Military Personnel: Visibility over Junior Enlisted Servicemember Access to Services on Bases Could Be Enhanced
Published: 2015-05-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Junior enlisted servicemembers constitute more than half of DOD's enlisted force. To sustain the force and help ensure continued growth in all ranks, DOD provides a wide array of services and programs on its military bases, including dining facilities; fitness centers; and medical clinics. Senate Report 113-176 included a provision for GAO to review junior enlisted servicemember access to services and programs on military bases.
This report evaluates (1) the extent to which DOD's policies and procedures for on-base services and programs consider access by junior enlisted and what factors influence their implementation; and (2) the extent to which DOD and the military services collect and share information and data on junior enlisted access to on-base services to identify any potential access issues. GAO evaluated DOD, military service, and base policies and data-collection tools; conducted 17 nongeneralizable discussion groups with junior and senior enlisted servicemembers randomly selected at four bases identified to represent a range of size and locations; and interviewed officials from OSD, the services, and four bases.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Department of Defense (DOD) policies and procedures at multiple levels—the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the military services, and four bases GAO visited—govern on-base services and programs and establish access for all servicemembers, including junior enlisted, who are in the early stages of their military career and in the first four of nine pay grades of the military compensation system. Further, implementation is influenced by several factors. GAO found that policies referenced the entire active-duty, enlisted, or base populations, and did not distinguish between specific groups—such as by pay grade or rank. For example, Defense Health Agency policy regarding medical care includes provisions for all active-duty servicemembers, of which junior enlisted servicemembers are a subset, as part of a priority system for access to medical care. Further, at four bases GAO visited, implementation of policies and procedures was influenced by factors such as available budgetary resources and low usage of services or programs. Base officials stated that budget cuts and sequestration diminished their ability to provide services and programs at a level that met current needs of all servicemembers.
DOD's efforts to collect data on on-base services and programs do not address junior enlisted servicemember access issues, including those identified in GAO-led discussion groups. Further, DOD has mechanisms for sharing information across the department on initiatives and other good practices, but these also do not focus on junior enlisted servicemember access issues. In all 17 discussion groups, participants provided comments—positive and negative—on access to the following: (1) dining facilities, (2) medical care, and (3) transportation. For example, 6 of 11 junior enlisted discussion groups reported having problems scheduling medical appointments in a timely manner. However, GAO found that formal data-collection mechanisms used by DOD, the military services, and four bases—including surveys, utilization rate data, and town halls—did not fully capture potential access issues related to these type of concerns because they did not include (1) direct questions on access to all services and programs, (2) opportunities to follow up on reasons for dissatisfaction, or (3) options for open-ended responses. For example, DOD's Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members asks about satisfaction with hours of operation of the commissary, but does not ask about satisfaction with or access to most other services and programs. According to participants in 9 of 17 discussion groups, feedback from informal mechanisms, such as discussions with supervisors where access may be discussed, may not be relayed to decision makers or acted upon once received. Finally, DOD's information-sharing methods include a number of policy boards with representatives from the services, but the efforts are broader than identifying or addressing issues specific to junior enlisted servicemembers. DOD officials stated that they believe access is not a widespread problem and satisfaction questions and other efforts are sufficient to obtain needed data on access. Without reviewing and considering existing data-collection and information-sharing mechanisms and taking action, DOD is missing opportunities to enhance its efforts to provide services and programs that encourage retention and contribute to DOD's goal of a trained and ready force.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD (1) review data collection mechanisms and consider revisions related to junior enlisted access to services, and take action as needed based on the information, and (2) review existing methods of information sharing and consider adding mechanisms to increase visibility over junior enlisted personnel's access to services. DOD concurred with both recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) has a total enlisted force of over 1.1  million active-duty, enlisted servicemembers, which includes  approximately 600,000 junior enlisted servicemembers in grades E1  through E4. These junior enlisted soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines  are an important part of the department’s enlisted force. As we reported in  April 2010, DOD is unique in that, unlike the private-sector, which can  laterally hire an employee from another organization, the military must  grow most of its personnel and leaders internally because there is no  private sector labor market from which the military can hire for certain  unique occupations. However, according to estimates from the 2013  Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members, junior enlisted  servicemembers reported having lower overall satisfaction with the  military way of life than senior enlisted servicemembers. Further, junior  enlisted servicemembers also reported being more unlikely to reenlist  than senior enlisted servicemembers. DOD policy states that the  department should recruit and retain the desired number and quality of  military personnel with the requisite qualifications and experience,  including designated critical skills, and that the department’s ability to  maintain an experienced group of mid- and senior-grade enlisted leaders  is vital to organizational performance. Therefore, as our prior work has  shown, it is important that DOD provide for and take care of the needs of  its servicemembers to sustain the force and help ensure continued growth  throughout all ranks. This is done, in part, through a complex system of  pay, benefits, incentives, and other services and programs provided to  servicemembers.
Service policies require most junior enlisted servicemembers below the  grade of E5 to live in on-base housing in order to, among other things,  enhance unit cohesion, professional development, and esprit de corps.  The military services provide a wide array of services and programs to  meet the needs of its servicemembers, particularly those who are  required to live in on-base housing, as well as others who choose to live  in on-base housing and those that work on base. These services and  programs include, but are not limited to, dining facilities; medical clinics  and treatment facilities; and commissaries and exchanges; as well as  access to community facilities to include fitness centers, swimming pools,  officer and enlisted clubs, libraries, community centers, hobby shops, and  golf courses.
Some of these on-base services and programs are provided as part of  DOD’s military compensation, which is intended to facilitate recruitment  and retention of a highly qualified force. In our body of work on military  compensation, which is broader than junior enlisted servicemembers, we  have found that DOD’s military compensation system has, over time,  become an increasingly complex and piecemeal addition of pays,  allowances, and benefits. We have also conducted reviews of specific  benefits available to servicemembers as part of this compensation  system, including women’s health-care needs, sexual-assault response,  commissaries, and golf courses, among other things. For example, in  January 2013, we found DOD is taking steps to address the health-care  needs of deployed female servicemembers. In April 2005, we found that  DOD had issued policy guidance related to commissaries—guidance  intended to reinforce and help ensure that quality of life would be a  primary consideration in any future assessments of commissary  operations, including closures. A list of related GAO reports may be  found at the end of this report.
Senate Report 113-176, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included a provision that we  review junior enlisted servicemember access to the services provided on  military installations, and the policies and procedures for ensuring that  junior enlisted servicemembers have ready access to those benefits.  This report evaluates (1) the extent to which DOD’s policies and  procedures for on-base services and programs consider access by junior  enlisted servicemembers and what factors, if any, influence the  implementation of policies and procedures; and (2) the extent to which  DOD and the military services collect and share information and data on  junior enlisted servicemember access to on-base services to identify  potential access issues.
For both objectives, we focused on the population of unaccompanied  junior enlisted servicemembers in grades E1 through E4 who reside in  housing on installations in the continental United States. We focused on  these servicemembers because of some of the unique circumstances  associated with this population—for example, the requirement that they  live in on-base housing, their modest income, and their age—that may  cause them to rely more heavily on certain on-base services and  programs than other populations. Further, for the purposes of this  review, we define “access,” with regard to on-base services and  programs, as (1) the eligibility to use—that is, through provisions in  policy—and (2) the ability to gain entry to, which includes, for example,  hours of operation, availability of transportation, and proximity to other on- base facilities, including junior enlisted servicemember housing and work  stations.
For our first objective, we obtained and analyzed relevant and current, as  of March 2015, DOD, military service, and installation-specific policies  and procedures for the services and programs provided to  servicemembers on installations. We analyzed these documents to  determine whether they identified offices and individuals with oversight  roles and responsibilities for the various services and programs, hours of  operation, standards for facilities, as well as any provisions that would  relate specifically to helping to ensure access by junior enlisted  servicemembers. We interviewed officials from DOD, the four military  services, and four installations who have responsibility for implementing  the policies and procedures for the services and programs provided to  servicemembers on installations.
To select the installations we visited, we analyzed data and demographic  information about populations at each military installation in the  continental United States. These data included, among other things, the  number of junior enlisted servicemembers stationed at the installation; the  availability of on-base services and programs; ratios of civilian and retiree  populations (as available); and proximity to the nearest urban center. We  selected four military installations to visit—one per military service for  each of the Army (Fort Campbell), Navy (Naval Station Norfolk), Marine  Corps (Camp Lejeune), and Air Force (Joint Base San Antonio) to reflect  a range of the aforementioned factors.
For our second objective, we analyzed the most recent, as of March  2015, DOD, service, and selected installation-specific data-collection  mechanisms, provided to us by department officials, such as surveys and  other feedback mechanisms, to identify questions and information related  to the use of, access to, and satisfaction with services and programs on  military installations. These mechanisms include, among others, the  2007, 2009, 2012, and 2013 DOD’s Status of Forces Survey for Active  Duty Members (conducted by the Defense Manpower Data Center); DOD  Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Customer Satisfaction Survey 2013; The  Quality of Life in the United States Marine Corps Active Duty Survey  2012, Support Systems Domain Analysis; and Air Force unit surveys.  We identified and reported on the extent to which such data-collection  mechanisms exist, what they are intended to measure, and, in some  limited instances, the results of such mechanisms where questions were  deemed related to this review. However, we did not assess the quality or  reliability of any of these data collection mechanisms or the data that  resulted from them. We also interviewed officials at the four  installations—including but not limited to, the installation commander, the  senior enlisted advisor; and those responsible for, among other things,  management of transportation, installation design and layout, medical  facilities, and housing—to discuss their knowledge of any access issues  experienced by junior enlisted servicemembers at their respective  installations.
During the visits to four installations, we conducted discussion groups  with junior and senior enlisted servicemembers to use as illustrative  examples about access to services. We conducted a total of 17  discussion groups—11 with junior enlisted servicemembers and 6 with  senior enlisted servicemembers—with approximately 8 to16 participants  per group. Three discussion groups were held at each installation  visited—to include three individual installations (Naval Station Norfolk,  Fort Campbell, and Camp Lejeune) and all three installations comprising  Joint Base San Antonio—with the exception of Joint Base San Antonio- Randolph Air Force Base where we held two discussion groups due to  the limited population of servicemembers that met our criteria. Officials at  each of the installations selected participants for each group based on  specific criteria provided by our team. The criteria, provided to each  installation prior to our trip, specified that the participants included in our  junior enlisted discussion groups be in grades E1 through E4, reside in  on-base unaccompanied housing, and work in a range of occupations,  among other things. For the senior enlisted discussion groups, the criteria  specified that participants be in grades E7 through E9 and have some  supervisory capacity over junior enlisted servicemembers. We conducted  a content analysis of the responses and created 13 categories that  accounted for most comments. After categorization, we analyzed the  comments for tone, determining whether each comment about a  particular service or program was positive, negative, or neutral. One  analyst coded each response into 1 of the 13 categories, and another  analyst reviewed the first analyst’s decisions. Any discrepancies in the  coding were resolved through discussion by the analysts. While the  information collected provided us with illustrative examples of junior  enlisted servicemembers’ perceptions about access to on-base services  and programs, the locations we visited are not, however, representative  of all DOD installations. As such, the information we obtained from our  visits and the results of our discussion groups, including the comments  provided, are not generalizable to the entire DOD junior enlisted  servicemember population. In addition, we obtained information from  DOD and military service officials about the department’s efforts to share  initiatives and other good practices within and across the services and  DOD. We compared the results of both our analysis of the data collection  mechanisms and efforts to share initiatives and other good practices  identified by department officials with criteria for what specifically should  be done from Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.  Further details about our scope and methodology may be found in  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2014 to May 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Enlisted Military Rank and Grade System
paragraphs: The military has a system of pay grades and ranks that differs by military  service. According to DOD, military rank is a badge of leadership, and  responsibility for personnel, equipment, and mission grows with each  increase in rank. Pay grades, such as E1 or O5, are administrative  classifications used primarily to standardize compensation across the  military services. For example, the “E” in E1 stands for “enlisted” while the  “1” indicates the pay grade for that position. The other pay categories are  “W” for warrant officers and “O” for commissioned officers. Some enlisted  pay grades have two ranks. Figure 1 provides junior enlisted pay grades  and ranks for each of the military services.
section_title: Military Benefits
paragraphs: DOD offers a wide range of benefits, many of which are directed at  members living on installations, including junior enlisted servicemembers,  and those with family obligations. These benefits include the availability of  the following services and programs on most installations where  servicemembers are stationed:
Commissaries: DOD operates supermarket-type stores called  commissaries that provide a noncash benefit for active-duty  servicemembers by offering food and related household and health  and beauty items that are similar to merchandise sold in commercial  grocery stores. This merchandise is typically offered for sale at  substantially reduced prices (including exemption from any sales  taxes) when compared to retail prices at commercial grocery stores.  DOD estimates that a family of four can save about $4,400 annually  (or approximately 30 percent) by shopping at a commissary if all food  purchases are made from the commissary. By law, commissaries sell  items at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge, which is used to pay for the  recapitalization of store-related infrastructure, including replacement,  expansion, and improvement of existing commissaries and central  product-processing facilities; maintenance and repair; and store- related information technology.
Exchanges: The military services’ exchange stores offer savings on  shopping to servicemembers. The exchanges run department stores,  uniform shops, gas stations, liquor stores, barber shops, fast-food  restaurants, and many other retail operations on military installations,  as well as online shopping. Active-duty service members, National  Guard and Reserve Component members, retirees, and eligible family  members can shop at any exchange. A portion of exchange profits  funds installation Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) activities,  and exchanges may provide employment for military family members.  Each service branch’s exchange system has its own name—Army  and Air Force Exchange Service, Navy Exchange Service Command,  and Marine Corps Exchange—and although each military exchange  system has similar policies, services and items for sale, each one is  operated separately.
Medical Care: DOD operates its own large, complex health system— the Military Health System—to provide a full range of medical care  and services at no cost to active-duty military servicemembers and at  either a reduced cost or no cost to other eligible beneficiaries— including dependents of servicemembers and some military retirees.
Servicemembers obtain health care through the military services’  system of military treatment facilities, which is supplemented by  participating civilian health-care providers, institutions, and  pharmacies to facilitate access to health-care services when  necessary. Active-duty servicemembers receive most of their care  from military treatment facilities, where they are supposed to receive  priority access over other beneficiaries, such as dependents and  retirees.
Food Services: DOD operates dining facilities—also called DFACs,  mess halls, or galleys depending on the military service—on military  installations to meet the feeding and sustenance needs of  servicemembers who live or work on its installations. These dining  facilities may also provide a structured on-the-job training environment  for food service personnel to meet the department’s warfighting  mission. Servicemembers who live in on-base housing and do not  receive basic allowance for subsistence are eligible to receive meals  at the government’s expense.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation: The department’s MWR programs  intend to provide high-quality, consistent community support. These  programs are classified into three categories that determine how they  are funded: (1) Category A programs are mission-essential programs,  funded almost entirely with appropriated funds, and include fitness,  sports, libraries, single servicemember programs and deployment  support; (2) Category B programs are community-support programs,  funded significantly with appropriated funds, and include outdoor  recreation, recreation centers, leisure tours and travel, auto hobby,  child and youth development programs and skill development  programs; (3) Category C programs are revenue generators, funded  almost entirely with nonappropriated funds, and include food,  beverage, entertainment, military clubs, golf courses, bowling centers,  marinas, and gaming machines. Unlimited use of MWR programs and  services is authorized to active-duty servicemembers and their  families, among others.
section_title: DOD’s Policies and Procedures for On- Base Services and Programs Establish Access Requirements for All Servicemembers, Including Junior Enlisted; Implementation Is Influenced by Budget and Utilization Rates at Selected Installations
paragraphs: DOD has policies and procedures at multiple levels—DOD, the military  services, and selected installations we visited—that govern  servicemember access to on-base services and programs, which includes  access for junior enlisted servicemembers. More specifically, we found  that these policies address eligibility, which makes the on-base services  and programs available to all servicemembers. However, at selected  installations, we found that budget considerations and utilization rates of  the services and programs influenced decisions about implementation of  these policies and procedures and affected all servicemembers, including  junior enlisted servicemembers.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Policies and Procedures at Multiple Levels Governing Access to On-Base Services and Programs for All Servicemembers, Including Junior Enlisted
paragraphs: DOD has policies and procedures at the department, military service, and  installation levels that govern on-base services and programs, including  access, and these typically apply to all servicemembers, not just those in  the junior enlisted ranks. Specifically, policy-making authority resides  initially at the department level in the Office of the Secretary of Defense  (OSD) with policies for specific services or programs primarily issued in  the form of DOD Instructions or DOD Directives. The military services  issue service-specific policy based on applicable DOD level policy.  Additional policy can be released at every level within the service, each of  which provides greater granularity but is based on policy from a higher  level. At the installation level, commanders make management decisions  about the services and programs that are available on their installations,  within the requirements framework derived from higher-level policies. At  the installations we visited, we found that commanders who have  decision-making authority for their respective installations further delegate  responsibility for certain managerial decisions and implementation about  certain procedures to program-level managers who possess more direct  knowledge of the programs or services being provided. For example, we  found that the installation commander at one installation delegated  decisions about the base’s recreation centers’ hours of operation and that  of other programs to the MWR Director because the installation  commander felt that the Director could make more informed decisions  based on utilization rates and other data gathered by the MWR staff.
Our analysis of policies from multiple levels within the department— including OSD, the military services, and the installations we visited— found that these documents addressed servicemember eligibility and  make the on-base services and programs available to all  servicemembers. In most cases, the policies we analyzed referenced  either the entire enlisted population or the entire installation’s population,  and did not distinguish between specific groups—including, for instance,  rank or gender, among other things. For example, Defense Health  Agency policy regarding health care includes provisions for all active-duty  servicemembers, of which junior enlisted servicemembers are a subset,  as part of a priority system for access to care. The policy specifies that  an active-duty servicemember is in the first priority group for receiving  care at military treatment facilities and clinics, as well as time frames in  which active-duty servicemembers should be able to make appointments  and receive care. The policy does not single out or include any special  provisions for providing access to care specifically for junior enlisted  servicemembers.
As another example, Army and Air Force policy on exchange-service  operations lists eligible patrons who are authorized access to  merchandise and services at exchange stores. According to the policy,  uniformed or retired uniformed servicemembers, either on active duty or  serving in any category of the Reserve Component, are entitled to  unlimited exchange service benefits. This includes all members of the  Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. Thus, the policy  does not single out or include any special provisions for providing access  specifically to junior enlisted servicemembers. Officials at the military  service headquarters and installation level stated that on-base services  generally should be available to all active-duty servicemembers on an  equal basis.
