Basic training is the initial training provided to military recruits upon entering service into one of the military services. While the program and length of instruction varies somewhat among the services, the intent of the training is to transform male and female recruits from civilians into military service members. Basic training typically consists of physical conditioning; learning the military service’s core values, history and tradition; weapons qualification; instilling discipline; and nuclear, biological, and chemical protection training along with other training needed for initial entry into the services. The training varies in length—typically 6.4 weeks in the Air Force, 9 weeks in the Army and Navy, and 12 weeks in the Marine Corps. Following completion of basic training, recruits attend advanced individual training to further enhance skills in particular areas of interest (military occupational specialties). Upon arriving at a basic training location, recruits are processed and are generally housed for several days in reception barracks pending their assignment to a training unit and their primary barracks for the duration of the basic training period. For the most part, the housing accommodations within existing barracks are typically the same, regardless of male or female occupancy. DOD standards dictate space requirements of 72 square feet of living space per recruit, but the actual space provided is often less than that for the services, particularly during the summer months when a surge of incoming recruits usually occurs. In the Navy and Air Force, male and female recruits are housed on different floors in the buildings. In the Army, Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood are the only locations where both male and female recruits undergo basic training, and they are housed separately in the same buildings, sometimes on the same floor. In the Marine Corps, all female recruits receive basic training at Parris Island, and they are housed in separate barracks. While the barracks across the services differ in design, capacity, and age, it is common for the barracks to have 2 or 3 floors with central bathing areas and several “open bays” housing from 50 to 88 recruits each in bunk beds. Some of the barracks, such as the Army’s “starships” and the Air Force barracks, are large facilities that house over 1,000 recruits. Others, especially those constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s, are smaller with recruit capacities of about 240 or less. Table 1 provides an overall summary of the number and age of the military services’ recruit barracks, along with the number of recruits trained in fiscal year 2001. As shown in the table, the Army has the largest number of barracks—over 60 percent of the total across the services—and trains nearly one-half of the recruits entering the military. The Army also uses temporary barracks, referred to as “relocatables,” to accommodate recruits at locations where capacity is an issue. Figure 1 depicts an exterior view of recruit barracks at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, an “open bay” living space at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, South Carolina, and an Army temporary (relocatable) barracks at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Until recently, DOD had no readiness reporting system in place for its defense installations and facilities. In fiscal year 2000, DOD reported to the Congress for the first time on installation readiness as an integral element of its overall Defense Readiness Reporting System. At the core of the system is a rating classification, typically referred to as a “C” rating. The C- rating process is intended to provide an overall assessment that considers condition and capacity for each of nine facility classes (e.g., “operations and training,” and “community and housing”) on a military installation. Recruit training barracks fall within the community-and-housing facility class. The definitions for the C-ratings are as follows: C-1—only minor facility deficiencies with negligible impact on capability to perform missions; C-2—some deficiencies with limited impact on capability to perform C-3—significant facility deficiencies that prevent performing some C-4—major facility deficiencies that preclude satisfactory mission accomplishment. Each service has the latitude to develop its own processes in establishing C-ratings for its facilities. The services’ systems for assessing the condition of facilities are: the Army’s Installation Status Report; the Air Force’s Installations’ Readiness Report; the Navy’s Installation Readiness Reporting System; and the Marine Corps’ Commanding Officer’s Readiness Reporting System. These systems generally provide aggregate assessments of the physical condition of facilities based on periodic facility inspections. The Department subsequently aggregates the services’ reports and submits an overall assessment for each facility class to the Congress in the Department’s Quarterly Readiness Report. The majority of the services’ basic training installations had given their recruit barracks a C-3 rating, indicating they have significant deficiencies. Despite the acceptable outward appearance and generally good condition of most barracks’ exteriors, our visits to the training locations confirmed that most barracks had significant (C-3) or major (C-4) deficiencies requiring repair or facility replacement. Our site visits confirmed the existence of significant deficiencies, but we also noted some apparent inconsistencies in service ratings of their facilities’ condition. Conditions varied by location. Among barracks in poor conditions, we observed a number of typical heating and air conditioning, ventilation, and plumbing- related deficiencies that formed the basis of the services’ ratings for their barracks. Base officials told us that, although these deficiencies had an adverse impact on the quality of life for recruits and were a burden on trainers, they were able to accomplish their overall training mission. At the same time, we noted recent improvements had been made to some recruit barracks at various locations. We observed that, overall, the services’ recruit training barracks had significant or major deficiencies, but that conditions of individual barracks vary by location. In general, we observed that the Army’s, Navy’s, and Marine Corps’ Parris Island barracks were in the