Army National Guard
Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers Gao ID: GAO-05-79 January 31, 2005GAO was asked to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased operational tempo on the process used to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families; (2) the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the processes, human capital, and automated systems relied on for Army Guard travel reimbursements; and (3) whether the Department of Defense's (DOD) current efforts to automate its travel reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified. GAO selected and audited 10 case study units that were identified in a preliminary assessment as having a variety of travel reimbursement problems.
Mobilized Army Guard soldiers have experienced significant problems getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for out-of-pocket travel expenses. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of the sustained increase in mobilized Guard soldiers following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To its credit, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) hired over 200 new personnel to address travel voucher processing backlogs and recently upgraded their training. However, Guard soldiers in our case study units reported a number of problems they and their families endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and inability to make child support payments. The soldier bears primary responsibility for travel voucher preparation, including obtaining paper copies of various types of authorizations. DFAS data indicate that it rejected and asked soldiers to resubmit about 18 percent of vouchers during fiscal year 2004--a churning process that added to delays and frustration. Also, existing guidance did not clearly address the sometimes complex travel situations of mobilized Army Guard soldiers, who were often housed off-post due to overcrowding on military installations. Further, DOD continued to be noncompliant with a law that requires payment of late payment interest and fees when soldiers' travel reimbursements are not timely. With respect to human capital, GAO found a lack of oversight and accountability and inadequate training. Automated systems problems, such as nonintegration of key systems involved in authorizing and paying travel expenses and failure to automate key processes, also contributed to the inefficient, error-prone process. DOD has been developing and implementing the Defense Travel System (DTS) to resolve travel-related deficiencies. However, DTS will not address some of the key systems flaws. For example, DTS is currently not able to process mobilized soldier travel authorizations and vouchers and identify and calculate late payment interest and fees.
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-05-79, Army National Guard: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-79
entitled 'Army National Guard: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results
in Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers' which was
released on March 16, 2005.
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 Requesters:
January 2005:
Army National Guard:
Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement
Problems for Mobilized Soldiers:
GAO-05-79:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-79, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
GAO was asked to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased
operational tempo on the process used to reimburse Army Guard soldiers
for travel expenses and the effect that travel reimbursement problems
have had on soldiers and their families; (2) the adequacy of the
overall design of controls over the processes, human capital, and
automated systems relied on for Army Guard travel reimbursements; and
(3) whether the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) current efforts to
automate its travel reimbursement process will resolve the problems
identified. GAO selected and audited 10 case study units that were
identified in a preliminary assessment as having a variety of travel
reimbursement problems.
What GAO Found:
Mobilized Army Guard soldiers have experienced significant problems
getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for out-of-
pocket travel expenses. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of
the sustained increase in mobilized Guard soldiers following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To its credit, the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) hired over 200 new personnel to
address travel voucher processing backlogs and recently upgraded their
training. However, Guard soldiers in our case study units reported a
number of problems they and their families endured due to delayed or
unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their personal credit
cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and inability to make child
support payments.
Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units:
Army Guard unit: Maryland 115th Military Police;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 107 of 107;
Problems encountered and status: Soldiers housed off-post were denied
per diem authorization. Some paid for meals out of pocket while others
hitchhiked and rode bicycles 3.5 miles to post dining facility. Unpaid.
Army Guard unit: Mississippi 20th Special Forces;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 75 of 75;
Problems encountered and status: Soldiers were erroneously required to
pay to eat government provided meals at mess hall. Partially paid.
Army Guard unit: Mississippi 114th Military Police;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 76 of 76;
Problems encountered and status: Soldiers were denied authorization for
proportional meal rate for meal expenses that we estimated to be about
$6,000 each. Unpaid.
Army Guard unit: Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 36 of 37;
Problems encountered and status: Despite filing identical monthly
vouchers, soldiers were paid amounts ranging from $0 to $1,718.
Adjustments caused overpayments of $200 to about $1,350, resulting in
debts to soldiers.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The soldier bears primary responsibility for travel voucher
preparation, including obtaining paper copies of various types of
authorizations. DFAS data indicate that it rejected and asked soldiers
to resubmit about 18 percent of vouchers during fiscal year 2004”a
churning process that added to delays and frustration. Also, existing
guidance did not clearly address the sometimes complex travel
situations of mobilized Army Guard soldiers, who were often housed off-
post due to overcrowding on military installations. Further, DOD
continued to be noncompliant with a law that requires payment of late
payment interest and fees when soldiers‘ travel reimbursements are not
timely. With respect to human capital, GAO found a lack of oversight
and accountability and inadequate training. Automated systems problems,
such as nonintegration of key systems involved in authorizing and
paying travel expenses and failure to automate key processes, also
contributed to the inefficient, error-prone process. DOD has been
developing and implementing the Defense Travel System (DTS) to resolve
travel-related deficiencies. However, DTS will not address some of the
key systems flaws. For example, DTS is currently not able to process
mobilized soldier travel authorizations and vouchers and identify and
calculate late payment interest and fees.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes 23 recommendations to address Army Guard travel reimbursement
weaknesses in the areas of process, human capital, and systems. GAO
also recommends that DOD ensure that its longer term system improvement
efforts include complete and lasting solutions to the identified
weaknesses.
DOD concurred with 21 recommendations and described actions to correct
noted deficiencies. DOD partially concurred with 2 recommendations
regarding meal cost authorizations and requirements to pay soldiers
interest on late travel and meal cost reimbursements.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-79.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202)
512-9095 or kutzg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Weaknesses in Error-Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process Were
Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo:
Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army Guard
Travel Reimbursements:
Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers:
System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process:
Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Range of Allowable Per Diem Rates:
Table 2: Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units:
Table 3: Problems with Late Payments:
Table 4: Sources of Problems Experienced by Army Guard Case Study Units
in Obtaining Reimbursements for Meal Expenses:
Figures:
Figure 1: Three Phases of the Travel and Reimbursement Process:
Figure 2: Current Manual, Paper-Intensive Travel Reimbursement Process:
Figure 3: Number of Army Guard and Reserve Travel Vouchers Received by
DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 2004:
Figure 4: Staffing Levels at DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September
2004:
Figure 5: Distance between Fort Stewart Mess Halls and Government-
Contracted Hotel:
Figure 6: Army Reserve and Army Guard Travel Vouchers Returned by DFAS
CTO from July 2003 through September 2004:
Figure 7: Time Intervals between Reviewer Approval and Travel
Computation Office Acceptance for 139 Selected Travel Vouchers:
Figure 8: Timing from the End of Travel to Soldier Submissions for 139
Selected Travel Vouchers:
Figure 9: Overview of the Design of Systems and Travel Applications
Used for Army Guard Travel:
Letter January 31, 2005:
Congressional Requesters:
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the operational tempo
for the military services has greatly increased, with corresponding
increases in the basic administrative tasks necessary to keep soldiers
paid, fed, and housed. Over 186,500 Army National Guard (Army Guard)
soldiers[Footnote 1] were mobilized from September 14, 2001, through
September 30, 2004, to serve in Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Some mobilized Army Guard soldiers have
incurred significant travel expenses in conjunction with their roles in
carrying out critical national security missions. Army Guard soldiers
called to active service are entitled to be reimbursed for authorized
travel expenses incurred. The Department of Defense (DOD) is to provide
a Guard soldier traveling on official business with transportation,
lodging, and food, or to reimburse the soldier for reasonable and
necessary authorized expenses if the soldier purchases them.[Footnote
2] In short, the soldier is to be made whole for authorized out-of-
pocket expenses, with timely and accurate reimbursements for travel
expenses.
Within the United States, Army Guard soldiers have guarded the
Pentagon, airports, nuclear power plants, and domestic water supplies
as part of the homeland security effort. Overseas, they continue to
perform highly dangerous peacekeeping missions and force protection
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. When government-
provided meals and housing were not available to some Guard soldiers,
they lived off the local economy--purchased food at restaurants and
groceries, and housing at hotels--and later submitted requests to the
Army for reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses.
In October 2002, we reported[Footnote 3] that the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) did not have systems in place to identify
late travel reimbursements and therefore could not identify the
soldiers who were not paid within 30 days of submission of an approved
travel voucher and who therefore should have been paid late payment
interest and fees required pursuant to Section 2 of the Travel and
Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA).[Footnote 4] This affected
numerous soldiers whose vouchers were paid late. For example, at one
California National Guard unit, we estimated that about 60 percent of
travel vouchers were not paid within 30 days of submission to an
approving official. In March 2003, the DFAS Headquarters Internal
Review Office also reported[Footnote 5] concern over management's
inability to properly measure the timeliness of travel voucher
reimbursements. According to the DFAS report, 39 percent of
approximately 1 million travel vouchers paid during the period May 2002
through October 2002 did not have the date the voucher was received or
the date the voucher was approved recorded in an automated system, both
of which are key dates for determining payment timeliness. The report
also stated that available data showed 18 percent of the vouchers were
not paid within 35 calendar days of the completion of travel. Further,
during our audits of Army Guard and Army Reserve military payroll
controls,[Footnote 6] soldiers told us about problems with delayed and
inaccurate travel cost reimbursements and meal cost authorizations and
entitlements.
You asked us to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased
operational tempo on the effectiveness of the process used to reimburse
Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel
reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families and (2)
the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the processes,
human capital, and automated systems relied on to provide timely travel
cost reimbursements and accurate meal authorizations and entitlements
to mobilized[Footnote 7] Army Guard soldiers. Finally, in the systems
area, you asked us to assess whether DOD's current efforts to automate
its travel reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified.
Because our preliminary assessment determined that current
authorization, request, review, and approval processes used to pay
travel reimbursements to active service Army Guard soldiers relied
extensively on paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems, and error-prone
manual transaction entry that did not provide an adequate audit trail
or a reliable population of transactions, we could not effectively
statistically test current processes and controls. The lack of accurate
and complete centralized data on Army Guard travel also precluded
statistical testing of related transactions. Instead, we systematically
assessed the effectiveness of the overall design of controls at work in
the key areas of processes, people (human capital), and automated
systems. Further, we used case studies and individual voucher data
mining to identify Army Guard units with a variety of travel
reimbursement problems, including disputes over authorizations for meal
reimbursements, and individual soldiers who had been reimbursed late.
We used this approach to provide a more detailed perspective on the
design of controls and the nature of deficiencies in the three phases
of the travel and reimbursement process: (1) authorization; (2) travel
voucher preparation, unit review, and transmission; and (3) computation
office review and payment.
Specifically, we gathered available data and analyzed the travel
reimbursement experiences of 10 selected Army Guard units mobilized to
active service in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and
Enduring Freedom during the period from October 2001 through November
2003. We selected four military police and four special forces units,
which we determined from a preliminary assessment were experiencing
travel reimbursement problems. The remaining two were selected based on
our review of complaints to United States senators and representatives.
We also audited a nonrepresentative selection of individual travel
vouchers that were paid 120 days or more from the date the travel ended
and travel vouchers selected from the unit case studies. We conducted
our audit work from November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, and we
performed our investigative work in accordance with standards
prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Further details on our scope and methodology are included in appendix
I. DOD's written comments on a draft of this report have been reprinted
as appendix II.
Results in Brief:
The current inefficient, paper-intensive, error-prone process has
resulted in inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements for
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. The overall design of controls relied on
to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses was marked by
weaknesses in the critical areas of processes, human capital, and
automated systems. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of the
sustained increase in mobilizations for Army Guard soldiers over the
last 3 years. Our case study units experienced a broad range of travel
reimbursement problems, including disputed amounts for meals that
remained unpaid by the end of our review, vouchers that were submitted
five or more times before being paid, and thousands of dollars in debts
levied on soldiers when the approval for the meal component of their
per diem reimbursement was rescinded after the vouchers had been paid.
One of the primary causes for these problems is rooted in the paper-
intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for
their travel expenses. The major responsibility for ensuring a travel
voucher is properly prepared rests with the soldier, who is responsible
for obtaining paper documents that include various authorizations and
receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in addition to a properly
prepared and signed travel voucher. DFAS data show that problems in
assembling a complete travel voucher package for payment resulted in 18
percent of vouchers being rejected and returned to the soldier for
correction or additional documentation during fiscal year 2004--a
churning process that added to delays and frustration. Further, this
cumbersome process was not designed to handle the steep and sustained
increase in travel vouchers since the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, and the subsequent military activity. The increased
operational tempo resulted in backlogs in travel voucher processing as
the DFAS Contingency Travel Operations Office (CTO) struggled to keep
up with both the increased volume and complexity of the travel vouchers
submitted. For example, the monthly volume of travel vouchers being
submitted to the DFAS CTO increased from less than 3,200 in October
2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003. To its credit, DFAS increased its
staffing by over 200 new personnel to address backlogs and increased
voucher volume and reported an average processing time of 8 days for
its part of the process in September 2004. However, our case studies of
selected units and data mining of individual vouchers identified
numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting
accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses.
Guard soldiers reported a number of problems they and their families
endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts
on their personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and
inability to make child support payments.
The lack of clear, complete, and accurate policies and procedures--the
foundation of the process for authorizing travel entitlements and
reimbursements--contributed to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel
reimbursements. Specifically, existing guidance did not clearly address
the sometimes complex travel situations of Army Guard soldiers who have
been called from their civilian lives to military service since the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, as military
activity increased for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Army Guard, Army
Reserve, and active Army soldiers were preparing for duty, some of the
installations to which Army Guard soldiers were assigned did not have
available government housing. As a result, the soldiers were housed off-
post in commercial hotels or apartments. This created novel situations
that were not specifically addressed in regulations. Further,
inappropriate policy and guidance on how to identify and pay soldiers
entitled to late payment interest and fees because of late travel
reimbursement meant that DOD continued to be noncompliant with TTRA. As
a result, although DOD paid no late payment interest or fees to Army
Guard soldiers through April 2004, we found a number of cases in which
soldiers should have been paid interest and indications that thousands
more may be entitled to TTRA payments.
With respect to human capital, we found weaknesses, including (1) a
lack of leadership and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training
provided to Army Guard soldiers and DFAS CTO voucher examiners. First,
the lack of leadership and oversight over the travel reimbursement
process precluded the development of strong overarching internal
controls. Specifically, the Army is not using performance metrics to
gain agencywide insight into the nature and extent of the delays, to
measure performance, and to identify and correct systemic problems. For
example, DFAS data indicate that it rejected 104,000 of 609,000
vouchers during the period July 2003 through September 2004, with
missing travel authorizations accounting for over half of the rejected
vouchers. While this churning process appeared to be a primary factor
in payment delays and soldier frustration, DFAS CTO, Army, or Army
Guard offices had not performed additional research to determine the
root cause of this and other voucher deficiencies. Second, the Army
Guard soldiers with whom we spoke told us that they had received either
inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review.
DFAS officials told us that during early 2003, subsequent to the
mobilization surge, the newly hired voucher examiners received on-the-
job training that proved to be inadequate to respond to the number and
complexity of the travel vouchers submitted during this period. To its
credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced its training program
for voucher examiners.
System problems also hampered oversight and service to soldiers in the
travel reimbursement process. The key DOD systems involved in
authorizing and reimbursing travel expenses to mobilized Army Guard
soldiers are not integrated, resulting in an inefficient, error-prone
process. These problems are also a major factor in the churning issue
discussed previously--the thousands of vouchers that are rejected and
returned for missing documentation. Specifically, the Army does not
have automated systems for some critical travel process functions for
the Army Guard, such as preparation of travel vouchers, statements of
non-availability (SNA), and temporary change of station orders, which
preclude the electronic sharing of data by the various travel
computation offices. Integration and automation of the authorization
and reimbursement systems would eliminate the need for the soldier to
accumulate numerous paper documents, increasing the efficiency and
timeliness of the process.
DOD recognizes it needs to improve the paper-intensive, manual travel
and reimbursement process and has been developing and implementing the
Defense Travel System (DTS) to resolve these deficiencies. However,
deployment of DTS will not resolve all of the problems we found in
reimbursement of travel expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers. For
example, DTS is currently not able to process travel authorizations and
vouchers for mobilized Army Guard soldiers and calculate late payment
interest and fees. Given that the effort has been under way for about 8
years and will not address key issues specific to mobilized Army Guard
soldiers, it is likely that the department will be relying on the
existing paper-intensive, manual, error-prone system for the
foreseeable future.
We are making 23 recommendations to address the Army Guard travel
reimbursement weaknesses we identified in the areas of process, human
capital, and systems. While DOD and the Army should take a number of
immediate actions to address these problems, we are also recommending
that DOD ensure that its longer term reengineering and system
improvement efforts include complete and lasting solutions to the
weaknesses identified. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD
agreed with 21 of our 23 recommendations and outlined its actions to
address the deficiencies noted in our report. DOD partially concurred
with 2 recommendations regarding the need for an automated, centralized
system for SNA per diem authorizations and the need for DTS to include
capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest and
fees required pursuant to TTRA. Due to the financial burdens on the
affected soldiers documented in this report, we continue to believe
that DOD should implement measures to resolve these matters both on an
interim and long-term basis.
Background:
The Army Guard is the oldest component of any of the uniformed
services. It traces its roots to the colonial militia and claims a
"birth" of 1636. Today, the Army Guard exists in 54 locations that
include all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories:
Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. There are Army Guard
facilities in more than 2,800 communities and over 350,000 Army Guard
members. During peacetime, each Army Guard unit reports to the adjutant
general of its state or territory, or in the case of the District of
Columbia, to the Commanding General. Each adjutant general reports to
the governor of the state or territory, or in the case of the District
of Columbia, to the mayor.
At the state level, the governors have the ability, under the
Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the Army Guard
in times of domestic emergency or need. The Army Guard's state mission
is perhaps the most visible and well known. Army Guard units battle
fires or help communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes,
snowstorms, or other emergency situations. In times of civil unrest,
the citizens of a state rely on the Army Guard to respond, if needed.
During national emergencies, the President has the authority to
activate the Army Guard, putting them in federal duty status. When
ordered to federal active duty by the President in accordance with the
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, the units answer to the
Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and,
ultimately, to the President. When called to perform duty in accordance
with the provisions of Title 32, United States Code, units answer to
the adjutant generals and ultimately to the governors. When Army Guard
units are performing duty under Title 10 or Title 32, the federal
government provides funds for reimbursement of authorized travel
expenses.
The Army Guard is a partner with the active Army and the Army Reserve
in fulfilling the country's military needs. The National Guard Bureau
(NGB), which assists the Army Guard in the partnership, is a joint
bureau of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force and is charged
with overseeing the federal functions of the Army Guard and the Air
National Guard (Air Guard). In this capacity, NGB helps the Army Guard
and the Air Guard procure funding and administer polices. NGB also acts
as a liaison between the Departments of the Army and Air Force and the
states.
All Army forces are integrated under DOD's "total force" concept. DOD's
total force concept is based on the premise that it is not feasible to
maintain active duty forces sufficient to meet all possible war
contingencies. Consequently, DOD's active and reserve components are to
be blended into a cohesive total force to meet a given mission.
DOD reported that over 186,500 Army Guard soldiers and 111,800 Army
Reserve soldiers[Footnote 8] were mobilized from September 14, 2001,
through September 30, 2004, for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. As of September 30, 2004, Army Guard
soldiers accounted for over 40 percent of the total reserve
components[Footnote 9] mobilized in response to the terrorist attacks
on September 11, 2001.
The federal missions established in response to the September 2001
national emergency were categorized into three operations: Operation
Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In general, missions to fight terrorism and direct combat outside the
United States were categorized under Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom, while missions to provide domestic defense
were categorized as Operation Noble Eagle. For example, Army Guard
soldiers participated in antiterrorist and direct combat activities in
Afghanistan and Iraq under Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom, respectively. Additionally, in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom, Army Guard soldiers provided enhanced security in
other countries. U.S. homeland security missions, such as guarding the
Pentagon, airports, nuclear power plants, domestic water supplies,
bridges, tunnels, and other military assets, were conducted under
Operation Noble Eagle.
Army Guard soldiers called to active service are entitled to be
reimbursed for authorized travel expenses incurred. DOD provides a
soldier traveling on official business with transportation, lodging,
and food, or reimburses the soldier for reasonable and necessary
authorized expenses if the soldier purchases them.[Footnote 10]
In October 2001, the Army issued personnel policy guidance (PPG) for
Operation Noble Eagle. In September 2002, consolidated PPG was issued
covering both Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. This
guidance, which is revised on an ongoing basis, ultimately was expanded
to include Operation Iraqi Freedom and now applies generally to all
active service personnel who are mobilized and/or deployed in support
of contingency operations.[Footnote 11] The PPG guidance covers topics
ranging from general mobilization guidance to specific travel
entitlements.
The two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers
and travel computation office personnel for information on travel
entitlements were the Army's PPG and DOD's Joint Federal Travel
Regulation (JFTR).
Per Diem:
The term per diem allowance refers to a daily payment instead of
reimbursement for actual expenses for (1) lodging, (2) meals, and (3)
related incidental expenses.[Footnote 12]
There are many factors that go into the per diem authorization and
calculation, including the availability of government quarters and meal
facilities. Generally, soldiers mobilized for Operations Noble Eagle,
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom must use government meal facilities
to the maximum extent practicable when they are sent to government
installations with dining facilities.[Footnote 13] Because they incur
no actual expenses while living in government housing and eating in
government facilities, they are not authorized the meal and lodging
components of the per diem allowance. However, they are entitled to
receive the incidental component of per diem. The daily government
incidental expense allowance for fiscal year 2004 was $3.00 within the
continental United States (CONUS) and $3.50 outside the continental
United States (OCONUS).
When the installation commander determines that government lodging and/
or mess facilities are not available, the PPG directs that Army Guard
soldiers be provided with SNAs to authorize the lodging and/or meal
components of per diem in addition to the incidental expense component
of per diem.[Footnote 14] DOD regulations further provide that when
government lodging and mess facilities are generally available, but an
authorizing official determines that soldiers must occasionally miss
meals due to mission requirements, proportional per diem is
authorized.[Footnote 15]
Table 1 shows the various components of CONUS[Footnote 16] and
OCONUS[Footnote 17] per diem and the fiscal year 2004 range of dollar
amounts an Army Guard soldier may be entitled to receive under the PPG
and the JFTR.
Table 1: Range of Allowable Per Diem Rates:
Per diem scenario: #: 1;
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or
government-contracted housing available;
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: Government meal facilities
available to the soldier for 3 meals per day[A];
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: None;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: None;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component:
$3.00 CONUS; $3.50 OCONUS.
Per diem scenario: #: 2;
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or
government-contracted housing available;
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: Government meal facilities
available, but soldier must miss 1 or 2 meals per day[B];
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: None;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: Actual expense not to
exceed proportional meal rate[C];
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $18 - $30 CONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.00 CONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $9 - $86 OCONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.50 CONUS;
Per diem scenario: #: 3;
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or
government-contracted housing available;
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: Government meal facilities not
available[D];
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: None;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: Locality meal rate;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $28 - $51 CONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.00 CONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $7 - $164 OCONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.50 OCONUS.
Per diem scenario: #: 4;
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or
government-contracted housing not available;
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: The availability of government meal
facilities is not a criterion for this scenario[E];
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: Actual cost up to
a maximum rate for the area[F];
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: Locality meal rate;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $28 - $51 CONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.00 CONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $7 - $164 OCONUS;
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $2 - $41
OCONUS.
Source: GAO analysis of PPG and JFTR guidance.
[A] Temporary change of station (TCS) soldiers who are on government
installations with dining facilities are directed to use mess
facilities. Soldiers are entitled to the incidental rate of per diem
only if authorized per diem at these locations. PPG, para. 8-2.a(5)
(reformatted April 2004).
[B] The proportional meal rate applies each day that at least one meal
is available and directed where the member is assigned temporary duty
status (TDY). JFTR, U4149.C.2, change 194 (Feb. 1, 2003).
[C] The amount of the proportional meal rate is the average of the
government meal rate and the locality meal rate for a particular
location. There is one DOD-wide government meal rate. For fiscal year
2003, the government meal rate was $8.10 per day (breakfast, $1.60;
lunch, $3.25; and dinner, $3.25). The government meal rate is charged
to nonmobilized soldiers who eat at government facilities. The General
Services Administration determines the locality rate for meals,
lodging, and incidental expenses. If the locality meal rate is $28 and
the government meal rate is $8.10, the proportional meal rate is $18.05
[(28 + 8.10)/2].
[D] When government mess is not available, the installation commander
will make the determination of mess availability and issue a statement/
certificate of non-availability, if applicable. PPG, para. 8-2.a(5)
(reformatted April 2004).
[E] When government or government-contracted quarters are not
available, as determined by the installation commander, soldiers will
be provided certificates or statements of non-availability for both
lodging and meals to authorize increased per diem. PPG, para. 8-
2.a(6)(c)(reformatted April 2004).
[F] The General Services Administration determines the maximum lodging
rate for the area.
[End of table]
Additionally, the PPG provides that regardless of whether an Army Guard
soldier is authorized the meal component of per diem, basic allowance
for subsistence (BAS) will not be reduced.[Footnote 18] BAS is included
in the Army Guard soldier's compensation and is not a travel
entitlement.[Footnote 19] More specifically, BAS is a continuation of
the military tradition of providing room and board (or rations) as part
of a service member's pay. The monthly BAS rate is based on the price
of food and is readjusted yearly based upon the increase of the price
of food as measured by the Department of Agriculture's food cost index.
As of January 2004, BAS ranged from $175.23 a month for officers to
$262.50 a month for enlisted service members.
Travel and Reimbursement Process:
The current DOD travel reimbursement process for Army Guard soldiers
operates at travel computation offices around the country, including
DFAS CTO, the travel computation office at DFAS Indianapolis, 54 United
States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFO) servicing each of the Army
Guard locations, and several other DFAS sites. Travel voucher
processing consumes the resources of hundreds of personnel, reviewing
thousands of pieces of paper every day.
As illustrated in figure 1, the travel and reimbursement process
consists of three phases: (1) authorizations and travel; (2) travel
voucher preparation, submission, review, and transmission; and (3)
computation office review, reimbursement computation, and payment.
Figure 1: Three Phases of the Travel and Reimbursement Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In the first phase of the travel and reimbursement process, various
travel orders and other authorizations are produced and are provided to
and/or acquired by soldiers, and soldiers incur travel expenses.
Following the President's mobilization order, the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (1)
determines specific unit personnel requirements and (2) issues a unit
mobilization order to various affected units and organizations within
the Army.
USPFO officials use the Automated Fund Control Order System
(AFCOS)[Footnote 20] to produce individual mobilization orders for
soldiers. Individual mobilization orders usually contain general travel
information, such as authorized methods of transportation; directions
regarding the use of government food and lodging facilities; and
authorizations for the soldier to travel from the unit's home station,
a permanent duty station, to an active Army installation (the
mobilization station) for further processing and training.
After completion of mission-related training at the mobilization
station, the unit is certified for deployment, and soldiers are
assigned duty stations. Army commands use word processing applications
to produce temporary change of station (TCS) orders to give soldiers
authorization to travel from their mobilization stations to long-term
temporary assignments at other locations. During the deployment period,
the Army may also issue TDY orders and other authorization statements,
such as SNAs. The Army issues a TDY order to authorize a soldier's
travel from one location to another location for generally less than 45
days. The Army issues SNAs to soldiers when government lodging and/or
meals are not available to the soldier.
Following the completion of a tour, the Army issues each federal active
duty soldier a Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) order from the
transition processing system and a Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty (DD Form 214).
The second phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins with
the soldier's preparation and submission of a travel voucher, and the
review of the voucher by the unit reviewer prior to the transmission of
the voucher to the travel computation office, typically either a DFAS
or USPFO location. According to Army Guard and DFAS guidance, all
travel vouchers for Army Guard soldiers who are mobilized under Title
10 are to be sent to DFAS CTO for processing, while travel vouchers
associated with Title 32 mobilizations and other nonmobilized travel
are generally processed by USPFO and other travel computation offices.
Final completion of the voucher occurs following the calculation of
actual reimbursable amounts by a travel computation office.
The soldier begins the reimbursement process by manually:
1. preparing a travel voucher (DD Form 1351-2) (the soldier provides
required information, such as name, rank, Social Security number,
itinerary, and authorized reimbursable expenses);
2. attaching all supporting DOD-generated documentation (e.g.,
mobilization orders, TCS orders, TDY orders, SNAs, REFRAD orders, DD
Form 214);
3. attaching original lodging receipts and all receipts for
reimbursable expenses of $75.00 or more;
4. signing and dating the voucher; and:
5. delivering the entire voucher package--the travel voucher and all
supporting documentation--to a unit supervisor for review.
DOD's Financial Management Regulation (FMR) requires that travel
vouchers be submitted to the unit reviewer within 5 working days of the
end of travel, or in the case of travel that extends beyond 30 days,
within 5 days after the end of every 30-day travel period. In addition,
according to The Citizen-Soldier's Guide to Mobilization
Finance,[Footnote 21] soldiers who have government quarters and meals
provided to them may opt to file for the incidental portion of their
per diem entitlement on a quarterly, semiannual, or annual basis since
the amount due the soldier is nominal.
The unit reviewer--required by DFAS policy to be the soldier's
supervisor/ commander or designee--is responsible for ensuring that the
voucher claim is complete, proper, and complies with the intent of the
order. On completion of the review, the unit reviewer signs and dates
the voucher and forwards it and the supporting documentation to a
travel computation office via regular mail, e-mail, or fax.
The third phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins when the
travel computation office receives the voucher package. The travel
computation office reviews the voucher package, calculates the
reimbursement amount, and processes the reimbursement to pay the
soldier and/or the government travel card company,[Footnote 22]
generally through direct deposit of the funds to their respective
banks. The travel computation office is responsible for the accuracy
and propriety of voucher payments.
DFAS CTO and USPFO personnel perform an initial screening of voucher
packages. If the basic information--signatures, dates, and orders--is
present, a more detailed review of the voucher is performed. Detailed
travel voucher data are then manually entered into the Integrated
Automated Travel System version 6.0 (WINIATS), which calculates the
amount of the reimbursement. Attempts are made to contact the soldier
if any problems are noted during the initial screening, the detailed
review, or the data entry. Failing contact with the soldier, DFAS or
USPFO personnel mail the voucher package to the address on the voucher
for correction by the soldier.
If DOD fails to reimburse soldiers for travel claims within 30 days of
submission of proper travel vouchers, DOD must pay the soldiers late
payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA.
Weaknesses in Error-Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process Were
Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo:
The paper-intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard
soldiers for their travel expenses was not designed to handle the
dramatic increase in travel vouchers since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and the subsequent military activity. The increased
operational tempo resulted in backlogs in travel voucher processing as
DFAS CTO struggled to keep up with both the increased volume and
complexity of the travel vouchers submitted. For example, the monthly
volume of travel vouchers being submitted to DFAS CTO increased from
less than 3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003 and
remained at levels over 30,000 through September 2004. To its credit,
to address the large volume of vouchers received and the unprocessed
backlog, DFAS increased its staffing by over 200 new personnel and
reported an average processing time of 8 days for its part of the
process in September 2004. However, our case studies of selected units
and data mining of individual vouchers identified numerous soldiers who
experienced significant problems getting accurate, timely, and
consistent reimbursements for travel expenses. Guard soldiers told us
about a number of problems they and their families endured due to
delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their
personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and
inability to make child support payments. As discussed later, we found
that these reimbursement problems were associated with process, human
capital, and automated system deficiencies.
Paper-Driven Process Used to Reimburse Army Guard Soldiers:
Overall, as shown in figure 2, we found that a paper-intensive, manual,
error-prone process exists to reimburse travel expenses to mobilized
Army Guard soldiers.
Figure 2: Current Manual, Paper-Intensive Travel Reimbursement Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The primary responsibility for ensuring a travel voucher is properly
prepared rests with the soldier. As illustrated in figure 2, the
soldier is responsible for obtaining paper documents that include
various authorizations and receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in
addition to a manually prepared and signed paper travel voucher. Each
time DFAS CTO receives a voucher and determines that it is not
complete, either the soldier is contacted in an attempt to get the
needed information or the entire voucher is rejected and returned to
the soldier. The difficulty in assembling a complete and acceptable
voucher package on the first try is demonstrated by the 11, 12, and 18
percent return rates reported by DFAS CTO for fiscal years 2002, 2003,
and 2004, respectively. That is, of approximately 930,000 travel
vouchers received during this period, DFAS CTO rejected and returned
about 139,000. The soldier must then obtain the missing documentation
or make the necessary corrections and return the voucher to DFAS for
processing again. This repeated churning of vouchers further increases
the volume of claims, which, as discussed in the next section, quickly
overwhelmed DFAS CTO's resources. In addition, returned vouchers
contribute to delays in payment, increasing soldiers' frustration.
Increased Operational Tempo Initially Overwhelmed Process:
While this inefficient process may have offered some capability to
process travel vouchers during periods of low activity when relatively
few Army Guard members were mobilized, the current increased
operational tempo has strained the process beyond its limits. The
volume of Army Guard and Reserve travel vouchers being submitted to
DFAS CTO increased from less than 3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000
in July 2003. As shown in figure 3, the monthly travel voucher volume
has remained above 30,000 since the July 2003 peak.
Figure 3: Number of Army Guard and Reserve Travel Vouchers Received by
DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to the rising volume, the increased complexity of the
vouchers received further slowed down the process. As military activity
increased for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Army Guard, Army Reserve, and
active Army soldiers were preparing for duty, not all of the
installations to which Army Guard soldiers were assigned had available
government housing. As a result, the soldiers were housed off-post in
commercial hotels or apartments. This created a number of novel
situations that were not specifically addressed in regulations, as
discussed later.
For example, the Virginia 20TH Special Forces Army National Guard unit
was mobilized to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2002. The unit
was initially housed in World War II era barracks--with free meals in
the mess hall--that were in such poor condition that the company
commander requested and received off-post housing. The hotel was over
10 miles from the nearest Fort Bragg dining facility, and with many of
the soldiers assigned to duties that required odd or extended hours
that precluded use of the dining facility, the soldiers found that they
were paying for at least two meals per day out of their own pockets.
When members of the Virginia 20TH Special Forces eventually submitted
their proportional meal per diem vouchers to DFAS CTO, some were paid
over $2,000 for 4 months of meal expenses and some were not, due in
part to confusion over the meal per diem entitlements in this
situation. As a result, some soldiers had to obtain additional
documentation and resubmit their vouchers, further adding to the volume
of vouchers. As of May 2004, 14 soldiers still had not received the
majority of their proportional meal per diem entitlements, ranging from
about $1,600 to over $3,500 per soldier for a mobilization that
occurred over 2 years ago. During our review, we brought this matter to
the attention of the Virginia 20TH Special Forces provisional finance
officer and DFAS CTO, and in June 2004, DFAS CTO processed vouchers for
10 of the 14 soldiers and made final payments for meal expenses they
incurred during their Fort Bragg duty. The remaining 4 soldiers had not
been paid at the completion of our audit.
During this time frame, DFAS CTO staffing levels were not keeping pace
with the rising volume of vouchers. However, while DFAS CTO employed
less than 50 personnel in October 2001, this number more than doubled
by February 2003 and was increased further to about 240 in June 2003,
including 83 Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers, as shown in figure
4.
Figure 4: Staffing Levels at DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September
2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
A DFAS CTO official told us that the office was not properly staffed to
process travel vouchers at the beginning of 2003 when the volume
started to increase. Inadequate staffing and the time necessary to
train new staff created a backlog of travel vouchers at DFAS CTO,
ballooning to over 18,000 vouchers in March 2003. In one case, an Army
Guard specialist prepared a voucher on December 8, 2002, and his
supervisor approved it the same day. It took 124 days before the
voucher was stamped as received by DFAS CTO and another 66 days for
DFAS to pay the soldier. In addition, although this payment should have
included late payment interest, it did not because, as discussed later
in this report, DFAS did not have the means to automatically identify
those soldiers who should have received interest and other fees on
their late payments. To its credit, with its increased staffing levels
in place, DFAS CTO reported an average processing time of 8 days for
its part of the process as of September 2004.
Impact That Travel Reimbursement Problems Have Had on Army Guard
Soldiers and Their Families:
Our case studies of selected units and data mining of individual
vouchers identified numerous soldiers who experienced significant
problems getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for
travel expenses. As discussed in this report, these problems related to
process, human capital, and systems deficiencies. Major factors
contributing to inconsistent, inaccurate, or late reimbursements
experienced by these soldiers were that requirements for authorizing
and supporting per diem reimbursements for meal expenses were not
always known by the mobilized soldiers nor were they well understood by
local base personnel, and the authorizations were not documented on
their mobilization orders or travel orders.
While our work was not intended to and we did not attempt to quantify
the financial impact of inaccurate and late reimbursements on
individual soldiers, we found a number of soldiers who were frustrated
and concerned with the process and the amount of time they spent
attempting to navigate it. For example, one individual responsible for
submitting his unit's vouchers to DFAS CTO told us that he called the
process "the travel voucher lottery" because "you never knew whether,
or how much, you might get paid." Frustrated soldiers sought help from
their United States senators or representatives in obtaining what they
believed they were owed for out-of-pocket travel expenses. The
following are excerpts from three of those letters.
* Sergeant First Class (NY)-- "Since being released I have submitted [a
travel voucher] for payment of travel pay and storage authorized by my
orders. I have yet to receive the pay due. The forms have had to be
resubmitted two other times, without changes. The previous submissions
have either been misplaced or lost after arriving at defense finance.
.. For me, it has become a hardship. I was laid off from [my job] in
May of 2002 just before our activation. This was due to downsizing. I
am currently on unemployment, attending BOCES [Board of Cooperative
Educational Services] for welding. I had counted on this money to cover
my medical insurance and vehicle payment. At this time I am 2 months
behind on the medical premiums and vehicle payment. Chase Bank has said
that after next week they will submit the vehicle for repossession.
..These types of problems are a very good reason to leave the National
Guard."
* Sergeant First Class (NC)-- "Trying to get my final travel pay for
active duty for Operation Enduring Freedom. I submitted my travel
voucher in December 02 and it was sent to DFAS Indianapolis in January
03 and I still have not received payment [as of April 29, 2003]. .. I
understand the workloads due to the war on terrorism, but over 5 months
is extreme."
* Staff Sergeant (KS)-- "Below please find an e-mail that I received
last night from DFAS informing me that they have now deleted my voucher
from February [2003] and I must start all over again. In the last year
and a half when this has happened, although they say it is expedited,
in practice and reality it goes to the bottom of the pile and takes 3-6
weeks. I'm at my wits and financial end. I have already placed approx
$3500 of money owed to me by the Army on my personal credit cards and
cannot afford to do it anymore."
The majority of soldiers in our 10 case study units reported problems
related to reimbursements for meal expenses that included late
payments, underpayments, and overpayments resulting in debts to some
soldiers in excess of $10,000. For example, we estimated that about
$324,000 was paid more than a year late to 120 soldiers for meal
expenses based on the proportional meal rate for their locality. As
discussed in detail later in this report, these issues were caused by
weaknesses in the process used to pay Army Guard travel reimbursements;
the human capital practices in this area, including the lack of
adequate training; and nonintegrated automated systems. Table 2
summarizes the experiences of Army Guard soldiers in 10 units. We
referred 8 of these units that at the end of our audit included
soldiers who were unpaid, partially paid, or in debt to appropriate DOD
officials to resolve any amounts owed to the Army Guard soldiers or to
the government.
Table 2: Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units:
Army Guard unit: Alabama 20th Special Forces;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 6 of 209;
Examples of problems encountered and status: DOD rescission of
authorized reimbursement of meal expenses resulted in debts for
soldiers.[A].
Army Guard unit: California 19th Special Forces;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 30 of 66;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers' travel vouchers
were initially rejected because split locations on vouchers did not
coincide with information on travel orders. Partially paid.
Army Guard unit: California 185th Armor;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 58 of 85;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were underpaid
per diem due to DFAS CTO errors and soldiers' lack of supporting
documentation. Soldiers eventually received reimbursement, ranging from
$20 to over $3,000. Paid up to 4 months late.
Army Guard unit: Georgia 190th Military Police;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 32 of 101;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers incurred over
$200,000 of debt due to confusion over rules concerning commuting areas
and per diem for meals.[A].
Army Guard unit: Louisiana 239th Military Police;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 124 of 124;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were required to
pay to eat government-provided meals at mess hall. Paid 6 months late.
Army Guard unit: Maryland 115th Military Police;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 107 of 107;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers housed off-post
were denied per diem authorization for meals. Some paid for meals out
of pocket while others hitchhiked and rode bicycles 3.5 miles to post
dining facility. Unpaid.
Army Guard unit: Mississippi 20th Special Forces;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 75 of 75;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were required to
pay to eat government-provided meals at mess hall. Partially paid.
Army Guard unit: Mississippi 114th Military Police (first
mobilization);
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 120 of 120;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were frustrated
by process to obtain authorization for proportional meal rate for meal
expenses that we estimated to be about $2,700 each. Paid 14 months
late.
Army Guard unit: Mississippi 114th Military Police (second
mobilization);
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 76 of 76;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Under similar
circumstances, soldiers were denied authorization for proportional meal
rate for meal expenses that we estimated to be about $6,000 each.
Unpaid.
Army Guard unit: Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 36 of 37;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were deployed to
Germany, and all were entitled to same monthly reimbursement. Despite
filing identical vouchers with proper documentation, the soldiers were
paid varying amounts, ranging from $0 to $1,718 for 1 month.
Adjustments caused overpayments of $200 to about $1,350, resulting in
debts to soldiers.[A].
Army Guard unit: Virginia 20th Special Forces;
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 51 of 65;
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were paid varying
amounts for meal reimbursements due to inconsistent interpretation of
SNA documentation at DFAS CTO. Partially paid.
Source: GAO.
[A] The soldiers' wages are generally garnished to repay debts, unless
a waiver is granted.
[End of table]
The following provides more details on the experiences of several of
these units.
* The 114th Military Police Company, Clinton, Mississippi, mobilized
the first time in January 2002 and performed around-the-clock shift
work at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for approximately 5 months before
being sent to Cuba. While at Fort Campbell, the soldiers could not
always avail themselves of the base dining facilities and therefore had
to pay out-of-pocket for some of their meals. The soldiers were not
informed that they were eligible for a proportional meal rate until
they returned from Cuba in November 2002. Due to various other delays,
it took over 14 months for the soldiers to be reimbursed about $2,700
each based upon the proportional meal rate for Fort Campbell. The unit
commander informed us that the delays put considerable strain on the
finances of some of his lower graded soldiers. This unit's problems
were compounded when its soldiers were mobilized a second time in
February 2003 and went to Fort Hood, Texas. Even though they
experienced the same conditions, they were denied compensation for
their out-of-pocket expenses. Soldiers told us their duty hours were
similar to those they worked at Fort Campbell. Using the information
from their experiences with the reimbursement process at Fort Campbell,
the unit commander contacted Fort Hood officials to obtain
authorization for reimbursement for costs his soldiers were incurring
due to the inability to use the dining facilities at Fort Hood for all
meals. The unit commander's attempts to get authorization for the
proportional meal rate were unsuccessful. At the time of our audit, we
estimated that none of the 76 soldiers in the unit had been reimbursed
for about 10 months, totaling approximately $6,000 per soldier.
* The Pennsylvania 876TH Engineer Battalion was mobilized in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom to perform installation security and force
protection duties at Bad Aibling Station, Germany, from July 2002 to
February 2003. All deployed members were entitled to the identical per
diem for meals and incidental expenses applicable to their location.
Although the unit's administrative officer submitted identical vouchers
for each soldier at the end of each month as required, the soldiers
received varying reimbursement amounts each month. For example,
following the August 2002 submission, 4 soldiers in the unit received
what they believed to be the correct reimbursement of $1,718. The
remaining 33 soldiers received payments ranging from $371.20 to
$1,485.00. These types of inconsistencies occurred month after month.
The commanding officer indicated in a memorandum that "This is a hugely
demoralizing and frustrating action." The administrative officer, who
sent detailed spreadsheets to DFAS CTO, wrote in one e-mail to DFAS
officials, "I have E3's [low-paid enlisted] who are owed over $2,000.
These soldiers deserve better.. If I call your department three times
and ask three different people the same question I will receive three
differing answers.— Is there or is there not a single standard for
paying soldiers travel pay?"
During our audit of selected travel vouchers, some that were paid as
much as 500 days after travel ended, we found that significant delays
frequently occurred when soldiers had to submit travel vouchers
multiple times to travel computation offices. Travel computation
offices routinely returned improperly prepared and inadequately
reviewed vouchers that did not contain basic required signatures,
dates, and travel orders. Further, DFAS staffing shortfalls contributed
to some of the delays that we noted. Table 3 shows examples of the
extent of delays experienced by soldiers in obtaining payment for
travel expenses.
Table 3: Problems with Late Payments:
Table 3: Problems with Late Payments:
Soldier rank and state: Corporal, California;
Amount of voucher: $779;
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 493;
Problems encountered: Soldier was paid about 1½ years after submitting
voucher eight times.
Soldier rank and state: Sergeant, Utah;
Amount of voucher: $1,269;
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 237;
Problems encountered: Soldier received partial payment in September
2003 after submitting voucher five times since October 2002.
Soldier rank and state: Sergeant First Class, Colorado;
Amount of voucher: $1,387;
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 481;
Problems encountered: National Guard authorization for reimbursement
was not promptly provided, which soldier claims affected his ability to
maintain child support payments.
Soldier rank and state: Sergeant, Texas;
Amount of voucher: $682;
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 82;
Problems encountered: Soldier's command did not file travel voucher
when promised.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
The following provides more details for the experiences of some of the
soldiers with payment delays.
* A corporal with the California 49TH Military Police Company was
frustrated by the repeated recycling of his voucher eight times through
the travel reimbursement process, which caused his reimbursement of
travel expenses to be delayed for about 17 months. His story
exemplifies process and human capital flaws. For example, (1) the
reviewing official approved the voucher even though it lacked
supporting documentation, (2) DFAS CTO did not know that faxed vouchers
were not being printed, and (3) customer service was weak as evidenced
by piecemeal requests for information. According to the California
unit's reviewing official, the voucher, along with others, was
initially faxed to DFAS CTO in August 2002. When not all soldiers
received notification that DFAS CTO had received the vouchers, the unit
official again faxed the vouchers. The corporal told us that he later
received an e-mail from DFAS CTO requesting his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He submitted the
DD Form 214, but he then received his whole travel voucher package back
from DFAS CTO with a note saying that the DD Form 214 was missing. He
checked the package and found that the DD Form 214 he had previously
sent was in the materials returned by DFAS CTO. DFAS CTO returned the
voucher in February 2003 because it was incorrectly completed and again
in October 2003 because it lacked mobilization orders. DFAS eventually
paid the corporal $779 in December 2003.
* A sergeant with the Utah 142ND Military Intelligence Battalion
experienced an approximate 22-month delay in receiving full
reimbursement for his travel expenses. Delays for this voucher were
caused by (1) fax problems, (2) missing documents, and (3) DFAS CTO
errors in reimbursing the sergeant for properly supported expenditures.
The sergeant told us that he faxed his voucher to DFAS CTO soon after
his travel ended in October 2002. When DFAS CTO claimed it had not
received the voucher, he refaxed it in January 2003. Because he
remobilized in January 2003, he did not learn until he returned in May
2003 that DFAS CTO did not have a record of his January resubmission.
He resubmitted his voucher in May 2003, and DFAS CTO returned it
because he had not attached his DD Form 214, documenting his discharge
from active duty. After he resubmitted the paperwork in August 2003,
DFAS paid him only $1,269, which did not include all of his lodging
costs or any of his meal expenses while at the TDY location. He told us
that DFAS CTO could not explain why his meal expenses were not paid.
Following his resubmission in March 2004, DFAS paid him $189.78, which
was the outstanding balance on his lodging receipts. DFAS did not pay
the remaining balance of $572.00 for his meals until after GAO inquired
about payment of the voucher in August 2004.
* A sergeant with the Texas 141ST Infantry Company had to wait 6 ½
months for reimbursement of his travel expenses because of (1)
miscommunication about his unit's responsibilities and (2) subsequent
inadequate unit supervisory review. The sergeant told us he had been
informed that his unit in Guantonamo, Cuba, would prepare and submit
his voucher when his tour of duty ended in December 2002. About 113
days elapsed before he discovered that his unit in Cuba did not prepare
a voucher on his behalf. At that point, he asked his home unit
administrator in Texas to help him prepare and submit his voucher to
DFAS CTO. However, DFAS CTO returned that voucher because it lacked
supervisory signature. The sergeant believed he needed supervisory
approval from his unit and sent the voucher back to Cuba for approval.
After it was returned from Cuba, he resubmitted it to DFAS CTO, but for
some reason unknown to him he still did not get paid. He resubmitted
his voucher to DFAS CTO in late June 2003, and DFAS paid him $682 in
July 2003 approximately 82 days after supervisory approval.
Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army Guard
Travel Reimbursements:
Policies and guidance, the foundation of the process for authorizing
travel entitlements and reimbursements, were sometimes unclear to the
Army Guard soldiers who were called from their civilian lives to
military service since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Not
since World War II had so many Army Guard soldiers been mobilized for
extended periods and essentially placed in travel status for as long as
2 years. Prior to September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed
relatively routine travel for brief periods and was not always clearly
applicable to situations Army Guard soldiers encountered, particularly
when they could not avail themselves of government-provided meals due
to the nature of their duty assignments. In October 2001, the Army
issued new guidance that was intended to address travel entitlements
unique to Army and Army Guard soldiers mobilized for the war on
terrorism. However, the lack of clarity in this guidance created
problems not only for Army Guard soldiers but for numerous other
personnel involved with authorizing travel entitlements and contributed
to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements. Furthermore,
inappropriate policy and guidance on how to identify and pay soldiers
entitled to late payment interest and fees because of late travel
reimbursement meant that DOD continued to be noncompliant with TTRA. As
a result, as discussed in the next section, although DOD paid no late
payment interest or fees to Army Guard soldiers through April 2004, we
found a number of cases in which soldiers should have been paid late
payment interest and indications that thousands more may be entitled to
late payment interest. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government state that internal control is an integral component
of an organization's management that provides reasonable assurance that
objectives of the agency are being achieved, including effectiveness
and efficiency of operations and compliance with laws and regulations.
Lack of Clear Guidance on Travel Entitlements, Including Late Payment
Interest and Fees:
We found that a key factor contributing to delays and denials of Army
Guard reimbursements for out-of-pocket meal expenses was a lack of
clearly defined guidance. We noted that the existing guidance (1)
provided unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of out-of-
pocket meal expenses, (2) lacked instructions for including meal
entitlements on mobilization orders, and (3) contained inadequate
instructions for preparing and issuing SNAs.
Two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers and
travel computation office personnel for information on travel
entitlements were the Army's personnel policy guidance (PPG) for
military personnel mobilized for Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring
Freedom and Noble Eagle and DOD's Joint Federal Travel Regulation
(JFTR). We found that both Army Guard soldiers and travel computation
personnel had difficulty using these sources to find the information
necessary about the rules regarding travel-related entitlements. A DFAS
CTO official and users told us that the guidance was legalistic and not
user friendly. Army Guard soldiers and DFAS CTO examiners had trouble
at times interpreting the guidance, and as a result, soldiers
experienced travel reimbursement problems.
Table 4 shows the sources of common problems related to meal expense
reimbursements experienced by soldiers in our case studies.
Table 4: Sources of Problems Experienced by Army Guard Case Study Units
in Obtaining Reimbursements for Meal Expenses:
Case study units: Alabama 20th Special Forces;
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket meal expenses.
Case study units: California 19th Special Forces;
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders.
Case study units: California 185th Armor;
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs.
Case study units: Georgia 190th Military Police;
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket meal expenses.
Case study units: Louisiana 239th Military Police;
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket meal expenses;
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders.
Case study units: Maryland 115th Military Police;
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket meal expenses;
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders.
Case study units: Mississippi 20th Special Forces;
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket meal expenses;
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders;
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs.
Case study units: Mississippi 114th Military Police;
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket meal expenses;
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders.
Case study units: Pennsylvania 876th Engineers;
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs.
Case study units: Virginia 20th Special Forces;
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Unclear eligibility criteria. We found that guidance did not adequately
address some significant conditions that entitled a soldier to
reimbursement of authorized meal expenses. For example, although the
JFTR entitled soldiers to reimbursement for meal expenses when
transportation was not reasonably available between government meal
facilities and place of lodging,[Footnote 23] the term "reasonably
available" was not defined. The PPG directed the maximum use of
installation facilities, and if not feasible, then "multi-passenger
vehicles[Footnote 24] should be used" to transport soldiers to
installation facilities. However, the PPG is silent regarding what
constitutes adequate transportation, particularly when transportation
to government meal facilities is necessary for Army Guard soldiers who
cannot be housed in government facilities. As discussed in one of our
case studies, we found disagreements between the soldiers and their
command officials about the adequacy of transportation to government
meal facilities and their entitlement to get reimbursed for eating at
commercial facilities closer to their lodgings. Without clear guidance
on these issues, Army decisions will continue to appear arbitrary and
unfair to soldiers.
The following illustrates the experiences of the Army Guard soldiers
with the Maryland 115TH Military Police Headquarters/Headquarters
Company, their perceptions of unfair and inconsistent treatment, and
apparent confusion between basic allowance for subsistence (BAS)
compensation entitlements and meal entitlements while in TCS status.
For example, BAS is included in the Army Guard soldier's compensation
and is not a travel entitlement.[Footnote 25]
Case Study Illustration: Soldiers Claim Inadequate Transportation
Should Have Justified Reimbursement of Out-of-Pocket Meal Expenses;
Soldiers with the Maryland 115th Military Police Headquarters/
Headquarters Company were mobilized to Fort Stewart, Georgia, in
October 2001, to perform force protection duties. As shown in figure 5,
the 107 soldiers in the unit were housed in a government-contracted
hotel approximately 3 to 4 miles from the base because the on-base
housing was overcrowded. Soldiers told us that transportation from the
hotels to the government dining facilities was inadequate. They
explained that while military buses and vans took soldiers to and from
the base for their shift work duties, the soldiers not on shift,
including those on their days off, had to find their own transportation
to the government dining facilities;
Approximately 3 weeks into the unit's mobilization, the battalion
commander allowed some soldiers (E- 7 and above) to use their privately
owned vehicles, but many other soldiers were still without vehicles or
other means to get to the dining facility. Two soldiers told us that
they purchased bicycles to get to the base. Several soldiers claimed
that because they could not get to the dining facilities, they either
walked to local restaurants, or bought groceries and cookware and
cooked meals in their rooms using hot plates. The soldiers told us they
were also aware that other soldiers at Fort Stewart were similarly
housed in hotels, but were paid per diem for meals based on the
locality rate for the area. We confirmed that Florida's 3220th U.S.
Army Reserve Garrison Support Unit was housed in hotels and was paid
per diem for meals. Several soldiers told us they discussed several
issues with their chain of command and company commanders, including
inadequate transportation, having to eat on the economy, the
inconsistencies in their treatment compared to other soldiers, and
their eligibility for per diem. The company commanders discussed these
issues with the battalion commander. The battalion commander told us,
"The soldiers had a contracted hotel and laundry services and didn't
need per diem. In addition to that, they had access to the mess hall
and were getting BAS." When a battalion personnel officer incorrectly
told one soldier that he was not entitled to per diem because he was
receiving BAS he stated, "Then take away my $8 in BAS and give me per
diem because I can't live on $8 a day.";
The garrison commander told us that he was unaware of the unit's
transportation problems, and had he known of the problems, he would
have issued more vehicles to the unit;
Using the proportional meal rate, we estimated that the soldiers could
be due approximately $1,260 each for a total of approximately $135,000
for the period October 2001 to January 2002. As of September 2004, the
soldiers had not received any reimbursements for meal expenditures.
Figure 5: Distance between Fort Stewart Mess Halls and Government-
Contracted Hotel:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The following case study illustrates another apparent lack of
understanding of the different regulations regarding specific
compensation entitlements for BAS compared to meal entitlements while
in TCS status and inconsistent treatment.
Case Study Illustration: Mississippi Army Guard Soldiers Question
Army's Decision to Deny Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Meal
Expenditures;
Army Guard soldiers of the Mississippi 114[TH] Military Police Company
were called up in January 2002 for their first mobilization and
reported to Fort Campbell for military police guard duty. While at Fort
Campbell, the 114th performed 24-hour, 7-day shift work providing force
protection services for the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell
and could not always avail themselves of the free meals at the mess
hall. Consequently, these Army Guard soldiers purchased their meals
from commercial sources. After soldiers learned of their potential
eligibility for reimbursement of meal costs, they requested and
received authorization from the division commander for reimbursement
and, although considerably late, were eventually reimbursed;
However, while at Fort Hood, the location of their second active duty
tour beginning in February 2003, installation command officials did not
authorize reimbursement of their out-of- pocket costs for meals.
According to the Army Guard soldiers, the conditions at Fort Hood--24-
hour shift work and the lack of 24-hour mess halls--were similar to
what they encountered at Fort Campbell. Fort Hood officials told us
that they justified their decision because free meals were available
from the mess hall and noncommissioned officers could get this food to
soldiers who were having problems and by stating that the basic
allowance for subsistence was adequate compensation for any of the
soldiers' out-of-pocket expenditures for meals. Fort Hood officials did
not document their unfavorable decision or justification for that
decision. Because an official from the Mississippi Guard Finance Office
told them it was a "dead issue," the unit chose not to contact the
Inspector General's office. The official told us that he informed the
soldiers that they could not get reimbursed without the approval of the
Fort Hood officials. As a result, we estimated, based on the
proportional meal rate for Fort Hood, that these 76 Army Guard soldiers
were not reimbursed for approximately $6,000 each, totaling about
$456,000, for their meals from February 2003 to January 2004, when they
were demobilized.
In another case, Georgia Army Guard soldiers were frustrated by large
debts when DFAS CTO retroactively disallowed the locality meal rate
authorized by command officials.
Case Study Illustration: Decisions on Meals Eligibility Result in
Overpayments and Large Debts;
The soldiers from Georgia's 190[TH] Military Police Company reported to
Fort Benning, Georgia, in October 2001 for mobilization processing. The
unit of 101 soldiers experienced problems regarding per diem for meals
when they were subsequently deployed from October 2001 through March
2002 to Fort McPherson, Georgia, which was near the homes of many of
the soldiers. Soldiers told us there was confusion over who would be
entitled to per diem for meals because Fort McPherson had not
established a local commuting area. Certain soldiers were granted SNAs,
signifying their eligibility for per diem for meals, based on the
locality meal rate for the area. Relying on the determinations,
soldiers requested and received per diem for meals, some in excess of
$10,000, for the period they were at Fort McPherson;
In August 2002, Fort McPherson established a local commuting area. When
DFAS CTO processed the soldiers' final settlement vouchers at the end
of the deployment, DFAS CTO used the newly established commuting area
to determine eligibility for per diem for the whole period. This
resulted in DFAS CTO retroactively disallowing per diem and creating
debts totaling approximately $200,000 for 32 soldiers, several in
excess of $10,000. Debt collections were initiated against the
soldiers' pay while they were in Iraq on a second mobilization in 2003,
creating adverse financial impacts on the soldiers and their families.
The 190[TH] unit commander was able to get the debt collections
suspended until they returned from Iraq. Following demobilization, debt
collections were reinstituted and are currently being made against the
soldiers' monthly drill pay. During our audit, many of these soldiers
still had unresolved and unpaid debts on their records, two in excess
of $10,000;
We requested that DFAS CTO review all of the records to determine
whether the soldiers were properly reimbursed for travel entitlements,
and whether the debt amounts were correct. DFAS CTO officials agreed
and at the conclusion of our audit were in the process of determining
who was entitled to per diem while at Fort McPherson.
These cases illustrate the effects of guidance that does not clearly
identify eligibility criteria and leaves meal eligibility
determinations to the interpretation of individual commands. Although
it would not be practical to develop guidance for every possible travel
scenario, we noted that the JFTR included useful situational examples
to assist decision makers in determining nonavailability related to
lodging and meals, while the PPG lacked similar specific contingency
travel examples.
Lack of specific entitlements on orders. Army and Army Guard policies
and procedures do not provide for mobilization orders issued to Army
Guard soldiers to clearly state that these soldiers should not be
required to pay for meals provided to them at government dining
facilities. In the case study units we reviewed, we found several
instances in which mobilization orders either stated nothing about meal
entitlements or stated, "Government mess will be used," or "Government
quarters and dining facilities are available and directed." As a
result, we noted instances in which mobilized soldiers arrived at
government mess halls carrying mobilization orders that did not
specifically state that the soldiers could eat free of charge and were
inappropriately required to pay for their meals.
The PPG states, "TCS soldiers who are on government installations with
dining facilities are directed to use mess facilities. These soldiers
are not required to pay for their meals."[Footnote 26] In addition, the
PPG states, "Basic Allowance for Subsistence will not be reduced when
government mess is used for soldiers in a contingency
operation."[Footnote 27] However, the PPG does not provide guidance
addressing the content of mobilization orders for Army Guard soldiers.
As a result, unless the orders contain the appropriate statements about
meal entitlements, installations sometimes inappropriately charge Army
Guard soldiers for their meals.
In response to questions we posed to officials representing the
Mississippi Adjutant General's office regarding why mobilization orders
did not include adequate provisions about food entitlements, they
explained that the individual mobilization orders that are prepared by
the Adjutant General's staff are very basic and include only the travel
allowances and actions that are necessary to get the individual from
the home station to the mobilization station. The Adjutant General's
office received no guidance on what should be stated in the orders with
respect to soldiers eating free of charge at government installations
or any other conditions that may entitle Army Guard soldiers to per
diem to compensate them for their out-of-pocket meal costs.
We discussed the problem of unclear mobilization orders with Army
officials during our audit. In response to our concerns, Army officials
agreed to modify the guidance on what to include in mobilization orders
with respect to meals and lodging entitlements.
As a result of the unclear orders, many Guard soldiers had to
inappropriately pay for meals and were unable to obtain reimbursement
for their out-of-pocket costs in a timely manner. The following example
shows the effects of that problem.
Case Study Illustration: Guard Unit Required to Pay for Meals at Army
Mess Hall;
When the Mississippi 20[TH] Special Forces Group (SFG) reported to its
mobilization station at Fort Carson, Colorado, on January 10, 2002, the
soldiers were assigned to on-post housing at the Fort Carson Colorado
Inn. They were told that the government dining facility nearest to
their lodging was approximately 1 mile away. When the soldiers went to
eat at the dining facility, they were told that they had to pay for
their meals because their orders did not indicate they could eat free.
Consequently, the soldiers either (1) continued to pay for their meals
at the government dining facility, (2) purchased groceries and cooked
in their rooms, or (3) ate at local restaurants. The dining facility
manager told us that if the soldier's orders did not specifically
indicate government meals at no cost, then his staff was instructed to
charge the soldier for meals;
The administrative noncommissioned officer for the Mississippi 20[TH]
SFG learned from a soldier in a different group, that he was being
reimbursed the locality rate (which at that time was $36 per day) for
meals purchased at his own expense. In July 2002, the unit's
administrative noncommissioned officer raised the meals issue with the
unit's chain of command, but it was not until October 2002 that
Headquarters, 10th SFG, Fort Carson issued amended orders for the 20th
SFG. The orders retroactively authorized meal per diem of $11 per day
to the soldiers of the 20th SFG, allowing them to be partially
reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses from January 2002 to
October 2002. The orders also authorized the soldiers to eat in the
dining facility at no charge beginning in October 2002. As of the end
of our audit, the administrative noncommissioned officer estimated that
$150,000 was still to be paid to 75 soldiers.
In another instance, Army Guard soldiers called to federal duty under
the authority of Title 32 for security missions in late 2001 and early
2002 experienced significant delays in getting reimbursed for travel
expenditures. The soldiers were provided lodging but not meals and were
not authorized per diem for meals on their orders. Many months elapsed
during which the Army Guard Adjutant General for each state command
with authority over the respective soldiers and Army Guard officials
worked to obtain and provide the proper authorization to reimburse all
the soldiers' travel expenses. In the interim, Army Guard soldiers
experienced financial hardships. The following case study chronicles
one story about these soldiers' experiences.
Case Study Illustration: Colorado Army Guard Soldiers Experience
Financial Hardship;
In March 2002, the Colorado National Guard HQ 140[TH] Signal Company
received orders to provide security at the Denver International
Airport, Denver, Colorado. For mission related reasons, the soldiers
were required to remain overnight at their duty station for an extended
period in government-provided housing, but their orders did not
authorize per diem for meals. Although the government provided housing,
meals were not included, and the soldiers had to obtain meals from
commercial establishments;
In July 2002, the Adjutant General of the Colorado Army National Guard
sent a letter to the Director of the Army National Guard Financial
Services Center, requesting that actions be taken to resolve the per
diem and other related issues. In December 2002, the letter was
forwarded by the Army National Guard Financial Services Center to the
Army National Guard Readiness Center for "consideration and action.";
In June 2003, the Army National Guard Readiness Center issued a
memorandum for the financial managers of all states, Guam, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia, which communicated
the receipt of approval from the Assistant Secretary of the Army -
Manpower and Reserve Affairs to provide retroactive redress of the per
diem and other issues affecting the Colorado and other Guard soldiers;
In September 2003, 18 months after the soldiers incurred out-of-pocket
expenses averaging over $1,400 each, the Colorado USPFO began paying
reimbursements to the soldiers. Some of these soldiers suffered adverse
financial impact resulting from the delays in reimbursement. For
example, one soldier told us his government travel card was canceled
due to nonpayment, another soldier's family had to rely on the spouse's
salary to pay bills, and another's child support payments were late or
less than the minimum required payments.
Confusing, nonstandard SNAs. Lack of standardization and changing
guidance has resulted in SNAs of various form and content, signed by
officials at different levels of authority. Consequently, travel
computation office reviewers were unable to consistently determine the
validity of SNAs. Our case studies identified travel computation
reviewers who have rejected soldiers' requests for reimbursements even
though they were supported by valid SNAs.
The most recent PPG guidance authorizes the installation commander to
determine whether to issue an SNA[Footnote 28] based on each unit's
situation and the availability of government housing.[Footnote 29] The
guidance states that when government or government-contracted quarters
are not available, soldiers will be provided certificates or statements
of non-availability for both lodging and meals to authorize per diem.
However, the guidance does not specify the form and content of the
SNAs. Consequently, at several case study units, we found that the form
of the SNA and the content of the information on the form varied at the
discretion of the issuing command. For example, one installation
stamped the soldiers' orders and handwrote an SNA identification number
in a block provided by the stamp. Another location provided a written
memo that stated that the meal component of per diem was authorized
because there were no food facilities at the government installation.
Another provided a single SNA with a roster attached that listed the
names of the soldiers who were authorized per diem. The variety of SNA
formats can cause confusion for the soldier, who does not know what
documentation is needed for reimbursement and whether the travel
computation office will accept it. The travel computation office
personnel can also be confused about the criteria for a valid SNA, as
illustrated by the following case study.
Case Study Illustration: SNAs for Meal Reimbursement Not Consistently
Accepted;
Sixty-five soldiers in B Company, 20[TH] Special Forces of the Virginia
Army National Guard received orders to mobilize to Fort Bragg, North
Carolina in early 2002. After about 3 weeks, the unit moved to
government contracted quarters off-post and soldiers were authorized
proportional per diem for two meals a day during their Fort Bragg duty
period. After returning from overseas duty, 51 soldiers prepared and
submitted their final travel vouchers, with identical SNA documents
attached, to DFAS CTO in November and December 2002. Some of the
soldiers' meal component per diem claims were approved and paid by
DFAS; others were not. Inconsistent recognition and acceptance of
identical SNAs resulted in 24 soldiers receiving timely reimbursements
and 12 soldiers receiving late reimbursements after having to resubmit
their vouchers with additional documentation to receive their
proportional per diem. Furthermore, at the time we completed our audit
of B Company's travel vouchers in May 2004, approximately 22 percent of
the soldiers (14 of 65) still had not received the majority of their
proportional per diem entitlement. Travel reimbursements, ranging from
about $1,600 to over $3,500, had not been made to these 14 soldiers. In
June 2004, DFAS CTO processed vouchers for 10 of the 14 soldiers and
made final payments for meal expenses they incurred during their Fort
Bragg duty. The remaining 4 soldiers had not been paid at the
completion of our audit.
Our work found instances in which installation commands denied
soldiers' requests for SNAs. In response to our inquiries, we found
that commands do not generally document their rationale for denying
SNAs and there is no requirement for them to do so. This lack of
documentation can leave soldiers even more confused and frustrated when
seeking answers as to why their requests for per diem were denied.
GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government require
the maintenance of related records and appropriate documentation that
provides evidence of execution of control activities.
Late Payment Interest and Fees Guidance Thwarts Intent of the Law:
Inappropriate policy and guidance, issued by DFAS Indianapolis,
combined with the lack of systems or processes designed to identify and
pay late payment interest and fees, leave DOD in continued
noncompliance with TTRA. As a result, through at least April 2004, DFAS
Indianapolis had made no required payments of late payment interest
and/or late payment fees to soldiers for travel reimbursements paid
later than 30 days after the submission of a proper voucher. For
example, of 139 individual vouchers we selected to determine why these
took a long time to process, we identified 75 vouchers that were
properly submitted by Army Guard soldiers that should have received
late payment interest totaling about $1,400. Some of these vouchers may
also have warranted a late payment fee in addition to the late payment
interest.
In addition, DFAS data showed indications that thousands of other
soldiers may be due late payment interest. For example, during the
period October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, dates in the DFAS
Operational Data Store showed that about 85,000 vouchers filed by
mobilized Army Guard soldiers were paid more than 60 days after the
date travel ended. If the dates on these vouchers were correct, the
soldiers who submitted proper vouchers within 5 days of the date travel
ended would be entitled to late payment interest if they were not paid
within the 30-day limit.
TTRA and federal travel regulations[Footnote 30] require the payment of
a late payment fee consisting of (1) late payment interest, generally
equivalent to the Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate, plus (2) a late
payment fee equivalent to the late payment charge, which could have
been charged by the government travel card contractor. Late payment
interest and fees are to be paid to soldiers if their reimbursements
are not paid within 30 days of the submission of a proper voucher.
In our 2002 report on Army travel cards[Footnote 31] we reported DFAS
noncompliance with TTRA due to the lack of procedures and necessary
systems and data to make the required computations. In response to our
recommendations in that report, DFAS revised its procedures in April
2003. Until that time, DFAS required individual soldiers to submit
requests for late payment interest and fees if they believed their
vouchers were paid late. According to DOD's FMR, the traveler was
required to submit a supplemental voucher[Footnote 32] through his or
her supervisor/approving official requesting the payment.[Footnote 33]
The 2003 guidance[Footnote 34] issued by DFAS Indianapolis stated that
Army travel computation offices would identify vouchers for late
payment interest and fees rather than require individual soldiers to
take the initiative to file claims for late payment interest and fees.
However, DFAS's interpretation of the guidance limited the payment of
late payment interest and fees to only the final settlement travel
voucher[Footnote 35] for all travel under a particular travel order.
This practice contributed to continued noncompliance with the law
because it effectively excluded large numbers of monthly or accrual
vouchers[Footnote 36] from consideration of late payment interest and
fees. In response to our inquiries, DFAS officials told us that as of
April 2004, they had not paid any late payment interest or fees to
soldiers because no final settlement vouchers were paid late.
We questioned DFAS officials about their decision to exclude accrual
vouchers from potential payment of late payment interest and fees. As a
result, DFAS issued new guidance dated May 2004 to clarify that all
travel voucher reimbursements are subject to late payment interest and
fees. However, the provision in DOD's FMR pertaining to this issue
continues to require that individual soldiers request the late payment
interest and fees. Furthermore, due to automated systems issues
discussed later, DFAS does not have the capability to automatically
identify late vouchers or calculate the late payment interest and fees.
Consequently, travel computation offices have to use manual procedures
to identify late vouchers and make manual calculations. Additionally,
the new guidance directs reviewers to sign travel vouchers on the same
day that they are submitted and then establishes the reviewers'
signature date as the date of submission of a proper voucher.[Footnote
37] We are unaware of any control procedure to monitor that reviewers
are complying with the requirement.
Subsequent to DFAS's dissemination of the new guidance, we found
numerous late vouchers for which DFAS did not pay late payment interest
and fees. For example, the final vouchers for 63 soldiers with the
Georgia Army National Guard's 190TH Military Police Company were
processed late in April 2004 without payment of late payment interest
or fees, even though they were covered by DFAS guidance issued in 2003.
The vouchers were approved by unit reviewers on February 6, 2004, and
were submitted to the Georgia USPFO on February 10, 2004, for
additional review to identify any deficiencies that may cause the
vouchers to be rejected. Due to the USPFO's workload and the
unavailability of appropriate personnel to review the vouchers, the
vouchers remained at the USPFO from February 10, 2004 until April 2,
2004. DFAS CTO eventually received the vouchers on April 9, 2004, and
paid them on April 27, 2004. The payments were made a total of 81 days
after the supervisory signatures, thus making the payments 51 days over
the 30 days allowed for payment. According to a DFAS official, DFAS's
manual procedures did not detect the vouchers as needing late payment
interest and fees. Travel clerks were supposed to review dates of
supervisory signatures to determine if the 30-day limit was exceeded
and thus require the payment of late payment interest and fees. We
notified DFAS officials of the oversight and they subsequently made the
interest payments. A DFAS official also informed us that additional
changes to DFAS's manual procedures were being made to ensure that late
vouchers are properly identified and late payment interest and fees
paid. Because these changes in procedure were so recent, we could not
evaluate their effectiveness.
Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers:
We found that weaknesses related to human capital contributed to travel
reimbursement problems. These weaknesses include (1) a lack of
leadership and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training provided
to Army Guard soldiers and travel computation office examiners. GAO's
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that
effective human capital practices are critical to establishing and
maintaining a strong internal control environment. Specifically,
management should take steps to ensure that its organization can
promptly identify problems and respond to changing needs, and that
appropriate human capital practices are in place and operating
effectively. Without an overall leadership structure in place, neither
the Army nor the Army Guard had developed and implemented processwide
monitoring and performance metrics necessary to promptly identify and
resolve problems causing late-paid travel vouchers. We also found that
lack of adequate soldier training was a contributing factor to some
travel voucher processing deficiencies. For example, several Army Guard
soldiers with whom we spoke told us that they had received either
inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review. In
addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that the on-the-job training
provided to its new personnel in early 2003 initially proved to be
inadequate in the wake of the hundreds of thousands of travel vouchers
that flooded their offices subsequent to the mobilization surge during
this period. To its credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced
its training program for voucher examiners.
Lack of Leadership and Oversight:
No one office or individual was responsible for the end-to-end Army
Guard travel reimbursement process. The lack of overall leadership and
fragmented accountability precluded the development of strong
overarching internal controls, particularly in the area of program
monitoring. Neither the Army nor the Army Guard were systematically
using performance metrics to gain agencywide insight into the nature
and extent of the delays to measure performance and to identify and
correct systemic problems. Our Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government require agencies to have internal control procedures
that include top-level reviews by management that compare actual
performance to expected results and analyze significant differences.
As shown in figure 6, internal reports prepared by DFAS CTO show that
missing travel orders was the primary reason why it did not accept
vouchers for payment. DFAS CTO reported that it rejected 104,000, or
approximately 17 percent, of 609,000 vouchers during the period July
2003 through September 2004, with missing travel authorizations
accounting for over half of the rejected vouchers. While this churning
process appeared to be a primary factor in payment delays and soldier
frustration, DFAS CTO, Army, or Army Guard offices had not performed
additional research to determine the root cause of this and other
voucher deficiencies.
Figure 6: Army Reserve and Army Guard Travel Vouchers Returned by DFAS
CTO from July 2003 through September 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Similarly, our analysis of a selection of individual travel vouchers
also disclosed that some vouchers were returned to soldiers because of
missing documentation or the lack of required signatures. However,
neither DOD management officials nor we could determine the root cause
of all instances of missing information. Some soldiers told us that
DFAS CTO lost documentation that they had submitted. DFAS CTO also
experienced problems with faxed vouchers, which caused vouchers and
supporting documentation not to be printed and processed in some cases.
According to a DFAS CTO official, DFAS was unaware that faxed vouchers
were not printing until a soldier complained that DFAS was not
receiving his faxes. DFAS did not monitor incoming faxes, even though
it reported that faxed travel vouchers account for approximately 60
percent of the total mobilized Army Guard and Reserve travel vouchers
it received. These problems obstructed the normal handling of a number
of those vouchers. In an effort to resolve this problem, DFAS CTO, in
March 2004, ceased relying on an automatic print function of the fax
system software and began manually printing vouchers.
As shown in figure 7, our audit of a nonrepresentative selection of 139
travel vouchers (69 computed by DFAS CTO and 70 by USPFOs) found
significant delays occurred between the date of the reviewer's
signature and the date that the travel computation office accepted the
voucher. Some of these delays were caused by the time needed to correct
vouchers that were deficient and resubmit them to DFAS CTO or another
USPFO travel computation office.
Figure 7: Time Intervals between Reviewer Approval and Travel
Computation Office Acceptance for 139 Selected Travel Vouchers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We determined that the travel computation office rejected 32 of the 72
travel vouchers delayed for more than 3 days because of missing
documentation or the lack of required signatures and sent them back to
the soldiers for corrections. A lack of documentation or other
information prevented us from determining the reason for delays of more
than 3 days for the remaining travel vouchers.
In one case, an Army Guard soldier from Texas waited over 9 months to
be paid. The soldier prepared and submitted a travel voucher for $765
and signed it on August 28, 2002. His unit supervisor signed the
voucher as reviewed on the same day. The travel computation office
rejected the voucher and sent it back to the soldier because the proper
documentation was not attached. The travel computation office returned
the voucher to the soldier a second time because it did not have the
necessary signatures. A complete travel voucher was finally received
and accepted by the travel computation office on April 25, 2003, 240
days after the unit's initial review and was not paid until mid-June
2003.
The Army's lack of processwide oversight, including monitoring of the
rejection and return of vouchers by DFAS CTO and other travel
computation offices, resulted in undetected delays in reimbursement,
leading to unnecessary frustration with the Army's travel and
reimbursement process and potential financial difficulty for the
soldier. Further, without establishing and monitoring program metrics,
management had no assurance that it had identified where the breakdowns
were occurring and could not take the appropriate steps to resolve any
identified problems. For example, although the Army relied on the
individual unit reviewer for assurance that travel vouchers were
properly reviewed and transmitted promptly to the travel computation
offices, the Army did not establish and monitor performance metrics to
hold these reviewers accountable for their critical role in the
process.
DFAS CTO officials told us that they have taken several steps to reduce
the number of vouchers being returned to the soldiers due to missing
signatures and missing mobilization orders. DFAS and the National Guard
Financial Services Center--a field operating agency of the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, that performs selected financial services--
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement effective February 2004 whereby
DFAS will obtain the assistance of the National Guard to address
problems with certain vouchers that would otherwise be returned to
soldiers. According to DFAS CTO data, since the implementation of the
agreement through the end of fiscal year 2004, 13,523 travel vouchers
were coordinated with the National Guard in this manner rather than
initially being sent back to the soldiers for correction. However, we
did not assess the effectiveness of these changes in reducing the
number of vouchers that ultimately are returned to soldiers or in
reducing the time necessary to process and pay vouchers.
Although metrics were available on the average time DFAS CTO took to
pay travel vouchers after receipt, the Army did not have statistical
data on supplemental vouchers that could help provide additional
insight into the extent and cause of processing errors or omissions by
voucher examiners, unit reviewers, or Army Guard soldiers. Several of
our case studies indicate that accuracy may be an important issue. For
example, one method DFAS CTO uses to correct a voucher error or
omission is to process a supplemental voucher.[Footnote 38] According
to DFAS data, DFAS CTO processed about 251,000 vouchers related to Army
Guard soldiers mobilized during the period October 1, 2001, through
November 30, 2003, of which over 10,600 were supplemental vouchers.
However, DFAS CTO officials could not tell us how many of these were
due to errors or omissions by DFAS examiners or other factors. Our
audit of 69 supplemental vouchers for the California 185TH case study
unit showed that 41 were due to DFAS CTO errors and the remaining 28
were due to errors or omissions on the part of the soldiers. Because
DFAS CTO has not analyzed or tracked the extent or cause of
supplemental vouchers to establish performance benchmarks, it has
missed an opportunity to help identify recurring problems and solutions
as well as measure improvements or deterioration in the effectiveness
of the travel reimbursement program over time.
Finally, we noted that although DFAS CTO established a toll-free number
(1-888-332-7366) for questions related to Army Guard and Reserve
contingency travel, DFAS did not have performance metrics to identify
problem areas or gauge the effectiveness of this customer service
effort. For example, DFAS did not systematically record the nature of
the calls to the toll-free number. According to DFAS data, this number,
staffed by 30 DFAS employees, received over 15,000 calls in June 2004.
By monitoring the types of calls and the nature of the problems
reported, important information could have been developed to help
target areas where training or improved guidance may be warranted.
Further, DFAS had not established performance metrics for its call
takers in terms of the effectiveness of resolved cases or overall
customer service.
Inadequate Training Results in Late or Inaccurate Reimbursements:
Although Army regulations specify the responsibilities of soldiers,
they do not require that soldiers be trained on travel entitlements and
their role in the travel reimbursement process. Some of the Army Guard
soldiers that we spoke with told us that they had received either
inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review. In
addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that the on-the-job-training
provided to its new personnel in early 2003 initially proved to be
inadequate. To its credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced
its training program for voucher examiners. Army Guard soldiers in our
case studies told us that they asked DFAS representatives or used the
Internet in attempts to find, interpret, and apply DFAS guidance, which
by itself proved to be insufficient and required many trial and error
attempts to properly prepare travel vouchers. As a result, many
soldiers did not receive their travel payments on time.
The lack of well-trained personnel can undermine the effectiveness of
any system of travel expense reimbursement. Well-trained and informed
personnel, conscientiously performing their assigned duties, are
especially essential in the paper-driven, labor-intensive, manual,
error-prone environment of the Army's current travel authorization and
reimbursement process.
Army Guard soldiers. Army Guard soldiers in our case studies told us
that they were confused about their responsibilities in the travel
voucher reimbursement process because they had not been sufficiently
trained in travel voucher processes related to mobilization. For
example, prior to September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed
the criteria for single trips or sequential trips and was not always
clearly applicable to situations in which Army Guard soldiers could be
authorized short intervals of travel for temporary duty at different
locations within their longer term mobilization. This "overlapping
travel" proved to be problematic for Army Guard soldiers trying to
understand their travel voucher filing requirements and travel
computation office examiners responsible for reviewing travel vouchers.
In addition, we found indications that some soldiers were not aware of
DOD's requirement to complete a travel voucher within 5 days of the end
of travel or the end of every 30-day period in cases of extended
travel. For example, as shown in figure 8, in our selection of 139
vouchers, 99 (71 percent) of the Army Guard soldiers did not meet the 5-
day requirement. Fifty-two Army Guard soldiers submitted their vouchers
more than 1 year late.
Figure 8: Timing from the End of Travel to Soldier Submissions for 139
Selected Travel Vouchers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Of the 59 Army Guard soldiers that we could locate and interview, 23
said that they lacked understanding about procedures, or lacked
knowledge or training about the filing requirements. Eight Army Guard
soldiers said that they procrastinated or forgot to file their travel
vouchers on time. The remaining 28 said that they could not remember
anything about the specific voucher we asked about or did not respond
to our inquiries. Several soldiers offered their perspectives on their
lack of understanding about certain requirements.
Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of SNA Requirements;
A soldier with the Pennsylvania National Guard 1[ST] Battalion, 103rd
Armor, whose active duty was extended to perform duties at Fluck Armory
in Freidens, Pennsylvania, after his overseas duties were completed,
was unaware that he needed an SNA to justify reimbursement of his out-
of-pocket costs. He told us that he assumed the Army would have given
him the documentation he needed to support his travel voucher. When his
voucher was not paid, he contacted DFAS CTO to determine the reason for
the delay. DFAS CTO claimed that it had not received his voucher. After
several resubmissions, he received a payment in July 2003 that was
about $1,500 less than what he expected. He also received an e-mail
notification from DFAS CTO that stated, "SNA needed for lodging at
Friedens, PA." The soldier told us that he did not know what SNA meant
or how to obtain an SNA. Eventually, the soldier was able to obtain an
SNA from the commanding officer of the Pennsylvania 876th Engineers. In
February 2004, about 11 months after he completed his assignment at
Fluck Armory, DFAS paid the soldier about $1,600 for his lodging and
meal expenses.
The following example illustrates a unit administrator's experience and
frustration in having to duplicate his efforts to obtain a single
month's travel expenses for 37 soldiers in his unit.
Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of Documentation
Requirements;
A unit administrator with the Pennsylvania National Guard's 876[TH]
Engineer Battalion told us that he was unaware that he needed to attach
a copy of the mobilization order and TCS order to each travel voucher
before he submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO for each of the 37 soldiers in
his unit. He explained that there was only one block on the travel
voucher form to insert a single order number. He attached the TCS
order, incorrectly assuming that the DFAS CTO examiner would know that
the soldiers, being in an Army Guard unit, could not have been on TCS
duty in Germany performing installation security and force protection
duties without having been mobilized. As a result, he was concerned
when he and other soldiers were reimbursed for the 1 week of their
travel expenditures incurred in Germany, but not for the 3 weeks of
expenses incurred during their initial duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey,
where soldiers participated in mobilization training and other
activities prior to overseas deployment. These expenses included
transportation to Fort Dix, New Jersey, and daily incidental expenses.
DFAS CTO asked him to submit new travel vouchers for this 3-week period
with the mobilization order attached, which he did. The soldiers in
this unit were collectively paid $7,400 about 4 weeks later, which
represented the balance due on their initial travel vouchers.
DFAS CTO personnel. DFAS CTO also had challenges training its examiner
staff. The increase in mobilizations since September 11, 2001, and
resulting increase in travel voucher submissions put a strain on DFAS
CTO's ability to make prompt and accurate travel reimbursements to Army
Guard soldiers. As discussed previously, DFAS CTO hired more than 200
staff from October 2001 through July 2003, which brought the total
number of staff to approximately 240. The training of these new
employees was delivered on-the-job. Training time depended on the
individual and type of work. For example, according to a DFAS CTO
official, it took from 1 to 3 months for a voucher examiner to reach
established standards. The DFAS CTO official told us that, in some
cases, on-the-job training proved to be inadequate and contributed to
travel reimbursement errors during this period.
Two of our case studies indicated that mistakes by DFAS CTO contributed
to reimbursement problems. For example, our California case study
indicated that 33 soldiers were initially underpaid a total of almost
$25,000 for meals, lodging, and incidental expenses when personnel at
DFAS CTO selected an incorrect duty location and a corresponding
incorrect per diem rate. Although these soldiers eventually received
the amounts they were due, the corrections took months to resolve.
Another example, described next, shows inconsistencies and errors in
the payment of meal and incidental expense per diem to soldiers in a
Pennsylvania Guard unit.
Case Study Illustration: Pennsylvania Army National Guard Travel
Reimbursement Problems;
Pennsylvania Army National Guard soldiers from Company C, 876[TH]
Engineer Battalion were deployed to Bad Aibling Station, Germany, in
late July 2002, to augment active duty forces that were providing
enhanced security at this installation. The 37 soldiers in Company C
were authorized to purchase their meals because mess facilities were
not available. Each month, the unit administrator prepared and
submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO for reimbursement of meal and incidental
expenses. Although each of the 37 soldiers should have received, in any
given month, the same reimbursement amount, the actual payments to
soldiers were not identical. For the first 3 months of their
deployment, soldiers' travel reimbursements varied significantly. For
example, for the September 2002 vouchers, payments ranged from $105 up
to $1,655. Additionally, 3 soldiers did not receive payment on their
September vouchers for several months. The unit administrator told us
he contacted DFAS CTO numerous times to discuss the inconsistencies
with soldiers' reimbursements, and DFAS CTO representatives provided
specific payment amounts that soldiers should expect to receive.
However, when incorrect payments continued, he said he was not sure
that DFAS CTO knew what to pay the soldiers. This situation led to
soldiers' confusion and frustration with the travel reimbursement
process;
The travel reimbursement errors that occurred throughout the deployment
affected 36 of the 37 soldiers. Of the 36, 12 soldiers experienced at
least one payment error and the remaining 24 soldiers experienced
multiple payment errors. When DFAS CTO attempted to correct payment
errors to soldiers by processing additional payments, the additional
payments resulted in overpayments to 35 soldiers because DFAS CTO
examiners made errors in determining the daily meal and incidental
expense per diem rate. DFAS CTO caught some of these overpayments and
processed collections on final vouchers. Fifteen soldiers received
collection notices from DFAS on their final vouchers and, although most
of these soldiers had debt amounts ranging from $200 to $300 dollars
each, 1 soldier had almost $1,350 deducted from his final voucher
payment;
Although overpayments were collected from 15 soldiers in this unit,
most of the remaining soldiers also received overpayments that have yet
to be addressed. From the deployment period of late July 2002 to
February 2003, the unit as a whole was reimbursed about $360,000. Of
this amount, we determined that outstanding overpayments of over
$11,200 remain.
During fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO worked toward improving staff
training opportunities. For example, DFAS CTO used computer-based
training to provide new personnel an initial overview of WINIATS and
voucher computation procedures. In addition, a DFAS CTO official told
us that a 40-hour course, which was designed specifically to address
the types of vouchers received by DFAS CTO, has been established to
train new employees. Further, according to the official, one benefit of
the classroom instruction compared to on-the-job training is that it
does not affect the productivity of experienced examiners, who
previously were tasked with providing immediate on-the-job-training to
new hires in addition to their primary duties.
System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process:
Coupled with the process flaws and human capital issues previously
addressed in this report, the lack of systems integration and
automation along with other systems deficiencies contributed
significantly to the travel reimbursement problems we identified. The
lack of integrated and automated systems results in the existing
inefficient, paper-intensive, and error-prone travel reimbursement
process. These problems are also a major factor in the churning issue
discussed previously--the thousands of vouchers that are rejected and
returned for missing documentation. Specifically, the Army does not
have automated systems for some critical Army Guard travel process
functions, such as preparation of travel vouchers, SNAs, and TCS
orders, which precludes the electronic sharing of data by the various
travel computation offices. Further, system design flaws impede
management's ability to comply with TTRA, analyze timeliness of travel
reimbursements, and take corrective action as necessary.
Lack of Integrated Systems:
The key DOD systems involved in authorizing and reimbursing travel
expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers are not integrated. In
January 1995, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel issued a
report[Footnote 39] stating that this was a principal cause of the
inefficient travel system. As we have reported and testified,[Footnote
40] decades-old financial management problems related to the
proliferation of systems, due in part to DOD components receiving and
controlling their own information technology investment funding, result
in the current fragmented, nonstandardized systems. Lacking either an
integrated or effectively interfaced set of travel authorization,
voucher preparation, and reimbursement systems, the Army Guard must
rely on a time-consuming collection of source documents and error-prone
manual entry of data into a travel voucher computation system, as shown
in figure 9.
Figure 9: Overview of the Design of Systems and Travel Applications
Used for Army Guard Travel:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
With an effectively integrated system, changes to personnel records,
such as mobilization orders, would automatically transfer to the travel
pay system. While not as efficient as an integrated system, an
automatic personnel-to-travel pay system interface can reduce delays
caused by the return of vouchers for missing travel authorizations.
Without an effective interface between the personnel and travel pay
systems, we found instances in which travel vouchers were returned to
soldiers due to missing travel authorizations, causing significant time
delays. For example, DOD took almost 500 days to pay a California Army
Guard soldier his travel pay. This extensive delay was due in part to
the soldier not submitting a paper copy of his mobilization order. If
the system that created the mobilization order had interfaced with the
travel voucher computation system, a portion of Army Guard and Army
Reserve vouchers returned by DFAS CTO--a significant problem as
discussed previously--could have been eliminated. This, in turn, would
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the process by reducing
paper, reducing the return voucher workload at DFAS CTO, and decreasing
the time to reimburse the soldiers.
Further, the lack of an integrated travel system and consequent
"workarounds" increase the risk of errors and create the current
inefficient process. As noted previously, several separate WINIATS
systems at DFAS and the USPFOs can process travel vouchers for
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. These databases operate on separate
local area networks that do not exchange or share data with other
travel computation offices to ensure travel reimbursements have not
already been paid. Instead, as shown in figure 9, multiple WINIATS
systems transmit data to the DFAS Operational Data Store (ODS)--a
separate database that stores disbursement transactions. As a result,
when a soldier submits a voucher, voucher examiners must resort to
extraction and manual review of data from ODS. Next, voucher examiners
research and calculate previous payments--advances or interim payments-
-made by other Army WINIATS systems. This information is then manually
entered into WINIATS for it to compute the correct travel reimbursement
for the current claim. In addition to being time consuming, this manual
workaround can also lead to mistakes. For example, a Michigan soldier
was overpaid $1,384 when two travel computation offices paid him for
travel expenses incurred during the same period in August and September
2002. This overpayment was detected by DFAS CTO when the soldier filed
his final voucher in August 2003.
Lack of Automated Systems:
DOD lacks an automated system for preparing travel vouchers, which
hinders the travel reimbursement process. As shown in figure 9,
soldiers manually prepare their paper travel vouchers and attach many
paper travel authorizations and receipts and distribute them via mail,
fax, or e-mail to one of the travel computation offices. The lack of an
automated system increases the risk of missing documents in voucher
submissions, which results in an increased number of vouchers rejected
and returned by DFAS CTO. Another consequence of this inefficient
process is the need for additional staff to process the vouchers, as
discussed earlier in this report. In addition, the Army currently lacks
a centralized system to issue uniquely numbered and standard formatted
SNAs regarding housing and dining facilities for mobilized soldiers.
The lack of centralized standard data precludes electronic linking with
any voucher computation system and the reduction of paperwork for
individual soldiers, as they must obtain and accumulate various paper
authorizations to submit with their vouchers.
Further, the Army lacks an automated system for producing TCS orders.
As illustrated at the top of figure 9, the various mobilization
stations use a word processing program to type and print each
individual TCS order to move a soldier to such places as Afghanistan
and Iraq. Similar to the process for SNAs, mobilization stations
maintain separate document files for each TCS order issued. The absence
of a standard automated system used by each of the mobilization
stations prevents the Army from electronically sharing TCS data with
other systems, such as a voucher computation system. Consequently, the
process will remain vulnerable to delays for returned voucher
submissions as mobilized Army Guard soldiers continue to receive paper
SNAs and TCS orders. Finally, even if the Army automates the TCS, SNA,
and voucher preparation processes, as discussed previously, these new
automated systems would need to be either integrated or interfaced with
a voucher computation system to decrease the amount of time from
initiation of travel to final settlement of travel expenses.
Other System Problems:
In addition to being stand-alone, nonintegrated systems that do not
have the capability to exchange/share information, the over 60 separate
WINIATS systems at DFAS and the USPFOs that can process travel vouchers
for mobilized Army Guard soldiers do not consistently capture critical
dates useful for management oversight and tracking. As a result,
complete and accurate information is not transmitted to ODS--the
separate DFAS database that stores disbursement transactions--and is
not available for a variety of management needs. Specifically, many
Army Guard USPFOs were not populating key data fields in WINIATS, such
as the voucher preparation date, supervisor review date, and the travel
computation office receipt date. According to our Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, information should be
recorded and communicated to management and others within the entity
who need it, in a form and within a time frame that enables them to
carry out their responsibilities.
These dates are key in providing DOD management with the information
necessary to comply with TTRA, which requires DOD to reimburse soldiers
for interest and fees when travel vouchers are paid late. In addition,
these dates are essential in providing management with performance
information that can help DOD improve its travel reimbursement process.
A March 2003 report[Footnote 41] by DFAS Internal Review noted 39
percent of the claims it audited did not have the date of receipt in
the travel computation office or the date the supervisor approved the
voucher recorded in WINIATS. In April 2003, DFAS Indianapolis directed
all travel computation offices using WINIATS to input the key dates of
preparation, review, and receipt by a travel computation office. Our
analysis of 622,821 Army Guard travel voucher transactions filed from
October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, and processed by DFAS CTO
and the USPFOs found that at least one of these key dates was not
recorded in ODS for 453,351, or approximately 73 percent, of the
transactions. Further, when we questioned the 54 USPFOs in March 2004,
33 of the 41 that responded told us that they were not capturing all of
these critical dates. Many respondents were unaware that WINIATS could
collect these dates.
In cases in which the key dates necessary to perform the evaluation
were being captured, incorrect entries were not detected. A WINIATS
representative told us that the system was not designed with certain
edit checks to detect data anomalies such as those caused by erroneous
data entry. We found that 52 of 191 in our nonrepresentative selection
of travel vouchers filed by soldiers had incorrect dates recorded in
ODS (e.g., the date of supervisory review predated the date of travel
ended by nearly a year) and that these data entry errors were not
detected. Without system edit checks to detect data anomalies, the
accuracy and reliability of the data are questionable, and
consequently, management cannot carry out its oversight duties.
Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers:
DOD's current plan--deployment of the Defense Travel System (DTS)--to
automate its paper-intensive, manual travel reimbursement process will
not resolve key flaws we found in reimbursement of travel expenses to
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. DOD recognized the need to improve the
travel reimbursement process in the 1990s and has been developing and
implementing DTS. However, DTS is currently not able to process
mobilized travel authorizations (e.g., mobilization orders, TCS orders,
and SNAs) and vouchers and, therefore, does not provide an end-to-end
solution for paying mobilized Army Guard soldiers for travel
entitlements. According to DOD, DTS will provide this capability when
the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) is
implemented. Currently, DOD plans to deploy DIMHRS to the Army Guard in
March 2006. In addition, DTS does not identify and calculate late
payment interest and fees required by law. Furthermore, DFAS auditors
have reported additional problems with DTS. Given DOD's past failed
attempts at developing and implementing systems on time, within budget,
and with the promised capability, and that the effort has already been
under way for about 8 years, it is likely that the department will be
relying on the existing paper-intensive, manual system for the
foreseeable future.
In July 1994, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel was formed to
study the existing travel system. In January 1995, this task force
concluded that the existing travel system was fragmented, inefficient,
expensive to administer, and occasionally impeded mission
accomplishment. It recommended new travel policies and procedures,
simplified entitlements, and recommended the travel process take
advantage of automation to become traveler friendly and efficient. In
December 1995, the Program Management Office-Defense Travel System (PMO-
DTS) was established to implement these recommendations and acquire
reengineered travel services from commercial vendors.
At the end of fiscal year 2003, DOD reported investing nearly 8 years
and about $288 million in DTS. In 2003, PMO-DTS estimated an additional
$251 million was needed for DTS to be fully operational at the end of
fiscal year 2006, resulting in an estimated total development and
production cost of over 10 years and $539 million. This cost estimate
does not include deploying DTS to the majority of the Army Guard
USPFOs. Although the Army Guard supplies most of the mobilized soldiers
in support of the global war on terrorism, DTS deployment to the 54
USPFOs is not scheduled to begin until fiscal year 2006. The Army is
expected to fund the majority of the costs to field the program to the
USPFOs, where mobilized Army Guard travel begins. The DTS total life
cycle cost estimate, including the military service and Defense
agencies, is $4.39 billion.[Footnote 42]
DTS Is Not an End-to-End Solution for Paying Mobilized Army Guard
Soldiers' Travel Entitlements:
While DTS purports to integrate the travel authorization, voucher
preparation, and approval and payment process for TDY travel, it does
not integrate travel authorizations and reimbursements for mobilized
Army Guard soldiers. DOD officials have stated that currently DTS
cannot process mobilized Army Guard travel reimbursements involving
various consecutive and/or overlapping travel authorizations. As
discussed earlier, mobilized Army Guard travel involves various travel
authorizations, most with overlapping dates. DOD officials acknowledged
that DTS would not produce the various travel authorizations related to
mobilization travel, because DOD is presently designing a pay and
personnel system, DIMHRS, to accomplish this task. DOD's current
strategy is for DTS to electronically capture the travel authorization
information from DIMHRS, after which a soldier would use DTS to prepare
and submit a travel voucher. This would require that DIMHRS have the
capability to electronically capture the various authorizations
applicable to Army Guard travel, such as mobilization and temporary
change of station orders, and that SNAs are generated from a standard,
automated system that can effectively interface with DTS. DOD officials
do not plan to implement DIMHRS at the Army Guard until March 2006. As
a result, the timing and ability of the Army Guard to process
mobilization travel vouchers through DTS appears to hinge on the
successful development and implementation of DIMHRS and its interface
with DTS.
DTS Does Not Compute Late Payment Interest and Fees:
DTS is not being designed to identify and calculate travelers' late
payment interest and fees in accordance with TTRA. As discussed earlier
in this report, DOD's current travel computation system does not
automatically identify and calculate the TTRA late payment interest and
fees. Furthermore, no controls are in place to ensure that the manual
calculation is performed and that the interest and fee amounts are
entered into the system for payment. According to DTS officials, DOD
has not directed that DTS be designed to include such a feature. As a
result, as currently designed, DTS provides no assurance that late
payment interest and fees will be paid to travelers as required
pursuant to TTRA. Further, the DTS design does not meet the expectation
set out in the DOD Financial Management Regulation,[Footnote 43] that
DTS will automatically determine if a late payment fee is due.
Other Auditors Identify Problems with DTS:
A DFAS Kansas City Statistical Operations and Review Branch
report[Footnote 44] identified several significant problems with the
current DFAS implementation. Specifically, for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2004, DFAS reported a 14 percent inaccuracy rate in DTS
travel payments of airfare, lodging, and meals and incidental expenses.
This report cited causes similar to those we identified in the areas of
traveler preparation of claims and official review of claims. In
addition to these deficiencies, DFAS noted errors in DTS calculations
for meals and incidental expenses.
Another DFAS Internal Review report,[Footnote 45] dated June 15, 2004,
indicated that improvements were needed in DTS access controls to
prevent or detect unauthorized access to sensitive files. DFAS Internal
Review reported that the PMO-DTS had not established standard user
account review and maintenance procedures. This leaves DTS potentially
vulnerable to (1) prior DTS users retaining access to the system and
(2) current users having improper access levels. The DFAS Internal
Review report concludes that without conducting periodic account
maintenance procedures and detecting unauthorized access, DTS is
vulnerable to unauthorized individuals gaining access to the system and
confidential information, resulting in potential losses to DOD
employees and the government. The report also noted that DTS was not
adequately retaining an audit trail of administrative and security
data, leaving management unable to investigate suspicious activities or
research problem transactions. At the conclusion of our audit work, PMO-
DTS officials informed us that they have taken or plan to take steps to
address the problem areas in the two reports discussed above. We were
unable to evaluate the potential effectiveness of those actions in time
for release of this report.
Conclusions:
As Army Guard soldiers heed the call to duty and serve our country in
vital and dangerous missions both at home and abroad, they deserve
nothing less than full, accurate, and timely reimbursements for their
out-of-pocket travel expenses. However, just as we recently reported
for Army Guard and Reserve pay, our soldiers are more often than not
forced to contend with the costly and time-consuming "war on paper" to
ensure that they are properly reimbursed. The process, human capital,
and automated systems problems we identified related to Army Guard
travel reimbursement are additional examples of the broader, long-
standing financial management and business transformation challenges
faced by DOD. Similar to our previously reported findings for numerous
other DOD business operations, the travel reimbursement process has
evolved over years into the stove-piped, paper-intensive process that
exists today and was ill-prepared to respond to the current large and
sustained mobilizations. Without systematic oversight of key program
metrics, breakdowns in the process remain unidentified and effective
controls cannot be established and monitored. Finally, DOD's long-
standing inability to develop and implement systems solutions on time,
within budget, and with the promised capability appears to be a
critical impediment in this area. While immediate corrective actions
can be taken in some areas, the problems we identified with DOD's
longer term automated systems initiatives--DIHMRS and DTS--raise
serious questions of whether and when mobilized soldiers' travel
reimbursement problems will be resolved.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
and the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), to take
the following 23 actions to address the issues we found with respect to
the controls over processes for payment of travel entitlements to
mobilized Army Guard personnel.
Process:
* Modify existing policies and procedures to require that mobilization
and related travel orders clearly state meal entitlements. Such orders
should specify that mobilized soldiers are not required to pay for
meals in government dining facilities.
* Develop and implement guidance to standardize the form and content of
statements of non-availability for soldiers on contingency operations.
The guidance should establish an acceptable basic SNA form (e.g.,
written, memo, stamp, number), and should address, but not be limited
to, the following elements:
* the period(s) covered,
* the type of per diem (e.g., housing, meals),
* the rationale for acceptance (e.g., shift work, inadequacy of
transportation) or denial,
* the applicable meal rates (e.g., locality meal rate, proportional
meal rate), and:
* the required authorization levels and signatures.
* Clarify existing guidance in the PPG for contingency operations by
including situational examples based on laws and regulations similar to
those in the JFTR to assist decision makers in making determinations of
nonavailability related to quarters and meals.
* Enhance efforts to ensure compliance with TTRA, through the payment
of late payment interest and fees to soldiers for late travel
reimbursements. Such efforts should include, at a minimum (1) updating
DOD's Financial Management Regulation provisions concerning the payment
of late payment interest and fees; (2) developing metrics pertaining to
the payment of late payment interest and fees under TTRA and monitoring
to ensure compliance; (3) considering the feasibility of identifying
and paying those soldiers who were entitled to TTRA payments but,
because DFAS made no such payments prior to February 2004, did not
receive them; and (4) paying the soldiers who we determined were due
late payment interest and any appropriate late payment fees.
Human Capital:
* Consider appointing an agencywide leadership position or ombudsman
with accountability for resolving problems Army Guard soldiers
encounter at any point in the travel authorization and reimbursement
process.
* Develop and monitor programwide performance metrics to accomplish the
following objectives:
* identify the root causes of travel vouchers that are rejected and
returned by DFAS CTO and USPFO travel computation offices, including
the reasons why individual soldiers fail to timely and properly prepare
and submit travel vouchers;
* provide assurance that unit review of travel vouchers accomplishes
the purposes of that review, including verifying that the required
documents are attached and all needed signatures are included;
* monitor and analyze supplemental voucher data to help identify
recurring problems and solutions as well as the quality of the travel
reimbursement program over time; and:
* document the types and frequency of travel-related problems reported
to the DFAS toll-free number and measure the effectiveness of this
customer service effort to help target areas where training or improved
guidance may be warranted.
* Evaluate the adequacy and frequency of training provided to mobilized
Army Guard soldiers that teaches them to accurately prepare and timely
submit travel vouchers, including procedures for obtaining and
submitting authorizing documentation for per diem entitlements.
* Review the outstanding travel payment problems we identified at the
10 case study units to identify and resolve any remaining travel-
related issues for the affected soldiers.
Systems:
Interim Improvements to Current Travel Pay System:
* Develop enhanced policies and accountability mechanisms to use the
current WINIATS system to comply with the requirements to identify late
payments and reimburse soldiers for late payment interest and fees
required pursuant to TTRA. Specific actions include:
* reiterating or enhancing current policies requiring the capture of
critical dates for management oversight and compliance with TTRA,
including steps required to activate the WINIATS Liaison Screen, and:
* providing training and guidance to the USPFOs on the use of WINIATS
capabilities to capture traveler, reviewer, and travel computation
office receipt dates, and to upload that information to DFAS's
Operational Data Store system.
* Develop and implement WINIATS system edit checks to ensure the
accuracy of manual entries into WINIATS for the period of travel, the
dates the traveler and reviewer signed the voucher, and the date the
travel computation office received the voucher.
* Develop an automated, centralized system for SNAs covering potential
non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard soldiers.
Longer Term System Improvements:
* As part of the effort currently under way to reform DOD's travel
(DTS) and pay and personnel systems (DIMHRS), incorporate a complete
understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems as
documented in this and related reports into the requirements
development for these systems, including:
* automation of critical travel process functions such as travel
vouchers and TCS orders;
* integration or interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, TCS
orders, mobilization orders, and other relevant systems; and:
* capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest
and fees required pursuant to TTRA.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in
appendix II, DOD concurred with 21 of our 23 recommendations. DOD
partially concurred with our recommendations regarding (1) development
of an automated, centralized system for SNAs, covering potential
nonavailability of government meals or lodging for mobilized Army Guard
soldiers, and (2) incorporation into requirements development for DTS a
complete understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems
including late payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA. The actions
proposed by DOD to these two recommendations do not ensure that SNA
problems we identified will be corrected or that DOD will have a travel
system in place that will comply with TTRA, thus continuing the risk
that soldiers will not receive all payments they are entitled to
receive. The department also requested the inclusion of additional
responsible DOD officials in the recommendations section of this
report, which we have added as appropriate.
Concerning our recommendation that DOD develop an automated,
centralized system for SNAs, DOD responded that the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (OUSD (P&R)) and the DTS
Program Management Office are working closely to ensure that functional
requirements for military travel processes are incorporated in the
development of DTS and DIMHRS. DOD also pointed out that DIMHRS is
tentatively scheduled to be deployed to the Army National Guard in
March 2006, and that therefore, it is not feasible to develop an
"interim" automated, centralized system for SNAs. DOD also stated that
in the interim, OUSD (P&R) will work with the military services'
lodging communities to establish a standard SNA, and that a centralized
process will be developed for all military services.
Based on our understanding of the planned and existing functionalities
of DTS and DIHMRS and the problems identified during our audit, we do
not agree with DOD's reasons for not resolving the stated weaknesses.
Specifically, according to a DOD OUSD (P&R) official in the
Requirements and Reengineering Division, Joint Requirements and
Integration Office, DIMHRS is not currently being designed to issue
SNAs. Further, although DOD stated that it plans to develop a standard
SNA form and centralized SNA process, this response does not provide
for the development of an automated system, which could be incorporated
into the development of DIMHRS or DTS either as an integrated
capability or an interoperable interface. By planning to work with
lodging communities to establish a standard SNA, it appears that DOD is
taking an initial step toward addressing the plight of mobilized Army
Guard soldiers who have had problems regarding SNAs. However, DOD needs
to ensure that all information regarding nonavailability of both
lodging and meals is available to appropriate decision-makers in the
SNA approval process.
The majority of problems experienced by Army Guard soldiers in our case
studies related to whether meals were determined to be adequately
available to soldiers in various circumstances such as the irregular
hours required by guard duty, distance to meal facilities, inadequate
transportation to meal facilities, lack of 24-hour mess halls, or other
circumstances. Proper consideration of these meal issues in addition to
those related to lodging, generally includes review through the
soldier's chain of command and installation commander and should result
in timely decisions to either (1) issue SNAs that authorize per diem
for meals, enabling Army Guard soldiers to be reimbursed for food from
commercial locations or (2) ensure that Army Guard soldiers receive
government-provided meals free of charge. Because DOD's comments do not
provide solutions to the range of problems we observed with the SNA
process, we continue to recommend that an automated, centralized system
for SNAs be developed, which addresses the variety of nonavailability
issues experienced by mobilized Army Guard soldiers.
In regard to DOD's partial concurrence with our recommendation related
to DTS and TTRA compliance, DOD stated that this programming feature
was not required because the travel reimbursement process is completed
within 5 days of the traveler entering pertinent data into DTS. DOD's
internal processes stipulate that before a travel voucher entered into
DTS can be paid, it must be reviewed and approved. However, our report
documented significant delays in the review and approval process in the
current paper intensive system, and DOD did not provide any support for
its claim that DTS reimbursements will be made within a 5-day period.
We continue to see the need for full DOD implementation of this
recommendation because the review and approval process is a human
capital function that DTS will not replace. Further, the likelihood of
late payment of travel vouchers processed through DTS remains because
of potential factors such as (1) excessive work loads, (2) questions
during document reviews, (3) inadequate attention to reviewer
responsibilities, and (4) other unforeseen delays in the process. To
ensure that Army Guard soldiers and others are paid late payment
interest and fees required pursuant to TTRA, DTS would need to include
capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay such late payment interest
and fees. Such capability would also allow DOD to conduct ongoing
monitoring of the timeliness of travel reimbursements made through DTS.
Finally, regarding the 21 recommendations with which DOD concurred, DOD
indicated that the stated action(s) taken were complete with respect to
the need for (1) mobilization and related travel orders to clearly
state meal entitlements, (2) standardization of the form and content of
SNAs for contingency operations, (3) development and monitoring of late
payment interest and fee metrics, (4) appointment of an agencywide
leadership position or ombudsman, (5) identification of root causes for
untimely and improperly prepared and submitted travel vouchers, and (6)
evaluation of the adequacy and frequency of travel voucher preparation
training provided to mobilized Army Guard soldiers. While the actions
DOD described in commenting on our report appear responsive to our
recommendations, we have not evaluated the effectiveness of their
implementation and, therefore, cannot determine whether these measures
will resolve the problems we identified.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to
interested congressional committees. We will also send copies of this
report to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), the Secretary of the Army, the Director of the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, the Director of the Army National
Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. We will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staffs have any questions regarding
this report, please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-9095 or
[Hyperlink, kutzg@gao.gov], John J. Ryan at (202) 512-9587 or
[Hyperlink, ryanj@gao.gov], or Mary Ellen Chervenic at (202) 512-6218
or [Hyperlink, chervenicm@gao.gov]. Major contributors to this report
are acknowledged in appendix III.
Signed by:
Gregory D. Kutz:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
Signed by:
Robert J. Cramer:
Managing Director:
Office of Special Investigations:
List of Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Todd Platts:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial
Management:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To obtain an understanding and assess the design of process, personnel
(human capital), and system controls used to provide assurance that
mobilized Army National Guard (Army Guard) soldiers were timely
reimbursed for travel expenses and per diem entitlements, we:
* reviewed applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and
program guidance;
* observed the travel authorization, review, approval and reimbursement
process; and:
* interviewed cognizant agency officials.
With respect to applicable laws, regulations, policies and procedures,
we obtained and reviewed the:
* Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA) (Pub. L. No. 105-
264);
* General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Travel Regulation;
* Department of Defense's (DOD) Joint Federal Travel Regulation;
* DOD's Financial Management Regulation, Volume 9, Travel Policies and
Procedures;
* Army National Guard Financial Services Center's The Citizen-Soldier's
Guide to Mobilization Finance; and:
* Department of the Army's Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations
Noble Eagle (ONE), Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
We also reviewed the following Defense Finance and Accounting Service -
Indianapolis (DFAS-IN), Travel Technical Messages (TTM)--policy
implementation messages relating to late payment fees and interest:
* TTM 00-08, May 2000, which implemented the provisions of TTRA and
provided that its terms applied to "settlement vouchers;"
* TTM 01-01, November 2000, which provided that late payment interest
and fees be calculated and submitted by the traveler on the final
payment amount only;
* TTM 03-04, April 2003, which removed the requirement that the late
payment interest calculation was to be calculated and submitted by the
traveler; and:
* TTM 04-10, May 2004, which directed that late payment interest and
fees be calculated on all travel vouchers, not just final vouchers, as
well as directed reviewers to sign a travel voucher on the same day it
is submitted so that DFAS-IN can apply TTRA requirements using the
reviewer's signature date as a surrogate for the submission date.
We also used the internal controls standards provided in the Standards
for Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 46]
We interviewed officials from the National Guard Bureau (NGB); United
States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFOs); Army and National Guard
pay centers; unit, duty station, and mobilization station officials;
and individual soldiers to obtain an understanding of their experiences
in applying and complying with these policies and procedures.
In addition, as part of our audit, we performed a review of certain
process and system controls. Specifically, we obtained information and
documentation and/or performed walk-throughs of travel voucher
processing through the Integrated Automated Travel System, Version 6.0
(WINIATS) at DFAS-IN and one Army National Guard USPFO. During those
walk-throughs, we observed the operation of control activities over the
review, approval, and timely and accurate payment of travel vouchers.
We obtained documentation and performed walk-throughs regarding soldier
readiness checks--the Army's mobilization station process to ensure
that Army Guard units have and know what they need. We reviewed
existing guidance for determining and authorizing nonavailability of
housing and meals at duty stations. Because the systems that produce
individual Army Guard soldiers' travel orders are decentralized and not
integrated with travel reimbursement systems, we did not conduct walk-
throughs of them. However, we interviewed officials from Army National
Guard USPFOs, NGB, DFAS-IN, and the Army Finance Command to augment our
documentation and walk-throughs.
Because our preliminary assessment determined that current
authorization, request, review, and approval processes used to pay
travel reimbursements to mobilized Army Guard soldiers relied
extensively on paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems and error-prone
manual transaction entry, we did not statistically test current
processes and controls. The lack of accurate and complete centralized
data on Army Guard travel also precluded statistical testing. Instead,
we used case study and data mining to provide a more detailed
perspective of the design of controls and the nature of deficiencies in
the key areas of processes, people (human capital), and systems. We
focused on how these key areas were at work in the three phases of the
travel and reimbursement process: (1) authorizations; (2) travel
voucher preparation, submission, unit review, and transmission of
reimbursement claims; and (3) travel computation office review,
reimbursement computation, audit, and payment.
For our case studies, we gathered available data and analyzed the pay
experiences of Army Guard units mobilized in support of Operations
Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom during October 2001
through November 2003. We audited the following 10 Army Guard units as
case studies of the design of controls ensuring consistent, and
accurate determination, authorization, communication, and documentation
of per diem entitlements for soldiers assigned to those units:
* Alabama 20th Special Forces,
* California 185th Armor,
* California 19th Special Forces,
* Georgia 190th Military Police,
* Louisiana 239th Military Police,
* Maryland 115th Military Police,
* Mississippi 114th Military Police,
* Mississippi 20th Special Forces,
* Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion, and:
* Virginia 20th Special Forces.
In selecting these 10 units for our case studies, we sought to obtain
the travel reimbursement experiences of units assigned to Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Noble Eagle. We
limited our case study selection to those units mobilized during the
period from October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003. From our
preliminary assessment of this population, we determined that military
police and special forces units were experiencing problems related to
per diem. We used mobilization data supplied by NGB to assist us in
identifying military police and special forces units. From the 231
military police and special forces units in the NGB database, and our
prior work on Army Guard military pay (G [Hyperlink, http://
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-89] AO-04-89), we selected 4 special
forces and 4 military police units experiencing problems related to per
diem for case studies. Two other units were selected from a review of
data furnished to us by DOD from its Remedy Tracking System. These 10
case studies were audited to provide a more detailed view of the types
and causes of problems experienced by these units as well as the
financial impact of these problems on individual soldiers and their
families.
To obtain diverse perspectives on the nature of the reported per diem
problems, we interviewed selected guard and duty station commanders
(where the per diem problems were experienced) and selected individual
soldiers experiencing travel reimbursement problems for our case study
units. We also obtained and reviewed relevant individual travel
vouchers and supporting documentation for soldiers in selected units.
In addition, we used available data to estimate underpayments,
overpayments, late payments, and meal entitlement amounts that Army
Guard soldiers expected to receive. We referred eight units, which, at
the end of our audit included Army Guard soldiers that were unpaid,
partially paid, or in debt, to appropriate DOD officials to resolve any
amounts owed to the Army Guard soldiers or to the government.
For our individual voucher data mining, we obtained a database from
DFAS's Operational Data Store (ODS) of travel voucher reimbursement
transactions for travel that began during the period October 1, 2001,
through November 30, 2003. The data contained approximately 6 million
civilian, Army, Army Reserve, and Army Guard travel voucher
transactions paid through the DFAS-IN disbursing station symbol number
5570. These travel vouchers accounted for $3.8 billion in
reimbursements. The ODS database did not uniquely identify mobilized
Army Guard travel vouchers.
In order to identify Army Guard vouchers, we obtained a database
extract of Army guard soldiers paid during the period October 1, 2001,
through November 30, 2003, from the Defense Joint Military Pay System-
Reserve Component. We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of
either of these databases. Using dates of mobilized Army Guard service
contained in the payroll database, we extracted the Social Security
numbers for Army Guard soldiers with periods of active service of 30
days or greater. We matched the Social Security numbers from the Army
Guard payroll database to the ODS travel reimbursement transaction
database. There were approximately 623,000 travel voucher transactions
processed for Army Guard for the period October 1, 2001, through
November 30, 2003, totaling $389 million. We then sorted the 623,000
travel vouchers by the number of days it took to get reimbursed from
the date travel ended. We identified 26,414 travel vouchers that took
over 120 days to get reimbursed. We made a nonrepresentative selection
of transactions from the 26,414 grouping reimbursed after 120 days,
along with travel vouchers selected from the unit case studies, and
audited 191 travel vouchers. Our analysis of the 191 vouchers found
that 52 had incorrect dates entered into the database and, in fact,
were paid timely. We performed no further audit on these 52 travel
vouchers and concentrated our analysis on the remaining 139 travel
vouchers.
We obtained or requested copies of the travel vouchers and supporting
documentation for each potential late reimbursement transaction
selected--primarily the travel voucher, travel order(s), special
authorizations such as certificates or statements of non-availability
and missed meals, and receipts for other reimbursable expenses. We
reviewed these data and used a data collection instrument to collect
the information necessary and:
* compared for accuracy the dates and amounts in the transaction
database to the dates and amounts on the supporting documentation;
* calculated the days elapsed between (1) the date travel ended, (2)
the date the traveler signed the travel voucher, (3) the date the unit
reviewer signed the travel voucher, (4) the date received by the
processing center, and (5) the date of payment to the soldier, and
identified where the significant delay(s) occurred for each voucher;
and:
* attempted contact with the soldier, and, as appropriate, the unit
reviewer, and the travel computation office to determine the reason(s)
for all significant delays occurring between the end of travel and the
date of reimbursement.
The scope of our review did not include verification of the accuracy of
travel voucher payments.
For the purpose of determining the reasons for late reimbursements, we
used available documentation supplemented with follow-up inquiries
where possible with soldiers, unit supervisory reviewers, and the
cognizant travel computation office personnel to gain insight into the
facts, circumstances, and points of view of all relevant parties.
In our case studies, which focused on per diem problems, and in our
vouchers, which focused on late reimbursements, we attempted to
determine the issues surrounding soldiers' questions of accurate per
diem reimbursements, and the reasons delays occurred in reimbursing
soldiers for travel entitlements and expenses. As such, our audit
results only reflect the problems we identified. Soldiers in our late
pay and case study units may have experienced additional travel
reimbursement problems that we did not identify. In addition, our work
was not designed to identify, and we did not identify, any fraudulent
travel reimbursement request or payment by any Army Guard soldiers.
Because we could not contact[Footnote 47] all individual soldiers and
unit supervisory reviewers, we likely did not identify all of the
effects on soldiers or the reasons for inaccurate or questioned per
diem in our case study units and delays in the overall process
resulting in late payments of travel reimbursements to Army Guard
soldiers.
We reviewed TTRA and federal travel regulations. TTRA requires the
payment of a late payment fee as prescribed by 41 C.F.R. § 301-71.210
requiring the payment of a late payment fee consisting of (1) late
payment interest, generally equivalent to the Prompt Payment Act
Interest Rate, plus (2) a late payment charge equivalent to the late
payment charge, which could have been charged by the government travel
card contractor. This late payment penalty and interest is to be paid
to soldiers if their reimbursements are not paid within 30 days of the
submission of proper vouchers. As part of our audit, we determined if
any of the 139 individual vouchers we selected were timely and properly
submitted by Army Guard soldiers and whether they had received late
payment interest owed to them. We identified 75 vouchers that were
properly submitted by Army Guard soldiers who should have received late
payment interest totaling about $1,400. Some of these soldiers may also
have been entitled to a late payment fee in addition to the late
payment interest. We referred the names of the affected soldiers to
applicable DOD officials to resolve amounts owed to these soldiers.
Another source of information was the Remedy Tracking System, which DOD
uses to track all controlled correspondence, such as congressional
complaint letters. We asked DOD to provide all correspondence relating
to travel-related expense issues. We analyzed the results from DOD for
additional leads into travel voucher problems. We did not audit nor did
we determine if the database provided to us by DOD was complete.
In our analysis of DOD's Defense Travel System (DTS), we (1)
interviewed DTS program management office personnel and other DOD
officials; (2) obtained demonstrations of the user interface with DTS;
(3) reviewed a DOD IG audit report and DFAS post payment audit report
on DTS; and (4) obtained cost information on DTS from DOD's, fiscal
year 2005 Budget Estimate, Information Technology/National Security
Systems Budget Exhibit dated February 2004.
We briefed DOD and Army officials, NGB officials, and DFAS officials on
the details of our audit, including our findings and their
implications. We received written DOD comments and have summarized
those comments in the "Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section of
this report. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix II. We conducted
our audit work from November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, and we
performed our investigative work in accordance with standards
prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
COMPTROLLER:
1100 DEFENSE PENTAGON:
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1100:
DEC 27 2004:
Mr. Gregory D. Kutz:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Kutz:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Army National Guard:
Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement
Problems for Mobilized Soldiers," dated November 22, 2004, (GAO Code
192111/GAO-05-79). The DoD concurs with 21 recommendations and
partially concurs with two recommendations in the draft report. The
Department is already taking action to correct the noted deficiencies.
Our detailed responses are enclosed.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft
report. My staff point of contact is Ms. Jacqueline Jenkins. She may be
reached by email: jacqueline.jenkins@osd.mil or by telephone at (703)
697-8282.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Robert J. Henke:
Principal Deputy:
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2004 GAO-05-79 (GAO CODE 192111):
"ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in
Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to modify existing policies and
procedures to require that mobilization and related travel orders
clearly state meal entitlements. Such orders should specify that
mobilized soldiers are not required to pay for meals in government
dining facilities. (p. 82/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army updated the Personnel Policy Guidance
(PPG) to require the following statement on mobilization orders: "Meals
and lodging will be provided at no cost to the soldier. Claims for
reimbursement require a statement of non-availability control number."
The Army National Guard has published instructions to all states and
territories on automatically generating this on mobilization orders.
This is in addition to similar statements already included in the
orders formats for Temporary Change of Station (TCS) and Contingency
Operations Temporary Tours of Active Duty. Action is complete.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to develop and implement guidance
to standardize the form and content of the statements of non-
availability for soldiers on contingency operations. (p. 82/GAO Draft
Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army updated the PPG to include standard data
elements that must be included in a Statement of Non-Availability
(SNA). It also provides additional guidance on issuing SNAs. Action is
complete.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to clarify existing guidance in the
PPG for contingency operations by including situational examples based
on laws and regulations similar to those in the Joint Federal Travel
Regulation (JFTR) to assist decision-makers in making determinations on
non-availability related to quarters and meals. (p. 83/GAO Draft
Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Using the results of the GAO review, case
examples will be added to the PPG in order to assist installations and
commanders in determining non-availability of quarters and meals. The
estimated completion date is February 1, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure
compliance with the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA)
by updating DoD's Financial Management Regulation provisions concerning
the payment of late payment interest and fees. (p. 83/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
will update DoD's Financial Management Regulation provisions concerning
payment of interest and late fees. The estimated completion date is
March 31, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure
compliance with TTRA by developing metrics pertaining to the payment of
late payment interest and fees under TTRA and monitoring to ensure
compliance. (p. 83/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS has developed metrics pertaining to the
payment of interest and late fees under TTRA. The DFAS also monitors
the metrics to ensure compliance with the TTRA. Action is complete.
RECOMMENDATION 6: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure
compliance with TTRA by considering the feasibility of identifying and
paying those soldiers who were entitled to, but did not receive
interest and late payment fees because DFAS made no such payments prior
to February 2004. (p. 83/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will consider the feasibility of
identifying and paying those soldiers who were entitled to, but did not
receive interest and late payment fees, because DFAS made no such
payments prior to February 2004. The DFAS will report its findings and
recommendations to the Deputy Chief Financial Officer. The estimated
completion date is April 30, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure
compliance with TTRA by paying the soldiers which GAO determined were
due late payment interest and any appropriate late payment fees. (p.
83/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will enhance efforts to ensure
compliance with TTRA by paying the members which GAO determined were
due late payment interest and any appropriate late payment fees. The
estimated completion date is June 30, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to consider appointing an agency
wide leadership position or ombudsman with accountability for resolving
problems Army Guard soldiers encounter at any point in the travel
authorization and reimbursement process. (p. 84/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army National Guard has established an
ombudsman cell for all pay issues, to include travel reimbursement, for
mobilized National Guard soldiers. The ombudsman cell already receives
any potential rejects from the DFAS Contingency Travel Operation (CTO)
and coordinates actions to minimize the impact on soldiers. Action is
complete.
RECOMMENDATION 9: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to identify the root causes of
travel vouchers that are rejected and returned by DFAS CTO and the
United States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFO) travel computation
offices, including the reasons why individual soldiers fail to timely
and properly prepare and submit travel vouchers. (p. 84/GAO Draft
Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will continue to provide reject data at
both the summary and detail level to Army activities to include the
Army National Guard. The Army will continue to monitor trends and use
this data to identify challenges and solutions. This ongoing effort has
already resulted in process changes significantly reducing rejects to
soldiers for missing mobilization orders. Additionally, based on
analysis of rejects and further review of mobilization/demobilization
processing, travel related training and information flow to soldiers
were greatly expanded as discussed under recommendation 13. The Army
National Guard has published guidance to all states and territories
reiterating the requirement for all claims for contingency and other
operations related to mobilization under Title 10 to be processed
centrally by DFAS. As such, there should be no mobilization-related
travel claims rejected by USPFOs. Action is complete.
RECOMMENDATION 10: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to provide assurance that unit
review of travel vouchers accomplishes the purpose of that review,
including verifying that the required documents are attached and all
needed signatures are included. (p. 84/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army has published a reviewer checklist that
is now being distributed at the demobilization stations. This checklist
will be incorporated into the Army Mobilization Finance Standing
Operating Procedures and the Army National Guard Unit Level Pay
Procedures Manual. The reviewer's responsibilities will also be
incorporated into the ongoing distance learning classes designed for
mobilizing commanders. The estimated completion date is March 1, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 11: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to monitor and analyze supplemental
voucher data to help identify recurring problems and solutions as well
as the quality of the travel reimbursement program over time. (p. 84/
GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will monitor and analyze supplemental
voucher data to help identify recurring problems and solutions as well
as the quality of the travel reimbursement. The estimated completion
date is February 28, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to document the types and frequency
of travel-related problems reported to the DFAS 800 number and measure
the effectiveness of this customer service effort to help target areas
where training or improved guidance may be warranted. (p. 84/GAO Draft
Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will document the types and frequency of
travel-related problems reported to the DFAS 800 number and measure the
effectiveness of this customer service effort to help target areas
where training or improved guidance may be warranted. The estimated
completion date is April 30, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 13: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to evaluate the adequacy and
frequency of training provided to mobilized guard soldiers in how to
accurately prepare and timely submit travel vouchers, including
procedures for obtaining and submitting authorizing documentation for
per diem entitlements. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. In response to the ongoing analysis of rejected
travel claims for mobilized soldiers, mobilization and demobilization
finance processing was expanded to require briefings on travel
entitlements and submission of claims. Demobilization stations are also
required to assist soldiers with completion of claims. In addition,
soldier pay handbooks, which include detailed instructions on travel
entitlements and claims submission, were published by both the Army
National Guard and U.S. Army Reserves. Travel entitlement flyers and
travel claims submission and review checklists were also published and
are distributed at mobilization/demobilization stations. This just-in-
time training approach ensures soldiers receive the guidance and
information when it is needed. Action is complete.
RECOMMENDATION 14: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to review the outstanding travel
payment problems GAO identified at the 10 case study units to identify
and resolve any remaining travel-related issues for the affected
soldiers. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will review the outstanding travel
payment problems GAO identified for the 10 case study units to identify
and address any remaining travel-related issues for the affected
members. The estimated completion date is April 30, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 15: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to develop enhanced policies and
accountability mechanisms to use the current Integrated Automated
Travel System (WINIATS) to comply with the requirements to identify
late payments and reimburse soldiers for late payment interest and fees
required pursuant to TTRA. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will reiterate current policies
associated with TTRA and provide updated guidance including the steps
required to populate the WINIATS liaison screen. The DFAS will
coordinate with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to provide guidance and
assistance on the use of WINIATS capabilities at DFAS and/or USPFO
sites. The DFAS will also provide informational briefings at designated
NGB conferences and workshops. In addition, DFAS will offer NGB end
users semiannual instructions on the use of WINIATS. The estimated
completion date is October 1, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 16: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to reiterate or enhance current
policies requiring the capture of critical dates for management
oversight and compliance with TTRA, including steps required to
activate the WINIATS liaison screen. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will reiterate current policies
associated with TTRA and provide updated guidance including the steps
required to populate the WINIATS liaison screen. The estimated
completion date is February 28, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 17: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to provide training and guidance to
the USPFOs on the use of WINIATS capabilities to capture traveler,
reviewer, and travel computation office receipt dates, and to upload
that information to DFAS's Operational Data Store system. (p. 85/GAO
Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will coordinate with NGB to provide
guidance and assistance on the use of WINIATS capabilities at DFAS and/
or USPFO sites. The DFAS will also provide informational briefings at
designated NGB conferences and workshops. In addition, DFAS will offer
NGB end users semiannual instruction on the use of WINIATS. The
estimated completion date is October l, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 18: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to develop and implement WINIATS
system edit checks to assure the accuracy of manual entries into
WINIATS for the period of travel, the dates the traveler and reviewer
signed the voucher, and the date the travel computation office received
the voucher. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):
Doll) RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will implement system edit checks to
assure accuracy of manual entries into WINIATS for the period of
travel, the dates the traveler and reviewer signed the voucher, and the
date the travel computation office received the voucher. The estimated
completion date is April 1, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION 19: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, to develop an automated, centralized
system for SNAs covering potential non-availability issues experienced
by mobilized guard soldiers. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Partial Concur. The Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (OUSD(P&R)) and the DTS Program
Management Office are working closely to ensure functional requirements
for military travel processes are incorporated in the development of
DTS and DIMHRS. DIMHRS is tentatively scheduled to be deployed to the
Army National Guard in March 2006. Therefore, it is not feasible to
develop an "interim" automated, centralized system for SNAs covering
potential non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard
soldiers. However, in the interim, OUSD (P&R) will work with the
Military Services' lodging communities to establish a standard SNA.
Additionally, a centralized process will be developed for all Military
Services.
RECOMMENDATION 20: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to incorporate a complete
understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems as
documented in this and related reports into the requirements
development for these systems. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DTS Program Management Office will
incorporate any necessary software changes after the Army and DFAS
complete a review of the reimbursement process. The estimated
completion date for the review is February 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 21: The GAO recommended that as part of the effort
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard
travel reimbursement problems, as documented in this and related
reports, into the requirements development for these systems, including
automation of critical travel process functions such as travel vouchers
and TCS orders. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The OUSD (P&R), DTS Program Management Office,
and the Army will ensure that the Army National Guard requirements are
identified and incorporated into DTS and DIMHRS, to include automation
of critical travel process functions, such as travel vouchers. The
estimated completion date is March 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 22: The GAO recommended that as part of the effort
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard
travel reimbursement problems, as documented in this and related
reports, into the requirements development for these systems, including
integration or interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, TCS
orders, mobilization orders, and other relevant systems. (p. 86/GAO
Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The OUSD(P&R), DTS Program Management Office, and
the Army will ensure that Army National Guard travel reimbursement
requirements are identified and addressed in the requirements
development for DTS and DIMHRS, to include the integration and
interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, mobilization orders, and
other relevant systems. The estimated completion date is March 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 23: The GAO recommended that as part of the effort
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard
travel reimbursement problems, as documented in this and related
reports, into the requirements development for these systems,
including: identifying, calculating, and paying late payment interest
and fees required pursuant to TTRA. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Partial Concur. The OUSD(P&R), DTS Program Management
Office, and the Army agree with the intent of the recommendation.
However, DTS is not currently programmed to identify, calculate, and
pay late payment interest and fees required pursuant to the TTRA. Under
DTS, this programming feature is not required because the travel
reimbursement process is completed within 5 days of traveler entering
and transmitting pertinent data into DTS.
GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2004 GAO-05-79 (GAO CODE 192111):
"ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in
Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
Addendum to GAO Draft Report 05-79:
1. In the final report, request that GAO change recommendation 19 to
read: "The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in conjunction
with the Army and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to
develop an automated, centralized system for SNAs covering potential
non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard soldiers."
2. In the final report, request that GAO change recommendations 20
through 23 to read: "The GAO recommended that as part of the effort
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard
travel reimbursement problems as documented in this and related reports
into the requirements development of these systems....."
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Mary Ellen Chervenic, (202) 512-6218;
Stephen W. Lipscomb, (303) 572-7328;
John J. Ryan, (202) 512-9587:
Acknowledgments:
Staff making key contributions to this report include Paul S. Begnaud,
Norman M. Burrell, Francine M. DelVecchio, C. Robert DeRoy, Lauren S.
Fassler, Dennis B. Fauber, Wilfred B. Holloway, Patty P. Hsieh, Charles
R. Hodge, Jason M. Kelly, Julia C. Matta, Sheila D. Miller, Bennett E.
Severson, Robert A. Sharpe, Patrick S. Tobo, and Jenniffer F. Wilson.
(192111):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Total numbers include Army Guard soldiers mobilized more than once.
[2] Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR)/Joint Travel Regulation
(JTR), app. O, para. T4020.B.2, change 203/457, November 1, 2003.
[3] GAO, Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to
Potential Fraud and Abuse, GAO-03-169 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11,
2002).
[4] Pub. L. No. 105-264, 112 Stat. 2350 (Oct. 19, 1998).
[5] Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Army Travel
Pay Services Performance Review, DE03PAP003DFAS (Arlington, Va.: Mar.
27, 2003).
[6] GAO, Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to
Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, GAO-04-89
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2003), and Military Pay: Army Reserve
Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems,
GAO-04-911 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2004).
[7] In this report, the terms "mobilized" or "mobilized to active
service" refer to soldiers called to duty under the authority of Title
10 or Title 32, United States Code.
[8] Total numbers include Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers
mobilized more than once.
[9] Reserve components include the Army National Guard of the United
States, Army Reserve, Air National Guard of the United States, Air
Force Reserve, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard
Reserve. 10 U.S.C. § 10101.
[10] JFTR/JTR, app. O, para. T4020.B.2, change 203/457, November 1,
2003.
[11] The term "contingency operation" means a military operation that
is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which
members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military
actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United
States or against an opposing military force or results in the call or
order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed
services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, or 12406 of
Title 10 of the United States Code or any other provision of law during
a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or
Congress. 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13).
[12] JFTR, app. A, p. A-16, change 199, July 1, 2003.
[13] Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF),
Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Noble Eagle (ONE), at
http://www.odcsper.army.mil/militarypersonnel/policy.asp (last visited
Apr. 28, 2004).
[14] PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) and (6)(c) (reformatted April 2004).
[15] JFTR, para. U4149.C (change 194) (Feb. 1, 2003).
[16] CONUS per diem rates are published annually or as necessary by the
General Services Administration and apply within the 48 contiguous
United States. DOD publishes separate locality per diem rates (not
included in table 1) for the noncontiguous U.S. states (Alaska and
Hawaii), plus Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianna Islands, and
territories and possessions of the United States.
[17] OCONUS per diem rates are published monthly by the Department of
State and apply to travel in all foreign areas, including the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
[18] PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) (reformatted April 2004). See also 37 U.S.C.
§ 1009(d) as amended by the Section 605 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat.
1629, 1648 (Nov. 18, 1997), which provides that a soldier's BAS is not
to be reduced when the soldier is temporarily assigned to duty away
from the soldier's permanent duty station.
[19] 37 U.S.C. § 402.
[20] AFCOS is a stand-alone system separately operated by each of the
54 USPFOs.
[21] The Army National Guard Financial Services Center, The Citizen-
Soldier's Guide to Mobilization Finance (Indianapolis: April 2004).
[22] Due to the complexities of travel requirements and filing travel
vouchers, although exceptions are sometimes authorized, the Department
of the Army discourages the use of the government travel card in
support of contingency operations, such as Noble Eagle, Enduring
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Military service members who use government
travel cards must use the split disbursement feature on the travel
voucher, which automatically pays the credit card provider for certain
credit card charges for that travel.
[23] JFTR, ch. 4, para. U4400-B3c, change 193, January 1, 2003.
[24] PPG (reformatted April 2004), ch. 8-2,a, (6) (c).
[25] 37 U.S.C. § 402 and PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) (reformatted April 2004).
See also 37 U.S.C. § 1009(d) as amended by Section 605 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111
Stat. 1629, 1648 (Nov. 18, 1997).
[26] PPG, ch. 8-2a(5).
[27] PPG, ch. 8-2a(5).
[28] PPG, ch. 8-2, .a, (5).
[29] PPG, ch. 8-2, .a, (6) (c).
[30] FTR, 41 C.F.R. § 301 71.210.
[31] GAO, Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to
Potential Fraud and Abuse, GAO-03-169 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11,
2002).
[32] A supplemental voucher is submitted to correct an error or
omission on a previous travel voucher.
[33] DOD FMR, vol. 9, ch. 3, para. 030801E (August 2003).
[34] DFAS-IN Travel Technical Message (TTM) 03-04, April 3, 2003.
[35] A settlement voucher is the final travel voucher submitted at the
end of a period of travel, including an extended period of travel.
[36] An accrual travel voucher is a claim for partial payment of travel
expenses that can be filed by travelers whose travel time extends
beyond 30 days. The traveler should file an accrual travel voucher
within 5 working days after the end of every 30 calendar-day period.
[37] DFAS-IN Travel Technical Message (TTM) 04-10, para. 5 (May 2004).
[38] The term "supplemental voucher" as used in this context refers to
travel vouchers processed for the purpose of correcting an error in a
previous partial or accrual travel voucher submitted and paid prior to
the completion of an extended period of travel.
[39] U.S. Department of Defense, Report of the Department of Defense
Task Force to Reengineer Travel (Washington, D.C.: January 1995).
[40] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Billions Continue to Be
Invested with Inadequate Management Oversight and Accountability, GAO-
04-615 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004), and Department of Defense:
Long-standing Problems Continue to Impede Financial and Business
Management Transformation, GAO-04-907T (Washington, D.C.: July 7,
2004).
[41] Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Army
Travel Pay Services (Arlington, Va.: Mar. 27, 2003).
[42] The life cycle cost estimate is the cost estimate for fiscal years
1996 through 2016 for the DOD business travel function expressed in
constant fiscal year 2003 dollars. It includes investment costs for
fiscal years 1996 through 2006, operations costs for fiscal years 2003
through 2016, and alternate system (status quo) phaseout costs for
fiscal years 1996 through 2006.
[43] DOD FMR, Vol. 9, ch. 8, para. 080803 (Oct. 2003).
[44] Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Statistical Operations and
Review Branch, Military & Civilian Pay Services Defense Travel System:
Results of Post Payment Reviews, 1st Quarter, FY 2004 (Kansas City,
Mo.: undated).
[45] Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Review of
the Defense Travel System (DTS) (Arlington, Va.: June 15, 2004).
[46] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards
provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining
effective internal control.
[47] Individuals could not be contacted for various reasons, including
(1) being deployed overseas, (2) no longer in the Army Guard or Army,
(3) no current contact number, and (4) not responsive to voicemail and
e-mail inquires.
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:
