Report | March 31, 2015

Assessment of DoD Voting Assistance Programs for Calendar Year 2014 DODIG-2015-098

Objective

The objective of this project was to continue our ongoing evaluation of DoD voting assistance programs in accordance with section 1566, title 10, United States Code. This statute requires the DoD OIG to submit to Congress, not later than March 31 of each year, a report on:

  • The effectiveness during the preceding calendar year of voting assistance programs; and
  • The level of compliance during the preceding calendar year with voting assistance programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Observation

Voting Assistance Officers’ performance was not always commented on in their performance evaluations in accordance with section 1566, title 10, United States Code. This occurred because:

  • the Services had varying approaches and understanding as to how Voting Assistance Officer performance was documented in Service developed performance evaluation forms; and
  • performance evaluation cycles for Service members assigned as a Voting Assistance Officer did not always align with voting assistance program inspection cycles.

As a result, some Services did not completely and accurately report compliance with this statutory requirement.

Recommendations

We recommend:

  • The Commander, Navy Installations Command; the Adjutant General, U.S. Army; Air Force Director of Services; and Director, Marine and Family Programs coordinate with the personnel components of their respective Services to identify opportunities to further emphasize the requirement for Voting Assistance Officer performance to be commented on in performance evaluations in accordance with section 1566(f), title 10, United States Code.
  • The Inspector General, U.S. Army; the Naval Inspector General; the Inspector General, U.S. Air Force; and the Inspector General of the Marine Corps update Service IG inspection checklists in order to more accurately report Service compliance with section 1566(f), title 10, United States Code.

Management Comments and Our Response

In regards to our first recommendation, the Air Force Director of Services addressed the recommendation and no further comments are required. The Director, Marine and Family Programs partially addressed the recommendation. Commander, Navy Installations Command and The Adjutant General, United States Army did not address the recommendation.

In regards to our second recommendation, The Inspector General, United States Army; The Inspector General, United States Air Force; and the Inspector General of the Marine Corps addressed the recommendation and no further comments are required. The Naval Inspector General agreed with no comment; however, the response provided did not conform to our guidance as outlined in the transmittal letter accompanied in the draft report. Further, the response did not describe what actions they have taken or plan to take to accomplish the recommendation or contain the signature of the authorizing official.  

This report is a result of Project No.D2015-D00SPO-0084.