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

Letter

Background

DOD defines “common military training” as non-occupational, directed training that sustains readiness, provides common knowledge, enhances awareness, reinforces expected behavioral standards or obligations, and establishes a functional baseline that improves the effectiveness of DOD and its constituent organizations. Common military training is required for all servicemembers. DOD Instruction 1322.31, Common Military Training (CMT), identifies 11 common military training requirements. Legislation, executive orders, and DOD guidance (directives or instructions) establish these 11 requirements. We use the term “common military training” to refer to the 11 requirements referred to in DOD Instruction 1322.31. See appendix II for a list of the 11 common military training requirements.

Each of the military services may require additional individual training— for example, training for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense; marksmanship qualification; and physical fitness—that is bundled with common military training. For example, the Army provides “mandatory training,” which is required for all Army soldiers regardless of component (unless otherwise noted), branch or career field, or rank or grade. Similarly, the Marine Corps requires “annual training,” which is required for Marines regardless of military occupational specialty or rank or grade or component, unless otherwise exempted or waived. The Navy conducts “general military training,” which applies to all uniformed active and reserve component Navy personnel. Finally, the Air Force conducts “ancillary training,” which is universal training, guidance, or instruction, regardless of specialty.

Common military training makes up a portion of mandatory training requirements that all DOD personnel must complete. For example, the Navy estimated that common military training comprises 66 percent, on average, of the time spent on mandatory training requirements. The Air Force estimated in 2016 that common military training comprises 38 percent of the time dedicated to mandatory training requirements. The Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force each have about 19 mandatory training requirements. Common military training comprises more than half of these mandatory training requirements for most of the military services. See appendix III for a list of common military training and mandatory training requirements.

Each common military training topic has a lead proponent. DOD defines a common military training lead proponent as the Office of the Secretary of Defense or DOD component, agency, or office responsible for the oversight, management, administration, and implementation of a specific common military training core curriculum. Common military training lead proponents provide policy on training topics; the military services provide and execute the training. For example, the Office of the DOD Chief Information Officer is the lead proponent for Cybersecurity.

DOD and the Military Services Have Made Efforts to Review and Validate Common Military Training Requirements

DOD and the military services have made efforts to review and validate the need for the current common military training requirements. DOD, for example, established the Common Military Training Working Group in February 2015 to, among other things, review and validate common military training. DOD Instruction 1322.31 requires the Common Military Training Working Group to review and validate common military training requirements periodically. The Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness signed the Common Military Training Working Group Charter in December 2016. According to an Office of the Deputy for Force Training official, the working group held its first organizational meeting in January 2017 and a second meeting in February 2017 at the Advanced Distributed Learning Office, at which it received a briefing on its learning science and technology portfolio. The working group’s charter states that it will review common military training requirements for validity. The charter further states that the working group’s goal is to combine, reduce, and eliminate redundant or obsolete common military training. According to an Office of the Deputy for Force Training official, validation would include a review of existing legislation, executive orders, DOD guidance, and DOD policies and guidance to establish common military training requirements for the military services. As of March 2017, the working group had not yet begun to review and validate training, according to the Office of the Deputy for Force Training. However, according to that official, the office is in the process of developing future working group meeting agendas to discuss topics such as validating training requirements. The official said that the working group would need to begin reviewing and validating the antiterrorism training topic because the office believes that it is no longer statutorily required. In addition, our review of the working group’s initial plans to develop meeting agendas and to review and validate the antiterrorism training requirements demonstrates that some future actions to review common military training may be forthcoming.

In addition to participating in the Common Military Training Working Group, some of the military services have made efforts to review and validate common military training. Although DOD Instruction 1322.31 does not require the services to independently review and validate common military training core curriculums, some military service officials we interviewed indicated that common military training requirements are generally accepted as validated requirements because they appear in DOD guidance. Each service has published guidance that contains information on what steps it employs to review and validate mandatory training requirements. Service guidance also contains information on the offices, committees, or steering groups that play a key role in reviewing and validating mandatory training requirements. Table 1 below shows the services’ published guidance containing the requirements to review and validate mandatory training, which also includes common military training requirements.

According to officials, the Navy and Marine Corps annually review and validate mandatory training requirements. A Navy official in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations told us that the Chief of Naval Operations must determine, validate, and assign annual Navy-wide mandatory training requirements. The official said that the annual review process for validating mandatory training requirements passes through several administrative levels—including action officer working groups and a flag level officer board that meets quarterly to discuss training issues and recommend improvements—to shape training for the next fiscal year. In July 2016, Navy officials published information on the results of their review and validation of mandatory training requirements for fiscal year 2017. According to a Marine Corps official in the Training and Education Command, the office, in collaboration with the Commanding General, Training and Education Command, is responsible for reviewing and validating annual training requirements. The official said that Marine Corps Bulletin 1500, which is the Marine Corps’ guidance for annual training and education requirements, serves as the annual validation for mandatory training. The most recent edition of Marine Corps Bulletin 1500 was published on September 8, 2016, and contains an approved list of mandatory training, including common military training requirements.

According to an official working for the Deputy for the Collective Training Division, Directorate of Training, Headquarters, Department of the Army (G-3/5/7), mandatory training requirements are reviewed and validated biennially or as directed by the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7). The Training General Officer Steering Committee provides an enterprise-wide vetting of training requirements and recommendations to the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7). The official said that the Deputy Chief of Staff (G- 3/5/7) approves and publishes mandatory training requirements. The list of mandatory training requirements is published in Army Regulation 350- 1.

Finally, according to Air Force officials, the Air Force reviewed and validated existing mandatory training requirements during its October 2016 training review. The Air Force Learning Committee meets annually to review new mandatory training requirements, and Air Force guidance states that the Air Force Learning Division monitors the overall training footprint for that service’s total force. According to an official in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, the Air Force reviews the service’s common military training courses to ensure that they are meeting DOD requirements.

DOD and the Military Services Have Actions Planned to Evaluate Common Military Training

DOD and the military services have actions planned to evaluate common military training. DOD directed the Common Military Training Working Group to evaluate the effectiveness of common military training in February 2015. Specifically, DOD Instruction 1322.31 calls for the working group to periodically evaluate common military training for effectiveness, among other things, and DOD Directive 1322.18 states that it is DOD’s policy to assess military training throughout the department. The Common Military Training Working Group charter directs the group to review common military training requirements for effectiveness. However, as of March 2017, the group had not yet begun to evaluate training. A former official in the Office of the Deputy for Force Training said that evaluation of training was an important but difficult task, and discussed two approaches that he intended the working group to consider to evaluate whether training is effective: (1) measuring whether individuals have completed training; and (2) assessing the outcome of training from the trainer’s perspective.

We found that some military service boards and committees have made independent efforts to assess the effectiveness of their respective mandatory military training courses, including common military training. For example, in 2015 the Army Mandatory Training Task Force evaluated the accessibility and effectiveness of current training materials. The charter of the Navy Planning Board for Training calls for it to review the impact of the annual requirements. Air Force Instruction 36-2201 directs the Air Force Learning Committee to monitor the mandatory training impact and improve the focus, currency, and relevancy of its curriculums and training. According to Navy officials, the Navy Planning Board for Training completed a review of the Command Indoctrination Program for fiscal year 2015, which led to a recommendation to eliminate six training topics: Navy Right Spirit Campaign and Alcohol Awareness, Suicide Awareness, Personal Financial Management, Operational Risk Management, Prevention of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault, and Antiterrorism and Force Protection. According to Navy officials, these topics were redundant under the Command Indoctrination Program and were already required as annual training by most Navy commands.

Some of the 11 common military training proponents have also made independent efforts to assess the effectiveness of their respective courses. Officials from 6 proponents with whom we spoke stated that they had previously made efforts to assess the effectiveness of their mandatory training requirements; officials from 1 proponent stated that they would conduct an assessment in the future; and officials from the remaining 4 stated that they had not evaluated training. For example, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office conducted surveys in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 to assess the effectiveness of the sexual assault and sexual harassment training received by servicemembers, according to an official from that office. The Defense Suicide Prevention Office states in its strategic plan that it will evaluate the efficacy of suicide prevention programs. The DOD Strategy for Suicide Prevention states that DOD will use evidence-based training curriculums and periodically review, evaluate, and update these curriculums. Other proponents have taken steps to assess the amount of knowledge that individuals gain from training in order to make adjustments as needed to the training courses offered. For example, the Combating Trafficking in Persons training contains a survey at the end of the computer-based version of the course. A proponent official said that the results of the survey data are used to make updates to training based on participant feedback. In addition, according to an official in the Defense Human Resources Activity, the Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members is another source used for assessing and updating the Combating Trafficking in Persons training.

Military Services Offer Flexibilities Regarding Course Delivery Methods and Are Taking Steps to Consolidate Training and Reduce Training Time

The military services offer varying degrees of flexibility for providing course delivery methods that allow individuals to complete mandatory training requirements, including common military training, according to guidance we reviewed and servicemembers’ perspectives we obtained. DOD Instruction 1322.31 requires the secretaries of the military departments to work with the appropriate common military training lead proponents, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and appropriate DOD and component leads to optimize available training time and increase training and education delivery flexibility, share best practices to effectively educate and train servicemembers, and standardize the common military training core curriculum to reduce the burden on each military service. The DOD Instruction does not state which method of delivery the military services must use to complete training requirements. For example, according to an official in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7), current policy states that all mandatory training requirements must have alternative methods of delivery that do not rely solely on on-line, computer-based delivery. Some services’ guidance provides instruction on course delivery methods that individuals could use and commanders could apply at their discretion to complete mandatory training requirements. For example, Marine Corps Bulletin 1500 cites the Marine Corps’ distance learning system and commander-led unit training as delivery methods that may be considered. According to OPNAV Instruction 1500.22H, the Navy offers command-discretion training in which commanders have multiple options for topic delivery, such as locally generated or standardized training products, and, in cases of complete discretionary training, local commanders may determine when and how training is provided. Furthermore, according to Air Force Instruction 36-2201, training may be accomplished through a variety of methods, including formal courses, mass briefings, advanced distributed learning, and one-on-one instruction.

Servicemembers with whom we spoke held a range of differing opinions about training flexibilities and course delivery methods offered by their respective services. The text boxes below contain a series of selected comments from servicemembers with whom we spoke who provided perspectives on their experiences with various aspects of training. The comments reflect opinions from servicemembers in 12 active units who have been deployed in the past 5 years, from across the services.

Some military service officials told us that they prefer computer-based training for some topics because it allows individuals to complete requirements in less time than classroom courses, which may require several hours of instruction. As shown in the text box below, military personnel we interviewed identified some advantages and disadvantages to computer-based training for servicemembers. Additionally, military service personnel we interviewed said that servicemembers prefer computer-based training because it allows them to complete training requirements in a shorter period and avoid hours of classroom instruction. However, personnel at other units stated that there were disadvantages to computer-based training, such as losing the impact that unit leaders provide, having to repeat the same training subject each year, and not retaining as much information as they would from discussions in classroom-style courses. Also, servicemembers in the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and on the Harry S. Truman expressed concerns that units lack a sufficient number of computers.

According to estimates provided by service officials, it would take an individual less than 20 hours to complete all the common military training. However, an official in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-3/5/7) said that the time it takes soldiers to complete either computer-based or face-to-face training varies greatly based on such factors as computer availability, pre-test options, instructors, and audiences. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate averages. One servicemember anecdotally remarked that completion of common military training takes about 8 hours, while another said it takes from 1 to 3 hours, per month. Table 2 shows the military services’ estimates for completing common military training courses, and the text box that follows provides perspectives on training time from servicemembers with whom we spoke.

The military services are also taking initial steps toward reducing training time for some mandatory training requirements, including common military training, by updating their guidance, combining similar training topics, and eliminating redundancies. For example, according to an Army official, the Army is currently updating Army Regulation 350-1, which will include guidance to increase commander flexibility and modify the tracking of mandatory training. According to Navy guidance from July 2016, the Navy continued to reduce mandatory training requirements in fiscal year 2017 and placed additional control at the discretion of local command leadership. The Air Force issued a memo in August 2016 outlining steps to address training demands such as establishing a task force to streamline training, among other things, and focusing on computer-based training requirements and their effect on the force. Some air wings at Air Combat Command and the Air Force Global Strike Command recently issued guidance that allows unit commanders to provide some mandatory training courses in a briefing format to accomplish training and enhance efficiencies. Most recently, the Marine Corps published an updated version of its mandatory training requirements in the Marine Corps Bulletin in September 2016. In addition to updating guidance, a Marine Corps Training and Education Command official noted that the Marine Corps has reduced mandatory training requirements since 2015 by an estimated 7.0 hours by consolidating stand-alone classes addressing Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Combat Operational Stress Control, Substance Abuse, Family Advocacy, and Suicide Prevention with the Unit Marine Awareness and Prevention Integrated Training. According to Marine Corps officials, the Marine Corps’ 2017 transition to leader-led, discussion-based training for specific annual training requirements could reduce the time needed to conduct training, as it takes less time to refresh Marines on topics that were covered in detail during entry-level training.