We did find, however, that each of the individual military services have  programs geared to single and unaccompanied active-duty  servicemembers in the 18- to 25-year old age range, which largely  encompasses the junior enlisted ranks. Specifically, the military  services’ programs include (1) the Better Opportunities for Single Soldiers  Program (Army), (2) the Liberty Program (Navy), (3) the Single Marine  Program (Marine Corps), and (4) the Single Airman Program (Air Force).  These programs are intended to address single servicemember quality- of-life issues and support commanders by providing a forum through  which single servicemember quality-of-life concerns may be identified and  recommendations for improvement may be made. Additionally, these  programs are intended to connect single and unaccompanied  servicemembers with opportunities for off-duty programs, activities, and  special events designed to promote positive use of leisure time. Activities  and events offered by the programs vary from installation to installation  based on the participants’ interests, but they typically include holiday and special event activities, recreation and sports activities,  trips and tours,  concerts,  life skills and career progression, and  community involvement activities.
Although the programs, policies, and procedures do not focus exclusively  on junior enlisted servicemembers, according to program officials,  participants at the activities and events offered by the programs are  typically junior enlisted servicemembers.
section_title: At Selected Installations, Implementation of Policies Is Influenced by Budget and Utilization Considerations and Affects All Servicemembers, Including Junior Enlisted
paragraphs: At the installations we visited, we found that policy decisions and  implementation related to on-base services and programs directly affect  access by all servicemembers—including junior enlisted—and were  influenced by factors such as available budgetary resources and the  utilization rates of services or programs. For example, officials at all four  installations we visited reported that budget cuts and the effect of  sequestration have, for all servicemembers, either diminished the  installation’s ability (1) to provide services and programs or (2) to provide  services and programs at a level that meets the current need.
For example, at Joint Base San Antonio, officials said that civilian  furloughs and sequestration significantly affected the delivery of medical  services to all of its servicemembers at two of the three bases comprising  Joint Base San Antonio. More specifically, according to a Joint Base  San Antonio official, 30 of the 37 medical wing clinics furloughed civilians  and experienced reductions in appointments or delays when patients  sought treatment at the clinics during the furlough period. According to  information provided by medical officials representing Joint Base San  Antonio, the Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph Air Force Base clinic had  to reduce the number of available appointments by 54 slots each week. In  addition, wait times for pharmacy and mammography services increased  by 20 percent. The officials further stated that, at the Joint Base San  Antonio-Lackland Air Force Base Trainee Health Clinic, appointment slots  were reduced by 30 appointment slots a week, while appointments at the  installation’s ambulatory surgery center were reduced by 540  appointments a week (nearly 10 percent). The Joint Base San Antonio  officials stated that these reductions and delays did not solely affect junior  enlisted servicemembers, but rather all beneficiaries seeking care; the  extent to which each population (active duty, dependents, and retirees)  was affected is unknown as the delayed appointments were not tracked in  this manner.
Similarly, an official at Naval Station Norfolk stated that the combined  effect of the continuing resolution in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and  sequestration resulted in reductions to the hours of operation for some of  the installation’s MWR services and programs. For example, the official  stated that the installation’s fitness center hours of operation were  reduced by 3 hours on Saturday mornings and 19 group exercise classes  were cancelled. In addition, the installation’s Liberty Program recreation  centers’ hours of operation were reduced from 84 to 72 hours a week at  one center and from 66 to 57 hours a week at the other center—a  reduction of 12 and 9 hours a week, respectively. Further, the official  stated that other services and programs at Naval Station Norfolk were  closed due to underutilization of the service or program. For example, the  official stated that the combined Arts and Crafts and Wood Shop was  closed in 2010 and the recreation pool was closed in 2013 due to low  patronage. Similarly, officials at Camp Lejeune said the Wood Hobby  Shop closed in 2014 due to low utilization.
At Fort Campbell, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service General  Manager stated that he makes management decisions, for instance the  hours of operation for the installation’s over 32 exchange facilities and 32  service facilities—including the main exchange, express stores/gas  stations, military clothing store, and the Class Six store—based on sales  and troop deployments. The exchange manager further stated that Fort  Campbell used to have an express store that was open 24 hours a day,  but few patrons and low sales in the early morning hours did not warrant  keeping it open 24 hours a day. As a result, the store’s hours were  reduced from 24 hours a day to opening from 5:00 a.m. to midnight. Also,  he said exchange stores may close early when troops are deployed since  there are fewer customers and stay open later when they return from  deployment.
section_title: Junior Enlisted Servicemembers Indicated That Access Issues Exist, but DOD Has Incomplete Data and Information on Junior Enlisted Servicemember Access to On-base Services
paragraphs: Junior and senior enlisted servicemembers from selected installations we  visited expressed a wide range of perceptions regarding access to on- base services and programs and indicated that, in some cases, access is  a problem. DOD and the military service data-collection mechanisms and  resultant data—including surveys, utilization rates of services, and other  means of providing feedback—do not fully capture potential access  issues associated with on-base services and programs, including those  identified in our discussion groups. DOD also has methods for collecting  and sharing information on initiatives and other identified good practices  across the department, but these efforts have a broader purpose and do  not specifically focus on junior enlisted access issues.
subsections: section_title: Junior and Senior Enlisted Servicemembers from Selected Installations Expressed Wide- Ranging Perceptions About On- Base Services and Programs and Indicated Access Issues Exist to Some Extent
paragraphs: During our visits to four installations, the participants in our discussion  groups provided a range of comments—with some being positive, but a  majority being negative—about the services and programs on their  installations. For example, junior enlisted servicemembers in 1 of our 11  discussion groups expressed interest in staying on the installation and  using some of the services and programs available to them on the  installation because of their convenience and relatively low cost, but  added that some of these services had recently been closed or had their  availability reduced. Although the focus of our discussion groups and the  questions we asked pertained to junior enlisted servicemembers, we also  heard similar concerns from participants in the senior enlisted discussion  groups. Senior enlisted participants also stated that issues may be more  prevalent among junior enlisted servicemembers based on the potential  that their lower rank may not garner them the attention needed when they  try to receive assistance from services and programs; however, senior  enlisted participants stated that they do take active roles in assisting  junior enlisted servicemembers in addressing issues.
We categorized the comments that junior and senior enlisted  servicemembers provided in our discussion groups into 13 main  categories related to on-base services and programs and other feedback  mechanisms to installation leadership. Although the participants in our  groups provided some limited positive comments about the services and  programs, based on our analysis of the discussion group comments, we  identified specific areas where junior and senior enlisted servicemembers  in our discussion groups most frequently expressed concerns about  access issues. Those areas include: (1) dining facilities, (2) medical  care, and (3) transportation. We provide a brief summary of the concerns  identified by servicemembers below. Additional examples of these  concerns can be found in appendix II. Table 1 depicts the number of  discussion groups where each of our main categories was discussed.
Participants in all 11 junior enlisted and all 6 senior enlisted  servicemember discussion groups at all four installations we visited made  comments pertaining to the dining facilities on the installation. Further,  junior enlisted servicemembers in 10 of 11 discussion groups and senior  enlisted servicemembers in 6 of 6 discussion groups stated they had  concerns about (1) access to meals and dining facilities—to include  examples such as parking, distance to the facility, or dining facility  closures—and (2) the hours of operation of the dining facilities, among  other things. For example, participants in one junior enlisted discussion  group raised concerns about the hours of operation for that installation’s  only dining facility, with one individual stating that work hours had to be  adjusted to account for the dining facility’s schedule to allow time for  lunch. The servicemember further stated that if work ran late, he had to  rush to the dining facility to get dinner before it closed at 6:30 p.m.  However, leadership at the installations we visited stated there are  accommodations made to facilitate access—for example, use of unit  vehicles to transport servicemembers who do not have personal  vehicles—and address evolving environments and installation  demographics.
subsections: section_title: Access to Medical Care
paragraphs: In all 11 discussion groups with junior enlisted servicemembers and in all  6 discussion groups with senior enlisted servicemembers, participants  provided comments about medical care. While we did hear some positive  comments from junior enlisted servicemembers—for example, two of our  junior enlisted discussion groups stated that the medical treatment facility  at their installation provided great access to medical care—we heard,  among others things, concerns about challenges with making medical  appointments, long wait times for acute care, and lengthy waits to obtain  referrals or specialty appointments, even though DOD’s policy is to  provide active-duty servicemembers high priority. For example, 6 of the  11 junior enlisted and 5 of the 6 senior enlisted discussion groups  reported having problems with or knowledge of problems with scheduling  medical appointments in a timely manner. In particular, one junior enlisted  discussion group stated that it can take up to a week to make the  appointment through the installation’s designated medical appointment  booking system due to, for example, caller wait times making it difficult to  get through to make an appointment. Medical leadership from the  installation stated they spend a lot of time making sure access to care is  consistent across the installation and across ranks, but, in some cases, a  servicemember may be upset that the appointment could not be made for  the same day.
section_title: Access to Transportation
paragraphs: Participants in all 11 discussion groups with junior enlisted  servicemembers and in all 6 discussion groups with senior enlisted  servicemembers provided comments related to transportation on the  installation. More specifically, our analysis identified that in 6 of 11 junior  enlisted and 4 of 6 senior enlisted discussion groups, participants stated  they had access issues due to the installation’s configuration, limited on- base transportation, or nonownership of personal vehicles that may have  inhibited access to on-base services and programs. Senior leadership  officials at that installation stated that the barracks where their junior  enlisted servicemembers live are not colocated with their work station,  which presents challenges for those servicemembers who do not have  their own means of transportation. Those officials further stated that it  would make more sense for their junior enlisted servicemembers to be  housed in the barracks across the street from their work station, but those  barracks are used by other units. As another example, one installation we  visited had an official on-base shuttle; but participants in our discussion  groups stated that the shuttle was viewed as being more for the students  and trainees on the installation than for the permanent servicemembers.  According to military service leadership, installations have made attempts  to rectify the transportation issue, and some installations provide  transportation such as on-base shuttles, buses, and unit-provided  vehicles.
section_title: DOD’s Existing Formal and Informal Data- Collection Mechanisms Do Not Fully Capture Potential Access Issues
paragraphs: DOD, the military services, and individual installation commanders have  many formal mechanisms available, as well as informal mechanisms such  as individual feedback to supervisors, to obtain the perspectives of the  junior enlisted servicemember population. However, these formal  mechanisms—for example, surveys and utilization rate data—and  informal mechanisms do not fully capture details about potential access  issues occurring on installations, including those identified by junior  enlisted servicemembers in our discussion groups.
