Military Personnel: DOD's Predatory Lending Report Addressed	 
Mandated Issues, but Support Is Limited for Some Findings and	 
Recommendations (31-AUG-07, GAO-07-1148R).			 
                                                                 
Serious financial problems can adversely affect unit morale and  
readiness as well as servicemembers' credit histories and	 
military careers. If servicemembers experience serious financial 
problems, they may be subject to adverse actions such as loss of 
security clearances, criminal or nonjudicial sanctions, or	 
adverse personnel actions including possible discharge from the  
military. The Department of Defense's (DOD) Social Compact, which
is part of its human capital plan, notes that mission readiness  
and quality of life depend on whether servicemembers use their	 
financial resources responsibly. For these reasons, Congress and 
DOD officials have expressed concerns about servicemembers'	 
financial conditions. DOD is particularly concerned about the use
and effects of certain consumer loans that DOD identified as	 
being predatory. The 2006 National Defense Authorization Act	 
required DOD to issue a report on predatory lending directed at  
servicemembers and their dependents. The mandate required DOD's  
report to include: (1) a description of the prevalence of	 
predatory lending practices directed at servicemembers and their 
families; (2) an assessment of the effects of predatory lending  
on servicemembers and their families; (3) a description of DOD's 
strategies and programs to educate servicemembers and their	 
families about predatory practices; (4) a description of DOD's	 
strategies and programs to reduce or eliminate the prevalence of 
predatory lending practices directed at servicemembers and their 
families, as well as the negative effects of such practices; and 
(5) recommendations for additional legislative and administrative
action to reduce or eliminate predatory lending practices.	 
Following the publication of DOD's 2006 report, private-sector	 
groups associated with segments of the financial industry raised 
concerns about the report's preparation, quality, and		 
recommendations. Congress requested that we review DOD's 2006	 
report on predatory lending practices. Specifically, we evaluated
DOD's approach and support in preparing its mandated report on	 
predatory lending practices. This report documents findings that 
we briefed to your offices on August 17, 2007.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1148R					        
    ACCNO:   A75572						        
  TITLE:     Military Personnel: DOD's Predatory Lending Report       
Addressed Mandated Issues, but Support Is Limited for Some	 
Findings and Recommendations					 
     DATE:   08/31/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Financial management				 
	     Loans						 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Reports management 				 
	     Lending institutions				 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-1148R

   

     * [1]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

          * [2]Order by Mail or Phone

           August 31, 2007

           The Honorable Tim Johnson
           Chairman
           Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
           Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
           United States Senate

           The Honorable Lindsey Graham
           Ranking Member
           Subcommittee on Personnel
           Committee on Armed Services
           United States Senate

           Subject: Military Personnel: DOD's Predatory Lending Report
           Addressed Mandated Issues, but Support Is Limited for Some
           Findings and Recommendations

           Serious financial problems can adversely affect unit morale and
           readiness as well as servicemembers' credit histories and military
           careers. If servicemembers experience serious financial problems,
           they may be subject to adverse actions such as loss of security
           clearances, criminal or nonjudicial sanctions, or adverse
           personnel actions including possible discharge from the military.
           The Department of Defense's (DOD) Social Compact, which is part of
           its human capital plan, notes that mission readiness and quality
           of life depend on whether servicemembers use their financial
           resources responsibly.^1 For these reasons, Congress and  DOD
           officials have expressed concerns about servicemembers' financial
           conditions. DOD is particularly concerned about the use and
           effects of certain consumer loans that DOD identified as being
           predatory.

