DOD Training: DOD Has Taken Steps to Assess Common Military Training
Published: 2017-05-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD requires all servicemembers to complete training that provides common knowledge and skills. Common military training across the military services includes topics such as Suicide Prevention, Cybersecurity, and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. DOD has identified a need to reduce training requirements because of concerns from the services about the amount of time it takes to complete training, and in 2012 asked the RAND Corporation to examine the services' mandatory training—which includes common military training—requirements and options for standardization. RAND recommended, among other things, that DOD consider adopting standardized, computer-based training and issue a single DOD directive that lists all requirements.
House Report 114-537 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to examine the military services' actions to assess mandatory military training requirements. This report describes (1) efforts that DOD and the services have made to review and validate common military training requirements; (2) steps that DOD and the services have taken to evaluate the effectiveness of these requirements; and (3) flexibilities the services offer regarding course delivery methods, steps they are taking to consolidate and reduce training time, and their perspectives on various aspects of training. GAO reviewed DOD and military service training guidance and interviewed officials at DOD headquarters and military service offices.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have made recent efforts to review and validate common military training requirements. DOD established the Common Military Training Working Group in February 2015 to, among other things, review and validate common military training requirements. In December 2016 the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness signed the Common Military Training Working Group Charter, which states that the working group will review common military training requirements for validity. According to an Office of the Deputy for Force Training official, the working group held its first meeting in January 2017 and a second meeting in February 2017. According to that official, the Office of the Deputy for Force Training is in the process of developing future working group meeting agendas to discuss topics such as validating training requirements. In addition, some of the military services have taken steps to review and validate common military training. For example, according to officials, the Navy and Marine Corps annually review and validate mandatory training requirements, while the Army reviews and validates mandatory training requirements biennially or as directed. According to Air Force officials, the Air Force reviewed and validated existing mandatory training requirements during its October 2016 training review.
DOD has directed the Common Military Training Working Group to evaluate the effectiveness of common military training requirements. DOD Instruction 1322.31 calls for the working group to periodically review common military training and evaluate it for effectiveness, among other things, and the working group's charter states that it will review common military training requirements for effectiveness. In addition, some DOD proponents responsible for managing a specific common military training core curriculum, as well as the military service boards, have made independent efforts to assess the effectiveness of their respective mandatory military training courses, including common military training. For example, in 2015 the Army Mandatory Training Task Force evaluated the accessibility and effectiveness of current training materials.
The military services offer varying degrees of flexibility for providing course delivery methods that allow individuals to complete mandatory training requirements, including common military training. For example, training guidance provided by the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force indicates that the services may rely on a variety of delivery methods for training, including distance learning systems, formal courses, and one-on-one instruction. According to estimates provided by service officials, it would take an individual less than 20 hours to complete all common military training requirements. Nevertheless, the military services are taking steps to reduce training time for some mandatory training requirements by updating their guidance, combining similar training topics, and eliminating redundancies. For example, the Air Force has reviewed all of its training topics to determine which ones to streamline or consolidate. GAO interviewed servicemembers from across the services who informally presented a range of perspectives regarding various aspects of training.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) requires all servicemembers to  complete training that provides common knowledge and skills. Common  military training across the military services includes topics such as  Suicide Prevention, Cybersecurity, and Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response, among others. All uniformed personnel complete such training  annually or as is required by DOD. DOD identified a need to reduce  training requirements so as to reduce the training burden on the services  and make the most of available training time. In 2012, DOD asked the  RAND Corporation to examine the military services’ mandatory military  training requirements and options for standardization. The RAND  Corporation identified common training and recommended, among other  things, that DOD consider adopting standardized computer-based training  and issue a single DOD directive that lists all requirements.
Common military training has no special distinction or quality linking it to  an individual DOD component, and it is widely required for all  servicemembers. DOD Instruction 1322.31, Common Military Training  (CMT), published in 2015 and updated in 2017, establishes policy,  assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures, principles, and  concepts for the organization, management, and implementation of  common military training in accordance with DOD Directive 1322.18,  Military Training. Common military training, required for all military  personnel, can originate from legislation, executive orders, or DOD  policies and guidance. The military services deliver mandatory training  requirements, which include common military training requirements, to  their servicemembers.
