The National Science Foundation conducts scientific research in the polar regions of Antarctica and Greenland and funds and manages the U.S. Antarctic Program. This program sends nearly 3,000 scientists and support personnel to Antarctica each year to support scientific research in areas such as astrophysics, atmospheric chemistry, biology, earth sciences, ocean and climate systems, and glaciology. The National Science Foundation also chairs an interagency committee to coordinate the scientific research efforts of all federal agencies in the Arctic region, including Greenland. The 109th Airlift Wing is the main provider of air logistic support for National Science Foundation activities in Antarctica. The unit also supports the activities of the National Science Foundation and other agencies in Greenland. Members of the 109th Airlift Wing train on and operate unique LC-130 ski-equipped aircraft that take off and land on snow and ice (see fig. 1). The unit operates 10 LC-130 aircraft. The 109th Airlift Wing supports U.S. Antarctic Program mission requirements from mid-October to the end of February each year. It employs 220 full-time Active Guard and Reserve members whose principal task is to support this program. It receives additional support from “traditional” guardsmen, other Active Guard and Reserve members, and military technicians of the 109th Airlift Wing, as well as members from other military units. Operations are conducted from McMurdo Station, the permanent logistics station for U.S. operations in Antarctica. The 109th Airlift Wing schedules between 450 and 500 flights in Antarctica for the 5-month operational season to meet National Science Foundation requirements. According to the 109th Airlift Wing, personnel typically deploy for a period of 1 to 13 weeks, which includes up to 1 week of travel from New York to Antarctica. These deployments are conducted on a rotational basis. The 109th Airlift Wing maintains a presence of approximately 120 personnel (50 operational, 61 logistic, and 9 support) at McMurdo Station from October to the end of February. In Greenland, the 109th Airlift Wing performs training missions for unit personnel who will deploy to Antarctica. The unit also performs scientific support missions for the National Science Foundation as well as for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and European research programs. Unit operations in Greenland run from mid-March to September each year and are conducted from staging locations at Thule Air Base and Kangerlussuaq. Missions are flown to all parts of the Greenland Ice Cap, northern Canadian locations, and Arctic Ocean camps. The 109th conducts 10 to 12 1-week deployments to Greenland. Within OSD, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is responsible for DOD personnel policy, including oversight of reserve affairs and military personnel pay and benefits. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) leads the Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which was established in 1994 to develop and review personnel compensation proposals. In addition, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is conducting the congressionally mandated review of special and incentive pays for reservists performing duty in the polar regions. Hardship duty pay compensates military personnel on duty for more than 30 consecutive days in harsh or difficult living conditions. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to establish implementing regulations for such pay, including the designation of hardship duty locations and rates. Within OSD, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) tasked a working group in 1998 to develop hardship duty pay policy. The working group determined that (1) uniformed members who perform duty in designated hardship locations for more than 30 consecutive days are eligible for hardship duty pay and (2) this pay is not intended to compensate for difficult working conditions. According to DOD, personnel assigned to an area for a short period do not endure the same range of physical hardships as those in the area on a long-term basis. According to an OSD official, the working group linked the 30-day hardship duty threshold to family separation allowance, which compensates members who are away from their families for more than 30 consecutive days. We found no basis to disagree with the criteria DOD has established for hardship duty pay. OSD, in its appeal submitted in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, opposed the legislation creating an exception to the 30-day hardship duty threshold for missions to the polar regions on the grounds that it “unnecessarily circumvents a process that has proven to be a fair and equitable means of setting hardship duty pay location rates worldwide.” The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) regularly reviews and determines hardship duty locations and rates. In certain instances, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) automatically designates hardship duty locations. All installations located on land areas or an ice shelf above 66 degrees 33 minutes north latitude (Arctic region) or below 60 degrees south latitude (Antarctica) are designated as hardship duty locations. For all other locations, unified commanders with regional responsibilities submit a completed Hardship Duty Location Assessment Questionnaire to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), who reviews these requests twice a year. Monthly pay rates for hardship duty are $50, $100, and $150 and are based on the severity of living conditions. Living conditions are placed into three categories: (1) physical environment, which includes factors such as climate and physical and social isolation; (2) living conditions, including sanitation, disease, medical facilities, housing, food, and recreational and community facilities; and (3) personal security, including political violence, harassment, and crime. Hardship duty performed for more than 30 consecutive days in Antarctica and Greenland qualifies at the $150 monthly rate. Allowing an exception to the 30-day hardship duty threshold for members of the 109th Airlift Wing who deploy to the polar regions would result in minimal additional costs. The National Science Foundation reimburses DOD for 109th Airlift Wing logistic support in the polar regions and would incur most of these additional costs. However, allowing this exception could set a precedent for DOD personnel performing other missions lasting 30 days or less. The costs of granting an exception for short-term missions conducted at other hardship locations are unknown. The 109th Airlift Wing estimated that granting an exception to the 30-day hardship duty threshold for unit members deployed to the polar regions would cost approximately $125,000 to $130,000 a year based on deployment trends in past years. We did not verify the cost data. In fiscal year 2002, for example, the unit had a total of 1,478 deployments to the polar regions, including 690 to Antarctica and 788 to Greenland. Unit members deployed for a total of 15,846 days, including 11,906 days in Antarctica and 3,940 days in Greenland. According to a unit official, approximately 30 unit members deployed for more than 30 consecutive days. The 109th Airlift Wing estimated that if the exception to the 30-day threshold had been in effect in fiscal year 2002, hardship duty pay costs for that year would have increased by about $127,000, including approximately $95,000 for deployments to Antarctica and approximately $32,000 for deployments to Greenland. The National Science Foundation would incur most of these increased costs. It directly reimburses DOD for 109th Airlift Wing logistic support performed in Antarctica, including personnel and training costs above and beyond the unit’s wartime task requirements. The reimbursements from the National Science Foundation include funding for the 220 full-time Active Guard and Reserve members employed for the polar mission and for all flying training hours required for these personnel to maintain their qualifications. The National Science Foundation reported that the total costs in fiscal year 2002 for the unit’s support of Antarctic missions were $22.7 million. For operations in Greenland, the 109th Airlift Wing is reimbursed by its customers, including the National Science Foundation, based on a rate structure established by DOD for each particular mission. For example, the National Science Foundation reimbursed the 109th Airlift Wing about $375,000 in fiscal year 2002 for missions in Greenland. Other military personnel performing short-term assignments in the polar regions would also benefit from an exception to the 30-day hardship duty threshold. For example, the Air Force Reserve’s 445th Airlift Wing and the 452nd Airlift Mobility Wing conduct passenger and cargo flights on C-141 wheeled aircraft between Christchurch, New Zealand, and McMurdo Station, Antarctica. An OSD official said information was not readily available on the additional estimated costs of granting the exception for these personnel. According to officials within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), allowing an exception to the 30-day hardship duty threshold would set a precedent for other short-term missions that last 30 consecutive days or less. Of the 170 hardship duty locations, 67 locations (39 percent) qualify at the maximum monthly pay rate of $150. In 2002, DOD refused a request by the Navy for an exception to the 30-day threshold for duty on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. The Navy stated that security personnel who are deployed to the island on a 14-day rotational schedule live in “substandard conditions.” DOD, in turning down the request, stated that “members on a short-term duration tour-of-duty do not endure the range of physical hardships experienced by those who are permanently assigned.” According to an official within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), granting an exception to the 30-day threshold for other short-term missions would result in additional hardship duty pay costs, but these costs are unknown because DOD has not conducted a cost analysis. The 109th Airlift Wing justified its proposal for hazardous duty pay for military personnel performing duty in the polar regions on the basis of the extreme working conditions they encounter and their exposure to potential medical hazards. Unit officials also expressed concern about the retention of unit personnel, but they did not know what impact hazardous duty pay for polar duty would have on retention. A senior unit official said the unit submitted a proposal in 2000 to the New York Guard seeking modifications to a DOD regulation to designate polar operations as hazardous duty. Hazardous duty pay is a type of incentive pay intended to induce personnel to volunteer for duties that may be hazardous. According to the senior unit official, the New York Guard submitted the proposal to Congress. The proposal was not provided to DOD for consideration in the DOD Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews personnel compensation proposals. Although the 109th Airlift Wing’s proposal addressed hazardous duty pay, Congress developed a legislative provision in 2002 to grant an exception to the 30-day hardship duty pay threshold. The senior 109th Airlift Wing official said the unit’s justification for hazardous duty pay for polar operations could also be applied to hardship duty pay. According to information provided by the 109th Airlift Wing, military personnel performing duty in the polar regions encounter extreme working conditions and face exposure to potential medical hazards. Flight crews routinely conduct takeoffs and landings in remote areas on snow and ice. In zero visibility conditions, they must use emergency whiteout landing procedures. Maintenance personnel work in temperatures as low as minus 59 degrees Fahrenheit without the protection of hangars. Operations in these conditions expose personnel to potential medical hazards such as hypothermia, frostbite, carbon monoxide poisoning, and ultraviolet radiation exposure. In addition, the unit indicated that the dry conditions in Antarctica can lead to dehydration and fatigue. A small clinic at McMurdo station is capable of treating minor injuries, but all major injuries and surgeries must be treated in Christchurch, New Zealand. (App. I provides a more detailed description of the conditions in which deployed members operate and their exposure to potential medical hazards.) National Science Foundation officials acknowledged that the operating environment in Antarctica can be harsh and that employees from all participating agencies and organizations – not just 109th Airlift Wing personnel – face difficult working conditions. They said the National Science Foundation has adopted a variety of procedures that mitigate the hazards faced by U.S. Antarctic Program participants, including scientists, support contractor personnel, civilian federal employees, and DOD civilian and military personnel. National Science Foundation officials said operational improvements were implemented to make Antarctic flight operations safer and to mitigate the impact of the harsh environment on personnel. For example, an emergency divert airfield was established in 2002, and navigational aids and more accurate weather forecasting capabilities have been implemented and remain a high priority. While duty performed for more than 30 consecutive days in the polar regions of Antarctica and Greenland qualifies for hardship duty pay, duty in the polar regions has not been designated as a hazardous duty. Section 301 of title 37 of the United States Code designates certain duties entitled to hazardous duty pay. These duties include parachute jumps, demolition of explosives, and participation in flight deck operations on an aircraft carrier. Other hazardous duties include exposure to above-normal levels of toxic fuels or propellants, and the handling of chemical munitions. Personnel handling these materials are compensated for the potential for accidental or inadvertent exposure and not for actual detectable exposure to these materials. A 109th Airlift Wing official expressed concern over the retention of unit personnel who require additional training for polar duty. Flight crews receive training in Greenland and Antarctica on how to land on and take off from snow and ice and in zero visibility conditions. Flight crews are also required to attend arctic survival training in Greenland where they learn how to survive on an ice cap for extended periods with no heat and limited survival gear. Flight crews typically take 3 years to receive their qualification to fly ski-equipped aircraft. Maintenance personnel attend a maintenance recovery school in Greenland, which teaches basic polar survival skills to enable them to cope with the extreme conditions they confront when they repair aircraft with little support equipment. A 109th Airlift Wing official said the unit is experiencing a high turnover of Active Guard and Reserve members who directly support polar missions in aerospace maintenance (pay grades E-5 and E-7) and aircraft hydraulics (pay grades E-5 and E-7). For the entire 109th Airlift Wing, the unit has difficulty retaining “traditional” guardsmen in the following critical skills: aerospace maintenance and ground equipment, avionics, and aircraft fuels. Despite retention difficulties in some critical skills, the unit filled 98 percent of the Active Guard and Reserve positions who directly support operations in Antarctica in 2002. The retention fill rate for the entire unit was 97 percent during the same year. A unit official said it is unknown what impact hazardous duty pay for polar duty would have on retention of unit personnel. Exit surveys conducted with separating personnel show that dissatisfaction with pay is one of several reasons for leaving, but is not the primary separation factor. Between 2001-2003, 165 members left the unit. The most frequently cited separation factors were family conflict, civilian job conflict, and weekend drills (see fig. 2). The unit cannot track specific mission concerns such as deployments to the polar regions as separation factors. The exit surveys used by the 109th Airlift Wing do not indicate whether an individual’s reason for leaving is connected specifically with polar duty. A unit official stated that, based on responses for reasons for leaving, it is possible to “subjectively deduce that length of deployments and distance from home, as in polar deployments, are key factors influencing retention decisions.” The exit surveys also do not track separation factors based on personnel categories such as military technicians, Active Guard and Reserve, Active Guard and Reserve who support the U.S. Antarctic Program, and drilling reservists. Based on our discussions with the 109th Airlift Wing concerning the exit surveys, the unit has modified the exit survey to track deployments to the polar regions as a separation factor. The hardship duty pay legislation introduced in 2002 — directed at the 109th Airlift Wing — would have created an exception to (1) the 30-day hardship duty pay threshold and (2) the monthly hardship duty rate established by DOD for the polar regions. We believe that granting such an exception for hardship duty pay is not justified under current DOD policy. First, DOD intends for hardship duty pay to compensate military personnel who endure a range of hardship on a long-term basis — defined by DOD as more than 30 consecutive days. Granting this exception could set a precedent for DOD personnel performing other missions that do not meet the 30-day threshold, which could increase hardship duty pay costs. Second, under current DOD policy, hardship duty pay is intended to