Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1983


Organization and Management


To conduct its modernization program more efficiently, the Army made a number of organizational changes within its own structure in fiscal year 1983. The Office of the Chief of Engineers/Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers underwent a realignment; and the Office of the Assistant Chief of Engineers (OACE), the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS), the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (OACSI), and the Office of the Inspector General (IG) all experienced some reorganization. Other organizational developments included several base closures and realignments, a new manning system concept, and functional area assessments.

The realignment of the Office of the Chief of Engineers affected elements of both the Army staff (Office of the Chief of Engineers) and Major Army Commands (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). (For simplicity sake the dual office is referred to as OCE). Through realignment, the Army hoped to strengthen the OCE's ability to provide services to its Army and Air Force clients, simplify some reporting and working relationships within the headquarters, emphasize the engineering and construction functions, and reduce the span of control at OCE executive office level.

The OCE implemented the realignment in two phases. Phase I took effect on I October 1982 and incorporated those features of the overall realignment plan that the Chief of Engineers could undertake. Phase II happened on I May 1983 and included the elements of the plan that required the support of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

Specific actions taken as part of phase I included the disestablishment of OCE's Directorate of Military Programs and the transfer of its Army staff functions to the OACE (the installations planning, Army housing management, and military construction programming functions), and its MACOM responsibilities to a new Directorate of Engineering and Construction (the engineering and construction management functions). One additional change to the DACE, involved the creation of a new deputy


assistant chief of engineer position (for planning, programming, and congressional affairs), and the assignment of a senior SES civilian to the new position. (An 0-7 military deputy position for facilities and housing already existed).

Phase I also covered the incorporation of four small independent offices into the new Directorate of Engineering and Construction: the International Affairs Office, the Office of Contracting Policy, the Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Office, and the Safety and Occupational Health Office. (Within a few months after this occurred, however, the Chief of Engineers removed the first three of these offices from the directorate and allowed them to stand again as independent offices.) He also recast the Resource Management Office as the Directorate of Resource Management, incorporating the functions and staff of the Engineer Automation Management Office.

On 1 May 1983, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works transferred the civil works, engineering (except hydraulics and hydrology), and construction functions from the Directorate of Civil Works to the Directorate of Engineering and Construction as part of phase 11 of the realignment. Thus, for the first time under this realignment one major directorate was responsible for OCE's engineering and construction management. The alignment parallels that in the field, where civil works and military functions are combined in engineering and construction elements of the divisions and districts. The Directorate of Civil Works still exists but with more narrowly defined functions, that include staff responsibility for the planning, programming, maintenance, and operation of civil works projects. This directorate also has the major responsibility for mobilization planning on behalf of OCE.

Two significant aspects of the reorganization of the DACE stand out. First, the OCE consolidated the Army staff duties in one office (ACE) and second, enhanced the integration of the facilities accounts (Military Construction, Facilities Engineering, and Army Family Housing) by placing them all under the control of the ACE. To promote the integration of the three facilities accounts, the OCE established an additional Office of Real Property Management Systems Integration and Planning, which included the provision for the consolidation of automation activities for the ACE. The reorganization resulted in very little physical personnel disruption because the Facilities Engineering Division and Family Housing Division remained in the Pulaski Building. Also, the OCE transferred the General Officer position (and the incumbent) from the previous Military Programs Directorate to DACE, thereby retaining a substantial element of continuity.


In mid July 1983, ODCSOPS reorganized. The reorganization is designed to provide a more comprehensive approach to the management of force modernization programs by shifting emphasis from material systems to organizations, and by establishing a single point of focus on the DA staff for force modernization activities.

Under the new scheme, the DCSOPS Requirement Directorate (DAMO-RQ), the Force Management Directorate (CDAMO-FD) and the Army Force Modernization Coordination Office (AFMCO) have merged into a single Force Development Directorate (DAMO-FD). The former Director of Requirements has become the Director of Force Development, while the former Director of Force Management and the Deputy Director of Requirements have become Deputy Directors of Force Development. The new directorate now contains ten operations divisions.

To provide the policy guidance and direction necessary for comprehensive threat intelligence support to the Army, this year the ACSI created a new Foreign Intelligence and Threat Management Division within the Directorate of Foreign Intelligence. The reorganization took place chiefly to provide comprehensive staff supervision of intelligence production, ensure adequate threat support for force, combat, and materiel development, and provide centralized direction in the development of intelligence data bases and methodologies for producing long-range forecasts of enemy capabilities.

Also, the ACSI established a new position this year, that of Scientific Advisor, to assist with complex scientific and technological matters. Besides being the top Army intelligence consultant on. scientific and technological matters, this senior civilian scientist is the evaluator and assessor of intelligence matters concerning foreign scientific and technological trends, developments, capabilities and discoveries, and he is the senior evaluator of the impact of technology on foreign military capabilities. He personally represents the ACSI on executive-level scientific committees.

Organizational changes occurred again this year in the Office of the Inspector General (IG). Inspector General Richard G. Trefry made changes during February and March 1983 to implement the compliance-systemic inspection methodology (a method of compiling data on complaints received by the worldwide IG system). Inspector General Trefry reduced the Operations and Evaluations Division, with the intention of ultimate elimination in FY 84; expanded the Inspections Division into the Inspections and Follow-up Division; created a Training Division, located at the Humphreys Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; converted the former Audit and Inspection Follow-up Division into


the Plans and Analysis Division; expanded the Information Management Analysis Division and redesignated it the Information Resource Management Division. The Technical Inspections, Investigations, and Assistance Divisions continued as before. The reorganization had little effect on strength, as it primarily involved the rearrangement of personnel duties. The fiscal year ended with the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) and IGs in the field fully oriented toward the systemic inspection approach system that operates in a decentralized manner, but uses centralized information. Lt. Gen. Nathaniel R. Thompson who succeeded General Trefry on 1 September 1983 continued the programs begun by his predecessor.

During FY 83, the Army completed three base closure and realignment actions. A study, produced in July 1982, culminated in a decision on 16 December 1982 to retain Fort Sheridan, Illinois, as an Active Army installation. Also on 16 December 1982, Secretary of the Army Marsh announced that Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, would become a subinstallation of Fort Meade, Maryland, as well as a semiactive installation. Four days later, HQDA directed Headquarters, FORSCOM to complete the realignment by 30 September 1983. FORSCOM accomplished this on schedule. As an adjunct to a realignment study to determine the desirability of relocating the U.S. Army Engineer Center and School from Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, the DACE prepared a detailed backfill investigation to determine the most effective utilization of the space that the Engineer School would vacate at Fort Belvoir, and that Headquarters, INSCOM elements would vacate at Fort Meade. Headquarters, TRADOC received this study in August 1983 for incorporation into its realignment study records.

A major organizational development this year was the implementation of the New Manning System, which is comprised of the COHORT (Cohesion, Operational Readiness, and Training) Unit Movement System and the Army Regimental System. The New Manning System would build loyalty, cohesion, and morale and thus aid in the development of quality units. This year the Army formed 25 additional company-sized COHORT units, bringing the total to 52 and deployed 10 of them overseas (8 to Europe and 2 to Korea). Since the results of field evaluation and other analysis indicated that a company level replacement system became unsustainable in the long-tour areas, the Army initiated plans to begin a battalion level COHORT system.

Within the Army Regimental System, this year the Army approved the formation of sixty-four combat arms regiments and implemented the first seven. The Army also agreed to the concept of the Honorary Colonel of the Regiment, in which each


regiment appoints a former distinguished member of the regiment to perform ceremonial duties. Two of the seven implemented regiments appointed Honorary Colonels. In addition, the Army consented to and implemented the concept for affiliating active duty general officers with regiments. Officers at the Army Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) operated throughout the year as Regimental Adjutants for the seven implemented regiments and played an active role in the career management of regimental soldiers. Finally this fiscal year, the Army approved the New Manning System concept for the combat support and combat service support forces and initiated plans to apply the Regimental System to each branch.

In July 1983, the Army decided to conduct broad-based assessments of the Army's branches to ensure the success of force integration modernization program and to integrate analysis efforts of the Army staff and staffs of the major commands. The assessments would focus on key organizations, with their related personnel and materiel in a branch undergoing change, during the fiscal year 1983, 1984, and 1985. To identify strengths and weaknesses, the assessment of each unit would include an analysis of doctrine, organizational design, force structure, documentation, training, manning, equipping, sustaining, and facilities. The Army conducted its first assessment, a review of field artillery, on 30 September 1983.

Financial Management

The Army's FY 83 budget request included in the President's budget amounted to $60,740.6 million. Congressional action amended this figure so that the grand total appropriated to the Army in the FY 83 equaled $57,496.2 million. The table below shows major milestones leading up to the FY 83 Army appropriations bill. Table 13 presents in greater detail the budget story and the Army's expenditures for this fiscal year.

The Army's overall obligation performance for FY 83 was within an acceptable range. Planned obligations for the year equaled $75,694 million, actual obligations incurred were $73,476 million. The variance of $2,218 million can be attributed to the use of procurement funds as bill payers for reprogramming actions, savings on low bids in the construction appropriations, and lack of sales from the stock fund.

