FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Issues
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
Kristy N. Kamarck
Analyst in Military Manpower
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Barbara Salazar Torreon
Analyst in Defense Budget and Military Manpower
July 22, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44120
FY2016 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 and Iraq, along with the regular use of the
reserve component personnel for operational missions, 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 H.R. 1735 as passed by the House and by the Senate. This
report provides a brief synopsis of sections in each bill that pertain to selected personnel policy.
These include major military retirement reforms, end strengths, compensation, 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, veteran’s 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 previously in the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act and
discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon. Such issues are designated with an
asterisk in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 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
*Military Retirement System ........................................................................................................... 7
*Sexual Assault ................................................................................................................................ 9
*Gender Integration ....................................................................................................................... 12
Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Servicemembers ............................................................. 13
Citizenship Requirements for Enlistment in the Reserve Components ......................................... 14
Termination of Educational Assistance for Reserve Component Members Supporting
Contingency Operations and Other Operations .......................................................................... 15
Issuance of Recognition of Service ID to Certain Members Separating from the Armed
Forces.......................................................................................................................................... 16
Temporary Authority to Develop and Provide Additional Recruitment Incentives ....................... 17
Recognition of Additional Involuntary Mobilization Duty Authorities Exempt From Five-
Year Limit on Reemployment Rights of Persons Who Serve in the Uniformed Services .......... 18
Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve Component as Veterans ............................................. 19
Career Intermission Program (CIP) ............................................................................................... 20
Acquisition Workforce ................................................................................................................... 21
Personal Firearms on Military Installations ................................................................................... 22
*Award of the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who were victims of the
Oklahoma City, OK, bombing .................................................................................................... 23
*Transfer and Adoption of Military Animals ................................................................................. 25
*Defense Commissary System ...................................................................................................... 27
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing ........................................................................................... 30
*TRICARE Pharmacy Copayments .............................................................................................. 31
Military Health System Quality Metrics ........................................................................................ 33
Contraception ................................................................................................................................. 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 36
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Introduction
Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees take up national defense
authorization (NDAA) bills. These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military
personnel, retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are often not included in
the other; are treated differently; or, in some cases, are identical. Following passage of these bills
by the House and by the Senate, a conference committee is usually convened to resolve the
differences between the respective bodies’ versions of the bill.
In the typical course of enacting an annual defense authorization, congressional staffs receive
many requests for information on provisions contained in these bills. This report highlights those
personnel-related issues that seem likely to generate high levels of congressional and constituent
interest, and compares differences between House and Senate versions.
H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was introduced in the
House on April 13, 2015. The House Armed Services Committee reported the bill on May 5th
(H.Rept. 114-102), and it was passed by the House on May 15, 2015. In the Senate, S. 1376 was
introduced on May 19, 2015, and reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept.
114-49) the same day. The Senate substituted the text of S. 1376 for the text of the House-passed
bill when the full Senate took up H.R. 1735. The Senate passed H.R. 1735 on June 18, 2015.
A Statement of Administration Policy dated June 2, 2016 indicated that the President’s advisors
would recommend a veto of S. 1376 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee for a
variety of reasons.1
The Congressional Budget Office issued cost estimates for these bills on May 4, May 11, and
June 3.2 3 4
Related CRS products are identified in each section to provide more detailed background
information and analysis of the issues. For each issue a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided.
Some issues discussed in this report previously were addressed in the Carl Levin and Howard P.
‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291), and
discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon, or other reports. Those issues that
were considered previously are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this
report.
1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saps1376s_20150602.pdf.
2 https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/hr1735.pdf.
3 https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/hr1735hasc.pdf.
4 https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s1376.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Active Duty End Strengths
Background: The authorized active duty end-strengths5 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, the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan which began in 2012, and budgetary
constraints. End-strengths for the Air Force and Navy have been generally declining since 2001.
In FY2015, authorized end-strengths were as follows: Army (490,000), Navy (323,600), Marine
Corp (184,100), and Air Force (312,980). Given the budgetary outlook, including the future
impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), 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 182,000 in the FY2017-2019 timeframe.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Section 401 authorizes a total
Section 401 authorizes a total
FY2016 active duty end strength of
FY2016 active duty end strength of
1,308,915 including
1,305,200 including
475,000 for the Army
475,000 for the Army
329,200 for the Navy
329,200 for the Navy
184,000 for the Marine Corps
184,000 for the Marine Corps
320,715 for the Air Force
317,000 for the Air Force
Section 402 would repeal 10 U.S.C.
691, which set minimum strengths
“necessary to enable the armed
forces to fulfill a national defense
strategy calling for the United States
to be able to successfully conduct
two nearly simultaneous major
regional contingencies” and required
DOD to submit budget requests
sufficient to fund those minimum
strengths. It would also change the
language in 10 U.S.C 115 to al ow
the Secretary of Defense and the
Service Secretaries to reduce the
personnel strength in certain active
and reserve component categories
below the authorized end-strength
by a specified percentage.
Discussion: The Administration request proposed continuing the reduction in strength for the
Army (-15,000 compared to FY2015), although its proposed strengths for the other three services
5 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.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
are essentially level or increasing in comparison to FY2015: Navy (+5,600), Marine Corps
(-100), and Air Force (+4,020). The end-strengths authorized in the Senate bill are identical to the
Administration request. The end-strengths authorized in the House bill are also identical to the
Administration’s end-strength request with the exception of the Air Force, which is 3,715 higher
than the Administration’s request.
The Senate bill also includes a provision, section 402, to repeal the section of the U.S. Code
which stipulates that DOD budget for the congressionally directed minimum strength levels
needed to carry out a national defense strategy focused on conducting two nearly simultaneous
major regional contingencies. Section 402 would also allow the Secretary of Defense to reduce
the number of personnel in an active component by up to 3% below the authorized end-strength,
to reduce the number of full-time National Guard and Reserve personnel in a reserve component
by up to 2%, and to reduce the number of National Guard and Reserve personnel performing
active duty for operational support and certain other purposes by up to 10%.6 It would allow the
Service Secretaries to decrease the number of personnel in an active component and in the
Selected Reserve of a reserve component under their jurisdiction by up to 2% below the
authorized end-strength.7
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon
and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
6 The Secretary of Defense already has the authority to “vary”—increase or decrease—the number of Selected Reserve
personnel by up to 3%.
7 These authorities cannot be combined; rather, the Service Secretary authority, if exercised, is counted as part of the
Secretary of Defense’s authority. See 10 U.S.C. 115(g)(2).
