DOD established the Defense Readiness Reporting System in response to the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Later, DRRS evolved into the DRRS Information Technology Enterprise Environment (enterprise). The enterprise represents a family of service and OSD computer information systems and selected databases. It is intended to capture DOD readiness data from multiple sources and provide relevant elements of these data to decision makers. Specifically, the enterprise will report assessments of both capabilities and of training and resources. The DRRS-Army, DRRS-Marine Corps, and DRRS-Navy systems currently provide information and data within and outside of the enterprise. This report focuses on the DRRS-Army and DRRS-Marine Corps systems and the relationship of those systems to the DRRS-Strategic system. To provide governance of the family of reporting systems that make up the enterprise, the Under Secretary of Defense – Personnel & Readiness established a three-tier structure. This three-tier structure is to enhance communication between the development community, represented by the DRRS Implementation Office and system contractors, and the user community (which includes the Joint Staff, military services, and combatant commands). Representatives from the office of the Under Secretary of Defense – Personnel & Readiness and the Joint Staff currently serve as co-chairs of all three governance tiers. Tier One: This involves the DRRS Battle Staff, which is comprised of colonels, Navy captains, and similar-graded civilians. It tracks DRRS development and identifies issues with the system. Tier Two: This level involves the DRRS General and Flag Officer Steering Committee, which discusses issues raised by the Battle Staff (Tier One). Members are one-star generals or admirals, or civilian equivalent. Tier Three: The DRRS Executive Committee is chartered to review and approve proposals and plans to establish policy, processes, and system requirements for DRRS, including approving software development milestones required to reach objectives. This committee is composed of 3-star military officers and their civilian counterparts. It is chaired by the Director of the Joint Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense – Personnel & Readiness. DOD units assess their readiness for their core and assigned missions using two different types of mission assessments. OSD requires that units assess their readiness using capability measures. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requires that units assess their readiness using resource and training metrics. In September 2006, the Army designated its readiness reporting system as DRRS-Army and the Marine Corps units began reporting in DRRS-Marine Corps in May 2010. Both are part of the family of information systems that make up the DRRS enterprise. Both systems collect unit assessments that address the statutory reporting requirements of OSD and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The systems are also designed to meet the services’ reporting requirements, as well as to collect other services-specific information from reporting units. The first type of unit assessment is commonly referred to as a capability assessment. For these assessments commanders use Yes, Qualified Yes, or No categories to rate their units’ capabilities to perform a core or assigned mission. The three categories are discussed below: Yes or Y—the unit or organization can accomplish its tasks or missions under specified conditions. Qualified Yes or Q—the organization is expected to accomplish the task to standard under most conditions, but this performance has not been observed or demonstrated in training or operations; although data may not support a “yes” the commander believes the organization can accomplish the rated task or mission to prescribed standards under most conditions. No or N—the organization is unable to accomplish the task to standard at the time of the assessment. The second type of unit assessment, which is based on resources and training metrics, is commonly referred to as a C-rating. Specifically, C- ratings are based on personnel, equipment and supplies on hand, equipment readiness/serviceability, and training measures, and range from C-1 through C-5, as described below. C-1—unit possesses the required resources and is trained to undertake its full core mission. C-2—unit possesses the required resources and is trained to undertake most of its core mission. C-3—unit possesses required resources and is trained to undertake many, but not all, portions of its core mission. C-4—unit requires additional resources or training to undertake core mission. C-5—unit is undergoing directed resource action and is not prepared to undertake its core mission. DOD units report their readiness on a monthly basis if they execute missions in support of the combatant commanders and service-assigned missions. For the Army, approximately 6,000 units—including active-duty and reserve component units not on active duty—report into the DRRS- Army database. Reporting units range in size from small detachments of 4 soldiers to larger combat units such as 5,000 soldier brigade combat teams. For the Marine Corps, approximately 350 units—including combat, combat support, and combat service support units—report their readiness into the DRRS-Marine Corps database. Marine Corps reporting units range in size from approximately 50 to 1,600 Marines. The number of reporting units can vary each month due to the creation and dissolution of units and the requirement for units to submit multiple reports in a month if significant changes occur. Once reported, the readiness information and data inform a wide range of decision makers as identified in laws, directives, and guidance, including a DOD directive, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction, Secretary of Defense Memorandums, and service regulations and messages. Users of readiness data include Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. On a quarterly basis, readiness reporting data from all services and combatant commands are combined to create the Joint Forces Readiness Report and the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress. In addition, decision makers can use the readiness data to support operation and campaign plans, determine the readiness of units to respond to unexpected contingencies, or analyze the top resource shortfalls affecting the units. The current Army and Marine Corps readiness reporting requirements generally have increased the quantity and objectivity of readiness information provided to decision makers. The updated version of Army Regulation 220-1, implemented in April 2010, directs units to provide information concerning their assigned missions, in addition to what was previously required. Specifically, it requires that units report objective personnel and equipment data to support the commander’s overall subjective assessment of the unit’s capability to perform its assigned mission, referred to as an A-level. Previously, Army guidance required only the commanders’ subjective assessment of their unit’s capabilities without any supporting personnel or equipment data, which at that time was called a percent-effective rating. In July 2010, the Marine Corps also revised its guidance for reporting unit readiness for assigned missions. The service’s percent-effective rating was preserved in name, but the updated guidance, Marine Corps Order 3000.13, directed commanders to report their readiness for assigned missions using the same types of personnel, equipment, and training measurements they use to assess their core missions. The previous rating method, which was similar to the Army’s, relied on a commander’s subjective assessment and required no specific data to be reported. The Marine Corps’ new Order also directs commanders to correlate their unit core and assigned resources with their capability assessments, as shown in table 1 below. For example, the Order requires that commanders who rate their units as C-3 also assess their unit capabilities as “No” indicating that the unit is not able to accomplish its regular mission at this time. Marine Corps officials told us that the Marine Corps only deploys units rated C-1 or C-2. Marine Corps officials stated that the alignment of the core resource and training mission assessment (C-ratings) do not match perfectly with the three-tier capability assessments (Yes, Qualified Yes, and No ratings), but the relationship provides additional, helpful information for decision makers. While the Army and Marine Corps updated their readiness reporting guidance in 2010 to include more objective assigned mission ratings, the services’ guidance retained many of the previous reporting requirements for core missions, such as the requirements to report personnel and equipment information, training assessments, commander comments that provide additional information about their unit’s reported resources, and installation readiness reports. Reporting time frames also remained unchanged and are shown in table 2. Army and Marine Corps leaders are regularly briefed on the additional assigned mission metrics the services are now requiring their units to report—personnel and equipment metrics in the case of the Army and personnel, equipment, and training metrics in the case of the Marine Corps. These additional assigned mission readiness metrics are available to decision makers outside of the services and have been included in service briefings to congressional committees. In addition, the information that is presented in two of the key readiness reports currently required by law—the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress and the Joint Forces Readiness Review—has been affected by the services’ updated guidance which provided additional criteria to help unit commanders better align their two types of readiness assessments. The Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model is a rotational readiness model that is used to synchronize planning and resourcing to generate trained and ready forces. In ARFORGEN, active and reserve component units complete a monthly Unit Status Report indicating their current readiness levels for their core mission and, if directed, their assigned mission. Active and reserve component units entering the “Available” phase may deploy to conduct operational missions or may continue training while remaining available for contingency missions. Once units have completed their time in the available phase, the unit enters the “RESET” phase. Active units will spend 6 months in the RESET phase or approximately 16 percent of their overall ARFORGEN cycle time.