Financial Management: DOD's Ability to Prevent, Identify,	 
Investigate, and Report on Antideficiency Act Violations	 
(28-JUL-08, GAO-08-941R).					 
                                                                 
This report formally transmits a briefing in response to Senate  
Report No.110-77, which accompanied the National Defense	 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Senate Report	 
directed GAO to review the department's efforts to prevent,	 
identify, investigate, and report Antideficiency Act (ADA)	 
violations and disciplinary actions taken when violations occur. 
On July 22, 2008, we provided our preliminary observations to	 
staff of Congressional committees in response to the mandate. We 
will be reporting details on the information presented in the	 
briefing in a future report.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-941R					        
    ACCNO:   A83135						        
  TITLE:     Financial Management: DOD's Ability to Prevent, Identify,
Investigate, and Report on Antideficiency Act Violations	 
     DATE:   07/28/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Defense budgets					 
	     Defense cost control				 
	     Disciplinary actions				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Financial management				 
	     Funds management					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Noncompliance					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Anti-deficiency act violations			 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-941R

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

GAO-08-941R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548 

July 28, 2008: 

Congressional Committees: 

Subject: Financial Management: DOD's Ability to Prevent, Identify, 
Investigate, and Report on Antideficiency Act Violations: 

This report formally transmits the attached briefing in response to 
Senate Report No. 110-77,[Footnote 1] which accompanied the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[Footnote 2] The Senate 
Report directed GAO to review the department's efforts to prevent, 
identify, investigate, and report Antideficiency Act (ADA) violations 
and disciplinary actions taken when violations occur. On July 22, 2008, 
we provided our preliminary observations to staff of your committees in 
response to the mandate. We will be reporting details on the 
information presented in the briefing in a future report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies of our final report to the 
Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and 
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This report will also 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any questions 
concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9095 or 
[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 were Darby Smith, Assistant 
Director; Evelyn Logue, Assistant Director; F. Abe Dymond, Assistant 
General Counsel; Lauren Catchpole; Francine DelVecchio; Sandra Lord-
Drakes; Jamie Haynes; Wil Holloway; and Jason Kirwan. 

Signed by: 

Paula M. Rascona:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance: 

List of Congressional Committees: 

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

The Honorable Daniel K. 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: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure: Slide presentation: 

DODï¿½s Ability to Prevent, Identify, Investigate, and Report on
Antideficiency Act Violations: 

Briefing for the Congressional Defense Committees: 

July 2008: 

Briefing Agenda: 

* Introduction; 
* Summary of Preliminary Observations; 
* Background; 
* Objectives; 
* Scope and Methodology; 
* Preliminary Observations; 
* Agency Views. 

Introduction: 

On January 17, 2007, the Department of Defense (DOD) Acting Inspector 
General testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, on potential 
violations of the Antideficiency Act (ADA) at DOD. 

Based on the DOD Inspector Generalï¿½s testimony, the committee expressed
concerns about the volume of potential ADA violations, the pace and 
transparency of ADA investigations, and DOD's process for investigating 
potential violations. 

Senate Report No. 110-77,[Footnote 3] which accompanied the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,[Footnote 4] directed 
GAO to review the departmentï¿½s efforts to prevent, identify, 
investigate, and report ADA violations and disciplinary actions taken 
when violations occur. 

Summary of Preliminary Observations: 

Given the numerous documented control risks over funds control, DOD 
does not have reasonable assurance that it has prevented, identified, 
investigated, and reported all potential ADA violations. 

DOD has stated that knowledgeable personnel are critical to improving 
the departmentï¿½s funds control processes and the military services have 
efforts underway to provide training. However, neither the Navy nor the 
Air Force could provide documentation of the processes and procedures 
they have or will utilize to ensure that their key funds control 
personnel are trained. 

Neither the DOD Comptroller nor the military services had effectively 
overseen and monitored compliance with DODï¿½s Financial Management 
Regulation (FMR) provisions to ensure that those assigned to 
investigate potential ADA violations were qualified, trained, and 
independent. 

The DOD Comptroller has taken steps to improve transparency within the 
department over the ADA investigation process. 

Disciplinary actions taken by the military services for the 34 cases 
with confirmed ADA violations in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 were 
consistent with the Act and the DOD FMR. 

Background ï¿½ Antideficiency Act: 

Federal agencies, including DOD, are responsible for ensuring that
appropriated funds are used only for purposes, and within the amount 
and timeframes, prescribed by Congress. 

ADA is not a single act, but rather a series of related provisions that
evolved over a period of time to require and enforce apportionments and 
agency subdivisions of apportionments to achieve more effective control 
and conservation of funds. 

The ADA contains both affirmative requirements and specific 
prohibitions, such as the: 

* requirement that OMB, on delegation from the President, apportion 
appropriated funds and other budgetary resources for all executive 
branch agencies. An apportionment may divide amounts available for 
obligation by specific time periods (usually quarters), activities,
projects, objects, or combination thereof; 

* requirement for a system of administrative controls within each 
agency, established by regulation, that is designed to (1) prevent 
obligations and expenditures in excess of apportionments or 
reapportionments; (2) fix responsibility for any such obligations or
expenditures; and (3) establish the levels at which the agency may 
administratively subdivide apportionments, if it chooses to do so, and; 

* prohibition against the incurring of obligations or making of 
expenditures in advance or in excess of an appropriation. 

The DOD FMR, which was approved by OMB, serves as the department's 
funds control regulation and establishes procedures for DOD components 
to use in identifying, investigating, reporting, and processing ADA 
violations. 

Objectives: Senate Report areas of interest: 

* Determine the effectiveness of existing measures for the prevention 
of Antideficiency Act violations (slide 10); 

* Determine the adequacy of training provided to DOD military and 
civilian personnel (slide 11); 

* Determine the adequacy of current procedures utilized for preliminary 
and formal investigations of potential Antideficiency Act violations 
(slide 12); 

* Determine the qualifications and independence of personnel utilized 
at each stage of an investigation (slides 13 and 14); 

* Determine the timeliness of investigations of potential violations 
(slide 15); 

* Determine the transparency both inside and outside DOD of the 
investigating process (slides 16 and 17); 

* Determine the use and adequacy of available disciplinary measures for
Antideficiency Act violations (slides 18 and 19). 

Scope and Methodology: 

We analyzed the 54 ADA cases DOD closed for the military services in 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 

* 34 cases ï¿½ DOD concluded that an ADA violation had occurred; 

* 20 cases ï¿½ DOD concluded that an ADA violation had not occurred. 

We reviewed prior GAO and DOD Inspector General audit reports, and OMB 
and GAO guidance to obtain an understanding of the deficiencies in 
DOD's funds control systems, processes, and internal control that 
impede its ability to prevent or identify ADA violations. 

We reviewed documentation and interviewed DOD and military service 
personnel to obtain an understanding of the long-term and interim 
solutions the department has underway to improve its ability to prevent 
and identify potential ADA violations. 

We reviewed DODï¿½s FMR and interviewed appropriate officials to identify 
DOD criteria pertaining to the timeliness of investigations, the 
qualifications and independence requirements of investigating officers, 
and the processes and procedures for ensuring compliance with the FMR. 

We did not assess whether the conclusions reached or the disciplinary 
actions taken for the ADA cases reviewed were appropriate. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 through July 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the information 
provided based on our audit objectives. 

Preliminary Observations: Effectiveness of Existing Measures in 
Preventing ADA Violations: 

DODï¿½s complex and inefficient payment processes, nonintegrated business 
systems, and weak internal control environment hinder its ability to 
ensure prompt and proper matching of disbursements with obligations and 
to adequately control and record transactions. 

DODï¿½s processes to timely and reliably determine the amount of funds 
available to spend are cumbersome, placing the department at risk for 
overobligating and overspending its appropriations in violation of the 
ADA. 

In its fiscal year 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, the 
department acknowledged that there are pervasive weaknesses in its 
internal control system. 

Preliminary Observations: Adequacy of Training Provided to Funds 
Control Personnel: 

DOD and military service officials have stated that knowledgeable 
personnel are critical to improving the departmentï¿½s funds control
processes. 

The military services have efforts underway to provide classroom or web-
based training to key funds control personnel. 

However, neither the Navy nor the Air Force could provide documentation 
of the processes and procedures they have or will utilize to ensure 
that key funds control personnel are trained. 

Preliminary Observations: Adequacy of Procedures Used to Conduct 
Preliminary and Formal ADA Investigations: 

The DOD FMR, which was approved by OMB, serves as the department's 
funds control regulation and establishes procedures for DOD components 
to use in identifying, investigating, and reporting ADA violations. 

However, neither DOD nor the military services have processes and 
procedures for ensuring compliance with the FMR. While we did not 
evaluate how each case was investigated, we found that the military 
services did not: 

* have documentation to verify that investigating officers were 
qualified, trained, and independent; 

* comply with the FMR in ensuring that ADA cases were completed within 
the established timeframes. 

Preliminary Observations: Investigating Officer - Qualifications: 

Neither DOD nor the military services had established processes and 
procedures to oversee and monitor compliance with FMR provisions to 
ensure that investigating officers were qualified. 

