GAO gives National Guard clean bill of health
Army News Service
Release Date: 12/12/2003
By Master Sgt. Bob Haskell
ARLINGTON, Va. - The National Guard is keeping its own house in order.
That is the overriding conclusion in a Dec. 2 report by the United States General Accounting Office following its extensive look at four National Guard management issues, which have been the subjects of criticism and controversy during the past few years.
The Department of Defense has concurred with the report through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
This is how the GAO gave the Guard a clean bill of health in its 43-page report to Congress:
-- The Army and Air Guard have effective systems in place for identifying and removing members who do not participate in required training, such as weekend drills and annual training.
-- The National Guard has effective checks and balances to make sure those senior officers, who are promoted by their state are federally qualified for their grade and position and that issues about their leadership potential or moral character are disclosed.
-- The Army and Air National Guard have effective procedures for taking action against generals and colonels involved in misconduct cases.
-- As for protecting whistleblowers, the GAO stated that the military services have taken some disciplinary action against Guard managers, who have retaliated against members for reporting instances of wrongdoing, such as fraud, waste and abuse, but that "federal whistleblower protection does not meaningfully apply" to the Guard's federal technicians, because they are civilian employees.
The GAO is a nonpartisan congressional agency that audits federal programs, and officials at the National Guard Bureau here hailed the report as proof that the Guard, by and large, is monitoring and controlling its own management procedures.
"This is good information that we can use when defending our honor," said Col. Thomas Schultz, a spokesman for the Guard Bureau.
The GAO made no recommendations for changing or adopting new management policies.
"We have no specific comments [or] concerns on recommendations, since GAO made no specific recommendations in the report," stated a spokesman for Thomas Hall, the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Congress directed the GAO to examine the four management issues as part of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003 after the media had reported on many misconduct and mismanagement allegations for several years.
Media reports stated that the National Guard had inflated its numbers with absent, or so-called "ghost" soldiers; that it had promoted unfit officers; that it had been reluctant to punish senior officers for misconduct; and that it had condoned retaliation against Guard whistleblowers, who reported wrongdoing.
The GAO, however, found that most of those allegations were exaggerated or had been satisfactorily resolved based on its investigations that began last May.
Regarding members, who do not show up for training, the report stated that the Army Guard has "reduced the number of nonparticipating soldiers . on its rolls to less than 1 percent of end strength."
The GAO based its final conclusions about nonparticipation on the number of Guard soldiers, who had not been paid for the previous seven months in Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia.
"Between September 2000 and July 30, 2003, the Army Guard reduced the number of soldiers . not paid for the previous seven months from 1.3 percent of the force to 1.0 percent of the force," the report stated.
"The Air National Guard has not placed the same degree of command emphasis on the issue," the reported continued, "but under existing procedures the (entire National) Guard had a nonparticipation rate of 1.6 percent as of July 30, 2003."
Nationwide, the Army Guard had nearly 351,000 soldiers and the Air Guard had more than 108,000 members on Oct. 1.
The fact that officials maintained the Air Guard is overstrength led the GAO to conclude that "units have little motivation to retain members, who do not attend required training."
In addressing promotions for senior officers, the report acknowledged that the Federal Recognition Examination provides "a reasonable assurance that senior National Guard officers, who are promoted by their state are federally qualified for grade and position" and "that any significant issues relating to their leadership potential or moral character are disclosed."
The GAO determined that about 7 percent of Army Guard officers and about 3 percent of Air Guard officers, who were examined for recognition as generals "were denied recognition, because they were found not qualified or had conduct issues.
"This would seem to indicate that information relating to the officers' leadership potential or moral character is disclosed," the report stated.
"Specifically, most officers found guilty of misconduct are punished," stated the report about procedures that have already been established to deal with generals and colonels who break the rules.
Substantiated allegations included reprisals against subordinates; examples of fraud, waste and abuse; unprofessional relationships including adultery; abuse of authority; and using poor judgment, such as being drunk in a public place.
Fifty-seven of 76 senior officers involved in misconduct cases from January 1997 through December 2001 were subjected to administrative actions ranging from letters of reprimand to verbal counseling, the GAO stated.
"Three resigned or retired at the request of their commanders; and only six had no action taken against them," it was reported. The remaining 10 cases were closed under special Army procedures dealing with inconsequential allegations against officers who had retired.
The report also indicated it is difficult to verify Guard members' allegations that their managers are punishing them for being whistleblowers. The cases are first investigated by a Guard inspector general and then reviewed by the Defense Department's inspector general.
Guard inspectors general did not substantiate 98 of 122 allegations made from 1997 to 2002, the report stated. Defense Department inspectors general did not agree with the Guard's interpretation of 19 of those cases.
Observing that most allegations are handled on a case-by-case basis, "without relying on established guidance from past similar allegations and decisions," the GAO reported: "For the reprisal allegations we reviewed, the military services took some disciplinary action against most Guard management officials who had retaliated against Guard members."
The Guard's federal technicians are not subject to military protection, because they are civilian employees, according to the report, which added "nor are they well protected by civilian whistleblower statutes."
(Editor's note: Master Sgt. Bob Haskell writes for the National Guard Bureau Public Affairs Office.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
