	Background

GFOs are officers in the four ranks of brigadier general and above (for the  Navy, rear admiral and above). GFO Population Growth Was Generally Consistent with the Growth in Statutory Limits but Was Higher Than Enlisted Personnel Growth, and DOD Has Not Updated GFO Requirements since 2003

The GFO population has experienced higher rates of growth than the  enlisted population since fiscal year 2001, but DOD has not  comprehensively updated GFO requirements since 2003 to reflect  changes in the active duty force. In addition, growth  varied across all of the active duty military personnel populations (i.e.,  GFOs, non-GFO officers, and enlisted personnel), with the most growth  experienced by non-GFO officers—officers at or below the rank of  colonel/captain. DOD officials stated that there continues to be a need for  more GFOs than are authorized by Congress, but added that the  department has not comprehensively updated GFO requirements since  2003 or advocated for increased GFO statutory limits because of the  recent fiscal constraints faced by the department. 1). Also, 10 U.S.C. Department of Defense, General and Flag Officer Efficiencies Study Group (2011). 2). DOD officials stated that during military drawdowns,  population decreases in the officer population tend to lag behind those of  the enlisted population and attributed this to the greater flexibility that  military planners have to decrease the enlisted population by rotating  them out of the active duty force, while officers tend to remain in theater  to manage the drawdown effort. Without conducting  a comprehensive update of DOD’s GFO requirements—to include  identifying, assessing, and validating positions that the department  believes should be filled by GFOs; defining the circumstances under  which subsequent updates should occur; and assessing whether GFO  statutory limits are sufficient to meet GFO requirements—it will be difficult  for DOD to ensure that the GFO corps is properly sized and structured. The Full Cost of Active Duty GFOs Is Unknown; Trends in Available Costs Varied

The full cost to DOD for active duty GFOs from fiscal years 2001 through  2013 is unknown because complete cost data for GFOs and their aides  were not available. Data for compensation and housing were fully  available, and trends for those costs varied from fiscal years 2001  through 2013. Our work found that data availability was affected by reporting practices,  retention policies, inconsistent definitions for certain cost elements, and  reliability factors. By defining in guidance the officer aide position and GFO  and associated aide costs, DOD will be in a better position to help ensure  that a consistent approach is employed when estimating GFO and  associated aide costs, better account for the full costs of GFOs, and  improve its ability to make sound workforce allocation decisions. Availability of GFO and Aide Cost Data Varied

The full cost to DOD for GFOs from fiscal years 2001 through 2013 is  unknown because complete cost data for GFOs and their aides were not  available. For example, complete cost data related to GFO commercial travel  and per diem expenditures were available from the Defense Travel  System for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Cost data needed to calculate enlisted and officer aide compensation  costs were also partially complete. As a result, the military services  were not able to provide consistent data for these personnel. Some GFO cost data were not readily available or were determined to be  unreliable—such as cost data related to GFO travel on military and  government flights and cost data associated with providing personal  security details to GFOs. Per capita  costs grew from $228,129 to $268,187 (18 percent). Trends in Other GFO Costs Varied

Trends in other complete or partially complete GFO costs—such as  housing, travel and per diem, and official representation—varied from  fiscal years 2001 through 2013. DOD partially concurred with the first recommendation to conduct a  comprehensive update for GFO requirements and define the  circumstances under which periodic updates should occur. We continue to believe that defining the position of officer  aide and requiring the military departments to report on the number of  personnel assigned to these positions would improve the availability of  cost information associated with the GFO population. However, DOD  did not concur with the modified recommendation. As stated in the report,  certain costs associated with GFOs—such as security details and officer  aides—were unavailable because the cost elements were not defined. To assess what is known about the costs associated with the active duty  GFO population and their aides and any trends in such costs from fiscal  years 2001 through 2013, including trends in GFO compensation relative  to that of other active duty personnel, we identified the relevant DOD,  component, and service offices responsible for managing active duty  GFOs and enlisted and officer aides, along with related military personnel  and operations and maintenance costs, such as compensation, housing,  and travel; met with officials at these offices to determine the extent to  which data were available; obtained and assessed the reliability of  available data; and analyzed available data, when possible. GFO health care.
Why GAO Did This Study

GFOs are the elite leaders of the U.S. military. In August 2013 Congress raised questions about costs associated with GFOs as the size of the military forces decreases.
GAO was mandated to assess the trends in costs of the active duty GFO population from FY 2001 through FY 2013. This report (1) identifies changes in the population and statutory limits for active duty GFOs relative to other active duty personnel, and the extent to which DOD updated GFO requirements, and (2) assesses what is known about the costs associated with active duty GFOs and their aides and trends in such costs, including trends in GFO compensation costs relative to those of other active duty personnel from FY 2001 through FY 2013. GAO assessed the availability of cost data and analyzed available active duty military personnel population and cost data, including costs for compensation, housing and travel for FY 2001 through FY 2013, using FY 2013 dollars. GAO also met with DOD officials.

What GAO Found

The general and flag officer (GFO) population (i.e., officers ranked at or above brigadier general or rear admiral) experienced higher rates of growth than the enlisted population since fiscal year (FY) 2001. The Department of Defense (DOD) has not comprehensively updated GFO requirements—the number of GFOs needed to fill positions—since 2003 to reflect changes in the active duty force nor has DOD defined circumstances under which such an update should occur. GFO population growth was generally consistent with the growth in GFO statutory limits. From FY 2001 through FY 2013 growth was not evenly distributed across all military ranks. For example, the GFO and non-GFO officer populations grew from 871 to 943 (8 percent) and from 216,140 to 237,586 (10 percent), respectively, while the enlisted population decreased from 1,155,344 to 1,131,281 (2 percent). DOD officials attributed these differences to the greater flexibility that military planners have to decrease the enlisted population. DOD guidance requires military personnel requirements to be periodically evaluated. DOD conducted a comprehensive update of GFO requirements in 2003 and concluded that the department needed more GFOs than were authorized by Congress. However, DOD officials said that they have not comprehensively updated the requirements since 2003 or advocated for an increase of GFOs because of fiscal constraints. Nevertheless, without periodically conducting a comprehensive update of DOD's GFO requirements, and defining when such an update should occur, it will be difficult for DOD to help ensure that the GFO population is properly sized and structured to meet its assigned missions.
The full cost to DOD for GFOs from FY 2001 through FY 2013 is unknown because complete cost data for GFOs and their aides were not available and trends in available cost data varied. Certain cost data were fully available and complete for FY 2001 through FY 2013, while other cost data were either partially complete or unavailable because of reporting practices, retention policies, inconsistent definitions, and reliability factors. Also, the position of officer aide is not defined in departmental guidance and as a result all military services were not able to consistently track the number of personnel in these positions. Cost data related to GFO compensation and housing were readily available, and trends for these costs varied, with compensation increasing by 38 percent and housing decreasing by 67 percent from FY 2001 through FY 2013. Measured on a per capita basis, compensation costs grew by 18 percent for GFOs, 19 percent for non-GFO officers, and 32 percent for enlisted personnel over the same time frame. GAO assessed GFO commercial travel and per diem and GFO health care costs as partially complete because data were not available for FY 2001 through FY 2013. For the years in which complete data were available, travel and per diem costs increased by 4 percent from FY 2009 through FY 2013 and health care costs grew by 77 percent from FY 2003 through FY 2013. Other cost data, including data for GFO travel on military and government flights, GFO personal security details, and certain enlisted and officer aide costs, were not readily available or GAO determined them to be unreliable because of concerns regarding completeness or accuracy. By defining the officer aide position and GFO and associated aide costs, DOD will be able to better account for the full costs of GFOs and improve its ability to make sound workforce allocation decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD update GFO requirements and define circumstances for doing so, improve information related to GFO aides, and define costs associated with GFOs. DOD partially concurred with the recommendations on updating requirements and improving information on GFO aides, and did not concur with defining costs associated with GFOs, citing among other reasons, a need for flexibility and the adequacy of existing information. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report.