COMMANDANT

BG Bryan G. Watson

563-6192

<bryan.watson@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Michael C. Presnell

563-6192

<mike.presnell@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-4363

<james.rowan@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Robert J. Wells

563-8060

<bobby.wells@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Robert K. Lamphear

563-4088

<robert.lamphear@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Aaron T. Walter 

563-8045

<aaron.walter@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Michael S. Mismash 

563-8046

<michael.mismash@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Ronald E. Zimmerman

563-7116

<ronald.zimmerman@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Allan Webster 

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<allan.webster@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Courtney W. Paul

563-4093

<courtney.paul@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Eric A. Goser 

563-3990

<eric.goser@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Jonathan D. Green

563-6199

<jonathan.d.green@us.army.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE DOT

LTC Stephen A. Danner

563-2717

<stephen.danner@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

Mr. Kenneth C. Garrett

563-7889

<kenneth.garrett@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Carl J. Hollister

563-8274

<carl.jerome.hollister@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times a 

year by the United States Army Engineer School and the 

MSCoE G-37 Publications, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 

2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and 

additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MSCoE 

G-37 Publications, ATTN: ATZT-OPS-AS (Engineer), 464 

MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, official unit requests to receive copies, and unit address changes should be sent to Engineer

at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 563-4104, 

DSN 676-4104; e-mail address: <leon.engineer@conus.

army.mil>; Internet home page: <http://www.wood.army.

mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers 

informed of current and emerging developments within 

their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their 

professional development. Views expressed are those of 

the authors and not those of the Department of Defense 

or its elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S. Army positions and do not change or supersede 

information in other U.S. Army publications. Use of news 

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $24.00 

($33.60 foreign) per year by contacting the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, Missouri 

63197-9000.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions 

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, 

P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, Missouri 63197-9000.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

1019303

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General

Bryan G. Watson

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Robert J. Wells

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Robert K. Lamphear

95 Dedication

95 Proposed Fallen Engineers

Memorial

16 Regimental Awards

27 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

68 Engineer Doctrine Update

73 Subscription Order Form

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Susan Stevens

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

FEATURES

06 Fallen Sapper Memorial 2010

By Captain Russell Lehman and Captain Samuel Chiang

07 Building Momentum for the Future

By Ms. Shirley A. Bridges

11 Building Great Engineers Success 

 By Captain Joshua A. Morris and Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Kaufmann

14 2010 Best Sapper Competition

 By Mr. Luke Waack

17 Regimental Command Council

By Mr. James R. Rowan

18 The Regiment Engages With Universities

By Major Karl Hatala

20 Creating a Professional Engineer Functional Area

 By Major Martin J. Naranjo

22 What It Means to Be a Battle Buddy

 By Specialist James V. Dunz

24 The Theater Engineer Construction Battalion: General Engineering

	 in Support of the Warfighter

By Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Roth

28 JTF North Engineer Division: Building Leaders and Refining Skills Along

the Southwest Border

 By Major Christian L. Neels

31 USACE Takes Going Green to New Heights

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

34 From Compliance to Sustainability: Army Reserve Construction Project 

Moving off the Electrical Grid

 By Lieutenant Colonel Bradley A. Duffey

36 ENFORCE 2010 Photo Essay

38 Army Sustainability and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

By Mrs. Rebecca C. Wingfield

43 18th Engineer Brigade Maneuver Support Conference: Engineers Share 

Route Clearance Lessons Learned

 By Captain Sonie L. Munson

44 Army Delivers Route Clearance Vehicle Capabilities

By Lieutenant Colonel Charles P. Dease

47 Employing the Route Clearance Package in Afghanistan

 By Major Gerald S. Law

50 Life as a NATO Engineer

 By Major Matthew F. Louvet

Volume 40 PB 5-10-2 Headquarters, Department of the Army May-August 2010

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

May-August 2010 Engineer 1

Front cover: CPT Joe Byrnes, 554th 

Engineer Battalion, prepares a Talon robot 

during the IED 9-Line event of the 2010 

Best Sapper Competition at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. Byrnes and his teammate 

CPT Jason Castro won this year’s competition. Photo by Luke Waack.

Back cover: U.S. Army photos

52 Leveraging the Deployable Command Post

 By Major Jon Brierton

55 The Role of the Engineer School in Collective Training

 By Mr. Shawn M. Bowen

57 The Need for Dedicated Technical Rescue Companies

 By Staff Sergeant Jesus B. Cuartas

61 Family Readiness in the ARFORGEN Cycle

 By Captain Kyle P. Moore and Mrs. Erica G. Koelder

64 USACE Takes Steps to Maintain Its Legacy in Iraq

 By Mr. Vincent L. Marsh and Mr. Michael P. Scheck

66 Robotic Systems Joint Project Office–Fort Leonard Wood

 By Second Lieutenant Wayland Lau and Mr. Joseph Stevens

70 92d Birthday of the Army Warrant Officer

 By Chief Warrant Officer Five David P. Welsh (Retired)
2 Engineer May-August 2010

 

Clear The Way 

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

First and foremost, I want to thank 

you for an outstanding ENFORCE 

2010. It was great to see our leaders—young and old, officers, warrants, 

and NCOs—gather from across this Regiment to continue the professional debate 

about the future. Most important, it was 

extraordinary to see our young leaders at 

the company level lead the debate—from 

their foxhole as some of our most proven 

combat leaders—and have the senior 

leaders listen to their insight and counsel. 

I want to extend my sincere thanks to all 

the young leaders who went above and 

beyond to be at the center of the debate 

rather than on the sidelines. Your passion 

for service to the Army and this profession 

honors this Regiment. Our future is in great hands!

The chief purpose of ENFORCE this year was to confirm 

and adjust the Regimental Campaign Plan—based on your 

feedback—that has become the centerpiece of all actions at 

your Regimental Headquarters. I urge you to continue to 

make this YOUR Regimental Campaign Plan. Be an active 

participant in the decision process, track our progress on 

achieving the objectives of the various decisive points (DPs), 

and understand the plan’s direction and the assumptions 

about the future on which the decisions are based. Above 

all, be able to articulate the plan and its salient points. We 

have tried to provide you with the ability to tap into the 

campaign plan through an online dashboard that lays out 

each of the lines of effort (LOEs), DPs, the progress of staff 

actions, and a rolling summary of upcoming decisions. And 

within each DP there is a forum that allows you to provide 

input into those decisions. You can access the campaign 

plan with your common access card (CAC) at the following 

site: <https://vo.wood.army.mil/sites/CP/ENCP/default.

aspx>. Make this your campaign plan and help the headquarters better serve the Regiment.

To spark your interest, below are the key areas that—

based on ENFORCE—will be the focal points of our campaign plan efforts in 2010-2011. This is not the complete 

list, but the ones where I need your insights. I’ve listed 

them by their associated LOE and used the DP number so 

you can easily find them and provide input using the online 

dashboard.

LOE #1: Train Engineer Warriors

DP 1-02: Implement Sapper Campus. Sapper Campus 

will be a premiere training facility with upgraded facilities 

and training aids and collocated combat 

engineer and bridge crewmember training, providing maximum space for the 

student load.

DP 1-04: Institutionalize Counter Explosive Hazards Center (CEHC) Training. Bring CEHC training courses (Route 

Reconnaissance and Clearance Course 

[R2C2], Mine Detection Dog [MDD] 

Course, etc.) in line with other functional 

courses in the training base under the 1st 

Engineer Brigade.

DP 1-08: Enlisted Building Great Engineer (BGE) Initiative. The 21R course 

is training a new program of instruction 

(POI), expanded by 2 days to incorporate 

needed blocks of instruction (completed). The 21K course is 

training a new POI, expanded by 4 days to incorporate needed blocks of instruction (completed). The 21W course is training a new POI, expanded by 13 days to incorporate needed 

blocks of instruction. Combat engineer training POI(s) include training on newly fielded equipment; training is fully 

supported through achieving needed doctrine, organization, 

training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and 

facilities (DOTMLPF) requirements as necessary.

LOE #2: Develop Engineer Leaders

DP 2-06: Engineer Leader University. Redesign the education system following a university model that allows the 

student and gaining organization more input into the individual’s education. Allows for “testing out” of classes, better 

supports the warfight, Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN), and building adaptive leaders.

DP 2-13/14: Interactive and Relevant Instruction. Make 

education more interactive by dramatically reducing classroom instruction and making small-group problem solving 

the centerpiece of facilitated instruction based on relevant 

warfighting challenges.

LOE #3: Support Current Operations

DP 3-09: Mission Rehearsal Exercise (MRX) Academics. 

Engineer units provide MRX Academics with the engineer 

technical expertise necessary to allow them to transition 

smoothly into operations.

DP 3-10/11: Regimental Lessons Learned Integration 

and Reachback. Build greater capacity within the Engineer 

School to collect, track, and integrate unit lessons learned 

into classroom instruction. (Continued on page 10)
May-August 2010 Engineer 3

Lead The Way 

Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells

United States Army Engineer School

Engineers, across all ranks and components, have a big stake in Achieving the Vision for our Regiment. The 

future policies, doctrine, equipment, and 

manning for the Regiment depend on the 

Soldiers, because they’re doing the heavy 

lifting in garrison and in combat. They use 

the tools, apply the doctrine, and enforce 

the policies that guide us along a path that 

gives the Regiment quality engineers, using quality equipment and solving the

maneuver commander’s toughest problems. 

Everyone has a vision of what outstanding 

engineers should be, know, and do. It would 

be useful to reflect on what present-day 

maneuver commanders expect of engineers 

and whether or not we’re meeting their

expectations.

Maneuver commanders expect engineers to be fit enough 

to work and fight alongside infantry and armor Soldiers while 

constructing fortifications or demolishing stuff. When the enemy shows up, commanders expect engineers to lay down their 

tools and be a part of the attack. We’ve always prided ourselves 

on being some of the smartest and most physically fit Soldiers 

in the world. CPT Tim Touchette and 1SG Mike Balch led by 

example while I was assigned to Alpha Company, 65th Engineer Battalion. We would lay hold and put in hard physical 

training, and it paid off when we linked up with our infantry 

brothers out in the field and showed them how to hump up and 

down the mountains of Hawaii and arrive at the objective with 

plenty of gas in the tank. Look out across the Regiment and 

you’ll see that our duties demand the same level of fitness as 

they did 20 years ago. The Army’s newest manual on fitness, 

TC 3-22.20, Army Physical Readiness Training (PRT), is a step 

in the right direction, centering all physical training on Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills.1

What is your definition of fitness? The Army’s PRT manual 

states, “To prepare Soldiers to meet the physical demands of 

their profession, a system of training must focus on the development of strength, endurance, and mobility, plus the enhancement of the body’s metabolic pathways.”2

 Most of us are familiar 

with strength, endurance, and mobility, but the picture gets 

fuzzy when we discuss metabolic pathways. To keep it simple, 

there are three main metabolic pathways we use to perform 

physical activity—the phosphagen pathway, the glycolytic 

pathway, and the oxidative pathway—and one pathway to convert food into energy—the citric acid, or Krebs cycle. How well 

you condition your body to use each pathway will determine 

how well you perform short-duration, high-intensity exercises (like a one rep max deadlift), medium-duration, mediumintensity (2 minutes of sit-ups), or long-duration, low-intensity 

(6-mile run) exercises. Admitting that we 

need to be good at all types of physical demands is the first step to recovery. Focus 

on the weak areas. Some Soldiers are good 

weightlifters while others are good distance 

runners, and they tend to train their body 

on what they’re good at and blow off their 

weak areas. The Army is telling us that we 

have to be good at all components of fitness, 

including the metabolic pathways. Dr. Greg 

Glassman and his wife Lauren have created 

the CrossFit website that addresses overall fitness and is worth a look.3

 His article 

“What is Fitness?” is a great place to start. 

You can find it at http://library.crossfit.

com/free/pdf/CFJ-trial.pdf

The Krebs cycle is the metabolic pathway that takes carbohydrates, proteins, 

and fats and converts them into carbon dioxide and water to 

generate a usable form of energy for the body.4

 In my opinion, it’s the most important pathway, and we give it the least 

attention. This is where the battalion commander and CSM 

must step in and make amends. Talking to the mess sergeant 

and coming up with a cost-effective menu that’s nutritionally 

sound is time well spent. The dining facility may not be able 

to buy the best produce or meats, but there’s a lot that can be 

done with food preparation. Ask the hospital nutritionist to 

help evaluate the mess hall’s meal selection and provide some 

train-the-trainer classes. Your dining facility has to show a 

profit, which means the headcount has to stay high. Expecting every leader to eat at least one nutritionally good meal 

each day at the mess hall is not too much to ask. I’ve heard 

Soldiers say that their metabolism is so good that they can 

eat anything and stay fit. Ask them how much more fit they 

would be if they ate good meals instead of swallowing cheeseburgers whole and chasing them down with cheesy fries and

Mountain Dew®.

The ultimate goal is improving Soldiers’ ability to deal with 

physically and emotionally demanding situations. Their overall 

fitness depends on your knowledge and experience to develop a 

plan that is challenging and competitive and raises their desire 

to improve their own level of fitness. 

1

Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills <https://atn.army.mil/

Media/docs/WTBD%20List%20Mar%202010%20-%20Copy.

pdf>. 

2

TC 3-22.20, March 2010, pp. 1-7, para. 1-18.

3

<http://www.crossfit.com/>.

4

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krebbs Cycle>.
Chief Warrant Officer Five Robert K. Lamphear

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show The Way 

4 Engineer May-August 2010

Happy Birthday, Engineer Warrant Officers! Celebrations at

home and abroad marked the

Army Warrant Officer Corps’s 92d birthday on 9 July 2010. In recognition of the 

event, this issue of the Engineer Bulletin includes an outstanding article titled 

“92d Birthday of the Army Warrant Officer” by CW5 David P. Welsh (Retired) 

on page 70. The article provides a historical overview of warrant officers from the 

establishment of the Army Mine Planter 

Service in 1918 to the current Warrant 

Officer Program. Today, warrant officers 

make up nearly 15 percent of the Officer 

Corps and are represented in 17 Army 

branches, consisting of 70 unique military occupational 

specialties (MOSs).

The rich history of the Army warrant officer extends to 

our own engineer warrant officer specialties—Construction Engineering Technicians and Geospatial Engineering Technicians. The first Utilities Maintenance Officer, 

MOS 7120, was added during World War II in 1943. The 

Construction Engineer, MOS 7110, was added to the warrant officer ranks in 1948. Engineer warrant officer MOSs 

continued to evolve, expand, and contract over the next 67 

years to meet the Army’s needs, highlighted by the Nuclear 

Power Plant Technician, MOS 351A, which came on line in 

1962. Assigned to the Engineer Reactor Group, these highly 

skilled nuclear power plant technicians could operate fixed 

and floating power facilities such as the Army’s Stationary Medium–1 (SM–1) prototype nuclear reactor and the

MH–1A Sturgis floating nuclear power plant, a 45-MW pressurized water reactor. MOS 521A, Utilities Maintenance Technician, created in 1961 and split into two MOSs with the addition of MOS 521B in 1972, effectively took over the nontactical/

fixed installation part of the MOS. The Utilities Operation

and Maintenance Technician, MOS 310A, was created in

1977, with the numeric designation changing to 210A in

1987. The 210A MOS name change to Construction Engineering Technician signifies a major shift in the MOS’s core

mission and brings its evolution full circle back to

its 1943 roots—Construction Engineer. 

The origins of the Geospatial Engineering Technician 

can be traced back to 1943 and World War II as well, with 

the creation of the Topographic Engineer, MOS 7915, and 

the Aerial Photographic Officer, MOS 8502. Over the years, 

additional MOSs were created and deleted along with 

various name changes. They included Map Reproduction

Officer, MOS 7917; Map Reproduction 

Technician, MOS 831A; Photomapping 

Officer, MOS 7916; Photomapping Technician, MOS 811A; Terrain Analysis 

Technician, MOS 841A; Geospatial Information Technician, MOS 215D; and 

finally to our present day title, Geospatial Engineering Technician, approved 

by TRADOC in February. The MOS’s 

numeric designation will change to 125D 

on 1 October 2010. For the next issue 

of the Engineer Bulletin, I will solicit 

specific engineer warrant officer history 

articles that expand on the information

provided above. 

On another note, I have been able to 

visit a few units in the past year and have been extremely 

pleased with the positive comments I received from commanders and command sergeants major about your technical and leadership abilities. Keep up the great work! I did, 

however, discover some systemic issues that are challenging 

our younger warrant officers with regard to Officer Evaluation Report (OER) counseling and professional development. Many warrant officers are not receiving their initial 

and quarterly OER counseling on time or at all. Engage 

your rater and senior rater, and get the counseling sessions 

on the boss’s calendar. In addition, warrant officers must 

be included in Officer Professional Development (OPD) sessions. Ensure that you are tied into the training schedule 

early, and add this as one of your OER support form objectives. At least once a year, provide a warrant officer brief to 

the command during OPD. Let’s fix this issue now. 

The engineer warrant officer accessions board was held 

the week of 12–16 July. We are not attracting enough noncommissioned officers (NCOs) to become warrant officers, 

especially Geospatial Engineering Technicians. The addition of seventy MOS 215D brigade combat team positions 

to the force makes this a great time to become a geospatial warrant officer. We are looking for outstanding NCOs 

who possess a sustained and demonstrated level of technical and leadership competency as supported by rater and 

senior rater comments on NCOERs. I urge commanders 

and warrant officers in the field, when asked for a letter 

of recommendation, to recommend your best NCOs for the 

warrant officer program. For more information about the 

upcoming board or how to become an engineer warrant 

officer, log on to the Army recruiting website at <http://

www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant>. 

Until next time, stay safe. Essayons!
May-August 2010 Engineer 5

Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer, 

or were inadvertently omitted from a previous list. We dedicate this issue to them.

Anderson, PFC Billy G. Alpha Company, 508th Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Crow, Jr., SGT Robert W. HHC, 203d Engineer Battalion, Missouri ARNG Joplin, Missouri

Fisher, SGT Zachary M. 618th Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Grady, SPC Ryan J. Alpha Company, Special Troops Battalion, 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team Bradford, Vermont

Holmes, SGT David A. 810th Engineer Company, 203d Engineer Battalion, Georgia ARNG Swainsboro, Georgia

Hotchkin, PFC Gunnar R. 161st Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Johnson, SPC Joseph D. 161st Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Johnson, SPC Matthew J. 618th Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Kisseloff, SGT Denis D. 1141st Engineer Company, 203d Engineer Battalion, 372d Engineer Brigade Kansas City, Missouri

McGahan, 2LT Michael E. Alpha Company, 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Reed, SPC Jesse D. 618th Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Rodriguez, SGT Mario M. 264th Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Stanley, SGT Chase 618th Engineer Company, 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

One of the highest priorities of the Army Engineer Association (AEA) is to recognize all Army engineers who have given 

their lives in the defense of the United States of America. Equally important is to recognize those engineers who received 

wounds in combat resulting in the award of the Purple Heart. AEA is accepting donations to support the design and construction of a Memorial Wall for Fallen Engineers to be located in the “Sapper Grove” at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri—

home of the Army Engineer Regiment. To learn more, go to <http://www.armyengineer.com/memorial_wall.html>.

Proposed Fallen Engineers Memorial
6 Engineer May-August 2010

During the week of ENFORCE 2010, engineer leaders from across the Regiment gathered together at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to discuss the future 

of the Regiment, commemorate its great accomplishments, 

and focus its efforts for the coming years. As the Regiment 

looked forward, it also took time to look back and honor 

and remember the engineers who had fallen in combat. The 

Fallen Sapper Memorial Tribute, conducted on 22 April 

2010, was specifically designed to pay humble and respectful homage to the engineer Soldiers who died in combat 

from April 2009 to April 2010. In addition to those killed 

in action, the ceremony also paid tribute to the engineers 

slain in the Fort Hood, Texas, attack in November 2009. 

The Fallen Sapper Tribute took place in the Fort Leonard Wood Memorial Chapel, which was originally built in 

1942 and has been in use in one capacity or another since 

its construction. The chapel’s private setting, simplicity, 

and proximity to the Engineer Memorial Grove enabled 

participants to feel the depth of solemnity inherent in the 

ceremony. Families, friends, and members of the Regiment were able to view photos of each Fallen Sapper in the 

chapel. Family members of the Fallen Sappers, who were 

seated by the photos of their Sappers, were joined by senior members of the Regiment, including the Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp. Many 

other senior members of the Regiment were present and 

were joined by Soldiers from engineer officer courses and 

advanced individual training courses. It was the first time 

many of these Soldiers had attended a military memorial 

tribute, so the ceremony allowed the new sappers to participate in and learn about how we honor those who have 

made the ultimate sacrifice. It was also a time for family 

members to see the honors bestowed on their loved ones, 

hear how much their service and sacrifice meant, and know 

that they will never be forgotten. 

While engineer leaders reflected on the heavy burdens 

of responsibility that leaders face when Soldiers deploy into 

harm’s way, and remembered their own experiences and 

their own fallen, the new engineers developed a greater understanding of the solemnity of service to the nation and 

how important it is to remember those who did not return. 

Following the ceremony, the attendees accompanied 

the United States Army Engineer School Commandant 

and host of the event, Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson, 

out of the chapel to the Engineer Memorial Grove. Here, 

the Chief of Engineers and the Engineer Corps Command 

Sergeant Major, Micheal L. Buxbaum, placed a memorial 

wreath to designate the future site of the Engineer Memorial Wall. (See page 5.) Made of Missouri red granite, the 

wall—with the engraved names of sappers who have made 

the ultimate sacrifice—will serve as a permanent commemoration of the Soldiers and will ensure that they are never 

forgotten.

Captain Lehman is the S-3 Officer in Charge, 169th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Captain Chiang is the Executive Officer, 169th Engineer 

Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

By Captain Russell Lehman and Captain Samuel Chiang

Photo by Visual Information Center
May-August 2010 Engineer 7

“We’re going to talk together about some of the 

things important to the Regiment,” he said. 

“But first, you know, it’s always great to go 

back to your history and think about what we stand for.” 

1775— Bunker Hill, Continental Army. President-to-be 

George Washington recognized the need for engineer capability and chose Colonel Richard Gridley as the first Chief 

of Engineers.

1802—West Point. This was the beginning of the Engineer Regiment as we know it today. We were just starting to explore the west, and we needed surveyors and engineers. Today, 51 or 52 percent of the Regiment’s officers 

come out of West Point—the others are out of the Reserve 

Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and the Officer Candidate 

School (OCS). 

1824—Civil Works Mission. Some incredible things were 

going on in the Ohio River and the Mississippi River and, 

by Act of Congress, the Corps of Engineers—the Engineer 

Regiment—was given the civil works mission. Today, we 

have 12,000 miles of inland waterways that touch 41 states. 

And we have 241 locks and dams.

1914—Panama Canal. The Canal was started by someone else, but engineers finished it. Now, they’re building a 

new lock, and we’re advising on that. 

1941—Construction Mission. Today, we do the construction—to include some for other Services—on 103 military 

installations.

1943—The Pentagon. We built the Pentagon in Washington, DC, in 15 months; now, it‘s going to take 13 years 

to renovate it.

1961—National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

We built the NASA facility.

1986— Water Resources Development Act. This authorization document tells the Corps of Engineers how to do 

what Congress wants them to do.

1986—Cost-Sharing Provision. This changed life in the 

Corps of Engineers. No longer can we say, “Here’s what 

needs to be done.” Now, there has to be a Congressman 

willing to put in a request and get it authorized and appropriated.

2004—Standup of the Gulf Region Division. At its 

height, the Gulf Region Division had three districts in 

Iraq, but two of the three districts have been stood down. 

We’ll be in the third one at least until December 2011. In 

Afghanistan, we have two districts and a deployable command post—the 412th Engineer Command.

2005—Katrina. This effort involves the largest designbuild civil works project ever for the Corps of Engineers—

more than $800 million.

2009—Greatest Amount of Work Underway. We have 

37,000 people in the Corps of Engineers—more than 100,000 

in our Regiment. And we have great partners—400,000 

contracts, worth $45 billion.

Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, 52d Chief of Engineers, began his address at the 2010 ENFORCE Conference by talking about the legacy of the Engineer Regiment to remind the attendees of what the engineers stand for.

By Ms. Shirley A. Bridges
8 Engineer May-August 2010

“That’s our history,” Van Antwerp said. “That’s where 

we come from. What a wonderful history.” 

He remarked that a lot of those in the audience know 

that when he looks at an officer, a noncommissioned officer 

(NCO), or a civilian, he has 4 Es in his head. He explained 

that as follows:

■ Energy. Energy starts with fitness, and you have to 

keep that fitness up every day until it becomes a 

lifestyle.

■ Energize. Energizing others is leadership. Influence. A 

lot of times it’s taking people where they might not

want to go, but if they buy into you they’re likely to buy

into where you’re taking them. 

■ Edge. The edge is hard to describe, but when you see it, 

you know it. It’s those people who will say, “I’ll be in

that pilot program. I want to be out there—I want to be

experimenting for the future.” They’re innovative.

Visionaries.

■ Execute. When you have a $45 billion program, the ultimate test is not going to be all the great disciplined 

thought you put into it, or whether you have great people. It will be what’s left. It’s why the buildings we built 

back during World War II—that were intended to be 

used for five years—are still standing in some places. 

It’s because they were done right. That’s the test.

Van Antwerp gestured as if drawing an imaginary circle 

that was going counterclockwise like a flywheel. He said 

that if a flywheel is heavy enough and you get it rolling, it’s 

pretty hard to stop it. But it’s very hard to get started. So 

you have to make sure it gets started, and when you get it 

started, you want it to go in the right direction—because 

it’s hard to redirect.