House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for us to  examine the military services’ actions to assess mandatory training  requirements. This report describes (1) efforts that DOD and the services  have made to review and validate common military training requirements;  (2) steps that DOD and the services have taken to evaluate the  effectiveness of common military training requirements; and (3)  flexibilities the services offer regarding course delivery methods, steps  they are taking to consolidate and reduce training time, and their  perspectives on various aspects of training.
To describe efforts that DOD and the services have made to review and  validate common military training requirements, we collected and  reviewed DOD guidance to determine the courses required to complete  common military training and DOD’s and the services’ processes for  approving, validating, and consolidating, or eliminating, common military  training. We reviewed the services’ mandatory training requirements  insofar as they related to common military training. We interviewed  military service officials from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air  Force to determine how they review and validate common military training  and document individuals’ completion of common military training. We  also interviewed the 11 DOD training proponents to discuss how they  develop and disseminate common military training for the military services  and their processes for reviewing and validating common military  training.
To describe steps that DOD has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of  common military training requirements, we collected and reviewed DOD  and service-level guidance explaining the process to evaluate common  military training. We interviewed DOD and service-level officials to  discuss their methods to evaluate common military training. We did not  evaluate the effectiveness of the common military training, as that was  outside the scope of our review, but rather we identified examples of  efforts that the services and proponents have made to assess the  effectiveness of training.
To describe the flexibilities the services offer regarding course delivery  methods, steps they are taking to consolidate and reduce training time,  and their perspectives on various aspects of training, we collected  service-level training guidance that explains the level of flexibility that  units have to complete common military training. We interviewed military  service officials to determine how training flexibilities are implemented as  part of their training programs. We interviewed unit commanders and  training managers from a non-generalizable sample of 12 units from the  Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. We worked with the services to  identify units in active status that had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan  within the past 5 years and to identify a mix of officers and enlisted  personnel within the selected units. Although not generalizable, the  interviews we conducted with personnel in these units provided varying  perspectives on training flexibilities available to commanders. During  these interviews we discussed training flexibilities to determine available  delivery options and the amount of time spent on common military  training. We interviewed cognizant officials at various DOD headquarters  offices, including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Force  Education and Training, Office of the Deputy for Force Training; Joint  Staff; and the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. More detailed  information on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I of  this report.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD defines “common military training” as non-occupational, directed  training that sustains readiness, provides common knowledge, enhances  awareness, reinforces expected behavioral standards or obligations, and  establishes a functional baseline that improves the effectiveness of DOD  and its constituent organizations. Common military training is required for  all servicemembers. DOD Instruction 1322.31, Common Military Training  (CMT), identifies 11 common military training requirements. Legislation,  executive orders, and DOD guidance (directives or instructions) establish  these 11 requirements. We use the term “common military training” to  refer to the 11 requirements referred to in DOD Instruction 1322.31. See  appendix II for a list of the 11 common military training requirements.
Each of the military services may require additional individual training— for example, training for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear  defense; marksmanship qualification; and physical fitness—that is  bundled with common military training. For example, the Army provides  “mandatory training,” which is required for all Army soldiers regardless of  component (unless otherwise noted), branch or career field, or rank or  grade. Similarly, the Marine Corps requires “annual training,” which is  required for Marines regardless of military occupational specialty or rank  or grade or component, unless otherwise exempted or waived. The Navy  conducts “general military training,” which applies to all uniformed active  and reserve component Navy personnel. Finally, the Air Force conducts  “ancillary training,” which is universal training, guidance, or instruction,  regardless of specialty.
Common military training makes up a portion of mandatory training  requirements that all DOD personnel must complete. For example, the  Navy estimated that common military training comprises 66 percent, on  average, of the time spent on mandatory training requirements. The Air  Force estimated in 2016 that common military training comprises 38  percent of the time dedicated to mandatory training requirements. The  Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force each have about 19 mandatory  training requirements. Common military training comprises more than half  of these mandatory training requirements for most of the military services.  See appendix III for a list of common military training and mandatory  training requirements.
