FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Issues
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Katherine Blakeley
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Lucy P. Martinez
Research Associate
Catherine A. Theohary
Specialist in National Security Policy and Information Operations
August 19, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43184
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress
and their staffs. Ongoing operations in Afghanistan, along with the 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 version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 that will be updated upon passage of a Senate bill and then
again upon final passage. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to
personnel policy. These include end strengths, pay raises, health care, and sexual assault, as well
as less prominent issues that nonetheless generate significant public interest.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include
language concerning appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices, or any
discussion of separately introduced legislation, topics which are addressed in other CRS products.
Some issues were addressed in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in
CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary. Those issues that were considered
previously are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
*Active Duty End Strengths ............................................................................................................ 2
*Selected Reserves End Strength..................................................................................................... 4
*Military Pay Raise ......................................................................................................................... 5
Limitations on Number of General and Flag Officers on Active Duty ............................................ 6
Minimum Notification Requirements for Reserve Component Deployment or
Cancellation of Deployment ......................................................................................................... 7
Protection of Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a
Religious Service According to the Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of
the Endorsing Faith Group............................................................................................................ 9
*Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who Are Members of the Armed
Forces.......................................................................................................................................... 10
*Treatment of Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and
at Fort Hood, Texas ..................................................................................................................... 11
*Sexual Assault and the Military ................................................................................................... 12
Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System ................................................................ 16
Report on Data and Information Collected in Connection with Department of Defense
Review of Laws, Policies, and Regulations Restricting Service of Female Members of
the Armed Forces, And, Sense of Congress Regarding the Women in Service
Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................... 17
Health and Welfare Inspections, And, Review of Security of Military Installations,
Including Barracks and Multi-Family Residences...................................................................... 18
Sense of Congress Regarding Preservation of Second Amendment Rights of Active Duty
Military Personnel Stationed or Residing in the District of Columbia ....................................... 19
Enhancement of Mechanisms to Correlate Skills and Training for Military Occupational
Specialties with Skills and Training Required for Civilian Certifications and Licenses ............ 20
Transitional Compensation and Other Benefits for Dependents of Certain Members
Separated for Violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ............................................. 21
Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals ............................. 22
Review and Assessment of the Armed Forces Transition Assistance Program (TAP) .................. 23
Internet Access for Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Serving in
Combat Zones ............................................................................................................................. 24
Extension of the Transitional Assistance Management Program ................................................... 25
Provision of Status under Law by Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve
Components as Veterans ............................................................................................................. 26
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing ........................................................................................... 27
*Military Psychological Health ..................................................................................................... 28
*Availability of TRICARE Prime .................................................................................................. 31
Integrated Electronic Health Record Program ............................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Introduction
Each year, the House and Senate 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 requests for
information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-
related issues that seem likely to generate high levels of congressional and constituent interest,
and tracks their status in the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA.
The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, H.R. 1960
(113th Congress), was introduced in the House on May 14, 2013; reported by the House
Committee on Armed Services on June 7, 2013 (H.Rept. 113-102); and passed by the House on
June 14, 2013. The entries under the heading “House” in the tables on the following pages are
based on language in this bill, unless otherwise indicated.
The Senate version, S. 1197 (113th Congress), was introduced in the Senate on June 20, 2013, and
reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services (S.Rept. 113-44) on the same day. This
report will be updated to reflect Senate provisions after the Senate’s passage of the bill. Where
appropriate, related 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 FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in
CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary. Those issues that were considered
previously are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Active Duty End Strengths
Background: The authorized active duty end strengths1 for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to
the September 11th terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine
Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000). Over the next decade, in response to the demands of
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress increased the authorized personnel strength of the Army
and Marine Corps. Some of these increases were quite substantial, particularly after FY2006, but
Congress has begun reversing these increases in light of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq
in 2011 and a drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan which began in 2012. In FY2013, the
authorized end strength for the Army was 552,100, while the authorized end strength for the
Marine Corps was 197,300. The Army and the Marine Corps have proposed reducing their
personnel strengths to 490,000 and 175,000, respectively, by FY2017. End-strength for the Air
Force and Navy has decreased since 2001. The authorized end strength for FY2013 was 329,460
for the Air Force and 322,700 for the Navy.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 401 authorizes a total
FY2014 active duty end strength of
1,361,400 including:
520,000 for the Army
323,600 for the Navy
190,200 for the Marine Corps
327,600 for the Air Force
Discussion: With the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the ongoing drawdown in
Afghanistan, the House bill included major reductions in Army (-32,100) and Marine Corps (-
7,100) end strengths in comparison to their FY2013 authorized end strengths. It also slightly
reduced the end strength for the Air Force (-1,860) while slightly increasing it for the Navy
(+900). The figures in the House provision are identical to the Administration’s proposal. Taken
together, the House bill stipulates a total active duty end strength which is 40,160 lower than the
FY2013 level, almost entirely due to reductions in the size of the Army and Marine Corps.
However, both the Army and the Marine Corps will likely finish this fiscal year well below their
FY2013 authorized end strength levels. The committee report which accompanied H.R. 1960
estimated that the Army’s strength at the end of FY2013 would be 530,000 (instead of the
authorized 552,100) and the Marine Corps’ would be 193,000 (instead of the authorized 197,300);
and that therefore the actual total strength reductions in FY2014 would be around 15,000.2
1 The term "end strength" refers to the authorized strength of a specified branch of the military at the end of a given
fiscal year, while the term authorized strength means "the largest number of members authorized to be in an armed
force, a component, a branch, a grade, or any other category of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. 101(b)(11)). As such, end
strengths are maximum strength levels. Congress also sets minimum strength levels for the active component, which
may be identical to or lower than the end strength.
2 H.Rept. 113-102, p. 136.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A.
Theohary, and similar reports from earlier years. See also CRS Report RL32965, Recruiting and
Retention: An Overview of FY2011 and FY2012 Results for Active and Reserve Component
Enlisted Personnel, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Selected Reserves End Strength
Background: Although the Reserves have been used extensively in support of operations since
September 11, 2001, the overall authorized end strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by
about 3% over the past 12 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 850,880 in FY2013). 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), and Coast Guard
Reserve (8,000).3 Between FY2001 and FY2013, the largest shifts in authorized end strength
occurred in the Army National Guard (+7,674 or +2.2%), Coast Guard Reserve (+1,000 or
+12.5%), Air Force Reserve (-3,478 or -4.7%), and Navy Reserve (-26,400 or -29.7%). A smaller
change occurred in the Air National Guard (-2,322 or -2.1%), while the authorized end strengths
of the Army Reserve (-300 or -0.15%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (+42 or +0.11%) have been
largely unchanged during this period.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 411 authorizes the fol owing
end strengths for the Selected
Reserves:
Army National Guard: 354,200
Army Reserve: 205,000
Navy Reserve: 59,100
Marine Corps Reserve: 39,600
Air National Guard: 105,400
Air Force Reserve: 70,400
Coast Guard Reserve: 9,000
Discussion: In the House bill, the authorized Selected Reserve end strengths for FY2014 are the
same as those for FY2013 for the Army Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard
Reserve. The Navy Reserve’s authorized end strength was 62,500 in FY2013, but the
Administration requested a decrease to 59,100 (-3,400) which the House approved. The Army
National Guard’s authorized end strength in FY2013 was 358,200; the Administration requested a
decrease to 354,200 (-4,000) which the House also approved. The Air National Guard’s end
strength in FY2013 was 105,700 and the Air Force Reserve’s was 70,880. The Administration
proposed reducing these slightly to 105,400 (-300) and 70,400 (-480), respectively, and the House
agreed.4
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
3 P.L. 106-398, §411.
4 In the FY2013 NDAA, Congress rejected the Administration’s proposal to reduce the size of the Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve more substantially in accordance with its plans to divest, transfer or retire certain aircraft from
Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units. These proposals were quite controversial and Congress largely
rejected them, ultimately authorizing only a small reduction in end strength for the Air National Guard (from 106,700
to 105,700) and the Air Force Reserve (from 71,400 to 70,880).
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Military Pay Raise
Background: Increasing concern with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with
ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, has continued to focus interest on the military pay
raise. Section 1009 of Title 37 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual increase in
basic pay that is indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The
increase in basic pay for 2014 under this statutory formula will be 1.8% unless Congress passes a
law to provide otherwise. The FY2014 President’s Budget requested a 1.0% military pay raise,
lower than the statutory formula. According to the Department of Defense, this smaller increase
would save “$540 million in FY 2014 and nearly $3.5 billion through FY 2018.”5
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
No provision
Discussion: The House bill contains no provision to specify the rate of increase in basic pay,
thereby leaving in place the statutory pay raise formula specified in 37 U.S.C. 1009, which
equates to an increase of 1.8% on January 1, 2014.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A.
Theohary. See also CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and
Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
5 United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Overview, p. 5-2, available at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Limitations on Number of General and Flag
Officers on Active Duty
Background: Congress sets limits on the number of general officers (officers in paygrades 0-7
through 0-10 in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and flag officers (officers in paygrades
0-7 through 0-10 in the Navy) on active duty. As specified in 10 U.S.C. 526, the number of
general and flag officers on active duty may not exceed the following as of October 1, 2013: 231
for the Army, 162 for the Navy, 198 for the Air Force, and 61 for the Marine Corps.6 In addition
to these service-specific positions, the Secretary of Defense may designate up to 310 general and
flag officers for joint duty positions; unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, at
least 85 of these officers for these joint duty positions shall be Army officers, 61 from the Navy,
73 from the Air Force, and 21 from the Marine Corps. These figures do not include most reserve
general/flag officers.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 501 would reduce the
number of service-specific general
and flag officers to 226 for the Army,
157 for the Navy, and 193 for the
Air Force as of October 1, 2014. It
would also reduce the maximum
number of joint duty positions for
general and flag officers to 300 as of
that date; and within the joint
allocation, it would reduce minimum
positions by service to 81 for the
Army, 59 for the Navy, 70 for the
Air Force, and 20 for the Marine
Corps.
Discussion: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a substantial expansion in the size of the
Army and Marine Corps and in general and flag officer authorizations. In 2001, there were 889
general and flag officers on active duty; 10 years later there were 971 (though DOD projects this
figure to drop over the next few years). With the end of the war in Iraq, the ongoing drawdown in
Afghanistan, and the substantial reductions in Army and Marine Corps strength that is underway,
there has been growing interest in Congress to reduce the number of generals and admirals in the
Armed Forces. Section 501 of the House bill would reduce current authorizations for general and
flag officers on active duty from 962 (effective October 1, 2013) to 937 (effective October 1,
2014).
Reference(s): For historical background on general and flag officer authorizations, see Library of
Congress, Federal Research Division, “General and Flag Officer Authorizations for the Active
and Reserve Components: a Comparative and Historical Analysis,” 2007.7
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
6 See prospective changes made by §502 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81), as amended
by §501 of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-239).
7 Available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/CNGR_General-Flag-Officer-Authorizations.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Minimum Notification Requirements for Reserve
Component Deployment or Cancellation of
Deployment
Background: Section 515 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181)
required the Secretaries of the military departments to provide advance notice to reservists who
were going to be ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation for more than 30
days. The provision also specified that “[i]n so far as is practicable, the notice shall be provided
not less than 30 days before the mobilization date, but with a goal of 90 days before the
mobilization date of a pending activation.” The Secretary of Defense was granted fairly broad
authority to waive or reduce this requirement, but has to submit a report to Congress detailing the
reasons for the waiver or the reduction in certain circumstances. DOD policy, as contained in
DOD Instruction 1235.12, provides that mobilization orders are normally to be approved 180
days before mobilization, but allows the Secretaries of the military departments to approve
“individual mobilization orders for emergent requirements and special capabilities provided that
no less than 30 days’ notification has been given....” The policy also acknowledges that “[i]n
crisis situations, some RC forces may be required immediately” and allows the Secretary of
Defense to approve mobilizations with less than 30 days between mobilization order approval and
the mobilization date. DOD policy also specifies that in the event of changes to operational
requirements that alter the need for already notified reservists “DoD Components will seek other
missions for all RC units and members identified for mobilization” and “[t]he Military Services
will identify and make efforts to mitigate individual hardships for RC units and members who
have mobilized or are within 90 days of mobilization.” Under DOD policy, reservists who wish to
volunteer for duty in support of a contingency operation are able to waive the 30-day notification
requirement of P.L. 110-181.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 511 would amend Section
12301 of Title 10 to require the
Service Secretaries to provide at
least 120 days of notice to reserve
units or individual reservists if they
will be “ordered to active duty for
deployment in connection with a
contingency operation” or, after
being notified of such a deployment,
the deployment is “canceled,
postponed, or otherwise altered.” If
the Service Secretary fails to provide
such notification, he or she must
submit a report to the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees
explaining the reasons for the failure
and providing the names of units and
individuals affected.
