Source: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44389.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:46:47+00:00

Document:
In the exercise of its constitutional authority over the Armed Forces, Congress has enacted an array of laws which govern important aspects of military officer personnel management, including appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations. Some of these laws are directed specifically at the most senior military officers, known as general and flag officers (GFOs). Congress periodically reviews these laws and considers changes as it deems appropriate. Areas of congressional interest have included the number of GFOs authorized, the proportion of GFOs to the total force, compensation levels of GFOs, and duties and grades of certain GFOs.
As of November 1, 2018, there were 891 active duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, which is 72 less than the maximum of 963 authorized by law. There were also another 29 exempt from the statutory caps. The current number is about average for the post-Cold War era, though substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size than they are today. However, while always very small in comparison to the total force, the general and flag officer corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, while they made up about one-fifteenth of one percent (0.069%) of the total force in 2018, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs increased by 44%. Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is wasteful and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking processes. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the military’s greater emphasis on joint and coalition operations, core organizational requirements, and the increasing use of advanced technologies.
Compensation for GFOs varies. One commonly used measure of compensation, known as regular military compensation (RMC), includes basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal tax advantage associated with allowances, which are exempt from federal income tax. In 2019, the lowest-ranking GFOs make about $204,000 per year in RMC, while the highest-ranking GFOs make about $238,000 per year.
Congress has also used its authority to specify the grade and duties of certain GFO positions. For example, Congress increased the grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) from Lieutenant General to General in 2008. Three years later, Congress again changed the law to specify that the CNGB was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose duties included “the specific responsibility of addressing matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions.” In 2016, Congress removed the statutory grade requirement from 54 GFO positions.
This report provides an overview of active duty GFOs in the United States Armed Forces—including authorizations, duties, and compensation—historical trends in the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force, criticisms and justifications of GFO to total force proportions, and statutory controls. National Guard and Reserve GFOs are not addressed in this report, unless they are serving on active duty in a manner that counts against the active duty caps on GFOs.
As of November 1, 2018, there were 891 active duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, which is 72 less than the maximum of 963 authorized by law. There were also another 29 exempt from the statutory caps. The current number is about average for the post-Cold War era, though substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size than they are today. However, while always very small in comparison to the total force, the general and flag officer corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, while they made up about one-fifteenth of one percent (0.069%) of the total force in 2018, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs increased by 44%. Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is wasteful and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking processes. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the military's greater emphasis on joint and coalition operations, core organizational requirements, and the increasing use of advanced technologies.
Congress has also used its authority to specify the grade and duties of certain GFO positions. For example, Congress increased the grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) from Lieutenant General to General in 2008. Three years later, Congress again changed the law to specify that the CNGB was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose duties included "the specific responsibility of addressing matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions." In 2016, Congress removed the statutory grade requirement from 54 GFO positions.
The Constitution provides Congress with broad powers over the Armed Forces, including the power "to raise and support Armies," "to provide and maintain a Navy," and "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."1 It also provides the Senate with the authority to provide "Advice and Consent" on presidential nominations of "all other Officers of the United States," which includes military officers.2 On the basis of its constitutional authority, Congress has passed a number of laws which govern important aspects of military officer personnel management, including appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations.
The most senior officers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps are known as general officers. The most senior officers in the Navy3 are known as flag officers. The phrase "general and flag officers" or "GFO" refers to all officers in paygrades O-7 through O-10, thereby including one-star, two-star, three-star, and four-star officers. At the highest level, O-10, GFOs hold the most visible and important military positions in the Department of Defense, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chiefs of the four military services, and the combatant commanders. At the lowest level, O-7, they hold positions that span an array of roles, including commanders, deputy commanders, and key staff roles in large organizations.
References in this report to specific grades (ranks) within the general and flag officer corps will use the appropriate capitalized title, insignia, or paygrade as indicated in Table 1.
Source: Grades from 10 U.S.C. §741; paygrades from 37 U.S.C. §201; insignias from Department of Defense, available at https://dod.defense.gov/About/Insignias/Officers/.
Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; includes GFOs in Service and Joint assignments.
Note: Includes 29 active duty GFOs who are exempt from the statutory caps, or reserve component GFOs serving on active duty for limited periods of time. See the later section of this report entitled "Current Grade Limits" for more information on the caps and exclusions.
A summary of the number of active duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 3. A review of GFO levels indicates an 11% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965 vs. 40 on September 30, 2018) and a 24% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 vs. 147). At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 35% (1,129 vs. 734).
However, during this time period, the size of the total force was cut roughly in half, dropping from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.32 million on September 30, 2018. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force. Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that while GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the general and flag officer corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, while they made up about one-fifteenth of one percent (0.070%) of the total force in 2018, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs increased by 46%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0030%, a 114% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0112%, a 149% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less rapidly (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0557%, a 31% increase).
These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 3, between 1965 and 2018, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 17.51% in 2018, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 37%.
Note: The data above do not include 5-star officers, as there were none actively serving during the time frames specified.
There have been two principal criticisms raised against the increasing proportion of GFOs relative the total force. The first criticism revolves around the increased cost of employing a GFO in comparison to a lower ranking officer. The second relates to the belief that too many GFOs slow down decisionmaking processes. Each point is explained in more detail below.
Joint requirements. One frequently cited cause of the increasing ratio of GFOs during past congressional hearings has been the increase in "joint" requirements that followed enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Act (GNA) in 1986.19 While removing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the chain of command, GNA enhanced the authority of the Chairman in other ways; significantly increased the roles and authorities of commanders of the joint Combatant Commands; and emphasized joint duty assignments for officers.20 These new institutional arrangements led to the creation of more joint GFO positions and powerful career incentives to serve in those positions. Testifying before Congress in 1997, the Vice Director of the Joint Staff emphasized how the growth of joint organizations affected the proportion of GFOs to the total force: "There is really no law of proportionality here when you talk about joint growth. If you think about it, sir, where we have been since 1980, we stood up CENTCOM, SOCOM, Space Command; we have reorganized to form ACOM, TRANSCOM, [and] STRATCOM."21 Since then, additional joint headquarters have been established, to include U.S. Northern Command (established in 2002), Joint Task Force Guantanamo (established 2002), Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (established 2002), U.S. Africa Command (2007), and U.S. Cyber Command (2009).
Coalition Operations. Another rationale used to explain the increased proportion of GFOs has been an increased emphasis by the United States on forging coalitions with other nations to achieve common security objectives. This has, in turn, generated a demand for senior military leaders to conduct coordinated planning, training, and operations with their peers from foreign nations. The argument is also linked to the number of contingency operations the U.S. military has conducted since the end of the Cold War, which have often involved forces from dozens of countries, including the forces of the nation in which the operations take place. Examples of these coalition operations include Iraq and Afghanistan as well as smaller-scale contingencies such as Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo (ongoing). Contingency operations such as these are commanded by a GFO, who usually has additional GFOs as subordinate commanders and senior staff officers. Both their experience and the authority inherent in their grade can be considered important elements to the success of complex operations. Political and diplomatic considerations can also be a factor, as the officers leading these operations are normally expected to interact with the senior military and civilian leadership of the foreign nation where the operations are occurring.
Organizational structure. As noted previously, the increase in the proportion of GFOs over the past 50 years has not been due to an increase in the number of GFOs, which has gone down in this time period, but to the much larger decrease in the size of the Armed Forces in general. In part, this slower reduction is due to the organizational structure of the Armed Forces, which includes certain GFO positions whether the Armed Forces are comparatively large or small. For example, there was a Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the peak of the Vietnam War, when the Air Force had about 900,000 airmen, and there is one today, when the Air Force has approximately 325,000 airmen. A similar case can be made for many of the GFOs who serve on the Joint Staff, the Service Staffs, the Combatant Commands, and certain defense agencies. Given the organizational structure of the Armed Forces—some of which is required by law—the amount of management "overhead" does not necessarily change in direct proportion to the size of the force. Another way of illustrating this is to consider what would happen if an Army division were disestablished: doing so would eliminate about 15,000 soldiers, but only three of them would be general officers.
Technological changes. A fourth justification for increased GFO ratios is that technological advances have changed the way the United States fights its wars. Modern weapons systems, much more powerful and accurate than their predecessors, require fewer personnel to deliver greater firepower. Thus, while the number of personnel a GFO commands may decline as more sophisticated equipment is substituted for manpower, the lethality of those forces may increase. From this perspective, the lethality of the weapons systems, rather than the number of people, provides the justification for an organization to be led by a very senior military officer. Additionally, the advent and development of new domains of warfare—such as space and cyber—has led to the creation of new organizations to exploit advantages and defend against vulnerabilities in those environments.
There are three main ways in which military personnel, including general and flag officers, are compensated: cash compensation (pay and allowances), non-cash compensation (benefits), and deferred compensation (retired pay and benefits). In this report, only the compensation elements which make up regular military compensation will be discussed.
Source: Selected Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2019), Table B3, Detailed RMC Tables for All Personnel, available at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/GreenBook%202019.pdf?ver=2019-01-16-132128-617.
Notes: Average RMC assumes receipt of BAH rather than government provided housing. Amounts in every column are rounded to the nearest dollar and therefore may not sum perfectly. The annual BAS for Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral is presented as listed in the OSD Compensation Greenbook, but it is actually $3,053.
Congress has established a statutory framework for GFOs which limits their numbers by grade, requires presidential determination of many three-star and four-star positions, and specifies the grade and/or duties of certain key positions. This framework provides for greater congressional control over the most senior GFO positions, while providing substantial latitude to the executive branch in the management of the remaining GFOs.
Sections 525 and 526 of Title 10 establish the number of general and flag officers that may be on active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The two provisions establish separate caps for each service and for the joint community. There are certain circumstances under which a general or flag officer does not "count" against these caps.27 Additionally, the President has authority under 10 U.S.C. §527 to suspend the operation of the caps in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress or the President.
Source: Total number for each service from 10 U.S.C. §526(a). Numbers for Army Major General through General from 10 U.S.C. §525(a)(1). Numbers for Navy Rear Admiral through Admiral from 10 U.S.C. §525(a)(3). Numbers for Marine Corps Major General through General from 10 U.S.C. §525(a)(4). Numbers for Air Force Major General through General from 10 U.S.C. §525(a)(2).
Notes: Unless the Secretary of Defense determines that a lower number is in the best interest of the department, the GFOs serving in the 310 authorized joint positions shall include at least 85 Army officers, 61 Navy officers, 21 Marine Corps Officers, and 73 Air Force Officers (10 U.S.C. 526(b)(2)).
The FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision, codified at 10 U.S.C. §526a, to reduce the number of GFOs authorized to be on active duty.29 The conference report that accompanied the bill highlighted congressional concerns that the military departments had not demonstrated a willingness to implement GFO reductions directed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2011 and, furthermore, noted the context of significant reductions in personnel strength that occurred in the 2011-2016 time frame.30 Starting in 2023, §526a will lower the number of GFOs that may be on active duty to a maximum of 620 for Service positions and 232 for Joint positions, a reduction of 111 from the current number of GFO positions authorized by 10 U.S.C. §526.
Section 601 of Title 10 provides that "[t]he President may designate positions of importance and responsibility to carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral.... An officer assigned to any such position has the grade specified for that position if he is appointed to that grade by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Thus, with the exception of those so designated in statute, all three-star and four-star positions must be designated as such by the President. Congress can review the rationale for this designation as part of its oversight function, and the Senate retains the power to confirm or reject the nomination of an individual to fill such a position. The authority of the President to designate such positions is also limited by the strength caps on general and flag officers found in 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526.
Congress has established a number of GFO positions in law which carry designated grades, designated duties, or both.
