oversight

Military Education: Improved Oversight and Management Needed for DOD's Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-04-20.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States Government Accountability Office

GAO          Report to Congressional Committees




April 2012
             MILITARY
             EDUCATION
             Improved Oversight
             and Management
             Needed for DOD’s
             Fellowship and
             Training-with-Industry
             Programs




GAO-12-367
                                                 April 2012

                                                 MILITARY EDUCATION
                                                 Improved Oversight and Management Needed for
                                                 DOD's Fellowship and Training-with-Industry
                                                 Programs
Highlights of GAO-12-367, a report to
congressional committees




Why GAO Did This Study                           What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD),                 GAO determined that DOD primarily uses two explicit statutory authorities—
which includes the military services,            section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes
selects mid- to upper-career-level               servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain organizations, and section
military officers to participate in              2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes the training of
fellowship and training-with-industry            servicemembers at nongovernmental facilities—for its fellowships and training-
programs conducted at non-DOD                    with-industry programs for military officers. For two specific types of
organizations such as universities,              fellowships—Legislative and Interagency—the underlying authorities are less
think tanks, private corporations,               explicit than they are for the others.
federal agencies, and Congress. For
some fellowships, the military                   OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-industry programs
departments pay a fee or tuition to the          for several reasons. First, OSD has not developed a mission statement that
host organization. GAO was directed to           would clearly define the respective key purposes for these programs. Having a
review DOD’s use of these programs.              clear mission statement is critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in
GAO’s objectives were to determine:              language that states desired outcomes. Additionally, OSD has not consistently
(1) the statutory provisions that                enforced its requirement for the military departments to provide an annual report
authorize DOD’s fellowship and                   on fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Further, not all fellowship and
training-with-industry programs for              training-with-industry programs have a designated office within each department
military officers, (2) the extent of the         for preparing the annual report. OSD’s visibility is also limited by not having a
Office of the Secretary of Defense’s
                                                 reliable inventory of these various programs, and by not having a clear and
(OSD) visibility over these programs,
                                                 commonly shared definition of a fellowship. Without improved oversight, OSD’s
and (3) the extent to which the services
are able to determine that they derive           visibility over the military departments’ compliance with its requirements
benefits from these programs. GAO                governing these programs will remain limited. Additionally, visibility is limited over
analyzed relevant laws and DOD                   the legislative fellowship program in particular because oversight responsibilities
policies, collected data, and                    are not clearly delineated, and because OSD does not have documented criteria
interviewed OSD and military service             for the placement of DOD fellows with the offices of congressional committees
officials on their oversight and                 and members. OSD officials agree that such criteria would be helpful since it
management roles and responsibilities            does not have enough available fellows to meet the full congressional demand.
for these programs.
                                                 The military services are not well positioned to determine the extent of the
What GAO Recommends                              benefits they are deriving from their participation in these programs for four
                                                 principal reasons. First, not all of the services conduct periodic program reviews,
GAO is making 11 recommendations                 as are required for some programs. In addition, the reviews that are conducted
to DOD for improving oversight and               are not comprehensive in that they do not assess the program against program
management of DOD’s fellowship and               goals using quantifiable performance measures, review the needs that prompted
training-with-industry programs—for
                                                 the program, incorporate feedback from fellows into the review, or document the
example, submitting DOD-required
                                                 results of the review. Second, they do not have clear guidance as to what
annual reports and performing service-
required program reviews—that would              qualifies as a postfellowship assignment—an assignment that uses the skills and
enhance OSD’s visibility over the                knowledge developed during the fellowship program—or criteria for when such
programs and better position DOD to              assignments can be postponed or waived, thus limiting the extent the services’
determine the extent to which it derives         are able to determine they are deriving benefits from these programs. Third, the
benefits from them. In response to a             services do not know their overall program costs, so it is difficult to know whether
draft of this report, DOD concurred with         these programs are cost-effective. Finally, some of the services do not have
the 11 recommendations and stated its            memoranda of understanding with the non-DOD host organizations, such as
action plan to implement the                     think tanks, so they cannot be assured that expectations are clearly understood
recommendations.                                 and the intended benefits are obtained. Without better management controls, the
                                                 services’ ability to determine the benefits of these programs will remain limited.
View GAO-12-367. For more information,
contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or   However, service officials believe that they obtain benefits from fellowships and
farrellb@gao.gov.                                training-with-industry programs.

                                                                                           United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                     1
               Background                                                                  3
               DOD Uses Several Statutory Authorities for Fellowship and
                 Training-with-Industry Programs                                         10
               OSD Has Limited Visibility over Fellowship and Training-with-
                 Industry Programs                                                       13
               Military Services Are Not Well Positioned to Determine the Extent
                 of the Benefits from These Programs                                     23
               Conclusions                                                               40
               Recommendations for Executive Action                                      40
               Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                        42

Appendix I     Scope and Methodology                                                     45



Appendix II    Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship Program                                 50



Appendix III   Military Service Guidance on Fellowship and Training-with-Industry
               Programs                                                                  52



Appendix IV    Ethics Guidance Provided to Fellows                                       53



Appendix V     Comments from the Department of Defense                                   55



Appendix VI    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                     60



Tables
               Table 1: Offices within Each Service Involved in Management of
                        Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs                   16
               Table 2: Number of DOD Fellows and Training-with-Industry
                        Participants for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011                  19




               Page i                                           GAO-12-367 Military Education
          Table 3: Number of Congressional Requests for DOD Legislative
                   Fellows and the Number That DOD Provides, Academic
                   Years 2009-2010 through 2011-2012                                                23
          Table 4: Military Service Requirement for Periodic Program
                   Reviews                                                                          25
          Table 5: Military Service Guidance on Fellowships and Training-
                   with-Industry Programs                                                           52


Figures
          Figure 1: Selected Military Educational Opportunities and Career
                   Progression                                                                       7
          Figure 2: Fellowship Program Life-cycle                                                   50




          Abbreviations

          DOD               Department of Defense
          OSD               Office of the Secretary of Defense
          USD P&R           Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness



          This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
          United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
          without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
          copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
          necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




          Page ii                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   April 20, 2012

                                   Congressional Committees

                                   The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the military services,
                                   selects mid- to upper-career-level 1 military officers to participate in
                                   fellowship and training-with-industry programs at non-DOD organizations
                                   such as universities, think tanks, 2 private corporations, federal agencies,
                                   and Congress. For some fellowships, the military departments pay a fee
                                   or tuition to the host organization. According to DOD, the department’s
                                   intent for its fellowship program is to help fulfill a present need,
                                   anticipated requirement, or future capability that contributes to the
                                   effectiveness of the participating Military Department and DOD.
                                   Congressional interest in these programs has grown, in part due to an
                                   increase in the number of military officers participating in one particular
                                   program—the Legislative Fellowship—starting in 2008. 3 We were
                                   directed, in the Senate report accompanying a bill for the National
                                   Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, to review DOD
                                   educational and legislative fellowships as well as training-with-industry
                                   programs and to report to the congressional defense committees.
                                   Accordingly, we examined these programs to determine: (1) the statutory
                                   provisions that authorize DOD’s fellowship and training-with-industry
                                   programs for military officers, (2) the extent of the Office of the Secretary
                                   of Defense’s (OSD) visibility over these programs, and (3) the extent to
                                   which the military services are able to determine that they derive benefits
                                   from these programs.



                                   1
                                     The fellowship and training-with-industry programs we reviewed were generally available
                                   to officer levels at the intermediate level of O-3 to O-4, and at the senior level of O-5 to
                                   O-6. With the exception of the Marine Corps Legislative Fellowships, we did not identify
                                   fellowship and training-with-industry programs available to officer levels of O-1, O-2, O-7,
                                   and above during the course of our review, nor did DOD officials identify such programs.
                                   2
                                    For the purposes of this report, a think tank is defined as nonprofit organizations that
                                   conduct public policy research and analysis. We used the service’s categorization of
                                   whether or not an organization was a think tank or an academic institution.
                                   3
                                     DOD provided Congress with a report on legislative fellowships in 2009 as directed in
                                   Senate Report 110–335 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act
                                   for Fiscal Year 2009. DOD also provided the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on
                                   Personnel with a report on fellowships at think tanks and training-with-industry programs
                                   in 2010.




                                   Page 1                                                        GAO-12-367 Military Education
To address our first objective, we researched and analyzed relevant legal
authorities for DOD to use fellowship and training-with-industry programs,
reviewed DOD and service regulations and guidance related to these
programs, and interviewed relevant DOD attorneys and received written
responses to questions on DOD’s use of these authorities. For our
second objective, we collected and analyzed available service data on the
numbers and types of fellowships and training-with-industry programs
offered from fiscal years 2007 through 2011; interviewed officials in OSD,
particularly with the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R), and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs; and collected and reviewed DOD-required
service annual reports. For the third objective, we interviewed officials
within the four military services and reviewed DOD and service guidance
related to these programs. Most of our interviews centered on obtaining
information about roles and responsibilities related to overseeing and
managing fellowship and training-with-industry programs, 4 and
particularly on activities that provide means of ensuring that DOD
received benefits from these programs. More specifically, we collected
information on service program goals, program reviews, costs of the
programs, and memoranda of understanding between the services and
host organizations. We found the fellowship and training-with-industry
data provided to us by the services on the number of participants in these
programs to be sufficiently reliable regarding contextual information on
the minimum number of participants; however, these data do not allow us
to provide actual totals. We conducted this performance review from
March 2011 through April 2012 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
(See app. I for a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology.)




4
  We focused our discussions with the services on fellowship and training-with-industry
programs for military officers governed under DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships,
Scholarships, Training-with-Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15,
2007). While we did collect some data on the number of participants in fellowships that are
governed primarily under other instructions, the focus of our review is on fellowships and
training-with-industry programs that are governed under DOD Instruction 1322.06.




Page 2                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
                           DOD’s fellowship and training-with-industry programs comprise a few of
Background                 the several vehicles DOD uses to provide training and education to its
                           military officers to develop and advance their careers while in the military.
                           Officers have educational opportunities throughout their careers, both
                           within and outside of the military educational system. These include
                           attendance at intermediate- and senior-level military schools, as well as
                           participation in graduate programs to obtain advanced degrees.
                           Fellowship and training-with-industry programs constitute another type of
                           professional development that officers may receive in addition to or in lieu
                           of attendance at a military school.


Fellowship and Training-   To provide guidance to the services on participation in a fellowship or
with-Industry Programs     training-with-industry program, USD P&R issued DOD Instruction
                           1322.06. 5 Under this instruction, a fellowship is defined as an assignment
                           in which selected DOD personnel work away from DOD to gain education
                           or experience of value to both the DOD component and the gaining
                           organization. Military officers can participate in a variety of types of
                           fellowships at host organizations such as universities, think tanks,
                           corporations, federal agencies, and congressional committees or member
                           offices. Most of these fellowships are limited to a duration of no longer
                           than 12 months. The following types of organizations can host fellowship
                           and training-with-industry participants:

                           •   Universities. For example, Tufts University, a private university in
                               Massachusetts, hosts fellows from the military services within the
                               International Security Studies Program at its Fletcher School, Tufts’
                               graduate school in international affairs. Fellows at the Fletcher School
                               focus on research and writing requirements and participate in
                               activities both inside and outside of the classroom. The Marine Corps
                               Fellows may receive a master’s degree through this program.

                           •   Think tanks. For example, the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit think
                               tank based in Washington, D.C., has hosted fellows under its 21st
                               Century Defense Initiative—one of Brookings’ research projects.


                           5
                            DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-Industry (TWI), and
                           Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). While DOD Instruction 1322.06 governs most
                           DOD fellowships, some of DOD’s fellowships are administered as part of other DOD
                           programs. For example, the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program is
                           administered separately under DOD Instruction 1322.23, Secretary of Defense Corporate
                           Fellows Program (SDCFP) (May 20, 2011).




                           Page 3                                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
    This initiative focuses on the future of war, U.S. defense needs and
    priorities, and the defense system. Fellows from the military services
    spend a year at Brookings researching and publishing on defense
    topics and provide policy feedback to help craft realistic, applicable
    policy recommendations for the military services. Fellows at Brookings
    may also elect to attend courses to obtain an executive certificate in
    public leadership, for an additional fee.

•   Corporations. For example, as part of the Secretary of Defense
    Corporate Fellowship Program, these fellows are trained at the
    executive level to learn how the host corporations use innovative
    practices and technology to plan, organize, and manage, and how
    these business practices could be applied within the military services.
    The fellows shadow corporate executives and write a paper on their
    observations and experiences upon completion of the fellowship.