Agency Comments

We are not making recommendations in this report. In written comments reprinted in appendix IV, DOD concurred with the draft of this report. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army; Air Force, and Navy; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To describe what efforts DOD and the services have made to review and validate common military training requirements, we collected and reviewed DOD and service-level guidance to determine the training required to complete common military training and the process for reviewing, validating, consolidating, and eliminating common military training. Specifically, we analyzed DOD Directive 1322.18, Military Training (Jan. 13, 2009) (incorporating change 1, effective Feb. 23, 2017); DOD Instruction 1322.31, Common Military Training (CMT) (Feb. 26, 2015) (incorporating change 1, Apr. 11, 2017); Army Regulation 350- 1, Army Training and Leader Development (Aug. 19, 2014); draft Army Regulation 350-1 (currently under review); Marine Corps Bulletin 1500, Annual Training and Education Requirements (Sept. 8, 2016); Marine Administrative Message 188/17, Modifications to MCBUL 1500 Annual Training Requirements (Apr. 17, 2017); Naval Administrative Message 166/16, FY-17 General Military Training Schedule (July 26, 2016); Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.22H, General Military Training Program (Sept. 3, 2015); and Air Force Instruction 36-2201, (Sept. 15, 2010) (incorporating through change 3, Aug. 7, 2013). We interviewed military service officials from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force to determine how they review and validate common military training and document individuals’ completion of common military training. We also interviewed DOD training proponents to discuss how they develop and disseminate common military training for the military services and their processes for reviewing and validating common military training.

To describe steps that DOD and the services have taken to evaluate the effectiveness of common military training requirements, we collected and reviewed DOD and service-level guidance explaining the process to evaluate common military training. We interviewed DOD and service-level officials from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force to discuss their methods to evaluate common military training. We interviewed all 11 DOD training proponents to discuss how they have determined the effectiveness of their training topics. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of the common military training because it was beyond the scope of our review, but rather focused on identifying examples of efforts in which the services and proponents have taken steps to assess the effectiveness of training.

To describe the flexibilities that the services offer regarding course delivery methods, steps they are taking to consolidate training and reduce training time, and their perspectives on various aspects of training, we collected service-level training guidance that explains the level of flexibility units have to complete common military training. We interviewed unit commanders and training managers from a non-generalizable sample of 12 units from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. We worked with the services to identify units in active status that had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan within the past 5 years and to identify a mix of officers and enlisted personnel within the selected units. We also worked with service-level officials to identify unit commanders and training managers to interview, and during these interviews we discussed available training flexibility and determined the delivery options and the amount of time spent on common military training. Although not generalizable, the interviews we conducted with personnel in these units provided examples of the training flexibilities available to commanders. These units were as follows:

3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, Bravo Troop, Fort Carson,

3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, Charlie Troop, Fort Carson,

Delta Company (D Co) 1st Battalion, 501st Aviation Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Combat Aviation Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Brigade Combat Tem, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas

2nd Law Enforcement Battalion, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp

2nd Battalion, 6th Marines, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp

USS Harry S. Truman, Aircraft Carrier 75

94th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

1st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Support Section, Langley Air

1st Maintenance Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

1st Maintenance Squadron Unit Training Manager, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

27th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia We interviewed cognizant officials at various DOD headquarters offices, including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training, Office of the Deputy for Force Training; Joint Staff; Deputy Chief of Staff, Army (G-3/5/7); U.S. Army Forces Command; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; U.S. Army Reserve Command; Marine Corps Training and Education Command; U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command; Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Naval Education and Training Command; U.S. Fleet Forces Command; Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Personnel; and Air Force Air Combat Command. As shown in table 3, we also conducted interviews with the lead proponents, located within DOD offices, for each common military training topic.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Department of Defense (DOD) Common Military Training Requirements

Table 4 below presents a list of the 11 common military training requirements. Of these, 5 are mandated by statute or executive order.

Appendix III: Common Military Training and Mandatory Training Requirements

Table 5 below presents a summary of common military training and the military services’ mandatory training requirements that fulfill common military training requirements. Some mandatory training courses fulfill the requirements for multiple common military training requirements. For most military services, common military training comprises more than half of their mandatory training requirements.

Table 6 below summarizes the services’ mandatory training requirements that do not fulfill common military training requirements. These requirements fall under the services’ definitions of mandatory training requirements. The mandatory training requirements listed below are common across a service. The table does not include additional training that the services may require for specific groups of servicemembers.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Sally L. Newman (Assistant Director), Thomas Corless, Michele Fejfar, Latrealle Lee, Amie Lesser, Shahrzad Nikoo, Carol Petersen, Vikki Porter, and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report.