Congressional Mandates in 1997 and 2003 to Review Authorizations

The Fiscal Year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act directed the  Secretary of Defense to review existing statutory general and flag officer  authorizations and submit a report to Congress. Results of General and Flag Officer Study Were Not Fully Disclosed in DOD’s March 2003 Report to Congress

The general and flag officer study validated total requirements for  1,630 general and flag officer positions. DOD, in the March 2003 report to Congress,  recommended no additional authorizations to meet validated  requirements. However, the March 2003 report did not  disclose this data or address the magnitude of the gap between validated  requirements and authorizations. DOD Used an Established Methodology, but Precision and Usefulness of Results Could Be Enhanced

DOD used an established methodology known as job evaluation to assess  general and flag officer requirements. One limitation of job evaluation is that it has numerous  subjective features, including the selection of job factors to be assessed. The methodology is  not designed to capture new or emerging needs, such as those resulting  from DOD transformation efforts or other changes in the department. Periodic updates could capture changes in requirements. Such limitations  do not invalidate DOD’s methodology; however, an explicit  acknowledgment and assessment of these limitations would have provided  more context for the study results. In addition, the study did not clearly  account for dual-hatted positions or assess how each service’s  authorizations were affected by the need to contribute general and flag  officers to fill external (joint) positions. Addressing these issues could  have enhanced the precision and usefulness of DOD’s study. In addition,  we noted that while Congress directed DOD to ensure the Reserve  Forces Policy Board participated in development of the report’s  recommendations, the Board played a minimal role in producing the  DOD 2003 report. External (Joint) Requirements Were Not Tracked Back to Each Service’s Authorizations

DOD’s general and flag officer study did not assess how each service’s  authorizations were affected by the need to contribute general and flag  officers to fill external (joint) positions. The Board provided written comments  on the report in April 2003 concurring with DOD’s conclusion that all  current congressional authorizations for general and flag officers were  needed, but registering strong objections to DOD’s recommendation not to  seek additional authorizations now to meet validated requirements and to  the limited role it played in the overall process. In our view, this report was truly  a Total Force effort.”

	DOD Incorporated Lessons Learned From GAO’s Review of DOD’s 1997 General and Flag Officer Study

DOD, in conducting its 2003 general and flag officer requirements study,  incorporated some of the lessons learned from a GAO review of DOD’s  1997 study. As part of its 2003 study, DOD did not consider which positions could  conceivably be converted from the military ranks to the civilian  workforce. Specifically, DOD’s 2003 report to  Congress did not fully disclose the results from its general and flag officer  study or address the magnitude or the impact of the gap between  requirements and authorizations. Fully disclosing the study results and  discussing the implications of its findings would help to explain DOD’s  recommendation not to seek additional authorizations. In its comments,  DOD concurred with our recommendations and indicated that it will  (1) address the impact of the gap in requirements and the use of  workarounds in a separate study on alternative methods for dealing with  the gap in requirements, (2) review all dual-hatted positions and add the  additional information to the established requirements database, and  (3) incorporate the results of the ongoing civilian conversion study in a  future update of general and flag officer requirements. Scope and Methodology

To determine whether DOD fully disclosed the results of its general and  flag officer study in its March 2003 report to Congress and explained the  rationale for any recommendations, we obtained and analyzed the  results of the general and flag officer study, the database of validated  requirements, supporting documentation, and the March 2003 report. We plan to conduct a separate review of these  management issues and recommendations.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to assess whether general and flag officer authorizations were sufficient to meet all requirements. GAO's objectives were to determine whether DOD (1) fully disclosed the results of its study in its March 2003 report to Congress and explained the rationale for any recommendations, (2) used an established methodology to meet the objectives of its study, and (3) incorporated lessons learned from a GAO review of DOD's 1997 general and flag officer study. The 2003 act also directed DOD to review legislation affecting general and flag officer management. DOD included the results of its review in the March 2003 report, making several recommendations. GAO plans a separate review of these issues and recommendations.

What GAO Found

DOD's March 2003 report to Congress did not fully disclose the results of the general and flag officer study or explain its recommendation not to seek additional authorizations (people) to meet validated requirements (positions). The general and flag officer study validated requirements for general and flag officer positions that exceeded congressional authorizations for both the active and reserve components. However, the validated requirements data generated by the study were not disclosed in the March 2003 report to Congress. In its report, DOD did not address the magnitude of the gap between validated requirements of 1,630 positions and congressional authorizations of 1,311--a difference of 319. DOD's report also did not address the impact of "workarounds" used to fill the gap between requirements and authorizations, such as the practice of assigning colonels and Navy captains to general and flag officer positions. Fully disclosing the study results and discussing the implications of these findings in the March 2003 report to Congress would have provided a more complete picture of DOD's general and flag officer requirements and may have helped to explain its recommendation not to seek additional authorizations. DOD used an established methodology to conduct a position-by-position validation of general and flag officer requirements. This methodology, known as job evaluation, has been widely used in the United States. Job evaluation, however, has numerous subjective features, including the selection of factors used for measurement. In addition, it is not designed to project emerging needs, such as those that could result from transformation efforts. Periodic updates could capture changes in requirements. Such limitations do not invalidate DOD's methodology; however, an explicit acknowledgment and assessment of these limitations would have provided more context for the study results. In addition, the study did not clearly account for dual-hatted positions (where one individual holds more than one position simultaneously) or assess how each service's authorizations were affected by the need to contribute general and flag officers to fill external (joint) positions. Addressing these issues could have enhanced the precision and usefulness of DOD's study. In addition, we noted that while Congress directed DOD to ensure the Reserve Forces Policy Board participated in development of the report's recommendations, the Board played a minimal role in producing DOD's 2003 report. The Board registered strong objections to DOD's recommendation not to seek additional authorizations now to meet validated requirements and to the limited role it played in the process. DOD, in conducting its 2003 general and flag officer study, incorporated some of the lessons learned from a GAO review of DOD's 1997 general and flag officer study. DOD recognized the need to identify general and flag officer positions that could conceivably be converted from the military ranks to the civilian workforce, although it deferred this assessment until after the general and flag officer study was complete. DOD is currently assessing civilian conversion of general and flag officer positions.