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, 2005

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.

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:

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