The US army offered soldiers a health-behavior screening tool, the Health Risk Appraisal (HRA), for more than a decade. Although its original purpose was to facilitate a workforce wellness plan, this program has been underused for one of its greatest potential benefits: research that links self-reported behaviors, such as alcohol abuse, with adverse health and occupational outcomes. Although the potential uses of the Army’s HRA survey data are numerous, the reliability and validity of the items contained in the HRA have not yet been evaluated thoroughly among military personnel. This article assesses the generalizability of the HRA to the rest of the Army population and evaluates the reliability and validity of the HRA’s alcohol use measures. The Army’s HRA was implemented in 1988 and was ultimately discontinued in 1998, although it is still in use at a few active-duty Army installations (Bell et al., 2002). The method of HRA administration was nonrandom, but it was routinely offered to soldiers as part of in-processing to new posts or duty assignments. Although we do not know the precise reason that soldiers may have responded to an HRA, there is an item on the HRA that asks why the individual is taking the survey (i.e., in-processing, periodic physical examination, prephysical fitness test, occupational health program, walk-in clinic, or other). The Army’s HRA questionnaire (DA Form 5675) comprises 75 items that include basic demographic, administrative, and anthropometric information; clinical data; and self-reported information about health behaviors (e.g., alcohol and tobacco use). The eight HRA alcohol items document the amount of alcohol consumed weekly (in drinks per week); whether friends are worried about the respondent’s drinking; whether he or she has ever had a drinking problem; how much exposure the respondent has had in the past month to drinking and driving (either as a driver or as a passenger riding with someone who had consumed too much alcohol); and the CAGE. The CAGE comprises four questions that follow the acronym of its name: “Have you ever felt you should Cut down on your drinking?” “Have people ever Annoyed you by criticizing your drinking?” “Have you ever felt bad or Guilty about your drinking?” and “Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a hangover (Eye opener)?” (Ewing, 1984). Although the CAGE, in use since the 1970s, has been evaluated extensively in civilian populations (Bush et al., 1987; Mayfield et al., 1974), only a few studies have examined its utility among military populations. It is conceivable that the reliability and validity of responses to the CAGE may differ in a military population, where the responses are not confidential. The military exerts considerable control over behavior both during and after work hours; it is also a culture that has traditionally supported cultural norms that condone heavy drinking (Ames et al., 2002; Bray et al., 1991, 1995). Several studies have evaluated the utility of the HRA alcohol items for research. None of these studies, however, specifically examined its reliability and validity (Fertig and Allen, 1996; Fertig et al., 1993; Fitzpatrick and Shannon, 1992). A cross-sectional analysis of six HRA drinking items in a group of active-duty Army soldiers demonstrated that the CAGE was a good predictor of hazardous drinking (i.e., 21 drinks per week for men and 14 drinks per week for women) and that the combination of the CAGE with two other alcohol-related items from the HRA (exposure to drinking and driving and ever had a drinking problem) was an even better predictor than the CAGE alone (Fertig et al., 1993). Despite this previous work, the criterion validity of the CAGE, that is, its ability to predict subsequent alcohol-related outcomes, has not been evaluated in military populations. Less has been documented about the predictive capacity of the other four alcohol items on the Army’s HRA. Numerous civilian studies have demonstrated that self-reports of excessive alcohol use are related to alcohol-related problems (Chipman, 1995; McIntosh et al., 1994; O’Hare, 1993; Smith et al., 1995; Thompson et al., 1993; Vingilis et al., 1994). Few studies, however, have quantified the link between self-reported alcohol use and subsequent adverse events among military personnel. This is especially important to evaluate in this population because the HRA is not administered anonymously and soldiers may fear reprisals if they provide responses indicative of high-risk or dependent drinking. An anonymous, comprehensive, independent survey of military personnel from all services worldwide (the so-called Worldwide Survey) suggests that military personnel are more likely to report drinking in unhealthy ways than their civilian counterparts (Bray et al., 1995). This survey also identified a sizable group of individuals whose self-reported drinking might place them at risk for serious adverse outcomes, productivity loss, or dependence symptoms (Bray et al., 1995). However, because the Worldwide Survey was offered anonymously, data cannot be linked to subsequent health outcomes. Neither the Worldwide Survey nor the HRA’s ability to measure actual drinking behaviors is known. It is, however, possible to evaluate the quality and utility of the HRA alcohol use measures by linking HRA survey data to other sources of information on demographics, health, and occupational outcomes.