The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
The Defence Department’s Inspector General, in a June report, said the army made $2.8 trillion in wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one-quarter alone in 2015 and $6.5 trillion for the year. Yet the army lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up.
As a result, the army’s financial statements for 2015 were “materially misstated,” the report concluded.
The “forced” adjustments rendered the statements useless because “DoD and army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.”
Disclosure of the army’s manipulation of numbers is the latest example of the severe accounting problems plaguing the Defence Department for decades.
The report affirms a 2013 report revealing how the Defence Department falsified accounting on a large scale as it scrambled to close its books. As a result, there has been no way to know how the Defence Department — far and away the biggest chunk of Congress’ annual budget — spends the public’s money.
The new report focused on the Army’s General Fund, the bigger of its two main accounts, with assets of $282.6 billion in 2015. The army lost or didn’t keep required data, and much of the data it had was inaccurate, the IG said.
“Where is the money going? Nobody knows,” said Franklin Spinney, a retired military analyst for the Pentagon and critic of Defence Department planning.
The significance of the accounting problem goes beyond mere concern for balancing books, Spinney said. Both presidential candidates have called for increasing defence spending amid current global tension.
An accurate accounting could reveal deeper problems in how the Defence Department spends its money. Its 2016 budget is $573 billion, more than half of the annual budget appropriated by Congress.
The army account’s errors will likely carry consequences for the entire Defence Department.
Congress set a September 30, 2017, deadline for the department to be prepared to undergo an audit. The army accounting problems raise doubts about whether it can meet the deadline — a black mark for Defence, as every other federal agency undergoes an audit annually.
For years, the Inspector General — the Defence Department’s official auditor — has inserted a disclaimer on all military annual reports. The accounting is so unreliable that “the basic financial statements may have undetected misstatements that are both material and pervasive.”
In an e-mailed statement, a spokesman said the army “remains committed to asserting audit readiness” by the deadline and is taking steps to root out the problems.
The spokesman downplayed the significance of the improper changes, which he said net out to $62.4 billion. “Though there is a high number of adjustments, we believe the financial statement information is more accurate than implied in this report,” he said.
Jack Armstrong, a former Defence Inspector General official in charge of auditing the Army General Fund, said the same type of unjustified changes to army financial statements already were being made when he retired in 2010.
The army issues two types of reports — a budget report and a financial one. The budget one was completed first. Armstrong said he believes fudged numbers were inserted into the financial report to make the numbers match.
“They don’t know what the heck the balances should be,” Armstrong said.
Some employees of the Defence Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS), which handles a wide range of Defence Department accounting services, referred sardonically to the preparation of the army’s year-end statements as “the grand plug,” Armstrong said. “Plug” is accounting jargon for inserting made-up numbers.
At first glance adjustments, totalling trillions may seem impossible. The amounts dwarf the Defence Department’s entire budget. Making changes to one account also require making changes to multiple levels of sub-accounts, however. That created a domino effect where, essentially, falsifications kept falling down the line. In many instances, this daisy-chain was repeated multiple times for the same accounting item.
The IG report also blamed DFAS, saying it too made unjustified changes to numbers. For example, two DFAS computer systems showed different values of supplies for missiles and ammunition, the report noted — but rather than solving the disparity, DFAS personnel inserted a false “correction” to make the numbers match.
DFAS also could not make accurate year-end Army financial statements because more than 16,000 financial data files had vanished from its computer system. Faulty computer programming and employees’ inability to detect the flaw were at fault, the IG said.
DFAS is studying the report “and has no comment at this time,” a spokesman said.