Outlay performance was very good. Planned outlays for FY 83 incurred under authorized obligations were $52,187 million, while actual performance was $51,802 million. The small variance of $681 million was due primarily to the obligation shortfalls.


Following is an Audit Trail of FY 83 Army Budget thru Congressional Action to Public Law Finalization

  Basic Request Supplemental  
Appropriation   President's
 Grand Total
MPA    14,401.1    15,363.7    14,478.1    14,023.8    14,454.8        14,454.8
RPA    1,224.8    1,302.0    1,247.5    1,224.8    1,247.3        1,247.3
NGPA    1,680.5    1,792.5    1,695.2    1,669.2    1,698.8        1,698.8
OMA    16,827.6    17,086.1    15,754.8    15,931.7    15,847.4    6.2    6.2    15,853.6
OMAR    686.4    699.2    707.8    692.2    705.6        705.6
OMARNG    1,123.9    1,152.3    1,179.6    1,157.8    1,195.1        1,195.1
NGPRP    .9    .9    .9    .9    .9        .9
Aircraft Procurement    2,745.9    2,745.9    2,497.4    2,444.5    2,489.1        2,489.1
Missile Procurement    2,846.6    2,846.6    2,267.2    2,611.6    2,266.6    478.6    453.6    2,720.2
PWTCV    5,030.7    5,024.5    4,649.9    4,591.9    4,713.0        4,713.0
AMEO    2,638.9    2,625.7    2,074.0    2,129.3    2,121.0        2,121.0
OPA    4,567.5    4,625.8    4,141.3    4,207.9    4,115.9    5.0    5.0    4,120.0
ANC/AR EQPT    -      -    200.0    -        -
RDT&E    4,484.0    4,533.8    3,853.1    3,851.0    3,879.7        3,879.7
Army Stock Fund    225.1    221.1    221.1    221.1    221.1        221.1
Army Conven. Ammo Stk Ed    1.0    1.0    0    0    0        0
DOD APPROPRIATION REQUEST    58,484.9    60,021.1a    54,767.9b    54,957.7    54,956.3c    489.9    464.8    55,420.2


Following is an Audit Trail of FY 83 Army Budget thru Congressional Action to Public Law Finalization

  Basic Request Supplemental  
Appropriation   President's
 Grand Total
MCA    1,100.2    1,100.2    982.8    982.8    929.7          929.7
MCAR    42.8    42.8    42.8    42.8    41.8          41.8
MCARNG    51.1    51.1    55.0    51.1    55.0          55.0
FH, Army    1,061.6    1,061.6    1,024.3    964.9    974.9    0    73.7    1,048.6
MILCON APPROP'N REQUEST    2,255.7    2,255.7    2,104.9    2,041.6    2,001.4    0    73.7    2,075.1
GRAND TOTALS    60,740.6    62,276.8    56,872.8    56,999.3    56,957.7    489.8    538.5    57,495.3

a This number includes an 8% pay raise plus the November (82) budget amendment.
b This number includes a 4% pay raise plus a 25% pay absorption.
c This number includes reductions for Independent R&D and Bid Proposals. Army's share is $80.7M:

Procurement A/C    -$20.9M
Missile Proc    -21.6M
WTCV Proc    -38.2M
Total    -80.7M


Table 14 is expressed in terms of this year's authorized obligations, while the Army's actual expenditures include obligations incurred in previous fiscal years.

30 September 1983
($ in millions)

  Obligations Outlays
  Plan    Actual    Variance    Plan    Actual    Variance
Mil Pay    17,687    17,665    -22    17,458    17,439    -19
Opus    19,717    20,188    471    17,492    17,292    -200
Proc    17,034    15,500    - 1,534    11,762    11,443    -319
RDTE    4,660    4,640    -20    3,666    3,658    -8
Constr    1,995    1,835    -160    1,016    954    - 62
AFH    1,040    989    -51    941    874    -67
Funds/Accounts    13,561    12,659    -902    -148    -142    6
Total    75,694    73,476    -2218    52,483    51,802    -681

During the year the Army worked on the FY 84 budget, which became a part of the FY 84 defense authorization bill, signed by the president into law on 24 September 1983. The Army expects the president to sign the FY 84 military construction authorization bill, the military construction appropriations bill into law during October 1983, and the FY 84 defense appropriations bill into law in December 1983.

The Economies, Efficiencies, and Management Improvement (EEMI) program is the Army's effort in support of the president's plan to eliminate waste throughout the federal government. This fiscal year the Army began to incorporate EEMI concepts into the Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution System (PPBES) cycle, and for the first time, included an Army-wide call for savings data in the Command Operating Budget. This effort identified past and future cost avoidance and budget savings of $8.3 billion. In order to better track savings and avoidance of future costs in program and budget documents, the Army will continue to cross-reference savings in budget justification books.

By the end of the fiscal year, the Army was incorporating SEMI concepts into the Industrial Modernization Incentives Program (IMIP) efforts that were ongoing with nine different defense contractors, two of whom were undertaken jointly with other services. Although the resources for this new initiative are limited, the expected benefits of eliminating waste are large. By citing the Army's program as the best of the three services, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) acknowledged the extent of the Army's success in EEMI this fiscal year.


The Capital Investment programs have continued to serve as one of the major pillars in the Army's EEMI program. Investments of $87 million, approved under the Quick Return on investment Program (QRIP), and the Office of the Secretary of Defense Productivity Investment Funding (OSD PIF) are expected to result in savings exceeding $140 million. Fiscal year 1983 also marked the first year in which new policies and procedures for decentralized funding of the QRIP and the transfer of project approval authority to the command level became effective.

The Value Engineering (VE) program contributes substantial dollar savings as well. The program is concerned with eliminating or changing anything that increases the cost of an item or process, but which is not necessary to its basic function. This year total VE savings decreased by 11 percent from $457 million in FY 82 to $405.3 million in FY 83. Savings of approximately $350.7 million resulted from the approval of 1,212 in-house VE proposals and an additional savings of $54.6 million followed from 328 approved contractor VE change proposals. The overall return on investment from FY 83 VE actions was $21 for each dollar invested. To implement VE Army-wide, the Army instituted a Program Development Increment Package (PDIP) based on past successes. In addition, the Army plans to use savings from subsequent VE programs to initiate new programs at FORSCOM and TRADOC beginning in 1985.

Failure to provide the required guidance for national defense exemptions delayed the actions of the Commercial Activities (CA) Division this year. On 4 August 1983, OMB published a new version of the OMB Circular A-76, which had been revised during the fourth quarter. Although paragraph 8b of the revised circular permits the Secretary of Defense to establish criteria for national defense exemptions, by the end of the fiscal year the secretary had not provided this guidance. The lack of DOD implementing instructions has slowed down many of the actions of the CA Division. Without the required guidance, the CA Division has been unable to publish AR 5-XX, Management of the Commercial Activities Program, and therefore the field is suffering for lack of regulatory guidance.

Several other factors continued to delay the execution of the CA program: congressional concerns and legislative actions; overly protective policies with respect to commercial activities; shortage of personnel trained in OMB Circular A-76 and Army acquisition procedures; rapid turnover of key personnel; and too many cost studies to be completed simultaneously. Two primary issues-the accountable officer and core logistics-are delaying the production of some of the larger industrial based studies.


Resolution of these issues should produce a large number of finished products in fiscal year 1984-85.

On the other hand, this fiscal year the Army completed 44 cost studies of in-house activities: 20 of these investigations determined in-house performance to be the most advantageous method of acting, and 24 studies indicated contracting to be cost-effective for the government. As a result of these findings, the Army released 1,183 civilian spaces and 339 military spaces for utilization against other Army requirements. These decisions will also result in estimated savings to the government of approximately $51.4 million over the next three years.

The CA cost studies completed during the past five fiscal years and associated manpower data are noted in Table 15.

Cost Studies Completed

Number of Studies Completed End Strength
Involved in
End Strength
Involved in
3 Year Cost Advantage to the Government
  Civilian Military Total Civilian Military Total  
FY 79 20    705    14    719    441    0    441    $ 4.5 M
FY 80 60    3,287    610    3,897    2,294    537    2,831    $60.0 M
FY 81 72    2,103    663    2,766    1,047    341    1,388    $46.2 M
FY 82 65    1,640    195    1,835    1,069    181    1,250    $37.2 M
FY 83 44    1,654    339    1,993    1,183    254    1,437    $51.4 M

The Comptroller of the Army Resource Management Corporation (RMC) conducted financial management workshops during the year, which provided the major commands and the Army staff with the opportunity to address commercial activities and training programs and objectives. The comptroller also furnished a forum for modifying programs of instruction to incorporate policy guidance changes from OMB and "lessons learned" from the field.

The Army Logistics Management Center (ALMC) established new courses this year aimed at the CA program and contracting in general and trained 6,686 students. The ALMC also established ten Management of Commercial Activities courses for FY 84, all to be given at on-site locations throughout the United States. The fact that ALMC is providing on-site instruction at installations rather than requiring all students to attend the courses at Fort Lee, Virginia, has increased the number of trained students as well as saved the Army significant amounts in TDY and travel expenses.


Financial management received a boost this year when the Army's Program Performance and Budget Execution Review System (PPBERS) experienced major growth. PPBERS became the main high management vehicle for the Army staff's budget execution review and feedback. PPBERS monitors on a quarterly basis the status of obligations and outlays; commercial activities; major weapon system procurement; personnel management; engineer programs; Army Reserve and the Army National Guard recruitment, retention, and training; and a host of other significant major management concerns. During FY 83, several new PPBERS topic areas evolved based on management needs. These areas included: FY 83 congressional limitations; force modernization; expiring program status; stock fund cash status; current reliability performance; Military Construction Army Reserve program execution; and integrated logistics support. Additionally during FY 83, the Army reduced the PPBERS review cycle from sixty days to forty-five days providing the joint Select Committee (SELCOM) fresher and more relevant data.

In July 1983, the Army redesigned and enhanced its Central Banking Program (CBP) by awarding a contract to the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh following evaluations of competitive bids. The switch to Mellon has resulted in procedural changes and system enhancements rather than a conceptual change for the CBP Following the award of the contract to Mellon, the Army was able to transfer the $300 million account balances from First Chicago without the necessity of touching any of the funds in the DA Central Investment program-the money which these balances represent. The Army accomplished this by an elaborate system of crediting and wire transfers involving both banks and the NAF Financial Management Directorate. The new banking contract permits the Central NAF Payroll Office (CNPO) to debit individual fund accounts directly at the bank for actual payroll expenses and allows NAF investors two to three days additional interest on their payroll monies. The Central Accounting Office no longer has the task of reconciling payroll costs estimates with actual expenses.

As a result of analyzing the banking relationships and NAF cash flows in Europe, the NAF Financial Management Directorate and American Express International Banking Corporation authored a plan to analyze and utilize any excess cash deposits not needed by the Mellon Bank to meet payrolls. Although the amount varies depending on periodic inspection and changing requirements, initially $5 million was available for investment in the NAF Capital Investment program. The NAF is making available the interest earned on these monies for budgetary requirements of USAREUR.


Table 16 summarizes the CBPs activity during 1983.


Quarter    Total Deposits
($ Millions)  
 Interest Rate    Interest Paid
($ Million)
1st    $264.1    10.0%    $ 6.6
2d    268.8    8.5%    5.6
3d    282.9    10.0%    7.0
4th    309.2    9.25%    7.2
Total          $26.4

This fiscal year the Army Audit Agency issued a number of reports covering problems found at numerous installations. Actions on the audit report recommendations should result in improved management of resources at all levels of command. The agency reported that: the Army's air traffic control program needed significant improvements to ensure that the services would continue in wartime and could be provided in an economical manner; policies and procedures for managing peacetime redistribution of equipment in the reserve components were inadequate to improve equipment readiness of early deploying units and ensure that units could be equipped in sufficient time to meet assigned deployment dates; the overall implementation of changes to the maintenance float program was inadequately planned and controlled to ensure that only equipment that contributed to combat readiness received float support; controls over international and local shipments of household goods were inadequate to minimize costs and ensure the effectiveness of carrier performance evaluations and quality of services; government property furnished to contractors was sometimes inadequately accounted for and safeguarded, and inventory losses occurred; the Army needed improvements in its follow-up system on contract audit recommendations to resolve, track, and report on the significant recommendations in the reports; the Army needed improvements in virtually every aspect of the NCOES to effectively respond to the leadership and technical training needs of noncommissioned officers; physical, personnel, and operations security measures implemented at data processing activities were inadequate to preclude the possibility of unauthorized access to and use of computer facilities or compromise of classified information; procedures and controls failed to ensure provision of adequate military occupational specialty training to enlisted members of the reserve components.

The Army Audit Agency also issued advisory reports to field commanders in the areas of amusement machine operations,


benefit-to-cost ratios used to justify civil works projects, commercial activities, and automation of economic analyses. The significant problems identified in these advisory reports were within the means of local commanders to correct and could be alleviated generally by adhering more closely to existing Army guidance.

Management Information Systems

"Managing the modernization effort requires reliable data and imagination enough to anticipate the future impact on the Total Army," declared Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, Chief, Force Modernization Coordination Office, in October 1982. This year the Army's managing network wrestled daily with the fielding and resourcing of new and displaced information systems. Indeed FY 83 was marked by an explosive growth in military use of computers and sophisticated communications.

However, the time was rapidly approaching when the Army would no longer be able to manage effectively the information technologies through the decentralized mode, a traditional Army practice. Thus, it undertook a number of studies such as, the "Information System Planning" (ISP) study begun in September 1982, and other studies initiated this fiscal year, to determine HQDA's information needs and how to develop a plan to meet them. These investigations identified a need for some kind of functional realignment. After a review of a number of organizational options, the Secretary of the Army (SA) and the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) decided, during June 1983, to establish a field structure to support the flow and processing of information, and to establish a new Deputy Chief of Staff . . . "to integrate fully information functions (IRM [Information Resource Management] automation, administration, communications, and command and control)." The CSA declared that the ". . . key purpose of the reorganization is to improve our ability to share and manage information in achieving the Total Army Goals." The CSA also directed the Army to "acknowledge the criticality of managing information as an important Army resource and that centralized management of the key information functions and technologies is essential to an effective information resource management program."

To accomplish the reorganization, the CSA detailed Brig. Gen. Walter J. Bickston from the Office of the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4), to the Chief of Staff's office, on 12 August 1983, to become Special Assistant to the Director of the Army Staff (DAS) for Information Resource Management (SARIM). Besides being responsible for establishing the


Office of the Special Assistant to the DAS for Information Resource Management (OSARIM), General Bickston was to develop a detailed implementation plan for the creation of the new Deputy Chief of Staff structure and a new field command.

Between 18 August and 28 September 1983, the SARIM planning team members met and prepared their plan, which they published on 28 September. The plan addressed the need for some restructuring throughout the Army to implement the challenge inherent in the CSA's message. It also provides for a systematic and orderly process from the designing phase through implementation and execution.

While the Army determined its information needs and developed a plan to meet them, it also focused on the following management information systems: Vertical Force Development Management Information Systems (VFDMIS), Force Structure Analysis System (FSAS), Force Development Integrated Management System (FORDIMS), The Army Authorization Documents System (TAADS), Structure and Composition System (SACS), and Force Management Impact Analysis System (FMIAS). FORDIMS was a new management computer system; the others the Army carried over from previous years.

The VFDMIS, designed to meet Army force and manpower management needs, continued testing its acceptance and deployment this year. In anticipation of this workload, the Army expanded the Office of the Product Manager and conducted initial field surveys of test sites at the Pentagon; Fort McPherson, Georgia; Fort Hood, Texas; and Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Meanwhile, the supporting contractors, Automated Sciences Group, Inc. and General Research Corporation, maintained their development and programming efforts. By the close of the year, the ASA IL&FM had approved buying software for the VFDMIS that ensures compatibility with the Army's Base Operation Support System, VIABLE.

The FSAS received a boost this fiscal year when the Army awarded a contract to Research, Inc., to develop an automated system which will allow HQDA command managers and Standard Requirements Code (SRC) managers to create and manipulate work forces. ADABAS, the adaptable data base management system chosen, will be resident at the U.S. Army Management Systems Support Agency (USAMSSA) and will use secure telecommunications and TEMPEST terminals as access devices. The development effort will require nineteen months to complete.

The use of TAADS continued to increase with two new sites, the 32d Air Defense Command and the 4th Transportation Command, both in Germany, added to the system. TAADS system now operates at seventeen MACOMs and sixty-eight installation


processing sites. At the close of the year, the Army had converted two MACOMs and nine installations and processed over three million update transactions in TAADS. It is beginning to prepare for the eventual replacement of TAADS with the VFDMIS.

By the close of the fiscal year, the Army was about to contract the redesign of the SACS. It is drafting the statement of work and planning to award the contract in May 1984. This is a six month contract to produce a functional description, which the Army will use to reprogram SACS.

The Army made considerable progress this year in the development of the integrated data base and the application software for FMIAS users. It placed the management data from the Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP), Force Accounting System (FAS), and the Standard Study Number Cross Reference file (SSN X REF) under the ADABAS data base management system. It also has working the Authorization Subsystem (AS), which replaced the TAADS, and the Program Budget Subsystem, which replaced AFP and CBS.

FY 83 was a very eventful year for automated logistics systems (materiel management information systems). The VIABLE Regional Data Centers began operating at three sites. This marked the transition from the 1970s IBM 360 Base Operations structure to a modern automatic data processing system. The Army also progressed in the development of several Standard Multi-command Management Information systems. It tested the Standard Property Book System (SPBS); extended the Standard Army Ammunition System-3 to its final site; successfully tested the Direct Support Standard Supply System enhanced planning and training on the new division computer; and demonstrated the Standard Army Maintenance System on its developmental computer. In summary, FY 83 inquiry terminals and printers enhanced the automated data processing (ADP) support to the personnel manager. Each management branch and staff section received these items, previously available only at division level, greatly increasing accessibility to personnel data. The addition of the automated Individual Record Brief (IRB) during the fiscal year provides a summary of the reservist's career and qualifications, eliminating the old Officer/Enlisted Record Brief which had to be prepared manually. A number of other actions greatly improved storage capability and responsiveness in all personnel management areas. They were the consolidation of officer and enlisted data bases into a single Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management System (OEMPS) data base; improvements in the Personnel Master File (PMF) and Standard Installation Division Personnel System (SIDPERS) inquiry programs, and continuous modifications and improvements to existing reports.


This year, the Military Computer Family continued through the advance development phase of computers. Three contractors produced large scale models, which the Military Computer Family tested with satisfactory results. To facilitate final production, it selected two contractors to produce full specification prototype, models for Full-Scale Engineering Development (FSED).

The Army is expanding its use of the Decentralized Automated Service Support System (DAS3). The DAS3 is an automatic data processing equipment system designed to address the data processing needs of Combat Service Support (CSS) units in nonindivisional and corps areas of operation. It consists of a Honeywell Level 6 minicomputer with related peripheral devices mounted in a mobile 35 foot semi-trailer. The Army hopes to field 240 DAS3 systems by 31 December 1983 and 230 more systems scheduled for delivery through FY 88.

In May 1981, the Army adopted the Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS) Concept Plan for Battlefield Automated Systems (BAS) to draw together efforts for improving software components of deployed weapons systems. Since that time, the program has grown to include nine DARCOM PDSS centers, two U.S. Army Computer System Command (ACSC) PDSS centers, and six TRADOC developer support facilities. Each of these activities is responsible for specified battlefield automated systems, of which some 270 have been fielded or will be fielded through 1988.

During the past year, the PDSS program moved forward in several areas. The commanders of DARCOM, TRADOC, and ACSC signed a memorandum of understanding on 1 June 1983 creating a steering committee, which meets quarterly to resolve PDSS problem areas that cross major command lines. Shortfalls in the original PDSS Concept Plan related to in-theater applications of PDSS were the subject of a contracted study, which has led to a number of actions to correct deficiencies. A broad analysis of the original plan has resulted in further improvements, a more clarified definition of requirements for software support of battlefield automated systems, and a new name for the program Life Cycle Software Support (LCCS) program. A LCSS Implementation Plan was being developed and will be published during FY 84. Separate funding for PDSS or LCSS will also be initiated in FY 84.

Records and Publications Management

In August 1983, the Archivist of the United States granted the Army continuing authority to donate records maintained on foreign nationals to the foreign governments concerned.


Wherever Army personnel are stationed, the U.S. government has negotiated Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAS) or similar arrangements with host governments to define the status and legal obligations for the conduct of Army business and operations in those countries. Many of these SOFAS address Army employment of host country nationals and the applicability of host country labor laws and regulations. Records generated for foreign nationals employed by the Army outside of the United States sometimes must be maintained in an exceptional manner to satisfy the host country's legal requirements. With its new authority, the Army may now offer records to host governments without first obtaining approval of the Archivist of the United States for each individual transfer and when those records are no longer required by the Army's current record-keeping system. During 1984, the Army will publish new instructions regarding the disposition of Army records to foreign governments and will apply these new instructions throughout its overseas commands.

This year the Army initiated a pilot study of the Modern Army Record-Keeping System (MARKS) at 5th Battalion, 73d Armored Regiment, Fort Knox, Kentucky, to test and validate the system at the TOE unit level. Those efforts, which were fully supported by Headquarters, TRADOC and Headquarters, FORSCOM, combined with the acquisition of new automatic equipment have enabled the Army to improve its record-keeping system. During the three months following each pilot study, the Army will evaluate the data collected.

In May 1983, the Army published a regulation governing the Disposition of Machine Readable Records. The objectives of the Army regulation are to ensure permanent preservation of archival information, which is stored on machines and to provide for legal authorization for the disposal of all other machine readable records. The Army emphasized ADP documentation standards during the period of system development, and the use of existing ADP information sources.

Between the fall of 1982 and mid-1983, the Declassification Operations Branch, Records Management Division undertook a special project as a part of the Southeast Asia War Records Declassification Review Project. The special project, which was called the Southeast Asia Local National Employment Records Project, has enabled researchers to locate and verify the employment of Vietnamese nationals by the U.S. Army in Vietnam. The Army considers these records important in terms of U.S. humane responsibility and in case of future financial claims against the U.S. government should diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of Vietnam be established. The processing of these records has presented special problems because of sensitive foreign


interest as well as the interest of U.S. agencies, other than the U.S. Army, operating in Southeast Asia at the time of the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, the effort to sort, declassify, and rearrange as well as improve finding aids for the records created by the forces in Vietnam has assisted countless official and unofficial researchers looking into records of the Vietnam War. This situation will continue to improve as more records are processed.

The Access and Release Branch of the Records Management Division responded to approximately 5,500 requests from scholars, historians, members of the media, government officials, and other individuals for information from retired Army records. (These requests were in addition to 956 petitions for records under the Freedom of Information Act, and 68 under the Privacy Act of 1974, processed by the branch.) The number of requests from individuals applying to research Vietnam Era records continued to increase.

Requests from U.S. diplomatic posts around the world to verify previous U.S. government employment; Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) military service, and U.S.-based training of Southeast Asian military and civilian employees, also continued to increase dramatically this fiscal year, from approximately 400 in FY 81 to over 1,900 in FY 82, to 3,172 in FY 83. Verification of past affiliation and support of U.S. forces in Vietnam on the part of Southeast Asian refugees will determine their eligibility for priority immigration status.

The Army received 27,886 reportable requests for records and/or information under the Freedom of Information Act during FY 83. To process these requests required over ninety-five man-years, at a gross cost of $1,812,467. The Army collected a total of $169,131 for search and copying costs, as allowed by the act.

The Army continued its efforts this fiscal year to amend section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, to exempt the Army from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act during periods of hostility. The Army will resubmit its request to the 98th Congress.

The Access and Release Branch was the principal Army action office in responding to requests for Army documents pertinent to the General Westmoreland law suit against CBS, a TAG Watch List item. The branch helped both the Capital Legal Foundation, representing Westmoreland, and CBS to locate and see documents. Westmoreland sued CBS when the latter, in a 90minute documentary, "The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception", alleged that Westmoreland was part of a conspiracy to deliberately underestimate enemy troop strength in Vietnam prior to the TET offensive of 1968, in order to manipulate


American public opinion and create the illusion that the United States was winning the war.

On 30 March 1983, General Maxwell R. Thurman, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, directed the adoption of the UPDATE publishing technique for all Army publications. The period of the transition is to be two years, with conversion of the distribution of A and B regulations to occur during the first year, and of C, D, and E publications during the second year. In conjunction with the Government Printing Office (GPO), Project UPDATE (Unlimited Potential Data Through Automation Technology in Education) solicited bids for a major new printing contract to implement the conversion of all publications during the transition period. Opening of bids for this contract will be 30 January 1984.

The Department of the Army Inspector General Force Modernization Inspection Team identified problems in the area of the publication of technical manuals for the Army's force modernization program. Specifically: a lack of publications-support planning; nonavailability of publications; and a lack of definitive publication policies. As a result of these findings, on 22 February 1983, the Adjutant General established, a Force Modernization Office for one year with the objective of ensuring that technical publications required for force modernization are available at the right place, in the right number, and at the right time. Since then, the office has, in coordination with GPO, drastically reduced the time required for the printing of new and revised technical manuals. It accomplished this through the establishment of "Direct Deal" contracts. Under this program, a contract is awarded to a specific printer to print and distribute technical publications for a single proponent command. The Force Modernization Office also began printing DA circulars pertaining to individual force modernization systems. Each circular lists those publications, which users require for operation and maintenance of the system and its components, and explains how to acquire these publications. The Army anticipates publishing a circular for each major force modernization system. Also, it has increased stockage levels of force modernization technical manuals and has identified those manuals that are nearly out of stock. The Army will continue to plan and implement various other policies and procedures to enhance publications support for the Army's Force Modernization efforts.

The modernization of the warehouse at the U.S. Army Adjutant General Publications Center, Baltimore, Maryland, moved into the final stages during this fiscal year. In preparation for the installation of the Integrated Storage and Materiel Handling System, the Publications Center initiated radical changes in the old


facility. The Army should award contracts for the final two components of the modernization project during FY 84.

The Army has designated the Baltimore Publications Center as the single source of blank forms support for Army activities worldwide. The Saint Louis Center, which previously enjoyed that role, is currently depleting its stock of forms. This project is tentatively scheduled for completion during the first quarter of FY 85.

Organizational changes, such as the New Manning System, financial management improvements and updated management information systems were Army efforts this year at developing superior units and conducting a more efficient modernization program. Its success in these endeavors contributed to its ability to achieve Total Army goals including qualitative advantages.




Go to:

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents

Search CMH Online
Return to CMH Online
Last updated 9 March 2004