This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-299 
entitled 'Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical 
Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely 
Estimated' which was released on February 24, 2005.

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

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2005: 

Military Personnel: 

Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual 
Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated: 

GAO-05-299: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-299, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

From the passage of the homosexual conduct policy statute, in fiscal 
year 1994, through fiscal year 2003 the military services separated 
about 9,500 servicemembers for homosexual conduct. This represents 
about 0.40 percent of the 2.37 million members separated for all 
reasons during this period. Questions have been raised about the costs 
of separating servicemembers for homosexual conduct. Also, in the post-
September 11th environment, there has been concern about the separation 
of servicemembers with critical occupations or important foreign 
language skills in, for example, Arabic. 

GAO was asked to determine (1) the military services’ annual financial 
costs from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 for certain 
activities associated with administering the Department of Defense’s 
(DOD) policy on homosexual conduct—e.g., the recruitment and training 
of servicemembers to replace those separated under the homosexual 
conduct statute—and (2) the extent to which the policy has resulted in 
the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations and 
important foreign language skills.

GAO provided DOD with a draft of this report for comment, and DOD 
provided additional information on separations for homosexual conduct 
compared with other unprogrammed separations.

What GAO Found: 

The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated 
because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and 
investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and 
discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and 
training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated 
that, over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million 
in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for 
servicemembers separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force, 
and Army estimated that the cost to train replacements for separated 
servicemembers by occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 
million, and $29.7 million, respectively.

Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for 
homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as 
those occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses. GAO 
analyzed and selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each 
year from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent 
of the servicemembers with critical occupations who were separated for 
homosexual conduct were separated within 2.5 years of service. The 
typical military service contract is for 4 years of service. Also, 322 
(3 percent) of separated servicemembers had some skills in an important 
foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or Korean. A total of 98 
servicemembers had completed training in an important language at DOD’s 
Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency score; 63 percent 
of such servicemembers had proficiency scores that were at or below the 
midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency scales for listening, reading, 
or speaking. Students can graduate from the basic program with 
proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.

Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Homosexual 
Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of table]

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-299.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Derek Stewart at (202) 
512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct 
Policy Can Be Estimated: 

Servicemembers with Critical Occupations and/or Important Language 
Skills Have Been Separated for Homosexual Conduct: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Financial Cost Estimate Tables: 

Appendix III: Critical Occupation Data Tables: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for 
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service: 

Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with 
Some Proficiency in an "Important Foreign Language," Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2003: 

Table 3: Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Service 
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Table 4: Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Table 5: Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected 
Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Table 6: Individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual 
Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Table 7: Individuals with Intelligence-Related Occupations Separated 
for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2003: 

Table 8: Individuals with Training in Important Languages Separated for 
Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 
2003: 

Table 9: Sample of Critical Occupations: 

Table 10: Sample of Intelligence-Related Occupations: 

Table 11: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal 
Year 2003 Who Were Trained in a Language at the Defense Language 
Institute: 

Table 12: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal 
Year 2003, as Reported through Service Personnel Files: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Race, Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2003: 

Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years 
1994 through 2003: 

Figure 3: Separations under DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason, 
Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Figure 4: Average Annual Recruiting Cost Estimate by Military Service 
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with 
Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal 
Years 1994 through 2003: 

Figure 7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with 
Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual 
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Figure 8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals 
Trained in Important Languages prior to Separation for Homosexual 
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FY: fiscal year: 

GAO: Government Accountability Office: 

Letter February 23, 2005: 

Congressional Requesters: 

In 1993 Congress enacted a homosexual conduct policy statute which 
declared that the "presence in the armed forces of persons who 
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would 
create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order 
and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military 
capability."[Footnote 1] During the 10 years following this 
declaration, the military services separated about 9,500 servicemembers 
for homosexual conduct under the statute. This represents about 0.40 
percent of the 2.37 million members separated for all reasons during 
this period. In the post-September 11th environment, questions have 
been raised about the financial costs associated with the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) policy on homosexual conduct,[Footnote 2] especially in 
light of concerns about the shortage of personnel with skills in 
critical occupations and foreign language training.

You asked us to determine (1) the military services' annual financial 
costs for certain activities associated with administering DOD's policy 
on homosexual conduct--the recruitment and training of servicemembers 
to replace those separated under the homosexual conduct statute, 
inquiries and investigations of homosexuality cases, counseling and 
pastoral care for affected individuals, separation functions, and 
discharge reviews--and (2) the extent to which the policy has resulted 
in the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations and 
important foreign language skills.

To identify various types of costs associated with the policy on 
homosexual conduct, we interviewed officials from a variety of DOD and 
service offices, including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness, DOD's Office of Accession Policy; and 
offices in the military services responsible for budget, criminal 
investigation, chaplaincy, separation, and discharge review. The Air 
Force, Army, and Navy provided data on training costs by occupation. 
While we requested the same training-cost data inputs, each of the 
services used their own methods to calculate the reported training-cost 
estimates.

To address the extent to which the homosexual conduct policy statute 
has resulted in the separation of enlisted servicemembers with 
"critical" occupations, we adopted the military services' definition of 
a "critical" occupation as an occupation that was part of the selective 
reenlistment bonus program. The selective reenlistment bonus program 
for enlisted military personnel is DOD's primary tool for addressing 
short-term retention problems in critical occupations by providing 
servicemembers who reenlisted following the expiration of their service 
contracts with up to $60,000.[Footnote 3] We collected and analyzed 
this information for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. Because 
intelligence occupations, as a group, have enduring importance for the 
military that is independent from their periodic inclusion in the 
selective reenlistment bonus program, we identified servicemembers 
separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute who had such 
occupations. We defined the knowledge of a foreign language as 
"important" if it was related to (1) an occupation included in the 
selective reenlistment bonus program or (2) a language identified by 
combatant commanders and the Joint Staff as a deficiency in their 
periodic readiness assessments. We also analyzed separated members' 
occupations and foreign language skills by their length of service. The 
Defense Manpower Data Center (Data Center) provided information on 
occupations, foreign language skills, and the length of service of 
separated servicemembers.

The principal limitation of our analysis is that, for privacy reasons, 
we did not review separated servicemembers' personnel records, 
including training histories, which have implications for estimating 
training costs. For example, from data provided by the Data Center, we 
matched separated servicemembers to specific occupations, but we cannot 
state whether such individuals completed all of the training associated 
with their occupations. Much of our analysis depended on the quality of 
information that the services provided the Data Center with and the 
steps that the Data Center took to ensure the accuracy and completeness 
of the data. According to Data Center officials, since 1998, the Data 
Center has made a special effort to ensure that the services provide 
accurate information about the number of servicemembers separated for 
homosexual conduct.

Although we did not validate the budget/financial systems used to 
produce the cost estimates used in this report, we determined that the 
estimates were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We 
assessed reliability by (1) reviewing existing information about the 
data and the systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency 
officials knowledgeable about the data and the manner in which they 
were collected. We conducted our review from August 2004 through 
February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. A detailed description of our scope and methodology is 
presented in appendix I.

Results in Brief: 

The total costs of DOD's homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated 
because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and 
investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and 
discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training 
costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it 
would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 
dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit 
replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual 
conduct.[Footnote 4] DOD does calculate cost estimates related to 
recruiting enlisted personnel, which we applied in broad terms, for 
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute as 
a replacement cost. We calculated that the estimated average annual 
cost to recruit an enlisted servicemember over the 10-year period to be 
about $10,500.[Footnote 5] Most of the services were able to estimate 
total training costs--recruit (or basic) training and occupation- 
specific training.

The estimated training costs for the occupations performed by Navy 
members separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through 
fiscal year 2003 was about $48.8 million ($18,000 per member).[Footnote 
6] The comparable Air Force cost estimate was $16.6 million ($7,400 per 
member).[Footnote 7] The Army estimated that the training cost of the 
occupations performed by Army members separated for homosexual conduct 
over the 10-year period was about $29.7 million ($6,400 per 
member).[Footnote 8] The Marine Corps was not able to estimate 
occupation-related training costs. However, other types of costs such 
as those related to inquiries and investigations of cases, counseling 
and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews are not 
estimable because DOD does not collect data necessary to develop such 
estimates.

The military services separated 9,488 members[Footnote 9] pursuant to 
the homosexual conduct policy statute from fiscal year 1994 through 
fiscal year 2003, some of whom were in critical occupations or had 
important foreign language skills. Seven hundred fifty-seven (about 8 
percent) of these separated servicemembers held critical 
occupations[Footnote 10] ("voice interceptor," "data processing 
technician," or "interpreter/translator"), as defined by the services. 
About 59 percent of the members with critical occupations who were 
separated for homosexual conduct were separated during their first 2.5 
years of service, which is about 1.5 years before the expiration of the 
initial service contract of most enlistees. Such contracts are 
typically for 4 years. Also, 322 members (about 3 percent) had some 
skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, and 
Korean.[Footnote 11] A total of 98 members separated under the 
homosexual conduct policy statute completed language training at the 
Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency rating; 62 
members, or 63 percent, were at or below the midpoint on DOD's 
listening, reading, or speaking proficiency scales.[Footnote 12]

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for 
homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations from 
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.

Background: 

Homosexuality and the Military: 

The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element 
of military law.[Footnote 13] But in January 1993, President Clinton 
sought to fulfill a campaign promise to "lift the ban" on homosexuals 
serving in the military. This led to the policy familiarly known as 
"don't ask, don't tell." In exchange for the military services' silence 
("don't ask") about a person's homosexuality prior to induction, gay 
and lesbian servicemembers, as a condition of continued service, would 
have to agree to silence ("don't tell") about this aspect of their 
life. Failure to maintain silence can result in separation from the 
military.[Footnote 14] In November 1993, Congress passed the homosexual 
conduct policy statute and stated that the military's suspension of 
questioning should remain in effect unless the Secretary of Defense 
considers reinstatement of questioning necessary to effectuate the 
policy set out in the statute.[Footnote 15] The statute also sets out 
the findings of Congress in addition to the homosexual conduct policy. 
Included in the findings section is a description of the differences 
between military and civilian life, which forms a rationale for the 
institution of the policy.

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that the 
extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique 
conditions of military service, and critical role of unit cohesion, 
require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, 
exist as a specialized society [which] is characterized by its own 
laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions 
on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian 
society.[Footnote 16]

In short, Congress indicated that because of the unique nature of 
military life, the military services may need to treat individuals who 
engage in homosexual acts, as defined by the statute, differently than 
they would be treated in civilian society.

Separations for Homosexual Conduct during 1994-2003 Period: 

According to our analysis of the information provided by the Defense 
Manpower Data Center, 9,488 servicemembers were separated for 
homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 
2003.[Footnote 17] This figure represents servicemembers who were on 
active duty at the time of their separation, including members of the 
Reserves who were on active duty for 31 or more consecutive days. 
According to a Data Center official, 118 reservists (other than those 
who served on active duty) were separated for homosexual conduct from 
fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2003. Because these separated 
reservists represent a small number of total separations under the 
homosexual conduct policy statute, we did not include them in our 
analysis. This exclusion is consistent with DOD's reporting practice in 
this area, which reports only active duty personnel separated for 
homosexual conduct. The figure also does not include servicemembers who 
were in the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, or the Coast 
Guard. According to a Data Center official, the official tracking of 
separations for homosexual conduct began in 1997 at which time it was 
decided to include only the members of the Air Force, Army, Marines, 
and Navy on active duty. The data also do not include servicemembers 
who, for example, were separated for a "pattern of misconduct," which 
could include several reasons for separation, including homosexual 
conduct.

The Data Center also provided data on the characterization of service 
at separation for service members separated for homosexual conduct from 
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. For "characterized" 
separations (5,763 servicemembers), DOD granted "honorable" separations 
to 4,710 servicemembers (82 percent); "general (under honorable 
conditions)" separations to 766 (13 percent); and "under other than 
honorable conditions" separations to 287 servicemembers (5 percent). 
DOD also granted "uncharacterized," or entry-level separations to 3,304 
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during this 10-
year period. The Data Center also classified as "bad conduct," the 
separation of four servicemembers, which is a type of punitive 
separation applicable to enlisted personnel only. (See Manual for 
Courts Martial, Rule 1003(b)(8).) The Data Center did not have 
characterization-of-service data for 417 servicemembers who were 
separated for homosexual conduct during this 10-year period.

Table 1 and figures 1 and 2 show the number of separations by military 
service, race, and gender, respectively, from fiscal year 1994 through 
fiscal year 2003.

Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for 
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service: 

Fiscal year: 1994; 
Army: 136; 
Air Force: 185; 
Marines: 36; 
Navy: 258; 
Total[A]: 615.

Fiscal year: 1995; 
Army: 184; 
Air Force: 235; 
Marines: 69; 
Navy: 269; 
Total[A]: 757.

Fiscal year: 1996; 
Army: 199; 
Air Force: 284; 
Marines: 60; 
Navy: 315; 
Total[A]: 858.

Fiscal year: 1997; 
Army: 197; 
Air Force: 309; 
Marines: 78; 
Navy: 413; 
Total[A]: 997.

Fiscal year: 1998; 
Army: 310; 
Air Force: 414; 
Marines: 76; 
Navy: 345; 
Total[A]: 1,145.

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Army: 271; 
Air Force: 352; 
Marines: 97; 
Navy: 313; 
Total[A]: 1,033.

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Army: 574; 
Air Force: 177; 
Marines: 104; 
Navy: 358; 
Total[A]: 1,213.

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Army: 626; 
Air Force: 190; 
Marines: 111; 
Navy: 290; 
Total[A]: 1,217.

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Army: 432; 
Air Force: 125; 
Marines: 105; 
Navy: 222; 
Total[A]: 884.

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Army: 378; 
Air Force: 142; 
Marines: 62; 
Navy: 187; 
Total[A]: 769.

Fiscal year: Total; 
Army: 3,307; 
Air Force: 2,413; 
Marines: 798; 
Navy: 2,970; 
Total[A]: 9,488.

Fiscal year: Percent; 
Army: 35; 
Air Force: 25; 
Marines: 8; 
Navy: 31; 
Total[A]: 99.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (data).

[A] Percents do not equal 100 because of rounding.

[End of table]

Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Race, Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years 
1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Gender information was not available for 15 of the 9,488 
servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct during this period.

[End of figure] 

The homosexual conduct policy statute states three reasons for 
separation, namely, that a servicemember has (1) "engaged in, attempted 
to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or 
acts…;" (2) "stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or 
words to that effect…;" or (3) "married or attempted to marry a person 
known to be of the same biological sex." In addition, the statute 
provides mitigating factors that may prevent separation in cases 
arising under the first two categories.[Footnote 18] Figure 3 shows the 
distribution of separations by these three reasons from fiscal year 
1994 through fiscal year 2003.

Figure 3: Separations under DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason, 
Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: The figure displays information on 9,477--rather than all 9,488 
servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct during the 10-year 
period--because the statutory reason for separation was missing for 11 
former servicemembers.

[End of figure] 

Previous GAO Report on Costs Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct 
Policy: 

In 1992 GAO reviewed DOD's policy on homosexuality, including the costs 
associated with replacing personnel separated under the policy and the 
cost of investigating allegations of homosexuality.[Footnote 19] We 
concluded that "DOD does not maintain records of the costs associated 
with administering its policy [on homosexuality]; nor does it record 
the costs of investigating alleged cases of homosexuality. Accordingly, 
our analysis was limited to estimates of the costs of recruiting and 
training individuals to replace personnel discharged for 
homosexuality." 

We also noted that the total cost of replacing personnel discharged for 
homosexuality would need to include other factors such as out- 
processing and court costs.

The cost data in this report and the 1992 report are not comparable 
because, at the time of the 1992 review, we did not include the 
estimated training costs for the occupations of servicemembers who were 
separated for homosexual conduct.

Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct 
Policy Can Be Estimated: 

Though the total costs associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy 
cannot be determined because neither DOD nor the services collect 
relevant cost data, some costs can be estimated. For example, DOD does 
collect estimates of the costs to recruit enlisted servicemembers, a 
portion of which can be associated with DOD's homosexual conduct 
policy. In addition, upon our request, the services were able to 
calculate the estimated costs associated with the training of personnel 
by occupation. However, DOD was unable to estimate the costs associated 
with other activities related to DOD's homosexual conduct policy, 
namely, those related to investigations and commanders' inquiries, 
counseling and pastoral care, and the processing and review of 
separations.

DOD Collects Data Related to Recruitment Costs: 

While not specific to individuals discharged for homosexual conduct or 
other reasons, DOD does collect data related to the cost to recruit 
servicemembers. Collected data related to DOD's annual average 
recruiting cost estimate for enlisted servicemembers are shown in 
figure 4. Taken together, available data show that the average annual 
recruiting cost estimate for enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994 
through fiscal year 2003 was about $10,500 per member in constant 
fiscal year 2004 dollars.[Footnote 20]

Figure 4: Average Annual Recruiting Cost Estimate by Military Service 
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. Tabular 
data related to cost in this and other figures are in appendix II.

[End of figure] 

The total estimated cost to recruit potential replacements for the 
9,352 enlisted servicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct 
policy during the 10-year period[Footnote 21] was about $95 million in 
constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. (See table 4 in appendix II.) 
Estimated recruiting costs by military service are shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.

[End of figure] 

Most Military Services Can Compute Estimates of Costs to Train 
Personnel: 

With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services were able to 
compute cost estimates to train members, by occupation, upon our 
request. We asked the military services to provide total and per-capita 
training-cost estimates of the occupations performed by servicemembers 
who were separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute for 
fiscal years 1994 through 2003. These figures include estimates of all 
training costs related to selected occupations, including recruit 
training. The Navy estimated that the total training cost for the 10- 
year period was $48.8 million and the estimated per-capita cost was 
about $18,000. The comparable total estimated cost for the Air Force 
was $16.6 million, and the per-capita cost estimate was $7,400. The 
Army estimated that the training cost for selected Army occupations for 
the 10-year period was about $29.7 million. The estimated average 
training cost of these occupations was about $6,400 per member.

Other Types of Costs Associated with the Homosexual Conduct Policy 
Cannot Be Estimated: 

We also examined the availability of other cost-estimate data 
associated with homosexual conduct, including investigations and 
inquiries, counseling and pastoral care, processing separations from 
military service, and the review of such separations by service boards. 
For these cost categories, we found that relevant data (for example, a 
system that records the time spent on specific tasks for specific 
reasons) are not collected, and, as a result, these types of costs 
cannot be estimated.

Investigations and Commanders' Inquiries: 

Investigative cost estimates were not available for our inquiry because 
DOD law enforcement organizations do not generally investigate adult 
private consensual sexual misconduct as a matter of investigative 
priority and because of resource limitations. As the Navy notes in a 
policy statement on this subject, "if there is no victim, there is 
virtually no circumstance where the [criminal investigative service] 
will investigate sexual misconduct." Sexual misconduct cases under 
these circumstances are referred to commanders for appropriate 
disposition. And because commanders do not record the time they spend 
on sexual misconduct inquiries, it is not possible to estimate the cost 
of conducting them.

Counseling and Pastoral Care: 

The estimated cost of counseling services, including pastoral care 
provided through the chaplains corps, is also not determinable. 
Servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct are not required to 
seek counseling. Army and Navy chaplains, for example, record the types 
of tasks they perform--religious ministry, outreach, or pastoral care-
-but they are not required to compute the time they spend performing 
these activities. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the cost 
of conducting such tasks. Furthermore, chaplains are not required to 
differentiate "pastoral care" in their task reports by topics covered 
such as homosexual conduct or sexual harassment.

Processing Separations from Military Service: 

The estimated cost of separating servicemembers also cannot be 
determined. Separation procedures are handled by salaried employees who 
work in the personnel offices of various military installations and who 
have multiple responsibilities other than coordinating a 
servicemember's separation from the military. They too do not compute 
their time spent on the various activities they perform.

Review of Separations by Service Boards: 

Servicemembers who have been separated for homosexual conduct have 
occasionally requested service discharge review boards to review 
whether their separations were properly granted. The estimated costs 
associated with this activity also cannot be determined. Officials 
associated with such boards told us that they are not required to 
compute the estimated cost of reviewing servicemembers' requests and 
that they do not record the number of reviews associated with DOD's 
homosexual conduct policy. But service discharge review board officials 
were able to identify for us at least 119 reviews associated with 
homosexual conduct (the Army, 72 reviews, fiscal years 1993-2003; Navy, 
24 reviews, and Marines, 11 reviews, fiscal years 2000-2003; and Air 
Force, 12 reviews, fiscal years 2001-3). The service discharge boards 
conducted about 33,200 reviews during these same time periods.

Servicemembers with Critical Occupations and/or Important Language 
Skills Have Been Separated for Homosexual Conduct: 

From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, the military services 
separated members who had some training in critical occupations and/or 
important foreign languages pursuant to the homosexual conduct policy 
statute. Most servicemembers who had such occupations were separated 
during their first 2.5 years of service. Also, DOD separated 
servicemembers who had some language skills in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, 
and Korean. Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had 
proficiency scores in listening to, reading, or speaking these four 
languages that were above the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency 
scales, although students can graduate from the basic program with 
proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.

Most Separated Servicemembers Who Had Critical Occupations Were 
Separated during Their First 2.5 Years of Service: 

Servicemembers with critical occupations were separated for homosexual 
conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. Examples of 
critical occupations, as defined by the military services, include 
"voice interceptor," "data processing technician," and "interpreter/ 
translator." The occupations most frequently cited as "critical," that 
is, eligible for selective reenlistment bonuses are listed in appendix 
III. (See table 9.) We found that 757 (about 8 percent) of the 9,488 
servicemembers discharged for homosexual conduct during this time 
period held critical occupations.

We determined the separation rate for these individuals at four time 
intervals: recruit training, advanced individual training, and two 1- 
year periods thereafter. The length of recruit training varies between 
the services: 

* 84 days in the Marine Corps,

* 63 days in the Army,

* 56 days in the Navy, and: 

* 42 days in the Air Force.

Overall, 1,747 (about 19 percent) of the 9,239 servicemembers separated 
under the homosexual conduct policy statute were separated during 
recruit training.[Footnote 22] An additional 1,037 servicemembers 
(about 11 percent) were separated during advanced individual or 
occupation-related training. Advanced individual training occurs after 
recruit training, and the length of training varies widely by 
occupation. For the purpose of our analysis, we considered advanced 
individual training as 100 days following recruit training, which is 
about the average number of days for this type of training. For 
example, for the Marines, this would mean between the 85th and 185th 
day of service. Generally, 5,446 servicemembers (about 59 percent) were 
separated by the end of the 365-day period following advanced training, 
or within about 1.5 years of service.

Before new recruits are sent to recruit training, they are required to 
take an enlistment oath and sign a contract to serve one of the 
military services for a specified period of time, generally from 2 to 6 
years and typically for 4 years. Consequently, a separation within 1.5 
years is well before the end of a typical service contract for enlisted 
personnel. By comparison, we reported in 1998 that for fiscal years 
1982 through 1993, about 32 percent of all enlistees were separated 
during their first term of service: 11 percent of enlistees were 
separated during their first 6 months (versus about 30 percent of 
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during their 
first 6 months) and about 21 percent of all enlistees from their 7th 
through 48th month.[Footnote 23]

Next, we analyzed the length of service for 755 servicemembers 
separated for homosexual conduct who had critical occupations.[Footnote 
24] The separation rate for this group was lower than for the total 
population separated for homosexual conduct. Generally, 267 
servicemembers (about 35 percent) were separated within about 1.5 years 
of service, and 443 servicemembers (about 59 percent) were separated 
within about 2.5 years of service. Figure 6 shows the separation rate 
of servicemembers who had critical occupations by various time periods.

Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with 
Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal 
Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

We identified servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct 
policy statute who had intelligence-related occupations (a partial list 
of these occupations is in appendix III, table 10); not all of these 
occupations were related to the selective reenlistment bonus program. 
We identified 730 separated servicemembers who held intelligence- 
related occupations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. The 
separation rate is similar to the separation rate of servicemembers who 
held occupations that were related to a selective reenlistment bonus: 
274 of these servicemembers (about 38 percent) were separated within 
about 1.5 years of service, and 450 servicemembers (about 62 percent) 
were separated within about 2.5 years of service. Figure 7 shows the 
separation rate of servicemembers with intelligence-related occupations 
by various time periods.

Figure 7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with 
Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual 
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Parts may not sum to equal cumulative percents because of 
rounding. (See appendix III for frequency counts.) 

[End of figure] 

Some Servicemembers with Training in Important Languages Were Separated 
for Homosexual Conduct: 

DOD separated several hundred members with training in important 
foreign languages. During fiscal years 1994 through 2003, DOD separated 
322 servicemembers for homosexual conduct who had some skills in a 
foreign language that DOD had considered to be especially important. A 
total of 209 separated servicemembers attended the Defense Language 
Institute for training in one of these important languages. Ninety- 
eight of these 209 completed training and received a proficiency 
rating, and 62 members (63 percent of the 98) had proficiency scores at 
or below the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency scales for 
listening, reading, or speaking. To assess listening, reading, and 
speaking proficiencies, DOD uses an 11-point scale. DOD describes the 
midpoint as "limited working proficiency, plus." According to the 
Defense Language Institute, in order to graduate from the basic 
language program, students are expected to achieve at least a "limited 
working proficiency" in listening and reading and an "elementary 
proficiency, plus" in speaking a foreign language. Both of these levels 
are below the midpoint on DOD's proficiency scale. Table 2 shows the 
number of servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had some 
skill in an important foreign language.

Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with 
Some Proficiency in an "Important Foreign Language," Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2003: 

Language: Arabic; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 54; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 20; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 10 
(50); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5 
(25); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 8 (40); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 7 (35); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 20 
(100); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).

Language: Chinese; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 20; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 6; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 
(17); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 0 (0); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5 (83); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 4 (67); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (17).

Language: Farsi; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 9; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 2; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 2 
(100); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 (50); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (50); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 2 
(100); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).

Language: Korean; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 50; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 25; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 21 
(84); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 2 (8); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 17 (68); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (4); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 24 
(96); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).

Language: Russian; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 42; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 25; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 11 
(44); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 8 
(32); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 5 (20); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 9 (36); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 19 
(76); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 4 (16).

Language: Serbo-Croatian; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 8; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 4; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 2 
(50); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 
(25); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 (25); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 3 (75); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (25).

Language: Spanish; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 24; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 15; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 5 
(33); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5 
(33); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 (7); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 5 (33); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 12 
(80); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (7).

Language: Vietnamese; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 2; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 1; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 
(100); 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 0 (0); 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 1 (100); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 1 
(100); 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 0 (0).

Total number; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 209; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 98; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 53; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 21; 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 33; 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 29; 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 85; 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 7.

Percent; 
Number of separated servicemembers who attended Defense Language 
Institute: 100; 
Number of separated servicemembers: Language Institute students with 
proficiency scores: 47; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] below midpoint: 54; 
Number of students with listening proficiency[A] above midpoint: 24; 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] below midpoint: 34; 
Number of students with reading proficiency[A] above midpoint: 30; 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] below midpoint: 87; 
Number of students with speaking proficiency[A] above midpoint: 7.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: 

1. "Important" foreign languages are those for which servicemembers are 
eligible to receive selective reenlistment bonuses or those identified 
as "deficiencies" by combatant commanders and the Joint Staff in their 
periodic readiness assessments.

2. The table does not include the number and percentage of students 
with scores at the midpoint but includes such information only for 
students below or above the midpoint.

[A] Percentages in parentheses. The Data Center has length-of-service 
data for 205 of the separated servicemembers who received training in 
an important foreign language.

[End of table]

We analyzed the length of service for the 205 separated servicemembers 
who had received training in an important foreign language at the 
Defense Language Institute. Figure 8 shows the separation rate for 
these servicemembers. About 131 (64 percent) were separated within 
about 2.5 years of service.

Figure 8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals 
Trained in Important Languages prior to Separation for Homosexual 
Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: No servicemember with training in critical languages was 
separated for homosexual conduct in Period 1, the first 3 months of 
military service, which generally corresponds to recruit training.

[End of figure] 

We further analyzed the occupations of the 54 separated servicemembers 
who received training in Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. We 
were able to match 42 (about 78 percent) with an occupation that 
utilizes a foreign language, many in intelligence-related occupations 
such as "cryptologic linguist" or "communications interceptor." 
However, these 42 members might have had limited experience in their 
occupation because 36 servicemembers (about 86 percent of the 42) were 
listed as "helpers" or "apprentices," or had the lowest skill level 
associated with the occupation.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for 
homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations from 
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. DOD also provided technical 
changes, which we made where appropriate. The department's written 
comments are incorporated in their entirety in appendix IV.

 Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 
distribution of this report until 3 days from its issue date. At the 
time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; 
the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget; and interested congressional committees. We will 
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 [Hyperlink, Stewartd@gao.gov] or 
George Poindexter, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7213 [Hyperlink, 
poindexterg@gao.gov], if you or your staff have any questions 
concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Lisa 
Brown, Alissa Czyz, Joe Faley, Nicole Gore, Catherine Humphries, Tom 
Mills, Charles Perdue, and Jen Popovic.

Signed by: 

Derek B. Stewart, Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

List of Congressional Requesters: 

The Honorable Martin T. Meehan: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Neil Abercrombie: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Tom Allen: 
The Honorable Robert Andrews: 
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin: 
The Honorable Danny Davis: 
The Honorable Susan A. Davis: 
The Honorable Diana DeGette: 
The Honorable William Delahunt: 
The Honorable Eliot Engel: 
The Honorable Barney Frank: 
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee: 
The Honorable James R. Langevin: 
The Honorable Carolyn Maloney: 
The Honorable George Miller: 
The Honorable Jim Moran: 
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler: 
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton: 
The Honorable Christopher Shays: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
The Honorable Pete Stark: 
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To conduct our work, we interviewed individuals at a variety of 
Department of Defense (DOD) and service offices, including the office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; DOD's 
Office of Accession Policy; DOD's Defense Manpower Data Center; and 
offices in the military services responsible for budget, investigation, 
chaplaincy, separation, and discharge review.

To determine the estimated financial costs associated with DOD's 
homosexual conduct policy, we obtained information on the estimated 
costs to recruit enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994 through 
fiscal year 2003 from DOD's Office of Accession Policy. DOD includes 
this information in the Military Personnel Procurement Resources 
Report. DOD calculates recruiting cost per enlisted member by dividing 
a military service's total expenditures for recruiting enlisted 
personnel by the service's total number of accessions. Recruiting 
expenditures include, but are not limited to, the costs associated with 
recruiting personnel, enlistment bonuses, advertising, communications, 
recruiting support, and recruiting command resources. We computed an 
average of the reported figures for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. DOD 
does not include per-capita recruiting costs associated with 
commissioned officers in its procurement resources report.

We also requested that each of the four military services provide 
estimated training cost information for occupations performed by 
enlisted servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct from 
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In order to provide total 
estimated training costs, we asked the services to provide estimates of 
both fixed and variable costs[Footnote 25] associated with each 
occupation. Estimated occupation-related training costs include, but 
are not limited to, military and civilian pay for instructors, 
operations and maintenance, student transportation, ammunition, 
supplies, and flying costs (if any). We reviewed the services' general 
methodology for developing training-cost estimates and found them 
acceptable. We used weighted averages[Footnote 26] to estimate the 
average per-member occupational training costs for the Air Force, Army, 
and Navy. The Marine Corps was unable to provide this information. 
Additionally, we excluded from our analysis the training costs 
associated with medical and health-care-related occupations because the 
services could not reasonably estimate them. Service officials told us 
that the length of training and other factors necessary to achieve a 
health-care-related proficiency varies widely, as do the costs 
associated with them.

To assess the extent to which DOD separated members with critical 
occupations or important foreign language skills, we obtained 
occupation-and foreign-language-related data (for fiscal years 1994- 
2003) on servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct from the 
Defense Manpower Data Center's Active Duty Personnel Transaction File, 
which is a compilation of data provided by each of the military 
services. Our analysis was limited to active duty personnel and did not 
include 118 reservists who were separated for homosexual conduct 
because they represent a small number of total separations under the 
homosexual conduct policy statute. This is consistent with DOD's 
reporting practice in this area. The department reports only active 
duty personnel separated for homosexual conduct. The Data Center 
provided information on an individual's branch of service, occupation, 
rank, length of time in service, and language skills.

With respect to the occupational data, we adopted the military 
services' definition of a "critical" occupation as an occupation that 
was part of the selective reenlistment bonus program. The selective 
reenlistment bonus program for enlisted military personnel is DOD's 
primary tool for addressing short-term retention problems in critical 
occupations by providing servicemembers who reenlist following the 
expiration of their service contracts with up to $60,000. The Army, 
Marines, and Navy list their 10 most critical occupations in their 
annual budget justifications. The Air Force, however, does not 
prioritize its critical occupations in its budget justification. The 
services determine reenlistment bonus amounts by multiplying (1) a 
servicemember's current monthly basic pay by (2) the member's number of 
additional years of obligated service by (3) a bonus multiple that can 
range from 0.5 to 15. For the Air Force, we used this bonus multiple to 
determine a list of the 10 most critical occupations for each year from 
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003; the Air Force occupations 
with the 10 largest bonus multipliers in a specific year were deemed by 
us to be the most critical. For example, in 1 year we included Air 
Traffic Control in the list of the top 10 Air Force occupations because 
it had a bonus multiplier of 7, which is the largest multiplier that 
the Air Force used from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In 
contrast, Pararescue, and all other occupations that had a bonus 
multiplier of 5 for that year, were not included on our list of most 
critical Air Force occupations. This is because there were at least 10 
Air Force occupations whose bonus multipliers were 5.5, 6, or 7. Note 
that, in other years, depending on the bonus multipliers for all jobs, 
Pararescue could be included as an occupation on the "top ten" list.

To assess the extent to which DOD separated individuals for homosexual 
conduct in intelligence-related occupations, we compiled a list of 
service-level occupation titles that could be categorized as 
"intelligence-related" by their relationship to DOD's occupational 
codes. DOD occupation codes are a way of organizing service-level 
occupations into general categories. Each separated servicemember whose 
occupation matched an intelligence-related DOD occupational code was 
considered to have an intelligence-related occupation.

Finally, with respect to separations for homosexual conduct of 
individuals with important language skills, we identified separated 
servicemembers with foreign language skills using language data drawn 
from the Defense Manpower Data Center. The Data Center provided two 
types of language data. The first type addresses the language skills of 
servicemembers who attended the Defense Language Institute's Foreign 
Language Center. Language proficiency data for these students are based 
on the Defense Language Proficiency Test score they received when 
tested at the completion of their course of study. The other type of 
language data in the active duty file is information reported to the 
Data Center by the services. The language proficiency data in this file 
are based on multiple sources--from servicemembers themselves or from 
the official Defense Language Institute proficiency test.

Although we did not validate the budget/financial systems and processes 
used to calculate the cost estimates used in this report, we determined 
that the estimates were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this 
report. As previously discussed, we assessed the reliability of these 
data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the 
systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials 
knowledgeable about the data to determine the steps taken to ensure the 
accuracy and completeness of the data.

We assessed the reliability of the Defense Manpower Data Center's 
Active Duty Military Personnel Transaction file by (1) performing 
electronic testing of the required data elements, (2) reviewing 
existing information about the data and the system that produced them, 
and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 
this report. We conducted our review from August 2004 through February 
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Financial Cost Estimate Tables: 

Estimated Cost of Recruiting Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual 
Conduct: 

Table 4 shows that the total estimated cost to recruit potential 
replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual 
conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 was about $95 
million. To compute this cost, we multiplied the number of 
servicemembers as shown in table 1 (less the number of officers) by the 
data in table 3 for each service and each year. For example, we 
multiplied the number of Army members who were separated for homosexual 
conduct in fiscal year 1994--136--from table 1 by the Army's average 
annual recruiting cost for fiscal year 1994 ($9,597) from table 3 in 
order to compute $1.305 million in table 4. The sum of these 
calculations for the 10-year period is about $95 million in constant 
fiscal year 2004 dollars.

Table 3: Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Service 
and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Constant FY 2004 dollars.

Army; 
Fiscal year 1994: $9,597; 
Fiscal year 1995: $11,053; 
Fiscal year 1996: $10,460; 
Fiscal year 1997: $11,547; 
Fiscal year 1998: $13,059; 
Fiscal year 1999: $14,278; 
Fiscal year 2000: $14,078; 
Fiscal year 2001: $15,509; 
Fiscal year 2002: $16,200; 
Fiscal year 2003: $16,536.

Navy; 
Fiscal year 1994: 6,937; 
Fiscal year 1995: 8,214; 
Fiscal year 1996: 8,573; 
Fiscal year 1997: 8,466; 
Fiscal year 1998: 8,803; 
Fiscal year 1999: 10,124; 
Fiscal year 2000: 10,162; 
Fiscal year 2001: 11,221; 
Fiscal year 2002: 13,121; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13,394.

Marine Corps; 
Fiscal year 1994: 7,362; 
Fiscal year 1995: 5,732; 
Fiscal year 1996: 6,595; 
Fiscal year 1997: 6,313; 
Fiscal year 1998: 6,560; 
Fiscal year 1999: 8,208; 
Fiscal year 2000: 8,353; 
Fiscal year 2001: 8,831; 
Fiscal year 2002: 8,453; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9,356.

Air Force; 
Fiscal year 1994: 4,832; 
Fiscal year 1995: 4,805; 
Fiscal year 1996: 4,873; 
Fiscal year 1997: 5,306; 
Fiscal year 1998: 5,126; 
Fiscal year 1999: 6,636; 
Fiscal year 2000: 8,244; 
Fiscal year 2001: 9,928; 
Fiscal year 2002: 9,934; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9,376.

DOD; 
Fiscal year 1994: 8,315; 
Fiscal year 1995: 8,953; 
Fiscal year 1996: 7,606; 
Fiscal year 1997: 9,519; 
Fiscal year 1998: 8,928; 
Fiscal year 1999: 10,134; 
Fiscal year 2000: 10,913; 
Fiscal year 2001: 12,906; 
Fiscal year 2002: 13,715; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14,206.

Source: DOD.

[End of table]

Table 4: Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Dollars in thousands.

Fiscal year 1994; 
Army: $1,305; 
Air Force: $879; 
Marines: $265; 
Navy: $1,755; 
Total: $4,204.

Fiscal year 1995; 
Army: 2,023; 
Air Force: 1,086; 
Marines: 395; 
Navy: 2,152; 
Total: 5,656.

Fiscal year 1996; 
Army: 2,040; 
Air Force: 1,345; 
Marines: 389; 
Navy: 2,632; 
Total: 6,406.

Fiscal year 1997; 
Army: 2,263; 
Air Force: 1,613; 
Marines: 492; 
Navy: 3,446; 
Total: 7,814.

Fiscal year 1998; 
Army: 4,035; 
Air Force: 2,097; 
Marines: 499; 
Navy: 2,958; 
Total: 9,589.

Fiscal year 1999; 
Army: 3,855; 
Air Force: 2,289; 
Marines: 788; 
Navy: 3,159; 
Total: 10,091.

Fiscal year 2000; 
Army: 8,110; 
Air Force: 1,443; 
Marines: 860; 
Navy: 3,587; 
Total: 14,000.

Fiscal year 2001; 
Army: 9,585; 
Air Force: 1,807; 
Marines: 980; 
Navy: 3,221; 
Total: 15,593.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Army: 6,638; 
Air Force: 1,192; 
Marines: 879; 
Navy: 2,860; 
Total: 11,569.

Fiscal year 2003; 
Army: 6,091; 
Air Force: 1,322; 
Marines: 580; 
Navy: 2,478; 
Total: 10,471.

Total; 
Army: $45,945; 
Air Force: $15,073; 
Marines: $6,127; 
Navy: $28,248; 
Total: $95,393.

Percent; 
Army: 48%; 
Air Force: 16%; 
Marines: 6%; 
Navy: 30%; 
Total: 100%.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Critical Occupation Data Tables: 

Length of Service of Servicemembers Who Were Separated for Homosexual 
Conduct: 

Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct were separated 
within 1.5 years of entering military service (approximately periods 1- 
3 in table 5). The firstand second periods on the table correspond to 
different phases of enlisted personnel training: recruit training 
(Period 1) and advanced individual training (Period 2), when a 
servicemember is initially trained in an occupation. The exact number 
of days in each period varies by service.[Footnote 27]

Table 5: Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected 
Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 153; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 76; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 289; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 123; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 139; 
Total: 780.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 583; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 407; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 918; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 522; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 811; 
Total: 3,241.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 47; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 260; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 1,154; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 568; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 886; 
Total: 2,915.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 964; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 294; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 301; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 245; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 499; 
Total: 2,303.

Service: Total number; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 1,747; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1,037; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 2,662; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 1,458; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 2,335; 
Total: 9,239.

Service: Percent; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 19; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 11; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 16; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 25; 
Total: 100 .

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 20; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 10; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 37; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 16; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 18; 
Total: 101.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 18; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 13; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 28; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 16; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 25; 
Total: 100.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 2; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 9; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 40; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 19; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 30; 
Total: 100.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 42; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 13; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 13; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 12; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 22; 
Total: 102.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: The Data Center has length-of-service data for 9,239 of the 9,488 
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during the 10- 
year period.

[A] Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

[End of table]

Length of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Had Critical 
Occupations: 

Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had critical 
occupations were separated within 2.5 years of entering the military. 
Two and a half years corresponds approximately to the end of the 4th 
period in table 6.

Table 6: Individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual 
Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003: 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 0; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 0; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 3; 
Total: 4.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 21; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 19; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 47; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 38; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 39; 
Total: 164.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 135; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 102; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 207; 
Total: 445.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 9; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 34; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 36; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 63; 
Total: 142.

Service: Total number; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 21; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 30; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 216; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 176; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 312; 
Total: 755.

Service: Percent; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 3; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 4; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 23; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 41; 
Total: 100.

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 25; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 0; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 0; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 75; 
Total: 100.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 13; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 12; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 23; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 24; 
Total: 101.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: <1; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 30; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 23; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 47; 
Total: 101.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 6; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 24; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 25; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 44; 
Total: 99.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

[A] Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

[End of table]

Length of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Had Intelligence- 
Related Occupations: 

Most servicemembers who had intelligence-related occupations were 
separated for homosexual conduct within approximately 2.5 years of 
entering military service. Two and a half years corresponds 
approximately to the end of the 4th period as shown in table 7.

Table 7: Individuals with Intelligence-Related Occupations Separated 
for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2003: 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 14; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 14; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 20; 
Total: 48.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 32; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 23; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 84; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 49; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 62; 
Total: 250.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 84; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 74; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 129; 
Total: 288.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 3; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 33; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 39; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 69; 
Total: 144.

Service: Total number; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 32; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 27; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 215; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 176; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 280; 
Total: 730.

Service: Percent; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 4; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 4; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 24; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 38; 
Total: 100[A].

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 42; 
Total: 100.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 13; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 9; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 34; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 20; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 25; 
Total: 101.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: <1; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 26; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 45; 
Total: 101.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 2; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 23; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 27; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 48; 
Total: 100.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

[A] Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

[End of table]

Length of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Had Important Foreign 
Language Skills: 

The same pattern is true for servicemembers separated for homosexual 
conduct who were trained in an important language. Most servicemembers 
were separated by the end of the 4th period--or approximately 2.5 years 
after entering military service--as shown in table 8.

Table 8: Individuals with Training in Important Languages Separated for 
Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 
2003: 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 1; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 3; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 2; 
Total: 6.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 23; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 28; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 28; 
Total: 79.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 14; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 9; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 12; 
Total: 35.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 2; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 24; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 27; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 32; 
Total: 85.

Service: Total number; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 2; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 62; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 67; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 74; 
Total: 205.

Service: Percent; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 1; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 30; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 33; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 36; 
Total: 100.

Service: Marine Corps; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 17; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 50; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 33; 
Total: 100.

Service: Army; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 29; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 35; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 35; 
Total: 99.

Service: Navy; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 0; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 40; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 26; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 34; 
Total: 100.

Service: Air Force; 
Period 1: recruit training: Number: 0; 
Period 2: advanced individual training: Number: 2; 
Period 3: next 365 days: Number: 28; 
Period 4: next 365 days: Number: 32; 
Period 5: subsequent periods: Number: 38; 
Total: 100.

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

[A] Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

[End of table]

Occupations Most Frequently Cited for Selective Reenlistment Bonuses: 

A sample of occupations eligible to receive a selective reenlistment 
bonus is shown in table 9. Because each service's designation of 
critical occupations changes annually, the column on the far right of 
the table shows the number of times from fiscal year 1994 through 
fiscal year 2003 that an occupation appeared on the military services' 
"top ten" list of critical occupations.

Table 9: Sample of Critical Occupations: 

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Automatic Test Equipment Operator; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewman; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Noncommunications Interceptor/Analyst; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Special Forces Communications Sergeant; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Voice Interceptor (Persian/ Vietnamese); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Aircraft Pneudraulics Repairer; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Broadcast Journalist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Diver; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Interrogator (Chinese/Korean); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: OH-58D Helicopter Repairer; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Petroleum Supply Specialist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Psychological Operations Specialist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Radar Repair; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Satellite Communications Systems Operator-
Maintainer; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Army; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Signal Intelligence Analyst (Chinese/Korean); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Aviation Structural Mechanic (Equipment); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Aviation Structural Mechanic (Structural); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Cryptologic Technician (Technical); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Data Processing Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Electrician's Mate (Nuclear Field); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Fire Control Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Machinist's Mate (Nuclear Field); 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Mineman; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Missile Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Navy; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Operations Specialist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Combat Controller; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 10.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Air Traffic Control; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Communication Computer System Programmer; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Far East Crypto Linguist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Mid East Crypto Linguist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Pararescue; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Slavic Crypto Linguist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Communication Computer System Control; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 6.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Electronics Signals Intelligence Exploitation; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 6.

Service: Air Force; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Interpreter/Translator; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 6.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Aircraft Flight Engineer, KC-130; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 8.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Electronic Switching Equipment Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 6.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Ground Mobile Forces Satellite Communications 
Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 5.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Air Command and Control Electronics Operator; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Computer Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Consolidated Automatic Support System 
Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Cryptologic Linguist, Arabic; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Surface Air Defense Systems Acquisition 
Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Technical Controller; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 4.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Aircraft Navigation Systems Technician 
Identification Friend or Foe/Radar/Tactical Air Navigation; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Computer System Technician, Honeywell Data 
Processing System 6; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Counterintelligence Marine; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Cryptologic Linguist, Korean; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Cryptologic Linguist, Spanish; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Field Artillery Radar Operator; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Interrogation-Translation Specialist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Marine Air Ground Task Force Plans/ Operations 
Specialist; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Nonappropriated Funds Audit Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Radio Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment 
Technician; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Service: Marines; 
Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective reenlistment 
bonuses, FY 1994-2003: Weather Forecaster; 
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective 
reenlistment bonus: 3.

Sources: Service-submitted budget justification (data); 
GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Examples of Intelligence-Related Occupations: 

The following is a sample of the type of intelligence-related 
occupations that we included in our analysis. All the occupations in 
table 10 have an intelligence-related DOD occupation code, which was 
the criterion used to identify intelligence-related occupations.

Table 10: Sample of Intelligence-Related Occupations: 

Service: Air Force; 
Occupation: Airborne Far East Crypto Linguist.
Occupation: Airborne Romance Crypto Linguist.
Occupation: Airborne Slavic Crypto Linguist.
Occupation: Airborne Warning Command and Control System.
Occupation: Electronic System Security Assessment.
Occupation: Far East Crypto Linguist (Chinese).
Occupation: Far East Crypto Linguist (Korean).
Occupation: Far East Crypto Linguist (Vietnamese).
Occupation: Imagery Interpreter.
Occupation: Intelligence Applications.
Occupation: Interpreter/Translator.
Occupation: Mid East Crypto Linguist.
Occupation: Mid East Crypto Linguist (Arabic).
Occupation: Mid East Crypto Linguist (Hebrew).
Occupation: Mid East Crypto Linguist (Persian).
Occupation: Signals Intelligence Analysis.

Service: Army; 
Occupation: Counterintelligence Agent.
Occupation: Imagery Ground Station Operator.
Occupation: Intelligence Analyst.
Occupation: Interrogator (Chinese/Korean).
Occupation: Psychological Operations Specialist.
Occupation: Signal Intelligence Analyst (Chinese/Korean).
Occupation: Voice Interceptor (Persian/Vietnamese).

Service: Marine Corps; 
Occupation: Air Command and Control Electronics Operator.
Occupation: Airborne Radio Operator/Loadmaster.
Occupation: Counterintelligence Marine.
Occupation: Cryptologic Linguist, Arabic.
Occupation: Cryptologic Linguist, Korean.
Occupation: Cryptologic Linguist, Persian, Semitic.
Occupation: Cryptologic Linguist, Spanish.
Occupation: Fleet Satellite Communications Terminal Operator.
Occupation: High Frequency Communication Central Operator.
Occupation: Imagery Interpretation Specialist.
Occupation: Intelligence Specialist.
Occupation: Interrogation-Translation Specialist.
Occupation: Non-Morse Intercept Operator/Analyst.

Service: Navy; 
Occupation: Air Traffic Controller.
Occupation: Aviation Antisubmarine Warfare Operator.
Occupation: Cryptologic Technician (Collection).
Occupation: Cryptologic Technician (Interpretative).
Occupation: Cryptologic Technician (Technical).
Occupation: Electronic Warfare Technician.
Occupation: Operations Specialist.
Occupation: Radioman, Surface Warfare.

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Tables 11 and 12 describe characteristics of the language speakers in 
the population of those separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal 
year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, as reported by the Data Center. The 
table lists the median proficiency level for all speakers of each 
language. DOD's language proficiency scale includes 11 possible values, 
ranging from 00 to as high as 50.[Footnote 28] In tables 11 and 12, the 
median proficiency is the middle value if all proficiency scores for 
students in that language are placed in numerical order.

Two tables are provided rather than one because the service-provided 
data set contains an unknown mixture of self-assessed and Defense 
Language Proficiency Test data. For the language institute-trained 
population of language speakers, however, all proficiency data resulted 
from tests. Note the high percentages of service members in both groups 
without a reported proficiency score; individuals with no data 
available are included as those without any recorded proficiency in 
speaking, listening, or reading. This means that the Data Center did 
not have any information from any source on the servicemembers' ability 
to use their reported language.

Table 11: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal 
Year 2003 Who Were Trained in a Language at the Defense Language 
Institute: 

Language: Arabic, Modern Standard; 
Total number of servicemembers: 54; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 34 (63).

Language: Chinese, Mandarin; 
Total number of servicemembers: 20; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 14 (70).

Language: French; 
Total number of servicemembers: 3; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 0.

Language: German; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 0.

Language: Hebrew; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: N/A; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 1 (50).

Language: Korean; 
Total number of servicemembers: 50; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 25 (50).

Language: Persian, Iranian (includes Farsi); 
Total number of servicemembers: 9; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 7 (78).

Language: Russian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 42; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 17 (40).

Language: Serbo-Croatian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 8; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 4 (50).

Language: Spanish; 
Total number of servicemembers: 24; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 8 (35).

Language: Tagalog; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 0.

Language: Vietnamese, Hanoi; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 1 (50).

Language: Total; 
Total number of servicemembers: 216; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available: 111 (51).

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: N/A = not available.

[End of table]

Table 12: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals 
Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal 
Year 2003, as Reported through Service Personnel Files: 

Language: Achinese; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: 0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
2 (100); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Amashi; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (100); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Arabic, Modern Standard; 
Total number of servicemembers: 5; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (20); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 2 (40).

Language: Chinese, Cantonese; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: 30; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (50); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 1 (50).

Language: Chinese, Mandarin; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: N/A; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (50); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 2 (100).

Language: Danish; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: N/A; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 1 (100).

Language: French; 
Total number of servicemembers: 13; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
5 (38); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 4 (31).

Language: German; 
Total number of servicemembers: 10; 
Median proficiency: 16; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
5 (50); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 2 (20).

Language: German, Bavarian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (100); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Haitian, Creole; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 50; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Hungarian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: 26; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 2 (100).

Language: Indonesian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 30; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Italian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 5; 
Median proficiency: 50; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (20); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 1 (20).

Language: Japanese; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 10; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Korean; 
Total number of servicemembers: 5; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 2 (40).

Language: Old High German; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 10; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Persian, Iranian (includes Farsi); 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1(100); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 1 (100).

Language: Polish; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: N/A; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (100); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Portuguese, Brazilian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: N/A; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 1 (100).

Language: Russian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 9; 
Median proficiency: N/A; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (11); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 3 (33).

Language: Serbo-Croatian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 3; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Spanish; 
Total number of servicemembers: 50; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
18 (36); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 30 (60).

Language: Spanish, American; 
Total number of servicemembers: 59; 
Median proficiency: 30; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
6 (10); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 4 (7).

Language: Spanish, Castilian; 
Total number of servicemembers: 2; 
Median proficiency: 20; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Spanish, Creole; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 30; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Tagalog; 
Total number of servicemembers: 8; 
Median proficiency: 50; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
1 (12); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 1 (12).

Language: Urdu; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 50; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Language: Vietnamese, Central; 
Total number of servicemembers: 1; 
Median proficiency: 50; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
0; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 0.

Total; 
Total number of servicemembers: 190; 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency[A]: 
46 (35); 
Number (and percent) of reported servicemembers with no proficiency 
data available[A]: 57 (30).

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: N/A = not available: 

[A] Individuals received three separate proficiency scores: one in 
reading, one in listening, and one in speaking. If any one of these 
three scores indicated that the individual was tested but had no 
proficiency, the individual is counted in the "no proficiency" column. 
Likewise, if one of the three scores was not available, the individual 
is listed in the "no data available" column.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: 
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON: 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:

FEB 7 2005:

Mr. Derek Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, `MILITARY PERSONNEL: Financial Cost and Loss of Critical Skills 
Due to DoD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot be Completely Estimated,' 
dated January 26, 2005 (GAO Code 350496/GAO-05-299)." Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on the GAO draft.

As you have noted in your report, the discharges due to the DoD 
Homosexual Conduct Policy that implements Federal statute represent 
only about 0.37 percent of the members separated for all reasons during 
this period. We believe it is important to recognize the low discharge 
rate under this policy and, for comparison purposes, provide the 
following chart comparing discharges under this policy with other 
unprogrammed separations for this period.

