oversight

Joint Manpower Process: Limited Progress Made in Implementing DOD Inspector General Recommendations

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-09-19.

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

                   United States General Accounting Office

GAO                Report to Congressional Committees




September 1997
                   JOINT MANPOWER
                   PROCESS
                   Limited Progress Made
                   in Implementing DOD
                   Inspector General
                   Recommendations




GAO/NSIAD-97-229
             United States
GAO          General Accounting Office
             Washington, D.C. 20548

             National Security and
             International Affairs Division

             B-277624

             September 19, 1997

             The Honorable Strom Thurmond
             Chairman
             The Honorable Carl Levin
             Ranking Minority Member
             Committee on Armed Services
             United States Senate

             The Honorable Floyd Spence
             Chairman
             The Honorable Ronald Dellums
             Ranking Minority Member
             Committee on National Security
             House of Representatives

             In November 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General
             (IG) reported significant deficiencies in DOD’s joint personnel requirements
             and management program and made recommendations for improvement.1
             Section 509 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
             directs us to assess and report on the completeness and adequacy of the
             corrective actions taken by the Secretary of Defense with respect to the
             matters covered in the IG’s report.2 This report responds to that mandate.


             In a 1985 study, the Senate Armed Services Committee staff found that the
Background   quality of military personnel assigned to joint duty was inadequate. The
             study’s recommendations were grouped into three categories: (1) change
             promotion policies to increase interest in joint assignments, (2) improve
             the preparation and experience levels of officers serving in joint duty
             assignments, and (3) provide for improved personnel management of all
             military officers serving in joint duty assignments.3 A 1986 House Armed
             Services Committee report contained similar findings. That report
             described a weak joint organizational structure and an unsatisfactory




             1
               Inspection of the Department of Defense Joint Manpower Process, Department of Defense Inspector
             General (96-029, Nov. 29, 1995).
             2
              Section 509(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104-201,
             September 23, 1996.
             3
              Staff of Senate Committee on Armed Services, 99th Cong., Report on Defense Organization: The Need
             for Change, S. Rep. No. 99-86, at 179 and 196 (1985).



             Page 1                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                   B-277624




                   personnel management system that failed to fill joint positions with
                   officers that had the required talent, education, training, and experience.4

                   The Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 19865 was passed as a
                   result of the significant concerns expressed about organizational and
                   personnel problems affecting joint U.S. military operations.6 Title IV of the
                   act established procedures for selection, education, assignment, and
                   promotion of joint duty officers.

                   In May 1994, the DOD IG began its inspection of DOD’s joint personnel
                   requirements and management program. The inspection objectives were to
                   evaluate the processes and mechanisms used to determine, validate, and
                   approve requirements and assign and manage personnel at joint
                   organizations. The DOD IG found that (1) the processes and mechanisms
                   used to determine personnel requirements for joint organizations are
                   inefficient, ineffective, and inadequate; (2) the processes and mechanisms
                   used to validate and approve personnel requirements for joint
                   organizations are inadequate; (3) the services are unable to satisfy the
                   personnel requirements for joint organizations; (4) support from the
                   Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
                   service secretaries in monitoring the careers of officers who serve or have
                   served in joint assignments is inadequate; and (5) joint policy, education,
                   and training of reserve officers assigned to joint organizations are
                   inadequate. The report included 17 recommendations for improving the
                   program.


                   DOD  management concurred with 11 of the DOD IG recommendations,
Results in Brief   partially concurred with 5, and proposed alternative corrective action to
                   satisfy the intent of the remaining recommendation. One recommendation
                   has been fully implemented, and DOD has taken some action on all but two
                   of the others. However, resolution of most of the concerns raised by the
                   DOD IG will not be completely accomplished for some time, if at all. For
                   example, although DOD has drafted or is developing policies and
                   procedures to address nine of the concerns, approval is not assured
                   because the policies and procedures are still being coordinated among the
                   affected organizations. In addition, the corrective actions prescribed or
                   planned in some cases may not adequately address the DOD IG’s concerns.


                   4
                    H.R. Rep. No. 99-700, at 38 (1986).
                   5
                    Public Law 99-433, Oct. 1, 1986.
                   6
                    S. Rep. No. 99-280, at 4-11 (1986).



                   Page 2                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
B-277624




Table 1 summarizes our findings by recommendation. Appendix I contains
a detailed analysis of our position on the completeness and adequacy of
the actions taken on each specific recommendation in the DOD IG’s report.




Page 3                              GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                                                   B-277624




Table 1: Status of the Implementation of DOD IG Recommendations
                                                                                                                                               App. I
                                                                       DOD                                                                      page
Recommendation                                                 concurrencea         Action taken                    Effect of action         numbers
1. Issue guidance with criteria for determining                       Partial       Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell/not         10
requirements                                                                                                        fully resolved
2. Issue guidance on military versus civilian                             No        No action                       Too early to tell             12
requirements and protect funding of conversions
3. Revalidate personnel requirements                                     Yes        Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell/not         13
                                                                                                                    fully resolved
4. Develop analysis capability for reallocating positions                Yes        Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell/not         14
                                                                                                                    fully resolved
5. Establish plan for service equity                                  Partial       No action                       Too early to tell             15
6. Develop joint manpower validation guidance                         Partial       Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell/not         16
                                                                                                                    fully resolved
7. Bring services on line with automation system                         Yes        Short-term fix is planned Too early to tell                   17
8. Designate joint duty positions as stated in law                       Yes        Board is reviewing              Adequate progress             19
                                                                                    positions                       not made
9. Streamline process for requirements changes                           Yes        Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell/not         20
                                                                                                                    fully resolved
10. Publish joint assignment guidance                                    Yes        Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell             21
11. Change joint tour length calculation                              Partial       DOD General                     Unable to tellb               21
                                                                                    Counsel’s original
                                                                                    opinion was
                                                                                    superseded; no other
                                                                                    action taken
12. Issue joint officer management guidance                           Partial       Partial guidance drafted Too early to tell/not                23
                                                                                                             fully resolved
13. Seek legislative relief on critical joint duty positions             Yes        Legislative relief              Too early to tell how         26
and reporting requirements                                                          grantedc                        relief will be
                                                                                                                    implemented
14. Report promotion results as stated in law                            Yes        Yes                             Fully implemented             28
15. Identify and exempt certain positions from                           Yes        Guidelines drafted              Too early to tell             29
interruption
                                                                                    d
16. Conduct revalidation boards                                          Yes                                        Too early to tell             30
17. Develop policy guidance for training of reserve                      Yes        Working group                   Too early to tell             32
officers                                                                            developing guidelines
                                                   a
                                                    Concurrence was based on the official comments of the organization responsible for taking
                                                   action.
                                                   b
                                                    We were unable to verify the validity of the substitute DOD General Counsel opinion, as no
                                                   written rationale to support this change has been provided.
                                                   c
                                                   Public Law 104-201, Div. A, Title V, sec. 510, Sept. 23, 1996.
                                                   d
                                                    The Marine Corps and the Air Force say they have no need for boards. The Navy and the Army
                                                   are considering holding boards.




                                                   Page 4                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                  B-277624




                  DOD provided oral comments on a draft of this report and generally
Agency Comments   concurred with its findings. DOD stated that our report accurately
                  portrayed DOD’s actions regarding implementation of the DOD IG’s
                  recommendations. DOD further commented that, in its view, the report
                  understates the progress DOD has made toward improving the joint
                  manpower process. DOD believes that its improvements will correct
                  problems in all areas of joint manpower, including areas in which it did
                  not concur with the DOD IG report.


                  We examined the November 1995 DOD IG report and supporting DOD IG
Scope and         workpapers and discussed the report with DOD IG officials. We also
Methodology       discussed progress and problems in this area with manpower and
                  personnel officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff,
                  other joint organizations, and the services.

                  To determine the status of actions to implement the 17 DOD IG
                  recommendations contained in the DOD IG report, we reviewed DOD’s
                  April 1997 report to Congress on improvements to the joint personnel
                  requirements and management program and verified and updated the
                  status through interviews and analysis of supporting documentation.

                  To determine whether completed actions appear to have resolved the
                  concerns raised by the DOD IG, we reviewed documentation of any changes
                  made and analyzed the effect of those changes.

                  To determine whether actions planned but not completed appear likely to
                  resolve the concerns raised by the DOD IG, we reviewed and analyzed plans
                  and draft directives and instructions and considered the views obtained
                  from officials of the involved agencies and organizations.

                  We conducted our review between February and July 1997 in accordance
                  with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                  On September 9, 1997, DOD Directive 1300.19 received final approval and
                  became effective immediately. At that time, however, this report was
                  already in the final stages of publication. Consequently, we were not able
                  to assess the completeness and adequacy of the final directive for
                  correcting the problems identified in the DOD IG report and still meet the
                  mandated reporting date.




                  Page 5                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
B-277624




We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air
Force; the Commandant, Marine Corps; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will
also be made available to others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions on
this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.




Mark E. Gebicke
Director, Military Operations and
  Capabilities Issues




Page 6                                GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
Page 7   GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
Contents



Letter                                                                                             1


Appendix I                                                                                        10

Status of the
Implementation of
Department of
Defense Inspector
General
Recommendations
Appendix II                                                                                       34

Major Contributors to
This Report
Table                   Table 1: Status of the Implementation of DOD IG                            4
                          Recommendations




                        Abbreviations

                        CJCS      Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
                        DOD       Department of Defense
                        IG        Inspector General
                        JPME      Joint Professional Military Education
                        JSO       Joint Specialty Officer
                        OSD       Office of the Secretary of Defense


                        Page 8                              GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
Page 9   GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
Appendix I

Status of the Implementation of Department
of Defense Inspector General
Recommendations
                          The November 1995 Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG)
Recommendation 1          report recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
                          and Readiness develop, coordinate, and submit for approval a DOD
                          Directive on Joint Manpower Management that incorporates a baseline
                          methodology and criteria for joint organizations to determine military and
                          civilian manpower requirements against standardized processes.


DOD IG Findings           According to the DOD IG report, the personnel requirements determination
                          process is the basis for an organization to determine the number and skill
                          level of personnel resources necessary to effectively and efficiently
                          accomplish its mission. The DOD IG found that a lack of definitive guidance
                          from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) or the Joint Staff resulted
                          in wide variations in the processes used by joint organizations to
                          determine requirements.

                          Most organizations used an ad hoc process to respond to events such as
                          major mission changes, reorganizations, or staff reductions. The DOD IG
                          reported two key deficiencies with using an ad hoc process. First, the use
                          of such a process makes it difficult to ensure consistency across
                          organizations in their assessments of the personnel required to perform
                          similar functions. Therefore, the DOD IG concluded that no sound basis
                          existed for OSD and the Joint Staff to use in comparing competing demands
                          among joint organizations, setting priorities, or determining whether
                          guidance was being followed. Second, the lack of documentation of
                          criteria used and data relied on to determine requirements made it difficult
                          to respond to future demands for personnel.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially
Recommendation            concurred with the recommendation, agreeing that some standardization
                          of operational processes was needed for consistency in managing
                          requirements. However, the Under Secretary noted that the diverse
                          missions of the joint organizations make a single requirements
                          determination methodology impractical.

                          DOD Directive 1100.XX and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS)
                          Manual 1600.XX addressing the DOD IG findings have been drafted. They
                          have not been approved and, because they are still being coordinated
                          among the affected organizations, may be changed considerably before
                          approval or not be approved at all. As currently drafted, however, the
                          January 2, 1997, draft of the DOD directive designates the CJCS as



                          Page 10                               GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                 Appendix I
                 Status of the Implementation of Department
                 of Defense Inspector General
                 Recommendations




                 responsible for developing guidelines and criteria for determining,
                 validating, and prioritizing joint requirements and requires the joint
                 organizations to comply with the CJCS guidelines. In addition, the June 20,
                 1997, draft of the CJCS manual states that each joint activity will establish
                 its own internal system to determine joint requirements, lists several
                 methods for doing so, and requires each joint activity to document its
                 validation process.

                 OSD  and Joint Staff officials told us that the main problem in approving
                 these documents concerns DOD’s proposal to make the CJCS responsible for
                 developing the guidelines and criteria for personnel requirements in all
                 joint organizations. Currently, many joint organizations report to OSD
                 rather than through CJCS for approval of personnel requirements. The
                 officials told us that some of the organizations that do not currently report
                 through the CJCS do not want to be bound by the CJCS guidance, since the
                 guidance represents a change in the structure for requesting and obtaining
                 personnel resources. Joint Staff officials told us that, if the DOD directive
                 will not be signed or will be delayed for some time because of these
                 concerns, they will issue a CJCS manual that will apply only to the joint
                 organizations that already report through the CJCS. The officials also said
                 that, even if both documents are approved as currently drafted, the Joint
                 Staff would not be able to implement the manual immediately at all joint
                 organizations. The officials plan to implement the manual first at the
                 organizations that report through the CJCS and then start implementation at
                 the other joint organizations.


Our Assessment   We believe that the current draft DOD directive and CJCS manual offer the
                 opportunity to implement the DOD IG’s recommendation. The documents
                 allow joint organizations the flexibility to employ requirements
                 determination methods appropriate for them while requiring that the
                 process used be documented so that independent assessments of
                 requirements can be conducted. However, the documents have not been
                 approved. Moreover, if the CJCS manual is issued and applied only to the
                 joint organizations reporting through the CJCS, the guidance, procedures,
                 and processes for implementing the DOD IG’s recommendation will be in
                 place for only those organizations. As a result, this recommendation has
                 not yet been implemented, and it is too early to tell whether it eventually
                 will be implemented.




                 Page 11                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 2          Personnel and Readiness issue additional, more instructive guidance on
                          military and civilian requirements determination criteria and procedures
                          and take action to protect the funding of positions identified for
                          conversion of military positions to civilian positions.


DOD IG Findings           The DOD IG found that joint policy governing civilian personnel
                          requirements was fragmented and that the guidance that was available was
                          incomplete and ambiguous. In the absence of any DOD-wide guidance for
                          requirements determination for civilians, the commands followed the
                          supporting host service regulations for determining civilian personnel
                          requirements.

                          As the services downsize, greater emphasis is being placed on converting
                          military personnel in support positions to civilian personnel. The DOD IG
                          noted that DOD provides general guidance but does not define any criteria
                          for determining the appropriate military and civilian mix for a joint
                          organization.1 The DOD IG reported that commanders and managers of joint
                          organizations could not see the advantage of converting military positions
                          to civilian ones unless they had some assurance that their civilian end
                          strength would be increased and necessary funding could be guaranteed.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness did not
Recommendation            concur with the recommendation. The Under Secretary noted that it is not
                          in DOD’s best interest to fence payroll dollars from the effects of general
                          budget adjustments because this action would encourage a less productive
                          and efficient mix of labor and capital. In evaluating these comments, the
                          DOD IG reported that the Under Secretary’s staff said that they were
                          working with the Joint Staff to develop a systematic process for
                          determining the requirements of the unified commands and Joint Staff
                          activities. The Under Secretary’s staff also said that, once the process had
                          been refined and tested, it could be adopted for use at all activities that
                          employ joint personnel. The DOD IG concluded that this proposed action
                          satisfied the intent of the recommendation.

                          The guidelines for determining whether a joint position should be military
                          or civilian are the same as they were when the DOD IG conducted its work.
                          In addition, an OSD official told us that although about 3,000 DOD positions

                          1
                           Our recent study, DOD Force Mix Issues: Converting Some Support Officer Positions to Civilian
                          Status Could Save Money (GAO/NSIAD-97-15, Oct. 23, 1996), found that DOD could save as much as
                          $95 million annually by converting about 9,500 military positions to civilian status.



                          Page 12                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          had been converted from military to civilian during fiscal year 1996, none
                          of these positions were in joint organizations. Furthermore, OSD officials
                          told us that they do not plan to take any specific action on this
                          recommendation. The officials believe that this issue will adequately be
                          addressed by the process being developed in response to
                          recommendation 1.


Our Assessment            No specific action has been taken to implement this recommendation. It is
                          too early to tell whether the process being developed in response to
                          recommendation 1 will adequately address this issue.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Commanders in Chief of the unified
Recommendation 3          commands and directors of the defense agencies revalidate manpower
                          requirements using the methodology established by the Under Secretary of
                          Defense for Personnel and Readiness.


DOD IG Findings           The DOD IG found that the various requirements determination processes
                          used by the DOD activities they visited were fragmented and inefficient.
                          The processes ranged from a subjective analysis to in-house board of
                          director reviews, to contracted studies. The DOD IG reported that the
                          results of those processes were not supported by documented evidence of
                          any quantitative or objective measurement criteria.

                          The DOD IG recognized that the development of quantitative approaches to
                          validate requirements may be costly, labor intensive, and time-consuming
                          but noted that, in DOD’s current downsizing environment, joint activities
                          are challenged to accomplish increased missions with less funding and
                          fewer personnel. The DOD IG concluded that, under these conditions,
                          relevant and objective analyses were necessary to ensure that the highest
                          priority needs were met.


Status of Action on the   The three Commanders in Chief of the unified commands who responded
Recommendation            to this recommendation concurred with it. However, implementation of
                          this recommendation requires using the methodology and criteria
                          developed to implement recommendation 1. Although DOD
                          Directive 1100.XX and CJCS Manual 1600.XX have been drafted, they have
                          not yet been approved. Because the guidance is still being coordinated
                          among the affected organizations, they may be changed considerably



                          Page 13                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          before approval or not approved at all. In addition, as discussed in
                          recommendation 1, consideration is being given to applying the manual
                          only to those joint organizations which report through the CJCS.


Our Assessment            Implementation of this recommendation depends on the approval of the
                          guidance developed to implement recommendation 1. Because that
                          guidance has not been approved, this recommendation has not yet been
                          implemented and it is too early to tell whether it will be.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 4          Personnel and Readiness and the Joint Staff Manpower and Personnel
                          Directorate develop a comparative analysis capability of unified command
                          and defense agency missions, priorities, funding, and manpower levels for
                          use in aiding the decision-making process for reprioritizing and
                          reallocating limited joint manpower assets.


DOD IG Findings           To help ensure that joint activities are able to accomplish mission
                          objectives, quantitative or objective measurement criteria are needed to
                          help identify priority needs within an environment of reduced funding and
                          reduced personnel strength. The DOD IG, acknowledging that each joint
                          organization has a unique mission with unique requirements, stated that
                          the requirements determination process should be measured against
                          proven criteria that are consistently applied. The DOD IG found that the lack
                          of comprehensive requirements determination guidance makes it difficult
                          for the Joint Staff to meet its responsibility of validating the joint
                          organizations’ requirements in a consistent and comparable manner.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially
Recommendation            concurred with the recommendation, agreeing that it is appropriate for the
                          Joint Staff to advise the CJCS regarding resource allocations for those
                          activities under his cognizance. The Joint Staff concurred with the
                          recommendation.

                          The June 20, 1997, draft of CJCS Manual 1600.XX describes a methodology
                          for predicting and validating requirements of the unified commands by
                          comparing their staffing levels for common functions. Joint Staff officials
                          told us that, once the manual has been approved, this comparative analysis
                          will be used to resource new requirements by reallocating resources



                          Page 14                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                   Appendix I
                   Status of the Implementation of Department
                   of Defense Inspector General
                   Recommendations




                   among the unified commands and requesting additional manpower from
                   the services only by exception. OSD and Joint Staff officials said that if the
                   manual is issued applying to all joint organizations, this methodology,
                   once it has been applied successfully to the unified commands, will be
                   modified and used for the defense agencies.


Our Assessment     We believe that the current draft CJCS manual offers the opportunity to
                   implement this recommendation. However, it has not been approved.
                   Therefore, this recommendation has not yet been implemented and it is
                   too early to tell whether it will be.


                   The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 5   Personnel and Readiness, with the advice of the CJCS, establish a
                   time-phased plan to realign military service contributions to joint
                   manpower. The plan should place military service “equity” in the context
                   of requirements and ability to meet those requirements, rather than a
                   simplistic “proportionate share analysis.” In that regard, the following
                   elements should be evaluated:

                   (a) which positions must be filled with service-unique specialists;

                   (b) of the remaining positions, what specialty and rank is required;

                   (c) for each specialty and rank identified, what distribution, among the
                   four services, of personnel meet those criteria; and

                   (d) whether proportionate distribution among the services of requirements
                   by specialty and rank results in critical shortages of personnel to meet
                   in-service requirements.


