directorates. At the sectors and at the MEPSs, we\n evaluated key operation and administrative functions in the command,\n operation, and support groups. While at the MEPSs, we also met with senior\n liaison representatives from the Military Recruiting Services, to include the\n National Guard, to gain their observations as customers of USMEPCOM. We\n met with key USMEPCOM personnel, who were responsible for the\n management and execution of mission and significant administrative programs.\n We evaluated both mission and significant administrative programs using\n established criteria and sound management practices. From the senior personnel\n offices of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, we obtained the respective\n staffmg levels of military laboratory technicians.\n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. We did not use computer-processed data or\n statistical sampling techniques for this evaluation.\n\n Evaluation Type, Dates, and Standards. We performed this economy and\n efficiency evaluation from June 1997 through January 1998 in accordance with\n standards implemented by the Inspector General, DOD. Accordingly, we\n included tests of management controls considered necessary.\n Contacts During the Evaluation. We visited or contacted individuals and\n organizations within DOD. Further details are available upon request.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c Appendix A. Evaluation Procem\n\n\n\nManagement Control Program\n DOD Directive 5010.38, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26, 1996,\n requires DOD organizations to implement a comprehensive system of\n management controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs are\n operating as intended and to evaluate the adequacy of the controls.\n Scope of Review of the Management Control Program. We reviewed the\n adequacy of USMEPCOM management controls over applicant testing,\n background screening, budget, facilities management, financial accounting,\n general inspections, information management, internal reviews, management\n oversight and control, medical examinations, organization management,\n pre-enlistment, regulatory administration, staffing, and other related\n management oversight activities. We also reviewed USMEPCOM management\n controls over its implementation of the DOD Commercial Activities Program.\n We also reviewed the results of any selfevaluation of those management\n controls.\n\n Adequacy of Management Controls. We identified material management\n control weaknesses for USMEPCOM as defined by DOD Directive 5010.38.\n The USMEPCOM management controls for human resources management were\n not adequate to ensure that staffing was justified by workload and standards, and\n DOD Commercial Activities Program requirements were not adhered to.\n Recommendations B.l. through B.4., and C., if implemented, will correct the\n material weaknesses. A copy of the final report will be provided to the senior\n official responsible for management controls within the Army.\n\n Adequacy of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Self-Evaluation. The USMEPCOM officials\n identified human resources as a key management control and responsibility and\n included it as an evaluation element in their USMEPCOM 20-l series circular.\n USMEPCOM 20 series circulars are evaluation checklists for evaluation of the\n key mission programs in each headquarters directorate. Under the\n USMEPCOM Internal Management Control Program each headquarters\n directorate is identified as a key management control area. The USMEPCOM\n 20 series circulars are developed based on USMEPCOM regulations and\n military regulations, and address the key management controls as part of an\n evaluation topic. In our opinion, USMEPCOM 20 series circulars are adequate\n for the self-assessment of operational procedures and management. However,\n the weakness occurred in an area larger than management identified and\n reported, and management did not implement corrective actions for the specific\n material weaknesses identified. The USMEPCOM 20 series chculars do not\n address DOD and Federal requirements related to implemented USMEPCOM\n programs, and could allow related administrative requirements for procedures\n and management to be overlooked.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cAppendix A. Evaluation Process\n\n\n\nSummary of Prior Coverage\n\n There has been no prior coverage of the U.S. Military Entrance FWcessing\n Command operations during the past 5 years.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cAppendix B. Other Matters of Interest\n USMEPCOM is performing adequate corrective measures to control the\n development and growth of the USMEPCOM Integrated Resources System\n (MIR!3), is performing satisfactory measures to become Year 2000 compliant,\n and has aggressively explored available options for outsourcing medical\n examinations. However, USMEPCOM has not given full consideration to other\n concerns raised and the impact tbat those concerns may have on any anticipated\n policy decisions regarding medical outsourcing. The concerns are discussed\n below.