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2016 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 5% over the past 14 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 829,800 in FY2015). 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).8 Between FY2001 and FY2015, the largest shifts in authorized end strength
have occurred in the Navy Reserve (-31,600 or -35.5%), Air Force Reserve (-7,258 or -9.8%), and
Coast Guard Reserve (-1,000 or -12.5%). A smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (-
3,022 or -2.8%) and Army Reserve (-3,300 or -1.6%), while the authorized end strength for the
Army National Guard (-326 or -0.1%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (-358 or -0.9%) have been
largely unchanged during this period.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Section 411 authorizes a total FY2016
Section 411 authorizes a total FY2016
Selected Reserve end strength of
Selected Reserve end strength of
818,000 including:
818,000 including:
Army National Guard: 342,000
Army National Guard: 342,000
Army Reserve: 198,000
Army Reserve: 198,000
Navy Reserve: 57,400
Navy Reserve: 57,400
Marine Corps Reserve: 38,900
Marine Corps Reserve: 38,900
Air National Guard: 105,500
Air National Guard: 105,500
Air Force Reserve: 69,200
Air Force Reserve: 69,200
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Coast Guard Reserve: 7,000
Discussion: For FY2016, the Administration requested a reduction in authorized Selected
Reserve end strength for three of the seven reserve components. The proposed reductions in
comparison to FY2015 are as follows: Army National Guard (-8,200), Army Reserve (-4,000),
and Marine Corps Reserve (-300). The proposed change for the other reserve components are as
follows: Navy Reserve (+100), Air National Guard (+500), Air Force Reserve (+2,100), and
Coast Guard Reserve. The authorized strength for the Coast Guard Reserve was unchanged. The
recommendations in both the House and Senate bills are identical to the Administration’s request.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon,
and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
8 P.L. 106-398, Section 411.
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2016 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
2016 under this statutory formula would be 2.3% unless either: (1) Congress passes a law to
provide otherwise; or (2) the President specifies an alternative pay adjustment under subsection
(e) of 37 U.S.C. 1009.9
The FY2016 President’s Budget requested a 1.3% military pay raise, lower than the statutory
formula of 2.3%. This is in keeping with Department of Defense (DOD) plans to limit increases
in basic pay through FY2020. While estimating that the ECI will increase by 2.3% per year in
each of the next four years, the DOD Budget Request Overview stated
outyear pay raise planning factors currently assume limited pay raises will continue through
FY 2020, with increases of 1.3 percent in FY 2017, 1.5 percent in FY 2018 and FY 2019,
and 1.8 percent in FY 2020.10
House-passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
No provision relating to a general
Sec. 601 (a) waives the statutory
increase in basic pay.
formula of 37 USC 1009 and
601(b) specifies a 1.3% increase in
basic pay for servicemembers
below the O-7 paygrade.
Sec. 601(c) caps the pay of officers
in paygrades O-7 through O-10 at
the Executive Schedule Level II rate
of pay in effect during 2014.
Discussion: The House bill contained no provision to specify the rate of increase in basic pay,
although the report accompanying it (H.Rept. 114-102) contained the following statement:
The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation programs are
central to maintaining a high-quality, all volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the
committee supports a 2.3 percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2016, in accordance with
9 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, on August 29, 2014,
President Obama sent a letter to Congress invoking 37 U.S.C. 1009(e) to set the pay raise for 2015 at 1.0%. The letter
stated: “I have determined it is appropriate to exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States
Code, to set the 2015 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent.... The adjustments described above shall take effect on
January 1, 2015.” Letter available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/29/letter-president-
alternative-pay-plan-uniformed-services.
10 Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Overview, February 2015, page 6-6 and Figure 6-3:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/
FY2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
current law, in order for military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in the private
sector, as measured by the Employment Cost Index.11
The Senate version contains a provision waiving the automatic adjustment of 37 U.S.C. 1009 and
setting the pay increase at 1.3% for servicemembers below the O-7 paygrade (that is, below the
grade of brigadier general or, for the Navy, rear admiral lower half). The Senate version would
also maintain the cap on the pay of officers in the O-7 through O-10 paygrades at the Executive
Schedule level II rate for 2014, thereby ensuring that no general or flag officers receive an
increase in basic pay.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon,
and similar reports from earlier years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
11 H.Rept. 114-102, p. 151.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Military Retirement System
Background: The military retirement system is a funded, noncontributory, defined benefit system
that provides a monthly annuity to servicemembers after 20 years of qualifying service.12 The
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2013 (P.L. 113-66) established a Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) to provide the President
and Congress with specific recommendations to modernize pay and benefits for the armed
services. The Commission delivered its final report and recommendations to Congress on January
29, 2015. Congress has included many of the Commission’s proposed changes in the FY2016
NDAA.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Sec. 631 would automatical y enrol
Sec. 631 would automatical y enrol
new servicemembers in the Thrift
new servicemembers in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP) with government
Savings Plan (TSP) with government
contributions of 1% of basic pay and
contributions of 1% of basic pay
would allow government matching
beginning 60 days after entering
contributions up to 5% of member’s
service and would allow government
basic pay starting at 2 years of
matching contributions up to 5% of
service (YOS) until retirement.
member’s basic pay starting after 2
years of service (YOS) until 20 YOS
Sec. 632 would reduce the defined
for servicemembers entering service
benefit multiplier from 2.5% to 2.0%
on or after January 1, 2018.
at 20 YOS. This section would also
delay the Cost of Living Allowance
Sec. 632 would reduce the defined
(COLA) reductions for retired pay
benefit multiplier from 2.5% to 2.0%
until October 1, 2017.
at 20.
Sec. 633 would authorize
Sec. 633 would al ow lump sum
continuation pay at 12 YOS for an
payment of retired pay.
additional 4 years of obligated
service.
Sec. 634 would authorize
continuation pay at 12 YOS for an
Sec. 634 would require al
additional 4 years of obligated
retirement system changes to apply
service.
to servicemembers entering service
on or after October 1, 2017.
Sec. 635 would al ow DOD to
modify YOS requirements for
particular occupation specialties with
Congressional notification.
Discussion: The military retirement system has historically been viewed as a significant incentive
in retaining a career military force and any changes are closely followed by active duty military
and veteran’s groups. The House and Senate versions of the FY2016 NDAA would change the
existing system from a defined-benefit system that is vested at 20 years of qualifying service, to a
blended defined-benefit, defined-contribution system with government matching contributions
through the Thrift Savings Plan. While the Senate version would stop government matching
contributions at 20 years of qualifying service, the House version would allow matching
contributions for the duration of service. Both versions would reduce the multiplier for the
defined benefit to 2.0% from 2.5% (a retirement annuity equal to 40% basic pay at 20 YOS rather
than 50% of basic pay) and would authorize continuation pay at 12 years of service as a retention
12 Disability retirees may be eligible for retired pay prior to 20 years of service.
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
incentive. The Senate version would also allow a lump-sum payment of the retired pay that the
servicemember would be eligible to receive prior to becoming eligible for Social Security.
Existing servicemembers and all those entering the military prior to October 1, 2017 in the House
version or January 1, 2018 in the Senate version would be grandfathered into the current system
but would be given an opportunity to opt into the new system. The Senate version would also
give enhanced flexibility to DOD to modify the YOS requirement for particular occupational
specialties with Congressional notification (1-year) prior to implementation. Under the House
version the retired pay Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) adjustments first enacted by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67 §403) would affect those who join the Armed Forces
on or after October 1, 2017 (from the previous date of implementation, January 1, 2016), while
the Senate version does not have a provision regarding the COLA reduction.
