I lni t.cvl St.;lt,w4 (knvral Acconnt,ing Office t -.--....%.-. “----. “.ll-.“.” “1111.11 I...-__ .I~ 111-1. l.~---_l-.-.~ fi’i ng Ikport to Congressional GAO uesters ..---l-_..I._..-.-.-. -.-“--l._l-..-~“._*__ ..._..” .--.__- -.-__ -...__.._ Novf~mtwt’ t 990 AIR FORCE BUDGET Potential Reductions to Fiscal Year 1991 Stock Fund Budget 142648 i, .-_. -._. ----I ---. ----_-.- --_---- (;AO/NSIAI)-!)l-I(iHR . ‘ * ..____ -.__--___- ---..--_.--..- ..-.-.. ..--... -_..- ._.. ....__.-lll.__l,l_^l*ll.,.l, U$ted states GAO GeneralAccounting Of’fke Washington,DC. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-241112 November 16,199O The Honorable John P. Murtha Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The Honorable Earl Hutto Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives As requested, we reviewed selected aspects of the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget to identify potential reductions for your consid- eration. As agreed with your staffs, we concentrated our review on that portion of the Air Force’s stock fund budget pertaining to aircraft spare parts. In June and July 1990, we briefed your staffs on the preliminary results of our review. Results in Brief lion: $996.3 million in potential reductions to the 1991 stock fund budget and $92.9 million in potential rescissions to fiscal year 1990 appropri- ated funds for aircraft spare parts. The major reasons and associated dollar amounts for these potential reductionsand rescissions are shown in table 1 and discussed in detail in appendix I. Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-9l-16BR Air Force Budget Reductions Ba41112 Table 1: Potential Reductions and Rmclr8ions Dollars in millions Fiscal year Reason for reduction/resciseion 1991 1990 Total Decrease in budgeted flying hours $275.88 0 $275.8 Buy computations did not consider available assets 199.2 0 199.2 Increased costs for spare parts safety levels not justified 170.0a 0 170.0 Unjustified upward funding adjustment 137.48 0 137.4 Uniustified foreian military sales additive 61.1a 59.7 120.8 Unrequired war reserve material 90.3 0 90.3 Request to pay back the “M” account 79.3 0 79.3 Premature buv reauirements 0 33.2 33.2 Unrequired B-l B defensive avionics system spares 33.18 0 33.1 Duclicate budaetina and fundina ” ” 8.88 0 8.8 Unreauired B-2 aircraft suares 7.7a 0 7.7 Understatement of disallowed buy requirements 2.2a 0 2.2 Subtotal 1,084.9 92.9 1,157.8 Minus 10 percent stock fund conversion discounta - 69.6 - 89.8 Total $995.3 $92.9 $1,088.2 8The Department of Defense’s Comptroller’s Office discounted the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 budget for peacetime aircraft replenishment spares by 10 percent to reflect anticipated savings associated with the conversion from procurement appropriation funding to stock funding. Accordingly, we applied a IO- percent offset to that portion ($696.1 million) of our identified reductions applicable to the fiscal year 1991 peacetime aircraft spares budget. Historically, Air Force aircraft replenishment spares were procured Objectives, Scope,and with funds from the procurement account, repaired with operation and Methodology maintenance funds, and issued free to users. Beginning in fiscal year 1991, the Air Force will fund these activities through the stock fund. Our primary objective was to identify potential reductions to the fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget and potential rescissions to fiscal year 1990 procurement appropriations for aircraft spare parts. Also, we reviewed the Air Force’s compliance with congressional direction to reimburse the “M” account for money previously withdrawn to pay stock fund fuel bills and a congressional recommendation to consider on- hand depot maintenance assets in formulating the stock fund budget. This review is one of a series that examines defense budget issues. In conducting our evaluation, we reviewed the Air Force Logistics Com- mand’s and the Air Logistics Centers’ fiscal year 1991 budget requests, Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-Bl-16BB Air Force Budget Reductiona lw41112 various directives, and budget instructions. We tracked the aircraft spares budget from the procurement account to the stock fund. We interviewed budget and program officials at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense and Air Force Headquarters, Washington, D.C; Air Force Logistics Command Headquarters, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Oklahoma. We per- formed our work between March 1990 and September 1990 in accor- dance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As