NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 

THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 28, 2016

National Commission on the Future of the Army i

FOREWORD

I

n April 2015, the eight Commissioners appointed to the 

National Commission on the Future of the Army convened 

for the first time in Arlington, Virginia. Bringing together a wide 

array of experiences and backgrounds, we eight had one common 

goal: to conduct our work in an unbiased, transparent, and 

inclusive manner so that we could, to the best of our abilities, 

fulfill the mission assigned to us by the Congress. This report 

summarizes how we gathered the information we required and 

includes, in our best judgments, findings and recommendations 

regarding the future of the Army.

As we travelled across the Army and the nation, we were 

privileged to meet many soldiers, their families, dedicated 

veterans, civic leaders, and citizens committed to maintaining 

a strong Army. We found truth in the sentiment that soldiers 

are the strength of the Army. Our nation must never forget 

that among the many blessings bestowed upon our country, 

one of the greatest is the cohort of American women and men 

who step forward to willingly don the Army uniform in order 

to defend our freedom. In the hard choices that lie ahead, 

maintaining unfailing faith and trust with those soldiers and 

their families must remain a critically high priority; for, without 

these soldiers, America does not have an Army. As it has been 

since the very beginning of our nation, it is in these soldiers 

that we place our full trust and confidence.

In our travels, it was disheartening to sometimes hear 

elements of discord from within the Army’s ranks—and some 

from without—pitting the Army National Guard against the 

Regular Army. This is unacceptable behavior, especially from 

some senior uniformed and civilian officials. Such parochialism 

undermines the Army’s values, does disservice to soldiers 

and veterans, and adversely impacts the Army’s mission. 

We encourage the Army’s most senior leaders, as well as the 

Congress who established this Commission, to, by their words 

and by their example, eliminate this unhelpful bickering among 

the components of America’s Army.

The report which follows is our work. While aided and 

supported every step along the way by an incredibly talented 

and dedicated staff led by Major General Ray Carpenter, U.S. 

Army Retired, and Mr. Rickey Smith, we eight assume full 

responsibility for the content of our report.

It has been our great privilege to serve on this 

Commission. We came to this Commission believing in 

the Army. We conclude our service with an ever deeper 

appreciation of the unmatched commitment the soldiers of 

America’s Army make to fulfilling their oaths of service on 

behalf of our nation.
ii National Commission on the Future of the Army

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

THE COMMISSION 1

WHAT WE FOUND 2

WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY 5

CIVILIAN CONTROL: 

THE AMERICAN WAY OF WAR 7

ONE ARMY: COMPONENT ROOTS 7

Figure 1: Army Theater Structure Capabilities 7

Figure 2: DoD Executive Agent Responsibilities 8

Figure 3: Soldiers Deployed And Forward Stationed 9

The Laws that Shaped the Army 10

THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE 10

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD 13

THE COMMISSION’S TASKS 14

RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH 14

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT 16

THE COMMISSION’S ORGANIZATION 17

Figure 4: The National Commission on 

the Future of the Army 17

Figure 5: Subcommittee Assignments / Tasks 18

THE FACT-FINDING PHASE 19

Figure 6: Commission Engagements 20

COMMISSION TRANSPARENCY: 

ABOVE AND BEYOND FACA FLOORS 22

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTICAL REVIEW 22

Selected NCFA Analytical Tools 22

CONDUCTING THE RISK ASSESSMENT 24

PREPARING THE REPORT 25

FUTURE CHALLENGES 27

GEOPOLITICAL TRENDS 28

Figure 7: Army in Europe 29

Homeland Defense and DSCA 30

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY TRENDS 33

ANTICIPATED MISSIONS FOR ARMY FORCES 34

A History of Readiness Crises 36

FISCAL CHALLENGES 39

ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE LEVELS AND 

THEIR EFFECTS 40

Figure 8: Budget Uncertainty Over Time 41

RESOURCE CONCLUSIONS 43

STRETCHING ARMY RESOURCES 43

BUDGETARY TURMOIL 44

Measuring Costs and Benefits 45

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE 47

READINESS 49

A Word about the “Abrams Doctrine” 49

MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT 50

FORCE STRUCTURE AND END-STRENGTH 50

Capability and Capacity 51

REDUCING RISK THROUGH FORCE POSTURE 52

REDUCING RISK THROUGH STRUCTURE 

ADJUSTMENTS 54

REDUCING RISK THROUGH FORCE UTILIZATION 55

REDUCING RISK BY ADJUSTING 

COMPONENT SOURCING 55

REDUCING RISK THROUGH STRUCTURE 

REDESIGN 55

REDUCING RISK THROUGH JOINT ENABLERS 56

POSSIBLE STRUCTURE OFFSETS 57

THE GENERATING FORCE 57

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY 59

ROLES OF THE ARMY COMPONENTS 60

Figure 9: Army Formations 61

Figure 10: Ratio of Reserve Components 

per Service, 2016 62

ONE ARMY IN TOTAL FORCE POLICY 63

Title 10 and Title 32 63

SECTIONS 12304(b), 12304a, AND 12304b 66

ONE ARMY USING MULTICOMPONENT UNITS 67

Multicomponent Challenges 68

ONE ARMY ADMINISTRATION 68

Continuum of Service 70

ONE ARMY RECRUITING 71

Shrinking Recruiting Pool 72

ONE ARMY LEADER DEVELOPMENT 73

ONE ARMY IN ACTION 75

ONE ARMY EXPANDING 79
National Commission on the Future of the Army iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES 81

INFORMATION GATHERED 82

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING OPTIONS 83

OPTIONS FOR APACHE TRANSFERS 84

OPTION 1: AVIATION RESTRUCTURE 

INITIATIVE (ARI) 84

OPTION 2: NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

ALTERNATIVE 86

OPTION 3: ARI MODIFIED TO MAINTAIN FOUR 

NATIONAL GUARD APACHE BATTALIONS 87

Regular Army Combat Aviation Brigade 87

Figure 11: Description and Assessment of Options 91

MULTICOMPONENT UNITS 92

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 93

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION 97

LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY, AND POLICY 

FRAMEWORK 98

ASSESSMENT OF AUTHORITIES AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALLOCATION 99

Figure 12: Authorities 99

Figure 13: Total Army Analysis 100

THE ARNG ROLE IN TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS 100

ARNG FORCE STRUCTURE ALLOCATION 

PROCESS 100

Figure 14: Stationing Process Flow Chart 101

Figure 15: Divestment Process Flow Chart 102

Total Force Training 103

NCFA FINDINGS 104

APPENDIX A: ESTABLISHMENT OF 

THE COMMISSION 107

APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS 

BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL 111

APPENDIX C: OFFSITE AGREEMENT 118

APPENDIX D: 

ARMY BUDGET AND END STRENGTH 120

Where the Army Has Budgeted Its Money, 

2016-2020 120

Army Over Time, 1946-2019 122

Army Over Time, 2000-2019 122

End Strength Ramps Under Different Funding 

Levels, FY01-22 123

APPENDIX E: NCFA CLASSIFIED ANNEX 124

APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 125

APPENDIX G: TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS 128

APPENDIX H: COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF 178

APPENDIX I: SUBCOMMITTEES 185

APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED 190

National Commission on the Future of the Army 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The American people expect their Army to be trained and 

ready whenever called upon to achieve national objectives. 

In an increasingly complex world with an increasing array 

of diverse threats at home and abroad, America’s Army must 

possess a wide range of capabilities to fulfill its myriad missions. 

However, even as the demand for Army forces expands and 

diversifies, the fiscal resources necessary to meet that demand 

have declined and will remain challenging for several years. 

This tension between growing requirements and fewer resources 

not only creates national-level risk, it also has resulted in some 

unhealthy competitive tension among the Army’s components, 

especially between the Regular Army and the Army National 

Guard. In large part, these factors, plus the Army’s proposal, 

endorsed by the Department of Defense, to consolidate all 

Apache aircraft in the Regular Army, prompted the Congress to 

establish the National Commission on the Future of the Army 

(NCFA).

The nation has one Army. For sound reasons—historical, 

cultural, legal, operational, and strategic—the Army has three 

distinct, interdependent, and essential components: the Regular 

Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve. 

The Regular Army consists of full-time soldiers and is often 

imperfectly referred to as the active component. The Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve—also known collectively 

as the reserve components—are comprised primarily of 

soldiers serving part-time but who can be ordered to fulltime duty. Until mobilized or activated by the President for 

federal service, the soldiers and units in the Army National 

Guard are commanded by the fifty-four governors of the states 

and territories and are available for the ever-widening range 

of domestic missions: disaster response, counter-narcotics, 

border security, and response during civil disturbances among 

them. Regular Army soldiers and units of the Army Reserve 

operate under federal direction, and while they may support 

“immediate response” requirements in rapidly emerging 

domestic situations, they must seek federal approval to 

continue beyond immediate conditions. Despite the differences 

among the components, the nation’s one Army is intended to 

operate under the Total Force Policy. This report will highlight 

some areas where that policy is not being fulfilled in the 

manner envisioned.

THE COMMISSION

Congress established the NCFA in the Carl Levin and Howard 

P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA FY15). The language enacted is 

similar to that in the NDAA FY13 establishing the National 

Commission on the Structure of the Air Force. Eight NCFA 

commissioners were appointed, four by the President and 

four by the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Senate and 

House Armed Services Committees. The commissioners were 

appointed as Special Government Employees for the duration 

of the Commission’s work. 

The commissioners selected a full-time executive director 

and a staff director who, in turn, selected a staff of about forty 

individuals with experiences and backgrounds specifically 

relevant to the Commission’s assigned tasks. The staff included 

broad representation from the Army Headquarters, the National 

Guard Bureau, and the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve as 

well as the Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 

the Congressional Research Service. Some individuals (such as 

the executive director) were hired specifically for this mission.

Undertaking its mission, the Commission sought at all 

times to not only comply with the governing Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), but to conduct its activities in a 

transparent, unbiased, and comprehensive manner. The 

Commission conducted public sessions in Arlington, Virginia, 

“Not later than February 1, 2016, the Commission shall submit to the President and the Congressional 

defense committees a report setting forth a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 

the Commission...with its recommendations for such legislative and administrative actions as the 

Commission considers appropriate in light of the results of the studies.”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(c)
2 National Commission on the Future of the Army

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

each month from May until December 2015. The Commission 

also conducted nineteen site visits to directly engage with 

units, soldiers, senior officials, and, in many cases, the local 

citizenry (see Appendix G) in an effort to hear as many voices 

as was practical. Governors, Members of Congress, and local 

officials made their views known in person and in writing. 

Every commander of the geographic Combatant Commands 

presented their thoughts, as did numerous other senior defense 

officials. The associations that represent the interests of so many 

soldiers also testified before the Commission in public sessions, 

and most followed up with written comments. Representatives 

of the intelligence community provided their best assessments 

concerning the nature of the security environment in which 

Army forces will operate. Numerous defense analysts, from 

within the government but also from think tanks and other 

experts outside of government, provided useful analyses. 

WHAT WE FOUND

America’s Army is the strongest in the world. It is made so 

by the extraordinary women and men who answer the call to 

duty and voluntarily choose to serve the nation when, frankly, 

they have many other opportunities. Sustaining the quality of 

the All-Volunteer Force must remain a national priority; the 

alternatives—accepting a less well-educated, less fit (morally or 

physically), or less-motivated force, or returning to short-term 

compulsory service—will not yield the Army America needs 

now or in the future.

Force Structure, Readiness, and Modernization

The demands from the Combatant Commands for Army 

capabilities are significant and, in many cases, increasing. 

Yet, the Army is down-sizing. After all we have heard, read, 

seen, and analyzed, we find that an Army of 980,000 is the 

minimally sufficient force to meet current and anticipated 

missions with an acceptable level of national risk. Within 

that Army of 980,000, the Commission finds that a Regular 

Army of 450,000, an Army National Guard of 335,000, and 

an Army Reserve of 195,000 represent, again, the absolute 

minimums to meet America’s national security objectives. 

However, the reserve components must be resourced to 

provide both needed operational capability and the strategic 

depth the nation requires in the event of a full mobilization 

for unforeseen requirements. These forces should be 

maintained at currently planned readiness levels, and every 

effort should be made to increase funding for modernization.

The Commission finds that the nation can maintain a force 

of 980,000 soldiers, along with reasonable levels of readiness 

and modernization, only with budgets at levels at least equal to 

those proposed in the President’s request for fiscal year 2016. 

Sequester-level funding established by the Budget Control Act 

of 2011, as amended, will not be enough. Moreover, Congress 

and the Administration need to return to predictable and 

responsible budgeting in order to eliminate the fiscal turmoil 

that leads to inefficiencies and consumes time better spent 

managing the Army.

Even with budgets permitting a force of 980,000, the 

Army faces significant shortfalls. Army aviation represents 

a key example. Today, some aviation assets cannot meet 

expected wartime capacity requirements. Considering all 

types of Army units, peacetime demand for aviation assets is 

among the highest, and demand may grow as threats from 

Russia and other nations escalate. Retaining an eleventh 

Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army would 

help meet these demands. With an eleventh CAB, the Army 

would be better postured to retain a forward stationed aviation 

brigade in Korea—a major advantage over rotating forces as 

currently planned—and shortfalls in capabilities would decline 

significantly. 

Short-range air defense represents another example of 

an important shortfall. In the post-Cold War era, the Army 

envisioned little threat from the air forces of potential adversaries. 

Recent activities in Ukraine and Syria have demonstrated the 

threat environment has changed. Yet, no short-range air defense 

battalions reside in the Regular Army. Moreover, a sizeable 

percentage of the Army National Guard’s short-range air defense 

capability is providing essential protection in the National 

Capital Region, leaving precious little capability for other global 

contingencies, including in high-threat areas in northeast Asia, 

southwest Asia, eastern Europe, or the Baltics. Other capabilities 

with significant shortfalls include tactical mobility; missile 

defense; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN); 

field artillery; fuel distribution; water purification; watercraft; 

and military police.

Remedying these shortfalls within a 980,000-soldier Army 

will require hard choices and difficult trade-offs. Budgetary 

pressures make end strength increases unlikely, at least for the 

next few years. If end strength cannot increase, the Army should 

consider reducing two Infantry Brigade Combat Teams in the 

Regular Army in order to provide the manning necessary to 

strengthen aviation, short-range air defense, and other capabilities. 

However, even if end strength constraints can be met, 

the Army will need significant additional funding to mitigate 

these shortfalls. The Army can help by working with the 

Administration to propose efficiencies and reduce redundancy 

in its operations. Congress needs to accept these changes, even 

though some are politically difficult to implement. But more 

efficiencies and fewer redundancies will not be enough; added 

funding will eventually be needed if major shortfalls are to be 

eliminated.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Developing One Army 

While the Army is intended to operate as one force—

integrating the efforts of the Regular Army, Army National 

Guard, and Army Reserve—gaps and seams exist in the 

implementation of the Total Force Policy. Symptoms include 

lack of a focus on multicomponent units that bring together 

capabilities from all components, the absence of an integrated 

recruiting force, and the inability to manage pay and personnel 

across the entire Army with a single system. Regrettably, 

parochialism, some tension among components, and the lack 

of predictable and responsible budgeting exacerbate the lack of 

unity.

As a result of the budgetary constraints imposed by the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army had to make many 

significant trade-offs, including cancelling Combat Training 

Center rotations and furloughing Army civilians. Moreover, 

the Army replaced four Army National Guard units scheduled 

to deploy in June 2013 for overseas operations in order to 

avoid about $93 million in added costs required to mobilize 

and deploy the units. Given that year’s tight budget situation, 

the decision to employ Regular Army units in lieu of reserve 

component units was understandable. However, these decisions 

caused longer-term harm by reducing opportunities for leader 

development and training for reserve component soldiers. The 

decisions also increased tension and suspicions between the 

Army components, leaving some reserve units feeling that they 

were not being treated as an important part of the Army. 

The Commission believes the Army must fully 

implement the Total Force Policy. It must capitalize on the 

reserve components to provide not only needed operational 

capabilities, but also the strategic depth required for future 

campaigns.

To strengthen the Total Force, the Commission makes a 

number of specific recommendations. One involves expanded 

use of multicomponent units and organizations. Such units 

can improve readiness and capabilities if they can train 

together. Multicomponent units also offer opportunities for 

soldiers and leaders to learn how the components can best 

function together. The Army has a long and varied history 

regarding multicomponent units, but the opportunity exists 

for increased use. As one specific example, the Commission 

recommends that the Army develop a substantial pilot program 

to test multicomponent approaches in aviation and identifies 

some approaches that should be considered in designing the 

pilot program. Changes in recruiting and advertising can 

also help develop one Army. The Commission recommends 

pilot programs that align the recruiting efforts of the Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. The current 

practice of separate recruiting forces, programs, and incentives 

results in the Army competing with itself for a diminishing 

pool of qualified individuals. That is not only unproductive, 

it is inherently inefficient. Similarly, consolidating the 

administration and budgeting of recruiting, advertising, and 

branding for all components will yield increased effectiveness 

and efficiency.

Lastly, a new approach to the issue of Apache transfers can 

help develop one Army.

Apache Transfers

The Commission was specifically directed to address the 

proposal to transfer all Apache attack helicopters (AH-64s) 

from the Army National Guard to the Regular Army as one 

part of the Army’s broader Aviation Restructure Initiative 

(ARI). The Commission concluded that the ARI is a wellcrafted plan that holds down costs while maintaining a 

reasonable level of wartime capacity in the Apache fleet. ARI 

costs are consistent with the President’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2016, the baseline used by the Commission, and 

the proposal has been endorsed in the President’s budget. ARI, 

however, results in a lack of strategic depth, providing for no 

wartime surge capability in the Army National Guard. It also 

does not support the Total Force Policy.

In response to the ARI, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) 

formulated an approach to aviation restructuring that would 

retain six Apache helicopter battalions in the Army National 

Guard (two of which would be in multicomponent aviation 

brigades). The Commission found the NGB Alternative 

would provide a significant wartime surge capacity for the 

Apache force, and it would likely reduce the peacetime stress 

on Regular Army Apache units. But wartime capacity declines 

under the NGB Alternative, and costs increase.

The Commission examined numerous options 

to determine if any offered more advantages or fewer 

disadvantages compared to the ARI or the NGB Alternative. 

After extensive analysis, and numerous discussions with 

proponents of various plans, the Commission recommends that 

the Army maintain twenty-four manned Apache battalions—

twenty in the Regular Army and four in the Army National 

Guard. The Commission also recommends retaining a forwardstationed Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea.

Compared with the ARI, the Commission’s 

recommended plan offers advantages in wartime capacity, 

wartime surge, and peacetime operational tempo. Wartime 

capacity and peacetime operating tempo improve compared 

with those under the NGB Alternative. The Commission plan 

also improves aviation capability in Korea. Added costs under 

the Commission plan are significant, but the Commission 

offers an illustrative approach to offset those costs through 

changes in the force structure and equipping of UH-60 

Black Hawk assault helicopters. Perhaps most important, the 
4 National Commission on the Future of the Army

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Commission recommendation can help develop one Army 

that trains together in peacetime and, when necessary, fights 

together in war.

Army National Guard Allocation

A specific consideration for the Commission was to identify 

and evaluate the distribution of responsibility and authority 

for the allocation of Army National Guard personnel and 

force structure in the states and territories. The NCFA found 

that the processes that shape and support allocating Army 

National Guard forces have changed over time to accommodate 

the Guard’s dual missions under Title 10 and Title 32. The 

processes changed most notably when the Chief, National 

Guard Bureau was established by the Congress as a four-star 

position and designated a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

The Commission found the processes employed to 

determine Army National Guard allocation to be sound and 

use objective, quantified metrics that were verified by the 

states and territories. Nonetheless, the regulations governing 

allocation are complicated and should be clarified by the 

Department of the Army. The Commission recommends the 

Secretary of the Army codify in Army regulations the existing 

Army National Guard Force Program review as the formal 

method to manage changes to the Army National Guard force 

structure. 

From the founding of our nation, the United States of 

America placed its armed forces under civilian control. Ours 

is an Army of the people and for the people. Since its earliest 

days, the United States established a multicomponent Army, 

with one component comprising full-time soldiers serving 

in federal forces, and another component comprising parttime soldiers serving in state militias but able to be called up 

to federal duty in times of national crisis; the federal parttime reserve force evolved later in our nation’s history. These 

three components are distinct, interdependent, and essential. 

Combined, they form America’s Army, the best in the world, 

a Total Force providing land forces and strategic depth to the 

Joint Force for homeland defense and power projection. By 

maintaining faith with the soldiers of the All-Volunteer Army, 

continuing to support their families, and through adoption 

of the recommendations included in this report, the eight 

commissioners of the National Commission on the Future of 

the Army have full confidence that America’s Army will retain 

its global preeminence well into the future.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 5

“It is the intent of 

Congress to provide an 

Army that is capable, 

in conjunction with the 

other armed forces, of 

preserving the peace and 

security, and providing 

for the defense [and] 

overcoming any nations 

responsible for aggressive 

acts that imperil the 

peace and security of the 

United States.”

U.S. Code Title 10, § 3062

U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Julieanne Morse

WHY THE NATION 

NEEDS AN ARMY

A merica had an Army before it became a nation. In 

1775, volunteers from other colonies had gone to help 

the Massachusetts militia fight the British in Boston, but the 

assembled American forces lacked unity of command and 

organization. The Second Continental Congress gathered that 

same year in Philadelphia to coordinate a united response to 

the crisis, and on June 14 voted to establish the Continental 

Army and appoint George Washington as commander. 

In times of war, the Army provides land forces that fight 

and win as part of the Joint Force. In times of national crises, 

Army forces provide response and recovery assistance to 

federal, state, and local governments at home and abroad. In 
6 National Commission on the Future of the Army

WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY

times of peace, Army forces help deter would-be adversaries 

from threatening our interests while assuring our allies and 

partners. The Army Corps of Engineers has an enduring 

mission building and maintaining the nation’s infrastructure. 

Army expertise is used to set theaters for operations (see 

Figure 1), and the Army serves as the executive agency for 

forty functions supporting the Department of Defense (see 

Figure 2).

Our nation today is not in a declared state of war—but 

it is certainly not at peace. After fourteen years of conflict, 

the demands for U.S. military operations remain high, and 

the challenges ahead are daunting. At the same time, the 

federal government has faced a persistent budget crisis for 

more than half a decade, one that could itself evolve into a 

security threat. 

It is in this climate that the Congress established the 

National Commission on the Future of the Army. The 

Commission’s foundational purpose was to look into the future 

to assist the nation’s political and military leaders in grappling 

with difficult issues surrounding the size and structure of the 

Army to meet the demands of an increasingly complex global 

security environment.

The Commission did not have a mandate to predict where 

and when the nation will call upon its Army to respond to 

an imminent threat, unexpected crisis, or to secure a strategic 

objective. The Commission is certain, however, that such a 

demand will come. Land power will be required to fight and 

win wars now and in the future, despite the aspirations of 

some to fight wars at arm’s length. On our current not-quitewar-but-not-quite-peace footing, all signs point to continuing 

demands for American land power.

The Army’s foremost responsibility is to deliver ready, 

trained, and equipped forces to meet the operational demands 

put before it. The nation often comprehends these demands 

belatedly, placing a premium on force agility in the lack 

of requisite time to prepare. At key periods in our history, 

understrength, ill-equipped Army forces were deployed at 

great risk to meet emergent demands, buying time while the 

Army went through the laborious, time-intensive process 

of mobilizing reserve units or expanding the force. The 

Commission concluded that one of its most important 

services to the nation is to help the President, the Congress, 

the Department of Defense, and the Army appreciate these 

challenges and anticipate what must be done to mitigate these 

risks going forward.

Photo on page 5

Sergeant Miguel Thomas, 3rd Infantry Division, patrols near 

Combat Outpost Sultan Khel in Wardak Province of eastern 

Afghanistan.

 “War is an act of politics, where one side 

tries to impose its political will on the other. 

And politics is all about people. And people 

live on the ground. We may wish it were 

otherwise, but it is not. Wars are ultimately 

decided on the ground, where people live, 

and it is on the ground where the U.S. Army, 

the U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. special 

operations forces must never, ever fail.” 

General Mark A. Milley, upon assumption as 

Army Chief of Staff at the Army Change of 

Responsibility ceremony, August 14, 2015.

“You don’t dictate end states from the 

air. You can’t control territory. You can’t 

influence people. You can’t maintain lines of 

control after you’ve established them. That 

will take a ground force.”

General Mark A. Welsh III, Air Force Chief of Staff, in a 

press briefing about the ISIL campaign, January 25, 2015. 

“Our Army is the center of gravity for the 

U.S. military—and this center includes the 

Guard and Reserves. It is the best and most 

combat-hardened Army that the nation 

has ever known—indeed, the world has ever 

known. And we must do all we can to make 

sure it stays that way.”

Retired Admiral Michael G. Mullen, former 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint 

Force Quarterly, First Quarter 2009.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 7

WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY

CIVILIAN CONTROL: 

THE AMERICAN WAY OF WAR

One of the nation’s greatest strengths is not merely the might 

of its armed forces but the principles behind its structure. 

Aware of the danger posed by a large standing army under the 

sole control of the executive branch, the framers of the U.S. 

Constitution placed the military under the joint authority 

of the Congress and the President. Civilian control of the 

military is a defining principle of our nation. It ensures that 

the U.S. military remains responsive to the will of the people 

acting through their duly elected representatives, who not 

only determine when to use military force but also set the 

parameters for the size and component mix of the Services. 

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the Congress 

the power “to raise and support armies” and “to make rules 

governing and regulating land and naval forces.” Additionally, 

the Constitution gives the Congress authority to call forth the 

militia for specific purposes—to organize, arm, and discipline 

the militia when in the service of the United States—and to 

prescribe how the militias are to be trained by the states. When 

not in federal service, the militias were intended to fall under 

the authority of their state Governors. Congress exercised 

its constitutional authorities through legislation that has 

ultimately been codified in Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code. 

Civilian oversight of the military is further established 

in the chain of command, descending from the President as 

Commander in Chief through the Secretary of Defense. The 

Secretaries of the individual Services direct the non-operational 

functions of their military departments: recruiting, organizing, 

training, and equipping forces to be provided to Combatant 

Commanders for military operations. The highest ranking 

military members, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, serve as the most 

senior advisors, statutorily charged with rendering their best 

military advice to their Service Secretaries, the Secretary of 

Defense, and the President.

The Commission set about its tasks firmly rooted to the 

fundamental principle that the Army has a Commander in 

Chief in the President, a 535-member board of directors in the 

U.S. Congress, and a National Guard that, until activated under 

Federal authority, also serves the 54 Governors of the states and 

territories. Grounded in our Constitution, the decision to use 

military forces is a civilian one. The Army, in the past year alone, 

has deployed Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army 

Reserve forces to Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Eastern Europe, 

Africa, the Pacific, the Baltics, and Latin America (see Figure 

3). In all cases, the Army’s deployments reflect requirements set 

by Combatant Commands and approved by the Secretary of 

Defense and, at times, the President, in consultation with the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and Army leadership.

ONE ARMY: COMPONENT ROOTS

The history of the Army and its relationship with the militia 

parallels the history of the nation. As the country grew 

throughout the 19th century, its need for a military able to 

defend its growing borders and secure its vital interests also 

grew while the militia suffered misuse and neglect. Congress 

began to reform an inadequately organized and equipped 

militia in 1903. Through a series of legislative actions between 

1903 and 1933, Congress transformed state militias into 

the Army National Guard, standardized unit organizations, 

provided funding for equipment and training, and authorized 

situations in which the National Guard could be called into 

federal service by the President. 

At the same time that it reformed the militia system and 

created the National Guard, Congress created an Organized 

Reserve Corps of officers for the U.S. Army. This Reserve Corps 

provided more than 170,000 officers and enlisted soldiers 

during World War I and more than 57,000 officers during 

World War II. During the Cold War, Congress transformed 

THE ARMY PROVIDES THEATER STRUCTURE 

CAPABILITIES TO OTHER SERVICES INCLUDING, 

BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

• Missile defense

• Fire support

• Base defense

• Transportation

• Fuel distribution

• Intratheater medical 

evacuation

• Port opening

• Veterinary services

• Logistics management

• Communications

• Chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear 

defense

• Consequence 

management capability

• Explosive ordnance 

disposal

Figure 1

ARMY THEATER STRUCTURE CAPABILITIES

Army forces provide capabilities that help create the conditions 

necessary for U.S. operations through a broad range of actions 

found in theater of operations force structure, including 

logistics, air defense, network infrastructure, and port opening. 

The Army combines forward-deployed forces and rotational 

forces to develop, maintain, and operate the theater structure. 
WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY

Figure 2

DOD EXECUTIVE AGENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Army Executive Agent Responsibilities

DoD Detainee Operations Policy

Armed Services Blood Program Office (ASBPO)

Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP)

Chemical Demilitarization

DoD Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program

Military Ground-Based Counter Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive 

Device Electronics Warfare (CREW) Technology

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC)

DoD Level III Corrections

Explosives Safety Management

Persian Gulf War Exposure Registry

Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP)

DoD Biometrics 

DoD Law of War Program (Investigation and Reporting of Reportable 

Incidents Against U.S. Personnel)

Management of Land-Based Water Resources in Support of Contingency 

Operations

Military Postal Service (MPS)

DoD Passport and Passport Agent Services

Recruiting Facilities Program

DoD Support to United Nations Missions

DoD Civilian Police Officers & Security Guards (CP/SG) Physical Fitness 

Standards Program

Administrative and Resource Support for the U.S. Military Entrance 

Processing Command (MEPCOM)

USCENTCOM Rest & Recuperation Leave Program

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)

Unexploded Ordnance Center of Excellence (UXOCOE)

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)

Multinational Force & Observers (MFO) Sinai

Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance (JCISFA)

Medical Research for Prevention, Mitigation, and Treatment of Blast Injuries

Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic (MAST)

Contract Foreign Language Support to the DoD Components

Financial Disclosure Management (FDM) - Ethics Reporting System

Support for Non-Federal Entities Authorized to Operate on DoD 

Installations

Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)

Georgia-U.S. BioSurveillance & Research Center (GUSBRC)

Forensics

Coordination of Contracting Activities in the USCENTCOM Area of 

Responsibility (AOR)

Operation of After Government Employment Advice Repository (AGEAR)

Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain 

Injury (DCoE)

Classified DoD EA

Classified DoD EA

DoD Biological Select Agent and Toxin (BSAT) Biosafety Program

Other Services Executive Agent Responsibilities

Air Force

Active Duty Determinations for Civilians or Contractual 

Groups

Armed Forces Entertainment (AFE)

Common Data Link (CDL)

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI)

Defense Language Institute English Language Center 

(DLIELC)

Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III Program

Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles

Federal Legal Information Thru Electronics (FLITE)

Global Command and Control System (GCCS) - (Specific 

Modules)

Global Positioning System (GPS) Program/NAVSTAR

Intelligence Systems Support Office (ISSO)

DoD Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB)

R-2508 Complex Enhancement Program

Space

Space Test Program (STP) Management and Funding

USSOUTHCOM Counterdrug Forward Operating Locations

DoD Military Working Dog (MWD) Program

National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Polar 

Programs (PLR) - Support to

DoD Foreign Clearance Program (FCP)

Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Objectives in the Air and 

Space Natural Environment (ASNE)

Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)

Navy

Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support 

(DANTES)

Defense Resources Management Institute (DRMI)

High School News Service

Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)

Force Protection of Military Sealift Assets

Defense HIV/AIDS Prevention Program (DHAPP)

Printed Circuit Board Technology

Marine Corps

Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons

DoD Executive Agent designations are specific responsibilities, functions, and authorities assigned by the Secretary or Deputy 

Secretary of Defense to the Head of a DoD Component. DoD Executive Agents are tasked to provide defined levels of support for 

either operational or administrative missions that involve two or more DoD Components.

ARMY: 40 RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER SERVICES: 29 RESPONSIBILITIES

Source: http://dod-executiveagent.osd.mil

(as of January 15, 2016)

8 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 9

WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY

the Organized Reserve Corps into the U.S. Army Reserve, 

subdivided into a Ready Reserve, a Standby Reserve, and a 

Retired Reserve.

Together, these three components of the Army—the 

Regular Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army 

Reserve—form one Army, a Total Force dedicated to defending 

the United States and implementing the nation’s defense 

strategy. Each component is distinct. Each is essential. All are 

interdependent. The individual components are connected 

through a purposeful reliance on the other components to 

maximize reinforcing effects while minimizing component 

vulnerabilities. This requires a broad understanding of the 

differing strengths and limitations of each component’s 

capabilities, clear agreement about how those capabilities will 

be committed in any given operational setting, and absolute 

mutual trust that, once committed, each component will be 

employed as agreed. 

The Army Civilian Corps is critical to the success of the 

Total Army. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan made clear 

that, with the current force structure, soldiers must have the 

support of a highly professional Civilian Corps. Army civilians 

led Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan focused 

on rebuilding infrastructure. Civilians from Army depots were 

deployed in order to expedite the repair of vehicles damaged in 

combat. Some 30,000 Army civilians were deployed to Iraq and 

Afghanistan to serve with Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Teams, and many other civilian specialists served in medical 

logistics, transportation, engineering, construction, and 

information technology. The Army Civilian Corps, together 

with the industrial base and contractors, complements the 

*Chairperson

Figure 3

SOLDIERS DEPLOYED AND FORWARD STATIONED

Source: Army Operations Center//As of 15 September 2015

PACOM

51,740

OTHER WORLDWIDE 

DEPLOYMENTS

8,900

EUCOM

29,200

CENTCOM

26,260

AFRICOM

980

NORTHCOM

17,420 

SOUTHCOM

1,830 

CONUS SUPPORT BASE 17,420

SOLDIERS DEPLOYED 45,020

SOLDIERS FORWARD STATIONED 73,880

TOTAL SOLDIERS 136,320

In over 140 worldwide locations
10 National Commission on the Future of the Army

WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY

three components within the Profession of Arms by providing 

expertise in support of critical operations and management. 

Together, these Total Force elements of the Army provide 

boots on the ground to secure our freedom, protect our 

vital interests, promote stability, deter aggression, and fight 

and win the nation’s wars. The nation’s need for an Army is 

unquestionable and enduring. 

THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE

The Army is an All-Volunteer Force. Conscription was used 

during the Civil War and World War I, and the first peacetime 

draft was adopted in 1940, with the specter of World War II 

causing concerns about the strength of the U.S. Army. The 

draft continued throughout the war and ended in March 1947. 

However, less than a year and a half later, in July 1948, with 

the Army failing to meet recruitment goals and the beginning 

of the Cold War raising fears of communist aggression, the 

Congress established the Selective Service System to provide 

the Army with manpower. The draft remained the primary 

source of personnel for the Army through most of the Vietnam 

War. The Gates Commission, established in 1969 to develop 

a plan to end the draft and return to an All-Volunteer Force, 

came to the unanimous conclusion that “the nation’s interest 

will be better served by an All-Volunteer Force, supported by 

an effective standby draft, than by a mixed force of volunteers 

and conscripts.” In 1972, at the request of President Richard 

Nixon, Congress passed Public Law 92-129, which extended 

the draft for just two more years and committed the country 

to transition to an All-Volunteer Force, which was fully 

implemented in 1973. 

The All-Volunteer Force has had a dramatic impact on the 

Army. The quality of the force, as measured by test scores and 

percent of high school graduates, has improved. The number 

of career personnel increased, leading to similar increases in 

proficiency and professionalism. Prior to the All-Volunteer 

THE LAWS THAT SHAPED THE ARMY

Act of Second Continental Congress, June 14, 1775 —

approved the creation of the Continental Army.

Uniform Militia Act of 1792 — required states to establish 

militia units and required all men 18–45 years of age 

to enroll as part of the militia, but provided no federal 

funding or guidance on organization.

Dick Act of 1903 — reformed the state militia system, 

providing federal funding and equipping while requiring 

states to organize and train militias according to specific 

standards. Subsequent amendments created the Army 

National Guard and strengthened the ties between the 

Regular Army and National Guard Units.

Public Law 101 of 1908 — established the first federal 

reserve force as part of the Army Medical Corps.

National Defense Act of 1920 — created the Organized 

Reserve, consisting of the Officer Reserve Corps, Enlisted 

Reserve Corps, and the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. 

This later became the U.S. Army Reserve.

National Security Act of 1947 — established the National 

Military Establishment (later renamed the Department of 

Defense), the Department of the Air Force, and the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and renamed the Department of War as the 

Department of the Army. 

Women’s Armed Services Integration Act (1948) —

enabled women to serve as permanent, regular members 

of the armed forces. 

Military Selective Service Act of 1967 and amendments 

— the last of a series of four peacetime selective service 

acts, dating back to 1940, that authorized conscription for 

military service. The final draft lottery authorized under the 

act was held in 1972. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird 

announced the creation of the All-Volunteer Armed Forces 

in January 1973, negating the need for the military draft. 

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) 

and Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act 

(ROPMA) (1980 and 1994) — DOPMA standardized 

officer personnel management across the U.S. armed 

forces, and ROPMA provided similar standardized officer 

personnel management for the reserve components.

Goldwater-Nichols Act (1986) — dramatically reformed 

the Department of Defense by strengthening the authority 

of the Secretary of Defense, Service Secretaries, Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Combatant Commanders 

and streamlining the chain of command. 

Army National Guard Combat Readiness Reform 

Act (1993) — increased Regular Army authority and 

responsibility for advising and training of National Guard 

combat units.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 11

WHY THE NATION NEEDS AN ARMY

Force, only 18 percent of the Army had more than four years of 

service; by 2006, that number stood at more than 51 percent. 

The increase in education and length of service has allowed the 

Army to develop into a true Profession of Arms. 

However, the clear benefits of the All-Volunteer Force 

come with a price. Recruiting, developing, and retaining 

qualified and talented personnel increases the costs of raising 

an army. The Army also must provide support for the families 

of the All-Volunteer Force who, more than any other group, 

share the burden of service with their soldiers and are vital 

in ensuring that soldiers continue to serve. The Army must 

maintain an All-Volunteer Force despite the pressures of 

economic cycles and social conditions. More than two-thirds 

of the current target population, ages 18–25, cannot meet 

current Army accession standards. They are ineligible because 

of physical issues, insufficient education, or violations of the 

law that are too serious or too frequent. 

The Army is a profession dedicated to the security and 

defense of the nation and the U.S. Constitution. Soldiers and 

Army civilians, bound by the Army’s professional ethic, develop 

and use their expertise in the service of their country. This ethic 

guides professional conduct and permits self-regulation, which 

forms the basis of the trust the American people place in the 

Army. The Profession of Arms includes uniformed soldiers, 

regardless of component. It is made up of volunteers who have 

trained to become experts in the ethical application of land 

combat power, serving under civilian authority and entrusted 

with the defense of the Constitution and the rights and 

interests of the American people. However, in an environment 

of budget constraints, competing career choices, and a 

diminishing percentage of the American population qualified 

to serve in the Army, the Commission is concerned that the 

All-Volunteer Force is nearing a fragile state. 

So fundamental is an All-Volunteer Force to the governing 

principles of our nation, and so essential is an All-Volunteer 

Force in achieving the highest possible level of capabilities and 

readiness, the Commission considers sustaining the All-Volunteer 

Force vital to the future of the nation. All budget and force 

management decisions must be made with this goal in mind.

Recommendation 1: The nation must maintain and 

sustain an All-Volunteer Force. 

“The American Army has become the allaround handy man of the government. But 

I do not suppose that even you, who are in 

and of the Army, have had brought home 

to you the extent to which this is so, and I 

feel sure that the country does not realize it 

at all. You may be called upon at any time 

to do any kind of service in any part of the 

world—and if you would not fall below the 

standard your fellows have set, you must 

be ready and you must do it, and you must 

do it well.” 

Lindley Miller Garrison, Secretary of War, in 

commencement address at the U.S. Military 

Academy in West Point, reported in The 

New York Times, August 9, 1914.
12 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 13

“The Commission shall undertake a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army, and policy 

assumptions related to the size and force mixture of the Army...”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(1)

National Commission on the Future of the Army staff photo

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION 

AND METHOD

Congress established the National Commission on the 

Future of the Army (NCFA) in the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA FY15) (Public Law 113-

291). The Congress was prompted to form the NCFA, in 

large part, over two major concerns. The first was how the 

Army should best organize and employ the Total Force in 

a time of declining resources. The second was whether the 

Army should proceed with the transfer of AH-64 Apache 

aircraft from the reserve components to the Regular Army, as 

directed by the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative. 
14 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

The issue of how best to organize and employ the Total 

Force, particularly the reserve components, is not new; the 

Army, indeed the nation, has wrestled with this question 

for decades. In 1993, the Regular Army, Army National 

Guard, Army Reserve, and the associations representing those 

elements met to consider how best to restructure the reserve 

components. The decision to include the National Guard 

and Army Reserve leadership in the discussion, along with 

providing seats at the table for the relevant associations, was 

important in preventing any second guessing of the agreedupon changes. It also gave the resulting “Offsite Agreement” 

(Memorandum for Record, Subject: AC-RC Leaders’ Offsite 

Agreement as of 29 October 1993, DACS-ZB dated 10 

November 1993; see Appendix C) a desired aura of credibility 

and legitimacy, especially with Congress. Today’s challenges 

to simultaneously resource readiness, force structure, and 

modernization in the face of fiscal constraints are, in many 

ways, echoes from the past.

Understanding the history involved and appreciating 

both the historical and the current relationships between the 

components, the Commission approached its mandate with 

a clear understanding that in order to address the apparent 

rift between some elements of the Regular Army, Army 

National Guard, and Army Reserve, the Commission’s final 

report would have to provide policymakers with credible 

recommendations that could stand up to intense scrutiny. 

In that regard, the Commission has made every effort to be 

unbiased, comprehensive, inclusive, balanced, and transparent. 

Commissioners and staff thoughtfully and seriously considered 

every proposal submitted from within and outside the Army. 

This holistic approach maintained an eye toward what is 

best for the nation. No component, group, association, or 

individual was given short shrift or shown favoritism. The 

result is a final product that is thoroughly researched, based on 

realistic assumptions, and backed by solid data.

THE COMMISSION’S TASKS

The Congress directed the Commission to undertake a 

“comprehensive study of the structure of the Army” in 

order to assess the size and force mix of the Regular Army, 

Army National Guard, and Army Reserve and make 

recommendations in those areas where the Commission 

thought appropriate. In considering recommendations, the 

Commission was instructed to take into account “anticipated 

mission requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of 

national risk and in a manner consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future resources.” Furthermore, 

the Commission was assigned the specific task of studying 

the transfer of all the Army National Guard’s AH-64 Apache 

helicopters to the Regular Army, taking into account the same 

considerations as those regarding the Army size and force mix. 

The final report was due to Congress and the President by 

February 1, 2016.

To help commissioners organize the study efforts and 

allocate resources, the Commission at the outset enlisted 

three separate elements to conduct parallel assessments of 

assigned tasks. The Commission greatly appreciates the 

assistance provided by experts from the Center for Strategic 

and International Studies, the Army War College, and U.S. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command for their contributions 

in mission analysis. This mission analysis, conducted at 

the Commission’s meeting in May 2015, helped chart the 

Commission’s work.

Given the scope and complexity of the tasks and the 

limited time to accomplish them, the Commission decided 

to focus on several overarching principles to guide its work. 

Primary among those was adopting a Total Army approach in 

which each component would be considered distinct, essential, 

and interdependent. The Commission focused on the differing 

strengths and limitations of each component’s capabilities, 

particularly regarding cost efficiencies, while taking into 

account how the components rely on each other to achieve 

mission requirements.

The commissioners also agreed that all recommendations 

must take into account acceptable levels of risk, potential 

impacts on the All-Volunteer Force, and fiscal implications. 

Furthermore, the commissioners sought to ensure that the 

needs of Combatant Commanders and the Governors were 

paramount. To that end, the capacity of the Regular Army, 

Army National Guard, and Army Reserve to support current 

and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance 

missions in the United States was an essential requirement.

RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH

The NDAA FY15 characterized risk in the Commission’s 

tasks and considerations as national, military, operational, 

and strategic. The Commission chose to simplify the 

risk framework into the Army’s ability to fulfill two basic 

Photo on page 13

The National Commission on the Future of the Army: 

from left, Sergeant Major of the Army (Ret.) Raymond F. 

Chandler, General (Ret.) James D. Thurman, The Honorable 

Robert F. Hale, Mr. Don Tison (Designated Federal Officer), 

General (Ret.) Carter F. Ham, The Honorable Thomas R. Lamont, 

General (Ret.) Larry R. Ellis, The Honorable Kathleen H. Hicks, 

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Jack C. Stultz.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 15

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

responsibilities: (1) to provide options to the President, 

Secretary of Defense, and Combatant Commanders when 

called upon (risk to mission), and (2) to ensure the health of 

the force (risk to force). 

“Risk to mission” addresses the Army’s ability to 

provide well trained, appropriately equipped forces when 

employed. Missions are at risk when Army forces do not have 

appropriate or sufficient capability and capacity, or cannot 

bring capability and capacity to bear when needed to defeat 

an adversary or achieve other assigned missions. Risk to 

mission can be measured in the near term as comprising the 

manning, training, and equipping for possible “fight tonight” 

contingencies. Risk to mission should also be measured in the 

long term as an expression of the preparedness of the force to 

meet over-the-horizon challenges. 

“Risk to force” addresses the Army’s ability to maintain the 

health of its All-Volunteer Force. The force is at risk when units 

suffer undue casualties, when units deploy without being fully 

prepared for their assigned missions, when soldiers experience 

prolonged periods of repeated, extended deployments, or when 

the Army cannot recruit and retain enough qualified men and 

women with the needed skill sets. As with risk to mission, risk 

to force should be measured in both the near and long term.

Other elements of the Joint Force rely on Army support, 

just as Army forces rely on capabilities from other Services. 

Because of this interdependency, Army risk to mission has a 

domino effect on the capability of the entire joint force. 

Lastly, a major concern was determining a reasonable 

estimate of “anticipated future resources,” illustrated by the 

fact that during the short lifespan of the Commission, the 

defense budget took an unpredictable course until passage of 

the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015, which apparently 

settled the matter for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. In the end, 

the Commission looked to the Future Year Defense Program 

and the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), as amended, for 

guidance on future resources. 

“To be prepared for war is one of the most 

effective means of preserving peace.” 

—George Washington

U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Patrick Kelley.
16 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Congress created the NCFA as a federal advisory 

committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-463). FACA, while outdated 

in many ways by advances in technology (e.g. maintaining 

records for “public inspection and copying at a single location 

in the offices of the advisory committee”), guided the 

Commission in striking a balance between being inclusive and 

transparent with the public, yet protective of information in 

the interests of national security. 

FACA committees must be sponsored by a federal 

agency that would be responsibile for ensuring compliance 

with the law, from the creation of the committee through 

its expiration. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 

sponsored the NCFA, and by working in close coordination 

with the Department of the Army, did much to ensure the 

Commission’s success. With the benefit of having learned from 

the experience of the National Commission on the Structure 

of the Air Force (NCSAF), former Secretary of the Army John 

McHugh nominated Mr. Don Tison, Assistant Deputy Chief 

of Staff, G-8, to serve as NCFA’s Designated Federal Officer 

(DFO). This was important because the DFO is the sponsoring 

agency’s representative and is responsibile for ensuring 

compliance with FACA and all other legal requirements. As 

such, a senior individual with deep understanding of the Army 

and its culture was vital to assessing the most practical means of 

applying the requirements of FACA and facilitating the work 

of the NCFA. Moreover, the OSD appointed the NCFA’s DFO 

prior to the Commission beginning its work, which provided 

valuable lead time to organize for success.

As the DFO, Mr. Tison, with the support of former 

Secretary McHugh and current Army leaders, selected a 

versatile staff, as well as a few alternate DFOs to assist him in 

executing his responsibilites. The DFO staff worked handin-hand with the NCFA staff and OSD in facilitating the 

commissioners’ efforts. The assembled DFO team had the 

flexibility to expand and contract as needed to support the 

Commission in executing its mission. Figure 4 depicts the 

relationships among OSD, the Army, commissioners, NCFA 

staff, DFOs, and the legal, ethics, policy, and logistics elements 

of support.

Aside from compliance with FACA, a primary objective 

of the DFO was to support the commissioners’ desire for 

achieving as much transparency with the public as possible. 

To that end, the proactive efforts to prepare for the NCFA 

ensured that the Commission and its staff would immediately 

demonstrate inclusiveness and transparency with the public. 

Nevertheless, compliance with FACA comes at a cost in terms 

of personnel and resources. The Commission realized that 

several of the goals of FACA could be accomplished in a much 

more efficient manner without compromising the desired goals 

of the law. For example, the NCFA maintained a thorough and 

comprehensive website (www.ncfa.ncr.gov) that made available 

every aspect of NCFA activities, including minutes from 

proceedings. This allowed the public to track the Commission’s 

progress and interact with the Commission through public 

comment and news announcements. Yet, the NCFA, via its 

supporting DFO team, also had to enter information into 

the General Services Administration website, an antiquated 

site at best. This type of redundancy is unnecessary, given 

the relative ease with which websites can now be established 

and maintained. Moreover, FACA still requires a physical 

reading room when a virtual reading room is not only easier 

to maintain, but also easier for the public to access. No one 

registered a visit to the NCFA reading room. In short, from 

how meetings are conducted to how records are kept, FACA 

needs to be updated to reflect the advances in technology since 

the law’s inception in 1972.

Ultimately, a sound understanding and application of the 

relevant laws, specifically the Government in the Sunshine Act 

of 1976 (Public Law 94-409), and its interplay with FACA and 

the law establishing the Commission, as amended, provided 

the protections necessary to allow the commissioners to freely 

and thoroughly discuss and analyze the voluminous amount of 

classified and sensitive information provided them in OSDapproved closed meetings and in a classified setting.

The Commission did not have to draft its report in 

compliance with all FACA requirements. A provision (section 

1061) of the NDAA FY16 (Public Law 114-92) permitted 

the NCFA to conduct expedited meetings. This meant FACA 

did not apply to a meeting of four or fewer commissioners, a 

change that greatly aided the drafting process. 

Recommendation 2: Congress should apply the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions of the 

Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act’s 

Section 1061 to all similar commissions.

Recommendation 3: Congress should update the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act’s requirements in a 

way that reflects changes in information technology, 

allowing commissions to use their own websites to 

post minutes, testimonies, and public comments and 

provide a public reading room. 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 17

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

THE COMMISSION’S ORGANIZATION

The commissioners decided early on to have a 

multidisciplinary operating staff with all components well 

represented; indeed, both Army Reserve and Army National 

Guard staff outnumbered Regular Army staff. OSD, the 

Joint Staff, and Congressional Research Service contributed 

staff as well. Overall, the staff included a mix of direct hires, 

employees detailed to NCFA from government entities, 

and contract employees. They came to NCFA with a wide 

range of operational and institutional experience and were 

encouraged to speak with candor and rely on evidence in 

their reasoning. 

The experience of the NCSAF informed many of the 

NCFA’s organizational decisions, allowing this Commission 

to get up and running in short order. The Commission is 

appreciative of the advice and information provided by 

NCSAF alumni.

Congress mandated a broad set of tasks for the 

Commission. To better manage that workload, the 

Commission established five subcommittees: Operational, 

Institutional, Force Generation, Aviation, and Drafting 

(Figure 5). Each subcommittee had a membership of three 

to four commissioners and its own dedicated staff and DFO. 

The OSD approved all subcommittees and their terms of 

Figure 4

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER

Designated Federal Officer

Alternate Designated Federal Officers

Functional Advisors

OSD COMMISSION 

SUPPORT

Logistics Policy

Legal Ethics

ARMY COMMISSION 

SUPPORT TEAM

Department of the Army

National Guard Bureau

Office of the Chief, 

Army Reserve

THE COMMISSION

Commissioners

Executive Director

Staff Director

THE SPONSOR

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

(OSD)

THE SERVICE 

(ARMY)
18 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

reference, including a mission statement, objectives, scope, 

and methodology. A DFO attended all subcommittee 

meetings, as required by FACA. Commissioners outside 

a given subcommittee did not participate in that 

subcommittee’s activities. The subcommittees gathered 

information, conducted research, and analyzed relevant 

issues and facts for consideration and deliberation by the 

full Commission. 

SUBCOMMITTEES

OPERATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FORCE 

GENERATION AVIATION DRAFTING

COMMISSIONERS

HON Kathleen H. 

Hicks, Chair

GEN Carter F. 

Ham

SMA Raymond F. 

Chandler

LTG Jack C. Stultz

LTG Jack C. Stultz, 

Chair

GEN Carter F. Ham

SMA Raymond F. 

Chandler

GEN Larry R. Ellis, 

Chair

HON Thomas R. 

Lamont

HON Robert F. Hale

GEN James D. 

Thurman

HON Robert F. 

Hale, Chair

HON Thomas R. 

Lamont

GEN Larry R. Ellis

GEN James D. 

Thurman

GEN Carter F. 

Ham, Chair

HON Thomas R. 

Lamont

HON Kathleen H. 

Hicks

LTG Jack C. Stultz 

STAFF LEAD

Mr. Kerry 

Schindler

Mr. Johnny 

Thomas

Ms. Cherie 

Emerson

LTC Steven Pierce

LTC Gregory 

Hartvigsen

Mr. Eric Minton

DFO (Commission DFO oversight: Mr. Donald Tison)

NDAA TASK SECTION

MAJ Vince Morris LTC Michael 

Lockwood

Mrs. Deborah 

Gantt

Mr. Mark Pizzuto Mr. Mark 

Von Heeringen

FUTURE 

DEMAND 

1703(a)(1) (A)

1703(a)(1)(B)

1703(a)(2)(A)(i)

Primary 

Responsibility 

(PR)

Secondary

Responsibility 

(SR)

SR

FORCE 

GENERATION

1703(a)(2)(A)

(iii-vi)

1703(a)(2)(B)

SR SR PR

COST 

EFFICIENCY

1703(a)(1)(B)

1703(a)(2)(A)(ii) SR PR SR SR

APACHE 

TRANSFER 1703(b) SR PR

ARNG 

ALLOCATION

1703 (a)(2)(C)

1703 (a)(2)(D) SR PR

SUBMIT 

REPORT 1703(c) SR SR SR SR PR

Figure 5

SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS / TASKS
National Commission on the Future of the Army 19

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

THE FACT-FINDING PHASE

Comprehensiveness and transparency drove the Commission’s 

work. Commissioners and staff made every effort to consider 

all alternatives and ensure stakeholders had an opportunity to 

make their case before the Commission. 

The overall Commission strategy during the fact-finding 

phase was to cover as much of the Army as feasible in the 

shortest time and at the least cost to taxpayers. To that end, 

on several occasions, the Commission took advantage of 

commissioner travel with other organizations to schedule visits 

to parts of the Army that might otherwise have been omitted. 

For example, Vice Chairman Thomas R. Lamont’s travel to 

the Pacific with another national commission provided the 

opportunity to arrange a visit to Hawaii on his way back to the 

continental United States. This allowed the Commission to 

hear directly from distant stakeholders, including U.S. Army 

Pacific, the Governor of Hawaii, and the Adjutants General 

of Guam and Hawaii. The NCFA’s trip to Germany was also 

planned around Chairman Carter F. Ham’s presence in Europe 

on other matters. Lastly, the Commission met with U.S. Forces 

Korea (USFK), U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ), and the 2nd Infantry 

Division when those commanders were visiting the D.C. area 

on other business.

The Commission conducted site visits to gather firsthand 

information from soldiers and leaders, looking them in the 

eye and hearing the tones in their voices. The Commission 

established some basic criteria to help guide site visit 

selection. First, the Commission asked the Department of 

the Army, National Guard Bureau, and Office of the Chief 

of Army Reserve for recommendations. From this start 

point, the commissioners expanded the list to include as 

many geographically diffuse locations as possible. Figure 6 

illustrates that most locales with heavy Army concentrations 

were visited. 

Second, commissioners wanted to go to locations that 

featured a mix of Regular Army, Army National Guard, and 

Army Reserve units. A good example is North Carolina. 

Fort Bragg and the surrounding area offered a wide variety 

of unit types from all components. Commissioners first met 

with U.S. Army Forces Command, which provides trained 

and ready land power to Combatant Commanders. At the 

time of the Commission visit, soldiers from Fort Bragg were 

deployed to dozens of countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and Liberia. Other major units engaged during the North 

Carolina site visits were U.S. Army Reserve Command, 

XVIII Airborne Corps, and U.S. Army Special Operations 

Command, as well as elements of the North Carolina Army 

National Guard. In short, North Carolina was an essential 

stop. 

Third, the Commission sought formations with differing 

functions. Especially important for this planning parameter was 

the focused effort to meet with a wide variety of aviation units. 

Over the course of its fact-finding phase, the Commission 

visited seventeen states and the District of Columbia, 

conducting more than 320 individual engagements with Army 

units stationed in the United States and Europe covering many 

types: mission command, institutional, maneuver, signal, 

sustainment, intelligence, protection, fires, medical, and 

cyber. Of these, 100 were Regular Army while 130 were Army 

National Guard. Army Reserve units numbered about thirty, as 

did multicomponent or joint units.

The Commission had interactions with all fifty-four 

Adjutants General. Commissioners also attended the 

Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS) 

conference in Georgia and the National Guard Association of 

the United States (NGAUS) general conference in Tennessee. 

The Commission engaged, in person or through written 

correspondence, with thirty-three Governors and also attended 

the National Governors Association’s summer meeting in West 

Virginia. During site visits, the Commission met with fifteen 

General Officer Commands from the Army Reserve. Two of 

these units were undergoing post-mobilization training and 

validation during the Commission visit.

In the D.C. area, commissioners met with senior leaders 

from OSD, National Security Council, Department of the 

Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force, Navy, 

Marine Corps, Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB), Army 

Reserve Forces Policy Committee (ARFPC), Association of 

the United States Army (AUSA), NGAUS, AGAUS, Enlisted 

Association of the National Guard of the United States, Reserve 

Officers Association, and National Governors Association, as 

well as other non-government experts. The Commission also 

held monthly closed and open meetings in Arlington, Virginia. 

The closed meetings involved classified material while the open 

meetings allowed commissioners to hear from a wide range of 

witnesses and members of the public. 

Commissioners met with all six geographic Combatant 

Commands (Pacific Command, Northern Command, 

Southern Command, Central Command, Africa Command, 

and European Command), two functional commands 

(Transportation Command and Space Command), and 

two sub-unified commands (U.S. Forces Korea and Cyber 

Command). Additionally, Commissioners met with official 

representatives of Australia, Colombia, Estonia, France, 

Germany, Israel, Japan, Korea, Poland, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the United Kingdom. 

In short, the Commission endeavored to be as 

comprehensive in its approach as possible.
20 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

Figure 6

COMMISSION ENGAGEMENTS

PUERTO 

RICO

VIRGIN 

ISLANDS

COLOMBIA

U.S.A.

ALASKA

HAWAII

KEY: (COMMISSION MET WITH MILITARY 

FROM THESE LOCATIONS)

REGULAR ARMY

NATIONAL GUARD

ARMY RESERVE

MULTICOMPONENT

JOINT

INTERNATIONAL Source: Commission Travel and Events Record
National Commission on the Future of the Army 21

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

EUROPE

GUAM

AUSTRALIA

MIDDLE EAST

ASIA

KOREA

JAPAN

UNITED ARAB 

EMIRATES

ISRAEL

FRANCE

ITALY

ESTONIA

POLAND

UNITED 

KINGDOM GERMANY

KEY: (COMMISSION MET WITH 

MILITARY FROM THESE LOCATIONS)

REGULAR ARMY

NATIONAL GUARD

ARMY RESERVE

MULTICOMPONENT

JOINT

INTERNATIONAL
22 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

COMMISSION TRANSPARENCY: ABOVE AND 

BEYOND FACA FLOORS

The Commission also strived to be available to the general 

public while traveling around the country. To that end, 

the Commission held open meetings in Fayetteville, North 

Carolina; Killeen, Texas; Long Beach, California; and Tacoma, 

Washington—all areas with a large Total Army footprint. At 

each of these stops, local officials had the opportunity to share 

their views on the Army while commissioners heard many 

heartfelt expressions of support for the Army, its soldiers and 

families, and its mission. 

The Commission also received significant input from 

Congress, including written comments from almost eighty 

Members. Commission staff met with professional staff of the 

House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services 

Committee, the Subcommittees on Defense of both the House 

Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations 

Committee, as well as with staff and Members of the House 

National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus. 

The Commission actively used a variety of communication 

strategies to stimulate public interest, including Twitter. NCFA 

issued media advisories on upcoming events, distributed press 

releases about each meeting, and responded to queries from 

reporters. All of this activity is documented on www.ncfa.

ncr.gov. The NCFA’s communications staff actively worked 

with media to arrange coverage of open meetings in the D.C. 

area and around the globe. During site visits, the NCFA 

staff was able to obtain on-post internal media assistance in 

encouraging local media to publicize the Commission’s visit 

and support public participation in the open meetings. NCFA 

accommodated every media request, ensuring transparency 

with the public.

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTICAL REVIEW

The Commission’s comprehensive approach extended beyond 

site visits and face-to-face engagements to an analytical phase of 

research and modeling. During six months of fact-finding and 

information gathering, the Commission collected a mountain 

of data, thousands of pages of written submissions, and many 

hours of testimony from across the Army and around the 

globe. The effort to make sense of so much information was 

daunting, and the Commission recognized early on that it 

would need a culminating analytical event to present analysis, 

integrate conflicting information, and weigh the results. The 

various proposals produced by the subcommittees were another 

key element the Commission had to discuss in a classified 

setting. The Commission settled on a two-day Comprehensive 

Analytical Review (CAR), hosted by the Institute for Defense 

SELECTED NCFA ANALYTICAL TOOLS 

System for Periodically Apportioning Demands 

(SPADES): The TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) 

developed SPADES to model force sufficiency problems 

over time. Force sufficiency modeling done with SPADES 

accounts for a high amount of variability under different 

scenarios. This allows TRAC to examine, on a month-bymonth basis, how a proposed force structure could be 

expected to deliver capacity during periods of both peace 

and war under various policy options. 

MARATHON: The U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis 

(CAA) developed MARATHON for analyzing inventory, 

demand, and force generation of ready forces over 

time. The discrete-events simulation engine mimics, on 

a day-by-day basis, how the Army matches a changing 

supply to demands that vary over extended time periods 

under varying force generation policies. The Army uses 

MARATHON to model the entire operating force structure 

(over 200 unit types) for the Total Army Analysis process, as 

well as for ad hoc studies on force structure, demand over 

time, and alternative force generation policies. This model 

reflects a wide variety of plausible demand futures, any 

proposed inventories or end strengths, and virtually any 

force generation policy.

Joint Integrated Campaign Model (JICM): JICM is a 

computer simulation used by elements of the Department 

of Defense to analyze major combat at the strategic and 

operational (theater) levels. JICM was originally developed 

by the RAND Corporation under contract to the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense. While JICM reflects the entire 

Joint warfight, the model predominantly focuses on ground 

combat operations at the brigade-and-above level. JICM 

is used by the Army to, among other things, validate the 

feasibility of the force lists and concepts of operation in the 

jointly developed planning scenarios. In the process, JICM 

also provides important data on the speed of advance, 

casualties, equipment losses, fuel consumption, and other 

factors critical for analysis of support force requirements.

Analysis of Mobility Platform (AMP): AMP is a 

federation of computer models sponsored by the Surface 

Deployment and Distribution Command used as part of 

the budgetary decision process looking specifically at 

strategic and operational transportation requirements 

and capacity. AMP models the movement of personnel, 

equipment, and supplies from home station to ports 

and airports in the United States, transit from U.S. ports 

and airports to overseas ports and airports, and onward 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 23

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

to their final destinations using all available methods 

of transport. AMP is used by the Army to, among 

other things, validate the transportation feasibility of 

force deployments in the jointly developed planning 

scenarios. In the process, AMP provides important data 

on estimated arrival dates of units into a theater of 

war, strategic lift asset requirements, and the feasibility 

of maintaining the required levels of supply to meet 

warfighting requirements.

Force Requirements Generation (FORGE): CAA created 

the FORGE model to inform decisions about support 

force requirements at the strategic and operational 

(theater) levels. FORGE applies Army doctrine, the 

concept for providing support and sustainment elements 

from the jointly developed planning scenarios, JICM 

output, and other analytic processes to determine the 

doctrinal requirements for a balanced force capable of 

conducting and sustaining major combat operations. 

FORGE uses doctrine, combat forces employed, and 

other high-level data from the warfight plan in order to 

develop the required enabler capabilities such as trucks, 

military police, engineers, and all of the other Army 

capabilities required for the Joint warfight to succeed. 

FORGE is used by the Army to broaden the scope of 

the jointly developed planning scenarios beyond the 

brigade level to encompass all of the capabilities the 

Army must provide to the specified combat forces so 

they can conduct the operation as described in the 

planning scenario. In combination with the brigade-andabove force requirements listed in the jointly developed 

planning scenario, the FORGE output allows the Army to 

conduct analysis of the total force requirements for major 

combat operations.

Isocost Model: CAA adapted the Isocost model from the 

model developed for the National Commission on the 

Structure of the Air Force. The adapted version combines 

plausible future demands for forces and availability 

policies to determine what inventory mixes could meet 

the demands. Units are further sorted by comparing 

equal-cost (i.e. isocost) mixes of Regular Army, Army 

National Guard, and Army Reserve units of same type to 

determine the lowest average annual cost mix that can 

meet the demands. Summary data from the analysis of 

individual unit types was then used to consider potential 

trades between different types of units and different 

components.

Integrated Risk Assessment and Management Model 

(IRAMM): IDA developed IRAMM as a tool to create 

informed estimates of the probabilities and risks 

associated with significant future threat scenarios. IRAMM 

allows knowledgeable experts to express their views 

on strategic risk during one-on-one, not-for-attribution 

interviews. Each respondent uses a common risk definition 

and scales for estimating consequences, and these 

responses are tabulated for use in group discussion among 

respondents following the interviews. This two-step 

process provides a coherent framework to help evaluators 

identify areas of consensus as well as differences in 

judgments regarding the adverse consequences to the 

nation that would result under each scenario.

The Stochastic Active-Reserve Assessment (SARA) 

Model: The IDA SARA model is a tool for assessing 

force structures and force readiness policies in diverse 

and uncertain scenarios with a variety of future threats. 

Modeled force generation policies include the force 

structure size and mix, rotation rate, readiness posture, 

and deployment lengths. The SARA model permits 

analysis and allows consideration of a range of possible 

scenarios, generating 10,000 twenty-year scenarios based 

on user-specified expectations about the future. Users can 

either use default historical averages or specify the types 

of operations they expect to occur and, on average, how 

often. 

Significant Activities (SIGACTs): The SIGACTS database, 

maintaind by IDA, is the most comprehensive, official 

military record of daily activity for the conflicts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, containing some three-quarters of a 

million entries. Nearly one-third of those entries have 

been identified as having been generated by U.S. Army 

units; the bulk of the remainder comes from the other 

U.S. Services, non-U.S. coalition partners, and host nation 

forces. SIGACTs reporting was mandatory and a matter of 

command emphasis in both theaters. Commanders and 

staffs at all levels used the data to track enemy actions 

and their impacts, formulate effective countermeasures, 

and provide general situational awareness. SIGACTs 

entries typically answered questions related to who, 

what, where, when, and how for enemy-initiated attacks 

as well as friendly generated actions. Because of SIGACTs 

and a variety of supporting operational information, the 

conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan arguably provide the 

most complete, near-real time, empirical documentation 

of warfighting in U.S. history.
24 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

Analyses (IDA), with several more days of follow-up analysis 

and discussion. 

The analysis leading up to the CAR took months. 

The Commission used contingency planning assessments, 

scenarios, and intelligence estimates to assess Army capacity 

and capabilities. Staff planning products—such as estimates, 

intelligence on the operational environment, defense studies, 

reports, and histories—were used to describe and better 

understand the anticipated future environment. Geopolitical 

relationships, political actors, tactical functions, cultural 

tensions, economic efficiencies, and strategic importance 

were also added to the equation. The NCFA staff produced 

a detailed list of questions for the commissioners to consider 

during and after the CAR to ensure no gaps remained between 

the Commission’s specified and implied tasks as well as the 

mandated considerations. 

The Commission and multiple agencies performed 

redundant analysis in parallel to ensure findings were 

consistent or, if not, that any inconsistencies were rationalized. 

Participating agencies included the Center for Army 

Analysis, Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center 

(TRAC), IDA, and RAND Corporation. The goal was to 

identify the levers of Army force management, understand 

the interrelationships, and examine the implications for the 

size and mix of the force. Some of these activities included 

cost estimates, modeling of joint force campaigns, reviewing 

significant activities from combat operations, and interviews or 

seminars. These analytical efforts incorporated the assessment 

of risk and identified potential trade space. 

The CAR allowed commissioners to evaluate plausible 

relationships between supply and demand of forces over 

time. Applying known and projected data within simple 

and complex models, commissioners evaluated comparisons 

of these relationships. Particular conditions that can cause 

variations in these relationships—such as the global security 

environment and policy generation—are critical when 

identifying and integrating areas of potential risk and areas 

of potential material misstatement. NCFA staff analysts 

made presentations that included an overview of the Army 

today, rules of allocation, and modeling outputs using both 

baseline Program Objectives Memorandum budget forecasts 

and forces constrained by the BCA. NCFA staff provided 

findings and indicators regarding force mix, stationing, 

rotational goals, strategic lift, expansion, generating force, 

training, mobilization, recruiting, and equipping. NCFA 

staff led a discussion on generating force size and sufficiency, 

and RAND provided a review of its study on “Regrets and 

Other Potential Contingencies.” At the end of the two days, 

the commissioners had a better collective understanding of 

the proposals under consideration as well as each proposal’s 

feasibility and second- and third-order effects. Commissioners 

identified additional modeling and research questions to help 

transition the proposals to recommendations. 

CONDUCTING THE RISK ASSESSMENT

Assessing the magnitude of a potential military challenge, its 

probability, and whether the force has attained an acceptable 

level of readiness to meet that challenge are all highly 

subjective. Magnitude might be best understood in terms 

of the cost to U.S. interests, which can range from relatively 

concrete measures, such as lives, property, and resources, to 

intangible metrics, such as deterrence and U.S. credibility. The 

probability of challenges that might require the use of U.S. 

Army capabilities is always difficult to measure, but our nation 

repeatedly finds itself in need of the kind of land forces only the 

Army can deliver. The nature of the conflict and sometimes the 

location are not always predictable several years out. However, 

by tracking geopolitical, technological, and other important 

trends, such as those laid out in the next chapter, and bearing 

in mind historical patterns, the Commission drew some 

conclusions about the general range and pace of likely threats 

and their potential costs to U.S. interests. 

To conduct the risk assessment, the Commission first 

established its view of the future strategic environment, 

identifying missions that might require Army forces. By 

looking at these missions in isolation, the Commission sought 

to identify capability gaps. The Commission then looked at 

potential combinations of missions over time to determine 

the appropriate overall size of the Army and the capability and 

component mix of forces within the Army.

The Commission’s findings and recommendations are 

grounded in its assessment of the Army’s ability to satisfy global 

requirements, notably those present or emerging in Europe, 

the Pacific, the Middle East, and at home. The most stressing 

combination of missions the Commission assessed involved 

three significant, near-simultaneous events: a large-scale 

homeland defense response, a large-scale conventional force 

operation, and a limited-duration deterrence mission elsewhere. 

“Only in America would the government sit 

down with its citizens and say, ‘Hey, how 

ought we structure our defense forces?” 

Ted Vorhees, Fayetteville City Manager, 

testifying before the Commission in Fayetteville, 

North Carolina, June 10, 2015.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 25

THE COMMISSION’S MISSION AND METHOD

This combination reflects the Department of Defense’s current 

strategic guidance for force sizing and shaping. Although the 

world is unlikely to present exactly this set of challenges in the 

place, time, and order assessed, the Commission considered 

the scale of these combined challenges as reasonable to 

comprehensively assess risk to mission and risk to force. 

PREPARING THE REPORT

Following the CAR, each subcommittee developed or 

refined proposals for the full Commission to consider. The 

task of turning the Commission’s analysis, findings, and 

recommendations into a useful report for policymakers was 

the primary task of the Drafting Subcommittee. The NCFA 

apparently is the first commission sponsored by OSD to use 

a drafting subcommittee, and the Commission suggests that 

future commissions consider adopting one as well. During the 

November closed meeting, commissioners reached agreement 

in principle for most recommendations. These agreements were 

crucial to allow the Drafting Subcommittee to move from an 

outline to explanatory text.

The Drafting Subcommittee assigned each chapter to 

one of its four commissioners, who served as the lead writer. 

Two different NCFA staff members were also assigned to each 

chapter to assist in the writing by developing outlines and 

serving as resource channels. The editor managed the individual 

chapter writing process under the supervision of the Executive 

Director. This approach facilitated development of graphics, 

vignettes, and sidebar information as the outline transitioned 

into report text. 

During the July 16, 2015, open meeting, the Commission 

unanimously approved a draft outline presented by the 

Drafting Subcommittee for the final report. The starting 

outline was generated by reviewing other commission reports 

for best practices. This outline provided subcommittees a 

framework for their findings and allowed the staff to begin 

filling in administrative information in annexes, such as the list 

of site visits and public comments. While changes occurred, 

the original outline served to organize information as the 

Commission progressed. 

Prior to enactment of the NDAA FY16, which 

significantly freed up the writing process by limiting FACA’s 

application to only meetings with five or more commissioners, 

the Commission adopted a hub-and-spoke method for getting 

inputs and edits from all eight commissioners while remaining 

FACA compliant. The editor, under the supervision of the 

Executive Director and Staff Director, provided each of the 

eight commissioners with a draft report and then received 

and processed comments, questions, and edits from them 

individually. After consolidating this input, the editor provided 

the new version of the report back to commissioners for further 

review and edits.

Following an OSD security review, the Commission 

gathered to address security review comments and proof read 

the final report before delivery to the printer for production 

and an on-time public release of the Commission’s report.
26 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 27

“The Commission shall undertake a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army ... related to 

current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army ...”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(1)(B)

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Richard W. Jones Jr., Operations Group, National Training Center

FUTURE CHALLENGES

The Army requires a flexible force capable of fulfilling 

land component demands in the future. Army forces 

conduct their missions in a continuously changing strategic 

environment, which both affects and is affected by U.S. policy 

decisions. The probability of challenges that might require 

the use of U.S. Army assets is always difficult to measure; the 

nature and sometimes the location of conflict are not always 

predictable several years out. Nevertheless, the United States 

repeatedly finds itself in need of the kind of land forces only 

the Army delivers. 

By tracking geopolitical, technological, and other 

important trends, and bearing in mind historical patterns, 

the Commission drew some conclusions about the general 

range and pace of likely threats and the potential costs to 

U.S. interests. The Commission then evaluated some of the 

most important and likely implications of these challenges 

for the U.S. Army operating as part of a U.S. Joint Force and 

usually a multinational combined force. The Commission’s 
28 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FUTURE CHALLENGES

recommendations rest not only on a shared understanding of 

the likely future strategic environment, but also on the history 

of the Army. This understanding of the past, present, and 

future was informed by extensive review and consultation with 

experts inside the U.S. government and beyond.

GEOPOLITICAL TRENDS

Although the Commission acknowledges the impossibility of 

precisely predicting the future, the Commission is certain that 

U.S. leaders will face a variety of simultaneous, diverse threats 

to our national interests from both state and non-state actors 

as well as natural and man-made disasters. These threats will 

likely test America’s security commitments to allies and partners 

around the world as well as Americans’ expectations of their 

Army’s ability to assist with homeland challenges. 

Russia poses significant and complex challenges to 

American security interests due to its nuclear capabilities, 

sales of advanced weapon systems, willingness to violate 

international convention, and support for actors working 

against U.S. interests, as it presently is doing in Syria. Russia 

is facing severe challenges in demography, corruption, capital 

flight, and opportunities for economic growth over the next 10 

to 20 years, and so may turn to military adventurism to solidify 

domestic support. Insufficient revenues—especially if oil prices 

remain low—have the potential to undermine Russian military 

modernization, increase Russia’s willingness to sell weapons 

to malignant actors, decrease stability within Russia’s borders, 

and limit the influence Russia can project internationally. Over 

the next two decades, the Commission expects the Russian 

government to prioritize military modernization with available 

resources and coerce or subvert its neighbors to preserve and 

extend Russian influence. Russia seeks to achieve its objectives 

in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine by combining a variety 

Photo on page 27

Soldiers with 1st Armored Division operate with an M109A6 

Paladin during a rotation at the National Training Center at 

Fort Irwin, California.

2nd Cavalry Regiment Strykers leave the front gate of an air base in Romania for a tactical road march to the Smardan Training Area in 

support of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. William A. Tanner
National Commission on the Future of the Army 29

FUTURE CHALLENGES

of military and non-military activities with a propaganda 

campaign blurring the distinction between war and peace. 

The United States will no doubt have to contend with these 

“gray-area zone” tactics from Russia and other key international 

actors in the future. 

Terrorism has emerged as the most visible threat to 

Americans and the nation’s allies. The organization currently 

receiving the most attention on the threat spectrum is the Islamic 

State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), operating in Iraq and Syria, 

but with devoted followers and affiliates willing to engage in acts 

of terrorism in nations around the globe, including the United 

States. The emergence of ISIL is an example of how non-state 

actors seize upon opportunities created by communal conflict 

and weak governance. ISIL’s willingness to use murder and other 

forms of brutality against innocents and its ability to mobilize 

people, money, and weapons have enabled the organization to 

seize territory and establish control of populations and resources. 

ISIL uses social media and cyberspace to prosecute a propaganda 

campaign while employing terrorist tactics to control populations 

and territory. The ISIL threat demonstrates the need for land 

forces to defeat determined enemies that operate among and 

control civilian populations. ISIL also highlights the need to 

extend efforts beyond physical battlegrounds to other contested 

spaces, such as public perception and political subversion. In 

addition to the threat of direct attacks, the activities of ISIL and 

other actors in the Middle East have created a massive movement 

of refugees, triggering a humanitarian crisis that raises concerns 

for future instability in Europe and other regions.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Berlin Wall 

falls Dissolution of the 

Soviet Union and 

Warsaw Pact

Dayton Accords

end Bosnian War

Russia 

invades

Georgia

Croatia and

Albania join

NATO

Bulgaria, Estonia, 

Latvia, Lithuania, 

Romania, Slovakia, 

and Slovenia 

join NATO

Patriot batteries 

deployed to bolster 

Turkey’s air defense 

during Syrian conflict

Last forwardstationed Armored 

BCT departs

Russia 

annexes 

Crimea

Czech Republic, 

Hungary, Poland 

join NATO; 

NATO launches 

Operation 

Allied Forces 

in Kosovo

Figure 7

ARMY IN EUROPE

Source: U.S. European Command.

Army 

Active 

Duty 

Personnel

U.S. Forces in Europe have seen a significant drawdown since the fall of the Berlin Wall 

in 1989. At that time, the Army had more than 216,700 soldiers stationed in Europe. The 

reduction in forces continued even as NATO expanded and its borders pushed further 

east. Now, with Army forces numbering about 28,450, Europe is facing security threats 

from Russia, from the refugee crises, and from ISIL. Force decisions are made according 

to the risk environment of the time, an environment that can change substantially in a 

matter of months. 
30 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FUTURE CHALLENGES

HOMELAND DEFENSE AND DSCA

The Army’s top priority is the defense of the homeland. 

The United States is not immune to acts of war or terrorism 

in its territory, and each contingency plan must consider 

simultaneous demands for military capability in the homeland.

The Commission was directed to consider the Army 

capacity needed to support current and anticipated 

homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in 

the United States. The responses to such demands are 

captured in anticipated homeland defense (HD) and 

defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) requirements. 

The Commission found the Army’s overall capabilities and 

capacity to be adequate for assigned missions.

The homeland is a unique and challenging theater 

of operation where Army forces must achieve unity 

of effort through the employment of both state and 

federal forces and authorities. The Army National Guard 

provides capabilities to states with interstate Emergency 

Management Assistance Compacts facilitating the 

sharing of assets and resources across state borders in an 

emergency or disaster. In the event of a large, complex 

catastrophe in the homeland, the Total Force would 

provide the majority of Department of Defense capabilities 

and support. Such operations also are likely to involve 

organizations from the local, state, and federal levels. The 

need for integrated and well-coordinated contingency 

planning, training, and exercises is clear.

The Commission observed one such exercise, Vigilant 

Guard, in Minnesota. Army National Guard forces from 

multiple states participated in the exercise, which included 

a Joint task force led by a Dual Status Commander (with 

state and federal authority), federal forces commanded 

by a U.S. Army North Task Force, state and federal 

elements from the Chemical, Biological Radiological 

and Nuclear Response Enterprise, and multiple civilian 

immediate-response entities from several counties in 

Minnesota and other states. The Army is the only Service 

that provides U.S. Northern Command a full-time, threestar Service component command solely focused on the 

homeland mission, Army North. In the event of a largescale operation, Army North will employ support and 

sustainment units and mission command elements from all 

Army components to support U.S. Northern Command. 

The Commission found, through extensive discussions with 

and feedback from Governors, state Adjutants General, 

DoD officials, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, 

and the U.S. Army North Commander, that the Army‘s 

capabilities and capacity for disaster response and 

homeland defense have improved and are adequate at this 

time. However, potential reductions in Army forces raised 

many concerns. The Commission shares this concern, as 

the Army must continue to embrace its requirement to be 

prepared to conduct a large, no-notice response in the 

homeland with trained and ready forces.

“...An evaluation and identification of a structure for the Army that...ensures that the regular and 

reserve components of the Army have the capacity needed to support current and anticipated 

homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the United States...”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(2)(A)(iii)

Nuclear Disablement Team members of the 20th Support 

Command in Aiken, South Carolina, participate in a 

scenario-based exercise at Savannah River Site. 

U.S. Army photo by Jessica Maxwell
National Commission on the Future of the Army 31

FUTURE CHALLENGES

Iran poses a multitude of potential challenges to the 

United States. First, its nuclear ambitions to date have created 

significant concerns for the United States, Israel, and other 

U.S. allies and partners in the Middle East. The recent nuclear 

agreement reached between the permanent members of the 

United Nations Security Council and Iran could provide for 

greater conventional military and nuclear stability in the region 

if Iran abides by its terms. However, should Tehran develop 

nuclear weapons, or appear to be on the verge of doing so, 

broader nuclear proliferation—potentially including Saudi 

Arabia—would be a strong possibility and would significantly 

complicate U.S. goals in the region. 

Second, the continuation of Iran’s longstanding support 

for terrorism threatens the United States and its allies and 

partners. Iran’s own Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds 

Force are already undertaking actions that threaten U.S. 

allies in the region, both Israel and Arab partners. Iran also 

provides the main means of support to non-state terrorist 

organizations such as Hezbollah, which likewise threaten Israel 

“No matter how clearly one thinks, it is 

impossible to anticipate precisely the 

character of future conflict. The key is not 

to be so far off the mark that it becomes 

impossible to adjust once that character is 

revealed.”

— Sir Michael Howard quotes in the Ministry 

of Defence: Strategic Trends Programme 

Future Character of Conflict, 2

Members of the 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and Junglas from the Colombian National Police train TIGRES (“Policia”) 

commandos in Honduras to conduct operations against narcotraffiking targets.

U.S. Army photo by Spc. Steven K. Young
32 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FUTURE CHALLENGES

and others. Although the recent nuclear deal may provide 

an opening for more moderate political forces in Iran, U.S. 

security authorities should assume that Iran will continue to 

look for unconventional and even terrorist means to pursue 

its regional and international goals. One bellweather of Iran’s 

future intentions will be its investment choices following any 

relief from economic sanctions: whether it primarily chooses 

to increase spending for its conventional and unconventional 

military approaches or whether it grows its commercial 

economy and middle class. 

In Asia, an area dominated by land armies, China’s 

trajectory impacts regional security more than any other single 

factor. China’s insistence on creating spheres of exclusive 

influence in the East and South China Seas will keep regional 

tensions high and perpetuate the risk of escalation to direct 

conflict with the United States. The rapid pace of China’s 

military modernization and its actions in the air, maritime, 

space, and cyber domains increase the risks to U.S. forces if 

tensions escalate. However, China’s military and economic 

growth trajectory may falter as demographic and citizen 

demands challenge the ruling Communist party, though that 

could inspire China’s leaders to escalate foreign issues in an 

effort to rally their population to the party leadership. Conflict 

with China remains an important consideration due to its high 

impact, even if its probability remains low. 

The Commission sees North Korea’s continued volatile 

nature and military provocations as a possible catalyst for SinoAmerican confrontation and the most likely military threat 

to Asian stability. North Korea’s development and repeated 

testing of nuclear weapons demonstrates a significant threat to 

U.S. interests and regional stability. Failed deterrence or rapid 

North Korean escalation of hostilities epitomizes the need for 

the Army to be ready to fight tonight and win. The collapse 

of North Korea would present a significant threat to regional 

stability with conceivably greater consequences outside the 

region due to the possibility of loose nuclear material.

Trends suggest India should grow in global importance 

and acquire the ability to positively influence Asia through 

economic and political leadership. However, India’s volatile 

relationship with Pakistan risks destabilizing the region 

and creates potential for nuclear conflict. Globally, nuclear 

proliferation increases the opportunities for malignant actors to 

acquire a nuclear weapon, especially in nations where violent 

extremism persists and tactical nuclear weapon stockpiles 

are growing. Violent extremist organizations in Afghanistan 

and Pakistan continue to support and direct attacks against 

American interests around the globe. Afghanistan represents 

a continuing commitment for U.S. forces and illustrates the 

challenge of anticipating the length of post-conflict military 

requirements. The regional threat to U.S. interests has 

overwhelmed strong U.S. desires to end the military mission 

in Afghanistan. This threat has the potential to increase 

significantly as Pakistan continues to expand its tactical nuclear 

weapon arsenal.

In Africa, unstable and corrupt governments have 

fomented civil strife and humanitarian crises, while weak states 

provide fertile ground for terrorist cells seeking members, 

financing, and safe havens. The continent faces several 

humanitarian challenges, both man-made and natural, ranging 

from civil strife and poverty to drought and disease.

Although the Western Hemisphere poses few direct threats 

to the United States, many countries in South America, Central 

America, and the Caribbean will probably struggle with 

economic growth while corruption and inadequate governance 

could cause civil unrest. The Commission expects transnational 

criminal organizations to remain entrenched and maintain 

sophisticated smuggling networks into the United States, which 

A soldier with the 197th Field Artillery Regiment throws an RQ11 Raven unmanned aircraft system at the start of a flight mission 

at Camp Buehring, Kuwait.

U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Benjamin Moreau
National Commission on the Future of the Army 33

FUTURE CHALLENGES

terrorists or other U.S. adversaries could leverage to attack the 

homeland. 

Globally, climate change has numerous implications for 

national security. Warming trends are lessening agricultural 

productivity in many areas and increasing the frequency 

of extreme weather events. The resulting food and water 

insecurities may increase resource competition between and 

within states. Changes in the Arctic have the potential to 

create benefits for the global economy, but may also become a 

flashpoint for confrontation. Russia has ambitious designs on 

the resource-rich Arctic region and has substantially expanded 

its Arctic forces. In addition to overlapping claims by Arctic 

nations, many non-Arctic nations, including China, have 

strong interests in facilitating access to low-cost shipping routes 

and Arctic resources. 

Population growth across the globe is giving rise to 

megacities, which are frequently located in littoral regions, 

increasing the likelihood and scale of future natural disasters. 

Megacities offer the potential to foster economic growth and 

stability, but they also provide safe-haven and recruitment 

opportunities for criminal networks, warlords, and terrorists, 

especially in weakly governed, well-connected slums. These dense 

urban areas have the potential to create unique governmental 

entities transcending traditional or existing state governments 

and could complicate U.S. involvement on multiple levels. 

Moreover, some weak or failed states around the globe are likely 

to become more vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated criminal 

and terrorist networks, posing serious threats to domestic and, in 

certain cases, international security and stability.

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY TRENDS

Many of the current and potential geopolitical challenges 

described above are exacerbated by the spread of advanced 

technologies. The United States is increasingly challenged to 

maintain a technological advantage. Although the United 

States can and should take advantage of the rapid technological 

transformations now underway, it is likely to lose any 

monopoly it might have once held over military know-how. 

Information technology is trending toward ever-faster data 

transmission at lower costs, providing poor states and criminal 

organizations access to capabilities traditionally monopolized 

by advanced countries. Such capabilities reside in a wide range 

of emerging technologies.

• Precision Guidance—More lethal and accurate rockets, 

artillery, mortars, and missile systems will place fixed and 

mobile sites at greater risk and deny air and sea access to 

others.

• Supercomputing and Big Data—Commercialized big data 

provides any country or terrorist group access to fast, highpowered computational and analytical capacity.

• Robotics/Autonomy—Unmanned air, ground, and 

undersea systems for surveillance, communication relay, 

and lethal operations will augment or replace manned 

systems, increasing adversary air-to-ground and terrorist 

strike capabilities, while autonomous or tethered robots 

add to operational threats.

• Nano-technology—Nano-technology will provide forces 

with substantially improved capabilities (lethality, strength) 

while reducing logistical requirements (weight, energy 

consumption), which could potentially be used to make 

powerful explosives with lightweight composites.

• Cyber/Electro-magnetic—Nation and non-state actors 

already are using cyberspace attacks, advanced encryption 

techniques, espionage, and propaganda in their arsenal 

of weapons, and the development and proliferation of 

weapons producing an electro-magnetic pulse are a real 

possibility.

• Bio-technology—Medical and bio-technological 

advances have greatly improved soldier survivability, and 

exoskeletons and advanced prosthetics could revolutionize 

soldier care.

• Space Access—More nations and non-state actors will 

have access to space-based services, such as electro-optical 

imagery and satellite communications and navigation, 

while several nations have already developed weapons, 

lasers, and radio-frequency jammers to degrade or destroy 

satellites.

Furthermore, the speed of innovation and information 

technology is increasing the pace of operations and the ability 

“Deterrence is tested negatively by things 

which do not happen. But it is never possible 

to demonstrate why something has not 

occurred...the longer peace is maintained—

or the more successful deterrence is—the 

more it furnishes arguments for those who 

are opposed to the very premise of defense 

policy.” 

Henry Kissinger, 1969.
34 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FUTURE CHALLENGES

of adversarial actors to spread influence and action across the 

battlefield. 

These trends reinforce the need for multilateral approaches 

to security problems, as threats become greater than any 

one nation can address on its own. However, multilateral 

approaches will depend on the political will and capability 

to use appropriate national tools. Many American allies and 

partners appear less willing to meet security threats with 

military force. Many also are flat-lining or reducing their 

defense expenditures to address competing social, demographic, 

and economic challenges—as has the United States. Even with 

current funding and complete commitment, few partners 

would be able to replicate advanced U.S. capabilities such 

as air and missile defense, technical intelligence collection, 

or aviation. Accordingly, the Commission anticipates 

significant limits on the capability of many allies and partners 

to contribute to combined land missions beyond supplying 

infantry units at brigade level and below.

ANTICIPATED MISSIONS FOR ARMY FORCES

Based on its understanding of the future geopolitical and 

technological environment, the Commission concludes that the 

United States requires a flexible land component force capable 

of contributing to a wide range of future missions in a myriad 

of regions and circumstances. The optimum balance of Army 

capabilities differ for each specific threat, but all Army core 

capabilities are likely to be called upon in the future. 

Projected Russian doctrine and capabilities to threaten 

U.S. interests suggest the need for an Army with sufficient 

ability, as part of a joint and combined NATO or other 

multinational force, to quickly counter Russian armor, 

artillery, aviation, and proxy forces attacking European allies. 

Deterrence and assurance will be the primary mission for 

these forces. U.S. success in Europe depends on partners and 

adversaries believing that the U.S. military has the capability 

and capacity to win in combat. A substantial threat from 

manned aircraft, numerous unmanned aerial vehicles, and 

rockets presents the need for robust anti-air and rocket defense 

capabilities. The most efficient capabilities against these threats 

may differ greatly from current conceptions; for example, 

electronic warfare capabilities may be more effective at 

identifying and countering small drones than traditional kinetic 

air defense capabilities would. 

Events in the Middle East are likely to continue to demand 

Army counterterrorism and countering violent extremism 

operations. Trends suggest U.S. partners in both the Middle 

East and South Asia will continue to depend on U.S. weapons 

and training along with U.S. assistance during disasters. Army 

activities could include sustained land operations for a gray 

area, a counter-coercion campaign, or a mission to neutralize 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Increasing the Army’s 

expeditionary capability to quickly respond to threats in this 

region would improve the credibility of U.S. deterrence and 

expand response options during crises.

In Asia, efforts to deter potential adversaries and assure 

partners, along with humanitarian response and disaster relief 

operations, likely would constitute the most frequent Army 

requirements. Successful deterrence and assurance requires 

strong strategic lift and improving U.S. and partner-nation 

anti-aircraft, anti-ship, and anti-missile capabilities to ensure 

freedom of movement. Army power projection from land 

into the air, sea, and cyber domains could provide Joint 

Commanders with the ability to deter, assure, and sustain land 

forces in the region despite enemy anti-access capabilities. 

Army leaders will likely also serve in an important military 

diplomacy role in support of the State Department because 

the armies of Asian nations generally hold more influence 

than their navy or air force counterparts. All the while, the 

U.S. Army must maintain trained and ready forces to deter 

an aggressive and unpredictable North Korea, which could 

collapse from within or launch an unprovoked attack on its 

neighbors. In either case, North Korea will present substantial 

WMD—chemical, biological, or nuclear—and humanitarian 

concerns, necessitating a large and long-term commitment of 

U.S. Army forces. 

As with the Middle East, South Asian threats indicate 

the Army should have the ability to proficiently conduct 

sustained counterterrorism and countering violent extremism 

operations, both independently and through partners. Security 

cooperation, civil affairs, counter-WMD, and information 

operations would be enduring regional requirements due to 

the many American interests at stake in the region, including 

the capacity of partners to contribute to counter-WMD and 

stability operations. However, large populations, frequency 

of national disasters, history of terrorism, traditions of 

“As I’ve said from my first day in the 

chairman’s office, we need to think our 

way through our security challenges, not 

bludgeon our way through them.” 

General Martin J. Dempsey, USA, quoted in POLITICO 

Magazine article by James Kitfield, September 26, 2015.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 35

FUTURE CHALLENGES

anti-Americanism, regional tensions, and growth of nuclear 

weapons complicate Army operations in the region.

Expected Army missions in Africa and Latin America will 

focus on efforts to build partner capacity, counterterrorism 

missions, countering violent extremism activities, and 

countering transnational criminal organizations. These missions 

emphasize Army trainers, including Special Operations Forces, 

intelligence assets, logistics, engineers, and civil affairs. The 

most important mission remains developing the institutional 

capabilities of host nations, building upon previous U.S. 

assistance. Generally, the evidence suggests missions to provide 

disaster relief or stop infectious disease outbreaks will remain 

steady or grow.

Despite all the threats abroad, the United States homeland 

will remain a chief concern for Army forces. Aside from girding 

against potential attacks from both state and non- or near-state 

actors, the nation must prepare to respond to terrorist attacks 

on a scale that ranges from small, localized incidents to regional 

events with numerous casualties and severe detrimental impact 

on infrastructure. Responding to natural and man-made 

disasters is part of the Army’s purview. Governors will continue 

to rely on their National Guard assets in the event of severe 

weather events, earthquakes, wildfires, and civil unrest, and 

Army Reserve and Regular Army forces will likewise be called 

upon to render defense support of civil authorities. Responding 

in the homeland remains a Total Force mission, both military 

and civilian.

In all these missions, the most overarching mission 

requirement will be developing the Army’s human capital—

creating flexible and adaptable personnel who can respond to 

adversary efforts to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities and avoid U.S. 

strengths. Army leaders will need to adapt available capabilities 

and technology to unexpected missions. To retain a competitive 

advantage, the Army should emphasize the following:

1. Developing leaders who can adapt to enemy actions 

and new technology; 

2. Improving cyber capabilities due to the Army’s 

increasing reliance on computer networks and the 

growth of cyber capabilities by state and non-state 

actors;

3. Expanding capabilities to operate in urban 

environments due to growing urbanization; 

4. Enabling units to operate in a dispersed manner, 

with smaller and more flexible formations that better 

leverage partners and respond to hybrid challenges; 

5. Improving air, rocket, and missile defenses against 

growing threats from air and ground artillery and 

missile systems; and 

6. Investing in potentially game-changing technologies 

and preparing leaders to accept and exploit such new 

technologies to provide U.S. forces with the greatest 

advantage possible.

Based on its survey of future requirements compared to 

average requirements in the past, the Commission did not 

find a reason to expect the use of U.S. Army forces to decline, 

either in the near or distant future. Rather, the current security 

environment could demand a greater need for U.S. Army units 

in missions that are more diverse and geographically dispersed 

than ever before.

Private First Class Brandon Johnson, assigned to Task Force First 

Round at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and other 

soldiers worked with wildland firefighters to help suppress the 

Kaniksu Complex fires. 

Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Andrew Porch
36 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FUTURE CHALLENGES

A HISTORY OF READINESS CRISES

Though it eventually mobilized almost eight million soldiers 

to fight the Second World War, the U.S. Army was woefully 

unprepared when the war began. In three wars since, the 

nation again had to play catch up with its armed forces 

upon the onset of conflict. 

With two oceans serving as a buffer for the homeland, 

and with lingering regret over the casualties of 1917–

1918, the United States saw no need to build a large 

Army. Consequently, when Germany invaded Poland in 

September 1939, the U.S. Army had less than 190,000 

personnel on active duty. Germany’s conquest of France 

in June 1940 convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

and the Congress that the Army was ill-prepared should 

the nation go to war. So, Congress mobilized the National 

Guard in August 1940 and established the nation’s first 

peacetime draft in September. However, both measures 

were to expire after one year. 

Mobilization did not go smoothly. Through the winter 

and spring of 1941, the Army struggled to build 

temporary bases and gather uniforms, equipment, and 

supplies. General George C. Marshall, Army Chief of 

Staff, had trouble filling leadership ranks as almost half 

of the National Guardsmen who reported for duty were 

discharged because they were unfit, needed for essential 

war industries, or claimed family hardship.

In August 1941, despite the growing threats around the 

globe, the U.S. House of Representatives extended the 

call-up of the National Guard and the draft by a margin 

of just one vote, 203 to 202. Meanwhile, President 

Roosevelt diverted most of the arms and equipment the 

Army needed to Britain and Russia to help those countries 

stave off defeat. The President even directed the Army 

in September 1941 to reduce its ranks and discharge 

Guardsmen and soldiers, believing they would not be 

needed in the near future. 

That future came three months later with the attack on 

Pearl Harbor. In 1942, the Army rushed to build large, 

combat-ready forces but had too few company and field 

grade officers or sergeants to train and lead new recruits. 

The Army drew leaders from hastily assembled units to 

provide cadre for other new units. Though the initial stages 

of the November 1942 North Africa campaign in French 

Morocco and French Algeria were largely successful, 

American forces suffered defeat in their first major 

engagement with German troops at the Battle of Kasserine 

Pass in February 1943. 

The next readiness crisis for the Army came less than five 

years after the end of World War II—five years of reduced 

spending on the Army—when North Korea invaded South 

Korea in June 1950. The Army rushed poorly equipped 

and ill-trained units from Japan to South Korea, and, 

repeating the results of 1942, the Americans were quickly 

overwhelmed by North Korean armor. Unprepared Regular 

Army units deployed from the United States as rapidly 

as possible as President Harry S. Truman mobilized the 

National Guard and the Organized Reserve Corps. Though 

the Army’s authorized end strength was increased, it took 

months to draft and train tens of thousands more soldiers 

and bring National Guard divisions up to full strength. By 

the time the Army had more ready forces to commit to 

Korea, the war had devolved into a stalemate leading to a 

ceasefire two years later. 

After the Korean War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 

New Look strategy counted on nuclear retaliation to 

counter communist aggression, a strategy that led to 

the marginalization of the Army in defense strategy 

and significant Army reductions. The Army invested in 

the reserve components as a hedge against wartime 

operational demands, but the Berlin Crisis of 1961 

demonstrated that reserve units needed more postmobilization training than Army planners had realized. 

President John F. Kennedy, meanwhile, embraced Special 

Operations Forces as a solution for small wars, such as the 

growing advisory effort in Vietnam. 

In 1965, as Viet Cong attacks intensified, General William 

Westmoreland, the commander of U.S. Military Assistance 

Command, Vietnam, determined he needed American 

ground combat forces to launch offensive operations 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 37

FUTURE CHALLENGES

to prevent the South Vietnamese government from 

falling. President Lyndon B. Johnson approved General 

Westmoreland’s requests for hundreds of thousands of 

troops, but the President rejected repeated requests to 

mobilize reserve component forces. Instead, President 

Johnson filled the Army’s ranks with conscripts by doubling 

monthly draft calls. Because conscripts only had to serve a 

year in Vietnam before being discharged, the Army had to 

rely increasingly on career soldiers to provide experienced 

leadership, which put excess stress on the force as the 

war continued. The end of the draft and the beginning of 

the All-Volunteer Force became an opportunity to rebuild 

a professional Army, but for the remainder of the 1970s, 

resources were sparse and defeat in Vietnam reverberated 

in institutional memory.

The Army in the 1980s turned the resources provided by 

President Ronald Reagan’s buildup into ready combat 

power, and a generation of officers used the lessons of the 

past to build a force that could prevail on the battlefield. 

The Persian Gulf War (1990–1991) was a resounding 

success for the Army. It was also an anomaly, a rare 

moment when, due to the sudden end of the Cold War and 

what turned out to be months of advanced preparation 

before the onset of combat, the Regular Army’s readiness 

far exceeded requirements. Although many Reserve and 

National Guard units deployed for the war, three Army 

National Guard combat brigades, designated as round out 

formations, did not deploy with their associated Regular 

Army divisions. Why was hotly debated: that they were 

not ready, that they required too much post-mobilization 

training, that readiness standards were imposed to 

preclude deploying the National Guard combat brigades, 

or that readiness requirements and reporting standards 

were too vague. The debate, though, helped foster a new 

commitment to increasing reserve component readiness. 

Yet, the Army faced another readiness crisis in 2006—

well after the onset of war in Iraq. Budget cuts forced 

the Army to shrink by a third in the early 1990s while, 

paradoxically, renewed confidence in military solutions 

led to more deployments. Demands on all the Services 

soon outstripped the supply of regular forces and required 

greater use of the reserve components. The wars in 

Afghanistan and Iraq initially saw dramatic successes but 

did not lead to decisive victory. In late 2004, both the Army 

Reserve and Army National Guard warned that growing 

demands were having a detrimental effect on their ranks. 

Two years later General Peter Schoomaker, the Chief of 

Staff of the Army, warned that “without recurrent access 

to the reserve components through remobilization, we will 

break the active component.” When President George W. 

Bush decided to surge forces to Iraq, he simultaneously 

expanded the Army. However, growing the Army’s end 

strength by tens of thousands in a couple of years brought 

its own difficulties with significant increases in enlistment 

bonuses and lower enlistment standards.

A readiness crisis is easier to regret in hindsight than to 

predict or prevent ahead of time. There are no easy paths 

for building a ready force before the demand for ground 

combat power is immediate and significant. Within the 

span of living memory, the United States has used multiple 

solutions for the problem of building readiness: 

• Full reserve mobilization, conscription, and expansion 

(World War II);

• Partial mobilization, conscription, and expansion 

(Korea); 

• No mobilization, conscription, and expansion 

(Vietnam); 

• Presidential Order to active duty (Gulf War); 

• Partial mobilization and limited expansion (2001-2011).

Peacetime savings always seem pennywise at the time. But 

when wars come, policymakers and commanders struggle 

to build forces for the fight, often regretting not having 

made the Army ready before sending soldiers into combat 

without the formations, numbers, equipment, supplies, or 

training they need to accomplish the mission.
38 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 39

“The Commission shall undertake a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army ... to make 

recommendations ... in a manner consistent with available resources and anticipated future resources.” 

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(1)(B)

U.S. Army photo.

FISCAL CHALLENGES

Top-line budget projections for the Department of Defense 

(DoD) have changed substantially in almost every year 

since 2011. Congress enacted the Budget Control Act (BCA) 

in August 2011. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, 

enacted in January 2013, made significant changes in BCA 

funding levels, as did the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, enacted 

in December 2014. Yet another Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA15), 

passed in October 2015, made still more changes. These 

budgetary fluctuations have made it almost impossible for DoD 

and the Army to program effectively for the future. Figure 8 

shows the effects of these many changes on the DoD base budget 

(the budget excluding Overseas Contingency Operations, or 

OCO, funding).

This budget uncertainty adds to the problems created by 

declining defense spending. From fiscal years 2010 to 2015, 

total DoD base funding declined by 7 percent while Army 

base funding declined by 14 percent. Investment (procurement 

plus research, development, test and evaluation, or RDT&E) 
40 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FISCAL CHALLENGES

fell by 15 percent across DoD during that same period, and by 

35 percent in the Army. 

There is some relatively good news. Though the Congress 

has funded DoD’s base budget more than 3 percent below 

Presidential Budget requests since fiscal year 2012, it has 

provided more money in defense spending than the levels 

initially set by the BCA (which would have resulted in an 

almost 15 percent cut). The Army also has received substantial 

levels of funding from the OCO account and has used some 

of that to meet readiness and other key needs. In the fiscal year 

2016 budget, the Administration and the Congress permitted 

the Army to use OCO funding to pay for some activities that 

had at least some relation to contingency operations but would 

normally have been in the non-OCO or base budget. 

Despite the use of OCO funding, no satisfactory longterm funding approach provides DoD and the Army the 

funds needed to build and maintain military readiness, invest 

in modernization, and ensure the health of the force. In 

this constrained budget environment, the Army prioritized 

manpower numbers and force readiness to hedge against nearterm demands, accepting substantial risk in modernization. The 

Commission finds this solution regrettable but understandable, 

given the persistence of challenges to the United States and the 

ongoing strain those challenges are putting on ground forces, 

especially Regular Army combat formations and Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve enablers. Nevertheless, as discussed 

in the next chapter, these risks to modernization cannot be 

sustained if the Army is to protect the mission readiness of the 

force in the long term.

The current fiscal environment also complicates the 

Commission’s task to examine Army trends well into the 

future. In order to carry out this mandate, the Commission 

first considered a range of potential future levels of budgetary 

resources that could be available to the Army. The Commission 

also considered the effects these alternative resource levels 

would have on the Army’s ability to meet current and 

anticipated mission requirements at acceptable levels of risk. 

With this information in mind, the Commission made 

assumptions about future resource levels that guided its 

assessment of changes in Army programs. The Commission 

did not attempt to create or recommend specific alternative 

Army budgets; rather it developed general assumptions about 

available resources to use in assessing alternatives. 

ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE LEVELS AND 

THEIR EFFECTS

Sequester-Level Funding 

The Army might only receive the funding permitted by the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended. That act and its 

amendments specify the total funding available for national 

security activities; the Administration and eventually the 

Congress then allocate funding to the Army. Under the Act 

and its amendments, Army budget authority has fallen during 

each of the past five years from $140 billion in fiscal year 2010 

to $121 billion in fiscal year 2015. Under last year’s budget 

agreement, the Army will receive roughly $127 billion in fiscal 

year 2016 (including some OCO funding) and may decline 

below that level in fiscal year 2017. This funding profile will 

likely leave the Army budget for fiscal year 2017 about 10 

percent below its fiscal year 2010 level. In the years beyond 

fiscal year 2017 DoD and the Army will be constrained by the 

BCA, a profile that is often called “sequester-level” funding. 

The 2014 DoD report, Estimated Impacts of Sequestration-Level 

Funding, suggests that funding growth in the years immediately 

beyond fiscal year 2017 would likely be insufficient to keep 

pace with anticipated inflation. There may be some offsetting 

increases in the OCO portion of the defense budget, but those 

increases are uncertain.

If it is faced with a continuation of sequester-level 

funding and limited OCO funding, the Army has stated that 

it would need to reduce its total force to 920,000 soldiers: 

420,000 in the Regular Army with the remainder in the Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve. This compares to a total 

size of 980,000 soldiers in the President’s Budget for fiscal 

year 2016 (PB16).

During testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services 

Committee in March 2015, the Army Secretary and Chief 

of Staff stated that sequester-level budgets had already had a 

detrimental impact on Army readiness and modernization. 

They concluded that continuation of sequester-level funding 

creates significant risk to the Army’s ability to fulfill its 

Photo on page 39

Members of the Maryland Army National Guard’s 290th Military 

Police Company return after nearly a yearlong deployment to 

Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. 

“At the Defense Department, we are 

forced to make hasty reductions when 

choices should be considered carefully and 

strategically.”

The Honorable Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, in 

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article, October 20, 2015.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 41

FISCAL CHALLENGES

national security requirements as specified in the current 

Defense Strategic Guidance and the Quadrennial Defense 

Review (QDR). Based on its own experiences and discussions 

with leaders and troops, the Commission concurs with these 

concerns: the size of the force would not meet national 

security requirements, readiness would suffer, and funding for 

modernization, already low, would reach levels that would leave 

the nation too exposed to risk.

Funding Planned in Fiscal Year 2016 Request 

Rather than sequester-level funding, the Army might receive the 

dollars proposed in the PB16, which would have provided $127 

billion to the Army in fiscal year 2016, rising to $129 billion in 

fiscal year 2017. Growth in the years beyond fiscal year 2017 

would amount to a few percent a year, probably only enough 

to offset the effects of inflation. Last year’s budget agreement 

chipped away at the President’s plan for Army funding in 

Figure 8

BUDGET UNCERTAINTY OVER TIME

DOD BASE BUDGET IN THEN-YEAR DOLLARS IN BILLIONS

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff

$450

$475

$500

$525

$550

$575

$600

$625

$650

$675

Projected 

Spending Actual $ Spent

BCA Caps

PB16

Dotted line: bills that were not signed into law

Solid line: bills that were signed into law

PB14

Budget requested

 by DOD

2012 BCA

PB12

(Last budget

prior to BCA)

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

Secretary Gates

Efficiencies

First BCA 

Cut ($487 billion)

Second 

BCA Cut 

($455 billion)

Bipartisan 

Budget

Act

FY16–20 BCA

Cut to PB16 

($154 billion)

Defense Strategy

Guidance Released

Quadrennial Defense 

Review Released

Strategic Choices Management Review (SCMR)

American Taxpayer 

Relief Act
42 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FISCAL CHALLENGES

fiscal years 2016 and 2017, though a portion of these funding 

reductions would be offset by greater reliance on OCO funding.

Under the PB16, the Army would be able to remain at a 

total size of 980,000 soldiers. During Congressional testimony 

in early 2015, former senior Army leaders stated that, with this 

funding, the Army could pursue initiatives aimed at achieving 

a reasonable balance of readiness and modernization, and 

the Service would meet the primary missions of the Defense 

Strategic Guidance, though its ability to do so would become 

tenuous. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley concurred 

with this assessment in his confirmation hearing before the 

Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2015.

Higher Funding Levels 

Historically, Army and overall defense funding have been 

cyclical. Funding has tended to rise as threats to national 

security increase, followed by decline as threats ease. The 

Commission has concluded that threats to national security are 

currently increasing due to escalating threats from ISIL, Russia, 

and ongoing threats from North Korea and Iran, among others. 

Despite today’s limits on funding, these increasing threats make 

plausible the possibility that Army and overall defense funding 

may increase in the longer term.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks, the Army base budget increased by almost $70 billion 

from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2010. Absent some future 

catastrophic events, an increase of this magnitude seems 

unlikely. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that, as it 

assesses the long-term future of the Army, it should take into 

account the possibility of funding increases above the levels in 

the fiscal year 2016 budget plan. As subsequent chapters will 

explain, added funding would almost certainly be required 

Soldiers from 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division fly on a U.S. Air Force C-17 on their deployment to Afghanistan.

Photo by Sgt. Christopher McCullough
National Commission on the Future of the Army 43

FISCAL CHALLENGES

if the Army is to meet capability shortfalls identified by the 

Commission.

RESOURCE CONCLUSIONS

After assessing future resource levels and their effects, the 

Commission finds that sequester-level funding will not 

provide the Army with adequate finances to meet national 

security requirements at acceptable levels of risk. An Army 

that declines to 920,000 soldiers and faces limits on funding 

for readiness and modernization is not enough to do the 

job. Therefore, for purposes of assessing the long-term future 

of the Army, the Commission rejects the use of sequesterlevel funding as a guide to anticipated future resources, 

understanding that providing the Army with funding in 

excess of sequester levels will require Congress to change 

current law.

Instead, the Commission concludes that the funding 

in PB16 provides the Army with the minimum resources 

necessary to meet requirements at acceptable levels of risk to 

the nation. The Commission therefore uses PB16 as a rough 

benchmark for anticipated future resources necessary to meet 

requirements. The Commission notes, however, that the 

PB16 plan does not take into account recent changes in the 

strategic environment. The QDR, released March 4, 2014, 

describes the strategic environment informing the resourcing 

decisions in the PB16. It assumed the drawdown of combat 

forces in Afghanistan would continue; that drawdown has 

been slowed. The QDR referred to the influence of al-Qaeda 

“to recruit or inspire Westerners to carry out attacks against 

our homeland with little or no warning”; it did not take 

into account the ISIL, Boko Haram, or some other ongoing 

terrorist threats. The QDR discussed “the instability in the 

Balkans and on the European periphery [that] will continue 

to pose a security challenge”; it did not forecast the extent 

of the Russian involvement in Ukraine. Because PB16 does 

not address the escalation of threats to global stability and 

national security, it is, at best, on the low end of needed 

resources. 

Moreover, because last year’s BBA15 budget agreement 

provided funding for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 at levels 

below the PB16 plan, the Commission does not view that 

agreement as an adequate solution for national security. 

The Commission urges the Administration and Congress 

to restore fiscal year 2017 funding to the PB16 levels. The 

Congress should then return to PB16 levels of funding or 

higher in later years.

Consistent with its charter, the Commission focused on 

Army funding and programs. However, the Army can only 

function effectively if the other military services and DoD as a 

whole have adequate funding and capacity. The Army depends 

on the Navy and Air Force for strategic lift, close-air support, 

specialized training, and much more. A strong Marine Corps 

complements the Army’s ground capability. The Commission 

finds that sequester-level funding would not provide adequate 

resources for DoD to fulfill its missions at acceptable risk.

Recommendation 4: Congress should maintain future 

Army budgets at funding levels at least equal to those 

in the fiscal year 2016 President’s budget plan due to 

significant and emerging threats to national security. 

Budgets for DoD as a whole should also meet or 

exceed the 2016 level so that the Department can 

accomplish its mission with acceptable risk. 

STRETCHING ARMY RESOURCES

Even with funding at PB16 levels, the Commission agrees 

with senior Army leaders who stated that the Service’s 

ability to meet national security needs at reasonable levels 

of risk is tenuous. The Commission has identified a number 

of initiatives that could reduce this risk and urges the 

Administration and Congress to consider these initiatives, 

even if funding remains at the PB16 level. However, these 

initiatives will become financially more feasible if additional 

funds become available. 

“The abrupt, deep cuts resulting from the 

Budget Control Act forced our military to 

make topline-driven decisions, such that we 

now have a strategy with little to no margin 

for surprise. Therefore, we are operating at 

higher levels of risk to our defense strategy. 

To limit adverse consequences, we need 

the certainty of a more predictable funding 

stream, time to balance force structure, 

modernization, compensation, and 

readiness, and the flexibility to make 

trade-offs.” 

General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., USMC, in testimony before 

the Senate Armed Services Committee considering his 

nomination for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
44 National Commission on the Future of the Army

FISCAL CHALLENGES

Additional funds may be made available to meet Army 

warfighting needs if DoD can implement efficiency initiatives 

and eliminate redundancy in its operations. Various entities 

have proposed initiatives to free up funding for warfighting 

needs. Following are some examples:

• The Administration’s proposal to slow growth in the cost of 

military compensation, as long as recruiting and retention 

needs are met; 

• Proposals by DoD and by the Commission on Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization to reform 

the military health care system; 

• DoD’s proposal to streamline military medical treatment 

facilities; 

• DoD’s proposed legislation that would permit the 

department to close unneeded facilities (DoD is currently 

updating its capacity analysis to determine the level of 

facilities, including Army facilities, that are unneeded);

• Army proposals to pursue energy consumption efficiency 

initiatives; 

• This Commission’s proposal for a pilot program to test 

the feasibility of integrating recruiting across the Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve (see page 

71). While designed primarily to better integrate the Total 

Force, integrated recruiting might free up resources. 

The Commission has not undertaken a detailed review 

of these and other efficiency proposals. However, it urges the 

Administration and the Congress to carefully review these 

initiatives and enact or permit them wherever they make sense. 

In some cases, the proposed efficiencies are already included in 

the PB16 and so would not free up additional resources to meet 

direct warfighting needs. In other cases, such efficiencies could 

help finance some of the high-priority initiatives identified in 

this report.

It is important to note that, by themselves, these actions 

would not free up enough funds to pay for the many capability 

gaps identified in subsequent chapters of this report. If most 

or all of these gaps are to be closed, then funding above the 

levels in PB16 will be needed. Efficiencies and related actions 

can, however, hold down the need for added funds and should 

therefore be pursued aggressively.

Recommendation 5: The Congress and the 

Administration should look for cost-saving 

opportunities in areas such as the military health 

system, energy savings, and a reduced inventory of 

military facilities.

BUDGETARY TURMOIL

The Army, and DoD as a whole, could also make better use of 

available resources if the Congress and the Administration act to 

reduce budgetary turmoil. In recent years, the Army and DoD 

have furloughed civilian employees twice. They have planned 

for government shutdowns more than half a dozen times and, 

regrettably, were required to execute one of those plans, resulting 

in many Army and government operations closing for sixteen days 

in 2013. The Army and DoD have operated under continuing 

resolutions in every year of the current Administration, including 

two resolutions that extended for about six months. During the 

short duration of this Commission, two separate government 

shutdowns came within days of execution. This budgetary turmoil 

results in inefficiencies, including higher contracting costs, and 

consumes time of senior leaders that would be better spent 

managing the Army and the Department.

A Brookings report, Budgetary Turmoil at the Department 

of Defense from 2010 to 2014, written by Robert F. Hale (a 

member of this Commission) and published in August 2015, 

highlighted the effects of this turmoil, especially the adverse 

effects on the morale of Army and DoD civilian employees. 

Congressional testimony by Army senior leaders in March 

2015 emphasized the effects of the lack of predictable funding, 

focusing especially on continuing resolutions. That testimony 

concluded that the lack of predictable funding “wreaks havoc 

with Army readiness, modernization, and end strength.” 

The Commission agrees that budgetary turmoil is 

having serious adverse effects on the Army. The Commission 

concludes that to have an effective Army, Congress and the 

Administration must find ways to provide the Army and all of 

DoD with adequate levels of funding under a process that is 

more predictable, thereby avoiding the budgetary turmoil that 

has plagued the federal government in recent years.

Recommendation 6: The Congress and the 

Administration should return to predictable and 

responsible budgeting processes that meet minimum 

funding requirements.

“Given the harm all this politically driven 

madness inflicts on the U.S. military, the 

rhetoric coming from Members of Congress 

about looking out for our men and women in 

uniform rings very hollow to me.” 

Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense, 

in testimony before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee, Oct. 21, 2015.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 45

FISCAL CHALLENGES

MEASURING COSTS AND BENEFITS

The 2015 National Defense Authorization Act directed 

the Commission to consider “fully burdened lifecycle 

costs” in evaluating cost efficiency among the Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. A 

report by the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) 

introduced the term (see Eliminating Major Gaps in 

DoD data on the Fully-Burdened and Life-Cycle Cost of 

Military Personnel: Cost Elements Should be Mandated 

by Policy). The Commission examined fully burdened 

lifecycle costs and found that, in principle, such a costing 

model could be useful in comparing personnel costs. 

However, the term does not appear in the Government 

Accountability Office publication of standard terms, 

definitions, and classifications for government fiscal, 

budget, and program information. Additionally, 

the Financial Management Regulation, the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, and DoDI 7041.04, “Estimating 

and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Active 

Duty Military Manpower and Contract Support” do not 

mention fully burdened lifecycle costs. Commission 

research into industry and academia also did not yield a 

methodology for fully burdened lifecycle costs.

Commission research indicates that equipment and unit 

structure, not the soldier’s reserve or active status, has 

the greatest impact on the per capita cost of a soldier. 

Additionally, the costs for numerous major functions, such 

as recruiting, marketing, equipment procurement, training, 

installations, and research and development, cannot be 

readily segregated by component or individual soldier. 

Therefore, the Commission determined that the DoD’s 

Activity Based Costing methodology would be more 

appropriate for comparing per capita costs.

In evaluating the costs related to unit structure, Activity 

Based Costing is more reliable for estimating costs by 

determining a current per capita cost (such as per person 

or per mile) and applying that cost to a future population 

or level of activity. In planning, programming, and budget 

execution, the Army does use a “burdened labor rate” 

as part of analyzing alternative courses of action during 

budget formulation. While the Army routinely uses 

burdened labor rates in order to facilitate workforce mix 

decisions, cost-benefit analyses, and course-of-action 

analysis, the Army and all other Department of Defense 

elements do not calculate a “fully burdened” cost factor 

applied by component for the duration of a service 

member’s military obligation.

“The Commission shall give particular consideration to ... an evaluation and identification of a 

structure for the Army that ... achieves cost-efficiency...and considers fully burdened lifecycle costs.”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703 (2)(A)(ii)
46 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 47

“The Commission shall...make 

recommendations on the modifications, 

if any, of the structure of the Army 

related to current and anticipated 

mission requirements for the Army at 

acceptable levels of national risk and 

in a manner consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future 

resources.”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(1)(B)

“The Commission shall give particular 

consideration to an evaluation and 

identification of a structure for the 

Army that...manages strategic 

and operational risk by making 

tradeoffs among readiness, efficiency, 

effectiveness, capability, and 

affordability.”

Courtesy of U.S. Army Special Operations Command2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(2)(A)(vi)

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

At the heart of the Commission’s mandate is a requirement 

to recommend how best the Army can meet mission 

requirements within “acceptable levels of national risk.” In the 

course of its work, the Commission encountered divergent levels 

of risk tolerance, both inside and outside the U.S. government. 

Circumstances believed by some to be unacceptable were 

perfectly palatable to others. Commissioners ultimately relied 

on their professional judgement and experience to evaluate the 

evidence presented to them regarding risk acceptability. 

To conduct the operational risk assessment, the Commission 

reviewed the future strategic environment and the missions U.S. 

leaders might require of Army forces (see Future Challenges 

chapter page 27). By looking at these missions in isolation, 

the Commission sought to identify key capability gaps. The 

Commission then looked at potential combinations of missions 

over time to determine the appropriate overall size of the Army 

and the capability and component mix of forces within the 

Army. The Commission’s findings and recommendations are thus 
48 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

grounded in its assessment of the Army’s ability to satisfy global 

requirements, notably those present or emerging in Europe, the 

Pacific, the Middle East, and at home.

The most pressing combination of missions the 

Commission assessed included three significant nearsimultaneous events: a large-scale homeland defense response; a 

large-scale conventional force operation; and a limited-duration 

deterrence mission elsewhere. This combination reflects the 

Department of Defense’s current strategic guidance for force 

sizing. Although this exact set of challenges in the place, time, 

and order assessed are unlikely, the Commission considered the 

scale of these combined challenges to be a reasonable baseline 

against which to measure risks in the capacity of the force. 

The Commission augmented this analysis with assessments of 

other potential challenges in order to develop a more complete 

picture of the types of capabilities and capacities that might be 

required in the future. The aggregate risk assessment addresses 

risk to mission and risk to force.

The sections below are divided according to the major 

force attributes that contribute to overall mission capability: 

readiness, modernization and investment, and force structure. 

For example, the Army can spend funds to ensure existing 

forces are trained and ready to respond to the needs of the 

moment to mitigate near-term risk to mission and force. 

The Army can also seek to buy down risk through force 

modernization, often with a focus on gaining operational and 

technological advantage in the mid- to long-term or, in some 

cases, catch up to meet current threats. Additionally, leader 

development is the key element of investment that improves 

the Army’s ability to adapt to unforeseen future demands. 

Building additional force structure, modifying existing unit 

designs, adjusting force posture, and altering component mix 

or utilization to improve capabilities over the near- to mid-term 

are some of the force structure options available for reducing 

risk to mission and force. Force structure considerations 

include the appropriate balance between the size of the 

operating force and the size of the generating force, which 

Research fellow Dr. Young Joon Seol works on a project to use 3-D bioprinting to print experimental muscle tissue that could be used in 

reconstructive surgery for injured soldiers.

Photo by Wake Forest Baptist Health

Photo on page 47

U.S. Special Operations Command’s concept for the Tactical 

Assault Light Operator Suit combines superior protection with 

enhanced human performance and surgical lethality. The Army 

provides about half the special operations personnel within 

DoD.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 49

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

builds and sustains operational units. In each of these areas, the 

Commission provides its core recommendations for achieving 

the size and shape of the Army that the United States needs.

READINESS

The Army has appropriately placed readiness as its number 

one priority. The pace of the current environment and the 

need to recover readiness from the past fourteen years of war 

require nothing less. Based on discussions with Combatant 

Commanders and others, the Commission believes that the 

Army’s planned readiness path, funded through the defense 

budget and the Overseas Contingency Operations account, 

generally prepares the force at acceptable risk to mission for the 

requirements of the current defense strategy.

Recommendation 7: The Army must continue to treat 

readiness as its most important funding priority.

However, the plan for readiness in tactical mobility is 

one area that is alarming. Commissioners received numerous 

reports from soldiers and commanders about tactical wheeled 

vehicle shortages. These shortages are most pronounced in 

heavy equipment prime movers. The Army’s tactical mobility 

peaked in 2007 while transitioning to the modular force. 

Although modular reorganization provided units with increased 

tactical mobility, the Army determined it could not afford to 

sustain and modernize the entire tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. 

The Army thus reduced the number of tactical wheeled vehicles 

in its inventory to a more affordable level. Some commanders 

indicated to the Commission that tactical wheeled vehicle 

shortages in their units created significant risk.

Recommendation 8: The Army should provide the 

Congress with an assessment of risks in current and 

planned tactical mobility. This assessment should 

be completed within one year of publication of this 

report and include the costs and potential tradeoffs 

for closing significant readiness gaps in this area.

A WORD ABOUT THE “ABRAMS DOCTRINE”

The backdrop for the National Commission on the Future 

of the Army’s assessment of the Army’s structure is similar 

in many respects to the circumstances facing Army Chief 

of Staff Creighton Abrams between 1972 and 1974. That 

was an era in which budget cuts combined with both the 

increased cost of fielding an All-Volunteer Force and the 

usual post-war impulse to reduce the military led to plans 

for deep cuts to active force structure. 

General Abrams, however, believed the threat from the 

Soviet Union to Europe was severe enough that the 

Army should increase divisions. Defense Secretary James 

Schlesinger agreed, but insisted the Army could not exceed 

the 785,000 manpower cap authorized by Congress. 

The two also agreed that a greater use of the reserve 

component was needed. To maximize combat forces 

within the Regular Army, General Abrams directed reserve 

component units to “round out” Regular Army divisions and 

moved most combat support and combat service support 

units into the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. 

The “Abrams Doctrine” is often used to justify 

recommendations for Army Total Force policy, such 

as the proper mix between regular and reserve force 

structure. The “Abrams Doctrine” asserts that a 

significant amount of force structure must be placed 

in the Army reserve components so that a President 

sending the Army to war must mobilize the National 

Guard and Reserve and thereby ensure the support of 

the American people for that war. However, no primary 

evidence supports the assertion that General Abrams 

consciously set out to structure the force to ensure 

domestic support for future wars. General Abrams’ 

actions were designed to address the strategic challenge 

of the Soviet threat within manpower and budgetary 

constraints, nothing more. 

That is not to say that support from the American people 

is not a mandatory goal. As Congressman Trent Kelly of 

Mississippi said during a Commission site visit to Camp 

Shelby, “When the Guard and Reserve go to war, their 

communities go to war.” Rep. Kelly’s observation is 

surely correct. But how those communities react may 

not necessarily be monolithic, but the nation’s support is 

necessary for the Joint Force to be able to effectively and 

rapidly counter threats to the nation.
50 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT

The Army has placed a priority on readiness and structure 

(capacity) above modernization. The Commission considers the 

limited investment in modernization as a source of significant 

long-term concern, a concern that would surface even had the 

less-challenging security conditions assumed in the current 

defense strategy held. The Army already has eliminated the 

Ground Combat Vehicle, Armed Aerial Scout, and Unmanned 

Ground Vehicle upgrades. Compounding the problem, 

modernization plans for Mounted Soldier System programs, 

aviation, communications, and ground combat vehicles 

remain vulnerable to further reductions. Our analysis found 

unacceptable modernization shortfalls in aviation survivability; 

short-range air defense artillery (SHORAD); chemical, 

biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN); field artillery; 

and Army watercraft. Those shortfalls cause major concerns 

across a wide range of potential contingencies, particularly for 

the homeland, in Europe, and on the Korean peninsula. More 

detail can be found in the NCFA Classified Annex.

Recommendation 9: The Army must reassess the risk it 

is assuming in modernization for aviation survivability, 

SHORAD, CBRN, field artillery, and Army watercraft. 

The investment risks facing the Army extend to its industrial 

base. The Army’s equipment strategy requires an industrial base 

that can ramp up to meet increased demand during emergencies 

while still providing smaller quantities between major conflicts. 

However, the National Defense Industrial Association’s TOP 

ISSUES 2014 explained, “In this period of budget reductions, 

sequestration, and uncertainty, the threats to the defense industry 

are more existential than at any other time since World War 

II.” With modernization budgets rapidly declining, companies 

may well exit the defense sector in order to direct their research 

and development efforts and production capacity towards 

commercial applications. Continued fiscal uncertainty and low 

resource availability for Army investment will also dissuade new 

entrants to the defense marketplace. Relying more heavily on 

the domestic commercial and international sectors for off-theshelf items will ease this problem, but not eliminate risk. This is 

especially true when unique military requirements must be met, 

as in major platform development. 

In light of the current security environment and budget 

constraints, the Commission judged the Army’s approach of 

prioritizing readiness and capacity understandable, although 

its consequences for modernization are regrettable. The Army’s 

current strategy to protect science and technology investments, 

incrementally improve existing fleets, and delay the procurement 

of the next generation of platforms strains the Army’ ability to 

build the foundation of a force that can meet future challenges 

and puts major acquisition programs at risk. Nevertheless, 

investing in near-term readiness is a must. If more resources 

cannot be identified for modernization through changes in 

Army structure, processes, and programs, or more innovative 

approaches to dominating the land domain cannot be found, the 

long-term risk to force and mission will be significant.

“Many of the challenges and commitments I 

dealt with twenty years ago remain relevant 

today. The global security environment we 

face now and into the future is more dynamic, 

more unpredictable, more complex, and 

certainly more dangerous than at any time in 

my adult life. Often the threats to our security 

resemble a kaleidoscope, ever changing and 

very complex.”

General Gordon R. Sullivan, U.S. Army Retired, 

the 32nd Chief of Staff for the Army and currently 

President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association 

of the United States Army testifying before the 

Commission at Arlington, Virginia, June 18, 2015.

FORCE STRUCTURE AND END-STRENGTH

If budgets are fixed, readiness is a priority, and the Army is 

already accepting substantial risk in its investment accounts, 

then the natural place to look for offsetting resources is force 

structure. Due primarily to the large number of Army force 

structure changes, the Army has struggled to efficiently 

integrate the changes into doctrine and Combatant Command 

(COCOM) plans. As a result, fully assessing where operational 

excess or shortfalls in capability, responsiveness, or capacity exist 

in current plans is difficult. Moreover, many COCOM plans do 

not adequately reflect the Army’s current and programmed force 

structure. These two conditions complicate the ability of the 

Army, DoD, the Congress, and the Commission to accurately 

assess the capacity and capability of the current force. 

Recommendation 10: The Army must assist Combatant 

Commands and Army Service Component Commands 

with timely integration of force structure changes into 

their strategic planning process. 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 51

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

Recommendation 11: Combatant Commands and 

Army Service Component Commands must update 

all war plans with current and programmed force 

structure and doctrine and establish a process to 

ensure routine war plan and Time Phased Force 

Deployment Data updates at a minimum of once 

every two years.

With these assessment caveats in mind, and assuming 

planned readiness and investment levels, the Commission found 

that a force of 980,000 uniformed personnel (450,000 in the 

Regular Army, 335,000 in the Army National Guard, and 

195,000 in the Army Reserve) provides the Army a minimally 

sufficient capability and capacity across a range of near-term 

challenges. This includes sufficient disaster response and 

homeland defense capabilities and capacity to support current 

and anticipated requirements, excepting certain key enablers 

detailed below. While the Total Army end strength is minimally 

sufficient, the Army’s programmed distribution of forces across 

the components is about right for the range of threats assumed in 

existing sizing and shaping guidance. Additionally, the 450,000 

Regular Army end strength provides enough soldiers as a base 

of trained personnel from which the Army National Guard 

and Army Reserve can recruit, based on data from Army G-1 

showing prior service accession rates from fiscal years 2004 to 

2014. As recruitment from prior service members fluctuates, the 

ratios among the components remain relatively steady. 

Thus, in general terms, the Army is appropriately sized, 

shaped, and ready to meet the strategic guidance it has 

been given, first promulgated in 2012 and reiterated in the 

Quadrennial Defense Review 2014—but only just so. For 

some potential challenges against which the military already 

plans, the Army might have capability and capacity shortfalls 

and will be forced to deploy units not fully ready, which 

would not be acceptable. In addition, some units might have 

deployments extended beyond twelve months. Depending 

on the nature of the challenge, these operational conditions 

CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY

Evaluating mission risk requires an understanding of both 

capability and capacity. In the Army, these are terms with 

distinctly different meanings. However, many outsiders 

consider them indistinguishable, and the fact they are 

synonyms in a non-military context only adds to the confusion. 

In short, capability represents all of the many tasks the Army 

can do, while capacity is how often and for how long (and 

perhaps where) the Army can do those tasks.

To better understand capability, consider a lone soldier. 

By him or herself, there is only so much he or she can do. 

However, if that soldier is fully trained, equipped with 

sophisticated gear, provided with accurate intelligence, 

properly sustained and supported, and working with a 

number of similar soldiers, he or she now has the capability 

to bring decisive power to bear on land areas around 

the world. Training, equipping, force size, stationing, and 

deployability are key. 

Capacity is capability with sufficient scale and endurance. It is 

a recognition that capabilities are finite and cannot be used 

all the time everywhere. So, for example, while the Army 

has the capability to provide ballistic missile defense (BMD), 

its capacity to provide that protection at any given time or 

location is limited by the number and location of trained and 

equipped BMD units.

Soldiers from 101st Division Special Troop Battalion 

conduct an air assault mission in the Parwan Province of 

Afghanistan. 

Photo by Spc. Scott Davis
52 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

might persist for several years, increasing risk to both mission 

and force. The Commission also identified concerns with 

the timely delivery of certain key enabling capabilities to 

the warfight and for homeland response, which are detailed 

below.

Even assuming full access to all Army components, this 

force size provides only limited ability to react to unforeseen 

circumstances. Of note, under current strategic guidance, the 

Army and other Defense components are directed not to size 

themselves for large-scale, long-duration stability operations. 

The Commission concluded that the Army has complied with 

this guidance. Using directed planning assumptions and with 

its planned fiscal year 2017 force, the Army is, in fact, neither 

sized nor shaped for conducting any kind of large-scale, longduration mission at acceptable risk. 

This assessment of risk assumes the current defense 

strategy and associated force structure guidance are adequate. 

Perhaps the Commission’s greatest concern is the inadequacy 

of that guidance in light of the evolving security environment. 

In Afghanistan and Iraq, missions are persisting or reemerging, respectively, in ways not anticipated by DoD’s 

current plans. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant (ISIL) as a global challenge is likewise not well 

accounted for in current force guidance. Moreover, Russia’s 

actions in Crimea and Ukraine, its regular use of large-scale, 

snap exercises near the border of NATO countries, and 

its actions in Syria all create challenges for assurance and 

deterrence—and, unthinkable though it may be to some, may 

require forceful response options in the future. Given the 

emerging world environment, the Army’s planned Total Force 

lacks key capabilities and the capacity to meet or deter some 

potential threats.

As such, the Commission has determined that a Total 

Force of 980,000 uniformed personnel with the current 

component distribution is the minimum sufficient force 

necessary to meet the challenges of the future strategic 

environment. In response to emerging and evolving threats, 

the Army, in fact, may need to develop new capabilities 

or invest in increased capacity of existing capabilities. The 

Commission cannot see either of these possibilities realized 

with the Army’s current size, structure, and investment 

plan. The exact implications of this environment-to-strategy 

mismatch are unclear. The first step in addressing these 

capability and capacity questions is for the President and 

DoD to revise the defense strategic guidance based on 

the unanticipated changes in the security environment. 

A thorough strategic review is required to provide a frank 

assessment of the resources and investments necessary to 

ensure the Army is capable of its contributions to the joint 

force both today and in the future. 

Recommendation 12: The President should budget for 

and the Congress should authorize and fund an Army 

that maintains an end strength of at least 980,000 

uniformed personnel (450,000 in the Regular Army, 

335,000 in the Army National Guard, and 195,000 in 

the Army Reserve) at planned readiness levels. 

Recommendation 13: The President should revise 

strategic and budget guidance to the Department 

of Defense based on changes in the security 

environment. The Department of Defense should then 

use this revised guidance as the basis for revising 

its planning guidance, and the Army should adjust 

its structure, readiness, and modernization plans 

accordingly. 

REDUCING RISK THROUGH FORCE POSTURE

In many cases, and particularly as it has downsized, the Army 

has used soldiers and units rotating from the United States as 

the preferred sourcing solution to meet Combatant Commander 

requirements. Rotating forces can provide an optimum balance 

between providing for adequate readiness, leveraging the 

extensive training and maintenance infrastructure in the United 

States, and meeting the needs of the All-Volunteer Force and 

its families. However, frequent rotations can create operational 

risks in the readiness and timeliness of key capabilities. It also 

can create additional expense by increasing the overall amount 

of equipment and personnel required to create sustained forward 

presence. For instance, under existing rotational policies, the 

Regular Army (operating at a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio) 

requires three units to sustain a deployment of one unit; the 

Army National Guard and Army Reserve (operating at a 1:5 

mobilization-to-dwell ratio) requires six units to sustain a 

deployment of one unit. 

In Europe, the Army is currently sourcing aviation and 

Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) presence missions 

rotationally. The changing security environment in Europe, 

its value as a stationing location for potential contingencies in 

the Middle East, and the relatively lengthy timelines associated 

with deploying an ABCT suggest the need to return to 

permanent stationing of this asset in the region. Based on its 

review, the Commission believes this adjustment would require 

minimal additional staffing.