Each common military training topic has a lead proponent. DOD defines a  common military training lead proponent as the Office of the Secretary of  Defense or DOD component, agency, or office responsible for the  oversight, management, administration, and implementation of a specific  common military training core curriculum. Common military training lead  proponents provide policy on training topics; the military services provide  and execute the training. For example, the Office of the DOD Chief  Information Officer is the lead proponent for Cybersecurity.
section_title: DOD and the Military Services Have Made Efforts to Review and Validate Common Military Training Requirements
paragraphs: DOD and the military services have made efforts to review and validate  the need for the current common military training requirements. DOD, for  example, established the Common Military Training Working Group in  February 2015 to, among other things, review and validate common  military training. DOD Instruction 1322.31 requires the Common Military  Training Working Group to review and validate common military training  requirements periodically. The Acting Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness signed the Common Military Training Working  Group Charter in December 2016. According to an Office of the Deputy  for Force Training official, the working group held its first organizational  meeting in January 2017 and a second meeting in February 2017 at the  Advanced Distributed Learning Office, at which it received a briefing on its  learning science and technology portfolio. The working group’s charter  states that it will review common military training requirements for validity.  The charter further states that the working group’s goal is to combine,  reduce, and eliminate redundant or obsolete common military training.  According to an Office of the Deputy for Force Training official, validation  would include a review of existing legislation, executive orders, DOD  guidance, and DOD policies and guidance to establish common military  training requirements for the military services. As of March 2017, the  working group had not yet begun to review and validate training,  according to the Office of the Deputy for Force Training. However,  according to that official, the office is in the process of developing future  working group meeting agendas to discuss topics such as validating  training requirements. The official said that the working group would need  to begin reviewing and validating the antiterrorism training topic because  the office believes that it is no longer statutorily required. In addition, our  review of the working group’s initial plans to develop meeting agendas  and to review and validate the antiterrorism training requirements  demonstrates that some future actions to review common military training  may be forthcoming.
In addition to participating in the Common Military Training Working  Group, some of the military services have made efforts to review and  validate common military training. Although DOD Instruction 1322.31  does not require the services to independently review and validate  common military training core curriculums, some military service officials  we interviewed indicated that common military training requirements are  generally accepted as validated requirements because they appear in  DOD guidance. Each service has published guidance that contains  information on what steps it employs to review and validate mandatory  training requirements. Service guidance also contains information on the  offices, committees, or steering groups that play a key role in reviewing  and validating mandatory training requirements. Table 1 below shows the  services’ published guidance containing the requirements to review and  validate mandatory training, which also includes common military training  requirements.
According to officials, the Navy and Marine Corps annually review and  validate mandatory training requirements. A Navy official in the Office of  the Chief of Naval Operations told us that the Chief of Naval Operations  must determine, validate, and assign annual Navy-wide mandatory  training requirements. The official said that the annual review process for  validating mandatory training requirements passes through several  administrative levels—including action officer working groups and a flag  level officer board that meets quarterly to discuss training issues and  recommend improvements—to shape training for the next fiscal year. In  July 2016, Navy officials published information on the results of their  review and validation of mandatory training requirements for fiscal year  2017. According to a Marine Corps official in the Training and Education  Command, the office, in collaboration with the Commanding General,  Training and Education Command, is responsible for reviewing and  validating annual training requirements. The official said that Marine  Corps Bulletin 1500, which is the Marine Corps’ guidance for annual  training and education requirements, serves as the annual validation for  mandatory training. The most recent edition of Marine Corps Bulletin  1500 was published on September 8, 2016, and contains an approved list  of mandatory training, including common military training requirements.
According to an official working for the Deputy for the Collective Training  Division, Directorate of Training, Headquarters, Department of the Army  (G-3/5/7), mandatory training requirements are reviewed and validated  biennially or as directed by the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7). The  Training General Officer Steering Committee provides an enterprise-wide  vetting of training requirements and recommendations to the Deputy  Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7). The official said that the Deputy Chief of Staff (G- 3/5/7) approves and publishes mandatory training requirements. The list  of mandatory training requirements is published in Army Regulation 350- 1.