Separation Reason: Homosexuality; 
1994: 616; 
1995: 757; 
1996: 858; 
1997: 997; 
1998: 1145; 
1999: 1034; 
2000: 1212; 
2001: 1227; 
2002: 885; 
2003: 770; 
Totals: 9501. 

Separation Reason: Pregnancy; 
1994: 3137; 
1995: 2885; 
1996: 2647; 
1997: 2356; 
1998: 2609; 
1999: 2840; 
2000: 2759; 
2001: 2434; 
2002: 2136; 
2003: 2643; 
Totals: 26446. 

Separation Reason: Weight Standards; 
1994: 4033; 
1995: 5061; 
1996: 4782; 
1997: 4436; 
1998: 4309; 
1999: 3458; 
2000: 2558; 
2001: 2238; 
2002: 2524; 
2003: 3114; 
Totals: 36513. 

Separation Reason: Serious Offenses; 
1994: 5592; 
1995: 4934; 
1996: 4859; 
1997: 4377; 
1998: 3476; 
1999: 3103; 
2000: 2805; 
2001: 2535; 
2002: 2741; 
2003: 3756; 
Totals: 38178. 

Separation Reason: Parenthood; 
1994: 1690; 
1995: 1817; 
1996: 2088; 
1997: 1872; 
1998: 2102; 
1999: 2702; 
2000: 2345; 
2001: 1785; 
2002: 1768; 
2003: 2358; 
Totals: 20527. 

Separation Reason: Drug Offenses/Use; 
1994: 5240; 
1995: 5347; 
1996: 5368; 
1997: 5822; 
1998: 5269; 
1999: 5298; 
2000: 5439; 
2001: 6656; 
2002: 7524; 
2003: 7135; 
Totals: 59098

[End of table]

I have attached technical comments on the content of the report. Please 
note that the number of discharges you identify by year does not match 
the official Department of Defense number maintained by the Defense 
Manpower Data Center that was provided in the course of your review. A 
copy of our official numbers is also attached.

The Department of Defense seeks to implement the Federal statute 
concerning homosexual conduct in the military in a fair manner, 
treating every service member with dignity and respect. Thank you again 
for the opportunity to review your report.

David S. C. Chu: 

Attachments: 
As stated: 

[End of section]

(350496): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] 10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(15).

[2] The homosexual conduct policy statute is implemented through DOD 
Directives 1332.14 (enlisted administrative separations); 1332.40 
(separation of regular and reserve commissioned officers); and 1304.26, 
which specifies qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, 
and induction.

[3] We last reported on selective reenlistment bonuses in GAO, DOD 
Needs More Effective Controls to Assess the Progress of the Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus Program, GAO-04-86 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2003).

[4] We are not suggesting by this cost estimate that the services 
specifically recruit one-for-one replacements of servicemembers who 
have been separated for homosexual conduct.

[5] This figure is in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. DOD compiles 
the basis of this cost estimate pursuant to DOD Instruction 1304.8 as 
part of its military personnel procurement resources report to 
Congress. It is constructed by averaging the DOD estimated recruiting 
costs for each year over the period. The annual DOD recruiting cost 
figure is calculated as a weighted average of the services' recruiting 
costs.

[6] The per-member cost estimates in parentheses are a weighted average 
of separated servicemembers' occupations for which we have data (for 
the Navy, this is 2,706 of 2,970 members). The weighted average is 
computed by multiplying the occupational training costs for each 
occupation by the proportion of total students and summing the 
products. By doing this, the occupations with the most students are 
weighted the most in computing the average.

[7] We have data for 2,241 of 2,413 Air Force members.

[8] We have data for 3,339 of 3,348 Army members.

[9] Of the 9,488 servicemembers considered in our analysis, 136 were 
officers.

[10] The occupations most frequently cited for selective reenlistment 
bonuses are in appendix III.

[11] Servicemembers with critical occupations and important foreign 
language skills are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups because 
some critical occupations such as cryptologic linguists and 
interrogators require a foreign language skill. Thus a servicemember 
could be included in both the critical occupations and important 
foreign languages groups.

[12] To assess language proficiencies, DOD uses an 11-point scale. DOD 
describes the midpoint on this scale as "limited working proficiency 
plus." According to the Defense Language Institute, students can 
graduate from the basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the 
midpoint of this scale. For foreign-language-related issues in the 
federal government, see GAO, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach 
Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002). We stated in this report that in 
fiscal year 2001, the Army had a 25 percent shortfall in cryptologic 
linguists and a 13 percent shortfall in human intelligence collectors 
in several key languages taken as a whole.

[13] 10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(13).

[14] 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) and DOD Directive 1304.26, Qualification 
Standards for Enlistment, Appointment and Induction (Mar. 4, 1994). For 
a discussion of issues associated with the "don't ask, don't tell" 
policy, see Congressional Research Service, Homosexuals and U.S. 
Military Policy: Current Issues (Mar. 17, 1999).

[15] Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 571(b)-(d), (10 U.S.C § 654, notes).

[16] 10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(8).

[17] In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) stated that 9,501 servicemembers were 
separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal 
year 2003. (See appendix IV.) According to the Servicemembers Legal 
Defense Network, 9,682 servicemembers were separated for homosexual 
conduct during the same period. The Network reports information on 
these separations at www.sldn.org.

[18] 10 U.S.C. § 654(b).

[19] See GAO, Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality, 
GAO/NSIAD-92-98 (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 1992).

[20] This figure is an average of DOD's reported cost per recruit. Each 
of the services annually reports recruiting costs to DOD that are 
weighted by the size of the force to determine an average cost per 
recruit. DOD's reports on recruiting do not include the cost per 
recruit for officers and medical personnel.

[21] Of the 9,488 servicemembers considered in our analysis, 136 were 
officers, and recruitment costs per officer were not available.

[22] The Data Center has length-of-service data for 9,239 of the 9,488 
servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during the 10- 
year period.

[23] GAO, Military Attrition: Better Data, Coupled With Policy Changes, 
Could Help the Services Reduce Early Separations, GAO/NSIAD-98-213 
(Washington, D.C., Sept. 15, 1998).

[24] The Data Center has length-of-service data for 755 of the 757 
separated servicemembers who held critical occupations.

[25] Total costs are the total costs of producing any given level of 
output. Total cost can be divided in two parts: fixed costs and 
variable costs. Fixed costs are those that do not vary with output. All 
costs that vary directly with output are variable costs. 

[26] In calculating a weighted average, each value is multiplied by its 
"weight," and this product is summed for all values. The "weight" is 
derived as a proportion of the total. With respect to a service's 
occupational training costs, the costs of training for an occupation 
(the value) would be multiplied by that occupation's weight (that 
occupation's proportion of total servicemembers for all occupations). 
This product would be summed for all occupations to calculate a 
service's weighted average of occupational training costs.

[27] Period 1, recruit training, includes the following intervals for 
each of the services: Marines, 0 to 84 days; Army, 0 to 63 days; Navy, 
0 to 56 days; and Air Force, 0 to 42 days. Period 2, the average time 
for advanced individual training (100 days), includes the following 
intervals for each of the services: Marines, 85 to 185 days; Army, 64 
to 164 days; Navy, 57 to 157 days; and Air Force, 43 to 143 days. 
Period 3 spans 1 year from the end of the advanced individual training 
period, and period 4 spans 1 year from the end of period 3. Period 5 
includes all subsequent time periods.

[28] DOD's language proficiency scale is as follows: 00--no 
proficiency; 06--memorized proficiency; 10--elementary proficiency; 16--
elementary proficiency, plus; 20--limited working proficiency; 26-
-limited working proficiency, plus; 30--general professional 
proficiency, plus; 36--general professional proficiency plus; 40-- 
advanced professional proficiency; 46--advanced professional 
proficiency, plus; and 50--functionally native proficiency. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: