Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1988

7

Organization, Management, and Budget

The Army Long-Range Planning System is supplanting the Army Staff Long-Range Planning System. It allows the warfighting CINCs through the Army component commands, the major Army commands, and the major subordinate commands to participate in the Army Staff's long-range planning process. Spokesmen for the nine Army Staff functional areas (manning, sustaining, equipping, managing information, facilities, structuring, training, mobilizing/deploying, and managing), planners in the three Army Staff special interest areas (space, intelligence, and health services), the Army component commands, the major Army commands, and the major subordinate commands now will develop their individual long-range plans that will combine to create the next biennial iteration of the Army Long-Range Planning Guidance. A draft AR 11-32 on the new Army Long-Range Planning System circulated among the participants during FY 88 with publication expected in early 1989.

The 1986 Defense Department Reorganization Act imposed reductions in Army headquarters personnel. Title V prescribed a maximum combined strength of military and civilian personnel permanently assigned to Headquarters, Department of the Army, during peacetime at 3,105, or a 15 percent cut that also applied to general officers, effective 1 October 1988. Title VI called for other personnel strength changes. Section 601 (a) levied a 10 percent cut by 1 October 1988 on the Army's permanent military and civilian employees who performed management headquarters and management headquarters support duties, and also those assigned to combatant commands, based on their September 1986 strength. Section 601 (a) excluded the Secretariat, Army Staff, and the immediate headquarters staff of combatant commands. Section 601 (b) specified a 15 percent cut by 1 October 1989 for Army personnel of the same description as 601 (a) and 10 percent for those in

[91]

nonmanagement headquarters who worked for Defense Department agencies and field activities. The law prohibited compliance with these headquarters personnel strength limits by redefining duties, functions, or agency organization. Congress expected the Army to relocate functions and jobs from headquarters to field activities rather than abolish them. Army compliance with these required changes proceeded on schedule during FY 88.

The TAPA became a reality as a provisional organization on 1 October 1987. The leadership of the Army's personnel systems had studied the need for TAPA for several years prior to passage of the 1986 Defense Department Reorganization Act. The Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff authorized creation of TAPA as a part of the Army's implementation of that legislation. Intended by its creators to integrate the execution of personnel management policy for military and civilian personnel from enlistment through separation, TAPA failed to attain fully centralized personnel management operations. The Army leadership decided that the Recruiting Command, the Community and Family Support Center, and the Safety Center, which some personnel managers hoped to integrate within TAPA, would remain separate entities. TAPA acquired five directorates-enlisted, officer, civilian, personnel service support, and mobilization and contingency operations-and four field operating agencies-Military Police Operations Agency, Military Academy Prep School, Physical Disability Agency, and the Drug and Alcohol Operations Agency. Commanded by a major general, TAPA maintains advisory relationships with the Army Reserve and National Guard personnel centers.

The Army redesignated the Army Space Agency as the Army Space Command on 7 April 1988. Located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the Army Space Command has attained equal status with the Air Force and Navy Space Commands as components of the Space Command. The U.S. Space Command has three missions-space operations, surveillance and warning, and ballistic missile defense planning. The Army Space Command, with about 100 people including those previously assigned to the Army Space Agency and the Defense Satellite Communications System Ground Mobile Force managers from the Army Information Systems Command, remains a field operating agency of ODCSOPS. Activation of the Army Space Command marks the first step of a plan to consolidate all Defense Satellite Communications System command and control ground functions under the Army during the next several years. The Army Space Command also has responsibility for oversight of deep space surveillance conducted at Kwajalein Atoll

[92]

in support of the Space Command's worldwide space surveillance net and a detachment at Johnson Space Center.

ODCSOPS made organizational and functional changes during FY 88. In June 1984 the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force established joint Assessment and Initiatives Offices (JAIO) to facilitate the joint Force Development Process. It increased the number of joint warfighting initiatives from 31 to 38, resolved 44 candidate initiatives, and prompted 21 interservice agreements. In September 1988 the Army disbanded its JAIO as a functioning element within the Office of the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans for Joint Affairs. In another area, the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate created a new division, the Conventional Arms Negotiations Division. Effective 1 July 1988, it became the Army action office for all conventional arms control matters. These include acting as the Army Staff point of contact for all conventional arms control negotiations such as Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions, Conventional Stability Talks, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Conference on Disarmament in Europe.

The number of federal and state environmental laws has increased dramatically in recent years. As a consequence, the Army has witnessed increased environmental violations, litigation, and curtailment of missions because of environmental considerations. The Army received 129 Notices of Violation during FY 88 from regulatory agencies. Actually, this number represented a significant reduction from FY 87, but wastewater and drinking water violations increased. The Army's installation restoration program grew significantly as seventy-three additional installations entered the program. The Army completed a fivefold increase in preliminary assessments/site investigations, which brought the total to 3,054 sites. It also completed 55 remedial investigations/feasibility studies, which brought this total to 300, along with 99 remedial design/remedial actions. Notable among these cleanups were Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (incineration of explosive contaminated soil), Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (Area A Cleanup), West Virginia Ordnance Works (remediation of explosives contamination), Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (installation of a ground water recovery system), and Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Basin F cleanup).

In order to streamline Army environmental management, effective 1 October 1988, the Army Environmental Office became a Headquarters, Department of the Army, staff support agency under the Assistant Chief of Engineers who serves as the Army's

[93]

Program Manager for the Environment. The U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, transferred from the Army Materiel Command to the Corps of Engineers as a field operating agency that also reports to the Assistant Chief of Engineers. USATHAMA has performed hazardous waste cleanup on Army properties since the mid-1970s. Its primary responsibilities have included the Installation Restoration Program, the Army equivalent to the Superfund program, and development of new technologies to abate or permanently treat hazardous waste. With its transfer to the Corps of Engineers USATHAMA assumed two new duties-providing oversight on environmental compliance at Army installations, ultimately the responsibility of installation commanders, and developing and implementing an environmental training program for the entire Army:

The issue of closing or realigning military installations received considerable attention within and without the Defense Department during FY 88. A matter of ongoing concern to the Army, it received recent investigation by the Army Long-Range Stationing Study (LRSS) established by the Chief of Staff in November 1986. He tasked the LRSS group to examine the Army's long-range stationing needs through the year 2020. It has produced a computer model for making stationing decisions and will develop a plan to transfer the model to Army Staff operational proponency. In May 1988 the Secretary of Defense chartered the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure to investigate workable methods for the Defense Department to eliminate installations and property excess to American defense needs. Composed of twelve persons-former members of Congress, retired Pentagon officials, and military and environmental specialists-commission members deliberated eight months.

Prompted by the deliberations of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure, Congress passed PL 100-526, which President Ronald Reagan signed on 24 October 1988. The law endorsed the work of the commission and cited particulars to implement its findings. It required the Secretary of Defense to approve or disapprove the entire list of the commission for closing or realignment of American military installations. If he approved, he must forward it to Congress no later than 16 January 1989 or the action would automatically terminate. Congress could not modify the list and had forty-five working days, beginning 1 March 1989, to disapprove the complete list by a majority in both houses or the measure would become law. The commission released its findings

[94]

on 29 December 1988 and recommended that the Pentagon close 86 bases (13 of them major ones), partially close 5 others, and realign another 54, which would result in either adding or losing personnel. Recommended action on Army installations included closing Fort Sheridan, Illinois, and the Presidio of San Francisco, realigning Fort Dix, New Jersey, to semiactive status, but significantly increasing personnel at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and Fort Devens, Massachusetts. Public Law 100-526 stipulated that closings and realignments would begin 1 January 1990 and end by 30 September 1995.

The 1986 Defense Department Reorganization Act required centralization within the Secretariat for Headquarters, Department of the Army, responsibilities for research, development, and acquisition. The disestablished Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ODCSRDA) and the Contracting Directorate of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics merged with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) (OASA [RDA]). The lieutenant general who formerly headed ODCSRDA became the military deputy to the ASA (RDA). In compliance with both the Reorganization Act of 1986 and President Reagan's National Security Decision Directive 219 of April 1986, advocated by the Packard Commission, the Army established a three-tier acquisition program management system-the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE), program executive officers (PEOs), and project/product managers (PMs). The Under Secretary of the Army, who also served as the AAE, held full responsibility for all acquisition matters within the Department of the Army. He reported directly to the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, on all Army acquisition matters. PEOs direct several similar acquisition programs, while PMs supervise only one program.

During FY 88 the AAE concluded that the Army needed to reorganize and reduce its PEO positions. In a 4 August decision memorandum, he announced several changes effective 15 September 1988. The Army would retain PEOs for close combat vehicles, combat support, chemical/nuclear operations, troop support, armaments, strategic defense, intelligence and electronic warfare, communications systems, command and control systems, the Standard Army Management Information System, and the Management

[95]

Information System. The existing PEO structure had a special category, program manager, a person who headed only one major system and reported directly to the AAE. These included the light helicopter (LHX), chemical demilitarization, and the Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS). The AAE kept the LHX program manager and disestablished chemical demilitarization, but Congress disposed of RCAS. The AAE moved responsibility for chemical demilitarization to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Logistics) (OASA [I&L]). Congress had transferred RCAS from Forces Command to the National Guard Bureau in January 1988. This change removed RCAS from the PEO system and required the RCAS program manager to report directly to the Secretary of the Army.

The AAE consolidated several PEO positions. Close combat missiles and fire support joined to form a new PEO for fire support. The Forward Area Air Defense System (FAADS) and the longer range air defense system merged into a PEO for air defense. Combat aviation and combat support aviation combined to form a PEO for aviation. The AAE disestablished the PEO for ammunition, and a general officer, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Ammunition of the Army Materiel Command, assumed this function. Additional changes abolished the PEOs for health care systems and engineer programs and assigned these procurement functions to The Surgeon General and the Chief of Engineers, respectively. The AAE disestablished the PEO for communications networks, and the networks' organization and programs, except for the project manager for the Army Worldwide Military Command and Control System Information Systems (AWIS), transferred to the Information Systems Command. A new PEO for strategic information systems will maintain appropriate oversight of AWIS. Finally, the AAE disestablished the PEO for financial management information systems, and the Director of Finance and Accounting at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, assumed responsibility for the redesign and development of Army financial systems. These changes reduced the numbers of PEOs and program managers from 22 and 3 to 15 and 1.

The Army is developing its Managing Information Long-Range Plan (MILRP) to provide for the future direction of the Information Mission Area (IMA). It supports the Army Information Architecture (AIA) and the IMA cycle. While helping to focus on

[96]

capabilities for the objective configuration of the AIA, it also has short and mid-range importance. MILRP influences the acquisition process by providing guidance to the Information Management Plan, the Long-Range Research and Development Acquisition Plan, The Army Plan, the Army Command and Control Master Plan, and the Information Management Master Plan. MILRP's longer range focus seeks to anticipate the impact of change and to design an effective transition of Army programs and resources to form the IMA into the 21st century. Because of rapid technological change, MILRP will identify those technological advances that have high potential for IMA use. It also will investigate the usefulness of consolidating the five IMA disciplines (automation, communications, printing and publications, records management, and visual information) into a common technological base, combining similar information programs, and adapting command and control systems for deep battle doctrine, which foresees reliance on autonomous small unit operations. The Office of the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (ODISC4) released an MILRP draft for staffing in FY 88.

In June 1986 the Army announced its standards for procuring Army information systems equipment and indicated that any limitation on competition from vendors would comply with existing laws. Several federal agencies and many vendors complained that the Army had restricted competition, and the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted an investigation of the allegations. With the emergence of approved Defense Department, federal, national, and international standards, the DISC4 rescinded the Army's original standards on 14 December 1987 and confirmed the Army's support for the Defense Department standardization program. These Defense Department standards include the government Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Profile, Standard Query Language, and Portable Operating System Interface for Computing Environments, which are rapidly becoming federal, national, and international standards. OSI standards, for example, allow computers made by different nations or manufacturers to interoperate. A NATO standardization agreement ratified OSI standards and served as the basis for the SIGMA/HEROS command and control interoperability demonstration between the U.S. and West Germany in 1984. Acceptance of OSI standards by the federal government will provide the Army the capability to interoperate in garrison the same way it can interoperate with NATO and other allies.

[97]

Progress continued during FY 88 in procuring improved information systems for Army functional area operations. Project 80X is acquiring integrated hardware and communications to replace outdated, leased automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) that supports the TAPA. The new system will support Headquarters, Department of the Army, processing for officer, enlisted, and civilian personnel records to include such applications as officer and enlisted assignments. Contractors installed the initial large-scale ADPE at the Army Personnel Center in St. Louis, Missouri, in January and another one at the Information Systems Command, Alexandria, Virginia, in May 1988. Networked minicomputers installed at the Enlisted Records Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, and the Central Clearance Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, facilitate integration of the system expected to become fully operational in early FY 89.

The Acquisition Information Management (AIM) program will help implement the 1986 reorganization, which centralized Headquarters, Department of the Army research, development, and acquisition management in the Secretariat and established the program executive officer (PEO) concept. By using existing information systems, it will integrate the classified and unclassified acquisition data exchange requirements of the Army Acquisition Executive, the Army Staff, PEOs, the Army Materiel Command, the Training and Doctrine Command, the Information Systems Command, and other acquisition managers. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) (ASA [RDA]) acts as the functional proponent for the AIM program, which he regards as the top priority Information Mission Area project in the RDA community. The Major Army Information Systems Review Committee approved the AIM program in September 1988. Progress in the implementation of AIM, expected to continue into the mid-1990s, depended upon available funding at the close of FY 88.

The Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS), authorized in August 1986 and assigned to Forces Command, sought to consolidate essential data to facilitate Army mobilization requirements. In January 1988 Congress moved RCAS from Forces Command to the reserve component and placed responsibility for the program upon the Chief, National Guard Bureau. In February a new project manager took charge of RCAS with the intent of using office automation, telecommunications, distributed data bases, and distributed processing capability to provide timely and accurate information for mobilization planning and execution. RCAS will incorporate two major subsystems-Mobilization Command

[98]

and Control (MOBC2), the primary RCAS element, and Unit Administration. In FY 88 the National Guard Bureau did not foresee significant immediate progress in the development of RCAS but anticipated fielding of critical elements of the program by FY 92.

The Army made additional improvements in its visual information programs during FY 88. On 25 March the Vice Chief of Staff dedicated the Video Teleconferencing Facility located in the Army Operations Center Conference Room in the Pentagon. It and several other Army organizations-the Training and Doctrine Command, Forces Command, Army Materiel Command, Information Systems Command, Health Services Command, and the Army War College-now comprise the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Video Teleconferencing Network. The network allows secure conferencing on data classified through secret between two facilities and unsecure conferencing between multiple facilities for unclassified matters. It also permits conferencing with subscribers in other networks such as the major subordinate commands of the Army Materiel Command. Officials anticipate expansion to the Command and General Staff College and Western Command by the end of 1988 and video teleconferencing between Army and other Defense Department organizations to follow in the near future.

Headquarters, Department of the Army, and the Army Materiel Command are decentralizing authority for managing visual information resources. For example, the Army Materiel Command now allows its 56 visual information activities to buy equipment directly, which costs no more than $5,000, and to report such purchases only once a year. Another change affected Headquarters, Department of the Army, and other Defense Department authorities' approval of videotapes. Now, Army major television facilities can produce and distribute technical/safety reports immediately to commanders. Headquarters, Department of the Army, granted authority to the Army Materiel Command to allow installations to control their local television and motion picture productions. Installations can make category one productions for official use, acquire some commercial productions for internal consumption, and maintain pertinent records locally. Release of visual information materials or productions to the public still requires clearance by Army public affairs.

The Army leadership established Task Force ROBUST (Redistribution of BASOPS (Base Operating Information System) /Unit

[99]

Structure within TDA) on 1 May 1988. They charged ROBUST to analyze all active and reserve component TDA organizations to assure that each one has the proper configuration and manning to support the warfighting CINCs and to accomplish critical mobilization missions. ROBUST requested each TDA unit to develop its Mission Essential Task List (METL) and to focus it on the organization's contribution to the Army's warfighting capability. The results determined unit requirements and the subsequent allocation of manpower to meet those requirements. ROBUST evaluation teams performed human intelligence collection on selected unit identification codes; three used an area approach-CONUS, Europe, and the Far East/Panama-and one used a functional approach. Army officials intended the work of Task Force ROBUST to complement the Army of Excellence concept. The ROBUST staff expected to submit a final report to the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff in November 1988.

An allied topic, The Army Authorization Documents System-Redesign (TAADS-R) project begun in 1986, is updating the automation employed by TAADS. TAADS serves as an automated system and a management process that records approved unit structures, Modification Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) and TDA. Army agencies use it to requisition people and equipment. TAADS-R is combining current automated systems-TAADS, VTAADS (Vertical-TAADS), ITAADS (Installation-TAADS)-into a single system, consolidating official authorizations' data into one data base, supporting either centralized or decentralized management by allowing the building of MTOEs and TDAs at all authorized Army echelons and providing worldwide electronic linkage of unclassified information. The Decision Resource Data Base located at the Army Information Systems Command-Pentagon will maintain centralized documentation. Processing will take place on the mainframe and personal computers at user sites, but review and approval prerogatives remain unchanged. Full deployment, projected for two to three years, will include Headquarters, Department of the Army, the major Army commands, and 68 installations worldwide.

The Army Civilian Personnel System (ACPERS)-Field Level, begun in July 1987, will upgrade and standardize automated data processing support for Army civilian personnel administration. It will replace existing systems and interface with other automated systems, meet expanded peacetime requirements, and support mobilization. ACPERS will assist local commanders and civilian personnel offices by supporting position management, personnel

[100]

program planning, recruitment and placement, training and development, and sustainment of the work force. The Army decided to adopt the Air Force Personnel Data System-Civilian as the baseline for ACPERS. Programmers are modeling Army requirements into the system that will operate at a data service center in San Antonio, Texas. The Air Force Manpower and Personnel Center will maintain the software as it already does for the Navy Department. The major Army commands and installations will participate in the installation of the system. The schedule calls for the ACPERS systems acceptance test in early FY 89 with deployment to commence shortly thereafter.

The Army has adopted the standard general ledger (SGL) for financial accounting now required for all federal agencies. In the early 1980s the Grace Commission, the General Accounting Office, Army Inspectors General, and other investigative groups emphasized that federal agencies used hundreds of inconsistent accounting systems. In 1984 the Office of Management and Budget formed an interagency group to develop an SGL chart of accounts for all federal agencies that would control all financial transactions and resource balances, satisfy basic OMB and Treasury Department reporting requirements, and integrate proprietary and budgetary accounting. In FY 87 OMB published the new SGL chart of accounts. Treasury Department Bulletin 87-08, dated 30 September 1987, required all federal financial systems to adopt the SGL for preparing external reports by 1 October 1988. Responding immediately, the Army issued its SGL accounting policy and procedures statement also on 30 September 1987. The SGL integrates appropriation, property, revenue, and expense accounting to facilitate control of all resources from receipt to consumption or disposal.

Following successful development and testing of Standard Financial Systems (STANFINS)-Redesign Subsystem 1 (SRD1) by the program executive officer for Financial Management Information Systems, the Army installed SRD1 at Forts Hood and Sam Houston, Texas; Benjamin Harrison, Indiana; Huachuca, Arizona; and McCoy, Wisconsin, in FY 88. SRD1 automates the finance office disbursing and collection operations for travel pay and commercial vendor payments. It provides substantial manpower savings by automating manual operations and system-to-system interfaces. The Army's largest interactive data base management system, SRD1 uses 149 interactive data base files and 670 COBOL programs, which contain more than 1,077,000 lines of code. Still in progress at the end of FY 88, an Army cost benefit/economic analysis was evaluating whether SRD1 should run on microcomputers and installation

[101]

processors or in the Army Standard Information Management System network. The Army Finance and Accounting Center hoped to deploy SRD1 to 28 additional CONUS installations during FY 89.

Training ammunition management has undergone reevaluation in the 1980s. In the past, projected requirements based on unit forecasts routinely exceeded actual expenditure of selected items by more than 300 percent. The Standards in Training Commission (STRAC) developed Department of the Army Pamphlet 350-38, Standards in Weapons Training, in FY 86 that, for the first time, provided models for training ammunition planners. STRAC models, however, coupled with idealized training plans by managers, resulted in authorizations exceeding expenditures by 65 percent in FY 86. Planners revised their models in FY 87 and utilized historical expenditure data to predict training ammunition requirements. They computed tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, and mortar ammunition at STRAC levels and all other systems at 110 percent of units' historical expenditure levels. A revised methodology approved in January 1988 established Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and budget requirements at 110 percent of historical expenditures for tank, Bradley, artillery, and mortar systems and 105 percent for other systems while also adjusting for known changes in the training environment. Other ongoing efforts to improve training ammunition management include examining ways to procure less costly ammunition and increasing the use of training devices and simulators.

Several developments in Army logistics management took place in FY 88. The ODCSLOG published Volume I, Logistics Vision, of the Army Long-Range Logistics Plan (ALRLP). It assists logistics planners, materiel developers, Army and private sector schools, and industry to visualize the Army's future logistics needs. The other two volumes of the ALRLP consist of internal implementation and control instructions for the ODCSLOG, which include an automated data base that resides on the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Decision Support System. To improve logistics support during training exercises in Central and South America, ODCSLOG implemented a system of routing requisitions directly from a supply support activity to the national inventory control point. It reduced order and shipping time from more than fifty days to less than twenty. The system operates on tactical Army combat service support computer system hardware, uses standard Army retail supply system software, and requires no training or increased resources. Officials expected to test the system with a heavy division for possible application to all Army units. Logistics Applications of Automated

[102]

Marking and Reading Symbols (LOGMARS) employs bar codes and scanners to expedite processing materiel throughout the Army. By the end of FY 88, LOGMARS was helping to process more than 40 percent of Army retail receipts.

The Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) is fielding two new ocean terminal automation systems that improve deployment management. The Terminal Support Module (TSM) incorporates LOGMARS and interconnects with the Standard Port System overseas and the Terminal Management System in CONUS to move cargo quickly through ports. Fielded to all MTMC CONUS outports and reserve component Transportation Terminal Units (TTU) and being fielded to MTMC OCONUS ports, TSM successfully supported REFORGER and TEAM SPIRIT training exercises in the mid-1980s. The other ocean terminal automation system, Computerized Deployment System (CODES), provides an automated ship-loading planning tool to MTMC. Being fielded to all CONUS terminals and reserve TTUs, CODES uses the same basic hardware as the TSM and also performed successfully during testing with REFORGER and TEAL SPIRIT exercises. CODES allows loading planners great flexibility with its rapid ability to consolidate, process, and display a wide variety of cargo data and ship characteristics. It lets CINCs make extensive changes in deploying units, and loading planners still can make optimum use of available stowage space.

For the last several years the Army has experienced continual underfunding for its nontactical vehicles (NTVs). The Army's NTV fleet consists of commercially designed vehicles used for recruiting, training, security, medical care, sanitation, facilities maintenance, and other like needs worldwide. In FY 86 Congress directed the Army to investigate cost reduction measures for its NTVs. The Army made an agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) to convert its CONUS NTVs, about two thirds of its total NTV fleet of 60,000 vehicles, to GSA ownership by FY 91. In effect, the Army would lease its CONUS NTVs from GSA for less cost than direct procurement by the Army from commercial suppliers. Recently, the Army has disposed of more NTVs than it replaced. With only $28.7 million for NTV procurement in FY 87, the Army purchased 1,728 vehicles and disposed of 2,731. The Army received $39.8 million and $18.0 million in the FY 88/89 budgets but estimated that it needs $100 million annually to replace its NTV fleet. By the end of FY 88 the Army was leasing 17,000 NTVs from GSA and redoubling its efforts to obtain increased NTV funding from Congress.

[103]

The FY 86 Defense Authorization Act directed the Army, as the Defense Department executive agent for chemical demilitarization, to destroy the entire unitary chemical stockpile by 30 September 1994. The FY 89 Defense Authorization Act extended the program completion deadline to 1997. As discussed in Chapter 4, Congress has directed the Defense Department to replace unitary weapons with a modern binary chemical stockpile. In 1986 the Army established the program manager for chemical demilitarization located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to manage the estimated $3.2 billion chemical demilitarization program. Assisted by the EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Department of Health and Human Services, the Army developed a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for destroying the unitary stockpile stored in CONUS. This affected eight CONUS installations-Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Anniston Army Depot, Alabama; Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky; Newport Army Ammunition Plant, Indiana; Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas; Pueblo Army Depot Activity, Colorado; Tooele Army Depot, Utah; and Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Oregon.

The PEIS considered destruction of the stockpile both on-site and at central locations. The Army decided in February 1988 that it would involve less risk to destroy the chemical stockpiles at their current storage sites rather than move them off post. As directed, on 16 March 1988 the Defense Department forwarded to Congress a revised Army plan for chemical demilitarization. It included the PEIS Record of Decision of on-site incineration at all eight CONUS facilities. The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System has been constructed and will undergo testing soon. It is the first full-scale chemical disposal facility that employs the reverse assembly/incineration process, which mechanically separates the different components of the chemical munition (agent, explosives, and metal parts) before burning them in separate furnaces. Sixteen months of verification testing at Johnston Atoll will precede its use at any other site. Another disposal method being tested, cyrofracture/incineration, freezes the whole munition in liquid nitrogen, fractures the munition in a press, and then incinerates everything in one furnace.

Aware of congressional insistence upon tighter military spending, the Army Chief of Staff announced his priorities for the FY 88

[104]

budget. (See Table 3.) The Army must maintain essential force readiness and give priority to forward-deployed and quickly deploying units. It must protect essential sustainability by addressing the highest requirements of the warfighting CINCs. The Chief of Staff sought to minimize the impact of tight money upon force structure and to reduce spending by slowing the pace of modernization and eliminating marginal programs. The Army began FY 88 with about $76 billion rather than fine $79 billion it had requested and then encountered a series of additional money problems. The Army budget based the foreign currency exchange rate with West Germany at 2.06 Deutsche Marks, but the rate fell much lower and created a deficit in excess of $500 million. Congress authorized a pay raise for Army civilian employees but did not appropriate the $101 million necessary to cover it. Congress underfunded the Army's portion of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services by $169 million, while the Army faced unexpected increases in civilian health benefit payments by $45 million and GSA price increases of $40 million. Congress further restricted Army budget operations by prohibiting the transfer of monies in long-term procurement accounts to pay current year operations and maintenance expenses.

In May 1988 the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a plan for reduced spending to all Defense Department offices. His initiatives included a restriction on routine maintenance, a freeze on civilian hiring, a halt to civilian overtime pay for hourly workers, and deferral of some supply and equipment purchases. Late in FY 88 Congress relented in its prohibition of transferring monies between accounts, which allowed the Army to sustain its operations and maintenance expenses. The Army's FY 89 budget request of $78 billion reflected a 1.3 percent reduction in FY 88 purchasing power. Nevertheless, the Army leadership expected to continue essential improvements in readiness and sustainability. Favorable aspects of the proposed FY 89 budget included adequate support for the most essential requirements of the warfighting CINCs; active component ground OPTEMPO of 850 miles and air OPTEMPO of 15.8 hours; continuance of the conversion of heavy forces to modern designs, the Forward Area Air Defense Program, the development of improved armor/antiarmor weapons, and most quality of life programs. Funding would remain inadequate, however, to maintain sufficient equipment modernization and war reserve stocks. It also would provide for only 50 percent of required depot maintenance for major end items and would allow the backlog of maintenance and repair of facilities and housing to worsen.

[105]

TABLE 3 - ARMY BUDGET
($ in millions)

[106]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 17 November 2003