8

DECADE OF CONSOLIDATION 

AND GROWTH

I

t took only the stroke of a pen in 1974 to establish the United States 

Army Engineer Division, Europe (Europe Division or EUD) of the Corps 

of Engineers, but almost four years—until 1978—to develop a cohesive 

organization. Brig. Gen. Norman G. Delbridge, Jr., who succeeded Brig. 

Gen. Louis W. Prentiss, Jr., as commander of the Europe Division, felt that he 

had overcome the tensions that characterized the transition to management 

of military construction in Europe by the Corps of Engineers. Taking leave 

of EUD in July 1978, Delbridge observed: “The last two years have been a 

challenging period; challenges will continue, but ... flowers are now ready 

to bloom. We have procedures, more people on the way ... [a] closer and 

warmer relationship between everyone here in EUD.”1

From the base that Prentiss and Delbridge had established, their 

immediate successors concentrated on the challenges facing a growing 

but fundamentally stable organization. In the five years after Delbridge’s 

departure, two commanders (Brig. Gens. Drake Wilson and George K. 

Withers, Jr.) strove to adjust the division’s personnel allotment to fit its 

workload, to balance its management responsibilities, and to address 

and meet the needs of the division’s customers. All of the division commanders’ management decisions had to be made in light of changes in the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) strategic thinking, shifts in 

the European political order, and new U.S. military weapons.

After five years of relative stability in leadership, in fewer than thirty 

months between June 1983 and the autumn of 1985, three brigadier 

generals—Scott Beecher Smith, James W. van Loben Sels, and James W. 

Ray—commanded the division in swift succession. The rapid turnover 

of leaders and their varying styles of management challenged division 

personnel. This period of turmoil coincided with a marked expansion of 

workload in the 1980s, which in turn prompted a tightening of management control. By 1986 balance had returned once again, and the division 

enjoyed a few years of stability and a sense of confidence in their future 

as the end of the decade approached.
206

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

Delbridge’s successor, Brig. 

Gen. Drake Wilson, arrived on 

15 August 1978 to assume command of the Europe Division. 

Before this assignment Wilson 

had served as deputy director of civil works at the Office 

of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) 

in Washington, but he was no 

stranger to Frankfurt. As an 

Army dependent, Wilson had 

lived in Germany and had graduated from the Department of 

Defense’s Frankfurt High School 

in 1947. He attended the U.S. 

Military Academy, graduated in 

1952, and returned to Germany 

as a junior officer assigned to the 

United States Army Construction 

Agency, Germany (USACAG), 

from 1958 to 1961. Wilson also 

served with NATO’s Central 

Army Group in 1970–1971 and in 

Stuttgart on the engineer staff of VII Corps from 1971 to 1973.2

In his first staff meeting at EUD, General Wilson emphasized his 

desire to be kept informed of issues and his intention to let people do 

their work without intervening. Wilson’s subordinates described him as 

comparatively formal, straightforward, and decisive. They remember his 

two-year tour as a relatively quiet period despite the division’s uneven 

workload.3

Balancing Manpower and Workload

Like Prentiss and Delbridge, Wilson confronted a personnel situation 

characterized by sharp fluctuations in the number of staff and in the volume of work. Unfortunately, staff size and workload frequently moved in 

opposite directions. Most American civilian employees signed contracts to 

work three years in Europe. Because of the time needed for processing in 

and out and for learning how the division functioned, only two years of 

a term proved to be fully productive. Frequent turnovers contributed to 

the ongoing need to recruit experienced Corps employees from the United 

States.4

The recruiting trip that Delbridge organized to the United States 

in May 1978 had been very effective. At the end of October, however, 

President Jimmy Carter announced a hiring freeze. Although the freeze 

was lifted at the end of January 1979, ceilings for new hires were set in 

line with the overall reduction in numbers for the Army. These ceilings 

General Wilson
207

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

were below those anticipated when the hiring had taken place under 

Delbridge, and General Wilson had to manage the size of his staff and the 

workload within these new limits.5

Personnel Manipulation

Throughout 1978 Joe G. Higgs and Jose Cruz, EUD’s chiefs of engineering and construction, respectively, worked to reduce the huge backlog 

of contracts that had accumulated during the division’s initial years. By 

the spring of 1979, as the workload came under control, Wilson realized 

that EUD had too many people. As one way to reduce staff, Wilson told 

his managers to facilitate the return of willing U.S. civilian employees to 

the United States as they completed employment contracts.6

The departure of Americans caused German and third-country employees to worry about a possible reduction in personnel in the field offices. 

The matter caught the attention of EUD’s Works Council, the body elected 

to represent local employees as authorized by USAREUR and the NATO 

Status of Forces Agreement (1963 supplement).7 Hasso Damm, who had 

served since 1974 as the full-time chairman of the Works Council, noted 

that the increases in personnel at EUD between 1975 and 1979 were primarily in positions for Department of the Army civilians (DACs). Accordingly, 

he argued, the personnel cuts should come from this group and not disproportionately from the Germans and third-country nationals.8

Europe Division workload included build-to-lease family housing projects for 

the Hanau community.
208

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

After meeting with Damm, Wilson authorized a memorandum stating 

that the total number of local national employees would not be reduced, 

although geographic shifts of personnel might be made. On the broader 

issue of the proportion of these workers in the division’s workforce, 

Damm obtained an oral commitment from General Wilson that reductions, when necessary, would be taken first and more heavily from the 

DAC roster of employees. This oral agreement, which Damm confirmed 

with each successive EUD commander, produced a core group of locally 

hired workers who provided continuity for the organization.9 As a further gesture of support for the non-American workers, Wilson designated 

the chairmanship of the Works Council a full-time position, even though 

German law did not require a full-time chairman for a council representing fewer than 300 local national employees.10

During 1979 and 1980 the number of employees at EUD continued to 

fluctuate, even though the workload was increasing—an irony noted by 

Wilson. For most of fiscal year 1979 the division averaged 860 employees. Between January and June the division cut twenty-five positions as 

a result of Army-wide cutbacks.11 More cuts were made in August 1979, 

and by 30 September EUD had reduced its staff to 707, the same level as 

before Delbridge’s recruitment campaign in 1978. The number of employees increased to an average of 780 throughout most of fiscal year 1980 but 

dropped back at the end of the year to 690. The division operated in effect 

with one level of staffing throughout most of the fiscal year and then, to 

meet authorized levels, reduced its staff by releasing temporary employees and leaving positions unfilled. Once the division reported the staff 

numbers, the temporary positions could be refilled quickly.12

Wilson and his management team worked hard to build a strong core 

staff. In the spring of 1979 Wilson requested authorization from OCE 

for thirty-one new upper-grade positions (GS–13 to GS–17) to improve 

middle management and to enhance the level of technical proficiency in 

the division. OCE eventually approved fourteen positions, most of them 

in the Engineering Division, where Higgs tried to create a grade structure 

that would attract people from districts in the United States.13 To provide 

more continuity and to reduce turnover, Wilson changed his earlier policy 

guideline and began actively encouraging American civilians to remain 

in Europe for up to five years.14 Recruiting continued to be a major activity 

for the division.15

To promote efficiency and accountability, Wilson revised the roles of 

the two colonels serving as deputy division engineers by assigning each 

deputy a principal area of responsibility. He gave Air Force programs and 

special projects, particularly schools, to Col. Glen Smith. Col. Valentine 

Carrasco oversaw all work for the Army, which was the bulk of EUD’s 

program. Wilson explained the arrangement by saying, “The heaviest dollar volume, Carrasco had; the most problems, Smith had.” Both deputies 

and the commander had authority to sign contracts.16

Under Wilson’s command William E. Camblor finally received the 

promotion that he had first sought while director of USACAG in 1959. 
209

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

While assigned in USACAG as a junior officer, Wilson worked closely 

with Camblor and appreciated his administrative skills. Early in his tour 

at EUD, General Wilson requested approval to upgrade Camblor’s position, assistant division engineer for intergovernmental affairs, to a GS–16. 

He then recommended Camblor for the position, and in 1980 Camblor was 

promoted to SES–4, a ranking in the Senior Executive Service equivalent 

to GS–16.17 That promotion gave the organization two SES positions; Joe 

Higgs had been promoted in July 1979 when the Senior Executive Service 

was established.

Managing Resources

In October 1979 an OCE command inspection team suggested that 

EUD needed to rethink how it managed construction, particularly the 

structure of field offices that reported to the Construction Division. For 

several months the staff examined workload and flow of work at headquarters and in the area offices. The area offices had been established in 

1974 as coordinating and reporting offices, while resident offices handled 

direct project oversight. The military officers and civilian staff in both the 

area and resident offices expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with 

the multiple levels of review that they faced and with the delays in getting decisions from headquarters.18 To address these concerns, the chief of 

construction, Jose Cruz, established a task force led by Dwight Beranek, 

chief of the Construction Management Section. The reorganization recommended by the task force—intended to improve communications and to 

speed decision making within headquarters in Frankfurt—took effect at 

the beginning of the new fiscal year, 1 October 1980.19

Several measures implemented along with the reorganization were 

designed to respond specifically to the issues raised by field personnel. The Supervision and Inspection Branch was split into two sections, 

and the number of staff positions was increased to augment technical 

support to the field. Personnel were also added in office engineering to 

improve management of funds, troop construction, and accountability 

for real property. The Contract Administration Branch was reorganized 

into three sections, each handling projects for a specific geographic area. 

Construction managers were assigned to serve specific area offices rather 

than specific programs.

The field offices themselves underwent significant change. The division redefined the old Central, Southern, and Southwest Area Offices 

and closed the Mediterranean Area Office. The new area offices had 

larger workloads and a greater number of personnel. Several area offices 

took the name of the city in which they were located: Kaiserslautern, 

Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, and Würzburg. Only the Northern Area 

Office kept its name and location. (See Map 16.) The division set up resident offices in Vicenza, Italy; in Sigonella, Sicily; and in Athens, Greece, 

and retained The United States Engineer Group (TUSEG) Resident Office, 

which had been reestablished in 1979 in Incirlik, Turkey.20 All area and 
210

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

resident offices reported directly to the Construction Division. The reorganization centralized legal services in headquarters, and lawyers Terry 

Trowbridge from the Mediterranean Area Office and Carl Korman from 

Stuttgart moved to Frankfurt.21

Map 16

N O R T H E R N A R E A

F R A N K F URT

A R E A

S T U T T G A RT

A R E A

H E I D E L B E R G

A R E A

W Ü R Z B U R G A R E A

K A I S E R S L A U T E R N

A R E A NU R E M B E R G

A R E A

Teveren

Mönchen-Gladbach

Giessen Fulda

Schweinfurt

Stuttgart

Karlsruhe

Heidelberg

Kaiserslautern

Landstuhl

Baumholder

Wildflecken Bitburg Hahn

Bad Kreuznach

Frankfurt

Aschaffenburg

Würzburg

Hoensbroek

Bremerhaven

Bamberg

Grafenwöhr

Vilseck

Nuremberg

Augsburg

E N G L I S H

C H A N N E L

F R A N C E

A U S T R I A

S W I T Z E R L A N D

C Z E C H O S L O V A K I A

W E S T

G E R M A N Y

E A S T

G E R M A N Y

D E N M A R K

S W E D E N

N E T H E R L A N D S

B E L G I U M

LUXEMBOURG

LIECHTENSTEIN

BRUSSELS

AMSTERDAM

Leipzig

Hannover

BERLIN

Hamburg

Zürich Dijon

The Hague

FIELD ORGANIZATION

NORTHERN EUROPE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, EUROPE

1983

Area Office Boundary (approximate)

Area Office Headquarters

Resident Office

Project Office

0 50

0 50 100 150 Miles

100 150 Kilometers
211

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

The permanent orders signed by General Wilson stated that changing 

the status of any unit to or from an area office or resident office would 

no longer require additional permanent orders. The basic field structure established in 1980 changed little during the following decade. As 

changes in workload dictated, the division closed the Sigonella office and 

upgraded Heidelberg and TUSEG to area offices. The new administrative 

arrangement allowed EUD to establish other resident offices and project 

offices as needed.22

Organization Headquarters

In 1979 General Wilson agreed to mandate a single form for the organization’s name. Rather than continue the vacillation between the use 

of European Division and Europe Division, Wilson ordered that Europe 

Division be used consistently; it was the form that Headquarters, United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in Washington preferred.23

Because this decision required a new sign on the building and new letterhead, it seemed an appropriate moment to give the headquarters building 

a commemorative name.24 The division counsel, Allan B. Aaron, proposed 

that the headquarters building be named in honor of Leonard L. Phillips, 

who had served with USACAG, Engineer Command (ENGCOM), and 

EUD between 1962 and his death in February 1976. Before serving with 

the Corps, Phillips had participated in the Nuremberg war crimes trials. 

In 1960 he joined the Corps of Engineers as a trial attorney while remaining an Army reserve officer. As general counsel for ENGCOM and division 

counsel for EUD, Phillips worked on legal issues surrounding the relocation 

of U.S. forces from France; helped negotiate the first construction agreement 

with the government of Belgium; drafted and negotiated the prototype 

Guarantee Rental Housing Agreement that became the United States Army, 

Europe (USAREUR), standard; and helped create the legal basis for implementing the Stem to Stern program.25 Colleagues praised his precise legal 

mind, integrity and loyalty, wit, and reserved demeanor.26

Wilson supported the request to name the building after Phillips—a 

civilian—noting that more than 60 percent of the personnel working in 

the division were American civilians. At the annual awards ceremony on 

11 July 1980, the headquarters building on the former I. G. Farben property in Frankfurt was officially named the Phillips Building.27

Addressing EUD Customers

In mid-September 1980 Wilson, by then promoted to major general, 

left EUD and returned to Washington. As of 16 June 1979, the Corps had 

a new status as an Army major command; its headquarters became U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Wilson became director of military programs 

at the newly designated Headquarters, USACE (replacing the Office of the 

Chief of Engineers), and General Withers succeeded Wilson as commander of the Europe Division.
212

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

General Withers, a 1956 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, served 

in Europe from 1974 to 1976 as commander of the 24th Engineer Group, 

predecessor to the 18th Engineer Brigade. Before being assigned to EUD, 

Withers served in the Department of the Army’s Office of the Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Operations. He projected a quiet, reserved, and scholarly 

demeanor.

During his tour as commander of the 24th Engineer Group, Withers 

perceived a “general dislike of EUD among much of the U.S. Army in 

Europe.” This attitude disturbed him, and he set out to develop a new 

climate. He particularly hoped to fulfill the needs of the commanders of 

V Corps, VII Corps, and 21st Support Command—who did not think they 

were getting enough support from the engineers in Frankfurt—and the 

Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) in each of the military 

communities. His other management priority was to keep up with the 

greatly expanding military construction mission.28

The substantial growth in the defense budgets in the late 1970s created 

a burgeoning workload. New weapons systems and the improvement of 

facilities in Europe scheduled under these enlarged budgets increased the 

design and construction activity for EUD. To emphasize his commitment 

to better service for the communities, Withers raised the managerial level 

at which EUD handled this support. He created the position of assistant 

division engineer for DEH support and appointed Lt. Col. Robert Tames 

to the position in January 1981. Tames, who reported to the chief of engineering, Higgs, was expected to meet individually and frequently with 

Phillips Building in the Mid-1980s
213

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

the facilities engineers in their 

communities. Under the concept 

of “one-stop installation support,” Tames was the person in 

EUD to whom community commanders and engineers could 

turn for help. By all accounts this 

strategy worked, and the division retained the position, filling 

it successively through the 1980s 

with Lt. Cols. Robert O’Toole, 

John Moravec, Ray Powell, and 

Douglas Lamothe.29

In his first weeks on the job, 

Tames visited every one of the 

more than thirty USAREUR 

communities. As Congress began 

to fund improvements in living conditions for soldiers, and 

as Operation and Maintenance, 

Army (OMA), money began to 

arrive, the community commanders and DEHs realized that 

they did not have the capacity to do either the requisite design or the construction themselves. They gave the work to EUD—somewhat reluctantly 

according to General Withers—and the division responded. Technical 

assistance to the facilities engineers for projects to maintain and to repair 

barracks came from the Facilities Support Section in the Engineering 

Division.30 In 1981 Higgs appointed Steve Kupec as chief of the Facilities 

Support Section. By the end of fiscal year 1982, Kupec’s section had grown 

from nine to thirty-six people and handled over $50 million of work on 

134 projects.31 (See Map 17.)

In another effort to promote better cooperation between the Army 

engineers and the military communities, General Withers joined the 

deputy chief of staff, engineer (DCSENG), at USAREUR, Maj. Gen. Henry 

J. Hatch, Jr., in convening two-day meetings to review the OMA projects. 

The meeting location varied: EUD headquarters, an area office, or Hatch’s 

office in Heidelberg.32 Both Hatch and Withers attended, and they urged 

commanders from VII Corps, V Corps, 21st Support Command, 26th 

Support Group, and Seventh Army Training Command to attend. The 

generals chaired the meetings as an inducement for the colonels to attend. 

According to Higgs, he and Withers wanted to engage and work directly 

with unit commanders rather than with subordinates.33

The effort succeeded in expanding the EUD workload. In recognition of Higgs’ efforts in leading the Engineering Division through this 

expansion, the Society of American Military Engineers awarded him the 

1981 Wheeler Medal, named in honor of Lt. Gen. Raymond A. Wheeler, 

General Withers
214

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

Map 17

a former chief of engineers. The award recognized Higgs’ leadership in 

managing a “sixfold increase in the Military Construction Program for 

Europe,” in achieving the substantial reduction of the design backlog, and 

in increasing contract awards.34

Giessen Fulda

Schweinfurt

Stuttgart

Karlsruhe

Heidelberg

Heilbronn

Göppingen

Neu Ulm

Mannheim

Worms

Kaiserslautern

Zweibrücken Pirmasens

Baumholder

Wildflecken

Bad Kreuznach

Frankfurt Wiesbaden

Mainz Hanau

Darmstadt

Aschaffenburg

Würzburg

Bremerhaven

Bamberg

Grafenwöhr

Nuremberg

Ansbach

Hohenfels

Augsburg

Bad Tölz

Munich

Garmisch-Partenkirchen

Brussels

NATO/SHAPE

Rheinberg

E N G L I S H

C

H

A

N

N E L

F R A N C E

A U S T R I A

S W I T Z E R L A N D

C Z E C H O S L O V A K I A

W E S T G E R M A N Y

E A S T

G E R M A N Y

D E N M A R K

S W E D E N

N E T H E R L A N D S

B E L G I U M

LUXEMBOURG

LIECHTENSTEIN

Reims

Leipzig

Hannover

Erfurt

BERLIN

Hamburg

Zürich Dijon

AMSTERDAM

The Hague

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, EUROPE

January 1983

Directorate of Engineering 

and Housing (DEH)

