Military Personnel: Reserve Components Need Guidance to Accurately and Consistently Account for Volunteers on Active Duty for Operational Support
Released: 2006-10-31T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Although reserve personnel have been used for contingency and emergency operations through the involuntary “Presidential Reserve Call- up” and “Partial Mobilization” authorities, a significant number of reserve personnel on active duty for these and other missions have been provided on a voluntary basis. Agency officials stated that these volunteer reservists’ roles could include filling in for an existing active duty mission temporarily (such as an infantryman or pilot), providing needed special skills (civil affairs or engineer), or participating in training exercises that result in support to active duty missions. Legislation has evolved since 1980 to provide DOD with more flexibility in managing these volunteer reservists.

The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act was passed in 1980 to amend Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The act required that Congress annually authorize total strength levels for each military service for active duty personnel, with some exceptions. The act also established the 180-day rule for reserve members serving on active duty for special work. Reserve members on active duty who performed special work for 180 days or fewer were excluded from being counted against active duty personnel end-strengths.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code at Section 115, which governs personnel strengths for the military, gave authority to the Secretary of Defense to vary active duty and Selected Reserve end-strengths above the level authorized by Congress. Prior to October 2004, the Secretary of Defense could increase active duty end strength paid by active duty funds by up to 3 percent, increase the end strength for active duty and National Guard paid by reserve funds by up to 2 percent, and vary the end strength authorized for the Selected Reserve by up to 2 percent.

On October 28, 2004, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2005 was enacted. The act amended 10 U.S.C. § 115 by establishing an annual authorization requirement for the maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for operational support, thus creating a new accounting category. It also added a provision that allows the Secretary of Defense to increase the maximum strength authorized for certain reservists voluntarily on active duty to perform operational support by up to 10 percent.

Authorization Levels Increased Due to Inaccurate Information and Lack of an Operational Support Definition

DOD’s estimates for the maximum number of volunteer reservists authorized to be on active duty for operational support increased between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 as a result of two key factors. First, DOD developed its fiscal year 2005 estimates using inaccurate data from a data source that could not distinguish volunteer reservists on active duty for missions that would be considered operational support from other reservists. Second, DOD did not formally define operational support prior to establishment of its fiscal year 2005 maximum authorized levels and did not release a definition of operational support until 6 months after the maximum authorized levels were passed under the NDAA. DOD increased its estimates for fiscal year 2006 after the reserve components reviewed historical numbers of these reservists based on the published operational support definition. For the fiscal year 2007 estimates, the reserve components submitted the same maximum levels as fiscal year 2006 because there were no substantial increases or decreases in their numbers, according to DOD officials.

DOD Based Its Initial Request on Data That Did Not Accurately Reflect the Number of Volunteer Reservists on Active Duty for Operational Support

One key factor that contributed to the increase in authorization levels requested for fiscal year 2006 was that DOD’s initial request for fiscal year 2005 was not developed using data that accurately reflected the maximum number of reservists on voluntary active duty for operational support. In developing the estimate submitted for the fiscal year 2005 NDAA, DOD used data that was provided by the reserve components for other purposes. DOD derived its estimates from an annual data call where reserve components provide information about reservists’ activities throughout the year. These data identified reservists involved in such missions as domestic emergencies, counter-drug activities, major exercises, and mobilizations. According to a DOD official, they compiled the estimates from various categories that represented what they considered operational support. They automatically eliminated some categories from their count, such as some counter-drug activities and mobilizations, because they assumed that the reported data in these categories only included involuntary active duty reservists. DOD informally provided the estimates to the reserve components for their review, but had to submit the estimates before some reserve components could respond.

After the authorized levels were approved by Congress in the fiscal year 2005 NDAA and communicated throughout the reserve components, reserve officials with greater insight over the reservists serving in an operational support role realized that the estimates did not reflect the actual numbers of reservists serving in this capacity. Officials from the reserve components informed DOD that the maximum numbers requested were too low for force requirements. According to a DOD official, they scrutinized their initial data review and found that the information extracted from the data did not distinguish involuntarily activated reservists from voluntarily activated reservists. Once they realized that the data did not separate out voluntary and involuntary reservists, they recognized that some of the data from categories that had been excluded, such as mobilizations, should not have been completely excluded since it contained some volunteers. DOD’s lack of formal coordination with the reserve components and its reliance upon existing data that did not specifically identify volunteer reservists on active duty for operational support contributed to DOD submitting a low estimate for fiscal year 2005.

DOD Lacked a Definition of Operational Support Prior to its Fiscal Year 2005 Estimate

Another key factor that contributed to the increase in DOD’s fiscal year 2006 estimate for the maximum number of reservists authorized was that DOD did not have a definition of operational support prior to its initial estimate for fiscal year 2005. When the fiscal year 2005 NDAA was enacted on October 28, 2004, the act did not provide a definition for operational support to apply to the maximum authorization levels, but instead required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe by regulation the meaning of the term operational support.

After the fiscal year 2005 NDAA was enacted, DOD met with reserve component officials in response to their concerns about the low authorization levels and also to develop a definition for operational support. In collaboration with the components, DOD established a definition for operational support, and on April 26, 2005—approximately 6 months after the fiscal year 2005 authorization levels for reserve personnel were made law—released the official definition with some accounting and reporting guidelines. DOD defined operational support as: active duty, other than mobilized active guard and reserve duty, voluntarily performed by reservists; full-time duty, other than mobilized active guard and reserve duty, voluntarily performed by National Guard members; and active duty for training performed at the request of an operational commander, or as the result of reimbursable funding. The definition of operational support included active duty for special work, active duty and active duty for training performed as the result of reimbursable funding, funeral honors duty performed not in an inactive duty status, voluntary active duty performed by recall reserve retirees not receiving regular retired pay, and active duty training performed as a result of a request of an operational commander to provide support.

The guidelines created a requirement for components to report to DOD the highest number of operational support reservists each month. Once the definition for operational support was established, reserve component officials that had direct responsibility for monitoring reserve personnel end strength reviewed historical data from their internal systems on the number of volunteer reservists serving in the areas included under the definition. The components determined that the numbers that were in fiscal year 2005 NDAA did not accurately reflect the number of reservists performing operational support. Most of the reserve components then submitted higher estimates for the maximum authorized levels in the fiscal year 2006 NDAA. Table 1 shows that five out of six reserve components provided larger maximum levels for fiscal year 2006, and the total authorization level nearly doubled compared to the fiscal year 2005 authorization level.

Fiscal Year 2007 Estimates Match Fiscal Year 2006 Maximum Levels

For its fiscal year 2007 estimates, DOD submitted a request for the same maximum levels as in fiscal year 2006. The reserve components reviewed their historical data as they did for the fiscal year 2006 estimates and updated them with data from fiscal year 2006. The reserve components found that there were no substantial increases or decreases in their fiscal year 2006 numbers that required changes in their estimated maximum levels for fiscal year 2007.

Reserve Components Are Not Identifying Numbers of Active Duty Reservists for Operational Support Consistently across Components

The reserve components have not been consistently identifying the number of reservists serving in an operational support capacity since this requirement was adopted in fiscal year 2005. In its April 2005 memorandum that provided a definition for operational support, DOD directed the components to report the highest number of volunteer reservists serving in an operational support capacity each month so that DOD could monitor the amounts to ensure that components did not exceed the maximum levels authorized. On the basis of our analyses, we found that the reserve components inconsistently include various categories of personnel in their reported numbers because the components have different interpretations about what is included under DOD’s operational support definition and how it applies to their existing categories. For example, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard do not include voluntary active duty performed by recalled retired reservists in their accounting amounts, even though this is one of the five categories listed under DOD’s definition of operational support. According to Army personnel, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard do not include these reservists because they consider them active duty and include them in their active duty end strength numbers. In addition, the reserve components are inconsistent on whether they include volunteer reservists serving on extended active duty in their reported operational support numbers. The definition of operational support provided by DOD does not specifically address extended active duty reservists. We found that three of the six reserve components—Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Army National Guard—include extended active duty reservists in their reported operational support numbers, although the Navy and Air Force define the length of service for extended active duty reservists differently. The Navy Reserve defines them as voluntary recall reservists on 2 to 5 year tours. The Air Force considers them to be reservists volunteering to fill an existing, funded active duty position for 3 years or less. The Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air National Guard do not include extended active duty reservists in their reported operational support numbers because they are currently being accounted for under active duty end-strengths.

