Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three 

times a year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and the 

MSCoE G-37 Publications, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 

3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702. 

Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 

and additional mailing offices.

Articles to be considered for publication are due

15 December, 15 April, and 15 August. Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer

@mail.mil>, or send an electronic copy in Microsoft®

Word on a compact disk and a double-spaced copy of 

the manuscript to Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 

MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri 65473-8702. Due to the limited space per 

issue, we normally do not print articles that have been 

published elsewhere.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Engineer 

Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, 

Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702.

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) 563-4137, 

DSN 676-4137; e-mail address: <usarmy.leonardwood

.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>; Internet home page:

<http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag.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. The 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:

RAYMOND T. ODIERNO

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1223010

U.S. Army Engineer School

(573) 563-8080/DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

563-6192

<peter.a.deluca.mil@mail.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Barry K. Williams 

563-6192

<barry.k.williams8.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-8080

<james.r.rowan4.civ@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Terrence W. Murphy

563-8060

<terrence.w.murphy2.mil@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Scott R. Owens

563-4088

<scott.r.owens.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Adam S. Roth 

563-8045

<adam.s.roth2.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Rodney M. Graham 

563-8046

<rodney.m.graham.mil@mail.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Philip M. Secrist III

563-7116

<philip.m.secrist.mil@mail.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Daniel S. Larsen

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<daniel.s.larsen.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

LTC Paul Huszar

563-4093

<paul.huszar.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner.civ@mail.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Chris Barron 

563-8142

<christopher.j.barron3.mil@mail.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Jonathan D. Green

563-6199

<jonathan.d.green.civ@mail.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Sinlan Morrow

563-2717

<sinlan.r.morrow.mil@mail.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

Mr. Don Wenzel

563-7264

<donald.l.wenzel.civ@mail.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Chris A. Parks

563-5055

<chris.a.parks2.mil@mail.mil>
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Terrence W. Murphy

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Scott R. Owens

31 Past In Review–“An Exemplary

Engineer Soldier”

By Mr. Gustav J. Person

32 Engineer Doctrine Update

34 Dedication

MANAGING EDITOR

Diane E. Eidson

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Phyllis E. Grayson

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

FEATURES

05 Echelons Above Brigade Redesign: Setting Conditions for the 

Army of 2020

By Colonel Adam S. Roth

09 U.S. Army Engineers as Overseas Contractors: Cultural and 

Ethical Considerations

By Dr. Boshra N. EL-Guindy

12 One Year as a Contracting Officer Representative

By Captain Kyle L. Poppe

15 Major General Temple Retires

 By Mr. Bernard W. Tate

16 Everyone Wins With Personnel Force Innovation

 By Lieutenant Colonel Ginger K. Norris

18 Engineer Staff Development While Deployed

 By Lieutenant Colonel Jon S. Middaugh

20 Marsh Restoration Has Wildlife “Seal of Approval”

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

22 11th Engineer Battalion Staff Ride 2012: Professional

Development in Vicksburg, Mississippi

 By Second Lieutenant Brian T. McCormick

24 Combined Arms Breaching in the Decisive Action Training

Environment: Welcome Back to the Dance Floor

By Lieutenant Colonel Jason A. Kirk and Captain Clint W. Brown

28 Afghan Partnership at the Company Level‐—Lessons Learned

From an Embedded Training Team

By Captain Jeffrey D. Nichols, First Lieutenant Daniel B. Powell, 

and Sergeant Anthony L. Bollin

35 Sappers Clear the Way

By Second Lieutenant Luke M. Colson and Second Lieutenant 

Patrick B. Herold

38 Partners Pulling Together: Engineers Help Schramberg Recover

From Disaster

By Dr. Bianka J. Adams

Volume 42 PB 5-12-3 Headquarters, Department of the Army September–December 2012

NGINEE

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

September–December 2012 Engineer 1

Front cover: Engineer castle with 

AVLB. Photo by Mike Curtis

Back cover: U.S. Army photos
2 Engineer September–December 2012

 

Clear the Way

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

This time I would like to talk with 

you about shaping the theater as 

part of the Army Chief of Staff’s 

Prevent, Shape, Win vision for the role 

of the Army in our society. I also want to 

talk about shaping your unit culture to be 

one of constant training and discipline—

the twin keys to real military capability 

and readiness—so that you can shape the 

world as we need you to do.

We have all deployed and fought 

multiple times. We verified and grew in 

our understanding that all tactical and 

operational victory comes from the combination of fires and shock effect against 

an enemy. Shock effect is almost always 

delivered through maneuver and is always enabled by military engineering. Fires are made many times more effective through the use of military engineering—targeting 

and shaping the battlefield to better expose the enemy to 

destruction. We have been fighting our field Army formations and adapting their cultures to operate at the speed of 

trust and at the speed of war for more than a decade. 

For some very good constitutional reasons, some very 

bad managerial reasons and, perhaps, even some political 

reasons, no such environment or operating culture called 

the speed of trust or the speed of war exists in the institutional Army. So, not all mechanisms for resourcing, scheduling, and planning are set up to truly enable the Army 

Chief of Staff’s vision of Army shaping operations. The 

regionally aligned Army is one idea to accomplish these 

missions, but this concept is not complete and implementation has yet to begin. We need to examine what we are 

trying to shape and to think through how we can contribute to it by using the tools and resources in hand now, 

even as we seek new tools and resources. We can all take 

action to shape our unit cultures to execute these important missions now, so that even as we fight to the conclusion of our combat role in Afghanistan, we can adapt our 

unit and institutional cultures to begin these important 

shaping missions. 

But what are we really talking about in shaping, and 

how can engineers play a role in it? Some obvious examples 

of the preparation of geographic theaters for contingency 

operations are already under discussion—

■ Building contingency bases to use for training or possible operations.

■ Engaging and supporting foreign militaries through combined exercises.

■ Training teams and construction 

efforts.

■ Pre-positioning engineer equipment

and materials where we expect to 

need them. 

But our efforts must span all theater combatant commands (COCOMs), 

not just the five geographic commands. 

We can shape in every COCOM, geographic and functional, if we are thinking through our skills and roles. It helps 

to think about the competitions and conflicts that our country faces every day, 

in every domain, and in every COCOM.

The United States is a trading nation and an open 

society with many avenues for win-win exchanges with 

other nations and societies. Yet, we are still locked in at least 

nine different competitions (and sometimes conflicts) with 

other nations and societies every day. The daily news shows 

the evidence of these constantly. These nine competitions/

conflicts are—

■ Political.

■ Economic.

■ Information/propaganda.

■ Geographic/territorial (the standard idea of wars in the

public mind).

■ Jurisdictional/territorial (such as who decides the international rules of the game and brings criminals to

 justice).

■ Financial/governmental (who pays for, and who benefits

from, a stable international order) .

■ Ideological (how societies organize, operate, and integrate with other systems and cultures).

■ Cybernetic.

■ Scientific/technical. 

I believe that our military engineer people, processes, 

units, and culture can play shaping roles in every one of 

these arenas of competition and conflict in every geographic 

and functional COCOM. By working with the field Army 

from all three components—Regular Army, Army National 

(Continued on page 8)
September–December 2012 Engineer 3

Lead the Way

Command Sergeant Major Terrence W. Murphy

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

■ Effective 1 January 2015, SSD Level

5 will be a prerequisite for nominative

assignments. 

The SSD will assist Soldiers in different ways through the U.S. Army College 

of the American Soldier and the American Military University.

The tools are there; we must stop making excuses and execute. We must find 

the time for ourselves and our Soldiers 

so that they can make the leap into personal education. We are working on some 

credentialing initiatives for our enlisted 

population, and we must stop allowing 

our Soldiers to leave the Army the same 

way they arrived. We have to think out of 

the box so that our Soldiers are better equipped to face the 

world outside of the Army.

 We are a profession of Army fanatics; and if we aren’t, 

we should be. We should strive to be the best Soldiers we 

can be, first through standards and discipline and then 

through our skill sets (our military occupational specialties). We have to strive to meet the standards prescribed 

by the Army in everything we do. We need a commitment 

from everyone to ensure that we have the best people training civilians to become Soldiers, to ensure that we have 

the best noncommissioned officers training leaders at the 

noncommissioned officer academies, and to ensure that the 

best trainers are evaluating tactics and techniques at our 

combat training centers. 

We have to reinvest in the Engineer Regiment with our 

best Soldiers and establish consequences and repercussions 

for those who do not meet the prescribed standards. Placing the right people, with the right skill sets, in the right 

places is a must for the success of our Engineer Regiment. 

As engineer Soldiers, we cannot afford to be single-focused. 

As the U.S. Army Engineer School commandant says, we 

have to be like a “Swiss Army knife”—multifaceted and able 

to demonstrate many different skills. 

 As the Army changes and reorganizes the brigade combat teams, engineer battalions will be inserted. These battalions will assist the brigade combat teams to balance the 

right people, the right number, and the right skill sets to 

make the unit more lethal and agile. Once again, understanding the entire process and the buy-in from the Engineer Regiment will only enhance the process as we begin 

the implementation phase of the brigade engineer battalion.

Essayons!

I

have been in this position for about 

19 months as of December, and I 

have seen many changes in the Engineer Regiment and in the Army. As we 

go through these changes, we must accept 

the idea that change should be a core 

competency. Change is inevitable in our 

military, and change must continue for 

us to move forward. Some of the things 

we have done in the past are no longer 

relevant for today’s Army. 

Two of the constants that remain are 

Soldiers and their education. We must 

maintain the drive to educate ourselves 

personally and professionally. College 

courses and Noncommissioned Officer 

Education System (NCOES) courses are 

necessary to reach that goal. Each of us starts working on 

our second career the day we join the Army; waiting until 

we are ready to retire should no longer be an option. Not 

only does going to college help the future of Soldiers and 

their families, but it also helps us as a professional Army. 

A college education brings a level of competence, comprehension, and personal professionalism to the Soldier. 

Educated Soldiers are generally better equipped to handle 

complex situations. They are also able to conduct research 

and then comprehend and restate that information in a 

lucid and intelligent fashion. This helps the units to better 

handle staff work because they have highly educated 

Soldiers in the ranks. 

The NCOES is a must for the positions that we hold, 

and it renews professionalism in our military occupational 

specialties. There are no excuses for not attending NCOES 

courses. The backlog list continues to grow, and this needs 

to end. Our young leaders need to attend the schooling that 

will develop their abilities and allow them to perform at a 

higher level.

The Army has placed many different resources, such as 

the Army Career Tracker and Structured Self Development 

(SSD), at our fingertips to assist in the growth of our knowledge base and progression of our careers. The effective 

dates for SSD to become a prerequisite for NCOES courses 

will change as follows:

■ Effective 1 April 2013, SSD Level 1 will be a prerequisite to attend the Warrior Leader Course.

■ Effective 1 June 2013, SSD Level 3 will be a prerequisite

to attend the Senior Leader Course and SSD Level 4 will

be a prerequisite to attend the Sergeants Major Course. 
4 Engineer September–December 2012

Chief Warrant Officer Five Scott R. Owens

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show the Way 

This month marks the completion of my first year as the Chief Warrant Officer of the U.S. Army 

Engineer School and Engineer Regiment. It’s been a fantastic year, and I’ve 

especially enjoyed my site visits, where 

I met with many of the leaders and Soldiers serving in all three components of 

the Engineer Regiment. I haven’t been 

able to visit every installation yet, but 

I have been impressed with the professionalism and esprit de corps of all 

those I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. 

The purpose of my site visits is threefold. First, I want to provide updates 

on the Engineer School Campaign Plan 

and the ongoing echelons-above-brigade 

redesign; it’s always best to discuss this in person with 

a question-and-answer session included rather than to 

read about it. Second, I want to conduct warrant officer 

professional-development sessions with engineer warrant 

officers. Lastly, I want to inform enlisted Soldiers about 

engineer warrant officer opportunities. I’ve found that 

many Soldiers do not work near engineer warrant officers and are not fully aware of what positions they might 

qualify for or what they must do to apply. Chief Warrant 

Officer Four Jerome L. Bussey, the engineer warrant officer assignments officer, accompanies me on many of these 

visits. He’s proven to be a great battle buddy as we discuss 

warrant officer accession opportunities, promotions, and 

assignments with Soldiers. 

My gratitude goes out to those of you who have made 

heroic efforts to welcome me by scheduling senior leader 

office calls, arranging facilities, and getting the word out 

to enlisted Soldiers and warrant officers to attend. It’s 

your efforts that helped me to make the most of my time. 

Over the next year, I will visit more units; and I ask for 

your continued support. 

If you know of any Reserve Component (RC) units in 

your vicinity, be sure to include them as well. I’m happy 

to stay over weekends to accommodate their drill schedules. The Engineer Regiment’s greatest shortages of warrant officers are in the Army National Guard and U.S. 

Army Reserves. The RC has unique challenges in recruiting warrant officers. One of the major obstacles is the

limited pool of Soldiers in feeder military occupational specialties (MOSs) 

in RC units. This makes it especially 

important to seek out those Soldiers 

who do not possess the requisite feeder 

MOSs, but do have leadership qualifications, civilian skills and experience, and 

certifications that would qualify them. 

During the past year, I’ve worked with 

several command chief warrant officers 

of various states to find such Soldiers 

and we’ve actually selected a few for 

training as construction engineering 

technicians. One Army National Guard 

human resource specialist was recently 

selected for that training based on his 

former service as a platoon sergeant in 

the U.S. Marine Corps and his civilian experience managing his own construction company for 20 years. It’s 

Soldiers like these that we need to seek out in order to 

increase our fills in the RC. As you participate in weekend 

drills, think about other Soldiers in your units who might 

have the civilian skills that would qualify them to apply as 

an engineer warrant officer.

Another exciting event this year is the relocation of 

all training for geospatial engineering Soldiers from Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. As

I write this article, one class of geospatial engineering 

technicians (MOS 125D) has graduated from the Warrant Officer Basic Course and another graduated from the 

Warrant Officer Advanced Course. Recently, the first class 

of 14 geospatial engineer (MOS 12Y) students graduated. 

There are currently six MOS 12Y classes and one MOS 

125D class in session; that makes 80 geospatial engineers 

in training at Fort Leonard Wood. The first 12Y Noncommissioned Officer Advanced Leaders and Senior Leaders 

Courses are scheduled to start in January. 

As I reflect on the events of the past year, I look forward 

to the coming year even more. With the echelon-abovebrigade redesign, the move of the geospatial engineering 

training, unit engagements, and RC events, there is no 

shortage of professionally rewarding activities to keep me 

positively engaged throughout the year! 

Essayons et Faissons!
September–December 2012 Engineer 5

At the conclusion of ENFORCE 2012, the Commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer School ordered .that the Capabilities Development and Integration 

Directorate at the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, examine engineer forces in 

echelons above brigade (EAB). With the establishment of 

the brigade engineer battalion (BEB) a near certainty, the 

challenge was to look at what formations and capabilities 

remained to support the developing concept of the Army of 

2020. The Army of 2020, which will be predominantly based 

in the continental United States, requires us to look holistically at the Engineer Regiment. We must consider the 

capabilities that we may need and those that we may have 

lost in more than 10 years of stability operations using wellestablished key terrain in the form of aerial ports of debarkation and seaports of debarkation. That key terrain fueled 

the mountains of steel that have become the American way 

of war. We need to look at what the “new” way of war will 

be and how engineers will set conditions for its success. The 

engineers of the Army of 2020 must—

■ Enable the seizure, establishment, and expansion of

lodgments in an immature theater.

■ Be technically and tactically capable.

■ Serve as the “Swiss Army knife” of the Army.

Everything we do in the Engineer Regiment emanates 

from the four lines of engineer support:

■ Assure mobility.

■ Enhance protection.

■ Enable expeditionary force projection and logistics.

■ Develop partner capacity and infrastructure.

This article highlights the role of two major formations. 

The BEB addresses only the first two lines of engineer support. The EAB redesign must produce formations that support all four lines of engineer support.

BEB

When the BEB is finally implemented, it will provide critical mobility, countermobility, and survivability capabilities at the point of need in support 

of the maneuver commander. While there will be very little 

vertical construction capability in the BEB modified table of 

By Colonel Adam S. Roth
6 Engineer September–December 2012

organization and equipment, there are many opportunities 

for developing that capability: 

■ The BEB will serve as a mission command structure

capable of assuming numerous EAB units, including construction forces. 

■ Echoing the Engineer School Commandant’s desire to

have no “single-purpose engineer forces,” the combat

engineers who make up the majority of the BEB may be

required to develop basic construction skills above the

level of erecting a HESCO® bastion. 

■ The BEB will include an engineer construction technician who can provide in-house training for BEB personnel and provide design capability, quality control, and

electrical power management. 

■ The BEB may also cross-train with other construction

forces with which it habitually associates. 

Now that the BEB is becoming a reality, we look toward 

the types of units and capabilities that are required to provide the maneuver commander with solutions to problems 

at the point of need that span the combat, construction, and 

geospatial engineering disciplines.

EAB Redesign Community of Practice

The members of the EAB redesign initiative formed a 

community of practice across all three components: 

Regular Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. 

Army Reserve. It included representatives from the Joint 

Staff and the staffs of Department of the Army, U.S. Army 

Forces Command, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, all Army service component commands (ASCCs), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Guard Bureau, 

U.S. Army Reserve Command, and anyone who wanted to 

share in the stewardship of the Engineer Regiment. The 

community of practice is informed by the concepts of gaining 

and maintaining access and sea basing and by the results of 

the Unified Quest series of exercises such as AirSea Battle, 

sponsored by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s 

Army Capabilities Integration Center. It also considers the 

emerging lessons learned and insights that fuel new Army 

trends such as the Army capstone operating concepts. The 

community of practice has met regularly via teleconference and in person since ENFORCE, has been studying 

the broad requirements of the maneuver commander in the 

Army of 2020, and has been ensuring that the Engineer 

School Campaign Plan and all EAB redesign concepts are 

fully nested within those Army and joint concepts.

Community of Practice Goals 

and Initiative

The goal of the community of practice is to inform the 

Total Army Analysis process that addresses fiscal 

year (FY) 2016–2020 by gathering views from the 

field about what will be needed to support the expeditionary Army of 2020. The Army has set benchmarks which will 

lead to restructuring objectives by FY 20. The community of 

practice is closely following those timelines to provide realtime inputs to the process. Membership in the community is 

very simple; interested stewards of the Engineer Regiment 

should contact the author at <adam.s.roth2.mil@mail.mil> 

to materially contribute. 

The major initiatives that the EAB redesign community 

of practice is now working on to inform the FY 15–19 Total 

Army Analysis are as follows:

■ Engineer Construction Company. A seminar in July

evaluated numerous courses of action to get a more versatile company that combined vertical and horizontal 

capabilities. One potential solution, with a mixture of 

light and heavy, vertical and horizontal platoons, would

allow predominantly horizontal engineer support for the

lodgment and vertical support for later phases. The 

results of a survey conducted earlier this year will fuel

the next force design update (FDU), coming in FY 13.

■ Special Operations Forces Engineer Support

Squadron. The Engineer School Commandant said 

during ENFORCE that special operations forces will

remain as the “11th Army division” in contact for the

next generation. With the pending reduction in U.S.

Navy construction battalions and the loss of overseas

contingency operations funds, the community of practice

and the special operations forces community are

developing a concept unit that would be employed in

ways similar to the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime

Power). It would have linkages at the ASCC level for 

tailored force packages of highly skilled, cross-trained, 

and credentialed engineer Soldiers who are able to

engage in the full range of military operations. The

Capability Development and Integration Directorate at

the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence is cooperating in the unit’s development, and the concept of

“Now that the BEB is becoming a reality, we look toward 

the types of units and capabilities that are required 

to provide the maneuver commander with solutions to 

problems . . . that span the combat, construction, and 

geospatial engineering disciplines.”
September–December 2012 Engineer 7

the interdependence of special operations and conventional forces remains a driving force for this emerging capability.

■ Geospatial Planning Cell (GPC) Redesign. There

are currently not enough GPCs for every ASCC element, 

and the community of practice is finishing what will

become an FDU to provide geospatial capability at every 

ASCC and ensure that key geospatial engineer and geospatial engineering technician leadership is available

to mission command nodes. It will also ensure career

progression within the GPCs. The contribution of geospatial intelligence to the joint force commander remains

a critical capability that sets conditions for all phases 

of operations by special operations and conventional

forces. The community of practice is studying ways to

provide that critical capability at the point of need. 

■ Early Entry and Setting the Theater. A key area for

discussion and development by the community of practice 

is determining early-entry and forcible-entry capabilities

that support amphibious (littoral) and vertical (airborne/

air assault) maneuver to secure a lodgment and to support the expeditionary Army of 2020. A strategic

partnership with the U.S. Army Transportation School

is being formed to support this initiative, and Engineer School leaders attended a joint logistics overthe-shore exercise at Fort Story, Virginia, in late

August 2012. Key lessons learned from that training

event, coupled with numerous video teleconferences,

will drive the true requirements and capabilities

determination process,which will affect the complexion

of EAB and BEB forces. Few have had the opportunity

to conduct training or real operations in these areas 

since the start of the War on Terrorism. The Engineer

Regiment needs to recoup institutional knowledge,

including historical studies. This is where readers can

make their most significant contributions. 

■ Regular Army/Reserve Component Roles and Integration. By FY 18, the Engineer Regiment will be composed of 19 percent Regular Army and 81 percent Reserve

Component Soldiers. The first order of business for the 

community of practice will be to answer the questions:

What must be done? and Who will do it? The term operational reserve takes on significance when speaking of the

EAB engineer force. The community of practice will

examine how to keep the Reserve Component operational 

and relevant to these plans and concepts and will do so

against the backdrop of declining fiscal resources. The

Army Reserve Engineer General Officer Steering Committee, the Army National Guard Engineer Advisory

Team, and the combined Chief of Engineers Reserve

Component Engineer Council are partners in determining how the Reserve Component will remain relevant and

ready to sustain Engineer Regimental requirements supporting the Army of 2020.

Starting in FY 13, the community of practice will continue with additional initiatives, all in support of the 

FY 16–20 Total Army Analysis:

■ Combat Company FDU. The key determinant of this 

update will be what items are actually approved in the

BEB modified table of organization and equipment.

Realizing that the strengths of the BEB lie in mobility, 

countermobility, and survivability, a definitive gap

analysis can determine what reinforcement may be

required. That analysis will consider capability and

capacity by the addition of EAB engineer units for the

tactical fight and for requirements that potentially set

the theater as well. 

■ EAB Engineer Battalion FDU. Critical to this discussion will be whether the Army of 2020 requires solepurpose battalions (combat or construction) or multifunctional battalions at EAB. An additional concern is

whether the reversal of modularization (the return of A,

B, and C companies) might also serve to habituate engineer support and provide a more stable platform for mentoring. Working hand in hand with logistics and joint

partners, these EAB battalions will probably be critical

in future plans for setting the theater and for early-entry 

operations. The other question that must be considered 

is “How will this battalion be effective across the entire

range of military operations, such as supporting theater

security cooperation in Phase Zero, supporting the initial

fight in Phases 2 and 3, and also supporting the transition to stability operations in Phase 4 and beyond?”

■ Urban Search-and-Rescue Concept Plan. The Engineer School has assumed proponency for this unique 

capability. Units such as the 911th Engineer Company

and numerous formations under Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives

Response Force and the Homeland Response Force rely

on this capability. The Engineer School and the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence continue to define

“The term operational reserve takes on significance when 

speaking of the EAB engineer force. The community of practice 

will examine how to keep the Reserve Component operational 

and relevant to these plans and concepts . . .”
8 Engineer September–December 2012

requirements and conduct experiments across the 

doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership

and education, personnel, and facilities domain, moving

this capability toward institutionalization.

■ Concept Plan for Contingency Basing Management and Operations. This will serve as the focus for

many evolving concepts that include operational energy;

base camp development, expansion, and closure; and

the Contingency Basing Integration Technology Evaluation Center. Lessons learned from Operation Enduring

Freedom and Army level forums are fueling the discussion about integrating and institutionalizing these concepts. The more that these concepts are integrated, the

less need there will be for a logistics-intensive tail for the 

expeditionary Army of 2020, which will be forced to operate efficiently in austere environments.

■ Theater Engineer Command (TEC) Redesign. The

TEC, currently the highest echelon of mission command

in the Engineer Regiment, requires reevaluation. The

TECs (including their subordinate, deployable command posts) have not been used as intended since

the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also, the TEC

structure has focused more on mission command and

less on technical competence, which had been an engineer strength. The TEC redesign will examine ways to

restore technical competence, incorporate all Army

components into this unique and critical asset, and

look at including joint equities, perhaps by creating

a joint TEC. Most importantly, it will seek to 

create a unit that will be deployed and employed.

Summary

The EAB redesign and the community of practice are 

initiatives that have been well supported by the field. 

This article is meant to provide a status report on 

how far the initiatives have progressed and to solicit support 

from anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to contribute. We are bound only by the passion of the Engineer Regiment members to create the most responsive formations to 

support the maneuver commander at the point of need. As 

always, the author welcomes vociferous debate.

Colonel Roth serves as the deputy assistant commandant 

(Army Reserve) at the U.S. Army Engineer School. Before 

graduating from the U.S. Army War College, he served as the 

commander of the 844th Engineer Battalion and deployed 

to Iraq as part of Task Force Sky. He is a graduate of the 

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and holds 

a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Boston

University. 

(Clear The Way, continued from page 2)

Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve—we are developing the 

concepts for this shaping activity and trying to put in 

place the institutional support structures and processes 

to enable the field Army to conduct this activity in a prioritized, planned, and well-resourced way. We are far 

from having these structures and processes in place; and 

because of the sclerotic and bureaucratic nature of the 

institutional military, we will not have them in place soon. 

This means that people and units must begin executing 

these shaping missions before ambiguity is resolved and 

before straightforward processes and plans exist. Just as 

we do in war, we must adapt and execute now and help 

the lagging institution to keep up with us—or at least get 

out of the way. 

How can our leaders, from corporal through general, do 

that? First, by adopting an iron will to train. By cultivating the mind-set to turn every task (however administrative it may seem), every tasking (however unrelated to the 

mission-essential task list it may seem), every potential 

training distractor, and every available bit of the calendar 

into training. It can be done, but not if you are complacent, 

unimaginative, and weak-willed. 

War is a process of imposing order on chaos and so is 

the task of making a unit disciplined and ready and active 

in shaping our world. Practice war every day. Change 

everything within your power and authority to work at 

the speed of war and the speed of trust, questioning your 

own practices that go against that. Here at the Engineer 

School, we are doing that for our own work for the institutional Army. We pledge to continue to help our field Army 

engineers—from COCOM engineers through the smallest engineer detachment—to operate this way by turning 

everything into training and by enabling their impact to 

the COCOMs now, not years in the future when the institutional Army and Department of Defense have finally 

come around to support that which is essential now. 

We are open to your ideas, input, requests, and requirements; and we want them all as soon as you can offer them 

and as often as you can refine them. I would like to publish 

your ideas in this journal and see them published and discussed elsewhere—at unit training meetings, at brigade or 

division semiannual training briefs, at COCOM planning 

conferences, and in current and future institutional Army 

processes and professionalism efforts. We have all fought 

long enough and often enough to know that the system will 

not anticipate our battlefield needs. We must forge ahead 

and drag the system along. What are you waiting for? 

Essayons!

The “Engineer Commandant’s Reading List” has been 

updated and can be found at the following publically 

accessible link: <http://www.wood.army.mil/usaes/library

/documents/ENGR_CMDT_READING_LIST_2012.pdf>.
September–December 2012 Engineer 9

Introduction

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the 

Nation’s main federal engineering organization, 

providing world-class experts in engineering and 

construction. USACE is a dynamic, multifaceted organization that supports U.S. peacetime engagement activities in 

many parts of the world. It also supports initiatives of the 

U.S. military, embassies, and other agencies throughout 

the world. In addition to supporting the U.S. Department of 

Defense, USACE provides engineering, environmental, and 

construction management and other related skills to private 

U.S. firms, other U.S. agencies, foreign governments, and 

international organizations. USACE also assists countries 

with their transition to democracy by providing their governments with the technical and professional assistance 

necessary to modernize and improve their civil and military 

infrastructures.

U.S. engineering contractors know the American standard of ethics. However, this standard can lead to cultural 

and ethical conflict when those engineer contractors start 

implementing projects overseas. Reducing the likelihood of 

conflicts requires cross-cultural knowledge. Knowing the 

culture of the country where an engineering project is to be 

implemented can lead to an understanding of that country’s 

cultural and ethical systems. Ethics and the expectations 

within different cultures affect all contracting transactions. 

Therefore, it is essential for U.S. Army contracting engineers to understand the expectations of their counterparts 

around the world.

Understanding the cultural bases for ethical behavior in 

the United States and the countries where a construction 

project is to be carried out can equip Army engineers with 

the knowledge needed to succeed in international business. 

That knowledge, based on clear managerial guidelines, can 

add to the value of that understanding.

American business practices often concentrate on the 

fundamentals. In the business engineering sense, the fundamentals seem to be world-class product development and 

competitive pricing. Common sense would indicate that 

focusing on the basics makes success in competitive markets 

possible. However, serious cultural issues might be encountered in business practices between the United States and 

other nations when construction projects are being carried 

out. Challenges and conflicts can arise from more subtle 

cultural issues than fundamental issues related to product and price. In moving from domestic-focused projects 

and operations to an international business theater, other 

factors may be essential for success.

Cultures and the expectations within them can affect 

all business engineering transactions overseas. There is no 

alternative for American engineering contractors to understand the expectations of their business counterparts around 

the world. An inability to grasp those basic cultural factors 

may lead to the failure of projects before they can even start. 

Different cultures have different business practices and 

different rules of conduct which, if understood, could pave 

the way to success.

Cultural values are transmitted to members through a 

long and complex process of socialization where parents, 

education, religion, and the society at large are the primary providers of that process. There are also secondary variables that affect ethical behavior. These include 

differences in the systems of laws, rules and regulations 

across nations, accepted human resource management 

systems, and organizational and professional cultures 

and codes of conduct. The important result is that some 

cultures might view certain practices with different 

levels of tolerance. Managers engaged in international 

engineering transactions have to deal with these 

variations.

By Dr. Boshra N. EL-Guindy
10 Engineer September–December 2012

American Ethical Standards

For Americans, the 1980s and 1990s marked the realization of the global economy. The biggest impact seems to have been on small businesses. Now that 

the U.S. government has increasingly entered the global 

marketplace, Americans encounter different ethical frameworks than those of their domestic markets. This very 

shift points to the need to manage potential cultural and 

ethical conflicts before they turn into international conflicts. 

Cultural or ethical conflicts may arise as a result of two different ethical standards meeting in a business transaction. 

Even within the United States, ethical differences can lead 

to differing business practices. In their international operations, U.S. companies are banned from engaging in activities 

that can be construed as unethical or illegal at home. Bribery to obtain business, for example, is strictly forbidden for 

a U.S. enterprise, no matter where that bribery takes place. 

Company officers can face jail terms and/or heavy fines if 

they engage in taking or offering bribes. In some countries, 

however, bribery is a way of life and no business can materialize without it. These countries have a more tolerant or 

pragmatic view of bribery. Even in other Western nations,

bribes are tolerated to the extent that they may be explicitly 

tax-deductible. 

Cultural Basis for Business Ethics

There is a common agreement among anthropologists 

and psychologists that a country’s culture reflects the 

ethical mind-set and conduct of its citizens. This conduct is displayed in two main ways: through overt conduct 

reflected in public or corporate statements and actions about 

ethical behavior and through covert ethical attitudes and 

values of certain cultural groups. Culture is always difficult 

to define universally. It represents the values and patterns 

of thinking, feeling, and behavior in an identifiable group. 

While many nations, including the United States, possess 

the infrastructure of modern, developed civilization, culture 

represents how people within a civilization interact with one 

another. This interaction can be a challenging undertaking.

The most subtle and complex aspect of culture represents 

values and the assumptions that we use to perceive and deal 

with reality. For example, some cultures perceive people as 

essentially good, while others take a more negative view. 

Values form the foundations of individual and business 

interactions.

Communication Styles

Americans like to talk and tend to be uncomfortable 

when there is silence during a conversation. Some 

.Americans view silence as a challenging negotiating tactic. Sometimes silence looks like a stone wall that 

can hamper interaction and negotiation. However, in many 

nations silence is a cultural value which is a tool for reflection and careful thinking. Many Arabs and Asians are strong 

believers of the English proverb: Speech is silver, but silence 

is golden.

Inherent in the American passion to talk is a penchant for 

exaggeration, rooted in the tradition of frontier “tall tales,’’ 

as exemplified in Hollywood movies. Thus, some Americans 

believe it is all right to exaggerate. Fluency and the “gift of 

the gab’’ are generally viewed as admirable and desirable. A 

look at some American political figures shows clearly that 

they often gain office on the strength of their superior use of 

the language.

Another cultural attribute of Americans is the way they 

think. Americans are reputed for being pragmatic thinkers 

who proceed in a linear fashion from Point A to Point B, 

then to a conclusion at Point C. In doing so, they endeavor 

to find a solution that may be unorthodox, innovative, or 

revolutionary. Americans believe that most productive 

thinking is linear and rational. In their endeavors to solve a 

problem, they seek results and outcomes that are based on

concrete facts. 

Most cultures have an ingrained sense of physical space 

and how people should interact. The American culture has 

developed several traditions that have implications in business. The handshake is a common, expected ritual when 

meeting someone. In terms of physical contact, some Americans touch business acquaintances politely to express the 

sentiment, “We are partners.” In many cultures, however, 

touching is to be avoided at all costs. In many cultures, avoiding direct eye contact with another person out of respect of 

the other’s private space is the norm. This differs markedly 

in the United States, where direct eye contact is very important for showing sincerity in the American society. 

Americans like to stand at about an arm’s length away 

from each other, defining their comfort zone. This also conveys a sense of trust because the two individuals stand in a 

mutually vulnerable space. In certain areas, like Japan, the 

physical space is about 3 to 4 feet, the space needed for two 

people to face each other and bow politely. In the Middle 

East, physical space may be as little as a foot, conveying 

a heightened sense of trust. An American meeting with a 

Saudi colleague may feel very uncomfortable with the limited separation space and even back away to increase it. 

Negotiation

Business typically involves negotiation and bargaining. Different cultures have different models of thinking and ways to solve problems. In many countries, negotiations and contracts should link the association between people by confirming the strong human bond 

instead of resorting to legal binding. Many Americans view 

negotiation and the signing of a contract as the final stage of 

association for a business. However, for many business managers across the world, it is the first step to a deeper relationship. Continued negotiation is common because a legal 

contract does not necessarily give any party the upper hand. 

In negotiations, Americans usually openly discuss 

advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives. People 

in many other cultures discuss and bargain as well, but 

the key in the negotiation process is to establish common 
September–December 2012 Engineer 11

feelings or bonds between the parties. The strategy is to 

achieve a win-win goal situation. This contrasts with the 

one-sided style of negotiations where the winner takes all. 

Many cultures also prefer contracts that do not have too 

many details and prefer all issues to be subject to further 

negotiation afterwards, even after the contracts are signed. 

However, they might be meticulous note-takers and will 

exploit verbal comments made during negotiation that are 

not part of the written contract. In contrast, Americans are 

very legalistic and like to spell out all details in contracts, 

which will be backed fully by the U.S. legal system.

Decisionmaking

Decisionmaking processes are influenced by the decisionmaker’s culture. Americans are often entrepreneurial risk-takers, quick to make a decision and 

willing to change if it turns out less than ideal. Many cultures are not, and the customer’s decisionmakers may try 

to avoid the possibility of being wrong at all costs. Since the 

decisionmaker’s reputation may be at stake, he might take a 

long time to arrive at a decision while discussing the issues 

and alternatives throughout his organization to develop a 

consensus. Project managers must understand the culturally influenced processes and not become frustrated. This 

also applies to the negotiating techniques discussed earlier. 

In many male-dominated societies, gender issues can 

make business dealings difficult for an American female 

engineering project manager. She should follow simple, common sense rules of modesty and avoid trying to change the 

local culture.

Conclusion

Culture forms the foundation for ethical behavior and 

determines what behavior is considered ethical and 

what is considered unethical. Potential ethical conflicts arise simply from the different values inherent across 

cultures. Cultural differences in international engineering 

projects cannot be avoided or ignored. A better understanding of influential cultural factors will help reduce and manage conflicts in international construction projects. Recognizing and sensibly manipulating cultural differences could 

allow improvements in the efficiency and profitability of 

international projects. 

 References:

D.E. Allmon, H.C.K. Chen, T.K. Pritchett, and P.J. Forrest, “A Multicultural Examination of Business Ethics Perceptions,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1997.

Catherine N. Axinn, M. Elizabeth Blair, Alla Heorhiadi, 

and Sharon V. Thach, “Comparing Ethical Ideologies Across 

Cultures,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2004. 

Heather Bowe and Kyle Martin, Communication Across 

Cultures: Mutual Understanding in a Global World, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007.

Lewis Long-fung Chau and Wai-sum Siu, “Ethical 

Decision-Making in Corporate Entrepreneurial Organizations,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2000.

Alan Cornes, Culture From the Inside Out: Travel and 

Meet Yourself, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, Maine, 2004.

Roger J. Davies, The Japanese Mind: Understanding 

Contemporary Japanese Culture, Tuttle Publishing, Boston, 

Massachusetts, 2002.

Ofra Goldstein-Gidoni, “Kimono and the Construction 

of Gendered and Cultural Identities,” Ethnology, Vol. 38, 

No. 4, University of Pittsburgh, Fall 1999. 

William B. Gudykunst, Cross-Cultural and Intercultural 

Communication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 2003.

B.W. Husted, J.B. Dozier, J.T. McMahon, and M.W. Kattan, “The Impact of Cross-National Carriers of Business 

Ethics on Attitudes About Questionable Practices and Form 

of Moral Reasoning,” Journal of International Business 

Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1996.

T. Jackson, “Cultural Values and Management Ethics: A 

10-nation Study,” Human Relations, Vol. 54, No. 10, 2001.

Frank Lechner and John Boli, The Globalization Reader, 

Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, 2008.

Nishishiba Masami, “The Concept of Trustworthiness: 

A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Japanese and 

U.S. Business People,” Journal of Applied Communication 

Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, November 2000.

J.Z. Muller, Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society, Free Press, New York, 1993.

Margaret K. Nydell, Understanding Arabs: A Guide for 

Modern Times, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2005. 

John T. Omohundro, Thinking Like an Anthropologist: A 

Practical Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, McGrawHill, New York, 2008.

Christian J. Resick, Paul J. Hanges, Marcus W. Dickson, 

and Jacqueline K. Mitchelson, “A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership,” Journal of 

Business Ethics, Vol. 63, No. 4, 2006.

Maria L. Roxas and Jane Y. Stoneback, “The Importance 

of Gender Across Cultures in Ethical Decision-Making,” 

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2004.

Dr. EL-Guindy holds master’s and doctorate degrees in 

applied linguistics from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, master’s degrees in education and psychology 

from Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt, and graduate diplomas in English as a second language from The 

American University in Cairo, Egypt, and Colchester English Study Centre in Colchester, United Kingdom. He has 

taught at universities in Egypt, Australia, and the United 

States. Currently, he is the cultural and language advisor at 

the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri.
12 Engineer September–December 2012

Before deploying to Afghanistan, I had no idea what a 

contracting officer representative (COR) was or what 

the job entailed. Many people who fill this position 

do not know what to do or what is expected of them. There 

are online classes through the Defense Acquisition University that will help get new CORs started, and classroom 

training will be available at the first duty location. This 

assignment is a great opportunity for engineers to expand 

their knowledge and to use their skills to design and construct buildings. 

Serving as a COR can be a challenging, but gratifying, 

experience for an engineer. A COR is the go-to person for 

contractors and the contracting officer (KO). The COR may 

plan, design, and oversee service contracts, building and 

road construction, and force protection upgrades. The COR 

is also responsible for paying contractors, managing onsite safety for the Army, and maintaining quality control. 

Depending on the number of contracts that a COR oversees, the job can quickly become overwhelming. The COR 

must know what the statement of work (SOW) dictates and 

how to fix shortcomings within it. Before the project starts, 

the COR should read the SOW and have a complete understanding of the project and its parameters. The SOW is the 

foundation for the contract. If something in it is not right, 

it is up to the COR to raise questions about it before the 

preconstruction briefing. As with any construction contract, 

there are sure to be missing items. It is more difficult to add 

missing items once the contractor has started work than to 

perform a good “scrub” of the SOW beforehand. Once the 

SOW is understood, the COR should start building a quality 

assurance/quality check (QA/QC) form, which will become 

important once the project starts. 

By Captain Kyle L. Poppe

A COR accepted poor-quality construction that resulted in 

this fire at the author’s tactical operations center.
September–December 2012 Engineer 13

The COR can make or break a project in many ways. Mistakes made by contractors are more difficult to discover and 

repair if site visits are too infrequent. The COR should have 

contact information for the contractor and any on-site managers that the contractor employs. In the construction business, it is not necessary to have daily site visits, but visits 

should be productive. The COR should always—

■ Inform the contractor ahead of site visits so that issues 

can be effectively discussed and resolved.

■ Ensure that the contractor has on-hand sample materials

needed for future phases of construction before getting to 

that phase of construction.

■ Remain vigilant to the quality of materials and

workmanship. 

If there are deficiencies that the contractor does not want 

to fix, the KO will assist in ensuring that the corrections are 

addressed. Although it is not the preferred method, a notice 

to stop work from the KO is sometimes necessary to provide 

a high-quality product.

To guarantee that the customer is getting a good project 

or service, the COR must ensure that materials meet quality 

standards. Just as they do in the United States, contractors 

in other countries sometimes take shortcuts to save time 

and money, testing the construction knowledge of the COR. 

Although construction principles are the same in any country, the methods of construction vary greatly. In Kandahar, 

Afghanistan, I learned that day laborers earn only about 

$8 a day, but expensive equipment rental and fuel greatly 

increase project costs. Contractors there preferred to pay 

cheap day laborers rather than rent expensive equipment, 

even if that equipment would reduce time for the project and 

save labor hours. Also, day labor equipment operators lack 

experience, which reduces the quality of work and increases 

the risk of accidents. 

Contractors in Afghanistan have many sources to get 

materials and supplies, and they may try to save money by 

purchasing inferior materials. Examples of quality control 

where a COR must be alert are as follows:

■ Rebar for construction in Afghanistan came from Pakistan, Turkey, and even Iran. A COR can determine if 

a contractor is using high-quality rebar by attempting 

to bend it. If rebar cracks when bent, it should be rejected. 

If the SOW specifies 16-mm rebar, the COR must measure the diameter of the rebar to ensure that the proper

size is provided.

■ In Kandahar, contractors may employ good masons, but 

select low-quality materials for concrete. With many

projects, contractors tried to add river rock and use smalldiameter crushed rock for concrete to cut costs. The selection of concrete was another lesson learned. Some brands 

are on a “do not use” list because their strength, once set,

is too low. But since this type of concrete is cheaper, contractors may try to use it. 

■ Contractors may use wiring that is underrated for the 

electrical requirements of the circuit, that is not doubleinsulated, or that does not have a ground wire. A COR

who is not knowledgeable in electrical standards can get 

help from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or from the

KO. I once was faced with a SOW specifying the use of 

North American Electrical Code 2008, which is the

110-volt electrical standard for the United States. Most 

projects overseas use 220-volt systems, so the COR 

should ensure that a SOW dictates the use of international codes or local electrical codes if there are any. 

The National Electrical Code® and international standards guides are available online at many locations,

including <http://www.neca-neis.org>. 

■ Other quality control issues may include plumbing, 

paint, windows, doors, roofing, light fixtures, furniture,

and water heaters. 

Contract Approval Process

The KO will be a COR’s best friend when dealing 

with contractors. In addition to the KO, a project management (PM) team can be helpful in a 

Wiring entering the building through a polyvinyl chloride 

pipe, wire that was too small for the load, and wire that was 

not double-insulated contributed to the fire.

The twist-on wire connector in a hot circuit was one reason 

for the fire.
14 Engineer September–December 2012

number of ways. The team can help with the SOW approval 

process by ensuring that it complies with legal and financial rules for contracting and by editing the SOW so that 

it is as complete as possible. This will reduce the number 

of changes needed as the project proceeds. The team can 

work with finance officials to assure funding for the project 

and ensure that necessary documents are in order before a 

project begins. The PM team will primarily provide assistance before a project starts, but the KO helps most after the 

project starts. 

After the KO and PM team have provided the COR with 

the necessary documents, it is time to meet the contractor 

at a preconstruction meeting. The preconstruction meeting establishes what will be expected of the contractor. 

The COR should inform the contractor that all materials 

will be inspected before construction proceeds. If quality 

problems arise, the COR should explain to the contractor 

why the materials are not acceptable and cite material 

requirements in the SOW. This is a good time to ensure 

that the QA/QC forms for the project are updated and are 

being observed. The COR should request that the KO, a 

PM team member, and a member of the chain of command 

attend the preconstruction meeting. At a minimum, the 

COR should have a coworker attend. The presence of others lets the contractor know that a project is important 

and that an entire organization has a vested interest in 

it. Also, a list of people attending the meeting can be helpful if it becomes necessary to verify that the contractor 

was fully informed about the requirements of the SOW. 

Before the end of the meeting, the COR should address 

all contractor concerns. It is wise for the COR to learn 

local customs and not to assume during deliberations that 

the contractor is ignorant of the English language and 

American slang.

A COR has an obligation to ensure that customers get 

the project or service for which they are paying. On projects 

where the COR tries to be a friend to the contractor, rather 

than the voice of the military, the result is usually poorquality construction and low standards. When a contractor is 

not meeting SOW requirements, the COR should review the 

QA/QC forms and forward them to the KO. The QA/QC forms 

are the record of where the contractor has met—or failed to 

meet—the SOW requirements. A COR who cannot be at the 

work site daily should make site visits at least twice a week 

and complete the QA/QC, depending on movements, security, and other daily wartime missions. 

Additional COR Duties

ACOR might also be required to act as the project payment officer or field ordering officer, responsible for .filing documents to get funding and to get the project 

started. The chain of command should dictate which funding 

is appropriate and what projects have priority. There are 

several ways to fund projects. Since there may be cost limits for projects, depending on the funding source used, it is 

important for a COR to understand those sources and the 

overall cost for the project. 

A good filing system is also crucial. Records must be 

kept for 2 years after a COR turns responsibilities over to 

a replacement. Computers make this easy, but a backup is 

important in case computer problems arise. The payment 

process for a project is easy as long as proper documents are 

maintained and the PM team helps ensure that the documents are available. The COR must work with contractors 

to complete some of the documents, and many contractors 

are familiar with the process.

In the last year, I went from being a confused engineer 

with little contracting knowledge to becoming a confident 

COR. The job is a 180-degree change from performing route 

clearance. Engineers often find themselves working many 

different facets of the engineer realm, and being assigned as 

a COR is not a punishment. Engineers who find themselves 

in this role should welcome the challenge and use the opportunity to develop their professional scope. 

Captain Poppe was a COR while assigned to Task Force 

435 in Afghanistan from February to December 2011. As an 

enlisted Soldier for 16 years, he served as a heavy construction operator, a light construction operator, and a combat 

engineer. He holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Touro University, Vallejo, California and is a 

recent graduate of the Engineer Captains Career Course.

Latrine pipes with a 90 degree bend were a mistake caught 

by a COR.

The plumbing solution included using 30 and 60 degree 

bends.
September–December 2012 Engineer 15

Major General Merdith W.B. (Bo) Temple, deputy 

commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), retired from the U.S. 

Army on 31 August after serving the Nation for more than 

37 years. Major General Temple served as deputy

commanding general since January 2010. Among his 

accomplishments, he served the longest stint as acting commander in the history of USACE, from June 2011 to May 

2012, between the retirement of Lieutenant General Robert 

L. Van Antwerp and the assumption of command by Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick as the new commanding 

general and Chief of Engineers.

“I’m happy and proud to have served the Army and the 

nation with so many wonderful Soldiers and civilians and 

in so many different locations,” Major General Temple said 

during his retirement ceremony. A native of Richmond, 

Virginia, he graduated from the Virginia Military Institute 

with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering in 1975 and was 

commissioned a lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He also holds 

a master’s degree in civil engineering from Texas A and M 

University and is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command 

By Mr. Bernard W. Tate

and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College. 

He was deputy commanding general for Civil Works and 

Emergency Operations and deputy commanding general for 

Military and International Operations, Washington, D.C.; 

commander of USACE, North Atlantic Division, New York 

City, New York; and commander of Transatlantic Programs 

Center, Winchester, Virginia.

Other assignments include theater engineer (C-7), Combined Joint Task Force 7 in Iraq; Assistant Chief of Staff, 

Operations (G-3), XVIII Airborne Corps; and Commander, 

20th Engineer Brigade (Combat) (Airborne Corps) and the 

307th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne).

Major General Temple’s achievements and awards 

include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit 

with two oak leaf clusters, Bronze Star Medal with two oak 

leaf clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Defense 

Meritorious Medal, and other service and unit awards. He 

holds the Master Parachutist badge. 

Mr. Tate is the editor of Engineer Update, at USACE 

headquarters.
16 Engineer September–December 2012

Personnel Force Innovation (PFI) is a little-known 

program chartered in 1996 by the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Comptroller) to place National Guard and 

Reserve personnel on active duty tours with Department 

of Defense (DOD) agencies for 1 to 3 years to support missions for all branches of service. This article focuses on the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), but PFI is available to a vast array of DOD agencies. PFI flexibly mitigates 

personnel shortages within DOD by giving commanders the 

latitude to tailor a program to meet the needs of their particular command. In fact, personnel serving on a PFI tour do 

not even have to serve in their own occupational specialty or 

branch of service. As such, customer organizations can take 

civilian experience into account along with military experience when selecting personnel for their staff. For example, 

a U.S. Army Reserve infantry officer who is a licensed and 

registered architect could serve in— 

■ A traditional infantry position such as operations officer.

■ A branch-immaterial position such as combatant command watch officer.

■ A USACE position such as architect. 

Although USACE has hundreds of Soldiers and Airmen 

supporting it on active duty through PFI, USACE is not the 

only DOD agency taking advantage of this program. Customers range from U.S. Air Force Materiel Command to the 

U.S. Army Office of the Program Manager–Saudi Arabian 

National Guard. The specialties in demand are equally varied, ranging from durable property manager to sheet metal 

mechanic. USACE regularly demonstrates the diversity and 

flexibility that PFI offers a command. Ranging from building infrastructure in Afghanistan to constructing a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in the continental United 

States, PFI has given USACE the ability to “surge,” based 

on its mission requirements, without making the long-term 

commitment of a full-time hire. While Soldiers and Airmen 

serve on PFI tours, they benefit from training opportunities 

because of their active duty status. PFI Soldiers have even 

attended schools such as the U.S. Army Airborne and Air 

Assault Schools. Professional development opportunities 

and advanced military schools are offered to PFI personnel 

to ensure that they complete their tours with skills that will 

ultimately benefit their branch of service when they return 

to their National Guard or Reserve status.

There are currently more than 82 PFI positions available. Organizations like USACE that are “project funded” 

or “reimbursable” (unlike typical troop units) can fund a 

Soldier’s salary directly from their operational account. The 

availability of project funds provides an abundance of PFI 

positions within such organizations. It is important to make 

this distinction for decisionmakers to understand that the 

decline of funding for overseas contingency operations does 

not prevent them from filling critical shortages. 

The key to funding is the flat pay rate—the civilian 

equivalency rate—that agencies pay. This rate is set each 

By Lieutenant Colonel Ginger K. Norris

“From a human capital perspective, PFI offers DOD managers 

the opportunity to increase their 

workforce . . . with quality military 

personnel who will help them save 

resources while simultaneously 

increasing productivity.”
September–December 2012 Engineer 17

year by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) under guidance in DOD 7000.14-R, Department of 

Defense Financial Management Regulations (FMRs), Volume 7A (Military Pay Policy and Procedures–Active Duty 

and Reserve Pay), found at <http://comptroller.defense

.gov/fmr/07a/>. Once funded, personnel receive full active 

duty benefits. Although PFI has met the greater demand 

for positions created by our heightened operational 

tempo, the program’s success is somewhat impervious to 

projected DOD budget reductions because of its unique 

funding methods. PFI allows organizations with critical 

vacancies to fund the labor costs associated with the mobilization of National Guard or Reserve personnel via working 

capital funds transferred on a Military Interdepartmental

Purchase Request.1

A finance noncommissioned officer for PFI says that he 

has noticed PFI participation levels remaining consistent 

over the past 18 months despite projected downsizing. He 

stated that while some agencies are reducing the number of 

PFI vacancies they advertise, others are broadening their 

search for qualified personnel. PFI has also experienced a 

resurgence of past customers who had not used PFI for several years but are now returning, even as newer customers 

are collaborating with PFI to fill their shortages. 

The project-funded nature of PFI allows the customer 

organization to establish position criteria, announce a 

vacancy on the PFI Web site, screen applications, and interview candidates. Rather than receiving new personnel forcibly assigned from higher echelons, the customer organization can choose the right candidate to meet its needs. The 

process is similar to the civilian hiring process and provides 

the customer organization a great deal of flexibility to tailor 

the position description to fit its needs. This enhances the 

quality of personnel because the selection is competitive. 

Major Shaun P. Martin is a great example of the caliber 

of personnel an organization can recruit using the PFI program. Major Martin, an Oregon Army National Guard engineer who recently completed a 2-year PFI tour with USACE 

San Francisco District, was awarded the Federal Engineer 

of the Year Award during his PFI tour. He credits PFI for 

allowing him to learn how USACE operates as an enterprise. PFI afforded Major Martin the opportunity to work 

alongside Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and civilian 

engineers and also personnel from other agencies such as 

the Coast Guard, demonstrating the cross-component and 

joint nature of the program. PFI afforded the San Francisco 

District the opportunity to recruit a quality field grade officer 

with the experience needed. Major Martin managed the San 

Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program, a project designed 

to supply 2.4 million recycled gallons daily to irrigation customers as part of a federal stimulus through the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He is also credited with using his skills and expertise to overcome significant project delays that occurred before his arrival. Major 

Martin’s PFI tour not only satisfied the needs of the PFI 

customer organization—the San Francisco District—but 

also those of their customer, the local community. 

From a human capital perspective, PFI offers DOD managers the opportunity to increase their workforce for a finite 

time period with quality military personnel who will help 

them save resources while simultaneously increasing productivity. For the applicant, PFI offers endless unparalleled 

professional development opportunities. Finally, the civilian managers of those accepted into PFI will get personnel 

with more skills, more experience, and more to offer their 

own organization—regardless of whether the business has a 

military affiliation. By using PFI, every-one wins.

For more information, visit the PFI Web site at <http://

pfi.dod.mil> or its Facebook page at <https://www.face

book.com/PersonnelForce>. Contact the PFI office by mail 

at HQ, DFAS/PFI, 8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 

46249-0301; by e-mail at <pfi@dfas.mil>; or by phone at 

commercial (317) 212-2828 or DNS 699-4524.

Endnote:

1

Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request, DD

Form 448.

Reference:

DOD 7000.14.R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulations (FMRs), Volume 7A (Military Pay Policy and Procedures–Active Duty and Reserve Pay).

Lieutenant Colonel Norris is a U.S. Army Reserve engineer currently serving on a PFI mobilization as the military 

missions operations officer at USACE headquarters in Washington, D.C. She holds a master’s degree in public policy 

administration from the University of Missouri–St. Louis 

and is a certified professional project manager.

For Agencies Seeking to Fill Vacancies:

■ Defense agencies seeking temporary workforce assistance complete a PFI position order form describing the 

position and its requirements. 

■ PFI advertises the position on its Web site to a poten-

	 tial candidate pool of more than 500,000 qualified

National Guard and Reserve service members.

■ Service members apply for positions via the PFI Web site.

■ Applications from the most qualified candidates are forwarded for review by the defense agency, which will 

interview and select a service member. 

■ The defense agency notifies PFI of the selection and

provides Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request funding for the cost of the tour. 

■ PFI processes the service member’s request for orders; 

and upon approval of those orders, the service member reports for duty at the defense agency. 
18 Engineer September–December 2012

When a unit deploys, it is essential for its leaders to focus on the mission first. However, at the same time they are coordinating the completion 

of essential tasks, engineer battalion executive officers can 

facilitate the professional development of battalion staff 

officers for improved efficiency during the fight and for their 

future growth as U.S. Army officers. With an emphasis on 

open communication and a very modest investment of time 

and effort, staff officers can receive and provide meaningful 

feedback and become a better-functioning and more tightly 

knit team while deployed. 

In January 2011, the 1249th Engineer Battalion, 

Oregon Army National Guard, deployed to Regional 

Command–East to support Operation Enduring Freedom, becoming part of the 176th Engineer Brigade 

Task Force Hammer. For most of the first half of the 

deployment, the battalion had mission command of 

two vertical engineer companies, two horizontal engineer companies, a survey and design team, a concrete 

detachment, and a U.S. Air Force well-drilling detachment. Combined with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company and Forward Support Company, these 

elements consisted of more than 900 service members 

and constituted Task Force Gridley. They quickly 

began to conduct dozens of force protection, freedomof-movement, Afghan National Army partnership, and 

civil-military operations each month. 

First Approach

After approximately 2 months of operating in 

the challenging logistical and security envi-

.ronment of .Afghanistan, each company commander was asked for candid, confidential feedback on 

what the battalion staff sections were doing right and 

what they could improve. The “sustain” and “improve” 

comments were then shared with each staff section. As 

a result, the battalion staff adjusted its battle rhythm, 

improved the products they provided to the companies, or improved the procedures and communications

systems they employed. Besides providing the battalion staff sections with the useful ideas of the company 

commanders, the feedback also gave the commanders 

a sense that the battalion staff truly aimed to support 

their efforts to meet the battalion commander’s intent.

The mid-deployment assumption of route clearance operations 

forced the TF Gridley staff to adjust its construction-focused 

procedures and battle rhythm.

By Lieutenant Colonel Jon S. Middaugh
battalion executive officer, all staff section chiefs, the chaplain, physicians’ assistants, and the commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Company prepared brief, written assessments of each other’s traits and actions during the 

deployment. Most officers required only 1 or 2 hours to write 

their assessments. The comments were reviewed, sorted, 

and then distributed to the assessed officers. Each staff 

officer, therefore, received several anonymous sheets with 

candid feedback that listed 20 to 30 “sustain” and “improve” 

comments and reflected the perspectives of people they 

interacted with daily. Patterns, such as repeated observations that an officer should continue with proactive behavior 

or should brief more succinctly, provided concrete suggestions to maintain or build staff strengths.

Open communication is an element that contributed significantly to the development of the Task Force Gridley staff 

while deployed. The unvarnished, confidential feedback 

about battalion staff officers that company commanders provided to the task force executive officer in the first approach 

enabled him and the staff section chiefs to make useful 

adjustments early on. The officer professional development 

sessions in the second approach allowed staff and line company officers to understand that their respective roles complemented each other and that teamwork and communication across the task force made everyone better. Anonymity 

enabled staff members to provide honest and constructive 

performance assessments of the executive officer and their 

own colleagues in the third approach. The officers involved 

could see that the assessment exercises demonstrated an 

organizational commitment to improvement. They were less 

inclined to take it personally when they read suggestions for 

improvement since they could see that everybody was offering and receiving similar suggestions.

Lieutenant Colonel Middaugh commands the 1249th 

Engineer Battalion, Oregon Army National Guard. He is a 

graduate of the Command and General Staff College Intermediate Level Education Course and holds a Ph.D. in world 

history. He teaches world, Latin American, and military history at Washington State University at Pullman.

September–December 2012 Engineer 19

Second Approach

I

n March 2011, Task Force Gridley leaders attended the 

first monthly task force officer professional development 

sessions. Briefing from Forward Operating Base Fenty 

in Nangarhar Province and from Task Force Gridley headquarters at Forward Operating Base Sharana in Paktika 

Province, the two vertical engineer company commanders 

shared (through video teleconference) their lessons learned 

with many of the officers in the task force. For all the staff 

officers, but especially those from nonengineer branches who 

had never led construction efforts, this briefing illuminated 

the complexity of the engineer fight. It allowed the staff to 

see how critical logistics, intelligence, and communications 

were for supporting engineer operations.

Follow-on officer professional development sessions were 

usually presented by two or more officers working collaboratively. Held on the last Saturday morning of the month—

unless missions necessitated a change—the sessions allowed 

the company commanders, platoon leaders, and members of 

the battalion staff to share some form of the lessons learned. 

These gatherings also presented an excellent opportunity to 

consider the insights of neighboring engineer elements. For 

example, the 243d Construction Management Team, which 

worked closely with Task Force Gridley throughout the 

deployment, sent an officer to detail the tactics, techniques, 

and procedures that her unit employed to complete its mission. Her presentation enabled the operations section construction team, the supply section logistics cell, and officers 

from the construction companies to understand more clearly 

how to synchronize the efforts of the construction management team and the task force.

About midway through the deployment, the role of the 

task force significantly evolved and forced the staff to modify 

its procedures. As part of an organizational shift to “multirole battalions” at Task Force Hammer in May, the 1249th 

Engineer Battalion transferred mission command of its most 

remote vertical and horizontal engineer companies to the 

54th Engineer Battalion from Task Force Dolch. The following month, two route clearance companies operating nearby 

became task-organized under Task Force Gridley. At the 

end of June, Task Force Hammer was replaced by the 18th 

Engineer Brigade—Task Force Sword—which soon introduced a new campaign focus, changed the battle rhythm, 

and instituted its own reporting procedures. A month or so 

after these changes occurred would have been a good time 

to ask company commanders for another round of feedback 

on the effectiveness of the Task Force Gridley staff. However, the accelerated operations tempo due to organizational 

changes and the summer fighting season caused the opportunity to be overlooked. 

Third Approach

The third approach that Task Force Gridley employed 

in its officer professional development required each 

of the staff officers to share internal, anonymous 

after action reviews of their colleagues’ job performance. The

“. . .coordinating the completion of essential tasks, engineer 

battalion executive officers can 

facilitate the professional development of battalion staff officers 

for improved efficiency during the 

fight and for their future growth 

as U.S. Army officers.”
20 Engineer September–December 2012

As construction workers maneuvered bulldozers and 

spread sand to restore the degrading marsh island 

.of Yellow Bar Hassock in Jamaica Bay, New York, 

their work was being closely observed by an area resident—

a harbor seal. The seal had been seen lying on the dredge 

pipeline that delivered the sand and sunning himself as the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New York District, 

performed its restoration work. 

“For the past few months we’ve seen him on the site. He 

just keeps doing his thing. I find it so amazing every time we 

construct one of these island projects how quickly wildlife 

will use this area,” said Ms. Melissa Alvarez, a senior project 

biologist with USACE. 

This has been the case with other marsh islands that 

USACE restored in Jamaica Bay and proved to be the same 

with the Yellow Bar Hassock project, which was completed 

during the summer of 2012. Yellow Bar Hassock is part of a 

marsh island complex located in the 26-square-mile Jamaica 

Bay Park and Wildlife Refuge that was the country’s first 

national urban park and one of the Gateway National 

Recreation Areas. The refuge is in an urban area 

that includes portions of Brooklyn, Queens, and 

Nassau Counties, New York. The area’s shorelines are bordered by heavily developed lands, 

including John F. Kennedy International Airport, 

the Belt Parkway, and several landfills.

Over the past century, the Jamaica Bay marsh 

islands have been disappearing at a rapid rate. 

Since 1924, nearly 80 percent of the islands have 

disappeared. They are disappearing at a rate of 

approximately 44 acres per year and even more 

quickly in the last decade. It’s believed that a 

great deal of this degradation is due to regional 

urbanization. If something is not done to stop 

this loss, it’s estimated that the marsh islands 

could vanish by 2025, leaving wildlife homeless 

and threatening the bay’s shoreline. According to 

Ms. Alvarez, maintaining the health of the marsh 

islands is critical to the well-being of wildlife 

and the 20 million people who live and work in 

this urban region. The marsh islands are home 

for a variety of wildlife, including fish and shellfish that are an important food source for birds. 

The islands also help improve water quality by 

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

The team removed mounds of earth and vegetation from low-lying 

areas of the marsh. 
September–December 2012 Engineer 21

removing substances such as nitrogen and phosphates and serve as flood protection and shoreline 

erosion control for the bay’s surrounding homes 

and businesses. They dissipate wave energy, minimize storm surge, and reduce flood risk. For the 

public, this means less erosion to personal property, more species available for recreational fishing, better water quality, and the preservation 

of the Gateway National Recreation Area that is

visited by millions of people each year.

For the past decade, USACE and partner 

agencies have restored 180 acres of marsh in 

Jamaica Bay, including Elders East and Elders 

West marsh islands and Gerritsen Creek. 

USACE is working with the Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey, the National Park 

Service (Gateway), the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the National Resources Conservation 

Service, and the New York/New Jersey Harbor 

Estuary Program.

To restore Yellow Bar Hassock marsh island, 375,000 

cubic yards of dredged sand were pumped onto the island and 

shaped to simulate the proper elevations of a marsh island. 

This work added an additional 42 acres to the degraded 

island, restoring it to a 156-acre habitat. The sand placed 

on the island was dredged from the Ambrose Channel, part 

of the USACE New York/New Jersey Harbor Deepening 

Project. In the past, this sand would have been dumped into 

the ocean, so this program is a win-win for the environment

and taxpayers.

The restoration team then planted seed on nearly 

30 acres of marsh, using seed collected from within Jamaica 

Bay. The low marsh areas were seeded with smooth 

cordgrass, which acts as a natural anchor for marsh sediment and can tolerate salt and low tides. In the high elevations of the marsh, they planted more than 100,000 2-inch 

plugs of saltmarsh meadow grass and spike grass. These 

plants (also collected within Jamaica Bay) are less tolerant 

of salt but endure the salt water during high tides. 

Before the sand was placed, the team removed 11,000 

hummocks (mounds of earth and vegetation) from low-lying 

areas of the marsh island. The team stored them in fencedoff areas on the project site and transplanted them onto the 

new areas of higher elevation after the sand was placed. 

Hummocks are natural anchors for marsh sediment because 

they are part of the historic marsh that has already matured 

and fills in to stabilize the island.

Yellow Bar Hassock has already begun to look good. 

Horseshoe crabs have been spotted laying eggs on the island, 

which just a year ago wasn’t suitable for them because it 

was a barren mudflat. The old adage of “Build it, and they 

will come” suits Jamaica Bay’s islands—especially Yellow 

Bar Hassock—very well.

Dr. Castagna is a public affairs specialist for USACE, 

New York District. She can be reached at <joanne.castagna

@usace.army.mil>. Follow her on Twitter at <http://twit

ter.com /writer4usacenyc>.

Construction workers maneuver bulldozers and spread sand to

restore the degrading marsh island of Yellow Bar Hassock in 

Jamaica Bay.

The low marsh areas were seeded with smooth cordgrass, which acts as a natural anchor for marsh sediment and can 

tolerate salt and low tides.
22 Engineer September–December 2012

By Second Lieutenant Brian T. McCormick

The officers and senior noncommissioned officers of 

the 11th Engineer Battalion “Jungle Cats,” based at 

Fort Benning, Georgia, renewed their commitment to 

professional development with a visit to Vicksburg, Mississippi, from 25 to 28 April 2012. The group visited numerous locations, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) Engineer Research Development Center (ERDC); 

the 412th Engineer Command; the USACE, Vicksburg District headquarters; and the Vicksburg National Military 

Park. Throughout the 4-day journey, there was time to network with engineering professionals, discover opportunities 

for career growth, and interact casually with fellow battalion leaders.

 On the first day in Vicksburg, the Jungle Cats toured 

ERDC, the most expansive USACE research laboratory. The 

four areas of focus at the Vicksburg laboratories include—

■ Coastal and hydraulics engineering.

■ Environmental engineering.

■ Geotechnical and structures engineering.

■ Information technology engineering. 

Feedback about this part of the staff ride was markedly 

positive. The assistant battalion communications officer said, 

“I particularly enjoyed the information technology laboratory 

and walking through the rows upon rows of processors that 

were part of the supercomputer. This part of the visit was 

nostalgic because it reminded me of an internship I participated in during my time at the U.S. Military Academy.”

The group was impressed by the vast array of technical knowledge and experience presented at ERDC, but was 

particularly receptive to the USACE Reachback Operations 

Center (UROC). For engineers in an operational environment, UROC helps bridge the gap between leaders at the 

tactical level and subject matter experts at ERDC, who can 

provide expedient solutions to real-world problems. In an 

army that has frequently deployed to support Operations 

Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn, UROC 

gives engineers a powerful tool throughout all phases of unified land operations. Like many members of the Engineer 

Regiment, 11th Engineer Battalion leaders have used UROC 

expertise via TeleEngineering Toolkits during numerous 

combat deployments since the War on Terrorism began.
September–December 2012 Engineer 23

Right: A USACE representative tells visitors from the 

11th Engineer Battalion 

how mats used in soil and 

airfield projects are tested.

Visits to the 412th Engineer Command and the Vicksburg District headquarters were highlights of the second 

day of the staff ride. Soldiers and leaders of the 412th Engineer Command manage all Reserve Component engineer 

units east of the Mississippi River, with an emphasis on 

mission command nodes. This part of the staff ride gave 

Jungle Cat leaders a view of the Engineer Regiment that is 

sometimes misunderstood by Regular Army Soldiers. Later 

in the day, a member of the battalion forward support company presented an in-depth view of the Civil War siege of 

Vicksburg from a logistician’s perspective. Presentations by 

members of all battalion companies gave Jungle Cat leaders 

knowledge that would be critical for the next day’s battlefield tour. 

The final day of the staff ride consisted of a tour of the 

Vicksburg National Military Park led by a member of the 

National Parks Service. Traveling across the site by bus, the 

group learned about the struggles of Union and Confederate 

Soldiers during the battle for the city in the summer of 1863. 

Soldiers on both sides fought and died in the humid climate 

amid disease and violence. As the bus pulled away from 

Vicksburg, the 11th Engineer Battalion leaders returned 

to work with a greater appreciation for the profession of 

arms and a renewed dedication to leading today’s engineer

Soldier.

Second Lieutenant McCormick is a vertical construction 

platoon leader in the 11th Engineer Battalion at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Left: A guide uses a video to explain possible configurations of 

the modular protective system 

that gives Soldiers enhanced 

force protection.
24 Engineer September–December 2012

Amission sometimes viewed as an “orchestrated ballet 

of farm implements” is challenging to conduct and 

.worthy of discussion by Army professionals.1 During the Army’s most recent conventional forced-entry operations in Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003, obstacles stood in 

the way of ground combat forces. Combat engineer forces 

enabled maneuver forward in both of these conflicts. Keeping this history in mind while predicting future threats, 

the Army has introduced a new Decisive Action Training 

Environment (DATE) that challenges units with an enemy 

that is equipped, trained, and willing to use a variety of 

obstacles to deny them freedom of action. The threat facing 

U.S. units in the DATE will require a combined arms team 

that is prepared to apply lessons learned to counter improvised explosive devices and the conventional complex mine, 

wire, and earthen berm obstacles employed by adversaries 

in 1991 and 2003. Descriptions of the hybrid threat that 

rotational units will face during decisive action rotations at 

the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, can be found in the “DATE Version 2.0” handbook published by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC).2 This article reports on combined arms breaching observations and training recommendations from the 

first DATE rotation conducted at NTC in March 2012 with 

a new “farm implement” at the dance—the Army’s newly 

fielded assault breacher vehicle (ABV).

Observations from NTC rotations indicate that success 

at the breach still requires the Army’s doctrinal breaching 

tenets—

■ Intelligence.

■ Breaching fundamentals.

□ Suppress. 

□ Obscure.

□ Secure. 

□ Reduce.

□ Assault.

■ Organization. 

■ Mass.

■ Synchronization.3

Engineer formations are understandably out of practice 

at this particular dance. The biggest shortfall observed in 

the conduct of combined arms breaching is a lack of company level engineers integrating into and influencing the 

military decisionmaking process (MDMP) of their supported 

combined arms battalion. Officers are too often hesitant to 

recommend the introduction of breaching fundamentals into 

the course of action. The result is that engineer breaching 

assets are not in position to rapidly exploit at the point of 

By Lieutenant Colonel Jason A. Kirk and Captain Clint W. Brown
September–December 2012 Engineer 25

penetration and help the combined arms battalion maintain 

momentum through the breach. 

The ABV is built on an M1 Abrams tank chassis and 

includes a turbine engine that enables it to keep up with the 

maneuver forces it is designed to support. The platform has 

two linear demolition charges (LDCs) mounted on the rear 

of the vehicle turret. The LDC is a mine-clearing line charge 

(MICLIC) with a new name, but has a Kevlar® cover, has an 

automatic ejection system to speed reloads and safely react 

to hazardous malfunctions, and is much more stable on the 

move than a trailer-mounted system. The modified table of 

organization and equipment (MTOE) for an engineer company in a heavy brigade combat team consists of three combat engineer platoons and an equipment platoon. The equipment platoon includes six ABVs in two assault sections. The 

resulting 12 LDCs provide more breaching capability than 

the four trailer-mounted MICLICs formerly authorized. The 

base MTOE also includes two full-width mine plows and a 

combat dozer blade for each platoon. With that equipment, 

each platoon would be able to breach a combined obstacle 

up to 522 meters deep, quite an improvement over the 

174 meters of clearance available to a platoon with two 

trailer-mounted MICLICs. The ABV is also equipped with 

an automatic lane-marking system. By design, a single ABV 

can reduce an obstacle with its LDC, proof a lane with its 

mine plow, and mark lanes while the other ABVs provide 

redundancy and alternatives for the combat formation. 

As engineer leaders work through the MDMP, they may 

find that instead of placing three ABVs with the two assault 

squads of the equipment platoon, they might place two ABVs 

in each of the three platoons. While reducing some mass, 

this task organization offers additional breaching options 

across the maneuver force. It is premature in the fielding 

cycle to call for an MTOE change, but the equal allocation 

of three mine plows/dozer blades per platoon may bear 

consideration. The balanced allocation of mine plows and 

dozer blades would allow mine plow/dozer blade teams to 

be incorporated into each of the three platoons, with redundancy available from the maneuver task force tank plows. 

Successive engineer and combined arms training will 

increase the unit understanding of capabilities and unit confidence in employing this equipment to support combined 

arms breaching. 

The ABV is equipped with a blade that can reduce manmade obstacles such as log cribs and move debris that was 

emplaced to slow down maneuver forces. Teamed with an 

armored combat earthmover (ACE), it can be used to reduce 

enemy antitank ditches. The ABV dozer blade is not wellsuited for filling in antitank ditches, but its power makes 

it very effective in reducing the berm on the enemy side of 

the ditch. The ACE doesn’t have the power to quickly reduce 

the berm on the enemy side of the ditch, but it can easily fill 

in the ditch to create a ramp so that the ABV can reach the 

“A mission sometimes viewed 

as an ‘orchestrated ballet 

of farm implements’ is challenging to conduct and worthy 

of discussion by Army

professionals.”

The ACE is an effective piece of equipment when used in 

tandem with the ABV.
26 Engineer September–December 2012

berm. At the NTC, an engineer company making multiple 

breaches through antitank ditches achieved its quickest 

times using the ABV and ACE in tandem. Units at home station should incorporate antitank ditch reduction training to 

reflect the nature of complex obstacles commonly emplaced 

by the DATE near-peer conventional adversary. 

It is worth noting that bridging assets in the form of 

armored vehicle-launched bridges were once organic to brigade combat team engineers and integral to the reduction 

of antitank ditches and berms. Since current MTOEs do not 

provide this gap-crossing capability within brigade combat 

teams, it is critical that planners request these assets from 

maneuver enhancement brigade formations, find a bypass 

to the gap-crossing obstacle, and practice the ABV/ACE drill 

described here. 

The ABV is equipped with the same automatic lanemarking system used by Stryker vehicles. The system provides entrance, left-hand rail, and exit markers during initial lane marking. To take full advantage of the system, units 

must develop and implement standard marking tactics, 

techniques, and procedures and capture them as unit standing operating procedures. Without clear standards, units 

can expect inconsistent initial lane-marking signatures from 

engineer platoons during various missions across the brigade area of operations and the likelihood of increased casualties resulting from the confusion. The ABV lane marker 

cannot effectively mark the final approach or the entrance 

funnel. This step requires planning by the engineer platoon 

leader to establish the initial lane with a combination of 

the ABV and dismounted Sappers. To be effective, marking 

drills must be understood by the maneuver task forces and 

follow-on sustainment formations. 

At the NTC, the lane-marking system proved moderately 

effective in marking the left-hand rail. During plowing operations, the soil was loose enough to allow the emplacement 

of lane markers, but the left-hand rail became obscured 

by dust or knocked over by vehicles as follow-on forces 

moved through the breach site. As a result, some vehicles 

moved outside the lane and into unproofed sections of the 

obstacle. Only when units augment the left-hand rail of the 

Left: An ABV clears a lane for the 

armored task force to maneuver to 

the objective.

Right: The ABV gives 

engineer and task 

force commanders 

the ability to configure breach assets in 

new ways.
September–December 2012 Engineer 27

lane-marking system with orange traffic cones are followon forces likely to stick to the lane. The task force and the 

engineers must rehearse lane marking under day and night 

conditions. To educate subordinates before executing a combined arms breach mission, engineers should consider setting up a static display of their marking method in an area 

(such as the tactical assembly area entrance control point) 

where the task force will maneuver often. (FM 3-34.2 provides standards for lane and bypass marking.4

) The proverbial “long pole in the tent” of combined arms breach success 

is the effectiveness of the lane-marking signature in helping 

the initial assault force and follow-on combat forces move 

forward to the farside objectives. Rehearsals and the use of 

a common lane-marking standard are critical enablers of 

this success. 

The absence of a capable engineer representative (the 

engineer company commander or a platoon leader) during 

MDMP and rehearsals presents a major shortfall during the 

planning of combined arms breaching operations. The engineer representative must ensure that the MDMP includes 

formal reverse breach planning. Key tasks within reverse 

breach planning are to— 

■ Identify available reduction assets.

■ Predict the placement of enemy obstacles.

■ Understand the scheme of movement and maneuver.

■ Identify the number of required breach lanes.

■ Identify assets required to reduce, proof, and mark lanes.

■ Task-organize reduction assets within the maneuver

force. 

Breaching operations also commonly suffer from a lack 

of deliberate, combined arms rehearsals incorporating the 

engineer leadership. The detailed discussion of breach execution is critical during rehearsals at all echelons, from task 

force level, combined arms rehearsals to company and platoon premission radio rehearsals. 

“The rehearsal is one of the most effective synchronization tools available to commanders.”5

 Performed correctly, 

a rehearsal allows the support force, breach force (security 

and engineer reduction elements), and assault force to visualize their actions in time and space and helps the task force 

commander identify decision points related to the successive 

commitment decision of the breach force and the assault 

force. When the reverse breach planning and rehearsals 

achieve synchronization, the ABV-enabled engineers will be 

properly positioned with redundant assets and clear commitment criteria, leading to more successful execution on 

the dance floor. 

In conclusion, while the ABV will provide the Army with 

a greater capability to conduct combined arms breaching, 

it does not diminish the importance of applying doctrinal 

fundamentals in the form of breaching tenets when planning, preparing, and executing them. The ABV reduces 

cross-country maneuver time to the point of penetration, 

decreases the number of vehicles and personnel exposed to 

direct fire at the point of penetration, and cuts the time to 

reduce an antitank ditch. To fully realize the advantages of 

this new breaching asset, task force engineers must be fully 

integrated into the MDMP and maneuver units must devote 

particular attention to actions at the breach during rehearsals. The dance floors in our Army’s future will surely include 

the challenges of obstacles. Now enabled with the ABV and 

renewed attention to the age-old lessons in doctrine, our 

combined arms force will be well situated to succeed in helping maneuver forces to “seize and exploit the initiative.”6

Endnotes:

1

Harry Greene, “The Grizzly and the Wolverine: Alternatives to an Orchestrated Ballet of Farm Implements,” 

Engineer Bulletin, August 1996, <http://www.fas.org/man

/dod-101/sys/land/docs/960800-greene2.htm>, accessed on 

16 August 2012.

2

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC 

Intelligence Support Activity–Threats, “Decisive Action 

Training Environment,” December 2011, <https://www

.us.army.mil/suite/doc/34949475>, accessed on 16 August 

2012.

3

Field Manual (FM) 3-34.22, Engineer Operations—

Brigade Combat Team and Below (Appendix C, Combined 

Arms Breaching Operations), 11 February 2009, accessed on 

16 August 2012.

4

Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 3-90.4, Combined Arms Mobility Operations, 10 August 2011.

5

FM 3-34.22.

6

Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 10 October 2011.

Lieutenant Colonel Kirk is the senior maneuver support 

observer coach/trainer at NTC. Previously, he commanded 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, 

and served two combat tours in Iraq. He is a graduate of 

the Engineer Officer Advanced Course, the U.S. Army Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and the U.S. Army 

Command and General Staff College. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in environmental engineering from the U.S. Military 

Academy, a master’s of science degree in engineering management from Missouri University of Science and Technology, and a master’s degree in environmental engineering 

from the University of Florida.

Captain Brown is an observer/controller at NTC. Previously he served as an aide-de-camp at the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Organization in Washington, D.C., 

and commander of the 541st Engineer Company, Bamberg, 

Germany. He is a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer 

Leader Course, the Engineer Captains Career Course, and 

the Joint Engineer Operations Course. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in philosophy from Georgia Southern University 

and a master’s degree in public policy administration from

Webster University.
28 Engineer September–December 2012

Background

The 515th Engineer Company deployed to support 

Operation Enduring Freedom in late February 

2011. Within weeks of arriving at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Ghazni, the 515th was partnered with the 

Route Clearance Company (RCC), 3d Brigade, 203d Corps, 

Afghan National Army (ANA), which arrived at nearby FOB 

Vulcan straight from its validation training in Kabul. 

Because of poor communication among the RCC’s American trainers in Kabul, its ANA higher headquarters, and 

the Polish military operational environment owner, FOB 

Vulcan was not adequately prepared to receive the RCC. 

The colocated ANA higher headquarters was not ready to 

provide housing, heat, or power, which caused problems 

when temperatures dropped below freezing at night. 

By mid-June 2011, the RCC was settled into FOB 

Vulcan; and the 515th placed an embedded training team 

(ETT) of four Soldiers there who were dedicated to developing the RCC into an independent unit. The ETT observed 

the capabilities of the RCC, assessed training required to 

conduct independent route clearance missions, and developed a plan of action for the remainder of the deployment. 

The ETT monitored the RCC as it conducted training led 

by its leaders and executed route clearance missions led by 

U.S. route clearance patrols from the 515th and the 572d 

Mobility Augmentation Company. During these partnered 

missions, the Afghans integrated their vehicles into the 

American order of march—when the Americans pushed out 

dismounts, the Afghans dismounted with them. These partnered missions let the RCC observe properly executed route 

clearance operations and let the ETT assess what the RCC 

needed to improve before operating independently.

In early September 2011, the ETT completed its assessment and began to prepare the RCC for independent operations. By the time the 515th redeployed in early March 2012, 

By Captain Jeffrey D. Nichols, First Lieutenant Daniel B. Powell, 

and Sergeant Anthony L. Bollin
September–December 2012 Engineer 29

the RCC had conducted 40 independent route clearance missions with an 80 percent find rate. After 7 months of daily 

partnership with the RCC, the 515th Engineer Company 

ETT concluded that small, motivated teams conducting 

daily interaction with their Afghan counterparts are the key 

to the successful preparation of Afghan forces for independent operations. The following is a discussion of their methods to accomplish this end state and the lessons learned. 

Logistical and Garrison Operations

With inadequate support from its higher headquarters, the RCC struggled to get food, water, and fuel for missions; repair parts and lubricants for 

vehicles; and heaters and firewood during cold weather. 

Typically, the RCC could field only one of its three platoons 

because so few of their vehicles were mission-capable. The 

515th instituted a policy that allowed the unit to provide 

the RCC with mission-critical resources, but only after the 

Afghans had made every effort to obtain them through 

proper channels and failed.

In addition to inadequate supplies of repair parts and 

lubricants for vehicle maintenance, the ETT encountered 

a lack of regular preventive maintenance checks and services. To underscore the importance of vehicle maintenance, 

ETT and RCC leaders agreed to appoint an Afghan motor 

sergeant and several mechanics and to establish a weekly 

command maintenance day. The RCC motor sergeant and 

mechanics spent 4 days a week at the headquarters workshop, which allowed them to get hands-on maintenance 

experience and training. On command maintenance days, 

they reported to the RCC area to supervise maintenance—

half of the day was devoted to vehicle maintenance, and 

the other half was devoted to weapons 

maintenance and cleaning.

Lax soldier discipline was a major 

challenge faced by ETT and RCC leaders. The officers were well trained and 

educated, but they received little support from their noncommissioned officers (NCOs). The lack of experience and 

professional development among the 

NCOs hindered their ability to enforce 

standards. As a result, the ETT established a professional development program with RCC NCOs and promoted 

professional relationships among RCC 

officers, NCOs, and soldiers.

Training

When the ETT members completed their assessment in September 2011, they listed 

the training that the RCC would need 

to execute missions independently. 

They began by training the RCC on 

individual tasks, such as crew-served 

weapons operation, mine detector operation, and first aid. 

These classes went smoothly, but when training on collective tasks such as convoy operations, dismounted patrol procedures, and react-to-contact drills, progress was more difficult. These more advanced topics brought more questions 

from the RCC soldiers, overwhelming the interpreters, who 

had to translate lessons by instructors and questions from 

students at the same time. 

As a result, the ETT adopted a train-the-trainer philosophy to teach the more complex and collective tasks. These 

training events were called soda sessions and were held 

about twice a month. RCC officers and platoon sergeants 

gathered in a classroom without soldiers, which minimized 

distractions. The ETT provided sodas, energy drinks, and 

snacks, which were treats that the RCC leaders rarely 

enjoyed. The Afghans routinely offered tea, flat bread, and 

other Afghan foods to the ETT, so the soda sessions offered a 

way for the ETT members to return the favor and encourage 

attendance.

In this classroom format, ETT instructors taught complex topics such as battle drills or ways to improve command climate. The instructors helped the RCC leaders 

develop standing operating procedures, which helped them 

train their own soldiers. This empowered the RCC leaders 

by making them look knowledgeable to their soldiers. In 

addition to the extremely successful soda sessions, the ETT 

found that another useful training tool was to award RCC 

soldiers with certificates when they completed specialty 

training. The certificates were relatively easy to produce, 

were popular with the RCC soldiers (since Afghans in general seem to cherish such documents), and served as training records for the ETT.

A member of the 515th ETT supervises a route clearance company gunner 

during a range fire.
30 Engineer September–December 2012

Mission Preparation

After conducting several route clearance missions 

alongside U.S. Soldiers and training to correct 

.observed flaws, the RCC was ready to operate independently by mid-September 2011. They were soon in high 

demand to conduct direct support route clearance missions 

and named operations, freeing the U.S. route clearance 

patrols to fulfill division requirements. The ETT introduced 

changes to improve the mission notification process. Theoretically, the Polish military operational environment owner 

would notify the RCC higher headquarters at 3d Brigade, 

203d Corps, ANA, which would alert the RCC of the upcoming mission. However, this process often left the RCC with 

insufficient time to prepare. Instead, the ETT received the 

mission from the requesting unit and then issued it to the 

RCC, which then notified the ANA headquarters. This was 

not the ideal process, but it maximized the time that the 

RCC had to prepare for missions.

At first, the RCC conducted virtually no mission preparation, but the ETT worked with the platoon sergeants 

to develop a standard load plan for every vehicle on each 

mission. This planning was reinforced through mission 

briefs the day before each mission and through precombat 

checks and inspections on the day of each mission. The ETT 

directly supervised and enforced these preparations, but the 

Afghan NCOs eventually took the lead and the ETT merely 

supervised.

On the day before each mission, platoon leaders briefed 

the company commander on the mission plans, which 

improved their briefing skills and allowed the commander to 

critique the plans. The platoon leaders were accompanied by 

their platoon sergeants, who briefed the commander on their 

mission preparations. By encouraging collaboration between 

the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants, the ETT helped 

strengthen the relationships between the RCC officers and 

their NCO counterparts.

Mission Execution

On the day of each platoon mission, the platoon sergeant conducted precombat checks and inspections and then the platoon leader briefed the platoon on 

the mission plan. To promote an effective linkup with the 

supported unit, the ETT ensured that the RCC was at the 

linkup site 15 minutes early in the event of any unforeseen problems. Most supported units would have preferred 

to deal with the ETT, but the Americans thought it was 

important for the Afghan leaders to present their own mission plans. After linkup, the RCC would lead the convoy, 

followed by the ETT vehicle in the middle and the supported 

unit in the rear. Their position allowed the ETT members 

to observe the RCC and maximize communication with 

the supported unit. Whenever RCC teams dismounted, the 

ETT sent a member to monitor each team and make onthe-spot corrections. The corrections were addressed to the 

dismount team leaders rather than the soldiers, helping the 

RCC leaders to identify and correct problems and teach their 

soldiers to become more responsive.

After each mission, the ETT tried to conduct after action 

reviews with platoon leaders and platoon sergeants, rather 

than the entire platoon. They also found that the reviews 

were more productive when the company commander and 

first sergeant were present, making those leaders aware of 

A member of the 

515th ETT grades 

route clearance 

company soldiers 

while they negotiate a mine detector 

operation lane.

(Continued on page 41)
September–December 2012 Engineer 31

Engineer students and staff at Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri, are usually struck by the large World War 

II recruiting poster on display in the atrium of the 

U.S. Army Engineer School. The poster features a youthful 

engineer Soldier carrying a large sledgehammer and an M-1 

Garand rifle. In this famous painting by Jes Schlaikjer, the 

Soldier’s sharp blue eyes look into the distance as bombs 

explode around his feet. The artwork is complemented by 

the motto “We Clear the Way.”

The model for this 1942 poster was Sergeant Vincent G. 

Leckey, a 19-year-old engineer Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, who traveled to the Pentagon on four occasions to pose for the artist. He seemed the perfect model for 

this poster. At 6 feet 1 inch tall and weighing 240 pounds, he 

was known for his strong handshake and clamp-like hands.

Sergeant Leckey won many honors during and after the 

war. He won the Army title of “Ideal American Soldier,” and 

his likeness was displayed in New York City’s Grand Central 

Station on a 35-foot mural. In 1948, he was selected as Fort 

Belvoir’s G.I. Joe of the Month; and in 1953, he was honored 

as the best all-around Soldier in Alaska while serving at 

Fort Richardson. He received the Presidential Unit Citation 

for his more than 33 months of service in the Pacific Theater 

of Operations during World War II, where he participated 

in four amphibious landings. He was also the 52d recipient 

of the Silver De Fleury Medal. This medal is awarded to 

engineers who possess values of boldness and courage, and 

George Washington was one of the first to receive it.

Sergeant Leckey left his mark on the U.S. Army Engineer School at Fort Belvoir. He helped to build the Tompkins Basin and the Fairfax Chapel, which still stands on 

21st Street. He also spent the latter part of his career as an 

instructor at the Engineer School there. In 1963, he retired 

as a master sergeant after 23 years of Army service and 

remained a resident in the local community around Fort 

Belvoir. He died on 15 December 2006 at age 84 and was 

interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

(Information for this article was gained through 

an article by Melina Rodriguez which appeared in the 

Belvoir Eagle on 11 January 2007.1)

Endnote:

1

Melina Rodriguez, “Model for 1942 Engineers poster 

dies at 84,” Fort Belvoir Eagle, <http://www2.belvoir

eagle.com/news/2007/jan/11/model_for_1942_engineers

_poster_dies_at_84-ar-1520925/>, accessed on 7 July 2012.

Mr. Person is the installation historian at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in history 

from Queens College in New York City.

By Mr. Gustav J. Person

Past in Review

An Exemplary

Engineer Soldier

This historical painting was rendered in 1942 by famed war 

poster artist Jes W. Schlaikjer.
32 Engineer September–December 2012

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

ATP 3-34.22 Feb 09

FM 3-34 Aug 11

ATP 3-37.34 

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Operations Jun 85 This will be a full revision of FM 5-103, Survivability.

Status: To be published 1st quarter, FY 13.

Publication Revisions

Combat Engineering

ATP 3-34.20

(FM 3-34.210)

Explosive Hazard 

Operations

Mar 07 This will be a multi-Service, full revision of Field Manual (FM) 3-34.210, 

Explosive Hazards Operations.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 13.

Engineer Operations–

Brigade Combat Team and 

Below

Engineer Operations 

This revision is pending Headquarters, Department of the Army, approval of 

the brigade engineer battalion.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 13.

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

ATP 3-34.23

(ATTP 3-34.23)

Engineer Operations–

Echelons Above Brigade 

Combat Team

Jul 10 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-90.61 Brigade Special Troops 

Battalion

Dec 06 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14. (FM 3-90.61)

This engineer manual contains the “box top” as our doctrinal framework; 

integrates the three engineer disciplines of combat, general, and geospatial 

engineering; and introduces the four lines of engineer support for decisive 

actions.

Status: Final approved draft due 3d quarter, fiscal year (FY) 2013.

ATP 3-90.4

(ATTP 3-90.4)

Combined Arms Mobility

Operations

Aug 11 Status: Anticipate a change document to convert the manual from Army 

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (ATTP) 3-90.4 to Army Techniques 

Publication (ATP) 3-90.4 1st quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-90.8

(FM 3-90)

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms 

Countermobility

Operations

Jul 01

Mar 85

Sep 94

This will be a full revision that includes the consolidation of FM 3-90, 

Tactics; FM 5-102, Countermobility; and FM 90-7, Combined Arms 

Obstacle Integration. This will be a multi-Service manual that discusses 

countermobility and combined arms obstacle integration and their 

relationship to the combined arms defense and warfighting functions with 

regard to wide area security.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-90.37

(FM 3-90.119)

Combined Arms 

Improvised Explosive 

Device Defeat Operations

Sep 07 This will be a multi-Service, full revision of FM 3-90.119, Combined Arms 

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Operations.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 14.
September–December 2012 Engineer 33

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

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

General Engineering

ATP 3-34.40

(FM 3-34.400)

General Engineering Dec 08 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 4th quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-37.10 Base Camps New

Notes: 

1. Current engineer publications can be downloaded from the Army Publishing Directorate Web site at <http://www.apd.army.mil>. The 

manuals discussed in this article are currently under development and/or recently published. Drafts may be obtained during the staffing 

process by contacting the Engineer Doctrine Branch at commercial (573) 563-0003, DSN 676-0003, or <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx

.cdidcodddengdoc@mail.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 1 October 2012.

2. Items in parentheses are publication numbers of current publications, which will be superseded by the new number at the top of the 

entry. Multiple numbers in parentheses indicate consolidation into one manual.

ATP 3-34.81

(FM 3-34.170)

Engineer Reconnaissance Mar 08 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 14.

Geospatial Engineering

ATP 3-34.80

(FM 3-34.230)

Geospatial Engineering Mar 08 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 1st quarter, FY 14.

This will be a multi-Service manual. It will be targeted for all branches (not an 

engineer manual solely for the use of engineers). It is a compilation of TTP 

found in doctrine, lessons learned, and reference material that provides an 

integrated systematic approach to base camps.

Status: To be published 1st quarter, FY 13.

This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-34.5

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental 

Considerations

Feb 10

ATP 3-34.45

(FM 3-34.480)

Power Generation/

Distribution

Apr 07 This manual will undergo review; renaming from FM 3-34.480, Engineer Prime 

Power Operations; and update as required. 

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14.

Currently, 28 of 29 Army doctrine publications/Army doctrine reference publications have been published. Every Army professional should have a basic knowledge of our fundamental principles since they rarely change quickly. They can be downloaded 

from the Army Publishing Directorate (APD) Web site at <http://www.apd.army.mil>.
34 Engineer September–December 2012

Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in overseas contingency operations since the last 

issue of Engineer. We dedicate this issue to them.

Private First Class Jose O. Belmontes 630th Engineer Company, 7th Engineer Battalion Fort Drum, New York 

Staff Sergeant Richard L. Berry Company A, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Sergeant Christopher J. Birdwell Company A, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Carson, Colorado 

Private First Class Julian L. Colvin Company A, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Sergeant First Class Bobby L. Estle 630th Engineer Company, 7th Engineer Battalion Fort Drum, New York

Specialist Darrion T. Hicks 42d Clearance Company, 54th Engineer Battalion Bamberg, Germany

Sergeant Joseph M. Lilly 18th Engineer Company, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

3d Stryker Brigade Combat Team

Specialist Kyle B. McClain 1433d Engineer Company, Rochester Hills, Michigan

507th Engineer Battalion

Staff Sergeant Barrett W. McNabb 562d Engineer Company, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

2d Stryker Brigade Combat Team

Specialist Sergio E. Perez 713th Engineer Company, 81st Troop Command Valparaiso, Indiana

Specialist Trevor A. Pinnick 18th Engineer Company, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

3d Stryker Brigade Combat Team

Private First Class Jeffrey L. Rice 584th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion Fort Hood, Texas

Specialist Nicholas A. Taylor 713th Engineer Company, 81st Troop Command Valparaiso, Indiana

18th Engineer Company, 

3d Stryker Brigade Combat Team

584th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion 

713th Engineer Company, 81st Troop Command

Fort Hood, Texas
September–December 2012 Engineer 35

I

n late February 2012, the Sappers of the 693d Engineer 

Company blasted through tons of granite to improve 

recreational access to Indian Lake on a Fort Drum, New 

York, training area. This unique mission provided quality 

training while simultaneously benefiting the community.

The 693d Engineer Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, is 

a wheeled Sapper unit that is task-organized into two route 

clearance platoons. The company maintains a unified land 

operations mission-essential task list that includes the traditional combat engineer roles of providing mobility, countermobility, and survivability support to maneuver units.

In December 2011, the company began seeking a demolitions training mission directly linked to one or more engineer lines of support. This led to a meeting with officials 

from the garrison range control office and other garrison 

organizations. The resulting training mission was to “enable 

logistics” by cutting a road though a section of granite 

60 feet long, 12 feet high, and 30 feet wide. In reality, the 

mission would provide access to a boat ramp at a large 

fishing lake frequented by anglers from across the North 

Country. The only road to the ramp included a hairpin turn 

around a large, flat rock formation. Wetlands on either side 

of the road prevented increasing the radius of the corner for 

fear of harming the land. The only way to open the lane for 

anglers towing boats was to blast the rock, remove it, and 

continue the road directly through the rock obstacle. 

Company leaders aimed to remove the rock through 

explosive quarrying techniques, yielding an opening with 

tapered sides 60 feet long, 17 feet wide, and 2 feet below 

grade. For the sake of training, the Sappers would maintain 

an expeditionary posture during the mission, performing as 

though the company were deployed.

Planning

Maneuver commanders expect engineers to breach, 

clear, or build according to their needs, regard-

.less of the type of engineer unit they are in. With 

that in mind, company leaders selected a demolition mission 

with requirements exceeding the unit’s organic capabilities. 

For quarrying, the company had only Composition 4 (C-4) 

explosive instead of the traditional dynamite and lacked the 

proper tools to drill and remove rock. The mission would be 

an appropriate test of the Sappers’ ability as engineers to 

adapt to changing requirements.

As planning began, company leaders discovered that current engineer field manuals (FMs) covering quarry operations, engineer field data, and explosives and demolitions 

did not have the level of technical detail that quarrying 

By Second Lieutenant Luke M. Colson and Second Lieutenant Patrick B. Herold
36 Engineer September–December 2012

novices needed. For example, FM 3-34.465, Quarry Operations,

1

 contains few details about drilling equipment and 

techniques. It contains no tables or formulas for charge distribution or how to vary borehole arrays to fit topography.

To compensate, it was necessary to leverage the experience of a senior noncommissioned officer who had prior 

quarrying experience. Company leaders also contacted officials at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who provided 

an electronic copy of Engineer Manual 1110-2-3800, Engineering and Design—Systematic Drilling and Blasting for 

Surface Excavations.

2

 It was better suited to nonstandard missions (such as rock demolition) using C-4. The 

publication contains charts, diagrams, tables from which to 

extrapolate, and a more complete list of subjects related to 

drilling and blasting rock.

The planning process was iterative. This mission required 

coordination between the 693d, an equipment rental company, and officials from the garrison range control and fish 

and wildlife management offices. While the 693d Engineer 

Company drove each step of the planning process, subjecting the plan to review by each organization helped refine it. 

Mission success depended on the ability of junior leaders to 

synthesize input from these garrison organizations. Establishing personal relationships with representatives from 

those organizations made interactions cooperative rather than confrontational. 

Execution

The first step in the mission was to conduct test shots to understand the effects of available demolitions on granite. 

Sappers experimented with borehole depth, 

the quantity of explosive per hole, tamping 

materials, and the number of holes per shot. 

A summary of the results are as follows:

■ Test shots. Sappers drilled six boreholes 2 feet deep, tamping two with

water and two with soil; as a control, two

boreholes were not tamped. All of the

test holes were successful in breaking

“Maneuver commanders expect engineers to breach, 

clear, or build according to their needs, regardless 

of the type of engineer unit they are in.”

Above: View of the rock face 

before blasting

Right: Indian Lake as viewed 

from the newly opened access road
■ C-4 does not have the pushing properties of 

lower-velocity explosives, company engineers found

that boreholes no more than 4 feet deep were optimal

when blasting granite. This achieved the necessary 

throw, crushed the rock into manageable chunks, and

provided the secondary benefit of fracturing the

next section of rock for follow-on charge placement.

While dynamite would have been ideal for this 

mission, it was unavailable. The use of C-4 provided

the 693d Sappers a chance to exercise critical

thinking skills by extrapolating formulas and tables

intended for one type of explosive for use with another.

■ Identify the critical path, and resource it well. As 

expected, drilling boreholes was the most timeconsuming task associated with the project. Therefore,

it was resourced accordingly, with numerous spare parts

to keep the equipment operational. Even with that

resourcing, minor work stoppages occurred when the

spare parts supply was exhausted. Applying the critical path method to planning and adequately resourcing

the most likely critical path focused mission priorities

and helped maintain a consistent work rate.

■ Develop active working relationships with garrison organizations. Officials at range control and the public works 

environmental division have many resources to benefit

the units they support. Smart leaders foster partnerships and relationships with key individuals in their

sphere of influence. In this case, the 693d completed a

unique mission that had a lasting impact on the unit and

the community. This was much better training than simply placing charges in a mudhole as is done at most 

demolition ranges. A willingness to conduct mission

planning with garrison organizations created a training

opportunity whose quality greatly exceeded what could

have been created by the company alone.

Endnotes:

1

FM 3-34.465, Quarry Operations, 15 April 2005.

2Engineer Manual 1110-2-3800, Engineering and 

Design—Systematic Drilling and Blasting for Surface Excavations, 1 March 1972.

Second Lieutenant Colson is a platoon leader with the 

693d Engineer Company. He is a graduate of the University 

of Hawaii. 

Second Lieutenant Herold is also a platoon leader with 

the 693d Engineer Company. He is a graduate of the U.S. 

Military Academy.

September–December 2012 Engineer 37

apart the rock and throwing the fragments out

of the blast area, but none of the tamped holes outperformed the untamped boreholes. As a result, 

future shots were left untamped for simplicity.

■ 40-pound shaped and cratering charges. After borehole test shots, experiments were conducted with surfacelaid shaped and cratering charges to determine the 

effects of military demolitions on terrain (an individual 

supporting task to the company mission-essential task

list). Not surprisingly, the results were unfavorable.

The shaped charge was too weak to penetrate granite as 

effectively as it does soil. Instead, it created a small hole

approximately 6 inches deep and 18 inches in radius. 

Surface-laid cratering charges were similarly ineffective, 

crushing some rock at the surface, but providing no

significant push of rock away from the face. 

■ Drill operations. The Sappers used two-man, portable

drills rented from a local equipment store with range control funds. Each drill came equipped with interchangeable 3-foot, 4-foot, and 6-foot steel extensions along with

their respective drill bits. Drilling into solid granite with

portable drills was tedious and labor-intensive, so the

Sappers were unable to execute more than two blasts per 

day. Packing drilled boreholes with explosives was far

more effective than surface-laid charges, but the slow

work rate was a limiting factor.

■ Drilled hole depths. Initially, all boreholes were 

designed to be drilled 6 feet deep and packed 4 feet deep

with C-4. This was inefficient because it took too long 

to drill that deep, it was difficult to pack explosives to that 

depth, and the C-4 cut through the rock instead of pushing

it off the face. As the depth of the drilled boreholes 

exceeded 3 feet, the effectiveness of the C-4 decreased

because it no longer threw small fragments from the

blast site. Instead, it left chunks of rock too large to

be moved by hand. Holes 2 to 4 feet deep were the

most successful. 

■ Earthmoving equipment. With no organic earthmoving equipment such as bulldozers or front-end loaders, the 693d Engineer Company relied on raw manpower to remove rubble after each shot before drilling the

holes for the next blast. This significantly increased mission duration and Soldier fatigue. Prior planning and 

cooperation with garrison officials paid dividends. After 

coming out to the work site to check on progress, range 

control officials offered the use of their front-end loaders 

to haul away debris between shots. This equipment substantially increased the rate of debris removal and eliminated the main contributor to fatigue. 

Lessons Learned

There were three major lessons learned while conducting this mission:

■ Drill shorter boreholes to take advantage of throw, and

manage rubble size when quarrying with C-4. Since
38 Engineer September–December 2012

cleanup and restoration operations that the German federal 

government requested assistance from its American and 

French allies, who had troops stationed in the vicinity.4 The 

U.S. Army 78th Engineer Battalion from Phillips Barracks 

By Dr. Bianka J. Adams

Engineers 

Help 

Schramberg 

Recover

From

Disaster

Partners Pulling Together:

On 21 May 1959, unusually heavy thunderstorms and 

torrential downpours flooded Schramberg, a town of 

about 20,000 people near the city of Freiburg in the 

Black Forest of southwest Germany. Situated in a picturesque valley, Schramberg stretched along the 

banks of the Schiltach, a stream fed by three 

tributaries flowing down from the surrounding hills. The massive rainfalls swelled the 

river until it burst its banks, turned streets 

into streams, ripped out trees, and covered the 

town with an avalanche of mud and debris. 

Throughout the town’s history, the waterway 

had caused many floods, with the one in 1778 

standing out for the damage it had caused to 

the town, a church, and a nearby castle.1

In addition to golf ball-size hail, the deluge flooded more than 500 houses, paralyzed 

the Junghans clock-making industrial complex (the biggest local business), and injured 

23 people. When the rains finally subsided, 

the town had sustained an estimated 20 million Deutschmarks’ worth of damage, roughly 

equivalent to 37 million in 2012 dollars.2, 3

Local firefighters, police, and other emergency 

personnel who rushed to aid the town’s citizens were so overwhelmed with the extent of A U.S. Army engineer distributes clean water at Schramberg’s soccer 

field.
September–December 2012 Engineer 39

in Karlsruhe and the 168th Engineer Battalion from Nellingen Kaserne near Stuttgart responded together with a unit 

of French Army engineers. The American and French Soldiers joined Fallschirmpionierkompanie (Airborne Pioneer

Company) 250 of the newly formed Bundeswehr (German 

Army) to help the town recover from the disaster.5, 6

The American engineer battalions had deployed to Germany as part of a revolutionary new system of unit rotation 

and replacement named Operation Gyroscope.7 The 78th 

Engineer Battalion moved to Karlsruhe in 1958 as part of 

the 555th Engineer Group. Its mission was to maintain four 

Rhine River float bridges and furnish general engineer support to the U.S. Seventh Army. Since its activation in 1940, 

the battalion had seen combat in the Philippines at the end 

of World War II and had participated in the occupation of 

Japan. In 1946, it redeployed to Fort 

Benning, Georgia, where it first served 

a short stint with the U.S. 3d Infantry 

Division before assuming duties as a 

combat training command assigned to 

the U.S. Army Infantry School.8 In 1957, 

the 168th Engineer Battalion from Fort 

Campbell, Kentucky, exchanged places 

and equipment with the 70th Engineer 

Battalion in Germany. It was the second time the 168th Engineers were stationed in the country. The first time, it 

had fought its way from the beaches of 

Normandy through the Ardennes into 

the heart of Germany.9, 10

Within days of receiving the German government’s request for assistance, the engineer battalions moved 

10- and 20-ton, gasoline-driven, crawler-mounted craneshovels; several bulldozers; and portable water purification equipment on trucks from Karlsruhe and Stuttgart to

Schramberg.11 They arrived on the scene ready to go to work. 

One of the first tasks for the 168th Engineers was to provide clean drinking water. The town’s magistrate had shut 

down the regular water supply from its reservoir until tests 

could ensure that the water was safe to drink. The battalion 

set up the water purification station on the town’s soccer 

field. While Schramberg’s citizens gladly made their way 

on muddy paths and over obstacles to the soccer field to fill 

buckets and cans with water, children crowded onto the field 

to garner the sweets and chewing gum that the Americans 

were giving away. As one woman recalled years later, she 

was 11 years old when the catastrophe occurred. The girl 

Right: German 

workers and Soldiers from the 78th 

Engineer Battalion 

clean the streets of 

Schramberg.

Below: U.S. and 

German Army 

engineers rebuild 

a bridge that was 

washed away in the 

flood.
40 Engineer September–December 2012

received a piece of gum, which she chewed for days, always 

wrapping it carefully at night.12

In the early days of the cleanup, Schramberg’s economic and cultural life came to a standstill. Along with 

schools, churches, and shops, the Junghans and HamburgAmerikanische Uhrenfabrik clock factories had to close until 

the town could be dug out. The Hamburg-Amerikanische 

Uhrenfabrik facility was so inundated that Soldiers from 

the 78th Engineer Battalion had to use a crane to clear mud 

and debris from it. In other parts of the city, the American 

Soldiers and German workmen cleaned tons of mud from 

the streets. The 78th Engineer crane-shovels and bulldozers 

cleared away rocks that had washed into the town. 

About 3 weeks after the flood, as life in Schramberg began to return to normal, engineers 

from the American and German Armies shifted 

their efforts to washed-out bridges and roads 

on the outskirts of town. Together they pulled 

legs into place for a bridge that connected Schramberg to towns in neighboring valleys. In 

just a little more than a decade after the end 

of World War II, former victors and vanquished 

had become partners who literally pulled 

together—or, as the Germans would say it, 

Partner, die an einem Strang ziehen (partners who pull a

cord together).

Endnotes:

1Politische Vereinigung Liste für Umwelt und 

Bürgernähe, Buntspecht Schramberg, “Unsere Stadt: 

Schramberg im Schwarzwald,” <http://www.buntspecht

-schramberg.de/p_8-stadt.htm>, accessed on 4 April 2012.

2

Christophe Neff, Sturmfront über Deutschland—vor 

50 Jahren meldete Schramberg Land unter, 26 May 2009, 

<http://cneffpaysages.blog.lemonde.fr/2009/05/26/sturmtief

-uber-deutschland-%E2%80%93-vor-50-jahren-meldete

-schramberg-land-unter/>, accessed on 4 April 2012.

Left: A 78th Engineer Battalion crane-shovel clears 

debris from a Schramberg 

factory.

Below: A U.S. engineer 

passes out chewing gum 

and chocolate to German 

children.

Bottom: Cars were mired 

axle-deep in mud on a

Schramberg square.
September–December 2012 Engineer 41

3

Harold Marcuse, Professor of German History at University of California–Santa Barbara, “Historical Dollarto-Marks Currency Conversion Page,” <http:www.history

.ucsb.edu/faculty/Marcuse/projects/currency.htm>, accessed 

on 4 April 2012.

4

“Sonderflug des Tagblatts uber Schramberg,” Schwarzwälder Tagblatt, 29 May 1959, Bildergalerie, Presse Unwetter, Privatarchiv Achim Ringwald, Schiltach, <http://www

.schramberg.de/ceasy/modules/cms/main.php5?cPageId

=1772&view=publish&item=gallery&id=123>, accessed on

2 August 2012.

5

“Die Katastrophe noch nicht überwunden. Schramberg zwei Wochen nach dem Unwetter,” Südwest-Presse 

Tübingen, 5 June 1959, Bildergalerie, Presse Unwetter, 

Privatarchiv Achim Ringwald, Schiltach, <http://www

.schramberg.de/ceasy/modules/cms/main.php5?cPageId=

1772&view=publish&item=gallery&id=123>, accessed on

2 August 2012.

6

Description of Fallschirmpionierkompanie 250 at <http://

www.antiquariat-fuer-alle.de/Militaria_Sonstiges.htm>, 

accessed on 5 April 2012.

7

Headquarters, U.S. Army, Europe Historical Division, 

“Operation Gyroscope In The United States Army, Europe, 

6 September 1957,” Historical Manuscripts Collection, 8-3.1 

CN 1, U.S. Army Center of Military History, Fort McNair, 

Washington, D.C. 

8

“History of the 78th Engineer Combat Battalion,” Office 

of the Historian, U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri, pp. 1–3.

9

“168th Engineer Battalion Lineage as of 23 Aug 1996,” 

U.S. Army Center of Military History, <http://www.history

.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/eng/0168enbn

.htm>, accessed on 17 May 2012.

10William Hokanson, “168th Engineer Battalion Unit 

History—1957–1963,” 2002, <http://www.usarmygermany

.com/Sont.htm?http&&&www.usarmygermany.com/units

/Engineer/USAREUR_168thEngrBn.htm>, accessed on

17 May 2012.

11Table of Organization and Equipment No. 5-315A, 

Engineer Construction Battalion, 1 May 1953, Washington, 

D.C., Engineer Items, pp. 8–9.

12“Tote Tiere treibt es die Straße herunter,” 

Schwarzwälder-Bote, 30 March 2012; <http://www

.schwarzwaelder-bote.de/inhalt.schramberg-tote-tiere

-treibt-es-die-strasse-herunter.fb7289f4-1cfe-4ff6-9dde

-9b4346ddace3.html>, accessed on 10 April 2012.

Dr. Adams is a military historian with the Office of 

History, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Kiel, 

Germany, and a Ph.D. in U.S. diplomatic history from the 

Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

platoon performance and allowing them to make changes 

and adjustments where necessary. The best after action 

reviews occurred in a relaxed environment, away from the 

RCC soldiers, after all mission recovery was complete.

Recommendations and Conclusions

The ETT partnership model provides daily interaction, 

while minimizing personnel and resource requirements, and can be used at any echelon of command. 

Daily interaction and supervision enable relationships to be 

built between the coalition and Afghan partners, and it is 

these relationships that best promote development. ETTs 

can be used during any stage of the development cycle, such 

as receiving the unit from validation training, helping unit 

leaders conduct complex training, or critiquing missions 

planned and led by the partnered unit. For a company level 

partnership, the ETT recommends that at least the Afghan 

commander, executive officer, first sergeant, platoon leaders, platoon sergeants, and motor sergeant be mentored. The 

ETT should be composed of at least one officer, one NCO, one 

mechanic, and one Soldier.

Captain Nichols served as the chief of the 515th Engineer Company ETT. He holds a bachelor’s degree in human 

regional geography from the U.S. Military Academy. He is 

currently the legal and public affairs officer for the 5th Engineer Battalion, 4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

First Lieutenant Powell served as the deputy chief of the 

515th Engineer Company ETT. He holds a bachelor’s degree 

in civil engineering technology from Southern Polytechnic State University, Marietta, Georgia. He is currently the 

plans officer for the 5th Engineer Battalion, 4th Maneuver 

Enhancement Brigade.

Sergeant Bollin served as the NCO in charge of the 515th 

Engineer Company ETT. He is a graduate of the Warrior 

Leader Course. He continues to serve in the 515th Engineer 

Company, 5th Engineer Battalion, 4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade.

(Afghan Partnership, continued from page 30)
PIN: 103077