0 50

0 50 100 150 Miles

100 150 Kilometers
215

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

Persistent Manpower Problems

General Withers faced one of the cyclical discrepancies between staff 

numbers and workload that beset EUD. Continuing problems in recruiting and retaining qualified people hindered Withers’ ability to keep up 

with the volume of work and meet schedules. In reports to Headquarters, 

USACE, he repeatedly argued that EUD had an inadequate number of 

staff positions, inappropriately graded positions, poor leadership in some 

key divisions and branches, and too much turnover.35

In March 1981 EUD had 730 people, just slightly above the year-end 

levels maintained by Delbridge and Wilson from 1978 to 1980. Turnover 

continued, particularly in the lower grades, where the rate was about 

120 percent a year.36 Many of the clerical workers were military dependents and subject to frequent moves. To combat turnover in the Resource 

Management Office (formerly Comptroller’s Office), Withers upgraded 

positions to make them more attractive to Corps employees working in 

the United States.37

Anticipating the higher workload projected for fiscal years 1982 and 

1983, Withers asked Headquarters, USACE, for more officer spaces and 

about 100 additional civilian spaces.38 Because EUD had about 75 vacancies, he also organized a recruiting trip to the United States. In April 

1981 a recruiting team went to districts in Norfolk, Mobile, Fort Worth, 

St. Louis, Omaha, and Seattle and to headquarters in Washington.39 The 

team contacted 1,000 potential candidates, but only 42 signed on. By the 

autumn of 1981, EUD had 855 authorized spaces but only 740 employees.40

To attract strong civilians to the division, Withers requested approval 

to upgrade two positions—chief of resource management (to GS–15) and 

chief of construction (to SES). With approval of the new grades, Withers 

took the opportunity to search for candidates outside his current staff. He 

explicitly told the comptroller, Randolph S. Washington, and the chief of 

construction, Jose Cruz, that the promotions were not necessarily theirs. 

For both positions Withers chose applicants new to the division and to 

Europe.

Withers selected Ray Walker from Picatinny, New Jersey, as the new 

chief of resource management. Although offered the position of deputy 

comptroller, Washington did not want to serve as a subordinate in a division that he had headed since 1974. In mid-May 1981 he left for a job with 

the U.S. Support Command to Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers 

Europe, in Belgium.41

Withers selected John Blake as the new chief of construction, and Cruz 

returned to the Fort Worth District. Blake had a wide range of experience 

managing overseas construction for the Corps. He had served in Korea, 

in the Marshall Islands, in the Mediterranean Division, in Saudi Arabia, 

and, before his arrival in Frankfurt, in Israel, where the Corps built two 

air bases that were part of the Camp David settlement between Israel and 

Egypt. Blake liked to be in the field, and he knew firsthand the difficulties of working with sovereign nations and managing both people and 
216

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

projects in remote locations. In November 1981, just after arriving at EUD, 

Blake received the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Army’s second 

highest civilian honorary award, for his work in Israel.42

The effort that Withers and his staff devoted to stateside recruiting 

finally began to pay off by early 1982. Both Blake and Walker were on 

board, and Withers reported to the chief of engineers that overall strength 

had grown from 740 in September 1981 to 830 in January 1982. Withers 

was pleased with the successes but frustrated by continuing problems in 

recruiting. Corps district leaders in the United States let employees move 

to overseas assignments only grudgingly, and coworkers resented employees who went overseas but retained reemployment rights in the stateside 

district. Nevertheless, in May 1982 EUD’s authorized strength reached 

906. German and third-country employees made up 276 of the total.43

The continuous growth in personnel created overcrowding at EUD 

headquarters. In 1978 the division began leasing space a few blocks from 

the I. G. Farben complex. In 1979 EUD constructed the first annex to the 

headquarters building; work began in the spring of 1982 on a second 

annex. Completed by October 1982, the second annex accommodated 

ninety employees.44 This, too, was insufficient, so EUD rented a building in the Dornbusch area of Frankfurt. Initially, the Civil Section of the 

Technical Engineering Branch and the master-planning unit shared the 

Dornbusch offices with the Frankfurt Area Office, but soon the area office 

moved to leased space in Fechenheim, another area of Frankfurt.45

Developing the Engineering Division

Master planning developed as a significant new activity in EUD 

efforts to provide services to the military communities in Europe. While 

serving as the USAREUR engineer in Heidelberg, General Prentiss came 

to recognize the possibilities for the division to help the military communities develop individual master plans for their complexes and facilities. In 

January 1977 he raised the issue with the chief of engineers, Lt. Gen. John 

W. Morris, by reporting that there was no entity in Europe able to review 

and comment on master plans developed by the communities. Because 

he knew that EUD did not have the capacity to handle the assignment, 

Prentiss began to search for assistance from a private sector contractor.46

Joe Higgs, who arrived at EUD in February 1978, grasped this situation as an opportunity. Higgs wanted to expand the capability of his 

Engineering Division so staff could develop master plans for USAREUR 

communities and then help them prepare the project descriptions and 

paperwork to submit projects to Congress for funding. Master planning at EUD was still handled by only one man, Vic Schulman, so Higgs 

looked for help. The chief of engineering at headquarters approved the 

EUD request for funds from the OMA budget to hire three people for six 

months.47

By the time General Withers took command in late 1980, the division 

had six people in master planning and support from USAREUR to expand 
217

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

this service. By the end of 1982 the Master Planning Section had grown to 

thirty-eight. Work had increased from eight contracts involving thirty 

projects, representing architect-engineer fees of $600,000, to a program of 

eighty contracts covering nearly 600 projects and totaling $50 million in 

architect-engineer fees.48 Master planning had indeed become a major service provided by EUD to USAREUR’s military communities.49

As chief of the Engineering Division’s Planning Section, Terry 

Emmons coordinated the provision of master planning and other planning services to USAREUR, its six major subordinate commands, and their 

forty-eight communities and planning areas. At the beginning of 1981, his 

first full year at EUD, Emmons’ section handled 40 projects. By the end of 

the year the number was 250, and Emmons was named Employee of the 

Year for 1981. Under his leadership the division developed a two-week 

master-planning course, prepared planning reference manuals and handbooks, and set up a program to provide definitive drawings for improvements that the military communities routinely requested.50 On 1 July 1982, 

the Planning Section became the Planning Branch with three sections: 

Engineering Systems, Future Development, and Project Support.51

Beginning in the mid-1980s, EUD contracted with U.S. architect-engineer firms to develop master plans for all USAREUR communities. The 

results were mixed. The first firms hired had experience in master planning; but as the workload grew larger, EUD had to use firms with less 

experience in planning and often with only minimal familiarity with 

Europe. In hope of furnishing their customers in the U.S. military communities with better service, Higgs and Emmons turned to German architect-engineer firms.52

At a minimum, the planning studies conducted under EUD auspices 

provided an inventory of the eight hundred installations that USAREUR 

maintained. USAREUR kept very poor records of its facilities: the number 

and condition of the rooms, the capacity of electrical plants, where sewer 

lines ran, and so forth. EUD’s goal was to provide each user with a plan 

that described existing conditions and assigned projections for three phases 

of development: the first year, over five years, and over twenty years.53

In the summer of 1985 EUD hired a new chief of the Planning Branch, 

Kristine Allaman. Having worked for the Installation Support Activity, 

Europe, the agency that combined all the installation support activities 

that came under USAREUR’s deputy chief of staff, engineer, Allaman 

viewed planning as a service and a supplement to the communities’ own 

engineering work. Reflecting her strong commitment to customer service, she reorganized the staff, combining people with different technical and planning skills to form teams to provide comprehensive services 

to specific communities. She encouraged the teams to get into the field, 

attend local master-planning meetings, and show the participants what 

EUD could offer. A GS–14, Allaman remained for several years as EUD’s 

highest-graded female manager.54

By 1987 the Planning Branch had grown to fifty-six people. It covered 

all its costs with fees paid by the customers requesting its services. By 
218

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

then the services also included interior design, energy studies, and sewer 

studies. EUD offered customers three phases of analysis and projections: a 

computer-aided design and drafting system that generated basic information maps and analyzed existing conditions; tabulations of existing and 

required facilities, as well as plans and analyses oriented toward future 

development; and comprehensive studies of both existing and required 

utilities. The planners also offered communities a land-use plan, a total 

plan for future development, and a master-plan report that even someone 

who had no background in planning could understand. In the late 1980s 

the branch annually handled more than 450 projects and $50 to $60 million in contracts. The Planning Branch also managed an environmental 

program for USAREUR involving over ninety contracts with an estimated 

programmed amount of $12 million. The environmental program services 

dealt with concerns such as asbestos, soil and ground-water contamination, hazardous waste, landfills, and radon gas.55

In June 1988 master planning received additional impetus from a new 

program, Army Communities of Excellence, sponsored by General Carl E. 

Vuono, the Army chief of staff. This program promoted consistency in a 

community’s physical appearance and function, the establishment of standards for all construction, and the use of installation design guides, all 

elements that EUD’s master planners emphasized in their approach to the 

military communities.56

The expansion of master planning illustrates EUD’s commitment to 

provide its customers with comprehensive engineering services. In addition, Higgs oversaw growth in other sections in the Engineering Division. 

Like planning, the Foundations and Materials Branch had only one engineer when Higgs arrived. Over time he increased this branch to seventeen 

people, and EUD used the added manpower to broaden the range and 

quality of services that the division could provide to customers.57 During 

1976–1988 the Engineering Division staff strength fluctuated but grew 

steadily overall. (Table 5)

Managing the Workload

Although the Construction Division had been reorganized in the 

autumn of 1980, John Blake made additional changes after he arrived to 

head the division. Projecting a large increase in the number of construction projects and acting in accordance with his philosophy of decentralized management, Blake moved to streamline headquarters further and to 

give area offices even more authority. He saw that the division headquarters combined contract administration and construction management. 

Blake believed that the two jobs demanded totally different personal temperaments, making it difficult for one person to do both well:

The guy who is the contract administrator has got to be someone 

who loves detail, who is willing to sit down and very meticulously 

write a mod[ification], go through the details, chapter and verse, 
219

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

checking numbers, making sure everything is lined up in the right 

order. A construction manager, on the other hand, is normally an 

out-going young fellow who is full of vinegar, runs around and 

makes arrangements for everything, pulls it all together.58

Blake moved the functions and staff concerned with contract administration to the area offices and retained a strong group of construction 

managers in Frankfurt. He also received approval to strengthen the 

area offices by upgrading the civilian position of deputy area engineer 

to GS–14, the grade equivalent to the military rank of lieutenant colonel 

held by the area engineers. Revised procedures reduced duplication of 

effort among project offices, resident offices, the area offices, and headquarters, particularly in preparation of contract modifications. Additional 

technical support positions strengthened area offices, and headquarters 

provided supplementary support.59 Richard Grimm, who had served in 

the Stuttgart Resident Office in the late 1970s and who returned to EUD 

as deputy area engineer in Turkey in 1982, recalled that the changes made 

the division “a lot more streamlined, a lot more efficient. You could get 

[things] done so much faster.”60 Withers supported the decentralization 

because he too felt that deferring decisions to Frankfurt and the headquarters staff led to delays that added costs to construction contracts.61

Blake also had Withers’ support in transferring responsibility for 

negotiating and awarding construction contracts from the Construction 

Division to the Procurement and Supply Division (later called the 

Contracting Division). Blake experienced firsthand the pressures of an 

end-of-year contracting cycle within a few weeks after his arrival when 

almost a dozen people were brought in from the area offices to handle 

Table 5

Engineering Division Staffing, Europe Division

Fiscal Years 1976–1988

 Year Personnel* Year Personnel* 

1976 161 1983 402

1977 184 1984 399

1978 271 1985 419

1979 230 1986 419

1980 230 1987 421

1981 261 1988 389

1982 363

*Year-end figures
220

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

the paperwork. After that experience, which he described as a “three-ring 

circus,” Blake wanted contracts handled by the Procurement and Supply 

Division as they were in other Corps offices. The current system had 

evolved because of dissatisfaction with a chief of procurement and supply that had since departed. The incumbent chief, Theresa Watson, was 

competent and respected; both Blake and Withers were confident that she 

could handle the contracting responsibility. Accordingly, the Construction 

Division returned authority to award construction contracts to the 

Procurement and Supply Division.62

Construction in Turkey

The construction program developing in Turkey presented Blake 

with one of his first major challenges in the field. EUD had assumed 

responsibility for construction in Turkey in 1976 but had little to do. The 

government of Turkey had put U.S. military forces under provisional 

status in July 1975 because it felt that the U.S. Congress had broken the 

bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement with Turkey by imposing the 

arms embargo after the Turkish-Greek clash over Cyprus. The provisional 

status curtailed American intelligence gathering, banned U.S. flights and 

cargo shipments through Turkey, and prohibited most new construction 

projects.63

In 1978 Congress lifted the arms embargo, and the two governments 

began negotiations for a Defense Economic Cooperative Agreement, 

signed in March 1980. In the new atmosphere, both the Army and the 

Air Force decided to undertake projects for the U.S. military assigned to 

Turkey. To support that decision, EUD sent a team led by General Wilson, 

Jose Cruz, and Joe Higgs to assess the extent of the work needed in 

Turkey and to establish the necessary diplomatic relations. After Congress 

approved funds for new construction to improve the living and working conditions and the security at Incirlik Air Base and five remote sites 

(Erzurum, Cakmakli, Corlu, Izmit, and Ortakoy) occupied by Army custodial artillery personnel, Wilson requested an Army captain to staff the 

TUSEG Resident Office.64

The designated officer, Capt. M. Stephen Rhoades, received a briefing 

in Frankfurt and arrived in Incirlik in July 1979 “with a set of plans under 

one arm and specifications under the other.”65 He had been sent to Turkey 

to identify contractors, solicit bids, and start a project. Rhoades had a 

bachelor’s degree in systems engineering and a master’s degree in civil 

engineering from the University of Florida but no prior experience in contracting and no experience in the Corps of Engineers.

With assistance from Herb Wooten, the long-time TUSEG employee 

serving as liaison at the Joint U.S. Military Mission Aid to Turkey, Rhoades 

located the office on the air base in Incirlik that TUSEG had abandoned 

when construction ceased. Rhoades reclaimed the quarters from the Red 

Cross, retrieved the office equipment and vehicles, and he hired a secretary. It took almost a full year to get TUSEG back into operation.66
221

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

The first site scheduled for an upgrade was in Erzurum, a difficult 

place to start. The city’s name means the eastern edge of Rome, that is, the 

boundary of the old Roman Empire. Located on a high plain in the mountains, it is close to the Turkish-Russian border and east of Moscow. The 

weather is very severe—long, cold winters with abundant snow. The first 

contract called for bachelor officers’ quarters, bachelor enlisted quarters, 

a multipurpose building, and interior refurbishing of a number of existing buildings, all designed with features to protect the troops from the 

extreme weather and to make the buildings solid and well insulated. The 

isolated location made troop comfort and recreation especially important. 

Over time the construction came to include a new dining hall, a racquetball court, a gymnasium, and covered walkways between buildings to 

avoid the snow that drifted to depths over ten feet.67

Rhoades had difficulty finding a contractor willing to go to Erzurum. 

In 1980 he awarded the first contract for construction. There was no local 

labor market, so the contractor had to bring in workers and build a dormitory to house them. Within months the project was behind schedule. 

EUD’s Construction Division sent people on temporary assignment to 

help Rhoades process contract modifications. To help resolve persistent 

problems, the division’s deputy commander, Col. Philip Cowles, and 

the assistant division engineer for intergovernmental affairs, William 

Camblor, went to Turkey in October 1981. On 5 October Cowles, Camblor, 

and Rhoades met with a Turkish colonel from the Ministry of Defense 

to review the construction problems in Erzurum and to discuss ways to 

facilitate construction contracting in Turkey.68

In a report of the trip, Colonel Cowles wryly described work in 

Erzurum: “The history of this project is at times amusing and at other 

times sad.” The design package had been prepared in English by the division’s design group in Italy. Only after problems arose did the contractor 

in Erzurum admit that neither the foreman nor any of the workers could 

read English or understand the plans or the specifications. Moreover, the 

designers projected a construction period for the contract of 600 days, 

despite the fact that Erzurum’s severe weather limited construction to 

about 180 days a year.69

Cowles’ report listed a number of requests that Rhoades had made, 

including cold-weather gear for his employees and racquetball kits. He 

also asked for semiweekly telephone calls placed from Frankfurt to Turkey, 

because long-distance telephone service from Turkey was unreliable. The 

report suggested revised procedures and concluded with an admonition:

In the future we should plan and tailor our procurement, we 

should pre-qualify contractors if we are not sure of them, we need 

strong capable field people to deal with a problematic contractor and, 

in Turkey, we need government assistance to ensure materials are 

available to the contractor.... The entire project gives one the impression of building according to a standard prevalent in Korea in 1965 or 

in America, perhaps 50 years ago.70
222

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

John Blake’s experience with construction in Saudi Arabia and in 

Israel gave him a good understanding of Rhoades’ problems. Some experienced and willing construction managers, including Richard Grimm, 

became available for the work in Turkey when the air base projects in 

Israel ended. Grimm had worked under Blake on the missile sites in 

North Dakota in 1972 and had been a resident engineer in the Stuttgart 

Area Office in the late 1970s before he worked in Israel. As the program 

in Israel wound down, Grimm contacted Blake, who offered Grimm the 

position as deputy area engineer in Turkey.71 Grimm arrived at Incirlik 

in January 1982, when EUD upgraded TUSEG from a resident office to an 

area office. During the 1982 calendar year the number of people at TUSEG 

increased from nine to twenty-one. The workload increased from four 

projects under construction to ten ready for advertisement and an additional twenty-four under design.72

With improved procedures and more experienced staff, the TUSEG 

office awarded contracts for work at four other remote sites: Corlu, 

Ortakoy, Izmit, and Cakmakli. EUD had lump-sum allocations to rebuild 

these sites; over time he supervised complete rehabilitation, including 

underground utilities, at all five installations.73 TUSEG managed to award 

contracts at about 50 percent of the estimates and as a consequence found 

that they had ample money to get the work done.74

By all accounts Captain Rhoades was exceptionally mature and 

energetic—“one of those outgoing people that just thrived on adverArmy engineer projects in Turkey included the barracks in Cakmakli and this water 

tower (inset) under construction in Izmit.
223

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

sity.” Rhoades, his wife, and two children lived on the Incirlik base 

in an eight-by-forty-foot house trailer. Other TUSEG staff lived on the 

economy, frequently in buildings without central heating, sometimes 

without hot water. Electricity was unreliable, which meant that the 

availability of water was unpredictable. There was a long waiting list for 

commercial telephones.75 The Society of American Military Engineers 

awarded Rhoades the 1981 Sverdrup Medal established in memory of 

distinguished military engineer Maj. Gen. Leif Sverdrup. The award 

recognized Rhoades’ extraordinary achievements in building the area 

office and in directing construction in remote sites throughout Turkey. 

