FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Charles A. Henning, Coordinator
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Don J. Jansen
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
July 9, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41316
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
FY2011 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) has selected a number of the military personnel
issues considered in deliberations on the House-passed and Senate versions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2011. 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 an explanation of the bill (H.R. 5136) passed by the House on
May 28, 2010. The table and the report will be updated upon passage in the Senate, again upon
completion of the Conference Committee action, and a final edition will be released when the
NDAA is signed into law. 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.
Some issues were addressed in the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in
CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Policy Issues, coordinated by Don J. Jansen. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS
Report R40711 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
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
*Active Duty End Strengths ........................................................................................................ 2
End Strength for Selected Reserves .............................................................................................4
*Military Pay Raise..................................................................................................................... 5
Increases in Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Special Pay and Family Separation Allowance .......... 6
Ineligibility of Certain Federal Civilian Employees for Reservist Income Replacement
Payments ................................................................................................................................. 7
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Modification ................................................................... 8
TRICARE Cost-Share................................................................................................................. 9
Unified Medical Command ....................................................................................................... 10
TRICARE Coverage to Age 26 ................................................................................................. 12
Space Available Care for Grey-Area Retirees ............................................................................ 13
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”............................................................................................. 14
Rethinking Women’s Roles in Combat: DOD’s Review of Military Occupational
Specialties For Female Members............................................................................................ 15
Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents who are Members of the Armed
Forces Deployed in Support of a Contingency Operation........................................................ 16
*Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic Violence Programs ................................... 17
*Award of the Vietnam Service Medal To Veterans Who Participated in the Mayaguez
Rescue Operation................................................................................................................... 18
*Pilot Program of Personalized Career Development Counseling for Military Spouses .............. 19
Establishment of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Units for Students Above Sixth
Grade..................................................................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths ........................................................................... 2
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
FY2011 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 usually
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 FY2011 House and Senate versions of the
NDAA. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 began as H.R. 5136,
introduced in the House on April 26,2010, reported by the House Committee on Armed Services
on May 21, 2010 (H.Rept. 111-491), and passed by the House on May 28, 2010. This report will
be updated upon passage in the Senate, again upon completion of the Conference Committee
action, and a final edition when the NDAA is signed into law.
The entries under the headings “House-passed”, “Senate-passed”, and “Conference Committee”
in the tables on following pages are based on language in these bills, unless otherwise indicated.
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.
Some issues were addressed in the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in
CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Policy Issues, coordinated by Don J. Jansen concerning that legislation. Those issues that were
previously considered are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2011 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. In both FY2009 and FY2010, the Army was
authorized additional, but smaller, increases to an FY2010 end strength of 562,400. Even with
these increases, the nation’s armed forces, especially the Army and Marine Corps, continue to
experience high deployment rates and abbreviated “dwell time” at home station. With a
significant increase in the number of servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan during 2009 and
2010, some members of Congress and a number of observers have recommended further
increases in end strength, especially for the Army.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 401 authorizes a total
FY2010 active duty end strength
of 1,432,400 including:
569,400 for the Army
328,700 for the Navy
202,100 for the Marine Corps
332,200 for the Air Force.
Discussion: With ongoing operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, service end strengths remain a
high visibility issue. The House-passed version authorizes an increase of 7,000 for the Army, an
increase of 500 for the Air Force, a decrease of 100 for the Navy, and no change for the Marine
Corps (see Table 1).
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths
2008
2009
(P.L. 110-181)
(P.L. 110-417)
2010 (P.L. 111-84)
2011
Baseline
Army
525,400 532,400 562,400
569,400
(+7,000)
Baseline
Navy
329,098 326,323 328,800
328,700
(-100)
Baseline Marine
189,000
Corps
194,000
202,100
202,100 (no change)
Baseline
Air
Force 329,563 317,050 331,700
332,200
(-500)
Baseline
Subtotal 1,373,061 1,369,773 1,425,000
Temporary Army
+22,000a
+22,000a +30,000b
Temporary Marine
Corps
+13,000a
0
Temporary
Subtotal
35,000 22,000
30,000
Grand
Total
1,408,061 1,404,773 1,455,000
a. Temporary additional authority for 2009 and 2010 is provided by Section 403 of P.L. 110-181.
b. Temporary additional authority for only 2011 and 2012 is provided by section 403 of P.L. 111-84.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the increase in end strength approved by
the House will increase DOD costs by $3.1 billion over the FY2011 to FY2015 period.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp and
CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Policy Issues, coordinated by Don J. Jansen.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
End Strength for Selected Reserves
Background: Although the Reserves have been used extensively in support of operations since
September 11, 2001, the overall authorized end-strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by
about 2 ½% over the past nine years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 854,500 in FY2010). Much of
this can be attributed to the reduction in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were
also modest shifts in strength for some other components of the Selected Reserve. For
comparative purposes, the authorized end-strengths for the Selected Reserves for FY2001 were as
follows: Army National Guard (350,526), Army Reserve (205,300), Navy Reserve (88,900),
Marine Corps Reserve (39,558), Air National Guard (108,022), Air Force Reserve (74,358), Coast
Guard Reserve (8,000).1 Between FY2001 and FY2010, the largest shifts in authorized end-
strength have occurred in the Army National Guard (+7,674 or +2%), Coast Guard Reserve
(+2,000 or +25%), Air Force Reserve (-4,858 or -7%), and Navy Reserve (-23,400 or -26%). A
smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (-1,322 or -1.2%), while the authorized end-
strength of the Army Reserve (-300 or -0.15%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (+42 or +0.11%)
have been nearly unchanged during this period.
House-passed
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 411 authorizes the following
end-strengths for the Selected
Reserves:
Army National Guard: 358,200
Army Reserve: 205,000
Navy Reserve: 65,500
Marine Corps Reserve: 39,600
Air National Guard: 106,700
Air Force Reserve: 71,200
Coast Guard Reserve: 10,000
Discussion: The House-passed end-strengths for FY2011 are identical to the FY2010 authorized
end-strengths, with the exception of the Air Force Reserve. The Air Force Reserve’s authorized
end-strength in FY2010 was 69,500, but the administration requested an increase to 71,200
(+1,700), noting that “The Fiscal Year 2011 end strength amount includes the increase associated
with the Department of Defense decision to halt the drawdown of active duty Air Force end
strength at 330,000 personnel.”2
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
1 P.L. 106-398, sec. 411.
2 Air Force Reserve, Air Force Reserve Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Washington, DC, February 2010,
p. 7, at http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100127-158.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2011 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 FY2011 President’s Budget request for a 1.4% military pay raise was consistent
with this formula. However, Congress, in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010 approved
the pay raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5%. The FY2007 pay raise was equal to the ECI.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 601 supports a 1.9% (0.5%
above the President’s Budget)
across-the-board pay raise that
would be effective January 1,
2011.
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 $377
million in FY2011 and $2.5 billion over the FY2011-FY2015 period.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp,
page 6 and CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Don J. Jansen. See also CRS Report RL33446, Military
Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS POC: Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Increases in Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Special
Pay and Family Separation Allowance
Background: Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger Pay (HP/IDP)3 is a special pay that is paid to
servicemembers who are exposed to hostile fire or the explosion of hostile mines (such as
Improvised Explosive Devices or IEDs); serve in an area where other servicemembers were
subject to such hazards; killed, wounded, or injured by any hostile action; or on duty in a foreign
area where the servicemember was in imminent danger due to insurrection, civil war, terrorism,
or war. This pay was temporarily increased from $100 to $225/month by the FY2004 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and this increase was then made permanent by the FY2005
NDAA.
The Family Separation Allowance (FSA)4 is paid to servicemembers with dependents when the
servicemember is deployed to a dependent-restricted area, on board ship for more than 30 days or
when the member is on temporary duty (TDY) for more than 30 days. This allowance was
temporarily increased from $100 to $250/month by the FY2004 NDAA and then made permanent
by the FY2005 NDAA.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 618 increases Hostile
Fire/Imminent Danger Pay from
$225/month to $260/month (an
increase of $35/month) effective
October 1, 2010.
Section 604 increases Family
Separation Allowance from
$250/month to $285/month (also
an increase of $35/month), and
also effective October 1, 2010.
Discussion: Increasing these two types of pay is intended to compensate for the perceived erosion
in compensation due to inflation since the last increase. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates that the increase to the Family Separation Allowance will cost $288 million over the
FY2011-FY2015 period and the increase to the Hostile Fire Pay will cost $188 million over the
same period.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel,
Compensation, and Force Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles A. Henning.
CRS POC: Charles Henning, x7-8866.
3 37 U.S.C. 310.
4 37 U.S.C. 427.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Ineligibility of Certain Federal Civilian Employees
for Reservist Income Replacement Payments
Background: The 109th Congress enacted a provision, codified at 37 U.S.C. §910, that provides a
special payment of up to $3,000 to reservists who experience income loss due to frequent or
extended involuntary mobilizations.5 Subsequently, the first session of the111th Congress enacted
a provision, codified at 5 U.S.C. §5538, to minimize the income loss of civilian employees of the
federal government who are involuntarily ordered to active duty or involuntarily retained on
active duty.6 It does so by providing “differential pay” – a payment equal to the amount by which
a reservist’s military pay and allowances are lower than his or her civilian basic pay. This latter
provision only applies to federal government employees, but it is not limited to cases of extended
or frequent activations like the earlier provision.
House-passed
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 607 amends 37 U.S.C. §910
to specify that members of the
reserve components who are eligible
for payments under 5 U.S.C. §5538,
or similar administratively established
programs, are not eligible for
compensation under 37 U.S.C. §910.
Discussion: Section 607 would prevent civilian employees of the federal government from
claiming benefits under 37 U.S.C. §910 if they are eligible for “pay differential” benefits under
5 U.S.C. 5538 or a similar program.
Reference(s): 37 U.S.C. §910, “Replacement of lost income: involuntarily mobilized reserve
component members subject to extended and frequent active duty service.”
5 U.S.C. 5538, “Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or National Guard.”
Office of Personnel Management, Reservist Differential Agency Implementation Guidance,
available at http://www.opm.gov/reservist/ReservistDiffImplementationGuidance.pdf.
CRS POC: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
5 P.L. 109-163, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006, section 614, January 6, 2006. Under this provision,
Reservists who have experienced income loss become eligible for these payments in any full month of active duty
following the month in which they: (a) complete 18 consecutive months of active duty under an involuntary
mobilization order; (b) complete 24 months of active duty under an involuntary mobilization order out of the previous
60 months; or (c) are involuntarily mobilized for a period of 180 days or more within six months or less of a previous
period of involuntary active duty for a period of 180 days or more.
6 P.L. 111-8, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, section 751, March 11, 2009; amended by P.L. 111-117,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, section 745, December 16, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Modification
Background:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) established the
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, “a national combat veteran reintegration program to
provide National Guard and Reserve members and their families with sufficient information,
services, referral, and proactive outreach opportunities throughout the entire deployment cycle.”7
Yellow Ribbon events may include information, services, referral and outreach related to
marriage counseling, suicide prevention, mental health awareness and treatment, post-traumatic
stress disorder, financial counseling, veterans’ benefits, employment workshops, and other topics.
House-passed
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 584 makes several
modifications to the Yel ow Ribbon
Reintegration Program, including (1)
authorizing military service and state-
based programs to offer “curriculum,
training, and support for services to
members and families from all
components,” (2) requiring the
Center for Excel ence in
Reintegration to develop a process
for evaluating the effectiveness of the
Yellow Ribbon program, (3) adding
“providing information on
employment opportunities” as a
focus area for post-deployment
activities, and (4) adding “resiliency
training” as an authorized type of
outreach service.
Discussion: The House provision makes several changes to the Yellow Ribbon program in order
to broaden access to the program, enhance its effectiveness, and refine its scope.
Reference(s): The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program website is
http://www.yellowribbon.mil/index.html. Directive Type Memorandum 08-029
“Implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program” is available at
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/DTM-08-029.pdf .
CRS POC: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 or Don Jansen at x7-4769.
7 Section 582 of P.L. 110-181 as amended by section 595 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 (P.L. 110-84), 10 U.S.C. 10101 note.
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
TRICARE Cost-Share
Background: The law authorizing the TRICARE program includes provisions requiring program
beneficiaries to share in the cost of their health care. However, legislative measures to prevent
increases in some of these cost-share provisions have regularly been enacted. Section 1086(b)(3)
of title 10, United States Code, requires a copayment rate of 25% of the cost of inpatient care for
retirees, “except that in no case may the charges for inpatient care for a patient exceed $535 per
day during the period beginning on April 1, 2006, and ending on September 30, 2010.” Section
1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, authorizes charges for retirees and certain other
beneficiaries in TRICARE Prime for pharmaceutical agents available through retail. In the
absence of legislation prohibiting increases, DOD can increase these cost shares. For example,
when the previous prohibition on inpatient copayments under TRICARE Standard expired on
September 30, 2009, DOD announced that the per diem rate would be increase to a rate equal to
25% of the cost of inpatient care. This would have increased the inpatient cost share for retirees
younger than 65 and their family members to $645 a day, or 25% of total hospital charges,
whichever was less. However, subsequent enactment of section 709 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84), which extended the prohibition until
September 30, 2010, prevented the announced inpatient care copayment increase under
TRICARE Standard from taking place.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Sections 701 and 705 would
prohibit increases in TRICARE
beneficiaries’ cost sharing in
2011.
Discussion: Sections 701 and 705 of the House-passed bill would prohibit DOD from increasing
any fees or copayments under the TRICARE Standard, Extra, and Prime plans during FY2011.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Unified Medical Command
Background: Under the military health system’s current command structure, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) is responsible for executing the overall military health care
mission and exercises authority, direction, and control over the medical personnel, facilities,
funding, and other resources within DOD. The military health system delivers care through
military hospitals and clinics, commonly referred to as military treatment facilities (MTFs) as
well as civilian providers. MTFs comprise DOD’s direct care system for providing health care to
beneficiaries. Each military service, under its surgeon general, is responsible for managing its
MTFs. Each service, other than the Marine Corps, also programs and deploys its own medical
personnel. The service surgeons general report upward through the service chain of command to
their respective service secretaries. The TRICARE Management Activity, under the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), is responsible for awarding, administering, and overseeing
contracts for civilian managed care support contractors to develop networks of civilian primary
and specialty care providers to augment the MTFs. Some observers believe that this command
structure is fragmented and would be improved by unifying the command elements of the military
health system in a “Unified Medical Command.”
There is a long history of debate and analysis of the concept of a Unified Medical Command
(UMC). This debate is summarized in chapter 12 of the December 2007 Final Report of the Task
Force on the Future of Military Health Care.8 Typically, plans for a unified medical command
would have each service’s medical component report to a departmental medical command outside
of the service rather than to the service secretary, and the medical command would report directly
to the Secretary of Defense. According to the Task Force report, proponents of a unified medical
command say potential benefits include elimination of command fragmentation, a single point of
accountability, increased integration for all elements of the medical command and control, better
integrated health care delivery, enhanced peacetime effectiveness and ability to quickly transition
to a rapidly deployable and flexible medical capability in a war scenario. Opponents say that the
“unified” objectives are unclear; that execution of service specific doctrine and inculcation of
service culture among medical personnel might be weakened under a “unified” command; and
that service accountability for the health and welfare of forces would be better maintained
through direct control.
Congress has previously tasked DOD with examining various unified medical command options
in the past. The Government Accountability Office, however, reviewed DOD’s most recent efforts
and found that DOD did not perform a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all potential
options and did not provide any evidence of analysis to justify its decisions. 9
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 903 would establish a
unified medical command within
DOD.
8 Department of Defense, pages 113-116 and Appendix E , available at http://www.health.mil/dhb/downloads/103-06-
2-Home-Task_Force_FINAL_REPORT_122007.pdf
9 GAO. Defense Health Care: DOD needs to Address the Expected Benefits, Costs and Risks for Its Newly Approved
Medical Command Structure. GAO-088-122 p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Discussion: Section 903 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a unified medical
command to provide medical services to the armed forces and other DOD health care
beneficiaries. This section also would require the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan to
establish a unified medical command. The Obama Administration’s statement of administration
policy on H.R. 5136 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets
/sap_111/saphr5136h_20100527.pdf) strongly opposes section 903:
The Administration strongly objects to the provision in the bill to authorize the President to
create a new military medical command. The proposed delegation of responsibilities to a
unified medical command would render hollow the role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) to serve as the principal Departmental official for health and
medical matters. The imposition of additional organizational structure with the attendant
personnel and operational costs it would require could directly conflict with the effort by the
Administration to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic layers, headquarters and defense
organizations.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
TRICARE Coverage to Age 26
Background: In general, eligibility for TRICARE is lost when either a dependent child turns 23
(if enrolled in an accredited school as a full-time student) or 21 if not enrolled. Section 1001 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148, PPACA) amends Part A of Title
XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to add a new Section 2714 specifying that a
group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance
coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage
available until the dependent child turns 26 years of age. However, the provisions of title XXVII
of the PHSA do not appear to apply to TRICARE.
House-passed
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 702 would extend
TRICARE coverage of
dependent children until age 26.
Discussion: Section 702 would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to allow
TRICARE beneficiaries to extend health care coverage to dependent children up to age 26 so that
TRICARE beneficiaries would have the same ability to extend coverage to dependent children
afforded to others as a result of the PPACA.
Reference(s): CRS Report R41198, TRICARE and VA Health Care: Impact of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), by Sidath Viranga Panangala and Don J. Jansen.
CRS POC: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Space Available Care for Grey-Area Retirees
Background: Under current law, reserve component members who have retired with 20 or more
years of qualifying service but have not yet reached the age of 60 (so called “grey-area” retirees),
are not eligible for space-available care at military treatment facilities. This has traditionally been
the policy because the individuals in this category were “working-age” and were assumed to be
able to obtain health from other providers. Last year, however, TRICARE Standard coverage was
made available to gray area reservists by section 705, “TRICARE Standard coverage for certain
members of the Retired Reserve who are qualified for a non-regular retirement but are not yet age
60” of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84). Upon
implementation, expected later this year, grey-area retirees will be able to purchase TRICARE
Standard coverage for an unsubsidized premium, which will enable the individual to access
private sector care.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 643 would make care at
military treatment facilities
available to grey-area retirees
who are less than 60 years of
age.
Discussion: Section 643 would amend 10 U.S.C. §1074 to eliminate the restriction on space-
available care at military treatment facilities for retired reservists. The section does not require the
purchase of the pending TRICARE Standard insurance for grey-area retirees to receive the space
available-care. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that section 643 would require
appropriations of $125 million over the FY2011–FY2015 period.
Reference(s): Reserve retirement is discussed in CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component
Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POC: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Background: On November 30, 1993, Congress enacted P.L. 103-160, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. Section 571 of the law, codified at 10 United States Code
654, describes homosexuality in the ranks as an “unacceptable risk ... to morale, good order, and
discipline.” The law states the grounds for discharge as follows: (1) the member has engaged in,
attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; (2) the member
states that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual; or (3) the member has married or attempted to
marry someone of the same sex. The law also stated that DOD would brief new entrants
(accessions) and members about the law and policy on a regular basis. Finally, legislative
language instructed that asking questions of new recruits concerning sexuality could be
resumed—having been halted in January, 1993—on a discretionary basis. As such, this law
represented a discretionary “don't ask, definitely don't tell” policy. Notably, the law contains no
mention of “orientation.” In many ways, this law contained a reiteration of the basic thrust of the
pre-1993 policy. As implemented by the Clinton Administration, new recruits would not be asked
about their sexuality. The policy became known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
On May 27, 2010, an amendment
(H.Amdt. 672) was passed that
would repeal DADT after receipt
of recommendations from the
Comprehensive Review Working
Group on how to implement such
a repeal, after certification by the
Sec. of Defense that such a repeal
would not adversely affect
readiness, effectiveness, cohesion
and recruiting, and after DOD has
prepared the necessary policies
and regulations for such a repeal.
Following the certification, there
would be a 60-day waiting period
before the repeal was to take
effect.
