Army Force Structure

In GAO's view, a strong case cannot be made for changing the way that the Army assigns personnel to Europe. GAO reviewed the following four alternative force rotation systems: (1) adopting the system used in Korea of rotating individuals without their dependents, (2) introducing a unit rotation system without dependents, (3) rotating units without dependents for short-term training tours, and (4) continuing the current system of rotating individuals with their dependents. Although each of the alternatives could be used to fill at least some Army positions in Europe, each has drawbacks that limit the extent to which it could be implemented or pose major logistical problems. Moreover, while too many variables exist to accurately compare the alternatives from the standpoint of cost, two key factors--transportation cost for dependent moves within the United States and offsetting costs in the United States--suggest that the alternatives may not yield a cost savings over the current system. When key factors are considered, the current system offers many advantages over the alternatives GAO considered. Moreover, given ongoing efforts to consolidate operations and boost efficiency, substantial cost savings should accrue even without a change in the current system.

GAO found that: (1) instituting an unaccompanied, individual replacement rotation system would enable the Army to close some dependent-related facilities, but offsetting costs would reduce savings; (2) unit rotations could only be instituted on a limited scale; (3) intermittent training rotations are costly and present considerable logistical difficulties; (4) the current system of rotating personnel is the most advantageous in terms of readiness and morale; and (5) substantial financial savings are possible if consolidations and improved efficiency of operations continue.