In July 1982 Rhoades left Turkey to work with the Construction Branch 

of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, at USAREUR in 

Heidelberg.76

Tightening Organizational Control

Withers completed his tour as division engineer early in June 1983, 

and Brig. Gen. Scott B. Smith succeeded him. Smith had graduated from 

the U.S. Military Academy in 1956, the same year as Withers, and had 

served in Europe with the 12th Engineer Battalion from 1962 to 1965. 

Smith was assigned to OCE in 1973–1974 and served as district engineer 

in Huntington, West Virginia, from 1974 to 1977. Unlike any of his predecessors at EUD, he had experience as a division engineer: From 1980 

to 1983 he commanded the North Central Division with headquarters in 

Chicago, Illinois.

By his recollection, Smith arrived at EUD with a definite management philosophy and what he characterized as a “fair amount of 

skepticism” that the organization was “on track.” He asked a lot of 

questions, found that the answers were “not totally comforting,” and 

concluded that EUD needed to shift its direction. Smith set for himself 

three principal tasks: shift the management attention of the division to 

the customer; improve relations with the Air Force; and improve internal procedures.77

For General Smith, all of his specific actions formed part of a plan to 

tighten the reins on the organization. To this end, he challenged a wide 

range of practices and procedures that he felt were hindering timely 

completion of work, detracting from achieving the mission, undermining discipline, or obstructing relationships with customers. He displayed intense concern about fraud, waste, and abuse, particularly in the 

procurement process and in the administration of contracts. An internal 

investigation revealed more than seventy-five instances of procedural 

irregularities that the division needed to send to Washington for review 

by USACE. Most were procurement irregularities, including unauthorized contract modifications that probably resulted from attempts by 

midlevel managers to get work done in a rush; none involved statutory violations. Revised procedures, training, and a greater emphasis on 

detail improved the situation.78
224

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

Shifts in Emphasis and Direction

From conversations with the 

chief of engineers, Lt. Gen. Joseph 

K. Bratton, Smith perceived a 

need to change the overall operating strategy of the division from 

an emphasis on architect-engineer selection boards and design 

reviews to construction that satisfied the customer. He believed 

that the elements of process, 

which are a necessary part of 

any project, ought not to be evident to the consumer, whose real 

concern was with the final product. He found that attention in 

EUD focused on the Engineering 

Division, which measured productivity in terms of design 

placement, rather than on the 

Construction Division, which 

emphasized completed projects.79

General Smith took several immediate steps to shift the division’s 

emphasis and direction. He reinforced efforts General Withers had started to give the chief of construction and the area engineers more authority, 

resources, and independence. He wanted area offices to have a procurement operation, legal support, and some capability to work with the government agencies in the host nations.80

Smith also changed the rating procedure for area engineers. In EUD’s 

first two years, the area engineers reported to the EUD Executive Office. 

During General Delbridge’s tenure, the deputy division engineer, Col. 

Carlyle “Chuck” Charles, instructed the area engineers to report directly 

to the chief of the Construction Division, although Charles and his successors continued to give the area engineers their performance ratings.81

In 1983 Army regulations changed to permit the division commander to 

delegate the rating function to a civilian. Smith thought that it made sense 

to give responsibility for rating area engineers to the chief of construction 

because it was Blake who regularly met with them. The change meant that 

Blake, who as an SES held the civilian rank equivalent to general officer, 

would do the officer’s efficiency rating for the area engineers who were 

military and comparable performance evaluations for the civilian area 

engineers. Whatever apprehensions the area engineers had, the change 

was implemented without protest. The commander of EUD, a general officer, remained the senior rater.82

General Smith broadened the division’s senior leadership group to 

include the equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer, the personnel 

General Smith in 1987
225

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

officer, division counsel, and the chief of procurement and supply. He 

encouraged each participant in staff meetings to draw from his or her 

professional and life experiences solutions to the problems and challenges 

of the division. Smith also asked Blake to make sure that he took support 

elements, especially Joanne “Jodie” Close, the EEO officer, with him to the 

area offices, particularly the remote offices in Turkey and Greece.83

The Air Force as Customer

Shortly before General Smith assumed command at EUD, he attended 

a professional meeting with General Bratton, who was known for his lowkey, soft-spoken style. According to Smith, Bratton drew him aside and 

said, “There’s a guy here that I want you to meet, and it’s very important 

to me that you get to know him.” Introducing Smith to Air Force Brig. 

Gen. Joseph “Bud” Ahearn, Bratton said, “You and Bud are going to get 

to be good friends.” Smith concluded, “That was his way of telling me, 

‘Make sure the Air Force knows you love them, and make sure the Air 

Force gets prime support.... Don’t forget the guys in blue.’”84

About the time that Smith was assigned to head the Europe Division, 

Ahearn took over as base civil engineer at Ramstein Air Base in Germany 

and as chief of engineering services for United States Air Forces in Europe 

(USAFE). The Air Force had been a major customer of centralized contract 

construction in Europe since the days of USACAG. Over many years an 

attitude had developed that one division engineer summarized: “The Air 

Force is a very difficult customer in general for the Corps of Engineers.” 

A chief of contracting admitted: “You’d be hard-pressed to find somebody 

[in EUD] that’s a real fan of the Air Force.”85 Differences in procedure 

between the two services in handling both contracts and money and the 

Air Force’s latitude in shifting funds from one project to another gave the 

“appearance of [their] not having a long-range, coherent program.”86

General Withers had encountered difficulty with his counterpart in 

the Air Force, Brig. Gen. Sheldon J. Lustig. As chief of engineering services for USAFE, Lustig “indicated a strong desire” to get EUD out of 

NATO projects for the U.S. Air Force. In May 1982 Withers reported that 

execution of Air Force work continued to be late because of “late receipt 

of design instructions and criteria,” conditions for which he held the Air 

Force, not EUD, responsible.87

General Smith strove to overcome the prevailing negative attitude 

toward the Air Force and to develop a good working and personal relationship with General Ahearn. Smith reinstituted the system of assigning 

one EUD deputy solely to the Air Force work and the other to the Army 

projects, a measure designed to establish that work for the Air Force 

was as important as what the division did for the Army. Col. Donald E. 

Hazen became “Mr. Air Force,” and Smith again offered Ahearn the services of the division in support of Air Force construction under the NATO 

Common Infrastructure Program. Smith held team-building sessions with 

both USAREUR and USAFE to demonstrate that EUD had valuable servic-
226

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

es to offer the “total military family.” Within six months Smith reported 

notable improvement in the relationship.88

EUD Wartime Responsibilities

One of several agreements signed in 1974 by the commander in 

chief of USAREUR and the chief of engineers stipulated that the Europe 

Division would provide engineering services to USAREUR in the event 

of war. Variously referred to as contingency planning or mobilization 

planning, the function received little attention during EUD’s early years. 

The issue of mobilization became a major concern of strategic thinkers in 

the late 1970s. Their debate turned around whether the next war would 

be a quick, short engagement, such as the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, or 

a longer, more protracted campaign that would require total mobilization of the enormous economic and industrial resources of the United 

States.89

Most of this debate bypassed EUD as the division focused on the 

expansion of design and construction activity, although stateside divisions 

had been involved in planning and exercises for mobilization. General 

Smith, having served as commander of the North Central Division before 

coming to Frankfurt, addressed this concern. In October 1983, within 

weeks of his arrival, Smith established a separate staff element to develop 

and coordinate mobilization and wartime planning.90

General Smith’s emphasis on planning for mobilization and wartime 

coincided with his broader intent to reinforce EUD as an Army unit. From 

the conduct of division staff, he concluded that EUD employees were “pretty lax in the way they thought about war.” USAREUR personnel wore battle 

dress uniforms and engaged in field exercises, but EUD never participated. 

He also objected to the way the division’s military personnel dressed:

[They wore] their green uniforms like it w[as] Chicago or Vicksburg 

or San Francisco.... It just seemed to me a complete incongruity not to 

be aware of the fact that things could go wrong. I had been in Europe 

during the first Berlin crisis as a captain. I was aware of the fact that 

things could go pretty wrong without a whole lot of warning.91

In March 1984 General Smith went to Washington to develop with 

the USACE staff a detailed mobilization plan for EUD. In June he went 

to Heidelberg for similar meetings with the USAREUR staff. By July 

the Europe Division, USAREUR, and USACE had a draft agreement 

to implement a mobilization plan.92 The military personnel serving in 

EUD would be bound by any mobilization order; certain civilian positions were designated “emergency essential” so the incumbents would 

remain in service in the event of mobilization. During mobilization, 

EUD would place its operations at USAREUR’s disposal “so that we 

would use our expertise to contract with the host nation for construction supply services.”93
227

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

Assessing EUD Management

Without doubt it was General Smith’s personal style, rather than 

any organizational changes he instituted, that had the most significant 

impact on the people at EUD. He was intense, demanding, and abrupt. 

He worked very long hours, and some called him driven. The people he 

met with regularly became familiar with his impatience and intolerance 

for imprecise answers. Some staff members were angered or frightened by 

his aggressive style; from others it elicited respect.

