Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1993

2

Organization, Management, and Budget

Organizational Changes

Since 1990 the Army has studied reducing the size and expense of its departmental headquarters. The Army completed its most recent study, the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), Transformation Study, in January 1993. The study sought to help determine the optimal structure required for HQDA to improve the administrative management of the Department of the Army. Although the study did not include budget figures, it programmed manpower levels with a 32 percent reduction through FY 1997. The elimination of military and civilian personnel spaces, which affected numerous agencies, met congressional goals for reductions.

HQDA reviewed and evaluated all headquarters elements and all subordinate staff support agencies (SSA) and field operating agencies (FOA) for the downsizing. Planners hoped to design a smaller, more efficient headquarters that could handle anticipated economic constraints amidst increasing military challenges. HQDA also considered the use of technological advances to improve management and save resources. In accordance with these goals, HQDA established a Headquarters Director of Information Management in the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army to improve management efficiency in the Army Staff and Secretariat.

The formation of an office within the Army Staff (ARSTAF) to consolidate installation management responsibilities marked the most significant organizational change within HQDA. The Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff consolidated installation management activities because installation commanders had to answer to too many proponent offices in operating Army installations. In consolidating these activities, organizations and functions were transferred on 1 July 1993 from their original agencies to the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM), a provisional organization on the Army Staff.

The Office of the ACSIM consolidated the Directorate of Management offices relating to installation management doctrine, base realignment and closure, Army Communities of Excellence, and commercial activities; Corps of Engineers (COE) offices relating to environmen-

7

tal policies and programs; U.S. Engineering and Housing Support Center functions relating to housing and facilities policy; and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel's (DCSPER) U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center. Centralizing installation responsibilities under a single ARSTAF proponent allowed the Army to streamline functions, integrate doctrine, and conserve resources during the force drawdown.

The ACSIM's responsibilities include the development, direction, and management of facilities and programs intended to stimulate continued growth and to transform Army installations into power-projection bases from which trained and ready forces can deploy to perform their military missions. The ACSIM's goal is to raise the quality of life on installations in order to boost productivity, improve retention, and increase combat readiness. Toward this end, the ACSIM's responsibilities include ensuring that all Army installations provide excellent facilities and services for soldiers, dependents, and civilian employees. Under the ACSIM's guidance Army installations are expected to develop new strategies to collaborate with local communities and private firms to mutually benefit both the public and private sectors. The ACSIM also expects to ensure that installations comply with environmental laws; prevent pollution and clean up contaminated sites; and preserve and protect natural resources. Finally, one of ACSIM's most important functions is to monitor the progress of congressionally mandated installation initiatives such as those related to base realignment and closure and the construction of chemical demilitarization facilities. The Office of the ACSIM is scheduled to become a permanent official ARSTAF agency on 1 October 1993.

In FY 1993 the Army continued downsizing and withdrawing from many installations outside the continental United States (CONUS) no longer needed due to the end of the Cold War. The number and size of Army installations in CONUS also continued to change during the fiscal year, with implementation of congressionally mandated Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) legislation. During the fiscal year the Army continued to implement BRAC Commission recommendations to close Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana; Fort Ord, California; Fort Devens, Massachusetts; Sacramento Army Depot, California; and the Harry Diamond Laboratories in Virginia. Other scheduled realignments include moving the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) from Fort Polk, Louisiana, to Fort Hood, Texas; relocating the Joint Readiness Training Center from Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, to Fort Polk; and moving the Recruiting Command from Fort Sheridan, Illinois, to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Cumulative BRAC recommendations resulted in the sale, transfer, or closure of fifty-three stand-alone family housing areas by the end of FY 1993, and operations ceased at sixteen other installations in CONUS. BRAC actions in CONUS are expected to create an estimated liability of

8

$3 billion, which will be funded by Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations taken from the Army's Total Obligation Authority (TOA) funds. The Army also returned 427 European sites and 24 Korean sites to host nations. Unlike the liabilities with CONUS realignments, these actions outside CONUS will be funded from the Operation & Maintenance, Army (OMA), funds of overseas commands.