•   Federal agencies. For example, the United States Agency for
    International Development is one of the federal agencies that host
    fellows from the Army Interagency Fellowship program and from the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships program. Federal
    agency fellows are placed with departments or agencies to develop a
    more thorough understanding of the host agency’s mission, culture,
    capabilities, and procedures. The Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force
    currently send fellows to other federal departments or agencies.

•   Congressional committees or members’ offices, as part of DOD’s
    Legislative Fellowship program. This program offers officers an
    educational opportunity to learn more about the legislative process by
    being placed with various committees, or with the staff of the House or
    Senate Majority or Minority Leader, or with the staff of the Speaker of
    the House. 6 In addition, the Army sends its legislative fellows to
    George Washington University to obtain Masters’ degrees in
    Legislative Affairs. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force offer their
    officers the opportunity to take courses for credit or to receive a


6
  DOD Instruction 1322.06 states that Legislative Fellowship nominees must be assigned
to one of the following staffs: a Defense oversight committee (Senate or House Armed
Services Committee) or appropriations subcommittee (Senate or House Appropriations
Committee—Defense); an intelligence oversight committee (Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence or House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence); Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs; House Homeland Security; Senate Foreign Relations;
House Foreign Affairs; Senate or House Veterans Affairs; the staff of the House or Senate
Majority or Minority leader; or the staff of the Speaker of the House.




Page 4                                                     GAO-12-367 Military Education
      certificate in Legislative Affairs at the Georgetown’s Government
      Affairs Institute. 7

Fellows pursue individual research and writing projects in consultation
with host organization experts or faculty, and they may elect to become
involved in host organization projects and participate in conferences,
seminars, or classes. In addition, fellows share operational and service
insights with host organization staff. Some university and think tank host
organizations charge the military departments a fee or tuition for hosting
fellows.

In addition to fellowship programs, DOD offers training-with-industry
programs. 8 The DOD instruction defines training-with-industry as a
nondegree-producing program designed to provide training or skills in
best business procedures and practices not available through existing
military or advanced civilian schooling for identifiable DOD requirements.
The instruction states that there must be an existing need or desired
future capability fulfilled by the gained training-with-industry experience.
The military departments generally do not pay corporations a fee or tuition
to host training-with-industry participants.

DOD continues to provide officers participating in both fellowships and
training-with-industry programs their normal pay and allowances.
In exchange, after their participation, officers participating in most of the
fellowships discussed in this report incur an active duty service
commitment of three times the length of the term they spent in the
fellowship or training-with-industry program.




7
  Legislative and interagency fellowships are different from assignments known as details
in that they include educational opportunities not found in details. For example, a
legislative fellowship includes course work and a research paper, and a legislative detail
does not. In addition, details are governed by DOD Directive 1000.17, Detail of DOD
Personnel to Duty Outside the Department of Defense (Jan. 12, 2012).
8
    The Marine Corps does not currently offer a training-with-industry program.




Page 5                                                        GAO-12-367 Military Education
Professional Military   Within DOD’s professional military educational system, officers are
Education               afforded several key opportunities. 9 At an officer level of O3, 10 selected
                        officers could attend primary level education, generally at the Branch,
                        warfare, or staff specialty schools. At the level of O4, 11 selected officers
                        attend intermediate level education, generally at the service’s command
                        and staff college or an equivalent military school. At the level of O5 or
                        O6, 12 selected officers attend senior-level education, generally at the
                        service’s war college or at an equivalent military school. Officers may
                        earn graduate degrees upon completing their intermediate- or senior-level
                        education at a military school. They additionally have other opportunities
                        throughout their careers to earn graduate degrees; for example, officers
                        may apply to attend a college or university to receive a master’s or PhD
                        degree in a graduate educational program.

                        Military officers may participate in fellowships as either an alternative or a
                        supplement to their professional military education, as shown in figure 1.
                        Three of the services—the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force—
                        grant professional military educational credit for some of their fellowship
                        programs at the intermediate or senior level. 13 The Air Force, for example,
                        grants professional military education credit for all of its intermediate- and
                        senior-level fellowships. These fellowships replace an officer’s
                        in-residence intermediate or senior professional military education. 14


                        9
                          Professional military education opportunities are also available at officer levels O-1, O-2,
                        and officer levels O-7 and above. Because the fellowship and training-with-industry
                        programs we reviewed were available to officer levels O-3 to O-6, we provided information
                        for professional military education at those levels.
                        10
                          Officer level O3 corresponds to the rank of captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marine
                        Corps, and lieutenant in the Navy.
                        11
                          The officer level 04 corresponds to the rank of major in the Army, Air Force, and Marine
                        Corps, and lieutenant commander in the Navy.
                        12
                           Officer level O5 corresponds to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army, the Marine
                        Corps, and the Air Force, and commander in the Navy. The officer level O6 corresponds
                        to the rank of colonel in the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, and captain in the
                        Navy.
                        13
                           The Navy does not grant professional military education credits to its officers for its
                        intermediate- or senior-level education, or its fellowships.
                        14
                           Officers may also complete the intermediate- or senior-level education through
                        nonresident learning programs, where the officer takes required courses online though
                        correspondence or through a blended seminar program consisting of online and seminar
                        study.




                        Page 6                                                         GAO-12-367 Military Education
                                         One service program—the Army Legislative Fellowship Program—grants
                                         a degree.

Figure 1: Selected Military Educational Opportunities and Career Progression




                                         Notes: This figure excludes some fellowships or other training opportunities, such as the White House
                                         Fellowships, the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowships, and training-with-industry programs.
                                         With the exception of the Arroyo Rand Fellowship, the Legislative Fellowships, and the Council on
                                         Foreign Relations Fellowships, each fellowship program is comprised of various host organizations.
                                         Also, for some fellowship opportunities, eligibility is extended to noncommissioned officers.
                                         a
                                         The Joint Forces Staff College includes the intermediate and senior Advanced Joint Professional
                                         Military Education, and the senior Joint Advanced Warfighting School.


                                         When fellowship programs are provided in lieu of attendance at a military
                                         school, the participants are generally prohibited from also attending the
                                         corresponding in-residence military school program. For example, a
                                         fellow who attends a senior-level fellowship and is granted senior-level



                                         Page 7                                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
                           professional military education credits is prohibited from attending a
                           senior in-resident War College program. Unlike most fellowships, DOD’s
                           training-with-industry programs exist outside of the professional military
                           educational system. These opportunities do not grant professional military
                           education credits; instead, they are considered a supplemental
                           professional development and training experience in private sector
                           practices that are not available through existing military education and
                           training programs.


Roles, Responsibilities,   USD P&R has overall responsibility for fellowship and training-with-
and Guidance               industry policy for fellowship programs that fall under DOD Instruction
                           1322.06. 15 This Instruction covers most of the fellowship and training-
                           with-industry programs in our review. 16 As specified in the instruction,
                           each military departmental secretary has oversight and management
                           responsibilities for that department’s programs, with the exception of the
                           Legislative Fellowship Program. For that program, each department
                           selects nominees, whose names are then sent to USD P&R for
                           approval. 17 The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
                           Legislative Affairs places these officers with congressional committees or


                           15
                             DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-With-Industry (TWI), and
                           Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007).
                           16
                             DOD Instruction 1322.06 does not cover certain fellowship programs that are
                           administered separately; for example, the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship
                           Program or medical fellowships.
                           17
                               OSD has certain congressional reporting requirements concerning legislative
                           fellowships. The Secretary of Defense is required by section 1104 of the John Warner
                           National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006)) to
                           report to Congress quarterly on members of the Armed Forces and DOD civilian
                           employees who have served continuously in the legislative branch for more than
                           12 consecutive months in one or a combination of covered legislative fellowships. USD
                           P&R officials provided us information on the five times they have reported to Congress
                           since 2007. Although officials we met said that they had believed the quarterly report
                           requirement to be a contingent one—that is, such a report only had to be submitted when
                           the circumstance of an extended fellowship occurred, in March 2011, DOD’s Office of
                           General Counsel informed USD P&R that a quarterly report is required even if the
                           circumstances of an extended fellowship did not occur. USD P&R officials said they will
                           report quarterly even if there have been no extended fellowships. Also, section 1104
                           requires the Secretary of Defense to report to the defense and appropriations committees
                           if a member of the Armed Forces is assigned to a legislative detail or fellowship as a last
                           tour of duty before retirement or separation from the Armed Forces. Officials stated they
                           have yet to submit such a report because a DOD fellow retiring or separating immediately
                           after a legislative fellowship has not occurred to the best of their knowledge.




                           Page 8                                                       GAO-12-367 Military Education
                             with various congressional staffs. Additionally, some of DOD’s fellowship
                             programs are administered separately; for example, the Secretary of
                             Defense Corporate Fellowship Program and the Medical Professional
                             Fellowship Program are administered under two other, separate DOD
                             instructions, 18 with different OSD offices having oversight and policy
                             responsibilities for them. The Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship
                             Program is managed by a director who is part of the National Defense
                             University, under the authority, direction, and control of DOD’s Deputy
                             Chief Management Officer, subject to certain exceptions. The Assistant
                             Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, under USD P&R, is responsible
                             for monitoring compliance with DOD Instruction 6000.13 and providing
                             additional guidance for medical fellowships, and the secretaries of the
                             military departments are responsible for administering these programs.

Postfellowship Assignments   The DOD instruction 19 states that the secretaries of the military
                             departments are responsible for properly managing the skills gained by
                             the participants in the fellowship program, and for ensuring that current
                             assignments utilizing the fellowships and training-with-industry positions
                             meet the intent of the program and continue to meet military department
                             and DOD requirements or anticipated needs. The instruction also states
                             that participants in fellowships and training-with-industry should have an
                             immediate follow-on utilization tour upon completion, but that this
                             requirement can be delayed or waived by a military department, as
                             necessary. Utilization tour assignments are generally based upon the
                             area of expertise that the fellowship or training-with-industry program is
                             intended to develop. For example, utilization tour assignments for
                             legislative fellows are conducted primarily within the services’ offices of
                             legislative liaison or legislative affairs, or within another office that
                             interacts with Congress. The utilization tours for other fellowships vary
                             depending on the host organization or subject-matter expertise of the
                             program. For example, a fellow who attends a university or think tank with
                             a program on national security issues and strategy may be assigned to a
                             utilization tour in a strategy, policy, and planning office. Fellowships with a
                             more specific focus will generally have more specific utilization



                             18
                                DOD Instruction 1322.23, Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program (SDCFP)
                             (May 20, 2011) and DOD Instruction 6000.13, Medical Manpower and Personnel (June
                             30, 1997).
                             19
                               DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-Industry (TWI), and
                             Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007).




                             Page 9                                                     GAO-12-367 Military Education
                         assignments. A fellow at a host organization with a cyber or nuclear focus
                         may be assigned to a utilization tour involving the development of
                         strategies for cyber or nuclear warfare. Training-with-industry participants
                         are generally used in positions directly related to a corporation’s area of
                         expertise. For example, a training-with-industry participant at a private
                         company that specializes in logistics and the transportation of items may
                         be later assigned to a DOD position in supply chain management.

                         The military departments are responsible for the management of their
                         respective fellowship and training-with-industry programs (see app. II on
                         the life-cycle phases of a fellowship program for a more detailed
                         description). In addition to statutory authorities and the DOD instruction,
                         the military services also have their own guidance or regulations covering
                         their respective legislative fellowship, nonlegislative fellowship, and
                         training-with-industry programs (see app. III for a list of service guidance).


                         We determined that DOD uses several statutory authorities for its
DOD Uses Several         fellowships and training-with-industry programs for military officers.
Statutory Authorities    Primarily, it uses two explicit statutory authorities. However, for two types
                         of fellowships—legislative and interagency—the underlying authorities are
for Fellowship and       less explicit than they are for the others.
Training-with-Industry
Programs
DOD Primarily Uses Two   We determined that DOD’s authority to pursue fellowships at non-DOD
Explicit Statutory       educational institutions, foundations, and corporations derives primarily
Authorities              from section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes
                         servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain organizations, and
                         section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes the
                         training of servicemembers at nongovernmental facilities. Generally,
                         DOD’s fellowships and training-with-industry programs are conducted
                         under one or both of these authorities.




                         Page 10                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
Section 2603 20 allows servicemembers, subject to regulations, 21 to accept
a fellowship offered by a corporation, fund, foundation, or educational
institution that is organized primarily for scientific, literary, or educational
purposes, and the benefits may be accepted by the member in addition to
the member’s military pay and allowances subject to certain conditions.
The member is required to agree in writing to serve on active duty after
completion of the fellowship for a period of at least three times the length
of the period of the education or training.

To create fellowship and training-with-industry programs with a variety of
nongovernmental facilities, DOD also uses provisions in section 2013 that
authorize it to enter into agreements or other arrangements for the
training of servicemembers with nongovernmental organizations such as
medical, scientific, technical, educational, research, or professional
institutions, foundations, or organizations—in addition to the business,
commercial, or industrial firms, corporations, or other nongovernmental
facilities, as defined by section 2013. These agreements or other
arrangements are not subject to certain requirements normally applicable
to government contracts. 22 Section 2013 also authorizes DOD to pay



20
   Section 2603 was originally enacted in 1962 to address concerns that servicemembers
would be unable to accept prestigious fellowships or scholarships (such as Rhodes
Scholarships) from certain nongovernmental sources, and to allow DOD to offset its
training costs in certain circumstances. As a general matter, federal officials (to include
officers of the armed services) are prohibited from accepting pay or other things of value
in connection with their government service from nongovernmental sources. See, e.g.
18 U.S.C. § 209. Section 2603 provides a limited exception to this rule, by allowing DOD
to offset some of its educational costs, while also allowing servicemembers to accept
potentially desirable fellowships. When a servicemember accepts a fellowship,
scholarship, or grant from a qualified source, DOD’s costs for training that servicemember
are reduced; for example, if DOD planned to send a servicemember to a university
research center for training, and the servicemember received a paid fellowship at that
university, section 2603 would allow the servicemember to accept the fellowship, and
DOD’s costs for the training in question would be reduced commensurately.
21
   Section 2603 provides that fellowships may be accepted under regulations to be
prescribed by the president or his designee. Executive Order No. 11079 (as amended by
Ex. Ord. No. 11382, Ex. Ord. No. 12608, and Ex. Ord. No. 13286) expressly designates
the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations under section 2603.The Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) promulgated implementing guidance in
DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-Industry(TWI), and
Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007).
22
  For example, agreements or other arrangements entered into under section 2013 are
not subject to generally applicable advertising requirements for government purchases in
41 U.S.C. § 6101.




Page 11                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
                         expenses in connection with training at nongovernmental facilities in
                         addition to the member’s military pay.


DOD Uses Less Explicit   Although most of DOD’s fellowships or training-with-industry programs
Authorities for Two      are authorized under section 2603 and section 2013, we determined that
Specific Fellowship      the authorities DOD uses for its military personnel 23 to participate in two
                         specific types of fellowships—legislative and interagency—are less
Programs
                         explicit. According to OSD attorneys, DOD’s legislative and interagency
                         fellowships for servicemembers are conducted using a combination of
                         more general departmental authorities to train personnel. For example,
                         these attorneys noted that the secretaries of the military departments
                         have the authority to train members of the military services within their
                         respective military departments, subject to the authority, direction, and
                         control of the Secretary of Defense. 24 They also cited other authorities
                         related to detailing personnel outside of DOD in support of these
                         fellowships. These attorneys cited section 4301 of Title 10 of the United
                         States Code as an example that authorizes (among other things) the
                         Secretary of the Army to detail members of the Army as students or
                         observers at locations such as industrial plants, hospitals, and other
                         places, where they would be best suited to acquire knowledge or
                         experience in certain specialties. 25 These attorneys noted that, because
                         legislative and interagency fellowships involve detailing servicemembers
                         to “other places” best suited to acquire relevant knowledge, these
                         authorities could also be used to support fellowships. OSD attorneys
                         further indicated that these statutory sections provide authority to conduct
                         legislative and interagency fellowships, but agreed that the authority for
                         those specific programs is not as explicit as the authority provided for
                         other types of fellowships, or for intra-governmental training of civilians.




                         23
                           Intragovernmental training of this kind for civilian personnel is authorized by
                         5 U.S.C. § 4104.
                         24
                            Sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 of Title 10 of the United States Code provide that the
                         secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively, are responsible for and have
                         the authority necessary to conduct training, among other functions.
                         25
                            See also 10 U.S.C. § 9301, which provides similar authority to the Secretary of the
                         Air Force.




                         Page 12                                                       GAO-12-367 Military Education
                          OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-industry
OSD Has Limited           programs, because (1) OSD has not developed a clear mission statement
Visibility over           for these programs that defines the programs’ purpose, (2) OSD has not
                          consistently enforced its requirement for the military departments to
Fellowship and            provide annual reports on fellowship and training-with-industry programs,
Training-with-Industry    and (3) not all fellowship and training-with-industry programs have a
Programs                  designated office within each department to be responsible for preparing
                          information for these programs. In turn, OSD does not have a reliable
                          inventory of the various fellowship and training-with-industry programs to
                          educate its military officers. The absence of a reliable inventory is due, in
                          part, to OSD’s not having a clear definition of a fellowship and the lack of
                          a common reporting requirement for the annual report on fellowships and
                          training-with-industry to OSD, both of which complicate OSD’s ability to
                          develop a reliable inventory. Additionally, OSD has limited visibility over
                          one type of fellowship program—legislative—because OSD has not
                          clearly delineated roles and responsibilities for overseeing this program
                          and has not developed documented criteria for the placement of DOD
                          fellows with congressional committees and members. OSD officials agree
                          that such placement criteria would be helpful, since DOD does not have
                          enough legislative fellows to meet the full congressional demand.


OSD Has Not Developed a   OSD has not developed a mission statement that would clearly define the
Clear Mission Statement   respective key purposes for the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship
for Fellowship and        and training-with-industry programs. Having a clear mission statement is
                          critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in language that
Training Programs         states desired outcomes. 26 A mission statement ultimately describes why
                          an organization exists and constitutes an important element in an
                          oversight structure. 27 Further, a mission statement is important because it
                          serves as a basis for having quantifiable performance goals. DOD’s
                          instruction on fellowships and training-with-industry provides a very
                          broadly written mission statement for the legislative and training-with-
                          industry programs, but does not provide a mission statement for the
                          nonlegislative fellowship program. For the legislative fellowship program,
                          the instruction identifies the need for servicemembers to learn the
                          operative process of the legislative branch. For the training-with-industry


                          26
                             GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
                          Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).
                          27
                               GAO-04-546G.




                          Page 13                                                  GAO-12-367 Military Education
                           program, the instruction identifies the need to develop skills in private
                           sector procedures and practices not available through existing military
                           or advanced civilian educational and training programs. However, these
                           definitions do not identify the purpose of providing participants with
                           additional skills and knowledge in terms of enhancing their value to DOD
                           throughout their careers. An OSD official stated that establishing a clear
                           mission statement would improve its ability to conduct policy oversight of
                           DOD’s fellowship and training programs. Without a clearly defined
                           mission statement, OSD is not in a position to know the extent to which
                           desired program outcomes are being achieved.


OSD Has Not Consistently   Prior to our review, USD P&R did not enforce its requirement that the
Enforced an Annual         military departments submit an annual report on their program reviews,
Reporting Requirement on   and has not received annual reports for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Such
                           annual reports can enable USD P&R to have increased visibility over
the Respective Military    these programs and can assist in confirming that DOD policy is being
Departments’ Programs      implemented as expected. DOD Instruction 1322.06 directs USD P&R to
                           maintain overall responsibility for DOD fellowship and training-with-
                           industry policy. This instruction also directs the military departments to
                           conduct an annual review of their respective fellowship and training-with-
                           industry programs to ensure that they are in compliance, and to submit
                           the results of their reviews to USD P&R by January 31 of each year.

                           Since our review began, USD P&R has taken steps toward enforcing this
                           requirement with regard to the fiscal year 2010 reports. 28 However, two
                           of the departments’ fiscal year 2010 reports were incomplete in that some
                           covered only a portion of the programs, and the third department’s report
                           was submitted significantly after the deadline. Specific details on these
                           reports follow.

                           •     The Army reported only on one type of fellowship for fiscal year
                                 2010—legislative. According to some Army officials, they did not have
                                 any records indicating that the requested reports should include their
                                 nonlegislative and training-with-industry programs—a requirement
                                 about which they said they did not know until our review brought it to
                                 their attention.



                           28
                                The Army report covered the 2010 calendar year.




                           Page 14                                                GAO-12-367 Military Education
                           •   The Navy and the Marine Corps, conversely, reported on their
                               nonlegislative and training-with-industry programs for fiscal year 2010,
                               but not on their legislative fellowships. Further, according to Navy
                               program officials, USD P&R did not ask for the annual report in 2008
                               and 2009. Navy officials stated that they noticed this requirement in
                               2010 while seeking approval for a separate task and brought it to the
                               attention of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and
                               Reserve Affairs, who then tasked the program office to complete the
                               report for the nonlegislative fellowship and training-with-industry
                               programs. The Navy and Marine Corps provided their reports to USD
                               P&R for the first time in February 2011.

                           •   The Air Force report for fiscal year 2010 was submitted to USD P&R
                               in December 2011 (approximately 11 months after the deadline), but
                               only after USD P&R officials told Air Force officials in November 2011
                               to provide them with a report. The report included general information
                               on legislative and nonlegislative fellowships, and on training-with-
                               industry programs.

                           USD P&R officials acknowledged that they did not request these reports
                           from the services, although USD P&R had been requiring these annual
                           reports as of the November 2007 revision to their instruction. Unless it
                           consistently enforces the requirement for the services to submit the
                           annual reports, USD P&R does not have the visibility to fully review the
                           services’ fellowship and training-with-industry programs and limits its
                           ability to perform its oversight responsibilities.


Not All Programs Have a    Certain offices have been designated by their military departments as
Designated Office for      responsible for compiling information on some fellowship programs for the
Preparing Annual Reports   OSD-required annual report; however, not all fellowship programs have a
                           designated office for compiling this report. Each service has separate
                           organizations that manage their legislative fellowship, nonlegislative
                           fellowship, and training-with-industry programs, respectively. We
                           contacted many different organizations to obtain a comprehensive picture
                           of the various phases of the fellowship and training-with-industry
                           programs, as shown in table 1 below,. (See app. II on the life-cycle
                           phases of a fellowship program, such as monitoring the fellows’ progress
                           during the fellowship, ensuring completion, and assigning the fellows to a
                           follow-on utilization or postfellowship tour.) For example, we had to gather
                           information from seven different organizations within the Army to obtain a
                           comprehensive view for just one of that service’s programs—the Army’s
                           Senior Service College Fellowships Program.



                           Page 15                                            GAO-12-367 Military Education
Table 1: Offices within Each Service Involved in Management of Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs

Army
Congressional Operations Division
Combined Arms Center
Department of Academic Affairs Army War college
Interagency Student Division
Leadership Development Division
Senior Leaders Division
Strategic Leadership Division
Retirements and Separations Division
Navy
Education Branch
Distribution Management
Graduate Education and Training Placement
Information Dominance Corps
Legislative Liaison Office
Office of Supply Corps Personnel
Strategy Office
Marine Corps
Congressional Fellows Program Office
Marine Corps University
Officer Assignments Branch
Air Force
Congressional Support Branch
Colonel Management Office
Force Development
Fellowships Program Office
Developmental Education Branch
Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch
Learning Division
Acquisitions Career Management
                                          Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.

                                          Note: For the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship, the services are responsible for selection
                                          of the fellows and certain limited administrative tasks. The Deputy Chief Management Officer in OSD
                                          has oversight and supervisory responsibilities over the program, and a director at the National
                                          Defense University manages the program.


                                          Although we interviewed officials in numerous offices within each military
                                          service to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the various



                                          Page 16                                                            GAO-12-367 Military Education
programs, only some fellowship program offices acknowledged having
been designated as having responsibility for compiling information on
their program for the annual report. Three service fellowship programs
have included the requirement for the annual report in their program
guidance—the Army Legislative Fellowship Program, the Navy Cyber
Federal Executive Fellowship Program, and the Legislative Fellowship
Program. However, the Air Force and Marine Corps legislative fellowship,
nonlegislative fellowship, and training-with-industry programs and the
Army and Navy nonlegislative fellowship and training-with-industry
programs have not formally designated program offices for the annual
preparation of these reports.

Officials in the policy office of the Air Force and the Navy told us that
while they have not been formally designated as responsible for compiling
this report, they anticipate being given the responsibility for reaching out
to the fellowship and training-with-industry programs to obtain information
for the report. Prior to the reports being submitted in response to
congressional inquiries in 2009 and 2010, some program officials said
that they were not aware that they were responsible for submitting a
report to USD P&R because they were not tasked as the office
responsible for this requirement. Without having a designated office within
each department to take responsibility for reporting requirements for their
respective fellowship and training-with-industry programs, USD P&R’s
visibility over departmental compliance with its instruction and relevant
laws will continue to be limited. In the course of this review, we identified
an important consequence of USD P&R’s limited visibility over DOD’s
various fellowship and training programs. By law, 29 servicemembers in
certain fellowships are required to complete a service obligation for a
period of no less than three times the length of a fellowship. However,
one Army regulation 30 for certain nonlegislative fellowship programs
stipulated a service obligation length that was not in compliance with the
law or with the DOD instruction governing that program. In that instance,
the Army was allowing certain officers to meet the service obligation
requirement for a 1-year fellowship by committing to serve 2 years rather
than the statutory 3 years. Subsequently, Army officials have informed us
that they are in the process of taking corrective action to change the Army




29
     See 10 U.S.C. § 2603.
30
     Army Regulation 621–7, Education: Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8, 1997).




Page 17                                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
                           guidance based on our finding. USD P&R officials with whom we met
                           were unaware of this instance of noncompliance.


OSD Has Not Developed a    USD P&R has not developed a reliable inventory of DOD’s fellowship and
Reliable Inventory of      training-with-industry programs—an inventory that would be useful for
Fellowship and Training-   enabling DOD to know how often, at what cost, and in what capacity it is
                           using these alternative educational and training programs for its military
with-Industry Programs     officers to meet new and emerging skill needs, and to better fulfill its
and Participants           mission. We have previously reported 31 on the importance of maintaining
                           a complete inventory of the type of skills an agency needs to better
                           position it to properly assess gaps in its capabilities and to appropriately
                           assess risk so it can make informed decisions about the future direction,
                           scope, and nature of its efforts and investments in support of emerging
                           skill needs. Although USD P&R has collected some of the DOD
                           instruction-required annual reports on fellowships and training-with-
                           industry programs, these do not enable it to determine the totality of the
                           fellowship participants and programs, or of the needs these programs
                           address. We found that these required annual reports did not provide
                           consistent and detailed information linking the fellowships with current or
                           emerging needs, which are the basis for offering the various types of
                           fellowship opportunities. Such information would be useful in helping USD
                           P&R develop a robust inventory and identify training and educational
                           solutions to fill identified gaps. We collected information, which USD P&R
                           was unable to provide us, on program participants from the services
                           dating back to 2007, 32 and we found that, at a minimum, 1,797 mid- and
                           senior-rank officers participated in fellowships and training-with-industry
                           programs from fiscal years 2007 through 2011, as shown in table 2.




                           31
                              GAO, A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal
                           Government. GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004), High-Risk Series: An
                           Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2011), and Military Training: DOD Needs a
                           Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and Requirements Data to Guide Development of
                           Language Skills and Regional Proficiency, GAO-09-568 (Washington, D.C.: June 19,
                           2009).
                           32
                             We identified each office that was involved in the fellowship and training-with-industry
                           programs and then requested program participant information from these offices.




                           Page 18                                                       GAO-12-367 Military Education
Table 2: Number of DOD Fellows and Training-with-Industry Participants for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011

Type of program                                Army                         Navy   Marine Corps          Air Force        Total by type
Legislative                                        90                         69            46                  145                    350
Nonlegislative                                   400                          81            68                  500                   1,049
Training-with-industry                           265                           6           N/A                  127                    398
Total by service                                 755                         156           114                  772                   1,797
                                        Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

                                        Note: These numbers represent a minimum number of participants and not actual totals.
                                        For some years, the fellows were assigned according to a calendar year or an academic year.
                                        Calendar year fellowships were counted in the corresponding fiscal year.


                                        The DOD instruction on fellowships and training-with-industry defines the
                                        term fellowship, but we found that usage of the term to describe various
                                        educational opportunities varies significantly from service to service, thus
                                        complicating the compilation of a reliable and complete inventory. For
                                        example, the Air Force increased its total number of fellowships offered
                                        when it changed the designation of some of its “internships” to
                                        “fellowships” after adding an interagency rotation requirement to the
                                        program. 33 Air Force officials said that they viewed the internship as being
                                        more aligned with the fellowship description in the DOD instruction, and
                                        thus changed the designation. Army officials, on the other hand, said that
                                        their interagency fellowships—similar to those of the Air Force—are
                                        called fellowships, but are not counted as fellowships for reporting
                                        purposes. USD P&R officials did not know about the Air Force change
                                        and stated that they disagreed with it. They observed that the instruction’s
                                        definition of a fellowship could be made more descriptive to avoid
                                        ambiguities such as this. In another example, the Navy included the
                                        Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program in its annual report for
                                        2010—a program that is governed by a different instruction, overseen by
                                        the Deputy Chief Management Officer, and managed in coordination with
                                        the National Defense University director. In this same report, however,
                                        the Navy did not include its Medical Professional Fellowship Programs,
                                        which are governed by a separate instruction and managed through the
                                        Navy Medicine Professional Development Center.

                                        USD P&R officials said that inconsistent views as to which fellowships
                                        should be counted—views that reflect the absence of a clear and


                                        33
                                             These internship opportunities are available to Air Force officers.




                                        Page 19                                                           GAO-12-367 Military Education
commonly shared definition of what constitutes a fellowship—could hinder
the development of an accurate inventory. Officials agreed that a more
specific, DOD-wide definition of a fellowship, which would explain which
opportunities warrant using the word “fellowship” in the program title,
could be helpful. They said they anticipate conducting a review of each
service’s policies or regulations that focus on fellowships and training-
with-industry programs, to better ensure that all have the same definitions
and are counting the programs and participants comparably, and that the
services’ policies or regulations are in line with DOD Instruction 1322.06.
This review will become even more important given that DOD will be
drawing down its force structure and given that program officials within
the services informed us that they are interested in increasing the number
of fellowship and training-with-industry opportunities in the future.

The responsibilities of the Office of the USD P&R include ensuring that
personnel and readiness policies and programs are designed and
managed to improve standards of performance, economy, and efficiency,
which would facilitate visibility into its various programs, including DOD
fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Without a clear definition
of fellowship and training-with-industry programs, USD P&R’s ability to
maintain a reliable inventory of participants and thus oversee the service
obligations associated with these educational fellowship and training-with-
industry programs will remain limited.

With regard to the military departments’ required reports on their annual
reviews of the education and training-with-industry fellowship programs,
USD P&R has not provided specific instructions as to the information the
military departments should include. As noted previously, these reports
did not contain consistent and detailed information on these programs.
Service officials said that they would benefit from having more detailed
reporting guidelines to help determine what information would be most
useful for USD P&R. USD P&R officials said that when they update their
Instruction in late 2012, they anticipate providing specifics to facilitate
collection of more consistent information on the number of fellows, on
their assignments during and after the fellowships, and on the timing of
their returns to their official duty stations. Detailed guidelines could better
position USD P&R to fulfill its oversight responsibility for fellowship and
training-with-industry policy, and to help ensure service adherence to
policies. Without USD P&R specifying in the DOD instruction common
reporting requirements for the annual reports, DOD will continue to
experience challenges in collecting consistent information and developing
a reliable inventory on these programs.



Page 20                                              GAO-12-367 Military Education
OSD Has Not Clearly          DOD’s Instruction 1322.06 does not delineate specific and clear roles and
Delineated Oversight         responsibilities for overseeing the fellowship and training programs for the
Responsibilities for Its     Legislative Fellowship Program, and this absence of delineations has in
                             some cases resulted in mutually contradictory assumptions by different
Legislative Fellowship       OSD offices with respect to oversight responsibilities. We have previously
Program                      reported that having clearly defined roles and responsibilities can be
                             beneficial to address management challenges. 34 The absence of defined
                             oversight roles and responsibilities for the Legislative Fellowship Program
                             has created some conflicting perspectives for two separate offices within
                             OSD. For example, officials within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
                             Defense for Legislative Affairs said that although they assign DOD fellows
                             to various congressional offices and serve as liaisons between the fellows
                             and Congress, they do not have policy oversight responsibility for the
                             program. However, officials within USD P&R said that they have
                             responsibility for all reporting requirements for this program, but that
                             otherwise the legislative affairs office manages the program. Our
                             questions about roles and responsibilities concerning the Legislative
                             Fellowship Program elicited contradictory information from the two offices,
                             with each asserting that the other had policy oversight responsibility.
                             Although officials within USD P&R have subsequently revised their
                             position and said that they do have oversight responsibility, we note that
                             this important role is not clearly delineated in the DOD instruction. In the
                             absence of clearly delineated roles and responsibilities in DOD’s
                             governing instruction, OSD is at risk of not fulfilling its oversight
                             responsibilities. USD P&R officials stated that they agree with our
                             observation and indicated that they plan to address oversight roles and
                             responsibilities for legislative fellowships when they revise the instruction
                             in late 2012.


OSD Does Not Have            The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs does not have
Placement Criteria for Its   documented criteria for the placement of DOD legislative fellows to
Legislative Fellows          congressional offices. We have previously reported 35 that agencies
                             should assign employees to host organizations to make the best use of



                             34
                                GAO, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief
                             Management Officer Positions, GAO-08-34 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 2007).
                             35
                                GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs Can
                             Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and Evaluation, GAO-12-386
                             (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012).




                             Page 21                                                   GAO-12-367 Military Education
their skills and help them to develop professionally while addressing host
organizations’ needs. However, officials in OSD’s legislative affairs office
said that the placement of DOD fellows with host congressional
committees or individual congressional member offices is a complicated
and very challenging process. These officials said that placing DOD
fellows with congressional offices involves balancing a number of factors,
such as (1) the fellows’ educational and career needs; (2) the availability
of fellows each year to a bipartisan and bicameral assembly of
congressional offices and members; and (3) any specified interests of
individual congressional members regarding a requested fellow’s military
service, educational background, and particular field of specialization. 36
While these considerations help inform placement decisions, they do not
enable DOD to systematically decide and explain its rationale for
decisions on which congressional offices will receive DOD fellows. These
officials stated that their primary intent is to provide military officers a
broadening educational experience. In doing so, however, they have
found an additional challenge in meeting demand when placing DOD
legislative fellows in congressional offices because the number of
legislative fellows requested by congressional committees and members
has been exceeding the total number of available fellows, as shown in
table 3.




36
   The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs solicits congressional
leadership offices and members for their interest in a hosting a DOD legislative fellow
annually. The DOD instruction specifies the Senate and House committees,
subcommittees, and member offices for which legislative members, such as the staff of
the Senate Armed Services Committee or House Permanent Subcommittee on
Intelligence, can request a DOD fellow. According to OSD officials, any member of
Congress assigned to one of these committees or subcommittees is a potential recipient
of a DOD legislative fellow. DOD officials also said that the probability of a congressional
requester receiving a fellow depends on whether the requestor is in a leadership position
or is a member of a committee or subcommittee, and the extent to which the committee or
subcommittee has jurisdiction over defense-related matters.




Page 22                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
Table 3: Number of Congressional Requests for DOD Legislative Fellows and the Number That DOD Provides, Academic
Years 2009-2010 through 2011-2012

                           Number of congressional                                      Number of DOD                   Number of congressional
              a
Academic year              requests for DOD fellows                                    fellows provided                      requests not filled
2009-2010                                             110                                                      80                               30
2010-2011                                               91                                                     85                                 6
2011-2012                                             135                                                      83                               52
                                       Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
                                       a
                                       The 12 month legislative fellowship typically begins in January and ends in December, to correspond
                                       with the congressional cycle.


                                       OSD legislative affairs officials said that because OSD does not have
                                       documented placement criteria, decisions as to which congressional
                                       offices receive DOD fellows are made on a case-by-case basis and are
                                       ultimately a judgment call, which can lead to inconsistent dealings with
                                       congressional offices. They said that they do their best to match the
                                       educational needs of the DOD fellow with the needs of the congressional
                                       office, but that there are not enough available fellows to meet the full
                                       demand. They further stated that these decisions can be difficult to
                                       defend to a congressional member who is denied a request for a DOD
                                       fellow, and that it is always difficult to turn down congressional requests.
                                       Without documented placement criteria, OSD’s legislative affairs office
                                       will continue to have difficulty in ensuring consistency in the department’s
                                       dealings with interested committees and members of Congress
                                       requesting DOD fellows. Officials in OSD’s legislative affairs office said
                                       that having documented placement criteria would help in the decision-
                                       making process and would better position the office to defend its
                                       decisions with congressional members who were denied a request for a
                                       DOD fellow.


                                       The military services believe that they derive benefits from their
Military Services Are                  fellowships and training-with-industry programs, but they are not well
Not Well Positioned to                 positioned to determine the extent of these benefits for four main reasons.
                                       First, not all of the services conduct periodic program reviews, as required
Determine the Extent                   by their service guidance, for some or all of their programs; and the few
of the Benefits from                   reviews that have been conducted have not been comprehensive. For
These Programs                         example, they do not ensure that the needs that prompted the program
                                       and the goals of the program are being met. Second, the services do not
                                       have clear guidance as to what qualifies as a follow-on utilization tour, or
                                       criteria for when such a tour can be postponed or waived, and this limits
                                       their ability to know the extent they are deriving a return on their


                                       Page 23                                                                         GAO-12-367 Military Education
                         educational investment. Third, the services do not know their overall
                         program costs, including both direct and indirect costs, and therefore it is
                         difficult to know whether these programs are cost-effective. Fourth, some
                         of the services do not have written agreements or memoranda of
                         understanding with the non-DOD host organizations providing the
                         educational opportunity that spell out both parties’ roles and
                         responsibilities—thus contributing to unclear expectations about the DOD
                         benefit to be derived from these programs. Collectively, these limitations
                         diminish the services’ assurances about the benefits they derive from
                         their fellowship and training-with-industry programs. The services
                         observed, however, that they use certain other program management
                         practices to ensure that they derive benefits from these programs.


Services Have Not        While each of the services has taken some steps to review its programs,
Conducted Periodic and   none has conducted both periodic and comprehensive reviews of its
Comprehensive Program    fellowship and training-with-industry programs. For some of the programs,
                         there is no requirement to conduct periodic program reviews. With
Reviews                  respect to fellowship programs, service review requirements vary, and
                         compliance with them has been uneven. Further, for those services that
                         have conducted program reviews, the reviews have not been
                         comprehensive and have not included assessments of the status of the
                         program against program goals. As a result, some services have limited
                         assurances that their fellowship or training-with-industry opportunities
                         meet desired program outcomes, address emerging mission
                         requirements, or provide the best venue for developing needed personnel
                         skills. We have previously reported on the importance of having
                         systematically planned evaluations of training and development
                         programs. 37 In addition, evaluating programs through periodic and
                         comprehensive reviews enables an agency to identify problems and
                         improve a program, as needed. The services’ variance in review
                         requirements for these programs is shown in table 4. 38




                         37
                            GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
                         Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).
                         38
                              The Marine Corps does not currently have a training-with-industry program.




                         Page 24                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
Table 4: Military Service Requirement for Periodic Program Reviews

                Legislative          Nonlegislative                    Training-with-
Military        fellowships must     fellowships must be               industry must be
service         be reviewed          reviewed                          reviewed                  Time frame for required review
Army            Yes                  Yes                               No                        The Army requires an annual review for
                                                                                                 Legislative Fellowships and no less than
                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                 every 3 years for non-legislative fellowships.
Navy            Yes                  Yes                               No                        The Navy requires an annual review for
                                                                                                 Legislative and Cyber Federal Executive
                                                                                                 Fellowship Programs, and a minimum of once
                                                                                                                                      b
                                                                                                 every 2 years for other fellowships.
                     c
Marine Corps    No                   Yes                               N/A                       Marine Corps requires nonlegislative
                                                                                                 fellowship host organizations be reevaluated
                                                                                                 annually for recertification and continued
                                                                                                                         d
                                                                                                 assignment of fellows.
Air Force       Yes                  Yes                               No                        Air Force requires all nonlegislative
                                                                                                                                        e
                                                                                                 fellowships to be reviewed biennially.
                                        Source: GAO analysis of military service instructions.
                                        a
                                        Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowship Programs and Army Regulation 1-202, Army
                                        Congressional Fellowship Program.
                                        b
                                         The annual reporting requirement in Bureau of Navy Personnel Instruction 1560.21E, Legislative
                                        Fellows Program (Nov. 12, 2010) corresponds to the requirement in the DOD instruction for an
                                        annual report to USD P&R. See also, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1590.79A,
                                        Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 03, 2011), and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
                                        Instruction 1500.72G,Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and
                                        Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010).
                                        c
                                         The Marine Corps does not have a separate instruction for its Legislative Fellowship Program. A
                                        Marine Corps official said that Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.72G, Navy
                                        Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and Community Sponsorship (June 22,
                                        2010), Marine Corps Order 1500.41A (Aug. 20, 1996) Scholarship Program for Members of the
                                        Marine Corps, Marine Corps Order1560.19E (Jun. 25, 2003) Advance Degree Program, and Marine
                                        Corps Order 1520.9G (Jul 31, 2003) Special Education Program govern the fellowship program.
                                        d
                                         Marine Corps Order 1520.28B Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows Program (Oct. 22, 1996).
                                        The Marine Corps conducts its review through briefings presented to senior leaders and from
                                        gathering feedback from fellows. The Marine Corps plans to conduct a more formal review of the
                                        program in April 2012.
                                        e
                                            Air Force Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education (July 16, 2010).


                                        Of the service programs that require a periodic review, Navy officials said
                                        that they conducted program reviews for their nonlegislative 39 and
                                        legislative programs, and Marine Corps officials said they have conducted
                                        one nonlegislative program review. Two of the services—the Army and
                                        the Air Force—have not fully conducted periodic reviews of their


                                        39
                                          The Navy Cyber Federal Executive Program has not yet conducted their first program
                                        review. The program began in academic year 2010-2011.




                                        Page 25                                                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
programs as required in their program guidance. Although the Army is
required to review its nonlegislative fellowships, it has not conducted
reviews recently. In 2011, the Army began reviewing a portion of one type
of nonlegislative fellowship—the Senior Service College Fellowships—
and officials said they expect to complete this portion of the review in
early 2012, and to review the other fellowship programs in the near future.
Air Force officials, on the other hand, informed us that their requirement
for a biennial review of fellowships is an error in their instruction, and they
plan to write this requirement out of the next version of the instruction.
Further, these officials said that the review requirement applies only to
graduate education programs—not fellowships. Therefore, the Air Force
has not periodically reviewed its fellowship programs, although Air Force
officials said that information on fellowships is incorporated into their
annual process for designating educational and developmental
opportunities.

None of the services has comprehensively reviewed its programs.
A comprehensive review, as we have previously reported, 40 may include
the following four elements: quantifiably measuring the extent to which
the program is meeting program goals; validating that fellowships and
training-with-industry programs meet current and emerging requirements;
incorporating feedback from program participants and host organizations
to improve the program; and documenting the results of the review to
enable the service to modify its programs, as needed. However, we found
that not all services are including these four elements in their reviews, as
described below:

•     Using quantifiable performance measures for meeting their stated
      goals for their programs. The services have not measured the extent
      to which their programs are meeting their goals, 41 because they have
      not developed quantifiable performance measures for most of their
      program goals. We have previously reported on the importance of
      agencies developing and using performance measures to ensure
      accountability and assess progress toward achieving results aligned
      with goals. 42 The services vary in the extent to which they review their
      programs to measure against program goals. For example, an Army


40
     GAO-04-546G.
41
     Some services’ program goals were stated as the purpose or objective of the program.
42
     GAO-04-546G.




Page 26                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
      official said that the Army has not assessed the program using
      quantifiable performance measures for its legislative fellowship
      program, but the official believed that a measure that tracks the
      completion of utilization tours could be used to assess the extent to
      which they are meeting the goal of having a pool of officers from
      which some may be selected for future utilization in the field of
      congressional liaison. Similarly, a Navy official with the Cyber Federal
      Executive Fellowship Program said that the utilization tour could be
      used as a performance measure for meeting the program’s goals,
      but they plan to use it as a qualitative, not quantifiable, performance
      measure. The Marine Corps Legislative and Commandant of the
      Marine Corps Fellowship Programs have not created quantifiable
      performance measures either, although officials said they use
      qualitative measures, such as discussions with fellows and senior
      leaders, to assess the programs. The Army and Air Force have taken
      some steps to develop quantifiable measures for some programs.
      For example, in 2011 the Army surveyed fellows in the Senior Service
      College Fellowship Program to assess the extent to which these
      fellowships met their objectives. The Air Force Fellowship Program
      surveys its host organizations on the percentage of time the fellows
      spend on the Air Force’s service-specific competencies—used by Air
      Force officials as indicators that the program is meeting its goals and
      objectives. However, the Air Force has not developed quantifiable
      goals with which these survey results can be compared. Without
      reviewing their programs to assess progress against program goals,
      the services are limited in their ability to determine the effectiveness of
      their programs.

•     Validating that programs meet current or future mission requirements.
      Some of the services have not periodically validated that the
      fellowship or training-with-industry assignments continue to address
      current or emerging mission requirements. The DOD instruction states
      that the secretaries of the military departments are responsible for
      ensuring that the current assignments using fellowships and training-
      with-industry positions meet the intent of the program and continue to
      meet military department and DOD requirements or anticipated
      needs. We have reported that successful organizations match training
      and development programs to their specific needs and capabilities. 43
      While the Navy and the Marine Corps have periodically reviewed their



43
     GAO-04-546G.




Page 27                                               GAO-12-367 Military Education
      programs to ensure that they meet current and emerging needs, the
      Army and the Air Force have not. The Marine Corps has informally
      validated its programs through a process that looks at the costs of the
      program, updates the list of fellowship host organizations, and
      determines which fellowships are available for the upcoming year.
      Although the Army’s instruction for nonlegislative fellowships requires
      that each fellowship program be reviewed for continued relevancy and
      to determine that it meets stated criteria and objectives, the Army has
      not conducted this review regularly. We note that Army officials stated
      that in their current review of a portion of the Senior Service College
      fellowships that they plan to revalidate the need for each or the
      uniqueness of each host organization. While the Air Force has not
      revalidated that its fellowships meet current or emerging needs
      through periodic program reviews, it stated in its December 2011
      report to USD P&R on nonlegislative fellowships that program
      oversight and management ensure validation that the programs fulfill
      a present need, anticipated requirement, or future capability.

•     Incorporating feedback. While all of the services have collected some
      feedback from fellows and host organizations, they have not
      consistently incorporated this feedback into their program reviews.
      We have previously reported on the importance of agencies
      measuring training participants’ reactions to and satisfaction with their
      programs, and of measuring changes in their knowledge, skills, and
      abilities after their participation in the programs. 44 The Army and the
      Air Force have conducted postfellowship surveys for some fellowships
      to gather information on the fellows’ experiences. While these surveys
      provide information on the experience of the fellowship, they do not
      provide information on how the fellowship experience has been of
      benefit to the fellows’ careers from a perspective of several years
      later. We note that the Marine Corps has conducted surveys to collect
      feedback from both recent and earlier fellows. In addition, some of the
      services gather feedback from fellows on their experiences through
      periodic reports to the program office. All of the services monitor their
      fellows and collect feedback through intermittent meetings with them.
      The Air Force also collects feedback from host organizations through
      surveys and periodic site visits, and the Army has recently conducted
      site visits to some of its host organizations. Across the services,
      however, there has not been consistent incorporation of feedback in
      program reviews.


44
     GAO-04-546G.




Page 28                                              GAO-12-367 Military Education
•     Documenting program accomplishments. Although some of the
      services said that they document a portion of their review efforts, no
      service has documented accomplishments that covered an entire
      program review, or the entirety of its programs. 45 We have previously
      reported on the importance of using program evaluations to make
      fact-based determinations of the program’s impact, and to reallocate
      or redirect resources accordingly. 46 Service officials said they use or
      plan to use the information they collect to make changes to their
      fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Army officials said
      they plan to use their ongoing review of a portion of the Senior
      Service College fellowships to refine the Army’s portfolio of senior-
      level fellowships. Prior to the review, the Army had identified problems
      with the fellowship programs primarily by incident, either with the
      fellow or with the host organization. Marine Corps officials stated they
      have used feedback from the fellows to decide upon which host
      organizations to keep or to discontinue in their portfolio. Air Force
      officials said they have analyzed feedback from fellows and host
      organizations to make decisions on which host organizations to
      discontinue when overall education funding was reduced.
      Documentation of these results would enable the services to
      demonstrate that they have conducted the review and what steps,
      if any, they may take to improve the program.

Some of the services informed us that they intend to do more to review
their programs. For example, as part of its ongoing review the Army plans
to match fellows with host organizations that will enable them to research
issues identified by Army leadership as critical problems facing the Army.
A Navy official said that although the Navy has not yet conducted its first
review of the Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship, it plans to survey 2011
fellows in the fall of 2012, a year into their utilization tour, to assess how
the fellowship benefited their careers. Marine Corps officials said that they
are examining a more formal process to supplement their current informal
annual fellowship reevaluation practices. Without conducting periodic and
comprehensive performance reviews, the services’ ability to determine




45
   For program reviews completed during the period we reviewed, fiscal years 2007
through 2011. However, we note that the Army provided us documentation of a program
review that reviewed a portion of its Senior Service College Fellowships and its Senior
Fellowships in 2007.
46
     GAO-04-546G.




Page 29                                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
                       the benefit they derive from fellowship and training-with-industry
                       programs will remain limited.


Services Do Not Have   The services inconsistently implement a DOD requirement 47 to have
Clear Guidance on      utilization tours—assignments where program participants can apply
Utilization Tours      knowledge and skills gained through fellowship and training-with-industry
                       programs—because they do not have clear guidance as to what qualifies
                       as a follow-on utilization tour, and they do not have criteria for when to
                       postpone or waive this requirement. After a participant’s completion of the
                       fellowship or training-with industry opportunity, the services are expected
                       to assign the participant to a tour that enables him or her to make use of
                       the newly gained skills, knowledge, and abilities, according to DOD
                       guidance.

                       Service officials described utilization tours to us as a benefit that DOD
                       gains from conducting its fellowship and training-with-industry programs.
                       For example, both Army fellowship policy documents and officials with
                       whom we spoke described utilization tours as a mechanism for
                       maximizing the benefit derived by the Army. Navy officials described
                       utilization tours as a way to receive a return on their investment and to
                       meet the intent of the programs, given that they reinforce skills, promote
                       continued learning, and serve to meet the requirements of the Navy. Air
                       Force policy documents and officials described utilization tours as a way
                       to ensure that officers use the skills they have developed.

                       However, the services do not implement utilization tours for fellowships
                       consistently, either within or across services. For example, within the
                       same Air Force fellowship program, some fellows have a mandatory
                       utilization tour, while for others it is a recommendation. According to Air
                       Force officials, the decision as to whether a utilization tour is mandatory
                       or recommended is made by the Air Force office responsible for
                       fellowship policy on a case-by-case basis at the time it initiates the


                       47
                          DOD Instruction 1322.06 states that participants in fellowships and training-with-
                       industry programs should have an immediate follow-on utilization tour upon completion of
                       the fellowship, but it notes that each of the military departments may postpone or waive
                       this requirement as necessary. The instruction also states that the secretaries of the
                       military departments are responsible for properly managing the skills gained by the
                       participants in the fellowship program, and for ensuring that current assignments utilizing
                       the fellowships and training-with-industry positions meet the intent of the program and
                       continue to meet military department and DOD requirements or anticipated needs.




                       Page 30                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
fellowship. Air Force officials said they do not have established criteria for
determining whether a utilization tour is mandatory or recommended.
Similarly, the Army requires utilization tours for some of its fellowship
programs, such as the legislative fellowship, but not for others. In
contrast, the Navy and the Marine Corps generally require utilization tours
for all of their fellowship programs, and all of the services generally
require utilization tours for their training-with-industry programs. 48

Service officials said that inconsistency across the services is attributable,
in part, to the absence of a clear definition as to what constitutes a follow-
on utilization tour in the DOD instruction. A Navy official said that the
differences in how the services implement utilization tours are a result of
not having a clear definition of the requirement. Similarly, Marine Corps
officials described fulfilling utilization tours as a judgment call, and one
Marine Corps official said there has been an internal debate as to what
assignments should count as utilization tours, and within what time frame
such tours should be assigned.

Also, the services’ postponement or waivers of the requirement to
perform utilization tours occur inconsistently, because the services do not
have criteria to determine when it is appropriate to postpone or waive this
requirement. As a result, the services have different implementation
practices for postponing or waiving the utilization tour requirement.
Generally, the services postpone or waive the utilization tour requirement
on a case-by-case basis. For example, according to officials the Army
postpones or waives the requirement for most, but not all, of its
fellowships. For one Army fellowship program—the Senior Service
College Fellowship Program—the former Army Chief of Staff provided
written guidance in 2010 indicating that specific requirements for
utilization tours upon completion of fellowships should not be imposed.
Army officials stated that the utilization tour requirement was viewed as
adding more stress and burdens to the officers during a period of high
operational tempo and frequent deployments, and that utilization tours for
these fellows were viewed simply as a recommendation for postfellowship
assignments. In the case of one Navy fellowship program, on the other
hand, Navy guidance 49 generally requires a utilization tour, and that a


48
     The Marine Corps does not currently have a training-with-industry program.
49
  Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Instruction 1500.79A, Cyber Federal Executive
Fellowship (June 3, 2011).




Page 31                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
high-level Navy Personnel Command official must approve any
exceptions; the regulation does not provide any criteria for such
exceptions. Service officials from all of the services stated that they
postpone assigning a utilization tour if the tour would interfere with
another career-advancing assignment, such as being selected for a
command position.

Some service officials said that improving the consistency of their
implementation of the utilization tour requirement could increase
assurances that they derive benefits from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, even though their reasons for not requiring utilization
tours vary. Army officials informed us that they are examining steps to
better strategically link utilization tours with the specific research focus of
the fellow, and might begin to require utilization tours for their Senior
Service College fellows now that they expect fewer Army officers to be
deploying overseas. Navy officials said they are hoping to develop a
capability to better track utilization tour completion to better ensure that
they are getting a good return on investment. Marine Corps officials said
they also plan to improve their process for tracking legislative fellowship
utilization tours in 2012. In addition, Air Force officials said that
implementing the utilization tour requirement more consistently would
benefit their service.

We have previously reported on the importance of having agency training
and development managers remove barriers that can impede the use of
knowledge and skills gained in training, so as to improve performance on
the job. 50 Without having a common understanding of the follow-on
utilization tour requirement and its waiver criteria, the services’ ability to
determine the benefit they derive from fellows and training-with-industry
participants using their newly developed or enhanced skills in these tours
will remain limited, and the circumstances surrounding each waiver will
remain uncertain. In addition, having assurances that utilization tour
requirements are being met can better position the services to justify the
use of appropriated funds for these programs and can better ensure that
the services are meeting the intent of the programs by filling positions that
meet current and anticipated needs.




50
     GAO-04-546G.




Page 32                                              GAO-12-367 Military Education
Services Do Not Know    The services do not know the overall costs of their fellowship and training-
Overall Program Costs   with-industry programs, including both direct and indirect costs. We have
and Cannot Determine    previously reported on the importance of ensuring that training and
                        development efforts are cost-effective relative to their anticipated
Cost-Effectiveness      benefits. 51 Without having reviewed the overall costs of the programs, the
                        services cannot be assured that they are cost-effective, and they will not
                        have the information necessary to aid decision makers in managing
                        scarce training, development, and education resources, particularly due
                        to anticipated lower levels of defense spending. 52

                        The services are not required by the DOD instruction to report on the
                        overall costs of the program. However, while not uniformly required
                        across the board, some of the service instructions do require reviewing a
                        portion of the costs of their respective programs. The Army requires that
                        host candidate organizations, within their proposals to become hosts,
                        present the estimated costs to the service. 53 As part of a periodic review
                        for two of the Navy’s fellowship programs—the Cyber Federal Executive
                        Fellowship and the Federal Executive Fellowship—the Navy reviews the
                        cost of execution, utilization, and any fiscal surpluses or constraints that
                        might affect future execution of the program, to help inform future
                        decisions about it. 54 For one of its fellowship programs—the Commandant
                        of the Marine Corps Fellowships—the Marine Corps requires that a cost
                        estimate is determined for tuition, fees, and travel costs to aid in budget
                        planning. 55 One Air Force instruction 56 requires that all fellowships be
                        reviewed for their cost efficiency, but, as previously mentioned, Air Force




                        51
                             GAO-04-546G.
                        52
                           In January 2012, the Secretary of Defense released strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S.
                                                             st
                        Global Leadership: Priorities for 21 Century Defense, to help guide DOD decision making
                        in light of DOD’s efforts to support deficit reduction through a lower level of defense
                        spending.
                        53
                             Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8, 1997).
                        54
                          Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Instruction 1590.79A, Cyber Federal Executive
                        Fellowship (June 3, 2011), and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction,
                        1500.72G Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and
                        Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010).
                        55
                          Marine Corps, Order 1520.28B, Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows Program
                        (Oct. 22, 1996).
                        56
                             Air Force, Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education (July 16, 2010).




                        Page 33                                                       GAO-12-367 Military Education
officials stated that this requirement to review fellowships is an error in the
Instruction.

The services know some of the direct costs associated with their
fellowship programs, such as the tuition and fees paid to the universities
and think tanks that host fellows, 57 but not all of them. Service officials
said that the tuition or fee paid to a host organization was used for the
administrative, academic, and technological support provided to the
fellow, as well as for the facilities and resources at the host organization.
Some of the direct costs of the program include those associated with
travel, research, and orientation. We collected information from the
services on the tuition or fee amounts paid to host organizations for
fellowships. We estimated that for the academic year 2010-2011, the
services paid approximately $2.9 million in tuition and fees for
approximately 270 fellows, of which the Army paid approximately
$1.2 million; the Navy paid approximately $208,000; the Marine Corps
paid approximately $378,000; and the Air Force paid approximately
$1.1 million. 58 The services paid a tuition or fee to more than half of their
fellowship host organizations.

For two of the services, officials said that knowing the direct costs of their
fellowship and training-with-industry programs is difficult, given that the
programs are financially managed by several different organizations. For
example, funding for the cost of a fellowship may come from the
proponent that sponsors a fellowship, or from general student and
educational funding, or from other components, such as the National
Guard or Reserve, depending on the fellowship and the service. In
addition, the costs of the program may extend across more than 1 fiscal
year, as the programs are based on academic or calendar rather than
fiscal years.

Service officials said that they do not know the indirect costs of the
programs, such as administrative support, faculty, and permanent change
of station costs, and that there are several challenges in determining


57
   No tuition or fee is paid to fellowships at other federal agencies, federally funded
research centers, congressional committees or members, or corporations. In addition, no
fee is paid to corporations that host training-with-industry participants.
58
  These totals include fellowship programs that charge a tuition or fees. Some programs
do not typically charge a tuition or fee, such as training-with-industry programs or the
Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program.




Page 34                                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
those costs. In addition, some officials said that for their programs indirect
costs may include the salary and benefits of the officer while participating
in the fellowship or training-with-industry program. 59 Service officials said
that the indirect costs of the fellowship are not easily identified. For
example, an Army official said the Army does not have a financial
management system that would allow it to distinguish the administrative
and faculty costs directed toward Army War College students from those
directed toward fellows. For many of the programs, management and
faculty support of fellows and training-with-industry participants is an
additional duty, not the sole duty, of a service official.

Without knowing the direct and indirect costs of these programs, the
services are unable to compare the cost-effectiveness of attending one
type of educational opportunity versus that of another type. Service
officials said they experience similar challenges in knowing the overall
costs of servicemembers attending military schools, or other professional
development and training opportunities. Some service officials said that
having more information about the overall costs of the programs would be
beneficial because it would better inform them on how many fellowship
and training-with-industry opportunities they can afford to devote
educational and training resources to, and would provide better
information for budgeting.




59
   The salary and benefits may be included as a direct cost if the officer is not participating
in a fellowship in lieu of attending a military school. Basic pay during the fellowship varies
by officer level and years of service. Using DOD basic pay in fiscal year 2011, an O-3
would have an annual basic pay range from approximately $44,500 to $72,500; an
O-4 would have an annual basic pay range from approximately $50,700 to $84,600; an
O-5 would have an annual basic pay range from approximately $58,700 to $99,800; and
an O-6 would have an annual basic pay range from approximately $70,400 to $124,700.
Basic pay does not include other forms of pay, such as housing allowances.




Page 35                                                        GAO-12-367 Military Education
Some of the Services Have   Some services have not established or reviewed agreements or
Not Established or          memoranda of understanding 60 that would outline the responsibilities of
Reviewed Memoranda of       the services and the think tank, university, and federal agency host
                            organizations for fellowships, but several service officials we interviewed
Understanding with Host
                            said this would be a best practice to incorporate. We have previously
Organizations               reported on the importance of having management controls to provide
                            accountability for the use of government resources, and to outline the
                            responsibilities of each party. 61 We have also reported on the importance
                            of having policies and procedures to ensure that training and
                            development efforts and expectations are discussed and understood by
                            managers, supervisors, employees, training coordinators, and others. 62

                            The requirement for having written memoranda of understanding between
                            each party varies across the services and by the type of training involved.
                            DOD’s Instruction 1322.06 does not require written memoranda of
                            understanding for fellowships, but it does require a written agreement for
                            training-with-industry programs. The instruction states that before the
                            start of a training-with-industry assignment there must be a written
                            agreement shared by the private sector host, the employee, and the DOD
                            component concerned. The services 63 generally established these
                            required agreements with host corporations. Although not required by the
                            instruction for fellowships, the services have varied in the extent to which
                            they have established memoranda of understanding with host
                            organizations. The Army and the Marine Corps have established such
                            memoranda for a small proportion of their fellowships. 64 In contrast, the
                            Navy and the Air Force have established memoranda of understanding
                            with most of their fellowship host organizations, stating that these
                            documents help them to ensure that the host organization understands
                            the roles and responsibilities of each party as well as the key learning
                            objectives of the program.



                            60
                              Some services use a memorandum of agreement rather than a memorandum of
                            understanding. We refer to both as memoranda of understanding in this report.
                            61
                              GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
                            (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
                            62
                                 GAO-04-546G.
                            63
                                 The Marine Corps does not have a training-with-industry program.
                            64
                               For example, the Army has established memoranda with host agencies under the Army
                            Intermediate Level Education Interagency Fellowship Program.




                            Page 36                                                      GAO-12-367 Military Education
The services have also varied in the extent to which service guidance
require these documents to be reviewed. The respective guidance for one
Navy and one Army fellowship program require that memoranda of
understanding be reviewed. 65 More specifically, the Navy’s Federal
Executive Fellowship requires that its memoranda of understanding be
reviewed every 2 years; and the Commandant of the U.S. Army War
College is required to review and make recommendations on all
fellowship proposals and memoranda of understanding for the Senior
Service College Fellowships to ensure that the senior-level educational
criteria are met. However, since the Army does not have memoranda of
understanding for a majority of its fellowships, such reviews have rarely
occurred.




Several service officials cited establishing and reviewing memoranda of
understanding as a good management practice. One Navy official said
that establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding is a best
practice that should be encouraged, saying these agreements would clear
up any misunderstanding about the structure of the individual program.
Another Navy official had positive comments about establishing and
reviewing memoranda of understanding, saying that establishing these
memoranda constitutes a good practice because they define roles and
responsibilities, provide protections for ethics and payments, and make
clear the objectives of the fellowship. Furthermore, the Army and the
Marine Corps both agreed that establishing and reviewing memoranda of
understanding with host organizations would be beneficial. Army officials
said they plan to establish and update the memoranda for all their
fellowships and to update their policy accordingly. Army officials also said
that these memoranda would provide clarity on the costs of fellowships
each year and thus facilitate better accounting and budgeting for their
program. Further, Army officials said the memoranda would provide
clarity on what makes each host organization unique, the purpose of the


65
  OPNAV, Instruction 1500.72G, Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education
Programs and Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010); and Army, Regulation 621-7:
Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8, 1997).




Page 37                                                  GAO-12-367 Military Education
                             fellowship, and the roles and responsibilities of the Army and the host
                             organization.

                             Memoranda of understanding serve as a management control and
                             document key information and expectations between the service and the
                             host organization. As a feature of documenting key information and
                             expectations, memoranda of understanding can provide protections
                             against potential conflicts of interest. Several Navy memoranda of
                             understanding we reviewed contained provisions that pertained to fellows
                             working on certain federal projects. For example, a memorandum of
                             understanding for the Federal Executive Fellowships says that the fellow
                             may not work on any contract or procurement studies that would violate
                             federal standards of conduct, especially those pertaining to conflicts of
                             interest. Without establishing and reviewing these memoranda, the
                             services cannot be assured that expectations, including safeguards
                             against potential conflicts of interests and criteria for appropriate fees and
                             projects, are clearly understood by the host organizations and the
                             fellowship participants.


The Services Use Certain     While the military services are not well positioned to determine the extent
Management Practices as a    of their benefit from fellowship and related training programs, service
Means of Obtaining           officials believe that they do obtain benefits from these programs. For
                             example, officials said these programs provide officers with a career-
Benefits from Fellowship     broadening developmental experience; enable them to conduct research
and Training-with-Industry   on topics that are important to the military; help them develop critical and
Programs                     strategic thinking skills; help them gain perspectives from the civilian
                             sector; build civilian-military relationships; and develop more responsive
                             leaders during times of significant change in the global security
                             environment. Officials also believe that the use of fellowship and training-
                             with-industry programs affords DOD flexibility in meeting new or emerging
                             educational and training needs that sometimes cannot be met within the
                             military educational structure—for example, in the rapidly developing new
                             approaches and techniques of the cyber security area. Service officials
                             said they use several program management practices to enhance the
                             benefits derived from fellowship and training-with-industry programs,
                             including the following:

                             •   Competitive selection: Service officials said that having a highly
                                 competitive selection process that rank-orders officers who are
                                 eligible to compete for many fellowship and training-with-industry
                                 opportunities helps to produce a selection of highly qualified officers
                                 for these opportunities. Officials said the process better ensures that


                             Page 38                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
     the right officer is selected for a given fellowship or training-with-
     industry program, which ultimately benefits the officer’s career as well
     as accomplishes DOD’s mission though the experience gained. In our
     review of the selection process, we found that the preferences of
     career field managers, senior leaders, and the officers themselves
     were considered, for many of the services, in the selection of officers
     for fellowship or training-with-industry programs.

•    Orientation and ethics counseling: Service officials said that
     conducting orientation before the start of a fellowship helps to prepare
     fellows for their program by introducing them to key contacts, program
     requirements, and expectations for the year. In addition, officials
     stated, the ethics briefings given at orientation and availability of
     subsequent counseling provide assurance that fellows understand
     what is expected of them and are informed as to how to handle
     potential conflicts of interest. We reviewed seven ethics briefings and
     found them to contain essential elements, such as guidance on
     accepting gifts and information on contacting DOD legal officials with
     questions about ethics issues. (See app. IV for our review of these
     briefings.)

•    Research: Service officials said they have assurances that they
     receive a benefit by requiring many of the fellows to conduct research
     and write papers on topics that are important to each respective
     service, as identified by senior leaders. At orientation, some of the
     services have senior leaders speak about emerging topics that could
     be better researched to benefit the service. For academic year
     2010-2011, for example, DOD fellows researched enhancing DOD’s
     acquisition and logistics processes, as well as countering irregular
     threats such as piracy.

     Service obligations: Service officials informed us that they had general
     procedures to provide some measure of benefits obtained when
     officers complete their additional service obligation as required by
     statute or DOD guidance for participating in certain fellowships or
     training-with-industry programs—that is, that the fellow will serve in
     the military for a period at least three times the length of the period of
     the fellowship education or training-with-industry opportunity. 66


66
   As discussed earlier in this report, we found certain Army fellowship programs that were
not in compliance with the statutory requirement; however, the Army still had a general
process to provide assurances that officers complete the lesser service obligation agreed
to by the servicemember.




Page 39                                                     GAO-12-367 Military Education
                          We found that all of the services generally have (1) policies on the
                          requirement; (2) special coding capabilities for personnel record-
                          keeping and monitoring; (3) a formalized waiver process to better
                          ensure that servicemembers do not retire or separate without fulfilling
                          service obligations; and (4) the potential ability to recoup certain
                          educational costs. While many service officials asserted that these
                          practices increase the likelihood that benefits are derived from
                          fellowships and training-with-industry opportunities, some also said
                          they could still improve upon these practices to have greater
                          assurances that DOD derives benefits from these programs.


                      According to DOD, the intent for fellowships and training-with-industry
Conclusions           programs is to help fulfill a present need, anticipated requirement, or
                      future capability that contributes to the effectiveness of the department’s
                      mission. DOD has used these programs for at least 1,797 mid- to senior-
                      level officers across the services over the past 5 fiscal years. Even as the
                      war in Afghanistan is winding down and reductions in personnel end-
                      strengths occur, servicemembers will still be deployed globally, and DOD
                      will have to carefully balance operational assignments with identified
                      needs for professional military education, both within DOD’s professional
                      military educational system and outside of DOD, in fellowship and training
                      with industry programs. However, until OSD gains improved visibility into
                      these programs and the military services are better positioned to know
                      that they achieve their intended benefits and are cost-effective, DOD will
                      continue to face challenges in ensuring that it is deriving sufficient value
                      from these programs.


                      To improve oversight and management of DOD’s fellowship and training-
Recommendations for   with-industry programs, we are making 11 recommendations to the
Executive Action      Secretary of Defense.

                      To help ensure compliance with DOD Instruction 1322.06 and thus
                      enhance DOD’s visibility over all of the fellowship and training-with-
                      industry programs, and to promote a shared understanding across the
                      military services of what is expected in meeting the instruction, the
                      Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
                      Personnel and Readiness to take the following five actions:

                      (1) develop a mission statement that clearly defines the respective
                      purposes of the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-with-




                      Page 40                                            GAO-12-367 Military Education
industry programs to be in a better position to know the extent to which
desired program outcomes are being achieved;

(2) more consistently enforce the DOD instruction’s requirement on the
submission of annual reviews from the military services on these
programs; and

(3) collaborate with the military departments to ensure that each service
has designated an office to be responsible for compiling information on
the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-with-industry
programs for the annual reports required in the DOD instruction.

In addition, to enable DOD to develop a more reliable inventory for these
programs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
should:

(4) clarify in the DOD instruction the definition of a fellowship; and

(5) specify in the DOD instruction common reporting requirements for the
annual report, and clarify which fellowship and training-with-industry
opportunities should be included in this report, to facilitate the collection of
consistent information on these programs across the military services.

Additionally, to facilitate OSD’s ability to perform its oversight
responsibility for the legislative fellowship program and to better ensure
consistency in the department’s dealings with interested committees and
members of Congress, the Secretary of Defense should direct the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to take the following
two actions:

(6) clearly delineate in the DOD instruction the roles and responsibilities
for overseeing DOD’s Legislative Fellowship Program, and

(7) develop documented placement criteria for legislative fellows.

Finally, to better position DOD to determine the extent of the benefits it
derives from legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-with-
industry programs and better assess whether fellowship and training-with-
industry programs offer the best venues for developing needed personnel
skills, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the
Department of the Air Force to take the following four actions:



Page 41                                              GAO-12-367 Military Education
                     (8) perform periodic and comprehensive program reviews that assess the
                     progress using quantifiable measures, validate that programs continue to
                     meet current or emerging needs, incorporate feedback from program
                     participants and host organizations, and document the results of reviews;

                     (9) clarify guidance for determining what qualifies as a follow-on utilization
                     tour, and establish criteria to determine when a utilization tour is needed
                     or, conversely, when it can be postponed or waived;

                     (10) determine the direct costs of these programs by periodically
                     obtaining and analyzing overall direct program costs, and explore the
                     feasibility of estimating indirect program costs; and

                     (11) establish and periodically review fellowship written agreements or
                     memoranda of understanding to document key information and
                     expectations between the services and the host organizations, such as
                     fellowship objectives, criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of fees or
                     tuition charged to the military departments , and criteria for evaluating the
                     appropriateness of the projects involved.


                     In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
Agency Comments      11 recommendations we made to improve OSD oversight and strengthen
and Our Evaluation   the military services’ management of its fellowships and training-with-
                     industry programs. DOD also outlined actions that it plans to take for each
                     recommendation, which it stated will improve the issues we identified in
                     the report. DOD’s comments appear in their entirety in appendix V.
                     We are encouraged by the department’s action plans that carry the intent
                     to implement our recommendations. For example, we made
                     7 recommendations to OSD designed to enhance OSD’s oversight and
                     visibility over these programs, for which OSD provided its intended
                     actions such as making planned revisions to its instruction governing
                     these programs by including a mission statement, a standard format for
                     the military services to follow when completing the required annual report,
                     and a date when this report is due to OSD—all actions we believe meet
                     the intent of these recommendations. We also made 4 recommendations
                     to the military service secretaries to strengthen its management of these
                     programs, which again OSD provided a series of steps it plans to take in
                     response to our recommendations. OSD’s action plans included such
                     steps as working with the military services to develop qualitative or
                     quantitative measures that the department believes will best meet the
                     services needs for these programs. Again, we are encouraged by the
                     department’s action plans as stated in OSD’s comments to our draft


                     Page 42                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
report in meeting the intent of our recommended actions to strengthen
these fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Finally, DOD
provided technical comments, which we considered and incorporated
where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy,
and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This report will
also be available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors are listed in
appendix VI.




Brenda S. Farrell
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management




Page 43                                         GAO-12-367 Military Education
List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Chairman
The Honorable Adam Smith
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives




Page 44                                 GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
             Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




             To determine the statutory provisions that authorize the Department of
             Defense (DOD) fellowship and training-with-industry programs, we
             reviewed and assessed relevant laws and regulations that authorize and
             govern these programs. We also interviewed officials with the Office of
             the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R)
             and attorneys from OSD’s Office of General Counsel for their
             perspectives on laws and regulations governing these programs and
             obtained written responses from OSD General Counsel on these
             authorities.

             To determine the extent of OSD’s visibility over these programs, we
             obtained and assessed DOD instructions and service guidance governing
             its fellowship and training-with-industry programs to determine the policy
             oversight responsibility and other requirements. We interviewed officials
             from USD P&R and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Legislative
             Affairs to obtain information about their roles and responsibilities with
             respect to the Legislative Fellowship Program. We also interviewed
             officials from USD P&R with knowledge of the service reporting
             requirements from the DOD instruction on fellowships and training-with-
             industry programs. We collected available service reports that
             corresponded to these requirements, and assessed the extent to which
             USD P&R has established guidelines for information to include in these
             reports. We obtained information on the extent to which USD P&R was
             aware of the services’ compliance with statutory and regulatory
             requirements, such as the service obligation commitments and reporting
             requirements. Also, we assessed the extent to which USD P&R had a
             complete inventory of its fellowship and training-with-industry programs.
             We collected data on the number of military officers 1 and the types of
             fellowship and training-with-industry programs from each of the military
             services and from OSD. We relied primarily on data from the military
             services, as they were able to provide more detailed information on these
             programs. To assess the reliability of each of the military services’
             program data, we obtained information on (1) the systems used to
             maintain their data and these systems’ ability to record and report on
             these data, and (2) the quality control measures in place to ensure that
             the data were reliable for our reporting purposes. We also interviewed


             1
               We focused on military officers because many of the fellowship programs were only
             eligible to officers, and we excluded civilians participating in fellowship and training-with-
             industry programs because Senate Report 111-201 accompanying the National Defense
             Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed us to focus on servicemembers.




             Page 45                                                         GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




some service officials who were responsible for compiling these data. We
identified some data limitations within these data and cross referenced
with other documentation where available. We found the fellowship and
training-with-industry data provided to us by the services to be sufficiently
reliable for providing contextual information on the minimum number of
participants; however, these data do not allow us to provide the actual
totals.

To determine the extent to which the military services are able to
determine that they derive benefits from these programs, we obtained
and assessed service guidance, collected and reviewed information on
service processes and practices used to manage their programs, and
interviewed service officials. We collected and analyzed information on
the extent to which the services reviewed their programs, including
completion of periodic program reviews and whether the reviews
assessed the program against program goals using quantifiable
performance measures; validated that the program continued to address
current or emerging mission requirements; incorporated feedback from
program participants or host organizations; and documented the results of
the review. We collected data and information on utilization tours and on
the extent to which the fellows are assigned to them. We also collected
information on the extent to which the services tracked the costs of these
programs and established and maintained memoranda of understanding
with host organizations. We obtained information from each of the military
services on the tuition or fee paid to fellowship host organizations for
fellowships in academic year 2010-2011. 2 We also obtained and
evaluated seven ethics briefings that DOD provided to fellows and
training-with-industry participants prior to the start of their selected
program with a non-DOD host organization. We identified the key
elements in these briefings and evaluated them for comprehensiveness.
In doing so, our Office of General Counsel staff from the Ethics Office—
an office that provides guidance to our employees on ethics, conflicts of
interest, impairments to independence, and related conduct rules and
issues—reviewed and assessed the briefings we obtained from the
military services. We also selected and interviewed a non-probability
sample of four legislative fellows and six think tank fellows 3 to obtain a


2
  For the legislative fellowship program, we used data on the cost for legislative
fellowships in calendar year 2011.
3
 We also interviewed a fellow at a graduate school—the Institute of World Politics—
because we initially understood it to be a think tank.




Page 46                                                       GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




firsthand understanding about the benefits of these educational and
training opportunities from the perspective of the officer. We selected
fellows from each service who were either current or had recently
completed the fellowship at the time of our interviews, who were available
for interviews; and who were situated in proximity to the Washington,
D.C., area.

We selected fellows from all four services and from a variety of different
host organizations, focusing on think tanks and on legislative fellows in
response to the interest expressed by Senate Armed Services Committee
staff. In addition, we interviewed a non-probability sample of nine non-
DOD host organizations to obtain their perspectives on the educational
benefits provided to military officers. We selected host organizations that
were hosting a fellow at the time of our interviews; that were available for
interviews; and that were situated in proximity to the Washington, D.C.,
area. To provide more in-depth examples of think tank fellowships, we
selected three of the host organizations that hosted a fellow from each of
the services and reported on the fees associated with the fellowships, and
on the extent to which the services established memoranda of
understanding with those organizations.

We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review:

Office of the Secretary of Defense

•   Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
•   Office of the Deputy General Counsel
•   Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs
•   National Defense University
Department of the Army

•   Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Personnel Policy
•   Congressional Operations Division
•   Combined Arms Center
•   Department of Academic Affairs, Army War college
•   Interagency Student Division
•   Leadership Development Division
•   Senior Leaders Division
•   Strategic Leadership Division
•   Retirements and Separations Division




Page 47                                           GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




Department of the Navy

•   Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Personnel Policy
•   Education Branch
•   Distribution Management
•   Graduate Education and Training Placement
•   Information Dominance Corp
•   Legislative Liaison Office
•   Office of Supply Corps Personnel

United States Marine Corps

•   Congressional Fellows Program Office
•   Marine Corps University
•   Officer Assignments Branch

Department of the Air Force

•   Congressional Support Branch
•   Colonel Management Office
•   Force Development
•   Fellowships Program Office
•   Developmental Education Branch
•   Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch
•   Learning Division
•   Acquisitions Career Management
•   Air Force Research Institute, Air University

Host Organizations

•   American Enterprise Institute
•   Atlantic Council
•   Brookings Institution
•   Center for New American Security
•   Center for Strategic and International Studies.
•   Council on Foreign Relations.
•   Institute of World Politics
•   Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
•   Washington Institute for Near East Studies

We conducted this performance review from March 2011 through April
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing



Page 48                                          GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.




Page 49                                          GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a
               Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship
               Program



Fellowship Program

               For each DOD fellowship program, there are various phases that
               comprise the program, depending on its life-cycle as shown in figure 2.

               Figure 2: Fellowship Program Life-cycle




               Typical phases of a life-cycle for fellowships are as follows:

               1. Different organizations within each service identify present and
                  emerging needs of the service that the officers should be educated in
                  and trained on. For example, a service identifies an emerging need for
                  more cyber security based on recent events.
               2. The service policy or program offices establish the fellowship
                  opportunity that provides the training and skills to meet the identified
                  need. For example, once the cyber security emerging need was
                  identified, the Navy policy office established a fellowship program with
                  leading organizations in that field outside of DOD.




               Page 50                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship
Program




3. Generally, the personnel command or center selects officers to
   participate in the fellowships through a competitive selection process
   that ranks eligible officers for selection.
4. The fellows start their fellowship with a university, think tank,
   corporation, federal agency, or congressional committee or member
   office, generally with DOD or the service providing orientation and
   ethics counseling.
5. During the fellowship, the program office with primary responsibility for
   the fellowship monitors the fellows’ progress, assisting them, when
   applicable, with research associated with the fellowship.
6. At the completion of some fellowships, the fellows are generally
   required to submit a research paper or article. After completion, the
   fellow’s personnel command or center is responsible for assigning the
   participant to the postfellowship utilization tour, and for ensuring the
   fellow does not separate or retire from the military before completing
   the service obligation.
7. Reviewing the fellowship program is generally conducted by either the
   policy office or the program office. The review considers whether
   there are any necessary changes to incorporate into the program for
   the upcoming year.

Although we discussed fellowships in terms of a life-cycle, the life-cycle
for training-with-industry programs is similar to that of fellowships.




Page 51                                            GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix III: Military Service Guidance on
                                            Appendix III: Military Service Guidance on
                                            Fellowship and Training-with-Industry
                                            Programs


Fellowship and Training-with-Industry
Programs
                                            The military services each have their own guidance or regulations that
                                            covers fellowships and training-with-industry programs, as shown in
                                            table 5.

Table 5: Military Service Guidance on Fellowships and Training-with-Industry Programs

Army
Army Regulation 621-7                                                        Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8 1997)
Army Regulation 1-202                                                        Army Congressional Fellowship Program (May 26, 2000)
Army Regulation 621-1                                                        Training of Military Personnel at Civilian Institutions (Aug. 28, 2007)
Navy
Bureau of Navy Personnel Instruction 1560.21E                                Navy Legislative Fellows Program (Nov. 12, 2010)
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.72G                 Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs and
                                                                             Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010)
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.79A                 Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 03, 2011)
Navy Supply System Command Instruction 1520.7                                Training With Industry Program
Marine Corps
Marine Corps Order 1520.28B                                                  Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows Program (Oct. 22, 1996)
Air Force
Air Force Instruction 36-2301                                                Developmental Education (July 16, 2010)
Air Force Instruction 36-2302                                                Professional Development (Advanced Academic Degrees and
                                                                             Professional Continuing Education) (July 11, 2001)
Air Force Instruction 90-403                                                 Air Force Legislative Fellows Program (Jan. 17, 2001)
Air Force Instruction 36-2639                                                Education with Industry Program (May 22, 2009)
                                            Source: The military services.




                                            Page 52                                                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to
              Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to
              Fellows



Fellows

              DOD legal officials presented ethics briefings to fellows during their
              orientation to the fellowship program. Each service provided a multiple-
              day orientation to fellows prior to the start of the fellowship and included a
              segment that covered ethics issues. Some services provided a general
              ethics briefing to all fellowship program participants at one time, and other
              services provided the ethics briefing separately to each fellowship
              program. Fellows participating in the Secretary of Defense Corporate
              Fellowship Program received two ethics briefings, one from their service
              and the other at the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program
              orientation.

              In consultation with GAO’s Ethics Office, we identified key elements that
              would provide fellows with guidance on potential ethical issues and
              conflicts of interest they may face during their fellowship with a non-DOD
              host organization. We obtained seven examples of ethics briefings: two
              from the Army, two from the Navy, one from the Air Force, one from the
              Marine Corps, and one from the Secretary of Defense Corporate
              Fellowship Program. The key elements in the ethics briefings included:

              •   Relevant laws and DOD policies, including the Joint Ethics Regulation
                  (JER), DOD 5500.7-R, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive
                  Branch Employees 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, and relevant sections of 18
                  United States Code , Chapter 11, Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of
                  Interest.

              •   Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees 5
                  C.F.R. Part 2635 include
                  •  Conflicts of interest
                  •  Acceptance of gifts
                  •  Unauthorized commitments purporting to bind the government
                  •  Using public office for private gain
                  •  Seeking outside employment

              Some of the briefings provided guidance on teaching, speaking, and
              writing, such as guidance on the proper use of disclaimers in those
              activities for which the opinions of the fellow do not represent DOD, and
              guidance on being compensated for those activities. For example, fellows
              were instructed not to take compensation for teaching, speaking, and
              writing if the activity was undertaken as part the fellow’s official position,
              or if the topic dealt with an ongoing or announced policy, program, or
              operation of DOD. In addition, some briefings provided guidance on
              engaging in political activities. For example, fellows were instructed that
              they were not permitted to use official authority or influence for interfering



              Page 53                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to
Fellows




with an election; to be a candidate for civil office except as authorized; to
participate in partisan political management, campaigns, speeches,
articles, or conventions; or to promote or attend political dinners or
fundraising events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.
Furthermore, DOD provided the fellows with a point of contact for future
questions and advice.




Page 54                                             GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
             Appendix V: Comments from the Department
             of Defense



of Defense




             Page 55                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Defense




Page 56                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Defense




Page 57                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Defense




Page 58                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Defense




Page 59                                    GAO-12-367 Military Education
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                  Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov
Contact
                  In addition to the contact above, Laura Talbott, Assistant Director;
Acknowledgments   Darreisha Bates; Maria McCollester; Erin Preston; Sara Olds; Terry
                  Richardson; Amie Steele; Cheryl Weissman; Allen Westheimer; and
                  Michael Willems made key contributions to this report.




(351606)
                  Page 60                                          GAO-12-367 Military Education
GAO’s Mission         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
                      constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
                      accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
                      examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
                      policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
                      to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
                      GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                      accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and       GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
                      correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony             go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.