Military Personnel
DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for Short Periods Gao ID: GAO-04-805 June 25, 2004The fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO to assess the special pays and allowances for servicemembers who are frequently deployed for less than 30 days, and to specifically review the family separation allowance. GAO's objectives were to assess (1) the rationale for the family separation allowance eligibility requirements, including the required duration of more than 30 consecutive days away from a member's duty station; (2) the extent to which DOD has identified short-term deployments as a family separation allowance issue; and (3) what special pays and allowances, in addition to basic military compensation, are available to compensate members deployed for less than 30 days.
In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and childcare that could have been performed by the deployed servicemember. Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the family separation allowance have changed. Today, the family separation allowance is authorized for officers and enlisted in all pay grades at a flat rate. The rationale for establishing the 30-day threshold is unknown. DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments as a family separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking modifications to the family separation allowance because of frequent short-term deployments have been provided to DOD for consideration as part of DOD's Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews personnel pay proposals. Further, DOD officials were not aware of any specific concerns that have been raised by frequently deployed servicemembers about their eligibility to receive the family separation allowance. Based on group discussions with Air Force strategic airlift aircrews, who were identified as examples of those most likely to be experiencing short-term deployments, we did not identify any specific concerns regarding the lack of family separation allowance compensation associated with short-term deployments. Rather, many aircrew members indicated the high pace of operations and associated unpredictability of their schedules was a greater concern due to the negative impact on their quality of life. In addition to basic military compensation, DOD has several special pays and allowances to further compensate servicemembers deployed for short periods. Servicemembers who are deployed for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive regular per diem. The per diem amount varies depending upon location. For example, these rates range from $86 to $284 per day within the United States and from $20 to $533 per day when outside the United States. However, DOD has not implemented the high deployment allowance designed, in part, to compensate those frequently deployed for shorter periods. Congress supported DOD's legislative proposal to authorize a monthly high deployment allowance. This allowance permits the services to compensate members for lengthy as well as frequent shorter deployments. The most recent amendment to this provision provides DOD with the authority to adjust a cumulative day threshold to help compensate servicemembers experiencing frequent short deployments. DOD has flexibility to exclude all occupations except those that it wishes to target for additional pay. However, DOD has not established criteria to implement this allowance, nor has DOD set a timetable for establishing such criteria.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-04-805, Military Personnel: DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for Short Periods
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-805
entitled 'Military Personnel: DOD Has Not Implemented the High
Deployment Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed
Frequently for Short Periods' which was released on June 25, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
June 2004:
Military Personnel:
DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance That
Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for Short Periods:
GAO-04-805:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-805, a report to Congressional Committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
The fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO
to assess the special pays and allowances for servicemembers who are
frequently deployed for less than 30 days, and to specifically review
the family separation allowance. GAO‘s objectives were to assess (1)
the rationale for the family separation allowance eligibility
requirements, including the required duration of more than 30
consecutive days away from a member‘s duty station; (2) the extent to
which DOD has identified short-term deployments as a family separation
allowance issue; and (3) what special pays and allowances, in addition
to basic military compensation, are available to compensate members
deployed for less than 30 days.
What GAO Found:
In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help
offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents
of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for
more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the
costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and
childcare that could have been performed by the deployed servicemember.
Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the family separation
allowance have changed. Today, the family separation allowance is
authorized for officers and enlisted in all pay grades at a flat rate.
The rationale for establishing the 30-day threshold is unknown.
DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments as a family
separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking modifications to the
family separation allowance because of frequent short-term deployments
have been provided to DOD for consideration as part of DOD‘s Unified
Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews personnel pay
proposals. Further, DOD officials were not aware of any specific
concerns that have been raised by frequently deployed servicemembers
about their eligibility to receive the family separation allowance.
Based on group discussions with Air Force strategic airlift aircrews,
who were identified as examples of those most likely to be experiencing
short-term deployments, we did not identify any specific concerns
regarding the lack of family separation allowance compensation
associated with short-term deployments. Rather, many aircrew members
indicated the high pace of operations and associated unpredictability
of their schedules was a greater concern due to the negative impact on
their quality of life.
In addition to basic military compensation, DOD has several special
pays and allowances to further compensate servicemembers deployed for
short periods. Servicemembers who are deployed for less than 30 days
may be eligible to receive regular per diem. The per diem amount varies
depending upon location. For example, these rates range from $86 to
$284 per day within the United States and from $20 to $533 per day when
outside the United States. However, DOD has not implemented the high
deployment allowance designed, in part, to compensate those frequently
deployed for shorter periods. Congress supported DOD‘s legislative
proposal to authorize a monthly high deployment allowance. This
allowance permits the services to compensate members for lengthy as
well as frequent shorter deployments. The most recent amendment to this
provision provides DOD with the authority to adjust a cumulative day
threshold to help compensate servicemembers experiencing frequent short
deployments. DOD has flexibility to exclude all occupations except
those that it wishes to target for additional pay. However, DOD has
not established criteria to implement this allowance, nor has DOD set a
timetable for establishing such criteria.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends DOD take the following actions: (1) set a timetable for
establishing criteria to implement the high deployment allowance; (2)
define, as part of the criteria, what constitutes frequent short-term
deployments within the context of the cumulative day requirement as
stated in the high deployment legislation; and (3) determine, as part
of the criteria, ways of targeting the deployment allowance to selected
occupations. DOD partially concurred with our recommendations because
it views the deployment allowance as a peacetime authority. GAO
believes our current wartime situation does not prevent DOD from
setting a timetable for establishing criteria.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-805.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Derek B. Stewart at (202)
512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Congressional Rationale for DOD's Family Separation Allowance
Eligibility Requirements:
DOD Has Not Identified Frequent Deployments Less Than 30-days as a
Family Separation Allowance Issue:
Personnel Deployed Less Than 30 Days May Be Eligible to Receive
Additional Compensation:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Special Pays and Allowances Available for Short-Term
Deployments as of June 2004:
Figure:
Figure 1: Average Number of Days C-5 Co-Pilots Have Been Deployed,
January 2001 through December 2003:
Abbreviations:
AMC: Air Mobility Command:
DOD: Department of Defense:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 25, 2004:
Congressional Committees:
The Department of Defense (DOD) considers a servicemember as deployed
when a member is on orders and performing duties in a training exercise
or operation at a location or under circumstances that make it
impossible or infeasible for the member to spend off-duty time at the
member's permanent duty station or homeport. While deployed, in
addition to receiving basic military compensation,[Footnote 1]
servicemembers can receive a variety of special pays and allowances
intended to (1) help the uniformed services meet specific manpower
requirements and (2) compensate servicemembers for hardships
associated with their deployments. For example, servicemembers who have
dependents and are deployed for more than 30 consecutive days are
eligible to receive the family separation allowance. In April 2003,
Congress temporarily increased the amount of the family separation
allowance by 150 percent (from $100 to $250 per month) as part of the
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress has since
extended this increase until December 2004; at which time it will
expire unless renewed or made permanent. According to DOD officials,
the latest estimated cost of the family separation allowance for fiscal
year 2004 is $1.1 billion with an average of 359,000 monthly
recipients.[Footnote 2] When this estimated cost is compared to the
fiscal year 2002 obligations, the budget for the family separation
allowance increases by 850 percent. This increase is primarily due to
the increase in the monthly rate paid for family separation allowance
and the increased number of personnel deployed in support of the global
war on terrorism.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 directed
GAO to assess the special pays and allowances for servicemembers who
are frequently deployed for less than 30 days. The act directed GAO to
specifically review the eligibility requirements for the family
separation allowance, including those related to the required duration
of more than 30 consecutive days away from a servicemember's permanent
duty station. As agreed with your offices, our objectives were to
assess (1) the rationale for family separation allowance eligibility
requirements, including the 30-day threshold; (2) the extent to which
DOD has identified frequent short-term deployments as a family
separation allowance issue; and (3) what special pays and allowances
are available, in addition to basic compensation, to further compensate
servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days.
To conduct our review, we analyzed the legislative history and
respective DOD policies for selected special pays and allowances. We
reviewed proposals to make changes to the family separation allowance
submitted through DOD's Unified Legislation and Budgeting process. We
held discussions with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and each of the services. We
focused our study on the Air Force since the reported average number of
days Air Force personnel were deployed in fiscal year 2002, the latest
available data, was less than 30 days. Further, through discussions
with Air Force officials we identified strategic airlift C-5 aircrews
managed by the Air Mobility Command (AMC) as examples of those who
would most likely be experiencing short-term deployments.[Footnote 3]
We assessed the reliability of AMC deployment data and determined that
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To
explore family separation allowance issues at a location overseen by
AMC, we conducted group discussions with officers and enlisted
servicemembers at Travis Air Force Base. We also reviewed previously
issued GAO reports on military compensation (see Related GAO Products).
More information on our scope and methodology is provided at the end of
this letter. We conducted our review from January 2004 to May 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help
offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents
of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for
more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the
costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and
childcare that could have been performed by the deployed servicemember.
Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the family separation
allowance have changed. Today, the family separation allowance is
authorized for officers and enlisted in all pay grades at a flat rate.
The rationale for establishing the 30-day threshold is unknown.
DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments for less than
30 days as a family separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking
modifications to the family separation allowance because of frequent
short-term deployments have been provided to DOD for consideration as
part of DOD's Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews
personnel compensation proposals. Further, DOD officials--including
those in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the services,
the national guard, and reserves--were not aware of any specific
concerns raised by frequently deployed servicemembers about their
eligibility to receive the family separation allowance. Based on group
discussions with Air Force strategic C-5 airlift aircrews, we did not
identify any specific concerns regarding the lack of family separation
allowance compensation associated with short-term deployments. Rather,
many of the aircrew members indicated that the high pace of operations
and associated unpredictability of their schedules was a greater
concern to them due to the negative impact on their quality of life.
In addition to basic compensation, DOD has several special pays and
allowances available to further compensate servicemembers deployed for
less than 30 days. Servicemembers who are deployed for less than
30 days may be eligible to receive regular per diem, which is used to
pay for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses while deployed. The per
diem amount varies depending upon location. For example, these rates
range from $86 to $284 per day within the continental United States and
from $20 to $533 per day when outside the continental United States.
Servicemembers may also be eligible to receive several other pays and
allowances, such as hazardous duty pay, mission-oriented hardship duty
pay, and combat zone tax exclusions. However, DOD has not implemented
one special allowance--the high deployment allowance--designed, in
part, to compensate those frequently deployed for short periods.
Congress supported DOD's legislative proposal to authorize the monthly
high deployment allowance with passage of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2004. The high deployment allowance permits the
services to compensate their members for lengthy deployments as well as
frequent shorter deployments. The most recent amendment to this
provision provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to
adjust a cumulative day threshold to help compensate servicemembers
experiencing frequent shorter deployments. This provision also provides
additional flexibility in targeting the allowance to selected
occupational specialties, by allowing DOD to exclude all occupations
except those that it wishes to target for additional compensation due
to retention concerns. However, DOD has not established criteria that
would (1) define what constitutes frequent deployments and
(2) determine eligibility requirements for the high deployment
allowance, nor has DOD set a timetable for establishing such criteria.
This report contains recommendations for DOD to set a timetable for
establishing criteria to implement the high deployment allowance and
what the criteria should include. In its comments on a draft of this
report, DOD partially concurred with the report's recommendations
because it views the high deployment allowance as a peacetime
authority. We believe our current wartime situation does not prevent
DOD from setting a timetable for establishing criteria. Further, given
the expectations for a long-term commitment to the war on terrorism,
developing the criteria for implementing the high deployment allowance
would provide DOD with an additional option for compensating those
military personnel who are frequently deployed for short periods.
Background:
AMC, located at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is responsible for
providing strategic airlift, including air refueling, special air
missions, and aeromedical evacuation. As part of that mission, AMC is
responsible for tasking 67 C-5 aircraft: 35 stationed at Travis Air
Force Base in California and 32 stationed at Dover Air Force Base in
Delaware. Unlike other Air Force aircraft, the C-5 is rarely deployed
for more than 30 days, since it is primarily used to move cargo from
the United States to locations worldwide. As a result, C-5 aircrews are
deployed away from home for several weeks and then return to their home
station. Other Air Force aircraft, such as the KC-10, can carry cargo
but are primarily used to refuel other aircraft and can be deployed to
locations around the world for extended periods of time. Since
September 11, 2001, C-5 aircrews have been deployed for periods of time
less than 30-days, generally ranging from 7 to 24 days.