\n\n\nMilitary Entrance Processing Command Integrated Resources\nSystem\n USMEPCOM is performing adequate corrective measures to control the\n development and growth of MIPS and is moving to become Year 2000\n compliant.\n\n Status of MIRS. A cursory review of MIPS during the evaluation provided\n indications that numerous system deficiencies related to its initial development\n and implementation made the processing of USMEPCOM information\n unreliable. For example, data input into MIPS may not be received into the\n system or may be received in an incorrect data field; the system lacks\n interoperability among organization level systems; and the system does not\n allow processing of multi-form packets. As a result, systems administrators\n spend a significant portion of the day verifying and correcting system errors.\n As of September 18, 1997, software development progmmming in the\n USMEPCOM Information Management Directorate reflected 58 MIPS software\n development projects as outstanding, plus an estimated 15 additional projects\n that were planned for submission to the Directorate witbin the next month.\n Some of the projects are critical for mission accomplishment. For example, a\n MIPS interface with the Army recruiting service system is being developed, and\n interface with Air Force and Navy recruiting service systems is planned for\n future development. The interface will provide the recruiting services with\n access to needed applicant information. Also, the baselining of MIPS software\n packages is being performed to establish uniformity among system software\n packages used by the individual MEPS. The two projects are critical to\n effective and efficient mission accomplishment.\n\n Corrective Measures. To control the development and growth of its automated\n information system, USMEPCOM initiated corrective measures. It\n implemented a Command Configuration Management Program that established a\n Configuration Control Hoard. The Board evalutes and takes action on system\n change proposals and information mission needs statements. Cost benefits and\n functional review and analysis is conducted on any new MIRS initiative and\n MIPS program interface, to ensure that proposed system changes are limited to\n only those necessary. USMEPCOM has developed a tracking system to account\n\n 25\n\x0cAppendix B. Other Matters of Interest\n\n\n\n for and control changes, enhancements, and modifications to MIPS. All\n changes to existing baseline hardware and software must be properly\n documented, tested, and evaluated.\n Compliance with Year 2000 Requirements. USMEPCOM is addressing\n Year 2000 issues. End-to-end Year 2000 systems testing on MIRS is projected\n for August 1998. As of September 1997, USMEPCOM had one compliant and\n two noncompliant systems. The joint computer center system, the\n USMEPCOM host mainframe master database, is Year 2000 compliant;\n whereas MIPS and the system supporting the computerized adaptive testing\n version of the ASVAB were not. Both noncompliant systems were in the\n Year 2000 Compliance Validation Phase. MIR!5 interfaces only with the joint\n computer center system and does not interface with any Service or Federal\n systems. Also, USMEPCOM is verifying Year 2000 compliance for associated\n facility and equipment maintenance systems at each MEPS and throughout\n USMEPCOM.\n\n\nUSMEPCOM Study of Outsourcing Applicant Physical\nExaminations\n Prior to our evaluation, USMEPCOM initiated a study to outsource remote site\n medical examinations. In addition, recently enacted legislation required DOD to\n provide a report to Congress by March 31, 1998, on the medical outsourcing\n initiatives at USMEPCOM. USMEPCOM modified its initial course of action\n to meet the milestone and continued to aggressively explore available options.\n However, USMEPCOM had not given full consideration to a number of\n concerns raised and the impact those concerns could have on any anticipated\n policy decisions regarding medical outsourcing.\n\n\n Statutory Requirement. Public Law 105-85, \xe2\x80\x9cNational Defense Authorization\n Act for Fiscal Year 1998,\xe2\x80\x9d section 736, \xe2\x80\x9cUse of Personal Services Contracts for\n Provision of Health Care Services and Legal Protection for Providers,\xe2\x80\x9d requires\n the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the feasibility of alternative\n means for performing the medical examinations that are routinely conducted at a\n MEPS.\n\n To satisfy the statutory requirement, USMEPCOM should evaluate alternatives\n that would reduce the varied costs of performing quality medical examinations\n while remaining responsive to the needs of the recruiting services. Further, any\n alternative means for performing routine medical examinations must reflect the\n observations and experiences of both subordinate and supported organizations.