FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Congressional research reportDec 17, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Issues
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Military Manpower
(name redacted)
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Defense Budget and Military Manpower
December 17, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44120
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress
and their staffs. Ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the regular use of the
reserve component personnel for operational missions, further heighten interest in a wide range of
military personnel policies and issues.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel
issues considered in deliberations on H.R. 1735 as passed by the House and by the Senate and the
final bill, S. 1356, as enacted (P.L. 114-92). This report provides a brief synopsis of sections in
each bill that pertain to selected personnel policy. These include major military retirement
reforms, end strengths, compensation, health care, and sexual assault, as well as less prominent
issues that nonetheless generate significant public interest.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include
language concerning appropriations, or tax implications of policy choices, topics which are
addressed in other CRS products. Some issues were addressed previously in the FY2015 National
Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
Such issues are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
*Active Duty End Strengths ............................................................................................................ 3
*Selected Reserves End Strength .................................................................................................... 5
*Military Pay Raise ......................................................................................................................... 6
*Military Retirement System .......................................................................................................... 8
*Sexual Assault ............................................................................................................................. 10
*Gender Integration ....................................................................................................................... 13
Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Servicemembers ............................................................. 15
Citizenship Requirements for Enlistment in the Reserve Components ......................................... 16
Termination of Educational Assistance for Reserve Component Members Supporting
Contingency Operations and Other Operations.......................................................................... 17
Issuance of Recognition of Service ID to Certain Members Separating from the Armed
Forces ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Temporary Authority to Develop and Provide Additional Recruitment Incentives....................... 19
Recognition of Additional Involuntary Mobilization Duty Authorities Exempt From FiveYear Limit on Reemployment Rights of Persons Who Serve in the Uniformed Services ......... 20
Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve Component as Veterans ............................................ 21
Career Intermission Program (CIP) ............................................................................................... 22
Acquisition Workforce .................................................................................................................. 23
Personal Firearms on Military Installations................................................................................... 24
*Award of the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who were victims of the
Oklahoma City, OK, bombing .................................................................................................... 25
*Transfer and Adoption of Military Animals ................................................................................ 26
*Defense Commissary System ...................................................................................................... 28
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing .......................................................................................... 30
*TRICARE Pharmacy Copayments .............................................................................................. 32
Military Health System Quality Metrics ....................................................................................... 33
Contraception ................................................................................................................................ 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 36
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Introduction
Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees take up national defense
authorization bills. These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel,
retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are often not included in the other,
are treated differently, or, in some cases, are identical. Following passage of these bills by the
House and by the Senate, a conference committee is usually convened to resolve the differences
between the respective Chambers’ versions of the bill.
In the typical course of enacting an annual defense authorization, congressional staffs receive
many requests for information on provisions contained in these bills. This report is intended to
highlight those personnel-related issues that may generate high levels of congressional and
constituent interest, and compares differences between House and Senate versions.
This report summarizes selected highlights of S. 1356, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (FY2016 NDAA), which was passed by the House of Representatives on
November 5, 2015, passed by the Senate on November 10, 2015, and signed by the President on
November 25, 2015 (P.L. 114-92), and an initial bill, H.R. 1735, that was passed by both the
House and the Senate.
The President had vetoed H.R. 1735, an earlier version of the FY2016 NDAA, on October 22,
2015. In his veto message, the President objected that the bill would have provided more funding
for defense-related activities than would be allowed under spending caps that then were in effect,
which initially had been imposed by P.L. 112-25, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The
President objected to legislation that would, in effect, allow defense-related spending for FY2016
to exceed the BCA defense spending cap without allowing similar budgetary leeway for
nondefense related spending, which was subject to a similar BCA spending cap.
Subsequently, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74)
which raised the FY2016 spending caps for both defense and nondefense spending. The text of
the initial bill (H.R. 1735) then was modified to comply with the revised spending caps while
retaining intact the final military personnel provisions discussed in this report. For procedural
reasons, the text of that revised NDAA then was substituted for the original text of S. 1356, an
unrelated bill previously passed by the Senate. The amended version of S. 1356 (i.e., the revised
FY2016 NDAA) then was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President.
The Congressional Budget Office issued cost estimates for these bills on May 4, May 11, June 3,
September 30, and November 4, 20151 2 3 4 5
Related CRS products are identified in each section to provide more detailed background
information and analysis of the issues. For each issue a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided.
Some issues discussed in this report previously were addressed in the Carl Levin and Howard P.
‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291), and
1
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/hr1735.pdf.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/hr1735hasc.pdf.
3
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s1376.pdf.
4
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/H.R.1735.pdf.
5
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s1356.pdf.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
, or other reports. Those issues that
were considered previously are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this
report.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Active Duty End Strengths
Background: The authorized active duty end-strengths6 for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to
the September 11th terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine
Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000). Over the next decade, in response to the demands of
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress increased the authorized personnel strength of the Army
and Marine Corps. Some of these increases were quite substantial, particularly after FY2006, but
Congress began reversing these increases in anticipation of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from
Iraq in 2011, the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan which began in 2012, and budgetary
constraints. End-strengths for the Air Force and Navy have been generally declining since 2001.
In FY2015, authorized end-strengths were as follows: Army (490,000), Navy (323,600), Marine
Corp (184,100), and Air Force (312,980). Given the budgetary outlook, including the future
impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), the Army plans to reduce its active personnel
strength to between 420,000 and 450,000 by FY2017, while the Marine Corps plans to reduce its
active personnel strength to between 175,000 and 182,000 in the FY2017-2019 timeframe.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Section 401 would authorize a total
FY2016 active duty end strength of
1,308,915 including
475,000 for the Army
329,200 for the Navy
184,000 for the Marine Corps
320,715 for the Air Force
Section 402 would amend 10 USC
691 to set minimum end-strengths
as follows:
475,000 for the Army
329,200 for the Navy
184,000 for the Marine Corps
317,000 for the Air Force
Section 401 would authorize a total
FY2016 active duty end strength of
1,305,200 including
475,000 for the Army
329,200 for the Navy
184,000 for the Marine Corps
317,000 for the Air Force
Section 402 would repeal 10 U.S.C.
691, which sets minimum strengths
“necessary to enable the armed
forces to fulfill a national defense
strategy calling for the United States
to be able to successfully conduct
two nearly simultaneous major
regional contingencies” and requires
DOD to submit budget requests
sufficient to fund those minimum
strengths. It would also change the
language in 10 U.S.C 115 to allow
the Secretary of Defense and the
Service Secretaries to reduce the
personnel strength in certain active
and reserve component categories
below the authorized end-strength
by a specified percentage.
Section 401 authorized a total
FY2016 active duty end strength of
1,305,200 including
475,000 for the Army
329,200 for the Navy
184,000 for the Marine Corps
320,715 for the Air Force
Section 402 amended 10 USC 691 to
set minimum end-strengths as
follows:
475,000 for the Army
329,200 for the Navy
184,000 for the Marine Corps
317,000 for the Air Force
It also modified the authority of the
Secretary of Defense, allowing him to
decrease these minimum endstrengths by up to 2%.
Discussion: The Administration request proposed continuing the reduction in strength for the
Army (-15,000 compared to FY2015), although its proposed strengths for the other three services
are essentially level or increasing in comparison to FY2015: Navy (+5,600), Marine Corps
(-100), and Air Force (+4,020). The end-strengths authorized in the final bill are identical to the
6
The term “end-strength” refers to the authorized strength of a specified branch of the military at the end of a given
fiscal year, while the term authorized strength means “the largest number of members authorized to be in an armed
force, a component, a branch, a grade, or any other category of the armed forces”. 10 USC 101(b)(11). As such, endstrengths are maximum strength levels. Congress also sets minimum strength levels for the active component, which
may be identical to or lower than the end-strength.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Administration’s end-strength request with the exception of the Air Force, which is 3,715 higher
than the Administration’s request.