References: CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments,
by Kristy N. Kamarck; CRS Report IF10141, Proposed Changes to the Military Retirement
System, by Kristy N. Kamarck; CRS Report R43393, Reducing Cost-of-Living Adjustments for
Military Retirees and the Bipartisan Budget Act: In Brief, by Amy Belasco and Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact: Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783.
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Sexual Assault
Background: Over the past few years, the issue of sexual assault in the military has generated a
good deal of congressional and media attention. Congress has enacted numerous changes in
previous NDAAs, but issues remain. The House and Senate versions contain numerous provisions
regarding sexual assault in the military and differ substantially between bills.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1725
Final
Procedural Issues
Procedural Issues
Sec. 544 would al ow special victim’s
Sec. 547 would protect members
counsel (SVC) representation at
serving as SVC from less favorable
retaliatory proceedings related to
evaluations in relation to Courts-
the victim’s report of the offense.
Martial representation.
Sec. 545 would require timely
Sec. 551 would al ow victims to be
notification to a victim of a sex-
assisted by SVC when questioned by
related offense of the availability of
military criminal investigators.
SVC.
Sec. 552 would al ow SVC to provide
Sec. 546 would extend certain rights
legal consultation in Freedom of
and protections to a victim of a sex-
Information Act requests and in
related offense in any punitive
complaints against the government.
proceedings.
Sec. 546 would modify the military
Sec. 547 would al ow victim access
rules of evidence pertaining to
to report of results of preliminary
corroboration of a confession or
hearing under Article 32 of the
admission of the accused.
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Sec. 548 would al ow victims of
Sec. 548 would establish a minimum
UCMJ offenses timely access to
mandatory confinement period of 2
certain materials and information in
years for those convicted of certain
relation to the offense.
sex-related offenses.
Sec. 549 would enhance
Sec. 552 would amend 10 U.S.C. §47, enforcement of victims’ rights
Uniform Code of Military Justice
regarding inadmissible evidence.
(UCMJ) to require consistent
preparation of the full record of trial. Sec. 550 would al ow victims to
access complete records of courts-
Sec. 554 would require DOD to
martial proceedings in cases where
retain case notes for all
sentences could include punitive
investigations of sex-related offenses. discharge.
Sec. 555 would establish guidance
Sec. 553 would enhance the
regarding the release of mental
confidentiality of restricted reports
health records of a victim in a sex-
of sexual assault in the military.
related offense.
Policies and Programs
Policies and Programs
Sec. 554 would establish an office of
Sec. 541 would require the Secretary complex investigation within the
of Defense to make certain
National Guard Bureau.
improvements to the Special Victims’
Counsel Program.
Data, Reports, and Committees
Sec. 542 would al ow access to SVC
Sec. 555 would shorten the deadline
services for DOD civilian employees. for establishment of a defense
advisory committee on investigation,
Sec. 543 would al ow access to SVC
prosecution, and defense of sexual
services for certain former
assault in the Armed Forces.
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1725
Final
dependents and former
Sec 556 would require the
servicemembers.
Comptrol er General to report on
Sec. 549 would require DOD to
sexual assault in the Army National
develop a strategy to prevent
Guard and Army Reserve.
retaliation against members who
Sec 557 would initiate a dialog
report or intervene on behalf of a
between Congress and DOD to
victim of sexual assault.
determine the best way to protect
Sec. 550 would require improved
family members from adverse effects
prevention and response to sexual
of sentencing that requires forfeiture
assaults of male victims.
of military benefits.
Sec. 551 would require sexual assault
prevention and response training for
Junior and Senior Reserve Officer
Training Units (ROTC).
Sec. 556 would require public
availability of certain UCMJ
proceedings.
Data, Reports, and Committees
Sec. 553 would require additional
annual reporting requirements for
DOD to include cases under the
DOD Family Advocacy Program, and
information on retaliation.
Sec. 557 would require DOD to
develop a database to track sex
offenders.
Sec. 558 would require improved
implementation of UCMJ changes.
Discussion: The FY2014 DOD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military reported that an
estimated 4.3% of women and 0.9% of men in the military experienced unwanted sexual contact
in 2014 based on survey data. Of those who reported unwanted sexual contact, 53% perceived
some sort of social retaliation. The types of social retaliation that were reported included adverse
administrative action (35%), professional retaliation (32%), and punishment for an infraction in
relation to their report (11%).13 A recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
also identified a need for the DOD to enhance its efforts to improve the effectiveness of care
provided to male sexual assault victims.14 The FY2016 NDAA provisions would address some of
these concerns about retaliation and male victims of sexual assault victims. These provisions
would also enhance the Special Victims’ Counsel Program, and would modify requirements for
judicial proceedings, reporting and sentencing in sex-related offenses.
References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon.
See also CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and
13 Some respondents perceived more than one type of retaliation. Department of Defense Sexual Assault and
Prevention Office, Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assualt in the Miltary, April 29, 2015, p. 44.
14 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Address Sexual Assaults of Male
Servicemembers, GAO-15-284, March 19, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Related Resources, by Barbara Salazar Torreon; CRS Report R43213, Sexual Assaults Under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected Legislative Proposals, by R. Chuck Mason.
CRS Point of Contact: Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Gender Integration
Background: On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the
Department of Defense (DOD) was rescinding its 1994 Direct Combat Exclusion Rule to allow
women to serve in previously restricted combat occupations. The military departments are
expected to notify Congress of their plans for integrating women into combat roles by January 1,
2016.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Sec. 533 would reduce the required
Sec. 523 expresses the sense of the
congressional notification and waiting Senate that the development of
time for implementation of changes
gender-neutral occupational
to assignment policies for women.
standards should be based on best
scientific practices, should not result
Sec. 534 would add a requirement
in unnecessary barriers to service,
that occupational standards measure
should be objectively determined,
the combat readiness of combat
and should not negatively impact
units.
required combat capabilities.
Discussion: In National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103-160) Congress
established a definition for “gender-neutral” occupational performance standards and has in
subsequent years directed DOD in how these standards should be developed and applied. Section
524 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015(P.L. 113-291), entitled “Removal of artificial barriers to the service of women in
the Armed Forces,” emphasizes that the standards DOD uses to measure performance must be
related to the “actual, regular, and recurring duties” in a specific military occupation and
standards must measure “individual capabilities.” The House version would add additional
criteria for developing performance standards relating to combat unit readiness that could require
DOD to undertake validation efforts for unit-level performance. The Senate version would not
add additional criteria for occupational performance standards in law, but it does also emphasize
the Senate’s desire for the standards to be tied to combat capabilities.
Under the current law, DOD must notify Congress of changes to assignment policies for females,
at which time Congress has a period of 30 days in continuous session (House and Senate) for
review of these changes before DOD can take any action on implementing them (this provision is
sometimes referred to as “notify-and-wait”). Section 533 of the House version would shorten this
waiting period to 30 calendar days. For DOD, this would provide a more definitive timeline for
implementation. For Congress this could reduce the amount of in-session time to review and act
on proposed changes. The Senate version does not include a provision to change the “notify and
wait” requirement.
References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon.
