Military Recruiting
Clarified Reporting Requirements and Increased Transparency Could Strengthen Oversight over Recruiter Irregularities Gao ID: GAO-10-254 January 28, 2010To sustain a viable military force, the Department of Defense (DOD) depends on recruiting several hundred thousand qualified individuals into the military each year. The service components rely on their recruiters to act with the utmost integrity because even a single incident of wrongdoing on the part of a recruiter--a recruiter irregularity--can adversely affect the service components' ability to recruit qualified individuals. GAO was asked to (1) analyze data on reported cases of recruiter irregularities across the service components, (2) review the extent to which the service components have guidance and procedures to address recruiter irregularities, and (3) review the extent to which the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has oversight over recruiter irregularities. GAO analyzed the data on recruiter irregularities reported to OSD by the service components; reviewed the service components' recruiter irregularity case files; examined relevant guidance and procedures from the service components; and interviewed service components' recruiting command personnel, recruiters, and OSD officials.
From fiscal year 2006 through 2008, the total number of substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities across the service components represented a small percentage of overall accessions (i.e., number of individuals entering military service), and the service components have taken various actions against the recruiters responsible for these irregularities. Specifically, the number of substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities as a percentage of overall accessions was 0.26 percent in fiscal year 2006, 0.22 percent in fiscal year 2007, and 0.18 percent in fiscal year 2008. The most common types of recruiter irregularity reported involved concealment or falsification of documents or information, sexual misconduct, and quality control measures (e.g., valid parental signatures). The action most commonly applied against recruiters who committed irregularities varied by service component. Removal from recruiting was the most commonly applied action in the Marine Corps while adverse administrative action (e.g., a letter of reprimand in the recruiter's personnel file) was most commonly applied in the Army. All service components have guidance and procedures on addressing recruiter irregularities and have improved oversight over them, but the manner in which data on recruiter irregularities are shared within the service components varied. Although some differences exist, the service components are similar in how they identify, investigate, and adjudicate recruiter irregularities. In addition, the service components have taken steps to identify and prevent recruiter irregularities, including establishing quality control checks to help identify recruiter irregularities and providing training for recruiters to help prevent recruiter irregularities. However, in most service components, not all levels of command have regular access to information on recruiter irregularities that occur. Without regular access to information, commanders may not be able to take full advantage of servicewide recruiter irregularity data and opportunities to learn from their peers. Although OSD has implemented requirements for the service components to regularly report on recruiter irregularities, it does not have complete oversight over the recruiter irregularities that occur. In December 2006, OSD issued a memorandum for the service components on tracking and reporting recruiter irregularities, and the service components have been providing recruiter irregularity data to OSD. However, because some of the reporting requirements lack clarity, the service components do not interpret the reporting requirements in the same way. Further, the data provided to OSD by the National Guard are incomplete and the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau do not provide appropriate caveats regarding these data, such as including information on the States and Territories that did not submit recruiter irregularity data. Unless OSD clarifies the reporting requirements in its memorandum and directs the service components to provide transparency in the data they report, it will be unable to maintain complete oversight over the extent to which recruiter irregularities are occurring and make determinations on whether corrective action is needed.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-10-254, Military Recruiting: Clarified Reporting Requirements and Increased Transparency Could Strengthen Oversight over Recruiter Irregularities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-254
entitled 'Military Recruiting: Clarified Reporting Requirements and
Increased Transparency Could Strengthen Oversight over Recruiter
Irregularities' which was released on January 28, 2010.
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 the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2010:
Military Recruiting:
Clarified Reporting Requirements and Increased Transparency Could
Strengthen Oversight over Recruiter Irregularities:
GAO-10-254:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-254, a report to the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
To sustain a viable military force, the Department of Defense (DOD)
depends on recruiting several hundred thousand qualified individuals
into the military each year. The service components rely on their
recruiters to act with the utmost integrity because even a single
incident of wrongdoing on the part of a recruiter”a recruiter
irregularity”can adversely affect the service components‘ ability to
recruit qualified individuals. GAO was asked to (1) analyze data on
reported cases of recruiter irregularities across the service
components, (2) review the extent to which the service components have
guidance and procedures to address recruiter irregularities, and (3)
review the extent to which the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) has oversight over recruiter irregularities. GAO analyzed the
data on recruiter irregularities reported to OSD by the service
components; reviewed the service components‘ recruiter irregularity
case files; examined relevant guidance and procedures from the service
components; and interviewed service components‘ recruiting command
personnel, recruiters, and OSD officials.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal year 2006 through 2008, the total number of substantiated
cases of recruiter irregularities across the service components
represented a small percentage of overall accessions (i.e., number of
individuals entering military service), and the service components
have taken various actions against the recruiters responsible for
these irregularities. Specifically, the number of substantiated cases
of recruiter irregularities as a percentage of overall accessions was
0.26 percent in fiscal year 2006, 0.22 percent in fiscal year 2007,
and 0.18 percent in fiscal year 2008. The most common types of
recruiter irregularity reported involved concealment or falsification
of documents or information, sexual misconduct, and quality control
measures (e.g., valid parental signatures). The action most commonly
applied against recruiters who committed irregularities varied by
service component. Removal from recruiting was the most commonly
applied action in the Marine Corps while adverse administrative action
(e.g., a letter of reprimand in the recruiter‘s personnel file) was
most commonly applied in the Army.
All service components have guidance and procedures on addressing
recruiter irregularities and have improved oversight over them, but
the manner in which data on recruiter irregularities are shared within
the service components varied. Although some differences exist, the
service components are similar in how they identify, investigate, and
adjudicate recruiter irregularities. In addition, the service
components have taken steps to identify and prevent recruiter
irregularities, including establishing quality control checks to help
identify recruiter irregularities and providing training for
recruiters to help prevent recruiter irregularities. However, in most
service components, not all levels of command have regular access to
information on recruiter irregularities that occur. Without regular
access to information, commanders may not be able to take full
advantage of servicewide recruiter irregularity data and opportunities
to learn from their peers.
Although OSD has implemented requirements for the service components
to regularly report on recruiter irregularities, it does not have
complete oversight over the recruiter irregularities that occur. In
December 2006, OSD issued a memorandum for the service components on
tracking and reporting recruiter irregularities, and the service
components have been providing recruiter irregularity data to OSD.
However, because some of the reporting requirements lack clarity, the
service components do not interpret the reporting requirements in the
same way. Further, the data provided to OSD by the National Guard are
incomplete and the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau
do not provide appropriate caveats regarding these data, such as
including information on the States and Territories that did not
submit recruiter irregularity data. Unless OSD clarifies the reporting
requirements in its memorandum and directs the service components to
provide transparency in the data they report, it will be unable to
maintain complete oversight over the extent to which recruiter
irregularities are occurring and make determinations on whether
corrective action is needed.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making several recommendations to improve the service components‘
sharing of recruiter irregularity data, the clarity of OSD‘s reporting
guidance, and the transparency of the data reported to OSD. In
commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with GAO‘s
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-254] or key
components. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202)
512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Substantiated Cases of Irregularities Represent a Small Percentage of
Accessions, and Actions Have Been Taken against the Recruiters
Responsible:
The Service Components Have Developed Guidance and Procedures to
Address Recruiter Irregularities, but Not All Service Components Share
Recruiter Irregularity Data throughout All Levels of Command:
OSD Implemented Recruiter Irregularity Reporting Requirements, but
Lacks Complete Oversight over Irregularities:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Examples of Recruiter Irregularities in Fiscal Year 2008:
Appendix III: Examples of Dispositions in Fiscal Year 2008:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of Recruiters in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, by
Service Component:
Table 2: Enlisted Accessions for Each Service Component in Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2009:
Table 3: Total Number of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities,
Accessions, and Irregularities as a Percentage of Accessions, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 4: Cases of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities as a
Percentage of All Cases of Reported Recruiter Irregularities, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 5: Most Commonly Reported Types of Recruiter Irregularities as a
Percentage of All Reported Recruiter Irregularities in Fiscal Year
2008, by Service Component:
Table 6: Examples of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities by Type,
Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 7: Most Commonly Reported Actions Taken against Recruiters as a
Percentage of All Actions Taken, Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 8: Examples of Actions Taken against Recruiters Who Committed
Recruiter Irregularities, Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 9: Organizations and Offices Contacted:
Table 10: Examples of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities by Type,
Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 11: Examples of Dispositions, Fiscal Year 2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: Organization of the Service Recruiting Commands:
Figure 2: Overview of the Enlistment Process:
Figure 3: The Service Components' Process for Addressing Recruiter
Irregularities:
Figure 4: The Service Components' Processes for Reporting of the
Recruiter Irregularity Data:
Figure 5: Army National Guard States and Territories Reporting
Recruiter Irregularity Data for Fiscal Year 2008 during the January
2009 Reporting Cycle:
Abbreviations:
ASVAB: Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery:
DOD: Department of Defense:
MEPCOM: Military Entrance Processing Command:
MEPS: Military Entrance Processing Station:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 28, 2010:
The Honorable Susan A. Davis:
Chairwoman:
The Honorable Joe Wilson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Personnel:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
To sustain a viable all-volunteer military force, the Department of
Defense (DOD) depends on recruiting several hundred thousand qualified
individuals into the military each year. Although DOD's service
components have generally met their recruiting goals in recent years,
[Footnote 1] the recruiting environment continues to present
challenges, partly due to the length, frequency, and difficult nature
of deployments expected of servicemembers. While the present economic
downturn has increased the number of individuals expressing an
interest in military service, DOD estimates that only 3 out of 10
American youth ages 17 to 24 are qualified to join the military. If
economic conditions improve, it may become more difficult for the
military to find qualified recruits to carry out its challenging
mission.
The service components have assigned 30,000 recruiting personnel to
carry out DOD's goal of recruiting high-quality individuals into the
military. Recruiters serve as the military's representatives in
communities throughout the United States, and the service components
rely on them to act with the utmost integrity in order to win and
maintain the public's trust. DOD recognizes that even a single
incident of wrongdoing on the part of a recruiter can erode public
confidence in the recruiting process and damage a service component's
reputation. To prevent such incidents from occurring, the service
components' recruiting commands have developed guidance that governs
recruiter irregularities, and instituted procedures for (1) reporting
allegations of recruiter irregularities and (2) conducting an
investigation to determine whether a case is substantiated or
unsubstantiated. Substantiated cases of recruiter wrongdoing are those
cases in which the service components determine that a recruiter
violated recruiting guidance based on a review of the facts in the
case.
Oversight of the service components' recruiting programs is the
responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. That office is
responsible for policy development, planning, resource management, and
program evaluation specific to the readiness of the force, including
those affecting the recruiting force. In establishing oversight over
recruiter irregularities, OSD issued a directive-type memorandum
defining recruiter irregularities as those willful and unwillful acts
of omission and improprieties that are perpetrated or alleged to be
perpetrated by a recruiter to facilitate the recruiting process for an
applicant.[Footnote 2] Recruiter irregularities encompass a range of
actions including, for example, administrative paperwork errors,
instructing applicants not to reveal certain disqualifying conditions,
and criminal misconduct.[Footnote 3]
In 2006, we reported that substantiated cases of recruiter
irregularities were low relative to overall accessions (i.e., the
number of individuals entering military service)--less than 1 percent.
[Footnote 4] However, we found at that time that the service
components and OSD were not able to determine the full extent to which
recruiter irregularities were occurring within their command
structures, thus preventing them from fully addressing the problem.
For example, we determined that none of the service components could
provide a comprehensive and accurate report on recruiter
irregularities within its own organization because the service
components used multiple data systems that were not integrated and
maintained the data in different formats; lacked standardized
procedures for recording the data; and did not account for all
allegations of recruiter irregularities. As a result, we recommended
that OSD establish an oversight framework to assess recruiter
irregularities to include developing criteria and common definitions
across the services for maintaining recruiter irregularity data,
implementing a reporting requirement across the services, directing
the services to develop internal systems and processes that better
capture and integrate data on recruiter irregularities, and directing
the commander of DOD's Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM)
to track and report allegations and service-identified incidents of
recruiter irregularities to OSD. In providing comments on our report,
OSD agreed to establish a standardized framework allowing for a fair
and accurate assessment of recruiter irregularities across the
services, including establishing the criteria and common definitions
for maintaining data on recruiter irregularities, and for the services
to develop internal processes that better capture and integrate these
data. OSD partially concurred with the recommendation to establish a
reporting requirement across the services, but disagreed with the
recommendation for MEPCOM to track and report allegations and
incidents of recruiter irregularities to OSD because it said such a
requirement would duplicate the reporting performed by the service
components.[Footnote 5] Following our report, OSD issued the
memorandum in December 2006 setting the definitions of recruiter
irregularities and the requirements for the service components to
track and report on all cases of recruiter irregularities.
In this context, you asked us to examine the service components'
policies and procedures for addressing recruiter irregularities and
OSD's oversight framework for assessing recruiter irregularities. This
report addresses the following questions:
1. What have the data shown on the incidence and types of reported
cases of recruiter irregularities across the service components and
what actions have the service components taken in substantiated cases
of recruiter irregularities?
2. To what extent have the service components developed guidance and
procedures to address recruiter irregularities, what progress have
they made in increasing their oversight over recruiter irregularities,
and to what extent is information on recruiter irregularities shared
within the service components?
3. To what extent does OSD have oversight over recruiter
irregularities that occur across the service components?
