FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Issues

David F. Burrelli, Coordinator
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Don J. Jansen
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
Barbara Salazar Torreon
Information Research Specialist
July 16, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43647


FY2015 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 initial House-passed version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 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 FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in
CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Issues
, coordinated by Don J. Jansen. Those issues that were considered previously are designated
with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 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
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) .............................................................................................. 6
*Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response ................................................................... 7
Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards ................................................................... 8
*Protection of the 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
*Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service of Women in the Armed Forces, and, Study
on Gender integration in Defense Operation Planning and Execution ....................................... 10
*Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who Are Members of the Armed
Forces.......................................................................................................................................... 11
*Required Consideration of Certain Elements of Command Climate in Performance
Appraisals of Commanding Officers .......................................................................................... 12
*Sexual Assault .............................................................................................................................. 13
Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian Employees of the Department of
Defense Who Were Killed or Wounded in an Attack Inspired or Motivated by a Foreign
Terrorist Organization ................................................................................................................. 15
Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge ....................................................................... 16
Medal of Honor (MoH) Process .................................................................................................... 17
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing ........................................................................................... 18
Mental Health Assessments ........................................................................................................... 19
Review of Military Health System Modernization ........................................................................ 20

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Introduction
Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees take up 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 FY2015 NDAA.
The initial House version of the Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, H.R. 4435 (113th Congress), was introduced in the House on April 9, 2014;
reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 13, 2014 (H.Rept. 113-446); and
passed by the House on May 22, 2014. A Senate version, S. 2410 (113th Congress), was
introduced in the Senate on June 2, 2014, and reported by the Senate Committee on Armed
Services (S.Rept. 113-176) on the same day. The entries under the heading “House” in the tables
on the following pages are based on language from the House-passed bill, H.R. 4435, unless
otherwise indicated.
Related CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and
analysis of the issues. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is
provided.
Some issues were addressed in the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act, and discussed in
CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Issues
, coordinated by Don J. Jansen, or earlier versions of reports on this act. Those issues that
were considered previously are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
1

FY2015 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 began 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 FY2014, the
authorized end-strength for the Army was 520,000, while the authorized end-strength for the
Marine Corps was 190,200. Given the budgetary outlook, particularly the future impact of the
Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army plans to reduce its active personnel strength to between
420,000 and 450,000 by FY2017, while the Marine Corps plans to reduce its active personnel
strength to between 175,000 to 182,600. End-strength for the Air Force and Navy has decreased
gradually since 2001. The authorized end-strength for FY2014 was 327,600 for the Air Force and
323,600 for the Navy.
House-passed (H.R. 4435)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 401 authorizes a total


FY2015 active duty end strength of
1,308,920 including:
490,000 for the Army
323,600 for the Navy
184,100 for the Marine Corps
311,220 for the Air Force
Discussion: In light of the ongoing drawdown in Afghanistan and the budgetary environment, the
House bill included major reductions in Army (-30,000), Air Force (-16,380), and Marine Corps
(-6,100) end strengths in comparison to their FY2014 authorized end-strengths. End-strength for
the Navy remained stable at 323,600 in comparison to FY2014. The figures in the House
provision are identical to the administration’s end-strength request for the Army, Navy, and
Marine Corps, but slightly higher for the Air Force (+320 above the administration request).
Taken together, the House bill stipulates a total active duty end-strength which is 52,480 lower
than the FY2014 level. The committee report which accompanied H.R. 4435 noted that “the
services plan for more drastic reductions in end strength and force structure in fiscal year 2016
absent a change in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA)” and expressed concerns that “This
continued stress on the force, coupled with potential further reductions as a result of the BCA’s
discretionary caps, may have serious implications on the capacity and capability of the All-
Volunteer Force and the ability for the services to meet the National Defense Strategy.”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 USC 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. 113-446, p. 135.
Congressional Research Service
2

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
, and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
Congressional Research Service
3

