Military Personnel
Financial Cost and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated Gao ID: GAO-05-299 February 23, 2005From the passage of the homosexual conduct policy statute, in fiscal year 1994, through fiscal year 2003 the military services separated about 9,500 servicemembers for homosexual conduct. This represents about 0.40 percent of the 2.37 million members separated for all reasons during this period. Questions have been raised about the costs of separating servicemembers for homosexual conduct. Also, in the post-September 11th environment, there has been concern about the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations or important foreign language skills in, for example, Arabic. GAO was asked to determine (1) the military services' annual financial costs from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 for certain activities associated with administering the Department of Defense's (DOD) policy on homosexual conduct--e.g., the recruitment and training of servicemembers to replace those separated under the homosexual conduct statute--and (2) the extent to which the policy has resulted in the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations and important foreign language skills. GAO provided DOD with a draft of this report for comment, and DOD provided additional information on separations for homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations.
The total costs of DOD's homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated that, over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force, and Army estimated that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 million, and $29.7 million, respectively. Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as those occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses. GAO analyzed and selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each year from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent of the servicemembers with critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were separated within 2.5 years of service. The typical military service contract is for 4 years of service. Also, 322 (3 percent) of separated servicemembers had some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or Korean. A total of 98 servicemembers had completed training in an important language at DOD's Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency score; 63 percent of such servicemembers had proficiency scores that were at or below the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency scales for listening, reading, or speaking. Students can graduate from the basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.
GAO-05-299, Military Personnel: Financial Cost and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-299
entitled 'Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical
Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely
Estimated' which was released on February 24, 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:
February 2005:
Military Personnel:
Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual
Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated:
GAO-05-299:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-299, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
From the passage of the homosexual conduct policy statute, in fiscal
year 1994, through fiscal year 2003 the military services separated
about 9,500 servicemembers for homosexual conduct. This represents
about 0.40 percent of the 2.37 million members separated for all
reasons during this period. Questions have been raised about the costs
of separating servicemembers for homosexual conduct. Also, in the post-
September 11th environment, there has been concern about the separation
of servicemembers with critical occupations or important foreign
language skills in, for example, Arabic.
GAO was asked to determine (1) the military services‘ annual financial
costs from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 for certain
activities associated with administering the Department of Defense‘s
(DOD) policy on homosexual conduct”e.g., the recruitment and training
of servicemembers to replace those separated under the homosexual
conduct statute”and (2) the extent to which the policy has resulted in
the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations and
important foreign language skills.
GAO provided DOD with a draft of this report for comment, and DOD
provided additional information on separations for homosexual conduct
compared with other unprogrammed separations.
What GAO Found:
The total costs of DOD‘s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated
because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and
investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and
discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and
training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated
that, over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million
in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for
servicemembers separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force,
and Army estimated that the cost to train replacements for separated
servicemembers by occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6
million, and $29.7 million, respectively.
Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for
homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as
those occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses. GAO
analyzed and selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each
year from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent
of the servicemembers with critical occupations who were separated for
homosexual conduct were separated within 2.5 years of service. The
typical military service contract is for 4 years of service. Also, 322
(3 percent) of separated servicemembers had some skills in an important
foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or Korean. A total of 98
servicemembers had completed training in an important language at DOD‘s
Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency score; 63 percent
of such servicemembers had proficiency scores that were at or below the
midpoint on DOD‘s language proficiency scales for listening, reading,
or speaking. Students can graduate from the basic program with
proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.
Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Homosexual
Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service:
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-299.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Derek Stewart at (202)
512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy Can Be Estimated:
Servicemembers with Critical Occupations and/or Important Language
Skills Have Been Separated for Homosexual Conduct:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Financial Cost Estimate Tables:
Appendix III: Critical Occupation Data Tables:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service:
Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with
Some Proficiency in an "Important Foreign Language," Fiscal Years 1994
through 2003:
Table 3: Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Service
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Table 4: Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Table 5: Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected
Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Table 6: Individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual
Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Table 7: Individuals with Intelligence-Related Occupations Separated
for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994
through 2003:
Table 8: Individuals with Training in Important Languages Separated for
Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through
2003:
Table 9: Sample of Critical Occupations:
Table 10: Sample of Intelligence-Related Occupations:
Table 11: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals
Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal
Year 2003 Who Were Trained in a Language at the Defense Language
Institute:
Table 12: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals
Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal
Year 2003, as Reported through Service Personnel Files:
Figures:
Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Race, Fiscal Years 1994
through 2003:
Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years
1994 through 2003:
Figure 3: Separations under DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason,
Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Figure 4: Average Annual Recruiting Cost Estimate by Military Service
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with
Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal
Years 1994 through 2003:
Figure 7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with
Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Figure 8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals
Trained in Important Languages prior to Separation for Homosexual
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FY: fiscal year:
GAO: Government Accountability Office:
Letter February 23, 2005:
Congressional Requesters:
In 1993 Congress enacted a homosexual conduct policy statute which
declared that the "presence in the armed forces of persons who
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would
create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order
and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military
capability."[Footnote 1] During the 10 years following this
declaration, the military services separated about 9,500 servicemembers
for homosexual conduct under the statute. This represents about 0.40
percent of the 2.37 million members separated for all reasons during
this period. In the post-September 11th environment, questions have
been raised about the financial costs associated with the Department of
Defense's (DOD) policy on homosexual conduct,[Footnote 2] especially in
light of concerns about the shortage of personnel with skills in
critical occupations and foreign language training.
You asked us to determine (1) the military services' annual financial
costs for certain activities associated with administering DOD's policy
on homosexual conduct--the recruitment and training of servicemembers
to replace those separated under the homosexual conduct statute,
inquiries and investigations of homosexuality cases, counseling and
pastoral care for affected individuals, separation functions, and
discharge reviews--and (2) the extent to which the policy has resulted
in the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations and
important foreign language skills.
To identify various types of costs associated with the policy on
homosexual conduct, we interviewed officials from a variety of DOD and
service offices, including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, DOD's Office of Accession Policy; and
offices in the military services responsible for budget, criminal
investigation, chaplaincy, separation, and discharge review. The Air
Force, Army, and Navy provided data on training costs by occupation.
While we requested the same training-cost data inputs, each of the
services used their own methods to calculate the reported training-cost
estimates.
To address the extent to which the homosexual conduct policy statute
has resulted in the separation of enlisted servicemembers with
"critical" occupations, we adopted the military services' definition of
a "critical" occupation as an occupation that was part of the selective
reenlistment bonus program. The selective reenlistment bonus program
for enlisted military personnel is DOD's primary tool for addressing
short-term retention problems in critical occupations by providing
servicemembers who reenlisted following the expiration of their service
contracts with up to $60,000.[Footnote 3] We collected and analyzed
this information for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. Because
intelligence occupations, as a group, have enduring importance for the
military that is independent from their periodic inclusion in the
selective reenlistment bonus program, we identified servicemembers
separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute who had such
occupations. We defined the knowledge of a foreign language as
"important" if it was related to (1) an occupation included in the
selective reenlistment bonus program or (2) a language identified by
combatant commanders and the Joint Staff as a deficiency in their
periodic readiness assessments. We also analyzed separated members'
occupations and foreign language skills by their length of service. The
Defense Manpower Data Center (Data Center) provided information on
occupations, foreign language skills, and the length of service of
separated servicemembers.
The principal limitation of our analysis is that, for privacy reasons,
we did not review separated servicemembers' personnel records,
including training histories, which have implications for estimating
training costs. For example, from data provided by the Data Center, we
matched separated servicemembers to specific occupations, but we cannot
state whether such individuals completed all of the training associated
with their occupations. Much of our analysis depended on the quality of
information that the services provided the Data Center with and the
steps that the Data Center took to ensure the accuracy and completeness
of the data. According to Data Center officials, since 1998, the Data
Center has made a special effort to ensure that the services provide
accurate information about the number of servicemembers separated for
homosexual conduct.
Although we did not validate the budget/financial systems used to
produce the cost estimates used in this report, we determined that the
estimates were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We
assessed reliability by (1) reviewing existing information about the
data and the systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about the data and the manner in which they
were collected. We conducted our review from August 2004 through
February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. A detailed description of our scope and methodology is
presented in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The total costs of DOD's homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated
because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and
investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and
discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training
costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it
would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004
dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit
replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual
conduct.[Footnote 4] DOD does calculate cost estimates related to
recruiting enlisted personnel, which we applied in broad terms, for
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute as
a replacement cost. We calculated that the estimated average annual
cost to recruit an enlisted servicemember over the 10-year period to be
about $10,500.[Footnote 5] Most of the services were able to estimate
total training costs--recruit (or basic) training and occupation-
specific training.
The estimated training costs for the occupations performed by Navy
members separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 2003 was about $48.8 million ($18,000 per member).[Footnote
6] The comparable Air Force cost estimate was $16.6 million ($7,400 per
member).[Footnote 7] The Army estimated that the training cost of the
occupations performed by Army members separated for homosexual conduct
over the 10-year period was about $29.7 million ($6,400 per
member).[Footnote 8] The Marine Corps was not able to estimate
occupation-related training costs. However, other types of costs such
as those related to inquiries and investigations of cases, counseling
and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews are not
estimable because DOD does not collect data necessary to develop such
estimates.
The military services separated 9,488 members[Footnote 9] pursuant to
the homosexual conduct policy statute from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 2003, some of whom were in critical occupations or had
important foreign language skills. Seven hundred fifty-seven (about 8
percent) of these separated servicemembers held critical
occupations[Footnote 10] ("voice interceptor," "data processing
technician," or "interpreter/translator"), as defined by the services.
About 59 percent of the members with critical occupations who were
separated for homosexual conduct were separated during their first 2.5
years of service, which is about 1.5 years before the expiration of the
initial service contract of most enlistees. Such contracts are
typically for 4 years. Also, 322 members (about 3 percent) had some
skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, and
Korean.[Footnote 11] A total of 98 members separated under the
homosexual conduct policy statute completed language training at the
Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency rating; 62
members, or 63 percent, were at or below the midpoint on DOD's
listening, reading, or speaking proficiency scales.[Footnote 12]
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for
homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.
Background:
Homosexuality and the Military:
The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element
of military law.[Footnote 13] But in January 1993, President Clinton
sought to fulfill a campaign promise to "lift the ban" on homosexuals
serving in the military. This led to the policy familiarly known as
"don't ask, don't tell." In exchange for the military services' silence
("don't ask") about a person's homosexuality prior to induction, gay
and lesbian servicemembers, as a condition of continued service, would
have to agree to silence ("don't tell") about this aspect of their
life. Failure to maintain silence can result in separation from the
military.[Footnote 14] In November 1993, Congress passed the homosexual
conduct policy statute and stated that the military's suspension of
questioning should remain in effect unless the Secretary of Defense
considers reinstatement of questioning necessary to effectuate the
policy set out in the statute.[Footnote 15] The statute also sets out
the findings of Congress in addition to the homosexual conduct policy.
Included in the findings section is a description of the differences
between military and civilian life, which forms a rationale for the
institution of the policy.
Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that the
extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique
conditions of military service, and critical role of unit cohesion,
require that the military community, while subject to civilian control,
exist as a specialized society [which] is characterized by its own
laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions
on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian
society.[Footnote 16]
In short, Congress indicated that because of the unique nature of
military life, the military services may need to treat individuals who
engage in homosexual acts, as defined by the statute, differently than
they would be treated in civilian society.
Separations for Homosexual Conduct during 1994-2003 Period:
According to our analysis of the information provided by the Defense
Manpower Data Center, 9,488 servicemembers were separated for
homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year
2003.[Footnote 17] This figure represents servicemembers who were on
active duty at the time of their separation, including members of the
Reserves who were on active duty for 31 or more consecutive days.
According to a Data Center official, 118 reservists (other than those
who served on active duty) were separated for homosexual conduct from
fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2003. Because these separated
reservists represent a small number of total separations under the
homosexual conduct policy statute, we did not include them in our
analysis. This exclusion is consistent with DOD's reporting practice in
this area, which reports only active duty personnel separated for
homosexual conduct. The figure also does not include servicemembers who
were in the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, or the Coast
Guard. According to a Data Center official, the official tracking of
separations for homosexual conduct began in 1997 at which time it was
decided to include only the members of the Air Force, Army, Marines,
and Navy on active duty. The data also do not include servicemembers
who, for example, were separated for a "pattern of misconduct," which
could include several reasons for separation, including homosexual
conduct.
The Data Center also provided data on the characterization of service
at separation for service members separated for homosexual conduct from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. For "characterized"
separations (5,763 servicemembers), DOD granted "honorable" separations
to 4,710 servicemembers (82 percent); "general (under honorable
conditions)" separations to 766 (13 percent); and "under other than
honorable conditions" separations to 287 servicemembers (5 percent).
DOD also granted "uncharacterized," or entry-level separations to 3,304
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during this 10-
year period. The Data Center also classified as "bad conduct," the
separation of four servicemembers, which is a type of punitive
separation applicable to enlisted personnel only. (See Manual for
Courts Martial, Rule 1003(b)(8).) The Data Center did not have
characterization-of-service data for 417 servicemembers who were
separated for homosexual conduct during this 10-year period.
Table 1 and figures 1 and 2 show the number of separations by military
service, race, and gender, respectively, from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 2003.
Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service:
Fiscal year: 1994;
Army: 136;
Air Force: 185;
Marines: 36;
Navy: 258;
Total[A]: 615.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Army: 184;
Air Force: 235;
Marines: 69;
Navy: 269;
Total[A]: 757.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Army: 199;
Air Force: 284;
Marines: 60;
Navy: 315;
Total[A]: 858.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Army: 197;
Air Force: 309;
Marines: 78;
Navy: 413;
Total[A]: 997.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Army: 310;
Air Force: 414;
Marines: 76;
Navy: 345;
Total[A]: 1,145.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Army: 271;
Air Force: 352;
Marines: 97;
Navy: 313;
Total[A]: 1,033.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Army: 574;
Air Force: 177;
Marines: 104;
Navy: 358;
Total[A]: 1,213.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Army: 626;
Air Force: 190;
Marines: 111;
Navy: 290;
Total[A]: 1,217.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Army: 432;
Air Force: 125;
Marines: 105;
Navy: 222;
Total[A]: 884.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Army: 378;
Air Force: 142;
Marines: 62;
Navy: 187;
Total[A]: 769.
Fiscal year: Total;
Army: 3,307;
Air Force: 2,413;
Marines: 798;
Navy: 2,970;
Total[A]: 9,488.
Fiscal year: Percent;
Army: 35;
Air Force: 25;
Marines: 8;
Navy: 31;
Total[A]: 99.
Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (data).
[A] Percents do not equal 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Race, Fiscal Years 1994
through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years
1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Gender information was not available for 15 of the 9,488
servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct during this period.
[End of figure]
The homosexual conduct policy statute states three reasons for
separation, namely, that a servicemember has (1) "engaged in, attempted
to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or
acts—;" (2) "stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or
words to that effect—;" or (3) "married or attempted to marry a person
known to be of the same biological sex." In addition, the statute
provides mitigating factors that may prevent separation in cases
arising under the first two categories.[Footnote 18] Figure 3 shows the
distribution of separations by these three reasons from fiscal year
1994 through fiscal year 2003.
Figure 3: Separations under DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason,
Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The figure displays information on 9,477--rather than all 9,488
servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct during the 10-year
period--because the statutory reason for separation was missing for 11
former servicemembers.
[End of figure]
Previous GAO Report on Costs Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy:
In 1992 GAO reviewed DOD's policy on homosexuality, including the costs
associated with replacing personnel separated under the policy and the
cost of investigating allegations of homosexuality.[Footnote 19] We
concluded that "DOD does not maintain records of the costs associated
with administering its policy [on homosexuality]; nor does it record
the costs of investigating alleged cases of homosexuality. Accordingly,
our analysis was limited to estimates of the costs of recruiting and
training individuals to replace personnel discharged for
homosexuality."
We also noted that the total cost of replacing personnel discharged for
homosexuality would need to include other factors such as out-
processing and court costs.
The cost data in this report and the 1992 report are not comparable
because, at the time of the 1992 review, we did not include the
estimated training costs for the occupations of servicemembers who were
separated for homosexual conduct.
Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy Can Be Estimated:
Though the total costs associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy
cannot be determined because neither DOD nor the services collect
relevant cost data, some costs can be estimated. For example, DOD does
collect estimates of the costs to recruit enlisted servicemembers, a
portion of which can be associated with DOD's homosexual conduct
policy. In addition, upon our request, the services were able to
calculate the estimated costs associated with the training of personnel
by occupation. However, DOD was unable to estimate the costs associated
with other activities related to DOD's homosexual conduct policy,
namely, those related to investigations and commanders' inquiries,
counseling and pastoral care, and the processing and review of
separations.
DOD Collects Data Related to Recruitment Costs:
While not specific to individuals discharged for homosexual conduct or
other reasons, DOD does collect data related to the cost to recruit
servicemembers. Collected data related to DOD's annual average
recruiting cost estimate for enlisted servicemembers are shown in
figure 4. Taken together, available data show that the average annual
recruiting cost estimate for enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994
through fiscal year 2003 was about $10,500 per member in constant
fiscal year 2004 dollars.[Footnote 20]
Figure 4: Average Annual Recruiting Cost Estimate by Military Service
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. Tabular
data related to cost in this and other figures are in appendix II.
[End of figure]
The total estimated cost to recruit potential replacements for the
9,352 enlisted servicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct
policy during the 10-year period[Footnote 21] was about $95 million in
constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. (See table 4 in appendix II.)
Estimated recruiting costs by military service are shown in figure 5.
Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.
[End of figure]
Most Military Services Can Compute Estimates of Costs to Train
Personnel:
With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services were able to
compute cost estimates to train members, by occupation, upon our
request. We asked the military services to provide total and per-capita
training-cost estimates of the occupations performed by servicemembers
who were separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute for
fiscal years 1994 through 2003. These figures include estimates of all
training costs related to selected occupations, including recruit
training. The Navy estimated that the total training cost for the 10-
year period was $48.8 million and the estimated per-capita cost was
about $18,000. The comparable total estimated cost for the Air Force
was $16.6 million, and the per-capita cost estimate was $7,400. The
Army estimated that the training cost for selected Army occupations for
the 10-year period was about $29.7 million. The estimated average
training cost of these occupations was about $6,400 per member.
Other Types of Costs Associated with the Homosexual Conduct Policy
Cannot Be Estimated:
We also examined the availability of other cost-estimate data
associated with homosexual conduct, including investigations and
inquiries, counseling and pastoral care, processing separations from
military service, and the review of such separations by service boards.
For these cost categories, we found that relevant data (for example, a
system that records the time spent on specific tasks for specific
reasons) are not collected, and, as a result, these types of costs
cannot be estimated.
Investigations and Commanders' Inquiries:
Investigative cost estimates were not available for our inquiry because
DOD law enforcement organizations do not generally investigate adult
private consensual sexual misconduct as a matter of investigative
priority and because of resource limitations. As the Navy notes in a
policy statement on this subject, "if there is no victim, there is
virtually no circumstance where the [criminal investigative service]
will investigate sexual misconduct." Sexual misconduct cases under
these circumstances are referred to commanders for appropriate
disposition. And because commanders do not record the time they spend
on sexual misconduct inquiries, it is not possible to estimate the cost
of conducting them.
Counseling and Pastoral Care:
The estimated cost of counseling services, including pastoral care
provided through the chaplains corps, is also not determinable.
Servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct are not required to
seek counseling. Army and Navy chaplains, for example, record the types
of tasks they perform--religious ministry, outreach, or pastoral care-
-but they are not required to compute the time they spend performing
these activities. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the cost
of conducting such tasks. Furthermore, chaplains are not required to
differentiate "pastoral care" in their task reports by topics covered
such as homosexual conduct or sexual harassment.
Processing Separations from Military Service:
The estimated cost of separating servicemembers also cannot be
determined. Separation procedures are handled by salaried employees who
work in the personnel offices of various military installations and who
have multiple responsibilities other than coordinating a
servicemember's separation from the military. They too do not compute
their time spent on the various activities they perform.
Review of Separations by Service Boards:
Servicemembers who have been separated for homosexual conduct have
occasionally requested service discharge review boards to review
whether their separations were properly granted. The estimated costs
associated with this activity also cannot be determined. Officials
associated with such boards told us that they are not required to
compute the estimated cost of reviewing servicemembers' requests and
that they do not record the number of reviews associated with DOD's
homosexual conduct policy. But service discharge review board officials
were able to identify for us at least 119 reviews associated with
homosexual conduct (the Army, 72 reviews, fiscal years 1993-2003; Navy,
24 reviews, and Marines, 11 reviews, fiscal years 2000-2003; and Air
Force, 12 reviews, fiscal years 2001-3). The service discharge boards
conducted about 33,200 reviews during these same time periods.
Servicemembers with Critical Occupations and/or Important Language
Skills Have Been Separated for Homosexual Conduct:
From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, the military services
separated members who had some training in critical occupations and/or
important foreign languages pursuant to the homosexual conduct policy
statute. Most servicemembers who had such occupations were separated
during their first 2.5 years of service. Also, DOD separated
servicemembers who had some language skills in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi,
and Korean. Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had
proficiency scores in listening to, reading, or speaking these four
languages that were above the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency
scales, although students can graduate from the basic program with
proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.
Most Separated Servicemembers Who Had Critical Occupations Were
Separated during Their First 2.5 Years of Service:
Servicemembers with critical occupations were separated for homosexual
conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. Examples of
critical occupations, as defined by the military services, include
"voice interceptor," "data processing technician," and "interpreter/
translator." The occupations most frequently cited as "critical," that
is, eligible for selective reenlistment bonuses are listed in appendix
III. (See table 9.) We found that 757 (about 8 percent) of the 9,488
servicemembers discharged for homosexual conduct during this time
period held critical occupations.
We determined the separation rate for these individuals at four time
intervals: recruit training, advanced individual training, and two 1-
year periods thereafter. The length of recruit training varies between
the services:
* 84 days in the Marine Corps,
* 63 days in the Army,
* 56 days in the Navy, and:
* 42 days in the Air Force.
Overall, 1,747 (about 19 percent) of the 9,239 servicemembers separated
under the homosexual conduct policy statute were separated during
recruit training.[Footnote 22] An additional 1,037 servicemembers
(about 11 percent) were separated during advanced individual or
occupation-related training. Advanced individual training occurs after
recruit training, and the length of training varies widely by
occupation. For the purpose of our analysis, we considered advanced
individual training as 100 days following recruit training, which is
about the average number of days for this type of training. For
example, for the Marines, this would mean between the 85th and 185th
day of service. Generally, 5,446 servicemembers (about 59 percent) were
separated by the end of the 365-day period following advanced training,
or within about 1.5 years of service.
Before new recruits are sent to recruit training, they are required to
take an enlistment oath and sign a contract to serve one of the
military services for a specified period of time, generally from 2 to 6
years and typically for 4 years. Consequently, a separation within 1.5
years is well before the end of a typical service contract for enlisted
personnel. By comparison, we reported in 1998 that for fiscal years
1982 through 1993, about 32 percent of all enlistees were separated
during their first term of service: 11 percent of enlistees were
separated during their first 6 months (versus about 30 percent of
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during their
first 6 months) and about 21 percent of all enlistees from their 7th
through 48th month.[Footnote 23]
Next, we analyzed the length of service for 755 servicemembers
separated for homosexual conduct who had critical occupations.[Footnote
24] The separation rate for this group was lower than for the total
population separated for homosexual conduct. Generally, 267
servicemembers (about 35 percent) were separated within about 1.5 years
of service, and 443 servicemembers (about 59 percent) were separated
within about 2.5 years of service. Figure 6 shows the separation rate
of servicemembers who had critical occupations by various time periods.
Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with
Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal
Years 1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We identified servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct
policy statute who had intelligence-related occupations (a partial list
of these occupations is in appendix III, table 10); not all of these
occupations were related to the selective reenlistment bonus program.
We identified 730 separated servicemembers who held intelligence-
related occupations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. The
separation rate is similar to the separation rate of servicemembers who
held occupations that were related to a selective reenlistment bonus:
274 of these servicemembers (about 38 percent) were separated within
about 1.5 years of service, and 450 servicemembers (about 62 percent)
were separated within about 2.5 years of service. Figure 7 shows the
separation rate of servicemembers with intelligence-related occupations
by various time periods.
Figure 7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with
Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Parts may not sum to equal cumulative percents because of
rounding. (See appendix III for frequency counts.)
[End of figure]
Some Servicemembers with Training in Important Languages Were Separated
for Homosexual Conduct:
DOD separated several hundred members with training in important
foreign languages. During fiscal years 1994 through 2003, DOD separated
322 servicemembers for homosexual conduct who had some skills in a
foreign language that DOD had considered to be especially important. A
total of 209 separated servicemembers attended the Defense Language
Institute for training in one of these important languages. Ninety-
eight of these 209 completed training and received a proficiency
rating, and 62 members (63 percent of the 98) had proficiency scores at
or below the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency scales for
listening, reading, or speaking. To assess listening, reading, and
speaking proficiencies, DOD uses an 11-point scale. DOD describes the
midpoint as "limited working proficiency, plus." According to the
Defense Language Institute, in order to graduate from the basic
language program, students are expected to achieve at least a "limited
working proficiency" in listening and reading and an "elementary
proficiency, plus" in speaking a foreign language. Both of these levels
are below the midpoint on DOD's proficiency scale. Table 2 shows the
number of servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had some
skill in an important foreign language.
Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with
Some Proficiency in an "Important Foreign Language," Fiscal Years 1994
through 2003:
Language: Arabic;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 54;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 20;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 10
(50);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5
(25);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 8 (40);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 7 (35);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 20
(100);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).
Language: Chinese;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 20;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 6;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1
(17);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 0 (0);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5 (83);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 4 (67);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (17).
Language: Farsi;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 9;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 2;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 2
(100);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 (50);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (50);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 2
(100);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).
Language: Korean;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 50;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 25;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 21
(84);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 2 (8);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 17 (68);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (4);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 24
(96);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).
Language: Russian;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 42;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 25;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 11
(44);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 8
(32);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 5 (20);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 9 (36);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 19
(76);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 4 (16).
Language: Serbo-Croatian;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 8;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 4;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 2
(50);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1
(25);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 (25);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 3 (75);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (25).
Language: Spanish;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 24;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 15;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 5
(33);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5
(33);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 (7);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5 (33);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 12
(80);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (7).
Language: Vietnamese;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 2;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 1;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1
(100);
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 0 (0);
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (100);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1
(100);
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).
Total number;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 209;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 98;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 53;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 21;
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 33;
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 29;
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 85;
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 7.
Percent;
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language
Institute: 100;
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with
proficiency scores: 47;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 54;
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 24;
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 34;
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 30;
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 87;
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 7.
Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).
Notes:
1. "Important" foreign languages are those for which servicemembers are
eligible to receive selective reenlistment bonuses or those identified
as "deficiencies" by combatant commanders and the Joint Staff in their
periodic readiness assessments.
2. The table does not include the number and percentage of students
with scores at the midpoint but includes such information only for
students below or above the midpoint.
[A] Percentages in parentheses. The Data Center has length-of-service
data for 205 of the separated servicemembers who received training in
an important foreign language.
[End of table]
We analyzed the length of service for the 205 separated servicemembers
who had received training in an important foreign language at the
Defense Language Institute. Figure 8 shows the separation rate for
these servicemembers. About 131 (64 percent) were separated within
about 2.5 years of service.
Figure 8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals
Trained in Important Languages prior to Separation for Homosexual
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: No servicemember with training in critical languages was
separated for homosexual conduct in Period 1, the first 3 months of
military service, which generally corresponds to recruit training.
[End of figure]
We further analyzed the occupations of the 54 separated servicemembers
who received training in Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. We
were able to match 42 (about 78 percent) with an occupation that
utilizes a foreign language, many in intelligence-related occupations
such as "cryptologic linguist" or "communications interceptor."
However, these 42 members might have had limited experience in their
occupation because 36 servicemembers (about 86 percent of the 42) were
listed as "helpers" or "apprentices," or had the lowest skill level
associated with the occupation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for
homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. DOD also provided technical
changes, which we made where appropriate. The department's written
comments are incorporated in their entirety in appendix IV.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 3 days from its issue date. At the
time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense;
the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; and interested congressional committees. We will
also 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].
Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 [Hyperlink, Stewartd@gao.gov] or
George Poindexter, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7213 [Hyperlink,
poindexterg@gao.gov], if you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Lisa
Brown, Alissa Czyz, Joe Faley, Nicole Gore, Catherine Humphries, Tom
Mills, Charles Perdue, and Jen Popovic.
Signed by:
Derek B. Stewart, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable Martin T. Meehan:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Neil Abercrombie:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Tom Allen:
The Honorable Robert Andrews:
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin:
The Honorable Danny Davis:
The Honorable Susan A. Davis:
The Honorable Diana DeGette:
The Honorable William Delahunt:
The Honorable Eliot Engel:
The Honorable Barney Frank:
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee:
The Honorable James R. Langevin:
The Honorable Carolyn Maloney:
The Honorable George Miller:
The Honorable Jim Moran:
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler:
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
The Honorable Pete Stark:
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To conduct our work, we interviewed individuals at a variety of
Department of Defense (DOD) and service offices, including the office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; DOD's
Office of Accession Policy; DOD's Defense Manpower Data Center; and
offices in the military services responsible for budget, investigation,
chaplaincy, separation, and discharge review.
To determine the estimated financial costs associated with DOD's
homosexual conduct policy, we obtained information on the estimated
costs to recruit enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 2003 from DOD's Office of Accession Policy. DOD includes
this information in the Military Personnel Procurement Resources
Report. DOD calculates recruiting cost per enlisted member by dividing
a military service's total expenditures for recruiting enlisted
personnel by the service's total number of accessions. Recruiting
expenditures include, but are not limited to, the costs associated with
recruiting personnel, enlistment bonuses, advertising, communications,
recruiting support, and recruiting command resources. We computed an
average of the reported figures for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. DOD
does not include per-capita recruiting costs associated with
commissioned officers in its procurement resources report.
We also requested that each of the four military services provide
estimated training cost information for occupations performed by
enlisted servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In order to provide total
estimated training costs, we asked the services to provide estimates of
both fixed and variable costs[Footnote 25] associated with each
occupation. Estimated occupation-related training costs include, but
are not limited to, military and civilian pay for instructors,
operations and maintenance, student transportation, ammunition,
supplies, and flying costs (if any). We reviewed the services' general
methodology for developing training-cost estimates and found them
acceptable. We used weighted averages[Footnote 26] to estimate the
average per-member occupational training costs for the Air Force, Army,
and Navy. The Marine Corps was unable to provide this information.
Additionally, we excluded from our analysis the training costs
associated with medical and health-care-related occupations because the
services could not reasonably estimate them. Service officials told us
that the length of training and other factors necessary to achieve a
health-care-related proficiency varies widely, as do the costs
associated with them.
To assess the extent to which DOD separated members with critical
occupations or important foreign language skills, we obtained
occupation-and foreign-language-related data (for fiscal years 1994-
2003) on servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct from the
Defense Manpower Data Center's Active Duty Personnel Transaction File,
which is a compilation of data provided by each of the military
services. Our analysis was limited to active duty personnel and did not
include 118 reservists who were separated for homosexual conduct
because they represent a small number of total separations under the
homosexual conduct policy statute. This is consistent with DOD's
reporting practice in this area. The department reports only active
duty personnel separated for homosexual conduct. The Data Center
provided information on an individual's branch of service, occupation,
rank, length of time in service, and language skills.
With respect to the occupational data, we adopted the military
services' definition of a "critical" occupation as an occupation that
was part of the selective reenlistment bonus program. The selective
reenlistment bonus program for enlisted military personnel is DOD's
primary tool for addressing short-term retention problems in critical
occupations by providing servicemembers who reenlist following the
expiration of their service contracts with up to $60,000. The Army,
Marines, and Navy list their 10 most critical occupations in their
annual budget justifications. The Air Force, however, does not
prioritize its critical occupations in its budget justification. The
services determine reenlistment bonus amounts by multiplying (1) a
servicemember's current monthly basic pay by (2) the member's number of
additional years of obligated service by (3) a bonus multiple that can
range from 0.5 to 15. For the Air Force, we used this bonus multiple to
determine a list of the 10 most critical occupations for each year from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003; the Air Force occupations
with the 10 largest bonus multipliers in a specific year were deemed by
us to be the most critical. For example, in 1 year we included Air
Traffic Control in the list of the top 10 Air Force occupations because
it had a bonus multiplier of 7, which is the largest multiplier that
the Air Force used from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In
contrast, Pararescue, and all other occupations that had a bonus
multiplier of 5 for that year, were not included on our list of most
critical Air Force occupations. This is because there were at least 10
Air Force occupations whose bonus multipliers were 5.5, 6, or 7. Note
that, in other years, depending on the bonus multipliers for all jobs,
Pararescue could be included as an occupation on the "top ten" list.
To assess the extent to which DOD separated individuals for homosexual
conduct in intelligence-related occupations, we compiled a list of
service-level occupation titles that could be categorized as
"intelligence-related" by their relationship to DOD's occupational
codes. DOD occupation codes are a way of organizing service-level
occupations into general categories. Each separated servicemember whose
occupation matched an intelligence-related DOD occupational code was
considered to have an intelligence-related occupation.
Finally, with respect to separations for homosexual conduct of
individuals with important language skills, we identified separated
servicemembers with foreign language skills using language data drawn
from the Defense Manpower Data Center. The Data Center provided two
types of language data. The first type addresses the language skills of
servicemembers who attended the Defense Language Institute's Foreign
Language Center. Language proficiency data for these students are based
on the Defense Language Proficiency Test score they received when
tested at the completion of their course of study. The other type of
language data in the active duty file is information reported to the
Data Center by the services. The language proficiency data in this file
are based on multiple sources--from servicemembers themselves or from
the official Defense Language Institute proficiency test.
Although we did not validate the budget/financial systems and processes
used to calculate the cost estimates used in this report, we determined
that the estimates were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this
report. As previously discussed, we assessed the reliability of these
data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the
systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials
knowledgeable about the data to determine the steps taken to ensure the
accuracy and completeness of the data.
We assessed the reliability of the Defense Manpower Data Center's
Active Duty Military Personnel Transaction file by (1) performing
electronic testing of the required data elements, (2) reviewing
existing information about the data and the system that produced them,
and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of
this report. We conducted our review from August 2004 through February
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Financial Cost Estimate Tables:
Estimated Cost of Recruiting Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual
Conduct:
Table 4 shows that the total estimated cost to recruit potential
replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual
conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 was about $95
million. To compute this cost, we multiplied the number of
servicemembers as shown in table 1 (less the number of officers) by the
data in table 3 for each service and each year. For example, we
multiplied the number of Army members who were separated for homosexual
conduct in fiscal year 1994--136--from table 1 by the Army's average
annual recruiting cost for fiscal year 1994 ($9,597) from table 3 in
order to compute $1.305 million in table 4. The sum of these
calculations for the 10-year period is about $95 million in constant
fiscal year 2004 dollars.
Table 3: Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Service
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Constant FY 2004 dollars.
Army;
Fiscal year 1994: $9,597;
Fiscal year 1995: $11,053;
Fiscal year 1996: $10,460;
Fiscal year 1997: $11,547;
Fiscal year 1998: $13,059;
Fiscal year 1999: $14,278;
Fiscal year 2000: $14,078;
Fiscal year 2001: $15,509;
Fiscal year 2002: $16,200;
Fiscal year 2003: $16,536.
Navy;
Fiscal year 1994: 6,937;
Fiscal year 1995: 8,214;
Fiscal year 1996: 8,573;
Fiscal year 1997: 8,466;
Fiscal year 1998: 8,803;
Fiscal year 1999: 10,124;
Fiscal year 2000: 10,162;
Fiscal year 2001: 11,221;
Fiscal year 2002: 13,121;
Fiscal year 2003: 13,394.
Marine Corps;
Fiscal year 1994: 7,362;
Fiscal year 1995: 5,732;
Fiscal year 1996: 6,595;
Fiscal year 1997: 6,313;
Fiscal year 1998: 6,560;
Fiscal year 1999: 8,208;
Fiscal year 2000: 8,353;
Fiscal year 2001: 8,831;
Fiscal year 2002: 8,453;
Fiscal year 2003: 9,356.
Air Force;
Fiscal year 1994: 4,832;
Fiscal year 1995: 4,805;
Fiscal year 1996: 4,873;
Fiscal year 1997: 5,306;
Fiscal year 1998: 5,126;
Fiscal year 1999: 6,636;
Fiscal year 2000: 8,244;
Fiscal year 2001: 9,928;
Fiscal year 2002: 9,934;
Fiscal year 2003: 9,376.
DOD;
Fiscal year 1994: 8,315;
Fiscal year 1995: 8,953;
Fiscal year 1996: 7,606;
Fiscal year 1997: 9,519;
Fiscal year 1998: 8,928;
Fiscal year 1999: 10,134;
Fiscal year 2000: 10,913;
Fiscal year 2001: 12,906;
Fiscal year 2002: 13,715;
Fiscal year 2003: 14,206.
Source: DOD.
[End of table]
Table 4: Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Fiscal year 1994;
Army: $1,305;
Air Force: $879;
Marines: $265;
Navy: $1,755;
Total: $4,204.
Fiscal year 1995;
Army: 2,023;
Air Force: 1,086;
Marines: 395;
Navy: 2,152;
Total: 5,656.
Fiscal year 1996;
Army: 2,040;
Air Force: 1,345;
Marines: 389;
Navy: 2,632;
Total: 6,406.
Fiscal year 1997;
Army: 2,263;
Air Force: 1,613;
Marines: 492;
Navy: 3,446;
Total: 7,814.
Fiscal year 1998;
Army: 4,035;
Air Force: 2,097;
Marines: 499;
Navy: 2,958;
Total: 9,589.
Fiscal year 1999;
Army: 3,855;
Air Force: 2,289;
Marines: 788;
Navy: 3,159;
Total: 10,091.
Fiscal year 2000;
Army: 8,110;
Air Force: 1,443;
Marines: 860;
Navy: 3,587;
Total: 14,000.
Fiscal year 2001;
Army: 9,585;
Air Force: 1,807;
Marines: 980;
Navy: 3,221;
Total: 15,593.
Fiscal year 2002;
Army: 6,638;
Air Force: 1,192;
Marines: 879;
Navy: 2,860;
Total: 11,569.
Fiscal year 2003;
Army: 6,091;
Air Force: 1,322;
Marines: 580;
Navy: 2,478;
Total: 10,471.
Total;
Army: $45,945;
Air Force: $15,073;
Marines: $6,127;
Navy: $28,248;
Total: $95,393.
Percent;
Army: 48%;
Air Force: 16%;
Marines: 6%;
Navy: 30%;
Total: 100%.
Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Critical Occupation Data Tables:
Length of Service of Servicemembers Who Were Separated for Homosexual
Conduct:
Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct were separated
within 1.5 years of entering military service (approximately periods 1-
3 in table 5). The firstand second periods on the table correspond to
different phases of enlisted personnel training: recruit training
(Period 1) and advanced individual training (Period 2), when a
servicemember is initially trained in an occupation. The exact number
of days in each period varies by service.[Footnote 27]
Table 5: Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected
Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Service: Marine Corps;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 153;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 76;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 289;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 123;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 139;
Total: 780.
Service: Army;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 583;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 407;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 918;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 522;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 811;
Total: 3,241.
Service: Navy;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 47;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 260;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 1,154;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 568;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 886;
Total: 2,915.
Service: Air Force;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 964;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 294;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 301;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 245;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 499;
Total: 2,303.
Service: Total number;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 1,747;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1,037;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 2,662;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 1,458;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 2,335;
Total: 9,239.
Service: Percent;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 19;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 11;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 16;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 25;
Total: 100 .
Service: Marine Corps;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 20;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 10;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 37;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 16;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 18;
Total: 101.
Service: Army;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 18;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 13;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 28;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 16;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 25;
Total: 100.
Service: Navy;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 2;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 9;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 40;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 19;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 30;
Total: 100.
Service: Air Force;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 42;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 13;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 13;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 12;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 22;
Total: 102.
Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: The Data Center has length-of-service data for 9,239 of the 9,488
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during the 10-
year period.
[A] Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
Length of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Had Critical
Occupations:
Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had critical
occupations were separated within 2.5 years of entering the military.
Two and a half years corresponds approximately to the end of the 4th
period in table 6.
Table 6: Individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual
Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003:
Service: Marine Corps;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 0;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 0;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 3;
Total: 4.
Service: Army;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 21;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 19;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 47;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 38;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 39;
Total: 164.
Service: Navy;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 135;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 102;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 207;
Total: 445.
Service: Air Force;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 9;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 34;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 36;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 63;
Total: 142.
Service: Total number;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 21;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 30;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 216;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 176;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 312;
Total: 755.
Service: Percent;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 3;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 4;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 23;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 41;
Total: 100.
Service: Marine Corps;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 25;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 0;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 0;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 75;
Total: 100.
Service: Army;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 13;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 12;
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29;
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 23;
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 24;
Total: 101.
Service: Navy;
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0;
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number:
