FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Contents

• Introduction
• *Active Duty End-Strength
• *Selected Reserves End-Strength
• *Military Pay Raise
• *Housing Allowances
• *Defense Commissary System
• *Survivor Benefits
• *Servicemember Education, Credentialing, and Transition
• *Military Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment

Summary

Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on H.R. 2810 as passed by the House, on July 14, 2017, and S. 1519 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections in each bill that pertain to selected personnel policies. These include issues such as military end-strengths, pay and benefits, and other major policy issues.

This report focuses exclusively on the annual national defense authorization act (NDAA) legislative process. It does not include language concerning appropriations, or tax implications of policy choices, topics that are addressed in other CRS products. Issues that have been discussed in the previous year's defense personnel reports are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this report.

---

FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Introduction

Each year, the House and Senate armed services committees take up national defense authorization bills. The House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (H.R. 2810) on July 14, 2017. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the NDAA (S. 1519) on July 10, 2017. These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are sometimes not included in the other, are treated differently, or are identical in both versions. Following passage of each chamber's bill, a conference committee typically convenes to resolve the differences between the respective chambers' versions of the bill. This report is intended to highlight selected personnel-related issues that may generate high levels of congressional and constituent interest.¹ CRS will update this report to reflect enacted legislation.

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 were previously addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328) and discussed in CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al., or other reports. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this report.

*Active Duty End-Strength

Background: The authorized active duty end-strengths for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000).² Over the next decade, in response to the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress substantially increased the authorized personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Congress began reversing those increases in light of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan beginning in 2012, and budgetary constraints. In FY2017, Congress halted further reductions in Army and Marine Corps end-strength and provided a slight end-strength increase. End-strength for the Air Force generally declined from 2004-2015, but increased in 2016 and 2017. End-strength for the Navy declined from 2002-2012, increased in 2013, and has remained essentially stable since then. Authorized end-strengths for FY2017 and proposed end-strengths for FY2018 are in Figure 1.

Discussion: In comparison to FY2017 authorized end-strengths, the Administration's FY2018 budget proposed no change for the Army and Marine Corps, slightly higher end-strengths for the Navy (+1,400) and a more substantial increase for the Air Force (+4,000).

Both the House and Senate bills approved higher end-strengths for the Army. In comparison to the Administration's request, the House approved an additional 10,000 while the Senate bill includes an additional 5,000. Section 402 of the House bill would adjust the minimum end-strengths required by 10 U.S.C. §619 to a level equal to the authorized end-strengths set in Section 401.

The House approved a Marine Corps end-strength identical to the Administration's request, while the Senate bill includes slightly more (+1,000 compared to the Administration request).

The House and Senate bills both approved end-strengths identical to the Administration's request for the Navy and Air Force.

Figure 1. FY2018 Authorized Active Duty End-Strength Comparison of FY2017 Enacted and President's Budget Request with H.R. 2810 and S. 1519

Notes: Up arrows indicate increases from the FY2017 authorization.

Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al., and similar reports from earlier years.

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

*Selected Reserves End-Strength

Background: The overall authorized end-strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by about 6% over the past 16 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 820,200 in FY2017).³ 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. Authorized end-strengths for FY2017 and proposed end-strengths for FY2018 are in Figure 2.

Discussion: Relative to FY2017 authorized end-strengths, the Administration's FY2018 budget proposed slight increases for the Navy Reserve (+1,000 compared to FY2017 authorized), Air Force Reserve (+800), and Air National Guard (+900); and no change for the Marine Corps Reserve, Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

The House and Senate bills both approved end-strengths identical to the Administration's request for all the reserve components except the Army Reserve. Both the House and Senate bills approved higher end-strengths for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. In comparison to the Administration's request, the House approved an additional 4,000 for the Army National Guard and 3,000 more for the Army Reserve, while the Senate approved an extra 500 for both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

Figure 2. FY2018 Authorized Reserve End-Strength Comparison of FY2017 Enacted and President's Budget Request with H.R. 2810 and S. 1519

Notes: Up arrows indicate increases from the FY2017 authorization.

Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al., and similar reports from earlier years.

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

*Military Pay Raise

Background: Concerns with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with long-standing 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 United States Code 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 statutory formula stipulates that the increase in basic pay for 2018 will be 2.4% 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. Increases in basic pay are typically effective at the start of the calendar year, rather than the fiscal year.

