--· --

AFSAC: 59/29 

12 March 1951 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE 14~ffi~RS OF AFSAC: 

Subjeot: 

Reference: 

Enclosure: 

Seleotion or a Site for the Proposed Cryptologio Establishment Outside the 

Washington Areao 

.AFSAO: 77/lSo 

Note to the Hplders of JuCvSu 20l0/32r 

Copy Noo 41 o 

l,, The Enclosure !a t'orwarded tor 1ntormat1on:-

2~ Attention is invited to the directive con~ 

tained in the reterenoe which sets torth the policy for the safeguarding ot J.OoSo papers containing highly seoret information~ 

.AFSAO: S9/29 

TOP SECRET 

eclassified and approved for 

elease by NSA on 09-04-2014 

ursuantto E .0. 13526 
_,. 

REF ID:A71147 

549,/ • TOP SB:RET , 

,-· 41 

COPY NO. ------ (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION) 

NOTE TO HOLDERS OF J.c.s. 2010L32 

9 MARCH 1951 

\ 

r:t'OF 8EC:ftRI' 

Note to Holders of JCS 2010/32 

fOP SECRET 
.. . .. • REF ID:A7114 .. JOP SECRET ,. 

41 

'!'OP 3ECfffi'P 

9 March 1951 

COPY NO·~~~~~~~~ 

(LIMITED DISTRIBUTION) 

NOTE BY THE SECRETARIES 

to the 

HOLDERS OF J.c.s. 2010/32 

{Selection of a Site for the .Proposed Cryptologic Establishment Outsi~e the Washington Area) 

1. At the request of the originators, J.C~S. 2010/32 is withdrawn from consideration by the Joiht Chiefs of Staff. 

2. Holders are authorized to ~etain their copies. 

DISTRIBUTION 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Adm. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Adm. 

Adm. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Adm. 

Bradley le/JCS) Collins CSA) 

Sherman CNO) 

Vandenberg (CS.l\F) 

Bolte (DC/S, P) 

Taylor {Asst. c/s, G-3) Eddleman { JSPC ) 

Duncan {DCNO-Op) Ingersoll (ACNO-Op30&JSPC) Edwards (DC/S-Op, Air) 

White !Dir. Plans, Air) Smith JSPC) 

Davis D/JS) 

~OP SEiORm' 

Note to Holders of JCS 2010/32 

W. G. LALOR,, 

E. H. J. CARNS, 

Joint Secretariat. 

Gen. Lindsay (DDSP) 

Gen. Pierson (DDLP) 

Gen. Megee (DDI) Secy, JCS 

Secy, JSSC 

Secy, JSPC 

Secy, JIC 

Secy, JCEC 

mp SECRET 
. - . 

'J?OF SJ;!;CR~'J? 

JCS 2010/32 

REF ID :A71147 ..... > MP SECRET 

41 

COPY NO -----

(LIMITED DISTRIBUTION) 

J.c.s. 2010/32 

3 March 1951 

TOP SECRET 
REF ID:A7114.1. 

~YNO. 41 mP SfCRET 

'!'OP SEOH:EPP 

J.c.s. 2010/32 

3.. Mo.rch 1951 

------ (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION) 

Pages 205 - 217 incl. 

NOTE BY TEE SECRETARIES 

to the 

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

on 

SELECTION OF A SITE FOR ~HE PROPOSED CRYPTOLOGIO 

ESTABLISHMENT OUTSIDE T.HE WASmNGTON AREA 

Referencesi a. J.c.s. 1800/109 

b". J.c.s. 2010/16 

£· J.c.s. 2010/18 

l. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, at their meeting on 14 February 

1951, agreed to return a previous report on th~ subject matter 

(J.c.s. 2010/29) to the Armed Forces Security Agency Council 

for reconsideration. and possible revision in the light of: 

~· The view expressed at the meeting that the possibility 

exists that if the Center were established at Fort Knox it .. would be difficult to obtain for it civilian personnel of 

proper qualification. 

b. The desirability of providing the Joint Ch:l.efs of Staff 

with perhaps two alternate locations (total of th:c-ee), in 

order of priority from wh:l.ch a selection might be ma.de. 

2. The enclosed revised report by the Chairman, Armed 

Forces Security Agency Council, which supersedes the rGport 

in J.c.s. 2010/29, is submitted for consideration by the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

DISTRIBUTION: 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Adm. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Adm. 

Adm. 

Gen. 

Gen. 

Bradley !C/JCS) Collins CSA) Sherman CNO) 

Vandenberg (Cs.AF) Bolte (DC/S,,P) Taylor (Asst. C/S, G-3) Eddleman (JSPC} 

Duncan (DCNO-Op) Ingersoll (ACNO-Op30&JSPC) Edwards (DC/S-Op,Air) Landon (Dir. Plans, Air) 

W. G. LA.LOR,, 

E. H. J. CARNS,, 

Joint Secretariat 

Gen. Smith (JSPC) Adm. Davia (D/JS) 

Gen. Lindsay (DDSP) 

Gen. Pierson (DDLP) 

Gen. Megee (DDI) Secy, JCS 

Secy, J'SSC 

Secy, JSPC 

Secy, JIC 

Secy, JCEC 

9?9P BEIGRE'f 

JCS 2010/32 - 205 - TOP SECRET 
REF ID:A71147 

• • 

ENCLOSURE 

REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, ARMED FORCES SECURITY AGENCY COUWC!L 

to the 

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

on 

THE SELECTION OF A SITE FOR THE PROPOSED CRYPTOLOGIC 

ESTABLISHMENT OUTSID 'l':tiE WASHING1110N AREA 

References: a~ 00 109 &: 2010/11 

0. 2010/16 

d. 2010/18 

THE PROBLEM 

JOPSEGRET 

1. In accordance with authorization from tho Joint Chiefs of 

Staff contained in J.c.s. 2010/18, to determine a suitable 

location for the proposed cryptologic establis~.ment outside 

the Washington area. 

FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM AND DISCUSSION 

2. See Appendix ''B". 

CONCLUSIONS 

3. It is concluded that: 

~· No available government-owned facility with existing 

' 

or mod:tfied buildings meets the essential requirements for ' 

the proposed cryptologic establishment outside the Washington 

area. 

b. New construction will, therefore, be necessary to meet 

these requirements. 

£• The three most suitable sites for constructing a 

major cryptologic establishment for the Al'lD.ed Forces Security 

Agency (AFSA) in order of preferenc~ are: 

(1) Fort Knox, near Louisville, Kentucky 

(2) Brooks Air Force Base, near San ~ntonio, Texas 

(3) Lockbourne Air Force Base, nea.r Columbqs, Ohi.o 

9:'0P fH!IORB'P 

JCS 2010/32 - 206 - Enclosure 

mp BRET 
I 

REF ID :A7114i lOPSf&r 

'f6F ffi30RE'f' I 

d. Fort Knox is definitely preferable to the other two 

sites. 

~· Regardless of location,, the overall project should 

include the provision of adequate troop housing and such 

government-financed civilian housing as is determined to 

be necessary. 

f. The construction of this facility for AFSA should be 

designated a Joint project in accord.a.nee with the Appendix ~ 

to Enclosure "A" to J.c,s. 1800/109,, with ria.na.gement 

responsibility assigned to the Department h.a.ving jurisdiction over the selected site. 

S.• In view of the internatioDB.l situation and the urgent 

need for this project,, its constr~ction should be assigned 

a high prioI"ity. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

4. It is recommended tha.t: 

~· The foregoing conclusions be approved. 

b. Fort Knox,, Kentucky,, be designated as the location of 

the AFSA cryptologic establishment outside the Washington 

area. 

- £• The memorandum in Appendix "A" bo forua.rded to the 

Secretary of Defense. 

d. Upon receipt of concurrence from the Secretary of 

Defense,, necessary action be tal:or1 to inplomllnt tho step:~ 

outlined in pa.rasre.ph 5 of Appendix "A". 

~gp 8:BlSH:B'±' 

JCS 2oio/32 - 207 - Enclosure 

mp SECRET 
REF ID:A71147 

e JOPBIT 

APPENDIX "A" 

DRAFT 

~ORANDOM. FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFEMSE 

1. Reference is made to memorandum. by the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff dated 14 March 1950* and to memorandum by the Secretary 

of Defense dated 24 March 1950** concerning selection of a 

site outside the Washington area for the relocation of the ma.in 

Communications Intelligence Center plus selected Communications 

Security and Research and Development activities of the Armed 

Forces Security Agency (AFSA) 

2. A study of potential sites, including inspection of the 

thirty-five considered most promising, indicates a su1.table 

location for this cryptologic establishment with utilizable 

' 

buildings cannot be found at an~ government-owned facility. It 

will, therefore, be necessary to construct buildings on suitably 

located government-owned land • . 

3. Fort Knox, near Louisville, Kentucky, provides the best 

location for this construction. The Fort Knox reservation of 

more t,han one hundred thousand acr~s can provide land without 

interference with any other function of the post. It is 

est:Lm.a.ted that needed construction will cost twenty million 

dollars. In addition, an expansion jf pr~sent government 

fin.a.need civilian housing projects and some troop housing at 

Fort Knox will probably be requ:Lred. 

4. The reduction of the hazard inherent in the prenont 

concentration of A.FSA activities by the construction of facilities 

outside the Washington area is a matter of urgency. Plans for 

the movement of these activities will be covered in a response 

to a memorandum by the Deputy Secretary of Defense dated 8 

February 1951. .. 

* EnclosUl'e to J.c.s. 2010/16 

** Enclosure to J.c.s. 2010/18 

g:i9p SEIOREl'f 

JCS 2010/32 - 208 - Appendix "A" 

TOP SECRET 
REF ID:A711i.1 

• mPSfE 

\ 

5. Subject to your concurrence, the Joint Chiefs of Starf 

will: 

!!:.• Designate as a joint project, as defined in the 

Enclosure to their memorandum of 6 October 1950,* the construction required by AFSA at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with 

management responsibility assigned to the Department of the 

Army. 

b. Assign a high priority to this project. 

*Appendix to Enclosure '!A." to J.C,s. 1800/109 

'POP SBSRE'±' 

JCS 2010/32 - 209 - Appendix "A" 

mP SECRET 
. . 

' 

TOP 5ECftE'f 

REF ID :A71147- TOP SECRET 

APPENDIX "B" 

FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM ArlD DISCUSSION 

1. In accordance with the authority in J.c.s. 2010/16 and 

J.c.s. 2010/18, the Cho.irman AFSAC, in his capacity as Director, 

Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA), on 21 April 19501 appointed 

a.n Ad•Hoc Site Board COI::l.posed of representatives from AFSA, 

the Army Security Agency, the Naval Security Group, and the . Air Force Security Service. This Boo.rd was directed to conduct 

a survey for the purpose of selecting tho most suitable site 

outside the Washington arda for the rolocation of the mo.in 

Co:mnunications Intelligence Center plus Eolectcd COI!llUunications 

Security and Research and Development activities of the Armed 

Forces Security Agency. Basic guidance was given the board 

concerning the physical characteristics and goographical 

locations which should be considered. The Board was directed 

to give primary consideration to government-ownud facilities 

with existing suitability or adaptability to the needs of AFSA, 

without, however, excluding sit&s of high potential suitability 

requiring construction of necessary buildings. Tho Board was 

further clirected to give full consideration of the desirability 

of ready access to the seat of government. 

2. On the basis of information supplied by the th:c'ec Services, 

the Public Buildings Administration, the Reconstruction Fina.nee 

Corporation, and the Veterans Administration, the Board determined that the thirty- five installations should bo subjected 

to on-sit~ inspections. Th~ sites inspected are shown in 

Annex to Appendix "B ". 

3. All of the installations with existi11g bui.ldings failed 

to meet one or more of the followins essential criteria: 

~· Location in an area of probablu low strategic vulnerability and removed from other probabl.J targets. 

'POP SEC:Ri.W 

- JCS 2010/32 - 210 - Appendix "B" 

IOPBREJ 
REF ID :A7114i IBP SfeRET 

b. Location in an area having adequate depth or dP.ronse. 

£• Location within a reasonable distance 0£ a city capable 

or providing adequate labor and logistic support. 

d. Available without serious dislocation or other vital 

military activities. 

~· Buildings suitable or ~daptable to tho needs of AF8A.. 

It was therefore concluded that no site with existing 

builcU.ngs could b~ rccommanded and tha.t a site requiring construction should be selected, utilizing sovernment-owned 

la.nd, if possible. 

4. The Ad Hoc Site Board ranked Fort Knox, Kentucky, first 

among the sites requiring construction. Within the Fort Knox 

Reservation, which oxceeds one hundred thousand acres, several 

possible sites are available which would not intorf0ro with the 

pr:Lma.ry functions of the command and which are not in any way 

committed in the Post Master Plan. The site favored b~ the 

Board (subject to detailed engineeriIJ.G surveys) comprises a 

tract of approxima.tely four hundred acres situateu W·:JSt of tho 

village of Muldraugh on the main highway conn~cting Fort Knox 

with Louisville, Kentucky. The site is approxim.a.tely six miles 

from the ma.in post and twenty miles from the city of Louisvillo, 

which has a population of 367,359. 

5. Th~ advantages of the Fort Knox location are as follows: 

~· Providos adequate defense in deptn. 

b. Is reasonably near to Washington, D. C. (473 air miles). 

