The working group determined that (1) uniformed members who  perform duty in designated hardship locations for more than   30 consecutive days are eligible for hardship duty pay and (2) this pay is  not intended to compensate for difficult working conditions. OSD, in its appeal submitted in response to the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, opposed the legislation creating an  exception to the 30-day hardship duty threshold for missions to the polar  regions on the grounds that it “unnecessarily circumvents a process that  has proven to be a fair and equitable means of setting hardship duty pay  location rates worldwide.” The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force  Management Policy) regularly reviews and determines hardship duty  locations and rates. The National Science Foundation reimburses  DOD for 109th Airlift Wing logistic support in the polar regions and would  incur most of these additional costs. However, allowing this exception  could set a precedent for DOD personnel performing other missions  lasting 30 days or less. The costs of granting an exception for short-term  missions conducted at other hardship locations are unknown. Estimated Costs of Granting the 109th Airlift Wing an Exception to the 30-Day Threshold

The 109th Airlift Wing estimated that granting an exception to the 30-day  hardship duty threshold for unit members deployed to the polar regions  would cost approximately $125,000 to $130,000 a year based on  deployment trends in past years. We did not verify the cost data. The Navy stated  that security personnel who are deployed to the island on a 14-day  rotational schedule live in “substandard conditions.” DOD, in turning down  the request, stated that “members on a short-term duration tour-of-duty do  not endure the range of physical hardships experienced by those who are  permanently assigned.” According to an official within the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), granting an  exception to the 30-day threshold for other short-term missions would  result in additional hardship duty pay costs, but these costs are unknown  because DOD has not conducted a cost analysis. Factors Cited as Justifying Hazardous Duty Pay for Personnel Performing Duty in Polar Regions

The 109th Airlift Wing justified its proposal for hazardous duty pay for  military personnel performing duty in the polar regions on the basis of the  extreme working conditions they encounter and their exposure to  potential medical hazards. Unit officials also expressed concern about the  retention of unit personnel, but they did not know what impact hazardous  duty pay for polar duty would have on retention. The senior 109th Airlift Wing official  said the unit’s justification for hazardous duty pay for polar operations  could also be applied to hardship duty pay. Maintenance personnel work in temperatures as low  as minus 59 degrees Fahrenheit without the protection of hangars. Operations in these conditions expose personnel to potential medical  hazards such as hypothermia, frostbite, carbon monoxide poisoning, and  ultraviolet radiation exposure. Conclusions

The hardship duty pay legislation introduced in 2002 — directed at the  109th Airlift Wing — would have created an exception to (1) the 30-day  hardship duty pay threshold and (2) the monthly hardship duty rate  established by DOD for the polar regions. We believe that granting such an  exception for hardship duty pay is not justified under current DOD policy. These factors warrant consideration as part of  DOD’s review of special and incentive pays for personnel performing duty  in the polar regions. Exit surveys  conducted with separating personnel show that dissatisfaction with pay  was not among the most frequently cited reasons that members of the unit  provided for leaving. We visited Stratton Air Guard Base,  where we interviewed officials from the 109th Airlift Wing, New York Air  National Guard.
Why GAO Did This Study

The 109th Airlift Wing, New York Air National Guard, conducts supply missions for scientific research in the polar regions. Most unit members do not spend more than 30 consecutive days in the polar regions. Therefore, they are not eligible for hardship duty pay, which requires more than 30 consecutive days of duty in a designated hardship location. Congress considered legislation in 2002 to make an exception to the 30-day hardship duty pay threshold for polar duty. This legislation was not approved. In addition, the 109th Airlift Wing proposed designating polar duty as a hazardous duty. The Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 directed GAO and DOD to conduct separate reviews of special and incentive pays for polar duty. GAO assessed DOD's rationale for hardship duty pay and the implications of making an exception to hardship duty pay. In addition, GAO assessed the 109th Airlift Wing's justification for hazardous duty pay for polar duty.

What GAO Found

Hardship duty pay is intended to compensate military personnel assigned to areas for more than 30 consecutive days where quality-of-life conditions are substantially below those in the continental United States. DOD did not support the hardship duty pay legislation on the basis that this pay was not intended to compensate stays of short duration and the legislation circumvented a DOD process designating hardship duty locations and rates. Granting an exception to the 30-day hardship duty pay threshold for 109th Airlift Wing personnel deployed to the polar regions would result in minimal costs, but this exception could set a precedent for DOD personnel performing other short-term missions and could further increase costs. Had this exception been in effect in 2001-2002, the 109th Airlift Wing estimated the costs would have totaled about $127,000. The National Science Foundation would incur most of these costs because it reimburses DOD for logistic support in the polar regions. The costs of granting an exception for short-term missions conducted by DOD personnel at other hardship locations are unknown. Based on its review of the intent of hardship duty pay and the implications of granting an exception, GAO believes that an exception to the 30-day threshold is not justified under current DOD policy. The 109th Airlift Wing justified its proposal for hazardous pay on the basis of extreme working conditions and exposure to medical hazards. For example, maintenance personnel work in temperatures as cold as minus 59 degrees Fahrenheit without the protection of hangars and are exposed to potential medical hazards such as frostbite, hypothermia, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Unit officials expressed concern about the retention of personnel who require additional training for polar operations, but they did not know what impact hazardous duty pay would have on retention. Recent data from exit surveys show that dissatisfaction with pay was not among the most frequently cited reasons for leaving.