requested, we did not obtain written agency comments on this report; however, we discussed our findings with Department of Defense and Air Force officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional commit- tees, the Secretaries of Defense and the Air Force, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others on request. This report was prepared under the direction of Nancy R. Kingsbury, Director, Air Force Issues, who may be reached on (202) 275-4268 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Frank C. Conahan Assistant Comptroller General Page 3 GAO/NSIADBl-16BR Air Force Budget Reductions Contenti Letter Appendix I Potential Reductions Decrease in Budgeted Flying Hours Buy Computations Did Not Consider Available Assets to Air Force Fiscal Increased Costs for Spare Parts Safety Levels Not Year 1991 Stock Fund Justified Budget and Unjustified Upward Funding Adjustment 8 Unjustified Foreign Military Sales Additive 9 Rescissionsto Fiscal Unrequired War Reserve Material 9 Year 1990 Request to Pay Back the “M” Account 10 Premature Buy Requirements 11 Procurement Unrequired B-1B Defensive Avionics System Spares 12 Appropriation Duplicate Budgeting and Funding 12 Unrequired B-2 Aircraft Spares 13 Understatement of Disallowed Buy Requirements 13 Appendix 11 14 Major Contributors to This Report Tables Table 1: Potential Reductions and Rescissions 2 Table 1.1: Potential Reductions to the Fiscal Year 1991 9 WRM Funding Request Abbreviations Air Force Logistics Command AI42 Air Logistics Center DOD Department of Defense WRM war reserve material Page 4 GAO/NSLADOl-16BB Air Force Budget Reductiona Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-91.16BR Air Force Budget Reductions Appendix I Potentid Reductionsto Air Force Fiscal Year 1991 Stock Fhd Budget and Rescissionsto Fiscal Year 1990 ProcurementAppropriation We identified $996.3 million in potential reductions to the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget and $92.9 million in potential rescis- sions to fiscal year 1990 procurement funding for aircraft spares. These potential reductions and rescissions are discussed in detail in the fol- lowing sections. The Air Force Logistics Command’s (AFK) latest updated fiscal year Decreasein Budgeted 1991 computed buy requirements for peacetime aircraft replenishment Flying Hours spares, dated August 15, 1990, shows a $276.8 million reduction due to a 13.2 percent decrease in flying hours. According to AFLCbudget per- sonnel, this reduction in flying hours represents a “peace dividend” resulting from the easing of East/West tensions. AFLCpersonnel told us that they had not completed their manual error validation of the updated fiscal year 1991 buy computation and that the final validated reduction due to decreased flying hours could be some- what less than $276.8 million. However, we noted that error adjust- ments made by AFLCto its earlier fiscal year 1991 budgeted buy computation actually resulted in a net increase of $3.1 million to the computed buy requirements. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $276.8 million. In June 1989, we reported’ that the Air Force’s fiscal year 1989 bud- Buy Computations Did geted buy requirements for consumable aircraft items took into consid- Not Consider eration depot supply level (depot maintenance) requirements valued at Available Assets $464.8 million but did not consider $186.2 million of applicable on-hand depot supply level assets that were available to satisfy these require- ments. In response to our report, the House Committee on Armed Ser- vices, in its report on the 1989 National Defense Authorization Act, directed the Air Force to apply depot supply level assets to applicable depot maintenance requirements in buy computations. We found that the Air Force considered depot maintenance require- ments valued at $273.7 million when it developed its fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget for consumable aircraft items. However, it did not consider $199.2 million of applicable on-hand depot supply level assets. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), depot supply level assets, like base maintenance assets, are owned by the retail system and are rce’s Management of Backordered Aircraft Items Needs Improve- , June 2,1989). Page 0 GAO/NSIALbOl-MBR Air Force Budget Reductiona Appendix I Poiential ReductIona to Air Force Fbal Year 1991 Stuck Fund Budget and Rescissions to Fiwd Year 1999 Procurement Appropriation therefore not considered available to offset wholesale requirements, We do not agree with this position. Unlike base maintenance assets, depot supply level assets have not been issued from wholesale storage and sold to the retail system. These assets are reserved in wholesale storage to satisfy forecasted depot maintenance requirements. Since wholesale requirements include forecasted depot maintenance needs and depot supply level assets are reserved in wholesale storage to satisfy these future needs, it is reasonable to expect that these assets should be used in buy computations to offset the applicable wholesale requirements. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $199.2 million. In August 1990, we reported2 on the increased costs associated with the Increased Costs for Air Force’s implementation of a new model, the aircraft availability Spare Parts Safety model, for computing aircraft spare parts safety level requirements, Imels Not Justified Safety levels are quantities of stocks in addition to normal operating requirements. They provide protection against shortages in the event that demands or resupply time are greater than predicted. The increased costs occurred because the aircraft availability model used higher aircraft availability rates to compute safety level require- ments than did its predecessor, the variable safety level model. An air- craft availability rate for any specific type of aircraft is essentially the percentage of aircraft not missing designated parts. The higher aircraft availability rates were not justified on the basis of operational needs, as reflected by mission capable rates. A mission capable rate is the primary measure of aircraft readiness and is that portion of total time that the aircraft can perform its mission. Prior to implementation of the aircraft availability model, the Air Force was achieving a desired overall aircraft mission capable rate of 80 percent. The Air Force reported satisfaction with its ability to perform needed missions, and it neither requested nor justified an increase in aircraft mission capability. By reprogramming the aircraft availability model with the average air- craft availability achieved under the prior model, we estimate that the Air Force could reduce its fiscal year 1991 budgeted procurement and repair costs for safety level stocks of aircraft spares by $170 million. In its comments on our findings, DOD and the Air Force agreed that spare parts safety level costs could be substantially reduced if the higher ‘Air Force Logistics: Increased Costa for Spare Parts Safety Levels Are Not Justified(GAO/ NSIAD - _ Page 7 GAO/NSLAD-91-16BR Air Force Budget Reduction Potentisl Reductiona to Ah Force Fiscal Year 1991 Stock Fund Budget and Racbsio~ to Fhxd Year 1990 Procmwment Appropriation availability rates used in the aircraft availability model were reset at the prior average level of the variable safety level model. Also, the Air Force advised us that it was studying ways to better relate aircraft availability rates to operational needs. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $170 million. During the fiscal year 1991 budget preparation process, AFLCcalculated Unjustified Upward its requirements for peacetime operating stock, which were lower than Funding Adjustment the requirements for previous years. AFU: decided to increase its fiscal year 1991 budget request to bring it up to the same level as its fiscal year 1990 requirement. The increase included $132.5 million for the res- toration of requirement reductions and $167.5 million for an arbitrary upward adjustment. For fiscal years 1989 and 1990, AFLCreduced the five Air Logistics Cen- ters’ (ALC) budget requests to allow for anticipated price decreases and other expected changes in requirements. AFLC directed the ALCS to calcu- late this reduction in their fiscal years 1991 and 1992 budget requests. The AU.5 calculated a reduction totaling $132.6 million for fiscal year 1991, which AFLC then incorrectly restored as an upward funding adjust- ment to the fiscal year 1991 budget request. Since AF’LC has made such reductions of a similar magnitude in the past, initially made the reduc- tions to its fiscal year 1991 budget, and again has directed the ALCS to calculate this reduction in fiscal year 1992, we consider the restoration of $132.6 million to be unjustified. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $132.5 million. In addition, AFLC arbitrarily added $167.5 million to its fiscal year 1991 budget request to bring it up to the fiscal year 1990 level. However, AFLC incorrectly cited this upward adjustment as $162.6 million in its budget submission to DOD. AFLC officials could not explain why the reported amount was $4.9 million less than the actual amount. DOD disallowed the reported arbitrary upward adjustment of $162.6 million. Since the upward adjustment was underreported by $4.9 million, the reduction was $4.9 million less than it should have been. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by an addi- tional $4.9 million, for a total potential reduction of $137.4 million for the unjustified upward funding adjustment. Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-91-16BB Air Force Budget Reductions Appendix1 Po’tenthl ReducUona to Air Force Fiscal Year 1991 Stock Pund Budget and Reochiona to FLMlal Year 1996 Procurement Appropriation The ALCS' fiscal year 1991 budget requests for peacetime aircraft spares UNustified Foreign included an additive of $120.8 million for foreign military sales buy Military Sales requirements-$61.1 million for fiscal year 1991 and $59.7 million for Additive fiscal year 1990. Additive buy requirements are intended to satisfy mis- cellaneous needs that are not provided for by the normal budget compu- tation process. According to AFLCofficials, these foreign military sales additive buy requirements were intended to maintain Air Force stock levels of air- craft spares for sales to foreign countries. However, we found that these additive buy requirements are unnecessary because the normal budget computation process takes into consideration the total foreign military sales stock level requirement and computes the buys needed to maintain this stock level. AFLCofficials agree that the foreign military sales additive buy require- ment is unnecessary and directed the ALCS not to include this additive in future budgets. Therefore, the Air Force’s stock fund budget could be reduced by $61.1 million for fiscal year 1991 and $59.7 million could be rescinded from the fiscal year 1990 procurement appropriation. We identified potential reductions of $90.3 million in unrequired war Unrequired War reserve material (WRM) in the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund ReserveMaterial budget request for WRM as shown in table I. 1. Table 1.1: Potential Reductions to the Fiscal Year 1991 WRM Funding Request Dollars in millions Unneeded WRM for F-16 and C-17 aircraft $56.6 Uniustified uDward fundina adiustment 33.3 Unsupported WRM for B-52 and MH-53 aircraft .4 Total $90.3 Unneeded WRM for F-16 The Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 funding request for aircraft spare parts includes WRM buy requirements of $36.3 million for F-16 ALQ-166 and C-17 Aircraft system airborne self protection jammers and $20.3 million for C-17 parts. DOD recommended that these budgeted WRM buy requirements be eliminated because of (1) operational testing problems in the case of the * F-16 jammers and (2) prematurity in the case of the C-17, which has not been flight tested. The Air Force did not eliminate this $56,6 million from its budget on the basis that it is needed to satisfy other unbudgeted Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-91-16BR Air Force Budget Reductiona Appendix I Potential Reductione to Air Force Fiscal Year 1991 Stock F’und Budget and Reecieeio~ to F&al Year 1990 R-acurement Appropriation buy requirements. We found that the Air Force has no current plans to fund these unbudgeted requirements in fiscal year 1991. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund WRM budget request could be reduced by $66.6 million. Unjustified Upward To maintain fiscal year 1990 funding levels, AFLCmade an arbitrary Funding Adjustment upward adjustment of $33.3 million to the aircraft spares WRM funding budgeted by the ALCS for fiscal year 1991. AFLCmade this upward adjustment by restoring reductions it had previously directed the ALCS to make to their budgets to reflect anticipated price decreases and other economies. We believe the $33.3 million restoration is unjustified because similar reductions were made to prior years’ budgets and AFLC has directed the ALCS to make these reductions in finalizing their fiscal year 1991 buy requirements and preparing their fiscal year 1992 budgets. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund WRM budget request could be reduced by $33.3 million. Unsupported WRM for AFIX:officials reduced peacetime requirements for B-52 control panels B-52 and MH-53 Aircraft and the MH-63 (helicopter) ALQ-162 electronic countermeasure system spare parts because of insufficient documentation to support the requirements and program slippages. However, they failed to reduce $400,000 in WRM funding requirements for these items. AFLC officials agreed that WRM requirements should also have been reduced for these items. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund WRM budget request could be reduced by $400,000. The Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund appropriation request Requestto Pay Back includes $79.3 million to partially repay the stock fund customer “M” the “M” Account account3 for prior years’ withdrawals to offset losses to the stock fund resulting from underbilling of customers for aircraft fuel sales. In our October 17,1989, letter to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, House Committee on Appropriations, we reported that the Air Force had transferred $238 million from the “M” account to the stock fund account to offset losses of stock fund cash that resulted from underbilling of customers for aircraft fuel sales during fiscal years 1981 to 1986. 3Merged account to which an agency transfers prior years’ lapsed funding authority 2 yean after expiration of the period for which the funding was authorized. Balances in this account remain avail- able indefinitely for payment of valid prior years’ obligations. Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-91.16BR Air Force Budget Reductions Appendix I Potimtbl Reductions to Air Force Fiscal Yeax 1991 Stock Fund Budget and Rerdsoiona to FIecal Year 1999 Procurement Appropriation We further reported that the Air Force did not have adequate documen- tation to support the reason for the transfer of $238 million from the “M” account to the stock fund. Consequently, the Congress, in its fiscal year 1990 conference report on appropriations for DOD, directed the Air Force to pay back the $238 million it had transferred from the “M” account by increasing stock fund charges for customer sales for fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Instead of adjusting its fiscal year 1991 stock fund charges to customers to recoup the $79.3 million needed to make the first incremental stock fund payback to the “M” account, the Air Force requested an additional appropriation to the stock fund to make the payback. In our opinion, this request for $79.3 million in appropriated funds to payback the “M” account is not consistent with the congressional direc- tion and should not be appropriated for this purpose. In preparing its fiscal year 1991 budget, the Oklahoma City ALC added to Premature Buy its latest fiscal years 1989 and 1990 computed buy requirements for air- Requirements craft spares future years’ projected buys totaling $112.1 million. The Oklahoma City ALC added future years’ buy requirements to its latest buy computations to justify use of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 monies to fund outstanding purchase requests for quantities of spares that exceeded the latest buy computations, We reported in 19864 that the Air Force was incurring added procure- ment and storage costs of millions of dollars annually by procuring air- craft spares more than a year earlier than necessary. In response to our report, DOD directed the Air Force to limit its early procurements to 1 year. We found that $33.2 million of the $112.1 million was for projected fiscal year 1992 buys and therefore was not valid current buy require- ments. The remaining $78.9 million of added requirements was deemed valid because they were advanced only 1 year. Oklahoma City AI& officials agreed that funding of fiscal year 1992 buy requirements was premature and advised us that their buy guidelines had been amended in July 1990 to preclude future early buys. The use of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 monies to fund fiscal year 1992 projected *Military Logistics: Buying Spares Too Early Increases Air Force Costs and Budget Outlays (GAO/ - - 49, Aug. 1,lOW. Page 11 GAO/NSIADI)l-MBR Air Force Budget Reductions Potential Reductiona to Ah Force Fircal Year 1991 Stock Fund Budget and Re@d#eione to Fbcal Year 1990 Procurement APProPrWion buy requirements indicates that the Air Force is having problems spending prior years’ aircraft spares funds on valid current require- ments. Therefore, a rescission of at least $33.2 million from fiscal year 1990 procurement funding appears warranted. u~u~~u.~~cuu-1B lion requested by the Warner Robins ALC for the purchase of replenish- Defensive Avionics ment spare parts for the B-1B’s ALQ-161 defensive avionics system. We System Spares found that this was not a valid funding requirement because continuing design stability problems with this system preclude the purchase of these spare parts in fiscal year 1991. AI%Cofficials agreed that the original need for the $33.1 million funding was not valid, but they stated that this funding was needed to satisfy other unbudgeted requirements. However, they were unable to validate this position. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $33.1 million. In November 1989, we reported6 that the Air Force’s fiscal year 1990 Duplicate Budgeting funding request included $88.9 million of Oklahoma City AU: buy and Funding requirements that had been budgeted for and funded by the Congress in fiscal year 1989. We identified this amount as a potential reduction to the fiscal year 1990 budget and discussed this duplicate budgeting with Air Force officials. As a result, the Oklahoma City ALC revised its proce- dures for preparing the fiscal year 1991 budget. By following the revised procedures, the Oklahoma City AL.Cidentified and excluded $42.4 million of spares requirements from its fiscal year 1991 budget that duplicated spares requirements funded in prior years. While we acknowledge the Air Force’s effort to reduce duplicate budgeting and funding, our review of fiscal year 1991 budget documents showed that $8.8 million of the $77.1 million included in the Oklahoma City ALC’Sbudget submission for first-time aircraft spares buys had been budgeted for and funded by the Congress in fiscal year 1990. We believe that the remaining requirements were valid because they represented updated buy requirements for fiscal year 1989 and 1990 that had not been included in previous budgets. 6Air Force Fjudget: Potential for Reducing Funding for Aircraft Spares (GAO/NSIAD-90-18, Nov. 28, 1989). Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-91-16BR Air Force Budget Reductions Appendix I Pbtmtlal Rednctio~ to Air Force Fbcal Year 1991 Stock Fund Budget and Ite~~io~ to Fbcal Year 1999 Procurement Appropristlon Oklahoma City ALCofficials agreed that the $8.8 million represents items that were erroneously left in the fiscal year 1991 budget request. Therefore, the fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $8.8 million. The Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 budget included $7.7 million for replen- Unrequired B-2 ishment spares support for the B-2 aircraft. However, according to B-2 Aircraft Spares program officials, no funding is currently needed for B-2 replenishment spares in fiscal year 1991 because of program slippage. Therefore, the fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $7.7 million. In reviewing the fiscal year 1991 aircraft replenishment spares budgets Understatement of of the five ALCs, AFL.42 disallowed buy requirements totaling $62.9 million Disallowed Buy because of insufficient supporting data and program slippage or cancel- Requirements lation. However, in preparing a consolidated fiscal year 1991 budget, AFLCdeducted only $60.7 million for these disallowed requirements-a $2.2 million understatement. Responsible AFLCaircraft spares budget personnel agreed that consoli- dated budget reductions for disallowed buy requirements were under- stated by $2.2 million. Therefore, the Air Force’s fiscal year 1991 stock fund budget could be reduced by $2.2 million. Page 13 GAO/NSIAD91-16BR Air Force Budget Reductiom~ Appendix II Major Contributors to This &port Norman J. Rabkin, Associate Director National Security and Carl F. Bogar, Assistant Director International Affairs Thomas H. Wells, Assignment Manager Division, Washington, Andrea W. Brown, Evaluator-in-Charge Howard E. Kapp, Jr., Senior Evaluator DC. Melvin Wagman, Evaluator Richard L. Strittmatter, Regional Assignment Manager Cincinnati Regional Leonard L. Benson, Site Senior Office Cheryl K. Andrew, Evaluator Roger Tomlinson, Regional Management Representative Kansas City Regional Tom Patterson, Site Senior Office Bonnie S. Carter, Evaluator (382353) Page 14 GAO/NSLADL)l-UBR Air Force Budget Reductione ,I --.... -._. _..._ --. .__- .._-__ -.. .- ..l__l_. -II_. ..--I .,l-l*ll..l ,l.-_.“..-l.._l. ...I .-,- -_l_**r-.- ; --_-_----_-_~-~-~-~ i Ortlc~rittg Information The first f?vc: copies of each GAO report are free. Addit,ional copies arc! $2 each. Orders should be sent to 1,he following address, accompanit:d by a check or money order tnade out to the Sul)t’rirtt,c~ttdcAttt, of I)ucumenf.s, when necessary. Orders for 100 or mot-c copies to be mailed to a sing,rle address are d iscott tttchd 25 perectnt.. I’. 0. Box 6015 (~aithc~rsburg, MT) 20877 Orders tnay also be placed by calling (202) 275-624 1. I rttitt4 St iKf.W First.-(Yass Mail (kwr:rl /\ct~~u~~t ing Offiw Postagt~ &L Ftws Paid Washin~tAMl, I).( :. 20548 GAO Pet-rrait No. GlOO
Air Force Budget: Potential Reductions to Fiscal Year 1991 Stock Fund Budget
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-11-15.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)