Known for its ability to carry oversized and heavy loads, the C-5 can
transport a wide variety of cargo, including helicopters and Abrams
M1A1 Tanks to destinations worldwide. Recently, the C-5's have been
used for a variety of missions, including: support of presidential
travel, contracted movement of materials by other government
organizations, training missions, and support of operations Enduring
and Iraqi Freedom. In addition, the C-5 can also transport about 70
passengers. The aircrew for a C-5 is comprised of two pilots, a flight
engineer, and two loadmasters. At Travis Air Force Base there are 439
active duty and 383 reserve aircrew members. At Dover Air Force Base
there are 650 active duty and 344 reserve aircrew members.
Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is responsible for DOD
personnel policy, including oversight of military compensation. The
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) leads the Unified
Legislation and Budgeting process, established in 1994 to develop and
review personnel compensation proposals. As part of this process, the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) chairs biannual
meetings, attended by the principal voting members from the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), including the
Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs), the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Joint Staff, and the services'
Assistant Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Congressional Rationale for DOD's Family Separation Allowance
Eligibility Requirements:
In 1963, Congress established the $30-per-month family separation
allowance to help offset the additional expenses incurred by the
dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty
station for more than 30 consecutive days. According to statements made
by members of Congress during consideration of the legislation
establishing the family separation allowance, additional expenses could
stem from costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance,
and childcare that could not be performed by the deployed
servicemember. Over the years, the eligibility requirements for the
family separation allowance have changed. For example, while the family
separation allowance was initially authorized for enlisted members in
pay grades E-5 and above as well as to enlisted members in pay grade
E-4 with 4 years of service, today the family separation allowance is
authorized for servicemembers in all pay grades at a flat rate of $250
per month. Servicemembers must apply for the family separation
allowance, certifying their eligibility to receive the allowance. The
rationale for establishing the 30-day threshold is unknown. However,
DOD officials noted that servicemembers deployed for more than 30 days
do not have the same opportunities to minimize household expenses as
those who are deployed for less than 30 days. For example,
servicemembers who are able to return to their permanent duty locations
may perform home repairs and do not have to pay someone to do these
tasks for them.
The 1963 family separation allowance legislation was divided into two
subsections, one associated with overseas duty and one associated with
any travel away from the servicemembers home station. The first
subsection was intended to compensate servicemembers who were
permanently stationed overseas and were not authorized to bring
dependents. The second subsection was intended to compensate
servicemembers for added expenses associated with their absence from
their dependents and permanent duty station for extended periods of
time regardless of whether the members were deployed domestically or
overseas. Originally, this aspect of family separation compensation was
also to be based on the allowance for living quarters. At that time,
members would receive one-third the allowance for living quarters or a
flat rate of $30 per month, whichever amount was larger. In July of
1963, the Senate heard testimony from DOD officials who generally
agreed with the proposed legislation, but raised concerns about using
the allowance for living quarters as a baseline. Their concerns were
related to the complexity of determining the payments and the
inequities associated with tying payment to rank. Ultimately, DOD
proposed and the Congress accepted a flat rate of $30 per month for
eligible personnel.
DOD Has Not Identified Frequent Deployments Less Than 30-days as a
Family Separation Allowance Issue:
DOD has not identified frequent short-term deployments less than
30-days as a family separation allowance issue. No proposals seeking
modifications to the family separation allowance because of frequent
short-term deployments have been provided to DOD for consideration as
part of DOD's Unified Legislation and Budgeting process, which reviews
personnel compensation proposals. Since 1994, a few proposals have been
made seeking changes to allowance amounts and eligibility requirements.
None of the proposals sought to change the 30-day eligibility
threshold. Further, our discussions with OSD, service, and reserve
officials did not reveal any concerns related to frequent short-term
deployments and the family separation allowance. To analyze concerns
that might be raised by those experiencing frequent short-term
deployments, we conducted group discussions with Air Force strategic
C-5 airlift aircrews at Travis Air Force Base, which we identified as
an example of servicemembers who generally deploy for periods less than
30 days. We did not identify any specific concerns regarding
compensation received as a result of short-term deployments. We found
that the C-5 aircrews were generally more concerned about the high pace
of operations and associated unpredictability of their schedules, due
to the negative impact on their quality of life, than about qualifying
for the family separation allowance.
DOD's Proposals to Change Family Separation Allowance Have Been
Minimal:
DOD has proposed few changes to the amount of the family separation
allowance and no proposals have been submitted to alter the 30-day
eligibility threshold. Our review of proposals submitted through DOD's
Unified Legislation and Budgeting process revealed that DOD has
considered one proposal to change the amount of the monthly family
separation allowance since 1994. In 1997, an increase in the family
separation allowance from $75 to $120 was proposed. This provision was
not approved by DOD.
Since 1994, three modifications to the eligibility criteria have also
been proposed. In 1994, a proposal was made to allow payment of the
family separation allowance for members embarked on board a ship or on
temporary duty for 30 consecutive days, whose family members were
authorized to accompany the member but voluntarily chose not to do so.
The proposal was endorsed by DOD and accepted by Congress. In 2001, DOD
considered but ultimately rejected a similar proposal that would have
applied to all members who elect to serve an unaccompanied tour of
duty. The third proposal sought to modify the use of family separation
allowance for joint military couples (i.e. one military member married
to another military member). According to a DOD official, while this
proposal was not endorsed by DOD, Congress ultimately passed
legislation that clarified the use of family separation allowance for
joint military couples. The family separation allowance is now payable
to joint military couples, provided the members were residing together
immediately before being separated by reason of their military orders.
Although both may qualify for the allowance, only one monthly allowance
may be paid to a joint military couple during a given month. If both
members were to receive orders requiring departure on the same day,
then payment would be made to the senior member.
Aircrews More Concerned about Unpredictability of Their Deployments
Than Compensation:
Overall, C-5 aircrew members and aircrew leadership with whom we met
noted that the unpredictability of missions was having more of an
adverse impact on crewmembers' quality of life than the compensation
they receive as a result of their deployments. For example, several
aircrew members at Travis Air Force Base indicated that over the past
two years, they have been called up on very short advance notice, as
little as 12 hours, and sent on missions lasting several weeks, making
it difficult to conduct personal business or make plans with their
families. According to the aircrew members and both officer and
enlisted leadership with whom we met, the unpredictability of their
missions is expected to continue for the foreseeable future due to the
global war on terrorism. Officials informed us that the average number
of days by month that aircrew members have been deployed has increased
since September 11, 2001, with periods of higher activity, or surges.
For example, as shown in figure 1, the average number of days in
September 2001 that AMC C-5 co-pilots were deployed was 9. Since then,
the average number of days by month that C-5 co-pilots were deployed
has fluctuated between 12 and 19. Prior to September 2001, available
data shows a low monthly average of 5 days in January 2001.
Figure 1: Average Number of Days C-5 Co-Pilots Have Been Deployed,
January 2001 through December 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This data represents the average number of days C-5 co-pilots
have been deployed. According to AMC, the deployment trends for
co-pilots are representative of other C-5 aircrew members deployment
activity.
[End of figure]
While the average number of days deployed has fluctuated, aircrew
members expressed concern about the intermittent suspension of pre-and
post-mission crew rest periods that have coincided with increased
operations. Generally, these periods have been intended to ensure that
aircrew members have enough rest prior to flying another mission.
However, aircrew members noted that crew rest periods also allow them
to perform other assigned duties and spend time with their families.
During our discussion-group meetings, aircrew members indicated that
the rest period after a mission had been reduced from as much as 4 days
to as little as 12 hours due to operational needs.
Personnel Deployed Less Than 30 Days May Be Eligible to Receive
Additional Compensation:
In addition to basic compensation, DOD has several special pays and
allowances available to further compensate servicemembers deployed for
less than 30 days. Servicemembers who are deployed domestically or
overseas for less than 30 days may be eligible to receive regular per
diem. The per diem amount varies depending upon location.
Servicemembers also may be eligible to receive other pays and
allowances, such as hazardous duty pay, mission-oriented hardship duty
pay, and combat-zone tax exclusions. However, DOD has not implemented
one special allowance designed, in part, to compensate those frequently
deployed for short periods. Congress supported DOD's legislative
proposal to authorize a monthly high-deployment allowance with passage
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This
provision allows the services to compensate their members for lengthy
deployments as well as frequent shorter deployments. However, DOD has
not set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement this
allowance.
Additional Compensation Available for Eligible Personnel Deployed
Less Than 30 Days:
In addition to basic military pay, servicemembers who are deployed for
less than 30 days may also be eligible to receive regular per diem,
other special pays and allowances, and tax exclusions (see table 1).
Table 1: Special Pays and Allowances Available for Short-Term
Deployments as of June 2004:
Type of special pay or allowance: Per diem;
Purpose: To reimburse servicemembers for lodging, meal, and incidental
expenses incurred while on government travel;
Qualification requirements: Must perform temporary duty of more than
12 hours at a location to receive any of the per diem rates for that
location;
Amount: Varies by location.
Type of special pay or allowance: Hostile fire and imminent danger pay;
Purpose: To recognize members subject to hostile fire or explosion of
hostile mine, or service in designated imminent danger area;
Qualification requirements: Must be subject to event of hostile fire/
explosion of hostile mine, or must perform official duty in designated
imminent danger area (e.g., Iraq);
Amount: $225/month[A].
Type of special pay or allowance: Mission-oriented hardship duty pay;
Purpose: To compensate a servicemembers' performance of a designated
hardship mission;
Qualification requirements: Must perform a designated hardship mission
(e.g., remains recovery in remote area of Vietnam);
Amount: $150/month.
Type of special pay or allowance: Combat-zone tax exclusion;
Purpose: To recognize members while in a combat zone or a qualified
hazardous duty area;
Qualification requirements: Must perform official duty in a designated
combat area (e.g., Persian Gulf);
Amount: One month tax exclusion; amount varies based on taxable
military pay.
Source: GAO:
Note: Table does not include selected reenlistment bonuses or career
incentive pays, such as aviator continuation pay.
[A] The amount of hostile fire and imminent danger pay last changed in
1990 from $110 to $150 per month. The fiscal year 2003 Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act temporarily increased the
monthly rate of this pay from $150 to $225 per month. This increase has
been extended through December 31, 2004. However, if Congress takes no
further action, this rate will revert to $150 per month on January 1,
2005.
[End of table]
Per Diem:
When servicemembers are performing temporary duty away from their
permanent duty station, they are entitled to per diem, which provides
reimbursement for meals, incidental expenses, and lodging.[Footnote 4]
To be eligible for per diem, servicemembers must perform temporary duty
for more than 12 hours at a location to receive any of the per diem
rate for that location. The per diem rates are established by: the
General Services Administration, the State Department, and DOD's Per
Diem, Travel, and Transportation Allowance Committee. The rates range
from $86 to $284 per day within the continental United States and from
$20 to $533 per day when outside the continental United States,
depending on whether government meals and lodging are provided.
Aircrews can earn various per diem rates during the course of their
travel. For example, a typical two-week mission for Travis C-5 aircrew
members would take them to Dover Air Force Base, then to Moron, Spain,
and then to Baghdad, Iraq. At each of these locations, the aircrews can
spend a night allowing them to accrue applicable per diem rates for
that location. According to the Air Force, per diem rates for a typical
C-5 mission are as follows: $157 for Dover Air Force Base; $235 for
Moron, Spain; and $154 for Baghdad, Iraq. In some cases, aircrews may
receive a standard $3.50 per day for incidental expenses, when they are
at locations where the government can provide meals and lodging. This
is the standard per diem rate used to compensate servicemembers
traveling outside of the continental United States when the government
can provide lodging and meals.
Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay:
Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay are pays that provide additional
compensation for duty performed in designated areas where the
servicemembers are subject to hostile fire or imminent danger.[Footnote
5] Both pays are derived from the same statue and cannot be collected
simultaneously. Servicemembers are entitled to hostile fire pay, an
event-based pay, if they are (1) subjected to hostile fire or explosion
of hostile mines; (2) on duty in an area close to a hostile fire
incident and in danger of being exposed to the same dangers actually
experienced by other servicemembers subjected to hostile fire or
explosion of hostile mines; or (3) killed, injured, or wounded by
hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action.
Imminent danger pay is a threat based pay intended to compensate
servicemembers in specifically designated locations, which pose a
threat of physical harm or imminent danger due to civil insurrection,
civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. To be eligible for this
pay in a month, servicemembers must have served some time, one day or
less, in one of the designated zones during the month. The authorized
amount for hostile fire and imminent danger pay is $150 per month,
although the fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act temporarily increased the amount to $225 per month.
If Congress takes no further action, the rate will revert to $150 per
month in January 2005.
Mission-Oriented Hardship Duty Pay:
Mission-oriented hardship duty pay compensates military personnel for
duties designated by the Secretary of Defense as hardship duty due to
the arduousness of the mission.[Footnote 6] Mission-oriented hardship
duty pay is payable at a monthly rate up to $300, without prorating or
reduction, when the member performs the specified mission during any
part of the month. DOD has established that this pay be paid at a flat
monthly rate of $150 per month. Active and Reserve component members
who qualify, at any time during the month, receive the full monthly
mission-oriented hardship duty pay, regardless of the period of time on
active duty or the number of days they receive basic pay during the
month. This pay is currently only available to servicemembers assigned
to, on temporary duty with, or otherwise under the Defense Prisoner of
War/Missing Personnel Office, the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, or
Central Identification Lab-Hawaii. Hardship duty includes missions such
as locating and recovering the remains of U.S. servicemembers from
remote, isolated areas including, but not limited to, areas in Laos,
Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea.
Combat-Zone Tax Exclusion:
The combat-zone tax exclusion provides exclusion from federal income
tax, as well as income tax in many states, to servicemembers serving in
a presidentially designated combat zone or in a statutorily established
hazardous duty area for any period of time.[Footnote 7] For example,
although the C-5 aircrews at Travis and Dover Air Force Bases do not
serve in a designated combat zone for an extended period of time, many
of the missions that they fly may be within areas designated for
combat-zone tax exclusion eligibility. Enlisted personnel and warrant
officers may exclude all military compensation earned in the month in
which they perform active military service in a combat-zone or
qualified hazardous duty area for active military service from federal
income tax. For commissioned officers, compensation is free of federal
income tax up to the maximum amount of enlisted basic pay plus any
imminent danger pay received.[Footnote 8]
DOD Has Not Developed Criteria to Implement the High Deployment
Allowance:
DOD has not established criteria defining what constitutes frequent
deployments, nor has it determined eligibility requirements in order to
implement the high deployment allowance. DOD sought significant
modifications to high deployment compensation through a legislative
proposal to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004. Congress had established a high deployment per diem as part of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.[Footnote
9] Pursuant to statutorily granted authority, on October 8, 2001, DOD
waived application of the high deployment compensation in light of the
ongoing military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001. After implementing the waiver authority, DOD sought legislative
changes to the high deployment compensation in an effort to better
manage deployments.
DOD's proposal sought, among other things, to: (1) change high-
deployment compensation from a per diem rate to a monthly allowance,
(2) reduce the dollar amount paid so that it was more in line with
other special pays (e.g. hostile fire pay), and (3) allow DOD to
recognize lengthy deployments as well as frequent deployments. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 reflects many
of DOD's proposed changes. The act changed the $100 per diem payment
into an allowance not to exceed $1,000 per month. To help compensate
those servicemembers who are frequently deployed, the act established a
cumulative 2-year eligibility threshold not to exceed 401 days. Also,
the act provided the Secretary of Defense with the authority to
prescribe a cumulative threshold lower than 401 days.[Footnote 10]
Depending upon where the Secretary of Defense establishes the
cumulative threshold, servicemembers, such as the C-5 aircrews, serving
multiple short-term deployments may be compensated through the high
deployment allowance. Once a servicemembers' deployments exceed the
established cumulative day threshold for the number of days deployed,
the member is to be paid a monthly allowance not to exceed $1,000 per
month at the beginning of the following month. From that point forward,
the servicemember will continue to qualify for the allowance as long as
the total number of days deployed during the previous 2-year period
exceeds the cumulative threshold established by the Secretary of
Defense. The high deployment allowance is in addition to per diem and
any other special pays and allowances for which the servicemember might
qualify. Moreover, the servicemember does not have to apply for the
allowance, as the act mandated that DOD track and monitor days deployed
and make payment accordingly. Finally, DOD may exclude specified duty
assignments from eligibility for the high deployment allowance (e.g.,
sports teams or senior officers). According to DOD officials, this
provision also provides additional flexibility in targeting the
allowance to selected occupational specialties, by allowing DOD to
exclude all occupations except those that it wishes to target for
additional compensation because of retention concerns. The Senate
report accompanying the bill that amended the high deployment provision
encouraged DOD to promptly implement these changes.[Footnote 11]
However, DOD officials told us that a timetable for establishing the
criteria necessary to implement the high deployment allowance has not
been set. Although we could not ascertain exactly why DOD had not taken
action to implement the high deployment allowance, OSD officials
informed us that the services had difficulty reaching agreement on what
constitutes a deployment for purposes of the high deployment payment.
Conclusions:
The family separation allowance is directed at enlisted servicemembers
and officers whose dependents incur extra expenses when the
servicemember is deployed for more than 30 consecutive days. We found
no reason to question the eligibility requirements that have been
established for DOD's family separation allowance. We believe that no
basis exists to change the 30-day threshold, as a problem has not been
identified with the family separation allowance. Further,
servicemembers who deploy for less than 30 days may be eligible to
receive additional forms of compensation resulting from their
deployment, such as per diem, other special pays and allowances, and
tax exclusions.
Since the terrorists' attacks on September 11, 2001, some
servicemembers have experienced more short-term deployments. Given the
long-term nature of the global war on terrorism, this increase in the
frequency of short-term deployments is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future. DOD will need to assure adequate compensation for
servicemembers using all available special pays and allowances in
addition to basic pay. While the aircrews with whom we met did not
express specific concerns about compensation, they, like other
servicemembers, are concerned about quality-of-life issues. The high
deployment allowance could help to address such issues for
servicemembers, while helping to mitigate DOD's possible long-term
retention concerns. Also, unlike the family separation allowance, the
high deployment allowance could be used to compensate servicemembers
regardless of whether or not they have dependents. Although the Senate
report accompanying the bill that amended the high deployment provision
encouraged DOD to promptly implement these changes, the Secretary of
Defense has not taken action to implement the high deployment
allowance.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in concert with
the Service Secretaries and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to take
the following three actions:
* set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high
deployment allowance;
* define, as part of the criteria, what constitutes frequent short-term
deployments within the context of the cumulative day requirement as
stated in the high deployment allowance legislation; and:
* determine, as part of the criteria, eligibility requirements
targeting the high deployment allowance to selected occupational
specialties.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred
with our recommendations that it set a timetable for establishing
criteria to implement the high deployment allowance and what the
criteria should include. While DOD agreed that servicemembers should be
recognized with additional pay for excessive deployments, it stated
that DOD has not implemented the high deployment allowance because it
views the high deployment allowance as a peacetime authority. Further,
DOD stated that since we are in a wartime posture, it is more difficult
to control the pace of deployments than during peacetime. DOD's
response noted that it has elected to exercise the waiver given to it
by Congress to suspend the entitlement for reasons of national
security. DOD also noted that it has encouraged the use of other
flexible pay authorities to compensate servicemembers who are away from
home for inordinate periods. Finally, DOD stated that it would reassess
the use of the high deployment allowance at some point in the future.
We do not believe that the nation's current wartime situation prevents
DOD from taking our recommended actions. The first recommended action
being to set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the
high deployment allowance. We did recognize in our report that pursuant
to statutorily granted authority, on October 8, 2001, DOD waived
application of the high deployment allowance in light of the ongoing
military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
However, since then, DOD sought modifications through a legislative
proposal to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
for more flexibilities to manage the high deployment compensation
better. These additional flexibilities include providing DOD with the
opportunity to tailor the allowance to meet current or expected needs.
Since the purpose of special pays and allowances is primarily to help
retain more servicemembers, the high deployment allowance could be used
as another compensation tool to help retain servicemembers during a
time of war. As our report clearly states, given the expectations for a
long-term commitment to the war on terrorism, developing the criteria
for implementing the high deployment allowance would provide DOD with
an additional option for compensating those military personnel who are
frequently deployed for short periods of time. Regarding DOD's use of
other flexible pay authorities to compensate servicemembers who are
away from home for inordinate periods, the examples DOD cites for
lengthy or protracted deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea are
not applicable to those servicemembers deployed for less than 30 days,
the focus of this review.
Finally, the vagueness of when and how the high deployment allowance
will be implemented runs contrary to the congressional direction, which
encouraged DOD to promptly implement the new high deployment allowance
authority. Based on DOD's response, it is not clear when DOD intends to
develop criteria to implement the high deployment allowance. We
recommended that DOD set a timetable for establishing criteria to
implement the high deployment allowance, not that DOD implement the
allowance immediately. We believe that this recommendation is
warranted, since establishing the criteria will make it possible for
DOD to implement the high deployment allowance quickly, whenever it is
deemed appropriate and necessary. DOD's comments are reprinted in their
entirety in appendix I. DOD also provided technical comments, which we
have incorporated as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology:
To assess the rationale for family separation allowance eligibility
requirements, including the rationale for the 30-day threshold, we
reviewed the legislative history concerning the family separation
allowance and analyzed DOD policies implementing this pay. We also
interviewed officials in the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness); the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Air National Guard; and
the Air Force Reserve.
To determine the extent to which DOD had identified frequent short-term
deployments as a family separation allowance issue, we reviewed
proposals submitted through DOD's Unified Legislation and Budgeting
process. We met with compensation representatives from the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and each of
the services. We interviewed officials with the Defense Manpower Data
Center and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. We sought to use
DOD's database for tracking and monitoring deployments to determine the
extent of servicemembers experiencing frequent deployments lasting less
than 30 days. We were not able to use the database for the purposes of
our report to discern the number of deployments by location lasting
less than 30 days, since more than 40 percent of the data for location
was not included in the database. In addition, the database did not
contain information related to some types of non-deployment activities
(e.g. training), which we deemed important to our review. We focused
our study on the Air Force since the fiscal year 2003 Secretary of
Defense Annual Report to the President and Congress showed that the Air
force was the only service whose members were deployed less than
30 days on average in fiscal year 2002. Further, through discussions
with Air Force officials we identified strategic aircrews managed by
the AMC as examples of those who would most likely be experiencing
short-term deployments. We visited AMC, where we met with officials
from personnel, operations, finance, and the tactical airlift command
center. To understand the views of one group of short-term deployers,
we visited Travis Air Force Base in California where we met with
officer and enlisted leadership for the C-5 and KC-10 aircraft. We held
discussion groups with 12 officers and 12 enlisted aircrew members from
both aircraft, for a total of 48 aircrew members. We visited Dover Air
Force Base in Delaware where we met with C-5 officer and enlisted
leadership. We also met with officials representing personnel,
operations, and finance offices at both Travis and Dover Air Force
Bases. We assessed the reliability of AMC C-5 copilot deployment data,
as well as data contained in the fiscal year 2003 Secretary of Defense
Annual Report to the President and Congress. GAO's assessment consisted
of (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems
that produced them, (2) examining the electronic data for completeness,
and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
To assess what special pays and allowances are available, in addition
to basic compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed
for less than 30 days, we identified special pays and allowances that
do not have a time eligibility factor through the DOD's Military
Compensation Background Papers, legislative research, and discussions
with OSD officials. We reviewed the legislative history regarding
recent legislative changes to special pays and allowances and how DOD
has implemented these changes.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); the Secretaries
of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine
Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also
make copies available to appropriate congressional committees and to
other interested parties on request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge at the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
call me at (202) 512-5559 or Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604. Major
contributors to this report were Aaron M. Adams, Kurt A. Burgeson,
Ann M. Dubois, Kenya R. Jones, and Ronald La Due Lake.
Signed by:
Derek B. Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Committees:
The Honorable John W. Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss:
Chairman:
The Honorable E. Benjamin Nelson:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Personnel:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John M. McHugh:
Chairman:
The Honorable Vic Snyder:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Total Force:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Note: A GAO comment supplementing those in the report text appears at
the end of this appendix.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
JUN 8 2004:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
Mr. Derek B. Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stewart:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office draft report GAO-04-805, `MILITARY PERSONNEL: DoD Has
Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance That Could Compensate
Service members Deployed Frequently for Short Periods," (GAO Code
350467 (Review of Special Pays and Allowances for Frequent Short-term
Deployers)).
The Department notes GAO has retitled the draft report by its primary
finding, which does not address the study purpose - to review special
pays and allowances for frequent short-term deployers. While
technically factual, the new title leaves the impression the Department
is not compensating Service members for serving in inordinate Personnel
Tempo (PERSTEMPO) situations. That is not true. For just the month in
which this report is issued, the Army will pay about $20 million to
20,000 troops in Iraq for high deployment time alone. The payments,
however, are being made under a statutory authority other than High
Deployment Allowance (HDA) (for reasons explained in the enclosed
response to the report recommendation). Our preference is that the
title be amended to reflect the report content, not a single finding.
The report reflects that GAO found that Service members interviewed
"did not identify any specific concerns regarding compensation received
as a result of short-term deployments," that they indicated the
increased tempo of operations being experienced is the issue of concern
with them, not pay. While higher PERSTEMPO in the current wartime
environment is an unfortunate fact, the Department recognizes that
members incurring inordinate tempo should be paid additional
compensation in recognition of the higher stress that incurs to the
individual. To that end, the Department has implemented pay authorities
to address specific PERSTEMPO issues for those in the force serving in
the most arduous of circumstances, and has been reviewing alternatives
to determine the best solution to financially recognize others in the
force serving in high tempo (cumulative as well as consecutive)
situations.
The reason the Department has not implemented HDA is primarily that we
view HDA as a peacetime authority. The intent of the law was to have
the Services control a member's personal tempo or pay for the failure
to do so out of Operations and Maintenance funding. In recognition of
the fact that Services can control tempo in
peacetime but not wartime, Congress included a National Security Waiver
in the law that allows the Secretary of Defense to suspend the
entitlement for reasons of National Security.
GAO fails to acknowledge throughout the report that DoD has exercised
the exact discretion Congress intended when it stipulated that HDA may
be suspended during periods of national emergency --which is precisely
the action the Department invoked following the events of September 11,
2001, and the reason HDA is not currently implemented within the
Department. The report, by contrast, leaves the impression the reason
HDA has not been implemented is in part due to "the Services [having]
had difficulty reaching agreement on what does constitute a deployment
for purposes of the high deployment payment."
Further, GAO does not include in the report the numerous initiatives
that have been implemented by DoD to address hardships for those
serving protracted deployments, particularly in combat areas --which
has been a major focus of DoD legislative, policy, and budget-
allocation actions. Finally, GAO presents no analysis supporting a
different approach, and merely asserts that the absence of
implementation of HDA is a problem without ever identifying why GAO
believes it necessary and cost effective.
Notwithstanding the noted shortcomings, the Department partially
concurs with the recommendation. The enclosed response to that
recommendation clarifies current pay authorities being used to
recognize those in the force serving in the highest deployment
situations, and those being actively considered for other members.
Detailed comments to the recommendations are enclosed. Technical
comments were provided directly to GAO staff for consideration.
Comments or questions should be addressed to Ms. Nina Fountain at (703)
693-1067, or nina.fountain@osd.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charles S. Abell:
Principal Deputy:
Enclosures: As stated:
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED MAY 26, 2004 GAO CODE 350467/GAO-04-805:
"MILITARY PERSONNEL: DoD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment
Allowance That Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for
Short Periods":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMENDATION: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in concert
with the Service Secretaries and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to
take the following actions:
* set a timetable for establishing criteria to implement the high
deployment allowance,
* define, as part of the criteria, what constitutes
frequent short-term deployments within the context of the cumulative
day requirement as stated in the high deployment allowance legislation,
and:
* determine, as part of the criteria, eligibility requirements
targeting the high deployment allowance to selected occupational
specialties (p. 18/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Partially concur. The Department agrees in principle with
the underlying intent of GAO's recommendation, which we understand to
be that the Department establish a program to financially recognize
members deployed inordinately (on a cumulative as well as continuous
basis). Certain special pays and benefits already extend to members
during deployments as outlined in this report. Those deployed into
dangerous areas (such as Iraq) for even brief periods, as noted in the
report, receive a full month's Imminent Danger Pay and Combat Zone Tax
Exclusion. The report is clear that the members GAO interviewed "did
not identify any specific concerns regarding compensation received as a
result of short-term deployments," that members GAO interviewed
indicated the increased tempo of operations they've been experiencing
is the issue of concern with them, not pay. Increased tempo is an
unfortunate direct result of the current wartime operating environment.
The Department has been reviewing with the Services alternatives to the
High Deployment Allowance (HDA) authority since mid-2003 to determine
the best way to financially recognize members who serve in a high tempo
situation in the current wartime scenario, to include Hardship Duty Pay
(HDP) (37 USC §305). High Deployment Per Diem (HDPD) (the predecessor
to HDA), enacted in the FY2000 NDAA, was created as a peace-time
authority. It entitled members performing in specified deployment tempo
situations to $100 per diem. The intent of that HDPD law was to force
the Services to control individual member tempo or pay the price for
its decision out of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding. In
recognition of the fact that Services can control tempo in peacetime
but not wartime, Congress included a National Security Waiver in the
law, it allows the Secretary of Defense to suspend the entitlement for
reasons of National Security. As the country was moving into a wartime
stance after September 11, 2001, the Department appropriately exercised
the National Security Waiver provision. While Interim PERSTEMPO Policy
Guidance was issued in November 2001, the National Security Wavier
remains in effect.
In spring 2003, the Department pursued an amendment to the HDPD statute
to change the authority from a per diem to a monthly allowance, the
mandated payment from O&M dollars was kept in force. The Department has
not implemented HDA to date, but has been using other special pay
authorities to financially recognize members inordinately deployed in
the most arduous of circumstances. For example, members in Iraq and
Afghanistan serving beyond 12 months are receiving additional pay (in
Assignment Incentive Pay) in recognition of the extended service in
these areas. Using a pay authority other than the HDA authority for
this purpose accomplishes two goals: members incurring the highest
deployment tempo in the most arduous circumstances are financially
recognized for that service, and it does not draw on O&M dollars needed
to equip the force in wartime.
The Department is working with the Services to recognize other groups
of members away from home for inordinate periods, using flexible pay
authorities other than HDA. For example, under the current operating
environment, some members who logically should qualify for additional
compensation in recognition of extended "away time" could not be so
recognized with HDA but their extended time away could be recognized
with other pay authorities such as Hardship Duty Pay. Briefly, under
the HDA law, permanent duty assignments would not count as deployed for
HDA; thus, a member could be away from his or her family for 12 months
on a short permanent duty tour but not considered "deployed."
Therefore, if a member serving without his or her dependents in Korea
is in a unit then sent to Iraq, the member's "deployment" time would
start upon commencing service in Iraq, when the individual could
already have been away from the spouse and children for 12 months at
that point. Hardship Duty Pay gives us the flexibility to structure a
pay program that would recognize the time in Korea, where the HDA
statutory authority would not.
The work in progress to date considers a cumulative day criteria for
qualification; however, it does not consider targeting the special pay
or allowance to selected occupational specialties. Regardless of the
occupation in which a member serves, serving in a personal tempo
situation beyond the established norm results in an arduousness for the
member that the Department believes should be financially recognized.
In conclusion, the Department views High Deployment Allowance as a
better fit in peace-than war-time. However, the Department fully agrees
members should be recognized with additional pay for inordinate tempo,
it has in measured steps been implementing the appropriate pay
authorities for this purpose for those in the force incurring
inordinate PERSTEMPO under the most arduous of circumstances, and is
pursuing the implementation of a program that will include recognition
of others serving in high tempo situations, to include cumulative as
well as consecutive inordinate tempo. At an appropriate point in the
future, the Department will reassess with the Services the
appropriateness of continuing recognition of high PERSTEMPO under pay
authorities other than HDA authority, or implementing the HDA
authority. Decisions pertaining to HDA implementation timelines, as well
as criteria for what constitutes frequent short-term deployments within
the context of the cumulative day requirement as stated in the HDA
statutory authority, would logically follow.
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
GAO's Comment:
1. The purpose of our congressionally directed review was to assess the
special pays and allowances available to DOD that could be used to
compensate servicemembers who are frequently deployed for less than
30 days. Consequently, our scope did not include an assessment of
compensation for servicemembers serving lengthy, or protracted,
deployments of 30 days or more. We found that DOD has available and is
using several special pays and allowances, in addition to basic
compensation, to further compensate servicemembers deployed for less
than 30 days. However, we also found that DOD has one special
allowance, the high deployment allowance, that is not available to
provide further compensation to servicemembers who frequently deploy
for less than 30 days and that DOD has not set a timetable to establish
criteria to implement the allowance. During our review, we could not
ascertain exactly why DOD had not taken action to develop criteria for
implementing the high deployment allowance. During several discussions,
OSD officials stated that the services had difficulty reaching
agreement on what constitutes a deployment for the purposes of the high
deployment payment. DOD's response to our draft report noted that it
has elected to exercise the waiver given to it by Congress to suspend
the high deployment allowance for reasons of national security. We
recognized this waiver in our report. We also noted that after DOD
waived application of the high deployment payment on October 8, 2001,
DOD sought legislative modifications of the high deployment payment
that would give it more flexibilities to better manage this type of
compensation. Congress granted DOD these flexibilities and encouraged
DOD to promptly implement these changes. As noted in our report, given
the expectations for a long-term commitment to the war on terrorism,
developing the criteria for implementing the new high deployment
allowance would provide DOD with an additional option for compensating
those military personnel who are frequently deployed for short periods
of time. Also, the high deployment allowance, unlike the family
separation allowance, could be used to compensate servicemembers
regardless of whether or not they have dependents and thus would reach
more servicemembers.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Personnel: Active Duty Compensation and Its Tax Treatment.
GAO-04-721R. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004.
Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve Compensation,
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to Deployed Troops.
GAO-04-582T. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.
Military Personnel: Bankruptcy Filings among Active Duty Service
Members. GAO-04-465R. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2004.
Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-89. Washington, D.C.:
November 13, 2003.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Effective Controls to Better Assess
the Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program. GAO-04-86.
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2003.
Military Personnel: DFAS Has Not Met All Information Technology
Requirements for Its New Pay System. GAO-04-149R. Washington, D.C.:
October 20, 2003.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data to Address Financial and Health
Care Issues Affecting Reservists. GAO-03-1004. Washington, D.C.:
September 10, 2003.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Assess Certain Factors in Determining
Whether Hazardous Duty Pay Is Warranted for Duty in the Polar Regions.
GAO-03-554. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2003.
Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations Related to Income,
Benefits, and Employer Support for Reservists During Mobilizations.
GAO-03-573T. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2003.
Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum
of DOD's Strategic Human Capital Planning. GAO-03-237. Washington,
D.C.: December 5, 2002.
Military Personnel: Management and Oversight of Selective Reenlistment
Bonus Program Needs Improvement. GAO-03-149. Washington, D.C.: November
25, 2002.
Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics,
but Opportunities Exist to Improve. GAO-02-935. Washington, D.C.:
September 18, 2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Basic military compensation consists of basic pay, basic allowance
for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal tax
advantage. The federal tax advantage is to account for the tax-free
status of housing and subsistence allowances. It is the added amount of
taxable income that servicemembers would have to receive in cash if
housing and subsistence allowances were to become taxable in order for
them to be as well off in after-tax income as they are under the
existing system. Basic compensation does not include special and
incentive pays, other allowances, and the value of fringe benefits such
as health care and retirement.
[2] Data on the total annual number of family separation allowance
recipients was not available.
[3] Air Force officials also identified other occupations that have
been frequently deployed for less than 30 days such as flying crew
chiefs, who are responsible for launch, recovery, inspection,
servicing, and maintenance of aircraft. Other service officials
identified inspection team members as another example of personnel who
are deployed frequently for short periods.
[4] 37 U.S.C. § 404 and § 405
[5] 37 U.S.C. § 310
[6] 37 U.S.C. § 305 authorizes special pay for uniformed servicemembers
performing hardship duty and directs the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations implementing hardship duty pay. There are two
types of hardship duty pay--hardship duty pay for mission assignment
and hardship duty pay for location assignment. Hardship duty pay for
location assignment is payable to members for duty in a designated
hardship location for more than 30 consecutive days. Personnel must be
in a designated hardship location at least 31 days to qualify for this
pay.
[7] 26 U.S.C. § 112
[8] In 2004, the maximum amount of compensation for commissioned
officers that is eligible for combat zone tax exclusion is $6,091 plus
$225 (imminent danger pay), or $6,316 per month.
[9] 37 U.S.C § 436
[10] The act also established a maximum 191-day consecutive day
deployment threshold. The Secretary of Defense was given the authority
to prescribe a lower consecutive day threshold.
[11] S. Rept. 108-46
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