FY2015 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 4% over the past twelve years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 842,700 in FY2014). Much of
this can be attributed to the reductions in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were
also modest shifts in strength for some other components of the Selected Reserve. For
comparative purposes, the authorized end strengths for the Selected Reserves for FY2001 were as
follows: Army National Guard (350,526), Army Reserve (205,300), Navy Reserve (88,900),
Marine Corps Reserve (39,558), Air National Guard (108,022), Air Force Reserve (74,358), and
Coast Guard Reserve (8,000).3 Between FY2001 and FY2014, the largest shifts in authorized end
strength have occurred in the and Navy Reserve (-29,800 or -33.5%), Army National Guard
(+3,674 or +1.1%), Air Force Reserve (-3,958 or -5.3%), and Coast Guard Reserve (+1,000 or
+12.5%). A smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (-2,622 or -2.4%), while the
authorized end strength 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. 4435)
Senate-passed
Conference Committee
Section 411 authorizes the fol owing


end strengths for the Selected
Reserves:
Army National Guard: 350,200
Army Reserve: 202,000
Navy Reserve: 57,300
Marine Corps Reserve: 39,200
Air National Guard: 105,000
Air Force Reserve: 67,100
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Discussion: In the House bill, the authorized Selected Reserve end strengths for FY2015 are
lower than those for FY2014 for all of the reserve components. The reductions in comparison to
FY2014 are as follows: Army National Guard (-4,000), Army Reserve (-3,000), Navy Reserve
(-1,800), Marine Corps Reserve (-400), Air National Guard (-400), Air Force Reserve (-3,300)
and Coast Guard Reserve (-2,000). All of these reductions are identical with the administration’s
request.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
, and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.

3 P.L. 106-398, Section 411.
Congressional Research Service
4

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*Military Pay Raise
Background: Increasing concern with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with
longstanding congressional interest in recruiting and retaining high quality personnel to serve in
the all-volunteer military, have continued to focus interest on the military pay raise. Section 1009
of Title 37 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual increase in basic pay that is
indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The increase in basic pay for
2015 under this statutory formula will be 1.8% unless either: (1) Congress passes a law to provide
otherwise; or (2) the President specifies an alternative pay adjustment under subsection (e) of 37
USC 1009.4
The FY2015 President’s Budget requested a 1.0% military pay raise, lower than the statutory
formula of 1.8%. This is in keeping with Department of Defense (DOD) plans to limit increases
in basic pay through FY2017:
As part of the FY 2014 President’s Budget, the Department had already planned on limiting basic pay raises
through FY 2017 to levels likely below those called for under the formula in current law, which calls for a
raise to equal the annual increase in the wages and salaries of private industry employees as measured by the
ECI. This FY 2014 plan called for pay raises of 1.0 percent in FY 2015 and FY 2016, 1.5 percent in FY 2017,
and then returned to more likely ECI levels of 2.8 percent in FY 2018 and beyond.
Similar to FY 2014, the FY 2015 President’s Budget again seeks a 1.0 percent basic pay raise for military
members in FY 2015, which is less generous than the 1.8 percent increase in ECI as of September 30, 2013.5
House-passed (H.R. 4435)
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, 2015. However, the President can specify an
alternative pay adjustment if he notifies Congress of his intention to do so before September 1,
2014.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
, and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.

4 Last year, Congress did not include a provision specifying an increase in basic pay; typically, that would have meant
the automatic formula would have provided an increase equal to the ECI (1.8%). However, the President sent a letter to
Congress stating “I have determined it is appropriate to exercise my authority under Section 1009(e) of title 37, United
States Code, to set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent ... The adjustments described above shall take
effect on the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2014.” Letter available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-pay-plan-members-
uniformed-services
5Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2015 Defense Budget Overview, March 2014, page 5-5, available here:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Congressional Research Service
5

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
Background: The armed services provide funds to assist members of the military to pay for
housing when government quarters adequate for themselves and their dependents are not
available. Originally known as Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ), such compensation was
based on rank and whether or not dependents were involved. During the 1970s housing costs
began to vary more by location. In 1980, Congress added a Variable Housing Allowance (VHA)
as a means to defray high housing costs in certain areas. BAQ/VHA was not intended to defray
the entire cost of housing. It was expected that members would pay approximately 15 percent of
these costs out-of-pocket. By 1997, the increase in housing costs increased this out-of-pocket
amount to 20 percent. In 1998, Congress combined BAQ and VHA and renamed it BAH. In 2001,
Congress enacted language that would increase BAH over successive years to remove the out-of-
pocket costs to the member. The President’s 2015 budget submission called for a slowing of BAH
growth such that members would pay 5 percent out-of-pocket by 2019.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
The House is concerned of the


effects of this change on service
members, noting that the Military
Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission is
scheduled to release its report due
Feb. 1, 2015. The House suggests
that DOD share its analysis of the
impact of such a change with the
Commission.

Discussion: Due to budget constraints, the Administration is suggesting a number of reductions
concerning military compensation. It has been suggested that when service members pay part of
their housing costs out of pocket they are more economical in their housing choices. Some note
that service members who are not afforded government housing have less spending power when
some of it must be used for housing than their similarly situated peers who have government
housing.
References: None.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.

Congressional Research Service
6

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response

Background: Over the past few years, the issue of sexual assault in the military has received a
good deal of congressional and media attention. Congress has enacted numerous changes, still
problems persist.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
The House directs the Secretary of


Defense to brief the House Armed
Services Committee not later than
March 1, 2015 on the status of the
implementation of sexual assault
provision in the NDAA12 through
NDAA14, as well as the initiatives
announced by the Secretary of
Defense on August 14, 2013.
Discussion: Congress continues to maintain its oversight responsibilities concerning the matter of
sexual assault and the military, as well as its desire to see positive changes in this matter.
References: Sexual Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected
Legislative Proposals, by R. Chuck Mason.

CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.

Congressional Research Service
7

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Department of Defense Hair and
Grooming Standards

Background: Military hair and grooming standards as well as the issue of religious
accommodations are designed to achieve uniformity. However, changes in styles, religious
accommodations, etc., can be at variance with these standards. In at least one case, the issue had
reached the Supreme Court.6 As the military has become more diverse, regulations have been
revised and/or updated. In March 2014, the Army released its updated regulation (AR 670-1). The
update was criticized as ‘racially biased.’7
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
The House stated that the Secretary


of Defense “shal not enforce and
shall evaluate the changes to hair
standard and grooming policies for
female service members,.... and
report to the congressional defense
committees the results of the
evaluation. The evaluation shall
include the opinions of those who
may have religious accommodation
requirements and minorities serving
in the Armed Forces.”
Discussion: Congress and the Army have addressed similar issues. Any policy change regarding
attire or grooming standards that appear to affect one group, particularly minorities, or people of
religious faith, is viewed as suspect and there has been and will likely be pressure on the Service
concerned to be more accommodating.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.


6 Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986); the case was concerned with the question as to whether the Air Force
could forbid a service member from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform. The Court ruled against the service member
leading Congress to add language in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (section
508) allowing for the wearing of religious apparel that was “neat and conservative,” with other restrictions.
7 Tan, Michelle, “Black female soldiers say new grooming reg is ‘racially biased,’” Army Times, March 31, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
8

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*Protection of the 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 in the Bill of Rights 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. The Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights
is meant to stop the government from endorsing a national religion, or favoring one religion over
another. Actions taken must be carefully balanced to avoid being in violation of one of these
Clauses. Sections in Title 10 under the Army, Navy, and Air Force already address chaplains’
duties with regard to holding religious services. A provision in the House-passed bill would
amend these sections (§§3547, 6031, and 8547). Section 533 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) required the Armed Forces to
accommodate the moral principles and religious beliefs of service members concerning
appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and that such beliefs may not be
used as a basis for any adverse personnel actions.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
If cal ed upon to lead a prayer


outside of a religious service, a
military chaplain may 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. Others disagree and argue that it is inappropriate to curtail a chaplain’s activities.
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 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

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service of
Women in the Armed Forces, and, Study on Gender
integration in Defense Operation Planning and
Execution
Background:
Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 (enacted Jan. 7, 2011) 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. The
report, “Review of Laws, policies, and regulations restricting service of female members of the
Armed Forces,” was submitted on June 1, 2011. In early 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta
rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units.
Since Secretary Panetta’s decision to rescind the restriction rule, the Army and Marine Corps
have taken various steps to further integrate women. Many observers contend that full integration,
however, has not occurred.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Sec. 527 requires the Secretary of


Defense to direct the Secretary of
each military service, in collaboration
with an independent research entity,
to validate the gender-neutral
standards used by the Armed Forces.
This section would require that
properly fitted and design combat
equipment is available. It calls on the
Comptrol er General to conduct a
review of outreach to women by the
Services.
Sec. 584, requires the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a
study concerning the integration of
gender into the planning and
execution of foreign operations at all
levels.
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 service members. 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. Section 584 of H.R. 4355
mandates a study of gender integration.
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
10

FY2015 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 service members. Deployments to areas that do not allow
dependents (such as aboard ships or in hostile fire zones) require the service member 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 service members’ 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 service member 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. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Section 547 amends the Service


Members Civil Relief Act to require
courts to render temporary custody
orders based on deployments and to
reinstate the service member 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
service member, then the state
standards apply.
Discussion: The House language would amend the law to 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 service member in a custody hearing.
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 R43091, Military Parents and Child Custody: State and Federal
Issues
, by David F. Burrelli and Michael A. Miller.
CRS Point of Contact: David Burrelli, x7-8033.

Congressional Research Service
11

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*Required Consideration of Certain Elements of
Command Climate in Performance Appraisals of
Commanding Officers

Background: In recent years, the Services, particularly the Army, have reviewed and broadened
what should be considered in reviewing commanders, including assessing the ‘Command
Climate.’ This appraisal goes beyond evaluating the commander to include evaluating how the
unit is functioning and its “health.” Such an appraisal could look at complaints in the unit, as well
as issues concerning turnover, morale, leadership, discipline, etc.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Sec. 506 requires that in assessing


the command climate, allegations of
sexual assault and the response to
the victim of sexual assault should be
taken into account.
Discussion: This language would broaden the focus of a “command climate” assessment by
including how the unit commander addresses a sexual assault allegation and the response to the
victim. Arguably, this would stress the need to properly handle such cases among commanders.
References: CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues
, coordinated by Don J. Jansen.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.

Congressional Research Service
12

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*Sexual Assault
Background: Sexual assault continues to be an issue in the military. The number of cases
reported in FY13 was 5,061, significantly higher than the number of cases reported in FY12
which was 3,374. DOD attributes this increase to a greater willingness of alleged victims to come
forward and report incidents.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
The House included seven sections


concerning sexual assault in Subtitle
D.
Sec. 533, this section requires the
Secretary of Defense to extend the
sexual assault provisions and
preventions in the FY14 NDAA to
the Academies.
Sec. 534, “This section would
require the Secretary concerned to
establish a procedure to ensure a
victim of an alleged sexual-related
offense is consulted regarding the
victim’s preference for prosecution
authority by court-martial or a
civilian court with jurisdiction over
the offense.”
Sec. 535, this section would al ow a
victim to seek relief from the Military
Court of Appeals if he/she believes
that a court-martial ruling violated
the victim’s rights concerning the
victim’s previous sexual behavior or
psychological counseling issues.
Sec. 536, “This section would
require at a minimum, dismissal or
dishonorable discharge and
confinement for 2 years for sex-
related offenses under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.”
Sec. 537, “This section would
require the Secretary of Defense to
modify the Military Rules of Evidence
to make clear that the general
military character of an accused is
not admissible for the purpose of
showing the probability of innocence
except when the trait of the military
character of an accused is relevant to
an element for which the accused
has been charged and may only be
used for specified military-specific
offenses.”
Sec. 538, “This section would
require the Secretaries of military
departments to establish a
Congressional Research Service
13

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
confidential process for victims of a
sex-related offense to appeal,
through boards for the correction of
military records, the characterization
of discharge or separation of the
individual from the Armed Forces.”
Sec. 539, “This section would
eliminate the constitutionally
required exception to the
psychotherapist-patient privilege
which is afforded to the patient of a
psychotherapist to refuse to disclose,
and to prevent any other person
from disclosing, a confidential
communication made between the
patient and psychotherapist.”
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.
References: CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues
, coordinated by Don J. Jansen; CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
, coordinated by Catherine A.
Theohary; and CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues
, coordinated by David F. Burrelli. See also, U.S., Department of
Defense, Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, FY2013:
http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/
FY13_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault.pdf
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Congressional Research Service
14

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and
Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense
Who Were Killed or Wounded in an Attack Inspired
or Motivated by a Foreign Terrorist Organization

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, as the result of 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, AK. On November 5, 2009, an Army major, Nidal Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood,
TX, killing 13 and wounding 29. Both the civilian and Army Major were charged with murder
and other crimes. In 2013, Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death. The shooter in the Little
Rock case, confessed and was sentence to life in prison.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Sec. 571 “would amend the Purple


Heart award to include members
killed or wounded in attacks inspired
or motivated by foreign terrorist
organizations since September 11,
2001. Additionally, this section
would require a review of the
November 5, 2009, attack at Fort
Hood, Texas, to determine as to
whether the death or wounding of
any civilian employee of the
Department of Defense or civilian
contractor meets the eligibility
criteria for the award of the
Secretary of Defense Metal for the
Defense of Freedom.” It prohibits
the award being presented to a
member whose wound was the
result of willful misconduct (e.g., the
alleged shooter at Ft. Hood, who
was wounded by police).
Discussion: Authorities had considered, and treated, the shootings at Little Rock and Ft. Hood 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. Still others are concerned that awarding the Purple Heart in these
situations could have anti-Muslim overtones. Although the decision to award medals and other
military decorations traditionally rests with the executive branch, enacting this language would
represent a rare legislative initiative in this area.
References: CRS Report R42704, The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress, by
David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033, and Barbara Salazar Torreon, x7-8996.
Congressional Research Service
15

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge
Background: The Combat Action Badge (CAB) is awarded to any soldier who has actively
engaged or been engaged by the enemy in a combat zone or imminent danger area. The CAB was
established through Department of the Army Letter 600-05-1, dated June 3, 2005, and was
authorized for soldiers who met the requirements after September 18, 2001. As with the coveted
Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and Combat Medical Badge (CMB), the CAB recognizes
soldiers who were actively engaged in combat with the enemy, but its award is not restricted by
military occupational specialty.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Sec. 572. states that “The Secretary


of the Army may award the Army
Combat Action Badge … to a person
who, while a member of the Army,
participated in combat during which
the person personally engaged, or
was personally engaged by, the
enemy at any time during the period
beginning on December 7, 1941, and
ending on September 18, 2001.” In
order to minimize administrative
costs, the Secretary may make
arrangements for the newly eligible
individuals to procure the CAB
directly from the suppliers.
Discussion: Section 572 of the House bill would give the Secretary of the Army permission to
retroactively award the CAB to certain individuals. If enacted and utilized by the Secretary of the
Army, Section 572 would align the dates of eligibility with those for the CIB and CMB, and
effectively allow eligible Army veterans retroactively to be awarded the CAB. Locating records
that would justify awarding the CAB might, in some cases, be difficult. Additionally, the
language of Section 572 says that the CAB would be awarded to “a person who, while a member
of the Army, participated in combat during which the person personally engaged, or was
personally engaged by, the enemy.” Therefore, survivors of deceased service members seemingly
could not acquire the CAB on behalf of the service member.
References: None.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 and Barbara Salazar Torreon, x7-8996.

Congressional Research Service
16

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Medal of Honor (MoH) Process
Background: In recent years, critics of the MoH review process have noted it as being lengthy
and bureaucratic which may have led to some records being lost and conclusions drawn based on
competing eyewitness and forensic evidence. One controversial nomination is that of Sgt. Rafael
Peralta, who was nominated by the Marine commandant for allegedly smothering a grenade in
Fallujah, Iraq, and saving the lives of several comrades in 2004. Marines who witnessed his
actions insisted that although Peralta was gravely wounded, he was able to smother the grenade.
However, some forensic experts disagreed, contending that he was already brain-dead and thus
unable to voluntarily move on his own. The situation became more confused when Marines
serving with Peralta recanted their stories.8 Also medals process was tarnished when the Pentagon
was caught allegedly creating false narratives to justify medals awarded in the high-profile cases
of Army Ranger Pat Tillman and Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch.9
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Sec. 573 states “No later than 30


days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy
shall submit to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives a report
describing the Navy review, findings,
and actions pertaining to the Medal
of Honor nomination of Marine
Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta. The
report shall account for all evidence
submitted with regard to the case.”
Discussion: Peralta’s case bears similarities to that of Marine Cpl. William "Kyle" Carpenter,
who jumped on an enemy grenade to save a fellow Marine in Afghanistan. Carpenter, who is
medically retired, was awarded the Medal of Honor on June 19, 2014, at the White House for his
actions. Advocates for Peralta’s nomination may seek to draw parallels between the two cases
which may further open the review process for scrutiny.
References: CRS Report 95-519, Medal of Honor: History and Issues, by David F. Burrelli and
Barbara Salazar Torreon.
CRS Point of Contact: David F. Burrelli, x7-8033, and Barbara Salazar Torreon, x7-8996.


8 Londono, Ernesto, “Comrades say Marine heroism tale of Iraq veteran was untrue,” The Washington Post, February,
21, 2014
9 Zucchino, David, and Tony Perry, “Why so few Medal of Honor awards?,” The Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2010,
at http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/04/nation/la-na-1004-medal-20101004-1
Congressional Research Service
17

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing
Background: TRICARE is a health care program serving uniformed service members, retirees,
their dependents, and survivors. H.R. 4355, as passed by the House, does not include the
Administration’s 2015 TRICARE budget proposals. These proposals would replace TRICARE
Prime, Standard, and Extra with a consolidated TRICARE plan, increase co-pays for
pharmaceuticals, and establishing a new enrollment fee for future enrollees in the TRICARE-for-
Life program that acts like a Medigap supplement plan for Medicare-eligible retirees.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
No provision.


Discussion: The House Armed Services Committee report states:
The committee remains focused on making certain that the Department cost-saving measures
are centered on achieving the most efficient Military Health System possible before
significant cost sharing burdens are placed on TRICARE beneficiaries. The current
Department proposal to fundamentally alter the structure of TRICARE and increase
associated fees is concerning in light of concurrently proposed reductions in compensation.10
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
, coordinated by Don J. Jansen; 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.

10 H.Rept. 113-446 page 162.
Congressional Research Service
18

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Mental Health Assessments
Background: Person-to-person mental health assessments are required under current law (10
U.S.C. 1074m) to be provided to each member of the armed forces who is deployed in support of
a contingency operation once during the period beginning 120 days before the date of the
deployment, once during the period beginning 90 days after the date of redeployment from the
contingency operation and ending 180 days after such redeployment date, and not later than once
during each of- (1) the period beginning 180 days after the date of redeployment from the
contingency operation and ending 18 months after such redeployment date; and (2) the period
beginning 18 months after such redeployment date and ending 30 months after such
redeployment date. The purpose of these mental health assessments is to identify post-traumatic
stress disorder, suicidal tendencies, and other behavioral health conditions.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Section 701 would require DOD to


administer a mental health
assessment to deployed personnel
once every six months..
Discussion: Requiring DOD to administer a mental health assessment to deployed personnel
every six months would require the deployment of an additional 20 mental health professionals
and cost $35 million over the 2015-2019 period according to Congressional Budget Office
estimates.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 4435 dated May 16, 2014.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
Congressional Research Service
19

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Review of Military Health System Modernization
Background: DOD implemented a reorganization of the military health system on October 1,
2013. This included the creation of a new Defense Health Agency and Enhanced Multi-Service
Markets. In reports to Congress, DOD has communicated its intent to consolidate or eliminate
some underutilized services offered through certain military treatment facilities.
House-passed (H.R. 4355)
Senate-passed
Enacted
Section 714 would require the


Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense
committees on the military medical
treatment facility modernization
study directed by the Resource
Management Decision of the
Department of Defense MP-D–01.
The report would be required to
include the study data used by the
Secretary and the results of the
study with regard to
recommendations to restructure or
realign military medical treatment
facilities. It also would require the
Comptroller General, not later than
180 days after the Secretary submits
the report required, to submit a
report to the congressional defense
committees on the report submitted
by the Secretary of Defense, to
include an assessment of the study
methodology and data used by the
Secretary. The Secretary would be
prohibited from realigning or
restructuring a military medical
treatment facility until 120 days
fol owing the date the Comptrol er
General is required to submit the
report.
Discussion: Section 714 would delay DOD’s planned changes. The section requires DOD to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on an internal DOD military medical
treatment facility modernization study and the Government Accountability Office to subsequently
report upon that report. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the delays in planned
changes would increase costs to DOD by about $135 million over the 2015-2019 period.
Reference(s): Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 4435 dated May 16, 2014.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.

Congressional Research Service
20

FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Author Contact Information

David F. Burrelli, Coordinator
Don J. Jansen
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
Lawrence Kapp
Barbara Salazar Torreon
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Information Research Specialist
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
btorreon@crs.loc.gov, 7-8996


Congressional Research Service
21