Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1981
Organization and Management
The success of large and complex institutions like the Army depends largely on their ability to adapt to changes in their environment. For the Army a critical factor in this process is maintaining command and management structures geared to identify, promote, and implement concepts, doctrines, and weapon systems which an expanding technology, the dynamics of a changing and sometimes volatile world, and domestic considerations require. During fiscal year 1981, the Army's efforts in this regard focused on mobilization, modernization, and resource management.
Various mobilization exercises like NIFTY NUGGET and MOBEX 80 led to efforts to improve the Army's mobilization planning. Secretary Marsh elevated the rank of the deputy for mobilization and analysis in June 1981 to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs and Mobilization in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
The Vice Chief of Staff also took action. Concerned that critical mobilization decisions had not been made soon enough to deploy troops in a timely manner and that the Army staff had trouble identifying what the critical decisions were, he directed the ODCSOPS Operations and Readiness Directorate to prepare an HQDA Mobilization Decision Matrix which would identify the decisions and the information required to support them. The Vice Chief of Staff approved an initial basic decision matrix in February 1981 with instructions to reissue it semiannually as an annex to the Army mobilization and Operations Planning System (AMOPS).
This decision matrix should prove a useful tool in resolving structural and procedural flaws in the mobilization process. Other questions, such as what staff agencies should be responsible for integrating programs related to mobilization and what was the most effective means of accomplishing mobilization programs, still need to be addressed. At one time or another Army staff agencies and the Government Accounting Office (GAO) have taken on these issues, but a satisfactory solution has been difficult to achieve. A possible approach might be to give central control over the vertical integration of authority back to subordinate
commanders and managers at all levels of command, who would either produce results or be replaced. The last office to exercise such authority over the Army staff was the Office of Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, which was abolished in 1974.
The successful implementation of programs to modernize and integrate the Army's numerous tactical ADPS (Automated Data Processing System) and the telecommunications networks designed to link with the Worldwide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS) has eluded management in recent years, as evidenced by numerous shifts in Army staff responsibility for command, control, communications, and computer systems. In 1974 the Office of the Chief of Communications-Electronics (formerly the Chief Signal Office) was abolished and its functions assigned to ODCSOPS. This arrangement did not work out as well as expected, and in October 1978 these functions were transferred to a new Army staff agency, the Office of Assistant Chief of Staff for Automation and Communications (OACSAC). OACSAC's several missions included revising of the basic Army regulations on integration of ADPS and communications systems in the field, and establishing of an automation-communications career management program. ODCSOPS retained its traditional authority over command and control functions.
Two years later, Lt. Gen. Glenn K. Otis, the DCSOPS, Maj. Gen. Clay T. Buckingham, the ACSAC, and Maj. Gen. Thomas U. Greer, the Director of Management, requested another look at the problem. The resultant staff study recommended that ACSAC's automation and communications functions be consolidated with ODSCOPS command and control (C2) functions.
Informal discussions that took place among the principals over several months led to the Vice Chief of Staff's decision in May 1981 that ACSAC should be disestablished and its functions absorbed by a new Assistant DCSOPS for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4), effective 1 October. Whether the ODCSOPS will be able to perform these functions more effectively than it had before the creation of OACSAC is an open question.
No agency now exists on the Army staff with the authority to integrate vertically the operations of all Army staff elements in the interest of the Army's total force structure. The heart of the matter is the Army's modernization program, which requires aggressive innovation to adapt rapidly changing technological advances to replace wasteful and obsolete ADPS, telecommunications networks, weapons systems, and their outmoded concepts and doctrines.
The Army Force Modernization Coordination Office (AFMCO) was created within the Office of the Chief of Staff in 1979 to ensure that the Army's numerous modernization projects were identified, coordinated, assigned to appropriate Army staff agencies and major commands, and monitored. In September 1981, AFMCO was assigned responsibility for coordinating the fielding of Army 86 organization and force structure changes.
The Vice Chief of Staff, the Director of Management, The Inspector General, and the new DCSOPS, Lt. Gen. William R. Richardson, were not satisfied with the progress being made, and plans were under way to bring AFMCO under the operational control of the DCSOPS as the fiscal year ended. Arrangements were also made to send a special team of investigators from the Office of The Inspector General to review the modernization management process throughout the Army and to recommend changes to the Vice Chief of Staff.
