United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office National Security and International Affairs Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-11-10 monographic deposited born digital GA 1.13:NSIAD-94-42 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-94-42 P0b002ee1803908d7 f:ns94042 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-94-42 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-94-42 NSIAD-94-42 Army personnel Reductions in force Combat readiness Military training Military cost control Employee transfers Armed forces abroad Defense contingency planning Army facilities Military dependents Europe Desert Storm NATO Warsaw Pact Korea NATO Status of Forces Agreement Army Brigade 75/76 Program M1A1 Tank M1 Tank Grafenwoehr (Germany) Hohenfels (Germany) Mannheim (Germany) Persian Gulf Chapter Report NSIAD In GAO's view, a strong case cannot be made for changing the way that the Army assigns personnel to Europe. GAO reviewed the following four alternative force rotation systems: (1) adopting the system used in Korea of rotating individuals without their dependents, (2) introducing a unit rotation system without dependents, (3) rotating units without dependents for short-term training tours, and (4) continuing the current system of rotating individuals with their dependents. Although each of the alternatives could be used to fill at least some Army positions in Europe, each has drawbacks that limit the extent to which it could be implemented or pose major logistical problems. Moreover, while too many variables exist to accurately compare the alternatives from the standpoint of cost, two key factors--transportation cost for dependent moves within the United States and offsetting costs in the United States--suggest that the alternatives may not yield a cost savings over the current system. When key factors are considered, the current system offers many advantages over the alternatives GAO considered. Moreover, given ongoing efforts to consolidate operations and boost efficiency, substantial cost savings should accrue even without a change in the current system. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-94-42/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-94-42.htm GAO/NSIAD-94-42 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-94-42 Chapter Report GAO/NSIAD-94-42; Army Force Structure: Current System for Assigning Troops to Europe Has Advantages Over Alternatives; Army personnel Reductions in force Combat readiness Military training Military cost control Employee transfers Armed forces abroad Defense contingency planning Army facilities Military dependents Europe Desert Storm NATO Warsaw Pact Korea NATO Status of Forces Agreement Army Brigade 75/76 Program M1A1 Tank M1 Tank Grafenwoehr (Germany) Hohenfels (Germany) Mannheim (Germany) Persian Gulf