Section 402 of the initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735) would have repealed 10 U.S.C. 691,
which sets minimum end-strengths for the armed forces and stipulates that the DOD budget for
any fiscal year shall include amounts necessary to maintain these congressionally directed
minimum strength levels. Section 402 of initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735) would also have
allowed the Secretary of Defense to reduce the number of personnel in an active component by up
to 3% below the authorized end-strength, to reduce the number of full-time National Guard and
Reserve personnel in a reserve component by up to 2%, and to reduce the number of National
Guard and Reserve personnel performing active duty for operational support and certain other
purposes by up to 10%.7 Additionally, it would have allowed the Service Secretaries to decrease
the number of personnel in an active component and in the Selected Reserve of a reserve
component under their jurisdiction by up to 2% below the authorized end-strength.8
Section 402 of the final bill (P.L. 114-92/S. 1356) adjusted the minimum end-strengths required
by 10 USC 619 downward, to a level equal to or slightly below the authorized end-strengths set in
section 401, and expanded the authority of the Secretary of Defense to reduce these minimum
strengths downward, permitting a decrease of up to 2% versus the current 0.5%.9
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
7
The Secretary of Defense already has the authority to “vary”—increase or decrease—the number of Selected Reserve
personnel by up to 3%. See 10 U.S.C. 115(f)(3).
8
These authorities cannot be combined; rather, the Service Secretary authority, if exercised, is counted as part of the
Secretary of Defense’s authority. See 10 U.S.C. 115(g)(2).
9
10 U.S.C. 691(e).
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Selected Reserves End Strength
Background: Although the Reserves have been used extensively in support of operations since
September 11, 2001, the overall authorized end strength of the Selected Reserves10 has declined
by about 5% over the past 14 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 829,800 in FY2015). Much of this
can be attributed to the reductions in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were also
modest shifts in strength for some other components of the Selected Reserve. For comparative
purposes, the authorized end strengths for the Selected Reserves for FY2001 were as follows:
Army National Guard (350,526), Army Reserve (205,300), Navy Reserve (88,900), Marine Corps
Reserve (39,558), Air National Guard (108,022), Air Force Reserve (74,358), and Coast Guard
Reserve (8,000).11 Between FY2001 and FY2015, the largest shifts in authorized end strength
have occurred in the Navy Reserve (-31,600 or -35.5%), Air Force Reserve (-7,258 or -9.8%), and
Coast Guard Reserve (-1,000 or -12.5%). A smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (3,022 or -2.8%) and Army Reserve (-3,300 or -1.6%), while the authorized end strength for the
Army National Guard (-326 or -0.1%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (-358 or -0.9%) have been
largely unchanged during this period.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Section 411 would authorize a total
FY2016 Selected Reserve end
strength of 818,000 including:
Army National Guard: 342,000
Army Reserve: 198,000
Navy Reserve: 57,400
Marine Corps Reserve: 38,900
Air National Guard: 105,500
Air Force Reserve: 69,200
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Section 411 would authorize the
same Selected Reserves end-strength
levels as the House provision.
Section 411 authorized the same
Selected Reserves end-strength
levels as the House and Senate
provisions.
Discussion: For FY2016, the Administration requested a reduction in authorized Selected
Reserve end strength for three of the seven reserve components. The proposed reductions in
comparison to FY2015 are as follows: Army National Guard (-8,200), Army Reserve (-4,000),
and Marine Corps Reserve (-300). The proposed increases as follows: Navy Reserve (+100), Air
National Guard (+500), Air Force Reserve (+2,100). The administration proposed no change in
the authorized strength for the Coast Guard Reserve. The end-strengths authorized in the enacted
bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) were identical to the Administration’s request.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
and similar reports from earlier years.
,
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
10
The Selected Reserves contain those units and individuals designated as so essential to initial wartime missions that
they have priority over all other Reserves. Members of the Selected Reserve are generally required to perform one
weekend of training each month and two weeks of training each year, for which they receive pay and benefits. Some
members of the Selected Reserve perform considerably more military duty than this, while others may only be required
to perform the two weeks of annual training each year or other combinations of time. Members of the Selected Reserve
can be involuntarily ordered to active duty under all of the principal statutes for reserve activation.
11
P.L. 106-398, Section 411.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Military Pay Raise
Background: Increasing concern with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with
long-standing congressional interest in recruiting and retaining high quality personnel to serve in
the all-volunteer military, have continued to focus interest on the military pay raise. Section 1009
of Title 37 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual increase in basic pay that is
indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The increase in basic pay for
2016 under this statutory formula would be 2.3% unless either: (1) Congress passes a law to
provide otherwise; or (2) the President specifies an alternative pay adjustment under subsection
(e) of 37 U.S.C. 1009.12
The FY2016 President’s Budget requested a 1.3% military pay raise, lower than the statutory
formula of 2.3%. This is in keeping with Department of Defense (DOD) plans to limit increases
in basic pay through FY2020. While estimating that the ECI will increase by 2.3% per year in
each of the next four years, the DOD Budget Request Overview stated
...outyear pay raise planning factors currently assume limited pay raises will continue
through FY 2020, with increases of 1.3 percent in FY 2017, 1.5 percent in FY 2018 and
FY 2019, and 1.8 percent in FY 2020.13
House-passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
No provision relating to a general
increase in basic pay.
Sec. 601 (a) waives the statutory
formula of 37 USC 1009 and
601(b) specifies a 1.3% increase in
basic pay for servicemembers
below the O-7 paygrade.
Sec. 601(c) caps the pay of officers
in paygrades O-7 through O-10 at
the Executive Schedule Level II rate
of pay in effect during 2014.
Sec. 601 capped the pay of officers
in paygrades O-7 through O-10 at
the Executive Schedule Level II
rate of pay in effect during 2014,
and specified that their rates of
basic pay shall not increase.
See discussion below for impact
on servicemembers in paygrades
O-6 and below.
Discussion: The initial House bill (H.R. 1735) contained no provision to specify the rate of
increase in basic pay, although the report accompanying it (H.Rept. 114-102) contained the
following statement:
The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation programs are
central to maintaining a high-quality, all volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the
committee supports a 2.3 percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2016, in accordance
with current law, in order for military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in
the private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost Index. 14
12
Last year, Congress did not include a provision specifying an increase in basic pay; typically, that would have meant
the automatic formula would have provided an increase equal to the ECI (1.8%). However, on August 29, 2014,
President Obama sent a letter to Congress invoking 37 U.S.C. 1009(e) to set the pay raise for 2015 at 1.0%. The letter
stated: “I have determined it is appropriate to exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States
Code, to set the 2015 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent.... The adjustments described above shall take effect on
January 1, 2015.” Letter available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/29/letter-presidentalternative-pay-plan-uniformed-services.
13
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Overview, February 2015, page 6-6 and Figure 6-3:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/
FY2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
14
H.Rept. 114-102, p. 151.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
The initial Senate version (H.R. 1735) contained a provision waiving the automatic adjustment of
37 U.S.C. 1009 and setting the pay increase at 1.3% for servicemembers below the O-7 paygrade
(that is, below the grade of brigadier general or, for the Navy, rear admiral lower half). It would
also have maintained the cap on the pay of officers in the O-7 through O-10 paygrades at the
Executive Schedule level II rate for 2014, thereby ensuring that no general or flag officers receive
an increase in basic pay.
On August 28, President Obama sent a letter to Congress invoking 37 U.S.C. 1009(e) to set the
pay raise for 2016 at 1.3%.15 The final bill contained no general pay raise provision, thereby
leaving in place the 1.3% increase specified by President Obama, although section 601 of the
enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) freezes the basic pay of generals and admirals at 2014 levels.
Reference(s): For an explanation of the pay raise process and historical increases, see CRS In
Focus IF10260, Military Pay Raise, by (name redacted). Previously discussed in CRS Report
R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues,
coordinated by (name redacted)
, and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
15
Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, “Alternative
Pay Plan for the Uniformed Services," August 28, 2015, available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/08/28/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-uniformed-services.
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Military Retirement System
Background: The military retirement system is a funded, noncontributory, defined benefit system
that provides a monthly annuity to servicemembers after 20 years of qualifying service.16 The
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2013 (P.L. 113-66) established a Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) to provide the President
and Congress with specific recommendations to modernize pay and benefits for the armed
services. The Commission delivered its final report and recommendations to Congress on January
29, 2015. Congress has included many of the Commission’s proposed changes in the enacted bill
(P.L. 114-92, S. 1356).
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 631 would automatically enroll
new servicemembers in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP) with government
contributions of 1% of basic pay and
would allow government matching
contributions up to 5% of member’s
basic pay starting at 2 years of
service (YOS) until retirement.
Sec. 632 would reduce the defined
benefit multiplier from 2.5% to 2.0%
at 20 YOS. This section would also
delay the Cost of Living Allowance
(COLA) reductions for retired pay
until October 1, 2017.
Sec. 633 would authorize
continuation pay at 12 YOS for an
additional 4 years of obligated
service.
Sec. 634 would require all
retirement system changes to apply
to servicemembers entering service
on or after October 1, 2017.
Sec. 631 would automatically enroll
new servicemembers in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP) with government
contributions of 1% of basic pay
beginning 60 days after entering
service and would allow government
matching contributions up to 5% of
member’s basic pay starting after 2
years of service (YOS) until 20 YOS
for servicemembers entering service
on or after January 1, 2018.
Sec. 632 would reduce the defined
benefit multiplier from 2.5% to 2.0%
at 20 YOS.
Sec. 633 would allow lump sum
payment of retired pay.
Sec. 634 would authorize
continuation pay at 12 YOS for an
additional 4 years of obligated
service.
Sec. 635 would allow DOD to
modify YOS requirements for
particular occupation specialties with
Congressional notification.
Sec. 631 will reduce the defined
benefit multiplier from 2.5% to 2.0%
at 20 YOS for all those joining the
service on or after January 1, 2018,
or those who have fewer than 12
YOS on December 31, 2017 and
elect to switch to the new system. It
also repeals reduced COLAs for
members under the age of 62.
Sec. 632 will automatically enroll
new servicemembers in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP) with government
contributions of 1% of basic pay
beginning 60 days after entering
service until 26 YOS (vested at 2
YOS) and would allow government
matching contributions up to 5% of
member’s basic pay starting after 2
years of service (YOS) until 26 YOS.
Sec. 633 will allow servicemembers
to elect a lump sum payment of
retired pay.
Sec. 634 will authorize continuation
pay at 12 YOS for an additional 4
years of obligated service.
Sec. 635 establishes an effective date
of January1, 2018 and requires
Service Secretaries to provide an
implementation plan by March 1,
2016.
Discussion: The military retirement system has historically been viewed as a significant incentive
in retaining a career military force and any changes are closely followed by active duty military
and veteran’s groups. The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) will change the existing system from
a defined-benefit system that is vested at 20 years of qualifying service, to a blended definedbenefit, defined-contribution system with government matching contributions through the Thrift
Savings Plan. The new system will implement a reduced multiplier for the defined benefit to
2.0% from 2.5% (a retirement annuity equal to 40% basic pay at 20 YOS rather than 50% of basic
16
Disability retirees may be eligible for retired pay prior to 20 years of service.
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
pay) and authorized continuation pay at 12 years of service as a retention incentive. Existing
servicemembers and all those entering the military prior to January 1, 2018 will be grandfathered
into the current system, and those with less than 12 YOS on December 31, 2017 will be given the
option to elect the new system. Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) adjustments first enacted by
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67 §403) are repealed by this Act.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent
Developments, by (name redacted) ; CRS Report IF10141, Proposed Changes to the Military
Retirement System, by (name redacted); CRS Report R43393, Reducing Cost-of-Living
Adjustments for Military Retirees and the Bipartisan Budget Act: In Brief, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
Congressional Research Service
-.....
9
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Sexual Assault
Background: Over the past few years, the issue of sexual assault in the military has generated a
good deal of congressional and media attention. Congress has enacted numerous changes in
previous NDAAs, but issues remain. The final version of the bill contained numerous provisions
regarding the legal procedures, policies and programs, and data collection and reporting for
military sexual assaults.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1725
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Procedural Issues
Sec. 544 would allow special victim’s
counsel (SVC) representation at
retaliatory proceedings related to
the victim’s report of the offense.
Sec. 545 would require timely
notification to a victim of a sexrelated offense of the availability of
SVC.
Sec. 546 would extend certain rights
and protections to a victim of a sexrelated offense in any punitive
proceedings.
Sec. 547 would allow victim access
to report of results of preliminary
hearing under Article 32 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Sec. 548 would establish a minimum
mandatory confinement period of 2
years for those convicted of certain
sex-related offenses.
Sec. 552 would amend 10 U.S.C. §47,
Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) to require consistent
preparation of the full record of trial.
Sec. 554 would require DOD to
retain case notes for all
investigations of sex-related offenses.
Sec. 555 would establish guidance
regarding the release of mental
health records of a victim in a sexrelated offense.
Policies and Programs
Sec. 541 would require the Secretary
of Defense to make certain
improvements to the Special Victims’
Counsel Program.
Sec. 542 would allow access to SVC
services for DOD civilian employees.
Sec. 543 would allow access to SVC
services for certain former
dependents and former
servicemembers.
Sec. 549 would require DOD to
Procedural Issues
Sec. 547 would protect members
serving as SVC from less favorable
evaluations in relation to CourtsMartial representation.
Sec. 551 would allow victims to be
assisted by SVC when questioned by
military criminal investigators.
Sec. 552 would allow SVC to provide
legal consultation in Freedom of
Information Act requests and in
complaints against the government.
Sec. 546 would modify the military
rules of evidence pertaining to
corroboration of a confession or
admission of the accused.
Sec. 548 would allow victims of
UCMJ offenses timely access to
certain materials and information in
relation to the offense.
Sec. 549 would enhance
enforcement of victims’ rights
regarding inadmissible evidence.
Sec. 550 would allow victims to
access complete records of courtsmartial proceedings in cases where
sentences could include punitive
discharge.
Sec. 553 would enhance the
confidentiality of restricted reports
of sexual assault in the military.
Procedural Issues
Sec. 531 authorizes a victim to
petition the Court of Criminal
Appeals for a writ of mandamus.
Sec. 533 allows SVC to provide legal
consultation in Freedom of
Information Act requests and in
complaints against the government
Sec. 534 requires timely notification
to a victim of a sex-related offense of
the availability of SVC.
Sec. 536 enhances the confidentiality
of restricted reports of sexual
assault in the military.
Sec. 541 requires DOD to retain
case notes for all investigations of
sex-related offenses.
Sec. 544 protects members serving
as SVC from less favorable
evaluations in relation to CourtsMartial representation.
Sec. 545 modifies the military rules
of evidence pertaining to
corroboration of a confession or
admission of the accused.
Policies and Programs
Sec. 554 would establish an office of
complex investigation within the
National Guard Bureau.
Policies and Programs
Sec 532 allows access to SVC
services for DOD civilian employees.
Sec. 535 requires the Secretary of
Defense to make certain
improvements to the Special Victims’
Counsel Program.
Sec. 538 requires improved
prevention and response to sexual
assaults of male victims.
Sec. 539 requires DOD to develop a
strategy to prevent retaliation
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 1735
develop a strategy to prevent
retaliation against members who
report or intervene on behalf of a
victim of sexual assault.
Sec. 550 would require improved
prevention and response to sexual
assaults of male victims.
Sec. 551 would require sexual assault
prevention and response training for
Junior and Senior Reserve Officer
Training Units (ROTC).
Sec. 556 would require public
availability of certain UCMJ
proceedings.
Data, Reports, and Committees
Sec. 553 would require additional
annual reporting requirements for
DOD to include cases under the
DOD Family Advocacy Program, and
information on retaliation.
Sec. 557 would require DOD to
develop a database to track sex
offenders.
Sec. 558 would require improved
implementation of UCMJ changes.
Senate-Passed H.R. 1725
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
against members who report or
intervene on behalf of a victim of
sexual assault.
Sec 540 requires sexual assault
prevention and response training for
Junior and Senior Reserve Officer
Training Units (ROTC).
Data, Reports, and Committees
Sec. 555 would shorten the deadline
for establishment of a defense
advisory committee on investigation,
prosecution, and defense of sexual
assault in the Armed Forces.