Recommendation 14: The Army should forward station 

an Armored Brigade Combat Team in Europe.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 53

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

The Commission found rotational sourcing to be a sensible 

approach for aviation combat units in Europe. However, 

those units must have an appropriately resourced mission 

command element to provide the familiarization and subjectmatter expertise required for mission success. The Commission 

determined that the current administrative aviation headquarters 

is not sufficiently robust to accomplish this task at acceptable risk.

Recommendation 15: The Army should convert the U.S. 

Army Europe administrative aviation headquarters to 

a warfighting mission command element similar to a 

Combat Aviation Brigade headquarters. 

The Army currently plans to begin rotational sourcing 

for the Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) requirement in 

Korea in 2019. The Commission is concerned that this 

approach may present unacceptable risk, given terrain and 

aviation mission complexities in Korea. Forward stationing of 

the CAB in Korea would assure air crews greater familiarity 

with the demanding environment and ensure interoperability 

with our allies and partners for “fight-tonight” readiness.

Recommendation 16: The Army should maintain a 

forward-stationed Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea.

The chapter in this report on Apache Transfers and 

Related Issues (see page 94) discusses the pros and cons of this 

recommendation and its costs.

“Virtual presence by U.S. forces will be 

translated by both friends and adversaries 

as actual absence.”

General Philip Breedlove (USAF), Commander, 

U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe, April 2, 2014.

Bradley Fighting Vehicles with the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division go on patrol during the BCT’s rotation in 

the Republic of Korea. 

U.S. Army photo by SSG John Healy
54 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

REDUCING RISK THROUGH STRUCTURE 

ADJUSTMENTS

The Commission found that the Army is incurring unacceptable 

risk in capabilities that would be required early for major 

contingencies. The Commission’s assessment identified particular 

concerns with risks incurred from shortfalls in attack aviation, 

armored capabilities, and deployed or deployable mission 

command elements. 

Retaining an eleventh Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) 

would improve wartime capability and provide strategic 

peacetime aviation capability, especially in Korea. The chapter 

in this report on Apache Transfers and Related Issues (see page 

94) discusses the pros and cons of this recommendation and its 

costs. The NCFA Classified Annex provides further details on 

the wartime effects of retaining eleven CABs.

Recommendation 17: The Army should retain eleven 

Combat Aviation Brigades in the Regular Army.

The possibility of forceful response options in Europe must 

be considered. The value of armored forces for conducting 

major combat operations adds to their value for deterring 

aggression. Such forces take significant time to prepare and 

resources to sustain. However, underestimating the armored 

force requirements increases risk to mission.

Recommendation 18: The Army should increase 

Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) capacity based 

on the current and projected threat environment. 

Risk may be acceptable without additional ABCT 

structure if the Army stations an ABCT in Europe, per 

recommendation 14.

The Commission assesses that the COCOMs and their 

Army Service Component Commands (ASCC) are at high risk 

to effectively execute mission command with current capability. 

As part of the Army’s 25 percent reduction in headquarters 

manning, the Army eliminated the operational command post 

from each of its ASCCs. As a result, European Command and 

U.S. Army Europe are currently dependent on a deployed 

mission command element from the 4th Infantry Division to 

provide a temporary, albeit non-sustainable, solution. An ASCC 

with minimal capacity degrades the effectiveness of rotational 

deterrence and limits the capability to provide operational 

mission command.

Recommendation 19: The Army should ensure 

Combatant Commands (COCOM) and Army Service 

Component Commands (ASCC) have the ability to 

provide operational mission command in proportion to 

the unique mission for each COCOM. The Army should 

consult closely with COCOM and ASCC commanders 

to assess the risks entailed in mission command 

changes and seek to minimize risk where possible 

when implementing them. 

In addition to the significant findings above, the 

Commission identified a number of other areas of concern 

in the analysis of warfighter timelines (as expressed in TimePhased Force Deployment data). The Commission concluded 

that several of these areas warranted further study by the Army, 

DoD, and the Congress to determine whether and how to 

decrease risk in these areas. They are detailed below and more 

fully described in the NCFA Classified Annex.

Army vehicles are loaded onto Army Reserve Logistics Support 

Vessel-8 Major General Robert Smalls at Kuwait Naval Base, 

using a ramp that extends through the open bow of the ship. 

Photo by 316th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary)
National Commission on the Future of the Army 55

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

Recommendation 20: The Congress should require the 

Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army to 

provide within a year of this report an assessment of 

the ways, and associated costs, to reduce or eliminate 

shortfalls in responsiveness and capacity of the 

following capabilities: 

1. AH-64-equipped Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

capacity to meet war plan needs;

2. Air defense artillery (ADA) capacity, responsiveness, 

and the capability of Short Range ADA to meet 

existing and emerging threats (including unmanned 

aerial systems, cruise missiles, and manned aircraft), 

including an assessment of the potential for 

commercial-off-the-shelf solutions; 

3. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

(CBRN) capabilities and modernization as it relates 

to homeland missions as well as the capacity to 

meet overseas war plan needs;

4. Field artillery capabilities and the changes in 

doctrine and war plans resulting from U.S. 

participation in the Cluster Munitions ban as well 

as required modernization or munition inventory 

shortfalls;

5. Quartermaster fuel distribution and water 

purification capacity and responsiveness to meet war 

plan needs;

6. Army watercraft and port opening capabilities 

and responsiveness (with particular attention to 

the ability to flex between oceans) to meet war 

plan needs;

7. Transportation (fuel, water, and cargo) capacity and 

responsiveness to meet war plan needs;

8. Military police capacity to meet war plan needs.

REDUCING RISK THROUGH FORCE 

UTILIZATION

One approach for reducing risk to the force without 

growing end strength is through greater utilization of Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve units. In the current 

security environment of persistent conflict, many Regular 

Army units struggle to maintain a sustainable rate of 

utilization. Although the total number of soldiers deployed 

remains below the peaks of combat operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, the range of missions and their geographic 

spread is now greater. Some units, such as Regular Army 

Patriot battalions, are operating at a high tempo for long 

periods of time. Sustaining such high-tempo rotation rates 

risks the long-term health of the force.

All too often the Army has deployed stressed Regular Army 

units when it could have deployed similar Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve units. The Commission believes 

that the Army should better leverage the clearly expressed 

willingness of Army National Guard and Army Reserve units 

to deploy by assigning them to predictable missions. This 

approach would relieve stress on the Regular Army, husbanding 

its responsiveness for emergent requirements while continuing 

to build depth of operational experience in the Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve. Importantly, the Commission 

does not believe that a more inclusive Total Force approach 

will allow the nation to assume even greater risk in its force 

structure by reducing end strength below 980,000. The 

Commission’s recommendations on size and mix are, in fact, 

predicated on the Army faithfully executing this Total Force 

approach. (See the 12304b discussion in the Developing One 

Army section on page 65-66.)

REDUCING RISK BY ADJUSTING 

COMPONENT SOURCING 

Several unit types reside solely in a single Army component. 

The Commission did not have significant concerns with the vast 

majority of these sole sourcing approaches. There are, however, 

concerns with the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 

interceptor and fire control capabilities, currently being entirely 

sourced from the Army National Guard using 100 percent 

full-time support soldiers. Sole-sourcing this high-priority, 

one-of-a-kind capability only in the Army National Guard 

limits the Army’s institutional investment in the mission, with 

the potential for negative consequences. Of note, it creates 

challenges for individual training, doctrine development, and 

organizational design updates. 

Recommendation 21: The Army should assess the 

mission effectiveness of the current sourcing solution 

for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 

mission. The assessment should consider implications 

for recruiting, training, career progression, doctrine 

development, and GMD modernization strategy. 

REDUCING RISK THROUGH STRUCTURE 

REDESIGN

The Army must innovate. During the course of its study, the 

Commission noted numerous instances of Army innovation in 

the field and an increased emphasis on leadership training and 

education to create the kind of force agility the broad spectrum 
56 National Commission on the Future of the Army

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

of future challenges requires. The Commission reviewed several 

creative options on organizational designs for major Army 

combat formations. One such option involved a design for a 

replacement of the BCTs known as the Reconnaissance Strike 

Group. The Commission believes the Army and DoD should 

ensure such creative approaches are welcomed for examination. 

Alternative design and operational concepts should be 

routinely incorporated into Army and joint war-gaming and 

experimentation mechanisms.

Recommendation 22: The Congress should require the 

Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff to oversee the 

modeling of alternative Army design and operational 

concepts—including the Reconnaissance Strike Group, 

Hybrid Battalion Task Force, Stryker Global Response 

Force, and the Reconnaissance and Security Brigade 

Combat Team—and report on their findings within one 

year. The report to Congress should explicitly address 

the value of follow-on pilot programs to test further 

any promising alternative force design and concept 

approaches. 

REDUCING RISK THROUGH JOINT ENABLERS

The Army relies on the strategic mobility triad—

pre-positioning, airlift, and sealift—to project land power 

into theaters of operation around the globe at the speed and 

tempo required by Combatant Commanders. This triad 

will be increasingly stressed by 2023 to meet war plan and 

scenario timelines. While current strategic mobility capacity 

meets timelines for the most demanding “fight tonight” 

contingencies, several factors will contribute to increased force 

projection challenges and risk over time. 

The majority of Army capabilities for contingency 

operations are transported by sealift. Several DoD Roll-On 

Roll-Off (RORO) ships in the surge fleet will age out by 2023; 

over half of the surge fleet capacity will retire by 2030. For 

major combat operations, BCTs comprise only 25 percent 

of the Army’s initial sealift requirements with the remaining 

comprised of enabling forces and initial sustainment stocks on 

which the joint force depends. 

Rail is the primary method for moving Army vehicles 

and equipment from fort-to-port for major contingency 

deployments. It is also a key mobility enabler for the U.S. 

Marine Corps. Almost half of the commercial chain tie-down 

railcar fleet will reach age-mandated retirement by 2022. The 

Army appears to recognize this future capability gap and has 

recommended exploring a commercial solution, including 

public-private partnerships with the rail industry and use of 

heavy lift trucks. Based on the Commission’s review, though, 

there does not appear to be a cross-DoD resourcing solution for 

this joint enabler gap. 

The Commission is concerned that the advanced age of 

these sea and rail capabilities will limit the Services’ response 

to current and emergent challenges and also limit the 

deterrent value of America’s strategic depth. Further, without 

recapitalization or other corrective actions, the increasing 

dimensions of Army heavy equipment increases risk of 

exceeding lift capability of military or commercial assets. 

Recommendation 23: The Secretary of Defense and 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should report 

to Congress within a year on a strategic mobility 

sufficiency analysis and associated risk mitigation plan 

from 2020 through 2040.

Crew members with 197th Field Artillery Regiment fire an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System during a live-fire exercise at Camp 

Buehring, Kuwait.

U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Benjamin Moreau
National Commission on the Future of the Army 57

THE ARMY FOR THE FUTURE

POSSIBLE STRUCTURE OFFSETS

Recognizing that the current strategic guidance and the 

Army’s current end strength ceiling may stay in place, the 

Commission sought to identify potential manpower offsets 

that could be used to reduce or close important gaps. The 

Commission’s assessment, based on current and projected 

threats, found the Army’s capability and capacity in Infantry 

Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) created less risk than many 

of the structure shortfalls identified above. The Commission 

concludes that the Army could reduce overall mission and 

force risk by reallocating the manpower associated with up 

to two Regular Army IBCTs to reduce the priority structure 

shortfalls identified above. The Commission notes that, with 

the Regular Army remaining at a total end strength of 450,000, 

this initiative would permit reallocating more than 8,500 

soldiers to help mitigate the gaps identified above. Moreover, 

the equipment extant in up to two IBCTs could be used for 

additional prepositioned equipment sets or, as the environment 

continues to change, for expansibility, pending more detailed 

assessment. However, added funding will eventually be needed 

if major shortfalls are to be eliminated. 

It is critical to note that while reducing up to two Regular 

Army IBCTs should create sufficient manpower spaces for the 

force structure changes recommended by the Commission, this 

change alone would not yield the dollars required to reduce or 

close most of the identified gaps. If Congress permits, the Army 

could move further toward offsetting required costs through 

efficiencies and eliminating redundancies in its operations (see 

the Fiscal Challenges chapter on page 43 for further discussion).

Recommendation 24: The Army should consider 

reducing up to two Regular Army IBCTs to provide 

manpower spaces that could be used to decrease 

higher priority risks.

THE GENERATING FORCE

To build and sustain the operational forces needed for the 

nation’s defense, the Army has maintained a generating force. 

It includes recruiters, the Army’s training base, and Army 

installations and installation support. From time to time, 

the generating force has provided additional depth to the 

operating force by providing real-time reach-back support. The 

generating force provides individuals, teams, or entire units 

with specific capabilities and functions for employment by, or 

in direct support of, Joint Force commanders. Determining the 

appropriate size of the generating force is important to assessing 

the possible gaps and overages in Army force size.

While the Army has a formal Total Army Analysis process 

for operational units, it lacks a similar process for the generating 

force. Primary generating force size drivers include, but are not 

limited to, number of installations; equipment density; research, 

development, and testing; demand for medical care for active 

Army personnel and other Services’ personnel, dependents, and 

retirees; and individual and collective training.

Reducing the generating force as a simple percentage of 

the total force is problematic. Many of the generating force 

functions, such as schoolhouses, are required regardless of the 

size of the Army. Moreover, the generating force is a critical 

resource for expanding the Army. Expansibility is an attribute 

highlighted in current defense guidance as a critical hedge 

against the risks of unforeseen Army mission requirements. 

Significant reductions in the size of the generating force put the 

ability to expand the Army at risk. Given the inelastic nature of 

the generating force’s size to reductions in the operating force, 

the Commission anticipates that the generating force should 

increase as a percentage of the total force as the total force 

decreases. In raw terms, this means the size of the generating 

force will remain relatively constant or lag behind the 

operational Army in size as the size of the total force decreases.

The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) and the U.S. Army 

Manpower Analysis Agency recently developed a methodology 

to assist senior leaders in determining a required size for the 

generating force. Because no simple correlation exists between 

the generating force and the size of the operating force, the 

methodology focuses on several drivers that impact the size 

of the generating force. This Generating Force Model uses 

a function-to-organization approach for each major Army 

institutional element. The model will have the ability to project 

generating force manpower requirements into the out-years 

and provide the leadership options to redistribute manpower 

externally, realign manpower internally, or divest the function.

Recommendation 25: The Army should complete 

development and fully implement the Generating 

Force Model to improve requirements determination 

and better inform generating force manpower 

decisions.
58 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 59

“...An evaluation and identification of force generation policies for the Army with respect to size and 

force mixture in order to fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner 

consistent with available resources and anticipated future resources...”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(2)(B)

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Brian Hamilton

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

From the mountains of Afghanistan during Operation 

Enduring Freedom to the streets of New Orleans after 

Hurricane Katrina, Americans saw images of U.S. Army 

soldiers doing their duty for our nation, fulfilling their oaths of 

service, demonstrating teamwork and a willingness to sacrifice 

for us all, and laying down their lives if necessary. Only by 

listening closely to newscasts or by reading the captions with 

photographs would the typical American know whether a 

soldier was in the Regular Army, the Army National Guard, or 

the Army Reserve. In times of war and crisis, “the Army” is the 

only label that matters to the American people. 

In legislation, administration, and funding, Army 

components fall into distinct categories. The Army has 

assigned broad mission sets to each component according to 

accessibility of units over time and to stretch force structure 

within budget constraints. A cultural divide exists between the 

components, as well: Some of that is good, healthy unit pride 

and esprit de corps; unfortunately, some of that is the result of 
60 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

a long-standing—and, the Commission contends, outdated—

prejudice regarding the skills and dedication of one component 

over the others. These differences among the components 

continue to be manifested in a wide range of administrative 

policies and traditional practices, from promotion standards 

and training opportunities to personnel management and 

human resources stove piping. These work against developing 

one Army. 

In its travels, the Commission constantly heard the 

same two refrains. One, members of all three components 

commented about continuing obstacles facing soldiers 

transitioning among the Regular Army, Army National Guard, 

and Army Reserve. Two, once prepared, a soldier is a soldier 

and has the confidence of fellow soldiers and commanders to 

accomplish the mission, regardless of component. 

What soldiers accomplish so well in the crucible of 

combat, the Commission challenges Army and political leaders 

to accomplish in managing these soldiers all the time: to take 

specific steps to achieve a truly Total Force with three distinct, 

interdependent, and essential components. 

ROLES OF THE ARMY COMPONENTS

The Army’s size and diversity of capabilities distinguish it from 

other land forces. It provides the capabilities and capacity to 

fulfill its statutory mission prescribed in section 3062 of the 

U.S. Code:

“It shall be organized, trained, and equipped 

primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident 

to operations on land. It is responsible for the 

preparation of land forces necessary for the effective 

prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, 

in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, 

for the expansion of the peacetime components of the 

Army to meet the needs of war....” (Figure 9)

At any given time, the active Army consists of the Regular 

Army and any activated Army National Guard members and 

Army Reservists. For example, in November 2015, the active 

Army included approximately 491,000 Regular Army soldiers, 

about 46,000 full-time active Guard and Reservists, and an 

additional 16,000 Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

soldiers who had been placed on active duty, for a total active 

force of about 553,000. This example of total active Army 

illustrates how the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve 

provide operational capabilities and strategic depth to the 

Regular Army to expand its collective capacity.

Among the nation’s armed services, the Army is unique in 

its reliance on its reserve components (Figure 10). The Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve provide over half of the 

Army’s total capacity. While the three Army components share 

the same training standards, doctrine, and equipment, each are 

distinct, interdependent and essential. Similar units in all Army 

components (such as infantry battalions and truck companies) 

are organized the same and follow the same operational and 

training doctrines. Yet, each component has unique attributes 

informing the distribution of capabilities. 

Regular Army units are more heavily consolidated and 

co-located on large installations with necessary training 

facilities, such as weapons ranges, maneuver areas, and urban 

training sites. Regular Army units are intended to rapidly 

project capabilities to support the Joint Force, as needed, 

by maintaining the highest readiness to provide the greatest 

flexibility. Army National Guard forces, located in 2,600 

communities across the 54 U.S. states, territories, and the 

District of Columbia, and the 2,000 units of the Army Reserve, 

are distributed throughout our nation’s communities and 

typically must travel to regional training centers to conduct 

collective training. Since the 1993 AC-RC Leaders Offsite 

Agreement (see Appendix C), Army National Guard forces 

have focused primarily on wartime direct combat missions and 

Photo on page 59

Staff Sergeant Christopher Croslin, the 2014 Army Reserve Drill 

Sergeant of the Year, brings a group of Army Reserve soldiers to 

present arms during reveille at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. 

“You cannot wave a wand, you can’t throw 

money on it and build personal readiness 

overnight. Personal readiness takes time. 

It takes operational experience. It requires 

institutional experience. It requires us 

to invest in their professional military 

education. It requires us to ensure we carve 

out enough time for them to maintain 

their personal fitness, both physically 

and mentally. That’s why I say time is our 

biggest resource challenge when it comes to 

building and sustaining readiness.”

GEN Robert “Abe” Abrams, Comanding General, 

Forces Command, speaking at the Association of the 

United States Army’s annual meeting, Oct. 14, 2015.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 61

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

peacetime domestic emergencies while the Army Reserve has 

focused on providing operational support and sustainment. The 

Army National Guard also serves as the organized militia for 

the states and territories when not under federal authority.

The Regular Army provides forward-stationed forces and 

capabilities needed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. 

This high readiness is the foundation of Army capabilities 

provided to Combatant Commands. The Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve provide additional Army maneuver 

and support capacity, and each also provide selected capabilities 

found only in that component that may be called upon early 

in a conflict or crisis response. The unique civilian expertise in 

these part-time forces also brings capabilities that have proven 

essential when answering the call to our nation’s defense or in 

times of regional disaster relief. 

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve play both an 

operational and strategic role, providing operational capabilities 

and strategic depth across the full range of military operations. 

Figure 9

ARMY FORMATIONS

TYPE OF FORMATION NUMBER OF PERSONNEL IN UNIT RANK OF COMMAND LEVEL

Army Task Organized with General

(2-5 Corps) 100,000-300,000 Soldiers

Corps Task Organized with Lieutenant General

(2-5 Divisions) 40,000-100,000 Soldiers

Division Task Organized with Major General

(5 or more Brigades) 10,000-18,000 Soldiers

Brigade/Regiment/Group 3,000-5,000 Soldiers Colonel

(3 or more Battalions)

Battalion/Squadron 400-1,000 Soldiers Lieutenant Colonel

(3-5 Companies)

Company/Battery/Troop 60-200 Soldiers Captain

(3-5 Platoons)

Platoon 16-50 Soldiers Lieutenant

(3-4 Squads)

Squad/Section 4-12 Soldiers Staff Sergeant

(2-4 Teams)

Fire Team/Crew 4-6 Soldiers Sergeant

(4-6)
62 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Army Reserve 

Army National Guard 

Army-AC

Navy Reserve

Navy-AC

Figure 10

RATIO OF RESERVE COMPONENTS PER SERVICE, 2016

Source: FY 2016 President’s Base Budget Request, Feb 2015

Regular Army

475,000

46.8%

Regular Marine 

Corps

184,000

82.5%

Regular Navy

329,200

85.2%

Regular Air Force 

317,000

64.4%

Army National 

Guard

342,000

33.7%

Air National 

Guard

105,000

21.5%

Army Reserve

198,000

19.5%

Marine Corps 

Reserve

38,900

17.5%

Navy Reserve

57,400

14.8%

Air Force 

Reserve

69,200

14.1%

ARMY

MARINE 

CORPS

NAVY

AIR 

FORCE
National Commission on the Future of the Army 63

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Operational employment and strategic depth are reflected in the 

spectrum of collective readiness in which units exist, regardless 

of component, based on specific assigned mission requirements 

coupled with how quickly the units may be required for 

employment. Furthermore, an operational label does not infer 

only direct combat (infantry, aviation, armor, etc.), nor does the 

strategic label mean only support and sustainment (transportation, 

quartermaster, medical, etc.). All units are operational, and 

all contribute to the force’s strategic depth. All units in every 

component are part of the force mix, and action must be taken 

to avoid a given unit suffering from a chronic lack of readiness, 

ensuring all units have a pathway to readiness over time. 

ONE ARMY IN TOTAL FORCE POLICY

Department of Defense and Army policy directs the Army 

to organize, man, train, and equip the Regular Army, Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve as an integrated, operational 

Total Force. Subsequent Army Total Force implementation 

guidance has emphasized the importance of improved and 

continued integration across Army components. The Army 

has explored a myriad of means to integrate components. Such 

efforts achieved an unparalleled level of success during Operation 

Iraqi Freedom when the Army honed its ability to seamlessly 

employ reserve component formations in theater as part of a 

TITLE 10 AND TITLE 32

In the specific sections of Title 10 and Title 32 listed 

below, Congress has expressed its intent and vision for the 

Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. 

U.S. CODE TITLE 10 § 3062

It is the intent of Congress to provide an Army that is 

capable, in conjunction with the other armed forces—(1) 

of preserving the peace and security, and providing for the 

defense, of the United States, the Commonwealths and 

possessions, and any areas occupied by the United States; 

(2) supporting the national policies; (3) implementing 

the national objectives; and (4) overcoming any nations 

responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and 

security of the United States.

In general, the Army, within the Department of the Army, 

includes land combat and service forces and such aviation 

and water transport as may be organic therein. It shall be 

organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt 

and sustained combat incident to operations on land. It is 

responsible for the preparation of land forces necessary 

for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise 

assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint 

mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime 

components of the Army to meet the needs of war.

The Army consists of—(1) the Regular Army, the Army 

National Guard of the United States, the Army National 

Guard while in the service of the United States, and the 

Army Reserve; and (2) all persons appointed or enlisted in, 

or conscripted into, the Army without component.

U.S. CODE TITLE 10 § 10102 

The purpose of each reserve component is to provide 

trained units and qualified persons available for active duty 

in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency, 

and at such other times as the national security may require, 

to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more units 

and persons are needed than are in the regular components.

U.S. CODE TITLE 32 U.S.C. §102

In accordance with the traditional military policy of 

the United States, it is essential that the strength and 

organization of the Army National Guard and the Air 

National Guard as an integral part of the first line defenses 

of the United States be maintained and assured at all 

times. Whenever Congress determines that more units and 

organizations are needed for the national security than are 

in the regular components of the ground and air forces, 

the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air 

National Guard of the United States, or such parts of them 

as are needed, together with such units of other reserve 

components as are necessary for a balanced force, shall be 

ordered to active Federal duty and retained as long as so 

needed.

ARNG AND ARNGUS

In Title 10, the Army National Guard of the United States 

(ARNGUS) is defined as a reserve component of the Army, 

whereas the Army National Guard (ARNG) is the collective 

militia forces of the 54 states, territories, and the District 

of Columbia. While the Commission recognizes this legal 

distinction, this report uses the Army National Guard to 

encompass all ARNG units and personnel regardless of 

whether they are in a Title 32 or a Title 10 status.
64 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Total Force. Sustained use of the reserve components caused 

Department of Defense leadership to review and adjust policies. 

DoD Total Force Policy

In 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued his Utilization 

of the Total Force memo in which he stated “...the Department 

has been assessing a number of options on how best to 

support global military operational needs. A significant 

question addressed by the review has been whether we have 

the right policies to govern how we utilize members for the 

Reserve, National Guard, and our Active Component units.” 

The Secretary’s direction set a goal of 1:2 deployment-todwell rate goal for active components. That would mean 

that a deployment of one year would be followed by two 

years in non-deployed status. The Secretary also set a goal of 

1:5 mobilization-to-dwell rate goal for reserve components, 

meaning that a mobilization of one year would be followed 

by five years in non-mobilized status. The specified twelvemonth mobilization period includes post-mobilization training 

and demobilization processing. Within a twelve-month 

mobilization, boots on the ground (BOG) for Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve units typically became nine months. 

In contrast, Regular Army forces would spend an entire twelvemonth deployment period in theater. Furthermore, the Army 

has often not been able to meet the DoD dwell-at-home goals. 

From 2010 to 2014, twenty-five different types of Regular 

Army units and sixteen different types of reserve component 

units exceeded the Secretary of Defense’s dwell goals.

In his 2008 Department of Defense Directive 1200.17, 

Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force,

Secretary Gates codified the new paradigm that “the RCs 

provide operational capabilities and strategic depth to 

meet U.S. defense requirements across the full spectrum of 

conflict...Ensure total force policies encourage optimum 

First Lieutenant Christie Plackis gives the OK hand gesture to Staff Sergeant Eric Bailey, the dive supervisor, as he checks her for any 

medical concerns after a dive at the Sea Point of Debarkation/Embarkation in Shuaiba Port, Kuwait. 

Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. Micah VanDyke, Third Army/ARCENT Public Affairs
National Commission on the Future of the Army 65

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

integration of AC and RC personnel to provide the most 

efficient training opportunities to all personnel, allow for 

shared use of resources, and provide the most operational 

benefits and mission capability.” Army Directive 2012-08, 

Army Total Force Policy, further implemented lessons learned 

and established Army policy for integrating the Regular Army, 

Army National Guard, and Army Reserve as a Total Force. In 

support of this policy, the Army has integrated Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve soldiers with their Regular Army 

counterparts in numerous ways. 

Army Total Force Policy

The Army’s existing initiatives are partially meeting the 

intent of Total Force integration. However, the Commission 

concludes that for the sake of a more effective and efficient 

Army and to achieve greater strategic depth, more must be 

done to fully implement a comprehensive partnership and 

integrated programs. The Commission finds that the goal 

should be to increase billets designated for multicomponent 

use and substantially increase incentives for service in 

multicomponent units. 

Recommendation 26: The Army must manage and 

provide forces under the Total Force approach. 

Recommendation 27: The Secretary of the Army 

should review and assess officer and NCO positions 

from all components for potential designation as 

integrated positions that would allow individuals from 

all components to fill positions to foster an Army 

Total Force culture and expand knowledge about 

other components. A review should be completed 

within nine months after publication of this report, 

and any new designations should be completed within 

eighteen months. 

Recommendation 28: The Secretary of the Army 

should develop selection and promotion policies that 

incentivize Regular Army, Army National Guard, and 

Army Reserve assignments across components and 

within multicomponent units. The Secretary of the 

Army should make changes within one year after 

publication of this report.

One means for expanding Army National Guard and 

Army Reserve roles within the Total Force is Title 10 U.S.C. 

12304b (Active Duty for Preplanned Missions in Support 

of the Combatant Commands). The 2012 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) created this relatively new 

authority in which the Services can involuntarily call to active 

duty up to 60,000 reserve component personnel at any one 

time for a maximum of 365 days. To use this authority, the 

Services are required, in advance, to detail manpower and costs 

in budget materials, including intended missions and length of 

activation periods, so that the funding can be approved in the 

programming cycle at least two years in advance of intended 

call to active duty. 

This authority provides access to the reserve components 

for predictable global demands on an enduring basis. Army 

Forces Command planning for priority missions outside the 

scope of Overseas Contingency Operations reflected a need 

of 3,000 man years in fiscal year 2014, fiscal year 2015, and 

fiscal year 2016 base budget funding. However, other funding 

needs led the Army to program only one-third of these man 

years for 12304b missions. Consequently, some Regular Army 

formations deployed with less than two years dwell at home 

stations even when Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

formations of the same type were available. Some examples of 

enduring, preprogrammed missions that could be performed by 

reserve component units utilizing the 12304b authority include 

Kosovo peacekeeping, Multi-National Forward Observer 

Private First Class Ricky Olivo, a gunner with the 25th Infantry 

Division, travels in an up-armored HMMWV during a patrol in 

Iraq.

U.S. Army photo by Spc. Olanrewaju Akinwunmi
66 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

(Sinai), the Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, 

Nuclear Response Force, and selected Theater Security 

Cooperation events. 

In the wake of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army 

turned several of these missions over to Regular Army units as a 

way to garner savings. Army officials told the Commission that 

the impact of budgetary cuts has effectively limited the Army’s 

ability to provide Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

forces to meet Combatant Command requirements. Off-ramp 

decisions to avoid costs after scheduling Army National Guard 

units for deployment increased friction and, in some cases, 

raised suspicions between components that other motives were 

in play. The Total Force Policy must be resourced if it is going to 

be effective, and the absence of adequate 12304b funding will 

limit using Army National Guard and Army Reserve forces on 

missions for which they are ideally suited. Meanwhile, such cost 

avoidance decisions increase operational tempo for many Regular 

Army units that may not have sufficient home station dwell time.

Recommendation 29: The Congress should expand 

12304b authority to include operational requirements 

that emerge within the programmed budget timeline, 

including the year of execution. 

Recommendation 30: The Army should budget for 

and the Congress should authorize and fund no fewer 

than 3,000 man years annually for 12304b utilization 

of the reserve components. The Secretary of 

Defense, in conjunction with the Army and the Office 

of Management and Budget, should also provide 

for the use of Overseas Contingency Operations 

and supplemental funding for reserve component 

utilization under 12304b.

SECTIONS 12304(b), 12304a, AND 12304b

The authority to order the reserve component to active 

duty is governed by several statutory provisions. Among 

these provisions is section 12304 of Title 10 U.S. Code, 

which permits the President to involuntarily order to 

active duty reserve component units, when necessary, to 

augment active forces for any named operational mission 

or in several instances mentioned in sub-paragraph (b). 

This subparagraph authorizes involuntary activation 

when it is necessary to provide assistance in responding 

to an emergency involving the use, or threatened use, 

of a weapon of mass destruction or a terrorist attack or 

threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, 

or could result, in significant loss of life or property.

Two subsequent sections of Title 10 set forth additional 

situations in which the President could authorize the 

involuntary activation of reserve component units. Section 

12304a authorizes the involuntary activation of reserve 

component units for not more than 120 days when a 

Governor requests federal assistance in responding to a 

major disaster or emergency. Section 12304b authorizes 

the involuntary activation of a reserve component unit 

when the Secretary of a military department determines 

that it is necessary for a preplanned mission in support of 

a Combatant Command. Section 12304b requires that the 

manpower and associated costs for activating a reserve 

component unit for a preplanned mission be included in 

the defense budget materials for the fiscal years in which 

the unit is anticipated to be called to active duty and 

further requires that this information include a description 

of the mission and the anticipated length of time that the 

units will be on active duty.

7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) personnel participate in a 

training exercise on the beach of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Steven Young
National Commission on the Future of the Army 67

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Furthermore, the Commission finds that making 

deployment policies consistent among the components—

particularly the duration of BOG in theater—would further 

foster an integrated Total Force culture, as would Regular Army, 

Army National Guard, and Army Reserve cross-component 

assignments. Additionally, the Commission finds personnel 

from each Army component need to better understand the other 

components. Having all three components serve together at all 

levels will improve readiness, create shared understanding, and 

help break down cultural barriers between Army components.

Notably, the Commission heard no declarations among 

soldiers and leaders in Army National Guard or Army Reserve 

units that they were being overused. Indeed, the Commission 

heard more often from reserve component soldiers that they were 

not being used enough. Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

members repeatedly told the Commission that they could meet 

a 1:4 mobilization to dwell ratio; employers likewise endorsed 

such a ratio for their Army National Guard members and Army 

Reserve employees. Governors echoed the sentiment, promoting 

greater use of their Guard forces in federal missions. The only 

request from all three parties—the soldiers, the employers, 

and the states—was predictability of deployments whenever 

possible. The Commission does not recommend a change in 

the mobilization-to-dwell policy goals but advocates for greater 

flexibility to allow the Army more efficient use of its forces across 

all components without incurring undue risk to the force.

Recommendation 31: The Secretary of Defense should 

update the January 19, 2007, memo “Utilization of the 

Total Force” to allow flexible involuntary mobilization 

periods in an effort to achieve common BOG periods 

for all components.

ONE ARMY USING MULTICOMPONENT UNITS

The Army has a long history of mixed results using 

multicomponent units—units that have members and 

organizations from the Regular Army along with members 

and organizations of the Army National Guard or Army 

Reserve. In many cases, the Army tried to implement 

multicomponent constructions in units or with policies that 

were not suited to the model. Currently, the Army has thirtyseven multicomponent units documented, including many 

successful examples like the Army Space and Missile Defense 

Command’s 100th Missile Defense Brigade (Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense). However, even within these units much 

work is required to achieve success with multicomponent 

units.

Training together can help improve readiness while also 

helping develop one Army. It may be necessary to design 

multicomponent units so that the Regular Army portion of 

the unit can deploy independently if military needs require. 

Also, the reserve component portions of the multicomponent 

unit must have adequate resources to maintain reasonable 

levels of readiness. Overall, using multicomponent units as 

part of implementing the Army’s Total Force Policy requires 

an understanding of the specific goals, benefits, and challenges 

associated with multicomponent units.

 Other organizational structures should also be considered 

to further integrate components. The Commission encourages 

the Army to continue command emphasis on ongoing 

multicomponent training partnerships and associations and 

re-examine past efforts, such as the use of round-out units and 

cross-component personnel assignments—including command 

billets—as part of the Army’s Total Force Policy.

Despite the challenges, multicomponent units represent 

one of the best ways to develop one Army, especially if 

members of the units can train together in peacetime and, if 

necessary, fight together in war. Multicomponent units can 

also draw on the differing strengths of the Regular Army, 

the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve in ways 

that improve readiness. The Commission therefore urges the 

Army to continue creating and sustaining multicomponent 

units, and the Commission has offered a specific approach to 

Captain Thomas Lorenson of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment 

directs an AH-64 attack helicopter strike on a target during 

the U.S. Army Europe Best Junior Officer Competition. 

U.S. Army photo by MSG Robert Hyatt
68 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

increasing use of multicomponent units in Army aviation (see 

page 92).

Recommendation 32: The Army should continue using 

multicomponent units and training partnerships to 

improve Total Force integration and overall Army 

effectiveness.

Recommendation 33: The Army should add specific 

guidance on goals for future use of multicomponent 

units and related initiatives to the Army’s Total Force 

Policy Implementation Guidance for fiscal year 2017.

Recommendation 34: The Army should develop a 

substantial pilot program to test multicomponent 

approaches in its aviation units. See page 92.

ONE ARMY ADMINISTRATION

Achieving the aims of the Total Force Policy requires 

organization and coordination of activities across the operating 

and generating forces. These activities occur within an 

entanglement of laws, policies, and procedures. People to 

administer, management systems to control, and authorities 

to regulate all come into play when administering the 

Total Force. The Commission believes Full-Time Support, 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A), and 

MULTICOMPONENT CHALLENGES

The 100th Missile Defense Brigade (Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense), a multicomponent unit that defends 

the continental United States against ballistic missile 

attack, demonstrates the strengths and challenges of Total 

Force integration. 

Based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the brigade 

commands a battalion in Alaska, detachments in California 

and New York, and early warning radar batteries in the 

Pacific Command, European Command, and Central 

Command areas of operations. Authorized over 560 

soldiers—Regular Army and Army National Guard—the 

100th Missile Defense Brigade falls under U.S. Army Space 

and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), which supports 

U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). 

Operationally, the brigade is part of a joint, global network 

of space, sea, and ground-based sensors and missile 

systems designed to defeat intercontinental missile threats. 

Legally, the brigade’s chain of command reflects the 

complexities of state and federal authorities embodied in 

Title 32 and Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

The 100th Brigade benefits from having a combination 

of Regular Army and Army National Guard members. 

Regular Army soldiers facilitate planning, training, and 

integration with the rest of the Army. In 2014, for example, 

the Army began to transition the brigade’s detachments 

to batteries and convert the operations and maintenance 

personnel from contractors to soldiers. During this ongoing transition, one of the brigade’s Regular Army officers 

coordinated new equipment training at Fort Bliss, Texas, 

and Fort Sill, Oklahoma for the brigade’s Guard members. 

This required extensive coordination with the posts to 

take care of the National Guard soldiers, including their 

housing, vehicle support, and leave. Meanwhile, the Army 

National Guard soldiers provide long-term stability to the 

brigade’s small, highly technical force for the brigade’s 

daily missions.

At the same time, the 100th Brigade demonstrates 

challenges for multicomponent units implementing Total 

Force integration. Because the brigade falls under SMDC, 

a Regular Army chain of command, all deployments and 

exercises are credited to the Regular Army without any 

National Guard credit. This skews Service-level reporting 

on the components’ respective operational tempo 

in favor of the Regular Army. The 100th Brigade also 

demonstrates limitations created by separate Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve human 

resource networks and data systems. The Army is working 

to integrate these systems in the Integrated Personnel 

and Pay System–Army (IPPS-A), but the system will not 

be fully fielded until 2020. In the meantime, the chain of 

command must rely on multiple and separate personnel 

and pay systems to manage Regular Army and National 

Guard soldiers. 

The 100th Missile Defense Brigade’s experience 

demonstrates that soldiers can achieve Total Force 

integration and make multicomponent units work; it’s 

systems and policies that need to get up to speed.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 69

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

authorities within duty status reform will play critical roles in 

administering one Army.

Full-Time Support

Full-Time Support (FTS) personnel are assigned to work dayto-day operations for reserve component units, performing such 

duties as recruiting, organizing, administering, maintaining, 

instructing, and training for a particular Army National 

Guard or Army Reserve unit. FTS personnel accomplish 

those foundational tasks separate from the unit drill periods 

allowing the traditional drilling soldier to focus on individual 

and collective activities. The productivity of the drill periods 

is dramatically enhanced because the conditions are set for the 

reserve component unit to achieve higher levels of readiness.

The Army’s universal workload-based process, which sets 

manpower requirements to accomplish the directed tasks for 

Tables of Distribution and Allowance organizations, determines 

FTS levels. In 2005, the FTS requirement methodology was 

revalidated, and in 2012 the Secretary of the Army reported 

to the Congress a total FTS requirement of 123,000. The 

November 2014 Army Management Action Group FTS Review 

reported that FTS requirements determined by work-load based 

processes were filled at 67 percent for fiscal year 2016. 

About 85 percent of reserve component soldiers are 

traditional drilling reservists with twenty-four drill days and 

fifteen annual training days a year. FTS personnel (soldiers 

and technicians) comprise 17 percent of the Army National 

Guard and 14 percent of the Army Reserve end strength. 

About 90 percent of FTS personnel are deployable, unlike the 

preponderance of Army civilians. During the peak of reserve 

component contributions to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 

from 2006 to 2009, the FTS shortage was mitigated through 

temporary FTS personnel, primarily Active Duty for 

Operational Support and selective early mobilization. 

A key aspect to achieving integration of the components 

is providing officers and enlisted soldiers opportunities 

to serve in other components, but statutory limitations 

impede such integration. Statute permits detailing but not 

assigning Regular Army officers and enlisted soldiers into 

Army National Guard positions. A detailed status has more 

limits than assigned status. Assigning Regular Army officers 

and enlisted soldiers to a National Guard unit would most 

likely require the soldiers to serve in dual Title 32 and Title 

10 status and take the state or territory Oath of Office. In 

the case of the Army Reserve, no statute prohibits assigning 

Regular Army officers and NCOs to do Full-Time Support 

functions, but it has been a matter of policy to not routinely 

make such assignments. Assignment to another component 

should be considered a key developmental experience and 

could be considered criteria for promotion.

Recommendation 35: Congress should enact 

legislation to allow assignment of Regular Army 

officers and enlisted soldiers to Army National Guard 

positions to execute all functions without prejudice 

to their federal standing. The legislation should also 

permit the similar assignment of National Guard 

officers and enlisted soldiers to Regular Army units. 

Recommendation 36: The Army should develop and 

implement a pilot program to assign Regular Army 

officers and enlisted soldiers to Army Reserve full-time 

support positions within one year of publication of this 

report and evaluated in two years to determine the 

effectiveness of such a program.

Integrating Personnel Management and Pay

Fundamental to managing the Total Force as one Army are 

personnel management and pay. The three Army components 

currently operate separate personnel and pay systems, thus 

creating barriers to personal readiness and a career of service 

that allows soldiers to transition among components, popularly 

known as “continuum of service.” The Commission has 

determined that achieving a singular personnel management 

and pay system for the whole Army will promote and provide 

the greatest administrative step toward implementing the Total 

Force Policy. 

The Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) 

program offers a means to provide this improvement. IPPS-A 

is a web-based human resources system that will provide, for 

the first time, a personnel and pay capability that cuts across 

all components of the Army. IPPS-A will create an integrated 

“Are you going to optimize where you can 

put super units who can do the great job 

we’re going to ask them? Or are you going 

to be fair and leave everybody at the same 

level? On both those questions, goodness or 

fairness, I always vote for goodness.” 

General Robert Shoemaker (USA, Ret.), 

former commander of the U.S. Army Forces 

Command and inductee into the Aviation Hall 

of Fame, speaking at the Commission’s listening 

session in Killeen, Texas, July 9, 2015. 
70 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

personnel and pay record for each soldier, covering the entire 

career and allowing personnel actions to drive associated pay 

events. It will be self-service and available twenty-four hours 

a day, provide commanders personnel asset visibility, and 

facilitate movement of soldiers across Army components by 

maintaining benefits, personnel information, and training 

in accordance with the Army Total Force Policy. IPPS-A 

implementation calls for the following timeline:

• Replacing the Army National Guard personnel system in 

the second quarter of fiscal year 2018; 

• Replacing the Regular Army and Army Reserve personnel 

systems in first quarter fiscal year 2019; 

• Establishing one pay system for Regular Army, Army 

National Guard, and Army Reserve in fourth quarter fiscal 

year 2019;

• Establishing a unified evaluation and retention 

management system in third quarter fiscal year 2020.

The Commission acknowledges that many view IPPS-A 

with skepticism based on the Army’s unfortunate history 

with the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources 

System (DIMHRS). The 2010 decision to terminate the 

DIMHRS program, a similar and more expansive personnel 

and pay integrated system, was succinctly explained by 

former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral 

Michael Mullen when he stated: “This program has been a 

disaster.” However, the Army will not fully implement the 

Total Force Policy without a single, integrated personnel and 

pay system. 

The Commission considers IPPS-A a critical underpinning 

and a key to achieving the Total Force in reality. IPSS-A will 

facilitate the continuum of service for soldiers by enabling and 

streamlining soldiers’ movement between statuses (transfers 

among the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army 

CONTINUUM OF SERVICE

When she was 17 years old, Holly Donica joined the Army 

to become an aircraft mechanic. That was 2005, and a year 

later she was serving with the 4th Infantry Division in Camp 

Taji, Iraq. In 2008, she became a single mother and active 

service no longer fit her family’s needs, so she transitioned 

from the Regular Army to the Army Reserve as a civilian 

maintenance technician at the Conroe Aviation Support 

Facility in Conroe, Texas.

After becoming a warrant officer and inspired by her 

daughter to take on still bigger challenges, CW2 Donica 

applied for flight school at Fort Rucker, Alabama. However, 

she needed help with child care. Her mother gave up a job 

to move to Fort Rucker and care for her granddaughter 

for the two years CW2 Donica needed to complete basic 

flight training and qualification courses for two aircraft, the 

UH-60 A/L Black Hawk and the AH-64D Apache. Thanks to 

her mother’s commitment that allowed time for study, CW2 

Donica became the Distinguished Honor Graduate of the 

UH-60 A/L course.

CW2 Donica said she is planning to complete a bachelor’s 

of science degree in aeronautics soon, and plans to 

continue her studies in aeronautics. This 27-year-old soldier 

also aspires to become a maintenance test pilot in the UH60 A/L, and in the long term study medicine to become a 

flight surgeon. CW2 Donica, her daughter, and her mother 

are a family that is part of the Army family. They bring 

strength, talent, and depth to the Army thanks to CW2 

Donica’s continuum of service.

Specialist Sierra Chanel, an optical laboratory specialist with the 

362nd Medical Logistics Company, measures the eye curvature 

of a patient during an exercise in Bryson City, North Carolina.

Photo by Capt. Chad Nixon
National Commission on the Future of the Army 71

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Reserve). The IPPS-A program management made significant 

adjustments after under-executing the funding provided, and 

now it is on schedule. 

Recommendation 37: The Congress, the Department 

of Defense, and the Army should continue to support 

and adequately fund the Integrated Personnel & 

Pay System-Army (IPSS-A) as the cornerstone to the 

effective management and enhanced integration 

of the components of the Army. The Army must 

maintain the program’s current schedule as a critical 

underpinning capability for the Army to support the 

Total Force.

Authorities / Duty Status Reform

The Congress continues to provide a wide variety of authorities 

to bring reserve members to active duty. The multitude of 

authorities is not a recent phenomenon; most were established 

prior to 1980. Over time, new authorities for duty were 

created to codify new roles and missions for the Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve or a new purpose of the duty. Each 

individual modification was made to address a specific issue 

but resulted in a patchwork of laws and administrative fixes 

that complicate personnel management and employment of the 

reserve components.

“Duty status reform” is frequently, but incorrectly, used 

as a synonym for a reduction in the number of authorities. 

The authority to order a reserve member to perform duty is 

the first of four parts of the reserve duty system. The second 

part is the purpose of the duty; the third is restrictions or 

limitations that may be associated with the duty; the fourth 

is the funding source. Collectively, the four parts comprise 

a duty status. Modifying one of the four parts does not 

constitute full “duty status reform”; however, it can begin 

to simplify the complex system. A parallel effort, which will 

materially simplify the reserve duty system, is implementing 

IPPS-A.

Regular Army members have a single duty status: active 

duty. Reserve component members have three duty statuses: 

inactive duty, active duty, or full-time National Guard duty. 

More than 30 legal authorities further delineate these three 

duty statuses. The 30-plus authorities simultaneously provide 

more detailed accountability. Each authority is a distinct 

delegation of authority to order a reserve member to duty and 

provides an accountability mechanism when used.

Currently, section 515 of the 2016 NDAA requires the 

Secretary of Defense to assess the impact of consolidating the 

current statutes into six within 180 days of enactment, and 

desired alternate approaches are due to the Congress October 

1, 2016. The Commission endorses the findings on this topic 

of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 

in its January 30, 2014 report and applauds and supports the 

Congress’s efforts to simplify the authorities and reduce this 

friction to achieving a Total Force.

ONE ARMY RECRUITING

Recruiting is the primary function required to raise and 

sustain an Army. The Army accessed 114,800 soldiers in 

fiscal year 2014, more than the other Services combined 

and, in fact, more soldiers than constitute the total end 

strength of some allies’ ground forces. The Army achieved 

the 2014 recruiting mission by employing 11,114 total Army 

recruiters across the nation. The 2015 Army recruiting force 

has decreased to 10,955 (5,833 Regular Army, 3,210 Army 

National Guard, and 1,912 Army Reserve recruiters). As part 

of the recruiting effort, the total Army spends more than 

$280 million annually on marketing, generating more than 

118,000 potential recruits. 

Local Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

commanders are accountable for manning their units. These 

commanders usually have end strength performance objectives 

Lieutenant Colonel Louis Feliciano, commander of the 393rd 

Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, shares the contents of 

an MRE with children during the Beyond the Horizon mission in 

the Dominican Republic. 

Photo by Capt. Carlos Cuebas
72 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

included in their evaluations. This responsibility manifests at 

a local level with Army National Guard recruiters assigned 

to specific units for which they recruit. These unit recruiters 

succeed by having a working knowledge of the unit, its 

members, leadership, activities, and mission, as well as the 

community. Likewise, the unit members and the community 

know the recruiter.

Unity of Effort

The Commission observed a lack of recruiting unity of effort 

at the Army Headquarters and local levels. The U.S. Army 

Recruiting Command is responsible for Regular Army and 

Army Reserve recruiting; consistent with law and tradition, 

each state is responsible for Army National Guard recruiting. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs has strategic oversight of the recruiting function, but 

each component and state establishes its own recruiting goals. 

Similarly, Regular Army and the Army Reserve marketing 

is controlled by the Army Marketing and Research Group 

while Army National Guard marketing is managed by the 

National Guard Bureau on behalf of the states. This results 

in inconsistent branding and different marketing campaigns 

for the Army and the Army National Guard. At the local 

level, recruiters from each component vie for the dwindling 

population of potential recruits, possibly influencing an 

individual to join a component that may not be the best fit for 

that individual. 

The Commission concludes that, to the maximum extent 

feasible, the Army should be managed as one Army. Certain 

practices, policies, and statutes currently prevent the Army 

from managing the three components as one Army. These 

legal and policy structures create inefficiency and encourage 

competition—contributing to continued tension—among the 

components. This is readily apparent in the area of recruiting 

and marketing; therefore, any effort to truly manage one 

Army must include aligning recruiting efforts for all three 

components. Such unity of effort can achieve efficiencies and 

effectiveness while ensuring recruiting consistently produces 

the requisite quality and quantity of soldiers that all three 

components need. 

The Army has had some success aligning recruiting efforts 

in the past. As part of its attempt to grow structure during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, 

the Army initiated the “Active First” program. Army National 

Guard recruiters offered active duty contracts to individuals 

who then agreed, at the end of their active duty commitment, 

to do a Selected Reserve tour in the Army National Guard, 

unless they elected to re-enlist in the Regular Army. During the 

program’s run from 2007 to 2011, Active First assessed more 

than 4,900 individuals into the Army, thus illustrating that 

SHRINKING RECRUITING POOL

Only 0.7 percent of the U.S. population served in one of 

the nation’s armed forces in 2015. This is a small pool of 

talent, and it is likely to shrink even more.

Current U.S. population projections indicate potential 

future challenges for military recruiting. RAND 

Corporation projections show that by 2025, the military 

age population will decline by 2.1 percent for ages 

17–24, and 3.1 percent for ages 23–27, even as the total 

population grows. This decline in the recruiting-eligible 

population is particularly concerning given that less than 

half of the military age population is eligible for military 

service due to physical, educational, or behavioral fitness 

(e.g. criminal records). As a result, the enlistment-eligible 

population could drop from about 10.3 million in 2015 to 

9.9 million in 2025.

Increased disqualifications for health will overwhelm small 

improvements in educational attainment and aptitude (as 

assessed by the Armed Forces Qualification Test). The 

military’s recent decision to allow women into all combat 

roles may slightly increase the eligible population, but 

women might not voluntarily join direct combat career 

fields in overly large numbers. The military could relax some 

criteria (e.g. tattoo restrictions or body piercings) without 

harming the quality of recruited personnel, but significant 

changes in the standards for physical fitness will likely result 

in a less-capable force. However, there may be room for 

carefully considered adjustments to physical standards for 

specific career fields, such as cyberspace operations. 

The Army will continue to have the most difficult recruiting 

challenge within the Department of Defense based on 

the volume of enlistments needed and public perceptions 

concerning risk to the force. The nation’s Army is recruited 

from the society it serves. The Army will need to adopt 

policies to support effective recruiting of the best and 

brightest of those ready to serve while upholding the 

standards that make the U.S. All-Volunteer Force the envy 

of the world.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 73

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

unity of effort is possible in the realm of recruiting, despite 

the different legal status of components. The Commission 

concludes that the Army should do more such efforts.

Recommendation 38: Congress should authorize 

and direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a 

substantial multiyear pilot program in which recruiters 

from all three components are authorized to recruit 

individuals into any of the components and receive 

credit for an enlistee regardless of the component. 

Congress should specifically authorize the pilot 

program “notwithstanding any other laws” in order to 

avoid potential fiscal law concerns. The Army should 

complete a detailed design for a pilot program within 

one year after publication of this report and, pending 

Congressional approval, fully implement the pilot 

program within one year after completion of the design 

work.

Recommendation 39: Congress should authorize, and 

the Secretary of the Army direct, the consolidation of 

marketing functions under the authority of the Army 

Marketing Research Group (AMRG) to gain unity of 

effort. The AMRG must employ marketing strategies 

to achieve recruiting goals of the Army Reserve, Army 

National Guard, and Regular Army.

The NDAA FY15 considerations for the Commission 

include identifying a structure that “provides for sufficient 

numbers of regular members of the Army to provide a base 

of trained personnel from which the personnel of the reserve 

components of the Army could be recruited.” The Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve recruit among Regular 

Army soldiers leaving active duty. Department of the Army 

G-1 data for fiscal year 2015 reflected over 4,000 soldiers 

joined the Army National Guard after serving in the Regular 

Army, and more than 5,500 joined the Army Reserve. The 

Commission determined that a Regular Army of 450,000 

soldiers will provide sufficient trained personnel for Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve recruitment. 

Rather, the challenge is in the lack of a unified personnel 

management system that can align soldiers with available 

positions, and perceived policy limits to continuum of 

service. The Army’s successful “365 AC to RC Pilot” program 

implemented in 2014 at Fort Hood, Texas, focused on 

increasing the number of soldiers transitioning to Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve units. Incentives for highdemand skills included the chance to transition up to a year 

earlier than the original contract, opportunities to become a 

warrant officer, and chances to retrain for a new military job 

skill. This program revealed that policy road blocks are more 

imagined than tangible with visibility of opportunities as 

the key. As noted above, the Commission considers IPPS-A 

a much-needed means to provide the visibility needed for 

continuum of service. 

“What makes us different than any other 

army in the world are our noncommissioned 

officers. They are our standard bearers. 

They are what changed our Army over 

the last 40 years that I have had the 

opportunity to serve. It’s been the changing 

nature of our noncommissioned officers 

that has transformed our Army, and they 

continue to do that today.” 

General Raymond T. Odierno, retirement 

remarks at the Army Change of Responsibility 

ceremony, August 14, 2015. 

ONE ARMY LEADER DEVELOPMENT

Leader development is the deliberate, continuous, and 

progressive process that grows soldiers and Army civilians 

into competent, committed, professional leaders. Leader 

development is attained through the combination of training, 

education, and experiences acquired through opportunities in 

the operational, institutional, and self-development domains, 

supported by peer and developmental relationships.

Army training and education are highly regarded globally 

for producing excellent leaders with proven adaptability. 

However, new technology, advances in management science, 

and cultural changes suggest careful adjustments to the Army’s 

accession, training, education, assignment, and personnel 

evaluations and assessments can improve the Army’s agility, 

adaptability, and effectiveness. Improving the Army’s ability 

to acquire, develop, retain, and employ talent potentially 

offers the most important method to prepare for a complex, 

unknowable future. 

The Army continues to make substantial strides toward 

improving leadership development and talent management 

for both uniform and civilian personnel. However, the high 

operational tempo and continual deployments over the past 

fourteen years placed a huge stress on the time soldiers had 

available to attend formal leader development courses. In 
74 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

some cases, course attendance was waived. In other instances, 

the length of a course was reduced significantly in order to 

allow soldiers to complete the requirement. For example, the 

original four-week Primary Leader Development Course with 

extensive leadership training to prepare enlisted soldiers to 

become noncommissioned officers adjusted numerous times, 

temporarily shortening by more than 30 percent.

Some Army National Guard and Army Reserve units must 

choose between soldiers and their leaders attending schools 

or annual training periods where collective unit training 

is paramount. The Commission also noted some military 

education courses are stretched over a year or more in the 

reserve components, yet completed in weeks or months for 

Regular Army soldiers. 

Additionally, the importance and relevance of Joint 

professional military education (JPME) continues to increase. 

The 1986 passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act created a 

standard for officer JPME. While the Army has made senior 

enlisted JPME a prerequisite for attending the Sergeants Major 

Academy, career-long mandatory JPME standards are not 

mandated similar to officer standards.

The Army recognizes the sacrifice made in leader 

development across the institution and how critical training 

and education are to sustaining the All-Volunteer Force. 

Nevertheless, the Commission encountered uneven resourcing 

for military and civilian leader development, especially 

professional education. The Commission is concerned that as 

budgets tighten, sustaining investments in Army human capital 

could again wane without continued senior leader emphasis.

In an era of tremendous budgetary pressure, the Army must 

continue to focus on developing today’s leaders for tomorrow’s 

war. This includes greater innovation and assuming more risk to 

provide the right education to the right leader at the right time. 

Recommendation 40: The Army should retain formal 

leader development activities as a high priority for all 

uniformed and civilian personnel. 

Recommendation 41: Congress should direct the 

Department of Defense to review enlisted Joint 

Professional Military Education (JPME) requirements, 

determine which should become mandatory 

requirements, and report within one year.

The Army School System

In the 1990s, the Army started a series of initiatives to 

improve, streamline, and consolidate its school system due to 

budgetary constraints. The primary goal was to develop The 

Army School System (TASS) that improved the performance 

and efficiency of the Army’s existing school system by raising 

standards and consolidating facilities. TASS consists of initial 

military training; reclassification training; officer, warrant 

officer, noncommissioned officer, and Department of the Army 

civilian professional development training; functional training; 

and education. The long-term goal of TASS was to be more 

efficient and integrated across the components of the Army. 

The resulting program centered on a regional system for reserve 

component schools with the first pilot program established 

in the southeastern United States (North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida). 

In 2009, the Army implemented the One Army School 

System (OASS) as a set of processes synchronizing all three 

components to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness 

of TASS. Army Regulation 350-1 states, “the One Army School 

System is comprised of RC and AC institutions that utilize 

training resources to train soldiers in the most efficient and 

effective manner possible without regard to component.” OASS 

leverages existing infrastructure in all components to efficiently 

project training requirements and program training capacity.

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) commands twenty-nine Army schools, colleges, 

and institutions and provides accreditation and quality control 

Corporal Brock O’Shaughnessy and Corporal James Farran, 

combat engineers with the 374th Engineer Company (Sapper), 

take part in a night land navigation course at Camp San Louis 

Obispo Military Installation, California.

U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Michel Sauret
National Commission on the Future of the Army 75

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

across all Army schools inside and outside of TRADOC. These 

schools and training sites fall into six training regions. The 

highest density of schools outside TRADOC is in the Army 

National Guard, which has eighty-five training institutions at 

sixty-six locations across the fifty-four states, territories, and 

the District of Columbia. Each state, territory, and the District 

has a Regional Training Institute. As of September 2015, 

TRADOC has fully accredited eighty-three of the eighty-five 

Army National Guard training institutions. 

TRADOC has made notable progress by reorganizing its 

existing structure and capacity to meet training requirements 

and improve the quality of its programs. For example, the 

Army projects a $5 million savings in travel and 77,000 

training days returned to operational units by fiscal year 2018. 

OASS implementation and refinement continues to address 

capacity, law, and policy, standardizing programs of instruction, 

and expanding the Army Training Requirements and Resources 

System. The Commission concludes that OASS is not only a 

worthwhile effort, but its timeline should be accelerated. This 

may increase initial costs, but OASS’s recent savings indicate 

more money would be saved in the long run. 

During its site visits to training facilities for the Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve, the 

Commission encountered an alarming number of incidents 

of under-utilized training facilities and inefficient choices in 

training dollars spent. Many facilities belonging to different 

components are co-located on the same installation or in close 

geographic proximity. These facilities often offer the same 

courses of instruction and technical training that soldiers travel 

to other regions to attend. Consequently, though fully staffed, 

many of these schools were not filled to student capacity. 

Additionally, the Commission found that Regular Army 

soldiers were traveling to Regular Army training facilities at 

other installations—consuming travel funds doing so—though 

the required course was being taught at a TRADOC-certified 

reserve component school on or near their home installation. 

If there is one Army schools system, the Commission 

concludes that it must be managed under one organization 

that controls staffing, student attendance, and the types of 

instruction offered at each training or education location. 

Recommendation 42: The Army should conduct 

an end-to-end review of The Army School System 

and report to Congress within a year of publication 

of this report on the efficiencies gained by 

consolidating under-used capacity. The review should 

take a holistic look at successes and shortfalls from 

current strategy and ensure consistent naming 

conventions to minimize confusion.

Recommendation 43: The Army should establish 

true regionalization of the Army’s school system 

and continue to consolidate the infrastructure 

where efficiencies can be gained. The Army should 

acknowledge and explain any unused capacity, and 

develop a plan to retain or eliminate the unused 

capacity, ensure the correct balance of infrastructure 

and capacity to meet the nation’s needs, and take into 

consideration the ability to regenerate and expand 

the Army. The Army should complete this plan within 

a year of publication of this report.

Recommendation 44: The Army should immediately 

implement the entire One Army School System to 

realize savings sooner. 

ONE ARMY IN ACTION

The Army has generated forces and evolved its processes 

and readiness models as demand, operational conditions, 

and military strategies have changed. During the Cold War, 

the Army developed a static, tiered readiness methodology 

Two members of the 773rd Civil Support Team, 7th Civil Support 

Command, take part in a Training Proficiency External Evaluation 

of the unit’s readiness to respond to a real-world chemical, 

biological, radiological, or nuclear event.

Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Matthew Chlosta
76 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

designed to prepare forces according to war plan timelines. This 

readiness model enabled the Army to sustain a large, standing 

force (augmented by the draft until 1973) even in periods of 

active peace to deter possible acts of large-scale aggression and 

respond quickly to small-scale, short-duration aggression.

From the Vietnam War to initiating Operation Enduring 

Freedom, the Army deployed soldiers for short-duration 

missions that did not require a rotational or replacement force. 

In 2004, the Army needed to replace the units deployed for 

Operation Iraqi Freedom with follow-on forces. The response 

was the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model, 

which generated cyclical readiness rather than tiered readiness. 

ARFORGEN also enabled the Army to effectively integrate 

the reserve component, reset returning units, and incorporate 

lessons from prior rotations. 

In 2015, the Army moved toward a force generation 

method known as the Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM). 

SRM’s intent is to optimize available readiness resources that 

would enable more units, across all components, to generate 

and maintain higher levels of readiness over time. The model 

addresses improvements in assessing and maximizing unit 

readiness necessary to meet global Army requirements while 

maximizing available capabilities for unforeseen requirements. 

SRM provides improved readiness visibility on a quarterly basis 

and forecasts readiness out three to four years. This improved 

visibility is expected to better inform the budgeting and 

programming of funds. 

SRM is a work in progress that adopts elements from both 

cyclic and tiered readiness methods. The Army’s force generation 

regulation does not yet reflect SRM. With Total Force end 

strength at 980,000 soldiers, the Army will need more reliance 

on the reserve components to meet Combatant Command 

requirements while reducing stress on the Regular Army. 

Training

The Army’s shift toward a more quantifiable assessment of 

collective unit training for evaluating readiness is known as the 

Objective T-Level Assessment (Objective-T for short). This 

composite assessment includes three foundational aspects of 

training to determine the training days required to achieve the 

highest rating of T1: 

1. Collective task proficiency for mission-essential tasks 

demonstrated through a command post or field 

training exercise;

2. Individual and crew qualifications; and,

3. Collective live-fire proficiency demonstrated through 

fire coordination and maneuver live-fire exercises. 

Objective-T enables training assessments to enumerate 

actions that build and sustain measured readiness. The Objective 

T-Level Assessment provides a much more quantifiable and 

objective assessment of unit collective training readiness. 

Recommendation 45: The Army should implement 

the Objective-T methodology for assessing the 

progression of training readiness and revise readiness 

reporting using the quantifiable criteria. 

Combat Training Center (CTC) programs are intended to 

generate ready units and agile leaders confident in their ability 

to operate in complex operational environments. The CTCs 

conduct scenario-driven, instrumented, force-on-force and 

live-fire training using a professional opposing force. Training 

occurs under tough, realistic, combat-like conditions across a 

wide range of likely tactical operations. 

CTCs currently serve as capstone training events to 

determine if units are ready to progress to the available 

force pool within the force generation model or as a mission 

rehearsal exercises. Regardless of component, the Brigade 

Combat Team (BCT) training proficiency level upon 

completing a CTC rotation improves. However, the force 

generation process produces a different training level for a 

Regular Army BCT (available for deployment) than for an 

Army National Guard BCT (entering its available year but 

still requiring post-mobilization training for deployment). 

Captain Kris Chamales, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne 

Division, maneuvers through the obstacle course at the division’s 

Pre-Ranger Course on Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

82nd Airborne Division photo by Sgt. Eliverto V. Larios
National Commission on the Future of the Army 77

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Due to much shorter deployment response requirements, 

Regular Army BCTs are resourced to arrive and depart a 

CTC rotation at a higher collective training level than Army 

National Guard BCTs with longer deployment timelines. 

Additionally, the number of BCTs has exceeded the CTC 

capacity to the point that some BCTs are not benefiting from 

CTC training within their projected readiness cycle (e.g. more 

than a decade between rotations for Army National Guard 

Infantry Brigade Combat Teams).

During site visits to the National Training Center and 

Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Commissioners 

noted the emphasis for every rotation to include units from 

all components. However, the Commission also heard 

concerns about insufficient number of observers, coaches, 

and trainers to support events, as well as not having enough 

operational support and sustainment units, particularly from 

the Army Reserve. Some units participating in the same 

CTC event are not aligned in their readiness cycles, which 

can lead to manning and funding shortfalls. Synchronizing 

the preparation and scheduling of multiple Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve units is challenging, but necessary. 

Continued priority support for CTC activities and proper 

alignment of resourcing will enable the Army to increase 

readiness to support current and projected operational 

demands. Greater participation of the Army National Guard 

BCTs and Army Reserve supporting units for CTC rotations 

will enhance Total Army readiness, provide greater leader 

development opportunities, and build interoperability among 

the components. 

Recommendation 46: The Army should increase the 

number of annual rotations for Army National Guard 

Brigade Combat Teams at combat training centers 

beginning fiscal year 2017 without decreasing the 

number of Regular Army Brigade Combat Team 

rotations.

Leaders from all Army components have identified 

excessive mandatory training requirements contained in 

AR 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development, as an 

issue. Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army 

Reserve leaders were near unanimous in their assessment 

that AR 350-1 training requirements leave too little time 

to conduct collective training or focus on the training that 

commanders assess as most needed. Their desired end state 

is to reduce mandatory training requirements and allow 

commanders to appropriately balance training readiness with 

other Army requirements. 

The outcomes of the 2015 Army Training Leader 

Development Conference confirmed leaders’ concerns: 

• Army National Guard and Army Reserve forces have too 

many training requirements in one year;

• Over 1,000 Army directives, regulations, pamphlets, and 

messages address mandatory training ; and 

• The Army needs to underwrite risk and give three- and 

two- star commanders the ability to prioritize these 

training requirements.

The Army will always have necessary mandatory training 

requirements, but it must find a better approach. Delegating 

mandatory training exception approval means commanders 

will assume some risk in a risk-averse culture, especially given 

the consequences if an adverse outcome occurs later. While 

there are risks in lessening mandatory training requirements, 

there are risks in having such burdening mandatory training 

requirements cut into valuable collective training time, too.

Recommendation 47: The Army should reduce 

mandatory training prescribed in AR 350-1, Army 

Training and Leader Development by the following 

means: 

• Reducing the number of mandatory training 

requirements and moving the reduced tasks to local 

command policy per AR 600-20, Army Command 

Policy;

• Developing a formal process for approving 

additional mandatory training tasks and reviewing 

existing mandatory training requirements annually 

for retention or deletion;

• Chartering the Army’s Training General Officer 

Steering Committee to provide governance 

for approving all added Army and Combatant 

Commander mandatory training requirements;

• Changing the reserve components’ mandatory 

training requirements from an annual cycle to a 

two-year cycle; 

• Codifying mandatory training requirements with 

(1) task, condition, and standard; (2) Training and 

Evaluation Outline and lesson plan; and (3) the 

means to make this information available through 

the Army Training Network as the consolidated 

repository for mandatory training requirements;

• Delegating mandatory training exception approval 

authority to two-star commanders; and

• Completing the AR 350-1, Army Training and 

Leader Development, revision within one year of 

this report. 
78 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

Training Support

Forces Command (FORSCOM) employs First Army to 

assess training and ensure units are ready before they deploy. 

To support the intent of the Total Force Policy, First Army 

undertook a major reorganization and adjusted its primary 

mission focus from post-mobilization to pre-mobilization 

training support for Army National Guard and Army 

Reserve units. First Army partners with reserve component 

units throughout their readiness cycle to support the units’ 

pre-mobilization training and provide an estimate of postmobilization training time needed for those units to complete 

their culminating training exercise or capstone event. 

First Army has the majority of Regular Army soldiers 

assigned as required by the Army National Guard Combat 

Readiness Reform Act of 1992. They provide the engagement 

and habitual relationships with reserve component units 

throughout the force generation cycle to enhance readiness while 

minimizing redundant training costs. In addition to the Regular 

Army personnel, First Army manning includes Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve soldiers (both Active Guard and 

Reserve, or AGR, and traditional drilling soldiers), making it a 

multicomponent unit. All three components have an obligation 

to provide adequate full-time manning within First Army to foster 

Total Force integration. However, in fiscal year 2014, the Army 

National Guard and Army Reserve manning rates for First Army 

authorizations were about 16 percent and 80 percent, respectively. 

Recommendation 48: The Army should resource First 

Army’s Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) positions 

from the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve 

at the aggregate manning level provided for each 

component not later than fiscal year 2017. 

Army Reserve engineers with the 416th and 412th Theater Engineer Commands work on an improved ribbon bridge across the 

300-meter-wide Arkansas River during an exercise at Fort Chaffee. The bridge, requiring 42 segments, took three hours to complete.

Photo by Army Sgt. Rigo Cisneros
National Commission on the Future of the Army 79

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

“When you join the Guard today, you expect 

to deploy, and when you don’t have that 

opportunity, there’s a lot of disappointment.” 

Major General John L. Gronski (PAARNG), 

Commander, 28th Infantry Division during 

NCFA site visit to Fort Indiantown Gap. 

Mobilization

In addition to generating near-term readiness, the Army must 

plan for mobilizing the entire Army to a state of readiness 

for war, contingency, or national emergency. This includes 

activating all or part of the reserve components, as well as 

assembling and organizing personnel, supplies, and materiel. 

The Army does not mobilize forces in isolation, but does so as 

part of the DoD enterprise. The Commission noted that in his 

assessment of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey 

highlighted the acceptance of risk in the capacity of land forces 

and called for a comprehensive review of the nation’s ability to 

mobilize the entire force.

Recommendation 49: As recommended in the 2014 

Quadrennial Defense Review, the Secretary of Defense 

should plan in fiscal year 2017 and execute no later 

than the end of fiscal year 2018 a comprehensive 

review of the nation’s ability to mobilize its existing 

reserves as well as its preparedness for the potential 

of national mobilization.

Mobilization Support

The Army National Guard mobilized in excess of 102,000 

soldiers and the Army Reserve over 77,000 soldiers in 

2003. Twenty-five installations conducted mobilization and 

demobilization operations that year. These mobilization 

locations, known as Mobilization Force Generation Installations 

(MFGI), operated at various levels of preparation: seven primary, 

five secondary, and thirteen contingency MFGIs. 

Today, the Army has only two active MFGIs, at Fort 

Hood and Fort Bliss, both in Texas. Only Fort Hood has a 

Pre-Deployment Training Equipment (PDTE) set permanently 

located on the site. Before determining which MFGIs would 

remain active, the Army located PDTE sets at the three Army 

Corps locations of Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina; and Fort Hood. Because Fort Bliss has no PDTE site, 

the Army transports equipment to and from Fort Hood and 

other locations to support Army National Guard and Army 

Reserve post-mobilization training.

The Commission found that the lack of a PDTE set at Fort 

Bliss increases transportation costs and reduces post-mobilization 

training time while units await equipment delivery.

Recommendation 50: The Army should provide a 

Pre-deployment Training Equipment set to Fort 

Bliss, Texas, for its Mobilization Force Generation 

Installation role no later than fiscal year 2017.

ONE ARMY EXPANDING 

Because the future strategic environment cannot be predicted 

with certainty, the Army needs to protect its ability to regenerate 

capabilities and expand the force whenever necessary. The 2012 

Defense Strategic Guidance stated: 

...DoD will manage the force in ways that protect its 

ability to regenerate capabilities that might be needed 

to meet future, unforeseen demands, maintaining 

intellectual capital and rank structure that could be 

called upon to expand key elements of the force. 

The 2014 QDR specified, “We will protect the ability to 

regenerate capabilities that might be needed to meet future 

demands.” The guidance of these two documents is further 

amplified in Defense Planning Guidance FY17-FY21 for the 

Army.

The Army established an Investment and Regeneration 

Task Force in 2012 and issued an Army Posture Statement on 

Investment and Regeneration in 2013 to concentrate planning 

for expanding the Army. The Under Secretary of the Army 

expounded on the need for planning with a 2014 information 

paper titled: How Fast Can the Army Grow? Implications of 

Regeneration Decisions. Nevertheless, the Army’s most recent 

response on planning for expansion noted that end strength 

reductions and funding decrements resulting from the Budget 

Control Act made resourcing expansion infeasible. With the 

shortfalls in funding and manning, the Army appears to have 

halted planning for expanding the force.

One key finding from the October 2013 RAND study, 

Estimating Institutional Army Manpower Requirements addresses 

part of the expansion paradox: “If the Army indeed means 

to support expansion, the size of the institutional Army 

should paradoxically grow as the Army shrinks.” While rapid 

expansion of the Army is not feasible, without personnel 

management actions to retain mid-grade leaders, the Army 

risks diluting leaders’ average levels of professional experience, 

as occurred during World War II and the Vietnam War. Many 
80 National Commission on the Future of the Army

DEVELOPING ONE ARMY

of the billets and personnel eliminated from the Regular Army 

to achieve mandated budget cuts are the same mid- and seniorlevel NCOs and mid-grade officers needed to support future 

regeneration efforts. 

Ideally, force expansion would start months or years before 

the forces are required to be deployed, but at such times much 

of the Army’s infrastructure would be occupied by existing 

units preparing for deployment. Retaining excess infrastructure 

in peacetime could facilitate future expansion, but at a cost—

and such costs do not easily compete in an environment of 

declining resources. Differentiating between unused capacity 

necessary for expansion and excess capacity would lead to better 

planning and decisions. 

The expansion paradox: preserving the ability to grow 

the Army can be in direct conflict with garnering efficiencies 

from a smaller force. However, the benefits of investing in 

certain key areas, such as recruiting and accessions, placing 

facilities in caretaker status, financing certain industrial 

production lines, and overmanning mid-grade positions 

within the institutional force could outweigh the risk and 

time that would confront the Army in a national crisis. 

The Commission considers a formal plan that enhances the 

understanding of the difficulties involved in expanding the 

force should inform force sizing and shape DoD and Army 

drawdown decisions.

Recommendation 51: The Congress should require 

the Army to develop, by the end of fiscal year 

2017, a plan for expansion to execute a largescale sustained operation. The plan would include 

maintaining a running estimate for long-lead-time 

equipment production and modification as well as 

personnel accession and training for anticipated 

capability shortfalls that occur after reorganization 

and mobilization. The plan should address each of 

the statutory Department of the Army functions as 

articulated in 10 U.S. Code, Section 3013 and examine 

and report annually to the Secretary of Defense on the 

necessary requirements to expand the Army’s capacity. 

Recommendation 52: The Secretary of Defense should 

incorporate in defense planning and fiscal guidance 

the analysis of Army expansion requirements for forcesizing and capability-mix analyses in fiscal year 2017. 

This guidance would give priority to the retention 

of expansion-required leaders, infrastructure, and 

materiel in the defense budget and program. 

Individual Ready Reserve

In addition, the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) could support 

future regeneration efforts. However, the IRR program has 

significant challenges. It primarily comprises individuals 

who have previously served in the Regular Army or Selected 

Reserves and are not assigned to a unit but still have a military 

service obligation remaining. The IRR currently has about 

93,000 soldiers managed by the Human Resources Command 

(HRC). Subject matter experts from various Army agencies 

described to the Commission the multiple challenges associated 

with meeting IRR readiness management requirements 

outlined in Title 10 of the U.S. Code and the February 22, 

2006, Secretary of the Army memo, Individual Ready Reserve 

Transformation. For example, HRC is not resourced to 

manage a population of this magnitude. The Army struggles 

to maintain an accurate database of IRR troops, so contact 

information is outdated. Additionally, the Army does not gain 

or share information with other government agencies, such as 

the Internal Revenue Service, to maintain contact information 

for IRR members. 

Recommendation 53: The Secretary of the Army 

should perform a top-to-bottom review in fiscal year 

2017 of the Individual Ready Reserve program to 

ensure compliance with existing statutes. 

Recommendation 54: Congress should amend 10 

USC 10205 to authorize the Secretary of Defense 

to coordinate with other federal agencies to obtain 

updated contact information on Individual Ready 

Reserve soldiers.

Recommendation 55: Congress should amend Title 

10 USC to authorize a virtual muster that does not 

include a physical examination or review. 

Recommendation 56: The Secretary of the Army 

should rescind the February 22, 2006, memo 

Individual Ready Reserve Transformation.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 81

“The Commission shall also conduct a study of a transfer of Army National Guard AH–64 Apache 

aircraft from the Army National Guard to the regular Army.”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(b)(1)

Photo by Capt. Jesse Paulsboe

APACHE TRANSFERS AND 

RELATED ISSUES

Army aviation makes a substantial contribution toward 

the service’s warfighting capability. Apache helicopters 

(AH-64s) provide attack/reconnaissance capability in 

support of ground operations. Black Hawk helicopters (UH60s) provide assault capability by transporting troops and 

equipment into battle and supporting logistics activities and 

medical evacuation. Shadow and Gray Eagle unmanned 

aerial systems, teamed with Apache helicopters, are being 

integrated into Army aviation units to provide increased attack 

and reconnaissance capability. Other aircraft support Army 
82 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

operations with heavy lift and general support.

Army aviation capability resides in all three Army 

components: the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and 

Army Reserve. While Army aviation provides substantial 

capability, it is also expensive: Army leaders stated that aviation 

accounts for the largest portion of Army funding for both 

training and modernization.

To respond to declining total budgets while maintaining 

critical aviation capability, the Army presented the Aviation 

Restructure Initiative (ARI) as part of its budget plan for fiscal 

year 2015. The initiative was supported by the Department of 

Defense (DoD) and became part of the President’s plan. The 

ARI proposed numerous changes, including the transfer of all 

Apache helicopters out of the Army National Guard. Under the 

ARI, all Apaches would be operated in the Regular Army.

During discussions with the Commission, Regular Army 

leaders strongly endorsed the ARI as a way to accommodate 

budget limits while maintaining a reasonable level of 

wartime capacity and sustaining a modernization program 

for aviation forces. Specifically, the ARI permitted the Army 

to accommodate aviation budgets that, according to Army 

estimates, will decline by 40 percent between fiscal year 2012 

and fiscal year 2020. 

However, leaders of the Army National Guard expressed 

strong concerns about the ARI. They argued that the initiative 

eliminates a cost-effective portion of the Army National Guard 

force and leaves the Guard without full-spectrum combat 

capability. As an indication of the strength of their concern, 

the National Guard Bureau (NGB) formulated an alternative 

to the ARI that retained a number of Apache helicopters in the 

Army National Guard and altered other aspects of the plan. 

The NGB presented its plan to the Department of the Army 

and the Congress.

Faced with strongly conflicting views and alternative 

approaches, the Congress directed that the Commission review 

the Apache transfer and make specific recommendations 

regarding the transfer of all Apache helicopters to the Regular 

Army. That and related aviation issues are the focus of this 

chapter.

INFORMATION GATHERED

The Commission, working partly through its Aviation 

Subcommittee, gathered extensive information about the 

Apache helicopter transfer and other Army aviation topics, 

drawing on a wide variety of personnel with differing 

backgrounds and points of view. The Commission gathered 

information from several sources:

• Multiple discussions with Regular Army leaders about the 

ARI and the NGB Alternative;

• Multiple discussions with Army National Guard leaders 

about the NGB Alternative and the ARI;

• Multiple discussions with Army Reserve leaders about the 

ARI;

• Briefing on Army Aviation, including the ARI, from the 

Commanding General, U.S. Army Aviation Center of 

Excellence at Fort Rucker, Alabama;

• Briefings on the overall Army program from Army 

headquarters staff;

• Briefings on the overall aviation modernization program 

from Army headquarters staff;

• Briefings on the ARI from the Director of Cost Analysis 

and Program Evaluation (CAPE) in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense;

• Discussions with a number of former senior Army leaders, 

including several with extensive aviation experience;

• Letters and communications from Members of Congress 

and discussions with Congressional staff members;

• Assistance from expert analysts at the Army’s Training 

and Doctrine Command Analysis Center (TRAC), the 

Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), and the Center for 

Army Analysis (CAA);

• Cost analysts at the RAND Corporation; and

• Experts on the Commission staff.

The Commission also heard from senior state leaders. 

Numerous Governors either discussed or provided written 

input to the Commission. These communications addressed the 

ARI and the Governors’ concerns regarding the transfer of all 

Apaches out of the Army National Guard. Commissioners also 

held discussions with Adjutants General (TAGs) who expressed 

serious concerns about the ARI.

During its travels, Commissioners and staff held meetings 

with personnel in thirty-one aviation units: twelve Regular 

Army, sixteen Army National Guard, and three Army Reserve. 

Photo on page 81

An AH-64E Apache rises from behind a hill during an exercise at 

the Yakima Training Center. 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 83

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

During its public meetings, the Commission heard from sixtysix public witnesses; several addressed the ARI and alternatives.

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING OPTIONS

Armed with this extensive information, the Commission 

formulated criteria to be used in assessing alternative aviation 

approaches. Overall, the Commission assessed alternatives 

based on their wartime capability because wartime capability 

remains the fundamental reason for maintaining a military 

force. Wartime capability requires forces at a high state of 

readiness and able to be deployed quickly, as future wars may 

begin with little or no notice. However, forces must also be 

scalable—that is, they must be able to expand reasonably 

rapidly should wartime conditions require.

The military also deploys during periods of relative peace. 

To maintain readiness during peacetime periods, the military 

must have enough forces to allow units sufficient time to train 

and military personnel time to be with their families. The pace 

of peacetime operations, therefore, constitutes another criterion 

for assessing alternatives.

Costs must be considered. The Commission heard 

testimony that, in large part, the ARI reflects a response to 

budget limits imposed in recent years. The budgetary effects of 

alternative approaches thus constitute an important criterion.

The Commission also considered how alternatives affect 

the integration of the Regular Army, the Army National 

Guard, and the Army Reserve. The Commission believes that 

this nation needs one Army, with units from all components 

training together where feasible and fighting together when 

necessary. How well alternatives support this goal constitutes a 

key criterion.

As it applied these general criteria to assess options, the 

Commission considered many qualitative factors and relied on 

its own judgments. The Commission also made use of some 

quantitative assessments. 

• Wartime capacity. The Commission utilized assessments 

of the wartime capacity under a relevant DoD wartime 

scenario (see the NCFA Classified Annex for details). In 

that scenario, Army aviation units play a substantial role. 

The capacity assessments take into account numbers of 

units but also the time required to deploy and the need to 

rotate forces.

• Surge capacity. No one can be sure where U.S. military 

forces will be engaged in the future, nor can we know how 

much time will be available to prepare for war. Therefore, 

forces must have the depth and scalability that permits 

them to surge in time of war. As one measure relevant to 

the Apache surge capacity, the Commission considered the 

number of Apache pilots in the reserve components that 

have required training and are in units that have necessary 

equipment and command structure. 

• Peacetime deployment rates. For Regular Army units in 

peacetime, the Army’s goal calls for one cycle deployed 

followed by two equivalent cycles in non-deployed status. 

Stated another way, if a deployment lasts one year, the unit 

should spend two years in non-deployed status. For reserve 

components, the current goal requires that a one-year 

deployment should be followed by five years in nondeployed status.

• Cost. The law establishing the Commission directed 

that its recommendations be “consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future resources.” For reasons 

noted earlier in this report, the Commission designed 

aviation options at levels of funding roughly consistent 

with the President’s budget plan submitted with the fiscal 

year 2016 budget request (PB16). The Commission also 

An AH-64D Apache Longbow pilot with the 4th Infantry 

Division’s Combat Aviation Brigade communicates with a crew 

chief before taking off on a mission in Camp Taji, Iraq.

U.S. Army photo by Spc. Creighton Holub, CAB PAO, 4th Inf. Div.
84 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

identifies high-priority initiatives that would require 

significant funding.

OPTIONS FOR APACHE TRANSFERS

Using these criteria and the information gathered from the 

sources noted above, the Commission carefully considered 

both the ARI and the NGB Alternative. The Commission 

also examined options that would keep varying numbers of 

Apache battalions in the Army National Guard along with 

approaches that would alter the number of aircraft in units 

and change numbers of aircraft available for maintenance and 

other activities. In its final analysis, the Commission focused 

on three options.

OPTION 1: AVIATION RESTRUCTURE 

INITIATIVE (ARI)

The Army proposed the ARI as part of the budget plan 

submitted for fiscal year 2015.

Description 

Under the ARI, all Apache helicopters would be transferred 

to the Regular Army. Fully implemented, the Regular Army 

would have twenty manned Apache battalions and the Army 

National Guard would have none. Thus, compared with 

the force structure plan in place just before the ARI, the 

new initiative transfers six Apache battalions from the Army 

National Guard to the Regular Army. There would also be two 

unmanned Apache battalions in the Regular Army as part of 

the Korea equipment set. Each of these battalions would have 

twenty-four Apaches but no assigned personnel.

The ARI would also create four additional Black Hawk 

battalions in the Army National Guard. The aircraft required 

to create these four new battalions would be made available 

because of the inactivation of three aviation brigades in the 

Regular Army. 

The ARI has made or will make other changes. 

Most notably, under the ARI all Kiowa Warrior armed 

reconnaissance helicopters (OH-58Ds) are retired and Lakota 

helicopters (UH-72As) become the primary training aircraft 

for initial rotary wing training. The ARI also will require some 

changes among facilities used to maintain Apache helicopters. 

Currently, five Army National Guard facilities—known as 

Theater Aviation Support Maintenance Groups (TASM-Gs)—

provide intermediate-level depot maintenance for Apaches and 

other aircraft in the Army National Guard and the Regular 

Army. National Guard personnel provide all of the staff for 

these facilities and often deploy to provide maintenance 

capability. Under the ARI, the Army National Guard would 

have no Apache helicopters to maintain. The TASM-G facilities 

may respond to the ARI by revising their business practices in 

order to provide maintenance for Apaches in the Regular Army. 

Alternatively, the Army will have to reconsider the size and role 

of the TASM-G facilities.

When it is fully implemented at the end of fiscal year 

2019, the ARI would result in a net reduction of 798 Army 

rotary wing aircraft. Reductions will occur in all three Army 

components, including 687 fewer aircraft in the Regular Army, 

104 fewer in the Army National Guard, and seven fewer in the 

Army Reserve.

Advantages of the ARI

The Commission concluded that the ARI is a well-crafted 

plan that holds down costs while maintaining a reasonable 

level of wartime capacity. The ARI also retains funds for a 

modernization program required to support future Army 

aviation forces.

Analyses performed by TRAC suggest that the ARI 

fares well in terms of wartime capacity, though it does lead 

to some shortfalls. TRAC concludes that under the ARI, 

aviation capacity would see modest shortfalls early in the 

wartime scenario used in the analysis and larger shortfalls 

later in the scenario. However, TRAC concluded that, overall, 

compared with the NGB Alternative discussed below, the 

ARI consistently provided the lowest risk in terms of wartime 

capacity. This TRAC conclusion represents a key advantage for 

the ARI.

The Commission relied on TRAC analyses of aviation 

options because the general results were unclassified and were 

available at a level of detail sufficient to distinguish among the 

various aviation alternatives considered in this report. We also 

considered other analyses provided during the Commission’s 

Comprehensive Analytic Review. The detailed results of these 

other analyses are described in the NCFA Classified Annex, but 

they generally corroborate the TRAC findings.

The ARI supports modernization of Army aviation 

assets. According to Army officials who briefed the 

Commission, the ARI maintains a substantial program of 

aircraft modernization, not just for major aircraft but also for 

critical enablers such as aviation rockets and missiles, aircraft 

survivability equipment, and avionics. The Army argues that 

the ARI accomplishes these goals while holding down costs. 

ARI costs are consistent with PB16, the baseline used by the 

Commission.

Disadvantages of the ARI 

The initiative offers little help in reducing the high levels 

of peacetime operational tempo anticipated for Regular 

Army Apache units. The Army expects that, given current 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 85

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

assumptions about future peacetime demands, Regular 

Army Apache units that deploy for one year will spend about 

twenty-three months (1.9 years) in non-deployed status. This 

projection falls slightly short of the goal of two years in nondeployed status, a shortfall that could grow in size if world 

events lead to greater demand for Apache helicopters. No Army 

National Guard Apache units would be available to deploy and 

help reduce this operational stress.

More important, the ARI provides no wartime surge 

capacity for Apache aircraft. In the period before ARI and other 

force changes, about 700 pilots serving in reserve components 

were trained to fly Apaches and had assigned aircraft and 

other equipment. In past conflicts, reserve component Apache 

pilots, and the units in which they serve, have provided surge 

capacity in time of war by deploying to wartime theaters, acting 

as trainers or handling other tasks. Under the ARI, the Army 

would have no such depth. The Commission is concerned 

about the lack of wartime surge capacity. 

The Army also would have no reserve component backup in 

case of peacetime problems. In 1999, for example, transmission 

problems led to the grounding of many Apache helicopters, 

and transmissions were taken from reserve component aircraft 

to maintain Regular Army units until needed rework could be 

accomplished. Under the ARI, this approach to resolving such an 

issue would not have been possible.

Finally, the Commission notes that the ARI exacerbates a 

problem highlighted in this report: the lack of unity between 

Regular Army and Army National Guard forces. The ARI will 

further reduce the “connective tissue” that binds the Regular 

Army and Army National Guard together. Under the ARI, 

Apaches will constitute an area where Regular Army and Army 

National Guard units cannot work closely together as one Army.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Tristan Archambault with the Task Force Wolfpack of the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade stands near her AH64D Longbow Apache at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. 

Photo by Sgt. 1st Class David Wheeler (USFORA)
86 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

OPTION 2: NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

ALTERNATIVE

In response to the ARI, the National Guard Bureau formulated 

its own plan to restructure Army aviation, including a 

significantly different approach to shaping the Apache force.

Description

The NGB Alternative would provide twenty-four manned 

Apache battalions. Of these, eighteen are in the Regular Army 

(compared to twenty under ARI) and six are in the Army 

National Guard (compared to zero under ARI). Two of the six 

Army National Guard battalions would be in multicomponent 

aviation brigades that have one Apache battalion from the 

Regular Army and one from the Army National Guard.

The eighteen Regular Army Apache battalions and the 

two Army National Guard battalions in multicomponent 

brigades would be equipped with twenty-four helicopters. 

The other four Army National Guard battalions would be 

equipped with eighteen Apaches. When called to active duty, 

these four battalions would acquire Apache helicopters from 

other Army National Guard battalions, a procedure called 

cross-leveling that the Army National Guard commonly 

employs today.

In order to equip additional Apache battalions, the 

NGB Alternative makes use of forty-eight Apache helicopters 

involved in Korean rotational operations. Once ARI is fully 

implemented, the personnel associated with a Combat Aviation 

Brigade (including two Apache battalions) will rotate annually 

to Korea and operate helicopters already in place there as 

part of an equipment set. The forty-eight Apache helicopters 

at the stateside locations of these two battalions may not be 

actively used by operational units. The NGB Alternative would 

transfer these forty-eight helicopters to units that need them, 

a procedure that is employed today. When the Regular Army 

units rotate home, aircraft would be rotated back to their 

unit. This approach eliminates the need to purchase fortyeight additional new Apaches, though the NGB Alternative 

does call for procuring eleven new or remanufactured Apache 

helicopters.

The NGB Alternative also alters the Black Hawk helicopter 

force. Under the ARI, three Regular Army Combat Aviation 

Brigades (CABs) would be inactivated and the Black Hawks 

in these brigades would be used to create four additional Black 

Hawk battalions that would be added to the Army National 

Guard. Under the NGB Alternative, only two additional 

battalions would be added; the remaining Black Hawk 

helicopters would be retired. As a result, the NGB Alternative 

offers about 3 percent fewer operational Black Hawk 

helicopters compared with the ARI.

While the NGB Alternative makes significant changes 

in portions of the ARI, it leaves many ARI proposals intact. 

Most notably, the NGB Alternative does not alter the ARI 

proposal to retire all the Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance 

helicopters. The NGB Alternative also leaves in place the ARI 

proposal to utilize the Lakota helicopter as the primary training 

aircraft for initial rotary wing training.

Advantages of the NGB Alternative

The NGB Alternative provides a significant wartime surge 

capacity for the Apache force. Approximately 420 Apache 

pilots would remain in the Army National Guard in a trained 

status with equipment, which would enhance the depth and 

scalability of the force. These pilots, and the units in which they 

serve, could be made available during a war, whereas no Army 

National Guard pilots would be available under the ARI. In the 

Commission’s view, this wartime surge capacity constitutes a 

significant advantage.

The NGB Alternative might be able to reduce the stress 

on Regular Army Apache forces during peacetime. Under 

current plans, an Army National Guard Apache battalion that 

deployed for one year would be in non-deployed status for 

five years. Thus, the six battalions could provide an average 

of one deployed battalion each year, which would more than 

offset the loss of deployed capacity associated with two fewer 

Regular Army battalions. This favorable outcome would 

require a decision to deploy the Army National Guard Apache 

battalions on a regular basis along with the funding needed to 

implement that decision.

Notably, the NGB Alternative would also permit the 

Regular Army and Army National Guard Apache units to 

continue to work together, training together in peacetime 

where feasible, and fighting together in war if necessary. The 

plan would contribute to maintaining one Army that draws as 

needed on the capabilities of the Regular Army and the reserve 

components.

Disadvantages of the NGB Alternative

The NGB Alternative provides less wartime capacity than the 

ARI, based on TRAC analyses of capacity during a wartime 

scenario. Shortfalls early in the conflict are greater because, 

even with limited warning, Regular Army units can be available 

in the first few weeks of a conflict, and the NGB Alternative 

maintains two fewer Regular Army Apache battalions. The 

NGB Alternative also provides less wartime capacity later in 

a conflict. The six Army National Guard Apache battalions 

in the NGB Alternative do not fully offset the loss of the two 

Regular Army battalions because some of the Guard battalions 

have fewer aircraft and because Guard units are available in 

theater for shorter periods. As a result, TRAC concludes that, 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 87

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

compared with the ARI, the NGB Alternative increases the risk 

of not having sufficient aviation capacity.

In addition to adding to wartime risks, the NGB 

Alternative increases costs. The DoD established a Tiger Team 

to examine ARI and NGB Alternative costs. The Tiger Team, 

which included analysts from CAPE as well as Regular Army 

and Army National Guard experts, concluded that the NGB 

Alternative would add between about $90 million and $175 

million a year to the aviation operating costs compared to 

costs budgeted in PB16. The range depends on assumptions 

about the amount of training required after mobilization. 

These cost estimates reflect the net effect of adding six Army 

National Guard Apache battalions, eliminating two Regular 

Army Apache battalions, and adding two fewer Black Hawk 

battalions compared to the ARI. The NGB Alternative would 

also involve between $220 million and $420 million in onetime costs to provide an additional eleven Apache helicopters. 

The range depends on whether the additional eleven Apaches 

are new or remanufactured aircraft.

These added costs are a small percentage of total Army and 

DoD funding. However, finding offsets for these added costs in 

order to comply with limits on defense funding imposed by law 

would be challenging.

OPTION 3: ARI MODIFIED TO MAINTAIN FOUR 

NATIONAL GUARD APACHE BATTALIONS

The Commission examined numerous additional options 

to determine if any offered more advantages or fewer 

disadvantages compared with the ARI and the NGB 

Alternative. The Commission determined the option below 

best meets that test.

Description

Option Three would maintain twenty-four manned Apache 

battalions. Of these twenty-four battalions, twenty would be 

in the Regular Army (same as under the ARI) and four would 

be in the Army National Guard (compared to zero under the 

ARI). All the Regular Army battalions would be equipped with 

twenty-four aircraft. The four Army National Guard battalions 

would be equipped with eighteen aircraft and thus would have 

to cross-level helicopters before deploying. 

To hold down costs, Option Three assumes that only two 

Black Hawk battalions are added to the Army National Guard 

(compared with four under the ARI). This approach, which is 

also used by the NGB Alternative, would result in a reduction 

in operational Black Hawk aircraft by about 3 percent.

Option Three proposes that the Army commit to use the 

Army National Guard battalions regularly—mobilizing them 

and deploying them in peacetime. Army National Guard 

personnel told the Commission that they wanted to be mobilized 

and deployed on a regular basis. They would be less willing to 

stay in the Army National Guard if they cannot periodically 

participate in meaningful military missions. Army National 

Guard leaders agreed with this assessment in testimony before 

the Commission. To make regular deployments feasible, the 

costs for Option Three include funds to pay for mobilization 

and employment of Army National Guard units. Cost estimates 

assume the current deployment policy, which requires that a 

Army National Guard unit deployed for one year would spend 

five years in non-deployed status. Costs would be slightly higher 

if deployments are more frequent.

To equip the Army National Guard units retained in Option 

Three, the option assumes use of the forty-eight Apache aircraft 

left at home station when unit personnel rotate to Korea. This 

approach was described above in the NGB Alternative. Option 

Three also assumes the remanufacture of an additional twentyfour Apache helicopters to convert them from D models to E 

models. The E model provides greater capability to work with 

unmanned reconnaissance assets and has a new drive train and 

rotors for improved aircraft performance, significantly enhancing 

safety and combat performance.

Option Three also proposes changes to aviation forces 

in Korea. Once the ARI is fully implemented, personnel 

REGULAR ARMY COMBAT AVIATION 

BRIGADE

A Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) is designed to be modular 

and is organized to support offensive, defensive, and stability 

operations in support of ground maneuver forces or in defense 

support to civil authorities. A CAB comprises the following:

• a headquarters and headquarters company;

• an attack reconnaissance squadron of AH-64 Apaches 

and RQ-7 Shadow unmanned aerial systems (UAS);

• an attack reconnaissance battalion of Apaches and MQ1C Gray Eagle UAS;

• an assault helicopter battalion of UH-60 Black Hawks;

• a general support aviation battalion with Black Hawks 

for support missions and medical evacuation, and CH-47 

Chinook heavy lift helicopters; and,

• an aviation support battalion (maintenance).
88 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

from aviation units (including Apache units) would rotate 

from stateside locations and serve roughly nine months 

in Korea, using equipment that is pre-positioned there. 

The personnel from these units would then return and be 

replaced with personnel from other stateside units. Based 

on the experience of commissioners and discussions with 

senior Army leaders, the Commission concludes that 

these short-term rotations will not permit aviation units 

the time needed to properly mitigate risks posed by the 

threat situation in Korea, which features a volatile military 

environment and the potential for no-notice hostilities. 

Specifically, rotating units will not have time to master the 

geographic and environmental conditions well enough to 

operate effectively and safely in the region. Rotating units 

also will make building and retaining enduring relationships 

with our Korean allies more difficult, relationships critical to 

warfighting success.

Rather than rotating a Combat Aviation Brigade, Option 

Three calls for a CAB to be forward stationed in Korea, which 

is the current practice. This would mean that the CAB would 

remain while individual soldiers rotate, providing a more 

stable fighting force. Forward stationing has disadvantages. It 

would increase costs by a net amount of about $40 million 

a year, largely because of added costs for permanent-changeof-station moves and personnel allowances. Additionally, 

with forward stationing, a stateside Army division would not 

have an assigned CAB and would have to work with other 

stateside aviation units to provide needed training capability. 

Nevertheless, greater stability for the fighting force in Korea 

argues for accepting these disadvantages.

Finally, Option Three calls for the Army to review its 

emerging requirements for aviation in Europe, taking into 

account recent Russian adventurism. The Commission 

concluded that it makes sense to rotate aviation units to 

An Apache crewmember with the 1st Cavalry Division prepares the helicopter for take-off in Iraq. 

Photo by 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division Public Affairs
National Commission on the Future of the Army 89

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

Europe, but these units must have an appropriately resourced 

mission command element to ensure mission success.

Consistent with its charter and its time constraints, the 

Commission focused on the issue of Apache transfers and 

did not make recommendations regarding other aspects of 

the ARI, including retirement of all Kiowa Warrior armed 

reconnaissance helicopters and use of Lakota helicopters for 

initial training. For costing purposes, Option Three assumes 

implementation of the ARI proposals regarding retirement of 

all the Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance helicopters and 

using Lakota helicopters for initial rotary wing training.

Advantages of Option Three

According to TRAC analyses provided to the Commission, 

Option Three would offer more wartime capacity compared 

to the ARI. Capacity early in the war would be similar to the 

ARI because both maintain the same number of Regular Army 

Apache units. Later in the conflict, the four Army National 

Guard battalions would be mobilized and would provide 

added capacity. Classified analyses considered during the 

Comprehensive Analytic Review generally corroborate these 

findings (see NCFA Classified Annex for details).

Option Three also provides wartime surge capacity by 

maintaining approximately 280 Apache pilots and associated 

helicopters and equipment in the Army National Guard. 

These pilots and their units would be available to surge during 

wartime. This is less than the NGB Alternative’s 420 pilots, but 

significantly more than the zero level of surge capacity offered 

under the ARI.

Option Three would also help with peacetime operational 

tempo. The forward stationing of an aviation brigade in 

Korea significantly reduces the number of deployed units 

because forward-stationed units are not considered to be 

deployed under Army counting rules. Primarily for this 

reason, the peacetime operational tempo for Regular Army 

Apache battalions improves significantly. Nevertheless, 

forward-stationed units could be away from their families and 

experience many of the stresses associated with deployments. 

Even if forward-stationed units were counted as deployed units, 

however, routine call-up and use of the Army National Guard 

Apache battalions provided under this option would permit 

Regular Army units to slightly exceed the goal that calls for 

units deployed for one year to spend two years in non-deployed 

status. The added peacetime capacity available under Option 

Three would be particularly useful if world events in Europe or 

elsewhere increase the demand for Apache units.

Finally, assessments by the CAA suggest that Option Three 

would be more cost effective than the ARI. The CAA analysis 

considers the time to deploy Regular and Army Guard units 

in a wartime scenario and the average annual costs of keeping 

and using them in both the Regular Army and Army National 

Guard. CAA did not attempt detailed budgetary analyses and 

did not consider all operational impacts. However, based on 

average annual costs, CAA concludes that options with Apaches 

in the reserve components would be more cost effective than 

the ARI.

Disadvantages of Option Three

Option Three would add to costs, a significant disadvantage. 

However, the Commission offers an illustrative proposal to 

offset those added costs.

Under Option Three, operating costs would increase by 

a net of about $165 million a year. This figure reflects the 

added costs of four Army National Guard Apache battalions 

(including costs to deploy them on a regular basis) and costs 

to forward station a CAB in Korea. These additional operating 

costs are partially offset by savings from foregoing the operation 

of two Army National Guard Black Hawk battalions. 

In addition, Option Three would result in one-time costs 

of about $420 million to remanufacture twenty-four Apache 

helicopters from the D to E models. These remanufactures 

would likely occur at some time beyond the next five years.

These added operating and procurement costs are small 

compared to the total defense budget. The Administration 

or the Congress may therefore be able to offset added costs 

through savings in budgets outside of the Army or in the nonaviation portions of the Army budget. In earlier chapters, the 

Commission offered some alternatives for offsetting costs.

However, the Commission recognizes that some or all of 

the offsets required to pay for this Apache option may have to 

come from within Army aviation. Therefore, the Commission 

proposes an illustrative approach to offsetting the added costs 

of Option Three from within aviation funds. The Commission 

did not attempt to create a detailed, time-phased budget plan; 

instead, these illustrative savings examine a five-year period 

when all changes are in place. 

A portion of the added costs in Option Three could 

be offset by maintaining two fewer Black Hawk battalions 

in the Army National Guard. Another offset could be the 

savings from personnel cuts designed to leave Army National 

Guard personnel at the level of 335,000 planned in PB16. 

The remaining offsets could be achieved through a modest 

slowdown in the procurement program for Black Hawk 

helicopters. Option Three makes no change in the L-to-V 

conversion program for Black Hawks, a program that produces 

a fully digitized Black Hawk and, according to Army aviation 

leaders, a highly capable aircraft. However, buys of new Black 

Hawks (UH-60M) could be slowed. To offset the added costs 

of Option Three, the Army would probably have to buy five 

to ten fewer new Black Hawks per year. Based on information 
90 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

available to the Commission, in most years the Army should 

be able to adjust the annual buys so as not to undermine 

the multiyear contract for Black Hawks. It should be noted 

that reductions in buys of new Black Hawks would need to 

continue beyond the next five years in order to offset operating 

costs and provide funds needed to remanufacture twenty-four 

Apache helicopters.

Eliminating two Army National Guard battalions of 

Black Hawks and slowing the pace of new buys does have 

drawbacks. As has been noted, the Army will have about 3 

percent fewer operational Black Hawk helicopters even though 

the Black Hawks are heavily used in wartime. Buying fewer 

new Black Hawks each year would also modestly slow efforts to 

modernize the Army National Guard’s fleet. The Commission 

recognizes the important role of the Black Hawk and urges the 

Administration and Congress to examine other possible offsets.

However, if costs must be offset within Army aviation, 

the Black Hawk changes should be considered. The 3 percent 

reduction in operational Black Hawks would match the 

percentage reduction in operational Apaches under this option, 

leaving the reductions in the two fleets balanced. (If the 

Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance helicopter is included 

in the count of “shooter” helicopters, then the reduction in 

shooters equals about 35 percent compared with the 3 percent 

reduction in Black Hawks.) Also, the modest reduction in 

Black Hawks does not significantly affect the TRAC or other 

assessments of wartime capacity. Finally, the slowdown in buys 

of new Black Hawks should not delay the date for completion 

of modernization of the fleet because of the reduction in the 

overall size of the Black Hawk fleet by sixty helicopters.

Figure 11 summarizes the descriptions and effects of the 

three options.

Overall, Option Three offers significant advantages. The 

option provides greater wartime capacity than the ARI or the 

NGB Alternative, a key advantage. Peacetime operating tempo 

also improves compared to the ARI and NGB Alternative 

approaches. Wartime surge capacity (measured by trained 

pilots in units) is higher than under the ARI. Option Three 

also improves aviation capabilities in Korea. Added costs 

under Option Three are significant, but could be offset by 

U.S. Army AH-64D Apache assigned to the 1-151 Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, South Carolina Army National Guard, conducts 

close air support operations during a joint exercise bringing together National Guard and active duty components with a focus on airground integration at Fort Bragg, N.C.

South Carolina National Guard photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jorge Intriago
National Commission on the Future of the Army 91

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

Figure 11

DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

OPTION #1: OPTION #2: OPTION #3:

AVIATION NATIONAL GUARD NCFA

RESTRUCTURE BUREAU ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION

INITIATIVE (ARI) PROPOSAL

DESCRIPTIONS

AH-64 APACHES

Regular Army battalions 20a 18 20

National Guard battalions 0 6 4

Total aircraft 690 701 714

UH-60 BLACK HAWKS

Regular Army battalions 10a 10 10a

National Guard/Army Reserve battalions 20 18 18

Total aircraft 2135 2075b 2075

ASSESSMENTS

Wartime capacity (compared to ARI) - - - Less than ARI More than ARI

Wartime surge (Apache pilots in ARNG) 0 420 280

Peacetime deployment (BOG:Dwell)

 for Regular Army Apache battalions 1:1.9 1:2 1:3.2/1:2:2c

COST (ABOVE PRESIDENT’S FY 2016 BUDGET PLAN)

Increased annual operating 0 $89M to $176Md 0e

 to + $165Mf

Increased one-time procurement 0 $220M to +$420Md 0g to + $420Mh

a

Does not include Korea equipment set battalions

bAssumes NGB Alternative results in force structure reduction

c

Number in italics assumes that forward-stationed units count as deployed

dAccording to OSD-CAPE report to Congress (“Independent Cost Analysis of the ARI and the NGB Alternative”)

e

Assumes offsets in Black Hawk program and other changes

f

Includes about $40 million in added costs to forward station a CAB in Korea

gAssumes remanufactured Apaches and offsets in Black Hawk program along with other changes

h

Assumes remanufactured Apaches and no offsets
92 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

either modest changes in the Black Hawk fleet or other offsets 

identified by the Administration or Congress. Perhaps most 

important, Option Three maintains Apaches in the Army 

National Guard and assumes a commitment to regular use 

of those forces, therefore contributing to a key Commission 

goal of achieving one Army that works and trains together in 

peacetime and, if necessary, fights together in war.

Recommendation 57: Congress, the Department 

of Defense, and the Army should implement the 

Commission’s plan (Option Three) for distribution of 

the Apache fleet. The Commission’s plan maintains 

twenty-four manned Apache battalions including 

twenty in the Regular Army equipped with twentyfour aircraft each and four in the Army National Guard 

equipped with eighteen aircraft each. The plan adds 

only two Black Hawk battalions to the Army National 

Guard. The Army should commit to using the four 

Army National Guard Apache battalions regularly, 

mobilizing and deploying them in peacetime and war.

Recommendation 58: The Army should maintain a 

forward-stationed Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea.

MULTICOMPONENT UNITS

Multicomponent units combining Regular Army, 

Army National Guard, and Army Reserve soldiers, can 

improve readiness and, importantly, force integration. 

Multicomponent aviation units could also improve readiness 

by exploiting the differing strengths of Regular Army and 

reserve component units. Training together would help 

integrate the Regular Army with the Army National Guard 

and Army Reserve and so move toward greater adherence to 

the Army’s desire for Total Force integration. To achieve this 

goal, multicomponent units should be co-located so that they 

can train together in peacetime. 

The U.S. Air Force makes substantial use of 

multicomponent approaches to achieve these goals. For 

example, the Air Force has associate unit programs that pair 

Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve units with active-duty 

units. These associate units share equipment, train together, 

and conduct missions and maintenance activities together. The 

Air Force believes that initiatives like the associate program 

provide better training and leverage the skills and experience 

of different components. The associate program also helps 

integrate active and reserve component units.

The Army has begun limited use of multicomponent 

approaches in aviation units with fixed-wing C-12 aircraft. 

Some Army National Guard and Regular Army units operating 

C-12s will be co-located and will train and potentially deploy 

together. Other co-located units—such as Black Hawk and 

Chinook (heavy lift) helicopters in some states—permit units 

from different components to train together.

The Commission concludes that the Army should try to 

make greater use of multicomponent aviation units in order 

to improve readiness and better integrate Regular Army, Army 

National Guard, and Army Reserve forces. 

Recommendation 34: The Army should develop a 

substantial pilot program to test multicomponent 

approaches. Options could include the following:

• Appending an existing Army National Guard or 

Army Reserve aviation company to a Regular 

Army aviation battalion. The Commission strongly 

recommends that units be co-located so that they 

can train together. 

• Applying the shared-equipment approach used in 

Air Force associate units to Army general support 

aviation. General support aviation units fly fewer 

multiple-aircraft missions and so might be able to 

share equipment. Multicomponent units should be 

co-located so that they can train together.

• Assigning Regular Army pilots to Army National 

Guard or Army Reserve units, or vice versa, in 

order to leverage the unique skills and experience 

present in different components. This approach 

could be used for all types of Army aircraft.

• Other approaches proposed by Army experts.

The Army should complete a detailed design for a 

pilot program within one year after publication of this 

report and fully implement the pilot program within 

one year after completion of the design work.

Some of the above approaches would not work for all 

Army aircraft and missions. The specific structure of the Air 

Force reserve associate program, and especially the sharing 

of equipment, would not work well for some types of Army 

aviation units (including Apache units) in which pilots routinely 

fly the unit’s assigned aircraft simultaneously in collective 

training missions involving multiple helicopters. Appending a 

co-located reserve component unit to a Regular Army unit would 

probably not work for Apaches because it would be difficult to 

find Regular Army and Guard Apache units that are located close 

together. However, some of the above approaches, or others 

identified by the Army, should permit use of multicomponent 

units for many types of Army aircraft.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 93

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

The multicomponent approach does have potential 

disadvantages that would have to be considered during 

design of the pilot program. To avoid adding to costs, the 

pilot program should use existing units that already have 

equipment and operating funds. Units would have to be 

chosen at locations that offer enough space for appended 

companies to train. Design of the pilot program will have to 

consider how best to integrate reserve component weekend 

training with Regular Army training, and how to avoid 

adverse effects on promotion opportunities for participating 

personnel. Importantly, multicomponent units should 

be designed so that the Regular Army units can deploy 

effectively without their affiliated reserve units if that is 

required to meet military needs. Some of the proposals noted 

above (such as appending reserve component units) should 

help the Army achieve this goal. While these challenges are 

potentially significant, the Army should strive to overcome 

them in order to achieve the overarching goal of better 

integration of Regular Army, Army National Guard, and 

Army Reserve forces.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendation regarding Apache transfers is intended 

to be generally consistent with the funding proposed in the 

President’s budget plan submitted along with the fiscal year 

2016 budget request. The Commission also identified other 

high-priority aviation initiatives that would require significant 

funding. 

If current funding limits remain in place, the Army would 

need to identify offsets in order to pursue these initiatives. 

However, the Commission believes that significant threats to 

national security may eventually lead to defense funding that 

substantially exceeds the funding recommended in PB16. 

Soldiers and UH-60 Black Hawks from the 40th Combat Aviation Brigade, California National Guard, take part in an air assault exercise 

at the Combined Arms Collective Training Center at Camp Roberts, California. 

U.S. Army National Guard photo by 1st Lt. Aaron Decapua
94 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

Potential efficiencies identified in the “Fiscal Challenges” 

chapter of this report (see page 43), may also free up funding. 

Added funding is not certain and, even if it eventually occurs, 

might not materialize for several years. Nevertheless, because 

the Commission is charged with a long-term look at the future 

of the Army, it determined that identifying high-priority 

initiatives is appropriate even though they require substantial 

funding.

The Commission places a high priority on efforts to 

retain eleven Combat Aviation Brigades in the Regular Army. 

Considering all types of Army units, the demand for aviation 

forces is among the highest, and the addition of an eleventh 

CAB would help meet this strong demand.

The eleventh CAB would be used in Korea. Under the 

current ARI plan, the CAB located in Korea will inactivate in 

fiscal year 2019, and personnel from stateside CABs would rotate 

to Korea and operate helicopters already in place in the region. 

If an eleventh CAB is retained, the CAB in Korea would remain 

fully manned, and rotational units would not be needed.

An eleventh CAB offers important advantages. Peacetime 

operational tempo for Regular Army Apache units would meet 

the Army’s BOG-to-dwell goals because the CAB would be 

permanently stationed in Korea rather than deploying to the 

region. Most wartime capacity shortfalls, including some early 

shortfalls identified by TRAC analyses discussed above, would 

be eliminated. Importantly, the nation would have a stable 

force of Army aviation in Korea rather than the rotating force 

planned under the ARI. As noted above, stability would be a 

major advantage in a region that is volatile and could become 

involved in combat with little or no notice.

Retaining an eleventh Regular Army CAB would, 

however, add substantially to costs. Compared to those 

under the Commission’s recommended Apache transfer 

option, annual operating costs would increase by between 

about $185 million and $450 million a year. The range 

depends on whether other force structure changes are made 

to offset the added personnel required to retain the CAB. 

Procurement costs would grow by even more. For aircraft 

other than Apaches, the eleventh CAB would draw from 

the equipment set already planned for Korea. For Apaches, 

however, the Commission’s Apache transfer recommendation 

uses the forty-eight stateside Apaches belonging to units that 

would rotate to Korea. If an eleventh CAB is added to this 

plan, and units no longer rotate, then forty-eight additional 

Apaches would have to be purchased to outfit stateside units. 

The one-time cost to purchase forty-eight new Apaches—the 

most expensive Army helicopters with a per-aircraft cost 

of about $40 million—would total roughly $1.9 billion. 

A combination of higher defense budgets, efficiencies, and 

internal Army offsets would be needed to pay this bill. In 

earlier chapters the Commission offered some alternatives to 

help offset these added costs.

Recommendation 17: The Army should retain eleven 

Combat Aviation Brigades in the Regular Army.

The Commission learned from senior Army leaders that 

the current level of flying hours for the Regular Army (an 

average of about eleven hours per pilot per month) permits 

typical aviation units to maintain platoon- to company-level 

proficiency, whereas collective proficiency at the battalion 

level is appropriate and requires an average of about 14.5 

hours per pilot per month. Aviation units in the reserve 

components typically maintain individual- to team-level 

proficiency using about seven hours per pilot per month 

for mission aircraft, whereas platoon-level proficiency is 

appropriate and requires about eight hours per pilot per 

month. Some of these shortfalls can be offset with Overseas 

Contingency Operations money, but that type of funding is 

becoming less available. 

Without additional flying hours, individual and collective 

training proficiency will decline, contributing to further 

declines in readiness and possible increases in accident rates. 

According to Army data, the rate of serious aviation accidents 

in fiscal year 2015 stood about 16 percent above the average 

level in the fiscal years from 2006 to 2010 (these results are 

based on Army aviation accidents in Classes A, B, and C and 

so include serious and less serious accidents). Last year aviation 

units stood down because of concerns stemming from a series 

of serious accidents. Many factors influence accident rates, 

such as operational tempo and the introduction of new aircraft 

models. But the relatively low level of training flight hours 

could be one cause of the increase in accident rates, a trend that 

is worrisome to the Commission.

The Army should determine the exact level and 

composition of the increase in flying hours. However, an 

increase of about two hours per pilot per month in the Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve may be 

appropriate. Such an increase would apply to all types of Army 

rotary wing aircraft and, compared to the PB16, would add 

between $250 million and $300 million a year in costs. 

Recommendation 59: The Army should consider 

increasing flying hours available for peacetime 

training.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 95

APACHE TRANSFERS AND RELATED ISSUES

The Commission heard from Army aviation officials who 

believe that modernization is key to maintaining aviation 

capability, given the reductions in force size. The Army should 

pursue a robust science and technology effort designed to offset 

evolving threats and ensure the survivability of helicopters 

flying in hostile environments (the NCFA Classified Annex 

contains some additional detail about this important issue). The 

Army should also consider a program to develop a future armed 

reconnaissance helicopter. Finally, the Army should continue to 

place a high priority on development of technologies for future 

vertical lift.

In the nearer term, added modernization funds could 

be used to offset reductions to the Black Hawk procurement 

program discussed as part of the Commission’s Apache transfer 

recommendation, and perhaps even accelerate the Black Hawk 

modernization. Added modernization funds could also be used 

to buy more Apache helicopters, thereby avoiding the need 

to equip Army National Guard battalions with only eighteen 

aircraft under the Commission’s approach.

Recommendation 60: The Army should implement 

a more aggressive modernization program for its 

aviation forces.

A CH-47 Chinook door gunner with Task Force Destiny of the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade surveys the ground on a flight from 

Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, to Forward Operating Base Tarin Kowt.

Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Sadie Bleistein
96 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 97

“An identification and evaluation of the distribution of responsibility and authority for the allocation 

of Army National Guard personnel and force structure to the States and territories.”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(2)(C)

“An identification and evaluation of the strategic basis or rationale, analytical methods, and decisionmaking processes for the allocation of Army National Guard personnel and force structure to the 

States and territories.”

2015 NDAA, Section 1703(a)(2)(D)

National Commission on the Future of the Army staff photo

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

ALLOCATION

As part of the study of the Army’s size and force mixture, 

the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA FY15) directed the Commission to consider 

how Army National Guard personnel and force structure 

are allocated, including the rationale and decision-making 

processes. The Commission’s evaluation involved an assessment 

of Army force management processes in general and a detailed 

review of the specific processes for the Army National Guard. 

The U.S. Army War College’s How the Army Runs: A 

Senior Leader Reference Handbook, 2013-2014 describes force 
98 National Commission on the Future of the Army

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

management as the overall framework on which the Army 

is raised, maintained, and sustained. This force management 

framework applies to all components of the Army, including 

the Army National Guard. Force management encompasses 

concept development, capabilities requirements generation, 

force development, organizational development, force 

integration functions, and resourcing. Force development, 

a sub-process, determines organizational and materiel 

requirements and translates them into force structure to 

accomplish Army missions and functions (AR 71-32, Force 

Development and Documentation, July 1, 2013, Section 1-5.a). 

Army National Guard force structure allocation decisions are 

part of force development.

“I would not want to deploy to the streets of 

Baltimore with the National Guard from the 

1980s or early ‘90s.” 

Major General Linda L. Singh (MDARNG),The Adjutant 

General, in meeting with NCFA July 14, 2015. 

LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY, AND POLICY 

FRAMEWORK 

The processes that shape and support the allocation of Army 

National Guard forces have changed over time to better execute 

the National Guard’s dual missions under Title 32 and Title 10, 

United States Code. Title 32 firmly establishes the dual mission 

requirements of the National Guard. In section 102, the law 

describes the strength and organization of the Army National 

Guard as “essential” and requires that it be “an integral part 

of the first line defenses of the United States” maintained and 

assured at all times. It goes on to say, “Whenever Congress 

determines that more units and organizations are needed for 

the national security than are in the regular components ... 

the Army National Guard of the United States ... together 

with such units of other reserve components as are necessary 

for a balanced force, shall be ordered to active federal duty and 

retained as long as so needed.”

Additionally, Title 32, section 104 specifies that “the 

organization of the Army National Guard and the composition 

of its units shall be the same as those prescribed for the 

Army, subject, in time of peace, to such general exceptions 

as the Secretary of the Army may authorize.” Furthermore, 

section 104 stipulates that “...each State, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands may fix the 

location of the units and headquarters of its National Guard.” 

Meanwhile, Title 10, section 18238, stipulates that no National 

Guard unit may be relocated or withdrawn without the consent 

of the Governor of the state.

Pursuant to Title 10, section 10503, the Secretary of 

Defense, consulted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

and the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force, developed a 

charter for the National Guard Bureau (NGB) that defines its 

scope and duties. Under this charter, the NGB is responsible 

for “allocating unit structure, strength authorizations, and 

other resources to the Army National Guard.” The charter 

defines the role of the NGB in support of the Secretaries of 

the Army and the Air Force and establishes responsibility 

for the training discipline, training requirements, and the 

allocation of federal funds for training to ensure that states 

train National Guard units and members in accordance with 

approved programs and policies of, and guidance from, the 

Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB), the Secretary of 

the Army, and the Secretary of the Air Force. The NGB thus 

monitors and assists the states in organizing, maintaining, and 

operating National Guard units to provide well-trained and 

well-equipped units capable of augmenting the active forces 

in time of war or national emergency.

To implement these statutory requirements, the Department 

of the Army uses a force management process that defines 

military capabilities, designs unit organization, allocates force 

structure to provide these capabilities, and produces plans 

and programs that translate these organizational concepts 

into a trained and ready Army. This force management 

framework is comprehensive and collaborative. It brings 

together representatives from all components, the Combatant 

Commands, Army commands, and other key stakeholders to 

ensure that Army capabilities are developed and resourced to 

address Title 10 and Title 32 mission requirements. The forces 

developed by the Army force management process are distributed 

across the components to optimize capabilities and capacity of 

the Total Force. Title 32 demands are included in assessments 

and evaluations of force structure requirements and considered 

in decisions on allocating National Guard forces. Consequently, 

within the Army National Guard and the Army writ large is an 

understanding of the collective obligation to provide adequate 

forces to all states that meet their statutory requirements as the 

first-line defense and execute their duties as the organized militias 

of the states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the 

District of Columbia.

Photo on page 97

A Mississippi Army National Guard M1A1 Abrams tank fires 

at a target during Operation Dixie Thunder at Camp Shelby, 

Mississippi. The Commission was invited to observe the 

exercise.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 99

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

ASSESSMENT OF AUTHORITIES AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALLOCATION 

Numerous laws, policies, and legal precedents articulate how 

responsibilities and authorities are distributed between the 

legislative and executive branches of the federal government, 

within the executive branch, and between federal and 

state government. Through numerous additional statutory 

provisions, Congress has given the President, the Secretary 

of Defense, and the Secretary of the Army authority and 

responsibility for allocating Army National Guard force 

structure (see Figure 12).

Figure 12

AUTHORITIES

SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE

Subject to the Direction of the President...has authority, direction, and control over 

the Department of Defense.

SECRETARY OF 

THE ARMY

Responsible for, and has authority necessary to conduct, all affairs of the Department of the Army 

including...(2) Organizing.

CHIEF, NATIONAL 

GUARD BUREAU

The principal adviser to the Secretary of the Army and CSA on matters relating to the National Guard.

The Chief, NGB is under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary 

normally exercises authority, direction, and control through the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force 

for matters pertaining to their responsibilities in law or DoD policy.

Implements DoD, Department of the Army, and Department of the Air Force guidance on the structure, 

strength authorizations, and other resources of the Army National Guard of the United States and the 

Air National Guard of the United States.

Approval authority for Army National Guard stationing.

Issues the Troop Structure Program to the Adjutants General of the states.

Reviews, monitors, and provides input to the requirements and authorizations development process.

Recommends specific types of units to be activated, inactivated, or converted in the ARNG in accordance 

with policy from the ASA(M&RA).

ASA (M&RA) Secretary of the Army’s principal adviser for reserve issues; responsible for ensuring Army policies, plans, 

and programs regarding force structure are managed properly.

Establishes overall Army policy for Army organization and force structure, responsible for oversight and 

review of all RC policies addressing stationing actions.

DCS, G-3/5/7 Responsible for developing and implementing policies for managing/accounting for Total Army.

Army Staff proponent for stationing actions and responsible for the force management process.

Approval authority for multicompenent unit policies.

DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD

Staff proponent for ARNG stationing actions, coordinate with Chief, NGB for all stationing actions.

Forward brigade and division stationing actions to DCS, G-3/5/7 for Secretary of the Army and 

Secretary of Defense approval.

Inconsistencies in policy stem from out dated regulations and pamphlets. n Law n Policy
100 National Commission on the Future of the Army

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

The Secretary of the Army ultimately is responsible for 

the allocation of Army National Guard personnel and force 

structure to the states and territories and has delegated this 

authority to the CNGB through a complicated, although 

still identifiable, chain of authority. Under the current NGB 

process, the Director, Army National Guard (DARNG) makes 

Army National Guard force structure allocation decisions on 

behalf of the CNGB.

THE ARNG ROLE IN TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS

Total Army Analysis (TAA) is the process by which the Army 

structures the forces necessary to support the Combatant 

Commands in executing their National Military Strategy 

and Defense Planning Guidance tasks (see Figure 13). 

Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) G3/7-

Force Management leads the TAA process with oversight 

by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and 

Reserve Affairs. The process balances the Army’s force structure 

demands (manpower and equipment) against available and 

planned resources while addressing risk to mission and risk to 

the force. TAA is codified in Army Regulation 71-11 and is 

shaped by Department of Defense and Army strategies, Office 

of the Secretary of Defense–approved war plans, programming 

and budget guidance, doctrine, and current operational 

demands. The HQDA G-3/7 Force Management Directorate 

publishes TAA guidance each year for a corresponding fiveyear TAA cycle that coincides with the fiscal timeline of the 

Program Objective Memorandum (POM, part of the five year 

budget process).

TAA is a two-phased process consisting of a Capability 

Demand Analysis Phase (Requirements Phase) and a 

Resourcing Phase. The Capability Demand Analysis Phase is 

a quantitative analytic process using models and simulations 

to establish capability requirements for Army forces across a 

broad range of scenarios. These scenarios are used to shape 

the Army to meet a wide variety of current operational 

and possible wartime demands. This phase constitutes 

the “science” of Total Army Analysis. The second phase in 

TAA, the Resourcing Phase, addresses the “art” of the TAA 

process. It adds the human in the loop to translate raw data 

into an Army that is sized to meet the findings identified 

in the Requirements Phase with as little risk as possible, 

given current and projected resource constraints. This phase 

culminates with a resourcing decision codified in the Army 

Structure Message endorsed by the Chief of Staff of the Army 

and approved by the Secretary of the Army. 

ARNG FORCE STRUCTURE ALLOCATION 

PROCESS

Within the TAA process, the Army National Guard allocates 

its portion of the resourced force structure across the fiftyfour states and territories using the Force Program Review. 

The process is designed to support the force structure needs of 

the Army National Guard using objective tools to help make 

informed decisions for growth or reductions in structure. The 

process gives consideration to the supportability, suitability, 

and balance of personnel and capabilities across the fiftyfour states and territories, which is referred to as collective 

obligation. Outputs from each TAA cycle require the Army 

Figure 13

TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS

REGULAR ARMY

U.S. ARMY RESERVE

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

Determines for ARNG, by unit type, 

which states grow or receive reductions.

SECRETARY 

OF THE 

ARMY

Decision

G-3/5/7 

Determines 

changes to 

or within unit 

types

G-3/5/7 

Proposes 

changes to 

Army structure
National Commission on the Future of the Army 101

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

National Guard to reassess its force structure and mix to ensure 

that adequate and effective support for both federal and state 

missions continues even as doctrine and unit designs adapt 

to meet changes in the strategic environment. The goal is to 

ensure mission success while minimizing turbulence within 

formations to limit decreases in readiness and increases in costs.

State Adjutants General (TAGs) provide input annually 

to the TAA process by submitting a Force Structure Strategic 

Plan. This annual input is solicited from the fifty-four states and 

territories and outlines an Adjutant General’s strategic vision for 

force structure within his or her state. This document is used by 

the Army National Guard to both acquire and distribute force 

structure generated by the TAA resourcing phase.

Two tools are fundamental to Army National Guard force 

structure analysis when divesting or allocating forces identified 

in the early steps of TAA: the Unit Analysis Tool (UAT) and 

the Force Structure Decision Support Tool (FSDST). These 

tools generate an order of merit list (OML) of units for 

divestment and a given state’s potential for success if receiving 

new structure (see Figures 14 and 15). The UAT is a metricbased model designed to assess and compare the reported 

readiness criteria of “like-type” capabilities across multiple 

states. The FSDST uses similar metrics and criteria for all 

capabilities in a given state for stationing new structure and restationing existing units. The generated OML ranks capabilities 

based on personnel and Unit Status Report metrics to help 

identify quantitative priorities for both divesting and stationing 

capabilities across the Army National Guard. Both the UAT 

and FSDST use a set of evaluation criteria fully vetted across 

the National Guard community. 

These National Guard-unique tools are used when the 

TAA process determines the need for force structure changes 

in the Army National Guard. When stationing new force 

structure is required, a stationing analysis memo prepared by a 

state provides qualitative information to be reviewed by a board 

or working group. Upon the need to inactivate or move a unit, 

the Chief, Force Management (CFM) at the NGB notifies the 

Force Structure General Officer Advisory Committee and all 

fifty-four states and territories of the reductions. Depending 

on the complexity and magnitude of the force structure 

reductions, one of two processes occurs.

If structure reductions or moves are limited in scope, 

then the Standard Reduction Process is used to make routine 

recommendations for the reduction of Army National Guard 

Force Structure. This process combines the quantitative metrics 

of the Unit Analysis Tool with qualitative input from the TAGs. 

A Force Management Unit Review Board (FMURB), with 

membership from the ARNG Directorate and the fifty-four 

states and territories, convenes to make recommendations. The 

FMURB consolidates the “science” and “art” portions of this 

Figure 14

STATIONING PROCESS FLOW CHART

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

STEP 1

Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) / Headquarters, 

Department of the Army Directs 

Allocation of New Capability

STEP 2

Force Structure Decision Support 

Tool (FSDST) Creates Order of 

Merit List (OML)

STEP 3

ARNG Force Management 

convenes a board or working 

group to review the FSDST 

OML, state input, and DARNG 

guidance. The board provides 

recommendations to the Chief, 

Force Management

STEP 4

Chief, Force Management reviews 

recommendations and forwards 

to DARNG for decision

STEP 5

Decision Notification to the states
102 National Commission on the Future of the Army

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

Figure 15

DIVESTMENT PROCESS FLOW CHART

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

STEP 1

OSD/HQDA Directs Divestment 

of Force Structure

STEP 2

Unit Analysis Tool generates an 

Order of Merit List (OML)

STEP 3

ARNG Force Management 

identifies capabilities for 

reduction

STEP 4

ARNG Force Management 

notifies an Advisory Committee 

and all 54 states of divestments 

and board requirements

STEP 5

The Adjutants General submit an 

impact assessment to their state 

of the potential divestment

STEP 6

Is this a standard divestment process? 

If YES continue; if NO continue to Complex Process

STEP 7

DARNG provides guidance 

to Force Management Unit 

Review Board (FMURB) and 

the Advisory Committee 

identifies board members

STEP 8

FMURB reviews impact 

assessments and OML

STEP 9

Chief, Force Management 

reviews and presents the 

Board recommendation to 

DARNG

STEP 10

DARNG notifies the 

Adjutants General of decision

YES NO

COMPLEX PROCESS

STEP 6A

ARNG Force Management 

Notifies Advisory Committee 

of working group 

requirement

STEP 6B

ARNG Force Management 

conducts working group in 

coordination with Advisory 

Committee chairs

STEP 6C

Chief, Force Management 

presents recommendations 

to DARNG
National Commission on the Future of the Army 103

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

process and reports recommendations to the TAGs with courses 

of action and recommendations for submission to the DARNG 

for decision.

The Complex Reduction Process is used to implement 

large-scale systemic force structure changes in the Army 

National Guard, such as reduction from a 350,000 to a 

335,000 force-structure allowance. To manage the intricacy of 

large-scale changes, a Complex Force Management Working 

Group is convened comprising designated representatives 

from the fifty-four states and territories as well as limited 

representation from the Army National Guard Directorate. The 

working group reports the recommendations to the CFM, who 

reviews them with a General Officer Advisory Committee prior 

to submission to the DARNG for decision.

Representation and state involvement through either the 

standard or complex process provides transparency to the states 

in their roles as voting members or observers. The transparency 

and quantitative data directly address the concerns of state and 

territory leaders when past allocation actions were perceived 

as neither analytical nor transparent. These qualitative and 

quantitative allocation processes provide a holistic look when 

stationing or reducing force structure.

The Force Program Review process allows the Army 

National Guard to balance the aggregate force among the 

states. The process also provides senior leaders the ability to 

shape the force by looking at the supportability, suitability, 

and balance of personnel and capabilities across the fiftyfour states and territories. Applying collective obligation as a 

shaping tool within the Force Program Review ensures that 

the fifty-four states and territories are balanced, with no one 

state’s force structure disproportionally reduced or increased. 

Collective obligation also helps in assessing whether each state 

has sufficient forces for both Title 32 requirements and Title 10 

requirements, especially the capacity needed to support current 

and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance 

missions in the United States.

TOTAL FORCE TRAINING

During force-on-force training at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, 

in August 2015, tank platoons from the 155th Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, Mississippi Army National Guard, 

maneuvered against the 3d Brigade’s 1-12 Cavalry, home 

based at Fort Hood, Texas. The training was in preparation 

for a platoon-level, live fire exercise. In that exercise the 

155th ABCT was joined by the 142d Battlefield Surveillance 

Brigade, Alabama Army National Guard, which identified 

targets in the engagement area and called for indirect 

fire, delivered by the 2-114th Field Artillery Battalion, 

Mississippi Army National Guard, using unmanned aerial 

systems to support intelligence collection and monitor 

round impacts. After an attack weapons team of Apache 

helicopters from A/1-149 Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, 

Texas Army National Guard, engaged targets using 

diving rocket fire, the 155th tank platoon maneuvered 

and engaged stationary and moving targets. The 143d 

Expeditionary Sustainment Command, U.S. Army Reserve, 

provided sustainment support, and joint tactical air 

controllers from the Mississippi Air National Guard’s 238th 

Air Support Operations Squadron controlled the airspace.

While the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army 

Reserve must overcome real or perceived legislative and 

administrative hurdles to function effectively together—

hindering the implementation of the Army’s Total Force 

Policy—mission-mindedness within the Profession of Arms 

eclipses component affiliation during operations. This 

was clear during the Total Force live-fire exercise at Camp 

Shelby’s eXportable Combat Training Center in August 2015.

The foundation for such training is the Total Force 

Partnership Program the U.S. Forces Command established 

in 2014. The program pairs Regular Army, Army National 

Guard, and Army Reserve formations to best use limited 

resources and develop leaders. Multicomponent training 

events enhance understanding across all the components 

and will pay off when the components conduct missions 

together during deployments. 

Coordination for the August exercise began in 2014 when 

Colonel Jeffrey Van, commander of the 155th ABCT, called 

Colonel Matthew Van Wagenen, commander of the 3d 

Brigade, to coordinate their partnership training plans. 

Key enabler units were eager to join the training exercise. 

Each unit performed their mission-essential tasks using 

common graphics and a common scenario for day and 

night operations. 

“The lessons learned here about successful partnerships—

how BCT commanders who are ‘all in’ backed up by 

two-star leaders who value partnership enough to provide 

funding to ensure proper coordination occurs—must be 

codified fully into policy,” said COL Van.
104 National Commission on the Future of the Army

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

In accordance with National Guard procedures, state 

governments participate in the NGB allocation process by 

providing input as well as detailing personnel to the boards 

responsible for allocating new force structure and making 

decisions on force structure reductions. Governors are not 

directly involved in the allocation process; however, by statute, 

a Governor’s approval is required for any change in the 

branch, organization, or allotment of a unit located entirely 

within a state, although the Secretary of the Army has final 

approval authority on all force structure changes. National 

Guard Bureau regulation 10-1 goes further than the statute 

and requires a Governor’s approval for all actions requesting 

organization, reorganization, re-designation, consolidation, 

conversion, and withdrawal of federal recognition from any 

structure within a state. 

