This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-10 
entitled 'Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reassess Personnel 
Requirements for the Office of Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and 
Military Service Secretariats' which was released on January 21, 2015. 

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 the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: 

January 2015: 

Defense Headquarters: 

DOD Needs to Reassess Personnel Requirements for the Office of 
Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and Military Service Secretariats: 

GAO-15-10: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-10, a report to the Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Facing budget pressures, DOD is seeking to reduce headquarters 
activities of OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military services’ 
secretariats and staffs, which primarily perform policy and management 
functions. GAO was mandated to review personnel resources devoted to 
these headquarters organizations from fiscal years 2001 through 2013. 
This report (1) identifies past trends in personnel resources for 
these organizations and any plans for reductions; and (2) evaluates 
the extent to which DOD determines and reassesses personnel 
requirements for the organizations. GAO analyzed data on authorized 
military and civilian positions and contracted services from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2013. GAO reviewed DOD’s headquarters reductions 
plans and processes for determining and reassessing personnel 
requirements. 

What GAO Found: 

Over the past decade, authorized military and civilian positions have 
increased within the Department of Defense (DOD) headquarters 
organizations GAO reviewed—-the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD), the Joint Staff, and the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 
Force secretariats and staffs-—but the size of these organizations has 
recently leveled off or begun to decline, and DOD’s plans for future 
reductions are not finalized. The increases varied by organization, 
and DOD officials told GAO that the increases were due to increased 
mission responsibilities, conversion of functions performed by 
contracted services to civilian positions, and institutional 
reorganizations. For example, authorized military and civilian 
positions for the Army Secretariat and Army Staff increased by 60 
percent, from 2,272 in fiscal year 2001 to 3,639 in fiscal year 2013, 
but levels have declined since their peak of 3,712 authorized 
positions in fiscal year 2011. In addition to civilian and military 
personnel, DOD also relies on personnel performing contracted 
services. Since DOD is still in the process of compiling complete data 
on personnel performing contracted services, trends in these data 
could not be identified. In 2013, the Secretary of Defense set a 
target to reduce DOD components’ headquarters budgets by 20 percent 
through fiscal year 2019, including costs for contracted services, 
while striving for a similar reduction to military and civilian 
personnel. However, DOD has not finalized plans to achieve these 
reductions. DOD was required to report to Congress by June 2014 on 
efforts to streamline management headquarters, but needed an extension 
until late summer 2014 for the report due to staff turnover. As of 
December 2014, DOD’s plan had not been issued. 

GAO found that DOD headquarters organizations it reviewed do not 
determine their personnel requirements as part of a systematic 
requirements-determination process, nor do they have procedures in 
place to ensure that they periodically reassess these requirements as 
outlined in DOD and other guidance. Current personnel levels for these 
headquarters organizations are traceable to statutory limits enacted 
in the 1980s and 1990s to force efficiencies and reduce duplication. 
However, these limits have been waived since fiscal year 2002. If the 
limits were in force in fiscal year 2013, the Army and Navy would 
exceed them by 17 percent and 74 percent, respectively. Moreover, the 
limits have little practical utility because of statutory exceptions 
for certain categories of personnel and because the limits exclude 
personnel in supporting organizations that perform headquarters-
related functions. For example, the organizations that support the 
Army Secretariat and Army Staff are almost three times as large as the 
Secretariat and Staff, but personnel who perform headquarters-related 
functions in these organizations are excluded from the limits. All but 
one of the organizations GAO reviewed have recognized problems in 
their existing requirements-determination processes. The OSD, the 
Navy, and the Marine Corps are taking steps to modify their processes, 
but their efforts are not yet complete. Without a systematic 
determination of personnel requirements and periodic reassessment of 
them, DOD will not be well positioned to proactively identify 
efficiencies and limit personnel growth within these headquarters 
organizations. Moreover, until DOD determines personnel requirements, 
Congress will not have critical information needed to reexamine 
statutory limits enacted decades ago. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD (1) conduct a systematic determination of 
personnel requirements at these headquarters organizations; (2) submit 
the requirements to Congress with adjustments and recommended 
modifications to the statutory limits; and (3) periodically reassess 
personnel requirements within OSD and the military services’ 
secretariats and staffs. Congress should consider using DOD’s review 
of headquarters personnel requirements to reexamine existing statutory 
limits. DOD partially concurred, stating it will use its existing 
processes, but will investigate other methods to improve the 
determination and reporting of requirements. GAO believes the 
recommendations are still valid, as discussed in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-10]. For more 
information, contact John Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 
pendletonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Authorized Positions at DOD Headquarters Organizations We Reviewed 
Have Generally Increased since Fiscal Year 2001, and Plans for Future 
Reductions are Not Finalized: 

DOD Headquarters Organizations in Our Review Do Not Systematically 
Determine or Periodically Reassess Their Personnel Requirements: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Prior GAO Work on DOD Headquarters: 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix III: Resources of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD). 

Appendix IV: Resources of the Joint Staff: 

Appendix V: Resources of the Headquarters, Department of the Army: 

Appendix VI: Resources of the Offices of the Secretary of the Navy and 
Chief of Naval Operations: 

Appendix VII: Resources of the Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps: 

Appendix VIII: Resources of the Headquarters, Department of the Air 
Force: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Statutory Limits of Headquarters Organizations Personnel, and 
Percentage by Which Statutory Limits Would Be Exceeded in Fiscal Year 
2013 in the Absence of a Waiver: 

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
and Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents within the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense: 

Table 3: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
within the Joint Staff: 

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
and Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents within the Office of 
the Secretary of the Army and the Office of the Chief of Staff of the 
Army: 

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
by Selected Organization within the Offices of the Secretary of the 
Navy and Chief of Naval Operations: 

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
within Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps: 

Table 7: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
in the Offices of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force 
Chief of Staff: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions for the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Joint Staff for 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions and 
Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD), Fiscal Year 2013: 

Figure 3: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions for the 
Secretariats and Staffs of the Military Services for Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2013: 

Figure 4: Number of Authorized Positions for the Army Secretariat and 
Army Staff versus the Army Field Operating Agencies: 

Figure 5: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Figure 6: Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Headquarters 
Support Costs for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013: 

Figure 7: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Joint 
Staff, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2013: 

Figure 8: Joint Staff Headquarters Support Costs for Fiscal Years 2003 
through 2013: 

Figure 9: Percentage of Authorized Military and Civilian Personnel and 
Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents in the Army Secretariat and 
Staff, Fiscal Year 2013: 

Figure 10: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of the Army, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Figure 11: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Chief of Staff of the Army, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Figure 12: Army Secretariat and Army Staff Headquarters Support Costs 
for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013: 

Figure 13: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of the Navy, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013: 

Figure 14: Office of the Secretary of the Navy Headquarters Support 
Costs for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2013: 

Figure 15: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Chief of Naval Operations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2013: 

Figure 16: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Headquarters 
Support Costs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013: 

Figure 17: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Authorized Military and 
Civilian Positions for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2013: 

Figure 18: Headquarters, Marine Corps, Support Costs for Fiscal Years 
2005 through 2013: 

Figure 19: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of the Air Force, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Figure 20: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Figure 21: Air Force Secretariat and Staff Headquarters Support Costs 
for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

[End of section] 

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

January 21, 2015: 

Chairman: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has multiple layers of headquarters 
management with complex, overlapping relationships among them. Such 
layers include, but are not limited to, the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, and the military services' 
secretariats and staffs, which are the highest organizations in DOD 
responsible for managing and overseeing the major elements of the 
department. Like the rest of the federal government, DOD is operating 
in a constrained budget environment and is facing difficult decisions 
about how to allocate its resources to meet its broad and varying 
mission requirements across the world.[Footnote 1] One approach the 
department has pursued in recent years to realize cost savings is to 
reduce its headquarters staff. In July 2013, the Secretary of Defense 
directed a 20 percent cut in management headquarters[Footnote 2] 
spending throughout the department, to include spending within 
headquarters organizations such as OSD, the Joint Staff, and the 
military services' secretariats and military staffs.[Footnote 3] These 
cuts, which are to take place regardless of the budget approved by 
Congress, are, according to the Secretary's guidance, designed to 
streamline DOD's management of its headquarters through efficiencies 
and elimination of spending on lower-priority activities. At a time of 
growing economic and fiscal constraints and changing national security 
challenges, it is critical for DOD to ensure that its headquarters 
organizations meet mission requirements in the most efficient and 
effective manner possible. 

DOD's headquarters organizations have responsibilities that include 
developing guidance, reviewing performance, allocating resources, and 
conducting mid-to-long-range budgeting as they oversee, direct, and 
control subordinate organizations or units. However, accounting for 
the resources devoted to headquarters has been a long-standing 
challenge for DOD. In October 1997, as part of our review on the mid-
1990s military drawdown, we found that total personnel and costs of 
defense headquarters were significantly higher than were being 
reported. Specifically, we found that three-fourths of subordinate 
organizations excluded from the management headquarters accounting 
were actually performing management or management support functions, 
and such accounting masked the true size of DOD's headquarters 
organizations.[Footnote 4] Our more recent work has found that DOD's 
challenges in accounting for headquarters resources have continued. In 
March 2012, we found that DOD's data on its headquarters personnel 
lacked the completeness and reliability necessary for use in making 
efficiency assessments and decisions.[Footnote 5] Subsequently, in May 
2013, we found several weaknesses in DOD's process for sizing its 
geographic combatant commands, and in June 2014, we found that DOD did 
not have an accurate accounting of the resources being devoted to 
management headquarters to use a starting point for tracking 
reductions to such headquarters.[Footnote 6] See appendix I for a 
discussion of our prior work on defense headquarters, related 
recommendations, and their statuses. 

House Report 113-102 mandated GAO to review the military and civilian 
personnel and contracted services resources devoted to OSD, the Joint 
Staff, and the military services' secretariats and military staffs 
from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 7] This 
report (1) identifies past trends, if any, in personnel resources 
devoted to OSD, the Joint Staff, and the secretariats and staffs of 
the military services and any plans for reductions to these 
headquarters organizations; and (2) evaluates the extent to which DOD 
determines and reassesses personnel requirements for these 
headquarters organizations. 

To address the first objective, we identified sources of information 
within DOD that would provide data on the personnel resources of OSD, 
the Joint Staff, and the secretariats and staffs for the military 
services.[Footnote 8] We focused on these nine organizations--OSD; the 
Joint Staff; the Offices of the Secretary of the Army and Army Staff; 
the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations; Headquarters, Marine Corps; and the Offices of the 
Secretary of Air Force and Air Staff--because these components 
represent some of the highest-level headquarters organizations within 
DOD and are responsible for overseeing, directing, and controlling 
subordinate organizations or units. Specifically, we obtained and 
analyzed available data on authorized military and civilian positions 
in these headquarters organizations[Footnote 9] from fiscal years 2001 
through 2013.[Footnote 10] This time frame allowed us to assess trends 
in resources without including nonwar years prior to fiscal year 2001 
and to include the most recent data available, for fiscal year 2013. 
We obtained and analyzed available data on contracted services 
performing functions for the organizations within our review for 
fiscal year 2013, but in some instances these data were not available. 
DOD is still in the process of compiling complete data on contractor 
full-time equivalents. Using available data, we also conducted an 
analysis of trends in headquarters support costs, including the costs 
for civilian compensation and benefits, at the headquarters 
organizations in our review for fiscal years 2001 through 2013. See 
appendixes III through VIII for the results of these analyses. 
[Footnote 11] Unless otherwise noted, we reported all costs in nominal 
dollars. 

To identify DOD's plans for reductions to these organizations, we 
obtained and reviewed guidance and documentation on steps to implement 
DOD's 20 percent reductions to headquarters budgets starting in fiscal 
year 2015, the first budget for which DOD was able to include the 
reductions, such as the department-issued memorandum outlining the 
reductions and various DOD budget-related documents. We also obtained 
data, where available, on the number of authorized positions at OSD, 
the Joint Staff, and the secretariats and staffs for the military 
services for fiscal year 2013, the most recent fiscal year for which 
data were available, as well as data on the number of authorized 
positions deemed by these organizations to be performing headquarters 
functions and included in DOD's planned headquarters reductions for 
fiscal years 2015 through 2019, the time frame DOD identified in its 
reduction plans. We assessed the reliability of the data on authorized 
military and civilian positions and costs given these and other 
limitations by interviewing DOD officials about the data they provided 
to us and analyzing relevant personnel and financial-management 
documentation. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes of identifying trends in the authorized positions and 
headquarters support costs, and DOD's plans for reductions to OSD, 
Joint Staff, and secretariats and staffs for the military services. 

To address the second objective, we obtained and reviewed guidance on 
each of these organizations' processes for determining and reassessing 
personnel requirements. We also interviewed officials from each of 
these organizations to determine how their processes are implemented. 
We then compared the information we obtained on these processes to DOD 
and military service guidance,[Footnote 12] as well as to key elements 
of a personnel requirements process. To identify these key elements, 
we reviewed documents that address leading practices for workforce 
planning, in particular previous GAO work on effective strategic 
workforce planning,[Footnote 13] DOD guidance on manpower management, 
[Footnote 14] and workforce planning guidance issued by the Office of 
Personnel Management.[Footnote 15] We then synthesized common themes 
from these documents and summarized these as key elements that should 
be included in organizations' personnel requirements-determination 
processes. We also identified a standard on information and 
communications from internal-control standards for the federal 
government[Footnote 16] and compared this standard to the headquarters-
related information provided to Congress in the fiscal year 2015 
Defense Manpower Requirements Report.[Footnote 17] 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to January 2015 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. More details 
on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in appendix II. 

Background: 

DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, defines 
major 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, its components, 
and their major military units, organizations, or agencies.[Footnote 
18] The instruction provides an official list of the organizations 
that it covers, including OSD; the Joint Staff; the Offices of the 
Secretary of the Army and Army Staff; the Office of the Secretary of 
the Navy and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Headquarters, 
Marine Corps; and the Offices of the Secretary of the Air Force and 
Air Staff. 

These organizations have responsibilities that include developing 
guidance, reviewing performance, allocating resources, and conducting 
mid-to-long-range budgeting as they oversee, direct, and control 
subordinate organizations or units. In addition to OSD, the Joint 
Staff, and the secretariats and staffs of the military services, other 
headquarters organizations include portions of the defense agencies, 
DOD field activities, and the combatant commands, along with their 
subordinate unified commands and respective service component commands. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff: 

OSD is responsible for assisting the Secretary of Defense in carrying 
out his or her duties and responsibilities for the management of DOD. 
[Footnote 19] These include policy development, planning, resource 
management, and fiscal and program evaluation responsibilities. The 
staff of OSD comprises military and civilian personnel and contracted 
services. While military personnel may be assigned to permanent duty 
in OSD, the Secretary may not establish a military staff organization 
within OSD. 

The Joint Staff is responsible for assisting the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the military advisor to the President, in 
accomplishing his responsibilities for the unified strategic direction 
of the combatant forces; their operation under unified command; and 
their integration into a team of land, naval, and air forces.[Footnote 
20] The Joint Staff is tasked to provide advice and support to the 
Chairman and the Joint Chiefs on matters including personnel, 
intelligence doctrine and architecture, operations and plans, 
logistics, strategy, policy, communications, cyberspace, joint 
training and education, and program evaluation. In addition to 
civilian personnel and contracted services, the Joint Staff comprises 
military personnel who represent, in approximately equal numbers, the 
Army, the Navy and Marine Corps, and the Air Force. 

Military Departments: 

The Office of the Secretary of the Army has sole responsibility within 
the Office of the Secretary and the Army Staff for the following 
functions: acquisition, auditing, financial management, information 
management, inspector general, legislative affairs, and public 
affairs.[Footnote 21] Additionally, there is an Army Staff, which is 
to furnish professional assistance to the Secretary and the Chief of 
Staff of the Army. Headquarters functions to be performed by the Army 
Staff include, among others, recruiting, organizing, training, and 
equipping of the Army.[Footnote 22] The staff of the Office of the 
Secretary of the Army and the Army Staff comprise military and 
civilian personnel and contracted services. 

The Office of the Secretary of the Navy is solely responsible within 
the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, the Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations, and the Headquarters, Marine Corps, for oversight of 
the following functions: acquisition, auditing, financial management, 
information management, inspector general, legislative affairs, and 
public affairs.[Footnote 23] The Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations is to provide professional assistance to the Secretary and 
Chief of Naval Operations in preparing for the employment of the Navy 
in areas such as: recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, and 
training.[Footnote 24] The Marine Corps also operates under the 
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Navy. 
Headquarters, Marine Corps, consists of the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps and staff who are to provide assistance in preparing for the 
employment of the Marine Corps in areas such as recruiting, 
organizing, supplying, equipping and training.[Footnote 25] The staffs 
of Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations, and Headquarters, Marine Corps, comprise military and 
civilian personnel and contracted services. 

The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force has sole responsibility 
and oversight for the following functions across the Air Force: 
acquisition, auditing, financial management, information management, 
inspector general, legislative affairs, and public affairs.[Footnote 
26] Additionally, there is an Air Staff, which is to furnish 
professional assistance to the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force. The headquarters functions to be performed by the Air Staff 
include recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping of the Air 
Force, among others.[Footnote 27] The staffs of the Office of the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Staff comprise military and 
civilian personnel and contracted services. 

Authorized Positions at DOD Headquarters Organizations We Reviewed 
Have Generally Increased since Fiscal Year 2001, and Plans for Future 
Reductions are Not Finalized: 

Authorized positions have increased to varying degrees within the 
headquarters organizations that we reviewed--OSD, the Joint Staff, and 
the secretariats and staffs for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as well 
as Headquarters, Marine Corps. According to DOD officials, the varying 
increases were generally attributable to increased mission 
responsibilities for the war and other directed missions such as 
business transformation, intelligence, cyber, suicide prevention, 
sexual assault response and prevention, wounded warrior care, family 
support programs, transition assistance and veterans programs. In 
addition, DOD officials said DOD-directed conversion and realignment 
of workload from contracted services to civilian positions, and 
institutional reorganizations also contributed to the increases. While 
there has been a net increase in the number of authorized positions in 
these organizations from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2013, in 
recent years the number of authorized positions has leveled off or 
begun to decline, which DOD officials said is primarily due to DOD 
efficiency efforts. These efforts have included identifying budget and 
personnel reductions to achieve efficiencies, instituting caps on 
authorized civilian personnel, and limiting contracted services 
expenditures. In 2013, the Secretary of Defense set a target for 
reducing DOD components' total management headquarters budgets by 20 
percent for fiscal years 2014 through 2019, including costs for 
civilian personnel and contracted services, while striving for a goal 
of 20 percent reductions to authorized military and civilian 
personnel. However, the department has not finalized its reduction 
plans. 

Number of Authorized Positions at OSD and the Joint Staff Increased 
since 2001, but Levels Have Begun to Decline or Level Off in Recent 
Years: 

OSD experienced an overall increase in its authorized military and 
civilian positions from fiscal years 2001 through 2013, representing a 
net increase of 20 percent from 2,205 authorized positions in fiscal 
year 2001 to 2,646 authorized positions in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 
28] Since fiscal year 2011, OSD's authorized positions have slightly 
decreased from their peak levels. The number of authorized military 
and civilian positions within the Joint Staff remained relatively 
constant since fiscal year 2005, the first year we could obtain 
reliable data, at about 1,262 authorized positions, with an increase 
in fiscal year 2012 to 2,599 positions, which Joint Staff officials 
said was associated with the realignment of duties from U.S. Joint 
Forces Command after its disestablishment.[Footnote 29] Both OSD and 
Joint Staff trends are illustrated in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions for the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Joint Staff for 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,205. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,256. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,254. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,218. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,240; 
Joint Staff: 1,262. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,241; 
Joint Staff: 1,279. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,296; 
Joint Staff: 1,251. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,367; 
Joint Staff: 1,257. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,430; 
Joint Staff: 1,220. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,838; 
Joint Staff: 1,275. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,958; 
Joint Staff: 1,335. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,704; 
Joint Staff: 2,599. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 2,646; 
Joint Staff: 2,643. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Staff was unable 
to provide complete data on the number of authorized positions prior 
to fiscal year 2005 due to a change in databases in 2004. Therefore, 
changes in the number of authorized positions for the Joint Staff 
could only be identified for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. This does 
not include authorized military and civilian positions within the 
Joint Staff's J-2 Intelligence Directorate. DOD considers this 
information to be sensitive but unclassified, and we therefore 
excluded it from this report. According to Joint Staff officials, the 
increase in authorized positions in fiscal year 2012 is primarily due 
to the disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command and the 
realignment of authorized positions from that command to the Joint 
Staff. 

[End of figure] 

Our analysis showed that the increase in the number of authorized 
military and civilian positions within OSD since fiscal year 2001 can 
primarily be attributed to the creation of the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Intelligence) in fiscal year 2003 and the Office of the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 30] 
Fiscal years 2010 and 2011 saw additional increases in authorized 
civilian positions, while the number of authorized military positions 
within OSD decreased, which OSD officials attributed to the conversion 
and realignment of workload from both military positions and 
contracted services to civilian positions. OSD officials told us that 
the decrease in authorized positions from its peak in 2011 is 
primarily attributable to reductions directed by the Secretary of 
Defense. They indicated that these reductions were to authorized 
civilian positions that had not yet been filled after being created to 
convert functions performed by contracted services to civilian 
positions in the preceding 2 years. For additional information on 
changes in OSD's personnel and associated costs, see appendix III. 

The Joint Staff, excluding the J-2 (Intelligence) Directorate, 
[Footnote 31] experienced small changes since fiscal year 2005, before 
experiencing an increase in authorized military and civilian positions 
in fiscal year 2012, which Joint Staff officials attributed to the 
disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command and the realignment of 
positions to the Joint Staff. From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal 
year 2010, the number of authorized military and civilian positions 
within the Joint Staff remained relatively constant, with minor 
increases in fiscal year 2011 that Joint Staff officials attributed to 
the conversion and realignment of functions performed by contracted 
services to civilian positions. Joint Staff officials stated that the 
sharp increase in authorized military and civilian positions in fiscal 
year 2012 was caused by the realignment of existing positions from 
U.S. Joint Forces Command to the Joint Staff, after U.S. Joint Forces 
Command was disestablished. Some of the positions that were realigned 
include those supporting the Combatant Commanders Exercise Engagement 
and Training Transformation program, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization oversight position, the Joint Center for Operational 
Analysis, the Joint Coalition Warfighting Center, and the Joint 
Personnel Recovery Agency. As part of the President's budget request 
for fiscal year 2014, DOD planned to reduce civilian positions at the 
Joint Staff and the combatant commands by approximately 400 positions 
over 5 years through fiscal year 2018. As a result, Joint Staff 
officials stated that they expect the number of authorized positions 
to further decrease in future fiscal years. For additional information 
on changes in the Joint Staff's authorized positions and associated 
costs, see appendix IV. 

In addition to authorized military and civilian positions, DOD relies 
on contracted services to provide a range of headquarters services, 
such as management support, administration, and information technology 
support. For example, for DOD's fiscal year 2013 Inventory of 
Contracted Services, OSD estimated that there were about 3,287 
contractor full-time equivalents throughout the organization, which 
represents about 55 percent of OSD's total workforce in fiscal year 
2013, as shown in figure 2.[Footnote 32] 

Figure 2: Percentage of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions and 
Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD), Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Contractor full-time equivalents: 56% (3,287); 
Authorized civilians: 35% (2,094); 
Authorized military: 9% (552). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Contractor full-time equivalents are rounded to the nearest 
whole number. OSD provided contractor full-time equivalents from DOD's 
fiscal year 2013 Inventory of Contracted Services and it includes only 
those contracts managed by Washington Headquarters Services/ 
Acquisition Directorate. In May 2013, we found that the data 
supporting DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services has several 
limitations, including the inability to identify more than one type of 
service in a contract or the number of contractor full-time 
equivalents, which limit its utility for purposes of compiling a 
complete and accurate inventory. See GAO, Defense Acquisitions: 
Continued Management Attention Needed to Enhance Use and Review of 
DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services, GAO-13-491 (Washington, D.C.: 
May 23, 2013). We are presenting OSD's estimates of its contractor 
full-time equivalents for the purposes of comparison against 
authorized military and civilian positions. Because the data 
supporting OSD's estimates were not used to support findings, 
conclusions, or recommendations, we did not assess their reliability. 

[End of figure] 

Our body of work over the past decade on DOD's contracting activities 
has noted the need for DOD to obtain better data on its contracted 
services to enable it to make better-informed management decisions, 
ensure that department-wide goals and objectives are achieved, and 
have the resources to achieve desired outcomes.[Footnote 33] In 
response to our past work on the need to identify the number of and 
functions performed by contractors, DOD outlined its intended approach 
to document contractor full-time equivalents and collect data on the 
work performed under contracted services in the Enterprise-wide 
Contractor Manpower Reporting Application, which DOD plans to use to 
annually report DOD's Inventory of Contract Services to Congress. 
However, in May 2014, we found that various challenges may hinder 
DOD's efforts to have an enterprise-wide system and associated process 
in place to support DOD's fiscal year 2016 Inventory of Contracted 
Services.[Footnote 34] While we did not make any recommendations, DOD 
agreed with our assessment that challenges remain in establishing a 
common system to collect contractor manpower data. Since DOD is still 
in the process of compiling complete data on contractor full-time 
equivalents, trends in these data could not be identified and similar 
comparisons of estimated contractor full-time equivalents and 
authorized military and civilian positions could not be conducted for 
the Joint Staff, Navy Secretariat, Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations, Headquarters, Marine Corps, and the Air Force Secretariat 
and Staff. The Army provided information on estimated contractor full- 
time equivalents in the Army Secretariat and Army Staff for fiscal 
year 2013, which we detail in appendix V. A September 2014 DOD 
memorandum directed a review of short-and long-term options for 
collecting contractor manpower data and proposed courses of action. In 
November 2014, we reported that this memorandum raised questions about 
whether DOD will continue the Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower 
Reporting Application or develop a new system and noted that these 
uncertainties increase the risk that DOD will be unable to collect 
statutorily required contractor manpower data.[Footnote 35] To help 
facilitate DOD's stated intent to develop a common data collection 
system, we recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness approve a plan of action, with timeframes and 
milestones, for rolling out and supporting a department-wide data 
collection system as soon as practicable after the review of options 
is complete. 

Military Service Secretariats and Staffs Experienced Varied Increases 
in Authorized Positions since Fiscal Year 2001, and the Increases Have 
Recently Leveled Off: 

The military service secretariats and staffs also experienced varied 
increases in their number of authorized military and civilian 
positions from fiscal years 2001 through 2013.[Footnote 36] According 
to DOD officials, the varying increases are attributed to increased 
mission responsibilities for the war and other directed missions such 
as business transformation, sexual assault response and prevention, 
and cyber. In addition, DOD officials said converting functions 
performed by contracted services to civilian positions, and the 
transfer of positions from other organizations also contributed to the 
increases. However, military service officials said that DOD-wide 
initiatives and service-specific actions since fiscal year 2010 have 
generally begun to slow these increases or resulted in declines, as 
illustrated in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions for the 
Secretariats and Staffs of the Military Services for Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Army: 2,272; 
Air Force: 2,423. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Army: 2,651; 
Air Force: 2,443. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Army: 2,812; 
Air Force: 2,448. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Army: 2,798; 
Air Force: 2,459. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Army: 2,834; 
Air Force: 2,377; 
Marine Corps: 2,352; 
Navy: 2,061. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Army: 2,907; 
Air Force: 2,536; 
Marine Corps: 2,876; 
Navy: 2,022. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Army: 2,915; 
Air Force: 2,323; 
Marine Corps: 2,315; 
Navy: 2,001. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Army: 2,964; 
Air Force: 2,378; 
Marine Corps: 2,365; 
Navy: 2,062. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Army: 3,270; 
Air Force: 2,531; 
Marine Corps: 2,411; 
Navy: 2,204. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Army: 3,550; 
Air Force: 2,937; 
Marine Corps: 2,806; 
Navy: 2,318. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Army: 3,712; 
Air Force: 2,935; 
Marine Corps: 3,357; 
Navy: 2,317. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Army: 3,650; 
Air Force: 2,594; 
Marine Corps: 2,820; 
Navy: 2,344. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Army: 3,639; 
Air Force: 2,594; 
Marine Corps: 2,584; 
Navy: 2,402. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Data reflect authorized military and civilian positions. Due to 
changes in personnel management systems, neither the Marine Corps nor 
the Navy were able to provide data on authorized positions prior to 
fiscal year 2005. 

[End of figure] 

Authorized military and civilian positions for the Army Secretariat 
and Army Staff increased by 60 percent from 2,272 in fiscal year 2001 
to 3,639 in fiscal year 2013, but levels have begun to decline since 
their peak of 3,712 authorized positions in fiscal year 2011. 
According to Army officials, the increases in the number of authorized 
positions within Headquarters, Department of the Army are attributable 
to increased mission responsibilities for the war and other directed 
missions such as business transformation, sexual assault response and 
prevention, and cyber. In addition, Army officials said efforts to 
convert functions performed by contracted services to civilian 
positions also contributed to the increases. For example, the Army's 
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and 
Training (G-3/5/7) converted 72 contractor full-time equivalents to 
authorized civilian positions in fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 
2013. According to Army and DOD officials, since fiscal year 2011, the 
number of authorized positions has remained fairly constant or 
declined slightly primarily due to direction from the Secretary of 
Defense to hold authorized civilian positions at or below the fiscal 
year 2010 levels and to cut positions that had yet to be filled after 
these positions had been created by converting contracted services to 
civilian positions in previous years. Based on data collected by the 
Army using the Contractor Manpower Reporting Application for use in 
DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services,[Footnote 37] the Army 
estimated that, in addition to authorized military and civilian 
positions, it had 1,428 contractor full-time equivalents serving in 
the Army Secretariat and Army Staff in fiscal year 2013. For 
additional information on changes in the Army's headquarters personnel 
and associated costs, see appendix V. 

Within the Navy Secretariat and Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations, the number of authorized military and civilian positions 
has increased from 2,061 in fiscal year 2005 to 2,402 in fiscal year 
2013, with increases in authorized civilian positions, primarily at 
the Navy Secretariat, driving the overall increase.[Footnote 38] Navy 
officials attributed these increases to reorganizations arising from 
annual internal reviews that moved positions into headquarters 
functions and conversions of contracted services to civilian 
positions. For example, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) converted functions 
performed by contracted services into 25 civilian full-time 
equivalents in fiscal year 2011. For additional information on changes 
in the Navy's headquarters personnel and associated costs, see 
appendix VI. 

Headquarters, Marine Corps, has seen an overall increase in its total 
number of authorized military and civilian positions from 2,352 in 
fiscal year 2005 to 2,584 in fiscal year 2013, but there have been 
variations within those years. For example, some of the increases in 
the number of authorized positions were attributed by Marine Corps 
officials to the addition of positions required to establish and 
operate the National Museum of the Marine Corps, and additional 
personnel required to support the Foreign Counterintelligence Program 
and National Intelligence Program. Marine Corps officials also 
explained that some of the decreases in authorized positions were due 
to a number of realignments that have transferred civilian positions 
from Headquarters, Marine Corps, to operational or field support 
organizations. For additional information on changes in the Marine 
Corps' headquarters personnel and associated costs, see appendix VII. 

Authorized military and civilian positions for the Air Force 
Secretariat and Air Staff have increased overall from 2,423 in fiscal 
year 2001 to 2,584 in fiscal year 2013, but they have declined from 
their peak in fiscal year 2010. An Air Force official stated that the 
overall increase was driven primarily by the conversion of functions 
performed by contracted services to civilian positions. The Air Force 
official also noted that the decrease in the number of authorized 
positions from its fiscal year 2010 peak is primarily attributable to 
direction from the Secretary of Defense to hold the number of 
authorized civilian positions at or below fiscal year 2010 levels and 
to cut positions that had yet to be filled after these positions had 
been created by converting functions performed by contracted services 
to civilian positions in previous years. For additional information on 
changes in the Air Force's headquarters personnel and associated 
costs, see appendix VIII. 

DOD Plans to Achieve Headquarters Reduction Goals Are Not Finalized: 

DOD identified planned savings in its fiscal year 2015 budget 
submission, but it is unclear how the department will achieve those 
savings or how the reductions will affect the headquarters 
organizations in our review. In 2013, the Secretary of Defense set a 
target for reducing the headquarters budgets by 20 percent, to include 
costs for civilian personnel, contracted services, facilities, 
information technology, and other costs that support headquarters 
functions. DOD budget documents project the reductions will yield the 
department a total savings of about $5.3 billion from fiscal years 
2015 through 2019, with most savings coming in 2019; however, specific 
details of the reductions through fiscal year 2019 were not provided. 
Moreover, in June 2014, we found that the starting point for the 
reductions was not clearly defined so it is difficult to assess 
whether these projected savings reflect meaningful savings when the 
reductions are a small portion of DOD's budget.[Footnote 39] DOD was 
required by Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 to report its efforts to streamline management 
headquarters in June 2014.[Footnote 40] However, DOD provided Congress 
with an interim response stating that, due to the recent turnover of 
key staff, it would not develop its initial plan on streamlining until 
the end of summer 2014. As of December 2014, DOD's plan had not been 
issued. 

Officials from the headquarters organizations in this review stated 
that they are using different processes to identify the 20 percent 
reductions to their operating budgets. DOD's guidance called for 
components to achieve a 20 percent reduction to their headquarters 
operating budgets, while striving for a goal of 20 percent reductions 
to authorized military and civilian personnel. According to DOD 
officials, this flexibility allows DOD components to determine the 
most cost-effective workforce--retaining military and civilian 
personnel while reducing dollars spent on contracted services. For 
example, OSD officials stated that the Under Secretaries of Defense 
were asked to strive for a goal of reducing their operating budgets by 
20 percent. However, some OSD senior officials stated that it was 
unfair to smaller OSD offices, such as General Counsel, Public 
Affairs, and Legislative Affairs, to take the same reduction as the 
larger offices, and consequently OSD elected to take larger reductions 
from the larger offices of OSD Policy; Acquisitions, Technology and 
Logistics; Intelligence; and Personnel and Readiness. OSD officials 
added that they are in the process of determining how best to apply 
the budget reductions, preferably through attrition. Overall, DOD 
projected the reductions will result in at least $1 billion in savings 
for OSD's headquarters over a 5-year period, but it is unclear what 
the size will ultimately be. 

The Joint Staff projects reductions of about $450,000 from fiscal year 
2015 through fiscal year 2019. Joint Staff officials stated that they 
plan to reduce the number of authorized positions by about 150 
civilian positions (about 14 percent of their fiscal year 2013 
authorized civilian positions) and by about 160 military positions 
(about 11 percent of their fiscal year 2013 authorized military 
positions). 

Specifics about the plans for the military service secretariats and 
staffs were also in development, as of December 2014. Army officials 
estimate a reduction of about 560 civilian full-time equivalent 
positions in the Army Secretariat and Army Staff (about 21 percent of 
fiscal year 2013 authorized civilian positions); however, the 
officials said that the reductions in military positions will be 
determined through an Army review of military personnel in time for 
the fiscal year 2017 budget submission. Additionally, in July 2014, 
the Secretary of the Army announced plans for an additional review to 
determine the optimal organization and strength and, subsequently, any 
adjustment of programmed reductions in Headquarters, Department of the 
Army, that is to be completed by March 2015. Navy officials stated 
that the Navy will take 20 percent reductions in both civilian and 
military personnel, but the exact reductions through fiscal year 2019 
would not be available before the issuance of the Section 904 report 
to Congress. A Marine Corps official stated that after submitting its 
fiscal year 2015 budget information, the Marine Corps conducted a 
structural review over a period of 6 to 8 months that identified a 
larger number of positions in Headquarters, Marine Corps, that should 
be subject to the reduction. The official further stated that these 
changes should better position the Marine Corps to more accurately 
report its headquarters structure for the fiscal year 2016 budget, but 
added that the actual reductions would likely be different than it 
originally estimated for fiscal year 2015. The revised Marine Corps 
data were not available as of January 2015. More specific information 
was available from the Air Force. In July 2014, the Air Force 
completed its management headquarters review and notified Congress of 
its reorganization plans, including a reduction of 300 authorized 
military and civilian positions (about 12 percent of fiscal year 2013 
authorized positions) and a 20 percent reduction to the headquarters 
operating budgets for the Air Force Secretariat and Air Staff by 
fiscal year 2019. 

DOD Headquarters Organizations in Our Review Do Not Systematically 
Determine or Periodically Reassess Their Personnel Requirements: 

The headquarters organizations we reviewed--OSD, the Joint Staff, and 
the secretariats and staffs for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and 
Headquarters, Marine Corps--do not determine their personnel 
requirements as part of a systematic requirements-determination 
process, nor do they have procedures in place to ensure that they 
periodically reassess them as outlined in DOD and other guidance. 
Current personnel levels for these headquarters organizations are 
traceable to statutory limits enacted during the 1980s and 1990s to 
force efficiencies and reduce duplication. However, these limits have 
been waived since fiscal year 2002 and have little practical utility 
because of statutory exceptions to certain categories of personnel and 
because the limits do not include personnel in supporting 
organizations that perform headquarters-related functions. OSD, the 
Navy, and the Marine Corps have recognized problems with their 
existing requirements-determination processes and are beginning to 
take steps to modify their processes, but their efforts are not yet 
complete. Without systematic determinations of personnel requirements 
and periodic reassessments of them using organizational and workforce 
analyses, DOD will not be well-positioned to proactively identify 
efficiencies and limit personnel growth within these headquarters 
organizations. Moreover, until such requirements are determined, 
Congress will not have the information needed to reexamine existing 
statutory limits. 

Statutory Limits Placed on Headquarters Sizes Have Been Waived and Are 
of Limited Utility: 

Most of the DOD headquarters organizations that we reviewed are 
subject to statutory limits on the number of authorized personnel, 
although these limits have been waived since fiscal year 2002 and are 
of limited utility due to statutory exceptions and exclusions of 
certain personnel. Congress placed statutory limits on authorized 
military and civilian personnel for the military departments' 
secretariats and staffs in 1986, in part, to force a comprehensive 
management review of duplication and identify effective solutions to 
existing personnel duplication among the services.[Footnote 41] In 
1996, Congress also established a statutory limit for OSD military and 
civilian personnel because it was concerned about the growth of OSD 
personnel despite a declining defense budget and military force 
structure.[Footnote 42] The military departments' statutory limits 
were set at 85 percent of the total number of personnel in the 
secretariats and military staffs prior to 1986, while the OSD 
statutory limit represented a 15 percent reduction from 1994 personnel 
levels. The Joint Staff is not currently subject to a statutory limit. 

Although Congress placed statutory limits on the OSD and the military 
departments' secretariats and military staffs, the President has 
declared a national emergency each year from fiscal years 2002 to 
2014, which had the effect of waiving the limits for the military 
departments each year.[Footnote 43] While the limits have been waived, 
officials from the Army, Navy, and Air Force stated that they seek to 
keep their number of authorized military and civilian positions within 
or close to these limits because the waiver is valid only for 1 year 
at a time, and they are uncertain whether the waiver will be granted 
again. However, we found the secretariats and military staffs of the 
departments of the Army and Navy have totals for fiscal year 2013 that 
would exceed the existing statutory limits were they in effect. Table 
1 shows the statutory limits of the headquarters organizations that we 
reviewed and the total number of authorized positions they reported in 
fiscal year 2013, including, where applicable, the percentage by which 
they vary from the statutory limits. 

Table 1: Statutory Limits of Headquarters Organizations Personnel, and 
Percentage by Which Statutory Limits Would Be Exceeded in Fiscal Year 
2013 in the Absence of a Waiver: 

Headquarters organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)[B]; 
Statutory limit[A]: 3,767; 
Year limit was established: 1999; 
Fiscal year 2013 authorization: 3,135; 
Percentage variance: -16.8%. 

Headquarters organization: Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
Statutory limit[A]: No limit; 
Year limit was established: N/A; 
Fiscal year 2013 authorization: N/A; 
Percentage variance: N/A. 

Headquarters organization: Army Secretariat and Army Staff; 
Statutory limit[A]: 3,105; 
Year limit was established: 1986; 
Fiscal year 2013 authorization: 3,639; 
Percentage variance: +17.2%. 

Headquarters organization: Navy Secretariat, Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations, and Headquarters, Marine Corps; 
Statutory limit[A]: 2,866; 
Year limit was established: 1986; 
Fiscal year 2013 authorization: 4,960[C]; 
Percentage variance: +74.0%. 

Headquarters organization: Air Force Secretariat and Air Staff; 
Statutory limit[A]: 2,639; 
Year limit was established: 1986; 
Fiscal year 2013 authorization: 2,594; 
Percentage variance: -1.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data and provisions of 
Title 10, U.S. Code. GAO-15-10. 

Notes: N/A = Not applicable: 

[A] Statutory limits are for authorized civilian and military 
personnel. 

[B] OSD's statutory limit includes its supporting activities, such as 
the Washington Headquarters Services, a support organization for OSD. 

[C] A Navy official stated that the Navy has not reevaluated its 
source data since statutory limits were first waived in September 
2001, and therefore, Title 10 exceptions to this baseline have not 
been applied. Pub. L. No. 110-417, §1111 (2008), as amended, provided 
that for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal years thereafter, the baseline 
personnel limitations for each of these organizations shall not apply 
to (1) acquisition personnel hired pursuant to the expedited hiring 
authority provided in section 1705(h) of Title 10, U.S. Code, or 
otherwise hired with funds in the Department of Defense Acquisition 
Workforce Development Fund; or (2) personnel hired pursuant to a 
shortage category designation by the Secretary of Defense or the 
Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Further, the Secretary 
of Defense or a Secretary of a military department may adjust the 
baseline personnel limitations in sections 143, 3014, 5014 and 8014 of 
title 10, United States Code, for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal years 
thereafter, to (1) fill a gap in the civilian workforce of the 
Department of Defense identified by the Secretary of Defense in a 
strategic human capital plan submitted to Congress in accordance with 
the requirements of section 115b of such title; or (2) accommodate 
increases in workload or modify the type of personnel required to 
accomplish work such as performance of inherently governmental 
functions, among other purposes. A Navy official stated that 
Headquarters, Marine Corps has more than 900 authorizations that are 
assigned to Headquarters, Marine Corps because it is more efficient 
and less costly than performing these functions at a lower level as 
other military services do. 

[End of table] 

In addition, the numbers of authorized military and civilian positions 
counted against the statutory limits may not accurately reflect or be 
inclusive of all personnel supporting the headquarters due to 
statutory exceptions and the exclusion of certain personnel in support 
organizations conducting headquarters-related functions. Beginning in 
fiscal year 2009, Congress provided exceptions to the limitations on 
personnel for certain categories of acquisition personnel and for 
those hired pursuant to a shortage category designated by the 
Secretary of Defense or the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management.[Footnote 44] These exceptions to the limitations on 
personnel allow DOD to adjust its baseline personnel limitation or 
exclude certain personnel from the limitation. For example, the Army 
reported for fiscal year 2015 that it has 1,530 military and civilian 
personnel that are subject to these exceptions and therefore do not 
count against its statutory limits.[Footnote 45] An official in OSD's 
Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness told us that 
the exceptions that were added to the statutory limits as of fiscal 
year 2009 make the statutory limits virtually obsolete. 

The statutory limits also do not apply to personnel in supporting 
organizations to the military service secretariats and staffs who do 
perform headquarters-related functions. For example, the Army and Air 
Force each have some personnel within their field operating agencies 
that support their military service secretariats or staffs in 
accomplishing their mission but which we found are not subject to the 
statutory limits. Organizations that support the Air Force Secretariat 
and Air Staff in conducting their mission include, but are not limited 
to, the U.S. Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, the U.S. Air Force 
Inspection Agency, the U.S. Air Force Personnel Center, and the U.S. 
Air Force Audit Agency, and include thousands of personnel. As 
illustrated in figure 4, in the case of the Army, the organizations 
and agencies that support the Army Secretariat and Army Staff are 
almost three times as large as the Secretariat and Staff, and include 
the U.S. Army Finance Command, the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency, 
and the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency, among others. 

Figure 4: Number of Authorized Positions for the Army Secretariat and 
Army Staff versus the Army Field Operating Agencies: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,272; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 8,878. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,651; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 8,811. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,812; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 8,509. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,798; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 9,024. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,834; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 10,270. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,907; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 10,578. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,915; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 11,198. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 2,964; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 11,578. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 3,270; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 10,825. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 3,550; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 11,597. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 3,712; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 11,492. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 3,650; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 11,177. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Army Secretariat and staff: 3,639; 
Army Field Operating Agencies: 10,865. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

[End of figure] 

By contrast, elements of the Washington Headquarters Services, a 
support organization for OSD, are included in OSD's statutory limits. 
This means that some personnel in the Washington Headquarters Services 
who conduct management headquarters-related functions count toward 
OSD's statutory limit.[Footnote 46] In addition, the applicable 
statute contains a provision limiting OSD's ability to reassign 
functions; specifically, that DOD may not reassign functions solely in 
order to evade the personnel limitations required by the statute. 
[Footnote 47] The statutes governing personnel limitations for the 
military services' secretariats and staffs do not contain similar 
limitations on the military services' ability to reassign headquarters-
related functions elsewhere. Military service officials have explained 
that the existing statutory limits preclude organizational 
efficiencies by causing them to move personnel performing headquarters-
related functions elsewhere within the department, including the field 
operating agencies. In addition, DOD officials also stated the 
statutory limits may have unintended consequences, such as causing DOD 
to use contracted services to perform headquarters-related tasks when 
authorized military and civilian personnel are unavailable; this 
contractor work force is not subject to the statutory limits. 

We also found that Headquarters, Marine Corps, plans to revise the 
number of military and civilian personnel it counts against the 
statutory limits to exclude certain personnel. Officials in 
Headquarters, Marine Corps, said that, unlike their counterparts in 
the other three services, their headquarters is not entirely a 
management headquarters activity, because it incorporates some 
nonheadquarters functions for organizational and efficiency reasons, 
and thus the limits should not apply to those personnel. However, this 
planned change seems in contradiction with the intent of the statute 
to establish a limit on personnel within the Navy Secretariat, Office 
of the Chief of Naval Operations, and Headquarters, Marine Corps. 
Also, DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, 
states that Headquarters, Marine Corps, is a management headquarters 
organization in its entirety, which would include all its personnel 
and operating costs.[Footnote 48] Marine Corps officials told us that 
DOD plans to revise DOD Instruction 5100.73 to classify only certain 
functions within Headquarters, Marine Corps, as management 
headquarters activities. According to an official, Headquarters, 
Marine Corps,' personnel totals in fiscal year 2013 do not reflect 
these changes and may account for the large percentage difference 
between the existing statutory limits and the number of Navy and 
Marine Corps authorized personnel in fiscal year 2013. An official 
from the Department of the Navy also noted that they have not 
reexamined the number of personnel who would fall under the statutory 
limits since the limit was first waived in September 2001. 

According to internal-control standards for the federal government, 
information should be recorded and communicated to others who need it 
in a form that enables them to carry out their 
responsibilities.[Footnote 49] An organization must have relevant, 
reliable, and timely communications as well as information needed to 
achieve the organization's objectives. However, DOD's headquarters 
reporting mechanism to Congress, the Defense Manpower Requirements 
Report, reflects a lack of key information. This annual report to 
Congress includes information on the number of military and civilian 
personnel assigned to major DOD headquarters activities in the 
preceding fiscal year and estimates of such numbers for the current 
and subsequent fiscal year, as well as the amount of any adjustment in 
personnel limits made by the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of 
a military department.[Footnote 50] However, in the most recent report 
for fiscal year 2015, only the Army reports information on the number 
of baseline personnel within the Army Secretariat and Army Staff that 
count against the statutory limits, along with the applicable 
adjustments to the limits. Similar information for OSD, the Air Force 
Secretariat and Air Staff, the Navy Secretariat, the Office of the 
Chief of Naval Operations, and Headquarters, Marine Corps, is not 
included because DOD's reporting guidance does not require this 
information. Without information to identify what personnel in each 
organization are being counted against the statutory limits, it will 
be difficult for Congress to determine whether the existing statutory 
limits are effective in limiting personnel growth within the 
department or should be revised to reflect current requirements. 

DOD Headquarters Organizations in Our Review Have Not Systematically 
Determined Personnel Requirements: 

While the organizations we reviewed are currently assessing their 
personnel requirements--driven by department-wide efforts to reduce 
management overhead in response to budget constraints--we found that 
all of the headquarters organizations within our review have not 
determined their personnel requirements as part of a systematic 
requirements-determination process. Such systematic personnel-
requirements processes are considered a good human-capital practice 
across government, including DOD, and these processes include certain 
key elements. Among these elements are that organizations should (1) 
identify an organization's mission, functions, and tasks; and (2) 
determine the minimum number and type of personnel--military 
personnel, civilian personnel, and contracted services[Footnote 51]--
needed to fulfill those missions, functions, and tasks by conducting a 
workforce analysis.[Footnote 52] Such a workforce analysis should 
identify mission-critical competencies as well as gaps and 
deficiencies, and systematically define the size of the total 
workforce needed to meet organizational goals. By contrast, the 
headquarters organizations we reviewed use authorized personnel levels 
from the previous year as a baseline from which to generate any new 
requirements,[Footnote 53] and these personnel levels are ultimately 
based not on a workforce analysis but on the statutory limits that 
were established by Congress in the 1980s and 1990s. 

According to DOD officials, it is more difficult to determine 
personnel requirements for OSD, military service secretariats, or 
military staffs, whose tasks include developing policy or strategy, 
than it is for military services' major commands or units that have 
distinct tasks, such as repairing aircraft or conducting ship 
maintenance. DOD officials stated that headquarters organizations' 
workload is unpredictable and not only includes traditional policy and 
oversight responsibilities, but also managing unforeseen events and 
initiatives, such as the Fort Hood shooting, Secretary of Defense-
directed reductions, and responding to congressionally mandated 
reviews or reports. However, systematically determining personnel 
requirements for the total force--military personnel, civilian 
personnel, and contracted services--by conducting a workforce 
analysis, rather than relying on historic personnel levels and 
existing statutory limits, would better position these headquarters 
organizations to respond to unforeseen events and initiatives by 
allowing them to identify critical mission requirements as well as 
mitigate risks to the organizations' efficiency and effectiveness. 
Without such determination of personnel requirements for the total 
force, DOD headquarters organizations may not be well positioned to 
identify opportunities for efficiencies and reduce the potential for 
headquarters-related growth. In addition, submitting these personnel 
requirements to Congress would provide Congress with key information 
to determine whether the existing statutory limits on military and 
civilian personnel are effective in limiting headquarters personnel 
growth. 

DOD Headquarters Organizations in Our Review Do Not Have Procedures in 
Place to Ensure Periodic Reassessment of Headquarters Personnel 
Requirements: 

In addition to not systematically determining their personnel 
requirements, we also found that the headquarters organizations do not 
have procedures in place to ensure that they periodically reassess 
these personnel requirements. This is contrary to guidance from DOD 
and all of the military services suggesting that they conduct periodic 
reassessments of their personnel requirements. For example, DOD 
guidance states that existing policies, procedures, and structures 
should be periodically evaluated to ensure efficient and effective use 
of personnel resources, and that assigned missions should be 
accomplished using the least costly mix of military, civilian and 
contractor personnel.[Footnote 54] Moreover, the military services 
have more specific guidance indicating that personnel requirements 
should be established at the minimum essential level to accomplish the 
required workload and should be periodically reviewed.[Footnote 55] 
For example, the Air Force states that periodic reviews should occur 
at least every 2 years.[Footnote 56] In addition, systematic personnel 
requirements processes are considered a good human-capital practice 
across government, including in DOD. These practices call for 
organizations to have personnel requirements-determination processes 
that, among other things, reassess personnel requirements by 
conducting analysis on a periodic basis to determine the most 
efficient choices for workforce deployment.[Footnote 57] These 
reassessments should include analysis of organizational functions to 
determine appropriate structure, including identifying any excess 
organizational layers or redundant operations, and workforce analysis 
to determine the most effective workloads for efficient functioning. 
None of the headquarters organizations we reviewed have procedures in 
place to ensure that they periodically reassess their personnel 
requirements.[Footnote 58] This is unlike the military services' major 
commands or units, for which officials within the military departments 
stated they do reassess personnel requirements. While Navy officials 
stated that the Navy may occasionally reassess the requirements for a 
particular organization within the Secretariat or Office of the Chief 
of Naval Operations, such reassessments are conducted infrequently and 
without the benefit of a standardized methodology. Officials at 
Headquarters, Marine Corps, stated that they are beginning to 
implement a new requirements-determination process, which requires 
commanders to conduct an annual analysis to determine their 
organizations' personnel requirements. However, this process is not 
expected to be fully implemented until October 2015. 

Officials from headquarters organizations that we reviewed said that 
they do not periodically reassess personnel requirements because their 
organization's requirements do not change much from year to year and 
they adjust requirements when new missions or tasks are assigned to 
their organization. DOD officials also maintained that the process of 
reassessing these personnel requirements would be lengthy and require 
an increase in personnel to conduct the analysis. Officials also 
stated that they believe the department's recent efficiency efforts 
have allowed their organizations to reassess personnel requirements 
and identify opportunities for efficiencies. For example, officials 
stated that they conducted comprehensive reviews of their 
organizations' personnel requirements as part of the effort to 
identify efficiencies as directed by former Secretary of Defense 
Robert Gates in 2010, as part of the OSD organizational review 
conducted by former Secretary of the Air Force Mike Donley in 2013, 
and most recently as part of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's effort 
to reduce management headquarters. However, these reviews have 
generally been ad hoc and done in response to internally driven or 
directed reductions, rather than as part of the organization's 
systematic requirements-determination process. Conducting periodic 
reassessments as part of a systematic requirements-determination 
process, rather than in response to various DOD-directed efforts, 
would allow headquarters organizations to proactively identify any 
excess organizational layers or redundant operations and to inform 
decision making during any future efficiency efforts and budget 
reviews. In addition, reassessments of personnel requirements could 
occur periodically, not necessarily annually, thereby lessening the 
amount of time and labor that headquarters organizations devote to 
conducting reassessments. For example, Army guidance states that such 
reassessments should occur every 2 to 5 years.[Footnote 59] Without 
periodic reassessment of personnel requirements for the total force, 
it will be difficult for the headquarters organizations in our review 
to be well positioned to effectively identify opportunities for 
efficiencies and limit personnel growth. 

Some Organizations Are Modifying Their Requirements-Determination 
Processes, but These Efforts Are Not Complete: 

All but one of the organizations we reviewed have recognized problems 
with requirements determination and some are beginning to take steps 
to modify their related processes, but these efforts are not yet 
complete. For example, OSD conducted a set of studies, directed by the 
Secretary of Defense in December 2013, aimed at further improving 
management and administration of personnel. According to OSD 
officials, the data and insights from these studies will inform DOD-
wide business process and system reviews being directed by the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense.[Footnote 60] For example, officials stated that 
an OSD-wide process for determining and reassessing personnel 
requirements may replace the current process whereby each OSD office 
sets its personnel requirements individually. OSD officials also 
stated that the new process, if implemented, might include a standard 
methodology to help OSD conduct a headquarters workforce analysis and 
determine and periodically reassess its personnel requirements. DOD 
did not provide a time frame for implementing the results of the 
studies and did not confirm whether implementation would include 
establishment of an OSD-wide personnel requirements-determination 
process. 

In 2013, the Navy commissioned a report that determined that its shore 
organizations--which include the Navy headquarters organizations that 
we reviewed--do not have a comprehensive, standardized process for 
determining personnel requirements.[Footnote 61] The study found, 
among other things, that shore organizations often begin determining 
their requirements without the benefit of a current mission, function, 
and task statement,[Footnote 62] and typically only document 
requirements for functions as currently performed, while not 
considering future workload changes and other ways to perform 
functions. Accordingly, the report proposed a methodology for 
analyzing workload and determining and assessing personnel 
requirements. Based on this report, the Navy is conducting its own 
review of the shore personnel requirements-determination process, with 
the goal of establishing guidance for use in 2015. 

In 2011, the Marine Corps developed a standardized approach, known as 
the Strategic Total Force Management Planning process, for determining 
and reassessing headquarters personnel requirements on an annual 
basis. According to Marine Corps officials and guidance, this process 
requires commanders to annually assess their organization's mission, 
analyze its current and future organizational structures, conduct a 
gap analysis, and develop, execute, and monitor a plan of action to 
address any gaps. The Marine Corps is currently revising its guidance 
to reflect this new process, and commanders are not required to 
develop their requirements and submit an action plan until October 
2015. Despite these efforts, none of these processes have been fully 
implemented or reviewed. Therefore, it is too early to know whether 
the new processes will reflect the key elements of a personnel 
requirements-determination process by enabling the organizations to 
identify missions, systematically determine personnel requirements, 
and reassess them on a periodic basis using organizational and 
workforce analysis. 

Conclusions: 

Over the past decade, OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military service 
secretariats and staffs have grown to manage the increased workload 
and budgets associated with a military force engaged in conflict 
around the world. Today, DOD is facing a constrained budget 
environment and has stated that it needs to reduce the size of its 
headquarters, to include all components of its workforce-military 
personnel, civilian personnel, and contracted services. DOD and the 
military services have undertaken reviews to reduce headquarters but 
these budget-driven efforts have not been the result of systematic 
determinations of personnel needs. Statutory limits on these 
headquarters have been waived since 2002, but these limits would 
likely be counterproductive today were the waiver dropped, because 
they were set in the 1980s and 1990s and are inconsistently applied 
due to statutory exceptions and DOD's exclusion of personnel 
conducting headquarters-related functions. Specifically, these limits 
omit personnel in supporting organizations to the military service 
secretariats and staffs that perform headquarters-related functions. 
Because of these exceptions and omissions, the statutory limits may be 
of limited utility in achieving Congress's original aim of stemming 
the growth of headquarters personnel and reducing duplication of 
effort. The existing statutory limits encourage the headquarters 
organizations to manage the number of military and civilian personnel 
requirements at or near the limit, according to DOD officials, rather 
than using a systematic requirements-determination process that 
establishes the total force that is truly needed and whether any 
efficiencies can be identified. 

Headquarters organizations in our review have not systematically 
determined how many personnel they need to conduct their missions. 
While some organizations have begun to take such steps, their plans 
are not firm and their processes have not been finalized. Unless the 
organizations conduct systematic analyses of their personnel needs for 
the total force and establish and implement procedures to ensure that 
they periodically reassess those requirements, the department will 
lack assurance that its headquarters are sized appropriately. Looking 
to the future, systematically determining personnel requirements and 
conducting periodic reassessments could inform decision making during 
any future efficiency efforts and support budget formulation. In 
addition, determining these personnel requirements and submitting the 
results to Congress as part of DOD's Defense Manpower Requirements 
Report or through separate correspondence, along with any 
recommendations about adjustments needed to the statutory limits, 
could form a foundation upon which Congress could reexamine the 
statutory limits, as appropriate. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that headquarters organizations are properly sized to meet 
their assigned missions and use the most cost-effective mix of 
personnel, and to better position DOD to identify opportunities for 
more efficient use of resources, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the following three actions: 

* conduct a systematic determination of personnel requirements for 
OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military services' secretariats and 
staff, which should include analysis of mission, functions, and tasks, 
and the minimum personnel needed to accomplish those missions, 
functions, and tasks; 

* submit these personnel requirements, including information on the 
number of personnel within OSD and the military services' secretariats 
and staffs that count against the statutory limits, along with any 
applicable adjustments to the statutory limits, in the next Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report to Congress or through separate 
correspondence, along with any recommendations needed to modify the 
existing statutory limits; and: 

* establish and implement procedures to conduct periodic reassessments 
of personnel requirements within OSD and the military services' 
secretariats and staffs. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Congress should consider using the results of DOD's review of 
headquarters personnel requirements to reexamine the statutory limits. 
Such an examination could consider whether supporting organizations 
that perform headquarters functions should be included in statutory 
limits and whether the statutes on personnel limitations within the 
military services' secretariats and staffs should be amended to 
include a prohibition on reassigning headquarters-related functions 
elsewhere. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In 
written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred 
with the three recommendations and raised concerns regarding what it 
believes is a lack of appropriate context in the report. DOD's 
comments are summarized below and reprinted in their entirety in 
appendix IX. 

In its comments, DOD raised concerns that the report lacks perspective 
when characterizing the department's headquarters staff, stating that 
it is appropriate for the department to have a complex and multi-
layered headquarters structure given the scope of its missions. We 
agree that DOD is one of the largest and most complex organizations in 
the world, and make note of its many broad and varied responsibilities 
in our report. Notwithstanding these complexities, the department 
itself has repeatedly recognized the need to streamline its 
headquarters structure. For example, in 2010, the Secretary of Defense 
expressed concerns about the dramatic growth in DOD's headquarters and 
support organizations that had occurred since 2001, and initiated a 
series of efficiency initiatives aimed at stemming this growth. The 
Secretary of Defense specifically noted the growth in the bureaucracy 
that supports the military mission, especially the department's 
military and civilian management layers, and called for an examination 
of these layers. In addition, in January 2012, the administration 
released defense strategic guidance that calls for DOD to continue to 
reduce the cost of doing business, which includes reducing the rate of 
growth in personnel costs and finding further efficiencies in overhead 
and headquarters, in its business practices, and in other support 
activities. Our report discusses some of the department's efficiency-
related efforts and thus, we believe it contains appropriate 
perspective. 

DOD also expressed concerns that the report lacks appropriate context 
when addressing the causes for workforce growth, stating that such 
growth was in response to rapid mission and workload increases, 
specific workforce-related initiatives, realignments, streamlining 
operations, and reducing redundancies and overhead. Our draft report 
noted some of these causes of headquarters workforce growth, but we 
have added additional information to the report on other causes, such 
as increased mission responsibilities for the war and other directed 
missions such as business transformation, intelligence, cyber, suicide 
prevention, sexual assault response and prevention, wounded warrior 
care, family support programs, transition assistance and veterans 
programs, to provide context and address DOD's concerns. 

DOD partially concurred with the first recommendation that the 
Secretary of Defense direct a systematic determination of the 
personnel requirements of OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military 
services' secretariats and staffs, which should include analysis of 
mission, functions, and tasks, and the minimum personnel needed to 
accomplish those missions, functions, and tasks. The department noted 
in its letter that it will continue to use the processes and 
prioritization that is part of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 
and Execution process, and will also investigate other methods for 
aligning personnel to missions and priorities. DOD also stated that it 
is currently conducting Business Process and System Reviews of the OSD 
Principal Staff Assistants, defense agencies, and DOD field activities 
to aid in documenting mission responsibilities to resource 
requirements. However, the department did not provide any details 
specifying whether any of these actions would include a workforce 
analysis to systematically determine personnel requirements, rather 
than continuing to rely on historic personnel levels and existing 
statutory limits as the basis for those requirements, nor does the 
department acknowledge the need for such analysis. Moreover, according 
to DOD's implementation guidance for the Business Process and Systems 
Review, which we reference in our report, this review is focused on 
business processes and supporting information technology systems 
within certain defense headquarters organizations, rather than a 
systematic determination of personnel requirements for those 
organizations. DOD also stated in its comments that headquarters staff 
provide knowledge continuity and subject matter expertise and that a 
significant portion of their workload is unpredictable. We agree, but 
believe that headquarters organizations would be better positioned to 
respond to unforeseen events and initiatives if their personnel 
requirements were based on workforce analysis, which would allow them 
to identify critical mission requirements as well as mitigate risks to 
the organizations' efficiency and effectiveness while still responding 
to unpredictable workload. Without a systematic determination of 
personnel requirements, DOD headquarters organizations may not be well 
positioned to identify opportunities for efficiencies and reduce the 
potential for headquarters-related growth. 

Several headquarters organizations provided comments on their specific 
requirements determination processes in connection with this first 
recommendation. The Army noted that it has an established headquarters 
requirements determination process in the G-3, supported by the U.S. 
Army Manpower Analysis Agency. While the Army does have a requirements 
determination process, we note in our report that this process did not 
result in the systematic determination of requirements for the Army 
Secretariat and Staff; rather, the Army headquarters organizations we 
reviewed use authorized personnel levels from the previous year as a 
baseline from which to generate any new requirements, and these 
personnel levels are ultimately based not on a workforce analysis, but 
on the statutory limits that were established by Congress in the 
1980s. In addition, while the Army's requirements determination 
process does call for reassessments of personnel requirements every 2 
to 5 years, Army officials stated that they do not conduct these 
periodic reassessments of the personnel requirements for the Army 
headquarters organizations in our review, in part because the U.S. 
Army Manpower Analysis Agency lacks the authority to initiate such 
reassessments or enforce their results. In the letter, the Army also 
noted concerns that a statement in our draft report--namely, that the 
organizations that support the Army Secretariat and staff are almost 
three times as large but are excluded from the statutory limits--may 
be misleading and lack appropriate context. In response to the Army's 
concerns and to provide additional context, we have clarified the 
report's language to state that only some personnel in these 
organizations support their military service secretariats and staffs 
in accomplishing their mission and are not subject to the statutory 
limits. 

The Marine Corps noted that they conducted a full review of force 
structure in 2012, which included a Commandant-directed consideration 
to look at the functions of every headquarters and staff. We state in 
our report that the Marine Corps and others in the department have 
previously conducted efficiency-related efforts, which officials 
believe have allowed their organizations to reassess personnel 
requirements and identify opportunities for efficiencies. However, 
these reviews have generally been ad hoc and done in response to 
internally driven or directed reductions, rather than as part of an 
organization's systematic requirements-determination process. Having 
workforce and organizational analyses as part of a systematic 
requirements-determination process, rather than in response to DOD-
directed efficiency efforts, would allow headquarters organizations to 
proactively identify any excess organizational layers or redundant 
operations and inform decision making during future efficiency efforts 
and budget reviews. 

Finally, the Joint Staff stated that it utilizes its existing Joint 
Manpower Validation Process as a systematic requirements determination 
process when requesting permanent joint manpower requirements, adding 
that this process reviews mission drivers, capability gaps, impact 
assessments, and determines the correct size and characteristics of 
all new billets. However, as we found in May 2013, this process 
focuses on requests for additional positions or nominal changes in 
authorized positions, rather than evaluating whether authorized 
positions are still needed to support assigned missions.[Footnote 63] 

Moreover, we found that personnel levels for the headquarters 
organizations that we reviewed, including the Joint Staff, are 
ultimately not based on a workforce analysis that systematically 
defines the size of the total workforce needed to meet organizational 
goals. Rather, these organizations use authorized personnel levels 
from the previous year as a baseline and do not take steps to 
systematically determine and periodically reassess them. Thus, we 
continue to believe that DOD should conduct a systematic determination 
of personnel requirements, including an analysis of missions, 
functions, and tasks to determine the minimum personnel needed to 
accomplish those missions, functions, and tasks. 

DOD partially concurred with the second recommendation that the 
Secretary of Defense direct the submission of these personnel 
requirements, including information on the number of personnel within 
OSD and the military services' secretariats and staffs that count 
against the statutory limits, along with any applicable adjustments to 
the statutory limit, in the next Defense Manpower Requirements Report 
to Congress or through separate correspondence, along with any 
recommendations needed to modify the existing statutory limits. DOD 
stated that it has ongoing efforts to refine and improve its reporting 
capabilities associated with these requirements, noting that the 
department has to update DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities before it can determine personnel requirements 
that count against the statutory limits. In March 2012, we recommended 
that DOD revise DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities,[Footnote 64] but DOD has not provided an estimate of when 
this revised Instruction would be finalized. DOD also did not indicate 
in its letter whether the department would submit personnel 
requirements that count against the statutory limits in the Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report, as we recommend, once the Instruction is 
finalized. We believe that submitting these personnel requirements to 
Congress in this DOD report would provide Congress with key 
information to determine whether the existing statutory limits on 
military and civilian personnel are effective in limiting headquarters 
personnel growth. 

In addition, the Marine Corps provided more specific comments in 
connection with the second recommendation, noting that in 2014 it had 
reviewed and validated all headquarters down to the individual billet 
level, identifying billets that should be coded as performing major 
DOD headquarters activities, resulting in a net increase of reported 
headquarters structure. The Marine Corps stated they planned to report 
this information as part of DOD's fiscal year 2016 budget and in the 
Defense Manpower Requirements Report. Our report specifically notes 
the review and the Marine Corps effort to more accurately report its 
headquarters structure for the fiscal year 2016 budget. However, until 
the department as a whole takes concrete steps to gather reliable 
information about headquarters requirements, and report this 
information to Congress, neither the department nor Congress will have 
the information needed to oversee them. 

DOD partially concurred with the third recommendation that the 
Secretary of Defense direct the establishment and implementation of 
procedures to conduct periodic reassessments of personnel requirements 
within OSD and the military service secretariats and staffs. DOD said 
that it supports the intent of the recommendation, but such periodic 
reassessments require additional resources and personnel, which would 
drive an increase in the number of personnel performing major DOD 
headquarters activities. Specifically, DOD stated it intends to 
examine the establishment of requirements determination processes 
across the department, to include the contractor workforce, but this 
will require a phased approach across a longer timeframe. However, DOD 
also did not provide any estimated timeframes for its examination of 
this process. As we noted in the report, reassessments of personnel 
requirements could occur periodically, not necessarily annually, 
thereby lessening the amount of time and labor that headquarters 
organizations devote to conducting reassessments. Further, until a 
periodic reassessment of requirements takes place, the department will 
lack reasonable assurance that its headquarters are sized 
appropriately for its current missions, particularly in light of the 
drawdown from Iraq and Afghanistan and its additional mission 
responsibilities. 

In addition, the Marine Corps and the Joint Staff provided specific 
comments in connection with the third recommendation in DOD's letter. 
First, the Marine Corps noted that they conduct periodic reviews 
through the Quadrennial Defense Review and through force structure 
review boards that shape the Marine Corp to new missions and in 
response to combatant commander demands. However, these reviews are 
focused on forces as a whole and not specifically on headquarters. 
Second, the Joint Staff stated that it has set personnel requirements 
twice since 2008, and noted that it has taken reductions during 
various budget-or efficiency-related efforts, such as the Secretary of 
Defense's 2012 efficiency review and the Secretary of Defense's 20-
percent reductions to headquarters budgets, which is ongoing. However, 
conducting periodic reassessments as part of a systematic requirements-
determination process, rather than in response to ad hoc, DOD-directed 
efficiency efforts, would allow headquarters organizations to 
proactively identify any excess organizational layers or redundant 
operations. This, in turn, would prepare the headquarters 
organizations to better inform decision-making during any future 
efficiency efforts and budget reviews. 

DOD stated that, although it appreciates our inclusion in the report 
of a matter calling for Congress to consider using the results of 
DOD's review of personnel requirements to re-examine the statutory 
limits, it believes any statutory limitations on headquarters 
personnel place artificial constraints on workforce sizing and 
shaping, thereby precluding total force management. Therefore, DOD 
states that it opposes any legislative language that imposes 
restrictions on the size of the department's workforce. Both the 
Marine Corps and Joint Staff provided specific comments in regard to 
GAO's matter for congressional consideration, although these comments 
were directed toward the specific statutory limits for their 
organizations, not the GAO matter for congressional consideration 
itself. As we noted in our report, we believe that the statutory 
limits are of limited utility. The intent of this matter is to not to 
prescribe specific modifications to the statutory limits on 
headquarters personnel to Congress but rather to suggest that Congress 
consider making those modifications that it considers most appropriate 
based on a review of personnel requirements provided by the department. 

Finally, the Army also provided input regarding the overall 
methodology behind the report, noting that tracking contract support 
of headquarters organizations solely through funding source may skew 
attempts at general trend analysis because funding source does not 
always correlate to a function being performed in the headquarters. 
Our report notes some of the challenges in tracking contract support 
of headquarters organizations, but to add context and address the 
Army's concerns, we have modified text in Appendix V, which focuses on 
the resources of the Headquarters, Department of the Army. 
Specifically, we have modified Figure 12 to note that, according to 
Army officials, the costs for contracted services provided from its 
financial accounting systems may not accurately reflect costs incurred 
by the headquarters because the accounting systems show the funding 
for contractors but not necessarily where the contracted work was 
performed, which is the information displayed in DOD's Inventory of 
Contracted Services. 

DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated, as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and the Secretaries of the military departments. In 
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me 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 key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix X. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Prior GAO Work on DOD Headquarters: 

We have issued several reports since 2012 on defense headquarters and 
on the department's ability to determine the right number of personnel 
needed to perform headquarters functions. 

* In March 2012, we found that while the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has taken some steps to examine its headquarters resources for 
efficiencies, additional opportunities for savings may exist by 
further consolidating organizations and centralizing functions. We 
also found that DOD's data on its headquarters personnel lacked the 
completeness and reliability necessary for use in making efficiency 
assessments and decisions.[Footnote 65] In that report, we recommended 
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of the military 
departments and the heads of the DOD components to continue to examine 
opportunities to consolidate commands and to centralize administrative 
and command support services, functions, or programs. Additionally, we 
recommended that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD Instruction 
5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, to include all 
headquarters organizations; specify how contractors performing 
headquarters functions will be identified and included in headquarters 
reporting; clarify how components are to compile the information 
needed for headquarters-reporting requirements; and establish time 
frames for implementing actions to improve tracking and reporting of 
headquarters resources.[Footnote 66] DOD generally concurred with the 
findings and recommendations in our March 2012 report. DOD officials 
have stated that, since 2012, several efforts have been made to 
consolidate or eliminate commands and to centralize administrative and 
command support services, functions, or programs. For example, OSD 
officials said that DOD has begun efforts to assess which headquarters 
organizations are not currently included in its guiding instruction on 
headquarters, but as of July 2014, it has not completed its update of 
the instruction to include these organizations. DOD officials also 
identified further progress on including contractors performing major 
DOD headquarters activities in headquarters reporting. 

* In May 2013, we found that authorized military and civilian 
positions at the geographic combatant commands[Footnote 67]--excluding 
U.S. Central Command--had increased by about 50 percent from fiscal 
year 2001 through fiscal year 2012, primarily due to the addition of 
new organizations, such as the establishment of U.S. Northern Command 
and U.S. Africa Command, and increased mission requirements for the 
theater special operations commands.[Footnote 68] We also found that 
DOD's process for sizing its combatant commands had several 
weaknesses, including the absence of a comprehensive, periodic review 
of the existing size and structure of these commands and inconsistent 
use of personnel-management systems to identify and track assigned 
personnel. DOD did not concur with our recommendation that it conduct 
comprehensive and periodic reviews of the combatant commands' existing 
size, but we continue to believe that institutionalizing a periodic 
evaluation of all authorized positions would help to systematically 
align manpower with missions and add rigor to the requirements 
process. DOD concurred with our recommendation that it revise its 
guiding instruction on managing joint personnel requirements--Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and 
Personnel Program--to require the commands to improve its visibility 
over all combatant command personnel. DOD has established a new 
manpower tracking system, the Fourth Estate Manpower Tracking System, 
that is to track all personnel data, including temporary personnel, 
and identify specific guidelines and timelines to input/review 
personnel data. Additionally, DOD concurred with our recommendation to 
develop and implement a formal process to gather information on 
authorized manpower and assigned personnel at the service component 
commands and to revise DOD's Financial Management Regulation. As of 
September 2014, the process outlined by DOD to gather information on 
authorized and assigned personnel at the service component commands is 
the same as the one identified during our prior work. DOD concurred 
with our recommendation to revise volume 2A, chapter 1 of DOD's 
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14R to require the military 
departments, in their annual budget documents for operation and 
maintenance, to identify the authorized military positions and 
civilian and contractor full-time equivalents at each combatant 
command and provide detailed information on funding required by each 
command for mission and headquarters support, such as civilian pay, 
contracted services, travel, and supplies. As of September 2014, DOD 
plans to prepare an exhibit that reflects the funding and full-time 
equivalent information by combatant command and include it in an 
update to the DOD Financial Management Regulation prior to preparation 
of the fiscal year 2016 budget estimate submission. 

* In June 2014, we found that DOD's functional combatant commands 
[Footnote 69] have shown substantial increases in authorized positions 
and costs to support headquarters operations since fiscal year 2004, 
primarily to support recent and emerging missions, including military 
operations to combat terrorism and the emergence of cyberspace as a 
warfighting domain.[Footnote 70] Further, we found that DOD did not 
have a reliable way to determine the resources devoted to management 
headquarters as a starting point for DOD's planned 20 percent 
reduction to headquarters budgets, and thus we concluded that actual 
savings would be difficult to track. We recommended that DOD 
reevaluate the decision to focus reductions on management headquarters 
to ensure meaningful savings and set a clearly defined and 
consistently applied baseline starting point for the reductions. 
Further, we recommended that DOD track the reductions against the 
baselines in order to provide reliable accounting of savings and 
reporting to Congress. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation 
to reevaluate its decision to focus reductions on management 
headquarters, questioning, in part, the recommendation's scope. We 
agreed that the recommendation has implications beyond the functional 
combatant commands, which was the scope of our review, but the issue 
we identified is not limited to these commands. DOD generally 
concurred with our two other recommendations that it set a clearly 
defined and consistently applied baseline starting point and track 
reductions against the baselines. To address these two 
recommendations, DOD said that it planned to use the Future Years 
Defense Program[Footnote 71] data to set the baseline going forward. 
DOD stated that it was enhancing data elements within a DOD resource 
database to better identify management headquarters resources to 
facilitate tracking and reporting across the department. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

House Report 113-102 mandated GAO to review the military, civilian 
personnel, and contracted services resources devoted to the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, and the military 
departments' secretariats and military staffs from fiscal year 2001 
through fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 72] This report (1) identifies past 
trends, if any, in personnel resources devoted to OSD, the Joint 
Staff, and the secretariats and staffs of the military services and 
any plans for reductions to these headquarters organizations; and (2) 
evaluates the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) 
determines and reassesses personnel requirements for these 
headquarters organizations. 

To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified sources 
of information within DOD that would provide data on the resources 
devoted to OSD, the Joint Staff, and secretariats and staffs for the 
military services.[Footnote 73] To identify trends in personnel 
resources devoted to OSD, the Joint Staff, and secretariats and staffs 
for the military services, we obtained and analyzed available data on 
authorized military and civilian positions, and operation and 
maintenance obligations, from each of these organizations from fiscal 
years 2001 through 2013. We focused on these nine organizations--OSD, 
the Joint Staff; the Offices of the Secretary of the Army and Army 
Staff; the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and Office of the Chief 
of Naval Operations; Headquarters, Marine Corps; and the Offices of 
the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Staff--because these components 
represent some of the highest headquarters organizations within DOD 
and are responsible for overseeing, directing, and controlling 
subordinate organizations or units. The fiscal year 2001 through 2013 
time frame allowed us to assess trends in resources without including 
nonwar years prior to fiscal year 2001 and to include the most recent 
data available, for fiscal year 2013. We focused our review on 
authorized positions, as these reflect the approved, funded personnel 
requirements at each of the organizations. Only OSD, the Army, and the 
Air Force were able to provide authorized positions for the entire 
time frame. The Joint Staff was unable to provide personnel data 
before fiscal year 2005 because of a change in databases in fiscal 
year 2004. Additionally, the Joint Staff J-2 (Intelligence), which 
receives its personnel and funding from the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, provided personnel data that it deemed sensitive but 
unclassified, so we excluded it from this report. The Navy was unable 
to provide complete personnel data prior to fiscal year 2005 due to a 
change in personnel management systems used by the Office of the Chief 
of Naval Operations. Similarly, Headquarters, Marine Corps, was unable 
to provide personnel data prior to fiscal year 2005 due to a change in 
personnel management systems. We requested available data on 
contracted services performing functions for the organizations within 
our review, but we were only able to obtain and analyze information 
from OSD and the Army. We compared these data to data we had obtained 
from OSD and the Army on authorized military and civilian positions. 
We present DOD data on contracted services for context as a comparison 
against authorized military and civilian positions. Because we did not 
use these data to support our findings, conclusions, or 
recommendations, we did not assess their reliability. DOD is still in 
the process of compiling complete data on contractor full-time 
equivalents. 

Our review also focused on operation and maintenance obligations--
because these obligations reflect the primary costs to support the 
headquarters operations of OSD, the Joint Staff, and secretariats and 
staffs for the military services--including the costs for civilian 
personnel, contracted services, travel, and equipment, among others. 
Our review excluded obligations of operation and maintenance funding 
for DOD's overseas contingency operations that were not part of DOD's 
base budget. Unless otherwise noted, we reported all costs in this 
report in nominal dollars. Only the Air Force was able to provide 
historical data for the entire fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 
2013 time frame, so we provided an analysis of trends in operation and 
maintenance obligations at the individual organizations included in 
our review for the fiscal years for which data were available. OSD was 
unable to provide cost data prior to fiscal year 2008 because, per 
National Archives and Records Administration regulations, it does not 
maintain financial records older than 6 years and 3 months. The Joint 
Staff was unable to provide cost data prior to fiscal year 2003 due to 
a change in financial systems. The Army was unable to provide cost 
data for fiscal year 2001 in the time frame we requested for inclusion 
in this report. The Navy Secretariat was able to provide cost data for 
fiscal years 2001 through 2013. However, the Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations was only able to provide cost data for fiscal years 
2009 through 2013 because the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 
did not exist as an independent budget-submitting office until fiscal 
year 2009, and it would be difficult to separate out the Office of the 
Chief of Naval Operations' data from other Navy data prior to fiscal 
year 2009 in the Navy's historical data system. Headquarters, Marine 
Corps, was unable to provide cost data prior to fiscal year 2005 due 
to a change in financial systems. Our analyses are found in appendixes 
III through VIII. 

