Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility Of Combatant Commands' Resources
Released: 2013-05-15T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The department’s Unified Command Plan sets forth basic guidance to all combatant commanders and establishes the missions, responsibilities, and areas of geographic responsibility among all the combatant commands. There are currently nine combatant commands—six geographic and three functional. The six geographic combatant commands have responsibilities for accomplishing military operations in regional areas of the world. The three functional combatant commands operate worldwide across geographic boundaries and provide unique capabilities to the geographic combatant commands and the military services. In addition, each geographic combatant command is supported by multiple service component commands that help provide and coordinate service-specific forces, such as units, detachments, organizations and installations, to help fulfill the commands’ current and future operational requirements. Figure 1 is a map of the areas of responsibility and headquarters locations of the geographic combatant commands, to include some of their subordinate unified commands and their respective service component commands.

According to DOD Directive 5100.03, Support of the Headquarters of Combatant and Subordinate Unified Commands, the military departments—as combatant command support agents—are responsible for programming, budgeting, and funding the administrative and logistical support of the headquarters of the combatant commands and subordinate unified commands. On an annual basis the three military departments assess needs and request funding as part of their respective operation and maintenance budget justification to meet this requirement to support the combatant commands and subordinate unified commands. The directive assigns each military department responsibility for specific combatant commands and subordinate unified commands. Table 1 provides a listing of the combatant commands, their subordinate unified commands, and the military departments that support them.

Unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, the commanders of these combatant commands are given authority to organize the structure of their commands as they deem necessary to carry out assigned missions and maintain staff to assist them in exercising authority, direction and control over subordinate unified commands and other assigned forces. The commands’ structure may include a principal staff officer, personal staff to the commander, a special staff group for technical, administrative, or tactical advice and other groups of staff that are responsible for managing personnel, ensuring the availability of intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, preparing long-range or future plans, and integrating communications systems. The commands may also have liaisons or representatives from other DOD agencies and U.S. government organizations integrated into their staffs to enhance the command’s effectiveness in accomplishing their missions. While the commands generally conform to these organizational principles, there may be variations in a command’s structure based on its unique mission areas and responsibilities.

The staff of a combatant command, subordinate unified command, or a joint task force is generally composed of military and civilian personnel drawn from the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps, personnel from other DOD components, interagency personnel, and other personnel associated with contracted services. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel Program, outlines the process for determining and documenting requirements for manpower at joint organizations, including the combatant commands. The instruction states that commands should be structured to the minimum essential size required to meet approved missions and average workload expected for at least the next 36 months. The commands are to consider a number of factors when determining manpower requirements, including the total number of positions needed and the mix of military, civilian, and contractor support needed. After the commands’ manpower requirements have been determined and validated, the requirements are documented on each command’s manning document, called the Joint Table of Distribution, which contains permanent authorized positions for military, civilians and other personnel responsible for managing the day- to-day operations of the command. Other processes exist to identify additional manpower that commands’ may require to shift to a wartime, contingency or mobilization footing, and that may be required to fill temporary organizations that are established to meet short-term mission requirements.

Geographic Combatant Commands’ Resources Have Grown Considerably over the Last Decade

Since fiscal year 2001, the number of authorized military and civilian positions and mission and headquarters-support costs devoted to the five geographic combatant commands that we reviewed substantially increased. In our analysis of data provided by the commands, we found considerable increases in the number of authorized military and civilian positions—about 50 percent from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2012—and in the costs for mission and headquarters-support—more than doubling from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2012—at the five combatant commands that we reviewed. Data on the service component commands also indicated that authorized military and civilian positions increased by more than 30 percent from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and mission and headquarters-support costs increased by more than 40 percent from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. In addition to data on authorized military and civilian positions, we found that the data on the number of personnel performing contract services across the combatant commands and service component commands varied or was unavailable, and thus trends could not be identified.

Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions Has Grown at Combatant and Service Component Commands

The authorized number of military and civilian positions for the five geographic combatant commands that we reviewed rose from about 6,800 in fiscal year 2001 to more than 10,100 in fiscal year 2012, primarily due to the addition of new organizations and missions. Our analysis of data showed that the establishment of U.S. Northern Command in fiscal year 2003 and U.S. Africa Command in fiscal year 2008 drove the increase in the total number of authorized military and civilian positions since fiscal year 2001. U.S. Northern Command was established in fiscal year 2003 to provide command and control over DOD’s homeland defense mission and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities. U.S. Africa Command was established in fiscal year 2008 to focus U.S. security efforts within the African continent and strengthen security cooperation with African countries, which had been primarily the responsibility of U.S. European Command. At the remaining combatant commands, our analysis showed growth in the number of authorized positions in each command’s theater special operations command, which further drove overall position increases. For example, from fiscal years 2001 through 2012 the number of authorized positions at U.S. Pacific, European, and Southern Commands’ theater special operations commands increased by almost 400 positions, largely to fulfill increased mission requirements. Figure 2 shows the increases or changes in total authorized military and civilian positions at the five geographic combatant commands that we reviewed.

The geographic combatant commands have also become much more reliant on civilian personnel. We found that the number of authorized civilian positions at the combatant commands almost doubled from about 2,370 in fiscal year 2004 to about 4,450 in fiscal year 2012. In contrast, the number of authorized military positions decreased about 9 percent from approximately 6,250 to 5,670 in the same period. This changed the composition of the commands markedly. In fiscal year 2004, military positions made up about three-quarters of total authorized positions supporting the combatant commands that we reviewed; however, due to the substantial increase in the number of authorized civilian positions the proportion of military positions at the combatant commands is now just over half. According to DOD officials, the increase in authorized civilian positions is due in part to DOD-directed efforts to convert positions filled by military personnel or contractors to civilians. As part of the Secretary of Defense’s 2010 efficiency initiative, baselines were established for the number of authorized civilian positions at the combatant commands for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. In June 2011, the Secretary of Defense directed a series of initiatives designed to more effectively manage combatant command manpower and funding, which further set baselines for civilian manpower at the combatant commands for fiscal years 2013 through 2017. Any growth above these baselines in fiscal years 2013 through 2017 has to be revalidated by the Joint Staff and military services, and must be based on workload and funding considerations. This baseline in civilian positions is reflected in our analysis of the number of authorized positions at the five geographic combatant commands, with growth in civilian positions slowing significantly from fiscal years 2011 through 2012. Figure 3 shows changes in the combatant commands’ number of authorized military and civilian positions from fiscal years 2004 through 2012.

The availability of data on the number of contractor personnel or full-time equivalents varied across the combatant commands, and thus trends could not be identified. DOD officials stated the department generally tracks and reports expenditures for contract services, and that the combatant commands were not required to maintain historical data on the number of contractor personnel. We found that the combatant commands had taken initial steps to collect data on contractor full-time equivalents and reliance on personnel performing contractor services varies across the combatant commands. For example, U.S. Northern Command reported having 460 contractor full-time equivalents at its command in fiscal year 2012, whereas U.S. European Command reported having 169 contractor full-time equivalents supporting the command in fiscal year 2012. Our work over the past decade on DOD’s contracting activities has noted the need for DOD to obtain better data on its contracted services and personnel to enable it to make more informed management decisions, ensure department-wide goals and objectives are achieved, and have the resources to achieve desired outcomes. In response to GAO’s past work, DOD has outlined its approach to document contractor full-time equivalents and collect manpower data from contactors. However, DOD does not expect to fully collect contractors’ manpower data until fiscal year 2016. The Secretary of Defense, as part of his 2010 efficiency initiative, directed the department to reduce funding for service-support contracts by 10 percent per year across the department for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. In June 2011, the Secretary of Defense established limits on service support contract expenditures at the combatant commands in fiscal years 2011 through 2013.

Our analysis of data provided by the military services showed that total authorized military and civilian positions at the service component commands supporting the geographic combatant commands we reviewed increased by about one-third from about 5,970 in fiscal year 2008 to about 7,800 in fiscal year 2012. The increases in authorized military and civilian positions at the service component commands supporting U.S. European Command account for more than one-third of the total increase in authorized positions across all the service component commands. Among the services, the Army’s service component commands saw the greatest increase in authorized positions, accounting for about 85 percent of the total increase in authorized positions. The service component commands fulfill dual roles: organizing, training and equipping assigned service-specific forces while also assisting the combatant commands in their employment during military operations. According to DOD officials, service component commands with assigned forces such as Pacific Air Forces and Army Europe, are likely to have larger staffs than service component commands that do not have assigned forces, such as Marine Forces Africa. Figure 4 shows the increase in authorized positions at the service component commands that we reviewed. Similar to the data on the number of personnel performing contract services at the combatant commands, we found that the data on the number of personnel performing contact services at the service component commands varied or was unavailable, and thus trends could not be identified. We found that some service component commands do not maintain data on the number of personnel performing contract services and others used varying methodologies to track these personnel, counting the number of contractors on hand or the number of identification badges issued.

When adjusted for inflation, total mission and headquarters-support costs from fiscal years 2007 through 2012—including costs for civilian pay, contract services, travel, and equipment—more than doubled at the five geographic combatant commands we reviewed. The cost growth, from about $500 million in fiscal year 2007 to about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2012, primarily was due to increases in contract services and civilian pay. For example, U.S. Southern Command’s mission and headquarters-support costs more than quadrupled from about $45 million in fiscal year 2007 to about $202 million in fiscal year 2012; more than half of the increase was attributable to contract services, and 20 percent of the increase was attributable to civilian pay. In addition, U.S. Pacific Command’s mission and headquarters-support costs increased from about $175 million in fiscal year 2007 to about $246 million in fiscal year 2012; about 65 percent of these cost increases was attributable to civilian pay. Figure 5 shows the overall increase or changes in the mission and headquarters-support costs at the five geographic commands that we reviewed from fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

When adjusted for inflation, total mission and headquarters-support costs increased by more than 40 percent at the service component commands we reviewed from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. The costs grew from about $430 million dollars in fiscal year 2007 to about $605 million in fiscal year 2012. The increase primarily was due to the establishment of U.S. Africa Command’s supporting service component commands, which first reported costs in fiscal year 2009. U.S. Africa Command’s mission and headquarters-support costs were $71 million in fiscal year 2012. In addition, the service component commands at U.S. European and Pacific Commands experienced cost increases from fiscal years 2007 through 2012 of about $53 million and $54 million respectively, which accounted for the majority of the remaining increase in mission and headquarters- support costs. Figure 6 shows the increase in the mission and headquarters-support costs at the service component commands that we reviewed from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. The Army’s service component commands accounted for more than half of the total increase in mission and headquarters-support costs across all service component commands over the period. Across the service component commands the Air Force components account for the majority of the mission and headquarters support–costs. Air Force officials explained that some of their service component commands have assigned forces and that the higher costs at these commands reflect support for the military service’s organize, train, and equip mission.