The Annual Historical Summary for Fiscal Year 1977 reported that General Meyer, then DCSOPS, directed the establishment of a point of contact for long-range planning within the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate. Because no funds or personnel were available, nothing was done until this year. In October 1980 an Army Long-Range Planning (LRP) Group was formed in the Office of the Technical Advisor to the DCSOPS. This group is headed by a colonel and includes three action officers. The purpose of the LRP Group is to develop, coordinate, and produce products which deal with Army long-range objectives and strategic requirements. Particularly, the group is to provide impetus for and coordinate the Army staff long-range planning effort.
The Office of The Inspector General was restructured in 1981. The principal changes were a reduction in the number of deputies to The Inspector General and a consequent realignment of responsibilities. The Inspector General now has two deputies. Deputy The Inspector General (Investigations, Assistance, and Compliance) supervises the Investigations Division, Assistance Division, and Audit and Inspection Compliance Division. Deputy The Inspector General (Inspections) is responsible for all inspection activities of the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency. He supervises the Inspections Division, the Technical Inspections Division, and the Training Management Inspections Division.
A significant change in the emphasis of inspections by the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency (DAIG) is under way. DAIG general inspections of subordinate activities
were focused primarily on evaluating compliance with pertinent formal guidance. These "compliance" inspections were useful to the extent that they gave commanders an idea of how well subordinates were conforming to directives or regulations. However, they tended to address symptoms instead of causes, made the assumption that policy guidance and directives were correct, and isolated the problems of the inspected unit from the rest of the Army.
Current emphasis is on the systemic approach to inspections. This focuses attention on causes rather than symptoms, allows policy errors or ommissions to be discovered for resolution, incorporates unit problems into Army problems, emphasizes correction at the proper level, eliminates the significant waste of time and other resources, and minimizes the need for special, one-time preparation.
Another area of continued emphasis at DAIG is inspection compliance follow-up procedures. This essential step in the inspection process is designed to review proposed corrective actions, verify that the corrective action was carried out, and evaluate whether the problem was solved. The goal is to ensure that when problems are identified, corrections are made.
For several years the Office of The Inspector General has aggressively pursued automated assistance for its functions. This automation effort is called the Inspector General Management Information and Reporting System, or IGMIRS. IGMIRS provides automated tools to elements of the Inspector General Agency using data processing equipment and personnel of the U.S. Army Management Systems Support Agency (USAMSSA). Computer processing is accomplished on USAMSSA hardware, and resulting management reports are given to DAIG action officers. Coordination with USAMSSA is the responsibility of the Automation Management Office.
During 1980, The Inspector General judged IGMIRS to be potentially beneficial to inspectors general located at both major command (MACOM) and subordinate command levels and directed the extension of IGMIRS to the MACOMs. U.S. Army Computer Systems Command (USACSC) adapted IGMIRS for use on computers at each major command, and during 1981 the resulting standard system was installed at eleven MACOMs. Inspectors general at these commands are better able to assimilate all available IG information, as well as data from audit reports written on their unit by the Army Audit Agency, Defense Audit Service, and the General Accounting Office. Inspectors general can summarize data from findings contained within these reports
and present that information to their commanders in such a way that root causes of problems are identified.
As reported last year, the Army began a review, or "scrub," of positions in noncombat, nondeployable support units to relieve military personnel shortages in higher deployable combat and combat support units. Analysts conducting the scrub were required to identify position authorizations which could be eliminated and transferred to the deployable units to improve overall combat readiness. Analysts were also to identify positions which could be reduced in grade to permit better alignment of assets and position requirements.
Based on the response of field commanders to the review, the Vice Chief of Staff announced a modification of the scrub process in September 1980. This modification gave the affected commands and agencies greater flexibility in determining units and functions to which eliminated positions could be transferred. The Vice Chief of Staff initiated a review of the scrub action in September 1981 based on additional communications from field commanders. As a result of this review, the remaining portions of the TDA scrub would be canceled early in fiscal year 1982. Commands were directed to make use of the work already done and to report on actions taken by 31 December 1981.
Overall, MACOM use of the TDA scrub recommendations resulted in 493 position authorizations being moved to higher priority functions-105 officer, 2 warrant officer, 304 enlisted, and 82 civilian -and 2,274 positions downgraded- 352 officer and 1,922 enlisted.
The Army continued its various base closures and realignments this year. In October the ASA (IL&FM) directed that family housing units at Fort Wadsworth, New York, be reopened and made available for occupancy. The Department of the Navy requested and received OSD approval to relocate the Naval Resale and Services Support Office to Fort Wadsworth from Brooklyn, New York. The disposal report for the transfer of Fort Wadsworth to the Department of the Interior was withdrawn. The Secretary of the Interior advised that his department would not pursue acquisition and management of land at Fort Wadsworth in the foreseeable future, and that this would be consistent with legislation that created Gateway National Recreation Area.
The Army announced in September that Fort Monroe would remain open and would continue as the home of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. The final environmental impact statement on the proposed realignment of Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, was filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency in April 1981. The General Accounting Office undertook a review of the realignment study documents, which was completed in August. At the end of the year no decision had been made.
The realignment study for Fort Sheridan, Illinois, was revised in July. As space was no longer available at the Great Lakes Naval Base, only those proposals that considered Fort Benjamin Harrison as a possible relocation site were restudied. An Army Audit Agency review of the documents was completed in August, but no decision on the preferred alternative has been announced.
Secretary Marsh, in response to strong congressional pressure, announced in September that the Army would continue to operate its training center at Fort Dix. Repeated attempts have been made since the end of World War II to close Fort Dix in the interest of economy, but to no avail.
A decision to close Vint Hill Farms Station was near as the fiscal year ended. Such a move would involve consolidating Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, after construction of new facilities there was complete. Elements of the Army Electronics Readiness Command, also located at Vint Hill Farms, would be transferred to Fort Monmouth, to the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, and to the Harry Diamond Laboratories in Woodbridge, Virginia, while Company B, 303d Military Intelligence Battalion, would move to Fort Hood, Texas.
The table below shows the Army's obligations and outlays for fiscal year 1981 (in millions of dollars). As indicated, the Army's cumulative total obligations for the fiscal year were $56.3 billion against a plan of $56.4 billion, a variance of $151 million or -.3 percent. The Army's obligation of funds was adjusted in March to include President Reagan's supplemental appropriations request. Although not adjusted for final funding levels, the plan represented a goal by which the Army's budget execution could be gauged. At year's end, accounting reports showed that full obligation of funds had been achieved.
The Army's planned outlay for fiscal year 1981 was $39 billion, as shown on the table. Actual outlays were $37.6 billion, a shortfall of $1.4 billion or -3.6 percent. Reasons for this shortfall included (1) late receipt of the Reagan supplemental which allowed funds to be obligated but not disbursed, (2) a larger than anticipated amount of deobligations of prior year funds, and (3)
more favorable currency exchange rates than had been anticipated.
|1 Oct 80 - 30 Sep 81||1 Oct 80 - 30 Sep 81|
|FY 81||FY 81|
|Military Const Revolving/Trust||1,361||1,361||1,631||270||875||875||802||(73)|
*May not add due to rounding.
Because of congressional budgetary and accounting practices, there is little correlation between congressional authorized annual obligations and the Army's annual outlays. The time lag may vary from one to ten years. Congress may compound the time lag by reducing funds for various projects from time to time or by failing to appropriate money for bills already submitted.
The Army's Commercial Activities (CA) Program was formerly known as the Commercial and Industrial Activities (CITA) Program. It is operated under instructions contained' in OMB Circular A-76, which required that all commercial activities not required to be performed in-house (that is, by government employees) be subjected to rigorous cost comparisons with contractors in the private sector to determine the most cost-effective method for performing the activity.
In fiscal year 1981, decisions based on seventy-two cost studies released a total of 1,047 civilian spaces, which can be used for other Army activities. These studies also contributed to Army readiness by, returning 663 soldiers to their military duties. The cost advantage to the government over a three-year period .was $60 million.
Other significant accomplishments within the CA Program included the following: development of prototype Performance Work Statements (PWS)-twenty-eight have been distributed to the field and twenty-two more are in the development stage; drafting of a new Army regulation covering commercial activities to be published and distributed to the field in February 1982; and preparation of new management study guidelines. In addi-
tion, a management study course was being devised at the Army Logistics Management Center at Fort Lee, Virginia.
Army audit, inspection, and internal review activities uncovered sixty-eight potential fraud cases, which were referred to investigative organizations, and thirty-nine significant instances of waste, which were included in Army reports that provided a basis for reporting to Congress pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978 (PL 95-452).
The Army Audit Agency continued to devote significant audit resources to areas that were highly susceptible to fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The agency initiated two multilocation audits. The first, on fiscal year 1981 end-of-year buying practices, was in response to Office of Management and Budget concern. The second, on military pay, came about because a preliminary survey had disclosed weaknesses in internal controls. In December 1980, the agency issued an advisory report to field commanders suggesting ways to reduce the incidence of waste in vehicle and bus use, vehicle maintenance, fuel consumption, and credit card use. In February 1981, an advisory report was issued to the commander of the U.S. Army Troop Support Agency citing problems involving commissary operations that had been noted during audits at eight commissaries. The agency also audited a large number of Army clubs.
To intensify audit coverage of fraud and waste, the Army Audit Agency developed comprehensive guides for auditing installation contracting procedures and selected engineer functions. The guides emphasized fraud-oriented approach and were specifically designed so that junior auditors could quickly identify potential fraud and mismanagement. At classes conducted by the agency, more than 1,100 Army auditors and internal review personnel received at least three hours of formal training in basic techniques of evaluating internal controls and detecting wasteful and fraudulent conditions.
The Army Auditor General has a responsibility to evaluate the Army internal review function. During fiscal year 1981, this responsibility was carried out through performance of accreditation reviews at selected internal review locations. The agency outlined for the Comptroller of the Army thirty-five suggestions for improving the effectiveness and professionalism of the Army's internal review functions.
Internal review efforts were directed at programs identified by commanders and staff elements as affecting mission objectives. Primary emphasis was on internal controls and areas susceptible to potential fraud, waste, or other uneconomical or inefficient
practices. These reviews have provided objective evaluations of command problem areas along with recommendations for corrective actions.
The Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACICD) undertook several initiatives to enhance and support the Army's attack on fraud. The entire theory of economic crime was reexamined and redefined, and new policies were developed to better cope with economic crime on a reactive as well as preventive basis. USACICD's increased emphasis on detecting and investigating fraud and waste resulted in the discovery of over 2,500 such cases in fiscal year 1981. In addition, over 1,300 crime prevention surveys were begun. The command has also recently completed a one-year study to identify areas susceptible to economic crime. The study has been used to target crime prevention surveys, assign areas of special concern in economic crime, and identify skills required to meet the needs of field investigators. The Criminal Investigation Command and the Army Audit Agency signed a memorandum of understanding in October 1980 to formalize procedures for mutual support between the two organizations.
The Army Audit Agency issued reports on a number of audits which highlighted common problems at numerous installations. Actions taken on the audit recommendations should result in improved management of resources at all levels of command. The agency reported the following: the Army needs to make major improvements in identifying and recovering nonrecurring costs of equipment sold to nongovernment customers; Army installations need to follow Army and U.S. Treasury procedures for paying commercial accounts to avoid incurring significant interest costs; many basic tasks essential to successful operation of the TOW and Dragon missile systems could not be performed because operators lacked the necessary technical skills; year-end purchases did not always represent valid needs; Army installations needed to adhere strictly to operational and accounting controls over bulk petroleum; controls to monitor the use of commercial telephones in U.S. Army, Europe, and Seventh Army were not adequate to minimize unauthorized use; the Army was incurring significant costs while receiving little benefit from the DOD-directed Materiel Obligation Program (procedures for reconciling and validating unfilled orders); and a significant amount of energy savings from facilities operations could be obtained through local management actions.
The Army Audit Agency completed reviews of eighty-four cost comparisons under the Commercial Activities Program. These reviews identified the need for extensive adjustments to
the initial estimates of government costs used in deciding whether to perform the activities in house or by contract. The adjustments involved unrealistic staffing levels, improper use of inflation factors, and various errors in estimating direct, indirect, and onetime costs. The review helped ensure that Army decisions were based on realistic estimates and resulted in the most cost-effective method of performance.