Sec 556 would require the
Comptroller General to report on
sexual assault in the Army National
Guard and Army Reserve.
Sec 557 would initiate a dialog
between Congress and DOD to
determine the best way to protect
family members from adverse effects
of sentencing that requires forfeiture
of military benefits.
Data, Reports, and Committees
Sec 537 shortens the deadline for
establishment of a defense advisory
committee on investigation,
prosecution, and defense of sexual
assault in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 542 requires the Comptroller
General to report on sexual assault
in the Army National Guard and
Army Reserve.
Sec. 543 requires improved
implementation of UCMJ changes.
Discussion: The FY2014 DOD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military reported that an
estimated 4.3% of women and 0.9% of men in the military experienced unwanted sexual contact
in 2014 based on survey data. Of those who reported unwanted sexual contact, 53% perceived
some sort of social retaliation. The types of social retaliation that were reported included adverse
administrative action (35%), professional retaliation (32%), and punishment for an infraction in
relation to their report (11%).17 A recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
also identified a need for the DOD to enhance its efforts to improve the effectiveness of care
provided to male sexual assault victims.18 The enacted bill’s (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) provisions
address some of these concerns about retaliation and male victims of sexual assault. These
provisions also enhance the Special Victims’ Counsel Program, and modify requirements for
judicial proceedings, reporting, and sentencing in sex-related offenses.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
See also CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and
17
Some respondents perceived more than one type of retaliation. Department of Defense Sexual Assault and
Prevention Office, Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, April 29, 2015, p. 44.
18
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Address Sexual Assaults of Male
Servicemembers, GAO-15-284, March 19, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Related Resources, by (name redacted)
; CRS Report R43213, Sexual Assaults Under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected Legislative Proposals, by (name redacted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
Congressional Research Service
-.....
12
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Gender Integration
Background: On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the
Department of Defense (DOD) was rescinding its 1994 Direct Combat Exclusion Rule to allow
women to serve in previously restricted combat occupations, and gave the military services until
January 1, 2016, to conduct women in the services reviews, to develop implementation plans, and
to request waivers if deemed appropriate. On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton
Carter announced that all military occupations were open to women with no exceptions.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 533 would reduce the required
congressional notification and waiting
time for implementation of changes
to assignment policies for women.
Sec. 534 would add a requirement
that occupational standards measure
the combat readiness of combat
units.
Sec. 523 expresses the sense of the
Senate that the development of
gender-neutral occupational
standards should be based on best
scientific practices, should not result
in unnecessary barriers to service,
should be objectively determined,
and should not negatively impact
required combat capabilities.
Sec. 524 reduces the required
congressional notification and waiting
time for implementation of changes
to assignment policies for women.
Sec. 525 adds a requirement that
occupational standards measure the
combat readiness of combat units.
Discussion: In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103-160)
Congress established requirements19 for “gender-neutral” occupational performance standards
and has in subsequent years directed DOD in how these standards should be developed and
applied. Section 524 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291), entitled “Removal of artificial barriers to
the service of women in the Armed Forces,” emphasized that the standards DOD uses to measure
performance must be related to the “actual, regular, and recurring duties” in a specific military
occupation and standards must measure “individual capabilities.” The FY2016 NDAA adds
additional criteria for developing performance standards relating to combat unit readiness that
could require DOD to undertake validation efforts for unit-level performance.
Under the law (10 U.S.C. §652), DOD must notify Congress of changes to assignment policies
that open or close any category of unit, position, or career designator for females. Under previous
law, Congress had a period of 30 days in continuous session (House and Senate) for review of
these changes before DOD could take any action on implementing them (this provision is
sometimes referred to as “notify-and-wait”). Changes made by the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S.
1356) shorten this waiting period to 30 calendar days. For DOD, this could provide a more
definitive timeline for implementation. For Congress, this could reduce the amount of in-session
time to review and act on proposed changes.
19
Gender Neutrality Requirement: In the case of any military occupational career field that is open to both male and
female members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense—(1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the
Armed Forces for, and continuance of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on
the basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards or evaluation on the basis of
gender; (2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law; and (3) may not
change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the number of women in that
occupational career field.
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
See also CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted)
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
Congressional Research Service
.
.
-.....
14
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Financial Literacy and Preparedness of
Servicemembers
Background: One of the findings of the congressionally mandated (P.L. 113-66) Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) was that weaknesses in
existing financial literacy programs for military servicemembers were potentially linked to
adverse effects on servicemembers, military families, and overall readiness.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 651 would require financial
literacy training at certain points in a
servicemember’s career and would
require an annual survey of financial
literacy and preparedness for
members of the armed forces.
Sec. 581 would require financial
literacy training at certain points in a
servicemember’s career and would
require an annual survey of financial
literacy and preparedness for
members of the armed forces.
Sec. 582 would require training to
commence no later than six months
after enactment.
Sec. 583 expresses the sense of
Congress that DOD should
strengthen arrangements with other
entities to provide training and
support.
Sec. 661 requires financial literacy
training at certain points in a
servicemember’s career and would
require an annual survey of financial
literacy and preparedness for
members of the armed forces.
Discussion: Enhancing personal financial management training programs would require some
initial costs; however, DOD has estimated that improved financial literacy could save the DOD
between $13 million and $137 million annually and could reduce the number of troops
involuntarily separated due to financial distress.20 Changes to the military retirement system that
would offer more options for retirement savings and continuation pay might also necessitate
enhanced financial management training. The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) includes
provisions that require financial literacy training upon entry into the service, and at various points
in the servicemember’s career due to life changes (e.g., marriage or divorce) or transitions (e.g.
change of duty station or promotion).
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
20
-.....
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission Final Report, January 2015.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Citizenship Requirements for Enlistment in the
Reserve Components
Background: The statutory requirements for enlistment in the active component (10 U.S.C.
§504) are slightly different than the statutory requirements for enlistment in the reserve
components (10 U.S.C. §12102). Under 10 U.S.C. §504, an individual must be: (1) a national of
the United States (i.e., either a citizen or a person who, though not a citizen of the United States,
owes permanent allegiance to the United States ‐ a category that currently includes only American
Samoans); (2) a lawful permanent resident; or (3) a person described in the Compact of Free
Association between the United States and Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. Section
504 of Title 10, United States Code, also contains a provision that allows the service secretaries to
provide exceptions “if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national
interest.” This provision is the basis of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest or
MAVNI program. Section 12102 of Title 10 specifies that an enlistee must be (1) a citizen of the
United States; (2) a lawful permanent resident; or (3) have previously served in the armed forces.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 513 amends 10 U.S.C. §12102
(b) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following
paragraphs:
“(1) that person has met the
citizenship or residency
requirements established in section
504(b)(1) of this title; or
“(2) that person is authorized to
enlist by the Secretary concerned
under section 504(b)(2) of this
title.”.
No similar provision.
Discussion:
Section 513 of the initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735) would have linked the statutory
requirements for eligibility to enlist in the reserve component with the requirements necessary to
enlist in the active component. The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) did not include this
provision.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-....
Congressional Research Service
.
16
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Termination of Educational Assistance for Reserve
Component Members Supporting Contingency
Operations and Other Operations
Background: In 2004, Congress established the Reserve Educational Assistance Program
(REAP) to provide enhanced educational benefits to reservists who were called or ordered to
active service in response to a war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress.
Four years later, Congress approved the Post‐9/11 GI Bill, which provided more generous
educational benefits than REAP. As a result, the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission recommended terminating REAP, while allowing those currently
receiving REAP benefits to exhaust their entitlement.
House Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
Section 532 would amend Chapter
1607 of Title 10 U.S.C. by inserting a
sunset clause, terminating REAP four
years after enactment of the FY16
NDAA. Additionally, upon
enactment of the bill, REAP benefits
would be limited to those who were
receiving REAP benefits “for a
course of study at an educational
institution for the enrollment period
at the educational institution that
immediately preceded the date of
the enactment of that Act.”
P.L. 114-92
Section 555 was identical to the
Senate provision.
Discussion: The initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735) adopted the recommendations proposed by
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission by establishing a sunset
date for REAP four years after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016. It also stipulated that in the interim period, only those using REAP in the
enrollment period immediately prior to the date of enactment could continue to use the program.