The FY2018 President's Budget requested a 2.1% military pay raise, lower than the statutory formula of 2.4%.

Discussion: The House bill would require the statutory formula go into effect, resulting in a 2.4% pay raise for all servicemembers effective on January 1, 2018. The Senate bill would waive the automatic adjustment to basic pay specified in 37 U.S.C. §1009 and provide an increase of 2.1%, effective January 1, 2018.

Currently, 37 U.S.C. 1009(e) authorizes the President to set an alternative pay adjustment,

(1) If, because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, the President considers the pay adjustment which would otherwise be required by this section in any year to be inappropriate, the President shall prepare and transmit to Congress before September 1 of the preceding year a plan for such alternative pay adjustments as the President considers appropriate, together with the reasons therefor

Section 604 of the Senate bill would remove the language allowing the President to make such an adjustment on the grounds of "serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare." If adopted, the President's authority to make such an adjustment would be limited to cases of "national emergency."

Reference(s): For an explanation of the pay raise process and historical increases, see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by [author name scrubbed]. Previously discussed in CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al., and similar reports from earlier years.

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

*Housing Allowances

Background: Under current law, all servicemembers are entitled to either government-provided housing or a housing allowance. For those living in the United States, the housing allowance is known as Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).

Some servicemembers entitled to BAH live on military bases in housing that has been privatized. During the mid-1990s, Congress granted DOD a number of special authorities to enable the department to provide incentives for private firms to partner with DOD to improve the quality of housing available to servicemembers living on military installations. Since then, the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) has enabled DOD to rely on private sector financing, expertise, and innovation for the construction and operation of housing for both families and individual servicemembers.⁴

The FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act allowed the Secretary of Defense to reduce BAH payments by 1% of the national average monthly housing cost. The FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act extended this authority, authorizing an additional 1% reduction per year through 2019, for a maximum reduction of 5% of the national monthly average housing cost.

Discussion: The amount of money paid to the companies that operate privatized housing is tied to the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates for the individual occupying the housing. As these payments may constitute a significant source of revenue for firms owning and operating privatized military housing, reductions in BAH could lower those firms' revenues. The Senate provision would halt the reductions in BAH for servicemembers living in privatized housing, and require the Comptroller General to provide to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees a report that analyzes several aspects of the MHPI, including the impact of BAH rate reduction on its long term viability. The House had no similar provision.

Reference: CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

*Defense Commissary System

Background: Over the past few years, Congress has been concerned with improving the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) system, mandating several studies and reports. However, Congress has stopped short of major changes that would significantly reduce or eliminate the commissary subsidy. Recent reform proposals have sought to reduce DeCA's reliance on appropriated funds without compromising patrons' commissary benefits or the revenue generated by DOD's non-appropriated fund (NAF) entities.

DeCA's goal is to provide patrons with an average savings rate of 30% over commercial providers. A March 2017 GAO report found that DOD "lacks reasonable assurance that it is maintaining its desired savings rate for commissary patrons." ⁵ This GAO report recommends that DOD address limitations identified in its savings rate methodology; develop a plan with objectives, goals, and time frames to improve efficiency in product management; and conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses for service contracts and distribution options.⁶ DOD concurred with the first two recommendations and partially concurred with the third stating that "authorizing legislation is required."⁷

In the FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328), Congress authorized $1.2 billion in commissary funding.

Discussion: Section 632 of the House-passed H.R. 2810 would require DOD to submit a report regarding management practices of military commissaries and exchanges no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. The report would require a cost benefit analysis with the joint goals of reducing operating costs of military commissaries and exchanges by $2 billion over fiscal years 2018-2022 and not raising patron costs.

The President's FY2018 budget request for $1.39 billion includes funding for DeCA to operate 240 commissary stores on military installations worldwide, employing a workforce of over 14,000 civilian full-time equivalent employees.⁸ The President's FY2018 budget request for commissaries is the same amount Congress authorized in FY2016. H.R. 2810 would authorize $1.34 billion for DeCA's commissary operations for FY2018. This is $45 million less than the Administration's proposal with reductions in civilian personnel compensation and benefits ($20 million) and commissary operations ($25 million).

Currently, the Senate version has no commissary provisions. However, in the Report to Accompany S. 1519 (S.Rept. 115-125), the Senate would authorize the full $1.4 billion ($1,389,340,000) requested for FY2018 in Section 4501.⁹

Reference(s): CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

*Survivor Benefits

Background: Under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), a military retiree may have a portion of his or her monthly retired pay withheld in order to provide, after his or her death, a monthly benefit to a surviving spouse or other eligible recipients. When an active duty servicemember dies, his or her survivor's payment through the SBP is usually 55% of the retired base pay that the member would otherwise have been eligible to receive. For reservists who die during inactive-duty training (IADT), the base amount reflects their years of service, which renders the SBP payment less than if the member died on active duty. The FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328 §642) provides equal benefits under SBP for survivors of reserve component members who die in the line of duty during IADT.

By law, surviving spouses who receive both an annuity from DOD as a beneficiary of the SBP and from the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) must have their SBP payments reduced by the amount of DIC. Congress first authorized a payment to such surviving spouses to offset that reduction in the FY2008 NDAA.¹⁰ This benefit is called the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance (SSIA). Monthly SSIA payments are currently $310 and are taxable. Section 646 of the FY2017 NDAA extended the payment of SSIA until May 31, 2018.

Discussion: Section 621 of the House-passed bill expresses the sense of Congress that the SSIA was created as a stop gap measure to assist widowed spouses by reducing the SBP/DIC offset required by law. This section also states that the dollar-for-dollar reduction in payment to surviving spouses should be fully repealed at the first opportunity.

Section 631 of the Senate version would modify Section 1447 of Title 10, United States Code, and Section 1452 of Title 10, United States Code, to ensure equitable treatment under the SBP of members of the uniformed services covered by the modernized retirement system who elect to receive a lump sum of retired pay, as authorized under Section 1415 of Title 10, United States Code.

Section 638 of the Senate version would amend Section 1450 of Title 10, United States Code, to permanently extend the authority to pay the SSIA and would require inflation adjustments to that allowance by the amount of the military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for each calendar year beginning in 2019.

Reference(s): CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al., FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues; CRS Report R40757, Veterans' Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for Survivors, by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments, by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]

*Servicemember Education, Credentialing, and Transition

Background: In the past few decades, Congress has enacted legislation and appropriated funds for servicemember off-duty education (tuition assistance), credentialing programs, and transition services to support servicemembers and veterans in translating military skills and experience into post-service education and employment opportunities. Three programs of note are the Transition Assistance Program (TAP);¹¹ the Credentialing Opportunities Online (COOL);¹² and the DOD Skillbridge program, which is also known as the Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships (JTEST-AI) program.¹³

Discussion: The TAP curriculum culminates in a one-week course in the months immediately preceding a member's separation, retirement, or release from active duty. Congress has required that certain information be provided and specific topics covered in the associated pre-separation counseling.¹⁴ Provisions in the Senate bill (Sections 542 and 652) would expand some of these statutory requirements.

Section 546 of the Senate committee-reported bill would establish a 2-year pilot program to integrate and coordinate the various components of DOD's education, transition, and credentialing programs with state and local programs and agencies. The pilot program would be carried out in at least five installations around the country with a large enough employment or industrial base to support a variety of occupations. Section 619 of the House bill would seek to improve the "accuracy and completeness" of employment skills verification and certification for members transitioning out of the military and seeking civilian employment. It would also require state-specific certification and licensing information to be provided in pre-separation TAP counseling.

Sections 546 of the House bill would expand the types of professional credentialing programs (authorized by 10 U.S.C. §2015) available to uniformed servicemembers.

Reference(s): CRS In Focus IF10347, Military Transition Assistance Program (TAP): An Overview, by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report R42790, Employment for Veterans: Trends and Programs, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

*Military Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment

Background: Over the past decade, the issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military have generated a good deal of congressional and media attention. In 2005, DOD issued its first department-wide sexual assault policies and procedures.¹⁵ These policy documents built on recommendations from the Joint Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and on congressional requirements specified in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375). In the same year, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) was established as a permanent office serving as DOD's primary oversight body for all service-level programs. Sexual harassment policy and oversight is handled by DOD's Office of Diversity and Military Equal Opportunity.¹⁶ Between 2012 and 2017, DOD took a number of steps to implement its own strategic initiatives as well as dozens of congressionally mandated actions related to sexual assault prevention and response, victim services, reporting and accountability, and military justice.¹⁷ In FY2016, estimated sexual assault prevalence rates across the DOD's active-duty population were 4.3% for women and 0.6% for men. These estimated prevalence rates were slightly lower than reported prevalence rates in 2014 (4.9% and 0.9% respectively).¹⁸

Discussion: DOD is required to produce an annual report for Congress on sex-related offenses.¹⁹ Congress uses this information in its oversight role. The House version of the bill would add additional reporting requirements including incidents of nonconsensual distribution of private sexual images (Section 527), family-member sexual assault (Section 528),²⁰ and sexual coercion (Section 521). A House provision (Section 532) would also require additional reviews of SAPR programs for the Army National Guard and Reserve components, with a focus on monitoring timeliness of line-of-duty determinations and investigation processing.²¹

In March 2017, the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings in response to allegations of online sexual harassment and nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit photos by servicemembers on the Marines United website.²² In the hearing, senior Navy and Marine Corps officials noted that perpetrators could potentially be held accountable for these actions under Articles 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), 120 (rape and sexual assault), and/or 134 (good order and discipline) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). However, General Robert, B. Neller noted that a more explicit UCMJ provision might assist commanders in holding perpetrators accountable.²³ Both the House (Section 523) and Senate (Section 532) bills include provisions that would add punitive articles to the UCMJ prohibiting the wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images. A provision in the Senate bill (Section 521) would also amend the Manual for Courts-Martial for activities related to the nonconsensual dissemination of sexually explicit conduct or intimate photos.

Other potential changes to judicial process include a House provision (Section 524) that would create an open discovery rule. The Administration has expressed concern about this provision, stating,

The Administration shares Congress' goal of preventing sexual assault in the military and holding accountable those who commit the offense. Although the Administration is sympathetic to the motivation behind section 524, affording victim's counsel with open file discovery may have the unintended consequence of impairing the successful prosecution of cases by creating additional opportunities for the defense to challenge the victim's testimony."²⁴

Congress has raised concerns about the character of discharge for certain veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. Psychological trauma following a sexual assault incident has been associated with negative behavioral changes in the victim such as increased drug or alcohol use, poor work performance, or other disciplinary issues. These behaviors may affect the nature of a victim's discharge from the Armed Forces. Discharges that are not under "honorable" conditions may prevent servicemembers from being eligible for certain veteran's benefits. Under certain circumstances, servicemembers may appeal these decisions through Discharge Review Boards or Boards of Correction for Military Records. Section 512 of the House-passed bill and Section 520 of the Senate-reported bill would require publicly-available statistics on applications to these boards from those who have alleged a relationship between sex-related offenses and the nature of their discharge. In addition, provisions in both House and Senate versions of the bill would codify and expand existing requirements that the services establish processes for which alleged sexual assault survivors may challenge the terms of characterization of discharge or separation.

Concerns about male victims of sexual assault prompted the House in 2012 to call for a review of DOD's policies and protocols for the provision of medical and mental health care for male servicemembers.²⁵ In a 2015 report, the GAO noted a number of areas where actions were needed to specifically address support for male victims of sexual assault. In response to this report, DOD has initiated gender-specific treatment; for example, male-only therapy groups, and enhanced medical staff training on responding to and treating male victims. Section 525 of the House-passed bill would require additional training for Special Victims Counsel on male-specific challenges for victims of sex-related offenses.²⁶

Reference(s): See also CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources, by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report R43213, Sexual Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected Legislative Proposals, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report R43928, Veterans' Benefits: The Impact of Military Discharges on Basic Eligibility, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. Previously discussed in CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al., and similar reports from earlier years.

CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed].

Author Contact Information

Acknowledgments

Adam Cucchiara made contributions to this report.

