Military Personnel
DOD Could Make Greater Use of Existing Legislative Authority to Manage General and Flag Officer Careers Gao ID: GAO-04-1003 September 23, 2004Congress has established a legislative framework that shapes the careers and the management of general and flag officers. The Department of Defense (DOD) has proposed eliminating or amending a number of legislative provisions, such as revising existing statutory retirement limits based on age and years of service, to provide greater flexibility in managing its senior officers in order to retain experienced leaders. GAO is issuing this report in response to a mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. GAO's objectives were to (1) develop a profile of general and flag officer careers and (2) assess DOD's justification for its general and flag officer legislative proposals.
General and flag officers who have retired over the past several years typically retired at age 56 after having served an average of 33 years of active commissioned service and 3-1/2 years in their last pay grade. On average, retired general and flag officers were first promoted to general and flag officer at age 49, upon reaching 26 years of active commissioned service, and served 6 years as a general or flag officer before retiring. DOD did not present evidence that the legislative provisions it seeks to change hinder the management of general and flag officers or the agency's ability to perform its mission. DOD presented various rationales for its proposals and sponsored a study of general and flag officer management but did not provide data to support the need for these proposals. GAO found that DOD can achieve its goal of extending some general and flag officers' careers and assignments within the parameters of the current legislative framework since many general and flag officers retire several years before reaching the statutory retirement limits. More specifically, the career profile data show that more than three-fourths of general and flag officers who retired in grades O-9 and O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 could have served at least 3 more years before reaching the current statutory retirement limits. Existing legislative authority provides some flexibility in managing general and flag officers, but the Executive Branch has not made frequent use of this authority. In particular, the Executive Branch has rarely used its existing authority to defer the retirement of general and flag officers on a case-by-case basis beyond the statutory limits on age and years of service. Additionally, factors other than the statutory limits, such as personal considerations and military service culture, may account for early retirements of general and flag officers. GAO also found that the proposals (1) would reduce congressional oversight and provide broad latitude to the Executive Branch in managing general and flag officers, (2) could impede the upward flow of officers by limiting promotion opportunities due to the extension of general and flag officer careers, and (3) would likely increase federal retirement outlays for retirement compensation, based on a cost estimate developed by GAO.
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-04-1003, Military Personnel: DOD Could Make Greater Use of Existing Legislative Authority to Manage General and Flag Officer Careers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-1003
entitled 'Military Personnel: DOD Could Make Greater Use of Existing
Legislative Authority to Manage General and Flag Officer Careers' which
was released on September 23, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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 Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2004:
Military Personnel:
DOD Could Make Greater Use of Existing Legislative Authority to Manage
General and Flag Officer Careers:
GAO-04-1003:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-1003, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress has established a legislative framework that shapes the
careers and the management of general and flag officers. The Department
of Defense (DOD) has proposed eliminating or amending a number of
legislative provisions, such as revising existing statutory retirement
limits based on age and years of service, to provide greater
flexibility in managing its senior officers in order to retain
experienced leaders. GAO is issuing this report in response to a
mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003. GAO‘s objectives were to (1) develop a profile of general and
flag officer careers and (2) assess DOD‘s justification for its general
and flag officer legislative proposals.
What GAO Found:
General and flag officers who have retired over the past several years
typically retired at age 56 after having served an average of 33 years
of active commissioned service and 3-1/2 years in their last pay grade.
On average, retired general and flag officers were first promoted to
general and flag officer at age 49, upon reaching 26 years of active
commissioned service, and served 6 years as a general or flag officer
before retiring.
Average Age, Years of Service, and Time in Last Pay Grade for General
and Flag Officers Retiring between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data.
[End of table]
DOD did not present evidence that the legislative provisions it seeks
to change hinder the management of general and flag officers or the
agency‘s ability to perform its mission. DOD presented various
rationales for its proposals and sponsored a study of general and flag
officer management but did not provide data to support the need for
these proposals. GAO found that DOD can achieve its goal of extending
some general and flag officers‘ careers and assignments within the
parameters of the current legislative framework since many general and
flag officers retire several years before reaching the statutory
retirement limits. More specifically, the career profile data show that
more than three-fourths of general and flag officers who retired in
grades O-9 and O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 could have
served at least 3 more years before reaching the current statutory
retirement limits. Existing legislative authority provides some
flexibility in managing general and flag officers, but the Executive
Branch has not made frequent use of this authority. In particular, the
Executive Branch has rarely used its existing authority to defer the
retirement of general and flag officers on a case-by-case basis beyond
the statutory limits on age and years of service. Additionally, factors
other than the statutory limits, such as personal considerations and
military service culture, may account for early retirements of general
and flag officers. GAO also found that the proposals (1) would reduce
congressional oversight and provide broad latitude to the Executive
Branch in managing general and flag officers, (2) could impede the
upward flow of officers by limiting promotion opportunities due to the
extension of general and flag officer careers, and (3) would likely
increase federal retirement outlays for retirement compensation, based
on a cost estimate developed by GAO.
What GAO Recommends:
To retain experienced leaders, GAO recommends that DOD evaluate options
for extending general and flag officer careers within the existing
legislative framework. DOD did not concur with this recommendation.
DOD stated that it had studied such options and found that the desired
flexibility cannot be achieved within the current statutory framework.
GAO found that DOD‘s commissioned study did not include a review of
the legislative proposals and noted that improvements could be made
without changes to the law. GAO continues to believe that DOD has not
presented data to justify the need for its legislative proposals.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1003.
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:
Career Patterns of General and Flag Officers:
DOD Did Not Provide Evidence That the Current Legislative Framework
Hinders General and Flag Officer Management or Agency Performance:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: Career Profile Data for Retired General and Flag Officers:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Tables:
Table 1: Pay Grade, Title, and Insignia Worn at General and Flag
Officer Ranks:
Table 2: Average Age, Years of Service, and Time in Last Pay Grade for
General and Flag Officers Retiring between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Table 3: Average Age and Years of Service for General and Flag Officers
Remaining on Active Duty between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Table 4: Average Age and Years of Service at Promotion to Pay Grade O-7
and Average Years as a General or Flag Officer for General and Flag
Officers Retiring between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Table 5: Proportion of Officers Selected for Promotion to Grades O-7
and O-8 between Fiscal Years 1998 and 2003:
Table 6: Estimated Annual Retirement Pay under Current Pay Formula and
under DOD's Proposals:
Figures:
Figure 1: Age Distribution for All General and Flag Officers
Who Retired between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Figure 2: Age Distribution for General and Flag Officers Who Retired at
Pay Grades O-9 and O-10 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Figure 3: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-7 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Figure 4: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-8 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Figure 5: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-9 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Figure 6: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-10 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOPMA: Defense Officer Personnel Management Act:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 23, 2004:
The Honorable John W. Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
General and flag officers are the senior uniformed leaders of the armed
forces. Since 1996, Congress annually has authorized the military
services a total of nearly 900 active duty general and flag officers. A
legislative framework that has evolved over time shapes the careers of
general and flag officers and the management of these officers. For
example, Congress has enacted legislative provisions limiting the
tenure of general and flag officers, the terms they can serve in
specified senior leadership positions, and the distribution of general
and flag officers across pay grades. Such provisions reflect
congressional interest in maintaining oversight and accountability of
general and flag officers. For fiscal year 2005, the Department of
Defense (DOD) has proposed eliminating or amending a number of general
and flag officer provisions to provide greater flexibility in managing
its senior uniformed leaders. Among DOD's stated goals of the proposals
are to extend the careers of general and flag officers and to increase
the length of individual assignments. The Secretary of Defense has
expressed interest in retaining experienced leaders beyond the current
statutory retirement limits. We initiated this review in response to a
mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003.[Footnote 1] As subsequently agreed with your offices, we
developed information and analysis to assist Congress as it considers
DOD's fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals. Our specific objectives
were to (1) develop a profile of general and flag officer careers and
(2) assess DOD's justification for its general and flag officer
legislative proposals.
This is the second report we have issued in response to the fiscal year
2003 mandate. The mandate required DOD to review the existing statutory
framework for the management of general and flag officers and submit
any recommendations for revising the framework. The mandate directed us
to evaluate DOD's recommendations. Our first report reviewed DOD's 2003
study of general and flag officer requirements and authorizations and
recommended actions that DOD could take to clarify its general and flag
officer requirements.[Footnote 2] For example, we recommended that DOD
clarify the magnitude and impact between DOD's validated requirements
for general and flag officers and congressional authorizations, to
include an analysis of the impact caused by the workarounds DOD uses to
fill the gap between requirements and authorizations.
To conduct this study, we analyzed career data on retired general and
flag officers who retired between fiscal years 1997 and 2002. We also
reviewed DOD's rationale and supporting evidence for the legislative
proposals, reviewed the legislative history of provisions affecting
general and flag officers, and obtained information from the military
services on the management of general and flag officers. We also
obtained the perspective of several senior retired general and flag
officers and other knowledgeable individuals with experience in general
and flag officer policy and management. We focused our analysis on the
active duty population, although some of the proposals would also apply
to reserve general and flag officers. We assessed the reliability of
data used in this report and determined that it was sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. Additional information on our scope and
methodology is provided at the end of this letter.
We conducted our work from April to August 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
General and flag officers who have retired over the past several years
typically retired at age 56 after having served an average of 33 years
of active commissioned service and 3-1/2 years in their last pay grade.
On average, retired general and flag officers were first promoted to
general and flag officer at age 49, upon reaching 26 years of active
commissioned service, and served 6 years as a general or flag officer
before retiring. With respect to promotion opportunity, the military
services over the past several years have selected 2.5 percent of the
officers considered for promotion to the one-star rank of brigadier
general/rear admiral (lower half). The services have selected
43 percent of the officers considered for promotion to the two-star
rank of major general/rear admiral.
DOD did not present evidence that the legislative provisions it seeks
to change hinder the management of general and flag officers or the
department's ability to perform its mission, thereby justifying the
need for its legislative proposals. DOD presented various rationales
for its proposals and sponsored a study of general and flag officer
management that DOD cited as its primary analytical support. However,
the study did not specifically include an analysis of the legislative
proposals. We found that DOD can achieve its goal of extending some
general and flag officers' careers and assignments within the
parameters of the current legislative framework since many general and
flag officers retire several years before reaching the statutory
retirement limits. More specifically, the career profile data show that
more than three-fourths of general and flag officers who retired in
grades O-9 and O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 could have
served at least 3 more years before reaching the current statutory
retirement limits. Factors other than the statutory limits, such as
personal considerations and military service culture, may account for
early retirements of general and flag officers. We also found that the
proposals (1) would reduce congressional oversight and provide broad
latitude to the Executive Branch in managing general and flag officers,
(2) could impede the upward flow of officers, and (3) would likely
increase federal retirement outlays. In addition, existing legislative
authority provides some flexibility in managing general and flag
officers, but the Executive Branch has not made frequent use of this
authority. In particular, the Executive Branch has rarely used its
existing authority to defer the retirement of general and flag officers
on a case-by-case basis beyond the statutory limits on age and
total years of service. For example, just one such waiver was currently
in effect at the time of our review, according to DOD.
This report contains a recommendation that DOD explore options for
extending the careers of general and flag officers within the framework
of its existing legislative authority. In its comments on a draft of
this report, DOD did not agree with the recommendation, stating that it
disagreed with the premise that the desired flexibility can be achieved
within the current statutory framework. We continue to believe, on the
basis of our review, that DOD has not presented data to justify the
need for its legislative proposals. Further, we found that there may be
opportunities for DOD to achieve its goal of retaining experienced
leaders without changing the current legislative framework. For
example, the Executive Branch already has the authority to extend the
careers of some general and flag officers beyond the current statutory
retirement limits but has rarely used this authority. A more complete
discussion of DOD's comments and our evaluation of them is provided
beginning on page 26 of this letter.
Background:
General and Flag Officer Ranks:
Congress has established four military ranks above the rank of colonel
(for the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps) and captain (for
the Navy). Table 1 displays the pay grade designation, title of rank,
and insignia worn by officers at general and flag officer ranks.
Table 1: Pay Grade, Title, and Insignia Worn at General and Flag
Officer Ranks:
Pay grade: O-10;
Title of rank: Army, Air Force, Marine Corps: General;
Title of rank: Navy: Admiral;
Insignia: 4 stars.
Pay grade: O-9;
Title of rank: Army, Air Force, Marine Corps: Lieutenant general;
Title of rank: Navy: Vice admiral;
Insignia: 3 stars.
Pay grade: O-8;
Title of rank: Army, Air Force, Marine Corps: Major general;
Title of rank: Navy: Rear admiral;
Insignia: 2 stars.
Pay grade: O-7;
Title of rank: Army, Air Force, Marine Corps: Brigadier general;
Title of rank: Navy: Rear admiral (lower half);
Insignia: 1 star.
Sources: Title 10 U.S. Code and DOD.
[End of table]
Title 10 of the U.S. Code establishes service-specific ceilings for
active duty general and flag officers that total 877.[Footnote 3]
Title 10 also authorizes 12 general and flag officer positions to be
allocated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the services
for joint duty positions. These authorizations do not count against the
service ceilings.[Footnote 4] Title 10 establishes maximum limits on
the percentage of general and flag officers that may serve in certain
pay grades. Specifically, no more than 50 percent of all general or
flag officers in each service may serve in a pay grade above
O-7.[Footnote 5] Between 15.7 and 16.2 percent of a service's general
or flag officers may serve in pay grades O-9 and O-10.[Footnote 6]
Finally, of a service's general or flag officers in grade O-9 and O-10,
a maximum of 25 percent may be in grade O-10.[Footnote 7]
DOD's Fiscal Year 2005 Legislative Proposals:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 directed
DOD to review legislative limitations affecting the management of
general and flag officers and directed DOD to submit a report to
Congress.[Footnote 8] DOD submitted a report in March 2003.[Footnote 9]
In its report, DOD stated that its review pointed to the merit of
additional general and flag officer management flexibilities that would
increase the department's ability to respond to ever-changing events.
The report also recommended changes in legislation to improve general
and flag officer management. In April 2003, DOD submitted a legislative
package to Congress--the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century
Act of 2003--that included several proposals aimed at enhancing the
department's flexibility in managing general and flag officers.
Congress did not enact these proposals. In March 2004, DOD resubmitted
many of the same proposals to Congress for consideration as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. DOD's fiscal
year 2005 legislative proposals are aimed at eliminating or amending
statutory provisions that the department believes restrict its
flexibility in managing general and flag officers.
Career Length and Retirement Compensation:
One group of the fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals would make
changes affecting general and flag officer career length as well as
retirement compensation.
* A proposal to increase the maximum retirement age from 62 to 68.
Currently, commissioned officers generally must retire upon reaching
age 62.[Footnote 10] The President may defer the retirement of an
officer serving in a grade above O-8 to age 64. No more than 10 such
deferments may be in effect at any one time. DOD's proposal would
extend the maximum retirement age to 68 for general and flag officers
and would allow the Secretary of Defense to defer retirement of a
general and flag officer to age 72. There would be no limit on the
number of deferments to age 72.
* A proposal to eliminate limits on the total allowable years of
military service and time in grade. Currently, general and flag
officers must retire upon reaching specified limits on the total years
of active commissioned service or time in grade. These limits vary by
pay grade.[Footnote 11] DOD's proposal would set no limit on the total
allowable years of active commissioned service and time in grade.
* A proposal to eliminate a requirement that general and flag officers
spend at least 3 years time in grade in order to retire in that
grade.[Footnote 12] In addition to the 3-year time-in-grade
requirement, existing law mandates that a general or flag officer in
pay grade O-9 or O-10 may retire in that grade only after the Secretary
of Defense or his designee certifies to the President and Congress that
the officer served on active duty satisfactorily in that grade. Under
DOD's proposal, a general or flag officer at any pay grade may retire
in their current grade as long as the officer has served
satisfactorily. The proposal also would eliminate the certification
requirement for officers retiring in grade O-9 and O-10 and instead
would require the approval of the military department concerned and
concurrence by the Secretary of Defense or his designee.
* Proposals to remove limitations on retirement pay. Currently, basic
pay--the pay used to calculate retirement pay--is capped at the rate of
pay for level III of the federal civilian Executive Schedule,[Footnote
13] and retirement pay is capped at a maximum of 75 percent of base
pay.[Footnote 14] Under one DOD proposal, the basic pay cap would be
removed for the purposes of calculating retirement pay. The pay cap
would remain in place while the officer is serving on active duty. A
second DOD proposal would allow general and flag officers who stay in
military service longer than 30 years to receive retirement pay that
exceeds the current limit of 75 percent of base pay.[Footnote 15]
Term Limits and Lateral Reassignment:
A second group of legislative proposals would change restrictions on
the term limits for officers holding specified senior positions and on
the lateral reassignment of officers.
* A proposal to eliminate existing restrictions on the length of terms
of the service chiefs of staff. The service chiefs are appointed to a
4-year term by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.[Footnote 16] They serve at the pleasure of the President. In
time of war or during a national emergency declared by Congress, a
service chief may be reappointed for a term of not more than 4 years.
Under DOD's proposal, after the service chief's initial 4-year term,
the President may extend the service chief's term as he determines
necessary, without congressional involvement.
* A proposal to eliminate statutory 4-year terms of office for officers
holding specified senior positions.[Footnote 17] These positions
include the Army's branch chiefs, deputy and assistant branch chiefs,
Judge Advocate General and Assistant Judge Advocate General, Chief of
Army Nurse Corps, and Chief of the Army Medical Specialist Corps; the
Navy's Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Chief of the Bureau
of Naval Personnel, Chief of Chaplains, Judge Advocate General, and
Director of the Nurse Corps or Director of the Medical Service Corps;
and the Air Force's Judge Advocate General and Deputy Judge Advocate
General.
* A proposal to eliminate existing restrictions on the number of terms
of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Currently, the Chairman and Vice Chairman are appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.[Footnote
18] They serve at the pleasure of the President for a 2-year term and
may be reappointed in the same manner for two additional terms, for a
total of 6 years. In time of war, there is no limit on the number of
reappointments. An officer may not serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman
if the combined service exceeds 6 years, except that the President may
extend this period to 8 years if he determines such action is in the
national interest. This limitation also does not apply in the time of
war. Under DOD's proposal, the President may reappoint the Chairman and
Vice Chairman for additional 2-year terms as he determines necessary,
without congressional involvement. The provision limiting total
combined service as Chairman and Vice Chairman would be eliminated
under DOD's proposal.
* A proposal to eliminate existing restrictions on the length of terms
of the two Assistants to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for
National Guard and Reserve Matters. Each Assistant serves at the
pleasure of the Chairman for a 2-year term and may be continued in that
assignment in the same manner for 1 additional term.[Footnote 19] In
time of war there is no limit on the number of terms. Under DOD's
proposal, no terms would be specified for these two positions.
* A proposal to permit the President or the Secretary of Defense to
laterally reassign general and flag officers in grades O-9 and O-10 to
positions at the same grade without congressional approval. Currently,
the President may designate positions of importance to carry the grade
of O-9 or O-10.[Footnote 20] An officer assigned to any such position
has the grade specified for that position if he is appointed to that
grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. If the officer is subsequently reassigned to a position at the
same grade, that new assignment must be confirmed by the Senate. Under
DOD's proposal, the President or the Secretary of Defense may reassign
such an officer to another position at the same grade without the
advice and consent of the Senate. DOD's proposed change would not apply
to positions established by law;[Footnote 21] appointment of officers
to these positions would continue to require the advice and consent of
the Senate.
Distribution Among Pay Grades:
One of DOD's proposals addresses the distribution of officers among the
general and flag officer pay grades.
* A proposal to eliminate a provision limiting the number of active
officers who may serve above the pay grade of O-7 to no more than
50 percent of the total number of general and flag officers in a
service.[Footnote 22] Under DOD's proposal, the military services could
have a higher proportion of officers in pay grade O-8 than allowed
under existing law. The proposal does not affect existing caps on
the percentage of general and flag officers in grades O-9 and O-10.
Legislative Framework for General and Flag Officer Management Has
Evolved Over Time:
DOD's fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals represent the latest in a
long series of discussions between Congress and DOD concerning general
and flag officer management. These discussions, which reflect a history
of congressional interest in maintaining oversight and accountability
of general and flag officers, have addressed such issues as the
appropriate number of general and flag officers to lead the armed
forces, their education and qualifications, and their age and
experience level. A legislative framework has evolved that shapes the
careers of general and flag officers and the management of these
officers. The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act of 1980[Footnote
23] established key aspects of the current legislative framework. The
act codified in Title 10 many of the legislative provisions DOD is
seeking to change. Some provisions have roots in earlier legislation
such as the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.[Footnote 24]
Career Patterns of General and Flag Officers:
The career profile data we developed show that general and flag
officers who retired between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 typically
retired at age 56, ranging from an average age of 53 for officers in
pay grade O-7 to 57 for officers in pay grade O-10. These retired
general and flag officers averaged 33 years of active commissioned
service, ranging from 30 years for an O-7 to 35 years for an O-10. The
retirees spent an average of 3-1/2 years in their last pay grade. Table
2 summarizes this data by pay grade.
Table 2: Average Age, Years of Service, and Time in Last Pay Grade for
General and Flag Officers Retiring between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Pay grade: O-7;
Number of retirees: 211;
Average age (years): 53;
Average years of service: 30;
Average time in last pay grade (years): 3.6.
Pay grade: O-8;
Number of retirees: 249;
Average age (years): 56;
Average years of service: 33;
Average time in last pay grade (years): 3.7.
Pay grade: O-9;
Number of retirees: 127;
Average age (years): 56;
Average years of service: 34;
Average time in last pay grade (years): 3.1.
Pay grade: O-10;
Number of retirees: 45;
Average age (years): 58;
Average years of service: 35;
Average time in last pay grade (years): 3.7.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data.
[End of table]
Compared with the retirees, general and flag officers who remained on
active duty during these years were typically younger and had fewer
years of active commissioned service. Table 3 summarizes this data by
pay grade.
Table 3: Average Age and Years of Service for General and Flag Officers
Remaining on Active Duty between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Pay grade: O-7;
Number remaining on active duty: 441;
Average age (years): 52;
Average years of service: 28.
Pay grade: O-8;
Number remaining on active duty: 281;
Average age (years): 54;
Average years of service: 31.
Pay grade: O-9;
Number remaining on active duty: 132;
Average age (years): 56;
Average years of service: 33.
Pay grade: O-10;
Number remaining on active duty: 34;
Average age (years): 57;
Average years of service: 35.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data.
Note: Data as of September 2002.
[End of table]
General and flag officers who retired between fiscal years 1997 and
2002 were promoted to pay grade O-7, on average, at age 49. At this
promotion point, they averaged 26 years of active commissioned
service. Individuals who retired at the higher pay grades were
generally younger and had fewer years of service when promoted to pay
grade O-7 compared with those who retired at the lower pay grades.
General and flag officers who retired during this time period served
an average of 6 years as a general or flag officer, with individuals
in higher pay grades serving longer. Table 4 summarizes this data by
pay grade.
Table 4: Average Age and Years of Service at Promotion to Pay Grade
O-7 and Average Years as a General or Flag Officer for General and
Flag Officers Retiring between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
Pay grade: O-7;
Average age at promotion to O-7: 49;
Average years of service at promotion to O-7: 26;
Average years as a general or flag officer: 3.6.
Pay grade: O-8;
Average age at promotion to O-7: 49;
Average years of service at promotion to O-7: 26;
Average years as a general or flag officer: 6.8.
Pay grade: O-9;
Average age at promotion to O-7: 48;
Average years of service at promotion to O-7: 26;
Average years as a general or flag officer: 8.5.
Pay grade: O-10;
Average age at promotion to O-7: 47;
Average years of service at promotion to O-7: 25;
Average years as a general or flag officer: 10.6.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data.
[End of table]
Promotion data for fiscal years 1998 to 2003 shows that of officers at
the rank of colonel and Navy captain (pay grade O-6) who were
considered for promotion to pay grade O-7, 2.5 percent were selected.
Of officers in pay grade O-7 who were considered for promotion to pay
grade O-8, 43 percent were selected. Table 5 provides promotion data
by service.
Table 5: Proportion of Officers Selected for Promotion to Grades O-7
and O-8 between Fiscal Years 1998 and 2003:
Service: Army;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number considered: 10,120;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number selected: 240;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Percentage: 2.4%;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number considered: 395;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number selected: 186;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Percentage: 47.1%.
Service: Air Force;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number considered: 9,577;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number selected: 232;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Percentage: 2.4%;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number considered: 481;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number selected: 157;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Percentage: 32.6%.
Service: Navy;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number considered: 7,736;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number selected: 202;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Percentage: 2.6%;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number considered: 282;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number selected: 140;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Percentage: 49.7%.
Service: Marine Corps;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number considered: 1,679;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number selected: 58;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Percentage: 3.4%;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number considered: 66;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number selected: 47;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Percentage: 71.2%.
Service: Total;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number considered: 29,112;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Number selected: 732;
Promotion from pay grade O-6 to O-7: Percentage: 2.5%;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number considered: 1,224;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Number selected: 530;
Promotion from pay grade O-7 to O-8: Percentage: 43.3%.
Source: GAO analysis of military service data.
[End of table]
Additional career data for general and flag officers is provided in
appendix I.
DOD Did Not Provide Evidence That the Current Legislative Framework
Hinders General and Flag Officer Management or Agency Performance:
Although DOD provided various rationales for its fiscal year 2005
legislative proposals and sponsored a study on issues related to
general and flag officer management, DOD did not provide evidence
showing that the current legislative framework has hindered DOD's
management of general and flag officers or degraded the department's
performance. In addition, the fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals
(1) would reduce congressional oversight and provide broad latitude to
the Executive Branch in managing general and flag officers, (2) could
impede the upward flow of officers, and (3) would likely increase
federal retirement outlays. Finally, the Executive Branch has not made
frequent use of existing legislative authority that provides some
flexibility to extend the careers of general and flag officers on a
case-by-case basis beyond the statutory limits.
DOD Did Not Provide Data to Support the Need for Its Legislative
Proposals:
DOD did not provide data to support the need for its fiscal year 2005
legislative proposals to eliminate or amend current provisions
governing general and flag officer management. Our prior work has shown
that one of the critical success factors for strategic human capital
management is the use of reliable data to make human capital
decisions.[Footnote 25] A fact-based, performance-oriented approach to
human capital management is crucial for maximizing the value of human
capital as well as managing related risks. DOD has asserted that the
proposals would enhance its ability to manage general and flag officers
and has provided various rationales in favor of the proposals. However,
we did not find evidence that the existing legislative framework has
hindered DOD's management of general and flag officers or the agency's
ability to perform its mission.
As one example, DOD stated that its proposals to extend the statutory
retirement age from age 62 to 68 would allow officers to serve longer
careers and spend more time in assignments. DOD further stated that two
reasons for adopting this proposal are to improve organizational
stability and improve the execution of long-term initiatives under
consistent leadership. However, DOD did not provide data showing that
there are existing problems with organizational instability or
inconsistent leadership, that the current retirement limits are a cause
of these problems, or that the proposals would be effective in
addressing these problems. DOD also did not provide data to explain why
the pros it identified outweigh the cons. Regarding the retirement age
proposal, for example, DOD stated that two cons were a reduction in
opportunities for organizational change that naturally occur with new
leadership and a reduction in opportunities for promotion to general
and flag officer. Moreover, a data-driven analysis also would have
given DOD an opportunity to consider other options for achieving its
goal of extending general and flag officer careers. For instance, it
could have analyzed options for extending military service of more
general and flag officers to the current statutory retirement age,
raising the retirement age by 1 or 2 years versus 6 years, raising the
deferment age above age 64, or increasing the number of authorized age
deferments beyond the 10 that are currently allowed.
The career profile data we developed show that large numbers of general
and flag officers are retiring several years before the statutory
retirement limits on age and years of active commissioned service. Of
the 172 general and flag officers who retired in pay grades O-9 and
O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002, 151 (88 percent) retired at
least 3 years before age 62. Of these 151 officers, 133 (88 percent)
also had 3 years remaining before reaching their statutory retirement
limit on years of active commissioned service. Altogether, these 133
officers represent 77 percent of the 172 general and flag officers who
retired in these pay grades. The data suggests that large numbers of
senior officers could serve at least one more assignment prior to
retirement under the existing legislative framework. Factors other than
the statutory retirement limits may affect the career length of general
and flag officers. Some of the retired general and flag officers we
interviewed noted that many general and flag officers in their 50s
explore their employment options outside the military to increase
stability for their family and earn higher salaries. Some noted a
"burnout" factor associated with their work as a general and flag
officer. Another factor is a military culture, as expressed in service
policies and practices, that encourages general and flag officers to
move aside and make way for others coming up through the ranks. These
policies and practices are discussed further elsewhere in this letter.
DOD sponsored a study by the RAND Corporation that addressed general
and flag officer management issues.[Footnote 26] DOD officials said
this study served as the primary analytical support for its fiscal year
2005 legislative proposals. The RAND study, using the private sector as
a model, identified strategies for managing general and flag officers
that would increase the time they spend in assignments, the time spent
in grade, and total career length. RAND recommended that the services
categorize their general and flag officer positions as either
"developing" or "using" positions and determine the desired tenure for
each, with a general goal of 2 years for developing positions and
4 years for using positions.[Footnote 27] However, RAND was not
specifically tasked in its study to include an analysis of the
legislative proposals, and such an analysis was not included. RAND
concluded that the management changes it suggested could be implemented
largely within DOD's current legislative authority. Title 10 authority
permitting 40-year careers for officers in pay grade O-10 and 38 years
for O-9s coupled with a statutory retirement age of 62 generally is
sufficient, the RAND study stated.[Footnote 28] RAND added that changes
in law could give the services more flexibility to implement its
recommended management changes. For example, allowing officers to
retire with less than 3 years time in grade would allow them to leave
as needed. Also, RAND saw no reason the military retirement age should
not increase from age 62. Finally, RAND supported retirement
compensation changes similar to those proposed by DOD.
Proposals Would Reduce Congressional Oversight and Provide the
Executive Branch Broad Latitude in Managing General and Flag Officers:
Some of DOD's legislative proposals would reduce congressional
oversight of senior officer appointments. Specifically, the President
could extend indefinitely the terms of sitting service chiefs, with no
fixed term length, after they have completed their initial 4-year
appointment. The President also could extend indefinitely the number of
2-year terms served by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, after their initial 2-year appointment. In none of
these cases would Senate confirmation be required. In addition, senior
officers appointed to O-9 and O-10 positions could be reassigned to
other O-9 and O-10 positions (except for those positions established by
law) without going through the confirmation process.
DOD's proposals to permit reappointment of officers to senior positions
and make lateral appointments without going through the Senate
confirmation process would remove a check and balance in the current
system. The current legislative framework establishes congressional
oversight of officer management through several provisions of Title 10
that require the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate
in order to promote or appoint military officers. For example, Title 10
states that appointments made to grades above O-3 by the President
require the advice and consent of the Senate.[Footnote 29] Prior to
such codifications in Title 10, the Officer Personnel Act of 1947
contained Senate confirmation requirements, stating that officers were
entitled to the rank, title, pay, and allowances of a general or
lieutenant general only when appointed in such positions by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.[Footnote
30] The confirmation process also is designed to disclose any important
adverse information about the nominated officer and provides an
opportunity for discussion between nominees and Members of Congress. By
placing a hold on individual nominations, Senators may also use the
confirmation process as leverage on military issues.
The proposed new authorities for managing general and flag officers
would give DOD broad latitude in determining how extensively they are
applied and for what purposes. DOD officials have stated that the
proposals, if approved, would be used sparingly in cases where their
use is deemed appropriate. For instance, DOD could use its proposed new
authorities to extend the career of an officer who holds a key
policy-making, operational, or acquisition position if maintaining
continuity in that position is deemed to be in DOD's best interests.
However, DOD did not present a plan showing how it would institute the
proposed new authorities if approved. The proposed new authorities
could be applied extensively and for purposes other than those
currently intended by DOD. For example, although DOD has stated that
one of its goals is to increase the length of assignments, DOD could
use the authorities to extend the careers of senior officers while
continuing to shift them from assignment to assignment with the same
frequency as today. DOD could also choose to lengthen the time it takes
for an officer to be promoted to general and flag officer rank with the
knowledge that extra time could be gained at the end of the officer's
career. In addition, the proposed new authorities would not preclude
DOD from extending the careers of numerous general and flag officers
rather than a selected few as DOD has stated is its intent. Currently,
the maximum number of age deferments authorized at any one time is 10
officers above pay grade O-8; DOD has proposed eliminating this limit.
In addition, DOD has proposed eliminating existing provisions that
require most general and flag officers to serve at least 3 years time
in grade in order to retire in that grade. Under its proposed new
authorities, DOD could retire numerous general and flag officers in
their current pay grade after they have served satisfactorily for a few
months, weeks, or even days.
During our interviews with retired senior general and flag officers and
other knowledgeable officials, we heard concerns that some of the
legislative proposals could serve to politicize the general and flag
officer corps. In this view, the proposals could enable a sitting
Administration to extend indefinitely the terms of individuals holding
senior leadership positions who agree with the Administration's views
and priorities. This change could tie appointments of officers to
senior positions more closely with the Presidential election cycle. The
current legislative framework includes fixed terms for senior
leadership positions, which ensures, in part, reasonable independence
of thought and expression of general and flag officers holding these
positions. Uniform 4-year fixed terms for the service chiefs were
established in 1963.[Footnote 31] Prior to that time, appointments and
reappointments of service chiefs varied from periods of 4 years,
2 years, no term specified, and as low as 1 year. In its report
accompanying this legislation,[Footnote 32] the House Committee on
Armed Services stated that a service chief should serve long enough to
make his imprint upon the service he represents, particularly on the
budget process. The Committee further stated:
On the other hand, he should not remain indefinitely as the head of
that service. Each service requires, and indeed, is entitled, to a new
service chief every 4 years so that new ideas can be tested; but after
4 years he should step aside for a new appointee.