worst physical condition. Table 2 shows the services’ overall rating assessments for the recruit barracks by specific location and the typical deficiencies in those barracks that form the basis of the ratings. With the exception of Parris Island, all locations reported either C-3 or C-4 ratings for their barracks. These ratings are relatively consistent with the ratings of other facilities within the DOD inventory. Recent defense data show that nearly 70 percent of all DOD facilities are rated C-3 or C-4. Further, as shown in appendix 2, the C-ratings for recruit training barracks are not materially different from the ratings of other facilities at the training locations we visited. The C-ratings depicted in table 2 show the overall condition of the recruit barracks at a specific location, but the condition of any one building within a service and at a specific location could differ from the overall rating. The Army, with the greatest number of barracks, had the most problems. For the most part, the Army’s barracks were in overall poor condition across its training locations, but some, such as a recently renovated barracks at Fort Jackson and a newly constructed reception barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, were in better condition. Similarly, the Navy barracks, with the exception of a newly constructed reception barracks in 2001, were in a similar degraded condition because the Navy, having decided to replace all of its barracks, had limited its maintenance expenditures on these facilities in recent years. Of the Marine Corps locations, Parris Island had many barracks in poor condition, the exception being a recently constructed female barracks. The barracks at San Diego and Camp Pendleton were generally in much better shape. The Air Force’s barracks, particularly five of eight barracks that had recently been renovated, were in generally better condition than the barracks at most locations we visited. Our visits to the basic training locations confirmed that most of the barracks had significant or major deficiencies, but we found some apparent inconsistencies in the application of C-ratings to describe the condition of the barracks. For example, as a group, the barracks at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, were the highest rated—C2—among all the services’ training barracks. The various conditions we observed, however, suggested that they were among the barracks with the worst physical condition we had seen. Marine Corps officials acknowledged that, although they had completed a recent inspection of the barracks and had identified significant deficiencies, the updated data had not yet been entered into the ratings database. As a result, the rating was based on outdated data. On the other hand, the barracks at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, were rated C-3, primarily due to noise from the San Diego airport that is next to the depot. Otherwise, our observations indicated that these barracks appeared to be in much better physical condition than those at Parris Island because they were renovating the San Diego barracks. After we completed our work, the Marine Corps revised its Parris Island and San Diego barracks’ ratings to C-4 and C-2, respectively, in its fiscal year 2002 report. The Air Force barracks were rated C-3, but we observed them to be among those barracks in better physical condition and in significantly better condition than the Army barracks that were rated C- 3. And the Navy’s C-4 rating for its barracks was borne out by our visits. Similar to the Marine Corps Parris Island and the Army barracks, we found in general that the Navy barracks were in the worst physical condition. In our discussions with service officials, we learned that the services use different methodologies to arrive at their C-ratings. For example, except the Army, the services use engineers to periodically inspect facility condition and identify needed repair projects. The Army uses building occupants to perform its inspections using a standard inspection form. Further, except the Army, the services consider the magnitude of needed repair costs for the barracks at the training locations in determining the facilities’ C-ratings. While these methodological differences may produce inconsistencies in C-ratings across the services, we did not specifically review the impact the differences may have on the ratings in this assignment. Instead, we are continuing to examine consistency issues regarding service-wide facility-condition ratings as part of our broader ongoing work on the physical condition and maintenance of all DOD facilities. Our visits to all 10 locations where the military services conduct basic training confirm that most barracks have many of the same types of deficiencies that are shown in table 2. The most prevalent problems included a lack of or inadequate heating and air conditioning, inadequate ventilation (particularly in bathing areas), and plumbing-related deficiencies. Inadequate heating or air conditioning in recruit barracks was a common problem at most locations. The Navy’s barracks at Great Lakes, for example, had no air conditioning, and base officials told us that it becomes very uncomfortable at times, especially in the summer months when the barracks are filled with recruits who have just returned from training exercises. During our visit, the temperature inside several of the barracks we toured ran above 90 degrees with little or no air circulation. Base officials also told us that the excessive heat created an uncomfortable sleeping situation for the recruits. At the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, several barracks that had been previously retrofitted to include air conditioning had continual cooling problems because of improperly sized equipment and ductwork. Further, we were told by base officials that a high incidence of respiratory problems affected recruits housed in these barracks (as well as in some barracks at other locations), and the officials suspected mold spores and other contaminants arising from the filtration system and ductwork as a primary cause. At the time of our visit, the Marine Corps was investigating the health implications arising from the air-conditioning system. And, during our tour of a barracks at Fort Sill, Army personnel told us that the air conditioning had been inoperable in one wing of the building for about 2 years. Inadequate