This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-71 
entitled 'Defense Management: Actions Needed to Ensure National Guard 
and Reserve Headquarters Are Sized to be Efficient' which was released 
on December 11, 2013. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

November 2013: 

Defense Management: 

Actions Needed to Ensure National Guard and Reserve Headquarters Are 
Sized to be Efficient: 

GAO-14-71: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-71, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

DOD has sought to reduce costs by assessing headquarters and overhead 
functions. Both the Army and Air Force have two reserve components-—a 
National Guard and Reserve-—that have at least 75 headquarters located
throughout the United States, its territories, and overseas that manage
subordinate units or perform overhead functions. These headquarters 
have a mix of full-time and part-time personnel. GAO was asked to review
issues related to reserve-component headquarters. This report (1) 
discusses trends in funded positions at reserve-component headquarters 
and (2) evaluates the extent to which DOD has established and 
implemented processes to efficiently size its reserve-component
headquarters. To do so, GAO reviewed statutes and DOD guidance, 
analyzed personnel data and headquarters assessments, and interviewed 
DOD and state officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Between fiscal years 2009 and 2013, the total number of funded 
positions—-both full-time support and part-time-—at the Department of 
Defense’s (DOD) 75 Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve (Reserves) 
component headquarters grew from about 30,200 to 31,900 positions 
(about 6 percent overall). Some organizations grew more markedly, 
among them the National Guard Bureau (17 percent); Army National Guard 
Directorate (44 percent); Air National Guard Readiness Center (21 
percent); and the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve (45 
percent). DOD officials attribute growth to the conversion of 
contractor workload into civilian positions and increased missions 
assigned at certain headquarters. Over the same period, staff levels 
at the National Guard’s 54 state Joint Force headquarters remained 
flat and the Air Force Reserve shrank by 4 percent. 

DOD has processes in place that are intended to ensure that the number 
of funded positions at its reserve-component headquarters are set at 
the minimum level needed to accomplish their mission, but it has not 
consistently followed those processes at 68 of the 75 headquarters 
that GAO reviewed. As a result, DOD is unable to determine whether 
National Guard and Reserve headquarters are sized to be efficient. The 
National Guard has begun evaluating some personnel requirements, but 
its efforts do not fully address the management issues GAO identified: 

* The National Guard Bureau, which may continue to grow to accommodate 
its Chief’s placement on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is determining its 
own requirements without external validation. This is inconsistent 
with Joint Staff, Army, and Air Force processes, which generally 
involve an external review. In addition, Congress’s ability to oversee 
the bureau’s size is limited because DOD’s annual report on its Major 
DOD Headquarters Activities does not include data on the bureau and 
its more than 600 staff. 

* The National Guard has not fully assessed its 54 state headquarters—-
which contain nearly 21,900 funded positions—since the 1980s. GAO’s 
prior work shows that agencies can reduce costs by consolidating and 
centralizing functions and eliminating unneeded duplication. The 
National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Directorate, and Air 
National Guard Readiness Center each assess a portion of the state 
headquarters, but there is no process to assess the headquarters’ 
personnel requirements in their entirety and ongoing efforts do not 
provide a holistic review. 

* The Army and Air Force have not fully reassessed 13 of the 20 reserve
component headquarters for which they are responsible. The Army has a
reassessment backlog, and the Air Force does not require periodic
reassessments and reassesses its headquarters on an ad hoc basis. Some
headquarters with significant growth are among those that have not been
reassessed, including the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve and 
the Air National Guard Readiness Center. In contrast, 5 of the 7 
reassessed organizations subsequently reduced their staff levels such 
as the Air Force Reserve’s three numbered air forces, which have 
shrunk by more than a third since 2009. The Army and Air Force agree 
their headquarters should be reassessed, but they have not scheduled 
reassessments across their reserve components. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD externally validate the National Guard Bureau’s
personnel requirements and include the bureau in its annual report to
Congress; reassess requirements for the 54 state Joint Force 
headquarters; and develop schedules for reassessing headquarters 
overseen by the Army and Air Force. DOD concurred with recommendations 
to report data to Congress and establish schedules for reassessing 
headquarters and partially concurred with recommendations to 
externally validate the bureau’s personnel requirements and assess
requirements for the state Joint Force headquarters. GAO continues to
believe these recommendations are valid as discussed in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-71]. For more 
information, contact John H. Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 
pendletonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

The Number of Military and Civilian Personnel Positions at Reserve-
Component Headquarters Has Increased: 

Processes Intended to Efficiently Size and Oversee Reserve-Component 
Headquarters Have Not Been Consistently Applied: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary of Efforts to Study Merger of the Army's and Air 
Force's Reserve Components: 

Appendix III: Profile for the National Guard Bureau, Army National 
Guard Directorate, and Air National Guard Readiness Center: 

Appendix IV: Profile for the National Guard State Joint Force 
Headquarters: 

Appendix V: Profile for the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve 
and U.S. Army Reserve Command: 

Appendix VI: Profile for the Army Reserve Regional Support Commands: 

Appendix VII: Profile for the U.S. Army Reserve Functional Commands: 

Appendix VIII: Profile for Air Force Reserve Command and Headquarters, 
Air Force Reserve: 

Appendix IX: Profile for the Air Force Reserve Numbered Air Forces: 

Appendix X: Content for Interactive Figures in Background Section: 

Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military End Strength and 
Estimated Presequestration Base Budget by Component: 

Table 2: Processes for Determining Reserve-Component Headquarters 
Personnel Requirements: 

Table 3: Federal Organizations Responsible for Determining and 
Validating Personnel Requirements at State Joint Force Headquarters 
and a Description of Requirements: 

Table 4: Status of Army and Air Force Manpower Assessment Processes 
for Reserve-Component Headquarters: 

Table 5: Nongeneralizable Sample of Reserve-Component Headquarters 
Visited during the Audit: 

Table 6: Organizations Interviewed over the Course of the Audit: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Federal and State Organizational Structure of the National 
Guard (See Appendix X for table summarizing text in the interactive 
figure). 

Figure 2: Organization of Army Reserve Headquarters (See Appendix X 
for table summarizing text in the interactive figure). 

Figure 3: Organization of Air Force Reserve Headquarters (See Appendix 
X for table summarizing text in the interactive figure). 

Figure 4: Trends in Funded Reserve-Component Headquarters' Positions 
by Component from Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal year 2013. 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

Reserves: Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 12, 2013: 

The Honorable Mike Coffman: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jim Cooper: 
House of Representatives: 

In anticipation of constrained resources, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has undertaken a series of efficiency initiatives since 2010 
that are intended, among other things, to reduce excess overhead 
costs, eliminate unneeded headquarters, and reduce headquarters staff 
size. In early 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced the Strategic 
Choices and Management Review, which builds on prior efforts and is 
intended to assess the potential effect of further reductions, shape 
the budget, and provide the foundation for the 2014 Quadrennial 
Defense Review.[Footnote 1] In July 2013, the Secretary of Defense 
announced plans to reduce the budgets and personnel of some major 
headquarters by 20 percent over a 5-year period. However, the DOD-led 
efforts to date have not focused on reserve-component organizations. 
The Army and Air Force each have two reserve components[Footnote 2]--a 
National Guard and Reserve--and each has numerous headquarters 
organizations that manage and oversee subordinate units, or perform 
administrative or overhead functions. 

We have issued several reports recently on defense headquarters and on 
the department's ability to determine the right size and mix of 
personnel it needs to perform various functions. For example, in May 
2013 we found that authorized military and civilian positions at the 
geographic combatant commands--excluding U.S. Central Command--
increased by about 50 percent from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 
year 2012. We also determined that DOD's process for sizing its 
geographic combatant commands exhibits several weaknesses, including 
the absence of a comprehensive, periodic review of the size and 
structure of these commands and inconsistent use of personnel-
management systems to identify and track assigned personnel. DOD 
concurred with our recommendation that it improve its visibility over 
its headquarters personnel, but did not concur with our recommendation 
that it conduct comprehensive and periodic reviews of the geographic 
combatant commands' size.[Footnote 3] In another May 2013 report, to 
improve DOD's understanding and management of its total workforce, 
[Footnote 4] we recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to revise DOD's 
policies and procedures for determining the appropriate workforce mix 
and the identification of critical functions. DOD partially concurred 
with our recommendation stating that it justifies its workforce size 
on the basis of workload, rather than competency or skill gaps. 
[Footnote 5] In 2012, we found that DOD's reporting to support 
congressional oversight of its Major DOD Headquarters Activities did 
not include all major headquarters.[Footnote 6] In 2010 and 2011, we 
reported that DOD had experienced challenges in determining the number 
of funded positions for certain Army and Air Force headquarters due to 
flaws with developing, maintaining, and implementing their manpower 
processes.[Footnote 7] DOD generally concurred with the findings and 
recommendations in these reports. 

In response to your request, we examined whether opportunities exist 
to improve the efficiency of DOD's reserve-component headquarters 
while meeting defense strategy needs.[Footnote 8]Specifically, this 
report (1) discusses trends in funded positions at reserve-component 
headquarters and (2) evaluates the extent to which DOD has established 
and implemented processes to size its reserve-component headquarters 
and provide information for congressional oversight. Also at your 
request, appendix II provides information on DOD's efforts to study 
the potential merger of reserve-component headquarters. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed data on funded positions for 
military and civilian personnel at the Army's and Air Force's reserve-
component headquarters for fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. 
We selected these years because Army officials stated that the Army 
Reserve component headquarters structure has remained relatively 
constant since 2009. We did not review contractor positions as part of 
this review because officials from three of the four components told 
us that they were unable to determine the number of contractor 
positions at the reserve-component headquarters we identified. To 
identify component headquarters, we reviewed DOD and military-service 
guidance; organization charts; and interviewed Office of the Secretary 
of Defense, National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve 
officials. We focused our review on Army or Air Force reserve-
component headquarters that are (1) nondeployable and (2) perform many 
of the management headquarters functions identified by DOD in its 
major headquarters instruction.[Footnote 9] We then provided DOD, 
Joint Staff, National Guard, and Reserve officials with an opportunity 
to comment on our final list of 75 headquarters and these officials 
agreed the headquarters we identified met these criteria, while noting 
that they were not all designated as Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities. To identify trends in funded positions for the Army, we 
analyzed funded positions as documented on the Army's personnel 
requirements documents referred to as tables of distribution and 
allowance.[Footnote 10] For the Air Force, we analyzed funded 
positions documented on its headquarters' unit manpower documents. To 
evaluate DOD's processes for determining headquarters personnel 
requirements[Footnote 11] and provide information to Congress, we 
reviewed DOD and military-service guidance, DOD reports, and manpower 
assessments for reserve-component headquarters between fiscal year 
2009 and fiscal year 2013. We also interviewed knowledgeable 
officials. For more information on the scope and methodology for this 
review, see appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to November 2013, 
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. 

Background: 

The National Guard has two elements--the Army National Guard and the 
Air National Guard--that mostly consist of part-time forces 
responsible for both federal and state missions. The Army Reserve and 
Air Force Reserve (Reserves) also largely consist of part-time forces 
and are responsible for only federal missions. In addition to these 
part-time forces, both the National Guard and the Reserves use full-
time personnel for duties that can include pay processing, personnel 
actions, preparing and monitoring training schedules, and other tasks 
that cannot be effectively executed through the use of part-time 
personnel. These full-time positions--which DOD calls full-time 
support[Footnote 12]--in general are more expensive than part-time 
personnel because they are paid as full-time employees and receive 
greater compensation and benefits such as retirement, health-care, and 
education. 

As table 1 shows, the Army National Guard is authorized approximately 
358,000 soldiers, and the Army Reserve approximately 205,000 soldiers, 
which collectively constitute about 50 percent of the Army's total 
authorized end strength.[Footnote 13] Likewise, the Air National Guard 
has approximately 105,000 military personnel, and the Air Force 
Reserve has approximately 71,000 military personnel, which 
collectively are about 35 percent of the Air Force's authorized end 
strength. 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military End Strength and 
Estimated Presequestration Base Budget by Component: 

Military service: Army; 

Component: Active Army; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 552,100; 
Estimated budget[B]: $105.85 billion. 

Component: Army National Guard; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 358,200; 
Estimated budget[B]: $17.45 billion. 

Component: Army Reserve; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 205,000; 
Estimated budget[B]: $8.60 billion. 

Component: Total Army; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 1,115,300; 
Estimated budget[B]: $131.90 billion. 

Military service: Air Force; 

Component: Active Air Force; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 329,460; 
Estimated budget[B]: $124.38 billion. 

Component: Air National Guard; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 105,700; 
Estimated budget[B]: $10.00 billion. 

Component: Air Force Reserve; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 70,880; 
Estimated budget[B]: $5.32 billion. 

Component: Total Air Force; 
Authorized end strength[A]: 506,040; 
Estimated budget[B]: $139.70 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Notes: Budget data are from DOD budget-justification materials. 

[A] Numbers for each component come from the National Defense 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239 (2013). 
Authorized end strength is the number of personnel that each component 
of a military service is authorized by Congress to have at the end of 
a given fiscal year. 

[B] Estimated budget for the active components includes 
presequestration amounts of funds appropriated for fiscal year 2013 
for Base Budget Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; Military Construction; 
Procurement; and certain other accounts as identified in DOD's budget-
justification materials. Estimated budget for the reserve components 
includes presequestration amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2013 
for Base Budget Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, 
Military Construction, and estimated Procurement funding based on 
DOD's budget-justification materials. 

[End of table] 

Each state's National Guard forces have a dual role as both a state 
and federal force, while the Reserves are strictly a federal force. 
Although the National Guard has a dual role, the federal government 
provides funding for National Guard personnel when they are conducting 
training and other federal missions.[Footnote 14] In fiscal year 2013, 
federal funding for National Guard personnel totaled about $11.1 
billion. In addition, the federal government provides about 90 percent 
of the funding for National Guard installation base-operation and 
maintenance costs. The National Guard's dual state and federal role 
means that state Governors have command and control over National 
Guard units when they are not performing federal missions or other 
federal service. 

National Guard Headquarters: 

The National Guard and Reserves maintain a number of nondeployable 
headquarters that are responsible for managing and overseeing 
subordinate units. Of the 75 headquarters we identified, 57 reside 
within the National Guard. The National Guard's headquarters include 
the National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Directorate, Air 
National Guard Readiness Center, and the National Guard's 54 Joint 
Force headquarters--which DOD refers to as Joint Force Headquarters-
State--located in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
the Virgin Islands, and Guam.[Footnote 15] In addition, appendixes III 
and IV provide detailed information on the locations, missions and 
responsibilities of these headquarters. Figure 1 shows the 
organizational structure of the National Guard. 

Figure 1: Federal and State Organizational Structure of the National 
Guard (See Appendix X for table summarizing text in the interactive 
figure): 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Interactivity instructions: Click on an office with a red circle to 
view more information. See Appendix X for table summarizing text in 
the interactive figure. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD guidance and data. 

[End of figure] 

The National Guard Bureau is managed by the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau--a 4-star General who was placed on the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff in 2011.[Footnote 16] Reporting to the Chief are two Lieutenant 
Generals who manage the Army National Guard Directorate and the Air 
National Guard Readiness Center, respectively. When not activated for 
federal missions, each state's National Guard's forces are commanded 
by the Adjutants General who also command the states' Joint Force 
headquarters. The state Joint Force headquarters each consist of a 
Joint staff element, Army staff element, and Air staff element. Each 
of these elements is subject to different processes for reassessing 
and validating personnel requirements. These headquarters are 
responsible for coordinating the planning, training, and execution of 
National Guard homeland defense, civil support, and other domestic 
emergency missions within the United States. They also manage the 
National Guard's readiness and prepare National Guard units for 
federal mobilization. The Army National Guard provides a balance of 
maneuver (combat), maneuver support, and maneuver sustainment 
capabilities. The Air National Guard provides a broad range of ready 
combat and combat-support capabilities such as tactical airlift and 
special operations. 

Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve Headquarters: 

The Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve maintain 18 nondeployable 
headquarters that manage or oversee subordinate units. The Army 
Reserve provides maneuver support and maneuver sustainment 
capabilities as well as individual soldiers through the Individual 
Ready Reserve and Individual Mobilization Augmentation 
programs.[Footnote 17] We identified 13 nondeployable Army Reserve 
headquarters that include the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve, 
U.S. Army Reserve Command, 4 regional support commands, and 7 
functional commands. See appendixes V through VII for detailed 
information on the locations, missions, and responsibilities of these 
headquarters. The Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve and the U.S. 
Army Reserve Command are commanded by the same[Footnote 18] Lieutenant 
General who, by law, also sits on the Army Staff.[Footnote 19] 
Reporting to the Chief are 11 General officers who command support and 
functional commands, ensure the readiness of personnel, and maintain 
reserve installations within the United States, as shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Organization of Army Reserve Headquarters (See Appendix X 
for table summarizing text in the interactive figure): 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Interactivity instructions: Click on an office with a red circle to 
view more information. See Appendix X for table summarizing text in 
the interactive figure. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD guidance and data. 

[End of figure] 

The Air Force Reserve provides a broad range of combat and combat-
support capabilities. We identified five nondeployable headquarters 
that include Headquarters, Air Force Reserve; Air Force Reserve 
Command; and the 4th, 10th, and 22nd Air Forces. See appendixes VIII 
and IX for detailed information on the locations, missions and 
responsibilities of these headquarters. Headquarters, Air Force 
Reserve, and Air Force Reserve Command are commanded by the same 
Lieutenant General who, by law, also sits on the Air Staff.[Footnote 
20] Reporting to the Chief are three General officers who help to 
ensure the readiness of Air Force Reserve forces, as shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Organization of Air Force Reserve Headquarters (See Appendix 
X for table summarizing text in the interactive figure): 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Interactivity instructions: Click on an office with a red circle to 
view more information. See Appendix X for table summarizing text in 
the interactive figure. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD guidance and data. 

[End of figure] 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army, and the Air Force have processes 
to size and structure headquarters organizations. In general, these 
processes seek to provide the minimum number of personnel needed to 
accomplish missions and performance objectives. Additionally, Congress 
requires DOD to report personnel data[Footnote 21] for its Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities to support congressional oversight of these 
headquarters.[Footnote 22] These headquarters are listed in a DOD 
instruction.[Footnote 23] Prior to 2008, Congress placed a cap on the 
number of personnel that could be assigned to such headquarters; 
however, Congress removed this cap in 2008. 

The Number of Military and Civilian Personnel Positions at Reserve-
Component Headquarters Has Increased: 

Our analysis found that the overall number of funded military and 
civilian positions at the Army's and Air Force's reserve-component 
headquarters has steadily increased since fiscal year 2009, primarily 
due to DOD's reassignment of workload from contractors to full-time 
federal civilians and increased mission requirements.[Footnote 24] 
These increases have come amid broader DOD efforts since 2010 to 
constrain or reduce headquarters. 

Funded Positions at Reserve-Component Headquarters Have Grown Overall 
since 2009: 

Between fiscal year 2009 and 2013, the total number of positions 
funded[Footnote 25] for the 75 reserve-component headquarters we 
identified grew from about 30,200 to about 31,900--an increase of 
nearly 6 percent, as shown in figure 4.[Footnote 26] Overall, the 
National Guard increased by about 1,350 funded positions (5 percent) 
and the Reserves by about 330 funded positions (7 percent). The 
National Guard's growth was driven by increases in the Army National 
Guard Directorate, which grew by about 750 funded positions over the 
period (about 44 percent). The National Guard Bureau, Air National 
Guard Readiness Center, and 54 state Joint Force headquarters 
increased about 17 percent, 21 percent, and 1 percent, respectively. 
The number of funded positions also increased at the Army Reserve's 
headquarters, which grew by about 15 percent, but decreased at the Air 
Force Reserve's headquarters by about 4 percent over the same period. 

Figure 4: Trends in Funded Reserve-Component Headquarters' Positions 
by Component from Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Personnel requirements: 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
National Guard: 25,099; 
Reserves: 5,084; 
Total: 30,183. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
National Guard: 25,372; 
Reserves: 5,392; 
Total: 30,764. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
National Guard: 26,435; 
Reserves: 5,475; 
Total: 31,910. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
National Guard: 26,451; 
Reserves: 5,530; 
Total: 91,981. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
National Guard: 26,446; 
Reserves: 5,417; 
Total: 31,863. 

Total change: 1,680 (6 percent); 
National Guard net change: 1,347 (5 percent); 
Reserve net change: 333 (7 percent). 

Source: GAO analysis of National Guard and Reserve data. 

Notes: These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some 
DOD personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, 
as a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. For these personnel, DOD budgets 
for two positions. Consequently, in our calculations, we included the 
approximately 8,000 dual-status technicians in both the full-time 
civilian and part-time military totals for each fiscal year. 
Additionally, personnel categorized as "Active Guard and Reserve" 
occupy both a full-time military position as well as a part-time 
military position. Consequently, in our calculations we included the 
more than 5,000 Active Guard and Reserve positions in both the full-
time military and part-time military totals for each fiscal year. 

[End of figure] 

Of the nearly 1,700 positions DOD added to these headquarters, 
approximately 37 percent (more than 620 positions) were for full-time 
support positions. The percentage of funded positions that were 
allocated for full-time personnel varied by headquarters. For example, 
nearly 100 percent of the positions funded for the National Guard 
Bureau, Air National Guard Readiness Center, Army National Guard 
Directorate[Footnote 27], U.S. Army Reserve Command, and Headquarters, 
Air Force Reserve, were for full-time support in fiscal year 2013. In 
contrast, approximately 45 percent of funded positions at the state 
Joint Force headquarters and 33 percent of funded positions at the 
Army Reserve's functional commands were for full-time positions in 
fiscal year 2013. Appendixes III through IX provide more-detailed 
analysis of positions funded at the headquarters we identified. 

Our analysis shows that the National Guard has consistently allocated 
a greater percentage of its funded military and civilian positions to 
its headquarters than the other reserve components.[Footnote 28] 
Specifically, funded positions at the Army National Guard headquarters 
we identified equaled 6 percent of its estimated military and civilian 
funded positions in fiscal year 2013 (about 22,800 of its 389,350 
estimated civilian and military funded positions).[Footnote 29] This 
contrasts with the other reserve components we examined, which have 2 
to 3 percent of their military and civilian funded positions in 
nondeployable headquarters. National Guard officials said that the 
Army National Guard has allocated more funded positions to its 
headquarters for several reasons, including the National Guard's need 
to prepare for and execute homeland defense and civil support 
missions, recruit its own personnel, and maintain a U.S. Property and 
Fiscal office in each state. 

Reassignment of Contractor Workload to Civilian Positions and New 
Missions Have Driven Growth in Funded Positions: 

National Guard and Reserve officials told us that there are two main 
drivers of growth since 2009 in funded positions at reserve-component 
headquarters--DOD's 2010 effort to reduce its reliance on contractors 
by reassigning their workload to federal civilian positions, referred 
to as "in-sourcing," and expanded mission requirements.[Footnote 30] 
In April 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced his intention to 
reduce DOD's reliance on contractors and increase the number of 
civilian positions.[Footnote 31] Reserve component officials said that 
DOD's in-sourcing effort was a significant driver of growth in 
civilian positions. For example, Army National Guard officials said 
that DOD's in-sourcing effort contributed to an increase in over 700 
civilian positions at the Army National Guard Directorate. Likewise, 
Air National Guard officials said that DOD's in-sourcing effort caused 
the Air National Guard Readiness Center to add 180 funded positions. 

The other driver of growth in funded positions identified by reserve-
component officials was expanded mission requirements. Army Reserve 
officials noted that the 7th Civil Support Command's increase of 71 
funded positions from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2011 was the 
result of the Army closing a second Army activity and adding missions 
at the command. In a second instance, Army Reserve officials 
attributed growth at the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve to 
the addition of new functions such as the Employer Partnership Office. 
[Footnote 32] National Guard officials attributed the increase of over 
250 funded positions at the state Joint Force headquarters to mission 
growth resulting from the establishment of civil-support capabilities 
such as implementation of the Homeland Response Forces[Footnote 33] 
beginning in fiscal year 2011. National Guard officials also said that 
the National Guard Bureau may grow in the future as a result of the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau's placement on the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff in 2011. 

Processes Intended to Efficiently Size and Oversee Reserve-Component 
Headquarters Have Not Been Consistently Applied: 

Although DOD has processes in place that generally seek to provide the 
minimum number of personnel needed to accomplish missions and 
performance objectives, these processes have not been consistently 
applied at 68 of the 75 headquarters we identified. For instance, the 
National Guard Bureau has been determining its own personnel 
requirements with no external review and validation since 2010 and has 
been growing steadily since 2009. In addition, DOD has not included 
data on the National Guard Bureau in its required Defense Manpower 
Requirements Report to Congress.[Footnote 34] In fiscal year 2013, the 
National Guard had about 21,900 funded positions at its 54 state Joint 
Force headquarters, but the processes for determining personnel 
requirements for these headquarters are fragmented[Footnote 35] among 
the National Guard Bureau's Joint staff, the Army National Guard, and 
the Air National Guard. Finally, the Army and Air Force have not 
determined personnel requirements or fully reassessed within required 
time frames the personnel requirements at 13 of the 20 headquarters. 
Consequently, DOD lacks assurance that the Army's and Air Force's 
reserve-component headquarters are being staffed with the minimum 
personnel needed to perform their assigned missions. 

DOD Processes for Overseeing Headquarters Emphasize Periodic External 
Review to Validate Personnel Requirements: 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army, and the Air Force have separate 
processes for determining and reassessing headquarters' personnel 
requirements. DOD's overarching manpower-management directive states 
that it is DOD policy that personnel requirements are driven by 
workload, and shall be established at the minimum levels necessary to 
accomplish mission and performance objectives.[Footnote 36] Joint 
Staff guidance emphasizes that personnel requirements may change in 
light of changes in technology and missions, and Army guidance 
provides that requirements are to be adjusted in response to changes. 
[Footnote 37] This is consistent with our prior work in the area of 
strategic human-capital management, which has found that high-
performing organizations periodically reevaluate their resources, 
including personnel, to obtain the complete and reliable data needed 
to ensure that resources are properly matched to requirements. 
[Footnote 38] These organizations seek to identify their current and 
future personnel requirements--including the appropriate number of 
employees, key competencies, and skills mix for mission 
accomplishment--and the appropriate deployment of personnel across the 
organization. One purpose of the external review is to help ensure 
that joint activities have the minimum personnel with the appropriate 
skills and experience needed to carry out assigned missions. 
Similarly, Army and Air Force assessment practices generally include a 
review of personnel requirements by either a higher-level command or 
an external organization.[Footnote 39] However, the Air Force's 
process does not apply to the reserve component headquarters 
organizations we identified, which do not have external review of 
their personnel requirements. The processes applicable to reserve-
component headquarters organizations are discussed in table 2. 

Table 2: Processes for Determining Reserve-Component Headquarters 
Personnel Requirements: 

Process: Joint Chiefs of Staff; Joint Manpower and Personnel Program; 
Description: DOD uses its Joint Manpower and Personnel Program to 
review and approve personnel requirements at the combatant commands 
and other DOD joint activities. This process provides procedures to 
enable the Joint Staff to determine whether a proposed increase in 
positions is warranted; 
Reserve-component headquarters currently subject to process: 
* National Guard Bureau; 
* National Guard state Joint Force headquarters' Joint staff 
element[A]. 

Process: Department of the Army; Manpower Management; 
Description: The Army uses its Manpower Management process to 
independently reassess total personnel requirements at its 
headquarters--including the Army staff at each state Joint Force 
headquarters under the oversight of the Army National Guard 
Directorate --by having personnel requirements reviewed and validated 
by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs with assistance from the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency; 
Reserve-component headquarters currently subject to process: 
* Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve; 
* U.S. Army Reserve Command; 
* Army Reserve Regional Support Commands; 
* Army Reserve Functional Commands; 
* Army National Guard Directorate; 
* National Guard state Joint Force headquarters Army staff element[A]. 

Process: Department of the Air Force[B]; 
Description: The Air Force has not established a process to determine 
and reassess personnel requirements for its reserve-component 
headquarters. According to Air Force officials, commanders have 
authority to make changes to headquarters' positions should they be 
required, but would have to request additional funding to obtain 
additional positions beyond what has already been validated by the Air 
Force; 
Reserve-component headquarters currently subject to process: 
* Headquarters, Air Force Reserve; 
* Air Force Reserve Command; 
* Air National Guard Readiness Center; 
* Numbered Air Forces; 
* National Guard state Joint Force headquarters Air staff element[A]. 

Source: Joint Staff, Army, and Air Force. 

Notes: 

[A] The state Joint Force headquarters consist of a Joint staff 
element, Army staff element, and Air staff element. Each of these 
elements is subject to different processes for reassessing and 
validating personnel requirements. These headquarters provide command 
and control for civil-support missions within their respective states 
as well as some homeland defense missions. 

[B] Air Force officials told us that the Air Force has not developed 
guidance that requires personnel at the reserve-component headquarters 
we identified to be periodically reassessed or validated. 

[End of table] 

National Guard Bureau Personnel Requirements Are Not Being Externally 
Validated: 

Under an informal agreement with the Joint Staff, the National Guard 
Bureau has been determining its own personnel requirements without 
validation by a higher-level command or external organization. Since 
2010, the number of funded positions at the bureau increased by 17 
percent and could grow further, according to National Guard Bureau 
officials. The DOD directive governing the National Guard Bureau 
provides that the National Guard Bureau's personnel requirements 
should be managed in the same manner as other joint activities to the 
greatest extent possible. Joint activities are generally subject to 
the Joint Staff's Joint Manpower and Personnel Program. According to 
officials, this program includes review, approval, and documentation 
of a headquarters' personnel requirements by an external organization. 
[Footnote 40] 

According to Joint Staff and National Guard officials, in 2010, the 
Joint Staff and the National Guard Bureau reached an informal 
agreement that the bureau would maintain control for determining and 
validating its own personnel requirements. However, this agreement is 
inconsistent with the Joint Staff's regular personnel requirements 
reassessment process and differs from the military-service practices. 
National Guard Bureau and Joint Staff officials gave three reasons for 
this agreement. First, Joint Staff officials said that this agreement 
was reached because the bureau wanted to maintain control over its 
personnel requirements. Second, the National Guard Bureau is too 
dissimilar from other joint activities--such as the combatant 
commands--for which the Joint Staff is responsible. Third, the Joint 
Staff lacks the resources to assume responsibility for validating the 
bureau's personnel requirements. 

Recognizing that recent developments warrant a re-evaluation of the 
National Guard Bureau's personnel requirements, the National Guard 
Bureau started two efforts intended to enable it to define its 
personnel requirements. The National Guard Bureau has started an 
initiative called "Project Muster" to realign its headquarters 
processes to support the new roles and responsibilities of the Chief 
and Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau and determine the 
personnel requirements needed to execute these responsibilities 
following the Chief's placement on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
Officials responsible for the study said that it may show that the 
bureau will need to grow beyond its current size. In part because one 
of Project Muster's baseline assumptions is that the bureau's current 
manpower will be retained to meet preexisting requirements. 

In July 2013, while our review was underway, the Vice Chief for the 
National Guard Bureau asked that the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis 
Agency--with assistance from the Air Force Personnel Center--conduct 
an advisory analysis of positions at the National Guard Bureau to 
include its joint staff and the Office of the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau. According to the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency 
official responsible for the analysis, an advisory analysis entails a 
strategic look at a headquarters' organizational structure. It is 
different from a personnel requirements study, which would assess 
individual workload, validate missions, and map processes. The Vice 
Chief's request for an analysis was accepted by the U.S. Army Manpower 
Analysis Agency in August 2013 and is currently scheduled for calendar 
year 2014. 

Although both of these efforts are significant attempts to determine 
the bureau's personnel requirements, neither of them will establish a 
process to periodically validate and reassess those requirements. 
Additionally, National Guard Bureau officials said that the Chief of 
the National Guard Bureau will continue to be the final authority on 
what requirements are approved for the bureau. By creating a system 
whereby an external organization is not independently assessing the 
National Guard Bureau's personnel requirements the bureau has removed 
an independent check that could help ensure that the bureau is staffed 
with the appropriate number of personnel needed to execute its 
assigned missions and workload. 

DOD Does Not List the National Guard Bureau as a Major DOD 
Headquarters Activity, and Its Personnel Data Have Not Been Reported 
to Support Congressional Oversight: 

Our analysis of DOD's reserve-component headquarters found that DOD's 
list of its Major DOD Headquarters Activities did not include the 
National Guard Bureau, even though the bureau meets the headquarters 
criteria specified in DOD's instruction and is now commanded by a 4-
star General who sits on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[Footnote 41] DOD 
uses an instruction issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense's 
Director for Administration and Management that establishes the 
definitions and criteria that should be used to identify DOD's Major 
DOD Headquarters Activities. This instruction also contains an 
enclosure that lists DOD's Major DOD Headquarters Activities and this 
list is the basis for reporting required personnel data to Congress. 
In this instruction, DOD defines major DOD headquarters activities as 
those headquarters (and the direct support integral to their 
operation) whose primary mission is to manage or command the programs 
and operations of DOD, the DOD components, and their major military 
units, organizations, or agencies. In practice, DOD includes those 
headquarters that are commanded by a General or Admiral, or Lieutenant 
General or Vice Admiral or their equivalents. The National Guard 
Bureau meets both these criteria. In 2012, we reported that some other 
organizations that fit the definition of Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities were not included in DOD's instruction. We recommended at 
that time that DOD revise its instruction to include all of its Major 
DOD Headquarters Activities.[Footnote 42] Our review found that DOD 
has not updated its list to include the National Guard Bureau or the 
headquarters we identified in our 2012 report.[Footnote 43] 

DOD officials said that the National Guard Bureau was not included in 
its list of major DOD headquarters activities in the past because the 
National Guard Bureau had previously been a subactivity of the Army 
and Air Force; the National Guard Bureau has a National Guard mission 
that relates to the states, which is unusual for DOD's headquarters; 
and officials did not focus on the National Guard Bureau being a 
headquarters that drives the department's active-duty or Reserve 
missions. Officials from the Office of the Director of Administration 
and Management and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 
Affairs agreed that the National Guard Bureau (including both the 
Office of the Chief and the Joint staff element) should be considered 
a major DOD headquarters activity and listed in DOD's instruction; 
however, at the time of our review these officials did not have a 
schedule for further updating the instruction or the list of major DOD 
headquarters activities. 

Having complete information about such headquarters activities is 
important for oversight because Congress has established reporting 
requirements that it can use to oversee the size of specific kinds of 
DOD's headquarters, such as the National Guard Bureau.[Footnote 44] 
DOD is required to provide Congress with an annual Defense Manpower 
Requirements Report[Footnote 45] on a variety of personnel issues, 
including the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to 
major DOD headquarters activities in the previous year, and estimates 
of such numbers for the current and subsequent year. Prior to 2008, 
DOD was subject to a statutory cap on the total number of personnel 
that could be assigned to Major DOD Headquarters Activities.[Footnote 
46] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
repealed this cap, but required DOD to continue to report certain 
information about the size and composition of the staff assigned to 
Major DOD Headquarters Activities.[Footnote 47] When fulfilling its 
reporting requirement, DOD uses the definitions and criteria in its 
instruction to identify DOD's Major DOD Headquarters Activities and 
lists these headquarters in an enclosure. This list is the basis for 
reporting required personnel data to Congress, and because the bureau 
was not included in DOD's list, its personnel data were not reported 
to Congress. Unless DOD revises its instruction to include the 
National Guard Bureau in its list of major DOD headquarters activities 
and reports the bureau's personnel requirements data, Congress will 
continue to have limited information available to support oversight of 
this expanding headquarters activity. 

DOD Lacks Assurance That the National Guard's State Joint Force 
Headquarters Are Sized to Be Efficient: 

The National Guard has not fully reassessed the personnel requirements 
of the 54 state Joint Force headquarters or their predecessor 
organizations--which collectively contain nearly 21,900 funded 
positions--since the 1980s despite changes in their organization and 
assigned missions. Our prior work has shown that cost savings may be 
achieved by consolidating and centralizing overlapping functions and 
eliminating unnecessary overlap and duplication.[Footnote 48] The 
state Joint Force headquarters consist of a Joint staff element, Army 
staff element, and Air staff element each of which is subject to 
different processes for reassessing and validating personnel 
requirements. Additionally, these headquarters have personnel that are 
assigned as the personal staff and special staff of the Adjutant 
General. The National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Directorate, 
and Air National Guard Readiness Center share responsibility for 
overseeing personnel requirements at the state Joint Force 
headquarters and there is not a process in place that enables the 
holistic assessment of personnel requirements at these headquarters. 
In the absence of a process that provides a holistic assessment of the 
state Joint Force Headquarters, National Guard officials noted that 
they have begun two efforts that are intended to assess personnel 
requirements at the state Joint Force headquarters: (1) a National 
Guard Bureau study evaluating personnel requirements for the Joint 
staff element at these headquarters and (2) an Army National Guard 
Directorate evaluation of functions--some of which include both Army 
National Guard and Air National Guard personnel--within these 
headquarters. We found that these efforts are limited and do not 
constitute a process that holistically assesses these headquarters' 
personnel requirements. Without implementing a process to holistically 
assess personnel requirements for all three staff elements at these 
headquarters', DOD lacks assurance that they are sized and structured 
to be efficient. 

The National Guard Has Not Comprehensively Reassessed Its State Joint 
Force Headquarters: 

National Guard officials said that they have not reassessed the 
personnel requirements for the National Guard's 54 state Joint Force 
headquarters since the 1980s, even though there have been changes in 
the organization of these headquarters, including the missions 
assigned to them. The Army and the Air Force determined the personnel 
requirements for the Army and Air staff elements at the state Joint 
Force headquarters' predecessor headquarters in 1982 on the basis of 
the number of personnel authorized for the state or territory as well 
as its population. 

The Army staff and Air staff elements are filled with Army National 
Guard and Air National Guard personnel respectively. The Joint staff 
element and the Adjutant General's staff can be comprised of personnel 
from the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, or both. 
Responsibility for overseeing personnel requirements of these staff 
elements is shared by the National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard 
Directorate, and Air National Guard Readiness Center, which have 
separate processes for determining, validating, and reassessing 
requirements for their respective staff elements, as shown in table 3. 

Table 3: Federal Organizations Responsible for Determining and 
Validating Personnel Requirements at State Joint Force Headquarters 
and a Description of Requirements: 

State Joint Force headquarters staff element: Joint Staff; 
Responsible organization: National Guard Bureau[A]; 
Process used to determine and validate personnel requirements: Joint 
Manpower and Personnel Program; 
Description of requirements: Joint staff element personnel 
requirements should be managed using joint manpower documents in 
accordance with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 
1001.01a. This instruction requires the use of joint manpower 
documents and the validation of personnel requirements documented on 
those documents through the Joint Manpower and Personnel Process. 

State Joint Force headquarters staff element: Army Staff; 
Responsible organization: Army National Guard Directorate; 
Process used to determine and validate personnel requirements: Army 
Manpower Program; 
Description of requirements: Army staff element personnel requirements 
should be reassessed on a 2-to 5-year cycle. Personnel requirements 
are reviewed and validated by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs with assistance from the U.S. Army 
Manpower Analysis Agency. 

State Joint Force headquarters staff element: Air Staff; 
Responsible organization: Air National Guard Readiness Center; 
Process used to determine and validate personnel requirements: Air 
Force; 
Description of requirements: The Air Force does not have a requirement 
to reassess personnel requirements at its reserve-component 
headquarters above the wing level. 

Source: GAO analysis of Joint staff, Army, and Air Force data. 

Notes: 

[A] In an April 2012 letter, the Joint Staff formally delegated 
responsibility to the National Guard Bureau for validating personnel 
requirements at the state Joint Force headquarters with the 
expectation that, although the state Joint Force headquarters would 
not be part of the joint staff's overarching manpower program, its 
joint staff element would be managed by the National Guard Bureau 
using the same procedures. 

[End of table] 

We have previously found that government can reduce costs and improve 
operations through the elimination of unnecessary fragmentation, 
overlap, and duplication.[Footnote 49] Additionally, our 2012 report 
examining DOD's headquarters and support organizations found that 
there may be additional opportunities for DOD to achieve cost savings 
by consolidating and centralizing overlapping functions and services. 
In our 2012 report, we recommended that DOD continue to examine 
opportunities to centralize administrative and command support 
services, functions, or programs.[Footnote 50] 

Ongoing Personnel Requirements Studies Are Limited and Do Not Provide 
a Process for Holistically Assessing State Joint Force Headquarters' 
Requirements: 

National Guard officials noted that they have two ongoing efforts that 
are intended to assess personnel requirements at the state Joint Force 
headquarters; however, we found that these efforts were limited and 
were not based on a process that holistically assessed personnel 
requirements for all three staff elements at these headquarters. 

First, as previously discussed, the National Guard Bureau has begun a 
two-phased study reassessing the personnel requirements for these 
headquarters' Joint staff element; however, National Guard Bureau 
officials stated that the study would not examine the Army staff 
element or Air staff element portion of the state Joint Force 
headquarters. National Guard Bureau officials determined that on 
average each Joint staff element would need 30 personnel to perform 
core functions during the first phase of the study, which was 
completed January 2012. However, National Guard officials noted that 
the ultimate size and structure of the joint staff element will vary 
by state and should correlate with the state's assigned missions and 
personnel. The second phase of the study is intended to develop a 
joint manpower document that would document the state headquarters' 
ultimate size and structure. National Guard Bureau officials expect to 
complete this phase by fiscal year 2015. 

Second, in addition to the National Guard Bureau's study, Army 
National Guard Directorate officials said that the absence of a 
holistic assessment of the state Joint Force headquarters contributed 
to their completing assessments of 17 functions, some of which are 
performed at these headquarters and are staffed with both Army 
National Guard and Air National Guard personnel. Army National Guard 
officials identified five offices within the Adjutant General's 
personal staff that typically have both Army National Guard and Air 
National Guard personnel: the Chaplain's Office, the Human Resources 
Office, the Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Public Affairs 
Office, and the Office of the Inspector General. Army National Guard 
officials said they are not required to collaborate with the Air 
National Guard when determining personnel requirements for these 
functions--although individual analysts may choose to do so at their 
discretion--and assessments only examine Army personnel requirements. 
Army National Guard officials also said that a recently completed 
study of the Chaplain's office and an ongoing study of the Human 
Resources office had minimal collaboration with the Air National 
Guard. Further, Army National Guard officials noted that even if the 
Air National Guard were to be more heavily involved in the Army 
National Guard's studies, there is not a process in place to estimate 
the workload for functions that have both Air National Guard and Army 
National Guard personnel. 

Three different organizations are responsible for assessing personnel 
requirements at the state Joint Force headquarters, and there is no 
process in place that provides a holistic assessment. As a result, the 
state Joint Force headquarters may be missing opportunities to 
consolidate or centralize overlapping functions and services and may 
be allowing personnel gaps or overlaps to develop or persist. For 
example, our review of the personnel requirements documents for the 54 
state Joint Force headquarters shows that a number of similar 
positions are approved for both the Army staff element and the Air 
staff element within the same state. In one state's Joint Force 
headquarters, the Army staff element allocated positions for five 
Judge Advocate Generals, two Public Affairs officials, and one 
Chaplain, while the Air Staff element allocated positions for two 
Judge Advocate Generals, one Public Affairs official, and two 
Chaplains. In a second state Joint Force headquarters, we found that 
the Army staff element allocated positions for three Judge Advocate 
Generals, three Public Affairs officials, and two Chaplains, while the 
Air staff element allocated positions for one Judge Advocate General, 
two Public Affairs officials, and one Chaplain. However, it is not 
clear whether these positions are all justified because the National 
Guard Bureau has not completed a holistic assessment of all the staff 
elements at these headquarters. 

While the National Guard Bureau's and the Army National Guard's 
efforts are important steps in determining personnel requirements at 
the state Joint Force headquarters, they are limited because the 
National Guard has not established a process for holistically 
assessing all three elements at these headquarters. Further, the Army 
National Guard and Air National Guard are not required to collaborate 
when determining personnel requirements, do not use a formal process 
to estimate workload for joint functions in their entirety, and do not 
have a means for ensuring these functions are staffed to be efficient. 
As a result, these studies are unlikely to ensure that the state Joint 
Force headquarters avoid gaps or overlaps in positions and have the 
minimum personnel required to perform their assigned missions. 

The Army and Air Force Have Not Consistently Implemented Processes for 
Reassessing Personnel Requirements of Reserve-Component Headquarters: 

The Army and Air Force have not consistently implemented processes for 
ensuring their reserve-component headquarters have the minimum number 
of personnel, thereby hindering their ability to determine whether 
these headquarters have been sized to be efficient. Our analysis shows 
that 13 of the 20 Army and Air Force reserve-component headquarters 
have not been fully reassessed. Our analysis shows that 5 of the 7 
organizations that have been reassessed shrank from fiscal year 2009 
through fiscal year 2013. In contrast, several of the headquarters 
that showed significant growth were among those that have not been 
reassessed including the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve and 
Air National Guard Readiness Center. As we previously noted, our work 
in the area of strategic human-capital management has shown that 
reassessing resource requirements--including personnel--enables 
organizations to achieve their missions and match resources to their 
needs.[Footnote 51] Table 4 shows the status of personnel requirement 
assessments at the Army and Air Force reserve-component headquarters 
we identified. 

Table 4: Status of Army and Air Force Manpower Assessment Processes 
for Reserve-Component Headquarters: 

Military service: Army; 
Required reassessment time frame: Optimally every 3 years; 
at least once every 2-5 years; 

Headquarters: Army National Guard Directorate; 
Status (year completed): Fully completed (2013). 

Headquarters: Military Intelligence Readiness Command; 
Status (year completed): Fully completed (2010). 

Headquarters: Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2009). 

Headquarters: U.S. Army Reserve Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2009). 

Headquarters: 1st Mission Support Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2012). 

Headquarters: 7th Civil Support Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2012). 

Headquarters: 79th Sustainment Support Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2012). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve Medical Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2012). 

Headquarters: U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations 
Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2012). 

Headquarters: 9th Mission Support Command[A]; 
Status (year completed): Partially completed (2012). 

Headquarters: 63rd Regional Support Command[B]; 
Status (year completed): None. 

Headquarters: 88th Regional Support Command[B]; 
Status (year completed): None. 

Headquarters: 99th Regional Support Command[B]; 
Status (year completed): None. 

Headquarters: 81st Regional Support Command[B]; 
Status (year completed): None. 

Military service: Air Force; 
Required reassessment time frame: None; 

Headquarters: Air National Guard Readiness Center; 
Status (year completed): None[C]. 

Headquarters: Headquarters, Air Force Reserve; 
Status (year completed): ò(2011)[D]. 

Headquarters: Air Force Reserve Command; 
Status (year completed): Fully completed (2012)[D]. 

Headquarters: 22nd Air Force; 
Status (year completed): Fully completed (2012)[D]. 

Headquarters: 4th Air Force; 
Status (year completed): Fully completed (2012)[D]. 

Headquarters: 10th Air Force; 
Status (year completed): Fully completed (2012)[D]. 

Legend: 

Fully completed: The entire headquarters had its personnel 
requirements reassessed. 

Partially completed: A portion of a headquarters had its personnel 
requirements reassessed. For example, personnel requirements for a 
function or a type of position could have been assessed independently 
from the headquarters as a whole. A partial assessment does not fully 
address reassessment requirements. 

None: No part of the headquarters had its personnel requirements 
reassessed. 

Source: GAO analysis of Army and Air Force data: 

[A] Although 13 reserve-component headquarters were not assessed in 
their entirety, some functions within the organizations were assessed; 
however, partial assessments do not fully address requirements 
established in Army Regulation 570-4. 

[B] The four Regional Support Commands are currently in the process of 
being assessed by the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency. 

[C] The Air Force does not have a requirement for this reserve-
component headquarters to be periodically assessed, and the personnel 
requirements for this headquarters have not been assessed. 

[D] While not required by its guidance, in 2012 the Air Force 
conducted full assessments on these headquarters as part of its recent 
efficiencies review. 

[End of table] 

According to Army Manpower Analysis Agency officials, most Army 
reserve-component headquarters have not had their personnel 
requirements fully reassessed because the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis 
Agency has a backlog of reassessments needing review and approval. The 
U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency validates[Footnote 52] the 
headquarters' reassessment of their requirements.[Footnote 53] The 
Army's manpower-management regulation requires that Army headquarters 
be reassessed not less than every 5 years and optimally every 3 years. 
[Footnote 54] Army officials said that a reassessment should generally 
include a review of the entire headquarters; however, there are some 
instances where commanders conduct a partial assessment--for example 
of a single function or type of position. Army officials said that the 
manpower analysis agency has prioritized its review and approval of 
personnel requirements reassessments and worked with the Army Reserve 
to establish a schedule through fiscal year 2016 for reassessing some 
headquarters; however, we found that several of the headquarters 
included in our review that had not recently been reassessed were not 
included in this schedule. Once the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency 
validates an assessment, it is submitted to the Office of the Army 
Operations and Plans for approval. If an Army headquarters does not 
have a validated personnel requirements document, its personnel 
requirements could be removed from its personnel requirements document 
during periodic force-structure reviews and excluded from the Army's 
annual budget request. 

Air Force officials told us that one Air Force reserve-component 
headquarters we identified did not have its personnel-requirements 
assessed because such a periodic reassessment is not currently 
required in the Air Force's guidance. Specifically, the guidance 
[Footnote 55] only requires headquarters embedded in its operational 
wings be reassessed at least every 2 years. In contrast, reassessments 
for the Air Force's reserve-component headquarters are done on an ad 
hoc basis. In 2011 and 2012, the Air Force Reserve reassessed five of 
its headquarters[Footnote 56] as part of its efforts to streamline its 
operations, not due to any requirement in guidance.[Footnote 57] 
Following this reassessment, the Air Force Reserve shrank the three 
numbered Air Force headquarters by more than one-third, and 
Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, by more than 10 percent. Another 
headquarters that was reassessed, the Air Force Reserve Command, grew 
in size by about 7 percent. According to Air Force officials, changes 
in headquarters personnel requirements are typically driven by changes 
in force structure, made in response to efficiency initiatives, or 
initiated by the headquarters' commanding officer. Air Force officials 
said that it would be beneficial to apply a reassessment standard to 
all of the Air Force's reserve-component headquarters, but the Air 
Force has not taken steps to initiate such reviews or revise the 
guidance to require them in the future. Unless the Army and Air Force 
periodically reassess their reserve-component headquarters, they will 
lack assurance that these headquarters are sized with the minimal 
staff required and structured appropriately. 

Conclusions: 

Amid DOD's recent efforts to trim budgets by finding efficiencies and 
reducing overhead, some reserve-component headquarters have grown. 
While some of this growth is due to reducing reliance on contractors 
and expanding missions, DOD does not know whether its reserve-
component headquarters are sized with the appropriate personnel needed 
to accomplish their missions today and in the future. Human-capital 
practices suggest that the size and structure of organizations need to 
be reassessed periodically. In total, 68 of 75 the reserve-component 
headquarters we reviewed have not been recently reassessed. Until 
these organizations are assessed, the Army and Air Force will lack 
assurance that they are sized and structured appropriately. 
Additionally, until DOD externally validates the National Guard 
Bureau's personnel requirements, holistically assesses personnel 
requirements for its 54 state Joint Force headquarters, and schedules 
reassessments for reserve component headquarters it will lack 
assurance that these headquarters are appropriately sized to 
accomplish their assigned mission. 

The National Guard Bureau--whose Chief was recently placed on the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff--has grown about 17 percent since 2010 and is 
anticipating further growth related to its elevated role. However, the 
oversight process currently in place allows the National Guard Bureau 
to determine its personnel requirements without validation by a higher-
level command or external organization. Furthermore, reports used to 
support congressional oversight have not included information on the 
bureau. Unless the bureau's personnel requirements are validated by an 
external organization and related information is included in DOD's 
report to Congress, both DOD and Congress will lack assurance that the 
bureau's size and structure is appropriate for its mission. 

For the 54 state Joint Force headquarters, fragmented review processes 
across the National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard, and Air 
National Guard have created an environment where similar and possibly 
overlapping positions have been approved for the three interconnected 
staff elements in each state. Their requirements have not been 
reassessed since the 1980s, and ongoing studies by the National Guard 
are too limited in scope to provide a comprehensive reassessment. As a 
result, no organization has examined the multiple staff elements at 
these headquarters for potential personnel gaps or overlaps that could 
hinder their ability to perform their missions or could waste 
resources. 

Finally, for those headquarters overseen by the Army and Air Force--
specifically 13 Army Reserve headquarters, 5 Air Force Reserve 
headquarters, the Army National Guard Directorate, and the Air 
National Guard Readiness Center--DOD has processes in place that if 
consistently implemented could help ensure that these headquarters are 
sized and structured appropriately. The Army and Air Force have not 
reassessed 13 of these 20 headquarters, and of the seven headquarters 
that were recently reassessed five shrank, some markedly. Until the 
Army and the Air Force reassess the remaining headquarters that they 
oversee DOD will lack assurance that these headquarters are sized and 
structured appropriately. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To facilitate oversight of the size of DOD's reserve-component 
headquarters and ensure that they have the minimum personnel needed to 
complete their assigned missions, we are making the following six 
recommendations. 

To independently validate the personnel requirements for the National 
Guard Bureau, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau to implement the Joint Chief of 
Staff's Joint Manpower and Personnel Process and have its personnel 
requirements periodically validated by a DOD organization external to 
the National Guard Bureau. 

To provide Congress the data it requires to oversee DOD's Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 
include the National Guard Bureau among its list of Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities and report personnel associated with the 
National Guard Bureau in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report. 

To minimize the potential for gaps or overlaps at the National Guard's 
state Joint Force headquarters, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to: 

* develop a process for the Army National Guard and Air National Guard 
to collaborate when determining personnel requirements for joint 
functions at these headquarters and: 

* assess and validate all personnel requirements at the state Joint 
Force headquarters to include the Army staff element and Air staff 
element. 

To ensure that Army Reserve headquarters and the Army National Guard 
Directorate are properly sized to meet their assigned missions, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 
Army to ensure that these headquarters are reassessed and have their 
personnel requirements validated within required time frames by 
including them in the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency's schedule 
for reassessment and validation. 

To ensure that Air Force Reserve headquarters and the Air National 
Guard Readiness Center are properly sized to meet their assigned 
missions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Secretary of the Air Force to modify the Air Force's guidance to 
require that these headquarters have their personnel requirements 
reassessed on a recurring basis, and establish and implement a 
schedule for reassessing personnel requirements for its reserve-
component headquarters. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense for 
review and comment. In response, we received written comments which 
are reprinted in appendix XI. DOD concurred with three of our 
recommendations and partially concurred with the remaining three 
recommendations. DOD also provided technical comments which we 
incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation that the 
Secretary of Defense require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
have its personnel requirements periodically validated by a DOD 
organization external to the National Guard Bureau. DOD stated that 
while the department agrees that external validation is appropriate, 
it is DOD's view that the appropriate means for obtaining this 
external validation is by establishing a vetting process that includes 
representatives from the Army, Air Force, and the National Guard 
Bureau. DOD therefore suggested that we modify our recommendation to 
reflect this. We believe DOD retains the flexibility to develop a 
vetting process that includes representatives from the organizations 
identified above so long as this process follows the guidelines 
described in DOD guidance and requirements are periodically validated 
by an organization external to the bureau. As a result we did not 
modify our recommendation as DOD suggested. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 
include the National Guard Bureau among its list of Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities and report personnel associated with the 
National Guard Bureau in its Defense Manpower Requirements Report. In 
its response to our recommendations DOD provided several technical 
comments that we addressed in the body of our report. 

The department also partially concurred with our recommendations that 
the Chief, National Guard Bureau modify the scope of its ongoing 
manpower study to reassess personnel requirements at the state Joint 
Force headquarters and validate these requirements including those for 
the Army and Air staff elements. In DOD's response, the department 
detailed ongoing efforts to validate personnel requirements and stated 
that revising the scope of the National Guard Bureau's study would 
eliminate the ability of the Army National Guard and Air National 
Guard to identify their own personnel requirements. The department 
further stated that when shared functions are being studied, 
coordination should be increased between the staff elements to ensure 
that the correct workload is captured, requirements are not 
duplicated, and process efficiencies are maximized. However, we found 
minimal coordination on studies examining the five functions that the 
National Guard identified as being staffed with both Army National 
Guard and Air National Guard personnel. For example, Army National 
Guard officials told us that a study of the Chaplain's office was 
completed with minimal Air National Guard participation and only 
captures the Army National Guard's personnel requirements. Similarly, 
Army National Guard officials said that the Air National Guard has 
been minimally involved in an ongoing evaluation of the Human 
Resources Office. We agree that closer coordination is warranted and 
have revised our recommendation to emphasize this while retaining the 
recommendation that the National Guard Bureau review and validate all 
personnel requirements at the state Joint Force headquarters including 
the Army staff element and Air staff element. 

DOD also concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to ensure that Army Reserve's 
headquarters and the Army National Guard Directorate have their 
personnel requirements validated within required time frames by 
including them in the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency's schedule 
for reassessment and validation. In its response to our 
recommendations, DOD noted it has several ongoing efforts that are 
intended to assess Army Reserve full-time support requirements, and 
institutional and operational headquarters. DOD also noted that the 
draft report was not specific as to whether this recommendation is 
intended to be applicable to the Army National Guard. We clarified our 
recommendation in response to DOD's comments to specify that the Army 
Reserve's headquarters and Army National Guard Directorate be included 
in the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency's schedule for reassessment 
and validation. 

DOD agreed with our last recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Air Force to modify the Air Force's 
guidance to require that these headquarters have their personnel 
requirements reassessed on a recurring basis, and establish and 
implement a schedule for reassessing personnel requirements for its 
reserve-component headquarters. In its response to our 
recommendations, DOD noted that the Air Force agreed to modify its 
guidance to require that reserve component headquarters have their 
personnel requirements reassessed on a recurring basis. Additionally, 
the Air Force intends to establish and implement a schedule for 
reassessing personnel requirements at these headquarters. If 
implemented, these steps would satisfy the intent of our 
recommendation. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Defense; the 
Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Chief, Army 
Reserve; and the Chief, Air Force Reserve. This report is also 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact John Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@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 contributions to this report are listed in appendix XII. 

Signed by: 

John H. Pendleton: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To conduct this work and address our objectives, we reviewed data on 
funded positions at the Army's and Air Force's reserve-component 
headquarters from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. We 
selected these years because senior officials stated that the current 
reserve-component headquarters structure has remained relatively 
constant over this period of time. We did not review contractor 
positions as part of this review because officials told us that they 
were unable to determine the number of contractor positions at the 
reserve-component headquarters we identified. On the basis of a review 
of Department of Defense (DOD) and service guidance,[Footnote 58] 
organization charts, and discussions with officials, we focused our 
review on 75 headquarters within the Army National Guard, Air National 
Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve. We limited our review to 
nondeployable headquarters that perform many of the functions DOD 
identified as being characteristics of management headquarters. For 
the Army, these headquarters had their personnel requirements 
documented on tables of distribution and allowance, and we 
collaborated with Army National Guard and Army Reserve officials when 
developing our list. For the Air Force, we interviewed Air National 
Guard and Air Force Reserve officials to identify headquarters units 
that met our criteria. We then provided DOD, Joint Staff, National 
Guard, and Reserve officials with an opportunity to comment on our 
final list of 75 headquarters and these officials agreed the 
headquarters we identified met these criteria, but noted that they 
were not all Major DOD Headquarters Activities. 

For all of the headquarters we identified, we limited our assessment 
of personnel requirements to positions that: were assigned to the 
headquarters, included military personnel or civilians, were funded by 
the federal government, and did not complete work in support of more 
than one component (for example, recruiting positions were excluded 
because the Army Reserve and the active-duty Army share recruiting 
resources). To ensure the reliability of the personnel data, we 
interviewed knowledgeable officials about the data and internal 
controls on the systems that contain them. We also analyzed the data 
in order to identify outliers or invalid data and removed these data 
from our dataset where appropriate. Finally, we shared our analysis 
with knowledgeable agency officials and asked them to verify its 
accuracy. On the basis of these steps we determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. 

To evaluate the extent to which DOD established and implemented 
processes to efficiently size its reserve-component headquarters and 
provide information for congressional oversight we took the following 
steps: 

1. We evaluated the Joint Staff's implementation of its process for 
assessing personnel requirements at the National Guard Bureau by 
reviewing relevant guidance and documentation and interviewing 
officials from the Joint Staff and the National Guard Bureau.[Footnote 
59] Where available, we analyzed manpower assessments and manpower 
documents for the National Guard Bureau from fiscal year 2009 through 
fiscal year 2013 and evaluated whether they met standards. We also 
compared the steps taken to assess the National Guard Bureau's 
personnel requirements with Army and Air Force guidance and practices. 
[Footnote 60] 

2. We assessed DOD's efforts to identify Army and Air Force reserve 
component major DOD headquarters activities and report personnel data 
for these headquarters by reviewing DOD guidance on major DOD 
headquarters activities; reviewing documentation and interviewing 
officials to identify reserve-component headquarters with those 
characteristics; and comparing identified headquarters' functions to 
characteristics of Major DOD Headquarters Activities identified in 
DOD's guidance.[Footnote 61] We assessed section 194 of Title 10 of 
the United States Code to determine whether the statutory cap 
identified in that section applies to the headquarters we identified. 
We also reviewed the Defense Manpower Requirements Report for fiscal 
year 2012 and fiscal year 2013[Footnote 62] to determine which 
headquarters were included in reports to Congress. Where we identified 
discrepancies, we spoke with DOD and service officials to identify the 
cause of these discrepancies. Finally, we assessed the National Guard 
Bureau's ongoing study (Project Muster) seeking to establish baseline 
requirements for the National Guard Bureau by collecting relevant 
documentation and interviewing knowledgeable staff from the National 
Guard Bureau. 

3. We evaluated the National Guard Bureau's implementation of its 
process for assessing personnel requirements at the 54 state Joint 
Force headquarters by reviewing relevant guidance[Footnote 63] and 
documentation and interviewing officials from the Joint Staff and the 
National Guard Bureau. We analyzed manpower assessments and manpower 
documents from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013 for the state 
Joint Force headquarters and evaluated whether they met standards 
established in guidance. We also conducted site visits to the state 
Joint Force headquarters for Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas 
to determine whether manpower documents and assessments accurately 
documented these headquarters' requirements given assigned personnel, 
missions, and workload. We selected these headquarters to obtain 
perspectives from state officials from states of varying size and with 
different numbers of National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force 
Reserve personnel. Finally, we assessed the National Guard Bureau's 
ongoing state Joint Force headquarters requirements study seeking to 
establish baseline personnel requirements for these headquarters' 
Joint staff element by collecting relevant documentation and 
interviewing knowledgeable staff from the National Guard Bureau. 

We evaluated the Army's and Air Force's implementation of their 
processes for assessing personnel requirements at service-specific 
headquarters by reviewing relevant guidance[Footnote 64] and 
documentation and interviewing officials from numerous Army and Air 
Force offices including the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency, the 
Air Force Personnel Center, and Air Force Reserve Command. We then 
analyzed manpower assessments for each of the 20 service-specific 
headquarters we identified for fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 
2013 to determine (1) when the headquarters was most recently 
reassessed, (2) the scope of the assessment, and (3) whether they met 
requirements established in guidance for recurring reassessment and 
validation of headquarters' personnel requirements. One analyst 
analyzed the assessments and a second analyst reviewed the analyst's 
work. Any disagreements in the determination were resolved through 
discussion. We also visited the headquarters listed in table 5 to 
determine whether manpower documents and assessments accurately 
documented these headquarters' personnel requirements given assigned 
personnel, missions, and workload. 

Table 5: Nongeneralizable Sample of Reserve-Component Headquarters 
Visited during the Audit: 

Component: National Guard; 
Headquarters: 
* Army National Guard Directorate; 
* Air National Guard Readiness Center. 

Component: Army Reserve; 
Headquarters: 
* Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve; 
* U.S. Army Reserve Command; 
* 99th Regional Support Command; 
* Military Intelligence Readiness Command. 

Component: Air Force Reserve; 
Headquarters: 
* Headquarters, Air Force Reserve; 
* Air Force Reserve Command; 
* 22nd Air Force. 

Component: State Headquarters; 
Headquarters: 
* Joint Forces Headquarters-State for Delaware; 
* Joint Forces Headquarters-State for Georgia; 
* Joint Forces Headquarters-State for New Jersey; 
* Joint Forces Headquarters-State for Texas. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

To discuss whether DOD has studied merging the Army's and Air Force's 
reserve components to improve efficiency, we conducted a literature 
search, analyzed past studies, reviewed our prior work, and reviewed 
white papers by DOD and subject-matter experts examining mergers and 
the factors organizations use when evaluating the merits of a merger. 
We reviewed statutes as well as DOD and military-service guidance 
describing the organization and function of the Army's and Air Force's 
reserve-component headquarters to understand their missions and how 
they are organized.[Footnote 65] To obtain perspectives on the 
implications of a merger, we interviewed officials from numerous 
offices including the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the National 
Guard Bureau; the Department of the Army; the Office of the Chief, 
Army Reserve; the Department of the Air Force; and the Office of the 
Chief, Air Force Reserve. We also reviewed documentation and met with 
officials from four state Joint Force headquarters and select 
headquarters in the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve. We interviewed 
officials and, where appropriate, obtained documentation at the 
organizations listed in table 6. 

Table 6: Organizations Interviewed over the Course of the Audit: 

Department: DOD; 

Organization: Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joint Staff/J-1). 

Organization: National Guard Bureau (Joint Staff). 

Organization: Office of the Advisors to the Chief of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff for National Guard Affairs and Reserve Affairs. 

Organization: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 
Affairs. 

Organization: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense-Homeland 
Defense and America's Security Affairs. 

Organization: Reserve Force Policy Board. 

Department: Army; 

Organization: Army G/3/5/7 Force Management and Planning. 

Organization: Army Human Resources Command. 

Organization: Army National Guard Directorate. 

Organization: Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee. 

Organization: Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs. 

Organization: Institutional Army Transformation Commission. 

Organization: Office, Chief Army Reserve. 

Organization: U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency. 

Organization: U.S. Army Forces Command. 

Organization: U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency. 

Organization: U.S. Army Reserve Command. 

Department: Air Force; 

Organization: 22nd Air Force. 

Organization: Air Force Personnel Center. 

Organization: Air Force Reserve Command. 

Organization: Headquarters, Air Force Reserve. 

Organization: Air National Guard Readiness Center. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Reserve Affairs (SAF/ 
MRR). 

Organization: Force Generation Policy Branch. 

Organization: Manpower Programs Branch. 

Organization: Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). 

Department: State Headquarters; 

Organization: Joint Forces Headquarters--State for Delaware. 

Organization: Joint Forces Headquarters--State for Georgia. 

Organization: Joint Forces Headquarters--State for New Jersey. 

Organization: Joint Forces Headquarters--State for Texas. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to November 2013, 
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: Summary of Efforts to Study Merger of the Army's and Air 
Force's Reserve Components: 

Department of Defense (DOD), special commissions, and some nondefense 
organizations have studied the concept of merging the Air Force's and 
the Army's reserve components. DOD considered merging some reserve 
components after World War II, during the Vietnam era, and during the 
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, the Congressional Budget 
Office examined the costs and benefits of merging multiple components. 
Additionally, the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
recommended that National Guard and Reserve units share facilities. 
Finally, DOD has taken steps, short of merging its reserve components, 
to address concerns about access to the federal reserves to assist the 
National Guard in domestic duties such as responding to floods or 
hurricanes. 

Department of Defense Studies: 

DOD considered merging some reserve components after World War II, 
during the Vietnam era, and during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

* The Committee on Civilian Components or "Gray Board." In November 
1947, the Secretary of Defense convened a six-member Committee on 
Civilian Components with representatives from the Army, Navy, and Air 
Force to broadly study the National Guard and Reserves. This committee 
found that National Guard units used during World War II required 
lengthy periods of training before being deployed. The committee's 
report was also critical of state Governors--none of whom, it argued, 
had any direct responsibility for the national security--and it 
recommended merging the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard 
with the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve, respectively, to form two 
federally controlled Reserve forces.[Footnote 66] The Secretary of 
Defense did not endorse this recommendation. 

* Vietnam-era Proposals. DOD considered realigning the Army's reserve 
components in 1961-1962 and 1964, when the Secretary of Defense put 
forth two plans that were intended to streamline or merge the Army 
National Guard and Army Reserve. The first plan proposed eliminating 
four National Guard divisions and four Army Reserve divisions. 
Subsequently, a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee 
conducted an inquiry into the defense posture of the reserve 
components. In August of 1962, the subcommittee issued its report, 
which criticized the Secretary's plan for its negative effect on 
morale, and because it did not address issues related to reserve-
component recruiting, retention, and equipment. The report also noted 
opposition from Army and reserve-component advisory boards. The 
Secretary of Defense did not implement the proposed approach. The 
Secretary's second plan proposed merging all of the Army's Guard and 
Reserve units under the management of the National Guard at the 
federal level. Under this plan, the Army Reserve's units would have 
been eliminated and Army Reservists would be organized, trained, and 
equipped as individuals and not as units. Like the Secretary's first 
plan, this proposal was not implemented due to congressional 
opposition.[Footnote 67] 

* Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. While large numbers 
of reservists were being deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005 created a 13-member, independent Commission on the National 
Guard and Reserves.[Footnote 68] Congress chartered the commission to 
assess a variety of issues related to the reserve components of the 
U.S. military and to make recommendations on those issues. The 
commission's stated mission was to ensure that the National Guard and 
reserves are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported 
to best meet the needs of U.S. national security. The commission 
issued three reports between 2006 and 2008 studying, among other 
things, the roles and missions of the National Guard and other reserve 
components.[Footnote 69] The commission's third report focused on the 
organizational and structural changes required to support an 
operational reserve force.[Footnote 70] A former staff member for the 
commission stated that the commission studied the feasibility and 
advisability of merging the National Guard with the Army Reserve and 
the Air Force Reserve, but it ultimately concluded that doing so would 
not better enable the reserve component to execute its missions, and 
the process would be extremely difficult--both politically and 
logistically--as well as costly to implement. The commission 
ultimately focused its report on (1) changes that could be made to 
remove cultural barriers that hamper the effective use of the reserve 
components, (2) changes to the categories used to manage the reserve 
components, (3) changes to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 
(4) changes within the reserve components and their headquarters. The 
commission made several recommendations across these areas; however, 
it did not recommend significant changes to the structure. 

Studies by Nondefense Organizations: 

Previous studies of government reorganization and other types of 
mergers and transformations have found such endeavors to be complex 
and challenging, particularly during periods of government downsizing 
and budgetary pressures, and they can involve significant up-front 
costs.[Footnote 71] For instance, our review assessing the potential 
move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior found 
that, while there was the potential to improve federal land management 
through the consolidation, making the move would require careful 
consideration of a number of cultural, organizational, and legal 
factors and related transition costs, which could lead to unintended 
consequences if the merger were to take place.[Footnote 72] The 
Congressional Budget Office examined the costs and benefits of merging 
components. Additionally, the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission recommended reducing excess infrastructure by requiring 
National Guard and Reserve units to share facilities. 

* Congressional Budget Office. In a 1997 report presenting spending 
and revenue options for reducing the federal deficit, the 
Congressional Budget Office proposed merging the Army National Guard 
and the Army Reserve into a single entity that would retain the dual 
state and federal status of the current Army National Guard.[Footnote 
73] In its report, the Congressional Budget Office noted that laws and 
court rulings had removed many impediments to the President's power to 
call up National Guard units, potentially making the federal reserves 
redundant. In addition, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
many capabilities currently in the Army Reserve--such as helicopter 
transport units and medical units--might be useful to Governors during 
domestic crises. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimated that by eliminating duplicative administrative organizations 
and eliminating approximately 43,000 personnel from the Reserve, the 
Army could save over $500 million annually. It is unclear, however, 
whether similar cost savings could still be realized. 

* 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission. For the 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure round, the Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission approved 44 recommendations that pertain to the reserve 
components which primarily directed the Army National Guard and the 
Army Reserve to create 125 Armed Forces Reserve Centers capable of 
accommodating both National Guard and Reserve units.[Footnote 74] 
According to DOD, these Armed Forces Reserve Centers should 
significantly reduce operating costs; however, we reported in 2013 
that DOD officials estimated the total cost to implement the 44 
recommendations was about $3 billion, and it is unclear whether the 
consolidations will result in cost savings over the long term. 
[Footnote 75] 

Efforts to Improve Access to Federal Reserves and Federal Response to 
Domestic Incidents: 

In June 1993, following Hurricane Andrew, we noted that a large 
percentage of the type of DOD capabilities that are needed in 
disasters--such as engineers, military police, supply and 
transportation personnel, and chaplains--reside in DOD's reserve 
components, particularly in the Army Reserve.[Footnote 76] At that 
time, and again in May 2006, in our report on the military's response 
to Hurricane Katrina,[Footnote 77] we reported that the Reservists who 
responded to the disaster--all of whom were volunteers--constituted a 
relatively small portion of the response when compared to National 
Guard and active component forces because, while states were able to 
mobilize National Guard forces, no similar provisions existed to 
specifically mobilize Reserve forces for disaster response. 

Since Hurricane Katrina, two key steps have been taken to address 
DOD's response to domestic incidents: (1) implementation of a command 
construct whereby a single military officer exercises authority over 
both federal military forces and state National Guard forces; and (2) 
implementation of new mobilization authorities. 

* Dual-Status Commanders. The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 provided that a dual-status commander--military 
officers with authority over both federal military forces and state 
National Guard forces--should be the usual and customary command and 
control arrangement in situations when the armed forces and National 
Guard are employed simultaneously in support of civil authorities, 
including missions involving major disasters and emergencies. When an 
officer is appointed as a dual-status commander, he or she serves on 
federal active duty, sometimes referred to as Title 10 status, as well 
as on duty in or with the National Guard of a state, sometimes 
referred to as Title 32 status.[Footnote 78] Dual-status commanders 
exercise command on behalf of both the federal and the state chains of 
command and serve as the link between these two chains of command. 
According to DOD officials, dual-status commanders are intended to 
provide unity of effort, ensuring coordination of National Guard and 
federal military resources in response to domestic emergencies, 
natural disasters, or designated planned events. According to DOD 
officials, dual-status commanders have been used for select planned 
events since 2004 and helped coordinate response to Hurricane Sandy in 
2012, wildfires in Colorado, and the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 
2013. 

* Mobilization Authorities. DOD officials said that following 
Hurricane Katrina it was clear to them that the military needed to be 
empowered to respond more quickly to disasters. Ultimately, Congress 
approved new authorities in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, one of which provided DOD with greater access to the 
federal reserve during domestic incidents.[Footnote 79] Section 12304a 
of Title 10 of the United States Code states that when a Governor 
requests federal assistance in responding to a major disaster or 
emergency the Secretary of Defense may mobilize any individual or unit 
of the federal reserves involuntarily for up to 120 days to respond to 
the Governor's request.[Footnote 80] The military services were using 
interim implementation guidance for these authorities at the time of 
our review and were waiting for DOD to finalize its guidance in 
September 2013. Additionally, DOD officials told us that Hurricane 
Sandy is the only domestic disaster thus far to use the new 
mobilization authorities under section 12304a. Since DOD is still 
developing its process for implementing these new authorities and has 
had limited experience using them it is too early to know whether they 
will better enable the states to access federal capabilities when 
responding to domestic disasters. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Profile for the National Guard Bureau, Army National 
Guard Directorate, and Air National Guard Readiness Center: 

National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Directorate, and Air 
National Guard Readiness Center: 

The National Guard has a dual role as a state force and as a reserve 
component of the Army and the Air Force. The National Guard Bureau is 
headed by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, a General who is a 
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Department of Defense (DOD) 
guidance states that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is the 
principal advisor to the Army and Air Force on matters relating to the 
National Guard and serves as the channel of communications between DOD 
and the states. Subordinate to the National Guard Bureau are the Army 
National Guard Directorate and the Air National Guard Readiness 
Center, which are commanded by Lieutenant Generals. These headquarters 
are responsible for assisting the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
in implementing guidance on structure, strength authorizations, and 
other resources allocated to the National Guard; supervising and 
administering the Active Guard and Reserve program; and ensuring that 
units are trained and ready in accordance with the National Guard 
Bureau– and military service–approved policies and programs. 

National Guard Bureau, Arlington Hall Station, Virginia: 
Mission: Participate with the Army and the Air Force staffs in the 
formulation, development, and coordination of all programs, policies, 
concepts, and plans pertaining to the National Guard; administer 
programs; and assist in the organization, maintenance, and operation 
of National Guard units. 

Responsibilities: Focal point at the strategic level for National 
Guard matters that are not under the authority of the military 
service. Channel of communication between DOD and the states. 

Capabilities managed:[A] 
* National Guard Bureau Joint Staff; 
* Director, Army National Guard; 
* Director, Air National Guard; 
* Office of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements not 
determined through an assessment as of May 2013. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major DOD headquarters 
activity in DOD’s instruction, and therefore DOD did not report 
personnel data in its Defense Manpower Requirements Report. 

Army National Guard Directorate, Arlington Hall Station, Virginia: 

Mission: Assist the Chief, National Guard Bureau, in carrying out the 
functions of the National Guard Bureau as they relate to the Army 
National Guard. 

Responsibilities: The Director, Army National Guard, under the 
supervision and control of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, performs 
those administrative and operational functions of the Chief pertaining 
to the Army National Guard of the United States. 

Capabilities managed: 
* Command and control headquarters for multiple capabilities including 
divisions, expeditionary sustainment, and military police; 
* Special Forces groups; 
* Brigade combat teams for infantry, armor, and Stryker; 
* Multifunctional support brigades including maneuver enhancement and 
sustainment; 
* Functional support brigades including regional support groups, 
engineer, and theater aviation; 
* Modified battalions. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements were 
determined through a reassessment in 2013. 

Personnel data reported: DOD reported personnel data for this 
headquarters in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report for personnel 
performing major headquarters activities functions. 

Air National Guard Readiness Center, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland: 

Mission: Assist the Chief, National Guard Bureau, in carrying out the 
functions of the National Guard Bureau as they relate to the Air 
National Guard. 

Responsibilities: The Director, Air National Guard, under the 
supervision and control of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, performs 
those administrative and operational functions of the Chief pertaining 
to the Air National Guard of the United States. 

Capabilities managed: 
* Alert sites for air defense; 
* Tactical airlift; 
* Air refueling tankers; 
* General purpose fighters; 
* Rescue and recovery capabilities; 
* Tactical air support; 
* Weather flights; 
* Strategic airlift; 
* Special operations; 
* Aeromedical evacuation. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements not 
determined through an assessment as of May 2013. 

Personnel data reported: DOD reported personnel data for this 
headquarters in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report for personnel 
performing major headquarters activities functions. 

Our analysis of the National Guard’s personnel data shows that the 
National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Directorate, and Air 
National Guard Readiness Center experienced substantial growth in the 
number of funded positions from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 
2013. 

Element: Headquarters, National Guard Bureau: 

Personnel category: Active Duty; 
2009: 11; 
2010: 11; 
2011: 10; 
2012: 10; 
2013: 13; 
Net change: 2 (18%). 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 478; 
2010: 476; 
2011: 490; 
2012: 492; 
2013: 490; 
Net change: 12 (3%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 238; 
2010: 363; 
2011: 368; 
2012: 364; 
2013: 363; 
Net change: 125 (53%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 727; 
2010: 850; 
2011: 868; 
2012: 866; 
2013: 866; 
Net change: 139 (19%0; 

Personnel category: Part-time Guardsmen; 
2009: 17; 
2010: 2; 
2011: 1; 
2012: 1; 
2013: 1; 
Net change: -16 (-94%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 744; 
2010: 852; 
2011: 869; 
2012: 867; 
2013: 867; 
Net change: 123 (17%). 

Element: Army National Guard Directorate: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 827; 
2010: 824; 
2011: 865; 
2012: 877; 
2013: 880; 
Net change: 53 (6%0. 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 357; 
2010: 638; 
2011: 650; 
2012: 682; 
2013: 683; 
Net change: 326 (91%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 1,184; 
2010: 1,462; 
2011: 1,515; 
2012: 1,559; 
2013: 1,563; 
Net change: 379 )32%). 

Personnel category: Active duty for operational support; 
2009: 531; 
2010: 182; 
2011: 908; 
2012: 908; 
2013: 908; 
Net change: 377 (71%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 1,715; 
2010: 1,644; 
2011: 2,423; 
2012: 2,467; 
2013: 2,471; 
Net change: 756 (44%). 

Element: Air National Guard Readiness Center; 

Personnel category: Active Duty; 
2009: 79; 
2010: 76; 
2011: 74; 
2012: 72; 
2013: 72; 
Net change: -7 (-9%). 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 554; 
2010: 548; 
2011: 555; 
2012: 565; 
2013: 581; 
Net change: 27 (5%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 341; 
2010: 499; 
2011: 512; 
2012: 528; 
2013: 532; 
Net change: 191 (56%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 974; 
2010: 1,123; 
2011: 1,141; 
2012: 1,165; 
2013: 1,185; 
Net change: 211 (22%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Guardsmen; 
2009: 26; 
2010: 27; 
2011: 27; 
2012: 26; 
2013: 26; 
Net change: 0 (0%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 1,000; 
2010: 1,150; 
2011: 1,168; 
2012: 1,191; 
2013: 1,211; 
Net change: 211 (21%). 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and National Guard data. 

Notes: Air National Guard officials said that growth in positions was 
driven largely by DOD's in-sourcing effort. In April 2009, the 
Secretary of Defense announced his intention to reduce the 
department's reliance on contractors and increase funding for new 
civilian authorizations. For example, Air National Guard officials 
said that DOD's in-sourcing effort caused the Air National Guard 
Readiness Center to add 180 funded positions to the headquarters' unit 
manning document; however, they could not determine the number of 
contractor positions that were eliminated as a result of this in-
sourcing effort. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time Guardsmen categories. : 

In addition to having full-time civilian and Active Guard and Reserve 
personnel, the Army National Guard Directorate has a group of 
personnel that are categorized as "Active Duty for Operational 
Support". Active Duty for Operational Support is an authorized 
voluntary tour of active duty that is performed at the request of an 
organizational or operational commander, or as a result of 
reimbursable funding, among other things. The purpose of this category 
is to provide the necessary skilled manpower assets to support 
existing or emerging requirements. 

[A] We included subordinate headquarters in the National Guard 
Bureau's list of capabilities because these headquarters are under the 
management of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Profile for the National Guard State Joint Force 
Headquarters: 

National Guard Joint Force Headquarters-State: 

In 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued guidance[A] formally 
establishing 54 National Guard State Joint Force headquarters (DOD 
calls these Joint Force Headquarters-State).[B] These headquarters are 
commanded by an Adjutant General and are comprised of a Joint staff 
element, Army staff element, Air staff element, and the personal staff 
of the State Adjutant General. The state Joint Force headquarters have 
command and control of National Guard units within their areas of 
responsibility and train and equip these units. They also help 
integrate federal and state-level activities and respond to domestic 
incidents. 

50 states and District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and 
Guam: 

Mission: Maintain trained and equipped forces to perform missions as 
authorized by the Governor and the President and provide command and 
control of all Army National Guard and Air National Guard forces in 
their areas of responsibility, among other missions. 

Responsibilities: The Adjutant General’s federal responsibilities 
include the following: 
* Establishing temporary joint task force command elements ready to 
provide command and control for domestic operations. 
* Accepting mutually agreed-upon federal liaison elements. 
* Designating officers eligible to serve in dual-status and ensure 
that these officers facilitate unity of effort between state and 
federal military forces. 
* Ensure homeland defense– and civil support–unique equipment is 
available for use should the unit owning the equipment deploy.
* Advise the Governors and collaborate with DOD leadership. 

Capabilities managed: All Army National Guard and Air National Guard 
capabilities are under the command and control of one or more of the 
54 state Joint Force headquarters when not mobilized by the President 
for federal missions. 

Status of personnel requirements: The 54 state Joint Force 
headquarters have not had their manpower requirements reassessed as of 
May 2013; however, according to National Guard Bureau officials they 
are in the process of determining personnel requirements for the state 
Joint Force headquarters Joint staff element. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major DOD headquarters 
activity in DOD’s instruction, and therefore officials said that DOD 
did not report personnel data for these headquarters in its Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report. 

Our analysis of the 54 state Joint Force headquarters personnel data 
shows that funded positions at these headquarters have remained 
relatively flat from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013, as 
shown below. 

Headquarters: State Joint Force headquarters: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 2,284; 
2010: 2,306; 
2011: 2,122; 
2012: 1,925; 
2013: 1,899; 
Net change: -385 (-17%). 

Personnel category: Military Technician; 
2009: 7,669; 
2010: 7,667; 
2011: 7,898; 
2012: 7,884; 
2013: 7,878; 
Net change: 209 (3%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 9,953; 
2010: 9,973; 
2011: 10,019; 
2012: 9,808; 
2013: 9,777; 
Net change: -175 (-2%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Guardsmen; 
2009: 11,687; 
2010: 11,753; 
2011: 11,956; 
2012: 12,118; 
2013: 12,120; 
Net change: 432 (4%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 21,640; 
2010: 21,726; 
2011: 21,975; 
2012: 21,926; 
2013: 21,897; 
Net change: 257 (1%). 

Source: GAO analysis of National Guard data. 

Notes: National Guard officials attributed the increase of over 250 
funded positions at the state Joint Force headquarters to mission 
growth resulting from the establishment of civil support capabilities 
such as implementation of the Homeland Response Forces beginning in 
fiscal year 2011. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time Guardsmen categories. : 

[A] DOD Directive 5105.83, National Guard Joint Force Headquarters-
State (NG-JFHQs-State) (Jan. 5, 2011). 

[B] Joint Force Headquarters-State evolved from predecessor Army 
National Guard and Air National Guard headquarters in each state that 
were established in the 1980s. In 2003, at the direction of the Chief 
of the National Guard Bureau, the predecessor headquarters were 
combined into the 54 Joint Force Headquarters-State each of which is 
commanded by an Adjutant General under the command of the Governor. 
This arrangement was formally recognized by DOD in 2011 with the 
issuance of DOD Instruction 5105.83. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Profile for the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve 
and U.S. Army Reserve Command: 

Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve and U.S. Army Reserve Command: 

The Army Reserve is a component of the Department of the Army and 
provides maneuver support and maneuver sustainment capabilities as 
well as individual soldiers through the Individual Ready Reserve and 
as Individual Mobilization Augmentees. The Chief of the Army Reserve—a 
Lieutenant General—is the commanding officer for both the Office of 
the Chief of the Army Reserve and U.S. Army Reserve Command. As the 
Chief of the Army Reserve, the commander sits on the Army staff and is 
responsible, subject to certain exceptions, for justification and 
execution of certain Army Reserve budgets, and is the director and 
functional manager of those appropriations; managing the Army 
Reserve’s full-time support program; and submitting annual reports to 
the Secretary of Defense. As the commander of U.S. Army Reserve 
Command, the commander reports to U.S. Army Forces Command and 
commands, controls, supports, and ensures wartime readiness of Army 
Reserve forces. 

Office of the Chief, Army REserve, Pentagon, Virginia: 

Mission: Serve as the Headquarters Army principal staff organization 
to organize and equip Army Reserve Forces. Provide direct support to 
the Chief of Staff of the Army in the execution of his or her function 
and Title X responsibilities, and commands the U.S. Army Reserve 
Command. 

Responsibilities: Responsible, subject to certain exceptions, for 
justification and execution of certain Army Reserve budgets, and is 
the director and functional manager of those appropriations; managing 
the Army Reserve’s full-time support program; and submitting annual 
reports to the Secretary of Defense. 

Capabilities managed: Not applicable. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements have not been 
fully determined through the Army Manpower Management Program; 
however, in 2009 the headquarters established an Employer Partnership 
Office, which involved the development of a concept plan for that 
office. 

Personnel data reported: DOD reported personnel data for this 
headquarters in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report as part of 
the Army staff, which is identified as a major DOD headquarters 
activity in DOD’s guidance. 

U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina: 

Mission: Provide command, control, and support to Army Reserve forces 
assigned. 

Responsibilities: Organizes, trains, and prepares Army Reserve units 
for mobilization and commitment to wartime theater of operations. 
Ensures wartime readiness of Army Reserve forces. 

Capabilities managed:[A] 
* Judge Advocate General units; 
* Chaplain units; 
* Civil affairs; 
* Military history; 
* Quartermaster; 
* Military Information Support Operations; 
* Postal and Personnel; 
* Medical; 
* Information Operations; 
* Chemical; 
* Transportation; 
* Public Affairs; 
* Engineers; 
* Military Intelligence; 
* Military Police. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements have not been 
fully evaluated through the Army Manpower Management Program; however, 
in 2009 the headquarters established baseline requirements for seven 
of its Inspector General functions. 

Personnel data reported: DOD reported personnel data for this 
headquarters in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report for personnel 
performing major headquarters activities functions. 

Our analysis of Army Reserve personnel data shows that the Office of 
the Chief of the Army Reserve and the U.S. Army Reserve Command grew 
from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013 as shown below. 

Headquarters: Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 212; 
2010: 262; 
2011: 271; 
2012: 281; 
2013: 281; 
Net change: 69 (32.5%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 54; 
2010: 133; 
2011: 134; 
2012: 138; 
2013: 105; 
Net change: 51 (94.4%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 266; 
2010: 395; 
2011: 405; 
2012: 419; 
2013: 386; 
Net change: 120 (45.1%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Reservists; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 0; 
2011: 0; 
2012: 0; 
2013: 0; 
Net change: 0 (NA). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 266; 
2010: 395; 
2011: 405; 
2012: 419; 
2013: 386; 
Net change: 120 (45.1%). 

Headquarters: U.S. Army Reserve Command: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 372; 
2010: 327; 
2011: 327; 
2012: 322; 
2013: 419; 
Net change: 47 (12.6%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 342; 
2010: 278; 
2011: 278; 
2012: 287; 
2013: 311; 
Net change: -31 (-9.1%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 714; 
2010: 605; 
2011: 605; 
2012: 609; 
2013: 730; 
Net change: 16 (2.2%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Reservists; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 0; 
2011: 0; 
2012: 0; 
2013: 0; 
Net change: 0 (NA). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 714; 
2010: 605; 
2011: 605; 
2012: 609; 
2013: 730; 
Net change: 16 (2.2%). 

Source: GAO analysis of Army Reserve data. 

Notes: Army Reserve officials noted that changes in funded positions 
are partially driven by movement of positions between the Office of 
the Chief of the Army Reserve and U.S. Army Reserve Command. 
Additionally, officials said one significant driver of growth was the 
addition of new missions such as the addition of the Employer 
Partnership Office to the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve. 
According to senior Army Reserve officials, growth in the Office of 
the Chief of the Army Reserve also is driven by the transfer of 
functions between staff elements. For example, officials said that in 
fiscal year 2012 the Army Reserve Installation Management Directorate 
was added to the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve's personnel 
requirements document as a result of an agreement between the Chief of 
the Army Reserve and the Commander for Army Installation Management 
Command. Officials said that 10 military and 33 civilian positions 
were added to the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve in fiscal 
year 2013 as a result of this decision. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time reservist categories. 

[A] Does not represent all capabilities managed by the U.S. Army 
Reserve Command. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Profile for the Army Reserve Regional Support Commands: 

Army Reserve Regional Support Commands: 

Army Reserve officials said that the creation of the four Army Reserve 
Regional Support Commands was part of the Army Reserve’s evolution 
from a structure that included over 30 commands performing regional 
missions to 21 functional and regional commands. Each of the regional 
support commands are commanded by a Major General. 

63rd Regional Support Command, Moffett Field, California; 
81st Regional Support Command, Ft. Jackson, South Carolina; 
88th Regional Support Command, Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin; 
99th Regional Support Command, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New 
Jersey. 

Mission: Provides administrative and logistical support to all Army 
Reserve units and commands within its geographic area of 
responsibility. Manages all Operations and Maintenance, Personnel, 
Military Construction, and other appropriations for which requirements 
are justified as allocated by the U.S. Army Reserve Command and the 
Office of Chief, Army Reserve. Supervises all area maintenance support 
activities and equipment-concentration sites within its area of 
responsibility. Provides facility support to all Army Reserve units 
within its area of responsibility. 

Responsibilities: The Command Group of these commands is responsible 
for the following: 

* Provide direction, guidance, and regional base-operations support to 
supported units within the region. The base-operations support is 
provided in functional areas of personnel, logistics, force 
integration, programming and budgeting, finance and accounting, 
information management, emergency services, public works, historian, 
inspector general, religious, medical, legal, safety, public affairs, 
internal review, and management controls.
* Manage and execute appropriations as authorized by U.S. Army Reserve 
Command and the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management 
for base-operations support.
* Implement policies and intent of the U.S. Army Reserve Command 
commanding general.
* Represent the Army Reserve before military and civilian 
organizations and agencies at various levels of command and government 
to include speaking engagements. 
* Assist with local community relations and represent the U.S. Army 
Reserve Command to foreign dignitaries on various occasions. 

Capabilities managed: Not applicable. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements have not been 
fully determined through the Army Manpower Management Program; 
however, they are currently in the process of being reassessed. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major Department of Defense 
headquarters activity in DOD’s instruction, and therefore officials 
said that DOD did not report personnel data in its Defense Manpower 
Requirements Report. 

Our analysis of the Army Reserve’s Regional Support Command personnel 
data shows that funded positions at these headquarters have increased 
slightly from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013, as shown 
below. 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 63rd Regional Support Command: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 34; 
2010: 34; 
2011: 34; 
2012: 34; 
2013: 33; 
Net change: -1 (-3%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 196; 
2010: 196; 
2011: 196; 
2012: 234; 
2013: 204; 
Net change: 8 (4%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 230; 
2010: 230; 
2011: 230; 
2012: 268; 
2013: 237; 
Net change: 7 (3%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Reservists; 
2009: 49; 
2010: 51; 
2011: 51; 
2012: 51; 
2013: 52; 
Net change: 3 (6%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 279; 
2010: 281; 
2011: 281; 
2012: 319; 
2013: 289; 
Net change: 10 (4%). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 81st Regional Support Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 34; 
2010: 34; 
2011: 34; 
2012: 34; 
2013: 35; 
Net change: 1 (3%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 197; 
2010: 198; 
2011: 199; 
2012: 235; 
2013: 200; 
Net change: 3 (2%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 231; 
2010: 232; 
2011: 233; 
2012: 269; 
2013: 235; 
Net change: 4 (2%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Reservists; 
2009: 48; 
2010: 51; 
2011: 51; 
2012: 51; 
2013: 50; 
Net change: 2 (4%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 279; 
2010: 283; 
2011: 284; 
2012: 320; 
2013: 285; 
Net change: 6 (2%). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 88th Regional Support Command: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 34; 
2010: 34; 
2011: 34; 
2012: 34; 
2013: 34; 
Net change: 0 (0%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 196; 
2010: 197; 
2011: 197; 
2012: 216; 
2013: 199; 
Net change: 3 (2%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 230; 
2010: 231; 
2011: 231; 
2012: 250; 
2013: 233; 
Net change: 3 (1%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Reservists; 
2009: 49; 
2010: 51; 
2011: 51; 
2012: 51; 
2013: 51; 
Net change: 2 (4%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 279; 
2010: 282; 
2011: 282; 
2012: 301; 
2013: 284; 
Net change: 5 (2%). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 99th Regional Support Command: 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 34; 
2010: 34; 
2011: 34; 
2012: 34; 
2013: 34; 
Net change: 0 (0%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 196 ;
2010: 197; 
2011: 196 ;
2012: 193; 
2013: 195; 
Net change: -1 (-1%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 230; 
2010: 231; 
2011: 230; 
2012: 227; 
2013: 229; 
Net change: -1 (0%). 

Personnel category: Part-time Reservists; 
2009: 49; 
2010: 51; 
2011: 51; 
2012: 51; 
2013: 51; 
Net change: 2 (4%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 279; 
2010: 282; 
2011: 281; 
2012: 278; 
2013: 280; 
Net change: 1 (0%). 

Total: 
Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 714; 1,116; 
2010: 605; 1,128; 
2011: 605; 2,238; 
2012: 609; 1,128; 
2013: 730; 1,138; 
Net change: 22 (2%). 

Source: GAO analysis of Army Reserve data. 

Notes: Army Reserve officials noted that the Regional Support Commands 
were established in 2008 and are relatively new organizations. 
Consequently, changes to the headquarters have been minimal because 
officials said they have needed to first establish a baseline to know 
what an appropriate number of personnel would be for these 
organizations. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time Reservist categories. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Profile for the U.S. Army Reserve Functional Commands: 

U.S. Army Reserve Functional Commands: 

Each Army Reserve’s functional command is commanded by at least a 
brigadier general and provides trained and ready units. The functional 
commands, with the exception of 9th Mission Support Command and 7th 
Civil Support Command, report to U.S. Army Reserve Command. Those two 
commands report to Army theater command and coordinate with U.S. Army 
Reserve Command. Individual units assigned to functional commands are 
deployable, while their headquarters are not. 

U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Fort 
Bragg, North Carolina; 
1st Mission Support, Command, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; 
9th Mission Support Command, Honolulu, Hawaii; 
79th Sustainment Support Command, Los Alamitos, California; 
Military Intelligence Readiness Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; 
Army Reserve Medical Command, Pinellas Park, Florida; 
7th Civil Support Command, Kaiserslautern, Germany. 

Mission: Maintain and provide training and, in certain cases, generate 
specific capabilities. 

Responsibilities: Vary by command. 

Capabilities managed: 

* U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command: 
Expeditionary, campaign-quality Civil Affairs and Military Information 
Support Operations Force fully mission-capable across the full 
spectrum of military operations. 
* 1st Mission Support Command: Provides trained staff sections to 
maintain effective peacetime command, control, and training of 
assigned and attached Army Reserve units. 
* 9th Mission Support Command: Provides the capability of a Defense 
Coordinating Office, Defense Coordinating Element, and a command and 
control headquarters with a core battle staff that is able to support 
Joint Task Force-Homeland Defense, Operations Plan Detainee 
Operations, Theater Security Cooperation Plan missions, and other 
small-scale contingencies. 
* 7th Civil Support Command: Provides the U.S. Army Europe interface 
for consequence management between host-nation authorities, U.S. State 
Department, and other U.S. organizations and services and provides 
trained ready Army Reserve forces for mobilization.
* 79th Sustainment Support Command: Provides command and control for 
up to four Expeditionary Sustainment Commands and their subordinate 
units–effectively supporting the collective training, mobilization, 
deployment, and redeployment of Combat Sustainment Support units 
dispersed over significant geographic distances.
* Military Intelligence Readiness Command: Intelligence capabilities 
and training facilities.
* Army Reserve Medical Command: Support Army Reserve Army Medicine 
Soldier and unit readiness, and medical training. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements have not been 
fully evaluated through the Army Manpower Management process for six 
of the seven functional commands (the Military Intelligence Readiness 
Command was reassessed in 2010); however, all seven functional 
commands have had partial assessments of the Command Chief Warrant 
Officer position completed in 2012. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major Department of Defense 
(DOD) headquarters activity in DOD’s instruction, and therefore 
officials said that DOD did not report personnel data in its Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report. 

Our analysis of the Army Reserve’s functional commands shows that 
these organizations generally increased their funded positions over 
the 5-year period we reviewed, as shown below. 

Headquarters: 1st Mission Support Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 38; 
2010: 41; 
2011: 41; 
2012: 31; 
2013: 30; 
Net change: -8 (21.1%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 8; 
2010: 9; 
2011: 9; 
2012: 10; 
2013: 10; 
Net change: 2 (25%). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 18; 
2010: 15; 
2011: 22; 
2012: 15; 
2013: 15; 
Net change: -3 (-16.7%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 64; 
2010: 65; 
2011: 72; 
2012: 56; 
2013: 55; 
Net change: -9 (-14.1%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 122; 
2010: 120; 
2011: 127; 
2012: 121; 
2013: 121; 
Net change: -1 (-0.82%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 186; 
2010: 185; 
2011: 199; 
2012: 177; 
2013: 176; 
Net change: -10 (-5.4%), 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 79th Sustainment Support Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 0; 
2011: 38; 
2012: 38; 
2013: 34; 
Net change: 34 (NA). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 0; 
2011: 0; 
2012: 6; 
2013: 6; 
Net change: 6 (NA). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 0; 
2011: 0; 
2012: 21; 
2013: 21; 
Net change: 21 (NA). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 0; 
2011: 38; 
2012: 65; 
2013: 61; 
Net change: 61 (NA). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 122; 
2011: 122; 
2012: 149; 
2013: 149; 
Net change: 149 (NA). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 0; 
2010: 122; 
2011: 160; 
2012: 214; 
2013: 210; 
Net change: 210 (NA). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 7th Civil Support Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 34; 
2010: 20; 
2011: 20; 
2012: 47; 
2013: 47; 
Net change: 13 (38.1%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 11; 
2010: 18; 
2011: 18; 
2012: 18; 
2013: 16; 
Net change: 5 (45.5%). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 23; 
2010: 30; 
2011: 30; 
2012: 28; 
2013: 29; 
Net change: 6 (26.1%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 68; 
2010: 68; 
2011: 68; 
2012: 93; 
2013: 92; 
Net change: 24 (35.3%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 78; 
2010: 92; 
2011: 149; 
2012: 147; 
2013: 146; 
Net change: 68 (87.2%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 146; 
2010: 160; 
2011: 217; 
2012: 240; 
2013: 238; 
Net change: 92 (63.0%). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve 9th Mission Support Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 36; 
2010: 38; 
2011: 38; 
2012: 42; 
2013: 42; 
Net change: 6 (16.7%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 1; 
2010: 8; 
2011: 8; 
2012: 10; 
2013: 10; 
Net change: 9 (900%). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 12; 
2010: 17; 
2011: 17; 
2012: 20; 
2013: 21; 
Net change: 9 (75%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 49; 
2010: 63; 
2011: 63; 
2012: 72; 
2013: 73; 
Net change: 24 (49%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 105; 
2010: 118; 
2011: 132; 
2012: 137; 
2013: 138; 
Net change: 32 (30.2%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 155; 
2010: 181; 
2011: 195; 
2012: 209; 
2013: 211; 
Net change: 56 (36.1%). 

Headquarters: Army Reserve Medical Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 55
2010: 57
2011: 57
2012: 55
2013: 48; 
Net change: -7 (-12.7%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 1; 
2010: 2; 
2011: 2; 
2012: 5; 
2013: 5; 
Net change: 4 (400%). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 19; 
2010: 19; 
2011: 19; 
2012: 19; 
2013: 19; 
Net change: 0 (0%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 75; 
2010: 78; 
2011: 78; 
2012: 79; 
2013: 72; 
Net change: -3 (-4%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 175; 
2010: 176; 
2011: 177; 
2012: 180; 
2013: 180; 
Net change: 5 (2.9%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 250; 
2010: 254; 
2011: 255; 
2012: 259; 
2013: 252; 
Net change: 2 (0.8%). 

Headquarters: Military Intelligence Readiness Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 77; 
2010: 78; 
2011: 78; 
2012: 78; 
2013: 68; 
Net change: -9 (-11.7%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 10; 
2010: 14; 
2011: 14; 
2012: 19; 
2013: 15; 
Net change: 5 (50%). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 22; 
2010: 22; 
2011: 22; 
2012: 22; 
2013: 16; 
Net change: -6 (-27.3%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 109; 
2010: 114; 
2011: 114; 
2012: 119; 
2013: 99; 
Net change: -10 (-9.2%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 154; 
2010: 156; 
2011: 148; 
2012: 153; 
2013: 143; 
Net change: -11 (-7.1%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 263; 
2010: 270; 
2011: 262; 
2012: 272; 
2013: 242; 
Net change: -21 (-8%). 

Headquarters: U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations 
Command; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 110; 
2010: 99; 
2011: 99; 
2012: 113; 
2013: 100; 
Net change: -10 (-9.1%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 26; 
2010: 34; 
2011: 34; 
2012: 35; 
2013: 28; 
Net change: 2 (7.7%). 

Personnel category: Technician; 
2009: 49; 
2010: 35; 
2011: 36; 
2012: 36; 
2013: 36; 
Net change: -13 (-26.5%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 185; 
2010: 169; 
2011: 169; 
2012: 184; 
2013: 164; 
Net change: -21 (-11.4%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 377; 
2010: 387; 
2011: 387; 
2012: 388; 
2013: 381; 
Net change: 4 (1.1%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 562; 
2010: 556; 
2011: 556; 
2012: 572; 
2013: 545; 
Net change: -17 (-3%). 

Headquarters: Army Functional Support Commands; 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 1,562; 
2010: 1,728; 
2011: 1,844; 
2012: 1,943; 
2013: 1,874; 
Net change: 312 (20%). 

Source: GAO analysis of Army data. 

Notes: Army Reserve officials told us that the functional commands' 
growth was the result of, in certain cases, missions becoming more 
defined and absorbing other commands' requirements, such as for the 
79th Sustainment Support Command, 7th Civil Support Command, and 9th 
Mission Support Command. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time reservist categories. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Profile for Air Force Reserve Command and Headquarters, 
Air Force Reserve: 

Air Force Reserve Command and Headquarters, Air Force Reserve: 

The Air Force Reserve is a component of the Department of the Air 
Force and provides a spectrum of capabilities for federal missions. By 
law, the Chief of the Air Force Reserve—-a lieutenant general-—is the 
commander for the Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, and Air Force 
Reserve Command. The Chief of the Air Force Reserve also sits on the 
Air Force staff and is responsible for preparing, justifying, and 
executing budgets for the Air Force Reserve; directing and managing 
certain Air Force Reserve appropriations; managing the Air Force 
Reserve’s full-time support program; and submitting annual reports to 
the Secretary of Defense. As the commander for Air Force Reserve 
Command, the commander is assigned command of most Air Force Reserve 
forces not assigned to the unified combatant commands. 

Air Force Reserve Command, Warner Robins Air Force Base, Georgia: 

Mission: Provide citizen airmen to defend the United States and to 
protect its interests through air and space power. 

Responsibilities: Organizes, trains, and equips combat-ready forces. 
Directs operation of the three numbered Air Forces and provides all 
required major command–level support for all Air Force Reserve units 
and personnel. Maintains overall supervision of Air Force Reserve 
matters supporting Air Force war plans, programming documents, and 
mobilization actions. Retains administrative control over all Air 
Force Reserve units except for forces attached to the Commander, Air 
Force Forces. 

Capabilities managed: 
* 4th Air Force; 
* 10th Air Force; 
* 22nd Air Force. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements have not been 
fully determined through an assessment; however, in 2012 Air Force 
Reserve Command completed an assessment of select functions as part of 
its creation of its Force Generation Center. 

Personnel data reported: Department of Defense reported personnel data 
for this headquarters in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report for 
personnel performing major headquarters activities functions. 

Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, Pentagon, Virginia: 

Mission: Provide direct support to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
in the execution of his or her function and Title X responsibilities, 
and command the U.S. Air Force Reserve Command. 

Responsibilities: Subject to certain exceptions, justify and execute 
the budgets for the Air Force Reserve. Manage the full-time support 
program. Provide an annual report to the Secretary of Defense on the 
state of the Air Force Reserve and its ability to meet its missions. 

Capabilities managed: Not applicable. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements were 
determined through an assessment in September 2011. 

Personnel data reported: DOD reported personnel data for this 
headquarters in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report as part of 
the Air staff, which is identified as a major DOD headquarters 
activity in DOD’s guidance. 

Our analysis of the Air Force Reserve personnel data shows that 
Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, reduced the number of funded 
positions from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013, and Air 
Force Reserve Command increased its number of funded positions over 
the same period, as shown below. 

Element: Air Force Reserve Command: 

Personnel category: Active Duty; 
2009: 55
2010: 54
2011: 54
2012: 54
2013: 51
Net change: -4 (-7.3%). 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 216
2010: 221
2011: 220
2012: 216
2013: 217
Net change: 1 (0.5%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 614
2010: 586
2011: 582
2012: 585
2013: 513
Net change: -101 (-16.4%). 

Personnel category: Military Technician; 
2009: 112
2010: 117
2011: 118
2012: 127
2013: 125
Net change: 13 (11.6%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 997
2010: 978
2011: 974
2012: 982
2013: 906
Net change: -91 (-9.1%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 421
2010: 561
2011: 563
2012: 636
2013: 610
Net change: 189 (44.9%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 1,418
2010: 1,539
2011: 1,537
2012: 1,618
2013: 1,516
Net change: 98 (6.9%). 

Element: Headquarters, Air Force Reserve; 

Personnel category: Active Duty; 
2009: 9
2010: 9
2011: 8
2012: 5
2013: 5
Net change: -4 (-44.6). 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 85
2010: 81
2011: 85
2012: 84
2013: 75
Net change: -10 (-11.8%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 25
2010: 23
2011: 23
2012: 20
2013: 20
Net change: -5 (20.0%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 119
2010: 113
2011: 116
2012: 109
2013: 100
Net change: -19 (-16.0%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 0
2010: 0
2011: 0
2012: 4
2013: 6
Net change: 4 (NA). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 119
2010: 113
2011: 116
2012: 112
2013: 104
Net change: -15 (-12.6%). 

Source: GAO analysis of statutes, and DOD and Air Force Reserve data. 

Notes: Air Force Reserve officials told us that growth at Air Force 
Reserve Command resulted from the creation of its Force Generation 
Center, which was established to streamline force identification, 
mobilization, and deployment across the Air Force Reserve and improve 
the commander's visibility into current and planned resource 
commitments. Officials told us that reduction in the size of 
Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, was driven by the commander having 
required the headquarters to identify positions for elimination as 
part of the Air Force's efforts to improve efficiency. The 
headquarters is expected to have 96 funded positions in 2017. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time reservist categories. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Profile for the Air Force Reserve Numbered Air Forces: 

Air Force Reserve Numbered Air Forces: 

Each of the Air Force Reserve’s three numbered air forces (the 4th, 
10th, and 22nd) are commanded by a Major General. They are subordinate 
organizations to the Air Force Reserve Command that provide 
operational leadership and supervision to assigned units (wings, 
groups, and squadrons). Each numbered air force helps ensure their 
subordinate units meet readiness requirements. According to Air Force 
Reserve officials, starting in 2009 the Air Force Reserve restructured 
its numbered air forces, which led them to reduce the total number of 
funded positions at these headquarters. 

4th Air Force, March Air Reserve Base, California; 

Mission: Command assigned units. Ensure assigned units maintain 
operational readiness according to Air Force standards to include 
combat readiness, medical readiness, and inspection readiness. Provide 
assistance to, and operational readiness assessment of, assigned units 
through Operational Readiness Exercises and other discretionary events 
when warranted. Supervise and assist assigned units in planning for 
deployment and redeployment actions, major events, and contingencies. 
Advocate for assigned units. Implement plans, policies, and programs 
as developed and directed by Headquarters, Air Force Reserve. 

Responsibilities: 
* Communicate with Lead Major Command on matters relating to training, 
inspection, operational mission coordination, and logistical support.
* Assist units to implement command operational readiness and 
compliance processes. 
* Manage resources across units. 

Capabilities managed: 
* Strategic reach. 

Status of personnel requirements: Personnel requirements were assessed 
in 2012. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major Department of Defense 
(DOD) headquarters activity in DOD’s instruction and therefore 
officials said that DOD did not report personnel data in its Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report. 

10th Air Force, Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas; 

Mission: Command assigned units. Ensure assigned units maintain 
operational readiness according to Air Force standards to include 
combat readiness, medical readiness, and inspection readiness. Provide 
assistance to, and operational readiness assessment of, assigned units 
through Operational Readiness Exercises and other discretionary events 
when warranted. Supervise and assist assigned units in planning for 
deployment and redeployment actions, major events, and contingencies. 
Advocate for assigned units. Implement plans, policies, and programs 
as developed and directed by Headquarters, Air Force Reserve. 

Responsibilities: 
* Communicate with Lead Major Command on matters relating to training, 
inspection, operational mission coordination, and logistical support.
* Assist units to implement command operational readiness and 
compliance processes. 
* Manage resources across units. 

Capabilities managed:
* Power/vigilance. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major DOD headquarters 
activity in DOD’s instruction, and therefore officials said that DOD 
did not report personnel data in its Defense Manpower Requirements 
Report. 

22nd Air Force, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia. 

Mission: Command assigned units. Ensure assigned units maintain 
operational readiness according to Air Force standards to include 
combat readiness, medical readiness, and inspection readiness. Provide 
assistance to, and operational readiness assessment of, assigned units 
through Operational Readiness Exercises and other discretionary events 
when warranted. Supervise and assist assigned units in planning for 
deployment and redeployment actions, major events, and contingencies. 
Advocate for assigned units. Implement plans, policies, and programs 
as developed and directed by Headquarters, Air Force Reserve. 

Responsibilities: 
* Communicate with Lead Major Command on matters relating to training, 
inspection, operational mission coordination, and logistical support.
* Assist units to implement command operational readiness and 
compliance processes. 
* Manage resources across units. 

Capabilities managed:
* C-130/combat support. 

Personnel data reported: Not listed as a major DOD headquarters 
activity in DOD’s instruction, and therefore officials said that DOD 
did not report personnel data in its Defense Manpower Requirements 
Report. 

Our analysis of the Air Force Reserve’s three Numbered Air Forces 
shows that these organizations reduced their total number of funded 
positions by more than 100 positions over the 5-year period we 
reviewed. 

Headquarters: Numbered Air Forces; 

Personnel category: Active Guard and Reserve; 
2009: 3; 
2010: 3; 
2011: 3; 
2012: 2; 
2013: 6; 
Net change: 3 (100%). 

Personnel category: Civilian; 
2009: 15; 
2010: 12; 
2011: 13; 
2012: 12; 
2013: 13; 
Net change: -3 (-20%). 

Personnel category: Military Technician; 
2009: 139; 
2010: 140; 
2011: 140; 
2012: 103; 
2013: 104; 
Net change: -35 (-25%). 

Personnel category: Total full-time support; 
2009: 157; 
2010: 155; 
2011: 156; 
2012: 117; 
2013: 122; 
Net change: -35 (-22%). 

Personnel category: Part-time reservists; 
2009: 283; 
2010: 287; 
2011: 287; 
2012: 204; 
2013: 164; 
Net change: -119 (-42%). 

Personnel category: Total funded positions; 
2009: 440; 
2010: 442; 
2011: 443; 
2012: 321; 
2013: 286; 
Net change: -154 (-35%). 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force Reserve data. 

Notes: Air Force officials said that the Numbered Air Forces reduced 
their manpower in part to create the Air Force Reserve Force 
Generation Center. Additionally, the Air Force Reserve altered the 
Numbered Air Forces' responsibilities by making the wings responsible 
for ensuring they meet readiness requirements, a task that officials 
said was originally a Numbered Air Force responsibility. 

These data reflect funded civilian and military positions. Some DOD 
personnel, referred to as "dual-status technicians," are required, as 
a condition of employment, to be a drilling member of the National 
Guard or Reserves and thereby fill both a full-time civilian position 
and a part-time military position. Additionally, some DOD personnel, 
referred to as "Active Guard and Reserve," occupy both a full-time 
military position as well as a part-time military position. 
Consequently, in our calculations, we included them in both the Active 
Guard and Reserve and the part-time reservist categories. 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: Content for Interactive Figures in Background Section: 

Component: Army National Guard and Air National Guard; 

Headquarters type: National Guard Bureau; 
Missions and responsibilities: 
* A joint activity of the Department of Defense (DOD); 
* Participate with the Army and the Air Force staffs in the 
formulation, development, and coordination of all programs, policies, 
concepts, and plans pertaining to the National Guard; 
* Administer programs; 
* Assist in the organization, maintenance, and operation of National 
Guard units; 
* Focal point at the strategic level for National Guard matters that 
are not under the authority of the military service; 
* Channel of communications between DOD and the states. 

Headquarters type: Joint Force Headquarters; 
Missions and responsibilities: Located in all 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 
Comprised of a Joint staff, Army staff, and Air staff. 
The Adjutant General's federal responsibilities include the following: 
* Establishing temporary joint task force command elements ready to 
provide command and control for domestic operations; 
* Accepting mutually agreed-upon federal liaison elements; 
* Designating officers eligible to serve in dual-status and ensure 
that these officers facilitate unity of effort between state and 
federal military forces; 
* Ensures homeland defense-and civil support-unique equipment is 
available for use should the unit owning the equipment deploy; 
* Advises the Governors and collaborates with DOD leadership. 

Component: Army National Guard; 

Headquarters type: Army National Guard Directorate; 
Missions and responsibilities: Assists the Chief, National Guard 
Bureau, in carrying out the functions of the National Guard Bureau as 
they relate to the Army National Guard. 
The Director, Army National Guard, under the supervision and control 
of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, performs those administrative and 
operational functions of the Chief pertaining to the Army National 
Guard and the Army National Guard of the United States. 

Component: Air National Guard; 

Headquarters type: Air National Guard Readiness Center; 
Missions and responsibilities: Assists the Chief, National Guard 
Bureau, in carrying out the functions of the National Guard Bureau as 
they relate to the Air National Guard. 
The Director, Air National Guard, under the supervision and control of 
the Chief, National Guard Bureau, performs those administrative and 
operational functions of the Chief pertaining to the Air National 
Guard and the Air National Guard of the United States. 

Component: U.S. Army Reserve; 

Headquarters type: Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve; 
Missions and responsibilities: Serves as the Headquarters Army 
principal staff organization to organize and equip Army Reserve 
Forces. Provides direct support to the Chief of Staff of the Army in 
the execution of his function and Title X responsibilities, and 
commands the U.S. Army Reserve Command. 
Responsible, subject to certain exceptions, for justification and 
execution of certain Army Reserve budgets, and is the director and 
functional manager of those appropriations; directing and managing the 
Army Reserve's appropriations; managing the Army Reserve's full-time 
support program; and submitting annual reports to the Secretary of 
Defense. 

Headquarters type: U.S. Army Reserve Command; 
Missions and responsibilities: Provides command, control, and support 
to Army Reserve forces assigned. Organizes, trains, and prepares Army 
Reserve units for mobilization and commitment to wartime theater of 
operations. Ensures wartime readiness of Army Reserve forces. 

Headquarters type: Regional Support Commands; 
Missions and responsibilities: Provides administrative and logistical 
support to all Army Reserve units and commands within their geographic 
area of responsibility. Manages all Operation and Maintenance, 
Personnel, Military Construction, and other appropriations for which 
requirements are justified as allocated by the U.S. Army Reserve 
Command and the Office of Chief, Army Reserve. Supervises all area 
maintenance support activities and equipment-concentration sites 
within its area of responsibility. Provides facility support to all 
Army Reserve units within its area of responsibility. 
The Command Group of these commands is responsible for the following: 
* Providing direction, guidance, and regional base-operations support 
to supported units within the region. The base-operations support is 
provided in functional areas of personnel, logistics, force 
integration, programming and budgeting, finance and accounting, 
information management, emergency services, public works, historian, 
inspector general, religious, medical, legal, safety, public affairs, 
internal review, and management controls; 
* Managing and executing appropriations as authorized by U.S. Army 
Reserve Command and the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation 
Management for base-operations support; 
* Implementing policies and intent of the U.S. Army Reserve Command 
commanding general; 
* Representing the Army Reserve before military and civilian 
organizations and agencies at various levels of command and government 
to include speaking engagements; 
* Assisting with local community relations and representing the U.S. 
Army Reserve Command to foreign dignitaries on various occasions. 

Headquarters type: Functional Commands; 
Missions and responsibilities: Maintain and provide training and, in 
certain cases, generate specific capabilities; Deploy subordinate 
units in support of federal missions. 

Component: U.S. Air Force Reserve; 

Headquarters type: Headquarters, Air Force Reserve; 
Missions and responsibilities: Provides direct support to the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force in the execution of his or her function and 
Title X responsibilities, and commands the U.S. Air Force Reserve 
Command. 
Subject to certain exceptions, justify and execute the budgets for Air 
Force Reserve. Manages the full-time support program. Provides an 
annual report to the Secretary of Defense on the state of the Air 
Force Reserve and its ability to meet its missions. 

Headquarters type: Air Force Reserve Command; 
Missions and responsibilities: Provides citizen airmen to defend the 
United States and to protect its interests through air and space power. 
Organizes, trains, and equips combat-ready forces. Directs operation 
of the three numbered Air Forces and provides all required major 
command-level support for all Air Force Reserve units and personnel. 
Maintains overall supervision of Air Force Reserve matters supporting 
Air Force war plans, programming documents, and mobilization actions. 
Retains administrative control over all Air Force Reserve units except 
for forces attached to the Commander, Air Force Forces. 

Headquarters type: Numbered Air Forces; 
Missions and responsibilities: Command assigned units. Ensure assigned 
units maintain operational readiness according to Air Force standards 
to include combat readiness, medical readiness, and inspection 
readiness. Provide assistance to, and operational readiness assessment 
of, assigned units through Operational Readiness Exercises and other 
discretionary events when warranted. Supervise and assist assigned 
units in planning for deployment and redeployment actions, major 
events, and contingencies. Advocate for assigned units. Implement 
plans, policies, and programs as developed and directed by 
Headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command. 
Communicate with Lead Major Command on matters relating to training, 
inspection, operational mission coordination, and logistical support; 
Assist units to implement command operational readiness and compliance 
processes. 
Manage resources across units. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense: 
Reserve Affairs: 
1500 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-1500: 

September 27, 2013: 

Mr. John Pendleton: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington DC 20548: 

Dear Mr.Pendleton: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft Report
GA0-13-585, "Defense Management: Actions Needed to Ensure National 
Guard and Reserve Headquarters Are Sized to Be Efficient," dated 
September29, 2013, (GAO Code 351746). 

The Department acknowledges receipt of the draft report and has 
attached a response to the recommendations for inclusion in the final 
report. If you have any further questions, please contact LTC Jasen 
Johnson at 703-693-2229. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Richard O. Wightman, Jr. 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs): 
Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve 
Affairs): 

GAO Draft Report Dated September 29, 2013: 
GAO-13-585 (GAO Code 351746): 

“Defense Management: Actions Needed to Ensure National Guard and Reserve
Headquarters Are Sized to be Efficient” 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation: 

The Department of Defense provided technical comments to GAO in 
addition to those addressed below. 

Recommendation 1: To independently validate the personnel requirements 
of the National Guard Bureau, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to implement the 
Joint Chief of Staff’s Joint Manpower and Personnel Process and have 
its personnel requirements periodically validated by a DoD organization
external to the National Guard Bureau. 

DoD Response: DoD Partially Concurs. 

While DoD agrees external validation is appropriate, based on input 
from the Joint Staff (CJCS/J1) we request GAO recommendation 
concerning NGB personnel requirements be changed to read "set up 
vetting process with the parent services' G1 (Army) and A1 (Air Force),
along with members from the NGB staff's resources and operations teams 
as voting members.” Change to replace all after “its personnel 
requirements”. 

Recommendation 2: To provide Congress the data it requires to oversee 
DoD’s major headquarters activities, we recommend that the Secretary 
of Defense include the National Guard Bureau among its list of major 
DoD headquarters activities and report personnel associated with the 
National Guard Bureau in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report. 

DoD Response: DoD Concurs. 

Regarding Draft Text: "We then provided DoD, Joint Staff, National 
Guard, and Reserve officials with an opportunity to comment on our 
final list of 75 headquarters and these officials agreed the 
headquarters we identified met these criteria." 

Comment: We (OSD P&R) believe that the 75 HQ performed some of the 
functions identified in DoDI 5100.73, but we were very explicit that 
NOT all 75 HQ organizations identified in this review would be 
considered Major DoD Headquarters Activities pursuant to that Issuance. 

Recommended change: "We then provided DOD, Joint Staff, National 
Guard, and Reserve officials with an opportunity to comment on our 
final list of 75 headquarters and these officials agreed the 
headquarters we identified met these criteria above but did not agree 
that all of the 75 headquarters should be classified as Major DoD 
Headquarters Activities predominately because many of these 
headquarters were below the 3-star level." 

Regarding References to "Major Headquarters Activity" should be 
changed to "Major DoD Headquarters Activity" (on draft cover page and 
pages 9, 18, 20, 29, and 32). It complicates the accuracy to not refer 
to the category as Major DoD Headquarters Activity. Not saying it
precisely would make the references inaccurate. 

Recommendation 3: To minimize the potential for gaps or overlaps at 
the National Guard’s state Joint Force headquarters, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Defense direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
to modify the scope of the National Guard Bureau’s study to reassess 
and validate all personnel requirements at the state Joint Force 
headquarters to include its Army staff element and Air staff element. 

DoD Response: DoD Partially Concurs. 

On draft report page 23, GAO refers to the 54 state Joint Force 
Headquarters (JFHQs) as containing a number of similar positions and 
recommends that consolidation be investigated as a cost-savings 
measure. This may understate the importance of the JFHQs, who are 
heavily relied upon during real-world CONUS-based crises. At a state 
level, JFHQs serve a function similar to that of the Joint Staff on 
the federal level and consolidation may prove detrimental to disaster
response if taken solely with cost-savings in mind. Consolidation may 
be appropriate in certain cases but should be carried out with caution 
and in full cooperation with the state governors and adjutants general. 

Regarding validation of positions within the Joint Force Headquarters 
(JFHQs) (an issue raised several times in the report), in reference to 
the second bullet, first page of the draft, the Army National Guard 
(ARNG) Directorate has received validation from the United States Army
Manpower and Analysis Agency (USAMAA) for 26 manpower studies. The 
studies account for nearly 40,000 full time support (FTS) 
requirements, validating over 70% of the FTS requirements at the 54 
State and Territory Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ). Some positions in
the JFHQ such as Public Affairs, Inspector General and Judge Advocate 
perform both Army and Air functions. These consolidated offices are 
designed to increase efficiency, avoid redundancy and maximize the use 
of limited personnel authorizations. 

In reference to draft report page 14, "Processes Intended to 
Efficiently Size and Oversee Reserve Component Headquarters Have Not 
Been Consistently Applied," page 20, "DoD Lacks Assurance the National 
Guard's State Joint Force Headquarters Are Sized to Be Efficient," and
page 28, paragraph 3, the Army National Guard requests a reevaluation 
of the sections. The ARNG Directorate has conducted manpower studies 
which follow an Army-directed methodology. In addition, the 
methodologies are not fragmented--to the contrary, they follow the
process as directed by the authority for each specific 
command/component as listed in Tables 2 and 3. In addition, the ARNG 
and Air National Guard Directorate work in close partnership on
all studies that involve joint activities, such as Public Affairs, 
Inspector General, Judge Advocate General, Chaplain and the Human 
Resources Offices. 

The National Guard Bureau Joint Staff and the Army and Air National 
Guard Directorate each have their own directed processes that must be 
followed in order to achieve approval/validation of FTS requirements, 
as noted in both Table 2 and 3 of the Report (Joint Staff is regulated 
by Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01, Air National Guard by 
Air Force Instruction 38-201 and ARNG by AR 570-4). Combining these 
processes into one process would eliminate the ability of each 
headquarters to properly study and staff their personnel requirements 
by changing currently-directed manpower methodologies and validation 
authorities (per Army Regulation (AR) 570-4, USAMAA directs the 
manpower methodology and is the validation authority for all
Army requirements). Therefore the scope of the studies does not need 
to be modified. Instead, when shared functions are being studied, 
increased coordination efforts should occur between each element in 
order to ensure the correct workload is captured, requirements are not
duplicated, and process efficiencies are maximized. 

Recommendation 4: To ensure that Army reserve component headquarters 
are properly sized to meet their assigned missions, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to ensure 
that reserve component headquarters are reassessed and have their 
personnel requirements validated within required timeframes by 
including all reserve component headquarters in the U.S. Army Manpower 
Analysis Agency’s schedule for reassessment and validation. 

DoD Response: DoD Concurs. 

The draft report is not completely clear if this recommendation is 
intended to be applicable to the ARNG (or only to the USAR). 
Information pertaining to both is included in this response. 

Currently, there are three ongoing efforts to assess Army Reserve 
Headquarters: 1) an internal USAR HQ standardization review of all 
Major Subordinate Commands (MSC); 2) the HQDA led Phase II of the Full-
Time Support (FTS) requirements study, which is also reviewing all
MSCs; and 3) the HQDA led Focus Area Review Groups charged with 
reducing all institutional and operational headquarters. 

Per AR 570-4, all TDA requirements are required to be validated every 
2-5 years, including FTS requirements at the 54 State JFHQs. To date, 
the Army National Guard Directorate has received USAMAA validation of 
over 70% of the FTS requirements located at the State JFHQs and is
currently on track to complete validation of the remaining 
requirements by the end of FY15. In addition, per AR 570-4, Para 2-2, 
I, USAMAA is only responsible for assessing and validating FTS 
requirements at the ARNG Directorate (Title 10 requirements). The 
authority for assessment and validation of the 54 State JFHQs resides 
with the Chief, National Guard Bureau. USAMAA is not required nor 
staffed to conduct manpower studies on Title 32 FTS requirements. 

Recommendation 5: To ensure that the Air Force reserve component 
headquarters are properly sized to meet their assigned missions, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 
Air Force to modify the Air Force’s guidance to require that reserve
component headquarters have their personnel requirements reassessed on 
a recurring basis, and establish and implement a schedule for 
reassessing personnel requirements for its reserve component 
headquarters. 

DoD Response: DoD Concurs. 

The Air Force agrees to modify guidance to require that reserve 
component headquarters have their personnel requirements reassessed on 
a recurring basis, and to establish and implement a schedule for 
reassessing personnel requirements. Also, if directed by the Secretary 
of Defense, the Air Force will work with the National Guard Bureau as 
necessary to comply with recommendations to assess and validate the 
various National Guard headquarters. 

[End of section] 

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John H. Pendleton, (404) 679-1816 or PendletonJ@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Suzanne K. Wren, Assistant 
Director; Timothy J. Carr; Joanna Chan; Susan C. Ditto; Michael J. 
Hanson; Tobin J. McMurdie; Anna Maria Ortiz; Michael D. Silver; Amie 
M. Steele; Karen N. Willems; Michael A. Willems; Alex Winograd; and 
Delia P. Zee made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Quadrennial Defense Review is a legislatively mandated review 
of DOD strategy and priorities. The Quadrennial Defense Review will 
set a long-term course for DOD as it assesses the threats and 
challenges that the nation faces and rebalances DOD's strategies, 
capabilities, and forces to address current conflicts and future 
threats. 

[2] The reserve components of the Armed Forces include the Army 
National Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve, the Navy 
Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard of the 
United States, the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. Our 
review is focused on the Army and Air Force organizations. 

[3] GAO, Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Periodically Review and 
Improve Visibility Of Combatant Commands' Resources, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-293] (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2013). 

[4] DOD's total workforce consists of three main components: military 
personnel (including the active military and the reserve and guard 
forces), civilians, and contractors providing support to the 
department. 

[5] GAO, Human Capital: Additional Steps Needed to Help Determine the 
Right Size and Composition of DOD's Total Workforce, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-470] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2013). 

[6] GAO, Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource 
Needs and Improve Data Could Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost 
Savings, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012). 

[7] GAO, Military Personnel: Enhanced Collaboration and Process 
Improvements Needed for Determining Military Treatment Facility 
Medical Personnel Requirements, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-696] (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 
2010); and Military Training: Actions Needed to Assess Workforce 
Requirements and Appropriate Mix of Army Training Personnel, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-845] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 20, 2011). 

[8] This review was conducted in response to a 2012 request from 
Representative Mike Coffman and Representative Jim Cooper--then 
Ranking Member, House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. 

[9] Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities (Dec. 1, 2007, incorporating changes June 12, 2012). 

[10] The Army uses two types of personnel requirements documents for 
the headquarters we identified: tables of distribution and allowance 
and full-time support tables of distribution and allowance. 

[11] For the purposes of this report, personnel requirements are 
positions that the Army and Air Force have approved for funding on a 
manpower document for the headquarters we identified. 

[12] Full-time support personnel consist of five categories of 
personnel including: full-time reservists (active Guard/Reserve), 
military technicians, active-component personnel, non-dual-status 
technicians, and federal civilian employees. Full-time support 
personnel provide services and administrative support to the part-time 
drilling reservists. 

[13] Authorized end strength is the number of personnel that each 
component of a military service is authorized by Congress to have at 
the end of a given fiscal year. 

[14] National Guard members train for their federal missions under 
state control with federal funding. Federal funding is also provided 
for some other state-controlled missions, such as the National Guard's 
counterdrug support operations and weapons of mass destruction civil 
support teams and when authorized by the President for other domestic 
operations, such as the response to Hurricane Katrina. 

[15] For the purposes of this report, we refer to the 54 Joint 
Headquarters-State as "state Joint Force headquarters." 

[16] See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. 
L. No. 112-81 § 512 (2011). 

[17] The Individual Ready Reserve is a manpower pool consisting 
principally of personnel that have had training, served previously in 
the active component or in the selected reserve, and have some period 
of their military service obligation remaining. Individual 
Mobilization Augmentees are trained reservists that fill an active 
component, Selective Service System, or Federal Emergency Management 
Agency organization's billet on short notice. 

[18] DOD refers to the arrangement in which the incumbent officer has 
responsibilities to two organizations as a "dual hat" position. 

[19] 10 U.S.C. § 3031(b)(9). 

[20] 10 U.S.C. § 8031(b)(7). 

[21] DOD is required to provide Congress with an annual Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report on a number of personnel issues, 
including the number of personnel assigned to major DOD headquarters 
activities in the previous year and estimates of such numbers for the 
current and subsequent fiscal year. See 10 U.S.C. § 115a(f). 

[22] DOD defines major DOD headquarters activities as those 
headquarters (and the direct support integral to their operation) 
whose primary mission is to manage or command the programs and 
operations of the DOD, the DOD components, and their major military 
units, organizations, or agencies. DOD maintains an approved list of 
its Major DOD Headquarters Activities. 

[23] DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities (Dec. 
1, 2007 incorporating changes June 12, 2012). 

[24] In a February 2012 report, we found that DOD officials generally 
could not determine the number of contractor full-time equivalents 
whose functions were in-sourced because DOD contracts for services, 
not positions, and the number of contractor full-time equivalents used 
to perform a service is determined by each private-sector provider. 
GAO, Defense Workforce: DOD Needs to Better Oversee In-sourcing Data 
and Align In-sourcing Efforts with Strategic Workforce Plans, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-319] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 9, 2012). 

[25] According to National Guard and Reserve officials, funded 
positions are not always filled, meaning that the actual number of 
personnel working at headquarters may be less than the number that was 
approved to be funded on the personnel requirements documents. 
Military-service officials stated that comparison of funded positions 
is the most-accurate way to evaluate changes in headquarters size over 
time because actual headcount fluctuates on a daily basis. 

[26] We limited our assessment of personnel requirements to positions 
that: were assigned to the headquarters, included military personnel 
or civilians, were funded by the federal government, and did not 
complete work in support of more than one component (for example, 
recruiting positions were excluded because the Army Reserve and the 
active duty Army share recruiting resources) 

[27] In addition to having full-time civilian and Active Guard and 
Reserve personnel the Army National Guard Directorate has a group of 
personnel that are categorized as "Active Duty for Operational 
Support". Active Duty for Operational Support is an authorized 
voluntary tour of active duty that is performed at the request of an 
organizational or operational commander, or as a result of 
reimbursable funding, among other things. The purpose of this category 
is to provide the necessary skilled manpower assets to support 
existing or emerging requirements. 

[28] The National Guard includes 55 joint organizations (the National 
Guard Bureau and the 54 state Joint Force headquarters) that include 
both Army and Air elements. We counted positions funded for the Army 
and Air staff at these joint headquarters toward the total number of 
Army or Air Force funded headquarters positions in the table above. 

[29] Estimated civilian and military funded positions were provided by 
each of the Army's and Air Force's reserve components for fiscal years 
2009 through 2012. We calculated the estimated number of funded 
positions for fiscal year 2013 using the number of military positions 
Congress authorized for each component for that year and DOD's budget-
justification materials. 

[30] In a February 2012 report, we found that DOD officials generally 
could not determine the number of contractor full-time equivalents 
whose functions were in-sourced because DOD contracts for services, 
not positions, and the number of contractor full-time equivalents used 
to perform a service is determined by each private-sector provider. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-319]. 

[31] Section 324 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 added a section 2463 to Title 10 of the United States Code, 
which requires DOD to develop guidelines and procedures that provide 
for special consideration to be given to using DOD civilian employees 
to perform new functions or certain categories of functions currently 
performed by contractor personnel. As part of this effort, the 
Secretary of Defense established in-sourcing targets for all DOD 
service components, which led to additional civilian positions being 
added. 

[32] According to senior Army Reserve officials, growth in the Office 
of the Chief of the Army Reserve also was driven by the transfer of 
functions between staff elements. For example, officials said that in 
fiscal year 2012 the Army Reserve Installation Management Directorate 
was added to the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve's personnel 
requirements document as a result of an agreement between the Chief of 
the Army Reserve and the Commander of the Army Installation Management 
Command. Officials said that 10 military and 33 civilian positions 
were added to the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve in fiscal 
year 2013 as a result of that decision. 

[33] The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review introduced 10 state-
controlled Homeland Response Forces that consist of National Guard 
forces. 

[34] See 10 U.S.C. § 115a(f). 

[35] Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than 
one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is 
involved in the same broad area of national need, and opportunities 
exist to improve service delivery. 

[36] Department of Defense Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower 
Management (Feb. 12, 2005). 

[37] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Instruction 1001.01a (Oct. 
1, 2010). Department of the Army, Manpower Management, Regulation 570-
4 (Feb. 8, 2006). 

[38] GAO, Human Capital: A Model of Strategic Human Capital, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002). 

[39] Army Regulation 570-4 requires that all personnel requirements 
for Army organizations must be reviewed and validated by the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs with assistance 
from the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency. Additionally, this 
guidance states that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has the 
authority to determine full-time support requirements for the National 
Guard's state Joint Force headquarters. Air Force Instruction 38-201 
requires Major Command staff to review manpower standards for 
applicability and reapply them to subordinate organizations at least 
every 2 years. 

[40] According to a DOD directive, the National Guard Bureau's 
personnel are supposed to be managed under a joint manpower document--
that is, a document that identifies the positions and spaces that have 
been validated for each element of a joint activity--in accordance 
with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01a to the 
greatest extent possible. Department of Defense Directive 5105.77, 
National Guard Bureau (May 21, 2008). 

[41] Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DoD Headquarters 
Activities (December 1, 2007). 

[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345]. 

[43] DOD made a technical update on June 12, 2012, to DOD Instruction 
5100.73 that modified references, roles, responsibilities, and terms 
used throughout the instruction. 

[44] See 10 U.S.C. § 115a(f). 

[45] The Secretary of Defense is required to submit this report not 
later than 45 days after the submission of the President's budget. 

[46] See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. 
L. No. 110-181, § 901 (2008), repealing section 130a of Title 10 of 
the United States Code. 

[47] While the overall headquarters cap was repealed in 2008, various 
sectors of DOD's headquarters workforce are still subject to similar 
statutory caps. For example, section 194 of Title 10 of the United 
States Code, among other things, imposes a cap on headquarters 
management personnel of the defense agencies and DOD field activities. 

[48] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345]. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP]. 

[49] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP]. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345]. 

[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP]. 

[52] Validating a requirement means the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis 
Agency has analyzed whether manpower requested meets the workload 
being performed. 

[53] The U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency uses a five-phased 
approach when reassessing personnel requirements. This approach 
entails: (1) planning the study approach, scope, and timelines; (2) 
completing an initial analysis to validate the headquarters' mission 
and review previous studies; (3) collecting and analyzing data on 
mission and workload; (4) developing a product with recommendations on 
workforce mix and staffing; and (5) validating and approving the final 
documentation. 

[54] Army Regulation 570-4, Manpower Management (Feb. 8, 2006). 

[55] Air Force Instruction 38-201, Management of Manpower Requirements 
and Authorizations (May 14, 2013). 

[56] The Air Force Reserve examined the Air Force Reserve Command and 
its three numbered Air Forces. 

[57] The Air Force Reserve created its Force Generation Center to 
streamline force identification, mobilization and deployment across 
the Air Force Reserve and improve the Commander's visibility into 
current and planned resources commitments. 

[58] Department of Defense Directive 5105.77, National Guard Bureau 
(NGB) (May 21, 2008). Department of Defense Directive 5105.83, 
National Guard Joint Force Headquarters-State (NG-JFHQs-State) (Jan. 
5, 2011). Army Regulation 130-5, Organization and Functions of the 
National Guard Bureau (Dec. 30, 2001). Army Pamphlet 10-1, 
Organization of the United States Army (June 14, 1994). Air Force 
Instruction 38-101, Air Force Organization (Mar. 16, 2011, 
incorporating change May 2, 2013). 

[59] Department of Defense Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower 
Management (Feb. 12, 2005). Department of Defense Instruction 1100.22, 
Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix (Apr. 12, 2010). 
Department of Defense Directive 5105.77 National Guard Bureau (NGB) 
(May 21, 2008), . Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 
1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel Program (Oct. 1, 2010). 

[60] Army Regulation 570-4, Manpower Management (Feb. 8, 2006). Air 
Force Instruction 38-201, Management of Manpower Requirements and 
Authorizations (May 14, 2013). 

[61] DOD Instruction 5100.73 Major DOD Headquarters Activities (Dec. 
1, 2007, incorporating changes, Jun. 12, 2012). 

[62] Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Requirements Report 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Washington D.C.: June 2013). Department of Defense, 
Defense Manpower Requirements Report Fiscal Year 2012 (Washington 
D.C.: April 2012). 

[63] Department of Defense Directive 5105.83, National Guard Joint 
Force Headquarters-State (NG-JFHQs-State (Jan. 5, 2011). Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and 
Personnel Program (Oct. 1, 2010). 

[64] Department of Defense Directive 1100.4 (Feb. 12, 2005) and 
Department of Defense Instruction 1100.22 (Apr. 12, 2012). Army 
Regulation 570-4 (Feb. 8, 2006). Air Force Instruction 38-201 (May 14, 
2013). 

[65] See e.g. 10 U.S.C. §§ 10502, 3031, and 8031. USAR Regulation 10-
1, Army Reserve Regional Support Command (RSC) Organization and 
Functions Manual, (Oct. 1, 2010). Air Force Instruction 38-101 (Mar. 
16, 2011); and Army Pamphlet 10-1 (June 14, 1994). 

[66] Department of Defense, Committee on Civilian Components, Reserve 
Forces for National Security (June 1948). 

[67] The Department of Defense Appropriations Act 1966 (Pub. L. No. 89-
213, § 639) provided funds for each reserve component separately and 
prohibited the Secretary of Defense from transferring funds to 
implement a realignment or reorganization of the Army Reserve 
components in that fiscal year. 

[68] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 513 (2004). 

[69] The commission's other objective was to study the compensation 
and other benefits provided for members of the reserve components. 

[70] Commission on the National Guard and reserves, Final Report to 
Congress and the Secretary of Defense, Transforming the National Guard 
and reserves into a 21st-Century Operational Force (Jan. 31, 2008). 

[71] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 
2009); GAO, Government Reorganizations: Issues and Principles, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 1995); and National Commission on the 
Public Service, Government Reorganization: Strategies and Tools to Get 
it Done (August 2004). 

[72] GAO, Federal Land Management: Observations on a Possible Move of 
the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 
2009). 

[73] Congressional Budget Office, Reducing the Deficit: Spending And 
Revenue Options (March 1997). 

[74] An Armed Forces Reserve Center is a joint-use facility that 
accommodates units from two or more reserve components. Its primary 
function is to provide administrative, training, and storage areas for 
the assigned military units. 

[75] GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base 
Realignment and Closure Rounds, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 
2013). In 2007, we determined that more than 90 percent of these 
savings were associated with eliminating positions currently held by 
military personnel without corresponding end strength reductions. We 
have previously reported, and the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission agreed, that military personnel position eliminations are 
not a true source of savings because DOD does not expect to reduce end 
strength correspondingly but rather intends to reassign or shift these 
personnel to vacant positions in other areas. GAO, Military Base 
Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor Challenges for 
Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve Centers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1040] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 
2007). 

[76] GAO, Disaster Assistance: DOD's Support for Hurricanes Andrew and 
Iniki and Typhoon Omar, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-93-180] (Washington, D.C.: June 
18, 1993). 

[77] GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and Exercises Needed to 
Guide the Military's Response to Catastrophic Natural Disasters, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-643] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 15, 2006). 

[78] Title 10 and Title 32 are titles of the United States Code that 
govern the operations of DOD and the National Guard respectively. When 
operating in Title 32 status, National Guard personnel, including dual-
status commanders, are under the command and control of the state 
Governor. DOD and National Guard personnel operating in Title 10 
status, including dual-status commanders, are under the command and 
control of the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

[79] Pub. L. No. 112-81, §§ 515 and 516 (2011) (codified at 10 U.S.C. 
§§ 12304a and 12304b respectively). 

[80] 10 U.S.C. § 12304a. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]