Military Personnel: More DOD Actions Needed to Address Servicemembers' Personal Financial Management Issues
Published: 2005-04-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) are concerned about the financial conditions of servicemembers and their families, particularly in light of recent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Serious financial issues can negatively affect unit readiness. According to DOD, servicemembers with severe financial problems risk losing security clearances, incurring administrative or criminal penalties or, in some cases, face discharge. Despite increases in compensation and DOD programs on personal financial management (PFM), studies show that servicemembers, particularly junior enlisted personnel, continue to report financial difficulties. GAO assessed (1) the extent deployment impacts the financial condition of active duty servicemembers and their families, (2) whether DOD has an oversight framework for evaluating military programs designed to assist deployed and non-deployed servicemembers in managing their finances, and (3) the extent junior enlisted servicemembers receive required PFM training.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The financial conditions of deployed and non-deployed servicemembers and their families are similar, but deployed servicemembers and their families may face additional financial problems related to pay. In both a 2003 DOD-wide survey and non-generalizable focus groups that GAO conducted on 13 military installations in the United States and Germany, servicemembers who were deployed reported similar financial conditions as those who were not deployed. Some of GAO's focus group participants also noted that they--like Army Reservists in GAO's 2004 report, Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems--had not received their $250 family separation allowance each month during their deployment. Pay record data showed that almost 6,000 deployed servicemembers had received more than the prescribed $250 in January 2005, and 11 of them received a $3,000 catch-up, lump sum payment--the equivalent of 12 months of the allowance. This pay problem was due, in part, to service procedures being confusing and not always followed. Families who do not receive this allowance each month may experience financial strain caused by additional expenses such as extra childcare. DOD lacks an oversight framework--with results-oriented performance measures and reporting requirements--for evaluating the effectiveness of PFM programs across the services. DOD's 2002 human capital strategic plan stated that a standardized evaluation system for PFM programs is a desired goal; however, DOD does not currently have such a system. In 2003, GAO reported that DOD had included evaluative reporting measures in a draft of its PFM instruction to the services. However, the final PFM instruction issued by DOD in 2004 did not address outcome measures or contain a requirement that the services report program results to DOD because the services objected to these additional reporting requirements. Without a policy requiring evaluation and a reporting relationship between DOD and the services, DOD and Congress do not have the visibility or oversight needed to address issues related to the PFM programs. Some junior enlisted servicemembers are not receiving PFM training that is required in service regulations. While each of the services implements PFM training differently, all of the services have policies requiring that PFM training be provided to junior enlisted servicemembers. Moreover, the extent to which the PFM training is not received is unknown because most of the services do not track the completion of PFM training at the service level. Only the Army collected installation-level data and could provide a service-wide estimate of PFM training completed by junior enlisted servicemembers. Senior Army officers said PFM training had not been a priority given the need to prepare for current operations. Top-level DOD officials have repeatedly stated that financial issues directly affect servicemembers' mission readiness and should be addressed. Therefore, units whose servicemembers do not receive required PFM training risk jeopardizing their ability to meet mission requirements.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The finances of servicemembers and their families have been an ongoing  concern of Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD), especially in  light of more frequent deployments to support the war on terrorism and  conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  DOD’s Social Compact, which is part of  DOD’s human capital strategic plan, notes that mission readiness and  quality of life depend on whether servicemembers use their financial  resources responsibly.  Some adverse effects that may result when  servicemembers experience serious financial problems include loss of  security clearances, criminal or non-judicial sanctions, or adverse  personnel actions including possible discharge from the military.   Servicemembers with serious financial issues may also adversely impact  the readiness of the unit.  For example, servicemembers’ financial  problems may take the servicemembers and possibly their unit  commanders away from their primary duties in order to address problems  with creditors.  In a 2002 report to Congress, the Navy identified an  estimated $250 million in productivity and salary losses due to  servicemembers’ poor personal financial management.
Congress and DOD have taken steps to decrease the likelihood that  deployed and non-deployed servicemembers will experience financial  problems.  Since 1999, DOD has requested and Congress has granted  annual increases in military basic pay for all active duty servicemembers  and increases in special pays and allowances for deployed  servicemembers, such as the family separation allowance and hostile  fire/imminent danger pay.  In addition, out-of-pocket housing expenses for  active duty military members living in private-sector housing have  decreased since 1999.  Also, the military has developed personal financial  management (PFM) programs to provide servicemembers with financial  literacy training, financial counseling, and other assistance to avoid or  mitigate the adverse effects associated with personal financial problems.
Despite the added compensation and the assistance provided through the  PFM programs, studies in recent years by DOD and others show that active  duty servicemembers continue to report financial problems.  For example,  a 2002 study noted that 20 percent of junior enlisted servicemembers  reported that they struggled to make ends meet financially and another 4  percent regarded themselves as “in over their heads” with respect to their  finances.
The information in this report supplements our February 2004 report to you  on bankruptcies among active duty servicemembers.  As agreed with your  office, this report answers three questions: (1) To what extent does  deployment impact the financial condition of active duty servicemembers  and their families? (2) Does DOD have an oversight framework for  evaluating military programs that assist both deployed and non-deployed  servicemembers in managing their personal finances? and (3) To what  extent are junior enlisted servicemembers receiving required personal  financial management training?  We also are reporting on the prevalence  and effect of predatory lending on servicemembers to fulfill your request  for information on the financial conditions of active duty servicemembers.
In conducting this review, we limited the scope of our work to active duty  servicemembers, particularly those recently returning from deployments.   Emphasis was also given to junior enlisted servicemembers, since DOD  and service officials have indicated that this subgroup is more likely to  encounter financial problems.  Numerous methods were used to gather and  assess information for this work.  We examined DOD, service, and  installation policies on PFM program requirements, as well as management  guidance provided in the Government Performance and Results Act of  1993.  In addition, we reviewed reports by GAO, other congressional  research offices, DOD, and other organizations.  We constructed, pre- tested, and administered an e-mail survey to 225 installation-level PFM  managers.  During site visits to 13 military installations located in the  United States and Germany, we requested documents pertaining to the  implementation and evaluation of each installation’s PFM programs, and  we used structured interviews to gather data from a variety of personnel on  the 13 installations: command leaders, the manager of the PFM programs,  financial counselors, DOD civilian and military attorneys in the Judge  Advocate General corps, chaplains, and staff from the relief/aid societies;  and separate discussion groups composed of 232 officers, senior enlisted  personnel, and junior enlisted personnel who had recently returned from  deployment and 112 who had not deployed, as well as 76 spouses of  servicemembers who had not deployed or had recently returned from a  deployment to address all three questions. While information from these  discussion groups is not generalizable to the entire DOD population of  active duty servicemembers, it provides context for findings in the report.   The in-depth information about the PFM programs on the 13 installations  was supplemented with information obtained from 3 group discussions  with a total of 50 personnel affiliated with the PFM programs while they  attended a November 2004 conference.  We obtained and reviewed other  information such as service and installation PFM training materials and  installation accreditation reports.  We reviewed and analyzed DOD’s 2003  active duty survey to obtain information on the impact of deployment on  servicemembers’ finances.  The March 2003 survey had a response rate of  35 percent.  DOD has conducted and reported on research to assess the  impact of this response rate on overall estimates.  They found that, among  other characteristics, junior enlisted personnel (E1 to E4), servicemembers  who do not have a college degree, and members in services other than the  Air Force were more likely to be non-respondents.  We have no reason to  believe that potential non-response bias not otherwise accounted for by  DOD’s research is substantial for the variables we studied in this report.   Therefore, we concluded the data to be sufficiently reliable to address our  objectives. Further details regarding our scope and methodology are  presented in appendix I.  Data obtained from our discussion groups at the  13 installations are summarized in appendix II.  We performed our work  from March 2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Because large numbers of Americans lack knowledge about basic personal  economics and financial planning, U.S. policymakers and others have been  focusing on financial literacy, i.e., the ability to make informed judgments  and to take effective actions regarding the current and future use and  management of money.  While informed consumers can choose  appropriate financial investments, products, and services, those who  exercise poor money management and financial decision making can lower  their family’s standard of living and interfere with crucial long-term goals.
One vehicle for promoting the financial literacy of Americans is the  congressionally created Financial Literacy and Education Commission.   Created in 2003, the Commission is charged with (1) developing a national  strategy to promote financial literacy and education for all Americans;  (2) coordinating financial education efforts among federal agencies and  among the federal government, state and local governments, non-profit  organizations, and private enterprises; and (3) identifying areas of overlap  and duplication among federal financial literacy activities.
To minimize financial burdens on servicemembers, DOD has requested and  Congress has increased cash compensation for active duty military  personnel over the last 5 years.  For example, the average increases in  military basic pay have exceeded the average increases in private-sector  wages for each of the past 5 years.  Also, DOD has a plan to totally  eliminate out-of-pocket expenses that servicemembers pay when living in  private-sector housing from 19 percent in fiscal year 2000 to zero in fiscal  year 2005.
Furthermore, in April 2003, Congress increased the family separation  allowance from $100 to $250 per month and hostile fire/imminent danger  pay from $150 to $225 per month for eligible deployed servicemembers.
The family separation allowance is designed to provide compensation for  servicemembers with dependents for the added expenses incurred because  of involuntary separations such as deployments in support of contingency  operations like Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The expenses include extra  childcare costs, automobile maintenance, or home repairs the deployed  servicemember would normally do while home.  Hostile fire/imminent  danger pay provides special pay for “duty subject to hostile fire or  imminent danger” and is designed to compensate servicemembers for  physical danger.  Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and many other  nearby countries have been declared imminent danger zones.  In addition  to these special pays, some or all income that active duty servicemembers  earn in a combat zone is tax free.
Since at least the 1980s, the military services have offered PFM programs to  help servicemembers address their financial conditions.  Among other  things, the PFM programs provide financial literacy training to  servicemembers, particularly to junior enlisted personnel during their first  months in the military.  The group-provided financial literacy training is  supplemented with other types of financial management assistance, often  on a one-on-one basis.  For example, servicemembers might obtain one-on- one counseling from staff in their unit or legal assistance attorneys at the  installation.
In May 2003, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness, DOD’s policy office for the PFM programs, established its  Financial Readiness Campaign, with objectives that include increasing  personal readiness by, among other things, (1) increasing financial  awareness and abilities and (2) increasing savings and reducing  dependence on credit.  The Campaign attempts to accomplish these  objectives largely by providing on-installation PFM program providers with  access to national-level programs, products, and support through links  from DOD’s Web site (www.dodpfm.org) to other Web sites, tools, and  contacts.
Figure 1 illustrates some of the major types of financial management  training and assistance available to servicemembers (see app. III for  additional details).  For instance, most active duty military installations  have an on-site manager who implements the service’s PFM programs.   Among other things, PFM program managers and others teach classes and  offer counseling on financial issues, ranging from basic budgeting and  checkbook management to purchasing a car.  In addition, the PFM program  managers might work closely with the services’ relief/aid societies.  The  relief/aid societies offer grants or no interest loans for emergency  situations.  Figure 1 also shows that servicemembers may choose to use  non-DOD resources if, for example, they do not want the command to be  aware of their financial conditions or they need products or support not  offered through DOD, the services, or the installation.
section_title: Financial Conditions Similar for Deployed and Non-Deployed Servicemembers, but Pay Administration and Communication Problems Exist for Deployed Members
paragraphs: DOD-wide survey data suggest that the financial conditions of deployed  and non-deployed personnel are similar, but problems were found with the  administration of a special pay to deployed personnel, as well as the ability  of deployed servicemembers to communicate with creditors.   Servicemembers who were deployed for at least 30 days reported similar  levels of financial health or problems as those who had not deployed when  they responded to a 2003 DOD-wide survey.  However, some deployed  servicemembers are not obtaining their family separation allowance on a  monthly basis while they are deployed and separated from the families.   And, problems communicating with creditors—caused by limited Internet  access, few telephones and high fees, and delays in receiving ground mail— can affect deployed servicemembers’ abilities to resolve financial issues.
subsections: section_title: Data Suggest Financial Conditions of Deployed Servicemembers and Their Families Similar to Non- Deployed Servicemembers and Their Families
paragraphs: Data from DOD suggest that the financial conditions for deployed and non- deployed servicemembers and their families are similar.  Figure 2 shows  estimates of servicemembers’ financial conditions based on their responses  to a 2003 DOD-wide survey.  For each of the five response options, the  findings for servicemembers who were on a deployment for at least 30 days  were very similar to those of servicemembers who had not deployed during  that time.  An additional analysis of the responses for only junior enlisted  personnel showed similar responses for the two groups.  For example, 3  percent of the deployed group and 2 percent of the non-deployed group  indicated that they were in “over their heads” financially; and 13 percent of  the deployed group and 15 percent of non-deployed group responded that  they found it “tough to make ends meet but keeping your head above  water” financially.  These responses are consistent with the findings that  we obtained in a survey of all PFM program managers and during our 13  site visits.  In the survey of PFM program managers, about 21 percent  indicated that they believed servicemembers are better off financially after  a deployment; about 54 percent indicated that the servicemembers are  about the same financially after a deployment; and about 25 percent  believed the servicemembers are worse off financially after a deployment.   Also, 90 percent of the 232 recently deployed servicemembers surveyed in  our focus groups said that their financial situations either improved or  remained about the same after a deployment.
The special pays and allowances that some servicemembers receive when  deployed, particularly to dangerous locations, may be one reason for the  similar findings for the deployed and non-deployed groups.  The  hypothetical situations shown in table 1 demonstrate that deployment- related special pays and allowances can increase servicemembers’ total  cash compensation by hundreds of dollars per month.  Moreover, as we  noted previously in the Background section of this report, some or all  income that servicemembers earn while serving in a combat zone is tax  free.
The 2003 DOD survey also asked servicemembers whether they had  experienced various types of negative financial events.  The differences in  percentages were small between the deployed and non-deployed groups.   As figure 3 shows, the largest of the three differences was 4 percentage  points and pertained to falling behind in paying bills.
section_title: Several Thousand Deployed Servicemembers Not Receiving Family Separation Allowance Promptly
paragraphs: Based on DOD data for January 2005, almost 6,000 of 71,000 deployed  servicemembers who have dependents did not obtain their family  separation allowance in a timely manner.  The family separation  allowance of $250 per month is designed to compensate servicemembers  for extra expenses that result when they are involuntarily separated from  their families.  Servicemembers in our focus groups told us that the family  separation allowance helps their families with added costs encountered  during their absence such as childcare costs, automobile maintenance, and  home repairs.  Delays in obtaining family separation allowances could  cause undue hardship for some families faced with such extra expenses.
Table 2 shows the amount of family separation allowance received in  January 2005 by servicemembers who were deployed and receiving hostile  fire pay.  No Marines received more than the prescribed $250 monthly  allowance for January, but approximately 10 percent of the Army and Navy  servicemembers and nearly 5 percent of the Air Force personnel who were  entitled to the $250 monthly allowance received more than that prescribed  amount.  This indicates that servicemembers for three of the services had  not received the $250 allowance on a monthly basis and were given catch- up, lump sum payments.  In total, almost 6,000 servicemembers received  more than the prescribed $250 monthly allowance, with 11 servicemembers  (1.5 percent) receiving a $3,000 catch-up, lump sum payment—the  equivalent of 12 months of family separation pay.  We have previously  reported similar findings for the administration of family separation  allowance to Army Reserve soldiers and recommended that the Secretary  of the Army, in conjunction with the DOD Comptroller, clarify and simplify  procedures and forms for implementing the family separation allowance  entitlement policy.
The services have different procedures that servicemembers must perform  to obtain the family separation allowance, and some of these procedures  are confusing and are not always followed.  For example, an Army  regulation states that soldiers must file a DD Form 1561 (Statement to  Substantiate Payment of Family Separation Allowance) to substantiate  eligibility to receive the allowance, along with a copy of the travel voucher  to indicate the period of entitlement—which implies family separation  allowance is received after deployment because substantiating documents  are generally provided upon completion of travel with a voucher.  The  Army’s pay manual, however, states that only a DD Form 1561 is required to  receive family separation allowance.  Officials at the Defense Finance and  Accounting Service and Army Finance Office stated that, although they  were following this regulation, they were requiring the DD Form 1561 prior  to departure so soldiers could receive family separation allowance during  deployment, which is contrary to the Army regulation.  In contrast,  Defense Finance and Accounting Service procedures for Air Force  servicemembers state that servicemembers may substantiate eligibility to  receive family separation allowance prior to departure, using the travel  order and the DD Form 1561.  By using the travel order, Air Force  servicemembers can receive family separation allowance during  deployment.  However, elsewhere in the Defense Finance and Accounting  procedures, it notes that most Air Force members are paid family  separation allowance upon returning from deployment.  In April 2003, Air  Force officials attempted to clear up any confusion over how Air Force  personnel should initiate payments of family separation allowance, by  sending a message to a Defense Finance and Accounting official stating  that family separation allowance paperwork should be filed before  servicemembers depart for deployment.  Despite this subsequent change,  Air Force servicemembers in our June 2004 focus group noted that they  had not received the family separation allowance during their deployments.   An August 2004 message from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service  reminded Air Force finance officials of this policy change.
DOD officials suggested many factors other than policy-implementation  differences to explain why some eligible servicemembers are not receiving  their family separation allowance on a monthly basis.  Officials at the  Defense Finance and Accounting Service and at service finance offices  suggested that servicemembers might not obtain the allowance monthly  because they are not aware of the benefit, they do not file the required  eligibility form, they file incorrect documentation, or errors or delays occur  when the unit enters the information into the pay system.  Others noted  that servicemembers may elect to receive the allowance as a one-time lump  sum payment.
section_title: Problems Communicating with Creditors and Families During Deployment May Cause Financial Difficulties
paragraphs: Servicemembers may experience financial difficulties as a result of  communication constraints while deployed.  In our March 2004 testimony,  we documented some of the problems associated with mail delivery to  deployed troops.  With regard to deployed servicemembers’ financial  management, our focus group participants, surveyed PFM program  managers, and interviewed installation officials noted that delays in  receiving correspondence from creditors have resulted in late payments  and possibly longer-term problems for servicemembers.  The longer-term  problems might include negative information about the late payments  being entered in one’s financial credit report, which could make it more  difficult or expensive for servicemembers to obtain credit in the future.   Similarly, limited access to telephones or Internet can have negative  financial effects such as (1) delaying or preventing contact with a creditor  when a financial issue arises, (2) making it impossible to electronically  transfer money from a financial institution to a creditor, and (3) incurring  overdraft expenses because the spouse could not be informed in a timely  manner about a cash advance that the servicemember requested.
Individuals in our focus groups suggested that the access to Internet and  telephones may not be the same across the pay grades and services.  For  example, some servicemembers noted that deployed junior enlisted  personnel sometimes had less access to Internet than did senior deployed  personnel, making it difficult for the former to keep up with their bills.  In  addition, some Army servicemembers told us that they (1) could not call  stateside toll-free numbers because the numbers were inaccessible from  overseas or (2) incurred substantial costs—sometimes $1 per minute—to  call stateside creditors.  In contrast, Air Force servicemembers in Germany  said that the cost of calls to stateside creditors from Iraq or Afghanistan  was not an issue for them because the Air Force had provided telephone  calling cards that could be used to make such calls free of charge.
Failure to avoid or promptly correct financial problems can result in  negative consequences for servicemembers.  This includes increased debt  for servicemembers, bad credit histories, and poor performance of their  duties when distracted by financial problems.  In addition, servicemembers  who cannot stay on top of their finances, while deployed, may require  assistance from officials in their chain of command to address financial  problems, which takes those officials from their normal military duties.   This can translate into adverse effects on a unit’s readiness and morale.
section_title: DOD Does Not Have the Oversight Framework Needed to Assess the Effectiveness of PFM Programs
paragraphs: DOD lacks the results-oriented, departmentwide data needed to assess the  effectiveness of its PFM programs and provide the necessary oversight.   The principles of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993  offer federal agencies a methodology to establish a results-oriented  framework that includes strategic plans for program activities that  identifies, among other things, program goals, performance measures, and  reporting on the degree to which goals are met.  These principles would  assist DOD in shifting the focus of accountability for its PFM program from  outputs, such as the number of training classes provided, to outcomes,  such as impact of training on servicemembers’ financial behavior.
The November 2004 DOD instruction that provides guidance to the services  on servicemembers’ financial management does not address program  evaluation or the reports that services should supply to DOD for its  oversight role.  However, an earlier draft of the instruction included these  requirements.  In our 2003 report, we noted that the earlier draft  instruction emphasized evaluating the programs and cited metrics such as  the number of delinquent government credit cards, servicemembers with  wages garnished, and administrative actions for financial indebtedness and  irresponsibility taken under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  When  asked what caused the evaluation and oversight reporting requirements to  be dropped from the finalized instruction, DOD officials said that they were  eliminated because of objections voiced by the services.  The DOD officials  told us that the services did not want the additional reporting requirements.
DOD’s 2002 Social Compact noted that the impact of efforts to improve  financial literacy cannot be determined without effective evaluation.  The  Social Compact also stated that a systematic approach to measuring PFM  programs is needed to identify best practices and improved program  performance.  Currently, the only DOD-wide evaluative data available for  assessing the PFM programs and servicemembers’ financial conditions are  obtained from a general-purpose annual survey that focuses on the  financial conditions of servicemembers as well as a range of other non- related issues.  The data are limited because DOD policy officials for the  PFM programs can only include a few financial related items to this  general-purpose survey.  Additionally, a response rate of 35 percent on the  March 2003 active duty survey leads to questions about the generalizability  of the findings.  Furthermore, DOD has no means for confirming the self- reported information for survey items that ask about objective events such  as filing for bankruptcy.  Without a policy requiring common evaluation  DOD-wide and reporting relationships among DOD and the services, DOD  will continue to have limited oversight to make improvements in the PFM  programs and limited ability to achieve a standardized evaluation system.   In addition, Congress will not have the visibility or oversight it needs to  address issues related to DOD’s financial management training and  assistance to servicemembers.
Currently, service-specific efforts to assess the PFM programs are largely in  their early stages.  The services told us that they are developing outcome  measures for evaluating their PFM programs, but none was operational at  the time of our review.  In Spring 2005, the Navy plans to develop and refine  Navy-wide metrics such as the number of sailors performing good and poor  financial behaviors, e.g., participating in the government’s retirement plan,  filing for bankruptcy, and bouncing checks.  Similarly, in the third quarter  of fiscal year 2005, Army officials said they expect to implement outcome  measures for assessing programs such as Financial Readiness, Family  Advocacy, and Relocation Readiness.  The Marine Corps and Air Force did  not provide details for their plans to develop results-oriented data or  indicate when evaluation systems would be operational.  Additionally, our  visits to 13 installations in the United States and Germany revealed much  variability with regard to the use of performance metrics.  The installations  that provided us with their metrics often used output measures such as the  number of people trained, rather than results-oriented outcome measures.
section_title: Some Junior Enlisted Servicemembers Are Not Receiving Required PFM Training
paragraphs: Some junior enlisted servicemembers are not receiving the required PFM  training.  While each of the services implements PFM training differently,  all of the services have policies requiring that PFM training must be  provided to junior enlisted servicemembers.  At the time of our review, the  services’ policies varied on where and when the initial training should  occur.  For example, the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force regulations  required the training at the servicemembers’ first duty station; however, the  Navy guidance required such training prior to the servicemembers’ first  duty station.
Despite having these policies, some servicemembers have not received the  required training, but the extent to which the training is not received is  unknown because servicewide totals are not always collected.  Table 3  shows how each service monitors PFM training.  The Marine Corps, for  example, only tracks PFM training at the unit level and does not tabulate  these data for a servicewide total.  As shown in the table, the Army was the  only service that collected installation-level PFM data and could provide a  rough servicewide estimate of PFM training completed by junior enlisted  servicemembers.  Overall, the Army estimates that about 82 percent of its  junior enlisted soldiers completed PFM training in fiscal year 2003, leaving  18 percent who did not receive training.  PFM program staff at five of the  six Army installations we visited told us that required PFM training was not  being provided to all first-term soldiers.  Some of the senior Army officers  at these installations acknowledged the need to provide the PFM training to  junior enlisted servicemembers but also noted that current deployment  schedules limited the time available to prepare soldiers for their  warfighting mission.  The officers said they believed that improving  servicemembers’ ability to perform duties related to their mission (e.g.,  firing a weapon) was more important than improving their personal  financial literacy.
In addition to how the services monitor servicemembers’ completion of  PFM training, table 3 also shows that the services’ requirements for PFM  training for junior enlisted personnel differ on three other characteristics:  where the requirements are documented, the length of training, and when  the training is administered.
The Navy is the only service that specifies in servicewide regulations the  number of hours of PFM training that junior enlisted servicemembers  must complete.  The oversight office for the Army identified the number  of hours of required PFM training for first-term soldiers in a 1998  memorandum to the Army Chief of Staff.  The Air Force and Marine  Corps do not specify the number of hours in servicewide regulations or  other documents.
The Navy’s required length of PFM training for junior enlisted  servicemembers is 4 hours longer than the Army requirement.  The Air  Force and Marine Corps have no minimum requirement pertaining to  the length of the PFM training provided on its installations.
The services use different schedules for identifying when PFM training  is to be administered.  PFM managers noted that these schedules take  into account service-specific constraints, such as the length of time  available for PFM training at servicemembers’ first duty station.
Top-level DOD officials have stated repeatedly that financial issues have a  direct effect on servicemembers’ mission readiness and that the lack of  basic consumer skills and training in finances sets the stage for financial  difficulties.  For example, we reported in 2003 that a 2002 Navy report to  Congress had identified $250 million in productivity and salary losses due  to poor personal financial management by servicemembers.  Therefore,  units whose servicemembers do not receive required PFM training risk  jeopardizing their ability to meet mission requirements.
Some services are taking steps to improve their monitoring of PFM  training.  During the second quarter of 2005, the Army officials said they  hope to implement Army’s Client Tracking System that will allow the  service as well as current and future installations to track the financial  counseling and training that servicemembers receive.  The Marine Corps is  updating its order on personal services and developing a system to track  financial management training.  While such steps may improve the  monitoring of PFM training completion—an important output—they still  do not address the larger issues of training outcomes such as whether or  not PFM training helps servicemembers to manage their finances better.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although DOD-wide data show that the financial conditions for deployed  and non-deployed servicemembers and their families are similar, some  deployed servicemembers experience delays in obtaining their monthly  family separation allowance.  Not receiving this compensation each month  to help defray extra household costs incurred when the servicemembers  are deployed can result in financial hardship for the servicemembers’  family.  Without changes to the administration of the family separation  allowance, DOD risks placing a further financial strain on servicemembers.   In addition, problems communicating with creditors during deployment  can cause financial difficulties for servicemembers.  Limited Internet  access, delays in ground mail, and the high cost of calling from overseas  often prevent servicemembers from promptly contacting creditors when  financial issues arise.  Delays in responding to creditors can result in  serious consequences, including bad credit ratings for the servicemembers  and adverse effects on unit readiness and morale.
While DOD states in its Social Compact that a standardized evaluation  system to measure the effectiveness of the PFM programs is a desired goal,  the department does not have an oversight framework that includes the  performance measures and reporting requirements needed to fully measure  results from its programs.  In addition, the absence of evaluation and  reporting requirements in DOD’s newly issued instruction on personnel  financial management suggests that DOD will continue to have limited  visibility and oversight over the PFM programs and little ability to require  standardized assessments of the PFM programs.  These deficiencies, in  turn, will limit Congress’ ability to address issues related to DOD’s PFM  programs.
While DOD and service officials have acknowledged that the lack of PFM  training sets the stage for servicemembers having financial difficulties  later, high deployment levels limit the time available for some  servicemembers to take the PFM training.  The absence of servicewide  systems for monitoring the completion of this required training could result  in some servicemembers never being provided such training if they are  unable to take it at the prescribed time.  Moreover, the lack of a monitoring  system also will hamper efforts to improve PFM training since it will be  impossible to establish a measurable relationship between whether or not  someone completed training and how well they subsequently managed  their finances.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Actions
paragraphs: To address issues related to servicemembers’ financial management, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take the following four actions:  Take the necessary steps, in conjunction with the Defense Finance and  Accounting Service and the services, to ensure servicemembers receive  family separation allowances on a monthly basis during deployments.   These steps might include those recommended in our prior review of  Army Reserve pay, such as clarifying and simplifying procedures and  forms implementing family separation allowance entitlements or having  DOD and the operational components of the services work together to  ensure family separation allowance entitlement eligibility form is  received by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to start the  allowance when the servicemember is entitled to it.
Identify and implement, with the services, steps that can be taken to  allow deployed servicemembers better communications with creditors.   These steps may include increasing Internet access and providing toll- free telephone access for deployed servicemembers when they need to  address personal financial issues.
Develop and implement, in conjunction with the services, a DOD-wide  oversight framework with a results-oriented evaluation plan for the PFM  programs and formalize DOD’s oversight role by including evaluation  and reporting requirements in the PFM instruction.
Require the services to develop and implement a tactical plan with time- based milestones to show how the appropriate service policy office will  monitor financial management training and thereby ensure that junior  enlisted servicemembers receive the required training.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: On March 17, 2005, we provided a draft of this report to DOD for review  and comment.  As of the time this report went to final printing, DOD had  not provided comments as requested.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date.  At that time we will provide copies of this report to interested  congressional committees and the Secretary of Defense.  We will also make  copies available to others upon request.  This report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-5559 (stewartd@gao.gov) or Jack E. Edwards at (202) 512- 8246 (edwardsj@gao.gov).  Other staff members who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In addressing the objectives of our engagement, we limited our scope to  active duty servicemembers because we have previously issued a number  of reports on the compensation, benefits, and pay-related problems of  reservists.  Emphasis was placed on servicemembers who had returned  from a deployment within the last year because these individuals were  most likely to have recent personal knowledge of deployment-related  financial issues, as well as familiarity with financial issues of  servicemembers serving on installations in the United States.  During the  course of our work, we visited 13 installations with high deployment levels,  as identified by service officials (see table 4).  During these site visits to  installations in the United States and Germany, special emphasis was given  to ascertaining the financial conditions of junior enlisted servicemembers  because DOD and service officials have reported that this subgroup is more  likely to encounter financial problems.
To address the extent to which there is a financial impact of deployment on  active duty servicemembers and their families, we reviewed and analyzed  laws, policies, and directives governing military pay, such as the  Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and DOD’s Financial Management  Regulation 7000.14R, Volume 7A, as well as documents related to the tax  treatment of military pay, including the Internal Revenue Service Armed  Forces’ Tax Guide: For Use in Preparing 2003 Returns.  We also reviewed  and analyzed GAO reports on military compensation and deployment and  reports from other agencies, including DOD, the Congressional Research  Service, and the Congressional Budget Office.  We contacted the Federal  Trade Commission to ascertain what data were available through Military  Sentinel on servicemembers’ financial conditions and complaints.  We  conducted focus groups and surveyed servicemembers and spouses and  held individual interviews with PFM program managers, non- commissioned officers, and legal assistance attorneys at installations we  visited to obtain their perspectives on the impact of deployment on  servicemembers.  We also compared and contrasted results of our survey  of servicemembers and spouses with data obtained through DOD-wide  active duty surveys from 2003 for face validity and to identify trends and  other indicators of financial impact.  We assessed the reliability of survey  data that DOD uses to obtain information on the financial conditions of  servicemembers and their families.  The March 2003 survey had a response  rate of 35 percent.  DOD has conducted and reported on research to assess  the impact of this response rate on overall estimates.  They found that,  among other characteristics, junior enlisted personnel (E1 to E4),  servicemembers who do not have a college degree, and members in  services other than the Air Force were more likely to be non-respondents.   We have no reason to believe that potential non-response bias not  otherwise accounted for by DOD’s research is substantial for the variables  we studied in this report.  Therefore, we concluded the data to be  sufficiently reliable to address our objectives. Additional perspectives  regarding the financial impact of deployment were obtained in interviews  with DOD and service policy officials.  Still other perspectives were  obtained from installation officials using the structured interviews and an  e-mail survey to all PFM program managers.  This information was  supplemented with information obtained from three group discussions  with a total of 50 personnel affiliated with the PFM programs while they  attended a November 2004 conference.  We also reviewed family separation  allowance data from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service for  servicemembers who were deployed and receiving imminent danger pay in  January 2005.
To facilitate the data gathering process for all three questions, we  developed and pre-tested four types of data collection instruments.  The  content of the instruments was identified through review of policies,  reports, and other materials, and from interviews with DOD and service  officials.
Structured questionnaires and focus group protocols were used to  increase the likelihood that the questions were asked and procedures  were conducted in a standardized manner, regardless of which GAO  analyst conducted the interviews and focus groups during the 13 site  visits.  While the interviews and focus groups provided valuable  qualitative data to illustrate important issues, the findings were not  generalizeable to the population of all active duty servicemembers  because of the small non-random samples of personnel who  participated in the data collection sessions.
Separate structured interview protocols were created for seven types  of officials: installation commanders, PFM program managers, senior  non-commissioned officers (E8 to E9), legal assistance attorneys,  chaplains, command financial specialists, and officials representing  service relief/aid societies.  While some of the questions were the  same or very similar for some issues, the content of the structured  interviews was tailored to the type of official interviewed.
A single focus group protocol, with seven central questions and  follow-up questions, was used to solicit information from each of the  four types of homogeneous groups: junior enlisted servicemembers  (E1 to E4), non-commissioned officers (E5 to E9), company-grade  officers (O1 to O3), and spouses of servicemembers who had  recently returned from deployments.
An anonymous survey was administered at the beginning of each  focus group to obtain specific, sensitive (e.g., financial difficulties  experienced by the servicemembers and their families) information  that focus group participants might not feel comfortable discussing  with other servicemembers present.  Administering the survey before  the focus group questions were asked allowed us to quantify  participants’ perspectives and situations, without the  servicemembers being influenced by the subsequent discussions.
An e-mail survey was administered to the DOD-wide population of 225  PFM program managers identified by service officials.  The response  rate for the survey was 74 percent.  Because we surveyed the population  of PFM program managers and obtained a sufficiently high response  rate, the findings from this survey are generalizeable to the population  of all PFM managers.
To assess the adequacy of DOD’s oversight framework for evaluating  military programs that assist both deployed and non-deployed  servicemembers in managing their personal finances, we reviewed DOD’s,  the services’, and selected installations’ PFM program policies, along with  DOD’s strategic and tactical plans for implementing the PFM programs.  In  addition, we reviewed DOD’s 2002 report on Personal and Family Financial  Management Programs submitted to the House of Representatives Armed  Services Committee.  The Government Performance and Results Act of  1993 and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  provided model criteria for determining the adequacy of the oversight  framework.  We gathered perspectives about the outcome measures to  evaluate the PFM programs from DOD and service-level officials, along  with responses from the previously mentioned discussion groups at the  November 2004 conference and the DOD-wide survey of PFM managers.   We reviewed and analyzed data related to the effectiveness of the PFM  programs from DOD-wide active duty survey conducted in 2003.  We also  reviewed accreditation reports for installation PFM programs, where  available, and other materials documenting the use or effectiveness of PFM  programs.  Finally, we attended a GAO-sponsored forum in November 2004,  in which a select group of individuals with expertise in financial literacy  and education developed recommendations on the role of the federal  government in improving financial literacy among consumers.
To assess the extent to which DOD and the services provide PFM training  to junior enlisted servicemembers, we examined the regulations and other  materials that document PFM training requirements such as the number of  hours of training provided and when the training should occur.  We  reviewed DOD’s, the services’, and selected installations’ PFM training  materials, and procedures for monitoring completion of the training.  We  also reviewed reports issued by GAO, DOD, and other organizations that  addressed the PFM programs or the content and delivery of similar  programs designed to either increase financial literacy or address financial  problems.  Additionally, we interviewed service headquarters, as well as  installation PFM officials about required training for junior enlisted  servicemembers and how it is administered and monitored.
subsections: section_title: Sampling Error and Non-Sampling Error
paragraphs: The e-mail survey that was administered by GAO to the DOD-wide  population of 225 PFM program managers is not subject to sampling error  since it was sent to the universe of PFM program managers.  With a  response rate for the survey of 74 percent and no clear differences between  respondents and non-respondents, the findings from this survey are  generalizeable to the population of all PFM managers.  Our PFM survey had  differential response rates that were as low as 65 percent for the Air Force  and as high as 89 percent for the Navy.
The questionnaire provided to focus group participants was to gather  supplemental information only and is not generalizable to DOD, but rather  to those who participated in our focus groups only.
Because DOD surveyed a sample of servicemembers in its 2003 active duty  survey, their results are estimates and are subject to sampling errors.   However, the practical difficulties in conducting surveys of this type may  introduce other types of errors, commonly known as non-sampling errors.  Non-sampling errors can include problem(s) with the list from which the  sample was selected, non-response in obtaining data from sample  members, and/or inadequacies in obtaining correct data from respondents.  These errors are in addition to the sampling errors.  In this survey, the  response rate was 35 percent. The estimates obtained from the  respondents will differ from the population value to the extent that values  for non-respondents are different, in the aggregate, from values for  respondents.
section_title: Non-Sampling Error and Data Quality
paragraphs: We conducted in-depth pre-testing of the PFM program manager survey, as  well as the questionnaire disseminated to focus group participants, to  minimize measurement error. However, the practical difficulties in  conducting surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors,  commonly known as non-sampling errors. For example, measurement  errors can be introduced if (1) respondents have difficulty interpreting a  particular question, (2) respondents have access to different amounts of  information in answering a question, or (3) those entering raw survey data  make key-entry errors. We took extensive steps to minimize such errors in  developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and editing and analyzing  the information. For example, we edited all surveys for consistency before  sending them for key-entry. All questionnaire responses were double key- entered into our database (that is, the entries were 100 percent verified),  and a random sample of the questionnaires was further verified for  completeness and accuracy. In addition, we performed computer analyses  to identify inconsistencies and other indicators of errors.
DOD also pre-tested its questionnaire to minimize measurement error and  performed analysis to assess non-response error.
We performed our work from March 2004 through February 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Findings from GAO-led Focus Groups Held at 13 Installations
paragraphs: We held focus group sessions at the 13 military installations we visited  during the course of this engagement to obtain servicemembers’  perspectives on a broad range of topics, including the impact of  deployment on servicemembers’ finances and the types of lenders military  families use, along with the PFM training and assistance provided to  servicemembers by DOD and service programs (see app. I for a list of  installations visited).  Servicemembers who participated in the focus  groups were divided into three types of groups: junior enlisted personnel  (E1 to E4), mid-grade and senior enlisted personnel (E5 to E9), and junior  officers (O1 to O3).  Although we requested to meet with servicemembers  who had returned from a deployment within the last 12 months, some  servicemembers who had not yet deployed also participated in the focus  groups.  At some installations, we also held separate focus groups with  spouses of servicemembers.  Typically, focus groups consisted of 6 to 12  participants.
We developed a standard protocol, with seven central questions and  several follow-up questions, to assist the GAO moderator in leading the  focus group discussions.  The protocol was pre-tested during our first  installation visit and was used at the remaining 12 installations.  During  each focus group session, the GAO moderator posed questions to  participants who, in turn, provided their perspectives on the topics  presented.  We essentially used the same questions for each focus group,  with some slight variations to questions posed to the spouse groups.
We sorted the 2,090 summary statements resulting from the 60 focus  groups into categories of themes through a systematic content analysis.   First, our staff reviewed the responses and agreed on response categories.   Then, two staff members independently placed responses into the  appropriate response categories.  A third staff member resolved any  discrepancies.
Below, we have identified the seven questions and sample  responses/statements associated with each question.  The themes and the  number of installations for which a statement about a theme was cited are  provided in italics.  Also, two examples of the statements categorized in the  theme are provided.  Only those themes cited at a minimum of three  installations are presented.  The number of installations—rather than the  number of statements—is provided because (1) the focus of this  engagement was on DOD-wide issues and (2) a lengthy discussion in a  single focus group may have generated numerous comments. 1. How has deployment affected military families financially in  your unit? 1.a. Other reason deployment affects families financially (N=13)
Example: Financial problems stem from relationship problems.
Many Marines file for divorce when they return from a deployment.
Example: Another sailor said they have to buy a lot of supplies, such  as stocks of deodorant and other toiletries, to take on the  deployment.  The government does not pay for those supplies. 1.b. Better financially – increased income (N=13)
Example: A soldier stated that his family was barely making ends  meet when he left for a deployment.  However, when he returned, his  wife had paid off all of the bills and saved some of the money.  He and  his wife look forward to deployments as a way to catch up on  expenses and savings.
Example: Some cited receiving additional hazardous/combat duty  pay and attendant tax exemptions during deployment as reasons for  the financial benefits. In addition, some servicemembers mentioned  that they no longer had to pay rent and incur related household  expenses such as food and other household goods while deployed.  The additional money allowed families to pay off debts and  outstanding bills. 1.c. Worse financially – increased needs (e.g., childcare and  transportation) (N=12)
Example: Deployment worsens some servicemembers’ finances  because childcare expenses increased.  In many instances, to avoid  having childcare expenses, one parent will work during the day and  one during the night.  When the servicemember deploys, the  remaining spouse must find suitable daycare for the children.  This is  an added expense the deployment forces on the family.
Example: During a deployment there are more expenses because the  spouse has to pay for things that the servicemember would usually  do personally, like house and car repairs. 1.d. Worse financially – other (N=11)
Example: The military encourages soldiers to obtain a power of  attorney before they deploy, but the power of attorney gives the  spouse access to all of the soldier’s finances.  In many cases, the  spouse has used this power to spend all of the soldier’s money.  One  soldier returned from his deployment to find that he only had $80 left  in his bank account.
Example: One unmarried soldier said he was 5 months behind in  paying his bills because he’s single and did not have anyone to help  him while he was deployed. 1.e. No change financially because of deployment (N=11)
Example: Overall, servicemembers are not really making more  money when they are deployed.  The additional pay and allowances  make up for the increased spending that a family must do when the  servicemember is not at home.
Example: Another servicemember stated that she was a single parent  and had to send her child back to the west coast with her parents.   She stated she came out about even financially because the extra  money she made was spent on the additional expenses to care for her  son. 1.f. Effect issue – servicemember has dependents (N=11)
Example: Single parents face an entirely different set of issues during  a deployment. For example, in many cases, the member will be the  only parent for a child; therefore, when that member is deployed  long-term childcare must be arranged.  In most situations, the  member will arrange for an immediate or extended family member to  assume the childcare responsibilities.
Example: Some Navy servicemembers said that the status of  personal finances during a deployment will vary based on the marital  status of the sailor.  For example, sailors with dependents will collect  more entitlements than those who are single. 1.g. Worse financially – increased wants (N=11)
Example: Some soldiers were buying expensive cars with their  deployment pays.  However, when the servicemembers returned  from deployment to their regular pay they were not able to afford  their deployment standards of living because the increase in income  and tax free status no longer applied.
Example: The spouse may be depressed during the deployment and  spend the money the soldier is being paid.  In these cases, they have  no one around telling them to save it or to pay the bills.  They shop to  fight the depression and to make themselves feel better. 1.h. Better financially – other (N=10)
Example: In some cases, the family’s finances actually improve  because the spouse takes control of the bills during the deployment.
Example: Another participant stated that she and her husband are  more financially responsible now compared to when they were  younger.  Thus, they are able to benefit more from the monetary  benefits of deployment. 1.i. Effect issue – personal ability to manage money (N=9)
Example: Poor post-deployment spending habits (e.g., buying a new  expensive car) of some single servicemembers caused them to lose  extra income earned during deployment.  This left them with more  debt than before they left for the deployment.
Example: In many cases, it is when the soldier returns from the  deployment that families will get into financial troubles.  During the  deployment, there is a significant increase in pay and an increase in  spending.  After the deployment, the servicemember’s pay returns to  normal and the family may have trouble dealing with the loss of  income, which can encourage increased debt. 1.j. Effect issue – servicemember does not have dependents (N=7)
Example: Single servicemembers seemed to fare better financially  because they do not incur the same expenses as married couples,  such as childcare and transportation costs.  The single member is  more likely to be living with roommates and when deployed, he/she  only has a small amount to pay for rent.  The married servicemember,  on the other hand, still has a mortgage to pay back home, along with  the additional expenses previously mentioned.
Example: Single servicemembers are better off financially because  they only have to take care of themselves financially. 1.k. Effect issue – where deployed (N=6)
Example: The effect on finances depends on the location to which a  servicemember is deployed.  The pay and allowances that a soldier  receives vary from location to location.  In some places, soldiers can  make a lot of money; in others, they will not.
Example: The financial impact of deployment depends on where an  officer was deployed.  In South Korea, servicemembers pay taxes and  do not receive extra pay, as did those who served in combat zones.  In  addition, individuals deployed to South Korea lost their Basic  Allowance for Housing, even though they needed it while deployed.   The officer needed to live off base because of a lack of housing on  base there.  This meant paying for two households, one on  deployment and one for the spouse and children at home. 1.l. Worse financially – loss of income (N=5)
Example: Some spouses mentioned that they know of some soldiers  that had to give up their second jobs when they left on the  deployment and the loss of this income had a big impact on the  family’s finances.
Example: While at their home station, sailors collect commuted  rations, also referred to as comrats.  Commuted rations are a pay  allowance given to sailors to cover the cost of meals incurred off  base when they are not serving on and eating aboard the ship.  When  a sailor goes out to sea, the commuted rations payments are stopped  and sea pay is started.  Also, a sailor is entitled to Career Sea special  pay, or sea pay, at a monthly rate of up to $750.  The actual amount of  sea pay varies based on the sailor’s rank and number of years served  and can range from $70 to $750 a month.  However, younger sailors  do not have enough time accrued on their sea pay clock to make up  for the loss of commuted rations pay.  Therefore, some families will  actually lose money during the deployment. 1.m. Better financially – decreased expenses (N=5)
Example: At some deployment locations, there is nowhere to spend  the extra income.  There are no bars, no daily expenses like gasoline,  and no phone bills.  Yet the Marines are being paid the additional  entitlements and pay.
Example: One participant said she thought her family’s finances were  in better shape during her husband’s deployment because he was not  able to spend the extra money he earned and the family was able to  save more money while he was deployed. 2. Could you tell me about servicemembers you know who have  gone through any financial difficulties such as declaring  bankruptcy, falling behind on bills, or having a car or appliance  repossessed? 2.a. Overspending/bad money management (N=13)
Example: There were servicemembers who ran into severe financial  problems after they returned from deployment due to overspending  and overextending themselves financially while they were deployed.
Example: Another participant said that he knew of a few junior  enlisted servicemembers who spent all their money on expensive  cars and other things, once they returned from deployment.  They did  not save any of the extra money they received. 2.b. Other experiences with financial difficulties (N=13)
Example: One airman experienced a situation in which a creditor   would not accept the automatic money transfer that was set up  before the deployment.
Example: One soldier’s ex-wife took him to court while he was  deployed in an attempt to obtain additional child support money.   Because of the additional entitlements and pay that the soldier was  collecting, the court increased the payments to match.  The soldier  was unable to return home or communicate to prevent the action or  mediate in the situation. 2.c. Defense Finance and Accounting Service errors (N=11)
Example: One of the airmen had a series of late payments during a  deployment because Defense Finance and Accounting Service did  not process an allotment correctly and the money was not getting  sent to the correct place.
Example: Almost all of the airmen knew someone who did not have  their pay entitlements stopped after returning from the deployment.   In most instances, Defense Finance and Accounting Service was  continuing to pay the entitlement for several months; unfortunately,  once the problem was resolved, Defense Finance and Accounting  Service took back the amount owed in one lump sum.  This left the  airmen with paychecks amounting to zero dollars. 2.d. Communication problems  (lack of Internet/e-mail/mail/phone)  (N=10)
Example: A servicemember stated that a major issue with  deployment was not being able to pay bills on time because the  infrastructure down range (combat zone) was not immediately set up  to deliver/send mail.
Example: During deployments, the junior enlisted personnel do not  have as much access to the Internet as the senior Marines.  This can  have a negative impact on their ability to access their checking and  other financial accounts, thereby impacting their ability to manage  their finances. 2.e. Difficulty maintaining checkbook/finances (N=10)
Example: Many servicemembers have the mentality that because  they earn the money it is theirs to manage.  When the soldier is at  home, he or she controls the finances; and when the soldier leaves,  the spouse does not know how to handle the bills, finances, or  budget.
Example: In many situations, single sailors may not have someone  back home to take care of their bills or manage their finances. 2.f. Car repossessed (N=9)
Example: Some soldiers spent their money quickly after they  returned from the deployment and bought expensive cars.  In a few  instances, these cars were repossessed because the soldiers could  not make the monthly payments.
Example: A soldier stated that some servicemembers’ allotments  were not processed, which resulted in their cars being repossessed.   This also left the servicemembers with a bad credit rating. 2.g. Did not experience financial difficulties during deployment  (N=6)
Example: A participant stated he knew of very few soldiers who were  negatively affected financially because of deployment.
Example: Those who fared well with their finances had relationships  with helpful people/spouses who were able to manage their finances  for the servicemembers while they were deployed. 2.h. Fell behind in bills (N=6)
Example: A servicemember said that he and his spouse had fallen  behind on paying their bills.
Example: A soldier said that a servicemember’s phone was  disconnected because his spouse went to another state to visit  relatives for 2 months and the phone bill was not paid. 2.i. Bankruptcy (N=5)
Example: Participants stated that they had heard of very few  servicemembers who had to file for bankruptcy as a result of  deployment.
Example: One of the officers was aware of a sergeant who had to file  bankruptcy upon returning from deployment.  During the  deployment, the sergeant’s spouse spent all of the extra money and  took out “a ton” of additional debt. 2.j. Problems with government credit card (N=4)
Example: The government travel card causes more problems than  other cards.  Sailors are traveling back to back with several  deployments and take out back to back debts.  The Travel Processing  Center may not process the travel claims in 10 days like they are  supposed to, so people are running up debt on the government travel  card that they cannot pay off.
Example: Sometimes servicemembers have had to pay (their  government travel card bill) with their own money while waiting for  funds to be provided/reimbursed by the government.  This takes  money out of their household and can affect their credit rating.  It can  take up to 2 months to get their money from the Defense Finance and  Accounting Service. 3. During your deployment, how did servicemembers in your unit  handle situations when there were financial problems at home? 3.a. Used in-theatre resources (chain of command, e-mail, Internet)  (N=10)
Example: Soldiers had to go through their chain of command to take  care of some of their financial situations and the issues were resolved  with the assistance of the chain of command.
Example: Most of the other participants said they had a non- commissioned officer log them onto the Internet to check on their  bills, and this helped them. 3.b. Used resources at home (family support center, family readiness  officer) (N=8)
Example: There are many people on base that help spouses during  the deployment. The key volunteers group that meets once or twice a  week is a good resource for the families to use if they need assistance  during the deployment.
Example: On Air Force bases, there is an abundance of assistance for  servicemembers with financial problems.  Information is provided  through:  First Term Airman Center, Personal Financial Counseling,  Air Force Aid Society, Air Force Assistance Fund, First Sergeants,  Finance, and the Judge Advocate General.  These are some of the  resources available to servicemembers for finance-related issues. 3.c. Other financial problems on homefront (N=5)
Example: Sometimes a single servicemember will leave advance rent  checks for the landlord of the apartment and the landlord will  deposit all of the checks at once, which results in overdrafts for the  servicemember.
Example: There are many instances of spouses back home that spend  all of the additional income that the Marine is making during the  deployment.  When the Marine returns, he or she will find all of their  money gone and nothing to show for it. 3.d. Waited until they got home (N=5)
Example: Some participants said they just waited to handle the  problems until after they returned home if they do not have anyone  to help them and the situation had not been brought to the  command’s attention.   They did not want the command involved in  their finances.
Example:  In instances where the servicemember’s spouse spends all  of the money, the member normally is not able to do anything until he  or she returns from the deployment. 4. What kind of financial assistance does your service or the  military need to take care of financial problems when people are  deployed? 4.a. Pre-deployment briefs (more information or briefs before  deployment notice received) (N=11)
Example: More financial awareness training prior to the deployment  would have helped alleviate many problems that individuals  experienced.  The current 2-minute brief is not enough.
Example: Even though the base legal office offers a will and power of  attorney class every Tuesday, some Marines are unable to attend.   The information in the classes needs to be incorporated into the pre- deployment briefings. 4.b. Other kinds of financial assistance needed (N=9)
Example: Small groups, such as married servicemembers with  children or single servicemembers, should be given specific attention  or focus when information on finances is distributed because the  different groups have different needs when it comes to finances.
Example: The First Term Airmen Center should give out warnings to  new airmen about which lenders around base are good to work with  and which ones are not so good.  4.c. Sustained training (provided throughout career) (N=7)
Example: Financial training should occur upfront and be proactive— not be reactive, like it is now.  Currently, classes are required only if  the soldier has written bad checks.
Example: More overall financial education is needed.  One soldier  was enlisted for 5 years before he got any formal financial  management training, and that was only because he got in trouble.   Education is the key in improving financial management. 4.d. Early training (boot camp, Advanced Individual Training)  (N=6)
Example: The military needs to provide more financial training in  basic/boot camp to include in-depth discussions of allotments,  deductions, and leave and earnings statements.  One soldier said he  did not know what a leave and earnings statement was until he came  to his unit.
Example: Financial training courses should be incorporated into  basic training or technical school.  By conducting this training early,  DOD may have an impact on initial purchase decisions made by  servicemembers. 5. What kinds of experiences have your fellow servicemembers or  subordinates had with predatory lenders? 5.a.Other issues regarding experiences with predatory lenders  (N=13)
Example: Business representatives will tell young Marines that they  can buy an item for a certain amount each month.  They keep the  Marine focused on the low monthly payments and not on the interest  rate or the term of the loan.
Example: Some Marines feel that a business would not take  advantage of them because they are in the military.  This leads them  to be more trusting of the local businesses than they should be,  which in turn, leads the businesses to take advantage of them. 5.b. Predatory lender used – car dealers (N=11)
Example: Most of the participants stated that the car dealerships  around the base were the worst predatory lenders because they  charge high interest rates and often provide cars that are “lemons.”   They said that most of the sales people at the dealerships are former  military who know how to talk to servicemembers to obtain the  members’ trust.  The servicemember does not expect this.
Example: One captain had a Marine in his unit who signed a contract  with a car dealer for a loan with 26 percent interest rate.  The captain  took the Marine to the Marine Credit Union and got him a new loan  with 9.5 percent interest rate. 5.c. Predatory lender used – payday lenders (N=10)
Example: A master sergeant got caught in the check-cashing cycle.
He would write a check at one payday lender in order to cover a  check written at another lender during a previous week.
Example: One participant told us that when he was a younger Marine  he got caught up with a payday lender.  The problem did not resolve  itself until he deployed and was not able to go to the lender anymore. 5.d. Reason for using predatory lender – get fast cash and no hassle  (N=10)
Example: People use payday lenders because they are quick and  easy.  All the soldiers have to do is to provide their leave and earnings  statement and they get the money.
Example: Most of the participants say they know people who have  used a payday lender, and those soldiers use them because they have  bad credit and can get quick cash. 5.e. Predatory lender targeting – close proximity and clustering  around bases (N=9)
Example: It is almost impossible to be unaware of lenders and  dealerships because many are clustered in close proximity to the  installation.  They also distribute flyers and use pervasive advertising  in local and installation papers.
Example: The stores and car lots near the installation use signs that  say “E1 and up approved” or “all military approved” to get the  attention of the military servicemembers. 5.f. Command role when contacted by creditors (N=8)
Example: The non-commissioned officers offer to go with the junior  enlisted to places like car dealers; but the young soldiers do not take  them up on these offers.
Example: One participant said that debt collectors do call his house  and the command.  He noted that one lender called him nine times in  one day and his Chief Petty Officer eventually asked the lender to  stop harassing his sailor. 5.g. Predatory lender targeting – advertising in installation/local  newspaper (N=7)
Example: Soldiers are being targeted by predatory lenders in a  variety of ways; for example, flyers are left on parked cars at the  barracks, advertising is done at installation functions, and words  such as “military” are used on every piece of advertising to make the  servicemember believe that the company is part of or supported by  the military.  The servicemember would normally trust lenders  associated with the military.
Example: Most predatory lenders have signs that say “military  approved” or have commercials that say the same thing or “E1 and  above approved.” 5.h. Reason for using predatory lender – urgent need (N=6)
Example: Many soldiers use payday lenders because they are in a  bind for money and they know these lenders can provide quick cash.
Example: Soldiers will use a payday lender because they need money  for a child, the kids, the house payment, etc.  In many cases, it does  not matter why they need it; they just need it.  So, they go where they  can get cash the fastest and the easiest way possible. 5.i. Predatory lender used – furniture/rent-to-own (N=6)
Example: One of the participants stated that he had obtained a loan  to purchase a new washer and dryer.  The loan had a 55 percent  interest rate and the appliances cost a lot more than they should  have.
Example: Rent-to-own businesses are widely used by soldiers.  One  soldier paid $3,000 for an $800 washer and dryer set. 5.j. No problem with predatory lenders (N=5)
Example: There have not been any problems with predatory lenders  lately.  The state of Florida has been using legislation to shut them  down.
Example: The participants said that they had never encountered an  officer that had to use payday lenders or predatory lenders.  Most of  the officers’ problems come when they have a bitter divorce. 5.k. Reason for using predatory lender – other reasons (N=5)
Example: One soldier stated that his credit was so bad that he had no  other option but to use high interest rate lenders.  He stated that, “I  have bad credit and I will always get bad credit.”
Example: One participant said he has several friends that use payday  lenders because they are E1s or E2s and don’t make much money. 5.l. Predatory lender targeting – employing former military members  (N=4)
Example: The people running and working for the predatory  businesses are usually former military servicemembers.  They will  use their knowledge of the system to take advantage of Marines.
Example: Many times the predatory lenders are veterans, former  Marines, or retirees.  The participant said that by using these types of  people, it gives the younger Marines a false sense of trust and then  the lenders will take advantage of the servicemember or “stab them  in the back.” 5.m. Reason for using predatory lender – command will not know  financial conditions (N=3)
Example: When a soldier needs money, a payday loan can be used  without notifying the chain of command.  Any of the Army forms of  assistance require a soldier to obtain approval from “a dozen people”  before they can get any money.
Example: The most significant reason that people use payday lenders  is privacy.  The spouses stated that if you try to obtain assistance  through the Air Force, you must use the chain of command to obtain  approval.  By doing so, everyone in the unit will know your business. 6. What types of financial services have fellow servicemembers  and/or subordinates in your unit used? 6.a. Service relief/aid societies (N=13)
Example: Servicemembers are often reluctant to approach Army  Emergency Relief Society because they have to complete too much  paperwork.  Some have concerns that their superiors will find out  that they used these services and superiors may think this is a sign of  weakness or failure on the part of the servicemember.
Example: One soldier stated that he used the Army Emergency Relief  Society because he did not have good credit and needed $1,400 as a  security deposit.  He said they gave him a loan and that he is paying  them back at $60 per month. 6.b. Other types of services used/aware of (N=13)
Example: Assistance is available for Marines with financial problems.   For example, there is a Key Volunteers Network made up of enlisted  and officers’ wives.
Example: One of the sailors was having financial problems and did  not want the command to know, so he sought help from the Federal  Credit Union.  The credit union was able to help with the $50,000 he  had accumulated in debt.  They contacted the lenders for him and  told them not to contact anyone in the command about the problem.   The debt was re-organized and repayment began.  All of this was  accomplished without the help of the Navy. 6.c. Community service center/family support center’s personal  financial managers (N=13)
Example: Some servicemembers who have problems have received  help from Army Community Services.  Army Community Services  does not provide money or loans but does give some household items  such as pots and pans and these items do provide some help to those  in financial trouble.
Example: When supervisors recognize a subordinate is having  financial problems, most of them will refer the subordinate to the  family support center for counseling, budget planning, and basic  personal finance skills like balancing a checkbook. 6.d. DOD Financial Readiness Campaign/services’ Internet resources  (N=11)
Example: None of the participants had heard of the Financial  Readiness Campaign.
Example: Only one of the 11 participants was aware of the Financial  Readiness Campaign.  The servicemember that did know about it  said that the information was difficult to sort through and may not be  helpful to those without a basic knowledge of finances. 6.e. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (N=9)
Example: One airman said that he used the Servicemembers Civil  Relief Act to reduce his total indebtedness during his deployment.  In  fact, after returning from the deployment, the credit companies kept  the interest rates at 6 percent or less.
Example: One of the participants talked about how he used the  Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to get out of a lease prior to  deployment. 6.f. No services used or not aware that any service was used (N=7)
Example: One participant said that there are financial services  available but because they are not very well advertised, many  servicemembers do not know about them.
Example: The spouse stated she was not aware of any available  assistance programs because information about programs does not  get communicated well at the installation. 6.g. Legal office (N=6)
Example: There is a legal office that can review purchase contracts  while the sailor is at home and a legal assistance attorney onboard  ship who can provide assistance.
Example: Sometimes the family at home cannot take care of financial  issues, even if they have power of attorney.  The best solution is to  obtain help from the on base legal office. 6.h. Command financial specialists (N=5)
Example: Soldiers have used the command financial specialist within  their units to receive counseling, training, and information.
Example: Most of the participants said that they had a command  financial specialist in their unit but did not use these individuals,  primarily because of a lack of trust.  They said that if a  servicemember talked about financial problems with these people, it  would end up through the chain of command.  If someone were to  see a servicemember in the command financial specialist’s office,  then they would know/assume the servicemember had a financial  problem. 7. Is there additional assistance that could be provided to  servicemembers or subordinates by the chain of command or  DOD to improve the financial condition of military families? 7.a. Additional financial management training at installation and  throughout career (N=13)
Example: Some of the participants said the briefings provided to  soldiers during base “in processing” are too quick.  They normally  last about 10 minutes and that is not enough time to discuss financial  matters.
Example: There should be financial management training points  throughout a sailor’s career.  For example, basic training, Advanced  Individual Training, reenlistment, and then annual recurring training. 7.b. Other additional assistance (N=12)
Example: A soldier stated that the offices that provide finance  information are closed when the servicemembers get off work.  Their  hours should be longer because the soldiers’ unit will not allow them  time off to go to the finance centers just to browse and acquire  general financial information.
Example: The military credit unions should be combined into one  institution.  No more Marine, Navy, or Army Federal Credit Unions,  just one large credit union.  This would lead to more lending power  and better interest rates. 7.c. More money (N=10)
Example: All military members should get pay raises.  The pay  increase should be significant and not just a few dollars every  paycheck.  People are dying every day for their country, so they  should get paid well.
Example: Servicemembers, particularly in the junior enlisted ranks,  should be given more pay. 7.d. Improve timeliness/accuracy of Defense Finance and Accounting  Service (N=7)
Example: Make the finance office provide more timely  reimbursement for vouchers.  One soldier just got back from Iraq and  said that currently, it takes the Defense Finance and Accounting  Service about 6 months to pay the voucher.
Example: The deployment actually messes up the servicemember’s  paychecks.  When starting the deployment, the addition of certain  pay and allowances and the subtraction of other allowances are  never done quickly and efficiently.  Defense Finance and Accounting  Service is always either overpaying or underpaying the Marine.   When they overpay, they take the money back in one shot, not over a  period of time. 7.e. Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board/off-limits list (N=7)
Example: When the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board does  put a business on the off-limits list, the word is not put out and it is  never enforced.
Example: The Navy needs to blacklist places that practice predatory  lending.  One participant, who is a legal officer in her unit, does  provide a list of places to avoid to her sailors when they check in  even though she is not allowed to do this.  She does not understand  why the Navy is allowed to tell sailors not to go to a porn shop, but is  not supposed to tell them not to go to predatory lenders.  The Navy  needs some type of list of businesses that have done questionable  things.  It does not necessarily have to be an “off-limits” list. 7.f. Care packages (N=6)
Example: It is common for spouses to send care packages to soldiers  during a deployment.  The expense of shipping these packages is  significant.  In addition, they generally include items for friends of  soldiers who do not have spouses or families sending items.
Example:  Care packages can be expensive for the family, especially  when they have to send equipment that is not supplied by the  military. 7.g. Improve Internet access during deployment (N=5)
Example: Navy should have better Internet access on the ships.  They  could provide Internet access in the library.  Right now the junior  enlisted have to ask officers to log them on.
Example: The Navy needs to increase the number of computers on  ships and the access to the Internet.  It is not beneficial to have  Internet-based resources if no one can access the Internet during a  deployment.  Furthermore, when the sailors are at home station, the  work computers are used for work and not for personal use.   Therefore, the sailors still cannot access information on the Financial  Readiness Campaign.
section_title: Resources Available to Assist Servicemembers with Financial Issues
paragraphs: Several resources exist to assist servicemembers with financial issues.   These include military-sponsored PFM training, DOD’s Financial Readiness  Campaign, individual service resources, such as command financial  specialists and personal financial managers, and resources outside of DOD  such as those provided through on- and off-installation banks and credit  unions.
subsections: section_title: Financial Management Training
paragraphs: All four military services require PFM training for servicemembers, and the  timing and location of the training varies by service.  The Army begins this  training at initial military, or basic, where soldiers receive 2 hours of PFM  training.  Training continues at Advanced Individual Training schools,  where soldiers receive an additional 2 hours of training and at the soldiers’  first duty station, where they are to receive an additional 8 hours of PFM  training.  In contrast, Navy personnel receive 16 hours of PFM training  during Advanced Individual Training.  The Marine Corps and the Air Force,  on the other hand, begin training servicemembers on financial issues at  their first duty stations.
Events, such as deployment or a permanent change of station, can trigger  additional financial management training for servicemembers.  The length  of this additional training and the topics covered can vary by installation  and command.  Also, unit leadership may refer servicemembers for  financial management training or counseling if the unit command is made  aware of an individual’s financial problems.  For example, the Army  requires refresher financial training for personnel who have abused check- cashing privileges.
section_title: DOD’s Financial Readiness Campaign Resources
paragraphs: DOD’s Financial Readiness Campaign, which was launched in May 2003,  supplements PFM programs offered by the individual services.  The Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness stated that the  department initiated the campaign to improve the financial management  available to servicemembers and their families and to stimulate a culture  that values financial health and savings.  The campaign allows installation-  level providers of PFM programs to access national programs and services  developed by federal agencies and non-profit organizations.  The primary  components of the campaign are the Web-based resources and  partnerships with federal agencies and non-profit organizations.
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Web-based Resources
paragraphs: The primary tool of the Financial Readiness Campaign is a Web site  designed to assist PFM program managers in developing installation-level  campaigns to meet the financial management needs of their local military  community.  This Web site, which is also available to the public, contains  important documents for the campaign as well as links to partners’ Web  sites.  For example, the DOD Web site contains the original memorandum  announcing the start of the campaign, overall campaign objectives, as well  as the names of, agreements with, and links to the campaign’s 27 partner  organizations.  DOD’s May 2004 assessment of the campaign noted,  however, that installation-level PFM staffs have made minimal use of the  campaign’s Web site.  DOD campaign officials stated that it was early in  implementation of campaign efforts and that they have been brainstorming  ideas to repackage information given to PFM program managers, as well as  servicemembers and their families.  For example, officials are considering  distributing financial information to servicemembers and military families  at off-installation locations, as well as implementing “financial fairs” and  “road shows” at military communities to increase awareness and  encourage financial education.
section_title: Partnerships with 27 Organizations
paragraphs: DOD has partnered with 27 organizations that have pledged to support  DOD in implementing its Financial Readiness Campaign.  For example, the  Association of Military Banks of America is a not-for-profit association of  banks that operate (1) on military installations, (2) off military installations  but serving military customers, and (3) within military banking facilities  designated by the U.S. Treasury.  That association is supporting the  Financial Readiness Campaign by encouraging member banks to provide,  participate in, and assist DOD with financial training events.  Another  partner, the InCharge Institute of America, is producing a quarterly  periodical called Military Money.  The periodical is aimed at promoting  financial awareness among the spouses of servicemembers.
section_title: Military Service Resources
paragraphs: Each military service has several resources available at the installation  level to assist servicemembers with financial issues.  These include  command financial specialists, the PFM program managers and staff, legal  services, and service relief/aid societies.
subsections: section_title: Command Financial Specialists
paragraphs: Command financial specialists are senior enlisted personnel (usually E6  and above) who are trained by PFM program managers to assist  servicemembers at the unit level, by providing financial education and  counseling.  These non-commissioned officers may perform the role of the  command financial specialist as a collateral duty in some units or as a full- time duty in others.  The Navy, Marine Corps, and Army use command  financial specialists to provide unit assistance to servicemembers in  financial difficulties; the Air Force does not use command financial  specialists within the unit, but has the squadron First Sergeant provide  first-level counseling.
section_title: PFM Program Managers and Staff
paragraphs: Individual servicemembers who require counseling beyond the capability  of the command financial specialists or First Sergeant in the Air Force can  see the installation’s PFM program manager or PFM staff.  The PFM  program manager is a professional staff member designated and trained to  organize and execute financial planning and counseling programs for the  military community.  PFM program managers and staff offer individual  financial counseling as well as group classes on financial issues.
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps regulations state that each installation  should have a manager for PFM issues.  The Air Force no longer designates  one staff member as the PFM program manager, but it uses “work life  consultants” in its family support centers to provide PFM training and  counseling.  The DOD’s November 2004 PFM instruction places certain  requirements on staff who provide PFM training and counseling.  For  example, it states that the one staff member within a family support center  shall be designated and trained to organize and execute financial planning  and counseling programs for the military community.  In addition, that staff  member must receive continuing education on PFM annually and maintain  professional certification.
section_title: Legal Services
paragraphs: Individual installation legal offices also offer financial services to  servicemembers.  For example, the legal assistance attorneys may review  purchase contracts for large items such as homes and cars.  In addition, the  legal assistance attorneys offer classes on varying financial issues including  powers of attorney, wills, and divorces.
section_title: Service Relief/Aid Societies
paragraphs: Each service has a relief or aid society designed to provide financial  assistance to servicemembers.  The Army Emergency Relief, Navy-Marine  Corps Relief Society, and the Air Force Aid Society are all private, non- profit organizations.  These societies provide counseling and education as  well as financial relief through grants or no-interest loans to eligible  servicemembers experiencing emergencies.  Emergencies include funds  needed to attend the funeral of a family member, repair of a primary  vehicle, or funds for food.  For example, in 2003, the Navy-Marine Corps  Relief Society provided $26.6 million in interest-free loans and $4.8 million  in grants to servicemembers who needed the loans for emergencies.
section_title: Resources Available Outside of DOD
paragraphs: Servicemembers may utilize financial resources outside of DOD, which are  available to the general public.  These can include banks or credit unions  for competitive rates on home or automobile loans, commercial Web sites  for interest rate quotes on other consumer loans, consumer counseling for  debt restructuring, and financial planners for advice on issues such as  retirement planning.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Leslie C. Bharadwaja; Alissa H.  Czyz; Marion A. Gatling; Gregg J. Justice, III; David A. Mayfield; Brian D.  Pegram; Terry L. Richardson; Minette D. Richardson; and Allen D.  Westheimer made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Military Personnel:  DOD Tools for Curbing the Use and Effects of  Predatory Lending Not Fully Utilized.  GAO-05-349. Washington, D.C.:  April 26, 2005.
Credit Reporting Literacy: Consumers Understood the Basics but Could  Benefit from Targeted Educational Efforts.  GAO-05-223. Washington,  D.C.: March 16, 2005.
DOD Systems Modernization: Management of Integrated Military  Human Capital Program Needs Additional Improvements. GAO-05-189.  Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2005.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: The Federal Government’s Role in  Improving Financial Literacy. GAO-05-93SP. Washington, D.C.: November  15, 2004.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data Before It Can Determine if  Costly Changes to the Reserve Retirement System Are Warranted. GAO-04- 1005. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2004.
Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty  Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-911. Washington, D.C.:  August 20, 2004.
Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty  Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-990T. Washington, D.C.:  July 20, 2004.
Military Personnel: Survivor Benefits for Servicemembers and Federal,  State, and City Government Employees. GAO-04-814. Washington, D.C.:  July 15, 2004.
Military Personnel: DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment  Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently  for Short Periods. GAO-04-805. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.
Military Personnel: Active Duty Compensation and Its Tax Treatment.  GAO-04-721R. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004.
Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve Compensation,  Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to Deployed Troops.  GAO-04-582T. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.
Military Personnel: Bankruptcy Filings among Active Duty Service  Members. GAO-04-465R. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2004.
Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty  Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-413T. Washington, D.C.:  January 28, 2004.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Effective Controls to Better Assess  the Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program.  GAO-04-86.  Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2003.
Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty  Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-89. Washington, D.C.:  November 13, 2003.
Military Personnel: DFAS Has Not Met All Information Technology  Requirements for Its New Pay System. GAO-04-149R. Washington, D.C.:  October 20, 2003.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data to Address Financial and  Health Care Issues Affecting Reservists. GAO-03-1004. Washington, D.C.:  September 10, 2003.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Assess Certain Factors in Determining  Whether Hazardous Duty Pay Is Warranted for Duty in the Polar  Regions. GAO-03-554. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2003.
Military Personnel: Management and Oversight of Selective Reenlistment  Bonus Program Needs Improvement. GAO-03-149. Washington, D.C.:  November 25, 2002.
Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing  Demographics, but Opportunities Exist to Improve. GAO-02-935.  Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002.