\n\n Applicant Physical Examina tions. During FY 1997, USMEPCOM conducted\n a cost analysis to identify the cost of an enlistment physical at each of the\n 65 MEPS. The analysis revealed that small MEPS located in the western half\n of the continental United States have the highest cost per physical. A\n contributing factor is that some MPPS support expansive and thinly populated\n\n 26\n\x0c Appendix B. Other Matters of Interest\n\n\n\nareas of responsibility. Thus, the high cost of the medical examinations relates\nto the distances military applicants have to travel to the nearest MEPS. For\nexample, MEPS Salt Lake City processes military applicants from Nevada,\nUtah, and Wyoming as well as portions of Arizona and Idaho. Another factor\nin the high cost of medical examina tions is the low ratio of applicants processed\nper MEPS medical technician. Across USMEPCOM, the cost per medical\nexamination varied from $95 at MEPS Montgomery, Alabama, to $481 at\nMEPS Anchorage, Alaska. The average cost per medical examination at\nUSMEPCOM was $175. Upon receiving that information, USMEPCOM\ninitiated a study to explore more economic alternatives to the MEPS medical\nexamination. The study was being conducted on an incremental basis,\nbeginning with exploration of potential sources for contracted examinations.\nAfter those sources and appropriate funding have been identified, a pilot project\nwill be conducted at several of the MEPS in the western sector. Initially, the\nproject will be voluntary for the military recruiting services. Recruiters will\nhave the option to either take advantage of the contracted medical examination\nor to transport applicants to the nearest MEPS for processing. USMEPCOM\nshould further evaluate the issue after the results of the pilot project have been\nrecorded.\n\nOther Concerns. We reviewed the proposal to outsource medical examinations\nwith various USMEPCOM personnel, as well as members of the military\nrecruiting services. While all those interviewed agreed that inefficiencies with\nthe process exist, concerns were raised that warrant the consideration of\nUSMEPCOM prior to establishing a policy for outsourcing medical\nexaminations. Among the chief medical officers\xe2\x80\x99 concerns were the perspective\nof the contracted physicians and the potential increase!of entry level separations.\nSpecifically, they were concerned that the medical discretion applied by\ncontracted physicians will not reflect the realities of military service. For\nexample, an orthopedic range of motion that may be acceptable to the\ncontracted physician may not petit an applicant to perform all general military\nfunctions or service specific physical exercises. We provided a consolidated\nlist of those concerns to the Commander, USMEPCOM; To ensure\ncompleteness and accountability, we believe the concerns should be considered\nand addressed in the development of the statement of work for the medical\nexamination contract.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0cAppendix C. USMEPCOM Organizational\nStructure\n Tables C. 1 and C.2 show the senior and subordinate commands of\n USMEPCOM and the internal organization and personnel strengths.\n\n\n\n\n Table C.l. Organizational Structure\n\n\n Assistant Secretaryof Defense\n (Force Management Policy)\n\n I\n\n Deputy Assistant Secretary\n of Defense\n Executive (Military Personnel Policy)\n Agent:\n U.S. AmIy\n I\n\n united states Mitary\n Entraxe Processing chnmand\n (Chicago, Illinois)\n\n I I\n EasternSector westem Sector\n (Chicago, Illinoii) (Denver, Colorado) _\n A\n I I\n\n 33 32\n Military Entrance Military Entrance\n Prucessing Processing\n Stations stations\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0c Appendix C. USMEPCOM Organizational Structure\n\n\n\n\n Tabie C.2. USMEFCOM Internal Organhation\n\n\n\n\n 1 I\n Eastern Sector Headquarters Western Sector\n Directorates\n*Command Group *Command Group\n *Facilities\n*Operations Group @Human *Operations Group\n ResOurceS\n*Support Group 6qpot-t Group\n lhfonnation\n Management [\n lInspector I\n General\n MEPS @MedicalPlans MEPS\n & Policy\nlCommand Group @CommandGroup\n *operations\n*Operations Group *Resource *operations GKnlp\n Management\nalpport Group lqport Group\n i\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cAppendix D. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology\n Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs and Installations)\n Director, Defense Logistics Studies Information Exchange\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)\n Deputy Chief Financial Offker\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness\nAssistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy)\n Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy\nAssistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)\nAssistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs)\nAssistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)\n\nDepartment of the Army\nCommander, Army Training aud Doctrine Command\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\nAssistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management\nCommander, Army Recruiting Command\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nAssistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller)\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\nChief, Bureau of Naval Personnel\nCommander, Navy Recruiting Command\nCommanding General, Marine Corps Recruiting Command\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAssistant Secretary of the Air Force (Finaucial Management and Comptroller)\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\nDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel\nCommander, Air Force Recruiting Command\n\n\nOther Defense Organizations\nDirector, Defense Contract Audit Agency\nDirector, Defense Finance and Accounting Service\nDirector, Defense Logistics Agency\nDirector, National Security Agency\n Inspector General, National Security Agency\n\n 30\n\x0c Appendix D. Report Distribution\n\n\n\nOther Defense Organizations (Cont\xe2\x80\x99d)\nInspector General, Defense Intelligence Agency\nChief, National Guard Bureau\n Inspector General, National Guard Bureau\nCommander, United States Military Entmnce Processing Command\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organizations and Individuals\nOffke of Management and Budget\nDirector, Office of Personnel Management\n Inspector General, Office of Personnel Management\nGeneral Accounting Office\n National Security and International Affairs Division\n Technical Information Center\n Health, Education, and Human Services Division\n\nChairman and ranking minority member of each of the following congressional\n committees and subcommittees:\n\n Senate Committee on Appropriations\n Senate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\n Senate Committee on Armed Services\n Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs\n Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem\n House Committee on Appropriations\n House Subcommittee on National Security, Committee on Appropriations\n House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology,\n Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n House Subcommittee on National Squrity, International Affairs, and Criminal\n Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n House Committee on National Security\n\nDepartment of Transportation\n Commandant, United States Coast Guard\nDirector, Selective Service System\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c\x0cPart III - Management Comments\n\x0cU.S. Military Entrance Processing Command\nComments\n\n\n\n\n MCDR 17 Apr 98\n\n\n\n\n 20301-4000\n FOR Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense, 400\n Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-2884\n SUBJECT : Draft Rvaluation Report on the U.S. Military Entrance\n Processing Command KLSMRPCOM) Project No. 7RB-9035\n\n 1. We have reviewed subject draft report and provide the\n following comments:\n a. Finding A. Concur with comment. In general, we agree\n that the finding identifies potential to realize certain\n efficiencies of operations and economical cost savings.\n Specifically, each of the recommendations for this finding are\n addressed below.\n (1) Recommendation 1 has great merit and will be\n pursued from two directions. Internally, this command has\n already implemented a portion of the USMEPCOM Strategic Plan\n which calls for identifying countand-wideprocesses for possible\n re-engineering and outsourcing to cost effectively meet customer\n needs. This bottom-up review begins with a survey of customer\n need (Recruiting Services and Recruit Training Centers) which in\n turn will drive a set of recommended options for Military\n Entrance Processing Stations (MEPSI structure and location. The\n decisions made on those options will drive associated issues -\n command and control apparatus, headquarters structure, amount and\n types of oversight functions, manpower, staffing and contract\n versus in-house work. In order to avoid a myopic plan, USWPCOM\n will also explore this reconunandationfrom an external direction.\n We have already acted upon another recommendation within the\n subject report which suggests that USMEPCC44enlist the assistance\n of an external rwiew organization to conduct a manpower review.\n The U.S. Amy Manpower Analysis Agency (MAA) has been contacted\n concerning this and other needs, and has reviewed the subject\n report. A representative from MAA is scheduled to brief USMEPCOM\n on 12 May 98 to present a proposed method, with associated\n estimated coats and tima frame, of addressing our needs. The\n internal strategy review will provide a framework with which the\n MAA can further suggest a means of accomplishing this\n reconnaendationto the find:-.;.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\x0c U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command Comments\n\n\n Final Report\n Reference\n\n\n\n\nMCDR\nSUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report on the U.S. Military Entrance\nProcessing Cormrand WSMBPCOM) Project No. 7RB-9035\n\nSince this study will incur significant cost to USMEPCOM,\nbudgetary actions will be implemented to seek additional funding\nfor Fy99 in order to conduct the external study. MAA has\nindicated that the earlieat they could begin the project would be\nJanuary 1999. Civilian contractor support will alao be reviewed\nto determine the most cost-effective means of supplementing our\ninternal review.\n (2) Reconnnendation2 will be initially addressed with\nthe above mentioned internal study. However, to ensure USMSPCOM\nhas identified the greatest potential increase in organizational\nefficiency, and attendant reduction in operational expenses,\nfinal actions will be deferred until the final report by either\nMAA or a similar civilian contractor. Related to reconnrendation\n2, and for purpose of accuracy, the following corrections to\nTable 1 of Finding A are offered:\n (a) Remove "XW for CLEAP under Logistics Deleted\nFunctiona: AVMF Program. The CLEAP program is concerned aolely\nwith logistics matters while the AVMF Program is a Financial\nPolicy matter. The CLEAP dcea not review AVMF matters.\n (b) Remove entire MATI column from the Table. Revised\nThe MATI haa not been performed since May 1994. At the time of\nthe subject evaluation, members of thie command indicated that a\nMATT was being considered for December 1997; however, the MATT\nwas never reinstated and the viait never occurred.\n (cl Amend the Table, or completely delete\nreference to IRAC, to correctly reflect the role of the IRAC at\nUSMRPCOM. The purpose of the Table waa to delineate individual\nreview entities which routinely travel to MSPS on a scheduled\nbasis in order to conduct oversight/review functions. While\ncapable of covering all areas listed in Table 1, the IRAC travels\nto conduct single-point audits on an on-call basis per guidance\nfrom Commander,USMEPCOM. Thus, the visits are neither scheduled\nnor conducted on any type of routine basis.\n (dl Eliminate the HEPS CIP column since it ia the Deleted\nfunction of any/every organization to internally conduct\nrecurring and scheduled self-evaluations of their operations.\nInclueion in thia Table is not in consonance with the purpose of\nshowing duplicitoua efforts since the MEPS CIP is both expected\nand mandated by regulatory guidance.\n\n\n\n 2\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0cU.S. Military Entrance Processing Command Comments\n\n\n\n\n MCDR\n SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report on the U.S. Military Entrance\n Processing Command (USWEPCOM) Project No. \'IRB-9035\n\n b. Finding B. Concur with comment. AS prwiously\n mentioned, an internal strategic plan initiative will begin the\n process of determining the correct number or need for positions\n such as the Budget Assistant CBA), Education Services Specialist\n (LSS), Test Coordinator (TC) and Health Technician as identified\n under this finding in reconmmndations 1 - 3. The external review\n conducted by an organization such as MAA, or civilian contractor\n equivalent, will provide the best overall set of options to\n realize maximum efficiencies and economies of operation.\n Specifically, the following is offered as update or\n clarification:\n (1) Recomnndation 2 focuses on the issue of having\n one ESS per MBPS versus being workload driven. While the\n internal and external studies will address this issue, it should\n be noted that DOD Directive 1304.12, dated 22 June 1993,\n paragraph D.2.m mandates one ESS per MEPS. Thus, any change\n recoraaendedby either study will need to be predicated upon a\n change to the DoD Directive, an action which is above USMRPCOM\n scope of authority.\n (2) Recommendations 3 and 4 are actually tied together\n since the purpose of the Laboratory Technician billet at a MEPS\n is predicated upon that same technician performing the Rapid\n Plasma Reagent (RPR) or syphilis test. Currently, a tentative\n decision to eliminate the RPR test at the MRPS is under review at\n the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel\n Policy) and Deputy Aseietant Secretary of Defense (Health\n Affairs/ Clinical Services) level. If the RPR deletion is\n approved, the need for a military Laboratory Technician at each\n WRPS will be negated. However, the laboratory technician must be\n replaced by a service medical specialist since the lab function\n (minus RPR) remains. Thus, the studies proposed for the rest of\n this finding will include the issue of any additional Health\n Technicians.\n C. Finding C. Concur with finding and recomncndation.