The Army Industrial Fund (AIF) pays for industrial-commercial-type activities at arsenals, depots, laboratories, missile facilities, and port terminals which produce goods and services for departments and agencies of DOD as well as for customers outside of DOD. AIF capital is replenished by collecting from customers for goods or services rendered. There are currently twenty-seven AIF installations and activities in the Army with a total annual business of approximately $3.5 billion. Annual operating budgets are prepared at each installation and consolidated by the following major activity grouping: depot activities, missile commands, armament commands, proving grounds and laboratories, and transportation and terminal activities. Budgets are reviewed by the appropriate major commands (the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command and Military Traffic Management Command), DA, OSD, OMB, and Congress. The Comptroller of the Army and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics share management responsibilities for the AIF. The table below shows the costs (in millions of dollars) of goods and services sold.
|FY 1980||FY 1981||FY 1982||FY 1983|
|Depot Activities Missile Command||$1,125||$1,331||$1,441.7||$1,570.5|
|Transportation and Terminal Activity||168||171||194.6||205.4|
|Research and Development Activities (laboratories)||419||495||438.4||448.3|
|Armaments Command (Arsenals)||341||329||366.6||430.8|
Records and Publications Management
The Army received 30,958 requests for information or records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) during the
year. Over 100 man-years were required to process these requests at a gross cost of $2,610,648. A total of $165,286 was collected for search and copying costs as allowed by the act. These figures represent a steady increase in the number of requests received annually by the Army as well as a corresponding increase in cost and man-years expended.
The Army made two recommendations for legislative changes to the FOIA and one administrative recommendation. One proposal would exempt the Department of Defense from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act during times of war or other hostilities; the other would extend the period of time for federal agencies to respond to requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. A recommendation was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs to eliminate or modify OSD-imposed triannual reporting of FOIA costs. These initiatives were still pending at the close of the reporting period.
The Army Privacy Program remained at maintenance level during 1980. Management attention focused on consolidating records into broad "system" descriptions. Continuing opposition by major Army field commanders to the burdensome reporting requirements of the Privacy Act prompted a query to DOD for modification. While OMB would not support a DOD legislative proposal to change or eliminate the annual report, some relief was obtained through DOD's withdrawal of supplementary data not required by OMB.
The Adjutant General Center's Access and Release Branch responded to roughly 3,000 requests from scholars, historians, private citizens, members of the media, and government officials for records or information from retired Army records. (These requests were in addition to the 951 requests under the Freedom of Information Act processed by the branch.) Approximately one-third of the requests were for copies of transcripts; the rest were for a variety of documents including obsolete publications, maps, general and special orders, and unit histories. Numerous requests were received for records from the Vietnam collection. Response time to these requests varied from one day to several weeks or months, depending on the research needed to locate documents. Many requests were referred to the National Archives and Records Service (NARS) for information in their custody. Others were referred to various records custodians throughout the Army.
A one-year contract study of the Army Functional Files System (TAFFS) conducted by Calculon Corporation was completed
on 30 September 1981. This study came about because of difficulties perceived throughout the Army in using TAFFS for retrieving general correspondence-type files. Calculon found that the development of office technology was eroding the usefulness of TAFFS and that TAFFS should be replaced because it cannot be automated, has major faults as a manual system, and lacks adequate management support. Calculon recommended an eighteen-month test of two concepts; the best features of each could be combined to form a single system for Army use.
One concept would require the development of a functional and subjective files classification system based on Army Regulation 340-2, "Maintenance and Disposition of Records in TOE Units of the Active Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard." Files would be decentralized and maintained and disposed of in the same manner as the current system.
The second concept, which Calculon labels as innovative, would use a file classification system based on the Army's regulation numbering system. This plan would include new procedures such as instant archiving-reproducing a copy of all permanent records at the time of creation and immediately retiring the record copy to a records holding area or federal records center. Retention or disposition of records would be based on usage. The central files system would be brought back; copies of files would be issued to users, and the record copy would be retained in the central file.
A task group was established during April 1979 under the joint leadership of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Labor (DOL) to examine serious and widespread problems affecting efficient management of federal employees' medical records and to recommend solutions. Members of the task group also included representatives of the Departments of Defense, Army, and Air Force, as well as representatives of other federal agencies and organizations.
The group focused its attention on five major questions of policy: should there be a single medical record (folder) or should there be more than one repository for such documents; what constitutes an employee's medical records; who should have access to these records; where should the records be stored; and how should the records be maintained and for how long.
The task group received more than 110 responses from virtually every federal agency in the executive branch, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court, the General Accounting Office, the AFL-CIO, several independent unions, and private citizens. The group concluded that the primary cause of the medical rec-
ords problem was the lack of a uniform, government-wide policy governing the maintenance and disposition of the records. Adding to the problem was the fragmented authority among federal agencies which establish and promulgate standards and regulations relating to medical records of employees and the absence of a universally accepted definition of the term federal employee medical record. As a result, many records which contain vital medical information on an individual's occupational health and wellbeing were frequently lost, misfiled in the employee's Official Personnel Folder, or destroyed prematurely.
In its final report, the task group recommended that an Official Medical Folder (OMF) similar to the Official Personnel Folder (OPF) be established as the permanent repository for all medical records of federal employees; that, with minor modification, the term employee medical record used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration be adopted as the government-wide definition for determining the content of the OMF; that OPM be vested with authority to establish policies and regulations governing the control and disposition of employee medical records, including issuance of policy guidance on access to and release of medical information contained in the OMF; that upon transfer of an employee from one agency to another, the losing agency should forward the OMF to the gaining agency in the same manner as the Official Personnel Folder and in a way that ensures confidentiality; and that upon separation from federal service, the employee's OMF should be retired to the National Personnel Records Center where it would be retained for a period of thirty years, unless a longer period is required by law or regulation.
Efforts continued during 1981 to establish control over the disposition of data retained in more than 3,000 automated systems. In coordination with functional managers and systems personnel, disposal standards for nonpermanent data were established for over 85 percent of proposals received from Army activities. Proposals for the disposition of master files were evaluated, and assessments of the value (historical, archival, reference, rights-and-interests, and so forth) of the data stored were made. As information on each system was gathered, many data errors were corrected and problems solved. For example, many systems with multiple master files did not make enough distinction between functional purpose and planned disposition. Detailed legwork and contact with records management officials ensured that all master files within the system were appropriately identified, and that the function and value of each was understood
by users. The inclusion of data in some systems relating to several functional areas led to problems in identifying the system with equivalent paper records having different disposition schedules. Measures were taken to ensure that each distinct data file was accurately correlated with existing paper record schedules for evaluation purposes. A continuing problem was the lack of formal ADP training of some records managers, which resulted in a communications gap between the records and automation managers and delays in obtaining and dispensing needed processing information.
In October 1980, the Declassification Operations Branch of the Adjutant General's Center began planning a review of retired Southeast Asia War records for declassification, pursuant to the requirements of Executive Order 12065. The project would cover approximately 60,000 cubic feet of records created during the years 1954-1975, including joint records over which the Army has served as executive agent since 1975. The collection was stored, warehouse fashion, at the Washington National Records Center (WNRC), Suitland, Maryland. Intermingling of classified and unclassified files at the time of original shipment required that most of the collection be treated as classified information. To minimize loss and destruction of records in a combat zone, instructions were given to Army field commanders in 1970 to dispose of no records and to ship all records being retired to the WNRC. This action saved many historically valuable records from being inadvertently lost or destroyed, but also resulted in a great deal of dispensible and ephemeral material being held long past its scheduled disposal date. The condition of the records made effective service, research, and retrieval difficult.
The National Archives and Records Service (NARS) agreed to provide essential support services for the declassification project (which would also separate the permanent and disposable holdings), including work space and materials; TAG would provide personnel to carry out the work. The project was expected to be completed by 31 December 1985, at which time the entire collection would be permanently transferred to NARS.
Because of increasing historical interest and the special needs of the Agent Orange Task Force to answer veterans' claims arising from purported defoliant and herbicidal contamination in Vietnam, the project began with the combat divisions (together with assigned and attached units) committed to the war in Southeast Asia. By the end of fiscal year 1981, work had been completed on the 25th, 1st, 23d, and 9th Infantry Divisions. This resulted in 100-percent declassification and approximately 65-
percent disposal of holdings judged to be transitory and ephemeral. The 4th Infantry, 1st Air Cavalry, and 101st Airborne Divisions, were scheduled for processing during the first quarter of fiscal year 1982.
As part of its overall records management program, the Army administers a duplicate emergency files program to protect records needed to ensure the continuity of operations of essential Army functions and activities during and following a national emergency. Basic authority for management of the duplicate emergency files is Army Regulation 340-26, which is being revised to prescribe policies and procedures for the selection, distribution, storage, filing, safeguarding, and inventory of material placed in duplicate emergency files depositories, and to serve as a model for major Army commands in establishing their own duplicate emergency files program.
By and large, Army records management procedures have been developed in peacetime and geared to units and installations in the United States. Because these procedures were cumbersome to the combat commander on the battlefield during the Vietnam War, The Adjutant General's Office examined all areas of records management to see how each part of the program might be changed during wartime. The examination revealed that many peacetime administrative and reporting requirements could be suspended altogether. In other areas, such as the administration of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act, legislation has been proposed to waive requirements in wartime in order to divert manpower to more vital tasks. The proposals for managing Army information in wartime have been turned over to the Army Soldier Support Center for evaluation and analysis and the development of formal doctrine.
After sophisticated IBM model 3341 computers were placed in the data processing installations (DPI) at the St. Louis and Baltimore Publication Centers, it was discovered that one computer was enough to satisfy the requirements of both centers, thus allowing their consolidation under the Director of Publications, The Adjutant General Center (TAGGEN). On 5 January 1981 the St. Louis facility was closed, and all DPI personnel moved to the Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center (RCPAC). The equipment was transferred to the Enlisted Records Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison. The consolidation meant a net savings of twenty-eight manpower spaces, which were reallocated within the directorate and TAGCEN to meet other requirements. The total projected savings over the next five years should amount to approximately $1.2 million.
The Adjutant General Center's Editorial Control Division, as part of its efforts to improve the readability of Army publications, developed and disseminated DA Pamphlet 310-20, "Administrative Publications: Action Officers Guide." The pamphlet provides guidance for the preparation and processing of administrative publications throughout the Army. Efforts to reduce the number of Army publications yielded the following results: 465 publications were rescinded, 516 were under revision, and 151 were earmarked for consolidation. New readability programs were established at four major Army commands; these were in addition to three programs already in existence. In a related development, the Micropublishing Program continued to move forward. By the close of the fiscal year, 667 publications had been converted to microfiche and others were in the process.
Proliferation of computer output microfiche (COM) continued to increase in fiscal year 1981 as a means of reducing administrative and automated data processing (ADP) systems costs and improving efficiency. There were currently 118 installations and activities producing documents using microfiche. The Computer Systems Command has improved the software programs used to support COM, making it more efficient and easier both for computer managers and for the customer agency.
The U.S. Army Soldier Support Center (SSC) took the lead in examining the concept of employing commercial portable microfiche viewers for use in deployable units. SSC procured seventy Information Design Cube II viewers and seventy Topper "46" viewers for field and garrison evaluation by selected tactical units. In coordination with the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, units of the I Corps Support Command (COSCOM) were selected to use the equipment at their fixed-site locations as well as after deployment in a major field training exercise in fiscal year 1982.
Development of the Army Micrographics Management Information System (AMMIS) was begun in fiscal year 1980 for use by The Adjutant General Center's Micrographics Management Division and the major Army commands. It will contain an inventory of micrographics equipment and systems. Complete AMMIS data will not be available until fiscal year 1983. The benefits of AMMIS will be extended to the installation level via the Army ADP Resource and Performance Management Information System (ARPMIS). Under development by the Computer Systems Command (CSC) the ARPMIS will permit establishing, maintaining, and accessing a single integrated, Army-wide data base
for automated data processing, word processing, automated documentation systems, and micrographics equipment.
The major hardware and software elements of the Advanced Micrographic Access and Retrieval System (AMARS) were substantially completed; however, demonstrations revealed operational deficiencies that must be rectified before factory acceptance and delivery of the system to the Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center (RCPAC) in St. Louis. The issues have been analyzed in detail by Teknekron Research, Inc., the contractor. As a result, modification of the AMARS has begun to overcome the operational defects and to ensure full operability of the system. The pilot application will provide selected management officers with on-line access to official military personnel files of officers assigned to them.
TAGO contracted for an inspection of all microfiche Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) records in the Army system. The records are located at the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, Virginia (active officers), the Enlisted Record Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison (active enlisted personnel), and RCPAC (reserve officers and enlisted personnel). The inspection is required by the National Archives and Records Service's (NARS) Federal Property Management Regulation (FPMR) 101-11.507.2. The contract, awarded to the Micrographic Systems Technology Corp. in Falls Church, Virginia, requires reinspection of the active officer microfiche records to determine if the information has deteriorated since the previous inspection. It also requires an initial inspection of the other microfiche records to establish a basis for future comparison.
The Installation Integrated Administrative Support System (IIADSS) combines word processing, internal communications, text and data processing, photocomposition, and micrographics into one system designed to improve office productivity. As noted in last year's report, a prototype IIADSS was set up at Fort Benning, Georgia, to demonstrate that integrating current technologies could provide more effective administrative support at a significantly lower cost. The demonstration's success led to the expansion of IIADSS, and by the end of fiscal year 1981 seven installations were using automated systems similar to the one at Fort Benning. The speed with which other installations could implement their system was improved by sharing computer programs and procedures used at Fort Benning.
In 1978 the Chief of Staff requested a major technological breakthrough to provide Army staff action officers with modern technological administrative support. The Adjutant General, under a project known as the Army Staff Automation Administrative Support System (ARSTADS), planned to integrate office automation techniques into one total system for the Army staff.
The Chief of Staff, complaining that the Army staff did not even have access to a basic word processing system, directed The Adjutant General to assign immediate priority to obtaining such equipment. This part of the project was dubbed the Administrative Systems Acceleration Plan (ASAP).
ASAP was developed by a team of TAGO administrative systems experts who surveyed and evaluated the needs of nine Army staff agencies and 3,000 people over a twenty-month period. During the current year the team completed surveys of ten Army staff agencies. They recommended procuring 480 pieces of equipment, ranging from word processors, microcomputers, and copiers to sophisticated laser printers and electronic micro-publications and computerized graphics systems. In fiscal year 1981 over 100 word processors were installed, and another 210 were on order. When completed, ASAP could save as much as $12 million annually.
The first full-time office to monitor the Army's effort to reduce the administrative workload of unit commanders in the reserve components opened in June 1981. Established as a task force under the Reserve Components Coordination Council (RCCC), the Reduction in Administrative Workload (RAW) group surveyed reserve component units to validate unit commanders' complaints of excessive administration. Upon validation, the task force recommended screening DA publications to reduce administrative tasks, addressing specific issues raised by unit commanders, and establishing a full-time oversight office to keep resolved issues from cropping up again. Of the more than 1000 publications reviewed, 456 were rescinded from reserve component applicability and 516 were revised to ease administrative tasks, while 151 had valid administrative tasks.
Between 1 January and 3 March 1981, 155 postage metering systems were delivered to eighty-five Army installations and activities. By June, 22.1 percent of the Army's postage was metered.
A Transit Time Information System for Military Mail (TTISMM) is being developed by the Military Postal Service Agency to measure and analyze the flow of military mail to, from, and within overseas areas. TTISMM will measure transit times over complete routes between various origins and destinations as
well as the times for movement over parts of the complete routes. It will provide data for managers to establish benchmark transit times against which actual performance can be judged. This in turn will aid in detecting problem areas early. The Military Postal Service Agency (MPSA) had developed the basic procedures of TTISMM in coordination with the U.S. Postal Service. Testing of the new system will begin in October 1981.
On 14 August 1981, the DOD General Counsel sent a draft of proposed Space Available Mail (SAM) legislation to the 'Speaker of the House of Representatives. Such legislation would give DOD the discretionary authority to select transportation means for the overseas movement of SAM mail to minimize military mail transportation costs. The increased use of less costly transportation would be limited to situations in which the morale of service members would not be adversely affected. Use would also depend on the volume of mail to particular foreign destinations, security considerations, availability of seaport facilities, frequency of ship sailings, and costs associated with in-transit mail processing and overland transportation costs. The use of cheaper transportation for overseas movement of SAM would be determined on a country-by-country basis in coordination with the affected military service and appropriate field commanders.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 17 September 2004