He asked the audience to imagine a line drawn from 

one end of the circle to the other, right through the 

middle. Then he asked them to mentally divide the 

top half of the circle into thirds—to represent disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action—and to divide each third into two parts. Then he 

explained his “drawing.” (The figure to the right, from 

the book Good to Great by Jim Collins, depicts this.)1

Disciplined people. One part is about leaders 

and the other is about getting the right people in 

the right seat of the bus. How do we select, develop, retain, promote—all those things of great 

people?

Disciplined thought. One part is similar to an 

after action review (AAR)—confront the brutal facts; 

look at yourself really hard. Find out where your pros 

and cons are, and that is where you start to establish 

your campaign plan for the future. The other part is 

called “the hedgehog” in Good to Great.

2

 Keep your 

focus; look at your core—what made you great—and if 

that core isn’t changing, invest in that core. 

Disciplined action. One of the marks of a great organization is that you tell people what you’re going to do, and 

you do what you say. That’s the ultimate mark: You deliver. The second part, though, has to do with innovation 

and technology acceleration. That is what the edge is. And 

it isn’t about boxes and electrons; it is about having that 

edge of innovation.

“Now there’s something that happens when you get the 

right people on the bus—and the right leaders, the Level 5 leaders,” he said. “When you get that about midway 

through the disciplined thought part, there’s a line that 

goes from the center line up to the flywheel. Where it intersects the flywheel, there’s a picture of greatness, but it 

doesn’t mean that you’re done, or complete.” 

Van Antwerp said that we’re tracking a lot of things in 

our campaign plan in the Corps of Engineers, and we’re 

saying when we’re complete. When we get close to that 

point, we’re going to say, “What’s next? What’s the next 

greatness part there?” But when you go up on that line, one 

of the things you have to do is have a picture of where that 

line intersects with the flywheel. And once you get it going, 

you get momentum. “We have momentum in the Corps of 

Engineers,” he said. “We have momentum in our Regiment 

right now that we want to keep. In fact, we want to get it 

going faster and faster.”

“I want to talk about something that’s kind of near and 

dear to my heart,” Van Antwerp said, “because I think it’s 

on the cutting edge in the future—how we select and assign people.” He added that “we have this thing called the 

Green Pages,”3

 and he had four slides to show the audience 

to expose them to that concept and get them to think about 

where we’re going. “First of all,” he said, “using the ‘steal 

(good) ideas shamelessly (SIS) principle,’ we stole this idea 

from IBM, who has what they call the Blue Pages.4

 They 

use that to put people in the right seats of the bus, using 

the vernacular of the book Good to Great.”5

Good To Great — The Framework
May-August 2010 Engineer 9

Slide 1 showed what is available, personnel-wise, and it 

might be called the “supply side.” Young officers in the Engineer Captains Career Course (ECCC) and the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) have been asked to put in their 

supply side—where they have expertise. Then units are 

asked to put in their talent requirements—what do they 

need? Is it a civil engineer? A professional engineer (PE)? 

The idea is to capture those requirements so we can see 

what is needed out there. And it’s about the Green Pages.

Slide 2 consisted of supply side statements that came 

from the young officers from ECCC and BOLC. For example, “Explosive hazard team leader in Task Force Troy. 

Taught Counter-IED and tactical....” Another student 

wrote, “Prior experience... Project Manager...DC /Baltimore metro area...internationally. Experience with federal 

and government....” “That’s a lot of talent right there that 

we would have never known about,” he said. “That’s what 

we want to capture: What’s the talent out there?”

Slide 3 concerned how we match up the talent with the 

needs. “We’re actually going to fill 31 officer positions out of 

these classes in session right now, based on Green Pages,” 

he said. “We’re running a pilot that maybe the Army eventually will go to. Do we have the edge? This is a place where 

we have a chance to be on the cutting edge—matching talent with needs and requirements.”

“I think that if you’re going to have a great organization, 

everyone has to feel as if he contributes,” Van Antwerp 

said. “So we also took a little survey as we were doing this 

talent input. We asked ‘How important is it that the Army 

treats you as a unique individual?’ Ninety-one percent said 

that it is ‘very important’ or ‘important.’ ‘How important is 

it that units provide detailed descriptions of their job requirements?’ Ninety-seven percent said they want to know 

what they are getting into.”

Slide 4 contained two other questions: “What is most important to you when looking for your next job assignment?” 

To most of the young officers, it was “the job.” The second 

question was “What am I going to do next?” Van Antwerp 

thinks that we’re going to have an interesting dilemma: 

Units are beginning to have longer dwell time between deployments, but there are young people coming up who are 

saying, “I want to go—I want to be part of this fight; that’s 

why I came in.” “So we have to get this right. We want to 

treat them as unique individuals, and we want to match up 

with their positions. We’re going to give them a lot of say in 

this, but that’s where we’re headed. It’s all about selecting 

the right people and getting them in the right positions.”

“There are a lot of ambiguities out there,” he continued. 

“Could we prepare them better? I think we have to be listening to this group and bring them on our team and do the 

development—count on the School for a lot of that, but over 

on the USACE side, we have $45 billion worth of projects. 

We need to get our young officers and NCOs over into the 

Corps for a period of time. What we do well is project management, and we do contracting well. If you’re in-theater 

and you have funds for a project, you need to be able to 

manage projects so you’ll be better equipped. So we have to 

work this part together. That’s about the disciplined people

part.”

“Now let’s talk about disciplined thought,” Van Antwerp 

said. Then he asked BG BryanWatson, Engineer School 

Commandant, to talk about the disciplined thought he’s 

putting into the School, on how we might train our officers 

in the future. 

BG Watson said that to train officers in the future, we 

have to recognize that they’re unique—that they all come 

with different education and different training. “However,” he said, “we have a one-size-fits-all approach to how 

we train our officers and NCOs. And we’re not even giving 

them credit for their previous education when they come 

into the Corps or when they come into the Captains Career 

Course for a second assignment.” He said that Soldiers who 

are going from a construction outfit to a sapper outfit, or 

vice versa, are given the same instruction. And so they begin to see less relevance. But now the School is looking at 

how to take a university approach—really put three people 

in charge of tailoring that program:

■ Former commander. Let the former commander help 

the Soldier see where his or her weakness is and tailor

the program. That’s part of Green Pages.

■ Future commander. This is the one who will get the Soldier. Can the commander tell us what the Soldier needs 

to be trained in so we can use that to tailor the

program? 

■ Soldier. What is that person’s passion? Where does the

Soldier see his or her own strengths and weaknesses?

That has to figure largely in the program.

Van Antwerp thanked BG Watson and commented 

that one thing the Commandant mentioned was passion. 

“Green Pages isn’t just sticking you in a hole because on 

paper it looks like you fit,” he said. “There’s also that other piece. Because what does passion do to your talent? It 

energizes it.”

“Okay,” he said, “that’s disciplined thought going into 

the School. Let me tell you a little bit about disciplined 

thought in USACE. First, how do we eliminate the backlog of maintenance or repair? That’s a big deal for us. One 

of the other things to be thinking about is that we hired 

8,213 people last year from outside the Corps. I’m so proud 

that we’re building the Corps to last. About 3,000 of those 

new people came pretty much out of college or what we 

would call “early entry.” And we got a lot of journey people. 

It takes a lot of disciplined thought on how to bring new 

people in. Just like a unit commander: How do you bring 

new troops into the unit when you have a busload of people 

coming out of advanced individual training (AIT)? They get 

shipped to your unit during reset, and you don’t have your 

NCOs yet—How do you do it? How do you bring them into 

your culture? 

Van Antwerp remarked that one of the unique things 

we’re finding is that the new people set up their own

classes—in a way. “And I would say the same thing
10 Engineer May-August 2010

happens in the troop unit,” he added. “When you get a busload of troops, they identify with each other. They’re all in 

the same boat. There’s some teamwork there that I think 

is good. Before, they might have been isolated—single replacements coming in, and they’re in their barracks room, 

and they don’t fit. Now they fit, because there’s another 

50 just like them right there. But how do you bring those

50 people in? That takes disciplined thought.” 

He said that the last thing he wanted to talk about was 

disciplined action. “Disciplined action means how do you execute a $45-billion program? How do you, on the tactical side, 

get your units ready so that you can do the mission you’ve 

been given? That’s where leaders come in—you have to know 

what your plan is and then how to execute that plan.” 

“Everybody needs somebody to come alongside them,” 

he said. “We know in the Corps that each of these 8,200-

plus new people has a sponsor, everyone is being brought 

online, and the way we’re growing our force is that we’re 

getting them out to get experience. And when they’re on 

a job site to watch work being performed—such as a lock 

repair—it becomes a classroom. If we think like that, we’ll 

have this force long into the future.” 

“Thank you very much,” he said in closing. “This has 

been a privilege—a ‘get-to’—for me. I love being with this 

Regiment—this tribe—as BG Watson calls it. And we need 

to continue to grow the tribe. The country needs 160,000 

engineers to graduate from our universities and come to 

work in our industries and with us. Last year, we graduated 75,000. So the challenge is there: We need great

engineers. But the Building Great Engineers campaign is 

not just for us—this is for America!” 

Ms. Bridges, managing editor of the Engineer Professional Bulletin, has been a member of the bulletin staff for 

almost 16 years. A former recipient of the Secretary of the 

Army’s Editor of the Year Award, she holds a bachelor’s 

from Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.

Endnotes

1

Jim C. Collins, Good to Great, Harper Business: New 

York, 2001, p.12. 

2

Collins, pp. 90–119.

3

A personnel tool designed to display an individual’s 

talents, experience, and most desired assignments beyond 

current capabilities. Rather than contracting this initiative, Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is improving the “My 

Profile” section, which will become the foundation of the 

Green Pages. Supplied with this additional data, the Human Resources Command will be better informed in selecting the most qualified individuals for available positions or 

for consultation or reachback support.

4

An employee directory originally designed to replace 

IBM’s telephone directory. It is now used to find the right 

people to get a job done. <http://www.intranetjournal.

com/articles/200209/pij_09_25_02a.html>, accessed 14 

August 2010. 

5

Collins.

LOE #4: Develop Engineer Capabilities in Support of 

Full Spectrum Operations (FSO) 

DP 4-02: Consolidate FM 3-34, Engineer Operations.

Rewrite an engineer keystone manual incorporating the

engineer framework of the four lines of engineer support:

■ Assure mobility

■ Enhance protection

■ Enable expeditionary logistics

■ Build capacity

In addition, influence paradigm shift from functions to 

disciplines. 

DP 4-04: Implement the Brigade Combat Team (BCT) 

Engineer Battalion. Implement a major change in Army 

force structure that gives every BCT and engineer battalion 

headquarters one combat engineer company and one construction company organic.

DP 4-21: Transition Operational Need Statement 

(ONS) Equipment to Programs of Record (PORs). Identify ONS equipment/capabilities, in particular improvised 

explosive device defeat (IEDD) equipment that has been

developed and procured for the current fight. Determine

what equipment needs to become enduring equipment in 

engineer tables of organization and equipment (TOEs) and 

get it transitioned to official Army programs so we can 

train them in United States Army Training and Doctrine 

(TRADOC) schools.

LOE #5: Enhance Sense of Regiment

DP 5-02: Establish a Wounded Sapper Program. Establish a program that helps wounded engineers make transitions and get further education, employment, and other life 

services.

DP 5-06: Renovate the Engineer Museum. Develop a museum program capable of educating and inspiring members 

of the Regiment and preserving engineer artifacts in preparation for certification.

As I said, this is not the full list of DPs and only gives a 

sample of the main focus areas for this year’s efforts. I can’t

emphasize enough that this has to be YOUR Regimental 

Campaign Plan; YOU have to be an active participant in 

Achieving the Vision; YOU have to fulfill your responsibilities within this profession and shape the debate about the 

future and the decisions we will make.

Lead to Serve. Essayons!

(“Clear the Way,” continued from page 2)
May-August 2010 Engineer 11

Beginning with the American Revolution, our nation 

has relied on engineer leaders to develop plans and 

marshal resources to overcome the most serious challenges and threats to our society. In the early days of the republic, this included surveys for roads and canals to carve a 

transportation infrastructure where there was once only wilderness. Later, it added railroad surveys and flood control to 

further harness the nation’s resources. At the same time, as 

the United States fought in one conflict after another, engineers facilitated the movement of friendly forces; impeded the 

movement of enemy forces; and built infrastructure that was 

needed to sustain the force. Their accomplishments ranged 

from the Alaska–Canada (Alcan) Highway (now called the 

Alaska Highway) and the Ledo Road to the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb. Today, engineer tools 

have changed, but not our basic mission.

In order to maintain and build on the unstoppable momentum of the Engineer Corps, we developed the Building Great Engineers (BGE) initiative to create and sustain

engineer leaders who are able to assess tasks and challenges, develop plans to accomplish those missions, and assemble the resources needed to achieve success. Realization of 

the Engineer Regimental Campaign Plan then came about as 

we realized success in BGE and refined our aim point. More 

important, investments in people, training and education, 

and leader development were interwoven with our campaign 

plan lines of effort as a means of maintaining successful

momentum experienced with BGE (see figure on page 12).

Achieving Success

The BGE initiative began in 2008 after the need 

was identified for people of great character and 

values who are fit, tough, smart, adaptive, energetic, and committed to the cause. This “cradle-to-grave” 

approach focused on the development and management 

of our most precious resource—people. Five focal points 

have been the drivers for success: accessions, training 

and education, employment, retention, and strategic

communications.

Accessions 

As a key starting point, our accessions efforts have included dialogue and engagements with both current and

potential engineers. A healthy professional debate about 

our future from leaders (young and old), officers, warrant 

officers, and noncommissioned officers across the Engineer 

Regiment helped add to the momentum. We have seen an 

18 percent increase in the number of degreed engineers accessed into the Regiment (from 38 to 56 percent) in the past 

year. Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) contributions 

are now 43 percent degreed engineers, and West Point contributions are 70 percent degreed engineers. Our Engineer 

Personnel Proponency Office (EPPO) continues to engage 

selected universities with heavy engineer and math degree 

programs. Their recent accession efforts included Warrior 

Forge, West Point Tailgate, senior leader panels, and engineer professional organizations. We are anticipating additional positive movement in expanding visibility of the 

Engineer Regiment by providing opportunities for cadets 

to work with the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and visit Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to focus 

on understanding engineer educational development from 

private to noncommissioned officer to officer. With these 

efforts, we expect to see additional movement toward increasing the number of degreed engineers in the Regiment.

Training and Education 

We have made remarkable strides in maximizing learning effectiveness by working toward a university approach 

model to training delivery. Other initiatives include the 

Virtual Battlespace System (VBS2TM) development versus PowerPoint briefing presentations, Engineer Captains 

Career Course (ECCC) and Engineer Basic Officer Leader 

Course (EBOLC) redesign, joint assault bridge (JAB) and 

assault breacher vehicle (ABV) training, the Sapper Campus, counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) training 

“The BGE initiative began in 2008 

after the need was identified for 

people of great character and 

values who are fit, tough, smart, 

adaptive, energetic, and

committed to the cause.”

By Captain Joshua A. Morris and Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Kaufmann
12 Engineer May-August 2010

institutionalization, and opportunities for the Prime Power 

School move and potential for the Geospatial School move to 

Fort Leonard Wood. The integration of VBS2 into our classrooms will revolutionize instruction by making it more interactive with our students. Key to our continued success will 

be a focus on collaborative problem-solving skills in which 

instructors facilitate rather than lecture, including peer-topeer learning, given the enormous amount of operational 

experience that our leaders have. The bottom line can be expressed in three words: rigor, relevance, and relationships.

Employment 

In addition to training, we have worked to better employ 

the existing talent in the Regiment. There has been solid 

progress toward increasing employment visibility through 

our Green Pages initiative that better aligns officer supply and demand. As a result, the Army—and specifically 

our Regiment—will gain visibility of officers’ skill sets,

education, life experience, and other background information that is currently not maintained in legacy Army 

personnel systems. In essence, Green Pages matches the 

talent it needs (demands) with the talent it already has 

(supply). Officers communicate their desired future assignments and then search all available positions. More important, officers can judge the emerging skill demands and

develop themselves to better meet them. In addition, we have

finally established skill identifiers to support career development, officer tracking, and talent management as part 

of a military occupational change of structure (MOCS) 

proposal being submitted through the United States Army 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to the Department of the Army in October 2010. Officers will be 

managed and assigned to coded positions, based on officer 

talents (skill identifiers), thus allowing our Regiment to 

fill coded positions with officers who possess the right mix

of skills. 

Not only have we worked to better align officer talent 

but also to align engineering capabilities with needs across 

the full spectrum of engineer operations. This includes the 

recently approved implementation of the brigade engineer 

battalion into maneuver brigade combat teams (BCTs). 

This will provide needed problem-solving ability to maneuver forces at the brigade level. In addition, we have worked 

to return selected leaders with operational experience back 

to the United States Army Engineer School (USAES) and 

USACE to support Warfighter function forums. We have 

also begun the military working dog initiative to further 

provide deployed engineer units with the capabilities to 

successfully complete their mission.

USAES

Campaign Plan Lines of Effort

To Provide Freedom of

Action to Ground Forces

at Every Echelon

BGE

Major Combat Ops

Irregular Warfare

Peace Ops

Limited Intervention

Peacetime Engagement

A Campaign Plan

To Achieve the Vision

A Campaign Plan

To Achieve the Vision
May-August 2010 Engineer 13

Retention

Relationships are key, even more so in the retention 

effort. As we work toward linking career advisors and 

mentors with junior officers, we are seeking discussions 

on specific coaching and career or technical advice and 

engineer-specific professional development opportunities. 

Branch mentorship for junior engineers—especially “outlying” officers who work outside the normal engineer chain 

of command—remains a tough challenge. The framework 

for these discussions lines up along Active Army, United 

States Army Reserve, and Army National Guard experiences and footprints. Engineer brigades, battalions, and 

districts focus on the active duty portion. First Army East 

and West Regions handle Reserve coverage, and National 

Guard coverage is naturally aligned by states. 

We have also leveraged higher education with the Missouri University of Science and Technology (MS&T) engineering master’s degree program as a means of increasing 

officer retention. Notably, MS&T recently opened an explosives engineering master’s degree program, for which many 

of our officers qualify. The MS&T explosives engineering 

certificate program is designed to provide formalized education in the area of explosives engineering. Students 

are exposed to the theoretical and practical approaches of 

explosives engineering and learn analysis and design of 

explosives-related systems—both natural and man-made 

structure effects. The explosives engineering certificate 

program is open to all persons holding a bachelor of science, 

master of science, or doctoral degree and who have a minimum of 12 months of post-bachelor of science professional 

employment experience.

Strategic Communications 

We have made enormous progress in strategic communications. This continues to enhance our sense of Regiment 

by strengthening our ties with engineer professional organizations, renovating our Engineer Museum, and establishing wounded engineer and fallen engineer programs.

Of particular note is our “open-arms” commitment to engineer veteran reunions. During one recent event, the 299th 

Engineer Battalion of Vietnam, the Defenders of Dak To, 

traded war stories with current students of the ECCC, Advanced Leader’s Course (ALC), and EBOLC. 

Throughout the last few years we have also implemented several knowledge management mediums: 

■ USAES Public Website: Public face of USAES. Contains historical and command information, links to 

USAES resources (public and protected), and current 

events and announcements appropriate for public

consumption.

■ Battle Command Knowledge System (BCKS) Engieer Forum: Contains engineer-related discussion forums 

and document storage. Requires Army Knowledge Online (AKO)/Defense Knowledge Online (DKO) credentials to access.

■ Engineer School Knowledge Network (ESKN): Primary

portal to essential engineer resources. Requires AKO/

DKO credentials to access. Contains document storage, links, announcements, and request-for-information 

features. ESKN was recently redesigned to better suit 

the needs of engineers (replaced Sapper 411).

■ Engineer Blast: Monthly newsletter from the Army

Chief of Engineers. USAES contributes updates and 

news related to training and upcoming events.

■ Commandant’s Forum (milBook): Site for collaboration

 with senior engineer leaders from around the globe.

■ Other milBook Groups: Senior Engineer Warrant Officer, EPPO, USAES Historian, and Engineer Force

(ENFORCE). Requires AKO/DKO credentials to access.

■ USACE Reachback: Requests for information and support provided by Engineer Research and Development 

Center (ERDC).

All of the above can be accessed by visiting ESKN at

<https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/637460>.

Challenges

Along with this progress, there are still challenges. 

In our accessions efforts, we have found that geo-

.graphic and expanded recruitment areas are both 

an opportunity and a test of resources. We are always 

looking for assistance with these engagement opportunities. Accessions estimates must also take into account 

that there is an increasing percentage of new lieutenants coming from Officer Candidate School (OCS) (approximately 23 percent of our incoming officers over the 

last eight years), and the most common degree for OCS is 

criminal justice. Given that OCS branching is one of the 

areas that we least control, we must aggressively seek a 

means of providing math and science educational opportunities to our enlisted Soldiers who may become officer candidates. Incentives for professional development, such as 

project management professional (PMP) and professional 

engineer (PE) preparation and test fee and annual fee 

reimbursement, would greatly help our retention efforts. 

Education opportunities for USACE-sponsored courses is 

difficult to obtain but key to BGE leader training and education. Our pursuit of Army Learning Concept (ALC) 2015 

objectives (temporary duty [TDY] modules) to support 

Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) has the potential 

to increase the opportunity for university-style “credits” 

for resident and distributed learning courses available in 

USACE, Department of the Army, and Department of Defense. Finally, we are broadening assignment and reemployment of wounded warriors in the Regiment. Although 

Fort Leonard Wood is rapidly expanding its medical facilities, it is still unable to meet the needs of many of our 

wounded warriors. Nonetheless, we are now working on 

providing them with opportunities at USACE project sites 

near their hometown and necessary medical facilities. All 

of these challenges are part of our continuing efforts to 

build great engineers. (Continued on page 19)
14 Engineer May-August 2010

One of the toughest challenges an engineer 

Soldier, or sapper, could ever have is vying in and winning the Best Sapper Competition—which in 2010 was a six-day, three-phase 

event at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, covering 

the full spectrum of engineer operations and infantry tasks. Moving more than 50 miles on foot, 

the sappers were on nearly continuous operations, 

with little “down time” between events that ran the 

gamut of physical and mental challenges. The competition began with two-person teams performing 

the most repetitions possible of push-ups, sit-ups, 

and pull-ups in 15 minutes—five minutes in each 

category—then continued with sappers running 

more than four miles in Army combat uniform and 

interceptor body armor vest and carrying a dummy 

M4 carbine. 

By Mr. Luke Waack

Above: Second Lieutenants Jonathan Kralick (right) 

and Jeffrey Laughlin, 82d Airborne Division and 

20th Engineer Battalion, respectively, Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, move a stump weighing hundreds 

of pounds during the Log Cut and Carry event of the 

X-Mile Run and the final phase of the 2010 Best Sapper Competition. Kralick and Laughlin took second 

place.

Left: Captain Joseph Byrnes (left) and Captain Jason Castro, both Charlie Company, 554th Engineer 

Battalion, tie up their poncho raft at TA 250, before 

helo-casting. Byrnes and Castro went on to win the 

Photo by Luke Waack

2010 Best Sapper Competition.

Photo by Luke Waack
May-August 2010 Engineer 15

After the first day of challenges, ranging from knot tying 

to manual breaching of obstacles to evacuate a casualty, 

the field was narrowed to 20 teams. After the second day, 

only 10 teams were left. Of those teams, only one could be 

named Best Sapper.

A previous Best Sapper Competition winner returned 

to the champion’s stage on 21 April at Fort Leonard Wood 

during the 2010 ENFORCE Conference. Captain Joseph K. 

Byrnes was a winner in the 2006 competition. He and his 

teammate this year, Captain Jason D. Castro, were both 

from Charlie Company, 554th Engineer Battalion, Fort 

Leonard Wood, at the time of the competition. They beat 

out 28 teams for the title of “Best Sapper” after more than 

50 hours of almost nonstop physical and mental exercise 

in dozens of Soldier and engineer-specific skills challenges. The teammates used the Warrior Ethos as a guiding 

principle. They said that they treated the competition as 

a mission—they received a mission to conduct a three-day 

competition, gave it everything they had, and left nothing 

on the course. By working together, they were able to figure 

out what each of them was good at, and then they came up 

with a process to eliminate mistakes. They believe that was 

the key to their success.

Of the six phases of the competition, the pair won the 

demolition and the land navigation portions. For being 

named best sappers, they were awarded the Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Engineer Association’s 

Bronze deFleury Medal.

The second place team, Second Lieutenant Jonathan Kralick, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina, and Second Lieutenant Jeffrey Laughlin, 20th

Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg, won the road march and 

Sapper Stakes phases of the competition and earned Army 

Commendation Medals.

Captain James Gibbs and Second Lieutenant Jay Beeman, 11th Engineer Battalion, Fort Benning, Georgia, took 

third place and were awarded Army Achievement Medals. 

Captain David Vasquez and First Lieutenant Brett Fuller, 

54th Engineer Battalion, Bamberg, Germany, won the nonstandard physical fitness test. First Lieutenants Brandon 

Darroch and Stephen Kraus, 326th Engineer Battalion, 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky, won the X-Mile Run phase of the 

competition.

When asked why he entered the competition, one captain replied, “Pride, more than anything. Because I believe 

there’s no better Soldier than an engineer Soldier, and if 

you’re the best here, you’re the best Soldier—period.”

Mr. Waack was a staff writer and assistant editor for the 

Fort Leonard Wood Guidon, as well as the beat reporter for 

the fort’s engineers, when he wrote this article. He is currently the editor of the Arctic Warrior, the authorized newspaper for Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. Before 

joining the Guidon, Mr. Waack was an Army broadcaster 

for six years and served in Texas, Italy, and Afghanistan.