ventilation in recruit barracks, especially in central bathing areas that were often subject to overcrowding and heavy use, was another common problem across the services. Many of the central baths in the barracks either had no exhaust fans or had undersized units that were inadequate to expel moisture arising from shower use. As a result, mildew formation and damage to the bath ceilings, as shown in figure 2, were common. In barracks that had undergone renovation, however, additional ventilation had been installed to alleviate the problems. Plumbing deficiencies were also a common problem in the barracks across the services. Base officials told us that plumbing problems—including broken and clogged toilets and urinals, inoperable showers, pipe leaks, and slow or clogged drainpipes and sinks—were recurring problems that often awaited repairs due to maintenance-funding shortages. As shown in figures 3 and 4, we observed leaking drainpipes and broken or clogged bath fixtures in many of the barracks we visited. In regard to the broken fixtures, training officials told us that the problems had exacerbated an undesirable situation that already existed in the barracks—a shortage of fixtures and showers to adequately accommodate the demands of recruit training. These officials told us that because of the inadequate bath facilities for the high number of recruits, they often had to perform “workarounds”—such as establishing time limits for recruits taking showers—in order to minimize, but not eliminate, adverse effects on training time. Base officials at most of the locations we visited attributed the deteriorated condition of the recruit barracks to recurring inadequate maintenance, which they ascribed to funding shortages that had occurred over the last 10 years. Without adequate maintenance, facilities tend to deteriorate more rapidly. In many cases that officials cited, they were focusing on emergency repairs and not performing routine preventative maintenance. Our analysis of cost data generated by DOD’s facility sustainment model showed, for example, that Fort Knox required about $38 million in fiscal year 2002 to sustain its base facilities. However, base officials told us they received about $10 million, or 26 percent, of the required funding. Officials at other Army basic training sites also told us that they receive less funding, typically 30 to 40 percent, than what they considered was required to sustain their facilities. Army officials told us that, over time, the maintenance funding shortfalls at their training bases have been caused primarily by the migration of funding from maintenance accounts to support other priorities, such as the training mission. While most barracks across the services had significant deficiencies, others were in better condition, primarily because they had recently been constructed or renovated. Those barracks that we observed to be in better condition were scattered throughout the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps locations. Even at those locations where some barracks were in very poor condition, we occasionally observed other barracks in much better condition. For example, at Parris Island, the Marine Corps recently completed construction of a new female recruit barracks. At Fort Jackson, the Army repaired windows, plumbing, and roofs in several “starship” barracks and similar repairs were underway in two other starships. Figures 5 and 6 show renovated bath areas at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at San Diego. The services’ approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities. The Marine Corps and Air Force are focusing primarily on renovating existing facilities while the Navy plans to construct all new recruit barracks. The Army also expects to renovate and construct recruit barracks, but the majority of the funding needed to support these efforts is not expected to be programmed and available until after 2008 because of the priority placed on improving bachelor enlisted quarters. Table 3 summarizes the services’ recapitalization plans. The Navy has placed a high priority on replacing its 16 recruit barracks by fiscal year 2009 at an estimated cost of $570 million using military construction funds. The Navy recently completed a new recruit reception barracks, and the Congress has approved funding for four additional barracks. Two barracks are under construction with occupancy expected later this year (see fig. 7), and the contract for 2 more barracks was awarded in May 2002. The Navy has requested funds for another 2 barracks in its fiscal year 2003 military construction budget submission and plans to request funds for the remaining 9 barracks in fiscal years 2004 through 2007. The Navy expects construction on the last barracks to be completed by 2009. Navy officials told us that other high-priority Navy-wide efforts (e.g., providing quality bachelor enlisted quarters and housing for sailors while ships are in homeport) could affect the Navy’s recapitalization efforts for recruit barracks. The Army projects an estimated $1.7 billion will be needed to renovate or replace much of its recruit training barracks, but most of the work is long- term over the next 20 years, primarily because renovating and replacing bachelor enlisted quarters has been a higher priority in the near-term. Through fiscal year 2003, the Army expects to spend about $154 million for 2 new barracks—1 each at Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood. Army officials stated that barracks at these locations were given priority over other locations because of capacity shortfalls at these installations. After fiscal year 2003, the Army estimates spending nearly $1.6 billion in military construction funds to recapitalize other recruit barracks—about $359 million to renovate existing barracks at several locations and about $1.2 billion to build new barracks at all locations, except Fort Sill. Only Forts Jackson and Leonard Wood are expected to receive funding for new barracks through fiscal year 2007. Further, the Army does not expect to begin much additional work until after 2008, when it expects to complete the renovation or replacement of bachelor enlisted quarters. As a result, Army officials stated that the remaining required funding for recruit barracks would most likely be requested between 2009 and 2025. The Marine Corps has a more limited recruit barracks recapitalization program, primarily because it has placed a high priority on renovating or replacing bachelor enlisted quarters in the near-term. The three recruit training installations plan to renovate their existing recruit barracks and construct two additional barracks at Parris Island and San Diego. The Marine Corps expects to spend about $40 million in operation and maintenance funds to renovate existing barracks at its training locations by fiscal year 2004. The renovations include replacing the bath and shower facilities, replacing hot water and heating and air conditioning systems, and upgrading the electrical systems. The Marine Corps also expects to spend at least $16 million in military construction for the new barracks by fiscal year 2009. The Air Force has placed a high priority on renovating, rather than replacing its recruit barracks in the near-term. It expects to spend about $89 million—primarily operation and maintenance funds— to renovate its existing barracks and convert another facility for use as a recruit barracks. As of April 2002, the Air Force had renovated 5 of its existing 8 barracks and expected to complete the remaining renovations by 2006. The renovations include upgrading heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems as well as installing new windows and improving the central baths. Due to expected increases in the number of recruits, the Air Force has also identified an additional building to be renovated for use as a recruit barracks. The Air Force intends to complete this renovation in fiscal year 2003. Officials at Lackland Air Force Base stated they are currently drafting a new base master plan, which identifies the need to build new recruit barracks starting around 2012. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Defense. An official from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) orally concurred with the information in our report and provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters of each military service. We also visited each military installation that conducts recruit basic training—Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Sill Oklahoma; Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Illinois; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine Corps Recruit Deport, Parris Island, South Carolina; Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; and Camp Pendleton, California. In discussing recruit barracks, we included barracks used to house recruits attending the Army’s One Station Unit Training. This training, which is conducted at select basic training locations for recruits interested in specific military occupational specialties, combines basic training with advanced individual training into one continuous course. To assess the physical condition of recruit barracks, we reviewed the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 installation readiness reports and supporting documentation for the ten installations that conduct basic training. We also toured several barracks at each installation and photographed conditions of the barracks. Finally, we interviewed officials at the services’ headquarters and each installation regarding the process used to inspect facilities, collect information to support the condition rating, and the underlying reasons for the current condition of the facilities. To determine the services’ plans to sustain and recapitalize recruit barracks, we reviewed the services’ plans for renovating its existing barracks and constructing new barracks. In addition, we interviewed officials in the headquarters of each service responsible for managing installations and programming operation and maintenance and military construction funds. We conducted our work from March through May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office and Management and Budget. In addition, the report will available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov and to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were Michael Kennedy, James Reifsnyder, Richard Meeks, Laura Talbott, and R.K. Wild. The military services conduct recruit basic training at ten installations in the United States. The Army has the most locations—five, with Fort Jackson, South Carolina, training the most Army recruits. The Marine Corps conducts its training at two primary locations—Parris Island, South Carolina on the east coast and San Diego in the west. Further, about 4 weeks (consisting of weapons qualification and field training exercises) of the Marine Corps’ 12-week basic training course at San Diego is conducted at Camp Pendleton because of training space limitations at its San Diego location. The Navy and Air Force conduct their basic training at one location each—Great Lakes, Illinois, and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, respectively. Under DOD’s installation readiness reporting system, military installation facilities are grouped into nine separate facility classes. Recruit barracks are part of the “community and housing” facility class. Figure 9 depicts the fiscal year 2001 C-ratings for each of the nine facility classes, as well as for the recruit barracks component of the “community and housing” facility class, at each basic training location. The General Accounting Office, the 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. 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 daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

Summary: The Department of Defense reports that is has been faced with difficulties adequately maintaining its facilities to meet mission requirements. Facilities have been aging and deteriorating as funds needed to sustain and recapitalize the facilities have fallen short of requirements. GAO's review of the services' condition assessments in conjunction with visits to the basic training locations showed that most barracks were in need of significant repair, although some barracks were in better condition than others. GAO found that the exteriors of each service's barracks were generally in good condition and presented an acceptable appearance, but the barracks' infrastructure often had persistent repair problems because of inadequate maintenance. The services' approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities. Although the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are addressing many of their recapitalization needs in the near-term, most of the Army's plans are longer term.