DOD Has Taken Steps to Manage Combatant Commands’ Resources, but Its Processes to Review Size and to Oversee Commands Have Weaknesses

While DOD has taken some steps to review the combatant commands’ size and structure and to identify the commands’ resources, DOD’s processes have four primary weaknesses that challenge its ability to make informed decisions: (1) the absence of a comprehensive, periodic review of the size and structure of the combatant commands, (2) inconsistent use of personnel management systems to identify and track assigned personnel across the combatant commands, (3) lack of visibility by the combatant commands and Joint Staff over authorized manpower and personnel at the service component commands, and (4) lack of transparent information identifying each combatant command’s personnel or mission and headquarters-support funding in the military departments’ budget documents for operation and maintenance. Our prior work on strategic human capital management found that high-performing organizations periodically reevaluate their human capital practices and use complete and reliable data to help achieve their missions and ensure resources are properly matched to the needs of today’s environment. Without regularly assessing the size and structure of the combatant commands and without complete information on all of the resources supporting the combatant commands, DOD cannot ensure that the combatant commands are properly sized and structured to meet their assigned missions and cannot ensure that commands are managing resources efficiently.

DOD Has Taken Some Steps to Manage Growth in Personnel and Costs at the Combatant Commands

Recognizing that there has been significant growth in the size of the combatant commands since 2001 due to increases in their assigned missions, DOD has taken some steps to slow the growth in command personnel and associated mission and headquarters-support costs. In November 2007, to improve the links between mission, manpower requirements, and resource decisions, the Joint Staff was tasked by the Deputy Secretary of Defense with reviewing the authorized positions supporting the combatant commands. The review resulted in the establishment of baselines in the number of major DOD headquarters activity positions at each of the geographic and functional combatant commands that could be adjusted based only on the approval of new missions. However, these baselines apply only to positions performing major DOD headquarters activity functions, and our prior work found that DOD’s major headquarters activity data is not always complete and reliable. In addition, as part of the Secretary of Defense’s 2010 efficiency initiative, the combatant commands, along with other organizations within the department, were asked to identify efficiencies in headquarters and administrative functions, support activities, and other overhead. Specifically, the combatant commands were directed to perform organizational assessments to identify any disconnects between the commands’ priorities and their allocation of resources. Based on these assessments and the direction of the Secretary of Defense, the combatant commands reduced seven Standing Joint Force Headquarters to two global Standing Joint Force Headquarters, decreased their reliance on individual augmentees at two commands, and consolidated joint task forces at several commands. These changes eliminated a total of about 530 authorized positions and about 470 temporary personnel in total. In addition, some commands, such as U.S. European Command and U.S. Northern Command, were directed to reduce personnel and consolidate staff functions to better align their available resources with their current missions. Other commands, however, such as U.S. Africa Command, did not make specific reductions as part of the Secretary of Defense’s efficiency initiative.

In 2011, DOD announced that it was studying the regional structure of the combatant commands, estimating that it could save $900 million from fiscal years 2014 through 2017 by considering alternatives to the current construct of regional geographic combatant commands. To achieve the estimated cost savings, the Joint Staff considered several alternatives to the current structure that involved merging geographic combatant commands. However, the Joint Staff has since reviewed and rejected the proposed options, in part because they believed that merging commands would not achieve the estimated savings. According to Joint Staff officials, DOD has reduced funding across all of the geographic and functional commands by about $881 million during fiscal years 2014 through 2018, as part of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2014. As part of the reductions, officials stated the department plans to reduce civilian positions at the combatant commands and Joint Staff by approximately 400 positions over 5 years through fiscal year 2018. DOD officials stated that they would continue to seek additional savings at the combatant commands in any subsequent directed reviews.

DOD’s Process for Managing Combatant Commands’ Size and Structure Is Focused on Proposed Increases and Does Not Periodically Evaluate Requirements

DOD has an ongoing process to assess the combatant commands’ requests for additional positions, but does not periodically evaluate whether authorized positions at the combatant commands’ are still needed to support their assigned missions. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel Program, outlines a process for determining and validating requirements for additional manpower at the combatant commands. According to the instruction, requests for additional positions should be mission driven, supported by the combatant commands’ priorities, and based on studies of the capabilities and readiness of the commands’ personnel. Furthermore, the combatant commands should consider other options prior to requesting additional positions, such as internally realigning personnel, using internal funding for contract positions, and utilizing temporary personnel. As part of their request, the combatant commands may also rely on manpower studies to support their requests for additional positions. For example, U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Pacific Command are currently undergoing manpower studies to review their size and structure as part of DOD’s emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions of the world. According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, requests for additional positions are to be drafted by the commands and submitted to the Director of the Joint Staff. A team made up of representatives from the Joint Staff and the military services is then convened to evaluate the request, based on the command’s mission drivers, capability gaps, internal offsets, and manpower assessments. This team makes recommendations to the Director of the Joint Staff and the operations deputies of the military services, who decide whether or not to endorse the request for additional positions to support each command’s mission. If the request for additional positions is endorsed, the authorized positions are initially documented on the combatant command’s joint table of distribution and the positions get evaluated, along with DOD’s other resource requirements, to determine whether or not it will be funded. The combatant commands may also submit requests to the Joint Staff for minor changes in their authorized structure to meet changing missions as long as they do not affect the total number of authorized positions at the command. Figure 7 describes the process for reviewing and validating proposed increases in authorized positions at the combatant commands.

While DOD and some military services have policies on manpower management, we found that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A does not specify a process for reviewing the combatant commands’ size and structure and focuses on requests for additional positions or nominal changes in authorized positions. Specifically, some military service regulations that guide manpower requirements at the service component commands require manpower to be periodically evaluated to ensure they still meet assigned missions. For example, Army Regulation 570-4, Manpower and Equipment Control, Manpower Management, suggests that Army components’ manpower requirements be reevaluated by Army commanders and agency heads every two to five years, and optimally every three years. In addition, DOD Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower Management states that manpower policies, procedures, and structures should be periodically evaluated to ensure efficient and effective use of manpower resources. In contrast, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A suggests that manpower requirements at the combatant commands be set based on the projection of workload over three years, but it has no provisions for reevaluating this determination. DOD officials confirmed that there is no periodic evaluation of the commands’ authorized positions, in part because there is no process in place to review authorized positions when there is a change in roles or missions. Our prior work on strategic human capital management found that high- performing organizations stay alert to emerging mission demands and remain open to reevaluating their human capital practices in light of their demonstrated successes or failures in achieving the organization’s strategic objectives. In addition, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A does not address personnel associated with contracted services. As previously stated, DOD Instruction 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix, requires DOD’s workforce, which includes military and civilian manpower and contractor support, to be structured to execute missions at a low-to-moderate level or risk. The purpose of DOD Instruction 1100.22, among other things, is to establish policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe procedures for determining the appropriate mix of manpower within the department.

While DOD is aware of the growth in missions and authorized positions at the combatant commands since 2001 and has undertaken some efforts to manage and assess the size and structure of the combatant commands, these efforts did not constitute a comprehensive and periodic bottom-up review of the combatant commands’ total workforce. Without a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of the commands’ authorized positions, DOD will not be able to ensure that the combatant commands are properly sized and structured to meet their assigned missions or ensure that the commands identify opportunities for managing personnel resources more efficiently.

Combatant Commands Are Inconsistent in Their Use of the Existing Personnel Management System to Identify and Track Their Total Assigned Personnel

DOD has an electronic system to document and review information about authorized positions and assigned military and civilian personnel at the combatant commands, but the commands are not consistently inputting complete information on all assigned personnel. All of the combatant commands that we reviewed use to some extent the Electronic Joint Manpower and Personnel System (e-JMAPS) to manage their commands’ manpower and personnel; however, we found differences across the commands in how they use the system to manage their assigned personnel. DOD has identified e-JMAPS as the system of record to document the combatant commands’ organizational structure and according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel Program, the system should be used to track the manpower and personnel required to meet the combatant commands’ assigned missions. The instruction states e- JMAPS should provide visibility over joint personnel by allowing the Joint Staff and combatant commands to maintain, review, modify, and report all personnel actions in the system, to include changes in authorized positions or updates to personnel arriving at or departing from the command. In January 2012, the Vice Director of the Joint Staff issued a memo identifying e-JMAPS as the authoritative data source for DOD and for congressional inquiries of joint personnel, stating that e-JMAPS must accurately reflect the manpower and personnel allocated to joint organizations, such as the combatant commands, to provide senior leaders with the necessary data to support decision making in a fiscally constrained environment. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, policies, procedures, and mechanisms to effectively manage an organization—including accurate and timely documentation of an organization’s transactions and resources and effective management of an organization’s workforce—are important factors in enabling an organization to improve accountability and achieve their missions.

Our review found that the commands vary in the types of personnel that each enters into e-JMAPS and that some commands exclude certain personnel from the system when managing personnel who support the command. All of the combatant commands we reviewed said that they use e-JMAPS to manage and track authorized military and civilian positions within the command, and where appropriate, other temporary personnel. To fulfill temporary or short-duration mission requirements, additional personnel—such as activated reservists, civilian overhires, and interagency personnel—may be needed to support the commands’ authorized manpower. However, the commands varied in their use of e- JMAPS to track these additional personnel because Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A does not clearly state that temporary personnel, such as civilian overhires and activated reservists, should be accounted for in e-JMAPS, resulting in the differences in what is tracked by the commands. While U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command track their civilian overhires and activated reservists in e- JMAPS, U.S. European Command does not, and U.S. Pacific Command tracks only activated reservists in e-JMAPS. In addition, officials at most of the combatant commands that we reviewed noted that they do not account for temporary personnel, such as interagency personnel, in eJMAPS, and that they primarily use the system to manage personnel filling authorized positions at the command, which may not include all command personnel. For example, during the course of our review, U.S. European Command officials identified approximately 172 civilian overhires and activated reservists supporting the command in fiscal year 2012 that are not accounted for in e-JMAPS. U.S. Africa Command is the only command that inputs all assigned personnel, to include civilian overhires, activated reservists, and interagency personnel, into e-JMAPS regardless of whether they are filling an authorized position, reflecting about 250 additional personnel at the command in fiscal year 2012. Our review also found that 4 out of the 5 geographic combatant commands do not account for personnel performing contract services in e-JMAPS. According to DOD officials, personnel performing contract services are not required to be accounted for in e-JMAPS and those personnel would be included in the costs reported for contract services. As part of a department-wide plan to account for contractor services, DOD has begun efforts to collect contractor-manpower data directly from contractors, but DOD does not expect to fully collect data on personnel performing contract services until fiscal year 2016.

Furthermore, according to Joint Staff officials, the combatant commands do not always input personnel information in a timely manner and civilian personnel may not be tracked as diligently in e-JMAPS as military personnel. While Joint Staff officials stated that the accuracy of personnel data in e-JMAPS has improved, there is no specific guidance requiring the combatant commands to periodically review and update data on personnel assigned to the command to ensure that data in e-JMAPS is accurate and up-to-date. According to some combatant command officials, command staffs input personnel information in e-JMAPS when personnel arrive at the command. However, our review confirmed that there are differences across the combatant commands in how often they update and review personnel information to ensure its accuracy, and officials at one command confirmed that while e-JMAPS is their primary personnel management system, they also rely on military service personnel systems to track personnel because the service systems are more accurate and capture more personnel information than e-JMAPS.

While the combatant commands use e-JMAPS to manage some of their assigned personnel and review personnel data periodically, there is no DOD guidance requiring that all personnel supporting the commands be tracked in e-JMAPS or that reviews of personnel occur within specific timeframes to ensure assigned personnel data is accurate. Without guidance to require complete and accurate information on all personnel supporting the combatant commands, and the consistent and timely review of assigned personnel data in e-JMAPS, DOD and the combatant commands cannot be assured that e-JMAPS will provide comprehensive data to inform their personnel decisions.

DOD Does Not Have a System or Formal Process to Gather Information on Authorized Manpower and Assigned Personnel at the Service Component Commands

In addition to not having complete information on the personnel assigned to the combatant commands, DOD and the combatant commands do not have oversight or visibility over authorized manpower or the number of assigned personnel at the service component commands. As stated previously, the service component commands often fulfill dual-roles: organizing, training, and equipping assigned service-specific forces while also assisting the combatant commands in their employment during military operations. Some service component commands, such as U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa manage large numbers of assigned forces and operational units, while others, such as Marine Forces South, manage few, if any, assigned forces. While these service component commands provide support to the combatant commands, the service component commands use service-specific personnel management systems to account for their authorized manpower and personnel, and DOD does not have a formal process to gather this information. A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publication identifies the importance of having reliable data on all personnel within a geographic combatant command’s area of responsibility for visibility of personnel and for effective planning. Further, our previous work has highlighted the need for agencies to have valid, reliable data and be aware of the size of their workforce, its deployment across the organization and the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for the agency to pursue its mission.

Even though the combatant commands rely on the service component commands’ personnel to support their missions and operational requirements, they do not have oversight or visibility into the service component commands’ authorized manpower or how the components determine the size and structure of their staff to support the combatant commands’ missions. Based on our analysis of data that we gathered, in fiscal year 2012 there were 7,795 authorized positions at the headquarters of the service component commands, which was more than double the 3,817 authorized positions at the headquarters of the combatant commands. Moreover, the service component commands are generally structured to perform staff functions that are similar to those of the combatant commands, such as collecting intelligence, coordinating operations, performing strategic planning and policy, and supporting communications. For example, at U.S. Pacific Command, there are about 650 authorized positions dedicated to gathering, analyzing, and performing intelligence support, while there are about 175 additional authorized positions within U.S. Pacific Command’s service component commands dedicated to the same staff function. According to DOD officials, since headquarters personnel at service component commands with large numbers of assigned forces are more likely to be focused on the components’ organize, train, and equip function rather than on solely supporting the combatant commands missions, these positions may not necessarily be redundant. However, given the similarities in mission requirements and staff functions at the combatant and service component commands, it is important for the combatant commands to have visibility over the service component command’s authorized manpower to be able to determine whether these similarities at the combatant and service component commands are necessary or duplicative.

Moreover, the combatant commands do not have complete information on personnel assigned to their service component commands. Officials at the combatant commands and Joint Staff stated that they do not have visibility over personnel at the service component commands or access to the service-specific personnel management systems that the service component commands use, and if they need information to determine whether personnel at the service component commands can support the combatant commands’ mission requirements they have to request it from the service component commands. For example, several combatant commands we spoke with did not identify any specific processes that they use to regularly gather information on personnel at their service components, while officials at U.S. Africa Command stated that they had only recently begun requesting this information on a monthly basis. However, as part of the process for validating new manpower requirements, the combatant commands are required to identify whether the functions and tasks that they are requesting additional positions for can be fulfilled by personnel at the service component commands. Without access to the service-specific personnel data or a process to regularly gather personnel information, it is unclear how this validation process can occur expeditiously. According to a Joint Staff official, officials in that office discuss the personnel and capabilities available within the service component commands when reviewing the combatant commands’ requests for additional positions, but they also do not have direct access to the service component commands’ personnel data systems to review the personnel assigned to the service component commands’ headquarters staff. Without a formal process to gather information on the authorized manpower and assigned personnel at the service component commands, the combatant commands may not have the visibility that is necessary to appropriately size themselves to meet their assigned missions, and are at risk for unnecessarily duplicating functions between the combatant commands and their service component commands.

Budget Documents Do Not Provide Details on Authorized Manpower and Funding For Each Combatant Command

While each military department annually submits budget documents for operation and maintenance to Congress—including the total authorized military positions, civilian and contractor full-time equivalents, and the funding required to support the missions of the combatant commands that they are the combatant command support agent for—these documents do not provide transparency into the authorized positions, the full-time equivalents, or the funding directed to each combatant command. According to DOD Directive 5100.03, Support of the Headquarters of the Combatant and Subordinate Unified Commands, the military departments are responsible for funding the mission and headquarters-support costs of the combatant commands and their subordinate unified commands. Also, volume 2A, chapter 1 of DOD’s Financial Management Regulation, 7000.14.R states that the military departments must ensure adequate visibility over the resources of combatant command-directed missions and other costs for each command. DOD guidance for the submission of the President’s budget justification materials for Fiscal Year 2013, which include the military departments’ budget documents for operation and maintenance, also states that components should report details on contractor manpower/full-time equivalents in addition to military, civilian, and reserve manpower data. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, reliable financial reporting, including reports on budget execution, financial statements, and other reports for internal and external use, is important for determining whether agencies’ objectives are achieved.