The division counsel, Allan Aaron, was one of the latter. Aaron had 

worked in Corps district and division offices in the United States (North 

Central, Albuquerque, and Detroit) before he came to the Counsel’s Office 

in the Engineer Command in 1973; after the death of Leonard Phillips in 

1976, Aaron was promoted to division counsel. Aaron worked with Smith 

on cleaning up the procurement irregularities and won Smith’s confidence. Smith gave him other special assignments, such as chairing a task 

force on automation. Aaron was often the target of Smith’s outbursts of 

frustration, but with a distinct purpose:

In a public forum, when I wanted to jerk somebody’s chain so that 

everyone else would get a certain message, Al’s chain would get jerked. 

Normally it was about something that many people besides Al had 

had a hand in. Maybe Al didn’t even know what it was all about. But 

others would see [him as] the good-hearted and constructive recipient 

of a spur to the flank and would, I believe, be impressed and themselves motivated by his unfailingly positive responses.94

Aaron apparently understood Smith’s intentions and his own role. He 

later affirmed that he “would go anywhere and do anything [for General 

Smith].... I really feel very strongly that General Smith was one of the 

high points in my career with the Corps of Engineers.” Hasso Damm, 

long-time chairman of the Works Council, felt that Smith never acted 

capriciously and that he respected workers’ rights. Damm thought that 

USACE “did the right thing by sending General Smith [to EUD].”95

By contrast, most of EUD’s personnel failed to see the vision for the 

division that Smith had formulated so clearly in his own mind. With the 

expectation that he would be at EUD for two, possibly three years, Smith 

applied intense pressure at the outset. The commander expected to be able 

to ease that pressure once he had the entire staff moving as a team in the 

proper direction. Smith reflected:

It is infinitely more suitable to be fairly rigorous and demanding 

up front, and then, as the situation allows, to become comradely and 

more relaxed, as opposed to coming in, being everybody’s friend, 

and then finding out that something is not being done as well as 

everyone would wish—and then trying to turn up the heat on that 

particular part of the operation.96
228

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

Smith and the Europe Division never had the luxury of time that might 

have allowed the organization to settle down after his harsh interventions. 

After less than a year in Frankfurt, Smith was promoted to major general 

and reassigned to Heidelberg as USAREUR’s deputy chief of staff, engineer. 

He left behind an organization in which most of the staff felt profoundly 

discomfited by his aggressive management style and actions.

Change of Command

Smith’s successor, Brig. Gen. James W. van Loben Sels, who came 

directly from commanding the North Pacific Division of the Corps of 

Engineers, arrived in July 1984. Van Loben Sels’ European experience had 

begun with the 23d Engineer Battalion, to which he was assigned from 

1960 to 1963. In 1975 he had returned to West Germany, to the office of 

DCSENG. During that assignment he participated in planning the new 

Army garrison in Garlstedt in northern Germany. He remained in Europe 

from 1977 to 1981 as commander of the 18th Engineer Brigade, which 

included the combat heavy engineer battalions and a labor service group. 

A majority of the brigade’s troop construction was done in support of the 

DEH, but the brigade also assumed a major responsibility in the planning 

and preliminary work on the range upgrade in Grafenwöhr. Van Loben 

Sels had asked that his tour with the 18th be extended to a third year so 

he could complete a full phase of the work in Grafenwöhr.97

Soft-spoken, gentlemanly, and reserved, General van Loben Sels’ 

demeanor was a relief from the intensity of General Smith. The staff 

quickly recognized his keen intelligence and excellent memory; they 

appreciated his directness, precision, and calm authority, which they 

perceived as a sharp contrast with Smith’s volatility.98 He approached his 

command quite differently from his predecessor, because of basic differences in personality and because he took into account Smith’s impact:

I found an organization that had had its socks pulled up.... I came 

in with a different style. I came in with a view of going for the longterm, a three-year commitment, to build on the energy, if you will, 

that [Smith] had built up. Then [I] attempted to shape the organization, heal the wounds that seemed to be around the battlefield, and 

focus on the long-term.

He focused his attention on morale, organizational structure, and the 

need to develop a sense of identity for this large and geographically dispersed organization. He wanted to promote the organization, to “build 

a team from this group of folks, some of whom were fighting with one 

another ... and to cope with this huge workload.”99

To improve morale and the organization’s self-image, General 

van Loben Sels arranged social events, such as dances, parties, and a 

Christmas ball, to which every member of the staff was invited. Such gala 

gatherings had not taken place in recent experience. “We brought them 
229

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

all together,” van Loben Sels 

recalled, “and we had our uniforms on—dress uniforms. Most 

of them had never seen us in our 

military dress uniform.”100

Van Loben Sels’ promotion 

to major general offered another opportunity to build up the 

division’s self-image. Like several of his predecessors, he was 

promoted during his command 

at EUD, but, as Damm noted, 

“He was the first one to make 

it into a great ceremony.”101 Van 

Loben Sels asked the V Corps 

commander for a parade, and he 

invited representatives from the 

German government and military, German construction agencies, and U.S. military commanders, including General Ahearn 

from the Air Force. At the ceremony on the parade grounds, the 

chief of engineers, Lt. Gen. E. R. Heiberg III, pinned on van Loben Sels’ 

second star. After the parade and ceremony General van Loben Sels and 

his wife hosted a reception at their quarters in Bad Vilbel.102

Organizational Structure and Data Systems

In addition to ceremony as an enhancement to self-image and morale, 

van Loben Sels turned his attention to the structures through which 

EUD operated: the division’s organizational framework and its use of 

information processing systems. Shortly after he arrived at the division, 

van Loben Sels launched a study of the division to identify an organizational structure best suited to accomplish its mission. A study team 

from the U.S. Army Engineer Studies Center (ESC), an agency of USACE 

located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, worked with an advisory group at the 

division to consider a wide range of issues: goals, problems, current and 

projected peacetime volume of work, geographical boundaries, operating 

environment, host-nation responsibilities, potential wartime mission, and 

requirements for interacting with customers. After the division’s executive committee reviewed the ESC study in February, the final report was 

published in April 1985.

The study concluded that EUD’s problems could be “summed up in 

three words—it’s too big.” The report continued: “No internal reorganization will resolve its physical space problems; no centralized operating 

division structure can service so many varied clients responsively. [EUD 

General van Loben Sels
230

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

should adopt] the traditional USACE decentralized division HQ/district 

structure, but with some modifications.”103 Specifically, the report recommended that EUD have a division headquarters in Frankfurt with district 

offices in Frankfurt, Kaiserslautern, and Stuttgart. Only Turkey would 

remain as an area office.

General van Loben Sels rejected the recommended organizational 

structure. He was not convinced that the volume of work would remain 

high enough to make the costs of reorganization acceptable, and he reasoned that the overhead required by the district structure would be very 

high. Instead, he continued to decentralize by giving more authority and 

additional resources to the area engineers. By enhancing the authority of 

the division’s area offices, van Loben Sels hoped to eliminate administrative bottlenecks and achieve greater productivity, thus accomplishing 

what the report recommended without the costs of the reorganization.104

General van Loben Sels also established a study group of senior 

division personnel to address automation. He saw this effort as building on the study by the ESC that had identified the paucity of automated data processing (ADP) in the division as a serious problem. 

The ESC study was particularly critical of support to the area offices, 

noting the “minimal utilization of ADP capability and communication from the division offices to the field.” Furthermore, “The [ADP] 

environment is archaic, even compared to Corps standards. ADP 

equipment is scheduled to be placed in the field in the near future, 

but there does not appear to be any plan to provide standard programs, the required ADP skills to utilize the equipment, or specific 

guidance on utilization.”105EUD’s experience with data processing had 

been unsatisfactory long before van Loben Sels initiated his study. 

The division’s first commander, General Prentiss, had had little success in bringing the new organization into conformity with Corps of 

Engineers use of two automated reporting systems, COEMIS (Corps of 

Engineers Management Information System) and AMPRS (Automated 

Management Progress Reporting System). The systems had been 

designed with no regard for the division’s unique requirements, and 

their implementation was complicated because of EUD’s distance from 

Washington and the frequent turnover of branch chiefs and operators.106

COEMIS recorded accounting data and produced reports on the 

financial results of operations and on current or updated financial conditions. In investigating possibilities for implementing COEMIS in 1975, 

EUD staff learned that the computer hardware on hand was incompatible 

with the software. Furthermore, it was not feasible to change hardware 

and retrain staff, nor was COEMIS able to handle the division’s special 

requirements, particularly tracking the different categories of employees 

(DACs, local nationals in several countries, local hires) and the multiple 

currencies in which the division conducted business. EUD decided to use 

the Measurement Information Data Acquisition System project management software developed at the Fort Worth District and to set up an interim finance and accounting system. EUD’s commander in the late 1970s, 
231

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

General Wilson, planned to complete conversion to the COEMIS system in 

fiscal year 1979, but the division did not meet the target date.107

Discussions of the applicability of AMPRS, a system for monitoring 

execution of the total construction program, paralleled the discussions of 

COEMIS. Implementation of AMPRS did not begin until 1977. EUD staff 

supplied managers in Washington with information showing the modifications needed to make the software usable in Europe. When the division 

finally began to use AMPRS in 1978, the system failed to meet its needs. 

The software’s shortcomings were not restricted to EUD. Fewer than half 

of the seventeen districts using AMPRS—those that already had a strong 

in-house computer staff—reported finding it useful.108

In the summer of 1980, as General Withers prepared to take command 

of EUD, the deputy director of resource management in Headquarters, 

USACE, told him that the Europe Division was the only part of the Corps 

that had not been integrated into COEMIS’s finance and accounting module. Withers decided that he needed to upgrade the position of chief of 

the Resource Management Office and to recruit civilians from the United 

States who had experience with this software. During the next two years, 

Withers emphasized implementing COEMIS, a goal the division finally 

achieved by the end of fiscal year 1982. When Withers completed his tour, 

the division had also installed an automated funds control system.109

When General Smith took command of EUD, he also perceived the 

value of automation, particularly as a tool to connect the area offices with 

division headquarters in Frankfurt. The staff had widely divergent levels 

of computer expertise, and Smith did not want the most computer-competent persons to dominate the EUD decision-making process. He asked the 

division counsel, Allan Aaron, to convene a task force to weigh the best 

uses of the technology for EUD. The committee continued after Smith’s 

departure to develop a plan for purchasing and installing IBM-compatible 

microcomputers at headquarters and in the field offices.110

The information systems planning team formed by General van 

Loben Sels continued studying COEMIS and AMPRS. In 1985 it articulated a new level of insight: EUD’s problems implementing the Corps of 

Engineers software programs stemmed from the character of the systems 

themselves. They were reporting systems, not management systems. The 

systems collected information only for reporting up the chain of command; the data were not used in the day-to-day management of projects 

or personnel or to assess trends and anticipate needs. Thus EUD’s project and construction managers had little practical use for AMPRS and 

COEMIS and little incentive to make reporting a priority. Van Loben Sels’ 

study team also acknowledged that “there is, and always has been ... a 

perceived lack of data integrity in AMPRS.”111

When General van Loben Sels reviewed the status of automation at 

the division in 1985, computer hardware consisted of an in-house Harris 

800 super-minicomputer and an assortment of microcomputers acquired 

in 1984 and distributed throughout the division, including to the field 

offices. Under the supervision of the ADP office, EUD was using standard 
232

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

Corps of Engineer software applications, including AMPRS and COEMIS. 

The microcomputers had word processing, spreadsheet, and database 

software. The word processing center, established by General Delbridge in 

1977 with the Wang hardware-software system, remained under the purview of the Office of Administrative Services, rather than the ADP center, 

and it was not heavily used. New technology had made the very idea of a 

dedicated word-processing “typing pool” out of date.112

To assess EUD’s data processing needs, General van Loben Sels 

decided to use the IBM Information Systems Plan, a structured planning 

approach by which organizations examined their business processes to 

determine what data were needed before they looked at automation. The 

objective was to develop a plan that would satisfy the short- and longterm requirements for information within the organization. Van Loben 

Sels conjectured that this process would engage the staff throughout the 

organization and facilitate planning. The information systems planning 

study did help the staff understand business processes, but General van 

Loben Sels did not find that it significantly improved automation. Nearly 

a decade later he expressed disappointment in the results of the study process.113 Nonetheless, the team’s recommendation and a Department of the 

Army directive prompted EUD to establish an Information Management 

Office that combined ADP operations, programming functions, and wordprocessing activities, and included communications, records management, visual arts, libraries, and printing and publications. The new office 

opened on 1 April 1986, months after van Loben Sels’ departure.114

Despite a desire to stay at EUD for three years, General van Loben 

Sels was reassigned after only fifteen months. In late September 1985 he 

assumed command of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. On the short tenures 

of Smith and van Loben Sels, Hasso Damm reflected: “The sequence of 

the two made out of the shapeless organization a formed organization, 

first shaking up, and then [taking] the shaking portions and put them 

together again in one body.”115

Stability Achieved

The chief of engineers, General Heiberg, tapped Brig. Gen. James 

W. “Bill” Ray, commander of the Middle East Division, to fill the unexpected vacancy in Frankfurt, making Ray the fourth division engineer 

at EUD in as many years. The mammoth construction program managed by the Corps in Saudi Arabia was drawing down, and General 

Ray had received orders to move to the division’s rear headquarters 

in Winchester, Virginia. Instead of returning to the United States, he 

moved to Frankfurt.116 Ray’s previous assignments included district 

engineer in Omaha; assistant commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School; 

commander, 35th Engineer Battalion in Vietnam; and assistant director 

for civil works in Headquarters, USACE. He had also served as chief, 

Forces Modernization Division, and as secretary of general staff of 

USAREUR.
233

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

From the outset, EUD staff perceived General Ray as open, friendly, and 

outgoing—someone “you could talk to.” He had a good sense of humor and 

was very sociable; he and his wife participated frequently in ski trips and 

outings organized by a volunteer committee in the division. Although not a 

forceful public speaker, Ray had good communication skills; area engineers 

and field staff respected his knowledge of construction.117

One segment of the staff felt especially close to General Ray—the people who had worked for the Corps on the construction program in Saudi 

Arabia. During the drawdown in Saudi Arabia, General van Loben Sels 

had encouraged EUD to hire people leaving the Middle East Division; as 

a result, the division had several dozen “Saudi people.” A special camaraderie existed within this group, and they included General and Mrs. Ray 

in the “Saudi parties.” Some division staff resented the close social circle 

maintained by the people from Saudi Arabia.118

As a manager, General Ray disliked ad hoc actions and pressed 

the staff to develop systems. He practiced participatory management, 

respected the opinions of his staff, and paid special attention to working conditions and staff morale. General Ray adopted the two goals that 

General van Loben Sels had articulated for the Europe Division: (1) construct excellent facilities that are on time, within budget, attractive, and 

maintainable; and (2) be an excellent organization. Ray wanted to make 

EUD a place where people would want to come to work every day; his 

long-term goal was to develop a plan for the division for the 1990s.119 With 

these goals and his systematic approach to management, General Ray 

guided the Europe Division through several organizational changes and 

instituted an innovative program that focused staff attention on quality 

and excellence.

Organizational Changes

Several significant organizational adjustments occurred during 

General Ray’s tenure at EUD. Following Army directives, the division established the Information Management Office and the Logistics 

Management Office, which handled transportation services and 

some functions previously performed by the Office of Administrative 

Services.120 Ray redefined the responsibilities of the division’s deputies 

in an attempt to consolidate and clarify contracting authority within the 

division. He also redistributed the activities related to intergovernmental 

affairs when long-time employee William Camblor retired.

General van Loben Sels had asked the chief of engineering, Joe Higgs, 

to reorganize the Project Management Branch in his division by geographic 

areas. Van Loben Sels wanted project managers to work more closely with 

individual directors of engineering and housing. He also wanted each 

director of engineering and housing to have a single point of contact in 

engineering at EUD.121 Higgs resisted the reorganization because this structure made balancing the workload among project managers more difficult. 

Nonetheless, during General Ray’s tour, Higgs effected the changes.122
234

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

In January 1987 General Ray 

approved a reorganization of the 

Construction Division aimed at 

placing responsibility for dayto-day problems with midlevel 

supervisors, allowing branch 

managers to concentrate on longrange planning. (Chart 11) The 

chief of construction, John Blake, 

served as the catalyst for this 

reorganization, which finally 

took place after a year of consultations with USACE headquarters 

in Washington. The reorganization established three branches 

within the Construction Division: 

Office Engineering, Construction 

Management, and Supervision 

and Inspection. Except for medical facilities, certain unique projects, and contract modifications 

of more than $100,000, the division gave the field offices authority to administer these contracts without referring issues back to headquarters for decisions.123

Soon after General Ray arrived, he began to examine the roles of the 

two deputies, particularly in reference to their authority over contracting. 

From the beginning of the division, both deputies had contracting authority; since 1983 one deputy had handled contracts for the Army program, 

the other for the Air Force program. The 1985 report by the Engineer 

Studies Center identified the involvement of two deputies in contracting 

as a management problem. Because each deputy processed over 1,000 contracts each year, both were overwhelmed by their operational responsibilities. The report observed, “No one is planning because they are too busy 

performing operations.”124

The system also created potential conflicts of interest, because a 

deputy worked with the customer/user and then signed the contracts 

involving the same clients. After consulting with Division Counsel Aaron, 

Higgs, Blake, and the chief of contracting, Richard Wisdom, General Ray 

decided only one deputy and the chief of contracting should have contracting authority. In June of 1986 Ray appointed the deputy division engineer, Col. John Moravec, with contracting authority. Moravec had already 

served for fifteen months in EUD as assistant commander for DEH support. General Ray gave his other deputy, Col. Dennis Culp, responsibility 

for management and planning.125

Ray also transferred additional contracting authority to the area engineers and put lawyers in five area offices: Stuttgart, Kaiserslautern, and 

General Ray
Chart 11: Organization of the Europe Division, July 1988

U.S. Army Engineer Division, Europe

Executive Office

Commander and Division Engineer

Resource

Management

Office

Personnel Office

Public Affairs Office

Construction

Division

Construction

Management

Branch

Office

Engineering

Branch

Supervision and

Inspection

Branch

Safety and

Occupational

Health Office

Contracting

Division

Mobilization

Planning Office

Office of Council

Audit Office

Policy and

Compliance

Branch

Acquisition

Branch

Host Nations

Contractraing

Branch

Information

Management

Office

Logistics

Management

Office

U.S. Air Forces

Europe Liaison

Officer

Heidelberg Area Office

Camp Darby, Italy

Nuremberg Area Office

Nuremberg, Germany

Würzburg Area Office

Würzburg, Germany

The U.S. Engineer Group

Area Office

Incirlik, Turkey

Kaiserslautern Area Office

Kaiserslautern, Germany

Engineering

Division

Project

Management

Branch

Technical

Engineering

Branch

Special

Assistants

Boards and

Committees

Planning

Branch

Special

Assistants

Foundations

and Materials

Branch

General

Engineering

Branch

Frankfurt Area Office

Frankfurt, Germany

Northern Area Office

Hoensbroek, Netherlands

Stuttgart Area Office

Stuttgart, Germany
236

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

Frankfurt in Germany; TUSEG in Turkey; and the Northern Area Office now 

located in the Netherlands. The lawyer in Stuttgart also served the area offices in Nuremberg and Würzburg. This reorganization reversed the centralization that had taken place in 1980 when the lawyers from the Mediterranean 

and Stuttgart Area Offices were reassigned to headquarters in Frankfurt. 

Ray assigned supervision and oversight of the Office of Counsel and its supporting elements in the area offices to Moravec.126 This reorganization gave 

EUD’s area offices independence in contracting comparable to the authority of districts in the United States. Because it was an innovation within the 

Corps of Engineers, the measure required USACE approval.127

General Ray sought to add flexibility to contract administration by 

promoting and improving the use of indefinite delivery (open-ended) 

types of contracts. The division negotiated prices for various services with 

selected architect-engineer firms and signed contracts up to a maximum 

of $500,000. When a community had a project costing less than $50,000, 

the director of engineering and housing only specified the services he 

needed on a delivery order to the firm under contract and the firm began 

the work. The indefinite delivery contracts eliminated the need to negotiate a separate contract for each small job. The architect-engineer firm 

could deliver services on individual projects up to the maximum amount 

of the contract.128

In 1986 the division received permission to allow a second-year extension to the contracts with architect-engineer firms, and the directors of 

Construction of recreational facilities provided opportunities for social outings, 

such as ski trips to Garmisch.
237

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

engineering and housing received permission to write delivery orders up 

to $85,000. These new procedures reduced administrative labor, particularly the hundreds of hours of overtime normally expended to prepare 

and place contracts at the end of a fiscal year. In 1988 EUD held seminars 

to bring together architect-engineer firms and the engineering staffs from 

military communities to familiarize everyone with the regulations governing the indefinite delivery contracts.129

Intergovernmental Affairs

The retirement on 4 July 1987 of Camblor, deputy division engineer 

for intergovernmental affairs, necessitated a reorganization. Camblor had 

served in Europe continuously since 1944, first as an Army officer and 

then for forty years as a civilian in the military construction organizations 

that had preceded EUD. During this long career, Camblor won a number 

of awards, including designation as a distinguished post member of the 

Society of American Military Engineers in Frankfurt in 1977, a decoration for Meritorious Civilian Service in 1985, and the Exceptional Civilian 

Award from the Secretary of the Army in 1987. From 1983 until his retirement he served as chairman of the Sending States Construction Group, 

which included representatives of the six NATO nations that had troops 

in the Federal Republic of Germany. In recognition of his extraordinary 

career, Camblor was honored with a formal retirement ceremony on the 

grassy area in front of the Phillips Building. Officials from USAREUR, V 

Corps, and a number of the NATO host nations attended the ceremony. 

U.S. military units marched, and a German army band played. At his 

retirement dinner, Camblor received medals from several nations, including the Federal Republic of Germany, whose minister of construction presented him with Das Grosse Deutsche Verdienstkreuz (The German Grand 

Service Cross). After the ceremony, EUD hosted a retirement dinner at the 

officers’ club.130

General Ray and others described Camblor as “a unique asset to the 

organization” and “essentially irreplaceable.”131 Because the division could 

not fill the SES position that Camblor had held nor replace his years of experience, Ray chose to divide Camblor’s responsibilities three ways. The chief 

of engineering, Higgs, was named deputy division engineer for intergovernmental affairs and designated to attend meetings of the Sending States 

Construction Group. Camblor’s former assistant, Michael Mele, reported to 

Higgs. The chief of construction, Blake, took over responsibility for activities in the technical area, and the division counsel, Aaron, conducted the 

negotiations with foreign nations required to implement new programs, in 

addition to interpreting the intergovernmental agreements.132

Focus on Customers and Quality

Early in his tour at EUD, General Ray took up the 1986 USACE theme, 

“Leaders in Customer Care.” Generals Smith and van Loben Sels had 
238

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

emphasized the importance of satisfying customers by delivering a highquality product, but neither commander had established a specific program. General Ray chose Total Quality Management (TQM), a program 

developed by the 3M Corporation, as the vehicle for making customer 

care a top priority for the division. Ray proposed that EUD develop a 

TQM program and appointed Colonel Moravec as quality director to 

spearhead the effort.133

At a three-day conference of the division’s managers in January 1987, 

General Ray reminded them that President Ronald Reagan had issued a 

directive requiring all federal government agencies to become 20 percent 

more productive by 1992. Ray stressed that the division could be a leader 

in customer care while meeting the president’s goal. A spokesman for 

3M Corporation explained the Total Quality Management concept. A few 

weeks later thirteen supervisory-level employees from EUD attended a 

five-day workshop on TQM at 3M headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota. 

They returned to Frankfurt as trained facilitators, eager to implement 

a modification of the program they dubbed EUD Quality Management 

(EQM).134

In 3M’s terminology, quality management is a process that focuses on 

people, not on products:

EQM is designed to provide a new culture to the Division and 

every employee who works here. Its deceptively simple process is to 

do right things right. And at the basis of the program is the goal of 

100 percent conformance to customer’s expectations. That is, if our 

customer expects us to be able to do it, we will do it—100 percent of 

the time. If we cannot do it, we will change our customer’s expectations.135

Total Quality Management defines a customer as any person within 

an organization who expects work products from other employees.136

EQM challenged the very nature and orientation of the personnel at EUD:

The organization has been product-oriented for so long that to 

talk about being customer-oriented is a major change. That doesn’t 

mean you ignore the product, but there is more to meeting customer 

expectations than delivering the product. It’s the manner in which 

we deliver the product.... It’s how we explain to the customer what 

we can and what we cannot do.137

During 1987 and early 1988 articles in every issue of the Corps Line 

explained EQM, gave the reactions of staff, and reiterated the importance 

of quality. General Ray asserted often that training employees was “the 

most important thing we are going to do in EUD in the next two years.”138

In the first phase of EQM’s implementation, every employee participated 

in a mandatory full-day session. The first group of facilitators trained 

others; in August 1987 a second group of facilitators was trained. By 
239

Decade of Consolidation and Growth

September, more than 800 people had participated in a session that covered the concepts, principles, and skills of EQM. Personnel throughout 

the organization responded enthusiastically, discovering that the program 

generated a lot of energy by providing all employees with an opportunity 

to be included in the management of the organization.139

To explain the need for EQM, General Ray used a parable, the story 

of the frog in a pot of water. The frog, Ray recounted, is an adaptable 

creature that adjusts his body temperature to his environment. Whether 

the water is hot or cold, the frog adjusts until he is comfortable. In a pot 

of water over a fire, the frog is a slave to his proven routine and continues with the same response as the heat increases. By the time the water 

reaches a boil, the frog has adjusted himself right into oblivion. “The heat 

is on for organizations that want to succeed in these changing times,” Ray 

told his staff. “To be successful, organizations must change with the environment” and find new ways to adjust or risk ending up like the boiled 

frog. The frog became the unofficial emblem of Ray’s leadership, and he 

was inundated with gift frogs. The story of the frog conveyed a serious 

message—what worked in the past might not work in changing times. 

Productivity and its ability to attract customers would be the measure of 

EUD’s success in an increasingly competitive environment.140

By the autumn of 1987 the EQM initiative attracted the attention of the 

deputy assistant secretary of defense for installations, Robert A. Stone, 

who singled out the division for special commendation. The following 

January EUD provided a display describing EQM for the Department of 

Defense’s Productivity Month celebration in the Pentagon. In his spring 

1988 visit to Frankfurt, the chief of engineers, General Heiberg, praised 

the program, saying, “General Ray did not invent the word quality, but 

[he] has put new meaning into the word.”141 In May 1988 Ray was able 

to report that Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci had signed up for the 

TQM process, “and he has ordered this division to continue working on 

total quality management.”142

General Ray strove to make EUD a place where people wanted to 

work. To advance this goal, he introduced physical changes in the working environment. He had the division replace the old gray metal desks 

and file cabinets with space-saving modular office furniture.143 To emphasize his belief in the importance of the division’s work, and to record 

division activities and work in a tangible and easily accessible form, Ray 

allocated funds for this history of the Europe Division and its predecessor 

agencies.

General Ray perceived the implementation of Total Quality 

Management as the most far-reaching change he would make as Europe 

Division engineer.144 The concept incorporated his values by emphasizing 

the positive, building team spirit, and engaging everyone across departments, nationalities, and civil service grades. The energy, enthusiasm, and 

cooperation generated by participation in EQM added to the loyalty and 

confidence General Ray personally inspired in those who served with 

him at EUD.
240

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991

In the spring of 1988 the Europe Division was operating smoothly 

and the staff felt optimistic. Construction placement for the fiscal year 

ending 30 September 1987 had been an all-time high of $527 million; 

leaders expected placement for fiscal year 1988 to be even higher. EUD 

workforce numbered nearly 1,200 in headquarters and in eight area 

offices: Frankfurt, Northern Area, Stuttgart, Kaiserslautern, Nuremberg, 

Würzburg, Heidelberg, and Turkey.