           In April 2005, we reported about problems servicemembers were
           experiencing with personal financial management and the steps that
           DOD was taking to address those issues.^2 In another April 2005
           report, we noted that DOD did not know the extent to which
           servicemembers were using consumer loans that DOD considered to be
           predatory, nor the effects of that usage.^3 Our report noted that
           DOD expressed concerns about four types of loans it labeled as
           predatory--payday, rent-to-own, automobile title pawn, and tax
           refund loans. These financial products are typically offered by
           lenders that are outside the system of federally insured financial
           institutions. Although "predatory lending" has no precise
           definition, some practices (such as charging excessive fees or
           interest rates and repeatedly refinancing loans without economic
           gain for the borrower) are widely regarded as predatory. We also
           reported that DOD and active duty servicemembers have not fully
           used DOD's existing tools for curbing the use and effects of
           predatory lending practices. To correct identified problems in
           DOD's programs for addressing predatory lending practices, we
           recommended actions that would (1) clarify to servicemembers that
           DOD does not endorse the advertisers in installation newspapers
           and (2) make greater use of Armed Forces Disciplinary Control
           Boards which can place businesses off limits to servicemembers if
           the businesses adversely affect the servicemembers' health,
           safety, morals, welfare, morale, and discipline. DOD concurred
           with the first recommendation and partially concurred with our
           second recommendation, noting constraints faced in using the
           boards.

^1DOD's Social Compact is a long-term quality of life strategy for the
department. It promotes the advancement of the military community through
the reciprocal ties that bind servicemembers, the military mission, and
military families by responding to their quality of life needs as
individuals and as members of a larger community. See DOD, Office of
Military Community and Family Policy, A New Social Compact: A Reciprocal
Partnership between the Department of Defense, Service Members and
Families (July 2002).

^2GAO, Military Personnel: More DOD Actions Needed to Address
Servicemembers' Personal Financial Management Issues, GAO-05-348
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2005).

^3GAO, Military Personnel: DOD's Tools for Curbing the Use and Effects of
Predatory Lending Not Fully Utilized, GAO-05-349 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
26, 2005).

           The 2006 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to issue
           a report on predatory lending directed at servicemembers and their
           dependents.^4 The mandate required DOD's report to include: (1) a
           description of the prevalence of predatory lending practices
           directed at servicemembers and their families; (2) an assessment
           of the effects of predatory lending on servicemembers and their
           families; (3) a description of DOD's strategies and programs to
           educate servicemembers and their families about predatory
           practices; (4) a description of DOD's strategies and programs to
           reduce or eliminate the prevalence of predatory lending practices
           directed at servicemembers and their families, as well as the
           negative effects of such practices; and (5) recommendations for
           additional legislative and administrative action to reduce or
           eliminate predatory lending practices. The act further specified
           that DOD was to prepare its report in consultation with the
           Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
           the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and
           representatives from military charity organizations, and consumer
           groups and submit it to Congress within 180 days of the
           legislation's enactment. DOD issued the mandated report on August
           9, 2006.^5 Following the submission of DOD's report, Congress
           added a new section to Title 10 of the U.S. Code which sets out a
           number of limitations and requirements related to terms of
           consumer credit extended to servicemembers and their dependents.^6
           Many of the provisions in this section mirror the recommendations
           in DOD's report. This statute required the Secretary of Defense to
           create regulations to implement the new provisions, and, in
           response to that requirement, DOD has published in the Federal
           Register some proposed rule changes that would limit the terms of
           consumer credit extended to servicemembers and their dependents.^7
           These proposed regulations are expected to be effective October 1,
           2007.
 
           Following the publication of DOD's 2006 report, private-sector
           groups associated with segments of the financial industry raised
           concerns about the report's preparation, quality, and
           recommendations. You requested that we review DOD's 2006 report on
           predatory lending practices. Specifically, we evaluated DOD's
           approach and support in preparing its mandated report on predatory
           lending practices. This report documents findings that we briefed
           to your offices on August 17, 2007. Enclosure I contains the
           briefing slides we presented. This briefing contributes to a
           larger GAO body of work on compensation and financial conditions
           of military personnel (see the list of related GAO products at the
           end of this report).
  
^4National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No.
109-163, S 579 (2006).

^5DOD, Report On Predatory Lending Practices Directed at Members of the
Armed Forces and Their Dependents (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 9, 2006).

^6The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,
Pub. L. No. 109-364, S 670 (2006), added Section 987 to Title 10 of the
U.S. Code.

^7Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and
Dependents, 72 Fed. Reg. 18157 (proposed Apr. 11, 2007) (to be codified at
32 C.F.R. pt. 232).
  
           In conducting our review, we limited the scope of our work to the
           types of loans that DOD identified as being predatory in its
           mandated 2006 report. We examined legislation that mandated the
           DOD report and regulations such as governmentwide and DOD-wide
           standards for data quality. In addition to reviewing DOD's
           predatory lending report and the reports cited in that study, we
           reviewed GAO, Congressional Research Service, and Federal Deposit
           Insurance Corporation Office of the Inspector General reports on
           related issues. We developed a tool to systematize our analysis of
           the quality of research studies and data sources DOD used as
           support in its report. We interviewed representatives and obtained
           documents from DOD and the federal agencies, military charity
           organizations, and consumer groups involved in the preparation of
           DOD's report as well as other groups whose perspectives were
           different from those provided in the DOD report. As an additional
           means for examining the support for DOD's report, we conducted a
           site visit at one installation for each of the four active duty
           services. Enclosure II describes our scope and methodology in more
           detail. We performed our work between March 2007 and August 2007
           in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
           standards.
			  
           Summary
           
			  DOD issued a report on predatory lending that addressed the
           mandated issues, but it contained limited support for some of its
           findings and recommendations. As required by the mandate in the
           2006 National Defense Authorization Act, DOD issued its report in
           August 2006 addressing the five required elements after consulting
           with the organizations and groups specified in the act. Among the
           points that DOD made are that predatory lending practices are
           prevalent and target military personnel and that the department is
           exerting significant effort to educate servicemembers on the
           potential dangers of using predatory loans. All mandated
           organizations and groups stated that they had commented on DOD's
           report, although DOD appears to have consulted with military
           charity organizations and consumer groups more than with the
           federal agencies identified in the report. DOD's report did not
           describe the content and extent of the consultations or make note
           of any concerns raised by those groups. The report's authors
           indicated that they had to rely largely on previously gathered
           data and may have done some things differently if they had had
           more time. Additionally, representatives for one of the consulted
           federal agencies noted that DOD faced a short timeframe to prepare
           its report and basically met the legislative requirements. Even
           though DOD provided several sources illustrating the negative
           effect that predatory loans have on servicemembers, our evaluation
           of the DOD report revealed methodological problems in some of its
           analyses and in some of the studies cited in its report,
           particularly for the description of the prevalence and assessment
           of the effects of predatory lending practices. For example, the
           DOD report's prevalence section provided several metrics that did
           not directly assess whether servicemembers actually (1) used the
           loan type and (2) considered the associated lending practices to
           be predatory. As we noted in our 2005 report on predatory lending,
           the extent to which active duty servicemembers use consumer loans
           considered to be predatory and the effects of such borrowing are
           unknown, but some of the information provided in the DOD report
           and obtained during our 2007 site visits suggests that some
           servicemembers can pay substantial sums for the loans. DOD's
           report also showed the percentages of servicemembers who use loans
           that it had characterized as predatory and the percentage of
           servicemembers who experienced financial difficulties. It did not
           include an analysis of the relationship between the two types of
           information. In its sections on education and strategies to reduce
           or eliminate the prevalence and negative effects of predatory
           lending practices, the DOD report documented the broad array of
           financial education classes and other programs offered. While the
           report linked the large numbers of financial education classes and
           materials provided to servicemembers and their families to
           increased awareness and reduced usage of predatory loans, DOD has
           not implemented procedures for evaluating outcomes from its
           training programs as we recommended in 2005. For example, tools
           such as required personal financial management training for all
           servicemembers arriving at their first duty station, alternative
           loan programs from military charity organizations, and financial
           counseling are readily available to servicemembers; however, our
           2005 report noted and our site visits in 2007 found that some
           servicemembers underutilize these resources because, in part, they
           do not want their command to know about their financial problems.
           DOD's report included six recommendations for additional
           legislative and administrative actions, such as setting a 36
           percent annual percentage rate cap for loans to military borrowers
           and requiring unambiguous and uniform price disclosures. While
           these recommendations may have merit, they were not directly
           linked to the report's findings, were based on research studies
           that had some methodological problems, or did not address
           implementation issues. Similarly, DOD proposed the recommendations
           without discussing the feasibility of implementing and enforcing
           the recommendations. While DOD's report addressed the requirements
           in the mandate, the shortcomings we identified in some of the
           methods and approach indicate that caution is necessary when
           interpreting the findings for some areas of DOD's report.
           Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
			  
           On August 21, 2007, we provided a draft of this report to DOD for
           review and comment. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
           for Personnel and Readiness provided the following comments.

"The Department stands by the content and recommendations in its August
9th, 2006, Report to Congress on Predatory Lending Practices Directed at
Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents. While more research is
always a laudable objective, GAO's existing findings, as it acknowledges,
point to the same conclusion the Department and the Congress reached: We
need to act to protect our Service personnel from predatory lending
practices."

           Contrary to DOD's comments, our report neither acknowledged nor
           disagreed with DOD's conclusion stated above. While actions may be
           needed to protect servicemembers from predatory lending practices,
           our report did not endorse or reject any action recommended in
           DOD's report. The scope of our work was limited to evaluating
           DOD's approach and support in preparing its mandated report on
           predatory lending practices.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 4 days after
its issue date. At that time, we will provide copies of this report to
interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Defense. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [3]http://www.gao.gov .

           If you have any questions about this report or need additional
           information, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or
           [4][email protected] . Contact points for our Offices of
           Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
           last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
           listed in enclosure III.
           
			  Brenda S. Farrell
           Director
           Defense Capabilities and Management

           Enclosure I

                        Briefing Slides

           Enclosure II
           
			  Scope & Methodology
           
			  Scope
           
			  In conducting our evaluation of DOD's report on predatory lending,
           we limited the scope of our work to the types of loans that DOD
           identified as being predatory in its mandated report. This
           includes payday loans, rent-to-own loans, automobile title pawns,
           tax refund loans, military installment loans, and Internet
           lending. Our work focused on active duty servicemembers as in our
           April 2005 reports. While DOD's report does not specify that some
           parts of its report pertain to only active or reserve personnel,
           we focused on active duty servicemembers based on DOD's use of
           survey results and other data on active duty servicemembers.
           
			  Methodology
           
			  To address our objective, which was to examine the approach and
           support for DOD's report, we examined legislation that mandated
           the DOD report and regulations such as governmentwide and DOD-wide
           standards for data quality. In addition to reviewing DOD's
           predatory lending report and the reports cited in that study, we
           reviewed and analyzed findings and perspectives contained in
           publications on related issues by GAO, the Congressional Research
           Service, Federal Reserve Board staff in Washington, D.C., Federal
           Deposit Insurance Corporation's Office of Inspector General,
           consumer groups (Consumer Federation of America and Center for
           Responsible Lending), and an association (Community Financial
           Services Association of America) that says it represents more than
           50 percent of payday lenders. DOD, service, and installation
           officials also provided additional views and documents pertaining
           to the prevalence and effects of predatory lending practices,
           programs and current strategies to educate servicemembers and
           their families about those practices, current strategies and
           programs for reducing or eliminating the prevalence and effect of
           predatory lending practices, and recommendations for legislative
           and administrative actions to reduce or eliminate the prevalence
           and effects of predatory lending practices.
           
			  In addressing our objective, we conducted interviews with and
           obtained documents from the officials in DOD's Office of the Under
           Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness who were
           responsible for preparing the report, and service policy
           officials. We also interviewed representatives from organizations
           that DOD consulted while developing its report (see table 1), and
           in some cases obtained related documentary evidence concerning
           their input during DOD's preparation of its report. We also held
           discussions with groups such as the Center for Regulatory
           Effectiveness and Community Financial Services Association of
           America, a payday lending association, to understand perspectives
           that were different from those provided in the DOD report.
           Additional perspectives were obtained from the public comments
           that other groups (e.g., other consumer groups and the lending
           industry) provided in response to proposed regulations that DOD
           published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2007.
           
			  Table 1: Organizations Supplying Information about Their
           Consultations with DOD during the Preparation of Its Mandated
           Report
			  
      Type of organization    Organization and location of the                
                              representative(s) interviewed                   
      Federal agencies        Federal Reserve, Washington, D.C.               
                              Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.           
                              Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,          
                              Washington, D.C.                                
      Military charities      Army Emergency Relief, Alexandria, Virginia     
                              Navy/Marine Corps Relief Society, Arlington,    
                              Virginia                                        
                              Air Force Aid Society, Arlington, Virginia      
      Consumer groups         Consumer Federation of America, Washington,     
                              D.C.                                            
                              Center for Responsible Lending, Washington,     
                              D.C.                                            
                              National Association of Consumer Advocates,     
                              Washington, D.C.                                
                              National Consumer Law Center, Boston,           
                              Massachusetts                                   
           
			  Source: GAO.
           
			  To further address our objective, we conducted site visits at the
           four installations shown in table 2. The team decided to select a
           nonprobability sample of four military installations--one per
           active duty DOD service. The criteria for selection included (1)
           installations with high personnel tempo; (2) installations from
           different services in the same geographic area for comparison
           between services; and (3) at least one installation that GAO
           visited during prior work on predatory lending for comparison
           across time.^9 Our findings from these site visits cannot be
           generalized to the population of all military personnel; however,
           these site visits provided us with additional information for our
           evaluation. During these site visits, we requested documents (such
           as training materials) pertaining to DOD's current efforts to
           minimize or eliminate the use and effects of predatory lending
           practices. We conducted individual interviews with seven types of
           officials at each base: installation leaders, personal financial
           management program managers, installation finance officials,
           command financial counselors, legal assistance attorneys, public
           affairs staff, and military charity organization officials. We
           used a structured protocol for conducting group discussions with
           more than 60 senior enlisted personnel at the four installations
           to gather anecdotal data from servicemembers about their
           experiences with the types of loans DOD identified as predatory.
           
			  Table 2: Locations Where GAO Conducted a Site Visit

      Service         Location                                     
      Army            Fort Lewis, Washington                       
      Navy            Navy Region Southwest, San Diego, California 
      Marine Corps    Camp Pendleton, California                   
      Air Force       McChord Air Force Base, Washington           
           
			  Source: GAO. 
         
			  Part of our assessment of DOD's report involved a review of the
           overall report methodology as well as a review of the methodology
           of key research studies and data sources cited in the report.
           Specifically, we focused our review on research studies that were
           critical to the report's message and the data sources used by DOD.
           We discussed these data sources with the DOD report authors to
           gain a better understanding of how and why they were selected for
           use. At least two internal methods experts, with support from
           statisticians as appropriate, reviewed these reports and data
           sources for the reasonableness and rigor of their data collection
           and analysis methods. Our review focused on the validity of the
           results and conclusions in relation to how they were used in the
           DOD report.
         
			  We performed our work between March 2007 and August 2007 in
           accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

^9GAO-05-348 and GAO-05-349.
   
	        Enclosure III

           GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

           GAO Contact:
           Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or [5][email protected] 

           Acknowledgments:

           In addition to the individual named above, Jack E. Edwards,
           Assistant Director; Pat L Bohan; Nora Boretti; Renee S. Brown;
           Cody Goebel; K. Nicole Harms; Ron La Due Lake; Charles W. Perdue;
           S. Andrew Stavisky; Elizabeth W. Wood; and Yiling Wong made key
           contributions to this report.
			  
Related GAO Reports

Guard and Reserve Personnel: Fiscal, Security, and Human Capital
Challenges Should be Considered in Developing a Revised Business Model for
the Reserve Component. GAO-07-984. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Establish a Strategy and Improve
Transparency over Reserve and National Guard Compensation to Manage
Significant Growth in Cost. GAO-07-828. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007.

Military Personnel: DOD Has Taken Steps to Address Servicemembers'
Financial Needs, but Additional Effort is Warranted. GAO-06-749T.
Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006.

Financial Product Sales: Actions Needed to Protect Military Members.
GAO-06-245T. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005.

Financial Product Sales: Actions Needed to Better Protect Military
Members. GAO-06-23. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs Better Controls over Supplemental Life
Insurance Solicitation Policies Involving Servicemembers. GAO-05-696.
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.

Military Personnel: DOD's Comments on GAO's Report on More DOD Actions
Needed to Address Servicemembers' Personal Financial Management Issues.
GAO-05-638R. Washington D.C.: May 11, 2005.

Military Personnel: More DOD Actions Needed to Address Servicemembers'
Personal Financial Management Issues. GAO-05-348. Washington, D.C.: April
26, 2005.

Military Personnel: DOD Tools for Curbing the Use and Effects of Predatory
Lending Not Fully Utilized. GAO-05-349. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2007.

Credit Reporting Literacy: Consumers Understood the Basics but Could
Benefit from Targeted Educational Efforts. GAO-05-223. Washington, D.C.:
March 16, 2005.

Highlights of a GAO Forum: The Federal Government's Role in Improving
Financial Literacy. GAO-05-93SP. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2004.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data Before It Can Determine if Costly
Changes to the Reserve Retirement System Are Warranted. GAO-04-1005.
Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2004.

Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced
Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-911. Washington, D.C.: August 20, 2004.

Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced
Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-990T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Military Personnel: DOD Has Not Implemented the High Deployment Allowance
that Could Compensate Servicemembers Deployed Frequently for Short
Periods. GAO-04-805. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.

Military Personnel: Active Duty Compensation and Its Tax Treatment.
GAO-04-721R. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004.

Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve Compensation,
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to Deployed Troops.
GAO-04-582T. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.

Military Personnel: Bankruptcy Filings among Active Duty Service Members.
GAO-04-465R. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2004.

Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-413T. Washington, D.C.:
January 28, 2004.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Effective Controls to Better Assess the
Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program. GAO-04-86.
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2003.

Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems. GAO-04-89. Washington, D.C.:
November 13, 2003.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data to Address Financial and Health
Care Issues Affecting Reservists. GAO-03-1004. Washington, D.C.: September
10, 2003.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Assess Certain Factors in Determining
Whether Hazardous Duty Pay Is Warranted for Duty in the Polar Regions.
GAO-03-554. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2003.

Military Personnel: Management and Oversight of Selective Reenlistment
Bonus Program Needs Improvement. GAO-03-149. Washington, D.C.: November
25, 2002.

Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics,
but Opportunities Exist to Improve. GAO-02-935. Washington, D.C.:
September 18, 2002.

           (350995)

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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [6]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
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
[7]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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [8]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [9][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [10][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [11][email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

This is a  work of the  U.S. government  and is not  subject to  copyright
protection in the United States.  The published product 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.

References

Visible links
3. http://www.gao.gov/
4. mailto:[email protected]
5. mailto:[email protected]
6. http://www.gao.gov/
7. http://www.gao.gov/
8. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
9. mailto:[email protected]
  10. mailto:[email protected]
  11. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***