This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-170
entitled 'Military Personnel: Personnel and Cost Data Associated with
Implementing DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy' which was released on
January 20, 2011.
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 Honorable Susan A. Davis, House of Representatives:
January 2011:
Military Personnel:
Personnel and Cost Data Associated with Implementing DOD's Homosexual
Conduct Policy:
GAO-11-170:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-170, a report to the Honorable Susan A. Davis,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD)
separated over 13,000 active military servicemembers under its
homosexual conduct policy. These separations represent about 0.37
percent of the 3.6 million members separated for all reasons,
including expiration of terms of service and retirement. In 2005, GAO
reported on the number of separated servicemembers under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy who held critical skills and the costs
associated with administering the policy from fiscal years 1994
through 2003. GAO was asked to examine data from fiscal years 2004
through 2009 to determine (1) the extent to which the policy has
resulted in the separation of servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations and important foreign languages and (2) the services’
costs for certain activities associated with administering the policy.
GAO obtained and analyzed DOD personnel and cost data; examined DOD
regulations and policy documents; and conducted interviews with
officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, the Defense Manpower Data Center, and each of
the military services.
GAO provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD
did not have any comments on the report.
What GAO Found:
According to GAO’s analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data,
3,664 servicemembers were separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct
policy from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Of the 3,664 separations,
1,458 of these separated servicemembers held a critical occupation or
an important foreign language skill as determined by GAO and the
services. More specifically, 1,442 (39 percent) of the servicemembers
separated under the policy held critical occupations, such as
infantryman and security forces, while 23 (less than 1 percent) of the
servicemembers held skills in an important foreign language, such as
Arabic or Spanish. Seven separated servicemembers held both a critical
occupation and an important foreign language skill. However, the
number of separated servicemembers with critical occupations could be
an underestimation because of a number of factors. For example, the
Air Force provided the occupations eligible for enlistment bonuses
from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but could not provide this
information for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 because the Air Force’s
data were incomplete.
Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about
$193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009
dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated
under the homosexual conduct policy. This $193.3 million comprises
$185.6 million in replacement costs and $7.7 million in administrative
costs. The cost to recruit and train replacements amounted to about
$185.6 million. In calculating these costs, GAO included variable
costs, such as recruiting bonuses, and excluded fixed costs, such as
salaries and buildings, to the extent possible because according to
service officials there would likely be no significant increase in
fixed costs when recruiting and training a relatively small number of
replacement personnel. Each of the services tracks and maintains data
in different ways, which in some cases affected their ability to
provide GAO with only variable costs. For example, while the Army and
Air Force could disaggregate variable and fixed recruiting and
training costs, the Navy could not disaggregate variable and fixed
recruiting and training costs, and the Marine Corps could not
disaggregate variable and fixed training costs. To the extent that
recruiting and training cost data provided by the services contain
fixed costs, this is an overestimation of replacement costs.
Administrative costs amounted to about $7.7 million and include costs
associated with certain legal activities, such as board hearings, and
nonlegal activities, such as processing separation paperwork. The Air
Force, Army, and Marine Corps provided GAO with administrative cost
estimates; however, Navy officials explained that changes in
separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented
them from providing an accurate administrative cost estimate in time
for the data to be included in GAO’s analyses. Because the Navy did
not provide these data, GAO’s calculation is an underestimation of
DOD’s likely total administrative costs. Because of data limitations,
GAO was unable to determine the extent of the overestimation of the
replacement costs, the underestimation of the administrative costs, or
the resulting net impact on GAO’s total calculations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-170] or key
components. For more information, contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-
5257 or merrittz@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Some Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy Held
Skills in Critical Occupations or Important Foreign Languages:
Certain Costs Associated with Administering DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy Can Be Calculated:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: General Information on Separated Servicemembers:
Appendix III: Data on Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers
Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy:
Appendix IV: Information on Critical Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated under DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service, from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 2: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Critical
Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009:
Table 3: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Intelligence-
Related Critical Occupations Separated under the Homosexual Conduct
Policy, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 4: Examples of Critical Occupations of Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy across All Services from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 5: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Important Foreign
Language Skills Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 6: Languages Spoken by--and the Proficiency Levels of--
Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 7: Cost of Replacements for Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars
in Millions):
Table 8: Cost of Recruiting Replacements for Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009 (Dollars in Thousands):
Table 9: Cost of Training Replacements for Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009 (Dollars in Millions):
Table 10: Administrative Costs of Separating Servicemembers under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars
in Thousands):
Table 11: Legal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers under
the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
(Dollars in Thousands):
Table 12: Nonlegal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009 (Dollars in Thousands):
Table 13: Total Separations for All Reasons by Fiscal Year and Service
from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 14: Separation Reasons for Enlisted Servicemembers from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 15: Separation Reasons for Officers from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009:
Table 16: Separations of Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct, by Fiscal Year and Military Service, from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 17: Most Common Critical Occupations Held by Separated
Servicemembers, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 18: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Critical Occupations from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Table 19: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Who Held Skills in
Important Foreign Languages from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by Race from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Figure 2: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by Rank,
Gender, Length of Service, and Branch from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009:
Figure 3: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Critical Occupations from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Figure 4: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Important Foreign
Languages from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Figure 5: Services' Cost of Administering DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands):
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 20, 2011:
The Honorable Susan A. Davis:
House of Representatives:
Dear Ms. Davis:
In 1993, Congress enacted a law setting out the policy concerning
homosexuality in the armed forces.[Footnote 1] This statute states
that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a
propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an
unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and
discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military
capability." The law requires servicemembers to be separated from the
armed forces, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, if they meet certain criteria set forth in the law.[Footnote
2] From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense
(DOD) separated over 13,000 active duty military servicemembers under
the homosexual conduct policy. These separations represent
approximately 0.37 percent of the 3.6 million servicemembers separated
for all reasons during this period.[Footnote 3] (For more information
on total separations from fiscal years 2004 through 2009, see appendix
II.)
In 2005, we reported on the number of separated servicemembers who
held skills in critical occupations and important foreign languages at
the time of separation and the costs associated with administering
DOD's homosexual conduct policy for the period covering fiscal years
1994 through 2003.[Footnote 4] You asked us to examine data from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Specifically, this report provides
information on (1) the extent to which servicemembers with skills in
critical occupations and important foreign languages were separated
under the policy and (2) the services' costs for certain activities
associated with administering the policy (i.e., recruiting and
training replacements of separated servicemembers and administrative
processes associated with separating servicemembers).
In conducting this audit, we obtained data from the Defense Manpower
Data Center (DMDC)[Footnote 5] and each of the military services on
active duty separations under the homosexual conduct policy across all
of the service components--the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and
Navy--for the period covering fiscal years 2004 through 2009. We also
obtained the total number of Reserve and National Guard component
servicemembers separated under the policy during the same period of
time.[Footnote 6] (See appendix III.) However, we did not include
separated Reserve and National Guard servicemembers in our analysis
because according to DMDC, DOD only collects data on separations for
homosexual conduct for the active duty members of the Air Force, Army,
Marine Corps, and Navy.[Footnote 7] We determined that the data
provided by DOD and the services were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of presenting separations, personnel information for
separated servicemembers, and costs associated with administering the
homosexual conduct policy. These data were current as of November 30,
2010.
To determine the extent to which servicemembers with skills in
critical occupations and important foreign languages were separated
under DOD's homosexual conduct policy, we obtained data from DMDC on
the occupational specialties and foreign languages of the enlisted
servicemembers and officers separated under the policy. We interviewed
officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the offices within the services that are
responsible for managing occupational specialties, determining foreign
language requirements, and administering bonus programs to identify
critical occupations and important foreign languages. Based on these
discussions, we and the services determined for the purposes of this
report that an occupation was "critical" if a financial incentive was
provided under the enlistment, reenlistment, and retention bonus
programs or if it was included in service-specific critical
occupations lists.[Footnote 8] We also relied on the services to
designate the critical occupations that they considered to be
intelligence related. Through our interviews, we and the services
determined for the purposes of this report that a foreign language was
"important" if a financial incentive was provided under the foreign
language proficiency bonus program. Using these criteria, we analyzed
separation data to determine the number of servicemembers who held
critical occupations and were proficient in important foreign
languages at the time of their separation.
To calculate the costs associated with administering DOD's homosexual
conduct policy, we interviewed officials from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and offices within
the active services that are responsible for personnel policy,
recruitment and training budgets, servicemember pay and benefits,
separation processing, legal affairs, and discharge reviews to
identify the cost of recruiting and training through initial
occupational training of the replacements of servicemembers separated
under the policy and the administrative costs of processing the
separations of servicemembers under the policy. To determine
replacement costs, we obtained and analyzed recruiting and training
cost data from each of the services. To the extent possible, we used
variable costs and excluded fixed costs to calculate the services'
costs to recruit and train replacements because, given the magnitude
of DOD's overall forces, there would likely be no significant increase
in fixed costs (e.g., instructor salaries) when replacing a relatively
small number of personnel (i.e., approximately 400 to 700
servicemembers per year).[Footnote 9] We analyzed these data to
calculate the costs of recruiting and training through initial
occupational training for the replacements of servicemembers separated
under the policy. To the extent that recruiting and training cost data
provided by the services contain fixed costs, this would result in an
overestimation of replacement costs. To determine administrative
costs, we asked the military services to provide data on the key tasks
and personnel associated with the separation process, such as
paralegal work, attorneys' and pastoral counseling of servicemembers,
and commanders' inquiries. We analyzed data on these tasks and
personnel, along with military pay rates, to calculate the
administrative costs of processing the separations of servicemembers
separated under the policy. The Navy explained that it was not able to
provide this information because changes in separation processes from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials from providing
an accurate administrative cost estimate in time for the data to be
included in our analyses. Because the Navy was not able to provide
this information, our calculation is an underestimation of DOD's
likely total administrative costs. We were unable to determine the
extent of the overestimation of replacement costs, the underestimation
of administrative costs, or the resulting net impact on our
calculations.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 through January
2011 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. A detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
Background:
Homosexuality and the Military:
In November 1993, Congress enacted a law concerning homosexual conduct
in the armed forces and required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe
regulations to implement that policy.[Footnote 10] Following the
enactment of the law, DOD issued its implementing guidance, including
Department of Defense Instruction 1304.26, Qualification Standards for
Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction. Under that instruction,
applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be
asked or required to reveal their sexual orientation, nor shall they
be asked to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct,
unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant
engaged in such conduct or the applicant volunteers a statement that
he or she is homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect. This is
generally referred to as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In
exchange for the services' silence ("don't ask") about a person's
homosexuality prior to induction, gay and lesbian servicemembers, as a
condition of continued service, agree to silence ("don't tell") about
this aspect of their lives.
Separations for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
According to our analysis of DMDC data, 3,664 active duty
servicemembers were separated under the homosexual conduct policy from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009. (See table 1.) This figure represents
servicemembers who were on active duty at the time of their
separation, including members of the Reserve or National Guard
components of the military services who were on active duty for 31 or
more consecutive days before their dates of separation. These
servicemembers are included in the figure because according to DMDC, a
servicemember in the Reserves or National Guard who was separated
after at least 31 consecutive days of active duty service is
considered to be an active duty separation.
Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service, from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Air Force: 92;
Army: 325;
Marine Corps: 59;
Navy: 177;
Total: 653.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Air Force: 88;
Army: 386;
Marine Corps: 74;
Navy: 177;
Total: 725.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Air Force: 102;
Army: 280;
Marine Corps: 64;
Navy: 166;
Total: 612.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Air Force: 91;
Army: 302;
Marine Corps: 74;
Navy: 160;
Total: 627.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Air Force: 90;
Army: 286;
Marine Corps: 91;
Navy: 152;
Total: 619.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Air Force: 77;
Army: 195;
Marine Corps: 75;
Navy: 81;
Total: 428.
Fiscal year: Total;
Air Force: 540;
Army: 1,774;
Marine Corps: 437;
Navy: 913;
Total: 3,664.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 15;
Army: 48;
Marine Corps: 12;
Navy: 25;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
[End of table]
Of the 3,664 servicemembers separated from fiscal years 2004 through
2009, DOD granted "honorable" separations to 2,084 members (57
percent), "general (under honorable conditions)" separations to 369
servicemembers (10 percent), and "under other than honorable
conditions" separations to 95 servicemembers (3 percent).[Footnote 11]
DOD classified the separation of 2 servicemembers (less than 1
percent) as "bad conduct," which is a type of punitive separation
applicable to enlisted personnel only.[Footnote 12] DOD also granted
"uncharacterized" or entry-level separations to 1,037 servicemembers
(28 percent), and classified 77 separations (2 percent) as "unknown or
not applicable" for servicemembers separated under the policy.
The following figures present demographic breakdowns for separated
servicemembers. Figure 1 shows the percentage of servicemembers
separated under DOD's homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009 by race, and figure 2 shows other demographic information
for these servicemembers, including rank, length of service upon
separation, gender, and military branch.
Figure 1: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by Race from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart and subchart]
White (2,564): 70%;
African American (642): 18%;
Other (458) 13%:
- Multiracial (64): 2%;
- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (74): 2%;
- American Indian or Alaskan Native (97): 3%;
- Asian (102): 3%;
- Unknown (121)[A]: 3%.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Notes: Percentage may not equal 100 because of rounding.
[A] Data not available.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by Rank,
Gender, Length of Service, and Branch from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Rank:
98% (3,599) Enlisted;
2% (65) Officer.
Length of service:
17% (625) Less than 3 months;
11% (394) 3 to 6 months;
18% (657) 6 months to 1 year;
19% (706) 1 to 2 years;
35% (1,282) 2 years or more.
Gender:
66% (2,422) Male;
34% (1,242) Female.
Branch:
15% (540) Air Force;
48% (1,774) Army;
12% (437) Marine Corps;
25% (913) Navy.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
[End of figure]
Differences between the Current and Previous GAO Report:
In 2005, we reported on the number of servicemembers separated under
the policy who held skills in critical occupations and important
foreign languages and the costs of recruiting and training
replacements for servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct
policy for the period covering fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year
2003.[Footnote 13] However, the information in the 2005 report cannot
be compared to the information in this report for two reasons. First,
for this report, we asked the services to provide the most current and
complete guidance to help us determine criteria for describing
critical occupations and important foreign languages. The services
provided enlistment bonus lists, critical skills retention bonus
lists, service-specific critical occupations lists, and foreign
language proficiency bonus lists. We have added these criteria in
order to provide a more comprehensive picture of how the services
described critical occupations and important foreign languages from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Second, in 2005, the services were
unable to provide us with the training costs of Marine Corps
personnel,[Footnote 14] the training costs of the medical
professionals for each of the services, and the recruiting and
training costs of each service's officers. For the current report, the
Marine Corps provided data on the cost to train its personnel; the
services provided data on the cost to train medical professionals; and
the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps provided data on the cost of
recruiting officers. The Army was not able to provide data on the cost
of officer recruiting in time for the data to be included in our
analyses. The Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps provided data on the
cost of training officers. However, we did not include the cost of
training Navy officers because the Navy provided data that were not
specific to the occupational specialties of the separated officers. In
order to be consistent with our methodology of calculating training
cost calculations that are specific to the occupational specialties of
separated servicemembers, we did not include the incomplete Navy data.
In addition, in 2005, DOD was not able to provide us with information
on the administrative costs of separating servicemembers under the
homosexual conduct policy. For the current report, the Air Force, the
Army, and the Marine Corps provided us with this information. The Navy
explained that it was not able to provide this information because
changes in separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009
prevented Navy officials from providing an accurate administrative
cost estimate in time for the data to be included in our analyses. The
analyses in this report were current as of November 30, 2010. As a
result, the personnel and cost data provided in the 2005 report are
not comparable to the information provided in this report.
Some Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy Held
Skills in Critical Occupations or Important Foreign Languages:
Based on our analysis of DMDC data, 3,664 servicemembers were
separated under the homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009, and based on our analysis of information provided by the
services, 1,458 (40 percent) of these servicemembers held skills in a
critical occupation, an important foreign language, or both, as
determined by us and the services. Servicemembers with critical
occupations and important foreign language skills are not necessarily
mutually exclusive groups because some critical occupations, such as
cryptologic linguists and interrogators, require an important foreign
language skill. According to our analysis, 7 servicemembers held a
critical occupation and also held an important foreign language skill.
Data on Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy
Who Held Skills in Critical Occupations:
Based on our analysis of DMDC data, of the 3,664 servicemembers who
were discharged under the homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years
2004 through 2009, 1,442 (39 percent) of them held skills in critical
occupations. Based on interviews with service officials, we and the
services determined for the purposes of this report that an occupation
was "critical" if it received a bonus under DOD's Enlistment Bonus
program,[Footnote 15] Accession Bonus for New Officers in Critical
Skills program, Selective Reenlistment Bonus program, or Critical
Skills Retention Bonus program.[Footnote 16] These bonus programs
provide monetary incentives to individuals to help the services
maintain adequate numbers of personnel in designated critical
occupations. We also used service-specific critical occupations lists
to determine critical occupations, such as the Air Force Stressed
Career Fields List,[Footnote 17] the Marine Top Ten Critical
Occupations List, and the list of occupations deemed critical under
the Marine 202K Sustainment Plan.[Footnote 18] Table 2 shows, by
service, a breakdown of the 1,442 servicemembers who held critical
occupations and were separated from fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
Table 2: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Critical
Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Air Force: 9;
Army: 152;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 10;
Total: 171.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Air Force: 7;
Army: 232;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 33;
Total: 272.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Air Force: 12;
Army: 184;
Marine Corps: 1;
Navy: 16;
Total: 213.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Air Force: 9;
Army: 218;
Marine Corps: 28;
Navy: 24;
Total: 279.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Air Force: 39;
Army: 231;
Marine Corps: 26;
Navy: 27;
Total: 323.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Air Force: 25;
Army: 121;
Marine Corps: 29;
Navy: 9;
Total: 184.
Fiscal year: Total;
Air Force: 101;
Army: 1,138;
Marine Corps: 84;
Navy: 119;
Total: 1,442.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 7;
Army: 79;
Marine Corps: 6;
Navy: 8;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
[End of table]
The reported number of separated Navy and Air Force servicemembers who
held skills in critical occupations could be an underestimation. The
Navy was not able to provide the information necessary to determine
whether separated Navy servicemembers held occupations on the
enlistment bonus lists because of the manner in which the Navy assigns
occupational specialties to its recruits. Also, while the Navy does
offer accession bonuses to new officers, Navy officials could not
determine which bonuses were offered during the fiscal years of our
study. Thus, we could not include any Navy occupations that were
eligible for Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills.
While the Air Force was able to provide the occupational specialties
eligible for enlistment bonuses from fiscal years 2006 through 2009,
it was unable to provide the occupational specialties eligible for
enlistment bonuses in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 because Air Force
data were incomplete.
Of the total population separated under the policy, 625 servicemembers
(17 percent) were separated with less than 3 months of military
service, 394 servicemembers (11 percent) were separated within 3 to 6
months of military service, 657 servicemembers (18 percent) were
separated within 6 months to 1 year of military service, 706
servicemembers (19 percent) were separated within 1 to 2 years of
military service, and 1,282 servicemembers (35 percent) were separated
with 2 years or more of military service. We analyzed the lengths of
service for the 1,442 servicemembers separated under the homosexual
conduct policy who held skills in critical occupations from fiscal
years 2004 through 2009. Figure 3 shows the amount of time served
prior to separation by servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations. (For more detailed information on the length of service
of servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy who
held skills in critical occupations, see table 18 in appendix IV.)
Figure 3: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Critical Occupations from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Separated with less than 3 months of military service: 20% (288);
Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service: 10% (145);
Separated within 6 months to 1 year of military service: 17% (248);
Separated within 1 to 2 years of military service: 20% (289);
Separated with 2 years or more of military service: 33% (472).
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
[End of figure]
Of the 1,442 separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations, 148 (10 percent) of them held skills in intelligence-
related critical occupations. The services reviewed the critical
occupations held by the servicemembers separated under the homosexual
conduct policy and designated the critical occupations that they
deemed to be intelligence related. Examples of intelligence-related
critical occupations include human intelligence collector, cryptologic
technician (interpretive), intelligence specialist, and airborne
cryptologic language analyst. Table 3 shows a breakdown, by service,
of the 148 separated servicemembers who held intelligence-related
critical occupations during the 6-year period.
Table 3: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Intelligence-
Related Critical Occupations Separated under the Homosexual Conduct
Policy, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Service: Air Force;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations: 101;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in intelligence-
related critical occupations: 33;
Percentage of separated servicemembers in critical occupations that
are intelligence related: 33.
Service: Army;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations: 1,138;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in intelligence-
related critical occupations: 105;
Percentage of separated servicemembers in critical occupations that
are intelligence related: 9.
Service: Marine Corps;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations: 84;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in intelligence-
related critical occupations: 4;
Percentage of separated servicemembers in critical occupations that
are intelligence related: 5.
Service: Navy;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations: 119;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in intelligence-
related critical occupations: 6;
Percentage of separated servicemembers in critical occupations that
are intelligence related: 5.
Service: Total;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations: 1,442;
Number of separated servicemembers who held skills in intelligence-
related critical occupations: 148;
Percentage of separated servicemembers in critical occupations that
are intelligence related: 10.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
[End of table]
Of those separated who held skills in critical occupations, 1,425 were
enlisted servicemembers and 17 were officers. Separated servicemembers
with critical occupations served an average of 22 months, which is
about 26 months less than the typical initial service contract of most
enlistees and the typical officer-commissioning contract.[Footnote 19]
As shown in table 4, the most common critical occupations held by
separated servicemembers across all services were infantryman and
military police. (See table 17 in appendix IV for a more detailed
list, by service, of the most common occupations held by separated
servicemembers.)
Table 4: Examples of Critical Occupations of Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy across All Services from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Critical occupations: Infantryman;
Number of separated servicemembers: 190;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 13.
Critical occupations: Military police;
Number of separated servicemembers: 120;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 8.
Critical occupations: Motor transport operator;
Number of separated servicemembers: 114;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 8.
Critical occupations: Mental health specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 69;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 5.
Critical occupations: Food service specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 68;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 5.
Critical occupations: Health care specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 59;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 4.
Critical occupations: Unit supply specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 51;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 4.
Critical occupations: Nuclear field (electronics technician,
machinist's mate, and electrician's mate);
Number of separated servicemembers: 36;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 3.
Critical occupations: Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 34;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 2.
Critical occupations: Petroleum supply specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 32;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 2.
Critical occupations: Signal support system specialist;
Number of separated servicemembers: 32;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 2.
Critical occupations: Other;
Number of separated servicemembers: 637;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 44.
Critical occupations: Total;
Number of separated servicemembers: 1,442;
Percentage of total separated servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
[End of table]
Data on Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy
Who Held Important Foreign Language Skills:
Based on our analysis of DMDC data, of the 3,664 servicemembers
separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal years 2004 through 2009,
23 (less than 1 percent) of them held skills in an important foreign
language. Based on interviews, we and the services determined for the
purposes of this report that a language was "important" if a financial
incentive was provided under the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus
(FLPB) program. This bonus program provides incentives for the
acquisition, maintenance, and enhancement of foreign language skills
at a particular proficiency level. The FLPB is used to increase
strategic language capability throughout DOD by (1) encouraging
servicemembers with foreign language proficiency to self-identify and
sustain proficiency; (2) providing servicemembers an incentive to
acquire foreign language skills, improve foreign language skills, or
both; (3) providing servicemembers whose military specialty requires a
foreign language with an incentive to expand their proficiency to
other foreign languages and dialects; and (4) creating a cadre of
language professionals operating at the highest levels of proficiency.
Table 5 shows a breakdown across all services of the 23 servicemembers
who held important foreign language skills and were separated under
the homosexual conduct policy during the 6-year period.
Table 5: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Important Foreign
Language Skills Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Air Force: 1;
Army: 2;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 2;
Total: 5.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 2;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 4;
Total: 6.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 1;
Marine Corps: 1;
Navy: 1;
Total: 3.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 1;
Marine Corps: 1;
Navy: 5;
Total: 7.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 1;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 1;
Total: 2.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 0;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 0;
Total: 0.
Fiscal year: Total;
Air Force: 1;
Army: 7;
Marine Corps: 2;
Navy: 13;
Total: 23.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 4;
Army: 30;
Marine Corps: 9;
Navy: 57;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
[End of table]
Of the 23 servicemembers separated who held skills in an important
foreign language, 22 were enlisted servicemembers and 1 was an
officer. Separated servicemembers with an important foreign language
skill served an average of 26 months, which is about 22 months less
than the typical initial service contract of most enlistees and the
typical officer-commissioning contract. To assess listening, reading,
and speaking proficiencies, DOD uses an 11-point scale that represents
the degree of competence in the language in which a member possesses
the highest proficiency. The scale includes numeric values of 00 (no
proficiency), 06 (memorized proficiency), 10 (elementary proficiency),
16 (elementary proficiency plus), 20 (limited working proficiency), 26
(limited working proficiency plus), 30 (general professional
proficiency), 36 (general professional proficiency plus), 40 (advanced
professional proficiency), 46 (advanced professional proficiency
plus), and 50 (functionally native proficiency). To receive the FLPB,
servicemembers must attain a minimum of 20/20 or higher on the scale
in any two modalities (listening, reading, or speaking). As shown in
table 6, the most common important language skills held by separated
servicemembers were Arabic and Spanish.
Table 6: Languages Spoken by--and the Proficiency Levels of--
Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004:
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Air Force;
Important foreign language: Russian;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Arabic;
Listening proficiency: 26;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Korean;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Korean;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 26.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Chinese (Mandarin);
Listening proficiency: 26;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Fiscal year: 2005:
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Polish;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 50;
Reading proficiency[A]: 50.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 26.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 50;
Reading proficiency[A]: 50.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Fiscal year: 2006:
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Arabic;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 26.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Haitian-Creole;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Marine Corps;
Important foreign language: Lithuanian;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Fiscal year: 2007:
Rank: Officer;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Vietnamese;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Arabic;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 30.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 26.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Arabic;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 26.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Spanish;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Marine Corps;
Important foreign language: Tagalog;
Listening proficiency: 30;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Fiscal year: 2008:
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Army;
Important foreign language: Tagalog;
Listening proficiency: 26;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Rank: Enlisted;
Service: Navy;
Important foreign language: Serbian;
Listening proficiency: 20;
Reading proficiency[A]: 20.