£• Is woll removed from other probable targets. 

d. Has adequate land availablo for construction without 

interference with any other activity now at Fort Knox. 

~· Regular post facilities could furnish logistic support. 

6. The principal disadvantage of the Fort Knox location is 

its distance (20 miles) from the supporting city of Louisville. 

While this is a distinct advantage from the standpo:tnt of 

WOP 8:SGRB'f 

JCS 2010/32 - 211 - Appendix "B" 

TOP SECRET 
REF ID :A71147- TOP SfGIET 

'fOP ffi!!ORB'f 

v\J.lner~bility, it may ma.ke the problem of obtaining proper 

civilian personnel somewhat difficult. It is primarily within 

the lower grades that reliance must b~ placed on local resources 

to meet manpower neads. The experience or industry ha.a indicated 

that in similar situations, needs equal to those of AFSA are 

met by total manpower pools smaller than thosa of the 

Louisville area. The present needs for high-level personnel 

for AFSA alroady require widespread racruiting efforts, and th& 

·fort Knox location will not ma.te~iall~ affuct this situation. 

Expansion of the presont program of construction of government 

fin.a.need civilian housing at Fort Knox would be of material 

assistance and should be undertaken. 

7. Brooks Air Force Base situated three miles southwest or 

the City of San Antonio, Texas (population 406,811) placed 

second a.mono the sites requiring construction of operational 

buildings. Adequate land could bo ma.do available at tllls 

1332 acre reservation for construction of necessary operational 

buildings. Present temporary structuros coul~ provide init~ally 

for troop housing and support. 

8. The advantages of the Brooks Air Force Base location.are I 

as follows: 

~· Provides adequate defense in du~th, except from tho 

south .. 

b. Is reasonably well removud from other probable targets. 

c. Within convenient distance of o. la.r3c city. 

d. Logistic support could be provided by regular installa-

' tions in area. 

9. The disadvantages of tllls location are a~ follows: 

!!..• Excessive distance from Washington, D. c. (1388 air miles) 

b. Presence of AFSA might interfere with operations aR 

an air base. 

'l!QP g;gcR:E!a1 

Jes 2010732 - 212 - Appendix "B" 

lOP BREf 
'f OP SE!ORB'l' 

REF ID :A7114. TOP BRET 

10. Lockbourne Air Forca Ba.so wh:Lch occupies a 1610 a.ere 

tract approximately seven miles south of the city of Columbus, 

Ohio (population 374,770) 1 placed third. Adequate space for 

building operational buildings would involve encroachment on 

l'Uil.wa.y or approach areas. Present tempora.r~ buildings would 

be used inita.lly for troop housine a.nd support but would 

require extensive rehabilitation or replacement in thD noa.r 

future. 

11. The advantages of Lockbourne Air Force Base a.re a.s follows: 

a.. Is rea.sona.bly near to Washington, D. c. (320 air miles). 

b. Provides rea.sona.ble depth of defense. 

£• Within convenient distance of supporting city. 

12. The disadvantages are as follows: 

a.. Utiliza.ti~n by AFSA would preclude operation a.s a.n 

a.ir base. 

b. Special provision would be required for logistic suppoDt. 

13. Civilian housing is in short supply in all throe of the 

above localities. For the duration of tho present emergency,· 

it would be futile to depend upon local effort to improve this 

situation adequately to provid~ for the needs of AFSA personnel. 

A nearby government financed housing project will b~ a. 

necessary element of the over-all program whichever site is 

selected. 

14. Upon the basis of' the information assembled by the Ad 

Hoc Site Board during the courso of its slirvey1 the Arcted Forces 

Security Agency Council a.greed that: 

a. It being impossible to i"ind a. goverm.~ent-owned 

installation with existing buildings which na.s not opon to 

such serious objections as to ma.ke it una.ccoptablc a.s a. 

location for an AFSA cryptologic establishment, a site for 

the construction or the necessary buildings should be 

selected. 

'PQP 8ECRE':P 

JCS 2010/32 - 213 - Appendix "B" 

lOP BRET 
REF ID:A7114. 

'fOF BEORB'i' 

b. Fort Knox, Kentucky, meets the essential crit~ria 

more fUlly than any other site considered, a.nd should b~ 

selected for the construction of the AFSA cryptologic 

establishment. 

15. It is estimated that construction of operational 

facilities at any one of these locations will cost twenty 

million dollars. Some expansion or conversion of troop . housing may also be required regardless of which site is 

chosen. 

TOP SECRET 

16. The construction or the necessary facilities falls within 

the definition of a Joint Project as defined in Appendix to 

Enclosure "A" to J.C.S. 1800/109. In view of the present 

occupancy of Fort Knox by ' the Department of tho Army and the 

logistic support required by AFSA in moving to the new sito, 

the Army is the logical Service to undertake managenent 

responsibility for the porject at that locatio~. Should 

either of the other sites be selected, responsibility should 

be assigned to the Air Force. Tho Dil'ector, AFSA will furnish 

detailed information concerning AFSA's requirements in order to 

facilitate efficient planning of tho installat~on, and to meet 

troops and housing requirements. 

17. At the t:IJ'ne of the formation of .l\FSA in 1949, the 

present concentration of cryptologic activities in the 

Washington area was accepted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

(J.c.s. 2010/11) as a calculated risk which should bo "reduced 

as soon as practicable by the construction or a major 

cryptologic station at a suitable location remote from 

Washington." The deterioration of the international situation 

has fUrther increased the risks involvod in this concontration. 

Steps have been taken to provide some measure of protection by 

the dispersal of vital records to locations outside the 

'I!QP BBORE'f 

JCS 2010/32 - 214 - Appendix "B" 

lOPSEE 
'!'OP 8:8.!GREH' 

REF ID:A711.6il 

• 

Washington area. No really effective me~surcs for tho protection of the vital Communication Intelligence and , 

TOP SECRET 

Co:r.:nnunication Security activities of the United States are 

possible short of those outlined and approved in J.c.s. 2010/16. 

The contemplated division 0£ AFSA activities between the Naval 

Security Station1 Washinston1 and the new installation should 

provide a high degree of protGction1 but this ..Iivision ~equires 

that at least a portion of the new installation be available 

for use. The initiation of construction at the now site is 

thus a matter of considerable urgency in order th.at the present 

hazardous situation may be terminated as soon a~ practicable. 

, 

'f OP BEGHE'±' 

JCS 2010/32 - 215 - Appen.ii:x: "B" 

TOP SECRET 
• • • 

, 

REF ID :A71147. IBP SECRET 

ANNEX TO APPENDIX "B11 

LIST OP SITES INSPECTED BY THE AD HOC SITE BOARD 

Sites with Buildings 

u.s. Air Force Plant No. 36 

Lackland Air Force Base 

Kelly Air Force Base 

u.s. Air Force Plant No. 3 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 

u.s. Air Force Plant No. 6 

Lowery Air Force Base 

Chance Vought Plant 

Westinghouse Plant 

Naval Air Station 

Naval Air Station 

Naval Air Station 

Naval Air Station 

Kansas City Records Center 

St. Louis Administration Center 

Lake City Arsenal 

Charlotte Quartermaster Depot 

Indiana Arsenal 

Medical Depot 

Lustron Plant 

Denver Federal Center 

8900 s. Broadway 

Sites without Buildings 

Brooks Air Force Base 

Lockbourne Air Force Base 

Naval Air Station 

Fort Knox 

- 216 -

Cincinnati,, Ohio 

San Antonio,, Texas 

San Antonio, Texas 

Tulsa, Oklahoma 

Dayton, Ohio 

Marietta,, Georgia 

Denver, Colorado 

Dallas, Teμs 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Olathe,, Kansas 

Denver,, Colorado 

Atlanta,, Georgia 

St Louis, Missouri 

Kansas City, Missouri 

St Louis,, Missouri 

Independence, Missouri 

Charlotte, N. c. 

Louisville,, Kentucky 

Denver, Colorado 

Columbus, Ohio 

Denver, Colorado 

St Louis, Missouri 

San Antonio, Texas 

Columbus, Ohio 

Dallas, Texas 

Louisville, Kentucky 

JCS 2010/32 Annex to Appendix "B" I 

lOPBRET 
•r l REF ID:A71147 

e 

'l'OP SECRI!i'f 

Sites without B~ildings (Continued} 

Ft. Benjamin Harrison 

Rocky Mo~ntain Arsenal 

Ft. George Meade 

Ft. Belvoir 

Andrews Air Force Base 

Ft. Holabird 

• 

Ft. Sam Houston 

Ft. Hays 

Ft. Logan 

Tol'.a;gc1m'l1 

JCS 2010/32 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

Denver, Colorado 

Maryland 

Virginia 

Maryland 

Baltimore, Maryland 

San Antonio, Texas 

Columbus, Ohio 

Denver, Colorado 

- 217 - Annex to Appendix 11B11 

TOP SECRET 

• 

JOP SECRET