Search

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

Why GAO Did This Study: In January 2012, DOD issued new strategic guidance on defense budget priorities, indicating that it must rebalance its overseas force posture including the forward stationing of Navy ships in Spain for ballistic missile defense and the reduction of U.S. Army forces in Europe in the face of deficit reduction. Similarly, DOD reported in its 2011 Global Defense Posture Report to Congress that savings associated with permanently stationing forces in the United States rather than overseas are often offset by such factors as increased rotational costs. Based on direction from the Senate Armed Services Committee, GAO evaluated the extent to which DOD has (1) conducted analysis to support recent overseas posture decisions and (2) developed a process for making posture decisions that align with strategy and consider costs. GAO assessed two recent posture initiatives, DOD plans and guidance related to posture, and theater posture plans from each combatant command., Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.

From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008, the military services received about $295 million in monetary and nonmonetary gifts from individuals and organizations wishing to donate gifts to the Department of Defense (DoD). Section 2601(a) of Title 10, U.S. Code, is a long-standing authority under which the secretaries overseeing DoD, the military services, and the Coast Guard may accept a gift on the condition that the gift be used for the benefit of, or in connection with, the establishment, operation, or maintenance of schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, cemeteries, or other institutions or organizations under the jurisdiction of the secretary concerned. In 2008, gifts to benefit such institutions or organizations included a monetary gift to construct an education center and nonmonetary gifts of a bronze statue and granite benches. In 2006, Congress enacted additional authority, under 10 U.S.C. Section 2601(b), to allow the acceptance of gifts and services to benefit certain members of the armed forces and civilian employees of DoD who incurred a wound, injury, or illness in the line of duty and to benefit the dependents and survivors of those who are killed or wounded. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (USD) (Comptroller) revised its gift fund policy on February 27, 2009 to address GAO's recommended actions. Specifically, the revised policy (1) assigns responsibility to DFAS (Standards and Compliance) to consolidate the services' DFAS gift fund submissions into one quarterly report to the USD (Comptroller) and to develop a standardized reporting format for the military services to start using when assembling the reporting requirements, and (2) directs the military services to maintain documentation in gift fund records that nonmonetary gifts have been transferred to the property records.

The high use of National Guard (Guard) forces for overseas missions has raised questions about its ability to support civil authorities in the event of a catastrophic incident. GAO was asked to assess two alternatives for providing funding and authority specifically for the Guard's civil support missions. Congress subsequently enacted a new approach for the Guard's civil support needs, which GAO also included in this assessment. GAO determined the following: (1) the extent to which planning to identify the Guard's civil support requirements has been undertaken; (2) the current funding approach for the Guard's civil support capabilities and how three approaches -- modeled after the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the Coast Guard, and that in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act -- could be applied to the Guard; (3) guiding principles to consider when developing and implementing funding alternatives; and (4) the extent to which the existing and alternative approaches are consistent with these principles. GAO synthesized guiding principles for military and civil support effectiveness from the literature and discussed alternatives with defense and homeland security analysts. GAO recommends that DoD report to Congress on the steps taken to include the guiding principles in its implementation of the 2008 NDAA. DoD generally agreed with GAO's recommendations., Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives.