The  service components depend on military recruiters to meet their annual  recruiting missions. Recruiters reported, however, that while they have seen an increase in the  number of individuals interested in military service, many of them do not  meet the military’s qualification requirements. Substantiated Cases of Irregularities Represent a Small Percentage of Accessions, and Actions Have Been Taken against the Recruiters Responsible

		Substantiated Cases of Recruiter Irregularities across the Service Components Comprise a Small Percentage of Overall Accessions

From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, the total number of  substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities across the service  components comprised a small percentage of overall accessions. For  example, as can be seen in table 7, in fiscal year 2008, the most common  type of action taken by the Army involved adverse administrative action,  such as placing a letter of reprimand in the recruiter’s permanent  personnel file, while the most common type of action taken in the Marine  Corps involved removal from recruiting. The Service Components Have Developed Guidance and Procedures to Address Recruiter Irregularities, but Not All Service Components Share Recruiter Irregularity Data throughout All Levels of Command

		The Service Components Have Developed Guidance to Address Recruiter Irregularities

All of the service components have developed guidance on recruiter  irregularities and have instituted procedures for reporting allegations of  recruiter irregularities, conducting an investigation, and adjudicating  cases. The Service Components Have Taken Steps to Identify and Prevent Recruiter Irregularities

The service components have instituted a number of quality control  checks to help identify recruiter irregularities, including the use of a  hotline for individuals to report recruiter irregularities, periodic  inspections of recruiting stations, and opportunities for recruits to reveal  any potential recruiter irregularities committed by their recruiter during  the enlistment process. The Service Components’ Oversight and Data Sharing Have Improved, but Not All Service Components Share Data throughout All Levels of Command

Since we reported in our prior work that the service components’  recruiting commands did not have oversight over recruiter irregularities,  the service components have improved oversight. Although the reporting process is generally similar across the service  components, some differences exist, as shown in figure 4. Further, commanders may not be able to seize  opportunities to learn from their peers about shared experiences on  handling recruiter irregularities. OSD Implemented Recruiter Irregularity Reporting Requirements, but Lacks Complete Oversight over Irregularities

		OSD Has Implemented Recruiter Irregularity Reporting Requirements, Sponsored Research, and Provided Information- Sharing Opportunities on Recruiter Irregularity Issues

In December 2006, OSD issued the memorandum regarding the tracking  and reporting of recruiter irregularities by the service components. on  However, other service components may not be approaching this situati in the same manner. Recommendations Executive Action

mend that the Secretary of Defense take the following four  1.  direct the Secretaries of the Army and Navy to identify mechanisms the regular sharing of the levels of command, and   recruiter irregularity data throughout all  irect the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to:    complete and issue the instruction on tracking and reporting data  recruiter irregularities to clarify the requirements for the types of  recruiter irregularities to be reported and the placement of rec irregularity cases and actions taken into reporting categories;    direct the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau to adjust  their reporting procedures in ways that will provide transpa data reported to OSD and any limitations on the data; and   include the appropriate disclosures concerning data limitations in th recruiter irregularity reports that OSD produces on the basis of the  National Guard data for the Congress and others. To conduct our work, we examined relevant guidance issued by OSD, the  service components, the Army National Guard, and the Air National  Guard; reviewed and analyzed data on recruiter irregularities reported by  the service components to OSD from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year  2009; and reviewed reports issued by GAO and the Department of Defense  (DOD) related to recruiting and recruiter irregularities, including surveys  conducted by DOD on recruiters’ quality of life across the service  components. To assess the extent to which OSD maintains oversight of recruiter  irregularities occurring across the service components, we reviewed the  December 2006 memorandum issued by OSD that requires each service  component to submit a semiannual report to OSD on recruiter  irregularities.
Why GAO Did This Study

To sustain a viable military force, the Department of Defense (DOD) depends on recruiting several hundred thousand qualified individuals into the military each year. The service components rely on their recruiters to act with the utmost integrity because even a single incident of wrongdoing on the part of a recruiter--a recruiter irregularity--can adversely affect the service components' ability to recruit qualified individuals. GAO was asked to (1) analyze data on reported cases of recruiter irregularities across the service components, (2) review the extent to which the service components have guidance and procedures to address recruiter irregularities, and (3) review the extent to which the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has oversight over recruiter irregularities. GAO analyzed the data on recruiter irregularities reported to OSD by the service components; reviewed the service components' recruiter irregularity case files; examined relevant guidance and procedures from the service components; and interviewed service components' recruiting command personnel, recruiters, and OSD officials.

What GAO Found

From fiscal year 2006 through 2008, the total number of substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities across the service components represented a small percentage of overall accessions (i.e., number of individuals entering military service), and the service components have taken various actions against the recruiters responsible for these irregularities. Specifically, the number of substantiated cases of recruiter irregularities as a percentage of overall accessions was 0.26 percent in fiscal year 2006, 0.22 percent in fiscal year 2007, and 0.18 percent in fiscal year 2008. The most common types of recruiter irregularity reported involved concealment or falsification of documents or information, sexual misconduct, and quality control measures (e.g., valid parental signatures). The action most commonly applied against recruiters who committed irregularities varied by service component. Removal from recruiting was the most commonly applied action in the Marine Corps while adverse administrative action (e.g., a letter of reprimand in the recruiter's personnel file) was most commonly applied in the Army. All service components have guidance and procedures on addressing recruiter irregularities and have improved oversight over them, but the manner in which data on recruiter irregularities are shared within the service components varied. Although some differences exist, the service components are similar in how they identify, investigate, and adjudicate recruiter irregularities. In addition, the service components have taken steps to identify and prevent recruiter irregularities, including establishing quality control checks to help identify recruiter irregularities and providing training for recruiters to help prevent recruiter irregularities. However, in most service components, not all levels of command have regular access to information on recruiter irregularities that occur. Without regular access to information, commanders may not be able to take full advantage of servicewide recruiter irregularity data and opportunities to learn from their peers. Although OSD has implemented requirements for the service components to regularly report on recruiter irregularities, it does not have complete oversight over the recruiter irregularities that occur. In December 2006, OSD issued a memorandum for the service components on tracking and reporting recruiter irregularities, and the service components have been providing recruiter irregularity data to OSD. However, because some of the reporting requirements lack clarity, the service components do not interpret the reporting requirements in the same way. Further, the data provided to OSD by the National Guard are incomplete and the relevant offices within the National Guard Bureau do not provide appropriate caveats regarding these data, such as including information on the States and Territories that did not submit recruiter irregularity data. Unless OSD clarifies the reporting requirements in its memorandum and directs the service components to provide transparency in the data they report, it will be unable to maintain complete oversight over the extent to which recruiter irregularities are occurring and make determinations on whether corrective action is needed.