Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO: (1) reviewed an Army staff sergeant's allegations regarding working conditions, safety, and overall security at an overseas Army ammunition storage depot; and (2) compared the security conditions at the depot with those at other similar overseas facilities.
GAO found that: (1) it substantiated the sergeant's allegations regarding working conditions, the lack of loaded weapons, inadequate body armor and communications equipment, and overly demanding work schedules; (2) while some Army officials agreed with the sergeant's concerns and were considering steps to resolve those problems, the Army considered the depot to be a low-terrorist threat environment, and did not believe that conditions warranted the use of loaded weapons, advanced body armor, or additional backup response capability; (3) the depot's security conditions were not comparable to those of other Army conventional ammunition storage facilities; and (4) it did not identify any significant weaknesses in security provisions that warranted a more detailed examination.