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Discussion: Although DOD policy provides for reserve notification prior to mobilization, there
have been complaints when the shorter notification limits have been invoked. More recently,
there was dissatisfaction when the Army elected to use active duty units to replace four Army
National Guard units that had already been notified of mobilization in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara and the Multinational Force Observer Task Force Sinai.8 The
House provision seeks to provide greater advance notice to reservists, but the Service Secretaries
would still have the option of providing less than 120 days of notice coupled with a report to
Congress justifying the decision. Reservists who wish to volunteer for active duty in support of a
contingency operation may object if they are required to wait 120 days before their duty begins.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
8 See “Army announces the off-ramp of reserve component units for fiscal year 2013,” available here:
http://www.army.mil/article/99155/
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Protection of Religious Freedom of Military
Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious
Service According to the Traditions, Expressions,
and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith
Group
Background: The Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution is meant to protect individual
religious exercise and requires a heightened standard of review for government actions that may
interfere with a person’s free exercise of religion. However, the Establishment Clause is meant to
stop the government from endorsing a national religion, favoring one religion over another.
Actions taken must be carefully balanced to avoid being in violation of one of these Clauses.
There are already sections in Title 10 under the Army, Navy, and Air Force that address chaplains’
duties. This provision would amend these sections (§§3547, 6031, and 8547).
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 529 would specify that if a
chaplain is called upon to lead a
prayer outside of a religious service,
they would have the prerogative to
close the prayer according to the
traditions, expressions, and religious
exercises of the endorsing faith
group.
Discussion: DOD Instruction 1300.17 acts to accommodate religious practices in the military
services. This instruction indicates that DOD places a high value on the rights of military
personnel to practice their respective religions. There have been instances where military
personnel have become upset because the chaplain closed the prayer at a mandatory ceremony,
such as a deployment ceremony, with a specific religious remark, such as “praise be Jesus.” In
February, an atheist soldier at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX, threatened the U.S. Army
with a lawsuit because a chaplain allegedly prayed to the Heavenly Father during a secular event.
However, no personnel are required to recognize the prayer, or participate in it (for example, they
do not have to respond). Religious proselytizing is considered by some to be a prominent issue in
the Armed Forces. Some believe it could destroy the bonds that keep soldiers together, which
could be viewed as a national security threat. The ability for a chaplain to be able to close a
prayer outside of a religious service may heighten the tension between soldiers and may worsen
the problem.
Reference(s): CRS Report R41171, Military Personnel and Freedom of Religion: Selected Legal
Issues, by R. Chuck Mason and Cynthia Brougher.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for
Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces
Background: Military members who are single parents are subjected to the same assignment and
deployment requirements as other servicemembers. Deployments to areas that do not allow
dependents (such as aboard ships or in hostile fire zones) require the servicemember to have
contingency plans to provide for their dependents, usually a temporary custody arrangement.
Difficulties with child custody could in some cases potentially affect the welfare of military
children as well as servicemembers’ ability to effectively serve their country. (See U.S.
Department of Defense, Instruction No. 1342.19, “Family Care Plans,” May 7, 2010.) Concerns
have been raised that the possibility or actuality of military deployments may encourage courts to
deny custodial rights of a servicemember in favor of a former spouse or others. Also, concerns
have been raised that custody changes may occur while the military member is deployed and
unable to attend court proceedings.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 564 amends the Service
Members Civil Relief Act to require
courts to render temporary custody
orders based on deployments and to
reinstate the servicemember as
custodian unless the court
determines that reinstatement is not
in the child’s best interest. This
language prohibits courts from using
a deployment, or the possibility of a
deployment, in determining the
child’s best interest. In cases where a
state provides a higher standard of
protection of the rights of the
servicemember, then the state
standards apply.
Discussion: This House language would allow courts to assign temporary custody of a child for
the purposes of deployment without allowing the (possibility of) deployment to be prejudicially
considered against the servicemember in a custody hearing.
Reference(s): CRS Report R43091, Military Parents and Child Custody: State and Federal
Issues, by David F. Burrelli and Michael A. Miller.
CRS Point of Contact: David Burrelli, 7-9483.
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Treatment of Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting
Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood,
Texas
Background: The Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces who has been (1)
wounded or killed in action against an enemy, while serving with friendly forces against a
belligerent party, resulting from a hostile foreign force, while serving as a member of a
peacekeeping force while outside the United States; or (2) killed or wounded by friendly fire
under certain circumstances. On June 9, 2009, a civilian who was angry over the killing of
Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire on two U.S. Army soldiers near a recruiting station
in Little Rock, AR. On November 5, 2009, an Army major opened fire at Ft. Hood, TX, killing 13
and wounding 29. Both the civilian and Army major were charged with murder and other crimes.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 585 requires the Secretary of
Defense to award a Purple Heart to
the military victims of these two
attacks. Categorizing this as a
combat zone also makes those
members and civilians eligible for
additional monetary benefits.
Discussion: These shootings on U.S. soil have spurred new debate on the eligibility criteria for
the Purple Heart. Some now feel that the eligibility requirements for the Purple Heart should be
modified, while others feel that the modifications would cheapen the value of the medal and
sacrifices recipients have made. Authorities considered these specific acts to be crimes and not
acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force. Because these acts involved Muslim perpetrators
angered over U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, some believe they should be viewed as acts of
war. Some are concerned that awarding the Purple Heart in these situations could have anti-
Muslim overtones.
Reference(s): CRS Report R42704, The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress, by
David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact: David Burrelli, 7-9483.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Sexual Assault and the Military
Background: Sexual assault in the military has been a continuing problem. The number of sexual
assaults reported in the most recent year (2011) represented an approximate increase of 6% over
the previous. Earlier this year, the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the topic.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 522 requires the verification
and tracking of the organizational
climate assessments mandated by
P.L. 112-239 and includes report
requirements to the HASC and
SASC.
Section 540 requires uniform training
standards to ensure that sexual
assault prevention and response and
education are uniform across DOD.
Section 547 requires commanders to
include letters of reprimand,
nonpunitive letters of action, and
counseling statements involving
substantiated cases of sexual
harassment or sexual assault in
performance evaluations of
servicemembers.
Section 541 requires the
establishment of selection
qualifications for those assigned to
be Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Managers, Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators, and Sexual
Assault Victim Advocates. Also,
trained and certified Sexual Assault
Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent
are to be assigned at the brigade
level or other unit level subject to
the discretion of the Secretary of
Defense.
Section 550 requires a review of the
Office of Diversity Management and
Equal Opportunity to identify
resource and personnel gaps in the
office, the role of the office in sexual
harassment cases, and how the office
works with the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office
(SAPRO) to address sexual assaults.
Section 548 provides enhanced
protections for prospective
members and new entrants by
defining and prescribing what
constitutes inappropriate/prohibited
relations, communications, contact
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
and conduct between such personnel
and recruiter, drill sergeants and
others who may be responsible for
such prospective or new members.
Violators wil be automatically
processed for separation in
substantiated cases. Finally, this
section requires the Secretary of
Defense to propose an amendment
to the UCMJ that addresses
violations of this policy.
Section 532 eliminates the five-year
statute of limitations for sexual
assault for offenses occurring after
enactment of this act.
Section 539 requires a review of the
investigative practices of military law
enforcement agencies, including a
review of the extent to which such
agencies recommend whether an
al egation is founded/unfounded,
recording the results of such cases,
and consider adopting the
determination of non-military law
enforcement agencies.
Sections 531, 538, and 549 address
the role of the commander. Section
531 limits the convening authority’s
discretion regarding court-martial
findings and sentence except under
certain conditions (such as wherein
the accused provided substantial
assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of another person). In
those instances where a convening
authority acts to change a finding or
a sentence, the convening authority’s
written rationale would be made
part of the record of that trial.
Section 538 requires the Secretary of
Defense to assess the current role of
commanders in the administration of
military justice and to recommend
whether further modifications of the
commanders’ roles need to be
considered. Section 549 requires an
independent panel (established under
P.L. 112-239) to assess the impact of
removing from the chain of
command the disposition authority
for charges preferred on the overall
reporting and prosecution of sexual
assault cases. Also, the independent
panel would review the findings of
the panel established by Section 439
(above), concerning the convening
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
authority’s role.
Section 546 requires the Secretary of
Defense to recommend striking the
words “the character and military
service of the accused” from the list
of factors contained in the Manual
for Courts-Martial in the section on
Initial Disposition, when applied to
sex-related offenses.
Section 535 authorizes the Secretary
of Defense to temporarily reassign
or remove from authority any
person who is alleged to have
committed a sexual assault.
Section 530A establishes a set of
rights and responsibilities for each
member and would require a formal
means for the servicemember to
acknowledge those rights and
responsibilities at certain times in a
member’s career.
Section 542 prescribes the rights of a
victim under the UCMJ similar to
those in Section 3771 of Title 18 and
directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit recommended changes
needed to carry out the section.
Section 545 requires an eight-day
incident reporting requirement
detailing the actions taken of
progress to provide the victim of
sexual assault with care and support,
in response to an unrestricted
report of sexual assault in which the
victim is a member of the military.
Sections 527 and 537 pertain to
protected communications. Section
527 expands protected
communications to include
communications with a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General
and requires the Secretary
concerned to take disciplinary action
against an individual who commits a
prohibited personnel action and to
correct the record if such occurs.
Section 537 adds rape, sexual assault,
or other sexual misconduct to
protected communications of
members of the Armed Forces with
Members of Congress or an
Inspector General.
Sections 536 and 543 pertain to
victim’s counsel. Section 536
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
provides Victims’ Counsel, who are
trained and qualified lawyers in the
Armed Forces, to be made available
to provide legal assistance to victims
of sexual assault. The independent
panel (established under P.L. 112-
239) would assess the Victims’
Counsel program and assess
whether it should be expanded to
include legal standing to represent
the victim during investigative and
military justice proceedings. A victim
could decline such assistance. Section
543 requires that if a defense
counsel, in connection with
proceedings under the UCMJ,
desires to interview a complaining
witness, such a request must be
placed through trial counsel, and
such interviews must take place in
the presence of counsel for the
witness or a Sexual Assault Victim
Advocate.
Section 544 enables a complaining
witness who has suffered harm as
the result of an offense to submit
matters prior to the convening
authority taking action on the finding
or sentence of that court-martial.
Section 534 requires the Secretary of
Defense to issue regulations to
provide for the timely consideration
of a change of station or unit transfer
of a servicemember who is a victim
of sexual assault.
Section 533 requires dismissal from
the service for officers (and certain
others) or a dishonorable discharge
for enlisted personnel (and certain
others) who are convicted of rape,
sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or an
attempt to commit those offenses,
thereby limiting the jurisdiction of
such trials to general court-martial.
Further, the independent panel
(established in P.L. 112-239) would
assess the appropriateness of these
mandatory minimum sentences and
the appropriateness of other
mandatory minimum sentences.
Section 530B requires the DOD
Inspector General to conduct a
review to identify members of the
military who, since January 1, 2002,
were separated from the service
after making an unrestricted report
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
to determine the grounds of the
separation and to determine if the
separation was in retaliation or
influenced by the unrestricted
report.
Discussion: Many believe that more can and should be done to address the issue of sexual assault
in the military. There is significant legislative activity on the issue with a number of options being
considered. These provisions detail the congressional attention to the issues of sexual assault in
the military requiring more focus on prevention, reporting, protecting alleged victims, judicial
proceedings, and addressing the needs of the victims.
Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary.
CRS Point of Contact: Catherine A. Theohary, 7-0844 or David F. Burrelli, 7-8033.
Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation
System
Background: For many in the service who were injured, particularly reservists and those
returning from overseas deployments, the disability evaluation process can take many months. In
many cases, efforts to speed up the process have resulted in longer waits.9
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 521 would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a
review of the backlog of Reserve
Component cases in the system and
report the results, including
considered improvements to the
HASC and SASC.
Discussion: Injured military personnel waiting through this evaluation process can linger for over
a year. Such waits lead to delays in the receipt of possible benefits.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
9 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Military Disability System: Improved Monitoring Needed to Better Track
and Manage Performance, GAO-12-676, 2012, p. 1, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-676.
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Report on Data and Information Collected in
Connection with Department of Defense Review of
Laws, Policies, and Regulations Restricting Service
of Female Members of the Armed Forces, And,
Sense of Congress Regarding the Women in Service
Implementation Plan
Background: In early 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted
women from serving in combat units. Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 required the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to Congress to determine if changes in laws, policies, and regulations
are needed to ensure women have an “equitable opportunity” to serve in the Armed Forces. That
report was due April 15, 2012, but has not been submitted to date.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 530C required by Section
535 of P.L.111-383 to report not
later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Section 530D states “This section
would express the sense of Congress
that no later than September 2015,
the Secretaries of the military
departments should develop, review,
and validate occupational stands in
order to assess and assign members
of the Armed Forces to units,
including Special Operations Forces,
and should complete all assessments
by January 1, 2016.
Discussion: In many ways, the report mandated by Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 has been
overtaken by events. Nevertheless, some in Congress are concerned that DOD is not taking
seriously the review of policies affecting female servicemembers. Some are concerned that the
use of the term “equitable,” used above, does not mean the same as “equal.” The service
leadership has already begun assessing the occupational requirements.
Reference(s): CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, by David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Health and Welfare Inspections, And, Review of
Security of Military Installations, Including
Barracks and Multi-Family Residences
Background: Reports of crimes committed at military facilities, including reports of sexual
assaults at Lackland Air Base and the shootings at Ft. Hood, have raised concerns over the safety
of military personnel, their families, and others serving and/or living on bases.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 564 requires each military
department to conduct monthly
health and welfare inspections to
ensure and maintain security,
readiness, good order and discipline.
Section 565 directs the Secretary of
Defense to review security measure
on installations, specifically with
regard to barracks and multi-family
housing units. Elements of the study
include identifying security gaps and
evaluating the feasibility of 24-hour
electronic security or placing guards
at points of entry to barracks and
military family housing.
Discussion: These changes are intended to increase safety and welfare at military facilities.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Sense of Congress Regarding Preservation of
Second Amendment Rights of Active Duty Military
Personnel Stationed or Residing in the District of
Columbia
Background: The District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United
States. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court held in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller
that the District’s handgun ban and certain requirements regarding the storage and carrying of
firearms for rifles and shotguns were unconstitutional. Following this decision, the District of
Columbia enacted the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act to comply with the ruling in
Heller, although some assert the new requirements place “onerous restrictions on the ability of
law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms.”
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 1099A states “Sense of
Congress that active duty military
personnel who are stationed or
residing in the District of Columbia
should be permitted to exercise fully
their rights under the Second
Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States and therefore
should be exempt from the District
of Columbia’s restrictions on the
possession of firearms.”
Discussion: Since this is “Sense of Congress,” it is non-binding. Nevertheless, it does suggest the
displeasure in Congress of the effect of the District of Columbia’s laws on gun control as they
relate to members of the Armed Forces who are stationed or reside in the District.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Enhancement of Mechanisms to Correlate Skills and
Training for Military Occupational Specialties with
Skills and Training Required for Civilian
Certifications and Licenses
Background: Military veterans may have difficulty translating their military training and skills to
jobs in the civilian market. The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was created to address this
initial hardship to provide opportunities and aids for the successful transition of retiring or
separating personnel into "career ready" civilians.
House-passed (1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 566 would require the
Secretaries of the military
departments to make information on
civilian credentialing opportunities
available to members of the Armed
Forces, including during the
transition assistance program. This
section would also require the
Secretaries of the military
departments to make available to
accredited civilian credentialing
agencies information on military
courses and skills.
Discussion: This provision would be partially integrated with TAP, providing information on
civilian credentialing opportunities and improving access of accredited civilian credentialing
agencies to military training content. This will allow personnel to evaluate the extent to which
their training correlates with the skills and training required for various civilian certifications and
licenses.
Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Transitional Compensation and Other Benefits for
Dependents of Certain Members Separated for
Violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Background: Section 1433(b)(1) of P.L. 103-160, signed into law on November 30, 1993,
provided transitional assistance to dependents of military members where the military member
was separated for dependent abuse, including compensation and commissary and exchange
benefits. This language was enacted following a report of a servicemember being tried and
convicted of abusing his family. As part of his sentence, the court ordered that he forfeit all pay
and benefits. This situation left the family stranded without the means to return home. This law
(as subsequently amended) afforded the family compensation and access to military stores.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 621 expands the availability
of these transitional benefits to the
dependents of members of the
Armed Forces who have served
twenty years (including members of
the Reserve Components) and are
therefore retirement-eligible or
retired.
Discussion: Family members suffering abuse are often afraid to report the abuse out of fear they
will lose all support if the member or retired member is convicted of a crime and has to forfeit all
pay and benefits. Such dependents may feel isolated especially if they are living far away from
friends and family at the same time. This section would expand these transitional benefits to
dependents of retirement-eligible members and encourage them to come forward and report the
abuse.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
21
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of
Military Decorations or Medals
Background: The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-437) was signed into law by President
Bush on December 20, 2006. This act broadened existing law making it a crime to falsely
represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. On June 28, 2012, the
Supreme Court ruled (United States v. Alvarez) that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional
abridgment of freedom of speech.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 581 amends Title 18, United
States Code, to “make fraudulently
claiming to be a recipient of certain
decorations or medals with the
intent to obtain money, property, or
other tangible benefits a crime.”
Discussion: This language is intended to revise the Stolen Valor Act so that it meets constitutional
standards by narrowing the category of proscribed claims to those made for the purpose of
gaining money, property, etc.
Reference(s): CRS Report 95-519, Medal of Honor: History and Issues, by David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Review and Assessment of the Armed Forces
Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
Background: The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was authorized by Congress in 1990 to
assist separating military servicemembers and their families in their transition to civilian life. The
program was designed to provide pre-separation services and counseling on various transition-
related topics such as civilian employment, relocation, education and training, health and life
insurance, finances, entrepreneurship, disability benefits, and retirement. TAP is available to
servicemembers 12 months before separation and 24 months before for those retiring. The
program is supported by interagency efforts from the Departments of Defense, Labor, Homeland
Security, Education, and Veterans Affairs; the Office of Personnel Management; and the Small
Business Administration. In 2012, TAP was redesigned as Transition Goals Plans Success, or
Transition GPS. The Transition GPS redesign was initiated by the executive branch’s Veterans’
Employment Initiative Task Force and intended to conform with the Veterans Opportunity to
Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. The VOW Act made participation in TAP mandatory
for nearly all separating military personnel and required that each TAP participant receive "an
individualized assessment of the various positions of civilian employment in the private sector for
which such member may be qualified" as a result of their military training. The core Transition
GPS was implemented in November 2012 and optional tracks are expected to take place by the
end of 2013.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 524 would amend Section
1144 of Title 10, U.S.C., adding a
clause to provide information related
to disability-related employment and
education protections. The provision
would also require instruction on the
use of veterans’ educational and
other benefits, and mandates a
feasibility study.
Discussion: Section 524 of the House bill would amend Section 1144 of Title 10, United States
Code, by adding a provision requiring the TAP to provide information regarding disability-related
employment and education protections for servicemembers. Section 524 also adds a new program
requirement to instruct participants on the use of veterans’ educational benefits, “courses of post-
secondary education appropriate for the member, courses of post-secondary education compatible
with the member’s educational goals, and instruction on how to finance the member’s post-
secondary education,” and instruction on other veterans’ benefits not later than April 1, 2015. This
section also requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, within 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this act, submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and the Committees on
Armed Services the results of a feasibility study of providing the pre-separation counseling
specified in 10 U.S.C. 1142(b) at all overseas locations where such instruction is provided by
entering into a contract jointly with the Secretary of Labor for the provision of such instruction.
Reference(s): See also CRS Report R42790, Employment for Veterans: Trends and Programs,
coordinated by Benjamin Collins.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 or Lucy P. Martinez, x7-2875.
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Internet Access for Members of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps Serving in Combat Zones
Background: According to DOD, many servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan have free
Internet access via several hundred Internet cafes located on bases. Internet access allows
servicemembers to communicate with family and friends, access personal email, and browse
websites. Service-members stationed in remote locations have more limited access to the Internet,
but the Department of Defense tries to provide some access at these locations through the
Cheetah Program, which uses Humvee mounted satellite units and laptops with webcams to
provide Internet access. The portability of this system allows servicemembers to keep in touch
with family and friends even in remote locations. However, despite these efforts, there have been
periodic complaints from servicemembers about the availability of Internet access in Afghanistan.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 569 mandates access to free
Internet for servicemembers in
combat zones.
Discussion: Section 569 of H.R. 1960 mandates that free Internet service be provided to members
of the military serving in combat zones. The section was added to H.R. 1960 by amendment #63,
which was offered by Representative Gene Green (D-TX 29) and adopted by the House.
Representative Green indicated in debate that his amendment was intended as a response to
concerns expressed by servicemembers from his district who are serving in Afghanistan.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 or Lucy P. Martinez, x7-2875.
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Extension of the Transitional Assistance
Management Program
Background: The Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP) provides 180 days of
premium-free transitional medical and dental benefits after regular TRICARE benefits end for
servicemembers and their families separating from active duty. The 180-day health care coverage
period begins the day after separation from active duty. Once eligible, servicemembers and their
families will be automatically covered under TRICARE Standard and TRICARE extra or the
TRICARE Overseas program (TOP) Standard (if overseas).
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 704 provides an additional
180 days for telemedicine treatment
coverage. It also includes an
extension of the Transitional
Assistance Management Program for
mental health care and behavioral
services. The period of extension
shall be determined by professional
treating covered individual.
Discussion: The extension of the Transitional Assistance Management Program includes an
additional 180 days for medical treatment provided through telemedicine to servicemembers.
“Telemedicine” has been defined as “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to
another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status. Telemedicine
includes a growing variety of applications and services using two-way video, email, smart
phones, wireless tools and other forms of telecommunications technology.”10 This section is
intended to help ensure a more seamless transition for servicemembers from military to civilian
life, particularly those who may endure mental or physical injuries. This section also includes an
extension authorized by the Secretary of Defense for mental health care and behavioral services
covered under TAMP for a period of time determined necessary by the individual’s health care
professional. The provision states that the requirement to carry out this mandate would terminate
on December 31, 2018, if suicide rates are 50% less than rates of December 31, 2012.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769 or Lucy P. Martinez, x7-2875.
10 American Telemedicine Association, “What is Telemedicine,” at http://www.americantelemed.org/learn.
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Provision of Status under Law by Honoring Certain
Members of the Reserve Components as Veterans
Background: Under Section 101 of Title 38, United States Code., a veteran is defined as “a
person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released
therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.” “Active military, naval or air service” does
not include active duty for training (ADT) or inactive duty training (IDT) unless the individual
was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. Thus,
reservists who are ordered to active duty during the course of their careers—for example, a
deployment to Afghanistan—or who were disabled or died while on ADT or IDT, are considered
veterans. However, some reservists only serve on ADT or IDT during the course of their careers,
and do so without dying or suffering a disabling injury or disease in the line of duty. These
individuals are not technically veterans under the Tile 38 definition, even if they have completed
a full reserve career and are eligible for reserve retirement. However, this does not necessarily
mean these individuals are ineligible for veterans benefits, which may be granted based on
eligibility criteria other than the simple definition of 38 U.S.C. 101.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 642 would amend Title 38 by
inserting a new section specifying
that reservists who are entitled to
retired pay, or who would be
entitled to retired pay but for age,
“shal be honored as a veteran but
shall not be entitled to any benefit by
reason of this action.”
Discussion: Reservists typically become eligible for retired pay at age 60, after having completed
at least 20 years of qualifying service, although in certain circumstances they can draw retired pay
at early as age 50. Section 642 of the House bill would honor as “veterans” those reservists who
are entitled to reserve retired pay, or who would be entitled to reserve retired pay except that they
are too young to receive it. This honorary designation as a veteran would not entitle the retiree to
any benefit. The Congressional Budget Office scored this provision as “cost neutral” because
there is no cost in giving recognition to retired members of the reserve in the absence of
providing additional benefits.
Reference(s): CRS Report R42324, “Who is a Veteran?”—Basic Eligibility for Veterans’
Benefits, by Christine Scott.
CRS Point of Contact: Christine Scott, x7-7366 or Lucy P. Martinez, x7-2875.
Congressional Research Service
26
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing
Background: TRICARE is a health care program serving uniformed servicemembers, retirees,
their dependents, and survivors. H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, does not include the
Administration’s 2013 budget proposals to raise premiums for military retirees using a three-tier
model based on retirement pay brackets, to index the TRICARE catastrophic cap to the National
Health Expenditure, and to introduce enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard/Extra and
TRICARE for Life.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
H.Rept. 113-102 states “Mindful of
Congress’ commitment to service
members and their families, the
legislation would reject proposals to
increase some TRICARE fees or
establish new TRICARE fees. The
committee has already put TRICARE
on a sustainable path through
reforms enacted in several recent
defense authorization acts. Those
reforms connect TRICARE fee
increases to retiree cost of living
increases.”
Discussion: The House-passed bill did not adopt the Administration’s proposals to increase the
share of health care costs paid by military retirees. The bill, however, does not prevent DOD from
implementing its proposal to increase the TRICARE Prime non-mental health office visit co-pay
for retirees and their families from $12 to $16 per visit.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A.
Theohary; CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by David F. Burrelli; CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National
Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Don J.
Jansen; and CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
27
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Military Psychological Health
Background: Issues of the mental health of servicemembers in the Armed Forces have been of
concern to Congress for decades. Over the years, Congress has addressed the issue via studies,
hearings, and legislation. In H.R. 1960, Title V contains three provisions related to
servicemember mental health in Subtitles C and I, while Title VI, “Health Care Provisions,”
contains 10 provisions concerning mental health. These provisions deal with varied mental health
concerns, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI),
among other mental health diagnoses.
Note: Section numbers and order do not necessarily correspond across reported bills.
House (H.R. 1960)
Senate-Passed
Conference Committee
Section 528 removes the prohibition
against required examinations for
TBI among previously deployed
servicemembers diagnosed with
PTSD being applied in courts martial
or other proceedings under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Section 530H requires a report
evaluating the separation of
servicemembers on the basis of
personality or adjustment disorders
since 2008, and the impact such
separations have had on the ability of
separated servicemembers to access
disability-related compensation.
Section 593 creates a new
Commission on Military Behavioral
Health and Disciplinary Issues, which
must evaluate the appropriateness of
DOD disciplinary actions in cases
where the servicemember may have
service-connected mental disorders
or TBI.
Section 701 mandates mental health
assessments every 180 days during
deployments.
Section 702 requires “periodic”
“person-to-person” mental health
assessments for all active-duty
servicemembers, extending mental
health assessments beyond deployed
servicemembers.
Section 723 authorizes col aborative
programs responding to DOD
personnel and family mental health
needs and evaluations of those
efforts.
Section 725 requires DOD research
on TBI and psychological health
Congressional Research Service
28
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House (H.R. 1960)
Senate-Passed
Conference Committee
conditions, including drug
development for neurodegeneration
fol owing TBI.
Section 726 authorizes the sharing of
a state’s reservists’ information for
suicide prevention outreach efforts
at the request of an adjutant general
of a state.
Section 728 expresses the sense of
Congress that DOD must develop a
plan to ensure a flow of qualified
counselors to meet the long-term
needs of servicemembers and
families.
Section 730 requires a preliminary
mental health assessment for each
individual joining the Armed Forces,
to be used as a baseline for
subsequent mental health
examinations.
Section 731 describes the sense of
Congress regarding the high
importance and desired timeliness of
the statutorily required plan to
improve the coordination and
integration of DOD programs
addressing TBI and psychological
health.
Section 732 requires DOD to
identify, refer, and treat TBI among
servicemembers who may have
experienced them prior to the policy
of evaluating all servicemembers
within a 50m radius of an explosion
for TBI.
Section 733 authorizes a five-year
pilot program in which
servicemembers may receive
investigational treatments for TBI or
PTSD in civilian health care facilities.
A database of treatments must be
maintained to allow for studies
regarding the efficacy of these
treatments. This section authorizes
$10 million in FY2014 for this pilot
program.
Discussion: These sections expand mental health assessments; require evaluations of the role of
mental health disorders in servicemembers’ encounters with the Uniform Code of Military Justice
system and separations from the Armed Forces, and build on previous efforts to ensure
appropriate identification, diagnosis, treatment, and access to psychological health resources to
active duty servicemembers, reservists, and military families.
Congressional Research Service
29
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Reference(s): CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
30
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Availability of TRICARE Prime
Background: DOD announced that as of October 1, 2013, TRICARE Prime will no longer be
available to beneficiaries living in certain areas in the United States. Prime Service Areas (PSAs)
are geographic areas where TRICARE Prime is offered. PSAs were created to ensure medical
readiness of the active duty force by augmenting the capability and capacity of military treatment
facilities (MTFs). The affected areas are not close to existing MTFs and have never augmented
care around MTF or Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) locations. This change is estimated
to affect approximately 171,000 military retirees. Elimination of the TRICARE Prime option for
these individuals means that they need to either use TRICARE Standard/Extra, obtain a waiver to
use TRICARE Prime if within the limits of another PSA, or use some other form of health
coverage (such as employer sponsored insurance).
DOD had planned to make PSA reductions since 2007, when proposals were requested for the
next generation of TRICARE contracts. DOD determined that existing PSAs be kept in place in
all regions until October 1, 2013, to coincide with the deadline for annual TRICARE Prime
enrollments and fee adjustments.
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 711 would require DOD to
.
continue to make the TRICARE
Prime benefit available to
beneficiaries currently residing in
affected areas. DOD would be
allowed to phase-out Prime in those
areas as those beneficiaries either
move, opt out of Prime, or reach the
age of eligibility for TRICARE-for-
Life.
Discussion:
DOD’s plans to eliminate TRICARE Prime coverage for certain PSAs would be overridden by
Section 711 of the House-passed bill. This provision would allow individuals currently enrolled in
TRICARE Prime in affected services areas to elect to remain in TRICARE Prime for as long as
they reside in the affected service area. DOD would still, however, be able to prevent any new
enrollments in TRICARE Prime in the affected areas.
CBO’s cost estimate for Section 711 states:
Because it has low out-of-pocket costs, TRICARE Prime is typically more expensive to DoD
than other health options, including TRICARE Standard; thus, any attempt to maintain or
expand enrollment in TRICARE Prime would result in added costs to the government. Based
on an analysis of the proximity of the affected Prime service areas to areas unaffected by the
new policy, CBO estimates that about a third of the affected beneficiaries will seek the
waivers available under current law and travel the added distance to remain in Prime.
Therefore, the net cost to the government of health benefits for those people will remain
approximately the same. For the other two-thirds of that population, CBO estimates that the
requirement to maintain the Prime benefit would result in added costs for the government.
The average annual cost for a Prime beneficiary is about $5,400. CBO estimates that
Congressional Research Service
31
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
eliminating Prime would decrease that cost by over 25 percent. That estimate takes into
account the lower costs for Standard, as well as the possibility that those beneficiaries would
begin using another source of funding—such as employer-sponsored insurance—for part or
all of their health care costs. Initially, CBO estimates that enacting section 711 would cost
DoD more than $150 million annually, although costs would decrease over time as the
affected beneficiaries drop out of Prime for various reasons. In total, CBO estimates that
implementing section 711 would increase the need for appropriations by $735 million over
the 2014-2018 period.11
Previously, Section 732 of the FY2013 NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to submit within
90 days to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report setting forth the policy of the Department of Defense on the future availability of
TRICARE Prime for eligible beneficiaries in all TRICARE regions throughout the United States.
The report12 was submitted to Congress on March 22, 2013.
References: CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
11 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate H.R. 1960, June 11, 2013, p. 11,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/H.R. 1960.pdf
12 Department of Defense, “TRICARE Prime Service Area Reductions” January 10, 2013, available at
http://tricare.mil/tma/congressionalinformation/downloads/Future%20Availability%20of%20TRICARE%20Prime%20
Throughout%20the%20U.S.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
32
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Integrated Electronic Health Record Program
Background: In 2011, the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs signed a commitment to
implement a “single common platform” for an integrated electronic health record system.13
However, in February 2013, the Secretaries announced that the departments would instead
acquire electronic health records systems separately. They cited cost savings and meeting needs
sooner rather than later as reasons for this decision.14
House-passed (H.R. 1960)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 713 would limit the amount
.
of funds the Secretary of Defense
may obligate or expend for
procurement, or research,
development, test and evaluation of
the integrated electronic health
record until 30 days after the date
that the Secretary submits a report
detailing an analysis of alternatives
for the plan of the Secretary to
proceed with such program.
Section 734 requires that the
Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
implement an integrated electronic
health record to be used by each of
the Secretaries and deploy such
record by not later than October 1,
2016.
Discussion: Since 1998, DOD and VA have undertaken numerous initiatives to achieve greater
electronic health record interoperability. These have included efforts to share viewable data in
existing systems; link and share computable data between the Departments’ health data
repositories; establish interoperability objectives to meet specific data-sharing needs; and
implement electronic sharing capabilities for the first joint federal health care center. These
initiatives have increased data-sharing in various capacities but have not achieved the fully
interoperable electronic health record capabilities required in previous legislation.
References: CRS Report R42970, Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs: Status of the
Integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR), by Sidath Viranga Panangala and Don J. Jansen.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
13 Memorandum dated May 2, 2011, Subject: SECDEF/SECVA Meeting Minutes May 2, 2011,
http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/052511bb1.pdf
14 U.S. Department of Defense, “Remarks by Secretary Panetta and Secretary Shinseki from the Department of
Veterans Affairs,” press release, February 5, 2013,
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5187 (accessed February 16, 2013).
Congressional Research Service
33
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Author Contact Information
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
Lawrence Kapp
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
Katherine Blakeley
Lucy P. Martinez
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Research Associate
kblakeley@crs.loc.gov, 7-7314
lmartinez@crs.loc.gov, 7-2875
David F. Burrelli
Catherine A. Theohary
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Specialist in National Security Policy and
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
Information Operations
ctheohary@crs.loc.gov, 7-0844
Acknowledgments
Talia Ascher, Research Associate, also contributed to this report.
Congressional Research Service
34