DOD IG Findings    The DOD IG noted that the issue of service equity was not adequately
                   considered within the joint personnel requirements determination process,
                   given that the obligation to fill joint positions can have an impact on the
                   services’ ability to meet their internal demands for personnel. The DOD IG
                   looked at actual service contributions for fiscal year 1994 and found that
                   they differed from Joint Staff goals for service contributions. For example,
                   the Air Force contribution was 37 percent and the goal was 26 percent.
                   Requirements and personnel officials in each of the services wanted the
                   matter of service equity addressed and resolved.



                   Page 15                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially
Recommendation            concurred with the recommendation, stating that a plan to realign service
                          contributions was not needed and that changing work force incentives
                          was a more desirable way to effect realignment. The Director of the Joint
                          Staff concurred with the recommendation commenting that they would
                          coordinate with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
                          Readiness to implement the recommendation through the methodology for
                          revalidating requirements that was being developed to implement
                          recommendation 1.

                          OSD and Joint Staff officials told us that no particular action has been taken
                          to implement this recommendation. However, the officials also said that
                          actions taken to implement recommendation 1 may result in a change in
                          the relative contributions of the services.


Our Assessment            No specific action has been taken to implement this recommendation. It is
                          too early to determine whether actions taken by DOD to implement
                          recommendation 1 will resolve this issue.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 6          Personnel and Readiness ensure that the DOD Directive on Joint Manpower
                          Management contains joint manpower validation guidance that would

                          (a) ensure consistency in approving manpower authorizations to joint
                          organizations,

                          (b) establish effective and consistent joint manpower validation criteria
                          for both military and civilian positions, and

                          (c) effectively prioritize competing demands for joint manpower by joint
                          organizations.


DOD IG Findings           The DOD IG concluded that the processes and mechanisms for validating
                          and approving joint organizations’ personnel requirements are inadequate.
                          According to the DOD IG report, the mechanisms used to validate
                          requirements are intended to be a check and balance for the requirements
                          decisions made by joint organizations and therefore should be separate
                          and distinct from the processes used for determining the requirements.
                          The DOD IG found that joint organizations used ad hoc validation processes



                          Page 16                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                              Appendix I
                              Status of the Implementation of Department
                              of Defense Inspector General
                              Recommendations




                              that did not consist of two separate and distinct functions. Rather, the IG
                              found that the two functions were generally part of a single process. The
                              report cited the following problems related to this area:

                          •   The roles and responsibilities of the CJCS and the Under Secretary of
                              Defense for Personnel and Readiness for validating and approving joint
                              personnel requirements are not clearly defined.
                          •   The processes and mechanisms in place to review and validate joint
                              personnel requirements at the local or Joint Staff level were not
                              adequately defined as separate and distinct from the requirements
                              determination process.


Status of Action on the       The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially
Recommendation                concurred with this recommendation. The Under Secretary agreed that he
                              and the CJCS should work together to provide some standardization of
                              processes as discussed in recommendation 1. DOD Directive 1100.XX and
                              CJCS Manual 1600.XX addressing the DOD IG findings have been drafted. The
                              January 2, 1997, draft of the DOD directive defines the organizations
                              responsible for validating and approving joint personnel requirements, and
                              the June 20, 1997, draft of the CJCS manual includes guidance on the
                              process and criteria for determining and prioritizing requirements.


Our Assessment                We believe that the current draft DOD directive and CJCS manual offer the
                              opportunity to implement this recommendation. However, as discussed in
                              recommendation 1, the documents are still being coordinated among the
                              affected organizations. They may be changed considerably or not be
                              signed at all. As also discussed in recommendation 1, there is some
                              question as to whether a CJCS manual applying to all joint organizations
                              will be approved. If the manual is issued and applied only to the joint
                              organizations reporting through the CJCS, the guidance, procedures, and
                              processes for implementing this recommendation will not be in place for
                              those joint organizations that do not report through the CJCS. Because
                              guidelines have been drafted but not approved, this recommendation has
                              not yet been implemented, and it is too early to tell whether it eventually
                              will be implemented.


                              The DOD IG recommended that the Joint Staff Manpower and Personnel
Recommendation 7              Directorate and military service personnel centers work together and set
                              milestones for upgrading the capabilities of the Joint Manpower



                              Page 17                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          Automation System to bring all the military services on line prior to
                          publication of the next Joint Duty Assignment List. The Joint Staff could
                          then update the approved Joint Duty Assignment List, providing the
                          military services access for verification and enhancing assignment
                          accommodation (fill) for the unified commands and other joint
                          organizations.


DOD IG Findings           The DOD IG concluded that the automated data processing system used for
                          coordinating and validating joint manpower requirements was inefficient
                          and ineffective and contributed to lengthy delays in making changes to
                          joint manpower requirements. These delays negatively impacted the
                          services’ ability to provide the personnel the joint organizations needed
                          and created some staffing gaps of several months.

                          The automated information system used to produce requirements
                          documents for joint organizations that report to or through the Joint Staff
                          was called the Joint Manpower Automation System. Since the services did
                          not have on-line access to this system, the validation process for changes
                          to requirements relied on manual coordination efforts, often resulting in
                          delays of 1 year or more in processing the requests.


Status of Action on the   The Director of the Joint Staff concurred with the recommendation.
Recommendation            According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Manpower Automation System
                          has been enhanced and is now called the Joint Manpower and Personnel
                          System. The officials told us that this system does not fully satisfy the
                          DOD IG recommendation in that the services still do not have on-line access
                          to the system. However, a recent upgrade to the system is expected to
                          allow the Joint Staff to periodically provide the services an updated joint
                          requirements file that they can use with their systems. Joint Staff officials
                          told us that each service will have to create a program to make the file
                          compatible with its own programs. They said that, because changes are
                          made to the database once a month, the services will be sent an updated
                          file each month.

                          Joint Staff officials told us that they plan to replace the Joint Manpower
                          and Personnel System because of major inadequacies. They are currently
                          planning to identify the requirements for an improved system and plan to
                          field the new system by mid-fiscal year 1999 if funding is available. They
                          said they expect that the services will have on-line access to the new
                          system.



                          Page 18                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




Our Assessment            We believe the action taken by the Joint Staff is a reasonable short-term
                          action. However, it is too early to determine if, in the longer term, this
                          recommendation will be implemented.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 8          Personnel and Readiness, with the assistance of the CJCS revise the Joint
                          Duty Assignment List to correspond with congressional intent that joint
                          duty assignments be designated based on the level of experience in joint
                          matters required by each position rather than on the organization in which
                          the billet is located. The use of “100 percent” and “50 percent” organization
                          quotas for joint duty credit should be eliminated.


DOD IG Findings           Officers must complete a joint duty assignment to be eligible for flag rank.
                          The DOD IG reported that, although the Goldwater-Nichols Act limits the
                          joint duty assignment designation to those positions in which the officer
                          gains significant experience in joint matters, in practice the designation is
                          not based on the duties performed and skills required for a particular
                          position but on the mission of the organization in which the position is
                          located. The DOD IG found that certain organizations (OSD, the Joint Staff,
                          and the unified commands), because of their involvement in planning and
                          directing the integrated employment of joint forces, were referred to as
                          100-percent joint organizations and that all positions for major or
                          lieutenant commander and above in those organizations were designated
                          joint duty assignments.

                          All of the defense agencies, however, were referred to as 50-percent joint
                          organizations, and the number of joint duty assignments they were
                          allowed was limited to no more than 50 percent of their total positions for
                          major or lieutenant commander and above. Furthermore, the DOD IG
                          reported that the 50-percent organizations had not been provided guidance
                          on how to allocate their share of joint duty assignments. The DOD IG found
                          some officers were receiving credit for a joint duty assignment, whereas
                          other officers within the same organization who performed the same basic
                          functions did not receive credit. In addition, the DOD IG reported the results
                          of a congressionally directed study. That study indicated that not all joint
                          duty assignment positions provided significant joint experience, whereas
                          some non-joint duty assignment positions provided this experience.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the
Recommendation            Director of the Joint Staff concurred with the recommendation. Review


                          Page 19                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          and validation of joint duty assignments is currently underway. The Joint
                          Duty Assignment List Validation Board, established in June 1996, is tasked
                          with reviewing all positions in joint organizations at the level of major or
                          lieutenant commander and above (about 15,000 positions) using specific
                          criteria, including consideration of duties associated with each position
                          and the mission of the organization in which each position is located. As of
                          June 1997, the Board had considered 1,100 (7 percent) of the positions.


Our Assessment            Although it appears that the approach being taken by the Board addresses
                          the problems found by the DOD IG, at the current pace of deliberations, it
                          will take many years to review and validate all of the current joint duty
                          assignments. Given the importance of this effort and the fact that progress
                          in implementing recommendations 12 and 13 relies on the validation
                          effort, we believe that adequate progress is not being made.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Joint Staff Manpower and Personnel
Recommendation 9          Directorate in conjunction with each military service headquarters,
                          establish a process action team to review and streamline the Joint
                          Manpower Program change process with emphasis on updating service
                          manpower documents.


DOD IG Findings           Having the right personnel available to fill assignment vacancies when
                          they occur depends partly on sufficient notice of changes to personnel
                          requirements. The DOD IG found that lengthy procedures for documenting,
                          approving, and transmitting to the services changes to requirements
                          contributed to assignment gaps and shortages of officers with the
                          necessary skills.


Status of Action on the   The Director of the Joint Staff concurred with the recommendation. A
Recommendation            joint working group formed in August 1995 proposed changes to the
                          process for updating service requirements documents. These changes are
                          included in the June 20, 1997, draft CJCS Manual 1600.XX that is currently
                          being coordinated with the affected organizations.


Our Assessment            Although guidelines have been drafted, this recommendation has not yet
                          been implemented and it is too early to tell whether it will be.




                          Page 20                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 10         Personnel and Readiness, with the advice of the CJCS, publish joint
                          personnel assignments guidance for all joint organizations.


DOD IG Findings           The DOD IG found that service guidelines and procedures did not cover
                          some personnel actions and other aspects of the joint assignment process
                          that applied only to joint duty assignments. The DOD IG concluded that
                          additional guidance from above the service level was needed to preclude
                          unnecessary conflict with the assignments process. Examples of topics on
                          which additional guidance was needed included attendance at joint
                          professional military education (JPME), early release from joint tours of
                          duty, and tour length requirements.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness concurred
Recommendation            with the recommendation. The November 22, 1996, draft of DOD
                          Directive 1300.19 and DOD Instruction 1300.20 addressing these topics have
                          been coordinated among the affected agencies. On September 9, 1997, the
                          directive was approved, clearing the way for release of the instruction.


Our Assessment            Because various drafts of this directive have been proposed for over
                          10 years without approval, there is no assurance this directive will be
                          approved. Therefore, it is too early to tell whether this recommendation
                          will be implemented.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 11         Personnel and Readiness immediately stop including the temporary duty
                          and return period of Phase II of JPME in calculating joint tour length and
                          modify the Joint Duty Assignment Management Information System data
                          base to reflect that change. The DOD IG further recommended the following:

                          (a) The Secretary of Defense inform Congress of the General Counsel, DOD
                          interpretation and the impact on previously reported tour length averages.

                          (b) The Secretary of Defense process tour length curtailment waivers for
                          those officers that completed previous Joint Duty Assignments with
                          attendance at Phase II of JPME in a temporary duty and return status.




                          Page 21                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          (c) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, along
                          with the Joint Staff and the military departments, determine whether the
                          impact of the General Counsel interpretation on joint officer management
                          warrants a statutory change. Alternatives that should be considered
                          include exclusion of Phase II of JPME from the definition of assignments for
                          training and education, effectively reversing the General Counsel opinion;
                          a change to the duration and location of Phase II of JPME; or a change in
                          the statutory minimum tour length.


DOD IG Findings           The Goldwater-Nichols Act prescribes specific average tour lengths for
                          joint duty assignments2 and specifies that such assignments “shall exclude
                          . . . assignments for joint training or joint education.”3 As required by
                          10 U.S.C. 667, the Secretary of Defense reports the average tour length to
                          Congress each year. The DOD IG found that, although the Secretary of
                          Defense reported to Congress that DOD met the statutory requirements for
                          tour length averages, the method used to calculate tour lengths was
                          incorrect. When officers attended the 12-week Phase II JPME program
                          during their joint duty assignment, that 12-week period was included in the
                          average tour length. The DOD IG based its finding on an opinion of the DOD
                          General Counsel.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially
Recommendation            concurred with the recommendations, stating that the DOD General
                          Counsel had been asked to provide further review of the issue and that
                          appropriate action would be taken based on the results of that review.
                          Since the DOD IG report was released, the DOD General Counsel has
                          withdrawn its earlier opinion and replaced it with one that purports to
                          support the way DOD has been handling temporary duty for JPME in
                          calculating joint tour length. However, the General Counsel has not
                          provided any detailed support for its current position. Without a written
                          rationale to support this change, we are unable to verify the validity of the
                          second opinion.


Our Assessment            Without a written rationale to support this change, we are unable to verify
                          the validity of the DOD General Counsel’s second opinion.



                          2
                           See 10 U.S.C. 664(a).
                          3
                           See 10 U.S.C. 668(b)(1).



                          Page 22                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                    Appendix I
                    Status of the Implementation of Department
                    of Defense Inspector General
                    Recommendations




                    The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 12   Personnel and Readiness incorporate comprehensive policy guidance in
                    DOD Directive 1300.19, “Joint Officer Management Program,” that includes
                    as a minimum:

                    (1) criteria for designating the appropriate joint duty billets as critical
                    positions requiring assignment of officers who hold the joint specialty
                    designation,

                    (2) more stringent requirements on movement of established critical joint
                    billets to provide the military services with a stable target to program the
                    development of appropriately qualified Joint Specialty Officers (JSO),

                    (3) career guidelines for military officers that address the timing of joint
                    duty assignments and the impact of those assignments on service career
                    advancement,

                    (4) a limitation on the designation of Lieutenant Colonel and Commander
                    joint critical positions to the minimum needed to meet operational
                    requirements so that appropriate time is available for in-service officer
                    career development assignments at those ranks,

                    (5) a time-phased plan for reducing the number of waivers granted for
                    filling critical joint positions with officers who are not JSOs,

                    (6) more stringent criteria for the CJCS to use in granting waivers for the
                    assignment of non-JSOs to critical joint positions,

                    (7) criteria related to future JSO requirements for use in identifying officers
                    selected to attend Phase II of JPME, and

                    (8) uniform JSO selection criteria for use by the military service JSO
                    selection boards.


DOD IG Findings     The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish
                    policies, procedures, and practices for the effective management of active
                    duty officers who are trained in, and oriented toward, joint matters. The
                    central purpose for the joint officer management provisions was to
                    develop a pool of qualified JSOs to draw upon for future Joint needs,
                    especially for assignment to critical joint duty assignments. The DOD IG
                    found problems in the identification of critical joint duty assignment



                    Page 23                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          positions that are required to be filled by JSOs and in the management of
                          these officers. These problems were as follows:

Findings 1 and 2          DOD had not established a standardized approach or adequate guidance for
                          identifying and designating critical joint duty assignment positions. Joint
                          organizations were given wide latitude to select which positions to
                          designate as critical. Joint organizations were moving the critical
                          designation to accommodate JSO availability rather than basing the
                          designation on the work performance requirements of the particular
                          position. Instability in the management of JSOs resulted. The services could
                          not program for development of officers with specific skills and
                          backgrounds because the critical joint position designation continually
                          moved from one position to another.

Findings 3 and 4          Although each service had established career paths for officers, with
                          expectations regarding the type of assignments, education, and other
                          duties that officers should successfully complete to be competitive for
                          promotion, the Goldwater-Nichols Act added joint duty and JPME to those
                          career paths. The DOD IG found that the career path models can
                          accommodate the joint requirements but that timing of initial and
                          subsequent critical joint assignments is crucial for an officer to stay
                          competitive for promotion to the next higher grade.

Findings 5 and 6          Too many waivers were being granted allowing non-JSOs to serve in critical
                          joint positions. The waivers were being granted as a direct result of the
                          services’ inability to develop sufficient numbers of JSOs, combined with
                          ineffective procedures for designating appropriate critical joint billets and
                          competing in-service demands for quality officers normally selected for JSO
                          designation. The DOD IG reported that waivers had been granted for
                          11.9 percent of filled critical joint positions. OSD officials told the DOD IG
                          that Senate Committee staff said that the number of waivers granted
                          should not exceed 5 percent of the filled joint positions.

Findings 7 and 8          The DOD IG found that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
                          Readiness and the Joint Staff had not developed objective criteria for use
                          in identifying, nominating, and selecting officers for joint duty assignments
                          and for JSO designation, which could be used in identifying officers
                          permitted to attend JPME. Given the limitations on the number of seats
                          available for JPME, this action negatively impacted the development of JSOs.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially
Recommendation            concurred with the recommendation. The Under Secretary noted that a


                          Page 24                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                   Appendix I
                   Status of the Implementation of Department
                   of Defense Inspector General
                   Recommendations




                   draft DOD directive and instruction, which were being coordinated with the
                   affected agencies, would be comprehensive and enable the services and
                   CJCS to comply with legislative mandates and foster sound management
                   practices to achieve the objectives set forth in the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

                   The draft DOD Directive 1300.19 was in process for over 10 years and was
                   just approved on September 9, 1997. DOD Instruction 1300.20, which
                   provides more detailed guidance than the directive, has been approved,
                   and can now be released. The status of action on the particular parts of the
                   DOD IG recommendation is as follows:


Findings 1 and 2   The DOD instruction provides general guidance to use in designating
                   critical joint duty assignments. However, OSD and Joint Staff officials told
                   us that implementation of the guidance as it relates to designating critical
                   joint assignments is related to the Joint Duty Assignment List Validation
                   Board’s review of joint assignments. This review (discussed in
                   recommendation 8) will probably take several years to accomplish. The
                   officials told us that actions to improve the designation and stabilization of
                   critical joint positions will not occur until the Board’s effort is completed
                   and the universe of joint positions has been established. However, officials
                   of the Joint Staff predicted that it will continue to be necessary for joint
                   organizations to designate many positions as critical based on the skills of
                   available JSOs. It is too early to tell whether the management of critical
                   joint positions will solve the problems identified by the DOD IG.

Finding 3          The DOD instruction assigns the Joint Staff responsibility for establishing
                   career guidelines that address the timing of joint assignments for military
                   officers. However, Joint Staff officials told us they have not taken action
                   on this item and have no plans to do so at this time, choosing instead to let
                   the services develop their own career guidelines. Air Force, Army, Navy
                   and Marine Corps officials told us they have no plans to develop new
                   career guidance. Therefore, this part of the recommendation has not been
                   implemented.

Finding 4          The DOD guidance does not direct the joint organizations to limit the
                   number of Lieutenant Colonel and Commander critical joint positions to
                   the minimum needed to meet operational requirements. OSD and Joint Staff
                   officials pointed out that, if requirements have been accurately determined
                   and critical positions have been appropriately identified, the number of
                   Lieutenant Colonel and Commander joint critical positions will have been
                   kept to the minimum needed to meet operational requirements. We agree.
                   However, there is no assurance that requirements have been accurately



                   Page 25                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                    Appendix I
                    Status of the Implementation of Department
                    of Defense Inspector General
                    Recommendations




                    determined, and critical positions have not been appropriately identified.
                    Therefore, this part of the recommendation has not been implemented,
                    and it is too early to tell whether improvements to the requirements
                    determination process will be implemented and whether they will solve
                    the problem identified by the DOD IG.

Findings 5 and 6    The DOD guidance does not include a time-phased plan for reducing the
                    number of waivers granted for filling critical joint positions with non-JSOs
                    or criteria for the CJCS to use in granting such waivers. OSD and Joint Staff
                    officials told us that they have no plans to create the plan or criteria.
                    Therefore, this part of the recommendation has not been implemented.

Finding 7           The DOD guidance also does not include criteria for selecting officers to
                    attend Phase II of JPME. OSD and Joint Staff officials noted that the problem
                    of JPME course capacity may be resolved by the Joint Duty Assignment List
                    Validation Board. If the actions of the Board result in a much smaller list
                    of joint positions, as expected, fewer requirements for officers who have
                    attended the course will exist, and the capacity problem may be resolved.
                    Therefore, no action has been taken to specifically implement this
                    recommendation, and it is too early to determine whether other actions
                    being taken will solve the problem identified by the DOD IG.

Finding 8           Policy guidance for use by the military service JSO selection boards is
                    included in DOD’s draft guidance and is addressed in CJCS Instruction
                    1332.01, dated June 15, 1997. Action on this part of the recommendation is
                    complete.


Our Assessment      Guidance has been issued to implement one of the eight areas specified in
                    the DOD IG recommendation. DOD has no plans to issue guidance to
                    implement four of the areas. The November 22, 1996, draft of DOD Directive
                    1300.19 and the approved DOD Instruction 1300.20 provide guidance that
                    addresses three of the eight areas but implementation of the guidance may
                    not occur. Therefore, actions taken to date and planned will not fully
                    implement this recommendation.


                    The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 13   Personnel and Readiness, along with the CJCS, develop a legislative
                    proposal to




                    Page 26                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          (a) seek legislative relief from the requirement that DOD maintain an
                          arbitrary minimum of 1,000 critical joint duty positions set forth in
                          10 U.S.C. 661(d)(2)(A) and

                          (b) seek legislative relief from the semiannual promotion reporting
                          requirement set forth in 10 U.S.C. 662(b).


DOD IG Findings           The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires DOD to maintain a minimum of 1,000
                          critical joint duty assignments.4 The DOD IG found that DOD had not
                          established a standardized approach or adequate guidance for identifying
                          and designating critical joint duty assignment positions. Joint
                          organizations were given wide latitude to select which positions to
                          designate as critical. Joint organizations moved the critical designation to
                          those positions for which JSOs were available rather than base these
                          designations on the actual requirements of the positions. That action led to
                          instability in the management of JSOs, as the critical joint position
                          designation continually moved from one position to another and the lack
                          of firm requirements for critical joint positions made it difficult for the
                          services to identify the skills and backgrounds to provide future JSOs.

                          The DOD IG reported that the 1,000 minimum critical positions were
                          regarded as arbitrary and that officials at each joint organization they
                          visited expressed the opinion that DOD should seek legislative relief from
                          the requirement to designate a minimum of 1,000 joint duty assignment
                          positions as critical.

                          The Goldwater-Nichols Act also required the Secretary of Defense to
                          submit semiannual reports to Congress on promotion results for officers
                          who are serving in or have served in joint duty assignments.5 Because
                          military promotion boards convene only on an annual basis, the DOD IG
                          concluded that the reporting of promotion data on a semiannual basis
                          appeared to be excessive.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the
Recommendation            Director of the Joint Staff concurred with the recommendation.

                          (a) Legislation amending 10 U.S.C. 661(d)(2)(A) to reduce the number of
                          required critical joint positions from 1,000 to 800 was included in section

                          4
                           Public Law 99-433, sec. 401, Oct. 1, 1986.
                          5
                           Id.



                          Page 27                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                    Appendix I
                    Status of the Implementation of Department
                    of Defense Inspector General
                    Recommendations




                    501 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
                    However, OSD and Joint Staff officials told us that implementing the lower
                    minimum is tied into the actions of the Joint Duty Assignment List
                    Validation Board (see recommendation 8) and that once the Board has
                    completed its review of all joint positions (estimated to take many years),
                    OSD and the Joint Staff will consider how to implement the lower minimum
                    for critical positions. Moreover, Joint Staff officials told us they believe it
                    is unlikely that the services will have sufficient numbers of JSOs with the
                    right skills to fill even 800 fixed critical positions. Consequently, the
                    officials predicted that, to meet the legislative numerical requirement, it
                    will continue to be necessary for joint organizations to designate as many
                    as 400 positions as critical based on the skills of available JSOs, a process
                    the DOD IG referred to as arbitrary.

                    OSD  and the Joint Staff sought and have been granted the legislative relief
                    recommended by the DOD IG. However, it is too early to tell whether they
                    will implement the requirement for 800 critical joint positions in a manner
                    that will solve the problems identified by the DOD IG.

                    (b) The requirement in 10 U.S.C. 662(b) for semiannual reporting on joint
                    officer promotions was changed to an annual requirement in section 510 of
                    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.6 This part of
                    the recommendation is complete.


Our Assessment      Legislative relief has been granted. However, it is too early to tell if its
                    implementation by DOD will resolve the problems identified by the DOD IG.


                    The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 14   Personnel and Readiness report JSO promotion results consistent with
                    requirements set forth in 10 U.S.C. 662(b) and 10 U.S.C. 667(5).


DOD IG Findings     The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires the Secretary to report promotion rate
                    data to Congress.7 When the data shows a “. . . significant imbalance
                    between officers serving in Joint Duty Assignments or having the joint
                    specialty and other officers, a description of what action has been taken



                    6
                     Public Law 104-201, Sept. 23, 1996.
                    7
                     10 U.S.C. 662(b).



                    Page 28                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                              Appendix I
                              Status of the Implementation of Department
                              of Defense Inspector General
                              Recommendations




                              (or is planned to be taken) by the Secretary to correct the imbalance” must
                              be included in the report.8

                              The DOD IG found that, even though each service has had problems in
                              achieving the statutory promotion objectives, the Secretary’s annual report
                              to Congress does not highlight these unfavorable promotion results and
                              provide corrective actions to improve joint officer promotion imbalances.
                              More specifically, the DOD IG found that, starting with the fiscal year 1993
                              report, OSD discontinued providing complete promotion statistics for all
                              categories of officers. DOD did not provide promotion statistics to indicate
                              whether officers who were serving in or have served in joint duty
                              assignments were promoted at a pace that was equal to, earlier than, or
                              later than their peers.


Status of Action on the       The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness concurred
Recommendation                with the recommendation. CJCS Instruction 1330.02A, dated May 1, 1997,
                              contains guidance on reporting JSO promotion results in accordance with
                              this recommendation. Joint Staff officials told us that the annual report to
                              Congress for fiscal year 1997 will reflect these changes.


Our Assessment                Action on this recommendation is complete.

                              The DOD IG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 15             Personnel and Readiness encourage joint commanders and heads of other
                              joint organizations to

                          •   identify key positions that are adversely affected by interruption of a joint
                              duty assignment to attend the Armed Forces Staff College and
                          •   designate those positions as “JPME Exempt,” precluding interruption of a
                              joint duty assignment to attend the Armed Forces Staff College.


DOD IG Findings               The DOD IG found that some joint organizations could make better use of an
                              available tool to limit the disruption of certain key functions caused when
                              a joint duty officer’s tour is interrupted to attend Phase II of JPME at the
                              Armed Forces Staff College. Because of the limited capacity of the school
                              and the number of officers who attend but are not going to joint duty, only
                              about one-third of the officers who attended could do so before reporting


                              8
                               10 U.S.C. 667(13).



                              Page 29                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          to their joint organization. Thus, joint organizations frequently released
                          officers for a 12-week period to attend the school.

                          The personnel requirements and management officials that the DOD IG
                          interviewed at all 17 joint organizations expressed concern about the
                          impact of losing these officers for 12 weeks on the mission of the joint
                          organization. The DOD IG also found that the Director of the Joint Staff
                          addressed this problem in a July 1989 memorandum that told managers to
                          screen their joint duty assignment positions; identify those jobs that were
                          one-of-a-kind, key, and essential or that had direct mission impact; and
                          specify that the officers in such positions be exempted from attending JPME
                          while in that position. The exemptions each organization could establish
                          was limited to no more than 15 percent of its joint duty assignments. The
                          DOD IG found that this exemption provision was not being used
                          consistently, and some commands were not using it at all.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness concurred
Recommendation            with the recommendation. DOD Instruction 1300.20 provides guidance on
                          designating positions to be exempt from lengthy temporary duty
                          assignments, such as for JPME. The instruction has been approved but is
                          awaiting final approval of the directive before it will be formally released.
                          Various drafts of this directive have been proposed for over 10 years
                          without approval.


Our Assessment            Although the OSD guidance addresses this issue, it is too early to tell
                          whether it will be approved and, if approved, whether the joint
                          organizations will effectively follow the guidance.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the secretaries of the military departments
Recommendation 16         hold JSO Revalidation Boards for the purpose of identifying those
                          transition-era JSOs who do not qualify for future joint duty assignments and
                          recommending withdrawal of JSO designation where appropriate.


DOD IG Findings           The Goldwater-Nichols Act established promotion objectives for officers
                          who are serving in or have served in joint positions. According to the act,
                          these officers are expected, as a group, to be promoted to the next higher
                          grade at a rate not less than the rate for other officers in their respective
                          peer groups.



                          Page 30                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          The DOD IG found that each service has had problems achieving the
                          statutory promotion objectives. Military service officials told the DOD IG
                          that the inability to meet the joint officer promotion objectives was
                          because many officers were designated JSO status under transitional
                          guidelines in effect from 1987 to 1989. The criteria for designating those
                          transition-era JSOs were less stringent than current criteria and did not
                          encompass an assessment of each officer’s competitiveness for future
                          promotion.

                          The Air Force and the Army requested and received approval from the
                          Secretary of Defense to hold JSO revalidation boards to take the JSO
                          designation away from those officers who would not pass current criteria
                          for a joint duty assignment. The Navy and the Marine Corps did not
                          identify a need to conduct such boards. As a result of the boards, the JSO
                          designation was withdrawn from 315 Air Force officers and 65 Army
                          officers. On the basis of its analysis of joint officer promotion results and
                          the actions of the Air Force and the Army revalidation boards, the DOD IG
                          concluded that the Army did not take sufficiently aggressive steps to
                          address its JSO promotion problem or improve its subsequent JSO
                          promotion rates.


Status of Action on the   The Army and the Navy concurred with the recommendation. The Air
Recommendation            Force did not comment on it. Air Force and Marine Corps personnel
                          officials told us they have no current need to conduct JSO revalidation
                          boards because most transition-era JSOs have either left or are leaving the
                          service. Navy officials told us they are considering holding JSO revalidation
                          boards during fiscal year 1998 but have not made a decision yet because
                          the natural attrition of transition-era JSOs may resolve the situation.

                          The Army’s request to hold a JSO revalidation board in 1996 was denied by
                          OSD. An OSD official told us the request was denied because the Army
                          wanted to reconsider the JSO status of not only transition-era officers but
                          other JSOs as well. This action was viewed by OSD as an attempt to revoke
                          JSO status from non-transition-era officers who were not promotable to
                          help the Army meet the statutory promotion objectives. The OSD official
                          said that such an action would not be in keeping with the intent of the
                          Goldwater-Nichols Act—that the services should (1) provide quality
                          officers for joint duty who are competitive for promotion at a rate at least
                          equal to that of officers in their peer group and (2) provide these officers
                          when not on joint duty status with career opportunities and roles that will
                          allow them to be competitive for promotion with their non-JSO peers.



                          Page 31                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                          Appendix I
                          Status of the Implementation of Department
                          of Defense Inspector General
                          Recommendations




                          The OSD official stated that to allow the Army to revoke the JSO status from
                          non-transition-era officers would in effect bail the Army out of a situation
                          in which it either did not provide the right officers for JSO designations or
                          failed to provide adequate career opportunities to those officers. The
                          official said that the Army still has the option of requesting permission to
                          conduct a revalidation board for transition-era JSOs.


Our Assessment            Until the Army and Navy finish assessing the need for withdrawal of JSO
                          designation from some of their transition era JSOs, it is too early to tell if
                          the problems identified by the DOD IG have been resolved.


                          The DOD IG recommended that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Recommendation 17         Reserve Affairs, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
                          for Force Management Policy and the Joint Staff Director for Operational
                          Plans and Interoperability, develop policy guidance that provides for the
                          necessary training and education of reserve component officers assigned
                          to joint organizations.


DOD IG Findings           The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish
                          personnel policies emphasizing education and experience in joint matters
                          for reserve officers not on the active duty list.9 The act also specifies that
                          such policies for the reserve component should be similar to those
                          required by the act for the active component, to the extent practical.10 The
                          DOD IG found that, although some reservists perform duties similar to their
                          active duty counterparts within joint organizations, there was no
                          published DOD guidance regarding joint education or training for reservists
                          and there were no provisions for the education and training necessary to
                          prepare these officers to meet joint qualification standards.


Status of Action on the   The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness concurred
Recommendation            with the recommendation. A reserve joint officer management working
                          group has been established to develop policy guidance to govern the
                          education and personnel management of reserve officers who serve in
                          joint positions. However, officials in the Office of the Assistant Secretary
                          of Defense for Reserve Affairs and OSD told us many details need to be
                          resolved with this issue. For example, they said that, since reservists

                          9
                           Public Law 99-433, Title IV, sec.401(a), Oct. 1, 1986, 10 U.S.C. 666.
                          10
                              Id.



                          Page 32                                               GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
                 Appendix I
                 Status of the Implementation of Department
                 of Defense Inspector General
                 Recommendations




                 typically perform military duties on an intermittent or part-time basis, it is
                 difficult for reservists to find the time to attend the 12 week JPME, Phase II,
                 course. Reservists also cannot readily be assigned to locations outside
                 their reserve unit area, thus limiting their availability for joint training.
                 Also, an OSD official told us that if the education and experience
                 requirements for reservists are too stringent, the available pool of
                 reservists who can meet them will be limited, thereby denying joint duty
                 assignments to many highly qualified reserve personnel.

                 Because the issues concerning reservists are so complex, Reserve Affairs
                 officials said that they do not anticipate that any guidance will be issued
                 during calendar year 1997.


Our Assessment   Although a working group is developing guidance on the education and
                 management of reserve officers in joint positions, it is too early to
                 determine if this recommendation will be implemented.




                 Page 33                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
Appendix II

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Sharon Cekala, Associate Director
National Security and   William E. Beusse, Assistant Director
International Affairs
Division, Washington,
D.C.
                        Janet Keller, Evaluator-in-Charge
Norfolk Field Office    Lynn Johnson, Senior Evaluator
                        Janine Cantin, Evaluator




(703187)                Page 34                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-229 Joint Management Process
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested