Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1987
Organization, Management, and Budget
On 1 October 1986, the enactment of the DOD Reorganization Act launched the most comprehensive reorganization of the Defense Department since 1947. Four of the six chapters imposed or recommended a variety of organizational and procedural changes upon the military establishment to strengthen civilian authority; improve military advice to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense; improve joint officer management policies; and otherwise enhance the effectiveness of the DOD administration. Titles IV, V, and VI of the law addressed joint Officer Personnel Policy, clarified the roles of the respective service secretaries and chiefs of staff, provided for changes in the headquarters staffs of the military departments, and required the various offices to eliminate duplicative staff work. Title IV created a new officer classification of joint Specialty Officer USO), which was to fill critical positions on the joint Duty Assignment List (JDAL) of JSO members and nominees. The Army share of JDAL was 390 of a total of 1,000. The new law provided the Secretary of Defense with specific criteria by which to measure the quality of officers being assigned to the joint Staff, including the directive that service in a joint duty assignment was a prerequisite for promotion to brigadier general rank. Exceptions, however, were authorized by the Secretary of Defense under certain conditions. In the meantime, the law provided milestones for the two-year transition period (1 January 1987-1 October 1988) that addressed tour lengths, joint Professional Military Education, promotions, JDAL, career guidelines, and Secretary of Defense authority to award JSO under waiver provisions. Enactment of Title IV transformed the Army's method of managing its officers such that some areas, like the combat arms, an already rigorous schedule was further laden with the requirement to include extra joint service work in order to remain competitive and to qualify as future general officers.
Title V clarified the roles of the respective service secretaries and chiefs of staffs. This section mandated a 15 percent reduction of headquarters personnel (including general officers) by 1 October 1988. Title VI identified personnel cuts for management head-
quarters activities in the military departments, combatant commands, and Defense Department agencies and field activities that also must be implemented by October 1989, and outlined certain changes to the headquarters staffs of the military departments.
Included in the DOD Reorganization Act was the stipulation that the services centralize the management of eight functional areas-public affairs, legislative liaison, inspector general, auditing, acquisition, research and development, comptroller (financial management), and information management-within their secretariats. The law required that these areas be integrated into the service secretariats by 1 April 1987 and that the armed services report to Congress on other particulars of the law by 1 May 1987.
To comply with these deadlines, Secretary of the Army Marsh established the Secretary of the Army Reorganization Commission (SARC) to develop a plan to implement the many changes that were either required or implied by the 1986 Reorganization Act. Secretary Marsh and General Wickham appointed SARC's cochairmen, the Honorable Michael P. W. Stone, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management) (ASA[FM]), and Lt. Gen. Max W. Noah, Comptroller of the Army (COA). The chairmen selected the following principal commission members: Mr. Jack E. Hobbs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASA[RDA] ), to direct the reorganization study group; Col. Theodore (Ted) G. Stroup, Executive to the Army Vice Chief of Staff and deputy to Mr. Hobbs; Mr. Milton H. Hamilton, Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, as director of the group to deal with Titles I through IV of the law; and Brig. Gen. Lynn Hooper, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS), deputy to Mr. Hamilton.
To conform with its congressional tasking, SARC created the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Study Group consisting of Secretary Marsh, General Wickham, Mr. Stone, General Noah, Mr. Hobbs, and Colonel Stroup along with nine officers and five civilians from the Secretariat and the Army Staff. Its task was to identify the pertinent functional areas and design implementation plans for restructuring the Army in accordance with the act.
After extensive analysis and deliberation by SARC and the study group, Secretary Marsh and General Wickham determined how best to restructure the Army in harmony with the act. The following sections outline the Army's effort to comply with its congressional mandate using the advice of SARC and the study group.
As a result of the 1986 DOD Reorganization Act, the Army is instituting a new managerial structure that is expected to significantly improve Army efficiency and effectiveness. Army conformity with the act required the centralization of eight functional areas under the Secretariat. Because the offices of Public Affairs and Legislative Liaison already resided on the Secretariat, no change in their status was necessary. Both the Inspector General and the Auditor General were moved from the Army Staff to the Secretariat without any major change in internal organization or function. However, more fundamental changes were required in other areas. For example, in the area of acquisition and research and development, the Army merged the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ODCSRDA) into ASA(RDA). This move resulted in the redesignation of ODCSRDA as the military deputy to the ASA(RDA). In addition, the Under Secretary of the Army became the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) with responsibility for implementing the Program Executive Officer (PEO) System for the management of Army materiel acquisition programs.
In the area of financial management, the Office of the Comptroller of the Army (OCA) merged with the ASA(FM). The comptroller retained the title of Comptroller. In the enlarged office, the ASA(FM) retained most of the earlier functions and absorbed all those formerly performed by the Comptroller's Office, except for efficiency programs, information management, and installation management. To improve the Army's budget process, the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff approved the establishment of a consolidated Army Budget Office in December 1986.
The Assistant Chief of Staff for Information Management (ACSIM) moved from the Army Staff to the Secretariat and acquired the title of Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (DISCO). The DISCO assumed two functions formerly held by the ASA(FM): (1) formulation of the information management strategic direction and management plan; and (2) the acquisition of information management technology and services.
After shifting responsibility from the Army Staff to the Secretariat in the aforementioned functional areas, the Department of the Army made other organizational changes in response to the act. Administrative support for the Offices of the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff were combined under the Administrative Assistant in the Army Secretariat. The action consolidated the agencies' budgets for civilian personnel management, in-
formation management, mailroom, and staff action control office operations. In another change to the staff, General Wickham transferred the Army Safety Office and the Army Safety Center from the Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER), to the Office, Chief of Staff of the Army. Subsequently, the Director of Army Safety also became the Commander of the Army Safety Center.
Upon being transferred to the Army Secretariat, the Comptroller of the Army relinquished primary Army Staff responsibility for installation management policy to the Management Directorate, Director of the Army Staff. The Army also moved the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee from the Army Staff to the Secretariat and transferred the Procurement, Fraud, and Litigation divisions of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) to the Army Legal Services Agency.
In keeping with the Reorganization Act's reaffirmation of the service secretaries' authority over intelligence activities, the Army upgraded the position of Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) to Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DCSINT) and reassigned current intelligence from the Directorate of Foreign Intelligence, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ODCSINT), to the Army Intelligence Agency (AIA).
Because the act separated the functional areas of acquisition and logistics under the Army Staff, the Army transferred its Contracting Directorate from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG) to ASA(RDA). Management of conventional ammunition was centralized at Headquarters, Army Materiel Command (AMC).
In the realm of personnel management, the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) was a field operating agency of ODCSPER. MILPERCEN is commanded by a major general and consists of five directorates-enlisted, officer, civilian, personnel service support, and mobilization and operations. The Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff also disestablished the Adjutant General Center (TAGCEN) and reassigned its remaining responsibilities to the Armed Forces Courier Service, the Joint Service Environmental Support Group, and control of Army unit designation to other Defense Department agencies. The title of The Adjutant General (TAG), however, continued in the person of the Chief, Personnel Services Support Directorate of MILPERCEN. These moves completed the realignment of the Adjutant General's functions begun prior to the passage of the DOD Reorganization Act.
Institutional training and training support activities changed from ODCSOPS to TRADOC. This shift was in keeping with the Re-
organization Act's general goal of limiting headquarters organizations to policy formulation and oversight while shifting operational and policy execution matters to the field. Included in this transfer was responsibility for the training career program, the training literature program, audiovisual support for training, officer course quota management, interservice training review organization, joint training for command and control systems, and the automated instructional management system. Similar concerns over the division of responsibility between HQDA and the field led the Army to transfer one-third of the Surgeon General's staff to field agencies, while the Corps of Engineers (COE) transferred some of its technical aspects of housing and facilities management to field operating agencies within the Military District of Washington (MDW).
In continuing the congressionally mandated realignments, the Army instituted a number of changes involving its forces in the field. Certain changes included the reassignment of the unified and specified commands which the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (JCS Pub. 1) , 1 June 1987, defines as follows:
unified command - (DOD) A command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander and composed of significant assigned components of two or more Services, and which is established and so designated by the President, through the Secretary of Defense with the advice and assistance of the joint Chiefs of Staff, or, when so authorized by the joint Chiefs of Staff, by a commander of an existing unified command established by the President.
specified command - (DOD) A command that has a broad continuing mission and that is established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense with the advice and assistance of the joint Chiefs of Staff. It normally is composed of forces from but one Service.
A major change for the Army included designating FORSCOM as a specified command. The change altered both the scope and the nature of FORSCOM which continued to serve as a Major Army Command (MACOM) while assuming its new position as a specified command. Thus, as a MACOM, FORSCOM continued to perform all of the following missions:
1. To maintain combat-ready Active Army and USAR units in the United States.
2. To supervise training and monitoring the readiness of the Army National Guard units.
3. To serve as the Army component of the U.S. Atlantic Command (USLANTCOM), the unified command with responsibility for defense of the Atlantic region.
4. To provide the Third U.S. Army element as the Army component of the USCENTCOM, which has area responsibility for Southwest Asia.
As a newly created specified command, FORSCOM added the following missions:
1. To provide a general reserve of combat-ready conventional
Army forces for the strategic reinforcement of other unified and specified
2. To provide for the joint training of designated forces.
3. To provide for contingency planning and forces to assist civil authorities in protecting key CONUS assets, facilities, and functions that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain U.S. military forces.
4. To plan for military support of civil defense, the land defense of Alaska (excluding the Aleutians), the combined land defense of the United States and Canada, and the land defense of the continental United States.
FORSCOM Commander, General Joseph T Palastra, Jr., assessed his command's new duties as follows:
This new role calls for FORSCOM to assume a joint command relationship with the continental U.S. armies (CONUSAs) and the state area commands (STARCs) of the reserve components, particularly in the preparation and implementation of operational plans for the land defense of most of North America. There is also clearly an increase in our interaction with the other services, particularly as we inherit the responsibility from REDCOM to conduct joint training exercises. Joint operations, while important before, are even more critical for FORSCOM's new role as a specified command.
In support of these missions, FORSCOM continues to manage widespread and extensive resources. FORSCOM's real estate includes nineteen major installations and twenty-one subinstallations in CONUS, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In the area of personnel, it is responsible for the mobilization readiness and training of nearly one million soldiers, including the Active Army, the Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.
The major active component strength of the command includes Third U.S. Army; 5 CONUSAs (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth U.S. Army); lst Special Forces Command; 3 corps; 12 divisions; and 4 separate brigade-size units. They are organized as follows:
Third U.S. Army is an operational field army commanded by the deputy commanding general of FORSCOM. As such, it is the
Army component headquarters for the USCENTCOM, responsible for military operations in the Southwest Asian theater.
The continental U.S. armies (CONUSAs) are the extension of the command chain from Headquarters, FORSCOM, to all USAR elements in CONUS, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Additionally, they supervise and evaluate the training and monitor the readiness of the ARNG units within their geographic areas of responsibility.
The 1st Special Operations Command (Ist SOCOM), mentioned elsewhere in this summary, remains a major subordinate command of FORSCOM, with command of Active Army SOF and operational control (OPCON) of USAR SOF. Under joint command guidelines, FORSCOM retains command of Army SOF, including the ARNG, upon mobilization.
The three corps are I Corps at Fort Lewis, Washington; III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas; and XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Each corps force package is a complete entity and is based on the most likely threat to be confronted in its intended theater of operations. The corps exercise training and operational supervision of the divisions and separate brigades within their respective force packages during peacetime.
The Army also took the opportunity during the reorganization of 1986-87 to clarify the roles and missions of headquarters agencies. For example, the Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff reaffirmed the role of the ODCSOPS as coordinator of the force development and integration function and authorized additional personnel to properly administer the area. In addition, the Army defined the role of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army, Operations Research, as the proponent on the Secretariat for policy and oversight of operational testing by having these duties specified in Army Regulation (AR) 10-5, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Organization and Functions. Finally, the Reorganization Act bestowed statutory authority upon the position of Department of the Army General Counsel.
The adjustments in organization brought about by the Reorganization Act were accompanied by significant personnel changes. Title V set the maximum strength of civilian and military personnel in the Secretariat and Army Staff at 3,105 spaces. This represented a 15 percent reduction greater than previous levels. Commissioned officer active duty strength for the Secretariat and Army Staff was limited further to 1,865 during peacetime. Congress also directed other personnel cuts at management headquarters throughout DOD in Title VI of the act. The object of these reduc-
tions was to streamline management overhead and to encourage the movement of operational duties out of headquarters organizations and into the field. Thus, Congress hoped to focus the attention of military headquarters on policy concerns and not day-today operational details.
Major personnel changes that were made during this fiscal year included the retirement of General Wickham on 22 June 1987. He had served as Army Chief of Staff since 23 July 1983. His successor, General Carl E. Vuono, assumed the position of U.S. Army Chief of Staff on 23 June 1987. In other personnel changes, General Bernard W. Rogers, commander of U.S. and NATO forces, retired on 30 June 1987. His replacement is General John R. Galvin, the commander of the USSOUTHCOM. Other significant personnel changes included General Louis C. Menetrey's replacement of General William Livesey as commander of the U.S./South Korean forces in June 1987; and promotion of Julius W. Gates to Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) on 1 July 1987, replacing SMA Glen E. Morrell who retired after twenty-eight years of service.
The 1986 Reorganization Act expanded the management role of the service secretaries, giving them sole managerial responsibility in seven areas: acquisition, auditing, comptroller and financial management, information management, inspector general, legislative affairs, and public affairs. Gains were made in each of these areas, and major improvements came in the realms of acquisition and information management.
The Department of Defense's mismanagement of the acquisition process had already attracted national attention as a result of a series of procurement scandals. To examine the problems and explore solutions, the President established a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (commonly known as the Packard Commission), which concluded that the DOD procurement/acquisition function was unduly laden with a host of other problems that could be remedied by streamlining acquisition organizations and procedures; employing technology to reduce costs; and balancing costs and performance.
President Reagan responded to the Packard Commission's call for change with his National Security Decision Directive 219 of 1 April 1986, creating an Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, who would supervise the acquisition process.
Improving the acquisition function was further addressed in Title V of the Reorganization Act which mandated that acquisition be separated from research, development, and logistics and placed under the sole custody of the Secretary of the Army.
The Army's implementation of the PEO system began with DOD's plans to introduce some thirty-two initiatives that will foster competition in procurement. They will also maintain a fixed price with contractors rather than permit the annual negotiation of prices that are frequently regulated by rising inflation and labor costs. Thus, the Army expects to realize savings by negotiating contracts at a minimum of every other year.
The Army's acquisition process is also expected to benefit from its newly instituted plan to appoint 20-25 PEOs to oversee the Army's various acquisition programs. The PEOs will be the link between program managers and the service's Acquisition Executive, Under Secretary Ambrose, and Deputy Acquisition Executive, Jay Richard Sculley, who is currently the Assistant Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition. PEOs reporting to Dr. Sculley and Mr. Ambrose will be designated along functional lines, including armaments, aviation, and tactical missiles.
To prevent abuses and further enhance the acquisition process, the Defense Department and the Army in particular are broadening the list of contractors to attract a wider variety of competitive bidders. The Army is also expecting to reap financial benefits from its newly enacted policy of purchasing spare parts directly from the manufacturers and by buying off-the-shelf items instead of customizing items according to detailed specifications to ensure greater durability in combat. As a result of criticism by the Packard Commission and congressional agreement, the 1987 Authorization Act requires DOD to buy off-the-shelf products when possible. This change is expected to result in substantial savings without compromising unit efficiency or readiness.
The Army acted also to strengthen its information management capability. Thus, the Army has joined its sister services in inaugurating a new DOD policy requiring that computers controlling U.S. weapons use a single software to program new armament systems. Institution of this language, dubbed Ada, will cost the Army approximately $100 million over a five-year period. The contractor for the program is TRW, Inc., Federal Systems Division, who has agreed to convert the Army's 8 million lines of Fortran and Cobol to Ada for use in the service's Worldwide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS). TRW plans to design and test a subsystem, setting the foundation for deployment of Ada
into WWMCCS. Completion of the project then will require construction of an entirely new WWMCCS operating environment that will make Ada more user friendly.
The Army's information management system expects to benefit from the agency's recent acquisition of its second Cray-2 manufactured super computer in two years. The Cray Research, Inc., super computers will be operational at the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in August 1987 and at the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM), Warren, Michigan, in March 1988, respectively. Since 3 November 1986, the Army has leased the Cray XMP48 for BRL using FY 1986 research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) funds. Like the Cray XMP48, both of the other super computers will be used in weapons and automotive design, battlefield simulation, and civil engineering. Using its extraordinary capacity to operate at a speed of 840 million instructions per second (each unit contains 750,000 individual chips) the Cray-2 computers are expected to provide the Army with greater processing speed and more interactive graphics capabilities than the Army has previously enjoyed. Funding for this program will cost the Army approximately $23.6 million of its FY 1987 funds.
To improve the information management system in Europe, the Army exported its Tactical Army Combat Service Support Computer System (TACOS) to the 1st Armored Division in Germany. This powerful microcomputer system provides the unit with the computing power that is usually available only using a fixed site minicomputer system. Prior to this fielding, TACOS was available only to the 24th Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia; 7th Infantry Division (Light) Fort Ord, California; and 9th Infantry Division and I Corps, Fort Lewis, Washington.
The Assistant Army Chief of Public Affairs for Resource Management is the principal civilian adviser to the Army Chief of Public Affairs and the Secretariat on civilian issues and public affairs appropriations and information management systems. This officer is responsible for developing specific public affairs initiatives and formulating policy for career management of both military and civilian personnel. Additionally, the officer serves as the chief Secretary of the Army, Public Affairs (SAPA), representative for the career management program of the Public Affairs and Communications Media (PACM) Career Program; IMA manager; and supervisor of the Administrative and Professional Development branches.
During FY 1987, the Resource Management Chief attempted to resolve the issue of control and management of the career pro-
gram for civilians in the audiovisual field and non-public affairs publications, technical writing, and editing fields. These positions were formerly the responsibility of PACM, but currently their functions fall under the newly created ACSIM. The Chief of Public Affairs and the other functional chiefs of the affected programs tentatively agreed that a separate career program should be established to cover several job series like those mentioned above that are related to information management. All agreed that affected civilians should be allowed to enter the new Information Management Program when it is established and can provide the same services currently offered under PACK
The Army is seeking to develop ways to more safely and efficiently dispose of its chemical and hazardous materials that it currently stores in various sites. Portions of this waste material include nerve gases and various munitions that are still in the Army's chemical weapons inventory. Appropriate disposal of hazardous waste at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, is being reviewed by a steering committee composed of representatives of the Department of the Army, the State of Colorado, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Shell Oil Company. The committee convened as a result of litigation between the federal government and Shell, and between the federal government and the State of Colorado. These actions are an important part of the contamination cleanup at the arsenal where cleanup costs are estimated at between $700 million and $1 billion.
Transporting hazardous waste continues to be a major concern to environmentalists who are troubled about whether the Army should destroy chemicals in their current sites or transport them to areas that include Johnston Atoll in the South Pacific for storage or destruction. A major element of the controversy stems from whether the chemicals can be moved safely through the sixteen to twenty states through which the chemicals must travel en route to the Pacific Coast for shipment to Johnston Atoll.
Fiscal year 1987 witnessed the effect of the cuts mandated by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act). This year the Army budget was $75 billion, almost $5 billion below the amount the Army requested. The most controversial cuts in the Army budget came from the elimination or curtailment of several of the Army's automatic data processing (ADP) programs. Additional Army budget
cuts were made by eliminating almost three-fourths of the Army's Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)-an automated system that, along with MCS, constitutes a major part of the Army Command and Control System.
During FY 1988, the Army is requesting funding for the purchase of additional super computing capacity to support the mission areas of high energy laser development, war-game simulation, force modeling, and earthquake analyses. Funding for these programs will allow the service to continue to meet its full potential in defending our national and international commitments.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 17 November 2003