Military Personnel: DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for Short Periods
Published: 2004-06-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO to assess the special pays and allowances for servicemembers who are frequently deployed for less than 30 days, and to specifically review the family separation allowance. GAO's objectives were to assess (1) the rationale for the family separation allowance eligibility requirements, including the required duration of more than 30 consecutive days away from a member's duty station; (2) the extent to which DOD has identified short-term deployments as a family separation allowance issue; and (3) what special pays and allowances, in addition to basic military compensation, are available to compensate members deployed for less than 30 days.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and childcare that could have been performed by the deployed servicemember. Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the family separation allowance have changed. Today, the family separation allowance is authorized for officers and enlisted in all pay grades at a flat rate. The rationale for establishing the 30-day threshold is unknown. DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments as a family separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking modifications to the family separation allowance because of frequent short-term deployments have been provided to DOD for consideration as part of DOD's Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews personnel pay proposals. Further, DOD officials were not aware of any specific concerns that have been raised by frequently deployed servicemembers about their eligibility to receive the family separation allowance. Based on group discussions with Air Force strategic airlift aircrews, who were identified as examples of those most likely to be experiencing short-term deployments, we did not identify any specific concerns regarding the lack of family separation allowance compensation associated with short-term deployments. Rather, many aircrew members indicated the high pace of operations and associated unpredictability of their schedules was a greater concern due to the negative impact on their quality of life. In addition to basic military compensation, DOD has several special pays and allowances to further compensate servicemembers deployed for short periods. Servicemembers who are deployed for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive regular per diem. The per diem amount varies depending upon location. For example, these rates range from $86 to $284 per day within the United States and from $20 to $533 per day when outside the United States. However, DOD has not implemented the high deployment allowance designed, in part, to compensate those frequently deployed for shorter periods. Congress supported DOD's legislative proposal to authorize a monthly high deployment allowance. This allowance permits the services to compensate members for lengthy as well as frequent shorter deployments. The most recent amendment to this provision provides DOD with the authority to adjust a cumulative day threshold to help compensate servicemembers experiencing frequent short deployments. DOD has flexibility to exclude all occupations except those that it wishes to target for additional pay. However, DOD has not established criteria to implement this allowance, nor has DOD set a timetable for establishing such criteria.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) considers a servicemember as  deployed when a member is on orders and performing duties in a training  exercise or operation at a location or under circumstances that make it  impossible or infeasible for the member to spend off-duty time at the  member’s permanent duty station or homeport. While deployed, in  addition to receiving basic military compensation, servicemembers can  receive a variety of special pays and allowances intended to (1) help the  uniformed services meet specific manpower requirements and  (2) compensate servicemembers for hardships associated with their  deployments. For example, servicemembers who have dependents and are  deployed for more than 30 consecutive days are eligible to receive the  family separation allowance. In April 2003, Congress temporarily  increased the amount of the family separation allowance by 150 percent  (from $100 to $250 per month) as part of the Emergency Wartime  Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress has since extended this  increase until December 2004; at which time it will expire unless renewed  or made permanent. According to DOD officials, the latest estimated cost  of the family separation allowance for fiscal year 2004 is $1.1 billion with  an average of 359,000 monthly recipients. When this estimated cost is  compared to the fiscal year 2002 obligations, the budget for the family  separation allowance increases by 850 percent. This increase is primarily  due to the increase in the monthly rate paid for family separation  allowance and the increased number of personnel deployed in support of  the global war on terrorism.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 directed GAO  to assess the special pays and allowances for servicemembers who are  frequently deployed for less than 30 days. The act directed GAO to  specifically review the eligibility requirements for the family separation  allowance, including those related to the required duration of more than  30 consecutive days away from a servicemember’s permanent duty station.  As agreed with your offices, our objectives were to assess (1) the rationale  for family separation allowance eligibility requirements, including the  30-day threshold; (2) the extent to which DOD has identified frequent  short-term deployments as a family separation allowance issue; and  (3) what special pays and allowances are available, in addition to basic  compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed for less  than 30 days.
To conduct our review, we analyzed the legislative history and respective  DOD policies for selected special pays and allowances. We reviewed  proposals to make changes to the family separation allowance submitted  through DOD’s Unified Legislation and Budgeting process. We held  discussions with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and each of the services. We focused  our study on the Air Force since the reported average number of days Air  Force personnel were deployed in fiscal year 2002, the latest available  data, was less than 30 days. Further, through discussions with Air Force  officials we identified strategic airlift C-5 aircrews managed by the Air  Mobility Command (AMC) as examples of those who would most likely be  experiencing short-term deployments. We assessed the reliability of AMC  deployment data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of this report. To explore family separation allowance  issues at a location overseen by AMC, we conducted group discussions  with officers and enlisted servicemembers at Travis Air Force Base. We  also reviewed previously issued GAO reports on military compensation  (see Related GAO Products). More information on our scope and  methodology is provided at the end of this letter. We conducted our review  from January 2004 to May 2004 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: AMC, located at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is responsible for providing  strategic airlift, including air refueling, special air missions, and  aeromedical evacuation. As part of that mission, AMC is responsible for  tasking 67 C-5 aircraft: 35 stationed at Travis Air Force Base in California  and 32 stationed at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Unlike other Air  Force aircraft, the C-5 is rarely deployed for more than 30 days, since it is  primarily used to move cargo from the United States to locations  worldwide. As a result, C-5 aircrews are deployed away from home for  several weeks and then return to their home station. Other Air Force  aircraft, such as the KC-10, can carry cargo but are primarily used to refuel  other aircraft and can be deployed to locations around the world for  extended periods of time. Since September 11, 2001, C-5 aircrews have  been deployed for periods of time less than 30-days, generally ranging  from 7 to 24 days.
Known for its ability to carry oversized and heavy loads, the C-5 can  transport a wide variety of cargo, including helicopters and Abrams M1A1  Tanks to destinations worldwide. Recently, the C-5’s have been used for a  variety of missions, including: support of presidential travel, contracted  movement of materials by other government organizations, training  missions, and support of operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. In  addition, the C-5 can also transport about 70 passengers. The aircrew for a  C-5 is comprised of two pilots, a flight engineer, and two loadmasters.  At Travis Air Force Base there are 439 active duty and 383 reserve  aircrew members. At Dover Air Force Base there are 650 active duty and  344 reserve aircrew members.
Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Under Secretary  of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is responsible for DOD personnel  policy, including oversight of military compensation. The Under Secretary  of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) leads the Unified Legislation and  Budgeting process, established in 1994 to develop and review personnel  compensation proposals. As part of this process, the Under Secretary of  Defense (Personnel and Readiness) chairs biannual meetings, attended by  the principal voting members from the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense (Personnel and Readiness), including the Principle Deputy Under  Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the Assistant Secretary  of Defense (Reserve Affairs), the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health  Affairs), the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the  Joint Staff, and the services’ Assistant Secretaries for Manpower and  Reserve Affairs.
section_title: Congressional Rationale for DOD’s Family Separation Allowance Eligibility Requirements
paragraphs: In 1963, Congress established the $30-per-month family separation  allowance to help offset the additional expenses incurred by the  dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty  station for more than 30 consecutive days. According to statements made  by members of Congress during consideration of the legislation  establishing the family separation allowance, additional expenses could  stem from costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance,  and childcare that could not be performed by the deployed  servicemember. Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the family  separation allowance have changed. For example, while the family  separation allowance was initially authorized for enlisted members in pay  grades E-5 and above as well as to enlisted members in pay grade E-4 with  4 years of service, today the family separation allowance is authorized for  servicemembers in all pay grades at a flat rate of $250 per month.  Servicemembers must apply for the family separation allowance, certifying  their eligibility to receive the allowance. The rationale for establishing the  30-day threshold is unknown. However, DOD officials noted that  servicemembers deployed for more than 30 days do not have the same  opportunities to minimize household expenses as those who are deployed  for less than 30 days. For example, servicemembers who are able to return  to their permanent duty locations may perform home repairs and do not  have to pay someone to do these tasks for them.
The 1963 family separation allowance legislation was divided into two  subsections, one associated with overseas duty and one associated with  any travel away from the servicemembers home station. The first  subsection was intended to compensate servicemembers who were  permanently stationed overseas and were not authorized to bring  dependents. The second subsection was intended to compensate  servicemembers for added expenses associated with their absence from  their dependents and permanent duty station for extended periods of time  regardless of whether the members were deployed domestically or  overseas. Originally, this aspect of family separation compensation was  also to be based on the allowance for living quarters. At that time,  members would receive one-third the allowance for living quarters or a flat  rate of $30 per month, whichever amount was larger. In July of 1963, the  Senate heard testimony from DOD officials who generally agreed with the  proposed legislation, but raised concerns about using the allowance for  living quarters as a baseline. Their concerns were related to the  complexity of determining the payments and the inequities associated with  tying payment to rank. Ultimately, DOD proposed and the Congress  accepted a flat rate of $30 per month for eligible personnel.
section_title: DOD Has Not Identified Frequent Deployments Less Than 30-days as a Family Separation Allowance Issue
paragraphs: DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments less than 30-days  as a family separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking  modifications to the family separation allowance because of frequent  short-term deployments have been provided to DOD for consideration as  part of DOD’s Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews  personnel compensation proposals. Since 1994, a few proposals have been  made seeking changes to allowance amounts and eligibility requirements.  None of the proposals sought to change the 30-day eligibility threshold.  Further, our discussions with OSD, service, and reserve officials did not  reveal any concerns related to frequent short-term deployments and the  family separation allowance. To analyze concerns that might be raised by  those experiencing frequent short-term deployments, we conducted group  discussions with Air Force strategic C-5 airlift aircrews at Travis Air Force  Base, which we identified as an example of servicemembers who generally  deploy for periods less than 30 days. We did not identify any specific  concerns regarding compensation received as a result of short-term  deployments. We found that the C-5 aircrews were generally more  concerned about the high pace of operations and associated  unpredictability of their schedules, due to the negative impact on their  quality of life, than about qualifying for the family separation allowance.
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Proposals to Change Family Separation Allowance Have Been Minimal
paragraphs: DOD has proposed few changes to the amount of the family separation  allowance and no proposals have been submitted to alter the 30-day  eligibility threshold. Our review of proposals submitted through DOD’s  Unified Legislation and Budgeting process revealed that DOD has  considered one proposal to change the amount of the monthly family  separation allowance since 1994. In 1997, an increase in the family  separation allowance from $75 to $120 was proposed. This provision was  not approved by DOD.
Since 1994, three modifications to the eligibility criteria have also been  proposed. In 1994, a proposal was made to allow payment of the family  separation allowance for members embarked on board a ship or on  temporary duty for 30 consecutive days, whose family members were  authorized to accompany the member but voluntarily chose not to do so.  The proposal was endorsed by DOD and accepted by Congress. In 2001,  DOD considered but ultimately rejected a similar proposal that would  have applied to all members who elect to serve an unaccompanied tour of  duty. The third proposal sought to modify the use of family separation  allowance for joint military couples (i.e. one military member married to  another military member). According to a DOD official, while this  proposal was not endorsed by DOD, Congress ultimately passed legislation  that clarified the use of family separation allowance for joint military  couples. The family separation allowance is now payable to joint military  couples, provided the members were residing together immediately before  being separated by reason of their military orders. Although both may  qualify for the allowance, only one monthly allowance may be paid to a  joint military couple during a given month. If both members were to  receive orders requiring departure on the same day, then payment would  be made to the senior member.
section_title: Aircrews More Concerned about Unpredictability of Their Deployments Than Compensation
paragraphs: Overall, C-5 aircrew members and aircrew leadership with whom we met  noted that the unpredictability of missions was having more of an adverse  impact on crewmembers’ quality of life than the compensation they  receive as a result of their deployments. For example, several aircrew  members at Travis Air Force Base indicated that over the past two years,  they have been called up on very short advance notice, as little as  12 hours, and sent on missions lasting several weeks, making it difficult to  conduct personal business or make plans with their families. According to  the aircrew members and both officer and enlisted leadership with whom  we met, the unpredictability of their missions is expected to continue for  the foreseeable future due to the global war on terrorism. Officials  informed us that the average number of days by month that aircrew  members have been deployed has increased since September 11, 2001,  with periods of higher activity, or surges. For example, as shown in  figure 1, the average number of days in September 2001 that AMC C-5  co-pilots were deployed was 9. Since then, the average number of days by  month that C-5 co-pilots were deployed has fluctuated between 12 and 19.  Prior to September 2001, available data shows a low monthly average of  5 days in January 2001.
While the average number of days deployed has fluctuated, aircrew  members expressed concern about the intermittent suspension of pre- and  post-mission crew rest periods that have coincided with increased  operations. Generally, these periods have been intended to ensure that  aircrew members have enough rest prior to flying another mission.  However, aircrew members noted that crew rest periods also allow them  to perform other assigned duties and spend time with their families.  During our discussion-group meetings, aircrew members indicated that the  rest period after a mission had been reduced from as much as 4 days to as  little as 12 hours due to operational needs.
section_title: Personnel Deployed Less Than 30 Days May Be Eligible to Receive Additional Compensation
paragraphs: In addition to basic compensation, DOD has several special pays and  allowances available to further compensate servicemembers deployed for  less than 30 days. Servicemembers who are deployed domestically or  overseas for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive regular per diem.  The per diem amount varies depending upon location. Servicemembers  also may be eligible to receive other pays and allowances, such as  hazardous duty pay, mission-oriented hardship duty pay, and combat-zone  tax exclusions. However, DOD has not implemented one special allowance  designed, in part, to compensate those frequently deployed for short  periods. Congress supported DOD’s legislative proposal to authorize a  monthly high-deployment allowance with passage of the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This provision allows the services  to compensate their members for lengthy deployments as well as frequent  shorter deployments. However, DOD has not set a timetable for  establishing criteria to implement this allowance.
subsections: section_title: Additional Compensation Available for Eligible Personnel Deployed Less Than 30 Days
paragraphs: In addition to basic military pay, servicemembers who are deployed for  less than 30 days may also be eligible to receive regular per diem, other  special pays and allowances, and tax exclusions (see table 1).
When servicemembers are performing temporary duty away from their  permanent duty station, they are entitled to per diem, which provides  reimbursement for meals, incidental expenses, and lodging. To be eligible  for per diem, servicemembers must perform temporary duty for more than  12 hours at a location to receive any of the per diem rate for that location.  The per diem rates are established by: the General Services  Administration, the State Department, and DOD’s Per Diem, Travel, and  Transportation Allowance Committee. The rates range from $86 to $284  per day within the continental United States and from $20 to $533 per day  when outside the continental United States, depending on whether  government meals and lodging are provided. Aircrews can earn various  per diem rates during the course of their travel. For example, a typical  two-week mission for Travis C-5 aircrew members would take them to  Dover Air Force Base, then to Moron, Spain, and then to Baghdad, Iraq. At  each of these locations, the aircrews can spend a night allowing them to  accrue applicable per diem rates for that location. According to the Air  Force, per diem rates for a typical C-5 mission are as follows: $157 for  Dover Air Force Base; $235 for Moron, Spain; and $154 for Baghdad, Iraq.  In some cases, aircrews may receive a standard $3.50 per day for  incidental expenses, when they are at locations where the government can  provide meals and lodging. This is the standard per diem rate used to  compensate servicemembers traveling outside of the continental United  States when the government can provide lodging and meals.
subsections: section_title: Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay
paragraphs: Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay are pays that provide additional  compensation for duty performed in designated areas where the  servicemembers are subject to hostile fire or imminent danger. Both pays  are derived from the same statue and cannot be collected simultaneously.  Servicemembers are entitled to hostile fire pay, an event-based pay, if they  are (1) subjected to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; (2) on duty  in an area close to a hostile fire incident and in danger of being exposed to  the same dangers actually experienced by other servicemembers subjected  to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; or (3) killed, injured, or  wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile  action. Imminent danger pay is a threat based pay intended to compensate  servicemembers in specifically designated locations, which pose a threat  of physical harm or imminent danger due to civil insurrection, civil war,  terrorism, or wartime conditions. To be eligible for this pay in a month,  servicemembers must have served some time, one day or less, in one of  the designated zones during the month. The authorized amount for hostile  fire and imminent danger pay is $150 per month, although the fiscal year  2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act temporarily  increased the amount to $225 per month. If Congress takes no further  action, the rate will revert to $150 per month in January 2005.
section_title: Mission-Oriented Hardship Duty Pay
paragraphs: Mission-oriented hardship duty pay compensates military personnel for  duties designated by the Secretary of Defense as hardship duty due to the  arduousness of the mission. Mission-oriented hardship duty pay is payable  at a monthly rate up to $300, without prorating or reduction, when the  member performs the specified mission during any part of the month.  DOD has established that this pay be paid at a flat monthly rate of $150 per  month. Active and Reserve component members who qualify, at any time  during the month, receive the full monthly mission-oriented hardship duty  pay, regardless of the period of time on active duty or the number of days  they receive basic pay during the month. This pay is currently only  available to servicemembers assigned to, on temporary duty with, or  otherwise under the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office,  the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, or Central Identification  Lab-Hawaii. Hardship duty includes missions such as locating and  recovering the remains of U.S. servicemembers from remote, isolated  areas including, but not limited to, areas in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and  North Korea.
section_title: Combat-Zone Tax Exclusion
paragraphs: The combat-zone tax exclusion provides exclusion from federal income  tax, as well as income tax in many states, to servicemembers serving in a  presidentially designated combat zone or in a statutorily established  hazardous duty area for any period of time. For example, although the C-5  aircrews at Travis and Dover Air Force Bases do not serve in a designated  combat zone for an extended period of time, many of the missions that  they fly may be within areas designated for combat-zone tax exclusion  eligibility. Enlisted personnel and warrant officers may exclude all military  compensation earned in the month in which they perform active military  service in a combat-zone or qualified hazardous duty area for active  military service from federal income tax. For commissioned officers,  compensation is free of federal income tax up to the maximum amount of  enlisted basic pay plus any imminent danger pay received.
section_title: DOD Has Not Developed Criteria to Implement the High Deployment Allowance
paragraphs: DOD has not established criteria defining what constitutes frequent  deployments, nor has it determined eligibility requirements in order to  implement the high deployment allowance. DOD sought significant  modifications to high deployment compensation through a legislative  proposal to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.  Congress had established a high deployment per diem as part of the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Pursuant to  statutorily granted authority, on October 8, 2001, DOD waived application  of the high deployment compensation in light of the ongoing military  response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. After  implementing the waiver authority, DOD sought legislative changes to the  high deployment compensation in an effort to better manage deployments.
DOD’s proposal sought, among other things, to: (1) change high- deployment compensation from a per diem rate to a monthly allowance,  (2) reduce the dollar amount paid so that it was more in line with other  special pays (e.g. hostile fire pay), and (3) allow DOD to recognize lengthy  deployments as well as frequent deployments. The National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 reflects many of DOD’s proposed  changes. The act changed the $100 per diem payment into an allowance  not to exceed $1,000 per month. To help compensate those  servicemembers who are frequently deployed, the act established a  cumulative 2-year eligibility threshold not to exceed 401 days. Also, the act  provided the Secretary of Defense with the authority to prescribe a  cumulative threshold lower than 401 days. Depending upon where the  Secretary of Defense establishes the cumulative threshold,  servicemembers, such as the C-5 aircrews, serving multiple short-term  deployments may be compensated through the high deployment  allowance. Once a servicemembers’ deployments exceed the established  cumulative day threshold for the number of days deployed, the member is  to be paid a monthly allowance not to exceed $1,000 per month at the  beginning of the following month. From that point forward, the  servicemember will continue to qualify for the allowance as long as the  total number of days deployed during the previous 2-year period exceeds  the cumulative threshold established by the Secretary of Defense. The high  deployment allowance is in addition to per diem and any other special  pays and allowances for which the servicemember might qualify.  Moreover, the servicemember does not have to apply for the allowance, as  the act mandated that DOD track and monitor days deployed and make  payment accordingly. Finally, DOD may exclude specified duty  assignments from eligibility for the high deployment allowance (e.g.,  sports teams or senior officers). According to DOD officials, this provision  also provides additional flexibility in targeting the allowance to selected  occupational specialties, by allowing DOD to exclude all occupations  except those that it wishes to target for additional compensation because  of retention concerns. The Senate report accompanying the bill that  amended the high deployment provision encouraged DOD to promptly  implement these changes. However, DOD officials told us that a timetable  for establishing the criteria necessary to implement the high deployment  allowance has not been set. Although we could not ascertain exactly why  DOD had not taken action to implement the high deployment allowance,  OSD officials informed us that the services had difficulty reaching  agreement on what constitutes a deployment for purposes of the high  deployment payment.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The family separation allowance is directed at enlisted servicemembers  and officers whose dependents incur extra expenses when the  servicemember is deployed for more than 30 consecutive days. We found  no reason to question the eligibility requirements that have been  established for DOD’s family separation allowance. We believe that no  basis exists to change the 30-day threshold, as a problem has not been  identified with the family separation allowance. Further, servicemembers  who deploy for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive additional  forms of compensation resulting from their deployment, such as per diem,  other special pays and allowances, and tax exclusions.
Since the terrorists’ attacks on September 11, 2001, some servicemembers  have experienced more short-term deployments. Given the long-term  nature of the global war on terrorism, this increase in the frequency of  short-term deployments is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.  DOD will need to assure adequate compensation for servicemembers  using all available special pays and allowances in addition to basic pay.  While the aircrews with whom we met did not express specific concerns  about compensation, they, like other servicemembers, are concerned  about quality-of-life issues. The high deployment allowance could help to  address such issues for servicemembers, while helping to mitigate DOD’s  possible long-term retention concerns. Also, unlike the family separation  allowance, the high deployment allowance could be used to compensate  servicemembers regardless of whether or not they have dependents.  Although the Senate report accompanying the bill that amended the high  deployment provision encouraged DOD to promptly implement these  changes, the Secretary of Defense has not taken action to implement the  high deployment allowance.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy  Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in concert with the  Service Secretaries and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to take the  following three actions    set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high deployment    define, as part of the criteria, what constitutes frequent short-term  deployments within the context of the cumulative day requirement as  stated in the high deployment allowance legislation; and    determine, as part of the criteria, eligibility requirements targeting the high  deployment allowance to selected occupational specialties.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred  with our recommendations that it set a timetable for establishing criteria  to implement the high deployment allowance and what the criteria should  include. While DOD agreed that servicemembers should be recognized  with additional pay for excessive deployments, it stated that DOD has not  implemented the high deployment allowance because it views the high  deployment allowance as a peacetime authority. Further, DOD stated that  since we are in a wartime posture, it is more difficult to control the pace of  deployments than during peacetime. DOD’s response noted that it has  elected to exercise the waiver given to it by Congress to suspend the  entitlement for reasons of national security. DOD also noted that it has  encouraged the use of other flexible pay authorities to compensate  servicemembers who are away from home for inordinate periods. Finally,  DOD stated that it would reassess the use of the high deployment  allowance at some point in the future.
We do not believe that the nation’s current wartime situation prevents  DOD from taking our recommended actions. The first recommended  action being to set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the  high deployment allowance. We did recognize in our report that pursuant  to statutorily granted authority, on October 8, 2001, DOD waived  application of the high deployment allowance in light of the ongoing  military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. However,  since then, DOD sought modifications through a legislative proposal to the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 for more  flexibilities to manage the high deployment compensation better. These  additional flexibilities include providing DOD with the opportunity to  tailor the allowance to meet current or expected needs. Since the purpose  of special pays and allowances is primarily to help retain more  servicemembers, the high deployment allowance could be used as another  compensation tool to help retain servicemembers during a time of war. As  our report clearly states, given the expectations for a long-term  commitment to the war on terrorism, developing the criteria for  implementing the high deployment allowance would provide DOD with an  additional option for compensating those military personnel who are  frequently deployed for short periods of time. Regarding DOD’s use of  other flexible pay authorities to compensate servicemembers who are  away from home for inordinate periods, the examples DOD cites for  lengthy or protracted deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea are not  applicable to those servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days, the  focus of this review.
Finally, the vagueness of when and how the high deployment allowance  will be implemented runs contrary to the congressional direction, which  encouraged DOD to promptly implement the new high deployment  allowance authority. Based on DOD’s response, it is not clear when DOD  intends to develop criteria to implement the high deployment allowance.  We recommended that DOD set a timetable for establishing criteria to  implement the high deployment allowance, not that DOD implement the  allowance immediately. We believe that this recommendation is  warranted, since establishing the criteria will make it possible for DOD to  implement the high deployment allowance quickly, whenever it is deemed  appropriate and necessary. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety  in appendix I. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have  incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the rationale for family separation allowance eligibility  requirements, including the rationale for the 30-day threshold, we  reviewed the legislative history concerning the family separation  allowance and analyzed DOD policies implementing this pay. We also  interviewed officials in the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense  (Personnel and Readiness); the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air  Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Air National Guard; and  the Air Force Reserve.
To determine the extent to which DOD had identified frequent short-term  deployments as a family separation allowance issue, we reviewed  proposals submitted through DOD’s Unified Legislation and Budgeting  process. We met with compensation representatives from the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and each of the  services. We interviewed officials with the Defense Manpower Data Center  and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. We sought to use DOD’s  database for tracking and monitoring deployments to determine the extent  of servicemembers experiencing frequent deployments lasting less than  30 days. We were not able to use the database for the purposes of our  report to discern the number of deployments by location lasting less than  30 days, since more than 40 percent of the data for location was not  included in the database. In addition, the database did not contain  information related to some types of non-deployment activities (e.g.  training), which we deemed important to our review. We focused our  study on the Air Force since the fiscal year 2003 Secretary of Defense  Annual Report to the President and Congress showed that the Air force  was the only service whose members were deployed less than 30 days on  average in fiscal year 2002. Further, through discussions with Air Force  officials we identified strategic aircrews managed by the AMC as examples  of those who would most likely be experiencing short-term deployments.  We visited AMC, where we met with officials from personnel, operations,  finance, and the tactical airlift command center. To understand the views  of one group of short-term deployers, we visited Travis Air Force Base in  California where we met with officer and enlisted leadership for the C-5  and KC-10 aircraft. We held discussion groups with 12 officers and  12 enlisted aircrew members from both aircraft, for a total of 48 aircrew  members. We visited Dover Air Force Base in Delaware where we met  with C-5 officer and enlisted leadership. We also met with officials  representing personnel, operations, and finance offices at both Travis and  Dover Air Force Bases. We assessed the reliability of AMC C-5 copilot  deployment data, as well as data contained in the fiscal year 2003  Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the President and Congress. GAO’s  assessment consisted of (1) reviewing existing information about the data  and the systems that produced them, (2) examining the electronic data for  completeness, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about  the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
To assess what special pays and allowances are available, in addition to  basic compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed for  less than 30 days, we identified special pays and allowances that do not  have a time eligibility factor through the DOD’s Military Compensation  Background Papers, legislative research, and discussions with  OSD officials. We reviewed the legislative history regarding recent  legislative changes to special pays and allowances and how DOD has  implemented these changes.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Under  Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); the Secretaries of the  Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps;  and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make  copies available to appropriate congressional committees and to other  interested parties on request. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge at the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  call me at (202) 512-5559 or Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604. Major  contributors to this report were Aaron M. Adams, Kurt A. Burgeson,  Ann M. Dubois, Kenya R. Jones, and Ronald La Due Lake.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comment
paragraphs: 1.  The purpose of our congressionally directed review was to assess the  special pays and allowances available to DOD that could be used to  compensate servicemembers who are frequently deployed for less than  30 days. Consequently, our scope did not include an assessment of  compensation for servicemembers serving lengthy, or protracted,  deployments of 30 days or more. We found that DOD has available and  is using several special pays and allowances, in addition to basic  compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed for  less than 30 days. However, we also found that DOD has one special  allowance, the high deployment allowance, that is not available to  provide further compensation to servicemembers who frequently  deploy for less than 30 days and that DOD has not set a timetable to  establish criteria to implement the allowance. During our review, we  could not ascertain exactly why DOD had not taken action to develop  criteria for implementing the high deployment allowance. During  several discussions, OSD officials stated that the services had difficulty  reaching agreement on what constitutes a deployment for the purposes  of the high deployment payment. DOD’s response to our draft report  noted that it has elected to exercise the waiver given to it by Congress  to suspend the high deployment allowance for reasons of national  security. We recognized this waiver in our report. We also noted that  after DOD waived application of the high deployment payment on  October 8, 2001, DOD sought legislative modifications of the high  deployment payment that would give it more flexibilities to better  manage this type of compensation. Congress granted DOD these  flexibilities and encouraged DOD to promptly implement these  changes. As noted in our report, given the expectations for a long-term  commitment to the war on terrorism, developing the criteria for  implementing the new high deployment allowance would provide DOD  with an additional option for compensating those military personnel  who are frequently deployed for short periods of time. Also, the high  deployment allowance, unlike the family separation allowance, could  be used to compensate servicemembers regardless of whether or not  they have dependents and thus would reach more servicemembers.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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-04-89. Washington, D.C.:  November 13, 2003.
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 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: Preliminary Observations Related to Income,  Benefits, and Employer Support for Reservists During Mobilizations.  GAO-03-573T. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2003.
Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help  Maintain Momentum of DOD’s Strategic Human Capital  Planning. GAO-03-237. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2002.
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.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal  government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;  evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,  recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed  oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government  is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail  this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail  alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs