Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees take up their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another; are treated differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following passage of these bills by the respective legislative bodies, a conference committee is usually convened to resolve the various differences between the House and Senate versions. In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem likely to generate high levels of congressional and constituent interest, and tracks their status in the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA. The process was not typical for the 2014 NDAA. The initial House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, H.R. 1960 (113 th Congress), was introduced in the House on May 14, 2013; reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on June 7, 2013 ( H.Rept. 113-102 ); and passed by the House on June 14, 2013. A Senate version, S. 1197 (113 th Congress), was introduced in the Senate on June 20, 2013, and reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services ( S.Rept. 113-44 ) on the same day without amendment. The Senate did not pass this bill however. Instead, the House passed a second bill, H.R. 3304 , on October 28, 2013, the text of which had been negotiated between members of the House and Senate. The Senate agreed to the House bill on December 19, 2013 without amendment. The bill was presented to the President on December 23 and signed into law on December 26 ( P.L. 113-66 ). No reports or explanatory statements for the enacted bill were approved by either body. The entries under the heading "House" in the tables on the following pages are based on language from the initial bill, H.R. 1960 , unless otherwise indicated. The entries under the heading "Enacted" refer to H.R. 3304 as enacted. Related CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issues. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Some issues were addressed in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with a " * " in the relevant section titles of this report. Background: The authorized active duty end strengths for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000). Over the next decade, in response to the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress increased the authorized personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Some of these increases were quite substantial, particularly after FY2006, but Congress began reversing these increases in light of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 and a drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan which began in 2012. In FY2013, the authorized end strength for the Army was 552,100, while the authorized end strength for the Marine Corps was 197,300. The Army has proposed reducing its personnel strength to 490,000 by FY2015 while the Marine Corps has proposed reducing its personnel strength to 175,000 by FY2017. End-strength for the Air Force and Navy has decreased since 2001. The authorized end strength for FY2013 was 329,460 for the Air Force and 322,700 for the Navy. Discussion: With the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the ongoing drawdown in Afghanistan, the final bill included major reductions in Army (-32,100) and Marine Corps (-7,100) end strengths in comparison to their FY2013 authorized end strengths. It also slightly reduced the end strength for the Air Force (-1,860) while slightly increasing it for the Navy (+900). The figures in H.R. 1960, the Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ), and H.R. 3304 are identical to the Administration's proposal. Taken together, the final bill stipulates a total active duty end strength which is 40,160 lower than the FY2013 level, almost entirely due to reductions in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. However, both the Army and the Marine Corps finished FY2013 well below their authorized end strength levels. The Army's strength at the end of FY2013 was 532,043 (instead of the authorized 552,100) and the Marine Corps' was 195,848 (instead of the authorized 197,300). Therefore, the required strength reductions in those services for FY2014 would be around 18,000. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed], and similar reports from earlier years. See also CRS Report RL32965, Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2011 and FY2012 Results for Active and Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel , by [author name scrubbed], Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2011 and FY2012 Results for Active and Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Although the Reserves have been used extensively in support of operations since September 11, 2001, the overall authorized end strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by about 3% over the past 12 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 850,880 in FY2013). Much of this can be attributed to the reduction in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were also modest shifts in strength for some other components of the Selected Reserve. For comparative purposes, the authorized end strengths for the Selected Reserves for FY2001 were as follows: Army National Guard (350,526), Army Reserve (205,300), Navy Reserve (88,900), Marine Corps Reserve (39,558), Air National Guard (108,022), Air Force Reserve (74,358), and Coast Guard Reserve (8,000). Between FY2001 and FY2013, the largest shifts in authorized end strength occurred in the Army National Guard (+7,674 or +2.2%), Coast Guard Reserve (+1,000 or +12.5%), Air Force Reserve (-3,478 or -4.7%), and Navy Reserve (-26,400 or -29.7%). A smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (-2,322 or -2.1%), while the authorized end strengths of the Army Reserve (-300 or -0.15%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (+42 or +0.11%) have been largely unchanged during this period. Discussion: The provisions in H.R. 1960, the Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ), and H.R. 3304 were identical. In the final bill, the authorized Selected Reserve end strengths for FY2014 are the same as those for FY2013 for the Army Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. The Navy Reserve's authorized end strength was 62,500 in FY2013, but the Administration requested a decrease to 59,100 (-3,400) which the final bill approved. The Army National Guard's authorized end strength in FY2013 was 358,200; the Administration requested a decrease to 354,200 (-4,000) which the final bill also approved. The Air National Guard's end strength in FY2013 was 105,700 and the Air Force Reserve's was 70,880. The Administration proposed reducing these slightly to 105,400 (-300) and 70,400 (-480), respectively, and the final bill agreed. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Increasing concern with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, has continued to focus interest on the military pay raise. Section 1009 of Title 37 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual increase in basic pay that is indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The increase in basic pay for 2014 under this statutory formula would be 1.8%; however, Congress can pass a law to provide otherwise and the President asserts that he has authority under 37 USC 1009(e) to specify an alternative pay adjustment. The FY2014 President's Budget requested a 1.0% military pay raise, lower than the statutory formula. According to the Department of Defense, this smaller increase would save "$540 million in FY 2014 and nearly $3.5 billion through FY 2018." On August 30, 2013, the President sent a letter to Congress stating "I have determined it is appropriate to exercise my authority under Section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent...The adjustments described above shall take effect on the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2014." Discussion: The House-passed bill contained no provision to specify the rate of increase in basic pay, while the Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) specified an increase of 1%. The final bill contained no provision regarding the rate of increase in basic pay. Normally, this would leave in place the statutory pay raise formula specified in 37 U.S.C. 1009, which equates to an increase of 1.8% on January 1, 2014. However, the President stated that he would direct a 1% pay raise under the authority of 37 USC 1009(e). Thus, basic pay for military personnel increased by 1% on January 1, 2014. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed], Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : Congress sets limits on the number of general officers (officers in paygrades O-7 through O-10 in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and flag officers (officers in paygrades O -7 through O -10 in the Navy) on active duty. As specified in 10 U.S.C. 526, the number of general and flag officers (GO/FO) on active duty may not exceed the following as of October 1, 2013: 231 for the Army, 162 for the Navy, 198 for the Air Force, and 61 for the Marine Corps. In addition to these service-specific positions, the Secretary of Defense may designate up to 310 GO/FO for joint duty positions. Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, at least 85 of these officers for these joint duty positions shall be Army officers, 61 from the Navy, 73 from the Air Force, and 21 from the Marine Corps. These figures do not include most reserve GO/FO. Discussion: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a substantial expansion in the size of the Army and Marine Corps and in GO/FO authorizations. In 2001, there were 889 general and flag officers on active duty; 10 years later there were 971 (though DOD projects this figure to drop over the next few years). With the end of the war in Iraq, the ongoing drawdown in Afghanistan, and the substantial reductions in Army and Marine Corps strength that is underway, there has been growing interest in Congress to reduce the number of generals and admirals in the Armed Forces. Section 501 of the House bill would reduce current authorizations for GO/FO on active duty from 962 (effective October 1, 2013) to 937 (effective October 1, 2014). The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) contained no similar provision. The final bill included a provision requiring DOD to notify the House and Senate Armed Services of any proposed action to increase in Service or joint duty GO/FO above specified baselines, and wait 60 days after such notification before the proposed action can go into effect. It also establishes an annual reporting requirement on the number of GO/FO. Reference(s): For historical background on general and flag officer authorizations, see Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, "General and Flag Officer Authorizations for the Active and Reserve Components: a Comparative and Historical Analysis," 2007. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 515 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 110-181 ) required the Secretaries of the military departments to provide advance notice to reservists who were going to be ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation for more than 30 days. The provision also specified that "[i]n so far as is practicable, the notice shall be provided not less than 30 days before the mobilization date, but with a goal of 90 days before the mobilization date of a pending activation." The Secretary of Defense was granted fairly broad authority to waive or reduce this requirement, but has to submit a report to Congress detailing the reasons for the waiver or the reduction in certain circumstances. DOD policy, as contained in DOD Instruction 1235.12, provides that mobilization orders are normally to be approved 180 days before mobilization, but allows the Secretaries of the military departments to approve "individual mobilization orders for emergent requirements and special capabilities provided that no less than 30 days' notification has been given...." The policy also acknowledges that "[i]n crisis situations, some RC forces may be required immediately" and allows the Secretary of Defense to approve mobilizations with less than 30 days between mobilization order approval and the mobilization date. DOD policy also specifies that in the event of changes to operational requirements that alter the need for already notified reservists "DOD Components will seek other missions for all RC units and members identified for mobilization" and "[t]he Military Services will identify and make efforts to mitigate individual hardships for RC units and members who have mobilized or are within 90 days of mobilization." Under DOD policy, reservists who wish to volunteer for duty in support of a contingency operation are able to waive the 30-day notification requirement of P.L. 110-181 . Discussion: Although DOD policy provides for reserve notification prior to mobilization, there have been complaints when the shorter notification limits have been invoked. More recently, there was dissatisfaction when the Army elected to use active duty units to replace four Army National Guard units that had already been notified of mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara and the Multinational Force Observer Task Force Sinai. The House provision sought to provide greater advance notice to reservists of deployments and changes to deployment orders, though the Service Secretaries would still have had the option of providing less than 120 days of notice coupled with a report to Congress justifying the decision. The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) contained a provision (Section 508) which would prohibit cancelling the deployment of certain reserve units unless the Secretary of Defense approved the cancelation in writing. The prohibition would affect reserve units within 180 days of their scheduled deployment, if the cancellation were due to the deployment of an active component unit in lieu of the reserve unit. Section 513 would have required the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees and the governor concerned of any approved cancellations. The final enacted provision incorporates the Senate committee-reported provision, and a modified version of the House-passed provision. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution is meant to protect individual religious exercise and requires a heightened standard of review for government actions that may interfere with a person's free exercise of religion. However, the Establishment Clause is meant to stop the government from endorsing a national religion, or favoring one religion over another. Actions taken must be carefully balanced to avoid being in violation of one of these Clauses. There are already sections in Title 10 under the Army, Navy, and Air Force that address chaplains' duties. The provision in the first House-passed bill would have amended these sections (§§3547, 6031, and 8547). Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) required the Armed Forces to accommodate the moral principles and religious beliefs of service members concerning appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and that such beliefs may not be used as a basis for any adverse personnel actions. Discussion: DOD Instruction 1300.17 acts to accommodate religious practices in the military services. This instruction indicates that DOD places a high value on the rights of military personnel to practice their respective religions. There have been instances where military personnel have become upset because the chaplain closed the prayer at a mandatory ceremony, such as a deployment ceremony, with a specific religious remark, such as "praise be Jesus." In February, an atheist soldier at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX, threatened the U.S. Army with a lawsuit because a chaplain allegedly prayed to the Heavenly Father during a secular event. However, no personnel are required to recognize the prayer, or participate in it (for example, they do not have to respond). Religious proselytizing is considered by some to be a prominent issue in the Armed Forces. Some believe it could destroy the bonds that keep soldiers together, which could be viewed as a national security threat. The ability for a chaplain to be able to close a prayer outside of a religious service may heighten the tension between soldiers and may worsen the problem. Others disagree and argue that it is inappropriate to curtail a chaplain's activities. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also CRS Report R41171, Military Personnel and Freedom of Religion: Selected Legal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and Cynthia Brougher. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Military members who are single parents are subjected to the same assignment and deployment requirements as other servicemembers. Deployments to areas that do not allow dependents (such as aboard ships or in hostile fire zones) require the servicemember to have contingency plans to provide for their dependents, usually a temporary custody arrangement. Difficulties with child custody could in some cases potentially affect the welfare of military children as well as servicemembers' ability to effectively serve their country. (See U.S. Department of Defense, Instruction No. 1342.19, "Family Care Plans," May 7, 2010.) Concerns have been raised that the possibility or actuality of military deployments may encourage courts to deny custodial rights of a servicemember in favor of a former spouse or others. Also, concerns have been raised that custody changes may occur while the military member is deployed and unable to attend court proceedings. Discussion: The House language would have amended the law to allow courts to assign temporary custody of a child for the purposes of deployment without allowing the (possibility of) deployment to be prejudicially considered against the servicemember in a custody hearing. The enacted bill does not amend current law. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also CRS Report R43091, Military Parents and Child Custody: State and Federal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: David Burrelli, [phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces who has been (1) wounded or killed in action against an enemy, while serving with friendly forces against a belligerent party, resulting from a hostile foreign force, while serving as a member of a peacekeeping force while outside the United States; or (2) killed or wounded by friendly fire under certain circumstances. On June 9, 2009, a civilian who was angry over the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire on two U.S. Army soldiers near a recruiting station in Little Rock, AR. On November 5, 2009, an Army major opened fire at Ft. Hood, TX, killing 13 and wounding 29. Both the civilian and the Army major were charged with murder and other crimes. Discussion: These shootings on U.S. soil have spurred new debate on the eligibility criteria for the Purple Heart. Some now feel that the eligibility requirements for the Purple Heart should be modified, while others feel that the modifications would cheapen the value of the medal and sacrifices recipients have made. Authorities considered these specific acts to be crimes and not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force. Because these acts involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, some believe they should be viewed as acts of war. Some are concerned that awarding the Purple Heart in these situations could have anti-Muslim overtones. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also CRS Report R42704, The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: David Burrelli, [phone number scrubbed]. Background: Sexual assault in the military has been a continuing problem. The number of sexual assaults reported in the most recent year (2011) represented an approximate increase of 6% over the previous. Earlier this year, the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the topic. Discussion: Many believe that more can and should be done to address the issue of sexual assault in the military. There is significant legislative activity on the issue with a number of options being considered. These provisions detail the congressional attention to the issues of sexual assault in the military requiring more focus on prevention, reporting, protecting alleged victims, judicial proceedings, and addressing the needs of the victims. Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed] or [author name scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed]. Background: For many in the service who were injured, particularly reservists and those returning from overseas deployments, the disability evaluation process can take many months. In many cases, efforts to speed up the process have resulted in longer waits. Discussion: Injured military personnel waiting through this evaluation process can linger for over a year. Such waits lead to delays in the receipt of possible benefits. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In early 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units. Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress to determine if changes in laws, policies, and regulations are needed to ensure women have an "equitable opportunity" to serve in the Armed Forces. That report was due April 15, 2012, but has not been submitted to date. Discussion: In many ways, the report mandated by Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 has been overtaken by events. Nevertheless, some in Congress are concerned that DOD is not taking seriously the review of policies affecting female servicemembers. Some are concerned that the use of the term "equitable," used above, does not mean the same as "equal." The service leadership has already begun assessing the occupational requirements. Reference(s): CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Reports of crimes committed at military facilities, including reports of sexual assaults at Lackland Air Base and the shootings at Ft. Hood, have raised concerns over the safety of military personnel, their families, and others serving and/or living on bases. Discussion: These changes are intended to increase safety and welfare at military facilities. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court held in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the District's handgun ban and certain requirements regarding the storage and carrying of firearms for rifles and shotguns were unconstitutional. Following this decision, the District of Columbia enacted the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act to comply with the ruling in Heller, although some assert the new requirements place "onerous restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms." Discussion: "Sense of Congress" provisions are non-binding. Nevertheless, the House provision did suggest the displeasure of some in Congress of the effect of the District of Columbia's laws on gun control as they relate to members of the Armed Forces who are stationed or reside in the District. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Military veterans may have difficulty translating their military training and skills to jobs in the civilian market. The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was created to address this initial hardship to provide opportunities and aids for the successful transition of retiring or separating personnel into "career ready" civilians. Discussion: This provision would be partially integrated with TAP, providing information on civilian credentialing opportunities and improving access of accredited civilian credentialing agencies to military training content. This will allow personnel to evaluate the extent to which their training correlates with the skills and training required for various civilian certifications and licenses. Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 1433(b)(1) of P.L. 103-160 , signed into law on November 30, 1993, provided transitional assistance to dependents of military members where the military member was separated for dependent abuse, including compensation and commissary and exchange benefits. This language was enacted following a report of a servicemember being tried and convicted of abusing his family. As part of his sentence, the court ordered that he forfeit all pay and benefits. This situation left the family stranded without the means to return home. This law (as subsequently amended) afforded the family compensation and access to military stores. Discussion: Family members suffering abuse are often afraid to report the abuse out of fear they will lose all support if the member or retired member is convicted of a crime and has to forfeit all pay and benefits. Such dependents may feel isolated especially if they are living far away from friends and family at the same time. The House-passed provision would have expanded these transitional benefits to dependents of retirement-eligible members and encouraged them to come forward and report the abuse. The enacted provision requires that a study on the subject be reported to Congress within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-437 ) was signed into law by President Bush on December 20, 2006. This act broadened existing law making it a crime to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled ( United States v. Alvarez ) that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. Discussion: This language is intended to revise the Stolen Valor Act so that it meets constitutional standards by narrowing the category of proscribed claims to those made for the purpose of gaining money, property, etc. Reference(s): CRS Report 95-519, Medal of Honor: History and Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], Medal of Honor: History and Issues, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was authorized by Congress in 1990 to assist separating military servicemembers and their families in their transition to civilian life. The program was designed to provide pre-separation services and counseling on various transition-related topics such as civilian employment, relocation, education and training, health and life insurance, finances, entrepreneurship, disability benefits, and retirement. TAP is available to servicemembers 12 months before separation and 24 months before for those retiring. The program is supported by interagency efforts from the Departments of Defense, Labor, Homeland Security, Education, and Veterans Affairs; the Office of Personnel Management; and the Small Business Administration. In 2012, TAP was redesigned as Transition Goals Plans Success, or Transition GPS. The Transition GPS redesign was initiated by the executive branch's Veterans' Employment Initiative Task Force and intended to conform with the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. The VOW Act made participation in TAP mandatory for nearly all separating military personnel and required that each TAP participant receive "an individualized assessment of the various positions of civilian employment in the private sector for which such member may be qualified" as a result of their military training. The core Transition GPS was implemented in November 2012 and optional tracks are expected to take place by the end of 2013. Discussion: Section 524 of the House bill would amend Section 1144 of Title 10, United States Code, by adding a provision requiring the TAP to provide information regarding disability-related employment and education protections for servicemembers. Section 524 would also add a new program requirement to instruct participants on the use of veterans' educational benefits, "courses of post-secondary education appropriate for the member, courses of post-secondary education compatible with the member's educational goals, and instruction on how to finance the member's post-secondary education," and instruction on other veterans' benefits not later than April 1, 2015. This section also requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, within 270 days after the date of the enactment of this act, submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and the Committees on Armed Services the results of a feasibility study of providing the pre-separation counseling specified in 10 U.S.C. 1142(b) at all overseas locations where such instruction is provided by entering into a contract jointly with the Secretary of Labor for the provision of such instruction. The Senate bill ( S. 1197 ) contained no similar provision. The enacted bill includes that part of the House provision related to providing information related to disability related employment and education protections. Reference(s): See also CRS Report R42790, Employment for Veterans: Trends and Programs , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: According to DOD, many servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan have free Internet access via several hundred Internet cafes located on bases. Internet access allows servicemembers to communicate with family and friends, access personal email, and browse websites. Service-members stationed in remote locations have more limited access to the Internet, but the Department of Defense tries to provide some access at these locations through the Cheetah Program, which uses Humvee mounted satellite units and laptops with webcams to provide Internet access. The portability of this system allows servicemembers to keep in touch with family and friends even in remote locations. However, despite these efforts, there have been periodic complaints from servicemembers about the availability of Internet access in Afghanistan. Discussion: Section 569 of H.R. 1960 mandated that free Internet service be provided to members of the military serving in combat zones. The section was added to H.R. 1960 by amendment #63, which was offered by Representative Gene Green (D-TX 29) and adopted by the House. Representative Green indicated in debate that his amendment was intended as a response to concerns expressed by servicemembers from his district who are serving in Afghanistan. The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) contained no similar provision, nor did the enacted bill. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP) provides 180 days of premium-free transitional medical and dental benefits after regular TRICARE benefits end for servicemembers and their families separating from active duty. The 180-day health care coverage period begins the day after separation from active duty. Once eligible, servicemembers and their families will be automatically covered under TRICARE Standard and TRICARE extra or the TRICARE Overseas program (TOP) Standard (if overseas). Discussion: The enacted provision would authorize DOD to provide an additional 180 days for medical treatment provided through telemedicine to servicemembers as an extension of the Transitional Assistance Management Program. "Telemedicine" has been defined as "the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient's clinical health status. Telemedicine includes a growing variety of applications and services using two-way video, email, smart phones, wireless tools and other forms of telecommunications technology." This provision is intended to help ensure a more seamless transition for servicemembers from military to civilian life, particularly those who may endure mental or physical injuries. The provision states that the requirement to carry out this mandate would terminate on December 31, 2018, if suicide rates are 50% less than rates of December 31, 2012. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Under Section 101 of Title 38, United States Code, a veteran is defined as "a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable." "Active military, naval or air service" does not include active duty for training (ADT) or inactive duty training (IDT) unless the individual was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. Thus, reservists who are ordered to active duty during the course of their careers—for example, a deployment to Afghanistan—or who were disabled or died while on ADT or IDT, are considered veterans. However, some reservists only serve on ADT or IDT during the course of their careers, and do so without dying or suffering a disabling injury or disease in the line of duty. These individuals are not technically veterans under the Title 38 definition, even if they have completed a full reserve career and are eligible for reserve retirement. However, this does not necessarily mean these individuals are ineligible for veterans benefits, which may be granted based on eligibility criteria other than the definition of 38 U.S.C. 101. Discussion: Reservists typically become eligible for retired pay at age 60, after having completed at least 20 years of qualifying service, although in certain circumstances they can draw retired pay at early as age 50. Section 642 of the House bill would honor as "veterans" those reservists who are entitled to reserve retired pay, or who would be entitled to reserve retired pay except that they are too young to receive it. This honorary designation as a veteran would not entitle the retiree to any benefit. The Congressional Budget Office scored this provision as "cost neutral" because there is no cost in giving recognition to retired members of the reserve in the absence of providing additional benefits. The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) contained no similar provision, nor did the final bill. Reference(s): CRS Report R42324, "Who is a Veteran?"—Basic Eligibility for Veterans' Benefits , by [author name scrubbed], "Who is a Veteran?"—Basic Eligibility for Veterans' Benefits, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed] or [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed] Background : TRICARE is a health care program serving uniformed servicemembers, retirees, their dependents, and survivors. Neither H.R. 1960 , as passed by the House, nor the Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) included the Administration's 2014 budget proposals to raise premiums for military retirees using a three-tier model based on retirement pay brackets, to index the TRICARE catastrophic cap to the National Health Expenditure, and to introduce enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard/Extra and TRICARE for Life. Discussion: The enacted bill did not adopt the Administration's proposals to increase the share of health care costs paid by military retirees. The enacted bill, however, does not prevent DOD from implementing its proposal to increase the TRICARE Prime non-mental health office visit co-pay for retirees and their families from $12 to $16 per visit. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] ; CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] ; and CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] . CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Issues of the mental health of servicemembers in the Armed Forces have been of concern to Congress for decades. Over the years, Congress has addressed the issue via studies, hearings, and legislation. In H.R. 1960, Title V contains three provisions related to servicemember mental health in Subtitles C and I, while Title VI, "Health Care Provisions," contains 10 provisions concerning mental health. These provisions deal with varied mental health concerns, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), among other mental health diagnoses. Note: Section numbers and order do not necessarily correspond across bills. Discussion: The sections in the first House-passed bill would have expanded mental health assessments; require evaluations of the role of mental health disorders in servicemembers' encounters with the Uniform Code of Military Justice system and separations from the Armed Forces, and build on previous efforts to ensure appropriate identification, diagnosis, treatment, and access to psychological health resources to active duty servicemembers, reservists, and military families. The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) contained no similar provisions. Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : DOD announced that as of October 1, 2013, TRICARE Prime will no longer be available to beneficiaries living in certain areas in the United States. Prime Service Areas (PSAs) are geographic areas where TRICARE Prime is offered. PSAs were created to ensure medical readiness of the active duty force by augmenting the capability and capacity of military treatment facilities (MTFs). The affected areas are not close to existing MTFs and have never augmented care around MTF or Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) locations. This change is estimated to affect approximately 171,000 military retirees. Elimination of the TRICARE Prime option for these individuals means that they need to either use TRICARE Standard/Extra, obtain a waiver to use TRICARE Prime if within the limits of another PSA, or use some other form of health coverage (such as employer sponsored insurance). DOD had planned to make PSA reductions since 2007, when proposals were requested for the next generation of TRICARE contracts. DOD determined that existing PSAs be kept in place in all regions until October 1, 2013, to coincide with the deadline for annual TRICARE Prime enrollments and fee adjustments. Both TRICARE's general Prime enrollment policy (see TRICARE Operations Manual (TOM), Chapter 6, Section 1, para 9.0), as well as the guidance provided to the managed care support contractors and TRICARE beneficiaries as part of DOD's PSA reduction (see TOM, Chapter 27, Section 1), permitted beneficiaries who live outside of a T-3 PSA but within 100 miles of an available Primary Care Manager (whether civilian network or MTF) in a remaining PSA to execute a drive time waiver and apply for Prime enrollment. We are not aware any T-PSA beneficiary being denied re-enrollment in a remaining T-3 PSA from Jan-Oct 2013, but there could be some who were within 100 miles of a PCM, but that PCM's enrollment panel was at capacity. Discussion : Section 701of the enacted bill requires DOD to ensure certain affected beneficiaries (specifically those that were disenrolled from TRICARE Prime on October 1, 2013 due to the PSA changes but that reside within 100 miles of a MTF) are provided the right to make a one-time election to continue their enrollment in Prime. Section 701 provides a guarantee that those within 100 miles of an MTF can continue their enrollment in Prime. DOD has stated that it will ensure these affected beneficiaries are informed of this statutory right and that a PCM in a remaining PSA is made available to any beneficiary who makes the one-time election per Section 701. DOD has stated that the existing enrollment policy that allowed a beneficiary to waive the drive-time standard and apply for Prime enrollment at a remaining PSA within 100 miles of a Primary Care Manager is not being changed and the beneficiaries who re-enrolled under that policy will not be dis-enrolled. Under this general enrollment policy, contractors are not required to establish sufficient network capacity and capability to grant enrollment to beneficiaries who reside outside of the PSA - enrollment for those individuals is based on availability/capacity and is not a matter of right. DOD's plans to eliminate TRICARE Prime coverage for certain PSAs would have been completely overridden by Section 711 of the House-passed bill. The initial House provision would have allowed individuals who were enrolled in TRICARE Prime in affected services areas to elect to remain in TRICARE Prime for as long as they reside in the affected service area. DOD would still, however, been able to prevent any new enrollments in TRICARE Prime in the affected areas. The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 1197 ) contained no similar provision. The enacted provision limits the election opportunity to individuals who live within 100 miles of a military treatment facility (MTF). Such individuals, however, were already allowed to waive access standards and enroll in the Prime Service Area associated with the military treatment facility. Previously, Section 732 of the FY2013 NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to submit within 90 days to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the policy of the Department of Defense on the future availability of TRICARE Prime for eligible beneficiaries in all TRICARE regions throughout the United States. The report was submitted to Congress on March 22, 2013. References : CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : In 2011, the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs signed a commitment to implement a "single common platform" for an integrated electronic health record (EHR) system. However, in February 2013, the Secretaries announced that the departments would instead acquire EHRs separately. They cited cost savings and meeting needs sooner rather than later as reasons for this decision. Discussion : Since 1998, DOD and VA have undertaken numerous initiatives to achieve greater EHR interoperability. These have included efforts to share viewable data in existing systems; link and share computable data between the Departments' health data repositories; establish interoperability objectives to meet specific data-sharing needs; and implement electronic sharing capabilities for the first joint federal health care center. These initiatives have increased data-sharing in various capacities but have not achieved the fully interoperable electronic health record capabilities required in previous legislation. The Senate committee-reported bill S. 1197 ) included a "Sense of the Senate" provision. References : CRS Report R42970, Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs: Status of the Integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR) , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. 

Summary: Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing operations in Afghanistan, along with the operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on the initial House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and on the bill that was enacted and became law (P.L. 113-66). This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. These include end strengths, pay raises, health care, and sexual assault, as well as less prominent issues that nonetheless generate significant public interest. This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include language concerning appropriations, veterans' affairs, tax implications of policy choices, or any discussion of separately introduced legislation, topics which are addressed in other CRS products. Some issues were addressed in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with a "*" in the relevant section titles of this report.