Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1977
Organization and Management
President Carter nominated Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., as Secretary of the Army. Mr. Alexander, the first black to serve as secretary of any armed service, was sworn in on 14 February 1977. In March Mr. Alexander appointed Jill Wine-Volner as General Counsel of the Army, the first woman appointed to a major subcabinet post in the armed services.
Two major changes in the Army secretariat were made in June 1977. The installation support functions of the Assistant Secretary for Installations and Logistics were merged with the office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management. Mr. Alan J. Gibbs, recently appointed Assistant Secretary for Installations and Logistics, became the first person to serve in the new position, redesignated as the Assistant Secretary for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management. Functions of the Assistant Secretary for Installations and Logistics dealing with procurement and acquisition of materiel were taken over by the Assistant Secretary for Research and Development, Dr. Percy A. Pierre, whose title was changed to Assistant Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition. The number of assistant secretaries was thus reduced from five to four.
The January 1976 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) program and budget guidance directed the services to reduce departmental headquarters manpower by ten percent. The Army eliminated 543 spaces, 337 civilian and 206 military, from its headquarters by 30 September 1977. In the midst of this reduction, the Secretary of Defense ordered the services to reduce their staffs by twenty-five percent. The Army's plan, submitted to OSD on 16 September 1977, transferred or eliminated functions and spaces from the Secretariat, the Army staff, and staff support agencies. Completion of the reduction was expected by the target date of 1 February 1978.
Concurrent with and related to these reductions, the Director of Management in the Office of the Chief of Staff began two studies-on resource management and the integration of command and control, computers, and communications (C4). Positive experiences with a Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management at two major Army commands (Training and Doctrine and U.S. Army, Europe) and various Army staff problems in programming and budgeting for manpower had prompted the Vice Chief of Staff to consider a single staff agency for
resource management. The C4 study was recommended at the March 1977 Select Committee meeting which established the position of Director of Army Automation. The study seeks to assess C4 organization and management, and will be especially concerned with the distribution of C4 functions among Army staff agencies, the integrated approach to C4 adopted by other services, the convergence of computer and communications technologies, and the potential for savings. Instead of using a formal study approach, the C4 issue will be resolved at a special conference in March 1978.
Increased congressional interest, the need for improved management, especially financial, and greater emphasis on total package management of major sales to foreign governments caused the Army to reorganize its security assistance on 1 November 1977. The reorganization discontinued the positions of Coordinator for Army Security Assistance in the Office of the Chief of Staff and Director of International Logistics in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG). Security assistance policy became the responsibility of a new Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff and a Security Assistance Policy Coordinating Office within ODCSLOG. The Commanding General, Materiel Development and Readiness Command, was designated as the Department of the Army executive agent for the management of foreign military sales, military assistance (grant aid) programs, and international military education and training programs. The Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command, is responsible for preparing and executing foreign military sales training cases and executing military assistance programs and international military education and training programs. The International Logistics Command was redesignated the Army Security Assistance Center.
The Combat Developments Command, established in 1962, had centralized responsibility for long-range planning but spent much of its time working for the assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development on Five-Year Defense programs. Abolished during the Army's Project Steadfast reorganization (1973-1974), the command's long-range planning mission was assigned along functional lines to Army staff agencies and major commands, particularly Training and Doctrine Command and Materiel Development and Readiness Command.
During 1976 and 1977, it became clear that a focal point in the Army staff for long-range planning was needed. In August 1977 Lt. Gen. Edward C. Meyer, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, ordered a point of contact for long-range planning established in the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate. He also directed that efforts to secure a long-range perspective in current decision making be directed primarily through the Strategy and Planning Committee, which was established in June 1976 as a subcommittee of the Select Committee-the Army
staff's senior committee on policy, program, and budget matters. As the year ended, efforts were under way to institutionalize the focal point for long-range planning on the Army staff.
In March 1977, the position of Director of Army Automation (DAA) was established in the Office of the Chief of Staff. The DAA replaced the Director of Management Information Systems who had supervised mainly business oriented management systems and commercial equipment. The DAA is responsible for policy, planning, and resource management of all Army automation. This includes not only computer systems that support business or mission functions, but also those designed for combat operations or special environments and part of weapons systems. The director deals with major policies and problems and delegates operating responsibilities to Army staff agencies and major commands.
Along with the DAA, the Army Automation Steering Committee (AASC) was established as a subcommittee of the Select Committee. Principal members are the Director of Army Automation, Director of Management, Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and general officer representatives of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Operations and Plans; Research, Development, and Acquisition; Logistics; and Personnel; of the Comptroller of the Army, the Chief of the Army Reserve, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. During its initial sessions, the AASC examined such major issues as cost, mobilization, training of personnel, computer security, and the wartime requirements of automated systems, also the Army Automation Planning and Programming Evaluation System which links automation resource management with the Army Planning, Programming and Budgeting System.
Two structures were formed to support the DAA at various levels: automation management offices and the Command and Control Management Structure. An automation management office is the coordinator for each Army staff agency, major command, and installation and replaces the information system offices. Under the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, a command and control council, committee, and. working group seek a cohesive Army effort in the development, fielding, and integration of command and control systems for all organizational levels. The council, chaired by the Under Secretary of the Army, is responsible for policies and programs. A general officer steering committee, headed by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, establishes objectives, evaluates programs, and recommends priorities to the council. The Director of Army Automation, as a member of the steering committee, provides a computer resource link to the council. A working group assists the steering committee in its mission.
A General Accounting Office report, an Army study, and interest by the House Committee on Government Operations caused the Army
to strengthen the independence of the U.S. Army Audit Agency (USAAA). The agency was transferred from the jurisdiction of The Inspector General and Auditor General's office and made a field operating agency under the Chief of Staff of the Army. A civilian Auditor General will head the agency and report concurrently to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army. Audit policy and technical direction are provided by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management). The Inspector General and Auditor General was redesignated The Inspector General. The Inspector General remains responsible for audit compliance and the decentralized internal review program.
Since the 1950's advances in management and applied behavioral science in conjunction with successful command and leadership practices have provided the foundation of organizational effectiveness concepts, methods, and skills. In the broadest sense the use of operational effectiveness represents an effort to (1) more systematically understand the human forces that shape the efforts of large military organizations and (2) use this understanding to improve combat readiness and the motivation, involvement, commitment, and development of people. To provide operational effectiveness consulting services to the Army staff, the Office, Organizational Effectiveness, was established 1 January 1978 within the Management Directorate in the Office of the Chief of Staff.
As reported last year, transfer of the functions and activities of the Armed Forces Military Postal System to the U.S. Postal Service, as ordered by Congress, ran into difficulties. Members of the House Subcommittee on Postal Personnel and Modernization conducted an overseas inspection of the U.S. Armed Forces Military Postal System. Final reports revealed several basic problem areas. The special congressional study group recommended renovating facilities, replacing aged equipment, reducing the excessive transit time required to deliver mail overseas, revising the Defense-Postal Service agreement, and developing a system which would reduce parcel damage in transit. A joint Defense-Postal Service task force has been formed to address the problems and keep the congressional committee informed of progress.
The reorganization of the major commodity commands of the Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) into separate organizations for research and development and for materiel readiness, begun in 1976, continued. Plans for reorganizing the former Tank-Automotive and the Missile and Armaments Commands were approved last year. In fiscal year 1977 plans were approved to divide the Aviation Systems Command and Troop Support Command in St. Louis into an Aviation Research and Development Command and a Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Command at the same headquarters location. Also approved was a similar division of the Communications-Electronics
Command at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, into a Communications Research and Development Command and a Communications and Electronics Materiel Readiness Command, both remaining at Fort Monmouth. A new Electronics Research and Development Command would be located at Adelphi, Maryland, with the Harry Diamond Laboratory, the principal DARCOM electronics research laboratory. DARCOM also acquired from the Air Force a helicopter engine plant at United Technology's Sikorski helicopter plant in Stratford, Connecticut, renaming it the Stratford Army Engine Plant.
Continued reductions in funds and authorized civilian and military personnel resulted in special studies in 1976 to determine the advisability of closing, reducing, inactivating, consolidating or relocating Army operations at eighteen installations in the United States. Final decisions were made to continue operations at Fort Story, Virginia; close Schilling Manor in Kansas; reduce operations to a minimum at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; contract out a portion of base operations at Stewart Army Sub-Post, New York, and Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan; retain Fort Devens, Massachusetts in an active rather than a semiactive status; and to retain Savanna Army Depot, Illinois, and Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana, in their current status.
Minor changes made the Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky a subinstallation of the Red River Army Depot in Texas. The Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee was placed on an inactive status, while the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant in California was reactivated. A more recent study led to a decision in October 1977 to eliminate the 6th Signal Command in Hawaii, while other studies involved relocation of the Chaplains Center and School at Fort Wadsworth, New York, and other possible realignment actions.
All base closure studies since 1972 have been accompanied by detailed, time-consuming analyses of the economic effect such changes would have in the surrounding communities. Many installations affected have been in the mid-western and northeastern industrial regions with high unemployment rates. Consequently, over two hundred congressmen and senators from these areas formed the Northeast-Midwest Economic Advancement Coalition, seeking greater military industrial activity in these areas rather than less. When the Army decided this year to close the old Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia, the coalition exerted strong political pressure, and the White House requested one more reevaluation. The Secretary of the Army finally approved the decision to close the arsenal in March 1977.
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics is responsible for supervising the Army's Commercial-and-Industrial Type Activities, consisting largely of base and installation support functions. There were 3,883 such activities at the end of this year, an increase of seven percent over the 3,630
reported in 1976. Capital investment increased from $4.3 billion in 1976 to $4.7 billion in 1977, and annual operating costs remained the same (2.4 billion).
In fiscal year 1977, the Army had more than 10,000 automatic data processing systems (ADPS). Many were obsolete, worn out, or inefficient. Others were overloaded, and the Army's Computer Systems Command lacked the resources to develop, field, and maintain new systems. At the same time the Office of Management and Budget and Congress hope to reduce funds for expensive ADPS in the next few years. Because the Army intended to replace much of its older ADPS with modern equipment, a reduction could impair combat readiness. The Director of Army Automation, therefore, ordered a review of all pending ADPS projects. Based on that appraisal, priority was assigned to projects that directly affected the Army's combat forces and less urgent projects were to be curtailed, deferred, or eliminated.
A major project in the Army's efforts to manage ADPS was the Army Automation Planning, Programming, and Evaluation System, begun in 1976 to review progress under the Army's automation master plans and to link the objectives with the planning, programming, and budgeting system. One investigation, known as Go-to-War Automation Appraisals, sought to determine how effectively ADPS support combat missions. A review conducted at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, revealed, among other things, that many systems could not handle wartime workloads.
In April 1977 another review, the second Tactical Automation Appraisal at Fort Hood, Texas, examined automated tactical command and control systems, intelligence systems, and supporting communications networks. The review revealed the need for a basic Battlefield Automation Management Plan and for centralized control over tactical ADPS and supporting networks.
In August 1977 the Select Committee approved a Training and Doctrine Command plan centralizing authority over developing battlefield ADPS (up to and including corps headquarters) in the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Under the approved Battlefield Automation Management Plan, that agency would expedite the development, fielding, and integration of ADPS required to support a corps.
As reported last year the Combat Service Support System (CS3) was developed as a mobile, nontactical ADPS to provide administrative and logistical support required by active Army divisions. In June 1977 all sixteen active divisions were equipped with that system. Extension of CS3 to reserve forces and to three separate brigades was postponed.
In 1973, the Chief of Staff, General Creighton W. Abrams, greatly expanded the size and missions of the army corps by assigning major
administrative and logistical functions in addition to tactical roles. But existing corps ADPS were inadequate to support those nontactical missions. To determine what new information systems were required, the Corps Automation Requirements (CAR) Project was started in May 1976 under the jurisdiction of the Operational Test and Evaluation Agency.
Forces Command, meanwhile, directed development of an experimental corp tactical management information systems concept. Using the system as a starting point, the Training and Doctrine Command, the developer for Project CAR, would devise an ADPS pilot project to determine the data processing workload and define the military requirements for corps combat service support. With those specifications, the Computer Systems Command, responsible for the technical development, could design the necessary systems.
Several years ago the Management Information Systems Directorate, predecessor to the Directorate of Army Automation, decided that the Base Operating System, which provided information required for installation and base management, was no longer adequate. Project VIABLE (Vertical Installation Automation Baseline) was established to install gradually more modern ADPS. A pilot project based on the Standard Installation-Division Personnel System confirmed that the program was economically justifiable, and a project office was set up at the Computer Systems Command to determine the types and amounts of information needed and develop detailed specifications for ADPS.
Paralleling those developments was the Computer Evaluation of Utility Plans programs assigned to the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. The four utilities involved were electrical, water, and sanitary and storm sewer systems. When completed, the project would provide prompt information about utilities, displayed on a cathode ray transceiver similar to those employed in banks and major retail stores.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) continued to audit the Army's management information systems. In previous years it had approved the Standard Army Installation Logistics System, the Test and Evaluation Command's Test and Evaluation Activities System, the Mechanical Research Center of the Materiel Development and Readiness Command, the active Army portion of the joint Uniform Military Pay System, and the Panama Canal Zone Government's system. During 1977 the GAO was auditing other Army management systems, including the Standard Army Financial System and the Standard Army Civilian Payroll System.
Company commanders have complained for generations about the paper work they have had to perform at the expense of combat readiness and training. In 1973 the Army's Administrative Center prepared a study
recommending that such functions be performed at the battalion level. The Training and Doctrine Command adopted the recommendation, and other major commands followed suit. In March 1976 the program was adopted throughout the Army. Companies would no longer have to wrestle with formal paper work concerning personnel, supply, mess, and the administration of maintenance and training.
The Army submitted a request for $28,654 million to the Department of Defense on 30 September 1975. Following reviews by Defense and the Office of Management and Budget, the President submitted a request to Congress for $26,802.8 million for the Army. The Congress in September 1976 enacted an Army budget of $26,254.4 million by Public Law 94-419. A supplemental budget request of $622.9 million for the Army was then submitted to Congress in January 1977, and an appropriation of $556.3 was enacted in April.
During fiscal year 1977 many reprogramming and transfer actions were requested. These totaled $85 million and are shown by appropriation category in the following chart. At the end of the year $26,219.6 million or 97.8 percent of the $26,810.7 million authorized by Congress had been obligated, with $1.3 million being transferred via programming action, leaving a total of $26,809.4 million.
President Carter ordered zero base budgeting, and in late July 1977 the major commands provided the Army staff with information to revise the Army's budget requests. The general consensus was that zero base budgeting provided for a more disciplined budget preparation. Budget offices could identify problems, alternatives, and trade-offs not apparent previously and could focus on high priority projects and programs.
One temporary problem developed when the Army submitted its budget changes in traditional appropriations categories. Defense budget officials chose different categories, grouping all Army Reserve and National Guard appropriations together, for example.
Congress decided to limit Defense expenditures for legislative liaison and public affairs activities during fiscal year 1977 to $7.4 million and $24 million respectively. The Army's share was $2.1 and $5.553 million.
This year the Defense Department's standardized procedures for cross-disbursement of funds among the services went into effect. Under this system the three services now receive and send punched cards, vouchers and other financial transmittal forms which are processed through computers and checked for accuracy. Included in the cross-disbursements system are charges for the construction and engineering services the Corps of Engineers provides for other Army, Department of Defense, and federal agencies under the so-called Project Order Law passed in 1920. The procedure followed under that legislation led to untidy accounting prac-
TABLE 2 - CHRONOLOGY OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1977 BUDGET DIRECT BUDGET PLAN (TOA)
(In millions of dollars)
|Amended President's Budget||Budget Approved by Congress||Supplemental Approved by Congress||Approved Reprogramming and Transfers||Total Obligational Authority|
|Military Personnel, Army||8,775.3||8,682.2||8,564.0||301.7||-24.6||8,841.1|
|Reserve Personnel, Army||498.8||447.7||469.9||9.9||-||479.8|
|National Guard Personnel, Army||738.7||699.6||714.7||8.8||-1.5||722.0|
|Operation & Maintenance, Army||8,406.1||8,060.4||7,898.3||192.6||24.8||8,115.7|
|Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve||394.2||375.1||356.1||8.6||-||364.7|
|Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard||753.3||719.2||706.2||17.9||-||724.1|
|Army Stock Fund||100.0||100.0||100.0||-||-||100.0|
|National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice||.3||.3||.3||-||-||.3|
|Aircraft Procurement, Army||594.3||555.5||541.9||-||-||541.9|
|Missile Procurement, Arm||675.3||552.4||497.4||-||16.4||481.0|
|Procurement of Wpns & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army||1,190.9||1,147.9||1,117.6||-||-||1,117.6|
|Procurement of Ammunition, Army||1,053.8||910.8||902.9||-||-||902.9|
|Other Procurement, Army||1,688.2||1,417.9||1,366.6||-||16.4||1,383.0|
|Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army||2,566.7||2,386.2||2,290.7||-||-||2,290.7|
|Subtotal, Excluding Construction||27,436.0||26,055.1||25,526.6||539.5||-1.3||26,064.8|
|Military Construction, Army||1,085.7||653.5||612.9||16.8||-||629.7|
|Military Construction, Army Reserve||66.0||47.0||53.8||-||-||53.8|
|Military Construction, Army National Guard||66.3||47.2||61.1||-||-||61.1|
|Subtotal, Construction Accounts||1,218.0||747.7||727.8||16.8||-||744.6|
|Total Direct Budget Plan (TOA)||28,654.0||26,802.8||26,254.4||556.3||-2.6||26,809.4|
tices at the end of each fiscal year. In February 1977 the General Counsel for the Department of Defense issued a directive that led to more disciplined appropriations accounting in the agencies served by the Corps of Engineers.
A number of minor violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act involved obligating or spending more funds than allowed within various appropriations categories. As reported last year, alleged violations in 1976 were double those in 1975, and those reported during this year exceeded those reported in 1976. However, many in 1977 related to violations reported earlier. The program undertaken last year to correct those conditions through greater publicity and emphasis at all levels of command was continued.
Progress payments are made as work on a project moves forward on the basis of 80 percent (85 percent for small businesses) of the costs incurred. Payments may be 100 percent of costs for contractors in financial difficulty who are working on long-term projects. In fiscal year 1977 progress payments were being paid on six contracts with an unpaid balance of $71.1 million. Approval was pending on a contract costing $155.8 million.
Advance payments to defense contractors are authorized to finance prime contractors only from contract funds at prevailing interest rates. Most research and development contracts with nonprofit educational and research organizations, however, are financed in advance of delivery, without interest, through advance payment pool agreements. Since that program began, $986.8 million in advance payments have been made. This year $8.4 million was advanced to fourteen contractors.
Early in fiscal year 1978 the Army Productivity Improvement Program will be revised to increase productivity qualitatively as well as quantitatively through improved management. This year, as in 1976, the Department of Defense set a 2 percent productivity increase as the Army's goal. Total Army productivity increased 2.2 percent during this year in those areas where it was possible to measure.
The Value Engineering Program contributes substantial dollar savings. A formal program in six major Army commands, it 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. During this year seventy value engineers in five major commands saved $173 million. Civilian contractors contributed $31 million of that amount through incentive awards programs incorporated in their contracts. The success of the Value Engineering Program led other Army commands to consider its adoption.
The Quick Return on Investment Program, begun in 1974, produces substantial savings in operating costs and personnel. Through streamlining capital investment procedures, new equipment can be bought that
will pay for itself within two years after installation. From 1974 through September 1976 equipment valued at $12 million had saved $19 million. As of 30- September 1977 those figures had increased to $17.5 million worth of equipment with cumulative savings of $54.7 million. Reduced operations costs also contributed to the President's energy conservation program. Savings were used to reduce the backlog of unfinanced operation and maintenance projects at the installation level.
During the year the Army also began grouping the life-cycle cost estimates of weapons systems to support long-range management objectives. In 1977 operating and support cost estimates for twenty-two materiel systems were included in the extended planning annex to the Program Objective Memorandum. That procedure involved grouping individual materiel systems into several classes and displaying cost trends for the next fifteen years.
A major Department of Defense objective- is to reduce the operating and support costs of weapons systems. One of the first steps taken by the Army in 1977 toward meeting this objective was to survey Army managers and get their .requirements for these costs. The results of that survey will be used to develop an automated management information system to identify, collect, and disseminate operating and support costs of selected major weapons systems.
While the Army has tried to reduce the amount of paper work generated each year, staggering quantities continue to accumulate. The control, storage, disposition, and, in many cases, declassification of records demand constant attention from overworked records managers at all levels. During fiscal year 1977, The Adjutant General completed a survey, begun last year, of Army records held in Federal Records Centers. The main objectives were to help prepare declassification time schedules required by regulation; to determine the origin, content, and arrangement of those records in order to develop a system for transferring them regularly to the National Archives and to retrieve promptly documents requested under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts.
The survey was divided into four phases. In the first, 82,000 linear feet of permanent Army records were retired to the Washington National Records Center at Suitland, Maryland, in 1967 and earlier were offered to the National Archives. In the second phase, 53,000 feet of Army organizational records in the St. Louis National Personnel Records Center were offered to the National Archives. In the third phase, some 278,000 feet of Army records in the thirteen GSA Regional Federal Records Centers were discovered, some going back to 1792. Approximately 200,000 feet are General Accounting Office-Army finance records. But about 20,000 feet from Corps of Engineer District and Division offices are of
considerable regional interest and will be offered to the regional branches of the National Archives. In the final phase, approximately 110,000 feet of classified and unclassified post-1967 materials retired by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and field commands to the Suitland Records Center were surveyed and placed under the control of The Adjutant General Center. In all, the center established control over some 550,000 linear feet of retired Army records in fifteen, records centers of the General Services Administration.
Additionally the center offered the National Archives 4,100 feet of inactive but valuable Army records, primarily at Suitland, in fifty-seven separate actions. Some 10,500 feet of records from Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand were also transferred to the Suitland Records Center. Of that amount, nearly 2,000 feet were secret or confidential.
One effect of President Carter's decision to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Korea was an intense survey in September of Eighth Army's records to determine volume and condition and how they could be retrieved. After the discontinuance of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization in June 1977, 23 linear feet of records were received and transferred to the Suitland Records Center. Approximately 3 feet, classified top secret, required downgrading before transfer.
The Army's word processing program began several years ago as part of a total program called Administrative Support. The manpower and dollars saved in both programs promised to be considerable. Personnel savings were estimated at twenty percent. .During the year the Adjutant General Center evaluated 280 systems, costing about $8 million, and expected savings of over $20 million in the next five years, including a saving of 431 personnel spaces and $7.3 million through improved office management. The number of sophisticated minicomputer systems has jumped from 7 in 1975 to 30 in 1977, at which time the Army had 7,300 pieces of word processing equipment throughout the world. Savings from those new systems tripled in each of the past two years and quadrupled this year.
Micrographics, one of the most interesting recent developments in information technology, can reduce thousands of pages to a few small reels or microfiche easily retrieved and available for research on mechanical viewers and viewer-printers or cathode ray tube devices. Using micrographics, the Army can save thousands of square feet of critical storage space and thousands of hours in answering requests for information and eliminate many routine clerical and warehouse positions.
During this year the Army processed 722 micrographics systems of which 102 were Class IV and required review and approval by The Adjutant General Center. Over five years the Army will save $4.5 million by employing those systems which have been approved for computer output microfilm and source document microfilming.
Among the major computer output microfilm systems approved by The Adjutant General this year was a second system in Korea at Taegu to supplement the existing one in Seoul. Also approved was the plan of U.S. Army, Europe, to install five computer output microfilm systems, for VII Corps, V Corps, and the 21st Support Command, and to improve existing systems at Heidelberg and the U.S. Army Materiel Management Agency, Europe, by adding minicomputers. Within the United States, twelve temporary base operations computer output microfilm systems were approved, bringing the total to twenty-four. The Adjutant General also approved for conversion to minifiche the records of the Military Police Management Information System and the Training and Doctrine Command's records of the authorized strength and equipment of Army units and organizations.
The major collections of documents approved for conversion to microfiche as a test included official personnel records of 500,000 reserve officers at the Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center and 10,200 Reserve Officer Career Management files at Fifth and Sixth Armies. In addition, the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center was directed to prepare a study on conversion of 15,000 career management information files to microfiche.
Other approved projects include filming the continuity-of-operations files at Radford, Virginia, and the Artillery School Library's collection of studies, annual programs of instruction, and similar training documents. Faculty members, students, and historians use those sources. Requests to convert Engineer permit files from five Engineer districts were also approved.
In a major drive to improve microform technology, a Technology Branch was added to The Adjutant General Center this year. It is concerned with all aspects of conversion, use, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of information. A major project was to develop a durable hand-held battlefield microfiche viewer since no commercial viewers were adequate. Prototypes of the viewer were expected to be ready next year, and in late 1979 production models are scheduled to be available.
In another project The Adjutant General was assisting the Navy in developing a personalized portable micromedia display system which falls halfway between the Army's hand-held battlefield viewer and a commercial desk top and portable microfiche viewer. Testing of prototypes was scheduled for next year.
Copier management was given additional impetus through a new regulation, AR 340-20, which is devoted entirely to the acquisition, control, and management of this $26 million-a-year program. Stricter controls were established for acquisition of all copiers, and in particular color copiers. During fiscal year 1977, six color copiers were approved which will save about $186,000 a year over conventional photographic proc-
esses/graphic arts means of producing color transparencies, color prints, and 35-mm. slides. In addition, reporting requirements in AR 340-20 will allow the first Army-wide inventory of copying machines.
A revised AR 340-4 was devoted entirely to files equipment acquisition, use, control, and management. A yearly saving of over $112,000 will be realized from twenty new automated/electrical files-units. The largest dollar savings resulted from actual personnel reductions, and several thousand dollars were saved by redistributing excess files equipment within the Army.
Under Executive Order 11652 of 8 March 1972, requiring declassification of Army historical records, the Secretary of the Army in December approved continued classification of 6,600 thirty-year-old records until some future date. Most of these records involved sensitive intelligence methods, sources, and equipment. A total of 81,650 feet have been examined since 1972 including more than 5,000 additional linear feet of records from the 1946-54 period. Some 35,650 of the 51,000 feet of records in that period have now been checked. When work on 1946-54 is finished, 34,750 feet of classified Army records for the years from 1955 through 1967 will be reviewed.
In fiscal year 1977 nearly 150,000 military and civilian employees of the Army were instructed in the provisions of the Privacy Act. Congress in August 1977 abruptly killed a Defense-wide training program on the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. The Adjutant General immediately requested the U.S. Army Institute of Administration at Fort Benjamin Harrison to strengthen the Army's own training programs.
During this year the Army received 82,120 individual requests for access to or amendment of personnel records. All but sixty requests were granted in full or in part. The sixty requests denied led to thirty-one appeals, and five persons filed lawsuits under the Privacy Act. The Department of the Army Privacy .Review Board considered the thirty-one appeals. Of those, twelve were denied, ten were partially denied, one was granted, another was sent back for further review, one was withdrawn, and six were pending.
The Army, in summary, continued to make progress in controlling the proliferation of paper work and in reducing the costs of storing and reviewing valuable records. A major problem, however, remained-making records available within a reasonable time to the public, despite the lack of appropriated monies for the purpose.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 27 August 2004