General and Flag Officers

Number Required is Unclear Based on DOD's Draft Report Gao ID: NSIAD-97-160 June 16, 1997

Congress determines the maximum number of general and flag officers in the military by setting ceilings for each of the armed services. Congress authorized 12 new general officer positions for the Marine Corps as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The act required the Defense Department (DOD) to study general and flag officer requirements and to recommend changes to the law. Although DOD has delayed completion of its report, GAO is issuing its interim report on DOD's progress in determining its general and flag officer needs. GAO (1) reviews DOD's draft recommendations, (2) estimates the cost to implement DOD's draft recommendations, (3) reviews the criteria the services used in doing their studies, (4) compares troop strength to general and flag officer requirements, and (5) determines whether general or flag officer positions could be converted to civilian status.

GAO noted that: (1) DOD's draft does not clearly identify general and flag officer requirements and does not explain the basis for its recommendations to increase the number of general and flag officers by 54 active and 32 reserve positions; (2) the draft recommends 1,018 active duty general and flag officers, the service studies recommended 1,096, and the service secretaries recommended only 995; (3) neither the actual number of general and flag officers needed nor the criteria used to arrive at the number has been explained by DOD, the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps; (4) in trying to reconcile the different numbers, GAO found that some of the difference results from the service chiefs' military judgment, some from perceived political realities not to ask for too many general and flag officers, and some from the conflicting draft recommendations from the services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense; (5) DOD, the services, and the joint community did not effectively integrate their studies, which led to different assumptions about how many general and flag officers will be provided by the services for joint duty; (6) some reserve component study results and recommendations were also adjusted; (7) GAO estimates the cost of implementing DOD's draft recommendations would be at least $1.2 million annually, assuming the services reduce the number of colonels and Navy captains by the same amount as the increase in general and flag officers; (8) the criteria and methodology used in the services' studies are based on widely used job evaluation techniques that have highly subjective features; (9) the different methodologies together created at least 27 different definitions of a general or flag officer and, therefore, some results are not comparable; (10) the data collected did not attempt to demonstrate the impact of the mandated reduction in general and flag officers between fiscal years 1991 and 1996; (11) force structure changes and general and flag officer requirements have not always been linked; (12) since the early 1980s, in some years, troop strength dropped and in other years it increased while general and flag officer authorizations remained constant; (13) in 1993, 3 years after Congress mandated the latest cut in general and flag officer positions, DOD completed its Bottom Up Review strategy that further changed the force structure; (14) the requirements for general and flag officers may further change based on 1997 and subsequent Quadrennial Defense Reviews; and (15) DOD may be able to fill some new general and flag officer positions if it converts nonmilitary essential positions to civilian status and transfers the incumbent.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.