compensate personnel for harsh or difficult living conditions, rather than for difficult working conditions. However, the 109th Airlift Wing cited the extreme working conditions encountered by personnel deployed to the polar regions. According to the 109th Airlift Wing, unit personnel are subjected to extreme conditions and are exposed to potential medical hazards while on duty in the polar regions. These factors warrant consideration as part of DOD’s review of special and incentive pays for personnel performing duty in the polar regions. In addition, because one of the purposes of hazardous duty pay is to induce personnel to volunteer for duties that may be hazardous, we believe that retention data should also be considered as part of DOD’s review. Officials from the 109th Airlift Wing expressed concerns about current retention rates, but they did not know what impact hazardous duty pay for polar duty would have on retention. Exit surveys conducted with separating personnel show that dissatisfaction with pay was not among the most frequently cited reasons that members of the unit provided for leaving. At the time we conducted our review, the 109th Airlift Wing was not collecting retention data related to members who were deployed to the polar regions. Collecting this data would be helpful to target retention incentives to the personnel categories experiencing the highest turnover rates. According to an official of the 109th Airlift Wing, the unit has modified the exit survey it uses to track deployments to the polar regions as a separation factor. Congress has directed DOD to study special and incentive pays for reservists performing duty in the polar regions. As part of this study, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to assess certain factors in determining whether personnel performing polar duty should receive hazardous duty pay. These factors are the extreme working conditions that military personnel encounter while performing polar duty, the exposure of military personnel to potential medical hazards related to polar duty, and retention data for military personnel performing polar duty. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation on assessing certain factors to determine whether personnel performing polar duty should receive hazardous duty pay. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. DOD and the National Science Foundation also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. Our review focused on special and incentive pay for DOD personnel performing duty in the polar regions. To develop the information in this report, we interviewed DOD officials in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, the Office of Military Compensation, and the Air National Guard. We also met with officials at the National Science Foundation. We visited Stratton Air Guard Base, where we interviewed officials from the 109th Airlift Wing, New York Air National Guard. In addition, we reviewed DOD Financial Management Regulations related to hardship duty pay and hazardous duty pay. To assess DOD’s rationale for hardship duty pay, including the 30-day threshold, we reviewed the legislative history concerning hardship duty pay, analyzed DOD policies implementing this pay, and interviewed OSD officials. To assess the potential implications, including costs, of making an exception to the 30-day threshold, we reviewed cost data from the 109th Airlift Wing and interviewed officials from OSD, the 109th Airlift Wing, and the National Science Foundation. We did not verify cost data provided by the 109th Airlift Wing. To assess the justification for hazardous duty pay for polar duty, we obtained documentation on the 109th Airlift Wing’s operational activities and the conditions unit members encounter when deployed to polar regions. We also obtained and analyzed retention data for 109th Airlift Wing personnel performing duty in the polar regions. We conducted our review from December 2002 to March 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); the Director, National Science Foundation; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 512-5140 or Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604. Major contributors to this report were Kelly Baumgartner, Thomas W. Gosling, and Timothy Wilson. The 109th Airlift Wing submitted a proposal in 2000 to the New York Guard seeking to modify the Department of Defense’s (DOD) current hazardous duty pay regulation by designating as hazardous duty (1) duty involving frequent and regular participation in flight operations in ski- equipped LC-130 aircraft conducting ski landings and takeoffs on snow in polar locations and (2) duty involving maintenance of LC-130 ski-equipped aircraft as a primary duty in polar locations. The 109th Airlift Wing justified its proposal to designate polar operations as hazardous duty on the basis of two primary factors — difficult working conditions, including cold temperatures, and exposure to potential medical hazards. According to the 109th Airlift Wing, flight crews and maintenance personnel operate and maintain LC-130 ski-equipped aircraft in difficult working conditions. Specific hazards and risks include the following: Ski takeoffs include steering with asymmetrical use of the throttles and the rudder only, since use of the nose wheel will cause aircraft damage. The aircraft is highly susceptible to sliding off ski ways in high winds, particularly at low speeds (below 60 knots), when the rudder is not effective. Ski landings are performed in extreme, remote areas of Antarctica and Greenland, hundreds of miles from any station or site; on glaciers and open snow locations in areas not surveyed and never before visited by humans; on crevasses that are hidden under snow bridges; and in katabatic winds that often make landing and taxiing on skis extremely difficult. Whiteout procedures require flight crews to perform an approach and landing in a designated area in zero visibility weather conditions. Ski approaches in bad weather include a lack of external navigation aids to orient the aircraft on approach, flying in weather conditions down to 300 feet above ground and 1 mile visibility, and flying in conditions that can induce extreme vertigo when there is no contrast between the white snow and white clouds. Many missions are flown to high altitude elevations. Each year over 250 missions are flown to the South Pole at an elevation of over 9,300 feet. Many missions are flown to camps in Antarctica and Greenland at field elevations greater than 10,000 feet and some as high as 12,000 feet. Assisted take-off rockets are routinely used for getting an aircraft airborne on a takeoff from high altitude sites. Aircraft must achieve a higher than normal ground speed to reach the proper indicated airspeed to get enough lift for takeoff due to thin air. The snow at high altitude locations is often unprepared, which creates additional drag and makes it more difficult to build up speed during the takeoff slide. Unit personnel fly missions to locations where there is no camp, no personnel, and no equipment, which creates the risk of being stranded. There is no rescue capability at these locations other than another LC-130 aircraft. Personnel are exposed to extremely cold temperatures as low as minus 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind chills can be as high as minus 100 degrees Fahrenheit. All fueling and cargo operations are conducted with engines running, which requires a flight engineer to operate the refueling panel outside for 30 to 40 minutes directly behind running engines. Loadmasters are also outside of the aircraft for periods of 1 to 3 hours off-loading and on-loading cargo from the snow with engines running. Cargo loading and unloading are extremely difficult, often with little or no material handling equipment. Two to three hours of manual labor are often required by the flight crews to load and unload cargo in the snow. This activity is extremely hazardous due to the extreme physical exertions required with little oxygen in the atmosphere and exhaust fumes from the aircraft engines. According to the 109th Airlift Wing, polar operations expose 109th Airlift Wing personnel to a variety of potential medical hazards. Potential medical hazards include the following: Frostbite and hypothermia — Brief exposure to polar temperatures can have a severe impact. For example, exposed flesh freezes at minus 59 degrees Fahrenheit within 1 minute, with no wind. Carbon monoxide poisoning — Aircraft maintenance and unloading activities expose flight crews over a prolonged period to potentially hazardous exhaust fumes. Continuous exposure to intense sunlight — Operations during the 5 months in Antarctica are conducted in 24-hour direct sunlight. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation is greatly increased due to the hazard of the “ozone hole” over the Antarctic continent.

Summary: The 109th Airlift Wing, New York Air National Guard, conducts supply missions for scientific research in the polar regions. Most unit members do not spend more than 30 consecutive days in the polar regions. Therefore, they are not eligible for hardship duty pay, which requires more than 30 consecutive days of duty in a designated hardship location. Congress considered legislation in 2002 to make an exception to the 30-day hardship duty pay threshold for polar duty. This legislation was not approved. In addition, the 109th Airlift Wing proposed designating polar duty as a hazardous duty. The Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 directed GAO and DOD to conduct separate reviews of special and incentive pays for polar duty. GAO assessed DOD's rationale for hardship duty pay and the implications of making an exception to hardship duty pay. In addition, GAO assessed the 109th Airlift Wing's justification for hazardous duty pay for polar duty. Hardship duty pay is intended to compensate military personnel assigned to areas for more than 30 consecutive days where quality-of-life conditions are substantially below those in the continental United States. DOD did not support the hardship duty pay legislation on the basis that this pay was not intended to compensate stays of short duration and the legislation circumvented a DOD process designating hardship duty locations and rates. Granting an exception to the 30-day hardship duty pay threshold for 109th Airlift Wing personnel deployed to the polar regions would result in minimal costs, but this exception could set a precedent for DOD personnel performing other short-term missions and could further increase costs. Had this exception been in effect in 2001-2002, the 109th Airlift Wing estimated the costs would have totaled about $127,000. The National Science Foundation would incur most of these costs because it reimburses DOD for logistic support in the polar regions. The costs of granting an exception for short-term missions conducted by DOD personnel at other hardship locations are unknown. Based on its review of the intent of hardship duty pay and the implications of granting an exception, GAO believes that an exception to the 30-day threshold is not justified under current DOD policy. The 109th Airlift Wing justified its proposal for hazardous pay on the basis of extreme working conditions and exposure to medical hazards. For example, maintenance personnel work in temperatures as cold as minus 59 degrees Fahrenheit without the protection of hangars and are exposed to potential medical hazards such as frostbite, hypothermia, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Unit officials expressed concern about the retention of personnel who require additional training for polar operations, but they did not know what impact hazardous duty pay would have on retention. Recent data from exit surveys show that dissatisfaction with pay was not among the most frequently cited reasons for leaving.