What is the most appropriate way to determine how many GFOs the Department of Defense should have? How closely should this be linked to total force size? What other factors would be useful in determining what the right number of GFOs is?
How do advances in information technology and decisionmaking tools impact the need for GFOs? Could use of these technologies result in flattened management structures and decrease the need for GFOs?
Should Congress modify the current statutory framework that governs GFOs? Should it modify the caps set out in 10 U.S.C. §§525, 526, and 526a?
To what extent do other statutory requirements, such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act (GNA), drive GFO requirements? Should GNA be revised to alter this effect?
Could organizational restructuring of the Joint Staff and Service Staffs decrease the need for GFOs, or allow positions to be held by lower graded GFOs? Could certain organizations be merged to reduce the requirements for GFOs?
Could military relations with international partners be restructured so as to lessen the need for GFO representation? How important is rank equivalence when senior U.S. military personnel work with their allied peers?
Could National Guard and Reserve GFOs be used to reduce the need for active duty GFOs?
Are there GFO positions that could be eliminated or "downgraded" to a lower rank? Are there GFO positions that could be replaced by civilian employees? What are the costs and benefits associated with these actions? How might this impact military effectiveness?
Can the direct and indirect costs associated with GFOs be reduced? For example, could compensation or staff costs be reduced without significantly affecting the ability of GFOs to carry out their duties?
10 U.S.C. 604 refers to "commander of a combatant command" positions as "Joint 4-star officer positions."
Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics [related to special operations activities].
Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for special operations forces and for other forces assigned to the special operations command.
Conducting specialized courses of instruction for commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
Ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
Monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command.
Development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment.
is the principal adviser to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army, and to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, on matters relating to the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United States.
Source: Title 10, United States Code.
Note: Due to space considerations, a full listing of statutory positions could not be included. Likewise, for the positions that are mentioned above, a full listing of statutorily defined functions, duties and responsibilities could not be included.
All members of the Armed Forces receive basic pay, although the amount varies by pay grade (rank) and years of service (also called longevity). For most servicemembers, basic pay is the largest element of the compensation they receive in their paycheck and typically accounts for about two-thirds of an individual's RMC. It is roughly analogous to civilian salary.
All servicemembers living in the United States are entitled to either government-provided housing or a housing allowance, known as basic allowance for housing (BAH).37 About 17% of GFOs living in the United States receive government-provided housing with the remainder receiving BAH to offset the costs of the housing they rent or purchase in the civilian economy.38 The amount of BAH a servicemember receives is based on three factors: paygrade (rank), geographic location, and whether or not the servicemember has dependents.39 However, there is no increase in BAH after paygrade O-7. Therefore, the amount of BAH for GFOs does not vary by rank, but only by locality and dependency status.
Nearly all servicemembers receive a monthly payment to defray their personal food costs.42 This is known as basic allowance for subsistence (BAS). BAS is provided at a flat rate, with separate rates for officers and enlisted personnel. In 2019, all officers, including GFOs, received $254.39 a month.
Military allowances are generally not considered part of gross income and are not subject to federal income tax, thus generating a tax benefit for servicemembers.43 RMC considers only the federal income tax advantage provided by the exemption of housing and subsistence allowances from gross income. The precise value of the federal tax advantage for an individual servicemember will vary depending on his or her unique tax situation.
Article II, Section 2. This section also provides that "the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law or in the Heads of Departments."
The Coast Guard uses the same rank structure as the Navy. While the Coast Guard is one of the armed forces, it is not covered in this report, as it normally operates under different statutory authority (Title 14) than the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force (Title 10).
Testimony of Frederick Pang, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, before the before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the House National Security Committee, April 8, 1997, in House National Security Committee Report No. 105-6, 388.
For a discussion of the statutory caps and exclusions, see the later section of this report entitled "Current Grade Limits."
The initiative resulted in the Secretary of Defense deciding to eliminate 102 GFO positions, reduce 23 more, and request changes to statute to downgrade five other positions. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Track Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions memorandum, dated March 14, 2011, available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/pc/docs/3-14-2011_Track_Four_Efficiency_Initiatives_Decisions.pdf.
According to then-Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley, Secretary of Defense Gates "has approved a new governance structure that will maintain the number of G/FOs below statutory ceilings and provide us needed flexibility to rapidly adapt service force structures to meet the emerging requirements. This is a significant change to the way we will manage our G/FO forces in the future, and we understand the value of this flexibility rests with an understanding of our previous force management practices. In the past, DOD always maintained the number of G/FOs as close to statutory ceilings as possible. While this provided sufficient numbers of G/FOs to meet the most pressing needs, anytime a new requirement arose, delays ensued while an offset was identified and then downgraded or eliminated. Just as this committee gave flexibility to the joint community through new legislation in 2009, the creation of the joint pool, the Secretary of Defense has directed reductions which, through self-imposed policies, will similarly allow the military departments to operate below authorized ceilings and gain that same flexibility. We refer to this as a "Service buffer or Services buffer." This buffer served as a shock absorber against new requirements allowing an offset position to be eliminated without negative impact on the mission or personnel caused by ill-timed action." Statement of Honorable Clifford L. Stanley, "General and Flag Officer Requirements," Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 14, 2011, Senate Hearing 112-258.
Specifically, the Chief of Staff of the Army (10 U.S.C. § 3033), the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (10 U.S.C. §3034), the Chief of Naval Operations (10 U.S.C. §5033), the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (10 U.S.C. §5035), the Commandant of the Marine Corps (10 U.S.C. §5043), the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (10 U.S.C. §5044), the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. §8033), and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. §8034).
Criteria provided by Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, May 12, 2015.
Regular military compensation (RMC), as defined in law, is "the total of the following elements that a member of the uniformed services accrues or receives, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind every payday: basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and Federal tax advantage accruing to the aforementioned allowances because they are not subject to Federal income tax." 37 U.S.C. §101(25). See the appendix for a summary of the elements of RMC.
These costs are difficult to estimate, as noted by the Government Accountability Office in its report "DOD Needs to Update General and Flag Officer Requirements and Improve Availability of Associated Costs," GAO-14-745, September 9, 2014, available at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-14-745.
Statement by Dr. Benjamin Freeman, Project on Government Oversight, before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 14, 2011.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speech at Eisenhower Library, delivered May 8, 2010, available at http://archive.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467.
See the following hearings: "Flag and General Officer Strengths," Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 17, 1981; "General and Flag Officer Requirements," Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, August 10, 1988; "Review of General and Flag Officer Authorizations," Subcommittee on Personnel of the House National Security Committee, April 8, 1997, in House National Security Committee Report No. 105-6; "General and Flag Officer Requirements," Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 14, 2011, Senate Hearing 112-258.
This refers to the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, P.L. 99-433, as amended. In the years preceding GNA, an array of operational challenges—the failed mission to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran in 1980, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the U.S. peacekeeping role there in general, and Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada in 1983—had raised questions about how well the Department of Defense (DOD) was organized and prepared to protect and defend the nation. In particular, observers and practitioners pointed with concern to a lack of integration of effort among the military services. Prior to the creation of DOD by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended in 1949, military services were separate entities with distinct missions, frequently in competition with each other for resources. Although the establishment of DOD brought services together in a single organization, those services continued to organize, plan, and operate relatively independently, and they maintained separate, direct chains of command over their respective parts of the operational force. In turn, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) was a spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs, but exercised little authority over his fellow Joint Chiefs. In practice, this meant that services trained, planned, and executed operations separately from each other, or at best side by side. Prioritization, including associated resource decisionmaking, took place primarily within the military services, rather than across DOD as a whole; and there was little if any room for DOD to benefit from economies of scale. GNA had two major components, broadly reflecting the main emphases of the respective House and Senate debates. One major component was the use of joint duty assignments and joint professional military education, backed by promotion policies that encouraged participation in those programs, in order to foster a culture of "jointness" among individual servicemembers. The term "jointness" refers to "integrated" or "unified" action involving more than one military service.
Initially, the services were required to fill these joint positions with GFOs who had previously been serving in service-specific positions, thus leaving some service-specific positions vacant. Subsequently, Congress changed the law to establish both service-specific limits (10 U.S.C. §526) and joint limits (10 U.S.C. §525). The limits for both categories have been subject to change over time.
Testimony of Major General Stephen Rippe, Vice Director of the Joint Staff, before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the House National Security Committee, April 8, 1997, in House National Security Committee Report No. 105-6, 396. The acronyms and abbreviations used in this quote are as follows: CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command, established 1983), SOCOM (U.S. Special Operations Command, established 1987), Space Command (U.S. Space Command, established 1985, later merged with U.S. Strategic Command], ACOM (U.S. Atlantic Command, later known as U.S. Joint Forces Command, disestablished in 2011), TRANSCOM (U.S. Transportation Command, established 1987), and STRATCOM (U.S. Strategic Command, established 1992). For more information about the Combatant Commands, see CRS Report R42077, The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands: Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
Statutory definition contained in 37 U.S.C. §101(25).
Note that RMC does not include a wide array of compensation elements: special pays and bonuses, reimbursements, educational assistance, deferred compensation (i.e., an economic valuation of future retired pay), or any estimate of the cash value of non-monetary benefits such as health care, child care, recreational facilities, commissaries, and exchanges. As the value of these forms of compensation can be very substantial, RMC should not be considered a measure of total military compensation.
37 U.S.C. §414 provides for an annual personal money allowance for certain senior GFOs. Examples of these allowances include $500 for those in paygrade O-9 and $2,200 for those in paygrade O-10. A general or admiral serving as the senior officer of their service (e.g, Army Chief of Staff or Chief of Naval Operations) is authorized $4,000 instead of $2,200 per year. The purpose of this allowance is to partially reimburse these officers "for various expenses they may reasonably be expected to incur in entertaining and extending hospitality to visiting officers and dignitaries of the United States and foreign countries." Department of Defense, Military Compensation Background Papers, 8th Edition, p. 843, available at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/Mil-Comp_8thEdition.pdf?ver=2018-09-01-181142-307.
P.L. 113-291, Section 601; P.L. 114-92, Section 601.
About 17% of GFOs live in government provided housing and therefore do not receive BAH. While this lowers the cash compensation received, they receive free housing instead. For the purposes of Table 4, the value of the free housing is assumed to be equivalent to the average BAH of their GFO peers. Calculation of proportion living in government provided housing made using Selected Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2019), Table A5, BAH Percentages 2019, and Table A6, Military Personnel by Pay Cell, available at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/GreenBook%202019.pdf?ver=2019-01-16-132128-617.
Active-duty GFOs excluded from the caps include the Attending Physician of Congress, those within 60 days of retirement, and GFOs transitioning between certain positions for up to 60 days. Certain reserve component GFOs serving on active duty for limited periods of time are also excluded. See 10 U.S.C. §§525(d)-(g) and 526(c)-(g).
These 29 are not subject to the statutory caps for the following reasons: 12 exempted under 10 U.S.C. §526(d)—exclusion of certain officers pending separation or retirement or between senior positions; 12 exempted under 10 U.S.C. §527—authority of President to suspend section §§523, 525, and 526 in time of war or national emergency; 4 exempted under 10 U.S.C. §526 (c)(3)—reserve component on active duty for a period in excess of 365 days but not to exceed 3 years; 1 exempted under 10 U.S.C. §526(e)—exclusion of Attending Physician to the Congress.
