The Army Barracks Problem
By Master Sgt. Glenn S. DeSimon Jr.
Class 74, Sergeants Major Course
Aug. 9, 2024
Download the PDF 
How do you solve issues affecting Army barracks and the Soldiers in them? A 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted 31 recommendations to improve the quality of life for military members living in barracks across the Department of Defense (DoD) (GAO, 2023).
One challenge is scoring barracks to reflect Soldiers’ living conditions. An example of a failure to do so – and an ethical dilemma confronting the Army – is how some buildings received passing scores even though installation representatives said they were uninhabitable (GAO, 2023).
Moreover, a 2021 report found that first-term and young enlisted Soldiers “reported that barracks housing and transportation options played the most-significant roles in their satisfaction levels” (Marrone et al., 2021, p. 55). However, there are no other suitable housing options for the most junior Soldiers.
The Army could progress significantly and earn the trust of Soldiers living in the barracks by establishing a new condition assessment for facilities, reconfiguring barracks assignments, and making garrison command sergeants major the installations’ barracks managers.
Let’s examine the issues, their effects on the Army, and their root causes. Afterward, we can explore solutions and evaluate them through ethical lenses.
Identifying Issues with Army Barracks
Condition Assessment
According to the GAO report (2023), sister services employ different assessment indexes to assess building conditions. Furthermore, they don’t accurately depict the quality of life for the building’s residents.
For example, the Air Force uses a building condition index, while the Army uses a facility condition index. Both indexes assist decision-makers in allocating funding to facilities (GAO, 2023).
No DoD-wide assessment for examining facility conditions exists (GAO, 2023). Instead, each service conducts its assessments with a service-specific index (GAO, 2023).
Another factor in inadequate or untimely repairs to barracks is inexperienced personnel conducting the condition assessments (GAO, 2023). Soldiers assigned to older barracks buildings “reported issues with the available amenities and general maintenance in their barracks buildings” (Marrone et al., 2021, p. 56). They may report issues with their residence, but officials responsible for conducting facility condition assessments don’t have the experience and knowledge to execute the task accurately (GAO, 2023).
The DoD’s lack of qualified inspectors has led to “unreliable condition scores” (GAO, 2023, p. 16). Compounding this problem is the Army’s noncompliance with DoD policy on the frequency of condition assessments (GAO, 2023). The DoD guides services to complete these evaluations at least every five years, but the Army completes its condition assessments every five to 10 years (GAO, 2023).
Consequently, old buildings poorly maintained by units, poorly assessed by installation officials, and ultimately not given the proper attention they deserve have led to “a maintenance backlog of $6.5 billion to bring the quality of barracks up to standard” (Hurd, 2023, para. 12).
Barracks Assignment
Assigning personnel to barracks by rank could alleviate concerns addressed in the GAO report (2023). Mixing junior Soldiers with junior NCOs creates avoidable challenges.
The GAO report highlights the requirement for single Army junior Soldiers stationed in the continental U.S. (CONUS) to live in the barracks. The requirement changes slightly outside CONUS: Staff sergeants must also live in the barracks (GAO, 2023). NCOs are supervisors. Collocation with junior Soldiers deprives both of opportunities to relax. The GAO report (2023) highlights the importance of privacy and the added stress and inability to relax at home linked to its absence.
Barracks Management
The GAO report (2023) found six of 10 installations had barracks that didn’t meet the DoD’s minimum standard for square footage per service member assigned to a room. A lack of privacy in the barracks and a lack of true ownership at the installation level led the report to recommend the Army reevaluate whether barracks managers should be civilian or military.
As noted above, an overall lack of Army barracks stewardship helped create a $6.5 billion maintenance cost backlog (Hurd, 2023). Evident symptoms of this lack of stewardship are broken heat or air conditioning systems, prevalent mold, pest issues, and security problems (such as broken windows and door locks) (GAO, 2023).
These problems “may pose potentially serious risks to the physical and mental health of service members, as well as their safety” (GAO, 2023, p. 19).
Equally troubling are methane leaks into rooms and bathroom sewage overflow. Perhaps the most disturbing issue was one installation’s policy to hold servicemembers “responsible for cleaning biological waste that may remain in a barracks room after a suicide” (GAO, 2023, p. 20).
Imagine a room cordoned off and investigated for weeks or months, returned to the unit, then issued to a new Soldier – with remnants of the previous occupant’s death still present!
Impairing Building Lethality
One effect of barracks issues is cost. Annually, the Army allocates $1 billion to barracks. It strives to reduce the $6.5 billion maintenance backlog by increasing barracks sustainment funding to 100% for construction and renovations (Hurd, 2023).
The Army would not be in this predicament if it had appropriately cared for and provided proper oversight for the barracks. Instead, it could allocate that part of the budget to retaining or modernizing the force.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George recently said, “If something doesn’t contribute to warfighting, or it doesn’t contribute to cohesive teams, … then we have to have a look at whether or not we should be doing it” (Tan, 2023, para. 15). Put simply, the Army’s allocation of funds away from warfighting is degrading military readiness.
Its ability to adapt to emerging technology and employ equal technological capabilities is vital to winning wars (Tan, 2023). If the Army continues to struggle with barracks maintenance, it will allocate more money for construction and renovation instead of training and equipping to fight and win wars.
The Army must spend its time and resources on being more lethal. Moreover, commanders need to be able to focus on building lethality. For them to do so, NCOs must return to establishing discipline as an Army institution.
Standards, Discipline, and Time
One root cause of the barracks issue is a lack of discipline. The Department of the Army (2019) says, “Discipline and standards are intrinsic to the Army profession” (p. 1-6). Attention to detail and maintenance of a Soldier’s equipment are vital to their well-being and the Army’s success as an institution.
Soldiers’ lack of discipline to maintain clean rooms and take accountability for their assigned area is worthy of blame, but so is the NCOs’ failure to consistently check their rooms (Marrone et al., 2021). To this point, Army doctrine states Soldiers are to “make disciplined use of materiel, facilities, and funds” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 1-12).
Units are extremely busy, and so are Army leaders. The bustle of day-to-day operations has created a lack of barracks stewardship.
This lack is another root cause of the barracks issue. NCOs at every level must be more involved in maintaining Soldiers’ rooms and the facility’s overall health.
Retired Command Sgt. Maj. Mario Terenas wrote an editorial for Army Magazine (2023) about this challenge. Over 32 years in the Army, he admitted, he didn’t adequately emphasize ensuring Soldiers were living right and taking care of their rooms (Terenas, 2023).
Terenas’ honest assessment may resonate with many NCOs. Two solutions to this problem are stewardship and proper emphasis through discipline.
Solutions to the Army’s Barracks Challenge
The DoD acknowledges the issues different indexes create and has directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to conduct further analysis to determine guidance for future assessments (GAO, 2023).
The DoD needs to develop a conditions assessment every military branch can use. This specificity would rule out the ambiguity created by each service’s assessments and consistently emphasize installation barracks programs.
A DoD-wide conditions assessment would also pave the way to establish a certification and training progression for officials conducting the assessments across the DoD. A program designed to incorporate a training progression would assist installation officials in keeping pace with added technology introduced into barracks.
In some cases, the $1 billion annually spent on barracks is upgrading them with smart technology. An Army project at Fort Moore, Georgia, incorporated smart technology for better physical security and more efficient energy systems (Harris, 2023).
Upgrading technology in barracks is a fantastic initiative, attacking a problem Soldiers reported as a reason for first-term attrition (Marrone et al., 2021). More barracks incorporating this type of technology across the Army will assist in retaining Soldiers and add a more consistent NCO presence in the barracks.
Introducing new technology would reinvigorate barracks programs with a renewed emphasis on ensuring good facility treatment. Additionally, added emphasis could create an opportunity for senior NCOs to develop junior NCOs by teaching them why a consistent leader’s presence in the barracks leads to a more successful unit and how establishing good order and discipline through enforcing standards and discipline affects the Army positively.
During reception and integration, NCOs should set expectations to create a shared understanding of positive and negative behavior. Establishing clearly defined expectations early enables leaders to effectively reward and punish Soldiers appropriately.
Additionally, housing NCOs and junior Soldiers separately would address a clear delineation of responsibilities assigned to each demographic. The separation would emphasize enforcing standards and discipline at the NCO level. Creating a team of key stakeholders composed of senior NCOs and Directorate of Public Works officials would provide a necessary level of emphasis.
Installations instituting a team of stakeholders headed by garrison command sergeants major would be able to fix problems noted in the GAO report promptly. This leaders forum could establish programs designed to reward Soldiers living in barracks for caring for their assigned rooms and maintaining rooms they can be proud to live in, as Terenas describes doing at Fort Drum, New York (Terenas, 2023).
However, a comprehensive approach must incorporate each solution collectively. Applied individually, these solutions may not correct the issues. Soldiers want to live somewhere looked after, cared for, and with other like-minded people who understand what they are dealing with (Marrone et al., 2021). Each solution is an ethical way to solve the Army’s barracks issue.
Ethical Lenses Applied
The Department of the Army (2019) said, “A professional ethic provides the set of moral principles that guide decisions and actions in professional practice” (p. 1-2). Furthermore, senior Army leaders must consider ethical challenges while designing and implementing solutions (Allen, 2015).
Jack Kem’s Ethical Triangle (2016) promotes three distinct ethical perspectives: principles, virtues, and consequences. The triangle suggests the use of each ethical approach to leader decision-making.
Principles
Kem (2016) defines principles by writing “that one should not act according to the consequences of an action, but instead according to agreed-upon or settled values and principles” (p. 5). Applying the principle-based lens to the proposed barracks solutions aligns them with this dictate.
Each solution is logical and ties with Army doctrine and standards. According to the Department of the Army, “success as a profession demands that all [a team’s] members perform duty with discipline and to standard” (p. 1-12). Enforcing standards and discipline, establishing stewardship of assigned rooms, and creating a key stakeholder forum meets principle-based ethics and aligns with virtues the Army promotes.
Virtues
Again, each presented solution aligns with this ethical lens. The virtue-based lens relies on individuals learning what is fundamentally right or sound from one another (Kem, 2016).
Taking this approach, organization standard-bearers should teach and demonstrate virtuous behavior. Senior leaders could establish the exact standards and models they desire for the barracks and distribute them to subordinate units to execute.
The proposed solutions provide a model NCOs leading junior Soldiers can look to for virtuous behavior. In virtue-based ethics, people teach and learn proper behavior from each other (Kem, 2016), so it’s imperative leaders in the organization continually model behavior consistent with the Army Values (Department of the Army, 2019).
Consequences
Similarly, the consequence-based approach aligns with the proposed solutions.
Kem (2016) states, “Ethical decisions determined under this basis are made on the likely consequences or results of the actions” (p. 5).
Consequences under proposed solutions present rewards and punishment during new Soldier reception and integration. Furthermore, consistent involvement by informed NCOs would greatly promote the personal stewardship Army leaders desire from Soldiers.
Consistent with the consequence-based ethical approach, leaders could reward and punish behavior appropriately. Objectively evaluating each proposed solution through the three ethical lenses (Kem, 2016) contributes to ethical and healthy decision-making.
Conclusion
The GAO report (2023) illuminated the conditions in which junior servicemembers across the DoD live. Creating a DoD-wide facility conditions index would lead to improved facilities.
Reconfiguring the barracks to separate junior Soldiers and NCOs could lessen stress.
Lastly, establishing a key stakeholder forum run by garrison command sergeants major could establish programs designed to reward Soldiers living in barracks for caring for their rooms. The forum could reduce maintenance delays, improve amenities, and create a top-down emphasis or focused approach to ensuring Soldiers live comfortably.
References
Allen, C. D. (2015). Ethics and Army leadership: Climate matters. Parameters, 45(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2806
Department of the Army. (2019). Army Leadership and the profession. (ADP 6-22). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN18529-ADP_6-22-000-WEB-1.pdf
Government Accountability Office. (2023). Military barracks: Poor living conditions undermine quality of life and readiness (GAO-23-105797) [Report to Congressional Committees]. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105797
Harris, Z. (2023, September 19). Smart barracks to increase efficiency, raise morale. U.S. Army. https://www.army.mil/article/270053/smart_barracks_to_increase_efficiency_raise_morale
Hurd, C. (2023, October 12). Army leaders talk quality-of-life concerns. U.S. Army. https://www.army.mil/article/270737/army_leaders_talk_quality_of_life_concerns
Kem, J. D. (2016, August). Ethical decision making: Using the ‘Ethical Triangle’. CGSC Foundation. http://www.cgscfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Kem-UseoftheEthicalTriangle.pdf
Marrone, J. V., Zimmerman, S. R., Constant, L., Posard, M. N., Kidder, K. L., Panis, C., & Jensen, R. (2021). Organizational and cultural causes of Army first-term attrition [Research Report]. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA666-1.html
Tan, M. (2023). ‘We will be ready’: George Describes his focus areas. AUSA. https://www.ausa.org/articles/we-will-be-ready-george-describes-his-focus-areas
Terenas, M. (2023, August). Soldiers’ quality of life begins with good barracks [Editorial]. Army, 73(8), 7–8.
Master Sgt. Glenn S. DeSimon Jr. is a student at the Sergeants Major Academy, Fort Bliss, Texas. As a Military Police Soldier for 21 years, he has served the Army in various leadership positions. He was the Fort Carson, Colorado, Directorate of Emergency Services (DES) NCO. He is pursuing his master’s in leadership studies at the University of Texas, El Paso.
Back to Top