Army National Guard: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in
Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers (31-JAN-05,
GAO-05-79).
GAO was asked to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased
operational tempo on the process used to reimburse Army Guard
soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel
reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families;
(2) the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the
processes, human capital, and automated systems relied on for
Army Guard travel reimbursements; and (3) whether the Department
of Defense's (DOD) current efforts to automate its travel
reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified. GAO
selected and audited 10 case study units that were identified in
a preliminary assessment as having a variety of travel
reimbursement problems.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-79
ACCNO: A16223
TITLE: Army National Guard: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process
Results in Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers
DATE: 01/31/2005
SUBJECT: Claims processing
Internal controls
Military expense allowances
National Guard
Noncompliance
Office automation
Payments
Transportation expense claims
Travel allowances
Travel costs
Human capital
Official travel
Policies and procedures
Reimbursements from government
Timeliness
Travel vouchers
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-79
* Report to Congressional Requesters
* January 2005
* ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
* Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement
Problems for Mobilized Soldiers
* Contents
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Per Diem
* Travel and Reimbursement Process
* Weaknesses in Error- Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process
Were Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo
* Paper-Driven Process Used to Reimburse Army Guard Soldiers
* Increased Operational Tempo Initially Overwhelmed Process
* Impact That Travel Reimbursement Problems Have Had on Army
Guard Soldiers and Their Families
* Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army
Guard Travel Reimbursements
* Lack of Clear Guidance on Travel Entitlements, Including
Late Payment Interest and Fees
* Late Payment Interest and Fees Guidance Thwarts Intent of
the Law
* Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers
* Lack of Leadership and Oversight
* Inadequate Training Results in Late or Inaccurate
Reimbursements
* System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process
* Lack of Integrated Systems
* Lack of Automated Systems
* Other System Problems
* Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers
* DTS Is Not an End-to-End Solution for Paying Mobilized Army
Guard Soldiers' Travel Entitlements
* DTS Does Not Compute Late Payment Interest and Fees
* Other Auditors Identify Problems with DTS
* Conclusions
* Recommendations for Executive Action
* Process
* Human Capital
* Systems
* Interim Improvements to Current Travel Pay System
* Longer Term System Improvements
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* Scope and Methodology
* Comments from the Department of Defense
* GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
* GAO Contacts
* Acknowledgments
* http://www.gao.gov
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Requesters
GAO
January 2005
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement Problems for
Mobilized Soldiers
a
Highlights of GAO-05-79, a report to congressional requesters
GAO was asked to determine
(1) the impact of the recent increased operational tempo on the process
used to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect
that travel reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their
families; (2) the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the
processes, human capital, and automated systems relied on for Army Guard
travel reimbursements; and (3) whether the Department of Defense's (DOD)
current efforts to automate its travel reimbursement process will resolve
the problems identified. GAO selected and audited 10 case study units that
were identified in a preliminary assessment as having a variety of travel
reimbursement problems.
January 2005
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement Problems
for Mobilized Soldiers
Mobilized Army Guard soldiers have experienced significant problems
getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for out-of-pocket
travel expenses. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of the
sustained increase in mobilized Guard soldiers following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. To its credit, the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) hired over 200 new personnel to address travel
voucher processing backlogs and recently upgraded their training. However,
Guard soldiers in our case study units reported a number of problems they
and their families endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements,
including debts on their personal credit cards, trouble paying their
monthly bills, and inability to make child support payments.
Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units
Number of affected Army Guard unit soldiers in unit Problems encountered
and status
Maryland 115th 107 of 107 Soldiers housed off-post were denied per diem
Military Police authorization. Some paid for meals out of pocket while
others hitchhiked and rode bicycles 3.5 miles to post dining facility.
Unpaid.
Mississippi 20th 75 of 75 Soldiers were erroneously required to pay to eat
Special Forces government provided meals at mess hall. Partially paid.
Mississippi 114th 76 of 76 Soldiers were denied authorization for
proportional meal Military Police rate for meal expenses that we estimated
to be about $6,000 each. Unpaid.
GAO makes 23 recommendations to address Army Guard travel reimbursement
weaknesses in the areas of process, human capital, and systems. GAO also
recommends that DOD ensure that its longer term system improvement efforts
include complete and lasting solutions to the identified weaknesses.
DOD concurred with 21 recommendations and described actions to correct
noted deficiencies. DOD partially concurred with 2 recommendations
regarding meal cost authorizations and requirements to pay soldiers
interest on late travel and meal cost reimbursements.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/ getrpt?GAO-05-79.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202)
512-9095 or [email protected].
Pennsylvania 876th 36 of 37 Despite filing identical monthly vouchers,
soldiers were
Engineer Battalion paid amounts ranging from $0 to $1,718. Adjustments
caused overpayments of $200 to about $1,350, resulting in debts to
soldiers.
Source: GAO.
The soldier bears primary responsibility for travel voucher preparation,
including obtaining paper copies of various types of authorizations. DFAS
data indicate that it rejected and asked soldiers to resubmit about 18
percent of vouchers during fiscal year 2004-a churning process that added
to delays and frustration. Also, existing guidance did not clearly address
the sometimes complex travel situations of mobilized Army Guard soldiers,
who were often housed off-post due to overcrowding on military
installations. Further, DOD continued to be noncompliant with a law that
requires payment of late payment interest and fees when soldiers' travel
reimbursements are not timely. With respect to human capital, GAO found a
lack of oversight and accountability and inadequate training. Automated
systems problems, such as nonintegration of key systems involved in
authorizing and paying travel expenses and failure to automate key
processes, also contributed to the inefficient, error-prone process. DOD
has been developing and implementing the Defense Travel System (DTS) to
resolve travel-related deficiencies. However, DTS will not address some of
the key systems flaws. For example, DTS is currently not able to process
mobilized soldier travel authorizations and vouchers and identify and
calculate late payment interest and fees.
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3 Background 7 Weaknesses in Error-Prone, Manual Travel
Reimbursement Process
Were Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo 16 Process Weaknesses
Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army
Guard Travel Reimbursements 28 Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and
Accurate Reimbursements
to Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers 43 System Problems Hamper Travel
Reimbursement Process 53 Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address
Key Issues for
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers 58 Conclusions 61 Recommendations for
Executive Action 61 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 64
Appendixes
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 69
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 76
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 85
GAO Contacts 85
Acknowledgments 85
Table 1: Range of Allowable Per Diem Rates 11
Tables
Table 2: Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study
Units 24 Table 3: Problems with Late Payments 26 Table 4: Sources of
Problems Experienced by Army Guard Case
Study Units in Obtaining Reimbursements for Meal
Expenses 30
Figure 1: Three Phases of the Travel and Reimbursement
Figures
Process 13 Figure 2: Current Manual, Paper-Intensive Travel Reimbursement
Process 18 Figure 3: Number of Army Guard and Reserve Travel Vouchers
Received by DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September
2004 20
Contents
Figure 4: Staffing Levels at DFAS CTO from October 2001 to
September 2004 21
Figure 5: Distance between Fort Stewart Mess Halls and
Government-Contracted Hotel 33
Figure 6: Army Reserve and Army Guard Travel Vouchers Returned
by DFAS CTO from July 2003 through September 2004 44
Figure 7: Time Intervals between Reviewer Approval and Travel
Computation Office Acceptance for 139 Selected Travel
Vouchers 45
Figure 8: Timing from the End of Travel to Soldier Submissions for
139 Selected Travel Vouchers 49
Figure 9: Overview of the Design of Systems and Travel
Applications Used for Army Guard Travel 54
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
January 31, 2005
Congressional Requesters
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the operational tempo for
the military services has greatly increased, with corresponding increases
in the basic administrative tasks necessary to keep soldiers paid, fed,
and housed. Over 186,500 Army National Guard (Army Guard) soldiers1 were
mobilized from September 14, 2001, through September 30, 2004, to serve in
Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Some
mobilized Army Guard soldiers have incurred significant travel expenses in
conjunction with their roles in carrying out critical national security
missions. Army Guard soldiers called to active service are entitled to be
reimbursed for authorized travel expenses incurred. The Department of
Defense (DOD) is to provide a Guard soldier traveling on official business
with transportation, lodging, and food, or to reimburse the soldier for
reasonable and necessary authorized expenses if the soldier purchases
them.2 In short, the soldier is to be made whole for authorized
out-of-pocket expenses, with timely and accurate reimbursements for travel
expenses.
Within the United States, Army Guard soldiers have guarded the Pentagon,
airports, nuclear power plants, and domestic water supplies as part of the
homeland security effort. Overseas, they continue to perform highly
dangerous peacekeeping missions and force protection operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other countries. When government-provided meals and
housing were not available to some Guard soldiers, they lived off the
local economy-purchased food at restaurants and groceries, and housing at
hotels-and later submitted requests to the Army for reimbursement of their
out-of-pocket expenses.
In October 2002, we reported3 that the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) did not have systems in place to identify late travel
reimbursements and therefore could not identify the soldiers who were not
1Total numbers include Army Guard soldiers mobilized more than once.
2Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR)/Joint Travel Regulation (JTR),
app. O, para. T4020.B.2, change 203/457, November 1, 2003.
3GAO, Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to Potential
Fraud and Abuse, GAO-03-169 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 2002).
paid within 30 days of submission of an approved travel voucher and who
therefore should have been paid late payment interest and fees required
pursuant to Section 2 of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998
(TTRA).4 This affected numerous soldiers whose vouchers were paid late.
For example, at one California National Guard unit, we estimated that
about 60 percent of travel vouchers were not paid within 30 days of
submission to an approving official. In March 2003, the DFAS Headquarters
Internal Review Office also reported5 concern over management's inability
to properly measure the timeliness of travel voucher reimbursements.
According to the DFAS report, 39 percent of approximately 1 million travel
vouchers paid during the period May 2002 through October 2002 did not have
the date the voucher was received or the date the voucher was approved
recorded in an automated system, both of which are key dates for
determining payment timeliness. The report also stated that available data
showed 18 percent of the vouchers were not paid within 35 calendar days of
the completion of travel. Further, during our audits of Army Guard and
Army Reserve military payroll controls,6 soldiers told us about problems
with delayed and inaccurate travel cost reimbursements and meal cost
authorizations and entitlements.
You asked us to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased
operational tempo on the effectiveness of the process used to reimburse
Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel
reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families and
(2) the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the processes,
human capital, and automated systems relied on to provide timely travel
cost reimbursements and accurate meal authorizations and entitlements to
mobilized7 Army Guard soldiers. Finally, in the systems area, you asked us
to assess whether DOD's current efforts to automate its travel
reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified.
4Pub. L. No. 105-264, 112 Stat. 2350 (Oct. 19, 1998).
5Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Army Travel Pay
Services Performance Review, DE03PAP003DFAS (Arlington, Va.: Mar. 27,
2003).
6GAO, Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems, GAO-04-89 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
13, 2003), and Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active
Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, GAO-04-911 (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 20, 2004).
7In this report, the terms "mobilized" or "mobilized to active service"
refer to soldiers called to duty under the authority of Title 10 or Title
32, United States Code.
Because our preliminary assessment determined that current authorization,
request, review, and approval processes used to pay travel reimbursements
to active service Army Guard soldiers relied extensively on
paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems, and error-prone manual transaction
entry that did not provide an adequate audit trail or a reliable
population of transactions, we could not effectively statistically test
current processes and controls. The lack of accurate and complete
centralized data on Army Guard travel also precluded statistical testing
of related transactions. Instead, we systematically assessed the
effectiveness of the overall design of controls at work in the key areas
of processes, people (human capital), and automated systems. Further, we
used case studies and individual voucher data mining to identify Army
Guard units with a variety of travel reimbursement problems, including
disputes over authorizations for meal reimbursements, and individual
soldiers who had been reimbursed late. We used this approach to provide a
more detailed perspective on the design of controls and the nature of
deficiencies in the three phases of the travel and reimbursement process:
(1) authorization;
(2)
travel voucher preparation, unit review, and transmission; and
(3)
computation office review and payment.
Specifically, we gathered available data and analyzed the travel
reimbursement experiences of 10 selected Army Guard units mobilized to
active service in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and
Enduring Freedom during the period from October 2001 through November
2003. We selected four military police and four special forces units,
which we determined from a preliminary assessment were experiencing travel
reimbursement problems. The remaining two were selected based on our
review of complaints to United States senators and representatives. We
also audited a nonrepresentative selection of individual travel vouchers
that were paid 120 days or more from the date the travel ended and travel
vouchers selected from the unit case studies. We conducted our audit work
from November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, and we performed
our investigative work in accordance with standards prescribed by the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Further details on our
scope and methodology are included in appendix I. DOD's written comments
on a draft of this report have been reprinted as appendix II.
The current inefficient, paper-intensive, error-prone process has resulted
in
Results in Brief
inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements for mobilized Army
Guard soldiers. The overall design of controls relied on to reimburse Army
Page 3 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Guard soldiers for travel expenses was marked by weaknesses in the
critical areas of processes, human capital, and automated systems. These
weaknesses were more glaring in light of the sustained increase in
mobilizations for Army Guard soldiers over the last 3 years. Our case
study units experienced a broad range of travel reimbursement problems,
including disputed amounts for meals that remained unpaid by the end of
our review, vouchers that were submitted five or more times before being
paid, and thousands of dollars in debts levied on soldiers when the
approval for the meal component of their per diem reimbursement was
rescinded after the vouchers had been paid.
One of the primary causes for these problems is rooted in the
paper-intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for
their travel expenses. The major responsibility for ensuring a travel
voucher is properly prepared rests with the soldier, who is responsible
for obtaining paper documents that include various authorizations and
receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in addition to a properly prepared
and signed travel voucher. DFAS data show that problems in assembling a
complete travel voucher package for payment resulted in 18 percent of
vouchers being rejected and returned to the soldier for correction or
additional documentation during fiscal year 2004-a churning process that
added to delays and frustration. Further, this cumbersome process was not
designed to handle the steep and sustained increase in travel vouchers
since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent
military activity. The increased operational tempo resulted in backlogs in
travel voucher processing as the DFAS Contingency Travel Operations Office
(CTO) struggled to keep up with both the increased volume and complexity
of the travel vouchers submitted. For example, the monthly volume of
travel vouchers being submitted to the DFAS CTO increased from less than
3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003. To its credit, DFAS
increased its staffing by over 200 new personnel to address backlogs and
increased voucher volume and reported an average processing time of 8 days
for its part of the process in September 2004. However, our case studies
of selected units and data mining of individual vouchers identified
numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting accurate,
timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses. Guard soldiers
reported a number of problems they and their families endured due to
delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their personal
credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and inability to make
child support payments.
The lack of clear, complete, and accurate policies and procedures-the
foundation of the process for authorizing travel entitlements and
reimbursements-contributed to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel
reimbursements. Specifically, existing guidance did not clearly address
the sometimes complex travel situations of Army Guard soldiers who have
been called from their civilian lives to military service since the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, as military activity
increased for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Army Guard, Army Reserve, and
active Army soldiers were preparing for duty, some of the installations to
which Army Guard soldiers were assigned did not have available government
housing. As a result, the soldiers were housed off-post in commercial
hotels or apartments. This created novel situations that were not
specifically addressed in regulations. Further, inappropriate policy and
guidance on how to identify and pay soldiers entitled to late payment
interest and fees because of late travel reimbursement meant that DOD
continued to be noncompliant with TTRA. As a result, although DOD paid no
late payment interest or fees to Army Guard soldiers through April 2004,
we found a number of cases in which soldiers should have been paid
interest and indications that thousands more may be entitled to TTRA
payments.
With respect to human capital, we found weaknesses, including (1) a lack
of leadership and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training provided
to Army Guard soldiers and DFAS CTO voucher examiners. First, the lack of
leadership and oversight over the travel reimbursement process precluded
the development of strong overarching internal controls. Specifically, the
Army is not using performance metrics to gain agencywide insight into the
nature and extent of the delays, to measure performance, and to identify
and correct systemic problems. For example, DFAS data indicate that it
rejected 104,000 of 609,000 vouchers during the period July 2003 through
September 2004, with missing travel authorizations accounting for over
half of the rejected vouchers. While this churning process appeared to be
a primary factor in payment delays and soldier frustration, DFAS CTO,
Army, or Army Guard offices had not performed additional research to
determine the root cause of this and other voucher deficiencies. Second,
the Army Guard soldiers with whom we spoke told us that they had received
either inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review.
DFAS officials told us that during early 2003, subsequent to the
mobilization surge, the newly hired voucher examiners received on-the-job
training that proved to be inadequate to respond to the number and
complexity of the travel vouchers submitted during this period. To its
credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced its training program
for voucher examiners.
System problems also hampered oversight and service to soldiers in the
travel reimbursement process. The key DOD systems involved in authorizing
and reimbursing travel expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers are not
integrated, resulting in an inefficient, error-prone process. These
problems are also a major factor in the churning issue discussed
previously-the thousands of vouchers that are rejected and returned for
missing documentation. Specifically, the Army does not have automated
systems for some critical travel process functions for the Army Guard,
such as preparation of travel vouchers, statements of non-availability
(SNA), and temporary change of station orders, which preclude the
electronic sharing of data by the various travel computation offices.
Integration and automation of the authorization and reimbursement systems
would eliminate the need for the soldier to accumulate numerous paper
documents, increasing the efficiency and timeliness of the process.
DOD recognizes it needs to improve the paper-intensive, manual travel and
reimbursement process and has been developing and implementing the Defense
Travel System (DTS) to resolve these deficiencies. However, deployment of
DTS will not resolve all of the problems we found in reimbursement of
travel expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers. For example, DTS is
currently not able to process travel authorizations and vouchers for
mobilized Army Guard soldiers and calculate late payment interest and
fees. Given that the effort has been under way for about 8 years and will
not address key issues specific to mobilized Army Guard soldiers, it is
likely that the department will be relying on the existing
paper-intensive, manual, error-prone system for the foreseeable future.
We are making 23 recommendations to address the Army Guard travel
reimbursement weaknesses we identified in the areas of process, human
capital, and systems. While DOD and the Army should take a number of
immediate actions to address these problems, we are also recommending that
DOD ensure that its longer term reengineering and system improvement
efforts include complete and lasting solutions to the weaknesses
identified. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with 21
of our 23 recommendations and outlined its actions to address the
deficiencies noted in our report. DOD partially concurred with 2
recommendations regarding the need for an automated, centralized system
for SNA per diem authorizations and the need for DTS to include
capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest and
fees
Background
required pursuant to TTRA. Due to the financial burdens on the affected
soldiers documented in this report, we continue to believe that DOD should
implement measures to resolve these matters both on an interim and
long-term basis.
The Army Guard is the oldest component of any of the uniformed services.
It traces its roots to the colonial militia and claims a "birth" of 1636.
Today, the Army Guard exists in 54 locations that include all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and three territories: Guam, the Virgin Islands,
and Puerto Rico. There are Army Guard facilities in more than 2,800
communities and over 350,000 Army Guard members. During peacetime, each
Army Guard unit reports to the adjutant general of its state or territory,
or in the case of the District of Columbia, to the Commanding General.
Each adjutant general reports to the governor of the state or territory,
or in the case of the District of Columbia, to the mayor.
At the state level, the governors have the ability, under the Constitution
of the United States, to call up members of the Army Guard in times of
domestic emergency or need. The Army Guard's state mission is perhaps the
most visible and well known. Army Guard units battle fires or help
communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms, or other
emergency situations. In times of civil unrest, the citizens of a state
rely on the Army Guard to respond, if needed. During national emergencies,
the President has the authority to activate the Army Guard, putting them
in federal duty status. When ordered to federal active duty by the
President in accordance with the provisions of Title 10, United States
Code, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which
they are operating and, ultimately, to the President. When called to
perform duty in accordance with the provisions of Title 32, United States
Code, units answer to the adjutant generals and ultimately to the
governors. When Army Guard units are performing duty under Title 10 or
Title 32, the federal government provides funds for reimbursement of
authorized travel expenses.
The Army Guard is a partner with the active Army and the Army Reserve in
fulfilling the country's military needs. The National Guard Bureau (NGB),
which assists the Army Guard in the partnership, is a joint bureau of the
Departments of the Army and the Air Force and is charged with overseeing
the federal functions of the Army Guard and the Air National Guard (Air
Guard). In this capacity, NGB helps the Army Guard and the Air Guard
procure funding and administer polices. NGB also acts as a liaison between
the Departments of the Army and Air Force and the states.
All Army forces are integrated under DOD's "total force" concept. DOD's
total force concept is based on the premise that it is not feasible to
maintain active duty forces sufficient to meet all possible war
contingencies. Consequently, DOD's active and reserve components are to be
blended into a cohesive total force to meet a given mission.
DOD reported that over 186,500 Army Guard soldiers and 111,800 Army
Reserve soldiers8 were mobilized from September 14, 2001, through
September 30, 2004, for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and
Iraqi Freedom. As of September 30, 2004, Army Guard soldiers accounted for
over 40 percent of the total reserve components9 mobilized in response to
the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The federal missions established in response to the September 2001
national emergency were categorized into three operations: Operation
Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In
general, missions to fight terrorism and direct combat outside the United
States were categorized under Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom, while missions to provide domestic defense were categorized
as Operation Noble Eagle. For example, Army Guard soldiers participated in
antiterrorist and direct combat activities in Afghanistan and Iraq under
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, respectively.
Additionally, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Army Guard
soldiers provided enhanced security in other countries. U.S. homeland
security missions, such as guarding the Pentagon, airports, nuclear power
plants, domestic water supplies, bridges, tunnels, and other military
assets, were conducted under Operation Noble Eagle.
8Total numbers include Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers mobilized more
than once.
9Reserve components include the Army National Guard of the United States,
Army Reserve, Air National Guard of the United States, Air Force Reserve,
Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve. 10 U.S.C. S:
10101.
Page 8 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Per Diem
Army Guard soldiers called to active service are entitled to be reimbursed
for authorized travel expenses incurred. DOD provides a soldier traveling
on official business with transportation, lodging, and food, or reimburses
the soldier for reasonable and necessary authorized expenses if the
soldier purchases them.10
In October 2001, the Army issued personnel policy guidance (PPG) for
Operation Noble Eagle. In September 2002, consolidated PPG was issued
covering both Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. This guidance,
which is revised on an ongoing basis, ultimately was expanded to include
Operation Iraqi Freedom and now applies generally to all active service
personnel who are mobilized and/or deployed in support of contingency
operations.11 The PPG guidance covers topics ranging from general
mobilization guidance to specific travel entitlements.
The two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers and
travel computation office personnel for information on travel entitlements
were the Army's PPG and DOD's Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR).
The term per diem allowance refers to a daily payment instead of
reimbursement for actual expenses for (1) lodging, (2) meals, and
(3) related incidental expenses.12
There are many factors that go into the per diem authorization and
calculation, including the availability of government quarters and meal
facilities. Generally, soldiers mobilized for Operations Noble Eagle,
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom must use government meal facilities to
the maximum extent practicable when they are sent to government
10JFTR/JTR, app. O, para. T4020.B.2, change 203/457, November 1, 2003.
11The term "contingency operation" means a military operation that is
designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of
the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions,
operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or
against an opposing military force or results in the call or order to, or
retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed services under
section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, or 12406 of Title 10 of the
United States Code or any other provision of law during a war or during a
national emergency declared by the President or Congress. 10
U.S.C. S:101(a)(13).
12JFTR, app. A, p. A-16, change 199, July 1, 2003.
installations with dining facilities.13 Because they incur no actual
expenses while living in government housing and eating in government
facilities, they are not authorized the meal and lodging components of the
per diem allowance. However, they are entitled to receive the incidental
component of per diem. The daily government incidental expense allowance
for fiscal year 2004 was $3.00 within the continental United States
(CONUS) and $3.50 outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
When the installation commander determines that government lodging and/or
mess facilities are not available, the PPG directs that Army Guard
soldiers be provided with SNAs to authorize the lodging and/or meal
components of per diem in addition to the incidental expense component of
per diem.14 DOD regulations further provide that when government lodging
and mess facilities are generally available, but an authorizing official
determines that soldiers must occasionally miss meals due to mission
requirements, proportional per diem is authorized.15
Table 1 shows the various components of CONUS16 and OCONUS17 per diem and
the fiscal year 2004 range of dollar amounts an Army Guard soldier may be
entitled to receive under the PPG and the JFTR.
13Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Enduring
Freedom (OEF), and Noble Eagle (ONE), at
http://www.odcsper.army.mil/militarypersonnel/policy.asp (last visited
Apr. 28, 2004).
14PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) and (6)(c) (reformatted April 2004).
15JFTR, para. U4149.C (change 194) (Feb. 1, 2003).
16CONUS per diem rates are published annually or as necessary by the
General Services Administration and apply within the 48 contiguous United
States. DOD publishes separate locality per diem rates (not included in
table 1) for the noncontiguous U.S. states (Alaska and Hawaii), plus
Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianna Islands, and territories and
possessions of the United States.
17OCONUS per diem rates are published monthly by the Department of State
and apply to travel in all foreign areas, including the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands.
Table 1: Range of Allowable Per Diem Rates
Per diem scenario Allowable reimbursement
Per diem Per diem
Meal lodging Per diem meal incidental
# Housing facilities facilities component component component
1 Government housing on Government None None
post or meal
government-contracted facilities $3.00 CONUS
housing available available to $3.50
the soldier OCONUS
for 3 meals
per daya
2 Government housing on Government None Actual
post or meal expense not
government-contracted facilities to exceed
housing available available, proportional
but soldier meal ratec
must miss 1 $18 - $30 $3.00 CONUS
or 2 meals CONUS $9 - $3.50
per dayb $86 OCONUS OCONUS
3 Government housing on Government None Locality meal
post or meal rate $28 - $3.00 CONUS
government-contracted facilities $51 CONUS $7 $3.50
housing available not - $164 OCONUS OCONUS
availabled
4 The Actual Locality meal
availability cost up to rate $28 -
of government a maximum $51 CONUS $7
meal rate for - $164 OCONUS
facilities is the areaf
Government housing on not a
post or criterion for $3.00 CONUS
government-contracted this $2 - $41
housing not available scenarioe OCONUS
Source: GAO analysis of PPG and JFTR guidance.
aTemporary change of station (TCS) soldiers who are on government
installations with dining facilities are directed to use mess facilities.
Soldiers are entitled to the incidental rate of per diem only if
authorized per diem at these locations. PPG, para. 8-2.a(5) (reformatted
April 2004).
bThe proportional meal rate applies each day that at least one meal is
available and directed where the member is assigned temporary duty status
(TDY). JFTR, U4149.C.2, change 194 (Feb. 1, 2003).
cThe amount of the proportional meal rate is the average of the government
meal rate and the locality meal rate for a particular location. There is
one DOD-wide government meal rate. For fiscal year 2003, the government
meal rate was $8.10 per day (breakfast, $1.60; lunch, $3.25; and dinner,
$3.25). The government meal rate is charged to nonmobilized soldiers who
eat at government facilities. The General Services Administration
determines the locality rate for meals, lodging, and incidental expenses.
If the locality meal rate is $28 and the government meal rate is $8.10,
the proportional meal rate is $18.05 [(28 + 8.10)/2].
dWhen government mess is not available, the installation commander will
make the determination of mess availability and issue a
statement/certificate of non-availability, if applicable. PPG, para.
8-2.a(5) (reformatted April 2004).
eWhen government or government-contracted quarters are not available, as
determined by the installation commander, soldiers will be provided
certificates or statements of non-availability for both lodging and meals
to authorize increased per diem. PPG, para. 8-2.a(6)(c)(reformatted April
2004).
fThe General Services Administration determines the maximum lodging rate
for the area.
Travel and Reimbursement Process
Additionally, the PPG provides that regardless of whether an Army Guard
soldier is authorized the meal component of per diem, basic allowance for
subsistence (BAS) will not be reduced.18 BAS is included in the Army Guard
soldier's compensation and is not a travel entitlement.19 More
specifically, BAS is a continuation of the military tradition of providing
room and board (or rations) as part of a service member's pay. The monthly
BAS rate is based on the price of food and is readjusted yearly based upon
the increase of the price of food as measured by the Department of
Agriculture's food cost index. As of January 2004, BAS ranged from $175.23
a month for officers to $262.50 a month for enlisted service members.
The current DOD travel reimbursement process for Army Guard soldiers
operates at travel computation offices around the country, including DFAS
CTO, the travel computation office at DFAS Indianapolis, 54 United States
Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFO) servicing each of the Army Guard
locations, and several other DFAS sites. Travel voucher processing
consumes the resources of hundreds of personnel, reviewing thousands of
pieces of paper every day.
As illustrated in figure 1, the travel and reimbursement process consists
of three phases: (1) authorizations and travel; (2) travel voucher
preparation, submission, review, and transmission; and (3) computation
office review, reimbursement computation, and payment.
18PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) (reformatted April 2004). See also 37 U.S.C. S:
1009(d) as amended by the Section 605 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat.
1629, 1648 (Nov. 18, 1997), which provides that a soldier's BAS is not to
be reduced when the soldier is temporarily assigned to duty away from the
soldier's permanent duty station.
1937 U.S.C. S: 402.
Page 12 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Figure 1: Three Phases of the Travel and Reimbursement Process
Source: GAO.
In the first phase of the travel and reimbursement process, various travel
orders and other authorizations are produced and are provided to and/or
acquired by soldiers, and soldiers incur travel expenses.
Following the President's mobilization order, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (1) determines
specific unit personnel requirements and (2) issues a unit mobilization
order to various affected units and organizations within the Army.
USPFO officials use the Automated Fund Control Order System (AFCOS)20 to
produce individual mobilization orders for soldiers. Individual
mobilization orders usually contain general travel information, such as
authorized methods of transportation; directions regarding the use of
government food and lodging facilities; and authorizations for the soldier
to travel from the unit's home station, a permanent duty station, to an
active Army installation (the mobilization station) for further processing
and training.
After completion of mission-related training at the mobilization station,
the unit is certified for deployment, and soldiers are assigned duty
stations. Army commands use word processing applications to produce
temporary change of station (TCS) orders to give soldiers authorization to
travel from their mobilization stations to long-term temporary assignments
at other locations. During the deployment period, the Army may also issue
TDY orders and other authorization statements, such as SNAs. The Army
issues a TDY order to authorize a soldier's travel from one location to
another location for generally less than 45 days. The Army issues SNAs to
soldiers when government lodging and/or meals are not available to the
soldier.
Following the completion of a tour, the Army issues each federal active
duty soldier a Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) order from the transition
processing system and a Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty (DD Form 214).
The second phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins with the
soldier's preparation and submission of a travel voucher, and the review
of the voucher by the unit reviewer prior to the transmission of the
voucher to the travel computation office, typically either a DFAS or USPFO
location. According to Army Guard and DFAS guidance, all travel vouchers
for Army Guard soldiers who are mobilized under Title 10 are to be sent to
DFAS CTO for processing, while travel vouchers associated with Title 32
mobilizations and other nonmobilized travel are generally processed by
USPFO and other travel computation offices. Final completion of the
voucher occurs following the calculation of actual reimbursable amounts by
a travel computation office.
20AFCOS is a stand-alone system separately operated by each of the 54
USPFOs.
The soldier begins the reimbursement process by manually:
1. preparing a travel voucher (DD Form 1351-2) (the soldier provides
required information, such as name, rank, Social Security number,
itinerary, and authorized reimbursable expenses);
2. attaching all supporting DOD-generated documentation (e.g.,
mobilization orders, TCS orders, TDY orders, SNAs, REFRAD orders, DD
Form 214);
3. attaching original lodging receipts and all receipts for reimbursable
expenses of $75.00 or more;
4. signing and dating the voucher; and
5. delivering the entire voucher package-the travel voucher and all
supporting documentation-to a unit supervisor for review.
DOD's Financial Management Regulation (FMR) requires that travel vouchers
be submitted to the unit reviewer within 5 working days of the end of
travel, or in the case of travel that extends beyond 30 days, within 5
days after the end of every 30-day travel period. In addition, according
to The Citizen-Soldier's Guide to Mobilization Finance,21 soldiers who
have government quarters and meals provided to them may opt to file for
the incidental portion of their per diem entitlement on a quarterly,
semiannual, or annual basis since the amount due the soldier is nominal.
The unit reviewer-required by DFAS policy to be the soldier's supervisor/
commander or designee-is responsible for ensuring that the voucher claim
is complete, proper, and complies with the intent of the order. On
completion of the review, the unit reviewer signs and dates the voucher
and forwards it and the supporting documentation to a travel computation
office via regular mail, e-mail, or fax.
The third phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins when the
travel computation office receives the voucher package. The travel
computation office reviews the voucher package, calculates the
reimbursement amount, and processes the reimbursement to pay the
21The Army National Guard Financial Services Center, The Citizen-Soldier's
Guide to Mobilization Finance (Indianapolis: April 2004).
Page 15 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Weaknesses in Error-Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process Were
Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo
soldier and/or the government travel card company,22 generally through
direct deposit of the funds to their respective banks. The travel
computation office is responsible for the accuracy and propriety of
voucher payments.
DFAS CTO and USPFO personnel perform an initial screening of voucher
packages. If the basic information-signatures, dates, and orders-is
present, a more detailed review of the voucher is performed. Detailed
travel voucher data are then manually entered into the Integrated
Automated Travel System version 6.0 (WINIATS), which calculates the amount
of the reimbursement. Attempts are made to contact the soldier if any
problems are noted during the initial screening, the detailed review, or
the data entry. Failing contact with the soldier, DFAS or USPFO personnel
mail the voucher package to the address on the voucher for correction by
the soldier.
If DOD fails to reimburse soldiers for travel claims within 30 days of
submission of proper travel vouchers, DOD must pay the soldiers late
payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA.
The paper-intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard soldiers
for their travel expenses was not designed to handle the dramatic increase
in travel vouchers since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and
the subsequent military activity. The increased operational tempo resulted
in backlogs in travel voucher processing as DFAS CTO struggled to keep up
with both the increased volume and complexity of the travel vouchers
submitted. For example, the monthly volume of travel vouchers being
submitted to DFAS CTO increased from less than 3,200 in October 2001 to
over 50,000 in July 2003 and remained at levels over 30,000 through
September 2004. To its credit, to address the large volume of vouchers
received and the unprocessed backlog, DFAS increased its staffing by over
200 new personnel and reported an average processing time of 8 days for
its part of the process in September 2004. However, our
22Due to the complexities of travel requirements and filing travel
vouchers, although exceptions are sometimes authorized, the Department of
the Army discourages the use of the government travel card in support of
contingency operations, such as Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi
Freedom. Military service members who use government travel cards must use
the split disbursement feature on the travel voucher, which automatically
pays the credit card provider for certain credit card charges for that
travel.
Page 16 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
case studies of selected units and data mining of individual vouchers
identified numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting
accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses. Guard
soldiers told us about a number of problems they and their families
endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on
their personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and
inability to make child support payments. As discussed later, we found
that these reimbursement problems were associated with process, human
capital, and automated system deficiencies.
Paper-Driven Process Used Overall, as shown in figure 2, we found that a
paper-intensive, manual, error-prone process exists to reimburse travel
expenses to mobilized Army
to Reimburse Army Guard
Soldiers Guard soldiers.
Increased Operational Tempo Initially Overwhelmed Process
The primary responsibility for ensuring a travel voucher is properly
prepared rests with the soldier. As illustrated in figure 2, the soldier
is responsible for obtaining paper documents that include various
authorizations and receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in addition to
a manually prepared and signed paper travel voucher. Each time DFAS CTO
receives a voucher and determines that it is not complete, either the
soldier is contacted in an attempt to get the needed information or the
entire voucher is rejected and returned to the soldier. The difficulty in
assembling a complete and acceptable voucher package on the first try is
demonstrated by the 11, 12, and 18 percent return rates reported by DFAS
CTO for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. That is, of
approximately 930,000 travel vouchers received during this period, DFAS
CTO rejected and returned about 139,000. The soldier must then obtain the
missing documentation or make the necessary corrections and return the
voucher to DFAS for processing again. This repeated churning of vouchers
further increases the volume of claims, which, as discussed in the next
section, quickly overwhelmed DFAS CTO's resources. In addition, returned
vouchers contribute to delays in payment, increasing soldiers'
frustration.
While this inefficient process may have offered some capability to process
travel vouchers during periods of low activity when relatively few Army
Guard members were mobilized, the current increased operational tempo has
strained the process beyond its limits. The volume of Army Guard and
Reserve travel vouchers being submitted to DFAS CTO increased from less
than 3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003. As shown in figure
3, the monthly travel voucher volume has remained above 30,000 since the
July 2003 peak.
Figure 3: Number of Army Guard and Reserve Travel Vouchers Received by
DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 2004 Number of vouchers received
60,000
Oct.
Jan.
Apr.
l.
Apr.
Oct. Jan.
Oct.
Jan. ul.
Apr.
l. Sep.
Ju
Ju
J
2001 2002 2003 2004 Time frame
Source: DFAS CTO Indianapolis.
In addition to the rising volume, the increased complexity of the vouchers
received further slowed down the process. As military activity increased
for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Army Guard, Army Reserve, and active Army
soldiers were preparing for duty, not all of the installations to which
Army Guard soldiers were assigned had available government housing. As a
result, the soldiers were housed off-post in commercial hotels or
apartments. This created a number of novel situations that were not
specifically addressed in regulations, as discussed later.
For example, the Virginia 20th Special Forces Army National Guard unit was
mobilized to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2002. The unit was
initially housed in World War II era barracks-with free meals in the mess
hall-that were in such poor condition that the company commander requested
and received off-post housing. The hotel was over 10 miles from the
nearest Fort Bragg dining facility, and with many of the soldiers assigned
to duties that required odd or extended hours that precluded use of the
dining facility, the soldiers found that they were paying for at least two
meals per day out of their own pockets. When members of the Virginia 20th
Special Forces eventually submitted their proportional meal per diem
vouchers to DFAS CTO, some were paid over $2,000 for 4 months of meal
expenses and some were not, due in part to confusion over the meal per
diem entitlements in this situation. As a result, some soldiers had to
obtain additional documentation and resubmit their vouchers, further
adding to the volume of vouchers. As of May 2004, 14 soldiers still had
not received the majority of their proportional meal per diem
entitlements, ranging from about $1,600 to over $3,500 per soldier for a
mobilization that occurred over 2 years ago. During our review, we brought
this matter to the attention of the Virginia 20th Special Forces
provisional finance officer and DFAS CTO, and in June 2004, DFAS CTO
processed vouchers for 10 of the 14 soldiers and made final payments for
meal expenses they incurred during their Fort Bragg duty. The remaining 4
soldiers had not been paid at the completion of our audit.
During this time frame, DFAS CTO staffing levels were not keeping pace
with the rising volume of vouchers. However, while DFAS CTO employed less
than 50 personnel in October 2001, this number more than doubled by
February 2003 and was increased further to about 240 in June 2003,
including 83 Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers, as shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Staffing Levels at DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 2004
Number of personnel 350
Oct. D
ec. Feb. Apr
un. Au
J
.
Oct. Dec. Feb. Apr.
.
n.
g.
Oct. Dec. Feb. Apr.
n.
.Sep.g
g
Ju
AuJu
Au
2001 2002 2003 2004 Time frame
Source: DFAS CTO Indianapolis.
Page 21 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Impact That Travel Reimbursement Problems Have Had on Army Guard Soldiers
and Their Families
A DFAS CTO official told us that the office was not properly staffed to
process travel vouchers at the beginning of 2003 when the volume started
to increase. Inadequate staffing and the time necessary to train new staff
created a backlog of travel vouchers at DFAS CTO, ballooning to over
18,000 vouchers in March 2003. In one case, an Army Guard specialist
prepared a voucher on December 8, 2002, and his supervisor approved it the
same day. It took 124 days before the voucher was stamped as received by
DFAS CTO and another 66 days for DFAS to pay the soldier. In addition,
although this payment should have included late payment interest, it did
not because, as discussed later in this report, DFAS did not have the
means to automatically identify those soldiers who should have received
interest and other fees on their late payments. To its credit, with its
increased staffing levels in place, DFAS CTO reported an average
processing time of 8 days for its part of the process as of September
2004.
Our case studies of selected units and data mining of individual vouchers
identified numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting
accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses. As
discussed in this report, these problems related to process, human
capital, and systems deficiencies. Major factors contributing to
inconsistent, inaccurate, or late reimbursements experienced by these
soldiers were that requirements for authorizing and supporting per diem
reimbursements for meal expenses were not always known by the mobilized
soldiers nor were they well understood by local base personnel, and the
authorizations were not documented on their mobilization orders or travel
orders.
While our work was not intended to and we did not attempt to quantify the
financial impact of inaccurate and late reimbursements on individual
soldiers, we found a number of soldiers who were frustrated and concerned
with the process and the amount of time they spent attempting to navigate
it. For example, one individual responsible for submitting his unit's
vouchers to DFAS CTO told us that he called the process "the travel
voucher lottery" because "you never knew whether, or how much, you might
get paid." Frustrated soldiers sought help from their United States
senators or representatives in obtaining what they believed they were owed
for out-of-pocket travel expenses. The following are excerpts from three
of those letters.
* Sergeant First Class (NY)--"Since being released I have submitted
[a travel voucher] for payment of travel pay and storage authorized
by my orders. I have yet to receive the pay due. The forms have had
to be
* resubmitted two other times, without changes. The previous
submissions have either been misplaced or lost after arriving at
defense finance. ... For me, it has become a hardship. I was laid
off from [my job] in May of 2002 just before our activation. This
was due to downsizing. I am currently on unemployment, attending
BOCES [Board of Cooperative Educational Services] for welding. I
had counted on this money to cover my medical insurance and vehicle
payment. At this time I am 2 months behind on the medical premiums
and vehicle payment. Chase Bank has said that after next week they
will submit the vehicle for repossession. ...These types of
problems are a very good reason to leave the National Guard."
o Sergeant First Class (NC)-- "Trying to get my final travel pay for
active duty for Operation Enduring Freedom. I submitted my travel
voucher in December 02 and it was sent to DFAS Indianapolis in January
03 and I still have not received payment [as of April 29, 2003]. ... I
understand the workloads due to the war on terrorism, but over 5
months is extreme."
o Staff Sergeant (KS)--"Below please find an e-mail that I received last
night from DFAS informing me that they have now deleted my voucher
from February [2003] and I must start all over again. In the last year
and a half when this has happened, although they say it is expedited,
in practice and reality it goes to the bottom of the pile and takes
3-6 weeks. I'm at my wits and financial end. I have already placed
approx $3500 of money owed to me by the Army on my personal credit
cards and cannot afford to do it anymore."
The majority of soldiers in our 10 case study units reported problems
related to reimbursements for meal expenses that included late payments,
underpayments, and overpayments resulting in debts to some soldiers in
excess of $10,000. For example, we estimated that about $324,000 was paid
more than a year late to 120 soldiers for meal expenses based on the
proportional meal rate for their locality. As discussed in detail later in
this report, these issues were caused by weaknesses in the process used to
pay Army Guard travel reimbursements; the human capital practices in this
area, including the lack of adequate training; and nonintegrated automated
systems. Table 2 summarizes the experiences of Army Guard soldiers in 10
units. We referred 8 of these units that at the end of our audit included
soldiers who were unpaid, partially paid, or in debt to appropriate DOD
officials to resolve any amounts owed to the Army Guard soldiers or to the
government.
Table 2: Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units
Page 24 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Number of
Army Guard affected
unit soldiers in Examples of problems encountered and status
unit
Alabama 20th 6 of 209 DOD rescission of authorized reimbursement of
Special Forces meal expenses resulted in debts for soldiers.
a
California 19th 30 of 66 Soldiers' travel vouchers were initially
rejected
Special Forces because split locations on vouchers did not
coincide
with information on travel orders. Partially
paid.
California 185th 58 of 85 Soldiers were underpaid per diem due to DFAS
CTO
Armor errors and soldiers' lack of supporting
documentation. Soldiers eventually received
reimbursement, ranging from $20 to over
$3,000.
Paid up to 4 months late.
Georgia 190th 32 of 101 Soldiers incurred over $200,000 of debt due
to
Military Police confusion over rules concerning commuting
areas
and per diem for meals. a
Louisiana 239th 124 of 124 Soldiers were required to pay to eat
government-
Military Police provided meals at mess hall. Paid 6 months
late.
Maryland 115th 107 of 107 Soldiers housed off-post were denied per diem
Military Police authorization for meals. Some paid for meals
out of
pocket while others hitchhiked and rode
bicycles 3.5
miles to post dining facility. Unpaid.
Mississippi 20th 75 of 75 Soldiers were required to pay to eat
government-
Special Forces provided meals at mess hall. Partially paid.
Mississippi 120 of 120 Soldiers were frustrated by process to obtain
114th
Military Police authorization for proportional meal rate for
meal
(first expenses that we estimated to be about $2,700
mobilization) each. Paid 14 months late.
Mississippi 76 of 76 Under similar circumstances, soldiers were
114th denied
Military Police authorization for proportional meal rate for
meal
(second expenses that we estimated to be about $6,000
mobilization) each. Unpaid.
Pennsylvania 36 of 37 Soldiers were deployed to Germany, and all
were
876th Engineer entitled to same monthly reimbursement.
Despite
Battalion filing identical vouchers with proper
documentation,
the soldiers were paid varying amounts,
ranging
from $0 to $1,718 for 1 month. Adjustments
caused
overpayments of $200 to about $1,350,
resulting in
debts to soldiers. a
Virginia 20th 51 of 65 Soldiers were paid varying amounts for meal
Special Forces reimbursements due to inconsistent
interpretation of
SNA documentation at DFAS CTO. Partially
paid.
Source: GAO.
aThe soldiers' wages are generally garnished to repay debts, unless a
waiver is granted.
The following provides more details on the experiences of several of these
units.
* The 114th Military Police Company, Clinton, Mississippi, mobilized
the first time in January 2002 and performed around-the-clock shift
work at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for approximately 5 months before
being sent to Cuba. While at Fort Campbell, the soldiers could not
always avail themselves of the base dining facilities and therefore
had to pay out-of-pocket for some of their meals. The soldiers were
not informed that they were eligible for a proportional meal rate
until they returned from Cuba in November 2002. Due to various
other delays, it took over 14 months for the soldiers to be
reimbursed about $2,700 each based upon the proportional meal rate
for Fort Campbell. The unit commander informed us that the delays
put considerable strain on the finances of some of his lower graded
soldiers.
* This unit's problems were compounded when its soldiers were
mobilized a second time in February 2003 and went to Fort Hood,
Texas. Even though they experienced the same conditions, they were
denied compensation for their out-of-pocket expenses. Soldiers told
us their duty hours were similar to those they worked at Fort
Campbell. Using the information from their experiences with the
reimbursement process at Fort Campbell, the unit commander
contacted Fort Hood officials to obtain authorization for
reimbursement for costs his soldiers were incurring due to the
inability to use the dining facilities at Fort Hood for all meals.
The unit commander's attempts to get authorization for the
proportional meal rate were unsuccessful. At the time of our audit,
we estimated that none of the 76 soldiers in the unit had been
reimbursed for about 10 months, totaling approximately $6,000 per
soldier.
o The Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion was mobilized in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom to perform installation security and force
protection duties at Bad Aibling Station, Germany, from July 2002 to
February 2003. All deployed members were entitled to the identical per
diem for meals and incidental expenses applicable to their location.
Although the unit's administrative officer submitted identical
vouchers for each soldier at the end of each month as required, the
soldiers received varying reimbursement amounts each month. For
example, following the August 2002 submission, 4 soldiers in the unit
received what they believed to be the correct reimbursement of $1,718.
The remaining 33 soldiers received payments ranging from $371.20 to
$1,485.00. These types of inconsistencies occurred month after month.
The commanding officer indicated in a memorandum that "This is a hugely
demoralizing and frustrating action." The administrative officer, who sent
detailed spreadsheets to DFAS CTO, wrote in one e-mail to DFAS officials,
"I have E3's [low-paid enlisted] who are owed over $2,000. These soldiers
deserve better.... If I call your department three times and ask three
different people the same question I will receive three differing
answers.... Is there or is there not a single standard for paying soldiers
travel pay?"
During our audit of selected travel vouchers, some that were paid as much
as 500 days after travel ended, we found that significant delays
frequently occurred when soldiers had to submit travel vouchers multiple
times to travel computation offices. Travel computation offices routinely
returned improperly prepared and inadequately reviewed vouchers that did
not contain basic required signatures, dates, and travel orders. Further,
DFAS staffing shortfalls contributed to some of the delays that we noted.
Table 3 shows examples of the extent of delays experienced by soldiers in
obtaining payment for travel expenses.
Table 3: Problems with Late Payments
Days from
submission
Soldier rank Amount of to payment
and state voucher of voucher Problems encountered
Corporal Soldier was paid about 1 1/2 years
after
California $779 493 submitting voucher eight times.
Sergeant Soldier received partial payment in
Utah September 2003 after submitting
$1,269 237 voucher five times since October 2002.
Sergeant First National Guard authorization for
Class reimbursement was not promptly
Colorado provided, which soldier claims
affected
his ability to maintain child support
$1,387 481 payments.
Sergeant Soldier's command did not file travel
Texas $682 82 voucher when promised.
Source: GAO analysis.
The following provides more details for the experiences of some of the
soldiers with payment delays.
Page 26 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
o A corporal with the California 49th Military Police Company was
frustrated by the repeated recycling of his voucher eight times
through the travel reimbursement process, which caused his
reimbursement of travel expenses to be delayed for about 17 months.
His story exemplifies process and human capital flaws. For example,
(1) the reviewing official approved the voucher even though it lacked
supporting documentation, (2) DFAS CTO did not know that faxed
vouchers were not being printed, and (3) customer service was weak as
evidenced by piecemeal requests for information. According to the
California unit's reviewing official, the voucher, along with others,
was initially faxed to DFAS CTO in August 2002. When not all soldiers
received notification that DFAS CTO had received the vouchers, the
unit official again faxed the vouchers. The corporal told us that he
later received an e-mail from DFAS CTO requesting his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He submitted the
DD Form 214, but he then received his whole travel voucher package
back from DFAS CTO with a note saying that the DD Form 214 was
missing. He checked the package and found that the DD Form 214 he had
previously sent was in the materials returned by DFAS CTO. DFAS CTO
returned the voucher in February 2003 because it was incorrectly
completed and again in October 2003 because it lacked mobilization
orders. DFAS eventually paid the corporal $779 in December 2003.
o A sergeant with the Utah 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion
experienced an approximate 22-month delay in receiving full
reimbursement for his travel expenses. Delays for this voucher were
caused by (1) fax problems, (2) missing documents, and (3) DFAS CTO
errors in reimbursing the sergeant for properly supported
expenditures. The sergeant told us that he faxed his voucher to DFAS
CTO soon after his travel ended in October 2002. When DFAS CTO claimed
it had not received the voucher, he refaxed it in January 2003.
Because he remobilized in January 2003, he did not learn until he
returned in May 2003 that DFAS CTO did not have a record of his
January resubmission. He resubmitted his voucher in May 2003, and DFAS
CTO returned it because he had not attached his DD Form 214,
documenting his discharge from active duty. After he resubmitted the
paperwork in August 2003, DFAS paid him only $1,269, which did not
include all of his lodging costs or any of his meal expenses while at
the TDY location. He told us that DFAS CTO could not explain why his
meal expenses were not paid. Following his resubmission in March 2004,
DFAS paid him $189.78, which was the outstanding balance on his
lodging receipts.
Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army Guard Travel
Reimbursements
DFAS did not pay the remaining balance of $572.00 for his meals until
after GAO inquired about payment of the voucher in August 2004.
o A sergeant with the Texas 141st Infantry Company had to wait 6 1/2
months for reimbursement of his travel expenses because of
(1)
miscommunication about his unit's responsibilities and
(2)
subsequent inadequate unit supervisory review. The sergeant told
us he had been informed that his unit in Guantonamo, Cuba, would
prepare and submit his voucher when his tour of duty ended in
December 2002. About 113 days elapsed before he discovered that
his unit in Cuba did not prepare a voucher on his behalf. At that
point, he asked his home unit administrator in Texas to help him
prepare and submit his voucher to DFAS CTO. However, DFAS CTO
returned that voucher because it lacked supervisory signature. The
sergeant believed he needed supervisory approval from his unit and
sent the voucher back to Cuba for approval. After it was returned
from Cuba, he resubmitted it to DFAS CTO, but for some reason
unknown to him he still did not get paid. He resubmitted his
voucher to DFAS CTO in late June 2003, and DFAS paid him $682 in
July 2003 approximately 82 days after supervisory approval.
Policies and guidance, the foundation of the process for authorizing
travel entitlements and reimbursements, were sometimes unclear to the Army
Guard soldiers who were called from their civilian lives to military
service since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Not since World
War II had so many Army Guard soldiers been mobilized for extended periods
and essentially placed in travel status for as long as 2 years. Prior to
September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed relatively routine
travel for brief periods and was not always clearly applicable to
situations Army Guard soldiers encountered, particularly when they could
not avail themselves of government-provided meals due to the nature of
their duty assignments. In October 2001, the Army issued new guidance that
was intended to address travel entitlements unique to Army and Army Guard
soldiers mobilized for the war on terrorism. However, the lack of clarity
in this guidance created problems not only for Army Guard soldiers but for
numerous other personnel involved with authorizing travel entitlements and
contributed to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements.
Furthermore, inappropriate policy and guidance on how to identify and pay
soldiers entitled to late payment interest and fees because of late travel
reimbursement meant that DOD continued to be noncompliant with TTRA. As a
result, as discussed in the next section, although DOD paid no late
Lack of Clear Guidance on Travel Entitlements, Including Late Payment
Interest and Fees
payment interest or fees to Army Guard soldiers through April 2004, we
found a number of cases in which soldiers should have been paid late
payment interest and indications that thousands more may be entitled to
late payment interest. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government state that internal control is an integral component of an
organization's management that provides reasonable assurance that
objectives of the agency are being achieved, including effectiveness and
efficiency of operations and compliance with laws and regulations.
We found that a key factor contributing to delays and denials of Army
Guard reimbursements for out-of-pocket meal expenses was a lack of clearly
defined guidance. We noted that the existing guidance (1) provided unclear
eligibility criteria for reimbursement of out-of-pocket meal expenses, (2)
lacked instructions for including meal entitlements on mobilization
orders, and (3) contained inadequate instructions for preparing and
issuing SNAs.
Two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers and
travel computation office personnel for information on travel entitlements
were the Army's personnel policy guidance (PPG) for military personnel
mobilized for Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle
and DOD's Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR). We found that both Army
Guard soldiers and travel computation personnel had difficulty using these
sources to find the information necessary about the rules regarding
travel-related entitlements. A DFAS CTO official and users told us that
the guidance was legalistic and not user friendly. Army Guard soldiers and
DFAS CTO examiners had trouble at times interpreting the guidance, and as
a result, soldiers experienced travel reimbursement problems.
Table 4 shows the sources of common problems related to meal expense
reimbursements experienced by soldiers in our case studies.
Table 4: Sources of Problems Experienced by Army Guard Case Study Units in
Obtaining Reimbursements for Meal Expenses
Source of problem
Unclear eligibility criteria
for Lack of
reimbursement of specific Confusing
out-of-pocket meal expenses entitlements nonstandard
Case study units on orders SNAs
Alabama 20th Special X
Forces
California 19th Special Forces X
California 185th Armor X
Georgia 190th Military Police X
Louisiana 239th Military Police X X
Maryland 115th Military Police X X
Mississippi 20th Special Forces X X X
Mississippi 114th Military Police X X
Pennsylvania 876th Engineers X
Virginia 20th Special Forces X
Source: GAO.
Unclear eligibility criteria. We found that guidance did not adequately
address some significant conditions that entitled a soldier to
reimbursement of authorized meal expenses. For example, although the JFTR
entitled soldiers to reimbursement for meal expenses when transportation
was not reasonably available between government meal facilities and place
of lodging,23 the term "reasonably available" was not defined. The PPG
directed the maximum use of installation facilities, and if not feasible,
then "multi-passenger vehicles24 should be used" to transport soldiers to
installation facilities. However, the PPG is silent regarding what
constitutes adequate transportation, particularly when transportation to
government meal facilities is necessary for Army Guard soldiers who cannot
be housed in government facilities. As discussed in one of our case
studies, we found disagreements between the soldiers and their command
officials about the adequacy of transportation to government meal
facilities and their entitlement to get reimbursed for eating at
commercial facilities
23JFTR, ch. 4, para. U4400-B3c, change 193, January 1, 2003. 24PPG
(reformatted April 2004), ch. 8-2,a, (6) (c).
Page 30 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
closer to their lodgings. Without clear guidance on these issues, Army
decisions will continue to appear arbitrary and unfair to soldiers.
The following illustrates the experiences of the Army Guard soldiers with
the Maryland 115th Military Police Headquarters/Headquarters Company,
their perceptions of unfair and inconsistent treatment, and apparent
confusion between basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) compensation
entitlements and meal entitlements while in TCS status. For example, BAS
is included in the Army Guard soldier's compensation and is not a travel
entitlement.25
2537 U.S.C. S: 402 and PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) (reformatted April 2004). See
also 37 U.S.C. S: 1009(d) as amended by Section 605 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111
Stat. 1629, 1648 (Nov. 18, 1997).
Page 31 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Case Study Illustration: Soldiers Claim Inadequate Transportation Should
Have Justified Reimbursement of Out-of-Pocket Meal Expenses
Soldiers with the Maryland 115th Military Police Headquarters/Headquarters
Company were mobilized to Fort Stewart, Georgia, in October 2001, to
perform force protection duties. As shown in figure 5, the 107 soldiers in
the unit were housed in a government-contracted hotel approximately 3 to 4
miles from the base because the on-base housing was overcrowded. Soldiers
told us that transportation from the hotels to the government dining
facilities was inadequate. They explained that while military buses and
vans took soldiers to and from the base for their shift work duties, the
soldiers not on shift, including those on their days off, had to find
their own transportation to the government dining facilities.
Approximately 3 weeks into the unit's mobilization, the battalion
commander allowed some soldiers (E-7 and above) to use their privately
owned vehicles, but many other soldiers were still without vehicles or
other means to get to the dining facility. Two soldiers told us that they
purchased bicycles to get to the base. Several soldiers claimed that
because they could not get to the dining facilities, they either walked to
local restaurants, or bought groceries and cookware and cooked meals in
their rooms using hot plates. The soldiers told us they were also aware
that other soldiers at Fort Stewart were similarly housed in hotels, but
were paid per diem for meals based on the locality rate for the area. We
confirmed that Florida's 3220th U.S. Army Reserve Garrison Support Unit
was housed in hotels and was paid per diem for meals. Several soldiers
told us they discussed several issues with their chain of command and
company commanders, including inadequate transportation, having to eat on
the economy, the inconsistencies in their treatment compared to other
soldiers, and their eligibility for per diem. The company commanders
discussed these issues with the battalion commander. The battalion
commander told us, "The soldiers had a contracted hotel and laundry
services and didn't need per diem. In addition to that, they had access to
the mess hall and were getting BAS." When a battalion personnel officer
incorrectly told one soldier that he was not entitled to per diem because
he was receiving BAS he stated, "Then take away my $8 in BAS and give me
per diem because I can't live on $8 a day."
The garrison commander told us that he was unaware of the unit's
transportation problems, and had he known of the problems, he would have
issued more vehicles to the unit.
Using the proportional meal rate, we estimated that the soldiers could be
due approximately $1,260 each for a total of approximately $135,000 for
the period October 2001 to January 2002. As of September 2004, the
soldiers had not received any reimbursements for meal expenditures.
Figure 5: Distance between Fort Stewart Mess Halls and
Government-Contracted Hotel
Source: GAO.
The following case study illustrates another apparent lack of
understanding of the different regulations regarding specific compensation
entitlements for BAS compared to meal entitlements while in TCS status and
inconsistent treatment.
Case Study Illustration: Mississippi Army Guard Soldiers Question Army's
Decision to Deny Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Meal Expenditures
Army Guard soldiers of the Mississippi 114th Military Police Company were
called up in January 2002 for their first mobilization and reported to
Fort Campbell for military police guard duty. While at Fort Campbell, the
114th performed 24-hour, 7-day shift work providing force protection
services for the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell and could not
always avail themselves of the free meals at the mess hall. Consequently,
these Army Guard soldiers purchased their meals from commercial sources.
After soldiers learned of their potential eligibility for reimbursement of
meal costs, they requested and received authorization from the division
commander for reimbursement and, although considerably late, were
eventually reimbursed.
However, while at Fort Hood, the location of their second active duty tour
beginning in February 2003, installation command officials did not
authorize reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs for meals. According
to the Army Guard soldiers, the conditions at Fort Hood-24-hour shift work
and the lack of 24-hour mess halls-were similar to what they encountered
at Fort Campbell. Fort Hood officials told us that they justified their
decision because free meals were available from the mess hall and
noncommissioned officers could get this food to soldiers who were having
problems and by stating that the basic allowance for subsistence was
adequate compensation for any of the soldiers' out-of-pocket expenditures
for meals. Fort Hood officials did not document their unfavorable decision
or justification for that decision. Because an official from the
Mississippi Guard Finance Office told them it was a "dead issue," the unit
chose not to contact the Inspector General's office. The official told us
that he informed the soldiers that they could not get reimbursed without
the approval of the Fort Hood officials. As a result, we estimated, based
on the proportional meal rate for Fort Hood, that these 76 Army Guard
soldiers were not reimbursed for approximately $6,000 each, totaling about
$456,000, for their meals from February 2003 to January 2004, when they
were demobilized.
In another case, Georgia Army Guard soldiers were frustrated by large
debts when DFAS CTO retroactively disallowed the locality meal rate
authorized by command officials.
Case Study Illustration: Decisions on Meals Eligibility Result in
Overpayments and Large Debts
The soldiers from Georgia's 190th Military Police Company reported to Fort
Benning, Georgia, in October 2001 for mobilization processing. The unit of
101 soldiers experienced problems regarding per diem for meals when they
were subsequently deployed from October 2001 through March 2002 to Fort
McPherson, Georgia, which was near the homes of many of the soldiers.
Soldiers told us there was confusion over who would be entitled to per
diem for meals because Fort McPherson had not established a local
commuting area. Certain soldiers were granted SNAs, signifying their
eligibility for per diem for meals, based on the locality meal rate for
the area. Relying on the determinations, soldiers requested and received
per diem for meals, some in excess of $10,000, for the period they were at
Fort McPherson.
In August 2002, Fort McPherson established a local commuting area. When
DFAS CTO processed the soldiers' final settlement vouchers at the end of
the deployment, DFAS CTO used the newly established commuting area to
determine eligibility for per diem for the whole period. This resulted in
DFAS CTO retroactively disallowing per diem and creating debts totaling
approximately $200,000 for 32 soldiers, several in excess of $10,000. Debt
collections were initiated against the soldiers' pay while they were in
Iraq on a second mobilization in 2003, creating adverse financial impacts
on the soldiers and their families. The 190th unit commander was able to
get the debt collections suspended until they returned from Iraq.
Following demobilization, debt collections were reinstituted and are
currently being made against the soldiers' monthly drill pay. During our
audit, many of these soldiers still had unresolved and unpaid debts on
their records, two in excess of $10,000.
We requested that DFAS CTO review all of the records to determine whether
the soldiers were properly reimbursed for travel entitlements, and whether
the debt amounts were correct. DFAS CTO officials agreed and at the
conclusion of our audit were in the process of determining who was
entitled to per diem while at Fort McPherson.
These cases illustrate the effects of guidance that does not clearly
identify eligibility criteria and leaves meal eligibility determinations
to the interpretation of individual commands. Although it would not be
practical to develop guidance for every possible travel scenario, we noted
that the JFTR included useful situational examples to assist decision
makers in determining nonavailability related to lodging and meals, while
the PPG lacked similar specific contingency travel examples.
Lack of specific entitlements on orders. Army and Army Guard policies and
procedures do not provide for mobilization orders issued to Army Guard
soldiers to clearly state that these soldiers should not be required to
pay for meals provided to them at government dining facilities. In the
case study units we reviewed, we found several instances in which
mobilization orders either stated nothing about meal entitlements or
stated, "Government mess will be used," or "Government quarters and dining
facilities are available and directed." As a result, we noted instances in
which mobilized soldiers arrived at government mess halls carrying
mobilization orders that did not specifically state that the soldiers
could eat free of charge and were inappropriately required to pay for
their meals.
The PPG states, "TCS soldiers who are on government installations with
dining facilities are directed to use mess facilities. These soldiers are
not required to pay for their meals."26 In addition, the PPG states,
"Basic Allowance for Subsistence will not be reduced when government mess
is used for soldiers in a contingency operation."27 However, the PPG does
not provide guidance addressing the content of mobilization orders for
Army Guard soldiers. As a result, unless the orders contain the
appropriate statements about meal entitlements, installations sometimes
inappropriately charge Army Guard soldiers for their meals.
In response to questions we posed to officials representing the
Mississippi Adjutant General's office regarding why mobilization orders
did not include adequate provisions about food entitlements, they
explained that the individual mobilization orders that are prepared by the
Adjutant General's staff are very basic and include only the travel
allowances and actions that are necessary to get the individual from the
home station to the mobilization station. The Adjutant General's office
received no guidance on what should be stated in the orders with respect
to soldiers eating free of charge at government installations or any other
conditions that may entitle Army Guard soldiers to per diem to compensate
them for their out-of-pocket meal costs.
We discussed the problem of unclear mobilization orders with Army
officials during our audit. In response to our concerns, Army officials
agreed to modify the guidance on what to include in mobilization orders
with respect to meals and lodging entitlements.
As a result of the unclear orders, many Guard soldiers had to
inappropriately pay for meals and were unable to obtain reimbursement for
their out-of-pocket costs in a timely manner. The following example shows
the effects of that problem.
26PPG, ch. 8-2a(5). 27PPG, ch. 8-2a(5).
Page 36 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Case Study Illustration: Guard Unit Required to Pay for Meals at Army Mess
Hall
When the Mississippi 20th Special Forces Group (SFG) reported to its
mobilization station at Fort Carson, Colorado, on January 10, 2002, the
soldiers were assigned to on-post housing at the Fort Carson Colorado Inn.
They were told that the government dining facility nearest to their
lodging was approximately 1 mile away. When the soldiers went to eat at
the dining facility, they were told that they had to pay for their meals
because their orders did not indicate they could eat free. Consequently,
the soldiers either (1) continued to pay for their meals at the government
dining facility, (2) purchased groceries and cooked in their rooms, or (3)
ate at local restaurants. The dining facility manager told us that if the
soldier's orders did not specifically indicate government meals at no
cost, then his staff was instructed to charge the soldier for meals.
The administrative noncommissioned officer for the Mississippi 20th SFG
learned from a soldier in a different group, that he was being reimbursed
the locality rate (which at that time was $36 per day) for meals purchased
at his own expense. In July 2002, the unit's administrative
noncommissioned officer raised the meals issue with the unit's chain of
command, but it was not until October 2002 that Headquarters, 10th SFG,
Fort Carson issued amended orders for the 20th SFG. The orders
retroactively authorized meal per diem of $11 per day to the soldiers of
the 20th SFG, allowing them to be partially reimbursed for their
out-of-pocket expenses from January 2002 to October 2002. The orders also
authorized the soldiers to eat in the dining facility at no charge
beginning in October 2002. As of the end of our audit, the administrative
noncommissioned officer estimated that $150,000 was still to be paid to 75
soldiers.
In another instance, Army Guard soldiers called to federal duty under the
authority of Title 32 for security missions in late 2001 and early 2002
experienced significant delays in getting reimbursed for travel
expenditures. The soldiers were provided lodging but not meals and were
not authorized per diem for meals on their orders. Many months elapsed
during which the Army Guard Adjutant General for each state command with
authority over the respective soldiers and Army Guard officials worked to
obtain and provide the proper authorization to reimburse all the soldiers'
travel expenses. In the interim, Army Guard soldiers experienced financial
hardships. The following case study chronicles one story about these
soldiers' experiences.
Case Study Illustration: Colorado Army Guard Soldiers Experience Financial
Hardship
In March 2002, the Colorado National Guard HQ 140th Signal Company
received orders to provide security at the Denver International Airport,
Denver, Colorado. For mission related reasons, the soldiers were required
to remain overnight at their duty station for an extended period in
government-provided housing, but their orders did not authorize per diem
for meals. Although the government provided housing, meals were not
included, and the soldiers had to obtain meals from commercial
establishments.
In July 2002, the Adjutant General of the Colorado Army National Guard
sent a letter to the Director of the Army National Guard Financial
Services Center, requesting that actions be taken to resolve the per diem
and other related issues. In December 2002, the letter was forwarded by
the Army National Guard Financial Services Center to the Army National
Guard Readiness Center for "consideration and action."
In June 2003, the Army National Guard Readiness Center issued a memorandum
for the financial managers of all states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and the District of Columbia, which communicated the receipt of
approval from the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Manpower and Reserve
Affairs to provide retroactive redress of the per diem and other issues
affecting the Colorado and other Guard soldiers.
In September 2003, 18 months after the soldiers incurred out-of-pocket
expenses averaging over $1,400 each, the Colorado USPFO began paying
reimbursements to the soldiers. Some of these soldiers suffered adverse
financial impact resulting from the delays in reimbursement. For example,
one soldier told us his government travel card was canceled due to
nonpayment, another soldier's family had to rely on the spouse's salary to
pay bills, and another's child support payments were late or less than the
minimum required payments.
Confusing, nonstandard SNAs. Lack of standardization and changing guidance
has resulted in SNAs of various form and content, signed by officials at
different levels of authority. Consequently, travel computation office
reviewers were unable to consistently determine the validity of SNAs. Our
case studies identified travel computation reviewers who have rejected
soldiers' requests for reimbursements even though they were supported by
valid SNAs.
The most recent PPG guidance authorizes the installation commander to
determine whether to issue an SNA28 based on each unit's situation and the
availability of government housing.29 The guidance states that when
government or government-contracted quarters are not available, soldiers
will be provided certificates or statements of non-availability for both
28PPG, ch. 8-2, .a, (5). 29PPG, ch. 8-2, .a, (6) (c).
Page 38 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
lodging and meals to authorize per diem. However, the guidance does not
specify the form and content of the SNAs. Consequently, at several case
study units, we found that the form of the SNA and the content of the
information on the form varied at the discretion of the issuing command.
For example, one installation stamped the soldiers' orders and handwrote
an SNA identification number in a block provided by the stamp. Another
location provided a written memo that stated that the meal component of
per diem was authorized because there were no food facilities at the
government installation. Another provided a single SNA with a roster
attached that listed the names of the soldiers who were authorized per
diem. The variety of SNA formats can cause confusion for the soldier, who
does not know what documentation is needed for reimbursement and whether
the travel computation office will accept it. The travel computation
office personnel can also be confused about the criteria for a valid SNA,
as illustrated by the following case study.
Case Study Illustration: SNAs for Meal Reimbursement Not Consistently
Accepted
Sixty-five soldiers in B Company, 20th Special Forces of the Virginia Army
National Guard received orders to mobilize to Fort Bragg, North Carolina
in early 2002. After about 3 weeks, the unit moved to government
contracted quarters off-post and soldiers were authorized proportional per
diem for two meals a day during their Fort Bragg duty period. After
returning from overseas duty, 51 soldiers prepared and submitted their
final travel vouchers, with identical SNA documents attached, to DFAS CTO
in November and December 2002. Some of the soldiers' meal component per
diem claims were approved and paid by DFAS; others were not. Inconsistent
recognition and acceptance of identical SNAs resulted in 24 soldiers
receiving timely reimbursements and 12 soldiers receiving late
reimbursements after having to resubmit their vouchers with additional
documentation to receive their proportional per diem. Furthermore, at the
time we completed our audit of B Company's travel vouchers in May 2004,
approximately 22 percent of the soldiers (14 of 65) still had not received
the majority of their proportional per diem entitlement. Travel
reimbursements, ranging from about $1,600 to over $3,500, had not been
made to these 14 soldiers. In June 2004, DFAS CTO processed vouchers for
10 of the 14 soldiers and made final payments for meal expenses they
incurred during their Fort Bragg duty. The remaining 4 soldiers had not
been paid at the completion of our audit.
Our work found instances in which installation commands denied soldiers'
requests for SNAs. In response to our inquiries, we found that commands do
not generally document their rationale for denying SNAs and there is no
requirement for them to do so. This lack of documentation can leave
soldiers even more confused and frustrated when seeking answers as to why
their requests for per diem were denied. GAO's Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government require the maintenance of
Late Payment Interest and Fees Guidance Thwarts Intent of the Law
related records and appropriate documentation that provides evidence of
execution of control activities.
Inappropriate policy and guidance, issued by DFAS Indianapolis, combined
with the lack of systems or processes designed to identify and pay late
payment interest and fees, leave DOD in continued noncompliance with TTRA.
As a result, through at least April 2004, DFAS Indianapolis had made no
required payments of late payment interest and/or late payment fees to
soldiers for travel reimbursements paid later than 30 days after the
submission of a proper voucher. For example, of 139 individual vouchers we
selected to determine why these took a long time to process, we identified
75 vouchers that were properly submitted by Army Guard soldiers that
should have received late payment interest totaling about $1,400. Some of
these vouchers may also have warranted a late payment fee in addition to
the late payment interest.
In addition, DFAS data showed indications that thousands of other soldiers
may be due late payment interest. For example, during the period October
1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, dates in the DFAS Operational Data
Store showed that about 85,000 vouchers filed by mobilized Army Guard
soldiers were paid more than 60 days after the date travel ended. If the
dates on these vouchers were correct, the soldiers who submitted proper
vouchers within 5 days of the date travel ended would be entitled to late
payment interest if they were not paid within the 30-day limit.
TTRA and federal travel regulations30 require the payment of a late
payment fee consisting of (1) late payment interest, generally equivalent
to the Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate, plus (2) a late payment fee
equivalent to the late payment charge, which could have been charged by
the government travel card contractor. Late payment interest and fees are
to be paid to soldiers if their reimbursements are not paid within 30 days
of the submission of a proper voucher.
In our 2002 report on Army travel cards31 we reported DFAS noncompliance
with TTRA due to the lack of procedures and necessary
30FTR, 41 C.F.R. S: 301 71.210.
31GAO, Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to Potential
Fraud and Abuse, GAO-03-169 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 2002).
Page 40 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
systems and data to make the required computations. In response to our
recommendations in that report, DFAS revised its procedures in April 2003.
Until that time, DFAS required individual soldiers to submit requests for
late payment interest and fees if they believed their vouchers were paid
late. According to DOD's FMR, the traveler was required to submit a
supplemental voucher32 through his or her supervisor/approving official
requesting the payment.33
The 2003 guidance34 issued by DFAS Indianapolis stated that Army travel
computation offices would identify vouchers for late payment interest and
fees rather than require individual soldiers to take the initiative to
file claims for late payment interest and fees. However, DFAS's
interpretation of the guidance limited the payment of late payment
interest and fees to only the final settlement travel voucher35 for all
travel under a particular travel order. This practice contributed to
continued noncompliance with the law because it effectively excluded large
numbers of monthly or accrual vouchers36 from consideration of late
payment interest and fees. In response to our inquiries, DFAS officials
told us that as of April 2004, they had not paid any late payment interest
or fees to soldiers because no final settlement vouchers were paid late.
We questioned DFAS officials about their decision to exclude accrual
vouchers from potential payment of late payment interest and fees. As a
result, DFAS issued new guidance dated May 2004 to clarify that all travel
voucher reimbursements are subject to late payment interest and fees.
However, the provision in DOD's FMR pertaining to this issue continues to
require that individual soldiers request the late payment interest and
fees. Furthermore, due to automated systems issues discussed later, DFAS
does not have the capability to automatically identify late vouchers or
calculate the late payment interest and fees. Consequently, travel
computation
32A supplemental voucher is submitted to correct an error or omission on a
previous travel voucher.
33DOD FMR, vol. 9, ch. 3, para. 030801E (August 2003).
34DFAS-IN Travel Technical Message (TTM) 03-04, April 3, 2003.
35A settlement voucher is the final travel voucher submitted at the end of
a period of travel, including an extended period of travel.
36An accrual travel voucher is a claim for partial payment of travel
expenses that can be filed by travelers whose travel time extends beyond
30 days. The traveler should file an accrual travel voucher within 5
working days after the end of every 30 calendar-day period.
offices have to use manual procedures to identify late vouchers and make
manual calculations. Additionally, the new guidance directs reviewers to
sign travel vouchers on the same day that they are submitted and then
establishes the reviewers' signature date as the date of submission of a
proper voucher.37 We are unaware of any control procedure to monitor that
reviewers are complying with the requirement.
Subsequent to DFAS's dissemination of the new guidance, we found numerous
late vouchers for which DFAS did not pay late payment interest and fees.
For example, the final vouchers for 63 soldiers with the Georgia Army
National Guard's 190th Military Police Company were processed late in
April 2004 without payment of late payment interest or fees, even though
they were covered by DFAS guidance issued in 2003. The vouchers were
approved by unit reviewers on February 6, 2004, and were submitted to the
Georgia USPFO on February 10, 2004, for additional review to identify any
deficiencies that may cause the vouchers to be rejected. Due to the
USPFO's workload and the unavailability of appropriate personnel to review
the vouchers, the vouchers remained at the USPFO from February 10, 2004
until April 2, 2004. DFAS CTO eventually received the vouchers on April 9,
2004, and paid them on April 27, 2004. The payments were made a total of
81 days after the supervisory signatures, thus making the payments 51 days
over the 30 days allowed for payment. According to a DFAS official, DFAS's
manual procedures did not detect the vouchers as needing late payment
interest and fees. Travel clerks were supposed to review dates of
supervisory signatures to determine if the 30-day limit was exceeded and
thus require the payment of late payment interest and fees. We notified
DFAS officials of the oversight and they subsequently made the interest
payments. A DFAS official also informed us that additional changes to
DFAS's manual procedures were being made to ensure that late vouchers are
properly identified and late payment interest and fees paid. Because these
changes in procedure were so recent, we could not evaluate their
effectiveness.
37DFAS-IN Travel Technical Message (TTM) 04-10, para. 5 (May 2004).
Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to Mobilized
Army Guard Soldiers
We found that weaknesses related to human capital contributed to travel
reimbursement problems. These weaknesses include (1) a lack of leadership
and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training provided to Army Guard
soldiers and travel computation office examiners. GAO's Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government state that effective human
capital practices are critical to establishing and maintaining a strong
internal control environment. Specifically, management should take steps
to ensure that its organization can promptly identify problems and respond
to changing needs, and that appropriate human capital practices are in
place and operating effectively. Without an overall leadership structure
in place, neither the Army nor the Army Guard had developed and
implemented processwide monitoring and performance metrics necessary to
promptly identify and resolve problems causing late-paid travel vouchers.
We also found that lack of adequate soldier training was a contributing
factor to some travel voucher processing deficiencies. For example,
several Army Guard soldiers with whom we spoke told us that they had
received either inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation
and review. In addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that the on-the-job
training provided to its new personnel in early 2003 initially proved to
be inadequate in the wake of the hundreds of thousands of travel vouchers
that flooded their offices subsequent to the mobilization surge during
this period. To its credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced its
training program for voucher examiners.
Lack of Leadership and Oversight
No one office or individual was responsible for the end-to-end Army Guard
travel reimbursement process. The lack of overall leadership and
fragmented accountability precluded the development of strong overarching
internal controls, particularly in the area of program monitoring. Neither
the Army nor the Army Guard were systematically using performance metrics
to gain agencywide insight into the nature and extent of the delays to
measure performance and to identify and correct systemic problems. Our
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government require agencies
to have internal control procedures that include top-level reviews by
management that compare actual performance to expected results and analyze
significant differences.
As shown in figure 6, internal reports prepared by DFAS CTO show that
missing travel orders was the primary reason why it did not accept
vouchers for payment. DFAS CTO reported that it rejected 104,000, or
approximately 17 percent, of 609,000 vouchers during the period July 2003
through September 2004, with missing travel authorizations accounting for
over half of the rejected vouchers. While this churning process appeared
to be a primary factor in payment delays and soldier frustration, DFAS
CTO, Army, or Army Guard offices had not performed additional research to
determine the root cause of this and other voucher deficiencies.
Figure 6: Army Reserve and Army Guard Travel Vouchers Returned by DFAS CTO
from July 2003 through September 2004
Vouchers returned
Missing travel Incomplete Missing Other authorizations or incorrectly
necessary reasons (orders) prepared signatures
Reason for returns
Source: DFAS CTO Indianapolis.
Similarly, our analysis of a selection of individual travel vouchers also
disclosed that some vouchers were returned to soldiers because of missing
documentation or the lack of required signatures. However, neither DOD
management officials nor we could determine the root cause of all
instances of missing information. Some soldiers told us that DFAS CTO lost
documentation that they had submitted. DFAS CTO also experienced problems
with faxed vouchers, which caused vouchers and supporting documentation
not to be printed and processed in some cases. According to a DFAS CTO
official, DFAS was unaware that faxed vouchers were not printing until a
soldier complained that DFAS was not receiving his faxes. DFAS did not
monitor incoming faxes, even though it reported that faxed travel vouchers
account for approximately 60 percent of the total mobilized Army Guard and
Reserve travel vouchers it received. These problems obstructed the normal
handling of a number of those vouchers. In an effort to resolve this
problem, DFAS CTO, in March 2004, ceased relying on an automatic print
function of the fax system software and began manually printing vouchers.
As shown in figure 7, our audit of a nonrepresentative selection of 139
travel vouchers (69 computed by DFAS CTO and 70 by USPFOs) found
significant delays occurred between the date of the reviewer's signature
and the date that the travel computation office accepted the voucher. Some
of these delays were caused by the time needed to correct vouchers that
were deficient and resubmit them to DFAS CTO or another USPFO travel
computation office.
Figure 7: Time Intervals between Reviewer Approval and Travel Computation
Office Acceptance for 139 Selected Travel Vouchers Vouchers
2 days 3 days 1 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 12 More or less to 1 months months months
than month 1 year Time interval
Source: GAO analysis.
We determined that the travel computation office rejected 32 of the 72
travel vouchers delayed for more than 3 days because of missing
documentation or the lack of required signatures and sent them back to the
soldiers for corrections. A lack of documentation or other information
prevented us from determining the reason for delays of more than 3 days
for the remaining travel vouchers.
In one case, an Army Guard soldier from Texas waited over 9 months to be
paid. The soldier prepared and submitted a travel voucher for $765 and
signed it on August 28, 2002. His unit supervisor signed the voucher as
reviewed on the same day. The travel computation office rejected the
voucher and sent it back to the soldier because the proper documentation
was not attached. The travel computation office returned the voucher to
the soldier a second time because it did not have the necessary
signatures. A complete travel voucher was finally received and accepted by
the travel computation office on April 25, 2003, 240 days after the unit's
initial review and was not paid until mid-June 2003.
The Army's lack of processwide oversight, including monitoring of the
rejection and return of vouchers by DFAS CTO and other travel computation
offices, resulted in undetected delays in reimbursement, leading to
unnecessary frustration with the Army's travel and reimbursement process
and potential financial difficulty for the soldier. Further, without
establishing and monitoring program metrics, management had no assurance
that it had identified where the breakdowns were occurring and could not
take the appropriate steps to resolve any identified problems. For
example, although the Army relied on the individual unit reviewer for
assurance that travel vouchers were properly reviewed and transmitted
promptly to the travel computation offices, the Army did not establish and
monitor performance metrics to hold these reviewers accountable for their
critical role in the process.
DFAS CTO officials told us that they have taken several steps to reduce
the number of vouchers being returned to the soldiers due to missing
signatures and missing mobilization orders. DFAS and the National Guard
Financial Services Center-a field operating agency of the Chief, National
Guard Bureau, that performs selected financial services-entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement effective February 2004 whereby DFAS will obtain
the assistance of the National Guard to address problems with certain
vouchers that would otherwise be returned to soldiers. According to DFAS
CTO data, since the implementation of the agreement through the end of
fiscal year 2004, 13,523 travel vouchers were coordinated with the
National Guard in this manner rather than initially being sent back to the
soldiers for correction. However, we did not assess the effectiveness of
these changes in reducing the number of vouchers that ultimately are
returned to soldiers or in reducing the time necessary to process and pay
vouchers.
Although metrics were available on the average time DFAS CTO took to pay
travel vouchers after receipt, the Army did not have statistical data on
supplemental vouchers that could help provide additional insight into the
extent and cause of processing errors or omissions by voucher examiners,
unit reviewers, or Army Guard soldiers. Several of our case studies
indicate that accuracy may be an important issue. For example, one method
DFAS CTO uses to correct a voucher error or omission is to process a
supplemental voucher.38 According to DFAS data, DFAS CTO processed about
251,000 vouchers related to Army Guard soldiers mobilized during the
period October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, of which over 10,600
were supplemental vouchers. However, DFAS CTO officials could not tell us
how many of these were due to errors or omissions by DFAS examiners or
other factors. Our audit of 69 supplemental vouchers for the California
185th case study unit showed that 41 were due to DFAS CTO errors and the
remaining 28 were due to errors or omissions on the part of the soldiers.
Because DFAS CTO has not analyzed or tracked the extent or cause of
supplemental vouchers to establish performance benchmarks, it has missed
an opportunity to help identify recurring problems and solutions as well
as measure improvements or deterioration in the effectiveness of the
travel reimbursement program over time.
Finally, we noted that although DFAS CTO established a toll-free number
(1-888-332-7366) for questions related to Army Guard and Reserve
contingency travel, DFAS did not have performance metrics to identify
problem areas or gauge the effectiveness of this customer service effort.
For example, DFAS did not systematically record the nature of the calls to
the toll-free number. According to DFAS data, this number, staffed by 30
DFAS employees, received over 15,000 calls in June 2004. By monitoring the
types of calls and the nature of the problems reported, important
information could have been developed to help target areas where training
or improved guidance may be warranted. Further, DFAS had not established
performance metrics for its call takers in terms of the effectiveness of
resolved cases or overall customer service.
38The term "supplemental voucher" as used in this context refers to travel
vouchers processed for the purpose of correcting an error in a previous
partial or accrual travel voucher submitted and paid prior to the
completion of an extended period of travel.
Page 47 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Inadequate Training Results in Late or Inaccurate Reimbursements
Although Army regulations specify the responsibilities of soldiers, they
do not require that soldiers be trained on travel entitlements and their
role in the travel reimbursement process. Some of the Army Guard soldiers
that we spoke with told us that they had received either inadequate or no
training on travel voucher preparation and review. In addition, a DFAS CTO
official told us that the on-the-job-training provided to its new
personnel in early 2003 initially proved to be inadequate. To its credit,
during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced its training program for
voucher examiners. Army Guard soldiers in our case studies told us that
they asked DFAS representatives or used the Internet in attempts to find,
interpret, and apply DFAS guidance, which by itself proved to be
insufficient and required many trial and error attempts to properly
prepare travel vouchers. As a result, many soldiers did not receive their
travel payments on time.
The lack of well-trained personnel can undermine the effectiveness of any
system of travel expense reimbursement. Well-trained and informed
personnel, conscientiously performing their assigned duties, are
especially essential in the paper-driven, labor-intensive, manual,
error-prone environment of the Army's current travel authorization and
reimbursement process.
Army Guard soldiers. Army Guard soldiers in our case studies told us that
they were confused about their responsibilities in the travel voucher
reimbursement process because they had not been sufficiently trained in
travel voucher processes related to mobilization. For example, prior to
September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed the criteria for single
trips or sequential trips and was not always clearly applicable to
situations in which Army Guard soldiers could be authorized short
intervals of travel for temporary duty at different locations within their
longer term mobilization. This "overlapping travel" proved to be
problematic for Army Guard soldiers trying to understand their travel
voucher filing requirements and travel computation office examiners
responsible for reviewing travel vouchers.
In addition, we found indications that some soldiers were not aware of
DOD's requirement to complete a travel voucher within 5 days of the end of
travel or the end of every 30-day period in cases of extended travel. For
example, as shown in figure 8, in our selection of 139 vouchers, 99 (71
percent) of the Army Guard soldiers did not meet the 5-day requirement.
Fifty-two Army Guard soldiers submitted their vouchers more than 1 year
late.
Figure 8: Timing from the End of Travel to Soldier Submissions for 139
Selected Travel Vouchers
Vouchers 60
52
50
40
40
30
20
15
13
13
10
6
0
5 days 6 days 1 to 3
or less to months
1 month
3 to 6 6 to 12 More months months than 1 year
Time interval
Source: GAO analysis.
Of the 59 Army Guard soldiers that we could locate and interview, 23 said
that they lacked understanding about procedures, or lacked knowledge or
training about the filing requirements. Eight Army Guard soldiers said
that they procrastinated or forgot to file their travel vouchers on time.
The remaining 28 said that they could not remember anything about the
specific voucher we asked about or did not respond to our inquiries.
Several soldiers offered their perspectives on their lack of understanding
about certain requirements.
Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of SNA Requirements
A soldier with the Pennsylvania National Guard 1st Battalion, 103rd Armor,
whose active duty was extended to perform duties at Fluck Armory in
Freidens, Pennsylvania, after his overseas duties were completed, was
unaware that he needed an SNA to justify reimbursement of his
out-of-pocket costs. He told us that he assumed the Army would have given
him the documentation he needed to support his travel voucher. When his
voucher was not paid, he contacted DFAS CTO to determine the reason for
the delay. DFAS CTO claimed that it had not received his voucher. After
several resubmissions, he received a payment in July 2003 that was about
$1,500 less than what he expected. He also received an e-mail notification
from DFAS CTO that stated, "SNA needed for lodging at Friedens, PA." The
soldier told us that he did not know what SNA meant or how to obtain an
SNA. Eventually, the soldier was able to obtain an SNA from the commanding
officer of the Pennsylvania 876th Engineers. In February 2004, about 11
months after he completed his assignment at Fluck Armory, DFAS paid the
soldier about $1,600 for his lodging and meal expenses.
The following example illustrates a unit administrator's experience and
frustration in having to duplicate his efforts to obtain a single month's
travel expenses for 37 soldiers in his unit.
Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of Documentation
Requirements
A unit administrator with the Pennsylvania National Guard's 876th Engineer
Battalion told us that he was unaware that he needed to attach a copy of
the mobilization order and TCS order to each travel voucher before he
submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO for each of the 37 soldiers in his unit. He
explained that there was only one block on the travel voucher form to
insert a single order number. He attached the TCS order, incorrectly
assuming that the DFAS CTO examiner would know that the soldiers, being in
an Army Guard unit, could not have been on TCS duty in Germany performing
installation security and force protection duties without having been
mobilized. As a result, he was concerned when he and other soldiers were
reimbursed for the 1 week of their travel expenditures incurred in
Germany, but not for the 3 weeks of expenses incurred during their initial
duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey, where soldiers participated in mobilization
training and other activities prior to overseas deployment. These expenses
included transportation to Fort Dix, New Jersey, and daily incidental
expenses. DFAS CTO asked him to submit new travel vouchers for this 3-week
period with the mobilization order attached, which he did. The soldiers in
this unit were collectively paid $7,400 about 4 weeks later, which
represented the balance due on their initial travel vouchers.
DFAS CTO personnel. DFAS CTO also had challenges training its examiner
staff. The increase in mobilizations since September 11, 2001, and
resulting increase in travel voucher submissions put a strain on DFAS
CTO's ability to make prompt and accurate travel reimbursements to Army
Guard soldiers. As discussed previously, DFAS CTO hired more than 200
staff from October 2001 through July 2003, which brought the total number
of staff to approximately 240. The training of these new employees was
delivered on-the-job. Training time depended on the individual and type of
work. For example, according to a DFAS CTO official, it took from 1 to 3
months for a voucher examiner to reach established standards. The DFAS CTO
official told us that, in some cases, on-the-job training proved to be
inadequate and contributed to travel reimbursement errors during this
period.
Two of our case studies indicated that mistakes by DFAS CTO contributed to
reimbursement problems. For example, our California case study indicated
that 33 soldiers were initially underpaid a total of almost $25,000 for
meals, lodging, and incidental expenses when personnel at DFAS CTO
selected an incorrect duty location and a corresponding incorrect per diem
rate. Although these soldiers eventually received the amounts they were
due, the corrections took months to resolve. Another example, described
next, shows inconsistencies and errors in the payment of meal and
incidental expense per diem to soldiers in a Pennsylvania Guard unit.
Case Study Illustration: Pennsylvania Army National Guard Travel
Reimbursement Problems
Pennsylvania Army National Guard soldiers from Company C, 876th Engineer
Battalion were deployed to Bad Aibling Station, Germany, in late July
2002, to augment active duty forces that were providing enhanced security
at this installation. The 37 soldiers in Company C were authorized to
purchase their meals because mess facilities were not available. Each
month, the unit administrator prepared and submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO
for reimbursement of meal and incidental expenses. Although each of the 37
soldiers should have received, in any given month, the same reimbursement
amount, the actual payments to soldiers were not identical. For the first
3 months of their deployment, soldiers' travel reimbursements varied
significantly. For example, for the September 2002 vouchers, payments
ranged from $105 up to $1,655. Additionally, 3 soldiers did not receive
payment on their September vouchers for several months. The unit
administrator told us he contacted DFAS CTO numerous times to discuss the
inconsistencies with soldiers' reimbursements, and DFAS CTO
representatives provided specific payment amounts that soldiers should
expect to receive. However, when incorrect payments continued, he said he
was not sure that DFAS CTO knew what to pay the soldiers. This situation
led to soldiers' confusion and frustration with the travel reimbursement
process.
The travel reimbursement errors that occurred throughout the deployment
affected 36 of the 37 soldiers. Of the 36, 12 soldiers experienced at
least one payment error and the remaining 24 soldiers experienced multiple
payment errors. When DFAS CTO attempted to correct payment errors to
soldiers by processing additional payments, the additional payments
resulted in overpayments to 35 soldiers because DFAS CTO examiners made
errors in determining the daily meal and incidental expense per diem rate.
DFAS CTO caught some of these overpayments and processed collections on
final vouchers. Fifteen soldiers received collection notices from DFAS on
their final vouchers and, although most of these soldiers had debt amounts
ranging from $200 to $300 dollars each, 1 soldier had almost $1,350
deducted from his final voucher payment.
Although overpayments were collected from 15 soldiers in this unit, most
of the remaining soldiers also received overpayments that have yet to be
addressed. From the deployment period of late July 2002 to February 2003,
the unit as a whole was reimbursed about $360,000. Of this amount, we
determined that outstanding overpayments of over $11,200 remain.
During fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO worked toward improving staff training
opportunities. For example, DFAS CTO used computer-based training to
provide new personnel an initial overview of WINIATS and voucher
computation procedures. In addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that a
40hour course, which was designed specifically to address the types of
vouchers received by DFAS CTO, has been established to train new
employees. Further, according to the official, one benefit of the
classroom instruction compared to on-the-job training is that it does not
affect the productivity of experienced examiners, who previously were
tasked with providing immediate on-the-job-training to new hires in
addition to their primary duties.
System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process
Coupled with the process flaws and human capital issues previously
addressed in this report, the lack of systems integration and automation
along with other systems deficiencies contributed significantly to the
travel reimbursement problems we identified. The lack of integrated and
automated systems results in the existing inefficient, paper-intensive,
and error-prone travel reimbursement process. These problems are also a
major factor in the churning issue discussed previously-the thousands of
vouchers that are rejected and returned for missing documentation.
Specifically, the Army does not have automated systems for some critical
Army Guard travel process functions, such as preparation of travel
vouchers, SNAs, and TCS orders, which precludes the electronic sharing of
data by the various travel computation offices. Further, system design
flaws impede management's ability to comply with TTRA, analyze timeliness
of travel reimbursements, and take corrective action as necessary.
Lack of Integrated Systems
The key DOD systems involved in authorizing and reimbursing travel
expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers are not integrated. In January
1995, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel issued a report39 stating
that this was a principal cause of the inefficient travel system. As we
have reported and testified,40 decades-old financial management problems
related to the proliferation of systems, due in part to DOD components
receiving and controlling their own information technology investment
funding, result in the current fragmented, nonstandardized systems.
Lacking either an integrated or effectively interfaced set of travel
authorization, voucher preparation, and reimbursement systems, the Army
Guard must rely on a time-consuming collection of source documents and
error-prone manual entry of data into a travel voucher computation system,
as shown in figure 9.
39U.S. Department of Defense, Report of the Department of Defense Task
Force to Reengineer Travel (Washington, D.C.: January 1995).
40GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Billions Continue to Be
Invested with Inadequate Management Oversight and Accountability,
GAO-04-615 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004), and Department of Defense:
Long-standing Problems Continue to Impede Financial and Business
Management Transformation, GAO-04-907T (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2004).
Figure 9: Overview of the Design of Systems and Travel Applications Used
for Army Guard Travel
With an effectively integrated system, changes to personnel records, such
as mobilization orders, would automatically transfer to the travel pay
system. While not as efficient as an integrated system, an automatic
personnel-to-travel pay system interface can reduce delays caused by the
return of vouchers for missing travel authorizations. Without an effective
interface between the personnel and travel pay systems, we found instances
in which travel vouchers were returned to soldiers due to missing travel
authorizations, causing significant time delays. For example, DOD took
almost 500 days to pay a California Army Guard soldier his travel pay.
This extensive delay was due in part to the soldier not submitting a paper
copy of his mobilization order. If the system that created the
mobilization order had interfaced with the travel voucher computation
system, a portion of Army Guard and Army Reserve vouchers returned by DFAS
CTO-a significant problem as discussed previously-could have been
eliminated. This, in turn, would increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of the process by reducing paper, reducing the return voucher workload at
DFAS CTO, and decreasing the time to reimburse the soldiers.
Further, the lack of an integrated travel system and consequent
"workarounds" increase the risk of errors and create the current
inefficient process. As noted previously, several separate WINIATS systems
at DFAS and the USPFOs can process travel vouchers for mobilized Army
Guard soldiers. These databases operate on separate local area networks
that do not exchange or share data with other travel computation offices
to ensure travel reimbursements have not already been paid. Instead, as
shown in figure 9, multiple WINIATS systems transmit data to the DFAS
Operational Data Store (ODS)-a separate database that stores disbursement
transactions. As a result, when a soldier submits a voucher, voucher
examiners must resort to extraction and manual review of data from ODS.
Next, voucher examiners research and calculate previous payments- advances
or interim payments-made by other Army WINIATS systems. This information
is then manually entered into WINIATS for it to compute the correct travel
reimbursement for the current claim. In addition to being time consuming,
this manual workaround can also lead to mistakes. For example, a Michigan
soldier was overpaid $1,384 when two travel computation offices paid him
for travel expenses incurred during the same period in August and
September 2002. This overpayment was detected by DFAS CTO when the soldier
filed his final voucher in August 2003.
Lack of Automated Systems DOD lacks an automated system for preparing
travel vouchers, which hinders the travel reimbursement process. As shown
in figure 9, soldiers
Page 55 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Other System Problems
manually prepare their paper travel vouchers and attach many paper travel
authorizations and receipts and distribute them via mail, fax, or e-mail
to one of the travel computation offices. The lack of an automated system
increases the risk of missing documents in voucher submissions, which
results in an increased number of vouchers rejected and returned by DFAS
CTO. Another consequence of this inefficient process is the need for
additional staff to process the vouchers, as discussed earlier in this
report. In addition, the Army currently lacks a centralized system to
issue uniquely numbered and standard formatted SNAs regarding housing and
dining facilities for mobilized soldiers. The lack of centralized standard
data precludes electronic linking with any voucher computation system and
the reduction of paperwork for individual soldiers, as they must obtain
and accumulate various paper authorizations to submit with their vouchers.
Further, the Army lacks an automated system for producing TCS orders. As
illustrated at the top of figure 9, the various mobilization stations use
a word processing program to type and print each individual TCS order to
move a soldier to such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. Similar to the
process for SNAs, mobilization stations maintain separate document files
for each TCS order issued. The absence of a standard automated system used
by each of the mobilization stations prevents the Army from electronically
sharing TCS data with other systems, such as a voucher computation system.
Consequently, the process will remain vulnerable to delays for returned
voucher submissions as mobilized Army Guard soldiers continue to receive
paper SNAs and TCS orders. Finally, even if the Army automates the TCS,
SNA, and voucher preparation processes, as discussed previously, these new
automated systems would need to be either integrated or interfaced with a
voucher computation system to decrease the amount of time from initiation
of travel to final settlement of travel expenses.
In addition to being stand-alone, nonintegrated systems that do not have
the capability to exchange/share information, the over 60 separate WINIATS
systems at DFAS and the USPFOs that can process travel vouchers for
mobilized Army Guard soldiers do not consistently capture critical dates
useful for management oversight and tracking. As a result, complete and
accurate information is not transmitted to ODS-the separate DFAS database
that stores disbursement transactions-and is not available for a variety
of management needs. Specifically, many Army Guard USPFOs were not
populating key data fields in WINIATS, such as the voucher preparation
date, supervisor review date, and the travel computation office receipt
date. According to our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, information should be recorded and communicated to management
and others within the entity who need it, in a form and within a time
frame that enables them to carry out their responsibilities.
These dates are key in providing DOD management with the information
necessary to comply with TTRA, which requires DOD to reimburse soldiers
for interest and fees when travel vouchers are paid late. In addition,
these dates are essential in providing management with performance
information that can help DOD improve its travel reimbursement process. A
March 2003 report41 by DFAS Internal Review noted 39 percent of the claims
it audited did not have the date of receipt in the travel computation
office or the date the supervisor approved the voucher recorded in
WINIATS. In April 2003, DFAS Indianapolis directed all travel computation
offices using WINIATS to input the key dates of preparation, review, and
receipt by a travel computation office. Our analysis of 622,821 Army Guard
travel voucher transactions filed from October 1, 2001, through November
30, 2003, and processed by DFAS CTO and the USPFOs found that at least one
of these key dates was not recorded in ODS for 453,351, or approximately
73 percent, of the transactions. Further, when we questioned the 54 USPFOs
in March 2004, 33 of the 41 that responded told us that they were not
capturing all of these critical dates. Many respondents were unaware that
WINIATS could collect these dates.
In cases in which the key dates necessary to perform the evaluation were
being captured, incorrect entries were not detected. A WINIATS
representative told us that the system was not designed with certain edit
checks to detect data anomalies such as those caused by erroneous data
entry. We found that 52 of 191 in our nonrepresentative selection of
travel vouchers filed by soldiers had incorrect dates recorded in ODS
(e.g., the date of supervisory review predated the date of travel ended by
nearly a year) and that these data entry errors were not detected. Without
system edit checks to detect data anomalies, the accuracy and reliability
of the data are questionable, and consequently, management cannot carry
out its oversight duties.
41Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Army Travel Pay
Services (Arlington, Va.: Mar. 27, 2003).
Page 57 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for Mobilized Army
Guard Soldiers
DOD's current plan-deployment of the Defense Travel System (DTS)-to
automate its paper-intensive, manual travel reimbursement process will not
resolve key flaws we found in reimbursement of travel expenses to
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. DOD recognized the need to improve the
travel reimbursement process in the 1990s and has been developing and
implementing DTS. However, DTS is currently not able to process mobilized
travel authorizations (e.g., mobilization orders, TCS orders, and SNAs)
and vouchers and, therefore, does not provide an end-to-end solution for
paying mobilized Army Guard soldiers for travel entitlements. According to
DOD, DTS will provide this capability when the Defense Integrated Military
Human Resources System (DIMHRS) is implemented. Currently, DOD plans to
deploy DIMHRS to the Army Guard in March 2006. In addition, DTS does not
identify and calculate late payment interest and fees required by law.
Furthermore, DFAS auditors have reported additional problems with DTS.
Given DOD's past failed attempts at developing and implementing systems on
time, within budget, and with the promised capability, and that the effort
has already been under way for about 8 years, it is likely that the
department will be relying on the existing paper-intensive, manual system
for the foreseeable future.
In July 1994, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel was formed to study
the existing travel system. In January 1995, this task force concluded
that the existing travel system was fragmented, inefficient, expensive to
administer, and occasionally impeded mission accomplishment. It
recommended new travel policies and procedures, simplified entitlements,
and recommended the travel process take advantage of automation to become
traveler friendly and efficient. In December 1995, the Program Management
Office-Defense Travel System (PMO-DTS) was established to implement these
recommendations and acquire reengineered travel services from commercial
vendors.
At the end of fiscal year 2003, DOD reported investing nearly 8 years and
about $288 million in DTS. In 2003, PMO-DTS estimated an additional $251
million was needed for DTS to be fully operational at the end of fiscal
year 2006, resulting in an estimated total development and production cost
of over 10 years and $539 million. This cost estimate does not include
deploying DTS to the majority of the Army Guard USPFOs. Although the Army
Guard supplies most of the mobilized soldiers in support of the global war
on terrorism, DTS deployment to the 54 USPFOs is not scheduled to begin
until fiscal year 2006. The Army is expected to fund the majority of the
costs to field the program to the USPFOs, where mobilized Army Guard
DTS Is Not an End-to-End Solution for Paying Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers'
Travel Entitlements
travel begins. The DTS total life cycle cost estimate, including the
military service and Defense agencies, is $4.39 billion.42
While DTS purports to integrate the travel authorization, voucher
preparation, and approval and payment process for TDY travel, it does not
integrate travel authorizations and reimbursements for mobilized Army
Guard soldiers. DOD officials have stated that currently DTS cannot
process mobilized Army Guard travel reimbursements involving various
consecutive and/or overlapping travel authorizations. As discussed
earlier, mobilized Army Guard travel involves various travel
authorizations, most with overlapping dates. DOD officials acknowledged
that DTS would not produce the various travel authorizations related to
mobilization travel, because DOD is presently designing a pay and
personnel system, DIMHRS, to accomplish this task. DOD's current strategy
is for DTS to electronically capture the travel authorization information
from DIMHRS, after which a soldier would use DTS to prepare and submit a
travel voucher. This would require that DIMHRS have the capability to
electronically capture the various authorizations applicable to Army Guard
travel, such as mobilization and temporary change of station orders, and
that SNAs are generated from a standard, automated system that can
effectively interface with DTS. DOD officials do not plan to implement
DIMHRS at the Army Guard until March 2006. As a result, the timing and
ability of the Army Guard to process mobilization travel vouchers through
DTS appears to hinge on the successful development and implementation of
DIMHRS and its interface with DTS.
DTS Does Not Compute Late Payment Interest and Fees
DTS is not being designed to identify and calculate travelers' late
payment interest and fees in accordance with TTRA. As discussed earlier in
this report, DOD's current travel computation system does not
automatically identify and calculate the TTRA late payment interest and
fees. Furthermore, no controls are in place to ensure that the manual
calculation is performed and that the interest and fee amounts are entered
into the system for payment. According to DTS officials, DOD has not
directed that
42The life cycle cost estimate is the cost estimate for fiscal years 1996
through 2016 for the DOD business travel function expressed in constant
fiscal year 2003 dollars. It includes investment costs for fiscal years
1996 through 2006, operations costs for fiscal years 2003 through 2016,
and alternate system (status quo) phaseout costs for fiscal years 1996
through 2006.
Page 59 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Other Auditors Identify Problems with DTS
DTS be designed to include such a feature. As a result, as currently
designed, DTS provides no assurance that late payment interest and fees
will be paid to travelers as required pursuant to TTRA. Further, the DTS
design does not meet the expectation set out in the DOD Financial
Management Regulation,43 that DTS will automatically determine if a late
payment fee is due.
A DFAS Kansas City Statistical Operations and Review Branch report44
identified several significant problems with the current DFAS
implementation. Specifically, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004,
DFAS reported a 14 percent inaccuracy rate in DTS travel payments of
airfare, lodging, and meals and incidental expenses. This report cited
causes similar to those we identified in the areas of traveler preparation
of claims and official review of claims. In addition to these
deficiencies, DFAS noted errors in DTS calculations for meals and
incidental expenses.
Another DFAS Internal Review report,45 dated June 15, 2004, indicated that
improvements were needed in DTS access controls to prevent or detect
unauthorized access to sensitive files. DFAS Internal Review reported that
the PMO-DTS had not established standard user account review and
maintenance procedures. This leaves DTS potentially vulnerable to
(1) prior DTS users retaining access to the system and (2) current users
having improper access levels. The DFAS Internal Review report concludes
that without conducting periodic account maintenance procedures and
detecting unauthorized access, DTS is vulnerable to unauthorized
individuals gaining access to the system and confidential information,
resulting in potential losses to DOD employees and the government. The
report also noted that DTS was not adequately retaining an audit trail of
administrative and security data, leaving management unable to investigate
suspicious activities or research problem transactions. At the conclusion
of our audit work, PMO-DTS officials informed us that they have taken or
plan to take steps to address the
43DOD FMR, Vol. 9, ch. 8, para. 080803 (Oct. 2003).
44Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Statistical Operations and
Review Branch,
Military & Civilian Pay Services Defense Travel System: Results of Post
Payment Reviews, 1st Quarter, FY 2004 (Kansas City, Mo.: undated).
45Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Review of the
Defense Travel System (DTS) (Arlington, Va.: June 15, 2004).
Page 60 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
Conclusions
problem areas in the two reports discussed above. We were unable to
evaluate the potential effectiveness of those actions in time for release
of this report.
As Army Guard soldiers heed the call to duty and serve our country in
vital and dangerous missions both at home and abroad, they deserve nothing
less than full, accurate, and timely reimbursements for their
out-of-pocket travel expenses. However, just as we recently reported for
Army Guard and Reserve pay, our soldiers are more often than not forced to
contend with the costly and time-consuming "war on paper" to ensure that
they are properly reimbursed. The process, human capital, and automated
systems problems we identified related to Army Guard travel reimbursement
are additional examples of the broader, long-standing financial management
and business transformation challenges faced by DOD. Similar to our
previously reported findings for numerous other DOD business operations,
the travel reimbursement process has evolved over years into the
stove-piped, paper-intensive process that exists today and was
ill-prepared to respond to the current large and sustained mobilizations.
Without systematic oversight of key program metrics, breakdowns in the
process remain unidentified and effective controls cannot be established
and monitored. Finally, DOD's long-standing inability to develop and
implement systems solutions on time, within budget, and with the promised
capability appears to be a critical impediment in this area. While
immediate corrective actions can be taken in some areas, the problems we
identified with DOD's longer term automated systems initiatives-DIHMRS and
DTS-raise serious questions of whether and when mobilized soldiers' travel
reimbursement problems will be resolved.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), to take the
following 23 actions to address the issues we found with respect to the
controls over processes for payment of travel entitlements to mobilized
Army Guard personnel.
Process o Modify existing policies and procedures to require that
mobilization and related travel orders clearly state meal entitlements.
Such orders should
Page 61 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
specify that mobilized soldiers are not required to pay for meals in
government dining facilities.
* Develop and implement guidance to standardize the form and content
of statements of non-availability for soldiers on contingency
operations. The guidance should establish an acceptable basic SNA
form (e.g., written, memo, stamp, number), and should address, but
not be limited to, the following elements:
o the period(s) covered,
o the type of per diem (e.g., housing, meals),
o the rationale for acceptance (e.g., shift work, inadequacy of
transportation) or denial,
o the applicable meal rates (e.g., locality meal rate,
proportional meal rate), and
o the required authorization levels and signatures.
o Clarify existing guidance in the PPG for contingency operations by
including situational examples based on laws and regulations similar
to those in the JFTR to assist decision makers in making
determinations of nonavailability related to quarters and meals.
* Enhance efforts to ensure compliance with TTRA, through the
payment of late payment interest and fees to soldiers for late
travel reimbursements. Such efforts should include, at a minimum
* updating DOD's Financial Management Regulation provisions
concerning the payment of late payment interest and fees;
* developing metrics pertaining to the payment of late payment
interest and fees under TTRA and monitoring to ensure
compliance;
* considering the feasibility of identifying and paying those
soldiers who were entitled to TTRA payments but, because
DFAS made no such payments prior to February 2004, did not
receive them; and (4) paying the soldiers who we determined
were due late payment interest and any appropriate late
payment fees.
Human Capital o Consider appointing an agencywide leadership position or
ombudsman with accountability for resolving problems Army Guard soldiers
Page 62 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard
encounter at any point in the travel authorization and reimbursement
process.
* Develop and monitor programwide performance metrics to accomplish
the following objectives:
o identify the root causes of travel vouchers that are rejected
and returned by DFAS CTO and USPFO travel computation offices,
including the reasons why individual soldiers fail to timely
and properly prepare and submit travel vouchers;
o provide assurance that unit review of travel vouchers
accomplishes the purposes of that review, including verifying
that the required documents are attached and all needed
signatures are included;
o monitor and analyze supplemental voucher data to help identify
recurring problems and solutions as well as the quality of the
travel reimbursement program over time; and
o document the types and frequency of travel-related problems
reported to the DFAS toll-free number and measure the
effectiveness of this customer service effort to help target
areas where training or improved guidance may be warranted.
o Evaluate the adequacy and frequency of training provided to mobilized
Army Guard soldiers that teaches them to accurately prepare and timely
submit travel vouchers, including procedures for obtaining and
submitting authorizing documentation for per diem entitlements.
* Review the outstanding travel payment problems we identified at
the 10 case study units to identify and resolve any remaining
travel-related issues for the affected soldiers.
o reiterating or enhancing current policies requiring the
capture of critical dates for management oversight and
compliance with TTRA, including steps required to activate
the WINIATS Liaison Screen, and
o providing training and guidance to the USPFOs on the use of
WINIATS capabilities to capture traveler, reviewer, and
travel computation office receipt dates, and to upload that
information to DFAS's Operational Data Store system.
o Develop and implement WINIATS system edit checks to ensure the
accuracy of manual entries into WINIATS for the period of travel, the
dates the traveler and reviewer signed the voucher, and the date the
travel computation office received the voucher.
o Develop an automated, centralized system for SNAs covering potential
non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard soldiers.
Systems
Develop enhanced policies and accountability
Interim Improvements to o mechanisms to use the
Current Travel Pay System current WINIATS system to comply with the
requirements to identify
late payments and reimburse soldiers for late
payment interest and fees
required pursuant to TTRA. Specific actions
include
Longer Term System o As part of the effort currently under way to reform
DOD's travel (DTS)
Improvements and pay and personnel systems (DIMHRS), incorporate a
complete understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems as
documented in this and related reports into the requirements development
for these systems, including
o automation of critical travel process functions such as travel
vouchers and TCS orders;
o integration or interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, TCS
orders, mobilization orders, and other relevant systems; and
o capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest and
fees required pursuant to TTRA.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in
appendix II, DOD concurred with 21 of our 23 recommendations. DOD
partially concurred with our recommendations regarding (1) development of
an automated, centralized system for SNAs, covering potential
nonavailability of government meals or lodging for mobilized Army Guard
soldiers, and (2) incorporation into requirements development for DTS a
complete understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems
including late payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA. The actions
proposed by DOD to these two recommendations do not ensure that SNA
problems we identified will be corrected or that DOD will have a travel
system in place that will comply with TTRA, thus continuing the risk that
soldiers will not receive all payments they are entitled to receive. The
department also requested the inclusion of additional responsible DOD
officials in the recommendations section of this report, which we have
added as appropriate.
Concerning our recommendation that DOD develop an automated, centralized
system for SNAs, DOD responded that the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (OUSD (P&R)) and the DTS Program
Management Office are working closely to ensure that functional
requirements for military travel processes are incorporated in the
development of DTS and DIMHRS. DOD also pointed out that DIMHRS is
tentatively scheduled to be deployed to the Army National Guard in March
2006, and that therefore, it is not feasible to develop an "interim"
automated, centralized system for SNAs. DOD also stated that in the
interim, OUSD (P&R) will work with the military services' lodging
communities to establish a standard SNA, and that a centralized process
will be developed for all military services.
Based on our understanding of the planned and existing functionalities of
DTS and DIHMRS and the problems identified during our audit, we do not
agree with DOD's reasons for not resolving the stated weaknesses.
Specifically, according to a DOD OUSD (P&R) official in the Requirements
and Reengineering Division, Joint Requirements and Integration Office,
DIMHRS is not currently being designed to issue SNAs. Further, although
DOD stated that it plans to develop a standard SNA form and centralized
SNA process, this response does not provide for the development of an
automated system, which could be incorporated into the development of
DIMHRS or DTS either as an integrated capability or an interoperable
interface. By planning to work with lodging communities to establish a
standard SNA, it appears that DOD is taking an initial step toward
addressing the plight of mobilized Army Guard soldiers who have had
problems regarding SNAs. However, DOD needs to ensure that all information
regarding nonavailability of both lodging and meals is available to
appropriate decision-makers in the SNA approval process.
The majority of problems experienced by Army Guard soldiers in our case
studies related to whether meals were determined to be adequately
available to soldiers in various circumstances such as the irregular hours
required by guard duty, distance to meal facilities, inadequate
transportation to meal facilities, lack of 24-hour mess halls, or other
circumstances. Proper consideration of these meal issues in addition to
those related to lodging, generally includes review through the soldier's
chain of command and installation commander and should result in timely
decisions to either (1) issue SNAs that authorize per diem for meals,
enabling Army Guard soldiers to be reimbursed for food from commercial
locations or (2) ensure that Army Guard soldiers receive
government-provided meals free of charge. Because DOD's comments do not
provide solutions to the range of problems we observed with the SNA
process, we continue to recommend that an automated, centralized system
for SNAs be developed, which addresses the variety of nonavailability
issues experienced by mobilized Army Guard soldiers.
In regard to DOD's partial concurrence with our recommendation related to
DTS and TTRA compliance, DOD stated that this programming feature was not
required because the travel reimbursement process is completed within 5
days of the traveler entering pertinent data into DTS. DOD's internal
processes stipulate that before a travel voucher entered into DTS can be
paid, it must be reviewed and approved. However, our report documented
significant delays in the review and approval process in the current paper
intensive system, and DOD did not provide any support for its claim that
DTS reimbursements will be made within a 5-day period. We continue to see
the need for full DOD implementation of this recommendation because the
review and approval process is a human capital function that DTS will not
replace. Further, the likelihood of late payment of travel vouchers
processed through DTS remains because of potential factors such as (1)
excessive work loads, (2) questions during document reviews, (3)
inadequate attention to reviewer responsibilities, and (4) other
unforeseen delays in the process. To ensure that Army Guard soldiers and
others are paid late payment interest and fees required pursuant to TTRA,
DTS would need to include capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay
such late payment interest and fees. Such capability would also allow DOD
to conduct ongoing monitoring of the timeliness of travel reimbursements
made through DTS.
Finally, regarding the 21 recommendations with which DOD concurred, DOD
indicated that the stated action(s) taken were complete with respect to
the need for (1) mobilization and related travel orders to clearly state
meal entitlements, (2) standardization of the form and content of SNAs for
contingency operations, (3) development and monitoring of late payment
interest and fee metrics, (4) appointment of an agencywide leadership
position or ombudsman, (5) identification of root causes for untimely and
improperly prepared and submitted travel vouchers, and (6) evaluation of
the adequacy and frequency of travel voucher preparation training provided
to mobilized Army Guard soldiers. While the actions DOD described in
commenting on our report appear responsive to our recommendations, we have
not evaluated the effectiveness of their implementation and, therefore,
cannot determine whether these measures will resolve the problems we
identified.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
its date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to interested
congressional committees. We will also send copies of this report to the
Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the
Secretary of the Army, the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, the Director of the Army National Guard, and the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau. We will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions
regarding this report, please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-9095 or
[email protected], John J. Ryan at (202) 512-9587 or [email protected], or Mary
Ellen Chervenic at (202) 512-6218 or [email protected]. Major
contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix III.
Gregory D. Kutz Director Financial Management and Assurance
Robert J. Cramer Managing Director Office of Special Investigations
List of Congressional Requesters
The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives
The Honorable Christopher Shays Chairman, Subcommittee on National
Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations Committee on Government
Reform House of Representatives
The Honorable Todd Platts Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency
and Financial Management Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
To obtain an understanding and assess the design of process, personnel
(human capital), and system controls used to provide assurance that
mobilized Army National Guard (Army Guard) soldiers were timely reimbursed
for travel expenses and per diem entitlements, we
* reviewed applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and
program guidance;
* o observed the travel authorization, review, approval and
reimbursement process; and
* interviewed cognizant agency officials.
* With respect to applicable laws, regulations, policies and
procedures, we obtained and reviewed the
o Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA) (Pub. L. No.
105264);
o General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Travel Regulation;
o Department of Defense's (DOD) Joint Federal Travel Regulation;
o DOD's Financial Management Regulation, Volume 9, Travel Policies and
Procedures;
o Army National Guard Financial Services Center's The Citizen-Soldier's
Guide to Mobilization Finance; and
o Department of the Army's Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations Noble
Eagle (ONE), Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
We also reviewed the following Defense Finance and Accounting Service -
Indianapolis (DFAS-IN), Travel Technical Messages (TTM)- policy
implementation messages relating to late payment fees and interest:
o TTM 00-08, May 2000, which implemented the provisions of TTRA and
provided that its terms applied to "settlement vouchers;"
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
o TTM 01-01, November 2000, which provided that late payment interest
and fees be calculated and submitted by the traveler on the final
payment amount only;
o TTM 03-04, April 2003, which removed the requirement that the late
payment interest calculation was to be calculated and submitted by the
traveler; and
o TTM 04-10, May 2004, which directed that late payment interest and
fees be calculated on all travel vouchers, not just final vouchers, as
well as directed reviewers to sign a travel voucher on the same day it
is submitted so that DFAS-IN can apply TTRA requirements using the
reviewer's signature date as a surrogate for the submission date.
We also used the internal controls standards provided in the Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government. 1
We interviewed officials from the National Guard Bureau (NGB); United
States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFOs); Army and National Guard pay
centers; unit, duty station, and mobilization station officials; and
individual soldiers to obtain an understanding of their experiences in
applying and complying with these policies and procedures.
In addition, as part of our audit, we performed a review of certain
process and system controls. Specifically, we obtained information and
documentation and/or performed walk-throughs of travel voucher processing
through the Integrated Automated Travel System, Version 6.0 (WINIATS) at
DFAS-IN and one Army National Guard USPFO. During those walk-throughs, we
observed the operation of control activities over the review, approval,
and timely and accurate payment of travel vouchers. We obtained
documentation and performed walk-throughs regarding soldier readiness
checks-the Army's mobilization station process to ensure that Army Guard
units have and know what they need. We reviewed existing guidance for
determining and authorizing nonavailability of housing and meals at duty
stations. Because the systems that produce individual Army Guard soldiers'
travel orders are decentralized and not integrated with travel
reimbursement systems, we did not conduct walk
1GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards
provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining effective
internal control.
Page 70 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard Appendix I Scope and Methodology
throughs of them. However, we interviewed officials from Army National
Guard USPFOs, NGB, DFAS-IN, and the Army Finance Command to augment our
documentation and walk-throughs.
Because our preliminary assessment determined that current authorization,
request, review, and approval processes used to pay travel reimbursements
to mobilized Army Guard soldiers relied extensively on paper-intensive,
nonintegrated systems and error-prone manual transaction entry, we did not
statistically test current processes and controls. The lack of accurate
and complete centralized data on Army Guard travel also precluded
statistical testing. Instead, we used case study and data mining to
provide a more detailed perspective of the design of controls and the
nature of deficiencies in the key areas of processes, people (human
capital), and systems. We focused on how these key areas were at work in
the three phases of the travel and reimbursement process:
(1) authorizations; (2) travel voucher preparation, submission, unit
review, and transmission of reimbursement claims; and (3) travel
computation office review, reimbursement computation, audit, and payment.
For our case studies, we gathered available data and analyzed the pay
experiences of Army Guard units mobilized in support of Operations Iraqi
Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom during October 2001 through
November 2003. We audited the following 10 Army Guard units as case
studies of the design of controls ensuring consistent, and accurate
determination, authorization, communication, and documentation of per diem
entitlements for soldiers assigned to those units:
o Alabama 20th Special Forces,
o California 185th Armor,
o California 19th Special Forces,
o Georgia 190 th Military Police,
o Louisiana 239th Military Police,
o Maryland 115th Military Police,
o Mississippi 114th Military Police,
o Mississippi 20th Special Forces,
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
o Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion, and
o Virginia 20th Special Forces.
In selecting these 10 units for our case studies, we sought to obtain the
travel reimbursement experiences of units assigned to Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Noble Eagle. We limited
our case study selection to those units mobilized during the period from
October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003. From our preliminary
assessment of this population, we determined that military police and
special forces units were experiencing problems related to per diem. We
used mobilization data supplied by NGB to assist us in identifying
military police and special forces units. From the 231 military police and
special forces units in the NGB database, and our prior work on Army Guard
military pay ( GAO-04-89 ), we selected 4 special forces and 4 military
police units experiencing problems related to per diem for case studies.
Two other units were selected from a review of data furnished to us by DOD
from its Remedy Tracking System. These 10 case studies were audited to
provide a more detailed view of the types and causes of problems
experienced by these units as well as the financial impact of these
problems on individual soldiers and their families.
To obtain diverse perspectives on the nature of the reported per diem
problems, we interviewed selected guard and duty station commanders (where
the per diem problems were experienced) and selected individual soldiers
experiencing travel reimbursement problems for our case study units. We
also obtained and reviewed relevant individual travel vouchers and
supporting documentation for soldiers in selected units. In addition, we
used available data to estimate underpayments, overpayments, late
payments, and meal entitlement amounts that Army Guard soldiers expected
to receive. We referred eight units, which, at the end of our audit
included Army Guard soldiers that were unpaid, partially paid, or in debt,
to appropriate DOD officials to resolve any amounts owed to the Army Guard
soldiers or to the government.
For our individual voucher data mining, we obtained a database from DFAS's
Operational Data Store (ODS) of travel voucher reimbursement transactions
for travel that began during the period October 1, 2001, through November
30, 2003. The data contained approximately 6 million civilian, Army, Army
Reserve, and Army Guard travel voucher transactions paid through the
DFAS-IN disbursing station symbol number 5570. These
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
travel vouchers accounted for $3.8 billion in reimbursements. The ODS
database did not uniquely identify mobilized Army Guard travel vouchers.
In order to identify Army Guard vouchers, we obtained a database extract
of Army guard soldiers paid during the period October 1, 2001, through
November 30, 2003, from the Defense Joint Military Pay System-Reserve
Component. We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of either of
these databases. Using dates of mobilized Army Guard service contained in
the payroll database, we extracted the Social Security numbers for Army
Guard soldiers with periods of active service of 30 days or greater. We
matched the Social Security numbers from the Army Guard payroll database
to the ODS travel reimbursement transaction database. There were
approximately 623,000 travel voucher transactions processed for Army Guard
for the period October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, totaling $389
million. We then sorted the 623,000 travel vouchers by the number of days
it took to get reimbursed from the date travel ended. We identified 26,414
travel vouchers that took over 120 days to get reimbursed. We made a
nonrepresentative selection of transactions from the 26,414 grouping
reimbursed after 120 days, along with travel vouchers selected from the
unit case studies, and audited 191 travel vouchers. Our analysis of the
191 vouchers found that 52 had incorrect dates entered into the database
and, in fact, were paid timely. We performed no further audit on these 52
travel vouchers and concentrated our analysis on the remaining 139 travel
vouchers.
We obtained or requested copies of the travel vouchers and supporting
documentation for each potential late reimbursement transaction
selected-primarily the travel voucher, travel order(s), special
authorizations such as certificates or statements of non-availability and
missed meals, and receipts for other reimbursable expenses. We reviewed
these data and used a data collection instrument to collect the
information necessary and
o compared for accuracy the dates and amounts in the transaction
database to the dates and amounts on the supporting documentation;
o calculated the days elapsed between (1) the date travel ended, (2) the
date the traveler signed the travel voucher, (3) the date the unit
reviewer signed the travel voucher, (4) the date received by the
processing center, and (5) the date of payment to the soldier, and
identified where the significant delay(s) occurred for each voucher;
and
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
o attempted contact with the soldier, and, as appropriate, the unit
reviewer, and the travel computation office to determine the reason(s) for
all significant delays occurring between the end of travel and the date of
reimbursement.
The scope of our review did not include verification of the accuracy of
travel voucher payments.
For the purpose of determining the reasons for late reimbursements, we
used available documentation supplemented with follow-up inquiries where
possible with soldiers, unit supervisory reviewers, and the cognizant
travel computation office personnel to gain insight into the facts,
circumstances, and points of view of all relevant parties.
In our case studies, which focused on per diem problems, and in our
vouchers, which focused on late reimbursements, we attempted to determine
the issues surrounding soldiers' questions of accurate per diem
reimbursements, and the reasons delays occurred in reimbursing soldiers
for travel entitlements and expenses. As such, our audit results only
reflect the problems we identified. Soldiers in our late pay and case
study units may have experienced additional travel reimbursement problems
that we did not identify. In addition, our work was not designed to
identify, and we did not identify, any fraudulent travel reimbursement
request or payment by any Army Guard soldiers. Because we could not
contact2 all individual soldiers and unit supervisory reviewers, we likely
did not identify all of the effects on soldiers or the reasons for
inaccurate or questioned per diem in our case study units and delays in
the overall process resulting in late payments of travel reimbursements to
Army Guard soldiers.
We reviewed TTRA and federal travel regulations. TTRA requires the payment
of a late payment fee as prescribed by 41 C.F.R. S: 301-71.210 requiring
the payment of a late payment fee consisting of (1) late payment interest,
generally equivalent to the Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate, plus
(2) a late payment charge equivalent to the late payment charge, which
could have been charged by the government travel card contractor. This
late payment penalty and interest is to be paid to soldiers if their
reimbursements are not paid within 30 days of the submission of proper
2Individuals could not be contacted for various reasons, including (1)
being deployed overseas, (2) no longer in the Army Guard or Army, (3) no
current contact number, and
(4) not responsive to voicemail and e-mail inquires.
Page 74 GAO-05-79 Army National Guard Appendix I Scope and Methodology
vouchers. As part of our audit, we determined if any of the 139 individual
vouchers we selected were timely and properly submitted by Army Guard
soldiers and whether they had received late payment interest owed to them.
We identified 75 vouchers that were properly submitted by Army Guard
soldiers who should have received late payment interest totaling about
$1,400. Some of these soldiers may also have been entitled to a late
payment fee in addition to the late payment interest. We referred the
names of the affected soldiers to applicable DOD officials to resolve
amounts owed to these soldiers.
Another source of information was the Remedy Tracking System, which DOD
uses to track all controlled correspondence, such as congressional
complaint letters. We asked DOD to provide all correspondence relating to
travel-related expense issues. We analyzed the results from DOD for
additional leads into travel voucher problems. We did not audit nor did we
determine if the database provided to us by DOD was complete.
In our analysis of DOD's Defense Travel System (DTS), we (1) interviewed
DTS program management office personnel and other DOD officials;
(2)
obtained demonstrations of the user interface with DTS; (3)
reviewed a DOD IG audit report and DFAS post payment audit report
on DTS; and
(4)
obtained cost information on DTS from DOD's, fiscal year 2005
Budget Estimate, Information Technology/National Security Systems
Budget Exhibit dated February 2004.
We briefed DOD and Army officials, NGB officials, and DFAS officials on
the details of our audit, including our findings and their implications.
We received written DOD comments and have summarized those comments in the
"Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section of this report. DOD's
comments are reprinted in appendix II. We conducted our audit work from
November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance with U.S. generally
accepted government auditing standards, and we performed our investigative
work in accordance with standards prescribed by the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency.
Appendix II
Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix III
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Mary Ellen Chervenic, (202) 512-6218
GAO Contacts
Stephen W. Lipscomb, (303) 572-7328 John J. Ryan, (202) 512-9587
Staff making key contributions to this report include Paul S. Begnaud,
Acknowledgments
Norman M. Burrell, Francine M. DelVecchio, C. Robert DeRoy, Lauren S.
Fassler, Dennis B. Fauber, Wilfred B. Holloway, Patty P. Hsieh, Charles R.
Hodge, Jason M. Kelly, Julia C. Matta, Sheila D. Miller, Bennett E.
Severson, Robert A. Sharpe, Patrick S. Tobo, and Jenniffer F. Wilson.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@ gao.gov (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***