Finally, according to Air Force officials, the Air Force reviewed and  validated existing mandatory training requirements during its October  2016 training review. The Air Force Learning Committee meets annually  to review new mandatory training requirements, and Air Force guidance  states that the Air Force Learning Division monitors the overall training  footprint for that service’s total force. According to an official in the  Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, the Air Force reviews  the service’s common military training courses to ensure that they are  meeting DOD requirements.
section_title: DOD and the Military Services Have Actions Planned to Evaluate Common Military Training
paragraphs: DOD and the military services have actions planned to evaluate common  military training. DOD directed the Common Military Training Working  Group to evaluate the effectiveness of common military training in  February 2015. Specifically, DOD Instruction 1322.31 calls for the  working group to periodically evaluate common military training for  effectiveness, among other things, and DOD Directive 1322.18 states that  it is DOD’s policy to assess military training throughout the department.  The Common Military Training Working Group charter directs the group to  review common military training requirements for effectiveness. However,  as of March 2017, the group had not yet begun to evaluate training. A  former official in the Office of the Deputy for Force Training said that  evaluation of training was an important but difficult task, and discussed  two approaches that he intended the working group to consider to  evaluate whether training is effective: (1) measuring whether individuals  have completed training; and (2) assessing the outcome of training from  the trainer’s perspective.
We found that some military service boards and committees have made  independent efforts to assess the effectiveness of their respective  mandatory military training courses, including common military training.  For example, in 2015 the Army Mandatory Training Task Force evaluated  the accessibility and effectiveness of current training materials. The  charter of the Navy Planning Board for Training calls for it to review the  impact of the annual requirements. Air Force Instruction 36-2201 directs  the Air Force Learning Committee to monitor the mandatory training  impact and improve the focus, currency, and relevancy of its curriculums  and training. According to Navy officials, the Navy Planning Board for  Training completed a review of the Command Indoctrination Program for  fiscal year 2015, which led to a recommendation to eliminate six training  topics: Navy Right Spirit Campaign and Alcohol Awareness, Suicide  Awareness, Personal Financial Management, Operational Risk  Management, Prevention of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault, and  Antiterrorism and Force Protection. According to Navy officials, these topics were redundant under the Command Indoctrination Program and  were already required as annual training by most Navy commands.
Some of the 11 common military training proponents have also made  independent efforts to assess the effectiveness of their respective  courses. Officials from 6 proponents with whom we spoke stated that they  had previously made efforts to assess the effectiveness of their  mandatory training requirements; officials from 1 proponent stated that  they would conduct an assessment in the future; and officials from the  remaining 4 stated that they had not evaluated training. For example, the  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office conducted surveys in  2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 to assess the effectiveness of the sexual  assault and sexual harassment training received by servicemembers,  according to an official from that office. The Defense Suicide Prevention  Office states in its strategic plan that it will evaluate the efficacy of suicide  prevention programs. The DOD Strategy for Suicide Prevention states  that DOD will use evidence-based training curriculums and periodically  review, evaluate, and update these curriculums. Other proponents have  taken steps to assess the amount of knowledge that individuals gain from  training in order to make adjustments as needed to the training courses  offered. For example, the Combating Trafficking in Persons training  contains a survey at the end of the computer-based version of the course.  A proponent official said that the results of the survey data are used to  make updates to training based on participant feedback. In addition,  according to an official in the Defense Human Resources Activity, the  Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members is another source used  for assessing and updating the Combating Trafficking in Persons  training.
section_title: Military Services Offer Flexibilities Regarding Course Delivery Methods and Are Taking Steps to Consolidate Training and Reduce Training Time
paragraphs: The military services offer varying degrees of flexibility for providing  course delivery methods that allow individuals to complete mandatory  training requirements, including common military training, according to  guidance we reviewed and servicemembers’ perspectives we obtained.  DOD Instruction 1322.31 requires the secretaries of the military  departments to work with the appropriate common military training lead  proponents, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and appropriate  DOD and component leads to optimize available training time and  increase training and education delivery flexibility, share best practices to  effectively educate and train servicemembers, and standardize the  common military training core curriculum to reduce the burden on each  military service. The DOD Instruction does not state which method of  delivery the military services must use to complete training requirements.  For example, according to an official in the Office of the Deputy Chief of  Staff (G-3/5/7), current policy states that all mandatory training  requirements must have alternative methods of delivery that do not rely  solely on on-line, computer-based delivery. Some services’ guidance  provides instruction on course delivery methods that individuals could use  and commanders could apply at their discretion to complete mandatory  training requirements. For example, Marine Corps Bulletin 1500 cites the  Marine Corps’ distance learning system and commander-led unit training  as delivery methods that may be considered. According to OPNAV  Instruction 1500.22H, the Navy offers command-discretion training in  which commanders have multiple options for topic delivery, such as  locally generated or standardized training products, and, in cases of  complete discretionary training, local commanders may determine when  and how training is provided. Furthermore, according to Air Force  Instruction 36-2201, training may be accomplished through a variety of  methods, including formal courses, mass briefings, advanced distributed  learning, and one-on-one instruction.
Servicemembers with whom we spoke held a range of differing opinions  about training flexibilities and course delivery methods offered by their  respective services. The text boxes below contain a series of selected  comments from servicemembers with whom we spoke who provided  perspectives on their experiences with various aspects of training. The  comments reflect opinions from servicemembers in 12 active units who  have been deployed in the past 5 years, from across the services.
Some military service officials told us that they prefer computer-based  training for some topics because it allows individuals to complete  requirements in less time than classroom courses, which may require  several hours of instruction. As shown in the text box below, military  personnel we interviewed identified some advantages and disadvantages  to computer-based training for servicemembers. Additionally, military  service personnel we interviewed said that servicemembers prefer  computer-based training because it allows them to complete training  requirements in a shorter period and avoid hours of classroom  instruction. However, personnel at other units stated that there were  disadvantages to computer-based training, such as losing the impact that  unit leaders provide, having to repeat the same training subject each  year, and not retaining as much information as they would from  discussions in classroom-style courses. Also, servicemembers in the 2nd  Battalion, 6th Marines, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and on the  Harry S. Truman expressed concerns that units lack a sufficient number  of computers.
According to estimates provided by service officials, it would take an  individual less than 20 hours to complete all the common military training.  However, an official in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7)  said that the time it takes soldiers to complete either computer-based or  face-to-face training varies greatly based on such factors as computer  availability, pre-test options, instructors, and audiences. Therefore, it is  difficult to estimate averages. One servicemember anecdotally remarked  that completion of common military training takes about 8 hours, while  another said it takes from 1 to 3 hours, per month. Table 2 shows the  military services’ estimates for completing common military training  courses, and the text box that follows provides perspectives on training  time from servicemembers with whom we spoke.
The military services are also taking initial steps toward reducing training  time for some mandatory training requirements, including common  military training, by updating their guidance, combining similar training  topics, and eliminating redundancies. For example, according to an Army  official, the Army is currently updating Army Regulation 350-1, which will  include guidance to increase commander flexibility and modify the  tracking of mandatory training. According to Navy guidance from July  2016, the Navy continued to reduce mandatory training requirements in  fiscal year 2017 and placed additional control at the discretion of local  command leadership. The Air Force issued a memo in August 2016  outlining steps to address training demands such as establishing a task  force to streamline training, among other things, and focusing on  computer-based training requirements and their effect on the force. Some  air wings at Air Combat Command and the Air Force Global Strike  Command recently issued guidance that allows unit commanders to  provide some mandatory training courses in a briefing format to  accomplish training and enhance efficiencies. Most recently, the Marine  Corps published an updated version of its mandatory training  requirements in the Marine Corps Bulletin in September 2016. In addition  to updating guidance, a Marine Corps Training and Education Command  official noted that the Marine Corps has reduced mandatory training  requirements since 2015 by an estimated 7.0 hours by consolidating  stand-alone classes addressing Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Combat  Operational Stress Control, Substance Abuse, Family Advocacy, and  Suicide Prevention with the Unit Marine Awareness and Prevention  Integrated Training. According to Marine Corps officials, the Marine  Corps’ 2017 transition to leader-led, discussion-based training for specific  annual training requirements could reduce the time needed to conduct  training, as it takes less time to refresh Marines on topics that were  covered in detail during entry-level training.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We are not making recommendations in this report. In written comments  reprinted in appendix IV, DOD concurred with the draft of this report. DOD  also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army; Air Force, and  Navy; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To describe what efforts DOD and the services have made to review and  validate common military training requirements, we collected and  reviewed DOD and service-level guidance to determine the training  required to complete common military training and the process for  reviewing, validating, consolidating, and eliminating common military  training. Specifically, we analyzed DOD Directive 1322.18, Military  Training (Jan. 13, 2009) (incorporating change 1, effective Feb. 23,  2017); DOD Instruction 1322.31, Common Military Training (CMT) (Feb.  26, 2015) (incorporating change 1, Apr. 11, 2017); Army Regulation 350- 1, Army Training and Leader Development (Aug. 19, 2014); draft Army  Regulation 350-1 (currently under review); Marine Corps Bulletin 1500,  Annual Training and Education Requirements (Sept. 8, 2016); Marine  Administrative Message 188/17, Modifications to MCBUL 1500 Annual  Training Requirements (Apr. 17, 2017); Naval Administrative Message  166/16, FY-17 General Military Training Schedule (July 26, 2016); Office  of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.22H, General Military  Training Program (Sept. 3, 2015); and Air Force Instruction 36-2201,  (Sept. 15, 2010) (incorporating through change 3, Aug. 7, 2013). We  interviewed military service officials from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy,  and Air Force to determine how they review and validate common military  training and document individuals’ completion of common military training.  We also interviewed DOD training proponents to discuss how they  develop and disseminate common military training for the military services  and their processes for reviewing and validating common military training.
To describe steps that DOD and the services have taken to evaluate the  effectiveness of common military training requirements, we collected and  reviewed DOD and service-level guidance explaining the process to  evaluate common military training. We interviewed DOD and service-level  officials from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force to discuss  their methods to evaluate common military training. We interviewed all 11  DOD training proponents to discuss how they have determined the  effectiveness of their training topics. We did not evaluate the  effectiveness of the common military training because it was beyond the  scope of our review, but rather focused on identifying examples of efforts  in which the services and proponents have taken steps to assess the  effectiveness of training.
To describe the flexibilities that the services offer regarding course  delivery methods, steps they are taking to consolidate training and reduce  training time, and their perspectives on various aspects of training, we  collected service-level training guidance that explains the level of  flexibility units have to complete common military training. We interviewed  unit commanders and training managers from a non-generalizable  sample of 12 units from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. We  worked with the services to identify units in active status that had  deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 5 years and to identify a  mix of officers and enlisted personnel within the selected units. We also  worked with service-level officials to identify unit commanders and  training managers to interview, and during these interviews we discussed  available training flexibility and determined the delivery options and the  amount of time spent on common military training. Although not  generalizable, the interviews we conducted with personnel in these units  provided examples of the training flexibilities available to commanders.  These units were as follows:
3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, Bravo Troop, Fort Carson,
3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, Charlie Troop, Fort Carson,
Delta Company (D Co) 1st Battalion, 501st Aviation Regiment, 1st  Armored Division, Combat Aviation Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Brigade Combat Tem,  1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas
2nd Law Enforcement Battalion, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp
2nd Battalion, 6th Marines, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp
USS Harry S. Truman, Aircraft Carrier 75
94th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
1st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Support Section, Langley Air
1st Maintenance Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
1st Maintenance Squadron Unit Training Manager, Langley Air Force  Base, Virginia
27th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia  We interviewed cognizant officials at various DOD headquarters offices,  including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Force Education and  Training, Office of the Deputy for Force Training; Joint Staff; Deputy Chief  of Staff, Army (G-3/5/7); U.S. Army Forces Command; U.S. Army Training  and Doctrine Command; U.S. Army Reserve Command; Marine Corps  Training and Education Command; U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command;  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Office  of the Chief of Naval Operations; Naval Education and Training  Command; U.S. Fleet Forces Command; Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff  for Manpower and Personnel; and Air Force Air Combat Command. As  shown in table 3, we also conducted interviews with the lead proponents,  located within DOD offices, for each common military training topic.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Department of Defense (DOD) Common Military Training Requirements
paragraphs: Table 4 below presents a list of the 11 common military training  requirements. Of these, 5 are mandated by statute or executive order.
section_title: Appendix III: Common Military Training and Mandatory Training Requirements
paragraphs: Table 5 below presents a summary of common military training and the  military services’ mandatory training requirements that fulfill common  military training requirements. Some mandatory training courses fulfill the  requirements for multiple common military training requirements. For  most military services, common military training comprises more than half  of their mandatory training requirements.
Table 6 below summarizes the services’ mandatory training requirements  that do not fulfill common military training requirements. These  requirements fall under the services’ definitions of mandatory training  requirements. The mandatory training requirements listed below are  common across a service. The table does not include additional training  that the services may require for specific groups of servicemembers.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sally L. Newman (Assistant  Director), Thomas Corless, Michele Fejfar, Latrealle Lee, Amie Lesser,  Shahrzad Nikoo, Carol Petersen, Vikki Porter, and Cheryl Weissman  made key contributions to this report.