ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal Year 1997
Maj. Gen. William A. Navas, Jr., Director
Prepared by: Research and Staff Support Office
National Guard Bureau
Table of Contents
Fiscal Year 1995 was one of transition for the Army National Guard. It was a year marked by exceptional accomplishments, dynamic changes in our structure and outlook to remain a relevant force, and a time for positive reaffirmation of the values and traditions that underscore our commitment to serve our nation and communities.
Army Guard soldiers deployed to Haiti for Operation Uphold Democracy, to the Sinai Desert for a Multi-national Force and Observers mission, and to Bosnia and Germany for Operation Joint Endeavor. More than 23,800 of our soldiers went overseas to support these real-world missions and other training. Another 17,200 Guard soldiers and airmen were pressed into service to respond to domestic crises, natural disasters or to perform other state duties.
All of these requirements were accomplished simultaneously with the inactivation of 145 Army Guard units, personnel reductions in excess of 17,700 positions, changes to unit missions as well as individual soldier job reclassifications, and ambitious annual training and equipment modernization programs. Throughout this period, our soldiers and their families remained the centerpiece of our strategy for change. Today, more than ever, our all-volunteer force relies heavily on their resolve and commitment as well as a strong community support base. The many personal and professional sacrifices our soldiers and their supporters make in peace and war will continue to be the benchmark upon which all other reserve forces in the world are measured and tested.
In the upcoming year, our nation's leaders will press on with their effort to maintain a military that is "second to none" but is also affordable in terms of meeting a tough domestic agenda. In times of national emergency - military or budgetary - our free society has demanded much from its citizen-soldiers and, as the following pages will attest to, no other force has responded more effectively to that call than the Army National Guard of the United States.
A relevant force...missioned across the spectrum of contingencies...structured and resourced to accomplish its missions...capable and accessible when called...with trained citizen-soldiers committed to preserving the timeless traditions and values of service to our nation and communities.
|TABLE OF CONTENTS|
|Heritage of the Army National Guard||"Off-site" Agreement|
|Roles and Missions||Force Support Pool|
|Shaping the 21st Century Force||ArmyWARTRACE Program|
|Army National Guard Divisions||ForceXXI|
|Priority Units||Unit and Individual SoldierReadiness|
|Full-Time Support||Active, Guard and Reserve(AGR)|
|MilitaryConstruction and Installation Maintenance||Operations|
|The Army National Guard Overseas||The Army National Guard at Home|
|Leveraging Technology and Resources||Simulations|
|Distance Learning Initiative||Total Army School System|
|Select, Train, Promote, and Assign Policy||RETROEUR and Truck Rebuild Program|
|Ideas forExcellence Program||Army Community of Excellence Program|
|Safety Program||Environmental Program|
|Soldier and NCO of the Year||The Future of the Guard|
|Appendix A: Constitutional "Charter" of the Guard||Appendix B: The Historic Role of the Army National Guard|
|Appendix C: Organizational Chart - Army National Guard|
Heritage of The Army National Guard
The Army National Guard is America's oldest military organization, tracing its heritage to the first militia units organized in the Massachusetts Bay Colony on Dec. 13, 1636. The National Guard was founded on the tradition that it is both a privilege and a responsibility for able-bodied citizens to bear arms for the common defense of their community and nation. Since its inception, Army Guard citizen-soldiers have fought in every American war from the Pequot War of 1637 to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Throughout our nation's history, our elected leaders have shaped our military forces to meet the changing domestic and/or international environment. As we once again face an era of constrained defense budgets and a shift toward an increasingly demanding domestic agenda, our leaders have an opportunity to develop a mixture of military forces to meet current and future needs at an affordable cost. The Army Guard's cost-effectiveness has been and will continue to be an essential part of this equation. The Department of Defense's Total Force Policy Study and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Army Guard units cost 25 percent, on an annual recurring basis, of the cost for similar active Army units. These costs include pay and allowances, full-time support, operations, maintenance, and training funds as well as Army and Department of Defense overhead. Today, the Army National Guard is authorized 387,000 soldiers in units located in 2,700 communities throughout all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. It operates and maintains 3,360 installations to support training, aviation, administration, and logistics to sustain and maintain the National Guard's readiness and presence throughout the United States and its territories.
Roles and Missions
The National Guard's primary federal mission is to maintain properly trained and equipped units available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency or as otherwise needed. Its state mission is to provide trained and disciplined forces for domestic emergencies or as otherwise required by state law. This dual-status role was established by the U.S. Constitution and has been consistently reaffirmed by the Congress as a reflection of the philosophical and practical ideals of our nation's founders (Appendix A). Throughout this century, the external and internal roles of the Guard have been further clarified and restated by the Congress based on the concept that America's citizens can and will mobilize for the common defense.
To meet these missions, the Army National Guard is structured to support both international and domestic requirements. At the federal level, the Guard provides decisive land power for major war and essential combat support and service support units for contingency operations. At the state and community level, the Guard provides a return on this federal investment through domestic support capabilities embedded in its units.
Shaping the 21st Century Force
The 1993 Department of Defense Bottom-Up Review and, subsequently, the National Military Strategy, identified the need for highly trained and equipped, combat-ready reserve forces which would help ensure our nation's ability to win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Ten active Army divisions and 15 Army National Guard enhanced readiness brigades are that combat force. Additionally, we maintain a strategic reserve consisting of eight Army Guard divisions, one armored brigade, one infantry brigade and one scout group.
"Off-site" Agreement. During FY95, the Army National Guard began implementing provisions of the historic "off-site" agreement announced on Dec. 10, 1993. This agreement was made by the senior leaders of the active Army, National Guard, Army Reserve and major organizations representing each component's members. The restructuring plan was aimed at further strengthening the roles and readiness of Army National Guard units through the stabilization of the entire force (active, Guard and Army Reserve) and alignment of component missions. The plan had three key elements:
(1) Stabilize the end strength of the Army's two Reserve Components at 575,000 positions by FY99. By the end of FY98, the Army National Guard will be reduced to 405,000 force structure (required) spaces and 367,000 end strength (funded) positions (the Army Reserve will be reduced to 208,000 funded positions). (2) The National Guard will remain a balanced land force made up of combat, combat support and combat service support units with embedded domestic response capabilities.
(3) The Army Reserve will be aligned with its core competencies in combat service support with some combat support and specialized units.
As a result of this agreement, the Guard and Army Reserve are in the process of "swapping" over 12,000 positions. The transfer of units/missions started in FY94 with the Army National Guard receiving responsibility for all reserve component Special Forces. It continued in FY95 with the transfer of missions and more than 8,000 force structure spaces, primarily in aviation. The transfer is projected for completion in FY97.
By FY99, the Guard's 405,000 force structure and 367,000 programmed end strength will enable it to perform its federal and state missions along the entire spectrum from early deployment in contingencies, operations other than war, serving as strategic insurance for protracted conflicts and responding to domestic emergencies.
Force Support Pool (FSP). The U.S. Army Forces Command redesigned the Contingency Force Pool (CFP) into a Force Support Pool (FSP), effective Nov. 1, 1995. The new FSP provides combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) for five-and-one-third divisions, two corps headquarters and a theater "slice" (the old CFP was designed for eight-and-one-third divisions). The FSP consists of two prioritized CS/CSS "packages" that are tasked to provide support in a theater of operations for the first 75 days. FSP One will support five-and-one-third divisions while FSP Two will support the two corps and theater headquarters element. Generally, active Army units were selected for FSP missions first with the remaining requirements filled by Army Guard and Army Reserve units. Some FSP requirements remain unfilled and the identification of all FSP units has not been finalized.
The Army WARTRACE Program replaced the CAPSTONE Program and established an organizational structure that will provide improved mobilization and wartime planning, mission capability and deployability throughout America's Army. The WARTRACE Program deliberately aligns active Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve forces under a single commander for wartime planning. Commanders of WARTRACE units receive wartime planning guidance and Mission Essential Task List (METL) approval from their designated wartime commanders.
Army National Guard Divisions. In an effort to minimize the imbalance between combat and combat support/combat service support (CS/CSS) forces, the Army's senior leadership is attempting to address support shortfalls within established end strength and force structure allowances. Total Army Analysis 2003 (TAA 03) estimates a CS/CSS shortfall of approximately 58,000 spaces to meet the National Military Strategy. The Commission on Roles and Missions Report of May 24,1995, recommended the Secretary of Defense verify this shortfall and, "restructure its combat divisions to provide the additional support forces needed."
On May 16, 1995, Lt. Gen. Paul E. Blackwell, Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (DCSOPS), established the General Officer Working Group (GOWG) to develop alternatives and make recommendations for the use of the Army National Guard divisions. The GOWG selected four alternatives for analysis and further development by a colonel-level work group.
The Chief, National Guard Bureau, also directed the creation of the Division Process Action Committee (DIVPAC) to develop recommendations for the Army National Guard's position to the GOWG. Maj. Gen. Richard C. Alexander, the Adjutant General of Ohio, was named as the DIVPAC chair. Other members included the remaining Adjutants General and eight Army Guard division commanders. The initial DIVPAC meeting was held at Ft. Sill, Okla., on Oct. 19-20, 1995.
The objective of these studies is to determine how to best configure some of the National Guard divisions into support units while retaining an appropriately sized strategic hedge. The GOWG will present its recommendations to the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army in February 1996. A final recommendation is due to the Secretary of Defense on March 1, 1996.
The Future: Force XXI
Force XXI is the Chief of Staff of the Army's effort to transform today's Army into a smaller, more lethal and deployable "information age" force capable of effectively and efficiently fighting and winning the nation's wars and conducting operations other than war (OOTW) in the 21st Century. The Army Guard's Force Management Directorate has been working closely with the Department of the Army's Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (DCSOPS), the Louisiana Maneuvers Task Force, and other agencies to fully integrate the Army Guard in the Force XXI arena. The National Guard Bureau's Force XXI Task Force was activated on Feb. 1, 1995, with the mission of serving as the focal point to integrate the Army Guard into the overall Force XXI Campaign. The Guard's Task Force is also involved in the establishment of an ad hoc Action Officer Management Of Change Committee (AOMOCC) to synchronize all National Guard staff actions relative to Force XXI as well as to ensure the involvement of the Guard's senior leadership in all aspects of the decision-making process. This includes coordinating these actions with the Chief, National Guard Bureau, in his newly appointed role as the Reserve Component representative to the four-star level Commander's Conference.
Current plans call for the reduction of the Army Guard from 420,000 force structure positions (required but not funded) with 387,000 funded personnel end strength spaces in FY95 to 405,000 force structure and 367,000 end strength positions in FY98 and thereafter. In FY95, the Army Guard cut more than 17,700 spaces and inactivated 145 units.
Force Composition. The Guard is currently made up of 51 percent combat, 16 percent combat support, 24 percent combat service support units with a nine percent mobilization base. In FY99, it will be made up of 54 percent combat, 16 percent combat support, 21 percent combat service support and a nine percent base.
Priority Units. The Guard's highest priority units are the 177 early deploying Force Support Pool (FSP) units, 15 early deploying "enhanced readiness" combat brigades (including one armored cavalry regiment) and two Special Forces Groups. In addition, the Guard maintains eight fully structured divisions, two separate brigades and a scout group in strategic reserve as well as other support forces and a mobilization/training base
The 15 Army National Guard enhanced readiness combat brigades will transition to their new structural designs beginning in September 1996 and be fully operational by FY99. They will be organized and resourced to mobilize, train and deploy within 90 days after call-up and will be capable of employment in the fast-evolving regional conflicts expected in the future or to reinforce active Army units in a crisis. The brigades are currently training and undergoing modernization in order to be compatible with active Army divisions. The 15 brigades are configured as seven "heavy" brigades (armored and mechanized), seven "light" brigades (infantry), and one armored cavalry regiment. When combining positions in the enhanced readiness brigades with Force Support Pool Package One units the Army Guard has nearly 110,000 soldiers in high priority units.
The Army National Guard's eight divisions, two strategic reserve combat brigades and scout group are currently resourced to provide a hedge against the re-emergence of a global threat. This combat force, as outlined in Section VII: Reserve Component Forces, Sept. 1, 1993, Department of Defense "Bottom-Up Review" (p.94), is needed for extended crises that require a large-scale American deployment to remain in place over extended periods, peace operations that require a protracted commitment, deterrent hedge to form the basis for an expanded U.S. military force structure, and domestic missions such as natural disasters and civil unrest. The divisions are organized as four "heavy" (armored and mechanized), three "medium" (mechanized infantry) and one "light" (infantry). They are resourced at personnel and operational levels based on their role as America's strategic reserve but are also required to maintain an adequate level of readiness to fulfill their domestic mission requirements. At current FY96 resourcing levels, Guard divisions require less than four-tenths of one percent (0.4%) of the Department of Defense budget.
By FY99, the Army Guard will be configured as a balanced land force to provide for America's Army more than half of its combat power as well as more than a third of its combat support and combat service support structure (Figure 2). This force will also retain its embedded domestic capabilities to include command and control, equipment, and trained individuals to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies.
Unit and Individual Soldier Readiness
Unit Readiness. Readiness remains the Army Guard's overarching priority. Between October 1994 and October 1995, Unit Status Reports (USRs), overall unit resources and training levels remained unchanged. Under the new Force Support Pool (FSP) configuration, the Army Guard's Contingency Force Pool Support Package One, the highest priority units, was decreased by 29 units and Support Package Two by 19 units. Since July 1992, these high priority units have steadily increased their overall readiness to historic levels.
Individual Soldier Readiness. The impact of Title XI mandates resulted in a four percent decline in personnel readiness between July 1993 and July 1994. However, Guard personnel readiness has remained relatively stable during the past two years, resulting in a two percent increase in military occupational specialty qualification (MOSQ) in FY94 and one percent in FY95. The number of "non-deployable" soldiers has decreased in FY95 by 10,907 soldiers. Traditionally, 55 percent of these "non-deployable" soldiers are awaiting required MOS training.
On Dec. 14, 1995, 954 Army Guard soldiers from 22 units were called up for Operation Joint Endeavor, the NATO mission in Bosnia. Only nine soldiers were listed as "non-deployable," primarily due to temporary physical ailments. The average time from call-up to reporting to mobilization stations for all soldiers was four days.
The Army National Guard is funded by three separate budget appropriations (Figure 4): Personnel (NGPA), Operations and Maintenance (OMNG), and Military Construction (MCNG). Congress frequently adds additional funds for procurement of additional readiness-related equipment. The President's FY96 budget of $5.5 billion for the Army National Guard represents only about 9.3 percent of the Army's $59.5 billion budget and less than 2.2 percent of the entire Department of Defense's $246 billion budget.
Army National Guard Appropriations
The Army Guard's FY95 recruiting objective was to achieve a selected end strength of 387,000, consisting of 44,538 commissioned and warrant officers and 342,462 enlisted soldiers. To attain this goal, enlisted gains were programmed at 60,649; officer gains at 3,837 and included assumptions that enlisted losses would not be greater than 69,577. The FY95 strength of 374,930 represented 97 percent of the objective and opening strength. Total strength included 43,37l officers and 33l,559 enlisted personnel.
A shortage of 500 recruiter/retention noncommissioned officers (NCOs) caused by the FY95 federal hiring freeze, lack of incentive programs, and non-projected losses were the primary reasons for the strength shortfall. Enlisted accessions, non-prior and prior service individuals totaled 56,711 or 93.5 percent of the Guard's objective.
The quality of Army Guard recruits was maintained within established DOD guidelines with the exception of high school diploma graduates at 81.9 percent. However, inclusion of General Education Diplomas (G.E.D.) of 18.1 percent raised the percentage to 100 percent with more than half of all accessions in the top three test categories.
The Army Guard also created the Strength Maintenance non-commissioned officer (NCO) career field 79T. This career field is a consolidation of the OOE Recruiter and the 79D Retention NCO career fields. The new Strength Maintenance NCO ties recruiting and retention into attrition management. Their main focus is to recruit quality soldiers, retain MOS qualified soldiers and reduce the loss of first-term soldiers.
The Army Guard continues to offer education incentives through the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Enlistment in the Guard for six years provides financial assistance of $197.90 a month for full-time post-secondary education or up to $7,124.40 over a 10-year period. Enlistment bonuses for enhanced units, reenlistment bonuses for everyone, and affiliation bonuses have been re-authorized and are available to those who qualify.
The Army Guard's Full-Time Support Program was established by Congress to organize, administer, recruit, train, and maintain Army National Guard units. The program provides a cadre of Military Technicians and Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) soldiers to perform the bulk of day-to-day operations and is essential for maintaining unit readiness. Full-time support requirements are established by validated unit personnel models and detailed analyses of unit support workcenters. The numbers, types, and grades of the full-time support personnel are determined by classification and workload studies of support requirements of Guard units/soldiers in achieving their readiness responsibilities.
The National Guard Bureau receives full-time support authorization levels from Congress via the Defense Authorization Act and allocates full-time resources to the states and territories on a "first-to-fight, first-to-resource" methodology. This "tiered" readiness methodology results in a greater percentage of full-time support personnel being assigned to, and in support of, early deploying Force Support Pool units and enhanced readiness combat brigades consistent with the unit's deployment priority (Figure 5). In FY96, Congress authorized 23,390 Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) soldiers which included an increase of 190 authorizations to support the activation of the newly formed Operational Support Airlift Command (OSACOM). Additionally, Congress authorized 25,500 technicians in FY96. However, due to on-going Department of Defense civilian downsizing initiatives, this number was reduced to 25,094 in FY96, 23,657 in FY97, 23,197 in FY98 and 22,717 in FY99.
Full-Time Support Resourcing Levels
|Force Support Pool/FSP-1||100||100||100|
|Early Deploying Units (FAD II)||80||80||80|
|Later Deploying Units (FAD III)||50||50||50|
|Later Deploying Units (FAD IV)||50||50||50|
|Later Deploying Units (FAD V)||50||50||50|
FAD= FORCE ACTIVITY DESIGNATOR
FAD II = UNITS READY IN 24 HOURS
FAD III = D to D+30; M+10
FAD IV = D+30 TO D+90
FAD V = D+91 AND MOBILIZATION/TRAINING SUPPORT UNITS
Active Guard and Reserve (AGR). The AGR level of support (authorizations as a percent of personnel requirements) is pro-grammed to decline from 67 percent to 56 percent by FY99. This represents a reduction of 1,640 AGR personnel over a four-year period.
The Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) program will continue as a force shaping tool in FY96 to assist in achieving the Congressionally-mandated reduction in AGR authorization levels. In FY96, $11.1 million was programmed for transition benefits to support the early retirement of approximately 225 AGR soldiers. Continued funding of transition benefits through FY99 is an important element in the Army National Guard's AGR strength management plan.
Military Technicians. Despite force structure reductions, equipment modernization initiatives are generating increased technician requirements. Complex, modern equipment such as the Apache helicopter, Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot and Hawk air defense missile systems, require more maintenance personnel than the equipment these systems replace. Guard units can maintain these systems at a cost savings to the Total Force, but they do require significantly more full-time soldiers than equally modernized infantry, armor and engineer units.
The combined effects of the Department of Defense's accelerated civilian personnel reductions and budget restrictions have resulted in the Army Guard being able to afford only 24,475 of the 25,094 positions authorized in FY96. This is 63 percent of the Guard's validated technician requirements. Military technician support (authorizations as a percent of requirements) is programmed to decline to 58 percent by FY99 from a high of 86 percent in FY91. As a result, maintenance backlog has increased with a direct impact on equipment and unit readiness levels in FY96.
The Army Guard continued its modernization program throughout FY95 to include M1A1 tanks; Bradley Fighting Vehicles; AH-64 Apache, UH-60 Black Hawk and CH-47 Chinook helicopters; Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS); PATRIOT and Avenger missiles; and Single Channel Ground Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS).
In FY95, the Guard fielded the M1A1 Abrams to the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR), Tennessee Army National Guard, another tank battalion, and four heavy cavalry troops. Five tank battalions and three division cavalry squadrons fielded the M1 and M1IP Abrams tank. The 278th ACR and one heavy cavalry troop received the M3A2 Bradley. During FY96 the Guard will field the M1A1 Abrams tank to heavy enhanced brigades. By FY97, the Guard will complete the fielding of the M1 Abrams to all armor and cavalry units.
During FY95 the Guard received 18 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters from the active Army. Six AH-64 aircraft will be received through active Army redistributions by FY97. A shortage of 18 AH-64 aircraft will remain at the end of FY97. The seven Army National Guard Apache Attack Battalions will be fully modernized with 24 aircraft per battalion by the end of FY98.
The Army National Guard will have approximately 430 UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters by the end of FY97. This represents a shortage for the Army Guard as it requires more than 500 Black Hawks to replace the aging UH-1 utility helicopter fleets. Units such as early deploying Guard medical evacuation units are still equipped with the UH-1. The Army plans to continue UH-60 procurement through FY2001 for reserve forces. Due to this shortfall of UH-60 Black Hawks, the Guard is supporting the UH-1 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). The SLEP will leverage current technologies to bridge the modernization gap and enable the Guard to support the Army's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) mission. If sufficiently upgraded, the UH-1 can be deployable into the 21st century.
The Guard received four additional CH-47D aircraft during FY95. This delivery brings the Guard's CH-47D fleet to 107 of 131 aircraft required. By FY97, the Guard's shortage of 24 CH-47D aircraft will be filled by 21 active Army redistributions and three production aircraft deliveries.
Two field artillery battalions, one in Kentucky and one in Tennessee, converted from the eight-inch cannon system to the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). FY95 also saw the first Guard activations of PATRIOT in Alabama, and Avenger in Mississippi. During FY96-99, several teams equipped with state-of-the-art electronics testing systems will be activated in the Guard to support weapons systems such as MLRS, Paladin, and Avenger. Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) teams will also be activated in the Army Guard and will provide TMDE support to Guard units on a regional basis.
The Guard used Dedicated Procurement Program Funds to field SINCGARS to nearly 50 Contingency Force Pool units. The Army completed SINCGARS fielding to Mississippi's 155th Armored Brigade and Georgia's 48th Mechanized Brigade. Headquarters, Department of the Army, will field systems to all Guard enhanced brigades, Special Forces Groups, and divisional units during FY96-98. The Guard will also complete the Dedicated Procurement Program for SINCGARS funded during this period and distribute the systems to about 120 high priority units.
FY97 will see the inactivation of all Army Guard ammunition units.
Military Construction and Installation Maintenance
The Army National Guard operates 3,360 owned and 141 leased armories in 2,700 communities in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia. In addition, the Army National Guard federally supports the operation and maintenance of more than 15,000 training, aviation, and logistical facilities located throughout the nation.
During FY95, 133 major construction projects authorized from 1991-1995 were awarded for a total of $248 million, of which 36 projects (45 percent of all FY95 projects) were awarded in the first year of appropriation. An additional 87 projects are scheduled to be awarded in FY96. FY95 appropriations of $188 million for 68 projects included $175 million for major construction, $5.9 million for planning and design, $5 million for unspecified minor construction, and $0.8 million funded separately for armory unit storage and indoor range rehabilitation.
Congress appropriated $137 million for 34 projects in FY96. The appropriated amount includes $124 million for major construction, $7.4 million for planning and design, and $5.3 million for unspecified minor construction.
In FY95, $166.8 million was provided for real property operations and maintenance, about $23.9 million more than in FY94. This program pays for salaries required to support facility operations and maintenance as well as paying for utilities, minor construction, maintenance and repair projects, and supplies required to extend the useful life of National Guard facilities. The federally supported square footage grew from 55.2 to 55.6 million square feet and equipment modernization and aging facilities are increasing overall maintenance requirements. In FY88, $3.41 per square foot was available to operate and maintain Army National Guard facilities. Today, that amount is $3.00 per square foot, or $2.44 in constant FY88 dollars.
The Army National Guard Overseas. During FY95, Army National Guard soldiers deployed overseas for real-world missions, to support combatant commands and United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, and to participate in routine training exercises. Army Guard units also supported overseas commanders-in-chief strategies for nation assistance. In all, 23,810 soldiers deployed overseas. The total number of soldiers, by theater, is outlined in Figure 7.
On Dec.14, 1995, following a Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up (PSRC), 945 soldiers in 22 Army Guard units were mobilized to support Joint Endeavor, the NATO mission in Bosnia. The soldiers were from 16 states. The reporting time from call-up to arrival at mobilization stations averaged four days.
The Army National Guard deployed 401 soldiers from 24 states in 1995 for a Multi-national Force and Observers (MFO) rotation in Egypt's Sinai Desert, Jan. 20 to July 24. The first ever composite light infantry task force was made up of active, Guard and Army Reserve soldiers and assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division's 4th Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment "Desert Panthers." The Army Guard soldiers comprised 70 percent of the battalion task force and held 45 percent of the unit's key leadership positions. The MFO mission involved monitoring the Israeli-Egyptian border under the Camp David Accords. The Army has supported the MFO organization, along with 11 other nations, for the last 13 years.
|FY95 Overseas Deployments|
|Theater||Number Soldiers||Personnel Workdays|
The Army Guard mobilized 810 volunteers under Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up (PSRC) authority in support of Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. Three National Guard military police (MP) companies from California, Arizona and Puerto Rico mobilized 400 soldiers in late September and early October 1994 to replace active Army MPs deployed to Haiti. The MP companies performed garrison duty at Ft. Bragg, N.C., Ft. Drum, N.Y., and Ft. Polk, La.
In mid-January 1995, 29 soldiers from Missouri, Maryland and California mobilized and began providing helicopter "shrink-wrap" support for 10th Mountain Division aircraft being re-deployed from Haiti to Ft. Drum, N.Y. Four aviation units from Louisiana, Michigan, Arkansas and Texas provided operational support and air traffic support. Three-hundred sixty-eight Special Forces volunteers from nine states also deployed to Haiti for nation- building and security missions. C/5-19th Special Forces Group (SFG) from California and Colorado and A/1-20th SFG from Alabama and Massachusetts were sent initially and replaced by B/2-19th SFG from W. Virginia, Rhode Island and Ohio and C/1-20th SFG from Mississippi and Illinois. In addition, full-time Guard soldiers from Mississippi, Puerto Rico, New Jersey and the District of Columbia supported other active Army forces.
The Guard's two Special Forces Groups supported Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) exercises and Joint/Combined Exercise Training (JCET). In the Pacific Theater, these exercises included FOAL EAGLE, FREQUENT STORM, ULCHI FOCUS LENS, BALANCED TORCH, AND COBRA GOLD. In the U.S. Southern Command, these exercises included CABANAS, SWORD POINT, AND FUERZAS DEFENZAS. During FY95, eight Special Forces medics deployed in support of the Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii (CIL-HI), in their efforts to identify remains from Southeast Asia. Similar deployments are expected in FY96.
Approximately 650 soldiers deployed to the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama. Another 125 medical personnel deployed to U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Atlantic Command to provide medical/dental care and preventative medicine education for local populations.
About 6,260 other Guard soldiers deployed overseas to conduct Humanitarian and Civic Assistance actions and host-nation missions. This resulted in the construction or rehabilitation of 24 schools, six clinics, one hospital, two community centers, 27 water wells, 41km of "farm-to-market" roads, 50km of secondary roads, three concrete vehicle bridges and three steel suspension footbridges.
The Army Guard also deployed 2,400 Military Police worldwide for force protection, installation security, and law enforcement missions. Other accomplishments include the deployment of 3,546 soldiers in support of the European Retrograde of Equipment programs; deployments to train with the active Army in the Battle Command Training Program (BCTP) and Combat Training Center (CTC) exercises in U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR); as well as deployments to all theaters for Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) directed exercises such as FUERTES CAMINOS, FUERZAS UNIDAS, FUERZAS DEFENZAS, BRIGHT STAR, ATLANTIC RESOLVE, TRADEWINDS, ULCHI FOCUS LENS, KEEN EDGE, and NORTHWIND.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) initiated the Reserve Component support to the Active Component (RC to AC) program. The goals are to relieve the personnel and operations tempo of active Army units through integrated use of RC soldiers. The Guard provided 314 soldiers equating to 8,531 personnel days in support of the RC to AC program.
More than 1,260 National Guard soldiers deployed to Camp Darby, Italy, and provided maintenance support for equipment positioned in the Army Reserve Package-2 (AR-2). The Guard also executed the first engineer exercise in Albania by supporting the European Command exercise, UJE KRISTAL.
In addition, Guard soldiers participated in three company-size reciprocal unit exchanges with the United Kingdom and Germany. The exchanges provide soldiers and units valuable training and familiarization with each other's military doctrine and tactics. The cultural training that occurs coincidentally during military exchanges facilitates the growth of positive international relations. The Minnesota Army Guard established a formal unit exchange with the Norwegian National Guard. This company-size exchange focuses on winter warfare operations. Thirteen Guard officers were exchanged with 13 officers in the United Kingdom and Germany for their two weeks of annual training. Also, the Puerto Rico Army Guard participated in the Latin American Co-op Exchange Program in the Caribbean basin. Each year, more than 500 soldiers from Puerto Rico deploy to the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Barbados.
The Army Guard participated in European Command's Joint Contact Team Program (JCTP) under the auspices of the National Guard's State Partnership Program (SPP). The Army National Guard serves as a role model of a military force subject to civil authority for Central European and former Soviet Union countries. The Guard is also providing instruction on military support to civil authorities in planning and responding to civil emergencies and natural disasters. Other areas of special interest for these countries are recruiting, retention, training of its reserve forces, and mobilization to support active Army forces. In FY95, the Army Guard provided traveling contact teams, seminar participants and state adjutant general/governor visits to Central European and former Soviet Union countries as well as hosting numerous familiarization tours to the partner states in the continental United States. In FY95, approximately 220 soldiers deployed to Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Republic of Georgia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
For FY96, the European Command's JCTP is being budgeted $17.3 million for the Guard's State Partnership Program. The National Guard plans to support 10-12 Military Liaison Team positions and approximately 100 events in the European Theater. Approximately 250 Army National Guard soldiers are scheduled to support the JCTP. Another 150 events, including familiarization tours in the United States, will also be conducted by the National Guard.
The National Guard also supports Partnership for Peace events. In FY95, the Guard hosted familiarization tours for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Republic of Georgia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.
The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army directed the Guard to provide training in support of Foreign Military Sales to the Republic of Singapore. The Texas National Guard will provide CH-47D training and aircraft support for the Republic of Singapore Air Force.
In FY96 the Army Guard plans to deploy 20,759 soldiers overseas. These deployments will consist of JCS exercises, command sponsored exercises, Humanitarian and Civic Assistance actions, Medical and Engineer Readiness and Training exercises, Special Operations Forces exercises and various types of mission augmentation support. Approximately 1,000 Guard soldiers will participate in individual and small unit exchanges with the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Dominican Republic, Barbados, and Jamaica. The projected deployment totals are depicted in Figure 8.
|FY96 Overseas Deployments|
|European Command ("Operation Joint Endeavor" - 949*)||6,650||127,501|
The Army National Guard at Home
The Army National Guard activated the Operational Support Airlift Command (OSACOM) on Oct. 2, 1995. OSACOM assumed responsibility for all day-to-day airlift support missions for the Total Army within the continental United States. This mission was transferred to the Guard from the active Army and brought, under one command, 49 Army Guard aircraft from state flight detachments throughout the country and 77 active Army airplanes located in 15 regional flight centers. The command is staffed full-time with active Army and Guard soldiers and Department of the Army civilians. In FY95, OSACOM executed 12,290 missions, transported 59,228 passengers, airlifted 147,703 pounds of cargo and flew more than 34,000 flying hours. The merger of these air transport missions resulted in an "avoidance" of $18.4 million dollars in commercial air costs. In FY96, the flying hour program will increase to nearly 75,000 hours.
During FY95, 46 states and territories called on the Army National Guard for a record 460 state emergency call-ups and military assistance to local civil authority missions. A total of 17,200 Army and Air National Guard soldiers and airmen responded to these domestic missions, expending more than 209,332 personnel workdays (Figure 9).
More than 4,895 soldiers responded to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., in April 1995; other soldiers provided support in the aftermath of Hurricane Marilyn in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico in September and Hurricane Erin in Alabama and Florida in August; as well as assistance to flood victims in California and Missouri.
The Army National Guard also participated in numerous exercises sponsored by unified commands within the continental United States. Exercise CASCADE PEAK, held at Ft. Lewis, Wash., successfully brought together active Army I Corps and Guard units and serves as a model for cooperative training and integration of the Guard in wartime missions. An impressive performance was turned in by the 53rd Infantry Brigade from Florida at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Ft. Polk, La. The 53rd was and is currently in the midst of its conversion to one of the Guard's enhanced readiness brigades and fully demonstrated the viability of the concept as well as the value of preparatory leader development training. ROVING SANDS, a co-sponsored exercise by U.S. Atlantic Command and U.S. Forces Command is an air defense exercise held annually at Ft. Bliss, Texas. Guard units played a critical role in defeating the opposing force's air and missile assets.
The Navajo Nation Building Project is a pilot program sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Reserve Affairs, with the New Mexico National Guard as the lead. The Navajo Nation, with territory in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Utah, is in need of infrastructure work. The Army and Air National Guard are working with local officials to establish project priorities.
Army National Guard divisional units are involved in an initiative to support U.S. Forces Command in conducting "lane training" for the Guard's enhanced brigades during the FY96 annual training period. Divisional units from California's 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the multi-state 35th Infantry Division, which has its headquarters in Kansas, will provide opposing forces to assist in the training of two enhanced brigades: the 41st Infantry Brigade from Oregon and the 81st Infantry Brigade from Washington. Units will receive comments from observers of the 2nd Regional Training Brigade stationed at Ft. Lewis, Wash. This approach will provide a dual benefit to readiness as the enhanced brigades train on their missions of attack or defend and the opposing divisional forces are given the opportunity to train on opposite tasks. This force-on-force is also cost-effective and will provide a multi-component training opportunity not available elsewhere.
The GUARDCARE program provided health care screening and inoculations to civilians in areas where health care is insufficient. GUARDCARE serviced 65 communities in 21 states, providing care for approximately 21,200 people. GUARDCARE is a federally-funded joint Army and Air National Guard program.
More than 1,350 Army National Guard soldiers participated in the Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) program during FY95. The soldiers supported a number of special projects such as command and staff visits, annual medical and dental screenings, training exercises, unit weapon conversions, study groups, short-term mission and administrative support and other training-related activities. Another 329 soldiers were placed on federal active duty for the Key Personnel Upgrade Program (KPUP) and received training in military duty-related skills at tactical and operational levels. Due to funding constraints in FY96, the KPUP program will be substantially reduced.
Leveraging Technology and Innovation
Simulations. The Army National Guard made use of simulation and command post (leader training without troops) exercises again this year. As in the past, these simulations provide a stressful training environment for commanders and staff to practice those synchronization tasks necessary for fighting and winning on today's modern battlefield. Simulations provide the same degree of training difficulty at a fraction of the cost of conducting a "full up" (using all soldiers, equipment and resources) field training exercise. The Army Guard plans to aggressively pursue the leveraging of technology to maintain readiness.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) Simulations in Training for Advanced Readiness (SIMITAR) project is a promising application of technology to unit training. The goal of the SIMITAR project is to change the way an Army National Guard maneuver combat brigade trains through the use of advanced technologies, simulation devices and innovative training strategies. The Army Guard hopes to achieve a 200-300 percent increase in unit training readiness.
The first indication of SIMITAR's potential came during the 1995 Annual Training period for Idaho's 116th Armored Brigade at Ft. Hood, Texas. On the second day of annual training, five out of seven crews qualified on Tank Table VIII, a considerable feat of crew-level readiness and marksmanship. This success followed into platoon gunnery, where none of the platoons failed during their tactical evaluation phase. The active component master gunners at the site attributed this success directly to the revised training procedures.
The Army National Guard also delivered quality gunnery and maneuver training devices to the small unit level with the fielding of the Abrams-Fullcrew Interactive Simulation Trainer (A-FIST), the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST), and the Guard Unit Armory Device Fullcrew Interactive Simulation Trainer II (GUARDFIST II). These devices are designed to hone critical battlefield skills for mounted and dismounted combat forces at a fraction of the cost of expending ammunition and other resources and using limited training time for preparation and travel to/from training areas. However, the cost of these simulation devices prevent their widespread use at the small unit level. The A-FIST is underfunded by 50 percent, while the EST and GUARDFIST II suffer similar funding shortfalls. The Guard's training strategy of using virtual simulation devices to achieve increased readiness at decreased cost shows great promise if adequately resourced.
The Army Guard is developing an Aviation Reconfigurable Manned Simulator (ARMS) as a cost-effective solution to enhance flying safety and readiness. ARMS is a flight simulator that can be reconfigured to each of the rotary and fixed wing airframes flown in the Army Guard. The ARMS is a high fidelity, non-motion based simulator that will use commercial and government off-the-shelf technology. Each ARMS provides training in individual and crew tasks and focuses on collective, combined arms, and joint service operations. Reconfigurable simulators such as the ARMS complement existing older technology simulators. The ARMS provides active Army and Guard crews the critical training they require without the inherent risk and expense of aircraft operations.
Distance Learning Initiative. The Army National Guard took the lead in participating in a unique distance learning initiative mandated by Congress. The demonstration project involved investing over $7 million in a five-state system, connecting armories and their surrounding communities. Both the National Guard and the communities gain added educational and informational capabilities as the Guard leads the way into the information age. In FY96, the Guard will expand the project to all states east of the Mississippi River as part of a web of primary stations through which additional connections can be made. This network will provide the Guard with community-based learning opportunities as well as training in military occupational skills at the local level, overcoming some of the constraints imposed by limited training time available and/or travel to and from training sites/areas.
The Army Guard began implementing a Regional Distance Learning Demonstration Project in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. The Distance Learning Network is intended to provide military training to our soldiers while concurrently providing high tech assets to local communities via shared/dual use arrangements. The project combines the talents of the National Guard Bureau, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), and the U.S. Army Reserve. Modern delivery systems and classrooms are being planned for a dozen sites within the demonstration area. Close coordination with U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in courseware design will ensure the presentation of high quality, mission essential training intended to increase overall readiness.
Videoteleconferencing. The Army National Guard Videoteleconferencing (VTC) Command and Control Network became operational in FY95. Except for circuits to Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, all State Area Commands (STARCs) and six enhanced brigades have VTC connection to the Army National Guard Readiness Center located at Arlington Hall in northern Virginia as well as connectivity among themselves. Technical solutions to resolve network connections to the remaining STARCs are forthcoming. The VTC Network provides real-time command and control between senior leaders and key STARC personnel. Additionally, the network has proven highly effective in transmitting routine administrative or training information between the Army National Guard Readiness Center and state headquarters. Significant cost "avoidances" in temporary duty and travel funds will be realized through increased use of the Guard's VTC network.
The Visual Information Support Center (VISC) in Nashville, Tenn., experienced increased production in support of Army Guard activities. The VISC produced audiovisual tapes and banners and deployed its Rapid Response Documentation Team (RRDT) to cover major training exercises, significant real-world missions and/or events involving the National Guard. The VISC will begin operating the new Electronic Multimedia Imaging Center (EMIC) early in FY96 to provide support for the National Guard Bureau and state National Guard organizations.
Total Army School System (TASS) and Officer Candidate Schools. During FY95, the Guard refined its role in the Total Army School System (TASS) project, completing a test and evaluation in the prototype TASS region. The successes and lessons learned will be applied to an emerging nationwide system that will provide school training for the Army's three components well into the next century. As the force structure is stabilized, the consolidation of Army training will lead to more cost-effective, single-standard instruction for all members of the Army, regardless of component.
During FY95, the Guard continued to consolidate the Officer Candidate School (OCS) Phase III training with Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Advanced Camps conducted at Ft. Lewis, Wash., and Ft. Bragg, N.C. This consolidation minimizes the cost of conducting separate training camps and bonds candidates from the two commissioning sources. Another benefit of the program is to further standardize the instruction and facilitate accreditation without sacrificing quality. More than 900 candidates attended the two-week camp phase, and a similar number are anticipated in 1996 and beyond.
Select, Train, Promote and Assign Policy. Perhaps one of the greatest impacts felt in the area of individual training was created with the implementation of the Guard's Select, Train, Promote, and Assign Policy. This policy limits the expenditure of individual training funds to those enlisted soldiers on a promotion list for current or projected vacancies. The intent is to match individual and unit training requirements at the appropriate grade level and occupational specialty. This procedure maximizes the use of scarce training money and delivers trained soldiers to fill unit vacancies.
RETROEUR and Truck Rebuild Program. The Army Guard's program to redeploy, repair and redistribute excess Army equipment from the drawdown of forces in Europe is a resounding success. Today, there are six operational Army Guard RETROEUR (European Retrograde of Equipment) repair sites: Santa Fe, N.M. (wheeled vehicles); Ft. Riley, Kan. (wheeled and track equipment); Camp Shelby, Miss. (wheeled and track equipment); Piketon, Ohio (engineer and wheel equipment) and Ft. Indiantown Gap, Pa., (M3A2 Bradley and wheeled vehicles), Camp Withycomb, Ore., (communication-electronics equipment), and Blue Grass Station, Ky. (receive, classify, and redistribute non-rolling stock equipment). Employees are federally reimbursed state employees, except for those employed by the Ft. Indiantown Gap, Pa. and Camp Withycomb, Ore. sites where temporary federal employees make up the work force. Of the 434 employees, 75 percent are Guard soldiers and 25 percent are civilians.
As of Nov. 30, 1995, the sites have received 8,399 vehicles and 16,942 pieces of communication-electronics equipment. Vehicles received thus far include M1A2 tanks, M113 personnel carriers, M3A2 CFVs, M88 tank recovery vehicles, HUMMWVs, CUCVs, and five-ton trucks. Once an item has been repaired, the Army Materiel Command directs the shipments to organizations within the Army. A total of 3,696 vehicles and 3,458 communications-electronic items have been repaired.
In addition to providing a valuable means to redistribute assets within America's Army, the RETROEUR initiative provides hands-on maintenance, supply accountability, and warehouse management training for many Guard soldiers. The overall effect has been to enhance the equipment readiness of the active Army, Guard and Army Reserve.
The Truck Rebuild Program was tested by the Texas Army National Guard. Specifically, it tested the Guard's capability to perform General Support level rebuild on five-ton and two and one-half ton trucks. In the test, 68 trucks were rebuilt at an average cost of $38,000, for a cost "avoidance" of about $20,000 per truck (a total of $58,000 for depot-level rebuild). Each vehicle received, as a minimum, a new suspension system (except rear spring), replacement of rubber parts, radial tires on two and one-half ton trucks and all current modification workorders. Each vehicle was stripped to bare metal before being repainted. Various states shipped 100 trucks to Texas between April 1995 and September 1995. By December 1995, all trucks were rebuilt and returned to their home states.
The Ideas for Excellence Program had 60 new suggestions submitted in 1995 and completed or otherwise closed out 120. A total of $42,174 was awarded for suggestions that saved $938,917. For every dollar spent in this program, the Army National Guard was able to save or avoid spending $22.26.
In its seventh year, the Army Communities of Excellence (ACOE) program continues to foster excellence by emphasizing people, pride, readiness, facilities, and services. The 1995 award recipients were Utah ($200,000), Maryland ($125,000), Louisiana ($100,000), North Carolina ($50,000), and Florida ($25,000). Wyoming received $10,000 in the Most Improved Category and North Dakota was awarded $5,000 as Rookie of the Year.
FY95 was also a pivotal year for the Army Communities of Excellence program as the Army moved toward using a Baldrige-like self-assessment tool called the Army Performance Improvement Criteria. Sixteen states took on the challenge by performing a self-assessment using the new criteria. The self-assessments will be reviewed by the National Guard Bureau and by the Department of the Army. Based on their review, they will then determine the FY96 Army Communities of Excellence award recipients. The revised Army Communities of Excellence process continues to be a resource multiplier and a readiness enhancement. Also, it leads the way for the Army Guard to implement the Government Performance Results Act in FY97.
While flying 343,000 hours in FY95, the Army Guard experienced one aviation Class A, one aviation Class B, and nine aviation Class C accidents. This is an increase of one Class A accident, but a decrease of eight Class C accidents. The Guard experienced two fatalities (one Guard aviator and one Drug Enforcement agent).
Human-factor accidents decreased from 80 percent to 55 percent. Material failure accidents increased from 15 percent to 27 percent. The T-53-L13 engine malfunctions in the UH-1 seemed to account for most of the increase. Accidents involving poor aircrew coordination decreased from 45 percent to 36 percent of the total.
The Guard experienced nine Class A ground accidents, and five Class B ground accidents in FY95. This is a decrease of six Class A accidents and an increase of three Class B accidents. Although the Guard's readiness and training accomplishments reached historic high points and overall cost for ground accidents was reduced by $900,000, they were tempered by the fact that nine soldiers lost their lives in FY95: three in Army motor vehicles, one in an Army combat vehicle, two in privately-owned vehicles (POV), two in personal injuries, and one in an Army-operated vehicle. Six of these accidents occurred on-duty, and three occurred off-duty.
The annual Safe-Guard Program is one of the most comprehensive Safety Programs in the Department of Defense and has a significant impact on the Guard's safety record. The slogan for FY95 was "Safe-Just Use It," and was intended to establish an effective privately-owned vehicle and Army motor vehicle accident prevention program.
The Army National Guard's Occupational Health Program is an integral element of the Aviation and Safety Directorate. In addition to enforcing federal mandates to reduce economic loss caused by sickness or injury and ensuring that full-time support technicians are physically, mentally and psychologically suited to their work, Occupational Health Managers are integrating health promotion and wellness into total Army life to optimize soldier readiness and performance.
The Army National Guard's Environmental Program is focused on complying with environmental laws and exercising the National Guard's responsibilities as environmental stewards of the land and facilities it manages. This is accomplished through environmental programs in all 54 states and territories and emphasizes the Army's four goals of prevention, compliance, conservation and restoration.
Due to continued reduction of funds, the Guard is shifting from a largely reactive mode in achieving compliance to a more challenging and proactive approach. Specifically, these approaches include: developing a comprehensive pollution prevention strategy; providing support for development of Hazardous Waste and Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control plans; conducting a waste water treatment plant study to assess remaining useful life improvements needed and operating alternatives for the plants; developing a checklist and documentation format to use in determining applicability of the Clean Air Act Conformity rule requirements; and conducting a survey to determine Clean Air Act Title V Permit requirements to ensure application deadlines are met and appropriate funds programmed. In recognition of these efforts, the Army National Guard's Environmental Programs Directorate received a "White House Closing the Circle Award" for environmental innovation in the pollution prevention program.
The National Guard is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to consider the environment each time federal funds, actions or decisions are involved. An environmental document is part of the decision making package, proposal, concept plan, construction approval document or project approval document. Currently, the Guard has four Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) ongoing: Camp Atterbury, Ind.; Camp Roberts, Calif.; Western Army Aviation Training Site, Ariz.; and Massachusetts Military Reservation, Mass.; and is preparing for two additional EISs at Orchard Training Area, Idaho, and the Western Kentucky Training Site, Ky. During FY95, 28 Environmental Assessments were completed.
The Army Guard has also completed its Environmental Compliance Assessment System (ECAS) at all Army Guard facilities throughout the 54 states and territories. Approximately 12,000 Class I findings were identified and corrective actions are being implemented. ECAS Round II is being initiated and will focus on systemic issues. Currently, the Guard's restoration efforts include 82 preliminary inspections, 40 site inspections and 26 remedial investigations and feasibility studies to determine the extent of contamination and identify alternatives to eliminate the contamination and reduce the risk to human health and the environment. As a result of these investigations and assessments, 24 remedial actions are in progress to correct these environmental problems. In addition, 118 sites with contamination from underground storage and 37 sites with spills are being investigated and remediated. Within the past fiscal year, approximately $20 million has been spent to restore Army Guard sites.
The Army Guard is also rewriting its Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) implementation strategy to analyze and manage environmental impacts on training facilities and maneuver areas. This is being aggressively implemented at 54 separate locations with the goal of having all primary training sites under the same system by FY99.
Soldier and NCO of the Year:
Spc. Allen J. Thompson
Soldier of the Year
Specialist Allen J. Thompson was born on Sept. 22, 1973. He joined the Army in August 1991 and attended basic training and advanced individual training at Ft. Benning, Ga., graduating as an Indirect Fire Infantryman. He served a one-year tour in Korea with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry, 2d Infantry Division. He subsequently joined the Montana Army National Guard in November 1993 and presently serves as an Infantry Squad Leader. He is now a full-time college student and resides in Sheridan, Wyo.
Sgt. 1st Class Michael W. Stafford
NCO of the Year
Sgt. 1st Class Michael W. Stafford was born in Martinsville, Ind., in February 1961. He joined the Army National Guard in December 1982 and attended basic training at Ft. Jackson, S. Carolina, and advanced individual training at Ft. Benjamin Harrison, Ind. He became an Infantryman through the MOS Upgrade Program course and is assigned as the Readiness NCO with Headquarters Detachment, 76th Infantry Brigade (Separate), in Indianapolis, Ind. He resides in New Castle, Ind., with his wife, Lana, and two sons.
The Future of the Guard
Change in the world political environment provides our nation with an opportunity to develop a mixture of military forces to meet future needs at an affordable cost. The Army Guard's role remains an important part of this equation.
For federal and state actions, the Army Guard must have a readiness level that ensures success in both missions. Our domestic capabilities are embedded in our balance of combat, combat support and combat service support units. With the resources provided by Congress, the assistance given by the active Army, and the support of our communities, the Army National Guard will continue to be an integral and relevant part of the first line defenses of our nation.
The National Guard is capable, available, and affordable. It is the right force . . . at the right time . . . at the right price.
Appendix A: Constitutional "Charter" of the Guard
Our "charter" is the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Militia Clauses. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses" vesting distinct authority over the National Guard - the militia - in the federal government and in the state governments.
The 14th Clause provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia: "To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States, but have been expanded by statute to call up the National Guard for overseas service.
The 15th Clause gives Congress the power "[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish State-based militias, to appoint their officers, and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. This clause specifies Congressional authority of the National Guard during peacetime. Congress delegates its authority to the President and the Department of Defense (DoD) by statute (10 USC and 32 USC).
The Army and Navy Clauses. These clauses in Article I, Section 8, confer on the Congress the power to provide for the common defense of the United States, declare war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the "government and regulation of the land and naval forces." The Congress is also granted authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out such powers. Under these provisions, Congressional power over the National Guard is far-reaching.
Other Relevant Provisions. Other sections add to the constitutional underpinnings of our national defense structure. Article I, Section 10, provides that no State, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. This section is qualified, however, by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which was intended to prevent the Federal government from disarming the militia. Part of the Bill of Rights that the Anti-Federalists insisted on, the Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In addition, Article IV, Section 4 provides that the Federal government "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," and shall protect each of the States against invasion. At State request, the Federal government protects the States "against domestic violence." Through these provisions, the potential for both cooperative Federalism and for tension between the "militia" and "army" clauses was built into the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2, places all forces, including the militia when in Federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the President commander-in-chief. Article I, Section 8, gives the ultimate control to the Congress, however, by granting it the sole Federal power to collect taxes to pay for the military, to declare war, and to employ the militia for common purposes of internal security.
The Militia Act of 1792. Federal law subsequently expanded and clarified the role of the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 required all able bodied men aged 18-45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense, and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established an idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.
For the 111 years that it remained in effect, this Act defined the position of the militia in relation to the Federal government. The War of 1812 tested this unique American defense establishment. To fight this war, the new republic formed a small regular military, and trained it to protect its frontiers and coastlines. Although it performed poorly in the offensive against Canada, this small force of regulars, when backed by a well-armed militia, accomplished its defensive mission. Generals like Andrew Jackson proved, just as they had in the Revolution, that regulars and militia could be effective when employed as a team.
With the coming of the Civil War, State militias played a pivotal role. Because the Regular Army was so small throughout the nineteenth century and the Army Reserve did not exist, the majority of Army units which carry Civil War battle honors are from the Army National Guard.
Posse Comitatus. In 1867, the Congress suspended the southern States' right to organize their militia until a State was firmly under the control of an acceptable government. The U.S. Army was used to enforce martial law in the South during Reconstruction. Expansion of the military's role in domestic life, however, did not occur without debate or response. Reaction to the use of the Army in suppressing labor unrest in the North and guarding polls in the South during the 1876 election led to congressional enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. Designed to limit the President's use of Army forces in peacetime, this statute still provides that:
"it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States...for the purpose of executing the laws, except on such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by any act of Congress..."
Concern over this new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every State revised its military code to provide for an organized force. Most called their State militia the "National Guard", following New York's example.
The Dick Act. Beginning in 1903 through the 1920s, legislation was enacted that strengthened the National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The National Defense Act of 1903, known as the Dick Act, replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the nation's primary organized reserve.
The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the status of the State militia as the Army's primary reserve force. Furthermore, the law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48, and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.
In 1920, amendments to the National Defense Acts established that the Chief of the Militia Bureau (later National Guard Bureau) would be a National Guard officer, that National Guard officers would be assigned to the general staff, and that the Guard's combat divisions, used in World War I, would be reorganized. Subsequent amendments to the act, the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933, created the National Guard of the United States as a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active Federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.
Following the experience of fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam, the 1973 Total Force Policy was designed to involve a large portion of the American public by mobilizing the National Guard from its thousands of locations throughout the United States when needed. The Total Force Policy requires that all active and reserve military organizations of the United States be treated as a single integrated force. A related benefit of this approach is that it permits elected officials to have a better sense of public support or opposition to any major military operation. This policy echoes the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution: A small standing army complemented by citizen soldiers.
Appendix B: The Historic Role of the Army National Guard
The National Guard predates the founding of the nation and a national military force by almost a century and a half. America's first permanent militia regiments, among the oldest continuing military units in the world, were organized by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Since that time, the Guard has participated in every U.S. conflict from the Pequot War of 1637 to Operation Joint Endeavor in 1995.
The Army National Guard is a centuries-old institution, with roots going back before the colonial "Minutemen." The Guard plays a vital role in our national defense and emergency preparedness systems. Today, the Guard has emerged as the foremost reserve of the Army, capable, under the Total Force Policy, of providing organized and trained units to engage in missions shoulder to shoulder with the active Army.
A subject of extensive debate and compromise during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the National Guard as a Federal force has its origins in explicit provisions of the United States Constitution. Throughout the Nation's history, the Guard has been an integral component of the defense and domestic emergency-response networks of communities, the States and the United States.
Federal Role. Federal law clearly sets forth the Army National Guard's Federal role:
"to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency and at such other times as the national security requires, to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever, during, and after the period needed to procure and train additional units and qualified persons to achieve the planned mobilization, more units and persons are needed than are in the regular components."
Furthermore, Federal law provides that "to secure a force of units which, when combined, will form complete higher tactical units, the President may designate the units of the National Guard... to be maintained in each State and Territory..." with organization and composition the same as for the Regular Army.
The Federal government, therefore, determines the number of authorized National Guard personnel and the unit mix available across the country. However, the States reserve the authority to locate units and their headquarters, and Federal officials may not change any branch, organization, or "allotment" located entirely within a State without the approval of its governor.
Detailed Federal guidelines, both statutory and regulatory, govern the organization and operation of the National Guard. Regulations issued by the National Guard Bureau spell out the policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the Guard, and provide guidance for the employment of Army Guard units, personnel and equipment in support of State and local government authorities. Just as the Federal government's relationship to the wide range of State activities and responsibilities has evolved over the years, so too have the Federal and State roles of the National Guard changed in order to meet the national interest as well as the particular needs and circumstances of each State and Territory. By virtue of their intertwined constitutional, statutory, and military responsibilities, the National Guard and the active Army are closely linked; yet the Army National Guard remains partly independent as well. The Guard's unique status is exemplified by the fact that Guard soldiers, unlike their counterparts in the active Army or Army Reserve, take an oath to their State constitutions secondary to their oath to the United States Constitution.
Today, the National Guard fulfills a vital national defense role. Strategic planning integrates Army National Guard units into crucial combat, combat support, and combat service support elements of our nation's military forces to provide a trained, capable, and cost effective military force, able to provide rapid augmentation, reinforcement, and expansion in time of call-up or mobilization.
From its origins as a self-equipped, community militia in colonial times, the National Guard has emerged as a well-armed fighting force and a valuable component in the nation's emergency preparedness network, the only force with this dual responsibility.
Return to the ARNG Homepage