The military departments’ budget documents for operation and maintenance identify the overall authorized military positions, civilian and contractor full-time equivalents, and mission and headquarters support funding to support the combatant commands, but do not provide details on authorized positions, full-time equivalents, or mission and headquarters-support costs by command. For example, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2013 budget document shows that the combatant commands it supports have about 6,550 authorized military positions and civilian and contractor full-time equivalents, but it does not separate the data to indicate the number of authorized positions or full-time equivalents at each of the five combatant commands that it supports. Similarly, the Army’s comparable budget document shows about 3,200 total authorized military positions and civilian and contractor full-time equivalents at all the commands that it supports, but does not separate the data to display authorized positions and full-time equivalents at each of the three commands that it is responsible for. In addition, while the military departments’ budget documents provide information on the total funding that all the combatant commands receive for expenses such as civilian pay, contract services, travel, transportation and other supply costs, they do not separate these expenses and display them for each command. For example, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2013 budget document noted a lump sum of about $285 million for civilian pay for all five combatant commands that the Air Force supports, and the Army’s comparable budget document showed a total of about $38 million for travel costs for all of the commands that it supports. Neither of the military departments’ budget documents displayed this cost data for each individual combatant command.

In reviewing DOD budget and policy documents, we found that the military departments, as the combatant commands support agents, do not provide detailed information for each combatant command in their budget documents for operation and maintenance because DOD’s Financial Management Regulation does not require the military departments to identify individual combatant commands’ authorized military positions and civilian and contractor full-time equivalents or the mission and headquarters-support funding required for civilian pay, contract services, travel, and other transportation and supply costs. Without detailed information identifying each combatant commands’ authorized positions, full-time equivalents, and mission and headquarters-support funding, decision makers within DOD and Congress may not have complete and accurate data to conduct oversight of the combatant commands’ resources.

Conclusions

Given the substantial increase in authorized positions and mission and headquarters-support costs at the combatant commands and evolving security challenges facing DOD, effective management and oversight over the combatant commands’ resources is essential as the department balances limited resources with future defense priorities. If DOD performed a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of the combatant commands’ authorized positions, that review would help the department to efficiently manage the combatant commands in its efforts to meet the goals and priorities of the 2012 strategic guidance. Moreover, if DOD had complete information on all the authorized manpower and personnel assigned to support the combatant commands and service component commands, the department would have additional visibility into the universe of manpower and personnel dedicated to supporting the combatant command’s assigned missions. This information would aid DOD officials in decisions on requests for additional manpower, reducing the potential for overlap and duplication of functions. Further, detailed information to identify the authorized military positions, civilian and contractor full-time equivalents, and mission and headquarters-support funding that each combatant command receives would help decision makers in DOD and Congress to balance resource priorities in a fiscally challenging environment. As the department realigns itself to address new challenges, full awareness of the combatant commands’ authorized manpower, assigned personnel, and mission and headquarters-support costs would help the department to provide congressional decision makers with the information needed for effective oversight and help ensure the efficient use of resources.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following four actions.

To ensure that the geographic combatant commands are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and to improve the transparency of the commands’ authorized manpower, assigned personnel, and mission and headquarters-support costs, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A to require a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the size and structure of the combatant commands meet assigned missions.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A to require the combatant commands to identify, manage, and track all personnel, including temporary personnel such as civilian overhires and activated reservists, in e-JMAPS and identify specific guidelines and timeframes for the combatant commands to consistently input and review assigned personnel in e-JMAPS.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders and the secretaries of the military departments, to develop and implement a formal process to gather information on authorized manpower and assigned personnel at the service component commands.

The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to revise volume 2A, chapter 1 of DOD’s Financial Management Regulation 7000.14R to require the military departments, in their annual budget documents for operation and maintenance, to identify the authorized military positions and civilian and contractor full-time equivalents at each combatant command and provide detailed information on funding required by each command for mission and headquarters support, such as civilian pay, contract services, travel, and supplies.

Agency Comments and our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with three of our four recommendations and non-concurred with one recommendation. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix IX. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

DOD did not concur with our first recommendation that the Secretary of Defense require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel Program, to require a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the size and structure of the combatant commands meet assigned missions. DOD stated that the combatant commands have been baselined twice since 2008, and that the commands have already been reduced during previous budget reviews. We describe in our report several actions taken by DOD to manage the growth in personnel and costs at the combatant commands, including establishing manpower baselines and identifying manpower and personnel reductions. However, as stated in our report, these actions do not constitute a comprehensive, periodic, bottom-up review of the combatant commands’ total workforce in part because DOD’s actions have not included all authorized positions at the combatant commands. For example, as noted in our report, the baseline levels established for the combatant commands apply only to positions in major DOD headquarters activities, and our prior work has found that the data on such headquarters positions is incomplete and not always reliable. Furthermore, not all commands have been included in previous efficiency initiatives. The department also noted that any periodic review of the combatant commands’ size and structure could only be triggered by review of the mission of the command, and stated that requiring a periodic review was not appropriate for inclusion in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A. However, the department’s response does not fully explain why the Instruction should not require periodic reviews to ensure that the resources meet constantly- evolving missions, and we continue to believe that institutionalizing a periodic evaluation of all authorized positions would help to systematically align manpower with those missions and add rigor to the requirements process.

The department concurred with three of our recommendations that the Secretary of Defense: (1) direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A to require the combatant commands to identify, manage, and track all personnel, including temporary personnel such as civilian overhires and activated reservists, in e-JMAPS and identify specific guidelines and timeframes for the combatant commands to consistently input and review personnel data in the system; (2) direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders and secretaries of the military departments, to develop and implement a formal process to gather information on authorized manpower and assigned personnel at the service component commands; and (3) direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to revise volume 2, chapter 1 of DOD’s Financial Management Regulation 7000.14R to require the military departments, in their annual budget documents for operation and maintenance, to identify the authorized military positions and civilian and contractor full-time equivalents at each combatant command and provide detailed information on funding required by each command for mission and headquarters-support, such as civilian pay, contract services, travel, and supplies. In its response to our recommendations, DOD noted that it plans to issue guidance to require all DOD components to identify, manage, and track all personnel data, including temporary personnel like civilian overhires and activated reservists, in e-JMAPS. The planned guidance will also identify specific guidelines and timeframes for DOD organizations to consistently input and review personnel data in e-JMAPs.

DOD agreed with our last recommendation regarding DOD’s Financial Management Regulation, but requested that we revise the language to require the military departments to capture or delineate the type of civilians, such as general schedule, foreign service nationals/locally employed staff, or principal staff assistants, provided by the military services within each combatant command. DOD’s response also indicated that the military services suggested the creation of another budget exhibit to capture contract and full-time equivalent data in lieu of the current depiction in their annual budget documents for operation and maintenance. We did not modify our recommendation because, in our view, our recommended revision to DOD’s Financial Management Regulation reflects our findings and captures the information needed to improve visibility over resources devoted to each combatant command, which is now unavailable. Taking additional steps to require more detailed reporting, such as delineating the type of civilians authorized, would be at the department’s discretion but could help to further transparency and improve oversight.

We are sending a copy of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of the military departments. 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 about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@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 X.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We conducted this work in response to direction from the congressional committees to review the resources of the combatant commands. This report (1) identifies the trends in the resources devoted to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) geographic combatant commands and their service component commands, and (2) assesses the extent to which DOD has processes in place to manage and oversee the resources of the combatant commands.

To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified sources of information within DOD that would provide data on the resources at the geographic combatant commands, to include their subordinate unified commands and other activities, and corresponding service components commands. We focused our review on five of the geographic combatant commands within the department: U.S. Africa Command; U.S. European Command; U.S. Northern Command; U.S. Pacific Command; and U.S. Southern Command. Our review excluded U.S. Central Command and its corresponding service component commands due to their responsibilities to support ongoing military operations in Afghanistan during the past several years, which would have inhibited uniform comparisons across the commands.

To identify trends in the resources devoted to DOD’s geographic combatant commands, to include their subordinate unified commands and other activities, and their service component commands we obtained and analyzed available authorized positions and actual assigned personnel (military, civilian, and contractors) data and operation and maintenance obligations data from each of the five geographic combatant commands and their corresponding service component commands from fiscal years 2001 through 2012. We focused our review on operation and maintenance obligations—as these obligations reflect the primary mission and headquarters-support costs of the combatant commands, their subordinate unified commands and other activities, and corresponding service component commands—to include the costs for civilian personnel, contract services, travel, and equipment, among others. Our review excluded obligations of operation and maintenance funding for DOD’s overseas contingency operations not part of DOD’s base budget. Since historical data was unavailable in some cases, we limited our analysis of trends to authorized military and civilian positions at the combatant commands from fiscal years 2001 through 2012 and authorized military and civilian positions at the service component commands from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Due to the availability of data, we similarly limited our analysis of trends in operation and maintenance obligations at the combatant commands and service component commands to fiscal years 2007 through 2012. To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed DOD officials and analyzed relevant manpower and financial management documentation to ensure that the authorized positions and data on operation and maintenance obligations that the commands provided were tied to mission and headquarters- support. We also incorporated data reliability questions into our data collection instruments and compared the multiple data sets received from DOD components against each other to ensure that there was consistency in the data that the commands provided. We determined the data was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To determine the extent to which DOD has processes in place to manage and oversee the resources of the combatant commands, we obtained and analyzed documentary and testimonial evidence from DOD, the military departments, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands and their subordinate unified commands on the policies, procedures and systems used to manage command resources. We interviewed officials and obtained documentation on the policies, procedures, and systems used for determining and validating the commands’ manpower requirements. We also interviewed officials and obtained documentation on any steps DOD had taken or planned to take to reexamine the size and structure of the combatant commands. We obtained documentation on the systems used to track their authorized manpower and assigned military and civilian personnel, and contractor full-time equivalents, and also interviewed officials on how often assigned personnel within the combatant commands, subordinate unified commands, and other activities are reviewed to ensure that the data are accurate and up to date. In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed officials from the Joint Staff, geographic combatant commands, and service component commands on their processes for sharing information on command authorized manpower and assigned personnel. We also obtained and analyzed data included in the military departments’ budget exhibits for operation and maintenance detailing combatant commands’ authorized positions and mission and headquarters-support funding.

We interviewed officials, or where appropriate, obtained documentation at the organizations listed below: Office of the Secretary of Defense

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Manpower and Personnel Directorate

Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate

Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate Department of the Air Force

Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Personnel

Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Financial Management

Pacific Air Forces

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, Army Budget Office

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Training Readiness and Mobilization

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel G-1, Plans and

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans G-3/5/7; Operations and Plans, Force Management Directorate

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans G-3/5/7; Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs G-8, Program

U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency

Army Pacific

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Financial Management and Comptroller), Office of Budget

Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Education, and Training)

Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, (Integration of Capabilities and Resources)

Fleet Forces Command

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

Navy Pacific Fleet

Marine Forces, Pacific

Marine Forces, South Unified Combatant Commands and Subordinate Unified Commands

U.S. Africa Command

U.S. European Command

U.S. Northern Command

U.S. Pacific Command

U.S. Special Operations Command

Special Operations Command, Pacific

Special Operations Command, South

U.S. Southern Command We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to May 2013 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 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: Mission and Headquarters- Support Costs in Nominal Terms

Appendix III: Resources at U.S. Africa Command and its Service Component Commands

Appendix III: Resources at U.S. Africa Command and its Service Component Commands Other includes authorized military and civilian positions in Special Operations Command Africa and security cooperation organizations. Mission and headquarters-support costs reflect obligations for operation and maintenance and are represented in constant fiscal year 2012 dollars. These costs include civilian pay, contract services, and travel, among other costs. The mission and headquarters-support costs for AFRICOM intelligence support, security cooperation organizations, and some costs for Special Operations Command Africa are programmed and budgeted for by other organizations and those costs are not reflected in this appendix. Other includes mission and headquarters-support costs for Special Operations Command Africa, Operation Enduring Freedom Trans Sahara, and Special Operation Command and Control Element Horn of Africa. While Operation Enduring Freedom Trans Sahara is a contingency operation, its costs are funded out of DOD’s base budget. Air Forces Africa was disestablished in April 2012, but reported some mission and headquarters- support costs prior to its disestablishment. The Navy and Air Force each have one service component command that supports both AFRICOM and U.S. European Command. Authorized military and civilian positions and mission and headquarters-support costs for these two service component commands are represented in Appendix IV.

Appendix IV: Resources at U.S. European Command and its Service Component Commands

Appendix IV: Resources at U.S. European Command and its Service Component Commands Other includes authorized military and civilian positions in Special Operations Command Europe, security cooperation organizations, the Commander’s Communications Activities, and other organizations that have since been disestablished. travel, and equipment, among other costs. EUCOM could not distinguish which mission and headquarters-support costs were specific to headquarters or other organizations from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, so these costs are not broken out across these fiscal years. The mission and headquarters-support costs for EUCOM intelligence support, security cooperation organizations, and some costs for Special Operations Command Europe are programmed and budgeted for by other organizations and those costs are not reflected in this appendix. commands, joint task forces, and other activities, each with their own staff, which support the combatant commands in conducting their operational missions.

Appendix V: Resources at U.S. Northern Command and its Service Component Commands

Appendix V: Resources at U.S. Northern Command and its Service Component Commands Mission and headquarters-support costs reflect obligations for operation and maintenance and are represented in constant fiscal year 2012 dollars. These costs include civilian pay, contract services, and travel, among other costs. The mission and headquarters-support costs for NORTHCOM intelligence support and security cooperation organizations are programmed and budgeted for by other organizations and those costs are not reflected in this appendix. Other includes mission and headquarters-support costs for Joint Task Force Alaska, Joint Task Force North, Joint Task Force Civil Support, and Joint Task Force Headquarters National Capital Region. According to Navy officials, Fleet Forces Command has military personnel dedicated to support NORTHCOM, but no dedicated civilian support, and its mission and headquarters-support costs primarily consist of travel costs that cannot be distinguished from its other costs. As a result, Navy officials said they could not provide mission and headquarters-support costs for Fleet Forces Command. commands, joint task forces, and other activities, each with their own staff, which support the combatant commands in conducting their operational missions.

Appendix VI: Resources at U.S. Pacific Command and its Service Component Commands

Appendix VI: Resources at U.S. Pacific Command and its Service Component Commands Other includes authorized military and civilian positions in Special Operations Command Pacific, security cooperation organizations, U.S. Forces Korea, Joint Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command, U.S. Forces Japan, Alaskan Command, Joint Interagency Task Force West, Center for Excellence in Disaster Management, U.S. PACOM Representative to Guam, and other organizations that have since been disestablished. According to PACOM officials, a portion of the command’s authorized military and civilian positions support the unique mission of the Joint Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command to account for all Americans missing as result of past conflicts. In fiscal year 2012, the Joint Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command accounts for approximately 15 percent or 511 of PACOM’s total authorized military and civilian positions. Mission and headquarters-support costs reflect obligations for operation and maintenance and are represented in constant fiscal year 2012 dollars. These costs include civilian pay, contract services, travel, and equipment, among other costs. DOD was unable to provide obligations for PACOM prior to fiscal year 2007. The mission and headquarters-support costs for PACOM intelligence support, security cooperation organizations, U.S. Forces Korea and some costs for Special Operations Command Pacific are programmed and budgeted for by other organizations and those costs are not reflected in this appendix.

Appendix VII: Resources at U.S. Southern Command and its Service Component Commands

Appendix VII: Resources at U.S. Southern Command and its Service Component Commands Other includes authorized military and civilian positions in Special Operations Command South, security cooperation organizations, Joint Interagency Task Force South, and Joint Task Force Bravo.

SOUTHCOM intelligence support, security cooperation organizations, and some costs for Special Operations Command South are programmed and budgeted for by other organizations and those costs are not reflected in this appendix. Other includes mission and headquarters-support costs for Special Operations Command South, Joint Interagency Task Force South, and costs for the 7th Special Forces Group for travel, supplies, and transportation of equipment.

Appendix VIII: Areas of Responsibility and Headquarters Locations of the Geographic Combatant Commands and Some of Their Components

Appendix VIII contains information presented in Figure 1 in noninteractive format.

Geographic Combatant Command U.S. Southern Command

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report include Marie A. Mak (Assistant Director), Richard K. Geiger, Cynthia L. Grant, Oscar W. Mardis, Tobin J. McMurdie, Meghan C. Perez, Carol D. Petersen, Richard S. Powelson, John Van Schaik, Michael C. Shaughnessy, Amie M. Steele and Sabrina C. Streagle.