We were unable to determine whether most of the 66 investigating 
officers assigned to the 54 ADA cases reviewed had received training. 
Specifically, our work showed that only: 

* 7 had received initial training in fiscal law; 

* 4 of the above 7 had received refresher fiscal law training within 5 
years of initial training; 

* 5 had received training on how to conduct an investigation. 

Preliminary Observations: Investigating Officer - Independence: 

The FMR does not require documentation of investigating officer 
independence. 

The military services had not established processes and procedures to 
ensure that investigating officers were free of personal or external 
impairments to their ability to conduct objective and independent ADA 
reviews and investigations consistent with the DOD FMR. 

The military servicesï¿½ appeared to focus on organizational independence 
as the criterion for ensuring investigating officer independence. 

Our analysis of the 54 ADA cases disclosed that in: 

* 35 cases, the military services chose the investigating officer(s) 
from an organization external to the one under investigation and 
therefore was organizationally independent; 

* 19 cases, the military services lacked documentation needed to 
determine whether the investigating officer assigned to the case was 
organizationally independent. 

Preliminary Observations: Timeliness of ADA Cases: 

The FMR has set forth that a preliminary review, formal investigation, 
and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) review should be completed
within approximately 15 months and 25 days, however, none of the 

military services consistently met this timeframe. 

Of the 54 ADA cases, 22 (or over 41 percent) took longer than 30 months
to complete. 

The average timeframes for the military services to complete the ADA
investigative process: 

* Army ï¿½ 33 months; 
* Air Force ï¿½ 31 months; 
* Navy (formal and OSD phases only) ï¿½ 17 months. 

Military service officials were unable to provide specific reasons as 
to why the established timeframes were not generally achieved other than
indicating that each case has its own set of specific circumstances and
complexities. 

Preliminary Observations: Transparency of the Investigation Process: 

DOD had internal visibility over the 54 ADA cases closed for the 
military services in 2006 and 2007 as required by the FMR and the Act. 
It has begun to provide internal visibility for open cases. The 
department externally reported the 34 cases it concluded had an ADA 
violation to the President and the Congress, with a copy to GAO, as 
required by the Act. 

The DOD Comptroller has taken steps to improve transparency of the ADA 
investigation process, including: 

* implementation of an electronic ï¿½dashboardï¿½ in 2006 for use in
monitoring ongoing formal investigations within the department; 

* a February 2008 update to the FMR requires components to report 
information to the DOD Comptroller on preliminary reviews. 

As of June 17, 2008, none of the military services had reported the 
full scope of information on preliminary reviews as required by the 
FMR. Examples of missing information include: (1) the means by which 
the violation was discovered, (2) anticipated dates of completion, and
(3) the names and contact information for members of the preliminary 
review team. 

Preliminary Observations: Disciplinary Actions: 

For the 34 closed ADA cases in which DOD concluded that an ADA 
violation had occurred, we determined that the nature of the 
disciplinary actions taken were consistent with the Act and the DOD 
FMR. 

The Act and the FMR identify the types of disciplinary actions that may 
be taken. Agency management decides what disciplinary action, if any, 
to take. 

Table 1: Disciplinary Actions Taken By the Military Services in 34 
Cases of Antideficiency Act Violations Reported in Fiscal Years 2006 
and 2007: 

Types of discipline: No discipline; 
Army: 19; 
Navy: 6; 
Air Force: 2. 

Types of discipline: Verbal discipline; 
Army: 2; 
Navy: 4; 
Air Force: 4. 

Types of discipline: Non-punitive discipline; 
Army: 19; 
Navy: 5; 
Air Force: 1. 

Types of discipline: Formal discipline; 
Army: 19; 
Navy: 2; 
Air Force: 0. 

Types of discipline: Total[Footnote 5]; 
Army: 59; 
Navy: 17; 
Air Force: 7. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

We did not assess the appropriateness of disciplinary actions imposed 
in any case. 

Agency Views: 

We obtained oral comments on a draft version of these slides. The DOD 
Comptroller, the Army, and the Air Force generally agreed with the 
information presented. The Navy generally did not agree with the issues 
presented. However, the Navy was unable to provide documentation to
substantiate that funds control personnel were properly trained and 
their investigating officers were qualified, trained, and independent. 
Based upon comments received, we have revised our slides, as 
appropriate. 

[End of enclosure] 

Footnotes: 

[1] S. Rep. No.110-77, at 401 (Oct.1, 2007). 

[2] S. 1547, 110TH Cong.: See Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3 (Jan. 
28, 2008). 

[3] S. Rep. No. 110-77, at 401 (October 1, 2007). 

[4] S. 1547, 110th Cong.: See Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3 (Jan. 
28, 2008). 

[5] Disciplinary actions may have been taken against multiple 
individuals. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***