NCFA FINDINGS

The Commission found that allocation of Army National 

Guard personnel and force structure to the states and territories 

is accomplished within the Army’s Total Army Analysis process 

managed by the Army G-3/5/7. Within that process, Army 

G-3/5/7 informs the Chief, National Guard Bureau of the 

overall personnel and force structure changes to be applied to 

the Army National Guard. The CNGB has processes within 

the Army National Guard for making recommendations 

for allocating these changes to states and territories that are 

consistent with national security objectives and priorities to 

produce allocation recommendations. The process depends on 

the complexity of the changes, as well as whether decrements 

or increases are to be allocated. Employing these processes, 

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Dennis Cooper, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Logan Bass, and Crew Chief Specialist Beth Bechard of 7-158th Aviation, 

Oregon National Guard, navigate their UH-60M Black Hawk with a “Bambi bucket” through the smoke of a wildfire.

Oregon Army National Guard photo by SSG Jason van Mourik
National Commission on the Future of the Army 105

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALLOCATION

the DARNG reviews and approves the proposed changes 

before the CNGB provides an allocation recommendation 

that is incorporated into the overall Army personnel and force 

structure changes generated by TAA. All changes are submitted 

to the Secretary of the Army for review and approval.

Additionally, the Commission found that the allocation 

processes used by the NGB begin by using objective, quantified 

metrics vetted with the states and territories. The metrics 

produce an order of merit list of either specific reductions or 

increases to be applied. A board or working group then uses 

the analytical products as well as input from the states and 

territories that addresses the types of force structure under 

consideration. An additional consideration is the balance of 

Army National Guard forces across the states and territories to 

provide capacity for both domestic and overseas contingency 

operations. These boards and working groups are conducted 

in a transparent manner, either with representatives from the 

states and territories on the board or having representatives 

present to observe these boards or working groups. Having 

Department of the Army representatives observe the boards 

and working groups would further increase transparency and 

shared understanding from a Total Force perspective.

The Commission also noted several issues within the policy 

documents. The regulations concerning the allocation of Army 

National Guard personnel and force structure are complicated 

and should be clarified by the Department of the Army. For 

example, older Army regulations delegate authority to the 

DARNG, but the more recent applicable regulations correctly 

delegate authority to the CNGB. Ideally, the CNGB should 

provide a written delegation of authority to the DARNG. 

After extensive research and requests, the Commission has 

been unable to verify whether such a written delegation exists. 

Updating regulations and policy at Army level to reflect the 

existing processes is overdue.

Recommendation 61: The Secretary of the Army 

should codify the delegation of authority from the 

Chief, National Guard Bureau to the Director, Army 

National Guard in Army regulations for force structure 

allocation among the states, territories, and the 

District of Columbia.

Recommendation 62: The Secretary of the Army should 

codify in Army regulations the existing Army National 

Guard Force Program Review process as the formal 

way to manage change in the Army National Guard. 

Recommendation 63: The Army should add 

representatives from the Army Secretariat and Army 

Staff to the Army National Guard Force Program 

Review working groups and boards as observers.
106 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 107

APPENDIX A: 

ESTABLISHMENT OF 

THE COMMISSION

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

(PUBLIC LAW 113-291)

SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘National Commission on 

the Future of the Army Act of 2014’’.

SEC. 1702. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE 

OF THE ARMY.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the 

National Commission on the Future of the Army (in this 

subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’).

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—

(1) COMPOSITION.—The Commission shall be 

composed of eight members, of whom— 

(A) four shall be appointed by the President;

(B) one shall be appointed by the Chairman of 

the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;

(C) one shall be appointed by the Ranking 

Member of the Committee on Armed Services of the 

Senate;

(D) one shall be appointed by the Chairman of 

the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 

Representatives; and

(E) one shall be appointed by the Ranking 

Member of the Committee on Armed Services of the 

House of Representatives.

(2) APPOINTMENT DATE.—The appointments of 

the members of the Commission shall be made not later 

than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) EFFECT OF LACK OF APPOINTMENT BY 

APPOINTMENT DATE.—If one or more appointments 

under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) is not made 

by the appointment date specified in paragraph (2), the 

authority to make such appointment or appointments shall 

expire, and the number of members of the Commission 

shall be reduced by the number equal to the number of 

appointments so not made. If an appointment under 

subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1) is 

not made by the appointment date specified in paragraph 

(2), the authority to make an appointment under such 

subparagraph shall expire, and the number of members 

of the Commission shall be reduced by the number 

equal to the number otherwise appointable under such 

subparagraph.

(4) EXPERTISE.—In making appointments 

under this subsection, consideration should be given to 

individuals with expertise in national and international 

security policy and strategy, military forces capability, 

force structure design, organization, and employment, and 

reserve forces policy.

(c) PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT; VACANCIES.—

Members shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. 

Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but 

shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

(d) CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.—The Commission shall 

select a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members.

(e) INITIAL MEETING.—Not later than 30 days after 

the date on which all members of the Commission have been 

appointed, the Commission shall hold its initial meeting.

(f) MEETINGS.—The Commission shall meet at the call 

of the Chair.

(g) QUORUM.—A majority of the members of the 

Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of 

members may hold hearings.

SEC. 1703. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) STUDY ON STRUCTURE OF THE ARMY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall 

undertake a comprehensive study of the structure of the 

Army, and policy assumptions related to the size and force 

mixture of the Army, in order—

(A) to make an assessment of the size and force 

mixture of the active component of the Army and the 

reserve components of the Army; and

(B) to make recommendations on the 

modifications, if any, of the structure of the 

Army related to current and anticipated mission 

requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of 

national risk and in a manner consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future resources.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In undertaking the study 

required by subsection (a), the Commission shall give 

particular consideration to the following:

(A) An evaluation and identification of a structure 

for the Army that—

 
108 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX A: 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION

(i) has the depth and scalability to meet 

current and anticipated requirements of the 

combatant commands;

(ii) achieves cost-efficiency between the 

regular and reserve components of the Army, 

manages military risk, takes advantage of the 

strengths and capabilities of each, and considers 

fully burdened lifecycle costs; 

(iii) ensures that the regular and reserve 

components of the Army have the capacity 

needed to support current and anticipated 

homeland defense and disaster assistance missions 

in the United States;

(iv) provides for sufficient numbers of regular 

members of the Army to provide a base of trained 

personnel from which the personnel of the reserve 

components of the Army could be recruited; 

(v) maintains a peacetime rotation force to 

avoid exceeding operational tempo goals of 1:2 for 

active members of the Army and 1:5 for members 

of the reserve components of the Army; and 

(vi) manages strategic and operational risk 

by making tradeoffs among readiness, efficiency, 

effectiveness, capability, and affordability.

(B) An evaluation and identification of force 

generation policies for the Army with respect to 

size and force mixture in order to fulfill current and 

anticipated mission requirements for the Army in 

a manner consistent with available resources and 

anticipated future resources, including policies in 

connection with—

(i) readiness;

(ii) training;

(iii) equipment;

(iv) personnel; and

(v) maintenance of the reserve components 

as an operational reserve in order to maintain 

as much as possible the level of expertise and 

experience developed since September 11, 2001.

(C) An identification and evaluation of the 

distribution of responsibility and authority for the 

allocation of Army National Guard personnel and 

force structure to the States and territories.

(D) An identification and evaluation of the 

strategic basis or rationale, analytical methods, and 

decision-making processes for the allocation of Army 

National Guard personnel and force structure to the 

States and territories.

(b) STUDY ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN 

AIRCRAFT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall also 

conduct a study of a transfer of Army National Guard 

AH–64 Apache aircraft from the Army National Guard to 

the regular Army.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting the study 

required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider 

the factors specified in subsection (a)(2).

(c) REPORT.—Not later than February 1, 2016, 

the Commission shall submit to the President and the 

congressional defense committees a report setting forth a 

detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 

Commission as a result of the studies required by subsections 

(a) and (b), together with its recommendations for such 

legislative and administrative actions as the Commission 

considers appropriate in light of the results of the studies.

SEC. 1704. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) HEARINGS.—The Commission may hold such 

hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such 

testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission 

considers advisable to carry out its duties under this subtitle.

(b) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—

The Commission may secure directly from any Federal 

department or agency such information as the Commission 

considers necessary to carry out its duties under this subtitle. 

Upon request of the Chair of the Commission, the head of 

such department or agency shall furnish such information to 

the Commission.

(c) POSTAL SERVICES.—The Commission may use the 

United States mails in the same manner and under the same 

conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government.

SEC. 1705. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.—Each member 

of the Commission who is not an officer or employee of the 

Federal Government may be compensated at a rate not to 

exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of $155,400 for 

each day (including travel time) during which such member is 

engaged in the performance of the duties of the Commission. 

All members of the Commission who are officers or employees 

of the United States shall serve without compensation in 

addition to that received for their services as officers or 

employees of the United States.

(b) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the 

Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 

diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees 

of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 109

APPENDIX A: 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION

States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 

business in the performance of services for the Commission.

(c) STAFF.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Chair of the Commission 

may, without regard to the civil service laws and 

regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director 

and such other additional personnel as may be necessary 

to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The 

employment of an executive director shall be subject to 

confirmation by the Commission.

(2) COMPENSATION.—The Chair of the 

Commission may fix the compensation of the executive 

director and other personnel without regard to chapter 51 

and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 

Code, relating to classification of positions and General 

Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the 

executive director and other personnel may not exceed the 

rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under 

section 5316 of such title.

(d) DETAIL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—

Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the 

Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be 

without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.

(e) PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY AND 

INTERMITTENT SERVICES.— The Chair of the 

Commission may procure temporary and intermittent services 

under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates 

for individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the 

annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the Executive 

Schedule under section 5316 of such title.

SEC. 1706. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 

which the Commission submits its report under this subtitle.

SEC. 1707. FUNDING.

Amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 

by section 301 and available for operation and maintenance 

for the Army as specified in the funding table in section 4301 

may be available for the activities of the Commission under this 

subtitle.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 (PUBLIC LAW 114-92)

SEC. 1061. EXPEDITED MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL 

COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY.

Section 1702(f) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3665) 

is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 

“Section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

App. I) shall not apply to a meeting of the Commission 

unless the meeting is attended by five or more members of the 

Commission.”
110 National Commission on the Future of the Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 111

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

NATION

Recommendation 1: The nation must maintain and sustain an 

All-Volunteer Force.

PRESIDENT

Recommendation 5: The Congress and the Administration 

should look for cost-saving opportunities in areas such as the 

military health system, energy savings, and a reduced inventory 

of military facilities.

Recommendation 6: The Congress and the Administration 

should return to predictable and responsible budgeting 

processes that meet minimum funding requirements.

Recommendation 12: The President should budget for and the 

Congress should authorize and fund an Army that maintains an 

end strength of at least 980,000 uniformed personnel (450,000 

in the Regular Army, 335,000 in the Army National Guard, 

and 195,000 in the Army Reserve) at planned readiness levels. 

Recommendation 13: The President should revise strategic 

and budget guidance to the Department of Defense based 

on changes in the security environment. The Department of 

Defense should then use this revised guidance as the basis for 

revising its planning guidance, and the Army should adjust its 

structure, readiness, and modernization plans accordingly. 

CONGRESS

Recommendation 2: Congress should apply the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act provisions of the Fiscal Year 2016 

National Defense Authorization Act’s Section 1061 to all 

similar commissions.

Recommendation 3: Congress should update the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act’s requirements in a way that reflects 

changes in information technology, allowing commissions to 

use their own websites to post minutes, testimonies, and public 

comments and provide a public reading room.

Recommendation 4: Congress should maintain future Army 

budgets at funding levels at least equal to those in the fiscal year 

2016 President’s budget plan due to significant and emerging 

threats to national security. Budgets for DoD as a whole should 

also meet or exceed the 2016 level so that the Department can 

accomplish its mission with acceptable risk. 

Recommendation 5: The Congress and the Administration 

should look for cost-saving opportunities in areas such as the 

military health system, energy savings, and a reduced inventory 

of military facilities.

Recommendation 6: The Congress and the Administration 

should return to predictable and responsible budgeting 

processes that meet minimum funding requirements.

Recommendation 12: The President should budget for and the 

Congress should authorize and fund an Army that maintains an 

end strength of at least 980,000 uniformed personnel (450,000 

in the Regular Army, 335,000 in the Army National Guard, 

and 195,000 in the Army Reserve) at planned readiness levels. 
112 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Recommendation 20: The Congress should require the 

Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army to provide 

within a year of this report an assessment of the ways, 

and associated costs, to reduce or eliminate shortfalls in 

responsiveness and capacity of the following capabilities: 

1. AH-64-equipped Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

capacity to meet war plan needs;

2. Air defense artillery (ADA) capacity, responsiveness, 

and the capability of Short Range ADA to meet existing 

and emerging threats (including unmanned aerial 

systems, cruise missiles, and manned aircraft), including 

an assessment of the potential for commercial-off-theshelf solutions; 

3. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) 

capabilities and modernization as it relates to homeland 

missions as well as the capacity to meet overseas war 

plan needs;

4. Field artillery capabilities and the changes in doctrine 

and war plans resulting from U.S. participation 

in the Cluster Munitions ban as well as required 

modernization or munition inventory shortfalls;

5. Quartermaster fuel distribution and water purification 

capacity and responsiveness to meet war plan needs;

6. Army watercraft and port opening capabilities and 

responsiveness (with particular attention to the ability 

to flex between oceans) to meet war plan needs;

7. Transportation (fuel, water, and cargo) capacity and 

responsiveness to meet war plan needs;

8. Military police capacity to meet war plan needs.

Recommendation 22: The Congress should require the 

Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff to oversee the modeling of 

alternative Army design and operational concepts—including 

the Reconnaissance Strike Group, Hybrid Battalion Task Force, 

Stryker Global Response Force, and the Reconnaissance and 

Security Brigade Combat Team—and report on their findings 

within one year. The report to Congress should explicitly 

address the value of follow-on pilot programs to test further 

any promising alternative force design and concept approaches.

Recommendation 29: The Congress should expand 12304b 

authority to include operational requirements that emerge 

within the programmed budget timeline, including the year of 

execution. 

Recommendation 30: The Army should budget for and the 

Congress should authorize and fund no fewer than 3,000 

man years annually for 12304b utilization of the reserve 

components. The Secretary of Defense in conjunction with the 

Army and the Office of Management and Budget should also 

provide for the use of Overseas Contingency Operations and 

supplemental funding for reserve component utilization under 

12304b.

Recommendation 35: Congress should enact legislation to 

allow assignment of Regular Army officers and enlisted soldiers 

to Army National Guard positions to execute all functions 

without prejudice to their federal standing. The legislation 

should also permit the similar assignment of National Guard 

officers and enlisted soldiers to Regular Army units.

Recommendation 37: The Congress, the Department of 

Defense, and the Army should continue to support and 

adequately fund the Integrated Personnel & Pay System-Army 

(IPSS-A) as the cornerstone to the effective management and 

enhanced integration of the components of the Army. The 

Army must maintain the program’s current schedule as a critical 

underpinning capability for the Army to support the Total 

Force.

Recommendation 38: Congress should authorize and 

direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a substantial 

multiyear pilot program in which recruiters from all three 

components are authorized to recruit individuals into any of 

the components and receive credit for an enlistee regardless 

of the component. Congress should specifically authorize the 

pilot program “notwithstanding any other laws” in order to 

avoid potential fiscal law concerns. The Army should complete 

a detailed design for a pilot program within one year after 

publication of this report and, pending Congressional approval, 

fully implement the pilot program within one year after 

completion of the design work.

Recommendation 39: Congress should authorize, and the 

Secretary of the Army direct, the consolidation of marketing 

functions under the authority of the Army Marketing Research 

Group (AMRG) to gain unity of effort. The AMRG must 

employ marketing strategies to achieve recruiting goals of the 

Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and Regular Army.

Recommendation 41: Congress should direct the Department 

of Defense to review enlisted Joint Professional Military 

Education (JPME) requirements, determine which should 

become mandatory requirements, and report within one year.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 113

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Recommendation 51: The Congress should require the Army 

to develop, by the end of fiscal year 2017, a plan for expansion 

to execute a large-scale sustained operation. The plan would 

include maintaining a running estimate for long-lead-time 

equipment production and modification as well as personnel 

accession and training for anticipated capability shortfalls 

that occur after reorganization and mobilization. The plan 

should address each of the statutory Department of the Army 

functions as articulated in 10 U.S. Code, Section 3013 and 

examine and report annually to the Secretary of Defense on the 

necessary requirements to expand the Army’s capacity. 

Recommendation 54: Congress should amend 10 USC 10205 

to authorize the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with other 

federal agencies to obtain updated contact information on 

Individual Ready Reserve soldiers.

Recommendation 55: Congress should amend Title 10 USC 

to authorize a virtual muster that does not include a physical 

examination or review. 

Recommendation 57: Congress, the Department of Defense, 

and the Army should implement the Commission’s plan 

(Option Three) for distribution of the Apache fleet. The 

Commission’s plan maintains twenty-four manned Apache 

battalions including twenty in the Regular Army equipped 

with twenty-four aircraft each and four in the Army National 

Guard equipped with eighteen aircraft each. The plan adds only 

two Black Hawk battalions to the Army National Guard. The 

Army should commit to using the four Army National Guard 

Apache battalions regularly, mobilizing and deploying them in 

peacetime and war.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Recommendation 13: The President should revise strategic 

and budget guidance to the Department of Defense based 

on changes in the security environment. The Department of 

Defense should then use this revised guidance as the basis for 

revising its planning guidance, and the Army should adjust its 

structure, readiness, and modernization plans accordingly.

Recommendation 23: The Secretary of Defense and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should report to Congress 

within a year on a strategic mobility sufficiency analysis and 

associated risk mitigation plan from 2020 through 2040.

Recommendation 30: The Army should budget for and the 

Congress should authorize and fund no fewer than 3,000 man 

years annually for 12304b utilization of the reserve components. 

The Secretary of Defense in conjunction with the Army and 

the Office of Management and Budget should also provide for 

the use of Overseas Contingency Operations and supplemental 

funding for reserve component utilization under 12304b.

Recommendation 31: The Secretary of Defense should update 

the January 19, 2007, memo “Utilization of the Total Force” to 

allow flexible involuntary mobilization periods in an effort to 

achieve common BOG periods for all components.

Recommendation 37: The Congress, the Department of 

Defense, and the Army should continue to support and 

adequately fund the Integrated Personnel & Pay System-Army 

(IPSS-A) as the cornerstone to the effective management and 

enhanced integration of the components of the Army. The 

Army must maintain the program’s current schedule as a critical 

underpinning capability for the Army to support the Total Force.

Recommendation 49: As recommended in 2014 Quadrennial 

Defense Review, the Secretary of Defense should plan in fiscal 

year 2017 and execute no later than the end of fiscal year 2018 

a comprehensive review of the nation’s ability to mobilize its 

existing reserves as well as its preparedness for the potential of 

national mobilization.

Recommendation 52: The Secretary of Defense should 

incorporate in defense planning and fiscal guidance the 

analysis of Army expansion requirements for force-sizing and 

capability-mix analyses in fiscal year 2017. This guidance would 

give priority to the retention of expansion-required leaders, 

infrastructure, and materiel in the defense budget and program. 

Recommendation 57: Congress, the Department of Defense, 

and the Army should implement the Commission’s plan 

(Option Three) for distribution of the Apache fleet. The 

Commission’s plan maintains twenty-four manned Apache 

battalions including twenty in the Regular Army equipped 

with twenty-four aircraft each and four in the Army National 

Guard equipped with eighteen aircraft each. The plan adds only 

two Black Hawk battalions to the Army National Guard. The 

Army should commit to using the four Army National Guard 

Apache battalions regularly, mobilizing and deploying them in 

peacetime and war.
114 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

JOINT STAFF

Recommendation 23: The Secretary of Defense and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should report to Congress 

within a year on a strategic mobility sufficiency analysis and 

associated risk mitigation plan from 2020 through 2040.

COMBATANT COMMANDS

Recommendation 10: The Army must assist Combatant 

Commands and Army Service Component Commands with 

timely integration of force structure changes into their strategic 

planning process. 

Recommendation 11: Combatant Commands and Army 

Service Component Commands must update all war plans 

with current and programmed force structure and doctrine and 

establish a process to ensure routine war plan and Time Phased 

Force Deployment Data updates at a minimum of once every 

two years.

Recommendation 19: The Army should ensure Combatant 

Commands (COCOM) and Army Service Component 

Commands (ASCC) have the ability to provide operational 

mission command in proportion to the unique mission for each 

COCOM. The Army should consult closely with COCOM 

and ASCC commanders to assess the risks entailed in mission 

command changes and seek to minimize risk where possible 

when implementing them. 

ARMY

Recommendation 7: The Army must continue to treat 

readiness as its most important funding priority.

Recommendation 8: The Army should provide the Congress 

with an assessment of risks in current and planned tactical 

mobility. This assessment should be completed within one year 

of publication of this report and include the costs and potential 

tradeoffs for closing significant readiness gaps in this area.

Recommendation 9: The Army must reassess the risk it 

is assuming in modernization for aviation survivability, 

SHORAD, CBRN, field artillery, and Army watercraft. 

Recommendation 10: The Army must assist Combatant 

Commands and Army Service Component Commands with 

timely integration of force structure changes into their strategic 

planning process. 

Recommendation 13: The President should revise strategic 

and budget guidance to the Department of Defense based 

on changes in the security environment. The Department of 

Defense should then use this revised guidance as the basis for 

revising its planning guidance, and the Army should adjust its 

structure, readiness, and modernization plans accordingly.

Recommendation 14: The Army should forward station an 

Armored Brigade Combat Team in Europe.

Recommendation 15: The Army should convert the U.S. 

Army Europe administrative aviation headquarters to a 

warfighting mission command element similar to a Combat 

Aviation Brigade headquarters. 

Recommendation 16: The Army should maintain a forwardstationed Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea.

Recommendation 17: The Army should retain eleven Combat 

Aviation Brigades in the Regular Army.

Recommendation 18: The Army should increase Armored 

Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) capacity based on the current 

and projected threat environment. Risk may be acceptable 

without additional ABCT structure if the Army stations an 

ABCT in Europe, per recommendation 14. 

Recommendation 19: The Army should ensure Combatant 

Commands (COCOM) and Army Service Component 

Commands (ASCC) have the ability to provide operational 

mission command in proportion to the unique mission for each 

COCOM. The Army should consult closely with COCOM 

and ASCC commanders to assess the risks entailed in mission 

command changes and seek to minimize risk where possible 

when implementing them. 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 115

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Recommendation 21: The Army should assess the mission 

effectiveness of the current sourcing solution for the Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) mission. The assessment 

should consider implications for recruiting, training, career 

progression, doctrine development, and GMD modernization 

strategy. 

Recommendation 24: The Army should consider reducing up 

to two Regular Army IBCTs to provide manpower spaces that 

could be used to decrease higher priority risks.

Recommendation 25: The Army should complete 

development and fully implement the Generating Force Model 

to improve requirements determination and better inform 

generating force manpower decisions.

Recommendation 26: The Army must manage and provide 

forces under the Total Force approach.

Recommendation 27: The Secretary of the Army should 

review and assess officer and NCO positions from all 

components for potential designation as integrated positions 

that would allow individuals from all components to fill 

positions to foster an Army Total Force culture and expand 

knowledge about other components. A review should be 

completed within nine months after publication of this report, 

and any new designations should be completed within eighteen 

months.

Recommendation 28: The Secretary of the Army should 

develop selection and promotion policies that incentivize 

Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve 

assignments across components and within multicomponent 

units. The Secretary of the Army should make changes within 

one year after publication of this report.

Recommendation 30: The Army should budget for and the 

Congress should authorize and fund no fewer than 3,000 

man years annually for 12304b utilization of the reserve 

components. The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the 

Army and the Office of Management and Budget, should also 

provide for the use of Overseas Contingency Operations and 

supplemental funding for reserve component utilization under 

12304b.

Recommendation 32: The Army should continue using 

multicomponent units and training partnerships to improve 

Total Force integration and overall Army effectiveness.

Recommendation 33: The Army should add specific guidance 

on goals for future use of multicomponent units and related 

initiatives to the Army’s Total Force Policy Implementation 

Guidance for fiscal year 2017.

Recommendation 34: The Army should develop a substantial 

pilot program to test multicomponent approaches. Options 

could include the following:

• Appending an existing Army National Guard or Army 

Reserve aviation company to a Regular Army aviation 

battalion. The Commission strongly recommends that 

units be co-located so that they can train together. 

• Applying the shared-equipment approach used in Air 

Force associate units to Army general support aviation. 

General support aviation units fly fewer multiple-aircraft 

missions and so might be able to share equipment. 

Multicomponent units should be co-located so that they 

can train together.

• Assigning Regular Army pilots to Army National Guard 

or Army Reserve units, or vice versa, in order to leverage 

the unique skills and experience present in different 

components. This approach could be used for all types of 

Army aircraft.

• Other approaches proposed by Army experts.

The Army should complete a detailed design for a pilot 

program within one year after publication of this report and 

fully implement the pilot program within one year after 

completion of the design work.

Recommendation 36: The Army should develop and 

implement a pilot program to assign Regular Army officers and 

enlisted soldiers to Army Reserve full-time support positions 

within one year of publication of this report and evaluated in 

two years to determine the effectiveness of such a program.

Recommendation 37: The Congress, the Department of 

Defense, and the Army should continue to support and 

adequately fund the Integrated Personnel & Pay System-Army 

(IPSS-A) as the cornerstone to the effective management and 

enhanced integration of the components of the Army. The 

Army must maintain the program’s current schedule as a critical 

underpinning capability for the Army to support the Total 

Force.
116 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Recommendation 38: Congress should authorize and 

direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a substantial 

multiyear pilot program in which recruiters from all three 

components are authorized to recruit individuals into any of 

the components and receive credit for an enlistee regardless 

of the component. Congress should specifically authorize the 

pilot program “notwithstanding any other laws” in order to 

avoid potential fiscal law concerns. The Army should complete 

a detailed design for a pilot program within one year after 

publication of this report and, pending Congressional approval, 

fully implement the pilot program within one year after 

completion of the design work.

Recommendation 39: Congress should authorize, and the 

Secretary of the Army direct, the consolidation of marketing 

functions under the authority of the Army Marketing Research 

Group (AMRG) to gain unity of effort. The AMRG must 

employ marketing strategies to achieve recruiting goals of the 

Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and Regular Army.

Recommendation 40: The Army should retain formal leader 

development activities as a high priority for all uniformed and 

civilian personnel. 

Recommendation 42: The Army should conduct an end-toend review of The Army School System and report to Congress 

within a year of publication of this report on the efficiencies 

gained by consolidating under-used capacity. The review should 

take a holistic look at successes and shortfalls from current 

strategy and ensure consistent naming conventions to minimize 

confusion. 

Recommendation 43: The Army should establish true 

regionalization of the Army’s school system and continue 

to consolidate the infrastructure where efficiencies can be 

gained. The Army should acknowledge and explain any unused 

capacity, and develop a plan to retain or eliminate the unused 

capacity, ensure the correct balance of infrastructure and 

capacity to meet the nation’s needs, and take into consideration 

the ability to regenerate and expand the Army. The Army 

should complete this plan within a year of publication of this 

report.

Recommendation 44: The Army should immediately 

implement the entire One Army School System to realize 

savings sooner. 

Recommendation 45: The Army should implement the 

Objective-T methodology for assessing the progression of 

training readiness and revise readiness reporting using the 

quantifiable criteria. 

Recommendation 46: The Army should increase the number 

of annual rotations for Army National Guard Brigade Combat 

Teams at combat training centers beginning fiscal year 2017 

without decreasing the number of Regular Army Brigade 

Combat Team rotations.

Recommendation 47: The Army should reduce mandatory 

training prescribed in AR 350-1, Army Training and Leader 

Development by the following means: 

• Reducing the number of mandatory training requirements 

and moving the reduced tasks to local command policy per 

AR 600-20, Army Command Policy;

• Developing a formal process for approving additional 

mandatory training tasks and reviewing existing mandatory 

training requirements annually for retention or deletion;

• Chartering the Army’s Training General Officer Steering 

Committee to provide governance for approving all added 

Army and Combatant Commander mandatory training 

requirements;

• Changing the reserve components’ mandatory training 

requirements from an annual cycle to a two-year cycle; 

• Codifying mandatory training requirements with (1) task, 

condition, and standard; (2) Training and Evaluation 

Outline and lesson plan; and (3) the means to make this 

information available through the Army Training Network 

as the consolidated repository for mandatory training 

requirements;

• Delegating mandatory training exception approval 

authority to two-star commanders; and

• Completing the AR 350-1, Army Training and Leader 

Development, revision within one year of this report. 

Recommendation 48: The Army should resource First 

Army’s Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) positions from the 

Army National Guard and the Army Reserve at the aggregate 

manning level provided for each component not later than 

fiscal year 2017. 

Recommendation 50: The Army should provide a Predeployment Training Equipment set to Fort Bliss, Texas, for its 

Mobilization Force Generation Installation role no later than 

fiscal year 2017.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 117

APPENDIX B: 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Recommendation 53: The Secretary of the Army should 

perform a top-to-bottom review in fiscal year 2017 of the 

Individual Ready Reserve program to ensure compliance with 

existing statutes. 

Recommendation 56: The Secretary of the Army should 

rescind the February 22, 2006, memo Individual Ready Reserve 

Transformation.

Recommendation 57: Congress, the Department of Defense, 

and the Army should implement the Commission’s plan 

(Option Three) for distribution of the Apache fleet. The 

Commission’s plan maintains twenty-four manned Apache 

battalions including twenty in the Regular Army equipped 

with twenty-four aircraft each and four in the Army National 

Guard equipped with eighteen aircraft each. The plan adds only 

two Black Hawk battalions to the Army National Guard. The 

Army should commit to using the four Army National Guard 

Apache battalions regularly, mobilizing and deploying them in 

peacetime and war.

Recommendation 58: The Army should maintain a forwardstationed Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea.

Recommendation 59: The Army should consider increasing 

flying hours available for peacetime training.

Recommendation 60: The Army should implement a more 

aggressive modernization program for its aviation forces.

Recommendation 61: The Secretary of the Army should 

codify the delegation of authority from the Chief, National 

Guard Bureau to the Director, Army National Guard in Army 

regulations for force structure allocation among the states, 

territories, and the District of Columbia.

Recommendation 62: The Secretary of the Army should 

codify in Army regulations the existing Army National Guard 

Force Program Review process as the formal way to manage 

change in the Army National Guard. 

Recommendation 63: The Army should add representatives 

from the Army Secretariat and Army Staff to the Army 

National Guard Force Program Review working groups and 

boards as observers.

ARMY SERVICE COMPONENT COMMANDS

Recommendation 10: The Army must assist Combatant 

Commands and Army Service Component Commands with 

timely integration of force structure changes into their strategic 

planning process. 

Recommendation 11: Combatant Commands and Army 

Service Component Commands must update all war plans 

with current and programmed force structure and doctrine and 

establish a process to ensure routine war plan and Time Phased 

Force Deployment Data updates at a minimum of once every 

two years.

Recommendation 19: The Army should ensure Combatant 

Commands (COCOM) and Army Service Component 

Commands (ASCC) have the ability to provide operational 

mission command in proportion to the unique mission for each 

COCOM. The Army should consult closely with COCOM 

and ASCC commanders to assess the risks entailed in mission 

command changes and seek to minimize risk where possible 

when implementing them.
118 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX C: 

OFFSITE AGREEMENT
National Commission on the Future of the Army 119

APPENDIX C: 

OFFSITE AGREEMENT
120 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX D: 

ARMY BUDGET AND 

END STRENGTH

Service HQS & Obligations

$12,552,292

1.9%

Capital Investments

$134,918,901

20.6%

Installation / Enterprise 

Services and Facility 

Sustainment

$76,219,657

11.6%

Sustain the Force

$26,992,200

4.1%

Train the Force

$78,687,348

12.1%

Operate the Force

$29,179,914

4.4%

Man the Force

$297,499,082

45.3%

WHERE THE ARMY HAS BUDGETED ITS MONEY, 2016-2020

Source: Army President’s Budget Submission 2016

DGET 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 121

APPENDIX D: 

ARMY BUDGET AND END STRENGTH

Active Duty Manpower 32.2%

Reserve Components Full Time Support (FCS)

{AGR/MILTECH} 6.3%

Reserve Components Manpower 4.7%

Recruiting and Retention 2.1%

MAN THE FORCE

Operations & Activities (Army) 1.2%

Joint and International Programs 0.8%

Military and Civilian Personnel Support 0.8%

Cyber-Network Operations 0.6%

Forward Presence Missions 0.6%

Homeland Defense 0.4%

OPERATE THE FORCE

Operational Training Indirect OPTEMPO 5.1%

Institutional Training 3.0% 

Training Support Systems 1.9%

Operational Training Air (FHP) Direct OPTEMPO 1.3%

Training Ammunition 0.6%

TRAIN THE FORCE

Major Investments 7.9%

Major Investment Enablers 4.3%

Minor Investment Enablers 2.3%

Science & Technology (S&T) 1.9%

Modernization, Test, and Studies 1.1%

Disposal and Demilitarization 0.9%

Military Construction (MCA, MCAR, MCNG) 0.8%

Restoration and Modernization (RM) 0.7%

Environmental Management 0.6%

Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC) 0.1%

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 0.002%

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

Depot Maintenance 1.4%

Core Logistic Sustainment 1.1%

Strategic Wartime Equipment (APS, WRSI) 0.6%

Second Destination Transportation (SDT) 0.4%

Sustainment Systems Technical Support (SSTS) 0.4%

Ammunition Readiness 0.2%

SUSTAIN THE FORCE

Non-Discretionary Obligations 0.9%

Directed Discretionary Obligations 0.5%

Army HQS (HQDA, USAR, FOA) 0.5%

ARNG HQS 0.1%

SERVICE HQS & OBLIGATIONS

Facility Operations 2.8%

Facility Sustainment 2.3%

Information Technology Services Management 2.1%

Family, Community, and Soldier Programs 1.1%

Garrison 1.0%

Security 1.0%

Logistics Operations 0.9%

Housing (AFHO & Unaccompanied) 0.4%

INSTALLATION / ENTERPRISE SERVICES AND FACILITY 

SUSTAINMENT
122 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX D: 

ARMY BUDGET AND END STRENGTH

ARMY OVER TIME, 1946-2019

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1946 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2019

REGULAR ARMY AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

DEPT. OF ARMY CIVILIANS AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

U.S. ARMY RESERVES AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

Sources: Army, PB16 Submission; National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2016 (DoD Green Book) ; HQDA, G-8, Program, Analysis and Evaluation

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

205,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 185,000

350,000 350,000 358,200 350,200

315,200

480,000

502,400

563,600

490,000

420,000

218,300

236,300

258,800 258,800

237,602

REGULAR ARMY AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

DEPT. OF ARMY CIVILIANS AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

U.S. ARMY RESERVES AUTHORIZED END-STRENGTH

ARMY OVER TIME, 2000-2019

Expanded in chart below

These charts illustrate authorized end-strength levels for the three components and the Civilian Corps past and present, as well 

as projected over the next five fiscal years in current budget planning documents.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 123

APPENDIX D: 

ARMY BUDGET AND END STRENGTH

END STRENGTH RAMPS UNDER DIFFERENT FUNDING LEVELS, FY01-22

REGULAR ARMY, FULL TIME SUPPORT, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD & U.S. ARMY RESERVES, AND CIVILIANS

Sources: Army, PB16 Submission; National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2016 (DoD Green Book) ; HQDA, G-8, Program, Analysis and Evaluation

FY01 FY11 FY22

350.5K

480.0K

450.0K President’s Budget 2016

435.0K 1/2 Budget Control Act

420.0K Full Budget Control Act

335.0K President’s Budget 2016

325.0K 1/2 Budget Control Act

315.0K Full Budget Control Act

195.0K President’s Budget 2016

190.0K 1/2 Budget Control Act

185.0K Full Budget Control Act

81.5K President’s Budget 2016

79.0K 1/2 Budget Control Act

76.6K Full Budget Control Act

233.2K President’s Budget 2016

225.0K 1/2 Budget Control Act

217.0K Full Budget Control Act

205.3K

67.9K

220.7K

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (ARNG)

REGULAR ARMY

U.S. ARMY RESERVES (USAR)

FULL-TIME SUPPORT 

(ARNG & USAR)

DEPARTMENT OF 

ARMY CIVILIANS

569.4K 18.6% growth

2.2% growth

26.8% growth

28.8% growth

0.1% decline

7.3% decline

7.5% decline

16.3% growth

1.9% growth 5.6 growth

20.0% growth

5.0% decline

4.4% decline

10.1% decline

9.9% decline

12.8% growth

1.7% decline

21.0% decline

6.5% decline

4.9% decline

5.4% decline

18.0% decline

358.2K

205.0K

86.1K

284.3K

9.4% decline

11.2% decline

6.3% decline
124 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX E: 

NCFA CLASSIFIED ANNEX

The classified annex provides information and findings for the 

projected strategic environment, force size and composition 

analysis, and other issues related to the comprehensive study 

of the structure of the Army.

Contents:

1. Strategic Environment

a. Homeland Threat

b. Gray-Zone Warfare and Information Operations

c. Functional Threats

2. Modeling and Analysis of Force Structure 

(Size and Mix)

a. NCFA Analysis: Refining Timing

b. “Base Case”

c. Demand Excursions

d. Policy Excursions

e. New “Base Case”

f. Brigade Combat Team and Aviation Analysis

g. Time-Phase Force Deployment Data Analysis

3. Other Issues

a. Strategic Lift

b. Cluster Munitions Ban

c. Cyber

Access to the National Commission on the Future of the 

Army’s Classified Annex will be made available for individuals 

with appropriate security clearance and need to know.

APP

N
National Commission on the Future of the Army 125

APPENDIX F: 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

AASF – Army Aviation Support Facility

ABCT – Armored Brigade Combat Team

AC – Active Component

ACB - Air Cavalry Brigade

ADA – Air Defense Artillery

ADFO – Alternate Designated Federal Officer

AFRICOM – U.S. Africa Command

AGAUS – Adjutants General Association of the United States

AGR – Active Guard Reserve

AH-64 – Apache Attack Helicopter 

AHB – Assault Helicopter Battalion

AMP model – Analysis of Mobility Platform model

AOR – Area of Responsibility

ARI – Aviation Restructure Initiative

ARNG – Army National Guard

ARNGUS – Army National Guard of the United States

ARSTAF – Army Staff

ASCC – Army Service Component Command

AUSA – Association of the United States Army

BBA 15 – Bipartisan Budget Act

BCA – Budget Control Act

BCT – Brigade Combat Team

BG – Brigadier General

BOG – Boots on Ground

BOG:DWELL - Boots on the Ground: Dwell (not deployed) 

ratio

BMD – Ballistic Missile Defense

BPC- Building Partner Capacity

CAA – Center for Army Analysis

CAB – Combat Aviation Brigade

CAPE –Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation

CBCT — Cavalry Brigade Combat Team

CBRN – Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear

CCTT — Close Combat Tactical Trainer

CDR – Commander

CENTCOM – U.S. Central Command

CFM – Chief, Force Management

CG – Commanding General

CNGB – Chief, National Guard Bureau

COCOM – Combatant Command

COL – Colonel

COMPO – Component (1- Regular Army, 2- Army National 

Guard, 3 – Army Reserve)

CoS – Chief of Staff

CPT – Captain

CSA – Chief of Staff of the Army

CSIS – Center for Strategic and International Studies

CSS – Combat Service Support

CTC – Combat Training Center

DARNG – Director, Army National Guard

DCG – Deputy Commanding General

DCRF – Defense CBRN Response Force 

DFO – Designated Federal Officer

DIMHRS – Defense Integrated Military Human Resources 

System

DIVARTY – Division Artillery

DoD – Department of Defense

DSCA – Defense Support to Civil Authorities 

E-7 – Pay grade Enlisted Sergeant First Class

E-8 – Pay grade Enlisted Master Sergeant
126 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX F: 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

E-9 – Pay grade Enlisted Sergeant Major of the Army, 

Command Sergeant Major, and Sergeant Major

EUCOM – U.S. European Command

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act

FORSCOM – Army Forces Command

FMURB – Force Management Unit Review Board

FSSP – Force Structure Strategic Plan

FTS – Full-Time Support

FY – Fiscal Year

FYDP – Future Years Defense Program

G-3 – General Staff for Operations and Plans

GEN – General

GFM – Global Force Management

GMD – Ground-based Midcourse Defense

GO – General Officer

HD – Homeland Defense

HQ – Headquarters

HQDA – Headquarters Department of the Army

HRC – Human Resources Command

IBCT – Infantry Brigade Combat Team

ID – Infantry Division

IDA – Institute for Defense Analyses

IED – Improvised Explosive Device

IPPS-A – Integrated Personnel and Pay System – Army

IRAMM – Integrated Risk Assessment and Management 

Model

IRR – Individual Ready Reserve

ISIL – Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

J8 – Joint Staff Directorate for Force Structure, Resource and 

Assessment

JFC-UA—Joint Forces Command–United Assistance

JFHQ – Joint Force Headquarters

JICM – Joint Integrated Campaign Model

JOAX – Joint Operational Access Exercises

JS – Joint Staff

KFOR- Kosovo Force

LTC – Lieutenant Colonel

MCU – Multicomponent Unit

MEB – Maneuver Enhancement Brigade

MEDEVAC – Medical Evacuation

MEPS – Military Entrance Processing Station

MFGI – Mobilization Force Generation Installation

MFO – Multinational Force and Observers

MG – Major General

MOS – Military Occupational Specialty

MP – Military Police

MRX – Mission Rehearsal Exercises

MTP – Maintenance Test Pilot

MUTA – Multiple Unit Training Assembly

NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NCFA – National Commission on the Future of the Army

NCO – Noncommissioned Officer

NCSAF – National Commission on the Structure of the Air 

Force

NDAA – National Defense Authorization Act

NGAUS – National Guard Association of the United States

NGB – National Guard Bureau

NOS – Notification of Sourcing

O-6 – Pay grade Colonel

OCO – Overseas Contingency Operations (funding)

OC/T – Observer Controller Trainer

OH-58– Observation Helicopter (Kiowa Warrior 

Reconnaissance Helicopter)

OPFOR — Opposing Force (in training exercises)

OPLAN – Operational Plan

OPTEMPO – Operational Tempo

OSD – Office of the Secretary of Defense

PACOM – U.S. Pacific Command
National Commission on the Future of the Army 127

APPENDIX F: 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

PDTE – Pre-Deployment Training Equipment

PME – Professional Military Education

POM – Program Objective Memorandum

QDR – Quadrennial Defense Review

RAF – Regionally Aligned Force 

RC – Reserve Component(s)

RDT&E – Research, Development, Test & Evaluation

RFI — Rapid Fielding Initiative or Request for Information

RFPB — Reserve Forces Policy Board

RL1 – Readiness Level 1

RORO – Roll-On Roll-Off

RSG – Reconnaissance Strike Group

RTI – Regional Training Institute

SA – Secretary of Army or Situational Awareness

SARA model – Stochastic Active-Reserve Assessment model

SBCT – Stryker Brigade Combat Team

SECDEF – Secretary of Defense

SHORAD – Short Range Air Defense Systems

SIGACTS – Significant Activities Reports

SPP – State Partnership Program

TAA — Train Advise Assist or Total Army Analysis

TAB – Theater Aviation Brigade

TAG – The Adjutant General

TASMG – Theater Aviation Support Maintenance Group

TDY – Temporary Duty

THAAD – Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

TPFDD – Time-Phased Force Deployment Data

TPU – Troop Program Unit

TRAC – TRADOC Analysis Center

TRADOC – Army Training and Doctrine Command

TRANSCOM – U.S. Transportation Command

TSC – Theater Security Cooperation

TTHS – Trainees Transients Holdees and Students

UAS – Unmanned Aircraft System

UH-60 – Utility helicopter, called the Black Hawk

UH-72 – Utility helicopter, called the Lakota

USAFMSA – United States Army Force Management Support 

Agency

USAR – U.S. Army Reserve

USARPAC – U.S. Army Pacific

VCSA – Vice Chief of Staff Army

WMD – Weapons of Mass Destruction

xCTC — eXportable Combat Training Center
128 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND 

COMMENTS

CLOSED MEETING, PENTAGON, MAY 19

The Honorable Robert Scher, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans & Capabilities

Brigadier General Chris McPadden, Deputy Director, 

Strategy & Policy, Joint Staff J-5

Mr. Jim Mitre, Foreign Affairs Specialist, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy

Major General William Hix, Director, Strategy, Plans & Policy, 

HQDA G-3/5/7

Mr. Dan Klippstein, Deputy Director, Strategy, Plans & Policy, 

HQDA G-3/5/7

Dr. Thomas F. Carney, Vice Director for Force Structure, 

Resources & Assessment, Joint Staff J-8

Dr. Steve Stoddard, Technical Director, Center for Army 

Analysis Institute for Defense Analyses (CAA)

General Frank Grass, Chief, National Guard Bureau

Lieutenant General Timothy J. Kadavy, Director, Army 

National Guard

Lieutenant General Jeffrey Talley, Chief, Army Reserve

The Honorable John McHugh, 21st Secretary of the Army

General Raymond Odierno, 38th Chief of Staff of the Army

OPEN MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, MAY 20

Major General (retired) Gus Hargett, President, National 

Guard Association of the United States

Major General Jeffrey E. Phillips, Executive Director, Reserve 

Officers Association

Major General Edward W. Tonini, The Adjutant General of 

Kentucky, & former President, Adjutant Generals Association 

of the United States

Brigadier General (retired) E.J. Sinclair, President, Army 

Aviation Association of America

Colonel John J. Lindsay, HQDA G-3/5/7 Aviation Directorate

Brigadier General Walter Fountain, Special Assistant to the 

Director, Army National Guard

Mr. John H. Pendleton, Director, Force Structure & Readiness 

Issues, Government Accountability Office

HAWAII SITE VISIT, MAY 28-29

The Honorable David Y. Ige, Governor of Hawaii

General Vincent K. Brooks, Commanding General, U.S. Army 

Pacific

Brigadier General Arthur J. Logan, The Adjutant General of 

Hawaii

Brigadier General Roderick R. Leon Guerrero, The Adjutant 

General of Guam

Major General Gary M. Hara, Deputy Commanding GeneralArmy National Guard, U.S. Army Pacific

Major General Gregory C. Bilton (Australian Army), Deputy 

Commanding General-Operations, U.S. Army Pacific

Major General Todd B. McCaffrey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 

Pacific

Major General Lawrence Brock III, Commanding General, 

311th Signal Command

Mr. Jon Lee, Deputy, Management & Support, 9th Mission 

Support Command

Mr. Jon Lee, 351st Civil Affairs Command (CACOM)

Brigadier General Keith Y. Tamashiro, Director of Joint Staff, 

Hawaii Army National Guard

Brigadier General Robert J. Ulses, Assistant Chief of Staff of 

Operations G-3, U.S. Army Pacific

Colonel Stephen F. Logan, Commander, 29th Infantry 

Battalion Combat Team

Colonel Scott Mitchell, Commander, 196th Infantry Brigade 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS (WRITTEN OR IN PERSON): 

SITE VISITS, ENGAGEMENTS, WEBSITE, AND MAILINGS
National Commission on the Future of the Army 129

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Courtney Varfes-Lum, Commander, Recruiting & 

Retention Battalion, Hawaii Army National Guard

Colonel Robert Lesher, G1, Hawaii Army National Guard

Colonel Roger Pukahi, Commander of the 103rd Troop 

Command, Hawaii Army National Guard

Colonel Tomasa, Hawaii Army National Guard

Colonel Paul Nanamori, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, 

Hawaii Army National Guard

Lieutenant Colonel Tucker, Hawaii Army National Guard

Colonel Robert Crisistomo, Chief of Joint Staff, Guam Army 

National Guard

Colonel George Charfauros, Guam Army National Guard

Captain Darrell Fejarang, Aide-de-Camp, Guam Army 

National Guard

Colonel Jon Howerton, Staff, U.S. Army Pacific

25 Officers and NCOs from USARPAC

26 Officers and NCOs from 2nd Brigade/25th Infantry 

Division

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LIEUTENANT 

GENERAL (RETIRED) DENNIS MCCARTHY, USMC, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA JUNE 3

Lieutenant General (retired) Dennis McCarthy, USMC, former 

Chairman, National Commission on the Structure of the Air 

Force

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA JUNE 4

The Honorable Robert Work, 32nd Deputy Secretary of 

Defense

FORT BRAGG, FAYETTEVILLE & RALEIGH, NORTH 

CAROLINA SITE VISITS, JUNE 9-10

The Honorable Thom Tillis, United States Senator, North 

Carolina

The Honorable David Price, United States House of 

Representatives, North Carolina 4th District

The Honorable Richard Hudson, United States House of 

Representatives, North Carolina 8th District

Lieutenant General Jeffrey Talley, Commanding General, 

USARC

Command Sergeant Major Luther Thomas, Command 

Sergeant Major, USARC

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Phyllis Wilson, Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, USARC

Mr. Jim Balocki, Command Executive Officer, USARC

Major General Dave Conboy, Deputy Commanding General, 

USARC

Brigadier General Ferdinand Irizarry II, G3, USARC

Lieutenant General Patrick Donahue II, Deputy Commanding 

General/Chief of Staff, FORSCOM

Command Sergeant Major Scott Schroeder, Command 

Sergeant Major, FORSCOM

Major General Scott Thoele, Deputy Commanding General 

(Reserve Component), FORSCOM

Major General Jimmy Jae Wells, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

FORSCOM

Major General Paul Hurley, G4, FORSCOM

Major General Thomas James, Jr., G3/5/7, FORSCOM

Mr. Phil McGhee, G8, FORSCOM

Mr. Nate Godwin, Deputy G3, FORSCOM

Mr. Ric Porter, Deputy G1, FORSCOM

Mr. Derek Miller, Chief, Force Provider Division, FORSCOM

Lieutenant General Michael Tucker, Commanding General, 

First Army

Ms. Jimmie Ring, Deputy G3, First Army

Lieutenant General Charles Cleveland, Commanding General, 

USASOC

Mr. Richard Holcomb, Deputy to the Commanding General, 

USASOC

Brigadier General Erik Peterson, Commanding General, US 

Army Special Operations Aviation Command (USASOAC)

Colonel Jay Wolff, G5, USASOC

Colonel Ernesto Sirvas, Commander, Special Warfare Center 

(SWC), USASOC

Colonel Robert McDowell, Deputy Commander, SWC, 

USASOC

Ms. Bethina Gilmore, G8, USASOC

Mr. Robert Warbug, G9, USASOC

Colonel George Hanhauser, G-3/5/7, Civil Affairs & 

Psychological Operations Command

Lieutenant Colonel Donald Kettering, 6-108th Military 

Intelligence Battalion
130 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Manley James, Commander, 139th Regiment-North 

Carolina National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Colonel Jeffrey Copeland, Commander, 449th Theater 

Aviation Brigade 

Command Sergeant Major Gary Hamm, Command Sergeant 

Major, 449th Theater Aviation Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Bishop, Commander, 1-130th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Command Sergeant Major Derwood Norris, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Major John McElveen, Commander, 1-151st Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Command Sergeant Major Roy Sullivan, Command Sergeant 

Major, 59th Aviation Troop Command

Lieutenant Colonel James Fidler, Commander, Army Aviation 

Support Facility, South Carolina Army National Guard

Colonel Michael Musiol, Commander, 82nd Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Command Sergeant Major William Yeargan Jr., Command 

Sergeant Major, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade

Captain Jason Stanley, Company Commander, Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Sergeant First Class Scott King, First Sergeant, Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Daniel Rittler, Company 

Standardization Pilot (AGR), Alpha Company, 1-169th 

Aviation Regiment

Mr. Kevin Erickson, ASF Supervisor (MILTECH), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Michael Argus, UH-60 Instructor 

Pilot (TPU) and ASF Employee (MILTECH), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Warrant Officer 1 David Silvia, UH-60 Pilot (TPU), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Staff Sergeant Marshall Lindsay, E Detachment NCOIC 

(TPU), Alpha Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Sergeant Samuel Hubbard, Company Standardization 

Instructor and ASF Employee (MILTECH), Alpha Company, 

1-169th Aviation Regiment

Sergeant Jeffrey Cox, UH-60 Flight Instructor (TPU), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Sergeant Philip Tarvin, UH-60 Crewchief (TPU), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Major General Gregory Lusk, The Adjutant General of North 

Carolina

Major General Robert Livingston Jr., The Adjutant General of 

South Carolina

Major General Glenn Curtis, The Adjutant General of 

Louisiana

Major General (retired) Cornell Wilson Jr, North Carolina 

Military Affairs Advisor

Command Sergeant Major John Swart, Command Senior 

Enlisted Leader, North Carolina Army National Guard

Chief Warrant Officer 5 James Herring, Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, North Carolina Army National Guard

Colonel Bernard Williford, Commander, 113th Sustainment 

Brigade

Colonel Ephraim Grubbs, Commander, 60th Troop Command

Colonel Luke Burnett, Commander, 130th Maneuver 

Enhancement Brigade

Captain Kofi Adih, Plans Officer, 518th Sustainment Brigade

Captain Joseph Gorgacz, Engineer Officer, 518th Sustainment 

Brigade

Ms. Kim Barnes, Deputy State Director for U.S. Senator Thom 

Tillis, North Carolina

Mr. Jack Rostetter, Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of 

Commerce, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Mr. Steve Mannell, Chairman, Chamber of Commerce 

Military Affairs, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Mr. Rodney Maddox, Chief Deputy Secretary, North Carolina 

Secretary of State

Mr. Ted Vorhees, City Manager, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Mr. Mike Moose, North Carolina Chapter, Reserve Officers’ 

Association

Mr. Jimmy Keefe, Commissioner, Cumberland County, North 

Carolina

Mr. Imam Eronomy Mohammed Smith, private citizen

Major General Rodney Anderson, U.S. Army Retired

Mr. Asher Hildebrand, Chief of Staff for U.S. Representative 

David Price, 4th Congressional District, North Carolina

Mr. Tad Davis, private citizen

Mr. Chris Carter, Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Representative 

Richard Hudson, 8th Congressional District, North Carolina

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Rick Comer, North Carolina Army 

National Guard

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Thomas McAuliffe, Brigade 

Standardization Pilot

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Christopher Wilson, Battalion 

Standardization Pilot, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion
National Commission on the Future of the Army 131

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Kurt Cunningham, Battalion Master 

Gunner, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Chief Warrant Officer 4 John Piland, Battalion Aviation 

Maintenance Officer, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Austin Norris, Battalion Master 

Gunner and Standardization Pilot

Chief Warrant Officer 2 George Protzman, Company A 

Standardization Pilot, 1-151st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Major Mark Vanveldhuizen, Battalion Operations Officer, 

1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Staff Sergeant Breann Williamson, Signal Support Specialist, 

492nd Signal Company

Sergeant James Warren, Supply Sergeant, 492nd Signal 

Company

First Lieutenant Michael Ashburn, Commander, 1006th 

Quartermaster Company

Second Lieutenant Esponinisa Eatmon, Platoon Leader, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Specialist First Class John Evers, Food Service Specialist, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Sergeant Jamason Campbell, Motor Transport Operator, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Sergeant Shamari Carmen, Automated Logistical Specialist, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Specialist Stephanie Lanham, Human Resources Specialist, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Major Alexia Fields, Civil Affairs Psychological Operations 

Command

Captain Robert Villa, Unit Administrator, Civil Affairs 

Psychological Operations Command

Staff Sergeant Chatchai Brunosky, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Sergeant Jonathan Watkins, Student, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Mr. Raymond Silva, Chief of Readiness, Civil Affairs 

Psychological Operations Command

Captain Norian Medina, Student, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Master Sergeant Richard Trujillo, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Staff Sergeant Daniel Thomas, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

First Lieutenant Vanessa McCormick, Course Manager, 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Captain Jeremy Vantress, Battalion S-1, 6-108th Military 

Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Son Joi Brantley, Battalion S-1 NCOIC, 6-108th 

Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Nicole Dial, Battalion S-3 ATRRS NCO, 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Christopher Lytle, Instructor (MOS 35L), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Oswaldo Ramos Ortiz, Instructor (MOS 35M), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Tyra Supranovich, Instructor (MOS 35M), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Amanda Wenk, Instructor (MOS 35F), 6-108th 

Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Derek Williams, Instructor (MOS 35M), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Staff Sergeant Bradley Cox, Instructor (MOS 35L), 6-108th 

Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Command Sergeant Major Jerry Martin, Command Sergeant 

Major, 139th Regiment

Major Christina Gilroy, Commander, Regional Training SiteMaintenance, 139th Regiment

Chief Warrant Officer 4 William Horne, OIC/Director/

Senior Instructor, Regional Training Site-Maintenance, 139th 

Regiment

Master Sergeant James Alexander, NCOIC/Chief Instructor, 

Regional Training Site-Maintenance, 139th Regiment

ADJUTANT GENERALS ASSOCIATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE, ATLANTA, 

GEORGIA, JUNE 15

Major General Donald P. Dunbar, The Adjutant General of 

Wisconsin

Major General Daniel R. Hokanson, The Adjutant General of 

Oregon

Major General Edward Tonini, The Adjutant General of 

Kentucky

AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JUNE 17

Mr. Bradley Pippin, Director, TRAC-FLVN, TRADOC 

Analysis Center, Training & Doctrine Command
132 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Mr. Russell Shim, Modeling Analyst, TRADOC Analysis 

Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Mr. Westin Castenberg, Modeling Analyst, TRADOC Analysis 

Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Mr. Edward Koucheravy, Director, Land Forces Division, Cost 

Assessment & Program Evaluation Office, Office of Secretary 

of Defense Legislative Affairs

Colonel John J. Lindsay, HQDA G-3/5/7 Aviation Directorate

Colonel J. Ray Davis, National Guard Bureau (NGB) Aviation 

Directorate

CLOSED MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

JUNE 17

Mr. Bruce Busler, Director, Joint Distribution Process Analysis 

Center & Army Transportation Engineering Agency, U.S. 

Transportation Command

Dr. Jamie Morin, Director, Cost Assessment & Program 

Evaluation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Mr. Bryan Paarmann, Deputy Assistant Director, Counter 

Terrorism Division & National Counter Terrorism Center, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Ms. Jennifer Turner, Group Chief, Directorate of Intelligence, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Admiral William E. Gortney, Commander, U.S. Northern 

Command

Lieutenant General Perry Wiggins, Commander, U.S. Army 

North

Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense, Integration & Defense Support of Civil 

Authorities 

Lieutenant General Timothy J. Kadavy, Director, Army 

National Guard

OPEN MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JUNE 18

General (retired) Gordon R. Sullivan, President, Association of 

the United States Army

Chief Master Sergeant (retired) John Harris, President, Enlisted 

Association of the National Guard of the United States

Major General William D. Waff, Chairman, Army Reserve 

Forces Policy Committee

Major General Thomas A. Horlander, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Budget

Major General John Ferrari, Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation, HQDA G-8 

Colonel (retired) Thomas Hueg, President, Department of 

Virginia, Reserve Officers Association

FORCE GENERATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA JUNE 18

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Johnson, Plans & Policy, HQDA 

G-35

Mr. Earnest Boyd, Branch Chief, Force Provider Division, 

Forces Command

INSTITUTIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JUNE 18

Mr. Mike Bush, Acting Division Chief, Force Accounting & 

Documentation, HQDA G-3/5/7 Force Management

Major Kevin Larrabee, Deployment & Enablers Division, 

Center for Army Analysis, HQDA G-8

Mr. Jack Zeedo, Center for Army Analysis Institute for Defense 

Analyses (CAA)

Brigadier General (retired) Robin Mealer, Director, U.S. Army 

Manpower Analysis Agency

FORT HOOD, AUSTIN & HOUSTON, TEXAS SITE 

VISITS, JULY 9-10

Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, Commanding General, 

III Corps & Fort Hood, Texas

Major General Michael A. Bills, Commanding General, 1st 

Cavalry Division

Colonel John DiGiambattista, Commander, 1st Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division

Colonel Cameron Cantlon, Commander, 3rd Cavalry 

Regiment

Colonel James C. Markert, Chief of Staff, III Corps & Fort 

Hood

Colonel Adam Lange, G-3 Air, III Corps 

Brigadier General Michael Dillard, Commanding General, 

310th Expeditionary Sustainment Command

Brigadier General Kenneth D. Jones, Commanding General, 

4th Expeditionary Sustainment Command
National Commission on the Future of the Army 133

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Christopher Beaudoin, Commander, Fort Hood 

Mobilization Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel William Rockefeller III, Commander, 

2-12th Cavalry Regiment

Major General Jeffrey N. Colt, Commanding General, First 

Army, Division West 

Command Sergeant Major Patrick Akuna, Jr., Command 

Sergeant Major, First Army, Division West 

Colonel John Leffers, Chief of Staff, First Army, Division West 

Colonel Randall Wickman, Commander, 189th Infantry 

Brigade, First Army, Division West 

Colonel Daniel Hurlbut, Commander, 120th Infantry Brigade, 

First Army, Division West 

Lieutenant Colonel George Hodges, G-3 Plans, First Army, 

Division West 

Lieutenant Colonel Oscar Pintado, Deputy Chief of Staff G3, 

First Army, Division West 

Lieutenant Colonel Sean Smith, Chief of Operations G3, First 

Army, Division West 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 James O’Gorman, 120th Infantry 

Brigade, First Army, Division West 

Mr. Chip Hickman, Mobilization Officer, G-3, First Army, 

Division West 

Mr. Jeff Kramer, Training Officer, G-3, First Army, Division 

West 

Colonel Jeffery Thompson, Commander, 1st Air Cavalry 

Brigade 

Command Sergeant Major Sean M. Dunn, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade

Major Matthew R. Minear, Operations Officer, 1st Air Cavalry 

Brigade

Major James G. Campbell, Assistant G3 Air, 1st Cavalry 

Division 

Captain Kyle Rogers, Fox Company, 227th Aviation Regiment

Major General James Young Jr., Commanding General, 75th 

Training Command 

Colonel (retired) George Penrod, Chief Executive Officer, 75th 

Training Command

Captain Rafael Perez, Supervisory Staff Administrator, 75th 

Training Command

First Sergeant Sabrina Aja, 75th Training Command

Major Tyson Voelkel, 75th Training Command 

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Timothy Taite, 75th Training 

Command 

Sergeant Valerie Wilhoite, 75th Training Command

Captain Renee Taylor, Aide-de-Camp, 75th Training 

Command

Mrs. Scheyda Stasik, Family Programs Director, 75th Training 

Command

Mr. Eric Hopkins, IT Specialist, 75th Training Command

Master Sergeant Patricia White, 75th Training Command, 

Sergeant First Class Carlos Gutierrez, 75th Training Command

First Lieutenant Christian Bionat, 75th Training Command

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Elmer Brewer, 75th Training 

Command

Major General William Smith, Deputy Adjutant General of 

Texas 

Colonel James “Bo” Kenyon, Commander, 36th Combat 

Aviation Brigade 

Colonel Richard P. Adams, State Aviation Officer, Texas Army 

National Guard 

Colonel Stanley Jones, Commander, Ellington Field Joint 

Readiness Base & 147th Reconnaissance Wing, Texas Air 

National Guard 

Lieutenant Colonel Nigel Atkins, Commander, 147th Air 

Support Operating Squadron, Texas Air National Guard

Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Jarrett Jr, Executive Officer, 36th 

Combat Aviation Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Derrek Hryhorchuk, Commander, 

Houston Army Aviation Support Facility, Texas Army National 

Guard

Major Scott P. Nicholas, Commander, 1-149th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Stephen P. White, Battalion 

Maintenance Officer, 1-149th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel Edmund Naughton, Commander, 1-158th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Major Derrick Hart, Executive Officer, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

First Lieutenant Nathaniel Guthrie, Commander, Alpha 

Company, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

Major Marisol Chalas, S-3, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance 

Battalion 

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Melvin DeJesus, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Chief Warrant Officer 3 James Villareal, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion
134 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Holly Donica, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Staff Sergeant Angel Melendez, S-3 NCOIC, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Sergeant Taniqua Grant, Training NCO, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Sergeant First Class David Rodriguez, Training NCO, Echo 

Company, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

Sergeant First Class Lowell Tack, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Specialist Michael Valladares, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance 

Battalion

Mr. James Lynch, Facility Supervisor, Army Reserve Aviation 

Support Facility-Conroe, Texas 

Staff Sergeant Juan Gonzalez, Maintenance Supervisor, Army 

Reserve Aviation Support Facility-Conroe, Texas 

The Honorable Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas 

Major General John Nichols, The Adjutant General of Texas 

Major General Robbie Asher, The Adjutant General of 

Oklahoma 

Major General Lester Simpson, Commanding General, 36th 

Infantry Division

Colonel Greg Barrow, G-3 Training, Plans & Operations, Texas 

Army National Guard 

Lieutenant Colonel Max Krupp, Commander, 1-143 Infantry 

Regiment (Airborne)

Major General (retired) Darren Owens

Colonel (retired) Mark Campsey

Colonel (retired) Cindy Smith

Mr. Anthony Triola, aide for REP John Carter

Ms. Candis Martin, Army Reserve Ambassador

Lieutenant General (retired) Dave Palmer

Lieutenant General (retired) Paul Funk, U.S. Army

Lieutenant General (retired) Pete Taylor

Command Sergeant Major (retired) Joe Gainey

Colonel (retired) Kenneth J. Crawford

Colonel (retired) John White

General (retired) Robert Shoemaker

Mr. Scott Cosper, Mayor of the City of Killeen and Vice 

Chairman of the Killeen Temple Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (KTMPO)

Dr. John Craft, Superintendent of Schools for Killeen 

Independent School District

Dr. Marc Nigliazzo, President Texas AM

Colonel (retired) John L. Ballantyne, Chief Operating Officer, 

Military Child Education Coalition

Mr. Glenn Morrison, Killeen City Manager

Dr. Don Daniels, MD, Metroplex Health System

Ms. Susan Kamas, Executive Director of Workforce Solutions 

of Central Texas

Mr. Bill Parry, the City Manager of the City of Gatesville, Texas

ENGAGEMENT WITH MAJOR GENERAL ARNOLD 

PUNARO, USMCR (RET.), ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

JULY 13

Major General (retired) Arnold Punaro, USMCR

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 14

Lieutenant General (retired) David Barno, American University

Colonel (retired) Dr. Douglas MacGregor, Burke-MacGregor, 

LLC

Colonel (retired) Dr. Gian Gentile, Center for Strategic & 

International Studies

Dr. Nora Bensahel, American University

Dr. Nadia Schadlow, Center for Strategic & International 

Studies

Mr. Frank Hoffman, Center for Strategic & International 

Studies

FORT MEADE, MARYLAND SITE VISIT, JULY 14

Colonel Tim Newsome, Chief of Staff, First Army, Division 

East 

Colonel Michael Shrout, Operations Officer, First Army, 

Division East 

Major Stephanie Lawrence, Staff Officer, First Army, Division 

East

Major General Phillip Churn, Commanding General, 200th 

Military Police Command 

Brigadier General Marianne Garcia, Deputy Commanding 

General, 200th Military Police Command 

Colonel Eric Folkestad, Office, Chief of the Army Reserve 

Colonel Robert Dinenna, G-3, 200th Military Police 

Command 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 135

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Command Sergeant Major Craig Owens, Command Sergeant 

Major, 200th Military Police Command

Major General Linda Singh, The Adjutant General of 

Maryland 

Major General Timothy Williams, The Adjutant General of 

Virginia 

Colonel Sean Casey, Director, Joint Staff, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Maryland

Colonel Charles Kohler, Public Affairs Officer, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Maryland

Lieutenant Colonel Drake McGraw, Commander, 32nd Civil 

Support Team 

Major James Sheldon, Executive Officer for The Adjutant 

General of Virginia 

First Sergeant Sergio Alcantara, 32nd Civil Support Team 

Staff Sergeant Montgomery – Public Affairs NCO, Fort Meade, 

Maryland

CLOSED MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

JULY 15

General Philip Breedlove, Commander, U.S. European 

Command (USEUCOM) and NATO Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe 

Lieutenant General William Garrett, Deputy Commander, 

U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)

Major General Michael Garrett, Chief of Staff, U.S. Central 

Command (USCENTCOM)

General David Rodriguez, Commander, U.S. Africa Command 

(USAFRICOM)

Mr. Daniel Feehan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Readiness)

Dr. Jamie Morin, Director, Cost Assessment & Program 

Evaluation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense (CAPE)

Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, Deputy Chief of Staff 

G-3/5/7, HQDA

FORCE GENERATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JULY 15

Mr. Edward Agee, Chief Materiel Integration, Material 

Command

Mr. Greg Singleton, Liaison Officer, Material Command

Mr. Paulus Hay, Logistics Management Specialist, HQDA G-4

Mr. Robert Grundy, Logistics Management Specialist, HQDA 

G-4

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Onedia S. Clark, Senior Mobility 

Warrant Officer, HQDA G-4

OPEN MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JULY 16

The Honorable Debra S. Wada, Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Manpower & Reserve Affairs

Major General (retired) Arnold Punaro, USMCR

Mr. Ben Banchs, Business Manager, Laborers International 

Union of North America, National Guard Council 1776

INSTITUTIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JULY 16

Ms. Jeanne Brooks, Director, Technology & Business 

Architecture Integration, HQDA G-1

Mr. David Paschal, Deputy Director Operations, G-3/5/7, 

Training & Doctrine Command

Colonel Christopher Croft, Director, Center for Army 

Leadership, Combined Arms Center, TRADOC

Colonel Michael Harlan, Director, Department of Logistics & 

Resource Operations, Combined Arms Center, TRADOC

AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, JULY 16

Major General Michael Lundy, Commanding General, 

Aviation Center of Excellence

Colonel Ken Hawley, Chief, Aviation Division, Forces 

Command

Mr. Jack Parkhurst, Deputy Chief, Aviation Division, Forces 

Command

Mr. Josh Klimas, Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE SENATE ARMED 

SERVICES COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 17

Mr. Jim Hickey, Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Armed 

Services Committee

Ms. Jody Bennett, Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate 

Armed Services Committee
136 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 20-21

Major General Kyoung Soo Shin, Defense Attaché, Embassy of 

the Republic of Korea

Colonel Masashi Yamamoto, Military Attaché, Embassy of the 

Japan

Mr. Kyosuke Matsumoto, Counselor, Embassy of the Japan

FORT KNOX, FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY & 

CAMP ATTERBURY, INDIANA SITE VISITS, 

JULY 20-21

Major General Peggy C. Combs, Commanding General, 

Cadet Command

Colonel Sean A. Gainey, Deputy Commanding Officer, 

Cadet Command

Command Sergeant Major Gabriel Arnold, Command 

Sergeant Major, Cadet Command 

Colonel BJ Constantine, Chief of Staff, Human Resource 

Command 

Colonel Randall L. Haws, Deputy Chief of Staff-Operations, 

Human Resource Command 

Command Sergeant Major Charles E. Smith, Command 

Sergeant Major, Human Resource Command 

Mr. David Martino, Officer Personnel Management Director, 

Human Resource Command 

Mr. Freddie Blakely, Deputy Director, Personnel Information 

Systems, Human Resource Command

Major General Jeffrey Snow, Commanding General, Recruiting 

Command

Brigadier General Troy D. Kok, Deputy Commanding 

General-Support, Recruiting Command

Colonel Donna W. Martin, Deputy Commanding GeneralOperations, Recruiting Command

Command Sergeant Major Willie C. Clemmons, Command 

Sergeant Major, Recruiting Command

Colonel Brian Bassett, Chief of Staff, Recruiting Command

Colonel Terrence Murrill, Commandant, Recruiting/Retention 

School, Recruiting Command

Brigadier General Aaron T. Walter, Deputy Commanding 

General, 84th Training Command 

Command Sergeant Major Thomas Jennings, Command 

Sergeant Major, 84th Training Command 

Colonel Kenneth G. Holley, Operations Officer, Cadet 

Command /104th Training Command 

Lieutenant Colonel Andreas McGhee, 84th Training 

Command 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Orlando Freeman, 84th Training 

Command 

Sergeant First Class Pamela Jackson, 104th Training Command 

Staff Sergeant Michael Stoddard, 104th Training Command 

Corporal Henry Quinones-Ayala, 104th Training Command

Major General Edward W. Tonini, The Adjutant General of 

Kentucky 

Major General David C. Wood, Commanding General, 38th 

Infantry Division 

Brigadier General Charles Jones, Deputy Adjutant General of 

Kentucky

Brigadier General Benjamin F. Adams III, Director, Joint Staff, 

Joint Force Headquarters-Kentucky

Major General Omer “Clif” Tooley, Jr, Commander, 

Atterbury-Muscatatuck Center for Complex Operations

Colonel Ronald Westfall, Director, Joint Staff, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Indiana 

Captain Morgan Seitz, Director of Plans & Integration, Camp 

Atterbury, Indiana

Colonel Rodney Babb, Commander, 138th Regiment-Indiana 

National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Command Sergeant Major James Forbes II, Command 

Sergeant Major, 138th Regiment-Indiana National Guard 

Regional Training Institute

Major General Jeffrey Holmes, Deputy Adjutant General of 

Tennessee 

Brigadier General Tommy H. Baker, Assistant Adjutant 

General of Tennessee 

Colonel Darrell Darnbush, Commander, 278th Armored 

Cavalry Regiment 

Command Sergeant Major Daniel Jennings, Command 

Sergeant Major, 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment

Major General Gary Volesky, Commanding General, 101st 

Airborne Division 

Brigadier General Steve Gilland, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, 101st Airborne Division 

Colonel Valery C. Keaveny, Jr., Chief of Staff, 101st Airborne 

Division 

Command Sergeant Major Gregory F. Nowak, Command 

Sergeant Major, 101st Airborne Division 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 137

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel James R. Salome, Garrison Commander, Fort 

Campbell

Colonel Kyle J. Marsh, Commander, 101st Division Artillery 

Command Sergeant Major Carl Fagan, Command Sergeant 

Major, 101st Division Artillery

Colonel Brett G. Sylvia, Commander, 502nd Infantry 

Regiment 

Command Sergeant Major John A. Brady, Command Sergeant 

Major, 502nd Infantry Regiment 

Colonel J.B. Vowell, Commander, 187th Infantry Regiment 

Colonel Kimberly J. Daub, Commander, 101st Sustainment 

Brigade 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Halloran, Commander, 2-320th 

Field Artillery Regiment 

Lieutenant Colonel Marc Cloutier, Commander, 1-187th 

Infantry Battalion 

Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Harkins, Commander, 3-187th 

Infantry Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Smith, Commander, 2-506th Infantry 

Battalion 

Command Sergeant Major James R. Basham, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1-502nd Infantry Battalion 

Lieutenant Colonel Nikolaus Guran, Commander, 101st 

Headquarters & Headquarters Battalion

ENGAGEMENT WITH HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS 

COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE (HAC-D) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF, WASHINGTON, D.C., 

JULY 24

Mr. Paul Terry, Professional Staff Member, Appropriations 

Defense Committee, U.S. House of Representatives

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

MEETING, WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, 

WEST VIRGINIA, JULY 24

The Honorable Terry Branstad, Governor of Iowa 

The Honorable Bill Walker, Governor of Alaska 

The Honorable Pat McCrory, Governor of North Carolina 

The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Governor of Arkansas 

The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona 

The Honorable Jack Markell, Governor of Delaware 

The Honorable Jeremiah Nixon, Governor of Missouri 

The Honorable Mary Fallin, Governor of Oklahoma

The Honorable Dennis Daugaard, Governor of South Dakota 

The Honorable Robert Bentley, Governor of Alabama 

The Honorable Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota

The Honorable Steven Beshear, Governor of Kentucky

The Honorable Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon 

The Honorable Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana 

The Honorable Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor of West Virginia 

The Honorable Matthew Mead, Governor of Wyoming 

The Honorable Maggie Hassan, Governor of New Hampshire 

The Honorable Richard Herbert, Governor of Utah 

The Honorable John Hickenloope, Governor of Colorado 

The Honorable Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia 

The Honorable Gina Raimondo, Governor of Rhode Island 

The Honorable Dan Malloy, Governor of Connecticut 

Ms. Virginia Johnson, Director of Federal Relations, Office of 

the Governor, State of North Carolina

Major General James Hoyer, The Adjutant General of West 

Virginia 

Major General Michael McGuire, The Adjutant General of 

Arizona 

Command Sergeant Major Chris Belford 

Sergeant Major Alex Coy 

Master Sergeant Dennis Riggs 

Command Sergeant Major William “Tom” Edmunds, 

Command Sergeant Major, Joint Interagency Training & 

Education Center, West Virginia Army National Guard

Master Sergeant Jeff Wales 

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Grant 

Major Wallie Hatfield 

Major Robert Kincaib 

Mr. Bill Suver 

Master Sergeant Angie Coleman 

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Ray 

Staff Sergeant Bradley Convrey 

Captain Jason Freeman 

Sergeant Sean Courtney 

Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Chard 

Staff Sergeant Katie Nesselrodt 

Sergeant Rob Cunningham
138 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

GERMANY SITE VISITS, JULY 28-30

Lieutenant General Fredrick Hodges, Commanding General, 

U.S. Army Europe

General (retired) George Joulwan, Former Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe

Major General William Gayler, Deputy Commanding General, 

U.S. Army Europe 

Brigadier General Markus Laubenthal (German Army), Chief 

of Staff, U.S. Army Europe 

Command Sergeant Major Sheryl Lyon, Command Sergeant 

Major, U.S. Army Europe 

Brigadier General John Hort, G-3, U.S. Army Europe 

Colonel Rob Dixon, U.S. Army Europe

Mrs. Cathy Vandermaarel, U.S. Army Europe

Captain Herman Wu, U.S. Army Europe

Ms. Stephanie Otto, U.S. Army Europe

Lieutenant Colonel James Brady, U.S. Army Europe

Brigadier General Arian Deblieck, Commanding General, 7th 

Civil Support Command 

Brigadier General Timothy Daughtery, Deputy Commanding 

General, 4th Infantry Division

Colonel Willburn Williams, Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 

Europe 

Colonel Laura Potter, G-2, U.S. Army Europe 

Colonel Edward Burke, G-4, U.S. Army Europe 

Colonel David Pendall, Commander, 66th Military Intelligence 

Brigade 

Colonel Vincent Torza, Commanding Generals’ Executive 

Officer, U.S. Army Europe

Major General Darryl Williams, Commanding General, U.S. 

Army Africa 

Mr. John Frame, G-5, U.S. Army Africa

Mr. Jim McMillian, G-5, U.S. Army Africa

Mr. Jim Motties, G-7, U.S. Army Africa

Colonel Dickson, G-5, U.S. Army Africa 

Major General Duane Gamble, Commanding General, 21st 

Theater Sustainment Command

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Rhoades, Command 

Sergeant Major, 21st Theater Sustainment Command

Mr. Dan McCormack, G-3 Staff, U.S. Army Europe

Colonel Todd S. Beatulis, Commander, 405th Army Field 

Support Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Schultz, Commander, Field Support 

Battalion, 405th Army Field Support Brigade

Colonel Adam Loveless, Chief of Staff, 7th Army Joint 

Multinational Training Command

Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer L. Schulke, Executive Officer, 10th 

Army Air & Missile Defense Command (AAMDC)

Brigadier General Norvell V. Coots, MD, Commander, 

Regional Health Command Europe & Command Surgeon, 

U.S. Army Europe 

First Lieutenant Daniel Miller, Aide-de-Camp, Regional Health 

Command Europe 

Command Sergeant Major William O’Neal, Command 

Sergeant Major, Regional Health Command Europe

Lieutenant Colonel Phil Mazingo, Commander, 4th Battalion, 

3rd Aviation Regiment

Major Luke Chivers, S-3, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade 

Colonel Jimmie Hall, Commander; 5th Signal Command

Command Sergeant Major Harry Mercado, Command 

Sergeant Major, 5th Signal Command

First Sergeant Matthew McLeod, acting Command Sergeant 

Major, 4/3 Assault Helicopter Battalion

CAMP SHELBY, MISSISSIPPI SITE VISIT, AUGUST 4

The Honorable Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi

The Honorable Trent Kelly, U.S. Representative, 1st 

Congressional District, Mississippi

Lieutenant General Joseph Lengyel, Vice Chief, National 

Guard Bureau 

Major General Augustus Collins, The Adjutant General of 

Mississippi 

Major General William Hill, Assistant Adjutant General (Air) 

of Mississippi 

Brigadier General Jessie Robinson, Assistant Adjutant General 

(Army) of Mississippi 

Brigadier General Allen Brewer, Joint Staff Director, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Mississippi

Colonel Jeffrey P. Van, Commander, 155th Armored Brigade 

Combat Team

Colonel Matthew VanWagener, Commander, 3rd Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division

Colonel Brandon Robins, Commander, 177th Armor Brigade, 

First Army
National Commission on the Future of the Army 139

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Dane Powell, Aviation Safety Officer, Joint Staff, Joint 

Force Headquarters-Mississippi

Colonel Amos Parker, Commander, 154th RegimentMississippi National Guard Regional Training Institute

Colonel Greg Michel, Garrison Commander, Camp Shelby, 

Mississippi 

Lieutenant Colonel James Haynie, Commander, 1-185th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

Brigadier General Wendul Hagler, Special Assistant to the 

Director, Army National Guard 

Mr. Dave Norton, Exercise Director, Exportable Combat 

Training Center

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, AUGUST 13

Colonel Kajari Klettenberg, Defense Attaché, Embassy of 

Estonia

Lieutenant General Robert Brown, Commanding General, 

Combined Arms Center, Training & Doctrine Command 

Lieutenant General Mary Legere, Deputy Chief of Staff G-2, 

HQDA

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, Deputy Commanding 

General, Futures & Director, Army Capabilities Integration 

Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Mr. Mike Pappas, Senior Advisor, Intelligence Capabilities & 

Requirements, HQDA G-2

Mr. David J. Clark, Foreign Intelligence Technical Advisor, 

HQDA G-2

Major General William Hix, Deputy Chief of Staff G-3/5/7 

Strategy, Department of the Army

AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, AUGUST 17-18

Mr. Josh Klimas, Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

Mr. Bradley Pippin, Director, TRAC-FLVN, TRADOC 

Analysis Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Colonel Walter Rugen, Director, Aviation Force Development, 

HQDA G-8

Mr. Bill Pardue, Deputy Director, Aviation Force 

Development, HQDA G-8

Lieutenant Colonel John Cochran, Aviation Force 

Development, HQDA G-8

Mr. Mark Riddle, UH-60 Staff Synchronization Officer, 

Aviation Force Development, HQDA G-8

Mr. James St. Amour, AH-64 Staff Synchronization Officer, 

Aviation Force Development, HQDA G-8

General (retired) Richard Cody, 31st Vice Chief of Staff of the 

Army & former Commander 101st Airborne Division

Lieutenant General (retired) Thomas Metz, former III Corps 

Commander

Major General (retired) Rudolph Ostovich III, former 

Commander, Aviation Center

Major General (retired) Jeffrey Schloesser, former Director of 

Army Aviation, HQDA & former commander 101st Airborne 

Division

FORCE GENERATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, AUGUST 18

Lieutenant General Michael Tucker, Commanding General, 

First Army

Mr. Chris Reddish, Chief, Strategy, Policy & Transformation 

Division, Forces Command

Mr. Dana Luton, Army Campaign Plan Integrator, Forces 

Command

CLOSED MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

AUGUST 17

Lieutenant General James McLaughlin, Deputy Commander, 

U.S. Cyber Command

Lieutenant General Edward Cardon, Commander, Army Cyber 

Command

General John Kelly, Commander, U.S. Southern Command 

Lieutenant General Joseph DiSalvo, Deputy Commander, U.S. 

Southern Command

Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr, Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Command 

OPEN MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

AUGUST 18

Lieutenant General Anthony Crutchfield, Deputy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command

Lieutenant General James B. Laster, Director, U.S. Marine 

Corps Staff
140 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major General Scott A. Vander Hamm, Assistant Deputy Chief 

of Staff Operations, U.S. Air Force

Rear Admiral Lawrence Jackson, Reserve Deputy Director, 

Warfare Integration Division, U.S. Navy

Major General H. Stacy Clardy III, Deputy Director, Force 

Management, Application & Support, Joint Staff J-8

Mr. Timothy Bonds, Vice President, RAND Army Research 

Division & Director, RAND Arroyo Center

Major General Glenn H. Curtis, President, Adjutant Generals 

Association of the United States

Ms. Andrea Peterson, Legislative Affairs Manager, National 

Guard Association of the United States 

Lieutenant General Michael Tucker, Commanding General, 

First Army

Mr. Chris Reddish, Chief, Strategy, Policy & Transformation 

Division, Forces Command

Mr. Dana Luton, Army Campaign Plan Integrator, Forces 

Command

Colonel Mark Berglund, Chief, Force Management, National 

Guard Bureau

Major General Glenn Curtis, The Adjutant General of 

Louisiana & President, Adjutant Generals Association of the 

United States

Mr. Bradley Pippin, Director, TRAC-FLVN, TRADOC 

Analysis Center, Training & Doctrine Command

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 20

Brigadier General David Creagh, Defense Attaché, Embassy of 

Australia,

Ms. Sheridan Kearnan, Minister-Counselor (Defense Policy), 

Embassy of Australia,

Dr. Michael Lankowski, First Secretary (Defense Strategic 

Policy), Embassy of Australia

FORT IRWIN & LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA SITE 

VISITS, AUGUST 24-25 

Major General Megan Tatu, Commanding General, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command

Command Sergeant Major Ted Copeland, Command Sergeant 

Major, 79th Theater Sustainment Command

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Michael Hanten, Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, 79th Theater Sustainment Command 

Colonel Anthony Francia, G-3, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command

Colonel Arthur Turnier, Comptroller, 79th Theater 

Sustainment Command 

Lieutenant Colonel David Sonnek, Inspector General, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command 

Lieutenant Colonel Mercedes Murillo, Assistant G-3, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command 

Major Henry Empeno, Commander, Headquarters & 

Headquarters Company, 79th Theater Sustainment Command 

First Sergeant Shamika Copenhagen, Headquarters & 

Headquarters Company, 79th Theater Sustainment Command 

Master Sergeant Joshua Troche, G-1, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command 

Sergeant Jesus Lopez, Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 

79th Theater Sustainment Command 

Mr. Jimmy Crisp, Security Specialist, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command 

Ms. Maurnike Stevenson, SHARP Program Manager, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command 

Major Joycelyn Magday, Scribe, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command

Colonel Jan C. Norris, Garrison Commander, Fort HunterLiggett, California

Command Sergeant Major Tracy E. Barlogio, Command 

Sergeant Major, Fort Hunter-Liggett, California

Lieutenant Colonel David L. Phillips, Deputy Director, Plans, 

Training, Mobilization, & Security, Fort Hunter-Liggett, 

California 

Colonel Bradley Upton, Deputy Commander, 91st Training 

Division

Major General David Baldwin, The Adjutant General of 

California 

Major General Jefferson Burton, The Adjutant General of Utah 

Major General Lawrence Haskins, Commanding General, 40th 

Infantry Division

Brigadier General John Lathrop, Deputy Commanding 

General, 40th Infantry Division 

Command Sergeant Major William Clark Jr, Senior Enlisted 

Advisor to the Adjutant General of California 

Colonel Laura Yeager, Chief of Staff, Joint Force HeadquartersCalifornia

Colonel Jeffrey Smiley, J-3, Joint Force Headquarters-California

Colonel Michael Leeney, Chief of Staff, 40th Infantry Division 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 141

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major Adam Rix, Operations Officer, 40th Infantry Division 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Kenneth Jones, Instructor Pilot, 

1-211th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Chris Good, Instructor Pilot, 40th 

Combat Aviation Brigade

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Stephen Rugg, Instructor Pilot, 

1-211th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Ryan Eyre, Instructor Pilot, 1-211th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Robert Williams, Instructor Pilot, 

1-211th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Mifsud, Commander, 1-160th 

Infantry Regiment 

Command Sergeant Major Sergio Porras, Command Sergeant 

Major, 1-160th Infantry Regiment

Lieutenant Colonel Jilian Bond, Commander, 224th 

Sustainment Brigade 

Sergeant Major Gregory Silva, 746th Combat Sustainment 

Support Battalion 

Colonel Peter Cross, Commander, 49th Military Police Brigade 

Sergeant Major Cari Beetham, Operations Sergeant Major, 

49th Military Police Brigade 

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Plamondon, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1-184th Infantry Regiment 

Captain Manuel Arino, 40th Infantry Division

Second Lieutenant Jawana McFadden, 40th Infantry Division

Sergeant First Class Ben Nievera, 132nd Engineer Company 

(Multi-Role Bridge) 

Sergeant First Class Jose Garcia, 40th Infantry Division

Master Sergeant Emily Toomey, 224th Sustainment Brigade

Staff Sergeant Jeffrey Nelan, California Army National Guard 

Staff Sergeant Ian Tashima, 40th Infantry Division

Mr. Andrew Wiktorowicz, Chairman, California Employer 

Support for the Guard & Reserve

Mr. Gary Elliott, Under Sheriff for Solano County, California

The Honorable Alan Lowenthal, U.S. Representative, 47th 

Congressional District, California

Major General (retired) Dennis Kenneally, Council Member, 

Governor of California’s Military Council

Major General (retired) Mark McCarley

Chief Robert Paoletti, Chief of Police, Redding, California

Colonel (retired) Daniel Furtado, California Army Reserve 

Ambassador 

Major General (retired) Paul Mock, National Chair for 

Employer Support for the Guard & Reserve

Mr. Dean Grose, City Council Member, City of Los Alamitos, 

California

Specialist Brendan Zachery, 224th Sustainment Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Dr. Milton D. Houghton

Captain Gerrelaine Alcordo, 40th Infantry Division

Colonel (retired) Alfred Diaz, Reserve Officer Association of 

the United States

Major General (retired) Robert Grant

Staff Sergeant (retired) Emmett Spraktes

Colonel Clay Garrison, Commander, 144th Fighter Wing, 

California Air National Guard

Colonel Mark Van Dyke, Commander, 1106th Theater 

Aviation Sustainment Maintenance Group (TASM-G), 

California Army National Guard (CAARNG)

Major General Joseph Martin, Commanding General, National 

Training Center and Fort Irwin

Colonel David Lesperance, Chief, Operations Group, National 

Training Center 

Colonel Matthew Moore, National Training Center

Colonel Clark Michaud, National Training Center

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Cunningham, National Training 

Center 

Major Ian Lauer, National Training Center 

Command Sergeant Major Noe Salinas, National Training 

Center

Brigadier General Mark Malanka, Deputy Commanding 

General, 40th Infantry Division

Lieutenant Colonel Ray Hoeflein, Chief of Operations, 40th 

Infantry Division

Colonel Russell Johnson, Commander, 116th Cavalry Brigade 

Combat Team (116th ABCT)

Command Sergeant Major Henry Chin, 116th Cavalry Brigade 

Combat Team (116th ABCT)

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Nauman, NTC Senior Brigade 

Trainer, 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team (116th ABCT)

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Dean, Commander, 3rd Squadron, 

116th ABCT, ORARNG

Command Sergeant Major Ronald Bloker, 3rd Squadron, 

116th ABCT, ORARNG

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Moreni, Commander, 1st 

Squadron, 163rd Cavalry Regiment, MTARNG
142 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Sergeant Natasha MacKenzie, Vulture Team Operations SGT, 

NTC Urban Warfare Media Center

Major General Gary Sayler, The Adjutant General, Idaho 

National Guard

Brigadier General John Goodale, Assistant TAG, Idaho 

National Guard

Colonel Michael Garshak, Chief of Staff, Idaho Army National 

Guard

Brigadier General Michael Stencel, Chief of Staff, Oregon 

Army National Guard

Colonel William Pendergast, Commander, 41st Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team

Brigadier General Kenneth Koon, Assistant TAG, Wisconsin 

National Guard, and Deputy Commander, Division West, 1st 

Army

MINNESOTA SITE VISIT, AUGUST 25-27

The Honorable Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota 

Major General Richard Nash, The Adjutant General of 

Minnesota

Major General Courtney Carr, The Adjutant General of 

Indiana

Major General David A. Sprynczynatyk, The Adjutant General 

of North Dakota 

Major General Timothy Reisch, The Adjutant General of South 

Dakota

Major General Donald P. Dunbar, The Adjutant General of 

Wisconsin

Brigadier General Richard Hayes, The Adjutant General of 

Illinois 

Major General Neal Loidolt, Commanding General, 34th 

Infantry Division 

Major General Brian Harris, Commander, Task Force 51, U.S. 

Army North

Major General Jonathon McColumn, Commanding General, 

103rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command 

Colonel John Rosnow, Commander, 644th Regional Support 

Group & Minnesota Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer 

Colonel Kevin Olson, Public Affairs Officer, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Minnesota

Colonel Scott St. Sauver, Garrison Commander, Camp Ripley 

Training Center, Minnesota

Colonel Shawn Manke, Commander, 34th Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Merricks, Executive Officer, 34th 

Combat Aviation Brigade 

Lieutenant Colonel Jess Ulrick, Secretary to the General Staff, 

Minnesota Army National Guard 

Major Jonathon Dotterer, Commander, Minnesota CBRNE 

Enhanced Response Force Package (CERF-P)

Private Vaughn Austin, Minnesota CBRNE Enhanced 

Response Force Package (CERF-P) 

Mr. Ed Dankbar, Hazmat Officer, Canadian Pacific Rail 

Emergency Response 

Mr. Clem Schimikowski, Hazmat Officer, Canadian Pacific 

Rail Emergency Response 

Mr. Uli Seal, Task Force 1 Commander, Bloomington, 

Minnesota Fire Department 

Mr. Scott Vadnais, Task Force 1, Edna, Minnesota Fire 

Department 

Mr. Mike Pott, Task Force 1, South Metro Twin Cities, 

Minnesota Fire Department 

Mr. Ron Crosby, Systems & Scheduling Chief, Camp Ripley 

Training Center, Minnesota

Major Pino, National Guard Bureau

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE UNDER SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL & READINESS, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, AUGUST 27

The Honorable Brad Carson, Acting Under Secretary for 

Personnel & Readiness

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 27-28

Brigadier General Abdelraham Al Mazmi, Defense Attaché, 

Embassy of the United Arab Emirates

Brigadier General James Illingworth, Military Attaché, 

Embassy of the United Kingdom

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 1

Colonel Didier Gros, Military Attaché, Embassy of France
National Commission on the Future of the Army 143

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 3

Brigadier General Jarosław Stróżyk, Defense Attaché, Embassy 

of Poland

COLORADO SITE VISITS, SEPTEMBER 2-3

Major General H. Michael Edwards, The Adjutant General of 

Colorado

Major General Daryl Bohac, The Adjutant General of Nebraska

Major General Robbie Asher, The Adjutant General of 

Oklahoma

Major General Jefferson Burton, The Adjutant General of Utah 

Brigadier General Thomas Bump, Land Component 

Commander-New Mexico Army National Guard

Brigadier General Pete Byrne, Commander, Joint Task ForceCentennial

Colonel Dave Burwell, Defense Coordinating Officer, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency Region 8 

Colonel Gaylene Weber, Emergency Preparedness Liaison 

Officer, Region 8

Colonel James Bledsoe, Army Aviation Officer, Colorado Army 

National Guard

Colonel Kevin Kick, Special Projects, Colorado Army National 

Guard

Colonel Bobby Yandell, G-3, Oklahoma Army National Guard

Colonel John Harrison, Chief of Staff, Colorado Army 

National Guard

Lieutenant Colonel Shannon Espinoza, Senior Army Advisor 

Colorado Army National Guard 

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Sherman, J-3, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Lieutenant Colonel Chris Lowman, Deputy J-3, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Major Kerry Davis, G-3 Operations, Colorado Army National 

Guard

Master Sergeant Luis Luna Rodriquez, J-3 NCO, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Major Jason Stuchlik, J-35, Joint Force Headquarters-Colorado

Colonel James D. Bischoff, Commander, Army Reserve 

Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center (PACOM JIOC ARE) 

Lieutenant Colonel Jason Ball, Deputy Commander, PACOM 

JIOC ARE

Sergeant Major Gary Stockdale, PACOM JIOC ARE

Major Melvin Brown, Executive Officer, PACOM JIOC ARE

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Manuel Ramos, Senior All-Source 

Analyst, PACOM JIOC ARE

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Schooner, Chief-Minneapolis 

Detachment, PACOM JIOC ARE 

Master Sergeant Ryan Peterson, Senior NCO Imagery Analyst, 

PACOM JIOC ARE 

Captain Charles Kelsey, Intelligence Officer, PACOM JIOC 

ARE 

Sergeant Ana Nunez, Imagery NCO, PACOM JIOC ARE 

Mr. Michael Lombard, Unit Administrator, PACOM JIOC 

ARE 

Sergeant First Class Katherine Phelps, Senior Human Resource 

NCO, PACOM JIOC ARE 

Master Sergeant Benjamin Prebble, Senior Imagery Analyst, 

PACOM JIOC ARE

The Honorable John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado

Colonel Laura Clellan, Land Component CommanderColorado Army National Guard

Command Sergeant Major Bill Woods, State Senior Enlisted 

Leader, Colorado Army National Colonel Chief Warrant 

Officer 5 Steve Imeraj, State Command, Colorado Army 

National Guard 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Matt Dorram, Former State 

Command Chief Warrant Officer, Colorado Army National 

Guard 

Colonel Adam Silvers, G-3, Colorado Army National Guard 

Colonel Mike Willis, Commander, 169th Field Artillery 

Brigade 

Command Sergeant Major Ed Macias, Command Sergeant 

Major, 169th Field Artillery Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Craig Jones, G-4, Colorado Army National 

Guard

Lieutenant Colonel Josh Day, State Aviation Officer, Colorado 

Army National Guard 

Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Martinez, Commander, 193rd 

Military Police Battalion 

Lieutenant Colonel Bren Rogers, J-57, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Major Brett Martin, Executive Officer, Theatre Special 

Operations Detachment 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Steve Imeraj, State Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, Colorado Army National Guard
144 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major Cara McLean, S-1, 89th Troop Command

Command Sergeant Major Jim Bunch, Command Sergeant 

Major, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National Guard 

Regional Training Institute 

Sergeant Major Seth Yount, Operations Sergeant Major, 89th 

Troop Command 

Command Sergeant Major Greg Clancy, Command Sergeant 

Major, 2-135th Aviation Regiment

Master Sergeant Denise Drummond, G-3 NCO, Colorado 

Army National Guard

Brigadier General Gregory Bowen, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, Space & Missile Defense Command, 

Army Forces Strategic Command (SMDC/ARSTRAT)

Major General Daniel York, Commanding General, 76th 

Operational Response Command 

Brigadier General Donald Laucirica, Assistant Adjutant 

General of Colorado 

Colonel Kelly Spillane, Deputy Commander for Support, 

SMDC/ARSTRAT 

Colonel Deborah Wilson, Reserve Affairs Officer, SMDC/

ARSTRAT 

Colonel Michael Rowells, Deputy Commander, 76th 

Operational Response Command

Lieutenant Colonel Rolland Quidachay, 100th Missile Defense 

Brigade 

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Ross, National Guard Bureau 

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Rivenbark, National Guard 

Bureau

Major Elizabeth Helland, 1st Space Brigade

Major General Ryan Gonsalves, Commanding General, 4th 

Infantry Division & Fort Carson

Command Sergeant Major Michael Crosby, Command 

Sergeant Major, 4th Infantry Division & Fort Carson

Colonel Douglas Sims, Chief of Staff, 4th Infantry Division & 

Fort Carson

Colonel Gregg Engler, Staff Judge Advocate, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Colonel Lori Robinson, Commander, 4th Combat Aviation 

Brigade 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Sketch, Commander, Headquarters 

& Headquarters Battalion, 4th Infantry Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Christine Enriquez, G-1, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Love, G-2, 4th Infantry Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Cho, G-3, 4th Infantry Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Christine Massey, G-4, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Jason Rosenstrauch, G-5, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Shawn Carden, G-6, 4th Infantry Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Sheiffer, G-7, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Garvey Wright, G-8, 4th Infantry Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Price, Division Surgeon, 4th 

Infantry Division 

Lieutenant Colonel James Cutchin, G-9, Colorado Army 

National Guard 

Master Sergeant Brent Williams, Public Affairs Officer, 4th 

Infantry Division

Colonel Michael Oeschger, Commander, 4th Infantry Division 

Artillery

Command Sergeant Major Thomas Parsley, Command 

Sergeant Major, 4th Infantry Division Artillery

Major Charles Knoll, Executive Officer, 4th Infantry Division 

Artillery

Major Samuel Linn, S-3, 4th Infantry Division Artillery 

Lieutenant Colonel Neil Snyder, Commander, 2-77th Field 

Artillery Battalion

Command Sergeant Major Eric Macher, Command Sergeant 

Major, 2-77th Field Artillery Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel Cory Delger, Deputy Fires Support 

Coordinator, 4th Infantry Division 

Major Royce Baker, Fire Support Officer, 4th Infantry Division 

Fire Support Element

Colonel Matt Cody, Commander, 2nd Infantry Brigade 

Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division 

Command Sergeant Major Sammy Sparger, Command 

Sergeant Major, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th 

Infantry Division

Lieutenant Colonel Damon Knarr, Division Engineer, 4th 

Infantry Division

Major Louis Johnson, Assistant Division Engineer, 4th Infantry 

Division

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Radka, Commander, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion 

Command Sergeant Major John Johnson, Command Sergeant 

Major, 52nd Brigade Engineer Battalion
National Commission on the Future of the Army 145

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major Stewart Gast, Executive Officer, 52nd Brigade Engineer 

Battalion 

First Lieutenant Nolan Miles, Platoon Leader, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion 

First Lieutenant Lamar Cravens, Platoon Leader, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion

Staff Sergeant Jon Stone, Squad Leader, 52nd Brigade Engineer 

Battalion

Staff Sergeant Ryan Burke, Squad Leader, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion 

Captain Andrew Lohrenz, S-4, 2-77th Field Artillery Battalion

First Lieutenant Elyse Ping Medvigy, Fire Direction Officer, 

2-77th Field Artillery Battalion 

Sergeant First Class Floyd Dugan, Fire Direction Center 

NCOIC, 2-77th Field Artillery Battalion 

Sergeant First Class Matthew Burdick, Platoon Sergeant, 

2-77th Field Artillery Battalion

Colonel Isaac Peltier, Commander, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Kirk Teaney, Command Chief Warrant 

Officer, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Command Sergeant Major Lou Pauka, Command Sergeant 

Major, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Lieutenant Colonel James Bekurs, Executive Officer, 10th 

Special Forces Group (Airborne) 

Major Michael Lueckeman, S-3, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Major Matthew Chaney, S-3, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Major Matthew Crawford, S-2, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Captain Benjamin Monson, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Captain Eric Barger, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Master Sergeant Kevin Burford, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Sergeant First Class (P) Jacob Lindholm, 10th Special Forces 

Group (Airborne)

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Jerry Brown, S-8, 10th Special Forces 

Group (Airborne)

Colonel Jesse Morehouse, Commander, 168th RegimentColorado Army National Guard Regional Training Institute 

(COARNG RTI) 

Command Sergeant Major James Bunch, Commandant, 

Warrior Leader Course (WLC), 168th Regiment-COARNG 

RTI

Major Robert Weeks, Operations Officer, 168th RegimentCOARNG RTI 

Master Sergeant Christine Wilkins, WLC Manager, 168th 

Regiment-COARNG RTI 

Sergeant First Class Johnny Napier, WLC Chief Instructor, 

168th Regiment-COARNG RTI 

Sergeant Stephen Fleming, WLC Operations NCO, 168th 

Regiment-COARNG RTI

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Burtt, Commander, Centennial 

Training Site, 168th Regiment-COARNG RTI 

Command Sergeant Major Brandon Marx, Command Sergeant 

Major, Centennial Training Site, 168th Regiment-COARNG 

RTI 

Major Bryan Murphy, Executive Officer, Centennial Training 

Site, 168th Regiment-COARNG RTI 

Staff Sergeant Anthony Chavez, Centennial Training Site 

Housing Manager, 168th Regiment-COARNG RTI

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Weidenbeck, Commander, 5th 

Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group

Captain Clint Davis, Assistant Operations Officer, 5th 

Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group 

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Andrew Hilton, Operations Warrant 

Officer, 5th Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group 

Colonel Adam Silvers, Commander, Special Operations 

Detachment-Korea, Colorado Army National Guard 

Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Paul, G-3, Special Operations 

Detachment-Korea, Colorado Army National Guard

FORT INDIANTOWN GAP, PENNSYLVANIA SITE 

VISIT, SEPTEMBER 8

Major General James Joseph, The Adjutant General of 

Pennsylvania

Major General John Gronski, Commanding General, 28th 

Infantry Division 

Brigadier General Timothy Hilty, Assistant Adjutant General of 

Pennsylvania 

Colonel Mark Schindler, Chief of Staff, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Pennsylvania 

Colonel David Wood, Chief of Staff, 28th Infantry Division

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hepner, Garrison Commander, 

Fort Indiantown Gap (FTIG), Pennsylvania
146 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major Kenneth Smith, Supervisory Instructor Pilot/Operations 

Officer, Army Aviation Support Facility-FTIG

Major George Giles, Maintenance Officer, Army Aviation 

Support Facility-FTIG

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Wendell Smith, AH-64D 

Standardization Instructor Pilot, Army Aviation Support 

Facility-FTIG

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Cottage, Counter Drug 

Coordinator, Pennsylvania Army National Guard

Lieutenant Colonel Gregg Clark, Commander, Eastern Army 

National Guard Aviation Training Site (EAATS) 

Command Sergeant Major Dale Miller, Command Sergeant 

Major, EAATS

Major Phillip Peters, Commander; Aviation Training BattalionUtility, EAATS 

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Richard Adams, UH-60 

Standardization Instructor Pilot, EAATS 

Captain Nathan Smith, Enlisted Training Company 

Commander, EAATS 

Sergeant First Class Shawn Merrill, Enlisted Flight Platoon 

Sergeant, EAATS

Staff Sergeant Ronald McAndrew, Flight Standards Instructor, 

EAATS 

Staff Sergeant Jacob Bermudez, Pennsylvania Army National 

Guard

Colonel James G. McCormack, Operations Officer, 166th 

Regiment-Pennsylvania Army National Guard Regional 

Training Institute

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Ronald Magaro, Supervisor, Unit 

Training Equipment Site-FTIG

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Dave Behm, Commander, Tactical 

Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Facility (TUASOF)

Warrant Officer 1 Tyler Smith, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Operator, 556th Military Intelligence Company, 56th Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team 

Warrant Officer 1 Robert Reed, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Operator, 556th Military Intelligence Company, 56th Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team

Sergeant First Class Robert Frey, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Facility NCOIC, TUASOF

Sergeant Allen Capps, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operator 

Instructor, TUASOF

FORT DRUM, NEW YORK SITE VISIT, 

SEPTEMBER 9-10

Major General Jeffery Bannister, Commanding General, 10th 

Mountain Division

Brigadier General Andrew Rohling, Acting Senior Commander, 

10th Mountain Division 

Brigadier General Michael Howard, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, 10th Mountain Division 

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Lewis, Command Sergeant 

Major, 10th Mountain Division

Colonel Mark O’Donnell, Chief of Staff, 10th Mountain 

Division

Colonel Bryan Laske, Garrison Commander, Fort Drum, New 

York 

Colonel Mark Himes, G-3, 10th Mountain Division

Colonel Michael McCurry, Commander, 10th Combat 

Aviation Brigade

Mr. Eric Wagenaar, Director of Plans, Training, Mobilization 

& Security, Fort Drum

Major General Patrick Murphy, The Adjutant General of New 

York 

Major General Anthony German, Assistant Adjutant General 

of New York 

Major General Harry Miller, Commanding General, 42nd 

Infantry Division 

Brigadier General Raymond Shields, Director, Joint Force 

Headquarters-New York 

Brigadier General Michael Swezey, Commanding General, 

53rd Troop Command

Colonel Jack James, Commander, 42nd Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Brigadier General Miyako Schanley, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, 412th Theater Engineer Command 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert McCaskell, Office, Chief of the 

Army Reserve 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Hohman, Office, Chief of the 

Army Reserve

Command Sergeant Major Dennis Jacques, Command 

Sergeant Major, 479th Engineer Battalion

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Kevin Gabrielson, Maintenance 

Warrant Officer, 479th Engineer Battalion 

Master Sergeant Jason Miller, Operations NCO, Army Reserve 

Command 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 147

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Staff Sergeant Kevin Irving, Supply Sergeant, 479th Engineer 

Battalion

Sergeant First Class Terrance Pollard, Senior Human Resources 

Sergeant, 479th Engineer Battalion

Mr. Jamie Bresett, Staff Operations & Training Specialist, 

479th Engineer Battalion

Mr. Kenneth Jenkins, Unit Administrative Technician, 479th 

Engineer Battalion

Mrs. Alexis Felix, Unit Administrator, 479th Engineer 

Battalion

Mr. John Christensen, Reserve Component Training 

Coordinator, 10th Mountain Division 

Mr. Lynn Petrie, Facilities Support Technician, Operational 

Readiness Training Center-Fort Drum 

Mr. Ron Vogt, Contractor, Operational Readiness Training 

Center-Fort Drum

NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES GENERAL CONFERENCE, 

SEPTEMBER 12 

Major General (retired) Gus Hargett, President, National 

Guard Association of the United States

Captain Mark Timmons, Director, Company Grade 

Committee (Army), National Guard Association of the 

United States

FORCE GENERATION MEETING, ARLINGTON, 

VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 16

Brigadier General John Johnson, Director of Training, HQDA 

G-3/5/7

Colonel Shawn Reger, National Guard Bureau

Major Brad Bradford, National Guard Bureau

Lieutenant Colonel Brent Haas, Office of the Chief of Army 

Reserve

AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 16-17

Colonel J. Ray Davis, National Guard Bureau (NGB) Aviation 

Directorate 

Colonel John J. Lindsay, HQDA G-3/5/7 Aviation Directorate

Mr. Josh Klimas, Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

CLOSED MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

SEPTEMBER 16

Mr. Tucker Hughes, Branch Chief, Center for Army Analysis 

Institute for Defense Analyses (CAA)

Dr. Kathy Conley, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Dr. Steve Stoddard, Technical Director, Center for Army 

Analysis Institute for Defense Analyses (CAA)

OPEN MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

SEPTEMBER 17

The Honorable Terry Branstad, Governor of Iowa, Co-Chair of 

the Council of Governors 

The Honorable Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota, 

Member of the Council of Governors 

Dr. Michael E. O’Hanlon, Director of Research for Foreign 

Policy, Brookings Institution

INSTITUTIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 17

Mr. Mark Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the ArmyManpower & Reserve Affairs & Director, Army Marketing & 

Research Group

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 21

Colonel Horst Busch, Military Attaché, Embassy of Federal 

Republic of Germany

ENGAGEMENT WITH LIEUTENANT GENERAL 

TIMOTHY J. KADAVY, DIRECTOR OF THE ARMY 

NATIONAL GUARD, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

SEPTEMBER 22

Lieutenant General Timothy J. Kadavy, Director, Army 

National Guard

FOUR-STAR LUNCHEON, PENTAGON, 

SEPTEMBER 22

General Mark Milley, 39th Chief of Staff of the Army
148 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

General Daniel Allyn, 35th Vice Chief of Staff of the Army

General David Rodriguez, Commander, U.S. Africa Command 

(USAFRICOM)

General Joseph L. Votel III, Commander, U.S. Special 

Operations Command

General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander, U.S. Forces Korea

General Robert B. Abrams, Commanding General, Forces 

Command

General David G. Perkins, Commanding General, Training & 

Doctrine Command

General Dennis L. Via, Commanding General, Army Materiel 

Command

Lieutenant General (retired) James Campbell, Senior Advisor 

to the Chief of Staff of the Army

General Frank Grass, Chief, National Guard Bureau

General Vincent K. Brooks, Commanding General, U.S. Army 

Pacific

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD & TACOMA, 

WASHINGTON SITE VISITS, SEPTEMBER 24

Major General Bret D. Daugherty, The Adjutant General of 

Washington

Brigadier General Wally Turner, Assistant Adjutant General of 

Washington

Colonel Curt Simonson, Commander 56th Information 

Operations Brigade

Colonel Bruce Linton, Commander, 66th Theater Aviation 

Command 

Colonel Bryan Grenon, Commander, 81st Armored Brigade 

Combat Team

Colonel Larry Edwards, Commander, Medical Command, 

Washington Army National Guard

Colonel Daniel Dent, Commander, 96th Troop Command 

Colonel Shaun Hodge, J-3, Joint Force HeadquartersWashington 

Brigadier General Michael Stencel, Chief of Staff, Oregon 

Army National Guard

Brigadier General Todd Plimpton, Land Component 

Commander, Oregon Army National Guard

Colonel Jeffrey Sabatine, Chief Of Staff, Washington Army 

National Guard 

Command Sergeant Major David Nunn, Command Sergeant 

Major, 66th Theater Aviation Command 

Command Sergeant Major Shane Lake, Senior Enlisted 

Advisor, Oregon Army National Guard 

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Dean, Commander, 3-116th Cavalry 

Regiment

Sergeant Major Brian Rikstad, 81st Armored Brigade Combat 

Team

Mr. John Bower, Joint Operations Watch Duty Specialist, 

Washington Army National Guard

Specialist Richard Shaffer, Joint Operations Watch Duty 

Specialist, Washington Army National Guard

Private First Class Alyssa Holden, Washington Army National 

Guard

Specialist Sera McArthur, Washington Army National Guard

Brigadier General James Mason, Deputy Commanding 

General, 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support)

Brigadier General Darrell Guthrie, Commanding General, 

104th Training Division

Brigadier General Kurt Hardin, Deputy Commanding General, 

79th Sustainment Support Command

Colonel Katherine Simonson, Commander, 396th Combat 

Support Hospital

Colonel George Dukes, Office, Chief of the Army Reserve 

Colonel Eric Folkstead, Office, Chief of the Army Reserve

Colonel Charles Cumiskey, Executive Officer, 396th Combat 

Support Hospital

Colonel Bryan Phillips, 2nd Medical Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Donald Johnson, S-3, 2nd Medical Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Cora Courage, Commander, 1972nd 

Combat Operational Stress Control Detachment

Major Douglas Ryle, Deputy G-5, 807th Medical Command 

(Deployment Support)

Master Sergeant Joshua Davis, 807th Medical Command 

(Deployment Support)

Sergeant First Class Eric Kolar, 1972nd Combat Operational 

Stress Control Detachment 

Specialist Heather Rusaw, 1972nd Combat Operational Stress 

Control Detachment

First Lieutenant Christine Kim, Administrative Assistant, 

145th Multi-Functional Medical Battalion 

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Wionowsky, Command 

Sergeant Major, 2nd Medical Brigade

Sergeant Jesus Morales, 145th Multi-Functional Medical 

Battalion
National Commission on the Future of the Army 149

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Sergeant Russel Philips IV, 1972nd Combat Operational Stress 

Control Detachment

Specialist Marcus Waters, 145th Multi-Functional Medical 

Battalion

Specialist Brittany Trevarthen, 1972nd Combat Operational 

Stress Control Detachment

Lieutenant General Stephen Lanza, Commanding General, I 

Corps

Command Sergeant Major James Norman, Command Sergeant 

Major, I Corps

Major General Kurt Fuller, Deputy Commanding General, I 

Corps

Major General Tom James, Commanding General, 7th 

Infantry Division

Brigadier General Jack Haley, Commanding General, 593rd 

Expeditionary Sustainment Command

Colonel Joe Wawro, Chief of Staff, I Corps

Mr. Mike Fuller, Senior Readiness Officer, I Corps 

Colonel Alan Kellogg, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, I Corps 

Colonel Tim Parker, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, I Corps 

Colonel Ross Davidson, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, I Corps 

Colonel Mark Weinerth, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, I Corps 

Colonel Edward J. Hunter, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-6, I 

Corps 

Colonel Mark Bennett, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-6, I Corps 

Colonel Todd Jones, Director, Total Force, I Corps

Lieutenant Colonel Erik Krivda, G-5, I Corps 

Mr. Lars Liden, G-3 Force Modernization, I Corps

Lieutenant Colonel Blake Lackey, G-33 Chief, Command 

Operations & Information Center (COIC), I Corps 

Major Nathaniel Conkey, G-33 Battle Major, COIC, I Corps

Captain Jason Kneib, G-33 Orders Chief, COIC, I Corps

Captain Michael Rochford, G-33 Battle Captain, COIC, I 

Corps

Captain Tyler Mayes, G-33 Battle Captain, COIC, I Corps

Master Sergeant Maleatasi Togafau, G-33 Operations NCO, 

COIC, I Corps

Sergeant First Class Clinton Hamilton, G-33 Fires, COIC, I 

Corps

Staff Sergeant Daron Williams, COIC, I Corps

Staff Sergeant Kelby Faulk, G-2, COIC, I Corps

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Christopher Whalen, G-3 Aviation, 

COIC, I Corps 

Captain Jesse Cornett, Staff Judge Advocate, COIC, I Corps 

Master Sergeant Roberto Valencia G-9, COIC, I Corps

Sergeant Jeremiah Berry, Surgeon Cell, COIC, I Corps

Master Sergeant Samantha Stryker, G-7, COIC, I Corps

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Joan Hills, G-1, COIC, I Corps

Major Seangthip Chittaphong, G-4, COIC, I Corps

Captain Kyle Aagard, G-3 Protection, COIC, I Corps

Master Sergeant Richard Hannah, G-6, COIC, I Corps

Colonel Michael Harvey, Assistant Chief of Staff, G3 Aviation, 

I Corps

Colonel Bill Ryan, Commander, 16th Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Command Sergeant Major Kirk Coley, Command Sergeant 

Major, 16th Combat Aviation Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Ladd, Commander, 2nd Battalion, 

214th Aviation Regiment

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Brewer, S-3, 66th Theater Aviation 

Command

Major Gabriel Wolfe, Executive Officer, 4th Battalion, 160th 

Special Operations Aviation Regiment

First Sergeant Luis DeJesus, First Sergeant, 4th Battalion, 

160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

Mr. Nicholas Kostelecky, Installations Transportation Officer, 

Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Captain Abe Payne, Commander, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

First Sergeant Robert Porter, First Sergeant, 1st Squadron, 14th 

Cavalry Regiment

First Lieutenant Bryant Volling, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

First Lieutenant Daniel Jester, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Richmond Minton, 1st Squadron, 

14th Cavalry Regiment 

Sergeant First Class Ryan Hill, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment 

Specialist Joseph Monaco, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Specialist Ryan Mason, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment

Staff Sergeant Timothy Oremus, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Sergeant Gavin Ros, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment
150 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Specialist Charles Moerke, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Lieutenant Colonel Charles Ward, Commander, 13th Combat 

Sustainment Support Battalion 

Captain Devin Richter, Commander, 63rd Ordnance 

Company

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Luis Alvarado, 63rd Ordnance 

Company

Sergeant First Class Pablo Munoz, 63rd Ordnance Company

Specialist Joseph Mena, 63rd Ordnance Company

Private First Class Michael Gonzales, 63rd Ordnance Company

Colonel Sydney Smith, Commander, 404th Army Field 

Support Brigade

Mr. Bill Brugge, Operations Chief, Regional Logistic Readiness 

Center, Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Colonel Ethan Griffin, Vice Commander, 62nd Airlift Wing 

Colonel Anthony Clavenna, Commander, 62nd Maintenance 

Group 

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Smith, Deputy Commander, 62nd 

Operations Group 

Major Will Medlicott, Director of Staff, 62nd Airlift Wing 

Major William Wilkerson, Assistant Director of Operations, 

8th Airlift Squadron 

Captain Justin Jarrell, Standardization & Evaluations Pilot, 

62nd Operations Group 

Chief Master Sergeant John Frazier, 62nd Maintenance Group 

Master Sergeant Douglas McGregor, 62nd Operations Support 

Squadron 

Mr. Charles Thornton, 627th Security Forces Squadron 

Mrs. Bonnie Longie, 62nd Airlift Wing Protocol Office 

Staff Sergeant Katherine Jackson, 62nd Airlift Wing Public 

Affairs 

Senior Airmen Gunnar Algott, Crew Chief, 62nd Aircraft 

Maintenance Squadron 

Senior Airmen Naomi Griego, 62nd Airlift Wing Public Affairs 

Senior Airmen Corbyn Campbell, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron 

Senior Airmen Dustin Unnerstall, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron 

Airmen First Class Jeremy Kosick, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron 

Airmen First Class Benjamin Person, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron

Mr. Miguel Jimenez, Director, Surface Deployment & 

Distribution Command, Seattle

Mr. Bruce Leach, Director, Military Sealift Command, Seattle

Mr. Ted Musselman, U.S. Government Stevedoring Contractor

Mr. Chris Donohoe, Marine Cargo Specialist, SS Cape Intrepid 

(AKR-11)

Captain Joe Raymond, Sector Commander, Puget Sound, U.S. 

Coast Guard 

Mr. Andre Elmaleh, Military Liaison, Port of Tacoma

Mr. Sean Eagan, Director, Governmental Affairs, Port of 

Tacoma

Mr. Robert Meyer, Senior Manager, Port Operations, Port of 

Tacoma 

Mr. Gerry Fiola, Chief of Security, Port of Tacoma

Mr. Louis Cooper, Senior Director, Security & Labor 

Relations, Port of Tacoma 

Ms. Bari Bookout, Executive for Non-Containerized Business 

& Commercial Strategy, Port of Tacoma

Ms. Tiffany Speir, Program Manager, South Sound Military & 

Communities Partnership

Brigadier General (retired) Dr. Stan Flemming, MD

Mr. Wayne Perry, Military spouse

Mr. Tom Pierson, President & CEO, Tacoma-Pierce County 

Chamber

Mr. Nico Guzman, Owner, Mind & Body Boot Camp

Mr. Jim Baumgart, Policy Advisor for Governor of Washington

The Honorable Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington

The Honorable Don Anderson, Mayor of Lakewood, 

Washington

Mr. Michael Brandstetter, Councilmember, Lakewood City 

Council, Lakewood, Washington

Mr. Lourdes E. ‘Alfie’ Alvarado-Ramos, Director, Washington 

State Department of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Roel van der Lugt, Military Affairs Director/Senior 

Policy Advisor for U.S. Representative Denny Heck, 10th 

Congressional District, Washington

Mr. Eric Williams, Staff Member for U.S. Representative Derek 

Kilmer, 6th Congressional District, Washington

The Honorable Graham Hunt, State Representative, 2nd 

Legislative District, Washington

The Honorable Derek Kilmer, United States Congress, 6th 

District Representative, Washington

The Honorable Denny Heck, United States Congress, 10th 

District Representative, Washington
National Commission on the Future of the Army 151

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Mrs. Najla Munshower-Neumann, Military spouse

FORT BLISS, TEXAS & WHITE SANDS, 

NEW MEXICO SITE VISIT, SEPTEMBER 26-28

Brigadier General Terrence McKenrick, Commander, Brigade 

Modernization Command (BMC)

Brigadier General Jeffery Broadwater, Deputy Commanding 

General-Support, 1st Armored Division 

Colonel Charles Masaracchia, Commander, 2nd Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Beagle, Commander, 1-1st Cavalry 

Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored 

Division

Lieutenant Colonel Raphael Heflin, Commander, 142nd 

Combat Service Support Battalion, 1st Sustainment Brigade, 

1st Armored Division

Major Romas Zimlicki, S-3, 1-325th Infantry Regiment, 82nd 

Airborne Division

Chief Warrant Officer 3 John Millsap, Cyber Protection 

Brigade, 7th Signal Command 

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Gregory Olivo, Network Operations 

Security Cell, BMC

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Marcaus Hamby, Network Operations 

Security Cell, BMC

Colonel Greg Brady, Chief of Staff, 32nd Army Air & Missile 

Defense Command 

Colonel Shana Peck, G-3, 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense 

Command 

Command Sergeant Major Gerardo Dominguez, Command 

Sergeant Major, 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command

Lieutenant Colonel Chris Woody, Deputy Commander, 5th 

Armor Brigade, First Army

Lieutenant Colonel Craig Macina, Exercise Planner, 5th Armor 

Brigade, First Army

Lieutenant Colonel Santiago A. Archuleta, Chief of Plans, 5th 

Armor Brigade, First Army 

Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Kobernik, Commander, 3-116th 

Infantry Regiment

Command Sergeant Major Alvin Martin, Command Sergeant 

Major, 3-116th Infantry Regiment

First Lieutenant Luis Feliciano, Commander, 544th Military 

Police Company

Master Sergeant Carlos Baezhernandes, First Sergeant, 544th 

Military Police Company 

Captain Rafael A. Rivera, Commander, 1010th Engineer 

Construction Company 

First Sergeant Edwin Soto, First Sergeant, 1010th Engineer 

Construction Company 

Captain David E. Dodson, Commander, 155th Engineer 

Company (Vertical)

First Sergeant Jan A. Spaans, First Sergeant, 155th Engineer 

Company (Vertical)

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATIONS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

OCTOBER 6

Mr. Ben Collins, Director for Policy, Business Executive for 

National Security 

Mr. Will Goodman, Vice President for Policy, National 

Defense Industry Association

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE HOUSE NATIONAL 

GUARD & RESERVE COMPONENTS CAUCUS 

BRIEFING, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 8

The Honorable Tim Walz, United States House of 

Representatives, 1st Congressional District, Minnesota 

The Honorable Ryan Costello, United States House of 

Representatives, 6th Congressional District, Pennsylvania 

The Honorable Trent Kelly, U.S. Representative, 1st 

Congressional District, Mississippi 

The Honorable Mark Takai, United States House of 

Representatives, 1st Congressional District, Hawaii 

The Honorable Martha Roby, United States House of 

Representatives, 2nd Congressional District, Alabama

The Honorable Keith Rothfus, United States House of 

Representatives, 12th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Sanford Bishop, United States House of 

Representatives, 2nd Congressional District, Georgia

The Honorable Ralph Abraham, United States House of 

Representatives, 5th Congressional District, Louisiana

The Honorable Andy Barr, United States House of 

Representatives, 6th Congressional District, Kentucky

The Honorable Charles Boustany, United States House of 

Representatives, 3rd Congressional District, Louisiana

The Honorable John Carter, United States House of 

Representatives, 31st Congressional District, Texas
152 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

The Honorable Charlie Dent, United States House of 

Representatives, 15th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

The Honorable David McKinley, United States House of 

Representatives, 1st Congressional District, West Virginia

The Honorable Steve Palazzo, United States House of 

Representatives, 4th Congressional District, Mississippi

The Honorable Cedric Richmond, United States House of 

Representatives, 2nd Congressional District, Louisiana

The Honorable Bill Shuster, United States House of 

Representatives, 9th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito, United States Senate, 

West Virginia

The Honorable Bill Cassidy, United States Senate, Louisiana

The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senate, Louisiana

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTICAL REVIEW, 

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 15-16

Dr. David Chu, President, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Brigadier General (retired) Edward Donnelly, Institute for 

Defense Analyses (IDA)

Dr. Kathleen Conley, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Mr. Thomas Wallace, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Mr. David A. Ochmanek, RAND Corporation

Mr. David R. Johnson, RAND Corporation

Mr. Tucker Hughes, Branch Chief, Center for Army Analysis 

Institute for Defense Analyses (CAA)

AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 21

Major General John Ferrari, Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation, HQDA G-8

Major General Michael Lundy, Commanding General, 

Aviation Center of Excellence

Mr. Josh Klimas, Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

CLOSED MEETINGS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

OCTOBER 22

Mr. Thomas H. Harvey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Strategy, Plans & Capabilities 

Mr. Chris Daugherty, Office Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans & Capabilities

OPEN MEETING, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

OCTOBER 22

General Frank Grass, Chief, National Guard Bureau

Lieutenant General John M. Murray, Deputy Chief of Staff 

G-8, HQDA

Major General Paul A. Ostrowski, Deputy, Acquisition & 

Systems Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (ALT)

Dr. Daniel Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 23

The Honorable Robert Scher, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans & Capabilities

Ms. Mara Karlin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 

Strategy and Force Development

ENGAGEMENT WITH LIEUTENANT GENERAL 

RICHARD G. TREFRY, USA (RET.), ARLINGTON, 

VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 30

Lieutenant General (retired) Richard G. Trefry, former Military 

Assistant to the President of the United States & past Inspector 

General of the Army

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF 

THE ARMY, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 

NOVEMBER 16

General Mark Milley, 39th Chief of Staff of the Army 

General Daniel Allyn, 35th Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 

Major General John Ferrari, Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation, HQDA G-8

Brigadier General Frank Muth, Director, Army Quadrennial 

Defense Review Office, HQDA G-8

WEBSITE COMMENTS

Tammy Thurman, National Commission on the Future of the 

Army June 10th Fayetteville NC, June 29, 2015

Bienevenido Banchs, Request to Testify before the 

Commission, July 9, 2015
National Commission on the Future of the Army 153

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

J. Scott Schissler, Sikorsky Letters to 26 Governors and TAG’s, 

July 13, 2015

Arnold Estok, Future of the Army, July 14, 2015

Captain David Chace, U.S. Army, Comments on the Future of 

the Army, July 18, 2015

Kirk Sanders, Keep the Force, July 23, 2015

Ashley Craven, Downsizing, July 23, 2015

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Parker, 18 August Public Comment 

Session, August 11, 2015

James Billings, (OCAR), Comments from Army Reserve 

Ambassador Candy Martin, August 11, 2015

Colonel (retired) Alfred Diaz, NCFA Events in Southern 

California, August 12, 2015

Sergeant Bob Brown, NCFA Bios, August 13, 2015

Leo Schnack, Support of AGR Force, August 24, 2015

Andrea Peterson, (NGAUS) Materials for Hearing on Aug 18, 

2015, August 24, 2015

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Boyd, Army’s 2014 Aviation 

Restructuring Initiative, August 28, 2015

Frederick Scheffler, Fort Knox Should be the Home of Armor, 

September 14, 2015

The Honorable Mike Coffman, (Congressman, 6th District of 

Colorado), Letter to the Commissioners (Letter of Record), 

September 16, 2015

Lieutenant Colonel Shane Crofts, Merge the National Guard 

and Reserves, October 1, 2015

The Honorable Steven M. Palazzo (Congressman, 4th District 

of Mississippi), Statement of Record, October 13, 2015

The Honorable William Greenberg (Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals), Call, October 16, 2015

Major Robert Wilson, Force Structure and Posture, October 

22, 2015

Lieutenant Colonel Bradley Striegel, U.S. Army, Enhancing 

Joint Force and Total Army Training, November 5, 2015

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Joseph Quinn, NCFA, November 19, 

2015

Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Jose Olmos, The future of 15k 

US Soldiers in Puerto Rico is not included in discussion, 

November 30, 2015

Colonel (retired) Todd Megill, Congratulations and an 

Observation, December 10, 2015

TESTIMONY AND ENGAGEMENT LISTALPHABETICAL ORDER

Captain Kyle Aagard, G-3 Protection, Command Operations 

& Information Center, I Corps

The Honorable Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas 

The Honorable Ralph Abraham, United States House of 

Representatives, 5th Congressional District, Louisiana

General Robert B. Abrams, Commanding General, Forces 

Command

Brigadier General Benjamin F. Adams III, Director, Joint Staff, 

Joint Force Headquarters-Kentucky

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Richard Adams, UH-60 

Standardization Instructor Pilot, Eastern Army National Guard 

Aviation Training Site

Colonel Richard P. Adams, State Aviation Officer, Texas Army 

National Guard 

Captain Kofi Adih, Plans Officer, 518th Sustainment Brigade

Mr. Edward Agee, Chief Materiel Integration, Army Material 

Command 

Mr. Salman Ahmed, Special Assistant to the President, 

Counselor to the National Security Advisor

First Sergeant Sabrina Aja, 75th Training Command

Command Sergeant Major Patrick Akuna, Jr., Command 

Sergeant Major, First Army Division West 

First Sergeant Sergio Alcantara, First Sergeant, 32nd Civil 

Support Team 

Captain Gerrelaine Alcordo, Public Affairs Officer, 174th 

Infantry Brigade 

Master Sergeant James Alexander, NCOIC/Chief Instructor, 

Regional Training Site-Maintenance, 139th Regiment

Senior Airmen Gunnar Algott, Crew Chief, 62nd Aircraft 

Maintenance Squadron 

General Daniel Allyn, 35th Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Luis Alvarado, 63rd Ordnance 

Company

Mr. Lourdes E. ‘Alfie’ Alvarado-Ramos, Director, Washington 

State Department of Veterans Affairs

The Honorable Don Anderson, Mayor of Lakewood, 

Washington

Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, Deputy Chief of Staff 

G-3/5/7, HQDA

Major General Rodney Anderson, U.S. Army Retired
154 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Lieutenant Colonel Santiago A. Archuleta, Chief of Plans, 5th 

Armor Brigade, First Army 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Michael Argus, UH-60 Instructor 

Pilot (TPU) and ASF Employee (MILTECH)

Captain Manuel Arino, California Army National Guard

Command Sergeant Major Gabriel Arnold, Command 

Sergeant Major, Cadet Command

First Lieutenant Michael Ashburn, Commander, 1006th 

Quartermaster Company 

Major General Robbie Asher, The Adjutant General of 

Oklahoma 

Lieutenant Colonel Nigel Atkins, Commander, 147th Air 

Support Operating Squadron, Texas Air National Guard

Private Vaughn Austin, Minnesota CBRNE Enhanced 

Response Force Package (CERF-P) 

Colonel Rodney Babb, Commander, 138th Regiment-Indiana 

National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Master Sergeant Carlos Baezhernandes, First Sergeant, 544th 

Military Police Company 

Mr. Steve Bailey, Defense Intelligence Directorate for 

Defense Technology & Long-Range Analysis Office, Defense 

Intelligence Agency

Major Royce Baker, Fire Support Officer, 4th Infantry Division 

Fire Support Element

Brigadier General Tommy H. Baker, Assistant Adjutant 

General of Tennessee 

Major General David Baldwin, The Adjutant General of 

California 

Lieutenant Colonel Jason Ball, Deputy Commander, Army 

Reserve Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence 

Operations Center

Colonel (retired) John L. Ballantyne, Chief Operating Officer, 

Military Child Education Coalition

Mr. Jim Balocki, Command Executive Officer, USARC

Mr. Ben Banchs, Business Manager, Laborers International 

Union of North America, National Guard Council 1776

Major General Jeffery Bannister, Commanding General, 10th 

Mountain Division

Captain Eric Barger, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Command Sergeant Major Tracy E. Barlogio, Command 

Sergeant Major, Fort Hunter-Liggett, California

Ms. Kim Barnes, Deputy State Director for U.S. Senator Thom 

Tillis, North Carolina

Lieutenant General (retired) David Barno, American University

The Honorable Andy Barr, United States House of 

Representatives, 6th Congressional District, Kentucky

Colonel Greg Barrow, G-3 Training, Plans & Operations, Texas 

Army National Guard 

Command Sergeant Major James R. Basham, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1-502nd Infantry Battalion, 101st Airborne 

Division 

Colonel Brian Bassett, Chief of Staff, Recruiting Command

Mr. Jim Baumgart, Policy Advisor for Governor of Washington

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Beagle, Commander, 1-1st Cavalry 

Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored 

Division

Colonel Todd S. Beatulis, Commander, 405th Army Field 

Support Brigade

Colonel Christopher Beaudoin, Commander, Fort Hood 

Mobilization Brigade

Sergeant Major Cari Beetham, Operations Sergeant Major, 

49th Military Police Brigade 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Dave Behm, Commander, Tactical 

Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Facility

Lieutenant Colonel James Bekurs, Executive Officer, 10th 

Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Command Sergeant Major Chris Belford, West Virginia Army 

National Guard

Ms. Jody Bennett, Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate 

Armed Services Committee

Colonel Mark Bennett, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-6, I Corps 

Dr. Nora Bensahel, American University

The Honorable Robert Bentley, Governor of Alabama 

Colonel Mark Berglund, Chief, Force Management, National 

Guard Bureau

Staff Sergeant Jacob Bermudez, Pennsylvania Army National 

Guard

Sergeant Jeremiah Berry, Surgeon Cell, Command Operations 

& Information Center, I Corps

The Honorable Steven Beshear, Governor of Kentucky

Mr. James Billings, private citizen

Major General Michael A. Bills, Commanding General, 1st 

Cavalry Division

Major General Gregory C. Bilton (Australian Army), Deputy 

Commanding General-Operations, U.S. Army Pacific

First Lieutenant Christian Bionat, 75th Training Command
National Commission on the Future of the Army 155

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel James D. Bischoff, Commander, Army Reserve 

Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Bishop, Commander, 1-130th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

The Honorable Sanford Bishop, United States House of 

Representatives, 2nd Congressional District, Georgia 

Mr. Freddie Blakely, Deputy Director, Personnel Information 

Systems, Human Resource Command

Colonel James Bledsoe, Army Aviation Officer, Colorado Army 

National Guard

Command Sergeant Major Ronald Bloker, 3rd Squadron, 

116th ABCT

Major General Daryl Bohac, The Adjutant General of Nebraska 

Lieutenant Colonel Jilian Bond, Commander, 224th 

Sustainment Brigade 

Mr. Timothy Bonds, Vice President, RAND Army Research 

Division & Director, RAND Arroyo Center

The Honorable Cory Booker, United States Senate, New Jersey

Ms. Bari Bookout, Executive for Non-Containerized Business 

& Commercial Strategy, Port of Tacoma

The Honorable Charles Boustany, United States House of 

Representatives, 3rd Congressional District, Louisiana

Brigadier General Gregory Bowen, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, Space & Missile Defense Command, 

Army Forces Strategic Command

Mr. John Bower, Joint Operations Watch Duty Specialist, 

Washington Army National Guard

Mr. Earnest Boyd, Branch Chief, Force Provider Division, 

Forces Command

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Boyd

Major Brad Bradford, National Guard Bureau

Colonel Greg Brady, Chief of Staff, 32nd Army Air & Missile 

Defense Command

Lieutenant Colonel James Brady, U.S. Army Europe

Command Sergeant Major John A. Brady, Command Sergeant 

Major, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division 

Mr. Michael Brandstetter, Councilmember, Lakewood City 

Council, Lakewood, Washington

The Honorable Terry Branstad, Governor of Iowa & Co-Chair 

of the Council of Governors

Staff Sergeant Son Joi Brantley, Battalion S-1 NCOIC, 6-108th 

Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

General Philip Breedlove, Commander, U.S. European 

Command (USEUCOM) and NATO Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe

Mr. Jamie Bresett, Staff Operations & Training Specialist, 

479th Engineer Battalion

Brigadier General Allen Brewer, Joint Staff Director, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Mississippi

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Brewer, S-3, 66th Theater Aviation 

Command

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Elmer Brewer, 75th Training 

Command

Brigadier General Jeffery Broadwater, Deputy Commanding 

General-Support, 1st Armored Division 

Major General Lawrence Brock III, Commanding General, 

311th Signal Command

Ms. Jeanne Brooks, Director, Technology & Business 

Architecture Integration, HQDA G-1

General Vincent K. Brooks, Commanding General, U.S. Army 

Pacific

Sergeant Bob Brown

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Jerry Brown, S-8, 10th Special Forces 

Group (Airborne)

The Honorable Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon 

Major Melvin Brown, Executive Officer, Army Reserve 

Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center

Lieutenant General Robert Brown, Commanding General, 

Combined Arms Center, Training & Doctrine Command 

Mr. Bill Brugge, Operations Chief, Regional Logistic Readiness 

Center, Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Staff Sergeant Chatchai Brunosky, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

The Honorable Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi

The Honorable Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana 

Brigadier General Thomas Bump, Land Component 

Commander-New Mexico Army National Guard

Command Sergeant Major James Bunch, Commandant, 

Warrior Leader Course, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army 

National Guard Regional Training Institute

Sergeant First Class Matthew Burdick, Platoon Sergeant, 

2-77th Field Artillery Battalion

Master Sergeant Kevin Burford, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Colonel Edward Burke, G-4, U.S. Army Europe 
156 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Staff Sergeant Ryan Burke, Squad Leader, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion 

Colonel Luke Burnett, Commander, 130th Maneuver 

Enhancement Brigade

Major General Jefferson Burton, The Adjutant General of Utah 

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Burtt, Commander, Centennial 

Training Site, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National Guard 

Regional Training Institute

Colonel Dave Burwell, Defense Coordinating Officer, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency Region 8 

Colonel Horst Busch, Military Attaché, Embassy of Federal 

Republic of Germany

Mr. Mike Bush, Acting Division Chief, Force Accounting & 

Documentation, HQDA G-3/5/7 Force Management

Mr. Bruce Busler, Director, Joint Distribution Process Analysis 

Center & Army Transportation Engineering Agency, U.S. 

Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)

Brigadier General Pete Byrne, Commander, Joint Task ForceCentennial

Senior Airmen Corbyn Campbell, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron 

Sergeant Jamason Campbell, Motor Transport Operator, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Lieutenant General (retired) James Campbell, Senior Advisor 

to the Chief of Staff of the Army

Major James G. Campbell, Assistant G-3 Air, 1st Cavalry 

Division 

Colonel (retired) Mark Campsey

Colonel Cameron Cantlon, Commander, 3rd Cavalry 

Regiment

The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito, United States Senate, 

West Virginia

Sergeant Allen Capps, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operator 

Instructor, TUASOF 

Lieutenant Colonel Shawn Carden, G-6, 4th Infantry Division 

The Honorable Ben Cardin, United States Senate, Maryland

Lieutenant General Edward Cardon, Commander, Army Cyber 

Command (ARCYBER)

Sergeant Shamari Carmen, Automated Logistical Specialist, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Dr. Thomas F. Carney, Vice Director for Force Structure, 

Resources & Assessment, Joint Staff J-8

Major General Courtney Carr, The Adjutant General of 

Indiana

The Honorable Brad Carson, Acting Under Secretary for 

Personnel & Readiness

Mr. Chris Carter, Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Representative 

Richard Hudson, 8th Congressional District, North Carolina

The Honorable John Carter, United States House of 

Representatives, 31st Congressional District, Texas

The Honorable Robert Casey, Jr., United States Senate, 

Pennsylvania

Colonel Sean Casey, Director, Joint Staff, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Maryland

The Honorable Bill Cassidy, United States Senate, Louisiana 

Mr. Westin Castenberg, Modeling Analyst, TRADOC Analysis 

Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Captain David Chace, U.S. Army

Major Marisol Chalas, S-3, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance 

Battalion 

Major Matthew Chaney, S-3, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Chard, Director of Staff, West 

Virginia Air National Guard 

Colonel George Charfauros, Guam Army National Guard

Staff Sergeant Anthony Chavez, Centennial Training Site 

Housing Manager, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National 

Guard Regional Training Institute

Command Sergeant Major Henry Chin, 116th Cavalry Brigade 

Combat Team

Major Seangthip “Sean” Chittaphong, G-4, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Major Luke Chivers, S-3, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade 

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Cho, G-3, 4th Infantry Division 

Mr. John Christensen, Reserve Component Training 

Coordinator, 10th Mountain Division 

Dr. David Chu, President, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Major General Phillip Churn, Commanding General, 200th 

Military Police Command 

Command Sergeant Major Greg Clancy, Command Sergeant 

Major, 2-135th Aviation Regiment

Major General H. Stacy Clardy III, USMC, Deputy Director, 

Force Management, Application & Support, Joint Staff J-8

Mr. David J. Clark, Foreign Intelligence Technical Advisor, 

HQDA G-2

Lieutenant Colonel Gregg Clark, Commander, Eastern Army 

National Guard Aviation Training Site
National Commission on the Future of the Army 157

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Onedia S. Clark, Senior Mobility 

Warrant Officer, HQDA G-4

Command Sergeant Major William Clark Jr, Senior Enlisted 

Advisor to the Adjutant General of California 

Colonel Anthony Clavenna, Commander, 62nd Maintenance 

Group

Colonel Laura Clellan, Land Component CommanderColorado Army National Guard

Command Sergeant Major Willie C. Clemmons, Command 

Sergeant Major Recruiting Command

Lieutenant General Charles Cleveland, Commanding General, 

USASOC

Lieutenant Colonel Marc Cloutier, Commander, 1-187th 

Infantry Battalion, 101st Airborne Division 

Lieutenant Colonel John Cochran, Aviation Force 

Development, HQDA G-8

Colonel Matt Cody, Commander, 2nd Infantry Brigade 

Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division 

General (retired) Richard Cody, 31st Vice Chief of Staff of the 

Army & former commander 101st Airborne Division

The Honorable Mike Coffman, United States House of 

Representatives, 6th Congressional District, Colorado 

Mr. William “Chip” Colbert, Director, Defense Policy & 

Strategy, National Security Council

Chief Master Sergeant Angie Coleman, 130th Force Support 

Squadron, West Virginia Air National Guard 

Command Sergeant Major Kirk Coley, Command Sergeant 

Major, 16th Combat Aviation Brigade

Major General Augustus Collins, The Adjutant General of 

Mississippi 

Mr. Ben Collins, Director for Policy, Business Executive for 

National Security 

The Honorable Susan Collins, United States Senate, Maine

Major General Jeffrey N. Colt, Commanding General, First 

Army Division West 

Major General Peggy C. Combs, Commanding General, Cadet 

Command

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Rick Comer, North Carolina Army 

National Guard

Major General Dave Conboy, Deputy Commanding General, 

USARC

Major Nathaniel Conkey, G-33 Battle Major, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Dr. Kathleen Conley, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Colonel BJ Constantine, Chief of Staff, Human Resource 

Command 

Staff Sergeant Bradley D. Convrey, 821st Engineer Company 

Mr. Louis Cooper, Senior Director, Security & Labor 

Relations, Port of Tacoma 

Brigadier General Norvell V. Coots, MD, Commander, 

Regional Health Command Europe & Command Surgeon, 

U.S. Army Europe 

Colonel Jeffrey Copeland, Commander, 449th Theater 

Aviation Brigade 

Command Sergeant Major Ted Copeland, Command Sergeant 

Major, 79th Theater Sustainment Command

First Sergeant Shamika Copenhagen, First Sergeant, 

Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 79th Theater 

Sustainment Command 

Captain Jesse Cornett, Staff Judge Advocate, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps 

Mr. Scott Cosper, Mayor of the City of Killeen and Vice 

Chairman of the Killeen Temple Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (KTMPO)

The Honorable Ryan Costello, United States House of 

Representatives, 6th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Cottage, Counter Drug 

Coordinator, Pennsylvania Army National Guard

The Honorable Tom Cotton, United States Senate, Arkansas

Lieutenant Colonel Cora Courage, Commander, 1972nd 

Combat Operational Stress Control Detachment

Sergeant Sean D. Courtney, Human Resources NCO, West 

Virginia Army National Guard 

Staff Sergeant Bradley Cox, Instructor (MOS 35L), 6-108th 

Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Sergeant Jeffrey Cox, UH-60 Flight Instructor (TPU), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Sergeant Major Alex Coy, Operations Sergeant Major, Special 

Operations Detachment-Europe, West Virginia Army National 

Guard

Dr. John Craft, Superintendent of Schools for Killeen 

Independent School District

The Honorable Mike Crapo, United States Senate, Idaho

Ms. Ashley Craven, private citizen

First Lieutenant Lamar Cravens, Platoon Leader, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion

Colonel (retired) Kenneth J. Crawford
158 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major Matthew Crawford, S-2, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Brigadier General David Creagh, Defense Attaché, Embassy of 

Australia

Colonel Robert Crisistomo, Chief of Joint Staff, Guam Army 

National Guard

Mr. Jimmy Crisp, Security Specialist, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command 

Colonel Christopher Croft, Director, Center for Army 

Leadership, Combined Arms Center, TRADOC

Lieutenant Colonel Shane Crofts

Command Sergeant Major Michael Crosby, Command 

Sergeant Major, 4th Infantry Division & Fort Carson

Mr. Ron Crosby, Systems & Scheduling Chief, Camp Ripley 

Training Center, Minnesota 

Colonel Peter Cross, Commander, 49th Military Police Brigade 

Lieutenant General Anthony Crutchfield, Deputy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM)

Colonel Charles Cumiskey, Executive Officer, 396th Combat 

Support Hospital

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Kurt Cunningham, Battalion Master 

Gunner, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Cunningham, National Training 

Center

Sergeant Robert T. Cunningham, West Virginia Army National 

Guard

Major General Glenn Curtis, The Adjutant General of 

Louisiana & President, Adjutant Generals Association of the 

United States 

Lieutenant Colonel James Cutchin, G-9, Colorado Army 

National Guard

The Honorable Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota

Dr. Don Daniels, MD, Metroplex Health System

Mr. Ed Dankbar, Hazmat Officer, Canadian Pacific Rail 

Emergency Response 

Colonel Darrell Darnbush, Commander, 278th Armored 

Cavalry Regiment 

Colonel Kimberly J. Daub, Commander, 101st Sustainment 

Brigade 

The Honorable Dennis Daugaard, Governor of South Dakota 

Major General Bret D. Daugherty, The Adjutant General of 

Washington

Mr. Chris Daugherty, Office Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans & Capabilities

Brigadier General Timothy J. Daugherty, Deputy 

Commanding General, 4th Infantry Division

Colonel Ross Davidson, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, I Corps 

Captain Clint Davis, Assistant Operations Officer, 5th 

Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group 

Master Sergeant Joshua Davis, 807th Medical Command 

(Deployment Support)

Major Kerry Davis, G-3 Operations, Colorado Army National 

Guard

Mr. Mark Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the ArmyManpower & Reserve Affairs & Director, Army Marketing & 

Research Group

Colonel J. Ray Davis, National Guard Bureau (NGB) Aviation 

Directorate

Mr. Tad Davis, private citizen

Colonel Matt Dawson, Director, Center for Strategic 

Leadership & Development, Army War College

Lieutenant Colonel Josh Day, State Aviation Officer, Colorado 

Army National Guard 

The Honorable Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota & 

Member of the Council of Governors 

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Dean, Commander, 3-116th Cavalry 

Regiment

Brigadier General Arian Deblieck, Commanding General, 7th 

Civil Support Command 

First Sergeant Luis DeJesus, First Sergeant, 4th Battalion, 

160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Melvin DeJesus, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Lieutenant Colonel Cory Delger, Deputy Fires Support 

Coordinator, 4th Infantry Division 

The Honorable Charlie Dent, United States House of 

Representatives, 15th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

Colonel Daniel Dent, Commander, 96th Troop Command 

Staff Sergeant Nicole Dial, Battalion S-3 ATRRS NCO, 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Colonel (retired) Alfred Diaz, Reserve Officer Association of 

the United States

Colonel Dickson, G-5, U.S. Army Africa 

Colonel John DiGiambattista, Commander, 1st Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division

Brigadier General Michael Dillard, Commanding General, 

310th Expeditionary Sustainment Command
National Commission on the Future of the Army 159

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Robert Dinenna, G-3, 200th Military Police 

Command 

Lieutenant General Joseph DiSalvo, Deputy Commander, U.S. 

Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM)

Colonel Rob Dixon, U.S. Army Europe

Captain David E. Dodson, Commander, 155th Engineer 

Company (Vertical)

Command Sergeant Major Gerardo Dominguez, Command 

Sergeant Major, 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command

Mr. Mike Dominguez, Director, Strategy, Forces & Resources 

Division, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Lieutenant General Patrick Donahue II, Deputy Commanding 

General/Chief of Staff, FORSCOM

Brigadier General (retired) Edward Donnelly, Institute for 

Defense Analyses (IDA)

The Honorable Joe Donnelly, United States Senate, Indiana

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Holly Donica, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Mr. Chris Donohoe, Marine Cargo Specialist, SS Cape Intrepid 

(AKR-11)

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Matt Dorram, Former State 

Command Chief Warrant Officer, Colorado Army National 

Guard 

Major Jonathon Dotterer, Commander, Minnesota CBRNE 

Enhanced Response Force Package (CERF-P)

Mr. Colin Doyle, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Master Sergeant Denise Drummond, G-3 NCO, Colorado 

Army National Guard

The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona 

Sergeant First Class Floyd Dugan, Fire Direction Center 

NCOIC, 2-77th Field Artillery Battalion 

Colonel George Dukes, Office, Chief of the Army Reserve 

Major General Donald P. Dunbar, The Adjutant General of 

Wisconsin

Command Sergeant Major Sean M. Dunn, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade

The Honorable Richard Durbin, United States Senate, Illinois

Mr. Sean Eagan, Director, Governmental Affairs, Port of 

Tacoma

Second Lieutenant Esponinisa Eatmon, Platoon Leader, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Command Sergeant Major William “Tom” Edmunds, 

Command Sergeant Major, Joint Interagency Training & 

Education Center, West Virginia Army National Guard

Major General H. Michael Edwards, The Adjutant General of 

Colorado

Colonel Larry Edwards, Commander, Medical Command, 

Washington Army National Guard

Mr. Gary Elliott, Under Sheriff for Solano County, California

Mr. Andre Elmaleh, Military Liaison, Port of Tacoma

Major Henry Empeno, Commander, Headquarters & 

Headquarters Company, 79th Theater Sustainment Command 

Colonel Gregg Engler, Staff Judge Advocate, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Lieutenant Colonel Christine Enriquez, G-1, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Mr. Kevin Erickson, ASF Supervisor (MILTECH), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

The Honorable Joni Ernst, United States Senate, Iowa

Lieutenant Colonel Shannon Espinoza, Senior Army Advisor, 

Colorado Army National Guard 

Mr. Arnold Estok, private citizen

Specialist First Class John Evers, Food Service Specialist, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Ryan Eyre, Instructor Pilot, 1-211th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Command Sergeant Major Carl Fagan, Command Sergeant 

Major, 101st Division Artillery

The Honorable Mary Fallin, Governor of Oklahoma

Staff Sergeant Kelby Faulk, G-2, Command Operations & 

Information Center, I Corps

Mr. Daniel Feehan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Readiness)

Captain Darrell Fejarang, Aide-de-Camp, Guam Army 

National Guard

First Lieutenant Luis Feliciano, Commander, 544th Military 

Police Company

Mrs. Alexis Felix, Unit Administrator, 479th Engineer 

Battalion

Major General John Ferrari, Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation, HQDA G-8 

Lieutenant Colonel James Fidler, Commander, Army Aviation 

Support Facility, South Carolina Army National Guard

Major Alexia Fields, Civil Affairs Psychological Operations 

Command

Mr. Gerry Fiola, Chief of Security, Port of Tacoma
160 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Sergeant Stephen Fleming, Warrior Leader Course Operations 

NCO, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National Guard 

Regional Training Institute

Brigadier General (retired) Dr. Stan Flemming, MD, 

U.S. Army

Colonel Eric Folkestad, Office, Chief of the Army Reserve 

Command Sergeant Major James Forbes II, Command 

Sergeant Major, 138th Regiment-Indiana National Guard 

Regional Training Institute

Brigadier General Walter Fountain, Special Assistant to the 

Director, Army National Guard

Mr. John Frame, G-5, U.S. Army Africa

Colonel Anthony Francia, G-3, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command

Chief Master Sergeant John Frazier, 62nd Maintenance Group 

Captain Jason Freeman, Operations Officer, National Guard 

Bureau 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Orlando Freeman, 84th Training 

Command 

Mr. Nate Freier, Professor of National Security Studies, Army 

War College

Sergeant First Class Robert Frey, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Facility NCOIC, TUASOF

Major General Kurt Fuller, Deputy Commanding General, 

I Corps

Mr. Mike Fuller, Senior Readiness Officer, I Corps 

Lieutenant General (retired) Paul Funk, U.S. Army

Colonel (retired) Daniel Furtado, California Army Reserve 

Ambassador 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Kevin Gabrielson, Maintenance 

Warrant Officer, 479th Engineer Battalion 

Command Sergeant Major (retired) Joe Gainey

Colonel Sean A. Gainey, Deputy Commanding Officer, Cadet 

Command

Major General Duane Gamble, Commanding General, 21st 

Theater Sustainment Command

Sergeant First Class Jose Garcia, 40th Infantry Division

Brigadier General Marianne Garcia, Deputy Commanding 

General, 200th Military Police Command 

The Honorable Cory Gardner, United States Senate, Colorado

Major General Michael Garrett, Chief of Staff, U.S. Central 

Command (USCENTCOM)

Lieutenant General William Garrett, Deputy Commander, 

U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)

Colonel Clay Garrison, Commander, 144th Fighter Wing, 

California Air National Guard

Colonel Michael Garshak, Chief of Staff, Idaho Army National 

Guard

Major Stewart Gast, Executive Officer, 52nd Brigade Engineer 

Battalion 

Major General William Gayler, Deputy Commanding General, 

U.S. Army Europe 

Colonel (retired) Dr. Gian Gentile, Center for Strategic & 

International Studies

Major General Anthony German, Assistant Adjutant General 

of New York 

Mr. Dennis Gibson, S3 Inc.

Major George Giles, Maintenance Officer, Army Aviation 

Support Facility- Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

Brigadier General Steve Gilland, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, 101st Airborne Division 

Ms. Bethina Gilmore, G8, USASOC

Major Christina Gilroy, Commander, Regional Training SiteMaintenance, 139th Regiment

Mr. Nate Godwin, Deputy G3, FORSCOM

Major General Ryan Gonsalves, Commanding General, 4th 

Infantry Division & Fort Carson

Private First Class Michael Gonzales, 63rd Ordnance Company

Staff Sergeant Juan Gonzalez, Maintenance Supervisor, Army 

Reserve Aviation Support Facility-Conroe, Texas 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Chris Good, Instructor Pilot, 40th 

Combat Aviation Brigade

Brigadier General John Goodale, Assistant TAG, Idaho 

National Guard

Mr. Will Goodman, Vice President for Policy, National 

Defense Industry Association

Captain Joseph Gorgacz, Engineer Officer, 518th Sustainment 

Brigade

Admiral William E. Gortney, USN, Commander, U.S. 

Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)

Dr. Daniel Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute

Mr. David Graham, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Major General (retired) Mark A. Graham, former Deputy 

Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 (Readiness), Forces Command

The Honorable Kay Granger, United States House of 

Representatives, 12th Congressional District, Texas
National Commission on the Future of the Army 161

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Grant, Deputy Commander, Joint 

Interagency Training & Education Center, West Virginia Army 

National Guard 

Major General (retired) Robert Grant

Sergeant Taniqua Grant, Training NCO, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

General Frank Grass, Chief, National Guard Bureau

The Honorable Chuck Grassley, United States Senate, Iowa

The Honorable William Greenberg, Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals

Colonel Bryan Grenon, Commander, 81st Armored Brigade 

Combat Team

Senior Airmen Naomi Griego, 62nd Airlift Wing Public Affairs 

Colonel Ethan Griffin, Vice Commander, 62nd Airlift Wing 

Major General John Gronski, Commanding General, 28th 

Infantry Division 

Colonel Didier Gros, Military Attaché, Embassy of France

Mr. Dean Grose, City Council Member, City of Los Alamitos, 

California

Colonel Ephraim Grubbs, Commander, 60th Troop Command

Mr. Robert Grundy, Logistics Management Specialist, HQDA 

G-4

Lieutenant Colonel Nikolaus Guran, Commander, 101st 

Headquarters & Headquarters Battalion

Brigadier General Leon Guerrero, The Adjutant General of 

Guam

Command Sergeant Major Mike Gundrum, Senior State 

Enlisted Leader, Pennsylvania Army National Guard

Brigadier General Darrell Guthrie, Commanding General, 

104th Training Division

First Lieutenant Nathaniel Guthrie, Commander, Alpha 

Company, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

Sergeant First Class Carlos Gutierrez, 75th Training Command

Mr. Nico Guzman, private citizen

Lieutenant Colonel Brent Haas, Office of the Chief of Army 

Reserve

Brigadier General Wendul Hagler, Special Assistant to the 

Director, Army National Guard 

Brigadier General Jack Haley, Commanding General, 593rd 

Expeditionary Sustainment Command

Colonel Jimmie Hall, Commander, 5th Signal Command

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Halloran, Commander, 2-320th 

Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Marcaus Hamby, Network Operations 

Security Cell, Brigade Modernization Command

Sergeant First Class Clinton Hamilton, G-33 Fires, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Command Sergeant Major Gary Hamm, Command Sergeant 

Major, 449th Theater Aviation Brigade

Colonel George Hanhauser, G-3/5/7, Civil Affairs & 

Psychological Operations Command

Master Sergeant Richard Hannah, G-6, Command Operations 

& Information Center, I Corps

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Michael Hanten, Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, 79th Theater Sustainment Command 

Major General Gary M. Hara, Deputy Commanding GeneralArmy National Guard, U.S. Army Pacific

Colonel Ken Hara, Deputy Adjutant General, Hawaii Army 

National Guard

Brigadier General Kurt Hardin, Deputy Commanding General, 

79th Sustainment Support Command

Major General (retired) Gus Hargett, President, National 

Guard Association of the United States

Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Harkins, Commander, 3-187th 

Infantry Battalion, 101st Airborne Division

Colonel Michael Harlan, Director, Department of Logistics & 

Resource Operations, Combined Arms Center, TRADOC

Major General Brian Harris, Commander, Task Force 51, U.S. 

Army North

Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr, USN, Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Command (USPACOM)

Chief Master Sergeant (retired) John Harris, President, Enlisted 

Association of the National Guard of the United States

Colonel John Harrison, Chief of Staff, Colorado Army 

National Guard

Major Derrick Hart, Executive Officer, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Colonel Michael Harvey, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3 Aviation, 

I Corps

Mr. Thomas H. Harvey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Strategy, Plans & Capabilities 

Major General Lawrence Haskins, Commanding General, 40th 

Infantry Division

The Honorable Maggie Hassan, Governor of New Hampshire 

Major Walter J. Hatfield, J-33 Current Operations Officer, 

Joint Force Headquarters-West Virginia 
162 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Ken Hawley, Chief, Aviation Division, Forces 

Command

Colonel Randall L. Haws, Deputy Chief of Staff-Operations, 

Human Resource Command 

Mr. Paulus Hay, Logistics Management Specialist, HQDA G-4

Brigadier General Richard Hayes, The Adjutant General of 

Illinois 

Lieutenant Colonel James Haynie, Commander, 1-185th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

The Honorable Denny Heckm, United States Congress, 10th 

District Representative, Washington

Lieutenant Colonel Raphael Heflin, Commander, 142nd 

Combat Service Support Battalion, 1st Sustainment Brigade, 

1st Armored Division

The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp, United States Senate, North 

Dakota

Major Elizabeth Helland, 1st Space Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hepner, Garrison Commander, 

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Richard Herbert, Governor of Utah 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 James Herring, Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, North Carolina Army National Guard

The Honorable John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado 

Mr. Jim Hickey, Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Armed 

Services Committee

Mr. Chip Hickman, Mobilization Officer, G-3, First Army, 

Division West 

Mr. Asher Hildebrand, Chief of Staff for U.S. Representative 

David Price, 4th Congressional District, North Carolina

Dr. Andrew Hill, Professor of Organization Studies, Army War 

College

Sergeant First Class Ryan Hill, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment 

Major General William Hill, Assistant Adjutant General (Air) 

of Mississippi 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Joan Hills, G-1, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Andrew Hilton, Operations Warrant 

Officer, 5th Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group 

Brigadier General Timothy Hilty, Assistant Adjutant General of 

Pennsylvania 

Colonel Mark Himes, G-3, 10th Mountain Division

Major General William Hix, Director, Strategy, Plans & Policy, 

HQDA G-3/5/7 

Colonel Shaun Hodge, J-3, Joint Force HeadquartersWashington 

Lieutenant General Fredrick Hodges, Commanding General, 

U.S. Army Europe

Lieutenant Colonel George Hodges, G-3 Plans, First Army, 

Division West 

Lieutenant Colonel Ray Hoeflein, Chief of Operations, 40th 

Infantry Division

The Honorable John Hoeven, United States Senate, North 

Dakota

Mr. Frank Hoffman, Center for Strategic & International 

Studies

Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Hohman, Office, Chief of the 

Army Reserve

Major General Daniel R. Hokanson, The Adjutant General of 

Oregon

Mr. Richard Holcomb, Deputy to the Commanding General, 

USASOC

Private First Class Alyssa Holden, Washington Army National 

Guard

Colonel Kenneth G. Holley, Operations Officer, Cadet 

Command /104th Training Command 

Major General Jeffrey Holmes, Deputy Adjutant General of 

Tennessee 

Mr. Eric Hopkins, IT Specialist, 75th Training Command

Major General Thomas A. Horlander, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Budget

Chief Warrant Officer 4 William Horne, OIC/Director/

Senior Instructor, Regional Training Site-Maintenance, 139th 

Regiment

Mr. Stanley A. Horowitz, Cost Analysis & Research Division, 

Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Brigadier General John Hort, G-3, U.S. Army Europe 

Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Dr. Milton D. Houghton

Mr. Christopher Howard, Liaison, U.S. Forces Korea

Brigadier General Michael Howard, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, 10th Mountain Division 

Colonel Jon Howerton, Staff, U.S. Army Pacific

Major General James Hoyer, The Adjutant General of West 

Virginia 

Lieutenant Colonel Derrek Hryhorchuk, Commander, 

Houston Army Aviation Support Facility, Texas Army National 

Guard
National Commission on the Future of the Army 163

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Sergeant Samuel Hubbard, Company Standardization 

Instructor and ASF Employee (MILTECH), Alpha Company, 

1-169th Aviation Regiment

The Honorable Richard Hudson, United States House of 

Representatives, North Carolina 8th District

Colonel (retired) Thomas Hueg, USAF, President, Department 

of Virginia, Reserve Officers Association

Mrs. Nancy Huff, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Mr. Tucker Hughes, Branch Chief, Center for Army Analysis 

Institute for Defense Analyses (CAA)

The Honorable Graham Hunt, State Representative, 2nd 

Legislative District, Washington

Colonel Edward J. Hunter, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-6, I 

Corps 

Colonel Daniel Hurlbut, Commander, 120th Infantry Brigade, 

First Army, Division West 

Major General Paul Hurley, G4, FORSCOM

The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Governor of Arkansas 

The Honorable David Y. Ige, Governor of Hawaii

Brigadier General James Illingworth, Military Attaché, 

Embassy of the United Kingdom

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Steve Imeraj, State Command, 

Colorado Army National Guard 

The Honorable Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington

Brigadier General Ferdinand Irizarry II, G3, USARC

Staff Sergeant Kevin Irving, Supply Sergeant, 479th Engineer 

Battalion

The Honorable Johnny Isakson, United States Senate, Georgia

Staff Sergeant Katherine Jackson, 62nd Airlift Wing Public 

Affairs 

Rear Admiral Lawrence Jackson, USN, Reserve Deputy 

Director, Warfare Integration Division, U.S. Navy

Sergeant First Class Pamela Jackson, 104th Training Command

Command Sergeant Major Dennis Jacques, Command 

Sergeant Major, 479th Engineer Battalion

Colonel Jack James, Commander, 42nd Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Colonel Manley James, Commander, 139th Regiment-North 

Carolina National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Major General Thomas James, Jr., G3/5/7, FORSCOM

Major General Tom James, Commanding General, 7th 

Infantry Division

Captain Justin Jarrell, Standardization & Evaluations Pilot, 

62nd Operations Group 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Jarrett Jr, Executive Officer, 36th 

Combat Aviation Brigade

Mr. Kenneth Jenkins, Unit Administrative Technician, 479th 

Engineer Battalion

Command Sergeant Major Daniel Jennings, Command 

Sergeant Major, 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment

Command Sergeant Major Thomas Jennings, Command 

Sergeant Major, 84th Training Command 

First Lieutenant Daniel Jester, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Mr. Miguel Jimenez, Director, Surface Deployment & 

Distribution Command, Seattle, Washington

Mr. David R. Johnson, RAND Corporation

Lieutenant Colonel Donald Johnson, S-3, 2nd Medical Brigade

Brigadier General John “Pete” Johnson, Director of Training, 

HQDA G-3/5/7

Command Sergeant Major John Johnson, Command Sergeant 

Major, 52nd Brigade Engineer Battalion

Major Louis Johnson, Assistant Division Engineer, 4th Infantry 

Division

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Johnson, Plans & Policy, HQDA 

G-35

The Honorable Ron Johnson, United States Senate, Wisconsin

Colonel Russell Johnson, Commander, 116th Cavalry Brigade 

Combat Team

Ms. Virginia Johnson, Director of Federal Relations, Office of 

the Governor, State of North Carolina

Brigadier General Charles Jones, Deputy Adjutant General of 

Kentucky

Lieutenant Colonel Craig Jones, G-4, Colorado Army National 

Guard

Brigadier General Kenneth D. Jones, Commanding General, 

4th Expeditionary Sustainment Command

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Kenneth Jones, Instructor Pilot, 

1-211th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Colonel Stanley Jones, Commander, Ellington Field Joint 

Readiness Base & 147th Reconnaissance Wing, Texas Air 

National Guard 

Colonel Todd Jones, Director, Total Force, I Corps

Major General James Joseph, The Adjutant General of 

Pennsylvania

General (retired) George Joulwan, Former Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe
164 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Lieutenant General Timothy J. Kadavy, Director, Army 

National Guard 

Ms. Susan Kamas, Executive Director of Workforce Solutions 

of Central Texas

Ms. Mara Karlin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 

Strategy and Force Development

Ms. Sheridan Kearnan, Minister-Counselor (Defense Policy), 

Embassy of Australia

Colonel Valery C. Keaveny, Jr., Chief of Staff, 101st Airborne 

Division 

Mr. Jimmy Keefe, Commissioner, Cumberland County, North 

Carolina

Colonel Alan Kellogg, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, I Corps 

General John Kelly, Commander, U.S. Southern Command 

(USSOUTHCOM)

The Honorable Trent Kelly, U.S. Representative, 1st 

Congressional District, Mississippi

Captain Charles Kelsey, Intelligence Officer, Army Reserve 

Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center 

Major General (retired) Dennis Kenneally, Council Member, 

Governor of California’s Military Council

Colonel James “Bo” Kenyon, Commander, 36th Combat 

Aviation Brigade 

Lieutenant Colonel Donald Kettering, 6-108th Military 

Intelligence Battalion

Colonel Kevin Kick, Special Projects, Colorado Army National 

Guard

The Honorable Derek Kilmer, United States Congress, 6th 

District Representative, Washington

First Lieutenant Christine Kim, Administrative Assistant, 

145th Multi-Functional Medical Battalion 

Major Robert Kincaid Jr., Commander, Headquarters & 

Headquarters Company, 111th Engineer Brigade

Sergeant First Class Scott King, First Sergeant, Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Dr. Christopher Kirchhoff, Director for Strategic Planning, 

National Security Council

Colonel Kajari Klettenberg, Defense Attaché, Embassy of 

Estonia

Mr. Josh Klimas, Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

Mr. Dan Klippstein, Deputy Director, Strategy, Plans & Policy, 

HQDA G-3/5/7 

Lieutenant Colonel Damon Knarr, Division Engineer, 4th 

Infantry Division

Captain Jason Kneib, G-33 Orders Chief, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Major Charles Knoll, Executive Officer, 4th Infantry Division 

Artillery

Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Kobernik, Commander, 3-116th 

Infantry Regiment

Colonel Charles Kohler, Public Affairs Officer, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Maryland

Brigadier General Troy D. Kok, Deputy Commanding 

General-Support, Recruiting Command

Sergeant First Class Eric Kolar, 1972nd Combat Operational 

Stress Control Detachment

Brigadier General Kenneth Koon, Assistant TAG, Wisconsin 

National Guard, and Deputy Commander, Division West, 1st 

Army

Airmen First Class Jeremy Kosick, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron 

Mr. Nicholas Kostelecky, Installation Transportation Officer, 

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

Mr. Edward Koucheravy, Director, Land Forces Division, Cost 

Assessment & Program Evaluation Office, Office of Secretary 

of Defense Legislative Affairs

Mr. Jeff Kramer, Training Officer, G-3, First Army, Division 

West 

Lieutenant Colonel Erik Krivda, G-5, I Corps 

Lieutenant Colonel Max Krupp, Commander, 1-143rd 

Infantry Regiment (Airborne)

Lieutenant Colonel Blake Lackey, G-33 Chief, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps 

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Ladd, Commander, 2-214th 

Aviation Regiment

Command Sergeant Major Shane Lake, Senior Enlisted 

Advisor, Oregon Army National Guard 

Colonel Adam Lange, G-3 Air, III Corps 

Specialist Stephanie Lanham, Human Resources Specialist, 

1006th Quartermaster Company

Dr. Michael Lankowski, First Secretary (Defense Strategic 

Policy), Embassy of Australia

Lieutenant General Stephen Lanza, Commanding General, I 

Corps

Major Kevin Larrabee, Deployment & Enablers Division, 

Center for Army Analysis, HQDA G-8 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 165

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Bryan Laske, Garrison Commander, Fort Drum, New 

York 

Lieutenant General James B. Laster, USMC, Director, U.S. 

Marine Corps Staff

Brigadier General John Lathrop, Deputy Commanding 

General, 40th Infantry Division 

Brigadier General Markus Laubenthal (German Army), Chief 

of Staff, U.S. Army Europe 

Brigadier General Donald Laucirica, Assistant Adjutant 

General of Colorado 

Major Ian Lauer, National Training Center

Major Stephanie Lawrence, Staff Officer, First Army, Division 

East

Mr. Bruce Leach, Director, Military Sealift Command, Seattle

Mr. Jon Lee, Deputy, Management & Support, 9th Mission 

Support Command

Mr. Jon Lee, 351st Civil Affairs Command (CACOM)

Mrs. Maren Leed, Senior Advisor, Defense Policy Studies 

& International Security Program, Center for Strategic & 

International Studies 

Colonel Michael Leeney, Chief of Staff, 40th Infantry Division 

Colonel John Leffers, Chief of Staff, First Army, Division West 

Lieutenant General Mary Legere, Deputy Chief of Staff G-2, 

HQDA

Lieutenant General Joseph Lengyel, Vice Chief, National 

Guard Bureau 

Brigadier General Roderick R. Leon Guerrero, The Adjutant 

General of Guam

Colonel Robert Lesher, G1, Hawaii Army National Guard

Colonel David Lesperance, Chief, Operations Group, National 

Training Center

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Lewis, Command Sergeant 

Major, 10th Mountain Division

Mr. Lars Liden, G-3 Force Modernization, I Corps

Sergeant First Class Jacob Lindholm, 10th Special Forces 

Group (Airborne)

Colonel John J. Lindsay, HQDA G-3/5/7 Aviation Directorate

Staff Sergeant Marshall Lindsay, E Detachment NCOIC 

(TPU), Alpha Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Major Samuel Linn, S-3, 4th Infantry Division Artillery 

Colonel Bruce Linton, Commander, 66th Theater Aviation 

Command 

Colonel Ernest Litynski, 76th Operational Response 

Command

Major General Robert Livingston Jr., The Adjutant General of 

South Carolina

Brigadier General Arthur J. Logan, The Adjutant General of 

Hawaii

Colonel Stephen F. Logan, Commander, 29th Infantry Brigade 

Combat Team

Captain Andrew Lohrenz, S-4, 2-77th Field Artillery Battalion

Major General Neal Loidolt, Commanding General, 34th 

Infantry Division 

Mr. Michael Lombard, Unit Administrator, Army Reserve 

Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center 

Mrs. Bonnie Longie, 62nd Airlift Wing Protocol Office 

Sergeant Jesus Lopez, Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 

79th Theater Sustainment Command 

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Love, G-2, 4th Infantry Division 

Colonel Adam Loveless, Chief of Staff, 7th Army Joint 

Multinational Training Command

The Honorable Alan Lowenthal, U.S. Representative, 47th 

Congressional District, California

Lieutenant Colonel Chris Lowman, Deputy J-3, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Major Michael Lueckeman, S-3, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Major General Michael Lundy, Commanding General, 

Aviation Center of Excellence

Major General Gregory Lusk, The Adjutant General of North 

Carolina

Mr. Dana Luton, Army Campaign Plan Integrator, Forces 

Command

Mr. James Lynch, Facility Supervisor, Army Reserve Aviation 

Support Facility-Conroe, Texas 

Command Sergeant Major Sheryl Lyon, Command Sergeant 

Major, U.S. Army Europe 

Staff Sergeant Christopher Lytle, Instructor (MOS 35L), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, Commanding General, 

III Corps & Fort Hood, Texas

Colonel (retired) Dr. Douglas MacGregor, Burke-MacGregor, 

LLC

Sergeant Natasha MacKenzie, Vulture Team Operations SGT, 

NTC Urban Warfare Media Center

Command Sergeant Major Eric Macher, Command Sergeant 

Major, 2-77th Field Artillery Battalion
166 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Command Sergeant Major Ed Macias, Command Sergeant 

Major, 169th Field Artillery Brigade

Lieutenant Colonel Craig Macina, Exercise Planner, 5th Armor 

Brigade, First Army

Mr. Rodney Maddox, Chief Deputy Secretary, North Carolina 

Secretary of State

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Ronald Magaro, Supervisor, Unit 

Training Equipment Site-Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

Major Joycelyn Magday, Scribe, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command

Brigadier General Mark Malanka, Deputy Commanding 

General, 40th Infantry Division

The Honorable Dan Malloy, Governor of Connecticut 

Colonel Shawn Manke, Commander, 34th Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Mr. Steve Mannell, Chairman, Chamber of Commerce 

Military Affairs, Fayetteville, North Carolina

The Honorable Jack Markell, Governor of Delaware 

Colonel James C. Markert, Chief of Staff, III Corps & Fort 

Hood

Colonel Kyle J. Marsh, Commander, 101st Division Artillery 

Command Sergeant Major Alvin Martin, Command Sergeant 

Major, 3-116th Infantry Regiment

Major Brett Martin, Executive Officer, Theatre Special 

Operations Detachment, Colorado Army National Guard 

Ms. Candis Martin, Army Reserve Ambassador

Colonel Donna W. Martin, Deputy Commanding GeneralOperations, Recruiting Command

Command Sergeant Major Jerry Martin, Command Sergeant 

Major, 139th Regiment

Major General Joseph Martin, Commanding General, National 

Training Center and Fort Irwin

Major General Theodore Martin, Commanding General, 2nd 

ID

Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Martinez, Commander, 193rd 

Military Police Battalion 

Mr. David Martino, Officer Personnel Management Director, 

Human Resource Command 

Command Sergeant Major Brandon Marx, Command Sergeant 

Major, Centennial Training Site, 168th Regiment-Colorado 

Army National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Colonel Charles Masaracchia, Commander, 2nd Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division

Brigadier General James Mason, Deputy Commanding 

General, 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support)

Specialist Ryan Mason, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment

Lieutenant Colonel Christine Massey, G-4, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Mr. Kyosuke Matsumoto, Counselor, Embassy of the Japan

Captain Tyler Mayes, G-33 Battle Captain, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Lieutenant Colonel Phil Mazingo, Commander, 4-3rd Aviation 

Regiment

Brigadier General Abdelraham Al Mazmi, Defense Attaché, 

Embassy of the United Arab Emirates

Staff Sergeant Ronald McAndrew, Flight Standards Instructor, 

Eastern Army National Guard Aviation Training Site 

Specialist Sera McArthur, Washington Army National Guard

The Honorable Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia 

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Thomas McAuliffe, Brigade 

Standardization Pilot

Major General Todd B. McCaffrey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 

Pacific

Major General (retired) Mark McCarley

Lieutenant General (retired) Dennis McCarthy, USMC, former 

Chairman, National Commission on the Structure of the Air 

Force

Lieutenant Colonel Robert McCaskell, Office, Chief of the 

Army Reserve 

Major General Jonathon McColumn, Commanding General, 

103rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command 

Mr. Dan McCormack, G-3 Staff, U.S. Army Europe

Colonel James G. McCormack, Operations Officer, 166th 

Regiment-Pennsylvania Army National Guard Regional 

Training Institute

First Lieutenant Vanessa McCormick, Course Manager, 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

The Honorable Pat McCrory, Governor of North Carolina 

Colonel Michael McCurry, Commander, 10th Combat 

Aviation Brigade

Colonel Robert McDowell, Deputy Commander, SWC, 

USASOC

Major John McElveen, Commander, 1-151st Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Second Lieutenant Jawana McFadden, 40th Infantry Division

Lieutenant Colonel Andreas McGhee, 84th Training 

Command 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 167

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Mr. Phil McGhee, G8, FORSCOM

Lieutenant Colonel Drake McGraw, Commander, 32nd Civil 

Support Team 

Master Sergeant Douglas McGregor, 62nd Operations Support 

Squadron 

Major General Michael McGuire, The Adjutant General of 

Arizona 

The Honorable John McHugh, 21st Secretary of the Army

Brigadier General Terrence McKenrick, Commander, Brigade 

Modernization Command

The Honorable David McKinley, United States House of 

Representatives, 1st Congressional District, West Virginia

Lieutenant General James McLaughlin, Deputy Commander, 

U.S. Cyber Command (USCC)

Major Cara McLean, S-1, 89th Troop Command

First Sergeant Matthew McLeod, acting Command Sergeant 

Major, 4/3 Assault Helicopter Battalion

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, Deputy Commanding 

General, Futures & Director, Army Capabilities Integration 

Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Mr. Jim McMillian, G-5, U.S. Army Africa

Brigadier General Chris McPadden, Deputy Director, Strategy 

& Policy, Joint Staff J-5

The Honorable Matthew Mead, Governor of Wyoming 

Brigadier General (retired) Robin Mealer, Director, U.S. Army 

Manpower Analysis Agency

Captain Norian Medina, Student, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Major Will Medlicott, Director of Staff, 62nd Airlift Wing 

First Lieutenant Elyse Ping Medvigy, Fire Direction Officer, 

2-77th Field Artillery Battalion 

Colonel (retired) Todd Megill

Staff Sergeant Angel Melendez, S-3 NCOIC, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion 

Specialist Joseph Mena, 63rd Ordnance Company

The Honorable Bob Menendez, United States Senate, New 

Jersey

Command Sergeant Major Harry Mercado, Command 

Sergeant Major, 5th Signal Command

The Honorable Jeff Merkley, United States Senate, Oregon

Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Merricks, Executive Officer, 34th 

Combat Aviation Brigade 

Sergeant First Class Shawn Merrill, Enlisted Flight Platoon 

Sergeant, Eastern Army National Guard Aviation Training Site 

Lieutenant General (retired) Thomas Metz, former III Corps 

Commander

Mr. Robert Meyer, Senior Manager, Port Operations, Port of 

Tacoma 

Colonel Carl Michaud, National Training Center

Colonel Greg Michel, Garrison Commander, Camp Shelby, 

Mississippi 

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Mifsud, Commander, 1-160th 

Infantry Regiment 

The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, United States Senate, 

Maryland

First Lieutenant Nolan Miles, Platoon Leader, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion 

Command Sergeant Major Dale Miller, Command Sergeant 

Major, Eastern Army National Guard Aviation Training Site

First Lieutenant Daniel Miller, Aide-de-Camp, Regional Health 

Command Europe

Mr. Derek Miller, Chief, Force Provider Division, FORSCOM

Major General Harry Miller, Commanding General, 42nd 

Infantry Division 

Master Sergeant Jason Miller, Operations NCO, Army Reserve 

Command 

General Mark Milley, 39th Chief of Staff of the Army

Chief Warrant Officer 3 John Millsap, Cyber Protection 

Brigade, 7th Signal Command 

Major Matthew R. Minear, Operations Officer, 1st Air Cavalry 

Brigade

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Richmond Minton, 1st Squadron, 

14th Cavalry Regiment 

Colonel Scott Mitchell, Commander, 196th Infantry Brigade 

Mr. Jim Mitre, Foreign Affairs Specialist, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy 

Major General (retired) Paul Mock, National Chair for 

Employer Support for the Guard & Reserve

Specialist Charles Moerke, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Specialist Joseph Monaco, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Captain Benjamin Monson, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Staff Sergeant Montgomery – Public Affairs NCO, Fort Meade, 

Maryland

Colonel Matthew Moore, National Training Center
168 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Mr. Mike Moose, North Carolina Chapter, Reserve Officers’ 

Association

Sergeant Jesus Morales, 145th Multi-Functional Medical 

Battalion

Colonel Jesse Morehouse, Commander, 168th RegimentColorado Army National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Moreni, Commander, 1st 

Squadron, 163rd Cavalry Regiment

Mr. Darrell Morgeson, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Dr. Jamie Morin, Director, Cost Assessment & Program 

Evaluation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense (CAPE)

Mr. Joseph Morosco, Principal Deputy National Intelligence 

Officer/Manager for Military Issues, National Intelligence 

Council

Mr. Glenn Morrison, Killeen City Manager

Mr. Jim Motties, G-7, U.S. Army Africa

Sergeant First Class Pablo Munoz, 63rd Ordnance Company

Mrs. Najla Munshower-Neumann, Military spouse

Lieutenant Colonel Mercedes Murillo, Assistant G-3, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command 

Major Bryan Murphy, Executive Officer, Centennial Training 

Site, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National Guard 

Regional Training Institute 

Major General Patrick Murphy, The Adjutant General of New 

York 

Lieutenant General John M. Murray, Deputy Chief of Staff 

G-8, HQDA

Colonel Terrence Murrill, Commandant, Recruiting/Retention 

School, Recruiting Command

Colonel Michael Musiol, Commander, 82nd Combat Aviation 

Brigade

‎U.S. Government Stevedoring Contractor

Brigadier General Frank Muth, Director, Army Quadrennial 

Defense Review Office, HQDA G-8

Colonel Paul Nanamori, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, 

Hawaii Army National Guard

Sergeant First Class Johnny Napier, Warrior Leader Course 

Chief Instructor, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National 

Guard Regional Training Institute 

Major General Richard Nash, The Adjutant General of 

Minnesota

Lieutenant Colonel Edmund Naughton, Commander, 1-158th 

Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Nauman, National Training Center 

Senior Brigade Trainer

Staff Sergeant Jeffrey Nelan, California Army National Guard 

Staff Sergeant Kathryn S. Nesselrodt, Human Resource NCO, 

West Virginia Army National Guard 

Colonel Tim Newsome, Chief of Staff, First Army, Division 

East 

Major Scott P. Nicholas, Commander, 1-149th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Mr. David Nichols, Director, Cost Analysis & Research 

Division, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Major General John Nichols, The Adjutant General of Texas 

Sergeant First Class Ben Nievera, 132nd Engineer Company 

(Multi-Role Bridge) 

Dr. Marc Nigliazzo, President Texas AM

The Honorable Jeremiah Nixon, Governor of Missouri 

Command Sergeant Major James Norman, Command Sergeant 

Major, I Corps

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Austin Norris, Battalion Master 

Gunner and Standardization Pilot

Command Sergeant Major Derwood Norris, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Colonel Jan C. Norris, Garrison Commander, Fort HunterLiggett, California

Mr. Dave Norton, Exercise Director, Exportable Combat 

Training Center

Command Sergeant Major Gregory F. Nowak, Command 

Sergeant Major, 101st Airborne Division 

Sergeant Ana Nunez, Imagery NCO, Army Reserve Element, 

U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations Center 

Command Sergeant Major David Nunn, Command Sergeant 

Major, 66th Theater Aviation Command 

Colonel Mark O’Donnell, Chief of Staff, 10th Mountain 

Division

Dr. Michael E. O’Hanlon, Director of Research for Foreign 

Policy, Brookings Institution

Command Sergeant Major William O’Neal, Command 

Sergeant Major, Regional Health Command Europe

Mr. David A. Ochmanek, RAND Corporation

General Raymond Odierno, 38th Chief of Staff of the Army

Colonel Michael Oeschger, Commander, 4th Infantry Division 

Artillery

Chief Warrant Officer 5 James O’Gorman, 120th Infantry 

Brigade, First Army, Division West 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 169

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Gregory Olivo, Network Operations 

Security Cell, Brigade Modernization Command

Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Jose Olmos

Colonel Kevin Olson, Public Affairs Officer, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Minnesota

Staff Sergeant Timothy Oremus, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Staff Sergeant Oswaldo Ramos Ortiz, Instructor (MOS 35M), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Major General (retired) Rudolph Ostovich III, former 

Commander, Aviation Center

Major General Paul A. Ostrowski, Deputy, Acquisition & 

Systems Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (ALT)

Ms. Stephanie Otto, U.S. Army Europe

Command Sergeant Major Craig Owens, Command Sergeant 

Major, 200th Military Police Command

Major General (retired) Darren Owens

Mr. Bryan Paarmann, Deputy Assistant Director, Counter 

Terrorism Division & National Counter Terrorism Center, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

The Honorable Steve Palazzo, United States House of 

Representatives, 4th Congressional District, Mississippi

Lieutenant General (retired) Dave Palmer

Chief Robert Paoletti, Chief of Police, Redding, California

Mr. Mike Pappas, Senior Advisor, Intelligence Capabilities & 

Requirements, HQDA G-2

Mr. Bill Pardue, Deputy Director, Aviation Force 

Development, HQDA G-8

Colonel Amos Parker, Commander, 154th RegimentMississippi National Guard Regional Training Institute

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Parker

Colonel Tim Parker, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, I Corps 

Mr. Jack Parkhurst, Deputy Chief, Aviation Division, Forces 

Command

Mr. Bill Parry, the City Manager of the City of Gatesville, Texas

Command Sergeant Major Thomas Parsley, Command 

Sergeant Major, 4th Infantry Division Artillery

Mr. David Paschal, Deputy Director Operations, G-3/5/7, 

Training & Doctrine Command

Major General James Pasquarette, Commander, U.S. Forces 

Japan

Command Sergeant Major Lou Pauka, Command Sergeant 

Major, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Paul, G-3, Special Operations 

Detachment-Korea, Colorado Army National Guard 

Captain Abe Payne, Commander, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Colonel Shana Peck, G-3, 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense 

Command

Colonel Isaac Peltier, Commander, 10th Special Forces Group 

(Airborne)

Colonel David Pendall, Commander, 66th Military Intelligence 

Brigade 

Colonel William Pendergast, Commander, 41st Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team

Mr. John H. Pendleton, Director, Force Structure & Readiness 

Issues, Government Accountability Office

Colonel (retired) George Penrod, Chief Executive Officer, 75th 

Training Command 

The Honorable David Perdue, United States Senate, Georgia

Captain Rafael Perez, Supervisory Staff Administrator, 75th 

Training Command

General David G. Perkins, Commanding General, Training & 

Doctrine Command

Mr. Wayne Perry, Military spouse

Airmen First Class Benjamin Person, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron

The Honorable Gary Peters, United States Senate, Michigan

Major Phillip Peters, Commander, Aviation Training BattalionUtility, Eastern Army National Guard Aviation Training Site

Ms. Andrea Peterson, Legislative Affairs Manager, National 

Guard Association of the United States 

Brigadier General Erik Peterson, Commanding General, US 

Army Special Operations Aviation Command (USASOAC)

Master Sergeant Ryan Peterson, Senior NCO Imagery 

Analyst, Army Reserve Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint 

Intelligence Operations Center 

Mr. Lynn Petrie, Facilities Support Technician, Operational 

Readiness Training Center-Fort Drum, New York 

Sergeant First Class Katherine Phelps, Senior Human Resource 

NCO, Army Reserve Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint 

Intelligence Operations Center 

Sergeant Russel Philips IV, 1972nd Combat Operational Stress 

Control Detachment

Colonel Bryan Phillips, 2nd Medical Brigade
170 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Lieutenant Colonel David L. Phillips, Deputy Director, Plans, 

Training, Mobilization, & Security, Fort Hunter-Liggett, 

California 

Major General Jeffrey E. Phillips, Executive Director, Reserve 

Officers Association

Mr. Tom Pierson, President & CEO, Tacoma-Pierce County 

Chamber

Chief Warrant Officer 4 John Piland, Battalion Aviation 

Maintenance Officer, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Major Pino, National Guard Bureau

Lieutenant Colonel Oscar Pintado, Deputy Chief of Staff G-3, 

First Army, Division West 

Mr. Bradley Pippin, Director, TRAC-FLVN, TRADOC 

Analysis Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Plamondon, Command 

Sergeant Major, 1-184th Infantry Regiment 

Brigadier General Todd Plimpton, Land Component 

Commander, Oregon Army National Guard

Sergeant First Class Terrance Pollard, Senior Human Resources 

Sergeant, 479th Engineer Battalion

Command Sergeant Major Sergio Porras, Command Sergeant 

Major, 1-160th Infantry Regiment

Mr. Ric Porter, Deputy G1, FORSCOM

First Sergeant Robert Porter, First Sergeant, 1st Squadron, 14th 

Cavalry Regiment

Mr. Mike Pott, Task Force 1, South Metro Twin Cities, 

Minnesota Fire Department 

Colonel Laura Potter, G-2, U.S. Army Europe 

Colonel Dane Powell, Aviation Safety Officer, Joint Staff, Joint 

Force Headquarters-Mississippi

Master Sergeant Benjamin Prebble, Senior Imagery Analyst, 

Army Reserve Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint 

Intelligence Operations Center

The Honorable David Price, United States House of 

Representatives, North Carolina 4th District

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Price, Division Surgeon, 4th 

Infantry Division 

Chief Warrant Officer 2 George Protzman, Company A 

Standardization Pilot, 1-151st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Colonel Roger Pukahi, Commander of the 103rd Troop 

Command, Hawaii Army National Guard

Major General (retired) Arnold Punaro, USMCR

Lieutenant Colonel Rolland Quidachay, 100th Missile Defense 

Brigade

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Joseph Quinn

Corporal Henry Quinones-Ayala, 104th Training Command

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Radka, Commander, 52nd Brigade 

Engineer Battalion 

The Honorable Gina Raimondo, Governor of Rhode Island 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Manuel Ramos, Senior All-Source 

Analyst, Army Reserve Element, U.S. Pacific Command Joint 

Intelligence Operations Center

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin S. Ray, Deputy A-5, 130th Air 

Wing, West Virginia Air National Guard 

Captain Joe Raymond, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Commander, 

Puget Sound, Washington 

Mr. Chris Reddish, Chief, Strategy, Policy & Transformation 

Division, Forces Command

Warrant Officer 1 Robert Reed, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Operator, 556th Military Intelligence Company, 56th Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team

Colonel Shawn Reger, National Guard Bureau

Major General Timothy Reisch, The Adjutant General of South 

Dakota

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Rhoades, Command 

Sergeant Major, 21st Theater Sustainment Command

The Honorable Cedric Richmond, United States House of 

Representatives, 2nd Congressional District, Louisiana

Captain Devin Richter, Commander, 63rd Ordnance 

Company

Mr. Mark Riddle, UH-60 Staff Synchronization Officer, 

Aviation Force Development, HQDA G-8

Master Sergeant Dennis Riggs, Operations NCO, Special 

Operations Detachment-Europe, West Virginia Army National 

Guard 

Sergeant Major Brian Rikstad, 81st Armored Brigade Combat 

Team

Ms. Jimmie Ring, Deputy G3, First Army

The Honorable Jim Risch, United States Senate, Idaho

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Daniel Rittler, Company 

Standardization Pilot (AGR), Alpha Company, 1-169th 

Aviation Regiment

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Rivenbark, National Guard 

Bureau

Captain Rafael A. Rivera, Commander, 1010th Engineer 

Construction Company 

Major Adam Rix, Operations Officer, 40th Infantry Division 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 171

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Colonel Brandon Robins, Commander, 177th Armor Brigade, 

First Army

Brigadier General Jessie Robinson, Assistant Adjutant General 

(Army) of Mississippi 

Colonel Lori Robinson, Commander, 4th Combat Aviation 

Brigade 

The Honorable Martha Roby, United States House of 

Representatives, 2nd Congressional District, Alabama

Captain Michael Rochford, G-33 Battle Captain, Command 

Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Lieutenant Colonel William Rockefeller III, Commander, 

2-12th Cavalry Regiment

General David Rodriguez, Commander, U.S. Africa Command 

(USAFRICOM)

Sergeant First Class David Rodriguez, Training NCO, Echo 

Company, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion 

Master Sergeant Luis Luna Rodriquez, J-3 NCO, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Lieutenant Colonel Bren Rogers, J-57, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Captain Kyle Rogers, Fox Company, 227th Aviation Regiment

Brigadier General Andrew Rohling, Acting Senior Commander, 

10th Mountain Division 

Sergeant Gavin Ros, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment

Lieutenant Colonel Jason Rosenstrauch, G-5, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Colonel John Rosnow, Commander, 644th Regional Support 

Group & Minnesota Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer 

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Ross, National Guard Bureau 

Mr. Jack Rostetter, Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of 

Commerce, Fayetteville, North Carolina

The Honorable Keith Rothfus, United States House of 

Representatives, 12th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

Colonel Michael Rowells, Deputy Commander, 76th 

Operational Response Command

Colonel Walter Rugen, Director, Aviation Force Development, 

HQDA G-8

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Stephen Rugg, Instructor Pilot, 

1-211th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Specialist Heather Rusaw, 1972nd Combat Operational Stress 

Control Detachment

Colonel Bill Ryan, Commander, 16th Combat Aviation 

Brigade

Major Douglas Ryle, Deputy G-5, 807th Medical Command 

(Deployment Support)

Colonel Jeffrey Sabatine, Chief Of Staff, Washington Army 

National Guard

Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense, Integration & Defense Support of Civil 

Authorities 

Command Sergeant Major Noe Salinas, National Training 

Center

Colonel James R. Salome, Garrison Commander, Fort 

Campbell, Kentucky

Mr. Kirk Sanders, private citizen

Major General Gary Sayler, The Adjutant General, Idaho 

National Guard

General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander, U.S. Forces Korea

Dr. Nadia Schadlow, Center for Strategic & International 

Studies

Brigadier General Miyako Schanley, Deputy Commanding 

General-Operations, 412th Theater Engineer Command 

Mr. Frederick Scheffler, private citizen

The Honorable Robert Scher, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans & Capabilities

Mr. Clem Schimikowski, Hazmat Officer, Canadian Pacific 

Rail Emergency Response 

Colonel Mark Schindler, Chief of Staff, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Pennsylvania 

Mr. J. Scott Schissler, private citizen

Major General (retired) Jeffrey Schloesser, former Director of 

Army Aviation, HQDA & former Commander 101st Airborne 

Division 

Leo Schnack, private citizen

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Schooner, Chief-Minneapolis 

Detachment, Army Reserve Element, U.S. Pacific Command 

Joint Intelligence Operations Center 

Command Sergeant Major Scott Schroeder, Command 

Sergeant Major, FORSCOM

Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer L. Schulke, Executive Officer, 10th 

Army Air & Missile Defense Command

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Schultz, Commander, Field Support 

Battalion, 405th Army Field Support Brigade

Mr. Uli Seal, Task Force 1 Commander, Bloomington, 

Minnesota Fire Department 

Captain Morgan Seitz, Director of Plans & Integration, Camp 

Atterbury, Indiana
172 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Specialist Richard Shaffer, Joint Operations Watch Duty 

Specialist, Washington Army National Guard

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen, United States Senate, New 

Hampshire

Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Sheiffer, G-7, 4th Infantry 

Division 

Major James Sheldon, Executive Officer for The Adjutant 

General of Virginia 

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Sherman, J-3, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Colorado 

Brigadier General Raymond Shields, Director, Joint Force 

Headquarters-New York 

Mr. Russell Shim, Modeling Analyst, TRADOC Analysis 

Center, Training & Doctrine Command

Major General Kyoung Soo Shin, Defense Attaché, Embassy of 

the Republic of Korea

General (retired) Robert Shoemaker, U.S. Army 

Colonel Michael Shrout, Operations Officer, First Army, 

Division East 

The Honorable Bill Shuster, United States House of 

Representatives, 9th Congressional District, Pennsylvania

Sergeant Major Gregory Silva, 746th Combat Sustainment 

Support Battalion 

Mr. Raymond Silva, Chief of Readiness, Civil Affairs 

Psychological Operations Command

Colonel Adam Silvers, Commander, Special Operations 

Detachment-Korea, Colorado Army National Guard

Warrant Officer 1 David Silvia, UH-60 Pilot (TPU), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Colonel Curt Simonson, Commander 56th Information 

Operations Brigade

Colonel Katherine Simonson, Commander, 396th Combat 

Support Hospital

Major General Lester Simpson, Commanding General, 36th 

Infantry Division

Colonel Douglas Sims, Chief of Staff, 4th Infantry Division & 

Fort Carson

Brigadier General (retired) E.J. Sinclair, President, Army 

Aviation Association of America

Major General Linda Singh, The Adjutant General of 

Maryland 

Mr. Greg Singleton, Liaison Officer, Army Material Command

Mr. James G. Singleton, Liaison Officer, Army Material 

Command 

Colonel Ernesto Sirvas, Commander, Special Warfare Center 

(SWC), USASOC

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Sketch, Commander, Headquarters 

& Headquarters Battalion, 4th Infantry Division 

Colonel Jeffrey Smiley, J-3, Joint Force Headquarters-California

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Smith, Deputy Commander, 62nd 

Operations Group 

Colonel (retired) Cindy Smith

Command Sergeant Major Charles E. Smith, Command 

Sergeant Major, Human Resource Command 

Mr. Imam Eronomy Mohammed Smith, private citizen

Major Kenneth Smith, Supervisory Instructor Pilot/Operations 

Officer, Army Aviation Support Facility-Fort Indiantown Gap, 

Pennsylvania

Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Smith, Commander, 2-506th Infantry 

Battalion, 101st Airborne Division 

Captain Nathan Smith, Enlisted Training Company 

Commander, Eastern Army National Guard Aviation Training 

Site 

Lieutenant Colonel Sean Smith, Chief of Operations G-3, First 

Army, Division West 

Colonel Sydney Smith, Commander, 404th Army Field 

Support Brigade

Warrant Officer 1 Tyler Smith, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Operator, 556th Military Intelligence Company, 56th Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Wendell Smith, AH-64D 

Standardization Instructor Pilot, Army Aviation Support 

Facility-Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

Major General William Smith, Deputy Adjutant General of 

Texas 

Major General Jeffrey Snow, Commanding General, Recruiting 

Command

Lieutenant Colonel Neil Snyder, Commander, 2-77th Field 

Artillery Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel David Sonnek, Inspector General, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command 

First Sergeant Edwin Soto, First Sergeant, 1010th Engineer 

Construction Company 

First Sergeant Jan A. Spaans, First Sergeant, 155th Engineer 

Company (Vertical)

Command Sergeant Major Sammy Sparger, Command 

Sergeant Major, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th 

Infantry Division
National Commission on the Future of the Army 173

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Ms. Tiffany Speir, Program Manager, South Sound Military & 

Communities Partnership

Colonel Kelly Spillane, Deputy Commander for Support, 

Army Space & Missile Defense Command, Army Forces 

Strategic Command 

Staff Sergeant (retired) Emmett Spraktes

Major General David A. Sprynczynatyk, The Adjutant General 

of North Dakota 

Mr. James St. Amour, AH-64 Staff Synchronization Officer, 

Aviation Force Development, HQDA G-8

Captain Jason Stanley, Company Commander, Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Mrs. Scheyda Stasik, Family Programs Director, 75th Training 

Command

Brigadier General Michael Stencel, Chief of Staff, Oregon 

Army National Guard 

Ms. Maurnike Stevenson, SHARP Program Manager, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command 

Sergeant Major Gary Stockdale, Army Reserve Element, U.S. 

Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations Center

Staff Sergeant Michael Stoddard, 104th Training Command 

Dr. Steve Stoddard, Technical Director, Center for Army 

Analysis Institute for Defense Analyses (CAA)

Staff Sergeant Jon Stone, Squad Leader, 52nd Brigade Engineer 

Battalion

Lieutenant Colonel Bradley Striegel, U.S. Army

Brigadier General Jarosław Stróżyk, Defense Attaché, Embassy 

of Poland

Master Sergeant Samantha Stryker, G-7, Command Operations 

& Information Center, I Corps

Colonel Scott A. St. Sauver, Garrison Commander, Camp 

Ripley Training Center, Minnesota

Major Jason Stuchlik, J-35, Joint Force Headquarters-Colorado

General (retired) Gordon R. Sullivan, President, Association of 

the United States Army

Command Sergeant Major Roy Sullivan, Command Sergeant 

Major, 59th Aviation Troop Command

Staff Sergeant Tyra Supranovich, Instructor (MOS 35M), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Mr. Bill Suver, Special Projects Deputy, West Virginia Army 

National Guard

Command Sergeant Major John Swart, Command Senior 

Enlisted Leader, North Carolina Army National Guard

Brigadier General Michael Swezey, Commanding General, 

53rd Troop Command

Colonel Brett G. Sylvia, Commander, 502nd Infantry 

Regiment, 101st Airborne Division 

Sergeant First Class Lowell Tack, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

Major General Lee Tafanelli, The Adjutant General of Kansas

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Timothy Taite, 75th Training 

Command 

The Honorable Mark Takai, United States House of 

Representatives, 1st Congressional District, Hawaii

Lieutenant General Jeffrey Talley, Chief, Army Reserve

Brigadier General Keith Y. Tamashiro, Director of Joint Staff, 

Hawaii Army National Guard

Sergeant Philip Tarvin, UH-60 Crewchief (TPU), Alpha 

Company, 1-169th Aviation Regiment

Staff Sergeant Ian Tashima, 40th Infantry Division

Major General Megan Tatu, Commanding General, 79th 

Theater Sustainment Command

Lieutenant General (retired) Pete Taylor

Captain Renee Taylor, Aide-de-Camp, 75th Training 

Command

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Kirk Teaney, Command Chief Warrant 

Officer, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

Mr. Paul Terry, Professional Staff Member, Appropriations 

Defense Committee, U.S House of Representatives

The Honorable Jon Tester, United States Senate, Montana

Major General Scott Thoele, Deputy Commanding General 

(Reserve Component), FORSCOM

Staff Sergeant Daniel Thomas, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Major General Gary Thomas, Deputy Director, Force 

Management, Application & Support, Joint Staff J-8 

Command Sergeant Major Luther Thomas, Command 

Sergeant Major, USARC

Mr. Jim Thomason, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Colonel Jeffery Thompson, Commander, 1st Air Cavalry 

Brigade 

Mr. Charles Thornton, 627th Security Forces Squadron 

Ms. Tammy Thurman, private citizen

The Honorable Thom Tillis, United States Senator, North 

Carolina
174 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Captain Mark Timmons, Director, Company Grade 

Committee (Army), National Guard Association of the United 

States

Master Sergeant Maleatasi Togafau, G-33 Operations NCO, 

Command Operations & Information Center, I Corps

Colonel Tomasa, Hawaii Army National Guard

The Honorable Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor of West Virginia 

Major General Edward W. Tonini, The Adjutant General of 

Kentucky, & former President, Adjutant Generals Association 

of the United States

Major General Omer “Clif” Tooley, Jr, Commander, 

Atterbury-Muscatatuck Center for Complex Operations

Master Sergeant Emily Toomey, 224th Sustainment Brigade

The Honorable Patrick Toomey, United States Senate, 

Pennsylvania

Colonel Vincent Torza, Commanding Generals’ Executive 

Officer, U.S. Army Europe

Lieutenant General (retired) Richard G. Trefry, former Military 

Assistant to the President of the United States & past Inspector 

General of the Army

Specialist Brittany Trevarthen, 1972nd Combat Operational 

Stress Control Detachment

Mr. Anthony Triola, aide for REP John Carter

Master Sergeant Joshua Troche, G-1, 79th Theater Sustainment 

Command 

Master Sergeant Richard Trujillo, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Lieutenant General Michael Tucker, Commanding General, 

First Army

Lieutenant Colonel Tucker, Hawaii Army National Guard

Ms. Jennifer Turner, Group Chief, Directorate of Intelligence, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Brigadier General Wally Turner, Assistant Adjutant General of 

Washington

Colonel Arthur Turnier, Comptroller, 79th Theater 

Sustainment Command 

Lieutenant Colonel Jess Ulrick, Secretary to the General Staff, 

Minnesota Army National Guard 

Brigadier General Robert J. Ulses Assistant Chief of StaffOperations G-3, U.S. Army Pacific

Senior Airmen Dustin Unnerstall, Loadmaster, 8th Airlift 

Squadron 

Colonel Bradley Upton, Deputy Commander, 91st Training 

Division

Mr. Scott Vadnais, Task Force 1, Edna, Minnesota Fire 

Department 

Master Sergeant Roberto Valencia G-9, Command Operations 

& Information Center, I Corps

Specialist Michael Valladares, 1-158th Attack Reconnaissance 

Battalion

Colonel Jeffrey P. Van, Commander, 155th Armored Brigade 

Combat Team

Mr. Roel van der Lugt, Military Affairs Director/Senior 

Policy Advisor for U.S. Representative Denny Heck, 10th 

Congressional District, Washington

Major General Scott A. Vander Hamm, USAF, Assistant 

Deputy Chief of Staff Operations, U.S. Air Force

Mrs. Cathy Vandermaarel, U.S. Army Europe

Colonel Mark Van Dyke, Commander, 1106th Theater 

Aviation Sustainment Maintenance Group (TASM-G), 

California Army National Guard (CAARNG)

Captain Jeremy Vantress, Battalion S-1, 6-108th Military 

Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Major Mark Vanveldhuizen, Battalion Operations Officer, 

1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

Colonel Matthew VanWagener, Commander, 3rd Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division

Colonel Courtney Varfes-Lum, Commander, Recruiting & 

Retention Battalion, Hawaii Army National Guard

General Dennis L. Via, Commanding General, Army Materiel 

Command

Captain Robert Villa, Unit Administrator, Civil Affairs 

Psychological Operations Command

Chief Warrant Officer 3 James Villareal, 1-158th Attack 

Reconnaissance Battalion

The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senate, Louisiana

Major Tyson Voelkel, 75th Training Command 

Mr. Ron Vogt, Contractor, Operational Readiness Training 

Center-Fort Drum, New York

Major General Gary Volesky, Commanding General, 101st 

Airborne Division 

First Lieutenant Bryant Volling, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry 

Regiment

Mr. Ted Vorhees, City Manager, Fayetteville, North Carolina

General Joseph L. Votel III, Commander, U.S. Special 

Operations Command

Colonel J.B. Vowell, Commander, 187th Infantry Regiment, 

101st Airborne Division 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 175

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

The Honorable Debra S. Wada, Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Manpower & Reserve Affairs

Major General William D. Waff, Chairman, Army Reserve 

Forces Policy Committee

Mr. Eric Wagenaar, Director of Plans, Training, Mobilization 

& Security, Fort Drum, New York

Master Sergeant Jeff Wales, Project Manager, Ridge Runner 

Irregular Warfare Training Program, West Virginia Army 

National Guard 

The Honorable Bill Walker, Governor of Alaska 

Mr. Thomas Wallace, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Brigadier General Aaron T. Walter, Deputy Commanding 

General, 84th Training Command 

The Honorable Tim Walz, United States House of 

Representatives, 1st Congressional District, Minnesota 

Mr. Robert Warbug, G9, USASOC

Lieutenant Colonel Charles Ward, Commander, 13th Combat 

Sustainment Support Battalion 

The Honorable Elizabeth Warren, United States Senate, 

Massachusetts

Sergeant James Warren, Supply Sergeant, 492nd Signal 

Company

Specialist Marcus Waters, 145th Multi-Functional Medical 

Battalion

Sergeant Jonathan Watkins, Student, Civil Affairs Psychological 

Operations Command

Colonel Joseph D. Wawro, Chief of Staff, I Corps

Colonel Gaylene Weber, Emergency Preparedness Liaison 

Officer, Region 8

Major Robert Weeks, Operations Officer, 168th RegimentColorado Army National Guard Regional Training Institute 

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Weidenbeck, Commander, 5th 

Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group

Colonel Mark Weinerth, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, I Corps 

Major General Jimmy Jae Wells, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

FORSCOM

Staff Sergeant Amanda Wenk, Instructor (MOS 35F), 6-108th 

Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Colonel Ronald Westfall, Director, Joint Staff, Joint Force 

Headquarters-Indiana 

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Christopher Whalen, G-3 Aviation, 

Command Operations & Information Center, I Corps 

Colonel (retired) John White

Master Sergeant Patricia White, 75th Training Command 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Stephen P. White, Battalion 

Maintenance Officer, 1-149th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

The Honorable Roger Wicker, United States Senate, Mississippi

Colonel Randall Wickman, Commander, 189th Infantry 

Brigade, First Army Division West 

Lieutenant General Perry Wiggins, Commander, U.S. Army 

North

Mr. Andrew Wiktorowicz, Chairman, California Employer 

Support for the Guard & Reserve

Sergeant Valerie Wilhoite, 75th Training Command

Major William Wilkerson, Assistant Director of Operations, 

8th Airlift Squadron 

Master Sergeant Christine Wilkins, Warrior Leader Course 

Manager, 168th Regiment-Colorado Army National Guard 

Regional Training Institute 

Master Sergeant Brent Williams, Public Affairs Officer, 4th 

Infantry Division

Staff Sergeant Daron Williams, Command Operations & 

Information Center, I Corps

Major General Darryl Williams, Commanding General, U.S. 

Army Africa 

Staff Sergeant Derek Williams, Instructor (MOS 35M), 

6-108th Military Intelligence Battalion (USAR)

Mr. Eric Williams, Staff Member for U.S. Representative Derek 

Kilmer, 6th Congressional District, Washington

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Robert Williams, Instructor Pilot, 

1-211th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion

The Honorable Roger Williams, United States House of 

Representatives, 25th Congressional District, Texas

Major General Timothy Williams, The Adjutant General of 

Virginia 

Colonel Willburn Williams, Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 

Europe 

Staff Sergeant Breann Williamson, Signal Support Specialist, 

492nd Signal Company

Colonel Bernard Williford, Commander, 113th Sustainment 

Brigade

Colonel Mike Willis, Commander, 169th Field Artillery 

Brigade

Colonel Alvin “Donnie” Wilson, Assistant Chief of Staff G-3, 

263rd Army Air & Missile Defense Command, National 

Capital Region Integrated Air Defense 

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Christopher Wilson, Battalion 

Standardization Pilot, 1-130th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion
176 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS

Major General (retired) Cornell Wilson Jr, North Carolina 

Military Affairs Advisor

Colonel Deborah Wilson, Reserve Affairs Officer, Army 

Space & Missile Defense Command, Army Forces Strategic 

Command 

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Phyllis Wilson, Command Chief 

Warrant Officer, USARC

Major Robert Wilson

Command Sergeant Major Rodney Wionowsky, Command 

Sergeant Major, 2nd Medical Brigade

Major Gabriel Wolfe, Executive Officer, 4th Battalion, 160th 

Special Operations Aviation Regiment

Colonel Jay Wolff, G5, USASOC

The Honorable Steve Womack, United States House of 

Representatives, 3rd Congressional District, Arkansas

Major General David C. Wood, Commanding General, 38th 

Infantry Division 

Colonel David Wood, Chief of Staff, 28th Infantry Division

Command Sergeant Major Bill Woods, State Senior Enlisted 

Leader, Colorado Army National Guard

Lieutenant Colonel Chris Woody, Deputy Commander, 5th 

Armor Brigade, First Army

The Honorable Robert Work, 32nd Deputy Secretary of 

Defense

Lieutenant Colonel Garvey Wright, G-8, 4th Infantry Division 

Captain Herman Wu, U.S. Army Europe

The Honorable Ron Wyden, United States Senate, Oregon

Colonel Masashi Yamamoto, Military Attaché, Embassy of the 

Japan

Colonel Bobby Yandell, G-3, Oklahoma Army National Guard

Colonel Laura Yeager, Chief of Staff, Joint Force HeadquartersCalifornia

Command Sergeant Major William Yeargan Jr., Command 

Sergeant Major, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade

Major General Daniel York, Commanding General, 76th 

Operational Response Command 

Major General James Young Jr., Commanding General, 75th 

Training Command 

Sergeant Major Seth Yount, Operations Sergeant Major, 89th 

Troop Command 

Specialist Brendan Zachery, 224th Sustainment Brigade

Mr. Jack Zeedo, Center for Army Analysis Institute for Defense 

Analyses (CAA)

Mr. Jack Zeto, Deployment & Enablers Division, Center for 

Army Analysis, HQDA G-8

Major Romas Zimlicki, S-3, 1-325th Infantry Regiment, 82nd 

Airborne Division
National Commission on the Future of the Army 177

APPENDIX G: 

TESTIMONIES AND COMMENTS
178 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS 

AND STAFF

X H: 

AFF

GENERAL CARTER F. HAM, U.S. ARMY RETIRED

CHAIRMAN

Appointed by the Chairman of 

the House Armed Services Committee

General Carter F. Ham served as 

the Commander, U.S. Africa 

Command from March 2011 until 

his retirement in June 2013. His 

previous assignment was 

Commanding General, U.S. Army 

Europe. 

General Ham began his service 

as an enlisted infantryman in the 

82nd Airborne Division before attending John Carroll 

University in Cleveland, Ohio. He was commissioned in the 

infantry as a Distinguished Military Graduate in 1976. He is 

a graduate of the Naval College of Command and Staff and 

the Air War College. 

In addition to numerous stateside assignments, he 

served in Italy, Germany, Kuwait, Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, 

Qatar, and Iraq. His duties with USAFRICOM took him to 

42 of Africa’s 54 nations. His General Officer assignments 

included Commander, Multinational Brigade Northwest, 

Mosul, Iraq; Deputy Director for Regional Operations, 

J-33, The Joint Staff; Commander, 1st Infantry Division; 

and Director for Operations, J-3, The Joint Staff. 

Since retiring from the Army, General Ham has worked 

as a consultant with SBD Advisors in Washington D.C. He 

serves on the Board of Directors for John Carroll University, 

the Board of Directors of Aegis Defense Services LLC, the 

Board of Global Nexus Alliance, and on the Africa Board of 

Advisors for Jefferson Waterman International.

THE HONORABLE THOMAS R. LAMONT

VICE CHAIRMAN

Appointed by the President of the United States

Thomas R. Lamont served as the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Manpower and Reserve Affairs from 

June 2009 to September 2013. In 

that capacity, he was the Army’s 

point person for policy and 

performance oversight of human 

resources, training, readiness, 

mobilization, military health affairs, 

force structure, manpower management, and equal 

employment opportunity. He is currently a principal at 

LAMONT Consulting Services in Washington, D.C. 

Prior to his appointment as Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Mr. Lamont was the chairman of the University 

of Illinois Board of Trustees and a longtime Springfield, 

Illinois, attorney concentrating in government law and 

legislative affairs. He is admitted to practice before the 

U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces, U.S. district courts, and Illinois state courts. 

He served as a judge advocate general in the Illinois Army 

National Guard, culminating his 25-year military career as 

the Illinois Staff Judge Advocate and retiring as a colonel in 

2007. 

Mr. Lamont received his bachelor’s degree from Illinois 

State University in 1969 and earned his law degree from the 

University of Illinois College of Law in 1972.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 179

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY 

RAYMOND F. CHANDLER III, 

U.S. ARMY RETIRED

Appointed by the Ranking Member of the 

Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sergeant Major of the Army 

Raymond F. Chandler III was the 

14th Sergeant Major of the Army 

from March 2011 until his 

retirement in January 2015, serving 

as the Army Chief of Staff’s 

personal adviser on all enlistedrelated matters, particularly in areas 

affecting soldier training and 

quality of life. He traveled throughout the Army observing 

training and talking to soldiers and their families. He sits on 

several councils and boards that make decisions affecting 

enlisted soldiers and their families. 

Sergeant Major of the Army Chandler entered the 

Army in Brockton, Massachusetts, in 1981 and graduated 

as a 19E armor crewman from One Station Unit Training 

at Fort Knox. He has served in all tank crewman positions 

and has had multiple tours as a troop, squadron, and 

regimental master gunner. He was the Command Sergeant 

Major in 1/7 Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (OIF II 2004–

2005), U.S. Army Garrison Fort Leavenworth, the U.S. 

Army Armor School, and the U.S. Army Sergeants Major 

Academy (USASMA). In 2009, he became the first enlisted 

Commandant in USASMA history.

He has a bachelor of science in public administration 

from Upper Iowa University.

GENERAL LARRY R. ELLIS, U.S. ARMY RETIRED

Appointed by the President of the United States.

General Larry R. Ellis served as 

Commander, U.S. Army Forces 

Command, from November 2001 

until his retirement in 2004. His 

prior assignment was Deputy Chief 

of Staff, G-3 Headquarters, 

Department of the Army. Since 

2013 General Ellis has been 

President and CEO of VetConnexx, 

a company that provides career opportunities for veterans. 

General Ellis earned his commission through ROTC at 

Morgan State University and held a number of command 

positions over more than 35 years, starting with company 

commander in the 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg 

and the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He served as 

Commander of Multinational Division (North) in Bosnia 

and Herzegovina, and 1st Armored Division in Germany. 

His staff assignments included Deputy Director for Strategic 

Planning and Policy, U.S. Pacific Command, and Deputy 

Director, Military Personnel Management, Office of the 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. He also served on the 

faculty at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point. 

General Ellis earned a bachelor of science in public 

health from Morgan State University and a master of science 

in public health from Indiana University.
180 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

THE HONORABLE ROBERT F. HALE

Appointed by the Ranking Member of the 

House Armed Services Committee. 

Robert F. Hale was the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

from 2009 to 2014, serving as the 

principal advisor to the Secretary of 

Defense on all budgetary and fiscal 

matters. As the Department of 

Defense chief financial officer, Mr. 

Hale also oversaw the department’s 

financial policy and financial 

management systems. Prior to serving as defense 

comptroller, Mr. Hale was Executive Director of the 

American Society of Military Comptrollers. Mr. Hale 

currently is a Fellow at Booz Allen Hamilton, serving as an 

advisor to corporate leadership. 

Early in his career Mr. Hale spent about three years as 

an active duty officer in the U.S. Navy and another five years 

in the Naval Reserve. He also spent several years as a staff 

analyst and study director at the Center for Naval Analyses. 

He then joined the Congressional Budget Office, where he 

headed the National Security Division for 12 years. From 

1994 to 2001, Mr. Hale served as the Assistant Secretary of 

the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller). 

Mr. Hale graduated with honors from Stanford 

University with a bachelor of science in statistics. He also 

holds a master’s degree in operations research from Stanford 

and a master of business administration from George 

Washington University.

THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN H. HICKS 

Appointed by the President of the United States.

Dr. Kathleen Hicks served as 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy from 2012 to 

2013, responsible for advising the 

Secretary of Defense on global and 

regional defense policy and strategy. 

Prior to that she served as Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans, and Forces, leading 

the development of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance 

and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. From 1993 to 

2006 she was a career civil servant in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, rising from presidential management 

intern to the Senior Executive Service. 

She currently is senior vice president, Henry A. 

Kissinger Chair, and director of the International Security 

Program at the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies (CSIS), where she previously worked as a senior 

fellow from 2006 through early 2009. She also is an adjunct 

with the RAND Corporation and a member of the Council 

on Foreign Relations. 

Dr. Hicks received her doctorate in political science 

from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a master’s 

from the University of Maryland’s School of Public Affairs, 

and a bachelor of arts magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa 

from Mount Holyoke College.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 181

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JACK C. STULTZ, 

U.S. ARMY RETIRED

Appointed by the President of the United States.

Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz 

served as Chief, Army Reserve, and 

Commanding General, United 

States Army Reserve Command, 

from May 2006 until his retirement 

in 2012. Upon assuming command 

of the Army Reserve, he retired 

from Procter and Gamble as an 

operations manager with 28 years 

of service. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of 

VSE Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia.

He received his commission through ROTC at 

Davidson College in 1974 and eventually served as 

Commander, Company B, 20th Engineer Battalion. 

He transitioned to the Army Reserve in 1979 and 

served with the 108th Division (Infantry OSUT), the 

32d Transportation Group (Composite), and 143d 

Transportation Command, becoming commander in 2004. 

He deployed to the Gulf for Operation Desert Shield/

Desert Storm in 1990, to the Balkans for Operation Joint 

Endeavor/Joint Guard in 1997, and to Kuwait in October 

2002 as Commander, 143rd TRANSCOM (Forward), 

moving into Iraq with the initial ground offensive and 

establishing a forward logistics hub at Tallil and rail 

operations at Garma. In 2003, he was assigned as director 

of movements, distribution, and transportation, Combined 

Forces Land Component Command Kuwait.

GENERAL JAMES D. THURMAN, 

U.S. ARMY RETIRED

Appointed by the Chairman of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee.

General James D. Thurman served 

as Commander of United Nations 

Command, Republic of Korea-U.S. 

Combined Forces Command, and 

U.S. Forces Korea from July 2011 

until his retirement in October 

2013. Prior to that he served as 

Commanding General, U.S. Army 

Forces Command, and was Deputy 

Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7. He is currently the president of JD 

Thurman Enterprises, LLC in Salado, Texas.

He earned his commission through ROTC at East 

Central Oklahoma University in 1975. His combat 

assignments include battalion executive officer in the 1st 

Cavalry Division during Desert Shield/Desert Storm; 

the Chief of the Plans and Policy Division for Allied 

Forces Southern Europe in Kosovo from 1999-2000; 

the Chief of Operations for the Coalition Forces Land 

Component Command during the invasion of Iraq; and 

the Multinational Division Commander responsible for all 

coalition operations in Baghdad in 2006. He also served as 

Commanding General of the National Training Center, the 

4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and V Corps in 

Germany.

He holds a bachelor of arts in history from East Central 

Oklahoma University and a master of arts in management 

from Webster University.
182 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

MR. DON TISON 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER

Mr. Don Tison is the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, 

responsible for Army programs, force development, the 

Quadrennial Defense Review, Army Studies Management, 

and the Center for Army Analysis. He is the principal 

advisor to the G-8 on such key issues as formulating 

plans and programs, acquiring resources, developing 

communication networks, executing operations, and 

evaluating results. Additionally, Mr. Tison served as the 

Department of the Army Deputy Chief Management 

Officer in 2009 responsible for establishing the Office of 

Business Transformation; chairman of the Headquarters 

and Support Activities Joint Cross Service Group, Base 

Realignment and Closure 2005; and executive director of 

the Army’s Business Initiative Council from January 2003 

through April 2004. 

Mr. Tison served in the Navy Supply Corps, rising 

to the rank of captain. From 1997-2001 he served as the 

Director, Force and Infrastructure Cost Analysis Division 

for OSD, Program Analysis and Evaluation and then 

became Deputy Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation 

Directorate from 2001-2003.

Mr. Tison received his bachelor of science in business 

administration from The Citadel and his master of business 

administration from the Wharton School, University of 

Pennsylvania.

MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER, 

U.S. ARMY RETIRED

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Major General Raymond W. Carpenter was Acting Director, 

Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau, from 2009 

to his retirement from the Army National Guard in 2011. 

Since his retirement, he has served as a Senior Fellow for the 

Association of the United States Army, was a member and 

President of the Rapid City Regional Airport Board, and 

is currently the President of the Board for South Dakota 

Coalition of Military Families.

He enlisted in the South Dakota Army National Guard 

in 1967 and later joined the U.S. Navy, attending the 

Defense Language Institute to learn Vietnamese and serve 

in South Vietnam. He returned to the South Dakota Army 

National Guard, was commissioned in 1974, and served as 

a commander and staff officer at the company, battalion, 

and group levels followed by a half dozen assignments in 

the Joint Force Headquarters for the South Dakota Army 

National Guard. From 2003 to 2006 he served as the 

Assistant Adjutant General, South Dakota Army National 

Guard, and was dual hatted as the Deputy Commanding 

General, Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri, from 2004-2006.

Major General Carpenter has a bachelor’s degree 

from Black Hills State University and a master of business 

administration from the University of South Dakota. 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 183

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

MR. RICKEY E. SMITH

STAFF DIRECTOR

Mr. Rickey Smith, a member of the Senior Executive Service 

for the U.S. Army, was appointed as the Deputy Chief of 

Staff, G-9, for Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) in October 2014. Representing TRADOC, he 

engages with the Army Staff, the Joint Staff, Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Congress, and academic, interagency, 

and multinational entities to identify, develop, and 

synchronize capabilities for the current and future Army.

He was an Army field artillery officer from 1978 to 

2006. Duties included brigade command, representing 

the United States within the international arms control 

community, and Department of Defense coordinating 

officer for disaster relief and homeland security operations in 

California, Arizona, and Nevada. With TRADOC, he was 

Chief of Staff for the Army’s Modularity Focus Area, which 

led to the most extensive reorganization of Army combat 

forces since World War II, and Chief of Staff for the Army’s 

modernization realignment task force.

Mr. Smith has a bachelor of business administration 

from Middle Tennessee State University, a master of business 

administration from Tennessee Technological University, 

and a master of science in national security strategy from the 

National Defense University.

COMMISSION STAFF

Lieutenant Colonel John A. Adams, Executive Officer to the 

Designated Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of 

the Army G-8 

Sergeant First Class Cherry A. Andrews, Administration 

Manager to the Designated Federal Officer, Headquarters 

Department of the Army G-8

Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Senior Analyst, Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology, Program Executive Office for Enterprise 

Information Systems

The Reverend Christopher D. Bisett, Executive Assistant, 

Knowledge Advantage Inc.

Mr. Jim Boatner, Director of Operations, Headquarters 

Department of the Army, G-8 Army Quadrennial Defense 

Review Office

Mr. Anthony Boyda, Cost Analyst, Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Financial Management and Comptroller

Colonel Kristen E. Dixon, Public Affairs Officer, Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Manpower and Reserve Affairs

Mrs. Amy Grace P. Donohue, Assistant Editor, 

RAND Corporation

Ms. Cherie Emerson, Global Force Management, Force 

Generation Subcommittee Lead, Headquarters Department 

of the Army G-3/5 

Mr. Joseph Eule, Director, Communications, Direct Hire

Mr. Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces, 

Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, Congressional 

Research Service

Major Benjamin J. Fernandes, Chief of Plans, Training and 

Doctrine Command G-9

Mrs. Deborah S. Gantt, Alternate Designated Federal 

Officer, Headquarters Department of the Army G-8 

Ms. Jamie Hammon, Budget Analyst, Direct Hire

Mr. Bert K. Haggett, Security Advisor to the Designated 

Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of the Army G-2

Lieutenant Colonel Gregory B. Hartvigsen, Aviation 

Subcommittee Co-Lead, Utah Army National Guard

Captain Edward A. Hudson, Knowledge Manager to the 

Designated Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of 

the Army G-8
184 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX H: 

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

Colonel Linda C. Jantzen, Knowledge Manager to the 

Designated Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of 

the Army, Chief Information Officer G-6

Mr. Gregory L. Johnson, Homeland Defense/Defense 

Support to Civil Authorities Analyst, Army North 

Mr. Keith W. Kaspersen, Analyst, Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation

Colonel Michael A. Lockwood, Alternate Designated 

Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of the Army G-8

Mr. Eric D. Magnell, Legal Analyst, Direct Hire

Mr. Kevin Mickie, Management Analyst, Direct Hire

Mr. Bradley E. Miller, IT Support Program Manager, 

Washington Headquarters Services, Joint Service Provider

Colonel Richard G. Miller, Government Relations, Utah 

Army National Guard

Mr. Eric Minton, Editor, Direct Hire

Captain Sarah B. Moore, Operations Officer, National 

Guard Bureau, Aviation

Ms. Laurel Prucha Moran, Graphic Designer, Direct Hire

Mr. Peter Morgan, Acquisitions and Security Program 

Manager, Direct Hire

Major Vinson B. Morris, Alternate Designated Federal 

Officer, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 

Logistics, and Technology

Mrs. Beth K. Neuhart, Executive Assistant to the Designated 

Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of the Army G-8

Lieutenant Colonel Timothy J. Palmer, Cost Analyst, Army 

National Guard G-5

Colonel Kelly K. Peters, Global Force Management, Forces 

Command G-3/5/7 Plans 

Lieutenant Colonel Steven M. Pierce, Aviation 

Subcommittee Co-Lead, Headquarters Department of the 

Army, G-3/5/7 Aviation

Mr. Mark S. Pizzuto, Operations Officer and Alternate 

Designated Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of 

the Army G-4 

Mr. Francis A Rago Jr, Financial Advisor to the Designated 

Federal Officer, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial 

Management and Comptroller

Lieutenant Colonel Edwin (Brian) Rice, Force Management 

Analyst, Army National Guard G-5

Mr. Kerry J. Schindler, Senior Force Management Analyst 

and Operational Subcommittee Staff Lead, Headquarters 

Department of the Army, G-3/7 Force Management 

and Office of the Chief, Army Reserve G 3/5/7 Force 

Management

Mr. Scott C. Sharp, Personnel Analyst, Army National 

Guard Program Analysis and Evaluation Division, National 

Guard Bureau

Major Cory S. Simpson, Legal Advisor to the Designated 

Federal Officer, Headquarters Department of the Army, 

Office of The Judge Advocate General

Mr. Jason A. Southerland, Operations Research Analyst, 

Center for Army Analysis

Lieutenant Colonel Sean A. Spence, Personnel Analyst, 

Headquarters Department of the Army G-1

Lieutenant Colonel Brian D. Stevenson, Force Management 

Analyst, Office of the Chief, Army Reserve Force 

Management

Colonel Wm Shane Story, Writer/Historian, Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs

Mr. Johnny F. Thomas Jr., Institutional Subcommittee 

Staff Lead, Deputy Division Chief, Manpower and Force 

Programs Analysis Division, Headquarters Department of 

the Army G-8, Program Assessment and Evaluation 

Mr. Jaz Thompson, Human Capital Program Manager, 

Direct Hire

Mr. John A. Thurman, Senior Analyst, Joint Staff J-8 

Lieutenant Colonel Barry K. Vincent, Homeland Defense/

Defense Support to Civil Authorities Analyst, Oklahoma 

Army National Guard

Mr. Mark R. Von Heeringen, Deputy Designated Federal 

Officer, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army

Colonel Kurt H.L. Weinand, Total Force Policy AnalystDirector of Operations / Office of Chief, Army Reserve 

G-3/5

Major Doroneth W. White, Operations Officer, Office of 

the Chief, Army Reserve

Dr. Samuel F. Wilson II, Records Manager, Direct Hire
National Commission on the Future of the Army 185

APPENDIX I: 

SUBCOMMITTEES

OPERATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE

Members: 

The Honorable Kathleen H. Hicks, Chairperson

Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler III, 

U.S. Army Retired

General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army Retired

Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz, U.S. Army Retired

Terms of Reference for the Operational Subcommittee, 

National Commission on the Future of the Army 

These terms of reference establish the Secretary of Defense 

objectives for an independent subcommittee review of the 

structure of the Army operational forces. Subcommittee 

members are appointed according to Department of Defense 

policy and procedures by the Secretary of Defense or the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense for a term of service not to exceed 

May 1, 2016. Membership balance and consideration of points 

of views are achieved using the same expertise and points of 

views required for the National Commission on the Future of 

the Army (“the Army Commission”). 

Mission Statement: Accomplish an independent assessment 

of the current security environment and conduct a study of the 

structure of the Army operational forces (combat and service 

forces for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations 

on land) and policy assumptions related to the size and force 

mixture of the Army to support the mission of the Army 

Commission. 

Objectives and Scope: The Operational Subcommittee (“the 

Subcommittee”) will: 

• Assess the size, force mixture, and component mixture 

of the active component of the Army and the reserve 

components of the Army. 

• Make proposals on the modifications, if any, of the structure 

and policies of the Army related to current and anticipated 

mission requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of 

national risk and in a manner consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future resources. 

Methodology: The Subcommittee will: 

1. Conduct the assessment in compliance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. 

Appendix, as amended) and other relevant statutes 

2. Focus on the statutes, strategy, policies, procedures 

and processes currently in place used to determine 

Army force structure. 

3. Make proposals on the modifications, if any, of the 

structure of the Army and policies for determining 

that structure related to current and anticipated 

mission requirements for the Army at acceptable 

levels of national risk and in a manner consistent with 

available resources and anticipated future resources.

4. Access, consistent with law, documents or people 

from any Federal department or agency which the 

Operational Subcommittee deems necessary to 

complete its task.

5. Review, as appropriate, the results of past and 

recent examinations and studies of force structure 

composition and mix, to include investigative reports 

and reference materials provided by any organization.

6. Conduct interviews or seek input from other 

sources with pertinent knowledge or experience, as 

appropriate.

Deliverable: It is estimated that the Subcommittee will 

complete its work and provide final proposals to the Army 

Commission no later than October 31, 2015, but the 

Subcommittee will provide periodic updates to the Army 

Commission on its work, as appropriate. 

Support: The staff of the Army Commission will provide 

support to the Subcommittee, in consultation with Washington 

Headquarters Services and other Federal organizations as 

required. 
186 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX I: 

SUBCOMMITTEES

INSTITUTIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE

Members: 

Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz, U.S. Army Retired, 

Chairperson

Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler III, 

U.S. Army Retired

General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army Retired

Terms of Reference for the Institutional Subcommittee, 

National Commission on the Future of the Army 

These terms of reference establish the Secretary of Defense 

objectives for an independent subcommittee review of the 

Institutional elements of the Army. Subcommittee members 

are appointed according to Department of Defense policy and 

procedures by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary 

of Defense for a term of service not to exceed May 1, 2016. 

Membership balance and consideration of points of views is 

achieved using the same expertise and points of views required 

for the National Commission on the Future of the Army (“the 

Army Commission”). 

Mission Statement: Accomplish an independent assessment of 

the current and projected security environment, and conduct 

a study of the Institutional elements of the Army and policy 

assumptions related to the size, force mix, and component mix 

of the Army to support the mission of the Army Commission. 

Objectives and Scope: The Institutional Subcommittee (“the 

Subcommittee”) will address the following specific objectives: 

• Assess the impact on the institutional elements of the 

Army for various size, force mix, and component mix 

of the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army 

Reserve. 

• Make proposals on the modifications, if any, of the 

structure of the Army related to current and anticipated 

mission requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of 

national risk and in a manner consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future resources. 

• Develop conclusions and proposals on the above matters 

and any other matters the Subcommittee deems pertinent 

in conducting its study of the Institutional elements of the 

Army related to the following statutory responsibilities: 

1) Recruiting. 

2) Organizing. 

3) Supplying. 

4) Equipping (including research and development). 

5) Training. 

6) Servicing. 

7) Mobilizing. 

8) Demobilizing. 

9) Administering (including the morale and welfare 

of personnel). 

10) Maintaining. 

11) The construction, outfitting, and repair of 

military equipment. 

12) The construction, maintenance, and repair 

of buildings, structures, and utilities and the 

acquisition of real property and interests in real 

property necessary to carry out the responsibilities 

specified in this section. 

Methodology: The Subcommittee will: 

1. Conduct its assessment in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, 

as amended) and other relevant statutes. 

2. Focus on the statutes, strategy, policies, procedures 

and processes currently in place used to determine 

Army force structure. 

3. Make proposals on the modifications, if any, on 

institutional structure and policies of the Army related 

to current and anticipated mission requirements for 

the Army at acceptable levels of national risk and 

in a manner consistent with available resources and 

anticipated future resources. 

4. Access, consistent with law, documents or people 

from any Federal department or agency which the 

Subcommittee deems necessary to complete its task. 

5. Review the results of past and recent examinations and 

studies of Army force structure composition and mix, 

to include investigative reports and reference materials 

provided by any organization. 

6. Conduct interviews or seek input from other 

sources with pertinent knowledge or experience, as 

appropriate.

Deliverable: It is estimated that the Subcommittee will 

complete its work and provide final proposals to the Army 

Commission no later than October 31, 2015, but the 

Subcommittee will provide periodic updates to the Army 

Commission on its work, as appropriate. 

Support: The staff of the Army Commission will provide 

support to the Subcommittee, in consultation with Washington 

Headquarters Services and other Federal organizations as 

required.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 187

APPENDIX I: 

SUBCOMMITTEES

FORCE GENERATION SUBCOMMITTEE

Members: 

General Larry R. Ellis, U.S. Army Retired, Chairperson

The Honorable Robert F. Hale

The Honorable Thomas R. Lamont

General James D. Thurman, U.S. Army Retired

Terms of Reference for the Force Generation 

Subcommittee, National Commission on the Future 

of the Army 

These terms of reference establish the Secretary of Defense 

objectives for an independent subcommittee review of the 

Force Generation policies of the Army. Subcommittee members 

are appointed according to Department of Defense policy and 

procedures by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary 

of Defense for a term of service not to exceed May 1, 2016. 

Membership balance and consideration of points of views is 

achieved using the same expertise and points of views required 

for the National Commission on the Future of the Army (“the 

Army Commission”). 

Mission Statement: Accomplish an independent assessment 

of force generation policies for the Army in order to fulfill 

current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in 

a manner consistent with available resources and anticipated 

future resources, including policies addressing readiness, 

training, equipment, personnel, and maintenance of the reserve 

components to support the mission of the Army Commission. 

Objectives and Scope: The Force Generation Subcommittee 

(“the Subcommittee”) shall develop conclusions and proposals 

on the below matters and any other matters the Subcommittee 

deems pertinent in conducting its study of Force Generation 

policies of the Army. The Subcommittee will review: 

• the Army’s projected force generation process and make 

recommendations as needed; and,

• the viability of maintaining “peacetime rotation” rates with 

operational tempo goals of 1:2 for active members of the 

Army and 1:5 for members of the reserve components of 

the Army.

Methodology: The Subcommittee will: 

1. Conduct the assessment in compliance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. 

Appendix, as amended) and other relevant statutes. 

2. Focus its assessment on the statutes, strategy, policies, 

procedures and processes currently in place to 

determine Army force generation policies with respect 

to force size, force mix, and component mix. 

3. Make proposals on the modifications, if any, for force 

generation policies related to current and anticipated 

mission requirements for the Army at acceptable 

levels of national risk and in a manner consistent with 

available resources and anticipated future resources. 

4. Access, consistent with law, documents or people 

from Federal departments and agencies which the 

Subcommittee deems necessary to complete its task. 

5. Review the results of past and recent examinations and 

studies of Army force structure composition and mix, 

to include investigative reports and reference materials 

provided by any organization. 

6. Conduct interviews or seek input from other 

sources with pertinent knowledge or experience, as 

appropriate. 

Deliverable: It is estimated that the Subcommittee will 

complete its work and provide final proposals to the Army 

Commission no later than October 31, 2015, but the 

Subcommittee will provide periodic updates to the Army 

Commission on its work, as appropriate. 

Support: The staff of the Army Commission will provide 

support to the Subcommittee, in consultation with Washington 

Headquarters Services and other Federal organizations as 

required. 
188 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX I: 

SUBCOMMITTEES

AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE

Members: 

The Honorable Robert F. Hale, Chairperson

General Larry R. Ellis, U.S. Army Retired

The Honorable Thomas R. Lamont

General James D. Thurman, U.S. Army Retired

Terms of Reference for the Aviation Subcommittee, 

National Commission on the Future of the Army 

These terms of reference establish Secretary of Defense 

objectives for an independent subcommittee review of the 

transfer of Army National Guard AH–64 Apache aircraft from 

the Army National Guard to the Regular Army. Subcommittee 

members are appointed according to Department of Defense 

policy and procedures by the Secretary of Defense or the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense for a term of service not to exceed 

May 1, 2016. Membership balance and consideration of points 

of views is achieved using the same expertise and points of 

views required for the National Commission on the Future of 

the Army (“the Army Commission”). 

Mission Statement: Accomplish an independent assessment of 

the transfer of Army National Guard AH–64 Apache aircraft 

from the Army National Guard to the Regular Army to support 

the mission of the Army Commission. 

Objectives and Scope: The Aviation Subcommittee (“the 

Subcommittee”) shall conduct a study on the transfer of 

Army National Guard AH–64 Apache aircraft from the Army 

National Guard to the regular Army. The study will consider: 

• Depth and scalability, cost-efficiency between the 

components; 

• Strengths, limitations, and capabilities of each component; 

• “Peacetime rotation” force to avoid exceeding operational 

tempo goals of 1:2 for Regular Army and 1:5 for members 

of the Army National Guard and Army Reserves; 

• Minimizing risk within and across readiness, efficiency, 

effectiveness, capability, and affordability; and,

• Adjusting policies affecting readiness; training; equipment; 

personnel; and maintenance of the reserve components as 

an operational reserve. 

Methodology: The Subcommittee will: 

1. conduct its assessment in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, 

as amended) and other relevant statutes; 

2. focus its assessment on the statutes, strategy, policies, 

procedures, and processes currently in place to 

determine Army aviation force structure; 

3. propose, as appropriate, modifications to the Army 

aviation structure for AH-64 aircraft related to 

current and anticipated Army mission requirements 

at acceptable levels of national risk and in a manner 

consistent with available resources and anticipated 

future resources; 

4. access, consistent with law, documents or people 

from any Federal department or agency which the 

Subcommittee deems necessary to complete its task; 

5. review, as appropriate, the results of past and 

recent examinations and studies of Army aviation 

force structure composition and mix, to include 

investigative reports and reference materials provided 

by any organization; and,

6. conduct interviews or seek input from other 

sources with pertinent knowledge or experience, as 

appropriate. 

Deliverable: It is estimated that the Subcommittee will 

complete its work and provide final proposals to the Army 

Commission no later than October 31, 2015, but the 

Subcommittee will provide periodic updates to the Army 

Commission on its work, as appropriate. 

Support: The staff of the Army Commission will provide 

support to the Subcommittee, in consultation with Washington 

Headquarters Services and other Federal organizations as 

required. 
National Commission on the Future of the Army 189

APPENDIX I: 

SUBCOMMITTEES

DRAFTING SUBCOMMITTEE

Members: 

General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army Retired, Chairperson

The Honorable Thomas R. Lamont

The Honorable Kathleen H. Hicks

Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz, U.S. Army Retired

Terms of Reference for the Drafting Subcommittee, 

National Commission on the Future of the Army 

These terms of reference establish the Secretary of Defense 

objectives for an independent subcommittee responsible for 

consolidating input for, and drafting, the report of the National 

Commission on the Future of the Army. Subcommittee 

members are appointed according to Department of Defense 

policy and procedures by the Secretary of Defense or the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense for a term of service not to exceed 

May 1, 2016. Membership balance and consideration of points 

of views are achieved using the same expertise and points of 

views required for the National Commission on the Future of 

the Army (“the Army Commission”). 

Mission Statement: Prepare a draft report for the National 

Commission on the Future of the Army as required by Section 

1703(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (FY 2015 NDAA) (Public Law 113-291). 

Objectives and Scope: The Drafting Subcommittee (“the 

Subcommittee”) will address the following specific objectives: 

• consolidate and consider all information and input 

provided to the Army Commission, including information 

presented by other subcommittees of the Army 

Commission; 

• articulate the future threats and mission demands in a 

manner consistent with the Commissioners’ input and 

opinions; and,

• synthesize Commissioner statements and recommendations 

made during meetings into a coherent draft written 

product addressing the Army Commission’s key tasks to 

allow a comprehensive discussion of substantive issues in 

the full committee. 

The Subcommittee shall develop conclusions and proposals 

on the above matters and any other matters the Subcommittee 

deems pertinent in conducting its work. 

Methodology: The Subcommittee will: 

1. Conduct its assessment in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, 

as amended) and other relevant statutes. 

2. Focus on integrating Commissioner statements into a 

coherent written product. The Subcommittee will use 

information provided to the Commission in public 

or closed meetings, or by the Commission staff. In 

preparing the draft report, the Subcommittee will 

address the considerations specified in Section 1703 of 

the FY 2015 NDAA. 

3. Incorporate into its draft the recommendations or 

the modifications, if any, of the structure of the 

Army related to current and anticipated mission 

requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of 

national risk and in a manner consistent with available 

resources and anticipated future resource. 

4. Access, consistent with law, documents or people 

from any Federal department or agency which the 

Subcommittee deems necessary to complete its task. 

As background, the Subcommittee may review the 

results of past and recent examinations and studies of 

Army force structure composition and mix, to include 

investigative reports and reference materials provided 

by any organization. 

5. Conduct interviews or seek input from other 

sources with pertinent knowledge or experience, as 

appropriate. 

Deliverable: It is estimated that the subcommittee will 

complete its work and provide final proposals to the Army 

Commission no later than November 19, 2015, but the 

Subcommittee will provide periodic updates to the Army 

Commissions on its work, as appropriate. 

Support: The staff of the Army Commission will provide 

support to the Subcommittee, in consultation with Washington 

Headquarters Services and other Federal organizations as 

required.
190 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

This list of source materials is not exhaustive, but represents 

the type and scope of sources the National Commission on the 

Future of the Army consulted. The Commission considered 

input provided during engagements, site visits, open and closed 

meetings, received by mail and email, and in response to formal 

Requests for Information (RFI) submitted to Department of 

the Army and other Department of Defense agencies. These 

sources include information contained in:

• 89 responses to Commission RFIs

• 31 letters and statements from almost 80 Members of 

Congress

• 24 letters and statements from Governors

• 18 letters and statements from State Adjutants General

• 77 briefings and presentations from Services, Joint Staff, 

and Office of the Secretary of Defense

• 47 classified briefings and papers

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

Bailer Jr., M. J. J. (2007, June 15). Army Business 

Transformation: The Utility of Using Corporate Business 

Models Within the Institutional Army. Fort Leavenworth, 

KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

Baiocchi, D. (2013). Measuring Army Deployments to Iraq and 

Afghanistan. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Bennett, B. W., & Lind, J. (2011). The Collapse of North 

Korea: Military Missions and Requirements. International 

Security, 2 (no. 36), 84-119.

Bonds, T. (2015). Limiting Regret - Building the Army We Will 

Need. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Booze Allen Hamilton Inc. (2015, October). Win Talent in a 

Complex World Final Report: Independent Review of the 

Army’s Accessions Policy and Recruiting Strategy for the 

Director of the Army Staff. McLean, VA.

Brinkerhoff, J. R. (2002). The Institutional Army, FY1975-

FY2002 (No. D-2695). Alexandria, VA: Institute for 

Defense Analyses.

Brinkerhoff, J. R., & Horowitz, S. A. (1995). Case Studies in 

Reserve Component Volunteerism: A Composite Battalion 

Task Force for the U.S. Army Element of the Multinational 

Force and Observers Mission, Sinai (No. D-1665). 

Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses.

Brzezinski, I. J., (2014, April 28). Prepared Testimony of Ian 

J. Brzezinski, Washington, D.C.: United States Senate 

Committee on the Armed Forces. 

Buchalter, A. R., & Elan, S. (2007, October). “Historical 

Attempts to Reorganize the Reserve Components. 

Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of 

Congress.

Bukowski, R., Childress, J., Colarusso, M. J., & Lyle, D. 

S., (2014, November). Creating an Effective Regional 

Alignment Strategy for the U.S. Army. Carlisle, PA: U.S. 

Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute. Retrieved 

from http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo57649.

Camm, F., Cook, C. R., Masi, R., & Wong, A. (2007). 

What the Army Needs to Know to Align Its Operational 

and Institutional Activities. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Carter, A. (2015, November). Building the First Link to the 

Force of the Future. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/

News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/630415/remarkson-building-the-first-link-to-the-force-of-the-futuregeorge-washington. 

Colarusso, M. J., Lyle, D. S., (2014). Senior Officer Talent 

Management: Fostering Institutional Adaptability. Carlisle, 

PA: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute. 

Retrieved from http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo47668.

Comptroller General of the United States. (1979). DOD 

“Total Force Management” — Fact or Rhetoric? (Report to 

Congress No. FPCD 78-82). Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. General Accounting Office.

Cooke, J. A. (2003, July 4). Manpower Requirements 

Determination in the Institutional Army. Carlisle, PA: U.S 

Army War College.

Davis, T. (2015, September). The Incredible Shrinking US 

Defense Industry. National Defense Magazine. Arlington, 

VA: National Defense Industrial Association.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 191

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

Defense Business Board. (2012) Public-Private Collaboration in 

the Department of Defense. (No. FY12-04). Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense.

Defense Business Board. (2010). Assessing the Defense 

Industrial Base (No. FY10-05). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Defense.

Defense Reform Consensus. (2015, May). An Open Letter. 

Washington, D.C.: Defense Reform Consensus. 

Dewar, J. A. (Ed.). (2000). Expandability of the 21st Century 

Army. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Donnelly, T., Schmitt, G. J., Eaglen, M., Talent, J., Lohaus, 

P., Zakheim, R. I., & Inglee, W., (2015). To Rebuild 

America’s Military. Washington, D.C.: American 

Enterprise Institute.

Doyle, C. M., Horowitz, S. A., Pechatek, J., & Tate, D. (23 

Nov 15). Memorandum Addressing Methodological Issues 

in the CAA FTS Analysis. Alexandria, VA: Institute for 

Defense Analyses.

Doyle, C. M., Huff, N. M., Wahedi, L., Bracken, J., 

Brinkerhoff, J. R., Graham, D. R., ... McGee, S. (2015). 

The Stochastic Active-Reserve Assessment (SARA) Model: 

Force Planning Under Uncertainty. Alexandria, VA: 

Institute for Defense Analyses.

Eaglan, M. (15 Sep 15). “US Army at a Crossroads: A 

Conversation with the Secretary of the Army John McHugh 

After Six Years Of Service.” Washington, D.C.: American 

Enterprise Institute.

Eaglan, M. (2015). US Military Force Sizing For Both War and 

Peace. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Evans, J. (2015, June). Getting It Right: Optimal Active Army 

End Strength. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings 

Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/

research/papers/2015/06/01-getting-active-army-endstrength-right-evans.

Feickert, A. (2014, February). Army Drawdown and 

Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress. 

Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Feickert, A., & Daggett, S. (2012, January). A Historical 

Perspective on Hollow Forces. Washington, D.C.: 

Congressional Research Service.

Feickert, A., & Kapp, L. (2014, December). Army Active 

Component (AC)/Reserve Component (RC) Force 

Mix: Considerations for Congress. Washington, D.C.: 

Congressional Research Service.

Fox, C. (2013, March 15). Info Memo: Comments on the Final 

Reserve Forces Policy Board Report on Costs of Military 

Personnel. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

Gentile, G., Klimas, J., Gventer, C. W., Young, S., Thomas, R. 

W., Linick, M. E., ... Steinborn, Z. J. (2015, October). 

The Army’s 2013 Aviation Restructure Initiative, Summary 

of Research for the NCFA. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Gentile, G., & Mann, S. (2015). Understanding the Origins 

of the “Abrams Doctrine.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Gerson, M. S. (2009). Conventional Deterrence in the Second 

Nuclear Age. Parameters, 39(3).

Gordon, J., Matsumura, J., Atler, A., Boston, S., Boyer, M. 

E., Lander, N., ... Arroyo Center. (2015). Comparing 

U.S. Army Systems with Foreign Counterparts: Identifying 

Possible Capability Gaps and Insights from Other Armies. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Hale, R., & Beyer, D. (2 Sep 15). Budgetary Turmoil at 

the Department of Defense. Washington, D.C.: The 

Brookings Institution.

Hansen, M. L., & National Defense Research Institute 

(Eds.). (2011). Reshaping the Army’s Active and Reserve 

Components. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Hix, W. M., Polich, J. M., & Lippiatt, T. F. (2003). Army 

Stationing and Rotation Policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Hoffman, F. (2015, December). No Wake for Ares. Proceedings, 

141(1,354). Retrieved from http://www.usni.org/

magazines/proceedings/2015-12/no-wake-ares.

Hooker, R. D. (2015). American Landpower and the Two-War 

Construct, (No. 106). Arlington, VA: Association of the 

United States Army Institute of Land Warfare.

Johnson, D. (2012, August). The Challenges of the “Now” and 

What they Mean for America’s Land Forces. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation.

Johnson, D. (2015, March). “Competent, Concealed, Congested: 

The Challenges of Future Warfare.” Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.

Johnson, D. (2015, Spring). Fighting the “Islamic State” The 

Case for US Ground Forces. Parameters, 45(1).
192 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

Johnson, R. A. (2014). Reconsidering Future War - Predicting 

Future War. Parameters, 44(2).

Kapp, L., & Salazar Torreon, B. (2014, June 13). Reserve 

Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers. 

Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Kavanagh, J. & Gentile, G. (2015, August). Views of 

ARNG and USAR Personnel and their Employers on 

Activations and Deployments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Kelly, T. K., Gordon IV, J., Johnson, M., Klimas, J., Darilek, R. 

E., Markel, M. W., & Matsumura, J. (2013). The Army 

You Need. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Klimas, J., Darilek, R. E., Baxter, C., Dryden, J., Lippiatt, T. F., 

McDonald, L. L., ... Watts, S. (2014). Assessing the Army’s 

Active-Reserve Component Force Mix. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.

Klimas, J., Darilek, R. E., Dryden, J., Dunigan, M., Lippiatt, 

T. F., McDonald, L. L., ... Sollinger, J. M. (2014). 

Aviation Structure Across Army Components. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Klimas, J., Lippiatt, T. F., McDonald, L. L., & Sollinger, J. 

M. (2015). Paid Duty Days for Army Guardsmen and 

Reservists, 2000-2013. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Klimas, Joshua. (2015). Regular Army AH-64 Pilots: 

Continuation of Service in the Reserve Components, 2002-

2012 (No. PR-1870-A). Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Lakhani, H., & Tartak-Abod, E. (1997). Economic Life 

Course Analysis of Peacekeeping Deployment in the Sinai. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Lippiatt, T. F., & Polich, J. M. (2010). Reserve Component 

Unit Stability: Effects on Deployability and Training. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Lippiatt, T. F., & Polich, J. M. (2013). Leadership Stability 

in Army Reserve Component Units. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.

Macgregor, D. (2015, September 7). Competitive Performance 

Analysis of U.S. Army Brigade-Based Force and Alternative 

Force Design, Reconnaissance Strike Group (RSG) in Baltic 

Warfighting Scenario. Retrieved from http://www.ncfa.

ncr.gov/sites/default/files/COL%20(R)%20Douglas%20

Macgregor--September%203,%202015.pdf. 

Markel, M. W., Camm, F. A., Hall-Partyka, P., Leonard, H. 

A., Leuschner, K. A., & Panis, C. (2013). Estimating 

Institutional Army Manpower Requirements to Support 

Army Strategic Planning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Marquis, M. S., & Kirby, S. N. (1989). Reserve Accessions 

Among Individuals with Prior Military Service: Supply and 

Skill Match. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

McNicol, D. L. (2014). Cost Growth, Acquisition Policy, and 

Budget Climate (No. NS D-5180). Alexandria, VA: 

Institute for Defense Analyses.

Nataraj, S., Hanser, L. M., Camm, F. A., & Yeats, J. (2014). 

The Future of the Army’s Civilian Workforce. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation.

National Defense Industrial Association. (2014). Top Issues 

2014. Arlington, VA: National Defense Industrial 

Association. 

National Guard Bureau. (2015, January 24). Adjutants’ General 

Strategic Message: Future of the Army National Guard. 

Arlington, VA: National Guard Bureau.

National Guard Bureau. (2015, September 17). NGB ARI 

Execution Plan. Arlington, VA: National Guard BureauAVS.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (22 Jun 15). NATO 

Defense Expenditure Data for 2014 and Estimates for 2015. 

Brussels, Belgium: North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

O’Connell, C., Wenger, J. W., & Hansen, M. L. (2014). 

Measuring and Retaining the US Army’s Deployment 

Experience. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

 O’Hanlon, M. E. (2015). The Future of Land Warfare. 

Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Pechatek, J., & Wang, A. (23 Nov 15). Summary of Preliminary 

Results - Assessing the Impact of Full-Time Support on 

ARNG Readiness. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense 

Analyses.

Phelps, R. (1995). MFO Sinai Composite Bn Research and 

Assessment. U.S. Army Research Institute.

Pint, E. M., Lewis, M. W., Lippiatt, T. F., Hall-Partyka, P., 

Wong, J. P., Puharic, T., ... Arroyo Center. (2015). Active 

Component Responsibility in Reserve Component Pre- and 

Postmobilization Training. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 193

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

Pippin, B., Pace, R., Cunningham, S., Schemm, R., & 

Castleberg, W. (2014). Army End Strength Analysis. U.S. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center.

Reimer, D. J., Schultz, R. C., & Helmly, J. R. (2010, 

November 2). Independent Panel Review of Reserve 

Component Employment in an Era of Persistent Conflict. 

U.S. Department of the Army.

Rostker, B. (2013). Right-Sizing the Force - Lessons for the 

Current Drawdown of American Military Personnel. 

Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security.

Scales, Jr., R. H. (2015, June 25). Scales on War: Intimate 

Essays on the Future of America’s Military. Publication 

forthcoming.

Sharp, T. (2014). Gambling with Ground Forces - The 2015 

Defense Budget and the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security.

Sortor, R. E. (1995). Army Active Reserve Mix: Force Planning 

for Major Regional Contingencies. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.

Spraktes, E.W., & Newman, V. M. (2008). Selfish Prayer. 

Createspace.

Starry, D. A. (1983). To Change an Army. Military Review.

Stratfor. (2015, February 23). Decade Forecast: 2015-2025. 

Retrieved December 31, 2015, from https://www.stratfor.

com/forecast/decade-forecast-2015-2025

Sutton, T., & Lohaus, P. (2015). Pursuing Strategic Advantage: 

The Utility of Armed Forces in Peace, War, and Everything 

in Between. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise 

Institute.

Szayna, T. S., Dreyer, P., Eaton, D., & Saum-Manning, 

L. (2015). Army Global Basing Posture: An Analytic 

Framework for Maximizing Responsiveness and Effectiveness

(No. RR158). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_

reports/RR158.html

Talley, J. W. (2015). Posture Statement for the United States Army 

Reserve. U.S. Army Reserve.

Talley, J. W. (2015, February). Rally Point 32.1. U.S. Army 

Reserve. Retrieved from http://www.usar.army.mil/

Featured/RallyPoint321.aspx.

Thie, H. J., & National Defense Research Institute (Eds.). 

(2007). Factors to Consider in Blending Active and Reserve 

Manpower Within Military Units. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.

Thompson, G. L. (2002). Army Downsizing Following World 

War I, World II, Vietnam, and a Comparison to Recent 

Army Downsizing.

U.S. Department of the Army. (n.d.). US Army Doctrine 

Comprehensive Guide. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 17). ARI and NGB 

Proposal Sufficiency Analysis. U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command Analysis Center. (Classified)

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 17). Aviation 

Sufficiency Analysis. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command Analysis Center. (Classified)

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 16). Army Aviation 

Update. U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2010). National Guard Bureau 

“Submittal of Options for Creation of a Trainees, Transients, 

Holdees, and Students Account for the Army National 

Guard.” U.S. Army Reserve.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, October 9). Army 

Reserve Engagement Cells and Teams (AREC/T). U.S. 

Army Reserve. USAR AFRC-OPP.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July). At A Glance. U.S. 

Army Reserve. Retrieved from http://www.usar.army.mil/

Featured/ArmyReserveAtAGlance.aspx.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, August 21). The Myths 

of Army Expansibility. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War 

College, U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012, June 29). The Question 

Not Asked: Comparisons of Active and Reserve Component 

Effectiveness. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, U.S. 

Army Heritage and Education Center.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013). How the Army Runs - A 

Senior Leader Reference Handbook. Carlisle, PA: U.S. 

Army War College.

U.S. Department of the Army. (n.d.). Maintaining the Force in 

Periods of Reduced Resources. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War 

College, U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center.
194 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July). Aviation 

Operational Demand. U.S. Army Forces Command.

(Classified)

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, Summer). United States 

Army Reserve - A Life-Saving and Life-Sustaining Force for 

the Nation. Office of the Chief, Army Reserve.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, October). Combat 

Vehicle Modernization Strategy. U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command, ARCIC.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 17). ARNG AH64D Pilot Training Quotas FY12-19. Headquarters, 

Department of the Army G-3/5/7 AV.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 17). Pilot Gains 

from COMPO 1. Headquarters, Department of the Army 

G-3/5/7 AV.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 17). ARI and 

NGB Proposal. Headquarters, Department of the Army 

G-3/5/7 AV, & National Guard Bureau-AVS.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 17). Army 

Fixed Wing Multi-Component Initiatives. Headquarters, 

Department of the Army G-3/5/7 AV, & National Guard 

Bureau-AVS.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 17). Aviation 

Portfolio Update. Headquarters, Department of the Army 

G-8 FDV.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 5). Achieving 

Operational Tempo Goals.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, May 17). Abstract 

“Quick Look Summary of References for Past Army MultiComponent Unit Initiatives.” ARCIC (FWD).

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, May 6). Army Cyberspace 

Roles and Civilian Skills.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012, September 4). Army 

Directive 2012-08 “Army Total Force Policy.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012, December 15). Army 

Green Pages “Proof of Concept Pilot Report: Using 

Regulated Market Mechanisms to Manage Officer Talent.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 23). Army 

Information Paper “AC-RC Duty as a Prerequisite for 

General Officer Selection.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 14). Army 

Information Paper “Army National Guard (ARNG) Title 

10 (T10) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Positions in support 

of First Army.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 30). Army 

Information Paper “Army Rotation Rate Objectives.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 14). Army 

Information Paper “Army Sourcing of Operational 

Requirements.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 11). Army 

Information Paper “Depicting Army support to Combatant 

Commands.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 13). Army 

Information Paper “Factors Affecting Mobilization of 

Reserve and Guard Units.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 21). Army 

Information Paper “Measuring Stress on the Force: Making 

Sense of the Dwell Ratios.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 25). Army 

Information Paper “Mobilization Force Generation 

Installations (MFGIs).”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 9). Army 

Information Paper “Regular Army Individual Augmentees.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 30). Army 

Information Paper “Reserve Component (RC) Full-Time 

Support (FTS) and Readiness.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 10). Army 

Information Paper “Supporting Analysis for DoD Rotation 

Rates.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 10). Army 

Information Paper “United States Army Reserve Defense 

Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) 1999-2014.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, November 16). Army 

Information Paper “Update on 2015 ATLDC tasks.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2011, November 3). Army 

Memorandum “Approval of Army Campaign Plan (ACP) 

Decision Point 131 (Mobilization Transformation) Lines of 

Effort (LOEs) 1,2 and 4.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2008, April 2). Army 

Memorandum “Army Reserve (AR) Force Management 

Accounting Changes: Trainees, Transients, Holdees and 

Students (TTHS) Account and Individual Mobilization 

Augmentee (IMA).”
National Commission on the Future of the Army 195

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, October 16). Army 

Memorandum “Army Total Force Policy (ATFP) 

Implementation Guidance.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, January 20). Army 

Memorandum “Army Total Force Policy (ATFP) 

Implementation Guidance and Taskings.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, April 10). Army 

Memorandum “Base Funded Pre-Planned Missions for the 

Reserve Component (RC) under Title 10 United States Code 

(USC) 12304b for Fiscal Years 2017-2021 (FY17-21).

U.S. Department of the Army. (1993, November 10). 

Army Memorandum for Record “AC-RC Leaders’ Offsite 

Agreement as of 29 October 1993.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2006, February 22). Army 

Memorandum “Individual Ready Reserve Transformation.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 10). Army 

Memorandum : NTC Policy#11 - Cantonement Area Policy 

for Rotational Training Units and Augmentation Soldiers”.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 18). Army 

National Guard Information Paper “Employment of the 

Army National Guard (ARNG) for Pre-Planned Missions 

using 10 U.S.C. 12304b.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 8). Army National 

Guard Information Paper “Integrated Personnel and Pay 

System - Army (IPPS-A).

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 19). Army 

National Guard Information Paper “Suitable Model for 

Dwell for the Army National Guard (ARNG).”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 9). Army 

Operations in the Homeland.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2011, March 14). Army 

Regulation 525-29 Army Force Generation.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, April 10). Army Support 

to Other Services.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, May 1). ARNG 

Addendum to “Aviation Restructure Initiative” - Army 

National Guard (ARNG) Position.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, April 10). Aviation 

Restructure Initiative.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, September 21). CNGB 

Framing Paper “The Army National Guard: A Solution for 

the Total Force in a Fiscally Constrained Environment.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 5). Contract 

Support.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013, March 8). DA PAM 

350-58 “Army Leader Development Program.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013, April 26). Decision 

Point 161 Continental United States Army (CONUS) 

Replacement Center (CRC) Analysis.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, September 8). 

Department of the Army Memorandum “Standard Mission 

Essential Task List (METL) for Army Guard Brigades.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 9). Depth and 

Scalability.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 17). First Army 

Decisive Action Training Model. First Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, October 30). First Army 

Additional Input to the National Commission on the Future 

of the Army. First Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, October 20). NCFA 

Follow Up Session with First Army. First Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, May 18). First Army 

Memorandum “First Army Responses to North Carolina and 

South Carolina Adjutants General (TAG) Luncheon.” First 

Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 19). First Army 

Memorandum “National Commission Request for 

Information (Post-Mobilization Training).” First Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013, November 22). First 

Army Policy Memorandum #11 - Mobilization Standards 

Policy. First Army. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, August 13). FORSCOM 

memorandum “Army Total Force Policy Implementation - 

Additional Guidance.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, April 11). FORSCOM 

Memorandum “Army Total Force Policy Implementation - 

FORSCOM Additional Guidance.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, May 9). FORSCOM 

Memorandum “Army Total Force Policy Implementation - 

FORSCOM Additional Guidance.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, May 30). FORSCOM 

Memorandum “Army Total Force Policy Implementation - 

FORSCOM Additional Guidance.”
196 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013, December 10). 

FORSCOM Memorandum “Army Total Force Policy 

Implementation - FORSCOM Interim Guidance.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 15). FORSCOM 

Total Force Partnership Program Running Estimate.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 8). Integrated 

Personnel and Pay System - Army (IPPS-A) Overview to the 

National Commission.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 16). Minutes of the 

2015 Army Training Leader and Development Conference.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013, May 31). National 

Guard Bureau Memorandum “Authorities and Assumptions 

Related to Rotational Use of the National Guard.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, April 10). Recent 

Experience in Reserve and Guard Readiness, Mobilization, 

and Operational Employment.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 9). Regeneration.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012, October 3). The Army 

Training Strategy.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, June 9). Total Force 

Integration - Past and Present.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013, March 15). Army 2020 

Investment and Regeneration IPR. U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, December 4). TRADOC 

NCO 2020 Strategy: NCOs Operating in a Complex World. 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2010, May 17). Generating 

Force Study (TRADOC Pam 525-8-1). U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, July 16). TRADOC 

Presentation to NCFA “One Army School System Overview.” 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, August 9). Training 

Similarities and Differences Across Army Components. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, October 20). USAR 

Memo to the Commission by LTG Talley. U.S. Army 

Reserve.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014, September 12). US 

Army Strategic Initiatives Group - How Fast Can the Army 

Grow?”.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015, May 15). Using BRACs 

to Reduce/Realign Army Force Infrastructure.

U.S. Department of the Army. (1984). The Army Reserve and 

Vietnam. Parameters. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War 

College.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2008). Generating Force 

Support for Operations (C1, FM 1-01). Washington, D.C: 

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2010). TRADOC Generating 

Force Study Innovation and Adaptation in Support 

to Operations (No. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-8-1). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2011). Secretary of the Army 

Memorandum “Army Deployment Period Policy.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012). ADP 6-22 “Army 

Leadership.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012). The U.S. Army Capstone 

Concept (No. TRADOC PAM 525-3-0). U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012). United States Army 

Organic Industrial Base Strategic Plan 2012-2022.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2013). Army Leader 

Development Strategy 2013.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2014). The U.S. Army 

Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World (No. 

TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). Army Combined Arms 

Center “Talent Management Concept of Operations for 

Force 2025 and Beyond.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). Army Equipment 

Program in support of President’s Budget 2016.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). Army Posture Statement 

2015.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). Deputy Chief of Staff, 

G-4 Logistics Strategic Planning Guidance.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). FM 6-22 “Leader 

Development.”

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). National Guard 

Association “National Guard Service Perspective 2015; 

NGAUS Company Grade Committee.
National Commission on the Future of the Army 197

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). Report to Congress on 

Army Force Structure.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). The Army National 

Guard FY15 Force Structure Smartbook.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). The Army Vision: 

Strategic Advantage in a Complex World 2015-2025.

U.S. Department of the Army. (n.d.). Force Structure: Army’s 

Analyses of Aviation Alternatives.

U.S. Department of the Army. (n.d.). TRADOC Information 

Paper “Reserve Component (RC) Army National Guard 

(ARNG) Officer Candidate School (OCS) Accreditation.” 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

U.S. Department of Defense. (2012, September 10). “Capstone 

Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020.” Joint 

Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015, June). The National 

Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015: The 

United States Military’s Contribution to National Security. 

Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2011, April 5). Comprehensive 

Review of the Future Role of the Reserve Component Vol I 

Executive Summary and Main Report. Office of the Vice 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Office of Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2010, November 25). CJCS 

Guide to the Chairman’s Readiness System (CJCS Guide 

3401D). Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014, December 2). AC/RC 

Tiger Team on Aviation Restructure Initiative Council of 

Governors VTC.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014, November 12). AC/RC 

Aviation Tiger Team, Preliminary Findings. Washington, 

D.C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense-Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015, June 17). AH-64 Capacity 

Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary 

of Defense-Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.

(Classified)

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015, February). United States 

Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request 

Overview. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense Comptroller, Chief Financial 

Officer.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2008, January 31). Commission 

on the National Guard and Reserves.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015, August 24). Deputy 

Secretary of Defense Memorandum “Cost Reduction Targets 

for Major Headquarters.”

U.S. Department of Defense. (2008, October 29). DoDI 

1200.17 “Managing the Reserve Components as an 

Operational Force.”

U.S. Department of Defense. (2011, September 21). DoDI 

1235.10 “Activation, Mobilization, and Demobilization of 

the Ready Reserve” Incorporating Change 1, 21 Sep 11.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2012, April). DoDI 1235.12 

“Accessing the Reserve Component” Including Change 1 dtd 

4 Apr 12.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, October 18). DoDI 

1235.13 Administration and Management of the 

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and the Inactive National 

Guard (ING).

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, July 26). DoDI 3025.22 

“The Use of the National Guard for Defense Support of 

Civil Authorities.” Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/

whs/directives/corres/pdf/302522p.pdf.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, July 3). DoDI 7041.04 

Estimating and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and 

Active Duty Military Manpower and Contract Support.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014, May 1). Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense Memorandum “Guidance 

on Service Implementation of 10 U.S.C. 12304b Order 

to Active Duty for Preplanned Missions in Support of 

Combatant Commands.”

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014, February 11). Report 

of the Reserve Forces Policy Board on Reserve Component 

Use, Balance, Cost and Savings: A Response to Questions 

from the Secretary of Defense. Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Reserve Forces Policy Board. 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014, August 18). Department 

of Defense Cyber Approach: Use of the National Guard and 

Reserve in the Cyber Mission Force. Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, Reserve Forces Policy Board. 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, January 7). Eliminating 

Major Gaps in DoD Data on the Fully-Burdened and LifeCycle cost of Military Personnel: Cost Elements Should be 

Mandated by Policy. Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

Reserve Forces Policy Board. 
198 National Commission on the Future of the Army

APPENDIX J: 

SOURCES CONSULTED

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, May 6). Strategic Choices 

and the Reserve Components. Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Reserve Forces Policy Board. 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015, November 18). 

Memorandum: Force of the Future: Maintaining Our 

Competitive Edge in Human Capital. Office of the 

Secretary of Defense.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2011, March 14). Memorandum: 

Reserve Component Contiguous Training. Office of the 

Secretary of Defense.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2007, January 19). 

Memorandum: Utilization of the Total Force. Office of the 

Secretary of Defense.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2007, April 18). Under Secretary 

of Defense Memorandum: Programs to Support Utilization 

of the Total Force.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, November 1). Under 

Secretary of Defense Memorandum: Under Secretary of 

Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Deployment to Dwell, 

Mobilization to Dwell Policy Revision.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013, December 20). Unit Cost 

and Readiness of Active and Reserve Components of the 

Armed Forces.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013). Joint Publication 3-27. 

Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/

jp3_27.pdf.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014). Defense Manpower 

Requirements Report Fiscal Year 2015. Washington, D.C: 

Total Force Planning and Requirements Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness & Force 

Management.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014). Integrated Personnel and 

Pay System - Army (IPPS-A) Increment II Business Case 

Final Draft.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014). Quadrennial Defense 

Review 2014. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://

archive.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_

Review.pdf.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015). Annual Aviation 

Inventory and Funding Plan Fiscal Years (FY) 2016-2045.

U.S. Department of Defense. (20 Apr 15). Independent Cost 

Analysis of the Army Aviation Restructure Initiative and the 

Army National Guard Alternative - Report to the Congress

(OSD CAPE No. 3-DB62698). Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.

U.S. Department of Defense. Operational Plans. Combatant 

Commands.

U.S. House of Representatives, (2015, May 1). Rules 

Committee Print 114-14 Text of H.R. 1735, National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Title 

V, Subtitle C -- Consolidation of Authorities to Order 

Member of Reserve Components to Perform Duty. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives Rules 

Committee.

Wallace, R. A., Colarusso, M. J., Hall, A. O., Lyle, D. S., 

Walker, M. S., Army War College (U.S.), ... Press. 

(2015). Paid to Perform: Aligning Total Military 

Compensation with Talent Management.

Wallace, R. A., Smith, J. Z., Lyle, D. S., Army War College 

(U.S.), & Strategic Studies Institute. (2013). A 

Framework for Restructuring the Military Retirement 

System. Retrieved from http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/

gpo45350.

Wenger, J. W., Orvis, B. R., Stebbins, D. M., Apaydin, E., & 

Syme, J. (2015, January). Strengthening Prior Service-Civil 

Life Gains and Continuum of Service Accessions into the 

Army’s Reserve Components. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Weston, T. C. (2015, September). Are US Army Capabilities 

for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction at Risk? 

Arlington, VA: Association of the United States Army 

Institute of Land Warfare.

White House. (2012, January). Sustaining U.S. Global 

Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. Joint Chiefs 

of Staff. Retrieved from http://archive.defense.gov/news/

Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdfWhite House. (2015). 

National Security Strategy 2015. Washington, D.C.: The 

White House. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_

strategy.pdf. 

Work, R. (2015a, March 27). Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Letter to the Honorable John McCain.

Work, R. (2015b, May 8). Letter To Governor Brandstad 

(Iowa) and Governor Malloy (Connecticut).