DTIC ADA590336: FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

0.46 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Catherine A. Theohary, Coordinator
Analyst in National Security Policy and Information Operations
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Don J. Jansen
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
January 16, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42651
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
16 JAN 2013 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2013 to 00-00-2013
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Policy Issues
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Congressional Research Service,The Library of Congress ,101 REPORT NUMBER
Independence Ave, SE,Washington,DC,20540
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 51
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress
and their staffs. Recent military operations in Iraq and ongoing operations in Afghanistan, along
with the operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of
military personnel policies and issues.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel
issues considered in deliberations on the House and Senate versions of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2013. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to
personnel policy. These include end strengths, pay raises, health care, sexual assault, issues
related to the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, as well as less prominent issues that
nonetheless generate significant public interest.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include
language concerning appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices, or any
discussion of separately introduced legislation. Some issues were addressed in the FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National
Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by David F.
Burrelli. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with a “*” in the relevant
section titles of this report.

Congressional Research Service
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
*Active Duty End Strengths ............................................................................................................ 2
*Selected Reserves End Strength..................................................................................................... 4
*Military Pay Raise ......................................................................................................................... 6
*Retirement, Adoption, Care, and Recognition of Military Working Dogs. ................................... 7
Diversity in Military Leadership and Related Reporting Requirements .......................................... 9
Authorized Leave Available for Members of the Armed Forces Upon Birth or Adoption
of a Child .................................................................................................................................... 10
Report on Feasibility of Developing Gender-Neutral Occupational Standards for Military
Occupational Specialties Currently Closed to Women ............................................................... 11
Independent Review and Assessment of Uniform Code of Military Justice and Judicial
Proceeding of Sexual Assault Cases ........................................................................................... 12
Briefing, Plan, and Recommendations Regarding Efforts to Prevent and Respond to
Hazing Incidents Involving Members of the Armed Forces ....................................................... 13
Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of
Such Members ............................................................................................................................ 14
Use of Military Installations as Sites for Marriage Ceremonies and Participation of
Chaplains and Other Military and Civilian Personnel in Their Official Capacity ...................... 15
Transfer of Troops-to-Teachers Program from Department of Education to Department of
Defense and Enhancements of Program ..................................................................................... 16
Award of Purple Heart to Members of the Armed Forces who were Victims of the Attacks
at Recruiting Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas ................................... 18
Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge ....................................................................... 19
*Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who Are Members of the Armed
Forces.......................................................................................................................................... 20
*Sexual Assault Provisions ............................................................................................................ 21
Extension of Authority to Provide Two Years of Commissary and Exchange Benefits
After Separation .......................................................................................................................... 26
Repeal of Requirement for Payments of Survivor Benefit Plan Premiums when
Participant Waives Retired Pay to Provide a Survivor Annuity Under Federal
Employees Retirement System and Terminating Payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan
Annuity ....................................................................................................................................... 27
*TRICARE Beneficiary Cost-Sharing ........................................................................................... 28
TRICARE for Involuntarily Separated Reservists ......................................................................... 29
Autism Treatment .......................................................................................................................... 30
*Unified Medical Command ......................................................................................................... 32
TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Pilot Program ........................................................................... 34
TRICARE Pharmacy Copayments ................................................................................................ 35
Congressional Research Service
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

TRICARE Coverage of Over-the-Counter Drugs .......................................................................... 37
TRICARE Coverage of Infertility Services ................................................................................... 38
Report on the Availability of TRICARE Prime ............................................................................. 40
Military Psychological Health ....................................................................................................... 42

Tables
Table 1. Administration Proposed TRICARE Pharmacy Copayment Amounts ............................ 35

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 47

Congressional Research Service
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

Introduction
Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees report their respective versions of
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills contain numerous provisions that
affect military personnel, retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are often
not included in another; are treated differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following
passage of these bills by the respective legislative bodies, a conference committee is usually
convened to resolve the various differences between the House and Senate versions.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many requests for
information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-
related issues that seem likely to generate high levels of congressional and constituent interest,
and tracks their status in the House and Senate versions of the FY2013 NDAA.
The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310
(112th Congress), was introduced in the House on March 29, 2012; reported by the House
Committee on Armed Services on May 11, 2012 (H.Rept. 112-479); and passed by the House on
May 18, 2012. The entries under the heading “House” in the tables on the following pages are
based on language in this bill, unless otherwise indicated.
The Senate version, S. 3254 (112th Congress), was introduced in the Senate on June 4, 2012, and
reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services (S.Rept. 112-173) on the same day. The
relevant provisions of S. 3254 have been included in this report. The Senate did not pass S. 3254
as such. Instead, the Senate incorporated this language into an amendment upon receiving H.S.
4310. A conference report was agreed to in both the House and Senate on December 20 and 21,
2012, respectively, and recorded in the Congressional Record as H. Rept. 112-705. The president
signed the legislation on January 2, 2013, P.L. 112-239.
Where appropriate, related CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background
information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided.
Some issues were addressed in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in
CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Policy Issues, coordinated by David F. Burrelli. Those issues that were considered previously are
designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service 1
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

*Active Duty End Strengths
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). 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. By
FY2012, the authorized end strength for the Army was 562,000, with authority for the Secretary
of Defense to increase that to 592,400 if needed to meet operational missions and
reorganizational objectives (P.L. 111-84, §403), while the authorized end strength for the Marine
Corps was 202,100. With the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in December 2011 and a
drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan beginning in 2012, the Army and the Marine Corps have
announced plans to reduce their personnel strength to 490,000 and 175,000, respectively, by
FY2017. In contrast to the growth of the ground forces in the FY2001-FY2012 time frame, end
strength for the Air Force and Navy decreased over this period. The authorized end strength for
FY2012 was 332,800 for the Air Force and 325,700 for the Navy.
House-passed (H.R. 4310) Senate-passed (H.R. 4310) P.L. 112-239
Section 401 authorizes a total Section 401 authorizes a total Section 401 authorizes a total
FY2013 active duty end strength of FY2013 active duty end strength of FY2013 active duty end strength of
1,402,483 including: 1,401,697 including: 1,401,697 including:
552,100 for the Army 552,100 for the Army 552,100 for the Army
322,700 for the Navy 322,700 for the Navy 322,700 for the Navy
197,300 for the Marine Corps 197,300 for the Marine Corps 197,300 for the Marine Corps
330,383 for the Air Force 329,597 for the Air Force 329,460 for the Air Force
Section 403 requires that any Section 403 limits end strength
proposed reductions in Army or reductions in the Army to no more
Marine Corps end strength in the than 15,000 members during each
Administration’s FY2014-FY2017 fiscal year from FY2014 through
budget requests include a FY2017 in comparison to the end
certification by the President that the strength of the preceeding fiscal year.
proposed reductions will not “(1) The provision similarly limits end
undermine the ability of the Armed strength reductions for the Marine
Forces to meet the requirements of Corps to no more than 5,000
the National Security Strategy; (2) members during each fiscal year
increase security risks for the United from FY2014 through FY2017 in
States; or (3) compel members of comparison to the end strength of
the Armed Forces to endure the preceeding fiscal year.
diminished dwell time and repeated
Section 528 requires the Service
deployments.” Section 403 also limits
Secretaries to include a statement in
strength reductions in the Army to
their annual budget justification
no more than 15,000 per fiscal year,
material “concerning the extent to
and in the Marine Corps to no more
which the number of members of an
than 5,000 per year, for each year of
Armed Force under the jurisdiction
FY2014-FY2017. Finally, section 403
of the Secretary who are within the
required that the President’s annual
Integrated Disability Evaluation
budget requests for FY2014-17 be
System impacts—(1) the readiness of
sufficient to support the minimum
that Armed Force to meet on-going
Army and Marine Corps end
mission requirements; and (2) dwell
strengths specified in 10 USC 691(b)
time for other members of that
without relying on “any emergency,
Armed Force.” If the statement
Congressional Research Service 2
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

House-passed (H.R. 4310) Senate-passed (H.R. 4310) P.L. 112-239
supplemental, or overseas indicates an adverse impact, the
contingency operations funding.” Service Secretary must also include a
plan to mitigate the adverse impact.
Section 404 excludes members of
the Armed Forces who are in the
Integrated Disability Evaluation
System from the calculation of end
strength for fiscal years 2013-2018.
Discussion: With the end of the war in Iraq, and a planned drawdown in Afghanistan over the
next few years, the House bill included reductions for the Army (-9,900) and Marine Corps (-
4,800) end strengths in comparison to their FY2012 authorized levels. It also reduced the end
strengths for the Air Force (-2,417) and the Navy (-3,000). However, the bill mitigated the impact
of these cuts somewhat by specifying that those individuals who are being evaluated for disability
be excluded in the calculation of end strength (sec. 404). Excluding such ill or injured service
members from the end strength “count” would effectively increase the number of individuals who
can remain on active duty. This is particularly relevant for the ground forces, which still have
thousands of wounded personnel in the disability evaluation system. Looking to future years,
Section 403 of the House bill sought to temper the pace of the drawdown for ground forces by
capping the size of future reductions in Army and Marine Corps end strengths, and by requiring
the President to certify that any reductions will not have certain negative impacts.
The Senate bill included end-strengths that were identical to the House bill, except that it
authorized 786 fewer personnel for the Air Force. The conference report included end-strength
levels identical to the House and Senate provisions for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, while
authorizing an Air Force end-strength slightly lower than the House and Senate provisions. The
conference report adopted the House limitations on end-strength reductions in the Army and
Marine Corps for FY2014-17, but did not adopt the certification requirement, budgeting
restrictions, or the disability exclusion. However, section 528 of the conference report requires
the Service Secretaries to provide certain information to the Congress on possible adverse
impacts on readiness and dwell time that are related to the presence of service members in the
Integrated Disability Evaluation System.
Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by David F. Burrelli,
and similar reports from earlier years. See also CRS Report RL32965, Recruiting and Retention:
An Overview of FY2010 and FY2011 Results for Active and Reserve Component Enlisted
Personnel, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.
Congressional Research Service 3
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy 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 2% over the past 10 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 857,100 in FY2012). Much of this
can be attributed to the reduction in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were also
modest shifts in strength for some other components of the Selected Reserve. For comparative
purposes, the authorized end strengths for the Selected Reserves for FY2001 were as follows:
Army National Guard (350,526), Army Reserve (205,300), Navy Reserve (88,900), Marine Corps
Reserve (39,558), Air National Guard (108,022), Air Force Reserve (74,358), and Coast Guard
Reserve (8,000).1 Between FY2001 and FY2012, the largest shifts in authorized end strength
have occurred in the Army National Guard (+7,674 or +2%), Coast Guard Reserve (+2,000 or
+25%), Air Force Reserve (-2,958 or -4%), and Navy Reserve (-22,700 or -26%). A smaller
change occurred in the Air National Guard (-1,322 or -1.2%), while the authorized end strength of
the Army Reserve (-300 or -0.15%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (+42 or +0.11%) have been
largely unchanged during this period.
House-passed (H.R. 4310) Senate-passed P.L. 112-239
Section 411 authorizes the following Section 411 authorizes the following Section 411 authorizes the following
end strengths for the Selected end strengths for the Selected end strengths for the Selected
Reserves: Reserves: Reserves:
Army National Guard: 358,200 Army National Guard: 358,200 Army National Guard: 358,200
Army Reserve: 205,000 Army Reserve: 205,000 Army Reserve: 205,000
Navy Reserve: 62,500 Navy Reserve: 62,500 Navy Reserve: 62,500
Marine Corps Reserve: 39,600 Marine Corps Reserve: 39,600 Marine Corps Reserve: 39,600
Air National Guard: 106,005 Air National Guard: 106,435 Air National Guard: 105,700
Air Force Reserve: 72,428 Air Force Reserve: 72,428 Air Force Reserve: 70,880
Coast Guard Reserve: 9,000 Coast Guard Reserve: 9,000 Coast Guard Reserve: 9,000
Discussion: In both the House and Senate bills, and the conference report, the authorized
Selected Reserve end strengths for FY2013 are the same as those for FY2012 for the Army
National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve. The Navy Reserve’s
authorized end strength was 66,200 in FY2012, but the Administration requested a decrease to
62,500 (-3,700) which the House and Senate approved, as did the conferees. The Coast Guard
Reserve’s authorized end strength was 10,000 in FY2012, but the Administration requested a
decrease to 9,000 (-1,000), which the House and Senate also approved, as did the conferees. The
Air National Guard’s end strength in FY2012 was 106,700 and the Air Force Reserve’s was
71,400. The Administration proposed reducing these to 101,600 (-5,100) and 70,500 (-900),
respectively. The proposed reductions were largely based on Air Force plans to divest, transfer, or
retire certain aircraft from Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units. These proposals were
quite controversial, and the House and Senate rejected them, authorizing only a small reduction in
end strength for the Air National Guard (-695 for the House, -265 for the Senate) and increasing
the end strength for the Air Force Reserve (+1,028) in comparison to FY12. The committee report

1 P.L. 106-398, §411.
Congressional Research Service 4
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

accompanying the House bill noted that “the committee’s increase to the President’s FY13 budget
request reflects the corresponding manpower requirements for the committee’s limitation on
retiring, divesting or transferring any aircraft assigned to the Air Force.”2 The committee report
accompanying the Senate bill stated, “The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal
year 2013 request for reserve component end strengths, with the exception of additional Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve end strength to support force structure changes adopted by
the committee” and later, “The committee believes that there is little justification for the relative
imbalance in the cuts applied to the Air National Guard.”3 The conference report adopted
strength levels below the House and Senate provisions, and below the FY12 levels (-1000 Air
National Guard, -520 Air Force Reserve) but still substantially higher than the Administration
request (+4,100 Air National Guard, +380 Air Force Reserve).4
References: None.
CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.

2 H.Rept. 112-479, p. 148. §1076 of the House bill would bar the Army and Air Force from using any FY2013 funds
“to divest, retire, or transfer, or prepare to divest, retire, or transfer, any—(1) C–23 aircraft of the Army assigned to the
Army as of May 31, 2012; or (2) aircraft of the Air Force assigned to the Air Force as of May 31, 2012.”
3 S. Rept. 112-173, p. 100 and 245. § 1701-1707 of the Senate bill would establish a national commission to study the
structure of the Air Force, including its reserve components. With certain exceptions, § 1708 would bar the Air Force
from using any FY2013 funds “to divest, retire, or transfer, or prepare to divest, retire, or transfer, any aircraft of the
Air Force assigned to units of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve as of May 31, 2012.”
4 See sections 141, 361-367, and 1059 of the Conference Report for the legislative provisions related to the restrictions
on the transfer and divestment or airframes and a national commission on the structure of the Air Force
Congressional Research Service 5