Military Personnel: DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for Short Periods
Released: 2004-06-25T00:00:00

Letter

Background

AMC, located at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is responsible for providing strategic airlift, including air refueling, special air missions, and aeromedical evacuation. As part of that mission, AMC is responsible for tasking 67 C-5 aircraft: 35 stationed at Travis Air Force Base in California and 32 stationed at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Unlike other Air Force aircraft, the C-5 is rarely deployed for more than 30 days, since it is primarily used to move cargo from the United States to locations worldwide. As a result, C-5 aircrews are deployed away from home for several weeks and then return to their home station. Other Air Force aircraft, such as the KC-10, can carry cargo but are primarily used to refuel other aircraft and can be deployed to locations around the world for extended periods of time. Since September 11, 2001, C-5 aircrews have been deployed for periods of time less than 30-days, generally ranging from 7 to 24 days.

Known for its ability to carry oversized and heavy loads, the C-5 can transport a wide variety of cargo, including helicopters and Abrams M1A1 Tanks to destinations worldwide. Recently, the C-5’s have been used for a variety of missions, including: support of presidential travel, contracted movement of materials by other government organizations, training missions, and support of operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. In addition, the C-5 can also transport about 70 passengers. The aircrew for a C-5 is comprised of two pilots, a flight engineer, and two loadmasters. At Travis Air Force Base there are 439 active duty and 383 reserve aircrew members. At Dover Air Force Base there are 650 active duty and 344 reserve aircrew members.

Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is responsible for DOD personnel policy, including oversight of military compensation. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) leads the Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, established in 1994 to develop and review personnel compensation proposals. As part of this process, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) chairs biannual meetings, attended by the principal voting members from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), including the Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs), the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Joint Staff, and the services’ Assistant Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

Congressional Rationale for DOD’s Family Separation Allowance Eligibility Requirements

In 1963, Congress established the $30-per-month family separation allowance to help offset the additional expenses incurred by the dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for more than 30 consecutive days. According to statements made by members of Congress during consideration of the legislation establishing the family separation allowance, additional expenses could stem from costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and childcare that could not be performed by the deployed servicemember. Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the family separation allowance have changed. For example, while the family separation allowance was initially authorized for enlisted members in pay grades E-5 and above as well as to enlisted members in pay grade E-4 with 4 years of service, today the family separation allowance is authorized for servicemembers in all pay grades at a flat rate of $250 per month. Servicemembers must apply for the family separation allowance, certifying their eligibility to receive the allowance. The rationale for establishing the 30-day threshold is unknown. However, DOD officials noted that servicemembers deployed for more than 30 days do not have the same opportunities to minimize household expenses as those who are deployed for less than 30 days. For example, servicemembers who are able to return to their permanent duty locations may perform home repairs and do not have to pay someone to do these tasks for them.

The 1963 family separation allowance legislation was divided into two subsections, one associated with overseas duty and one associated with any travel away from the servicemembers home station. The first subsection was intended to compensate servicemembers who were permanently stationed overseas and were not authorized to bring dependents. The second subsection was intended to compensate servicemembers for added expenses associated with their absence from their dependents and permanent duty station for extended periods of time regardless of whether the members were deployed domestically or overseas. Originally, this aspect of family separation compensation was also to be based on the allowance for living quarters. At that time, members would receive one-third the allowance for living quarters or a flat rate of $30 per month, whichever amount was larger. In July of 1963, the Senate heard testimony from DOD officials who generally agreed with the proposed legislation, but raised concerns about using the allowance for living quarters as a baseline. Their concerns were related to the complexity of determining the payments and the inequities associated with tying payment to rank. Ultimately, DOD proposed and the Congress accepted a flat rate of $30 per month for eligible personnel.