In addition to the ongoing BRAC, the Army conducted its own Total Army Basing Study in FY 1993 to evaluate space requirements and identify further surplus installations for possible closure. As a result of the study's findings, the Army announced plans to discontinue operations at one installation and realign four others. This brought the total, three-round number of CONUS BRAC closures to eighty-three and realignments to sixteen. These actions could potentially affect more than 110,000 soldiers and civilians and their families. The Army also announced plans to return another 594 overseas sites to their host nations, which would potentially affect more than 150,000 soldiers and civilians.

Management and Information Systems

The Office of the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (ODISC4) sets policy and coordinates automation growth and compatibility for the Army. During the fiscal year ODISC4 led Army Staff and major command planning to effect transfers directed by Defense Management Report Decision (DMRD) 918. DMRD 918 provided for the establishment of the Defense Information Infrastructure (DII) and called for the realignment of missions and resources from the Army to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). ODISC4 also initiated planning for the transfer of information security resources from the Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) to DISA. Preparations for the transfer resulted in the issuance of Department of the Army General Orders no. 19, 28 September 1993, which inactivated the 7th Signal Command and transferred the personnel and equipment of four Army Information Processing Centers (AIPC) at Chambersburg, Pennsylvania; St. Louis, Missouri; Rock Island, Illinois; and Huntsville, Alabama, to DISA, scheduled to be effective 1 October 1993.

The Army leadership established an Information Mission Area Assessment Review Team (IMAART) in the third quarter of FY 1993. The team conducted assessment and assistance visits to Army major commands (MACOM) to determine the overall level of compliance with public laws and with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and HQDA Information Mission Area (IMA) policies and guidance. IMAART is scheduled to visit all MACOMs on a triennial basis,

9

although individual organizations can request special assistance visits. IMAART is a multicommand and multiagency organization composed of representatives or subject matter experts (SME) from ODISC4, the Information Systems Selection and Acquisition Agency (ISSAA), and the Information Systems Command (ISC) and volunteer SMEs from nonvisited MACOMs. IMAART conducted visits to U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR), and U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) to assess their compliance in the implementation and dissemination of applicable Information Resource Management (IRM), as well as IMA and planned IMA policies and procedures. Oversight visits examined the MACOMs' programs for Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA); certification of IMA assets to meet Army and DOD automation architecture and standards; and career development in all six IMA disciplines (automation, telecommunications, publications and printing, visual information, libraries, and records management).

The Army Software Test and Evaluation Panel (STEP) mandated a required set of software metrics for all Army software developers on 4 June 1993. The STEP, which has overseen the software development process through testing and evaluation since its establishment in 1989, sets standards for Army software metrics. The STEP standards are approved by the Army leadership after coordination with the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE), the DISC4, and the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Operations Research (DUSA-OR). Guidance for using the June 1993 mandated software metrics is contained in draft DA Pamphlet 73-1, which DUSA-OR implemented as an interim operating draft.

The Army Tactical Command and Control System (ATCCS) program was a major automation effort during the fiscal year. The ATCCS is the Army's comprehensive approach to automating its tactical command and control systems and improving its communications systems under an umbrella automation architecture. It is intended to give commanders from corps to battalion level a common picture of the battlefield and to facilitate synchronization of combat forces. Guided by the Army Command and Control Master Plan, the Army established this program to link the five major battlefield functional command and control systems for commanders and to improve interoperability among Army, joint, and allied systems. The five ATCCS subsystems are the Maneuver Control System, the Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control System, the All Source Analysis System, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, and the Combat Service Support Control System. Plans call for linking these systems through the Army Data Distribution System (ADDS), the Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system, and the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS). ATCCS is still evolving with the integration of battlefield automated systems and with other subsystems in

10

various stages of development, testing, and fielding. Early testing of the ATCCS architecture began in the fall of 1992 with substantial progress made in software development during 1993.

The Maneuver Control System (MCS) provides Army tactical commanders and staffs at the corps level and below with secure automated command and control capability for planning, coordinating, and controlling tactical operations. It automates the preparation, processing, and distribution of plans, orders, and reports through a network of computer devices linked by existing communications means. In FY 1993 the Army revised its expectations for developing a completed MCS Version 11 software and for fielding newer common hardware platforms. In February 1993 the Army decided to discontinue funding the current contract and to proceed with a different development strategy. This decision resulted from significant delivery delays due to contractor software development difficulties and the Army's lack of confidence in the contractor's ability to deliver Version 11 without further schedule slips and cost increases. A restructured MCS program strategy that began in March 1993 consists of three basic components: a Common ATCCS Support Software (CASS) package; a set of prototype applications software modules; and reclaimed or reusable software from MCS Version 11. These components are expected to serve as the new MCS software infrastructure building blocks. Future versions of MCS software are planned to extend automated command and control capabilities down to the battalion, company, and platoon levels and finally to infantry squads or individual crew-served weapon systems through subordinate MCS systems.

The Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAADC2) system provides an automated means of furnishing timely data to FAAD weapons in order to protect friendly aircraft and facilitate management of the air battle. The system consists of nondevelopmental computers, displays, and printers that are common throughout ATCCS and nondevelopmental ground sensors with their requisite operating software. In May 1993 the Army gave approval for FAADC2 to proceed into low-rate initial production to procure enough hardware and software to equip three light divisions and a training base. The Army also authorized production of test articles for the initial operational test and evaluation of follow-on FAADC2 software for heavy divisions.

The All Source Analysis System (ASAS), a subsystem of the Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW) of ATCCS, supports division and corps commanders with the automated capability to receive and correlate data from strategic and tactical sensors and intelligence sources; to produce and disseminate all-source intelligence; to provide a common view of the enemy threat; and to nominate potential attack targets. Following the completion of the first block of ASAS operational testing

11

and evaluation during the fiscal year, three ASAS systems were fielded to the 82d Airborne Division. The Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) recommended further ASAS testing and evaluation in July 1993 to the Defense Acquisition Board. The Defense Acquisition Executive is expected to make a decision in early FY 1994 on whether the next ASAS version is to enter Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD).

The development of software for the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) continued in FY 1993. AFATDS is an automated battlefield management and fire support system. It is intended to perform the five battlefield management functions of planning, execution, movement control, mission support, and fire direction operations. In October 1992 Magnavox, the Version 1 software contractor, received a contract for developing Version 2 AFATDS software. The Army completed a critical design review supporting Version 1 development in November 1992 and completed Version 1 formal qualification testing in September 1993.

The Combat Service Support Control System (CSSCS) is the control element for the CSS segment of ATCCS. The CSSCS is intended to collect and analyze logistical, medical, and personnel information and disseminate it to CSS force level and theater commanders. The Army successfully demonstrated the CSSCS at an Early User Test and Experimentation during September and October 1992. However, the Army decided at the ATCCS Operational Test Readiness Reviews held in April and June 1993 to delay the CSSCS Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) and instead conduct a Limited User Test (LUT). An Enhanced Program Stability Panel met in August 1993 to review the effects of the IOT&E schedule delay on the revised program. The panel concluded that the postponement of the IOT&E and the introduction of the LUT were justified. As FY 1993 ended, the CSSCS was scheduled to begin an LUT in mid-October 1993 during a command post exercise.

The Army Data Distribution System (ADDS), part of the ATCCS, is composed of two communications subsystems: the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) and the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS). During FY 1993 EPLRS was in low-rate initial production to procure 1,800 user units and 20 net control stations. The Army awarded the final contract option for 515 user units in May 1993, and EPLRS successfully completed technical testing in July. The 24th Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia, executed an interim EPLRS fielding that provided the Army with insight on the operational use of the system. Using this information, the JTIDS underwent additional engineering development and subsequently passed a follow-on reliability growth test by the end of the fiscal year.

12

Another component of ATCCS, the SINCGARS, is a family of vehicular and manportable radios for command and control of tactical units. Designed as a voice command and control radio, it also has limited data communications capability. During FY 1993 International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) delivered approximately 1,300 SINCGARS radios per month to the Army, and General Dynamics completed SINCGARS operational testing and received Army approval for full rate production. The Army also prepared for a competition between ITT and General Dynamics for splitting future contract awards of up to 30,000 radios per annum. In addition, the Army Electronics Proving Ground successfully completed technical testing of Electronic Counter Countermeasures (ECCM) and made co-site interference improvements to the SINCGARS radio design.

Other major automation programs under ODISC4 included the Sustaining Base Information Services (SBIS) and the Reserve Component Automation Systems (RCAS). The SBIS program is intended to provide software and hardware to support installation and MACOM management. As envisioned, the SBIS program will eventually provide both MACOM Internal Support Modules (MISM) and Installation Support Modules (ISM) and will be fielded to approximately seventy installations according to the priority of their support to force projection and sustainment. In June 1993 the Army awarded the SBIS contract to the Federal Systems Company, a subsidiary of the IBM Corporation.

RCAS is a comprehensive computer system designed to support the decision-making needs of commanders, staffs, and functional managers responsible for leading and managing Army National Guard and Reserve units. RCAS is composed of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) computers, office automation software, secure wide area network (WAN) telecommunications, specialized application software, and a fully integrated database for each of approximately 8,000 Army Guard and Reserve units throughout the United States. During the fiscal year the Army conducted an operational assessment of the current phase of RCAS development (RCAS-X). The assessment took place from 26 July to 31 August 1993 to ensure that problems identified in the RCAS limited user test had been corrected; to demonstrate and evaluate new versions of Computer Based Training; and to demonstrate that the wide area network provided adequate capacity for acceptable performance to meet current RCAS requirements. The Army installed approximately 2,400 RCAS-X terminals in more than 360 reserve component units during the fiscal year.

As the proponent for Army automation security efforts, ODISC4 saved the Army $171.6 million through cost avoidance during the fiscal year. Working with the Communications Security (COMSEC) Multiservice Working Group, chaired by the Army, ODISC4 provided intangible benefits to the Army's automated security program at no or

13

minimal cost to the Army. These benefits included improving security for ultra high frequency radio (UHFR) communications, which significantly increased the readiness status of the National Guard and Army Reserve, and improving the interface between analog and digital data on single-channel radio nets. The Army also benefited from excess COMSEC equipment from other services that provided maximum security capability in Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) and Echelon Above Corps (EAC) Triservice Tactical (TRI-TAC) systems and provided the capability to secure all FORSCOM computer systems and information nets.

During the fiscal year the Army decreased funding for personnel information systems. The service also reduced spending for these programs by nearly a third for FY 1994 to FY 1999, jeopardizing modernization efforts that would significantly benefit the Army's overall personnel management system.

Nevertheless, two automated systems made significant progress during the fiscal year: the Personnel Electronic Records Management System (PERMS), which received Army and DOD approval from the Major Automated Information Systems Review Council (MAISRC) for full-scale development and fielding; and the Personnel Readiness Information System (PRISM), which was developed by Forces Command's Adjutant General's Office. PERMS digitally converts and stores paper personnel records. Personnel records scheduled for conversion are kept at the United States Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM); the Enlisted Records Center (EREC), a field operating agency under PERSCOM; the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN); and the National Guard Bureau (NGB). ARPERCEN tested and accepted PERMS during the fiscal year and also began conversion work at the EREC and the NGB. PERSCOM is scheduled to begin testing PERMS in FY 1994. PRISM allows major commands to rapidly manipulate information on personnel authorization and skills and to cut time spent on personnel management. PRISM takes existing information and uses a relational database to create fast and accurate strength summaries by grade, specialty code, or military occupational specialty (MOS).

During the fiscal year all Army components agreed to adopt a Total Army Functional Unity and Total Army Personnel Operations Integration (TAPOI) strategy for information management to fully integrate personnel operations of the various components. The major systems and efforts under TAPOI include the Total Army Personnel Data Base (TAPDB); the Inter-Component Data Transfer (ICDT) project; enhancement and modernization of the Mobilization Personnel Processing System (MOBPERS); and the publication of the Manning the Force Automation Architecture (MTFAA) Guide to the Army Personnel Information Systems, also known as the Softbook. The TAPDB is a collection of data-

14

bases used by the civilian, active, and reserve components that contains and arrays the common data from each component. Standardization of total Army personnel operations will continue to improve with the development of ICDT, which is expected to allow for the quick and nearly seamless transfer of personnel information between components.

Army personnel operations continued to move toward joint integration in FY 1993. Under the direction of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), which directs joint initiatives for all the services, the Army adopted the new Uniformed Services Identification Card. The new card provides more useful information at less cost than the old card. Progress was also made in the Military Entrance Processing Command's (MEPCOM) Integrated Resource System (MIRS) program, the Army's portion of an intended Joint Recruiting Information Support System (JRISS). MIRS was approved for development and fielding and will replace aging UNISYS 80 equipment that has become difficult to maintain. MIRS is expected to greatly increase the efficiency of the Military Entrance Processing Stations as they provide entrance data. Also, the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) began developmental studies for Recruiting 2000 (R2K), an automation system to support its recruiting activities. R2K is expected to give recruiters access to valuable information for improving their presentation and to streamline the administration of recruiting activities.

Technological advances allowed the CSA's Monthly Readiness Review (MRR) to include unit readiness projections in FY 1993. For the first time, the Army's senior leadership used two automated management systems-the Army Readiness Management System (ARMS), which integrated existing ARSTAF logistics and personnel databases, and the executive version of the Status Projection System (SPS), which provided multiscreen projections of unit status and readiness forecasts-to help make resource decisions. The Army expects these technologies to allow for better management of readiness resources as the systems mature and become more efficient.

The Army Mobilization Operations Planning and Execution System (AMOPES) is HQDA's source for issuing policies, planning guidance, and assumptions for all mobilizations and for Army operations conducted without an involuntary call-up of reserve component forces. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS), which is responsible for revising the AMOPES to reflect current strategies and concerns, continued incorporating lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War and Army exercises conducted during the fiscal year. AMOPES revisions are expected to be completed during FY 1994, with another revision scheduled for FY 1996.

15

Economies and Efficiencies

During the fiscal year the U.S. Army Audit Agency (AAA) continued to pursue an aggressive program that included audit service and achievement of Total Quality Management (TQM) objectives. For example, the Auditor General established a Quality Council to better support AAA TQM efforts. The Quality Council established Quality Initiative Papers to disseminate information on the agency's quality initiatives to all agency personnel. Under TQM, the AAA reformed its business practices to better serve its clients. The AAA conducted a survey to determine if it was meeting clients' needs and expectations and used the survey to find new and improved ways to serve client organizations.

During FY 1993 the AAA Policy and Programs Division, which plans and manages the agency's audit program, developed an implementation plan to take over audit follow-up and compliance functions from The Inspector General. The division issued regulations to improve policies and procedures for conducting audits and reporting audit results and worked with DOD to improve other audit policies and procedures. The division also spearheaded AAA efforts in adopting computer-assisted audit techniques as part of Project DANIEL-an initiative to share information among DOD auditors.

The AAA programmed 169 audits for FY 1993, including ongoing projects from the previous fiscal year. By the end of FY 1993 the AAA issued 334 reports, including formal audit reports, consulting reports, memorandum reports, and advisory reports. The audits resulted in potential monetary benefits to the Army of $3.9 billion. Audits on the "Development of Army Requirements," "Air-to-Ground Missile Systems," "Depot-Level Repairs Performed in the Field," and "Organizational Structure of U.S. Army Reserve Training Divisions," each representing from $130 million to $1.8 billion in potential monetary benefits, accounted for more than three-fourths of the $3.9 billion total in potential monetary benefits.

In the Development of Army Requirements audit, the AAA found that the Army's process for developing future requirements needed improvement to ensure force structure, materiel, and mobilization requirements were balanced and integrated. For example, planned acquisitions of improved tank rounds in the Army's fiscal year 1994-99 Program Objective Memorandum (POM), coupled with on-hand quantities of older models, put the Army significantly over the acquisition objective. Selling the excess tank rounds could generate $1.8 billion in proceeds that could be returned to the Army's ammunition procurement account. The auditors recommended that all requirements determination studies contain explicit assumptions that are both credible and compatible; that the Army pro-

16

vide justification and approval for deviation from these scenarios; and that an evaluation be made of the Total Army Analysis process to determine whether it can be streamlined and made more responsive. Finally, the AAA recommended a reevaluation of procurement quantities for the improved tank rounds. The auditors believed such a reevaluation would prompt a decrease in procurement funds due to a reduction in quantities and advised development of a plan to sell excess rounds. DA agreed with the recommendations or proposed alternative corrective actions and concurred with the potential monetary benefit of $1.8 billion. DA recognized, however, that if future fiscal and political events restricted the number of older tank rounds the Army could sell, the full potential monetary benefits might not be realized.

The AAA found in the Air-to-Ground Missile Systems audit that the Army's inventory of Hellfire missiles, including scheduled deliveries and approved purchases, exceeded the authorized Hellfire acquisition objective. In addition, guided missile and large rocket status reports did not accurately reflect the missile inventory balances. As a result, the Integrated Materiel Management Center was buying Hellfire launcher rails that were no longer needed. The auditors recommended that the Army declare certain models of missiles as excess and identify them to the Defense Security Agency for foreign military sales and cancel remaining deliveries of these missiles; establish a standard reconciliation form and ensure item managers use the form during their quarterly reconciliations; and cancel outstanding deliveries for launcher rails. The Army agreed with most of AAA's recommendations or proposed alternative corrective actions that resulted in reducing the estimate of monetary benefits from $858 million to $853.2 million.

The AAA found in the Depot-Level Repairs Performed in the Field audit that the Army failed to take advantage of savings from depot-level repairs performed in the field and to adjust the programmed resource requirements for troop maintenance. Commodity commands did not reduce inventory and depot maintenance requirements to account for the decreased demand and fewer unserviceable returns that occur when field activities do depot-level repairs. Field activities usually obtained authorization to perform depot-level repairs, but the Army did not adequately track these repairs or their costs. Army maintenance policies and procedures were inadequate as they related to depot-level repairs performed in the field.

The auditors recommended revising procedures for adjusting resource requirements in troop maintenance budgets to reflect cost reductions from significant initiatives and approved specialized field repair activities. Another recommendation called for the Aviation and Tank-Automotive Commands to reduce wholesale inventory and depot maintenance work-

17

load requirements for fiscal years 1993-98 to reflect the decreased demands based on implementation of field repair activities. The DA agreed with the recommendations, and the commands took corrective actions that resulted in monetary benefits of $272.7 million.

In the Organizational Structure of U.S. Army Reserve Training Divisions audit, the AAA determined that Army Reserve training divisions included positions that were not needed for mobilization and that other less expensive alternatives were available for peacetime support requirements. Opportunities existed to reduce peacetime strength by 3,930 personnel (primarily headquarters personnel, band members, and cooks) over the six years of the fiscal year 1994-99 POM, and by abolishing these positions the Army anticipated saving $150.3 million. The auditors recommended that the Army eliminate the authorizations for cooks from Army Reserve training divisions and use alternative methods to feed division soldiers in peacetime. The auditors also recommended deleting the headquarters of four training divisions from the Army Reserve force structure and then assigning their subordinate units to Army Reserve commands (or find other alternatives for peacetime support) and deleting the twelve training division bands from the Army Reserve force structure. The Army agreed with all the recommendations or proposed alternative corrective actions except for the AAA's recommendation concerning training division bands, which decreased the potential monetary benefits from $150.3 million to $133.2 million.

The AAA also issued advisory reports for the benefit of managers throughout the Army in FY 1993. These reports were widely distributed to illustrate common problems identified during audits and to suggest actions to correct similar problems that might exist at other Army activities. One advisory report on the management of finance and accounting operations, for example, described common problem areas found in eighteen audits of finance and accounting offices or activities. Common problems included unliquidated obligations, cash management, and vendor payments. The AAA report summarized these problems and provided checklists to help managers identify similar problems in their own organizations.

Budget

Congress granted the Army slightly less than $63.9 billion in new budget authority for FY 1993. While this figure was more than the $63.5 billion in the President's budget request, OMA funding took a cut of more than $745 million, and military construction nearly another $585 million. The RDTE (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation) budget added $618 million, and dedicated equipment for the Army Reserve and

18

National Guard gained nearly $617 million. Fiscal year 1993 obligations and outlays are provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1-FY 1993 OBLIGATIONS AND OUTLAYS
($ IN BILLIONS)

The development of the FY 1994 budget was a major HQDA task in FY 1993. The Army submitted the FY 1994 President's Budget request on 8 April 1993. In the budget proposal the Army had a 23.8 percent share of the Department of Defense's Total Obligation Authority (TOA)-a decrease from 24 percent in FY 1993 and from 26.1 percent in FY 1992. The Army requested $60.7 billion in TOA for FY 1994, representing a6 percent decline in real terms from the previous fiscal year, not including supplemental funding. From FY 1989 through FY 1993, the Army realized approximately a 30 percent dollar reduction by cutting virtually all areas of the budget, but most notably force structure, modernization, and base support. Table 2 shows funding trends in Army appropriations from FY 1992 and FY 1993 (in current dollars).

TABLE 2-TRENDS IN ARMY APPROPRIATIONS, FYS 1992-93*
($ IN MILLIONS)

19

*Figures may not add up exactly due to rounding.

In developing the FY 1994 budget, the Army planned for continued downsizing in fiscal resources as well as in both military and civilian personnel. The budget request for military personnel provided funding to continue the Voluntary Separation Incentive and the Special Separation Benefit programs that had been introduced in FY 1992. It also expanded the Army's voluntary separation tools by adding an early retirement program for military personnel. The budget request reduced Army active component strength to 540,000 by the end of the fiscal year, a 35,000 soldier decline from the revised FY 1993 active duty end strength. The budget request also provided funds for twelve Regular Army divisions by the end of FY 1994, a reduction of two divisions from the FY 1993 force structure. The request budgeted the reserve components for reduction and realignment to meet future force requirements. The Army National Guard's FY 1994 end strength was set at 410,000 and the Army Reserve's was set at 260,000. The budget request also reduced the 1993 civilian end strength by 18,013, for a total of 308,270 by the end of 1994.

The Operation and Maintenance budget request for FY 1994 maintained the Army's readiness objectives by funding enhanced training activities such as the Combat Training Centers. The request supported air and

20

ground operational tempo (OPTEMPO) of 800 miles per year for major combat systems and 14.5 flying hours per air crew per month for the active force. The budget request also fully funded efforts to meet all known statutory and regulatory environmental requirements.

The FY 1994 budget request reflected HQDA's commitment to continue force modernization as well as research and development. The request funded upgrades for the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle; funded the Army's initiative to digitize the battlefield; funded the Hellfire II missile, a third generation airborne antitank weapon; funded continued production of the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher; provided funding for an initial low production rate for the Javelin Missile System; and funded a third year of the multiyear UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter procurement. Ammunition funding was set at $743.4 million and Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization at $53 million. The Army's Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation budget request continued development of the Advanced Field Artillery System (AFAS) and the Future Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (FARV). The Army also requested funding for other modernization programs such as the Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter and the Longbow Hellfire, Javelin, and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) antitank missile systems. The FY 1994 presidential budget request is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3-FY 1994 PRESIDENTIAL BUDGET REQUEST
($ IN MILLIONS)

21

*The FY 1994 Budget requested that the Army become the executive agent for this formerly DOD-managed account.

22

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 30 October 2003