More specifically, we found that the formal and informal mechanisms  allow servicemembers, including junior enlisted servicemembers, to  provide feedback, express concerns, or make suggestions about on-base  services, among other things. The formal mechanisms include surveys,  comment cards, and the Interactive Customer Evaluation system, as well  as data collected by the installation on utilization rates of the various on- base services and programs. The informal mechanism consists of the  junior enlisted servicemember’s chain of command, where junior enlisted  servicemembers are able to report concerns and suggestions to their  leadership. In a junior enlisted servicemember’s chain of command, the  servicemember may provide information—including concerns or issues  related to access to on-base services and programs—to his or her first- line supervisor. Junior enlisted servicemembers are also able to contact  their unit’s or installation’s senior enlisted advisors, and the base  Inspector General’s Office in order to report issues they may have on  base.
We reviewed the surveys and other formal mechanisms that were  provided by DOD, the military services, and the installations we visited.  Specifically, we found that the surveys we reviewed (1) asked  servicemembers if they used the services and programs; and (2) asked  questions about satisfaction with some elements of some select services  and programs, but not others. These surveys did not, however, ask  questions specific to accessing all services and programs, or provide  respondents with the opportunity to address why they are unsatisfied  through follow-up or open-ended questions.
For example, the Defense Manpower Data Center conducts the Status of  Forces Survey of Active Duty Members—a web-based and pen-and- paper administered survey on behalf of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness—which asks active-duty servicemembers  about a range of issues, including overall satisfaction with military life;  retention; readiness; deployments; and various on-base services and  benefits; among other things. According to the Defense Manpower Data  Center’s survey instrument, the purpose and focus of the 2012 Status of  Forces Survey of Active Duty Members was to address a total of 29  surveyed topics, including 10 core items covering topics such as overall  satisfaction; retention; readiness; and financial health, among other  things.
With regard to on-base services and programs, we found that the 2012,  2009, and 2007 Status of Forces Surveys of Active Duty Members asked  servicemembers about their satisfaction with the (1) hours of operation of  the exchange; (2) convenience of locations of the exchange; (3)  availability of medical and dental care; (4) ability to get medical and dental  care appointments; (5) waiting time in the clinic; and (6) convenience of  locations of medical facilities, but did not include similar questions  regarding satisfaction with on-base MWR programs or dining facilities.  Based on our analysis, we determined that questions on the Status of  Forces Surveys of Active Duty Members is focused on satisfaction with  only certain elements of a limited number of programs and services and  also did not specifically ask whether or with what level of ease  servicemembers could access all on-base services and programs.  Further, we also found that these surveys did not ask follow-up questions  or allow for open-ended responses to obtain data on or the perspectives  of servicemembers who were not satisfied with certain elements related  to access, for example hours of operation.
In addition, the Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members at one  time included a question about personal vehicle ownership at the  servicemember’s duty station. This question, which we found to provide  insight into one element of access—transportation—was last included on  the 2009 Status of Forces survey, but was not subsequently included in  the 2012 survey. According to estimates from the 2009 survey, 79  percent of junior enlisted servicemembers responded that they own  personal vehicles. According to a DOD official, the department changes  topic focus in each survey conducted and focuses on topics and issues  not addressed in previous, recent iterations. The reason for such changes  is to avoid the survey from being too cumbersome and overly long for  respondents.
Similarly, the department conducted the 2014 Morale, Welfare, and  Recreation Survey, which specifically addressed services that fall under  the MWR umbrella. However, based on our analysis of this survey’s  question set, we found that the questions on this survey focused on  measuring overall satisfaction with these services and did not ask about  the extent to which these services were accessible to servicemembers.
Two Marine Corps surveys—The Quality of Life in the United States  Marine Corps Active Duty Survey 2012 for Support Systems and The  Quality of Life in the United States Marine Corps Active Duty Survey 2012  for Residence—asked respondents broad questions about satisfaction  with specific services or their residence, respectively. However, these  surveys also did not ask about servicemembers’ access to on-base  services or programs.
We also found that utilization data collected by the department and  installations do not capture whether or why a person could not access the  service. For example, medical access to care data are tracked by the  individual military treatment facilities and the Defense Health Agency.  These data capture, among other things, facilities’ performance in  meeting access to care standards for each type of appointment category,  specifically with regard to wait time between making an appointment and  seeing a medical provider. However, these data do not delineate facilities’  performance in meeting access to care standards by rank or grade. When  asked, medical officials at the installations we visited stated that, while  they make efforts to remind servicemembers of scheduled appointments  and follow-up when appointments are missed, they do not track data by  rank, nor do they track data on missed appointments. Further, medical  providers at the installations we visited stated they do not document or  track the reasons why servicemembers cancel or cannot make  appointments.
According to installation officials we spoke with at three installations,  leadership attempts to informally obtain the perspectives of the junior  enlisted populations on the installations they serve. For example, during  our visit to Naval Station Norfolk, officials from the Liberty program stated  that they held a focus group, with pre-registration, to obtain junior enlisted  servicemembers’ perspectives on events and programs at the  installation. Once the focus group was conducted, the Liberty Program  Manager at Naval Station Norfolk provided an after-action report for the  session; however, the value of the report was limited due to the low  turnout at the session, which was conducted with three participants. One  senior official at Naval Station Norfolk also stated that he meets every  individual junior enlisted servicemember upon assignment and arrival to  Naval Station Norfolk, as well as walks around the installation and  informally interacts with junior enlisted servicemembers at installation  meetings. In addition, at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph Air Force  Base, one senior enlisted official stated that he hosts an informal dinner  for the junior enlisted servicemembers where he discusses any concerns.  In addition, one senior official we spoke with at Fort Campbell recently  discussed data-collection efforts and other avenues of soliciting opinions  from servicemembers with the installation commander, but no action has  been taken to date. These informal mechanisms depend, however, on a  commitment by leadership to maintain the efforts to obtain the  perspectives of junior enlisted servicemembers.
However, even with these various mechanisms to provide feedback to  leadership made available to the junior enlisted servicemembers, we also  heard concerns at several levels within the department that information  may not be reaching leadership or information is not acted upon when  received. For example, officials in OSD and the headquarters of the four  military services were unsure whether the information collected and  obtained by headquarters’ personnel reaches program managers at the  installation level. Headquarters officials from the Navy and the Marine  Corps were unsure whether there was a problem with dissemination of  information, but stated that, if a problem exists, it probably occurs at the  installation-program level and not necessarily at the headquarters level of  the military services. In addition, participants in 9 of 17 discussion  groups—6 junior enlisted discussion groups and 3 senior enlisted  discussion groups—stated that they believe information is not reaching  installation leadership or that feedback provided through other  mechanisms, such as the Interactive Customer Evaluation tool, may be  ignored or not received by leadership. Further, participants provided  mixed responses in terms of positive and negative perceptions with  regard to their experiences receiving leadership follow-up and seeing  actions taken in response to their concerns. At the installations we visited,  officials stated that potential problems associated with information and  feedback sharing may be a result of the military culture, which  encourages issues to be addressed at the lowest possible level.  Therefore, it would not be necessary to alert the higher levels of  installation leadership or the headquarters service level of an issue if it  has already been corrected. However, leadership needs information on  issues in order to take appropriate action, particularly if trends emerge.
