FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Congressional research reportJan 23, 2017
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Issues
*name redacted*
Analyst in Military Manpower
*name redacted*
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
*name redacted*
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
*name redacted*
Legislative Attorney
*name redacted*
Senior Research Librarian
January 23, 2017
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44577
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress
and their staffs. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military
personnel issues considered in deliberations on H.R. 4909 as passed by the House on May 26,
2016, S. 2943 as passed by the Senate on July 21, 2016, and the final enacted bill (P.L. 114-328)
which was signed by the President on December 23, 2016. This report provides a brief synopsis
of sections in each bill that pertain to selected personnel policies. These include issues such as
military end-strengths, pay and benefits, military healthcare (TRICARE), military retirement, and
other major policy issues.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual national defense authorization act (NDAA)
legislative process. It does not include language concerning appropriations, or tax implications of
policy choices, topics that are addressed in other CRS products. Issues that have been discussed
in the previous year’s defense personnel reports are designated with an asterisk in the relevant
section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
*Active Duty End-Strengths............................................................................................................ 1
*Selected Reserves End-Strength .................................................................................................... 2
*Military Pay Raise ......................................................................................................................... 4
*Housing Allowances ...................................................................................................................... 5
*Military Retirement System .......................................................................................................... 6
Benefits to Former Spouses of Military Servicemembers ............................................................... 8
*Survivor Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 8
TRICARE Reform ......................................................................................................................... 10
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing .......................................................................................... 12
*TRICARE Pharmacy Co-payments ............................................................................................. 14
Administration of the Defense Health Agency and Military Medical Treatment Facilities .......... 16
*Active and Reserve Enlistment Qualifications ............................................................................ 18
Military Parental Leave ................................................................................................................. 18
*Defense Commissary System ...................................................................................................... 20
Servicemember Education, Credentialing, and Transition ............................................................ 22
Changes to General and Flag Officer Grades and Positions.......................................................... 24
*Joint Duty Assignments ............................................................................................................... 26
Selective Service ........................................................................................................................... 28
*Military Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment ......................................................................... 29
Child Abuse and Domestic Violence ............................................................................................. 31
Uniform Code of Military Justice Reform .................................................................................... 33
*Medal of Honor ........................................................................................................................... 35
Figures
Figure 1. FY2017 Authorized Active Duty End-Strength ............................................................... 2
Figure 2. FY2017 Authorized Reserve End-Strength ...................................................................... 3
Tables
Table 1. TRICARE Select Cost-Sharing Amounts ........................................................................ 13
Table 2. TRICARE Prime Cost-Sharing Amounts ........................................................................ 14
Appendixes
Appendix A. Reports and Studies .................................................................................................. 37
Congressional Research Service
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 40
Congressional Research Service
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Introduction
Each year, the House and Senate armed services committees take up national defense
authorization bills. The House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 4909) on May 26, 2016. The Senate passed its NDAA bill (S. 2943) on
June 14, 2016. These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees,
and their family members. Provisions in one version are sometimes not included in the other, are
treated differently by, or are identical in both versions. Following passage of these bills by the
House and by the Senate, a conference committee was convened to resolve the differences
between the respective chambers’ versions of the bill. The House and Senate agreed to the
conference report on December 2, and December 8, 2016, respectively. The President signed the
final bill into law (P.L. 114-328) on December 23, 2016.
This report is intended to highlight selected personnel-related issues that may generate high levels
of congressional and constituent interest.
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 National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92) and discussed in CRS Report R44120,
FY2016 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.
*Active Duty End-Strengths
Background: The authorized active duty end-strengths for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to
the September 11 terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine
Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000).1 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. However, in recent years Congress began reversing these increases in light of
the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan
beginning in 2012, and budgetary constraints. End-strengths for the Air Force and Navy have
been generally declining since 2001. Authorized end-strengths for FY2016 and FY2017 are in
Figure 1.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 401 would authorize a total
FY2017 active duty end-strength of
1,310,615 including
480,000 for the Army
324,615 for the Navy
Sec. 401 would authorize a total
FY2017 active duty end-strength of
1,281,900 including
460,000 for the Army
322,900 for the Navy
Sec. 401 authorizes a total FY2017
active duty end-strength of 1,305,900
including
476,000 for the Army
323,900 for the Navy
1
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 U.S.C. §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
1
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
185,000 for the Marine Corps
321,000 for the Air Force
Sec. 402 would amend 10 U.S.C.
§691 to set minimum end-strengths
as follows:
480,000 for the Army
324,615 for the Navy
185,000 for the Marine Corps
321,000 for the Air Force
P.L. 114-328
182,000 for the Marine Corps
317,000 for the Air Force
185,000 for the Marine Corps
321,000 for the Air Force
Sec. 402 amends 10 U.S.C. §691 to
set minimum end-strengths as
follows:
476,000 for the Army
323,900 for the Navy
185,000 for the Marine Corps
321,000 for the Air Force
Discussion: In comparison to FY2016 authorized end-strengths, the Administration’s FY2017
budget proposed lowering end-strengths for all services. The Senate bill approved end-strengths
identical to the Administration’s request. The House bill approved higher end-strengths than the
Administration’s request. The House-proposed increase was most noticeable for the Army
(+5,000 compared to FY2016 authorized end-strength), although the Marine Corps and Air Force
increased as well. The House provision reduced Navy end-strength, although this was still higher
than the Administration request by 1,715. Section 402 of the House bill adjusted the minimum
end-strengths required by 10 U.S.C. §619 to a level equal to the authorized end-strengths set in
Section 401. The final bill sets the minimum end-strengths at a level equal to the authorized endstrengths for FY2017.
Figure 1. FY2017 Authorized Active Duty End-Strength
Comparison of FY2016 Enacted with FY2017 Enacted
FY2016
FY2017
Change from
Enacted
Enacted
FY2016
Army
475,000
476,000
1,000
Navy
329,200
323,900
-5,300
Marine Corps
184,000
185,000
1,000
Air Force
320,715
321,000
285
1,308,915
1,305,900
-3,015
Total Active Duty
End-Strength
Notes: An up arrow indicates an increase from the FY2016 authorization, and a down arrow indicates a
decrease from the FY2016 authorization.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R44120, FY2016 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-.....
*Selected Reserves End-Strength
Background: The overall authorized end-strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by about
6% over the past 15 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 818,000 in FY2016).2 Much of this can be
2
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
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. The authorized endstrengths for the Selected Reserve in FY2016 and FY2017 are in Figure 2.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 411 would authorize a total
FY2017 Selected Reserve endstrength of 833,200 including:
Army National Guard: 350,000
Army Reserve: 205,000
Navy Reserve: 58,000
Marine Corps Reserve: 38,500
Air National Guard: 105,700
Air Force Reserve: 69,000
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Sec. 411 would authorize a total
FY2017 Selected Reserve endstrength of 808,200 including:
Army National Guard: 335,000
Army Reserve: 195,000
Navy Reserve: 58,000
Marine Corps Reserve: 38,500
Air National Guard: 105,700
Air Force Reserve: 69,000
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Sec. 411 authorizes a total FY2017
Selected Reserve end- strength of
820,200 including:
Army National Guard: 343,000
Army Reserve: 199,000
Navy Reserve: 58,000
Marine Corps Reserve: 38,500
Air National Guard: 105,700
Air Force Reserve: 69,000
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Discussion: For FY2017, the Administration requested a reduction in authorized Selected
Reserves end-strength for four of the seven reserve components and increases for two. The Senate
bill proposed end-strengths identical to the Administration request. The end-strengths authorized
in the House bill were identical to the Administration’s request for all but the Army National
Guard and Army Reserve. The House bill would have increased the Army National Guard’s endstrength to 350,000 and the Army Reserve’s end-strength to 205,000.
Figure 2. FY2017 Authorized Reserve End-Strength
Comparison of FY2016 Enacted with FY2017 Enacted
FY2016
FY2017
Change from
Enacted
Enacted
FY2016
Army National Guard
342,000
343,000
1,000
Army Reserve
198,000
199,000
1,000
Navy Reserve
57,400
58,000
600
Marine Corps Reserve
38,900
38,500
-400
Air National Guard
105,500
105,700
200
Air Force Reserve
69,200
69,000
-200
Coast Guard Reserve
8,000
7,000
-1,000
819,000
820,200
1,200
Total Reserve EndStrength
Notes: An up arrow indicates an increase from the FY2016 authorization and down arrow indicates a decrease
from the FY2016 authorization.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R44120, FY2016 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
and similar
reports from earlier years.
(...continued)
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.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
*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 United States Code 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
statutory formula stipulates that the increase in basic pay for 2017 will be 2.1% 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. Increases in basic pay are typically effective
at the start of the calendar year, rather than the fiscal year.
Congress has not included a provision specifying an increase in basic pay for the past three years
(2014-2016). For each of these years the President invoked the alternative pay adjustment
authority of 37 U.S.C. §1009(e), setting the pay raise below the ECI in each case.3 The FY2017
President’s Budget requested a 1.6% military pay raise, lower than the statutory formula of 2.1%.
House-passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 601 specifies that the automatic
increase in basic pay under the statutory
formula of 37 U.S.C. §1009 shall take
effect, “notwithstanding any
determination made by the President
under subsection (e) of such section
with respect to an alternative pay
adjustment...”
Sec. 601 would waive the
automatic increase in basic pay
under the statutory formula of 37
U.S.C. §1009, and specifies that the
pay raise shall be 1.6%.
Sec. 601 waives the automatic
increase in basic pay under the
statutory formula of 37 U.S.C.
§1009, and specifies that the pay
raise shall be 2.1%.
Discussion: The House bill would have required that the statutory formula go into effect,
resulting in a 2.1% pay raise for all servicemembers effective on January 1, 2017. The Senate bill
would have waived the automatic adjustment to basic pay specified in 37 U.S.C. §1009 and
provided an increase of 1.6%, effective January 1, 2017.4 The enacted bill waived the automatic
adjustment and specified an increase of 2.1%, identical to the automatic adjustment, effective
January 1, 2017.
Reference(s): For an explanation of the pay raise process and historical increases, see CRS In
Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by (name redacted). Previously discussed in
CRS Report R44120, FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
, and similar reports from earlier years.
3
For example, Congress did not enact a provision specifying an increase in basic pay for 2016. Thus, absent
presidential action, the automatic formula would have provided an increase equal to the ECI (2.3%). However, on
August 28, 2015, President Obama sent a letter to Congress invoking 37 U.S.C. §1009(e) to set the pay raise for 2016
at 1.3%. Letter available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/28/letter-president-alternative-payplan-uniformed-services.
4
With regard to Section 601 of the Senate bill, CBO noted: “Under current law, the across-the-board increase will be
2.1 percent, and CBO estimates the increase will cost $1.4 billion in 2017. This section would reduce that pay raise by
0.5 percentage points, to 1.6 percent. CBO estimates that such a change would reduce the cost of the pay raise by $338
million in 2017 and by almost $2.3 billion over the 2017-2021 period.” Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate S.
2943 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, June 10, 2016, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
*Housing Allowances
Background: Under current law, all servicemembers are entitled to either government-provided
housing or a housing allowance. For those living in the United States, the housing allowance is
known as Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). BAH is based on three factors: paygrade (rank),
geographic location, and whether the servicemember has dependents. Paygrade and dependency
status are used to determine the type of accommodation—or "housing profile"—appropriate for
the servicemember (for example, one-bedroom apartment, two-bedroom townhouse, or threebedroom single family home). Geographic location is used to determine the average costs
associated with each of these housing profiles. BAH rates are higher in some areas than others,
but servicemembers of similar paygrade and dependent status should be able to pay for roughly
comparable housing regardless of their duty location.
House-passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
No similar provision
Sec. 604 would add a new
statutory provision defining how
BAH would be calculated for
certain members of the Armed
Forces beginning on January 1,
2018. In comparison to the existing
formula, significant changes involve
eliminating dependents as a factor
in setting BAH rates, requiring the
rate be based on actual housing
expenses, and reducing BAH for
servicemembers who share
housing.