\n 2. USMEPCOM was additionally tasked to address the Adequacy of\n Management Controls as mntioned in Appendix A of subject draft\n report. Further, the draft report stated that if Recoeunendatione\n B.l. through B.4. and C. are implemented, material weaknesses\n will be corrected. Subject to our previous comments on these\n same recommendations, we concur with that statement.\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\x0c Final Report\n Reference\n\n\n\n\nMCDR\nSUBJECT : Draft Hvaluation Report on the U.S. Military Entrance\nProcessing Comnand (USMHPCOM) Project No. 7RH-9035\n\nAdditionally, prior to the draft report being issued, Internal\nReview (IR) of USMHPCOM began a nine month effort in November\nI997 to replace all existing Series 20 Circulars with Management\nControls Checklists. The evaluation checklists will identify key\nmanagement controla at three levels within USMRPCOM -\nHeadquarters, Sectors, and MHPS. The evaluation checklists will\naddress DoD and Federal requirementa related to USMHPCOM programs\naa well ae the operational, administrative, managerial, and\nfinancial requirements. Theme checklists will allow for the\nevaluation of key mission programs in each headquarters\ndirectorate and continue the self-assessment of operational\nprocedures and management practices at the Sectors and MBPS.\n\n3. While Appendix B does not require conment per the guidance\nset forth in the draft report, there ie one significant error\nwhich requires correction. Paragraph 3 (Status of MIRS) of page Page 25\n24 to the draft report states in part..."Numerous deficiencies in Revised\nMIRS makes the processing of USMHPCOM information unreliable."\nThis statement is totally inaccurate and does not match the\npreceeding and following verbiage in the &aft report. It is\nhighly recommended, for consistency and accuracy purposes, that\nthis sentence be deleted from the final report.\n\n\n\n Z%ii%?%%\n Colonel, &A\n Coernanding\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\x0c\x0cEvaluation Team Members\n\nThis reportwas prepared by the Readhss and Loj#stics !3upport Directorate, Office of the\nAssistantlmpector Generalfor Auditing, DOD.\n\nShelton R. Young\nRichardA. Brown\nWarren G. Anthony\nMAJ Andrew L. Vonada, USMC\nOscar I. San Ma&o\n\x0c\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
Nr. L 196/6 De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 19. 7. 74
 AFTALE
 mellem Det europæiske økonomiske Fællesskab og republikken Senegal om levering af
 majs som fødevarehjælp
 RÅDET FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER
 på den ene side,
 REGERINGEN FOR REPUBLIKKEN SENEGAL :
 på den anden side,
 HAR VEDTAGET at indgå denne aftale og har med henblik herpå som befuldmægtigede
 udpeget:
 RÅDET FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER :
 REGERINGEN FOR REPUBLIKKEN SENEGAL
 SOM ER BLEVET ENIGE OM FØLGENDE BESTEMMELSER :
 Artikel I Artikel V
 Inden for rammerne af fødevarehjælpeprogrammet Bestemmelseslandet forpligter sig til at anvende den
 for korn for året 1973/1974, leverer Det europæiske som fødevarehjælp modtagne vare til konsum, og til
 økonomiske Fællesskab, herefter benævnt » Fælles gratis at fordele den til de nødlidende befolknings
 skabet« som gave til republikken Senegal herefter grupper.
 benævnt » bestemmelseslandet«, 15 000 tons majs.
 Artikel VI
 Artikel II
 De kontraherende parter forpligter sig til at gennem
 Leveringerne effektueres i nye jutesække med net føre denne aftale således, at produktionens og den
 toindhold på 50 kg hver franko bestemmelsesstedet, internationale samhandels normale struktur ikke be
 fastsat ved en fælles aftale mellem bestemmelseslan
 røres. Med henblik herpå træffer de de nødvendige
 det og Fællesskabet. foranstaltniger for at sikre, at hjælpeforsyningerne
 ikke erstatter men supplerer de handelstransaktioner,
 Artikel III der med rimelighed kunne forventes, i mangel af så
 danne leverancer.
 Fællesskabets og bestemmelseslandets forpligtelser og
 ansvar, især vedrørende levering og overtagelse, Artikel VII
 fastsættes i bilaget, som udgør en integrerende del af
 denne aftale.
 Bestemmelseslandet træffer alle nødvendige foran1
 stakninger for at forhindre:
 Artikel IV
 — genudførsel såvel af den vare, der er modtaget
 som fødevarehjælp, som af produkter og bipro
 Bestemmelseslandet forpligter sig til at træffe alle dukter, der stammer derfra;
 nødvendige foranstaltninger med henblik på trans
 port og forsikring af den leverede vare fra og med — erhvervsmæssig og ikke erhvervsmæssig udførsel
 bestemmelsesstedet. inden for 6 måneder efter den seneste levering
 ---pagebreak--- 19 . 7. 74 De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende Nr. L 196/7
 såvel af en lokalt fremstillet vare, som måtte være Artikel IX
 af samme art som den, der er modtaget som fø Bestemmelseslandet træffer alle egnede foranstaltnin
 devarehjælp, som af produkter og biprodukter, ger for at gøre det muligt for de af Fællesskabet be
 der stammer derfra .
 hørigt befuldmægtigede personer på stedet at følge
 transaktionerne i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af
 aftalen .