In addition to these inconsistencies, we also found that one component’s monthly reports of volunteer reservists serving on active duty for operational support have not provided DOD with an accurate accounting of the number of these individuals due to errors in the numbers reported. We found that in each month from January through June 2006, the Navy Reserve erroneously reported to DOD cumulative totals instead of the highest number of reservists in each month. A Navy Reserve official stated that they did not have complete access to personnel data during these months because they had to relocate their personnel database after Hurricane Katrina. As a result, the Navy Reserve appeared to exceed its maximum authorized level for 3 months—in January, February, and June 2006. The Navy Reserve did not discover this error until late July 2006, at which time they retroactively corrected the erroneously reported amounts.

To help address these inconsistencies and errors, the Defense Manpower and Data Center (DMDC) is in the process of implementing a system change that would allow DOD to have automated access to the number of volunteer operational support reservists. We reported in September 2006 that DMDC can extract some reserve personnel data, such as a reservist’s number of deployments and citizenship, but it could not provide data specifically on volunteer status from all six reserve components. According to a DMDC official, the proposed change would only provide information from systems already aligned with DMDC that can distinguish volunteer reservists for operational support. DMDC also does not have the authority to direct the services to correct data errors and inconsistencies.

As of early October 2006, we found that each reserve component collected its operational support numbers from accounting systems that did not provide all this information to DMDC. For example, the Navy Reserve obtained its reported numbers from the Navy Reserve Order Writing System, which currently feeds into DMDC, but this system does not distinguish the highest amount of volunteer reservists each month. The Marine Corps Reserve’s systems can provide volunteer information to DMDC, but it reported end of the month numbers, not the highest number of reservists during the month. The Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard each pull key data from external databases managed by the Defense Finance and Accounting System, but the Army Reserve’s database did not provide the monthly highest number of volunteers. The Army National Guard compiles its number of volunteer reservists from its own systems and the Army Human Resource Command, which do not provide this information on volunteers. The DMDC official stated that the effectiveness of the proposed change to automate reporting on volunteer operational support reservists still depends on the components, which are responsible for aligning their policies and systems to provide the appropriate information according to changes in data reporting requirements. As a result, we do not believe that this system change will provide DOD with accurate information about the peak monthly number of volunteer reservists serving in an operational support capacity, unless the components align their policies and systems to conform to reporting requirements.

We found that DOD and the reserve components have not updated and aligned their guidance to clearly and consistently articulate and define what categories of reservists to include in accounting for and reporting on operational support levels. DOD released preliminary guidance in its April 2005 memorandum that defined the five categories of reservists that comprise operational support; however, they have not yet updated their instruction that governs the use of and accounting for reservists. DOD is in the process of developing an instruction on accounting and reporting procedures in the new DOD Instruction 1215.6, which it plans to officially release in late October 2006. Even though DOD has not released its updated instruction, the Army National Guard published updated guidance based on DOD’s April 2005 memorandum that provides examples of missions specific to the Army National Guard that are considered operational support. Another three components—the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard—have plans in place to update their guidance to reflect operational support reporting requirements. The Department of the Army expects to release its updated guidance for the Army Reserve within the year. The Air Force Reserve plans to update its implementing regulations in March or April 2007 and, in the interim, has issued a policy memorandum that applies operational support requirements to its policies. The Air National Guard expects to update its guidance in the near future, and has an interim policy that addresses operational support similar to the Air Force Reserve. The two remaining components—the Marine Corps Reserve and Navy Reserve—have not updated their existing guidance to incorporate operational support accounting and reporting and do not appear to have immediate plans to do so until DOD releases new guidance. Until DOD and all of the reserve components update and uniformly align their implementing guidance, inconsistencies and errors in the reporting of the number of operational support reservists may continue. As a result, DOD and the components cannot ensure that they will not exceed the maximum authorized levels, which may impair the ability of DOD and Congress to oversee the use of volunteer reservists serving on active duty in an operational support capacity.

Conclusions

With DOD’s growing demand for reserve personnel to augment its active duty forces to accomplish its missions overseas and at home, stress on the reserve force is a significant issue. Reservists have been serving on increasingly longer and more frequent tours of duty. However, reserve personnel are a part-time force and DOD must take care in managing the frequency with which it uses the reserves to complete its missions. It is critical that DOD and Congress have oversight over DOD’s forces to ensure that its citizen-soldiers are not overextended.

In eliminating the 180-day rule, Congress gave DOD flexibility in managing its volunteer reservists to serve in a variety of missions, without limiting volunteerism and continuity of service. However, the reserve components continue to struggle with accurately and consistently identifying these reservists each month. Updated guidance that clearly articulates what should be included and excluded from this accounting would help the components eliminate the inconsistent interpretations that currently exist. Until DOD and all of the reserve components update their implementing guidance in a uniform manner, inconsistencies and errors in the reporting of the number may continue and DOD will be unable to ensure that reported numbers are accurate and that maximum levels are not being exceeded. Lack of an accurate accounting of the number of voluntary reserve personnel serving in an operational support capacity defeats the purpose for establishing the reporting requirement, which in turn hampers DOD’s ability to manage its forces and to minimize lengthy activations and stress on the reserve forces. This lack of visibility also limits Congress’s oversight over the use, availability, and readiness of the reserve force to ensure that its citizen-soldiers are not overextended.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To ensure that the components can report accurate and consistent information about the number of reservists serving in an operational support capacity, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the reserve components to develop guidance to clarify and consistently define the categories of operational support that should be included in the reported numbers.

Agency Comments

The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) provided written comments on a draft of this report. The department concurred with the recommendation. DOD stated that it will develop guidance that specifically addresses what is to be included when accounting for operational support. The department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. In addition, the department provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Others making significant contributions to this report are included in appendix III.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the factors leading to the increase in the maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for operational support from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006, we reviewed and analyzed the authorization levels for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and the requested authorization levels for fiscal year 2007. We also obtained documentation of the highest number of reservists each month that is reported to DOD and analyzed figures to identify any trends or patterns of change. To determine what categories of reservists should be represented by the numbers of reservists serving on operational support, we obtained documentation on the definition of operational support given to the components. We also interviewed DOD and reserve officials to gain an understanding of their roles and effectiveness in implementing Sections 415 and 416 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2005. We interviewed officials from DOD Reserve Affairs, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve. To determine DOD’s authority and role in management of the reservists under the NDAA, we reviewed legislation and the history of relevant provisions of the law. To determine the reliability of the estimates for the maximum authorization levels for the reserve components, we gathered reserve component officials’ perspectives on their data systems in the collecting and reporting of reserve strength to DOD.

To determine the extent to which the reserve components have consistently reported the number of reservists serving in an operational support capacity, we obtained DOD’s memorandums, implementing guidance, and regulations. We obtained documentation from DOD and reserve components to determine the categories included and excluded from operational support. We interviewed DOD officials to determine its definition for operational support, how DOD intended its implementing guidelines to be applied, and to determine its interpretation of relevant legislation. We also interviewed officials to determine the consistency in application of the guidelines. From our interviews, we obtained information on categories of reservists that were being excluded from operational support. We reviewed and analyzed legislation to determine what was required to be included in operational support. Officials also provided information on the structure of their data systems and the process for collecting and recording the numbers of reservists. The components and DOD also provided the highest number of reservists each month that was reported to DOD. Due to definitional problems of categories of reservists to be included in reported numbers, we found some inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the data, which produced data that we believe are not sufficiently reliable. As a result, we make a recommendation for executive action to improve the accuracy and consistency of reported monthly information.

We conducted our review from June 2006 through September 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Geraldine Beard, Renee Brown, Tracy Burney, Pawnee Davis, Laura Durland, Meredith Georges, George Poindexter, Terry Richardson, Gina Ruidera, and Karen Thornton made significant contributions to the report.