See also, CRS Report IN10273, FY2016 NDAA: What is in the House Committee Reported Bill
(H.R. 1735) Regarding Women in Combat? , by Kristy N. Kamarck CRS Report R42075, Women
in Combat: Issues for Congress, by Kristy N. Kamarck.
CRS Point of Contact: Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Financial Literacy and Preparedness of
Servicemembers
Background: One of the findings of the congressionally mandated (P.L. 113-66) Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) was that weaknesses in
existing financial literacy programs for military servicemembers were potentially linked to
adverse effects on servicemembers, military families, and overall readiness.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Sec. 651 would require financial
Sec. 581 would require financial
literacy training at certain points in a
literacy training at certain points in a
servicemember’s career and would
servicemember’s career and would
require an annual survey of financial
require an annual survey of financial
literacy and preparedness for
literacy and preparedness for
members of the armed forces.
members of the armed forces.
Sec. 582 would require training to
commence no later than six months
after enactment.
Sec. 583 expresses the sense of
Congress that DOD should
strengthen arrangements with other
entities to provide training and
support.
Discussion: Enhancing personal financial management training programs would require some
initial costs; however, DOD has estimated that improved financial literacy could save the DOD
between $13 million and $137 million annually and could reduce the number of troops
involuntary separated due to financial distress.15 Potential changes to the military retirement
system that would offer more options for retirement savings and continuation pay might also
necessitate enhanced financial management training. Both House and Senate versions of the
FY2016 NDAA include provisions that would require financial literacy training upon entry into
the service, and at various points in the servicemember’s career due to life changes (e.g., marriage
or divorce) or transitions (e.g. change of duty station or promotion).
CRS Point of Contact: Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783.
15 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission Final Report, January 2015.
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Citizenship Requirements for Enlistment in the
Reserve Components
Background: The statutory requirements for enlistment in the active component (10 U.S.C.
§504) are slightly different than the statutory requirements for enlistment in the reserve
components (10 U.S.C. §12102). Under 10 U.S.C. §504, an individual must be: (1) a national of
the United States (i.e., either a citizen or a person who, though not a citizen of the United States,
owes permanent allegiance to the United States ‐ a category that currently includes only American
Samoans); (2) a lawful permanent resident; or (3) a person described in the Compact of Free
Association between the United States and Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. 10
U.S.C. § 504 also contains a provision that allows the Secretary to provide exceptions “if the
Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest” (this provision is the
basis of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest or MAVNI program). 10 U.S.C. §12102
specifies that an enlistee must be (1) a citizen of the United States; (2) a lawful permanent
resident; or (3) have previously served in the armed forces.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
Sec. 513 amends 10 U.S.C. § 12102
(b) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following
paragraphs:
“(1) that person has met the
citizenship or residency
requirements established in section
504(b)(1) of this title; or
“(2) that person is authorized to
enlist by the Secretary concerned
under section 504(b)(2) of this
title.”.
Discussion:
Section 513 of the Senate bill would link the statutory requirements for eligibility to enlist in the
reserve component with the requirements necessary to enlist in the active component.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Termination of Educational Assistance for Reserve
Component Members Supporting Contingency
Operations and Other Operations
Background: In 2004, Congress established the Reserve Educational Assistance Program
(REAP) to provide enhanced educational benefits to reservists who were called or ordered to
active service in response to a war or national emergency declare by the President or the
Congress. Four years later, Congress approved the Post‐9/11 GI Bill, which provided more
generous educational benefits than REAP. As a result, the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission recommended terminating REAP, while allowing those currently
receiving REAP benefits to exhaust their entitlement.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision.
Section 532 amends Chapter
1607 of Title 10 U.S.C. by
inserting a sunset clause,
terminating REAP four years
after enactment of the FY16
NDAA. Additionally, upon
enactment of the bill, REAP
benefits would be limited to
those who were receiving REAP
benefits “for a course of study
at an educational institution for
the enrol ment period at the
educational institution that
immediately preceded the date
of the enactment of that Act.”
Discussion: The Senate version adopts the recommendations proposed by the Military and
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission by establishing a sunset date for
REAP four years after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016, and stipulates that in the interim period, only those using REAP in the enrollment
period immediately prior to the date of enactment can continue to use the program.
Reference(s): For more information on REAP and the Post 9/11 GI Bill, generally, see CRS
Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence
Kapp and Barbara Salazar Torreon. For more detailed information, see CRS Report R42785, GI
Bills Enacted Prior to 2008 and Related Veterans’ Educational Assistance Programs: A Primer,
by Cassandria Dortch, and CRS Report R42755, The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill): Primer and Issues, by Cassandria Dortch.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Issuance of Recognition of Service ID to Certain
Members Separating from the Armed Forces
Background: There have been periodic requests from veterans and veterans advocacy groups for
an official identification card to verify their past military service.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
No similar provision
Section 590 (a) of S. 532 orders the
Secretary of Defense to provide
covered individuals with an
“Recognition of Service ID Card”
that includes a photo of the
individual, their name, and identifies
them as a veteran.
Discussion: The Senate bill would entitle any “individual who is undergoing discharge or release
from the Armed Forces” (other than as the result of a punitive discharge as part of a sentence of a
court-martial) beginning one year from the enactment of the Act to a “Recognition of Service ID
Card.” This card must identify the bearer as a veteran and include their name and a photograph.
The Act also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to negotiate with “national retail chains that
offer reduced prices on services, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals to veterans” to ensure
that the ID card will be accepted.
On July 20, 2015, President Obama signed into law H.R. 91, the Veterans Identification Card Act
2015. This law requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide an identification card to
veterans who demonstrate their military service with a DD-214 or other official document.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Temporary Authority to Develop and Provide
Additional Recruitment Incentives
Background: Congress has an ongoing interest in recruiting and retaining high quality personnel
to serve in the armed forces. The use of recruiting bonuses and other incentives, such as
educational benefits, help the military services attract well qualified applicants. A wide array of
bonus and incentive pay authorities are contained in chapter 5 of Title 37 of the United States
Code.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
Sec. 531would authorize the
No similar provision.
Secretaries of military departments
to develop and provide additional
recruitment incentives (no more
than three types) for up to 20% of
the fiscal year accession target for
officers, warrant officers, and
enlisted personnel. Implementation
of the proposed incentive would be
subject to a 30‐day congressional
review and approval period.
Discussion: Sec. 531 of the House-passed bill would authorize the Secretaries of military
departments to develop and provide additional recruitment incentives (no more than three types)
for up to 20% of the fiscal year accession target for officers, warrant officers, and enlisted
personnel. Implementation of the proposed incentive would be subject to a 30‐day congressional
review and approval period.
Reference(s): More information on recruitment and retention can be found in CRS Report
RL32965, Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2013 and FY2014 Results for Active and
Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel, by Lawrence Kapp, and similar reports from earlier
years.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Recognition of Additional Involuntary Mobilization
Duty Authorities Exempt From Five-Year Limit on
Reemployment Rights of Persons Who Serve in the
Uniformed Services
Background: When reservists are called into active federal service, they become eligible for a
number of legal protections. Among these is the right to reemployment found in the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994.16 The act confers a
general right to reemployment to those who leave civilian employment to perform military
service, but the cumulative length of service generally cannot exceed five years. However,
USERRA specifically exempts types of duty from counting towards the five year limit; for
example, reservist activations under the long-standing activation authorities known as Full
Mobilization, Partial Mobilization, and Presidential Reserve Call-Up. In 2011, Congress created
two new mobilization authorities for reservists in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81). Codified at 10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b, these new activation
authorities allow 120-day activations of certain reservists for disaster response and 365 day
activations for preplanned missions in support of the combatant commands (12304a). At present,
activations under these new authorities are not excepted from the five year cumulative limit.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
Section 565 amends Section
No similar provision.
4312(c)(4)(A) of Title 38, U.S.C., by
adding 10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b
to the types of reserve activations
that do not count towards the 5
year length of service limitation in
USERRA.
Discussion: Section 565 of the House bill would exempt military duty under the new reserve
activation authorities from counting towards the cumulative five year limit on military service for
reemployment protection under USERRA.
Reference(s): For more information on USERRA and the mobilization authorities, please see
CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by
Lawrence Kapp and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
16 38 U.S.C. §4312(a), confers reemployment rights to members of the uniformed services as long as the
servicemember has provided advance notice of their service to the employer, the cumulative length of the
absence and of all previous absences from a position of employment with that employer by reason of service
in the uniformed services does not exceed five years, and that the servicemember reapplies for employment.
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve
Component as Veterans
Background: By statute (38 U.S.C. 101(2)), 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.” Thus, and individual must have “active military, naval, or air
service” to be considered a veteran for most VA benefits. However, not all types of service are
considered active military service for this purpose. In general, active service means full-time
service, other than active duty for training, as a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Coast Guard; as a commissioned officer of the Public Health Service; or as a
commissioned officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its
predecessors. Active service also includes a period of active duty for training during which the
person was disabled or died from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty
and any period of inactive duty for training during which the person was disabled or died from an
injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty or from certain health conditions incurred during
the training. Additional circumstances of service, and whether they are deemed to be active
military service, are set out in law. Members of the National Guard and reserves who are never
activated for active duty military service (other than active duty for training) do not meet the
statutory definition of veteran even if they eventually qualify for reserve retirement.
House Passed H.R. 1735
Senate Passed H.R. 1735
Section 592 would amend Title 38
No similar provision.
U.S.C., specifying that reservists who
qualify for retired pay for non-
regular (reserve) service, or would
qualify but for age, “shal be honored
as a veteran but shall not be entitled
to any benefit by reason of this
section.”
Discussion: Reservists become eligible for retirement after 20 years of qualifying service. Under
current law, a reservist who completes this requirement is eligible to retire and would receive
retired pay upon reaching the appropriate age (usually age 60); however, the reservists would not
necessarily be a veteran unless he or she had completed the required active service as well. The
House bill provides that reservists who qualify for reserve retirement are to be “honored as
veterans,” but stipulates that this designation shall not confer entitlement to any additional
benefits.
Reference(s): For information on who qualifies as a veteran, see CRS Report R42324, Who is a
“Veteran”?—Basic Eligibility for Veterans’ Benefits, by Noah P. Meyerson. For information on
the Reserve Component and retirement and other benefits, please see CRS Report RL30802,
Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp and Barbara
Salazar Torreon.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 and Noah Meyerson, x7-4681.
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Career Intermission Program (CIP)
Background: The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P. L.
110–417, §533) established a pilot Career Intermission Program (CIP) as a retention initiative that
authorized 20 officers and enlisted per year to take time out (up to three years) from their military
career to address work/life balances (e.g., starting a family or taking care of a sick parent) or to
pursue broadening opportunities (e.g., graduate school or industry experience) and to return to
active duty in a later year group, so as to not negatively impacting their military career
progression.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
No provision.
Sec. 522 would remove certain
eligibility requirements and the
current cap on the number of
servicemembers eligible to take part
in the career intermission program.
Discussion: DOD invests substantial resources in recruiting and training servicemembers and has
an interest in retaining high-performers. The CIP was initiated to provide more career flexibility
for high-performing servicemembers and to increase retention rates for those who might
otherwise leave the service. Servicemembers who are accepted into the program accept an
additional active duty service obligation of two months for every one month that is spent in CIP
(for a maximum six year follow-on obligation). DOD is required to submit a final report to
Congress on an assessment of the pilot program not later than March 1, 2016.
CRS Point of Contact: Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783.
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Acquisition Workforce
Background: Over the past few years, Congress has been concerned with how to improve the
recruitment, retention, and career management for the acquisition workforce.17 Although there is a
long history of acquisition reform, issues still remain.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Sec. 812 would establish a dual-track
Sec. 503 would establish a dual-track
career path that allows for
career path that allows for
servicemembers to receive credit for servicemembers to receive credit for
a primary career in combat arms and a primary career in combat arms and
a functional secondary career in the
a functional secondary career in the
acquisition field.
acquisition field, and would provide
joint duty credit for acquisition duty.
Sec. 813 would provide joint duty
assignment credit for acquisition
duty.
Discussion: Military acquisition professionals oversee billions of dollars of funding for major
defense acquisition programs and many in Congress and DOD have an interest in ensuring a
cadre of high-performing and qualified personnel for acquisition duty assignments. Provisions in
both the House and Senate versions would provide career incentives (e.g., joint duty credit) for
military personnel to pursue acquisition assignments.
CRS Point of Contact: For military personnel issues contact Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783; for
defense acquisition issues contact Moshe Schwartz, x7-1463.
17 For the purpose of this report we have only discussed provisions pertaining to military personnel and not those
pertaining to DOD civilians in the acquisition workforce.
Congressional Research Service
21
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Personal Firearms on Military Installations
Background: Section 1585 of Title 10, United States Code authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe policy and regulations regarding the carrying of firearms for DOD civilian employees
and military servicemembers. Current DOD policies limit the carrying of government-issued
firearms on military installations to personnel engaged in policing or security duties.18 By policy,
it is prohibited for military servicemembers to carry personal firearms (concealed or open carry)
on military bases and installations while on duty and under most other circumstances.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Sec. 539 would require DOD to
No provision.
establish a process that would allow
senior leadership on military
installations to authorize concealed
carry of personal firearms for
qualified servicemembers.
Discussion: On July 16, 2015, a Marine Corps recruiting center and U.S. Naval Reserve Center
were attacked by an armed shooter. This has followed other active shooter incidents on military
installations, for example, the 2009 and 2014 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and the 2013
Washington Navy Yard shooting. Following the most recent incident, some have questioned
whether force protection measures at military installations are adequate and whether current DOD
policies and regulations should be modified to broaden the authority for servicemembers to carry
personal or government-issued firearms. The House-passed version of H.R. 1735 would compel
DOD to initiate a process that would give more flexibility to installation commanders to establish
protocols for concealed carry of personal firearms for servicemembers provided that they
maintain certain qualifications.
References: CRS Report IN10318, Can Military Servicemembers Carry Firearms for Personal
Protection on Duty?, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Heidi M. Peters.
CRS Point of Contact: Kristy N. Kamarck, x7-7783.
18 Department of Defense Directive, “Carrying of Firearms and the Use of Force by DOD Personnel Engaged in
Security, Law and Order, or Counterintelligence Activities”, DODD 5210, April 1, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Award of the Purple Heart to members of the
Armed Forces who were victims of the Oklahoma
City, OK, bombing
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 April19, 1995, a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, OK, killed 168 people and injured more
than 650 including six servicemembers killed in the Army Recruiting Battalion on the fourth floor
and in the Marine Corps Recruiting office on the sixth floor. At the time, these servicemembers
were ineligible for the Purple Heart based on the criteria listed above. Eligibility was expanded in
the FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291) to include servicemembers wounded and killed in 2009 during
the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, TX, and supporters of Sec. 583 of the House-passed NDAA for
FY2016 contend that the servicemembers killed in the Oklahoma City bombing were also victims
of terrorism and therefore eligible for the Purple Heart.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Section 583 would award the Purple
No provision
Heart to members of the Armed
Forces who were victims of the
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing.
Discussion: Authorities treated the 2009 shootings at Little Rock, AR, and Fort Hood, TX, as
criminal acts and not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force. Yet, because these acts
involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, some believe
they should be viewed as acts of terrorism. Still others were concerned that awarding the Purple
Heart in these situations could have anti-Muslim overtones. However, Sec. 571 of the NDAA for
FY2015 (P.L.113-291) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be
considered an attack by a “foreign terrorist organization” for purposes of determining eligibility
for the Purple Heart. The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a foreign
terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack “was in communication with the foreign
terrorist organization before the attack” and “the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign
terrorist organization.” It would also allow for eligible DOD civilian employees and contractors,
wounded or killed in the same attack, to be awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for the
Defense of Freedom. On February 6, 2015, Army Secretary John M. McHugh announced the
awarding the Purple Heart and the Defense of Freedom Medal to victims of a 2009 shooting at
Fort Hood, TX,19 and on April 10, 2015, Purple Hearts were presented to the military victims and
families of the Fort Hood shooting and the Defense of Freedom Medals to DOD civilians and
their families. Sec. 583 of the House-passed NDAA for FY2016 would allow six members of the
19 DOD News, “Army Approves Purple Hearts for Fort Hood Shooting Victims,” February 6, 2015, at
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128129&source=GovDelivery; and “Army Extends Benefits to
Hood Shooting Victims,” Army Times, April 16, 2015, at http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/04/
16/fort-hood-purple-heart-benefits/25874715/
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
U.S. armed forces killed during the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
on April 19, 1995, to be awarded the Purple Heart posthumously. Proponents for awarding the
Purple Heart to these victims of the Oklahoma City bombing cite Sec. 571 of the FY2015 NDAA
as precedent for the Oklahoma City’s victims while opponents contend that the bombing was an
act of domestic terrorism and does not meet the eligibility requirements.
The recent shootings on July 16, 2015, at a Marine Corps recruiting center and U.S. Naval
Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN, has again raised congressional interest in the eligibility for
the Purple Heart for servicemembers wounded or killed during an attack inspired or motivated by
international terrorist organizations.
References: CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, coordinated by Barbara Salazar Torreon; and CRS Report R42704, The Purple
Heart: Background and Issues for Congress, by David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact: Barbara Salazar Torreon, Analyst in Defense Budget and Military
Manpower, x7-8996.
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Transfer and Adoption of Military Animals
Background: The issue of military working dogs (MWDs) has received congressional and media
attention over the years with Congress enacting laws and provisions in the NDAA related to the
transfer and adoption of MWDs. In November 2000, Congress passed “Robby’s Law” (P.L. 106-
446,) “To require the immediate termination of the Department of Defense practice of euthanizing
military working dogs at the end of their useful working life and to facilitate the adoption of
retired military working dogs by law enforcement agencies, former handlers of these dogs, and
other persons capable of caring for these dogs.” Congress also included language that limited
liability claims arising from the transfer of these dogs. The NDAA for FY2012 (Sec. 351, P.L.
112-81) expanded the eligibility list to adopt MWDs to include the handler (if wounded or
retired), or a parent, spouse, child, or sibling of the handler if the handler is deceased. Military
working dogs were classified as “equipment”20 and eligible individuals interested in adopting one
of these dogs paid for transporting the MWD stateside. On January 2, 2013, Congress passed the
NDAA for FY2013 (P.L 112-239) that included a provision in Sec. 371 that a retiring MWD
“may” be transferred to the 341st Training Squadron (in Lackland, Texas, where MWDs are
trained) or to another location for adoption. The current law (10 USC 2583) does not require
DOD to transfer MWDs that are “retired” overseas back to the United States.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Section 594 amends Section 2583(a)
Sec. 352 amends section 2583 of title
of title 10 USC by striking “may” in
10, USC to give preference in the
the matter preceding paragraph (1)
adoption of retired military working
and inserting “shal ” and amends the
dogs to their former handlers.
list of authorized persons to adopt a
military animal and prioritizes the list
of persons eligible to adopt.
Discussion: Both Sec. 594 of the House-passed and Sec. 352 of the Senate-passed versions of the
NDAA for FY2016 have similar language that would require DOD to transfer retiring MWDs
abroad to the United States. Sec. 594 of the House-passed version would require DOD to transfer
the retiring military animal after their tours of duty to the United States and amends the list of
authorized persons available to adopt a military animal by priority to 1) former handlers; 2) law
enforcement agencies; and 3) other persons capable of caring for the animal including the
immediate family (parent, child, spouse or sibling) of a handler killed or wounded in action.
Similarly, Sec. 352 of the Senate-passed version would mandate the DOD to transfer retiring
military working dog to U.S. soil from abroad and give preference for adoption to former
handlers and their families. This section, however, does not alter existing military policy allowing
law enforcement agencies to adopt military working dogs. Advocates of MWDs contend that if
the NDAA language is changed to “shall” instead of “may” then all military working dogs will be
retired only after they are returned to the United States. If the language is changed to allow these
dogs to retire in the United States then private organizations may be able to arrange for domestic
transfer of these dogs to handlers, former handlers, law enforcement, and others who qualify to
adopt them. Opponents maintain that it would be costly and there are no appropriated funds that
would allow for the transfer of all retiring MWDs.
20 Air Force Instruction (AFI) 31-126, Military Working Dog Program, was updated June 1, 2015, and eliminates any
mention of military working dogs as “equipment.”
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
References: CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Catherine A. Theohary, and AFI 31-126, Military
Working Dog Program, June 1, 2015.
CRS Point of Contact: Barbara Salazar Torreon, Analyst in Defense Budget and Military
Manpower, x7-8996.