Discussion: This language affords the DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group an
opportunity to review current policy and make recommendations. The Group’s deadline is
December 1, 2010. The Administration is supporting repeal and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates has
already testified that he also supports repeal.
Reference(s): See CRS Report R40782, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:” The Law and Military Policy on
Same-Sex Behavior, by David F. Burrelli, and CRS Report R40795, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: A
Legal Analysis, by Jody Feder.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Rethinking Women’s Roles in Combat: DOD’s
Review of Military Occupational Specialties For
Female Members
Background: There are no laws concerning the recruitment, training and deployment of women
in the Armed Forces. The last law barring women from serving on board combat ships was
repealed in 1993. Under then-DOD policy (labeled the “risk rule”), women were excluded from
all combat units, non-combat units and missions if the risk of exposure to direct combat, hostile
fire, or capture was equal to or greater than the combat units they supported. In 1994, the risk rule
was replaced by a new policy which excludes women if the following three criteria are all met.
Women may not serve in units that (1) engage an enemy on the ground with weapons, (2) are
exposed to hostile fire, and (3) have a high probability of direct physical contact with personnel
of a hostile force. In Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, female troops
have been deployed at check points searching other females for weapons and bombs, and have
been forward deployed in support of combat units and patrols. Women have been attacked, taken
prisoner, and, in some cases, killed by the enemy. The non-linear battlefield and insurgent nature
of these operations makes it extremely difficult to determine safe or hostile areas.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 534 recognizes the
important role women have
played in every war and Congress
honors those who have served
and are serving as members of the
Armed Forces. This section also
directs the Secretary of Defense
to review military occupations
available to women, the
collocation policy and other
policies/regulations to determine
whether changes are needed to
enhance the ability of women to
serve. The results of this review
are due no later than February 1,
2011.
Discussion: Although most observers believe that the service of women in the armed forces has
been commendable, there have been complaints that DOD is violating the spirit of its existing
rules by collocating women with forward units or deploying them in situations that put them in
direct contact with the enemy. Some have argued that women have proven themselves and that
such restrictions should be removed.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for
Parents who are Members of the Armed Forces
Deployed in Support of a Contingency Operation
Background: Since the end of the draft in the early 1970s, the number of women in the military,
the number of military families, the number of divorces, and the frequency of overseas
deployment, especially to combat theaters, have all increased. What has also increased is the
number of single military parents with custody of a child or children. Some observers believe that
custody issues should be held in abeyance while servicemembers are deployed, except in
instances where the best interests of the child requires a court order.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 544 amends the Service
Members Civil Relief Act by
adding language that (1) prevents
a court from permanently altering
a custody order while a member
is deployed unless evidence shows
that a temporary order is in the
best interest of the child, (2)
requires a pre-deployment
custody order to be reinstated
when a service member returns;
again, unless such a change can be
shown to be not in the best
interest of the child, and (3)
prohibits courts from considering
the possibility of deployments
when determining the best
interest of the child.
Discussion: This provision’s objective is to protect the best interest of the child while assuring
the military personnel who face the possibility of or actual deployment are not subjected to
adverse or prejudicial court orders concerning child custody during the time they are deployed.
Reference: None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic
Violence Programs
Background: As part of the National Defense Authorization Act of FY2000, Congress required
DOD to “(1) establish a central database of information on domestic violence incidents involving
members of the armed forces and (2) establish the Department of Defense Task Force on
Domestic Violence. The law charged the task force with establishing a strategic plan that would
allow DOD to more effectively address domestic violence matters within the military.”10 The task
force submitted three reports with over 200 recommendations during the 2001 to 2003 timeframe.
In 2003, DOD created the Family Violence Policy Office to oversee the services in implementing
the recommendations. In 2006, GAO reviewed DOD progress in this area and determined that
DOD had taken action on most of the task force’s recommendations but did not have accurate or
complete data from all law enforcement and clinical records. GAO made a number of
recommendations, among them to get better data, to develop an oversight framework and to
develop a plan to ensure adequate personnel are available. In 2010, GAO stated “DOD has
addressed one of the recommendations in our 2006 report to improve its domestic violence
program and taken steps toward implementing two more, but has not taken any actions on four of
the recommendations.”11
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 545 requires the Sec. of
Defense to implement the
recommendations contained in
the 2006 GAO report.
Discussion: According to GAO, the services are not providing accurate and complete data. GAO
notes in its 2010 report that DOD does not have a plan to ensure that adequate personnel are
available to implement the recommendations of the task force. In one instance, DOD did not
concur with GAO’s recommendation of collecting chaplain training data, taking issue, in part,
based on the principle of privileged communication. In addition, GAO recommends that DOD
develop an oversight framework for implementation of the recommendations made by the task
force.
Reference(s): See language on “Protective Orders,” CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National
Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence
Kapp.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
10 GAO-10-577R, Implementation of GAO’s Recommendations on DOD’s Domestic Violence Program, p. 1, April
26, 2010.
11 Ibid.,. p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Award of the Vietnam Service Medal To Veterans
Who Participated in the Mayaguez Rescue
Operation
Background: On May 12, 1975, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (approximately two weeks
after the fall of Saigon), a U.S. merchant ship, S.S. Mayaguez, was seized by the Khmer Rouge
Navy. Thirty-nine sailors were captured and taken to the island of Koh Tang. The U.S. mounted a
rescue operation on May 15. By most accounts, the result was deemed a failure with four U.S.
helicopters shot down or disabled, and 41 Marines killed. The number killed outnumbered the
number of sailors captured by the Khmer Rouge. Shortly after the rescue attempt, all 39 U.S.
sailors were released.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 575 states “The Secretary
of the military department
concerned shall, upon application
of an individual who is an eligible
veteran (as defined), award that
individual the Vietnam Service
Medal, notwithstanding any
otherwise application
requirements for the award of
that medal. Any such award shall
be made in lieu of any Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal
awarded the individual for the
individual’s participation in the
Mayaguez rescue operation."
Discussion: This language would authorize the Vietnam Service Medal for participants in the
Mayaguez rescue. It is not clear what other benefits, if any, would accrue from recognizing these
individuals in this manner.
Reference(s): See CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Pilot Program of Personalized Career Development
Counseling for Military Spouses
Background: Military families are relocated quite frequently during a military career. Non-
military spouses seeking employment at a new duty location are often frustrated because many of
the skills they have may not be transferable to a new location. Often, new work skills must be
learned. It has been reported that local employers prefer a more stable workforce with less
turnover and less training needed. In 2008, Congress expanded training opportunities (10 USC
1784a) for military spouses by enacting “Education and Training Opportunities for Military
Spouses to Expand Employment and Portable Career Opportunities,” a program that assists
spouses to receive training and/or educational opportunities, including possible tuition assistance.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 583 establishes a 3-year
pilot program for 75 to 150 active
duty spouses to provide career
development counseling
consideration of incentivized
careers in “critical civilian
specialties” such as mental health,
social work, family welfare, etc.
Discussion: The proposed pilot program would further expand the existing program (10 U.S.C.
§1784a) by assisting and encouraging a limited number of military spouses to receive education
and training in portable counseling skills particularly in the areas of social services.
Reference(s): See CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Establishment of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training
Corps Units for Students Above Sixth Grade
Background: The Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps or JROTC was established by the
National Defense Act of 1916. According to Title 10 U.S.C. §2031, the purpose of JROTC is “to
instill in students in United States secondary educational institutions the value of citizenship,
service to the United States, and personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment.” Under
current law, JROTC is offered only to those above the eighth grade level.
House-passed Senate-passed
Conference
Committee
Section 591 expands the
establishment of JROTC to those
above the sixth grade. The service
secretaries are directed to
conduct a review of this
expansion.
Discussion: Currently, hundreds of thousands of high school students participate in JROTC.
Allowing those in 7th and 8th grades to participate could lead to a significant expansion of the
program. Schools that have JROTC units are generally supportive of the program but it does have
detractors because some parents object to the perceived “militarization” of youth.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Author Contact Information
Charles A. Henning, Coordinator
Don J. Jansen
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
chenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-8866
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
David F. Burrelli
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
Congressional Research Service
20