A legislative framework has evolved that shapes the careers of general and  flag officers and the management of these officers. The act codified in Title 10 many of the legislative  provisions DOD is seeking to change. The retirees spent an average of 3-1/2 years in their  last pay grade. At this promotion  point, they averaged 26 years of active commissioned service. General and flag officers who  retired during this time period served an average of 6 years as a general or  flag officer, with individuals in higher pay grades serving longer. Additional career data for general and flag officers is provided in  appendix I.

	DOD Did Not Provide Evidence That the Current Legislative Framework Hinders General and Flag Officer Management or Agency Performance

Although DOD provided various rationales for its fiscal year 2005  legislative proposals and sponsored a study on issues related to general  and flag officer management, DOD did not provide evidence showing that  the current legislative framework has hindered DOD’s management of  general and flag officers or degraded the department’s performance. In  addition, the fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals (1) would reduce  congressional oversight and provide broad latitude to the Executive  Branch in managing general and flag officers, (2) could impede the upward  flow of officers, and (3) would likely increase federal retirement outlays. The career profile data we developed show that large numbers of general  and flag officers are retiring several years before the statutory retirement  limits on age and years of active commissioned service. DOD did not develop a cost estimate for its general and flag officer  proposals. Executive Branch Has Not Made Frequent Use of Existing Legislative Authority to Extend General and Flag Officer Careers

The Executive Branch currently has legislative authority to extend the  careers of general and flag officers on a case-by-case basis without  congressional approval. This evaluation should include an assessment of (1) factors that contribute  to the retirement of senior general and flag officers prior to the statutory  retirement limits, (2) the need for changes in DOD policy or procedure to  make greater use of existing authority to extend general and flag officers  careers on a case-by-case basis beyond the statutory retirement limits, and  (3) the long-term cost implications of proposals to change retirement  compensation. As our report states,  many general and flag officers are retiring several years before reaching  their statutory limits on age and years of commissioned service. For  example, more than three-fourths of general and flag officers who retired  in grades O-9 and O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 could have  served 3 or more years before reaching the current statutory retirement  limits. Factors other than the statutory limits, such as personal  considerations and military service culture, may account for early  retirements of general and flag officers.
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress has established a legislative framework that shapes the careers and the management of general and flag officers. The Department of Defense (DOD) has proposed eliminating or amending a number of legislative provisions, such as revising existing statutory retirement limits based on age and years of service, to provide greater flexibility in managing its senior officers in order to retain experienced leaders. GAO is issuing this report in response to a mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. GAO's objectives were to (1) develop a profile of general and flag officer careers and (2) assess DOD's justification for its general and flag officer legislative proposals.

What GAO Found

General and flag officers who have retired over the past several years typically retired at age 56 after having served an average of 33 years of active commissioned service and 3-1/2 years in their last pay grade. On average, retired general and flag officers were first promoted to general and flag officer at age 49, upon reaching 26 years of active commissioned service, and served 6 years as a general or flag officer before retiring. DOD did not present evidence that the legislative provisions it seeks to change hinder the management of general and flag officers or the agency's ability to perform its mission. DOD presented various rationales for its proposals and sponsored a study of general and flag officer management but did not provide data to support the need for these proposals. GAO found that DOD can achieve its goal of extending some general and flag officers' careers and assignments within the parameters of the current legislative framework since many general and flag officers retire several years before reaching the statutory retirement limits. More specifically, the career profile data show that more than three-fourths of general and flag officers who retired in grades O-9 and O-10 between fiscal years 1997 and 2002 could have served at least 3 more years before reaching the current statutory retirement limits. Existing legislative authority provides some flexibility in managing general and flag officers, but the Executive Branch has not made frequent use of this authority. In particular, the Executive Branch has rarely used its existing authority to defer the retirement of general and flag officers on a case-by-case basis beyond the statutory limits on age and years of service. Additionally, factors other than the statutory limits, such as personal considerations and military service culture, may account for early retirements of general and flag officers. GAO also found that the proposals (1) would reduce congressional oversight and provide broad latitude to the Executive Branch in managing general and flag officers, (2) could impede the upward flow of officers by limiting promotion opportunities due to the extension of general and flag officer careers, and (3) would likely increase federal retirement outlays for retirement compensation, based on a cost estimate developed by GAO.