In the absence of authorization to carry out the BRAC process,  installation closures and realignments that are subject to the requirements  in 10 U.S.C. § 2687, and Uses Them Hundreds of Time Per Year

DOD and the military services have processes in place to meet statutory  requirements for basing decisions, and according to DOD officials they  use these processes to make hundreds of basing decisions each year  that are not subject to 10 U.S.C. For example, in addition to  closures and realignments, basing decisions can include actions such as  reductions in force, disestablishments, changes to mission statements,  and other organization changes. § 2687 or were undertaken with a statutorily  authorized BRAC process. They also told us they do not anticipate that  closures or realignments pursuant to this statute will take place in the  near future, citing BRAC as the preferred method for implementing basing  actions that are above statutory thresholds. § 2687

Each military service has its own processes for evaluating and  implementing basing decisions, including proposals to close or realign  installations outside of the BRAC process. Generally, the services’  basing decision processes use similar criteria, scope, and methodologies  to determine where to locate the services’ force structure, and each  process is documented in established guidance. Each service’s process  requires a series of analyses, such as analysis of capability and capacity,  cost estimates, and environmental considerations. According to service officials, this review  provides them with data to determine whether the basing action is above  or below 10 U.S.C. In addition to the requirement to provide data on the effect on civilian  personnel, each service’s basing decision process includes legal reviews  of basing decisions, which, according to service officials, occur at multiple  stages throughout the process and ensure compliance with 10 U.S.C. Specifically, closures and realignments that  trigger congressional notification and waiting include any:  closure of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire permanent  DOD civilian authorized positions (this includes all authorized  positions, regardless of whether they are vacant or filled); or  realignment of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire permanent  DOD civilian authorized positions (vacant or filled), if the realignment  will involve a reduction by (1) 1,000 or more civilian positions, or (2)  50 percent or more of the total civilian authorized positions. The January 2011 disestablishment of Joint Forces Command led to  approved basing decisions that, according to DOD, reduced civilian  personnel and eliminated functions at multiple installations, but did not  exceed the personnel threshold of 10 U.S.C. For  example, one of the installations affected by the disestablishment of Joint  Forces Command was Naval Support Activity Norfolk, Virginia—the  installation where Joint Forces Command was headquartered. Naval  Support Activity Norfolk, according to DOD documents, had  approximately 3,200 civilian personnel at the time of the disestablishment,  of which 1,058 (about 33 percent) were Joint Forces Command  personnel. According to DOD, a significant number of Joint Forces  Command functions and positions were eliminated through a reduction in  force—an action that is not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2687—and the  remainder were part of a realignment of Naval Support Activity Norfolk,  which fell below the statutory thresholds of 1,000 authorized civilian  personnel or 50 percent of the total civilian personnel authorized to be  employed at the installation. § 2687 threshold, the Army was not required to conduct  evaluations and submit congressional notifications pursuant to 10 U.S.C. In its written  comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOD stated this report, in general,  explains the processes it follows to comply with requirements for closing  or realigning installations outside of a congressionally authorized BRAC  process. (b) No action described in subsection (a) with respect to the closure of, or  a realignment with respect to, any military installation referred to in such  subsection may be taken unless and until—  (1) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military  department concerned notifies the Committee on Armed Services of  the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of  Representatives, as part of an annual request for authorization of  appropriations to such Committees, of the proposed closing or  realignment and submits with the notification—  (A) an evaluation of the fiscal, local economic, budgetary,  environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of such  closure or realignment; and  (B) the criteria used to consider and recommend military  installations for such closure or realignment, which shall include  at a minimum consideration of—  (i) the ability of the infrastructure (including transportation infrastructure)  of both the existing and receiving communities to support forces,  missions, and personnel as a result of such closure or realignment; and  (ii) the costs associated with community transportation infrastructure  improvements as part of the evaluation of cost savings or return on  investment of such closure or realignment; and  (2) a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days, whichever is  longer, expires following the day on which the notice and evaluation  referred to in clause (1) have been submitted to such committees, during  which period no irrevocable action may be taken to effect or implement  the decision.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD may be required to meet specific statutory requirements before closing or realigning installations that are authorized to employ 300 or more DOD civilians. In light of these requirements, DOD has historically used the BRAC process for closing or realigning bases that are above statutory thresholds. However, in March 2012, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) testified that because of fiscal and strategic imperatives, in the absence of an additional BRAC round, DOD may be forced to use its existing authorities to begin to realign and close bases. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated GAO to review the processes that DOD uses to close and realign military installations outside of the BRAC process. This report describes the extent to which DOD has processes in place to implement installation closures and realignments within the United States, and the extent to which DOD has implemented closures and realignments outside of the BRAC process.
To conduct its work, GAO examined DOD's approach to implementing basing actions and interviewed DOD officials to identify how their approach ensures compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2687.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. In commenting on this report DOD stated the report, in general, explains the processes it follows to comply with requirements for closing or realigning installations outside of a congressionally authorized BRAC process.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have processes to meet statutory requirements for base closures and realignments, and use these processes hundreds of times each year to make basing decisions outside of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. These processes provide guidance for all types of basing actions, including, but not limited to base closures and realignments. For example, basing decisions can include actions such as reductions in force, disestablishments, renaming a command, and other organization changes. Generally, each service's basing decision process uses similar criteria, scope, and methodologies to determine where to locate its force structure, and each process is documented in established guidance. Each service's process requires a series of analyses, such as analysis of capability and capacity, cost estimates, and environmental considerations. Additionally, each service basing decision process includes legal reviews and an evaluation of the effect on civilian personnel. According to service officials, these reviews provide them data to determine whether a closure or realignment is above thresholds established in section 2687 of Title 10, U.S. Code (hereafter 10 U.S.C. 2687), and therefore subject to additional evaluations and congressional notification. Specific statutory thresholds include:
closure of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire DOD civilian authorized positions (this includes all authorized positions, regardless of whether they are vacant or filled); and
realignment of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire DOD civilian authorized positions (vacant or filled), if the realignment will reduce the installation by 1,000 or more civilian positions, or 50 percent or more of the total civilian authorized positions.
DOD has conducted closures or realignments that have either fallen below the thresholds of 10 U.S.C. 2687 or were authorized by the BRAC process, according to DOD officials. For example, the January 2011 disestablishment of Joint Forces Command was a basing decision that, according to DOD, reduced civilian personnel and eliminated functions at multiple installations, but did not require evaluations and congressional notification pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2687. Specifically, one of the installations affected by the disestablishment of Joint Forces Command was Naval Support Activity Norfolk, Virginia--the installation where Joint Forces Command was headquartered. Naval Support Activity Norfolk had approximately 3,200 civilian personnel at the time of the disestablishment, of which 1,058 (about 33 percent) were Joint Forces Command personnel. According to DOD, a significant number of Joint Forces Command functions and positions were eliminated through a reduction in force--an action that is not subject to 10 U.S.C. 2687--and the remainder were part of a realignment of Naval Support Activity Norfolk that fell below the statutory thresholds of 1,000 authorized civilian personnel or 50 percent of the total civilian personnel authorized to be employed at the installation. Officials also told us they do not anticipate any future closures or realignments pursuant to this statute, citing BRAC as the preferred method for implementing basing actions that are above statutory thresholds.