THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Recommendations

Info

<strong>ARMY</strong> NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Oregon Army National Guard photo by SSG Jason van Mourik Chief Warrant Officer 4 Dennis Cooper, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Logan Bass, and Crew Chief Specialist Beth Bechard of 7-158th Aviation, Oregon National Guard, navigate their UH-60M Black Hawk with a “Bambi bucket” through the smoke of a wildfire. In accordance with National Guard procedures, state governments participate in the NGB allocation process by providing input as well as detailing personnel to the boards responsible for allocating new force structure and making decisions on force structure reductions. Governors are not directly involved in the allocation process; however, by statute, a Governor’s approval is required for any change in the branch, organization, or allotment of a unit located entirely within a state, although the Secretary of the Army has final approval authority on all force structure changes. National Guard Bureau regulation 10-1 goes further than the statute and requires a Governor’s approval for all actions requesting organization, reorganization, re-designation, consolidation, conversion, and withdrawal of federal recognition from any structure within a state. NCFA FINDINGS The Commission found that allocation of Army National Guard personnel and force structure to the states and territories is accomplished within the Army’s Total Army Analysis process managed by the Army G-3/5/7. Within that process, Army G-3/5/7 informs the Chief, National Guard Bureau of the overall personnel and force structure changes to be applied to the Army National Guard. The CNGB has processes within the Army National Guard for making recommendations for allocating these changes to states and territories that are consistent with national security objectives and priorities to produce allocation recommendations. The process depends on the complexity of the changes, as well as whether decrements or increases are to be allocated. Employing these processes, 104 National Commission on the Future of the Army
<strong>ARMY</strong> NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION the DARNG reviews and approves the proposed changes before the CNGB provides an allocation recommendation that is incorporated into the overall Army personnel and force structure changes generated by TAA. All changes are submitted to the Secretary of the Army for review and approval. Additionally, the Commission found that the allocation processes used by the NGB begin by using objective, quantified metrics vetted with the states and territories. The metrics produce an order of merit list of either specific reductions or increases to be applied. A board or working group then uses the analytical products as well as input from the states and territories that addresses the types of force structure under consideration. An additional consideration is the balance of Army National Guard forces across the states and territories to provide capacity for both domestic and overseas contingency operations. These boards and working groups are conducted in a transparent manner, either with representatives from the states and territories on the board or having representatives present to observe these boards or working groups. Having Department of the Army representatives observe the boards and working groups would further increase transparency and shared understanding from a Total Force perspective. The Commission also noted several issues within the policy documents. The regulations concerning the allocation of Army National Guard personnel and force structure are complicated and should be clarified by the Department of the Army. For example, older Army regulations delegate authority to the DARNG, but the more recent applicable regulations correctly delegate authority to the CNGB. Ideally, the CNGB should provide a written delegation of authority to the DARNG. After extensive research and requests, the Commission has been unable to verify whether such a written delegation exists. Updating regulations and policy at Army level to reflect the existing processes is overdue. Recommendation 61: The Secretary of the Army should codify the delegation of authority from the Chief, National Guard Bureau to the Director, Army National Guard in Army regulations for force structure allocation among the states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Recommendation 62: The Secretary of the Army should codify in Army regulations the existing Army National Guard Force Program Review process as the formal way to manage change in the Army National Guard. Recommendation 63: The Army should add representatives from the Army Secretariat and Army Staff to the Army National Guard Force Program Review working groups and boards as observers. National Commission on the Future of the Army 105
Page 1:
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE O
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “Not later than
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Developing One Ar
Page 11 and 12:
U.S. Army National Guard photo by S
Page 13 and 14:
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY CIVILI
Page 15 and 16:
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY Figure
Page 17 and 18:
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY “The
Page 19 and 20:
National Commission on the Future o
Page 21 and 22:
THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METH
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Richard W.
Page 35 and 36:
FUTURE CHALLENGES Figure 7 ARMY IN
Page 37 and 38:
FUTURE CHALLENGES Iran poses a mult
Page 39 and 40:
FUTURE CHALLENGES terrorists or oth
Page 41 and 42:
FUTURE CHALLENGES anti-Americanism,
Page 43 and 44:
FUTURE CHALLENGES to prevent the So
Page 45 and 46:
U.S. Army photo. “The Commission
Page 47 and 48:
FISCAL CHALLENGES Figure 8 BUDGET U
Page 49 and 50:
FISCAL CHALLENGES if the Army is to
Page 51 and 52:
FISCAL CHALLENGES MEASURING COSTS A
Page 53 and 54:
“The Commission shall…make reco
Page 55 and 56:
THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE A WORD ABOU
Page 57 and 58:
THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Recommendat
Page 59 and 60: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Bradley Fig
Page 61 and 62: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE Recommendat
Page 63 and 64: THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE POSSIBLE ST
Page 65 and 66: U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class B
Page 67 and 68: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Figure 9 ARMY F
Page 69 and 70: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Operational emp
Page 71 and 72: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY integration of
Page 73 and 74: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Furthermore, th
Page 75 and 76: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY authorities wit
Page 77 and 78: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Reserve). The I
Page 79 and 80: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY unity of effort
Page 81 and 82: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY across all Army
Page 83 and 84: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY Due to much sho
Page 85 and 86: DEVELOPING ONE ARMY “When you joi
Page 87 and 88: Photo by Capt. Jesse Paulsboe “Th
Page 89 and 90: APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES
Page 103 and 104: National Commission on the Future o
Page 105 and 106: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Figu
Page 107 and 108: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION Nati
Page 109: ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION proc
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CO
Page 115 and 116: APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CO
Page 117 and 118: APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESP
Page 125 and 126: APPENDIX C: OFFSITE AGREEMENT Natio
Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX D: ARMY BUDGET AND END STR
Page 129 and 130: APPENDIX D: ARMY BUDGET AND END STR
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AA
Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS PD
Page 135 and 136: APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENT
Page 161 and 162:
APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENT
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX H: COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES OPERATION
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES FORCE GEN
Page 195 and 196:
APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES DRAFTING
Page 197 and 198:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED Defen
Page 199 and 200:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED Pippi
Page 201 and 202:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED U.S.
Page 203 and 204:
APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED U.S.
show all

THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?