The availability of historical data limited our analyses of both 
authorized military and civilian positions and operation and 
maintenance obligations for the reasons identified by the individual 
included organizations. To assess the reliability of the data we 
collected, we interviewed DOD officials about the data they provided 
to us and analyzed relevant personnel and financial-management 
documentation to ensure that the data on authorized military and 
civilian positions and operation and maintenance obligations were tied 
to mission and headquarters support. We also incorporated data-
reliability questions into our data-collection instruments and 
compared the multiple data sets received from the included 
organizations against each other to ensure that there was consistency 
in the data that they provided. We determined the data were 
sufficiently reliable for our purposes of identifying trends in the 
personnel resources and headquarters support costs of OSD, the Joint 
Staff, and secretariats and staffs for the military services. 

To identify DOD's plans for reductions to these headquarters 
organizations, we obtained and reviewed guidance and documentation on 
steps to implement DOD's 20 percent reductions to headquarters budgets 
starting in fiscal year 2015, the first full budget cycle for which 
DOD was able to include the reductions, such as the department-issued 
memorandum outlining the reductions and various DOD budget-related 
documents. We also obtained data, where available, on the number of 
positions at OSD, the Joint Staff, and the secretariats and staffs for 
the military services for fiscal year 2013 (the most recent fiscal 
year for which data were available during our review), as well as the 
number of positions deemed by these organizations to be performing 
headquarters functions and included in DOD's planned headquarters 
reductions for fiscal years 2015 through 2019, the time frame DOD 
identified in its reduction plans. We assessed the reliability of the 
personnel and cost data given these and other limitations by 
interviewing DOD officials about the data they provided to us and 
analyzing relevant personnel and financial-management documentation. 
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 
purposes of identifying trends in the personnel resources and 
headquarters support costs, and DOD's plans for reductions to OSD, the 
Joint Staff, and secretariats and staffs for the military services. 

To evaluate the extent to which DOD determines and reassesses 
personnel requirements for these headquarters organizations, we 
obtained and reviewed guidance from OSD, the Joint Staff, and the 
secretariats and staffs for the military services regarding each of 
their processes for determining and reassessing their respective 
personnel requirements. For example, we reviewed the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A (Joint Manpower and 
Personnel Program); Air Force Instruction 38-201 (Manpower and 
Organization, Management of Manpower Requirements and Authorizations); 
Army Regulation 570-4 (Manpower and Equipment Control, Manpower 
Management); Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 
1000.16K (Navy Total Force Manpower Policies and Procedures); and 
Marine Corps Order 5311.1D (Total Force Structure Process). We also 
interviewed officials from each of these organizations to determine 
how their processes are implemented, the results of any studies that 
were conducted on these processes, and any changes being made to these 
processes. We then compared the information we obtained on these 
processes to key elements called for in DOD Directive 1100.4 (Guidance 
for Manpower Management) and the military services' guidance we had 
previously obtained; specifically, that personnel requirements should 
be established at the minimum essential level to accomplish the 
required workload, and should be periodically reviewed. We also 
compared this information to key elements of a systematic personnel 
requirements-determination process, which we obtained from documents 
that address leading practices for workforce planning. Specifically, 
we reviewed prior GAO work on effective strategic workforce planning, 
[Footnote 74] DODs guidance on manpower management,[Footnote 75] and 
workforce planning guidance issued by the Office of Personnel 
Management.[Footnote 76] We then synthesized common themes from these 
documents and summarized these as key elements that should be included 
in organizations' personnel requirements-determination processes, 
namely, that an organization should have a requirements process that 
identifies the organization's mission, functions, and tasks; 
determines the minimum number and type of personnel needed to fulfill 
those missions, functions, and tasks by conducting a workforce 
analysis; and reassesses these requirements on a periodic basis to 
determine the most efficient choices for workforce deployment. We also 
reviewed DOD Instruction 5100.73 (Major DOD Headquarters Activities), 
which guides the identification and reporting of headquarters 
information. Finally, we identified a standard on information and 
communications from internal-control standards for the federal 
government[Footnote 77] and compared this standard to the headquarters-
related information provided to Congress in the fiscal year 2015 
Defense Manpower Requirements Report.[Footnote 78] 

We obtained and assessed data on the number of management headquarters 
personnel in the organizations in our review for fiscal year 2013 and 
on the Army's field operating agencies for fiscal years 2001 through 
2013. We assessed the reliability of the personnel data through 
interviews with Army officials about the data they provided to us and 
by conducting data-reliability assessments of the Army personnel data 
and the information systems that produced them. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also met with OSD 
and the military services to discuss how these organizations identify 
these headquarters personnel. Finally, we reviewed the legislative 
history of the statutory personnel limitations for OSD, the Joint 
Staff, and the services contained in sections 143, 155, 3014, 5014, 
and 8014 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and discussed these limits with 
knowledgeable officials in OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military 
services. 

We interviewed officials or, where appropriate, obtained documentation 
from the organizations listed below: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
* Office of the Director of Administration and Management;
* Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and: 
* Washington Headquarters Services, Financial Management Directorate. 

Joint Staff: 
* Directorate of Management, Comptroller;
* Manpower and Personnel Directorate; and: 
* Intelligence Directorate. 

Department of the Air Force: 
* A1, Joint and Special Activities Manpower Programming Branch. 

Department of the Army: 
* Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs;
* G8, Program Analysis and Evaluation; and: 
* Business Operations Directorate, Army Office of Business 
Transformation. 

Department of the Navy: 
* U.S. Navy: 
* Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs;
* Assistant for Administration;
* Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Deputy Chief of Naval 
Operations for Integration of Capabilities and Resources, Programming 
Division;
* Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Manpower Management;
* Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Assessment Division; and: 
* U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
* Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps: 
* Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Combat Development and 
Integration/Total Force Structure Division;
* Budget and Execution Division, Programs and Resources; and: 
* Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to January 2015 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 III: Resources of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD): 

OSD is responsible for assisting the Secretary of Defense in carrying 
out his or her duties and responsibilities for the management of the 
Department of Defense (DOD).[Footnote 79] These include policy 
development, planning, resource management, and fiscal and program 
evaluation responsibilities. The staff of OSD comprises military and 
civilian personnel and personnel performing contracted services. This 
appendix shows how these resources are distributed in the OSD 
organization, as well as the changes in these resources from fiscal 
year 2001 through fiscal year 2013. Table 2 shows the organizational 
structure and composition of OSD for fiscal year 2013, including both 
authorized military and civilian positions, as well as estimated 
contractor full-time equivalents. 

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
and Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents within the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Secretary of 
Defense immediate office; 
Authorized military: positions: 31; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 41; 
Total: 72; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); 
Authorized military: positions: 93; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 481; 
Total: 574; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 2,347.19. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Policy); 
Authorized military: positions: 144; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 420; 
Total: 564; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 110.89. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); 
Authorized military: positions: 6; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 162; 
Total: 168; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 19.23. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); 
Authorized military: positions: 130; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 151; 
Total: 281; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 65.34. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence); 
Authorized military: positions: 27; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 194; 
Total: 221; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 228.94. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer; 
Authorized military: positions: 2; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 97; 
Total: 99; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 49.71. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Director of OSD 
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; 
Authorized military: positions: 30; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 141; 
Total: 171; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 162.33. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of 
General Counsel; 
Authorized military: positions: 3; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 51; 
Total: 54; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation; 
Authorized military: positions: 17; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 88; 
Total: 105; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0.36. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; 
Authorized military: positions: 13; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 26; 
Total: 39; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 1.87. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; 
Authorized military: positions: 29; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 61; 
Total: 90; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 18.46. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer; 
Authorized military: positions: 23; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 127; 
Total: 150; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 203.02. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of the 
Director of Administration and Management; 
Authorized military: positions: 0; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 39; 
Total: 39; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 24.79. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Office of Net 
Assessment; 
Authorized military: positions: 4; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 6; 
Total: 10; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 55.06. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Assistant to 
the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight; 
Authorized military: positions: 0; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 9; 
Total: 9; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0.01. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organizations: Total; 
Authorized military: positions: 552; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 2,094; 
Total: 2,646; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 3,287.2. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: OSD officials provided contractor full-time equivalents from 
DOD's fiscal year 2013 Inventory of Contracted Services and included 
only those contracts managed by Washington Headquarters Services/ 
Acquisition Directorate. In May 2013, we found that the data 
supporting DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services has several 
limitations, including the inability to identify more than one type of 
service in a contract or the number of contractor full-time 
equivalents, which limit its utility for purposes of compiling a 
complete and accurate inventory. See GAO, Defense Acquisitions: 
Continued Management Attention Needed to Enhance Use and Review of 
DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services, GAO-13-491 (Washington, D.C.: 
May 23, 2013). We are presenting OSD's estimates of its contractor 
full-time equivalents for the purposes of comparison against 
authorized military and civilian positions. Because the data 
supporting OSD's estimates were not used to support findings, 
conclusions, or recommendations, we did not assess their reliability. 

[End of table] 

Figure 5 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
personnel positions since fiscal year 2001. According to DOD 
officials, both authorized military and civilian positions remained 
relatively unchanged until fiscal year 2010, when the number of 
authorized civilians increased mainly due to the conversion of 
contracted services to civilian positions and the conversion of 
military to civilian positions. This increase in authorized civilian 
positions, according to DOD officials, is the result of attempts to 
rebalance workload and become a cost-efficient workforce. 

Figure 5: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Authorized military personnel: 686; 
Authorized civilians: 1,519. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized military personnel: 685; 
Authorized civilians: 1,571. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized military personnel: 688; 
Authorized civilians: 1,566. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized military personnel: 598; 
Authorized civilians: 1,620. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 602; 
Authorized civilians: 1,638. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 627; 
Authorized civilians: 1,614. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 622; 
Authorized civilians: 1,674. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 593; 
Authorized civilians: 1,774. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 569; 
Authorized civilians: 1,861. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 554; 
Authorized civilians: 2,284. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 547; 
Authorized civilians: 2,411. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 552; 
Authorized civilians: 2,152. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 552; 
Authorized civilians: 2,094. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at OSD and do not include personnel 
performing contracted services. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 6 shows the headquarters support costs changes associated with 
OSD for fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013. Headquarters costs 
have experienced an overall increase during the 5-year period, 
primarily due to costs for contracted services, but have recently 
begun to decline, according to OSD officials, because of sequestration 
and furloughs. 

Figure 6: Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Headquarters 
Support Costs for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $263 million; 
Other support costs: $630.6 million; 
Combines support costs: $893.6 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $292 million; 
Other support costs: $833.7 million; 
Combines support costs: $1.12 billion. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $333.6 million; 
Other support costs: $914.9 million; 
Combines support costs: $1.25 billion. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $379.4 million; 
Other support costs: $880 million; 
Combines support costs: $1.26 billion. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $388.6 million; 
Other support costs: $1.03 billion; 
Combines support costs: $1.42 billion. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $351.1 million; 
Other support costs: $875.5 million; 
Combines support costs: $1.23 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
operation and maintenance funding reported by OSD. "Other support 
costs" may include costs for printing and reproduction, equipment, 
transportation, and contractor services, among other costs. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Resources of the Joint Staff: 

The Joint Staff is responsible for assisting the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, military advisor to the President, in accomplishing 
his responsibilities for the unified strategic direction of the 
combatant forces; their operation under unified command; and their 
integration into a team of land, naval, and air forces.[Footnote 80] 
The Joint Staff is tasked to provide advice and support to the 
Chairman and the Joint Chiefs on matters including personnel, 
intelligence doctrine and architecture, operations and plans, 
logistics, strategy, policy, communications, cyberspace, joint 
training and education, and program evaluation. In addition to 
civilian personnel and personnel performing contracted services, the 
Joint Staff comprises military personnel who represent, in 
approximately equal numbers, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air 
Force. This appendix shows how these resources are distributed in the 
Joint Staff, as well as the changes in these resources from fiscal 
year 2003 through fiscal year 2013. Table 3 shows the organizational 
structure and composition of the Joint Staff for fiscal year 2013, 
including both authorized military and civilian positions. 

Table 3: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
within the Joint Staff: 

Joint Staff directorates: Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff; 
Authorized military: positions: 103; 
Authorized civilian: 
positions: 35; 
Total: 138. 

Joint Staff directorates: Office of the Director, Joint Staff; 

Authorized military: positions: 13; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 11; 
Total: 24. 

Joint Staff directorates: Directorate of Management; 
Authorized military: positions: 42; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 139; 
Total: 181. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-1: Manpower and Personnel; 
Authorized military: positions: 53; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 42; 
Total: 95. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-2: Intelligence; 
Authorized military: positions: N/A[A]; 
Authorized civilian: positions: N/A[A]; 
Total: N/A[A]. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-3: Operations; 
Authorized military: positions: 364; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 126; 
Total: 490. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-4: Logistics; 
Authorized military: positions: 68; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 26; 
Total: 94. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-5: Strategic Plans and Policy; 
Authorized military: positions: 212; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 54; 
Total: 266. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-6: Command, Control, Communications, 
Computers/Cyber; 
Authorized military: positions: 142; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 260; 
Total: 402. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-7: Joint Force Development; 
Authorized military: positions: 342; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 362; 
Total: 704. 

Joint Staff directorates: J-8: Force Structure, Resources, and 
Assessment; 
Authorized military: positions: 116; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 62; 
Total: 178. 

Joint Staff directorates: Total; 
Authorized military: positions: 1,455; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 1,117; 
Total: 2,572. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: In addition to the above totals, there are 110 military and 
civilian positions that were not filled in the Joint Staff and, 
according to a Joint Staff official, many of these unfilled positions 
will likely be subjected to the 20 percent headquarters reductions. 
The Joint Staff was not able to provide data on the number of 
contractor full-time equivalents within the Joint Staff. 

[A] N/A = Not available. Information on the authorized military and 
civilian positions at the Joint Staff's J-2 (Intelligence Directorate) 
is sensitive but unclassified, so we excluded it from this report. 

[End of table] 

Figure 7 illustrates annual changes in the overall number of 
authorized personnel positions since fiscal year 2005. Both military 
and civilian positions remained relatively unchanged until fiscal year 
2012, when, according to Joint Staff officials, U.S. Joint Forces 
Command was disestablished and some of its responsibilities and 
personnel were moved to the Joint Staff. According to documentation 
and interviews with Joint Staff officials, of those positions acquired 
by the Joint Staff in fiscal years 2012 and retained in 2013, most of 
the military positions (415 authorized positions) and civilian 
positions (690 authorized positions) are stationed at Hampton Roads, 
Virginia, to manage and support the Combatant Command Exercise 
Engagement and Training Transformation program reassigned to the Joint 
Staff when U.S. Joint Forces Command was disestablished. 

Figure 7: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Joint 
Staff, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,060; 
Authorized civilians: 202. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,074; 
Authorized civilians: 205. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,051; 
Authorized civilians: 200. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,048; 
Authorized civilians: 209. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,007; 
Authorized civilians: 213. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,031; 
Authorized civilians: 244. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,002; 
Authorized civilians: 333. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,596; 
Authorized civilians: 1,003. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,439; 
Authorized civilians: 1,204. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Notes: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the Joint Staff and do not include 
personnel performing contract services. Information on the authorized 
military and civilian positions at the Joint Staff's J-2 (Intelligence 
Directorate) is sensitive but unclassified, so we excluded it from 
this report. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8 shows the changes in headquarters support costs for the Joint 
Staff for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2013. The increase in 
overall headquarters support costs from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 
was, according to Joint Staff officials, due to the previously 
mentioned influx of civilian personnel to the Joint Staff from U.S. 
Joint Forces Command following its disestablishment in fiscal year 
2011. 

Figure 8: Joint Staff Headquarters Support Costs for Fiscal Years 2003 
through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $15.9 million; 
Other support costs: $423.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $439.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $16.1 million; 
Other support costs: $526.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $542.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $17.6 million; 
Other support costs: $487.6 million; 
Combined support costs: $505.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $19.6 million; 
Other support costs: $544.4 million; 
Combined support costs: $564.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $20.6 million; 
Other support costs: $557.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $577.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $23 million; 
Other support costs: $580.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $603.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $25.3 million; 
Other support costs: $564 million; 
Combined support costs: $589.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $30.5 million; 
Other support costs: $617.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $648.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $40.8 million; 
Other support costs: $622.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $663 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $100.9 million; 
Other support costs: $753.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $854.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $140 million; 
Other support costs: $551.4 million; 
Combined support costs: $691.4 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations of 
operation and maintenance funding reported by the Joint Staff, 
excluding the J-2 (Intelligence Directorate). The personnel within the 
Joint Staff J-2 are managed and funded by the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, and those costs are not reflected in the figure. "Other 
support costs" may include costs for printing and reproduction, 
equipment, transportation, and contractor services, among other costs. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Resources of the Headquarters, Department of the Army: 

The Office of the Secretary of the Army has sole responsibility within 
the Office of the Secretary and the Army Staff for the following 
functions: acquisition, auditing, financial management, information 
management, inspector general, legislative affairs, and public 
affairs.[Footnote 81] Additionally, there is an Army Staff, which is 
to furnish professional assistance to the Secretary and the Chief of 
Staff of the Army. Headquarters functions to be performed by the Army 
Staff include, among others, recruiting, organizing, training, and 
equipping of the Army.[Footnote 82] The staff of the Office of the 
Secretary of the Army and the Army Staff comprise military and 
civilian personnel and personnel performing contracted services. This 
appendix shows how these resources are distributed in the Army, as 
well as the changes in these resources from fiscal year 2001 through 
fiscal year 2013. Table 4 shows the organizational structure and 
composition of the Army Secretariat and Staff for fiscal year 2013, 
including both authorized military and civilian positions, as well as 
estimated contractor full-time equivalents. 

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
and Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents within the Office of 
the Secretary of the Army and the Office of the Chief of Staff of the 
Army: 

Office of the Secretary of the Army organizations: 

Immediate Office of the Secretary; 
Authorized military: positions: 20; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 15; 
Total: 35; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary; 
Authorized military: positions: 8; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 22; 
Total: 30; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management 
and Comptroller); 
Authorized military: positions: 22; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 282; 
Total: 304; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 162. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs); 
Authorized military: positions: 7; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 54; 
Total: 61; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 270. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics 
and Technology); 
Authorized military: positions: 11; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 238; 
Total: 249; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 24. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and 
Environment); 
Authorized military: positions: 3; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 59; 
Total: 62; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 62. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); 
Authorized military: positions: 2; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 22; 
Total: 24; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army; 
Authorized military: positions: 3; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 27; 
Total: 30; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Chief Legislative Liaison; 
Authorized military: positions: 24; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 58; 
Total: 82; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Inspector General; 
Authorized military: positions: 5; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 3; 
Total: 8; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Chief of Public Affairs; 
Authorized military: positions: 23; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 54; 
Total: 77; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 28. 

Office of Small Business Programs; 
Authorized military: positions: 0; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 9; 
Total: 9; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 3. 

Office of the Auditor General; 
Authorized military: positions: 1; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 7; 
Total: 8; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of General Counsel; 
Authorized military: positions: 7; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 43; 
Total: 50; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (CIO/G-6); 
Authorized military: positions: 29; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 244; 
Total: 273; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 251. 

U.S. Army Office of Business Transformation; 
Authorized military: positions: 27; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 29; 
Total: 56; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 7. 

Office of the Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries; 
Authorized military: positions: 4; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 0; Total: 4; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: N/A. 

Total: 
Authorized military: positions: 196; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 1,166; 
Total: 1,362; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 807. 

Office of the Army Chief of Staff Organizations: 

Office of the Chief of Staff; 
Authorized military: positions: 95; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 108; 
Total: 203; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 11. 

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1; 
Authorized military: positions: 75; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 243; 
Total: 318; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 210. 

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2; 
Authorized military: positions: 52; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 235; 
Total: 287; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 100. 

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7; 
Authorized military: positions: 272; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 305; 
Total: 577; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 137. 

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4; 
Authorized military: positions: 43; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 151; 
Total: 194; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 4. 

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8; 
Authorized military: positions: 118; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 242; 
Total: 360; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 70. 

Office of the Chief of Chaplains; 
Authorized military: positions: 24; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 19; 
Total: 43; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 2. 

Office of the Surgeon General; 
Authorized military: positions: 45; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 49; 
Total: 94; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 66. 

Office of the Chief of Engineers; 
Authorized military: positions: 9; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 3; 
Total: 12; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 1. 

Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, Installation Management; 
Authorized military: 
positions: 20; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 83; 
Total: 103; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Judge Advocate General; 
Authorized military: positions: 35; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 30; 
Total: 65; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 0. 

Office of the Provost Marshal General; 
Authorized military: positions: 13; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 8; 
Total: 21; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 20. 

Total: 
Authorized military: positions: 801; 
Authorized civilian: positions: 1,476; 
Total: 2,277; 
Estimated contractor full-time equivalents: 621. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: The Army provided estimated contractor full-time equivalents 
from the Army's Contractor Manpower Reporting Application. In May 
2013, we found that the data supporting the inventory of contracted 
services has several limitations, including the inability to identify 
more than one type of service in a contract or the number of 
contractor full-time equivalents, which limit its utility for purposes 
of compiling a complete and accurate inventory. See GAO-13-491. 
However, in January 2011 we found the Army's Contracted Manpower 
Reporting Application to have fewer limitations than the data source 
used by the rest of DOD for the inventory of contracted services. See 
GAO-11-192. Because the data the Army provided from its Contractor 
Manpower Reporting Application were not used to support our findings, 
conclusions, or recommendations, we did not assess their reliability. 
Rather, we present the data in this appendix for purposes of 
comparison against authorized military and civilian positions. The 
Office of the Chief Information Officer and the Office of the Chief of 
Staff of the Army's G-6 are consolidated organizationally, but located 
under the Office of the Secretary of the Army. 

[End of table] 

Based on data collected by the Army using the Contractor Manpower 
Reporting Application for use in DOD's fiscal year 2013 Inventory of 
Contracted Services,[Footnote 83] the Army estimated that, in addition 
to authorized military and civilian positions, approximately 28 
percent of its workforce, or 1,428 contractor full-time equivalents, 
served in the Army Secretariat and Army Staff in fiscal year 2013, as 
shown in figure 9. 

Figure 9: Percentage of Authorized Military and Civilian Personnel and 
Estimated Contractor Full-Time Equivalents in the Army Secretariat and 
Staff, Fiscal Year 2013: 

Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Authorized civilians: 52% (2,642); 
Authorized military: 20% (997); 
Contractor full-time equivalents: 28% (1,428). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: In May 2013, we found that the data supporting the inventory of 
contracted services has several limitations, including the inability 
to identify more than one type of service in a contract or the number 
of contractor full-time equivalents, which limit its utility for 
purposes of compiling a complete and accurate inventory. See GAO-13-
491. However, in January 2011 we found the Army's Contracted Manpower 
Reporting Application to have fewer limitations than the data source 
used by the rest of DOD for the inventory of contracted services. See 
GAO-11-192. Because the data the Army provided from its Contractor 
Manpower Reporting Application were not used to support our findings, 
conclusions, or recommendations, we did not independently assess the 
its accuracy or reliability. Rather, we present the data in this 
appendix for purposes of comparison against authorized military and 
civilian positions. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 10 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
personnel positions in the Office of the Secretary of the Army since 
fiscal year 2001. Both military and civilian positions remained 
relatively unchanged until fiscal year 2009. According to Army 
officials, the main drivers for the increase in the number of 
authorized civilians between fiscal years 2001 and 2013 were to 
support increased missions within Headquarters, Department of the 
Army, efforts to convert contracted services to civilian positions, 
and the conversion of military to civilian positions. This increase in 
authorized civilian positions, according to DOD officials, is the 
result of attempts to rebalance workload and become a cost-efficient 
workforce. 

Figure 10: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of the Army, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Authorized military personnel: 237; 
Authorized civilians: 612. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized military personnel: 286; 
Authorized civilians: 762. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized military personnel: 269; 
Authorized civilians: 725. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized military personnel: 265; 
Authorized civilians: 713. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 201; 
Authorized civilians: 777. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 203; 
Authorized civilians: 781. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 201; 
Authorized civilians: 785. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 183; 
Authorized civilians: 801. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 194; 
Authorized civilians: 888. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 197; 
Authorized civilians: 990. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 185; 
Authorized civilians: 1,150. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 192; 
Authorized civilians: 1,163. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 196; 
Authorized civilians: 1,166. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the Office of the Secretary of the 
Army and do not include personnel performing contracted services. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
personnel positions the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army since 
fiscal year 2001. As shown, authorized military personnel reached a 
peak in fiscal year 2003, while--according to Army officials--the 
number of authorized civilians peaked in fiscal year 2011 due to the 
conversion of contracted services to civilian positions and the 
conversion of military to civilian positions. This increase in 
authorized civilian positions, according to DOD officials, is the 
result of attempts to rebalance workload and become a cost-efficient 
workforce. Army and DOD officials stated that, since fiscal year 2011, 
total authorized positions have gradually decreased due to direction 
from the Secretary of Defense to hold the number of civilian positions 
at or below fiscal year 2010 levels and to cut civilian positions that 
had yet to be filled after they had converted contracted services to 
civilian positions in previous years. 

Figure 11: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Chief of Staff of the Army, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Authorized military personnel: 750; 
Authorized civilians: 673. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized military personnel: 848; 
Authorized civilians: 755. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized military personnel: 897; 
Authorized civilians: 921. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized military personnel: 890; 
Authorized civilians: 930. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 743; 
Authorized civilians: 1,113. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 780; 
Authorized civilians: 1,143. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 788; 
Authorized civilians: 1,141. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 846; 
Authorized civilians: 1,134. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 885; 
Authorized civilians: 1,303. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 811; 
Authorized civilians: 1,552. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 815; 
Authorized civilians: 1,562. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 827; 
Authorized civilians: 1,468. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 801; 
Authorized civilians: 1,476. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the Office of the Chief of Staff of 
the Army and do not include personnel performing contracted services. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12 illustrates the changes associated with Army Secretariat and 
Army Staff headquarters support costs for fiscal year 2002 through 
fiscal year 2013. According to the data provided by the Army, there 
has been a slight overall increase in headquarters support costs 
during the period, but these costs have recently begun to decline. 
Specifically, overall costs for civilian pay have increased, but have 
fallen since fiscal year 2011. According to GAO analysis of Army data, 
this increase in costs aligns with Army efforts to convert contracted 
services to civilian positions as well as increased missions within 
Headquarters, resulting in higher costs for civilian pay, among other 
factors. 

Figure 12: Army Secretariat and Army Staff Headquarters Support Costs 
for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $226.1 million; 
Other support costs: $297.9 million; 
Combined support costs: $524 million. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $233.7 million; 
Other support costs: $353.3 million; 
Combined support costs: $587 million. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $255.9 million; 
Other support costs: $403.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $6659.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $271.8 million; 
Other support costs: $477.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $749 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $296.8 million; 
Other support costs: $466.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $762.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $306.5 million; 
Other support costs: $448 million; 
Combined support costs: $754.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $342.4 million; 
Other support costs: $356.6 million; 
Combined support costs: $699.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $405.1 million; 
Other support costs: $412.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $817.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $469.7 million; 
Other support costs: $343.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $812.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $498.6 million; 
Other support costs: $299.6 million; 
Combined support costs: $798.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $471.4 million; 
Other support costs: $140.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $611.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $440.7 million; 
Other support costs: $101.4 million; 
Combined support costs: $542 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
operation and maintenance funding reported by Army components. "Other 
support costs" may include costs for printing and reproduction, 
equipment, transportation, and contracted services, among other costs. 
Army officials stated that the costs for contracted services provided 
from its financial accounting systems may not accurately reflect costs 
incurred by the headquarters because the accounting systems show the 
funding for contractors but not necessarily where the contracted work 
was performed, which is the information displayed in DOD's Inventory 
of Contracted Services. However, the inventory only contains data from 
fiscal year 2010 to the present, so in order to conduct a more 
comprehensive comparison, our analysis used the Army's financial 
accounting systems data because it included the entire fiscal year 
2001 through 2013 period and was also the authoritative source for the 
Army's civilian compensation and benefits data. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Resources of the Offices of the Secretary of the Navy and 
Chief of Naval Operations: 

The Office of the Secretary of the Navy is solely responsible among 
the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, the Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations, and the Headquarters, Marine Corps, for oversight of 
the following functions: acquisition, auditing, financial management, 
information management, inspector general, legislative affairs, and 
public affairs.[Footnote 84] The Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations is to provide professional assistance to the Secretary and 
Chief of Naval Operations in preparing for the employment of the Navy 
in areas such as: recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, and 
training.[Footnote 85] The staffs of Office of the Secretary of the 
Navy and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations comprise military 
and civilian personnel and personnel performing contracted services. 
This appendix shows how these resources are distributed in the Navy, 
as well as the changes in these resources from fiscal year 2001 
through fiscal year 2013. Table 5 shows the organizational structure 
and composition of the Navy Secretariat and Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations for fiscal year 2013, including both authorized 
military and civilian positions. 

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
by Selected Organization within the Offices of the Secretary of the 
Navy and Chief of Naval Operations: 

Office of the Secretary of the Navy organizations: 

Secretary of the Navy; 
Authorized military positions: 20; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 24; 
Total: 44. 

Under Secretary of the Navy; 
Authorized military positions: 2; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 3; 
Total: 5. 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and 
Acquisition); 
Authorized military positions: 23; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 92; 
Total: 115. 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs); 
Authorized military positions: 14; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 28; 
Total: 42. 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller); 
Authorized military positions: 30; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 153; 
Total: 183. 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment); 
Authorized military: positions: 8; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 25; 
Total: 33. 

General Counsel of the Department of the Navy; 
Authorized military positions: 3; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 48; 
Total: 51. 

Chief of Information; 
Authorized military positions: 32; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 30; 
Total: 62. 

Chief of Legislative Affairs; 
Authorized military positions: 34; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 17; 
Total: 51. 

Auditor General; 
Authorized military positions: 0; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 11; 
Total: 11. 

Chief Information Officer; 
Authorized military positions: 2; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 40; 
Total: 42. 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy; 
Authorized military positions: 11; 
Authorized civilian positions: 20; 
Total: 31. 

Naval Inspector General; 
Authorized military positions: 28; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 39; 
Total: 67. 

Other[A]; 
Authorized military positions: 81; 
Authorized civilian positions: 442; 
Total: 523. 

Total: 
Authorized military positions: 288; 
Authorized civilian positions: 972; 
Total: 1,260. 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations functional directorates: 

N00--Chief Naval Operations (CNO); 
Authorized military positions: 46; 
Authorized civilian positions: 6; 
Total: 52. 

N01--Director Navy Staff; 
Authorized military positions: 40; 
Authorized civilian positions: 38; 
Total: 78. 

N09--Vice CNO; 
Authorized military positions: 12; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 4; 
Total: 16. 

N093--Surgeon General of the Navy; 
Authorized military positions: 10; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 10. 

N097--Chief of Chaplains; 
Authorized military positions: 19; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 19. 

N1--Deputy CNO for Manpower; 
Authorized military positions: 27; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 2; 
Total: 29. 

N2/N6--Deputy CNO for Information Dominance; 
Authorized military positions: 88; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 59; 
Total: 147. 

N3/N5--Deputy CNO for Operations, Plans, and Strategy; 
Authorized military positions: 120; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 24; 
Total: 144. 

N4--Deputy CNO for Fleet Readiness and Logistics; 
Authorized military positions: 68; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 95; 
Total: 163. 

N80--Director Programming; 
Authorized military positions: 42; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 18; 
Total: 60. 

N81--Director Assessments; 
Authorized military positions: 58; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 28; 
Total: 86. 

N83--Director Joint Capabilities and Integration; 
Authorized military positions: 2; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 2. 

N84--Office of Naval Research; 
Authorized military positions: 10; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 5; 
Total: 15. 

N89--Director Special Programs; 
Authorized military positions: 6; 
Authorized civilian positions: 12; 
Total: 18. 

N9--Deputy CNO for Warfare Systems; 
Authorized military positions: 8; 
Authorized civilian positions: 4; 
Total: 12. 

N95--Director Expeditionary Warfare; 
Authorized military positions: 26; 
Authorized civilian positions: 11; 
Total: 37. 

N96--Director Surface Warfare; 
Authorized military positions: 41; 
Authorized civilian positions: 26; 
Total: 67. 

N97--Director Undersea Warfare; 
Authorized military positions: 33; 
Authorized civilian positions: 11; 
Total: 44. 

N98--Director Air Warfare; 
Authorized military positions: 34; 
Authorized civilian positions: 17; 
Total: 51. 

N9I--Director Warfare Integration; 
Authorized military positions: 15; 
Authorized civilian positions: 9; 
Total: 24. 

RPN CNO--Reserve Personnel; 
Authorized military positions: 42; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 42. 

Total: 
Authorized military positions: 747; 
Authorized: civilian positions: 369; 
Total: 1,116. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: The Navy was not able to provide data on the number of 
contractor full-time equivalents within the Secretariat or the Office 
of the Chief of Naval Operations. 

[A] "Other" includes the Department of the Navy Assistant for 
Administration, headquarters elements of the Naval Criminal 
Investigative Service, the Office of Civilian Human Resources, and the 
Naval Center for Cost Analysis. 

[End of table] 

Figure 13 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
military and civilian positions within the Navy Secretariat since 
fiscal year 2003. From fiscal years 2003 through 2008, the total 
number of authorized positions within the secretariat decreased from 
fiscal year 2003 to 2004 and remained relatively constant through 
fiscal year 2008 due to reductions in its baseline budget, 
recalculation of civilian pay and benefits, and internal 
reorganizations within the Navy, according to officials within the 
Navy Secretariat. From fiscal years 2009 through 2013, authorized 
civilian positions within the Navy Secretariat have steadily 
increased. Navy Secretariat officials attributed this increase 
primarily to reorganization of functions across the Department of the 
Navy that moved positions into the secretariat and the conversion of 
contracted services to civilian positions. 

Figure 13: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of the Navy, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized military personnel: 282; 
Authorized civilians: 900. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized military personnel: 227; 
Authorized civilians: 788. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 230; 
Authorized civilians: 796. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 230; 
Authorized civilians: 785. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 233; 
Authorized civilians: 757. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 230; 
Authorized civilians: 769. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 272; 
Authorized civilians: 789. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 294; 
Authorized civilians: 849. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 293; 
Authorized civilians: 920. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 298; 
Authorized civilians: 944. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 287; 
Authorized civilians: 999. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Due to a change in personnel management systems, the Navy 
Secretariat was only able to provide authorized positions back to 
fiscal year 2003. Authorized military and civilian positions represent 
approved, funded personnel requirements at the Office of the Secretary 
of the Navy and do not include personnel performing contracted 
services. 

[End of figure] 

Headquarters support costs for the Navy Secretariat have generally 
increased from fiscal years 2001 through 2013, as seen in the inset of 
figure 14. According to Navy officials, significant drivers of this 
overall increase include continued increases in civilian personnel 
costs, and additional contracted services costs to support both a 2005 
DOD initiative and compliance in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 with 
congressional direction to improve the auditability of its financial 
statements. 

Figure 14: Office of the Secretary of the Navy Headquarters Support 
Costs for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $85.3 million; 
Other support costs: $66 million; 
Combined support costs: $151.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $88.3 million; 
Other support costs: $47.3 million; 
Combined support costs: $135.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $81.3 million; 
Other support costs: $43.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $124.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $83.6 million; 
Other support costs: $42.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $125.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $85.6 million; 
Other support costs: $74.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $160.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $85 million; 
Other support costs: $57.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $142.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $92.9 million; 
Other support costs: $81.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $174 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $101.8 million; 
Other support costs: $86.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $188 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $115.1 million; 
Other support costs: $91.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $206.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $119.6 million; 
Other support costs: $70.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $189.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $137.3 million; 
Other support costs: $88.4 million; 
Combined support costs: $225.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $144.4 million; 
Other support costs: $153.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $298.2 million. 
Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $143.9 million; 
Other support costs: $116.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $260.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: "Other support costs" may include costs for printing and 
reproduction, equipment, transportation, and contractor services, 
among others. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 15 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
military and civilian positions within the Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations since fiscal year 2005. The Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations has experienced some increase in authorized civilian 
positions over that period, which Navy officials attributed to 
conversion of contracted services to civilian positions and 
reorganizations of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations under 
new Chiefs of Naval Operations. Our analysis shows that much of the 
overall increase in authorized civilian positions at the Office of the 
Chief of Naval Operations was offset by decreases in military 
positions since fiscal year 2010. 

Figure 15: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Chief of Naval Operations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 813; 
Authorized civilians: 222. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 781; 
Authorized civilians: 226. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 785; 
Authorized civilians: 226. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 805; 
Authorized civilians: 258. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 811; 
Authorized civilians: 332. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 810; 
Authorized civilians: 365. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 745; 
Authorized civilians: 359. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 741; 
Authorized civilians: 361. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 747; 
Authorized civilians: 369. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Due to a change in personnel management systems, the Office of 
the Chief of Naval Operations was only able to provide authorized 
military and civilian positions back to fiscal year 2005. Authorized 
military and civilian positions represent approved, funded personnel 
requirements at the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and do not 
include personnel performing contracted services. 

[End of figure] 

Headquarters support costs for the Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations have generally decreased from fiscal years 2009 through 
2013, as seen in the inset of figure 16. According to Office of the 
Chief of Naval Operations' officials, the decrease in costs in fiscal 
2010 was the result of the removal of some centrally managed costs 
from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations budget in 2010 and 
efforts to convert contracted services to civilian positions. As seen 
in figure 16, civilian personnel costs have increased over the period, 
which Office of the Chief of Naval Operations' officials attributed to 
the conversion of contracted services to civilian positions and 
organizational restructuring that moved additional civilian positions 
to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations headquarters staff, 
resulting in higher civilian personnel costs. 

Figure 16: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Headquarters 
Support Costs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $32.5 million; 
Other support costs: $100.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $132.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $40.8 million; 
Other support costs: $68.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $109.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $42.1 million; 
Other support costs: $76.9 million; 
Combined support costs: $119 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $47.5 million; 
Other support costs: $79 million; 
Combined support costs: $126.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $48.6 million; 
Other support costs: $66.4 million; 
Combined support costs: $115 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations was only able to 
provide cost data for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Officials from 
the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations told us that it could not 
extract data for earlier fiscal years because the financial system it 
uses does not contain data prior to fiscal year 2009 and it would be 
difficult to separate out the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations' 
data from other Navy data prior to fiscal year 2009 in the Navy's 
historical data system. "Other support costs" may include costs for 
printing and reproduction, equipment, transportation, and contractor 
services, among others. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Resources of the Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps: 

The Marine Corps also operates under the authority, direction, and 
control of the Secretary of the Navy. Headquarters, Marine Corps, 
consists of the Commandant of the Marine Corps and staff who are to 
provide assistance in preparing for the employment of the Marine Corps 
in areas such as recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, and 
training.[Footnote 86] The staff of Headquarters, Marine Corps, 
comprises military and civilian personnel and personnel performing 
contracted services. This appendix shows how these resources are 
distributed in the Marine Corps, as well as the changes in these 
resources from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2013. Table 6 
shows the organizational structure and composition of Headquarters, 
Marine Corps, for fiscal year 2013, including both authorized military 
and civilian positions. 

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
within Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps: 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps organizations: 

Office of Marine Corps Reserves; 
Authorized military positions: 7; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 7. 

Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration; 
Authorized military positions: 165; 
Authorized civilian positions: 171; 
Total: 336. 

Marine Corps Separate Offices; 
Authorized military positions: 98; 
Authorized civilian positions: 51; 
Total: 149. 

Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; 
Authorized military positions: 399; 
Authorized civilian positions: 325; 
Total: 724. 

Director, Administration and Resources; 
Authorized military positions: 48; 
Authorized civilian positions: 195; 
Total: 243. 

Director, Command, Control, Communication, and Computers; 
Authorized military positions: 39; 
Authorized civilian positions: 100; 
Total: 139. 

Deputy Commandant, Installations and Logistics; 
Authorized military positions: 93; 
Authorized civilian positions: 165; 
Total: 258. 

Deputy Commandant, Programs and Resources; 
Authorized military positions: 69; 
Authorized civilian positions: 95; 
Total: 164. 

Deputy Commandant, Plans, Policy and Operations; 
Authorized military positions: 170; 
Authorized civilian positions: 82; 
Total: 252. 

Staff Judge Advocate; 
Authorized military positions: 38; 
Authorized civilian positions: 10; 
Total: 48. 

Deputy Commandant, Aviation; 
Authorized military positions: 95; 
Authorized civilian positions: 12; 
Total: 107. 

Director, Intelligence; 
Authorized military positions: 31; 
Authorized civilian positions: 36; 
Total: 67. 

Director, Public Affairs; 
Authorized military positions: 26; 
Authorized civilian positions: 12; 
Total: 38. 

Director, Safety; 
Authorized military positions: 8; 
Authorized civilian positions: 19; 
Total: 27. 

Inspector General of the Marine Corps; 
Authorized military positions: 17; 
Authorized civilian positions: 8; 
Total: 25. 

Total: 
Authorized military positions: 1,303; 
Authorized civilian positions: 1,281; 
Total: 2,584. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

[End of table] 

Headquarters, Marine Corps, experienced an increase in its overall 
number of authorized military and civilian positions from fiscal years 
2005 to 2013, as shown in figure 17, but there have been variations 
within those years. Headquarters, Marine Corps, officials attributed 
some of the increases in authorized positions to the conversion of 
military positions to civilian positions, and additional personnel 
requirements needed to support the Foreign Counterintelligence Program 
and National Intelligence Program and to stand up and operate the 
National Museum of the Marine Corps. Headquarters, Marine Corps, 
officials also explained that some of the decreases in authorized 
positions were due to a number of organizational realignments that 
transferred civilian positions from Headquarters, Marine Corps, to 
operational or field support organizations. 

Figure 17: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Authorized Military and 
Civilian Positions for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,358; 
Authorized civilians: 994. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,808; 
Authorized civilians: 1,068. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,211; 
Authorized civilians: 1,104. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,243; 
Authorized civilians: 1,122. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,280; 
Authorized civilians: 1,131. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,427; 
Authorized civilians: 1,379. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,697; 
Authorized civilians: 1,660. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,539; 
Authorized civilians: 1,281. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,303; 
Authorized civilians: 1,281. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Due to a change in personnel management systems, Headquarters, 
Marine Corps, was only able to provide data back to fiscal year 2005. 
Authorized civilian positions represent positions directly funded by 
Headquarters, Marine Corps,' operation and maintenance appropriations 
only, and authorized military positions represent the authorized 
strength, as reflected on a Headquarters, Marine Corps,' Table of 
Organization and Equipment (T/O&E), and which have been allocated for 
funding. This does not include personnel performing contracted 
services. 

[End of figure] 

From fiscal years 2005 through 2013, the total headquarters support 
costs for Headquarters, Marine Corps, have slightly increased, as seen 
in the inset in figure 18, but there has been variation in total costs 
year-to-year, and costs are down from their peak in fiscal year 2012. 
As seen in figure 18, there has been a consistent increase in costs 
for civilian personnel from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2012, 
which the Marine Corps attributed to the conversion of military 
positions to civilian positions, organizational realignments that 
moved civilian positions to Headquarters, Marine Corps, and 
recalculation of civilian pay and benefits, all of which increased 
costs for civilian personnel. From fiscal years 2005 through 2013, 
other headquarters support costs generally decreased due to transfers 
and realignment of resources from Headquarters, Marine Corps, to other 
organizations and operating forces. 

Figure 18: Headquarters, Marine Corps, Support Costs for Fiscal Years 
2005 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $73.7; 
Other support costs: $276.3 million; 
Combined support costs: $350 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $97.8; 
Other support costs: $215.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $313 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $124.5; 
Other support costs: $200.9 million; 
Combined support costs: $325.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $126.9; 
Other support costs: $189.9 million; 
Combined support costs: $316.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $150.9; 
Other support costs: $203.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $354.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $184.5; 
Other support costs: $221.3 million; 
Combined support costs: $405.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $184; 
Other support costs: $154.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $338.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $220.8; 
Other support costs: $205.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $426.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $181.1; 
Other support costs: $212.6 million; 
Combined support costs: $393.6 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: "Other support costs" may include costs for printing and 
reproduction, equipment, transportation, and contractor services, 
among others. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Resources of the Headquarters, Department of the Air 
Force: 

The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force has sole responsibility 
and oversight for the following functions across the Air Force: 
acquisition, auditing, financial management, information management, 
inspector general, legislative affairs, and public affairs.[Footnote 
87] Additionally, there is an Air Staff, which is to furnish 
professional assistance to the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force. The headquarters functions to be performed by the Air Staff 
include recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping of the Air 
Force, among others.[Footnote 88] The staffs of Office of the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Staff comprise military and 
civilian personnel and personnel performing contracted services. This 
appendix shows how these resources are distributed in the Air Force, 
as well as the changes in these resources from fiscal year 2001 
through fiscal year 2013. Table 7 shows the organizational structure 
and composition of the Air Force Secretariat and Staff for fiscal year 
2013, including both authorized military and civilian positions. 

Table 7: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions 
in the Offices of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force 
Chief of Staff: 

Office of the Secretary of the Air Force headquarters organizations: 
Secretary of the Air Force, immediate office; 
Authorized military positions: 5; 
Authorized civilian positions: 5; 
Total: 10. 

Under Secretary of the Air Force (Chief Management Officer); 
Authorized military positions: 7; 
Authorized civilian positions: 6; 
Total: 13. 

Administrative Staff; 
Authorized military positions: 7; 
Authorized civilian positions: 26; 
Total: 33. 

Office of the Inspector General; 
Authorized military positions: 20; 
Authorized civilian positions: 9; 
Total: 29. 

Office of the Auditor General; 
Authorized military positions: 1; 
Authorized civilian positions: 4; 
Total: 5. 

Office of the Legislative Liaison; 
Authorized military positions: 22; 
Authorized civilian positions: 4; 
Total: 26. 

Office of Public Affairs; 
Authorized military positions: 31; 
Authorized civilian positions: 25; 
Total: 56. 

Office of General Counsel; 
Authorized military positions: 4; 
Authorized civilian positions: 48; 
Total: 52. 

Air Force Small Business Programs; 
Authorized military positions: 0; 
Authorized civilian positions: 6; 
Total: 6. 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; 
Authorized military positions: 13; 
Authorized civilian positions: 15; 
Total: 28. 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Management and Comptroller; 
Authorized military positions: 46; 
Authorized civilian positions: 139; 
Total: 185. 

Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force, Space Programs; 
Authorized military positions: 9; 
Authorized civilian positions: 2; 
Total: 11. 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition; 
Authorized military positions: 144; 
Authorized civilian positions: 119; 
Total: 263. 

Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force, International Affairs; 
Authorized military positions: 68; 
Authorized civilian positions: 75; 
Total: 143. 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, Environment, and 
Logistics; 
Authorized military positions: 8; 
Authorized civilian positions: 22; 
Total: 30. 

Information Dominance and Chief Information Officer (CIOA6); 
Authorized military positions: 80; 
Authorized civilian positions: 54; 
Total: 134. 

Total: 
Authorized military positions: 465; 
Authorized civilian positions: 559; 
Total: 1,024. 

Joint Offices for the Secretary and Chief of Staff: 

Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
Executive Action Group; 
Authorized military positions: 1; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Air Force Strategic Studies Group; 
Authorized military positions: 5; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 5. 

Total: 
Authorized military positions: 6; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 6. 

Office of the Air Force Chief of Staff Headquarters Organizations: 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Immediate Office; 
Authorized military positions: 15; 
Authorized civilian positions: 3; 
Total: 18. 

Office of the Vice Chief of Staff; 
Authorized military positions: 14; 
Authorized civilian positions: 6; 
Total: 20. 

Office of the Chief of Safety; 
Authorized military positions: 12; 
Authorized civilian positions: 11; 
Total: 23. 

Air Force Test and Evaluation; 
Authorized military positions: 13; 
Authorized civilian positions: 9; 
Total: 22. 

Judge Advocate General; 
Authorized military positions: 34; 
Authorized civilian positions: 8; 
Total: 42. 

U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; 
Authorized military positions: 3; 
Authorized civilian positions: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Office of the Chief Scientist; 
Authorized military positions: 1; 
Authorized civilian positions: 1; 
Total: 2. 

Office of the Surgeon General; 
Authorized military positions: 48; 
Authorized civilian positions: 20; 
Total: 68. 

Office of the Director of History and Museums Policies and Programs; 
Authorized military positions: 0; 
Authorized civilian positions: 6; 
Total: 6. 

Office of the Chief of Chaplains; 
Authorized military positions: 10; 
Authorized civilian positions: 2; 
Total: 12. 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel (A-1); 
Authorized military positions: 125; 
Authorized civilian positions: 144; 
Total: 269. 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 
(A-2); 
Authorized military positions: 137; 
Authorized civilian positions: 56; 
Total: 193. 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Plans, and Requirements (A-3/A-5); 
Authorized military positions: 251; 
Authorized civilian positions: 116; 
Total: 367. 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support (A-
4/7); 
Authorized military positions: 152; 
Authorized civilian positions: 124; 
Total: 276. 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategic Plans and Programs (A-8); 
Authorized military positions: 100; 
Authorized civilian positions: 40; 
Total: 140. 

Studies and Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned (A-9); 
Authorized military positions: 3; 
Authorized civilian positions: 3; 
Total: 6. 

Assistant Chief of Staff, Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration 
(A-10); 
Authorized military positions: 69; 
Authorized civilian positions: 23; 
Total: 92. 

Total: 
Authorized military positions: 987; 
Authorized civilian positions: 572; 
Total: 1,559. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Joint Offices for the Secretary and Chief of Staff are 
organizations that support both the Office of the Secretary of the Air 
Force and the Office of the Air Force Chief of Staff. The Air Force 
was not able to provide data on the number of contractor full-time 
equivalents within the Secretariat and Air Staff. 

[End of table] 

Figure 19 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
positions in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force since fiscal 
year 2001. The number of authorized military and civilian positions 
remained relatively unchanged until fiscal year 2010 when, according 
to Air Force officials, the conversion of contracted services to 
civilian positions and the conversion of military to civilian 
positions contributed to the increasing number of authorized civilian 
personnel. This increase in authorized civilian positions, according 
to DOD officials, is the result of attempts to rebalance workload and 
become a cost-efficient workforce. Air Force officials stated that 
authorized positions within the secretariat have gradually decreased 
from peak levels reached in fiscal year 2010 due to direction from the 
Secretary of Defense to hold the number of civilian positions at or 
below fiscal year 2010 levels and to cut civilian positions that had 
yet to be filled after they had converted contracted services to 
civilian positions in previous years. 

Figure 19: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Secretary of the Air Force, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Authorized military personnel: 468; 
Authorized civilians: 420. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized military personnel: 457; 
Authorized civilians: 422. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized military personnel: 459; 
Authorized civilians: 410. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized military personnel: 456; 
Authorized civilians: 417. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 439; 
Authorized civilians: 399. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 434; 
Authorized civilians: 411. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 409; 
Authorized civilians: 416. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 408; 
Authorized civilians: 430. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 401; 
Authorized civilians: 471. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 424; 
Authorized civilians: 580. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 411; 
Authorized civilians: 576. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 397; 
Authorized civilians: 501. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 386; 
Authorized civilians: 505. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the Office of the Secretary of the 
Air Force and do not include personnel performing contracted services. 
Additionally, the Office of the Information Dominance and Chief 
Information Officer (CIOA6) was consolidated and administratively 
moved from the Air Staff to the Office of the Secretary in fiscal year 
2006, but for the purposes of analyzing the personnel trends, we have 
continued to count that office as part of the Air Staff. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 20 illustrates annual changes in the number of authorized 
positions in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force since 
fiscal year 2001. The total number of authorized military and civilian 
positions remained relatively stable until fiscal year 2006, when the 
number of authorized military personnel reached its peak level. Since 
then, the number of authorized civilian personnel has generally 
increased, which an Air Force official said was mainly due to the 
conversion of contracted services to civilian positions and the 
conversion of military to civilian positions, although these numbers 
have begun to decline since fiscal year 2011. This increase in 
authorized civilian positions, according to DOD officials, is the 
result of attempts to rebalance workload and become a cost-efficient 
workforce. 

Figure 20: Authorized Military and Civilian Positions in the Office of 
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,156; 
Authorized civilians: 379. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,172; 
Authorized civilians: 392. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,181; 
Authorized civilians: 398. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,187; 
Authorized civilians: 399. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,157; 
Authorized civilians: 382 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,249; 
Authorized civilians: 442. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,061; 
Authorized civilians: 437. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,069; 
Authorized civilians: 471. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,119; 
Authorized civilians: 540. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,221; 
Authorized civilians: 712. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,212; 
Authorized civilians: 736. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,085; 
Authorized civilians: 611. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Authorized military personnel: 1,077; 
Authorized civilians: 626. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the Office of the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force and do not include personnel performing contracted 
services. Additionally, the Office of the Information Dominance & 
Chief Information Officer (CIOA6) was consolidated and 
administratively moved from the Air Staff to the Office of the 
Secretary in fiscal year 2006, but for the purposes of analyzing the 
personnel trends, we have continued to count that office as part of 
the Air Staff. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 21 shows the changes associated with Air Force Secretariat and 
Air Staff headquarters support costs for fiscal year 2001 through 
fiscal year 2013. According to Air Force officials, the dramatic 
increase in civilian personnel costs in fiscal year 2010 was driven by 
the conversion of contracted services to civilian positions, resulting 
in higher costs for civilian personnel. The subsequent drop in 
civilian personnel costs was primarily due to restraints placed on the 
growth in the number of civilian positions by Secretary Gates in 
fiscal year 2010 and the Budget Control Act of 2011. According to an 
Air Force official, the rapid spike in other support costs in fiscal 
year 2012 was primarily due to the costs for a civil engineering 
project billed to the Air Force Secretariat and Staff for renovating 
the Air Force Headquarters space in the Pentagon. 

Figure 21: Air Force Secretariat and Staff Headquarters Support Costs 
for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $74.7; 
Other support costs: $122.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $196.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $79.6; 
Other support costs: $112.6 million; 
Combined support costs: $192.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $86.6; 
Other support costs: $114.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $200.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $97.7; 
Other support costs: $131.6 million; 
Combined support costs: $229.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $96.9; 
Other support costs: $147.7 million; 
Combined support costs: $244.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $95; 
Other support costs: $133.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $228.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $98.7; 
Other support costs: $116.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $214.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $120.5; 
Other support costs: $81.4 million; 
Combined support costs: $201.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $129.5; 
Other support costs: $74.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $204.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $215.1; 
Other support costs: $98.8 million; 
Combined support costs: $313.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $190.4; 
Other support costs: $73.2 million; 
Combined support costs: $263.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $181.6; 
Other support costs: $163.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $344.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Civilian compensation and benefits: $158.1; 
Other support costs: $80.1 million; 
Combined support costs: $238.2 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. GAO-15-10. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations of 
operation and maintenance funding reported by the Air Force. "Other 
support costs" may include costs for printing and reproduction, 
equipment, transportation, and contractor services, among other costs. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office of the Assistant Secretary Of Defense: 
Readiness and Force Management: 
4000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-4000: 

December 15, 2014: 

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

Dear Mr. Pendleton, 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-lS-10, "Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reassess 
Personnel Requirements for the Office of Secretary of Defense, Joint 
Staff, and Military Service Secretariats" dated October 23, 2014 (GAO 
Code 351839). The Department appreciates the GAO's work on this 
engagement, as well as the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. 

The Department is concerned that the GAO's report lacks appropriate 
perspective when characterizing the complexity and size of its 
headquarters staffs. The 000 is unrivaled in the breadth and scope of 
its widely varying missions - no other entity, either in government 
(foreign or domestic) or private sector corporation, is charged with 
delivering a mission as broad and far-reaching. Even the largest of 
global multi-national corporations doesn't touch or directly impact
the lives of so many, and in so many different ways. Simply put, the 
Department does everything from delivering bombs to babies; has a 
presence above every continent, operates on and under every ocean of 
the world, and executes capabilities in cyber and outer space. 

Accordingly, it is not surprising, and actually quite appropriate, 
that the Department has such a complex and multi-layered headquarters 
structure. Additionally, the Department is concerned there is a lack 
of appropriate context in the report when addressing workforce growth 
at the headquarters. Growth since 2001 is clearly in response to rapid 
mission and workload increases, as well as specific initiatives (many 
directed by Congress) to move to a more appropriate workforce mix of 
military, civilian, and contracted support. In particular, civilian 
workforce personnel changes have been the direct result of deliberate 
initiatives to reduce stress on the force by converting non-military 
essential jobs from military to civilian performance (either 
refocusing the military force on military essential operational roles 
or through more cost effective workforce options than continued military
performance); by appropriately, and more cost effectively, realigning 
workload to civilian performance from contractor support (cutting 
costs and minimizing the chances that contractors were performing 
inherently governmental or closely associated tasks); and by adding 
civilians in specific functional areas, many at the direction of 
Congress, to support the warfighter and meet strategic requirements 
that required headquarters policy and oversight (including, but not 
limited to such areas as business transformation, intelligence, cyber, 
family support programs, suicide prevention, sexual assault response 
and prevention, wounded warrior care, and transition
assistance and veteran's programs). 

Furthermore, the GAO's characterization of growth in many headquarters 
organizations does not accurately reflect the fact that much of it is 
the result of realignments of workload and positions to reflect a more 
appropriate and cost effective alignment of workforce to workload; a
streamlining of operations; and the optimization of mission delivery 
while reducing redundancies and overhead. 

Recommendation 1: Conduct a systematic determination of baseline 
military and civilian personnel requirements for OSD, the Joint Staff, 
and the military service secretariats and staff, which should include 
analysis of mission, functions, and tasks, and the minimum personnel 
needed to accomplish those missions, functions, and tasks. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department will continue to use 
the processes and prioritization that is part of the Planning, 
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process and informed by 
leadership prioritization of missions, functions, and tasks, but
will also investigate other methods for documenting and aligning 
headquarter manpower to missions and Secretary of Defense priorities. 
Additionally, the Department is currently conducting Business Process 
and System Reviews of the OSD Principal Staff Assistants, Defense 
Agencies and DoD Field Activities to aid in documenting mission
responsibilities to resource requirements. However, it is important to 
recognize that headquarters staffs provide knowledge continuity and 
subject matter expertise to respond to a wide variety of requests for 
information from (and provide official Departmental positions for) 
Congressional members and their staffs, with greatly varied volume and
periodicity; respond to private and public sector representatives and 
other interest groups; prepare appointees and educate new 
administration officials once confirmed; and develop posture and 
policy in response to rapidly emerging geo-political events. 
Accordingly, while a good deal of headquarters work can be quantified 
and qualified to the task level, a very significant portion of that 
workload is unpredictable, not transactional in nature, and leverages 
the expertise and knowledge of a highly qualified and professional 
staff that reflects prioritization and focus areas of the Nation's and 
Department's most senior leadership. In reviewing the draft report, 
the following inputs were provided by Components with regard to this 
recommendation: 

* The Army noted that it has a well-established headquarters 
requirements determination process in the G-3, supported by the U.S. 
Army Manpower Analysis Agency. The Army also noted its concerns with 
the GAO's observation that "the organizations that support the Army 
Secretariat and Army Staff are almost 3 times as large as the 
Secretariat and Staff, but are excluded from the limits" -- without 
the appropriate context, the Army is concerned that this statement may 
be misleading. Although the Army has made the organizational decision 
to retain a number of organizations as Field Operating Agencies, these 
organizations (such as Human Resources Command, Civilian Human 
Resources Agency, and the Judge Advocate General centers) provide
support to the entire Army, not just the headquarters. 

* The Marine Corps noted that they conducted a full review of force 
structure in 2012 and a Commandant-directed consideration was to look 
"at the functions of every headquarters and staff," to "consider 
burden sharing among major headquarters" and to "align staff capacity 
to headquarters responsibility." The Marine Corps will also comply 
with guidance to reduce the funding associated with management 
headquarters activities and strive to achieve a 20-percent reduction 
in personnel assigned to management headquarters activities. 

* The Joint Staff already utilizes the Joint Manpower Validation 
Process as a systematic determination process when requesting 
permanent joint manpower requirements. This process reviews mission 
drivers, capability gaps, impact assessments, and determines the 
correct size and characteristics (military/civilian, rank/grade and 
service/skill mix) of all new billets. 

Recommendation 2: Submit these baseline military and civilian personnel
requirements, including information on the number of baseline 
personnel within OSD and the military service secretariat and staffs 
that count against the statutory limits, along with any applicable 
adjustments to the statutory limit, in the next Defense Manpower
Requirements Report to Congress or through separate correspondence, 
along with any recommendations needed to modify the existing statutory 
limits. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department currently submits data 
on its headquarters personnel via the Defense Manpower Requirements 
Report and will also be submitting data as required by section 904 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Public 
Law 113-66. The Department has ongoing efforts to refine and
improve its reporting capabilities associated with these requirements. 
Determining the baseline requirement requires updating DoD Instruction 
(DoDI) 5100.73 to identify current Major DoD Headquarters Activities 
(MHA), and within each agency/command determining MHA elements, a 
process the Department is beginning to undertake. In reviewing the 
draft report, the following input was provided by a Component with 
regard to this recommendation: 

* The Marine Corps noted that in 2014 they methodically reviewed and 
validated all headquarters down to the individual billet level. This 
review applied the definitions from DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5100.73 to 
identify billets that should be coded as performing MHA and resulted 
in a net increase of reported MHA structure. The Marine Corps will 
report the revised MHA numbers in conjunction with the FY 16 budget to 
inform Congress via the budget exhibits and the Defense Manpower 
Requirements Report of the base line military personnel requirements. 

Recommendation 3: Establish and implement procedures to conduct 
periodic reassessments of baseline military and civilian personnel 
requirements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 
military service secretariats and staffs. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. Periodic re-assessments like those 
recommended require additional resources and manpower allocation, 
which could actually drive an increase in MHAs. While the Department 
supports the intent of the GAO's recommendation, in the current fiscal 
environment. and in light of the specific 20 percent reduction to 
these headquarters activities, the Department believes that 
establishing a new standardized manpower requirements determination 
process in the near term would be problematic. Specifically, the 
Department intends to examine the establishment of an Office of the 
Secretary of Defense military and civilian manpower requirements
determination process in the future, but expansion of this process to 
include the contract workforce and across the Department will need to 
be accomplished using a phased approach across a longer-term timeframe. 

In reviewing the draft report, the following inputs were provided by 
Components with regard to this recommendation: 

* The Marine Corps noted they conduct such periodic reviews through the
Quadrennial Defense Review and through force structure review boards 
that shape the Marine Corps to new missions and in response to Combatant
Commander demands, balanced with available budgets. 

* The Joint Staff has been "baselined" twice since 2008. In addition, 
reductions were taken during the Program Budget Review (PBR) 2012 
Secretary of Defense Efficiency review, PBR 2014 Civilian Reduction 
drill, and PBR 2015 Secretary of Defense 20 Percent Reductions. 
Additionally, manpower requests based on new or expanding missions 
must come through the Joint Manpower Validation Program for 
rightsizing. Any periodic review must be a miss ion review (J3/J4/J5).
If the Secretary of Defense approves divestiture of a mission, J1 will 
work to reduce the associated manpower. 

Matter For Congressional Consideration: Congress should consider
using the results of DoD's review of baseline military and civilian 
headquarters personnel requirements to re-examine the statutory 
limits. Such an examination could consider whether supporting 
organizations that perform headquarters functions should be included
in statutory limits and whether the statutes on personnel limitations 
within the military services secretariats and staffs should be amended 
to include a prohibition on reassigning headquarters-related functions 
elsewhere. 

DoD Response: The Department appreciates the GAO's recommendation that 
the current statutory limitations be re-examined by the Congress, 
especially in light of the significant mission increases since 2001, 
many mandated by Congress, that require significant policy and 
oversight at the headquarters levels in order to be effectively
implemented However, the Department believes the statutory limitations 
on headquarters personnel (as well as overall sizes of Defense 
Agencies and DoD Field Activities) in sections 143, 194, 3014, 50 14, 
and 8014 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.c.), as well as section 
601 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act 
of 1986, Public Law 99-433, place artificial constraints on workforce 
sizing and shaping. These artificial constraints preclude effective 
and appropriate Total Force Management as required under section 129a 
of title 10, U.S.C., and could be
viewed as inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 129 of 
title 10, U.S.C., and annual appropriations language, most recently 
section 8012, Division C, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 
(Public Law 113-76). Accordingly, the Department opposes any 
legislative language that imposes restrictions on the size of the
Department's workforce or limits our ability to manage an effective 
and efficient total workforce mix. The Department's sourcing of work 
to military, government civilian, or the private sector (contracted 
services) must be consistent with workload requirements, funding 
availability, readiness, and management needs, as well as applicable 
laws and policy. 

In reviewing the draft report, the following inputs were provided by 
Components with regard to this recommendation: 

* The Marine Corps noted that they do not use the same tiered or 
echelon approach to major headquarters that larger services use to 
reduce management span of control. While this consolidation is 
efficient for manpower, space requirements, and funding it does 
penalize the Marine Corps for major headquarters personnel counts 
conducted for compliance to section 5014 of title 10, U.S.C. The Marine
Corps' current structure allows for the most economic and efficient 
size of the headquarters staff while meeting the intent of section 
5014 of title 10, U.S.C., and compliance with 0001 5100.73. The Marine 
Corps will work with the Department of the Navy and the Secretariat to 
review and submit legislative proposals, as needed, to modify the 
existing statutory limits. 

* As the report states, "The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act placed 
statutory limits on the Joint Staffs number of civilians and military 
personnel, Congress repealed these limits in 1991 to provide the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with greater flexibility." For 
the last decade, the overall number of military and civilian personnel 
authorized for the Joint Staff has remained steady, before 
experiencing a sharp increase due to the realignment of existing 
positions from U.S. Joint Forces Command to the Joint Staff. Outside 
of that increase, the Joint Staff has remained steady with minimal 
increases in overall manpower. The 1991 repeal should remain in place. 

In reviewing the draft report, the Army also provided input regarding 
the overall methodology behind the report. Specifically, the Army 
noted that tracking contract support of head quarters organizations 
solely through funding source may skew attempts at general trend 
analysis. Since funding source does not always correlate to a function 
being performed in the headquarters, this must be taken into account 
when reviewing headquarters functions. 

Should you have any questions, please contact the primary action 
officer for this engagement, Mr. Thomas Hessel (703-697-3402 or 
thomas.j.hessel.civ@mail.mil). 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Rich Robbins: 
Director, Total Force Planning & Requirements: 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Richard K. Geiger (Assistant 
Director), Tracy Barnes, Gabrielle A. Carrington, Neil Feldman, David 
Keefer, Carol D. Petersen, Bethann E. Ritter Snyder, Michael Silver, 
Amie Steele, and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Among other constraints, the Budget Control Act of 2011 
established requirements for automatic budget sequestration, setting 
caps on the levels of DOD spending from fiscal years 2013 to 2021. See 
Pub. L. No. 112-25 (2011). 

[2] Some DOD officials use the terms management headquarters and major 
DOD headquarters activities interchangeably. For purposes of this 
report, we also use the terms interchangeably. DOD Instruction 
5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, 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, its components, and their 
major military units, organizations, or agencies. 

[3] Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 20% Headquarters 
Reductions (July 31, 2013). 

[4] GAO, Defense Headquarters: Total Personnel and Costs Are 
Significantly Higher Than Reported to Congress, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-25] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
30, 1997). 

[5] 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). 

[6] 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) and Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach 
for Managing Resources Devoted to the Functional Combatant Commands, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-39] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 26, 2014). 

[7] See H.R. Rep. No. 113-102 (June 7, 2013) accompanying H.R. 1960, a 
proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014. 

[8] In addition to OSD, the Joint Staff, and the secretariats and 
staffs of the military services, other headquarters organizations 
include portions of the defense agencies, DOD field activities, and 
the combatant commands, along with their subordinate unified commands 
and respective service component commands. 

[9] For purposes of this report, authorized positions refer to 
military and civilian positions that have been approved by DOD 
components for funding for a specific fiscal year. 

[10] Some organizations were unable to provide data for the entire 
period. These exceptions are detailed in app. II. 

[11] Some organizations were unable to provide data for the entire 
period. These exceptions are detailed in app. II. 

[12] Department of Defense Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower 
Management (Feb. 12, 2005) (hereinafter cited as DODD 1100.4 [Feb. 12, 
2005]); Army Regulation 570-4, Manpower and Equipment Control, 
Manpower Management (Feb. 8, 2006); Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations Instruction 1000.16K, Navy Total Force Manpower Policies 
and Procedures (Oct. 4, 2011); Air Force Instruction 38-201, Manpower 
and Organization, Management of Manpower Requirements and 
Authorizations (Jan. 30, 2014); and Marine Corps Order 5311.1D, Total 
Force Structure Process (Feb. 26, 2009). 

[13] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). To identify strategic workforce 
planning principles, we reviewed our own guidance, reports, and 
testimonies on federal agencies' workforce planning and human-capital 
management efforts, and guidance available through the Internet and 
leading human-capital periodicals. We also met with officials from 
organizations with governmentwide responsibilities for or expertise in 
workforce planning, such as the Office of Personnel Management and the 
National Academy of Public Administration, to identify additional 
guidance available and to obtain their recommendations of federal 
agencies engaged in effective workforce planning. We synthesized 
information from these meetings, reports, and guidance documents and 
our own experiences in human-capital management to derive key 
principles that appeared most important to effective strategic 
workforce planning. Further details on our methodology for identifying 
these key principles can be found in GAO-04-39. 

[14] DODD 1100.4 (Feb. 12, 2005). 

[15] Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Assessment and 
Accountability Framework Practitioners' Guide (September 2005). 

[16] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[17] Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Requirements Report, 
Fiscal Year 2015 (June 2014). 

[18] Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities (Dec. 1, 2007) (incorporating change 2, June 12, 2012) 
(hereinafter cited as DODI 5100.73 [Dec. 1, 2007]). 

[19] 10 U.S.C. § 131. 

[20] 10 U.S C. §§ 151 and 155. 

[21] 10 U.S.C. § 3014. 

[22] 10 U.S.C. §§ 3031 and 3032. 

[23] 10 U.S.C. § 5014. 

[24] 10 U.S.C. §§ 5031 and 5032. 

[25] 10 U.S.C. §§ 5041 and 5042. 

[26] 10 U.S.C. § 8014. 

[27] 10 U.S.C. §§ 8031 and 8032. 

[28] These OSD authorized positions do not include personnel within 
the defense agencies or DOD field activities, such as the Washington 
Headquarters Services. 

[29] According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Staff was unable to 
provide personnel data before fiscal year 2005 because of a change in 
personnel databases in 2004. For additional information on our data 
analysis and methodology, see app. II. 

[30] See Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 901(a)(2) (2002), which established 
the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Pub. 
L. No. 110-181, § 904 (2008), which established the position of Deputy 
Chief Management Officer. 

[31] Data on authorized military and civilian positions within the 
Joint Staff's J-2 Intelligence Directorate were excluded from this 
report because DOD considers this information to be sensitive but 
unclassified. 

[32] In May 2013, we found that the data supporting DOD's Inventory of 
Contracted Services has several limitations, including the inability 
to identify more than one type of service in a contract or the number 
of contractor full-time equivalents, which limit its utility for 
purposes of compiling a complete and accurate inventory. See GAO, 
Defense Acquisitions: Continued Management Attention Needed to Enhance 
Use and Review of DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-491] (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 
2013). We are presenting OSD's estimates of its contractor full-time 
equivalents for the purposes of comparison against authorized military 
and civilian positions. Because the data supporting OSD's estimates 
were not used to support findings, conclusions, or recommendations, we 
did not assess their reliability. 

[33] See GAO, Defense Contractors: Additional Actions Needed to 
Facilitate the Use of DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-88] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 19, 2014); GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Goals and Associated 
Metrics Needed to Assess Progress in Improving Service Acquisition, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-634] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jun 27, 2013); GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Update on DOD's Efforts to 
Implement a Common Contractor Manpower Data System, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-491R] Washington, D.C.: May 19, 
2014); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-491]; Defense 
Acquisitions: Further Actions Needed to Improve Accountability for 
DOD's Inventory of Contracted Services, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-357] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 
2012); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345]; Defense 
Acquisitions: Further Action Needed to Better Implement Requirements 
for Conducting Inventory of Service Contract Activities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-192] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 
2011); and Defense Acquisitions: Tailored Approach Needed to Improve 
Service Acquisition Outcomes, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-20] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 9, 
2006). 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-491R]. 

[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-88]. 

[36] Due to changes in personnel management systems, neither the 
Marine Corps nor the Navy were able to provide data on authorized 
positions prior to fiscal year 2005. 

[37] In May 2013, we found that the data supporting DOD's Inventory of 
Contracted Services has several limitations, including the inability 
to identify more than one type of service in a contract or the number 
of contractor full-time equivalents, which limit its utility for 
purposes of compiling a complete and accurate inventory. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-491]. However, in 
January 2011, we found the Army's Contracted Manpower Reporting 
Application to have fewer limitations than the data source used by the 
rest of DOD for the Inventory of Contracted Services. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-192]. We are presenting the Army's 
estimates of its contractor full-time equivalents for the purposes of 
comparison against authorized military and civilian positions. Because 
the data supporting the Army's estimates were not used to support 
findings, conclusions, or recommendations, we did not assess their 
reliability. 

[38] Due to changes in personnel management systems, neither the 
Marine Corps nor the Navy were able to provide data on authorized 
positions prior to fiscal year 2005. 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-439]. 

[40] Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 904 (2013). 

[41] See Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 
1986, Pub. L. No. 99-433 (1986). Although the act placed statutory 
limits on the Joint Staff's number of civilian and military personnel, 
Congress repealed these limits in 1991 to provide the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff with greater flexibility. Applicable limits to 
the civilian and military personnel in the military services' 
secretariats and staffs are codified at sections 3014, 5014, and 8014 
of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. As of fiscal year 2009, there are 
exceptions to the limitations on personnel in some circumstances. 

[42] See National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
106 § 901(d) (1996). Applicable limits to OSD's major DOD headquarters 
personnel are codified at 10 U.S.C. § 143. OSD's statutory limit 
includes its supporting activities and the Washington Headquarters 
Services, a support organization for OSD. 

[43] Unlike the military departments' statutes, the statute on OSD 
personnel limitations does not allow for a waiver from the limitation 
in time of war or during a national emergency declared by the 
President or Congress. 

[44] Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 1111 (2008), as amended, provided that for 
fiscal year 2009 and fiscal years thereafter, the baseline personnel 
limitations for each of these organizations shall not apply to (1) 
acquisition personnel hired pursuant to the expedited hiring authority 
provided in section 1705(h) of Title 10, U.S. Code, or otherwise hired 
with funds in the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 
Development Fund; or (2) personnel hired pursuant to a shortage 
category designation by the Secretary of Defense or the Director of 
the Office of Personnel Management. Further, the Secretary of Defense 
or a Secretary of a military department may adjust the baseline 
personnel limitations in sections 143, 3014, 5014 and 8014 of title 
10, U.S. Code, for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal years thereafter, to 
(1) fill a gap in the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense 
identified by the Secretary of Defense in a strategic human capital 
plan submitted to Congress in accordance with the requirements of 
section 115b of such title; or (2) accommodate increases in workload 
or modify the type of personnel required to accomplish work such as 
performance of inherently governmental functions, among other purposes. 

[45] See Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Requirements Report, 
Fiscal Year 2015 (June 2014). 

[46] Other functions within the Washington Headquarters Services, such 
as the maintenance and utility work provided to defense installations 
in the Washington, D.C., region, do not count as management 
headquarters activities and therefore are not counted against OSD's 
statutory limits. 

[47] 10 U.S.C. § 143(c). 

[48] DODI 5100.73 (Dec. 1, 2007). 

[49] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[50] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. 
L. No. 111-84, § 1109 (2009), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 115a, requires 
DOD to report major headquarters activities annually in the Defense 
Manpower Requirements Report. This annual report to Congress provides 
DOD's manpower requirements, to include those for military and 
civilians personnel, as reflected in the President's budget request 
for the current fiscal year. 

[51] Both Congress and department guidance call for attainment of a 
DOD workforce sufficiently sized and comprised of the appropriate mix 
of military, civilian, and contractor personnel necessary to carry out 
the mission of the department. See 10 U.S.C. §129a and DOD Directive 
1100.4 (Feb. 12, 2005). 

[52] We derived key elements of a personnel-requirements determination 
process from [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]; from 
DOD Directive 1100.4; and from workforce planning guidance for the 
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Practitioners' 
Guide, which was issued in 2005 by the Office of Personnel Management. 

[53] DOD officials from all but one of the headquarters organizations 
in our review stated that their personnel requirements do not change 
much from year to year from their existing baseline and that any 
changes in priorities or requirements are addressed by shifting 
personnel among internal offices or by offsetting additional personnel 
with a reduction from other components. 

[54] DODD 1100.4 (Feb. 12, 2005). 

[55] Army Regulation 570-4; Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 
Instruction 1000.16K; Air Force Instruction 38-201; and Marine Corps 
Order 5311.1D. 

[56] Air Force Instruction 38-201. 

[57] We derived key elements of a personnel requirements-determination 
process from [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]; from 
DOD Directive 1100.4; and from workforce planning guidance for the 
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Practitioners' 
Guide, which was issued in 2005 by the Office of Personnel Management. 

[58] The Joint Staff does not periodically reassess its personnel 
needs because there is no statutory requirement to periodically 
reassess personnel needs at joint components like the Joint Staff. In 
May 2013, we recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 
1001.01A, which applies to the Joint Staff, to require a 
comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the size and structure 
of the combatant commands meet assigned missions. However, the Joint 
Staff did not agree with this recommendation and does not expect to 
implement it unless directed to do so. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-293]. 

[59] Army Regulation 570-4. 

[60] Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum, Implementation Guidance 
for the Business Process and Systems Review (Aug 8, 2014). 

[61] Department of the Navy, Navy Shore Manpower Requirements 
Determination Final Report (revised July 17, 2013). 

[62] The Navy's shore personnel requirements, which include 
requirements for the Navy headquarters organizations within our 
review, are based on the mission, function, and task statement 
required of each Navy shore organization. This statement lays out: (1) 
the organization's mission, which is concise, unclassified general 
statements of what the organization is to accomplish; (2) the 
organization's functions, derived from the principal elements of the 
mission; and (3) the organization's tasks, derived from its mission 
and accomplished in connection with existing program policy directives 
or written tasking agreements. 

[63] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-293]. 

[64] In a previous report, we recommended that the department should 
revise the DOD Instruction on Major DOD Headquarters Activities to 
improve DOD's ability to identify how many headquarters personnel it 
has. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345]. 

[65] 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). 

[66] Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities (Dec. 1, 2007) (incorporating change 2, June 12, 2012) 
(hereinafter cited as DODI 5100.73 [Dec. 1, 2007]). 

[67] DOD has nine combatant commands with an assigned geographic 
region or assigned function. The six geographic commands have defined 
areas of operation, a distinct regional military focus, and provide 
unity of command over all the United States forces in a specific 
region. They are U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. 
European Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and 
U.S. Southern Command. 

[68] 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). 

[69] The three functional commands have unique capabilities and 
operate in support of DOD's worldwide military missions to meet 
evolving national security challenges. They are U.S. Special 
Operations Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Transportation 
Command. 

[70] GAO, Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach 
for Managing Resources Devoted to the Functional Combatant Commands, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-439] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 26, 2014). 

[71] DOD's Future Years Defense Program is the official document and 
database summarizing forces and resources associated with DOD 
programs. It is updated and published at least two times during an 
annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process to 
coincide with submission of recommendations from the services and 
defense agencies to the Secretary concerning how they plan to allocate 
resources to meet planning and programming guidance, budget estimate 
submissions, and the President's budget. 

[72] See H.R. Rep. No. 113-102 (June 7, 2013) accompanying H.R. 1960, 
a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014. 

[73] In addition to OSD, the Joint Staff, and the secretariats and 
staffs of the military departments, other headquarters organizations 
include portions of the defense agencies, DOD field activities, and 
the combatant commands, along with their subordinate unified commands 
and respective service component commands. 

[74] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). To identify strategic workforce 
planning principles, we reviewed our own guidance, reports, and 
testimonies on federal agencies' workforce planning and human-capital 
management efforts, and guidance available through the Internet and 
leading human-capital periodicals. We also met with officials from 
organizations with government-wide responsibilities for or expertise 
in workforce planning, such as the Office of Personnel Management and 
the National Academy of Public Administration, to identify additional 
guidance available and to obtain their recommendations of federal 
agencies engaged in effective workforce planning. We synthesized 
information from these meetings, reports, and guidance documents and 
our own experiences in human-capital management to derive key 
principles that appeared most important to effective strategic 
workforce planning. 

[75] Department of Defense Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower 
Management (Feb. 12, 2005) (hereinafter cited as DODD 1100.4 [Feb. 12, 
2005]). 

[76] Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Assessment and 
Accountability Framework Practitioners' Guide, (September 2005). 

[77] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[78] Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Requirements Report, 
Fiscal Year 2015 (June 2014). 

[79] 10 U.S.C. § 131. 

[80] 10 U.S C. §§ 151 and 155. 

[81] 10 U.S.C. § 3014. 

[82] 10 U.S.C. §§ 3031 and 3032. 

[83] In May 2013, we found that the data supporting the inventory of 
contracted services has several limitations, including the inability 
to identify more than one type of service in a contract or the number 
of contractor full-time equivalents, which limit its utility for 
purposes of compiling a complete and accurate inventory. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-491]. However, in 
January 2011 we found the Army's Contracted Manpower Reporting 
Application to have fewer limitations than the data source used by the 
rest of DOD for the inventory of contracted services. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-192]. Because the data the Army 
provided from its Contractor Manpower Reporting Application were not 
used to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations, we did 
not independently assess the its accuracy or reliability. Rather, we 
present the data in this appendix for purposes of comparison against 
authorized military and civilian positions. 

[84] 10 U.S.C. § 5014. 

[85] 10 U.S.C. §§ 5031 and 5032. 

[86] 10 U.S.C. §§ 5041 and 5042. 

[87] 10 U.S.C. § 8014. 

[88] 10 U.S.C. §§ 8031 and 8032. 

[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]