GovernmentExecutive.com

Methods used by the Government Accountability Office to calculate the cost of the Defense Department's homosexual conduct policy are being challenged by a University of California commission whose members include a former Defense secretary.

A report released earlier this month by the 12-member UC-Santa Barbara blue-ribbon commission accused GAO of underestimating the cost of replacing military service members discharged under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which allows homosexuals to serve provided they do not disclose their sexual orientation. In exchange, the military is barred from asking.

The February 2005 GAO report found that the overall cost to recruit and train replacements for the 9,488 service members separated from fiscal 1994, the year the policy was implemented, through fiscal 2003, was $190.5 million. But the California commission reported that the actual cost was $363.8 million.

Aaron Belkin, chairman of the commission and an associate professor of political science at the University of California, called the figures used by GAO "loopy." More specifically, they were too low and inconsistent with previous figures used, he said.

The 29-page report from the UC commission, which included former Defense Secretary William Perry, now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, six professors and five military experts, said that GAO relied on "unrealistically low estimates" provided by the service branches.

Using publicly available figures on the cost of basic training and initial skills training, the commission estimated the cost to train replacements at $252.4 million, $157.3 million more than the $95.1 million figure reported by GAO.

Derek Stewart, director of GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management division, said the agency stands behind its work. Stewart signed off on the 50-page report (GAO-05-299).

"We have confirmation documents from the Department of Defense that our numbers included all training costs, including basic training," Stewart said. "We pinned this down to just the occupations that were being performed by people who were discharged . . . what would it cost to replace those people and to train somebody to take over the jobs of those discharged?"

The GAO report acknowledged that the auditors were unable to estimate some of the other costs associated with Don't Ask, Don't Tell due to the lack of data, including data about investigations, reviews, counseling and separations processing.

The UC report found an additional $32.1 million in separation travel and in costs associated with training replacements for the roughly 136 officers discharged under the policy.

GAO also failed to incorporate the monetary value the military recouped from service members prior to separation due to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, according to the UC report. Because of this additional calculation, the commission estimated the recruitment portion of the policy's cost at $79.3 million, down $16.1 million from GAO's figure of $95.4 million.

The difference on recruitment was small enough that the commission's overall cost estimate remained much higher than GAO's, however.

Stewart said that if the intent of the report is to attract attention to Don't Ask, Don't Tell because of its overall costs, then he's not sure that $363 million over a 10-year period will suffice, considering the size of the Pentagon's annual budget, which has ranged from $300 billion in the early 1990s to $439.3 billion in President Bush's fiscal 2007 request.

"If you use the GAO's $190 million figure, it amounts to $19 million per year over a 10-year period," Stewart said. "If you use the commission's figure, it is $36 million per year over a 10-year period. In the grand scheme of the DoD multibillion-dollar budgets, it's peanuts in either case."

Belkin, who is also the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC, said it was "curious" that Stewart would minimize the policy's budgetary impact, stating that "it goes right to the heart of the sloppy methodology they used."

Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., said in a statement to Government Executive that the UC commission "started where the GAO left off" in finding the policy's costs "to be almost double GAO's conservative estimate."

"In assessing the cost of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we shouldn't shortchange the taxpayers or the brave service members who are directly affected by this failed policy," Meehan said.

A member of the House Armed Services Committee, Meehan is sponsoring legislation (H.R. 1059), which would overturn the current homosexual conduct policy. The bill has 109 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel in March 2005.

COMMENTS

• There are many lifestyles I don't approve of but was forced to serve with, including adulterers, those that frequent houses of prostitution, and particularly in overseas assignments where it’s easier to get away with, child sexual predators. For you religious extremists who are using your personal religious beliefs to discriminate against honorable Americans who want to serve their countries, why should the rest of us be forced to adhere to your selective beliefs? I don't see extremists trying to force adulterers out of the military. Geez, who would be left? Get over yourselves. Gays have always and will always serve in the military and in the highest positions of the government. The same argument was used to prevent blacks and then women from serving. The military is only stronger today because we've allowed minorities and women to honorably serve. The same is true of homosexuals. The fact is, almost every major sexual scandal in recent military history has involved the sexual misconduct of heterosexuals. Who commits 99 percent of the rapes and sexual assaults in the military? Heterosexuals. Who commits 99 percent of the adultery in the military? Heterosexuals. Who frequents prostitutes 99 percent of the time? Heterosexuals. Who's not compatible with military service? GovExec.com reader Posted March 20, 2006 3:00 PM
• What, exactly, were the original justifications for prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military? I'm honestly curious. Was it ever anything more than blind homophobia? Consider the case of Robert Stout (which name I got from an editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune on 3-8-2006). He returned from Iraq with a Purple Heart. But he's not allowed in the Army anymore, because he's gay. This is a man who willingly risked his life for his country, and has the medal to prove it, but now he's out on his ass, for reasons that have nothing to do with his qualifications. And he's not the only one. How does the military, or the nation, benefit from the exclusion of people who are qualified and dedicated, but just happen to be gay? Can those of you who don't want to serve with "them" explain why? Do you have a rational reason? Do you care more if the guy watching your back in a firefight shoots straight, or if he is straight? And if the latter, why? If you had a run-in with an IED, would you care about the sex life of the medic who patched you up? If you were taking heavy fire, would you refuse air support because you thought one of the pilots was homosexual? Be honest with yourself, if you know how. Try to look beyond your prejudices. Searching for a voice of reason Posted March 9, 2006 3:40 PM
• Want proof that "homosexuality is not incompatible with military service?" Just look at some of our allies who allow openly gay soldiers. I'm pretty sure Israel falls in this category, and I seem to recall Great Britain, but it may have been some other country. The point is, some of our troops are already fighting alongside foreign units with openly gay troops, and I haven't heard of any problems with it. Does the Israeli army have problems with unit cohesion or morale? Ask yourself, who would you rather have on your side in a fight? A determined, educated soldier with good aim who just happens to be gay? Or a drug-addicted high school dropout with a criminal record who is straight, but can't shoot straight? And yes, recruiters are now accepting more dropouts, allowing more enlistees with criminal records, and there's been at least one reported instance of recruiters trying to make quota offering to help cover up a drug habit. At a time when the Army needs all the help it can get, throwing out skilled people who want to serve their country for reasons that have no bearing on their qualifications is simply idiotic. GovExec.com reader Posted March 6, 2006 10:35 AM