In conducting this review, we focused our scope on recruiter
irregularities that affect the active, reserve, and National Guard
components of DOD's military services that occurred from fiscal year
2006 through fiscal year 2008. To provide information on the number
and type of recruiter irregularities, we analyzed recruiter
irregularity data that OSD received from the service components for
that period. However, due to possible reporting errors in the 2006
data resulting from the new reporting requirement on recruiter
irregularities issued by OSD in December 2006, we were unable to
present trends in recruiter irregularities. Additionally, we did not
include fiscal year 2009 data in our analysis of recruiter
irregularities across the service components because the data covering
the full fiscal year 2009 will not be reported to OSD by the service
components in time to be included in our analysis. Although we found
recruiter irregularity data for the active and reserve components to
be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, we could not
present the data on recruiter irregularities reported by the National
Guard because States and Territories do not report their data
consistently and the different systems used by States and Territories
for maintaining and reporting these data lead to data reliability
issues. As part of our first objective, we also requested and reviewed
case files from each of the active and reserve components for all
substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities that occurred in
fiscal year 2008 to provide illustrative examples of the types of
recruiter irregularities that occur and the actions taken by the
service components against recruiters responsible for committing
recruiter irregularities. However, because the National Guard Bureau
does not maintain centralized data on cases of recruiter
irregularities, we selected and obtained case files from all seven
States (Alabama, California, Indiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) that reported more than four
substantiated recruiter irregularities in fiscal year 2008. To assess
the extent to which the service components' have guidance and
procedures in place to address recruiter irregularities, we obtained
and reviewed the service components' written guidance related to the
enlistment process and recruiter conduct. To determine the extent to
which OSD has oversight over recruiter irregularities, we interviewed
officials from OSD and MEPCOM. We supplemented our work for all three
objectives with site visits to the service components' recruiting
commands to interview recruiting command officials, staff from
military entrance processing stations (MEPS), and recruiters.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2009 through January
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. More
information on our scope and methodology is available in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
OSD data have shown that from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year
2008, substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities across the
service components represented a small percentage of overall
accessions, and the service components have taken various actions
against the recruiters responsible for these irregularities. The total
number of substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities as a
percentage of overall military accessions was 0.26 percent (616 cases
out of 239,629 accessions) in fiscal year 2006, 0.22 percent (526
cases out of 242,602 accessions) in fiscal year 2007, and 0.18 percent
(450 cases out of 248,797 accessions) in fiscal year 2008. The
substantiated cases, however, represented less than one-quarter of all
reported cases of recruiter irregularities. Of the 7,081 cases of
recruiter irregularities reported by the service components during
this time period, substantiated cases comprised 22.5 percent (or 1,592
cases). The types of recruiter irregularities most frequently reported
from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008 varied by service
component. For example, in fiscal year 2008, the most common type of
recruiter irregularity reported by all service components except the
Air Force Reserve involved the concealment or falsification of
documents or information, such as when a recruiter omitted information
concerning prior criminal violations in an applicant's application
packet. The incidence of other types of recruiter irregularities
reported for fiscal year 2008 varied by service component. For
example, sexual misconduct constituted the second most commonly
reported type of recruiter irregularity in the Marine Corps, while
quality control measures, such as a recruiter failing to obtain
parental signatures on an applicant's application form, constituted
the second most commonly reported type of recruiter irregularity in
the Army. The types of actions taken against recruiters who committed
irregularities in fiscal year 2008 also varied by service component.
For example, the type of action most commonly applied in the Marine
Corps was removal from recruiting. In contrast, the type of action
most commonly applied in the Army was adverse administrative action,
such as placing a letter of reprimand in the recruiter's permanent
personnel file. Within the National Guard, the types of actions taken
against a recruiter who committed irregularities varied among the
seven States included in our review, likely due to the differences in
state laws and guidance that govern how investigations are conducted
and actions applied.
The service components have developed guidance and procedures to
address recruiter irregularities and have improved their oversight
over them, but the manner in which information is shared within the
service components varies.[Footnote 6] All service components have
guidance on recruiter irregularities and have instituted procedures
for reporting allegations of recruiter irregularities, conducting
investigations, and adjudicating cases of recruiter irregularities. In
addition, the service components have taken steps to identify and
prevent recruiter irregularities, including establishing quality
control checks throughout the enlistment process and providing
training for recruiters on issues related to recruiter irregularities.
However, as we reported in prior work, in order to make improvements
and promote knowledge sharing, leaders at all levels of an
organization need to receive information on a continuous basis about
problems that may be occurring across the organization.[Footnote 7]
The Air Force has taken initiative to regularly share servicewide
recruiter irregularity data, including information on the types of
recruiter irregularities committed and the disposition of cases, with
all levels of command within the Air Force Recruiting Service and all
recruiting staff. Air Force officials explained that making this
information available to all levels within the Air Force Recruiting
Service provides commanders with examples of how others are addressing
recruiter irregularities, promotes consistent application of such
actions in substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities across the
Air Force, and serves as a deterrent to future recruiter
irregularities. However, while all service components regularly
provide recruiter irregularity data to their recruiting command
headquarters, in most service components outside of the Air Force, not
all levels of command have regular access to information on the
recruiter irregularities occurring. This is because the other service
components do not have procedures for the data to regularly flow back
to the commanders at levels below the recruiting headquarters to
inform their efforts. Without continuous access to information on
recruiter irregularities across their service component, commanders
may not be able to take full advantage of servicewide recruiter
irregularity data and opportunities to learn from their peers. We are
recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of
the Army and Navy to identify mechanisms for the regular sharing of
recruiter irregularity data within their service components.
Although OSD requires the service components to report on cases of
recruiter irregularities, OSD does not have complete oversight over
the recruiter irregularities that have occurred across the service
components because the reporting requirements lack clarity and the
data are incomplete. In December 2006, OSD issued a memorandum that
defines recruiter irregularities, establishes specific reporting
categories to capture the types of recruiter irregularities that occur
and the actions the service components take in response, and requires
semiannual reporting of recruiter irregularities by the service
components to OSD.[Footnote 8] Although issuing the memorandum was an
important first step in providing effective oversight over recruiter
irregularities consistent with good management practices outlined in
federal control standards, OSD still lacks comprehensive information
on recruiter irregularities across the service components because some
of the reporting requirements in the memorandum lack clarity and the
data provided by the National Guard are incomplete. For example,
although most service components report only on cases involving
applicants, at least one service component reported on all cases of
infractions by recruiters, such as the use of a government vehicle for
personal use or inappropriate relationship with other military
personnel. In addition, recruiting officials with whom we spoke cited
several problems with categorization, including reporting categories
being too broad and lack of clarity on how to report cases in which
more than one type of irregularity was committed or more than one
action was taken against the recruiter. OSD officials said that the
reporting requirements will be clarified when the 2006 memorandum is
turned into an instruction for the service components to follow, but
they have not developed the instruction yet. With respect to the
National Guard data, the data provided to OSD by the National Guard
are incomplete.[Footnote 9] For example, our review of the recruiter
irregularity data that the Army National Guard States and Territories
provided to the Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division in
January 2009 showed that 18 of the 54 States and Territories did not
provide the data for fiscal year 2008. The National Guard Bureau, in
turn, has not provided the appropriate caveats in its reports to OSD
about the States and Territories that did not provide their recruiter
irregularity data, and OSD officials have not asked for such caveats.
Unless OSD clarifies the reporting requirements in the memorandum and
directs the service components to provide transparency in the data
they report, it will be unable to maintain complete oversight over the
extent to which recruiter irregularities are occurring across the
service components and determine whether corrective action is needed.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to (1) complete the
instruction on tracking and reporting data on recruiter irregularities
to clarify the requirements and categories for the types of recruiter
irregularities to be reported and actions taken; (2) direct the
National Guard Bureau to provide transparency in the data that it
reports to OSD and disclose any limitations in these data; and (3)
include the appropriate disclosures concerning data limitations in the
recruiter irregularity reports that it produces on the basis of these
data for the Congress and others.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it concurred
with our recommendations. DOD described the actions that it plans to
take to work with the service components on addressing our
recommendations and plans to complete these actions during fiscal year
2010.
Background:
Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense, it is the responsibility of the services to recruit and train
their forces. The service components depend on military recruiters to
meet their annual recruiting missions. In fiscal year 2009, the
service components utilized 30,936 military recruiters. Of those,
26,381 were frontline recruiters assigned a monthly recruiting goal.
[Footnote 10] The remaining recruiters held supervisory and staff
positions throughout the services' recruiting commands. (See table 1
for the number of recruiters for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year
2009.)
Table 1: Number of Recruiters in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, by
Service Component:
Total recruiters:
Fiscal year: 2006;
Army: Active and Reserve: 11,410;
Army: National Guard: 6,313;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,133;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 3,388;
Air Force: Active: 2,284;
Air Force: Reserve: 412;
Air Force: National Guard: 464;
DOD: 29,404.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Army: Active and Reserve: 11,347;
Army: National Guard: 7,558;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,261;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 3,633;
Air Force: Active: 2,259;
Air Force: Reserve: 411;
Air Force: National Guard: 464;
DOD: 30,933.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Army: Active and Reserve: 12,232;
Army: National Guard: 7,893;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,499;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 4,033;
Air Force: Active: 1,992;
Air Force: Reserve: 424;
Air Force: National Guard: 464;
DOD: 32,537.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Army: Active and Reserve: 11,171;
Army: National Guard: 7,042;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,670;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 4,033;
Air Force: Active: 2,033;
Air Force: Reserve: 429;
Air Force: National Guard: 558;
DOD: 30,936.
Frontline recruiters:
Fiscal year: 2006;
Army: Active and Reserve: 10,381;
Army: National Guard: 4,919;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 4,796;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 3,388;
Air Force: Active: 1,624;
Air Force: Reserve: 339;
Air Force: National Guard: 464;
DOD: 25,911.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Army: Active and Reserve: 10,281;
Army: National Guard: 5,027;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,027;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 3,633;
Air Force: Active: 1,580;
Air Force: Reserve: 342;
Air Force: National Guard: 464;
DOD: 26,354.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Army: Active and Reserve: 11,190;
Army: National Guard: 4,970;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,321;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 4,033;
Air Force: Active: 1,320;
Air Force: Reserve: 347;
Air Force: National Guard: 464;
DOD: 27,645.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Army: Active and Reserve: 10,283;
Army: National Guard: 4,456;
Navy: Active and Reserve: 5,348;
Marine Corps: Active and Reserve: 4,033;
Air Force: Active: 1,346;
Air Force: Reserve: 357;
Air Force: National Guard: 558;
DOD: 26,381.
Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Note: Unlike the Air Force, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps
recruiters recruit for both active and reserve components of their
services.
[End of table]
Each of the military services has its own recruiting command, which is
responsible for the service's recruiting mission and functions.
[Footnote 11] The role of the recruiting command is to provide support
to the recruiting force and guidance for the recruitment and
enlistment process. In addition, the recruiting command plays a role
in developing the recruiting goals. The commands are structured
similarly across the services with some variation in organizational
structure, as noted in figure 1. The recruiting command is the
recruiting headquarters for each service, with subordinate commands
between the headquarters level and recruiting stations or substations
where frontline recruiters work to reach out to prospective applicants
and communicate to them the benefits of joining the military.
Figure 1: Organization of the Service Recruiting Commands:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Service Recruiting Commands Headquarters:
Army Brigades (6):
* Battalions (43);
* Companies (260);
* Recruiting stations (1724).
Navy: Region (East); Region (West):
* Districts (26);
* Zones (259);
* Recruiting stations (1468).
Marine Corps: Region (Eastern); Region (Western):
* Districts (6);
* Recruiting stations (48);
* Recruiting substations (636).
Air Force[A]: Groups (3);
* Squadrons (24);
* Flights (182);
* Recruiting stations (988).
Air Force Reserve[A]: Squadrons(3);
* Recruiting stations (271).
Source: GAO analysis of information from the service components.
[A] The Department of the Air Force is the only military department in
which the recruiting commands for the active and reserve components
are separate.
Note: The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard have
recruiting entities that are separate from the recruiting commands for
the Army and the Air Force. Recruiting in the Army National Guard is
overseen by the Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division
within the National Guard Bureau. Recruiting in the Air National Guard
is overseen by the Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service
within the National Guard Bureau.
[End of figure]
Since 2006, most of the service components have been able to achieve
their recruiting goals, and all service components met their
recruiting goals in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. (See table 2 for
accession goals and achievements from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal
year 2009.) Service component officials and recruiters alike have
attributed the high rate of recruiting success to the conditions of
the economy and the services' competitive advantage over the civilian
job market, particularly given the rising unemployment rate. DOD found
that more youth are willing to consider military service during
periods of high unemployment. Recruiters reported, however, that while
they have seen an increase in the number of individuals interested in
military service, many of them do not meet the military's
qualification requirements. DOD estimated that approximately 7 out of
10 youth ages 17 to 24 do not meet the military's entrance standards
for reasons including medical conditions, prior criminal records, and
existence of young dependents.
Table 2: Enlisted Accessions for Each Service Component in Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2009:
Service component: Army;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 80,635;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 101;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 80,407;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 101;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 80,517;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 101;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 70,045;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 108.
Service component: Army National Guard;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 69,042;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 99;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 66,652;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 95;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 65,192;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 103;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 56,071;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 100.
Service component: Army Reserve;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 34,379;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 95;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 35,734;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 101;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 39,870;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 106;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 36,189;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 105.
Service component: Navy;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 36,679;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 37,361;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 101;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 38,485;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 35,527;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 100.
Service component: Navy Reserve;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 9,722;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 87;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 10,627;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 9,134;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 7,793;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 101.
Service component: Marine Corps;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 32,337;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 35,603;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 37,991;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 31,413;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 100.
Service component: Marine Corps Reserve;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 8,056;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 7,959;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 110;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 7,629;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 8,805;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 122.
Service component: Air Force;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 30,889;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 27,801;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 27,848;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 100;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 31,983;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 100.
Service component: Air Force Reserve;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 6,932;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 105;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 7,110;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 104;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 7,323;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 105;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 8,604;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 109.
Service component: Air National Guard;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 9,138;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 97;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 9,975;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 93;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 10,749;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 126;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 10,075;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 106.
Service component: DOD;
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions achieved: 317,809;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of goal achieved: 99;
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions achieved: 319,229;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of goal achieved: 99;
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions achieved: 324,738;
Fiscal year 2008: Percentage of goal achieved: 102;
Fiscal year 2009: Accessions achieved: 296,505;
Fiscal year 2009: Percentage of goal achieved: 103.
Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
[End of table]
Even in this favorable recruiting environment, irregularities can
occur and checks have been built into the enlistment process that may
help minimize recruiter irregularities. These checks begin with the
initial prescreening of the applicant conducted by the recruiter and
involve a background review, an initial determination of physical
eligibility, and a review of education credentials. After the initial
prescreening, the military pays the applicant to travel to 1 of the 65
military entrance processing stations (MEPS) located throughout the
country.[Footnote 12] Each MEPS station is staffed with military and
civilian personnel, including liaisons representing each service
component and MEPS staff who are responsible for quality control
checks that are designed to prevent anyone not qualified for their
service component from entering. Upon arrival at the MEPS, applicants
meet with their service component's liaison who reviews their
qualifications. Applicants are also administered the Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) that determines the applicant's
qualifications for enlistment and for a specific military job.
[Footnote 13] In addition, a MEPS doctor conducts a medical
examination to determine whether the applicant meets the physical
entrance standards. When the applicant has met the qualifications for
military enlistment, the applicant signs an enlistment contract and is
sworn into the service before entering into the delayed entry program.
[Footnote 14] In this program, applicants become members of the
Individual Ready Reserve in an unpaid status until they receive orders
to report for basic training. Prior to shipping to basic training, the
applicant must return to the MEPS to undergo a brief physical
examination that ascertains that the applicant continues to meet the
physical fitness standards for entering the military. Upon successful
completion of this final exam, the applicant is sworn into the
military and shipped to basic training. Figure 2 illustrates the steps
in the enlistment process.
Figure 2: Overview of the Enlistment Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Applicants:
Recruiting stations/substations:
Army;
Navy;
Marine Corps;
Air Force.
MEPS:
* MEPS liaison interview;
* ASVAB test;
* Physical exam;
* First enlistment oath.
Delayed Entry Program.
MEPS:
* Physical exam;
* Second enlistment oath.
Service basic training.
Source: GAO analysis of information from the service components; Art
Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
Substantiated Cases of Irregularities Represent a Small Percentage of
Accessions, and Actions Have Been Taken against the Recruiters
Responsible:
Substantiated Cases of Recruiter Irregularities across the Service
Components Comprise a Small Percentage of Overall Accessions:
From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, the total number of
substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities across the service
components comprised a small percentage of overall accessions.
[Footnote 15] As table 3 shows, the total number of substantiated
cases of recruiter irregularities comprised less than 0.4 percent of
accessions in every service component during this period. For example,
there were 321 substantiated recruiter irregularity cases in the Army
in fiscal year 2006, comprising 0.28 percent of the Army's accessions.
Table 3: Total Number of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities,
Accessions, and Irregularities as a Percentage of Accessions, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
Fiscal year 2006: Substantiated irregularities;
Service component: Army: 321;
Service component: Navy: 159;
Service component: Marine Corps: 102;
Service component: Air Force: 14;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 20;
Total: 616.
Fiscal year 2006: Accessions;
Service component: Army: 115,014;
Service component: Navy: 46,401;
Service component: Marine Corps: 40,393;
Service component: Air Force: 30,889;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 6,932;
Total: 239,629.
Fiscal year 2006: Substantiated irregularities as percentage of
accessions;
Service component: Army: 0.28;
Service component: Navy: 0.34;
Service component: Marine Corps: 0.25;
Service component: Air Force: 0.05;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 0.29;
Total: 0.26.
Fiscal year 2007: Substantiated irregularities;
Service component: Army: 278;
Service component: Navy: 93;
Service component: Marine Corps: 119;
Service component: Air Force: 25;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 11;
Total: 526.
Fiscal year 2007: Accessions;
Service component: Army: 116,141;
Service component: Navy: 47,988;
Service component: Marine Corps: 43,562;
Service component: Air Force: 27,801;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 7,110;
Total: 242,602.
Fiscal year 2007: Substantiated irregularities as percentage of
accessions;
Service component: Army: 0.24;
Service component: Navy: 0.19;
Service component: Marine Corps: 0.27;
Service component: Air Force: 0.09;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 0.15;
Total: 0.22.
Fiscal year 2008: Substantiated irregularities;
Service component: Army: 253;
Service component: Navy: 101;
Service component: Marine Corps: 71;
Service component: Air Force: 17;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 8;
Total: 450.
Fiscal year 2008: Accessions;
Service component: Army: 120,387;
Service component: Navy: 47,619;
Service component: Marine Corps: 45,620;
Service component: Air Force: 27,848;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 7,323;
Total: 248,797.
Fiscal year 2008: Substantiated irregularities as percentage of
accessions;
Service component: Army: 0.21;
Service component: Navy: 0.21;
Service component: Marine Corps: 0.16;
Service component: Air Force: 0.06;
Service component: Air Force Reserve: 0.11;
Total: 0.18.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Notes: Accessions numbers for the Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps
include both active and reserve component accessions.
We did not present the number of cases of recruiter irregularities for
the National Guard because not all States and Territories consistently
report data and because of concerns about the reliability of the data
reported.
We did not present fiscal year 2009 recruiter irregularity data
because full fiscal year 2009 data will not be available in time to
include in our analysis.
[End of table]
From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, less than 25 percent
of the total reported cases of recruiter irregularities were found to
be substantiated, as shown in table 4. However, the proportion of
recruiter irregularities reported during that period that were found
to be substantiated varied--both among the service components and
within individual service components. For example, of the cases of
recruiter irregularities reported in the Army during fiscal year 2008,
15 percent were found to be substantiated by commanders based on a
review of the facts of an investigation; during the same period, 71
percent of the Air Force's reported cases were substantiated.
Table 4: Cases of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities as a
Percentage of All Cases of Reported Recruiter Irregularities, Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2008:
Service component: Army;
Fiscal year 2006 (total): 18.8% (1,710);
Fiscal year 2007 (total): 15.9% (1,747);
Fiscal year 2008 (total): 15.1% (1,681);
Average, fiscal years 2006-2008 (total): 16.6% (5,138).
Service component: Navy;
Fiscal year 2006 (total): 33.8% (471);
Fiscal year 2007 (total): 36.3% (256);
Fiscal year 2008 (total): 27.4v (369);
Average, fiscal years 2006-2008 (total): 32.2% (1,096).
Service component: Marine Corps;
Fiscal year 2006 (total): 53.1% (192);
Fiscal year 2007 (total): 56.4% (211);
Fiscal year 2008 (total): 60.2% (118);
Average, fiscal years 2006-2008 (total): 56.0% (521).
Service component: Air Force;
Fiscal year 2006 (total): 9.0% (155);
Fiscal year 2007 (total): 62.5% (40);
Fiscal year 2008 (total): 70.8% (24);
Average, fiscal years 2006-2008 (total): 25.6% (219).
Service component: Air Force Reserve;
Fiscal year 2006 (total): 51.3% (39);
Fiscal year 2007 (total): 28.9% (38);
Fiscal year 2008 (total): 26.7% (30);
Average, fiscal years 2006-2008 (total): 36.4% (107).
Service component: Total;
Fiscal year 2006 (total): 24.0% (2,567);
Fiscal year 2007 (total): 22.9% (2,292);
Fiscal year 2008 (total): 20.3% (2,222);
Average, fiscal years 2006-2008 (total): 22.5% (7,081).
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Note: We did not present the number of cases of recruiter
irregularities for the National Guard because not all States and
Territories consistently report data and because of concerns about the
reliability of the data reported.
We did not present fiscal year 2009 recruiter irregularity data
because full fiscal year 2009 data will not be available in time to
include in our analysis.
[End of table]
Concealment or Falsification of Documents or Information Was the Most
Commonly Reported Irregularity:
From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, recruiter
irregularities involving concealment or falsification, such as when a
recruiter omitted information concerning prior criminal violations in
an applicant's application packet, constituted the most commonly
reported type of recruiter irregularity by all service components
except the Air Force Reserve. For the Air Force Reserve, quality
control measures, such as a recruiter failing to obtain parental
signatures on an applicant's application form, were the most common
type of recruiter irregularity reported. The second most commonly
reported type of recruiter irregularity varied among the service
components. For example, in fiscal year 2008, it involved quality
control measures in the Army, while during the same fiscal year, it
involved sexual misconduct in the Marine Corps. (See table 5 for the
types of recruiter irregularities most commonly reported by the
service components in fiscal year 2008.)
Table 5: Most Commonly Reported Types of Recruiter Irregularities as a
Percentage of All Reported Recruiter Irregularities in Fiscal Year
2008, by Service Component:
Service component: Army;
n=: 1681;
Most common (percentage): Concealment/falsification (50.7%);
Second most common (percentage): Quality control measures (41.8%).
Service component: Navy;
n=: 369;
Most common (percentage): Concealment/falsification (64.8%);
Second most common (percentage): Fraternization or unauthorized
relationship with an applicant (10.6%).
Service component: Marine Corps;
n=: 118;
Most common (percentage): Concealment/falsification (44.9%);
Second most common (percentage): Sexual misconduct (22.9%).
Service component: Air Force;
n=: 24;
Most common (percentage): Concealment/falsification (50.0%);
Second most common (percentage): Fraternization or unauthorized
relationship with an applicant (41.7%).
Service component: Air Force Reserve;
n=: 30;
Most common (percentage): Quality control measures (53.3%);
Second most common (percentage): Concealment/falsification (33.3%).
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Note: We did not present the most commonly reported types of recruiter
irregularities for the National Guard because not all States and
Territories consistently report data and because of concerns about the
reliability of the data reported.
[End of table]
Our review of the service components' case files of recruiter
irregularities reported in fiscal year 2008 identified examples of
recruiter irregularities illustrating each of the eight recruiter
irregularity categories established in OSD's memorandum.[Footnote 16]
As the examples in table 6 show, recruiters across the service
components committed a range of recruiter irregularities, from
administrative or paperwork errors to inappropriate relationships with
applicants or recruits. (Additional examples can be found in appendix
II.)
Table 6: Examples of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities by Type,
Fiscal Year 2008:
Criminal misconduct:
A recruiter in charge of a recruiting station was involved in the
purchasing of illegal drugs with a recruit (Navy).
Sexual misconduct:
A recruiter impregnated a 17 year-old student in a high school in
which he was responsible for recruiting (Marine Corps).
Sexual harassment:
A recruiter sent sexually suggestive jokes to an applicant via e-mail,
made inappropriate comments to the applicant, and refused to leave the
applicant's place of employment (Air Force Reserve).
Fraternization or unauthorized relationship with an applicant:
A recruiter requested inappropriate pictures from a recruit, exchanged
inappropriate personal text messages with the recruit, and engaged in
a sexual relationship with the recruit (Army).
Concealment or falsification:
A recruiter omitted a driving under the influence violation from an
applicant's application packet (Air Force).
False promise/coercion:
A recruiter misled an applicant about the length of reserve service
the applicant's contract would require (Army National Guard).
Testing irregularity:
A recruiter attempted to have a recent recruit take the ASVAB for an
applicant (Marine Corps).
Quality control measures:
A recruiter did not obtain the signature of both parents on the
parental consent form required for enlistment (Army).
Source: GAO analysis of recruiter irregularity case files provided by
the service components.
[End of table]
Actions Taken against Recruiters in Substantiated Cases of Recruiter
Irregularities Varied by Service Component:
From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, all service components
took actions against recruiters who committed irregularities, but the
service components varied in the types of actions that they most
commonly took against these recruiters during these fiscal years. For
example, as can be seen in table 7, in fiscal year 2008, the most
common type of action taken by the Army involved adverse
administrative action, such as placing a letter of reprimand in the
recruiter's permanent personnel file, while the most common type of
action taken in the Marine Corps involved removal from recruiting.
Table 7: Most Commonly Reported Actions Taken against Recruiters as a
Percentage of All Actions Taken, Fiscal Year 2008:
Service component: Army;
n=: 253;
Most common (percentage): Adverse administrative action (65.6%);
Second most common (percentage): Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment
(16.2%).
Service component: Navy;
n=: 101;
Most common (percentage): Non-adverse administrative action (42.6%);
Second most common (percentage): Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment
(35.6%).
Service component: Marine Corps;
n=: 71;
Most common (percentage): Removed from recruiting (49.3%);
Second most common (percentage): Removed from service and adverse
administrative action (16.9% each).
Service component: Air Force;
n=: 17;
Most common (percentage): Non-adverse administrative action (29.4%);
Second most common (percentage): Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment
(23.5%).
Service component: Air Force Reserve;
n=: 8;
Most common (percentage): Removed from recruiting, non-adverse
administrative action, and administrative or processing error (25.0%
each);
Second most common (percentage): Adverse administrative action and
Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment (12.5%).
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Note: We did not present the most commonly reported actions for the
National Guard because not all States and Territories consistently
report data and because of concerns about the reliability of the data
reported.
[End of table]
The OSD memorandum provides the service components with specific
categories to use when reporting on the status of cases, including
categories for cases in which action has been taken, cases that are
still ongoing, and cases that were determined to be unsubstantiated.
[Footnote 17] Our review of the service components' case files of
recruiter irregularities reported in fiscal year 2008 identified
examples illustrating each of OSD's reporting categories. As can be
seen in table 8, the service components sometimes take different
actions against recruiters who committed similar types of recruiter
irregularities. For instance, an Air Force recruiter was court-
martialed for fraternizing with an applicant, while a Navy recruiter
received an Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment for a similar type of
offense. (Additional examples can be found in appendix III.)
Table 8: Examples of Actions Taken against Recruiters Who Committed
Recruiter Irregularities, Fiscal Year 2008:
Court martial/civil conviction:
For fraternizing with an applicant, a recruiter was court-martialed
and was reduced in rank, confined for 30 days, and made to forfeit two-
thirds of a month's pay for 2 months (Air Force).
Removed from service:
For sexual misconduct, a recruiter was removed from service (Marine
Corps).
Removed from recruiting:
For fraternizing with an applicant, a recruiter was reduced in rank
and transferred to a non-recruiting unit (Army National Guard).
Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment:
For fraternizing with an applicant, a recruiter was reduced in rank,
received restriction and extra duties, and was made to forfeit pay
(Navy).
Adverse administrative action:
For failing to ensure that an applicant's enlistment documents were
completed correctly, a recruiter was given a letter of reprimand by
his battalion commander (Army).
Non-adverse administrative action:
For failing to perform adequate quality control checks on an
applicant's application packet; thereby allowing the wrong ASVAB score
to be filed in an applicant's application packet, a recruiter received
counseling, which directed him to perform quality control checks on
other application packets (Air Force Reserve).
Administrative or processing error:
For failing to conduct a thorough prequalification interview of an
applicant, a recruiter was judged to have committed a recruiter error.
The recruiter was not punished, but his battalion commander used the
error as an example in teaching his recruiters how to properly
document information (Army).
Source: GAO analysis of recruiter irregularity case files provided by
the service components.
[End of table]
For all service components, the determination of the action to apply
in cases of recruiter irregularities is vested with the recruiting
unit, and the commanders of the responsible recruiting units take a
variety of factors into consideration when deciding on the actions to
take against recruiters who commit irregularities. Several service
component officials we interviewed reported that these commanders
generally decide on the appropriate action to take against a recruiter
on a case-by-case basis. For example, a Marine Corps Recruiting
Command official told us that the commanders who are ultimately
responsible for taking action against a recruiter can take into
account how a particular action will affect a recruiter's family
before deciding upon the appropriate level of action. This can lead to
different actions taken in cases that fall into similar recruiter
irregularity categories. While the Army National Guard States and
Territories follow states' and territories' laws and guidance that
govern how actions are applied, our review of selected recruiter
irregularity case files from the Army National Guard also showed that
the actions taken against recruiters who committed irregularities
varied among States. For example, we found that different actions were
taken against the recruiters from different States who engaged in
irregularities falling into the sexual misconduct category, ranging
from non-adverse administrative action to removal from service. A
recruiter in one State who admitted to a sexual relationship with an
applicant received non-adverse administrative action, which included
counseling, a 12-month suspended reduction in rank, and a 12-month
suspension from favorable personnel actions, such as the ability to be
promoted, be reassigned, or receive awards or bonuses. However, a
recruiter in another State who provided alcohol to and engaged in a
sexual relationship with an applicant was removed from service.
In the view of the recruiting command officials and recruiters with
whom we spoke, the actions taken against recruiters who committed
irregularities have generally been fair and sufficiently strict to act
as deterrents against future recruiter irregularities. Further, they
said that the ongoing training that recruiters receive includes
examples of the actions taken against other recruiters who committed
irregularities, thereby reinforcing the seriousness of committing a
recruiter irregularity. For example, an Air Force recruiter told us
that he realizes that he stands to receive strict punishment, such as
a reduction in rank or removal from the Air Force, if he commits a
recruiter irregularity.
The Service Components Have Developed Guidance and Procedures to
Address Recruiter Irregularities, but Not All Service Components Share
Recruiter Irregularity Data throughout All Levels of Command:
The Service Components Have Developed Guidance to Address Recruiter
Irregularities:
All of the service components have developed guidance on recruiter
irregularities and have instituted procedures for reporting
allegations of recruiter irregularities, conducting an investigation,
and adjudicating cases.[Footnote 18] Some service components have
guidance specifically focused on recruiter irregularities. For
example, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command developed a regulation that
specifically focuses on recruiter irregularities--Regulation 601-45,
Recruiting Improprieties Policies and Procedures--which covers the
definitions of recruiter irregularities, the process of reporting
irregularities up the chain of command, and the investigation and
adjudication of recruiter irregularity cases.[Footnote 19] Other
service components, such as the Marine Corps, address recruiter
irregularities within their existing framework of recruiting guidance.
For example, the Marine Corps uses Marine Corps Order 1130.65A, Total
Force Recruiting Quality Control, which covers recruiting in general,
but includes provisions that apply to the reporting of recruiter
irregularities and the actions that should be taken against recruiters
who commit irregularities.[Footnote 20]
The Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division and the Air
National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service within the National
Guard Bureau[Footnote 21] have also issued guidance providing the Army
and Air National Guards of the 54 States and Territories with a broad
framework for addressing recruiter irregularities.[Footnote 22] This
guidance supplements laws and guidance that the Army National Guard
and Air National Guard from each State and Territory follow. However,
the implementation of National Guard Bureau guidance is at the
discretion of the individual States and Territories. State National
Guard recruiters typically operate under Title 32 of the U.S. Code
through which they are federally funded but under state control.
Therefore, State National Guard recruiters are subject to state laws
and guidance unlike active duty recruiters operating under Title 10 of
the U.S. Code who are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and service component guidance in the event they commit a recruiter
irregularity.[Footnote 23] The Secretary of Defense issued a model
code of military justice to recommend to the states for use with
respect to the National Guard when not in federal service.[Footnote
24] According to an official within the Office of the Chief Counsel
within the National Guard Bureau, many states have partially adopted
this model military code while others have not adopted it at all.
The service components have similar procedures for identifying,
investigating, and adjudicating recruiter irregularities. As figure 3
shows, recruiter irregularity allegations can be brought to light
through a variety of sources, such as complaints submitted through
congressional representatives, service component hotlines, and
recruiting staff reporting on the suspicious behavior of a fellow
recruiter. Once an allegation is brought to the attention of the
service component, all service components follow several steps,
including the appointment of the investigating officer, the
investigation process, and the review of the report produced by the
investigating officer. The investigation report and the
recommendations therein are used by the appropriate unit commander to
determine whether the allegation can be substantiated.[Footnote 25]
When it is determined that an allegation is substantiated, the
commander also determines the appropriate action and provides the
recruiter with the opportunity to present additional information and
appeal the decision. The service components' recruiting command
headquarters are notified of all final decisions in recruiter
irregularity cases.
Figure 3: The Service Components' Process for Addressing Recruiter
Irregularities:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Allegation of recruiter irregularity reported to service component:
Sources Of Allegations:
Recruiting staff;
Military entrance processing station;
Hotline;
Congressional inquiry;
Basic training.
Investigating officer appointed.
Investigation conducted.
Investigation report produced;
Unsubstantiated:
Unsubstantiated allegations fowarded to recruiting command headquarters
(Case is closed).
Substantiated:
Commanding officer determines appropriate actions.
Recruiting headquarters are notified of final outcome (Case is closed).
Source: GAO analysis of information from the service components; Art
Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
Although the procedures for investigating and adjudicating cases of
recruiter irregularities are generally similar across the service
components, some differences exist. For example, the Army and the Air
Force require that all recruiter irregularity investigations undergo a
legal review--a review of the investigation report findings by the
service component's Judge Advocate's office--while the Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force Reserve do not have such a requirement.
Service component officials we interviewed generally agreed that the
existing service component guidance on recruiter irregularities is
sufficient and informs those involved on how to handle recruiter
irregularities that come to light. Further, recruiters we interviewed
generally agreed that service component guidance they receive on
recruiter irregularities is sufficient and that they know how to
report any cases of recruiter irregularities that they may come across.
The Service Components Have Taken Steps to Identify and Prevent
Recruiter Irregularities:
The service components have instituted a number of quality control
checks to help identify recruiter irregularities, including the use of
a hotline for individuals to report recruiter irregularities, periodic
inspections of recruiting stations, and opportunities for recruits to
reveal any potential recruiter irregularities committed by their
recruiter during the enlistment process.[Footnote 26] The service
components use the following mechanisms to ensure that recruiters are
abiding by recruiting standards and verify the accuracy of information
in applicant packets:
* Hotline. Most service components make telephone numbers available to
applicants and parents for reporting any suspected cases of recruiter
irregularities by posting a notice in recruiting stations with a
hotline listed or providing a card to applicants with the service
component's hotline number listed. For example, Navy recruiters
provide applicants with hotline cards that list recruiter and
applicant rights, activities that recruiters are prohibited from
doing, and a hotline number that applicants can call to report any
alleged recruiter irregularities to the Navy Recruiting Command
Inspector General's office.
* Periodic inspections. All of the service components conduct periodic
inspections and command visits to recruiting stations. For example,
the Marine Corps Recruiting Command's inspection program includes
monthly visits and annual inspections by recruiting station commanders
of the recruiting substations for which they are responsible. While
these inspections do not focus specifically on identifying recruiter
irregularities, recruiting command officials told us that some
recruiter irregularities are identified in the course of the
inspections process.
* Opportunities to reveal irregularities. All of the service
components provide recruits with an opportunity to disclose any
information about themselves that could disqualify them from
enlistment, such as medical issues or criminal history, and also allow
applicants to bring up any inappropriate behavior displayed by their
recruiter, such as a recruiter telling an applicant to conceal a
medical problem in order to facilitate the enlistment process.
Officials we interviewed generally agreed that such opportunities for
disclosure, commonly known as a "moment of truth," provide a powerful
tool for identifying recruiter irregularities.
All of the service components have programs in place to help prevent
recruiter irregularities, including recruiter screening programs and
recruiter training. In addition, the Army and Army National Guard have
established policies requiring more than one person to be present when
a recruiter interacts with an applicant of the opposite gender.
[Footnote 27]
* Screening programs. All service components have recruiter screening
programs to screen their recruiter candidates. For example, the Air
Force Recruiting Service's screening program includes face-to-face
interviews with recruiter candidates, reviews of the candidates'
history of meeting physical standards, reviews of performance reports
from the previous 3 years, and a credit check. Recruiting command
officials acknowledged that recruiting is a stressful job and said
that the rigorous screening of individuals interested in becoming
recruiters helps ensure that only those individuals who are most
qualified; are sufficiently motivated; have a high level of integrity;
and are not burdened by additional external stressors, such as
financial debt or ongoing divorce proceedings, are selected to receive
training at the recruiter schools. Recruiting command officials also
stated that these programs help screen out individuals who may be more
susceptible to committing recruiter irregularities.
* Recruiter training. Once individuals are selected to become
recruiters, they are required to attend the service component's or the
National Guard's recruiter school, as appropriate, for initial
recruiter training.[Footnote 28] The service components' recruiting
school officials and recruiters interviewed said that topics on
ethical behavior, prohibited practices, fraternization, and sexual
harassment are covered during the initial training. Additionally, they
said that instructors share examples of actual recruiter
irregularities with the new recruiters in order to inform them of
situations to avoid. After graduating from the service component's
recruiter school, recruiters receive ongoing training, covering topics
such as sexual harassment and the reporting of suspected recruiter
irregularities. For example, the Marine Corps Recruiting Command
developed a new course that all recruiters are required to take
annually, covering ethical and unethical behavior and case studies of
actual recruiter irregularity cases. Officials stated that the course,
once implemented, will help recruiters identify situations that can
lead to recruiter irregularities and ways they can avoid those
situations. Service component officials and recruiters we interviewed
generally agreed that existing training on recruiter irregularities is
sufficient to help prevent future recruiter irregularities.
* "Buddy" or "no one alone" policies. The Army has implemented a
policy requiring that whenever a recruiter comes in contact with a
prospect, applicant, or future soldier of the opposite gender, at
least one other qualifying person of any gender be present.[Footnote
29] Also, according to the Chief of the Army National Guard Strength
Maintenance Division, the Army National Guard in 26 states have
implemented the same policy.
The Service Components' Oversight and Data Sharing Have Improved, but
Not All Service Components Share Data throughout All Levels of Command:
Since we reported in our prior work that the service components'
recruiting commands did not have oversight over recruiter
irregularities, the service components have improved oversight.
[Footnote 30] In our prior work, we reported that the service
components had limited oversight over recruiter irregularities because
multiple data systems for collecting and tracking recruiter
irregularity data were being used. Because these systems were not
integrated, the service components did not have oversight over all
recruiter irregularities. Since then, the service components have made
progress in establishing systems that have allowed for more consistent
tracking and reporting of the recruiter irregularity data. We found
that local recruiting units responsible for gathering and tracking
recruiter irregularity data have systems and processes in place for
passing the data up the chain of command to the service components'
recruiting command headquarters on a regular basis. Each service
component's recruiting command has an office at the headquarters level
that is responsible for entering the data received from the local
recruiting units into the service components' database or spreadsheet
and consolidating and reporting these data to OSD on a semiannual
basis.
Although the reporting process is generally similar across the service
components, some differences exist, as shown in figure 4. For example,
most of the service components have only one recruiting command office
in place that is responsible for gathering and tracking recruiter
irregularity data; however, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command has two
offices that are responsible for gathering and tracking recruiter
irregularities--the Recruiting Standards Division and the Staff Judge
Advocate's office. The Recruiting Standards Division provides its
consolidated recruiter irregularity data to the Staff Judge Advocate's
office, which then consolidates the data from both offices for the
purpose of reporting to OSD. In addition, while the local recruiting
units provide recruiter irregularity updates to the recruiting command
on a daily basis in the Army and on a weekly basis in the Air Force,
they do so on a monthly basis in the other service components.
Some of the service components are continuing to refine their systems
for tracking and reporting recruiter irregularity data. For example,
the Navy is in the process of procuring a new data system that will
allow for functions such as trend analysis and advanced querying of
recruiter irregularity data. In addition, the Air Force Reserve has
recently updated its instruction to require recruiting personnel to
report all actual or suspected recruiter irregularities to their
senior recruiter and to inform the Air Force Reserve Command
Recruiting Service Inspector General of all allegations.[Footnote 31]
Figure 4: The Service Components' Processes for Reporting of the
Recruiter Irregularity Data:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
U.S. Army Recruiting Command:
Recruiting Brigades (Report daily) to Recruiting Standards Division;
Recruiting Brigades‘ Judge Advocates (Report weekly) to Staff Judge
Advocate‘s Office.
U.S. Air Force Recruiting Service:
Recruiting Squadrons (Report weekly) to Staff Judge Advocate‘s Office.
U.S. Air Force Reserve Command Recruiting Service:
Recruiting Squadrons (Report monthly) to Inspector General‘s Office;
Recruiting Service Operations Office (Report monthly) to Inspector
General‘s Office.
U.S. Navy Recruiting Command:
Recruiting Districts (Report monthly) to Recruiting Regions;
Recruiting Regions(Report monthly) to Inspector General‘s Office;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (Report as cases arise) to Staff
Judge Advocate‘s Office, who reports to Inspector General‘s Office;
Recruiting Regions‘ Judge Advocates (Report as cases arise) to Staff
Judge Advocate‘s Office, who reports to Inspector General‘s Office.
U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Command:
Recruiting Districts (Report monthly) to Recruiting Regions;
Recruiting Regions (Report monthly) to Manpower Division.
Source: GAO analysis of information from the service components.
[End of figure]
While all service components regularly provide recruiter irregularity
data to the recruiting command headquarters, with the exception of the
Air Force, they do not regularly make recruiter irregularity data
available to all levels of command. This is because most of the
service components do not have procedures in place to disseminate
recruiter irregularity data to the commanders at levels below the
recruiting headquarters. In contrast, the Air Force Recruiting Service
shares recruiter irregularity data with leadership at all levels of
command within the Air Force Recruiting Service and all recruiting
staff through monthly and quarterly reports and newsletters. These
reports contain information on the circumstances of the recruiter
irregularity committed and the actions taken against the recruiter.
[Footnote 32] Air Force officials we interviewed explained that making
this information available to personnel at all levels within the Air
Force Recruiting Service provides commanders with examples of how
others are addressing recruiter irregularities, promotes consistent
application of actions in substantiated cases of recruiter
irregularities across the Air Force, and serves as a deterrent to
committing recruiter irregularities. Air Force recruiters we
interviewed also generally agreed that the recruiter irregularity
reports shared by the recruiting command have a strong deterring
effect because everyone knows what will happen if they commit an
irregularity.
In order to make improvements and promote knowledge sharing, leaders
at all levels of an organization need to receive information on a
regular basis about the problems that may be occurring across the
organization.[Footnote 33] Although the other service components have
some efforts in place to communicate and share limited information on
recruiter irregularities that occur within their service component,
information on the range of recruiter irregularities occurring is not
included or consistently shared with all levels within the recruiting
command. For example, according to recruiting command officials, the
U.S. Army Recruiting Command holds a quarterly meeting for
headquarters officials, including the Commanding General and
representatives from the Staff Judge Advocate's office, the Recruiting
Standards Division, and the Inspector General's office to review and
discuss trends in recruiter irregularities across the recruiting
command and determine if there is a need for additional training or
changes in policies to address any issues found. We also found that
all service components, at a minimum, occasionally share examples of
serious recruiter irregularities that have occurred or have been
showcased by the media as part of the continuous training provided to
recruiters on recruiter irregularity issues. However, without
processes that allow for the regular flow of recruiter irregularity
data from the headquarters to all command levels, commanders may not
be able to take full advantage of servicewide recruiter irregularity
data that would enable them to improve their operations. Further,
commanders may not be able to seize opportunities to learn from their
peers about shared experiences on handling recruiter irregularities.
OSD Implemented Recruiter Irregularity Reporting Requirements, but
Lacks Complete Oversight over Irregularities:
OSD Has Implemented Recruiter Irregularity Reporting Requirements,
Sponsored Research, and Provided Information-Sharing Opportunities on
Recruiter Irregularity Issues:
In December 2006, OSD issued the memorandum regarding the tracking and
reporting of recruiter irregularities by the service components.
[Footnote 34] The issuance of the memorandum constituted OSD's
response to our 2006 recommendation for OSD to establish an oversight
framework to assess recruiter irregularities, including criteria and
common definitions across the service components. Such oversight is
needed for OSD to have the tools for assessing and evaluating
recruiting programs to assure itself that program objectives are being
met--consistent with good management practices outlined in federal
internal control standards.[Footnote 35] The memorandum defined
recruiter irregularities, established specific categories for
classifying irregularities and dispositions, and included a reporting
template for the service components to use when providing recruiter
irregularity data to OSD on a semiannual basis--in January and July of
each year. OSD involved the service components in the development of
the memorandum by convening a meeting of representatives from each of
the service components to obtain their input on this guidance,
including input on the proposed terminology and the reporting
categories. OSD officials said that the issuance of the memorandum was
important to their oversight over recruiter irregularities because it
enabled them to monitor recruiter irregularities across the service
components over time.
Recruiting command officials we contacted reported familiarity with
the memorandum, and the service components have been providing
recruiter irregularity data to OSD semiannually, as required.
Recruiting command officials we interviewed reported using the
definitions in the memorandum when submitting their recruiter
irregularity data to OSD. In our review of the service components'
data compiled by OSD, we found that since the memorandum was issued,
all of the service components have been submitting semiannual reports
following the memorandum's reporting format. Recruiting command
officials we interviewed also reported updating data submitted to OSD
to reflect recently closed cases in accordance with the requirements
set forth in the memorandum.
In addition to obtaining and reviewing the recruiter irregularity data
submitted by the service components, OSD contracted with RAND to
conduct an analysis of recruiter irregularities across the service
components. Among the issues that RAND is examining are the effects of
recruiter irregularities on military readiness, public perceptions of
the military, and the effect that factors, such as deployment history
and recruiter incentives, have on the occurrence of recruiter
irregularities. RAND is expected to produce its report in February
2010. OSD officials said that once they obtain the results of both
RAND's and GAO's reviews, they will convene another meeting of
stakeholders from each of the service components to discuss recruiter
irregularity issues, including the service components' experiences
with reporting data on recruiter irregularities. Following this
meeting, OSD officials stated that a DOD instruction for the reporting
of recruiter irregularity data will be issued.[Footnote 36]
OSD also provides several opportunities for the sharing of information
on recruiter irregularities. For example, MEPCOM holds an annual
Commanders' Conference for representatives from the service components
to discuss a variety of issues, including recruiter irregularity
issues.[Footnote 37] Another example is the annual Leadership
Conference, which brings together recruiting command officials to
discuss various recruiting-related issues. Although OSD officials
explained that recruiter irregularities is not the only topic
addressed at these events and not every conference or meeting will
have recruiter irregularities on the agenda, these events provide
opportunities for officials from the service components to share their
experiences in addressing recruiter irregularities. Some recruiting
command officials said that they would like additional information on
what others are doing with respect to recruiter irregularities. For
example, Navy officials said that they would like OSD to share lessons
learned in addressing recruiter irregularities among the service
components, and Air Force officials also said that it would help if
OSD regularly provided the service components with DOD-wide recruiter
irregularity data to enable them to see if the other service
components are experiencing similar problems.[Footnote 38]
OSD Lacks Complete Oversight over Recruiter Irregularities Due to a
Lack of Clarity in the Memorandum:
Although issuing the memorandum was an important first step in
providing effective oversight over recruiter irregularities and
establishing the means for assessing OSD's programs related to
recruiter irregularities, OSD still lacks complete oversight over the
recruiter irregularities that are occurring because of inconsistencies
in what is reported to OSD and how reports are prepared. We found that
the inconsistencies in reporting were the result of differences in how
the service components interpreted the requirements in the memorandum,
interpreted the reporting categories in the memorandum, and reported
cases involving more than one type of irregularity or disposition.
Without more clarity, the service components may not be reporting the
recruiter irregularity data in the same manner, precluding meaningful
comparisons among them.
We found that the service components and the National Guard states do
not all interpret the requirements of the memorandum in the same
manner; specifically, some recruiting officials were uncertain about
the types of issues involving recruiters to include in the reporting.
For example, while the majority of the service components reported
only on irregularities committed by a recruiter when dealing with an
applicant or a recruit, the Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard
States, and five out of seven Army National Guard States[Footnote 39]
whose files we reviewed reported on all cases of recruiter
irregularities,[Footnote 40] including cases in which no applicant or
recruit was involved. Examples of these cases included recruiters
committing offenses such as adultery with a non-applicant,
inappropriate relationship with other military personnel, use of a
government vehicle for personal benefit, or submission of fraudulent
receipts for travel. OSD officials said that the memorandum is clear
on the need to report only those recruiter irregularities in which an
applicant is involved and the memorandum defines recruiter
irregularities as those willful and unwillful acts of omission and
improprieties that are perpetrated or alleged to be perpetrated by a
recruiter to facilitate the recruiting process for an applicant.
However, in some of our interviews with recruiting command officials,
we found that they were not clear about the need to report only
irregularities in which an applicant or a new recruit was involved.
Some officials explained that they included all cases of recruiter
irregularities because they wanted to be as transparent as possible in
reporting every case of a recruiter irregularity to OSD. In addition,
we identified at least one instance in which a state Air National
Guard unit was not reporting any recruiter irregularity cases that
were unsubstantiated, even though the memorandum specifically includes
a category for unsubstantiated cases. In our discussions with
officials in that location, they explained that they did not believe
that those cases should be reported to anyone at the National Guard
Bureau, and that it would help if OSD, through the National Guard
Bureau, provided clear guidance to the States and Territories on the
reporting of unsubstantiated cases.
We also found that the reporting categories in the memorandum were
seen as too broad and that the service components did not interpret
these categories in the same manner. First, some recruiting officials
said that the reporting categories in the memorandum are too broad to
provide them with a clear picture of the types of recruiter
irregularities that are occurring. For example, officials at the
Recruiting Standards Division of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command and
officials at the Navy Recruiting Command said that while they use the
memorandum's categories for reporting to OSD, they continue to rely on
their own internal reporting categories. The Recruiting Standards
Division has 12 categories and the Navy has more than 20 categories
that are used internally to provide a picture of the recruiter
irregularities that are occurring within their service components. For
example, while the memorandum has a single category for all types of
concealment or falsification, the Recruiting Standards Division
distinguishes among the specific types of information concealed, such
as medical information, prior police records, information on
dependents, or history of prior service. Likewise, while the
memorandum's categories do not specifically address cases where the
recruiter did not obtain appropriate parental consent for applicants
under the age of 18, the Navy has a specific category for parental
consent issues. Second, officials associated with the service
components that continue to use their internal reporting categories
acknowledged that decisions on how to place cases into one of the
eight reporting categories as required by the memorandum can be
subjective. For example, Navy officials told us that it is generally
up to the individual who compiles the service component's data for OSD
to decide how cases should be transferred from the Navy categories
into the broader categories outlined in the memorandum. Furthermore,
an official with the Inspector General's office of the Navy Recruiting
Command told us that the office's staff found the definitions and the
reporting categories in the memorandum confusing and that the Navy's
interpretation of these categories would likely differ from that of
the other service components.
Some recruiting officials said that the memorandum also lacks clarity
on how to report cases involving more than one type of irregularity or
more than one type of disposition. OSD officials said that they expect
the service components to report the more serious recruiter
irregularity category when more than one category applies, and
although we found that the service components generally did that, this
was not clearly communicated in the memorandum. For example, Army and
Air Force officials said that while they would handle such situations
by reporting the most egregious type in cases involving more than one
type of recruiter irregularity committed by the same recruiter, they
have not received guidance from OSD on this. Additionally, such
determinations will likely be made subjectively. For example,
reasonable officials may differ in their opinion on whether
falsification of documents is a more or less egregious case of a
recruiter irregularity than a false promise made to an applicant.
Similarly, some recruiting officials reported lack of clarity on how
to report cases involving more than one type of disposition. OSD
officials told us they expect the service components to report the
final disposition of a case. However, several recruiting officials
said that this has not been clearly communicated to them. For example,
officials from one of the Marine Corps recruiting districts that we
visited said that the memorandum is not clear on the reporting of
cases where more then one type of disposition applies, such as a
recruiter first receiving punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and then being removed from recruiting.
Several recruiting officials responsible for reporting said that they
are reporting preliminary actions against the recruiter even if the
data would later need to be changed once the final action in the case
is determined. For example, a Marine Corps recruiting official and an
official with the U.S. Army Recruiting Command's Staff Judge Advocate
Office explained that they would report the preliminary actions at the
time of required reporting. In fact, two Army case files that we
reviewed showed that while the cases were ultimately found to be
unsubstantiated, they were initially reported to OSD as having
resulted in non-adverse administrative action because recruiters were
temporarily suspended from recruiting while charges of inappropriate
sexual relationship and sexual assault against them were investigated.
[Footnote 41] However, other service components may not be approaching
this situation in the same manner. For example, Air Force recruiting
officials told us that they only report the final disposition to OSD
and not the preliminary actions. The memorandum does not explicitly
address how such situations should be handled in reporting.
OSD officials acknowledged that the service components may have
questions related to reporting, particularly given the relative
newness of the memorandum. OSD officials told us that after the
memorandum was issued in December 2006, their plan was to monitor the
service components' experiences with reporting and issue a DOD
instruction that would incorporate the guidance in the memorandum and
clarify any reporting issues that the service components might be
experiencing. However, 3 years after its issuance, the memorandum has
not been turned into a DOD instruction for the service components to
follow when reporting to OSD. At the time of this reporting, OSD
officials told us that they plan to wait for the issuance of this
report and the RAND study before issuing the instruction. However, the
continuing absence of definitive guidance may result in poor data
quality that would prevent OSD from having complete and consistent
information on recruiter irregularities across the service components
and the National Guard and compromise its ability to maintain
appropriate oversight over this important issue.
OSD Also Lacks Complete National Guard Data:
OSD does not receive complete information from the National Guard. The
memorandum applies to all service components, including the Army and
Air National Guards. Officials with the Army National Guard Strength
Maintenance Division and Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention
Service told us that following the issuance of the memorandum, they
began to request recruiter irregularity data from all States and
Territories, and provided them with the definitions and the reporting
template from the memorandum. The data from individual States and
Territories are then aggregated by the Army and Air National Guard
officials and forwarded to OSD.[Footnote 42] However, not all States
and Territories in the Army National Guard report their recruiter
irregularity data. As seen in figure 5, our review of the recruiter
irregularity data that the Army National Guard States and Territories
provided to the Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division in
January 2009 showed that 18 of the 54 States and Territories did not
provide the data for fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 43] During the July
2009 reporting cycle, 16 of the 54 States and Territories did not
report their recruiter irregularity data. Of the 38 that reported
data, the reporting period identified by the States and Territories on
their reports varied from State to State. For example, some reports
submitted in August 2009 covered the first 3 quarters of fiscal year
2009, others covered only the 2nd and 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2009,
and others only covered the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2009. Moreover,
two reports were not labeled, making it unclear what reporting period
they covered. Army National Guard officials acknowledged problems with
State reporting, but said that although they provide guidance based on
the memorandum to the States and Territories, they rely on them to
submit their data in accordance with that guidance.
Figure 5: Army National Guard States and Territories Reporting
Recruiter Irregularity Data for Fiscal Year 2008 during the January
2009 Reporting Cycle:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the United States]
Provided data for fiscal year 2008:
Alabama:
Arizona:
California:
Colorado:
Delaware:
Florida:
Georgia:
Guam:
Hawaii:
Idaho:
Indiana:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Louisiana:
Maine:
Minnesota:
Missouri:
Nebraska:
Nevada:
New Hampshire:
New Mexico:
New York:
North Carolina:
Ohio:
Oklahoma:
Pennsylvania:
Rhode Island:
South Carolina:
South Dakota:
Tennessee:
Utah:
Vermont:
Virgin Islands:
Washington:
West Virginia:
Wisconsin:
Did not provide data for fiscal year 2008:
Alaska:
Arkansas:
Connecticut:
District of Columbia:
Illinois:
Iowa:
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
Michigan:
Mississippi:
Montana:
New Jersey:
North Dakota:
Oregon:
Puerto Rico:
Texas:
Virginia:
Wyoming:
Source: GAO analysis of recruiter irregularity data submitted to the
Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division by the States and
Territories.
Note: Of the 36 States and Territories that reported their recruiter
irregularity data during the January 2009 reporting cycle, 3 only
provided the data for part of fiscal year 2008, and 4 did not provide
documentation of whether their data cover the full fiscal year 2008.
[End of figure]
OSD also lacks a complete picture of the total number of recruiter
irregularities occurring in the Air National Guard because of concerns
regarding the quality of the data. Although, according to the Air
National Guard, all States and Territories report their recruiter
irregularity data, OSD has raised questions about the quality of the
Air National Guard data. For example, when the Air National Guard
initially reported zero irregularities for both fiscal years 2007 and
2008, OSD officials expressed doubts about the absence of even a
single allegation of a recruiter irregularity in the Air National
Guard, particularly given that the report should include not only
substantiated cases but also those that are ultimately found to be
unsubstantiated. Following electronic communication from OSD regarding
this issue, the Air National Guard reported two cases of recruiter
irregularities for fiscal year 2008. Moreover, Air National Guard
officials have not maintained supporting documentation for the
information reported by each State and Territory. For example, one
Territory did not submit a report (either by mail or electronically)
during the January 2009 reporting cycle. An Air National Guard
official at the Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service
told us that this Territory reported having no recruiter
irregularities in a telephone conversation with his office, but
documentation of this conversation does not exist. The absence of such
documentation raises questions about the accuracy and completeness of
the data that the Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service
receives.
Both Army and Air National Guard officials told us that although they
follow up with the States and Territories, they cannot force them to
comply. Officials said that they follow up with States and Territories
via e-mail or telephone if the reports appear to contain obvious
mistakes, such as the totals not adding up to the numbers reported in
each individual reporting category. They also follow up if no reports
have been submitted. However, they said that it is ultimately up to
individual States and Territories to submit their reports because the
National Guard Bureau has no command and control authority over them.
Specifically, while the National Guard Bureau personnel operate under
Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the National Guard personnel at the state
level typically operate under Title 32. Consequently, even though the
National Guard Bureau can direct States and Territories to submit
their recruiter irregularity data in accordance with the memorandum,
officials told us that they have no mechanism to force States and
Territories to comply.
While the National Guard Bureau cannot force States and Territories to
comply with the reporting requirements in the memorandum, it has not
been transparent with respect to the total numbers reported to OSD,
thus preventing OSD from having a complete picture of recruiter
irregularities that occur in the National Guard. The Army and Air
National Guard officials aggregate the data that they receive from the
States and Territories and report the total numbers to OSD. However,
no information is provided on how many States or Territories did not
submit their recruiter irregularity reports or whether any of these
reports failed to cover the full reporting period. OSD officials
acknowledged that the Army National Guard Strength Maintenance
Division and the Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service
within the National Guard Bureau obtain recruiter irregularity data
from the States and Territories and that each State and Territory
maintains its own processes for collecting these data. However, while
aware of this, OSD does not request that the National Guard officials
provide caveats or any other explanatory notes on the limitations of
the recruiter irregularity data when submitting these data to OSD.
Consequently, OSD's own reports summarizing the recruiter irregularity
data received from the service components and the National Guard do
not disclose any limitations of the data on which they are based.
Conclusions:
Recruiters work in a challenging environment and play a critical role
in providing the military services with qualified men and women
prepared to serve their country. Although instances of recruiter
wrongdoing are infrequent, even a single case can undermine the trust
that the American public has in its military. The service components
recognize this reality, and all have made substantial progress since
2006 in increasing their oversight over recruiter irregularities. In
particular, all service components have established procedures for
reporting cases of recruiter irregularities up the chain of command.
While these systems assure that their recruiting command headquarters
receive regular reports on recruiter irregularities, the Air Force is
unique in sharing recruiter irregularity data regularly with all of
the different levels of command to provide opportunities for
commanders at all levels to compare their progress in addressing
recruiter irregularities with the other recruiting units and to learn
from their experiences. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps could benefit
from doing likewise. OSD has also taken steps to increase its
oversight over recruiter irregularities occurring across the service
components by implementing semiannual reporting requirements and
establishing common definitions for the service components to use.
While these are important first steps, in order for the reporting
requirements to have a meaningful effect, it is critical that the
services fully understand them and uniformly report accurate data.
Without OSD monitoring and promptly addressing problems that the
service components may experience with respect to reporting their
recruiter irregularity data, the quality of the data received by OSD
from the service components could be compromised. Furthermore, OSD's
ability to rely on the data provided will be significantly diminished
if OSD does not receive complete information on which National Guard
States and Territories submit the data and how complete their data
are. While the National Guard Bureau cannot force States and
Territories to comply with the reporting requirements, at the very
least it must be transparent about the completeness of the data that
it provides to OSD. Without such transparency from the National Guard
Bureau, OSD will not be able to meaningfully analyze recruiter
irregularity trends across the service components and identify areas
where corrective action may be needed.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following four
actions:
1. direct the Secretaries of the Army and Navy to identify mechanisms
for the regular sharing of the recruiter irregularity data throughout
all levels of command, and:
2. direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
to:
* complete and issue the instruction on tracking and reporting data on
recruiter irregularities to clarify the requirements for the types of
recruiter irregularities to be reported and the placement of recruiter
irregularity cases and actions taken into reporting categories;
* direct the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau to
adjust their reporting procedures in ways that will provide
transparency in the data reported to OSD and any limitations on the
data; and:
* include the appropriate disclosures concerning data limitations in
the recruiter irregularity reports that OSD produces on the basis of
the National Guard data for the Congress and others.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of the report, DOD concurred with each
of our four recommendations. Specifically, DOD stated that it will
address these recommendations through a DOD instruction that it plans
to publish. Regarding our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy to identify mechanisms
for the regular sharing of recruiter irregularity data throughout all
levels of command, DOD stated that the sharing of these data already
occurs, and that the Army and the Navy have clarified their reporting
processes. We agree that the service components have made progress in
establishing systems that have allowed for more consistent tracking
and reporting of the recruiter irregularity data, and our report
highlighted instances of such data being shared within the service
components. However, we continue to believe that in order for
commanders to continually evaluate and improve their recruiting
operations, processes must be in place for the regular flow of such
information. DOD said that its soon-to-be-published instruction will
require the service components to formalize their processes for
disseminating the recruiter irregularity data to the appropriate
levels of command. We believe that these formal processes will
constitute an important step in ensuring that recruiter irregularity
information is shared in a consistent and timely manner. DOD also
agreed with our recommendations that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to (1)
complete and issue the instruction on tracking and reporting recruiter
irregularity data that clarifies the reporting requirements, (2)
direct the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau to adjust
their reporting procedures in order to provide greater transparency in
the data reported, and (3) include the appropriate disclosures
concerning any limitations in the data it receives. DOD said that it
decided to wait to issue the instruction until this GAO study is
complete, in order to incorporate our recommendations, and that it
plans to publish the instruction during fiscal year 2010 after
reconvening representatives from the service components to discuss
their reporting processes and procedures for the tracking and
reporting of recruiter irregularity data. DOD's comments in their
entirety appear in appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the
Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3604 or by e-mail at farrellb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to the report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
For this review, we analyzed recruiter irregularities across all of
the service components: the Army and Army Reserve, the Navy and Navy
Reserve, the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve, and the Air Force
and Air Force Reserve. In addition, we analyzed recruiter
irregularities in the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.
For the purposes of this review, the term recruiter irregularity is
defined according to the memorandum issued by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) as those willful and unwillful acts of
omission and improprieties that are perpetrated by a recruiter or
alleged to be perpetrated by a recruiter to facilitate the recruiting
process for an applicant.
To conduct our work, we examined relevant guidance issued by OSD, the
service components, the Army National Guard, and the Air National
Guard; reviewed and analyzed data on recruiter irregularities reported
by the service components to OSD from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal
year 2009; and reviewed reports issued by GAO and the Department of
Defense (DOD) related to recruiting and recruiter irregularities,
including surveys conducted by DOD on recruiters' quality of life
across the service components.[Footnote 44] In addition, we conducted
a case file review of all substantiated cases of recruiter
irregularities reported by the service components for fiscal year
2008, and a case file review of all substantiated cases of recruiter
irregularities reported by seven States on recruiter irregularities
committed by recruiters in the Army National Guard for fiscal year
2008.[Footnote 45] We interviewed OSD officials in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area and conducted site visits to service
components' recruiting commands and the Military Entrance Processing
Command (MEPCOM) to interview recruiting command officials and
recruiters from all the service components. We selected our interviews
with 24 recruiters using a nonprobability convenience sample to
accommodate our 10 site visits.[Footnote 46] In the course of our
work, we contacted or visited the organizations and offices listed in
table 9.
Table 9: Organizations and Offices Contacted:
Air Force:
Name of organization or office: Air Force Recruiting Service;
Location: Randolph Air Force Base, TX.
Name of organization or office: Air Force Recruiting School;
Location: Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
Name of organization or office: Air Force 369th Recruiting Group;
Location: Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
Name of organization or office: Air Force 341st Recruiting Squadron;
Location: Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
Name of organization or office: Air Force Recruiting B-Flight;
Location: San Antonio, TX[A].
Name of organization or office: Air Force Recruiting Stations;
Location: Schaumberg, IL.
Location: Louisville, KY.
Location: Mira Mesa, CA.
Location: Washington, D.C.
Air Force Reserve:
Name of organization or office: Air Force Reserve Command Recruiting
Service;
Location: Warner Robins, GA.
Name of organization or office: Air Force Reserve Recruiting Station;
Location: San Antonio, TX.
Air National Guard:
Name of organization or office: National Guard Bureau-Air National
Guard Recruiting and Retention Service;
Location: Arlington, VA.
Name of organization or office: Air National Guard Recruiting Station
149th Fighter Wing;
Location: Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
Army:
Name of organization or office: Army Recruiting Command;
Location: Fort Knox, KY.
Name of organization or office: Army Recruiting and Retention School;
Location: Fort Jackson, SC.
Name of organization or office: Army 1st Recruiting Brigade;
Location: Fort Meade, MD.
Name of organization or office: Army 3rd Medical Recruiting Brigade;
Location: Fort Knox, KY.
Name of organization or office: Army Baltimore Recruiting Battalion;
Location: Fort Meade, MD.
Name of organization or office: Army Recruiting Stations;
Location:
Elizabethtown, KY.
Location: Lemon Grove, CA.
Location: Radcliff, KY.
Location: Washington, D.C.
Location: Chicago, IL[A].
Army National Guard:
Name of organization or office: National Guard Bureau-Army National
Guard Strength Maintenance Division;
Location: Arlington, VA.
Name of organization or office: Army National Guard Strength
Maintenance Training Center;
Location: Little Rock, AR.
Name of organization or office: Illinois Army National Guard,
Recruiting;
Location: Chicago, IL[A].
Name of organization or office: Army National Guard Recruiting Station;
Location: Chicago, IL[A].
Marine Corps:
Name of organization or office: Marine Corps Recruiting Command;
Location: Quantico, VA.
Name of organization or office: Marine Corps Recruiters School;
Location: San Diego, CA.
Name of organization or office: Marine Corps Western Recruiting Region;
Location: San Diego, CA.
Name of organization or office: 12th Marine Corps Recruiting District;
Location: San Diego, CA.
Name of organization or office: 4th Marine Corps Recruiting District;
Location: New Cumberland, PA.
Name of organization or office: Marine Corps Recruiting Stations;
Location: Frederick, MD.
Location: San Diego, CA.
Name of organization or office: Marine Corps Recruiting Substations;
Location: Louisville, KY.
Location: Chicago, IL[A].
Location: Poway, CA.
Location: Washington, D.C.
Navy:
Name of organization or office: Navy Recruiting Command;
Location: Millington, TN.
Name of organization or office: Navy Recruiting Command, Recruit
Quality Assurance Team;
Location: Great Lakes, IL.
Name of organization or office: Navy Recruiting District Chicago;
Location: North Chicago, IL.
Name of organization or office: Navy Recruiting Stations;
Location: Escondido, CA.
Location: Louisville, KY.
Location: Washington, D.C.
National Guard Bureau:
Name of organization or office: Office of the Chief Counsel;
Location: Arlington, VA.
Office of the Secretary of Defense:
Name of organization or office: Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name of organization or office: Military Entrance Processing Command;
Location: North Chicago, IL.
Name of organization or office: Military Entrance Processing Stations;
Location: Fort Meade, MD.
Location: Des Plaines, IL.
Location: Louisville, KY.
Location: San Diego, CA.
Source: GAO.
[A] For cases where we interviewed recruiters away from their
recruiting station location, the metropolitan location is indicated.
[End of table]
To assess the number and types of recruiter irregularities occurring in
the service components, we obtained and reviewed recruiter irregularity
data reported by the service components to OSD from fiscal year 2006
through fiscal year 2009, and the service components' accessions data
for the same time period. We were unable to present trends in recruiter
irregularities from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009 and
decided not to present data for fiscal year 2009 because (1) the
memorandum issued by OSD in December 2006 required the service
components to retroactively collect recruiter irregularity data for
fiscal year 2006 to report to OSD, which may have resulted in the
fiscal year 2006 data being less complete than the data in subsequent
fiscal years and (2) recruiter irregularity data reported by the
service components for fiscal year 2009 do not include data from the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year, which will not be reported until
January 2010. We interviewed officials within the Army National Guard
Strength Maintenance Division and the Air National Guard Recruiting and
Retention Service about their data system for tracking and maintaining
recruiter irregularity data and determined that these data were not
reliable. Specifically, we were unable to present data on recruiter
irregularities reported by the National Guard because recruiter
irregularity data are maintained at the state level of command and we
did not review each state's processes and procedures for collecting and
maintaining these data. Furthermore, while some States and Territories
reported their recruiter irregularity data to the Army National Guard
Strength Maintenance Division and the Air National Guard Recruiting and
Retention Service within the National Guard Bureau in accordance with
the memorandum, others did not consistently report their data or did
not report them at all. In addition, we assessed the reliability of
each service component's recruiter irregularity data system, including
the systems' ability to track and maintain recruiter irregularities.
For each service component, we also interviewed personnel responsible
for maintaining and overseeing these data systems. Additionally, we
assessed the quality control measures in place to ensure that the data
are reliable for reporting purposes. We found the recruiter
irregularity data reported by the service components to be sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this review.
To provide illustrative examples of the types of recruiter
irregularities that occur across the service components and the actions
taken against recruiters involved in recruiter irregularities, we
conducted a case file review of all substantiated cases of recruiter
irregularities reported by each of the service components and closed in
fiscal year 2008. We reviewed a total of 346 case files for all the
service components: Air Force (16), Air Force Reserve (7), Army (138),
Army National Guard (53), Marine Corps (69), and Navy (63). The number
of case files that we reviewed for fiscal year 2008 did not always
reflect the total number of cases reported to OSD for the same year
because some cases may have been closed and reported to OSD following
our review of the case files. Although we included the Army National
Guard in our case file review, we selected a nongeneralizeable sample
of States for our case file review because the National Guard Bureau
does not maintain centralized data on cases of recruiter
irregularities. We selected States that reported more than four
substantiated recruiter irregularities for fiscal year 2008. These
States and their corresponding number of substantiated cases of
recruiter irregularities as reported for fiscal year 2008 are: Alabama
(10), California (20), Indiana (7), Minnesota (6), Oklahoma (8),
Pennsylvania (5), and Wisconsin (7).[Footnote 47]
To assess the extent to which the service components have guidance in
place to identify and address recruiter irregularities, we reviewed the
guidance issued by the service components on recruiter irregularities
and their procedures for reporting allegations, conducting
investigations, and adjudicating cases of recruiter irregularities
within the recruiting commands. We interviewed recruiting command
officials and recruiters from the service components to gain their
perspective on the causes of recruiter irregularities, the guidance in
place to address them, and training and prevention programs aimed at
reducing them. We also obtained their views on the fairness of the
actions taken against recruiters as a result of their involvement in
recruiter irregularity incidents, the deterring effect of those actions
taken, and the consistency with which actions are applied. To determine
the extent to which the relevant offices within the National Guard
Bureau maintain oversight over recruiter irregularities occurring in
the Army and Air National Guards, we examined the guidance issued by
the Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division and the Air
National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service. However, we did not
review National Guard guidance issued by the 54 individual National
Guard States and Territories due to time and staffing limitations.
To assess the extent to which OSD maintains oversight of recruiter
irregularities occurring across the service components, we reviewed the
December 2006 memorandum issued by OSD that requires each service
component to submit a semiannual report to OSD on recruiter
irregularities. We conducted interviews with officials from OSD's
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
as well as officials from MEPCOM and 4 military entrance processing
stations. We also interviewed service component officials to obtain
their perspective on the memorandum and their experiences in addressing
the reporting requirements it sets forth. We also interviewed OSD and
National Guard officials on reporting issues within the National Guard.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2009 through January
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Examples of Recruiter Irregularities in Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 10 provides examples that we identified in the course of our
review of the service components' files of recruiter irregularities for
fiscal year 2008--in addition to those provided in table 6 of this
report--illustrating each recruiter irregularity category in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense's memorandum.
Table 10: Examples of Substantiated Recruiter Irregularities by Type,
Fiscal Year 2008:
Recruiter irregularity category: Criminal misconduct;
Example: A recruiter became aggressive with a recruit and engaged in a
verbal altercation with the recruit's boyfriend (Navy).
Example: A recruiter committed multiple irregularities, which included
sexually harassing a recruit and high school students, meeting with
female recruits without adequate supervision, influencing a recruit to
lie to recruiter irregularity investigators, and failing to safely
transport applicants in a government vehicle (Army).
Recruiter irregularity category: Sexual misconduct;
Example: A recruiter consumed alcohol with applicants and engaged in
inappropriate sexual conduct (Air Force).
Example: A recruiter engaged in a sexual relationship with a 16 year-
old applicant (Marine Corps).
Recruiter irregularity category: Sexual harassment;
Example: A recruiter inappropriately touched a recruit while taking an
unsupervised body fat measurement of the recruit (Navy).
Example: A recruiter made sexually suggestive comments to an applicant
(Marine Corps).
Recruiter irregularity category: Fraternization or unauthorized
relationship with an applicant;
Example: A recruiter visited an applicant's home twice without
supervision and kissed the applicant (Army National Guard).
Example: A recruiter purchased alcohol for an underage recruit and
consumed it with him (Marine Corps).
Recruiter irregularity category: Concealment or falsification;
Example: A recruiter falsified the results of a required physical
fitness test for two recruits (Army).
Example: A recruiter withheld medical documents from an applicant's
application packet; the applicant had been previously temporarily
disqualified from service for a hairline fracture (Air Force).
Recruiter irregularity category: False promise/coercion;
Example: A recruiter employed a false document and an individual who
impersonated a Navy officer to falsely assure a recruit that the
recruit would be able to change her military occupation upon her
arrival at basic training (Navy).
Example: A recruiter conducted himself inappropriately with a recruit
who expressed a reluctance to ship to basic training before he had
cleared up a family issue (Army).
Recruiter irregularity category: Testing irregularity;
Example: A recruiter arranged for another individual to take the ASVAB
for a recruit (Army National Guard).
Example: A recruiter provided a recruit with an unauthorized ASVAB
study guide (Marine Corps).
Recruiter irregularity category: Quality control measures;
Example: A recruiter was found to have in his possession a template of
a child custody form, despite this being a violation of Army
regulations (Army).
Example: A recruiter authorized the enlistment of a recruit who was
subsequently disqualified at the MEPS for testing positive on a drug
test (Air Force Reserve).
Source: GAO analysis of recruiter irregularity case files provided by
the service components.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Examples of Dispositions in Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 11 provides examples that we identified in the course of our
review of the service components' files of recruiter irregularities for
fiscal year 2008--in addition to those provided in table 8 of this
report--illustrating the violation disposition categories set out in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense's memorandum.
Table 11: Examples of Dispositions, Fiscal Year 2008:
Disposition category: Court martial/civil conviction;
Example: For engaging in an intimate relationship with an applicant, a
recruiter was court-martialed, reduced in rank, confined for 30 days,
given 30 days of hard labor, and made to forfeit $1,000 per month for
3 months (Air Force).
Example: For providing a recruit with the answers to the ASVAB, a
recruiter was court-martialed, reduced in rank, and discharged with an
"other than honorable discharge" (Army).
Disposition category: Removed from service;
Example: For submitting false high school diplomas in order to
fraudulently enlist five recruits who did not meet minimum educational
enlistment qualifications, a recruiter was removed from service
(Marine Corps).
Example: For instructing two recruits to conceal their criminal
records at their MEPS processing, a recruiter was removed from service
(Navy).
Disposition category: Removed from recruiting;
Example: For allowing a recruit to use his government vehicle and
government credit card, a recruiter was removed from recruiting duty
(Marine Corps).
Example: For falsifying high school verification letters for five
applicants, a recruiter was removed from recruiting (Army).
Disposition category: Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment;
Example: For falsifying information about references on a recruit's
background investigation forms, a recruiter received article 15 Non-
Judicial Punishment, whereby he was reduced in rank, made to forfeit
$500 per month for 2 months, and reprimanded (Air Force).
Example: For forging multiple signatures in a recruit's application
packet, a recruiter received article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment,
whereby he was reduced in rank and made to forfeit half of one month's
pay for 2 months (Navy).
Disposition category: Adverse administrative action;
Example: For allowing a recruit to ship to basic training despite the
recruit having an unresolved criminal violation on her record, a
recruiter received a letter of reprimand from his recruiting battalion
commander (Army).
Example: For failing to perform an adequate medical pre-screening of
recruits, a recruiter received a letter of reprimand from his
recruiting squadron commander (Air Force).
Disposition category: Non-adverse administrative action;
Example: For enlisting an applicant who was
not eligible for enlistment, a recruiter received counseling. (Army
National Guard).
Disposition category: Administrative or processing error;
Example: For failing to properly question an applicant, and thus
failing to uncover that the applicant had not completed a legal
probation sentence, a recruiter was judged to have committed a
recruiter error (Army).
Example: For failing to conduct an initial fitness test for a recruit,
a recruiter was judged to have committed a recruiter error. (Navy).
Source: GAO analysis of recruiter irregularity case files provided by
the service components.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-4000:
January 14, 2010:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense's (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Military Recruiting:
Clarified Reporting Requirements and Increased Transparency Could
Strengthen Oversight over Recruiter Irregularities," dated December 8,
2009 (GAO Code 351327/GA0-10-254).
The Department concurs with the report's recommendations. We will work
with each of the Services to improve the sharing of recruiter
irregularity data, to clarify our reporting guidance, and to provide
greater data transparency regarding data limitations. This guidance
will be promulgated in a new DoD Instruction.
We certainly agree with the GAO statement that instances of recruiter
wrongdoing are infrequent, but that even a single case can undermine
the trust that the American public has in its military. We take this
issue very seriously and, as noted in the report, we have made
substantial progress since the GAO's 2006 report addressing this same
issue. The Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
will work in concert with the Services to implement the appropriate
recommendations in a timely manner. We believe these actions can be
completed during FY 2010.
The enclosure contains detailed departmental comments on each of the
four recommendations identified by GAO. The Department appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Gail H. McGinn:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Plans):
Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness):
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated December 8, 2009:
GA0-10-254 (GAO Code 351327):
"Military Recruiting: Clarified Reporting Requirements And Increased
Transparency Could Strengthen Oversight Over Recruiter Irregularities"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Secretaries of the Army and Navy to identify mechanisms for the
regular sharing of the recruiter irregularity data throughout all
levels of command (p. 46/GAO Draft Report).
DOD Response: Concur.
Currently, each of the Services shares the recruiter irregularity data
throughout all levels of command. Both Army and Navy have clarified
their processes, and we are confident these processes accomplish the
intent identified by GAO. However, in its soon to be published
instruction, DoD plans to require each Service to formally establish a
process which will ensure the widest possible dissemination of these
data to the appropriate levels of command and other outside agencies.
Recommendation 2: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to complete
and issue the instruction on tracking and reporting data on recruiter
irregularities to clarify the requirements for the types of recruiter
irregularities to be reported and the placement of recruiter
irregularity cases and actions taken into reporting categories (p.
46/GAO Draft Report).
DOD Response: Concur.
In February 2009, when GAO announced this audit, DoD had already
planned to reconvene its workgroup comprised of each of the Services
and Components to review current processes and policies prior to
publishing an instruction. DoD decided to delay convening the
workgroup until the GAO audit was complete so that it could include
the recommendations of the audit where appropriate. The new
instruction should be published during FY 2010.
Recommendation 3: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to direct
the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau to adjust their
reporting procedures in ways that will provide transparency in the
data reported to OSD and any limitations on the data (p. 46/GAO Draft
Report).
DOD Response: Concur.
DoD will work closely with representatives from the Army National
Guard and the Air National Guard to ensure the guidance provided in
the new instruction is sufficient to ensure complete and accurate
reporting of the data. The new guidance will provide justification for
each agency to publish internal policies and procedures that will
establish more stringent reporting requirements.
Recommendation 4: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to include
the appropriate disclosures concerning data limitations in the
recruiter irregularity reports that OSD produces on the basis of the
National Guard data for the Congress and others (p. 47/GAO Draft
Report).
DOD Response: Concur.
DoD will work closely with representatives from the Army National
Guard and the Air National Guard to ensure the guidance provided in
the new instruction is sufficient to ensure complete and accurate
reporting of the data. The new guidance will provide justification for
each agency to publish internal policies and procedures that will
establish more stringent reporting requirements. In future reports, if
data are incomplete, it will be so noted as data limitations.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Elizabeth McNally, Assistant
Director; Natalya Barden; Seth Carlson; K. Nicole Harms; Joanne
Landesman; Katherine Lenane; Amber Lopez; Steven Putansu; Terry
Richardson; and Daniel Webb made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] ’Service components“ refers to the Army, the Army Reserve, the
Marine Corps, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Navy, the Navy Reserve,
the Air Force, and the Air Force Reserve.
[2] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness Memorandum, Tracking and Reporting of Recruiter
Irregularities (Dec. 21, 2006).
[3] OSD groups recruiter irregularities into the following eight
categories: criminal misconduct; sexual misconduct; sexual harassment;
fraternization or unauthorized relationship with an applicant;
concealment or falsification; testing irregularity; false promise or
coercion; and quality control measures, which are irregularities
resulting from administrative oversight.
[4] GAO, Military Recruiting: DOD and Services Need Better Data to
Enhance Visibility over Recruiter Irregularities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-846] (Washington, D.C.: August 8,
2006).
[5] An OSD official also told us that MEPCOM only receives information
on a subset of recruiter irregularities that are identified while the
applicants are being processed at one of its military entrance
processing stations, and would not know about irregularities that may
come to light through other sources. MEPCOM has no direct command and
control authority over the service components‘ recruiters, but is
required to refer any allegations of recruiter irregularities that it
identifies to the recruiter‘s commanders within the appropriate
service component.
[6] United States Army Recruiting Command Regulation 601-45,
Recruiting Improprieties Policies and Procedures (July 13, 2009);
Marine Corps Order 1130.65A, Total Force Recruiting Quality Control
(Feb. 20, 1987); Navy Recruiting Command Instruction 1137.3,
Investigating and Reporting of Allegations and Complaints (Apr. 3,
2009); Air Force Recruiting Service Instruction 36-2001, Recruiting
Procedures for the Air Force (Apr.1, 2005); Air Force Reserve Command
Instruction 36-2001, Air Force Reserve Recruiting Procedures (June 1,
2009).
[7] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June
1996); and GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of
Performance Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: September
9, 2005).
[8] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness Memorandum, Tracking and Reporting of Recruiter
Irregularities (Dec. 21, 2006).
[9] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[10] Frontline recruiters are those recruiting personnel who directly
interact with applicants in the recruiting process.
[11] The Army Recruiting Command is located at Fort Knox, Kentucky;
the Navy Recruiting Command is located in Millington, Tennessee; the
Marine Corps Recruiting Command is located at Quantico, Virginia; the
Air Force Recruiting Service is located at Randolph Air Force Base,
Texas; and the Air Force Reserve Command Recruiting Service is located
at Warner Robins, Georgia.
[12] The MEPS are under the direction and control of MEPCOM, which is
under the direct operational authority of the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Military Personnel Policy within the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. MEPCOM‘s role
is to ensure that all service applicants meet DOD standards for
enlistment.
[13] The ASVAB test can also be administered to applicants at their
high school or a Military Entrance Test site.
[14] The Army National Guard refers to its delayed entry program as
the Recruit Sustainment Program.
[15] The determination of whether a reported recruiter irregularity
within the service components is substantiated or unsubstantiated is
made by commanders within a recruiter‘s chain of command based on a
review of the facts of an investigation.
[16] OSD‘s memorandum groups recruiter irregularities into the
following eight categories: criminal misconduct; sexual misconduct;
sexual harassment; fraternization or unauthorized relationship with an
applicant; concealment or falsification; testing irregularity; false
promise or coercion; and quality control measures, which are
irregularities resulting from administrative oversight.
[17] The categories established by OSD for the service components to
use in reporting are: court-martial/civil conviction, removed from
service, removed from recruiting, Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment,
adverse administrative action, non-adverse administrative action,
administrative or processing error, unsubstantiated, action pending,
and an on-going investigation.
[18] United States Army Recruiting Command Regulation 601-45,
Recruiting Improprieties Policies and Procedures (July 13, 2009);
Marine Corps Order 1130.65A, Total Force Recruiting Quality Control
(Feb. 20, 1987); Navy Recruiting Command Instruction 1137.3,
Investigating and Reporting of Allegations and Complaints (Apr. 3,
2009); Air Force Recruiting Service Instruction 36-2001, Recruiting
Procedures for the Air Force (Apr. 1, 2005); Air Force Reserve Command
Instruction 36-2001, Air Force Reserve Recruiting Procedures (June 1,
2009).
[19] United States Army Recruiting Command Regulation 601-45,
Recruiting Improprieties Policies and Procedures (July 13, 2009).
[20] Marine Corps Order 1130.65A, Total Force Recruiting Quality
Control (Feb. 20, 1987).
[21] According to 10 U.S.C. §10501, the National Guard Bureau is a
joint activity of the Department of Defense, and is a channel of
communication on all matters pertaining to the National Guard between
the Departments of the Army and the Air Force and the states.
[22] National Guard Regulation 601-1, Personnel-Procurement: Army
National Guard Strength Maintenance Program (Apr. 28, 2006); Air
National Guard Instruction 36-2602, Air National Guard Recruiting
Expenditures and Management of Recruiting and Retention Programs (Mar.
28, 1997).
[23] National Guard recruiters that recruit under Title 10”such as
Reserve Component Career Counselors who recruit servicemen and
servicewomen that are separating from active duty”are subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and service component guidance in the
event they commit a recruiter irregularity.
[24] The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003, Pub. L. No. 107-314, §512 (2002), directed the Secretary of
Defense to prepare a model state code of military justice and a model
state manual for courts-martial to recommend to the states for use
with respect to the National Guard when not in federal service.
[25] The determination of the appropriate unit commander can be based
on a number of factors, to include where the recruiter irregularity
investigation was initiated, the seriousness of the allegation, and
the type of action that is recommended. The following service
component recruiting command levels can be involved in the
investigation review and adjudication process: Army”recruiting
command, recruiting brigade, or recruiting battalion; Navy”recruiting
region or recruiting district; Marine Corps”recruiting command,
recruiting region, recruiting district, or recruiting station; Air
Force”recruiting command, recruiting group, or recruiting squadron;
and Air Force Reserve”recruiting command, recruiting squadron, or
recruiting station.
[26] The service components‘ quality control checks are further
complemented by the checks done at the MEPS to identify any
discrepancies in the enlistment paperwork, such as signature
verification and the use of biometrics (i.e., technologies that
automate the identification of people by distinct physical or
behavioral characteristics, such as fingerprint recognition).
[27] This policy is referred to as the ’buddy“ policy by the Army‘s
active and reserve components and as the ’no one alone“ policy by the
Army National Guard.
[28] The Army Recruiting and Retention School is located at Fort
Jackson, South Carolina; the Navy Recruiting Orientation Unit is
located at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Pensacola, Florida; the Marine
Corps Recruiters School is located at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San
Diego, California; the Air Force Recruiting School is located at
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; and the Army National Guard Strength
Maintenance Training Center is located at Camp Robinson, Arkansas. Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard recruiters attend the Air Force
Recruiting School in Texas.
[29] The Army includes, among others, the following individuals in its
definition of a qualifying person: a family member (18 or older),
recruiter, applicant (male or female, 18 or older), and future soldier
(male or female).
[30] GAO, Military Recruiting: DOD and Services Need Better Data to
Enhance Visibility Over Recruiter Irregularities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-846] (Washington, D.C.: August 8,
2006).
[31] Air Force Reserve Command Instruction 36-2001, Air Force Reserve
Recruiting Procedures (June 1, 2009).
[32] The Air Force Recruiting Service develops and distributes the
following reports on recruiter irregularities with personally
identifying information left out: a monthly report to the Commander of
the Air Force Recruiting Service, recruiting squadron commanders, and
recruiting group commanders, which covers recruiter irregularities
that resulted or may potentially result in a courts-martial; a monthly
newsletter to all recruiting personnel, which covers recruiter
irregularities that resulted in courts-martial, removal from
recruiting, or removal from service; a quarterly report to all
recruiting personnel, which covers recruiter irregularities that
resulted in a letter of reprimand or a more serious action.
[33] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June
1996); and GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of
Performance Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: September
9, 2005).
[34] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness Memorandum, Tracking and Reporting of Recruiter
Irregularities (Dec. 21, 2006).
[35] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[36] The memorandum states that the guidance that it contains shall be
incorporated into a DOD instruction, but does not specify when such an
instruction should be issued.
[37] MEPCOM is overseen by the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Military Personnel Policy, which is one of the offices
within OSD.
[38] OSD officials said that they shared the data on recruiter
irregularities with the service components. However, they said that
the recruiting command personnel change frequently as existing
personnel are reassigned to other posts, which may necessitate more
frequent sharing of information.
[39] An official from the Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention
Service did not know whether all Air National Guard States and
Territories were reporting on cases of recruiter irregularities that
did not involve applicants or recruits.
[40] One of the Army National Guard States whose case files we
reviewed only included cases involving applicants; however, an
official with that State indicated that he would generally include all
cases of recruiter irregularities in his report to the Army National
Guard Strength Maintenance Division, even those not involving
applicants or recruits.
[41] Both soldiers were then reinstated to their recruiting duties
after allegations against them were found to be unsubstantiated, and
the disposition was updated in the subsequent report to OSD.
[42] Unless otherwise noted, Army and Air National Guard officials
refer to officials from the Army National Guard Strength Maintenance
Division and the Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention Service
within the National Guard Bureau.
[43] Another State submitted a report for fiscal year 2008 in August
2009, 6 months after it was due in January 2009.
[44] Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies, 2008 Recruiter
Quality of Life Survey Topline Report (August 2008); and Joint
Advertising, Market Research and Studies, 2005 Recruiter Quality of
Life Survey Topline Report (February 2006).
[45] The Air National Guard was excluded from the case file review as
they had reported zero recruiter irregularities for fiscal year 2008 at
the time of our case file review. The Air National Guard later reported
two recruiter irregularities for fiscal year 2008 after the case file
review had been completed.
[46] Out of the 24 recruiters that we interviewed, 8 held supervisory
positions, such as recruiting station commander and flight chief.
[47] Although the total number of substantiated recruiter
irregularities
reported by these States was 63 in fiscal year 2008, we received and
reviewed 53 case files. This is because in some case files, there was
more than one recruiter involved in the recruiter irregularity
incident. While the service components may maintain a single case file
for a case involving multiple recruiters, they report to OSD on each
individual recruiter who committed or was alleged to have committed a
recruiter irregularity.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