Footnotes

1.	CRS military personnel reports in previous years have included military health care (TRICARE) issues. This FY2018 report does not include analysis of health care-related provisions.
2.	The term end-strength refers to the authorized strength of a specified branch of the military at the end of a given fiscal year, while the term authorized strength means "the largest number of members authorized to be in an armed force, a component, a branch, a grade, or any other category of the armed forces." 10 U.S.C. §101(b)(11). As such, end-strengths are maximum strength levels. Congress also sets minimum strength levels for the active component, which may be identical to or lower than the end-strength.
3.	The Selected Reserves encompass those units and individuals designated as so essential to initial wartime missions that they have priority over all other Reserves. Members of the Selected Reserve are generally required to perform one weekend of training each month and two weeks of training each year, for which they receive pay and benefits. Some members of the Selected Reserve perform considerably more military duty than this, while others may only be required to perform the two weeks of annual training each year or other combinations of time. Members of the Selected Reserve can be involuntarily ordered to active duty under all of the principal statutes for reserve activation.
4.	As of 2012, the most recent year for which information is publicly available, DOD had privatized (i.e., transferred ownership and operation) approximately 193,000 military family housing units, or almost 80% of the domestic military family housing inventory, under 50-year agreements. The privatization of housing for unaccompanied servicemembers (barracks and dormitories) has also advanced, but at a slower pace.
5.	The GAO report was requested in S.Rept. 114-49 to accompany S. 1376, the Senate-version of the FY2016 NDAA. GAO, Defense Commissaries: DOD Needs to Improve Business Processes to Ensure Patron Benefits and Achieve Operational Efficiencies, GAO-17-80, March 23, 2017.
6.	Ibid, pp. 31-32.
7.	Ibid, p. 44.
8.	Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer, Defense Budget Overview Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request, May 12, 2017, Figure 5-1 Pay & Benefits Funding (PDF p. 41) and Figure5-6. Military Family Support Programs (PDF pp. 51-52) at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2018/fy2018_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
9.	S.Rept. 115-125, Report to Accompany S. 1519, July 10, 2017, p. 520.
10.	P.L. 110-181, §644.
11.	The military Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was established in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 101-510, Section 502) and codified in 10 U.S.C. §1142. This program provides counseling services and workshops to help servicemembers transition into the civilian workforce.
12.	The COOL program is authorized by Section 2015 of Title 10 United States Code and it provides funded vouchers to help servicemembers pay for exams and maintenance of civilian certifications and licenses. The program is funded through COOL funds, tuition assistance funds, and through individual GI Bill benefits.
13.	JTEST-AI includes civilian job training for transitioning military servicemembers up to six months prior to separation. It includes both apprenticeships and internships. The training must offer a high probability of employment and be provided to the servicemember at little or no cost.
14.	10 U.S.C. §1142.
15.	DOD Directive 6495.01 and DOD Instruction 6495.02.
16.	Although there is a relationship between sexual harassment and sexual assault, sexual harassment/sexism is considered a form of discrimination.
17.	For more information on congressional activity prior to 2013 see CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources, by [author name scrubbed].
18.	These estimates are based on survey data for respondents who experienced behaviors consistent with the definition of sexual assault in the previous year. Department of Defense, 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members; Overview Report, OPA Report No. 2016-050, May 2017, pp. 34 & 36.
19.	P.L. 111-383 §1631, codified in 10 U.S.C. §1561 note. DOD makes current and archived annual reports available to the public, online at: http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/reports/sapro-reports.
20.	The Statement of Administration Policy (p. 6) asks Congress to "consider whether the information required by section 528 is already provided in annual Family Advocacy Program reports." Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2810 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Washington, DC, July 11, 2017.
21.	Line of duty (LOD) determinations are the results of investigations into the member's illness, injury, disease, or death and may affect DOD medical benefits that Reserve Component members are eligible to receive. For more information, see Department of Defense, Reserve Component (RC) Line of Duty Determination for Medical and Dental Treatments and Incapacitation Pay Entitlements, April 19, 2016.
22.	See hearing transcript for U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Information Surrounding the Marines United Website, 115th Cong., March 14, 2017.
23.	General Neller stated, "I think there may be some discussion about […] whether there are provisions within the UCMJ that may need to be more specific about this particular type of potential offense. Because this is not new -- new, but there's got to be some tools for commanders to be able to address specifically."
24.	Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2810 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Washington, DC, July 11, 2017.
25.	H.Rept. 113-102.
26.	A special victims' counsel (SVC) is a military or civilian attorney who is a member of the bar of a Federal court or of the highest court of a State and satisfies all SVC training requirements. The SVC provides legal assistance to the victim, represents the victim's best interests, and ensures that the victim is aware of his or her rights throughout the military justice process. Relevant authorities are 10 U.S.C. §§1044, 1044e and 1565b.