FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Charles A. Henning
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
August 27, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40711
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress
and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the emerging
operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military
personnel policies and issues.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military personnel issues
considered in deliberations on the House-passed and Senate passed-versions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2010. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that
pertain to personnel policy. It includes background information and a discussion of the issue,
along with a table that contains a comparison of the bill (H.R. 2647) passed by the House on June
25, 2009, and the version of this bill passed by Senate on July 23, 2009. A third column will be
completed after action on a final version by both chambers. Where appropriate, other CRS
products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue.
For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues
were addressed in the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report
RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy
Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were
previously considered in CRS Report RL34590 are designated with a “*” in the relevant section
titles of this report.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include
appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any discussion of separately
introduced legislation.
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
*Active Duty End Strengths ........................................................................................................ 2
*Military Pay Raise..................................................................................................................... 4
Expansion of Concurrent Receipt ................................................................................................ 5
Inclusion of Qualifying Service Since September 11, 2001, in Calculating Eligibility for
Early Receipt of Reserve Retired Pay....................................................................................... 6
Prohibition on Recruiting or Retaining Individuals Associated with Hate Groups ........................ 7
Earlier Tricare Prime Eligibility for Certain Reservists ................................................................ 8
Post-Deployment Mental Health Screening ................................................................................. 9
Constructive Eligibility for Tricare Benefits for Individuals Otherwise Ineligible Under
Retroactive Determination of Medicare Part A Entitlement ..................................................... 10
Tricare Coverage for Certain Members of the Retired Reserve Who Are Not Yet Age 60 ........... 11
Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty.............................................................. 12
Dental Care for Survivors.......................................................................................................... 13
Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions to Civilian and Dental
Positions ................................................................................................................................ 14
Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between Military Installations and Non-Military
Health Care Systems .............................................................................................................. 15
*Sexual Assault......................................................................................................................... 16
*Government Accountability Office Report on the Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families .................................... 17
*Internship Pilot Program for Military Spouses ......................................................................... 18
Language and Cultural Training ................................................................................................ 19
*Survivor Benefit Plan Offset and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation........................... 20
Supplemental Assistance Allowance.......................................................................................... 21
Civilian Employer-sponsored Health Care for Retired Military Employees ................................ 22
Suicide Among Members of the Individual Ready Reserve........................................................ 23
Plan to Increase the Behavioral Health Capabilities of the Department of Defense..................... 24
Reform and Improvement of the Tricare Program...................................................................... 25
Tables
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths ........................................................................... 3
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 26
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Background
Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees report their respective versions of
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills contain numerous provisions that
affect military personnel, retirees and their family members. Provisions in one version are often
not included in another; are treated differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following
passage of these bills by the respective legislative bodies, a Conference Committee is typically
convened to resolve the various differences between the House and Senate versions.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many constituent
requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights
those personnel-related issues that seem to generate the most intense congressional and
constituent interest, and tracks their status in the FY2010 House and Senate versions of the
NDAA. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2647, was introduced
in the House on June 2, 2009, reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on June 18,
2009 (H.Rept. 111-166), and passed by the House on June 25, 2009. In the Senate, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, S. 1390, was introduced and reported (S.Rept.
111-35) to the full Senate on July 2, 2009. On July 23, the Senate struck the text of the House-
passed H.R. 2647 and inserted the language of S. 1390 as amended and passed H.R. 2647 by
unanimous consent.1 Conferees have been appointed from both chambers.
The entries under the headings “House” and “Senate” in the following pages are based on
language in these bills, unless otherwise indicated. The entries under the heading “Final ”will be
completed when the bill is enacted.
Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background
information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues concerning that legislation. Those
issues that were previously are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
1 Senate, Congressional Record, July 29, 2009, pp. S8287-SS8289.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Active Duty End Strengths
Background: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181)
authorized the Army to grow by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000, to respective end
strengths of 547,400 and 202,000 by FY2012. Successful recruiting efforts, aided by a downturn
in the U.S. economy, enabled the Army and Marine Corps to achieve these new end strength
targets three years earlier than originally projected. Even with these increases, the nation’s armed
forces, especially the Army and Marine Corps, continue to experience high deployment rates.
With relatively stable operations in Iraq and a significant increase in the number of
servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan during 2009, some members of Congress and a number
of observers have recommended a further increase in end strength, especially for the Army.
House
Senate
Final
Section 401 authorizes a total
Section 401 of the Senate bill is
baseline FY2010 end strength of
virtually identical to Section 401 of the
1,410,000 including 547,400 for
House bill.
the Army, 328,800 for the Navy,
202,100 for the Marine Corps,
Section 402 of the Senate bill
and 331,700 for the Air Force.
authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to establish an Army end strength
Section 403 authorizes for each of larger than that established in law for
fiscal years (FYs) 2011 and 2012,
FYs 2010, 2011 and 2012 up to 30,000
an active-duty end strength for
over the 2010 baseline
the Army at a number greater
than the number otherwise
authorized by law up to the fiscal-
year 2010 baseline plus 30,000.