Fiscal year: 2009:
According to our analysis, no servicemembers separated under the
policy in fiscal year 2009 held an important foreign language skill.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
[A] Speaking proficiency scores were not provided by DMDC for
separated servicemembers who held skills in important foreign
languages.
[End of table]
Of the total population separated under the policy, 625 servicemembers
(17 percent) were separated with less than 3 months of military
service, 394 servicemembers (11 percent) were separated within 3 to 6
months of military service, 657 servicemembers (18 percent) were
separated within 6 months to 1 year of military service, 706
servicemembers (19 percent) were separated within 1 to 2 years of
military service, and 1,282 servicemembers (35 percent) were separated
with 2 years or more of military service. We analyzed the lengths of
service for the 23 servicemembers separated under the homosexual
conduct policy who held skills in important foreign languages from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Figure 4 shows the amount of time
served prior to separation by servicemembers who held skills in
important foreign languages. (For more detailed information on the
length of service of servicemembers separated under the homosexual
conduct policy who held skills in important foreign languages, see
table 19 in appendix IV.)
Figure 4: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Important Foreign
Languages from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service: 9% (2);
Separated within 6 months to 1 year of military service: 26% (6);
Separated within 1 to 2 years of military service: 17% (4);
Separated with 2 years or more of military service: 48% (11).
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Note: According to our analysis, no servicemembers who held skills in
important foreign languages were separated under the policy with less
than 3 months of military service.
[End of figure]
Certain Costs Associated with Administering DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy Can Be Calculated:
Using available DOD cost data, we calculated that it cost DOD
approximately $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant
fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009. This figure represents about $185.6
million in recruiting and training costs for replacing servicemembers
separated under the policy and about $7.7 million in certain
administrative costs for which we were able to obtain data. (See
figure 5 for the services' cost of administering DOD's homosexual
conduct policy.) In calculating the services' costs to recruit and
train replacements, we used variable costs and excluded fixed costs to
the extent possible because, according to service officials, there
would likely be no significant increase in fixed costs when recruiting
and training a relatively small number of replacement personnel. For
example, in fiscal year 2009, the Army separated 195 servicemembers
under the homosexual conduct policy. This means that in fiscal year
2009, the Army would have needed to recruit 195 replacements. In that
same year, the Army recruited about 70,000 soldiers. Thus, in order to
replace the 195 separated servicemembers in fiscal year 2009, the Army
would have needed to recruit .003 percent more soldiers than it would
have otherwise recruited. According to Army officials, because this
.003 percent of additional recruiting represents such a small portion
of total recruiting, there would likely be no need to increase
recruiting infrastructure or hire more recruiting personnel. Because
the services do not use "fixed costs" and "variable costs" as
categories in their recruiting and training budgets, we provided each
service with a common set of criteria to define these terms, and asked
each service to determine the fixed and variable components of their
cost data and provide us with variable costs. However, each of the
services tracks and maintains data in different ways, which in some
cases affected their ability to provide us with only variable costs.
For example, while the Army and Air Force were able to provide us with
variable recruiting and training costs, the Navy was not able to
provide variable recruiting and training costs, and the Marine Corps
was not able to provide variable training costs. In these cases, Navy
and Marine Corps officials explained that they were not able to
provide data with only variable costs because of the way their
services track these data. While the Navy and Marine Corps track the
total budgets of recruiting and training commands and individual
courses, they do not track individual cost elements of these totals.
For this reason, they were not able to determine the fixed and
variable components of their cost data. To the extent that recruiting
and training cost data provided by the services contain fixed costs,
this would result in an overestimation of replacement costs. To
calculate the administrative cost of carrying out separations, we
asked the services to identify the legal and nonlegal processes
associated with the separation process and requested data on personnel
involved in carrying out these tasks. Using these data and military
pay rates, we calculated administrative costs. While the Air Force,
Army, and Marine Corps provided us with this information, the Navy did
not provide data on the legal and nonlegal processes associated with
carrying out separations. The Navy explained that it was not able to
provide this information because changes in separation processes from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials from providing
an accurate administrative cost estimate in time for the data to be
included in our analyses. Because the Navy did not provide data on
administrative costs, our calculation of these costs is an
underestimation of DOD's likely total administrative costs.
Figure 5: Services' Cost of Administering DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Service: Air Force[A];
Administrative cost: 3% ($634,600);
Combined replacement cost: 97% ($19,382,200).
Service: Army;
Administrative cost: 14% ($6,490,400);
Recruiting cost: 23% ($10,502,300);
Training cost: 64% ($28,901,200).
Service: Marine Corps;
Administrative cost: 3% ($580,100);
Recruiting cost: 3% ($668,600);
Training cost: 94% ($21,290,500).
Service: Navy[B];
Recruiting cost: 13% ($14,056,900);
Training cost: 87% ($90,813,700).
Source: GAO analysis of military service and Office of the Secretary
of Defense data.
[A] The Air Force provided a single cost that included recruiting and
training costs combined.
[B] The Navy explained that it was not able to provide this
information because changes in separation processes from fiscal years
2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials from providing an accurate
administrative cost estimate in time for the data to be included in
our analyses.
[End of figure]
Cost to Recruit and Train Replacements for Separations under the
Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
All of the services were able to provide data related to the cost to
recruit and train servicemembers. Based on these data, we calculated
that it cost DOD about $185.6 million in constant fiscal year 2009
dollars to recruit and train replacements for the 3,664 servicemembers
separated under the homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009.[Footnote 20] Our calculation includes the cost to the
services to recruit a new servicemember, provide him or her with basic
training, and graduate the servicemember from initial skills training
in the occupational specialty in which a servicemember had been
separated. Our calculation of replacement costs concludes with the end
of initial skills training because, according to each of the military
services, this is the point in a servicemember's career at which he or
she is considered minimally qualified to perform required tasks within
a separated servicemember's occupational specialty. To the extent
possible, we included variable recruiting and training costs in our
calculations, such as recruiting bonuses and consumable supplies used
by trainees, and excluded fixed costs, such as the cost of recruiting
and training infrastructure or recruiter and instructor salaries.
[Footnote 21] This approach was taken because there would likely be no
significant increase in fixed costs when recruiting and training a
relatively small number of replacement personnel. As shown in table 7,
our calculations for the services' replacement costs amount to about
$19.4 million for the Air Force, $39.4 million for the Army, $22.0
million for the Marine Corps, and $104.9 million for the Navy. The
Navy recruiting and training cost calculation is larger than the other
services' calculations because according to Navy officials, the Navy
recruiting and training cost data contain both fixed and variable
costs.
Table 7: Cost of Replacements for Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Air Force[A]: $2.9 million;
Army: $6.2 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $2.7 million;
Navy[C]: $20.1 million;
Total: $31.9 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Air Force[A]: $3.0 million;
Army: $7.4 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $3.1 million;
Navy[C]: $20.3 million;
Total: $33.8 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Air Force[A]: $3.6 million;
Army: $5.9 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $3.3 million;
Navy[C]: $19.0 million;
Total: $31.8 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Air Force[A]: $3.7 million;
Army: $7.1 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $4.0 million;
Navy[C]: $18.8 million;
Total: $33.6 million.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Air Force[A]: $3.3 million;
Army: $7.3 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $5.1 million;
Navy[C]: $17.3 million;
Total: $33.0 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Air Force[A]: $2.8 million;
Army: $5.5 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $3.8 million;
Navy[C]: $9.4 million;
Total: $21.5 million.
Fiscal year: Total[D];
Air Force[A]: $19.4 million;
Army: $39.4 million;
Marine Corps[B]: $22.0 million;
Navy[C]: $104.9 million;
Total: $185.6 million.
Fiscal year: Number of separated servicemembers;
Air Force[A]: 540;
Army: 1,774;
Marine Corps[B]: 437;
Navy[C]: 913;
Total: 3,664.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total;
Air Force[A]: 10%;
Army: 21%;
Marine Corps[B]: 12%;
Navy[C]: 56%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[A] While the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy were able to provide
separate costs for recruiting and training, the Air Force provided an
aggregated cost for recruiting and training that did not separate
those costs. Using combined recruiting and training data from the Air
Force, we calculated that over the 6-year period, the Air Force's
replacement costs were about $19.4 million in constant fiscal year
2009 dollars.
[B] Marine Corps officials noted that their recruiting cost data
consist of variable costs, while their training cost data consist of
both fixed and variable costs. The Marine Corps tracks the total
budget of training commands and individual courses but does not track
individual cost elements of these totals. For this reason, Marine
Corps officials were not able to determine the fixed and variable
components of their training cost data.
[C] According to service officials, the recruiting and training cost
data provided by the Navy include both fixed and variable costs, while
the recruiting and training cost data provided by the Air Force and
Army consist of variable costs.
[D] Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of
rounding.
[End of table]
The services were able to provide data related to the cost to recruit
replacement servicemembers. We calculated that from fiscal year 2004
through 2009, it cost DOD about $25.2 million in constant fiscal year
2009 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers separated
under the homosexual conduct policy. This calculation represents about
14 percent of the total calculated replacement cost associated with
separating servicemembers under DOD's homosexual conduct policy.
Recruiting costs include, but are not limited to, the costs associated
with enlistment bonuses; recruit travel; and recruiting support, such
as the processing of a recruit's paperwork. As shown in table 8, the
Navy's cost to recruit replacements was the largest among the services
because, according to Navy officials, the Navy included both fixed and
variable costs in its recruiting estimates. According to Army and
Marine Corps officials, the recruiting cost data provided by the Army
and Marine Corps consist of variable costs. In addition, while the Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps provided data on the cost of recruiting
officers, the Army was not able to provide data on the cost of
recruiting officers in time for the data to be included in our
analyses. The Air Force could not provide disaggregated recruiting and
training costs and instead provided a replacement cost estimate that
combines variable recruiting and training costs.
Table 8: Cost of Recruiting Replacements for Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Army: $1,455,700;
Marine Corps[A]: $61,700;
Navy: $2,736,400;
Total: $4,253,800.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Army: $1,447,400;
Marine Corps[A]: $77,300;
Navy: $2,717,900;
Total: $4,242,600.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Army: $1,415,200;
Marine Corps[A]: $67,700;
Navy: $2,547,900;
Total: $4,030,800.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Army: $1,931,100;
Marine Corps[A]: $64,500;
Navy: $2,474,600;
Total: $4,470,300.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Army: $2,213,500;
Marine Corps[A]: $191,100;
Navy: $2,344,200;
Total: $4,748,800.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Army: $2,039,400;
Marine Corps[A]: $206,300;
Navy: $1,235,900;
Total: $3,481,600.
Fiscal year: Total[B];
Army: $10,502,300;
Marine Corps[A]: $668,600;
Navy: $14,056,900;
Total: $25,227,800.
Fiscal year: Number of separated servicemembers;
Army: 1,774;
Marine Corps[A]: 437;
Navy: 913;
Total: 3,124.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total;
Army: 42%;
Marine Corps[A]: 3%;
Navy: 56%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[A] The Marine Corps classified enlistment bonuses and college funds
as fixed costs, whereas the Army classified enlistment bonuses and
college funds as variable costs. In our calculations, we consider
enlistment bonuses and college funds to be variable costs for both
services.
[B] Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of
rounding.
[End of table]
The services were able to provide data related to the cost to train
replacement servicemembers through initial occupational training. We
calculated that from fiscal year 2004 through 2009, it cost DOD about
$141.0 million in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to train
replacements for servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct
policy. This calculation represents about 76 percent of the total
calculated replacement cost associated with separating servicemembers
under DOD's homosexual conduct policy. Costs associated with basic
training and initial skills training include, but are not limited to,
clothing and equipment, supplies, student travel, administration of
courses of instruction, replacement servicemembers' salaries and
benefits during training, and overhead costs associated with training
centers.
As shown in table 9, there is variation in the size of our
calculations of the services' cost to train replacement
servicemembers. For example, the Navy's cost to train replacements was
the largest among the services because the Navy included both fixed
and variable costs in its training estimates. Although the Marine
Corps included fixed and variable costs in its training estimates, the
Navy separated over twice as many servicemembers as the Marine Corps.
Moreover, according to the Marine Corps, a significant proportion of
its servicemembers' training is carried out by other services.
However, the Marine Corps does not track the cost of training it
receives from the other services and therefore could not provide us
with comprehensive data on the cost to train Marine Corps personnel.
Marine Corps officials explained that the other services that train
Marine Corps servicemembers may contribute up to 60 percent of the
total cost of training in the occupational specialties held by Marine
Corps servicemembers separated under the policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009. As can be seen in table 9, the Air Force is not included
because it could not provide disaggregated recruiting and training
costs and instead provided a replacement cost estimate that combines
variable recruiting and training costs. While the Army, Air Force, and
Marine Corps provided data on the cost of training officers, we did
not include the cost of training Navy officers because the Navy
provided data that were not specific to the occupational specialties
of the separated officers. In order to be consistent with our
methodology of calculating training cost calculations that are
specific to the occupational specialties of separated servicemembers,
we did not include the incomplete Navy data.
Table 9: Cost of Training Replacements for Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Army: $4.8 million;
Marine Corps: $2.6 million;
Navy: $17.3 million;
Total: $24.8 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Army: $5.9 million;
Marine Corps: $3.1 million;
Navy: $17.6 million;
Total: $26.5 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Army: $4.4 million;
Marine Corps: $3.2 million;
Navy: $16.5 million;
Total: $24.1 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Army: $5.1 million;
Marine Corps: $4.0 million;
Navy: $16.3 million;
Total: $25.4 million.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Army: $5.1 million;
Marine Corps: $4.9 million;
Navy: $15.0 million;
Total: $25.0 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Army: $3.5 million;
Marine Corps: $3.6 million;
Navy: $8.1 million;
Total: $15.2 million.
Fiscal year: Total[A];
Army: $28.9 million;
Marine Corps: $21.3 million;
Navy: $90.8 million;
Total: $141.0 million.
Fiscal year: Number of separated servicemembers;
Army: 1,774;
Marine Corps: 437;
Navy: 913;
Total: 3,124.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total;
Army: 20;
Marine Corps: 15;
Navy: 64;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Notes: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[A] Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of
rounding.
[End of table]
To the extent that recruiting and training cost data provided by the
services contain fixed costs, this would result in an overestimation
of replacement costs. However, we were not able to determine the
extent of the replacement cost overestimation.
Administrative Costs Could Be Estimated from Data Provided by Three of
the Services:
The Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps were able to provide estimates
on the administrative costs associated with separating servicemembers
under DOD's homosexual conduct policy. The Navy explained that it was
not able to provide this information because changes in separation
processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials
from providing an accurate administrative cost estimate in time for
the data to be included in our analyses. Using the estimates of the
Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps, we calculated that from fiscal
years 2004 through 2009, it cost DOD about $7.7 million in constant
fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate 2,751 servicemembers from the
three services under DOD's homosexual conduct policy[Footnote 22]. As
shown in table 10, our calculation of the services' administrative
costs for implementing the homosexual conduct policy includes two
types of costs: legal and nonlegal. Legal administrative costs
amounted to about $2.5 million (33 percent) of the total
administrative cost, while nonlegal administrative costs amounted to
about $5.2 million (67 percent) of the total administrative cost.
Table 10: Administrative Costs of Separating Servicemembers under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Case category: Legal;
Air Force: $228,500;
Army[A]: $2,108,600;
Marine Corps: $181,700;
Total: $2,518,900.
Case category: Nonlegal;
Air Force: $406,100;
Army[A]: $4,381,800;
Marine Corps: $398,300;
Total: $5,186,200.
Case category: Total[B];
Air Force: $634,600;
Army[A]: $6,490,400;
Marine Corps: $580,100;
Total: $7,705,100.
Case category: Number of separated servicemembers;
Air Force: 540;
Army[A]: 1,774;
Marine Corps: 437;
Total: 2,751.
Case category: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 8%;
Army[A]: 84%;
Marine Corps: 8%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[A] Administrative costs for the Army are larger because the Army
identified a larger number of administrative processes for separating
servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy than the other two
services. Because Army officials reported a greater number of tasks
and more time processing cases, the Army's administrative costs are
higher than those of the other two services. In addition, the Army
separated more servicemembers than the other two services, which would
result in a higher total administrative cost.
[B] Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of
rounding.
[End of table]
Legal administrative costs involve the costs associated with the
services' review of homosexual conduct cases. According to the
services, the legal costs include paralegal work, attorneys'
counseling of servicemembers, and board hearings. With the exception
of the Navy, the services were able to identify approximately 3,700
cases associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy from fiscal
years 2004 through 2009. These cases include board cases (cases in
which a service board and legal officials reviewed a case),[Footnote
23] nonboard cases (cases in which legal officials reviewed a case,
but it was not reviewed by a service board), and unsubstantiated cases
(cases in which legal officials reviewed a case, but the case did not
result in a separation).[Footnote 24] Table 11 shows the legal
administrative costs by military service and types of cases for the 6-
year period.
Table 11: Legal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers under
the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Type of case[A]: Board cases;
Air Force: $30,500;
Army[B]: $436,000;
Marine Corps: $12,000;
Total: $478,500.
Type of case[A]: Nonboard cases;
Air Force: $139,400;
Army[B]: $1,469,600;
Marine Corps: $111,100;
Total: $1,720,100.
Type of case[A]: Unsubstantiated cases;
Air Force: $58,600;
Army[B]: $203,100;
Marine Corps: $58,600;
Total: $320,300.
Type of case[A]: Total[C];
Air Force: $228,500;
Army[B]: $2,108,600;
Marine Corps: $181,700;
Total: $2,518,900.
Type of case[A]: Number of separated servicemembers;
Air Force: 540;
Army[B]: 1,774;
Marine Corps: 437;
Total: 2,751.
Type of case[A]: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 9%;
Army[B]: 84%;
Marine Corps: 7%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[A] According to the services, a total of 3,695 cases were considered
from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Of these, 121 were board cases,
2,630 were nonboard cases, and 944 were unsubstantiated cases.
[B] Administrative costs for the Army are larger because the Army
identified a larger number of administrative processes for separating
servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy than the other two
services. Because Army officials reported a greater number of tasks
and more time processing cases, the Army's administrative costs are
higher than those of the other two services. In addition, the Army
separated more servicemembers than the other two services, which would
result in a higher total administrative cost.
[C] Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of
rounding.
[End of table]
According to the services, the nonlegal costs include commanders'
inquiries, pastoral counseling of servicemembers, and the processing
of separation paperwork. As shown in table 12, these activities occur
at successive levels of command within and outside of the
servicemember's unit.
Table 12: Nonlegal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009:
Level of command: Company or flight;
Air Force: $29,200;
Army[A]: $711,400;
Marine Corps[B]: $23,400;
Total: $764,000.
Level of command: Battalion or squadron, and above;
Air Force: $119,900;
Army[A]: $1,098,100;
Marine Corps[B]: $374,900;
Total: $1,592,900.
Level of command: Outside of servicemember's direct chain of command;
Air Force: $257,000;
Army[A]: $2,572,300;
Marine Corps[B]: No data;
Total: $2,829,300.
Level of command: Total;
Air Force: $406,100;
Army[A]: $4,381,800;
Marine Corps[B]: $398,300;
Total: $5,186,200.
Level of command: Number of separated servicemembers[C];
Air Force: 540;
Army[A]: 1,774;
Marine Corps[B]: 437;
Total: 2,751.
Level of command: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 8%;
Army[A]: 84%;
Marine Corps[B]: 8%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[A] Administrative costs for the Army are larger because the Army
identified a larger number of administrative processes for separating
servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy than the other two
services. Because Army officials reported a greater number of tasks
and more time processing cases, the Army's administrative costs are
higher than those of the other two services. In addition, the Army
separated more servicemembers than the other two services, which would
result in a higher total administrative cost.
[B] The Marine Corps did not report nonlegal administrative costs for
activities that occurred outside a servicemember's chain of command.
[C] According to the services, the number of nonlegal administrative
reviews and the number of separations are the same.
[End of table]
Because the Navy was not able to provide data on administrative costs
in time for the data to be included in our analyses, our calculation
of these costs is an underestimation of DOD's likely total
administrative costs. We were not able to determine the extent of the
administrative cost underestimation.
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD
did not have any comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. The report also is
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Zina D. Merritt:
Acting Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Scope:
In conducting our review of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
homosexual conduct policy, the scope of our work included active duty
separations under the homosexual conduct policy across all of the
service components--the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy--for
the period covering fiscal years 2004 through 2009. We also obtained
the total number of Reserve and National Guard servicemembers
separated under the policy during the same period of time.[Footnote
25] However, we did not include Reserve and National Guard
servicemembers in our analysis because according to the Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC), DOD only collects data on separations for
homosexual conduct for the active duty members of the Air Force, Army,
Marine Corps, and Navy. According to an official with DMDC, the
official tracking of separations for homosexual conduct began in 1997,
at which time it was decided to include only active duty
servicemembers. Data on servicemembers separated under DOD's
homosexual conduct policy were obtained from DMDC and each of the
military services and are current as of November 30, 2010.
Methodology:
To determine the extent to which servicemembers with skills in
critical occupations were separated under DOD's homosexual conduct
policy, we obtained data from DMDC on the occupational specialties
held by the servicemembers separated under the policy from fiscal
years 2004 through 2009. We interviewed officials from the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the
offices within the services that are responsible for managing
occupational specialties and administering bonus programs. Based on
interviews, we and the services determined for the purposes of this
report that an occupation was "critical" if a financial incentive was
provided under any of the enlistment, reenlistment, or retention bonus
programs under Department of Defense Instruction 1304.29.[Footnote 26]
This instruction prescribes procedures with regard to Enlistment
Bonuses (monetary incentives provided to individuals enlisting in a
military service for a period of time and, if applicable, in a
specific military skill experiencing critical shortages); Selective
Reenlistment Bonuses[Footnote 27] (monetary incentives provided to
individuals to maintain adequate numbers of enlisted personnel in
critical skills needed to sustain the career force); Critical Skills
Retention Bonuses (monetary incentives provided to individuals to
maintain adequate numbers of officers or enlisted personnel with
designated critical skills needed to sustain the career force); and
Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills (monetary
incentives to individuals who accept commissions or appointments as an
officer and serve on active duty in a military service in a skill the
service has designated a critical officer skill). However, the Navy
was not able to provide the information necessary to determine whether
separated Navy servicemembers held occupations on the enlistment bonus
lists because of the manner in which the Navy assigns occupational
specialties to its recruits. Also, while the Navy does offer accession
bonuses to new officers, Navy officials could not determine which
bonuses were offered under Department of Defense Instruction 1304.29
or during the fiscal years of our study. Thus, we could not include
any Navy occupations that were eligible for Accession Bonuses for New
Officers in Critical Skills. The reported number of separated Navy
servicemembers who held skills in critical occupations would be an
underestimation. While the Air Force was able to provide the
occupational specialties eligible for enlistment bonuses from fiscal
years 2006 through 2009, the Air Force was unable to provide the
occupational specialties eligible for enlistment bonuses in fiscal
years 2004 and 2005 because the Air Force's data were incomplete.
Thus, the reported number of separated Air Force servicemembers who
held skills in critical occupations would be underestimated. We used
the Army's Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists in lieu of the Army's
Enlistment Bonus lists because the Army noted that the occupations on
the Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists better represent the Army's
critical occupations for enlistment. We also included occupations
found on additional lists that the services used to describe critical
occupations for certain fiscal years during the period of our review,
including the Air Force Stressed Career Fields List (fiscal years 2008
and 2009), the Marine Top Ten Critical Occupations List (fiscal years
2004 through 2009), and the list of occupations deemed critical under
the Marine 202K Sustainment Plan (fiscal years 2007 through 2009). We
then compared the occupations of the separated servicemembers to our
lists of critical occupations, by fiscal year. To assess the number of
servicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct policy who
held skills in intelligence-related critical occupations, we asked the
services to analyze the critical occupations held by the
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy and
designate the critical occupations that the services deemed
intelligence related.
To determine the extent to which servicemembers with skills in
important foreign languages were separated under DOD's homosexual
conduct policy, we obtained data from DMDC on the foreign language
information (i.e., foreign language, proficiency score, date of
proficiency certification, and year of separation) of each enlisted
servicemember and officer separated under the policy during the period
of our review. We interviewed officials from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the offices
within the services that are responsible for determining foreign
language requirements and administering bonus programs. Based on
interviews, we and the services determined for the purposes of this
report that a language was "important" if a financial incentive was
provided under the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus (FLPB) program.
[Footnote 28] The FLPB provides a monetary incentive for the
acquisition, maintenance, and enhancement of foreign language skills
at or above proficiency levels required for occupational and
functional performance. The FLPB is used to increase strategic
language capability by (1) encouraging servicemembers with foreign
language proficiency to self-identify and sustain proficiency; (2)
providing servicemembers an incentive to acquire foreign language
skills, improve foreign language skills, or both; (3) providing
servicemembers whose military specialties require a foreign language
with an incentive to expand their proficiency to other foreign
languages and dialects; and (4) creating a cadre of language
professionals operating at the highest levels of proficiency. To
ensure that we considered the most comprehensive set of critical
languages skills for each service, we also used additional lists that
the services utilized to describe these language skills. Specifically,
from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2005, each of the services
used its own specific list to determine which languages would qualify
a servicemember to receive an FLPB. Subsequently, in January of fiscal
year 2006, the Defense Language Office published its first annual
Strategic Language List (SLL). In the SLL, DOD prioritizes languages
for which (1) DOD has current and projected requirements, (2) training
and testing will be provided, (3) incentives will be applied, and (4)
other resources will be allocated. The SLL does not preclude the
services from providing incentives for other languages for which they
may have requirements. Therefore, from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal
year 2009, each service created its own SLL based on both the DOD-wide
SLL and the service's specific language capabilities and requirements.
Since fiscal year 2006, the services have each used their own SLLs to
determine the languages for which their servicemembers would receive
FLPBs. To assess the number of servicemembers separated under DOD's
homosexual conduct policy who held an important foreign language
skill, we identified each servicemember with language skills,
determined whether the languages qualified for FLPB in the year of the
servicemember's separation, reviewed the servicemember's proficiency
scores in those languages to determine whether the servicemember met
the minimum requirements, and determined whether the servicemember's
annual proficiency certification was within 12 months of separation.
To calculate certain costs associated with administering DOD's
homosexual conduct policy, we determined both the cost of recruiting
and training through initial occupational training of the replacements
of separated servicemembers and the services' administrative costs
incurred when separating servicemembers under the policy. We
determined that a replacement cost methodology is the most appropriate
approach, and it allows us to produce the most accurate calculation
based on the nature of the data provided by the services. The
replacement cost methodology allows us to calculate the cost to the
services to recruit a new servicemember, provide him or her with basic
training, and graduate the servicemember from initial skills training
in the occupational specialty in which a servicemember had been
separated. Our calculation of replacement costs concludes with the end
of initial skills training since, according to each of the military
services, this is the point in a servicemember's career at which he or
she is considered minimally qualified to perform required tasks within
a separated servicemember's occupational specialty.[Footnote 29]
To calculate the recruiting and training costs associated with
replacing servicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct
policy, we collected recruiting and training cost data from the
services. To the extent possible, we used variable costs and excluded
fixed costs to calculate the services' costs to recruit and train
replacements.[Footnote 30] Because the services do not use "fixed
costs" and "variable costs" as categories in their recruiting and
training budgets, we provided each service with a common set of
criteria to define these terms and asked each service to determine the
fixed and variable components of its cost data. Each of the services
tracks and maintains data in different ways, which in some cases
affected their ability to provide us with only variable costs. In
regard to recruiting cost data, the Army and Marine Corps were able to
provide data that according to officials consist of only variable
costs.[Footnote 31] However, according to Navy officials, the Navy was
not able to fully disaggregate fixed and variable costs, and so our
Navy recruiting calculations include some fixed costs. The Army was
not able to provide data on the cost of officer recruiting in time for
the data to be included in our analyses. In regard to training cost
data, the Navy and Marine Corps were not able to fully disaggregate
fixed and variable costs. The Army and Air Force were able to provide
training data, according to officials, that consist of only variable
costs. To the extent that any data provided by the services contain
fixed costs, this would result in an overestimation of calculated
costs. However, we were not able to determine the exact extent of this
overestimation. We reviewed the methodology and data used by the
services to develop their cost estimate data for recruiting and
training, and determined that they were reliable for our purposes of
calculating replacement costs.
* Recruiting costs: To calculate the recruiting costs associated with
replacing servicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct
policy, we collected fiscal year data from the Army, Marine Corps, and
Navy for the average cost to recruit active duty enlisted
servicemembers and officers.[Footnote 32] We interviewed service
officials who are knowledgeable about their services' recruiting costs
and requested variable cost data for certain tasks involved in the
recruiting of servicemembers. The services' recruiting costs include,
but are not limited to, the costs associated with enlistment bonuses;
recruit travel; and recruiting support, such as the processing of a
recruit's paperwork. The Army provided data on the average variable
cost to recruit one enlisted servicemember in each fiscal year but did
not provide data on officer recruiting in time for the data to be
included in our analyses. Marine Corps officials explained that the
Marine Corps provided data on the average variable cost to recruit
enlisted servicemembers, as well as the average variable cost to
recruit officers in each fiscal year. According to Navy officials, the
Navy was not able to fully disaggregate fixed and variable costs, and
so our Navy recruiting calculations include some fixed costs. We
multiplied each of these averages by the number of separated
servicemembers for each service to calculate a fiscal year total.
Finally, we converted these fiscal year totals to fiscal year 2009
dollars and summed our calculations for each fiscal year within each
service. These figures represent the total cost of recruiting
replacements for separated servicemembers in the Army, Navy, and
Marine Corps. The Air Force provided recruiting costs as part of an
overall figure that includes both training and recruiting costs
[Footnote 33]. Using these overall figures, we followed the same
approach described above.
* Training cost: These costs include compensation costs and other
costs.
- Compensation costs: Using service-specific training course lengths
and DOD data on military compensation, we calculated the amount of pay
and benefits received by replacement servicemembers during training.
We interviewed service officials who are knowledgeable about their
services' compensation procedures and requested data on the amounts of
pay and benefits received by servicemembers. To calculate the cost of
compensation for one enlisted servicemember or officer in the Army,
Marine Corps, and Navy, we first multiplied fiscal year weekly
compensation data provided by the services by the standard number of
weeks spent in each service's basic training. The Navy provided fiscal
year compensation data for the entire length of basic training. For
occupational specialty training, we multiplied the weekly compensation
rate by the length of initial skills training for each relevant
occupation for all three of these services. To address occupations for
which data on training length were not available, we used averages for
the length of basic and initial skills training for that service's
separated occupations in that fiscal year. Next, we converted all
calculations into fiscal year 2009 dollars, and then summed our
calculations for each fiscal year within each service. These figures
represent the total compensation received during basic training and
occupational specialty training for separated servicemembers in each
service. The Air Force includes the value of pay and benefits provided
to servicemembers in its overall recruiting and training cost estimate.
- Other training costs: To calculate other training costs associated
with replacing servicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct
policy, we collected fiscal year data from the Army, Marine Corps,
[Footnote 34] and Navy for the costs to complete each service's basic
training program and the initial skills training of the specific
occupational specialties contained within each service's group of
separated servicemembers.[Footnote 35] We interviewed service
officials who are knowledgeable about their services' training
procedures and requested cost data for the training of servicemembers.
The costs associated with basic training and initial skills training
include, but are not limited to, clothing and equipment, supplies,
student travel, administration of courses of instruction, and overhead
associated with training centers. We determined the length of each
service's basic training and asked each service to provide the average
variable cost for basic training in the fiscal year a servicemember
was separated. We also asked the services to identify the average
length of each initial skills course and provide the average variable
cost for an individual servicemember to finish the initial skills
training for each relevant occupational specialty. According to data
provided by the services, the cost and length of training
servicemembers in different occupational specialties can vary widely.
By using training cost data that are specific to occupational
specialties of the separated servicemembers, we produced the most
accurate calculation possible, based on available data. To calculate
the cost of training, we multiplied the average basic and occupational
training costs by the number of servicemembers who held that
occupation in the year of their separation. Based on our requests, the
services supplied cost estimate data for the cost of basic training
and of training for each relevant occupational specialty for which
they had data. If there were occupations for which data were missing
or unavailable, we calculated an overall average training cost for
relevant occupations for the service and the fiscal year in which we
were missing data. We then used that average as the training cost for
the separated servicemembers, and followed the approach described
above. Finally, we converted these fiscal year totals to fiscal year
2009 dollars and summed our calculations for each fiscal year within
each service. These figures represent the total cost of training
replacements for separated servicemembers in each service. The Air
Force provided variable training cost data as part of an overall
figure that includes both training and recruiting costs.
To calculate the administrative cost of carrying out separations, we
asked the services to identify the legal and nonlegal processes
associated with the separations process. According to the services,
the legal processes may include paralegal work, attorneys' counseling
of servicemembers, and board hearings. According to the services, the
nonlegal costs may include commanders' inquiries, pastoral counseling
of servicemembers, and the processing of separation paperwork. To
collect information on the types of costs the services incur when
separating servicemembers, we interviewed and gathered data from
service officials who are knowledgeable about their services'
separations procedures and requested cost data for certain tasks
involved in the separation of servicemembers and on the personnel
involved in carrying them out. Using these data and military pay
rates, we calculated administrative costs. While the Air Force, Army,
and Marine Corps provided us with this information, the Navy did not
provide data on the legal and nonlegal processes associated with
carrying out separations. Navy officials explained that changes in
separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented
them from providing data on the personnel involved in carrying out key
tasks in time for the data to be included in our analyses. Because the
Navy did not provide data on administrative costs, our calculation of
these costs is an underestimation of DOD's likely total administrative
costs. For legal and nonlegal administrative costs, we asked the Air
Force, Army, and Marine Corps to provide a list of the tasks carried
out during separation of a servicemember under DOD's homosexual
conduct policy, identify the positions of officials involved in
carrying out these tasks, estimate the average amount of time required
for each task, and identify the rank and years of service of the type
of official who would typically carry out the task. With this
information, we multiplied the time it typically takes to complete a
task by the hourly pay rate of the official who typically performs the
task, using the salary information from DOD's pay tables for fiscal
year 2009, which are in fiscal year 2009 dollars. We repeated this
type of calculation for each task on a service's list of tasks
performed during a separation. Next, we summed the cost of each of
these tasks to calculate a service's total per-case administrative
cost of processing this type of separation. Finally, we multiplied
this cost by the number of separated servicemembers in each fiscal
year to calculate each service's total administrative cost of
separating servicemembers under DOD's homosexual conduct policy. For
legal administrative costs, we calculated these costs for the three
different types of homosexual conduct cases that a service processes:
board cases, nonboard cases, and unsubstantiated cases. For nonlegal
administrative costs, we calculated costs for the three levels of
command at which a service typically processes homosexual conduct
separations: company or flight, battalion and above or squadron and
above, and outside of the separated servicemember's chain of command.
Finally, we summed each of the three service's costs to calculate per-
service totals for legal and nonlegal administrative costs over the 6-
year period of our study. The analyses in this report were current as
of November 30, 2010.
To calculate DOD's total cost to replace the 3,664 servicemembers
separated under DOD's homosexual conduct policy, we summed the total
recruiting and training costs from each service in order to calculate
a single, DOD-wide calculation of the cost to recruit and train
replacements for the servicemembers separated from fiscal year 2004
through fiscal year 2009. We added this total to the administrative
total to determine the overall total cost to DOD of implementing the
homosexual conduct policy during this period. We were unable to
determine the extent of the overestimation of replacement costs, the
underestimation of the administrative costs, or the resulting net
impact on our calculation of the overall total cost.
We assessed the reliability of all data provided by DOD and the
services for each of our objectives by (1) reviewing existing
information about the data and the systems that produced them and (2)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data to
determine the steps taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of
the data. We assessed the reliability of DMDC's Active Duty Personnel
Transaction Fiscal Year End DADT Files, Active Duty Personnel Master
End Strength Fiscal Year End Files and Monthly Files, and Active Duty
Language Fiscal Year End Files by (1) performing electronic testing of
the required data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about
the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing
agency officials knowledgeable about the data. In addition, we
assessed the reliability of the services' cost data by (1) reviewing
existing information about the data and the systems that produced them
and (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data sets were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of presenting separations, personnel information for
separated servicemembers, and costs associated with administering the
homosexual conduct policy.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 through January
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: General Information on Separated Servicemembers:
As shown in table 13, DOD separated a total of approximately 1.2
million servicemembers for all reasons, including voluntary reasons,
from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Of the approximately 1.2 million
servicemembers separated by the services, the services granted
"honorable" separations to about 74 percent, "general" separations to
about 6 percent, "under other than honorable" separations to about 5
percent, "dishonorable dismissal" separations to less than 1 percent,
"bad conduct" separations to about 1 percent, and "uncharacterized"
separations to about 10 percent. About 4 percent of the separations
were classified "unknown or not applicable."[Footnote 36]
Table 13: Total Separations for All Reasons by Fiscal Year and Service
from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Air Force: 39,222;
Army: 88,477;
Marine Corps: 31,886;
Navy: 53,293;
Total: 212,878.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Air Force: 45,951;
Army: 84,907;
Marine Corps: 32,354;
Navy: 51,141;
Total: 214,353.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Air Force: 40,421;
Army: 69,609;
Marine Corps: 34,750;
Navy: 53,006;
Total: 197,786.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Air Force: 47,668;
Army: 72,452;
Marine Corps: 34,557;
Navy: 53,657;
Total: 208,334.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Air Force: 35,981;
Army: 70,750;
Marine Corps: 30,405;
Navy: 47,794;
Total: 184,930.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Air Force: 31,086;
Army: 71,984;
Marine Corps: 30,647;
Navy: 43,699;
Total: 177,416.
Fiscal year: Total;
Air Force: 240,329;
Army: 458,179;
Marine Corps: 194,599;
Navy: 302,590;
Total: 1,195,697.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and DOD data.
[End of table]
Tables 14 and 15 show separations for known reasons for enlisted
servicemembers and officers, by number of separations and per fiscal
year.
Table 14: Separation Reasons for Enlisted Servicemembers from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Separation reason: Expiration of term of service;
FY 2004: 76,073;
FY 2005: 75,502;
FY 2006: 73,396;
FY 2007: 74,794;
FY 2008: 65,558;
FY 2009: 61,975;
Total: 427,298.
Separation reason: Retirement - 20 to 30 years of service;
FY 2004: 29,441;
FY 2005: 29,674;
FY 2006: 27,038;
FY 2007: 26,530;
FY 2008: 22,153;
FY 2009: 20,941;
Total: 155,777.
Separation reason: Unqualified for active duty - other;
FY 2004: 7,489;
FY 2005: 6,999;
FY 2006: 7,001;
FY 2007: 7,562;
FY 2008: 7,568;
FY 2009: 9,413;
Total: 46,032.
Separation reason: Disability - severance pay;
FY 2004: 6,895;
FY 2005: 8,829;
FY 2006: 7,485;
FY 2007: 7,309;
FY 2008: 6,685;
FY 2009: 5,938;
Total: 43,141.
Separation reason: Drugs;
FY 2004: 6,310;
FY 2005: 6,425;
FY 2006: 6,334;
FY 2007: 5,823;
FY 2008: 5,506;
FY 2009: 6,073;
Total: 36,471.
Separation reason: Officer Commissioning Program;
FY 2004: 4,016;
FY 2005: 4,439;
FY 2006: 4,871;
FY 2007: 6,555;
FY 2008: 7,358;
FY 2009: 6,835;
Total: 34,074.
Separation reason: Commission of a serious offense;
FY 2004: 3,285;
FY 2005: 3,556;
FY 2006: 3,774;
FY 2007: 3,881;
FY 2008: 3,792;
FY 2009: 4,074;
Total: 22,362.
Separation reason: Entry-level performance/conduct - former trainee
discharge;
FY 2004: 5,807;
FY 2005: 4,713;
FY 2006: 2,103;
FY 2007: 2,421;
FY 2008: 2,885;
FY 2009: 3,122;
Total: 21,051.
Separation reason: Failure to meet weight or body fat standards;
FY 2004: 3,751;
FY 2005: 3,418;
FY 2006: 3,183;
FY 2007: 4,074;
FY 2008: 4,490;
FY 2009: 2,597;
Total: 21,513.
Separation reason: Character or behavior disorder;
FY 2004: 3,546;
FY 2005: 3,689;
FY 2006: 3,851;
FY 2007: 4,125;
FY 2008: 3,190;
FY 2009: 2,083;
Total: 20,484.
Separation reason: Fraudulent entry;
FY 2004: 3,501;
FY 2005: 3,369;
FY 2006: 3,776;
FY 2007: 3,433;
FY 2008: 3,150;
FY 2009: 3,273;
Total: 20,502.
Separation reason: Discreditable incidents - civilian or military;
FY 2004: 3,520;
FY 2005: 3,401;
FY 2006: 3,130;
FY 2007: 3,322;
FY 2008: 3,254;
FY 2009: 3,535;
Total: 20,162.
Separation reason: Temporary disability retirement;
FY 2004: 2,130;
FY 2005: 2,586;
FY 2006: 2,622;
FY 2007: 2,967;
FY 2008: 3,717;
FY 2009: 5,250;
Total: 19,272.
Separation reason: Good of service (discharge lieu of court martial);
FY 2004: 2,743;
FY 2005: 2,812;
FY 2006: 3,021;
FY 2007: 3,602;
FY 2008: 3,204;
FY 2009: 2,948;
Total: 18,330.
Separation reason: Parenthood;
FY 2004: 2,853;
FY 2005: 2,993;
FY 2006: 2,423;
FY 2007: 2,718;
FY 2008: 2,550;
FY 2009: 2,012;
Total: 15,549.
Separation reason: Pregnancy;
FY 2004: 2,637;
FY 2005: 2,657;
FY 2006: 2,473;
FY 2007: 2,715;
FY 2008: 2,332;
FY 2009: 1,970;
Total: 14,784.
Separation reason: Erroneous enlistment or induction;
FY 2004: 1,691;
FY 2005: 1,488;
FY 2006: 2,034;
FY 2007: 2,565;
FY 2008: 3,111;
FY 2009: 1,999;
Total: 12,888.
Separation reason: Early release - to attend school;
FY 2004: 2,140;
FY 2005: 2,145;
FY 2006: 2,211;
FY 2007: 2,154;
FY 2008: 1,767;
FY 2009: 1,438;
Total: 11,855.
Separation reason: Court martial;
FY 2004: 2,394;
FY 2005: 2,401;
FY 2006: 1,595;
FY 2007: 2,416;
FY 2008: 1,608;
FY 2009: 1,328;
Total: 11,742.
Separation reason: Early release - other, including reduction in
force, voluntary separation incentive, and special separation benefit;
FY 2004: 2,183;
FY 2005: 1,702;
FY 2006: 1,930;
FY 2007: 984;
FY 2008: 613;
FY 2009: 1,258;
Total: 8,670.
Separation reason: Early release - other, including interdepartmental
and intradepartmental transfers;
FY 2004: 1,817;
FY 2005: 2,969;
FY 2006: 693;
FY 2007: 1,158;
FY 2008: 951;
FY 2009: 835;
Total: 8,423.
Separation reason: Pattern of minor disciplinary infractions;
FY 2004: 1,248;
FY 2005: 1,515;
FY 2006: 1,384;
FY 2007: 1,272;
FY 2008: 1,016;
FY 2009: 1,088;
Total: 7,523.
Separation reason: Absent without leave or desertion;
FY 2004: 1,011;
FY 2005: 948;
FY 2006: 1,575;
FY 2007: 1,571;
FY 2008: 1,513;
FY 2009: 647;
Total: 7,265.
Separation reason: Unsatisfactory performance (former expeditious
discharge program);
FY 2004: 1,471;
FY 2005: 1,299;
FY 2006: 801;
FY 2007: 857;
FY 2008: 801;
FY 2009: 1,150;
Total: 6,379.
Separation reason: Retirement - over 30 years of service;
FY 2004: 670;
FY 2005: 888;
FY 2006: 1,059;
FY 2007: 1,143;
FY 2008: 1,029;
FY 2009: 1,037;
Total: 5,826.
Separation reason: Condition existing prior to service;
FY 2004: 1,238;
FY 2005: 1,232;
FY 2006: 923;
FY 2007: 1,008;
FY 2008: 610;
FY 2009: 456;
Total: 5,467.
Separation reason: Failure to meet minimum qualification for retention;
FY 2004: 911;
FY 2005: 990;
FY 2006: 1,031;
FY 2007: 856;
FY 2008: 769;
FY 2009: 775;
Total: 5,332.
Separation reason: Permanent disability retirement;
FY 2004: 446;
FY 2005: 537;
FY 2006: 570;
FY 2007: 822;
FY 2008: 1,121;
FY 2009: 1,653;
Total: 5,149.
Separation reason: Alcoholism;
FY 2004: 887;
FY 2005: 863;
FY 2006: 786;
FY 2007: 899;
FY 2008: 780;
FY 2009: 916;
Total: 5,131.
Separation reason: Dependency or hardship;
FY 2004: 1,013;
FY 2005: 933;
FY 2006: 862;
FY 2007: 924;
FY 2008: 661;
FY 2009: 453;
Total: 4,846.
Separation reason: Misconduct - reason unknown;
FY 2004: 921;
FY 2005: 921;
FY 2006: 640;
FY 2007: 468;
FY 2008: 431;
FY 2009: 405;
Total: 3,786.
Separation reason: Death - nonbattle (other);
FY 2004: 650;
FY 2005: 678;
FY 2006: 630;
FY 2007: 554;
FY 2008: 674;
FY 2009: 666;
Total: 3,852.
Separation reason: Homosexuality;
FY 2004: 650;
FY 2005: 709;
FY 2006: 600;
FY 2007: 616;
FY 2008: 606;
FY 2009: 418;
Total: 3,599.
Separation reason: Death - battle casualty;
FY 2004: 386;
FY 2005: 401;
FY 2006: 525;
FY 2007: 860;
FY 2008: 309;
FY 2009: 212;
Total: 2,693.
Separation reason: Military Service Academy;
FY 2004: 435;
FY 2005: 404;
FY 2006: 435;
FY 2007: 410;
FY 2008: 405;
FY 2009: 435;
Total: 2,524.
Separation reason: Civil court conviction;
FY 2004: 221;
FY 2005: 269;
FY 2006: 244;
FY 2007: 247;
FY 2008: 229;
FY 2009: 283;
Total: 1,493.
Separation reason: Breach of contract;
FY 2004: 187;
FY 2005: 138;
FY 2006: 142;
FY 2007: 112;
FY 2008: 115;
FY 2009: 89;
Total: 783.
Separation reason: Death - cause not specified;
FY 2004: 72;
FY 2005: 106;
FY 2006: 104;
FY 2007: 119;
FY 2008: 98;
FY 2009: 79;
Total: 578.
Separation reason: Disability - no condition existing prior service
severance pay;
FY 2004: 177;
FY 2005: 141;
FY 2006: 96;
FY 2007: 26;
FY 2008: 38;
FY 2009: 22;
Total: 500.
Separation reason: Sexual perversion;
FY 2004: 81;
FY 2005: 99;
FY 2006: 101;
FY 2007: 82;
FY 2008: 59;
FY 2009: 61;
Total: 483.
Separation reason: Early release - insufficient retainability;
FY 2004: 28;
FY 2005: 77;
FY 2006: 76;
FY 2007: 106;
FY 2008: 56;
FY 2009: 12;
Total: 355.
Separation reason: Retirement - other;
FY 2004: 53;
FY 2005: 29;
FY 2006: 25;
FY 2007: 30;
FY 2008: 59;
FY 2009: 96;
Total: 292.
Separation reason: Secretarial authority;
FY 2004: 51;
FY 2005: 77;
FY 2006: 38;
FY 2007: 38;
FY 2008: 38;
FY 2009: 24;
Total: 266.
Separation reason: Death - nonbattle (disease);
FY 2004: 27;
FY 2005: 23;
FY 2006: 26;
FY 2007: 38;
FY 2008: 48;
FY 2009: 40;
Total: 202.
Separation reason: Conscientious objector;
FY 2004: 27;
FY 2005: 33;
FY 2006: 42;
FY 2007: 21;
FY 2008: 29;
FY 2009: 23;
Total: 175.
Separation reason: Sole surviving family member;
FY 2004: 6;
FY 2005: 9;
FY 2006: 6;
FY 2007: 12;
FY 2008: 8;
FY 2009: 7;
Total: 48.
Separation reason: Security;
FY 2004: 3;
FY 2005: 13;
FY 2006: 4;
FY 2007: 6;
FY 2008: 6;
FY 2009: 10;
Total: 42.
Separation reason: Juvenile offender;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 8;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 8.
Separation reason: Minority (underage);
FY 2004: 3;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 2;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 1;
Total: 8.
Separation reason: Unfitness - reason unknown;
FY 2004: 4;
FY 2005: 2;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 0;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 6.
Separation reason: Unsuitability - reason unknown;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 5;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 5.
Separation reason: Total;
FY 2004: 187,099;
FY 2005: 189,101;
FY 2006: 177,671;
FY 2007: 184,220;
FY 2008: 166,950;
FY 2009: 159,955;
Total: 1,064,996.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and DOD data.
[End of table]
Table 15: Separation Reasons for Officers from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009:
Separation reason: Retirement - 20 to 30 years of service;
FY 2004: 7,612;
FY 2005: 8,265;
FY 2006: 7,583;
FY 2007: 7,867;
FY 2008: 6,993;
FY 2009: 6,709;
Total: 45,029.
Separation reason: Expiration of term of service;
FY 2004: 6,322;
FY 2005: 6,260;
FY 2006: 5,085;
FY 2007: 4,901;
FY 2008: 3,643;
FY 2009: 3,256;
Total: 29,467.
Separation reason: Voluntary release - other, including voluntary
separation incentive and special separation benefit;
FY 2004: 1,712;
FY 2005: 2,540;
FY 2006: 3,271;
FY 2007: 6,903;
FY 2008: 3,999;
FY 2009: 3,079;
Total: 21,504.
Separation reason: Retirement - over 30 years of service;
FY 2004: 538;
FY 2005: 566;
FY 2006: 718;
FY 2007: 862;
FY 2008: 746;
FY 2009: 753;
Total: 4,183.
Separation reason: Failure of selection of promotion;
FY 2004: 357;
FY 2005: 301;
FY 2006: 406;
FY 2007: 276;
FY 2008: 240;
FY 2009: 294;
Total: 1,874.
Separation reason: Secretarial authority;
FY 2004: 551;
FY 2005: 307;
FY 2006: 199;
FY 2007: 42;
FY 2008: 26;
FY 2009: 142;
Total: 1,267.
Separation reason: Temporary disability retirement;
FY 2004: 158;
FY 2005: 192;
FY 2006: 191;
FY 2007: 216;
FY 2008: 185;
FY 2009: 266;
Total: 1,208.
Separation reason: Unfitness or unacceptable conduct - other;
FY 2004: 147;
FY 2005: 188;
FY 2006: 185;
FY 2007: 234;
FY 2008: 173;
FY 2009: 181;
Total: 1,108.
Separation reason: Retirement - other;
FY 2004: 126;
FY 2005: 128;
FY 2006: 205;
FY 2007: 218;
FY 2008: 175;
FY 2009: 212;
Total: 1,064.
Separation reason: Disability - severance pay;
FY 2004: 187;
FY 2005: 252;
FY 2006: 179;
FY 2007: 178;
FY 2008: 141;
FY 2009: 98;
Total: 1,035.
Separation reason: Involuntary release - other;
FY 2004: 43;
FY 2005: 34;
FY 2006: 650;
FY 2007: 74;
FY 2008: 2;
FY 2009: 3;
Total: 806.
Separation reason: Permanent disability retirement;
FY 2004: 77;
FY 2005: 85;
FY 2006: 87;
FY 2007: 114;
FY 2008: 118;
FY 2009: 148;
Total: 629.
Separation reason: Failure of course of instruction;
FY 2004: 69;
FY 2005: 106;
FY 2006: 87;
FY 2007: 15;
FY 2008: 27;
FY 2009: 37;
Total: 341.
Separation reason: Commission of a serious offense;
FY 2004: 72;
FY 2005: 33;
FY 2006: 64;
FY 2007: 58;
FY 2008: 36;
FY 2009: 26;
Total: 289.
Separation reason: Retirement - failure of selection for promotion;
FY 2004: 48;
FY 2005: 62;
FY 2006: 56;
FY 2007: 42;
FY 2008: 50;
FY 2009: 29;
Total: 287.
Separation reason: Death - battle casualty;
FY 2004: 59;
FY 2005: 45;
FY 2006: 39;
FY 2007: 72;
FY 2008: 42;
FY 2009: 29;
Total: 286.
Separation reason: Death - cause not specified;
FY 2004: 35;
FY 2005: 53;
FY 2006: 47;
FY 2007: 45;
FY 2008: 39;
FY 2009: 43;
Total: 262.
Separation reason: Death - nonbattle, other;
FY 2004: 47;
FY 2005: 49;
FY 2006: 40;
FY 2007: 45;
FY 2008: 26;
FY 2009: 42;
Total: 249.
Separation reason: Motivational problems (apathy);
FY 2004: 41;
FY 2005: 31;
FY 2006: 32;
FY 2007: 37;
FY 2008: 44;
FY 2009: 41;
Total: 226.
Separation reason: Condition existing prior to service;
FY 2004: 50;
FY 2005: 62;
FY 2006: 39;
FY 2007: 36;
FY 2008: 21;
FY 2009: 11;
Total: 219.
Separation reason: Pregnancy;
FY 2004: 54;
FY 2005: 49;
FY 2006: 36;
FY 2007: 24;
FY 2008: 24;
FY 2009: 7;
Total: 194.
Separation reason: Court martial;
FY 2004: 24;
FY 2005: 36;
FY 2006: 31;
FY 2007: 31;
FY 2008: 37;
FY 2009: 25;
Total: 184.
Separation reason: Character or behavior disorder;
FY 2004: 23;
FY 2005: 21;
FY 2006: 13;
FY 2007: 26;
FY 2008: 23;
FY 2009: 13;
Total: 119.
Separation reason: Voluntary release - attend school or teach;
FY 2004: 16;
FY 2005: 19;
FY 2006: 23;
FY 2007: 18;
FY 2008: 21;
FY 2009: 19;
Total: 116.
Separation reason: Unqualified for active duty - other;
FY 2004: 13;
FY 2005: 13;
FY 2006: 4;
FY 2007: 20;
FY 2008: 22;
FY 2009: 12;
Total: 84.
Separation reason: Homosexuality;
FY 2004: 3;
FY 2005: 16;
FY 2006: 12;
FY 2007: 11;
FY 2008: 13;
FY 2009: 10;
Total: 65.
Separation reason: Death - nonbattle, disease;
FY 2004: 11;
FY 2005: 11;
FY 2006: 8;
FY 2007: 10;
FY 2008: 9;
FY 2009: 11;
Total: 60.
Separation reason: Dependency or hardship;
FY 2004: 4;
FY 2005: 12;
FY 2006: 15;
FY 2007: 6;
FY 2008: 6;
FY 2009: 3;
Total: 46.
Separation reason: Drugs;
FY 2004: 12;
FY 2005: 9;
FY 2006: 3;
FY 2007: 3;
FY 2008: 4;
FY 2009: 4;
Total: 35.
Separation reason: Involuntary release - maximum age or service;
FY 2004: 12;
FY 2005: 11;
FY 2006: 7;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 1;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 32.
Separation reason: Alcoholism;
FY 2004: 5;
FY 2005: 4;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 10;
FY 2008: 2;
FY 2009: 2;
Total: 25.
Separation reason: Parenthood;
FY 2004: 4;
FY 2005: 3;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 6;
FY 2008: 3;
FY 2009: 2;
Total: 20.
Separation reason: Sexual perversion;
FY 2004: 7;
FY 2005: 3;
FY 2006: 4;
FY 2007: 2;
FY 2008: 2;
FY 2009: 1;
Total: 19.
Separation reason: Conscientious objector;
FY 2004: 2;
FY 2005: 6;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 0;
FY 2008: 4;
FY 2009: 3;
Total: 17.
Separation reason: Fraudulent entry;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 2;
FY 2006: 4;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 3;
FY 2009: 4;
Total: 14.
Separation reason: Civil court conviction;
FY 2004: 1;
FY 2005: 4;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 2;
FY 2009: 4;
Total: 12.
Separation reason: Failure to meet weight or body fat standards;
FY 2004: 4;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 0;
FY 2008: 1;
FY 2009: 5;
Total: 12.
Separation reason: Discreditable incidents - civilian or military;
FY 2004: 1;
FY 2005: 5;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 2;
FY 2008: 1;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 11.
Separation reason: Security;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 2;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 2;
FY 2008: 3;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 7.
Separation reason: Failure to meet minimum retention requirement;
FY 2004: 4;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 1;
FY 2007: 0;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 5.
Separation reason: Good of service (discharge in lieu of court
martial);
FY 2004: 2;
FY 2005: 3;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 0;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 5.
Separation reason: Pattern of minor disciplinary infractions;
FY 2004: 1;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 2;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 4.
Separation reason: Voluntary release - in the national interest;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 1.
Separation reason: Involuntary release - temporary officer reverts to
enlisted status;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 0;
FY 2009: 0;
Total: 1.
Separation reason: Total;
FY 2004: 18,454;
FY 2005: 19,788;
FY 2006: 19,336;
FY 2007: 22,412;
FY 2008: 16,907;
FY 2009: 15,524;
Total: 112,421.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and DOD data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Data on Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers
Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy:
According to our analysis of DMDC data, 577 Reserve and National Guard
servicemembers were separated under the homosexual conduct policy from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009.[Footnote 37] (See table 16.) The
Reserve and National Guard separations represent about 14 percent of
the total population of active, reserve, and guard servicemembers
separated under the homosexual conduct policy.
Table 16: Separations of Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct, by Fiscal Year and Military Service, from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Air National Guard[A]: N/A;
Air Force Reserve: 4;
Army National Guard: 49;
Army Reserve: 26;
Marine Corps Reserve: 3;
Navy Reserve: 5;
Total: 87.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Air National Guard[A]: N/A;
Air Force Reserve: 7;
Army National Guard: 50;
Army Reserve: 30;
Marine Corps Reserve: 13;
Navy Reserve: 4;
Total: 104.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Air National Guard[A]: N/A;
Air Force Reserve: 2;
Army National Guard: 40;
Army Reserve: 27;
Marine Corps Reserve: 6;
Navy Reserve: 4;
Total: 79.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Air National Guard[A]: N/A;
Air Force Reserve: 3;
Army National Guard: 58;
Army Reserve: 33;
Marine Corps Reserve: 15;
Navy Reserve: 4;
Total: 113.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Air National Guard[A]: 3;
Air Force Reserve: 5;
Army National Guard: 71;
Army Reserve: 23;
Marine Corps Reserve: 12;
Navy Reserve: 4;
Total: 118.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Air National Guard[A]: 0;
Air Force Reserve: 2;
Army National Guard: 52;
Army Reserve: 15;
Marine Corps Reserve: 7;
Navy Reserve: 0;
Total: 76.
Fiscal year: Total;
Air National Guard[A]: 3;
Air Force Reserve: 23;
Army National Guard: 320;
Army Reserve: 154;
Marine Corps Reserve: 56;
Navy Reserve: 21;
Total: 577.
Fiscal year: Percentage of total[B];
Air National Guard[A]: 1;
Air Force Reserve: 4;
Army National Guard: 55;
Army Reserve: 27;
Marine Corps Reserve: 10;
Navy Reserve: 4;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC, Reserve, and Guard data.
[A] This information is not available (N/A) because according to
officials in the Air National Guard, the Air National Guard was only
able to account for separated servicemembers from October 2007 to the
present because of the method used by the Air National Guard to
document discharges.
[B] Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Information on Critical Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated under DOD's Homosexual Conduct
Policy:
Most Common Occupations Held by Servicemembers:
Table 17 lists the most common occupations held by separated
servicemembers, by service, from fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
Table 17: Most Common Critical Occupations Held by Separated
Servicemembers, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Service: Air Force:
Critical occupations: Security forces;
Number of servicemembers: 32.
Critical occupations: Air traffic control;
Number of servicemembers: 8.
Critical occupations: Airborne cryptologic language analyst;
Number of servicemembers: 6.
Critical occupations: Operations intelligence;
Number of servicemembers: 5.
Critical occupations: Mideast crypto linguist;
Number of servicemembers: 3.
Critical occupations: Communication-computer systems operations;
Number of servicemembers: 3.
Critical occupations: Far East crypto linguist;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Critical occupations: Aircraft armament systems;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Critical occupations: Communications and information;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Critical occupations: Clinical nurse;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Service: Army:
Critical occupations: Infantryman;
Number of servicemembers: 190.
Critical occupations: Military police;
Number of servicemembers: 120.
Critical occupations: Motor transport operator;
Number of servicemembers: 114.
Critical occupations: Mental health specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 69.
Critical occupations: Food service specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 68.
Critical occupations: Health care specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 59.
Critical occupations: Unit supply specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 51.
Critical occupations: Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 34.
Critical occupations: Petroleum supply specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 32.
Critical occupations: Signal support systems specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 32.
Service: Marine Corps:
Critical occupations: Administrative clerk;
Number of servicemembers: 9.
Critical occupations: Rifleman;
Number of servicemembers: 8.
Critical occupations: Personnel clerk;
Number of servicemembers: 6.
Critical occupations: Motor vehicle operator;
Number of servicemembers: 5.
Critical occupations: Field radio operator;
Number of servicemembers: 4.
Critical occupations: Tactical network specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 4.
Critical occupations: Telephone system/personal computer intermediate
repairer;
Number of servicemembers: 4.
Critical occupations: Military police;
Number of servicemembers: 4.
Critical occupations: Food service specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 3.
Critical occupations: Legal service specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 3.
Service: Navy:
Critical occupations: Nuclear field (electronics technician,
machinist's mate, electrician's mate);
Number of servicemembers: 36.
Critical occupations: Master-at-arms;
Number of servicemembers: 21.
Critical occupations: Operational specialist;
Number of servicemembers: 15.
Critical occupations: Information systems technician;
Number of servicemembers: 12.
Critical occupations: Fire controlman;
Number of servicemembers: 7.
Critical occupations: Hospital corpsman;
Number of servicemembers: 5.
Critical occupations: Gunner's mate;
Number of servicemembers: 4.
Critical occupations: Air traffic controller;
Number of servicemembers: 3.
Critical occupations: Cryptologic technician interpretive;
Number of servicemembers: 3.
Critical occupations: Aviation ordinanceman;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Critical occupations: Cryptologic technician technical;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Critical occupations: Sonar technician surface;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Critical occupations: Surface warfare officer;
Number of servicemembers: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
[End of table]
Lengths of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Held Skills in
Critical Occupations:
Approximately 472 servicemembers (33 percent) separated under the
homosexual conduct policy who held skills in critical occupations were
separated after 2 years or more of service, as shown in table 18.
Table 18: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Critical Occupations from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Number of servicemembers:
Length of service: Less than 3 months;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 288;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 0;
Total: 288.
Length of service: Within 3 to 6 months;
Air Force: 4;
Army: 138;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 3;
Total: 145.
Length of service: Within 6 months to 1 year;
Air Force: 25;
Army: 192;
Marine Corps: 9;
Navy: 22;
Total: 248.
Length of service: Within 1 to 2 years;
Air Force: 27;
Army: 198;
Marine Corps: 27;
Navy: 37;
Total: 289.
Length of service: Two years or more;
Air Force: 45;
Army: 322;
Marine Corps: 48;
Navy: 57;
Total: 472.
Number of servicemembers: Total;
Air Force: 101;
Army: 1,138;
Marine Corps: 84;
Navy: 119;
Total: 1,442.
Number of servicemembers: Percentage of total:
Air Force: 7%;
Army: 79%;
Marine Corps: 6%;
Navy: 8%;
Total: 100%.
Percentage of servicemembers[A]:
Length of service: Less than 3 months;
Air Force: 0%;
Army: 25%;
Marine Corps: 0%;
Navy: 0%;
Total: 20%.
Length of service: Within 3 to 6 months;
Air Force: 4%;
Army: 12%;
Marine Corps: 0%;
Navy: 3%;
Total: 10%.
Length of service: Within 6 months to 1 year;
Air Force: 25%;
Army: 17%;
Marine Corps: 11%;
Navy: 18%;
Total: 17%.
Length of service: Within 1 to 2 years;
Air Force: 27%;
Army: 17%;
Marine Corps: 32%;
Navy: 31%;
Total: 20%.
Length of service: Two years or more;
Air Force: 45%;
Army: 28%;
Marine Corps: 57%;
Navy: 48%;
Total: 33%.
Percentage of servicemembers[A]: Total;
Air Force: 100%;
Army: 100%;
Marine Corps: 100%;
Navy: 100%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
[A] Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
Lengths of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Held Skills in
Important Foreign Languages:
Approximately 11 servicemembers (48 percent) separated under the
homosexual conduct policy who held skills in important foreign
languages were separated after 2 years or more of service, as shown in
table 19.
Table 19: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Who Held Skills in
Important Foreign Languages from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009:
Number of servicemembers:
Length of service: Less than 3 months;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 0;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 0;
Total: 0.
Length of service: Within 3 to 6 months;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 0;
Marine Corps: 1;
Navy: 1;
Total: 2.
Length of service: Within 6 months to 1 year;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 0;
Marine Corps: 1;
Navy: 5;
Total: 6.
Length of service: Within 1 to 2 years;
Air Force: 0;
Army: 2;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 2;
Total: 4.
Length of service: Two years or more;
Air Force: 1;
Army: 5;
Marine Corps: 0;
Navy: 5;
Total: 11.
Number of servicemembers: Total;
Air Force: 1;
Army: 7;
Marine Corps: 2;
Navy: 13;
Total: 23.
Number of servicemembers: Percentage of total;
Air Force: 4%;
Army: 30%;
Marine Corps: 9%;
Navy: 57%;
Total: 100%.
Percentage of servicemembers[A]:
Length of service: Less than 3 months;
Air Force: 0%;
Army: 0%;
Marine Corps: 0%;
Navy: 0%;
Total: 0%.
Length of service: Within 3 to 6 months;
Air Force: 0%;
Army: 0%;
Marine Corps: 50%;
Navy: 8%;
Total: 9%.
Length of service: Within 6 months to 1 year;
Air Force: 0%;
Army: 0%;
Marine Corps: 50%;
Navy: 38%;
Total: 26%.
Length of service: Within 1 to 2 years;
Air Force: 0%;
Army: 29%;
Marine Corps: 0%;
Navy: 15%;
Total: 17%.
Length of service: Two years or more;
Air Force: 100%;
Army: 71%;
Marine Corps: 0%;
Navy: 38%;
Total: 48%.
Percentage of servicemembers[A]: Total;
Air Force: 100%;
Army: 100%;
Marine Corps: 100%;
Navy: 100%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
[A] Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Zina D. Merritt, (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this
report were Elizabeth C. McNally, Assistant Director; Clarine S.
Allen; Christina E. Bruff; Grace A. Coleman; K. Nicole Harms; Grant M.
Mallie; Charles W. Perdue; Steven R. Putansu; Terry L. Richardson;
Amie M. Steele; Christopher W. Turner; Jack B. Wang; Erik S. Wilkins-
McKee; and Kimberly Y. Young.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and
Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and Regional
Proficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568].
Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.
Defense Management: Preliminary Observations on DOD's Plans for
Developing Language and Cultural Awareness Capabilities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-176R]. Washington, D.C.: November
25, 2008.
Military Personnel: Evaluation Methods Linked to Anticipated Outcomes
Needed to Inform Decisions on Army Recruitment Incentives. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1037R]. Washington, D.C.: September
18, 2008.
Military Personnel: Strategic Plan Needed to Address Army's Emerging
Officer Accession and Retention Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-224]. Washington, D.C.: January 19,
2007.
Differing Scope and Methodology in GAO and University of California
Reports Account for Variations in Cost Estimates for Homosexual
Conduct Policy. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-909R].
Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2006.
Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations on Recruiting and
Retention Issues within the U.S. Armed Forces. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-419T]. Washington, D.C.: March 16,
2005.
Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to
DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-299]. Washington, D.C.:
February 23, 2005.
Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve Compensation,
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to Deployed Troops.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-582T]. Washington,
D.C.: March 24, 2004.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Effective Controls to Better Assess
the Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-86]. Washington, D.C.: November 13,
2003.
Military Personnel: Management and Oversight of Selective Reenlistment
Bonus Program Needs Improvement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-149]. Washington, D.C.: November
25, 2002.
Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing
and Proficiency Shortfalls. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375]. Washington, D.C.: January 31,
2002.
Military Personnel: Perceptions of Retention-Critical Personnel Are
Similar to Those of Other Enlisted Personnel. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-785]. Washington, D.C.: June 28,
2001.
Military Attrition: Better Data, Coupled with Policy Changes, Could
Help the Services Reduce Early Separations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-213]. Washington, D.C.:
September 15, 1998.
DOD Training: Many DOD Linguists Do Not Meet Minimum Proficiency
Standards. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-94-191].
Washington, D.C.: July 12, 1994.
Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign
Countries. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-93-215].
Washington, D.C.: June 25, 1993.
Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-92-98]. Washington, D.C.: June
12, 1992.
Defense Force Management: Statistics Related to DOD's Policy on
Homosexuality. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-92-98S]. Washington, D.C.: June
12, 1992.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 10 U.S.C. § 654.
[2] For guidance implementing the law, see Department of Defense
Instructions 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations (Aug. 28,
2008); 1332.30, Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned
Officers (Mar. 29, 2010); and 1304.26, Qualification Standards for
Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction (Sept. 20, 2005).
[3] The 3.6 million servicemembers separated for all reasons during
this period includes those separated for expiration of term of service
and retirement. If we excluded these types of separations, the number
of separations would be lower, and therefore the percentage of
separations because of homosexual conduct would be higher.
[4] GAO, Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical
Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely
Estimated, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-299]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2005).
[5] DMDC serves as DOD's human resource information source and a
central source in identifying, authenticating, authorizing, and
providing information on DOD-affiliated personnel.
[6] These separations do not include servicemembers from Reserve and
National Guard components of the military services who were in active
duty status for 31 or more consecutive days.
[7] According to a DMDC official, the official tracking of active duty
separations for homosexual conduct began in 1997.
[8] Because of the manner in which the Navy assigns its recruits to
occupations, the Navy was unable to provide complete data on the
occupations of Navy servicemembers separated under the policy. Thus,
the reported number of Navy separated servicemembers who held skills
in critical occupations could be an underestimate.
[9] For the purposes of this report, we define "fixed costs" as those
that do not change with output, as opposed to "variable costs" whose
total varies directly with changes in output. In the case of
recruiting and training, the outputs are recruits and trainees,
respectively.
[10] 10 U.S.C. § 654. DOD has recently released a study considering
the homosexual conduct policy. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of
2010 (Repeal Act), Pub. L. No. 111-321, was enacted on December 22,
2010. Under the Repeal Act, 10 U.S.C. § 654, the section of the United
States Code that sets out the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, will
remain in effect until 60 days after the date that a number of
requirements and certifications specified in the Repeal Act are met by
the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and the President. At that time, the law would be repealed. The Repeal
Act also specifies that, in the event that those requirements and
certifications are not met, the policy set out at 10 U.S.C. § 654 will
remain in effect.
[11] See Department of Defense Instruction 1336.05, Automated Extract
of Active Duty Military Personnel Records (July 29, 2009). At
separation, DOD assigns a military service characterization code to
each individual's service that represents an evaluation of a
servicemember's conduct and performance during his or her period of
military service. These characterizations include "honorable" (service
reflected proper behavior and proficient performance of duty); "under
honorable conditions" (service reflected behavior and performance that
was short of honorable); "under other than honorable conditions"
(servicemember was convicted of a felony by civil authorities); "bad
conduct" (conduct was punished by a special or general court martial);
"dishonorable" (conduct was punished by a general court martial); and
"uncharacterized" (servicemember served 6 months or less and was
assigned a separation reason of (1) entry level separation, (2) void
enlistment or induction, or (3) dropped from strength). Also, some
servicemembers' characterization is classified as "unknown or not
applicable."
[12] See Manual for Courts-Martial, Rule 1003(b)(8)(C).
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-299].
[14] According to officials from the Marine Corps Training and
Education Command, the Marine Corps did not have detailed training
cost data until fiscal year 2008.
[15] We used the Army's Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists in lieu of
the Army's Enlistment Bonus lists because the Army noted that the
occupations on the Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists better represent
the Army's critical occupations for enlistment.
[16] See Department of Defense Instruction 1304.29, Administration of
Enlistment Bonuses, Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical
Skills, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Critical Skills Retention
Bonuses for Active Members (Dec. 15, 2004).
[17] The Air Force Stressed Career Fields List was available only for
fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
[18] The Marine Corps 202K Sustainment Plan includes critical
occupations for the period covering the final 3 years of our review
period: fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
[19] Before enlisted recruits are sent to recruit training, they are
required to take an enlistment oath and sign a contract to serve one
of the military services for a specified period of time, generally
from 2 to 6 years and typically for 4 years. According to service
officials, the typical officer-commissioning contract is 4 years, with
some contracts ranging from 3 to 10 years, depending on the occupation
and commissioning source.
[20] For all services, officer-commissioning costs are not included.
[21] Other variable recruiting and training costs include, but are not
limited to, recruit and trainee travel, college funds provided to
servicemembers, drug testing, and compensation (salary and benefits)
for servicemembers while they are in training.
[22] The 2,751 separations do not include those servicemembers
separated by the Navy.
[23] According to service officials, a servicemember can request that
a service board review the service's decision to separate the
servicemember. In these cases, a board will review the separation
case. Based on information provided by the services, board cases made
up approximately 4 percent of all cases concerning homosexual conduct.
[24] According to service officials and service data, the number of
separation cases that require legal administrative work is higher than
the total number of separations under DOD's homosexual conduct policy
because unsubstantiated cases required review by legal personnel even
though these cases did not result in separation.
[25] These separations do not include servicemembers from Reserve and
National Guard components of the military services who were in active
duty status for 31 or more consecutive days.
[26] See Department of Defense Instruction 1304.29, Administration of
Enlistment Bonuses, Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical
Skills, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Critical Skills Retention
Bonuses for Active Members (Dec. 15, 2004).
[27] The Army, Marine Corps, and Navy list the occupations eligible
for the Selective Reenlistment Bonus in their annual budget
justifications. The Air Force, however, does not list these
occupations in its budget justification. The services determine
reenlistment bonus amounts by multiplying (1) a servicemember's
current monthly basic pay by (2) the member's number of additional
years of obligated service by (3) a bonus multiplier that can range
from 0.5 to 15. By analyzing the Air Force Selective Reenlistment
Bonus lists from fiscal years 2004 through 2009, we deemed most
critical the 10 occupations with the largest bonus multipliers in each
fiscal year.
[28] See Department of Defense Instruction 7280.03, Foreign Language
Proficiency Bonus (Aug. 20, 2007).
[29] We are not suggesting by this cost estimate that the services
specifically recruit or train a replacement to the same experience
level or proficiency as a servicemember who has been separated under
the homosexual conduct policy.
[30] For the purposes of this report, we define fixed costs as those
that do not change with output as opposed to variable costs whose
totals vary directly with changes in output. In the case of recruiting
and training, the output is recruits and trainees, respectively.
[31] The Marine Corps classified enlistment bonuses and college funds
as fixed costs, whereas the Army classified enlistment bonuses and
college funds as variable costs. In our calculations, we consider
enlistment bonuses and college funds to be variable costs for both
services.
[32] The Air Force did not provide separate recruiting and training
cost data. Rather, it combined recruiting and training costs,
including compensation received by personnel during training, in a
single estimate for each enlisted and commissioned occupational
specialty.
[33] The Air Force was only able to provide cost data for fiscal years
2006, 2007, and 2009. To ensure that we were able to develop an Air
Force cost estimate over the full 6-year period of our review, we used
military personnel cost deflators from the DOD Comptroller to
calculate inflation-adjusted costs for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and
2008 based on the cost data the Air Force provided for fiscal years
2006, 2007, and 2009. These military personnel cost deflators are
published annually in the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
Comptroller's National Defense Budget Estimates.
[34] While the Marine Corps provided separate sets of recruiting and
training cost data, it was only able to provide training cost data for
fiscal year 2008. To ensure that we were able to develop a Marine
Corps cost estimate over the entire 6-year period of our study, we
asked the Marine Corps to calculate annual figures for fiscal years
2004 through 2007 and for fiscal year 2009. The Marine Corps did so,
providing us with inflation-adjusted cost figures based on its fiscal
year 2008 estimates.
[35] The Air Force did not provide separate recruiting and training
cost data. Rather, it combined recruiting and training costs,
including compensation received by personnel during training, in a
single estimate for each enlisted and commissioned occupational
specialty.
[36] See Department of Defense Instruction 1336.05, Automated Extract
of Active Duty Military Personnel Records (July 29, 2009). At
separation, DOD assigns a military service characterization code to
each individual's service that represents an evaluation of a
servicemember's conduct and performance during his or her period of
military service. These characterizations include "honorable" (service
reflected proper behavior and proficient performance of duty); "under
honorable conditions" (service reflected behavior and performance that
was short of honorable); "under other than honorable conditions"
(servicemember was convicted of a felony by civil authorities); "bad
conduct" (conduct was punished by a special or general court martial);
"dishonorable" (conduct was punished by a general court martial); and
"uncharacterized" (servicemember served 6 months or less and was
assigned a separation reason of (1) entry-level separation, (2) void
enlistment or induction, or (3) dropped from strength). Also, some
servicemembers' characterization is classified as "unknown or not
applicable."
[37] These separations do not include separated servicemembers from
Reserve and National Guard components of the military services who
were in active duty status for 31 or more consecutive days.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: