Government Aircraft: Observations on Travel by Senior Officials (Briefing
Report, 06/05/95, GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR).

GAO reviewed Defense Department (DOD) and civilian agency aircraft used
to fly senior military and civilian personnel from October 1992 through
March 1995. This briefing report discusses (1) whether the DOD inventory
of operational support airlift aircraft was excessive to wartime
requirements to support the current military strategy; (2) whether the
rules and the regulations governing the use of these aircraft had
recently been changed; (3) to what extent senior-level travel was
affected by the changes; (4) whether senior DOD officials' trips to the
most frequent destinations could have been made aboard government
contract carriers; (5) whether DOD helicopters used in the Washington,
D.C., area were justified on the basis of wartime requirements; and (6)
how often they were flown to nearby destinations.  GAO also provides
information on the inventory, related costs, and the use of aircraft by
civilian agencies.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-95-168BR
     TITLE:  Government Aircraft: Observations on Travel by Senior 
             Officials
      DATE:  06/05/95
   SUBJECT:  Helicopters
             Military aircraft
             Travel costs
             Military personnel
             Defense contingency planning
             Public officials
             Government owned equipment
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Military airlift operations
             Policy evaluation
IDENTIFIER:  C-130 Aircraft
             Persian Gulf War
             UH-1H Helicopter
             UH-60 Helicopter
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1995

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT - OBSERVATIONS
ON TRAVEL BY SENIOR OFFICIALS

GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR

Use of Executive Aircraft

(703095)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AFB - Air Force Base
  CINC - Commander-in-Chief
  CORM - Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces
  DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
  DOD - Department of Defense
  FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  GSA - General Services Administration
  IG - Inspector General
  JCS - Joint Chiefs of Staff
  NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  OIG - Office of the Inspector General
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  OSA - Operational Support Airlift
  OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense
  PCIE - President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
  USMS - U.S.  Marshal Service

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-260353

June 5, 1995

The Honorable Charles E.  Grassley
United States Senate

The Honorable Peter A.  DeFazio
House of Representatives

In response to your request, we reviewed the Department of Defense's
(DOD) and selected civilian agencies' aircraft used to transport
senior level military and civilian personnel during a 30-month period
from October 1992 through March 1995.  Our specific objectives were
to determine if (1) the DOD inventory of operational support airlift
(OSA) aircraft was excessive to wartime requirements to support the
current military strategy; (2) the rules and regulations governing
the use of these aircraft had recently been changed, and what impact
the changes made on senior level travel; (3) senior DOD officials'
trips to the most frequent destinations could have been made aboard
government contract carriers; and (4) DOD helicopters used in the
metropolitan Washington, D.C., area were justified based on wartime
requirements and how often they were flown to nearby destinations. 
As requested, we are also providing information on the inventory,
related costs, and use of aircraft by selected civilian agencies.  On
May 25 and June 5, 1995, we briefed your staff on our review.  This
report documents the information presented at those briefings. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of April 1995, DOD had a fleet of about 600 aircraft that can be
used to transport senior level military and civilian personnel. 
About 500 fixed-wing planes and 100 helicopters perform OSA missions. 
According to DOD Directive 4500.43, dated October 30, 1985, OSA
includes airlift transportation in support of command, installation,
or management functions using DOD-owned or controlled aircraft.  Some
DOD senior travelers are "required" to fly aboard government aircraft
and to maintain continuous secure communication links with the
national command authorities.  Required users include all 4-star
generals or admirals and a limited number of key DOD civilians, such
as the service secretaries.  The OSA directive excludes some
aircraft, such as those assigned to the Air Force 89th Military
Airlift Wing.  The 89th Wing provides worldwide airlift support for
the President, Vice President, and other high-level officials in the
U.S.  and foreign governments.  There is no single manager for DOD's
OSA aircraft. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has delegated
responsibility to the General Services Administration (GSA) for
managing civilian agencies' aircraft programs.  Prior studies have
made specific recommendations to improve the management and operation
of government aircraft programs. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

DOD's policy states that the OSA inventory of fixed-wing aircraft
should be based solely on wartime requirements.  DOD has not provided
central guidance on how the military services are to count their OSA
aircraft or to determine their wartime requirements, leaving each
service to independently establish its own wartime requirements.  In
1994 the Air Force concluded that its OSA inventory is excessive to
its wartime requirements, while the Army, the Navy, and the Marine
Corps determined that their OSA inventories are currently slightly
less than wartime requirements. 

A February 1993 report on Roles, Missions, and Functions issued by
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the recent report of
the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces indicate
that the existing number of aircraft dedicated to OSA missions has
been and continues to be excessive.  Our review showed that the
current OSA inventory is 10 times greater than the number of OSA
aircraft used in-theater during the Persian Gulf War.  Nevertheless,
DOD has only recently begun to better quantify its OSA wartime
requirements and to consider the availability of one service's
aircraft to help fulfill the OSA needs of the other services. 

Adverse publicity and increased congressional concern with potential
abuses have resulted in a number of statements during 1994 by the
White House and the Secretary of Defense emphasizing the need for
senior officials to carefully consider the use of government aircraft
in lieu of commercial transportation.  On May 9, 1995, the Deputy
Secretary of Defense issued a revised policy memorandum to eliminate
an entire category of "required mission use" for justifying
individual OSA flights.  This new standard requires that many more
OSA flights will have to be justified based on a cost comparison
between DOD's OSA aircraft and commercial carriers.  Our review
indicated that since mid-1994, the total number of senior level
officials' OSA flights has been declining.  Appendix I provides
information on the number of flights of the most frequent senior
level military and civilian passengers.  During a 26-month period in
our review,\1 the number of senior officials' OSA flight segments\2
per month ranged from a high of about 1,800 to a low of about 1,000. 
We found that many of the 20 destinations most frequently traveled to
by senior level DOD officials were also served by government contract
carriers.  Our data show that many trips could have been accomplished
by contract carrier.  But, it should be recognized that some of the
trips we identified were made by required users and that the contract
flights may not have provided the same scheduling flexibility made
possible by government-owned aircraft. 

We found that the Army and the Air Force helicopters located in the
Washington, D.C., area are not justified based on OSA wartime
requirements.  Rather, these aircraft have various classified
military and civilian agency contingency missions.  The individual
classified missions require fewer than the total number of
helicopters assigned by the Army and the Air Force to the Washington,
D.C., area. 

The DOD senior travelers' most frequent helicopter flight was to or
from Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Maryland, located about 15
miles from the Pentagon.  On December 30, 1994, the Secretary of the
Army prohibited Army officials' use of helicopters for such trips,
except in unusual circumstances.  The cost difference between a
helicopter flight and a car can range from about $400 to almost
$1,600, depending on the type of helicopter flown. 

Civilian agencies have over 1,500 aircraft, costing between about
$900 million and $1 billion a year to operate.  However, only 19 are
"more often" or "routinely" used for senior level travel.  These 19
aircraft cost about $24 million a year to operate.  As you
specifically requested, we reviewed the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and Coast Guard senior officials' use of
aircraft and found that although the usage of such aircraft was
infrequent, many of the most frequent destinations are served by
government contract carriers.  Inspector General civilian agency
aircraft program reports have identified several similar problems
within the various programs, such as aircraft acquisitions not being
adequately justified and cost comparisons with commercial service not
being completed or accurate (see app.  II). 


--------------------
\1 Our review covered a 30-month period, including fiscal years 1993,
1994, and 1995 (through March 1995), but complete records from all of
the services were only available for a 26-month period from January
1993 through February 1995. 

\2 Agencies record travel in individual flight segments rather than
in round trips. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense (1) provide uniform
guidance to the services concerning how to compute OSA wartime
requirements, (2) develop the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the
availability of each service's aircraft to help fulfill the OSA needs
of the other services, and (3) reassign or otherwise dispose of
excess OSA aircraft. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense adopt, and direct the
other service secretaries to adopt, the Army's policy of restricting
helicopter flights to Andrews Air Force Base and possibly to other
nearby locations as well. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

We interviewed officials and reviewed policies, regulations,
procedures, related DOD studies, and data on the number of DOD and
civilian agencies' aircraft used for transporting senior level
military and civilian personnel, related costs, and modernization
efforts; the methodology, scope, and results of the military
services' review of their wartime requirements for OSA aircraft; and
the use of OSA aircraft during the Persian Gulf War.  Also, we
interviewed officials concerning the civilian agencies' recent audits
that were conducted by their respective Offices of the Inspector
General as a part of the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency aircraft management review, and we reviewed copies of
their audit reports. 

In addition, we used data obtained from the military services'
computerized records maintained by their central aircraft schedulers
and the Coast Guard and NASA's manual reports to GSA on senior level
travel to identify the most frequent traveler's names and their
origins and destinations for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995
(through March 1995).  We did not independently verify the
computerized data or manual reports.  We asked agency officials to
provide us the full names and current titles of the most frequent
senior level travelers for their identification.  We did not validate
the purpose of individual trips nor did we evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of using government aircraft. 

Also, we used the airlines' computerized scheduling system and the
Federal Travel Directory to determine if government contract carrier
service was available for the most frequent flights.  For local
travel by helicopter within the Washington, D.C., area, we compared
helicopter flying hour costs with anticipated automobile travel times
and costs for the most frequent helicopter flight--between Andrews
Air Force Base and the Pentagon. 

We discussed the results of our review with DOD, GSA, Coast Guard,
and NASA representatives.  Generally, they agreed with the
information presented in this report.  We made changes and
incorporated their comments where appropriate. 

We conducted our review from January through May 1995 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.  A list of the
organizations we contacted or visited during our review is contained
in appendix III, and appendix IV is a list of related reports by our
office, DOD, and civilian agencies' Inspectors General. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen, Senate
Committee on Armed Services, House Committee on National Security,
and Senate and House Committees on Appropriations; the Secretaries of
Defense, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, Agriculture, Energy,
State, Transportation, the Interior, and the Treasury; the Attorney
General; the Administrators of the General Services Administration
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget.  Copies will also be made
available to others upon request. 

If you or staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-5140.  The major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix V. 

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues


Briefing Section I BACKGROUND
============================================================== Letter 


   DOD'S OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
   AIRCRAFT USED TO TRANSPORT
   SENIOR OFFICIALS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The Department of Defense's (DOD) primary aircraft used to transport
senior level military and civilian personnel are the military
services' operational support airlift (OSA) aircraft, which are
primarily fixed-wing aircraft consisting of many types of
airplanes.\1 Very senior level officials are also flown aboard the
Air Force 89th Military Airlift Wing's fixed-wing and rotary-wing
aircraft.  The 89th Wing is located at Andrews Air Force Base, Camp
Springs, Maryland. 

According to DOD Directive 4500.43, dated October 30, 1985, OSA
aircraft includes all airlift transportation in support of command,
installation, or management functions using DOD-owned or controlled
aircraft.  This excludes aircraft to support presidential activities,
namely the 89th Military Airlift Wing. 

DOD's concept of the OSA mission was established in 1981.  Prior to
1981, DOD maintained certain aircraft primarily to meet peacetime
needs of military commands, bases, and installations for transporting
cargo and passengers.  Many aircraft were assigned to this
"administrative support" category when they were no longer fit for
their original mission.  However, in 1981, DOD changed the
designation of these aircraft from "administrative support" to
"operational support airlift." DOD's basis for this fleet of aircraft
was changed from peacetime needs to wartime requirements. 

In addition to the primary aircraft used to transport senior level
personnel, some other DOD aircraft may be used for that purpose.  For
example, within the Air Force, we found that several strategic
aircraft, such as the C-5 and C-141, which are not included in OSA,
are sometimes used to transport senior level passengers.  However,
information regarding those trips was not routinely documented.  A
full discussion of helicopters in the Washington, D.C., area is
included in section IV. 


--------------------
\1 OSA aircraft carry both cargo and passengers.  The total number of
passengers carried during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 was in excess of
542,000 and 501,000, respectively. 


   DOD'S ESTIMATED OPERATION AND
   SUPPORT COSTS FOR FISCAL YEARS
   1993-1995
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The estimated operation and support costs for OSA-type aircraft have
averaged about $380 million annually for fiscal years 1993-1995 for
the military services and the 89th Military Airlift Wing.  The costs
include contract support costs, which includes, for example,
mechanics and spares; petroleum, oil, and lubricants; and
maintenance. 


Briefing Section II OSA
REQUIREMENTS
============================================================== Letter 


   DOD OSA REQUIREMENTS POLICY AND
   PRIOR STUDIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


In DOD's February 1993 report on Roles, Missions, and Functions of
the U.S.  Armed Forces, the Chairman of the JCS concluded that
current OSA inventories, of about 500 aircraft, exceeded wartime
needs.  The Chairman's report recommended that excess OSA inventories
be reduced and directed the U.S.  Transportation Command to schedule
intra-theater airlift. 

In April 1994, the Offices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs and the Secretary of Defense for Program Evaluation
and Analysis issued a report to Congress on OSA aircraft operated by
the national guard and reserve components.  To determine current OSA
aircraft inventories, the report proposed that OSA aircraft be
divided into two groups based on mission.  Because the
Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 directs that DOD
assign forces to either the combatant commanders-in-chief (CINC) or
to the services, the report divided the reserve component OSA
inventory into aircraft that support the CINCs and those that support
the military departments.  The report concluded that DOD's OSA
inventories were based on Cold War planning scenarios and exceed
wartime requirements.  The report recommended that (1) DOD not
procure new aircraft except to modernize the fleet and (2) each
service validate its wartime OSA requirement based on current
planning scenarios and report the results to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) by the end of fiscal year 1994. 

The Air Force then independently studied OSA inventories DOD-wide for
their Chief of Staff.  Known as the "McPeak Brief," the September
1994 study concluded that total OSA assets were in excess of wartime
requirements and should be reduced.  The Air Force Chief of Staff
recommended that the Air Force should own and operate all OSA
aircraft with potential savings from reducing service fleets,
consolidating aircraft sites, and reducing personnel requirements. 
Army officials told us that they were not asked to provide data to
the Air Force for this study.  In addition, we were told that the
service secretaries have strongly resisted giving up either
scheduling, control over, or ownership of their OSA aircraft. 


   COMMISSION ON ROLES AND
   MISSIONS OF THE ARMED FORCES
   (CORM)
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Services is an
11-member group established to assess 26 issues from an operational
and infrastructure perspective.  The original 26 issues included a
broad range of concerns such as prepositioning and force structure. 
OSA was a subset of a larger consideration of aviation
infrastructure.  However, in August 1994, the Secretary of Defense
requested that the Commission address OSA as an issue. 

The Commission released its report on May 24, 1995.  The Commission
concluded that current OSA inventories exceed wartime requirements
and that the total number of OSA aircraft should be reduced.  The
Commission recommends that the Air Force be the single provider of
OSA aircraft. 


   OSA FIXED-WING INVENTORIES AND
   REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


In response to a requirement to assess wartime needs for OSA
aircraft, each service determined its current OSA requirements in
1994.  The Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy determined that their
wartime requirements exceeded current OSA inventories, while the Air
Force concluded that its existing OSA inventory was in excess of its
wartime requirements.  The figures for the OSA inventories and
requirements are based on each of the services' definitions of OSA. 

The OSA fleet represents 6 percent of DOD's total fixed-wing
inventory.  Total fixed-wing inventory includes attack, bomber, and
fighter aircraft as well as transports, tankers, and trainers.  Some
of these aircraft could provide an OSA capability, such as tactical
airlift aircraft, while others, such as bombers, do not provide a
viable OSA capability.  The Air Force fixed-wing inventory figure
excludes classified aircraft.  The Army's fixed-wing OSA inventory
and requirement include 109 and 122 aircraft respectively, which they
consider to be for combat service support.  Each of the other
services also have OSA aircraft designated for these purposes. 


   OSA INVENTORIES AS OF APRIL
   1995 BY AIRCRAFT TYPE
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


Based on information provided by the services, we calculated a
current inventory of 520 fixed-wing OSA aircraft.  Our total of 520
fixed-wing OSA aircraft differs from totals provided in other
studies.  The 1993 report from the Chairman of the JCS concluded that
there were 500 OSA fixed-wing aircraft.  An April 1994 report from
OSD counted 354 OSA "service support" fixed-wing aircraft and an
unidentified number of "CINC support" aircraft.  The September 1994
"McPeak Brief" identified 576 fixed-wing OSA aircraft and the May
1995 Commission on Roles and Missions report counted 551 fixed-wing
OSA aircraft.  These various fixed-wing OSA totals demonstrate the
effect of each service defining its OSA inventory differently and a
lack of agreement within DOD as to which aircraft constitute OSA. 


   OSA REQUIREMENTS AS OF APRIL
   1995 BY AIRCRAFT TYPE
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


As of April 1995, based on information provided by the services, we
calculated that total OSA requirements exceed current OSA
inventories.  The total OSA requirement is not shown because the Air
Force number is classified. 


   OSA AIRCRAFT USED IN-THEATER
   DURING THE PERSIAN GULF WAR
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


DOD Directive 4500.43 requires that OSA aircraft inventories must be
based on wartime needs.  However, few OSA aircraft were used
in-theater during the Persian Gulf War.  Actual use of OSA aircraft
during the Persian Gulf War suggests that the primary role of OSA is
not wartime support but peacetime support. 

During the Gulf War, about 48 OSA aircraft went to the theater,
representing about 9 percent of current OSA fixed-wing inventories. 
A February 1995 draft report to the Commission on Roles and Missions
stated that 136 C-130s were in-theater during the war and were often
used for OSA missions.  But C-130s are dedicated to providing
inter-theater airlift and are not considered OSA aircraft. 

According to service officials, the Army used 93 OSA aircraft and the
Navy used 37 OSA aircraft in the United States during the Persian
Gulf War.  Data on Air Force and Marine Corps OSA aircraft used in
the United States was not available. 


   EACH SERVICE DEFINES OSA
   DIFFERENTLY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


According to DOD Directive 4500.43, a number of fixed-wing aircraft
may be excluded from the OSA inventory based on special missions. 
For example, the directive specifically excludes (1)
"carrier-on-board-delivery" aircraft assigned to fleet logistic
support squadrons; (2) aircraft assigned to support presidential,
attache, and Security Assistance Organization activities; and (3)
aircraft assigned to the 89th Military Airlift Wing. 

The Air Force excludes aircraft attached to the 89th Military Airlift
Wing from its OSA inventory.  The Navy excludes aircraft dedicated to
supporting the carrier fleet from its OSA inventory.  According to
Navy officials,
10 U.S.C.  5062 authorizes the Navy to retain a naval aviation
service in support of carrier fleet movements.  The Army divides its
OSA inventory into aircraft supporting the CINCs and aircraft
supporting the service secretary.  (One advantage of this distinction
is that only aircraft supporting the service secretary would be
considered OSA--and only these aircraft would be subject to the
additional oversight and accountability of DOD Directive 4500.43). 

In its April 1994 report to Congress, OSD outlined new definitions
for OSA based on service and CINC support missions.  Although each of
the services provided input to the OSD study, only the Army used the
OSD definitions to validate its OSA wartime requirements.  Earlier
this year, a revised DOD Directive 4500.43 was drafted by
representatives from the services and the U.S.  Transportation
Command.  The draft directive provides a more detailed definition of
OSA.  However, according to OSD officials, the draft is not official
OSD policy.  OSD and service officials continue to disagree on the
definition of OSA. 


   SERVICE ASSESSMENTS DIFFERED IN
   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The services assessments of OSA wartime requirements differed in
scope, methodology, and assumptions used. 

The Air Force's analysis used one OSA aircraft type, the C-21, to
model the number of aircraft flights required to meet projected
demand for fixed-wing OSA support within current war planning
guidance.  Projected demand was based on optimum levels of service to
move cargo and passengers to airfields within a theater during
wartime.  The Air Force OSA requirement also includes aircraft to
support theater CINCs. 

The Army's study was accomplished in two parts:  an analysis of
aircraft supporting the service secretary and a separate analysis of
aircraft supporting the CINCs.  The analysis of service support OSA
was prepared by a private contractor, based on current planning
scenarios, and using actual data on sorties from the Persian Gulf War
to project the aircraft requirement.  The analysis of CINC support
requirements was developed by the Army as part of its continuous
assessment of war fighting deficiencies.  Recently, the Army
redesigned its Aviation Branch to (1) reflect actual resources, (2)
meet the requirements of current war fighting scenarios, and (3)
correct problems identified from the Persian Gulf War.  Based on the
redesign process, the Army determined its airlift requirement to
provide CINC support. 


   SERVICE ASSESSMENTS DIFFERED IN
   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY -
   CONTINUED
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Marine Corps' analysis was based on modeling all Marine Corps'
OSA aircraft to meet projected demand for fixed-wing OSA support
within current war planning guidance.  The Marine Corps did not
prepare a written report of their analysis. 

The Navy determined its current OSA wartime requirement by updating
its 1986 study.  The update adjusted the 1986 requirement to reflect
its smaller force structure.  However, the 1986 study was based on
Cold War planning guidance, involving a large-scale global conflict. 
The Navy has not assessed its requirement to support the current war
planning guidance.  From war games conducted in fiscal year 1995, the
Navy concluded that the current OSA inventory was adequate to meet
the 1986 requirements.  However, Navy officials acknowledge that
force structure and war fighting assumptions have significantly
changed.  An assessment of Navy OSA wartime requirements based on
current planning guidance is planned, but has not yet begun. 


   SERVICES REQUIREMENTS
   ASSESSMENTS WERE LIMITED IN
   SCOPE
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :16



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The services' assessments of OSA wartime requirements were limited in
scope.  Overall, the services' analyses did not consider the
potential contribution of all OSA-capable aircraft, such as tactical
airlift aircraft, to provide OSA support.  The services' analyses
also did not assess commercial air options to help meet
transportation requirements in the United States, as required by DOD
Directive 4500.43.  Although generally available only in wartime, the
services did not consider other aircraft availability such as support
from the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.  In addition, the services did not
assess OSA capabilities available DOD-wide to meet the OSA mission
requirement. 

According to service officials, DOD did not provide specific guidance
on how to assess OSA aircraft wartime requirements. 


   OSA REQUIREMENTS PROCESS: 
   PLANNED AND ON-GOING EFFORTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :17



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


According to an OSD official, the Transportation Policy Directorate
plans to revise OSA policy.  The revised policy will provide a
standard definition of the OSA mission with sufficient detail so that
the services do not define OSA inventories differently. 

The Chairman of the JCS directed the Joint Staff to conduct a study
of OSA wartime requirements.  According to officials, the study is in
response to preliminary findings of the Commission on Roles and
Missions of the Armed Forces--specifically, that individual service
wartime requirements are based on differing definitions and
methodologies.  The Joint Staff study plans to validate OSA wartime
requirements for individual aircraft based on current defense
planning guidance.  The study plan is currently in draft.  The
proposed schedule is to issue a product on OSA wartime requirements
on October 1, 1995. 


Briefing Section III SENIOR
OFFICIALS TRAVEL ON GOVERNMENT
AIRCRAFT
============================================================== Letter 


   RECENT POLICY ON GOVERNMENT
   AIRCRAFT USE
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :18



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126, "Improving the
Management and Use of Government Aircraft" was revised on May 22,
1992.  Its purpose is to minimize cost, improve the management, and
use of government aviation resources, and to assure that agencies
rely primarily on commercial airline or aircraft services to meet
their aircraft support needs.  Circular A-126 also places certain
responsibilities for agency aircraft management within the purview of
the General Services Administration (GSA).  The Administrator of GSA
delegated these aircraft management responsibilities to the Aircraft
Management Division within GSA's Federal Supply Service.  The
Administrator also maintains an interagency aviation policy working
group, known as the Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy, to
advise him in developing or changing aircraft policies and
information requirements. 

The Secretary of Defense issued a June 10, 1994, memorandum to
implement OMB Circular A-126; the presidential memorandum,
"Restricted Use of Government Aircraft," dated February 10, 1993; OMB
Bulletin
No.  93-11, "Fiscal Responsibility and Reducing Perquisites," dated
April 19, 1993; and a White House memorandum, "Use of Government
Aircraft for Official Business," dated July 30, 1993.  The Secretary
stated that because travel on military aircraft is a premium mode of
travel involving high costs and limited resources, DOD senior
officials and airlift authorizing officials should restrict travel
via such aircraft based on considerations such as purpose of the
trip, the method of transportation required, and the priority of
travel.  On May 9, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a new
memorandum to replace some of the criteria for DOD officials' use of
government aircraft.  This memorandum eliminates an entire category
of "required mission use" for justifying individual flights.  This
new policy guidance may result in fewer OSA flights being taken by
senior DOD travelers. 


   VARIOUS SENIOR FEDERAL TRAVEL
   REPORTS ARE REQUIRED
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :19



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


GSA compiles a Senior Federal Travel Report and provides it to OMB in
line with Circular A-126, dated May 22, 1992.  The intent of the
report is to monitor compliance with policies and procedures
concerning senior federal officials' travel on federal aircraft. 

DOD, like civilian agencies, is to report senior federal travel data
to GSA semiannually.  DOD did not provide data for the initial GSA
report.  DOD advised GSA that it had not complied with the reporting
requirement because the size and diversity of DOD and its worldwide
operations, with a large number of reporting elements, made
implementation of OMB
Circular A-126 a complex task.  DOD provided its first report
beginning with GSA's April through September 1994 reporting period. 

The GSA report contains, among other data, the (1) name of each
traveler, (2) official purpose of the trip, and (3) allocated federal
aircraft cost and corresponding commercial aircraft cost.  Travel by
active duty military officers is currently excluded from this
reporting requirement. 

In June 1994, DOD established an internal monthly reporting
requirement for travel by civilian or military officials working in
headquarters and subordinate agencies associated with the Pentagon. 


   DOD OSA AIRCRAFT FIXED-WING
   FLIGHT SEGMENTS BY SENIOR LEVEL
   OFFICIALS JAN.  93 THRU FEB. 
   95
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :20



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The services schedule their OSA aircraft through different channels. 
The Air Force schedules OSA aircraft at the Air Mobility Command,
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; the Army at Davison Airfield,
adjacent to Fort Belvoir, Virginia; and the Navy at the Naval Air
Logistics Office, New Orleans, Louisiana.  Marine Corps travelers
schedule their flights through the Army system.  Each service has its
own computerized record-keeping system and the central locations are
hooked up electronically to "validators," who are located throughout
the services at most major commands and installations.  Requests for
travel aboard government aircraft are generally made on
service-unique forms, and once the trips are deemed valid, the actual
flight scheduling is done at each service's central location. 

DOD Directive 4500.43 provides that some senior level officials are
"required" to fly government aircraft either because of their
positions or for security reasons.  For example, 4-star generals or
admirals and a few key DOD civilians are required users.  Travel
aboard government aircraft allows required users to discuss
classified data and to maintain secure communications links with the
national command authorities. 

The U.S.  Transportation Command has software under development that
is intended to help standardize the scheduling and record-keeping
functions in the services.  However, each service still plans to keep
control of its own aircraft.  Each of the service schedulers provided
us data files identifying senior level travel aboard most of their
OSA aircraft.  For various reasons, the data are not directly
comparable; however, they are substantially the same and we judged it
to be sufficient for our review and reporting purposes.  Because
official guidance on the use of government aircraft has been
tightening up on senior officials' travel, the overall trend in the
number of flights has been downward since last summer. 


   TOP 20 DOD PAIR DESTINATIONS
   JAN.  93 THRU FEB.  95
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :21



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


We have listed the top 20 most frequent destinations that the service
senior officials were flying to and from and whether commercial
service is provided between those locations.  The most frequent
flight segments are indicated by a "Yes" or "No" if these
destinations are serviced by a government contract carrier.  The
criteria we used to make these determinations were (1) did a
government contract carrier fare exist and (2) was the final military
destination less than 50 miles from the servicing civilian airfield. 
Most of the frequent senior officials' destinations meet this
criteria.  On the other hand, commercial carriers do not offer the
scheduling flexibility and convenience of the OSA aircraft flights. 


Briefing Section IV HELICOPTER USE
IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA
============================================================== Letter 


   HELICOPTER INVENTORY IN THE
   WASHINGTON D.C., AREA
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :22



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The Army's helicopter squadron, made up of 27 UH-1Hs and 5 UH-60s, is
located at Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.  The Air
Force's 21 UH-1Ns are located at Andrews Air Force Base (AFB), while
the Marine Corps' 32 helicopters are located at Quantico, Virginia. 
The Marine Corps' primary helicopter responsibility is to provide
helicopter support to the President, Vice President, and visiting
Heads of State.  Because use is limited to a handful of top DOD and
Navy officials and is infrequent, we did not include the Marine
Corps' helicopters in this review. 

The Army and the Air Force helicopters located in the Washington,
D.C., area are not justified based on OSA wartime requirements. 
Rather, these aircraft have various classified military and civilian
agency contingency missions.  The individual classified missions
require fewer than the total number of helicopters assigned by the
Army and the Air Force to the Washington, D.C., area. 

The Army estimates it costs $463 per hour to operate the UH-1H and
$1,616 per hour to operate the UH-60.  The Air Force estimates an
hourly cost for the UH-1N at $771.  These costs include petroleum,
oil, and lubricants; and unit, intermediate and depot maintenance,
including contract maintenance (if applicable), spares, crew per
diem, and training.  They do not include military and civilian pay or
aircraft acquisition costs. 


   ARMY/AIR FORCE HELICOPTER LIFTS
   OCT.  93 THRU MAR.  95
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :23



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The use of helicopters located in the Washington, D.C., area has
declined significantly since April 1994.  We have defined lifts as
any portion of a trip on which passengers were carried.  For example,
a trip which took a passenger from the Pentagon to Carlisle Barracks
to Aberdeen Proving Ground and back to the Pentagon would be counted
as three lifts. 

In July 1994, the Secretary of the Army issued a policy memorandum
which limited the use of helicopters for intra-city travel in the
National Capital Region.  Travel that departs from and arrives at any
location in the greater Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan area is
considered intra-city and is limited to civilians such as the
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, and the Under Secretary
of the Army and 4-star flag officers. 

In December 1994, the Secretary of the Army further limited the use
of helicopters by prohibiting the use of helicopters for
transportation between the Pentagon and Andrews AFB except in unusual
circumstances.  The memorandum went on to state that the existence of
unusual circumstances will be determined by the Secretary of the Army
or the Chief of Staff of the Army. 


   TOP 20 PAIR DESTINATIONS FOR
   AIR FORCE AND ARMY HELICOPTERS
   LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON,
   D.C., AREA
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :24



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


You asked us to identify the top origins and destination pairs for
Army and Air Force helicopters based in the Washington D.C., area. 
Generally, helicopter use is limited to trips within 125 miles of the
Pentagon.  For both the Air Force and the Army, the most frequent
route was between Andrews AFB and the Pentagon.  According to an Army
memorandum, flying time for an Army UN-1H from Andrews AFB to the
Pentagon is about 24 minutes--at a cost of about $185.  The same
flight would cost the Air Force approximately $308.  However, actual
cost to the government would be higher because all trips are round
trips and in the case of the Army, the cost to get a helicopter to
the Pentagon or Andrews AFB must be included, which would increase
the flight time to about an hour, and the cost to about $460. 

According to an Army travel memorandum, it is only 15 miles between
the Pentagon and Andrews AFB but depending on traffic, could take
between 15 and 50 minutes to drive.  We estimate the cost to drive
from the Pentagon to Andrews AFB in a privately-owned vehicle, round
trip at the government reimbursement rate of 30 cents per mile, would
be $9.  According to a local taxi company, taxi fare between the
Pentagon and Andrews AFB is about $30.  Thus, for gross comparison
purposes, an Army UH-1 helicopter flight would cost in excess of $400
more than a car.  An Army UH-60 helicopter trip could cost almost
$1,600 more than a car.  DOD officials pointed out that the
uncertainty in the commute time could adversely impact the senior
travelers' scheduling flexibility made possible by the use of
helicopters for these flights. 


Briefing Section V CIVILIAN AGENCY
AIRCRAFT
============================================================== Letter 


   CIVILIAN AGENCY AIRCRAFT
   INVENTORY AND OPERATING COSTS
   FOR FISCAL YEARS 1993 AND 1994
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :25



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


The civilian agency inventory includes many different types of
aircraft, such as helicopters, special purpose aircraft for fire
fighting and meteorological research, and specially configured
aircraft used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) for research and development and program support.  The numbers
reported include all aircraft owned, leased, lease\purchased, or
bailed at any point during the fiscal year and may not reflect the
actual number of aircraft on-hand at the end of each year. 

The Departments of Agriculture, Justice, and Transportation have the
largest aircraft inventories.  These three departments' aircraft
fleets comprise about 62 percent of the total inventory for fiscal
years 1993 and 1994.  The Department of Agriculture has three
agencies that own and operate aircraft.  These three agencies are the
U.S.  Forest Service, the Animal Research Service, and the Animal
Plant Health Inspection Service.  However, the Forest Service is the
only Agriculture agency that uses government aircraft to transport
senior officials.  The Forest Service owns and operates more than 200
aircraft.  The remaining aircraft are distributed among the other two
agencies. 

Three agencies within the Department of Justice have aircraft that
were used to transport senior officials.  They are the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
and the U.S.  Marshal Service (USMS).  DEA has the largest fleet with
over 100 aircraft.  FBI has more than 90, and the USMS has less than
20. 

Operating costs reflect civilian agency data reported to GSA for
owned, leased, lease/purchased, and bailed aircraft.  For most
agencies, this includes costs related to technical, mission-critical
aircraft that are not used for administrative purposes. 


   AIRCRAFT "MORE OFTEN" OR
   "ROUTINELY USED" TO TRANSPORT
   SENIOR OFFICIALS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :26



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


We asked the agencies to identify aircraft in their inventory that
they "more often" or "routinely" use when they are transporting
senior personnel.  Five of the eight agencies identified 19 such
aircraft. 

Within the Department of Energy, only one of the DeHavilland DHC-6
aircraft was used to transport senior personnel during fiscal year
1994; therefore, costs shown only reflect that year.  This is true
also for one of NASA's Gulfstream Aerospace G-Is.  One of the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) Learjet 31A aircraft was returned to
the vendor on October 29, 1993.  Additionally, the Coast Guard
Gulfstream I aircraft ceased conducting administrative support
missions during fiscal year 1993.  Therefore, the unit costs reported
here only reflect the period during which this aircraft was assigned
to transport senior officials. 


   TOP 14 COAST GUARD AND NASA
   PAIR DESTINATIONS OF SENIOR
   OFFICIALS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :27



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


We have identified the top six most frequently visited destinations
for the U.S.  Coast Guard and the top eight most frequent
destinations by senior NASA officials.  Most of these city pairs are
frequently traveled by other non-senior government personnel under
negotiated and discounted government air fares.  These fares are
provided through GSA on government contract carriers. 

Only in one instance for both Coast Guard and NASA, did we find that
government contract service was not available.  The Coast Guard
flight is from the Portland International Airport to Astoria, Oregon. 
The Portland airport is 73 miles from Astoria.  In the case of NASA,
this flight is from Baltimore Washington International airport to the
Wallops Island Flight Facility, located near Salisbury, Maryland. 
The airport is 84 miles from Salisbury. 

It should be recognized, however, that the existence of government
contract air service between these city pairs does not address (1)
the fact that some of the trips were made by required users and (2)
that there is increased scheduling flexibility provided to senior
level officials when they can travel on agency aircraft.  Coast Guard
officials stated that all of the flights to their pair destinations
were made by required users and, therefore, had to be made on
government aircraft as a matter of policy. 


MOST FREQUENT SENIOR LEVEL
TRAVELERS
=========================================================== Appendix I

The charts in this appendix identify the most frequent fixed-wing OSA
aircraft senior level passengers, military and civilian, in the Air
Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard and NASA.  Marine Corps data was
incomplete at the time of our report.  We also include data on the
most frequent senior level helicopter passengers aboard Air Force and
Army helicopters assigned to the Washington, D.C., area. 

Care should be taken in comparing data among the different charts
because many charts contain data from different time periods and the
number of flight segments varies greatly.  This is because of time
differences in the original scheduling data provided GAO by the
agencies and because the Air Force, Coast Guard and NASA scheduling
systems identify all senior level travelers aboard each flight,
whereas the Army and Navy data only reflects the principal traveler
for each flight.  The total numbers of Navy flights are also much
fewer than Air Force and Army flights because Navy data only included
C-12 and T-39 OSA aircraft.  We did not include a chart on the most
frequent Marine Corps senior level passengers because, at the time of
our briefing, data was only available for the 18 month period Oct. 
93 thru Mar.  95, and some of this data was incomplete. 

DOD, Coast Guard and NASA officials identified each passenger's most
current job title.  Agency officials point out that some of the
official travel may have been in support of work requirements in
previous positions.  Also, NASA officials specifically asked us to
clarify that some of their most frequent travelers were mostly
traveling while accompanying the NASA Administrator. 

GAO did not validate the need for, or the purpose of, individual
flights nor did we determine the cost-effectiveness of these trips
aboard government aircraft. 



                   Air Force Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft
                
                  Most Frequent Military and Civilian
                    Passengers Oct. 92 Thru Feb. 95

Flight
s\a     Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Military Passengers
------  --------------------------------------------------------------
414 *   Gen. John Loh, Commander, Air Combat Command

385 *   Gen. Ronald Fogleman, Chief of Staff, U.S.Air Force

350 *   Gen. Ronald Yates, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command

278     Lt. Gen. Charles Franklin, Commander, Electronic Systems
        Center

234     Gen. Dennis Reimer, Commander, U.S. Forces Command

217 *   Gen. Wayne Downing, CINC, Special Operations Command

188     Lt. Gen. Steven Croker, Commander, Eighth Air Force

188 *   Gen. Charles Horner, CINC, Space Command

187     Gen. Henry Viccellio, Commander, Air Education and Training
        Command

177     Lt. Gen. Arlen Jameson, Deputy Commander-in-Chief, U.S.
        Strategic Command

        Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Civilian Passengers

239     Mr. John Gilligan, Program Executive Officer for Combat
        Support Systems

169     Mr. Lloyd Mosemann, Dpty. Asst. Secretary (Comm. and Support
        System)

98      Mr. George Abrahamson, Air Force Chief Scientist

58      Mr. Allen Schell, Deputy Director, Science and Tech., A.F.
        Materiel Command

54      Mr. Gerald Kauvar, Deputy Director, Defense Performance Review

53      Mr. Gary Vest, Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
        Defense (ES)

51      Mr. Marion Williams, Chief Scientist, Office of Technical
        Evaluation Center

50      Mr. Billy Welch, Scientific Advisory Board Member

49      Mr. Howard Leaf, Director, Test and Evaluation, Headquarters,
        U.S. Air Force
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Flights indicate the number of individual flight segments. 

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a "required user" of OSA aircraft for
official travel. 



                      Army Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft
                
                  Most Frequent Military and Civilian
                    Passengers Jan. 93 Thru Mar. 95

Flight
s\a     Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Military Passengers
------  --------------------------------------------------------------
315 *   Gen. Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff of the Army

302     Lt. Gen. John Miller, CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center

287     Gen. Frederick Franks, CG, U.S. Army Training & Doctrine
        Command

286     Major Gen. Harley Davis, CG, U.S. Army Special Forces Command
        (Airborne)

239     Lt. Gen. Paul Funk, CG, U.S. Army III Corps & Fort Hood

236     Major Gen. John Robinson, CG, U.S. Army Aviation Center & Fort
        Rucker

235     Brig. Gen. Robert Roper, Deputy CG, U.S. Army Recruiting
        Command

230     Major Gen. Samuel Leffler, CG, U.S. Army Information Systems
        Command

209     Major Gen. Dennis Benchoff, CG, U.S. Army Industrial
        Operations Command

183     Major Gen. Kenneth Simpson, CG, U.S. Army Recruiting Command

        Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Civilian Passengers

107 *   Mr. Togo West, Secretary of the Army

101     Mr. Joe Reeder, Under Secretary of the Army

53      Mr. John Shannon, Former Under Secretary of the Army

36      Ms. Carol Smith, Deputy Secretary of the Army (Civilian
        Personnel Policy)

34      Mr. Lester Griffin, Dpty. for Product Assurance & Test &
        Industrial Ops. AMC

32      Mr. Walter Hollis, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army
        (Operations Research)

28      Mr. Jimmy Morgan, Deputy for Acquisition, AMC

27      Mr. Todd Weiler, Deputy Asst. Secretary of the Army (Reserve
        Affairs)

22      Ms. Sara Lister, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower &
        Reserve Affairs)

20      Mr. Robert Williams, Special Assistant, U.S. Southern Command

20      Mr. Robert Walker, Assistant Secretary of the Army (IL&E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Flights indicate the number of individual flight segments. 

Note:  An asterisk (*) indicates a "required user" of OSA aircraft
for official travel. 



                      Navy Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft
                
                  Most Frequent Military and Civilian
                    Passengers Oct. 92 Thru Mar. 95

Flight
s\a     Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Military Passengers
------  --------------------------------------------------------------
172     Rear Adm. James Olson, Deputy Cmdr, Naval Reserve/Cmdr, Naval
        Air Reserve

127     Rear Adm. Francis Hamess, Cmdr, Naval Surface Reserve Force/
        Surface Group 6

69      Rear Adm. (Ret) Raymond Jones, Former Chief of Naval Technical
        Training

69      Rear Adm. Thomas Hall, Director, Naval Reserve/Cmdr Naval
        Reserve Force

68      Vice Adm. (Ret) Robert Kihune, Former Director, Naval Training
        & Doctrine, OPNAV

65      Rear Adm. Frederick Lewis, Cmdr, Naval Doctrine Command

55      Rear Adm. David Goebel, Former Cmdr, Submarine Group Two, U.S.
        Atlantic Fleet

54      Rear Adm. (Ret) Melvin Chiogloii, Former Cmdr, Second Naval
        Construction Brigade

53      Rear Adm. (Ret) Maurice Bresnahan, Former Dep. Cmdr, Naval
        Res./Surface Group 6

48      Vice Adm. George Emery, Cmdr, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic
        Command

47      Rear Adm. John Kavanaugh, Cmdr, Navy Exchange Service Command

        Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Civilian Passengers

8       Mr. Richard Danzig, Under Secretary of the Navy

5       Mr. Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
        (Reserve Affairs)

5       Mr. Roger Whiteway, Director, Tactical Development & Training,
        Atlantic Fleet

4       Mr. Michael Merritt, Comptroller, Naval Education & Training
        Command

4       Dr. Albert Wood, Retired Director, Joint Science & Tech.
        Programs (SECNAV)

4       Ms. Rebecca Paulk, Asst to the Asst. SECNAV, Manpwr Ed. &
        Training Policy

3       Mr. Bruce Robinson, Director, Science Directorate, (SECNAV)

3       Mr. Michael Decker, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for
        Intelligence, USMC Hqtrs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Flights indicate the number of individual flight segments. 



                Most Frequent U.S. Coast Guard and NASA
                  Senior Level Passengers Oct. 92 thru
                                Sept. 94

Flight
s\a     U.S. Coast Guard Passengers
------  --------------------------------------------------------------
78 *    Adm. (Ret) John Kime, Former Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

32      Mr. Federico Pena, Secretary, U.S. Department of
        Transportation

17 *    Adm. Robert Kramek, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

17 *    Vice Adm. (Ret) Robert Nelson, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast
        Guard

13 *    Vice Adm. James Loy, Commander Atlantic Area, U.S. Coast Guard

13      Mr. Rodney Slater, Administrator, Federal Highway
        Administration

12      Ms. Ann Bormolini, Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of
        Transportation

        NASA Passengers

100     Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator

23      Mr. William Livingstone, Former Associate Administrator for
        Public Affairs

23      Ms. Mary Kerwin, Deputy Associate Administrator for
        Legislative Affairs (Programs)

22      Mr. Cecil Rosen -Former Deputy Associate Administrator for
        Aeronautics

20      Mr. Gregory Reck, Dpty. Associate Administrator for Space
        Access & Technology

20      Mr. George Abbey, Deputy Director, Johnson Space Center

18      Mr. Lynn Heninger, Deputy Associate Administrator for
        Legislative Affairs

18      Mr. Aaron Cohen, Former Director, Johnson Space Center

17      Mr. Martin Kress, Former Associate Administrator for
        Legislative Affairs

13      Mr. Jeffrey Lawrence, Associate Administrator for Legislative
        Affairs

13      Ms. Carolyn Huntoon, Director, Johnson Space Center

12      Ms. Deidre Lee, Associate Administrator for Procurement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Flights indicate the number of individual flight segments. 

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a "required user" of OSA aircraft for
official travel. 

NASA officials said that some of the senior level passengers on this
chart were traveling to accompany the NASA Administrator. 



                         Air Force Helicopters
                
                 Most Frequent Senior Level Passengers
                          Oct. 93 thru Feb. 95

Flight
s\a     Air Force Helicopter Passengers
------  --------------------------------------------------------------
84 *    Gen. Wayne Downing, CINC, Special Operations Command

34 *    Gen. Ronald Fogleman, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force

34 *    Gen. John Loh, Commander, Air Combat Command

19 *    Gen. Ronald Yates, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command

17      Major Gen. John Leide, Director, National Military
        Intelligence Collection Center

15 *    Mr. William Perry, Secretary of Defense

14      Major Gen. Ervin Rokke, Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence

12      Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark, Director, Strategic Plans & Policy
        (JCS)

12      Brig. Gen. Michael Short, Director, Defense Intelligence
        Security Agency

10      Brig. Gen. John Casiano, Commander, Air Intelligence Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Flights indicate the number of individual flight segments. 

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a "required user" of OSA aircraft for
official travel. 



                            Army Helicopters
                
                 Most Frequent Senior Level Passengers
                          Jan. 93 thru Mar. 95

Flight
s\a     Army Helicopter Passengers
------  --------------------------------------------------------------
142 *   Gen. Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff of the Army

52      Gen. (Ret) Jimmy Ross, Former CG, U.S. Army Materiel Command

50      Gen. Leon Salomon, CG, U.S. Army Materiel Command

38      Major Gen. Fred Gorden, CG, Military District of Washington

36 *    Mr. Togo West, Secretary of the Army

35      Gen. J.H. Binford Peay, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations &
        Plans, U.S. Army

35      Mr. Walter Hollis, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army
        (Operations & Research)

32      Major Gen. George Friel, CG, U.S. Army Chemical & Biological
        Defense Command

31      Lt. Gen. Johnnie Wilson, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics,
        U.S. Army

27      Major Gen. William Stofft, Commandant, U.S. Army War College

26      Lt. Gen. John Otgen, CG, First U.S. Army
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Flights indicate the number of individual flight segments. 

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a "required user" of OSA aircraft for
official travel. 


CIVILIAN AGENCY INSPECTOR GENERAL
AUDITS
========================================================== Appendix II


   SUMMARY OF
   FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
   CIVILIAN INSPECTOR GENERAL
   AUDITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


In November 1991, GSA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) took
the lead in a comprehensive governmentwide audit effort in response
to a request from the Chairman, Subcommittee on General Services,
Federalism and the District of Columbia, Committee on Government
Affairs.  The purpose of the audit was to look at the management of
government-owned/ operated aircraft which also included looking at
the use of administrative aircraft.  As a result, the OIG requested
and received the assistance of the President's Council on Integrity
and Efficiency (PCIE), which is comprised of representatives from the
civilian agencies' Office of Inspector General (IG). 

IGs from each of the eight agencies we reviewed participated in this
PCIE audit and reported on aircraft management.  We summarized the
results of the IG reports, with the exception of the DEA.  The
Justice IG informed us that the DEA report is not due to be completed
for several weeks.  The IG reports identified problems in several
areas.  Most, if not all of these problems fell into the category of
agency noncompliance with established regulations, policies, and
procedures.  For example, agencies had not complied with (1)
presidential memorandum on "Restricted Use of Government Aircraft"
requiring agencies to report to OMB on their continued need for
aircraft configured for passenger use, (2) OMB Circular A-126, (3)
OMB Circular A-76 on "Performance of Commercial Acitivities," and/or
(4) OMB Bulletin 93-11, which contains the specific reporting
requirements for agencies to follow. 

The Department of State and Justice IG reports did not reveal
findings in the specific areas summarized on the chart.  On March 26,
1992, the GSA OIG completed an interim audit of government civilian
aircraft.  The report was basically informational and contained no
recommendations and required no responses from the agencies. 
However, the report cited several findings of which many were
identical or similar to the findings identified in the current IG
reports.  The individual IG reports will be consolidated into one
report by GSA, and it should be available by late September 1995. 
Agency officials have either partially or fully agreed or disagreed
with the various IG findings. 


AGENCIES VISITED OR CONTACTED
DURING OUR REVIEW
========================================================= Appendix III

We visited or contacted officials at the following headquarters or
field locations: 

  Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. 

  Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 

  Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

  Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C. 

  The Marine Corps, Washington, D.C. 

  Army Operational Support Aircraft Command,
      Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

  89th Military Airlift Command, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland

  Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois

  Naval Air Logistics Office, New Orleans, Louisiana

  Military District of Washington, Washington, D.C. 

  National Defense University, Washington, D.C. 

  General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.


  Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

Forest Service, Washington, D.C.


  Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon


  Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Office of Aircraft Services, Boise, Idaho


  Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Manassas, Virginia

U.S.  Marshals Service, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Drug Enforcement Administration, Fort Worth, Texas


  National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.


  Department of State, Washington, D.C. 

  Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.


  Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C. 

U.S.  Customs Service, Washington, D.C. 


LIST OF RELATED GAO, DOD, AND
CIVILIAN AGENCIES' REPORTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO

Department of Justice:  Use of FBI Aircraft by Department of Justice
Officials (GAO/GGD-94-53FS, July 6, 1994). 

Military Aircraft:  Policies on Government Officials' Use of 89th
Military Airlift Wing Aircraft (GAO/NSIAD-92-133, Apr.  9, 1992). 

Government Civilian Aircraft:  Use of Government Aircraft by the
Attorney General and FBI Director (GAO/GGD-90-84, June 15, 1990). 

Department of the Interior:  Bureau of Reclamation Aircraft Should Be
Centrally Managed Like Other Interior Aircraft (GAO/GGD-90-20 Jan. 
18, 1990). 

Military Airlift:  Operational Support Airlift Program Needs More
Controls (GAO/NSIAD-88-219, Sept.  16, 1988). 

Civil Agency Aircraft:  Agencies' Use of Certain Aircraft to
Transport Passengers (GAO/GGD-88-92BR, Aug.  1, 1988). 

State Department:  Cost of Unofficial Travel by the Secretary of
State (GAO/NSIAD-88-243FS, Sept.  30, 1988). 

Actions Taken on GAO Recommendations Concerning Civilian Agency
Aircraft Management (GAO/NSIAD-84-148, Aug.  1, 1984). 

DOD

Operational Support Airlift Aircraft Operated by the National Guard
and Reserve Components (April 1994). 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Report on the Roles, Missions,
and Functions of the Armed Forces of the United States (Feb.  1993). 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

NASA Aircraft Management, Langley Research Center (LA-95-001, Mar. 
28, 1995). 

Utilization of Administrative Aircraft, U.S.  Coast Guard
(AS-CG-5-010, Feb.  24, 1995). 

Utilization of Administrative Aircraft, Federal Aviation
Administration (AS-FA-5-009, Feb.  9, 1995). 

Use and Acquisition of Aircraft by the Department of the Interior
(95-I-317, Jan.  1995). 

U.S.  Department of Justice Audit Report:  The U.S.  Marshals Service
Management of Aviation Operations (95-17, Mar.  31, 1995). 

U.S.  Department of Justice Audit Report:  The Federal Bureau of
Investigation Management of Aviation Operations (95-9, Dec.  1994). 

Audit of Aircraft Management at the Bonneville Power Administration
(R-B-94-06, Sept.  30, 1994). 

Audit of Aircraft Management at the Albuquerque Operations Office
(B-94-05, Sept.  2, 1994). 

U.S.  Department of Agriculture Federal Civilian Agencies' Aircraft
Management, Washington, D.C.  (50050-4-At, Aug.  1994). 

PCIE Audit of Federal Civilian Agencies' Aircraft Management
(OIG-94-120, July 26, 1994). 

Bureau of International Narcotics Matters Air Wing (4-CI-013, Feb. 
1994). 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Sharon A.  Cekala
Robert Eurich
Jane D.  Trahan
Irene A.  Robertson
Carole F.  Coffey
Christine D.  Frye
Nadine A.  Furr

KANSAS CITY REGIONAL OFFICE

Greg Symons
Robert Sommer
Norm Trowbridge