Sec. 604 requires DOD to
provide the House and Senate
Armed Services Committee with a
report on transitioning from the
current pay structure to a new
“single-salary pay system”
adequate to effectively recruit and
retain a high-quality All-Volunteer
Force, but which eliminates Basic
Allowance for Housing and Basic
Allowance for Subsistence. The
report must include necessary
legislative and administrative
proposals, along with an
implementation plan.
Discussion: The Senate bill would have altered the way in which BAH was calculated in several
ways. For covered servicemembers, BAH would be based only on geographic location and
paygrade of recipient, eliminating dependents as a factor in the rate determination. The Senate bill
would have based BAH on actual servicemember housing expenditures up to a maximum amount
for a given location/paygrade, rather than the current specified rate. The provision would also
have changed how BAH was paid to servicemembers who share the same living quarters,
reducing it in relationship to the number of people sharing the quarters. That is, if two or more
servicemembers were to occupy the same housing, the amount of the allowance could not exceed
“the amount of the allowance otherwise payable to such member ... divided by ... the total number
of members occupying such housing.” The new formula would have applied to certain members
of the Armed Forces beginning on January 1, 2018. Members covered by the new provision
would include servicemembers who first become entitled to basic pay on or after January 1, 2018,
certain reserve and retired personnel ordered to active duty, and a servicemember entitled to the
existing BAH on December 31, 2017, “within a particular housing or overseas area” and who
“after that date, loses uninterrupted eligibility to receive a basic allowance for housing within an
area of the United States or an area outside the United States, as applicable.” The Senate
provision also would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit the proposed regulations
to implement this provision to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2017. The
House bill did not contain a similar provision.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
The enacted bill requires DOD to provide the House and Senate Armed Services Committee with
a report—by March 1, 2017—on transitioning from the current pay structure to a new pay
structure which would provide a “single-salary pay system” that is adequate to effectively recruit
and retain a high-quality All-Volunteer Force, but which eliminates Basic Allowance for Housing
and Basic Allowance for Subsistence. The conference report contained the following language to
describe the provision:
The conferees note that the BAH, as an entitlement, and the perception of BAH among
servicemembers, has evolved over the past 20 years. BAH, and the iterations of the
benefit that came before, was intended to provide a housing benefit for servicemembers
to offset the cost of housing in high cost housing areas where adequate governmentprovided quarters was not available and in recognition of the transient nature of military
service and the impact it has on military members and their families. Indeed, that the
housing allowance was and is intended as primarily a housing benefit is demonstrated by
its tax-free nature, the differentiation based on dependency status, and the fact that junior
enlisted personnel required to reside in barracks or on a ship are ineligible to receive
BAH. Accordingly, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to begin planning for a
transition to a salary system that better aligns the payment of the allowance with the
Department's use of the housing allowance as compensation rather than its intended
purpose as an allowance.5
Reference: CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers, by (name redacted)
and (name redacted)
.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
*Military Retirement System
Background: The military retirement system is currently a funded, noncontributory, defined
benefit system that provides a monthly annuity to servicemembers after 20 years of qualifying
service.6 In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92) a number of
changes were enacted to modernize the reduce the retirement system by reducing the retired pay
multiplier, adding 401k-type defined contribution element, allowing for a partial lump-sum
payment of retired pay, and adding continuation pay as a retention incentive. These changes will
go into effect on January 1, 2018, for servicemembers entering on or after that date and those
with 12 years or less of service on that date who are eligible and elect to enroll in the new
system.7
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 622 would allow continuation
pay for full Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
members who have completed 8 to
12 years of service and would make
changes to how continuation pay is
calculated.
Sec. 631 would clarify timing for
cadets, midshipmen, and inactive
reservists to be eligible to opt into
the new retirement system.
Sec. 633 would allow continuation
pay for full Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
members who have completed
between 8 to 12 years of service and
Sec. 631 is identical to the Senate
provision.
Sec. 633 allows continuation pay for
full Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
members who have completed
between 8 to 12 years of service and
changes how continuation pay is
calculated.
5
Conference Report 114-840 to accompany S. 2943.
Disability retirees may be eligible for retired pay prior to 20 years of service.
7
Reservists must have accumulated less than 12 years of equivalent service (<4,320 points) on January 1, 2018 to be
eligible to opt into the new system.
6
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
would make changes to how
continuation pay is calculated.
Sec. 635 would express the sense
of Congress that default TSP
contributions under the retired pay
reform should be to a Roth plan.
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 veterans’ groups. Reductions in the retired pay multiplier from 2.5% to 2.0% for those joining
on or after January 1, 2018, under the new system created last year have raised concerns about the
services’ ability to retain certain occupational specialties at the mid-career point. The FY2016
NDAA (P.L. 114-92) authorized DOD to provide continuation pay as a retention incentive at the
completion of 12 years of service in return for an additional 4-year commitment to service. In
conference, the House and Senate agreed on a provision (Section 633) that would authorize DOD
the flexibility to pay continuation pay at any point between 8 to 12 years of service in return for
an agreement for continued service of not less than 3 additional years. This provision will provide
DOD more latitude in managing the personnel system through targeted continuation pay based on
retention trends for specific military occupational specialties.
Section 633 of the enacted bill also adopts an amended House provision that amends 37 U.S.C.
§356 procedures for calculating continuation pay minimums for active and reserve component
members.8 It will allow members of a reserve component performing active Guard or Reserve
duty when they accept continuation pay to receive the same minimum pay as active duty
members. The calculation of maximum pay for active and reserve component members remains
the same.9
Section 635 of the Senate bill would have expressed the sense of Congress that default
contributions to the TSP should be to a Roth plan. A Roth plan is taxable at the time of
contribution but qualified distributions are not included in taxable income, allowing earnings to
accrue tax-free. As such, a Roth plan is typically a better savings vehicle for young, low-income
individuals who typically have a lower tax burden (e.g., junior officers and enlisted
servicemembers) than they would expect to have in retirement.10 This provision was not adopted.
Finally, Section 631 of the Senate bill was adopted and amends 10 U.S.C. §1409 to allow cadets,
midshipmen, and reservists who are in inactive duty status prior to January 1, 2018, a 30-day
election period for the new retirement system following commissioning or transfer to active duty
or active status.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent
Developments, by (name redacted) . CRS Report RL34397, Traditional and Roth Individual
Retirement Accounts (IRAs): A Primer, by (name redacted) . Previously discussed in CRS Report
R44120, FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues,
coordinated by (name redacted)
and similar reports from earlier years.
8
Current law specifies a multiple of 2.5 for active component members and 0.5 for reserve component members.
The FY2016 NDAA specified a maximum of 15.5 times monthly base pay for active component members (minimum
2.5 times plus up to 13 times monthly base pay) and a maximum of 6.5 times monthly base pay for reserve component
members (0.5 times plus up to 6 times monthly base pay).
10
There are some income limitations on eligibility to contribute to Roth IRAs.
9
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
Benefits to Former Spouses of Military
Servicemembers
Background: Military servicemembers are eligible to receive retired pay after 20 qualifying
years of service. In 1982, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection
Act (USFSPA) which allowed state courts to treat disposable military retired pay as divisible
property in divorce cases.11 In addition, the law allows certain former spouses to remain eligible
to receive certain military benefits or privileges. The USFSPA has since been modified on a
number of occasions.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 625 would change the
Uniformed Services Former Spouse
Protection Act to use pay grade and
years of service at time of divorce to
calculate spousal share of retired
pay.
Sec. 642 would change the
Uniformed Services Former Spouse
Protection Act to use pay grade and
years of service at time of divorce to
calculate spousal share of retired
pay.
Sec. 641 changes the Uniformed
Services Former Spouse Protection
Act to use pay grade and years of
service (as adjusted by annual retired
pay cost-of-living adjustments) at
time of divorce to calculate spousal
share of retired pay.
Discussion: The amount of retired pay due to a servicemember is calculated based on the
member’s pay grade and years of service at the time of retirement. Currently up to 50% of a
servicemember’s disposable military retired pay may be divisible by the court in a single divorce
case. Both the House and Senate proposed similar provisions that would change the definition of
disposable retired pay to use the pay grade and years of service at time of a divorce court order
rather than at the time of retirement. The enacted bill (§641) authorizes this change in the
definition of disposable retired pay and also includes cost-of-living adjustments in the
determination of spousal payments. This provision will not affect any divorce settlements that
occurred prior to the date of enactment.
Reference(s): CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress,
by (name redacted) , CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent
Developments, by (name redacted) , and CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former
Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by (name redacted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
*Survivor Benefits
Background: A military retiree may have a portion of his or her monthly retired pay withheld in
order to provide, after his or her death, a monthly survivor benefit to a surviving spouse or other
eligible recipients. This is known as the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). When a servicemember
dies, their survivor’s payment through the SBP is usually 55% of the retired basic pay that the
11
P.L. 97-252, codified in 10 U.S.C. §1408.
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
member would otherwise have been eligible to receive. Previously, for those servicemembers
who died while on active duty, the base amount was calculated at 75% of their basic pay. For
reservists who died during inactive-duty training (IADT), the base amount reflects their years of
service, which causes the SBP payment to be less than if the member died on active duty. This
disparate treatment was addressed in the FY2017 NDAA.
Surviving spouses who receive both an annuity from DOD as a beneficiary of the SBP and from
the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) have
their SBP payments reduced by the amount of DIC.12 Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance
(SSIA) is a payment made to such surviving spouses to offset that reduction. The SSIA was
previously set to expire at the end of FY2017.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 623 would extend authority
for the special survivor indemnity
allowance.
Sec. 624 would provide benefits
under SBP for survivors of reserve
component members who die in the
line of duty during inactive-duty
training.
Sec. 643 would permanently extend
payment of special survivor
indemnity allowances under SBP.
Sec. 644 would authorize
deductions of SBP premiums from
combat-related special compensation
when retired pay is not sufficient.
Sec. 645 would express a sense of
Congress that members of the
Armed Forces should be able to
designate payment of the death
gratuity to a trust for a special needs
individual.
Sec. 646 would require an
independent assessment of SBP.
Sec. 642 provides equal benefits
under SBP for survivors of reserve
component members who die in the
line of duty during inactive-duty
training.
Sec. 643 authorizes deductions of
SBP premiums from combat-related
special compensation when retired
pay not sufficient.
Sec. 646 extends payment of special
survivor indemnity allowances under
SBP until May 31, 2018.
Sec 648 requires an independent
assessment of SBP.
Discussion: Sections 642, 643, 646, and 648 of the enacted bill included some of the provisions
in the House-passed H.R. 4909 and Senate-passed S. 2943.
Section 642 of the enacted bill amends Section 1451(c)(1)(A) of Title 10, United States Code, to
eliminate differential treatment under the SBP for reserve component and active component
members who die from an injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during
inactive-duty training (IADT).
Section 643 amends Section 1452 of Title 10, United States Code, to allow DOD to withhold
monthly SBP payments from Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) when retired pay is
insufficient to cover the premiums. CRSC is considered “special compensation,” not retired pay,
and thus previously was not eligible to be used to cover SBP premiums.
Section 646 amends Section 1450(m) of Title 10, United States Code, to extend authority to pay
SSIA until May 31, 2018. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on those
individuals affected by the offset no later than 90 days of enactment of this act. CBO has
estimated that nearly 65,000 surviving spouses would receive the SSIA in FY2018.13
12
For more on the SBP and DIC offset, see CRS Report R40757, Veterans’ Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) for Survivors, by (name redacted) ; and CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit
Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by (name redacted) .
13
Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate H.R. 4909 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
May 11, 2016, p. 21. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate S. 2943 National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, June 10, 2016, p.37.
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Section 648 requires the Defense Secretary to provide for an independent assessment of the SBP
by a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC), and to submit a report on the
results of assessment with recommendations to the House Committee on Armed Services and the
Senate Armed Services Committee. Required elements of this report include the effectiveness of
the SBP to provide for survivors of servicemembers dying on active duty and while in reserve
active-status, comparison of the benefits of the SBP with those of other government and private
sector employees, and the feasibility and advisability of providing survivor benefits through
alternative commercially available insurance products.
Reference(s): CRS Report R40757, Veterans’ Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) for Survivors, by (name redacted) ; CRS Report R40589, Concurrent
Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (n ame redacted), x7
-.....
TRICARE Reform
Background: TRICARE is the DOD-administered health benefits program that covers active
duty servicemembers, uniformed services retirees, their family members, and survivors. The
Administration’s FY2017 Budget proposed a package of health care enrollment fees, deductible,
and co-pay changes phased in over several years. The proposals included
replacing the TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Extra options with TRICARE
Select and TRICARE Preferred options featuring a new annual enrollment period
and a new benefit structure with enrollment fees, annual deductibles, copayments, and annual catastrophic cap;
annual enrollment fees for Medicare-enrolled retirees (with grandfathering of
those Medicare-enrolled retirees already receiving TRICARE benefits at the time
of enactment); and
increased pharmacy co-pays for retirees and military family members, but not
active duty members.
In addition to discretionary savings in the Defense Health Program appropriations account, the
proposal would reduce TRICARE for Life expenditures. TRICARE for Life is funded on an
accrual basis with each of the uniformed services making an annual payment to a fund known as
the Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (MERHCF). The MERHCF covers the accruing
liability for the cost of future medical treatment provided to Medicare eligible uniformed services
retirees and dependents by the TRICARE for Life program. For FY2017, the contribution to be
paid into the MERHCF by each of the uniformed services will be $4,252 per active duty
servicemember and $1,723 per reserve component member.14 The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) analysis of TRICARE proposals in the President’s Budget estimated that over the period
of 2016 to 2026
the pharmacy co-payment increases would save DOD $2.8 billion;
the new TRICARE for Life enrollment fee would save $1.4 billion;
the consolidation of TRICARE plans would cost DOD $0.2 billion; and
14
Department of Defense Office of the Actuary, Valuation of the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund,
September 30, 2014, page 8, http://actuary.defense.gov/Portals/15/Documents/
MERHCF%20Val%20Rpt%202014.pdf?ver=2015-12-31-093434-467.
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
the proposals would increase Medicare spending by $0.4 billion.15
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 701 would establish TRICARE
Preferred as a self-managed,
preferred-provider network option
replacing TRICARE Standard and
Extra. It would also establish annual
enrollment fees and fixed dollar copayments for active duty family
members. A TRICARE Preferred
annual enrollment fee could be
established 90 days following
submission of a report to Congress
on access to care, network
adequacy, and beneficiary
satisfaction.
Sec. 701 would establish TRICARE
Choice as a self-managed, preferredprovider network option replacing
TRICARE Standard and Extra. It
would also establish new annual
enrollment fees and co-payments for
retired military servicemembers who
are not eligible for Medicare
coverage under either the new
TRICARE Choice and under
TRICARE Prime. In addition, it
would establish a new TRICARE
Supplemental that would provide
secondary coverage to other
employer sponsored health
insurance. Beneficiaries under the
program would pay an enrollment
fee of one-half of the enrollment fee
that would be assessed under
TRICARE Choice.
Sec. 701 establishes TRICARE
Select as a self-managed, preferredprovider network option replacing
TRICARE Standard and Extra
effective January 1, 2018. This
section also,
- codifies tables of TRICARE Select
and TRICARE Prime enrollment fees,
deductibles, catastrophic caps, and
co-payments;
- establishes a calendar year
enrollment period for those fees;
- requires the Secretary to establish
an open enrollment period, with a
grace period during the first year of
open enrollment;
- allows enrollment for qualifying
events for annual participation in
either TRICARE Prime or TRICARE
Select;
- limits requirements for preauthorization for referrals under
TRICARE Prime; and
- requires a pilot program on
incorporation of value-based health
care methodology in the purchased
care component of the TRICARE
program.
Discussion: Section 701 of the enacted bill will:
(1) establish a new TRICARE Select health plan option that would replace the current
TRICARE Standard and Extra options, and would modify and retain the existing TRICARE
Prime health maintenance organization style plan;
(2) establish tables in statute for both TRICARE Select and TRICARE Prime that would
prescribe enrollment fees, deductibles, catastrophic caps, and co-payments for retirees joining
TRICARE on or after January 1, 2018, and establish a calendar year enrollment period for
those fees;
(3) require the Secretary to establish an open enrollment period, with a grace period during
the first year of open enrollment, and allow enrollment for qualifying events for annual
participation in either TRICARE Prime or TRICARE Select;
15
Congressional Budget Office, Proposals for Health Care Programs-CBO's Estimate of the President's Fiscal Year
2017 Budget, March 29, 2016, p. 7, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-20152016/dataandtechnicalinformation/51431-HealthPolicy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
(4) limit requirements for pre-authorization for referrals under TRICARE Prime to inpatient
hospitalization, inpatient care at a skilled nursing facility, and inpatient care at a rehabilitation
facility;
(5) require the Secretary of Defense, not later than June 1, 2017, to submit an implementation
plan that would meet specified access criteria to the armed services committee and require the
Comptroller General to review that plan; and
(6) require a pilot program on incorporation of value-based health care methodology in the
purchased care component of the TRICARE program.
Beneficiary cost-sharing is further discussed below in the TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing
and TRICARE Pharmacy Co-payment sections.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing
Background: In its FY2017 budget request, the Administration proposed to replace the
TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Extra health plan options with a consolidated plan, to increase
co-pays 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).16 The House-passed bill would have consolidated TRICARE Standard and Extra
into a new TRICARE Preferred plan. The Senate-passed bill would have consolidated them into a
new TRICARE Choice plan.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 701 would establish annual
enrollment fees and fixed dollar copayments for active duty family
members and retirees who join the
armed services on or after January 1,
2018, and enroll in TRICARE
Preferred or in TRICARE Prime.
This section would also establish an
annual enrollment fee for TRICARE
Preferred for beneficiaries who were
in the active duty or retired
categories prior to January 1, 2018.
Sec. 701 would establish annual
enrollment fees and a cost-share
table for calendar year 2018 for both
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE
Choice that would establish rates for
annual enrollment fees, annual
deductibles, annual catastrophic caps,
and co-payments for inpatient visits,
outpatient visits, and other services.
The provision would gradually
increase the annual enrollment fee
for military retirees and their families
under TRICARE Choice over a
period of five years through 2023.
Subsequently, annual enrollment fees
for military retirees and their families
in TRICARE Choice after 2023, and
for military retirees and their families
under TRICARE Prime after 2018,
would increase by the annual
percent of the Consumer Price
Index for Health Care Services.
Sec. 701 establishes a cost-share
table for calendar year 2018 for both
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE
Choice that specify rates for annual
enrollment fees, annual deductibles,
annual catastrophic caps, and copayments for inpatient visits,
outpatient visits, and other services.
The fixed dollar amounts specified in
the tables will be indexed to the
annual increase in retired pay.
16
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, United States Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Overview, February 2015, pp. 6-12 to 6-15.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Discussion: Section 701 of the enacted bill amends Chapter 55 of Title 10 of the United States
Code to include tables specifying cost-sharing amounts for active-duty family members and for
retirees under the new TRICARE Select and the existing TRICARE Prime options (see Table 1
and Table 2). The fixed dollar amounts in the tables will be annually indexed to the amount by
which retirement pay is increased. Exceptions to the cost-sharing amounts will be provided to
disability retirees, their dependents, and survivors. Cost-sharing for TRICARE for Life
beneficiaries would not change.
Table 1. TRICARE Select Cost-Sharing Amounts
Calendar year 2018
Active Duty Family Member
(Individual/Family)
Retired
(Individual/Family)
Annual enrollment fee
$0
$450/$900
Annual deductible
E4 & below: $50/$100
E5 & above: $150/$300
$150/$300 Network
$300/$600 out of network
Annual catastrophic cap
$1,000
$3,500
Outpatient visit civilian network
$15 primary care
$25 specialty care
20% out of network
$25 primary care
$40 specialty care
25% out of network
Emergency room (ER) visit civilian
network
$40 network
20% out of network
$80 network
25% out of network
Urgent care civilian network
$20
20% out of network
$40
25% out of network
Ambulatory surgery civilian network
$25 network
20% out of network
$95 network
25% out of network
Ambulance civilian network
$15
$60
Durable medical equipment civilian
network
10% of negotiated fee
20% of negotiated fee
Inpatient visit civilian network
$60 per network admission
20% out of network
$175 per network admission
25% out of network
Inpatient skilled nursing/rehab civilian
$25 per day network
$50 per day out of network
$50 per day network
Lesser of $300 per day or 20% of
billed charges out of network
A “reserve and young adult” category also will be created for beneficiaries of the TRICARE
Reserve Select and TRICARE Young Adult Program. Premiums under these two programs will
continue to be calculated as before, however, the other new-cost sharing table provisions will
apply as appropriate. Retired beneficiaries who were eligible for TRICARE prior to 2018 will be
subject to a $150 individual or $300 family annual enrollment fee beginning 90 days after the
Comptroller General submits a report to the armed services committees. The GAO report is
required not later than February 1, 2020. The report will review the following: (1) whether health
care coverage has changed since enactment of the Section 701 provisions, (2) whether
beneficiaries are able to obtain appointments for health care appointments according to access
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
standards to be established by the Secretary of Defense, (3) the percent of network providers that
accept new TRICARE patients, and (4) the satisfaction of TRICARE Select beneficiaries.
Table 2. TRICARE Prime Cost-Sharing Amounts
Calendar Year 2018
Retired
Active Duty Family Member
(Individual/Family)
(Individual/Family)
Annual enrollment fee
$0
$350/$700
Annual deductible
No
No
Annual catastrophic cap
$1,000
$3,500
Outpatient visit civilian network
$0
$20 primary care
$30 specialty care
Emergency room (ER) visit civilian
network
$0
$60 network
Urgent care civilian network
$0
$30 network
Ambulatory surgery civilian network
$0
$60 network
Ambulance civilian network
$0
$40
Durable medical equipment civilian
network
$0
20% of negotiated fee, network
Inpatient visit civilian network
$0
$150 per admission
Inpatient skilled nursing/rehab civilian
$0
$30 per day network
TRICARE Prime beneficiaries that obtained care without a required referral would be required to
either obtain a waiver or pay 50% of the allowed charge.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R44120, FY2016 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
, CRS Report
R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues,
coordinated by (name redacted)
, and CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
*TRICARE Pharmacy Co-payments
Background: TRICARE beneficiaries have access to a pharmacy program that allows outpatient
prescriptions to be filled through military pharmacies, TRICARE mail-order pharmacy, or
TRICARE retail network and non-network pharmacies. Active duty servicemembers have no
pharmacy co-payments when using military pharmacies, TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery, or
TRICARE retail network pharmacies. Military pharmacies provide free-of-charge a 90-day
supply of formulary medications for prescriptions written by either civilian or 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 2016 NDAA
(P.L. 114-92) (1) allowed a one-time $3 increase to retail and mail order pharmacy co-pays, and
(2) required refills for maintenance drug prescriptions (e.g., medication for cholesterol, blood
pressure) to be filled through mail order or military pharmacies, thereby eliminating the option to
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
have these prescriptions filled through relatively higher-cost retail pharmacies. The
Administration’s FY2017 budget request proposed a series of annual increases in the amount of
co-payments for fiscal years 2017 through 2025.17 DOD estimated the increases would avoid
$300 million in FY2017 and $2 billion over the fiscal years 2017 to 2021.18
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
No provision
Sec. 702 would modify cost- sharing
amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy
benefits program for years 2017
through 2025. After 2025, DOD
could establish cost-sharing amounts
equal to the cost-sharing amounts
for the previous year adjusted by an
amount, if any, to reflect increases in
costs of pharmaceutical agents and
pharmacy dispensing fees.
No provision.
Discussion: The House-passed bill did not include a provision to allow a pharmacy co-payment
increase. Under existing law the co-payment amounts would automatically increase at the same
rate as the annual increase in retired pay.19 Section 702 of the FY2016 NDAA (P.L. 114-92)
overrode the statutory increase and substituted a $3 increase that took effect on February 1, 2016.
Prior to that, Section 702 of FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291) included a pharmacy co-payment
increase that took effect on February 1, 2015.
Section 702 of the Senate-passed bill would have allowed beneficiaries to continue receiving
drugs, at no cost, in military medical treatment facilities, and there would be no changes to costsharing amounts for survivors of members who died on active duty or for disabled retirees and
their family members.
Section 702 would have also authorized the Secretary of Defense, based upon recommendations
by the Department of Defense Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and review by the Uniform
Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, to exclude from coverage any drug that the Secretary
determines provides little or no value to covered beneficiaries and DOD. Additionally, the
Secretary could have given preferential status to any non-generic drug on the TRICARE
formulary by treating it, for the purposes of cost-sharing, as a generic product under the
TRICARE retail pharmacy and mail order options.
CBO estimated that implementing Section 702 would have reduced DOD’s net discretionary
pharmacy costs by about $640 million over the 2017-2021 period. CBO further estimated that
Section 702 would reduce net health care spending for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries (who are
eligible for Medicare) by $2.7 billion over the 2017-2026 period. Pharmacy spending for those
beneficiaries is paid out from the DOD Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (MERHCF),
a mandatory account. CBO estimated that implementing Section 702 would have reduced accrual
payments into the MERHCF (that funds the TRICARE for Life program) by about $1.5 billion
over the 2018-2021 period.20
17
Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, Overview
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request, 2016, p. 6-14.
18
Ibid., p. 6-6.
19
10 U.S.C. §1074g(a)(6)(C).
20
Congressional Budget Office, S. 2943 National Defense Authorization, As reported by the Senate Committee on
Armed services on May 18, 2016, Cost Estimate June 10, 2016, pp. 8, 18, 31 and 33.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R44120, FY2016 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
, 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-.....
Administration of the Defense Health Agency and
Military Medical Treatment Facilities
Background: The Defense Health Agency (DHA) was formed October 1, 2013, as a joint,
integrated combat support agency. Its purpose is to enable Armed Forces medical services to
provide a medically ready force and a ready medical force to combatant commands. It currently
manages shared services as well as the TRICARE program and acts as the market manager for the
National Capital Region enhanced Multi-Service Market, which includes Walter Reed National
Military Medical Center and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital. The service surgeons general
currently oversee management of military treatment facilities (MTFs).21
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 702 would, beginning October
1, 2018, make the Director of the
DHA responsible for the
administration of MTFs to include
budget, information technology,
administrative policy and
management, and any other matter
the Secretary of Defense determines
appropriate.
Sec. 703 would amend Title 10 of
the United States Code to include
new Section 1073d specifying
requirements for MTFs. The
Secretary of Defense would be
required to submit an update to the
Military Health System
Modernization Study dated May 29,
2015.
Sec. 721 would require the
Secretary of Defense to disestablish
the services’ medical departments
and consolidate their activities into
the Defense Health Agency.
Sec. 725 would authorize DOD to
realign the infrastructure and
services offered at MTFs.
Sec. 729 would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish
regional centers of excellence for
the provision of specialty care to
covered beneficiaries at major DOD
medical centers.
Sec. 702 requires the Director of
the Defense Health Agency,
beginning October 1, 2018, to take
responsibility for the administration
of each MTF, including all matters
with respect to budget, information
technology, health care
administration and management,
administrative policy and procedure,
military medical construction, and
any other matters the Secretary
determines appropriate. It requires
the establishment of a professional
staff within the DHA, and codifies
the roles and responsibilities of the
services’ Surgeons General. The
Secretary of Defense is required to
develop an implementation plan and
reports to the armed services
committees. The Comptroller
General is required to review
DOD’s plans.
Sec. 703 requires the Secretary of
Defense to maintain medical centers,
hospitals, ambulatory care centers,
and satellite centers, to support the
medical readiness of the Armed
Forces and the readiness of medical
personnel in areas where civilian
health care facilities are unable to
21
Military treatment facility (MTF) is a term for military hospitals, outpatient clinics, and dental clinics generally and
is used interchangeably with “military medical facility.”
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
support the health care needs of the
Armed Forces and covered
beneficiaries.
Discussion: The conference report states:
After careful study and deliberation, the conferees conclude that a single agency
responsible for the administration of all MTFs would best improve and sustain
operational medical force readiness and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces,
improve beneficiaries’ access to care and the experience of care, improve health
outcomes, and lower the total management cost of the military health system. The
conferees believe that the current organizational structure of the military health system—
essentially three separate health systems each managed by one of the three Services—
paralyzes rapid decision-making and stifles innovation in producing a modern health care
delivery system that would better serve all beneficiaries. A streamlined military health
system management structure would eliminate redundancy and generate greater
efficiency, yielding monetary savings to the Department while leading to true reform of
the military health system and improving the experience of care for beneficiaries.22
To do this, Sections 702 and 703 of the conference bill combined provisions of Sections 721, 725,
and 729 of the Senate bill and Sections 702 and 703 of the House bill.
Section 702 of the enacted bill requires the Director of the Defense Health Agency, beginning
October 1, 2018, to take responsibility for the administration of each MTF, including all matters
with respect to
budget;
information technology;
health care administration and management;
administrative policy and procedure;
military medical construction; and
any other matters the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 702 requires the establishment of a professional staff within the Defense Health Agency
to provide policy, oversight, and direction of all matters related to the administration of MTFs.
Section 702 also codifies the roles and responsibilities of the services’ Surgeons General. Each
service’s Surgeon General will serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary and senior
uniformed officer of their respective service on health and medical matters. In addition they shall
recruit, organize, train, and equip, the medical personnel of their respective services.
Section 702 also requires the Secretary to develop an implementation plan and to submit
22
an interim report providing a preliminary draft of the plan to the armed services
committees by March 1, 2017; and
a final report to the committees by March 1, 2018, containing a final version of
the plan.
H.Rept. 114-840, page 1066.
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Finally, the provision would require the Government Accountability Office to submit to the
committees a review of preliminary draft of the DOD implementation plan by September 1, 2017,
and a review of the final version of the plan by September 1, 2018.
Section 703 of the enacted bill adds a new Section 1073d “Military medical treatment facilities”
to Chapter 55 of Title 10 of the United States Code that would require the Secretary of Defense to
maintain medical centers, hospitals, ambulatory care centers, and satellite centers, “to support the
medical readiness of the armed forces and the readiness of medical personnel” in areas where
civilian health care facilities are unable to support the health care needs of the Armed Forces and
covered beneficiaries. The provision provides an exception when the Secretary determines that a
change in facilities or services eliminates the ability of a covered beneficiary to access care
through non-DOD providers.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
*Active and Reserve Enlistment Qualifications
Background: Current law for active component enlistees (10 U.S.C. §504) requires that they be
(1) a national of the United States (i.e., either a citizen or a non‐citizen who owes permanent
allegiance to the United States—a category limited primarily to those born in American Samoa),
(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. Current law for
reserve component enlistees (10 U.S.C. §12102) requires that they be either citizens or lawful
permanent residents, or have previously served in the Armed Forces. These citizenship
requirements may be waived under 10 U.S.C. §504 "if the Secretary determines that such
enlistment is vital to the national interest."
House-passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
No similar provision
Sec. 537 would amend 10 U.S.C.
§12102(b) to specify that persons
enlisting in the reserve components
meet the citizenship/residency
requirements specified in 10 U.S.C.
§504(b), which governs active
component enlistments.
No similar provision.
Discussion: The Senate bill would have amended the statutory requirements to enlist in the
reserve components so they would be tied to the citizenship/residency requirements for the active
component. The conference bill did not include the Senate provision.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
Military Parental Leave
Background: Chapter 40 of Title 10 United States Code provides the authority for military leave
entitlement, accumulation, and use. On January 28, 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
announced that DOD would be establishing new policies for maternity and parental leave as part
of the department’s “Force of the Future” initiative designed to attract and retain talent in the
Armed Forces. Existing DOD policy defined maternity leave as, “a convalescent period up to 6
weeks following pregnancy and childbirth.” The new policy, as announced, extended the period
of maternity leave up to 12 weeks. DOD also sought legislative action to extend parental leave up
to 14 days. Parental leave for a servicemember whose spouse gives birth was first authorized in
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417) and is currently
authorized for a maximum of 10 days. Since 2006 (P.L. 109-163), a servicemember who adopts a
child is eligible for up to 21 days of leave to be used in connection with an adoption. In dualservice married couples, only one servicemember is eligible to take this leave in connection with
the adoption. Parental leave is in addition to regular accrued annual leave.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 522 would amend Section
701(i) of Title 10, United States
Code, to provide adoption leave to
the second parent of a dual military
couple.
Sec. 529 would allow parental leave
of at least 14 days for a
servicemember whose spouse gives
birth. It would allow a total of 36
days of leave (split between parents)
for adoption of a child by married
dual-service couples.
Sec. 532 would allow a military
primary caregiver to take up to 6
weeks of leave (in addition to
convalescent leave) in connection
with the birth or adoption of a child.
It would allow a secondary caregiver
to take 21 days of leave in
connection with such an event.
Finally, it would prohibit members of
the Armed Forces from granting any
leave that is not authorized by law.
Sec. 521 authorizes up to 12 weeks
of total leave (including up to 6
weeks convalescent leave) for the
primary caregiver in connection with
the birth of the child. It also
authorizes 6 weeks of leave for a
primary caregiver in the case of an
adoption of a child and up to 21 days
of leave for a secondary caregiver in
the case of a birth or adoption.
Finally, the provision would also
create a new statute (10 U.S.C
§704a) that would prohibit leave
being authorized, granted, or
assigned, including uncharged leave,
unless expressly authorized by law.
Discussion: Section 521 of the enacted bill adopts the Senate provision which authorizes up to 12
weeks of total leave (including up to 6 weeks convalescent leave) for the primary caregiver in
connection with the birth of the child.23 It also authorizes 6 weeks of leave for a primary caregiver
in the case of an adoption of a child. Secondary caregivers could be awarded up to 21 days of
leave in connection with a birth or adoption. This section requires the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations defining “primary” and “secondary” caregivers for the purpose of this leave
benefit. The leave taken in connection with the birth or adoption may only be in one increment
and must be taken within a year of the event. To be eligible for this leave, the individual must be a
member of the active component or a member of a reserve component performing active Guard
and Reserve duty or subject to an active duty recall or mobilization order in excess of 12 months.
Although parental leave authorized by this provision is in addition to any other leave a
servicemember may have earned, this section also would allow the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations that would require a servicemember to extend their service obligation or to
incur a reduction in their existing leave in their account when taking parental leave.
Section 521 of the final bill also adopted a Senate-proposed provision that adds Section 704a,
Title 10 United States Code explicitly prohibiting any leave from being awarded to military
servicemembers outside of what is authorized by statute. According to the conference report,
“The committee considers this provision necessary to clarify that military leave is established by
law and may not be created without express congressional authority.”24 Approximately 60% of
the active duty force has a dependent spouse and/or children and 6.4% are in a dual-military
marriage.25 Supporters of paid parental leave suggest that it encourages workforce recruitment
23
Additional convalescent leave may be authorized if specifically recommended, in writing, by a medical provider of
the member to address a diagnosed medical condition and approved by the commander of the member.
24
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Conference
Report to Accompany S. 2943, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., November 2016.Pdf. P. 2429
25
Department of Defense, 2014 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, 2014, p. 131, at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
and retention by making Armed Forces benefits more competitive with private sector benefits,
and that additional leave helps support the well-being of military families. Those opposed to
lengthening military maternity and parental leave suggest that it could negatively impact military
readiness due to lost duty time and potentially undermanned units.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
*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 changes enacted. In FY2016, Congress
authorized $1.4 billion in commissary funding—$100 million more than the President’s budget
request.26 The President’s FY2017 budget request proposed $1.2 billion for commissaries, a
reduction of $200 million in subsidies for stateside commissaries from FY2016.27 Authorized
patrons currently 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.
The FY2016 NDAA (Section 651, P.L. 114-92) required the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the armed services committees with a plan to obtain budget neutrality for DeCA and the
military exchange system. The FY2016 NDAA specified that any changes to the commissary
system must maintain current levels of patron savings and satisfaction. The report, Plan to Obtain
Budget Neutrality for Commissary and Exchange System, was released by DOD on June 7,
2016.28 This report acknowledges that “privatization would not be able to replicate the range of
benefits, level of savings and geographic reach provided by DeCA while achieving budget
neutrality.” Some critics of privatization maintain that there are too many unknowns and that this
report and others should be fully evaluated by DOD and Congress before initiating a pilot
program.
Furthermore Section 651, subpart (d), directed the Comptroller General to submit an assessment
of DOD’s June 2016 plan. This assessment, DOD Commissaries and Exchanges: Plan and
Additional Information Needed on Cost Savings and Metrics for DOD Efforts to Achieve Budget
Neutrality, was published on November 9, 2016. This assessment specified that DOD’s report
does not provide a plan for achieving budget neutrality in the commissary and exchange systems
by October 2018, to operate without any taxpayer dollars and without negatively affecting
commissary and exchange benefits.29 According to GAO, the DOD report addressed three of the
seven mandated benchmarks (customer satisfaction, quality of products, and patron savings) but
did not define specific metrics for each of the benchmarks, and only partially discussed the other
(...continued)
http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2014-Demographics-Report.pdf.
26
P.L. 114-92, See §651. Plan to obtain budget-neutrality for the defense commissary system and the military exchange
system, and §652. Comptroller General of the United States 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 2017 Budget Request, February 9, 2016, Figure 6-1. Pay & Benefits Funding (PDF p. 53).
28
Department of Defense, Plan to Obtain Budget Neutrality for Commissary and Exchange System, May 2016, at
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=F0D2678F-60C4-497F-AFCA-0319C84F9A57&download=1.
29
Government Accountability Office, DOD Commissaries and Exchanges: Plan and Additional Information Needed
on Cost Savings and Metrics for DOD Efforts to Achieve Budget Neutrality, GAO-17-38, November 2016, at
http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680925.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
four mandated elements (establishment of common business processes at DeCA and exchanges;
privatization of commissaries and exchanges; description of the impact of closing commissaries;
and the analysis of different pricing options at commissaries).
In addition, Section 652 of the FY2016 NDAA required the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report on the Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and PrivatelyFinanced Major Construction Program of the Department of Defense. This report is pending.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 631 would provide protections
and enhancement of access to and
savings at commissaries and
exchanges.
Sec. 632 would authorize
acceptance of Military Star Card at
commissaries.
Sec. 661 would provide protection
and enhancement of access to and
savings at commissaries and
exchanges.
Sec. 661 provides protections and
enhancement of access to and
savings at commissaries and
exchanges.
Sec. 662 authorizes acceptance of
Military Star Card at commissaries.
Discussion: Sections 661 and 662 of the enacted bill are similar to provisions in both the Housepassed H.R. 4909 and Senate-passed S. 2943 versions that allow DeCA to set prices for
merchandise sold in commissaries based on market conditions and customer demand, and
authorize the use of the Military Star Card as a form of accepted payment at commissaries. The
conference report notes that these reforms to the commissary system would preserve the benefit,
while also making improvements to ensure continued savings for patrons, a good value for
taxpayers, and ongoing support for morale, welfare, and recreational (MWR) activities. Reforms
include regular congressional oversight of improvements, establishment of common business
practices such as engaging expert commercial advice, and implementing private sector initiatives
such as variable pricing and the development of private label products.
Under current law, DeCA is required to set prices at levels necessary to recover the actual cost of
the merchandise plus any costs to replace damaged, deteriorated, or lost inventory.30 According to
CBO, DeCA is expected to implement this provision by offering private label goods31 under a
variable pricing program that would allow DeCA to add a markup to those private label goods
and use the proceeds to offset its operating costs.32 CBO estimates that proceeds from the markup
in prices would decrease direct spending by less than $500,000 over the next decade (20172026).33
Section 661 of the enacted bill requires DOD to develop and implement a strategy to optimize
practices across the DeCA and the military exchange network with the objective to reduce
reliance on appropriated funds without compromising patrons’ commissary benefits or the
revenue generated by DOD’s non-appropriated fund entities. Commissaries could use flexible
product pricing that would need to ensure the current level of savings is maintained. DOD will be
allowed to convert the commissary agency to a non-appropriated fund entity if established
benchmarks are met and savings are maintained for at least six months. If conversion to a nonappropriated fund entity occurs, the Defense Secretary would be required to ensure that no
30
The commissary benefit is codified in 10 U.S.C., chapter 147.
Private label products are offered by a retailer under the retailer’s own, in-house brand or under a brand developed by
its suppliers. Retailers are able to do this by working directly with suppliers.
32
Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate H.R. 4909 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
May 11, 2016, p. 26.
33
Ibid.
31
Congressional Research Service
21
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
current DeCA employee would incur a loss or decrease in pay resulting from the conversion. This
provision would also allow DOD to enter into contracts with commercial grocery industry experts
to assist in the transformation of the commissary system into a high-performing grocery
operation.
Section 662 of the conference report authorizes acceptance of the Military Star Card, an Army
and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) administered credit card, as a form of payment for
goods and services at commissary stores.
Reference(s): CRS Report R44019, Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2016 Defense
Budget Debate and the National Defense Authorization Acts (H.R. 1735 and S. 1356), by (nam
e redacted)
; CRS Report R44120, FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
DOD, Plan to Obtain Budget Neutrality for Commissary and Exchange System, May 2016.
DODIG Memorandum, Audit of Fresh Produce Contracts for the U.S. Pacific Command Theater,
August 5, 2016, (Project No. D2016-D000AJ-0186.000) at http://www.dodig.mil/ELetter/
Documents/announcementProjects/D2016-D000AJ-0186.000.pdf.
GAO-17-38, DOD Commissaries and Exchanges: Plan and Additional Information Needed on
Cost Savings and Metrics for DOD Efforts to Achieve Budget Neutrality [Reissued on November
14, 2016].
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
Servicemember Education, Credentialing, and
Transition
Background: In the past few decades, Congress has enacted legislation and appropriated funds
for servicemember off-duty education (tuition assistance), credentialing programs, and transition
services to support servicemembers and veterans in successfully translating military skills and
experience into post-service education and employment opportunities. Three programs of note are
the Transition Assistance Program (TAP);34 the Credentialing Opportunities Online (COOL);35
and the DOD Skillbridge program, which is also known as the Job Training, Employment Skills
Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships (JTEST-AI) program.36
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 561 would modify the quality
assurance requirements for military
skills credentialing programs.
Sec. 561 would limit tuition
assistance funds to professional
development courses.
Sec. 561 modifies the quality
assurance requirements for military
skills credentialing programs.
34
The military Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was established in the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 101-510, Section 502) and codified in 10 U.S.C. §1142. This program provides
counseling services and workshops to help servicemembers transition into the civilian workforce.
35
The COOL program is authorized by Section 2015 of Title 10 United States Code and it provides funded vouchers to
help servicemembers pay for exams and maintenance of civilian certifications and licenses. The program is funded
through COOL funds, tuition assistance funds, and through individual GI Bill benefits.
36
JTEST-AI includes civilian job training for transitioning military servicemembers up to six months prior to
separation. It includes both apprenticeships and internships. The training must offer a high probability of employment
and be provided to the servicemember at little or no cost.
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 563 would require a report by
DOD and the Coast Guard on the
Military-to-Mariner Transition
program.
Sec. 566 would authorize DOD to
initiate a job placement pilot
program for members of the
National Guard and Reserve.
Sec. 569 would require preseparation counseling on treatment
and resources for substance abuse.
Sec. 569A would require
notification about veterans’ disability
compensation deductions for
separating servicemembers.
Sec. 569B would require a report
on the JTEST-AI program.
Sec. 599A would require a report
on availability of college credit for
skills acquired during military service.
Sec. 3510 would prioritize
processing of transportation security
cards for separating servicemembers.
Sec. 3511 would require training on
transportation security card
opportunities to be included in TAP.
Sec. 562 would modify the quality
assurance requirements for military
skills credentialing programs.
Sec. 563 would provide DOD
installation access to certain
institutions of higher education that
provide advice and support to
servicemembers.
Sec. 564 would prioritize
processing of transportation worker
identification credential (TWIC) for
separating servicemembers.
Sec. 562 adopts the House
provision requiring pre-separation
counseling on treatment and
resources for substance abuse.
Sec. 563 adopts the House
provision requiring notification about
veterans’ disability compensation
deductions for separating
servicemembers
Sec. 564 adopts the House
provision requiring training on
transportation security card
opportunities to be included in TAP.
Sec. 567 adopts the House
provision requiring a report on the
JTEST-AI program.
Sec. 568 adopts the House
provision requiring a report by DOD
and the Coast Guard on the Militaryto-Mariner Transition program.
Sec. 3509 sets processing deadlines
for transportation worker
identification credentials (TWIC) for
separating servicemembers.
Discussion: Section 561 of the final bill eliminates “the requirement that credentialing programs
be accredited by third party accreditation bodies, and instead would require that credentialing
programs meet certain other quality assurance benchmarks.”37 Section 561 of the Senate version,
which would have limited tuition assistance funds to education and training that are likely to
contribute to the member’s professional development, was not adopted.38 Sections 567 and 568
require DOD reports on specific transition initiatives to help servicemembers qualified to operate
maritime vessels to obtain merchant mariner licenses and certifications, assessment of the
availability of college credit for skills acquired during military service, and evaluation of the
usage of the JTEST-AI program.
Section 3590 sets deadlines for the processing of applications for transportation worker identity
credentials (TWIC) for separating military servicemembers.39 Section 564 of the final version
also requires DOD to provide information and application for such cards to separating
servicemembers as part of TAP. Sections 562 and 563 require DOD to provide notification about
recoupment of separation payments and to provide counseling on substance abuse during
mandatory TAP training.
37
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Conference
Report to Accompany S. 2943, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., November 2016.
38
This provision was recommended in 2015 by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
out of concerns about duplication of education assistance programs and lack of adequate oversight on the use of TA
funds. Report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, January 29, 2015, p. 168.
39
The TWIC is required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act for workers who need access to secure areas of
maritime facilities and vessels.
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Finally, Section 566 of the House bill, which would have authorized DOD to carry out a pilot
program to provide job placement/employment services directly to reserve component members,
was not adopted.
Reference(s): CRS In Focus IF10347, Military Transition Assistance Program (TAP): An
Overview, by (name redacted) , and CRS Report R42790, Employment for Veterans: Trends
and Programs, coordinated by (name redacted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
Changes to General and Flag Officer Grades and
Positions
Background: The most senior officers in the military are known as general officers (Army, Air
Force, and Marine Corps) or flag officers (Navy).40 At the highest level such general and flag
officers (GFOs) hold the most visible and important military positions in the DOD, including the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chiefs of the four military services, and the combatant
commanders. The most senior GFOs hold the rank of general or admiral (“4-star,” paygrade O10), followed by lieutenant general and vice admiral (“3-star,” paygrade O-9), major general and
rear admiral (“2-star,” paygrade O-8), and brigadier general and rear admiral—lower half (“1star,” paygrade O-7). The total number of GFOs in each grade is limited by statute (10 U.S.C.
§§525, 526, and 12004), and Congress has designated that certain positions in the Armed Forces
must be filled by general or flag officers of a particular grade. Congress periodically reviews and
revises the number, duties, and compensation of GFOs.
40
In the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, they include the grades of brigadier general, major general, lieutenant
general, and general. In the Navy, they include the grades of rear admiral (lower half), rear admiral, vice admiral, and
admiral. Such officers are sometimes referred to by the number of stars in their rank insignia (e.g., a one-star general, a
three-star admiral, etc.).
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 501 would modify 10 U.S.C.
§525 and 526 to increase the
maximum number of Marine Corps
officers above the rank of Major
General from 15 to 17, reduce the
maximum number of Marine Corps
officers in the rank of Major General
from 23 to 22, and increase the total
number of Marine Corps general
officers from 61 to 62. It would also
modify 10 U.S.C. §5045 to increase
the maximum number of Deputy
Commandants in the Marine Corps
from 6 to 7.
Sec. 910 specifies that a
“commander of a service or
functional component command
under a commander of a combatant
command shall be no higher than
lieutenant general or vice admiral.” It
would also require DOD to “reduce
the total number of officers in the
grade of general or admiral on active
duty by five positions.”
Sec. 911 would require the
establishment of a “unified command
for cyber operations,” and specifies
that the commander of this
organization shall hold the grade of
general or admiral.
Sec. 501 would add new sections—
525a, 526a, and 12004a—to Title 10
which set new limits on the number
of active component and reserve
component GFOs serving in the
military departments and joint
positions. The new sections would
replace the existing limitations in
Sections 525, 526, and 12004 and be
effective after December 31, 2017.
They would effectively reduce the
number of GFOs by 25%, with the
reductions weighted toward the
higher grades.
Sec. 502 would eliminate certain
statutory requirements that specific
positions be held by a GFO. This
elimination of statutory grade would
primarily affect positions in the
medical, legal, personnel, legislative
liaison, chaplain, and reserve
communities, as well as certain
senior staff positions.
Section 501 requires the Secretary
of Defense to reduce the number of
GFOs on active duty by 110, from
the currently authorized 962 down
to 852, by December 31, 2022. It
also sets new distributions of active
duty GFO positions for the services
and the joint pool and allows the
Secretary of Defense to alter the
reductions and distribution of GFOs
in the interest of national security. It
requires a plan and a number of
reports on implementing the
reductions as well as a study on
reducing GFOs a further 10%. It
adds new section 526a to Title 10
codifying the new caps on GFOs,
effective after December 31, 2022.
Sec. 502 largely adopts the language
of Sec. 502 of the Senate bill, while
eliminating the statutory grade
requirement for several additional
positions.
Sec. 923 largely adopts the language
of Sec. 911 of the House bill, but
modifies language concerning
command relationships and
functions.
Section 503 adopts the language of
Section 501 of the House bill.
Discussion: Section 910 of the House bill would have required that the service and functional
component commanders who serve under a combatant commander41 hold a rank no higher than
lieutenant general or vice admiral. Section 910 would also require DOD to reduce the total
number of active duty generals and admirals by 5 (as of April 30, 2016, there were 38 such
officers). Section 911 would have required the establishment of a new unified combatant
command for cyber operations, to be led by an admiral or general. The current U.S. Cyber
Command, led by Admiral Michael Rogers, is a subordinate command of the U.S. Strategic
Command.
The Senate bill would have reduced the number of authorized active and reserve GFOs by 25%,
effective December 31, 2017. For active component GFOs, the reductions would be weighted
more heavily toward higher-ranking GFOs. For example, the maximum number of active
component GFOs currently authorized at the 3‐star and 4‐star level is 206; under the proposed
Senate language, this number would drop to 111. The Senate bill would have also eliminated
certain statutory grade requirements, primarily in the medical, legal, personnel, legislative liaison,
chaplain, and reserve communities, as well as certain senior staff positions, that specified
positions be held by a GFO. Without statutory grade requirements, DOD could set the grades at a
41
Combatant commands—such as U.S. Central Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Transportation
Command—are military commands which have broad, continuing missions and which are typically composed of forces
from two or more military departments. There are currently nine combatant commands, all headed by a “combatant
commander” who holds the grade of general or admiral (“four star” officers).
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
higher, lower, or identical grade, but would still need to manage general and flag officer numbers
within the overall general and flag officer caps specified in law.
Section 501 of the enacted bill requires the Secretary of Defense to reduce the total number of
GFOs on active duty so they are 110 less than the number currently authorized by December 31,
2022. This amounts to a reduction of about 11% in the number of authorized positions; however,
since only 889 of the 962 currently authorized positions are filled at present, the reduction in
GFO personnel will be smaller than the reduction in positions. The reductions in authorized
positions will be distributed as follows: Army, from 231 to 220; Navy, from 162 to 151; Air
Force, from 198 to 187; Marine Corps, from 61 to 62 (increased); joint pool, from 310 to 232.
Section 501 also provides a temporary allocation of 30 additional GFO positions to the joint pool
for contingency operations. Subparagraph (e) of Section 501 allows the Secretary of Defense to
alter these reductions, or their distribution, in the interest of national security, but the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees must be notified within 30 days of doing so. The provision
includes a number of reporting requirements on implementation, and also requires the Secretary
of Defense to conduct a “comprehensive and deliberate global manpower study of requirements
for general and flag officers,” which provides a justification for each GFO position, and identifies
an additional 10% reduction in the number of authorized GFO positions along with the
distribution of those reductions. The study results are to be submitted to the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees by April 1, 2017.
Reference(s): CRS Report R44389, General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces:
Background and Considerations for Congress, by (name redacted) and CRS Report R42077, The
Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands: Background and Issues for Congress, by
(name redacted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
*Joint Duty Assignments
Background: Chapter 38 of Title 10 U.S.C. concerns the management of active duty officers who
are “particularly trained in, and oriented toward, joint matters.”42 Officers are required to
complete certain educational requirements and duty assignments to become such joint qualified
officers. In recent years, there has been some debate over whether current qualification
requirements lead to the development of officers with an appropriate mix of service and joint
experiences.
Currently, the definition of joint matters is
... matters related to the achievement of unified action by integrated military forces in
operations conducted across domains such as land, sea, or air, in space, or in the
information environment, including matters relating to—
(A) national military strategy;
(B) strategic planning and contingency planning;
(C) command and control of operations under unified command;
(D) national security planning with other departments and agencies of the United States;
(E) combined operations with military forces of allied nations; or
42
10 U.S.C. §661(a).
Congressional Research Service
26
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
(F) acquisition matters addressed by military personnel and covered under chapter 87 of
this title.43
To become a joint qualified officer, an individual must complete specific joint professional
military education requirements, and complete a “full tour of duty in a joint assignment” or other
assignments that demonstrate mastery of joint matters.44 Joint duty assignments are normally at
least two years for general and flag officers (GFOs) and three years for other officers, although
the Secretary of Defense may waive this requirement.45
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
Sec. 912 would reduce the joint
duty assignment tour length to a
minimum of two years for officers of
all ranks, and remove the statutory
requirement for services to maintain
a tour length average.
Sec. 913 would amend the
definition of “joint matters” in 10
U.S.C. 668, and would allow a wider
array of positions to qualify as joint
duty.
Sec. 507 would amend 10 U.S.C.
664 to
-Reduce the length of a joint duty
assignment from three years to two
years for all officers.
-Eliminate tour length waivers for
officers with “critical occupational
specialties.”
-Provide more flexibility to Secretary
of Defense to exclude certain service
from the tour length requirements.
-Eliminate the requirement that the
Secretary of Defense ensure average
tour lengths comply with specified
minimum tour lengths for individuals.
Sec. 508 contains similar language
to Sec. 913 of the House-passed bill.
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 510 adopts the Senate
provision (Sec. 507).
Sec. 510A adopts the House
provision (Sec. 913).
Discussion: Both the House and Senate bills would have modified the statutory criteria for joint
duty assignments, including standardizing the length of a joint duty assignment at two years for
all officers. Thus, a two-year joint duty assignment—rather than a three-year assignment—would
qualify as a “full tour of duty” for officers who are not GFOs. Both bills would have expanded
the definition of joint matters “to better capture the breadth of duties and positions that comprise
joint matters experience.”46 For example, matters relating to “intelligence, fires, movement and
maneuver, protection or sustainment of operations under unified command” would have been
considered as joint matters. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense would have been allowed to
designate other joint matters in regulation. Finally, the definition of joint duty assignment would
have been modified. Both bills would have added an additional requirement that the
preponderance of the duties of the officer involve joint matters to the existing statutory
requirement that joint duty assignments be limited to “assignments in which the officer gains
significant experience in joint matters.”
The enacted bill adopted the Senate language amending 10 U.S.C. §664 with regard to joint duty
assignments, and the House language amending the definition of “joint matters” under 10 U.S.C.
§668.
43
10 U.S.C. §668(a)(1).
10 U.S.C. §661(c).
45
10 U.S.C. §664.
46
H.Rept. 114-537, p. 233.
44
Congressional Research Service
27
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Reference(s): CRS Report R44496, Military Officer Personnel Management: Key Concepts and
Statutory Provisions, by (name redacted) and CRS Report R44474, Goldwater-Nichols at 30:
Defense Reform and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted)
.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7-.....
Selective Service
Background: The Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) provides the statutory authority for the
federal government to maintain a Selective Service System (SSS) as an independent federal
agency responsible for delivering appropriately qualified civilian men for induction into the
Armed Forces of the United States as authorized by Congress. The MSSA requires most males
between the ages of 18 and 26 who are citizens or residents of the United States to register with
Selective Service. Women in the United States have never been required to register for the draft.
Men who fail to register may be subject to criminal penalties, loss of eligibility for certain federal
or state employment opportunities and education benefits, and denial of security clearances.
Documented or undocumented immigrants who fail to register may not be able to obtain United
States citizenship.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 528 would require a DOD
report on the purpose and utility of
the registration system under the
MSSA.
Sec. 591 would expand selective
service registration requirements to
women.
Sec. 1066-1073 would establish a
National Commission on Military,
National, and Public Service.
Sec. 551 and 553-557 establishes a
National Commission on Military,
National, and Public Service.
Sec. 552 requires a DOD report on
the purpose and utility of the
registration system under the MSSA.
Discussion: Recent DOD policy changes that have opened all military occupational specialties
(MOSs) including ground combat positions to women have called into question the Selective
Service registration exemption for women. While some feel that women should now be required
to register, others have questioned the need to maintain the registration requirement and other
provisions of the MSSA. Section 591 of the Senate bill would have expanded selective service
registration requirements to women who attain the age of 18 on or after January 1, 2018. The
House bill did not contain a similar provision.47 This provision was not adopted in the final bill
Some have questioned whether the Selective Service System is still needed and if there are other
mechanisms that could be used to meet emergency manpower needs. Section 552 of the final bill
requires DOD to produce a detailed review and report on the Selective Service System, including
its benefits and viability, as well as an analysis of potential DOD manpower needs in the event of
an emergency requiring mass mobilization. Sections 551 and 553-557 adopt the Senate provisions
that establish an independent commission to be known as the National Commission on Military,
National, and Public Service to examine these and other questions. This 11-member commission
would include appointees by the Administration and senior members of the House, Senate, and
armed services committees. The provision would establish the commission over a period of 36
months and authorize $15 million in funding in FY2017.
47
A proposal to require women to register with the Selective Service was passed in the House Armed Services
Committee; however the provision was stripped from the bill by the House Rules Committee in a procedural move
prior to floor consideration.
Congressional Research Service
28
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Reference(s): CRS Report R44452, The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues
for Congress, by (name redacted) , CRS Insight IN10414, Women and the Selective Service, by
(name redacted) , CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, by (name reda
cted)
.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-....
.
*Military Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
Background: Over the past decade, the issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
military have generated a good deal of congressional and media attention. In 2005, DOD issued
its first department-wide sexual assault policies and procedures (DOD Directive 6495.01 and
DOD Instruction 6495.02).48 These policy documents built on recommendations from the Joint
Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and congressional requirements specified
in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375).
In the same year, the task force transitioned into a permanent office, the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which serves as DOD’s primary oversight body for all
of the service-level programs. In May 2013, DOD released its first Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response (SAPR) strategic plan with an update in January 2015.49 Between 2012 and 2016, DOD
has taken a number of steps to implement its own strategic initiatives as well as dozens of
congressionally mandated actions related to military justice and investigations, sexual assault
prevention, victim services, and reporting and accountability.50
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Military Justice and Investigations
Sec. 545 would modify burden of
proof requirements for military
retaliation investigations.
Sec. 546 would require training for
those investigating allegations of
retaliation, particularly with respect
to the reporting of sex-related
offences.
Reporting and Accountability
Sec. 542 would extend reporting
requirements for military sexual
assault and would modify reporting
deadlines.
Military Justice and Investigations
Sec. 541 would require the
Secretary concerned to report to a
complainant the results of an
investigation of a retaliation
complaint.
Sec. 542 would require training for
DOD personnel who investigate
claims of retaliation in connection
with reports of sexual assault.
Victim Services
Sec. 536A would require additional
consideration by discharge review
boards of claims asserting PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in
connection with sexual trauma.
Sec. 554 would require a medical
evaluation prior to administrative
separation for members with PTSD
Military Justice and Investigations
Sec. 546 requires training for DOD
personnel who investigate claims of
retaliation in connection with
reports of sexual assault.
Sec. 547 requires the Secretary
concerned to provide in a written
report to a complainant the results
of an investigation of a retaliation
complaint.
Victim Services
Sec. 535 requires additional
consideration by discharge review
boards of claims asserting PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in
connection with sexual trauma.
Sec. 554 requires a medical
evaluation prior to administrative
separation for members with PTSD
48
A full list of all current DOD and Service-level policies related to military sexual assault can be found at
http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/DOD-policy/DOD-and-service-policy.
49
Department of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Strategic Plan, January 26, 2015, at
http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/SecDef_SAPR_Memo_Strategy_Atch_20150126.pdf.
50
For more information on congressional activity prior to 2013 see CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault:
Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources, by (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
29
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
or TBI in connection with sexual
assault.
Reporting and Accountability
Sec. 543 would require DOD to
include retaliation in annual military
sexual assault reports.
Sec. 551 would extend reporting
requirements for military sexual
assault and would modify reporting
deadlines.
Sec. 544 would require DOD to
establish metrics for evaluating
prevention and response to
retaliation in connection with
reports of sexual assault.
Prevention
Sec. 550 would modify the
definition of sexual harassment in 10
U.S.C. §1561(i) for purposes of
investigating complaints of
harassment by commanding officers.
or TBI in connection with sexual
assault.
Reporting and Accountability
Sec. 543 requires DOD to include
retaliation in annual military sexual
assault reports.
Sec. 544 extends reporting
requirements for military sexual
assault to 2021 and would modify
reporting deadlines.
Sec. 545 requires DOD to establish
metrics for evaluating prevention and
response to retaliation in connection
with reports of sexual assault.
Prevention
Sec. 548 modifies the definition of
sexual harassment in 10 U.S.C.
§1561(e) for purposes of
investigating complaints of
harassment by commanding officers.
Discussion: DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) is required by law
(P.L. 111-383) to report statistics and analysis of sexual assault in the military on an annual basis.
The Senate bill (§551) would have extended reporting requirements from March 1, 2017, to 2025
and would move the deadline for delivery of annual reports to Congress from April 30 to March
31. Section 544 of the conference bill adopted the House provision (§542) that would extend
annual reporting requirements to January 31, 2021, and established April 30 as the deadline for
reports to be submitted to Congress. The estimated cost for preparing the FY2015 report was $6.9
million.51
The FY2015 DOD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military included findings from focus
groups on sexual assault prevention and response and from the 2015 Military Investigation and
Justice Experience Survey.52 Feedback from these studies indicates that servicemembers have
concerns about retaliation associated with reporting instances of sexual assault. There has been
some concern that the various types and definitions of retaliation are not well understood, leading
to confusion in investigations and reporting of retaliation. Both the House (§546) and Senate
(§542) bills included similar provisions that would increase training requirements for
investigators; Section 546 of the enacted bill adopts the Senate provision with a clarifying
amendment. Section 545 of the House bill would have modified burden of proof requirements to
align them more closely with other retaliation investigation law. This provision was not adopted;
however, as noted in the conference report,
The conferees remain concerned about reports from military personnel who indicate they
have been subjected to retaliation after making protected communications. The conferees
51
This includes $5,440,000 in expenses and $1,497,000 in DOD labor. Department of Defense Sexual Assault and
Prevention Office, Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, May 2, 2016.
52
Ibid., Annexes 2 and 3.
Congressional Research Service
30
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
intend to remain seized of this issue and will assess the impact of the provisions in this
bill to reducing the prevalence of retaliation in the military. 53
Sections 543 and 545 of the enacted bill adopt Senate provisions that require DOD to develop and
annually report on metrics that evaluate efforts to prevent and respond to retaliation in connection
with reports of military sexual assault.
Congress has raised concerns about the character of discharge for certain veterans who
experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. Other-than-honorable discharges can
prevent servicemembers from being eligible for certain veteran’s benefits. Servicemembers may
appeal these decisions through a discharge review board. Currently by law (10 U.S.C. §§1177 and
1553) those servicemembers with PTSD or TBI in connection with combat have certain
additional medical assessments prior to administrative separation and enhanced discharge review
board consideration. The enacted bill (§§535 and 554) adopts Senate provisions that amend the
law to apply to servicemembers and veterans who experienced PTSD or TBI in connection with
sexual trauma.
Currently DOD handles sexual harassment under the Military Equal Opportunity Program and
SAPRO oversees sexual assault policies. Within the conference report, the Senate Armed
Services Committee expressed concerns that “the existing definition of sexual harassment has
caused the military services to consider sexual harassment as a violation of equal opportunity
policy instead of an adverse behavior that data have demonstrated is on the spectrum of behavior
that can contribute to an increase in the incidence of sexual assault.”54 Section 548 of the enacted
bill modifies the definition of sexual harassment in 10 U.S.C. 1561(e) for purposes of
investigating complaints of harassment by commanding officers.
Reference(s): See also CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in
Congress and Related Resources, by (name redacted)
; CRS Report R43213, Sexual
Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected Legislative Proposals, by
(name redacted) . Previously discussed in CRS Report R44120, FY2016 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
-...., (name redacted) x7
-.....
Child Abuse and Domestic Violence
Background: There are approximately 1.1 million dependent children of active duty military
servicemembers.55 According to DOD statistics, in FY2014, there were 7,676 confirmed cases of
child abuse or neglect in military homes, which was an increase of 10% from the previous year
and a 10-year high.56 While rates of child abuse among military families remain below those of
the general population, these statistics have raised concerns about prevention, management, and
reporting of abuse in the Armed Forces.
53
Conference Report 114-840 to accompany S. 2943.
Ibid.
55
Department of Defense, 2014 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, 2014, p. 141, at
http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2014-Demographics-Report.pdf.
56
Ryan, Missy, "The Number of Child Abuse Cases in the Military Hits a Decade High," The Washington Post,
September 2, 2015.
54
Congressional Research Service
31
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 541 would require reporting of
child abuse and neglect to state child
welfare services.
Sec. 543 would require an annual
family advocacy program report
regarding child abuse and domestic
violence.
Sec. 577 would require reporting of
child abuse and neglect to state child
welfare services.
Sec. 578 would require DOD
domestic schools and certain local
educational agencies that receive
Impact Aid to establish procedures
for requiring criminal background
checks.
Sec. 575 requires reporting of child
abuse and neglect to state child
welfare services.
Sec, 574 requires an annual family
advocacy program report regarding
child abuse and domestic violence.
Discussion: DOD’s child and domestic abuse prevention, education, and training initiatives are
implemented through the Family Advocacy Program (FAP).57 The FAP also responds to suspected
instances of domestic abuse, provides victim advocacy services, and collects and reports data as
required by law and regulation.58 Current law and regulations require some data sharing between
DOD and the states on known or suspected instances of child abuse and neglect in which the
child’s caretaker is a member of the Armed Forces or the member’s spouse.59 Section 575 of the
final bill requires DOD personnel who suspect instances of child abuse and neglect to directly
notify the appropriate state child welfare agency in addition to designated DOD representatives.
Section 574 of the enacted bill requires an annual Family Advocacy Program report to Congress
that includes data on instances of child abuse and domestic abuse. The first report will be due on
April 30, 2017, and this requirement would sunset after April 30, 2021. Proponents of this
provision believe that it will improve reporting and oversight of abuse in military families.
Finally, Section 578 of the Senate bill would have required all DOD domestic schools and certain
local educational agencies that receive Impact Aid to establish procedures for requiring employee
criminal background checks, including searches of state-based child abuse and neglect registries
and National Sex Offender databases. The House bill did not contain a similar provision and this
provision was not in the final bill. Instead, the conference report included language that strongly
urged DOD to
work as closely as possible with local school districts that educate military family
members to share best practices to help those districts develop and improve
comprehensive employment screening policies to ensure the safety of military children.
The conferees direct the Department to provide a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, on the Department’s efforts to: 1) identify, to the extent
practicable, any shortfalls in employee screening processes in local school districts
educating military family members; and 2) provide recommendations to help address
those shortfalls in the future. 60
Reference(s): CRS Report R40899, The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA):
Background, Programs, and Funding, by (name redacted); CRS In Focus IF10335, DOD
Domestic School System: Background and Issues, by (name redacted) ; CRS Report R44221,
Impact Aid, Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A Primer, by (name redac
ted)
.
57
32 C.F.R. part 61.
10 U.S.C. §1787, 42 U.S.C. §13031, and 28 CFR part 81.
59
10 U.S.C. §1787. State laws may also apply at military installations within the state.
60
Conference Report 114-840 to accompany S. 2943.
58
Congressional Research Service
32
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
-.....
Uniform Code of Military Justice Reform
Background: In 2013, upon the recommendation of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Martin Dempsey, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel directed the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense (General Counsel) to complete a comprehensive review of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, codified at Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United States Code)
and its implementation through the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and service regulations.61
Additionally, Secretary Hagel directed the General Counsel to consider the report and
recommendations of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, a separate and
independent review of the systems used to investigate and resolve adult sexual assault and related
offenses in the military.62 The General Counsel established the Military Justice Review Group
(MJRG) with a focus on reviewing the structure and operation of the UCMJ and MCM.63
Specifically, the MJRG was tasked with completion of two reports: (1) a legislative proposal to
modify the UCMJ, and (2) proposed implementing rules in the MCM.64 As a result of the work of
the MJRG, on December 28, 2015, the Department of Defense submitted the Military Justice Act
of 201665 to Congress66 and bills were subsequently introduced in the House and Senate to revise
the UCMJ.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Division E—Titles LX-LXXII
would make many revisions to
Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United
States Code including some
substantial edits and additions to the
punitive articles.
Division E—Titles LI-LXII
would make several amendments to
Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United
States Code.
Division E—Titles LI-LXIII
makes several amendments to
Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United
States Code including extensive
changes to the punitive articles.
Discussion: The proposed House bill comprised a comprehensive revision to the UCMJ,
including statutory additions and substantive amendments.67 The House bill addressed various
aspects of military justice including, but not limited to, courts-martial composition, trial
procedure, sentencing, and appellate matters. For example, with respect to sentencing, the House
bill would have granted the government the ability to appeal a sentence adjudged if the sentence
violated the law or was plainly unreasonable; previously the right to appeal was only available to
the servicemember.68 Among the most substantive revisions proposed in the House bill were
changes to the punitive articles (i.e., the offenses for which a servicemember may be court61
Memorandum from Secretary of Defense, Subject: Comprehensive Review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
Department of Defense, October 18, 2013, http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/images/mjrg_secdef_memo.pdf.
62
Department of Defense, Military Justice Review Group, Report of the Military Justice Review Group, Part I: UCMJ
Recommendations, December 22, 2015, p. 5, http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/images/report_part1.pdf.
63
Military Justice Review Group website, available at http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/mjrg.html.
64
Id.
65
Department of Defense, Military Justice Act of 2016, http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/images/military_justice2016.pdf.
66
Department of Defense, "Department of Defense Forwards to Congress Proposed Changes to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice," press release, December 28, 2015, http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/images/press_release_dec.pdf.
67
Id.
68
H.R. 4909, Title LXVII, §6701.
Congressional Research Service
33
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
martialed). The House bill would have provided for many offenses addressed by Executive Order
through the General Article69 to be identified by specific statutory sections as part of a general
reorganization of the punitive articles.70 Additionally, the House bill would have created new
offenses, including (1) Article 93a—prohibited activities with military recruit and trainee by
person in position of special trust;71 (2) Article 121a—fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards,
and other access devices;72 (3) Article 123—offenses concerning government computers;73 and
(4) Article 132—retaliation.
The proposed Senate bill also addressed various aspects of military justice including, but not
limited to, courts-martial composition, trial procedure, sentencing, and appellate matters.
Although both the House and Senate proposals were referred to as the “Military Justice Act of
2016,” differences existed between the House and Senate language. For example, as discussed
above, the House language would have allowed the government to appeal a sentence adjudged if
the sentence violated the law or was plainly unreasonable.74 The Senate language, however,
would have required the creation of military-specific sentencing parameters and criteria and
provided that an adjudged sentence that diverted from the criteria and parameters would be
appealable by the government.75 While the Senate language also proposed to reorganize the
punitive articles, it significantly differed from the House language in its proposed changes to
offenses related to rape and sexual assault.76 Specifically, the Senate bill would have added the
use of “position, rank, or authority to coerce the acquiescence of the other person in the sexual
act” as a prohibited act punishable by court-martial to Article 120.77
Differences between the House and Senate bills were resolved in conference. Consistent with the
House and Senate bills, the final bill includes a comprehensive revision of the UCMJ. However,
some language was not included in the final bill, for example, (1) a provision that would have
required interim guidance on sentencing parameters and criteria and would have been subject to
sunset at a later time; (2) an increase in the minimum punishment for sex-related offenses; and (3)
changes to Art. 120, which would have expanded the definition of committing a sexual act upon
another person to include the wrongful use of position, rank, or authority to coerce the
acquiescence of the other person in the sexual act.78
Reference(s): CRS Report R41739, Military Justice: Courts-Martial, an Overview, by (name red
acted) .
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7 -.....
69
10 U.S.C. §1408.
H.R. 4909, Title LXIX.
71
Id. at §6910.
72
Id. at §6913.
73
Id. at §6949.
74
Id. §6701.
75
S. 2943, Title LVIII, §5261.
76
Id. at §5330.
77
Id.
78
S. 2943, Titles LI-LXIII.
70
Congressional Research Service
34
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Medal of Honor
Background: The Medal of Honor (MOH) is the military’s highest award for valor “above and
beyond the call of duty.” In recent years, the MOH review process has been criticized by some as
being lengthy and bureaucratic, which may have led to some records being lost and conclusions
drawn based on competing eyewitness and forensic evidence.79 The reluctance to retroactively
award the MOH or to upgrade other awards is generally based on efforts to maintain the integrity
of the award and the awards process. This reluctance has led many to believe that the system of
awarding the MOH is overly restrictive and that certain individuals are denied earned medals. As
a result, DOD periodically reviews inquiries by Members of Congress and reevaluates its
historical records.80 On January 6, 2016, DOD announced the results of its year-long review of
military awards and decorations.81 This included review of the timeliness of the MOH process
and review by all the military departments of the Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air
Force Cross, and Silver Star Medal recommendations since September 11, 2001, for actions in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The results of the Service Cross and Silver Star Review are due to the
Secretary of Defense on September 30, 2017.
House-Passed H.R. 4909
Senate-Passed S. 2943
P.L. 114-328
Sec. 581 would require review
regarding award of Medal of Honor
to certain Asian American and
Native American Pacific Islander war
veterans.
Sec. 582 would authorize award of
medals for acts of valor.
Sec. 583 would authorize award of
the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose
for acts of valor during the Vietnam
War.
Sec. 584 would authorize award of
the Medal of Honor to Charles S.
Kettles for acts of valor during the
Vietnam War.
Sec. 586 would authorize award of
the Medal of Honor to Charles S.
Kettles for acts of valor during the
Vietnam War.
Sec. 587 would authorize award of
the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose
for acts of valor during the Vietnam
War.
Sec. 582 authorizes award of
medals for acts of valor during
certain contingency operations.
Sec. 583 authorizes award of the
Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose
and James C. McCloughan for acts of
valor during the Vietnam War.
Sec. 586 requires review regarding
award of Medal of Honor to certain
Asian American and Native
American Pacific Islander war
veterans.
Discussion: Sections 582, 583, and 596 of the conference report include provisions similar to the
House-passed H.R. 4909 and Senate-passed S.2943.
Section 582 of the final bill waives the time limitations prescribed in various sections of Title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the President to award certain valor awards, including the
Congressional Medal of Honor, to a member or former member of the Armed Forces during
certain contingency operations: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom
79
See “Medal of Honor (MoH) Process,” CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
80
See “Congressional and Other Efforts to Award the Medal of Honor,” CRS Report 95-519, Medal of Honor: History
and Issues, by (name redacted)
.
81
Defense Department Announces Results of Military Decorations and Awards Review, Press Release No: NR-004-16,
January 7, 2016, at http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/641775/defensedepartment-announces-results-of-military-decorations-and-awards-review. The complete list of changes to the military
decorations and awards program can be found at: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Military-Decorationsand-Awards-Review-Results.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
(OIF), Operation New Dawn (OND), Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS), and Operation
Inherent Resolve (OIR), resulting from a review of valor award nominations directed by the
Secretary of Defense on January 7, 2016. The time waiver expires on December 31, 2019, and no
medal may be awarded after that date under the authority of this section.
Section 583 of the final bill waives the time limitations specified in Section 3744 of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose and to James
C. McCloughan for acts of valor during the Vietnam War. This section authorizes the President to
award the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose for acts of valor from September 11 through 14,
1970, while a member of the United States Army, Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Studies
and Observation Group (MACVSOG); and to James C. McCloughan for acts of valor during
combat operations between May 13, 1969, and May 15, 1969, while serving as a combat medic
with Company C, 3d Battalion, 21st Infantry, 196th Light Infantry Brigade, American Division,
Republic of Vietnam.
Section 586 of the enacted bill requires the Secretary of each military department to conduct a
review of the service records of certain eligible veterans of the Korean and Vietnam Wars who are
of Asian American or Native American Pacific Island descent and were previously awarded the
Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross. In those cases where the
Secretary concerned determines that the service records of those veterans support the award of the
Medal of Honor, this section would also waive the statutory time limitations for award of the
Medal.
Reference(s): CRS Report 95-519, Medal of Honor: History and Issues, by (name redacted)
, and CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted)
; and the Congressional Budget Office,
Cost Estimate H.R. 4909 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, May 11, 2016.
CRS Point of Contact: (name redacted), x7
Congressional Research Service
-.....
36
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Appendix A. Reports and Studies
Congress often requests or requires pilot studies and reports within provisions of the National
Defense Authorization Act and in associated committee reports. This Appendix includes reports
related to military personnel issues that are required by the final bill.
Table A-1. Required Reports Relating to Issues of Military Personnel
Section and Subject
Reporting Agency/Organization (due date)
Sec. 332 Average travel costs of members of the
reserve components
Comptroller General (180 days after enactment)
Sec. 352 DOD’s space-available travel system
DOD contract with FFRDC (180 days after entering
contract)
Sec. 501 Reduction in general officer and flag officer
grades and positions
DOD (study results April 1, 2017, plan with FY2019 DOD
budget request; progress reports with DOD budget
requests for FY2020, 2021, and 2022)
Sec. 509 Pilot programs on direct commissioning to
cyber positions
DOD, Defense Secretaries (January 1, 2020)
Sec. 527 Pilot program on consolidated Army
recruiting
DOD, Secretary of the Army (briefing no later than March
1, 2017, interim report within one year of implementation,
and a final report within 180 days of pilot completion)
Sec. 534 Improvements to authorities and
procedures for the correction of military records
DOD and DHS, Secretaries concerned (18 months after
enactment)
Sec. 536 Review of integrity of DOD whistleblower
program
Comptroller General (18 months after enactment)
Sec. 542 Professional development programs for
judge advocates
DOD, Secretaries concerned (within 4 years of
enactment)
Sec. 543 Improvements to authorities and
procedures for the correction of military records
DOD and DHS, Secretaries concerned (18 months after
enactment)
Sec. 549 Improved DOD prevention of and
response to hazing in the Armed Forces
DOD (annually, January 31 of each year following
enactment through January 31, 2021)
Sec. 552 Purpose and utility of registration system
under Military Selective Service Act
DOD (July 1, 2017); Comptroller General (December 1,
2017)
Sec. 567 JTEST-AI, and Internships and SkillBridge
initiatives for members of the Armed Forces who are
being separated
DOD (180 days after enactment)
Sec. 568 Military-to-mariner transition
DOD (180 days after enactment)
Sec. 574 Child abuse and domestic violence
DOD (annually, April 30, 2017 through April 30 2021)
Sec. 578 Exceptional Family Member Programs
Comptroller General (Dec. 31, 2017)
Congressional Research Service
37
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Section and Subject
Reporting Agency/Organization (due date)
Sec. 593 Integrating women into military
occupational specialties and units recently opened to
women
Chief of Staff of the Army, the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and the Commander of the United States Special
Operations Command (April 1, 2017 and annually
thereafter through 2020)
Sec. 594 Electronic Tracking of Operational activeduty service performed by members of the Ready
Reserve
DOD (March 1, 2017)
Sec. 595 Discharge by warrant officers of pilot and
other flight officer positions in the Navy, Marine,
Corps, and Air Force currently discharged by
commissioned officers
DOD, Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force (180 days
after enactment)
Sec. 597 Career progression tracks in the Armed
Forces for women in combat arms units
DOD (30 days after enactment).
Sec. 604 New single-salary pay system
DOD (plan to implement new pay structure: March 1,
2017, elements of new pay structure: January 1, 2018)
Sec. 661 Independent assessment of the Survivor
Benefit Plan
DOD contract with FFRDC (one year after enactment)
Sec. 671 Recovery of amounts owed to the United
States by members of the uniformed services
DOD (August 1, 2017); Comptroller General (one year
after enactment)
Sec. 702 Reform of administration of the Defense
Health Agency and military medical treatment
facilities
DOD (interim draft plan by March 17, 2017 and final
report by March 1, 2018); Comptroller General (review of
preliminary report by September 1, 2017, and a review of
the final plan by September 1, 2018)
Sec. 703 Military medical treatment facilities
DOD (2 years after enactment) ; Comptroller General (60
days after DOD report)
Sec. 707 Joint Trauma System
DOD (180 days after enactment)
Sec. 708 Joint Trauma Education and Training
Directorate
DOD (July 1, 2017)
Sec. 709 Standardized system for scheduling medical
appointments at MTFs
DOD (January 1, 2017)
Sec. 712 Improving continuity of health care
coverage for Reserve Components
DOD (initial report within one year of pilot program
initiation, annual reports thereafter, and final report 180
days prior to pilot program completion)
Sec. 716 Applied behavior analysis
DOD (December 31, 2018)
Sec. 718 Enhancement of use of telehealth services
in military health system
DOD (initial report within 180 days of enactment, final
report within 3 years of implementation)
Sec. 727 Acquisition Strategy for health care
professional staffing services
DOD (July 1, 2017)
Sec. 729 Improvement of health outcomes and
control of costs of health care under TRICARE
DOD (January 1, 2020)
Congressional Research Service
38
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Section and Subject
Reporting Agency/Organization (due date)
Sec. 730 Accountability for the performance of the
military health care system of certain leaders in the
system
DOD (180 days after enactment)
Sec. 742 Pilot program on use of physician assistants
DOD (90 days after pilot program completion)
Sec. 743 Pilot program for prescription drug
acquisition cost parity in the TRICARE pharmacy
benefits program
DOD (90 days after pilot program completion)
Sec. 744 Pilot program for display of wait times at
MTFs
DOD (90 days after pilot program completion)
Sec. 748 Assessment of transition to TRICARE
program by families of members of reserve
components called to active duty and elimination of
certain charges for such families
DOD (180 days after enactment)
Sec 749 Oversight of graduate medical education
programs of military departments
DOD (30 days after implementation); Comptroller
General (180 days after DOD report)
Sec. 750 Health of helicopter and tiltrotor pilots
DOD (within 30 days of study completion)
Sec. 751 Health care delivery and waste in military
health system
Comptroller General (first report within one year of
enactment and annually for four years thereafter)
Sec. 2814 Public schools on military installations
DOD (one year after enactment); Comptroller General
(180 days after DOD report)
Sec. 3509 Priority processing of applications for
Transportation Worker Identification Credentials
DOD and DHS, Secretaries concerned (first report within
one year of enactment; joint report within two years of
enactment)
Conference Report (p. 1039) Potential use of
authority to temporarily suspend officer grade
strength tables
DOD (March 1, 2017)
Conference Report (p. 1046) Background checks
for employees of agencies and schools providing
elementary and secondary education for Department
of Defense dependents
DOD (one year after enactment)
Conference Report (p. 1062) Stability of military
families undergoing PCS
DOD (within six months of enactment)
Congressional Research Service
39
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Military Manpower
r[ edacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Senior Research Librarian
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
Acknowledgments
Alyssa Zeutzius made significant contributions to this report.
Congressional Research Service
40
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.