The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) contained the Senate provision.
Reference(s): For more information on REAP and the Post 9/11 GI Bill, generally, see CRS
Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by (name red
acted) and (name redacted)
. For more detailed information, see CRS Report R42785, GI
Bills Enacted Prior to 2008 and Related Veterans’ Educational Assistance Programs: A Primer,
by (name redacted) , and CRS Report R42755, The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill): Primer and Issues, by (name redacted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-....
Congressional Research Service
.
17
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Issuance of Recognition of Service ID to Certain
Members Separating from the Armed Forces
Background: There have been periodic requests from veterans and veterans’ advocacy groups for
an official identification card to verify their past military service.
House Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Section 590 directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide covered
individuals with a “Recognition of
Service ID Card” that includes a
photo of the individual, their name,
and identifies them as a veteran.
No similar provision.
Discussion: The initial Senate passed bill (H.R. 1735) would entitle any “individual who is
undergoing discharge or release from the Armed Forces” (other than as the result of a punitive
discharge as part of a sentence of a court-martial) beginning one year from the enactment of the
Act to a “Recognition of Service ID Card.” This card must identify the bearer as a veteran and
include their name and a photograph. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
negotiate with “national retail chains that offer reduced prices on services, consumer products,
and pharmaceuticals to veterans” to ensure that the ID card will be accepted.
The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) contained no “recognition of service ID card” provision.
The Joint Explanatory statement noted:
An alternative option exists for honorably discharged veterans to utilize state-issued ID
cards that designate veteran status. Veterans in 44 states and the District of Columbia
may apply for a driver's license or State issued ID card that designates veteran status...
Additionally, since January 2014, honorably separated members of the Uniformed
Services are able to obtain an ID card providing proof of military service through the
joint DOD-VA eBenefits web portal.
Furthermore, on July 20, 2015, President Obama signed into law Public Law 114-31, the Veterans
Identification Card Act of 2015. This law requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide an
identification card to veterans who demonstrate their military service with a DD-214 or other
official document.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-....
Congressional Research Service
.
18
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Temporary Authority to Develop and Provide
Additional Recruitment Incentives
Background: Congress has an ongoing interest in recruiting and retaining high quality personnel
to serve in the armed forces. The use of recruiting bonuses and other incentives, such as
educational benefits, help the military services attract well qualified applicants. A wide array of
bonus and incentive pay authorities is contained in chapter 5 of Title 37 of the United States
Code.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Sec. 531would authorize the service
secretaries to develop and provide
additional recruitment incentives (no
more than three types) for up to
20% of the fiscal year accession
target for officers, warrant officers,
and enlisted personnel.
Implementation of the proposed
incentive would be subject to a 30‐
day congressional review and
approval period.
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 522 is identical to the House
provision.
Discussion: Section 531 of the initial House-passed bill (H.R. 1735) would authorize the service
secretaries to develop and provide additional recruitment incentives (no more than three types)
for up to 20% of the fiscal year accession target for officers, warrant officers, and enlisted
personnel. Implementation of the proposed incentive would be subject to a 30‐day congressional
review and approval period.
Section 522 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) incorporated the House provision.
Reference(s): More information on recruitment and retention can be found in CRS Report
RL32965, Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2013 and FY2014 Results for Active and
Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel, by (name redacted), and similar reports from earlier
years.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-....
Congressional Research Service
.
19
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Recognition of Additional Involuntary Mobilization
Duty Authorities Exempt From Five-Year Limit on
Reemployment Rights of Persons Who Serve in the
Uniformed Services
Background: When reservists are called into active federal service, they become eligible for a
number of legal protections. Among these is the right to reemployment found in the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994.21 The act confers a
general right to reemployment on those who leave civilian employment to perform military
service, but the cumulative length of service generally may not exceed five years. However,
USERRA specifically exempts types of duty from counting towards the five year limit, for
example, reservist activations under the long-standing activation authorities known as Full
Mobilization, Partial Mobilization, and Presidential Reserve Call-Up. In 2011, Congress created
two new mobilization authorities for reservists in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81). Codified at 10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b, these new activation
authorities allow 120-day activations of certain reservists for disaster response and 365 day
activations for preplanned missions in support of the combatant commands (12304a). At present,
activations under these new authorities are not excepted from the five year cumulative limit.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Section 565 would amend section
4312(c)(4)(A) of Title 38, U.S.C., by
adding 10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b
to the types of reserve activations
that do not count towards the 5
year length of service limitation in
USERRA.
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Section 562 is identical to the House
provision.
Discussion: Section 565 of the initial House-passed bill (H.R. 1735) would exempt military duty
under the new reserve activation authorities from counting towards the cumulative five year limit
on military service for reemployment protection under USERRA.
Section 562 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) incorporated the House provision.
Reference(s): For more information on USERRA and the mobilization authorities, please see
CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted)
.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-....
.
21
38 U.S.C. §4312(a), confers reemployment rights to members of the uniformed services as long as the
servicemember has provided advance notice of their service to the employer, the cumulative length of the
absence and of all previous absences from a position of employment with that employer by reason of service
in the uniformed services does not exceed five years, and that the servicemember reapplies for employment.
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve
Component as Veterans
Background: By statute (38 U.S.C. 101(2)), a veteran is defined as a “person who served in the
active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under
conditions other than dishonorable.” Thus, an individual must have “active military, naval, or air
service” to be considered a veteran for most VA benefits. However, not all types of service are
considered active military service for this purpose. In general, active service means full-time
service, other than active duty for training, as a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, or Coast Guard; as a commissioned officer of the Public Health Service; or as a
commissioned officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its
predecessors. Active service also includes a period of active duty for training during which the
person was disabled or died from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty
and any period of inactive duty for training during which the person was disabled or died from an
injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty or from certain health conditions incurred during
the training. Additional circumstances of service, and whether they are deemed to be active
military service, are set out in law (38 U.S.C. 101). Members of the National Guard and reserves
who are never activated for active duty military service (other than active duty for training) do not
meet the statutory definition of veteran even if they eventually qualify for reserve retirement.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Section 592 would amend Title 38
U.S.C., specifying that reservists who
qualify for retired pay for nonregular (reserve) service, or would
qualify but for age, “shall be honored
as a veteran but shall not be entitled
to any benefit by reason of this
section.”
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
No similar provision.
Discussion: Reservists become eligible for retirement after 20 years of qualifying service. Under
current law, a reservist who completes this requirement is eligible to retire and would receive
retired pay upon reaching the appropriate age (usually age 60); however, the reservists would not
necessarily be a veteran unless he or she had completed the required active service as well. The
initial House-passed bill (H.R. 1735) provided that reservists who qualify for reserve retirement
are to be “honored as veterans,” but stipulated that this designation would not confer entitlement
to any additional benefits.
The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) did not incorporate the House provision.
Reference(s): For information on who qualifies as a veteran, see CRS Report R42324, Who Is a
“Veteran”?—Basic Eligibility for Veterans’ Benefits, by (name redacted)
. For information on
veterans’ burial benefits see CRS Report R41386, Veterans’ Benefits: Burial Benefits and
National Cemeteries, by (name redacted)
. For information on the Reserve Component
and retirement and other benefits, please see CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component
Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-....
Meyerson, x7-.....
Congressional Research Service
, Barbara Salazar-Torreon, x7-....
, and Noah
21
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Career Intermission Program (CIP)
Background: The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L.
110-417, §533) established a pilot Career Intermission Program (CIP) as a retention initiative that
authorized 20 officers and enlisted per year to take time out from their military career. This
intermission may last up to 3 years. The purpose is to allow servicemembers to address work/life
balances (e.g., starting a family or taking care of a sick parent) or to pursue broadening
opportunities (e.g., graduate school or industry experience). The servicemember then would
return to active duty in a later year group, so as to not negatively impacting their military career
progression.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 532 would remove certain
eligibility requirements and the
current cap on the number of
servicemembers eligible to take part
in the career intermission program.
No provision.
Sec. 523 removes certain eligibility
requirements and the current cap on
the number of servicemembers
eligible to take part in the career
intermission program.
Discussion: DOD invests substantial resources in recruiting and training servicemembers and has
an interest in retaining high-performers. The CIP was initiated to provide more career flexibility
for high-performing servicemembers and to increase retention rates for those who might
otherwise leave the service. Servicemembers who are accepted into the program accept an
additional active duty service obligation of two months for every one month spent in CIP (for a
maximum six year follow-on obligation). DOD is required to submit a final assessment to
Congress on the pilot program not later than March 1, 2016. The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S.
1356) would remove prohibitions on program participation by members of the Armed Forces
serving under an agreement upon entry, or members receiving a critical military skill retention
bonus. Section 523 removes the restriction that limits the number of annual participants in the
program to 20 officers and 20 enlisted members.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
Congressional Research Service
-.....
22
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Acquisition Workforce
Background: Over the past few years, Congress has been concerned with improving the
recruitment, retention, and career management for the acquisition workforce.22 Some have
suggested that improving the quality of the acquisition workforce, requires additional incentives
for high-performing military personnel to seek acquisition assignments, and enhanced
professional military education in the area of acquisition.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 812 would establish a dual-track
career path that allows for
servicemembers to receive credit for
a primary career in combat arms and
a functional secondary career in the
acquisition field.
Sec. 813 would provide joint duty
assignment credit for acquisition
duty.
Sec. 503 would establish a dual-track
career path that allows for
servicemembers to receive credit for
a primary career in combat arms and
a functional secondary career in the
acquisition field, and would provide
joint duty credit for acquisition duty.
Sec. 843 provides joint duty
assignment credit for acquisition
duty.
Sec. 842 establishes a dual-track
career path that allows for
servicemembers to receive credit for
a primary career in combat arms and
a functional secondary career in the
acquisition field.
Discussion: Military acquisition professionals oversee billions of dollars of funding for major
defense acquisition programs. Many in Congress and DOD have an interest in ensuring a cadre of
high-performing and qualified personnel for acquisition duty assignments. The GoldwaterNichols Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-433) created incentives for officers to be educated and experienced
in joint matters by tying joint professional military education and service in joint assignments to
promotions and advancement to general/flag officer ranks. Provisions in the enacted bill (P.L.
114-92, S. 1356) extend joint duty credit to include service in acquisition-related assignments.
The act also includes provisions that would allow officers to pursue a dual career track with a
primary specialty in combat arms and a functional sub-specialty in an acquisition field. In
addition the NDAA conferees encouraged the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the curriculum
for Phase II joint professional military education includes acquisition matters to ensure successful
performance in acquisition or acquisition-related fields.23
CRS Point of Contact: For military personnel issues contact (name redacted), x7
defense acquisition issues contact (name redacted), x7 -.....
-....; for
22
For the purpose of this report we have only discussed provisions pertaining to military personnel and not those
pertaining to DOD civilians in the acquisition workforce.
23
H.Rept. 114-270.
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Personal Firearms on Military Installations
Background: Section 1585 of Title 10, United States Code authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe policy and regulations regarding the carrying of firearms for DOD civilian employees
and military servicemembers on military bases. Current DOD policies limit the carrying of
government-issued firearms on military installations to personnel engaged in assigned duties.24
By policy, it is prohibited for military servicemembers to carry personal firearms (concealed or
open carry) on military bases and installations while on duty and under most other circumstances.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 539 would require DOD to
establish a process that would allow
senior leadership on military
installations to authorize concealed
carry of personal firearms for
qualified servicemembers.
No provision.
Sec. 526 requires DOD to
establish a process that would
allow senior leadership on
military installations, reserve
center, or other defense facility
to authorize carry of an
appropriate firearm for qualified
servicemembers.
Discussion: On July 16, 2015, a Marine Corps recruiting center and U.S. Naval Reserve Center
were attacked by an armed shooter. This has followed other active shooter incidents on military
installations, for example, the 2009 and 2014 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and the 2013
Washington Navy Yard shooting. Following the most recent incident, some have questioned
whether force protection measures at military installations are adequate and whether current DOD
policies and regulations should be modified to broaden the authority for servicemembers to carry
personal or government-issued firearms. The enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) would compel
DOD to initiate a process that would give more flexibility to commanders of installations and
other defense facilities to establish protocols for servicemembers to be authorized to carry
appropriate firearms as a force protection measure.
Reference(s): CRS Report IN10318, Can Military Servicemembers Carry Firearms for Personal
Protection on Duty? by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
24
Department of Defense Directive, “Carrying of Firearms and the Use of Force by DOD Personnel Engaged in
Security, Law and Order, or Counterintelligence Activities”, DODD 5210.56, April 1, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Award of the Purple Heart to members of the
Armed Forces who were victims of the Oklahoma
City, OK, bombing
Background: The Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces who has been
(1) killed or wounded in action by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict against
an enemy of the United States; (2) killed or wounded by friendly fire under certain circumstances;
or (3) killed or wounded as a result of an intentional terrorist attack against the United States.25
On April19, 1995, a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
downtown Oklahoma City, OK, killed 168 people and injured more than 650 including six
servicemembers in the Army Recruiting Battalion and in the Marine Corps Recruiting office.
These servicemembers are ineligible for the Purple Heart based on the criteria listed above.
Supporters of Section 583 of the initial House-passed bill (H.R. 1735) contend that the
servicemembers killed in the Oklahoma City bombing were victims of terrorism and therefore
eligible for the Purple Heart. Opponents maintain that these servicemembers were victims of
domestic terrorism and do not qualify under current law.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 583 would award the Purple
Heart to members of the Armed
Forces who were victims of the
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing.
No provision
No provision
Discussion: Eligibility was expanded in the FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291) to include
servicemembers wounded and killed in 2009 during the terrorist attacks at Little Rock, AR and
Fort Hood, TX. Authorities initially treated the 2009 shootings at Little Rock and Fort Hood as
criminal acts and not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force. Yet, because these acts
involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, some believed
they should be viewed as acts of terrorism. Still others were concerned that awarding the Purple
Heart in these situations could have anti-Muslim overtones. However, Section 571 of the NDAA
for FY2015 (P.L.113-291) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should
be considered an attack by a “foreign terrorist organization” for purposes of determining
eligibility for the Purple Heart. The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a
foreign terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack “was in communication with the
foreign terrorist organization before the attack” and “the attack was inspired or motivated by the
foreign terrorist organization.” The provision in Section 583 of the initial House-passed bill (H.R.
1735) was not adopted, thus servicemembers who were victims of the Oklahoma City bombing
will not be eligible for the Purple Heart under the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356).
Reference(s): CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
; and CRS Report R42704,
The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
* Indicates topic was previously addressed in FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Issues.
25
10 U.S.C. §§1129 and 1129a.
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Transfer and Adoption of Military Animals
Background: The issue of military working dogs (MWDs) has received congressional and media
attention over the years with Congress enacting laws and provisions in the NDAA related to the
transfer and adoption of MWDs. In November 2000, Congress passed “Robby’s Law” (P.L. 106446), “To require the immediate termination of the Department of Defense practice of euthanizing
military working dogs at the end of their useful working life and to facilitate the adoption of
retired military working dogs by law enforcement agencies, former handlers of these dogs, and
other persons capable of caring for these dogs.” Congress also included language that limited
liability claims arising from the transfer of these dogs. The NDAA for FY2012 (Sec. 351, P.L.
112-81) expanded the eligibility list to adopt MWDs to include the handler (if wounded or
retired), or a parent, spouse, child, or sibling of the handler if the handler is deceased. Military
working dogs were classified as “equipment”26 and eligible individuals interested in adopting one
of these dogs paid for transporting the MWD stateside. On January 2, 2013, Congress passed the
NDAA for FY2013 (P.L 112-239) with a provision in Section 371 that a retiring MWD may be
transferred to the 341st Training Squadron (in Lackland, Texas, where MWDs are trained) or to
another location for adoption. The current law (10 U.S.C. §2583) does not require DOD to
transfer MWDs that are “retired” overseas back to the United States.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 594 amends Sec. 2583(a) of title
10 U.S.C. by striking “may” in the
matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting “shall” and amends the list
of authorized persons to adopt a
military animal and prioritizes the list
of persons eligible to adopt.
Sec. 352 amends section 2583 of title
10 U.S.C. to give preference in the
adoption of retired military working
dogs to their former handlers.
Sec. 342. amends Sec. 2583(a) of title
10 U.S.C. by striking “may” in the
matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting “shall” and amends the list
of authorized persons to adopt a
military animal and prioritizes the list
of persons eligible to adopt with
preference first to A) former
handlers; B) other persons capable
of humanely caring for the animal;
and C) law enforcement agencies.
Discussion: Section 342 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) includes provisions from both
Section 594 of the initial House-passed bill (H.R. 1735) and Section 352 of the initial Senatepassed bill (H.R. 1735) requiring DOD to transfer retiring MWDs located overseas to the United
States and give adoption priority to former handlers. It does not alter, revise, or override existing
military policy allowing law enforcement agencies to adopt military working dogs. Advocates of
MWDs contend that the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) language changing “may” to “shall”
requires all military working dogs to be retired only after they are returned to the United States
and will help facilitate domestic transfer of these dogs to those who qualify to adopt them.
Opponents maintain that it will be costly since there are currently no appropriated funds
designated for the transfer of retiring MWDs from abroad.
Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
, and AFI 31-126,
Military Working Dog Program, June 1, 2015.
26
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 31-126, Military Working Dog Program, was updated June 1, 2015, and eliminates any
mention of military working dogs as “equipment.”
Congressional Research Service
26
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted),
Manpower, x7-.....
Congressional Research Service
Analyst in Defense Budget and Military
27
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Defense Commissary System
Background: Over the past few years, Congress has been concerned with improving the Defense
Commissary (DeCA) system but there have been no legislated changes. The President’s FY2015
budget proposal included $1 billion in cuts to the Defense Commissary System over a three-year
period, beginning with $200 million reduction in FY2015. However, commissary funding was
fully restored in the FY2015 NDAA which added $100 million to the commissary budget to
reverse the Administration’s budget proposal. It also required a study of possible cost reductions.
Similar to the FY2015 budget request, the President’s FY2016 budget request proposed cutting
$300 million in subsidies for commissaries, cutting the commissary budget from $1.3 billion to
$400 million in three years, with only funds to stateside commissaries being cut.27 The reduced
subsidies could result in a reduction in operating days and hours for commissary patrons and
might increase costs for some goods and services. Authorized patrons include active duty military
members, Guard and Reserve component members, retired personnel and their families, 100%
disabled veterans, Medal of Honor recipients, and DOD civilians stationed at U.S. installations
overseas.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Sec. 641 would ensure that there are
no changes to the current secondary
destination transportation policy that
applies to fresh fruit and vegetables
for commissaries in Asia and the
Pacific until the Defense Commissary
Agency (DeCA) conducts a
comprehensive study on locating
fresh supplies from local sources in
the region. The recommendations
from this study would then be
submitted to Congress.
Sec. 642 would prohibit replacement
or consolidation of defense
commissary and exchange systems
pending submission of required
report on defense commissary
system.
Sec. 651 would amend 10 U.S.C.
§2483 on operating expenses and
transportation costs for certain
goods and supplies in commissary
stores worldwide, applying
surcharges and attaining uniform
system-wide pricing.
Sec. 652 directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a plan no later
than March 1, 2016, for privatizing
the Defense Commissary system,
and to begin a 2-year pilot program
on the basis of that report.
Sec, 653 directs the Comptroller
General of the United States report
on the Commissary Surcharge, Nonappropriated Fund, and PrivatelyFinanced Major Construction
Program.
Sec, 1025 would require a report
and assessment of potential costs
and benefits of privatizing
Department of Defense
commissaries.
Sec. 651 would require the Secretary
of Defense to submit a plan to
Congress no later than March 1,
2016, to obtain budget-neutrality for
the defense commissary system
(DeCA) and the military exchange
system.
Sec. 652 directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to issue
a report on the Commissary
Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund,
and Privately-Financed Major
Construction Program.
27
Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, Overview
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, February 2015, “Reduce Commissary Subsidy,” on PDF p. 65, at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2016/fy2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Discussion: Sections 651 and 652 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) include provisions
similar to the initial Senate-passed version of H.R. 1735.
Section 651 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) requires that the Secretary of Defense
submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the House and Senate no later than
March 1, 2016, with a plan to obtain budget-neutrality for the DeCA and the military exchange
system. This comprehensive plan is to detail how to achieve budget-neutrality by meeting
benchmarks set in the report such as customer service satisfaction, high product quality, and
sustainment of discount savings to eligible patrons by October 1, 2018. Elements of this report
shall include descriptions of any modifications to the commissary and exchange systems
including privatization, in whole or in part; closure of any commissary in close proximity to other
commissaries; an analysis of different pricing constructs to improve or enhance the commissary
and exchange benefits; and the impact of any modification on Morale, Welfare and Recreation
(MWR) quality-of-life programs. Also, as part of this report, the Defense Secretary shall consider
Section 634 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291) as well as previous reports and studies. Section 634 of
P.L. 113-291 required a review of management, food, and pricing options for DeCA including
using variable pricing in commissary stores to reduce the expenditure of appropriated funds;
implementing a program to make available more private label products in commissary stores;
converting the defense commissary system to a non-appropriated fund instrumentality; and
eliminating or at least reducing second-destination funding.
Section 652 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) requires the Comptroller General of the
United States to submit a report on the Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and
Privately-Financed Major Construction Program. The report will be submitted to the Committees
on Armed Services of both chambers no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Reference(s): CRS Report R43806, Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin
and Howard “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015, by (name redacted)
.
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC), Final Report,
January 29, 2015, at http://www.mcrmc.gov/public/docs/report/MCRMC-FinalReport-29JAN15HI.pdf.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), Specialist in Defense Acquisition
(name redacted), Analyst in Defense Budget and Military Manpower, x7
Congressional Research Service
, x-7617, and
-.....
29
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing
Background: TRICARE is a health care program serving uniformed servicemembers, retirees,
their dependents, and survivors. In its FY2016 budget request, the Administration proposed to
replace the TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Extra health plan options with a consolidated plan, to
increase copays for pharmaceuticals, and to establish a new enrollment fee for future enrollees in
the TRICARE-for-Life program (that acts like a Medigap supplement plan for Medicare-enrolled
beneficiaries). 28
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
No provision.
Sec. 702 would increase pharmacy
copayments consistent with the
Administration’s proposal.
A revised section 702 with smaller
pharmacy copayment increases was
included. Discussed separately at
page 32.
Discussion: Except for pharmaceutical copays in the initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735), none
of the remainder of the Administration’s proposals was adopted. In addition, recommendations for
changes to TRICARE were included in the final report of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Compensation Modernization Commission. However, the President did not endorse
those recommendations nor were they adopted in either the House- or Senate-passed versions of
H.R. 1735. This is not to suggest that Congress will not consider major changes to the TRICARE
benefit in the future: the Senate report stated
Although the committee believes that the Commission’s healthcare recommendations
may address lingering problems with-in the military health system, the committee feels it
is prudent to take a very deliberate approach to enacting TRICARE reform legislation.
The committee must better understand the implications and unintended consequences of
any plan to transform a large, complex health program like TRICARE. The committee
has recommended provisions in this Act, however, that would ensure the Department of
Defense improves access to care, delivers better health outcomes, enhances the
experience of care for beneficiaries, and controls health care costs. These provisions help
lay the foundation for comprehensive TRICARE modernization and reform legislation in
the near future.29
The joint explanatory statement to accompany the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) 30 further
stated:
We agree that comprehensive reform of the military health care system is essential and
commit to working with the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2017 to begin
reforming the military healthcare system. This reform must improve access, quality and
the experience of care for all beneficiaries; maintain medical readiness of the military
health professionals; and ensure the long-term viability and cost effectiveness of the
military health care system. The current system has not kept pace with the best practices
and latest innovations in the commercial healthcare market and will not meet the future
needs of the DOD, the servicemembers, families, or retirees. In order to modernize and
improve the military healthcare system, we agree that all elements of the current system
28
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, United States Departmentof Defense
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Overview, February 2015, pp. 6-12 to 6-15,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2016/fy2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
29
S.Rept. 114-49, p. 161.
30
Joint Explanatory Statement on S. 1356 published in Congressional Record, November 5, 2015, pp. H7747-H8123.
Congressional Research Service
30
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
must be reevaluated, and that increases to fees and co-pays will be a necessary part of
such a comprehensive reform effort. 31
The Senate pharmacy provision is discussed separately on page 32.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
31
See pages 107-108 http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=E0B05DFB-B970-4D0C92EA-26FD566B7E3B.
Congressional Research Service
31
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*TRICARE Pharmacy Copayments
Background: TRICARE beneficiaries have access to a pharmacy program that allows outpatient
prescriptions to be filled through military pharmacies, TRICARE mail-order pharmacy, and
TRICARE retail network and non-network pharmacies. Active duty servicemembers have no
pharmacy copayments when using military pharmacies, TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery, or
TRICARE retail network pharmacies. Military pharmacies will provide free-of-charge a 90-day
supply of formulary medications for prescriptions written by both civilian and military providers.
Non-formulary medicines generally are not available at military pharmacies. It is DOD policy to
use generic medications instead of brand-name medications whenever possible. The 2015 NDAA
allowed a one-time $3 increase to retail and mail order pharmacy copays and required refills for
maintenance drug prescriptions (e.g., cholesterol, blood pressure) to be filled through lower cost
mail order or military pharmacies. The Administration’s FY2016 budget request proposed a series
of annual increases in the amount of copayments for fiscal years 2016 through 2025.32
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
No provision.
Section 702 would specify
TRICARE pharmaceutical copays for fiscal years 2016
through 2025, similar to the
Administration proposal.
Section 702 provides for a one-time
increase to pharmacy copayments.
The copay for prescriptions filled at
retail pharmacies is increased from
$8 to $10 for generic drugs and
from $20 to $24 for formulary brand
name drugs. For prescriptions filled
by mail order, the copay for
formulary drugs increases from $16
to $20 and for non-formulary drugs
from $46 to $49.
Discussion: Section 702 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) provides for smaller pharmacy
copayment increases than would have been provided under the initial Senate-passed bill (H.R.
1735). Section 702 of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) contains a one-time increase to
pharmacy copayments. It increases the copay for prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies from $8
to $10 for generic drugs and from $20 to $24 for formulary brand name drugs. For prescriptions
filled by mail order, the copay for formulary drugs is increased from $16 to $20 and for nonformulary drugs from $46 to $49.
CBO estimates that section 702 as enacted would reduce direct spending by about $1.5 billion
over 10 years.33
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, and CRS Report R43184, FY2014
National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-.....
32
Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, Overview
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, 2015, pp. 6-14, http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/
fy2016/fy2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
33
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/H.R.1735.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Military Health System Quality Metrics
Background: The quality of health care provided through the military health system was the
subject of a recent series of news articles.34 Last year, then-Secretary of Defense Hagel ordered a
90-day review of the military health system which resulted in an action plan.35 Some Members of
Congress have expressed interest in the implementation of that follow-up plan.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
No provision.
Section 711 would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that
TRICARE beneficiaries obtain health
care appointments within access
standards and wait-time goals. If the
beneficiary is unable to obtain an
appointment within the wait-time
goals, the beneficiary would be
offered an appointment with a
contracted health care provider. It
would also require the Secretary to
publish health care access standards
in the Federal Register and on a
public Internet site.
Section 731 would require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with
the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to report, and make publicly
available through the Hospital
Compare website, information on
quality of care and health outcomes
regarding patients treated at military
medical treatment facilities.
Section 732 would require the
Secretary of Defense to publish, and
update at least quarterly, on a public
website data on all measures used to
assess patient safety, quality of care,
patient satisfaction, and health
outcomes for health care provided
at each medical treatment facility.
Similar to Senate section 711,
section requires the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that TRICARE
Prime beneficiaries obtain health
care appointments within health care
access standards established by the
Secretary, including through health
care providers in the TRICARE
preferred provider network. The
section also requires the Secretary
to publish health care access
standards in the Federal Register and
on a publicly accessible Internet
website.
No similar provision. The
explanatory statement states “We
strongly encourage the Department
of Defense to demonstrate greater
transparency of quality of care and
health outcomes data by making such
data available on the Hospital
Compare website of the Department
of Health and Human Services.”
Like Senate section 732, section 712
requires the Secretary of Defense to
publish appropriate data on
measures used to assess patient
safety, quality of care, patient
satisfaction, and health outcomes of
each military medical treatment
facility on a publicly available Internet
website.
Section 713 requires the
Department of Defense to include
data on patient safety, quality of care,
and access to care at each military
medical treatment facility in the
annual report to Congress on
TRICARE program effectiveness.
Section 733 would require an annual
report on patient safety, quality of
care, and access to care at military
medical treatment facilities.
34
See New York Times series on “Military Medicine” at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/service-members-areleft-in-dark-on-health-errors.html.
35
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0614_healthreview/.
Congressional Research Service
33
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Discussion:
Sections 711 and 731 to 735 of the initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735) would have required a
variety of actions to increase the visibility of various health quality metrics by public access and
through reports to Congress. CBO estimated that about $95 million would be required over the
period 2016-2020 to satisfy these requirements.36 By not including the provisions of the initial
Senate Section 711, the provisions of the enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356) would be less
demanding and presumably less costly.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-....
.
36
Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate S. 1376, June 3, 2015, p.23, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s1376.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
34
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contraception
Background: The 2014 annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the
Service reported that access to contraception remains a concern, stating that “recent studies have
indicated continuing challenges with Service members’ access to reproductive health care.”37
TRICARE covers the following forms of birth control when prescribed by a TRICAREauthorized provider:
Contraceptive diaphragm, including measurement, purchase and
replacement,
Intrauterine devices, including surgical insertion, removal and replacement,
Prescription contraceptives, including the Preven Emergency Contraceptive
Kit containing special doses of regular birth control pills and a selfadministered pregnancy test, and
Surgical sterilization, male and female.
TRICARE does not cover condoms and nonprescription spermicidal foams, gels or sprays.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
P.L. 114-92 (S. 1356)
Section 702 would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that
every military medical treatment
facility has a sufficient stock of a
broad range of methods of
contraception approved by the Food
and Drug Administration to be able
to dispense any such method of
contraception to women members
of the Armed Forces and female
covered beneficiaries.
Section 703 would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that,
whenever possible, a female member
of the Armed Forces who uses
prescription contraception on a
long-term basis should be given prior
to deployment a sufficient supply of
the prescription contraceptive for
the duration of the deployment.
Section 714 would require the
Department of Defense to provide,
through clinical practice guidelines,
current and evidence-based
standards of care regarding
contraception methods and
counseling to all health care
providers employed by the
Department and to ensure service
women have access to
comprehensive contraception
counseling prior to deployment and
throughout their military careers. It
would also require the Secretary to
establish a uniform, standard
curriculum to be used in family
planning education programs for all
servicemembers.
Section 718 requires the Secretary
of Defense to establish and
disseminate clinical guidelines on
contraception and contraception
counseling as well as to make
contraceptive counseling available to
women members of the Armed
Forces.
Discussion: Both the initial House and Senate-passed versions of the bill (H.R. 1735) included
provisions that would have required DOD to take actions to increase access to contraception. The
enacted bill (P.L. 114-92, S. 1356), similar to the initial Senate-passed bill (H.R. 1735), requires
the Secretary of Defense to establish, within one year, clinical practice guidelines for DOD health
care providers with respect to methods of contraception and counseling on methods of
contraception. It also requires that all women members of the Armed Forces have access to
comprehensive counseling on the full range of methods of contraception.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
37
Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service, 2014 Report, 2014, p. 19, http://dacowits.defense.gov/
Portals/48/Documents/Reports/2014/Annual%20Report/2014%20DACOWITS%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Military Manpower
r[ edacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Defense Budget and Military Manpower
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Acknowledgments
Alexander Hitchcock made significant contributions to this report.
Congressional Research Service
36
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.