Military Base Closures: Unexpended Funds Raise Questions About Fiscal
Year 2001 Funding Needs (Letter Report, 07/10/2000, GAO/NSIAD-00-170).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of
Defense's (DOD) base closure accounts and its budget request for base
closure activities, focusing on: (1) how trends in base realignment and
closure appropriations in recent years and estimates for future years
compare to the fiscal year (FY) 2001 budget request; and (2)
unliquidated obligations and unobligated balances from prior years'
appropriations and the extent to which DOD considered these balances and
obligations in preparing the FY 2001 budget request.

GAO noted that: (1) appropriations for the 1990 base closure account
have declined steadily since 1996 as more base closure and realignment
actions have been completed; (2) however, for FY 2001, DOD is requesting
about $1.2 billion in new budget authority, significantly more than last
year's appropriation of about $700 million; (3) a larger, $1.6-billion
budget request was initially planned for FY 2001, but the final
$1.2-billion request resulted from several downward adjustments made as
the budget request was being developed; (4) of particular note was a
decision by DOD officials to reduce the planning estimate for FY 2001 by
$363 million because they did not believe the larger amount could be
reasonably executed in FY 2001; (5) additional reductions were made
primarily because prior years' environmental cleanup funds were being
expended at a slower pace than anticipated; (6) at the time the FY 2001
budget estimate was being developed, DOD had about $500 million in
reported unobligated balances from previous years' appropriations in the
1990 account, about $114 million of which was appropriated in FY 1998 or
earlier; (7) additionally, it had $1.6 billion in reported unliquidated
obligations from prior appropriations in the 1990 account, of which
about $115 million were appropriated in 1995 or earlier; (8) the
majority of the $115 million were unliquidated funds resulted from
environmental cleanup activities that were carried out more slowly than
planned; (9) available data indicate that only the Navy provided
documentation that it had considered unobligated and unliquidated
balances in formulating its portion of the budget request; (10) in
finalizing the FY 2001 budget request, Defense Comptroller officials
initially proposed reductions of over $200 million because of concerns
over slow budget execution and large amounts of unliquidated
obligations, but only $53.4 million of these proposed reductions were
ultimately approved; and (11) the Army and the Air Force have recently
initiated actions to reexamine their prior years' unobligated and
unliquidated balances.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-00-170
     TITLE:  Military Base Closures: Unexpended Funds Raise Questions
	     About Fiscal Year 2001 Funding Needs
      DATE:  07/10/2000
   SUBJECT:  Base realignments
	     Base closures
	     Military bases
	     Military cost control
	     Defense budgets
	     Budget cuts
	     Unexpended budget balances
	     Defense appropriations
	     Budget authority
	     Future budget projections
IDENTIFIER:  DOD Base Realignment and Closure Account

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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/NSIAD-00-170

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

16

Appendix II: Status of Funds in the 1988 Base Closure Account

18

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Defense

20

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

21

Table 1: DOD's Evaluation of How Much Slower BRAC
Environmental Liquidations Were Than Non-BRAC
Environmental Program Liquidations, Fiscal Years 1992-98 10

Table 2: DOD Adjustments to the Components' Fiscal Year 2001
BRAC Program Estimates 11

Figure 1: BRAC Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990-2000, Fiscal
Year 2001 BRAC Budget Request, and Future Program
Estimates Through 2005 7

Figure 2: Unobligated Balances in the 1988 Base Closure
Account Since September 30, 1997 18

BRAC base realignment and closure

DOD Department of Defense

National Security and
International Affairs Division

B-285293

July 7, 2000

Congressional Committees

The Congress enacted base realignment and closure legislation that
instituted four realignment and closure rounds between 1988 and 1995 to help
the Department of Defense eliminate excess military bases. To fund costs for
base closures and realignments, the Congress established two base closure
accounts: the first to implement decisions resulting from the 1988 round and
the second, referred to as the 1990 account, to fund base closure actions
resulting from the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds. Although the Department's
authority to obligate 1988 base closure account funds expired on September
30, 1995, funds in the second account are available for use indefinitely.
The Congress, recognizing the complexities of realigning and closing bases
and of providing environmental restoration and mitigation, allows the
Department the flexibility to allocate funds by military service, budget
function, and installation. Also, with congressional approval, the
Department can redistribute unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid
delays in implementing closures and realignments.

Federal agencies must obtain budget authority before incurring obligations
of appropriated funds. Obligations are the amounts of orders placed,
contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during an
accounting period that will require payment during the same or a future
period. As services are rendered or goods delivered, an agency makes the
required outlays (i.e. payments) to liquidate the obligations; otherwise,
the balances of the obligations remain unliquidated. The process of
liquidating obligations from the 1990 base closure account funds can result
in excess funds that may be deobligated and then obligated elsewhere to meet
other needs. Funds that have never been obligated or have been deobligated
from prior requirements are referred to as unobligated.

Senate Report 106-74, dated June 10, 1999, on the fiscal year 2000 military
construction appropriation bill requested that we review the Department's
base closure accounts and its budget request for base closure activities.
This report examines (1) how trends in base realignment and closure
appropriations in recent years and estimates for future years compare to the
fiscal year 2001 budget request and (2) unliquidated obligations and
unobligated balances from prior years' appropriations and the extent to
which the Department considered these balances and obligations in preparing
the fiscal year 2001 budget request. See appendix I for a description of the
scope and methodology for this report.

Appropriations for the 1990 base closure account have declined steadily
since 1996 as more base closure and realignment actions have been completed.
However, for fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting about $1.2
billion in new budget authority, significantly more than last year's
appropriation of about $700 million. A larger, $1.6-billion budget request
was initially planned for fiscal year 2001, but the final $1.2-billion
request resulted from several downward adjustments made as the budget
request was being developed. Of particular note was a decision by Department
officials to reduce the planning estimate for fiscal year 2001 by $363
million because they did not believe the larger amount could reasonably be
executed in fiscal year 2001. Additional reductions were made primarily
because prior years' environmental cleanup funds were being expended at a
slower pace than anticipated.

At the time the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate was being developed, the
Department had about $500 million in reported unobligated balances from
previous years' appropriations in the 1990 account, about $114 million of
which was appropriated in fiscal year 1998 or earlier. Additionally, it had
$1.6 billion in reported unliquidated obligations from prior appropriations
in the 1990 account, of which about $115 million were appropriated in 1995
or earlier. The majority of the $115 million unliquidated funds resulted
from environmental cleanup activities that were carried out more slowly than
planned, especially by the Air Force. Available data indicate that only the
Navy provided documentation that it had considered unobligated and
unliquidated balances in formulating its portion of the budget request. In
finalizing the fiscal year 2001 budget request, Defense Comptroller
officials initially proposed reductions of over $200 million because of
concerns over slow budget execution and large amounts of unliquidated
obligations, but only $53.4 million of these proposed reductions were
ultimately approved. The Army and the Air Force have recently initiated
actions to reexamine their prior years' unobligated and unliquidated
balances.

This report contains matters for consideration by the Congress in assessing
the Department's fiscal year 2001 base realignment and closure budget
request and a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense concerning the need
for timely liquidation of obligations, the deobligation of funds where
appropriate, and the consideration of these funds in formulating new budget
requests. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department concurred
with our assessment of the Base Realignment and Closure program and our
recommendation.

In the late 1980s, changes in the national security environment resulted in
a Defense infrastructure with more bases than the Department of Defense
(DOD) needed. To enable DOD to close unneeded bases, the Congress enacted
legislation that instituted base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in
1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. For the 1988 round, legislation required DOD to
complete its closure and realignment actions by September 30, 1995. For the
1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds, legislation required DOD to complete all
closures and realignments within 6 years from the date the President
notified the Congress of the recommended base realignments or closures.

DOD's authority to obligate 1988 base closure account funds to close or
realign bases expired on September 30, 1995. After that date, funds in the
1988 account ceased to be available for new obligations and may be used only
to adjust and liquidate obligations already charged to the account. Any
unobligated funds in the 1988 account must remain there until the Congress
transfers them or the account is closed. According to DOD officials, the
1988 account will be closed on September 30, 2000, when the remaining
obligated and unobligated balances will be permanently canceled. Any
subsequent obligation adjustments or payments incurred against the 1988
account will be funded with current appropriations. As of February 2000, the
1988 base closure account contained $65.2 million in reported unobligated
funds. Appendix II describes the status of funds in the 1988 account.

A different set of rules applies, however, to the 1990 base closure account.
Funds in that account are available until expended. As of December 1999,
reported unliquidated and unobligated funds in the 1990 base closure account
totaled about $1.6 billion and $500 million, respectively. These amounts
included $672 million appropriated in 1999 for fiscal year 2000. New
obligations may be incurred and old obligations liquidated against the
account until the funds are expended.1

According to the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-34,
Instructions on Budget Execution, deobligated funds are available for new
obligations if their period of availability has not expired. Although the
DOD Financial Management Regulation provides policy and procedures for base
closure and realignment actions, it does not specify procedures for
reviewing (1) unobligated balances and using these funds for valid new
requirements or (2) unliquidated obligations and using these funds for new
requirements when final outlays have been recorded.

Appropriations

Annual appropriations for DOD's 1990 base closure account have declined
steadily since 1996, as more BRAC actions have been completed. Figure 1
shows the trend in BRAC appropriations for fiscal years 1990-2000, the
fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request, and future estimates through 2005. The
illustration shows that DOD's budget request for fiscal year 2001 deviates
from the historical pattern of declining budget requirements subsequent to
fiscal year 1996. Appropriations for BRAC accounts have totaled about $20
billion since 1990.

Note: Current DOD extended planning estimates show BRAC funding requirements
through 2008.

Source: Appropriations laws, fiscal year 2001 budget request, and fiscal
year 2001 Future Years Defense Program.

As shown in figure 1, annual appropriated amounts for closure and
realignment activities peaked at about $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 and
have declined steadily each year through fiscal year 2000. However, for
fiscal year 2001, DOD's budget request of about $1.2 billion is
significantly higher than the 2000 appropriation and estimates for future
years. Specifically, the request is about $500 million more than the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation and about $700 million more than DOD's current
program estimate for fiscal year 2002. The request differs from the general
trend, which shows declining requirements after 1996 as more BRAC-related
military construction and operation and maintenance actions are completed.
Approximately $865 million of the $1.2 billion fiscal year 2001 budget
request is for environmental cleanup, $294 million is for operation and
maintenance, and $13 million is for military construction.

Although DOD's fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request is substantially higher
than that of fiscal year 2000, the 2000 program estimate for the year 2001
was even higher--about $1.6 billion. The higher estimate reflected a budget
strategy used by the Department in 1999 to shift a portion of the fiscal
year 2000 funding requirement to fiscal year 2001. However, in preparing its
fiscal year 2001 budget request, DOD made a major downward revision to the
initial $1.6-billion program estimate. DOD officials told us that a
revalidation of the BRAC program indicated that the $1.6-billion level of
funding could not reasonably be executed in fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the
BRAC program estimate, and the corresponding budget request, were reduced to
$1.2 billion.

Small Adjustments Were Made to Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request

As of December 1999, the Department had about $500 million in reported
unobligated balances, of which about $114 million were appropriated in
fiscal year 1998 or earlier. The Department also had $1.6 billion in
reported unliquidated obligations from prior appropriations, of which about
$115 million were appropriated in 1995 or earlier.2 DOD Comptroller
officials analyzed the environmental unliquidated obligations and concluded
that they were being liquidated much more slowly than in other non-BRAC
environmental activities.3 On the basis of this analysis, the DOD
Comptroller initially proposed significant reductions to the components'
(particularly the Air Force's) requests for fiscal year 2001. Ultimately,
however, the Comptroller reduced his proposed reductions by about half,
primarily because of Air Force concerns that the reductions would have too
great an impact on its program. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense reduced the overall proposed reduction to the components' budget
estimates by about another half.

As previously noted, appropriations to the 1990 base closure account are
available for indefinite use. According to DOD Comptroller officials,
although BRAC funds are available for obligation in any fiscal year, the
general rule still applies that only those funds that are required in the
fiscal year that is being budgeted should be requested. Therefore, according
to DOD officials, it is reasonable to expect that BRAC funds be fully
obligated in the first 2 years of availability. DOD's budget execution data
indicated that, as of December 1999, $114 million in reported unobligated
balances were appropriated in fiscal year 1998 or earlier.

Financial management officials in each of the services told us that they had
considered prior year fund balances when preparing their fiscal year 2001
budget requests. However, only the Navy could provide documentation
demonstrating that it had offset its fiscal year 2001 budget request (by
$67 million) as a result of funds available from prior years'
appropriations.

In July 1999, we reported that DOD had about $455.9 million in unliquidated
obligations from the 1991 and 1993 BRAC round environmental activities
alone, suggesting that some funding might be available to offset the
Department's fiscal year 2000 BRAC budget request.4 Commenting on that
report, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) stated that the issue
was under review and that DOD was collecting data to determine whether there
was indeed a problem.

In November 1999, DOD Comptroller officials affirmed that the services still
had substantial unliquidated obligations (particularly in the BRAC
environmental sub-accounts) that the rate of liquidation lagged behind
established performance measures, and that funds were either unneeded or
being requested in advance of needs. According to DOD's established spending
rates for environmental programs, liquidations should be finalized by the
end of the fifth year, as contracts are closed out. Also, according to these
officials, in view of the emphasis on fast-track cleanup of bases affected
by BRAC, environmental programs should exceed rather than lag behind in
budget execution when compared to non-BRAC environmental programs. However,
DOD Comptroller officials also stated that the closing of completed
contracts and the corresponding finalization of liquidations and recoupment
of excess funds were proceeding at a much slower rate than for similar
activities in non-BRAC accounts. Accordingly, they measured the extent to
which BRAC environmental liquidations had lagged behind non-BRAC programs
since 1992. The numbers in parentheses in table 1 indicate the extent to
which liquidations lagged behind established liquidation rates. Positive
numbers indicate where liquidations exceeded established liquidation rates.
DOD's analysis showed that the execution of the base closure environmental
program budget alone lagged behind the established liquidation rates of
non-BRAC environmental programs by over $271 million between 1992 and 1998.
About $187 million of the variance was attributed to the Air Force.

                            Dollars in millions
                                     Fiscal years
 Component  1992    1993    1994   1995    1996    1997    1998    Total
 Army       ($0.3)  ($1.6)  ($4.0) ($2.9)  ($14.2) ($7.8)  ($19.5) ($50.3)
 Navy       (0.6)   (4.7)   (5.4)  (1.2)   (1.8)   (20.7)  11.2    (23.2)
 Air Force  (9.6)   (8.7)   (10.4) (43.5)  (28.2)  (30.4)  (56.4)  (187.2)
 Defense
 Logistics  0       0       (0.3)  (3.1)   0.3     (5.4)   (2.4)   (10.9)
 Agency
 Total      ($10.5) ($15.0) ($20.1)($50.7) ($43.9) ($64.3) ($67.1) ($271.6)

Source: Department of Defense data.

DOD officials concluded that the components had emphasized getting funds
obligated on contracts for new work rather than liquidating and closing out
completed contracts. DOD officials also concluded that it was likely that a
substantial portion of the unliquidated balances in accounts that were 5 or
more years old could be in excess of requirements when the contracts were
closed out and could be applied toward current requirements.

On the basis of this analysis, DOD officials initially proposed reducing the
components' BRAC budget requests for fiscal year 2001 by over
$200 million--up to $161 million for the Air Force. The Air Force argued
against the proposed adjustment, stating that it would put its BRAC
environmental program further behind and that some "must pay" bills--such as
long-term monitoring and program management--would not be covered.
Consequently, DOD officials reduced the overall proposed cuts to $108.2
million, including $74.5 million from the Air Force. Subsequently, however,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense further reduced the proposed overall cut to
$53.4 million ($25.9 million from the Air Force). Table 2 shows the
adjustments the Department made to its prior year program estimate for
fiscal year 2001 to arrive at its final budget request.

 Dollars in millions

             DOD budget      Reductions    Reductions made DOD budget
                             made because
 Component   justification   of budget     due to large    justification
             data February                 unliquidated    data February
             1999            execution     balances        2000
                             concerns
 Army        $412.7          ($87.1)       ($22.3)         $303.3
 Navy        603.5           (126.4)       (5.0)           472.1
 Air Force   545.1           (149.5)       (25.9)          369.7
 Defense
 Logistics   25.4            0             (0.2)           25.2
 Agency
 Total       $1,586.7        ($363.0)      ($53.4)         $1,170.3

Source: DOD's BRAC Executive Summary & Budget Justification Data, submitted
to the Congress February 1999 and February 2000, and other DOD budget data.

As shown in table 2, the initial BRAC program estimate of about $1.6 billion
was reduced by about $363 million because DOD officials did not believe the
larger amount could reasonably be executed in fiscal year 2001. An
additional reduction of $53.4 million was made primarily to account for slow
prior years' budget execution and large amounts of unliquidated obligations.
Documentation from the Army and the Air Force shows that specific actions to
identify potentially idle funds were generally not conducted until most
internal deliberations of the fiscal year 2001 budget request were
completed.

There is no assurance that all the funds DOD is requesting for fiscal
year 2001 are needed or can be liquidated within the Department's
established budget execution time frames. Even though base closure actions
are drawing to a close, the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request
includes a substantial increase in BRAC funding for the first time since
1996. At the same time, Department officials have identified a significant
buildup of unobligated balances and unliquidated obligations, resulting
primarily from slow budget execution extending as far back as 1992. Despite
this buildup, the Department has made only limited reductions to the
services' BRAC budget estimates, taking into account the potential
availability of some of these funds for current requirements.

In appropriating base realignment and closure funds for fiscal year 2001,
the Congress may wish to take into consideration the large balances of
unexpended funds, particularly in the Department's environmental
sub-accounts, and the Department's limited action in taking into account the
potential availability of some of these funds to offset its 2001 budget
request.

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense require that the services perform
complete and timely reviews of all base realignment and closure unliquidated
balances, close out completed contracts, identify potentially idle funds,
deobligate funds where appropriate, and consider the availability of these
funds in formulating new budget requests.

In written comments on a draft of this report, the DOD Comptroller concurred
with our assessment of the base realignment and closure accounts and fiscal
year 2001 budget request. DOD agreed that action was needed and would be
taken to ensure unobligated balances and unliquidated obligations are
thoroughly reviewed during the formulation of future budget requests. At the
same time, DOD believed that some additional explanation should be provided
in the report regarding the reason for the substantial increase in the
fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request over the appropriated level in fiscal
year 2000. In its comments, the Department stated that the fiscal year 2001
BRAC budget request reflects increased funding to account for military
construction funds that DOD wanted to defer to 2001 in order to shift
several hundred million dollars in fiscal year 2000 BRAC funding to meet
readiness requirements.

We understand the circumstances surrounding the strategy DOD employed for
its fiscal year 2000 BRAC budget request. However, these alone give an
incomplete picture of the factors that led to the Department's higher
funding request of $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2001. As explained in our
report, the shift in funding initially pushed DOD's fiscal year 2001 program
estimate to about $1.6 billion. Prior to this adjustment, the program
requirements for fiscal year 2001 were estimated to be about
$1.1 billion. However, during its budget preparation, DOD subsequently
removed virtually the entire increase resulting from the funding shift
because it determined that the $1.6-billion funding could not reasonably be
executed in fiscal year 2001. We also note in our report that,
notwithstanding progressively lower BRAC funding levels since 1996, DOD
officials identified slow budget execution extending as far back as 1992,
resulting in a large buildup of unobligated balances and unliquidated
obligations. However, the Department took only limited action to offset its
fiscal year 2001 BRAC budget request to take into account the potential
availability of some of these funds to meet current requirements. DOD's
comments are reprinted in full in appendix III.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman, and
Senator Daniel K Inouye, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Defense,
Committee on Appropriations; Representative Jerry Lewis, Chairman, and
Representative John P. Murtha, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Defense, Committee on Appropriations; the Honorable William S. Cohen,
Secretary of Defense; the Honorable William J. Lynn, Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller); the Honorable F. Whitten Peters, Secretary of the Air
Force; the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable
Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew,
Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request.

GAO contacts and other key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.

David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues

List of Congressional Committees

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

The Honorable Conrad Burns
Chairman
The Honorable Patty Murray
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable David L. Hobson
Chairman
The Honorable John W. Olver
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Scope and Methodology

To identify opportunities to offset the Department of Defense's (DOD) budget
request for fiscal year 2001 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities,
we focused on appropriations of prior fiscal years that were unobligated or
unliquidated and that may be available to fund BRAC activities during fiscal
year 2001. We also identified trends in appropriations since 1990. Because
most actions for the 1991 and 1993 BRAC rounds were required to be completed
by July 1997 and July 1999, respectively, we sought to determine the need
for the unobligated funds and unliquidated obligations that were still
allocated to these rounds and the extent to which they were considered when
developing the fiscal year 2001 budget request. We examined a variety of DOD
and military service budget and financial documents, and we examined budget
execution data for BRAC military construction, operations and maintenance,
environmental, and undistributed funds.

In performing this review, we used the same accounting systems, reports, and
statistics the military services use to monitor their BRAC programs. To
obtain the outstanding balances in the various BRAC accounts from prior
years, we used data available from the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service. We also used data from the information systems of the Army (Corps
of Engineers Financial Management System) and the Navy (Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Facilities Information System). Although we did not
independently determine the reliability of this information in this review,
our prior reports and testimonies have raised questions about the
reliability of DOD's reported data on obligations, disbursements and costs
associated with its environmental liabilities.5

To evaluate DOD's budget request for fiscal year 2001, we reviewed fiscal
year 2001 and prior fiscal year budget requests and supporting
justifications from DOD and the military services, applicable Future Years
Defense Program documents, program budget decisions, and other related
documents.

We interviewed and obtained data from DOD officials, including officials
from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the DOD
Inspector General, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. Within the Air
Force, we met with or contacted officials from the Office for Financial
Management and Comptroller, the Air Force Base Conversion Agency, the Air
Force Base Transition Division, and the Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence. Army organizations we met with included the Office of the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (Army BRAC Office), the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management, and
the Army Corps of Engineers. Within the Navy, we met with officials from the
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, and the Navy Financial Management and Comptroller. We also attended
several weekly briefings by an accounting consultant hired by the Air Force.

We conducted our review from October 1999 through May 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Status of Funds in the 1988 Base Closure Account

Unobligated funding balances in the 1988 base closure account continue to
grow. As of February 29, 2000, the account contained $65.2 million in
reported unobligated funds. As shown in figure 2, the unobligated amount has
risen by about $30 million since the end of fiscal year 1997. According to
program officials, the increase occurred because the military services
deobligated funds from requirements that no longer existed. Program
requirements tend to change, and in some cases disappear, as BRAC actions
are implemented. As the services' deobligation process continues, the
unobligated balance in the 1988 account will increase.

Note: Unallocated amounts are amounts of funds held at the Department level
that have not been allocated to a particular service component.

Source: Appropriations Status by Fiscal Year Program and Subaccounts, Form
(DDCOMP (M)) 1002s, as dated above, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

As we reported in 1998, program officials stated that pursuant to a DOD
Office of General Counsel memorandum, the unobligated funds in the 1988
account are used only to adjust and liquidate obligations that have already
been charged to the account. According to DOD officials, the 1988 account
will be closed on September 30, 2000, when the remaining obligated and
unobligated balances will be permanently canceled.

Comments From the Department of Defense

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Barry Holman, (202) 512-5581
William Crocker, (202) 512-4533

In addition to those named above, Jerry Thompson, Joe Faley, Larry Kiser,
and Adam Vodraska made key contributions to this report.

(709472)

Table 1: DOD's Evaluation of How Much Slower BRAC
Environmental Liquidations Were Than Non-BRAC
Environmental Program Liquidations, Fiscal Years 1992-98 10

Table 2: DOD Adjustments to the Components' Fiscal Year 2001
BRAC Program Estimates 11

Figure 1: BRAC Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990-2000, Fiscal
Year 2001 BRAC Budget Request, and Future Program
Estimates Through 2005 7

Figure 2: Unobligated Balances in the 1988 Base Closure
Account Since September 30, 1997 18
  

1. The Secretary of Defense may close the account under certain
circumstances.

2. Represents data from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Navy data are
limited to reported unobligated and unliquidated fund balances from its
primary base closure executing command--the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command.

3. DOD officials did not complete a similar analysis of the operation and
maintenance and military construction accounts.

4. Military Base Closures: Potential to Offset Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Request
(GAO/NSIAD-99-149, July 23, 1999).

5. Department of Defense: Progress in Financial Management Reform
(GAO/T-AIMD/NSIAD-00-103 , May 9, 2000); Defense Transportation: More
Reliable Information Key to Managing Airlift Services More Efficiently
(GAO/NSIAD-00-6 , Mar. 6, 2000).
*** End of document. ***