The conference report that accompanied the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act stated "The conferees note that despite two decades of Congressional concern the Department of Defense and the military departments have not demonstrated the willingness to implement even the reduction in the number of general and flag officer positions directed by the Secretary of Defense's Track Four Efficiencies Initiatives decision of March 14, 2011. In the context of the Department of Defense's continued requests to reduce military end strength, especially in the Army and the Marine Corps, reductions that Congress has cautiously considered and authorized, the time has come for the Department to rigorously evaluate and validate every general and flag officer position. The conferees believe that an additional 10% reduction in the number of general and flag officer positions may be appropriate by downgrading or eliminating positions in addition to the 110 positions required to be eliminated under this provision are achieved. The conferees expect that the Department of Defense and the military departments will improve efficiency by eliminating bloated headquarters and staffs while preserving the necessary number and grades of positions for general and flag officers who are responsible to train and lead our Nation's forces in battle and to bring them safely home again." H.Rept. 114-840, p. 1013. A copy of the "Track Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions" memo by Secretary Gates is available at https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/OSD_02974-11.pdf. The conference report, mentions a reduction of 110 GFO positions. However, section 503 of the FY2017 NDAA amended 10 U.S.C. §526 to provide a net increase of one GFO authorization for the Marine Corps; thus, §526a will require a reduction of 111 from the current number of GFO positions authorized under 10 U.S.C. §526.
Section 502 of the FY17 NDAA eliminated the statutory general or flag officer grade for 54 positions, including each of the services' senior medical officer, senior legal officer, chief of legislative affairs. The statutory grade was also removed for the chief of each reserve component (e.g., Chief of the Navy Reserve, Director of the Army National Guard, etc.; however, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau retained its statutory designation as an O-10 position). The elimination of a statutory requirement does not necessarily affect the grade of the position, as the military services can designate the position at an equivalent, lower, or higher grade, subject to the statutory strength caps on GFOs and presidential determinations for 3-star and 4-star positions.
Statutory definition contained in 37 U.S.C. §101(25). For more information on military pay, see CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
Those living outside the United States receive Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA), which is similar to BAH but has somewhat different statutory parameters. Both BAH and OHA are authorized by 37 U.S.C. §403.
Calculation of proportion living in government provided housing made using Selected Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2019), Table A5, BAH Percentages 2019, and Table A6, Military Personnel by Pay Cell, available at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/GreenBook%202019.pdf?ver=2019-01-16-132128-617.
A dependent is defined to include a spouse, unmarried children under 21 (or older in some circumstances), certain parents dependent on the servicemembers, and certain individuals placed in the legal custody of the servicemember. See 37 U.S.C. §401 for the complete definition. Note that for the purposes of BAH rates, no distinction is made between a servicemember with one dependent and a servicemember with multiple dependents. The only distinction is whether or not the servicemember has dependents.
Until 2015, BAH rates factored in the average costs of rental housing rates, utilities, and renter's insurance in a wide array of housing markets. In 2015, DOD eliminated the cost of renter's insurance from the calculation.
For a more detailed description of how BAH rates are calculated, see the Department of Defense's BAH Primer, available at http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf. For a complete listing of BAH rates, see these tables: http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/pdcFiles.cfm?dir=/Allowances/BAH/PDF/.
Historically, enlisted personnel did not receive BAS except in specific circumstances; rather, they were normally provided free meals in government dining facilities. This changed in 2002, and enlisted personnel now receive BAS except in limited circumstances (for example, while in basic training, where they receive government provided meals). However, if a servicemember receiving BAS elects to eat in a government dining facility, he or she must pay for the meal.
This exemption, which reflects the long-standing exclusion of certain military benefits from gross income, was codified in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §134) by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514). For a detailed discussion on these topics, see the Military Compensation Background Papers, 7th edition, pages 197-206, and especially pages 873-883, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Military_Comp-2011.pdf. Table 2 of this IRS publication is also helpful: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3.pdf. The exception to the general non-taxability of allowances is the CONUS Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), since it was created after the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

References: §741
 §201
 §527
 §526
 §525
 §525
 §525
 §525
 §526
 §526
 §526
 § 3033
 §3034
 §5033
 §5035
 §5043
 §5044
 §8033
 §8034
 §101
 §526
 §525
 §101
 §414
 §526
 §527
 §526
 §526
 §526
 §526
 §526
 §101
 §403
 §401
 §134