Second Lieutenant Jay Beeman (right) and Captain James Gibbs (left), 11th Engineer Battalion, Fort 

Benning, Georgia, took third place in the 2010 Best Sapper Competition.

Photo by Visual Information Center
16 Engineer May-August 2010

Regimental Awards

Photo by Visual Information Center

Each year we recognize the best engineer company, 

lieutenant, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, and enlisted Soldier—in each of the components—for outstanding contributions and service to our 

Regiment and Army. Every engineer unit in the Regiment 

can submit the name and achievements of its best of the 

best to compete in these distinguished award competitions. Only the finest engineer companies and Soldiers are 

selected as recipients of these awards. The Soldiers will 

carry throughout their careers the distinction and recognition of being the Engineer Branch’s best and brightest Soldiers and leaders. Following are the results of the 

2009 selection boards for the Itschner, Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly), and Outstanding Engineer 

Warrant Officer Awards, the Sturgis Medal, and the Van

Autreve Award:

Active Army

Itschner Award: Bravo Company, 9th Engineer Battalion, 172d Infantry Brigade, Grafenwoehr, Germany. 

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

United States Army Europe (USAREUR) nominee, First 

Lieutenant Brent J. Johnson, 500th Engineer Company, 

15th Engineer Battalion, Schweinfurt, Germany. 

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: United 

States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) nominee, Warrant Officer Two David M. Reeves, Headquarters Company, 37th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina. 

Sturgis Medal: USAREUR nominee, Sergeant First 

Class Ricardo Ranger, Charlie Company, 40th Engineer 

Battalion, Baumholder, Germany. 

Van Autreve Award: FORSCOM nominee, Specialist 

Michael A. Tellez, 104th Engineer Company, 62d Engineer 

Battalion, 36th Engineer Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas.

LTG John W. Morris Outstanding Civilian of the Year 

Award: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

nominee, Mr. Curtis A. Heckelman, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers.

United States Army Reserve

Itschner Award: 321st Engineer Detachment, 844th Engineer Battalion, Bethlehem, Georgia. 

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Jennifer L. Barker, 770th Engineer Company, Penn Yan, New York. 

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: Warrant 

Officer Two Timothy L. Conley, Assistant Chief of Staff for 

Installation Management (ACSIM), Washington, D.C.

Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant Jason L. Moldan, 401st 

Engineer Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma. 

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Zachary Stenzel, 401st 

Engineer Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma. 

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 220th Engineer Company, Missouri Army National 

Guard, Festus, Missouri.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award: 

First Lieutenant Jason R. Davis, 220th Engineer Company, Missouri Army National Guard, Festus, Missouri.

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: No

nomination. 

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class John E. Roberts, 

220th Engineer Company, Missouri Army National Guard, 

Festus, Missouri.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Ethan S. Coulson, 220th 

Engineer Company, Missouri Army National Guard,

Festus, Missouri.

All of the nominees represented their major commands 

with the highest professionalism and dedication to the Engineer Corps’s vision and deserve our highest praise. The 

award recipients were recognized at ENFORCE 2010 at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
May-August 2010 Engineer 17

By Mr. James R. Rowan

Regimental Command Council

The Regimental Command Council 

(RCC) conducted on 22 April during 

ENFORCE 2010 at Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri, may have seemed like a new event to 

some people. In actuality, the RCC is the new 

name for the combined Council of Colonels and 

Council of Command Sergeants Major (CSMs). 

Historically, these have been two separate forums but, based on comments from the Council of CSMs in April 2009, they were combined 

during ENFORCE 2010. The United States 

Army Engineer School Commandant hosts this 

event twice a year: once during ENFORCE and 

once during the fall. This year, the Regimental 

Chief Warrant Officer elected to hold a separate Council of Warrant Officers to home in on 

some of the unique officer issues the Regiment 

is facing.

The target audience for the RCC is

brigade-level commanders and CSMs; colonellevel district commanders; topographic engineering

center chiefs of staff and deputy chiefs of staff for

operations and plans; key engineer billets at Headquarters, Department of the Army; Army Service Component 

Command engineers; and the doctrine, organization, 

training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, 

and facilities (DOTMLPF) domain chiefs. Approximately

65 people attended the RCC at ENFORCE 2010.

The key briefings provided during the RCC included—

■ Commandant’s priorities and the Regimental Campaign

Plan.

■ Update on the brigade engineer battalion.

■ Engineer brigade training and certification. 

■ Counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) threat

briefing (classified session).

■ United States Army Forces Command issues/sourcing.

■ Unit history programs and requirements.

■ Proposed Engineer Captains Career Course changes.

■ Geospatial intelligence and geospatial update.

All of these briefings are available for viewing at the 

Army Knowledge Online (AKO) password-protected Engineer School Knowledge Network (ESKN) website. The feedback from briefing attendees was overwhelmingly positive, 

with many expressing a desire to make it a 1 1/2- or 2-day 

program at future ENFORCE conferences.

The next meeting of the RCC is scheduled for 17–18 September at the North Dakota Army National Guard’s Regional 

Training Institute at Devils Lake, North Dakota, one of the 

premier engineer training sites in the country. The event will 

have the same target audience listed previously, along with engineer chief warrant officers five (CW5). This will be a great 

opportunity to catch up on the latest status of the Regimental 

Campaign Plan and other key initiatives that are underway. 

Continue to follow the Engineer Blast (a bimonthly e-mail 

newsletter), the Commandant’s Forum,1

 and the ESKN site 

for additional information and registration instructions for the 

September RCC. For more information about the RCC, contact 

the author at <james.rowan@us.army.mil>.

Mr. Rowan is the Deputy Commandant, United States Army 

Engineer School. Previously, he served as the Assistant Technical Director for Military Engineering at the United States Army 

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. Other key duty positions include Commander, ERDC; 

Commander, 1st Engineer Brigade; Commander, 54th Engineer 

Battalion; and Commander, 16th Engineer Battalion. A retired 

United States Army colonel, he has served in Operation Iraqi

Freedom both as a military officer and a civilian.

Endnote

1

The Commandant’s Forum is a by-invitation, web-based discussion board for senior leaders of the Engineer Regiment. All 

colonels and above have been invited through their AKO e-mail accounts to participate. Anyone who has not received this invitation 

can contact Mr. Doug Fowler at <douglas.fowler@us.army.mil>.

Regimental Command Council during ENFORCE 2010
18 Engineer May-August 2010

I

n the fall of 2009, the United 

States Army Engineer Personnel 

Proponency Office (EPPO) initiated a series of university engagements 

to recruit more degreed engineers into 

the Engineer Regiment. This effort 

supports the Building Great Engineers

campaign, which established increasing the accession rate of degreed engineers as one of its goals. The EPPO 

team specifically targets schools with 

reputable engineering programs so 

that team members can directly engage with cadets and other students 

majoring in engineering. Throughout 

these engagements, the team also encourages high-quality students who

are not pursuing engineering degrees to consider joining the Engineer

Regiment. 

Each engagement consists of briefings to small groups of students to inform them of the diverse and unique 

capabilities provided by the Engineer 

Regiment and the wide range of opportunities available to those who 

serve in it. Though the EPPO team 

presents some of the same information to cadets between their junior 

and senior years during annual 

branch orientation days at Fort Lewis, Washington, and West Point, New 

York, these new engagements enable 

the team to interact with students 

in their freshman and sophomore 

years. By engaging students earlier 

in their university experience, the 

EPPO team gives them more time to 

make more informed decisions about 

what path they will pursue following 

graduation.

The Regiment Engages 

With Universities

By Major Karl Hatala

A representative of the United States Army Corps of Engineers talks to 

ROTC cadets about opportunities in the Engineer Regiment.
May-August 2010 Engineer 19

These university engagements also enable the EPPO 

team to serve as engineer scouts, gathering information 

that paints a better picture of the challenges to the accession of more degreed engineers into the Engineer Regiment. For example, The Pennsylvania State University Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) faculty informed the 

team that some engineering students who want to serve in 

the Engineer Regiment might be unable to do so because 

of the way the accession process works. The ROTC faculty 

pointed out that a cadet who earns a lower grade point average in a demanding engineering curriculum probably will 

not be as competitive for an Active Army engineer branch 

slot as a cadet who earns a higher grade point average in a 

less academically challenging nonengineering curriculum. 

The effectiveness of this university engagement effort 

may not be easy to measure immediately, but based on the 

number of students who approached the team during the 

informal question-and-answer sessions following the briefings, it appears to be a worthwhile effort. However, it faces 

some challenges. One such challenge is that the EPPO university engagement team currently consists of just three 

senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs). These NCOs represent the Engineer Regiment in a professional manner, 

but they must rely on augmentation to provide an officer's 

perspective during the engagements. The EPPO team has 

sought augmentation from serving members of the Engineer Regiment who are alumni of the universities visited, 

but participation has been limited, presumably due to ongoing operational requirements. Perhaps a habitual relationship could be established with the Engineer Captains 

Career Course and the Command and General Staff College to seek officers who can participate in this effort. 

Overall, the strategy to engage with universities appears to be a good one that may only require refinement to 

yield greater benefits. For example, as relationships with 

universities develop, ideas or opportunities may be discovered that will help advance other parts of the Building 

Great Engineers campaign. The engagements could also 

promote greater understanding between military engineers and their civilian counterparts. At a minimum, they 

will offer opportunities to meet prospective members of the 

Engineer Regiment and provide a better understanding of 

how to shape it. 

Major Hatala recently completed Intermediate Level 

Education at the United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and is now 

serving with the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) at 

Fort Drum, New York. He holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from The Pennsylvania State University.

Conclusions

More than any other branch, engineers provide 

that bridge between what the maneuver force is 

.able to achieve now and what the maneuver force 

needs to achieve tomorrow. When the maneuver commander calls for his engineer, that engineer must be a leader 

who can tackle any challenge—whether it is a question of 

clearing obstacles, shielding allied forces, or restoring infrastructure. To develop such a leader, it is critical that the 

Engineer Regiment continues to build on the momentum of 

the BGE initiative through five key approaches: 

■ Continue to access talented and motivated individuals

for their entry into the Regiment by facilitating the 

move of potential engineers into the Engineer Corps.

■ Continue educational opportunities—such as the VBS2

and our partnership with MS&T. 

■ Move programs like Green Pages from the trial stage

into full implementation to increase market transparency and better employ our leaders with special skill 

sets where they are needed most. 

■ Seek a return on the Regiment’s investment by retaining the talent we have fostered. To do this, senior leaders must take ownership of the branch mentorship 

framework and the responsibility for advising junior 

leaders. Use of existing continuing education opportunities is also a key to retention. 

■ Continue to enhance the sense of Regiment, not only

by reaching out through knowledge management mediums but—more important—by bringing together our 

veterans with today’s Soldiers and looking after the 

welfare of our wounded warriors as they have looked 

after the welfare of the nation. 

The unstoppable momentum of these initiatives is the 

key to ensuring that the engineer becomes the weapon of 

choice, against even the most unpredictable battlefield obstacles on today’s irregular battlefield. As engineers have 

always been the greatest builders, we must also be builders 

of the greatest engineers.

Captain Morris is the operations officer for the United States 

Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. A recent 

branch transfer from the Infantry, he will attend the Engineer Captains Career Course in October 2011. He holds an associate’s in 

business administration from Franklin University and a bachelor’s 

in history from Columbus State University. He has managed multiple vertical construction projects, including two solar-powered 

homes. 

Lieutenant Colonel Kaufmann has been the Director of Instruction at the United States Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri, since the 2008 Building Great Engineers initiative and previously served as Deputy Commander for Gulf Region–North District, Portland District, and Northwestern Division, 

USACE. He holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering and a master’s 

in engineer management from Missouri University of Science and 

Technology and is a graduate of the United States Army Command 

and General Staff College.

(“Building Great Engineers,” continued from page 13)
20 Engineer May-August 2010

During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, there 

has been much talk about the need to rebuild the 

infrastructure of those two nations. Elements of infrastructure have become vital components in stability and 

counterinsurgency lines of operation. The sewage, water, 

electricity, academics, trash–medical, safety, and other considerations (SWEAT–MSO) model has provided commanders an outline to address essential services. The mission of 

designing, building, and repairing a nation’s infrastructure 

is the role of engineers. Joint Publication 3-34, Engineer 

Doctrine for Joint Operations, defines general engineering 

as “the construction, repair, maintenance, and operation of 

infrastructure, facilities, lines of communication and bases, 

terrain modification, and repair.” The engineer officer skill 

set in the United States Army’s force structure does not 

address the need for competent and qualified engineers capable of using their professional knowledge to advise the 

brigade combat team (BCT) commander on general engineering operations in the current operating environment. 

The lack of engineer professionals is an important force 

management problem facing the Engineer Regiment, but a 

ready pool of engineer advisors and professionals could be 

created with a minimal increase to the current force structure. This could be done by creating a professional engineer 

functional area within the operational support career field. 

By focusing on education, experience, and professional credentials, it would provide officers with the necessary skills 

to act as more competent advisors and planners when dealing with reconstruction and infrastructure.

Educating Engineer Officers

The current process of educating engineer officers 

has proven less than perfect in meeting the need 

for general engineering experts. Far too many engineer officers have no formal training in civil or construction engineering beyond what is taught in the Basic Officer 

Leadership Course. Much engineer expertise exists in the 

forward engineer support teams and provincial reconstruction teams. What we lack is a single subject matter expert 

within the BCT who can provide general engineering advice to the commander on how best to use all the engineering capability within the BCT. 

The current engineer Officer Education System should 

provide a wider breadth of the knowledge needed to plan 

general engineering operations. To better develop this 

skill, the Army should create a new professional engineer 

functional area that would allow a separate engineer career path based on education, training, and experience. 

Before entering this functional area, officers should serve 

at the company level in their specific branch. As in other 

functional areas, officers with an engineering degree could 

apply to enter a career path as a major to hone their professional engineer skills. If accepted into the functional area, 

those who hadn’t yet done so could begin the process of attaining their professional engineer license by taking the 

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering exam. Once 

By Major Martin J. Naranjo
May-August 2010 Engineer 21

officers enter this functional area, they should attend 

Advanced Civil Schooling to receive an advanced degree 

in engineering management, civil engineering, construction engineering, or other relevant discipline. Officers 

could then move into a utilization tour on an installation 

or with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to 

develop their base of knowledge with construction, contracting, and infrastructure. This career track could be 

very appealing to cadets weighing their options during 

the accessions process. 

Gaining Experience and Credibility

I

t takes many years of study and experience to develop 

a competent engineer in the civilian sector. As with 

many professions, state governing bodies license or 

register professional engineers based on education, experience, and standardized tests. In a new professional engineer functional area, officers would earn professional accreditation with the support of the Army, much as Army 

doctors, nurses, and lawyers earn. Based on experience 

gained at the company level, graduate school, and their 

utilization tour, officers could apply for professional licensure from their state of choice. They would then have the 

opportunity to take the NCEES Principles and Practice of 

Engineering exam. At this stage, officers would have the 

knowledge, experience, and credibility necessary to advise 

commanders on general engineering issues. 

Incorporating Professional Engineers

To provide BCT commanders with engineer advisors 

with a strong base of engineer knowledge and skills, 

a pool of ready professional engineers available in 

this functional area would be needed. The professional 

engineer functional area would provide the personnel, but 

there would also be a need for positions within commands. 

At the BCT level, a professional engineer could be incorporated into the current staff to offer general engineering 

advice. At division level and above, doctrine now recognizes 

the senior engineer advisor as the engineer coordinator. 

The professional engineer could fill a newly created position subordinate to the coordinator responsible for advising 

in general engineering operations. 

Summary

I

t might be argued that much of this capability already 

exists in the force. There is no doubt that engineer professionals currently serving have a lot of the skills and 

experience necessary to properly advise the commander. 

What the professional engineer concept provides is a fulltime professional engineer on staff who is fully integrated 

into the headquarters. In the current complex operating 

environment, competent engineers are more in demand 

than ever before. We have seen a deficiency in our ability to 

advise commanders at all levels on issues involving general 

engineering. The best way to address this deficiency is to 

create a professional engineer career field. Engineers serving in this functional area would have the ability and credibility to address some of the complex general engineering 

issues the Army will face in the future. 

Major Naranjo is a United States Army Reserve engineer officer attending Intermediate Level Education at the 

Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas. He has deployed twice to Iraq, serving at the tactical and operational levels. He is also a licensed professional 

engineer in Colorado. 

Infrastructure Assessment and Survey Model
22 Engineer May-August 2010

One weekend many years ago when I was a young 

Soldier, I saw a fellow Soldier (who I soon learned 

was Eddie) packing all his belongings into his car. 

It looked as if he were leaving. I thought to myself, Why 

would anyone be packing up all his stuff? Since we were 

in the Army, it was not as though we could just go home 

whenever we wanted to.

As I was watching him, I saw some other Soldiers going 

toward him. They started picking on him and making fun of 

him—pushing Eddie around and knocking some things out 

of his hands. Then they tripped him, and he landed in the 

dirt. Poor Eddie looked up, and I saw a terrible sadness in 

his eyes. My heart went out to him. I walked quickly over to 

him to see if I could help.

As I pulled him to his feet, he looked at me and said, 

“Thanks.” A big smile transformed his face then—one of 

those smiles that shows real gratitude. I helped him pick 

up his gear and asked where he was from. I was surprised 

to learn that he was from my home state and asked him 

why I had never seen him before. He told me he hadn’t been 

in the Army that long. As we talked, I helped him carry his 

belongings to his car. Normally, I would not have hung out 

with a boot private like him, but as it turned out, he was a 

pretty good guy. In fact, the more I got to know Eddie, the 

more I liked him. I invited him to hang out with me and 

some of my friends over the weekend.

On Monday morning, I saw Eddie in the parking lot, taking everything out of his car and back to his room. I stopped 

him and said, “Eddie, you are going to really build some 

serious muscles moving all your stuff back and forth like 

this!” He just laughed and handed me some of it.

Over the next few years, Eddie and I became battle buddies. Even though I left the Army while Eddie continued 

his Service career, we remained friends. Years later, I was 

invited to Eddie’s retirement ceremony. On that day, Eddie 

was expected to say a few words. He looked great—one of 

those guys who really found himself in the military. I was 

proud of Eddie.

I could see that he was nervous about his speech. So I 

smacked him on the back and said, “Hey, big guy, you’ll be 

okay!” He looked at me, smiled, and said, “Thanks, battle.” 

He cleared his throat and began: “Retirement is a time to 

thank those who helped you make it through all the tough 

years: your parents, your family, even your sergeants—but 

mostly your friends. I am here to tell all of you that being a 

battle buddy to someone is the best gift you can give him.”

Then Eddie started telling the story of how we first met. 

He explained that he had planned on taking his life that 

weekend. He talked of how he had cleaned out his room and 

carried his stuff to his car, so that his family wouldn’t have 

to do it later. I just sat there, looking at my battle buddy 

with disbelief. He looked hard at me and gave me a little 

smile. “Thankfully,” he said, “I was saved. My battle buddy, 

who is here today, saved me from doing the unspeakable.” I 

heard the gasp go through the crowd as he told us all about 

his weakest moment. I saw his family looking at me and 

smiling that same grateful smile; not until that moment 

did I realize its depth.

We should never underestimate the power of our actions. With one small gesture, we can change a person’s 

outlook...or frame of reference...or prospects. So what does 

it mean to be a battle buddy to someone? It could mean

By Specialist James V. Dunz

What It Means to Be

a Battle Buddy

The following story was relayed to me about a Soldier named Eddie. It underscores the importance of Army policy in 

supporting your battle buddy.

“We should never underestimate the power of our 

actions. With one small 

gesture, we can change 

a person’s outlook.... So 

what does it mean to be a 

battle buddy to someone? 

It could mean

saving a life.”
May-August 2010 Engineer 23

saving a life. So take advantage of every opportunity to 

make a positive impact on others. You can make a profound 

difference; just look around and you’ll find a way.

Specialist Dunz is a legal clerk with the 94th Engineer Battalion, having reenlisted after 20 years as a civilian. He has deployed to Iraq as an engineer in carpentry/

masonry with the 77th Engineer Company. As a civilian before returning to military service, he was a minister helping 

the homeless for more than 15 years. His main goal is to encourage young Soldiers, and he currently is pursuing a doctrine degree in Christian counseling, to be awarded in 2011.

Note: If you need help, your battle buddy may be your 

nearest and most valuable source of support. In difficult 

moments, always be there for your buddy. You can sustain 

each other through stress, loss, and other trauma by showing you care. If you would like to talk to someone else, call 

any of the three following hotlines—available 24 hours a 

day to help you. Just remember, no Soldier stands alone.1

In the Army’s ACE Suicide Intervention Program, the acronym guides actions to take with a buddy to prevent suicide: 

ACE (Ask your buddy, Care for your buddy, Escort your 

buddy).2

■ Military OneSource, 1-800-342-9647. Offers 6 free

counseling sessions to Service members and their families. <www.militaryonesource.com>

■ National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, 1-800-273-TALK

(8255). Calls are routed to the closest crisis center in

your area. <www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org>

■ National Hopeline Network, 1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433).

Calls are connected to the nearest certified crisis center. 

<www.hopeline.com>

Endnotes

1

U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Directorate of Health Promotion and Wellness Suicide Prevention Resources and Services, <https://

www.us.army.mil/suite/portal/index.jsp>

2

ACE Suicide Intervention Tipcard, “ACE Suicide Intervention (SI) Program,” <http://phc.amedd.army.mil/

home>

Photo courtesy U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine
24 Engineer May-August 2010

The 844th Engineer Battalion, a United States Army 

Reserve unit headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, recently completed a mission as the theater 

construction battalion in Iraq. This article is germane to 

the Active Army and Reserve Component, since there were 

active duty United States Army, United States Air Force, 

and United States Army National Guard units within Task 

Force 844 during the deployment. It is hoped that some of 

the insights of this article will keep a few more Soldiers 

alive, safe, and trained, while giving the command teams of 

deploying battalions some peace of mind by learning from 

the experiences of the 844th.

Conditions 

The 844th Engineer Battalion received notification of 

sourcing for Operation Iraqi Freedom in the spring 

of 2008, and the first implications of modularity set 

in with the information that the battalion would not be deploying with its organic subordinate units. The first concern was to establish a commander’s vision and conduct a 

mission analysis with the leadership of the “new” 844th Engineer Battalion, now becoming Task Force 844. The unit 

deployed to the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, in the summer of 2008 as part of Operation Sand 

Castle to conduct construction operations in a counterinsurgency environment. During that time, the commander’s 

vision and mission statement crystallized. The key to this 

exercise was the cultivation of relationships and the inculcation of the commander’s vision and intent into all subordinates a full year before actual deployment. The battalion 

developed deployment training guidance that specified all 

theater-specific leader and Soldier training tasks required 

for premobilization and set the training azimuth for the 

task force. 

Pre- and Postmobilization Training

The 844th Engineer Battalion and all subordinate units finally came together at the Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, mobilization station in early April 

2009 and formally constituted as Task Force 844 after 

focusing on leader and Soldier tasks at various regional

training centers. The key to this event was to create a 

single identity for the newly formed unit. The second step 

was to conduct what was referred to as the “Patton briefing.” The commander, command sergeant major, chaplain, 

and command chief warrant officer all conducted briefings 

on vision, intent, policies, and expectations. This practice 

would be carried far into the deployment, since the task 

force would continually be gaining and losing units.

The key to the success of the mobilization training plan 

was the partnership forged with the leaders of the 181st 

Infantry Brigade. It allowed the commander’s vision to be 

fully exploited through collective training focused on construction support operations in a counterinsurgency environment. Task Force 844 was composed of both horizontal 

and vertical formations that required technical training for 

plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and horizontal military 

occupational specialties (MOSs). The 181st was able to 

conduct training with five separate mobile training teams 

through the United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri, yielding huge dividends. In collective training, the brigade’s preparation of construction 

projects allowed the task force to construct more than 10 

Southwest Asia huts, electrify a classroom, conduct numerous surveys of existing and future construction projects, 

and construct a combat road.

The other huge dividend that materially contributed to 

Task Force 844’s postmobilization training was the presence of two subject matter experts from the 54th Engineer Battalion, the task force’s relief-in-place/transfer-ofauthority (RIP/TOA) partners, while conducting a mission 

readiness exercise. The benefits of their presence were immeasurable. The task force adopted this “pay-it-forward” 

methodology for every RIP/TOA in the future, sending company representatives on temporary duty back from theater 

for every incoming unit.

Lines of Effort

Once the task force hit the ground in Kuwait, leaders conducted all required theater training, taking full advantage of the mine-resistant, ambushprotected (MRAP) vehicle operator and maintainer courses, 

By Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Roth

General Engineering in Support of the Warfighter

The Theater Engineer

Construction Battalion:
May-August 2010 Engineer 25

setting conditions for eventual movement into Baghdad. 

Once in Baghdad, Task Force 844 conducted a standard 

RIP/TOA with the 54th Engineer Battalion, but now the 

task force had an entirely different mission. It would serve 

as the theater construction battalion, operating along three 

lines of effort (LOEs):

■ Security 

■ Partnership

■ Civil Capacity

What made this mission different from its predecessors 

was that the task force worked directly for the 555th Engineer Brigade at the start of the deployment (and for the 

194th Engineer Brigade after midtour), performing all of 

the above LOEs in general support to the corps and the 

multinational divisions. All other engineer battalions in 

the theater served in a direct support role in a finite operational environment. The challenge for Task Force 844 was 

to operate in 14 of 18 Iraqi provinces, often simultaneously, 

and to effectively command and control that effort. 

Security

This included all general support construction required 

for the theater. On 30 June, shortly after RIP/TOA, U.S. 

forces were scheduled to exit from cities, villages, and locales, according to the Status-of-Forces Agreement signed

in 2008. The direct impacts to the task force were that many 

of the joint security stations and contingency operating

posts had to relocate to larger bases. Later in the deployment, infrastructure required to facilitate the responsible 

drawdown of forces became a separate LOE and entailed the 

creation of infrastructure to move the forces and equipment

out of Iraq. 

The second portion of this LOE was assured mobility in 

the form of bridging. The 401st and 250th Engineer Companies (Multirole Bridge) were responsible for both routine 

inspections and maintenance of all the military bridges in 

southern Iraq. 

Partnership

This included partnering with two separate Iraqi Army 

engineer units—the 8th Field Engineer Regiment in Diwaniyah and the Headquarters Field Engineer Regiment 

at Taji. Military transition teams were established at both 

locations, conducting training in many disciplines, including construction project management, combat lifesaver, 

staff-to-staff interaction and mentoring, maintenance, and 

bridging. Lifelong friendships were forged in this process. 
Civil Capacity

This included partnering with five provincial reconstruction teams in conjunction with the 172d Infantry Brigade—

and later the 3d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division—conducting 

numerous site surveys and completing more than 30 projects in this endeavor. What made this an interesting mission was that the combat forces applied to this effort were 

all active duty Air Force, further displaying the task force’s 

ability to work as a joint team. The task force was able 

to accomplish many missions, travel more than 954,000 

miles, complete 226 projects, and earn a meritorious unit 

commendation because of its best business practices.

Best Business Practices

Task Force 844 leaders established certain principles 

as guideposts to gauge the success of their mission. 

These best business practices included—

Battle Rhythm

The staff must work for the commander and not vice 

versa. The battle rhythm for the seven subordinate units 

had to mesh so that commanders could have their Soldiers 

in locations as far away as Basrah and Camp Korean Village and still be able to interact. Web-based tracking and 

communication software ensured connectivity and responsiveness across the entire Iraq joint operating area. 

Work Ethic

The maxim that “engineers are not kept in reserve” rang 

true for Task Force 844. The theater engineer brigade assigned numerous projects to the task force, but many projects were developed in conjunction with the operational environment owner and only later gained brigade approval. 

But this was not the only key to success. Company commanders tailored their force packages based on skill sets, 

not as platoons; thus, a platoon could be doing as many as 

five projects simultaneously. This was the key to the success of the task force: small-unit leaders trusting noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and junior enlisted Soldiers to 

lead projects and thrive. 

Platoon Warrant Officers

A singular success of the construction effort was the 

role played by three platoon warrant officers, all utilities 

operation and maintenance technicians (MOS 210A). They 

served as mentors and leaders throughout the entire construction process. Each one had unique talents that had 

major impacts on the success of the task force while also 

developing the next generation of technical leaders. 

Metrics

Everything that a unit does can be quantified, whether 

it is the number of miles driven, feet of conduit installed, or 

number of Army physical fitness tests passed. Each metric 

was a gauge of success and, properly documented, made development of counseling sessions, awards, and after action 

reviews a simple process. When metrics are determined 

and constantly compiled, end-of-deployment awards and 

evaluations take care of themselves.

Transportation Assets

One of the practices the task force inherited from its 

predecessors was taking the majority of M916A1/M870A1 

tractor-trailer combinations out of the horizontal companies and moving them to the forward support company 

(FSC). Otherwise, once a piece of equipment and an operator were delivered by the tractor-trailer to a job site, the 

combination would sit unused until the end of the project. 

With the FSC controlling that asset based on task force 

movement needs, those vehicles stayed in motion and ensured that the lifeblood of logistics flowed for the task force 

across the entire Iraq joint operating area.

Horizontal Company Maintenance Technicians

Despite having an enormous amount of rolling stock, 

there is no maintenance warrant officer in the modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE) for the horizontal company. When a unit maintenance technician (MOS 

915A) was detached from the FSC to the 961st Engineer 

Company (Horizontal), the warrant officer magic began. At 

the time of RIP/TOA, the unit was far below an acceptable 

operational readiness rate. Within a mere 60 days, through 

the expertise of this warrant officer, the unit attained a 

readiness rate higher than 90 percent. This should be seriously considered as a change and documented in the future.

Junior Leader Development

As an Army Reserve unit, the amount of time available in a nondeployed status is far less than required to 

develop junior leaders. Unit leaders took advantage of the 

time while deployed to conduct regular officer and NCO 

development classes. Since many junior NCOs serving in 

squad-level leadership positions were lacking the tools to 

properly do their jobs, the task force command sergeant 

major crafted a two-day NCO development workshop, 

“Company commanders tailored their force packages 

based on skill sets, not as platoons.... This was the key to 

the success of the task force: small-unit leaders trusting 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and junior enlisted 

Soldiers to lead projects and thrive.”

26 Engineer May-August 2010
using small-group instruction on counseling, evaluations, 

supervision, and leadership. In the process, the workshop 

developed more than 200 junior NCOs and made the task 

force stronger in the process. 

Recognition

Acknowledgement of a job well done was a hallmark 

of our deployment experience. The leaders of Task Force 

844 ensured that deserving Soldiers were recognized. During the deployment, the task force garnered the Itschner 

Award, the Sturgis Medal, the Van Autreve Award, and the 

Steel deFleury Medal. The task force also administered an 

active Bronze deFleury Medal program. Even more noteworthy is that one logistician received the United States 

Army Quartermaster Corps Order of St. Martin, and two 

maintainers received the United States Army Ordnance 

Corps Order of Samuel Sharpe. The task force additionally had an element that competed for the Army Award 

for Maintenance Excellence at the Department of the

Army level. 

Information Operations

The message is just as important as the mission. Task 

Force 844 executed an aggressive information operations 

May-August 2010 Engineer 27

campaign throughout the entire deployment process. Elements of the task force were on Armed Forces Network and 

the Pentagon Channel frequently and conducted a weekly 

radio talk show highlighting the Soldiers of Task Force 

844 and their service on our Knoxville-based radio station, 

WIVK-FM. The public affairs officer, a sergeant, excelled 

at her job.

Summary

The author hopes that some of the information in this 

article gives pause to future command teams as they 

prepare to deploy as part of the best-trained, bestequipped, and best-led Army that our nation can provide. 

Lieutenant Colonel Roth was the commander of the 844th 

Engineer Battalion at the time this article was submitted. 

He is now attending the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. He has served in numerous staff assignments, including a tour as the executive officer of the 

458th Engineer Battalion, and has commanded a combat 

heavy engineer company. He is a graduate of the Command 

and General Staff College and holds a master’s in mechanical engineering from Boston University. 

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed to 

provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas within the 

Army engineer community. We include articles by and about officers, enlisted Soldiers, warrant officers, Department of the Army 

civilian employees, and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers. 

Articles may share good ideas and lessons learned or explore 

better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the active 

voice. If they contain attributable information or quotations not 

referenced in the text, provide appropriate endnotes. Text length 

should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight double-spaced pages). Shorter after-action-type articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are also welcome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams that illustrate information in the article. Please do not include illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send each of them as a separate file. Do not embed photos in PowerPoint®

. If illustrations 

are in PowerPoint, avoid excessive use of color and shading. 

Save digital images at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied from a website must be accompanied by copyright

permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content of the

article. Also include a short biography, including your full name,

rank, current unit, and job title; a list of your past assignments,

experience, and education; your mailing address; and a fax number and commercial daytime telephone number.

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a 

written release by the author’s unit or activity security manager 

prior to publication. All information contained in the article must 

be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. Engineer is distributed to military units worldwide and is also available

for sale by the Government Printing Office. As such, it is

readily accessible to nongovernment or foreign individuals and

organizations.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted articles. They are accepted for publication only after thorough review. 

If we plan to use your article in an upcoming issue, we will notify 

you. Therefore it is important to keep us informed of changes in 

your e-mail address and telephone number. All articles accepted 

for publication are subject to grammatical and structural changes 

as well as editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <leon.engineer@conus.army.

mil> or on a CD in Microsoft Word, along with a double-spaced 

copy of the manuscript, to: Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri 65473-8926.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being considered 

for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited space per issue, we 

usually do not print articles that have been accepted for publication by other Army professional bulletins.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide
28 Engineer May-August 2010

For more than 20 years, the Joint Task Force (JTF) 

North Engineer Division has assisted volunteer 

engineer units with lighting and fence-building operations and construction of roads and bridges along the 

border between Mexico and the United States in Texas, 

New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The units, typically 

platoon-size elements, conduct 30- to 45-day missions in 

austere environments, similar to those found in the United 

States Army Central Command’s area of responsibility, to 

increase the United States Border Patrol’s ability to interdict transnational threats such as international terrorism, 

narcotics trafficking, illegal alien smuggling, and other activities that threaten homeland security.

The opportunities JTF North missions provide to develop leadership skills and military occupational specialty 

(MOS) proficiency are rarely available at home station due 

to training area restrictions, lack of resources, and a variety of training distractions. During a JTF North engineer 

support mission, a deployed unit will execute a real-world 

engineer operation in an environment where distractions 

are minimal, the terrain is often complex, standing rules 

on the use of force are strictly observed, and mission funds 

are readily available. (JTF North funds most missionrelated requirements, and the supported agencies pay for all 

material costs.) Although training away from the flagpole 

can be difficult, the JTF North missions present units with

challenges they may face during future deployments on 

overseas contingency operations.

JTF North Mission Phases

Missions are normally conducted in four phases:

predeployment, deployment, employment, and redeployment. All phases provide outstanding

opportunities to build small-unit leadership and hone Soldiers’ MOS-related skills, to include—

■ Construction planning and supervision.

■ Logistics and resource coordination.

■ Risk management and environmental plan development.

■ Budget maintenance.

■ Command and control.

■ Reporting and briefing.

■ Personal issue resolution.

■ Troop-leading procedures.

■ Operations security practices.

■ Daily Border Patrol intelligence updates.

■ Construction equipment operation and maintenance.

■ Drafting and surveying.

By Major Christian L. Neels
May-August 2010 Engineer 29

To ensure that the unit has adequate preparation time 

to execute a JTF North mission, initial coordination with 

the unit usually begins a year before the proposed execution date. The JTF North staff assists the unit throughout 

the four phases to ensure mission success. 

Predeployment

Following an initial planning conference outlining unit 

requirements and available support, unit leaders conduct 

an initial visit to the construction site. During this visit, a 

JTF North engineer mission planner (an engineer officer 

from one of the four branches of the military), the Border 

Patrol project managers, and United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) representatives walk the ground with 

the unit leaders, highlighting the scope of work with the 

plans that will be used for the mission. After the construction site reconnaissance, the group conducts an overview 

of the local area and available life support and answers 

questions before the unit leaders return to home station for 

continued planning. Throughout the planning process, unit 

leaders gain valuable experience in—

■ Developing training plans to prepare Soldiers for the

mission.

■ Determining task organization and equipment 

requirements.

■ Coordinating to obtain needed resources.

■ Working within an established budget. 

Leaders also gain proficiency in reading construction 

plans and work with JTF North, the Border Patrol, and 

USACE to agree on a tailored scope of work that the unit 

can achieve during its deployment. Throughout the planning and execution of the mission, the JTF North staff is 

available to provide assistance and recommendations. At 

the end of the predeployment phase, a mission confirmation 

briefing is conducted for JTF North leaders. In preparation 

for this briefing, orders and presentation skills are honed 

at home station and with the JTF North mission planner.

Deployment

During the deployment phase, the unit begins reporting to JTF North, and advance echelon personnel arrive to 

draw equipment and conduct final coordination for a bill of 

materials (BOM) and life support and prepare to receive 

the main body. Although JTF North mission and logistics 

planners are available to assist, unit leaders are expected to take the lead. The unit must inventory and sign for 

equipment, conduct a joint inspection of rented equipment 

with vendors, and finalize the delivery schedule of the project BOM. Additionally, final coordination with the Border 

Patrol and USACE is conducted. Maintaining accountability of unit personnel throughout the deployment process 

tests the unit’s personnel management and tracking systems and reporting procedures.

Employment

Following mission startup briefings from the JTF 

North staff and the Border Patrol, the unit conducts site

A Seabee observes the Armorflex installed for a low-water crossing along the United States–

Mexico border. Reserve Component units use the JTF North engineer support missions to accomplish their annual two-week training requirement. Reserve Component units can rotate their personnel throughout the mission.
familiarization, rehearses medical evacuations, and begins construction on the project. In addition to the leadership required to execute the plan and enforce safety, discipline, and quality control, the unit works with 

multiple outside agencies. Leaders maintain constant 

contact with the Border Patrol for security and intelligence updates, with USACE or their designated representative for project inspections, and with civilian 

contractors delivering BOM and providing equipment 

maintenance.

Soldiers gain critical experience in their MOSs in complex terrain, which is often different from the terrain at 

home station. Soldiers on road construction projects have 

the opportunity to hone their skills operating water trucks, 

bucket loaders, bulldozers, excavators, graders, and a variety of other heavy equipment required for their specified 

scope of work. Personnel conducting lighting missions have 

wire pulls and excavators and may work beside civilian 

electricians when required. Although basic operator preventive maintenance is required on the rented equipment, 

mechanics from the rental company are often provided, reducing unit maintenance requirements.

In addition to construction equipment, JTF North works 

with the Border Patrol and USACE to use materials that 

are unavailable at home station but that the unit may need 

in future operations. Due to the complex terrain, low-water 

crossings often have to be emplaced. Rather than forming 

and pouring a concrete low-water crossing, JTF North and 

USACE prefer Armorflex® matting. These preformed, flexible 8-foot-by-20-foot concrete block mats can be used for 

roadways or erosion control, reducing the time of emplacement, and giving units experience emplacing the material. 

At the completion of the mission, units conduct a joint after 

30 Engineer May-August 2010

action review with JTF North 

personnel, the supported Border Patrol station, and USACE. 

Lessons learned are captured for 

follow-on units and help tailor 

the unit’s training on return to 

home station. 

Redeployment

Following mission completion, the unit’s main body redeploys while the rear party closes 

out contracts for equipment and 

billeting and returns equipment 

drawn from JTF North. Lessons 

learned throughout the deployment process can then be applied 

by the unit to improve redeployment operations. Within 30 days 

of mission completion, the unit 

is required to provide a written 

after action review outlining issues encountered and providing 

recommendations. 

Conclusion

JTF North missions provide junior engineer leaders 

an ideal environment to increase their planning and 

leadership skills while increasing their Soldiers’ 

MOS competencies. The opportunities to work with outside 

agencies and to practice the coordination needed to successfully complete JTF North missions are seldom found in the 

continental United States. The JTF North engineer support missions have proven invaluable to units preparing for 

future operations. 

Units interested in volunteering to execute a homeland 

security engineer support mission can contact the JTF 

North Engineer Division at commercial (915) 313-7609 or 

DSN 666-7609.

Major Neels is an engineer mission planner for JTF 

North. Previous assignments include platoon leader and 

company executive officer with the 2d Engineer Battalion, 

2d Infantry Division, Republic of Korea; task force engineer, 

battalion operations officer, and company commander with 

3d Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, Fort Stewart, Georgia; 

and brigade engineer for the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 

3d Infantry Division, Fort Stewart. He holds a bachelor’s 

in English from Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is a 

graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic Course, Infantry Captains Career Course, and Pathfinder and Airborne Schools. 

Note: The photos used in this article are of a JTF North 

engineer road support mission executed in Nogales, Arizona, in October and November 2009, by a detachment from 

Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Two Six, based at 

Mount Clemens, Michigan.

Navy Seabees construct an improved road east of Nogales, Arizona. To accomplish 

its engineer support missions along the Southwest border, JTF North employs 

engineers from all the military services.
May-August 2010 Engineer 31

I

t's been called the new centerpiece of the city of Alexandria, Virginia. It is the new multistory Department 

of Defense (DOD) administrative office complex. The 

facility is not only the tallest structure in the region but 

also the tallest building ever erected by the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

LEED Certification

What isn't as obvious as the size of the building is 

something that may be more impressive. This

is the first project of this size where the Corps 

is working for Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) Gold building certification and the only one 

in the region that will save 30 percent of the energy of a 

traditional complex—and save taxpayers millions. 

LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification system that was developed by the United 

States Green Building Council. There are different levels of 

certification, based on the number of points earned; LEED 

Gold is one of the top certifications, earning 60–79 points. 

Other certifications are Certified (40–49 points); Silver—

the minimum level to be achieved for federal buildings 

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

Precast exterior wall panels are quickly rising to the top of 17-story and 15-story office towers as construction 

continues on the Department of Defense office complex at the Mark Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

Photo by Marc Barnes, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
shoot for LEED Gold for 

the entire complex. To obtain that level, USACE is 

designing and constructing the complex using 

cutting-edge strategies to 

earn LEED credits. 

Energy-Saving 

Features

The following features are estimated to save 30 percent on energy needed for 

the LEED complex:

Indoor Lighting

The team is taking 

measures to ensure that 

all of the DOD personnel 

will have adequate, yet 

energy-saving, lighting. 

The entire complex will 

have light-emitting diode 

(LED) and fluorescent 

lighting that will cost a 

little more to purchase up front, but will reap tremendous 

savings down the road. This type of lighting requires less 

electricity to run, and LED and fluorescent light bulbs last 

longer than typical bulbs—up to eight years! Lighting use 

will be conserved with the help of room occupancy sensors 

that will automatically turn lights on and off, depending on 

whether a room is being occupied.

Natural lighting will also be used to the fullest. The complex is being constructed with large, shatterproof windows 

that will allow an abundance of outside light into the building. To help distribute this light, work stations in the complex will be built with low cubicle partitions to make sure 

there is adequate light spreading throughout the building.

Indoor Air Quality

Low cubicle partitions will facilitate air circulation, 

thereby improving air quality, which is also a goal of the 

team. The complex will have an energy-efficient central air 

system that will keep indoor air comfortable year-round for 

the personnel. To conserve this air, large windows in the 

complex will be highly insulated to prevent air from leaking outside the building. Since fresh outside air is necessary for healthful indoor air quality, a system will be put 

in place for personnel to allow outdoor air into the building 

without wasting considerable energy.

The team is constructing “green roofs” on the Visitors’ 

Center and Remote Inspection Facility in the complex. 

These rooftops with vegetation on them are not only esthetically pleasing but also hold in warm indoor air during 

winter and keep building interiors cool during the warmer months. Another way the team is keeping indoor air

32 Engineer May-August 2010

(50–59 points); and Platinum (80–100 points). The rating system is centered around prerequisites, credits, and 

points per credit—with credits based on possible environmental impacts and human benefits.

In March 2009, the USACE New York District began 

constructing the design-build complex located at the Mark 

Center in Alexandria, in partnership with Duke Realty 

Corporation and Clark Construction. The complex will be 

home to multiple DOD agencies that are currently occupying leased space throughout the National Capital Region 

and will also include the Washington Headquarters Services, the base realignment and closure (BRAC) executive 

agent for these DOD customers. The project—which when 

completed in September 2011 will become a part of Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia—implements the 2005 BRAC Commission Recommendation Number 133.

The new 1.7-million-square-foot facility sits on a 16-acre 

campus and, when construction is completed, will consist 

of two towers (15-story and 17-story), two parking garages, 

a visitor center, remote inspection facility, and a public 

transportation center that will service the Mark Center 

and surrounding community. The city of Alexandria and 

other team members stressed the importance of making 

this complex certified LEED Gold, and USACE made this 

its mission.

According to the chief of the BRAC 133 Project, the goal 

was to have two certifications for the complex—LEED Silver and LEED Gold. After a review of the original design 

plans showed that only one point separated the project 

from being certified LEED Gold overall, the chief decided to 

A contractor applies materials to seal the exterior wall of the south parking garage at the 

Department of Defense office complex (BRAC 133) project site. 

Photo by Marc Barnes, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
comfortable on some structures is by installing special 

rooftops that will reflect sunlight away from the buildings, 

keeping indoor air cool during the warmer months.

Indoor air toxins are also a threat to air quality, and the 

team is taking measures to minimize this issue. One way 

is by using paints, carpets, and wooden furniture that emit 

lower levels of toxic fumes. After the structures are painted and carpeted and contain their furniture, the team 

will air out the structures before DOD personnel occupy 

the space. In addition, DOD has agreed to use low-toxin 

cleaning products inside the building after the occupants 

move in.

Water Efficiency

The complex will use nearly 50 percent less water than a 

traditional building of the same size—a savings of 4.5 million gallons of drinking water annually. To accomplish this, 

low-flow faucets, urinals, and showerheads will be used 

inside the complex. Outside the complex, there will be no 

landscape irrigation; only drought-tolerant native plants 

will be planted. The team is also constructing a bioswale—

a ditch that catches rainwater and slows the water runoff 

from the site, capturing sediment and contaminants before 

they go into the storm drains—outside most of the main

structures. 

Recycling

When the project is completed, it is estimated that 6 million pounds—or 75 percent—of construction waste will be 

recycled and not placed in disposal sites. The team is also 

recycling some of the trees that they had to remove to construct the complex, taking the wood to create wall paneling 

for some of the complex's interior. Recycling will continue 

once residents are in the building; they will be provided a 

500-square-foot recycling area in their loading dock with 

recycling bins that will also be stationed on each floor of 

the towers.

Transportation

The DOD agencies occupying the complex will encourage their employees to take alternate ways in commuting 

that will save energy and reduce pollution. The agencies 

are doing this by providing special parking for van pools, 

carpools, and fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles in the complex's 

two parking garages and by supplying 300 bicycle racks 

and showers for bicyclists. The complex will also have its 

own mass transit center with access to the Metro Bus, 

Dash Bus, and DOD shuttle services. 

Summary

The BRAC 133 Project is an incredible mission for the 

New York District. As the standards for green building are slowly being worked out, they are going to 

get better, and USACE is helping to lead the way in moving 

them forward.

Dr. JoAnne Castagna is a technical writer-editor for 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York 

District, and can be reached at <joanne.castagna@usace.

army.mil>.

May-August 2010 Engineer 33

The USACE New York District is managing design and construction of the $1.08 billion facility as part of BRAC 2005.

Photo by Marc Barnes, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
34 Engineer May-August 2010

Reducing fossil fuel consumption and conserving air, 

land, and water resources while trying to strengthen operational capacity and meeting current and 

future requirements may appear to be a daunting task, but 

the United States Army’s Office of the Assistant Chief of 

Staff of Installation Management–Army Reserve Division 

is successfully doing both.

The project is the United States Army Reserve Center in 

Las Cruces, New Mexico, and the goal is to get the facility 

off the grid—or self-sustaining in all its energy needs—by 

2012. The center will include a 32,000-square-foot training building, a 4,841-square-foot vehicle maintenance 

shop, a 1,065-square-foot unheated storage building, and 

a 15,760-square-foot organization parking lot. The project 

will be the Army’s pilot program for Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum. The extra 

costs of building to LEED Platinum standards will be paid 

for with energy savings.

LEED is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations 

and Environment laid out in a 2005 policy memorandum 

the Army strategy for integrating the principles and practices of sustainability on Army installations. That memorandum mandated that all military building construction, 

beginning in fiscal year 2008, would achieve at least the 

LEED Silver rating. 

LEED was created to define “green building” by establishing a common standard of measurement, promoting integrated design practices, and transforming the building 

market. LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals. 

Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state-of-the-art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, 

and indoor environmental quality. The United States Green 

Building Council (USGBC) has outlined criteria that engineers can follow 

to gain LEED points. Using innovative 

wastewater technologies, redeveloping 

brownfields, building on sites easily 

accessible to public transportation, and 

reusing materials are just a few of the 

criteria. Under the system in place at 

the time, LEED Silver rating, the minimum for military construction projects, 

required between 33–38 points. LEED 

Gold took between 39–51 points, 

and LEED Platinum was between 

52–69 points. A building with a LEED 

Silver rating consumes 30 percent less 

energy than a standard design. Depending on the steps taken to achieve 

the LEED Silver rating, the extra construction costs can be an added 5 to

30 percent. 

By Lieutenant Colonel Bradley A. Duffey

Army Reserve Construction Project Moving Off

the Electrical Grid

Artist rendering of Las Cruces facility 

From Compliance to Sustainability:
May-August 2010 Engineer 35

There is more to this project than the typical solar panel 

placement, solar-lighted parking 

lot, trees for shade, or waterless 

urinals. A unique feature of the 

project is the use of rammed 

earth materials such as clay and 

sand compressed into formwork. 

Rammed earth construction 

uses noncombustible materials 

that are thermally massive and 

extremely durable. The thermally massive rammed earth walls 

in the Las Cruces project will 

absorb heat during the day and 

slowly leach the heat throughout the buildings, significantly 

reducing interior temperature 

swings. The thermal mass concept is also referred to as “passive design.” Passive systems are 

simple, have few moving parts, 

need minimal maintenance, and 

require no mechanical systems. 

The project also uses bioswales, 

which are landscape elements 

designed to remove silt and 

pollution from surface runoff 

water. These bioswales, an alternative to storm sewers, are 

enhanced with an abundance of 

deep-rooted native plants. The 

cost in using bioswales is less 

than underground piping, and 

additional cost savings come 

from not having to use turf, 

which requires more water and 

maintenance. Incorporating bioswales as part of this project 

increased the USGBC points to 

achieve Platinum status.

The design of the training 

building has a courtyard in the 

middle of the structure. The 

courtyard is not just a trendy feature, but creates a stack 

effect as air naturally moves throughout the courtyard. The 

dimensions of the courtyard, coupled with the inside and 

outside air temperatures, create the airflow rate. The type 

of window in the building gives occupants additional control over the airflow into their offices. This courtyard design, 

using natural airflows, creates an airflow rate similar to a 

household fan and uses no electricity, as opposed to a typical 

household fan that uses an average of 200 watts of electricity. 

The Office of the Assistant Chief Of Staff of Installation Management has quickly accelerated the goal of getting off the grid by 2030 with this Las Cruces project. More 

important, the Army Reserve is using this technology and 

innovation to anticipate future challenges to reduce

consumption of natural resources while at the same time 

meeting current and future mission requirements. 

Lieutenant Colonel Duffey, a student at the National War 

College, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., was a project officer 

for the Office of the Chief of Staff for Installation Management when this article was submitted. His past assignments 

include police mentor team chief, Bala Baluk, Afghanistan; 

operations officer, Afghan Regional Security Integration 

Command–West; and reserve liaison construction officer for 

the Joint Multinational Training Command, Grafenwoehr, 

Germany. He holds a bachelor's from the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, Oklahoma, and a master's from 

Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Artist rendering of central courtyard

Artist rendering of southeast view of facility
36 Engineer May-August 2010
May-August 2010 Engineer 37
38 Engineer May-August 2010

Sustainability is one of the newest Army buzzwords. 

You may ask then, “What is sustainability?” The 

word sustain is of Latin origin, and sustainability is 

the capacity to uphold, maintain, or endure.1

 However, in 

the last several years the term has taken on a life of its 

own, and its meaning has changed from simple to highly 

complex. In the figure below, concentric circles represent 

the “Three Pillars of Sustainability” and their interconnections.2

 If you were to ask most people what sustainability 

is about, you might get answers concerning the state of the 

stock market, the housing market, agriculture, marriage 

and the family, or the earth’s ecosystems and how human 

activities are destroying our planet—all of which describe 

the capacity of certain aspects of our culture or society to 

endure. Although none of these answers are wrong, they 

don’t quite get to the Army perspective. 

Sustainable Practices

Army Sustainability, as defined in the 2010 Army 

Posture Statement, is—

“. . . a program to accelerate transition from the 

Army’s traditional, compliance-based approach in environmental stewardship to a mission-oriented, systems-based 

approach. Army Sustainability objectives are to meet current and future mission requirements worldwide, safeguard 

human health, improve quality of life, and enhance the natural environment. Sustainable practices improve our ability 

to organize, equip, train, and deploy our Soldiers as part of 

the joint force today and into the future. In the context of the 

new Army Sustainability Campaign Plan, sustainability 

involves—

■ Developing, producing, fielding, and sustaining materiel that is more energy efficient, capable of using renewable energy resources, reduces the use of hazardous materials, and generates less waste.

■ Ensuring that the Army has sufficient access to training and testing resources, by incorporating sustainability into operational planning and execution so that 

the Army can continue to effectively train today and in 

perpetuity.

■ Instilling sustainable practices in all levels of our Soldier and civilian education programs.

■ Providing services and operating facilities in a manner

that reduces consumption of resources, promotes the 

use of renewable energy sources, enhances quality of 

life, and continues to protect the environment.”3

By Mrs. Rebecca C. Wingfield

Army Sustainability and Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design

Army Sustainability and Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design

Three Pillars of Sustainability

“. . . a program to accelerate transition from the Army’s 

traditional, compliance-based approach in environmental stewardship to a mission-oriented, systems-based approach. Army Sustainability objectives are to meet current 

and future mission requirements worldwide, safeguard human health, improve quality of life, and enhance the natural environment. Sustainable practices improve our ability 

to organize, equip, train, and deploy our Soldiers as part of 

the joint force today and into the future. In the context of the 

new Army Sustainability Campaign Plan, sustainability 

involves—
May-August 2010 Engineer 39

Sustainable Design and Development

This article focuses primarily on the fourth bullet of 

the Army Posture Statement on Army Sustainability. In 2001, the U.S. government determined that 

any new government facility would be environmentally 

friendly and sustainable. The Sustainable Project Rating 

Tool (SPiRiT) was created and used to design and rate projects for sustainable design and development (SDD) by the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations 

and Housing) announced in January 2006 that the Army 

would transition from its SPiRiT rating system to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for all 

new construction projects, regardless of funding source: 

“LEED buildings demonstrate better life cycle economic 

performance than conventional construction, use less energy 

and water, and have a smaller environmental footprint. According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the 

Federal Government, the nation's largest building owner, 

has been among the top users of the U.S. Green Building 

Council’s LEED rating system, and has also helped to develop and improve the rating system through participation 

in USGBC member committees.”4

The United States Army, as a proponent for LEED in 

this country, is a member of the USGBC, which promotes 

use of the LEED rating system and “green” building practices through its LEED certification program. LEED has 

become the industry standard for SDD and is used to certify buildings and structures as environmentally friendly 

systems. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and, most recently, the 

Energy Independence Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) 

require that SDD practices be used not only to introduce 

energy efficiency into systems and structures but also 

to require energy-use reductions.5

 Since 2007, all U.S.

government structures built in the continental United 

States require third-party certification of performance energy standards for new government buildings—a requirement of the EISA 2007. In its Section 433, performance 

energy efficiency standards specified by the Department of 

Energy state that “the buildings shall be designed so that 

the fossil fuel-generated energy consumption of the buildings is reduced, as compared with such energy consumption by a similar building in fiscal year 2003 (as measured 

by Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey or 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey data from the Energy Information Agency), by the percentage specified in the

following table:

Section 433 also requires that sustainable design principles 

be applied to the siting, design, and construction of buildings subject to the standards.”6

According to EISA 2007, Section 433, a “certification 

system and level for green buildings shall be identified 

by DOE [Department of Energy] in consultation with the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and GSA [Government Services Administration] based on Director of Federal HighPerformance Green Buildings ([part of] GSA) findings.”7

Percentage Reduction By Year

55

65

80

90

100

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Apartment-style living with parking, dumpster, and gazebo
USGBC is the third-party certification agent, and LEED is 

the certification rating system used. 

LEED Rating System

LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals. The minimum certification level to 

be achieved for federal buildings is LEED Silver—the second of four ratings: Certified (40–49 points), Silver (50–59 

points), Gold (60–79 points), and Platinum (80–100 points). 

Projects must achieve all the prerequisites and a minimum 

of 50 percent of the available points to be awarded LEED 

Silver certification. The allocation of points between credits 

is based on the potential environmental impacts and human benefits of each credit. The impacts and benefits are 

defined as the environmental or human effect of the design; 

construction; and operation and maintenance of the building (which include greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel 

use, toxins and carcinogens, air and water pollutants, and 

indoor environmental conditions). To earn LEED certification, the applicant project must meet requirements for all 

the prerequisites and credits worth the minimum number 

of points to earn the desired project rating. The LEED rating system is based on well-founded scientific standards, 

emphasizing state-of-the-art strategies for the following 

credit categories—which show the number of prerequisites, 

the number of credits, and the number of points possible to 

be earned per credit. Project points to be compiled are 100 

base points and 10 bonus points, for a grand total of 110 

points in these categories:

Sustainable Sites prerequisites (2) and credits (10) 

section focuses on environmental concerns related to the 

project landscape, the project hardscape (paved areas), and 

the exterior of the building—specifically, protection of open 

habitat; snow and ice removal; paints and sealants used on 

the building exterior surfaces; alternate methods of transportation (to reduce the need for automobile parking); and 

green roofs. (26 points possible)

Water Efficiency prerequisites (1) and credits (4) section focuses on environmental concerns related to the use 

and disposal of water in the project—for example, waterefficient landscaping; reduced-flow plumbing fixtures; and 

cooling tower water management. (6–10 points possible)

Energy and Atmosphere prerequisites (3) and credits (6) section focuses on building energy performance, as 

shown by modeling; managing refrigerants to eliminate 

CFCs; and using renewable energy. (11–35 points possible)

Materials and Resources prerequisites (1) and credits 

(6) section focuses on environmental impact of materials 

brought into the project (materials selection) and the minimization of landfill and incinerator disposal for materials 

that leave the project (waste reduction and disposal). (8–14 

points possible)

Indoor Environmental Quality prerequisites (3) 

and credits (10) section focuses on occupants’ health, 

safety, and comfort; energy consumption; air change effectiveness; and air contaminant management. (15 points 

possible)

Innovation in Design credits section focuses on use 

of new technologies and up-to-date research to introduce 

cutting-edge techniques into the green building industry. 

(6 points possible)

Regional Priorities credits section focuses on solutions unique to the region’s environmental concerns.

(4 points possible)8

40 Engineer May-August 2010

Kitchen, showing tile floors, solid countertops, stackable high-efficiency washer and dryer, microwave oven,

refrigerator, and dining counter for Soldiers
All members of DOD should support LEED 

certification use and advocate for it at their 

installations and facilities. LEED, by its very 

nature, supports Army sustainability goals, as 

shown in Executive Order (EO) 13514, issued 

in October 2009: 

“Section 1. Policy. In order to create a clean 

energy economy that will increase our Nation’s 

prosperity, promote energy security, protect 

the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the 

health of our environment, the Federal Government must lead by example. It is therefore 

the policy of the United States that Federal 

agencies shall increase energy efficiency; 

measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse 

gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources 

through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater 

management; eliminate waste, recycle, 

and prevent pollution; leverage agency 

acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable 

materials, products, and services; design, construct, 

maintain, and operate high performance sustainable 

buildings in sustainable locations; strengthen the 

vitality and livability of the communities in which 

Federal facilities are located; and inform Federal 

employees about and involve them in the achievement 

of these goals.”9

 (Emphasis added.)

This EO has set as policy sustainability in our building infrastructure. All of the above emphasized statements 

were implemented in LEED 2009 for New Construction and 

Major Renovations, the reference guidebook for the updated 

LEED rating system. Constructing more sustainable Army 

infrastructure allows for availability of more resources in 

support of the mission, Soldiers, and their families. 

Another beneficial attribute of LEED buildings is that, 

in many cases, they are more comfortable to work and 

live in. LEED buildings often feature natural lighting, increased ventilation, and low volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) in construction materials—all contributing to more 

comfort for inhabitants and producing less illness due to 

indoor air pollution. VOCs are the toxic compounds often 

found in many paints, glues, and solvents commonly used 

in building construction products and some industrial 

cleaners. In general, when people work in a sustainable 

building, greater productivity is the result, which leads to 

cost savings.

Sustainable Army Infrastructure

An excellent example of a LEED project at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri, is the Permanent Party

.Barracks project, constructed by S. M. Wilson for 

USACE and completed in April 2010. The project was phase 

3 of a 5-phase plan for permanent-party, single-Soldiers’ 

barracks. This phase 3 project is expected to receive LEED 

Gold certification and was turned over to the Army ahead 

May-August 2010 Engineer 41

of schedule to allow redeploying Soldiers to move directly 

into these new quarters. 

The buildings feature five apartment-style units per 

building. Each barracks unit has space for two Soldiers, 

except for the senior noncommissioned officer’s (NCO’s) 

quarters that are set up for the individual NCO. The second bedroom area in the NCO’s quarters is furnished as a 

living room. The remaining four barracks units have two 

private bedrooms, each with a closet and a vanity. The Soldiers share a bathroom, the kitchen, and laundry. Kitchens 

include solid countertops; microwave ovens; full-size Energy Star-rated refrigerators; and a stacked, high-efficiency 

washer and dryer. There is one parking place per bedroom, 

which allows Soldiers to keep their vehicles clean, secure, 

and close to their quarters. This project also implemented 

preferred parking for two energy-efficient vehicles, with a 

power outlet for electric charges. The project features multiple basketball courts, volleyball courts, horseshoe pits, 

and a walking trail for physical fitness. 

Excellent facilities like these can help increase retention rates and provide a higher quality of life for Soldiers, 

while increasing sustainability of our forces—which is one 

of the goals of the Army Posture Statement. Higher retention rates mean that fewer resources will have to be expended to keep the Army at a high rate of readiness in 

trained personnel. Showing Soldiers that they are valued 

members of the Army—a resource that the Army cannot 

do without—by providing them with high-quality, comfortable living quarters should mean that the Army will not 

have to work as hard to retain its forces.

Reducing the Footprint

Other sustainable strategies that DOD and the 

Army have implemented are policies such as buying green products for cleaning and promoting telework or telecommuting for those people whose jobs qualify 

Recharging outlets for electric cars, preferred parking place, and 

stairs to entrance of 2d floor quarters
for the plan. The telework strategy provides for approximately 20 percent of the workforce to use alternative work 

sites (for example, the home) at any one point in time.10

This is an innovative way to diminish the infrastructure 

footprint of DOD, which can reduce—

■ Energy costs in buildings, if they can be smaller.

■ Number of employees commuting.

■ Automobile emissions.

■ Air pollution.

■ Automobile accidents during inclement weather. 

Not all agencies have employees who can telework, but 

agencies that do can provide a significant cost savings.11

The four goals of Army sustainability cover the functions of the Army and require members of the Army team 

to provide and improve innovative ways to increase the sustainability of the Army. If we stay open-minded to innovation, we can solve many of our sustainability goals.

Mrs. Wingfield is a civil engineer working for the United 

States Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in the Directorate of Environmental Integration. She 

previously spent 13 months working for the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers as a project engineer stationed in 

Basra, Iraq, and at Contingency Operations Base Adder 

near Nasiriyah, Iraq. She has also worked at Fort McClellan, Alabama; for the Department of Defense schools in the 

Federal Republic of Germany; and for the state of Illinois. 

She holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology). In January 2009, she was awarded 

LEED–AP BD+C accreditation (Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design–Accredited Professional in Building 

Design and Construction) by the United States Green Building Council, of which the United States Army is one of the 

leading members.

42 Engineer May-August 2010

Endnotes

1

“Sustain,” Dictionary.com, <http://dictionary.reference

.com>, accessed 22 April 2010. 

2“Sustainability,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

/Sustainability>; W. M. Adams, “The Three Pillars of 

Sustainability,” The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking 

Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century. The World Conservation Union Report of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Renowned 

Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January 2006, <http://www

.iucn.org>, accessed 22 April 2010.

3

“Army Posture Statement 2010,” Information Paper 

on Sustainability, <https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil

/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/information_papers

/Sustainability.asp>, updated 13 January 2010, accessed 

22 April 2010. 

4

“Army Embraces LEED Standard,” 18 April 2006, 

<http://www.facilitiesnet.com/news/article2.asp?id

=4400>, accessed 22 April 2010. 

5

Energy Policy Act of 2005, <www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws

/publ_109-058.pdf>, accessed 26 April 2010.

6

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 

110-140, <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations

/eisa.html>, accessed 22 April 2010.

7

Ibid.

8

LEED 2009 New Construction and Major Renovations, 

2009, USGBC, <www.usgbc.org>, accessed 26 April 2010.

9

EO 13514, 5 October 2009, <http://www1.eere.energy

.gov/femp/regulations/eo13514.html>, accessed 27 April 

2010.

10DOD Instruction 1035.01, Telework Policy, 3 April 

2007.

11Department of the Army TRADOC Regulation 600-18, 

TRADOC Guidance for the Department of Defense Telework 

Policy, 21 July 2004.

Horseshoe pits, volleyball courts, and basketball courts
May-August 2010 Engineer 43

Soldiers from across United States Army, Europe 

(USAREUR), and individuals from the Engineer 

Regiment came together for a maneuver support conference sponsored by the 18th Engineer Brigade at Heidelberg, Germany, in March. During the three-day conference, 

units throughout USAREUR shared lessons learned about 

route clearance operations during their recent deployments 

to Iraq and Afghanistan. The brigade commander, who began the conference with hopes that the information shared 

would go back to the units, said that knowledge is only useful when it is put to use.

Representatives from the 4th, 9th, and 54th Engineer 

Battalions spoke about the lessons they learned during recent deployments and held two panel discussions in which 

members of the Engineer Regiment asked questions to help 

them understand route clearance and how to operate at the 

battalion, company, and platoon levels. 

The operations officer for the 9th Engineer Battalion, 

whose unit operated in five provinces south of Baghdad, 

Iraq, emphasized the importance of the top five lessons 

learned.

Centralized route clearance. This was essential to 

success because it allowed the battalion to plan all route 

clearance operations within the five provinces, letting the 

unit prioritize routes based on the threat in the area. The 

unit cleared an average of 4,000 kilometers a month, but 

when the threat from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) 

increased, the number of kilometers cleared doubled to ensure that the roads were safe for the local populace.

Effects-based operations. The 9th Engineer Battalion planned operations with certain outcomes in mind and 

achieved them in ways that weren’t always obvious. For 

example, one desired outcome was to discover and eliminate IEDs. U.S. forces subjected IED sites to crime scene 

investigation, and sometimes that resulted in finding an 

IED emplacement or network. This practice convinced the 

Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish their own crime 

scene investigation labs. 

Robust engineer equipment fleet. This allowed U.S. 

engineers to complete any engineering mission assigned, 

whether route clearance or general engineering. A large 

fleet rendered the unit less vulnerable to shortages or delays in orders for low-density items or those that weren’t in 

the military ordering system.

Training as multifunctional engineers. Training in 

military occupational specialties other than their own resulted in better-trained Soldiers and helped break up the 

monotony of long duty hours. The change of pace gave general engineering Soldiers time away from construction sites 

and helped keep Soldiers alert during their route clearance 

missions.

Crew rest management. Many Soldiers needed to 

perform maintenance during rest periods and needed more 

time to wind down before they were able to fall asleep. This 

resulted in overall lack of sleep and mission ineffectiveness. To counter this problem, leaders ensured that Soldiers were getting enough sleep by checking rooms during 

lights-out, thus managing crew rest periods.

Route clearance is one of the Engineer Regiment’s most 

important missions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

By keeping open lines of communication and sharing lessons learned, USAREUR leaders hope to improve engineer 

performance and save Soldiers’ lives.

Captain Munson was the public affairs officer for the 

18th Engineer Brigade when this article was written. She 

took command of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 15th Engineer Battalion, Schweinfurt, Germany, in 

July.

Photo by Captain Sonie L. Munson
44 Engineer May-August 2010

The scene described above is not always the result 

when a route clearance vehicle (RCV) encounters an 

improvised explosive device (IED). However, such 

fortuitous outcomes are becoming more common, due to the 

evolution of RCVs that can detect, identify, neutralize, or 

defeat explosive hazards, enabling warfighting commanders to operate with minimal interruption. The Army’s Product Manager, Assured Mobility Systems (PM AMS) leads 

the development, procurement, fielding, sustainment, and 

upgrade of the Army’s young fleet of RCVs. 

Development and Fielding

I

n 2005, the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS), 

which is located at the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle 

Management Command (TACOM LCMC) in Warren, Michigan, created PM AMS with a charter to manage the product life cycle of the swiftly emerging route clearance fleet of 

vehicles. PM AMS reports to the Army’s Project Manager 

(PM), Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles, 

falling under the leadership of the PEO CS&CSS. 

PM AMS approached its mission with a sense of urgency—route clearance capabilities were needed in-theater to 

save Warfighters’ lives. Today, the development and fielding of route clearance capabilities continue to remain important. According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, 

IEDs are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all casualties 

caused by hostile action in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The objective of PM AMS is to provide effective, reliable, and affordable vehicle platforms capable of detecting, 

By Lieutenant Colonel Charles P. Dease

While clearing routes in the war zone, Soldiers keep their eyes and ears open for any visible threats. The environment is 

difficult and inhospitable. The driver accelerates the vehicle, then. . . an explosion! A powerful blast wave ripples through 

the vehicle, creating deafening noise and smoke. Any contents of the vehicle not secured become airborne; the occupants are 

stunned and disoriented. Finally, stillness and awareness return. Moments later, Soldiers rise from the remnants of their 

vehicle. Each passenger is accounted for and checked for injuries. More often than not, the injuries are not severe, and the 

trailing convoy can move forward. It is another victory against the enemy.
May-August 2010 Engineer 45

identifying, neutralizing, and defeating suspected explosive hazards. Most MRAP vehicles are general transportation assets designed to protect their occupants while 

trying to avoid hazards. PM AMS works on the engineering development, procurement, fielding, and sustainment 

of RCVs specifically designed to seek out explosive hazards. Some may look at a destroyed vehicle and think the 

enemy is winning. However, when an RCV encounters an 

IED and Soldiers walk away, that vehicle—regardless of 

its state—has accomplished its mission. The former deputy PM AMS corroborates Soldiers’ confidence in what the 

Army is fielding and their expressed pride in clearing a 

route for others, then walking away from the destroyed 

vehicle. 

Growing Route Clearance Capabilities

In its infancy, PM AMS supported only a few vehicles 

that were procured to fill operational needs statements 

(ONS). As war requirements increased, PM AMS grew as 

well, currently managing 17 configurations of 5 different 

vehicle systems totaling approximately 1,500 RCVs.

The current fleet includes the Husky Vehicle-Mounted Mine-Detection (VMMD) System, the Buffalo® MineProtected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV), the Panther Medium 

Mine-Protected Vehicle (MMPV), the Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Rapid Response Vehicle, and the 

RG-31 Mine-Protected Vehicle (Route Clearance Variant). 

A core PM AMS team—composed of a systems acquisition 

manager, a systems engineer, and a logistician—is responsible for managing each vehicle system’s life cycle. 

Additionally, PM AMS employs multiple support teams 

to perform critical functions to ensure the organization’s 

success. Charged with developing solutions to Army G-3 

validated requirements and capability requests from 

theater, the PM AMS engineer integrated product team 

(IPT) has developed and/or integrated many crew survivability upgrades, including improved seats and seat 

belts; fire suppression systems; gunner platforms; gunner restraint systems; Objective Gunner Protection Kits 

(OGPKs); mine/IED rollers; rocket-propelled grenade and 

explosively formed penetrator protection kits; transparent 

armor (glass); and remote weapon stations. The IPT also 

integrated command, control, communications, computer, 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) upgrades—such as situational awareness cameras, light kits, 

driver’s vision enhancement, and Blue Force Tracker systems. These enhancements have increased capabilities and 

effectiveness of the RCVs.

The business management team ensures that appropriate funding is available and conducts financial and other 

analyses to guarantee proper utilization of resources. The 

U.S. Army Soldiers wrap a towing rope around the front end of an RG-31 MRAP vehicle during a mission 

in Afghanistan.

Photo by Sergeant Teddy Wade
fielding and sustainment team focuses on getting vehicles 

into theater and sustaining them once there. The RCV fleet 

and its subsystems are new pieces of equipment fielded to 

theater to support ONS requirements. The Army’s logistics and sustainment infrastructure does not yet support 

the new equipment; therefore, to sustain the RCV fleet 

in-theater, PM AMS covers the support gap with a refined 

contractor logistics support (CLS) concept. According to the 

PM AMS logistics lead, the CLS concept provides logistics, 

training, maintenance, and repair operations at a number 

of battlefield repair locations in Iraq and Afghanistan. New 

equipment training teams conduct vehicle handoff to units 

and train Soldiers to operate and maintain RCVs and their 

subsystems.

A small quality assurance team ensures that PM AMSdeveloped vehicles are appropriate for Soldier use and meet 

all quality vehicle standards. Additionally, there are three 

other acquisition managers in charge of modernization, 

drawdown efforts in Iraq, and harvesting. The harvesting 

program will take a select number of RCVs and RG-33+ 

MRAP vehicles procured as ONS vehicles, upgrade them to 

RCV specifications, and return them to the RCV fleet. The 

Deputy Product Manager, PM AMS, described this very 

dedicated group that is constantly working to improve their 

responsiveness to the Warfighter. Due 

to urgency and the constantly evolving 

threats, PM AMS realizes that developing an 80 percent solution immediately 

is better than developing a 100 percent 

solution three months from now. 

POR Vehicle Development

PM AMS already has begun to procure and test the three program of record (POR) RCVs—the Husky, the Buffalo, and the Panther. POR-configured 

Huskys, Buffalos, and Panthers have 

already been fielded in-theater—albeit 

under urgent materiel release criteria—in support of current operations. 

The Husky is extremely accurate 

in identifying a buried threat. It 

drives in front of convoys to detect 

suspected explosive hazards, marking them for identification. The Buffalo is a specialized mine-clearing/

anti-IED vehicle equipped with a 

distinctive hydraulic arm that interrogates suspected explosive hazards 

and clears them when necessary. The 

Panther is a command and control vehicle designed to neutralize or defeat 

explosive hazards and is equipped 

with PackBot or TALON® robots. 

The robots provide route clearance 

or EOD units with standoff protection, since Soldiers can deploy and 

operate the robots from the Panther’s

armored workstation. 

PM AMS personnel are simultaneously completing other

full materiel release requirements in preparation for fielding the POR RCV fleet of vehicles to units. The goal is to 

begin fielding POR RCVs in 2011. 

Providing Confidence

Soldiers are highly confident of this lifesaving equipment. The PM AMS team, RCVs, and their integrated subsystems help defeat explosive hazards, clear 

routes, and save Warfighters’ lives. With the confidence 

RCVs provide, Soldiers on route clearance patrol become 

the hunters. Everyone following in convoys has safe passage, because the RCVs are neutralizing the threats.

Lieutenant Colonel Dease is the former product manager 

for PM AMS. He holds a bachelor’s in business administration 

from Claflin College and a master’s in acquisition and contract 

management from the Florida Institute of Technology. He is a 

graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the 

Program Manager Course. A member of the Army Acquisition 

Corps, he has earned level III certification in program management from the Defense Acquisition University. 

46 Engineer May-August 2010

This U.S. Army Panther MMPV is equipped with a mine/IED roller to help 

neutralize or defeat explosive hazards.
May-August 2010 Engineer 47

By Major Gerald S. Law

Employing the Route Clearance

Package in Afghanistan

Numerous articles have been written describing 

route clearance package (RCP) formations, equipment, and targeting; however, minimal references 

exist for employing the RCP. Therefore, this article presents lessons learned in Afghanistan for RCP employment. 

The intent is to change the way we think about tasking, 

managing, and employing the RCP. The article will not 

describe RCP tactics, techniques, and procedures used

in Afghanistan. 

What Is the Problem?

I

n May 2009, the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

(IBCT), 4th Infantry Division, deployed to the Nangarhar, Nuristan, Kunar, and Laghman (N2KL) 

provinces of Afghanistan to support Operation Enduring 

Freedom. N2KL, located in eastern Afghanistan, covers 

more than 25,000 square kilometers but contains only a 

small number of vehicle-accessible routes. Therefore, the

Anti-Afghanistan Forces (AAF), which include all elements 

fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, easily 

predicted where U.S. and coalition forces traveled and frequently inflicted casualties using improvised explosive devices (IED) and complex attacks. 

To combat this threat, Combined Joint Task Force 

(CJTF)–82 allocated three RCPs to support the brigade. 

One RCP consisted of infantry and engineer Soldiers from 

the brigade’s organic special troops battalion and one of its 

infantry battalions. The other two RCPs arrived from the 

engineer brigade supporting CJTF-82 in-theater; however, 

these two RCPs were task-organized as general support to 

the IBCT. 

Who Controls the RCPs?

Who controls the RCPs, decides their missions, 

and approves the routes they clear? These questions raised concerns among staff members and 

commanders from CJTF–82, the IBCT, and the engineer

A Buffalo interrogates a suspected IED site along a key route in Afghanistan.

Photo by First Lieutenant Alex B. Armstrong
48 Engineer May-August 2010

brigade. Doctrine was referenced, slides were briefed, 

and arguments heard; in the end, it came down to common sense. The brigade combat team (BCT) controls the 

RCPs, decides their missions, and approves or disapproves 

the routes they clear. The BCT maintains responsibility for 

mission accomplishment, owns the assets, resources additional enablers, and synchronizes those assets and enablers 

in support of the brigade, battalion, or company. 

For example, a battalion task force within the BCT is 

tasked to conduct a key leader engagement to assess the 

security situation within a village. The battalion develops 

a plan and tasks a company to accomplish that mission. Additionally, the battalion requests resources to facilitate mission accomplishment. The route to the village is expected to 

harbor IEDs, so the battalion ensures freedom of maneuver 

by requesting an RCP from the brigade. Furthermore, the 

battalion requests additional assets such as rotary-wing 

aircraft and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(ISR) assets to support the company and the RCP. The mission has a high probability of success, because the battalion 

task force, which is familiar with the area, decides it would 

be best to attack the device for this mission. The battalion provides a maneuver company to conduct the mission, 

requests the RCP to maintain freedom of maneuver, and

allocates rotary-wing and ISR assets to support the company and the RCP. 

Defeat the Network or the Device?

I

n the counter-IED fight, the BCT must decide to

defeat either the network or the device. The primary 

and most desirable method for defeating the IED is 

to defeat the network. This involves data gathering and 

analysis, intelligence development, and action. Simply, the 

BCT plans and executes missions to remove an IED cell by 

eliminating its leadership, personnel, and resources. Additionally, this article argues that it’s the BCT which mainly 

conducts the “decide, detect, deliver, and assess” process— 

not the RCP’s parent unit. 

Furthermore, if the BCT’s command group or staff believes that the IED network still exists along a route and 

that mission requirements dictate movement or maneuver 

along that route, then the BCT resources and synchronizes 

the RCP to defeat the device. True, RCPs gather data and 

develop intelligence from acquired IEDs and IED parts 

found, which enable the BCT to defeat the network; however, the RCP’s primary purpose at this point is to defeat 

the device. 

What Routes to Clear?

RCPs clear routes in direct support of a BCT maneuver element conducting a mission. RCPs conducting missions that are not in support of a BCT 

An RCP conducts operations in difficult terrain in Afghanistan.

Photo by First Lieutenant Alex B. Armstrong
maneuver element are not defeating the device, but simply putting RCP assets at risk. This argument is based on 

three assumptions: 

■ AAF IEDs can damage or destroy RCP assets. 

■ AAF have more IED-making material and resources 

than U.S. and coalition forces have RCP assets within a

BCT’s area of operations.

■ AAF can predict the routes U.S. and coalition forces use

within a BCT’s area of operations, thus giving the AAF

the initiative. 

Once an RCP clears a route, the AAF simply return and 

reseed it with new IEDs. Even if an IED is found, the RCP 

used its resources to clear AAF resources, which puts the 

RCP at risk and results in a net gain of zero. Therefore, 

RCPs must support a BCT maneuver element tasked to 

conduct a mission. Only then are they defeating the device. 

Examples of BCT maneuver missions RCPs may support 

include—

■ Conduct a key leader engagement or border flag meeting.

■ Deliver humanitarian assistance.

■ Kill or capture a high-value target.

■ Escort a combat logistics patrol.

■ Conduct area or route reconnaissance. 

Furthermore, an RCP defeats a device if it provides 

freedom of maneuver (freedom of movement) to the BCT 

element even if the RCP loses a vehicle in the process. For 

example, an RCP may lose a vehicle, but if the BCT maneuver element maintains freedom of movement along the 

route and succeeds in conducting the border flag meeting 

or delivering humanitarian assistance to a village, then 

the mission has been accomplished. However, an RCP that 

encounters an IED and loses a vehicle without providing 

freedom of movement to an element has allowed the AAF 

to defeat the RCP. 

Remember that RCPs must support a maneuver element tasked to conduct a mission. The RCPs should not be 

sent out on “clear-a-route-we-haven’t-cleared-lately” types 

of missions. The AAF want U.S. and coalition commanders 

to commit RCP assets to clear routes not immediately vital 

to mission accomplishment. 

Lessons Learned

■ RCPs should support battalion missions. (Supported

battalions work to have additional assets for

operations.) 

■ RCPs are not stand-alone elements but support provincial reconstruction teams, agricultural development 

teams, companies, or platoons conducting missions in 

support of brigade, battalion, or company operations. 

■ The job of the RCPs is to clear routes that have, or are

suspected of having, IEDs on them. It is not their job to

clear routes that don’t have IEDs.

■ RCPs are put at risk when units send them to clear

routes with no additional support. When units send

RCPs to clear routes not required by a maneuver element, the RCPs are exposed to risk uselessly.

■ RCP missions should be briefed 96 hours out to the

brigade commander every day for approval. All operations from 24 to 96 hours out should be synchronized

every day in the brigade operations synchronization

meeting. This ensures that the BCT is supporting the

RCP with maneuver elements, ISR, and rotary-wing

aircraft.

■ RCP missions that are not approved usually consist of—

□ Missions that require RCPs to travel on their own.

□ Missions to clear routes not in support of a BCT

maneuver element requirement.

□ Missions nominated by brigade staffs to clear routes

not in support of a BCT maneuver element.

Conclusion

RCPs are a critical asset to every BCT in Afghanistan. However, these assets are limited and must 

be tasked, managed, and employed properly. RCPs 

must support a BCT maneuver element conducting a mission. BCTs can either defeat the network or defeat the device in the counter-IED fight. 

RCPs only defeat the device for the BCT maneuver element they are directly supporting. RCPs are not stand-alone 

units but support a battalion or company tasked to conduct 

a mission. If RCPs are not directly supporting a BCT maneuver element, then no device is defeated even if the RCP 

finds an IED and eliminates it. The brigade committed its 

RCP assets to eliminate an AAF resource, thus having a 

net zero gain. No mission was accomplished, the RCP was 

put at risk, and the AAF simply reseeded the route. RCPs 

should only support a maneuver element conducting a mission requiring freedom of movement or maneuver. 

Major Law is the brigade engineer for 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, 

Colorado. Past assignments include detachment commander and battalion operations officer, 3d Battalion, 361st Engineer Regiment, 5th Armored Brigade (Training Support 

Brigade), Fort Carson; assistant brigade engineer, company 

commander, 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division, 

Republic of Korea; platoon leader, 618th Light Equipment 

Engineer Company, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina; and platoon leader and assistant brigade 

engineer, 307th Engineer Battalion, 82d Airborne Division, 

Fort Bragg. He holds an associate’s degree in welding engineering from Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho; a bachelor’s in 

industrial engineering from Utah State University, Logan, 

Utah; a master’s in geology and geophysics from the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of Science 

and Technology), Rolla, Missouri; and a master’s in military 

arts and sciences from the United States Army Command 

and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 

May-August 2010 Engineer 49
50 Engineer May-August 2010

I

ndividual augmentee taskings are daunting enough by 

themselves, but getting orders as a senior captain to 

be a chief engineer on a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) staff was especially intimidating. Things 

started to look up when I finally made contact with the 

British captain that I was replacing, but then I discovered 

that as chief engineer, I was replacing not only him, but his 

entire platoon as well.

The duty description did little to calm initial fears:

Advises Commander, Headquarters Support Group, on all 

matters concerning civil engineering and building construction support. Leads a team of more than 100 Soldiers and 

civilians; evaluates legal construction requirements; evaluates headquarters constructional and maintenance requirements, initiates inputs for funding, and supervises execution and quality control; develops specifications for NATO 

construction projects, acts as project officer, coordinates 

projects concerning purchasing, contracting, and local firm 

selection; oversees site/space management; leads military 

in case of specialized survey; supervises more than 25 local 

civilian employees; acts as technical expert during contract 

award committees; supervises fire department; supervises 

work force and prioritization of all daily work requests 

across the International Security Assistance Force Headquarters Camp.

I knew I could handle the job of project manager, but 

wondered about acting as contract manager, technical expert in building things, and managing a fire department. 

After a meeting in Kabul with the British captain and his 

platoon, the “right seat ride” began. I learned that I would 

be responsible for all the daily maintenance of the camp, 

site management and all contract work on the camp up to 

€10,000, the fire department, and all NATO paperwork for 

the national assets that were on the camp. 

At first, my crew consisted of just two air conditioning 

technicians, a metal worker, and three other workers for 

the entire camp. I was also managing large contracts for 

plumbing and generator support. Both helped to reduce 

the initial problems resulting from the limited number of

workers available. As time went by, noncommissioned officers from NATO armies arrived and were assigned to our 

shop: an aviation electrical repair specialist, an aide de 

camp, a personnel specialist with experience as a construction engineer, a combat engineer, and a generator mechanic. Luckily, a contract through NATO for a civilian workforce had been started. Soon our workforce increased by 

two civilian managers and about 20 local national skilled 

laborers, and we were able to manage the approximately 20 

new work orders that came in daily. From something nearly chaotic, we produced a system where work orders were 

dropped off at the lodging office or at our shop and then 

assigned a priority. The priorities were relatively fixed, so 

it was no problem getting jobs into the right order. This allowed concentration on contract jobs occurring outside the 

camp’s daily maintenance.

There were usually 8 to 10 job sites—separate from routine maintenance on the camp—to be supervised daily. By 

the end of my six-month rotation, there were 20 or more 

companies available to bid on each job. To bring in a contractor, job requests had to be outside the scope of the local 

workforce. The NATO equivalent of a performance work 

statement would be drawn up and taken to the contract 

office. Representatives from interested companies were escorted individually to the sites and told what they would 

have to accomplish. Bids were reviewed and the company 

chosen. After the contract was written and signed (and 

security checks performed), work times were coordinated 

so that the company’s workers could get on the camp with 

whatever materials they needed. After that, all that was 

required was supervision, quality control and, finally, approval of the completed project. 

Escorting contractors individually became a job in 

itself. Eventually a system evolved with a weekly tour, 

lasting from one to three hours, with all the contractors 

who wanted to bid on current jobs. The contractors then 

had a week to bid on all the jobs they wanted. (Emergency jobs were awarded based on the ability and history of 

the contractors.) The system made things run smoothly, 

By Major Matthew F. Louvet
May-August 2010 Engineer 51

especially for the contracting office that handled all the 

paperwork. 

Working in a NATO environment had its own set of challenges. For example, there were security issues of getting 

local nationals into secure areas to make repairs. To ensure proper supervision, the facility security force was assisted by someone from whatever shop needed the repairs. 

If escorts were not available on a particular day, repair jobs 

were time-shifted, adding another layer of negotiations to 

the process.

There was also a grey line dividing NATO jobs from national jobs. The NATO work force was not funded to perform work for the national assets that resided on the camp. 

It did perform such work, but costs were billed directly to 

the country involved. If the NATO engineer shop had not 

done repairs for the individual nations, the nations would 

have had to hire, escort, and pay their own contractors 

to get the work done. None of the national elements had 

the same knowledge of local contractors as the NATO engineer office, which was able to satisfy all the NATO and

national assets.

The NATO chief engineer was responsible for keeping 

data, which was reported monthly to NATO headquarters, on the square footage occupied by each country. This 

number was translated into a dollar amount and billed 

to the individual countries. Managing the land inside the

compound became an exercise in negotiations as the individual countries sought to expand their footing on a camp 

with limited space. Also, there were other agencies working 

as part of NATO that wanted to establish themselves on 

the compound. Any new construction or expansion brought 

with it an increase on the electrical load, water consumption, and space requirements for new personnel. 

The easiest part of the job was managing the fire department. It was a contract job with two shifts that worked onsite for six months each. Thankfully, there was no need to 

call on them to perform their duties.

The tasker offered a wealth of knowledge, although that 

was not obvious until it was finished. Project management 

was essential to successfully performing the task at hand 

and keeping the leaders happy. A good crew of workers, 

from all walks of life and backgrounds, was critical to the 

success of every undertaking. Without the international 

help and the local contractors, the little team would never 

have been able to deal with all the daily work orders and 

ongoing contracted projects.

Major Louvet was the chief engineer for the International Security Assistance Force headquarters camp while on 

a six-month Worldwide Individual Augmentation System 

tasking. He is the brigade engineer at 3d Brigade Combat 

Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Afghani contractors replace a concrete roof at the International Security Assistance Force headquarters camp.
52 Engineer May-August 2010

I

n 2008, engineer units in the United States Army 

Reserve completed transformation to a fully modular 

force. Nearly all the engineer units struggled with 

turning in old equipment and reorganizing their formations to the new modular structure. With the new modular organization finalized, the question arose: Do engineer 

modularity and the deployable command post (DCP) concept and structure work in the Army Reserve? The old models of legacy formations and operations worked for a legacy 

force, but will they work for a modular force, and how do we 

function day to day with DCPs? 

Making the Concept Work

This article describes how the 463d Engineer Battalion makes modularity and the DCP concept work in 

the Army Reserve. The battalion has been able to leverage the concepts of modularity through a mix of current 

doctrinal and legacy staff functionality. The derived command post configurations enabled the staff to effectively 

provide command and control across the battalion’s sphere 

of influence.

As the new operations (S-3) officer of the 463d, which 

was newly reorganized as a modular engineer battalion,

I was uncertain how the modular staff was supposed to 

function. I sought guidance from the battalion commander 

on his intent and vision for the command. Furthermore, 

I consulted with my peers and other field grade engineer 

officers across the Army Reserve to see what other units 

were doing, what techniques were being used, and what issues and challenges they were dealing with. My goal was to 

seek out and leverage the best tactics, techniques, and procedures rapidly in order to develop a plan that would meet 

the battalion commander’s intent of maximizing training 

time for operations in preparation for a potential deployment the following year. 

Doctrinal Foundation

The DCP construct dates back to 2003 as a concept 

in the Objective Force Initiatives for higher-echelon 

headquarters staffs configuring for contingency 

operations. Today, we see engineer brigades and higher 

commands operating DCPs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

two DCPs operate on a cyclic rotation, with DCP-1 planning and executing a given operation while DCP-2 is planning the next operation or standing down for resupply/

recovery. The DCP concept provides flexibility and

continuous battle command for full spectrum operations.1

Both DCPs can perform independent operations in noncontiguous areas of operations.2

 According to the table of organization and equipment (TO&E) unit reference book published 

by the United States Army Maneuver Support Center (now 

the United States Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence [MSCoE]), the doctrinal purpose of the DCP for a 

modular engineer battalion is to exercise battle command 

over dispersed locations or to augment the brigade troops 

battalion of maneuver brigade combat teams.3

 The reference 

also provides the layout for each of the two DCPs and descriptions of personnel and equipment authorizations. 

Operational Environment

I

n general terms, Army Reserve units are either preparing for or executing battle assemblies or extended 

combat training operations or conducting missions in 

an area of responsibility to support contingency operations. 

In today’s era of persistent conflict, many Army Reserve 

units do all of the above simultaneously. Further, as a result of numerous deployments to support contingency operations and many other external factors, unit personnel 

strength is declining and more Soldiers are nondeployable. 

The effects include undermanned staffs with essential or 

primary positions filled by lower grade or less-experienced

personnel. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because it 

provides opportunities for junior Soldiers to step up and 

perform at the next level, ultimately improving our junior 

leader core leadership attributes. However, all these factors make planning and executing operations even more 

difficult. Combine these factors with an aggressive Army 

Force Generation “available” year training plan developed 

in preparation for a deployment, and the outcome is a battalion leadership triad faced with a complex synchronization and resource challenge.

Concept Challenges

While reflecting on the DCP doctrine, consulting 

with peers, and observing higher headquarters 

trying to operate daily under the DCP construct, 

it became apparent during battle assembly/home station 

periods that the DCP concept inhibits staff cohesion. Further, it degrades unity of effort by promoting stovepiping 

and additional battle rhythm requirements. One reason 

it did not work was that the staff members who transformed the unit—and had a better understanding of how to

By Major Jon Brierton
May-August 2010 Engineer 53

operate under the modular concepts—were gone, due to 

promotions and other transfers. The new staff members 

did not fully grasp the new concepts and complexities of 

operating under the DCP construct. Another reason was 

that there were not enough Soldiers assigned, and the 

battalion could not afford to have the staff split and going 

in two separate directions. Staffs operate better under a 

legacy construct and mentality because it is familiar and 

has proven to work efficiently. However, when the battalion transitions from a training focus to an operational focus conducting split-based or decentralized operations, the 

DCP concept works because it provides flexibility and effective command and control.

Concept Incorporation

As the start of the new training year approached, 

the battalion staff developed an aggressive plan 

.to leverage training events in order to set conditions for a potential deployment while continually striving 

to improve readiness. The MSCoE unit reference book provides a doctrinal DCP organizational template that is in 

line with the unit manning roster. However, this configuration does not always fit every situation. The first order of

business was to develop DCP structures that would best fit 

the battalion’s situation and training plan for both normal 

and split-based operations (Figure 1). For normal operational periods, the staff was configured in legacy functional 

roles with the executive officer (XO) in charge of the adjutant and supply staff primary officers, and the S-3 officer was in charge of the intelligence, communications, and 

S-3 section (which included plans). This staff configuration 

would not work for split-based operations, because not all 

staff functions reside under one of the battalion field grade 

officers. Many other situations and external influences required alterations to the standard DCP structure as well. 

For instance, according to doctrine, the DCP-1 commander 

is the battalion XO. However, in this instance, the XO was 

not available for the mission, so the battalion commander 

led DCP-1 and the S-3 officer led DCP-2. 

 One of the key attributes of modularity is tailorable “plugand-play” functionality. The DCP offers the same tailorable 

flexibility. The DCP-1 staff was formulated and manned with 

approximately 14 personnel to achieve command and control 

of engineer forces conducting construction operations to support Operation Beyond the Horizons in Honduras. Logisticians who focused their efforts on providing operational and 

Figure 1

Legend:

BC battalion commander

CMD command

DCP deployable command post

EVAC evacuation

HHC Headquarters and Headquarters Company

INTEL intelligence

PSC personnel service company

S-1 adjutant

S-2 intelligence

S-3 operations and training

S-4 supply

S-6 communications

TREAT medical treatment section

UMT unit ministry team
engineer logistic support to the Beyond the Horizons rotational task force comprised the majority of the DCP-1 staff. 

To manage expectations and provide some predictability, the 

battalion developed a phased approach to meeting training 

goals, fulfilling operational requirements, and meeting the 

commander’s intent (Figure 2). 

Phase I. During this phase, the plan established expectations and provided task and purpose for the battalion and 

all of the subordinate units by phase. The battalion operated along legacy functional staff lines and maintained the 

normal battle rhythm. 

Phase II. As we approached Phase II, battle rhythm requirements increased, and we transitioned into DCP staff 

configurations. 

■ During Phase II-A, the battalion commander and his 

DCP-1 staff deployed to Honduras to support Operation

Beyond the Horizons, while I led DCP-2, consisting of 

the remainder of the staff, in Wheeling, West Virginia. 

DCP-2 was responsible for maintaining situational 

awareness and battle tracking of DCP-1 in Honduras 

and the 336th Engineer Company in Germany. DCP-2 

was also setting conditions for subordinate unit extended combat training while conducting day-to-day

operations and preparing for our deployment to Camp 

Dawson, West Virginia, to support Operation Super

Echo, the 412th Theater Engineer Command’s course to

combine military occupational specialty (MOS) 21J,

vertical construction operator, with MOS 21E, horizontal 

construction operator. 

■ During Phase II-B, DCP-2 deployed to Camp Dawson and hosted Operation Super Echo while concurrently providing tactically focused extended combat training for headquarters and field service companies and 

maintaining situational awareness and battle tracking 

across the battalion. Midway through Phase II-B, 

DCP-1 redeployed to the continental United States and 

joined DCP-2 at Camp Dawson. With both the command posts together at Camp Dawson under the battalion commander, the staff reassembled and resumed 

normal functionality and planned for future operations 

for the remainder of training year 2009 and the first 

quarter of training year 2010. 

Lessons Learned

To meet the commander’s intent and improve readiness across the battalion, the major points to make 

the DCP concept work are to—

54 Engineer May-August 2010

Figure 2

Legend:

CSTC Combat Service Training Center

DCP deployable command post

EN CO (H) engineer company (horizontal)

EN CO (V) engineer company (vertical)

MRBC multirole bridge company

Plan Conf planning conference

463 EN BN (DCP2)

463 EN BN (DCP1)

(Continued on page 56)
May-August 2010 Engineer 55

There are probably more glamorous subjects to read 

about, but this one is important to everything we 

do—every day—in the Army: standards. There is a 

standard established for every task that we do in the course 

of our daily efforts. But how do we determine the correct 

standard? In the engineer field, this is done by the Collective Training Division (CTD) at the United States Army 

Engineer School. Anyone out in the field who has not visited the Engineer School may have no idea about what CTD 

does. Since individuals in CTD are either retired or active 

duty military, they consider the same questions you have. 

Training management in today’s modular Army is confusing to many, and regardless of the technologies available, 

most people are too busy to spend their time looking for 

the latest and greatest items available. The biggest problems for training management seem to be—Who does 

what? Where do I find it? Whom can I talk to? What is the 

phone number? For example, a unit executive officer had 

been searching for collective task outlines for more than 

a month when he stumbled onto a link to CTD, allowing 

us to quickly steer him in the right direction for all of his 

training management needs. The first question—Who does 

what?—is easy; answers to the remaining questions above 

can be addressed to the telephone contact or at the online 

site at the end of this article.

Collective Training Division

CTD is an organization within the Engineer School 

Directorate of Training and Leader Development 

(DOTLD) that is responsible for the analysis and 

development of all collective training products for every engineer unit in the Army. The chief of CTD works for the 

DOTLD. There are currently five civilian employees and 

two senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) assigned to 

the division. These NCOs typically have had extensive

platoon sergeant experience and recent deployments to today’s operational theaters. Civilians, 

along with their institutional knowledge, bring 

their experience of writing tasks and developing 

training products for the 

field. These combined attributes offer a fresh perspective to training product development. 

Combined Arms 

Training Strategy

The engineer field 

has 18 different 

military occupational specialties (MOSs). 

CTD develops collective 

training and evaluation 

outlines (T&EO) for each 

MOS. Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) products 

have replaced the Army Training and Evaluation Program 

(ARTEP) manuals. As the Army’s overarching strategy for 

current and future training of the force, CATS is designed 

for use within the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) 

cycle—enabling the unit to ramp up its training intensity 

according to its deployment cycle. The basis for CATS is 

a series of proponent, unit, and institutional strategies 

describing training events, frequencies, and resources required to train to standard—and describing how the Army 

will train the total force to standard in the institutions and 

units. CATS also documents the quality and justification 

for all training resources required to execute the training. Collective task outlines are accessible through Digital 

Training Management Systems (DTMS).

Full Spectrum Operations

Mission-Essential Task List

The Engineer School, in conjunction with the Combined Arms Center–Collective Training Division 

(CAC–CTD), is responsible for the development 

of the theater engineer command and engineer brigades’ 

full spectrum operations (FSO) mission-essential task list 

(METL). The review of the FSO METL is conducted semiannually by the Army METL Review Board (AMRB), which 

ensures that the Headquarters, Department of the Army 

(HQDA)-approved standardized FSO METLs are synchronized with— 

■ Strategic environment as defined by the Army Training 

and Leader Development Guidance (ATLDG) and

ARFORGEN. 

■ Table of organization and equipment (TO&E)-designed

mission (mission profile) of selected Army brigade and 

higher-echelon units. 

By Mr. Shawn M. Bowen

The Role of the Engineer School 

in Collective Training

The Role of the Engineer School 

in Collective Training
56 Engineer May-August 2010

■ Any changes in doctrine and the regulations governing 

task design.

CAC is the HQDA executive agent for the FSO METL, 

which represents those minimum fundamental doctrinal 

tasks that a unit was designed to perform in any operational environment.

A standardized FSO METL provides the readiness community a yardstick with which to compare the readiness 

of like units, while providing unit leaders the flexibility 

needed to focus on those fundamental METL tasks that 

need training. Unit leaders train on FSO METL supporting tasks and under conditions that support mission readiness. Commanders will use HQDA-approved, standardized 

METL and focus training on the METL tasks not assessed 

as “trained.” Units will train on one METL—their FSO 

METL, which is augmented only when the unit is assigned 

a mission it was not designed to perform. If the assigned 

mission is outside of the unit’s core functions/designed capabilities, the commander will analyze the assigned mission, identify the mission-essential tasks and, if necessary, 

add additional tasks to the unit’s FSO METL as a temporary modification to accommodate the assigned mission. 

Technical Rescue Collective Tasks

The newest additions to the engineer collective tasks 

are technical rescue (TR) tasks, which enable engineer leaders to enhance the training strategy for 

civil support operations. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (known as the Stafford Act) is the primary federal statute giving the President 

power to direct federal agencies to provide assistance to 

state and local authorities during an incident. The purpose 

of this assistance is to save lives, alleviate human suffering, protect public health and safety, and lessen or avert 

the threat of a catastrophe. In the past, engineers have 

provided civil support and most certainly will be called 

on in the future to do so. It is imperative that engineers 

have the knowledge and trained capabilities to assist state 

and local governments in time of need. TR is a complex operation combining Department of Defense personnel and

civilian first responders. Legal thresholds and certifications are areas of concern, but there is no doubt that bringing engineers to the fight dramatically enhances capabilities and saves lives. 

CTD Access and Contact

Through the Army Knowledge Online (AKO) site for 

Engineer Collective Training, you will have access 

to the above-mentioned products and the people 

within CTD. For further information about training management, call (573) 563-6237.

Mr. Bowen is a training developer for the United States 

Army Engineer School Collective Training Division at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He retired from the Army after 20 

years of service and holds a bachelor’s in business administration from Columbia College in Columbia, Missouri.

■ Alter the task organization to fit the situation in order

to leverage flexibility during split-based or decentralized operations.

■ Operate as a legacy functional staff during normal operational periods with the XO or DCP-1 commander 

overseeing the adjutant and supply staff sections, while 

the S-3 or DCP-2 commander oversees the intelligence, 

S-3, and communications staff sections.

■ Synchronize staffs jointly between the XO at DCP-1 and

the S-3 at DCP-2.

■ Develop depth on the bench by empowering NCOs

through cross-training in multiple staff section roles 

while inculcating the traits of agility and flexibility.

■ Ensure staff situational awareness and understanding

by maintaining a common operational picture and battle rhythm.

Ultimately, the DCP concept was designed to enable 

flexibility and provide continuous battle command. This 

does not necessarily mean that DCP-1 is the day shift and 

DCP-2 is the night shift or vice versa. However, they could 

function that way if the situation dictated.

Conclusion

The DCP construct, coupled with synchronized staff 

actions, enables the battalion to maintain unity of 

effort during split-based operations or deployments 

while retaining agility and flexibility. Although not the 

textbook example, the 463d Engineer Battalion was able 

to leverage the capabilities of the DCP concept and the junior staff to meet the commander’s intent. Furthermore, 

through executing the lessons learned, the 463d improved 

readiness within the battalion and across the 412th Theater Engineer Command. 

“Hammer On, Drive It Home!”

Major Brierton is the executive officer of the 463d Engineer Battalion. He has served as the chief of operations for 

the 412th Theater Engineer Command, deployed to Iraq as 

the plans officer and battle captain for the 983d Engineer 

Battalion, and commanded a light equipment engineer company. He is a graduate of the United States Army Command 

and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 

holds a master’s in organizational management from the 

University of Phoenix.

Endnotes

1

Field Manual 3-34, Engineer Operations, April 2009,

p. 2-9.

2

United States Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-01, United States Army Objective 

Force Battle Command (C4ISR) Concept, 2003, p. 43.

3

Maneuver Support Table of Organization and Equipment 

Reference Book, United States Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, April 2008,

p. 9-22.

(“Leveraging,” continued from page 54)
May-August 2010 Engineer 57

Technical rescue is a discipline most commonly associated with civilian firefighters and local emergency 

responders, but the principles of technical rescue 

are exercised quite frequently throughout the Engineer 

Branch of the United States Army. Technical rescue refers 

to those aspects of saving life or property that employ the 

use of tools and skills that exceed those normally reserved 

for firefighting, medical emergency, and rescue crews. 

These disciplines include the following:

■ Rope rescue

■ Swiftwater rescue

■ Confined-space rescue

■ Ski rescue

■ Cave rescue

■ Trench/excavation rescue

■ Building collapse rescue1

Although the Branch is consumed by the need to sustain 

combat, geospatial, and general engineering operations 

throughout the world, the fourth element of operations—

civil support—must not be overlooked. The United States 

Army is continually called on to serve at home and abroad 

in response to natural and man-made catastrophes. In 

2001, the Army helped after the attacks of 11 September; 

in 2005, it responded to Hurricane Katrina; and in 2010, it 

sent troops to help after the catastrophic earthquakes in 

Haiti on 12 January. 

In 2002, United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established to assist federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate support for civil authorities. 

Since then, three brigades have been scheduled to serve 

as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and HighYield Explosive (CBRNE) Consequence Management Reaction Forces (CCMRFs). Although tailored to CBRNE 

events, a natural prerequisite exists for the incorporation 

of a technical rescue element within these brigades. Most 

of the contingency plans require that the military provide 

elements to help coordinate and execute response to events 

perpetrated against the United States. 

In July 2009, the commander of NORTHCOM testified 

before Congress about the CCMRF’s composition and capabilities. He explained that a CCMRF is a task force of approximately 4,700 people that operates under the authority 

of Title 10. It is self-sustaining and may be tailored to any 

CBRNE event. A CCMRF is composed of units with unique 

CBRNE training and equipment from the Army, the United 

States Marine Corps, the United States Navy, the United 

States Air Force, and general purpose units trained to operate in proximity to a hazardous or contaminated environment. CCMRF capabilities include the following:
58 Engineer May-August 2010

■ Event assessment

■ Robust command and control

■ Comprehensive personnel and equipment decontamination

■ Hazardous material handling

■ Air and land transportation

■ Aerial evacuation

■ Mortuary affairs

■ General logistical support to extended operations 

Although focused toward United States Army Chemical Corps responsibility, a dedicated technical rescue company providing rescue efforts would alleviate some of the 

burdens of the chemical response force, allowing it to focus primarily on the chemical response. According to a former commander of the Army’s 911th Engineer Company 

(Technical Rescue), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, CCMRFs already have a technical rescue capability requirement. 

CCMRF-1 uses a chemical-biological 

incident response force platoon and 

CCMRF-2 and CCMRF-3 use United States Army Reserve firefighting detachments combined to form 

a platoon-size capability. However, 

a platoon-size element cannot conduct sustained technical rescue operations, especially in response to a 

major collapse mission. The CCMRF 

also has a heavy equipment requirement, which has been filled by the

Air Force.

If a company structured the same 

as the 911th were established, it could 

provide an immediate capability even 

greater than that of typical civilian 

first responders. It could provide an 

intermediary between civilian and 

Department of Defense (DOD) responders, and also provide assets such 

as heavy lifting capabilities through 

the use of engineering equipment not 

commonly found outside of dedicated 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) task forces located 

nationwide. 

DOD now has two units with bioterrorism response capabilities—the 

Army's Technical Escort Unit and the 

Marine Corps's Chemical-Biological 

Incident Response Force. Separating the technical rescue aspect from 

these elements and structuring selfsustaining units focused on technical 

rescue would allow mobilization of the 

elements to disasters without compromising the overall effectiveness of our national security 

posture. 

The U.S. response to the 12 January earthquakes in 

Haiti illustrates the need to strengthen the nation’s technical rescue response capability. U.S. military engineers used 

heavy equipment to clear rubble obstructing rescue sites 

and assessed the stability of damaged structures. While focusing on the restoration of essential public services such 

as electricity and water, U.S. military engineers also had 

an important role to play in search and rescue activities, 

working with civilian structural experts from the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers. Personnel trained in 

multiple aspects of technical rescue are in extremely high 

demand, and FEMA task forces from all over the nation 

were deployed to conduct rescue operations after the earthquakes. It was the first time that California Task Force 1 

(CA-TF1) from Los Angeles was deployed as an entire element of more than 200 personnel. 

Soldiers from the 911th Engineers perform search and rescue operations 

at the Pentagon after the 11 September 2001 attack.
Unfortunately, once Los Angeles’s best-trained personnel were 

deployed to Haiti, California itself suffered from catastrophic 

landslides resulting in a need 

for technical rescue personnel 

to respond. If more Soldiers who 

deployed to Haiti had been ready 

to perform urban search and rescue operations without on-site 

training, perhaps more CA-TF1 

personnel could have remained 

stateside to perform their missions of national response. An 

alternative plan would be for the 

Army to send a small element, 

proficient in technical rescue, 

embedded in DOD assets such as 

FEMA. The technicians in that 

element could bridge the gap 

between military and civilian 

responders, knowing how to allocate assets and which military 

personnel were best suited to 

the situation. 

Looking downrange also 

highlights the possible need 

for elements trained and 

equipped to conduct technical 

rescue operations. Some of the 

skills—especially rope rescue—

associated with technical rescue could be essential. Also, 

being able to provide relief efforts after insurgent

attacks could greatly aid in the 

campaign of winning over the 

trust of the local populace. On 

numerous occasions in Iraq, civilians tried to handle rescue efforts following large-scale 

insurgent attacks. Having elements trained, or being able 

to train, local responders in rescue efforts would show our 

continual dedication to improving local conditions. Already 

in place within the armed forces are elements that serve as 

combat search and rescue (CSAR) teams. One element in the 

forefront in these operations is the United States Air Force 

CSAR teams. According to one estimate, 2,800 lives have 

been saved by Air Force CSAR since 2001.2

 The Air Force 

even has a specialty—combat rescue officer—which was 

created to help strengthen the service’s ability to conduct 

personnel recovery. One phase of the combat rescue officer 

course focuses specifically on technical rescue. 

Having engineer companies or components trained in 

technical rescue would greatly strengthen the Army’s response capabilities when called on to deploy for support 

operations throughout the world. A United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report about Hurricane 

Katrina stated: “Several factors affected the military’s 

ability to gain situational awareness and organize and execute its response, including a lack of timely damage assessments, communications difficulties, force integration 

problems, uncoordinated search and rescue efforts, and 

unexpected logistics responsibilities. Without detailed 

plans to address these factors, DOD and the federal government risk being unprepared for the next catastrophe.”3 

Task forces composed of air assets, medical personnel, and 

construction engineers were developed and put into play. 

On multiple occasions throughout the GAO report, the call 

for a structured military element to coordinate and execute 

search and rescue efforts—from the actual efforts to the logistical planning and coordination—was highlighted. The 

report emphasizes the inability to find common ground between civilian and DOD elements to allow a fluid response. 

One issue is a lack of common terminology, which is a key 

component of the National Incident Management System 

used by civilian authorities to coordinate joint efforts at an 

emergency site. 

A 911th Soldier practices a complex highline rope rescue at the Fort Belvoir,

Virginia, hospital.

May-August 2010 Engineer 59
Having engineers throughout key response divisions 

such as the 82d Airborne Division would greatly enhance 

their response efforts. Sending selected Soldiers and officers to technical rescue training with the 312th Training 

Squadron at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, Texas, 

and the 911th Engineer Company could ensure that the 

military had personnel trained in rescue who could respond 

to future incidents. There are already officers throughout 

the Army who are dedicated to the coordination of federal, 

civilian, and DOD operations, but having lower-echelon 

personnel who can coordinate those elements could greatly 

improve efficiency. Having a foundation in various rescue 

disciplines would permit an easy transition from Soldier to 

first responder. This would eliminate the need to get onthe-spot training on marking buildings according to FEMA 

standards or conducting personnel search and recovery using the right tools. 

The Engineer Regiment’s motto of “Essayons” is demonstrated, time and time again, as members of the 911th Engineer Company show their resiliency and no-quit attitude 

on every rescue operation. Establishing that capability in 

key regions throughout the nation would greatly contribute 

to the Army’s overall readiness posture when performing 

civil support operations. 

Staff Sergeant Cuartas is the operations noncommissioned officer (NCO) and information management officer 

for the 911th Engineer Company, 12th Aviation Battalion 

at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Previous assignments include 

team leader, battalion unit-level logistics system–ground 

NCO, and platoon leader’s gunner with 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas. He has deployed twice for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Endnotes

1

Thomas Vines and Steve Hudson, High Angle Rescue 

Techniques, Mosby, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 August 2004.

2

Michael Fabey, “U.S. Air Force Battles to Keep CSAR 

Mission,” Aviation Week, 13 January 2009.

3

United States Government Accountability Office Report GAO-06-643, “Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and 

Exercises Needed to Guide the Military Response to Natural Catastrophic Disasters,” May 2006.

Soldiers from the 911th Engineers practice sling loading while the immediate response team prepares to lift off.

60 Engineer May-August 2010
May-August 2010 Engineer 61

Since the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle 

of Reset–Train/Ready–Available was established in 

2005, units and installations throughout the Army 

have been viewing all aspects of readiness, training, and 

Army life though this new lens. The executive officer of 

1st Engineer Battalion, Fort Riley, Kansas, framed the 

sustainment and logistics plans, and the battalion operations and training officer framed the training plan for the 

battalion around ARFORGEN. The 1st Infantry Division 

chief of staff directed the assistant chief of staff for resource 

management to come up with new graphics and charts to 

show how units spend operational funds based on this cycle, rather than on a fiscal year. However, family readiness 

is still not framed in terms of ARFORGEN.

Family readiness is a task outlined to all commanders 

in Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy. Units 

give it a high priority, but there is no standing operating 

procedure or guideline stating what the unit’s family readiness goals should be within the ARFORGEN cycle. This 

article contains a comprehensive guide on specific tasks 

and goals for family readiness during each phase of the 

ARFORGEN cycle. The significance of this guide to the 

Engineer Regiment is that companies and battalions often 

deploy separately from the battalion or brigade to which 

they are assigned in the garrison environment. A company 

that deploys separately from its battalion will not necessarily have the support of a battalion staff when conducting 

the military decisionmaking process. This can leave family 

readiness tasks within the ARFORGEN cycle up to individual leaders. The solution is to establish an ARFORGEN 

plan that includes family readiness.

Reset

The reset part of the cycle gives leaders the chance to 

reconstitute the family readiness group (FRG) and 

make it what they would like it to become. Everyone 

who has been in the Army has an FRG experience—either 

positive, neutral, or negative. The reset phase is the time 

when commanders can make the FRG experience positive 

for spouses and families of single Soldiers. Commanders 

can set the FRG’s parameters: Who will be the leader? 

When and where will meetings occur? Is participation mandatory or voluntary? 

Another key component of the reset phase is the creation or continuation of a battalion-level FRG steering committee. This should be a monthly meeting led by the commander. It should be attended by the battalion commander, 

command sergeant major, plans and operations officer, 

By Captain Kyle P. Moore and Mrs. Erica G. Koelder
62 Engineer May-August 2010

senior FRG advisors (often the spouses of the commander 

and command sergeant major), family readiness support 

assistant (FRSA), rear detachment commander and first 

sergeant, and all the FRG leaders. By making this meeting 

a habit early and often, everyone will see what will occur in 

the months to come. The team building done in this phase 

will assist the group in problem solving while the unit is 

deployed. By setting the standard during this phase, the 

unit will be able to establish a normal battle rhythm that 

all FRG members can anticipate. The Army family thrives 

on schedules and knowledge of events.

Train/Ready

This is the stage where it will become apparent to an 

astute leadership group that it is too late to start 

forming a positive, well-functioning FRG. During this time, the unit is preparing to conduct a mission 

rehearsal exercise (MRE), often at the National Training 

Center at Fort Irwin, California, or the Joint Readiness 

Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. This is a great opportunity to hold a pre-MRE briefing for the unit Soldiers 

and families. The rear detachment leaders will get their 

first taste of how their team will form in the absence of 

the main body. By taking advantage of the main body’s absence and working through an MRE briefing, both the rear 

detachment element and the Soldiers and families will be 

able to prepare for the upcoming deployment. In addition, 

it is the first opportunity for the families to build a trusting relationship with the rear detachment. There are some 

Armywide factors that go into a successful MRE briefing. 

These include, but are not limited to—

■ A briefing led by the senior commander deploying to the 

MRE.

■ Rear detachment leader attendance to give the families

a proper introduction.

■ Army Community Service presence to show families the

resources available.

■ FRG leader involvement to show the families who will

be their first line of information from downrange.

■ After action review feedback from the FRG steering

committee members.

This pre-MRE briefing can also be used as a dress rehearsal for the predeployment briefing given during the 

available stage. It is up to the leaders to give families as 

much of an opportunity as possible to ask questions and get 

involved in the upcoming deployment. This empowers the 

families to make smart decisions leading up to the Soldiers’ 

departure and to continue to make smart decisions on behalf of the Soldiers while they are gone. 

Legend

ARFORGEN - Army Force Generation

FRG - family readiness group

MRE - mission rehearsal exercise

Family Readiness as Viewed Through ARFORGEN

SOP - standing operating procedure

STX - situational training exercise
Available

This is the calm before the storm. The center of 

gravity for family readiness in this phase is a predeployment briefing, which should be a reflection 

of the pre-MRE briefing, made better by the after action 

report comments received a few months earlier. Keeping the same “shape” to the meeting allows the families 

to become familiar with the process. On top of the components from the MRE briefing, a deployment book or 

packet should be distributed to all Soldiers, single and 

married. The deployment packet should include items 

such as— 

■ A checklist of important documents.

■ A list of all applicable powers of attorney.

■ Red Cross information.

■ FRG and rear detachment contact information.

■ Other information required by the command group.

Commanders and FRG leaders should be stationed at 

tables so that families can update family information forms 

and interact with each other. Another station should be set 

up for single Soldiers to remit their packets to a selected 

staff member. This packet should be mailed to the Soldier’s 

next of kin (as established on the family information form, 

DD Form 93, Record of Emergency Data, and Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance forms.) Depending on the size of 

the unit and the number of missions it will be serving, the 

event may need to be conducted over several days. Again, 

an after action report should be conducted with the FRG 

steering committee members to identify any unresolved issues brought up by the families at the event. The rear detachment and the FRG steering committee should take the 

lead on addressing the issues to give further confidence in 

the program’s legitimacy and competency in the eyes of the

families.

Not paying proper attention to the FRG during this 

phase has potentially dangerous consequences. Families 

preparing to stay behind may feel isolated if they aren’t 

encouraged to interact with others. This feeling of isolation 

could lead to trouble if families don’t know where to turn 

if problems arise and don’t use all the installation’s available resources and activities. Families experience many 

stressors at this time, and leaders should work to identify 

potential problems.

An unfortunate reality is that many Army units only 

begin to set up their FRGs during this phase of the ARFORGEN cycle. The unit training calendar and operations tempo make it difficult to assign a high priority 

to family readiness. Commanders are juggling packing 

and shipping equipment, maximizing time off by granting leave and passes, and closing the training gaps 

identified in after action reports following the MRE. 

In addition, many families may feel overwhelmed and 

less willing to volunteer than in other phases of the 

ARFORGEN cycle.

Mission at Home

Once the unit is deployed, the job of the FRG and 

rear detachment element is just beginning. During 

this time, the FRG will also go through multiple 

cycles of departure, adoption of new routines, rest and rehabilitation leave, then welcome home. Rear detachment 

leaders will be responsible for all of the FRGs while the unit 

is gone. It is their responsibility to ensure that the families 

are cared for, which is no simple task during this stressful 

time. Planning monthly battalion- or brigade-level events; 

presenting a strong, visible presence by the rear detachment commander; and coordinating available resources are 

critical to the success of the FRGs at this time. 

Another key component is preparation for redeployment. 

A spouse resilience training event should be scheduled approximately 30 days before a redeployment. Successful resilience training will take many things into consideration: 

the mission of the deployed unit; composition of the families; the physical and mental effects of the deployment on 

both Soldier and spouse; and general “housekeeping” information. This is a great opportunity to give the families official redeployment information about topics such as passes 

and block leave. Rear detachment cadre members should 

work with all available agencies to tailor the event to the 

units’ specific needs.

By keeping families involved in the ARFORGEN cycle, 

units will help the Army fulfill its promise to take care of 

its Soldiers and their families. When simple steps like the 

ones described in this article are taken by leaders at all levels of the chain of command, units are set up for successful 

deployments downrange and redeployments at home.

 Captain Moore is Commander, Delta Company, 1st Engineer Battalion, Fort Riley, Kansas. He was commissioned 

in 2006 as an engineer officer and was the Distinguished 

Military Graduate of the Reserve Officer Training Corps at 

Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

Mrs. Koelder, an Army spouse, is the FRSA for 1st Engineer Battalion. Previous experience includes employment as 

a program coordinator for Army Community Service at the 

National Training Center and various FRG volunteer positions at Fort Irwin and Fort Riley.

Note: The authors would like to thank Captain Matthew 

Todd and First Sergeant Anthony R. Valdez, B Troop, 5th 

Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, for their input during the 

writing of this article.

May-August 2010 Engineer 63
64 Engineer May-August 2010

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

is passing on to the Iraqi people a legacy ensuring 

that the reconstruction effort continues under the 

supervision of highly qualified Iraqi engineers. The Gulf 

Region District (GRD) engineers are passing on more than 

just engineering techniques to their Iraqi counterparts, according to the GRD commander, who has acknowledged 

the reconstruction effort as comprehensive—fostering

legitimacy, building capacity across institutions, promoting reconciliation, and enforcing reasonable quality and 

schedule construction standards. In thousands of projects, 

GRD imparted acceptable construction, design, and job site 

safety practices to Iraqi engineers. 

An Enduring Presence

The U.S. forces in Iraq prepared for Operation

New Dawn for some time as Soldiers began to

redeploy, leaving only 50,000 troops in-theater

by early fall 2010 and none there after 2011. As a result, 

USACE reviewed a number of contingencies for that end 

state. However, as all engineers know, time is a relative 

term when dealing with construction projects. The USACE 

GRD is the enduring Corps presence in Iraq, having been 

scaled back from a division and three districts during the 

past year. The district is currently working on options to 

deal with project completion tasks that 

will linger past the USACE end state in 

Iraq. One option USACE has been aggressively promoting is the hiring and training of local Iraqi engineers and support

personnel.

The goal of the Iraqi associate hiring initiative, according to the GRD commander, 

is for Iraqi engineers to garner that engineering knowledge and pass it on to their 

counterparts in both the government and 

the private construction field. As Iraqis take 

control of restoring their infrastructure, the 

training and mentoring by GRD has yielded 

“phenomenal” results in such areas as technical knowledge, project management, and 

maintenance and operation of facilities.

Mission and Program Purpose

The USACE mission in Iraq is to help 

rebuild the infrastructure and improve the daily lives of the citizens. 

Early on, USACE identified the need to use local national 

experts in engineering, safety, and construction quality assurance to help in this mission. Identifying the needs and 

specific skill sets for a locally hired workforce was the first 

step taken in a long, complex process. The next challenging 

step was to develop a robust local national capability that 

could both understand and enforce the International Building Code (IBC).

The purpose of the Iraqi Associate Program, according 

to the Program Management Plan, is to “develop the capacity of professional Iraqi engineers to independently perform 

construction management, engineering, and quality assurance functions.” The end result of the program will increase 

the institutional capacity of the Iraqi engineer field and aid 

in the development of the economy by allowing the Iraqi 

engineers to continue the reconstruction efforts initiated by 

their U.S. counterparts, according to the plan.

Bridging the Gap

Approximately 90 percent of the USACE projects 

are located in local communities far from U.S. mili-

.tary installations. These projects require engineers 

proficient in Arabic, engineering, and construction techniques to monitor their progress. These high-tech skills 

are currently in high demand and of limited supply in Iraq. 

By Mr. Vincent L. Marsh and Mr. Michael P. Scheck

An Iraqi associate engineer acts as a liaison between the Gulf Region 

District commander and a contractor in Mosul, Iraq.
May-August 2010 Engineer 65

In order to ensure proper construction, USACE embarked 

on a mission to develop the technical capability of the Iraqi 

people that would enable them to interpret U.S. federal 

contracts and build projects to the IBC standard. This was 

accomplished by awarding a personal services contract that 

enabled USACE to bridge the gap that existed between 

effective contract oversight and insufficient oversight

resources.

The personal services contract allowed USACE to obtain the Arabic-speaking professional engineers needed to 

execute its mission. This contract currently employs approximately 233 personnel who provide a broad range of 

skills ranging from administrative assistants, engineers, 

real estate specialists, senior media analysts, construction 

inspectors, and photojournalists. These professionals are 

embedded with USACE employees and learn the subtleties 

of the USACE mission and Project Management Business 

Process (PMBP) and the proper enforcement of contract 

terms, conditions, and specifications to build a high-quality 

project—on time and safely. In addition, Iraqi associates 

are relied on to interface with the local community, explain 

the project, and relay the community’s concerns to USACE. 

This results in establishing the professionally capable 

workforce that builds a high-quality project and meets the 

needs of the Iraqi people. 

Iraqi Associates

The $10 million Iraqi Associate Program is funded 

through the United States State Department Economic Support Fund. The capacity development program also includes an Iraqi engineer enhancement program 

that affords engineers—from the various ministries, university faculties, and small businesses—three- to six-month 

fellowships in public-, academic-, and private-sector engineering environments in the United States. To sustain the 

Iraqi associate partnership, the State Department has provided $45 million from the Economic Support Fund to select 

Iraqi academic institutions to develop curriculum and training to meet provincial government of Iraq requirements. 

The training program for USACE Iraqi associates includes 

one month of formal training, an internship, a qualification transition—where candidates convert from an Iraqi 

associate-funded position to a project-funded position—and 

follow-up continuing education workshops and webinars. 

These Iraqi associates provide a vital link in the USACE 

construction network. At the GRD Southern Area Office, 

a large team of Iraqi engineers, serving side by side with 

USACE employees, have performed extraordinarily in 

all construction aspects, and their expertise and abilities have been instrumental in the successful completion 

of area projects. Out of nearly two dozen Iraqi engineers 

currently employed in the resident office, three of them 

work as project engineers and carry through projects with 

little or no supervision from U.S. engineers. Training is 

primarily on the job, working side by side with a project

engineer—and as they learn, trainees are slowly moved up in

responsibility.

Other Iraqi associates work as quality assurance (QA) 

representatives in the field—preparing daily reports, monitoring safety, reviewing design drawings, and ensuring 

that quality is maintained at the project site; the standout 

QA representatives are often groomed for project engineer 

positions. All associates attend the safety office training 

and are constantly reminded of the importance of safety at 

the job site. Other classes have included ethics training and 

construction management practices. The only drawback is 

that the best associates leave the associate program and go 

to the United States.

The GRD resident offices in the south have been taking the lead in hiring, training, and integrating Iraqi associates. One officer sees the key to a successful program 

as focusing on education and training and hires only

engineering-degreed candidates, who begin early on both 

formal and informal training and are able to attain QA 

certificates of training and the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) safety officer certification. 

Online training and websites (such as <www.constructionknowledge.net>) help familiarize associates with U.S. construction techniques.

At the outset, offices in the south recognized the importance of the Iraqi Associate Program—and as the project 

load got smaller, the offices began to rely more heavily on 

the Iraqi associates to get to job sites that are too far or 

take too long for U.S. personnel to visit. As projects are 

completed and the work force scaled back, there has been 

much success in placing well-qualified Iraqi engineers in 

other positions due to the demand for their exceptional 

project management skills.

Partnership and Legacy

USACE has completed thousands of reconstruction 

projects in Iraq in partnership with the United States 

government and the government of Iraq. Since 2004, 

USACE has completed 5,257 projects throughout Iraq, valued at more than $9.1 billion, and has more than 250 projects 

ongoing. The overall reconstruction effort in Iraq currently 

provides jobs for more than 20,000 Iraqis. USACE recognizes 

that its projects are in good hands under the management 

of the Iraqi associates. A legacy of improved safety and QA 

methods will be left in Iraq, and the sheer volume of projects 

has developed a pool of qualified contractors and inspectors 

who have seen what a difference a well-executed QA program 

can make. 

Mr. Marsh is the Regional Chief of Contracting for 

the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division of USACE. He 

was previously assigned as USACE Regional Chief of 

Contracting–Iraq and USACE GRD Chief of Contracting. 

He holds a bachelor’s in management from the University 

of Maryland and is certified in contracting (Level 3) and 

program management (Level 1) by the Defense Acquisition 

University. 

Mr. Scheck works for the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers Gulf Region District’s public affairs office. 
66 Engineer May-August 2010

The current operational environment has produced 

a number of innovative tactical enablers to support 

the Warfighter. One of the greatest success stories 

in this area of the current-day fight is the adaptation and 

fielding of commercial robotic systems to meet the operational needs and objectives of land forces. A result of this 

activity is a family of mission-specific robotic tools for combat engineers.

Background

Headquartered in Warren, Michigan, the Robotic 

Systems Joint Project Office (RSJPO) is the materiel solution provider for United States Army 

and Marine Corps unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) needs. 

The office began in 1988 when the Department of Defense, 

Army, and Marine Corps facilitated an initiative to combine their development efforts of UGVs. Initial acquisitions 

were used by explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel 

to assist in the investigation and neutralization of improvised explosive device (IED) threats. Due to non-EOD mission shortfalls, additional robotic requirements were developed, including the capability to support combat engineers 

during route and area clearance missions.

Since its inception, RSJPO has developed—and maintains—working relationships with all Army and Marine Corps laboratories, the other uniformed Services, 

and various agencies. The current Fort Leonard Wood 

(FLW) office was established in July 2007 as part of an 

organizational restructuring of RSJPO to better align

itself within its three functional development areas: maneuver, maneuver support, and sustainment. Assistant 

project managers (APMs) provide cost, schedule, and 

performance management support to the PM in each of 

these areas. 

By Second Lieutenant Wayland Lau and Mr. Joseph Stevens

Robotic Systems Joint 

Project Office–

Fort Leonard Wood

Soldiers become familiar with the TALON® during classroom training.
training venue will likely 

expand in the near term 

as new robotic platforms 

become available that are 

designed to provide dismounted forces with the 

capability to perform hazardous close-quarter reconnaissance and counterIED operations. This is all 

in addition to providing 

robotic system platforms 

to support Fort Leonard 

Wood unit training exercises and special events—

such as the Best Sapper 

Competition and Humanitarian Demining Center 

demonstrations. 

JRRD serves as a “one-stop shop” for UGV logistic, 

maintenance, and other technical support services at Fort 

Leonard Wood. It repairs all RSJPO FLW and CEHC robotic systems and provides maintenance support for the 

Explosive Ordnance Clearance Agent Course. To meet this 

sustainment need, JRRD maintains a 90-day parts supply 

inventory on all supported robotic systems. 

As a POR system, the M160 is completely managed 

by RSJPO FLW. Currently, this includes coordinating 

scheduled upgrades for initial-purchase systems and the 

intertheater movement of all deployed systems and providing full logistic support for in-theater systems by supplying 

joint sustainment facilities with repair parts. RSJPO FLW 

instructors and JRRD personnel also provide maintenance 

training on the M160 to robot technicians deploying to sustainment facilities in both existing theaters of operation. 

Once the M160 program reaches milestone C (full production) decision, the RSJPO FLW team will be responsible for 

fielding these systems to engineer clearance companies by 

providing new equipment training teams.

Summary

UGVs have proven their ability to contribute to 

combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with the exponential benefit of reduced risk 

for land forces. As robotic technology advances, RSJPO 

FLW is strategically positioned at the tip of the spear to 

meet the fielding and sustainment needs of the Engineer

Warfighter. 

For further information, contact RSJPO FLW at (Commercial) 573-596-0845 or (DSN) 581-0845.

Second Lieutenant Lau is an Engineer Basic Officer 

Leadership Course (EBOLC) student who was attached to 

RSJPO, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, prior to starting 

class.

Mr. Stevens is a retired combat engineer and instructor 

at RSJPO, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Mission, Training, and Operations

The RSJPO FLW mission includes, but is not limited 

to–

■

■

■ Managing all joint engineer program-of-record (POR) 

systems.

■ Conducting contingency and new POR system operator

training.

■ Supporting doctrine and tactics training development

by the United States Army Maneuver Support Center of

Excellence (MSCoE) Capabilities Development Integration Directorate. Maneuver support encompasses

three schools: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and

Nuclear (CBRN); Engineer; and Military Police.

To meet these mission requirements, RSJPO FLW is 

organized into a headquarters element, two robot training 

divisions, and a joint robotic repair detachment (JRRD). 

The staff—which conducts training, maintains specialized 

robotics and equipment, and provides logistic support to domestic and deployed units—consists of an acquisition logistics training lead, four instructors, two robot technicians, 

and one supply technician.

RSJPO FLW conducts operator certification courses on 

all robotic systems currently fielded and intended for use 

by maneuver support elements. This includes both small 

robots and the Antipersonnel Mine Clearing System, Remote Control: M160 (MV-4B POR designation). Small robot 

operator courses are two days long and are conducted both 

at Fort Leonard Wood and at unit home stations through 

mobile training teams. The M160 operator course is five 

days long and only conducted at Fort Leonard Wood. Instructors also provide familiarization training on these systems as an embedded element of select Counter Explosive 

Hazards Center (CEHC) curriculums and the Engineer 

Warrant Officer Basic and Advanced Courses. The current 

May-August 2010 Engineer 67

■ Conducting all operational assessments on new engineer robotic systems and payloads.

Soldiers practice basic control manipulation skills during TALON lane training.
68 Engineer May-August 2010

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

Publications Currently Under Revision

FM 3-34 Engineer Operations Apr 09 This is the engineer keystone manual. It encompasses all engineer doctrine; integrates 

the three engineer functions of combat, general, and geospatial engineering; and 

addresses engineer operations across the entire spectrum of operations.

Status: Revising manual to incorporate the engineer lines of support framework. 

Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11. 

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Doctrine Branch, Engineer Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.4 

(*FM 3-34.2)

(*FM 3-90.12)

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations

Aug 00

Combat Engineering

This is a new manual that will encompass engineer operations in support of all engineer 

operations above the brigade combat teams (BCTs) (division, corps, and theater). The 

intent is to consolidate and revise three engineer FMs that provide doctrinal guidance 

for the entire spectrum of engineer operations supporting echelons above the BCT 

level.

Status: Final approved draft is at the Army Publishing Directorate. Estimated publishing 

date is 1QFY11.

ATTP 3-34.23

(*FM 5-116)

(*FM 5-100-15)

(*FM 5-71-100)

Engineer Operations

–Echelons Above Brigade

Combat Team

Pending

(Feb 99)

(Jun 95)

(Apr 93)

This is a full revision, to include the renaming and renumbering of FM 3-34.2, 

Combined Arms Breaching Operations. Changes in the force structure have required 

adjustment of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) associated with breaching 

and clearance operations. The Marine Corps is dual-designated on this manual, which 

will replace their Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-19.3, Marine AirGround Task Force (MAGTF) Breaching Operations.

Status: To be published 2QFY11.

General Engineering

TM 3-34.48 1/2

(*FM 5-430-00-1 

& 5-430-00-2)

Design of Theater of Operations 

Roads, Airfields, and Helipads

Pending

Aug 94;

Sep 94

This manual will serve as a reference for engineer planners in support of joint and 

theater operations in the design of roads, airfields, and helipads. This manual is 

currently dual-designated with the Air Force. The Air Force (as well as the Navy and 

Marine Corps) plans to adopt the new manual also.

Status: Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11.

TM 3-34.41 Construction Planning and 

Estimating 

NEW This new manual is being produced by the Navy, in coordination with the Army and 

Air Force. The manual will provide the TTP and planning factors for conducting 

construction planning at the crew leader level. The manual will also provide useful 

expeditionary construction planning factors for use by planners at all levels. 

Status: Estimated publishing date is 3QFY11.

Newly Published Publications

FM 3-34.5

(*FM 3-100.4)

Environmental

Considerations

Pending

Jun 00

This manual provides environmental protection procedures during all types of 

operations. It states the purposes of military environmental protection, a description of 

legal requirements, and a summary of current military programs. It also describes how 

to apply risk management methods to identify actions that may harm the environment 

and appropriate steps to prevent or mitigate damage.

Status: Published 16 February 2010. Obtain from the Army Publishing Directorate or 

the Reimer Digital Library.

Organizational Manuals
May-August 2010 Engineer 69

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Doctrine Branch, Engineer Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

General Engineering (continued)

TM 3-34.43

(*FM 3-34.451)

(*FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Pending

Dec 92

This manual will provide technical information for obtaining samples and performing 

engineering tests and calculations on soils, bituminous paving mixtures, and concrete. For 

use in military construction. The test procedures and terminology will conform to the latest 

methods and specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 

the American Concrete Institute (ACI), and the Portland Cement Association (PCA), with 

alternate field testing methods and sampling techniques when complete lab facilities 

are unavailable or impractical to use. The Marine Corps and Air Force plan to adopt this 

manual as well.

Status: Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11.

FM 3-34.65 1/2 

(*FM 3-34.465)

Quarry Operations Pending

Mar 05

This manual outlines the methods and procedures used in the exploration for and 

operation of pits and quarries. It provides information on equipment required for operating 

pits and quarries and for supplying crushed mineral products, but does not cover the 

operation of the stated types of equipment. This is a collaborative effort with the Navy 

and Air Force and includes the newest technologies and current practices. There will be a 

focused staffing only for this manual.

Status: Preparing Volume II. Initial Draft staffing of both volumes 2QFY11.

This manual is a guide for planning, designing, and drilling wells. It focuses on techniques 

and procedures for installing wells and includes expedient methods for digging shallow 

water wells, such as hand-dug wells. This collaborative effort with the Navy, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps includes the newest technologies, current practices, and revised formulas.

Status: Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11.

TM 3-34.49

(*FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Pending

Mar 94

Geospatial Engineering

ATTP 3-34.80

(*FM 3-34.230)

Geospatial Engineering Pending

3 Aug 00

This full revision of FM 3-34.230, Topographic Operations, will incorporate changes as a 

result of FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, and FM 3-0, Operations. Geospatial engineering 

consists of engineer capabilities and activities that contribute to a clear understanding of 

the physical environment by providing geospatial information and service to commanders 

and staffs.

Status: Final approved draft is at the Army Publishing Directorate. Estimated publishing 

date is 1QFY11.

TM 3-34.56 Waste Management NEW This manual addresses issues not currently integrated into FM 3-34.5, Environmental 

Considerations. The manual will address the role of waste management in support of 

deployed forces, as well as the integration of waste management throughout the operations 

process, including its critical linkage to the composite risk management process. 

Status: Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11.

NOTEs: Current engineer publications can be accessed and downloaded in electronic format from the Reimer Digital Library at <http://www.

adtdl.army.mil> or the MSKN Web site at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/500629>. The manuals discussed in this article are currently under 

development and/or recently published. Drafts may be obtained during the staffing process or by contacting the Engineer Doctrine Branch 

at commercial 573-563-0003, DSN 676-0003, or <douglas.merrill@us.army.mil> or contact commercial 573-563-2717, DSN 676-2717, or <brian.

davis6@us.army.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 29 July 2010.

*Publications shown inside parenthesis with an asterisk beside the number indicate the current published number, but that number will be 

superseded by the new number at the beginning of the listing. Multiple manuals in parenthesis will indicate consolidation into one manual.

Due to the doctrine reengineering effort, some field manuals are being realigned as general subject technical manuals (TMs). These manuals will 

be numbered as TMs. Field manuals (FMs) dealing with Army tactics, techniques, and procedures (ATTP) will be renumbered as ATTPs.
May-August 2010

The United States Army Warrant Officer Corps

marked its 92d anniversary on 9 July 2010. An Act 

of the United States Congress in 1918 established 

the United States Army Mine Planter Service as part of 

the United States Army Coast Artillery Corps. Implementation of the Act by the Army was published in War Department Bulletin 43, dated 22 July 1918. A total of 40 warrant 

officers were authorized to serve as masters, mates, chief 

engineers, and assistant engineers on each mine-planting 

vessel. Although only one rank of warrant officer was authorized by Congress, in effect, three grades were created 

because of the varying levels of pay authorized for masters, 

first mates, second mates, and corresponding levels of marine engineer personnel. This is also when the official color 

of the Army Warrant Officer Corps came to be brown. It 

originated from the brown strands from burlap bags that 

the Army Mine Planter Service personnel wore as their insignia of rank. 

Also in 1918, the Army opened a school, commanded by 

an officer who had graduated from the United States Naval 

Academy, to train its mariners at Fort Monroe, Virginia. In 

World War I, the Coast Artillery Corps was responsible for 

mine defenses in major ports. Vessels ranging in size from 

small motor boats to 1,000-ton oceangoing ships were used 

to lay and maintain minefields. Conflicts between Soldiers 

and civilian employees who manned these vessels revealed 

the need to ensure that the vessels were manned by military personnel.

The following selected highlights portray the rich history of the Army Warrant Officer Corps:

■ The National Defense Act of 1920 provided for warrant

officers to serve in clerical, administrative, and 

bandleader positions. This act also authorized 1,120 

warrant officers to be on active duty. During this time, 

warrant officers were excluded from performing duties 

from which enlisted personnel were also excluded.

■ On 12 May 1921, a distinctive insignia was approved

 for warrant officers. It consisted of an eagle rising with 

wings displayed, adapted from the Great Seal of the 

United States. The eagle is standing on two arrows, 

which symbolize the military arts and sciences. The 

eagle rising is enclosed within a wreath. Warrant officers of the United States Tank Corps were the first to 

wear this new insignia.

■ In 1936, the Army was uncertain about what an Army

warrant officer was and whether there was a place 

for warrant officers in the Army’s personnel structure. 

Although it had given the rank to such specialties as 

band leaders, marine engineers, field clerks, and pay 

clerks, it had also used the rank as a reward for former 

commissioned officers who no longer met the officer 

educational requirements and for outstanding enlisted 

personnel who were too old to be commissioned and 

could look to no further advancement.

■ In 1940, warrant officers began serving as disbursing agents. Warrant officer appointments began to occur in larger numbers for the first time since 1922. However, overall strength declined due to the significant number transferred to active duty as regular commissioned 

officers. 

■ In 1941, Public Law 230 authorized appointments of up

to one percent of the total Regular Army enlisted 

strength. This law also established two pay grades for 

warrant officers—W1 for warrant officers junior grade 

and W2 for chief warrant officers. One other benefit of 

Public Law 230 was the authorization of flight pay for 

those involved in aerial duties.

■ In November 1942, the position of warrant officer was

defined by the United States War Department in the 

rank order as being above all enlisted personnel and immediately below all commissioned officers. January 

1944 saw the authorization of the appointment of women

as warrant officers, and by the end of World War II,

42 female warrant officers were serving on active duty. 

Warrant officers were filling 40 different occupational 

specialties by early 1946 and approximately 60 specialties by 1951. 

By Chief Warrant Officer Five David P. Welsh (Retired)

70 Engineer
May-August 2010 Engineer 71

■ The 1949 Career Compensation Act brought two new 

pay rates for warrant officers. The designations of warrant officer junior grade and chief warrant officer were 

retained, and the grade of chief warrant officer was

expanded with the addition of pay grades of W3 and W4.

■ In 1953, the Warrant Officer Flight Program led to the

training of thousands who later became helicopter 

pilots during the Vietnam War.

■ The 1954 Warrant Officer Personnel Act established

warrant officer pay grades W1 through W4 and officially eliminated the Mine Planter Service.

■ On 21 January 1957, a new warrant officer concept,

resulting from a Department of the Army study, was 

announced and provided the following guidelines:

□ There was a need for warrant officers.

□ The warrant officer category would not be considered

a reward or incentive.

□ The first published definition for warrant officers was 

established in Army Regulation 611-112: “The warrant officer is a highly skilled technician who is provided to fill those positions above the enlisted level 

which are too specialized in scope to permit effective development and continued utilization of broadly trained, branch-qualified commissioned officers.”

■ In July 1972, Army warrant officers began wearing 

newly designed silver rank insignia with black squares, 

in which one black square signified warrant officer one 

(WO1) and two, three, and four black squares signified 

chief warrant officer two (CW2) through chief warrant 

officer four (CW4). Also in 1972, a trilevel education system was established and provided formal training at 

the basic or entry level for warrant officers in 59 occupational specialties. The educational system further provided intermediate level formal training in 53 specialties and formal training for 27 specialties at the advanced level.

■ In 1978, United States Army National Guard and United States Army Reserve warrant officers were integrated into the Army Professional Development System. 

This satisfied the need for qualified, highly trained warrant officers that could be accessed for the Active Army

rapidly in times of emergency.

■ In 1982, the Warrant Officer Training System was established by the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. The training system consisted of three 

levels: Entry, Advanced, and Senior.

■ On 1 October 1984, all direct appointments of Army

warrant officers ceased by direction of the Army Vice 

Chief of Staff. A Warrant Officer Entry Course was 

established at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. In the mid-1980s, 

a Warrant Officer Entry Course–Reserve Components 

was established in the Warrant Officer Training Branch 

at the Army Reserve Readiness Training Center at Fort 

McCoy, Wisconsin. This course evolved into Warrant 

Officer Candidate School–Reserve Components and 

was conducted until September 1994, when all

warrant officer candidate school courses were consolidated and transferred to the Warrant Officer Career

Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama.

■ In 1985, the Army developed a new definition of the

warrant officer that encompassed all warrant officer 

specialties: “An officer appointed by warrant by the Secretary of the Army, based upon a sound level of technical 

and tactical competence. The warrant officer is the highly specialized expert and trainer who, by gaining progressive levels of expertise and leadership, operates, 

maintains, administers, and manages the Army’s equipment, support activities, or technical systems for an entire career.”

■ The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1986 amended Title 10 of the United States 

Code (USC) to provide that “Army chief warrant officers 

shall be appointed by commission.” The primary purpose of the legislation was to equalize appointment 

procedures among the services. Chief warrant officers 

of the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, 

and United States Coast Guard had been commissioned 

for many years. Contrary to popular belief, the commissioning legislation was not a Total Warrant Officer

Study recommendation but a separate Army proposal. Further clarification of the role of an Army warrant 

officer, including the commissioned aspect, was found 

in Army Field Manual 22-100: “Warrant officers are 

highly specialized, single-track specialty officers who 

receive their authority from the Secretary of the Army 

upon their initial appointment. However, Title 10 USC 

authorizes the commissioning of warrant officers upon 

promotion to chief warrant officer rank. These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the 

president of the United States. They derive their authority from the same source as commissioned officers

but remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned

officers, who are generalists. Warrant officers can and

do command detachments, units, activities, and vessels,

as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. As leaders and technical experts, they provide

valuable skills, guidance, and expertise to commanders

and organizations in their particular field.”

■ In 1988, the Army established that—pending submission and approval of the new rank of CW5—warrant

officers selected by a Department of the Army board 

and designated as master warrant officer (MW4) would 

be senior to all warrant officers in the rank of CW4. 

The MW4 continued to be paid at the W4 pay grade. 

In December 1988, the first class from the MW4 training course graduated and the first 30 CW4s were designated as master warrant officers.

■ In 1989, a Warrant Officer Management Act (WOMA)

proposal was submitted by the United States Army 

Warrant Officers Association on behalf of the Army to 

the Congress. In 1991, the WOMA proposal was considered by the Congress, and it was incorporated into 

the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1992. Six key provisions were 
enacted based on WOMA as signed by the President in 

December 1991:

□ A single promotion system for warrant officers.

□ Tenure requirements based on years of warrant officer service.

□ Establishment of the rank of CW5 with a five-percent

cap on the number of warrant officers on each Service's active duty list at any one time.

□ Selective mandatory retirement boards for

retirement-eligible warrant officers.

■ In February 1992, WOMA’s provisions went into effect. 

On 1 October 1992, the appointment of Army warrant 

officer candidates to WO1 was established as the graduation date from Warrant Officer Candidate School. Prior 

to that date, candidates were not appointed until completion of the then Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical Certification Course for their military occupation 

specialty (MOS). Since certification courses for various 

MOSs were of various lengths, the length of time spent 

as a warrant officer candidate varied greatly.

■ On 9 July 2004, new CW5 rank insignia and standards

for wearing Army officer branch insignia and branch 

colors were announced as uniform changes for Army 

warrant officers. The CW5 insignia was a silver-colored 

bar, 3/8 inch wide and 1 1/8 inches long, with a black 

line down the center of the bar. This aligned the Army 

CW5 insignia with those of the Navy and Marine Corps, 

making the rank more readily recognizable in joint operations. Ceremonial warrant officer insignia change 

and flag ceremonies were held at various locations on 

9 July and other dates. This change relegated the brass 

“eagle rising” insignia to Warrant Officer Corps history.

■ On 14 October 2005, new Army warrant officer definitions were published in Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3, Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management. This pamphlet, 

which includes the career development of warrant officers, contains the new official definition of an Army 

warrant officer: “The Army warrant officer (WO) is a 

self-aware and adaptive technical expert, combat 

leader, trainer, and advisor. Through progressive levels 

of expertise in assignments, training, and education, the 

WO administers, manages, maintains, operates, and integrates Army systems and equipment across the full 

spectrum of Army operations. Warrant officers are innovative integrators of emerging technologies, dynamic 

teachers, confident warfighters, and developers of specialized teams of Soldiers. They support a wide range of 

Army missions throughout their career. Warrant officers in the Army are accessed with specific levels of 

technical ability. They refine their technical expertise

and develop their leadership and management skills 

through tiered progressive assignment and education.”

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 follows these 

general definitions with additional definitions for each warrant officer rank, WO1 through CW5.

■ On 11 January 2008, the Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs issued a 

memorandum authorizing 30 years of active service for 

all Regular Army warrant officers of any grade. Previously, only Regular Army CW5s were allowed 30 years 

of active warrant officer service.

■ On 26 April 2010, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 was

introduced in the United States House of Representatives. Section 507 of the bill amended Section 571(b) 

of Title 10 USC, to provide that appointments in the 

rank of regular warrant officer—WO1—be made by the 

regulation issued by the secretary of the military department and that these appointments shall be made

by the President, except that appointments in that grade 

in the Coast Guard shall be made by the secretary

concerned. The bill was pending in Congress as of 

September 2010.

■ As of 30 September 2010, the Army warrant officer cohort will be composed of about 24,550 men and women,

 as follows:

□ Active Army—62 percent

□ Army National Guard—32 percent

□ Army Reserve—12 percent (not counting members of

the Individual Ready Reserve also available for

mobilization)

□ Technical branch warrant officers—65.4 percent

□ Aviation warrant officers—34.6 percent

□ Percentage of the Army—2 percent

□ Percentage of the Officer Corps—14 percent

□ Branches with warrant officers assigned—17

□ Number of warrant officer MOSs—approximately 70

The above information is extracted from the online warrant officer history maintained and frequently updated by 

the nonprofit Warrant Officers Heritage Foundation. A 

more detailed history can be found on the foundation’s website at <www.usawoa.org/WOHERITAGE>. Click on “Warrant Officer History.” The online history contains many pictures, links to copies of original documents, and information 

about warrant officers with historical significance.

Chief Warrant Officer Five Welsh (Retired) served in the 

United States Army Reserve and on active duty that culminated in his assignment as the Army Reserve warrant officer policy integrator in the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve, 

in the Pentagon. He retired from active duty in 1998 with 

42 years of combined Reserve Component and Active Army 

service. He was National President of the United States 

Army Warrant Officers Association from 1988 to 1992 and 

was a member of its full-time staff from 1998 to 2003. He 

founded the Warrant Officers Heritage Foundation in 2003 

and currently serves as president and member of the board 

of directors.

72 Engineer May-August 2010
May-August 2010 Engineer 73