DOD Has Not Identified Frequent Deployments Less Than 30-days as a Family Separation Allowance Issue

DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments less than 30-days as a family separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking modifications to the family separation allowance because of frequent short-term deployments have been provided to DOD for consideration as part of DOD’s Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews personnel compensation proposals. Since 1994, a few proposals have been made seeking changes to allowance amounts and eligibility requirements. None of the proposals sought to change the 30-day eligibility threshold. Further, our discussions with OSD, service, and reserve officials did not reveal any concerns related to frequent short-term deployments and the family separation allowance. To analyze concerns that might be raised by those experiencing frequent short-term deployments, we conducted group discussions with Air Force strategic C-5 airlift aircrews at Travis Air Force Base, which we identified as an example of servicemembers who generally deploy for periods less than 30 days. We did not identify any specific concerns regarding compensation received as a result of short-term deployments. We found that the C-5 aircrews were generally more concerned about the high pace of operations and associated unpredictability of their schedules, due to the negative impact on their quality of life, than about qualifying for the family separation allowance.

DOD’s Proposals to Change Family Separation Allowance Have Been Minimal

DOD has proposed few changes to the amount of the family separation allowance and no proposals have been submitted to alter the 30-day eligibility threshold. Our review of proposals submitted through DOD’s Unified Legislation and Budgeting process revealed that DOD has considered one proposal to change the amount of the monthly family separation allowance since 1994. In 1997, an increase in the family separation allowance from $75 to $120 was proposed. This provision was not approved by DOD.

Since 1994, three modifications to the eligibility criteria have also been proposed. In 1994, a proposal was made to allow payment of the family separation allowance for members embarked on board a ship or on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days, whose family members were authorized to accompany the member but voluntarily chose not to do so. The proposal was endorsed by DOD and accepted by Congress. In 2001, DOD considered but ultimately rejected a similar proposal that would have applied to all members who elect to serve an unaccompanied tour of duty. The third proposal sought to modify the use of family separation allowance for joint military couples (i.e. one military member married to another military member). According to a DOD official, while this proposal was not endorsed by DOD, Congress ultimately passed legislation that clarified the use of family separation allowance for joint military couples. The family separation allowance is now payable to joint military couples, provided the members were residing together immediately before being separated by reason of their military orders. Although both may qualify for the allowance, only one monthly allowance may be paid to a joint military couple during a given month. If both members were to receive orders requiring departure on the same day, then payment would be made to the senior member.

Aircrews More Concerned about Unpredictability of Their Deployments Than Compensation

Overall, C-5 aircrew members and aircrew leadership with whom we met noted that the unpredictability of missions was having more of an adverse impact on crewmembers’ quality of life than the compensation they receive as a result of their deployments. For example, several aircrew members at Travis Air Force Base indicated that over the past two years, they have been called up on very short advance notice, as little as 12 hours, and sent on missions lasting several weeks, making it difficult to conduct personal business or make plans with their families. According to the aircrew members and both officer and enlisted leadership with whom we met, the unpredictability of their missions is expected to continue for the foreseeable future due to the global war on terrorism. Officials informed us that the average number of days by month that aircrew members have been deployed has increased since September 11, 2001, with periods of higher activity, or surges. For example, as shown in figure 1, the average number of days in September 2001 that AMC C-5 co-pilots were deployed was 9. Since then, the average number of days by month that C-5 co-pilots were deployed has fluctuated between 12 and 19. Prior to September 2001, available data shows a low monthly average of 5 days in January 2001.

While the average number of days deployed has fluctuated, aircrew members expressed concern about the intermittent suspension of pre- and post-mission crew rest periods that have coincided with increased operations. Generally, these periods have been intended to ensure that aircrew members have enough rest prior to flying another mission. However, aircrew members noted that crew rest periods also allow them to perform other assigned duties and spend time with their families. During our discussion-group meetings, aircrew members indicated that the rest period after a mission had been reduced from as much as 4 days to as little as 12 hours due to operational needs.

