type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.6.2010
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 161/35
 2010 m. balandžio 16 d.Cour de cassation (Prancūzija) pateiktas prašymas priimti prejudicinį sprendimą baudžiamojoje byloje prieš Aziz Melki
 (Byla C-188/10)
 (2010/C 161/53)
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikęs teismas
 Cour de cassation
 Šalis pagrindinėje byloje
 Aziz Melki
 Prejudiciniai klausimai
 1.
 Ar 2007 m. gruodžio 13 d. Lisabonoje pasirašytos Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 267 straipsniu draudžiamos tokios teisės nuostatos, kaip antai 1958 m. lapkričio 7 d. Nutarimo Nr. 58-1067 23-2 straipsnio 2 dalis ir 23-5 straipsnio 2 dalis, įtvirtintos 2009 m. gruodžio 10 d. Organiniu įstatymu Nr. 2009-1523, nes jomis teismai įpareigojami pirmiausia nuspręsti dėl jiems pateikto konstitucingumo klausimo perdavimo Konstitucinei Tarybai, jei klausimas dėl vidaus teisės akto neatitikties Konstitucijai kyla dėl šio akto prieštaravimo Sąjungos teisei?
 2.
 Ar 2007 m. gruodžio 13 d. Lisabonoje pasirašytos Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 67 straipsniu draudžiamos tokios teisės nuostatos, kaip antai Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso 78-2 straipsnio 4 dalis, kurioje numatyta, kad „Prancūzijos ir 1990 m. birželio 19 d. Šengene pasirašytos konvencijos šalimis esančių valstybių sausumos pasienyje ir 20 km Prancūzijos pasienio ruože, o taip pat visuomenei prieinamose uostų, oro uostų ir geležinkelio ar autobusų stočių zonose, atvirose tarptautiniams susisiekimams ir nurodytose dekrete, bet kurio asmens tapatybė taip pat gali būti tikrinama laikantis 1 dalyje nustatytos tvarkos, siekiant patikrinti įstatymu įtvirtintų pareigų turėti, nešioti ir pateikti dokumentus laikymąsi. Kai tokia kontrolė vykdoma tarptautinio susisiekimo traukinyje, ji gali būti vykdoma maršruto atkarpoje tarp sienos ir pirmos stotelės už 20 km pasienio ruožo. Tačiau ypatingais maršrutais vykstančiuose tarptautinio susisiekimo traukiniuose kontrolė taip pat gali būti vykdoma tarp šios stotelės ir kitos artimiausioje 50 km atkarpoje esančios stotelės. Atitinkami maršrutai ir stotelės nurodomi ministro dekretu. Jei automobilio kelio atkarpa prasideda šios dalies pirmame sakinyje minėtoje zonoje, o pirmasis kelio rinkliavos punktas yra už 20 km ruožo ribų, kontrolė gali būti vykdoma iki šio pirmojo rinkliavos punkto esančiose stovėjimo aikštelėse, rinkliavos rinkimo punkte ir gretimose stovėjimo aikštelėse. Rinkliavų rinkimo punktai, kuriems taikoma ši nuostata, nurodomi dekrete“?


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'Report No. DODIG-2013-027 November 30, 2012\n\n\n\n\n DoD Generally Effective at Correcting Causes\n of Antideficiency Act Violations in Military\n Personnel Accounts, But Vulnerabilities\n Remain\n\x0cAdditional Information\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of Defense\nInspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports\nDistribution Unit at auditnet@dodig.mil.\n\n\nSuggestions for Audits\nTo suggest or request audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for\nAuditing at auditnet@dodig.mil or by mail:\n\n Department of Defense Office of Inspector General\n Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing\n ATTN: Audit Suggestions/13F25-04\n 4800 Mark Center Drive\n Alexandria, VA 22350-1500\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\nADA Antideficiency Act\nBA Budget Activity\nBUPERS Bureau of Navy Personnel\nCMA Centrally Managed Allotment\nDoD FMR DoD Financial Management Regulation\nMILPERS Military Personnel\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nPCS Permanent Change of Station\nUSD(C)/CFO Under Secretary of Defense\n (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, DoD\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n 4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE\n ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22350-1500\n\n November 30, 2012\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/\n CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DOD\n ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE\n (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER)\n NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL\n AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\n\n SUBJECT: DoD Generally Effective at Correcting Causes of Antideficiency Act\n Violations in Military Personnel Accounts, But Vulnerabilities Remain\n (Report No. DODIG-2013-027)\n\nWe are providing this report for review and comment. This audit was required by\nSection 8109 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. The Military Departments\nwere generally effective implementing and sustaining corrective actions taken in response\nto nine Antideficiency Act violations, involving the Military Personnel accounts, totaling\n$541.9 million, reported since October 1, 2002. However, controls over tracking the\nconective actions could be improved. In addition, Atmy and Navy Comptroller\npersonnel did not annually assess the adequacy of control procedures for centrally\nmanaged allotments to prevent Antideficiency Act violations and justify their use.\n\nDoD Directive 7650.3 requires that recommendations be resolved promptly~ Comments\nfrom the Deprutment of the Navy were responsive, and we do not require additional\ncomments. We received comments from the Under Secretary of Defense\n(Comptroller)/ChiefFinancial Officer, DoD; Depattment ofthe Atmy; and Department\nof the Air Force that were generally responsive. However, the comments fi:om the Under\nSecretary of Defense (Comptroller)/ChiefFinancial Officer, DoD, on Recommendation\nB.1 .b and the comments from the Deprutments of the Army and Air Force on\nRecommendation A.2 were only partially responsive. We.request additional comments\non these recommendations by December 31, 2012 . .\n\nPlease provide comments that conform to the requirements of DoD Directive 7650.3 .. If\npossible, send a pmtable document format (.pdf) file containing your comments to\naudfmr@dodig.mil. Copies of your comments must have the actual signature of the\nauthorizing official for your organization. We are unable to accept the /Signed/ symbol\nin place of the actual signature. If you atTange to send classified comments\nelectronically, you must send them over the SECRET Intemet Protocol Router Network\n(SIPRNET).\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at\n(703) 604-8938.\n\n\n\n ~ (?. v""\n Richard B. Vasquez, CPA\n Acting Assistant Inspector General\n Financial Management and Repotiing\n\x0c\x0cReport No. DODIG-2013-027 (Project No. D2012-D000FI-0118.000) November 30, 2012\n\n Results in Brief: DoD Generally Effective at\n Correcting Causes of Antideficiency Act\n Violations in Military Personnel Accounts,\n But Vulnerabilities Remain\n allotments (CMAs). This occurred because\nWhat We Did Army personnel did not recognize this\nWe determined whether DoD developed and requirement before FY 2012, and Navy\nimplemented effective controls to prevent future personnel did not understand that the MILPERS\nAntideficiency Act (ADA) violations in the accounts were covered by this requirement. As\nMilitary Personnel (MILPERS) accounts. This a result, the Army and Navy had limited\naudit was required by Section 8109 of the assurance that controls will prevent future\nConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. MILPERS ADA violations and they have not\n justified the continued operation of MILPERS\n accounts as CMAs.\nWhat We Found\nThe Military Departments were generally What We Recommend\neffective in implementing and sustaining\ncorrective actions for the nine MILPERS ADA The USD(C)/CFO should require the Military\nviolations, totaling $541.9 million, reported Departments to report the status of all\nsince October 1, 2002. Specifically, the Under unimplemented corrective actions and update\nSecretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief the DoD Financial Management Regulation to\nFinancial Officer, DoD (USD[C]/CFO) and the clarify the definition of a CMA and require the\nMilitary Department\xe2\x80\x99s Assistant Secretaries for Military Departments to provide written\nFinancial Management and Comptroller assurance of their annual review of CMAs to the\n(Comptroller) personnel provided adequate USD(C)/CFO.\nsupport to substantiate that 36 of 44 corrective\nactions were implemented and sustained. We recommend that the Assistant Secretaries of\nHowever, in four of the nine violations, Army the Army, Navy, and Air Force (Financial\nand Navy Comptroller personnel could not Management and Comptroller) establish\ndemonstrate that they had completed and procedures to document corrective actions\nsustained eight corrective actions, including taken. The Navy should also identify all its\nthree actions still in process. This occurred CMAs and begin performing and documenting\nbecause DoD had not established sufficient annual reviews.\ncontrols to ensure that required corrective\nactions in MILPERS ADA violation reports Management Comments and\nwere properly implemented, sustained, and Our Response\ndocumented. As a result, DoD remained Comments from the Navy were responsive.\nvulnerable to future MILPERS ADA violations. Comments from the USD(C)/CFO, Army, and\n Air Force were partially responsive. We request\nArmy and Navy Comptroller personnel did not additional comments. Please see the\nassess the adequacy of control procedures recommendations table on the back of this page.\nestablished for managing centrally managed\n i\n\x0cReport No. DODIG-2013-027 (Project No. D2012-D000FI-0118.000) November 30, 2012\n\nRecommendations Table\n\n Management Recommendations No Additional Comments\n Requiring Comment Required\nUnder Secretary of Defense B.1.b A.1, B.1.a\n(Comptroller)/Chief Financial\nOfficer\n\nAssistant Secretary of the Army A.2\n(Financial Management and\nComptroller)\n\nAssistant Secretary of the Navy A.2, B.2\n(Financial Management and\nComptroller)\n\nAssistant Secretary of the Air A.2\nForce (Financial Management\nand Comptroller)\n\n\nPlease provide comments by December 31, 2012.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nIntroduction 1\n\n Objective 1\n Background 1\n Review of Internal Controls 5\n\nFinding A. DoD Was Generally Effective In Implementing and\nSustaining ADA Violation Corrective Actions 6\n\n General Categories for Numerous Causes of Violations 6\n Military Departments Implemented and Sustained Most Corrective Actions 7\n Reducing Vulnerability to Future ADA Violations Requires Follow-up\n and Documentation of Corrective Actions 10\n Completing Remaining Corrective Actions Should Take Priority\n Over Seeking Congressional Action 11\n Management Comments on the Finding and Our Response 11\n Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response 13\n\nFinding B. Army and Navy Did Not Complete Annual Reviews\nof the Military Personnel Accounts 15\n\n Required Reviews of Centrally Managed Allotments 15\n Army and Navy Did Not Comply with the Annual CMA Review Requirement 16\n DoD Financial Management Regulation Did Not Require Reporting to\n USD(C)/CFO 17\n Management Comments on the Finding and Our Response 18\n Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response 18\n\nAppendices\n\n A. Scope and Methodology 20\n B. Prior Coverage 21\n C. Antideficiency Act Summaries 23\n\nManagement Comments\n\n Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, DoD 34\n Department of the Army 36\n Department of the Navy 38\n Department of the Air Force 40\n\x0c\x0cIntroduction\nObjective\nThe audit objective was to determine whether DoD developed and implemented effective\ncontrols to prevent future Antideficiency Act (ADA) violations in the Military Personnel\n(MILPERS) accounts. Specifically, we determined whether DoD implemented the\ncorrective actions in prior reports and investigations concluded in the last 10 years that\nidentified ADA violations of the MILPERS accounts and whether DoD maintained its\nprocess improvements to prevent future ADA violations. This audit was required by the\nConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (the Act). See Appendix A for a discussion of\nthe scope and methodology and Appendix B for prior coverage related to the objectives.\n\nBackground\nThe office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, DoD\n(USD[C]/CFO) submitted proposals for FYs 2012 and 2013 to the House and Senate\nAppropriations Committees that requested the authority to extend 2 percent of each\nMILPERS appropriation for obligation for an additional year. USD(C)/CFO personnel\nstated in their proposal that this would reduce the rate of MILPERS ADA violations by\nallowing the Military Departments more flexibility for unidentified or underestimated\nrequirements that occurred after a MILPERS appropriation was no longer available for\nnew obligations.\n\nAs a result of interest in this request, Section 8109 of the Act required the following:\n\n The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall conduct a review of\n Antideficiency Act violations and their causes in the Department of Defense Military\n Personnel accounts. Based on the findings of the review, the Inspector General shall\n submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the results of the\n review and recommendations for corrective actions to be implemented.\n\nAppropriations and Budget Authority\nAn appropriation is a provision of legal authority that permits Federal agencies to incur\nobligations 1 and to make payments out of the U.S. Treasury for a specified purpose. An\nappropriation usually follows enactment of authorizing legislation by Congress and is the\nmost common means of providing budget authority. Appropriations also represent\nlimitations of amounts and the purpose for which agencies may obligate during the time\nperiod specified in the respective appropriation acts.\n\nFollowing the authorizing legislation, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) then\napportions the funds to agencies. This means that OMB makes distributions of amounts\navailable for obligation in an appropriation into amounts available for specified time\n\n\n1\n An obligation is a binding agreement that will result in outlays, immediately or in the future. Budgetary\nresources must be available before obligations can be incurred legally.\n\n\n 1\n\x0cperiods, programs, activities, or projects. An apportionment may be further subdivided\nby an agency into allotments, suballotments, allowances, and allocations. Allotments are\nsubdivisions of apportionments that are made by the heads of agencies. Suballotments\nare subdivisions of allotments while allowances and allocations are subdivisions of\nsuballotments.\n\nWhen Congress appropriates budget authority, it sets the period of availability for new\nobligations of the budget authority and the period normally is specified in the law\nproviding the budget authority.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Annual budget authority refers to budget authority that is available for obligation\n for one fiscal year or less.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Multi-year budget authority is available for obligation for a specified period of\n time in excess of one fiscal year.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 No-year budget authority is an appropriation which is available for obligation\n until all funds have been expended.\n\nCentrally Managed Allotments\nCentrally managed allotments (CMAs) are established to finance activities when\ncentralized funding controls are more practical for the appropriation. Under centralized\nfund control, fund allowances, allotments, commitment records, and fiduciary\nresponsibility for the funds are maintained and controlled by a single funds holder, such\nas the Director of Resource Management /Comptroller. In the event of an ADA\nviolation, the Director of Resource Management /Comptroller would be held accountable\nfor the ADA violation.\n\nBy contrast, under decentralized fund control, funds are distributed to other organizations\nand these organizations then have fiduciary responsibility for the funds received. In the\nevent of an ADA violation, the funds holder of the allocation, suballocation, or other\nsubdivision of funds may be held accountable.\n\nDoD Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR) volume 14, chapter 1,\n\xe2\x80\x9cAdministrative Control of Funds,\xe2\x80\x9d January 2009, requires that the head of each DoD\nComponent review its CMAs annually to determine whether its operation should be\ncontinued. The annual review must include an evaluation of the adequacy of control\nprocedures established to prevent ADA violations.\n\nMilitary Personnel Accounts\nMILPERS accounts are annual appropriations that fund military member pay and\nallowances, recruiting and retention incentives, subsistence-in-kind (food rations),\npermanent change of station (PCS) costs, death gratuities, unemployment compensation\nbenefits, Reserve Officer Training Corps, and Cadet stipends. Most of the MILPERS\naccounts are centrally managed.\n\nMILPERS accounts consist of 10 separate annual appropriations. The Army and the Air\nForce each have three appropriations (Active, Reserve, and National Guard) while the\n\n\n 2\n\x0cNavy and Marine Corps each have two appropriations (Active and Reserve).\nAppropriations are broken down into categories, called Budget Activities (BAs), which\nidentify the purposes, projects, or types of activities financed by the appropriation. There\nare six BAs within the Active MILPERS accounts.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BA 1 - Pay and Allowances of Officers\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BA 2 - Pay and Allowances of Enlisted\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BA 3 - Pay and Allowance of Cadets\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BA 4 - Subsistence of Enlisted Personnel\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BA 5 - PCS\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BA 6 - Other MILPERS Cost\n\nThe Reserve and National Guard components of the Military Services use a single BA,\nUnit and Individual Training, to manage all of their funding.\n\nThere is minimal discretionary spending within the MILPERS accounts. More than\n90 percent of the annual MILPERS accounts is required for pay and benefits to military\nservice members, and the funds must be paid according to the number of service\nmembers. Some PCS costs, including the cost of storage of family household goods\n(sometimes for lengthy periods) are difficult to estimate. This creates a unique\nend-of-year budgeting and expenditure execution challenge for DoD.\n\nAntideficiency Act\nThe ADA consists of provisions of law designed to enforce the Constitutional authority\nof Congress over funding the government. The ADA has a number of restrictions,\nincluding the following laws prohibiting obligations and expenditures in excess of an\nappropriation or before an appropriation is made.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An employee of the United States government may not authorize a payment or an\n obligation exceeding an apportionment or amount permitted by regulation of\n administrative control of funds. (Section 1517, Title 31, United States Code)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An employee of the United States government may not authorize a payment or an\n obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation\xe2\x80\xa6before an\n appropriation is made. (Section 1341, Title 31, United States Code)\n\nPotential ADA violations must be investigated, in accordance with DoD FMR,\nvolume 14. If an ADA violation is suspected, a preliminary review must be completed\nby the agency. Further, if the preliminary review concludes that an ADA violation likely\noccurred, a formal investigation must also be completed. The responsible Military\nDepartment must report the results of the formal investigation to the USD(C)/CFO,\nwhich then reports all the relevant facts and actions for actual ADA violations to the\nPresident and Congress in accordance with Section 1351, Title 31, United States Code.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cFunds Control Annual Report\nDoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, paragraph 010211, states that each DoD Component\nmust conduct an annual evaluation of its overall administrative funds control processes\nand the processing of ADA violations.\n\nThe evaluation must include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 descriptions of improvements of the effectiveness of internal controls over\n appropriations and funds,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 a status report of the number of key fund control personnel identified and trained,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 descriptions of improvements in compliance with the ADA, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the identification of lessons learned from the investigation of ADA violations and\n implementation of appropriate corrective actions to preclude the reoccurrence of\n ADA violations.\n\nUniverse of MILPERS ADA Violations\nOver the past 10 years, there were nine closed ADA violation cases involving the\nMILPERS accounts. Table 1 lists the nine MILPERS ADA cases, valued at\n$541.9 million, reported in the last 10 years.\n\n Table 1. MILPERS ADA Violations\n Military Case Fiscal Year(s) Dollar Value Case Closed\n Department Number of Violation\nNavy 03-01 2002 $21,800,000 August 2005\nArmy 04-07 1995-1997 * 521,790 April 2007\nArmy 04-12 2004 30,000 April 2007\nArmy 05-03 2001 25,000,743 August 2007\nArmy 06-09 2005 59,046,000 September 2007\nAir Force 09-03 2005 87,535,000 December 2010\nArmy 10-02 2008 155,000,000 June 2012\nNavy 10-03 2008 183,241,112 March 2011\nAir Force 10-06 2009 9,729,552 February 2012\n Total $541,904,197\n*Although the formal case for this MILPERS ADA violation was opened in December 2002, the events\nthat generated the case actually occurred in FYs 1995 through 1997.\n\nSee Appendix C for a summary of each violation. The Army also had one potential\nMILPERS ADA violation under formal investigation. As of September 24, 2012, Army\nComptroller personnel were preparing the formal report for Army Case 11-07. This was\na potential ADA violation in the FY 2005 MILPERS, Army appropriation. The\nestimated dollar value of the potential violation is $130,280,000.\n\nTable 2 identifies the impact of the 2 percent proposed authority for each of the Military\nDepartments for the past 5 fiscal years. This authority would significantly exceed the\nfinancial impact for each of the ADA violations as listed in Table 1. For example, the\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cAir Force violation in FY 2009 was $9.7 million; however, 2 percent of the Air Force\nappropriations for FY 2009 would have been $616.6 million, which is significantly\ngreater than the dollar value of the ADA violation.\n\n Table 2. 2 Percent of Annual MILPERS Appropriation (in millions)\n Military FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011\n Service*\nArmy $768.7 $1,100.7 $1,217.0 $1,278.7 $1,309.5\nNavy 414.9 521.5 551.2 572.5 584.2\nAir Force 479.3 590.8 616.6 648.0 674.1\nMarine Corps 171.8 254.1 278.6 284.5 292.0\n Total $1,834.7 $2,467.1 $2,663.4 $2,783.7 $2,859.8\n*Appropriations for each Military Service are combined in this table. Totals for the Army and Air Force\ninclude Active, Reserve, and National Guard appropriated amounts. Totals for Navy and Marine Corps\ninclude Active and Reserve appropriated amounts.\n\nReview of Internal Controls\nDoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal Control Program (MICP) Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\nJuly 29, 2010, requires DoD organizations to implement a comprehensive system of\ninternal controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs are operating as\nintended and to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls. We identified internal control\nweaknesses in the reporting of unimplemented corrective actions for MILPERS ADA\nviolations and procedures for maintaining records documenting corrective actions taken.\nIn addition, Army and Navy personnel did not annually assess the adequacy of control\nprocedures established for managing CMAs. We will provide a copy of the report to the\nsenior official responsible for internal controls in the Department of the Army,\nDepartment of the Navy, and Department of the Air Force.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cFinding A. DoD Was Generally Effective In\nImplementing and Sustaining ADA Violation\nCorrective Actions\nThe Military Departments were generally effective in implementing and sustaining the\ncorrective actions for nine MILPERS ADA violations, totaling $541.9 million, reported\nsince October 1, 2002. Specifically, USD(C)/CFO and the Military Department\xe2\x80\x99s\nAssistant Secretaries for Financial Management and Comptroller (Comptroller)\npersonnel 2 provided adequate support to substantiate that 36 of 44 corrective actions were\nimplemented and sustained. However, in four of the nine MILPERS ADA violation\ncases, Army and Navy Comptroller personnel could not demonstrate that they had\ncompleted and sustained eight corrective actions, which included three corrective actions\nstill in process. This occurred because USD(C)/CFO and Military Department\nComptroller personnel had not established sufficient controls to ensure that the required\ncorrective actions in the MILPERS ADA violation reports were properly implemented,\nsustained, and documented. The absence of a method for tracking prior corrective\nactions made it difficult for the Military Department Comptroller personnel to provide\nevidence that they had taken and sustained all of the corrective actions. As a result, DoD\nremained vulnerable to future MILPERS ADA violations.\n\nGeneral Categories for Numerous Causes of Violations\nThe ADA violation reports documenting the formal ADA investigations identified\nnumerous causes for the nine MILPERS ADA violations, but there were several common\nreasons for the violations. We identified three general categories of causes. As shown in\nTable 3, most ADA violations resulted from a failure to follow established procedures or\ninternal control weaknesses. Inadequate cost estimating was a factor in only three of the\nnine MILPERS ADA violations.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Within the Air Force, the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller has control over\nthe budget, cost, manpower, and financial operations functions. However, within the Army, the Assistant\nSecretary for Financial Management and Comptroller only has control over the budget, cost, and financial\noperations functions. The manpower function is controlled by the Army\xe2\x80\x99s Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.\nSimilarly, within the Navy, the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller only has\ncontrol over the budget, cost, and financial operations functions. The manpower function is controlled by\nthe Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). Unless otherwise noted, reference to\nthe Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management and Comptroller personnel includes all MILPERS\nfunctions.\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Table 3. Categories of MILPERS ADA Violations\n Military Case Internal Inadequate Failure to\n Department Number Control Cost Follow\n Weakness Estimating Established\n Procedures\n Navy 03-01 X X X\n Army 04-07 X X\n Army 04-12 X\n Army 05-03 X\n Army 06-09 X X\n Air Force 09-03 X X\n Army 10-02 X X\n Navy 10-03 X\n Air Force 10-06 X X\n\nThe MILPERS ADA violation reports also identified the corrective actions in response to\nthe causes for the individual violations. DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 7,\n\xe2\x80\x9cAntideficiency Act Report,\xe2\x80\x9d November 2010, requires these reports to identify the\nspecific actions to be completed to prevent similar violations in the future. The\ncorrective actions are to be detailed enough in order to evaluate the adequacy of the\ncorrective actions required by the ADA investigation. This includes improvement of\noverall and specific policies, procedures, and processes used; newly established or\nimproved internal procedures; and assurances that a similar violation would not occur in\nthe future. Enclosures to ADA violation reports must show documentation of corrective\nactions taken or to be completed.\n\nMilitary Departments Implemented and Sustained Most\nCorrective Actions\nMilitary Departments implemented and\nsustained most of the corrective actions Military Departments\nidentified in the nine MILPERS ADA violation implemented and sustained most\nreports issued since October 1, 2002. Based on of the corrective actions\ninformation in the ADA violation reports, identified in the nine MILPERS\nadditional documents provided to us, and our ADA violation reports issued\ndiscussions with Military Department since October 1, 2002.\npersonnel, we determined whether the\ncorrective actions identified in the reports had been completed and whether there was\nevidence indicating that the corrective actions were still in place. Table 4 identifies the\nstatus of all corrective actions taken on the nine MILPERS ADA violations.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c Table 4. Status of MILPERS ADA Violation Corrective Actions\n Military Case Total Corrective Evidence of Corrective\nDepartment Number Corrective Actions Corrective Actions\n Actions Completed Action Still In\n and Was Process\n Sustained Inadequate\nNavy 03-01 9 9 0 0\nArmy 04-07 5 3 2 0\nArmy 04-12 1 1 0 0\nArmy 05-03 3 2 1 0\nArmy 06-09 4 4 0 0\nAir Force 09-03 5 5 0 0\nArmy 10-02 12 8 2 2\nNavy 10-03 4 3 0 1\nAir Force 10-06 1 1 0 0\n Total 44 36 5 3\n\nAlthough many corrective actions had been taken by Military Department personnel in\nresponse to the MILPERS ADA violations, evidence did not exist to substantiate that\nthey had taken or sustained corrective actions related to four of the nine MILPERS ADA\nviolations.\n\nCorrective Actions Completed and Sustained\nMilitary Department Comptroller personnel fully completed and sustained the corrective\nactions identified in ADA violation reports for five of the nine MILPERS ADA violation\ncases. For example, Air Force Case 09-03 had five corrective actions listed in the report.\nAir Force Comptroller personnel provided supporting documentation showing that they\nhad completed and sustained all the corrective actions listed in the ADA violation report.\nTo illustrate, the inexperience of the staff was one of the causes contributing to the ADA\nviolation and they did not understand ADA implications of procedures used to obligate\nPCS moves. The corrective action identified required additional training for staff who\nmanaged the unique aspects of the MILPERS processes. Air Force Comptroller\npersonnel provided descriptions of the additional required training courses, as well as\nevidence that this training had been implemented and was on going.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cSome Corrective Actions Evidence Was Inadequate\nArmy Comptroller personnel could not demonstrate that they properly implemented or\nsustained 5 of 20 corrective actions identified in three ADA violation reports. For\nexample, the ADA violation report for Army Case\n Army Comptroller personnel\n05-03 indicated that the Army National Guard\n could not demonstrate that\nComptroller Personnel responsible for calculating\n they properly implemented or\nMilitary Retirement Trust Fund contributions had\n sustained 5 of 20 corrective\nnot received training on how to make the\n actions identified in three ADA\ncalculations. Army National Guard Comptroller\n violation reports.\npersonnel provided us documentation that indicated\nthat training had been provided to individuals responsible for calculating contributions to\nthe Military Retirement Trust Fund in 2007. However, they could not demonstrate the\ncurrent personnel responsible for calculating contributions were trained after 2007.\n\nCorrective Actions Still In Process\nThree corrective actions related to two MILPERS ADA violations are still in process.\nFor example, in Navy Case 10-03, one of the corrective actions was the development and\nimplementation of a future system that met the requirements outlined for the Defense\nIntegrated Military Human Resources System. With the cancelation of the Defense\nIntegrated Military Human Resources System in February 2010, each Department was\nrequired to develop its own integrated personnel and military pay enterprise system\nsolution. The Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Navy is intended to be the Navy\xe2\x80\x99s\nintegrated pay and personnel system but it is not scheduled for completion until FY 2016.\n\nIn addition, Army Case 10-02 identified an internal control weakness in the management\nof its Active MILPERS account. As a result, Army personnel created a Lean Six Sigma\nproject to help correct the internal control weakness by identifying a better way to record\nPCS moves. There are two on going tasks for this Lean Six Sigma project which,\naccording to Army Comptroller personnel, will not be completed until March 2014.\nUntil all identified corrective actions are taken, DoD remains vulnerable to future\nMILPERS ADA violations.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cReducing Vulnerability to Future ADA Violations\nRequires Follow-up and Documentation of\nCorrective Actions\nDoD had not established sufficient controls to ensure that the corrective actions identified\nin ADA violation reports were implemented, sustained, and documented. DoD FMR,\n volume 14, chapter 1, requires that each DoD\n None of the evaluation Component annually conduct an evaluation of its\n reports identified the status overall administrative funds control processes. The\n of corrective actions in evaluation must identify lessons learned for the\n previous MILPERS ADA investigation of ADA violations and address actions\n violation reports. to implement appropriate corrective actions to\npreclude the reoccurrence of ADA violations. Each of the Military Departments prepared\nthe reports for FY 2012. Although the Military Departments reported on the corrective\nactions taken in regards to new ADA violations, none of the evaluation reports identified\nthe status of corrective actions in previous MILPERS ADA violation reports. The DoD\nFMR did not require them to report in subsequent reports on the status of the\nunimplemented corrective actions as a part of the evaluation. In addition, the Military\nDepartments\xe2\x80\x99 Comptroller personnel did not maintain or track records to prove that they\nhad taken corrective actions in response to MILPERS ADA violation reports. None of\nthe Military Departments had a centralized location for information related to prior ADA\ninvestigations and there were often numerous points of contact for a single case. One\nmanager who worked with ADA investigations told us that she had never been asked to\nfollow up on the status of a completed investigation. By comparison, she stated that\nrecommendations from audit reports were centrally monitored and tracked.\n\nDoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, also requires that each DoD Component annually\nreport on its annual review that shows management\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of the adequacy of\ncontrol procedures established in each of its CMAs to prevent ADA violations and justify\nthe continued use of the CMA as a fund controls approach. Only the Air Force prepared\nthese annual reports. (See Finding B for more details.)\n\nDoD should strengthen the reporting requirements in DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1,\nand require the Military Departments to monitor the status of unimplemented corrective\nactions and report on the status of unimplemented corrective actions in the annual report\nevaluating funds control processes until completion to ensure that they properly\nimplemented and sustained all corrective actions taken to correct ADA violations. In\naddition, the Military Departments should establish procedures to maintain records\ndocumenting corrective actions taken for each ADA violation. Consistent with National\nArchives and Records Administration records retention guidance, records should be\nmaintained for at least 6 years and 3 months after either the date of the ADA violation\nreport to the President, or the date of the last implemented corrective action for an ADA\nviolation, whichever is the later date.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cCompleting Remaining Corrective Actions Should Take\nPriority Over Seeking Congressional Action\nDoD officials have given much attention to managing MILPERS accounts. In addition to\nthe evidence provided to support corrective actions taken on the nine MILPERS ADA\nviolations, Military Department personnel informed us of other actions that had been\ntaken or were planned to better manage the MILPERS accounts. For example, the\nMilitary Departments are developing integrated personnel and pay systems, which will be\nkey to tracking and reporting MILPERS expenditures in a more timely manner and to\nachieving better control over the MILPERS accounts after they are implemented. 3\n\nThe last MILPERS ADA violation reported by the Army and Navy involved their\nFY 2008 MILPERS accounts, and the last MILPERS ADA violation reported by the Air\nForce involved the FY 2009 Air National Guard account. However, as a result of the\ninconsistent oversight of the implementation and sustainment of the corrective actions\nidentified in previous MILPERS ADA violations, DoD remained vulnerable to future\nADA violations. Completion of the remaining corrective actions is needed before\nseeking additional flexibility in managing the MILPERS accounts.\n\nManagement Comments on the Finding and\nOur Response\nDepartment of the Army Comments\nThe Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Operations) provided comments\non the finding discussion. He stated that the Army had only one outstanding corrective\naction associated with PCS moves. He referenced a PCS Lean Six Sigma project that\nwill resolve three material weaknesses for the Army that are common across DoD. In\naddition, the Deputy Assistant Secretary provided additional comments regarding the\ncorrective actions for Army Cases 05-03 and 10-02, for which we reported that we did\nnot receive adequate supporting documentation. For Army Case 05-03, he stated that the\nArmy National Guard did not provide additional training because of a change to the\nprocess after FY 2007 in the calculations of the Military Retirement Trust Fund\ncontributions. Consequently, there was no ADA risk in this area because payments are\nmade at the start of each fiscal year based on the budgeted amount. For Army Case\n10-02, he stated that the Funds Control Module was no longer a material part of\nmanaging the MILPERS, Army appropriation.\n\nThe Deputy Assistant Secretary also stated that the Army strongly believes that\nautomation is the key to improving controls in a meaningful way. He stated that annually\nassessing internal controls is an important management function that provides continued\n\n\n\n3\n The Army, Navy, and Air Force are developing Enterprise Resource Planning systems to replace the\nDefense Integrated Military Human Resources System that was initiated in 1998 and discontinued in 2010.\nThe replacement Enterprise Resource Planning systems are not expected to be fully deployed until 2017.\n\n\n 11\n\x0cbenefit; however, the challenges that MILPERS appropriation managers face\nfundamentally revolve around system shortcomings rather than people or process\nchallenges.\n\nOur Response\nIn our review of the ADA violation reports for the nine MILPERS violations, we\nconsidered each corrective action listed by the Investigating Officers as a separate\ncorrective action. The ADA violation report for Army Case 10-02 listed two separate\ncorrective actions related to the PCS Lean Six Sigma project and, as a result, we treated\neach corrective action separately. We also contacted and met with Army personnel on\nseveral occasions to determine the status of corrective actions for the ADA violations, but\nthey did not provide the supporting documentation that we requested related to use of the\nFunds Control Module.\n\nFor Army Case 05-03, the corrective action stated that comprehensive training was\nprovided to the three individuals responsible for calculating the Military Retirement Trust\nFund contributions, but we did not receive supporting documents to substantiate that the\ntraining had been conducted after FY 2007. During the audit, the Army did not provide\nus any information stating that the change in process as described in the Army comments\neliminated the need for this training. We agree that the change in business process would\nminimize the risk of ADA violations and reduce the need for comprehensive\ntraining. However, the Army did not provide supportable evidence of the process change\nor substantiate that any training had been conducted after FY 2007. The challenge of\nreceiving the requested corrective action information for these two ADA violations\nsupports the need for the Military Departments to establish procedures to maintain\nrecords documenting the corrective actions for each ADA violation\n(Recommendation A.1). The circumstances that resulted in changes in operations\naffecting MILPERS funds and internal control processes should be identified and\nassessed in annual evaluations.\n\nWe agree that the Army\xe2\x80\x99s continued progress toward automation of its financial\nprocesses is key to improving controls in a meaningful way and to the Army\xe2\x80\x99s\nadvancement toward full auditability of its financial statements. We acknowledge in the\nfinding that the Military Departments are developing integrated personnel and pay\nsystems, which will be key to tracking and reporting MILPERS expenditures in a more\ntimely manner and to achieving better control over the MILPERS accounts after they are\nimplemented. We acknowledge that there are other system challenges, that once\novercome, will improve management of the MILPERS appropriations.\n\nDepartment of the Navy Comments\nThe Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) provided\ncomments on the finding discussion. She stated that the Navy remained concerned about\nthe risk of future ADA violations in the MILPERS accounts. The Assistant Secretary\nstated that the Navy will implement the best estimating techniques and strong internal\ncontrols, but these actions may not stop an ADA violation in a MILPERS account\nbecause of the unique nature of the account. She stated that the MILPERS accounts do\n\n\n 12\n\x0cnot have the same execution flexibility as other accounts, which contributes to the high\nrisk of ADA violations. Further, she stated that the report should focus on these concerns\nand provide viable alternatives to Congress to reduce the risk of future MILPERS ADA\nviolations.\n\nOur Response\nWe recognize that the MILPERS appropriations do not have the same operational\nflexibility as most DoD appropriations. However, reducing the risk of future ADA\nviolations in the MILPERS appropriations depends principally on implementing strong\nautomated procedures and controls over establishing financial obligations as well as the\nprompt and accurate recording and reporting of execution information. More consistent\noversight of the implementation and sustainment of the corrective actions identified in\nprevious MILPERS ADA violations would reduce DoD vulnerability to future ADA\nviolations. Senior DoD officials are also responsible for conducting systematic and\nmeaningful evaluations of their administrative funds control processes. We considered\nthe DoD proposal that requested the authority to extend 2 percent of each MILPERS\nappropriation for funds obligation for an additional year, but we did not attempt to\nidentify possible alternatives to this proposal that Congress could consider to further\nreduce the risk of future MILPERS ADA violations.\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and\nOur Response\nA.1. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief\nFinancial Officer, DoD, revise DoD Regulation 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial\nManagement Regulation\xe2\x80\x9d (DoD FMR), volume 14, chapter 1, January 2009, to\nrequire the Military Departments to monitor the status of unimplemented corrective\nactions and report on the status of unimplemented corrective actions in the annual\nreport evaluating funds control processes to ensure that they properly implemented\nand sustained all corrective actions taken to correct ADA violations.\n\nUSD(C)/CFO Comments\nThe Deputy Chief Financial Officer, responding on behalf of the USD(C)/CFO, agreed\nand stated that DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, would be revised in the next scheduled\nupdate to include a requirement for the Military Departments to monitor the status of\nunimplemented corrective actions and report the status as a part of the annual review of\nfunds and internal control processes.\n\nOur Response\nComments from the Deputy Chief Financial Officer were responsive, and the actions met\nthe intent of the recommendation.\n\nA.2. We recommend that the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air\nForce (Financial Management and Comptroller) establish procedures to maintain\nrecords documenting corrective actions taken for each ADA violation for at least\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c6 years and 3 months subsequent to either the date of the ADA report to the\nPresident or the date of the last implemented corrective action for an ADA violation,\nwhichever is the later date.\n\nDepartment of the Army Comments\nThe Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Operations), responding on\nbehalf of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller),\nagreed and stated that, effective immediately, the Army would begin tracking and\nsustaining corrective actions for all open formal ADA investigations that will close in\nFY 2013 and beyond. He also stated that fund holders at activities where the ADA\nviolations occurred will be responsible for providing recurring status updates that will be\nreported to the office of the USD(C)/CFO.\n\nOur Response\nComments from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Operations) were\npartially responsive. The comments did not address whether the Army would establish\nprocedures to maintain records documenting corrective actions taken for each ADA\nviolation. We request that the Army provide comments on the final report by\nDecember 31, 2012.\n\nDepartment of the Navy Comments\nThe Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) agreed\nand stated that the Navy would retain records documenting actions taken for each ADA\nviolation in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration records\nretention guidance.\n\nOur Response\nComments from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and\nComptroller) were responsive, and the actions met the intent of the recommendation.\n\nDepartment of the Air Force Comments\nThe Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Financial Operations (Financial\nManagement), responding on behalf of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial\nManagement and Comptroller), agreed and stated that her office would track corrective\nactions for reportable ADA violations and work with the office of the USD(C)/CFO and\nthe other Services to establish procedures and a standard format to report on corrective\nactions.\n\nOur Response\nThe comments from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Financial Operations\n(Financial Management) were partially responsive. The comments did not address\nwhether the Air Force would establish procedures to maintain records documenting\ncorrective actions taken for each ADA violation. We request that the Air Force provide\ncomments on the final report by December 31, 2012.\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cFinding B. Army and Navy Did Not Complete\nAnnual Reviews of the Military Personnel\nAccounts\nThe Army and Navy Comptroller personnel did not annually assess the adequacy of\ncontrol procedures established for managing their CMAs to prevent ADA violations and\njustify the continued use of the CMAs. 4 Army Comptroller personnel did not perform\nthese reviews for their MILPERS accounts and other CMAs because they failed to\nrecognize the requirement that had existed since at least 1995. In June 2012, Army\npersonnel identified the Army\xe2\x80\x99s CMAs, including their MILPERS accounts, and initiated\naction to complete a review of control procedures. Navy Comptroller personnel did not\ncomplete the annual review because they did not believe that the MILPERS accounts\nwere covered by the DoD FMR requirement. As a result, the Army and Navy had limited\nassurance that controls would prevent future MILPERS ADA violations. In addition,\nthey have not justified the continued operation of all MILPERS accounts as CMAs.\n\nRequired Reviews of Centrally Managed Allotments\nDoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, states that the head of an operating agency may\nestablish CMAs, but these allotments must be established only when it is impractical to\nadminister decentralized allotments under normal operating procedures. Before approval,\na specific determination must be made that adequate controls have been established to\navoid over-obligating or over expending the allotment. The DoD FMR requires an\nannual review that both assesses the adequacy of control procedures established in the\nCMA to prevent ADA violations as well as to justifying the continued use of the CMA as\na funds control approach. The DoD FMR also requires that the Military Department\xe2\x80\x99s\ninternal audit organization evaluate the adequacy of control procedures established to\nprevent ADA violations and recommend whether or not continued use of the CMAs is\njustified.\n\nThe Military Departments managed the MILPERS accounts for Active component\nMILPERS costs and other centrally funded types of expenses as CMAs. The Military\nDepartments managed MILPERS accounts related to Reserve and National Guard\noperations more on a decentralized basis. Table 5 shows the CMA status for each of the\n10 MILPERS appropriations, according to the Military Departments.\n\n\n\n\n4\n In addition to the MILPERS accounts, the Air Force centrally managed its foreign currency accounts. The\nArmy also centrally managed foreign currency accounts as well as second destination transportation\ncharges.\n\n 15\n\x0c Table 5. CMA Status of the Military Service Components\n Military Service Component CMA\n Air Force Active Yes\n Air Force Reserve No\n Air Force Air National Guard No\n Army Active Yes\n Army Reserve No\n Army National Guard Partial1\n Navy Active No2\n Navy Reserve No\n Marine Corps Active No2\n Marine Corps Reserve No\n 1\n The Army National Guard has both CMA and decentralized funding. Most\n National Guard funds are part of the CMA but a portion is distributed to the United\n States Property and Fiscal Officer (USPFO). Each State\xe2\x80\x99s USPFO is the official\n with pecuniary liability for all Federal property and funding in the possession of the\n National Guard with which the USPFO is serving.\n 2\n Navy Comptroller personnel did not believe that their MILPERS accounts\n (including the Marine Corps) were CMAs.\n\nArmy and Navy Did Not Comply with the Annual CMA\nReview Requirement\nPrior to FY 2012, the Army had not completed annual CMA reviews. The ADA\nviolation report for Army Case 10-02 identified weaknesses in managing the MILPERS\naccount as a CMA. Specifically, the report stated that the Office of the Deputy Chief of\nStaff, G-1, did not take steps to properly establish the MILPERS account as a CMA as\nrequired by regulation and did not comply with the annual requirement to prescribe and\ndocument an adequate system of financial and nonfinancial controls. In response to the\nfindings in the ADA violation report for Army Case 10-02, the Assistant Secretary of the\nArmy (Financial Management and Comptroller) issued a memorandum dated January 18,\n2012, requiring that the Army comply with the annual DoD FMR requirement. As of\nOctober 5, 2012, Army personnel had identified all of the Army\xe2\x80\x99s CMAs, including the\nMILPERS accounts, and were preparing the CMA packages to be provided to U.S. Army\nAudit Agency for evaluation, as required by the DoD FMR.\n\nNavy personnel did not complete the annual reviews for the Navy and Marine Corps\nMILPERS accounts, stating that the DoD FMR requirement specifically required a\nreview of a CMA, not a \xe2\x80\x9ccentrally managed account,\xe2\x80\x9d as the Navy has defined its\nMILPERS account. DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, states that allocations,\nsuballocations, or portions of an allocation, that are not required to be divided further\nmay be treated and recorded as allotments. Office of the USD(C)/CFO personnel stated\nthat the intent of the DoD FMR requirement was for all the Military Departments to\ncomplete the annual reviews for all CMAs including MILPERS accounts. Although we\n\n 16\n\x0cdo not agree with the Navy interpretation of DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, the DoD\nFMR needs clarification to better explain the applicability of the guidance to MILPERS\naccounts.\n\nThe Air Force adequately completed the annual CMA review requirement for the periods\nwe reviewed, FYs 2010 through 2012. In its review for FY 2012, the Air Force\nconcluded that the justification package for the MILPERS account demonstrated clearly\nthat the fund control and management procedures established to administer its CMA\nremained intact and were adequate to preclude overobligation and over expenditure of the\nCMA. Air Force Audit Agency agreed with this assessment.\n\nThe USD(C)/CFO should revise the DoD FMR to clarify the definition of a CMA to\nensure that each Military Department completes the annual report for all CMAs,\nincluding MILPERS accounts. Navy personnel should identify all of the Navy\xe2\x80\x99s CMAs\nand commence performing and documenting annual reviews of its CMAs, including the\nNavy and Marine Corps MILPERS accounts. The reviews should assess the adequacy of\ncontrol procedures established in the CMAs to prevent ADA violations and justify the\ncontinued use of the accounts as a funds control procedure.\n\nDoD Financial Management Regulation Did Not Require\nReporting to USD(C)/CFO\nThe DoD FMR requires that the head of each operating agency complete the annual\nCMA report, but does not require providing these reports to the office of the\nUSD(C)/CFO. If a Military Department\ndoes not comply with the requirement to The USD(C)/CFO needs assurance that\ncomplete this report, it may have all the Military Departments have\nincreased risk of future ADA violations as established required controls within the\na result of weak controls within the CMA. MILPERS account CMAs.\nThe USD(C)/CFO needs assurance that\nall the Military Departments have established required controls within the MILPERS\naccount CMAs and that the justification for continuing the CMA is reasonable.\n\nThe USD(C)/CFO should establish procedures to require that Military Department\nComptroller personnel provide his office with written assurance of the completion of the\nannual review of CMAs, including MILPERS accounts. The report should note any\ndeficiencies or material issues revealed by the review and the results of its evaluation by\nthe Military Department\xe2\x80\x99s internal audit organization.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cManagement Comments on the Finding and\nOur Response\nDepartment of the Army Comments\nThe Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Operations) provided comments\non the finding discussion. The Deputy Assistant provided information about Army\nassessments of internal controls for the Army MILPERS appropriations. He stated that\nappropriation managers had been monitoring internal controls in accordance with\nSection 3512, Title 31, United States Code, \xe2\x80\x9cExecutive Agency Accounting and Other\nFinancial Management Reports and Plans;\xe2\x80\x9d OMB Circular No. A-123, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement\'s\nResponsibility for Internal Control;\xe2\x80\x9d and Army Regulation 11-2, \xe2\x80\x9cManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal\nControl Program.\xe2\x80\x9d The Army\xe2\x80\x99s annual assessment of the effectiveness of internal\ncontrols for both financial and non-financial operations was done as a part of the Annual\nStatement of Assurance process.\n\nOur Response\nWe recognize that the annual assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls provides\nmeaningful information about overall operational and financial controls. However, the\nAnnual Statement of Assurance does not provide the more detailed and specific analysis\nof controls that would be achieved in the annual review of centrally managed allotments.\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments,\nand Our Response\nB.1. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief\nFinancial Officer, DoD, revise DoD Regulation 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial\nManagement Regulation\xe2\x80\x9d (DoD FMR), volume 14, chapter 1, to:\n\n a. clarify the definition of a centrally managed allotment as it relates to\nMilitary Personnel accounts; and\n\n b. establish procedures to require that each Assistant Secretary for Financial\nManagement and Comptroller provides his office with written assurance of\ncompletion of the annual review of centrally managed allotments, including the\nMilitary Personnel appropriations.\n\nUSD(C)/CFO Comments\nThe Deputy Chief Financial Officer, responding on behalf of the USD(C)/CFO, agreed\nwith the recommendation and stated that DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1, would be\nrevised in the next scheduled update to clarify the definition of a centrally managed\nallotment, which includes allotments and allocations, and require the Military\nDepartments to report to the Assistant Secretary of the Military Departments (Financial\nManagement and Comptroller) upon completion of the review.\n\n 18\n\x0cOur Response\nComments from the Deputy Chief Financial Officer were partially responsive. In\nresponse to Recommendation B.1.b, he stated that each Assistant Secretary of a Military\nDepartment (Financial Management and Comptroller) should be notified when the annual\nreviews were completed. We recommended that the USD(C)/CFO be notified so that his\noffice would be aware that each Military Department completed the annual review of\ncentrally managed allotments. We request that the USD(C)/CFO provide comments on\nthe final report describing plans for updating the DoD FMR that would require that each\nAssistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller provide the office of the\nUSD(C)/CFO with written assurance of completion of the annual review of centrally\nmanaged allotments.\n\nB.2. We recommend that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial\nManagement and Comptroller) identify all of the Navy\xe2\x80\x99s centrally managed\nallotments and commence performing and documenting annual reviews of its\ncentrally managed allotments, including the Navy and Marine Corps Military\nPersonnel accounts.\n\nDepartment of the Navy Comments\nThe Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) agreed\nand stated that the Navy would comply with the direction of the office of the\nUSD(C)/CFO upon implementation of Recommendation B.1.\n\nOur Response\nComments from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and\nComptroller) were responsive. In response to Recommendation B.1, the Deputy Chief\nFinancial Officer stated that the definition of a centrally managed account will be\nclarified and that the Military Departments will be required to report the results upon\ncompletion of their annual review of centrally managed accounts, which includes\nallotments and allocations. Regardless of when the DoD FMR is changed, the Navy\nshould begin its review of internal controls and substantiate the continued operation of\neach of its centrally managed allotments, including the MILPERS appropriations. The\nNavy actions met the intent of the recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\nWe conducted this performance audit from March 2012 through November 2012 in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards\nrequire that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to\nprovide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\nWe believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nWe obtained the ADA violation reports for the nine MILPERS ADA violations that the\nMilitary Departments reported in FYs 2003 through 2012. We reviewed the documented\ncauses of each violation for completed investigations and determined whether DoD\nimplemented and sustained the required corrective actions that resulted from the causes\nof the violations. We determined whether the annual reports of CMA reviews and\nevaluations of administrative funds controls processes were completed in accordance\nwith DoD FMR, volume 14, chapter 1. We met with the House Committee on\nAppropriations, Subcommittee on Defense and the Senate Committee on Appropriations,\nSubcommittee on Defense to discuss our audit approach and provide a status update. We\nalso held meetings with personnel from the USD(C)/CFO and the offices of the Assistant\nSecretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to obtain further details about the\ncorrective actions that had been taken in response to the ADA violation reports.\n\nUse of Computer-Processed Data\nWe did not rely on computer-processed data as a basis for developing our findings,\nconclusions, or recommendations.\n\nUse of Technical Assistance\nWe did not use technical assistance in conducting this audit.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cAppendix B. Prior Coverage\nDuring the last 5 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of\nDefense Inspector General (DOD IG), U.S. Army Audit Agency, Naval Audit Agency,\nand Air Force Audit Agency have issued 16 reports discussing MILPERS accounts.\nUnrestricted GAO reports can be accessed over the Internet at http://www.gao.gov.\nUnrestricted DOD IG reports can be accessed at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports.\n\nUnrestricted Army reports can be accessed from .mil and gao.gov domains over the\nInternet at https://www.aaa.army.mil/.\n\nNaval Audit Service reports are not available over the Internet.\n\nAir Force Audit Agency reports can be accessed from .mil domains over the Internet at\nhttps://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/CoP/OpenCoP.asp?Filter=OO-AD-01-41 by those with\nCommon Access Cards.\n\n\nGAO\nGAO Report No. GAO-12-406, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Army Faces Significant Challenges in Achieving\nAudit Readiness for Its Military Pay,\xe2\x80\x9d March 2012\n\nGAO Report No. GAO-11-950T, \xe2\x80\x9cWeaknesses in Controls Over the Use of Public Funds\nand Related Improper Payments,\xe2\x80\x9d September 22, 2011\n\nGAO Memo No. B-318724, \xe2\x80\x9cDepartment of the Army-The Fiscal Year 2008 Military\nPersonnel, Army Appropriation and the Antideficiency Act,\xe2\x80\x9d June 22, 2010\n\nGAO Report No. GAO-08-1063, \xe2\x80\x9cImprovements are Needed in Antideficiency Act\nControls and Investigations,\xe2\x80\x9d September 2008\n\nArmy\nU.S. Army Audit Agency Report No. A-2012-0079-FMF, \xe2\x80\x9cControls Over the\nUnemployment Compensation Program for Ex-Service members,\xe2\x80\x9d March 16, 2012\n\nU.S. Army Audit Agency Report No. A-2010-0143-FFM, \xe2\x80\x9cFollow-up Audit of FY 05\nSubsistence Charges,\xe2\x80\x9d July 29, 2010\n\nU.S. Army Audit Agency Report No. A-2010-0071-FFP, \xe2\x80\x9cFollow-up Audit of Controls\nOver Leave, Overtime, and Compensatory Time by Army Commands in Hawaii,\xe2\x80\x9d\nMay 6, 2010\n\nU.S. Army Audit Agency Report No. A-2009-0171-FFF, \xe2\x80\x9cProcesses to Pay and Recoup\nEnlistment Bonuses for the U.S. Army Reserves,\xe2\x80\x9d September 30, 2009\n\n\n 21\n\x0cU.S. Army Audit Agency Report No. A-2009-0118-FFF, \xe2\x80\x9cProcesses to Pay and Recoup\nEnlistment Bonuses for the Active Army, ODCS, G-1,\xe2\x80\x9d May 19, 2009\n\nU.S. Army Audit Agency Report No. A-2008-0108-FFM, \xe2\x80\x9cMiscellaneous Credits for\nReserve Component Pay,\xe2\x80\x9d April 29, 2008\n\nNavy\nNaval Audit Service Report No. 2012-0024, \xe2\x80\x9cBusiness Process Reengineering Efforts for\nSelected Department of the Navy Business System Modernizations; Personalized\nRecruiting for Immediate and Delayed Enlistment Modernization,\xe2\x80\x9d March 6, 2012\n\nAir Force\nU.S. Air Force Audit Agency Report No. F2012-0002-FD4000, \xe2\x80\x9cMilitary Personnel\nAppropriation Man-Days,\xe2\x80\x9d November 22, 2011\n\nU.S. Air Force Audit Agency Report No. F2011-0012-FD4000, \xe2\x80\x9cCombat Pay and Tax\nExclusion,\xe2\x80\x9d August 12, 2011\n\nU.S. Air Force Audit Agency Report No. F2010-0011-FB1000, \xe2\x80\x9cSelected Aspects of the\nMilitary Personnel Appropriation Centrally Managed Allotment,\xe2\x80\x9d September 7, 2010\n\nU.S. Air Force Audit Agency Report No. F2010-0010-FD4000, \xe2\x80\x9cBasic Allowance For\nSubsistence/Essential Station Messing Entitlements,\xe2\x80\x9d September 1, 2010\n\nU.S. Air Force Audit Agency Report No. F2010-0007-FD4000, \xe2\x80\x9cMilitary Leave\nProgram,\xe2\x80\x9d July 1, 2010\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c Appendix C. Antideficiency Act Summaries\n Navy Case 03-01\nViolation This violation occurred because the Marine Corps overdisbursed the MILPERS Marine\n Corps appropriation during FY 2002. The Marine Corps was authorized to mobilize up to\n 7,500 reservists after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but because of complexities\n associated with the increased workload and no accurate process for tracing the costs, the\n Marine Corps overdisbursed its MILPERS appropriation. The violation totaled $21,800,000\n and resulted in a violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1341(a).\nCauses \xe2\x80\xa2 The September 11 event caused strain on the appropriation due to a marked increase in\n workload and complexity when the Marine Corps was ordered to mobilize a large\n number of Marine Reservists.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs staff and financial staff\n had difficulty in reaching an agreement on the number of reservists to mobilize, how\n they were to be used, and the effect on the MILPERS account.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Marine Corps\xe2\x80\x99 established procedures were not followed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The inability to determine what data was reflected in the obligation plans and\n expenditure data contributed to the problems in reconciling the MILPERS account.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A pay grade matrix for the mobilized reserve strength was not provided until\n August 2002, making it impossible to verify the accuracy of the Marine Corps Total\n Force System data.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 The Marine Corps established a schedule for reconciling the Reserve Order Writing\nActions System.\nTaken and \xe2\x80\xa2 Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs issues daily reports on the\nSustained number of Marines mobilized and on stop-loss.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Marine Corps combined active and mobilized reservists in manpower end-strength\n and financial phasing plans.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quarterly funds status briefings are prepared and presented at the three star level with\n Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources and Deputy Commandant for\n Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The Assistant Deputy Commandant for Programs and\n Resources is briefed weekly or as required.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Assigned two Presidential Management Fellows and one Navy Financial Management\n Intern to the Manpower Personnel Branch.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Marine Corps assigned a junior officer (major) with a financial management\n background and a strong field disbursing experience to develop and implement improved\n automated system reporting procedures.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Marine Corps established a budget execution analyst position.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Marine Corps developed automated reports from the Marine Corps Total Force\n System.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Defense Finance and Accounting Service Kansas City developed an automated interface\n between the Marine Corps Total Force System and Standard Accounting, Budgeting, and\n Reporting System.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c Navy Case 03-01 (continued)\nEvidence of None\nCorrective\nAction was\nInadequate\nCorrective None\nActions Still\nIn Process\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c Army Case 04-07\nViolation This violation occurred in FYs 1995 through 1997 in the National Guard, Army\n appropriations and totaled $521,790.86. The U.S. Virgin Islands Army National Guard\n performed numerous missions during hurricane support and relief efforts, but did not bill\n the Territory of the Virgin Islands to obtain reimbursement. The Territory fully\n reimbursed these expenditures in FY 2006; however, the reimbursement was not credited\n to the affected appropriations because the appropriations had canceled. This situation\n resulted in a violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1341(a).\nCause The National Guard Bureau concluded there was a lack of proper documentation and\n believed the U.S. Virgin Islands Army National Guard should be held accountable for the\n misuse of Federal funds.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 The Territory of the Virgin Islands provided the reimbursement.\nActions \xe2\x80\xa2 The National Guard Bureau is conducting normal inspections as scheduled by the\nTaken and appropriate directorates.\nSustained \xe2\x80\xa2 The National Guard Bureau made changes to the Safety Aviation Program, and a new\n Safety Aviation Officer has been assigned to ensure all flights and activities are\n conducted according to Army Regulation and Standard Operating Procedures.\nEvidence \xe2\x80\xa2 Procedures for the loan of Federal materiel are being completed in accordance with\nof the Army Regulation 700-131. Army National Guard Comptroller personnel did not\nCorrective provide information to show the corrective action occurred.*\nAction was \xe2\x80\xa2 Proper use of the armories is being monitored. Although the Army National Guard\nInadequate Comptroller personnel provided information showing personnel were trained, they\n could not show that armories were monitored.*\nCorrective None\nActions\nStill In\nProcess\n *\n Our assessment of the corrective action is indicated by italics.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c Army Case 04-12\nViolation This violation occurred at the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve, when a memorandum\n was published authorizing $5,000 for 3-year reenlistment bonuses in FY 2004. These\n bonuses were in excess of the statutory limit of $2,500 contained in Title 37, United\n States Code, Section 308(b). Twelve soldiers were approved for such bonuses totaling\n $60,000, which was $30,000 more than permitted by statute. This situation resulted in a\n violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1341(a)(1)(A).\nCause The Office of the Chief, Army Reserve, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation\n (PA&E), published a memorandum on December 5, 2003, authorizing $5,000 bonus\n payments for 3-year reenlistments, at the direction of Chief of Army Reserve\n (Chief). The Chief was aware that Congress authorized the Active Component a 3-year\n reenlistment bonus for $5,000 and believed it also applied to the Reserve, but never\n requested a written legal opinion to support his interpretation.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 Twelve soldiers who were approved for the bonus had their reenlistment contracts\nActions revoked and no funds were disbursed exceeding the $2,500 limit. To prevent a\nTaken and reoccurrence of the violation, new procedures have been implemented to obtain legal\nSustained opinions prior to issuing future bonus policy memorandums.\nEvidence None\nof\nCorrective\nAction was\nInadequate\nCorrective None\nActions\nStill In\nProcess\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c Army Case 05-03\nViolation The violation occurred when personnel associated with the Army National Guard Bureau\n underestimated the required contributions to the Military Retirement Trust Fund. This\n violation, totaling $25,000,743, occurred in FY 2001. This situation resulted in a\n violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1341(a)(1)(A).\nCause The Army National Guard did not properly calculate Military Retirement Trust Fund\n contributions because it used monthly contributions rates from FY 2000 rather than from\n FY 2001.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 Corrected contributions to the retirement trust fund by discontinuing the previous\nActions practice.\nTaken and \xe2\x80\xa2 Established formal monthly retired pay accrual standard operating procedures.\nSustained\nEvidence \xe2\x80\xa2 Provided comprehensive training for calculating the contributions. Army National\nof Guard Comptroller personnel provided information that the training was required as\nCorrective of 2007. However, Army National Guard Comptroller personnel could not support\nAction was that subsequent training occurred.*\nInadequate\nCorrective None\nActions\nStill In\nProcess\n *\n Our assessment of the corrective action is indicated by italics.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c Army Case 06-09\nViolation The violation occurred because Army Reserve Command personnel failed to promptly\n record and pay valid FY 2005 Reserve Personnel, Army obligations, totaling $59,046,000.\n This overobligation resulted in a violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section\n 1341(a)(1)(A).\nCauses \xe2\x80\xa2 There was an increase in Reserve Soldiers drilling, and Office of the Deputy Chief of\n Staff for Personnel expanded the window of reenlistment eligibility. Consequently,\n Army Reserve disbursements for incentives increased from $51.9 million in FY 2004\n to $138.4 million in FY 2005, and Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs\n (G-8) became aware of the need to obligate funds sufficient to cover reenlistment\n bonuses.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One of the staff members was engaged in supporting an Army Regulation\n investigation and was unable to devote full attention to their primary job.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Another staff member, noticing the increasing costs, transferred as much available\n Reserve Personnel, Army funding into the areas needed because these payments were\n going to be needed earlier than the end of year for the Defense Health Care Accrual.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Another individual was instructed to ensure the Defense Health Care Accrual FY 2005\n obligations were raised and recorded at the appropriate levels. As a result, a voucher\n was created making it appear as if the Defense Health Care Accrual was obligated and\n paid in full even though it was not.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 The Command developed a budget execution analysis modeling system.\nActions \xe2\x80\xa2 Command started processing initial and reenlistment bonus payments to soldiers\nTaken and through an automated process as of August 1, 2006.\nSustained \xe2\x80\xa2 In FY 2006, a new law (United States Code, Section 1116) required that Defense\n Health Care Accrual payments be made at the beginning of the current fiscal year.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Comptroller; the Plans, Analysis, and Evaluation Chief; and the U.S. Army\n Reserve Command G-8 now report to the Office Chief Army Reserve, Director of\n Resource Management.\nEvidence None\nof\nCorrective\nAction was\nInadequate\nCorrective None\nActions\nStill In\nProcess\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0c Air Force Case 09-03\nViolation The violation occurred because the Air Force overobligated its FY 2005 MILPERS, Air\n Force appropriation when a significant number of PCS moves were charged to FY 2006,\n while the PCS moves were commenced and completed in FY 2005. This resulted in a\n violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1341(a)(1)(A) of $87,535,000.\nCause There was inadequate manpower and experience within the finance community to manage\n the PCS budget.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 To correct the identified overobligations, the Air Force has made the required funding\nActions corrections to properly record obligations.\nTaken and \xe2\x80\xa2 The Air Force has implemented several major policy changes that clarify and tighten\nSustained guidance regarding the recording of PCS obligations. In addition, in the final month\n of each fiscal year, Air Force Personnel Center now centralizes PCS order\n authentication and approval, effectively exerting real-time control of orders issuance.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management, Director of Budget,\n formally established and now chairs the Personnel Budget Review Committee. The\n Personnel Budget Review Committee provides senior-level oversight that had been\n absent when the overobligations occurred.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Air Force has taken action to improve manning. The Air Force Comptroller and\n the Director of Budget have provided clear direction regarding focus on staffing and\n management of the MILPERS Section.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management, Director of Budget,\n has developed a robust training syllabus for new analysts to the division. The syllabus\n includes specific training required to manage the unique aspects of the MILPERS\n account.\nEvidence None\nof\nCorrective\nAction was\nInadequate\nCorrective None\nActions\nStill In\nProcess\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0c Army Case 10-02\nViolation This violation occurred when the Army\xe2\x80\x99s payroll, PCS claims, bonus payments, and\n subsistence adjustments paid in FY 2009 for its MILPERS, Army appropriation exceeded\n the amount of funds available by $155,000,000. This resulted in a violation of Title 31,\n United States Code, Section 1341(a)(1)(A).\nCauses \xe2\x80\xa2 Defense Finance and Accounting Service accounting reports in October 2008 revealed\n a significant increase in costs associated with PCS claims, pay-related adjustments,\n and bonus payments; however, funds in the appropriation account were already fully\n obligated.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Department of Labor presented a $55.9 million quarterly invoice for\n unemployment compensation benefits paid to former Federal employees and former\n Service members. The Army delayed payment because there were not sufficient\n funds available.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The cost model did not take into consideration pay-related adjustments and bonus\n entitlements that were authorized and paid in different years.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There was weak management of the MILPERS, Army appropriation as a CMA.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The subsequent increase in fuel prices and reimbursement at full replacement value\n for damaged household goods claims could not be predicted when PCS orders were\n issued.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 Congress approved the Army\xe2\x80\x99s request to transfer $200 million into the MILPERS\nActions account.\nTaken and \xe2\x80\xa2 The Army automated the Cost of War submission.\nSustained \xe2\x80\xa2 The cost model was developed to forecast funding requirements based on manpower.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Army developed the Monthly MILPERS Review.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Army established a cell at the Army Human Resources Command to validate\n unemployment compensation claims provided by and reimbursed to the Department of\n Labor.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Army began issuing MILPERS funding letters that are co-signed by the Army\n Budget Office and Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Lean Six Sigma project for Recruiting and Retention focus was on incentive\n bonuses.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Army completed the initial testing of the Other Contingency Operations Temporary\n Change of Station budget module and established a Council of Colonels Project Team\n and a General Officer Steering Committee Governance structure for PCS system\n development.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0c Army Case 10-02 (continued)\nEvidence \xe2\x80\xa2 Subsistence-in-Kind:\nof\nCorrective o The Army began implementation of the Army Food Management Information\nAction was System to enable it to record MILPERS obligations at the point of initial\nInadequate requisition.\n o The Army automated the civilian cost transfer estimate for subsistence-in-kind\n using the Oracle model. The Army did not provide information on how they\n automated the civilian cost transfer estimate.*\n o The Army expanded its ability to accurately record rations used in theater on its\n accounting reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In FY 2011, the Army began utilization of the Funds Control Module. The Army did\n not provide information on this corrective action.*\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 The Army established a Lean Six Sigma project for PCS to gather information on a\nActions process and system to record PCS obligations at the individual level prior to\nStill in disbursement in order to comply with the DoD policy to obligate PCS orders at the\nProcess time that they are issued. The Lean Six Sigma team is developing several Courses of\n Action for presentation to Army staff leadership.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Army identified the inability to accurately report obligations for the PCS program\n as a material weakness in its Annual Statement of Assurance. PCS subject matter\n experts and pilot sites personnel will have completed software development by the end\n of FY 2012. The Army will also require U.S. Army Audit Agency to validate the\n audit results for the pilot sites and will begin training and development for additional\n sites.\n *\n Our assessment of the corrective action is indicated by italics.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c Navy Case 10-03\nViolation The violation occurred because the Bureau of Navy Personnel (BUPERS) overobligated\n the FY 2008 MILPERS, Navy appropriation. The BUPERS Comptroller Office was\n unable to properly exercise internal control and management oversight of the MILPERS,\n Navy account, thereby preventing it from accurately assessing the overobligations and\n requirement for additional funding for FY 2008 MILPERS, Navy account. Although\n some funding requests and mitigation strategies were executed during the fiscal year, they\n were insufficient to liquidate all obligations. This resulted in a violation of Title 31,\n United States Code, Section 1341(a)(1)(A).\nCauses Internal control and management oversight deficiencies prevented BUPERS financial\n managers from making a more accurate assessment of the amount of additional funding\n needed. The situation was made worse by significant information technology issues\n (numerous and complex interactions between systems), human resource issues\n (inadequate training and high turnover), and unique account characteristics (lag time for\n proper recording of obligations). BUPERS also did not have adequate estimates\n regarding the number of service members it needed to pay.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 Three transactions were verified by BUPERS and Defense Finance and Accounting\nActions Service Cleveland as accounting errors and corrected. An Above Threshold\nTaken and reprogramming action to correct the violation was processed in October 2010.\nSustained \xe2\x80\xa2 The Head, Financial Operations, Policy Branch, created the Critical Balance report,\n which provides a daily status of expenditures of the appropriation.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 BUPERS partnered with Defense Finance and Accounting Service Cleveland for\n ongoing working group sessions to develop agreed-upon procedures internally.\nEvidence None\nof\nCorrective\nAction was\nInadequate\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 When a future system is implemented that meets the requirements outlined for\nActions Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, BUPERS management will be\nStill In in a better position to effectively deal with the complexity of the MILPERS, Navy\nProcess account.\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\x0c Air Force Case 10-06\nViolation This violation occurred when the Air National Guard expended $9,729,552 more than was\n appropriated in FY 2009. A review of the funding documents at the Air National Guard\n Military Personnel appropriation led to an inaccurate understanding of the total amount of\n unobligated funds available in the later part of the fiscal year. This resulted in a violation\n of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1341(a)(1)(A).\nCauses \xe2\x80\xa2 There was a failure in administration of the account.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The workday rate was not recalculated in FY 2009.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The checkbook was not kept in balance and up-to-date. A checkbook is an internal\n tool to ensure that funding is properly reflected in the man-day metrics and that the\n remaining man-days accurately reflect remaining appropriations.\nCorrective \xe2\x80\xa2 The violation was corrected using available (FY 2010) funds. Specifically, the\nActions obligations that were otherwise chargeable to the FY 2009 Air National Guard\nTaken and Military Personnel appropriation were charged to the FY 2010 Air National Guard\nSustained Military Personnel appropriation in accordance with Section 8054 of Public\n Law 111-118.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Air National Guard has ensured that the appropriation manager will perform quarterly\n adjustments to the man-day factor, based upon the number of projected man days (to\n include a reserve of funds as a buffer).\nEvidence None\nof\nCorrective\nAction was\nInadequate\nCorrective None\nActions\nStill In\nProcess\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\x0cUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial\nOfficer, DoD, Comments\n\n\n\n\n Click to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\x0cClick to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0cDepartment of the Army Comments Final Report\n Reference\n\n\n\n\n Pages 8 and 30\n\n\n\n\n Click to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n Revised, page 15\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\x0cClick to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\x0cDepartment of the Navy Comments\n\n\n\n\n Click to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\x0c Final Report\n Reference\n\n\n\n\n Revised, page 6\n\n\n\n\nClick to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\x0cDepartment of the Air Force Comments\n\n\n\n\n Click to add JPEG file\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\x0c\x0c\x0c'


text:
30.4.2011
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 130/14
 Appel iværksat den 2. marts 2011 af Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM) til prøvelse af dom afsagt af Retten (Syvende Afdeling) den 16. december 2010 i sag T-513/09, José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. mod Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM), Herbert Neuman og Andoni Galdeano del Sel
 (Sag C-102/11 P)
 2011/C 130/25
 Processprog: spansk
 Parter
 Appellant: Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM) (ved J. Crespo Carrillo og A. Folliard-Monguiral, som befuldmægtigede)
 De andre parter i appelsagen: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA, Herbert Neuman og Andoni Galdeano del Sel
 Appellanten har nedlagt følgende påstande:
 —
 Den appellerede dom ophæves.
 —
 Sagen realitetsbehandles, hvorved appellen forkastes, eller sagen hjemvises til Retten.
 —
 Sagsøgeren i første instans tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
 Anbringender og væsentligste argumenter
 Harmoniseringskontoret gør gældende, at den appellerede dom bør ophæves, for så vidt som Retten har tilsidesat artikel 61 i forordning (EF) nr. 6/02 (1) af de grunde, der er specificeret nedenfor, og som kan sammenfattes på følgende måde:
 a)
 Ved at erstatte appelkammerets vurdering af de faktiske omstændigheder med sin egen vurdering uden at have fundet »åbenbare fejlskøn«, overskred Retten rammerne for artikel 61 i forordningen om EF-design. I stedet for at foretage en legalitetskontrol udøvede Retten de samme kompetencer, som forordningens artikel 60 tillægger appelkamrene.
 b)
 Retten tilsidesatte forordningens artikel 25, stk. 1, litra c), sammenholdt med artikel 6, idet den:
 i)
 anvendte et urigtigt kriterium, da den undersøgte, om de sammenlignede design giver et anderledes helhedsindtryk hos den informerede bruger. Den retlige fejl opstod, fordi Retten undersøgte, om ligheder og forskelle »bevares i hukommelsen« hos den informerede bruger (jf. præmis 22 og 23 i den appellerede dom). Sammenligningen kan imidlertid ikke baseres på brugerens erindring. Eftersom denne sag angår EF-design — og ikke varemærker — består det korrekte kriterium i at fastlægge, om eksisterende ligheder og forskelle i forhold til andre design, [der er blevet offentliggjort], fører til et anderledes helhedsindtryk, når den informerede bruger foretager en direkte sammenligning af [de offentliggjorte] design.
 ii)
 kun analyserede en del af de relevante kundekredses indtryk og slet ikke begrundede brugernes indtryk for en del af de omhandlede produkters vedkommende, nemlig »det trykte materiale, herunder reklamematerialet«.
 (1) Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 6/2002 af 12.12.2001 om EF-design (EFT 2002, L 3, s. 1).


type: legislation

text:
 25.6.2020
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 201/4
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) 2020/867 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 18 juni 2020
 tot goedkeuring van een niet-minimale wijziging van het productdossier van een naam die is opgenomen in het register van beschermde oorsprongsbenamingen en beschermde geografische aanduidingen [“Aprutino Pescarese” (BOB)]
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 21 november 2012 inzake kwaliteitsregelingen voor landbouwproducten en levensmiddelen (1), en met name artikel 52, lid 2,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Overeenkomstig artikel 53, lid 1, eerste alinea, van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 heeft de Commissie zich gebogen over de aanvraag van Italië tot goedkeuring van een wijziging van het productdossier van de beschermde oorsprongsbenaming “Aprutino Pescarese”, die is geregistreerd bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1263/96 van de Commissie (2).
 (2)
 Aangezien de betrokken wijziging niet minimaal is in de zin van artikel 53, lid 2, van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012, heeft de Commissie de wijzigingsaanvraag overeenkomstig artikel 50, lid 2, onder a), van die verordening bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie (3).
 (3)
 Aangezien de Commissie geen enkel bezwaar overeenkomstig artikel 51 van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 heeft ontvangen, moet de wijziging van het productdossier worden goedgekeurd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 De in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekendgemaakte wijziging van het productdossier met betrekking tot de naam “Aprutino Pescarese” (BOB) wordt goedgekeurd.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 18 juni 2020.
 Voor de Commissie,
 namens de voorzitter,
 Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
 Lid van de Commissie
 (1) PB L 343 van 14.12.2012, blz. 1.
 (2) Verordening (EG) nr. 1263/96 van de Commissie van 1 juli 1996 tot aanvulling van de bijlage bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1107/96 betreffende de registratie van de geografische aanduidingen en oorsprongsbenamingen in het kader van de procedure van artikel 17 van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2081/92 (PB L 163 van 2.7.1996, blz. 20).
 (3) PB C 44 van 10.2.2020, blz. 37.


text:
 26.2.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 63/28
 Žaloba podaná 16. decembra 2010 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik/ÚHVT — Impexmetal (FŁT-1)
 (Vec T-571/10)
 2011/C 63/54
 Jazyk žaloby: poľština
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyňa: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (Kraśnik, Poľsko) (v zastúpení: J. Sieklucki, advokát)
 Žalovaný: Úrad pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ochranné známky a vzory)
 Ďalší účastník konania pred odvolacím senátom: Impexmetal S.A. (Varšava, Poľsko)
 Návrhy žalobkyne
 Žalobkyňa navrhuje, aby Všeobecný súd:
 —
 zrušil rozhodnutie prvého odvolacieho senátu Úradu pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) zo 6. októbra 2010 vo veci R 1387/2009-1 v celom jeho rozsahu,
 —
 zaviazal žalovaného a Impexmetal S.A. na náhradu trov konania, vrátane trov konania, ktoré žalobkyni vznikli v rámci konania pred odvolacím senátom a pred námietkovým oddelením Úradu pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu.
 Žalobné dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Prihlasovateľ ochrannej známky Spoločenstva: žalobkyňa.
 Prihlasovaná ochranná známka Spoločenstva: obrazová ochranná známka „FŁT-1“ pre tovary triedy 7 — zápis č. 5 026 372.
 Majiteľ ochrannej známky alebo označenia, ktoré je základom námietky: IMPEXMETAL S.A.
 Ochranná známka alebo označenie, ktoré je základom námietky: obrazová ochranná známka Spoločenstva „FŁT-1“ a národná slovná a obrazová ochranná známka „FŁT-1“ pre tovary triedy 7.
 Rozhodnutie námietkového oddelenia: čiastočné vyhovenie námietke a zamietnutie prihlášky ochrannej známky pre určité tovary triedy 7.
 Rozhodnutie odvolacieho senátu: zamietnutie odvolania proti rozhodnutiu námietkového oddelenia.
 Dôvody žaloby: porušenie článku 8 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia č. 207/2009 (1) z dôvodu nesprávneho posúdenia podobnosti kolidujúcich označení, kvôli nezohľadneniu skutočnosti, že prihlasovaná ochranná známka predstavuje čiastočne obchodné meno spoločnosti — žalobkyne, používané po dlhú dobu pred podaním prihlášky a že je legitímnym historickým rozlišujúcim označením žalobkyne a ani dlhodobej a pokojnej koexistencie prihlasovanej ochrannej známky a ochranných známok uvádzaných na podporu námietky.
 (1) Nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 207/2009 z 26. februára 2009 o ochrannej známke Spoločenstva (kodifikované znenie, Ú. v. EÚ L 78, s. 1)