    Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body Armor
    System Issues (26-APR-07, GAO-07-662R).

    Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S.
    forces have been subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from
    insurgents using various weapons such as improvised explosive
    devices (IED), mortars, rocket launchers, and increasingly lethal
    ballistic threats. Since 2003, to provide protection from
    ballistic threats, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is
    responsible for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other
    areas, has required service members and Department of Defense
    (DOD) civilians in its area of operations to be issued the
    Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system. Used by all U.S. military
    service members and DOD civilians in the area of operations, the
    IBA consists of an outer tactical vest with ballistic inserts or
    plates that cover the front, back, and sides. As the ballistic
    threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have also changed. The
    vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds, while the
    inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armor-piercing rounds.
    Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder,
    throat, and groin areas. Concerns also regarding the level of
    protection and amount of IBA needed to protect U.S. forces have
    occurred in recent years, prompted by a number of reports,
    newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body armor by both the
    Army and the Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine Corps recalled
    body armor because it concluded that the fielded body armor
    failed to meet contract specifications, and in November 2005, the
    Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed
    original ballistic testing. Additionally, in April 2005, we
    reported on shortages of critical force protection items,
    including individual body armor. Specifically, we found reasons
    for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages,
    production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In
    the report, we did not make specific recommendations regarding
    body armor, but we did make several recommendations to improve
    the effectiveness of DOD's supply system in supporting deployed
    forces for contingencies. DOD agreed with the intent of the
    recommendations and cited actions it had or was taking to
    eliminate supply chain deficiencies. Congress has expressed
    strong interest in assuring that body armor protects ground
    forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor DOD's and
    the services' actions to protect deployed ground forces, we
    reviewed the Army and Marine Corps's actions to address concerns
    regarding body armor to determine if they had taken actions to
    address these concerns. Because of broad congressional interest
    in the adequacy of body armor for the ground forces, we prepared
    this report under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct
    evaluations on his own initiative. Our objectives for this review
    were to determine to what extent the Army and Marine Corps (1)
    are meeting the theater requirements for body armor, (2) have the
    controls in place to assure that the manufacturing and fielding
    of body armor meet requirements, and (3) are sharing information
    regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic requirements and
    testing.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-662R
        ACCNO:   A68849
      TITLE:     Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual
    Body Armor System Issues
         DATE:   04/26/2007
      SUBJECT:   Department of Defense contractors
    	     Information management
    	     Military forces
    	     Military personnel
    	     Operational testing
    	     Product evaluation
    	     Protective equipment
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Requirements definition
    	     Testing
    	     Information sharing
    	     Interceptor Body Armor

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-07-662R

         * [1]end of correspond & Test.pdf

              * [2]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

                   * [3]Order by Mail or Phone

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    April 26, 2007

    Congressional Committees:

    Subject: Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body Armor
    System Issues.

    Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces have
    been subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from insurgents using
    various weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IED), mortars,
    rocket launchers, and increasingly lethal ballistic threats. Since 2003,
    to provide protection from ballistic threats, U.S. Central Command
    (CENTCOM), which is responsible for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and
    other areas, has required service members and Department of Defense (DOD)
    civilians in its area of operations to be issued the Interceptor Body
    Armor (IBA) system.^1 Used by all U.S. military service members and DOD
    civilians in the area of operations, the IBA consists of an outer tactical
    vest with ballistic inserts or plates that cover the front, back, and
    sides. As the ballistic threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have
    also changed. The vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds,
    while the inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armorpiercing rounds.
    Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder, throat, and
    groin areas.

    Concerns also regarding the level of protection and amount of IBA needed
    to protect U.S. forces have occurred in recent years, prompted by a number
    of reports, newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body armor by both
    the Army and the Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine Corps recalled body
    armor because it concluded that the fielded body armor failed to meet
    contract specifications, and in November 2005, the Army and Marine Corps
    recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed original ballistic testing.^2
    Additionally, in April 2005,^3 we reported on shortages of critical force
    protection items, including individual body armor. Specifically, we found
    reasons for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages,
    production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In the
    report, we did not make specific recommendations regarding body armor, but
    we did make several recommendations to improve the effectiveness of DOD's
    supply system in supporting deployed forces for contingencies. DOD agreed
    with the intent of the recommendations and cited actions it had or was
    taking to eliminate supply chain deficiencies.

    1U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is one of DOD's five geographic combatant
    commands, whose area of responsibilities encompasses 27 countries,
    including Iraq and Afghanistan, in Southwest Asia, South and Central Asia,
    and the Horn of Africa. Combatant commanders are responsible for
    overseeing U.S. military operations that take place in their geographic
    area.

    2Army and Marine Corps officials told us they took actions to address the
    reasons the lots failed.

    3GAO, Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during
    Current and Future Operations, GAO-05-275 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,
    2005).

    Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring that body armor
    protects ground forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor
    DOD's and the services' actions to protect deployed ground forces, we
    reviewed the Army and Marine Corps's actions to address concerns regarding
    body armor to determine if they had taken actions to address these
    concerns. Because of broad congressional interest in the adequacy of body
    armor for the ground forces, we prepared this report under the Comptroller
    General's authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative. Our
    objectives for this review were to determine to what extent the Army and
    Marine Corps (1) are meeting the theater requirements for body armor, (2)
    have the controls in place to assure that the manufacturing and fielding
    of body armor meet requirements, and
    (3) are sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor
    ballistic requirements and testing. We are addressing this report to you
    because of your committee's oversight responsibilities.

    On February 22, 2007, we briefed congressional staff on our preliminary
    observations. This report expands on the information delivered in that
    briefing and includes additional information concerning whether
    contractors or non-DOD civilians obtain body armor in the same way as U.S.
    forces and DOD civilians given the number of contractors and non-DOD
    civilians in CENTCOM's area of operation. We are attaching the slides from
    the briefing as enclosure I.

                                 Scope and Methodology

    Our audit work primarily focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor
    systems for
    U.S. service members and DOD and non-DOD civilian personnel deployed
    within CENTCOM's area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. To
    determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting the theater
    ballistic and inventory requirements for body armor, we reviewed
    documentation and interviewed officials from key DOD, Army, and Marine
    Corps organizations, such as the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Defense Logistics Agency, and
    CENTCOM, which are responsible for managing theater ballistic and
    inventory requirements. We visited the Army and Marine Corps body armor
    program offices to obtain and analyze overall development and management
    of their systems. We analyzed the ballistic requirements and compared
    these requirements to the body armor systems provided to personnel. The
    DOD operations officials and the Army and Marine Corps body armor program
    officials provided us with information about both theater requirements and
    body armor systems available worldwide for the Army and the Marine Corps.
    We analyzed this information to determine if the amount of body armor
    available would meet the amounts needed in theater. Their information
    included the quantities of the outer tactical vests and its subparts
    provided to military personnel as well as DOD civilians and contractors
    embedded in deployed units.^4 We also visited the following sites--Fort
    Stewart, Georgia; Fort Lewis, Washington; the Naval Station and the
    Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Virginia; and the Marine Corps Base in
    Quantico, Virginia. At Fort Stewart
    and Fort Lewis, we interviewed Army officials to determine if body armor
    was being distributed to service members. To determine the distribution
    practices for those preparing to deploy, including contractor and non-DOD
    civilians, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials at these
    sites in addition to CENTCOM officials. We analyzed the distribution
    practices to assure that personnel were receiving body armor systems that
    met ballistic theater requirements and that these systems were available
    for those preparing to deploy. We also met with DOD Inspector General
    staff who have worked on body armor issues, and obtained and reviewed
    reports they have issued. We selected and analyzed Army classified
    readiness reports,^5 from December 2006 to February 2007 and two months of
    Marine Corps reports from December 2006 and January 2007 for deploying and
    deployed combat units. Our analysis was to determine whether commanders
    were reporting problems with body armor, such as shortages, or whether the
    Army identified it as a critical item affecting unit readiness.^6

    4Subparts include protectors for the upper arms and side of the torso in
    addition to sets of ballistic inserts for the vests.

    To assess the extent to which the services have controls in place during
    manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets
    requirements, we reviewed documentation and discussed the services'
    ballistic test processes and procedures with their program and technical
    officials. We analyzed these test processes and procedures to determine if
    there are controls in place that assure body armor meets ballistic
    requirements during manufacturing and after fielding. Our analysis
    included ballistic test methods for the tactical vests and the protective
    plate inserts; however, we did not independently verify test results. In
    addition, we reviewed the services' past experiences where the services
    concluded that fielded body armor systems failed to meet contract
    specifications and ballistic testing requirements. We analyzed the
    services' actions to determine if their actions corrected the failures. We
    also reviewed documentation and interviewed Army and Marine Corps body
    armor program officials who provided manufacturer production quality and
    ballistic testing lot failures for early 2006 through early 2007.

    To identify the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps share
    information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic requirements
    and testing, we analyzed the services' body armor programs and policies
    and discussed with service officials whether there is a requirement to
    share information between the services regarding their separate programs.
    We also discussed with officials and reviewed documentation to determine
    whether the services do share information and if shared, what specific
    actions they take. To determine whether contractors or non-DOD civilians
    obtain body armor in the same way as U.S. forces and DOD civilians in
    CENTCOM's area of operations, we obtained and analyzed DOD and CENTCOM
    policy regarding personal protection for contractors and non-DOD
    civilians. We also interviewed Army, Marine Corps, and CENTCOM officials
    on this issue.

    We found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review and
    this report. We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    5We searched commanders' classified comments contained in the Status of
    Resources and Training System (SORTS) for entries related to body armor
    and its parts.

    6To determine the reliability of the unit readiness reports, we spoke with
    key DOD and service officials and found the data sufficiently reliable for
    the purposes of our review and this report.

                                        Summary

    In this review, we found that the Army and Marine Corps have taken several
    actions to meet theater requirements, assure testing, and share
    information on body armor. We also found that contractors and non-DOD
    civilians receive body armor if this provision is included in a negotiated
    contract. Specifically, we found that the Army and Marine Corps

         o are currently meeting theater ballistic requirements and the required
           amount needed for personnel in theater, including the amounts needed
           for the surge of troops into Iraq;
         o have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to
           assure that body armor meets requirements; and
         o share information regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and
           the development of future body armor systems, although they are not
           required to do so.

    Regarding contractors or non-DOD civilians, we found that DOD Instruction
    3020.41 allows DOD to provide body armor to contractors where permitted by
    applicable DOD instructions and military department regulations and where
    specified under the terms of the contract. CENTCOM's position is that body
    armor will be provided to contractors if it is part of a negotiated
    contract.

    More detailed information on each of these areas is presented below.

            o Requirements: Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting
              theater ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for
              personnel in theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of
              troops into Iraq. Page 13 of the enclosed briefing details Army and
              Marine Corps theater requirements and worldwide inventory
              quantities of the body armor systems. CENTCOM requires that all
              U.S. military forces and all DOD civilians in the area of
              operations receive the body armor system. Currently, service
              members receive all service-specific standard components of the
              body armor system prior to deploying. For example, the Army issues
              the shoulder protection equipment to all its forces; however,
              Marine Corps personnel receive this equipment item in theater on an
              as-needed basis. The Army and the Marine Corps provide the DOD
              civilians with components of the armor system. However, the
              timeframe for receipt of these items varies as some receive the
              body armor prior to deploying and others upon arrival in-theater.
            o Army unit commanders only reported one body armor issue in their
              December 2006 to February 2007 classified readiness reports. This
              one issue did not raise a significant concern regarding the body
              armor. Moreover, Marine Corps commanders' comments contained in the
              December 2006 and January 2007 readiness reports did not identify
              any body armor issues affecting their units' readiness. In December
              2006 and January 2007, the Army, in its critical equipment list did
              not identify body armor as a critical equipment item affecting its
              unit readiness.

         o Testing: The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during
           manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets
           requirements. Both services conduct quality and ballistic testing
           prior to fielding and lots are rejected if the standards are not met.
           They both also conduct formal testing on every lot of body armor
           (vests and protective inserts) prior to acceptance and issuance to
           troops. During production, which is done at several sites, the lots of
           body armor are sent to a National Institute of Justice certified
           laboratory for ballistic testing and to the Defense Contract
           Management Agency for quality testing (size, weight, stitching) prior
           to issuance to troops. Once approved, the body armor is issued to
           operating forces. Currently, both Army and Marine Corps personnel are
           issued body armor prior to deployment. The Army lot failure rate from
           January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32 percent for the enhanced small
           arms inserts, and there were no failures for the outer tactical
           vests.^7 From February 2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot
           failure rate was 4.70 percent for the outer tactical vests.

    Although not required to do so, after the systems have been used in the
    field, the Army does limited ballistic testing of outer tactical vests and
    environmental testing of the outer tactical vests and the inserts. The
    Marine Corps visually inspects the vest and the plates for damage.
    According to Army officials, there has been no degradation of body armor
    based on ballistic and environmental testing results. Additionally, to
    determine future enhancements and improvements, the Army and the Marine
    Corps body armor program offices monitor and assess the use of body armor
    in the field, including the review of medical reports from the Armed
    Forces Medical Examiner. For example, the Army and Marine Corps added side
    plates and throat protection based on body armor usage in the field.

    DOD has a standard methodology for ballistic testing of the hard body
    armor plates, but not for the soft body armor vest. Currently, DOD's
    Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, office is developing a standard
    methodology for ballistic testing of the soft body armor to eliminate
    discrepancies in testing methodologies. The new standard is expected to be
    issued sometime in 2007.

    o Information Sharing: The Army and Marine Corps share information
    regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and the development of
    future body armor systems, although they are not required to do so. For
    example, in August 2006 the Marine Corps attended the Army's test of next
    generation body armor types at Fort Benning, Georgia. Similarly, the Army
    sent representatives to attend the Marine Corps's operational assessment
    of the new Modular Tactical Vest. DOD officials indicate that there is no
    requirement to share information. Title 10 of the

    U.S. Codeallows each service to have separate programs, according to Army
    and Marine Corps officials. Nevertheless, the services are sharing
    information

    The lot failure rate is calculated by dividing the total lots rejected by
    the total lots tested. A lot is a pallet or grouping of manufactured items
    varying in number per lot. For example, the Army's outer vest lots range
    from 1,100 to 1,200. A lot is manufactured within a specific period of
    time, at a common location.

    regarding ongoing research and development for the next generation of body

    armor.

    o Contractors and non-DOD civilians: Regarding contractors or non-DOD
    civilians, we found that DOD Instruction 3020.41 allows DOD to provide
    body armor to contractors where permitted by applicable DOD instructions
    and military department regulations and where specified under the terms of
    the contract. It is CENTCOM's position that body armor will be provided to
    contractors if it is part of the terms and conditions of the contract.
    According to CENTCOM officials, non-DOD government civilians such as State
    Department civilians are expected to make their own arrangements to obtain
    this protection. However, the officials indicated that commanders, at
    their discretion, can provide body armor to any personnel within their
    area of operation.

                                    Agency Comments

    DOD officials did not provide written comments to the draft but provided
    specific technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
    committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense
    (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); the Secretaries of the Army,
    Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies of
    this report will also be made available to others upon request. In
    addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
    at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
    (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov . Contact points for our Office of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
    of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report
    includes Tracy Burney, Grace Coleman, Alfonso Garcia, Jennifer Jebo,
    Lonnie McAllister, Terry Richardson, Lorelei St. James, and Leo Sullivan.

    William M. Solis, Director
    Defense Capabilities and Management

    Enclosure

    Congressional Committees

    The Honorable Carl Levin
    Chairman
    The Honorable John McCain
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Armed Services
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Daniel Inouye
    Chairman The Honorable Ted Stevens
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Defense
    Committee on Appropriations
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Ike Skelton
    Chairman
    The Honorable Duncan Hunter
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Armed Services
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable John P. Murtha
    Chairman
    The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Defense
    Committee on Appropriations
    House of Representatives

    Enclosure I

    GAO Review of Body Armor Preliminary Observations

                                       Background

    o Concerns about body armor have occurred in recent years.

         o In February 2005, an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology report found
           that body armor did not provide side protection.
         o In April 2005, GAO reported that there were shortages in body armor
           due to material shortages, production limitations, and in-theater
           distribution problems.
         o In May 2005, Marine Corps recalled body armor because it concluded
           that the fielded body armor failed to meet contract specifications;
           public concern raised.
         o In November 2005, Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor
           that failed original ballistic testing, but were accepted by DOD.
         o In January 2006, a New York Times article reported on the Institute of
           Pathology report and the recalls, raising public concern again.

                                           5

                                       Background

         o Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring body armor protects
           ground troops including the amount and level of ballistic protection,
           testing of body armor before and after fielding, and coordination of
           requirements and testing between the Army and Marine Corps.

              o GAO has conducted prior and ongoing work concerning force
                protection for ground forces, including truck armor to protect
                forces
              o from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

         o GAO began review of body armor as part of its review of protection of
           ground forces.

                                       Objectives

    o Our overall objective was to determine if the actions of the Army and
    Marine Corps have addressed body armor concerns. Specific objectives were
    to determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps are

         o meeting the theater requirements for body armor,
         o have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to
           assure that body armor meets requirements, and
         o sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic
           requirements and testing.

                                           7

                                 Scope and Methodology

         o Our review focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor for personnel
           deployed within the Central Command's (CENTCOM) Area of Operation
           including Iraq and Afghanistan.

              o We visited or contacted the following organizations during our
                review:

                   o Office of the Secretary of Defense
                   o Army Headquarters Operations & Army Program Executive Office
                     (PEO) Soldier
                   o Marine Corps Systems Command & Marine Corps Combat
                     Development Command
                   o Air Force Security Force Requirements Branch
                   o Naval Expeditionary Combat Command & Navy Fleet Forces
                     Command
                   o Defense Logistics Agency
                   o CENTCOM

                                 Scope and Methodology

         o To determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting the theater
           requirements for body armor, we interviewed DOD officials and reviewed
           the CENTCOM policy on body armor. In addition, we reviewed Army and
           Marine Corps requirements specifying the amount of body armor needed
           and the ballistic specifications needed for protection against the
           theater threat.
         o We interviewed service officials and discussed ballistic test
           processes and procedures, to determine the extent of Army and Marine
           Corps body armor tested during production and in the field. We did not
           independently verify test results.
         o To determine the extent the Army and the Marine Corps share
           information regarding their efforts on body armor, we interviewed
           service officials to determine if there is a policy that requires the
           services to coordinate, and if not, whether they do, and what actions
           they take to coordinate.
         o We selected and analyzed Army classified unit readiness reports for
           deployed and deploying units to CENTCOM's Area of Responsibility from
           December 2006 to February 2007 and Marine Corps units for December
           2006 and January 2007 to determine if commanders' comments reported
           body armor as an issue. From the classified data, we also extracted
           and analyzed the total Army's critical equipment items list that
           identify items that may impact unit readiness--as of December 2006 and
           January 2007 to determine if body armor was reported as a critical
           equipment item.
         o We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in accordance
           with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                            Preliminary Observations Summary

    o The Army and Marine Corps have taken several actions to meet theater
    requirements, assure testing, and share information on body armor.

         o Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting theater
           ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in
           theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of troops into
           Iraq.
         o The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing
           and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The
           Army and the Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior
           to fielding. Lots are rejected if the standards are not met.
         o The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic
           requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
           systems, although they are not required to do so.

                         Preliminary Observations Requirements

    o The Army and the Marine Corps have body armor to meet the theater
    ballistic requirement and the amount needed for personnel in theater. They
    also have sufficient quantities of body armor for the surge of troops in
    Iraq.

               Preliminary Observations Requirements as of February 2007

                                            Army               Marine Corps
    Body                           Amount    Current   Amount        Current
    armor                        needed in  worldwide   needed in   worldwide
    systems                       theater   available  theater      available
                                               inventory               inventory
    Outer                         154,000    991,580   23,000        198,088
    tactical
    vest
    Enhanced small arms inserts   154,000    402,369   23,000      56,970
    Side protection               154,000    244,192   23,000      50,500
    Shoulder proctection          154,000    243,229   4,600       4,600

    Army and Marine  Corps amounts include  service personnel, DOD  civilians,
    and contractors embedded with units. For the Army, shoulder protection  is
    issued, but its use is optional. Shoulder protection is not issued to  all
    Marine Corps personnel. It is only issued to specialized personnel such as
    Marine Corps turret gunners.

    Source: Army Operations, PEO Soldier and Marine Corps Systems Command. [13

         o CENTCOM requires that all U.S. military service members and DOD
           civilians in the area of operations be issued Interceptor Body Armor.
           According to Army and Marine Corps officials, all service members
           currently receive body armor components before they deploy. The
           Marines receive components prior to deployment, except the shoulder
           protection, which is provided in theater, if needed.
         o DOD civilians receive components from the Army and the Marine Corps.
           Some receive the body armor prior to deploying, while others may
           receive it in theater.
         o According to Army and Marine Corps officials, CENTCOM tactical-level
           commanders will prescribe the use of the body armor components based
           on their estimate of the situation. Situational factors include
           assessments of enemy threat, environmental conditions, and the
           tactical missions assigned to their units.
         o In our review of Army unit readiness data from December 2006 to
           February 2007 and Marine Corps data for December 2006 and January
           2007, only one body armor issue was reported in the commanders'
           comments. During the December 2006 to February 2007 time period, the
           five Army brigades identified for the Iraq surge did not indicate that
           body armor was a problem.
         o In our review of Army critical equipment items impacting readiness as
           of December 2006 and January 2007, body armor was not identified as a
           critical equipment item impacting unit readiness.

    o The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing
    and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The Army
    and the Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior to
    fielding. Lots are rejected if the standards are not met.

         o The Army and the Marine Corps conducts formal testing on every lot of
           body armor (Vests and Protective Inserts) prior to acceptance and
           issuance to troops. The body armor vests and plates are manufactured
           at several sites.
         o During production, the lots of body armor are sent to a National
           Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified laboratory for ballistic testing
           and DCMA for quality testing (size, weight, stitching) prior to
           issuance to troops. Once approved, the body armor is issued to
           operating forces. Both the Army and the Marine Corps are issued body
           armor prior to deployment.
         o Army lot failure rate from January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32% for
           the Enhanced Small Arms Inserts and no failures for the outer tactical
           vests. From February 2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot
           failure rate was 4.70% for the outer tactical vests.

    Preliminary Observations Testing

         o The DOD has had a standard methodology for ballistic testing of hard
           body armor (plates) since December 1997.
         o DOD's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation office is currently
           developing a standard methodology for ballistic testing of soft body
           armor (vests). The new standard will eliminate discrepancies in
           testing methodology that resulted in inconsistent ballistic results
           contributing to the November 2005 recall. The new standard is expected
           to be issued sometime in 2007.

    Preliminary Observations Information Sharing

    o The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic
    requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
    systems, although they are not required to do so.

            o The Army and Marine Corps officials said that Title 10 of the

    U.S. Code allows each to have separate programs.

         o The Army and Marine Corps are sharing information regarding ballistic
           requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
           systems.
         o The Army and Marine Corps informally share information regarding
           on-going research and development for the next generation of body
           armor.

    (350794)

    *** End of document. ***