Discussion: With increased concern over the “dwell time” provided to servicemembers between
deployments and the projected end of the Army’s Stop Loss program in January 2010, service end
strengths remain a high visibility issue. Both 2010 national defense authorization bills provide the
same increases to baseline end strength (please see table below) and also allow the Army
temporary increases of 30,000 over the 2010 baseline in each of FYs 2011 and 2012.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths
2010 (H.R. 2647 – both
House and Senate
2008 (P.L. 110-181)
2009 (P.L. 110-417)
versions)
Baseline Army
525,400
532,400
547,400
Baseline Navy
329,098
326,323
328,800
Baseline Marine Corps
189,000
194,000
202,100
Baseline Air Force
329,563
317,050
331,700
Baseline
Subtotal
1,373,061 1,369,773 1,410,000
Temporary Army
22,000*
22,000*
Temp. Marine Corps
13,000*
13,000*
Temporary Subtotal
35,000
35,000
Grand
Total
1,408,061 1,404,773 1,445,000
* Temporary additional authority for 2009 and 2010 provided by Section 403 of P.L. 110-181.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost to DOD of the 2010 baseline increase
to be $31 billion over the 2010-2014 period. CBO further estimates that the 30,000 temporary
increase in Army active-duty end strength in 2011 and 2012 authorized by Sections 403 in the
House bill and 402 in the Senate bill will raise costs for salaries and other expenses by roughly $2
billion in 2011, $4 billion in 2012, and $2 billion in 2013.
References: Previously discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp,
page 5. See also CRS Report R40121, U.S. Military Stop Loss Program: Key Questions and
Answers, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Military Pay Raise
Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighted by the significant
increase in the number of servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan, continue to focus interest on
the military pay raise. Title 37 U.S.C. 1009 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual
military pay raise that indexes the raise to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index
(ECI). The FY2010 President’s Budget request for a 2.9%% military pay raise was consistent
with this formula. However, Congress, in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 approved the
pay raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5%. The FY2007 pay raise was equal to the ECI.
House Senate
Final
Section 601 supports a 3.4% (0.5% Section 601 also supports a 3.4%
above the President’s Budget)
across-the-board pay raise effective
across-the-board pay raise that
January 1, 2010.
would be effective January 1,
2010.
Discussion: A military pay raise larger than the permanent formula is not uncommon. In addition
to “across-the-board” pay raises for all military personnel, mid-year, “targeted” pay raises
(targeted at specific grades and longevity) have also been authorized over the past several years.
This year’s proposed legislation includes no mention of targeted pay raises. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates the incremental cost of this larger raise would be about $350
million in 2010 and $2.3 billion over the 2010-2014 period.
Reference: Previously discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp,
page 6. See also CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers,
by Charles A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Expansion of Concurrent Receipt
Background: “Concurrent receipt” allows some military retirees to receive both military
retirement benefits and disability compensation. This practice was forbidden by law until 2004.
The first concurrent receipt legislation was enacted in FY2003, and successive legislation since
then has extended concurrent receipt to additional populations and further modified the program.
There are two common criteria that define eligibility for concurrent receipt: (1) all recipients must
be military retirees and (2) they must also be eligible for VA disability compensation. Beyond
these common criteria, there are separate and distinct components: (1) Combat-Related Special
Compensation (CRSC) for those with service-verified combat disabilities and (2) Concurrent
Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) for those with service-connected disabilities. A
retiree cannot receive both CRSC and CRDP. At present, all disabled retirees with combat-related
disabilities rated at 10% or greater are eligible for CRSC. However, two groups of retirees with
service-connected disabilities are not currently eligible: (1) Chapter 61 retirees (a reference to the
chapter of Title 10 that governs disability retirement) who were determined to be unfit for
continued military service and generally due to service-connected (CRDP) disabilities prior to
completing 20 years of service, and (2) longevity retirees (those with 20 or more years of service)
who have service-connected (CRDP) disabilities rated at 40% or less.
The President’s FY2010 Budget request proposed concurrent receipt expansion similar to that in
H.R. 2647. The House report on the FY2010 NDAA (H.Rept. 111-166) did not initially include
the provision. It was introduced separately as H.R. 2990, which passed the House on June 24,
2009. H.Res. 573, the rule which provided for consideration of H.R. 2647, added the text of H.R.
2990 to the end of H.R. 2647 where it appears as Division D.
House Senate
Final
Section 121 of Division D includes No similar provision.
a phased expansion of concurrent
receipt eligibility that would
provide CRDP to Chapter 61
military retirees. In 2010 this
would include those with
disabilities rated as either 90 or
100% disabled; in 2011 to those
rated at 70 or 80%; in 2012 to
those rated at 50 or 60%; in 2013
to those rated at 30 or 40%; in
2014 to al Chapter 61 retirees
with a disability rating
Discussion: The House version of this proposed expansion of concurrent receipt represents a
temporary, one-year program that would become effective on January 1, 2010. Many supporters
of expanding concurrent receipt have expressed concern with the House version due to its scope
and implementation.
Reference: CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Charles A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Inclusion of Qualifying Service Since September 11,
2001, in Calculating Eligibility for Early Receipt of
Reserve Retired Pay
Background: Active duty military personnel are eligible for full retirement benefits after 20
years of active duty, regardless of their age. Reservists are also eligible to retire after 20 years of
qualifying service, but until recently they could not receive retired pay or access to retiree health
benefits until age 60. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-181)
contained a provision which permitted certain reservists to draw retired pay as early as age 50,
while maintaining the age for access to the military health care system at 60. This provision
reduced the age for receipt of retired pay for members of the Ready Reserve by three months for
each aggregate of 90 days of specified duty performed. Specified duty includes active duty under
any provision of law referred to in 10 USC 101(a)(13)(B), active duty under 10 USC 12301(d); or
active service under 32 USC 502(f) if responding to a national emergency declared by the
President or supported by federal funds. However, the provision only applied to duty performed
after January 28, 2008 (the date of enactment of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization
Act). Some have argued that this date unfairly excludes service performed prior to that date,
particularly service performed after September 11, 2001, when reservists were heavily used in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other overseas locations.
House Senate Final
No similar provision.
Section 660 of the Senate bill would
amend Section 12731(f)(2)(A) of
Title 10 to include qualifying service
performed since September 11,
2001, in calculating the eligibility of
an individual to receive reserve
retired pay prior to age 60.
Discussion: The Senate provision would expand the time frame in which qualifying duty
performed by reservists could be counted towards early receipt of retired pay by including any
such duty performed since September 11, 2001. Given the large number of reservists who
performed qualifying duty between September 11, 2001, and January 28, 2008, the effect of this
would be to significantly increase the number of reservists eligible to receive retired pay prior to
age 60.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and
Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp at x7-7609 or Charles Henning at x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Prohibition on Recruiting or Retaining Individuals
Associated with Hate Groups
Background: While the Department of Defense and the Military Services have regulations
prohibiting the recruiting or retention of those who participate in extremist activities,2 critics have
argued that the military has not effectively enforced these provisions, leading to the infiltration of
violent extremists—including white supremacists—into the armed forces. Defense officials have
stated that racist or extremist behaviors are not tolerated in the military.
House Senate Final
Section 524 amends 10 USC 504 to
No similar provision.
specify that “A person associated or
affiliated with a group associated
with hate-related violence against
groups or persons or the United
States government, as determined by
the Attorney General may not be
recruited, enlisted, or retained in the
armed forces.” It prohibits recruiters
from enlisting anyone associated
with a hate group. It also requires
the immediate discharge of military
personnel found to be associated
with a hate group, though it provides
an exception for those who have
renounced a previous association.
Discussion: The House provision would statutorily prohibit the recruitment, enlistment, or
retention of individuals who are associated with a “group associated with hate-related violence”
or a “hate group.” These terms are defined to encompass seven meanings, the broadest of which
appears to be “groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and
weapons trafficking and smuggling.” The provision specifies the evidence—such as tattoos,
meeting attendance, online activity, and written material—which demonstrate hate group
association. Those already in the military who have renounced a previous affiliation with a hate
group are exempted from separation. There is no exemption for those seeking to join the military
who have renounced a previous affiliation; this could affect recruiting in neighborhoods where
some form of criminal gang affiliation by teenagers is relatively common. The language of this
provision and its location at 10 USC 504—the section of the U.S. Code which covers persons not
qualified for enlistment—appear to limit its effect only to enlisted personnel, not officers.3
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 or Dave Burrelli at x7-8033.
2 DOD Directive 1325.6, 3.5.8; Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, 4-12; AR 601-210, 4-2(e)(i)(a)(9); Navy Regulations,
Ch. 11, Art. 1167; Navy Recruiting Command Instruction 1130.8H, Vol I, Ch. 1, Sec. 4, p. 4; Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 51-903, 5; AFI 36-2002, Att. 2; Marine Corps Order (MCO) 5370.4B; MCO P1100.72C, 3-85, 3-146 to 148.
3 However, current law requires all newly appointed regular officers to be of “good moral character” (10 U.S.C. 532)
and provides for the separation of regular officers for misconduct or moral dereliction (10 USC 1181).
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Earlier Tricare Prime Eligibility for Certain
Reservists
Background: Since September 11, 2001, the United States has activated hundreds of thousands
of reservists for service in the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. In response to this,
both Congress and the executive branch have taken a variety of actions to smooth the transition of
reservists from civilian to military status and back. In 2003, Congress provided reservists with
early access to Tricare Prime for reservists for up to 90 days prior to the projected date of
activation if they had received “delayed-effective-date active-duty orders.” “Delayed-effective-
date active-duty orders” were defined as “an order to active duty for a period of more than 30
days in support of a contingency operation under a provision of law referred to in Section
101(a)(13)(B) of [Title 10] that provides for active duty service to begin under such order on a
date after the date of the issuance of the order.”
House Senate Final
Section 706 amends 10 USC 1074 to No similar provision
extend the period of early Tricare
Prime coverage from a maximum of
90 days to a maximum of 180 days
prior to the projected date of
activation if they have received
“delayed-effective- date active-duty
orders” or if they have received
official notification from their Service
Secretary that such orders are
forthcoming.
Discussion: The House provision would extend the period of early Tricare access to as much as
180 days prior to the projected activation date and provides such access upon “official
notification” that orders are forthcoming. “Official notification” is defined as “a memorandum
from the Secretary concerned that notifies a unit or a member of a reserve component of the
armed forces that such unit or member shall receive a delayed-effective-date active-duty order.”
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this expanded authority would cost about $92
million in 2010. In total, CBO estimates that Section 706 would cost $347 million over the 2010-
2014 period.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, by Don J.
Jansen
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 or Don J. Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Post-Deployment Mental Health Screening
Background: To date, more than 1.6 million veterans have served in Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in Iraq. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) researchers have shown that the prevalence of new mental health diagnoses
among OEF/OIF veterans using VA health care increased rapidly following the Iraq invasion. One
recent study found that:
Of 289,328 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, 106,726 (36.9%) received mental health
diagnoses; 62,929 (21.8%) were diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
50,432 (17.4%) with depression. Adjusted 2-year prevalence rates of PTSD increased 4 to 7
times after the invasion of Iraq. Active duty veterans younger than 25 years had higher rates
of PTSD and alcohol and drug use disorder diagnoses compared with active duty veterans
older than 40 years.4
Addressing the mental health care needs of service members who have been deployed in
contingency operations has been area of high Congressional concern for several years.
House
Senate
Final
Section 709 would require
Section 711would require the
DOD to conduct a
Secretary of Defense to issue
demonstration project at
guidance for the provision of a
two military installations to
person-to-person mental health
assess the feasibility and
assessment for each service
efficacy of providing service
member deployed in connection
members returning from a
with a contingency operation
deployment with in-person
during the 60-day period prior to
mental screenings by a
deployment, between 90 and 180
mental health provider
days after return from deployment,
followed by a telephone
and then again at 6, 12, and 24
contact from a case
month intervals.
manager at 6, 12, 18, and 24
month intervals.
Discussion: Based upon deployment statistics and the timing of existing health assessment
requirements, the CBO estimates that Senate Section 711 would result in an additional 150,000
mental health assessments annually for each of the next few years. CBO estimates that the total
additional cost to DOD of Section 711 would be $45 million over the 2010-2014 period. A cost
estimate is not available for Section 709.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for S. 1390, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services
on July 2, 2009. July 14, 2009, p. 11, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10459/s1390.pdf.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
4 Karen H. Seal, Thomas J. Metzler, and Kristian S. Gima, et al., “Trends and Risk Factors for Mental Health
Diagnoses Among Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Using Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care, 2002–2008 ,”
American Journal of Public Health, July 16, 2009, pp. 1651-1658.
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Constructive Eligibility for Tricare Benefits for
Individuals Otherwise Ineligible Under Retroactive
Determination of Medicare Part A Entitlement
Background: 10 U.S.C. 1086(d) provides that a person who is entitled to Medicare Part A
hospital insurance is not eligible for Tricare unless the individual is enrolled in the Medicare Part
B. When a Tricare beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare, Medicare becomes the primary
payer and Tricare is the secondary payer. Retroactive Medicare eligibility determinations
therefore cause DOD and Medicare to reprocess claims.
House
Senate
Final
No similar provision.
Section 703 would amend 10 USC 1086(d)
to exempt Tricare beneficiaries under the
age of 65 who become Medicare eligible
due to a retroactive disability determination
from the requirement to enroll in Medicare
Part B for the retroactive months of
entitlement to Medicare Part A in order to
maintain Tricare coverage. Tricare would
remain the first payer for any claims filed
during the retroactive months.
Discussion: CBO estimates that about 1,500 retroactive Medicare determinations are made for
Tricare beneficiaries annually and that on average each determination is retroactive for two
months. CBO estimates Section 703 would require additional appropriations of about $4 million
per year.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for S. 1390, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services
on July 2, 2009. July 14, 2009, p. 11, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10459/s1390.pdf
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Tricare Coverage for Certain Members of the
Retired Reserve Who Are Not Yet Age 60
Background: Under current law, reserve component members who have completed 20 years of
service but have not yet reached the age of 60 (so called “grey-area” retirees), are not eligible for
Tricare benefits. This has traditionally been the policy because the individuals in this category
were “working-age” and were assumed to be able to obtain health insurance from their civilian
employer.
House
Senate
Final
Section 704 would amend Chapter
Section 701 includes a similar provision.
55 of Title 10 of the United States
Code by inserting a new Section
1076e. The new section would
extend Tricare standard coverage
for certain members of the retired
reserve who are qualified for a non-
regular retirement but are not yet
age 60. Eligible members would be
required to pay premiums equal to
the cost of coverage as determined
by the Secretary of Defense on an
appropriate actuarial basis.
Discussion: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the net cost to the government of
this new program should be “insignificant over the long-run.” DOD would incur start-up costs
estimated to total about $15 million over the 2010-2011 period.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 2647 National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as reported by the House Committee on Armed Services
on June 18, 2009. June 22, 2009. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10341/hr2647.pdf
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active
Duty
Background: Chiropractic is a health care approach that focuses on the relationship between the
body’s structure—mainly the spine—and its functioning. Although practitioners may use a variety
of treatment approaches, they primarily perform adjustments to the spine or other parts of the
body with the goal of correcting alignment problems and supporting the body’s natural ability to
heal itself. Research to expand the scientific understanding of chiropractic treatment is ongoing.
Section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(P.L. 106-398) established the Chiropractic Care Program, replacing the former Chiropractic
Health Care Demonstration Program (CHCDP) that ended in Sept. 1999. Under this new program
60 military clinics and hospitals currently provide chiropractic care to active duty service
members. The current Chiropractic Care Program is only available to active duty service
members at designated military treatment facilities. A service member’s primary care manager
determines if chiropractic care is appropriate. Family members, retirees and their family
members, unremarried former spouses and survivors are not eligible for chiropractic care. They
may be referred to non-chiropractic health care services in the military health system (e.g.,
physical therapy or orthopedics) or may seek chiropractic care in the local community at their
own expense.
House
Senate
Final
Section 702 would require the
No
similar
provision.
Secretary of Defense to provide
chiropractic services and benefits as
a permanent part of the Defense
Health Program, including the
Tricare program for all active duty
service members.
The Secretary would also be
authorized to conduct one or more
demonstration projects to provide
chiropractic services to deployed
members of the uniformed services.
Discussion: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about 900,000, or roughly
two thirds, of the 1.4 million active-duty members are currently able to receive chiropractic
services. CBO estimates that extending chiropractic care to the remainder of the active-duty
population would result in 160,000 additional visits to chiropractors each year, at a net cost of
about $55 per visit, or about $9 million per year. CBO also estimates that the chiropractic
demonstration program for deployed troops would cost about $12 million over a five-year period,
based on cost data from previous DOD chiropractic demonstration programs. In total, CBO
estimates that Section 702 would cost $53 million over the 2010-2014 period.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 2647 National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as reported by the House Committee on Armed Services
on June 18, 2009. June 22, 2009. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10341/hr2647.pdf
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Dental Care for Survivors
Background: Under current law (10 U.S.C. 1076a(k)(3)) a dependent enrolled in the Tricare
dental program is no longer eligible for coverage after the end of the three-year period beginning
on the date of the death of the member upon which the dependent’s eligibility was based. Unlike
other survivor eligibility standards, exceptions are not provided for children until they reach age
21 or age 23 if enrolled in college.
House
Senate
Final
Section 703 would amend 10
Section 702 is similar to the
U.S.C 1076a(k) to extend Tricare
House provision.
dental benefits to the survivors of
members who die on active duty
until they reach the age of 21, or,
if they are still enrolled in college,
age 23.
Discussion: This provision is intended to expand survivor eligibility under the Tricare dental
program so that it matches other Tricare survivor eligibility standards. CBO estimates this section
would allow about 7,000 additional survivors to receive dental benefits through the Tricare
program each year, at an annual cost of about $300 per person for an overall cost to DOD of $2
million per year.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 2647 National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as reported by the House Committee on Armed Services
on June 18, 2009. June 22, 2009. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10341/hr2647.pdf
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical
Positions to Civilian and Dental Positions
Background: In previous years the Defense Health Program appropriations request budgeted for
savings to be achieved by converting military medical positions to civilian positions. H.Rept. 111-
166 states without explanation that such conversions have had an adverse impact on the military
health system. Section 721 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L.
110-181) prohibited such conversions and required that any unfilled positions slotted for
conversion be restored to a military position. The Department of Defense budgeted for these
restorations in its 2010 appropriations request.
House
Senate
Final
Section 701 provides that the
No
similar
provision.
Secretary of a military
department may not convert any
military medical or dental position
to a civilian medical or dental
position.
In the case of any military medical
or dental position that was
converted to a civilian medical or
dental position during the period
beginning on October 1, 2004,
and ending on September 30,
2008, if the position was not filled
by a civilian by September 30,
2008, the Secretary of the military
department concerned must
restore the position to a military
position that may be filled only by
a member of the Armed Forces
who is a health professional.
Discussion: This section would indefinitely extend a prohibition on conversions of military
medical and dental positions to civilian positions. The provision reenacts Section 721 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) but without an end date.
The Bush Administration had opposed prohibitions on conversions saying that they would
eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use converted positions to enhance the
strength of operating units and would have an adverse impact on all the services, especially
the Army. Previous DOD budgets had recognized annual savings in excess of $200 million
from conversions.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between
Military Installations and Non-Military Health Care
Systems
Background: Congress has enacted several provisions over the years to allow for the
establishment of cooperative health care arrangements between military installations and local
and regional non-military health care systems. Section 721 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) required the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a pilot program at two or more installations for the purpose of testing initiatives that
build cooperative health care arrangements and agreements between military installations, and
local and regional non-military health care systems.
Section 707 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181)
extended the pilot program through 2010 and pushed back the due date for a required final report
describing the results of the program with recommendations for a model health care delivery
system for other military installations until July 1, 2010.
DOD submitted an interim report on the two pilot programs it established under this authority to
Congress on July 30, 2007.5 This report provided an overview of a pilot project at Fort Drum, NY,
and at Yuma, AZ, where there is a Marine Corps facility and an Army proving ground.
House
Senate
Final
Section 705 would
No
similar
provision.
authorize the Secretary of
Defense to establish
cooperative health care
arrangements and
agreements between
military installations and
local and regional non-
military health care systems.
Discussion: Cooperative arrangements between DOD and non-military health care systems may
offer opportunities for improved access to care for Tricare beneficiaries and to leverage Federal
health care resources in medically underserved areas by allowing support for hospitals and other
facilities in areas that might not feasibly support both a military health care facility and other
facilities. Unlike previous provisions, Section 705 is not-time limited.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
5 Available at:
http://www.tricare.mil/planning/congress/downloads/20070830/2007%20Reports%20to%20Congress/131553-
Update_to_Congress_on_the_Pilot_Program_for_Health_Care_Delivery_-_Coordinations_-_SIGNED.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Sexual Assault
Background: DOD affords the victims of sexual assault the option of confidential reporting of
assaults to specified individuals and services including medical care, counseling and victim
advocacy, without initiating an investigation.
House
Senate
Final
The House Armed Services
Section 571would amend the
Committee Report (H.Rept. 111-
due date of the report on sexual
116) notes that the committee is
assault required by Section
concerned that when a sexual
576(e)(1) of the Ronald W.
assault report is made to certain
Reagan National Defense
individuals (e.g. commanders, law
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
enforcement) by someone other
2005 (P.L. 108-375) to
than the victim, the report may
December 1, 2009.
trigger an investigation regardless
of the victim’s desire for
confidentiality. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense
to develop a procedure to
provide the victim with
confidentiality in cases where the
assault is reported by someone
other than the victim or other
individuals covered under
confidential reporting. The
Committee also directs the
Secretary to report on the
availability and adequacy of
proper care for victims of sexual
assault.
Discussion: The new procedure described in the House Report would allow alleged victims of
sexual assault to seek assistance while protecting the desire for confidentiality in instances where
the alleged assault is reported by a non-covered individual. The Senate bill does not contain a
similar provision. However, Section 571 of the Senate bill would amend Section 576(e)(1) of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) to
change the due date of a required report regarding sexual assaults from one year after initiation of
a task force to December 1, 2009.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, pp. 15-16.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Government Accountability Office Report on the
Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations
to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families
Background: On May 24, 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report entitled, “Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic
Violence, but Further Management Action Needed (GAO-06-540).”
House
Senate
Final
Section 582 would require the
No
similar
provision.
Comptroller General to review
and assess the progress of the
Department of Defense in
implementing the
recommendations contained in
GAO report GAO-06-540, and to
submit a report containing the
results of the review and
assessment to the congressional
defense committees.
Discussion: Issues affecting military families have been of particular interest to Congress. The
review and assessment of recommendations concerning domestic violence affords both Congress
and the DOD information concerning the status of this issue.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, page 21.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Internship Pilot Program for Military Spouses
Background: Many military spouses desire and seek employment. Obtaining such employment,
much less a career, is often hampered by frequent moves. It has been suggested that some
employers discriminate against military spouses in the hiring process because of their relatively
high turnover.
House
Senate
Final
Section 581 establishes an
No
similar
provision.
internship pilot program and
reporting requirement for certain
military spouses to obtain federal
employment that could lead to
career portability and
enhancement.
Discussion: This provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements with the
heads of other federal agencies that have established internship programs to reimburse the agency
for costs associated with the first year of employment of an eligible military spouse who is
selected to participate in the agency’s internship program. All spouses would be eligible except
for those that are legally separated, already on active duty, or retired from the military.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, page 10.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Language and Cultural Training
Background: In recent years, both Congress and the Department of Defense have shown
significant interest in increasing the ability of military personnel to operate in foreign countries by
enhancing their cultural knowledge and foreign language proficiency. However, building these
language and cultural skills has proven challenging due to the intensive study required for
mastery and the competing demands of other training and operational requirements for currently
serving personnel.
House Senate
Final
Section 534 requires the Secretary
No similar legislative provision.
of Defense to establish “at least
However, the committee report
three Language Training Centers at
(S.Rept. 111-35) included “Cultural
accredited universities, senior
and language proficiency” as an item
military colleges, or similar
of special interest and stated: “...the
institutions of higher education to
committee urges the Department to
create the foundational critical and
consider existing language and
strategic language and regional area
cultural curriculum at universities
expertise....” Members of the armed
and col eges throughout the Nation
forces, including reservists and
as an opportunity to augment
ROTC candidates, and DOD civilian
existing Department operated
employees are authorized to
programs. The committee directs
participate. Language Training
the Secretary of Defense to submit a
Centers must be established by
report 180 days after the date of
October 1, 2010; program authority
enactment of this Act on any plans
expires on September 30, 2015.
to leverage these programs in a
manner that compliments the
Department’s organic language and
cultural training programs.” (p. 131)
Discussion: The House provision would require the establishment of at least three Language
Training Centers, who purpose would be: 1) to graduate military and DOD civilian personnel
with critical and strategic language skills; 2) to develop language proficiency training programs in
critical and strategic languages to meet operational needs; 3) to develop alternative language
training delivery systems; 4) to develop critical and strategic language programs for use in ROTC
units; 5) to develop programs to increase the number of language instructors in the military; and
6) to develop program to encourage native speakers of critical and strategic languages to serve in
the Department of Defense or the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps. The Language Training
Centers are also authorized to “partner with elementary and secondary educational institutions to
help develop critical and strategic language skills in students who may pursue a military career.”
The Senate bill did not contain any similar legislative language, but the Senate Armed Services
Committee report required the Secretary of Defense to report on how best to utilize existing
programs at institutions of higher education to support its language and cultural training.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Survivor Benefit Plan Offset and Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation
Background: A Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)-eligible spouse who is also eligible for Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation(DIC) will have his or her SBP annuity reduced or offset on a
dollar-for-dollar basis by DIC. Last year, for certain beneficiaries, Congress created a new
survivor indemnity allowance to be paid to survivors of members who are entitled to retired pay,
or would be entitled to reserve component retired pay but for the fact that they (the members)
were not yet 60 years of age, effective October 1, 2008. This amount would be $50 a month and
would increase in $10 increments originally through 2013 and later extended to 2017.
House
Senate
Final
No similar provision.
Sec. 652 would repeal the
SBP/DIC offset proactively. This
Senate language prohibits the
recoupment of amounts
refunded to survivors due to the
original offset. Additionally, this
language would repeal the
optional annuity for children by
those affected by this offset.
Discussion: This language would allow eligible surviving spouses to receive both SBP and DIC
benefits.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, pp. 19-20.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Supplemental Assistance Allowance
Background: Under P.L. 106-398, Congress established a “Supplemental Subsistence Allowance
for Low-Income Members with Dependents.” This provision was intended to provide an
allowance to military families in lieu of Food Stamps. The original amount authorized was up to
$500 a month.
House
Senate
Final
No similar provision.
Sec. 603 increases the allowance
amount up to $1,100 a month. In
addition, the Secretary of
Defense is instructed to report
on a plan for eliminating the
need for military families to rely
on Food Stamps.
Discussion: This amount would provide additional funds to military families otherwise eligible
for Food Stamps and recognizes increases in subsistence costs.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its
Provisions, by David F. Burrelli
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
21
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Civilian Employer-sponsored Health Care for
Retired Military Employees
Background:
Section 707 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L.
109-364, October 17, 2006) amended Chapter 55 of Title 10 United States Code to add a new
Section 1097c, prohibiting employers from offering their employees financial or other incentives
such as Tricare supplemental insurance to use Tricare rather than the employer’s group health
plan. The legislation applied to employers with 20 or more employees, including states and units
of local government, and mirrors a similar prohibition applicable to the Medicare program. As
with Medicare, employers can continue to offer cafeteria benefit plans. The legislation was
intended to address employer shifting of health-care costs to Tricare. After enactment, many
Tricare beneficiaries no longer were offered Tricare supplements as an employer-sponsored
benefit. Insurance companies that marketed such supplemental plans were also impacted by the
provision. There also is some question as to whether loss of employer-provided Tricare
supplemental insurance may have led Tricare beneficiaries to move from Tricare Standard to
Tricare Prime and the budgetary consequences to the Defense Health Program of such an
enrollment shift.
House
Senate
Final
No similar provision.
Sec. 705 requires the Comptroller
General to report no later than
March 31, 2010 on the
implementation of these
requirements with respect to the
relationship between Tricare and
certain civilian employer-sponsored
group health plans.
Discussion: The report required by Section 705 would assess the impact of Section 1097c of Title
10, United States Code, with the purpose of determining whether the prohibition on employer-
offered incentives to use Tricare has had a budgetary impact on the Defense Health Program.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Suicide Among Members of the Individual Ready
Reserve
Background: Typically, most service members incur an 8 year military service obligation as part
of their original enlistment contract. Service members typically serve two to four years on active
duty, and then are transferred to the Individual Reserve (IRR) to fulfill the remainder of their
obligation. IRR members generally are required to keep their Services informed of any change in
their medical status that might render them unfit to serve. Many members of the IRR may have
been deployed in contingency operations while on active duty. Some may be recalled to active
duty at a future date. There has been concern that some IRR members do not have access to
appropriate mental health care.
House
Senate
Final
Section 710A would require No
similar
provision.
a “counseling call” to all IRR
members by appropriately
trained personnel not less
than once every 90 days, as
long as they are in the IRR,
to determine the
“emotional , psychological,
medical, and career needs
and concerns of the
covered member.”
Discussion: Related provisions include House Section 596 and Senate Section 557 which would
establish within the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, a program to provide community
healing and suicide prevention services for National Guard and Reserve members. In addition, as
discussed on page 9 above, Sections 709 and 711 of the House and Senate bills respectively
provide for mental health assessments for deployed members.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Plan to Increase the Behavioral Health Capabilities
of the Department of Defense
Background: As discussed above on pages 9 and 23, enactment of Senate Sections 557 and 711
and related House provisions would increase demand for the services of mental health
professionals. In addition, witnesses at Congressional hearings have testified that they believe
there are shortages of military health mental health care professionals. In February 2009, the
DOD reported to Congress on the status of mental health provider staffing.6 DOD reported that it
had contracted with the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to conduct a validation of a 20+ factor
model for evaluating the department’s mental health provider needs. When released, this report
should help determine the nature and extent of any current shortage of mental health providers.
Military mental health providers include psychiatrists, doctoral-level psychologists, licensed
clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers.
House
Senate
Final
No similar provision.
Section 722 would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop
and implement a plan to
significantly increase the number of
DOD military and civilian
behavioral health personnel.
Discussion: CBO estimates that when combined with the expanded benefits that would be
provided by Senate Sections 521 and 523, Section 722 would cost $1 million in 2010 and $82
million over the 2010-2014 period.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for S. 1390, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services
on July 2, 2009. July 14, 2009, p. 9, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10459/s1390.pdf
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
6 Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Report to Congress in Response to H.Rept. 110-146 for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, on Traumatic Brain Injury and H.Rept. 110-279 for Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, February 10, 2009, pp. 12-14,
http://www.tricare.mil/planning/congress/downloads/PTSD_09.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Reform and Improvement of the Tricare Program
Background: S.Rept. 111-35 notes that the Senate Armed Services Committee is aware that “the
cost of the Defense Health Program will be a focus of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and
believes that such focus is appropriate.” Of greater concern to the Committee, however, is that:
...satisfaction with Tricare is declining. Too much attention has been paid to increasing out-
of-pocket payments by retirees, and not enough to repairing persistent operational problems
that prevent beneficiaries from getting the care that they need, such as the lack of availability
of Tricare providers and cumbersome requirements for preauthorization and referral to
specialty care. Moreover, the fundamental goal of Tricare to maximize use of military
hospitals and clinics is not being achieved, as more and more care is being purchased in the
private sector. Problems with access to care in both military facilities and form civilian
providers needlessly compound the difficulties that military families face during extended
periods of deployment.7
DOD reports customer satisfaction trends in its annual evaluations of the Tricare program.8
House
Senate
Final
No similar provision.
Sec. 704 directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Health and Human
Services and Homeland Security to
undertake actions to reform and
improve the Tricare program.
Discussion: Section 704 offers a list of possible actions for the Secretary of Defense to consider
that includes such other actions as the Secretary, in consultation with the other administering
Secretaries, considers appropriate. Members of the Public Health Service under the Secretary of
Health and Human Services as well as members of the Coast Guard which is under the Secretary
of Homeland Security are eligible for Tricare benefits. The provision further directs the Secretary
of Defense to report periodically to the congressional defense committees on progress made.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
7 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 111th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 111-35 (Washington: GPO,
2009), p. 142.
8 Department of Defense, Evaluation of the TRICARE Program FY 2009, April 6, 2009, p. 48,
http://www.tricare.mil/planning/congress/downloads/TRICARE%20Program%20Effectiveness%20(FY09).pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Author Contact Information
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
David F. Burrelli
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
Lawrence Kapp
Charles A. Henning
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
chenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-8866
Congressional Research Service
26