	Background

Section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2014 required DOD to report on various regional BMD topics, including  the eight specific elements presented in table 1, by June 24, 2014. The 2010 Ballistic Missile  Defense Review Report indicates that the United States would pursue a  phased, adaptive approach to missile defense within each region that is  tailored to the threats and circumstances unique to each region. In the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, DOD also discussed  the development of regional phased, adaptive approaches to BMD in the  Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. DOD, Report to Congress: Regional Ballistic Missile Defense. DOD’s Report Addressed or Partially Addressed the Required Reporting Elements, but Did Not Provide Additional Key Details

		DOD’s Report Addressed or Partially Addressed All Eight of the Required Reporting Elements

Compared to the statutory reporting requirements, DOD’s June 2014  regional BMD report addressed five of the eight required reporting  elements, and partially addressed the remaining three elements. DOD  addressed elements that describe the overall risk assessment from the  Global Integrated Air and Missile Defense Assessment, the role of  regional missile defenses in the homeland defense mission, the  integration of offensive and defensive capabilities, and two elements on  the roles and contributions of allies. DOD partially addressed the  remaining three reporting elements, regarding the alignment of regional  approaches to missile defense with combatant command integrated  priorities, the concept of operations for EPAA, and the testing and  development of key EPAA elements. DOD’s Report Did Not Provide Additional Key Details

Additionally, through interviews with DOD officials and from our  application of generally accepted standards that define a sound and  complete defense research study, we found that DOD’s report did not  include key details for some required reporting elements that we believe  could have benefitted congressional defense committees’ oversight of  DOD’s regional BMD programs. However, DOD’s report does not consistently meet this  standard, based on GAO’s review. We believe that by not  including these details, although not required, DOD reduced the report’s  usefulness to the congressional defense committees and to their  oversight of DOD’s regional BMD programs. Combatant Command Force Structure Deployment Options Lacked Both Detail and a Comparison with Integrated Priorities

In support of element B, regarding the combatant commands’ deployment  options, as stated earlier, we determined that DOD’s report partially  addressed the required reporting element because it did not include key  details about U.S. European Command’s and U.S. Pacific Command’s  planned options to increase BMD capability in response to an imminent  threat, nor did the report provide a comprehensive analysis regarding how  the various regional approaches to BMD will meet combatant command  integrated priorities. Report Did Not Describe Key C2BMC or Aegis BMD Issues in Describing EPAA Testing and Development

In support of element D, regarding the development and testing of BMD  systems that are part of EPAA, DOD’s report did not include details about  C2BMC and Aegis BMD testing and development issues, and the lack of  such detail may limit Congress’ ability to understand the extent to which  the EPAA system can be integrated:
C2BMC: The 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report and  MDA’s acquisition and system engineering documentation underscore  the importance of C2BMC for all regional approaches, since it is the  system that enables system-level capabilities. Furthermore, they  explained that they regularly provide more detailed analysis on some of  these topics to congressional defense committees via periodic briefings,  and that they did not want to provide duplicative or unnecessary  information. Although we recognize the need for professional judgment by  DOD officials when preparing the report, our review concluded that  DOD’s report did not include details that we believe could have made the  report more useful to Congress in its oversight of DOD’s regional BMD  programs. However, DOD’s report was prepared in response to a  onetime, nonrecurring mandate, and therefore we are not making any  recommendations to amend the report and provide additional detail.
Why GAO Did This Study

Regional BMD constitutes an essential element in deterring enemies from using ballistic missiles and supporting defense commitments to U.S. allies and partners. DOD's 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report noted that the United States would pursue phased, tailored, and adaptive approaches to regional BMD in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, and the Middle East. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 mandated DOD to submit within 180 days a report to the congressional defense committees on eight elements related to the status and progress of regional BMD programs and efforts. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the NDAA mandated that GAO provide its views on DOD's report. Separately, GAO was requested to provide its results in a written, publicly releasable form.
This report assesses the extent to which DOD's report addressed the required reporting elements and provides views on other key information, if any, that DOD could have included in the report. GAO used a scorecard methodology to compare the required reporting elements to the information in DOD's BMD report. Further, GAO reviewed the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report , combatant commander integrated priority lists, and other DOD documents and policy, and interviewed DOD officials to gain further insight on DOD's regional BMD efforts.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense's (DOD) June 2014 regional ballistic missile defense (BMD) report addressed five of the eight required reporting elements, and partially addressed the remaining three required reporting elements.
DOD's report addressed elements relating to a BMD risk assessment, the role that regional missile defenses play in the homeland defense mission, the integration of offensive and defensive capabilities, and two elements on the roles and contributions of allies.
DOD's report partially addressed the required reporting elements regarding the alignment of regional approaches to missile defense with combatant command-integrated priorities, the concept of operations for the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), and the testing and development of key EPAA elements.
Additionally, GAO determined that DOD's report did not include key details for some elements that would have benefitted the congressional defense committees' oversight of DOD's regional BMD efforts. Generally accepted research standards for preparing sound and complete defense studies include providing complete, accurate, and relevant information. However, DOD's report does not consistently meet this standard, based on GAO's review. For example, the explanation in DOD's report of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's transfer of authority process did not include sufficient detail to clearly convey the process. DOD's report also did not include details regarding the combatant commands' requirements, nor did it fully describe issues affecting the testing and development of key regional BMD systems (see fig.). DOD officials told GAO that the report was intended to address each of the eight required reporting elements concisely, that DOD regularly provides more detailed analysis on some of these topics to Congress via periodic briefings, and that they did not want to provide duplicative information in this report. GAO recognizes that judgment is needed in preparing reports to Congress; however, DOD's report did not include details on key BMD assets and risks to the EPAA schedule, which limits the report's utility to the congressional defense committees in their oversight of DOD's regional BMD programs.

What GAO Recommends

Because DOD prepared its report in response to a nonrecurring mandate, GAO is not making recommendations.