Military Technology and Flight Safety Considerations

Because of concerns about safeguarding military technology and maintaining flight safety, DOD has specific policies and procedures relating to the disposal of aircraft parts. For parts that could cause an aircraft to crash if the parts fail during a flight, DOD components have local policies requiring the destruction of certain used parts with flight safety implications to prevent the parts from reentering the DOD supply system or being made available to the civil aviation industry. Management of Surplus Aircraft Parts Can Be Improved

DOD could have avoided destroying certain usable aircraft parts that were in the disposal process. The parts were destroyed because (1) the military services improperly coded parts without military technology as having military technology implications and (2) policies and practices intended to prevent an inadvertent sale of military technology or flight safety items did not adequately exclude parts without military technology or flight safety implications. Assigned Demilitarization Codes Are Not Accurate

The three DRMOs we visited destroyed usable parts because the demilitarization codes the military services had assigned were inaccurate. For example, we evaluated 71 sample items at the Oklahoma City DRMO. The Inspector General reported that training was not adequate for personnel responsible for assigning and reviewing demilitarization codes and that documentation showing the rationale for their decisions did not exist. For the most part, this situation occurs because DOD labels containers of parts it does not want to repair for economic reasons as scrap. This review shows that DOD has not implemented similar procedures. The DRMO subsequently destroyed the parts and sold them as scrap. 2). DOD Components Needed Some Surplus Parts

The military services’ inventory managers did not have adequate information on aircraft parts located in DRMOs. Air Force and Army officials said that, despite the requirements of the DOD regulation, they did not have adequate visibility over parts in DRMOs. They stated that interface problems between military service and DRMO computer systems precluded the services from knowing what parts were in DRMOs. Our report documents examples where DRMOs destroyed usable parts that did not have military technology or safety implications. DOD also partially agreed with our recommendation that it establish milestones for correcting the computer interface problems that preclude the military services from having visibility of parts located in DRMOs and, in the interim, institute alternative ways to obtain this information on a routine basis. To determine the Department of Defense’s (DOD) policies and practices for destroying aircraft parts during the disposal process, we held discussions and performed work at the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics), Washington, D.C.; the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; and the DOD Inspector General, Washington, D.C. and Columbus, Ohio. We also reviewed the results of prior DOD internal studies. As a result, the DRMO destroyed parts that the private sector could have purchased. These parts originally cost $200,000.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed selected aspects of the Department of Defense's (DOD) disposal process, focusing on whether: (1) DOD destroyed, during the disposal process, usable aircraft parts that did not have military technology and flight safety implications; and (2) the military services recalled aircraft parts from the disposal process to preclude unnecessary purchases or repairs.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) management of the aircraft parts disposal process can be improved; (2) DOD destroyed some usable aircraft parts and sold them as scrap; (3) these parts were in new or repairable condition and did not have military technology or flight safety implications; (4) the parts could possibly have been sold intact at higher than scrap prices; (5) this situation occurred for several reasons; (6) for example, disposal offices destroyed parts because the demilitarization codes the military services had assigned to the parts were inaccurate; (7) the codes indicated the parts contained military technology when they did not; (8) GAO work showed that the Oklahoma City disposal office destroyed 62 of 71 sample items, even though they did not have technology implications, because the assigned codes required their destruction; (9) personnel responsible for assigning and reviewing the codes had not been sufficiently trained and guidance was not adequate; (10) in addition, policies and practices designed to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized release of parts with military technology and flight safety implications did not distinguish between parts with or without such implications; (11) parts without military technology and flight safety concerns were destroyed along with parts that had these characteristics; (12) GAO work also showed that DOD could have purchased or repaired fewer aircraft parts if it would have recalled the needed parts from the disposal process; (13) for example, the Army could have reduced current and planned purchases by about $200,000 by using Cobra helicopter parts scheduled for destruction; (14) DOD regulations require the military services to know which parts they have placed in the disposal process; (15) however, interface problems between service and disposal office computer systems precluded the services from knowing what parts were at the disposal offices; (16) the military services had not instituted alternative ways to obtain this information on a routine basis; (17) problems with the disposal process are likely not unique to the three disposal yards GAO visited because DOD, military service, and Defense Logistics Agency policies and procedures generally apply to activities being performed at all locations; and (18) GAO past reviews and DOD internal studies have identified similar problems at these and other locations over the past 10 years or earlier.