Congressional Research Service
26
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*Defense Commissary System
Background: Over the past few years, Congress has been concerned with how to improve the
Defense Commissary system but there have been no legislated changes. In the NDAA for
FY2015, there were no provisions in either the House or Senate passed versions to reduce the
Commissary’s budget unlike the President’s FY2015 budget proposal to cut the budget by $1
billion over a three-year period beginning with $200 million reduction in FY2015. However,
commissary funding was fully restored in the FY2015 NDAA final version which added $100
million to the commissary budget to reverse the Administration’s budget proposal and a
requirement for a study of possible cost reductions. Similar to the FY2015 budget request, the
President’s FY2016 budget request would cut $300 million in subsidies for commissaries, cutting
the commissary budget from $1.3 billion to $400 million in three years, with only funds to
stateside commissaries being cut.21 The reduced subsidies could result in a reduction in operating
days and hours for commissary patrons, and might increase costs for some goods and services.
Authorized patrons include active duty military members, Guard and Reserve component
members, retired personnel and their families, 100% disabled veterans, Medal of Honor
recipients, and DOD civilians stationed at U.S. installations overseas.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed
Final
Sec. 641 would ensure that there are Sec. 651 would amend 10 U.S.C.§
no changes to the current secondary
2483 on operating expenses and
destination transportation policy that transportation costs for certain
applies to fresh fruit and vegetables
goods and supplies in commissary
for commissaries in Asia and the
stores worldwide, applying
Pacific until the Defense Commissary surcharges and attaining uniform
Agency (DeCA) conducts a
system-wide pricing.
comprehensive study on locating
fresh supplies from local sources in
Section 652 directs the Secretary of
the region. The recommendations
Defense to submit a plan no later
from this study would then be
than March 1, 2016 for privatizing
submitted to Congress.
the Defense Commissary system,
and to begin a 2-year pilot program
Section 642 would prohibit
on the basis of that report.
replacement or consolidation of
defense commissary and exchange
Section 653 directs the Comptrol er
systems pending submission of
General of the United States report
required report on defense
on the Commissary Surcharge, Non-
commissary system.
appropriated Fund, and Privately-
Financed Major Construction
Program.
Section 1025 would require a report
and assessment of potential costs
and benefits of privatizing
Department of Defense
commissaries.
21 Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, Overview
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, February 2015, “Reduce Commissary Subsidy,” on PDF p. 65, at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2016/fy2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Discussion:
Section 641 of the House-passed version would ensure that there are no changes to the current
secondary destination transportation policy that applies to fresh fruit and vegetables for
commissaries in Asia and the Pacific until the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) conducts a
comprehensive study on locating fresh supplies from local sources in the region such as in Japan,
Guam, and South Korea. The recommendations from this study would be submitted to Congress
with the intent of finding local cost-effective suppliers in the region that would lower
transportation cost to DeCA without increasing prices to commissary patrons.
Section 642 of the House-passed version prohibits the Secretary of Defense from taking action to
replace or consolidate the existing commissary system until a report on the defense commissary
system is completed no later than September 1, 2015. A similar provision is included in Section
1025 of the Senate-passed version. The provision would require the Defense Secretary to submit
a report by February 1, 2016 assessing the viability of privatizing the defense commissary system
prior to the development of any plans or pilot program. Advocates for maintaining the current
system oppose cuts to the commissary budget or consolidation with military exchanges due to
potential cost increases that could negatively impact the military community, mostly retirees and
active duty service members and their families, who live on or in close proximity to military
installations. Some contend that the military community has carried the heavy burden of multiple
deployments and separation and therefore, now is not the time to reduce these benefits. Some in
favor of changing the current system reference the recommendation made in the January 2015
Final Report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
(MCRMC) to change the current commissary system by consolidating the commissary and
exchanges systems into a single defense resale system (DeRA) and thereby streamlining products
and services.22 Both Section 642 and Section 1025 would prohibit the replacement or
consolidation of the current commissary system for FY2016 without prior study. Section 1025
contains language that would make Section 652 null and void. Section 652 of the Senate-passed
version would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report no later than March 1, 2016,
setting forth a plan to privatize the defense commissary system including a pilot program
consisting of at least five of the largest commissary markets. The pilot program would also test
the feasibility of groceries ordered online through the commissary system and their home
delivery.
Section 651 of the Senate-passed version would amend 10 U.S.C. §2483 with respect to
requirements regarding operating expenses and transportation costs for certain goods and supplies
in commissary stores worldwide, by applying surcharges and attaining uniform system-wide
pricing.
Section 653 of the Senate-passed version also would direct the Comptroller General to submit a
report on the Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and Privately-Financed Major
Construction Program to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services no later than 180
days after the date of the enactment. Elements of this report would include assessment of
construction projects proposed; assessment of policies and procedures developed by the military
departments to comply with DOD policies and directives; assessment of policies and procedures
established by the Secretary of Defense to notify committees of Congress when such construction
22 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC), Final Report, January 29, 2015, (see
PDF pp.161-170), at http://www.mcrmc.gov/public/docs/report/MCRMC-FinalReport-29JAN15-HI.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
projects have commenced; and an assessment of construction projects completed before
submitting to Congress. There is no similar provision in the House version.
References: CRS Report R43806, Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin
and Howard “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015 , by Pat Towell.
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC), Final Report,
January 29, 2015, at http://www.mcrmc.gov/public/docs/report/MCRMC-FinalReport-29JAN15-
HI.pdf
CRS Point of Contact: Barbara Salazar Torreon, Analyst in Defense Budget and Military
Manpower, x7-8996.
Congressional Research Service
29
FY2016 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. In its FY2016 budget request, the Administration proposed to
replace the TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Extra health plan options with a consolidated plan, to
increase copays for pharmaceuticals, and to establish a new enrollment fee for future enrollees in
the TRICARE-for-Life program (that acts like a Medigap supplement plan for Medicare-enrolled
beneficiaries).
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
No provision.
Sec. 702 would increase pharmacy
copayments consistent with the
Administration’s proposal.
Discussion: Except for pharmaceutical copays in the Senate-passed bill, none of the
Administration’s proposals were adopted. In addition, recommendations for changes to
TRICARE were included in the final report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Compensation Modernization Commission. However, the President did not endorse those
recommendations nor were they adopted in either the House- or Senate-passed bills. This is not to
suggest that Congress will not consider major changes to the TRICARE benefit in the future: the
Senate report stated
Although the committee believes that the Commission’s healthcare recommendations may
address lingering problems with-in the military health system, the committee feels it is
prudent to take a very deliberate approach to enacting TRICARE reform legislation. The
committee must better understand the implications and unintended consequences of any plan
to transform a large, complex health program like TRICARE. The committee has
recommended provisions in this Act, however, that would ensure the Department of Defense
improves access to care, delivers better health outcomes, enhances the experience of care for
beneficiaries, and controls health care costs. These provisions help lay the foundation for
comprehensive TRICARE modernization and reform legislation in the near future.23
The Senate pharmacy provision is discussed separately in the next section.
References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues.
CRS Point of Contact: Don J. Jansen, x7-4769.
23 S.Rept. 114-49, p. 161.
Congressional Research Service
30
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
*TRICARE Pharmacy Copayments
Background: TRICARE beneficiaries have access to a pharmacy program that allows outpatient
prescriptions to be filled through military pharmacies, TRICARE mail-order pharmacy, and
TRICARE retail network and non-network pharmacies. Active duty service members have no
pharmacy copayments when using military pharmacies, TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery, or
TRICARE retail network pharmacies. Military pharmacies will provide free-of-charge a 90-day
supply of formulary medications for prescriptions written by both civilian and military providers.
Non-formulary medicines generally are not available at military pharmacies. It is DOD policy to
use generic medications instead of brand-name medications whenever possible. The 2015 NDAA
allowed a one-time $3 increase to retail and mail order pharmacy copays and required refills for
maintenance drug prescriptions (e.g., cholesterol, blood pressure) to be filled through lower cost
mail order or military pharmacies. The Administration’s FY2016 budget request proposed a series
of annual increases in the amount of copayments for fiscal years 2016 through 2025.24
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
No provision.
Section 702 would specify
TRICARE pharmaceutical co-
pays for fiscal years 2016
through 2025, similar to the
Administration proposal.
Discussion: Section 702 would increase the copayment for generic medications over the 2016-
2025 period from $8 to $14 for a 30-day supply from a retail pharmacy and from $0 to $14 for a
90-day supply from the mail-order pharmacy. Copayments for brand-name drugs in the
TRICARE formulary would gradually increase to $46 by 2025 for both a 30-day supply from
retail pharmacies and up to a 90-day supply from the mail-order pharmacy. Copayments for those
medications are currently $20 for drugs purchased through the retail network and $16 for drugs
purchased from the mail-order pharmacy. Copayments for non-formulary drugs would increase
from $46 to $92 by 2025. Service members who are retired for medical reasons, spouses of
members who die on active duty, and the family members of both of those groups, all would be
exempt from any copay increases.
The Congressional Budget Office budget estimate for S. 1376 as reported by the SASC states:
DoD currently spends about $4 billion each year on prescription drugs for TRICARE
beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicare. An increase in copayments would reduce
DoD’s payments to pharmacies. In addition, CBO expects that higher copayments would
lead some beneficiaries to reduce their use of medications, which, in some cases, would lead
to more outpatient visits and hospitalizations. Based on information from DoD, CBO
estimates that the net effect of implementing section 702 would be to reduce DoD’s
discretionary health care costs by about $900 million over the 2016-2020 period.
24 Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, Overview
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, 2015, pp. 6-14, http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/
fy2016/fy2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
31
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
The cost estimate further states with respect to mandatory spending:
By modifying the pharmacy benefit, section 702 would reduce health care spending for
TRICARE beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicare by $3.8 billion over the 2016- 2025
period. Pharmacy spending for those beneficiaries is paid from the DoD Medicare-Eligible
Retiree Health Care Fund, a mandatory account.25
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, and CRS Report R43184, FY2014
National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues.
CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769.
25 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate S. 1376, June 3, 2015, pp. 22-23, 28-30, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s1376.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Military Health System Quality Metrics
Background: The quality of health care provided through the military health system was the
subject of a recent series of news articles.26 Last year, then-Secretary of Defense Hagel ordered a
90-day review of the military health system which resulted in an action plan.27 Some Members of
Congress have expressed interest in the implementation of that follow-up plan.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
No provision.
Section 711 would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that
TRICARE beneficiaries obtain health
care appointments within access
standards and wait-time goals. If the
beneficiary is unable to obtain an
appointment within the wait-time
goals, the beneficiary would be
offered an appointment with a
contracted health care provider. It
would also require the Secretary to
publish health care access standards
in the Federal Register and on a
public Internet site.
Section 731 would require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with
the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to report, and make publicly
available through the Hospital
Compare website, information on
quality of care and health outcomes
regarding patients treated at military
medical treatment facilities.
Section 732 would require the
Secretary of Defense to publish, and
update at least quarterly, on a public
website data on al measures used to
assess patient safety, quality of care,
patient satisfaction, and health
outcomes for health care provided
at each medical treatment facility.
Section 733 would require an annual
report on patient safety, quality of
care, and access to care at military
medical treatment facilities.
Section 374 would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to
the armed services committees a
report setting forth current and
26See New York Times series on “Military Medicine” at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/service-members-are-
left-in-dark-on-health-errors.html.
27 http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0614_healthreview/.
Congressional Research Service
33
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
future plans to improve the
experience of beneficiaries with
health care and to eliminate
performance variability.
Discussion:
Sections 711 and 731 to 735 of the Senate-passed bill require a variety of actions to increase the
visibility of various health quality metrics by public access and through reports to Congress. CBO
estimates that about $95 million would be required over the 2016-2020 period to satisfy these
requirements.28
CRS Point of Contact: Don J. Jansen, x7-4769
28 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate S. 1376, June 3, 2015, p.23, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s1376.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
34
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Contraception
Background: The 2014 annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the
Service reported that access to contraception remains a concern, stating that “recent studies have
indicated continuing challenges with Service members’ access to reproductive health care.”29
TRICARE covers the following forms of birth control when prescribed by a TRICARE-
authorized provider:
• Contraceptive diaphragm, including measurement, purchase and
replacement,
• Intrauterine devices, including surgical insertion, removal and replacement,
• Prescription contraceptives, including the Preven Emergency Contraceptive
Kit containing special doses of regular birth control pills and a self-
administered pregnancy test, and
• Surgical sterilization, male and female.
TRICARE doesn't cover condoms and nonprescription spermicidal foams, jellies or sprays.
House-Passed H.R. 1735
Senate-Passed H.R. 1735
Final
Section 702 would require the
Section 714 would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that
Department of Defense to provide,
every military medical treatment
through clinical practice guidelines,
facility has a sufficient stock of a
current and evidence-based
broad range of methods of
standards of care regarding
contraception approved by the Food
contraception methods and
and Drug Administration to be able
counseling to all health care
to dispense any such method of
providers employed by the
contraception to women members
Department and to ensure service
of the Armed Forces and female
women have access to
covered beneficiaries.
comprehensive contraception
counseling prior to deployment and
Section 703 would require the
throughout their military careers. It
Secretary of Defense to ensure that,
would also require the Secretary to
whenever possible, a female member establish a uniform, standard
of the Armed Forces who uses
curriculum to be used in family
prescription contraception on a
planning education programs for al
long-term basis should be given prior service members.
to deployment a sufficient supply of
the prescription contraceptive for
the duration of the deployment.
Discussion: Both House and Senate-passed bills include provisions that would require DOD to
take actions to increase access to contraception.
CRS Point of Contact: Don J. Jansen, x7-4769.
29 Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service, 2014 Report, 2014, p. 19, http://dacowits.defense.gov/
Portals/48/Documents/Reports/2014/Annual%20Report/2014%20DACOWITS%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues
Author Contact Information
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
Kristy N. Kamarck
Barbara Salazar Torreon
Analyst in Military Manpower
Analyst in Defense Budget and Military Manpower
kkamarck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7783
btorreon@crs.loc.gov, 7-8996
Acknowledgments
Alexander Hitchcock made significant contributions to this report.
Congressional Research Service
36