Proposals Could Impede Upward Flow of General and Flag Officers:
DOD's proposals, by enhancing its flexibility to extend the careers of
general and flag officers, could impede the upward flow of general and
flag officers. Because DOD is authorized a fixed number of general and
flag officers, vacancies must open up in the general and flag officer
pay grades in order to allow for promotions of lower-grade officers.
Therefore, upward flow could be impeded if some general and flag
officers are retained longer on active duty.
Promotion of a steady and predictable upward flow of officers from
junior to more senior positions is a long-standing precept of military
officer management that is grounded in the legislative framework. The
"up-or-out" promotion system, created by the Officer Personnel Act of
1947, requires most commissioned officers at or below pay grade O-4 who
have twice been passed over for promotion to leave military
service.[Footnote 33] The up-or-out system, among other things, creates
promotion opportunities for lower level officers, limits stagnation,
and maintains youth and vigor in the officer corps. As instituted under
the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act of 1980, expectations are
built into the officer management system concerning the points in an
officer's career when promotions should occur from one pay grade to the
next higher level. In hearings preceding adoption of the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act, DOD affirmed the value of the up-and-
out system in fostering a combat ready military.[Footnote 34] A DOD
official also stated that the up-or-out system eliminated the
turbulence and errors associated with replacing an aged senior
leadership and provided a regularized way of replacing people that
maintains a proper age and experience balance.[Footnote 35]
Service policies on general and flag officer management also promote
upward flow by encouraging general and flag officers to retire prior to
the statutory limits.
* According to a 2002 Navy policy issued by the Chief of Naval
Operations,[Footnote 36] a steady process of both promotions and
retirements goes hand-in-hand in the flag community. Since the Navy
operates with fixed authorizations, flag officers promote to vacancies
and vacancies come from retirements. The policy states that to maintain
upward flow, there will come a time when all flag officers must
acknowledge the need to step aside and make room for the youth, vigor,
and vitality of those more junior flag officers. The Navy policy
establishes specific retirement expectations for flag officers in
grades O-7 and O-8 and reinforces the Navy's practice of not relying on
statutory retirements.
* In 2004, the Marine Corps reiterated its general and flag officer
retirement policy to support the service's goal of maintaining a steady
promotion flow.[Footnote 37] The policy states that general officers in
pay grade O-7 who twice have been passed over for promotion should
voluntarily retire after 30 years of service and general officers in
pay grade O-8 who have not been nominated for appointment to a higher
position should plan to voluntarily retire after 3 years time in grade.
The same policy applies to general officers in pay grade O-9 who have
not been nominated for another O-9 or O-10 position.
* An Army policy, which was rescinded in 2004, stated that general
officers in pay grades O-7 and O-8 who had not reached their maximum
limit for years of service were expected to request voluntary
retirement at age 59. According to an Army official, the Army rescinded
this policy because Title 10 restrictions were deemed to be sufficient.
* Air Force officials told us they did not currently have a written
policy on the timing of general officer retirements. A former senior
official we interviewed who was familiar with Air Force policy told us
that while the Air Force did not have a written policy, general
officers were orally briefed that they were expected to retire after
3 years in grade if they were not selected for promotion.
The potential effects of impeding the upward flow of general and flag
officers are reduced promotion opportunities, stagnation, and aging of
the general and flag officer population. However, the impact would
depend on the extent that DOD uses its proposed authority to extend
general and flag officer careers. Some of the former senior officials
we interviewed thought that youth and vigor should be maintained and
that aging the general and flag officer population would therefore be a
mistake. Concern was also expressed about the creation of promotion
bottlenecks and the possibility that older general and flag officers
may become out of touch with current technology, training, and other
aspects of the military. Others were not concerned about aging this
population, stating that individuals are different and their vigor
should not be judged based solely on age. Life expectancy in the United
States increased by about 10 years (16 percent) since the Officer
Personnel Act of 1947 and about 3 years (5 percent) since the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act of 1980.[Footnote 38]
Upward flow could be retained under DOD's proposal to eliminate the
statutory requirement that an officer must serve 3 years time in grade
in order to retire in that grade. Currently, other statutory provisions
allow for a small number of individuals to retire with less than
3 years time in grade.[Footnote 39] Eliminating the time-in-grade
requirement would theoretically enable the services to balance the
extensions of some general and flag officer careers with the earlier
retirement of other officers in order to continue the upward flow of
officers. The 3-year rule was instituted under the Defense Officer
Personnel Management Act.[Footnote 40] The former senior officials we
interviewed generally favored some time-in-grade requirement rather
than eliminating the requirement altogether. They stated that at least
a year or two is needed for newly promoted individuals to learn their
new job, make an impact on the organization, and recover from any early
mistakes. A time-in-grade requirement also gives the service time to
assess the performance and future potential of these officers.
Another DOD proposal that could affect the upward flow of general and
flag officers is the elimination of the statutory limit requiring that
no more than 50 percent of a service's general or flag officers serve
in a pay grade above O-7. Eliminating this limit could result in an
increase in the number of positions at pay grade O-8 and a decrease in
the number of positions at pay grade O-7. Consequently, the services
may have to be less selective in promoting general and flag officers
from pay grade O-7 to O-8. For instance, the Marine Corps already
promotes, on average, 71 percent of its general and flag officers from
pay grade O-7 to O-8. If its pool of O-8 positions increases relative
to the O-7 pool, the Marine Corps would have to promote an even
larger percentage of officers from pay grade O-7, thereby decreasing
selectivity. Service officials said that the job structure for their
general and flag officers is based on the current 50-percent
distribution limit. DOD reviewed its general and flag officer positions
in 2003 and validated requirements for 1,039 active duty general and
flag officer positions, including 524 (50 percent) at the O-7 pay
grade. Some of the former senior officials we interviewed expressed
concerns about removing the distribution limit. The current limit
creates a pyramid-shaped general and flag officer corps, with a large
pool of O-7s at the base and fewer numbers at each higher rank. This
pyramid shape enables the services to manage their general and flag
officers in a way that allows for predictability and selectivity.
Proposed Compensation Changes Would Increase Federal Retirement
Outlays:
Our analysis of DOD's retirement compensation proposals to remove the
basic pay cap and the 75-percent cap shows that, if implemented, they
would likely result in an increase in federal retirement outlays. Based
on a cost estimate we developed, federal retirement outlays would
increase by a total of approximately $55 million in fiscal year 2004
dollars over a 10-year period. Outlays over the longer term would
continue to grow as more general and flag officers retire under the
revised formulas and continue to receive higher retirement pay over
their lifetime. Information on how we calculated this cost estimate,
including the limitations of our methodology, is provided in the scope
and methodology section at the end of this letter. We did not calculate
the annual amount that would have to be appropriated for the military
retirement fund if the proposals were implemented.[Footnote 41]
DOD did not develop a cost estimate for its general and flag officer
proposals. DOD officials, however, stated that the costs of its
proposals taken together would be minimal because a smaller number of
officers would serve longer in senior positions than is currently the
case. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of legislative provisions
to allow certain senior officers to remain on active duty longer and
others to retire with less time in grade would have an insignificant
impact on direct spending.[Footnote 42] According to the Congressional
Budget Office analysis, the costs and benefits of these adjustments
would offset each other. The Congressional Budget Office analysis did
not include the retirement compensation proposals.
DOD stated that its proposals to improve retirement pay would provide
greater incentive for general and flag officers to remain on active
duty and would provide more appropriate compensation for general and
flag officers who serve longer careers. Our interviews with retired
general and flag officers indicated that retirement pay was not a
driving factor in their decision about when to retire. Some expressed
the opinion that retirement pay was adequate, while others stated that
retirement pay should be improved to recognize and reward longer
military service.
Retirement pay for general and flag officers, as well as other
servicemembers, is based on a servicemember's basic pay while on active
duty times a multiplier.[Footnote 43] The multiplier is equal to
2.5 percent times their years of service. At this rate, retirement pay
rises from 50 percent of basic pay with 20 years of service until
reaching 75 percent of basic pay with 30 years of service. At that
point, retirement pay is capped at 75 percent of basic pay. Based on
basic pay rates effective January 1, 2004, the maximum basic pay for a
general or flag officer (for an officer in pay grade O-10 with more
than 26 years of service) is $13,304 per month, or $159,654 per
year.[Footnote 44] However, a legislative cap on basic pay limits basic
pay to the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule, which
for 2004 equals the rate of $12,050 per month, or $144,600 per
year.[Footnote 45]
Our analysis of DOD's retirement compensation proposals shows that
DOD's proposal to eliminate the basic pay cap would increase retirement
pay for officers in pay grade O-10, although general and flag officers
at lower pay grades could be affected in later years if basic pay
increases at a faster rate than the cap. DOD's proposal to eliminate
the 75-percent retirement pay cap would increase retirement pay for
general and flag officers at any pay grade who retire with more than
30 years of service. Table 6 shows the estimated impact of eliminating
one or both of these caps on a general or flag officer's retirement
pay. The table provides notional examples for an officer in each of the
four general and flag officers pay grades retiring at either 30 or
37 years of service. The estimates are based on basic pay rates
effective as of January 1, 2004.
Table 6: Estimated Annual Retirement Pay under Current Pay Formula and
under DOD's Proposals:
Pay grade: O-7;
Years of service: 30;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $84,901;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
No change[A];
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
No change.
Pay grade: O-7;
Years of service: 37;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $84,901;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: $104,712;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
$104,712.
Pay grade: O-8;
Years of service: 30;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $95,717;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
No change.
Pay grade: O-8;
Years of service: 37;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $95,717;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: $118,052;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
$118,052.
Pay grade: O-9;
Years of service: 30;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $105,645;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
No change.
Pay grade: O-9;
Years of service: 37;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $105,645;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: $130,296;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
$130,296.
Pay grade: O-10;
Years of service: 30;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $108,450;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
$119,734;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: No change;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
$119,734.
Pay grade: O-10;
Years of service: 37;
Estimated annual retirement pay: Under current formula: $108,450;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only basic pay cap were removed:
$119,734;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If only 75% retirement cap were
removed: $133,755;
Estimated annual retirement pay: If both caps were removed:
$147,672.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Table excludes nonpay retirement benefits such as health care and
access to commissaries.
[A] No change indicates the individual would receive the same estimated
retirement pay as under the current formula.
[End of table]
Executive Branch Has Not Made Frequent Use of Existing Legislative
Authority to Extend General and Flag Officer Careers:
The Executive Branch currently has legislative authority to extend the
careers of general and flag officers on a case-by-case basis without
congressional approval. Title 10 grants the President authority to
extend the careers of as many as 10 general and flag officers to age
64, or 2 years beyond the standard retirement age.[Footnote 46] In
addition, service Secretaries may defer the retirement of officers in
the health professions and the chaplain corps until age 68 if such a
deferral is deemed to be in the best interest of the military
service.[Footnote 47] Title 10 also authorizes a service Secretary,
based on the needs of the service, to defer the retirement of officers
in the grades of O-7 and O-8 for up to 5 years beyond their years of
service limit.[Footnote 48] Deferment for any officer in a grade above
O-8 requires Presidential approval.
The Executive Branch has not made frequent use of its existing
authority to extend the careers of general and flag officers. Although
DOD does not track the extent that this authority is used, DOD
officials told us it has been used rarely. For instance, they stated
that just one age deferment was currently in effect. Our analysis
showed that few general and flag officers have exceeded the statutory
retirement limits. Only three general and flag officers who retired
between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 exceeded the age 62 limit, and eight
general and flag officers exceeded the years of service
limits.[Footnote 49] According to an official in the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Officer and
Enlisted Personnel Management, the existing authority to extend general
and flag officer careers is seldom used because DOD prefers not to
sanction routine exceptions to the normal retirement limits. The
official also characterized the department's process for gaining
approval of these exceptions as onerous and time-consuming. DOD's
procedures call for six individuals to approve a deferment--the service
chief, the service secretary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the
Secretary of Defense, and the President. Some deferments, however, do
not have a statutory requirement for approval beyond the service
secretary. In addition, deferments have been included as part of the
Presidential nomination process rather than treated as separate
actions. In such cases, the nomination package from the Secretary of
Defense to the President requesting appointment of an officer to a
general and flag officer position simultaneously requests Presidential
approval of a retirement deferment if a deferment is determined to be
required for the officer to serve in the position.
While DOD expressed misgivings about using its existing legislative
authority to exceed statutory retirement limits, DOD could make greater
use of this authority in order to extend the careers of general and
flag officers on a case-by-case basis. DOD has used existing authority
to allow a small number of general and flag officers to retire in their
current pay grade with less than 3 years time in grade. A policy
decision to make greater use of its existing authority to extend
general and flag officer careers could also provide an incentive for
DOD to achieve greater efficiency in the deferment process.
Conclusions:
DOD has not presented a sound business case to support the need for
changing existing legislative provisions to better manage general and
flag officers. DOD, for example, has not provided data showing that the
existing legislative provisions have hindered general and flag officer
management or led to agency performance problems such as organizational
instability. Furthermore, some of the proposed changes would reduce
congressional oversight of general and flag officers and could impede
the upward flow of general and flag officers. DOD may have options for
extending the careers and assignments of general and flag officers
without raising the statutory retirement age or the limit on
total years of active commissioned service. Efforts to extend general
and flag officer careers, however, would have to account for factors
other than the statutory limits that have a role in the timing of
general and flag officer retirements--factors including personal
considerations and a military culture that encourages senior leaders to
step aside and make way for others to move up. DOD also has the
authority, on a case-by-case basis, to extend general and flag officer
careers beyond the statutory retirement limits. We see no reason for
DOD not to use this authority to the fullest extent allowable under the
law. If DOD makes full use of its existing legislative authority but
finds that it is inadequate to achieve its goal of retaining
experienced leaders, then it may be in a better position to argue for
changes to this authority. Finally, DOD has not determined the long-
term cost implications of its proposals pertaining to retirement
compensation.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help achieve DOD's goal of retaining experienced leaders, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to evaluate options for extending
general and flag officer careers within the existing legislative
framework. This evaluation should include an assessment of (1) factors
that contribute to the retirement of senior general and flag officers
prior to the statutory retirement limits, (2) the need for changes in
DOD policy or procedure to make greater use of existing authority to
extend general and flag officers careers on a case-by-case basis beyond
the statutory retirement limits, and (3) the long-term cost
implications of proposals to change retirement compensation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report. In its
comments, DOD did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it
opposed the premise that the desired flexibility can be achieved within
the current statutory framework. We recognize that the national
security mission, including the Global War on Terrorism and
transformation of the force, presents increasing complexities for
military leaders, and we do not take issue with the department's
position that it needs experienced and agile senior leaders. The
question is whether the current legislative framework has hindered
DOD's ability to manage general and flag officers effectively or the
agency's performance. We continue to believe that DOD has not presented
a sound business case to support the need for changing the existing
legislative framework. This is not to say that changes are not needed
for the future, but that DOD has not provided data to make a
determination either way. Unless and until a business case for change
is made, we believe our recommendation will help DOD maximize the use
of its current legislative authorities in order to retain experienced
leaders. In addition, DOD already has the authority to extend the
careers of some general and flag officers beyond the statutory
retirement limits but has rarely used this authority. For example, as
noted in our report, just one age deferment was in effect at the time
of our review.
DOD stated that options for extending general and flag officer careers
within the existing legislative framework were considered by the RAND
study and found wanting. However, the statement of work for the study
established a broad objective to assess the management and policy
implications of potential changes in military officer management and
policy. The statement of work did not address specifically DOD's
legislative proposals for general and flag officer management. The main
thrust of the RAND study was to assess options for varying the length
and number of general and flag officer assignments rather than a review
of the existing legislative framework. RAND advocated that the military
services establish goals on the desired length of assignments based on
the nature of the positions. RAND concluded that the changes it
suggested to improve the management of general and flag officer careers
could be implemented largely within DOD's current legislative
framework, although changes in law (such as extending the statutory
retirement age) could give the services more flexibility to implement
RAND's recommendations.
In its comments, DOD stated that it should not have to justify its
legislative proposals by identifying failures in the current general
and flag officer management system. Our report does not imply that this
is the standard for seeking management improvements. However, DOD did
not provide data to support its assertions that there were existing
problems with the current system--such as organizational instability
and inconsistent leadership--that the current statutory framework was a
cause of these problems, or that the proposals would be effective in
addressing these problems. In the absence of data, it is difficult to
judge DOD's assertions that the proposed authorities are needed.
Moreover, a data-driven analysis may have identified other options for
achieving DOD's goal of extending general and flag officer careers. Our
report provides examples of such options.
DOD, in its comments, further stated that retaining senior, experienced
leaders requires a systemic change to the management of general and
flag officers. Making greater use of its existing authorities to extend
general and flag officer careers on a case-by-case basis would,
according to DOD, provide only marginal opportunities for improvement
and would be less preferable than a set of statutes designed to
encourage retention of experienced officers. The issue of whether DOD
should make more extensive use of existing authorities in lieu of the
systemic changes it seeks depends in part on DOD's intentions for
extending the careers of general and flag officers. During our review,
we were told the legislative proposals, if approved, would be used
sparingly in cases where their use is deemed appropriate. If that is
still the case, then making greater use of the existing authorities
could be sufficient for achieving this goal. If DOD makes greater use
of these authorities and ultimately finds them to be inadequate, then
the department may be in a better position to argue for changes to the
existing statutes. As we noted in our report, however, DOD had not
presented an implementation plan, and the proposed new authorities
could be applied more extensively or for purposes other than those
currently intended by DOD.
DOD also stated that our report did not adequately address the
relationship between service policy and culture and the existing
statutory authorities. DOD stated that the services have had to adopt
more stringent criteria than the law allows to ensure an orderly
transition of senior officers as they approach their statutory age and
tenure limits and to avoid organizational turmoil and personal
hardship. Our report states, however, that a steady upward flow of
officers is grounded in the legislative framework and reinforced by
service policies on general and flag officer management. Because DOD is
authorized a fixed number of general and flag officers, vacancies must
open up in the general and flag officer pay grades in order to allow
for promotions of lower-grade officers. The service policies cited in
our report appear to be aimed primarily at ensuring that general and
flag officers will retire when their services are no longer needed
rather than on avoiding problems with the current statutory retirement
limits. In addition, the Army's decision to rescind its policy is
inconsistent with DOD's comment that the services have needed to adopt
more stringent criteria than the law allows. As our report states, many
general and flag officers are retiring several years before reaching
their statutory limits on age and years of commissioned service. For
example, more than three-fourths of general and flag officers who
retired in grades O-9 and O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 could
have served 3 or more years before reaching the current statutory
retirement limits. Factors other than the statutory limits, such as
personal considerations and military service culture, may account for
early retirements of general and flag officers. As part of our
recommendation, we state that DOD should assess these factors as part
of its evaluation of options for extending general and flag officer
careers within the current legislative framework.
Finally, in its comments, DOD stated that the costs associated with the
retirement compensation proposals would be offset by a reduction in the
number of O-10 retirees and the fact that longer service means fewer
years of actual retirement per retiree. DOD added that a detailed
discussion of this point is provided in the RAND study. DOD, however,
has not analyzed the long-term cost implications of its retirement
compensation proposals. In addition, while the RAND study contains a
discussion of retirement compensation and recommends that DOD consider
changes in this area, it does not provide an analysis of long-term cost
implications. RAND officials told us that they developed some rough
cost estimates but that a cost analysis was not part of their study
objectives. We continue to believe that a full assessment of the
retirement compensation proposals should include a cost analysis. In
addition, it should be noted that the proposal to remove the 75-percent
cap would increase retirement pay for general and flag officers at any
pay grade--not just O-10s--who retire with more than 30 years of
service.
DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix II of this letter.
Scope and Methodology:
To develop a career profile of general and flag officers, we obtained
data from the Defense Manpower Data Center covering fiscal years 1997
to 2002. Of the 1,535 general and flag officers in the database, 635
had retirement dates and 900 were still on active duty as of the end of
fiscal year 2002. We used the general and flag officer data to build an
overall general and flag officer career profile by analyzing salient
characteristics of that population. For example, we identified such
things as the mean-averages of years in service, years in grade, and
years of age at retirement. We assessed the reliability of the data by
(1) performing electronic testing of required data elements,
(2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that
produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable
about the data. As a further check on data reliability, we
independently obtained general and flag officer data from each of the
military services. We concluded from our review that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also obtained
data from the military services concerning promotion opportunity for
officers selected for promotion to pay grades O-7 and O-8. This data
covered fiscal years 1998 to 2003.
To assess DOD's justification for its fiscal year 2005 legislative
proposals, we reviewed DOD's rationale and supporting evidence for the
proposals, including a section-by-section analysis of the legislative
proposals developed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and
statements made by senior DOD officials in congressional testimony. We
reviewed the 2004 RAND study on general and flag officer management,
met with the principal authors of the study, and obtained related
information, including the statement of work and the database RAND
developed of general and flag officer assignments. We discussed with
RAND officials the methodology used to compile this database. We did
not assess the models RAND used in its analysis. We reviewed the
legislative histories of existing provisions that DOD seeks to change.
We also met with OSD and service officials to discuss the legislative
proposals and the management of general and flag officers under the
current legislative framework. We obtained DOD and service policies and
other documents and data regarding general and flag officer management.
We met with 11 retired senior general and flag officers and other
officials with experience in general and flag officer policies and
management to obtain their views on the legislative proposals. We
identified these officials through information obtained from DOD as
well as referrals from the individuals interviewed. In selecting the
individuals, we sought to obtain a variety of perspectives based on
their previous experiences. As a group, these individuals spanned the
four military services and OSD and included senior leadership in the
military services, the Joint Staff, and operational commands. Some of
these individuals had worked extensively on military personnel matters
and general and flag officer issues within both DOD and Congress. Since
the individuals were selected judgmentally, their views are not
representative of a larger population.
For our analysis of DOD's retirement pay proposals, we used the data
from the Defense Manpower Data Center to determine the pay grade and
years of service for general and flag officers who retired between
fiscal years 1997 to 2002. We then calculated, based on the basic pay
table effective as of January 1, 2004, what their retirement pay would
be under the existing retirement pay formula and under the proposed
changes. We calculated the annual average federal government outlay in
fiscal year 2004 dollars for retirement pay and total outlays over a
10-year period. The assumptions we used for our analysis have
limitations. We did not calculate annual increases either in basic pay
or in retirement pay cost-of-living adjustments. We also assumed that
all new beneficiaries would continue to receive retirement pay over the
10-year period; we did not include actuarial projections to account for
expected life expectancy. Our calculations were based on the final pay
retirement formula, although there will be future growth in the number
of general and flag officers who retire under the "high-3" formula. We
assumed that future general and flag officer retirees would have a
similar profile in terms of number of retirees, pay grade, and years of
service to those who retired between fiscal years 1997 to 2002.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-5559 (stewartd@gao.gov) or Brenda S. Farrell at
(202) 512-3604 (farrellb@gao.gov). Major contributors to this report
were James Driggins, Thomas W. Gosling, David Mayfield, J. Paul Newton,
Jennifer R. Popovic, and Bethann E. Ritter.
Signed by:
Derek B. Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Career Profile Data for Retired General and Flag Officers:
This appendix presents data showing the age and years of service
distributions for general and flag officers who retired between
fiscal years 1997 and 2002.
Figure 1: Age Distribution for All General and Flag Officers
Who Retired between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Age Distribution for General and Flag Officers Who Retired at
Pay Grades O-9 and O-10 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-7 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-8 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-9 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Years of Service Distribution for General and Flag Officers
Who Retired at Pay Grade O-10 between Fiscal Years 1997 and 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
AUG 31 2004:
Mr. Derek Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stewart:
This is the Department of Defense response to the Government
Accountability Office draft report "MILITARY PERSONNEL: DoD Could Make
Greater Use of Existing Legislative Authority to Manage General & Flag
Officer Careers," (GAO Code 350523).
The Department non-concurs with the report. The Department's detailed
comments to the recommendations are enclosed. There are no technical
comments regarding this report.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft
report. For further questions concerning this report, please contact
Lieutenant Colonel Lernes Hebert, Assistant Director, General Officer
and Flag Officer Management, (703) 695-6312.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charles S. Abell:
Principal Deputy:
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED August 12, 2004 GAO-04-1003 / CODE 350523:
"MILITARY PERSONNEL: DOD Could Make Greater Use of Existing Legislative
Authority to Manage General & Flag Officer Careers"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION: To help achieve DoD's goal of retaining experienced
leaders, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to evaluate options
for extending general and flag officer careers within the existing
legislative framework. This evaluation should include an assessment of
(1) factors that contribute to the retirement of senior general and
flag officers prior to the statutory retirement limits, (2) the need
for changes in DoD policy or procedure to make greater use of existing
authority to extend general and flag officers careers on a case-by-case
basis beyond the statutory retirement limits, and (3) the long-term
cost implications of proposals to change retirement compensation. (p.
21/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Non-concur -As the Department addresses the challenges
posed by the Global War on Terrorism and at the same time preparing for
the future by transforming the force, gaining flexibility in managing
the nation's senior military leaders is of paramount importance. We
offer the following comments opposing the premise that the required
flexibility can be exercised within the current statutory framework.
The options for extending general and flag officer careers within the
existing legislative framework were considered and found wanting. These
options were appropriately addressed in the RAND study "Aligning the
Stars." As the Congress astutely incorporated sweeping changes in
authorities for managing our civilian workforce with the National
Security Personnel System in the 2004 NDAA, we sought similar
flexibilities for general and flag officer management in the
Department's FY 05 legislative package. While we have no specific
technical clarifications to the GAO report, we do offer the following
observations.
The highest priority for the Department in this endeavor is the ability
to retain beyond current statutory maximums our most senior and
experienced talent. To do so, requires a systemic change to the
management of general and flag officers. Routinely using the
exceptional authorities under the current statutory authority provides
only marginal opportunities for improvement; this in no way approaches
the gains that could be achieved through the enactment of the proposed
legislative initiatives.
Particularly beneficial are those initiatives resulting in increased
age and tenure. If age and tenure are increased then the proposed
legislation regarding pay is a natural extension of these initiatives.
The costs associated with these pay initiatives will be offset by the
reduction in the number of 0-10 retirees and the fact that longer
service means fewer years of actual retirement per retiree. A detailed
discussion of this point is provided in the previously referenced RAND
study.
The increasing complexities of today's national security mission
demands a broader range of experiences of our officers and cannot be
achieved in the same career span as their predecessors. While the
report accurately indicates that we have not identified endemic
failures, this is not the standard by which we judge whether or not to
seek improvement in the management of our general and flag officer
force. The report further indicates that routinely using exceptional
authorities is preferred over a set of statutes designed to encourage
retention of our most experienced officers. This is counterintuitive
and at best is inefficient; at worst, this sets the stage for
squandering fleeting opportunities to achieve our national objectives.
The report does not adequately address the fact that Service policy and
culture are based on the existing statutory authorities. In order to
ensure orderly transition of our senior officers as they approach their
statutory age and tenure limits, the Services have had to necessarily
adopt more stringent criteria than the law allows. To do otherwise,
would create organizational turmoil and personal hardship. The service
demographics referenced in the report indicate that as most officers
approach their final three years of tenure, they opt for retirement in
lieu of another assignment. Given the limited exceptional authorities
to exceed tenure limits, this is a reasonable reaction.
The Department stands ready to work with the Congress to amend the
language in the proposed legislative initiatives to fully and
satisfactorily address concerns regarding Congressional oversight. The
intent of these initiatives is to gain the required flexibilities and
experience, not to create a system without positive controls.
September 11, 2001, created the realization across this nation that we
must be prepared for the unexpected. It is in this vein that the
Department is attempting to transform the management of general and
flag officers from a static model to a dynamic one. The synergistic
effect of the general and flag officer legislative initiatives put
forth by the Department will provide lasting benefits to this nation in
the form of more experienced and agile senior leaders; officers whose
extensive experience makes them the ideal candidates for a broader
range of duties and able to face any challenge the future holds.
[End of section]
(350423)
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. 107-314, section 404(c) (Dec. 2, 2002).
[2] GAO, Military Personnel: General and Flag Officer Requirements Are
Unclear Based on DOD's 2003 Report to Congress, GAO-04-488 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 21, 2004).
[3] 10 U.S.C., section 526.
[4] 10 U.S.C., section 526(b).
[5] 10 U.S.C., section 525(a).
[6] 10 U.S.C., section 525(b).
[7] This provision does not apply to the Marine Corps.
[8] Pub. L. 107-314, section 404(c). This reporting requirement stems
from an earlier requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Pub. L. 104-201, sections 1213(b) through (e)).
DOD developed a draft report in response to this requirement; however,
it never issued a final report.
[9] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and Flag Officer
Authorizations (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2003).
[10] 10 U.S.C., section 1251.
[11] Under 10 U.S.C., sections 635 and 636, commissioned officers
holding the grade of O-7 must retire upon reaching 30 years of active
commissioned service or serving for 5 years after appointment to that
grade, whichever is later; commissioned officers holding the grade of
O-8 must retire upon reaching 35 years of active commissioned service
or serving 5 years after appointment to that grade, whichever is later;
commissioned officers serving in the grade of O-9 must retire upon
reaching 38 years of active commissioned service or serving 5 years
after appointment to the grade of O-8, whichever is later; commissioned
officers serving in the grade of O-10 must retire upon reaching
40 years of active commissioned service or serving 5 years after
appointment to the grade of O-8, whichever is later.
[12] 10 U.S.C., section 1370.
[13] 37 U.S.C., section 203(a)(2).
[14] 10 U.S.C., sections 1401, 1409(b).
[15] This provision would also apply to military members retired in
grades E-8 to O-6 under conditions established by the Secretary of
Defense.
[16] 10 U.S.C., sections 3033(a)(1), 5033(a)(1), 5043(a)(1),
8033(a)(1).
[17] 10 U.S.C., sections 3036(c), 3037(a), 3039(a), 3069(b), 3070(b)
and (c), 5137(a), 5141(a), 5142(c), 5148(b), 5150(c), 8037(a) and (d).
[18] 10 U.S.C., sections 152(a), 154(a).
[19] Pub. L. 105-85, section 901(c) (Nov. 18, 1997).
[20] 10 U.S.C., section 601.
[21] These positions include the service Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman
and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant
Commanders, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Reserve Chiefs
and Guard Directors, service branch and bureau chiefs, and others.
[22] 10 U.S.C., section 525(a).
[23] Pub. L. 96-513 (Dec. 12, 1980).
[24] Pub. L. 80-31 (Aug. 7, 1947).
[25] GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, Exposure
Draft, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).
[26] RAND Corporation, Aligning the Stars: Improvements to General and
Flag Officer Management, MR-1712-OSD (Santa Monica, Ca.: 2004).
[27] RAND characterized "developing" positions as early assignments
that build functional skills, organizational knowledge, and personal
insights and "using" positions as later assignments that tend to have
more complex and ambiguous responsibilities that draw on the skills and
knowledge developed in earlier assignments.
[28] RAND, Aligning the Stars, p. 59.
[29] 10 U.S.C., section 624(c).
[30] Pub. L. 80-381, section 504(b) (Aug. 7, 1947).
[31] 10 U.S.C., section 5201. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was
the only service chief at this time who was appointed to a fixed 4-year
term.
[32] H. Rep. 88-883, at 5 (1963).
[33] See 10 U.S.C., sections 631 and 632. 10 U.S.C., section 637 allows
those officers subject to discharge or retirement pursuant to 10
U.S.C., sections 631 or 632, to be selectively retained on active duty,
subject to the needs of the service.
[34] Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA): Hearings on H.R.
7486 Before the Subcommittee on Military Compensation of the House
Committee on Armed Services, 94th Congress. 243-244 (1975) (Statement
of Vice Admiral John G. Finneran, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Military Personnel Policy).
[35] Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA): Hearings on H.R.
7486 Before the Subcommittee on Military Compensation of the House
Committee on Armed Services, 94th Congress. 302 (1975) (Statement of
Vice Admiral John G. Finneran, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Military Personnel Policy).
[36] Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,
Flag Officer Management and Detailing (Sept. 15, 2002).
[37] Department of the Navy, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps,
General Officer Promotions and Retirements (Feb. 17, 2004).
[38] Data as of 2001. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health
Statistics, The National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 52, No. 14
(Hyattsville, Md.: Feb. 18, 2004).
[39] 10 U.S.C., section 1370(2)(B)-(E).
[40] Pub. L. 96-513, section 112.
[41] Federal budget outlays to cover the costs of military retirement
pay (payments to current retirees) are greater than DOD accrual outlays
(money set aside to fund future retirees). Since fiscal year 1985, DOD
has used accrual accounting, which reflects the estimated amount of
money that must be set aside and accrued at interest.
[42] Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for sections 503 and 504
of H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
as reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 14, 2004.
[43] 10 U.S.C., section 1401. For personnel who first became members of
the armed forces before September 8, 1980, the basic pay rate used to
calculate retirement pay is the final basic pay. 10 U.S.C., section
1406. For members who first became a member of the armed forces on or
after September 8, 1980, the basic pay rate used is the average of the
highest 36 months of basic pay (or the "high-3") . 10 U.S.C., section
1407. Personnel who first entered the armed services on or after August
1, 1986, may opt to receive retirement pay under the "high-3" system or
under another formula known as "redux." 10 U.S.C., section 1410.
[44] Basic pay is one component of a servicemember's compensation.
Other components of compensation are allowances for housing and
subsistence as well as other pays and allowances, tax benefits, and
nonmonetary compensation.
[45] See 37 U.S.C., section 203(a)(2). An exception is made for
officers serving as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the service chiefs, who for 2004 are authorized basic pay of
$14,634 per month, or $175,610 per year.
[46] 10 U.S.C., section 1251(b).
[47] 10 U.S.C., section 1251(c).
[48] 10 U.S.C., section 637 (b).
[49] Using service-provided career profile data, we corroborated the
data for all three individuals who exceeded age 62. All of these
individuals were military chaplains. We corroborated the data for four
of the eight individuals who exceeded the years of service limits.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
