Principal officials of the Department of Defense and military departments respon- COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S DRUG ABUSE CONTROL ACTIVITIES DIGEST WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE The General Accounting Office (GAO) has compiled information for the Congress. on what the Department of Defense (DOD) has done to control and reduce drug abuse by military personnel. GAO visited overseas installations during the period July through November 1971 and military bases in the United States through February 1972. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Law enforcement and drug suppression DOD has actively cooperated with other Federal agencies having primary re- Intensification of enforcement activities may have contributed significantly On the other hand, unannounced urinalysis tests at randomly selected military units would be a more significant deterrent to drug users. (See p. 14.) Education and training Drug education programs in the military services were in various stages of development. These programs included drug abuse councils, lecture teams, workshops, formal and informal briefings, as well as prominent displays and distribution of printed material to individuals. In addition, there were articles on drug abuse published in unit newspapers and in the Stars and Stripes (the most widely read service newspaper overseas) and frequent references to drug abuse in overseas areas on the Armed Forces radio and television stations. (See p. 16.) In discussions with key personnel, GAO noted: --Formal classes and briefings to lower enlisted ranks have more disadvantages than advantages. Their overall effect as a deterrent to illicit drug use appears to be limited. (See p. 16.) --There were not enough experts to mount an adequate education program. Such personnel cannot be trained on short notice. However, priority attention has been given to training these personnel. (See p. 15.) --Few, if any, additional funds had been made available overseas to support educational programs. Available money was being used by local commanders for this purpose. (See p. 18.) --Information sources considered most effective by the troops included former addicts, physicians, and chaplains. (See p. 16.) Personnel contacted by GAO in visits to military installations believed that educational activities would act as an effective weapon to combat drug abuse. They also conceded that no means existed at that time to measure the effectiveness of the various techniques being tried. (See p. 16.) Without a good definition of the nature and extent of the drug abuse problem Identifying drug abusers Many military personnel voluntarily identified themselves as drug users when they asked for the assistance offered them through the exemption programs (see p. 26) operated by each of the military services. Additional personnel were being identified, involuntarily, by law enforcement activities and by the urinalysis-testing program started in mid-1971. (See p. 20.) Urinalysis testing has been a highly successful technique in identifying users of heroin, barbiturates, and amphetamines. However, because of technological limitations of tests being used, the incidence rates being reported are not an accurate indicator of the overall extent of drug use. (See p. 22.) As the urinalysis-testing program is expanded and is administered without prior notice to units selected on a statistically valid random basis, the results will more closely indicate the use of hard narcotics. (See p. 24.) Exemption programs having credibility problems Implementation of DOD programs offering assistance to servicemen who volunteer for treatment of their drug problems was relatively complex and confusing to personnel at most levels. Frequent changes made by the services to cope with inadequacies in the programs contributed to this confusion, engendered considerable distrust, and adversely affected the program's credibility. (See pp. 26 and 27.) Many servicemen felt that the exemption program was more punitive than they believed it should be or had believed it would be. Although not subject to judicial prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (i.e., "exemption"), the abuser did view as punitive certain administrative actions frequently taken. (See p. 30.) The consensus of conferees attending a drug abuse conference was that sincere concern necessary to help the drug abuser was lacking in the Army. A view frequently expressed to GAO by officers in all services was that large numbers of enlisted personnel were subverting the objectives of the exemption program by attempting to use it as a vehicle for obtaining early termination of their military service obligations. (See p. 30.) If the servicemen's distrust of DOD's exemption program and the services' distrust of the drug abuser can be eliminated, greater acceptance and success of the exemption program can be achieved. (See p. 31.) Detoxifying, treating, and rehabilitating drug abusers There were indications that DOD has experienced greater success in medical detoxification and treatment of drug abusers than in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation programs had very limited success, if the number of servicemen returned to normal duty is used as a criterion. (See p. 32.) The nature and quality of rehabilitation available to servicemen varied considerably among the services, within a service, and even between different units located on a single installation. In addition, many servicemen who might have benefited from rehabilitation programs either had left the service before such programs were established or chose not to volunteer because their terms of service were expiring. (See p. 32.) Problems being experienced in rehabilitation are attributed to a lack of --desire by some drug users to remain in the service for rehabilitation, --medical and psychiatric personnel, --trained rehabilitation personnel, and --adequate facilities. (See p. 38.) Disposition of drug abusers Large numbers of military personnel were administratively discharged during calendar year 1971. Although relatively few received undesirable discharges (which would make them ineligible for Veterans Administration (VA) medical treatment), their Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214), given at the time of separation, bore a code meaning that drug abuse was the reason. for separation. This identification entered on an individual's DD Form 214 |