 Artikel VIII
 Artikel X
 Bestemmelseslandet forpligter sig til at give Fælles På begæring af en af de kontraherende parter afhol
 skabet meddelelse om gennemførelsesbetingelserne for der disse konsultationer om alle spørgsmål ved
 denne aftale. Med henblik herpå giver det hver tred rørende anvendelsen af denne aftale.
 je måned, indtil de som hjælp modtagne varer er Artikel XI
 fuldstændig opbrugt, Kommissionen for De euro
 pæiske Fællesskabet en opgørelse særlig over de Denne aftale er affattet i to eksemplarer på dansk,
 uddelte mængder, modtagernes art og antal, distri engelsk, fransk, italiensk, nederlandsk og tysk, hvil
 butionssteder, -tempo og -måde. ke tekster alle har samme gyldighed.
 BILAG
 Bestemmelser fastsat i artikel III i aftalen
 Artikel 1
 Levering har fundet sted, og risikoen overgår fra Fællesskabet til bestemmelseslandet, i det
 øjeblik varen faktisk er ankommet til bestemmelseslandet.
 Bestemmelseslandet bærer alle omkostninger ved modtagelsen af varen, omkostninger ved
 eventuel omladning og andre omkostninger efter leveringen.
 Eventuelle omkostninger, der er opstået ved forsinkelser i overtagelsen af varen, og som
 henhører under bestemmelseslandet, skal bæres af dette.
 Artikel 2
 Fællesskabet giver så hurtigt som muligt bestemmelseslandet meddelelse om det eller de
 transportmidler, der er benyttet ved varens transport til bestemmelsesstedet, forsendel
 sesmåden for de mellemliggende faser, datoen for indladningen såvel som varens art og
 mængde, som konstateret ved afsendelsen fra Fællesskabet.
 Artikel 3
 Fællesskabet meddeler bestemmelseslandet det formodede tidspunkt for varens ankomst til
 leveringsstedet i passende tid før dette tidspunkt. Fællesskabet skal mindst 2 dage i
 forvejen meddele dette tidspunkt.
 Artikel 4
 Ved leveringen af varen er en tolerance på 5 % under den varemængde, som skal leveres
 ifølge artikel I i aftalen tilladt.
 Artikel 5
 Fællesskabet udpeger til gennemførelsen af bestemmelserne i dette bilag en befuldmægtiget,
 hvis navn og adresse det rettidigt meddeler bestemmelseslandet.
 ---pagebreak--- Nr. L 196/8 De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 19. 7. 74
 Bestemmelseslandet udpeger på hvert leveringssted en ladningsmodtager, hvis navn og
 adresse det forud for aftalens gennemførelse meddeler Fællesskabet.
 Artikel 6
 Ved varens levering sender bestemmelseslandet til den befuldmægtigede for Fællesskabet et
 overtagelsescertifikat, der angiver sted og dato for overtagelsen, varens art og mængde, samt
 eventuelle bemærkninger om varernes kvalitet. Det sender en kopi af dette certifikat til
 Kommissionen for De europæiske Fællesskaber.
 Meddelelse verdrørende undertegnelse af aftalen om levering af fødevarehjælp mellem
 Det europæiske økonomiske Fællesskab og republikken Senegal
 Aftalen mellem Det europæiske økonomiske Fællesskab og Senegal om levering af
 majs som fødevarehjælp, som Rådet har besluttet at indgå den 4. juni 1974, er
 blevet undertegnet i Bruxelles den 5 . juni 1974
 for Rådet for de europæiske Fællesskaber af Ulrich Lebsanft, overordentlig og
 befuldmægtiget ambassador, formand for de faste repræsentanters Komité samt
 Hans-Broder Krohn, generaldirektør for udvikling og samarbejde i Kommissionen
 for De europæiske Fællesskaber
 for regeringen for Senegal af Seydina Oumar Sy, ambassadør, republikken Senegals
 regeringsrepræsentant ved EØF.