Further, according to DOD officials, access to on-base services and  programs is not believed to be a widespread problem that warrants a  department-wide response. Military service officials stated that the  questions related to satisfaction with the services and programs used on  existing surveys and other data-collection mechanisms are sufficient to  obtain needed data and information on any potential access issues.  However, based on our analysis, we found that surveys and other formal  mechanisms from all levels of the department—DOD, other departmental  agencies, the military services, and the individual installations—do not  fully capture data and other information needed to provide leadership with  comprehensive insight into the challenges that junior enlisted  servicemembers may face when accessing on-base services and  programs.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  agencies should identify, record, and distribute pertinent information to  the right people in sufficient detail, in the right form, and at the appropriate  time to enable them to carry out their duties and responsibilities. In  addition, management should ensure there are adequate means of  communicating with, and obtaining information from, those who may have  a significant effect on the agency achieving its goals. In September 2001,  we reported that top leadership commitment is crucial in developing a  vision, initiating organizational change, maintaining open  communications, and creating an environment that is receptive to  innovation. Part of this, we reported, includes creating an environment  of trust and honest communication in which leaders make themselves  available to employees, promote open and constructive dialog, and are  receptive to ideas and suggestions from employees at all levels. Without  reviewing current data-collection mechanisms to help determine whether  specific information on junior enlisted servicemember access to on-base  services and programs is collected, available, and disseminated to  relevant decision makers and making any adjustments, as necessary, to  address any identified deficiencies, installation leadership may not be  able to take appropriate action based on that information when making  decisions about the management of such on-base services and  programs. Moreover, officials at DOD and the military services could be  unaware of potential access issues that could be resolved through new or  updates to policy at the service and departmental levels.
section_title: DOD Has Methods for Collecting and Sharing Initiatives and Other Good Practices across the Department to Facilitate Access for All Servicemembers but is Not Focused on Junior Enlisted Servicemembers
paragraphs: We identified a number of efforts under way to identify practices that  could enhance services and programs on installations; however, these  efforts were not necessarily intended to improve the way DOD and the  military services collect information and data from servicemembers— particularly junior enlisted servicemembers—about potential challenges  they experience accessing on-base services and programs. Instead, DOD  intends for information from these efforts to be collected and shared  across DOD for possible adoption and implementation by other military  services and installations. Further, we found that, while DOD strategically  collects and shares some of this information at the military services’  headquarters level and attempts are made to disseminate information to  installations, DOD and military service officials could not clearly identify  the extent to which successful initiatives and other such good practices  are shared within and across the services and amongst the levels of the  department, or the extent to which they focus on junior enlisted  servicemembers.
As an example of one of these such efforts at the department level, OSD  established the Common Services Task Force in 2012 to collaborate on,  identify, and implement practices and initiatives—such as identification  and elimination of duplicative processes—within the Military Community  and Family Policy program areas. The purpose of the task force is to  improve organizational effectiveness, increase economies of program  delivery, and reduce costs of related overhead functions above the  installation level without compromising program delivery to the end-user.  More specifically, this task force was asked to review the total cost and  methods of providing common services for military servicemember and  family support programs DOD-wide; conduct an in-depth review of  overhead for 15 separate program areas, including lodging, fitness,  aquatic, and wellness programs, among others; and (3) identify possible  DOD-wide effects. Officials described the task force as being in its infancy  and as a living working group that will continuously evolve and grow over  time to best serve the needs of the military servicemembers. The task  force also includes representatives from each of the military services to  help ensure that practices and initiatives are shared across the services.
DOD maintains other boards—for example the Morale, Welfare, and  Recreation Transformation and Innovation Working Group—each of  which has its own specific programmatic focus. According to officials, all  of the military services have representatives on these boards. However,  although the efforts of these boards and any resultant action may benefit  junior enlisted servicemembers through their efforts to address issues for  all servicemembers, the focus of these boards is broader than identifying  or addressing issues specific to junior enlisted servicemembers.
We also found that each service pursues multiple opportunities to identify  other good practices and share information. These efforts—although not  focused solely on junior enlisted servicemembers—include the following:
Military service officials stated that they look to the practices of  colleges and universities when planning their installations and making  management decisions about various services and programs.
According to a Navy official, the Secretary of Defense mandated a  review of the Military Health System in June 2014, with access to care  being a specific focus of the review. Recommendations resulting from  the review included standardizing training, reporting, and business  practices through policy and DOD Instructions. The official further  stated that action plans were subsequently submitted by each of the  services to address the issues identified by the Military Health System  review.
Navy officials stated that the Department of the Navy has agreements  with universities, such as Indiana University, that conduct research.  Navy officials stated they can reach out to these institutions on  particular topics to, for example, do a research project and benchmark  some of its practices against those at universities or colleges.
Marine Corps officials stated that they are involved with the  aforementioned department-level groups, but they also hold advocacy  working groups that cover practices and initiatives that are shared  across Marine Corps installations.
According to Air Force Officials, the Department of the Air Force relies  on its Services Division located in San Antonio, Texas, to conduct its  research. Information garnered from research on any initiatives and  good practices is shared with installations via a web link located on  the Air Force Portal. The Services Division looks at comparable  environments with colleges and universities for common areas and  food services and worked with the National Association of College  and Food Services. The Air Force also uses data from surveys to  validate the other data obtained through the research conducted.  In addition to the DOD working groups, Army officials stated that the  Department of the Army holds weekly Commander’s Update Briefings  with certain commands and that similar Commander Update Briefings  are held internally by commands. Officials further stated these weekly  meetings and briefings facilitate sharing good practices. In addition,  an Army official stated that the Army Family Action Plan is a forum to  obtain input from Army servicemembers, which is used to alert  commanders and other leaders of areas of concern. This official  stated further that issues identified within the service’s single soldier  program that cannot be solved within the program may be elevated to  the Army Family Action Plan where policy may be enacted or  amended to address the issues or concerns. This official also stated  that multiple levels within the Army have established resources to  document issues and good practices, which are assembled by the  single soldier program to capture experiences, successes, and  failures, among other things. According to other Army officials, the  Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Manpower Data  Center surveys are also resources used to improve programs and  services.
However, we found that these efforts vary in how information is  disseminated, which could hinder the department’s and services’ abilities  to share information with all relevant individuals for decision-making  purposes. For example, Army officials stated that challenges in sharing  information have existed over the past 20 years, as the Army does not  have a centralized effort to review and fund research initiatives. These  officials further stated that research and surveys are conducted at  multiple locations, which makes sharing information a huge challenge. In  addition, according to officials from the military services, there are  possible lapses in the sharing of initiatives and other good practices  across installations, which may limit installation program managers’  knowledge of options for successful practices. According to those  officials, budget cuts and other travel restrictions have limited attendance  at conferences and other face-to-face coordination opportunities and  have also potentially caused an information gap between the program  service managers at the installations. For example, Air Force officials  stated that the service used to hold conferences for managers and  directors to attend to share this information; however, sequestration  affected travel and funding for these events. Marine Corps officials further  stated that if a gap in information sharing of practices and initiatives exists  it would likely occur at the program-services level, because restrictions to  travel and training have made it harder to bring people together to  communicate face-to-face. As a result, according to officials, it is left up to  the managers and directors from each of the services to conduct their  own research to stay on top of their fields.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  agencies should identify, record, and distribute pertinent information to  the right people in sufficient detail, in the right form, and at the appropriate  time to enable them to carry out their duties and responsibilities. The  standards also state that identifying and sharing information is an  essential part of ensuring effective and efficient use of resources. As  indicated above, all of the military services identified existing efforts to  gain and share information across the department and among their own  installations. However, because these efforts are spread across the  department and, in some cases, controlled by different groups, DOD and  military service officials were unable to clearly identify or provide  documentation on the extent to which the department has reviewed and  captured existing methods to determine whether there are other  opportunities to address servicemember issues—including, for example,  access issues associated with dining facilities, medical care, and  transportation identified by junior enlisted servicemembers in our  discussion groups. As noted above, our prior work has also shown that  top leadership commitment is crucial in developing a vision, initiating  organizational change, maintaining open communications, and creating  an environment that is receptive to innovation. Even with a commitment  from department-level leadership to share initiatives and other good  practices, limitations to the sharing of such information within and across  the department exist, and information is not reaching those in leadership  positions who could benefit from knowledge of other successful, efficient  or innovative approaches to addressing access issues for  servicemembers and, more specifically, junior enlisted servicemembers.  Further, without reviewing existing methods of information sharing on  initiatives and other good practices identified at all levels of the  department, to include efforts to identify and address junior enlisted  access issues and share this information at all levels, the department is  missing opportunities to gain valuable information about this population  that could, in part, further efforts to provide a quality of life to its  servicemembers that encourages them to continue their service and  contribute to DOD’s goal of a trained and ready force.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Enlisted servicemembers constitute a majority of the active-duty military,  and junior enlisted servicemembers are key to maintaining a trained and  ready force. To further the department’s goal of a trained and ready force,  DOD provides multiple services and programs on its installations— services and programs that servicemembers living in on-base housing,  including junior enlisted servicemembers, rely on. The department has a  variety of methods to collect data and information on the use of these  services and programs, and to share information on initiatives and other  good practices across the department, the military services, and  installations, but visibility over any access issues experienced by junior  enlisted servicemembers is limited. Specifically, without reviewing current  data-collection mechanisms to consider appropriate changes that would  help collect information directly related to access to on-base services and  programs, decision makers have limited visibility into whether services  and programs are available to their targeted audience. Similarly, without  reviewing existing methods of information sharing on initiatives and other  good practices across the department in order to consider ways of better  leveraging these methods to address junior enlisted servicemember  issues, DOD is missing opportunities to strengthen its provision of on- base services and programs to its personnel. Doing so would further the  department’s efforts to provide a quality of life—through its on-base  services and programs—that encourages servicemembers to continue in  their service and the development of a trained and ready force.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that junior enlisted servicemembers who need and rely on  the services and programs provided on military installations have access  when needed and that departmental leadership has visibility over issues  affecting this population, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military services  and other defense agency leaders to take the following two actions:  review current data-collection mechanisms and consider appropriate  additions and revisions to help ensure that specific information on  junior enlisted servicemember access to on-base services and  programs is collected, available, and disseminated to relevant  decision makers, and have decision makers take appropriate action  on the basis of that information; and  review existing methods of information sharing on initiatives and other  good practices identified within and across the department, the  military services, and individual installations and consider adding  mechanisms to better leverage those existing methods—such as the  Common Services Task Force—to help ensure that issues associated  with junior enlisted servicemember access are identified and, to the  extent possible, addressed, and that such information is shared at all  levels of the department.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our two  recommendations to help ensure that junior enlisted servicemembers  have access to on-base services and programs and that departmental  leadership has visibility over issues affecting the junior enlisted  servicemember population. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix  III. DOD also provided technical comments on the draft report, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
Regarding our first recommendation, DOD stated that the department will  consider appropriate additions and revisions to its data collection  mechanisms to help ensure specific information on the junior enlisted  servicemember is collected, available and disseminated to relevant  decision makers, and when appropriate, the decision makers can take  action based on the information collected.
Regarding our second recommendation, DOD stated that a review of  existing methods of information sharing on initiatives and other good  practices can greatly improve the department’s ability to identify issues  associated with junior enlisted servicemember access to base services.  DOD further stated that the department will consider adding necessary  mechanisms to leverage the methods better; to ensure issues associated  with junior enlisted servicemember access are identified and, to the  extent possible, addressed; and to share such information at all levels of  the department.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and  the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, this  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: For both objectives, we focused on the population of unaccompanied  junior enlisted servicemembers in grades E1 through E4 who reside in  on-base housing on Department of Defense (DOD) installations in the  continental United States. We focused on these servicemembers  because they have unique circumstances—such as youth and  inexperience living on their own—and potentially rely more heavily on the  on-base services and programs because they reside in on-base housing.  Further, for the purposes of this review, we define “access,” with regard to  on-base services and programs, as (1) the eligibility to use—that is,  through provisions in policy—and (2) the ability to gain entry to, which  includes, for example, hours of operation, availably of transportation, and  proximity to other on-base facilities, including junior enlisted  servicemember housing and work stations. We developed this definition  of access based on our review of DOD guidance and other documents  related to the users and beneficiaries of these on-base services and  programs, as well as through interviews with officials at DOD, the military  services, and the four installations we visited. We also used this definition  of access with DOD officials to guide our discussions throughout the  review.
To evaluate the extent to which DOD policies and procedures for on-base  services and programs consider access by junior enlisted  servicemembers and any factors that influence their implementation, we  obtained and analyzed relevant and current DOD, military service, and  installation-specific policies and procedures for the services and  programs provided to servicemembers on installations. We analyzed  these documents to determine whether the policies (1) were current—that  is, were updated or were within 10 years old; (2) identified who they  applied to; (3) identified the responsible offices or individuals with  oversight for the various services and programs; (4) addressed hours of  operation; (5) addressed facility standards; (6) identified eligible patrons;  and (7) specifically addressed junior enlisted servicemembers. In  addition, we interviewed officials from DOD, the military services, and  selected installations who have responsibility for implementing the  policies and procedures for the services and programs provided to  servicemembers on installations and discussed any factors that may  affect or impede the provision of services to junior enlisted  servicemembers.
To select locations of installations for our visits, we analyzed data and  demographic information about populations at each military installation in  the continental United States. These seven data elements were: (1) the  number of junior enlisted servicemembers stationed at the installation; (2)  the availability of on-base services, programs, and facilities; (3) ratios of  civilian and retiree populations (as available); (4) geographically- dispersed locations; (5) the primary mission of the installation (operational  versus training); (6) single service versus joint base; and (7) proximity to  the nearest urban center. We selected four military installations to visit— one per military service for each of the Army (Fort Campbell), Navy  (Naval Station Norfolk), Marine Corps (Camp Lejeune), and Air Force  (Joint Base San Antonio) to reflect a range of the aforementioned  factors. Although we selected a range of installation types based on our  selection criteria, the locations we visited are not representative of all  DOD installations.
To evaluate the extent to which DOD and the military services collect and  share information and data on junior enlisted servicemember access to  on-base services and programs, we analyzed the most recent DOD,  service, and selected installation-level data-collection mechanisms, such  as surveys and other feedback mechanisms, to identify questions and  information related to the use of, access to, and satisfaction with services  and programs on military installations, specifically focusing on questions  related to access to on-base services and programs and whether they  were targeted to the junior enlisted populations. We reviewed the  following mechanisms and data sources.
Defense Manpower Data Center, 2013 Status of Forces Survey of  Active Duty Members, Survey Instrument and Tabulated Responses;
Defense Manpower Data Center, 2012 Status of Forces Survey of  Active Duty Members, Survey Instrument and Tabulated Responses;
Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009 Status of Forces Survey of  Active Duty Members, Survey Instrument and Tabulated Responses;
Defense Manpower Data Center, 2007 Status of Forces Survey of  Active Duty Members, Survey Instrument;
DOD Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Customer Satisfaction Survey
Department of Defense, TRICARE In-Patient Satisfaction Survey
Department of Defense, TRICARE Out-Patient Satisfaction Survey
2014 Military Health System Review Final Report;
Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Customer Satisfaction Survey Results;
Naval Station Norfolk Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Customer
2012 Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Services Survey—Army
2012 Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Services Survey—Fort
Army Installation Management Command 2011 Leisure Needs Survey
Marine Corps 2013 Exchange—Customer Satisfaction Index Survey
Quality of Life in the United States Marine Corps Active Duty Survey  2012, Support Systems Domain Analysis;
Quality of Life in the United States Marine Corps Active Duty Survey  2012: Residence Domain Analysis;
Quality of Life in the United States Marine Corps 2012 Survey  Analysis: Executive Brief;
Marine Corps Camp Lejeune Chow Hall Utilization Rate Data;
Marine Corps Camp Lejeune Single Marine Program Needs  Assessment Survey 2014 Template;
Marine Corps Camp Lejeune Recreation Center Comment Card and
Marine Corps Camp Lejeune Mess Hall Comment Card;
Camp Lejeune Community Service Retail Division Report;
U.S. Air Force Services Agency 2010 Caring for People Results:  Executive Summary of Program and Results (2011); and
Air Force 2014 Dining Facility Survey Comments.
We reviewed these mechanisms to answer the following two questions:  (1) Does the mechanism ask about access to the service/facility? and (2)  Does the mechanism directly address junior enlisted servicemembers?  We identified and reported on the extent to which such data-collection  mechanisms exist and what they are intended to measure. In some  limited instances, we identified and reported the results of such  mechanisms where questions were deemed related to this review.  However, we did not assess the quality or reliability of any of these data- collection mechanisms or the data that resulted from them, because  those results did not materially affect this report’s findings.
During the visits to four installations, we conducted discussion groups  with junior and senior enlisted servicemembers to use as illustrative  examples about access to services. We conducted a total of 17  discussion groups—11 with junior enlisted servicemembers and 6 with  senior enlisted servicemembers—with approximately 8 to 16 participants  per group. Officials at each of the installations selected participants for  each group based on specific criteria provided by our team. The criteria,  provided to each installation prior to our trip, specified that the participants  included in our junior enlisted discussion groups be in grades E1 through  E4, reside in on-base unaccompanied housing, and work in a range of  occupations, among other things. For the senior enlisted discussion  groups, the criteria specified that participants be in grades E7 through E9  and have some supervisory capacity over junior enlisted  servicemembers. Additionally, even though the focus of this review is on  junior enlisted access to services and programs, senior enlisted  servicemembers—E7 through E9—were an important segment to meet  with since they manage the junior enlisted population and could provide  their perceptions on junior enlisted issues that were potentially raised to  them. We designed the composition of our discussion groups to ensure  that we spoke with servicemembers from each of the four military  services at locations across the continental United States at different  types of installations. However, the results of our discussion groups and  the comments provided may not be generalized to the entire DOD junior  enlisted population.
The discussion groups at all locations, with two exceptions, were  delineated into three groups: two junior enlisted and one senior enlisted.  The first exception was at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph Air Force  Base where we held two discussion groups due to the limited population  of servicemembers that met our criteria. The second exception was at  Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston where discussion groups  consisted of the following: junior enlisted Army servicemembers in pay  grades E1 through E4; junior enlisted Navy and Air Force  servicemembers in pay grades E1 through E4; and senior enlisted Army,  Navy, and Air Force servicemembers in pay grades E7 through E9. Our  purpose at Joint Base San Antonio was to capture data from  servicemembers working at and residing at a joint base managed by a  service other than their own, because they may experience issues that  would possibly not occur on a predominantly single-service installation, as  was the case with Naval Station Norfolk, Fort Campbell, and Camp  Lejeune.
We used six questions in all of the junior enlisted discussion groups. The  questions were as follows:
What on-base services and programs do you use the most at this  installation?
Health Care (Medical/Dental/Mental Health)
Recreation Facilities (Gyms/Fitness Centers/MWR programs)
Dining Facilities
Base Exchanges/Commissaries/Clothing and Sales)
What challenges have you had in accessing the on-base services and  programs at this installation?
Are the challenges related to lack of transportation?
Are the challenges related to inconsistent or inadequate hours of  operation?
For any challenges you have had, have you voiced your concerns to  your immediate supervisor or other leadership? If yes, what changes,  if any, have you seen as a result of voicing these concerns?
What other ways do you have for voicing your concerns (other than  voicing your concerns to your immediate supervisor or other  leadership)?
If participants are silent, ask if they have participated in [optional  probe:]
Quality of Life or other big surveys?
Customer service surveys or feedback at facilities
What other suggestions do you have for improving access to on-base  services and programs?
What things are working well in accessing the on-base services and  programs provided at this installation?
We also used a similar set of in all the senior enlisted discussion groups:
To what extent have you heard or been made aware of junior enlisted  personnel having any challenges accessing on-base services and  programs?
Please describe their challenges accessing on-base services and
Health Care (Medical/Dental/Mental Health)
Recreation Facilities (Gyms/Fitness Centers/MWR programs)
Dining Facilities
Base Exchanges/Commissaries/Clothing and Sales)
Are the challenges related to lack of transportation?
Does your installation have a shuttle system or other on-base  transportation?
Are the challenges related to inconsistent or inadequate hours  of operation?
Are some groups such as E1s or E2s experiencing these issues  more than other junior enlisted personnel?
How devoted is senior leadership (such as the Command Master  Chief or Installation Commander) at this installation to addressing the  challenges junior enlisted personnel have accessing on-base services  and programs?
What changes, if any, have resulted from junior enlisted personnel  voicing their concerns about accessing on-base services and  programs?
Other than voicing their concerns to their immediate supervisor, what  other means do junior enlisted personnel have for voicing their  concerns?
Are you aware of any service-wide or installation-specific data- collection methods (surveys, pulse checks, town halls, etc.) that  have been used to assess whether junior enlisted have ready  access to services on this base?
What other suggestions do you have for improving access for junior  enlisted personnel to on-base services and programs?
Do you have any other comments for GAO regarding access to on- base services and programs at this installation?
We developed these questions with one of our methodologists to help  ensure they would elicit unbiased responses from discussion group  participants.
Using content-analysis procedures, we used the responses from each  discussion group to create 13 categories that accounted for most  comments: commissaries; dining facilities; exchanges; financial  assistance; fitness centers and gyms; leadership; legal services; health  care; morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR); postal services; surveys  and comment cards; transportation; and voting assistance. Categories  were further delineated into subcategories based on the specific topic of  the comment (e.g. medical care—sick call, medical care—pharmacy,  etc.).
We then categorized comments from individual participants into the  subcategories, including the tone of the comments and to determine to  the extent to which the comments about a particular service or program  were positive, negative, or neutral. To conduct this analysis, we assessed  each comment to assign it to a specific category and for tone (positive,  neutral, or negative). Once all comments were assigned to a specific  category and subcategory, one analyst tallied up the comments for each  category in a spreadsheet. A number 1 was assigned to groups where  comment(s) in a specific category were identified and a number 0 was  assigned to groups if no comments were identified for a specific category.  We then compared the ratings and were able to discern overall tone for  each category. Once the first analyst completed the analysis, another  analyst reviewed the first analyst’s decisions. Any discrepancies in the  coding were resolved through discussion by the analysts.
Additionally, we interviewed officials at selected installations—including,  but not limited to, the installation commander, the senior enlisted advisor;  and those responsible for management of transportation; base design  and layout; medical facilities; dining facilities; MWR programs and  facilities; and housing—to discuss their knowledge of any access issues  experienced by junior enlisted servicemembers at their respective  installations. In addition, we obtained information from DOD and military  service officials about the department’s efforts to share initiatives and  other good practices within and across the services and DOD. We  compared the results of our analysis of the data-collection and other  information sharing mechanisms we obtained from department officials  with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2014 to May 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Detailed Examples of Access Concerns Identified in Discussion Groups
paragraphs: During our visits to four installations—Naval Station Norfolk, Fort  Campbell, Camp Lejeune, and Joint Base San Antonio—the participants  in our discussion groups provided a range of comments—both positive  and negative—about the services and programs on their installations. We  captured the comments that junior and senior enlisted servicemembers  provided in our discussion groups and categorized them into 13 main  categories related to on-base services and programs and other feedback  mechanisms that are available to installation leadership. As noted, the  participants in our groups provided some positive input about the services  and programs, but, based on our analysis of the discussion group  comments, we identified specific areas where junior and senior enlisted  servicemembers in our discussion groups most frequently expressed  concerns about access issues. Those areas included: (1) dining facilities,  (2) medical care, and (3) transportation.
subsections: section_title: Access to Dining Facilities
paragraphs: Participants in our discussion groups identified concerns about on-base  dining facilities with regard to (1) access to the dining facility in terms of  parking around the facility; distance to the facility; or dining facility  closures, and (2) the hours of operation of the dining facilities, among  other things.
Specifically, participants in 2 of the 11 junior enlisted discussion groups at  one installation we visited stated that they either (1) chose not to go to the  dining facility or (2) could not find parking in the dining facility parking lot  due to overcrowding by people using the lot while visiting an adjacent  building. In addition, participants in one junior enlisted group and one  senior enlisted group at that same installation stated that for individuals  who work on the aviation side of the installation, it takes the entire lunch  hour to get to the dining facility, eat, and return to work, which does not  leave any time to take care of other tasks during lunch, for example,  going to the post office. Another participant stated that it could take the  whole lunch hour to drive to the dining facility, and if there is a line during  peak lunch times, it can take up to 20 minutes to get in, and they end up  missing lunch. Participants in the senior enlisted servicemember  discussion group also stated that junior enlisted servicemembers often do  not get a set lunch period and grab food when they can, which is not  always conducive to the dining facility’s schedule. One junior enlisted  group stated that, for some, lunch may be the last meal of the day that  they can get from the on-base dining facility, and therefore, any meal a  servicemember eats later must be paid for out of their pocket. Participants  added that the dining facility on the installation closes at 5:30 p.m. In  addition, they stated the only food options on the air side of the  installation are two fast-food restaurants.
We discussed some concerns identified by junior enlisted  servicemembers with the manager of the installation’s dining facility. The  manager stated there used to be two dining facilities located on the  installation; however, the facility on the aviation side of the installation  closed approximately 11 to 12 years ago. As a result, the manager stated  that all servicemembers residing on or working on the aviation side of the  installation receive basic allowance for subsistence. Additionally, the  manager stated wait times to access the facility during lunchtime are  negligible; typically 2 to 3 minutes, due to checking identification at the  entrance. The manager stated that wait times are slightly extended on  days where special celebratory meals are served and other groups—for  example, civilians and retirees, are invited to eat at the dining facility.
At another installation we visited, participants in one junior enlisted  discussion group raised concerns about the hours of operation for that  installation’s only dining facility. In that group, a servicemember stated  that his work hours had to be adjusted to account for the dining facility’s  schedule and to allow time for lunch; however, if work ran late, he had to  rush to the dining facility to get dinner before it closed at 6:30 p.m.  Another junior enlisted servicemember who did not have his own vehicle  and remained on the installation during the holidays stated the dining  facility was closed on Christmas Day, and as a result, his only food that  day were a few snack food items he had in his dorm room. One junior  enlisted servicemember stated that he often works late and is unable to  get to the dining facility before it closes for the evening and, as a result,  eats fast food from one of the two fast-food restaurants nearby. The  participants in the junior enlisted group further stated they have been  working through their Dorm Council—a local council that represents  unaccompanied junior enlisted servicemembers residing in on-base  housing and reports to base leadership—for years to change the dining  facility’s hours of operation and as of the time of our visit their efforts had  been unsuccessful.
Installation leadership stated that they considered closing the  installation’s single dining facility due to sequestration in fiscal year 2013.  However, they further stated that keeping the dining facility open was  important because of the installation’s technical-school student population  and a decision was made to keep it operational until additional funds  became available to maintain it. Officials also stated that, during holiday  periods, dining facility hours are reduced, but some establishments are  kept open to provide service to servicemembers and civilians.
Participants in 9 of 11 junior enlisted discussion groups raised concerns  about the hours of operation for the installation’s dining facilities. A junior  enlisted servicemember stated that the hours of operation for the dining  facilities were not conducive for servicemembers who did not work a  traditional 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work shift. Two junior enlisted  servicemembers stated that physical training for some units start at 6:00  a.m. and servicemembers sometimes work late into the evenings, and the  dining facilities are closed by the time they get off work. Another junior  enlisted servicemember stated that he works until 6:00 p.m. and,  therefore, cannot make it to the dining facility before it closes. The  servicemember stated, as a result, he either has to buy his own food to  cook or go out to eat. Participants in one junior enlisted discussion group  discussed that the lines at the dining facility are so long it is easier to go  home and cook. Also at that installation, the senior enlisted discussion  group stated that when a unit’s dining facility was shut down due to  deployment, the servicemembers from that unit who remained at the  installation had to walk a good distance to get to another facility. He  added that the problem seems to happen often as units deploy.
When we discussed potential access issues with installation leadership  and other program officials from that installation, one official stated that  the number of dining facilities at that installation was reduced from 12 to  8, with sequestration driving some of the facility closures. Officials stated  that there is enough funding to operate a kitchen staff at five of the eight  remaining dining facilities; therefore, some dining facilities are closed at  some times during the day and units colocated with a closed dining facility  may have to find another facility at which to eat. The officials also told us  that when servicemembers are preparing for deployment at odd hours,  there is always a temporary dining facility set up at the airfield to make  sure the servicemembers can eat before flying out. They further stated  that, subsequent to a study on government meals provided to trainees,  the installation has taken steps to reduce the number of servicemembers  receiving basic allowance for subsistence, therefore, further necessitating  that junior enlisted servicemembers eat in the dining facilities. Finally,  program officials stated that unit leaderships should afford  servicemembers time to eat, and if there is an issue with the hours of  operation or with servicemembers getting access to meals, it is up to unit  leadership to figure it out; otherwise, it is a failure of leadership if the  servicemembers are not getting their meals.
section_title: Access to Medical Care
paragraphs: Participants in our discussion groups identified challenges with (1) making  medical appointments, (2) long wait times for acute care, and (3) lengthy  waits to obtain referrals or specialty appointments, even though DOD’s  policy is to provide active-duty servicemembers high priority.
More specifically, 6 of the 11 junior enlisted and 5 of the 6 senior enlisted  discussion groups reported having problems with or knowledge of  problems with scheduling medical appointments in a timely manner. For  example, at one installation we visited, one junior enlisted discussion  group stated that it can take up to a week to make the appointment  through the installation’s designated medical appointment booking  system, due to, for example, caller wait times making it difficult to get  through to make an appointment. Participants in this group also reported  that when the appointment booking system did not work, they gave up  and instead went to the military urgent care clinic to receive care.  Participants in the senior enlisted discussion group at that same  installation stated that the best way to get medical care is to call an  ambulance because the hospital will see them more quickly. In contrast,  medical leadership from the installation stated they spend a lot of time  making sure access to care is consistent across the installation and  across ranks. They added that if a servicemember shows up at urgent  care and is not having a life-threatening situation, he or she may be told  to schedule an appointment for the next day with the assigned provider.  However, leadership further stated that the servicemember may be upset  that the appointment could not be made for the same day.
Participants in 6 of 11 junior enlisted and 5 of 6 senior enlisted discussion  groups discussed issues with receiving acute care in a timely manner.  Specifically, in one junior enlisted discussion group, participants stated  that going to the clinic’s urgent care can take all day and it may take from  morning until 2:00 p.m. to get an appointment. In our senior enlisted  discussion group, participants stated that one of his junior enlisted  servicemembers was experiencing symptoms of a heart attack and was  having trouble being seen by the clinic. That senior enlisted  servicemember stated that his junior enlisted servicemember was told to  go to the emergency room and was then put on the “endless cycle” of  calling the clinic to go to urgent care, before being told by a medical  official that he was not having any issues. The senior enlisted participant  added that only the senior enlisted servicemembers see action taken, and  the junior enlisted servicemembers do not receive respect by, for  example, medical professionals on the installation. Similarly, one junior  enlisted discussion group stated that one of the clinics does not have  enough personnel resources to take care of everyone and to take the  time necessary with each servicemember to figure out what is wrong.  Also in that discussion group, one junior enlisted servicemember stated  that he went to the emergency room one time because he was feeling  dizzy, but the emergency room released him and told him to go to sick  call the next day. He added that he did not think that servicemembers  cannot be referred out to another clinic, even if there is no availability at  their designated clinic.
The installation’s medical officials stated that hospital leadership goes out  to the clinics to see how many servicemembers are waiting at any one  time for care. They added that servicemembers may wait hours for sick  call at the individual clinics, but that surgeons who that are attached to the  units should be utilized to ease some of the backlog at the clinics.
Officials further stated the installation is working to realign where and how  servicemembers’ clinic assignments are made, in light of the current  downsizing and moving of units around the installation.
In addition, participants from 5 of the 11 junior enlisted and 4 of the 6  senior enlisted discussion groups described issues with receiving  referrals or specialty medical care. For example, participants in one junior  enlisted discussion group told us that getting an appointment to obtain  specialty care can take months. In addition, a participant in one junior  enlisted discussion group stated that he broke his ankle and went to the  installation’s medical clinic for care. The clinic did not give him a cast and,  instead, only gave him a splint for the broken ankle. He then had to wait  to get an appointment at the nearby military hospital to get a cast, which  had additional delays. By the time he was able to get an appointment, his  ankle had already started to heal improperly, and the doctor had to go in  and re-break his ankle to set it with hardware.
In one junior enlisted discussion group, we spoke with a junior enlisted  servicemember who stated he had issues getting physical therapy for  over a year for an injury he sustained while deployed. The  servicemember was supposed to see the physical therapist for three  months before seeing the surgeon. He indicated that the physical therapy  was making his injury worse and had been told so by the physical  therapist, but he was repeatedly sent back and forth between the surgeon  and physical therapist. As a result of this injury, the servicemember  stated that he is unable to pass a physical training test, cannot deploy,  and cannot be promoted. Further, according to this servicemember, the  installation would not refer him to see a specialist. When we asked  hospital leadership about this specific example, they stated that they were  unaware of his circumstances.
section_title: Access to Transportation
paragraphs: Participants stated they had access issues due to configuration of the  installation, limited on-base transportation, or nonownership of personal  vehicles that may have inhibited access to on-base services and  programs. For example, one installation we visited had an official on- base shuttle; but participants in our discussion groups stated that the  shuttle was viewed as being more for the students and trainees on the  installation than for the permanent party servicemembers. In one junior  enlisted discussion group, a servicemember who did not own a vehicle  stated that she gets up and walks 45 minutes by herself at 4:00 a.m. to  get to work in time for the start of her shift. She stated that although she  could call for a ride from her leadership, she does not like asking because  she felt it placed a burden on unit leadership and made her a nuisance. A  servicemember in a senior enlisted discussion group from that same  installation stated he has four junior enlisted servicemembers who don’t  have vehicles and reside approximately two miles away from where their  unit conducts its physical training, which results in a 25 minute walk time  each way for these servicemembers. He said there is an on-base shuttle,  but the shuttle times are very inconvenient and have limited service on  the weekends and holidays. Senior leadership officials at that installation  stated that the barracks where their junior enlisted servicemembers live  are not colocated with their work station, which presents challenges for  those servicemembers who do not have their own means of  transportation. Those officials further stated that it would make more  sense for their junior enlisted servicemembers to be housed in the  barracks across the street from their work station, but those barracks are  used by other units. The officials considered this a significant problem for  their servicemembers, particularly those without vehicles.
One junior enlisted servicemember at an installation we visited stated that  the availability of transportation provided by her unit during work hours  was pretty good, but during the evenings and weekends she has to take  taxis to get anywhere she needs to go. Similarly, participants from one  junior enlisted discussion group at another installation said that  servicemembers who do not have their own vehicles either have to walk  or ask for a ride from someone—a friend or their unit. In addition,  participants in discussion groups from two installations stated that using a  taxi is expensive and both installations do not have an on-base shuttle  system. However, at one installation, participants in our senior enlisted  discussion group stated that units provide transportation assistance to  their junior enlisted servicemembers using unit vehicles during the work  week (Monday through Friday).
According to military service leadership, installations have made attempts  to rectify the transportation issue, and some installations provide  transportation such as on-base shuttles, buses, and unit-provided  vehicles. Additionally, according to installation officials at one installation,  the installation has an agreement for the city bus to come on the  installation and stop at various locations on the installation’s perimeter.  However, officials reported that there is limited utilization of the city bus  system, and the on-base shuttle was discontinued over 15 years ago.  Further, officials stated that the installation is trying to reconfigure the  installation to help ensure that on-base housing is part of a 5- to 10- minute walkability plan. Officials at one of the other installations we  visited stated there are a few on-base shuttle buses and unit vehicles are  available to junior enlisted servicemembers to assist with transportation  needs. However, they stated, unit vehicles are not typically available, as  they are used by more senior officials for official duties such as attending  meetings.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above named contact, Vincent L. Balloon, Assistant  Director; James Ashley; Mary Jo LaCasse; Michael Silver; Justin Snover;  Sabrina Streagle; Jennifer Weber; and Erik Wilkins-McKee made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Defense Health Care: US Family Health Plan is Duplicative and Should  be Eliminated. GAO-14-684. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2014.
DOD Health Care: Domestic Health Care for Female Servicemembers.  GAO-13-205 Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2013.
Military Personnel: DOD Has Taken Steps to Meet the Health Needs of  Deployed Servicewomen, but Actions Are Needed to Enhance Care for  Sexual Assault Victims. GAO-13-182. Washington, D.C.: January 29,  2013.
Questions for the Record Related to Military Compensation.  GAO-10-803R. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2010.
Military Personnel: Military and Civilian Pay Comparisons Present  Challenges and Are One of Many Tools in Assessing Compensation.  GAO-10-561R. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2010.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Establish a Strategy and Improve  Transparency over Reserve and National Guard Compensation to  Manage Significant Growth in Cost. GAO-07-828. Washington, D.C.:  June 20, 2007.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Improve the Transparency and  Reassess the Reasonableness, Appropriateness, Affordability, and  Sustainability of Its Military Compensation System. GAO-05-798  Washington, D.C.; July 19, 2005.
Policy and Criteria Used to Assess Potential Commissary Store Closures.  GAO-05-470R. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2005.
Defense Management: Proposed Lodging Policy May Lead to  Improvements, but More Actions Are Required. GAO-02-351.  Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2002.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation: Information on Military Golf Activities.  GAO/NSIAD-94-199FS. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1994.