Defense Logistics
Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body Armor System Issues Gao ID: GAO-07-662R April 26, 2007Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces have been subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from insurgents using various weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IED), mortars, rocket launchers, and increasingly lethal ballistic threats. Since 2003, to provide protection from ballistic threats, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas, has required service members and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians in its area of operations to be issued the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system. Used by all U.S. military service members and DOD civilians in the area of operations, the IBA consists of an outer tactical vest with ballistic inserts or plates that cover the front, back, and sides. As the ballistic threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have also changed. The vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds, while the inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armor-piercing rounds. Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder, throat, and groin areas. Concerns also regarding the level of protection and amount of IBA needed to protect U.S. forces have occurred in recent years, prompted by a number of reports, newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body armor by both the Army and the Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine Corps recalled body armor because it concluded that the fielded body armor failed to meet contract specifications, and in November 2005, the Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed original ballistic testing. Additionally, in April 2005, we reported on shortages of critical force protection items, including individual body armor. Specifically, we found reasons for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages, production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In the report, we did not make specific recommendations regarding body armor, but we did make several recommendations to improve the effectiveness of DOD's supply system in supporting deployed forces for contingencies. DOD agreed with the intent of the recommendations and cited actions it had or was taking to eliminate supply chain deficiencies. Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring that body armor protects ground forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor DOD's and the services' actions to protect deployed ground forces, we reviewed the Army and Marine Corps's actions to address concerns regarding body armor to determine if they had taken actions to address these concerns. Because of broad congressional interest in the adequacy of body armor for the ground forces, we prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative. Our objectives for this review were to determine to what extent the Army and Marine Corps (1) are meeting the theater requirements for body armor, (2) have the controls in place to assure that the manufacturing and fielding of body armor meet requirements, and (3) are sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic requirements and testing.
In this review, we found that the Army and Marine Corps have taken several actions to meet theater requirements, assure testing, and share information on body armor. We also found that contractors and non-DOD civilians receive body armor if this provision is included in a negotiated contract. Specifically, we found that the Army and Marine Corps are currently meeting theater ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of troops into Iraq; have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements; and share information regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor systems, although they are not required to do so. Regarding contractors or non-DOD civilians, we found that DOD Instruction 3020.41 allows DOD to provide body armor to contractors where permitted by applicable DOD instructions and military department regulations and where specified under the terms of the contract. CENTCOM's position is that body armor will be provided to contractors if it is part of a negotiated contract.
GAO-07-662R, Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body Armor System Issues
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-662R
entitled 'Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body
Armor System Issues' which was released on April 27, 2007.
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.
April 26, 2007:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body
Armor System Issues.
Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces have
been subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from insurgents using
various weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IED), mortars,
rocket launchers, and increasingly lethal ballistic threats. Since
2003, to provide protection from ballistic threats, U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other areas, has required service members and
Department of Defense (DOD) civilians in its area of operations to be
issued the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system.[Footnote 1] Used by all
U.S. military service members and DOD civilians in the area of
operations, the IBA consists of an outer tactical vest with ballistic
inserts or plates that cover the front, back, and sides. As the
ballistic threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have also changed.
The vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds, while the
inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armor-piercing rounds.
Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder, throat,
and groin areas.
Concerns also regarding the level of protection and amount of IBA
needed to protect U.S. forces have occurred in recent years, prompted
by a number of reports, newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body
armor by both the Army and the Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine
Corps recalled body armor because it concluded that the fielded body
armor failed to meet contract specifications, and in November 2005, the
Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed
original ballistic testing.[Footnote 2] Additionally, in April
2005,[Footnote 3] we reported on shortages of critical force protection
items, including individual body armor. Specifically, we found reasons
for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages,
production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In the
report, we did not make specific recommendations regarding body armor,
but we did make several recommendations to improve the effectiveness of
DOD's supply system in supporting deployed forces for contingencies.
DOD agreed with the intent of the recommendations and cited actions it
had or was taking to eliminate supply chain deficiencies.
Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring that body armor
protects ground forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor
DOD's and the services' actions to protect deployed ground forces, we
reviewed the Army and Marine Corps's actions to address concerns
regarding body armor to determine if they had taken actions to address
these concerns. Because of broad congressional interest in the adequacy
of body armor for the ground forces, we prepared this report under the
Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations on his own
initiative. Our objectives for this review were to determine to what
extent the Army and Marine Corps (1) are meeting the theater
requirements for body armor, (2) have the controls in place to assure
that the manufacturing and fielding of body armor meet requirements,
and (3) are sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor
ballistic requirements and testing. We are addressing this report to
you because of your committee's oversight responsibilities.
On February 22, 2007, we briefed congressional staff on our preliminary
observations. This report expands on the information delivered in that
briefing and includes additional information concerning whether
contractors or non-DOD civilians obtain body armor in the same way as
U.S. forces and DOD civilians given the number of contractors and non-
DOD civilians in CENTCOM's area of operation. We are attaching the
slides from the briefing as enclosure I.
Scope and Methodology:
Our audit work primarily focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor
systems for U.S. service members and DOD and non-DOD civilian personnel
deployed within CENTCOM's area of operations, including Iraq and
Afghanistan. To determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting
the theater ballistic and inventory requirements for body armor, we
reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from key DOD, Army,
and Marine Corps organizations, such as the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the
Defense Logistics Agency, and CENTCOM, which are responsible for
managing theater ballistic and inventory requirements. We visited the
Army and Marine Corps body armor program offices to obtain and analyze
overall development and management of their systems. We analyzed the
ballistic requirements and compared these requirements to the body
armor systems provided to personnel. The DOD operations officials and
the Army and Marine Corps body armor program officials provided us with
information about both theater requirements and body armor systems
available worldwide for the Army and the Marine Corps. We analyzed this
information to determine if the amount of body armor available would
meet the amounts needed in theater. Their information included the
quantities of the outer tactical vests and its subparts provided to
military personnel as well as DOD civilians and contractors embedded in
deployed units.[Footnote 4] We also visited the following sites--Fort
Stewart, Georgia; Fort Lewis, Washington; the Naval Station and the
Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Virginia; and the Marine Corps Base in
Quantico, Virginia. At Fort Stewart and Fort Lewis, we interviewed Army
officials to determine if body armor was being distributed to service
members. To determine the distribution practices for those preparing to
deploy, including contractor and non-DOD civilians, we reviewed
documentation and interviewed officials at these sites in addition to
CENTCOM officials. We analyzed the distribution practices to assure
that personnel were receiving body armor systems that met ballistic
theater requirements and that these systems were available for those
preparing to deploy. We also met with DOD Inspector General staff who
have worked on body armor issues, and obtained and reviewed reports
they have issued. We selected and analyzed Army classified readiness
reports,[Footnote 5] from December 2006 to February 2007 and two months
of Marine Corps reports from December 2006 and January 2007 for
deploying and deployed combat units. Our analysis was to determine
whether commanders were reporting problems with body armor, such as
shortages, or whether the Army identified it as a critical item
affecting unit readiness.[Footnote 6]
To assess the extent to which the services have controls in place
during manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets
requirements, we reviewed documentation and discussed the services'
ballistic test processes and procedures with their program and
technical officials. We analyzed these test processes and procedures to
determine if there are controls in place that assure body armor meets
ballistic requirements during manufacturing and after fielding. Our
analysis included ballistic test methods for the tactical vests and the
protective plate inserts; however, we did not independently verify test
results. In addition, we reviewed the services' past experiences where
the services concluded that fielded body armor systems failed to meet
contract specifications and ballistic testing requirements. We analyzed
the services' actions to determine if their actions corrected the
failures. We also reviewed documentation and interviewed Army and
Marine Corps body armor program officials who provided manufacturer
production quality and ballistic testing lot failures for early 2006
through early 2007.
To identify the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps share
information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic
requirements and testing, we analyzed the services' body armor programs
and policies and discussed with service officials whether there is a
requirement to share information between the services regarding their
separate programs. We also discussed with officials and reviewed
documentation to determine whether the services do share information
and if shared, what specific actions they take. To determine whether
contractors or non-DOD civilians obtain body armor in the same way as
U.S. forces and DOD civilians in CENTCOM's area of operations, we
obtained and analyzed DOD and CENTCOM policy regarding personal
protection for contractors and non-DOD civilians. We also interviewed
Army, Marine Corps, and CENTCOM officials on this issue.
We found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review
and this report. We conducted our review from November 2006 to March
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Summary:
In this review, we found that the Army and Marine Corps have taken
several actions to meet theater requirements, assure testing, and share
information on body armor. We also found that contractors and non-DOD
civilians receive body armor if this provision is included in a
negotiated contract. Specifically, we found that the Army and Marine
Corps:
* are currently meeting theater ballistic requirements and the required
amount needed for personnel in theater, including the amounts needed
for the surge of troops into Iraq;
* have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to
assure that body armor meets requirements; and:
* share information regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and
the development of future body armor systems, although they are not
required to do so.
Regarding contractors or non-DOD civilians, we found that DOD
Instruction 3020.41 allows DOD to provide body armor to contractors
where permitted by applicable DOD instructions and military department
regulations and where specified under the terms of the contract.
CENTCOM's position is that body armor will be provided to contractors
if it is part of a negotiated contract.
More detailed information on each of these areas is presented below.
* Requirements: Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting
theater ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for
personnel in theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of
troops into Iraq. Page 13 of the enclosed briefing details Army and
Marine Corps theater requirements and worldwide inventory quantities of
the body armor systems. CENTCOM requires that all U.S. military forces
and all DOD civilians in the area of operations receive the body armor
system. Currently, service members receive all service-specific
standard components of the body armor system prior to deploying. For
example, the Army issues the shoulder protection equipment to all its
forces; however, Marine Corps personnel receive this equipment item in
theater on an as-needed basis. The Army and the Marine Corps provide
the DOD civilians with components of the armor system. However, the
timeframe for receipt of these items varies as some receive the body
armor prior to deploying and others upon arrival in-theater.
Army unit commanders only reported one body armor issue in their
December 2006 to February 2007 classified readiness reports. This one
issue did not raise a significant concern regarding the body armor.
Moreover, Marine Corps commanders' comments contained in the December
2006 and January 2007 readiness reports did not identify any body armor
issues affecting their units' readiness. In December 2006 and January
2007, the Army, in its critical equipment list did not identify body
armor as a critical equipment item affecting its unit readiness.
* Testing: The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during
manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets
requirements. Both services conduct quality and ballistic testing prior
to fielding and lots are rejected if the standards are not met. They
both also conduct formal testing on every lot of body armor (vests and
protective inserts) prior to acceptance and issuance to troops. During
production, which is done at several sites, the lots of body armor are
sent to a National Institute of Justice certified laboratory for
ballistic testing and to the Defense Contract Management Agency for
quality testing (size, weight, stitching) prior to issuance to troops.
Once approved, the body armor is issued to operating forces. Currently,
both Army and Marine Corps personnel are issued body armor prior to
deployment. The Army lot failure rate from January 2006 to January 2007
was 3.32 percent for the enhanced small arms inserts, and there were no
failures for the outer tactical vests.[Footnote 7] From February 2006
to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot failure rate was 4.70 percent
for the outer tactical vests.
Although not required to do so, after the systems have been used in the
field, the Army does limited ballistic testing of outer tactical vests
and environmental testing of the outer tactical vests and the inserts.
The Marine Corps visually inspects the vest and the plates for damage.
According to Army officials, there has been no degradation of body
armor based on ballistic and environmental testing results.
Additionally, to determine future enhancements and improvements, the
Army and the Marine Corps body armor program offices monitor and assess
the use of body armor in the field, including the review of medical
reports from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. For example, the Army
and Marine Corps added side plates and throat protection based on body
armor usage in the field.
DOD has a standard methodology for ballistic testing of the hard body
armor plates, but not for the soft body armor vest. Currently, DOD's
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, office is developing a
standard methodology for ballistic testing of the soft body armor to
eliminate discrepancies in testing methodologies. The new standard is
expected to be issued sometime in 2007.
* Information Sharing: The Army and Marine Corps share information
regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and the development of
future body armor systems, although they are not required to do so. For
example, in August 2006 the Marine Corps attended the Army's test of
next generation body armor types at Fort Benning, Georgia. Similarly,
the Army sent representatives to attend the Marine Corps's operational
assessment of the new Modular Tactical Vest. DOD officials indicate
that there is no requirement to share information. Title 10 of the U.S.
Code allows each service to have separate programs, according to Army
and Marine Corps officials. Nevertheless, the services are sharing
information regarding ongoing research and development for the next
generation of body armor.
* Contractors and non-DOD civilians: Regarding contractors or non-DOD
civilians, we found that DOD Instruction 3020.41 allows DOD to provide
body armor to contractors where permitted by applicable DOD
instructions and military department regulations and where specified
under the terms of the contract. It is CENTCOM's position that body
armor will be provided to contractors if it is part of the terms and
conditions of the contract. According to CENTCOM officials, non-DOD
government civilians such as State Department civilians are expected to
make their own arrangements to obtain this protection. However, the
officials indicated that commanders, at their discretion, can provide
body armor to any personnel within their area of operation.
Agency Comments:
DOD officials did not provide written comments to the draft but
provided specific technical comments that were incorporated as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies of
this report will also be made available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this
report includes Tracy Burney, Grace Coleman, Alfonso Garcia, Jennifer
Jebo, Lonnie McAllister, Terry Richardson, Lorelei St. James, and Leo
Sullivan.
Signed by:
William M. Solis, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosure:
Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
GAO Review of Body Armor Preliminary Observations:
February 22, 2007:
Background:
Since October 2003, CENTCOM required that service members and DOD
civilians in its area of operations be issued the Interceptor Body
Armor (IBA).
The Army and Marine Corps use the Interceptor Body Armor system. The
protective capability of the system is enhanced with each additional
piece.
Background - Interceptor Body Armor System (Army Basic System
represented below. Marine Corps Basic System excludes deltoid
protector.)
[See PDF for image]
Source: PEO Soldier:
[End of figure]
The Outer Tactical Vest can defeat fragmentation and ballistic
protection from 9 mm rounds. Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts can
defeat 7.62 armor piercing rounds while the Side Ballistic Inserts
provide flank protection from 7.62 armor piercing rounds. Other
Components of the Outer Tactical Vest include the shoulder protection,
throat protector assembly, yoke and collar assembly, and groin
protector assembly.
As the ballistic threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have
changed. The initial requirement for the body armor was the 9 mm ball,
which evolved to include 7.62 armor piercing rounds used by snipers.
The body armor is currently designed to defeat some fragmentation and
blast protection from improvised explosive devices provided. As the
threat evolves, the Army and the Marine Corps seek solutions to counter
the threat.
Concerns about body armor have occurred in recent years.
* In February 2005, an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology report found
that body armor did not provide side protection.
* In April 2005, GAO reported that there were shortages in body armor
due to material shortages, production limitations, and in-theater
distribution problems.
* In May 2005, Marine Corps recalled body armor because it concluded
that the fielded body armor failed to meet contract specifications;
public concern raised.
* In November 2005, Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body
armor that failed original ballistic testing, but were accepted by DOD.
* In January 2006, a New York Times article reported on the Institute
of Pathology report and the recalls, raising public concern again.
Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring body armor protects
ground troops including the amount and level of ballistic protection,
testing of body armor before and after fielding, and coordination of
requirements and testing between the Army and Marine Corps.
GAO has conducted prior and ongoing work concerning force protection
for ground forces, including truck armor to protect forces from
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
GAO began review of body armor as part of its review of protection of
ground forces.
Objectives:
Our overall objective was to determine if the actions of the Army and
Marine Corps have addressed body armor concerns. Specific objectives
were to determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps are:
* meeting the theater requirements for body armor,
* have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to
assure that body armor meets requirements, and:
* sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic
requirements and testing.
Scope and Methodology:
Our review focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor for personnel
deployed within the Central Command's (CENTCOM) Area of Operation
including Iraq and Afghanistan.
We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review:
* Office of the Secretary of Defense:
* Army Headquarters Operations & Army Program Executive Office (PEO)
Soldier:
* Marine Corps Systems Command & Marine Corps Combat Development
Command:
* Air Force Security Force Requirements Branch:
* Naval Expeditionary Combat Command & Navy Fleet Forces Command:
* Defense Logistics Agency:
* CENTCOM:
To determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting the theater
requirements for body armor, we interviewed DOD officials and reviewed
the CENTCOM policy on body armor. In addition, we reviewed Army and
Marine Corps requirements specifying the amount of body armor needed
and the ballistic specifications needed for protection against the
theater threat.
We interviewed service officials and discussed ballistic test processes
and procedures, to determine the extent of Army and Marine Corps body
armor tested during production and in the field. We did not
independently verify test results.
To determine the extent the Army and the Marine Corps share information
regarding their efforts on body armor, we interviewed service officials
to determine if there is a policy that requires the services to
coordinate, and if not, whether they do, and what actions they take to
coordinate.
We selected and analyzed Army classified unit readiness reports for
deployed and deploying units to CENTCOM's Area of Responsibility from
December 2006 to February 2007 and Marine Corps units for December 2006
and January 2007 to determine if commanders' comments reported body
armor as an issue. From the classified data, we also extracted and
analyzed the total Army's critical equipment items list that identify
items that may impact unit readiness-as of December 2006 and January
2007 to determine if body armor was reported as a critical equipment
item.
We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Preliminary Observations Summary:
The Army and Marine Corps have taken several actions to meet theater
requirements, assure testing, and share information on body armor.
* Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting theater
ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in
theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of troops into
Iraq.
* The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing
and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The
Army and the Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior
to fielding. Lots are rejected if the standards are not met.
* The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic
requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
systems, although they are not required to do so.
Preliminary Observations Requirements:
The Army and the Marine Corps have body armor to meet the theater
ballistic requirement and the amount needed for personnel in theater.
They also have sufficient quantities of body armor for the surge of
troops in Iraq.
Preliminary Observations Requirements as of February 2007:
Body armor systems: Outer tactical vest;
Army: Amount needed in theater: 154,000;
Army: Current worldwide available inventory: 991,580;
Marine Corps: Amount needed in theater: 23,000;
Marine Corps: Current worldwide available inventory: 198,088.
Body armor systems: Enhanced small arms inserts;
Army: Amount needed in theater: 154,000;
Army: Current worldwide available inventory: 402,369;
Marine Corps: Amount needed in theater: 23,000;
Marine Corps: Current worldwide available inventory: 56,970.
Body armor systems: Side protection;
Army: Amount needed in theater: 154,000;
Army: Current worldwide available inventory: 244,192;
Marine Corps: Amount needed in theater: 23,000;
Marine Corps: Current worldwide available inventory: 50,500.
Body armor systems: Shoulder protection;
Army: Amount needed in theater: 154,000;
Army: Current worldwide available inventory: 243,229;
Marine Corps: Amount needed in theater: 4,600;
Marine Corps: Current worldwide available inventory: 4,600.
Army and Marine Corps amounts include service personnel, DOD civilians,
and contractors embedded with units. For the Army, shoulder protection
is issued, but its use is optional. Shoulder protection is not issued
to all Marine Corps personnel. It is only issued to specialized
personnel such as Marine Corps turret gunners.
Source: Army Operations, PEO Soldier and Marine Corps Systems Command.
[End of table]
CENTCOM requires that all U.S. military service members and DOD
civilians in the area of operations be issued Interceptor Body Armor.
According to Army and Marine Corps officials, all service members
currently receive body armor components before they deploy. The Marines
receive components prior to deployment, except the shoulder protection,
which is provided in theater, if needed.
DOD civilians receive components from the Army and the Marine Corps.
Some receive the body armor prior to deploying, while others may
receive it in theater.
According to Army and Marine Corps officials, CENTCOM tactical-level
commanders will prescribe the use of the body armor components based on
their estimate of the situation. Situational factors include
assessments of enemy threat, environmental conditions, and the tactical
missions assigned to their units.
In our review of Army unit readiness data from December 2006 to
February 2007 and Marine Corps data for December 2006 and January 2007,
only one body armor issue was reported in the commanders' comments.
During the December 2006 to February 2007 time period, the five Army
brigades identified for the Iraq surge did not indicate that body armor
was a problem.
In our review of Army critical equipment items impacting readiness as
of December 2006 and January 2007, body armor was not identified as a
critical equipment item impacting unit readiness.
Preliminary Observations Testing:
The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing
and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The
Army and the Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior
to fielding. Lots are rejected if the standards are not met.
* The Army and the Marine Corps conducts formal testing on every lot of
body armor (Vests and Protective Inserts) prior to acceptance and
issuance to troops. The body armor vests and plates are manufactured at
several sites.
* During production, the lots of body armor are sent to a National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified laboratory for ballistic testing
and DCMA for quality testing (size, weight, stitching) prior to
issuance to troops. Once approved, the body armor is issued to
operating forces. Both the Army and the Marine Corps are issued body
armor prior to deployment.
* Army lot failure rate from January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32% for
the Enhanced Small Arms Inserts and no failures for the outer tactical
vests. From February 2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot
failure rate was 4.70% for the outer tactical vests.
Lot Acceptance Process for Army and Marine Corps Body Armor:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO and Art Explosion.
[End of figure]
Preliminary Observations Testing:
After fielding, the Army conducts testing on body armor on an ad hoc
basis including ballistic testing of deployed outer tactical vests and
environment testing of the affects of extreme temperature variations
and exposure to the elements. For example, cold weather testing is
conducted in Alaska, tropical weather testing is done in Panama, and
hot weather testing is performed in Yuma, Arizona. Army officials
reported no degradation of body armor during environmental testing.
The Marine Corps does not conduct testing on body armor after fielding,
but they visually inspect the vests and the plates for damage.
Based on feedback from the medical community and from the field, the
Army and the Marine Corps monitor and assess body armor usage to
continue improvements.
The DOD has had a standard methodology for ballistic testing of hard
body armor (plates) since December 1997.
DOD's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation office is currently
developing a standard methodology for ballistic testing of soft body
armor (vests). The new standard will eliminate discrepancies in testing
methodology that resulted in inconsistent ballistic results
contributing to the November 2005 recall. The new standard is expected
to be issued sometime in 2007.
Preliminary Observations Information Sharing:
The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic
requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
systems, although they are not required to do so.
* The Army and Marine Corps officials said that Title 10 of the U.S.
Code allows each to have separate programs.
* The Army and Marine Corps are sharing information regarding ballistic
requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
systems.
* The Army and Marine Corps informally share information regarding on-
going research and development for the next generation of body armor.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is one of DOD's five geographic
combatant commands, whose area of responsibilities encompasses 27
countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, in Southwest Asia, South and
Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa. Combatant commanders are
responsible for overseeing U.S. military operations that take place in
their geographic area.
[2] Army and Marine Corps officials told us they took actions to
address the reasons the lots failed.
[3] GAO, Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items
during Current and Future Operations, GAO-05-275 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 8, 2005).
[4] Subparts include protectors for the upper arms and side of the
torso in addition to sets of ballistic inserts for the vests.
[5] We searched commanders' classified comments contained in the Status
of Resources and Training System (SORTS) for entries related to body
armor and its parts.
[6] To determine the reliability of the unit readiness reports, we
spoke with key DOD and service officials and found the data
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review and this report.
[7] The lot failure rate is calculated by dividing the total lots
rejected by the total lots tested. A lot is a pallet or grouping of
manufactured items varying in number per lot. For example, the Army's
outer vest lots range from 1,100 to 1,200. A lot is manufactured within
a specific period of time, at a common location.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
