Army National Guard: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers
Published: 2005-01-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: GAO was asked to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased operational tempo on the process used to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families; (2) the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the processes, human capital, and automated systems relied on for Army Guard travel reimbursements; and (3) whether the Department of Defense's (DOD) current efforts to automate its travel reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified. GAO selected and audited 10 case study units that were identified in a preliminary assessment as having a variety of travel reimbursement problems.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Mobilized Army Guard soldiers have experienced significant problems getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for out-of-pocket travel expenses. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of the sustained increase in mobilized Guard soldiers following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To its credit, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) hired over 200 new personnel to address travel voucher processing backlogs and recently upgraded their training. However, Guard soldiers in our case study units reported a number of problems they and their families endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and inability to make child support payments. The soldier bears primary responsibility for travel voucher preparation, including obtaining paper copies of various types of authorizations. DFAS data indicate that it rejected and asked soldiers to resubmit about 18 percent of vouchers during fiscal year 2004--a churning process that added to delays and frustration. Also, existing guidance did not clearly address the sometimes complex travel situations of mobilized Army Guard soldiers, who were often housed off-post due to overcrowding on military installations. Further, DOD continued to be noncompliant with a law that requires payment of late payment interest and fees when soldiers' travel reimbursements are not timely. With respect to human capital, GAO found a lack of oversight and accountability and inadequate training. Automated systems problems, such as nonintegration of key systems involved in authorizing and paying travel expenses and failure to automate key processes, also contributed to the inefficient, error-prone process. DOD has been developing and implementing the Defense Travel System (DTS) to resolve travel-related deficiencies. However, DTS will not address some of the key systems flaws. For example, DTS is currently not able to process mobilized soldier travel authorizations and vouchers and identify and calculate late payment interest and fees.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the operational tempo for  the military services has greatly increased, with corresponding increases in  the basic administrative tasks necessary to keep soldiers paid, fed, and  housed.  Over 186,500 Army National Guard (Army Guard) soldiers were  mobilized from September 14, 2001, through September 30, 2004, to serve  in Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom.  Some  mobilized Army Guard soldiers have incurred significant travel expenses in  conjunction with their roles in carrying out critical national security  missions.  Army Guard soldiers called to active service are entitled to be  reimbursed for authorized travel expenses incurred.  The Department of  Defense (DOD) is to provide a Guard soldier traveling on official business  with transportation, lodging, and food, or to reimburse the soldier for  reasonable and necessary authorized expenses if the soldier purchases  them.  In short, the soldier is to be made whole for authorized out-of- pocket expenses, with timely and accurate reimbursements for travel  expenses.
Within the United States, Army Guard soldiers have guarded the Pentagon,  airports, nuclear power plants, and domestic water supplies as part of the  homeland security effort.  Overseas, they continue to perform highly  dangerous peacekeeping missions and force protection operations in Iraq,  Afghanistan, and other countries.  When government-provided meals and  housing were not available to some Guard soldiers, they lived off the local  economy—purchased food at restaurants and groceries, and housing at  hotels—and later submitted requests to the Army for reimbursement of  their out-of-pocket expenses.
In October 2002, we reported that the Defense Finance and Accounting  Service (DFAS) did not have systems in place to identify late travel  reimbursements and therefore could not identify the soldiers who were not  paid within 30 days of submission of an approved travel voucher and who  therefore should have been paid late payment interest and fees required  pursuant to Section 2 of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998  (TTRA).  This affected numerous soldiers whose vouchers were paid late.   For example, at one California National Guard unit, we estimated that  about 60 percent of travel vouchers were not paid within 30 days of  submission to an approving official.  In March 2003, the DFAS Headquarters  Internal Review Office also reported concern over management’s inability  to properly measure the timeliness of travel voucher reimbursements.   According to the DFAS report, 39 percent of approximately 1 million travel  vouchers paid during the period May 2002 through October 2002 did not  have the date the voucher was received or the date the voucher was  approved recorded in an automated system, both of which are key dates for  determining payment timeliness.  The report also stated that available data  showed 18 percent of the vouchers were not paid within 35 calendar days  of the completion of travel.  Further, during our audits of Army Guard and  Army Reserve military payroll controls, soldiers told us about problems  with delayed and inaccurate travel cost reimbursements and meal cost  authorizations and entitlements.
You asked us to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased  operational tempo on the effectiveness of the process used to reimburse  Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel  reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families and   (2) the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the processes,  human capital, and automated systems relied on to provide timely travel  cost reimbursements and accurate meal authorizations and entitlements to  mobilized Army Guard soldiers.  Finally, in the systems area, you asked us  to assess whether DOD’s current efforts to automate its travel  reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified.
Because our preliminary assessment determined that current  authorization, request, review, and approval processes used to pay travel  reimbursements to active service Army Guard soldiers relied extensively  on paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems, and error-prone manual  transaction entry that did not provide an adequate audit trail or a reliable  population of transactions, we could not effectively statistically test  current processes and controls.  The lack of accurate and complete  centralized data on Army Guard travel also precluded statistical testing of  related transactions.  Instead, we systematically assessed the effectiveness  of the overall design of controls at work in the key areas of processes,  people (human capital), and automated systems.  Further, we used case  studies and individual voucher data mining to identify Army Guard units  with a variety of travel reimbursement problems, including disputes over  authorizations for meal reimbursements, and individual soldiers who had  been reimbursed late.  We used this approach to provide a more detailed  perspective on the design of controls and the nature of deficiencies in the  three phases of the travel and reimbursement process: (1) authorization;  (2) travel voucher preparation, unit review, and transmission; and   (3) computation office review and payment.
Specifically, we gathered available data and analyzed the travel  reimbursement experiences of 10 selected Army Guard units mobilized to  active service in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and  Enduring Freedom during the period from October 2001 through November  2003.  We selected four military police and four special forces units, which  we determined from a preliminary assessment were experiencing travel  reimbursement problems.  The remaining two were selected based on our  review of complaints to United States senators and representatives.  We  also audited a nonrepresentative selection of individual travel vouchers  that were paid 120 days or more from the date the travel ended and travel  vouchers selected from the unit case studies.  We conducted our audit  work from November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance with  U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, and we performed  our investigative work in accordance with standards prescribed by the  President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.  Further details on our  scope and methodology are included in appendix I.  DOD’s written  comments on a draft of this report have been reprinted as appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Army Guard is the oldest component of any of the uniformed services.   It traces its roots to the colonial militia and claims a “birth” of 1636.  Today,  the Army Guard exists in 54 locations that include all 50 states, the District  of Columbia, and three territories: Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto  Rico.  There are Army Guard facilities in more than 2,800 communities and  over 350,000 Army Guard members.  During peacetime, each Army Guard  unit reports to the adjutant general of its state or territory, or in the case of  the District of Columbia, to the Commanding General.  Each adjutant  general reports to the governor of the state or territory, or in the case of the  District of Columbia, to the mayor.
At the state level, the governors have the ability, under the Constitution of  the United States, to call up members of the Army Guard in times of  domestic emergency or need. The Army Guard’s state mission is perhaps  the most visible and well known.  Army Guard units battle fires or help  communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms, or other  emergency situations.  In times of civil unrest, the citizens of a state rely on  the Army Guard to respond, if needed.  During national emergencies, the  President has the authority to activate the Army Guard, putting them in  federal duty status.  When ordered to federal active duty by the President in  accordance with the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, the units  answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are  operating and, ultimately, to the President.  When called to perform duty in  accordance with the provisions of Title 32, United States Code, units  answer to the adjutant generals and ultimately to the governors.  When  Army Guard units are performing duty under Title 10 or Title 32, the federal  government provides funds for reimbursement of authorized travel  expenses.
The Army Guard is a partner with the active Army and the Army Reserve in  fulfilling the country’s military needs.  The National Guard Bureau (NGB),  which assists the Army Guard in the partnership, is a joint bureau of the  Departments of the Army and the Air Force and is charged with overseeing  the federal functions of the Army Guard and the Air National Guard (Air  Guard).  In this capacity, NGB helps the Army Guard and the Air Guard  procure funding and administer polices.  NGB also acts as a liaison  between the Departments of the Army and Air Force and the states.
All Army forces are integrated under DOD’s “total force” concept.  DOD’s  total force concept is based on the premise that it is not feasible to  maintain active duty forces sufficient to meet all possible war  contingencies.  Consequently, DOD’s active and reserve components are to  be blended into a cohesive total force to meet a given mission.
DOD reported that over 186,500 Army Guard soldiers and 111,800 Army  Reserve soldiers were mobilized from September 14, 2001, through  September 30, 2004, for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and  Iraqi Freedom.  As of September 30, 2004, Army Guard soldiers accounted  for over 40 percent of the total reserve components mobilized in response  to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The federal missions established in response to the September 2001  national emergency were categorized into three operations: Operation  Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.   In general, missions to fight terrorism and direct combat outside the United  States were categorized under Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation  Iraqi Freedom, while missions to provide domestic defense were  categorized as Operation Noble Eagle.  For example, Army Guard soldiers  participated in antiterrorist and direct combat activities in Afghanistan and  Iraq under Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom,  respectively.  Additionally, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,  Army Guard soldiers provided enhanced security in other countries.  U.S.  homeland security missions, such as guarding the Pentagon, airports,  nuclear power plants, domestic water supplies, bridges, tunnels, and other  military assets, were conducted under Operation Noble Eagle.
Army Guard soldiers called to active service are entitled to be reimbursed  for authorized travel expenses incurred.  DOD provides a soldier traveling  on official business with transportation, lodging, and food, or reimburses  the soldier for reasonable and necessary authorized expenses if the soldier  purchases them.
In October 2001, the Army issued personnel policy guidance (PPG) for  Operation Noble Eagle.  In September 2002, consolidated PPG was issued  covering both Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.  This  guidance, which is revised on an ongoing basis, ultimately was expanded to  include Operation Iraqi Freedom and now applies generally to all active  service personnel who are mobilized and/or deployed in support of  contingency operations.  The PPG guidance covers topics ranging from  general mobilization guidance to specific travel entitlements.
The two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers  and travel computation office personnel for information on travel  entitlements were the Army’s PPG and DOD’s Joint Federal Travel  Regulation (JFTR).
subsections: section_title: Per Diem
paragraphs: The term per diem allowance refers to a daily payment instead of  reimbursement for actual expenses for (1) lodging, (2) meals, and   (3) related incidental expenses.
There are many factors that go into the per diem authorization and  calculation, including the availability of government quarters and meal  facilities.  Generally, soldiers mobilized for Operations Noble Eagle,  Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom must use government meal facilities  to the maximum extent practicable when they are sent to government  installations with dining facilities.  Because they incur no actual expenses  while living in government housing and eating in government facilities, they  are not authorized the meal and lodging components of the per diem  allowance.  However, they are entitled to receive the incidental component  of per diem.  The daily government incidental expense allowance for fiscal  year 2004 was $3.00 within the continental United States (CONUS) and  $3.50 outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
When the installation commander determines that government lodging  and/or mess facilities are not available, the PPG directs that Army Guard  soldiers be provided with SNAs to authorize the lodging and/or meal  components of per diem in addition to the incidental expense component  of per diem.   DOD regulations further provide that when government  lodging and mess facilities are generally available, but an authorizing  official determines that soldiers must occasionally miss meals due to  mission requirements, proportional per diem is authorized.
Table 1 shows the various components of CONUS and OCONUS per  diem and the fiscal year 2004 range of dollar amounts an Army Guard  soldier may be entitled to receive under the PPG and the JFTR.
Additionally, the PPG provides that regardless of whether an Army Guard  soldier is authorized the meal component of per diem, basic allowance for  subsistence (BAS) will not be reduced.  BAS is included in the Army  Guard soldier’s compensation and is not a travel entitlement.  More  specifically, BAS is a continuation of the military tradition of providing  room and board (or rations) as part of a service member’s pay.   The  monthly BAS rate is based on the price of food and is readjusted yearly  based upon the increase of the price of food as measured by the  Department of Agriculture’s food cost index.  As of January 2004, BAS  ranged from $175.23 a month for officers to $262.50 a month for enlisted  service members.
section_title: Travel and Reimbursement Process
paragraphs: The current DOD travel reimbursement process for Army Guard soldiers  operates at travel computation offices around the country, including DFAS  CTO, the travel computation office at DFAS Indianapolis, 54 United States  Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFO) servicing each of the Army Guard  locations, and several other DFAS sites.  Travel voucher processing  consumes the resources of hundreds of personnel, reviewing thousands of  pieces of paper every day.
As illustrated in figure 1, the travel and reimbursement process consists of  three phases: (1) authorizations and travel; (2) travel voucher preparation,  submission, review, and transmission; and (3) computation office review,  reimbursement computation, and payment.
In the first phase of the travel and reimbursement process, various travel  orders and other authorizations are produced and are provided to and/or  acquired by soldiers, and soldiers incur travel expenses.
Following the President’s mobilization order, the Secretary of Defense, in  consultation with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (1) determines  specific unit personnel requirements and (2) issues a unit mobilization  order to various affected units and organizations within the Army.
USPFO officials use the Automated Fund Control Order System (AFCOS)  to produce individual mobilization orders for soldiers.  Individual  mobilization orders usually contain general travel information, such as  authorized methods of transportation; directions regarding the use of  government food and lodging facilities; and authorizations for the soldier to  travel from the unit’s home station, a permanent duty station, to an active  Army installation (the mobilization station) for further processing and  training.
After completion of mission-related training at the mobilization station, the  unit is certified for deployment, and soldiers are assigned duty stations.   Army commands use word processing applications to produce temporary  change of station (TCS) orders to give soldiers authorization to travel from  their mobilization stations to long-term temporary assignments at other  locations.  During the deployment period, the Army may also issue TDY  orders and other authorization statements, such as SNAs.  The Army issues  a TDY order to authorize a soldier’s travel from one location to another  location for generally less than 45 days.  The Army issues SNAs to soldiers  when government lodging and/or meals are not available to the soldier.
Following the completion of a tour, the Army issues each federal active  duty soldier a Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) order from the  transition processing system and a Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active Duty (DD Form 214).
The second phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins with the  soldier’s preparation and submission of a travel voucher, and the review of  the voucher by the unit reviewer prior to the transmission of the voucher to  the travel computation office, typically either a DFAS or USPFO location.   According to Army Guard and DFAS guidance, all travel vouchers for Army  Guard soldiers who are mobilized under Title 10 are to be sent to DFAS  CTO for processing, while travel vouchers associated with Title 32  mobilizations and other nonmobilized travel are generally processed by  USPFO and other travel computation offices.  Final completion of the  voucher occurs following the calculation of actual reimbursable amounts  by a travel computation office.
The soldier begins the reimbursement process by manually: 1. preparing a travel voucher (DD Form 1351-2) (the soldier provides  required information, such as name, rank, Social Security number,  itinerary, and authorized reimbursable expenses);  2. attaching all supporting DOD-generated documentation (e.g.,  mobilization orders, TCS orders, TDY orders, SNAs, REFRAD orders,  DD Form 214);  3. attaching original lodging receipts and all receipts for reimbursable  expenses of $75.00 or more;  4. signing and dating the voucher; and 5. delivering the entire voucher package—the travel voucher and all  supporting documentation—to a unit supervisor for review.
DOD’s Financial Management Regulation (FMR) requires that travel  vouchers be submitted to the unit reviewer within 5 working days of the  end of travel, or in the case of travel that extends beyond 30 days, within 5  days after the end of every 30-day travel period.  In addition, according to  The Citizen-Soldier’s Guide to Mobilization Finance, soldiers who have  government quarters and meals provided to them may opt to file for the  incidental portion of their per diem entitlement on a quarterly, semiannual,  or annual basis since the amount due the soldier is nominal.
The unit reviewer—required by DFAS policy to be the soldier’s supervisor/  commander or designee—is responsible for ensuring that the voucher  claim is complete, proper, and complies with the intent of the order.  On  completion of the review, the unit reviewer signs and dates the voucher and  forwards it and the supporting documentation to a travel computation  office via regular mail, e-mail, or fax.
The third phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins when the  travel computation office receives the voucher package.  The travel  computation office reviews the voucher package, calculates the  reimbursement amount, and processes the reimbursement to pay the  soldier and/or the government travel card company, generally through  direct deposit of the funds to their respective banks.   The travel  computation office is responsible for the accuracy and propriety of  voucher payments.
DFAS CTO and USPFO personnel perform an initial screening of voucher  packages.  If the basic information—signatures, dates, and orders—is  present, a more detailed review of the voucher is performed.  Detailed  travel voucher data are then manually entered into the Integrated  Automated Travel System version 6.0 (WINIATS), which calculates the  amount of the reimbursement.  Attempts are made to contact the soldier if  any problems are noted during the initial screening, the detailed review, or  the data entry.  Failing contact with the soldier, DFAS or USPFO personnel  mail the voucher package to the address on the voucher for correction by  the soldier.
If DOD fails to reimburse soldiers for travel claims within 30 days of  submission of proper travel vouchers, DOD must pay the soldiers late  payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA.
section_title: Weaknesses in Error- Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process Were Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo
paragraphs: The paper-intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard  soldiers for their travel expenses was not designed to handle the dramatic  increase in travel vouchers since the terrorist attacks of September 11,  2001, and the subsequent military activity.  The increased operational  tempo resulted in backlogs in travel voucher processing as DFAS CTO  struggled to keep up with both the increased volume and complexity of the  travel vouchers submitted.  For example, the monthly volume of travel  vouchers being submitted to DFAS CTO increased from less than 3,200 in  October 2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003 and remained at levels over 30,000  through September 2004.  To its credit, to address the large volume of  vouchers received and the unprocessed backlog, DFAS increased its  staffing by over 200 new personnel and reported an average processing  time of 8 days for its part of the process in September 2004.  However, our  case studies of selected units and data mining of individual vouchers  identified numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting  accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses.   Guard soldiers told us about a number of problems they and their families  endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts  on their personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and  inability to make child support payments.  As discussed later, we found that  these reimbursement problems were associated with process, human  capital, and automated system deficiencies.
subsections: section_title: Paper-Driven Process Used to Reimburse Army Guard Soldiers
paragraphs: Overall, as shown in figure 2, we found that a paper-intensive, manual,  error-prone process exists to reimburse travel expenses to mobilized Army  Guard soldiers.
The primary responsibility for ensuring a travel voucher is properly  prepared rests with the soldier.  As illustrated in figure 2, the soldier is  responsible for obtaining paper documents that include various  authorizations and receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in addition to a  manually prepared and signed paper travel voucher.  Each time DFAS CTO  receives a voucher and determines that it is not complete, either the soldier  is contacted in an attempt to get the needed information or the entire  voucher is rejected and returned to the soldier.  The difficulty in assembling  a complete and acceptable voucher package on the first try is  demonstrated by the 11, 12, and 18 percent return rates reported by DFAS  CTO for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively.   That is, of  approximately 930,000 travel vouchers received during this period, DFAS  CTO rejected and returned about 139,000.  The soldier must then obtain the  missing documentation or make the necessary corrections and return the  voucher to DFAS for processing again.  This repeated churning of vouchers  further increases the volume of claims, which, as discussed in the next  section, quickly overwhelmed DFAS CTO’s resources.   In addition,  returned vouchers contribute to delays in payment, increasing soldiers’  frustration.
section_title: Increased Operational Tempo Initially Overwhelmed Process
paragraphs: While this inefficient process may have offered some capability to process  travel vouchers during periods of low activity when relatively few Army  Guard members were mobilized, the current increased operational tempo  has strained the process beyond its limits.  The volume of Army Guard and  Reserve travel vouchers being submitted to DFAS CTO increased from less  than 3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003.  As shown in figure  3, the monthly travel voucher volume has remained above 30,000 since the  July 2003 peak.
In addition to the rising volume, the increased complexity of the vouchers  received further slowed down the process.  As military activity increased  for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Army Guard, Army Reserve, and active  Army soldiers were preparing for duty, not all of the installations to which  Army Guard soldiers were assigned had available government housing.  As  a result, the soldiers were housed off-post in commercial hotels or  apartments.  This created a number of novel situations that were not  specifically addressed in regulations, as discussed later.
For example, the Virginia 20th Special Forces Army National Guard unit was  mobilized to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2002.  The unit was  initially housed in World War II era barracks—with free meals in the mess  hall—that were in such poor condition that the company commander  requested and received off-post housing.  The hotel was over 10 miles from  the nearest Fort Bragg dining facility, and with many of the soldiers  assigned to duties that required odd or extended hours that precluded use  of the dining facility, the soldiers found that they were paying for at least  two meals per day out of their own pockets.  When members of the Virginia  20th Special Forces eventually submitted their proportional meal per diem  vouchers to DFAS CTO, some were paid over $2,000 for 4 months of meal  expenses and some were not, due in part to confusion over the meal per  diem entitlements in this situation.  As a result, some soldiers had to obtain  additional documentation and resubmit their vouchers, further adding to  the volume of vouchers.  As of May 2004, 14 soldiers still had not received  the majority of their proportional meal per diem entitlements, ranging from  about $1,600 to over $3,500 per soldier for a mobilization that occurred  over 2 years ago.  During our review, we brought this matter to the  attention of the Virginia 20th Special Forces provisional finance officer and  DFAS CTO, and in June 2004, DFAS CTO processed vouchers for 10 of the  14 soldiers and made final payments for meal expenses they incurred  during their Fort Bragg duty.  The remaining 4 soldiers had not been paid at  the completion of our audit.
During this time frame, DFAS CTO staffing levels were not keeping pace  with the rising volume of vouchers.   However, while DFAS CTO employed  less than 50 personnel in October 2001, this number more than doubled by  February 2003 and was increased further to about 240 in June 2003,  including 83 Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers, as shown in figure 4.
A DFAS CTO official told us that the office was not properly staffed to  process travel vouchers at the beginning of 2003 when the volume started  to increase.  Inadequate staffing and the time necessary to train new staff  created a backlog of travel vouchers at DFAS CTO, ballooning to over  18,000 vouchers in March 2003.   In one case, an Army Guard specialist  prepared a voucher on December 8, 2002, and his supervisor approved it  the same day.  It took 124 days before the voucher was stamped as received  by DFAS CTO and another 66 days for DFAS to pay the soldier.  In addition,  although this payment should have included late payment interest, it did  not because, as discussed later in this report, DFAS did not have the means  to automatically identify those soldiers who should have received interest  and other fees on their late payments.  To its credit, with its increased  staffing levels in place, DFAS CTO reported an average processing time of 8  days for its part of the process as of September 2004.
section_title: Impact That Travel Reimbursement Problems Have Had on Army Guard Soldiers and Their Families
paragraphs: Our case studies of selected units and data mining of individual vouchers  identified numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting  accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses.  As  discussed in this report, these problems related to process, human capital,  and systems deficiencies.  Major factors contributing to inconsistent,  inaccurate, or late reimbursements experienced by these soldiers were that  requirements for authorizing and supporting per diem reimbursements for  meal expenses were not always known by the mobilized soldiers nor were  they well understood by local base personnel, and the authorizations were  not documented on their mobilization orders or travel orders.
While our work was not intended to and we did not attempt to quantify the  financial impact of inaccurate and late reimbursements on individual  soldiers, we found a number of soldiers who were frustrated and  concerned with the process and the amount of time they spent attempting  to navigate it.  For example, one individual responsible for submitting his  unit’s vouchers to DFAS CTO told us that he called the process “the travel  voucher lottery” because “you never knew whether, or how much, you  might get paid.”  Frustrated soldiers sought help from their United States  senators or representatives in obtaining what they believed they were owed  for out-of-pocket travel expenses.  The following are excerpts from three of  those letters.
Sergeant First Class (NY)-- “Since being released I have submitted   for payment of travel pay and storage authorized by  my orders.  I have yet to receive the pay due.  The forms have had to be  resubmitted two other times, without changes.  The previous  submissions have either been misplaced or lost after arriving at  defense finance.  ... For me, it has become a hardship.  I was laid off  from  in May of 2002 just before our activation.  This was  due to downsizing.  I am currently on unemployment, attending  BOCES  for welding.  I  had counted on this money to cover my medical insurance and vehicle  payment.  At this time I am 2 months behind on the medical  premiums and vehicle payment.  Chase Bank has said that after next  week they will submit the vehicle for repossession. ...These types of  problems are a very good reason to leave the National Guard.”
Sergeant First Class (NC)-- “Trying to get my final travel pay for  active duty for Operation Enduring Freedom.  I submitted my travel  voucher in December 02 and it was sent to DFAS Indianapolis in  January 03 and I still have not received payment [as of April 29,  2003]. ... I understand the workloads due to the war on terrorism, but  over 5 months is extreme.”
Staff Sergeant (KS)-- “Below please find an e-mail that I received  last night from DFAS informing me that they have now deleted my  voucher from February  and I must start all over again.  In the  last year and a half when this has happened, although they say it is  expedited, in practice and reality it goes to the bottom of the pile and  takes 3-6 weeks.  I’m at my wits and financial end.  I have already  placed approx $3500 of money owed to me by the Army on my  personal credit cards and cannot afford to do it anymore.”
The majority of soldiers in our 10 case study units reported problems  related to reimbursements for meal expenses that included late payments,  underpayments, and overpayments resulting in debts to some soldiers in  excess of $10,000.  For example, we estimated that about $324,000 was paid  more than a year late to 120 soldiers for meal expenses based on the  proportional meal rate for their locality.  As discussed in detail later in this  report, these issues were caused by weaknesses in the process used to pay  Army Guard travel reimbursements; the human capital practices in this  area, including the lack of adequate training; and nonintegrated automated  systems.  Table 2 summarizes the experiences of Army Guard soldiers in 10  units.  We referred 8 of these units that at the end of our audit included  soldiers who were unpaid, partially paid, or in debt to appropriate DOD  officials to resolve any amounts owed to the Army Guard soldiers or to the  government.
The following provides more details on the experiences of several of these  units.
The 114th Military Police Company, Clinton, Mississippi, mobilized the  first time in January 2002 and performed around-the-clock shift work at  Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for approximately 5 months before being sent  to Cuba.  While at Fort Campbell, the soldiers could not always avail  themselves of the base dining facilities and therefore had to pay out-of- pocket for some of their meals.  The soldiers were not informed that  they were eligible for a proportional meal rate until they returned from  Cuba in November 2002.  Due to various other delays, it took over 14  months for the soldiers to be reimbursed about $2,700 each based upon  the proportional meal rate for Fort Campbell.  The unit commander  informed us that the delays put considerable strain on the finances of  some of his lower graded soldiers.
This unit’s problems were compounded when its soldiers were  mobilized a second time in February 2003 and went to Fort Hood, Texas.   Even though they experienced the same conditions, they were denied  compensation for their out-of-pocket expenses.  Soldiers told us their  duty hours were similar to those they worked at Fort Campbell.  Using  the information from their experiences with the reimbursement process  at Fort Campbell, the unit commander contacted Fort Hood officials to  obtain authorization for reimbursement for costs his soldiers were  incurring due to the inability to use the dining facilities at Fort Hood for  all meals.  The unit commander’s attempts to get authorization for the  proportional meal rate were unsuccessful.  At the time of our audit, we  estimated that none of the 76 soldiers in the unit had been reimbursed  for about 10 months, totaling approximately $6,000 per soldier.
The Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion was mobilized in support of  Operation Enduring Freedom to perform installation security and force  protection duties at Bad Aibling Station, Germany, from July 2002 to  February 2003.  All deployed members were entitled to the identical per  diem for meals and incidental expenses applicable to their location.   Although the unit’s administrative officer submitted identical vouchers  for each soldier at the end of each month as required, the soldiers  received varying reimbursement amounts each month.   For example,  following the August 2002 submission, 4 soldiers in the unit received  what they believed to be the correct reimbursement of $1,718.  The  remaining 33 soldiers received payments ranging from $371.20 to  $1,485.00.  These types of inconsistencies occurred month after month.
The commanding officer indicated in a memorandum that “This is a  hugely demoralizing and frustrating action.”  The administrative officer,  who sent detailed spreadsheets to DFAS CTO, wrote in one e-mail to  DFAS officials, “I have E3’s  who are owed over  $2,000.  These soldiers deserve better.... If I call your department three  times and ask three different people the same question I will receive  three differing answers.… Is there or is there not a single standard for  paying soldiers travel pay?”
During our audit of selected travel vouchers, some that were paid as much  as 500 days after travel ended, we found that significant delays frequently  occurred when soldiers had to submit travel vouchers multiple times to  travel computation offices.  Travel computation offices routinely returned  improperly prepared and inadequately reviewed vouchers that did not  contain basic required signatures, dates, and travel orders.  Further, DFAS  staffing shortfalls contributed to some of the delays that we noted.  Table 3  shows examples of the extent of delays experienced by soldiers in  obtaining payment for travel expenses.
The following provides more details for the experiences of some of the  soldiers with payment delays.
A corporal with the California 49th Military Police Company was  frustrated by the repeated recycling of his voucher eight times through  the travel reimbursement process, which caused his reimbursement of  travel expenses to be delayed for about 17 months.  His story  exemplifies process and human capital flaws.  For example, (1) the  reviewing official approved the voucher even though it lacked  supporting documentation, (2) DFAS CTO did not know that faxed  vouchers were not being printed, and (3) customer service was weak as  evidenced by piecemeal requests for information.  According to the  California unit’s reviewing official, the voucher, along with others, was  initially faxed to DFAS CTO in August 2002.  When not all soldiers  received notification that DFAS CTO had received the vouchers, the unit  official again faxed the vouchers.  The corporal told us that he later  received an e-mail from DFAS CTO requesting his DD Form 214,  Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  He submitted the  DD Form 214, but he then received his whole travel voucher package  back from DFAS CTO with a note saying that the DD Form 214 was  missing.  He checked the package and found that the DD Form 214 he  had previously sent was in the materials returned by DFAS CTO.  DFAS  CTO returned the voucher in February 2003 because it was incorrectly  completed and again in October 2003 because it lacked mobilization  orders.  DFAS eventually paid the corporal $779 in December 2003.
A sergeant with the Utah 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion  experienced an approximate 22-month delay in receiving full  reimbursement for his travel expenses.  Delays for this voucher were  caused by (1) fax problems, (2) missing documents, and (3) DFAS CTO  errors in reimbursing the sergeant for properly supported expenditures.   The sergeant told us that he faxed his voucher to DFAS CTO soon after  his travel ended in October 2002.  When DFAS CTO claimed it had not  received the voucher, he refaxed it in January 2003.  Because he  remobilized in January 2003, he did not learn until he returned in May  2003 that DFAS CTO did not have a record of his January resubmission.   He resubmitted his voucher in May 2003, and DFAS CTO returned it  because he had not attached his DD Form 214, documenting his  discharge from active duty.  After he resubmitted the paperwork in  August 2003, DFAS paid him only $1,269, which did not include all of his  lodging costs or any of his meal expenses while at the TDY location.  He  told us that DFAS CTO could not explain why his meal expenses were  not paid.  Following his resubmission in March 2004, DFAS paid him  $189.78, which was the outstanding balance on his lodging receipts.
DFAS did not pay the remaining balance of $572.00 for his meals until  after GAO inquired about payment of the voucher in August 2004.
A sergeant with the Texas 141st Infantry Company had to wait 6 ½  months for reimbursement of his travel expenses because of   (1) miscommunication about his unit’s responsibilities and   (2) subsequent inadequate unit supervisory review.  The sergeant told us  he had been informed that his unit in Guantonamo, Cuba, would prepare  and submit his voucher when his tour of duty ended in December 2002.   About 113 days elapsed before he discovered that his unit in Cuba did  not prepare a voucher on his behalf.  At that point, he asked his home  unit administrator in Texas to help him prepare and submit his voucher  to DFAS CTO.  However, DFAS CTO returned that voucher because it  lacked supervisory signature.  The sergeant believed he needed  supervisory approval from his unit and sent the voucher back to Cuba  for approval.  After it was returned from Cuba, he resubmitted it to  DFAS CTO, but for some reason unknown to him he still did not get  paid.  He resubmitted his voucher to DFAS CTO in late June 2003, and  DFAS paid him $682 in July 2003 approximately 82 days after  supervisory approval.
section_title: Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army Guard Travel Reimbursements
paragraphs: Policies and guidance, the foundation of the process for authorizing travel  entitlements and reimbursements, were sometimes unclear to the Army  Guard soldiers who were called from their civilian lives to military service  since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  Not since World War II had  so many Army Guard soldiers been mobilized for extended periods and  essentially placed in travel status for as long as 2 years.  Prior to   September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed relatively routine  travel for brief periods and was not always clearly applicable to situations  Army Guard soldiers encountered, particularly when they could not avail  themselves of government-provided meals due to the nature of their duty  assignments.  In October 2001, the Army issued new guidance that was  intended to address travel entitlements unique to Army and Army Guard  soldiers mobilized for the war on terrorism.  However, the lack of clarity in  this guidance created problems not only for Army Guard soldiers but for  numerous other personnel involved with authorizing travel entitlements  and contributed to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements.   Furthermore, inappropriate policy and guidance on how to identify and pay  soldiers entitled to late payment interest and fees because of late travel  reimbursement meant that DOD continued to be noncompliant with TTRA.    As a result, as discussed in the next section, although DOD paid no late  payment interest or fees to Army Guard soldiers through April 2004, we  found a number of cases in which soldiers should have been paid late  payment interest and indications that thousands more may be entitled to  late payment interest.  GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government state that internal control is an integral component of  an organization’s management that provides reasonable assurance that  objectives of the agency are being achieved, including effectiveness and  efficiency of operations and compliance with laws and regulations.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Clear Guidance on Travel Entitlements, Including Late Payment Interest and Fees
paragraphs: We found that a key factor contributing to delays and denials of Army  Guard reimbursements for out-of-pocket meal expenses was a lack of  clearly defined guidance.  We noted that the existing guidance (1) provided  unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of out-of-pocket meal  expenses, (2) lacked instructions for including meal entitlements on  mobilization orders, and (3) contained inadequate instructions for  preparing and issuing SNAs.
Two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers and  travel computation office personnel for information on travel entitlements  were the Army’s personnel policy guidance (PPG) for military personnel  mobilized for Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Noble  Eagle and DOD’s Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR).  We found that  both Army Guard soldiers and travel computation personnel had difficulty  using these sources to find the information necessary about the rules  regarding travel-related entitlements.  A DFAS CTO official and users told  us that the guidance was legalistic and not user friendly.  Army Guard  soldiers and DFAS CTO examiners had trouble at times interpreting the  guidance, and as a result, soldiers experienced travel reimbursement  problems.
Table 4 shows the sources of common problems related to meal expense  reimbursements experienced by soldiers in our case studies.
Unclear eligibility criteria. We found that guidance did not adequately  address some significant conditions that entitled a soldier to  reimbursement of authorized meal expenses.  For example, although the  JFTR entitled soldiers to reimbursement for meal expenses when  transportation was not reasonably available between government meal  facilities and place of lodging, the term “reasonably available” was not  defined.  The PPG directed the maximum use of installation facilities, and if  not feasible, then “multi-passenger vehicles should be used” to transport  soldiers to installation facilities.  However, the PPG is silent regarding what  constitutes adequate transportation, particularly when transportation to  government meal facilities is necessary for Army Guard soldiers who  cannot be housed in government facilities.   As discussed in one of our case  studies, we found disagreements between the soldiers and their command  officials about the adequacy of transportation to government meal facilities  and their entitlement to get reimbursed for eating at commercial facilities  closer to their lodgings.  Without clear guidance on these issues, Army  decisions will continue to appear arbitrary and unfair to soldiers.
The following illustrates the experiences of the Army Guard soldiers with  the Maryland 115th Military Police Headquarters/Headquarters Company,  their perceptions of unfair and inconsistent treatment, and apparent  confusion between basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) compensation  entitlements and meal entitlements while in TCS status.  For example, BAS  is included in the Army Guard soldier’s compensation and is not a travel  entitlement.
Case Study Illustration: Soldiers Claim Inadequate Transportation Should Have  Justified Reimbursement of Out-of-Pocket Meal Expenses   Soldiers with the Maryland 115th Military Police Headquarters/Headquarters Company  were mobilized to Fort Stewart, Georgia, in October 2001, to perform force protection  duties. As shown in figure 5, the 107 soldiers in the unit were housed in a government-  contracted hotel approximately 3 to 4 miles from the base because the on-base housing  was overcrowded. Soldiers told us that transportation from the hotels to the government  dining facilities was inadequate. They explained that while military buses and vans took  soldiers to and from the base for their shift work duties, the soldiers not on shift,  including those on their days off, had to find their own transportation to the government  dining facilities.
Approximately 3 weeks into the unit’s mobilization, the battalion commander allowed  some soldiers (E-7 and above) to use their privately owned vehicles, but many other  soldiers were still without vehicles or other means to get to the dining facility. Two  soldiers told us that they purchased bicycles to get to the base. Several soldiers claimed  that because they could not get to the dining facilities, they either walked to local  restaurants, or bought groceries and cookware and cooked meals in their rooms using  hot plates. The soldiers told us they were also aware that other soldiers at Fort Stewart  were similarly housed in hotels, but were paid per diem for meals based on the locality  rate for the area. We confirmed that Florida’s 3220th U.S. Army Reserve Garrison  Support Unit was housed in hotels and was paid per diem for meals. Several soldiers  told us they discussed several issues with their chain of command and company  commanders, including inadequate transportation, having to eat on the economy, the  inconsistencies in their treatment compared to other soldiers, and their eligibility for per  diem. The company commanders discussed these issues with the battalion commander.  The battalion commander told us, “The soldiers had a contracted hotel and laundry  services and didn’t need per diem. In addition to that, they had access to the mess hall  and were getting BAS.”  When a battalion personnel officer incorrectly told one soldier  that he was not entitled to per diem because he was receiving BAS he stated, “Then  take away my $8 in BAS and give me per diem because I can’t live on $8 a day.”
The garrison commander told us that he was unaware of the unit’s transportation  problems, and had he known of the problems, he would have issued more vehicles to  the unit.
Using the proportional meal rate, we estimated that the soldiers could be due  approximately $1,260 each for a total of approximately $135,000 for the period October  2001 to January 2002. As of September 2004, the soldiers had not received any  reimbursements for meal expenditures.
Case Study Illustration: Mississippi Army Guard Soldiers Question Army’s  Decision to Deny Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Meal Expenditures Army Guard soldiers of the Mississippi 114th Military Police Company were called up in  January 2002 for their first mobilization and reported to Fort Campbell for military police  guard duty.  While at Fort Campbell, the 114th performed 24-hour, 7-day shift work  providing force protection services for the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell and  could not always avail themselves of the free meals at the mess hall.  Consequently,  these Army Guard soldiers purchased their meals from commercial sources.  After  soldiers learned of their potential eligibility for reimbursement of meal costs, they  requested and received authorization from the division commander for reimbursement  and, although considerably late, were eventually reimbursed.
However, while at Fort Hood, the location of their second active duty tour beginning in  February 2003, installation command officials did not authorize reimbursement of their  out-of-pocket costs for meals.  According to the Army Guard soldiers, the conditions at  Fort Hood—24-hour shift work and the lack of 24-hour mess halls—were similar to what  they encountered at Fort Campbell.  Fort Hood officials told us that they justified their  decision because free meals were available from the mess hall and noncommissioned  officers could get this food to soldiers who were having problems and by stating that the  basic allowance for subsistence was adequate compensation for any of the soldiers’ out- of-pocket expenditures for meals.  Fort Hood officials did not document their unfavorable  decision or justification for that decision.  Because an official from the Mississippi Guard  Finance Office told them it was a “dead issue,” the unit chose not to contact the  Inspector General’s office. The official told us that he informed the soldiers that they  could not get reimbursed without the approval of the Fort Hood officials.  As a result, we  estimated, based on the proportional meal rate for Fort Hood, that these 76 Army Guard  soldiers were not reimbursed for approximately $6,000 each, totaling about $456,000,  for their meals from February 2003 to January 2004, when they were demobilized.
In another case, Georgia Army Guard soldiers were frustrated by large  debts when DFAS CTO retroactively disallowed the locality meal rate  authorized by command officials.
Case Study Illustration: Decisions on Meals Eligibility Result in Overpayments  and Large Debts The soldiers from Georgia’s 190th Military Police Company reported to Fort Benning,  Georgia, in October 2001 for mobilization processing. The unit of 101 soldiers  experienced problems regarding per diem for meals when they were subsequently  deployed from October 2001 through March 2002 to Fort McPherson, Georgia, which  was near the homes of many of the soldiers.  Soldiers told us there was confusion over  who would be entitled to per diem for meals because Fort McPherson had not  established a local commuting area.  Certain soldiers were granted SNAs, signifying  their eligibility for per diem for meals, based on the locality meal rate for the area.   Relying on the determinations, soldiers requested and received per diem for meals,  some in excess of $10,000, for the period they were at Fort McPherson.
In August 2002, Fort McPherson established a local commuting area.  When DFAS CTO  processed the soldiers’ final settlement vouchers at the end of the deployment, DFAS  CTO used the newly established commuting area to determine eligibility for per diem for  the whole period.  This resulted in DFAS CTO retroactively disallowing per diem and  creating debts totaling approximately $200,000 for 32 soldiers, several in excess of  $10,000.  Debt collections were initiated against the soldiers’ pay while they were in Iraq  on a second mobilization in 2003, creating adverse financial impacts on the soldiers and  their families.  The 190th unit commander was able to get the debt collections suspended  until they returned from Iraq.  Following demobilization, debt collections were reinstituted  and are currently being made against the soldiers’ monthly drill pay.  During our audit,  many of these soldiers still had unresolved and unpaid debts on their records, two in  excess of $10,000.
We requested that DFAS CTO review all of the records to determine whether the  soldiers were properly reimbursed for travel entitlements, and whether the debt amounts  were correct. DFAS CTO officials agreed and at the conclusion of our audit were in the  process of determining who was entitled to per diem while at Fort McPherson.
These cases illustrate the effects of guidance that does not clearly identify  eligibility criteria and leaves meal eligibility determinations to the  interpretation of individual commands.  Although it would not be practical  to develop guidance for every possible travel scenario, we noted that the  JFTR included useful situational examples to assist decision makers in  determining nonavailability related to lodging and meals, while the PPG  lacked similar specific contingency travel examples.
Lack of specific entitlements on orders.   Army and Army Guard  policies and procedures do not provide for mobilization orders issued to  Army Guard soldiers to clearly state that these soldiers should not be  required to pay for meals provided to them at government dining facilities.   In the case study units we reviewed, we found several instances in which  mobilization orders either stated nothing about meal entitlements or  stated, “Government mess will be used,” or “Government quarters and  dining facilities are available and directed.”  As a result, we noted instances  in which mobilized soldiers arrived at government mess halls carrying  mobilization orders that did not specifically state that the soldiers could eat  free of charge and were inappropriately required to pay for their meals.
The PPG states, “TCS soldiers who are on government installations with  dining facilities are directed to use mess facilities.  These soldiers are not  required to pay for their meals.” In addition, the PPG states, “Basic  Allowance for Subsistence will not be reduced when government mess is  used for soldiers in a contingency operation.”  However, the PPG does not  provide guidance addressing the content of mobilization orders for Army  Guard soldiers.  As a result, unless the orders contain the appropriate  statements about meal entitlements, installations sometimes  inappropriately charge Army Guard soldiers for their meals.
In response to questions we posed to officials representing the Mississippi  Adjutant General’s office regarding why mobilization orders did not include  adequate provisions about food entitlements, they explained that the  individual mobilization orders that are prepared by the Adjutant General’s  staff are very basic and include only the travel allowances and actions that  are necessary to get the individual from the home station to the  mobilization station.  The Adjutant General’s office received no guidance  on what should be stated in the orders with respect to soldiers eating free  of charge at government installations or any other conditions that may  entitle Army Guard soldiers to per diem to compensate them for their out- of-pocket meal costs.
We discussed the problem of unclear mobilization orders with Army  officials during our audit.  In response to our concerns, Army officials  agreed to modify the guidance on what to include in mobilization orders  with respect to meals and lodging entitlements.
As a result of the unclear orders, many Guard soldiers had to  inappropriately pay for meals and were unable to obtain reimbursement for  their out-of-pocket costs in a timely manner.  The following example shows  the effects of that problem.
Case Study Illustration: Guard Unit Required to Pay for Meals at Army Mess Hall When the Mississippi 20th Special Forces Group (SFG) reported to its mobilization  station at Fort Carson, Colorado, on January 10, 2002, the soldiers were assigned to on- post housing at the Fort Carson Colorado Inn.  They were told that the government  dining facility nearest to their lodging was approximately 1 mile away.  When the soldiers  went to eat at the dining facility, they were told that they had to pay for their meals  because their orders did not indicate they could eat free.  Consequently, the soldiers  either (1) continued to pay for their meals at the government dining facility, (2) purchased  groceries and cooked in their rooms, or (3) ate at local restaurants.  The dining facility  manager told us that if the soldier’s orders did not specifically indicate government  meals at no cost, then his staff was instructed to charge the soldier for meals.
The administrative noncommissioned officer for the Mississippi 20th SFG learned from a  soldier in a different group, that he was being reimbursed the locality rate (which at that  time was $36 per day) for meals purchased at his own expense.  In July 2002, the unit’s  administrative noncommissioned officer raised the meals issue with the unit’s chain of  command, but it was not until October 2002 that Headquarters, 10th SFG, Fort Carson  issued amended orders for the 20th SFG. The orders retroactively authorized meal per  diem of $11 per day to the soldiers of the 20th SFG, allowing them to be partially  reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses from January 2002 to October 2002.  The  orders also authorized the soldiers to eat in the dining facility at no charge beginning in  October 2002.  As of the end of our audit, the administrative noncommissioned officer  estimated that $150,000 was still to be paid to 75 soldiers.
In another instance, Army Guard soldiers called to federal duty under the  authority of Title 32 for security missions in late 2001 and early 2002  experienced significant delays in getting reimbursed for travel  expenditures.  The soldiers were provided lodging but not meals and were  not authorized per diem for meals on their orders.  Many months elapsed  during which the Army Guard Adjutant General for each state command  with authority over the respective soldiers and Army Guard officials  worked to obtain and provide the proper authorization to reimburse all the  soldiers’ travel expenses.  In the interim, Army Guard soldiers experienced  financial hardships.  The following case study chronicles one story about  these soldiers’ experiences.
In March 2002, the Colorado National Guard HQ 140th Signal Company received orders  to provide security at the Denver International Airport, Denver, Colorado.  For mission  related reasons, the soldiers were required to remain overnight at their duty station for  an extended period in government-provided housing, but their orders did not authorize  per diem for meals.  Although the government provided housing, meals were not  included, and the soldiers had to obtain meals from commercial establishments.
In July 2002, the Adjutant General of the Colorado Army National Guard sent a letter to  the Director of the Army National Guard Financial Services Center, requesting that  actions be taken to resolve the per diem and other related issues.  In December 2002,  the letter was forwarded by the Army National Guard Financial Services Center to the  Army National Guard Readiness Center for “consideration and action.”
In June 2003, the Army National Guard Readiness Center issued a memorandum for  the financial managers of all states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the  District of Columbia, which communicated the receipt of approval from the Assistant  Secretary of the Army – Manpower and Reserve Affairs to provide retroactive redress of  the per diem and other issues affecting the Colorado and other Guard soldiers.
In September 2003, 18 months after the soldiers incurred out-of-pocket expenses  averaging over $1,400 each, the Colorado USPFO began paying reimbursements to the  soldiers.  Some of these soldiers suffered adverse financial impact resulting from the  delays in reimbursement.  For example, one soldier told us his government travel card  was canceled due to nonpayment, another soldier’s family had to rely on the spouse’s  salary to pay bills, and another’s child support payments were late or less than the  minimum required payments.
Confusing, nonstandard SNAs.  Lack of standardization and changing  guidance has resulted in SNAs of various form and content, signed by  officials at different levels of authority.  Consequently, travel computation  office reviewers were unable to consistently determine the validity of  SNAs.  Our case studies identified travel computation reviewers who have  rejected soldiers’ requests for reimbursements even though they were  supported by valid SNAs.
The most recent PPG guidance authorizes the installation commander to  determine whether to issue an SNA based on each unit’s situation and the  availability of government housing.   The guidance states that when  government or government-contracted quarters are not available, soldiers  will be provided certificates or statements of non-availability for both  lodging and meals to authorize per diem.  However, the guidance does not  specify the form and content of the SNAs.  Consequently, at several case  study units, we found that the form of the SNA and the content of the  information on the form varied at the discretion of the issuing command.   For example, one installation stamped the soldiers’ orders and handwrote  an SNA identification number in a block provided by the stamp.  Another  location provided a written memo that stated that the meal component of  per diem was authorized because there were no food facilities at the  government installation.  Another provided a single SNA with a roster  attached that listed the names of the soldiers who were authorized per  diem.  The variety of SNA formats can cause confusion for the soldier, who  does not know what documentation is needed for reimbursement and  whether the travel computation office will accept it.  The travel  computation office personnel can also be confused about the criteria for a  valid SNA, as illustrated by the following case study.
Case Study Illustration:  SNAs for Meal Reimbursement Not Consistently  Accepted  Sixty-five soldiers in B Company, 20th Special Forces of the Virginia Army National  Guard received orders to mobilize to Fort Bragg, North Carolina in early 2002.  After  about 3 weeks, the unit moved to government contracted quarters off-post and soldiers  were authorized proportional per diem for two meals a day during their Fort Bragg duty  period.  After returning from overseas duty, 51 soldiers prepared and submitted their  final travel vouchers, with identical SNA documents attached, to DFAS CTO in  November and December 2002.  Some of the soldiers’ meal component per diem claims  were approved and paid by DFAS; others were not.  Inconsistent recognition and  acceptance of identical SNAs resulted in 24 soldiers receiving timely reimbursements  and 12 soldiers receiving late reimbursements after having to resubmit their vouchers  with additional documentation to receive their proportional per diem.  Furthermore, at  the time we completed our audit of B Company’s travel vouchers in May 2004,  approximately 22 percent of the soldiers (14 of 65) still had not received the majority of  their proportional per diem entitlement.  Travel reimbursements, ranging from about  $1,600 to over $3,500, had not been made to these 14 soldiers.  In June 2004, DFAS  CTO processed vouchers for 10 of the 14 soldiers and made final payments for meal  expenses they incurred during their Fort Bragg duty.  The remaining 4 soldiers had not  been paid at the completion of our audit.
Our work found instances in which installation commands denied soldiers’  requests for SNAs.  In response to our inquiries, we found that commands  do not generally document their rationale for denying SNAs and there is no  requirement for them to do so.  This lack of documentation can leave  soldiers even more confused and frustrated when seeking answers as to  why their requests for per diem were denied.  GAO’s Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government require the maintenance of  related records and appropriate documentation that provides evidence of  execution of control activities.
section_title: Late Payment Interest and Fees Guidance Thwarts Intent of the Law
paragraphs: Inappropriate policy and guidance, issued by DFAS Indianapolis, combined  with the lack of systems or processes designed to identify and pay late  payment interest and fees, leave DOD in continued noncompliance with  TTRA.  As a result, through at least April 2004, DFAS Indianapolis had made  no required payments of late payment interest and/or late payment fees to  soldiers for travel reimbursements paid later than 30 days after the  submission of a proper voucher.  For example, of 139 individual vouchers  we selected to determine why these took a long time to process, we  identified 75 vouchers that were properly submitted by Army Guard  soldiers that should have received late payment interest totaling about  $1,400.  Some of these vouchers may also have warranted a late payment  fee in addition to the late payment interest.
In addition, DFAS data showed indications that thousands of other soldiers  may be due late payment interest.  For example, during the period   October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, dates in the DFAS Operational  Data Store showed that about 85,000 vouchers filed by mobilized Army  Guard soldiers were paid more than 60 days after the date travel ended.  If  the dates on these vouchers were correct, the soldiers who submitted  proper vouchers within 5 days of the date travel ended would be entitled to  late payment interest if they were not paid within the 30-day limit.
TTRA and federal travel regulations require the payment of a late payment  fee consisting of (1) late payment interest, generally equivalent to the  Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate, plus (2) a late payment fee equivalent to  the late payment charge, which could have been charged by the  government travel card contractor.  Late payment interest and fees are to  be paid to soldiers if their reimbursements are not paid within 30 days of  the submission of a proper voucher.
In our 2002 report on Army travel cards we reported DFAS  noncompliance with TTRA due to the lack of procedures and necessary  systems and data to make the required computations.  In response to our  recommendations in that report, DFAS revised its procedures in April 2003.    Until that time, DFAS required individual soldiers to submit requests for  late payment interest and fees if they believed their vouchers were paid  late.  According to DOD’s FMR, the traveler was required to submit a  supplemental voucher through his or her supervisor/approving official  requesting the payment.
The 2003 guidance issued by DFAS Indianapolis stated that Army travel  computation offices would identify vouchers for late payment interest and  fees rather than require individual soldiers to take the initiative to file  claims for late payment interest and fees.  However, DFAS’s interpretation  of the guidance limited the payment of late payment interest and fees to  only the final settlement travel voucher for all travel under a particular  travel order.  This practice contributed to continued noncompliance with  the law because it effectively excluded large numbers of monthly or  accrual vouchers from consideration of late payment interest and fees.  In  response to our inquiries, DFAS officials told us that as of April 2004, they  had not paid any late payment interest or fees to soldiers because no final  settlement vouchers were paid late.
We questioned DFAS officials about their decision to exclude accrual  vouchers from potential payment of late payment interest and fees.  As a  result, DFAS issued new guidance dated May 2004 to clarify that all travel  voucher reimbursements are subject to late payment interest and fees.   However, the provision in DOD’s FMR pertaining to this issue continues to  require that individual soldiers request the late payment interest and fees.   Furthermore, due to automated systems issues discussed later, DFAS does  not have the capability to automatically identify late vouchers or calculate  the late payment interest and fees. Consequently, travel computation  offices have to use manual procedures to identify late vouchers and make  manual calculations.  Additionally, the new guidance directs reviewers to  sign travel vouchers on the same day that they are submitted and then  establishes the reviewers’ signature date as the date of submission of a  proper voucher.  We are unaware of any control procedure to monitor that  reviewers are complying with the requirement.
Subsequent to DFAS’s dissemination of the new guidance, we found  numerous late vouchers for which DFAS did not pay late payment interest  and fees.  For example, the final vouchers for 63 soldiers with the Georgia  Army National Guard’s 190th Military Police Company were processed late  in April 2004 without payment of late payment interest or fees, even though  they were covered by DFAS guidance issued in 2003.  The vouchers were  approved by unit reviewers on February 6, 2004, and were submitted to the  Georgia USPFO on February 10, 2004, for additional review to identify any  deficiencies that may cause the vouchers to be rejected.  Due to the  USPFO’s workload and the unavailability of appropriate personnel to  review the vouchers, the vouchers remained at the USPFO from   February 10, 2004 until April 2, 2004.  DFAS CTO eventually received the  vouchers on April 9, 2004, and paid them on April 27, 2004.  The payments  were made a total of 81 days after the supervisory signatures, thus making  the payments 51 days over the 30 days allowed for payment.  According to a  DFAS official, DFAS’s manual procedures did not detect the vouchers as  needing late payment interest and fees.  Travel clerks were supposed to  review dates of supervisory signatures to determine if the 30-day limit was  exceeded and thus require the payment of late payment interest and fees.   We notified DFAS officials of the oversight and they subsequently made the  interest payments.  A DFAS official also informed us that additional  changes to DFAS’s manual procedures were being made to ensure that late  vouchers are properly identified and late payment interest and fees paid.  Because these changes in procedure were so recent, we could not evaluate  their effectiveness.
section_title: Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers
paragraphs: We found that weaknesses related to human capital contributed to travel  reimbursement problems.  These weaknesses include (1) a lack of  leadership and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training provided to  Army Guard soldiers and travel computation office examiners.  GAO’s  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  effective human capital practices are critical to establishing and  maintaining a strong internal control environment.  Specifically,  management should take steps to ensure that its organization can promptly  identify problems and respond to changing needs, and that appropriate  human capital practices are in place and operating effectively.  Without an  overall leadership structure in place, neither the Army nor the Army Guard  had developed and implemented processwide monitoring and performance  metrics necessary to promptly identify and resolve problems causing late- paid travel vouchers.  We also found that lack of adequate soldier training  was a contributing factor to some travel voucher processing deficiencies.   For example, several Army Guard soldiers with whom we spoke told us  that they had received either inadequate or no training on travel voucher  preparation and review.  In addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that the  on-the-job training provided to its new personnel in early 2003 initially  proved to be inadequate in the wake of the hundreds of thousands of travel  vouchers that flooded their offices subsequent to the mobilization surge  during this period.  To its credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO  enhanced its training program for voucher examiners.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Leadership and Oversight
paragraphs: No one office or individual was responsible for the end-to-end Army Guard  travel reimbursement process.  The lack of overall leadership and  fragmented accountability precluded the development of strong  overarching internal controls, particularly in the area of program  monitoring.  Neither the Army nor the Army Guard were systematically  using performance metrics to gain agencywide insight into the nature and  extent of the delays to measure performance and to identify and correct  systemic problems.  Our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government require agencies to have internal control procedures that  include top-level reviews by management that compare actual performance  to expected results and analyze significant differences.
As shown in figure 6, internal reports prepared by DFAS CTO show that  missing travel orders was the primary reason why it did not accept  vouchers for payment. DFAS CTO reported that it rejected 104,000, or  approximately 17 percent, of 609,000 vouchers during the period July 2003  through September 2004, with missing travel authorizations accounting for  over half of the rejected vouchers.  While this churning process appeared to  be a primary factor in payment delays and soldier frustration, DFAS CTO,  Army, or Army Guard offices had not performed additional research to  determine the root cause of this and other voucher deficiencies.
Similarly, our analysis of a selection of individual travel vouchers also  disclosed that some vouchers were returned to soldiers because of missing  documentation or the lack of required signatures.  However, neither DOD  management officials nor we could determine the root cause of all  instances of missing information.  Some soldiers told us that DFAS CTO  lost documentation that they had submitted.  DFAS CTO also experienced  problems with faxed vouchers, which caused vouchers and supporting  documentation not to be printed and processed in some cases.  According  to a DFAS CTO official, DFAS was unaware that faxed vouchers were not  printing until a soldier complained that DFAS was not receiving his faxes.   DFAS did not monitor incoming faxes, even though it reported that faxed  travel vouchers account for approximately 60 percent of the total mobilized  Army Guard and Reserve travel vouchers it received. These problems  obstructed the normal handling of a number of those vouchers.  In an effort  to resolve this problem, DFAS CTO, in March 2004, ceased relying on an  automatic print function of the fax system software and began manually  printing vouchers.
As shown in figure 7, our audit of a nonrepresentative selection of 139  travel vouchers (69 computed by DFAS CTO and 70 by USPFOs) found  significant delays occurred between the date of the reviewer’s signature  and the date that the travel computation office accepted the voucher.   Some of these delays were caused by the time needed to correct vouchers  that were deficient and resubmit them to DFAS CTO or another USPFO  travel computation office.
We determined that the travel computation office rejected 32 of the 72  travel vouchers delayed for more than 3 days because of missing  documentation or the lack of required signatures and sent them back to the  soldiers for corrections.  A lack of documentation or other information  prevented us from determining the reason for delays of more than 3 days  for the remaining travel vouchers.
In one case, an Army Guard soldier from Texas waited over 9 months to be  paid.  The soldier prepared and submitted a travel voucher for $765 and  signed it on August 28, 2002.  His unit supervisor signed the voucher as  reviewed on the same day.  The travel computation office rejected the  voucher and sent it back to the soldier because the proper documentation  was not attached.  The travel computation office returned the voucher to  the soldier a second time because it did not have the necessary signatures.   A complete travel voucher was finally received and accepted by the travel  computation office on April 25, 2003, 240 days after the unit’s initial review  and was not paid until mid-June 2003.
The Army’s lack of processwide oversight, including monitoring of the  rejection and return of vouchers by DFAS CTO and other travel  computation offices, resulted in undetected delays in reimbursement,  leading to unnecessary frustration with the Army’s travel and  reimbursement process and potential financial difficulty for the soldier.   Further, without establishing and monitoring program metrics,  management had no assurance that it had identified where the breakdowns  were occurring and could not take the appropriate steps to resolve any  identified problems.  For example, although the Army relied on the  individual unit reviewer for assurance that travel vouchers were properly  reviewed and transmitted promptly to the travel computation offices, the  Army did not establish and monitor performance metrics to hold these  reviewers accountable for their critical role in the process.
DFAS CTO officials told us that they have taken several steps to reduce the  number of vouchers being returned to the soldiers due to missing  signatures and missing mobilization orders.  DFAS and the National Guard  Financial Services Center—a field operating agency of the Chief, National  Guard Bureau, that performs selected financial services—entered into a  Memorandum of Agreement effective February 2004 whereby DFAS will  obtain the assistance of the National Guard to address problems with  certain vouchers that would otherwise be returned to soldiers.  According  to DFAS CTO data, since the implementation of the agreement through the  end of fiscal year 2004, 13,523 travel vouchers were coordinated with the  National Guard in this manner rather than initially being sent back to the  soldiers for correction.  However, we did not assess the effectiveness of  these changes in reducing the number of vouchers that ultimately are  returned to soldiers or in reducing the time necessary to process and pay  vouchers.
Although metrics were available on the average time DFAS CTO took to  pay travel vouchers after receipt, the Army did not have statistical data on  supplemental vouchers that could help provide additional insight into the  extent and cause of processing errors or omissions by voucher examiners,  unit reviewers, or Army Guard soldiers.  Several of our case studies  indicate that accuracy may be an important issue.  For example, one  method DFAS CTO uses to correct a voucher error or omission is to  process a supplemental voucher.  According to DFAS data, DFAS CTO  processed about 251,000 vouchers related to Army Guard soldiers  mobilized during the period October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, of  which over 10,600 were supplemental vouchers.  However, DFAS CTO  officials could not tell us how many of these were due to errors or  omissions by DFAS examiners or other factors.  Our audit of 69  supplemental vouchers for the California 185th case study unit showed that  41 were due to DFAS CTO errors and the remaining 28 were due to errors  or omissions on the part of the soldiers.  Because DFAS CTO has not  analyzed or tracked the extent or cause of supplemental vouchers to  establish performance benchmarks, it has missed an opportunity to help  identify recurring problems and solutions as well as measure  improvements or deterioration in the effectiveness of the travel  reimbursement program over time.
Finally, we noted that although DFAS CTO established a toll-free number  (1-888-332-7366) for questions related to Army Guard and Reserve  contingency travel, DFAS did not have performance metrics to identify  problem areas or gauge the effectiveness of this customer service effort.   For example, DFAS did not systematically record the nature of the calls to  the toll-free number.  According to DFAS data, this number, staffed by 30  DFAS employees, received over 15,000 calls in June 2004.  By monitoring  the types of calls and the nature of the problems reported, important  information could have been developed to help target areas where training  or improved guidance may be warranted.  Further, DFAS had not  established performance metrics for its call takers in terms of the  effectiveness of resolved cases or overall customer service.
section_title: Inadequate Training Results in Late or Inaccurate Reimbursements
paragraphs: Although Army regulations specify the responsibilities of soldiers, they do  not require that soldiers be trained on travel entitlements and their role in  the travel reimbursement process.  Some of the Army Guard soldiers that  we spoke with told us that they had received either inadequate or no  training on travel voucher preparation and review.  In addition, a DFAS  CTO official told us that the on-the-job-training provided to its new  personnel in early 2003 initially proved to be inadequate.  To its credit,  during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced its training program for  voucher examiners.  Army Guard soldiers in our case studies told us that  they asked DFAS representatives or used the Internet in attempts to find,  interpret, and apply DFAS guidance, which by itself proved to be  insufficient and required many trial and error attempts to properly prepare  travel vouchers.  As a result, many soldiers did not receive their travel  payments on time.
The lack of well-trained personnel can undermine the effectiveness of any  system of travel expense reimbursement.  Well-trained and informed  personnel, conscientiously performing their assigned duties, are especially  essential in the paper-driven, labor-intensive, manual, error-prone  environment of the Army’s current travel authorization and reimbursement  process.
Army Guard soldiers.  Army Guard soldiers in our case studies told us  that they were confused about their responsibilities in the travel voucher  reimbursement process because they had not been sufficiently trained in  travel voucher processes related to mobilization.  For example, prior to  September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed the criteria for single  trips or sequential trips and was not always clearly applicable to situations  in which Army Guard soldiers could be authorized short intervals of travel  for temporary duty at different locations within their longer term  mobilization.  This “overlapping travel” proved to be problematic for Army  Guard soldiers trying to understand their travel voucher filing requirements  and travel computation office examiners responsible for reviewing travel  vouchers.
In addition, we found indications that some soldiers were not aware of  DOD’s requirement to complete a travel voucher within 5 days of the end of  travel or the end of every 30-day period in cases of extended travel.  For  example, as shown in figure 8, in our selection of 139 vouchers, 99 (71  percent) of the Army Guard soldiers did not meet the 5-day requirement.   Fifty-two Army Guard soldiers submitted their vouchers more than 1 year  late.
Of the 59 Army Guard soldiers that we could locate and interview, 23 said  that they lacked understanding about procedures, or lacked knowledge or  training about the filing requirements.  Eight Army Guard soldiers said that  they procrastinated or forgot to file their travel vouchers on time.  The  remaining 28 said that they could not remember anything about the specific  voucher we asked about or did not respond to our inquiries.  Several  soldiers offered their perspectives on their lack of understanding about  certain requirements.
Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of SNA Requirements A soldier with the Pennsylvania National Guard 1st Battalion, 103rd Armor, whose active  duty was extended to perform duties at Fluck Armory in Freidens, Pennsylvania, after  his overseas duties were completed, was unaware that he needed an SNA to justify  reimbursement of his out-of-pocket costs.  He told us that he assumed the Army would  have given him the documentation he needed to support his travel voucher.  When his  voucher was not paid, he contacted DFAS CTO to determine the reason for the delay.   DFAS CTO claimed that it had not received his voucher.  After several resubmissions, he  received a payment in July 2003 that was about $1,500 less than what he expected.  He  also received an e-mail notification from DFAS CTO that stated, “SNA needed for  lodging at Friedens, PA.”  The soldier told us that he did not know what SNA meant or  how to obtain an SNA.  Eventually, the soldier was able to obtain an SNA from the  commanding officer of the Pennsylvania 876th Engineers.  In February 2004, about 11  months after he completed his assignment at Fluck Armory, DFAS paid the soldier about  $1,600 for his lodging and meal expenses.
The following example illustrates a unit administrator’s experience and  frustration in having to duplicate his efforts to obtain a single month’s  travel expenses for 37 soldiers in his unit.
Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of Documentation Requirements A unit administrator with the Pennsylvania National Guard’s 876th Engineer Battalion told  us that he was unaware that he needed to attach a copy of the mobilization order and  TCS order to each travel voucher before he submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO for each  of the 37 soldiers in his unit.  He explained that there was only one block on the travel  voucher form to insert a single order number.  He attached the TCS order, incorrectly  assuming that the DFAS CTO examiner would know that the soldiers, being in an Army  Guard unit, could not have been on TCS duty in Germany performing installation  security and force protection duties without having been mobilized.  As a result, he was  concerned when he and other soldiers were reimbursed for the 1 week of their travel  expenditures incurred in Germany, but not for the 3 weeks of expenses incurred during  their initial duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey, where soldiers participated in mobilization  training and other activities prior to overseas deployment.  These expenses included  transportation to Fort Dix, New Jersey, and daily incidental expenses. DFAS CTO asked  him to submit new travel vouchers for this 3-week period with the mobilization order  attached, which he did.  The soldiers in this unit were collectively paid $7,400 about 4  weeks later, which represented the balance due on their initial travel vouchers.
DFAS CTO personnel.  DFAS CTO also had challenges training its  examiner staff.  The increase in mobilizations since September 11, 2001,  and resulting increase in travel voucher submissions put a strain on DFAS  CTO’s ability to make prompt and accurate travel reimbursements to Army  Guard soldiers.  As discussed previously, DFAS CTO hired more than 200  staff from October 2001 through July 2003, which brought the total number  of staff to approximately 240.  The training of these new employees was  delivered on-the-job.  Training time depended on the individual and type of  work.  For example, according to a DFAS CTO official, it took from 1 to 3  months for a voucher examiner to reach established standards.  The DFAS  CTO official told us that, in some cases, on-the-job training proved to be  inadequate and contributed to travel reimbursement errors during this  period.
Two of our case studies indicated that mistakes by DFAS CTO contributed  to reimbursement problems.  For example, our California case study  indicated that 33 soldiers were initially underpaid a total of almost $25,000  for meals, lodging, and incidental expenses when personnel at DFAS CTO  selected an incorrect duty location and a corresponding incorrect per diem  rate.  Although these soldiers eventually received the amounts they were  due, the corrections took months to resolve. Another example, described  next, shows inconsistencies and errors in the payment of meal and  incidental expense per diem to soldiers in a Pennsylvania Guard unit.
Pennsylvania Army National Guard soldiers from Company C, 876th Engineer Battalion  were deployed to Bad Aibling Station, Germany, in late July 2002, to augment active  duty forces that were providing enhanced security at this installation.  The 37 soldiers in  Company C were authorized to purchase their meals because mess facilities were not  available.  Each month, the unit administrator prepared and submitted vouchers to DFAS  CTO for reimbursement of meal and incidental expenses.  Although each of the 37  soldiers should have received, in any given month, the same reimbursement amount,  the actual payments to soldiers were not identical.  For the first 3 months of their  deployment, soldiers’ travel reimbursements varied significantly.  For example, for the  September 2002 vouchers, payments ranged from $105 up to $1,655.  Additionally, 3  soldiers did not receive payment on their September vouchers for several months.  The  unit administrator told us he contacted DFAS CTO numerous times to discuss the  inconsistencies with soldiers’ reimbursements, and DFAS CTO representatives provided  specific payment amounts that soldiers should expect to receive.  However, when  incorrect payments continued, he said he was not sure that DFAS CTO knew what to  pay the soldiers.  This situation led to soldiers’ confusion and frustration with the travel  reimbursement process.
The travel reimbursement errors that occurred throughout the deployment affected 36 of  the 37 soldiers.  Of the 36, 12 soldiers experienced at least one payment error and the  remaining 24 soldiers experienced multiple payment errors.  When DFAS CTO  attempted to correct payment errors to soldiers by processing additional payments, the  additional payments resulted in overpayments to 35 soldiers because DFAS CTO  examiners made errors in determining the daily meal and incidental expense per diem  rate.  DFAS CTO caught some of these overpayments and processed collections on  final vouchers.  Fifteen soldiers received collection notices from DFAS on their final  vouchers and, although most of these soldiers had debt amounts ranging from $200 to  $300 dollars each, 1 soldier had almost $1,350 deducted from his final voucher  payment.
Although overpayments were collected from 15 soldiers in this unit, most of the  remaining soldiers also received overpayments that have yet to be addressed.  From the  deployment period of late July 2002 to February 2003, the unit as a whole was  reimbursed about $360,000.  Of this amount, we determined that outstanding  overpayments of over $11,200 remain.
During fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO worked toward improving staff training  opportunities.  For example, DFAS CTO used computer-based training to  provide new personnel an initial overview of WINIATS and voucher  computation procedures.  In addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that a 40- hour course, which was designed specifically to address the types of  vouchers received by DFAS CTO, has been established to train new  employees.  Further, according to the official, one benefit of the classroom  instruction compared to on-the-job training is that it does not affect the  productivity of experienced examiners, who previously were tasked with  providing immediate on-the-job-training to new hires in addition to their  primary duties.
section_title: System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process
paragraphs: Coupled with the process flaws and human capital issues previously  addressed in this report, the lack of systems integration and automation  along with other systems deficiencies contributed significantly to the travel  reimbursement problems we identified. The lack of integrated and  automated systems results in the existing inefficient, paper-intensive, and  error-prone travel reimbursement process.  These problems are also a  major factor in the churning issue discussed previously—the thousands of  vouchers that are rejected and returned for missing documentation.   Specifically, the Army does not have automated systems for some critical  Army Guard travel process functions, such as preparation of travel  vouchers, SNAs, and TCS orders, which precludes the electronic sharing of  data by the various travel computation offices. Further, system design  flaws impede management’s ability to comply with TTRA, analyze  timeliness of travel reimbursements, and take corrective action as  necessary.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Integrated Systems
paragraphs: The key DOD systems involved in authorizing and reimbursing travel  expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers are not integrated. In January  1995, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel issued a report stating  that this was a principal cause of the inefficient travel system. As we have  reported and testified, decades-old financial management problems  related to the proliferation of systems, due in part to DOD components  receiving and controlling their own information technology investment  funding, result in the current fragmented, nonstandardized systems.  Lacking either an integrated or effectively interfaced set of travel  authorization, voucher preparation, and reimbursement systems, the Army  Guard must rely on a time-consuming collection of source documents and  error-prone manual entry of data into a travel voucher computation system,  as shown in figure 9.
With an effectively integrated system, changes to personnel records, such  as mobilization orders, would automatically transfer to the travel pay  system. While not as efficient as an integrated system, an automatic  personnel-to-travel pay system interface can reduce delays caused by the  return of vouchers for missing travel authorizations. Without an effective  interface between the personnel and travel pay systems, we found  instances in which travel vouchers were returned to soldiers due to missing  travel authorizations, causing significant time delays. For example, DOD  took almost 500 days to pay a California Army Guard soldier his travel pay.  This extensive delay was due in part to the soldier not submitting a paper  copy of his mobilization order.  If the system that created the mobilization  order had interfaced with the travel voucher computation system, a portion  of Army Guard and Army Reserve vouchers returned by DFAS CTO—a  significant problem as discussed previously—could have been eliminated.  This, in turn, would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the process  by reducing paper, reducing the return voucher workload at DFAS CTO,  and decreasing the time to reimburse the soldiers.
Further, the lack of an integrated travel system and consequent  “workarounds” increase the risk of errors and create the current inefficient  process. As noted previously, several separate WINIATS systems at DFAS  and the USPFOs can process travel vouchers for mobilized Army Guard  soldiers. These databases operate on separate local area networks that do  not exchange or share data with other travel computation offices to ensure  travel reimbursements have not already been paid. Instead, as shown in  figure 9, multiple WINIATS systems transmit data to the DFAS Operational  Data Store (ODS)—a separate database that stores disbursement  transactions.  As a result, when a soldier submits a voucher, voucher  examiners must resort to extraction and manual review of data from ODS.  Next, voucher examiners research and calculate previous payments— advances or interim payments—made by other Army WINIATS systems.  This information is then manually entered into WINIATS for it to compute  the correct travel reimbursement for the current claim.  In addition to being  time consuming, this manual workaround can also lead to mistakes.  For  example, a Michigan soldier was overpaid $1,384 when two travel  computation offices paid him for travel expenses incurred during the same  period in August and September 2002.  This overpayment was detected by  DFAS CTO when the soldier filed his final voucher in August 2003.
Lack of Automated Systems  DOD lacks an automated system for preparing travel vouchers, which  hinders the travel reimbursement process.  As shown in figure 9, soldiers  manually prepare their paper travel vouchers and attach many paper travel  authorizations and receipts and distribute them via mail, fax, or e-mail to  one of the travel computation offices.  The lack of an automated system  increases the risk of missing documents in voucher submissions, which  results in an increased number of vouchers rejected and returned by DFAS  CTO.  Another consequence of this inefficient process is the need for  additional staff to process the vouchers, as discussed earlier in this report.    In addition, the Army currently lacks a centralized system to issue uniquely  numbered and standard formatted SNAs regarding housing and dining  facilities for mobilized soldiers. The lack of centralized standard data  precludes electronic linking with any voucher computation system and the  reduction of paperwork for individual soldiers, as they must obtain and  accumulate various paper authorizations to submit with their vouchers.
Further, the Army lacks an automated system for producing TCS orders. As  illustrated at the top of figure 9, the various mobilization stations use a  word processing program to type and print each individual TCS order to  move a soldier to such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. Similar to the  process for SNAs, mobilization stations maintain separate document files  for each TCS order issued. The absence of a standard automated system  used by each of the mobilization stations prevents the Army from  electronically sharing TCS data with other systems, such as a voucher  computation system. Consequently, the process will remain vulnerable to  delays for returned voucher submissions as mobilized Army Guard soldiers  continue to receive paper SNAs and TCS orders. Finally, even if the Army  automates the TCS, SNA, and voucher preparation processes, as discussed  previously, these new automated systems would need to be either  integrated or interfaced with a voucher computation system to decrease  the amount of time from initiation of travel to final settlement of travel  expenses.
section_title: Other System Problems
paragraphs: In addition to being stand-alone, nonintegrated systems that do not have  the capability to exchange/share information, the over 60 separate  WINIATS systems at DFAS and the USPFOs that can process travel  vouchers for mobilized Army Guard soldiers do not consistently capture  critical dates useful for management oversight and tracking.  As a result,  complete and accurate information is not transmitted to ODS—the  separate DFAS database that stores disbursement transactions—and is not  available for a variety of management needs.  Specifically, many Army  Guard USPFOs were not populating key data fields in WINIATS, such as the  voucher preparation date, supervisor review date, and the travel  computation office receipt date. According to our Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government, information should be recorded and  communicated to management and others within the entity who need it, in  a form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their  responsibilities.
These dates are key in providing DOD management with the information  necessary to comply with TTRA, which requires DOD to reimburse soldiers  for interest and fees when travel vouchers are paid late.  In addition, these  dates are essential in providing management with performance information  that can help DOD improve its travel reimbursement process.  A March  2003 report by DFAS Internal Review noted 39 percent of the claims it  audited did not have the date of receipt in the travel computation office or  the date the supervisor approved the voucher recorded in WINIATS. In  April 2003, DFAS Indianapolis directed all travel computation offices using  WINIATS to input the key dates of preparation, review, and receipt by a  travel computation office. Our analysis of 622,821 Army Guard travel  voucher transactions filed from October 1, 2001, through November 30,  2003, and processed by DFAS CTO and the USPFOs found that at least one  of these key dates was not recorded in ODS for 453,351, or approximately  73 percent, of the transactions. Further, when we questioned the 54  USPFOs in March 2004, 33 of the 41 that responded told us that they were  not capturing all of these critical dates.  Many respondents were unaware  that WINIATS could collect these dates.
In cases in which the key dates necessary to perform the evaluation were  being captured, incorrect entries were not detected.  A WINIATS  representative told us that the system was not designed with certain edit  checks to detect data anomalies such as those caused by erroneous data  entry. We found that 52 of 191 in our nonrepresentative selection of travel  vouchers filed by soldiers had incorrect dates recorded in ODS (e.g., the  date of supervisory review predated the date of travel ended by nearly a  year) and that these data entry errors were not detected.  Without system  edit checks to detect data anomalies, the accuracy and reliability of the  data are questionable, and consequently, management cannot carry out its  oversight duties.
section_title: Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers
paragraphs: DOD’s current plan—deployment of the Defense Travel System (DTS)—to  automate its paper-intensive, manual travel reimbursement process will not  resolve key flaws we found in reimbursement of travel expenses to  mobilized Army Guard soldiers. DOD recognized the need to improve the  travel reimbursement process in the 1990s and has been developing and  implementing DTS.  However, DTS is currently not able to process  mobilized travel authorizations (e.g., mobilization orders, TCS orders, and  SNAs) and vouchers and, therefore, does not provide an end-to-end  solution for paying mobilized Army Guard soldiers for travel entitlements.   According to DOD, DTS will provide this capability when the Defense  Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) is implemented.   Currently, DOD plans to deploy DIMHRS to the Army Guard in March 2006.   In addition, DTS does not identify and calculate late payment interest and  fees required by law.  Furthermore, DFAS auditors have reported additional  problems with DTS.  Given DOD’s past failed attempts at developing and  implementing systems on time, within budget, and with the promised  capability, and that the effort has already been under way for about 8 years,  it is likely that the department will be relying on the existing paper- intensive, manual system for the foreseeable future.
In July 1994, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel was formed to study  the existing travel system. In January 1995, this task force concluded that  the existing travel system was fragmented, inefficient, expensive to  administer, and occasionally impeded mission accomplishment. It  recommended new travel policies and procedures, simplified entitlements,  and recommended the travel process take advantage of automation to  become traveler friendly and efficient. In December 1995, the Program  Management Office-Defense Travel System (PMO-DTS) was established to  implement these recommendations and acquire reengineered travel  services from commercial vendors.
At the end of fiscal year 2003, DOD reported investing nearly 8 years and  about $288 million in DTS.  In 2003, PMO-DTS estimated an additional   $251 million was needed for DTS to be fully operational at the end of fiscal  year 2006, resulting in an estimated total development and production cost  of over 10 years and $539 million. This cost estimate does not include  deploying DTS to the majority of the Army Guard USPFOs.  Although the  Army Guard supplies most of the mobilized soldiers in support of the global  war on terrorism, DTS deployment to the 54 USPFOs is not scheduled to  begin until fiscal year 2006.  The Army is expected to fund the majority of  the costs to field the program to the USPFOs, where mobilized Army Guard  travel begins.  The DTS total life cycle cost estimate, including the military  service and Defense agencies, is $4.39 billion.
subsections: section_title: DTS Is Not an End-to-End Solution for Paying Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers’ Travel Entitlements
paragraphs: While DTS purports to integrate the travel authorization, voucher  preparation, and approval and payment process for TDY travel, it does not  integrate travel authorizations and reimbursements for mobilized Army  Guard soldiers. DOD officials have stated that currently DTS cannot  process mobilized Army Guard travel reimbursements involving various  consecutive and/or overlapping travel authorizations. As discussed earlier,  mobilized Army Guard travel involves various travel authorizations, most  with overlapping dates. DOD officials acknowledged that DTS would not  produce the various travel authorizations related to mobilization travel,  because DOD is presently designing a pay and personnel system, DIMHRS,  to accomplish this task.  DOD’s current strategy is for DTS to electronically  capture the travel authorization information from DIMHRS, after which a  soldier would use DTS to prepare and submit a travel voucher.  This would  require that DIMHRS have the capability to electronically capture the  various authorizations applicable to Army Guard travel, such as  mobilization and temporary change of station orders, and that SNAs are  generated from a standard, automated system that can effectively interface  with DTS.  DOD officials do not plan to implement DIMHRS at the Army  Guard until March 2006. As a result, the timing and ability of the Army  Guard to process mobilization travel vouchers through DTS appears to  hinge on the successful development and implementation of DIMHRS and  its interface with DTS.
section_title: DTS Does Not Compute Late Payment Interest and Fees
paragraphs: DTS is not being designed to identify and calculate travelers’ late payment  interest and fees in accordance with TTRA.  As discussed earlier in this  report, DOD’s current travel computation system does not automatically  identify and calculate the TTRA late payment interest and fees.   Furthermore, no controls are in place to ensure that the manual calculation  is performed and that the interest and fee amounts are entered into the  system for payment.  According to DTS officials, DOD has not directed that  DTS be designed to include such a feature.  As a result, as currently  designed, DTS provides no assurance that late payment interest and fees  will be paid to travelers as required pursuant to TTRA.  Further, the DTS  design does not meet the expectation set out in the DOD Financial  Management Regulation, that DTS will automatically determine if a late  payment fee is due.
section_title: Other Auditors Identify Problems with DTS
paragraphs: A DFAS Kansas City Statistical Operations and Review Branch report  identified several significant problems with the current DFAS  implementation.  Specifically, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, DFAS  reported a 14 percent inaccuracy rate in DTS travel payments of airfare,  lodging, and meals and incidental expenses.  This report cited causes  similar to those we identified in the areas of traveler preparation of claims  and official review of claims.  In addition to these deficiencies, DFAS noted  errors in DTS calculations for meals and incidental expenses.
Another DFAS Internal Review report, dated June 15, 2004, indicated that  improvements were needed in DTS access controls to prevent or detect  unauthorized access to sensitive files.  DFAS Internal Review reported that  the PMO-DTS had not established standard user account review and  maintenance procedures.  This leaves DTS potentially vulnerable to   (1) prior DTS users retaining access to the system and (2) current users  having improper access levels.  The DFAS Internal Review report  concludes that without conducting periodic account maintenance  procedures and detecting unauthorized access, DTS is vulnerable to  unauthorized individuals gaining access to the system and confidential  information, resulting in potential losses to DOD employees and the  government.  The report also noted that DTS was not adequately retaining  an audit trail of administrative and security data, leaving management  unable to investigate suspicious activities or research problem  transactions.  At the conclusion of our audit work, PMO-DTS officials  informed us that they have taken or plan to take steps to address the  problem areas in the two reports discussed above.  We were unable to  evaluate the potential effectiveness of those actions in time for release of  this report.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As Army Guard soldiers heed the call to duty and serve our country in vital  and dangerous missions both at home and abroad, they deserve nothing  less than full, accurate, and timely reimbursements for their out-of-pocket  travel expenses.  However, just as we recently reported for Army Guard  and Reserve pay, our soldiers are more often than not forced to contend  with the costly and time-consuming “war on paper” to ensure that they are  properly reimbursed.  The process, human capital, and automated systems  problems we identified related to Army Guard travel reimbursement are  additional examples of the broader, long-standing financial management  and business transformation challenges faced by DOD.  Similar to our  previously reported findings for numerous other DOD business operations,  the travel reimbursement process has evolved over years into the stove- piped, paper-intensive process that exists today and was ill-prepared to  respond to the current large and sustained mobilizations.  Without  systematic oversight of key program metrics, breakdowns in the process  remain unidentified and effective controls cannot be established and  monitored.  Finally, DOD’s long-standing inability to develop and  implement systems solutions on time, within budget, and with the  promised capability appears to be a critical impediment in this area.  While  immediate corrective actions can be taken in some areas, the problems we  identified with DOD’s longer term automated systems initiatives—DIHMRS  and DTS—raise serious questions of whether and when mobilized soldiers’  travel reimbursement problems will be resolved.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the  Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)  and the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), to take the  following 23 actions to address the issues we found with respect to the  controls over processes for payment of travel entitlements to mobilized  Army Guard personnel.
subsections: section_title: Process
paragraphs: Modify existing policies and procedures to require that mobilization and  related travel orders clearly state meal entitlements.  Such orders should  specify that mobilized soldiers are not required to pay for meals in  government dining facilities.
Develop and implement guidance to standardize the form and content of  statements of non-availability for soldiers on contingency operations.   The guidance should establish an acceptable basic SNA form (e.g.,  written, memo, stamp, number), and should address, but not be limited  to, the following elements:   the period(s) covered,   the type of per diem (e.g., housing, meals),   the rationale for acceptance (e.g., shift work, inadequacy of  transportation) or denial,  the applicable meal rates (e.g., locality meal rate, proportional meal   the required authorization levels and signatures.
Clarify existing guidance in the PPG for contingency operations by  including situational examples based on laws and regulations similar to  those in the JFTR to assist decision makers in making determinations of  nonavailability related to quarters and meals.
Enhance efforts to ensure compliance with TTRA, through the payment  of late payment interest and fees to soldiers for late travel  reimbursements.  Such efforts should include, at a minimum   (1) updating DOD’s Financial Management Regulation provisions  concerning the payment of late payment interest and fees;   (2) developing metrics pertaining to the payment of late payment  interest and fees under TTRA and monitoring to ensure compliance;   (3) considering the feasibility of identifying and paying those soldiers  who were entitled to TTRA payments but, because DFAS made no such  payments prior to February 2004, did not receive them; and (4) paying  the soldiers who we determined were due late payment interest and any  appropriate late payment fees.
section_title: Human Capital
paragraphs: Consider appointing an agencywide leadership position or ombudsman  with accountability for resolving problems Army Guard soldiers  encounter at any point in the travel authorization and reimbursement  process.
Develop and monitor programwide performance metrics to accomplish   identify the root causes of travel vouchers that are rejected and  returned by DFAS CTO and USPFO travel computation offices,  including the reasons why individual soldiers fail to timely and  properly prepare and submit travel vouchers;  provide assurance that unit review of travel vouchers accomplishes  the purposes of that review, including verifying that the required  documents are attached and all needed signatures are included;  monitor and analyze supplemental voucher data to help identify  recurring problems and solutions as well as the quality of the travel  reimbursement program over time; and  document the types and frequency of travel-related problems  reported to the DFAS toll-free number and measure the effectiveness  of this customer service effort to help target areas where training or  improved guidance may be warranted.
Evaluate the adequacy and frequency of training provided to mobilized  Army Guard soldiers that teaches them to accurately prepare and timely  submit travel vouchers, including procedures for obtaining and  submitting authorizing documentation for per diem entitlements.
Review the outstanding travel payment problems we identified at the 10  case study units to identify and resolve any remaining travel-related  issues for the affected soldiers.
section_title: Systems
subsections: section_title: Interim Improvements to Current Travel Pay System
paragraphs: Develop enhanced policies and accountability mechanisms to use the  current WINIATS system to comply with the requirements to identify  late payments and reimburse soldiers for late payment interest and fees  required pursuant to TTRA.  Specific actions include  reiterating or enhancing current policies requiring the capture of  critical dates for management oversight and compliance with TTRA,  including steps required to activate the WINIATS Liaison Screen, and  providing training and guidance to the USPFOs on the use of  WINIATS capabilities to capture traveler, reviewer, and travel  computation office receipt dates, and to upload that information to  DFAS’s Operational Data Store system.
Develop and implement WINIATS system edit checks to ensure the  accuracy of manual entries into WINIATS for the period of travel, the  dates the traveler and reviewer signed the voucher, and the date the  travel computation office received the voucher.
Develop an automated, centralized system for SNAs covering potential  non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard soldiers.
section_title: Longer Term System Improvements
paragraphs: As part of the effort currently under way to reform DOD’s travel (DTS)  and pay and personnel systems (DIMHRS), incorporate a complete  understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems as  documented in this and related reports into the requirements  development for these systems, including  automation of critical travel process functions such as travel  vouchers and TCS orders;  integration or interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, TCS  orders, mobilization orders, and other relevant systems; and   capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest and  fees required pursuant to TTRA.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in  appendix II, DOD concurred with 21 of our 23 recommendations.  DOD  partially concurred with our recommendations regarding (1) development  of an automated, centralized system for SNAs, covering potential  nonavailability of government meals or lodging for mobilized Army Guard  soldiers, and (2) incorporation into requirements development for DTS a  complete understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement  problems including late payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA.  The  actions proposed by DOD to these two recommendations do not ensure  that SNA problems we identified will be corrected or that DOD will have a  travel system in place that will comply with TTRA, thus continuing the risk  that soldiers will not receive all payments they are entitled to receive.  The  department also requested the inclusion of additional responsible DOD  officials in the recommendations section of this report, which we have  added as appropriate.
Concerning our recommendation that DOD develop an automated,  centralized system for SNAs, DOD responded that the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (OUSD (P&R)) and the  DTS Program Management Office are working closely to ensure that  functional requirements for military travel processes are incorporated in  the development of DTS and DIMHRS.  DOD also pointed out that DIMHRS  is tentatively scheduled to be deployed to the Army National Guard in  March 2006, and that therefore, it is not feasible to develop an “interim”  automated, centralized system for SNAs.  DOD also stated that in the  interim, OUSD (P&R) will work with the military services’ lodging  communities to establish a standard SNA, and that a centralized process  will be developed for all military services.
Based on our understanding of the planned and existing functionalities of  DTS and DIHMRS and the problems identified during our audit, we do not  agree with DOD’s reasons for not resolving the stated weaknesses.   Specifically, according to a DOD OUSD (P&R) official in the Requirements  and Reengineering Division, Joint Requirements and Integration Office,  DIMHRS is not currently being designed to issue SNAs.  Further, although  DOD stated that it plans to develop a standard SNA form and centralized  SNA process, this response does not provide for the development of an  automated system, which could be incorporated into the development of  DIMHRS or DTS either as an integrated capability or an interoperable  interface.  By planning to work with lodging communities to establish a  standard SNA, it appears that DOD is taking an initial step toward  addressing the plight of mobilized Army Guard soldiers who have had  problems regarding SNAs.  However, DOD needs to ensure that all  information regarding nonavailability of both lodging and meals is available  to appropriate decision-makers in the SNA approval process.
The majority of problems experienced by Army Guard soldiers in our case  studies related to whether meals were determined to be adequately  available to soldiers in various circumstances such as the irregular hours  required by guard duty, distance to meal facilities, inadequate  transportation to meal facilities, lack of 24-hour mess halls, or other  circumstances.  Proper consideration of these meal issues in addition to  those related to lodging, generally includes review through the soldier’s  chain of command and installation commander and should result in timely  decisions to either (1) issue SNAs that authorize per diem for meals,  enabling Army Guard soldiers to be reimbursed for food from commercial  locations or (2) ensure that Army Guard soldiers receive government- provided meals free of charge.  Because DOD’s comments do not provide  solutions to the range of problems we observed with the SNA process, we  continue to recommend that an automated, centralized system for SNAs be  developed, which addresses the variety of nonavailability issues  experienced by mobilized Army Guard soldiers.
In regard to DOD’s partial concurrence with our recommendation related  to DTS and TTRA compliance, DOD stated that this programming feature  was not required because the travel reimbursement process is completed  within 5 days of the traveler entering pertinent data into DTS.  DOD’s  internal processes stipulate that before a travel voucher entered into DTS  can be paid, it must be reviewed and approved.  However, our report  documented significant delays in the review and approval process in the  current paper intensive system, and DOD did not provide any support for  its claim that DTS reimbursements will be made within a 5-day period.  We  continue to see the need for full DOD implementation of this  recommendation because the review and approval process is a human  capital function that DTS will not replace.  Further, the likelihood of late  payment of travel vouchers processed through DTS remains because of  potential factors such as (1) excessive work loads, (2) questions during  document reviews, (3) inadequate attention to reviewer responsibilities,  and (4) other unforeseen delays in the process.   To ensure that Army  Guard soldiers and others are paid late payment interest and fees required  pursuant to TTRA, DTS would need to include capabilities to identify,  calculate, and pay such late payment interest and fees.  Such capability  would also allow DOD to conduct ongoing monitoring of the timeliness of  travel reimbursements made through DTS.
Finally, regarding the 21 recommendations with which DOD concurred,  DOD indicated that the stated action(s) taken were complete with respect  to the need for (1) mobilization and related travel orders to clearly state  meal entitlements, (2) standardization of the form and content of SNAs for  contingency operations, (3) development and monitoring of late payment  interest and fee metrics, (4) appointment of an agencywide leadership  position or ombudsman, (5) identification of root causes for untimely and  improperly prepared and submitted travel vouchers, and (6) evaluation of  the adequacy and frequency of travel voucher preparation training  provided to mobilized Army Guard soldiers.  While the actions DOD  described in commenting on our report appear responsive to our  recommendations, we have not evaluated the effectiveness of their  implementation and, therefore, cannot determine whether these measures  will resolve the problems we identified.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  date.  At that time, we will send copies of the report to interested  congressional committees.  We will also send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the  Secretary of the Army, the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting  Service, the Director of the Army National Guard, and the Chief of the  National Guard Bureau.  We will make copies available to others upon  request.  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.  If you or your staffs have any questions  regarding this report, please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-9095 or  kutzg@gao.gov, John J. Ryan at (202) 512-9587 or ryanj@gao.gov, or Mary  Ellen Chervenic at (202) 512-6218 or chervenicm@gao.gov.  Major  contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix III.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To obtain an understanding and assess the design of process, personnel  (human capital), and system controls used to provide assurance that  mobilized Army National Guard (Army Guard) soldiers were timely  reimbursed for travel expenses and per diem entitlements, we   reviewed applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and   observed the travel authorization, review, approval and reimbursement   interviewed cognizant agency officials.
With respect to applicable laws, regulations, policies and procedures, we  obtained and reviewed the   Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA) (Pub. L. No. 105-  General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Travel Regulation;  Department of Defense’s (DOD) Joint Federal Travel Regulation;   DOD’s Financial Management Regulation, Volume 9, Travel Policies   Army National Guard Financial Services Center’s The Citizen-Soldier’s  Guide to Mobilization Finance; and   Department of the Army’s Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations  Noble Eagle (ONE), Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Iraqi Freedom  (OIF).
We also reviewed the following Defense Finance and Accounting Service –  Indianapolis (DFAS-IN), Travel Technical Messages (TTM)— policy  implementation messages relating to late payment fees and interest:   TTM 00-08, May 2000, which implemented the provisions of TTRA and  provided that its terms applied to “settlement vouchers;”
TTM 01-01, November 2000, which provided that late payment interest  and fees be calculated and submitted by the traveler on the final  payment amount only;   TTM 03-04, April 2003, which removed the requirement that the late  payment interest calculation was to be calculated and submitted by the  traveler; and   TTM 04-10, May 2004, which directed that late payment interest and fees  be calculated on all travel vouchers, not just final vouchers, as well as  directed reviewers to sign a travel voucher on the same day it is  submitted so that DFAS-IN can apply TTRA requirements using the  reviewer’s signature date as a surrogate for the submission date.
We also used the internal controls standards provided in the Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government.
We interviewed officials from the National Guard Bureau (NGB); United  States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFOs); Army and National Guard  pay centers; unit, duty station, and mobilization station officials; and  individual soldiers to obtain an understanding of their experiences in  applying and complying with these policies and procedures.
In addition, as part of our audit, we performed a review of certain process  and system controls.  Specifically, we obtained information and  documentation and/or performed walk-throughs of travel voucher  processing through the Integrated Automated Travel System, Version 6.0  (WINIATS) at DFAS-IN and one Army National Guard USPFO.  During  those walk-throughs, we observed the operation of control activities over  the review, approval, and timely and accurate payment of travel vouchers.   We obtained documentation and performed walk-throughs regarding  soldier readiness checks—the Army’s mobilization station process to  ensure that Army Guard units have and know what they need.  We reviewed  existing guidance for determining and authorizing nonavailability of  housing and meals at duty stations.  Because the systems that produce  individual Army Guard soldiers’ travel orders are decentralized and not  integrated with travel reimbursement systems, we did not conduct walk- throughs of them.  However, we interviewed officials from Army National  Guard USPFOs, NGB, DFAS-IN, and the Army Finance Command to  augment our documentation and walk-throughs.
Because our preliminary assessment determined that current  authorization, request, review, and approval processes used to pay travel  reimbursements to mobilized Army Guard soldiers relied extensively on  paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems and error-prone manual transaction  entry, we did not statistically test current processes and controls.  The lack  of accurate and complete centralized data on Army Guard travel also  precluded statistical testing.  Instead, we used case study and data mining  to provide a more detailed perspective of the design of controls and the  nature of deficiencies in the key areas of processes, people (human  capital), and systems.   We focused on how these key areas were at work in  the three phases of the travel and reimbursement process:   (1) authorizations; (2) travel voucher preparation, submission, unit review,  and transmission of reimbursement claims; and (3) travel computation  office review, reimbursement computation, audit, and payment.
For our case studies, we gathered available data and analyzed the pay  experiences of Army Guard units mobilized in support of Operations Iraqi  Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom during October 2001  through November 2003. We audited the following 10 Army Guard units as  case studies of the design of controls ensuring consistent, and accurate  determination, authorization, communication, and documentation of per  diem entitlements for soldiers assigned to those units:  Alabama 20th Special Forces,   California 19th Special Forces,   Georgia 190 th Military Police,  Louisiana 239th Military Police,   Maryland 115th Military Police,   Mississippi 114th Military Police,   Mississippi 20th Special Forces,   Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion, and  Virginia 20th Special Forces.
In selecting these 10 units for our case studies, we sought to obtain the  travel reimbursement experiences of units assigned to Operation Iraqi  Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Noble Eagle.  We  limited our case study selection to those units mobilized during the period  from October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003.  From our preliminary  assessment of this population, we determined that military police and  special forces units were experiencing problems related to per diem.  We  used mobilization data supplied by NGB to assist us in identifying military  police and special forces units.  From the 231 military police and special  forces units in the NGB database, and our prior work on Army Guard  military pay (GAO-04-89), we selected 4 special forces and 4 military police  units experiencing problems related to per diem for case studies.  Two  other units were selected from a review of data furnished to us by DOD  from its Remedy Tracking System. These 10 case studies were audited to  provide a more detailed view of the types and causes of problems  experienced by these units as well as the financial impact of these  problems on individual soldiers and their families.
To obtain diverse perspectives on the nature of the reported per diem  problems, we interviewed selected guard and duty station commanders  (where the per diem problems were experienced) and selected individual  soldiers experiencing travel reimbursement problems for our case study  units.  We also obtained and reviewed relevant individual travel vouchers  and supporting documentation for soldiers in selected units.  In addition,  we used available data to estimate underpayments, overpayments, late  payments, and meal entitlement amounts that Army Guard soldiers  expected to receive.  We referred eight units, which, at the end of our audit  included Army Guard soldiers that were unpaid, partially paid, or in debt,  to appropriate DOD officials to resolve any amounts owed to the Army  Guard soldiers or to the government.
For our individual voucher data mining, we obtained a database from  DFAS’s Operational Data Store (ODS) of travel voucher reimbursement  transactions for travel that began during the period October 1, 2001,  through November 30, 2003.   The data contained approximately 6 million  civilian, Army, Army Reserve, and Army Guard travel voucher transactions  paid through the DFAS-IN disbursing station symbol number 5570.  These  travel vouchers accounted for $3.8 billion in reimbursements.  The ODS  database did not uniquely identify mobilized Army Guard travel vouchers.
In order to identify Army Guard vouchers, we obtained a database extract  of Army guard soldiers paid during the period October 1, 2001, through  November 30, 2003, from the Defense Joint Military Pay System-Reserve  Component.  We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of either of  these databases.  Using dates of mobilized Army Guard service contained  in the payroll database, we extracted the Social Security numbers for Army  Guard soldiers with periods of active service of 30 days or greater.  We  matched the Social Security numbers from the Army Guard payroll  database to the ODS travel reimbursement transaction database.  There  were approximately 623,000 travel voucher transactions processed for  Army Guard for the period October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003,  totaling $389 million.  We then sorted the 623,000 travel vouchers by the  number of days it took to get reimbursed from the date travel ended.  We  identified 26,414 travel vouchers that took over 120 days to get reimbursed.   We made a nonrepresentative selection of transactions from the 26,414  grouping reimbursed after 120 days, along with travel vouchers selected  from the unit case studies, and audited 191 travel vouchers.  Our analysis of  the 191 vouchers found that 52 had incorrect dates entered into the  database and, in fact, were paid timely.  We performed no further audit on  these 52 travel vouchers and concentrated our analysis on the remaining  139 travel vouchers.
We obtained or requested copies of the travel vouchers and supporting  documentation for each potential late reimbursement transaction  selected—primarily the travel voucher, travel order(s), special  authorizations such as certificates or statements of non-availability and  missed meals, and receipts for other reimbursable expenses.  We reviewed  these data and used a data collection instrument to collect the information  necessary and  compared for accuracy the dates and amounts in the transaction  database to the dates and amounts on the supporting documentation;   calculated the days elapsed between (1) the date travel ended, (2) the  date the traveler signed the travel voucher, (3) the date the unit reviewer  signed the travel voucher, (4) the date received by the processing center,  and (5) the date of payment to the soldier, and identified where the  significant delay(s) occurred for each voucher; and   attempted contact with the soldier, and, as appropriate, the unit  reviewer, and the travel computation office to determine the reason(s)  for all significant delays occurring between the end of travel and the  date of reimbursement.
The scope of our review did not include verification of the accuracy of  travel voucher payments.
For the purpose of determining the reasons for late reimbursements, we  used available documentation supplemented with follow-up inquiries  where possible with soldiers, unit supervisory reviewers, and the cognizant  travel computation office personnel to gain insight into the facts,  circumstances, and points of view of all relevant parties.
In our case studies, which focused on per diem problems, and in our  vouchers, which focused on late reimbursements, we attempted to  determine the issues surrounding soldiers’ questions of accurate per diem  reimbursements, and the reasons delays occurred in reimbursing soldiers  for travel entitlements and expenses.  As such, our audit results only reflect  the problems we identified.  Soldiers in our late pay and case study units  may have experienced additional travel reimbursement problems that we  did not identify.  In addition, our work was not designed to identify, and we  did not identify, any fraudulent travel reimbursement request or payment  by any Army Guard soldiers. Because we could not contact all individual  soldiers and unit supervisory reviewers, we likely did not identify all of the  effects on soldiers or the reasons for inaccurate or questioned per diem in  our case study units and delays in the overall process resulting in late  payments of travel reimbursements to Army Guard soldiers.
We reviewed TTRA and federal travel regulations.  TTRA requires the  payment of a late payment fee as prescribed by 41 C.F.R. § 301-71.210  requiring the payment of a late payment fee consisting of (1) late payment  interest, generally equivalent to the Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate, plus  (2) a late payment charge equivalent to the late payment charge, which  could have been charged by the government travel card contractor.  This  late payment penalty and interest is to be paid to soldiers if their  reimbursements are not paid within 30 days of the submission of proper  vouchers.  As part of our audit, we determined if any of the 139 individual  vouchers we selected were timely and properly submitted by Army Guard  soldiers and whether they had received late payment interest owed to  them.  We identified 75 vouchers that were properly submitted by Army  Guard soldiers who should have received late payment interest totaling  about $1,400.  Some of these soldiers may also have been entitled to a late  payment fee in addition to the late payment interest.  We referred the  names of the affected soldiers to applicable DOD officials to resolve  amounts owed to these soldiers.
Another source of information was the Remedy Tracking System, which  DOD uses to track all controlled correspondence, such as congressional  complaint letters. We asked DOD to provide all correspondence relating to  travel-related expense issues.  We analyzed the results from DOD for  additional leads into travel voucher problems.  We did not audit nor did we  determine if the database provided to us by DOD was complete.
In our analysis of DOD’s Defense Travel System (DTS), we (1) interviewed  DTS program management office personnel and other DOD officials;   (2) obtained demonstrations of the user interface with DTS; (3) reviewed a  DOD IG audit report and DFAS post payment audit report on DTS; and   (4) obtained cost information on DTS from DOD’s, fiscal year 2005 Budget  Estimate, Information Technology/National Security Systems Budget  Exhibit dated February 2004.
We briefed DOD and Army officials, NGB officials, and DFAS officials on  the details of our audit, including our findings and their implications.  We  received written DOD comments and have summarized those comments in  the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section of this report.  DOD’s  comments are reprinted in appendix II.  We conducted our audit work from  November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance with U.S. generally  accepted government auditing standards, and we performed our  investigative work in accordance with standards prescribed by the  President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Staff making key contributions to this report include Paul S. Begnaud,  Norman M. Burrell, Francine M. DelVecchio, C. Robert DeRoy, Lauren S.  Fassler, Dennis B. Fauber, Wilfred B. Holloway, Patty P. Hsieh, Charles R.  Hodge, Jason M. Kelly, Julia C. Matta, Sheila D. Miller, Bennett E. Severson,  Robert A. Sharpe, Patrick S. Tobo, and Jenniffer F. Wilson.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts  newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To  have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to  www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs