To achieve modernization goals, DOD plans to reduce the cost of its infrastructure, which includes central training. The services consider a number of factors in formulating their central training requirements. Training workload measures the output of the services’ central training programs. The total decrease in funding between the two FYDPs was $8.4 billion. Training of New Personnel

Funding for the training of new personnel in the 1999 FYDP was projected to be about $4.1 billion less in total than projected in the 1998 FYDP. Most of the decrease ($4 billion) was to correct an error in the Army’s allocation of military salaries. An Army official stated that the error had no impact on the Army’s budget requests for military personnel salaries and benefits. According to Army training officials, the Army did not fully fund several training initiatives in the 1999 FYDP such as improvements in the Army’s human relations training. Because these are high priorities for the Army, the Army officials expect that these initiatives will be fully funded in the 2000 FYDP, probably at the expense of other major commands. In addition, as part of the implementation of the Total Army School System program, the Army Reserve reviewed its professional development training programs and cut its budget for students, instructors, and overhead. Army training officials stated that the Army knowingly underfunded some training installation support programs, adding to the existing maintenance backlog. These changes were primarily due to personnel reductions, planned savings from training initiatives, deferred real property maintenance, planned savings from changes in the procurement profile for trainer aircraft, higher flying-hour costs, and planned savings from competitive sourcing and regionalization initiatives. Installation Support for Training

Total funding levels for installation support for training were projected to be lower by $154 million in the 1999 FYDP than in the 1998 FYDP primarily due to projected savings from Navy-wide competition sourcing and regionalization initiatives, the shifting of some funds for installation support activities from the training mission to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and the use of some installation support funds for skill training programs, a higher Navy priority. Air Force Funding Changes Primarily Due to Projected Lower Attrition, Increases in Pilot Production, and Increases in Real Property Maintenance and Cost of Studies

Although both the 1998 and 1999 FYDPs projected an overall increase in Air Force central training funding over the 1999-2003 period and both projected about the same annual funding levels, there were significant funding shifts among three categories—professional and skill training, aviation and flight training, and installation support for training. The increases were for additional pilot production to alleviate the pilot shortage resulting from lower than expected retention rates. If the savings do not materialize, and the Air Force wants to maintain installations at the level they programmed, the Air Force will need to look elsewhere for this funding. To identify trends in workload data, we used data contained in the Army’s, the Navy’s, and the Marine Corps’ annual Operation and Maintenance Justification of Estimates budget books submitted to Congress for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. To determine the causes for the changes in annual funding and workload trends for central training categories between the two FYDPs and the impact of the changes on future central training funding levels, we interviewed officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force headquarters training divisions. Additional copies are $2 each.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the significant differences in two Department of Defense training programs, focusing on the: (1) training categories and military services with the most significant funding changes from the 1998 to the 1999 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP); (2) bases for the changes; and (3) potential impact of the changes on the services' future training budgets.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the total funding for central training was projected to be $8.4 billion less in the 1999 FYDP than the 1998 FYDP; (2) the categories with the most significant changes in each of the services were the Army's training of new personnel; and the Army's, the Navy's, and the Air Force's professional and skill training, aviation and flight training; (3) the majority of the $8.4 billion decrease was due to changes in the Army's central training program; (4) $4 billion of the decrease in Army funding was to correct for an error in the 1998 FYDP that overstated the cost of enlistees' student salaries; (5) another $1.1 billion of the decrease related to the realignment of Army aviation procurement out of central training; (6) the remaining $3.3 billion primarily came from projected savings from: (a) the Army, the Navy and the Air Force reducing the number of personnel projected to be trained; (b) all of the military services contracting some installation support functions with lower cost providers; and (c) the Army and the Navy implementing training initiatives that utilize technology and other cost savings measures; (7) additionally, some of the $3.3 billion came from cuts by the Army and the Navy in funding levels for installation support and underfunding by the Army of some of its training programs; (8) the Army, the Navy and the Air Force may not be able to accomplish their central training programs at the funding levels in the 1999 FYDP; (9) the services are experiencing lower-than-expected retention rates for enlisted personnel, which will require increased accessions and additional funds for new personnel and skill training; (10) the services projected savings in installation support and funded real property maintenance at minimum maintenance levels; (11) if the programmed savings do not materialize, the services will need additional funds to maintain the current levels of maintenance or add to the existing backlog of real property maintenance; (12) the Army did not fully fund training initiatives, but it plans to fully fund these initiatives in the future; (13) the Army already had to request supplemental funding for fiscal year 1999 for the Army reserve professional development training programs because it found that programmed reductions adversely affected the programs; (14) the Army's actual aviation training workloads are higher than those used to develop FYDP 1999; and (15) the Army and the Navy programmed savings from training initiatives that use technology to reduce training.