Personnel Deployed Less Than 30 Days May Be Eligible to Receive Additional Compensation

In addition to basic compensation, DOD has several special pays and allowances available to further compensate servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days. Servicemembers who are deployed domestically or overseas for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive regular per diem. The per diem amount varies depending upon location. Servicemembers also may be eligible to receive other pays and allowances, such as hazardous duty pay, mission-oriented hardship duty pay, and combat-zone tax exclusions. However, DOD has not implemented one special allowance designed, in part, to compensate those frequently deployed for short periods. Congress supported DOD’s legislative proposal to authorize a monthly high-deployment allowance with passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This provision allows the services to compensate their members for lengthy deployments as well as frequent shorter deployments. However, DOD has not set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement this allowance.

Additional Compensation Available for Eligible Personnel Deployed Less Than 30 Days

In addition to basic military pay, servicemembers who are deployed for less than 30 days may also be eligible to receive regular per diem, other special pays and allowances, and tax exclusions (see table 1).

When servicemembers are performing temporary duty away from their permanent duty station, they are entitled to per diem, which provides reimbursement for meals, incidental expenses, and lodging. To be eligible for per diem, servicemembers must perform temporary duty for more than 12 hours at a location to receive any of the per diem rate for that location. The per diem rates are established by: the General Services Administration, the State Department, and DOD’s Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Allowance Committee. The rates range from $86 to $284 per day within the continental United States and from $20 to $533 per day when outside the continental United States, depending on whether government meals and lodging are provided. Aircrews can earn various per diem rates during the course of their travel. For example, a typical two-week mission for Travis C-5 aircrew members would take them to Dover Air Force Base, then to Moron, Spain, and then to Baghdad, Iraq. At each of these locations, the aircrews can spend a night allowing them to accrue applicable per diem rates for that location. According to the Air Force, per diem rates for a typical C-5 mission are as follows: $157 for Dover Air Force Base; $235 for Moron, Spain; and $154 for Baghdad, Iraq. In some cases, aircrews may receive a standard $3.50 per day for incidental expenses, when they are at locations where the government can provide meals and lodging. This is the standard per diem rate used to compensate servicemembers traveling outside of the continental United States when the government can provide lodging and meals.

Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay

Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay are pays that provide additional compensation for duty performed in designated areas where the servicemembers are subject to hostile fire or imminent danger. Both pays are derived from the same statue and cannot be collected simultaneously. Servicemembers are entitled to hostile fire pay, an event-based pay, if they are (1) subjected to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; (2) on duty in an area close to a hostile fire incident and in danger of being exposed to the same dangers actually experienced by other servicemembers subjected to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; or (3) killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action. Imminent danger pay is a threat based pay intended to compensate servicemembers in specifically designated locations, which pose a threat of physical harm or imminent danger due to civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. To be eligible for this pay in a month, servicemembers must have served some time, one day or less, in one of the designated zones during the month. The authorized amount for hostile fire and imminent danger pay is $150 per month, although the fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act temporarily increased the amount to $225 per month. If Congress takes no further action, the rate will revert to $150 per month in January 2005.

Mission-Oriented Hardship Duty Pay

Mission-oriented hardship duty pay compensates military personnel for duties designated by the Secretary of Defense as hardship duty due to the arduousness of the mission. Mission-oriented hardship duty pay is payable at a monthly rate up to $300, without prorating or reduction, when the member performs the specified mission during any part of the month. DOD has established that this pay be paid at a flat monthly rate of $150 per month. Active and Reserve component members who qualify, at any time during the month, receive the full monthly mission-oriented hardship duty pay, regardless of the period of time on active duty or the number of days they receive basic pay during the month. This pay is currently only available to servicemembers assigned to, on temporary duty with, or otherwise under the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office, the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, or Central Identification Lab-Hawaii. Hardship duty includes missions such as locating and recovering the remains of U.S. servicemembers from remote, isolated areas including, but not limited to, areas in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea.

Combat-Zone Tax Exclusion

The combat-zone tax exclusion provides exclusion from federal income tax, as well as income tax in many states, to servicemembers serving in a presidentially designated combat zone or in a statutorily established hazardous duty area for any period of time. For example, although the C-5 aircrews at Travis and Dover Air Force Bases do not serve in a designated combat zone for an extended period of time, many of the missions that they fly may be within areas designated for combat-zone tax exclusion eligibility. Enlisted personnel and warrant officers may exclude all military compensation earned in the month in which they perform active military service in a combat-zone or qualified hazardous duty area for active military service from federal income tax. For commissioned officers, compensation is free of federal income tax up to the maximum amount of enlisted basic pay plus any imminent danger pay received.

DOD Has Not Developed Criteria to Implement the High Deployment Allowance

DOD has not established criteria defining what constitutes frequent deployments, nor has it determined eligibility requirements in order to implement the high deployment allowance. DOD sought significant modifications to high deployment compensation through a legislative proposal to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Congress had established a high deployment per diem as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Pursuant to statutorily granted authority, on October 8, 2001, DOD waived application of the high deployment compensation in light of the ongoing military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. After implementing the waiver authority, DOD sought legislative changes to the high deployment compensation in an effort to better manage deployments.

DOD’s proposal sought, among other things, to: (1) change high- deployment compensation from a per diem rate to a monthly allowance, (2) reduce the dollar amount paid so that it was more in line with other special pays (e.g. hostile fire pay), and (3) allow DOD to recognize lengthy deployments as well as frequent deployments. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 reflects many of DOD’s proposed changes. The act changed the $100 per diem payment into an allowance not to exceed $1,000 per month. To help compensate those servicemembers who are frequently deployed, the act established a cumulative 2-year eligibility threshold not to exceed 401 days. Also, the act provided the Secretary of Defense with the authority to prescribe a cumulative threshold lower than 401 days. Depending upon where the Secretary of Defense establishes the cumulative threshold, servicemembers, such as the C-5 aircrews, serving multiple short-term deployments may be compensated through the high deployment allowance. Once a servicemembers’ deployments exceed the established cumulative day threshold for the number of days deployed, the member is to be paid a monthly allowance not to exceed $1,000 per month at the beginning of the following month. From that point forward, the servicemember will continue to qualify for the allowance as long as the total number of days deployed during the previous 2-year period exceeds the cumulative threshold established by the Secretary of Defense. The high deployment allowance is in addition to per diem and any other special pays and allowances for which the servicemember might qualify. Moreover, the servicemember does not have to apply for the allowance, as the act mandated that DOD track and monitor days deployed and make payment accordingly. Finally, DOD may exclude specified duty assignments from eligibility for the high deployment allowance (e.g., sports teams or senior officers). According to DOD officials, this provision also provides additional flexibility in targeting the allowance to selected occupational specialties, by allowing DOD to exclude all occupations except those that it wishes to target for additional compensation because of retention concerns. The Senate report accompanying the bill that amended the high deployment provision encouraged DOD to promptly implement these changes. However, DOD officials told us that a timetable for establishing the criteria necessary to implement the high deployment allowance has not been set. Although we could not ascertain exactly why DOD had not taken action to implement the high deployment allowance, OSD officials informed us that the services had difficulty reaching agreement on what constitutes a deployment for purposes of the high deployment payment.

Conclusions

The family separation allowance is directed at enlisted servicemembers and officers whose dependents incur extra expenses when the servicemember is deployed for more than 30 consecutive days. We found no reason to question the eligibility requirements that have been established for DOD’s family separation allowance. We believe that no basis exists to change the 30-day threshold, as a problem has not been identified with the family separation allowance. Further, servicemembers who deploy for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive additional forms of compensation resulting from their deployment, such as per diem, other special pays and allowances, and tax exclusions.

Since the terrorists’ attacks on September 11, 2001, some servicemembers have experienced more short-term deployments. Given the long-term nature of the global war on terrorism, this increase in the frequency of short-term deployments is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. DOD will need to assure adequate compensation for servicemembers using all available special pays and allowances in addition to basic pay. While the aircrews with whom we met did not express specific concerns about compensation, they, like other servicemembers, are concerned about quality-of-life issues. The high deployment allowance could help to address such issues for servicemembers, while helping to mitigate DOD’s possible long-term retention concerns. Also, unlike the family separation allowance, the high deployment allowance could be used to compensate servicemembers regardless of whether or not they have dependents. Although the Senate report accompanying the bill that amended the high deployment provision encouraged DOD to promptly implement these changes, the Secretary of Defense has not taken action to implement the high deployment allowance.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in concert with the Service Secretaries and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to take the following three actions set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high deployment define, as part of the criteria, what constitutes frequent short-term deployments within the context of the cumulative day requirement as stated in the high deployment allowance legislation; and determine, as part of the criteria, eligibility requirements targeting the high deployment allowance to selected occupational specialties.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with our recommendations that it set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high deployment allowance and what the criteria should include. While DOD agreed that servicemembers should be recognized with additional pay for excessive deployments, it stated that DOD has not implemented the high deployment allowance because it views the high deployment allowance as a peacetime authority. Further, DOD stated that since we are in a wartime posture, it is more difficult to control the pace of deployments than during peacetime. DOD’s response noted that it has elected to exercise the waiver given to it by Congress to suspend the entitlement for reasons of national security. DOD also noted that it has encouraged the use of other flexible pay authorities to compensate servicemembers who are away from home for inordinate periods. Finally, DOD stated that it would reassess the use of the high deployment allowance at some point in the future.

We do not believe that the nation’s current wartime situation prevents DOD from taking our recommended actions. The first recommended action being to set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high deployment allowance. We did recognize in our report that pursuant to statutorily granted authority, on October 8, 2001, DOD waived application of the high deployment allowance in light of the ongoing military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. However, since then, DOD sought modifications through a legislative proposal to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 for more flexibilities to manage the high deployment compensation better. These additional flexibilities include providing DOD with the opportunity to tailor the allowance to meet current or expected needs. Since the purpose of special pays and allowances is primarily to help retain more servicemembers, the high deployment allowance could be used as another compensation tool to help retain servicemembers during a time of war. As our report clearly states, given the expectations for a long-term commitment to the war on terrorism, developing the criteria for implementing the high deployment allowance would provide DOD with an additional option for compensating those military personnel who are frequently deployed for short periods of time. Regarding DOD’s use of other flexible pay authorities to compensate servicemembers who are away from home for inordinate periods, the examples DOD cites for lengthy or protracted deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea are not applicable to those servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days, the focus of this review.

Finally, the vagueness of when and how the high deployment allowance will be implemented runs contrary to the congressional direction, which encouraged DOD to promptly implement the new high deployment allowance authority. Based on DOD’s response, it is not clear when DOD intends to develop criteria to implement the high deployment allowance. We recommended that DOD set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high deployment allowance, not that DOD implement the allowance immediately. We believe that this recommendation is warranted, since establishing the criteria will make it possible for DOD to implement the high deployment allowance quickly, whenever it is deemed appropriate and necessary. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix I. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

Scope and Methodology

To assess the rationale for family separation allowance eligibility requirements, including the rationale for the 30-day threshold, we reviewed the legislative history concerning the family separation allowance and analyzed DOD policies implementing this pay. We also interviewed officials in the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Air National Guard; and the Air Force Reserve.

To determine the extent to which DOD had identified frequent short-term deployments as a family separation allowance issue, we reviewed proposals submitted through DOD’s Unified Legislation and Budgeting process. We met with compensation representatives from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and each of the services. We interviewed officials with the Defense Manpower Data Center and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. We sought to use DOD’s database for tracking and monitoring deployments to determine the extent of servicemembers experiencing frequent deployments lasting less than 30 days. We were not able to use the database for the purposes of our report to discern the number of deployments by location lasting less than 30 days, since more than 40 percent of the data for location was not included in the database. In addition, the database did not contain information related to some types of non-deployment activities (e.g. training), which we deemed important to our review. We focused our study on the Air Force since the fiscal year 2003 Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the President and Congress showed that the Air force was the only service whose members were deployed less than 30 days on average in fiscal year 2002. Further, through discussions with Air Force officials we identified strategic aircrews managed by the AMC as examples of those who would most likely be experiencing short-term deployments. We visited AMC, where we met with officials from personnel, operations, finance, and the tactical airlift command center. To understand the views of one group of short-term deployers, we visited Travis Air Force Base in California where we met with officer and enlisted leadership for the C-5 and KC-10 aircraft. We held discussion groups with 12 officers and 12 enlisted aircrew members from both aircraft, for a total of 48 aircrew members. We visited Dover Air Force Base in Delaware where we met with C-5 officer and enlisted leadership. We also met with officials representing personnel, operations, and finance offices at both Travis and Dover Air Force Bases. We assessed the reliability of AMC C-5 copilot deployment data, as well as data contained in the fiscal year 2003 Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the President and Congress. GAO’s assessment consisted of (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced them, (2) examining the electronic data for completeness, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To assess what special pays and allowances are available, in addition to basic compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days, we identified special pays and allowances that do not have a time eligibility factor through the DOD’s Military Compensation Background Papers, legislative research, and discussions with OSD officials. We reviewed the legislative history regarding recent legislative changes to special pays and allowances and how DOD has implemented these changes.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to appropriate congressional committees and to other interested parties on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge at the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-5559 or Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604. Major contributors to this report were Aaron M. Adams, Kurt A. Burgeson, Ann M. Dubois, Kenya R. Jones, and Ronald La Due Lake.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

GAO’s Comment

1. The purpose of our congressionally directed review was to assess the special pays and allowances available to DOD that could be used to compensate servicemembers who are frequently deployed for less than 30 days. Consequently, our scope did not include an assessment of compensation for servicemembers serving lengthy, or protracted, deployments of 30 days or more. We found that DOD has available and is using several special pays and allowances, in addition to basic compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days. However, we also found that DOD has one special allowance, the high deployment allowance, that is not available to provide further compensation to servicemembers who frequently deploy for less than 30 days and that DOD has not set a timetable to establish criteria to implement the allowance. During our review, we could not ascertain exactly why DOD had not taken action to develop criteria for implementing the high deployment allowance. During several discussions, OSD officials stated that the services had difficulty reaching agreement on what constitutes a deployment for the purposes of the high deployment payment. DOD’s response to our draft report noted that it has elected to exercise the waiver given to it by Congress to suspend the high deployment allowance for reasons of national security. We recognized this waiver in our report. We also noted that after DOD waived application of the high deployment payment on October 8, 2001, DOD sought legislative modifications of the high deployment payment that would give it more flexibilities to better manage this type of compensation. Congress granted DOD these flexibilities and encouraged DOD to promptly implement these changes. As noted in our report, given the expectations for a long-term commitment to the war on terrorism, developing the criteria for implementing the new high deployment allowance would provide DOD with an additional option for compensating those military personnel who are frequently deployed for short periods of time. Also, the high deployment allowance, unlike the family separation allowance, could be used to compensate servicemembers regardless of whether or not they have dependents and thus would reach more servicemembers.

Related GAO Products

Military Personnel: Active Duty Compensation and Its Tax Treatment. GAO-04-721R. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004.

Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve Compensation, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to Deployed Troops. GAO-04-582T. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.

Military Personnel: Bankruptcy Filings among Active Duty Service Members. GAO-04-465R. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2004.

Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-89. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2003.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Effective Controls to Better Assess the Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program. GAO-04-86. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2003.

Military Personnel: DFAS Has Not Met All Information Technology Requirements for Its New Pay System. GAO-04-149R. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2003.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data to Address Financial and Health Care Issues Affecting Reservists. GAO-03-1004. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2003.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Assess Certain Factors in Determining Whether Hazardous Duty Pay Is Warranted for Duty in the Polar Regions. GAO-03-554. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2003.

Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations Related to Income, Benefits, and Employer Support for Reservists During Mobilizations. GAO-03-573T. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2003.

Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD’s Strategic Human Capital Planning. GAO-03-237. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2002.

Military Personnel: Management and Oversight of Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program Needs Improvement. GAO-03-149. Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2002.

Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics, but Opportunities Exist to Improve. GAO-02-935. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002.

GAO’s Mission

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs