75 Table 3-1 provides a summary of total RE expenditures for 1982. Overall, only a minimal increase over the Fiscal Year (FY) 82 budget allocation occurred. in general, two major adjustments were made: rental equipment was reduced by $10,000 due to the purchase of the Xerox 860 word processing system during FY82; and the budget for communications increased by $9,000 due to increased use of the WATS telephone lines. 16 TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF RE EXPENDITURES CATEGORY TOTAL EXPENSE Travel of Personnel on TOY $27,000 Equipment Rental (IBM Copier, 3M Remote Copier) 9,100 Communications (WATS Line) 35,000 Other Supplies and Administration Supplies 9,000 Equipment and New Equipment - 2,000 Purchase Maintenance Equipment 1,400 Total $83,500 OPERATIONS AND READINESS Annual and Special Tours The Operations Branch (AFIS/REQO) resource managers scheduled over 2200 annual and special tours -- an increase of 34 percent over 1981. The 20,268 man-days committed fcr these tours equated to over 55% man-years of active force support. The branch also provided support to overseas exercises including Team Spirit, Ulchi Focus Lens, Flintlock, and Reforger and in the Continental United States (CONUS) to Red Flag, Blue Flag, Vigilant Overview, and Gallant Knight.+/ A new program started by AFIS/RE during the year involved the on-station tour program for Defense Attache Reserve officers. Throughout 1982, officers were sent to Defense Attache Offices (DAQs) at Santiago, Chile; Tunis, Tunisia; Bohn, Germany; and Madrid, Spain. Appendix XI contains a synopsis of support provided to each Mobilization Day (M-Day) command during 1982.18 On 1 October, the Operations Branch assumed responsibility for publication of tour orders for Military Appropriation (MPA) tours. This function had been previously accomplished by the ARPC in Denver, Colorado. The necessary coordination was accomplished in minimal time and the first 32 MPA_tour orders were locally published in the final quarter of the year.19 Due to fiscal constraints and RE directive, annual tours to overseas MAJCOMs remained limited. Procedural changes were in effect to provide the maximum training benefit from the limited number of tours available.2°
76 Proper man-day use was part of RE's management responsibility. Therefore, man-days were closely monitored to ensure qualified reservists were identified in response to MAJCOM requests. To maintain reasonable equity among available and qualified reservists, the MAJCOM and SOA users were informed that “by-name" requests would continue to be accommodated; however, an alternate reservist with similar qualifications might be suggested as a Substitute for a by-name request.¢! Exercise participation by the reservists continued to be encouraged and selicited since it provided an excellent training environment. Since most active force exercise dates were classified until released by the exercise office of primary responsibility (OPR), available dates provided by the reservists often did not coincide with exercise dates. Procedures were established to provide the fullest exercise participation possible. 22 ® Besides exercise participation, common training weekends were Gesignated twice each year. During these sessions, the DTSs met to conduct Inactive Duty Training (IDT). The AFIS/RE staff remained available to provide continuity and direction. Workshops One joint and four Area Director-DTS Commander workshops were held during the year. These included: the National Capital Area, Fort Beivoir, Virginia, 13-14 March; tne Pacific and Western Areas, Nellis AFB, Nevada, 20-21 March; the Central Area, Offutt AFB, Nebraska, 23-25 April; the Southwest Area, MacDill AF8, Florida, 15-16 May; and the Southwest Area, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, 25-26 September. 24 = These workshops, chaired by the respective area directors (ADs), provided a forum for DTS commanders to review areas of management, operations and personnel with an objective to further refine and improve the existing AFIR program. The Director, Intelligence Reserve Forces, Deputy Director, and other staff members, tocether with Major General Walter R. Longanecker, Jr. and Brigadier General Arthur W. Green, Jr. (both Mobilization Assistants to the Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence) attended these workshops. They presented new developments, policy, future concepts, and the AFIR program briefing. Two additional workshops took place at Fort Belvoir -- an Area Operations and Training (AOT) Officers workshop on 6-7 March and the annual Area Director's workshop on 11-12 September. Al} members agreed that the free exchange of issues, information, and ideas and the receptiveness of the attendees contributed significantly to the value and productiveness of these workshops.2° Mobilization Planning and Readiness & The Readiness Branch and Programs Section ({AFIS/REOR) provided significant inputs and coordination on the AFIS Support Plan -- SPACECOM. This plan outlined the deployment and employment of Individual Mobilization Augnentees (IMAs) to their M-Day assignments
77 with Space Command and provided guidance and procedures for deploying active and reserve AFIR personne! to support the command in general war and other contingencies. It outlined the intelligence Essential Flements of Information (EEIs), IMA deployment phases by Unit Type Code (UTC), logistic essentials (i.e. transportation, personal equipment, etc.), alert and recall procedures, and personnei processing.¢ e Similar inputs were also provided to the AFIS Concept Pian - -Development of CONUS Sustaining . Support Forces for AFIS during contingencies and general war (AFIS CONPLAN-AFIS Support). This plan also provided guidance for reserve a.gmentation to Headquarters AFIS and the Air Force Special Activities Center (AFSAC) located at Fort Belvoir. Lo During 1982, RE started a project (as part of the AFIR program) on mobilization readiness. It began with a letter to subordinate units outlining RE's intentions and goals in broad terms. Under this project, AD and RE staff members conducted field readiness assessments of the IMAs. OTSs were given references to assist them in understanding their responsibilities. The impact of this year long initiative was an improvement in the AFIR mobilization readiness posture of the IMAs. It resulted in better M-Day preparation and knowledge, better understanding by the DTSs of their responsibilities in assisting the IMAs to be ready for mobilization, and more emphasis by the Area Director staffs on readiness related items during their staff assistance visits. As a result of this project, the IMAs performance during 1982s major mobilization exercise (Exercise Proud Saber 83) improved significantly over the previous year's exercise (Condor Redoubt 81). Exercise Proud Saber 83, conducted from 25 Gctober to 5 November, evaluated the readiness and responsiveness of the Air Force Reserve to properly react to mobilization tasking in time of national emergency. The RE staff and assigned IMAs participation in Proud Saber 83 primarily involved three areas: telephone alert, transportation processing and final in-processing. AFIS/RE began the AFIR-wide telephone alert on 18 October and continued contact efforts for two days. This included the first mobilization test of the overseas assigned IMAs. Procedures were established with four overseas command Indications and Warning Centers to pass information to the DTS commanders. The total response was 92 percent -- a significant improvement over last year's rate of 86 percent for Condor Redoubt 81.3 A total of nine IMAs from OTS 11 processed through Andrews AFB, Maryland, Transportation Management Office (TO) for various simulated CONUS and overseas assignments. Four IMAs had mailgram orders and five did not. As long as the IMA was aware of the theater or base being deployed to, the TMO had no problem issuing 4a transportation request (TR) and moving the IMA based upon 4 verbal order of the commander and his reserve identification card, even if the IMA did not nave a written order.
7€ bated A tote) of eight IMAs in-processed at Bolling AFB, D.C. Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO) with four having mailgrams and four with nothing more than their ARPC mobility kit and guide. After some initial confusion, the in-processing progressed smoothly and was completed within approximately three hours. A significant lesson learned from this portion of the exercise was the benefit to the IMA of having a mobility kit in hand and the appropriate forms completed --it saved time and effort. Responsibilities for the Air Force IMA program were outlined in a new regulation, AFR 35-34 (Individual Mobilization Augmentee Program). It provided an informative document to all Jevels of management and those personnel involved with the IMA program. ead Finally, RE productivity goals were identified for input into the AFIS Productivity Plan. These goals were presented and initiatives were designed to achieve them. The goals were: increased manning in the AFIR, reduced officer efficiency report (OER) late rates, and involvement of all IMAs in intelligence production relating to their M-Day Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) positions. 34 Establishment of Detached Training Sites The DTSs and remote flights were established by Cojlone! Oberst after the Area Director had determined that a valid training opportunity existed to support IMAs in a common geographical area ar: had coordinated on tenant support with the host base. The year saw a significant increase in the informal organizational structure with the establishment of two new DTSs and three flights. These additions gay. the AFIR program its largest organization on record and reflected ti« most IMAS ever in tne AFIR program. As of 31 December, there were “. DTSs and eight flights. Table 3-2 provides a list of new trainino locations established in 1982.35 TABLE 3-2 NEw TRAINING LOCATIONS DATE TITLE ESTABLISHED LOCATION PURPOSE DTS47 1 Sep 82 Ft Belvoir, VA Evolved from OTS 21 whose strength had become too large to manage effectively. DTS 47 provided support to AFSAC and the training of IMAs in Human Intel (HUMINT).
79 DTS48 16 Dec 82 Sunnyvale AFS, CA Provided scientific and technical intel support to DIA and Foreign Tech Div (FTD) activities, and locally to DOD high- technology environment in the San Francisco Bay area. Fit 5B 18 Sep 82 Portland Inter- Supported the national Arpt, 304 Aerospace Rescue OR and Recovery Squadron (AFRES) Fit 148 1 Aug 82 Dallas Naval Air Supported the Naval Station, TX Reserve Area Coord- inator and the Intel Center Pacific (IPAC). Fit 23B 1 Oct 82 Berlin, Federal Supported the Joint Republic of Allied Refugee Oper- Germany tion Center (JAROC). Other locations considered as potential host bases for the establishment of a DTS or flight during the year included Patrick AFB, Florida and Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath, United Kingdom. A final change to DTS locations involved the redesignation of DTS 36 at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana as Flight 14A. Low personnel strength had hindered the former OTS from discharging its responsibilities. Consequently, the reorganization was mutually agreed upon by Colonel Oberst and the DTS commander. 36 Intelligence Support Projects The Readiness Branch DTS Projects section monitored over 300 localiy and remotely tasked DTS intelligence projects in support 9f 30 MAJCOMs, SOAs, Agencies, Air National Guard (ANG), Navy, and Joint Commands. These projects were used as a medium for providing both proficiency training to the IMAs and intelligence support to active force and reserve force users. = Management of the DTS projects was primarily accomplished through the training weekend reports submitted to each DTS. The report data included project numbers, project descriptions, tasking organizations, estimated completion dates, time devoted to projects by each IMA and their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). The data was compared with previously submitted data, and was analyzed in terms of viability of training value, and on-going status. Questions that occurred on the utility or data of the projects were quickly resolved. Management of these projects was also accomplished through staff assistance visits to the DTSs by the various Area Directors staffs and the RE staff.38
Severe] significant actions were started during the year. The principal action involved a letter to all user commands points-of- contact associated with the AFIR program soliciting their support for intelligence projects on behalf of the IMAs. Their assistance was requested to identify intelligenze projects that would be useful to the accomplishment of their mission and also provide productive training to the IMAs. Response from the major commands and the other agencies was enthusiastic as more than 150 projects were received. This provided a viable indication of their support of the AFIR program. Specific OTSs were identified to work on selected projects. 39 = Emphasis was also placed on IMA Inactive Duty Training (IDT) at the DTSs. This was done as a result of discussions with the Air Force Auditor who expressed concern (from field auditors' reports) indicating a lack of awareness on the part of IMAs concerning the relationship of IDT to M-Day skill proficiency requirements. The ADs, AOTs, and DTS commanders were requested to educate DTS personnel in this area. The DTS projects section placed additional emphasis on Duty AFSC (DAFSC) project matching in assigning DTS projects, and monitored it when examining training reports to insure assigned IMAs' DAFSCs remained compatible with projects. An initial distribution of materiais was made available to the BTSs on behalf of the United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) IMA self-study program. This program made orientation materials available to USAFE IMAs that would benefit them in their M-Day position. 41 Updated imagery interpretation packages were atso . distributed to DTSs with imagery interpretation specialists provided by the 497th Reconnaissance Technica? Group (RTG) (USAFE). This was a follow-on distribution to one made in 1981 in response to an AFIS/RE request for assistance in providing training materials to the IMA imagery interpreters. The 497th RTG remained very supportive to the AFIR program. 42 @ Another initiative invoived an increase in IMA productivity during IDT. Since projects were the primary means of achieving and maintaining AFSC proficiency, the level of productivity of IDT needed to be maximized in order to obtain the greatest benefit to the IMA and the M-Day command. Ideally, IMAs needed to be involved in projects related to their M-Day DAFSC position. Monitoring the training reports disclosed the amount of time spent on projects. The OTS project statistics were gathered and evaluated. Those OTSs with a tow rate of man-hours per project were identified and notified. Awareness by DTS commanders (of the need to focus interest in this area) had a positive affect on this initiative.43 During 1982, two DTS generated project proposals were worthy of note. First, DTS 35 had advocated the establishment of an in-place reserve capability for maintaining and updating Cuban threat data. It
81 would be used to provide intelligence support to Air Force flying units within 72 hours of a Cuban contingency. Secondly, DTS 45 proposed the formation of a Soviet Awareness Briefing Team to brief to Air Force reserve units on the Soviet threat. This proposal required coordination with Headquarters Air Force Reserve (AFRES) and the Director of Soviet Affairs (AFIS/INC). 44 Training Programs The AFIS/RE Readiness Branch training section managed in- resident training of over 252 reserve officers and airmen during the year. By the end of the year, there were 183 priority one trainees (IMAS requiring in-residence courses for upgrade). Through special efforts in obtaining quotas, AFIR IMAs (for the first time) attended such unique schools as the Administrative Systems Course (€3A2R70270- 1) held at Keesler AFB, Mississippi and the Advanced Security Police Officer Course (L30AR8111-000) held at Lackland AFB, Texas.45 ° Three sessions of the Intelligence Targeting Officer training program were held at Lowry AFB, Colorado. Six officers completed the Target Analysis Session and nine attended the Advanced Weaponeering Session, Six targeting officers attended the Force Applications and Mission Folders Session and thereby, were the first class to complete the Targeting Officer Training program. This was the first class to finish the three phase program. Other reserve members also attended the Basic Interrogation Course and the Advanced Interrogation Course (Exercise) held at Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center in California.4® As indicated earlier, an Area Operations and Training (AQT) officer workshop was held at Fort Belvoir on 6-7 March. The workshop provided a forum for the seven AOTs and AFIS/RE staff members to discuss common areas of concern regarding OTS training and operations. Problems were identified and acceptable solutions derived in the following areas: training priorities, schools, enlisted retraining policy, on-the-job (OUT) upgrades, projects and proficiency maintenance, Human Intelligence (HUMINT), foreign language training, weight control, and mobilization readiness training. The result was a compilation of problem areas which the participants agreed to address and resolve during the remainder of the year.47 An ad hoc working group, created in the fall of 1981 to formalize retraining guidance, completed its study in March. The working group, composed of AFIS/RE enlisted personnel, used its long training experience to formulate guidance and procedures regarding retraining and renlisted recruiting policy. The guidance was tailored to meet specific AFIR needs while remaining in concert with Air Force regulations. Another result was the establishment of an enlisted applications review panel which made recommendations of prospective enlisted applicants to the AFIS/RE Applications Review Board, 48 = In August, the Air Force Intelligence Planning Division (AF/INYX) notified AFIS/RE that Air Force Regulation (AFR) 36-2
&2 (Officer Classification Reoulation) was being revised. Colonel Oberst reviewed the draft proposal and identified three problem areas: (1) training requirements listed in the revision should apply only tc officers entering 80XX AFSCs on or after the effective date of implementation. Officers already assigned to AFIR and those assigned before implementation should be exempt from the revision; (2) AFIS/RE footnotes under each job description reflected specific comments regarding AFIR officer training requirements; and (3) formal training certification of each specialty description already existed with the AFIS training structure in the form of a mandatory upgrade board In response, is Be Fen bs eae at er F » tee etree ote. Te A new foreign language program also started in 1982. The OTS » charged with program management, hosted a reserve team leaders' workshop at Monterey, California on 6-7 November. The purpose of the workshop was to evaluate the three weekends of total immersion language training conducted in 1982. Team leader presentations revealed a common denominator: tremendous enthusiasm, initiative, and progress. Key features of total immersion training were innovating methods -- the “no english" rule, and the “do with what you have” approach. These features generated high motivation to succeed in a unique experiment. Specific examples were given to describe increasing proficiency. Although only three weekend sessions were held during the year, Colonel Oberst believed the experience held promise of success.°° Deleted per 5 5.8.C. §52(b) (1)
83 The ultimate objective of the foreign language program was to produce conversational fluency in foreign languages specified by commands and agencies affiliated with the AFIR program. Colonel Oberst stated: "The total immersion experiment has already exceeded our expectations. It has ‘caught fire’ because of the great enthusiam and initiative of participants.” Likewise, the two week tutorial training at the Defense Language Institute for linguists who could not participate in teams because of their remote locations received high marks from attendees. Without reservation, team leaders applauded AFIS/RE for the efficient processing of man-day tour orders and for supporting training site selections. The workshop report was reviewed by General Bissell who commented: "....excited by the interest and enthusiasm....believe we will need considerable patience and perserverance; but objectives are worthwhile and should be continued for two to three years and then evaluated." ; a The Air Force initiative "Project Warrior" was introduced to the Diss to generate suggestions and products. The basic goal of the project was to reinforce military professionalism. Within the Air Force intelligence community, this was accomplished through study, research and emphasis on the special role of intelligence in air power. Colonel Oberst hoped that lessons learned from failures and successes would result in more effective use of intelligence and its potential for maintaining peace. Response from the field units was good with several promising inputs coordinated with the Air Staff (AF/INYX) project director.° PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Assignments and Recruiting The RE Manning Branch (AFIS/REPM) continued to keep IMAs and MAJCOMs apprised of changes in M-Day assignments due to promotions, command realignments, and quality reviews designed to better align individual backgrounds and command requirements (particularly language experience). By the end of the year, 314 applications for assignment or attachment to the AFIR Program were received. Of the 221 applications approved, 33 were pending publication of orders by Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) or other agencies; nine were pending additional information in order to accurately request orders; and nine were placed on an RE waiting list. The remaining applications were returned with recommendations of other possible reserve placement. As a result of a 1980 policy change permitting the acceptance of individuals with less than a "fully qualified" background, the manning strength of the AFIR Program significantly increased. A total gain of 187 personnel (110 officers, 77 enlisted) and a culminate loss of 151 personne] (74 officers, 77 enlisted) resulted in a net gain of 36 people.2
As of 31 December, AFIS/RE managed 1265 reservists: 1216 assigned and 49 attached for training. This represented 65 percent of the authorized strength (79 percent officer and 41 percent enlisted) of the total 1899 positions. During 1982, AFIS/RE lost 26 and gained 20 IMA authorizations. These statistics included a loss of 18 from AFIS and AFSAC; eight from DALM; and a gain of 20 for Tactical Air Command (TAC). Table 3-3 provides a summary of IMA authorizations by command, °8 TABLE 3-3 IMA AUTHORIZATION SUMMARY COMMAND TOTAL COMMAND TOTAL AAC 24 SAC 164 USAFE 239 AF /IN 48 ADCOM. 24 TAC 138 AFIS 206 PACAF 436 AFLC 14 DALM 99 DIA 261 AFRES 2 MAC 244 Several significant recruiting initiatives were started during the year. A draft of a brochure on the AFIR Program was developed and submitted to Headquarters Air Force Reserve for their assistance in production. Also, a recurring advertisement appeared in the Air Reservist Magazine. This recruiting effort proved to be “very effective by providing 55 percent of the applicants. A special personnel listing from Headquarters ARPC contained individuals with backgrounds in the intelligence field. A good response was received from the mailing of information to more than 200 persons on the list. Reservists in the program demonstrated their own recruiting initiative by. advertising in local newspapers, pamphlets, and other publications.° . Personnel Security The Security Branch (AFIS/REPS) processed 145 Special Background Investigations (SBIs). This represented a 36 percent decrease from the previous year, primarily due to a moratorium on bring-up investigations by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. However, in December, the moratorium was lifted. A total of 294 Period Investigations (PRs) were started to clear up the backlog of SBIs and PRs.6 The branch assumed control of two other continuing programs during the year--Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) biennial reindoctrinations and waivers to SCI standards. In February, the reindoctrination prograt started. It consisted of determining the
85 initial indoctrination dates for all SCI permanently indoctrinated reservists; incorporating the data into the Intelligence Reserve Information System (IRIS); and then determining who required biennial reindoctrination. The reindoctrinations were conducted in two ways: either by the host Special Security Office (SSO) or by the tour location SSO when an active duty tour required SCI access. = The SCI waiver program began in December. Like the reindoctrination program, it also contained three phases. First, reservists were screened for ineligibility because an immediate family member was a foreign national. The second phase determined those reservists in IMA positions who required SCI access upon mobilization. Then, as necessary, obtaining a “Statement of Intent” from the immediate family member and or requesting the IMAs gaining command to submit a compelling need to the Security and Communications Management Directorate (AFIS/INS). This program applied whenever an assigned reservist was reassigned within the AFIR Program and to other applicants meeting SCI waiver criteria. 62 The AFIS/RE Reserve SCI Billet structure underwent several changes during the year. First, the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) assumed control of all SCI and security actions for FTD reservists attached to AFIS/RE for training. A total of 40 SCI billets were transferred to FTD. Second, two new SCI structures were established: DTS 27, to support the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Flight 37A, to support the 1550 ATTW at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. Conversely, billet structures were deleted at DTS 1, DTS 24, and Flight 25A, because reservists did not require permanent SCI access to conduct Inactive Duty Training. Finally, in December, the host active duty Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO) at each DTS location using SCI permanent access was requested to revalidate the need for SCI billets and reservists indoctrinated in those billets. Initial results indicated more use of available billets.63 Major changes to personnel security were made in the revised DOD 5200.2-R/AFR 265-32, Personnel Security Program. This required a change to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between AFIS/INS and AFIS/RE, and a complete revision of AFIS/RE Operating Instruction (OI) 205-3, Personnel Security Program. Drafts, incorporating the changes, were approved by AFIS/INS and the updated documents were scheduled to be completed in early 1983.64 Special Actions and Records The Quality Force Branch (AFIS/REPQ) continued to he responsible for all special actions and records maintenance functions. The Special Actions Section remained responsible for the operation, management, and control of Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and Reserve Airman Performance Reports (APR(R)s), reserve officer and enlisted promotions, awards and decorations, special trophies and awards (Qutstanding Officer and éfnlisted Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs)), the Deserving Airman Commissioning Program (DACP),
8E and other snecial progra™s anc projects directed by the Chief, Personnel Management Divisicn,’ & A total of 901 OERs, 259 APR(R)s, and 1323 Letters of Evaluation (LOZs) were processed. Although manv performance reports received from the DTS reauired reaccomplishmert or correction, they were reaccomplished virtually error-free and resulted in a fina} acceptance rate of better than 99 percent. This was especially significant considering that the 55 DTSs and Flights were dispersed throughout the CONUS, Europe, Panama, Hawaii, and Alaska. 66 @ The AFIS/RE 1982 Outstanding Officer and Enlisted IMA of the Year Screening Board convened on 29 ‘November and evaluated seven officer and five enlisted Area candidates. The officer selectee was Major Francis L. Ciliberti, Western Area, and the enlisted selectee was Senior Master Seraeant (SMSgt) Daniel J. Lovick, Pacific Area. Both were submitted to ARPC for the Outstanding IMA of the Year Board which was scheduled to convene on 27 January 1983.67 ® The AFIS/RE DACP Screening Board evaluated eleven reserve enlis candidates on 15 June, and recommended six to the 25 August ARPC DACP Board. Ali those recommended were accepted for commissioning during Septemize-. The reserve Non-Extended Active Duty (NONEAD) Officer Unit Vacancy (UV) and Permanent Mandatory Promotion (Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA) ) function experienced another busy and extremely fruitful year as indicated in the statistics on Table 3-4. Qverall, AFIS statistics were higher than AFRES in all categories with the exception of promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. 68 TABLE 3-4 RODE ANT UNIT VACANCY PROGRAM STATUS* ROPA UNIT VACANCY # ELIGIBLE/SELECTED/RATE NOMI NATED/SELECTED/RATE DATE/GRADE RFIS/RE AF RESERVE AFIS/RE AF RESERVE OCT COL 34/6 (18%) 373/39 (10%) N/A N/A JUN LTC 22/7 (32%) 195/141 (72%) 10/7 (70%) 91/42 (46%) MAR Md 60/56 (93%) 284/250 (88%) 13/13 (100%) 284/250 (88%) AUS CAPT 10/10 (100%)32/32 (100%) 2/2 (100%) 17/14 (82%) The Reserve NONEAD Enlisted Promotion Screening Board convened on 4 August. The statistics on Table 3-5 represent the number of. personnel considered, recommended, and promoted as of 31 December. * Abbreviations used: COL- Colonel (0-6); LTC - Lieutenant Colonel (0-5); Mad - Major (9-4); CAST - Captain (0-3).
87 TABLE 3-5 ENLISTED PROMOTION STATUS* GRADE CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED PROMOTED AS OF 31 DEC CMSGT 10/5 3 SMSGT 28/7 7 MSGT 27/8 6 TSGT 33/11 10 SSGT i1/il il SRA/SGT 2/2 2 TOTAL 111/44 39 > Reservists continued to be recognized for their accomplishments and outstanding support by way: of awards and decorations. The Branch processed 81 letters of appreciation recognizing outstanding accomplishments. Statistics for awards and decorations are included on Table 3-6. TABLE 3-6 AWARDS AND DECORATIONS SUMMARY Type of Number Number Number Award Processed Approved** Disapproved Meritorous Service Medal 33 24 4 Air Force Commendation Medal 79 75 0 Air Force Achievement Medal 27 al 0 TOTAL 139 120 4 The Records Maintenance Section continued responsibility for the daily operation, maintenance, management, and control of the computerized Intelligence Reserve information System (IRIS), and officer and enlisted command selection records for approximately 1270 * Abbreviations used: CMSGT - Chief Master Sergeant (E-9); SMSGT - Senior Master Sergeant (E-8); MSGT -Master Sergeant (£-7); TSGT - Technical Sergeant (E-6); SSGT - Staff Sergeant (E£-5); SGT - Sergeant (£-4); and SRA - Senior Airman (E-4). xe The figure reflects some awards processed in 1981, but approved in 1982,
Cc co personnel. Considerable time was spent in development and design of a better, more functional, computerized IRIS system. The IRIS system provided greatly improved data availability and data manipulation capability. It was responsive, easy to maintain, and easy to address ad hoc requirements for reports. Automated Personne] Data System re- view products were received from ARPC twice yearly and filed in 1270 Command Records Folders. Approximately 870 hours were logged in maintenance and update of mechanized data pertinent to the IRIS Computer Program. A total of 1500 scheduled reports were processed in addition to a myriad of unscheduled reports. Computer product support was provided by USAF Data Services, (Pentagon), for the abbreviated master report, incumbent roster, and security roster generated from IRIS.71 Administrative Management The Administrative Management Office (AFIS/REA) realignec task requirements and redirected the work flow creating a more efficient operation. It's responsibilities included casualty reporting, maintaining and updatir: the active duty unit manning document, and forwarding recruitin packages to candidates for the AFIR Program. To consolidate the 1. -ge amount of correspondence sent out to the field, REA prerpaved week y mailing to each DTS Commander. In addition to routine actiors, Ria ;-ovided administrative support in the preparation, production, anc diss2mination of Exercise Operationa?} Plan (OPLAN) Advanced Interrogation 1982.72 ATTACHE AFFAIRS Mission and Resources, @ Tne Directorate of Attache Affairs (AFIS/INH) developed capabilities for Air Force participation in the Defense Attache System (DAS); monitored the performance and results of that participation and exercised cognizance over Air Force aspects of the Attache program; and managed the Air Force Area Specialist Program (ASP). AFIS/INH, in coordination with Headquarters USAF and the Air Force Manpower - and Personnel Center (AFMPC), authorized, reviewed, evaluated, and nominated highly qualified officers and airmen for assignment to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for use in the DAS. Attache Affairs monitored personnel who had served in the DAS for potential assignment to other Air Attache/Area Specialist positions and prepared and conducted briefings on enlisted and officer attache duty./ The directorate monitored prospective Air Attache personnel selected for assignment to the Air Force ASP; selected Attache/ASP designates to attend the Army Institute of Advanced European Studies, the Naval Postgraduate Progran (12 months of academic study), followed by concentrated language training at the Defense Language Institute in Monterery, California; monitored training programs and student progression in schools such as the Defense Intelligence School, Defense Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School; entered
89 Attache/Area Specialist designates into training programs to assure broad knowledge of Air Force plans, doctrine, equipment, and capabilities through formalized briefing and orientations, including special aircraft (hardware) familiarization and training with appropriate civilian (industry) and military activities; and supported the Air Attaches assigned to the Defense Attache System with numerous Air Force related products and special requests from the stations. 74 @ Attache Affairs also managed the Air Force Representational Gift Program. These were tasteful but inexpensive gifts purchased for or given to individuals, organizations, or groups who were in a position to assist in developing social contacts. The directorate managed the Attache Tutorial Program to insure that language fluency skills were maintained during the training program; and administered the Naval Postgraduate School Guest Lecture program that provided speeches by international affairs experts to USAF Area Specialist Students. Finally, AFIS/INH administered the USAF Biographical Sketch Program which provided background information on Attache personnel to interested agencies. , = In March 1982, the two subdivisions of Attache Affairs, Operations and Training (AFIS/INHO) and Attache Selection (AFIS/INHS), were reorganized to form two new divisions, Officer Selection/Training and Support/Area Specialist (AFIS/INHO) and Enlisted Selection/Admin- istration (AFIS/INHE). Manning statistics remained the same with a total of 13 authorized and 12 assigned. Colonel James £. Steinmiller continued as the overall Director. The Officer Seiection and Training Division was responsible for the recruitment, evaluation, selection and nomination of Air Force officers for assignment to the DAS; coordinated assignment actions with Headquarters USAF, DIA and AFMPC; responsible for and participated in the operation of officer selection panels; monitored training programs at the Defense Intelligence College, Defense Language Institute and Foreign Service Institute; selected and controlled Air Attache Designates for attendance at the Area Specialist Program at the Naval Postgraduate School; was the Office of Primary Responsibiiity (OPR) for monitoring the Air Force Area Specialist Program; developed and maintained the budget for all travel per diem and training of Air Force personnel in the DAS; prepared and conducted briefings on duty within the DAS; established and entered attache designates into special training programs for language, equipment and aircraft familiarization; managed a separate attache language tutor progran; was the Point of Contact (?0C) for aj] requests for assistance from attaches on station; coordinated special Support activities within Headquarters USAF; managed the Air Force Representational Gift Program; and monitored and financed the Naval Postgraduate School Guest Lecture Program. The Enlisted Selection and Administration Division was responsible for the recruitment, evaluation, selection and nomination of Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) for assignment to the DAS;
coordinated assignment actions with DIA and AFMPC; was responsible for and participated in the operation of enlisted selection panels; monitored training programs at the Defense Intelligence College; provided administrative support for the directorate; managed Air Force briefing and debriefings programs for attaches departing for or returning from duty; managed the Mid-Tour Reports from attaches on station; managed the Attache Biographical Program; maintained Air Force publications accounts and stocked forms for the directorate; and estabiished cffice suspense files and acted as the directorate control point for all communications. Significant Factors The Directorate of Attache Affairs needed one additional officer position to adequately fulfill mission reauirements. The additional position would enable the directorate to sustain current important attache programs and expand the capabilities of the Area Specialist Progran. The position was projected for FY 83.79 The continuance and expansion of the Area Specialist Program depended on the identification and validation of area specialist requirements worldwide. An Air Staff-coordinated effort began during the year to have potential users better identify their requirements tec insure that sufficient training quotas were generated to meet future Air Force needs. Tne directorate required the additional position mentioned earlier to implement and monitor this effort. The directorate needed an ATLAS inquiry capability to provide direct access to the Air Force Manpower and Personnel Center (AFMPC) computer. This would provide up-to-the-minute data retrieval capability on al? Air Force personnel worldwide. It would also assist in screening and identifying potential candidates for the attache system and eliminate the duplication of having to update the directorate's own HAZELTINE computer when there were personnel changes on people already in the Attache System. In addition, it would give Attache Affairs, as Office of Primary Responsiblity (OPR) for the Area Specialist Program, the capability of tracking area specialists. and area specialist positions worldwide. This capability was required for FY 83. Corporate experience had shown that very few people in the Air Force really knew what the Defense Attache System was all about. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the directorate to “spread the word" about the system. In this regard, Attache Affairs prepared a slide briefing and planned to present it to various Air Force population centers such as the Air Force Academy, Reserv:: Officer Training Corp {ROTC) detachments, Professional Military Education (PME) schools, Officer Training School (OTS), and the Major Commands. These briefings would have a dual purpose. They were an excellent method of recruiting, and they publicized the attache system. INH also worked closely with Mr. Mark £. Brent (Lieutewant Colonel, USAF, Retired), writer and former air attache in Cambodia, to publish the very informative article “Air Attaches Answer the Questions" in the September issue of Air Force Magazine. 82
$1 ® Of prime concern to the directorate was the release of highly qualified personnel for the attache system and the area specialist program. All to frequently, AFMPC would not release the people needed. This forced the directorate to either accept personne) who were less qualified or fight to find and obtain release of qualified people. This created an ongoing adversary relationship with career managers other than Palace Sentinel from whom this release had to be obtained. 83 Another issue of major concern was the time involved in obtaining release of personnel from AFMPC. Frequently, the directorate had to wait several weeks for assignment availability which resulted in late nominations to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and caused hardship on individuals who had to move on very short notice. If the requested individual was not made available, then the directorate had to start over seeking another candidate, which threw the selection process even further behind. 84 et The selection process was delayed even further by the inordinate amount of time that DIA frequently took to approve attache nominations. Consequently, the directorate continued to actively pursue this issue with DIA(AT) in an attempt to reduce the delay.89 = An issue involving the Area Specialist Program was the identification of area Specialist requirements. The users were very often reluctant to validate their manning documents to Show a requirement for an area specialist. This reluctance stemmed partially because of “artificial" MAJCOM ceilings on the number of advanced academic degree requirements, and therefore Area Specialist requirements, each command could have. The regulations clearly stated that the identification of an area specialist requirement did not preclude the assignment of someone who was not an area specialist, but who was otherwise qualified. This issue was really one of educating the user and removing artificially imposed limitations so that the number of area specialist positions reflected actual needs. 86 The directorate also proposed two new initiatives designed to give the intelligence community a more accurate picture of the number of linguists and levels of language proficiency available Air Force wide. The initiatives involved minor adjustments to the personnel system to: (1) make testing in the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB) mardatory for all officers entering active duty, and (2) make language proficiency testing and retesting mandatory vice optional, for all officers professing language proficiency and or provided language training at government expense. These initiatives should be implemented during FY 83.87 ) Personnel interestcd in assignments in the attache system were frequently discouraged and or deterred from applying by the Significant dollar outlay required to “get ready” for attache duty. As a result, the directorate planned to address the issue of up-front costs with DIA(AT) and seek relief for attache candidates from the burden of borrowing or using personal Savings to finance their assignment to the attache system, 8
@ Language proficiency was recognized as an important and valuable asset to the fulfillment of the attache mission. Language aptitude, however, was extremely difficult to measure with accuracy and certainty. The minimum DLAB score of 100, imposed by DIA, would not by itself assure that a prospective candidate would attain the desired goals. Colonel Steinmiller stated the directorate wouid work to support DIA's requirements to the best of its ability but acknowledged that there might be some instances where these requirements (i.e. 100 OLAB score) must be waived to realistically meet existing conditions.9%: Operations and Trainin Table 3-7 provides a summary of officer and enlisted attache selection panels conducted during 1982. One new enlisted position, Flight Mechanic (AFSC-A43172), was created at the U.S. Defense Attache Office in Morrocco. 9 TABLE 3-7 ATTACHE SELECTION STATISTICS CATEGORY OFFICER ENLISTED Total Panels Conducted 45 21 Approved by Panels 36 21 Disapproved by Panels 2 0 Total That Withdrew After Panels 4 0 Nominated to DIA 49 39 ‘ Approved by DIA 38 * 37 Approved by DIA but Returned Due To Incumbent Extension 0 1 Total That Withdrew After Approval by DIA 3 Total Disapproved by DIA 0 Consecutive Overseas Tours 2 Prior Attache Members Selected 1 W OO A) FF Promotions for attache incumbents, designates, and ex- attaches remained higher than Air Force averages throughout the year. Table 3-8 summarizes attache promotion statistics for 1982.91 * Two were still pending as of 31 December.
93 TABLE 3-8 ATTACHE PROMOTION STATISTICS ATTACHE AIR FORCE NUMBER NUMBER SELECTION SELECTION GRADE ELIGIBLE SELECTED PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE Colone} 6 5° 83.3 44.0 Lt Colonel 13 11 84.6 65.0 Major 7 7 100.0 76.0 CMSgt 6 3 50.0 30.9 SMSgt 9 3 33.3 16.9 MSgt 21 9 43.0 32.5 TSgt 9 3 33.3 20.6 The Naval Postgraduate School Guest Lecture Program included 56 guest speakers at a total cost of $9,411. The 1982 Tutor Program supported ten languages including Hebrew, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, Portuguese, Arabic, Greek, German ang Turkish. A total of 577 hours were used at a total cost of $8,291.92 Attache representatives made four trips during the year. On 12-13 August, Lieutenant Colonel Edward D. Gillaspy, Chief of the Officer Selection, Training and Support Division, made a trip to the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the Defense Language Institute (DLI). On 12 August, he visited with the Superintendent of the NPS, Rear Admiral Ekelund. Much of the discussion with Admiral Ekelund centered around the possiblity of establishing an Air Force liaison officer billet for AFIS/INH students attending NPS and DLI. The Admiral stated he might be receptive to an Air Force professorship with additional duty as a liaison officer, rather than a billet expressly for liaison purposes. In further discussions with Admiral Ekelund, he revealed that plans to establish a Latin American curriculum was being considered, but the actual logistics had not been worked out. In general, the students were extremely pleased with NPS. They had laudatory remarks for the school, the instructors and the administration. On the other hand, the students (excluding attache designates) were considerably concerned about end assignments after NPS and DLI. Colonel Gillaspy explained that, unfortunately, there waS no guarantce of assignment to an area specialist position after graduation. However, the probability of an assignment was increasing due to the recent Air Force wide assessment of area specialist needs. In stark contrast from the NPS students, DLI students were generally displeased with DLI. The most common complaints were the heavy course workload, a perceived lack of responsiveness from OLI administration and  instructors' unstructured teaching methods.
Althougn the environment at DLI was not ideal, students did well and did graduate with tne required language skills. Thus, Colone) Gillaspy believed the goals and objectives of the school were being adequately met. From 26 August to 17 September, Colonel Steinmilier and Senior Master Sergeant Kenneth £. Pool, Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of Attache Affairs, conducted a staff visit to the Defense Attache Offices (DAOs) in Moscow, USSR; Warsaw, Poland; Bucharest, Romania; Sofia, Bulgaria; Belgrade, Yugoslavia; Budapest, Hungary; Prague, Czechoslovakia; and the USCINUER. The purpose of the trip was to discuss face-to-face several matters of Air Force interest and to gain firsthand knowledge of working and living conditions at the various DAOs in order to enhance the attache and NCO selection process. Several problems were identified during the visits including inadequate housing, poor management, and manning difficulties. Solutions for these problems were still being reviewed by the end of the year. On 21 and 22 September, Brigadier General William B. Webb (former Defense Attache to Beijing, China) visited the NPS and the DLI at Monterey, California. While there, he addressed the students in the National Security Affairs Curriculum at NPS (including AFIS/INH Area Specialists) on the role of the attache in general and specifically on nis experiences in and impressions of China. A similar, but more formal (unclassified) session was held with Area Specialist students and other interested attendees enrolled in Asian language studies at DLI. According to Lieutenant Colonel (selectee) Dave Walters (the senior Area Specialist student at DLI), General Webb's visit and presentations were extremely weil received by al} concerned. 7° From 9-15 September, Captain Cynthia Gibbs, Chief of the Officer Attache Selection Branch, attended the Defense Attache (DATT) Conference in Garmisch, Germany and visited the DAGs in Belgium and France. The main purpose of the DATT Conference was for DIA/AT to relay to the DATTs some updated security concerns about third-country involvement in Africa, to reemphasize some DIA administrative procedures and for the DATTs to air any possible concerns they might have had. The conference provided a forum to talk to attaches presently on station and to hear some of their problems. In addition, by talking to the DATTs and African analysts, Captain Gibbs gained valuable insight as to the type of individuals best suited for duties in African countries. On 9 September, Captain Gibbs visited the Director of Curriculum at the U.S. Army Russian Institute. A significant portion of the discussion centered around misconceptions about the purpose of the school. The Director pointed out that the school was for Russian area Studies and not language training. The main reason students maintained or increased their proficiency while at Garmisch was because all the courses were taught in Russian. This was not to say the school did not have language classes. They did, but they were
95 limited because the school's emphasis was on area studies. The Director suggested that AFIS/INH look into the possibility of sending attaches to the DLI for language training and then to Garmisch for area studies. Currently, attaches attended the NPS for area studies, followed by language training at DLI and then to the Garmisch school for in-country language. Both training schedules took three years to compiete.1 @ The Area Specialist Selection Board convened on 9 November to select 13 candidates to enter training in FY 83. The board considered 20 applicants who were eligible and available for assignment. The 13 selected were scheduled to attend training for a Master's Degree and language in a specific geographical area. Assignment after graduation would be determined by AFMPC based on the needs of the Air Force at that time. The geographical areas to be studied included Soviet, Sub-Saharan Africa, Far East, Middle East, Latin America, and Western and Eastern Europe. 101 Support on Station AFIS/INH provided on station support to all DAQs during 1982. The following examples illustrate some of the types of sutyort provided. On 22 January, the DAO in New Delhi, India, received a request from Headquarters Indian Air Force (IAF) on details concerning management and operation of an air race planned as part of the IAF Jubillee celebraticn. In particular, the IAF requested information on the handicapping race system normally applied to aircraft of differing performance. AFIS/INH assistance was requested as part of the continuing effort to enhance the DAO's relationship with Headquarters IAF. The information was researched and provided as requested, 102 On 27 May, the DAO of Muscat, Oman, received a request for technical assistance. The Sultan of Oman's Air Force (SOAF) had purchased an aircraft arrestor system made by the American Engineering Company, from Ireland. Specifically, the request wanted to find out if the U.S. military or Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) had any restrictions on the system (i.e. if there were certain aircraft which could not land or taxi over the arresting cable). AFIS/INH contacted the company and they stated no restrictions existed. However, they did recommend taxiing at low speed.103 The last example involved a request for three Space Shuttle Columbia photographs from the DAO in Budapest, Hungary. AFIS/INH obtained the photos as requested and forwarded them to NASA for autograph by the Space Shuttle Astronauts (John Young and Robert Crippen). The autographed photos were then forwarded to the Air Attache in Hungary who presented them to the Hungarian Astronauts on behalf of the United States Embassy. 104 Incidents on Station
EVASION, ESCAPE AND PRISONER OF WAR MISSION AND RESOURCES Oraanization and Mission Tne AFIS Directorate of Evasion, Escape, and Prisoner of War (ER&E/ (AFIS/INR) was formed on 1 July 1980 from elements of the 7602nd Air Intelligence Group in recognition of the growing responsibilities of E&E/PW mission and the direct support this provided to Air Force combat forces, the Major Commands (MAJCOMs), and the Air Staff. As action officer for intelligence aspects of the “Department of Defense (DOD) Evasion and Escape Program the directorate was invoived in nearly all aspects of E&E/PW matters. od The authorities for operation of the directorate included the Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum (JCSM) 676-71; Department of Defense Directive 1399.7; Air Force Regulation 50-16; USAF Headquarters Operating Instruction 21-5; AFIS Regulation 23-1; and Air Force Intelligence Operating Instruction 80-1,10 The directorate consisted of two divisions: the Code of Conduct and Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) Division (AFIS/INRA) and the Defense Support Programs Division (AFIS/INRB). Responsibilities of INRA included. continuing production and updating of SERE contingency guides for use by operational units worldwide; the Standardization of Code of Conduct training throughout the military services; and providing guidance and instruction in special peacetime hostage survival training for Air Force personne] in high-risk of capture or militarily sensitive positions. Proarams Division (INR3) developed operational concepts, Giumm eee The Defense Support Deleted per 5 U.S.C. §52(b) (1)
97 The missions of AFIS/INR were unique to the command. No other element of the Air Force or other services devoted the degree of attention to E&E/PW training that AFIS did. The 19 officers, enlisted personnel and civilians of AFIS/INR made unique contributions to wartime readiness. As the Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence's office for the matters, INR produced Survival, {ACS/I's) action Resistance and Escape (SERE) Contingency Guides. The SERE were finished intelligence documents tailored to the specialized needs of potential evaders, prisoners of war, rescue forces, and operational planners at headquarters worldwide. As such, they were in active use by over 235 operational units of all four services. GBD the Joint &%& Manual (AFM 200-3) had been heavily reworked and the draft was being prepared for the JCS by the end of the year. The directorate was tasked with drafting the updated manual under the Air Force charter as DOD Executive Agent for joint E&E/PW publications. The directorate was also the AF/IN-AFIS action office for planning and conducting debriefings of returned U.S. prisoners of war and peacetime detainees. INR was instrumental in debriefing all returning Air Force PW's from Southeast Asia during Operation Homecoming, and the three Air Force hostage returnees from Iran. INR Evasion, Guides also participated in the intelliaence community debrief of recovered Red Brigade hostage General Dozier. A DGD Directive and Air Force Regulation tasked INR with responsibility to standardize Code of Conduct training among all services. By the end of the year, training standards were being In the future, training materials were scheduled to be promulgated. drafted and coordinated with training and policy elements of ail services. Budget Status Table 3-9 reflects the INR budget for FY 82 and $3. the FY 83 budget refiected an increase of $38,709. increase of slightly over 57 percent included: Overall, reasons for this additional travel in support of the implementation of Code of Conduct- the need for maintenance contracts on new equipment acquired by INRB; an increase in supplies necessary to support this related policies; The Deleted per 5 U.S.C. $52(b)(1) vU. Sot SC. S52¢my(q) Deleted per 5
equipment; and an increase in the cost of conducting Exercise Ridge Runner, 115 TABLE 3-S BUDGET STATUS CATCGORY FY 82 FY 83 Travel $39,000 $60,000 Rental Equipment 800 0 Purchase Maintenance 2,200 14,100 Misc Contract Services 14,500 15,000 Supply 7,200 13,300 Equipment 3,300 3,300 TOTAL $67,700 $105,700 Limiting Factors bs a Factors which limited INR's progress toward its objectives in 19 were funding limitations for R&D projects; limited engineering manyear support from Air Force vacancies within the directorate. pretens Command (AFSC); and manpower Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
99 @ To overcome these linitations, INRB met with representatives from SC in late 1982 to discuss what steps could be taken to increase funding and engineering support provided by AFSC. The results of the talks were encouraging, but by year's end no final decisions had been made on these issues.1 Lack of manpower within the directorate was another limiting factor, particularly within the Code of Conduct/SERE Division (INRA). In January, the SERE Branch Chief, Captain Randoiph F. Dudley, departed on regular PCS. Since a replacement for Captain Dudley had not been provided by Air Force Manpower and Personne? Center (AFMPC), Captain Allen Michaels, one of the two SERE Guide production officers, was designated the new Branch Chief. The demands of this position allowed Captain Michaels to devote only half of his time solely to research and editing of SERE Guide material -- thus reducing production efforts by 50 percent. In August, the INRA Division Chief, Major Paul Munninghoff departed, and, once again, no replacement was identified by AFMPC. Mr. Claude Watkins was then designated the division chief pending identification and arrival of a replacement for Major Munninghoff. These two officer billets were still vacant as of 31 December. This situation resuited in the loss to INRA of approximately 1.5 manyears during the year. Additionally, a civilian (GS-12) position which was created in late 1982 remained vacant by year's end. Colonel Ronald Webb, Director of AFIS/INR, hoped that the various personnel offices would be more responsive to the directorate's needs in 1983.120 CODE OF CONDUCT AND SERE Code of Conduct The Code of Conduct Branch was tasked with the mission of formulating and supervising the implementation of Code of Conduct policies within the Department of Defense. As such, it monitored the Code of Conduct training programs of ali four services for uniformity and consistency. Additionally, the Code of Conduct Branch conducted and monitored evasion and escape training for all four services and conducted, when requested, hostage and terrorist kidnapping survival training for the services. As the action office for the Executive Agent (the Secretary of the Air Force) for Code of Conduct-related training programs within the Department of Defense, INRA reviewed (for content) and coordinated on the following directives: AFR 50-16, Code of Conduct Training, and AFR 208-1, USAF Antiterrorist Program. In addition, the branch provided input for the updating of JCSM 676-71, Delineation of Responsibilities for Evasion and Escape (E&E); conducted an evaluation of the USAF Academy's SERE program; and reviewed the Security Classification Guide for Resistance Training. This review led to INRA's action to reclassify this document as a DOD security classification guide. The Code of Conduct Branch sponsored the visit of the Joint Service Interrogation Wing (JSIW) (from the United Kingdom) to the SERE schools at Fairchild AFB, Washington and the Navy's in San Diego, California. The JSIW provided these
10°. organizations with classroor instruction on interrogation techniques. This branch also initiatec action to produce a Level “A" training film entitled "U.S. Fighting Man's Code of Conduct,” which was to be used by all services in support of DODD 1300.7, and provided code of conduct policy quidance and technical expertise for the production of four training films that were produced by the Defense Audio-Visual Agency for use in resistance training. ae Mr. Claude Watkins, while Chief of the Code of Conduct Branch, conducted specialized terrorist and kidnapping survival training fifty-six times during the year. His audiences included Marine Corps Embassy Guard trainees, attache trainees, joint service personnel enroute to Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) asSignments, State Department security personnel, key National Security Agency (NSA) employees, students attending the Dynamics of International Terrorism Course, and key USAF general officers. 123 In early May, Mr. Watkins supported Exercise Condor Crete conducted in Upper Michigan for the purpose of exercising all facets of Air Rescue and Recovery on a Joint Service Basis. He organized and was the primary speaker during six hours on captivity, evasion history and hostage survival. = During late January and early February, Lt Col Frank J. Capillupo (then Director of INR) and Mr. Watkins represented AF/IN at the evasion and escape seminar portion of the annual joint service Unconventional Warfare Conference hosted by the Special Operations Task Force Europe, US European Command. It was conducted at Patch Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany. During the seminar Mr. Watkins gave a presentation on the history of evasion and escape and both he and Lt Col Capillupo discussed and made suggestions on AFIS support of an escape and evasion exercise, Fleet Deer, scheduled for 19 April - 23 June, £25 During the period 25 April - 6 May, Mr. Watkins supported e pre-exercise training segment of escape and evasion exercise Fleet th & During the period 2-16 July, Major Munninghoff participated in the ninth lecture tour of the UK major Headquarters and schools. Over the years, the main participation had been prorated out through the four services but the organizing and coordination had always been performed by INR in conjunction with the British Defense Intelligence Liaison Staff, Washington, DC. A major event of the year was Exercise Ridge Runner 82. joint service This exercise was the seconj in a series of annual
101 evasion training exercises sponsored and conducted by the Evasion and Escape and Prisoner of War Directorate. The explicit purpose of the exercise was to provide concentrated training for selected members of all four U.S. Armed Services whose duties entailed teaching and or briefing U.S. combat personnel on the subject of evasion or conducting basic, advanced or continuation evasion training. Trainees received classroom and field training, briefings by guest lecturers, and participated in a week of field maneuvers. Ridge Runner 82 was conducted from 19 to 30 September at Camp Dawson, West Virginia. Fifty-one student trainees, including members of the Royal Air Force (United Kingdom) participated. Colonel Webb attributed the success of the exercise to the tireless efforts of the Ridge Runner staff and the support provided by various guard and reserve elements and civilian agencies. The total cost of the exercise was $32,200. 128 Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) The mission of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SER Branch was to research, produce and. disseminate SERE Contingency Guides. These guides, which were country or region specific, were finished intelligence products designed specifically to meet the needs of aircrews and combat forces. They were a compilation of pertinent data from which information would be extracted for use in area orientation briefings, the development of mission briefings, and the planning of evasion plans of action, to name a few. In addition to the production of SERE guides, the branch also served as the temporary archives for the USAF Prisoner of War files.129 During 1982, the SERE Branch researched, published and disseminated the Middle East SERE Contingency Guide. This 630 page guide covered fourteen countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, North Yemen, Oman, Oatar, Saudi Arabia, South Yemen, Syra and the United Arab Emirates. The guide was disseminated to over 700 users within DOD. The branch also began research and production of the North Africa SERE Contingency Guide. The nine country guide was scheduled to cover Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, the Sudan and Tunisia. The production rate was slowed during 1982 due to the inability of AFMPC to fill a personnel siot that remained vacant for nearly the entire year, and the branch's decision to cut reserve support for the program nearly in half, 430 During the year, the USAF Southeast Asia Prisoner of War files, consisting of more than’ 135,000 pages, were sanitized in preparation for their transfer ta the Albert F. Simpson Historical Research Center, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Mr. Karl Owens, hired by the directorate in a temporary overhire position, provided the needed support to Chief Master Sergeant Hilary W. 6G. Edwards in this endeavor. 131 Colonel Webb realized the need for advertising SERE guides to the services. During the early stages of development, Captain Dudley and CMSgt Edwards visited a number of Navy Reserve units that
10° were supportinc the project to give them staff assistance. It was determined then tna: there was 2 need not only to brief Supporting units but to familiarize primary distributees with the "why" and "how" of SERE Guide production and use. This became even more evident as coments and questions arrived from the field units using the guides, 132 To help educate consumers, Colonel Jack Morris (then AFiS/CV) and Colonel Alfons Broz (then 7602nd Commander under which the directorate operated) heartily endorsed the “selling” of SERE Guides to field units -- especially MAJCOMs and other services. The directorate began budgeting for SERE Guide assistance visits to MAJCOMS and other service recipients during FY 78. On the average, four trips per fiscal year had been scheduled; however, none were completed, 13 The idea of advertising SERE Guides and the need for personal interaction between AFIS and units in the field had also been endorsed by the AcCS/i. Wher the directorate came under the 7602nd, the command section felt that the trips should be performed at the Executive Staff level. The directorate did not then nor during 1982 have staff level personnel promote SERE guides at that level. Colonel Webb believed this was a major obstacle to sending SERE Branch personne] on these trips. In addition, the funds budgeted for this purpose were easily diverted to other unscheduled unbudgeted TDY's in support of other programs.134 The need to promote SERE guides remained evident throughout 1982. The directorate needed an interface with other commands and services on SERE quide use and distribution. Colonel Webb believed that questions and problems that occurred could have been avoided if that interface existec.135 AS @ stop-gap measure, the directorate produced a video tape on SERE Guides in June 1989. This was intended to enlighten users until a visit could be made. It was also intended as a tool to be used in staff assistance visits. The end results were less than completely satisfactory; making the video tape available to other services was difficult. Even in the Air Force, it was a chore to determine the actual availability of the video tape to the squadron level units. Colonel Webb believed that a personal visit by the INR staff would answer many questions raised by personnel at command distribution points, 49 DEFENSE SUPPORT PROGRAMS The Defense Support Programs Division provided, when requested by orce Intelligence (AF/IN), technical recommendations and research and development (R&S) support to HUMINT and HUMINT-related (Foreign
103 Material Exploitation) activities, and provided Air Force augmentation tg_ and management of the Combined Services Support Program (CSSP). During 1982, the division worked toward its goal of maximum wartime readiness by actively pursuing the following objectives: increased productivity, active program management, and operational autonomy. Although significant gains were achieved in each of these areas by the end of the year, various factors (indicated earlier) limited progress to the extent desired. 138 Efforts to increase productivity during 1982 concentrated on improving the division's effectiveness and efficiency through technological applications, training in time management, use of Quality Circles, increased personne? motivation and improved interpersonal communications. 139 During the summer of 1982, the division installed two modified Xerox 860T Information Processing Systems in the CSSP branch and the four analysts undertook and completed an intense user training program. Although the two units represented less than half the desired hurdware for one complete system (i.e. Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), keyboard, controller and printer per analyst), substantial increases in individual productivity were recorded following the training period and implementation. Steps were taken to procure two more specially modified Xerox 860T systems in FY 83 to bring the CSSF branch up to near full capability. The increased rate of production realized following the introduction of Phase I automation for the CSSP branch was not a resuit of technological applications alone -- motivation of personnel played a significant role too. Prior to mid-1982, the methods of providing program reports involved “a constantly high level of concentration, continuous repetition with little variation, and low levels of excitement combined with a depressing frame of reference (i.e. they would only produce around 18 percent of the desired productivity) ."140 BD The analyst knew that no matter how hard they worked, they would never achieve their desired goals. The introduction of modern automated data processing techniques to CSSP operations showed that these limitations could be overcome and that it would be possible to effectively and efficiently handle the increasing workload given the proper equipment and organization skills. Personnel motivation increased because the analysts became aware that better services could be provided with less difficulty, -which in turn boosted the morale of program participants and increased wartime readiness.141 Personnel motivation was also addressed through the management technique of goal setting. In directorate staff meetings, INRB division meetings and quality circles, Major Robert G. Dussault encouraged the setting of personal, branch, and division goals and provided expert information on how to successfully apply the goal Setting process. Major Dussault pointed out that setting and working toward a high, but realistically attainable goal stimulated
IU- excitement, motivation and effort as well. as great personal satisfaction once the goal had been achieved, 142 Another aspect of increased productivity which received atten.1on in 1952 was enhanced interpersonal communications. In INRB, this was carried out by tne technique of the Quality Control (QC) Circle. Essentially, the Q.C. Circle involved a small group of employees, usually from the same group who voluntarily met on a reguiar basis to discuss quality problems, investigate causes, recommend solutions and implement these solutions when possible. The thrust of the concept was aimed at giving the worker dignity. In INRB this was done by recognizing that its people were creative; that they had valuable ideas; and that they could recognize their own problems and suggest solutions to them if given the opportunity. 143 ind Following the start of the Q.C. Circle program in March, four Q.c. Circles were held involving INRB personnel. Major Dussault personally guided each Q.C. Circle discussion by establishing policies and procedures and assisting in probiem solving when required. As a result of this initiative, new standards and policies were adopted by INRB which reflected the desires of the employees. These included: set schedules for daily activities, limitations on interruptions, daily production goals, an agreed sequence of work-flow events and improved time management. 144 ‘S Overall, Colonel Webb believed the three initiatives (technological applications, increased motivation of personnel and improved interpersonal communications) produced the desired result ef increased productivity. For example, a conparison of the number of Product reports sent out by the CSSP branch of INRB in 1981 and 1982 Showed that productivity increased by 39 percent in 1982. This gain “was realized despite reduced manning in the CSSP branch for approximately 802 manhours and the non-production time set aside for training the analysts on the two Xerox 860s, Q.C.'s, TDY's, etc, 145 . Deleted per 5 U.S.C. §52(b} (1)
@ During 1982, than in previous years. In fact, INRB was considered by AF/IN to be the Air Staff action officer for E&E/PW and related activities. By opening the lines of communication, the division achieved a greater understanding and increased awareness by key personnel of INRB's mission and the unique prableans aced i Wi it le @& Two projects were completed and delivered to INRB during the year. One of these, Came in ahead of schedule and under cost. Coisnel Webb attributed success in these two efforts to active program management on the part of INRB personnei.150 INRB worked more closely with the Air Staff ~ 4 id om Be} — “nN wn n ° a) * “| a tr] un be a O. as] Qa Pe) v ~ Cy a
CAVIET AFFAIRS Mission and Orcanizetior The mission of the Directorate of Soviet Affairs (AFIS/INC) as directed by the Chief of Staff, USAF, was to keep “each member of the Air Force informed and aware of Soviet doctrine, strategy, tactics, force structure and combat employment." The Chief of Staff desired a "Soviet Awareness Program" which would present comprehensive, objective information about the Soviet Union and its armed forces relyinc primarily upon information and estimates from the intelligence community. This was a unique mission for an intelligence organization in the sense that classified information was de Viberately made available to as many appropriately cleared people as possible. The Directorate of Soviet Affairs was formed to conduct the USAF Soviet Awareness Proara™. Two primary mediums were used: the printed word in the form of edited translations of Soviet military writings and the spoken word in the form of oral presentations and videotape programs. AFIS/INZ consisted of two divisions: the Literature Research Livision {INCF) handled the written medium and the Soviet Awareness Division (INCR) handled the spoken. The directorate also maintained @ Literature Research Facility and a display of Soviet artifacts. ‘jterature Research The Literature Research Division (INCF), after experiencing a long period of several vacant manpower positions, finally managed * achieve é@ full stz*f of editors and translators in April. Consequently, INCS spent mucn of 1982 trying to bring all publication: up to date -- particularly AFRP 200-1, Soviet Press Selected Translations. The division made significant progress in this area. They were also able to make significant progress in improving the content and quality of publications, and arranging for less costly and more reliable publication and printing procedures. The Division's Technical Information Specialist continued his extensive research on Soviet Logistics and anticipated that the study would be concluded in 1983. In addition, he completed studies on Soviet Armed forces political elements, younc people's military exercises, and the Soviet Armed Forces legal system. +22 GP No "Soviet Military Thought" volumes were published in 1982, primarily because of delays caused by contractors doino a poor job on the proofs fcr Volume 17, The Command and Staff of the Soviet Army Air Force in the Great Patriotic war, 1941-1945. However, the book editors did make prooress with Volume 17 as well as Volumes 18 and 19, and publication cf ai] three volumes was anticipated for 1983, 156 @ Late in 1922 the Air Force acquired an automated printing capability, which Colonel Wish believed would sianificantly reduce the
107 time required to prepare publications for printine and ensure a higher quality product. The manuscript for Velume 15, Fundamentals of Tactical Command and Control, was submitted for preparation of proofs in October. It was scneduled to be the first volume printed by automation. 157 sad Volume Five in the “Studies in Communist Affairs" series, Selected Readings from Military Thought, was published in 1982. This volume was Sublished in two parts, Part I in April and Part II in October. The manuscript for Volume Six, The Soviet Union: What Lies Ahead ?, was submitted for preparation of proofs in December 1982 and publication was anticipated for 1983. This volume consisted of notes from the Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Headquarters USAF, October 1981 Conference on the Soviet Union. 158 The AFRP 200-1, Soviet Press Selected Translations pub leation had fallen furthest behind schedule due to vacant manpower slots. Yet, by the end of 1982 the publication was almost back on schedule. Seven issues were published with the final two issues expected to be completed in early 1983.159 The costs of printing this publication were reduced by incorporating design and layout changes. The result was more material printed on less pages in a more visually attractive manner. The content of each issue was also improved by including a more comprehensive selection of current Soviet writings on military and political affairs, 169 The AFRP 200-1 was a monthly publication until November . At that time the Secretary of the Air Force, based upon the recommendations of tne Headquarters USAF Periodical Review Board, cut AFRP 200-1 to a bimonthly publication effective with the first issue in 1983. This was part of a laraer effort to cut back on the costs of all Air Force publications, 10 The number of Soviet Military Concepts (SMC) issues publi shed in 1982 was down from previous years because the SMC editor had to support AFRP 200-1 for several months. Nevertheless, three issues were published in 1982 and work beaan on multiple issues on Electronic Warfare. 16 Deleted per 5 U.S.C. $52(b) (1)
10° Soviet Awareness & The Soviet Awareness Division (AFIS/INCR) had a very Productive year in 19€7, desvite a large turnover in personnel. In adcition to @ new division cnief and director of curriculum arriving in 1982, there were four other losses and five other gains in INCR, Filling INCR vacancies with qualified personnel remained one of the directorate's most vexino problems and the shortage of quatified personne] remained the most significant obstacie in the way of increased productivity. 164 AFIS/INCR conducted 12 Soviet Military Power Week (SMPW) courses, visited 36 Air Force bases with the Soviet Awareness Roadshow, conducted five Soviet Military Power Days (SMPD) at Bolling AFB anc presented 19 special programs. The division maintained its usual support for Air Trainina Command, includina Underaraduate Pilot and Navigator Training, Air War College, Squadron Officer Schoo) and Air Command and Staff Coileae. Additionally, INCR supported the Armed Forces Staff Collece at Norfolk, Virginia, the Industrial College of the Armec Forces et hationel Defense University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Once again Soviet Awareness was included in the orientation course for all new Air Force brigadier generals, as well as the new Marine Corp brigadier generals, 16 & During 1962, there were three special programs of particular significance. On 21 January, Senator John Werner of Virginia and his staff came to the INC auditorium for a four-hour program. A two-day program for Congressional and White House staffers was conducted on the weekend of 17-18 April. Finally, INCR gave the Reserve Forces “Policy Board an eiaht-hour procram on 15 June. The response to all three of th pr . tr ek he ¢ : . . ta ea Tey ee 3 ‘ Paw AL: okt fea! + aay : 5 r SSG med! Po Se We UA Bae wot he . wit ta Cy wet In January, INCR made a major change in the content of its presentations on Soviet military forces for SMPWs, SMPDs and all roadshows. The change involved creating two new presentations, “Soviet Readiness for War" an? “Intercontinental War," and restructuring an existinc presentation, "Theater War." With this change, INCR was better able to present an accurate view of Soviet doctrine and stratesy, ana explain how the Soviets would use their armes forces ts fight any level of conflict, conventional through nuclear. Colonel wish believe this new method of coverins the Soviet armed forces was far more lively, motivational and educational, 168 Deleted per 5 U.S.C. §52(b) (1)
109 La The Soviet Awareness Division experienced one significant setback witn its Roadshow. Half of a scheduled deployment to bases in the Pacific area in October was cancelled just a few weeks prior to the Soviet Awareness Team's scheduled departure. This cancellation was disappointing because it occurred after several months of planning and coordinatio: The main problem was a tack of coordination between INCR's point of contact at Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB and the commanders at bases in Japan and South Korea. The deployment to four bases in these countries was cancelled but the team did make it to other bases in Okinawa, the Phillipines and Guam. Colonel] Wish was once again able to send people to the Soviet Union for an orientation visit in 1982. This had been an important program for the directorate and had produced some lucrative benefits. The opportunity to see the Soviet Union firsthand had greatly enhanced each individual's understanding of the Soviet Union and had helped maintain the overall credibility of the Soviet Awareness Program. There were many additional benefits such as good quality color photography for use in the presentations, and excellent posters and other artifacts for use in the directorate's programs. The 1982 orientation visit was successful despite some major disappointments. Four individuals made the trip--three from INCR and one from the Soviet Studies Branch, Strategic Studies Division (AF/INESS). They spent two weeks in the Soviet Union (1-15 July). Unfortunately almost all of that time was spent in Moscow. Soviet officials, for whatever reason, chose to disapprove almost all travel requests outside of Moscow. Finally, on the day before the end of the trip, the Soviets approved a one-day visit to Leningrad. Otherwise, Colonel Wish considered the trip a success.i/71 Special Problems The one factor which most limited the effectiveness of the Soviet Awareness Program was the absence of a sufficient number of qualified, experienced personnel. The lack of qualified editors and translators for INCF seriously disrupted their publications. Due to inadequate manpower positions and the shortage of aualified personnel, INCR was unable to achieve a two-team capability. The directorate worked to acquire qualified personnel by once again selecting an individual to send into the Area Specialist Proaram. After two years of studying Soviet Affairs and the Russian lanquage the individual would hopefully receive a follow-an assignment to INC. The first INC- selected area specialist was expected to be assigned to INCR in July 1983,172 Additionally, INC requested, as a part of the FY 85-89 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and Budget process, additional manpower slots, an expanded word processing capability and renovation of the display facility. The highest priority was the additional manpower slots for INCR. The division would never have a two-team Capability unless additional manpower slots were authorized. The main
lic benefit of havira tvs teats was quite simple: the ability to inform more Air Force members about the Soviet Union (which was INC's primary mission). The request for an additional slot for INCF was negated by the decision to reduce AFR? 299-1 to a bimonthly publication.173 Colonel Wish alse requested additional terminals for the MiCOM word processing system in the FY 85 POM input. With additional terminals, the INCF editors would be able to edit and correct manuscripts directlv at @ terminal rather than relying upon support from administrative personnei. This would reduce the time required for preparing publications and lessen the load on the administrative personnel. Also, @ greater share of the directorate’s overall administrative tasks could be performed on the word processor. With the extra terminals, the directorate would require one less administrative manpower slot. 4 The cirectorate beaan significant actions to improve and renovate the Soviet displey facility. Several new artifacts were acauired in 1982 and placed in the facility. However, the most urgent task was the renovation of the entire facility. Located in a large noisy warehouse which was populated by many birds, the display area was unattractive and difficuit to keeps clean. Consequently, INC requested funcs in the FY 85 POM input for renovation and also Submitted a request to the Base Civil Fogineer to have the area enclosed within higner walls and a ceiling. 1/ Finally, INC began a major upgrade of its audiovisual equipment for the auditorium. A new Sony large screen video projection syster wes installed in March to replace the worn out Advent system. Orders were placed for replacement videocassette players and slide projectors. New equipment, such as @ professional ' sound mixer, microshones, amolifiers and a cassette deck, were aiso ordered. Some of this eaquionent was purchasec in 1952 and the remainder was expectted in 192, Witn the installation of the new equipment, the auciov} sual functions for the auditorium would be significantly improvec.?/> OPER“TING LOCATION Ar Mission and Orcanization The AFIS Operating Location AF (AFIS OL-AF), in its liaison capacity to the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC), had been in existence for nearly two years.{established in April 1981). The OL Supported ArTiC by providing intelligence personnel augmentation for dedicated ali-source intelligence management and limited analytical support. Additional responsibilities included serving as a lViaison between AFTEC and other Air Force intelligence organizations to ensure all-source intelliaence support for the AFTEC mission; assisting in the review of threat assessments and scenarios for adequacy, completeness and applicability: assisting in the review of Threat Environment Descriptions (7t0s) for currency and completeness, ,
111 identifying neeas and recommending intelliaence support for the AFTEC operational test and evaluation (OT&E) mission; assisting in the resolution of critical conflicting intelligence data which could impact on the AFTEC mission; and assisting AFTEC in developing and maintainina a collateral intelligence library by identifying appropriate intelligence publications. 77 * @ Manning authorizations for the OL remained stable throughout the y€ar. Lieutenant Colonel Donald N. Walker continued as Chief and Major Richard A. Puseman as Operations Officer. A third officer position was authorized in May (Captain, Intelligence Applications Officer, Air Force Specialty Code 8075); however, the position remained vacant. Colone! Walker believed the position would be filled in 1983,178 Siqnificant Projects Throughout 1982, the OL continued to provide Air Force and Defense Intelliaence Aqency (DIA) validated intelligence to AFTEC test managers and test teams in support of worldwide OT&E projects. Specific highlights included threat support to such high level projects as the Missile-X (M-X), Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM), ALR-74 Warning Receiver, Precision Location Strike System (PLSS), Joint Tactical Fusion Program (JTFP), Mobile Ground Terminal (MGT), Low Level Laser Guided Bomb (LLLGB), Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM), EF-111, and others, 179 Most efforts involved coordinating the information flow between AFTEC staff and the Air Force Intelligence (AF/IN) analysts. Many interfaces were successful, such as acquiring real world information in support of GLCM test launches; obtaining a detailed, tailored threat packace for the PLSS; providing expertise and intelligence advice for JTF test planning; and providing the MGT test * Although physically located at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, organizationally, AFiS OL-AF worked directly for the Air Force Electronic Combat Intelligence Group (AF/INW) at the Pentagon. The OL directly supported AFTEC requirements. AFTEC was an independent separate operating agency (located at Kirtland AF8) who managed the Air Force OT&E program according to Air Force ovolicy. it was the principal agency which furnished OT&E information to the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, and in turn, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Congress, The AFTEC planned, directed, controlled, evaluated, and reported on OT&E projects, and recommended OT&E policy to Headquarters United States Air Force (USAF). One major concern was to ensure that test managers used current validated intelligence which would meet the scrutiny of Air Force System Acquisition Review Council and Defense System Acquisition Review Counci? (AFSARC/DSARC) panels.
Vc team with specific taraetine information from the Joint Chief of Staff's Studies Anaiysis and Gatrina Agency (SAGA). However, not all efforts met with areat success. Specific updates to GLCM threat allocation study were promised for over a year, then the study was not velidated, and the AFTED request was finally withdrawn; the current status of Threat Assessment Reports and Threat Environment Descriptions (TARs and TEDs) were still difficult for test planners to obtain: and no formal management structure existed to help provide dedicated intelligence support for the testing and acquisition communities -- even after numerous meetings and messages on the subject. 180 => At the request of the AFTEC Plans Division (AFTEC/XP), AFIS OL-AF “began a project on Precision Location Strike System (PLSS) threat support. The primary goal was to fiil perceived gaps in existing PLSS threat data. Initially, message traffic between OL-AF, the Air Force Intelliaence General Threat Division (AF/INEG), AFIS OL- N, an* the Foreian Technology Division (FTD) provided some of the needed answers. However, the real issues concerning contractual responsibility for threat data, the level of parametric detail needed to support PLSS, Gata Vink vulnerability, around station vulnerability, pulse densities affecting receivers, and future Soviet spread spectrum capability still had not been adequately addressed. 181 bared To obtain the needed information, OL-AF in conjunction with AFTEC/XP/TE hostec a PLSS intelligence support conference with representatives from AF/INEG, AFIS OL-N, AFSC/INA, and FTD. The main objectives were to allow the PLSS test community to directly interface with the various intelliaence oraanizations and to assign specific offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) to obtain the required information. The meetine took place on 9-10 November with a final product comoiltes by AT/INEG by the end of the year. The AFTEC test director was extremely pleased with the threat package and passed his thanks to all who provided inputs. Overall, Colonel Walker believed this was an extremely productive effort which areatiy enhanced the working relationships among AFTEC, AFIS OL-AF, ane the inte?ligence community in general. 1&2 Support to the Ground Launch Cruise Missile (GLCM) program involved two distinct phases -- first, throuch direct interface between the AFIS Intellicence Research Division (INOI) and the GLCM test team to confirm the presence of real world friendly collection resources directed against GLCM launches; and secondly, through reconnaissance support and Air -Staff augmentation for a deployment exercise in the Northwestern United States. In early June, OL-AF members visited the GLC’ test team to gain insight into actual test environment conditions and to determine the best means of providing support for future jaunches,+° Throughout the year, AFTEC voiced several concerns about the development of the ALR-74 Warning Receiver threat. Early threat working group (TwS} meetings, message traffic, anc telephone
113 conversations did not seen to adequately address several major issues. These included an apparent lack of operational threat data; the credibility of a threat definition which was basically built by the developer; and insufficient TWS representation from the intelligence communities scientific and technical experts. 184 During a follow-on threat working group (TWG) meeting in June, several of the open items were resolved. Specificaily, the group recommended: (1) the Electronic Combat (EC) Threat Environment Description (TED) and Electronic’ Warfare Integrated Reprogramming (EWIR) data base should be used as the baseline sources for the ALR-74 threat data; (2) the Air Force Electronic Intelligence Group (AF/INW) would validate all threat information used for the ALR-74 program; (3) the initial threat data base would support only prototype ALR-74 (not the preduction ALR-74); and (4) the Electronic Warfare Open Loop Simulator (EWOLS) could be used to satisfy many of the threat density requirements for testing. The remaining focus centered on defining those gaps in tactical type information not found in the ERIR data base or EC TED.18 = The Joint Tactical Fusion Program (JTFP) evolved from the Battlefield Exploitation and Taraet Acquisition (BETA) project and was jointly sponsored by the Air Force and Army. Testing of fusion capabilities was scheduled to continue through 1983 and possibly 1984 with a major Air Force effort planned for Europe (Limited Operational Capability Europe (LOCE)). In June, the AFTEC test manacer for JTFP, augmented by AFIS OL-AF, observed portions of the Phase I Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) at Hurlburt Field, Florida. Larae volumes of data were fed into the Joint Fusion Test Bed (JTFTB) from outside connecting elements te stress the system's software correlation alaorithms. Final evaluation of the Phase I test could not be made until ali the data had been analyzed, but initial results were promising and would be beneficial for the LOCE effort in late Fiscal Year (FY) 83.185 To help accomplish advanced threat realism planning for Military Satellite Communications (MILSTAR) OT&E, AFTEC/XPQ requested the development of a postulated electronic warfare (EW) environment to realistically reflect the employment and deployment of enemy EW assets. The June 1982 request asked for the application of the EW assets listed in the MILSTAR System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) and SPACE TED into realistic operational scenarios for crisis and conventional/nuclear environments. The tasking was directed to AFIS OL-N, San Antonio, Texas, through the Air Force Electronic Combat Intelligence Group (AF/INW) at the Pentagon. In support, OL-AF developed and provided an initial project outline to AFTEC. By late July, portions of the MILSTAR STAR final draft were provided to AFIS OL-AF and AFTEC to determine if this document would satisfy the majority of tasking. After reviewing this draft and another applicable Defense Intelligence Aaency (DIA) document titied Soviet Threat to Military Satellite Communications, it was determined that much of tne required information was available in these documents.
114 However, some arzas remained in which AFTED would needa some assistance -- particularly ir developinc @ realistic anc feasitle application to the testing process. le: Tne finei sianificant project involved the establishment of a forme! DIA threat liprarv account by May 1982. With the creation of the account, initial ordering of recurring collateral intelligence publications beaan. Subsequently, AFTEC developed a computerized system for handline their overall in-house administrative workload and took action to set-up and maintain an accurate, more easily accessible intelligence date bank using their computer terminal. Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) planners now had a more comprehensive and controllable library to meet their needs, 186 Specific Problem Areas Three major problem areas occurred during the year. First, the lack of an Air Force reaqulation defining the management structure and responsibilities for intellioence support to the acquisition process. Although some progress had been made, a reaulation still did not exist. The AFTEC had requested support in tnis area prior to and Since the establishment of AFIS OL-AF. A reaulation of this type remained vitai to ensure thet accurate and current intelligence data was made available tc support AFTEC efforts and to avoid unnecessary duplication. Often AFTEC tested new or developing systems which would be used five to ten years in the future. If the intelligence supporting these tests was not accurate or keyed to the current and future threet, the new and developina systems would not only be "shot down" by the Air Force Syster Acquisition Keview Council and Defense System Acquisition Review Council (AFSARC/DSARC) Panels, but could also be “shot down" by tne enemy as well. Colonel Walker believed that an._intellicence support regulation would heip solve this problem, 189 A second anu somewnat parallel problem was the need to track the status of TARs and TEDs and provide this information to AFTEC. AFTEC used these documents as the official validated intelligence source for many of its test programs. Again, some proaress had been made; however, several requests were needed to obtain the information. Colonel Walker believed that this type of information should be updated periodically without continuous prodding from the using community. In the final analysis, AFTEC needed to kniw what validated intelligence products should be used to support each GT&& program. In some cases a TA® had already been developed; in other cases, TARSs or TEDs were beina developed; and in still other cases, one or more different intelligence documents (NON-TARS/TEDs) were being used in place of a validated TAR. A managed, controlled program which tracked current TAR/TED status continued to be vital to an orgasized OT&E effort by the Air Force. 199 Tne third problen involved the aeneral issue of scoping the appropriate level of intelligence support to AFTEC. ODurina the year,
115 several discussions and meetinas occurred between the Air Staff, AFIS OL-AF, and the AFTEC staff in an attempt to streamline the request and tasking cycle and to clarify many of the previous misunderstandings among the parties concerned. At issue were: (1) the need to establish an AFTEC intelligence directorate; (2) the need to expand AFIS OL-AF manning and or analysis capabilities to provide all AFTEC intelligence support; (3) the need for Air Staff personnel to review AFTEC requirements with actual members of test teams; and (4) the need for written guidance and direction for intelligence support (i.e. an Air Force regulation). Although these problems were thoroughly discussed, many still remained unresolved by the end of the year.19 OPERATING LOCATION OL-N Mission and Resources -” By direction of the Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence (ACS/ AFIS OL-N (iocated in San Antonio, Texas) was responsible for ensuring that intelTigence collection requirements regarding the Communist World's Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) doctrine, concepts, tactics, and techniques were current, complete and filed with the appropriate agency; acquiring, analyzing and assessing current and projected Communist World ECM doctrine and tactics and their capabilities to execute same; evaluating the projected dep:oyment and employment of new or modified Communist World ECM systems to determine their threat to U.S. systems under development or currently in the field; producing finished intelligence scenarios, and estimates concerning current and projected Communist Wor 1d ECM doctrine, tactics, deployment, development, trends, roles, and ECM techniques in support of operational commands, and USAF Operational Test and Evaluation (OTRE) in preparation for the Defense Systen Acquisition Review Council) (DSARC) or Air Force System Acauisition Review Council (AFSARC); developina the AF/IN position regarding the Communist World's ECM doctrine and tactics; and providing management assistance to producers and users of the USAF Electronic Combat Intelligence Data Base, and to agencies involved in development and cperation of reprogrammable EW equipment. AFIS OL-N products, such as threat assessments, scenarios, analyses, and estimates were developed from ali-source data regarding Communist ECM tactics, doctrines, concepts of operation, deployment and employment technical characteristics, Electronic Counter Countermeasures (£CCM) capabilities, and related command and control systems. 192 eS Essentially, OL-N provided intelligence  personnei augmentation for dedicated all-source intelligence management and analytical support to the Air Force Electronic Warfare Center (AFEWC) Electronic Warfare (EW) mission; established and maintained a capab* lity to develop tailored EW threat assessments to fulfill the requirements of the Air Force; acted as an AFIS review function for selected Scientific and Technical (S&T) CW analytical efforts and products to insure that Air Force Operational EW requirements were
116 considered: insures that information from operational documentation reports which had direct impact on both USAF and Department of Defense (009: intelliaence positions were provided to the appropriate agencies witnin the intelliaence community; acted as the AFEWC intelligence interface with Service, DOD and National Intelligence organizations; identified needs and accomplished preliminary documentation to support decompartmentation/sanitization of intelligence data to be released in support of AFEKD Ew activities/responsibi litins, in support of the AFEWC "Ex Flagainc" concept, initiated any fol -ow-up actions required to confirm threat/parametric changes; established and maintained procedures for resolution of critical intelligence issues which impacted on the AFEWC mission; and in conjunction with the AFEHC Threat System Division, maintained a library of EW related threat information, and performed other EW intelligence support activities as required by AFIS, 193 The O: remained divided into three subdivisions ~- the Threat Analysis Division, the Administrative Division and the Programs Division. Tote? manpower inciuded 20 authorizations with 19 assigned. Colonel Clinton ™. Glenny continued as Chief. * The annual OL operating budaet for FY82 was $185,090. Fund expenditures inc luded $42,000 for TDY; $114,005 for civilian pay; $4,309 for equipment and supplies; anc $1,709 for ecuipment rental. The ending balance for FYB? was +$8,00),-0" Operations * The Chief, AFIS OL-N also held the position of Headquarters ESC/DCS-IN. The Deputy Chief, alse held the position of Headquarters ESC/INKE (Chief, EW Threat Division). Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
‘ . wth. 1 . . (T)(QzSS *7°Ss°n ¢ aad pazeTed
In mid-1952, OL-N completed a long-term project to compile data on the use of optical, electro-optical and infrared devices in Soviet weapon systems. Publication 82-2. This study was initiated at the request of the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC). Subsequently, requests for information made by Headquarters Electronic Security Command (ESC), the Air Force Electronic Warfare Center (AFEWC) and operational units indicated a more prevalent need for a single source of EQ/IR system intelligence. Included in the study were optical fire control systems for AAA, SAMs and aircraft, IR-quided air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, infrared search and track systems on fighter aircraft, IR, and TV imaging fire control systems for AAA, SAMs and aircraft, TV and IR aerial reconnaissance systems, ground-based and airborne laser range-finders, laser target designators, laser-quided munitions, and high energy laser weapons. This publication was very well received and, since initial distribution of over 500 copies, the OL had received requests for the book from about two dozen other USAF, U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Army (USA) and Joint/D0D organizations. 29 In September, AFIS OL-N was asked to develop a brief study on the People's Republic of China (PRC) airborne ECM capabilities. On completion of this study, a definite need was found for a single, ali- source study of PRO ECM capabilities along the areas covered by the North Korean publication. The OL began the new PRC study by the end The results were published as AFIS OL-N Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
121 of the year. Colonel Glenny expected the study to be completed by the fall of 1983.219 Tne OL also supported the REC Command Control and Communications (C3) Links project for ESC/IN. The purpose of this project was to develop a diagram of Soviet REW-related communications nets for the ESC Red Team in support of the Nellis Range Group. ESC was attempting to incorporate the REW links into the total REC environment which would be used to support the Red Flag and other exercises and operations on the ~-Nellis Range. The product was coordinated with the Foreign Techno logy Division (FTD) and the Foreign Science and Technology Center (FSTC).211 In response to a need stated by a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) EW working group in 1981, an OL-N initiated study was done on Soviet Space EW and a postulation of Soviet Space Electromagnetic Combat Doctrine produced. This postulation was disseminated as an analyst exchange in August at the Secret level. Responses to the ANEX were received from AF/INW, SAC/IN, Space Division, the National Security Agency (NSA), AFSC/7IN and ESC/IN. As of 31 December, responses were pending from FTD, DIA, Space Command, and AF/INE. In general, responses received were favorable and raised valid questions in regard to specific points in the postulation. The postulation was being revised and was scheduled to be redisseminated at the SCI level.2 AFIS OL-N was tasked by ESC/IN in 1982 to provide a study of the ECM capabilities of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV). This study would cover air, ground, naval, HF, and COMSAT panning capabilities and had an estimated completion date of July 1983.2 Ws eee Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 952(b) (1)
FIS OL-N provided intelligence support planning to the exercises held during the Blue Flag at Hur Iburt Field, Florida. he last exercise to which OL-N actually deployed people, as controllers, was Blue Flag 82-2, 13-29 April. The Green Flag staff_became the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for future exercies at Blue Flag. AFIS OL-N, however, still acted as a technical advisor and provides qari training throughout the year to AFEWC and Headquarters ESC personne! deploying to 1982 Blue Flag exercises. 21/7 a | ~ -o~ A. ball N-, "A. ww. e re a “a e p Ca) ba @ a =| CT) wd @ ot @ A Teet
AFIS OL-N provided EW systems intelligence support in three areas. These included the ALR-74.Working Group, the Advanced Tactical Aircraft Protection System (ATAPS), and an ALQ-131 System Update Missionization Study (SUMS). The ALR-74 radar warning program was formerly known as the ALR-67/69 Update program. The Air Force awarded a production prototype contract to ITEK, Applied Technology Division, in April 1981. The primary program objective was to acquire and field, during 1984, the capability to provide required warning of the engagement status of hostile radar air defense systems. AFIS OL-N participated in the ALR-74 Prototype Threat List Review and made ~ 4 —_ ~ y:) —w > J “A A e 2 *,° A. 6 on “ bs a Qa a] a 3 e ~ a a nF .it
124 recommendations to AF/IN«. The ALR-74 prototype threat list was scheduled to be used to evaluate the performance of the ALR-74. AF/INH incorporated AFIS OL-N reg ommendations in the overall threat list which was validated by AF/IN, & The ATAPS Joint Threat Assessment was a joint product incorporating updates of threat system parametric data provided by the Army, Navy and Air Force S&TI centers. AFIS OL-N participated in the ATAPS Joint Threat Steering Group which reviewed and coordinated the production of this, assessment. The threat assessment was validated by AF/INEG in August. 223 ® The ALQ-131 SUMS program was an evaluation tool to rate projected updates for the ALQ-131 ECM system. AFIS OL-N participated in the ALQ-131 SUMS Working Group. As a result of tasking from the Working Group, OL-N reviewed the data and data sources used by the Georgia Institute of Technology for the ALQ-131 SUMS program. Recommendations for improvement to the program were provided to the Georgia Institute of Technology.224 AFIS OL-N also supported the Area Reprogramming Capability (ARC) program. The purpose of the ARC program was to give user commands the capability to respond rapidiy to threat environment perturbations by creating changes to a wide range of field reprogrammable ECM and RWR systems. AFIS OL-N was selected to participate in the ARC Working Group, with representatives on the Intelligence Support Working Group and the Computer Resources Working Group. Most of the program effort was directed at reviewing the Georgia Institute of Technology rewrite of the ARC System Specification. The last review was held in December and the specification was scheduled to be finalized and published during early 1983. AFIS OL-N, along with AFIS OL-F (located at Eglin AFB, Florida), was instrumental in incorporating Computer Aided Electronic Warfare Information System (CAEWIS) functions in the Threat Data Processing Software System. ALso, AFIS OL-N and OL-F worked together to develop a preliminary intelligence support concept including requirements, data flow, fusion and processing for submission to the ARC Working Group. Analyst-to-analyst exchanges were held throughout 1982 to provi Headquarters SAC and USAFTAWC reprogramming analysts and engineers the opportunity to discuss problems and concerns with the various S&TI center systems analysts. AFIS OL-N organized a series of eight meetings in 1982. These“ meetings were held at the Foreign Technology Division, Dayton, Ohio; the Foreign Science and Technology Center, Charlottesville, Virginia; the Missile Intelligence Agency, Huntsville, Alabama; the Naval Intelligence Support Center, Suitland, Maryland. and the Air Force Electronic Warfare Center, San Antonio, Texas.
OPERATING LOCATION F Mission and Resources = AFIS Operating Location F (OL-F), located at Eglin AFB, Florida, provided all-source intelligence Electronic Warfare and Command, Control, Communications, and Countermeasures (EW/C3CM) support to the Tactical Air Warfare Center (TAWC) Commander. The OL served aS an analytical adjunct tothe Director of Intelligence, TAWC, pending the realization of an internal Tactical Air Command (TAC) TAWC capability. The OL assisted the TAWC staff in the analysis and use of all-source threat data which impacted the TAWC mission. Organizationally, OL-F worked directly for the Air Force Electronic Combat Intelligence Group (AF/INW) located at the Pentagon. The OL also provided scientific and technical intelligence of foreign weapon Systems ; command, control, communications and intelligence (CI); C2 countermeasures (C3CM) and their employment by foreign armed services; coordinated with USAF TAWC/IN to provide the Center with special access program administration; documented Electronic Warfare (EW) integrated reprogramming system support procedures; managed the initiation, processing, and satisfaction of operational and technical Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) requirements; managed all EW-related analyst-to-analyst exchanges between USAF TAWC EW systems analysts and national scientific and technical intelligence center analysts; identified and documented requirements for decompartmentation of intelligence data; received, processed, and analyzed ali-source intelligence, including ELINT data, to confirm EW threat and parametric changes; recommended intelligence Automated Data Processing (ADP) and communications support requirements; maintained intelligence quick reaction capability for support of EW contingencies and exercises; and provided direct technical intelligence support to Operational Test and Evaluation and Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E/FOTRE) involving foreign material exploitation. 228 . As of 31 December, OL-F had three officer, three civilian, and three enlisted personnel authorized and assigned. The civilian total included one temporary position. In addition, two USAF TAWC people were assigned to the OL (one civilian and one enlisted). The OL-F FY 82 budget was $129,000 to support civilian pay, travel, supplies and equipment. By the end of the fiscal year, the OL had $7,263.58 remaining. The organization received office space and administrative and security support from USAF TAWC. All other supplies and furnishings support was provided by the Eglin AFB Armament Division (host organization). IG) performed a Management from 27-29 July. Overall, The AFIS Inspector General Effectiveness Inspection (MEI f four units were rated As a result of the MET QD was able to j ya clerical support, upgrade the military manning and revise the AFIS Reservist Listing. 230 5
erational anc Functional Activities (1) on f =. N WF. wn ° 1S) “” ° i=) w fa Q a b= | 7) Pd @ e @ eC
Among several Electronic Combat initiatives within TAC, USAF TAWC was tasked to develop a unique three week program of instruction to prepare selected squadron and wing (tactical) pilots to act as Electronic Combat (Instructor) pilots (ECP). OL-F provided several levels of support and learned several lessons during this process.¢4 The Commander of TAC tasked the TAWC to develop a “pilot” oriented Electronic Combat (EC) instructor curriculum on 19 February. The original plan envisioned a two-week (ten day) course including six to six and one-half hours of “threat" support. Subsequent reevaluation of both TAC and TAWC/EW called for a 13-16 classroom hour "Threat Block" encompassing Electronic Warfare (EW), Ground Control Intercept (GCI), Airborne Intercept (AI), Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM), Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), Naval and Radio Electronic Combat (REC).242 . A meeting held on 29 March with TAWC/IN/EW and OL-F identified 13 hours of threat environment requirement for the class. TAWC/IN would handie the AI/AAA blocks while OL-F prepared and presented AM and non-Soviet air defense segments. Classes were to be completed with script and graphics, etc., on or about 19 April. The final Air Ground Operations School (AGOS) Facility Board was scheduled for -early June with the first Electronic Combat Instructor School (ECIS) course scheduled to begin in mid July.243 oe The Electronic Combat Threat Environment Description (ECTED), as Threat Reference Volume II, was recommended for usage with the hostile forces portion of the ECTED used as a_ student handout/class reference. A message request on 6 April to the Foreign Technology Division (FTD/TQI) for:30 copies of the updated, Air Force approved Volume II was coordinated with TAWC/IN/EWA. The suspense for the document was 1 June. The Commander of TAC directed the training block to be a 15 class day (vice ten) course scheduled as Professional Military Education (PME) six times a year. An additional one week "Managers" level course, a German short course (NATO) and an annual pilot refresher seminar was also tasked. The course title was changed to Deleted per 5 U.S.C. $$2(b) (1)
129 Tactical Fighter Electronic Combat Instructor Course (TFECIC) on 14 May. ad As requested by TAWC/IN, OL-F prepared a total of nine classroom hours of instruction (EW/GCI, SAM and non-Soviet) and performed as alternate instructor for the TAWC/IN briefer on AI, AAA, and intelligence sources blocks of instruction. On 3 June, Mr. Arthur R. Gibson (OL-F, Air Intelligence Officer) presented the early warning/GCI block of instruction for TAWC Air Ground Operations School (AGOS) formal review. Faculty review for Soviet SAM and non-Soviet air defense blocks was tentatively scheduled for 10-11 and 17-18 June respectively. Mr. Gibson presented these briefings during the first week (19-23 July) of the TFECIC at AGOS, Hurlburt Field, Florida. The TFECIC was now a formal PME course including pass or fail criteria. The first class began on 19 July. Twenty-three students enrolled {roughly 15 F-15 aircraft pilots and mixed F-111 aircraft EWO pilots). The threat block began on 21 July. The two day block was well received. 246 OL-F initiated action with FTD/TQIV to place each student on distribution for the ECTED. This significantly improved the squadron level EC data base and accelerated field dissemination. Volume II of the ECTED was used as reference text and was given to each student to use at his unit. Technical intelligence support was also provided during the tactical problem (exercise) to assist the students in developing EC plans.24 The only significant problem encountered pertained to a lack of knowledge on the part of the TAF organizations sending students to the course. In some cases, students were selected who were enroute (PCS) from squadron assignments and would not serve as EC instructors. This situation improved before the next class. @ A TAWC/IN and OL-F message to FTD/TQII requesting distribution of ECTED to graduates of the TFECIC course was rescinded by AF/INW message. This action, for whatever reason, created problems for the TAWC and TFECIC staff. No other series of documents, written to the level of aircrews, could be identified that emphasized EC related threat data in a concise manner. Accordingly, TAWC/EW and OL- F agreed to use the ECTED as a basic reference document for the TFECIC program. Until changes were instituted to improve the availability of threat documentation at the squadron level, the new EC instructor used what he could "scrounge". This individual was designated by TAC RED as the Operations/Intelligence interface at the squadron. Without source material, his efforts to credibly train his unit were futile. He had to have information. TAC/INS notified TAWC that they concurred with the TAWC request.249 @ Major Richard P. Viau (AF/INW) informed Mr. Gibson that the INW message was based upon TAC/IN's informal desires. This could not be supported. A request was made to INW to provide assistance in getting the information to the aircrews by requesting FTD to follow the original TAWC message to send out the documentation as soon as
139 possible. TAC/INA in discussions with TAWC/IN requested a staff paper on an EC training course, similar to the TFECIC course, geared for unit intelligence officers and NCUs. Im addition, TAC/INA asked that the course syllabus include Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) data, and be no more than two weeks (10 days) in length. TAC, in turn, staffed the paper to determine the feasibility. TAWC/INU prepared the paper with OL-F inputs. Following TAWC approval, the paper was forwarded to TAC for action. The course was approved, developed and conducted by USAF TAWC.220 Class number two of the TFECIC was scheduled for 18 October to 5 November. It consisted of F-4 and F-16 aircraft pilots. Mr. Gibson was scheduled to instruct Soviet SAM, EW/GCI, free world air defense system, and participate as technical advisor during the end of the course practical exercise. The status of ECTED, Volume II, Hostile Forces, used as a student handbook, was still unresolved. TAC/INA agreed to send 20 copies of the (pending) 140 sets on order as soon as they were received. No one could confirm shipment in time for the class. The second running of the TFECIC course began on 18 October. Twenty-three students attended the course with 22 unsuccessful graduates. The class designated for F-4 and F-16 pilots was complicated by unscheduled A-10, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and other various staff and reserve personnel. Clarification concerning attendee selection thru TAC/D00 corrected the problem for the third class scheduled for January and February 1983. The next class. for A-10 and A-7 aircrews was scheduled for late January 1983, 252 AFIS OL-F continued to have difficulty finding technical data on current free world SAM/AI/AAA, etc. An AFEWS meeting on 7-9 December on Blue/Gray data base improved the OLs efforts. TAC/IN tasked TAW! to produce an Electronic Combat Intelligence Orientation Course tailored to the needs of squadron intelligence personnel. The first class was scheduled for 25-29 April 1983 at TAWC followed by the week long EC training seminar from 2-6 May.293 = Tne Computer Aided Electronic Warfare Information System (CAEWIS), an AN/GYQ-21(V)(PDP 11/70) based computer system to host and manipulate the Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming Data Base (EWIRDB) became operational in November 1981. During 1982, OL-F was the CAEWIS EWIR Data Base Manager (DBM) and Primary Interface with TAWC EW System Engineers.254 . OL-F identified numerous software irregularities and coordinated with the maintenance contractor to correct the problems. By years end, the CAEWIS was a fully operational system with minimum problems. The largest complaint from users of CAEWIS was “user friendliness". It appreared that the system was difficult to learn and use. As a resuit, OL-F identified a number of enhancements which would simplify use of the systems. Through coordination with Headquarters TAC, AFIS/IND and the Rome Air Development Center {RADC),
a contract was awarded in October to implement the AFIS recommended enhancements to CAEWIS. Se A separate contractual effort, called TAWC EW Support System (TESS) initiated in 1981, was completed in September 1982. This study effort evaluated the CAEWIS system against TAWC EW reprogramming intelligence requirements and provided recommendations for future automated development of CAEWIS. The product of this contract was a functional description and detailed specification for a CAEWIS follow- on system to meet present and future needs. OL-F was the contract monitor and user-contractor interface driving the TESS effort.256 ~ el —_ o~ Fa) ~~ tI al wv e r>) s i?) e > Tn] hs @ a b= @ &) g et C4 R
From 29 March through 1 April, OL-F members attended a meeting at AFIS/IND, Bolling AFB, O.C., which examined the TAF procedures and Automated Data Processing (ADP) capabilities for conducting C3CM; documented C3CM data base applications, interfaces and intelligence information flows; and recommended an overal? ADP architecture for intelligence support to C3(M,2 J °c Deleted ner 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1) ~ , vw” - p=) “ wn rn e Lo) vo = wr & &. rs ba *] @ Pw) a Fy
®» From 1-3 November, OL=-F hosted a meeting to address ADP requirements for C3 intelligence graphics support. This meeting was a follow-on to an earlier meeting hosted by AFIS/IND in which a draft SOW for a concept of C3 graphics support was developed. The meeting was attended by representatives from Headquarters ESC (AD/IN), RADC (IRAE) and TAWC (EW/IN). The purpose of the meeting was to outline TAC/TAWC and ESC graphics requirements and to promote detailed understanding of specific ESC/TAWC C3 requirements and recommended a strategy before the SOW was finalized. 269 Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 3952¢b) (1)
eS During 1982, AFIS OL-F personne? provided support to Green Flag (GF) exercises 82 and 83. OL-F assisted TAWC/IN and TAWC GF planners in the target nomination and selection process for GF82. These efforts were conducted in close coordination with Red Flag intelligence, operations planners, Electronic Warfare elements and other staff agencies. During 22 February - 5 March (GF82), an OL-F representative acted as coordinator and foca! point for intelligence inputs and requests for information regarding electronic warfare. In addition, the representative conducted aircrew intelligence training on Soviet communications jamming versus TAC Air and Red C3CM. These briefings were generated by OL-F at the request of TAWC/GF and the 4440th TFIG/IN (Red Flag). OL-F provided support to planning and scenario development initiatives for GF83- throughout the remainder of the year. In addition, OL-F provided comments to TAWC/IN on the Green Flag engineering support and analysis master plan prepared by Georgia Institute of Technology under Contract Number F-08635-82-C-0373. The OL review of this document revealed many weaknesses which needed to be “resolved. By the end of the year, ali of these issues had not been satisfactorily answered. 2 Besides exercise support, OL-F provided Foreign Material €xploitation support to several other projects. These included Have _Lighter/Coronet Zippo, Have Coat, Have Shell, and Granite Base.2/ . A Coronet Zippo Ground Phase Test meeting was held on 4-5 January. An instrumentation proposal, provided by OL-F, was discussed and formalized. The final test planning meeting was held at Edwards AFB, California, from 2-4 February. The tentative test date slipped to 7-8 June, due to conflicting requirements at the test facility. The flight test phase was scheduled for October 2/4 peleted per 5 U.S.C. $52(b) (1)
a Additional Scientific and Technical (S&T) data was requested from D/AL through the U.S. Army Missile Intelligence Agency (USAMIA). The package was received on 14 January. The Ground Mount Phase Test Plan was coordinated on 2 June. The Ground Phase began at Edwards AFB on 14 June. The flight test phase was scheduled for the October-November time frame. The flight test PID was coordinated from TAWC to TAC/AFSC. The instrumentation requirements, data recording and site facilities were reviewed.2/5 i i began on 12 October and continued through 12 November. bson participated as echnical Intelligence Advisor. His TDY w j 25-29 October due to TFECIC/ALQ-131 testing conflicts. In support of project Have Coat, OL personnel provided review and analysis of data generated from ground and flight testing support. Questions concerning fire control/MSL launch sequence raised by test pilots were discussed in detail.¢/7 J ipex 5 U.S.C. $52(b) (1) An ESD sponsored (Have Shell) program Initial Operational ape Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) responsibility was tasked to TAWC/THC project officer. OL-F directly supported ECTS on 2 November. individuals remained a problem. Deleted per § u.S.t. 552(b) (1)
TABLE 3-10 @ compass CALL ACTIVITIES - 1982 Part I Compass Call Jamming Strategy (Blue Over Red) - May 82 - Central European Scenario Report produced and distributed. Part II Compass Call Jamming Strategy (Red Over Blue) - Mar-Apr 82 - Lot Disposition of Forces and Links on Overlays -Apr 82 - Criticality Analysis - May 82 - Vulnerability Analysis - May 82 - Target Prioritization - May 82 - Report Preparation Phase I Compass Call Qualitative Operational Test and Eval (QOT&E) - Aug-Nov 82 - Nellis and Tonapah Southwest Asia Jamming Strategy Preparation - July 82 - Ongoing Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 952(b) (2) my
Blue Over Red Update to Support Phase II QOT&E Oct 82 - Ongoing c3 GATES (Chromatics 7900) - Statement of Work - Nov 82 - Project Ongoing In accordance with guidance received from Headquarters TAC, the continued their jamming strategy studies. Prior to deciding which area was to be studied, it was essential that OL-F ascertain the availability of Special Intelligence (SI) information necessary to support these studies. oo ef st o~ 2 _ ~ wr wn e re) a “ e > ‘a} i) © a. 3 @ 2 Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
AFIS OL-F provided three contributions in support of the development of the Mission Support Facility (MSF) for Compass Call. The OL provided the Compass Call Project Manager with a general description of how the MSF should work; the data base requirements; how the data base should be structured; who should provide the intelligence updates and by what means and format; how to conduct mission planning; and specific pitfalls that should be avoided to have a cohesive and dynamic system. Detachment 4, 2762nd LSS (AFLC), Lockheed Aircraft Company, and Intercon, the contractor for the Mission Support Facility (MSF) wanted to clarify certain aspects relative to mission planning, Blue Flag exercises and data base inputs. These points were clarified and additional information relative to systems threats, NATO data formats and mission planning were provided to Detachment 4, 2762nd LSS.291 AFIS OL-F representatives also met with representatives of Detachment 4, 2762nd LSS, ESC/INN and Intercon to discuss development of the MSF. The purpose of the meeting was to assure that the Air Force would be able to effectively use the software designed for the MSF through a review and validation of the data base extraction and manipulation processes in conjunction with the prioritized jamming Deleted per S U.S.C. 352(b) (1)
taraet study. In addition, OL-F conducted a walk-through of the contractor software to ensure that his understanding of the data base element relationships was correct. OL-F discussed the significance of default parameters for the calculation of J/S ratios and its relationship to the Jamming Strategy in support of the software acceptance testing for the mission planning process. AFIS OL-F supported several actions in conjunction with Compass Call QOT&E Phase I. The OL provided extensive support to the Compass Call Project Manager prior to the actual test conducted between August and November at Nellis AFB : é€ purpo eeting was to review data requirements and to ascertain availability of information. NSA agreed to provide the necessary data and the parametric values using the existing format contained in 2/00/APP-1-80 and 1-81.293 Deleted per $ U.S.C. $52(b) (2) om of —_ ~~ F-) ws ™ wv n ° S] e n e J “A ti a [-*) b=] ® ey @ wt ® a
140 AFIS OL-F attended the ALR-74 working group meeting on 9 February. The establishment of a threat working group (TWG) charter/membership was prepared. There was some confusion concerning AF/RD "threat assessment" PMD requirement. A tenative plan used Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming (EWIR) and Threat Environment Description (TED) as a baseline. The TWG would convene and address special needs (additional data) as required, 30 etter proposing R/TED as a aseline with provisions for adding data through AF/IN channels was required. An AF/INW message deleted provisions for adding data to ist) 301 required an all-inclusive representation of emitter (i.e. list). AFIS OL-F, OL-N and OL-AF were omitted from AF/INW addresses. The entire matter created serious controversy among TAWC/EWER, AF/IN, OL-F and OL-AF. Any action or recommendation to change the threat support proposed by TAWC/EWER produced direct conflict. OL-F maintained the need for formal threat (assessment) Support to the ALR-74. AFIS OL-N and OL-AF had expressed concerns that the current AF/INW supported plan was insufficient. A TAC/INO message raised additional questions regarding exclusive use of EWIR/ECTED for ALR-74, 302 Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1) . Deleted per 5 u.S.C. 552(b) (1) tae ay a ~ be
14] GD 0i-F message to AF/INW (i.e., AF/INW Prototype Threat List" from TAWC to AFIS OL-N for review). unaware of any such jist. pase “Final Version List" was secured. TAWC on 26 August but it was not received by AF/INW. notified OL-N and OL-AF of the existing list. eview and comments. However, the list still contained questionable data. 303 TAWC/EWA requested technical threat assistance to evaluate the results of a Tyndall AFB, Florida, radic test facility APR-63 radar Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM) testing and “roof top" simulator testing by Hughes Aircraft Corporation Radar Division. Credible "threat" baseline had not been documented resulting in various "generic threat" interpretations of 00D and Air Force intelligence positions. The results of both testing efforts were presented at a meeting p 38 g hasted at HAC, E1 Segundo, California, on 7-10 ecember. ne é The ALQ-131 receiver/processor (R/P) and band 4/5 mod programs entered OT&E in the fall of 1982. The ALQ-131 R/P I0T&E would be conducted at Eglin AFB and at the Fort Worth, Texas Simulator Facility. was scheduled to plan. Mr. Arthur R. Gibson (OL-F Air I as technical advisor during the actual ecome an annex within the test ntelligence Officer) continued testing at Eglin AFB and Fort was sent detailing the OLs concerns - request to forward a copy of the "Final Version-ALR-74 OL-F was After some confusion, a copy of the one A copy was sent via DACOM from AFIS OL-F After retyping, the list was forwarded to both AFIS OLs for their r Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
IIIT 142 Worth, Texas. The ALQ-131 R/P was tested usin computer models. A multi g various simulators and Georgia Tech ESS. le scenario computer simulation was run by ook at the modeling was scheduled for January 1983, AIR FORCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CENTER Mission and Resources rL, fa ee fA Deleted per 5 U.S.C. $52(b) (1)
143 Speciai Activities Area (ESAA), Lindsey AS, Germany; and Headquarters Pacific Special Activities Area (PSAA), Hickam AFB, Hawaii. Colonel Nicholas Yankowski continued as the AFSAC Commander. 3ll There were no major changes to the organizational alignment of AFSAC activities during the year with the exception of an internal Headquarters AFSAC staff agency activation -- the Career Management and Training Branch (AFSAC/INXC) -- and creation of an operating location (AFSAC OL-P) 312 AFSAC's total authorized manpower in January was 265. This number increased to 284 by the end of the year. Six positions were gained through the GDIP for the SEEK program; ten positions that had been held in reserve at the time of amalgamation were returned from Air Force Intelligence (AF/IN); and three FY 84 GDIP approved positions were received early (December 1982) to enhance the AFSAC scientific and technology collection capability. 313 In January, AFSAC had 45 unfilled positions which reduced manning to 63 percent of total authorized strength. December statistics reflected 47 unfilled positions which lowered the manning even further to 82 percent of authorized strength. This shortfall was the single limiting factor to optimum management of the AFSAC during 1982, 31 Plans, Resources and Support The Plans, Resources and Support Division (AFSAC/INX) had five major subdivisions: the Plans and Policy Branch (INXA); the Fiscal Programs Branch (INX8); the new Career Management and Training Branch (INXG) Administration (AFSAC/DA); and Logistics Management (AFSAC/LGS) .316 The Plans and Policy Branch (INXA) provided recommendations to the Air Staff on Human Resources Intelligence (HUMINT) doctrine and policy, and reviewed Air Force, Major Command (MAJCOM), and theater plans and regulations for accuracy and completeness where HUMINT was concerned; developed plans, concepts and objectives for the worldwide employment of Air Force HUMINT resources; managed AFSAC participation in exercises; prepared and maintained AFSAC host-tenant support f Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 5952(b) (1). s.
144 agreements, interservice agreements, and memoranda of understanding; managed Reserve support to AFSAC and monitored training of HUMINT individual mobilization augmentees (IMAs); provided HUMINT wartime and contingency planning support to Headquarters USAF, MAJCOMs, and Air Force theater commands; and directed the AFSAC HUMINT augmentation team (HAT) program. 317 As the AFSAC office of primary responsibility (OPR) for regulations review and development, INXA was responsible for the processing of many Air Force, AFIS, AFSAC, and theater command regulations. Among the most significant were AFISR 23-2, Organization and Functions of AFSAC; AFSAC 23-Series Organization and Mission Regulations for AFSAC Elements; AFR 28-4, USAF Mobility Planning; AFSACR 28-1, AFSAC HUMINT Augmentation Teams; 200-Series MAC Regulations; and AFR 200-XX, Human Resources intelligence Collection Activities (See Appendix XII for detailed information) .319 a Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 352(b) (1):
145 INXS was alse the OPR for monitoring AFSAC exercises participation. This included HUMINT planning, Reserve support, scenario writing, and interrogation training. During 1982, INXA managed AFSAC participation in four exercises -- Team Spirit 82, Flintlock 82, Ulchi Focus Lens 82, and Proud Saber 82,321 @ Team Spirit 82 was a joint Republic of Korea (ROK) and U.S. field training exercise that took piace in Osan, Taegu, and Taejon, ROK between 17 March and 8 April. AFSAC objectives were to test the mobile interrogation team (MIT) concept and exercise its communications (MITCOM) and to exercise AFSAC augmentation of Detachment 32 during a Korean contingency. The exercise was a success in that it pointed out several communications, equipment, and coordination problems which required additional work to resolve. 322 nrg The Flintlock 82 exercise took place in Vaihingen, Federal Republic of Germany, between 26 April and 23 May. AFSAC objectives were to practive setting up an interrogation facility, provide interrogation training for AFSAC personnel, aid provide a realistic wartime experience for prisoners being interrogated. The exercise was a valuable learning experience for all AFSAC participants.3¢3 The Ulchi Focus Lens 82 command post exercise was held at Taegu AB, ROK, between 17-28 August. Although HUMINT participation was limited, mainly due to a lack of inputs at the April planning conference, the exercise went well and laid the groundwork, for expanded AFSAC participation in future Ulchi Focus Lens exercises. 34 peleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
146 At the request of the 76th Airlift Division (MAC), Andrews AFB, Maryland, INXA passed to AFIS/IG data supporting the transportation of HATs. The data included sources of tasking (OPLANs and CONPLANS); unit type code identifications; numbers of personnel; types of equipment, and the amount of size and weight; and the origin, destination, and arrival times for deploying personnel. 327 = In order to ensure mobility processing support for AFSAC HATS, Major Randall met with representatives of the 76th Airlift Division/LGX. They agreed that AFSAC should spell out its mobility processing requirements via the AFIS-Andrews AFB Host-Tenant Support Agreement, and that INXA_should be placed on distribution for the Andrews AFB mobility plan.328 INXA continued te coordinate with AFSAC/LGS on the construction of mobility bags for deploying personnel and, on 30 September, provided an updated list of personnel identified against specific OPLAN unit type codes. This was to ensure the contents of mobility bags would be compatible with geographical and climactic requirements. Finally, by the end of the year, INXA was nearing completion of work on AFSAC's Emergency Action Notification Pian, while Captain Leon Holleb (Plans Officer) was working with AFSAC/INOC to develop administrative support kits for HUMINT augmentation teams.3 Technical Sergeant Robert P. Newell, Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of INXA served as the manager of AFSAC's Reserve program, assigning individual mobilization augmentees to various offices within AFSAC for training and evaluation. In August, per tasking by AFIS/MO, INXA reviewed AFSAC's wartime augmentation requirements to change 702XX Reserve requirements (which were to be deleted under new DOD and USAF/MPM guidance) into 20370 and 201XX - siots. The overall number of Reserve positions authorized for AFSAC did not change, only the Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs).33 INXA coordinated preparations for and served as the foca! point for the AFSAC responses to Management Effectiveness Inspections (MEIs) conducted during 1982. Two MEIS of AFSAC elements were completed during the year. AFIS/IG conducted an MEI of Headquarters AFSAC during the period 5-16 April. The Headquarters was rated "excellent" overall. At the end of the year, several items remained open and work continued to close out the report. Buring the period 18 October - 5 November, AFIS/IG conducted a MEI of Headquarters ESAA and its subordinate detachments. In preparation for this inspection, INXA arranged for a "“mini-inspection” of all ESAA elements by Chief Master Sergeant Louis Vukich, Detachment 11 Superintendent. The thorough preinspection performed by Sergeant Vukich was in large part responsible for the overall “excellent” rating achieved by Headquarters ESAA, 333
147 7 INXA served as the OPx for the development and presentation of AFSAC mission and overview briefings for visitors as well as for the Quarterly Management Analysis Review (QMAR). Approximately 50 different presentations of the AFSAC mission briefing were made during 1982 at Headquarters AFSAC (Fort Belvoir, Virginia), the Pentagon, the Defense Intelligence School, and the Armed Forces Air Intelligence Training Center at Lowry AFB, Colorado. On 2 November, Colonel Yankowski presented the AFSAC mission briefing to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorabie Verne Orr.3 Tne Fiscal Programs Branch (INXB) provided acquisition, maintenance, and allocation of AFSAC resources by preparing programming documents and reports, maintaining Defense Intelligence Agencies (DIA's) Project Management File, and conducting all budget and fiscal matters.33 INXB submitted AFSAC's operating budget for FY 85 on 3 December in accordance with the AFIS/AC budget call. The submission reflected an increase of about 30 percent as a result of 36 new manpower authorizations and aggressive collection plans.33/ The AFSAC General Defense Intelligence Program (GDIP) input for FY 85-89 was very ambitious, including four new initiatives requiring 42 new manpower authorizations and $856,000. The submission was based on the Program Managers Guidance Memorandum (PMGM) and the verbal guidance of the ACS/1.33e During an organizational audit by the Air Force Audit Agency in April and May, several fiscal management deficiencies were noted that prompted Colonel] Yankowski to establish a board of senior management officiais in Headquarters AFSAC to formulate fiscal policy, work management problems, and serve as a body to review the corporate AFSAC fiscal and resource submissions. He directed their attention, in particular, to programming, and expenditure of Intelligence Contingency Funds {ICF). The board was further tasked to provide the commander a quarterly review of the entire AFSAC financial status, to include all monies spent by AFSAC. The board was formally established on 21 June.339 The Career Management and Training Branch (INXC) was created on 1 October by consolidating the training functions of AFSAC/INOB with the career management functions of AFSAC/INX. The primary mission of the new branch was to identify, select, and train AFSAC Deleted per 5 U.S.C. $52(b) (2)
148 personnel, and to provide for their career progression. INXC worked closely with AFIS/DP, AFMPC, and Consolidated Base Personnel Offices (CBPOs) to insure the selection and assignment of high quality personnel to AFSAC, 340 Most of the activity conducted in INXC during 1982 was connected with the start-up and organization of the branch and its activities. INXC managed AFSAC attendance at one Military Operations Training Course session, 18 August - 10 December, in which five AFSAC personnel received training. 341 . The most significant INXC accomplishment was the refinement of the AFSAC personnel selection panel (PSP) interview process. Colonel William F. Bale, AFSAC Vice Commander, became the permanent head of the PSP panel and AFSACR 35-2, Military Personnel Selection Process, was published on 13 March. Also, more background information was requested from each candidate so a more thorough assessment for possible HUMINT duty could be accomplished by the panel and Commander, AFSAC. The Administrative Branch (AFSAC/DA) provided information, security publications and forms management, documentation, and historical support to AFSAC. DA oversaw the changeover of all publications from the 7602nd AINTELG to AFSAC during 1982, while accomplishing three major staff assistance visits and 25 Freedom of Information Act requests. Twenty-five regulations and four supplements were published and ten forms were developed. Sixteen forms and 15 publications were reviewed. 3 Short manning early in the year created large work backlogs in DA. To cope with the extremely heavy workload, the branch personnel worked ten to twelve hours per day and frequently took unclassified work home. Reserve support was used extensively; a civilian (GS-3) overhire was approved; and many Saturdays were worked. The situation was alleviated late in the year with the arrival of new personnel and the gradual easing of the workload. 344 The Logistics Management Section (AFSAC/LGS) provided supply and equipment support to AFSAC and AFSAC elements worldwide. Two new ICF vehicles were purchased for Detachment 31, PSAA, in April. In September, 22 line items of equipment were transferred from Detachnent 31 and 32, PSAA, to Detachment 22, AFSAC, to fill Detachmen’ 22 requirements, Also, preobligation authority for FY83 funds for purchase of equipment and supplies: was authorized. Operations The Operations Division (AFSAC/INO) monitored and provided necessary support for the olanning, conduct, and management of USAF HUMINT collection operations in the special activities areas and domestic collection elements. It coordinated HUMINT operations with DIA, CIA, and maintained interface with the national intelligence community for refinement of HUMINT program objectives. It was also
149 responsible for intelligence oversight and ensuring awareness and compliance with al] published directives. ~~ re. A o~. a A “N Va) ra) ° re e ” e = nw he @ fe ~~ oe rw) ® el @ A
S.C. 352¢b) () ® = n | ®% a a=] ry) re) 1) 3 The first worldwide AFSAC Commanders‘ Conference was held at Headquarters AFSAC, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, from 24-28 May. The conference was prompted by the need to assess progress which had resulted from amalgamation of Air Force HUMINT and to discuss a numoer
151 of issues affecting AFSAC operations worldwide in addition to various personne] and manning problems. Some significant items discussed were new HUMINT initiatives, greater HUMINT response to theater commanders, improved intelligence reporting, a civilian personne! career program, and professional career development for HUMINT officers. The conference resulted in coordinated efforts to resolve these and other problems.399 ~ #1 —~ ~ J i nN wn ww e e ® “ ==) a) ® 0 a b=] Ct) re) e Z
During the first six months of 1982, the amalgamation underwent its shakedown in the Pacific Special Activities Area (PSAA). Although some “fine tuning" was required, by June the amalgamation effort was completely and successfully implemented within PSAA. The success of the effort attested to the quality of the amalgamation planning and dedication and professionalism of the AFSAC team which implemented the program. 363 The amalgamation program was much broader in scope than the term indicated. The program in the Pacific area included three major themes: (1) consolidation of Detachment 31, PSAA and Detachment 4, Foreign Technology Division (FTD) HUMINT collection activities under the operational control] of Detachment 31, PSAA with technical assistance provided by SEOs at Detachment 4, FTD. By 30 June, five FID projects had been transferred to Detachment 31, PSAA; two sources were pending transfer in July and August; (2) decentralization of functions from AFSAC to PSAA and the detachments; and (3) completion of staffing actions at the highest echelon possible to reduce tasking on field elements, thereby enabling the field elements to devote greater resources against their primary collection respon- sibilities. 364 . Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1)
154 Limiting Factors During 1982, personnel, and the process of acquiring them, made up a large part of the problems experienced by AFSAC. Certain issues and perceptions regarding HUMINT could be listed as contributing factors to AFSACs low manning. Officer manning of aly other intelligence disciplines (AFSCs 8035, 8044, 8086, 8096, 8054, and 8076) enjoyed higher manning percentages than AFSAC (8024). Although AFSAC received support from the ACS/I to improve manning in April, other intelligence disciplines continued to receive fills for a higher percentage of vacant billets than AFSAC. Attempts to acquire officer resources from other MAJCOMs also proved difficult and MAJCOM career advisors at_AFMPC were (in some instances) unwilling to release "owned" resources. 36 Selectivity in acquiring personnel, coupled with lead time to process military candidates and to fill civilian vacancies, contributed to lower than desired manning levels. The small work force of 284 authorizations, (compared to other MAJCOMs, SOAs, and career specialities), lacked the clout of larger, -more diverse commands. Inability to fill key vacancies in AFSAC (operations officers, branch = chiefs, singleton collectors and regional Headquarters staff managers) contributed to AFSACs relatively low manning posture. Another contributing problem involved a general lack of knowledge of HUMINT and some misconceptions about the HUMINT career field in the USAF. AFSAC sought to alleviate this problem by continuing its awareness program. This included MAJCOM briefings, seminars and visitation lectures to intelligence training schools.3/ Deleted per 5 U.S.C. §52(b) (1)
155 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I Notes to Pages 1-5 1. AFR 23-45, subj: Organization and Mission-Field, Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 10 Jun 74. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid; Hist, AFIS, 1 Jul 72- 39 Jun 73, pp. 1-23. 4, AFR 23-45, subj: Organization and Mission-Field, Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 10 Jun 74; AF1SR 23-1, subj: Organization and Mission-Field, Organization and Functions of Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 15 Jul 82. 5. See note above. 6. See note above. 7. See note above. 8. See note above. 9, See note above. 10. See note above. 11. See note above. 12. See note above. 13, See note above. . 14, Roster of Key Personnel, AFIS, 31 Dec 82; Official Biography, Brig Gen S. Bissell, Nov &1 (SD-2). 15. Official Biography, Brig Gen S. Bissell, Nov 81 (SD-2). 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. ; 18. Ltr, AFIS/CC to All AFIS/AFSAC Staff, subj: Changes in AFIS Management Structure, 29 Sep 82 (SD-3); Roster of Key Personnel, AFIS, 31 Oct 82; Staff Meetings, AFIS, Sep-Oct 82, Historian in attendance. 19. See note above. 20, See note above.
156 Notes to Pages 5-7 21, AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p. 2. 22. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.2,. 23. Ibid. 24, Ibid; Memo, AFIS/MO to AFIS/CS, et al., subj: Callocation of additional GDIP bitlets}, 7 Jan 82 (SD-4); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/IND, subj: Manpower Authorizations, 2 Mar 82 (SD-5). 25. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.2; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/INH, subj: Reorganization of Manpower Resources, i7 Mar 82 (SD-€); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/DPC, et al., subj: AFIS/INOI Reatignment, 17 Mar 82 (SD-7). 26. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, pp. 3-4; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/DP, subj: Establishment of a New Division in the Directorate of Personnel, 12 Jul 82 (SD-8); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AF/IN-AFIS-AFSAC Activities, subj: New AFIS Directorate, 24 Sep 82 (SD-9). 27. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.4; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AF/IN-AFIS-AFSAC Activities, subj: New AFIS Directorate, 24 Sep 82 (SD-9). 28. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.4; Ltr, Asst Dir U.S. GAO to SAF, subj: Creview of staffing and management structures J, 6 Jul 82 (SD-10); Memo, AF/MPMG to Maj Gen McCartney, subj: GAO Review - Staffing and Management in the Offices of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Services (GAO Case #96612), 10 Aug 82 (SD-11); Ltr, AF/MPMO to AFIS/MO, subj: Review of Activities in National Capital Region (NCR), 25 Aug 82 (SD-12); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/INS, et al., subj: Review of Activities in National Capital Region (NCR), 1 Sep 82 (SD-13); Ltr, AFIS/MO to Hq USAF/MPMO, subj: Review of Activities in National Capital Region (NCR), 15 Sep 82 (SD-14); Background Paper, AFIS/MO, subj: AF/IN-AFIS Relation- ship, undated (SD-15); Memo, AFIS/MO to AFIS/CV, subj: NCR Project Update, 10 Nov 82 (SD-16). ; 29. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.2; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIT/LS, subj: Executive QC Seminar, 5 Apr 82 (SD-17); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/CS, et al., subj: Quality Circle Training for AFIS/DA, 30 Jun 82 (SD-18). 30. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.2; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/INR, subj: Manpower Standard Development Feasibility Memorandum, 20 May 82 (SD-19). 31. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.3; Ltr, AFMPC/MEMS to AFIS/MO, subj: AF Security Clearance Office (AFSCO) Manpower Standard, FAC 1090 Back-Up Data, 9 Jul 82 (SD-20). 32. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.3; Ltr, AFIS/MO to Hq AFLC/MPM, subj: CY 1982 Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Review/Intelligence, 28 Jun 82 (SB-21). 33. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.3; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFSAC/CC, subj: Review of AFSAC Wartime-Essential Civilian Positions, 25 Aug 82 (SD-22).
157 Notes to Pages 7-13 34. Hist, AFIS/M5, CY 1982, p.3; Ltr, AFIS/MO0 to Hq AFSAC/CC, subj: Manpower Standard Development Feasibility Memorandum, 12 Aug 82 (SD-23). 35. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 198Z, p3; Ltr, AFIS/MO to all AF/IN-AFIS- AFSAC Units, subj: Unit Manpower Document, 4 Aug 82 (SD-24). . Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.4; AFIS, Productivity Plan , 30 Sep 82 (SD-25); Ltr, AFIS/MO to Hq USAF/MPMZ, subj: (Sp eye Improvements Report, RCS: HAF-MPM(A) 8003, 23 Dec 82 $D0-26). 37. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.3; Rpt AFIS/1G, subj: Management Effectiveness Inspection AFIS OL-F, 6 Aug 82 (SD-27). 3€. Hist, AFIS/MC, CY 1982, p.4; Memo, AFSAC/INO to AFIS/MO, subj: Ccomments on ESA inspection results], 17 Nov 82 (SD-28}; Ltr, AFIS/MO to AF/INYSH, et al., subj: Report of Findings, Det 13 Manpower Review, 19 Nov 82 (SD-29). 39. Hist, AFIS/M9, CY 1962, p.4; Memo, AFIS/MO to AFIS/XP, subj: Input for Prouc Saber &3 Status Report, 27 Oct 82 (SD-30); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/XP, subj: Proud Saber Lessons Learned, 5 Nov 82 (SD-31); Ltr, AFIS/MO tc AF/MPMX, subj: H6000 SAN 706 (7082025) CMDS, 22 Nov 82 (SD-32). 40. Hist, AFIS/MO, CY 1982, p.6. 4l. omnet bid. 42. AFR 23 CY 1982, pp. 1-2 > 45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/DP, 43. See note above. 44. See note above. 45. See note above. 46. See note above. 47. Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982, p.10. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid 51. Ibid; Ltr, AF/IN to AF/MPK, subj: USAF Career Intelligence Plan, 28 Dec 82 (SD-33). 52. Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982, p.1l.
158 Notes to Pages 13-18 53. 54. 55. ments, £0 Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982, p. 11. Ibid, p. 12. Ibid; Extract of Federal Register, subj: Presidential Docu- 12338 of 11 Jan 82, Exclusions From the Federal Labor - Management Relations Program, Vol 47, No.8, 13 Jan 82 (SD-34). 56. 57. 58. 59, 60. 61. 62. 63. 64, Establishni 15 Jul 82, 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71, CBPO Suppo See note above. Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982. p. 12-13. bi _ a — Lo a — a ~— o ~ a —y Lo A a. - U no] — > t _ ov — o _ Qa. E = bi a. Ibid; Staff Study, AFIS/DPE, subj: Feasibility Study of ng a Training and Career Development (TEC) Division (AFIS/DPT), w/18 atch (SD-35). See note above. Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982, pp. 17-19. — bi a _— bi a aed ao a i 4 bi a ~— bid; Briefing, AFIS/DP, subj: Centralized/Decentral ized rt for AFSAC Units, Undated (SD-36); Memo, AFIS/CC to ACS/I, (CBPO support J, 11 Mar 82 (SD-37); Staff Study, AFIS/DP, subj: Changing CBPOs from 1100ABW to Hq OSI, 11 Mar 82 (SD-38); Staff Study, AFIS/DP, subj: Cons tralizatio 72. ESAA CBPO Study, AFI tralizatio Olidation of CBPOs in D.C. Area and Centralization vs Decen- n of GSUs CBPO Support, 11 Jun 82 (SD-39). Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982, p.20; Point Paper, AFIS/DP, subj: Support and Field Personnel Records, 8 Jul 82 (S$D-40); Staff S/DP, subj: Consolidation of CBPOs in D.C. Area and Decen- nof GSU CBPO Support, 13 Aug 82 (SD-41); Staff Summary (Cont)
159 Notes to Pages 18-22 72. (Cont) Sheet, AFIS/DP, subj: Consolidation of CBPOs in the Washington Metropolitan Area, 20 Sep 82 (SD-42); Ltr, AFIS/CC to Hq AFMPC/MPCY, subj: Request for Change of Consolidated Base Personnel Offices (CBPGs), 29 Sep &2 (SD-43); Staff Summary Sheet, AFIS/OP, subj: Decentralization of Geographically Separated Unit (GSU) CBPO Support, 21 Sep 82 (SD-44), Ltr, AFIS/CC to Hq AFMPC/MPCY, subj: De- centralization of Field Personnel Records, 29 Sep 82 (SD-44). 73. Hist, AFIS/DP, CY 1982, p. 20; Msg, Hq AFMPC/MPCY to Hq AFIS/OP, 211810Z Oct 82 (SD-45); Msg, Hq AFMPC/MPCY to AFIS/DP, 2117502 Oct 82 (SD-46); Msg, Hq AFIS/DP to Hq AFMPC/MPCY, 2714002 Oct 82 (SD-47); Msg, Hq AFMPC/MPCY to Hq AFIS/DP, 102100Z Nov 82 (SD-48); Ltr, AFIS/DP to AF/IN Staff, et al., subj: Change of CBPO for AFIS Personnel, 10 Dec 82 (SD-49); Ltr, AFSAC/INX to AFIS/OP, subj: CBPO Change for AFSAC Personnel Re:ords, 21 Dec 82 (SD-50); Memo, AFSAC/INX to AFIS/MO, subj: HUMINT Manpower Allocations, 20 Dec 82 (SD-51); Msg, Hq AFIS/DP to Hq USAFE/DPXDC; et al., 2714002 Dec 82 (SD-52). 74. AFR 23-45, 10 dun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p.l. 75. See note above. 76. See note above. 77. Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 1. 78. Ibid; Ltr, Editor Air Force Comptroller Magazine to AFIS/AC, subj: LAFIS/AC articie 1, 29 Mar 82, Ltr, AFIS/AC to Editor Air Force Comptroller Magazine, subj: Air Force Comptroller Magazine Mini-Series, 7 Apr 82 (SD-53). 79. Hist AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 1; Rpt =a. sub}: AFIS Operating Budget FY84, RCS: DD COMP (AR) - 1092, Feb 82 (SD-54); Rpt . subj: AFIS Financial Plan FYS3, RCS: DD COMP , 19 May 82 (SD-55). 80. Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 2. 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid. ——— 83. Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 3; AFISP 170-1, subj: Resource Management System (RMS) Guide, 30 Sep 82 (SD-56). 84. Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 3. 85. Ibid; Study, AFIS/ACM, subj: [space utilization in AF com- pound, Ft Belvoir], Undated (SD-57).
160 Notes to Pages 21-26 86. Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 3; Rpts, AFIS/AC, subj: Re- quests for Fast Payback Capital Investment (FASCAP) Funds, 200ct8l, 12Apr82, 17Sep82 and 14Dec82 (SD-58). 87, Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 3. 88. Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 4; Rpt QD , subi: AFIS Operating Budget FY84, RCS: DD COMP (AR)- 10 » Feb 82 (SD-54); Ltr , AFIS/AC to AFIS/AC, subj: ESMC TOY Trip (8-10 Mar 82 » 11 Mar 82 (SO0-59). 89, Hist, AFIS/AC, CY 1982, p. 4; Rpt CA , subj: AFIS Financial Plan FY83, RCS: DD COMP (AR) 1092 , 19 Mav 82 (SD-55); Minutes, AFIS/AC, subj: Financial Working Group (FWG) Meeting , lApr82 and 4Nov82 (SD-60). 90. See note above; Ltr, AFIS/CS to all AFIS Staff, subj: Imprest Fund, 8Sep82 (SD-61). 91. See note above. 92, Hist, AFIS/LG, CY 1982, p. 1; AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82. 93. See note above. 94. See note above. 95. Hist, AFIS/LG, CY 1982, pp. 1-5. 96. Ibid 97. Ibid. 98. Ibid. 99. Ibid. 100. Ibid. 101, Ibid. 102. Ibid. 103. Ibid; Ltr, AF/IN to all AF/IN-AFIS-AFSAC Staff, subj: Planning for New Air Force Intelligence (AFI) Building, 11Dec82 (SD-62). 104. Hist, AFIS/LG, CY 1982, pp. 1-5. 105. Ibi Qa.
161 Notes to Pages 26-31 106. Hist, AFIS/LG, CY 1982, pp. 1-5. 107. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82. 108. See note above; Hist, AFIS/CCF, CY 1982, pp. 1-2. 109. See note above. 110. See note above. 111. Hist, AFIS/CCF, CY 1982, pp. 1-2. 112, Ibid. 113. Ibid. 114, Ibid. 115. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; AFR 4-1, subj: Functions and Responsibilities of Administration, 30 Jun 82 (SD-63}; Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, pp. 1-9. 116. See note above. 117. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, pp. 9-11; List, AFIS/DA, subj: Base Program Summary Sheet, 12 Oct 82 (SD-64). 118. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, p. 13; AFISR 10-1, subj: Adminis- . trative Communications, AFIS Functional Address System (FAS), 3Sep82 (SD-65); AFISR 11-4, subj: Administrative Practices - Daily Schedule, 19 Mar 82 (SD-66); AFIS Sup-1 to AFR 10-1, subj: Administrative Com- munications - Preparing and Processing Correspondence, 16 Aug 82 (SD-67}; Rpt, AFIS/DAA, subj: Quarterly Postage Expenditure Report FY82, HAF-DAA-0-AR, Undated (SD-68). 119. Hist, AFIS/DAA, CY 1982, pp. 13-14. 120. Ibid; AFCOMSEC FM 3, subj: Appointment of COMSEC Custodians, 23 Nov 81 and 18 Nov 82 (SD-69). 121. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, pp. 13-14. 122. Ibid. 123. Ibid. 124. bic. 125. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/DAP to AF/DAPB, subj: FY82 Operations Operating Budget and FY83 Budget Estimates, 230ct80 (SD-70); Ltr, AFIS/DAP to AF/ DAPB, FY82 Operations Operating Budget and FY83 Budget Estimates, 23 Oct80 (SD-71).
162 Notes to Pages 31-33 126. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, p. 15; Rpt, AFIS/DA, subj: In- stallation Reproduction/Equipment Inventory Report, 10ct81-30Sep82, HAF-DAP (SA&AR) 8103, Undated (SD-72); Rpt, AFIS/DA, subj: Annua} Copier Inventory, Cost and Production Report, 10ct81-30Sep82, HAF- DAP {A&Q) 8104, Jndated (SD-73); Ltr, AFIS/CC to all AFIS-AFSAC staff, subj: Appointment of Office Information Systems (01S) Mgmt Team, 11Dec82 (SD-74}. 127, Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, p. 15; Rpt, AFIS/DA, subj: Freedom of Information Report, CY 1982, RCS: DD-PA (TRA&A) 1365, Undated (SD-75). 128. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, p. 15; AFIS Sup 1 to AFR 12-35, subj: Documentation-Air Force Privacy Act Program, 28 Apr 82 (SD-76). 129. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, p. 16; Ltr, AFIS/DAD to all AFIS Staff, subj: Gocumentation Staff Assistance Consolidated Report, 20 Dec 82 (SD-77). 130. Hist, AFIS/DA, CY 1982, p. 16. 131. Ibid. 132. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, pp. 1-2; AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Extract, Annex S to AFIS Objective Plan, IG, . p. S-1, 16 Jul 82 (SD-78). 133. See note above. 134. See note above; Ltr, AFIS/IG to Hq AFISC/IGF, subj: Semi- annual Report of Inspection Activities, 10ct81-31Mar82, RCS-DD-COMP (SA) 1515, 1 Apr 82 (SD-79); Ltr, AFIS/IG to tiq AFISC/IGF, subj: Semi- annual Report to Congress on Audit, Inspection and Investigation Opera- tions in the Department of Defense, lApr82-30Sep82, 1 Oct 82 ($D-80). 135. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, pp. 2-3; extract Ci. AFIS CONPLAN-AFIS Support, 30 Sep &2 (SD-81); Extract, AFIS-Extended Unit Manpower Document, 22 Dec 82 (SD-82); Ltr, AFIS/IG to AFIS/MO, subj: Surplus Manpower Billet, 7 Apr 83 (SD-83); Ltr, AFIS/MO to AF/INY, subj: New Manpower Authorization for AF/INYX, 20 Dec 82 (SD-84). 136. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, pp. 4-5; cot AFIS/IG, subj: Management Effectiveness Inspection, Hq AFSAC (5- pr 82), 22 Apr 82 AFIS/IG, subj: Management_Effectiveness Inspection, (SD-85); Rpt AFIS OL-F (27-29Jul82), 6 Aug 82 (SD-86); pt i. AFIS/1G, subj: eaagayent Effectiveness Inspection, ESAA (180ct-5Nov82), 15 Dec 82 SD-87). 137. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, p. 5; Ltr, D/Inspection Hq AFISC to AFIS/CC, subj: (LOTSI of AFIS/IG, 130ct-5Nov82 J, 10 Jan 83 (SD-88); Rpt » Hq AFISC/IG, subj: Over-the-Shoulder Inspection of the AFIS Inspection System, PN 83-913, 13 Cct-5Nov82, 14 Jan 83 (SD-89).
163 Notes to Pages 33-37 138. Ltrs, AFIS/IG to Hq AFISC/IGAI, subj: Quarterly Oversight Inspection Activities, Jan-Dec82, lApr, ldul, 10ct and 21Dec82 (SD-90); Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1952, p. 5. 139. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, pp. 5-6; Ltrs QM, ArIs/16 to AFIS/AC, et al., Subj: Over-the-Shoulder Inspection of the Self- Inspection System, 19Mar, 20Jul, 23Aug, 120ct82 and 3Jan83 (SD-91). 140. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, p. 6. 141. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, pp. 6-7; Ltr, AF/IN to all AF/IN- AFIS Personnel, subj: AF/IN-AFIS Fraud, Waste and Abuse Prevention Program Policy, 16 Feb 82 (SD-92); Msgs, AFIS/IG to Hq AFISC/IGF, 182015Z Jan82, 192015Z Feb&2, 182015Z Mar82, 2020152 Apr82, 1920152 May82, 222015Z Jun82, 2100202 Jul82, 242020Z Aug82, 2020202 Sep82, 182020Z Oct82, 2320202 Nov82, 212020Z Dec82, and 172020Z Jan83, subj: Monthly Fraud, Waste and Abuse Prevention Activities (SD-93). 142. Hist, AFIS/IG, CY 1982, p. 7. 143. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/CC to all AFIS Personnel, subj: AFIS Ground Safety, 1 Feb 8&2 (SD-94); Rpts AFIS/1G, subj: Ground Mishap Reports, HCHL 08.201, HCL 09.201, HCL 12.201, 27Aug, 140ct82 and SJan@3 (SD-95); Rpts, AFIS/IG, subj: Ground Mishap and Safety Ed- ucational Summaries, HAF-IGF(M) 7113, Jan-Dec82 (SD-96). 144. Hist, AFIS/XP, CY 1982, pp. 1-3; AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; 2p AFIS/XP, subj: AFIS Plans Status as of 3Jan33 @j\Sp-7). 145, Hist, AFIS/XP, CY 1982, p. 1; Ltr, AFIS/XP to AFIS/MO, subj: FY83 AFIS Productivity Plan, 13 Aug 82 (SD-98). 146. Hist, AFIS/XP, Cy 1982, p. 1. 147. Ibid, p. 3. 148. Ibid, pp. 3-4; Rpt » AFIS/XP, subj: AFIS Final Report-Exercise Proud Saber 83 10 Dec 82 (SD-99). 149. See note above. ‘, 150. Hist, AFIS/XP, CY 1982, p. 4; Ltr AFIS/XP to AFIS/XP, subj: Trip Report-PACAF/INYX Visit 24Feb82 (SD-100). 151. Hist, AFIS/X¥P, CY 1982, pp. 4-5. 152. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/CC to AFIS Staff, subj: AFIS Functional Intelligence Augmentation Teams (FIATs), 29Apr82 (SD-101); Memo, AFIS/XP to AFIS/CV, subj: Functional Intelligence Augmentation Teams (FIATs), 8Jun82 (S0-102).
164 Notes to Pages 37-40 153. Hist, AFIS/XP, CY 1982, p. 5; Ltr, AFIS/XP to AFIS/AC, et al., subj: Mew Declassification/Downgrading Markings for Classi- fied Materials, 23 Aug 82, Msg, Hq AFOSP/SPIB to all Agencies, 2921002 Jul 82, subj: Interim Msg Chng 82-1 to DOD 5200.1-R/AFR 205-1 (SD-103). 154. Hist, AFIS/XP, CY 1982, pp. 5-6. 155. bang bid. —— 156. Ibid. 157. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/XP to Hq USAF/INYR, subj: FY84-88 GDIP, 3 May 82 (SD-104); Ltr, AFIS/CS to AFIS/AC, et al., subj: FY85-89 Joint Programming/Budget Data Call, 24 Sep &2 (50-105); Ltr, AFIS/CC to AFIS Directorates/Divisions-AFSAC/CC, subj: FY83 O&M Financial Program and FY85 POM Initiatives in Programs 8A and 9, 20 Nov 82 (SD-106); Ltr, AFIS/XP to AFIS/INS, et al., subj: FY85-89 GDIP Guidance and Data Call, 13 Dec 82 (SD-107). 158. Hist, AFIS/XP, CY 1982, pp. 6-7. 159. Ibid; Mso QMS, AFIS/XP to AF/XOOTN, 0715202 Jul82, subj: Annual Review of MAJCOM/SOA Allocation of AF Appointment of 100K Mobilization Authorization @H(SD-108). 160. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/PA, CY 1982, p. 1. 161. Hist, AFIS/PA, CY 1982, p. 1. 162. Ibid, p. 2; Ltr, AF/IN to all AF/IN-AFIS-AFSAC Elements, subj: New AFIS Public Affairs Officer, 23 Mar 82 (SD-109). 163. Hist, AFIS/PA, CY 1982, pp. 3-6; Ltr, AFIS/PA to AFSINC/ IIBP, subj: Request for Printing of Newspaper, 17 May 82 (S0-110); Ltr, AFSINC/IIBP to AFIS/PA, subj: Request for Printing of Newspaper, 26 May 82 (SD-i11). 164. Hist, AFIS/PA, CY 1982, pp. 3-6; Summary, AFIS/PA, subj: PA Input to AFISR 23-1, Undated (SD-112); Draft Extract, AFIS OPLAN- Annex 0 to AFIS Objective Plan, Public Affairs Office (PA), 31May82 (SD-113); Extract, AFIS Productivity Plan-Public Affairs Division, Undated (SD-114); Ltr, Dean of DIS to AFIS/CV, subj: Letter of Appre- ciation, 19 Nov 82 (SD-115). 165. Hist, AFIS/PA, CY 1982, pp. 3-5.
165 CHAPTER I] Notes to Pages 41-44 1. AFR 23-45, subj: Organization and Mission-Field, Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, subj: Organization and Mission-Field, Organization and Functions of Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 15 Jul 82. 2. See note above. 3. HistQQD. arissino, cy 1982, p. 1. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid nn bane Ss = Q. . ao] KR ~ | me | Lo paar) a E Oo os og —_ ao. « a] | ™ U w 9. Ibid 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid, p. 4; AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Extract, Annex £& to AFIS Objective Plan, Special Studies Division (INOA}, 16 Jul 82 (S5-116). 13. Hist QB, Aris/1no, cy 1982, p. 4. 14. Ibid, p. 5; Ltr, AFIS/INO to AFIS/MO, subj: Change of Duty Station, 17 Feb 82, Ltr, AFIS/MO to AFIS/INO, subj: Change of Duty Station, 19 Feb 82 (SD-117); Staff Summary Sheet, AFIS/INOA to AFIS/ INE, subj: Space Requirement for Air Force Element at NPIC, 20 Jul 82, tr, AF/INE to Deputy Chief for Support, NPIC, subj: Space Allocation for Air Force Element at NPIC, undated (SD-118). 15. Hist QQ, arissino, cy 1982, p. 5; Ltr, AF/INES to DOD-WHS 3C345, subj: Request for Increased Bus Service, 10 Feb 82 (SD-119); Memo, D/Space Mgmt Div to Mr. E.R. Nielson, subj: DOD Bus Route 12, 7 Jul 82 (SD-120); Ltr, AFIS/INO to AFIS/CS, subj: Request for Govt Vehicle, 22 Mar 82 (SD-121); Ltr, AFIS/CS to AFIS/INO, subj: Request for Govt Vehicle, 8 Apr 82 (SD-122); Ltr, AFIS/INO to AFIS/LG, subj: Vehicle Availability, 21 Jun 82 (SD-123); Ltr, AFIS/LG to AFIS/ INO, subj: Vehicle Availability, 30 Jun 82 (SD-124). 16. Hist QM, Aris/ino, cy 1982, pp. 6-7
166 Notes to Pages 44-47 . 17. Hi FIS/INO, CY 1982, pp. 6-7; USAFINTEL 500-2 » subj: Camouflage, Concealment and Deception, Winter-Soring &2 Jun 82 (SD-125). 18. See note above; Msg » AF/INE to 548RTG/INO, et_al., 1319002 Sep 82, subj: HQ USAF mouflage, Conceal- ment and Deception (CC&D) Intel Status Rpt 82-07 (S0-126). 19, See note above. 20. See note above. 21. See note above, 22. See note above. 23. See note above; Hist QMMMNNNEB, AFIS/INO, Cy 1982, pp. 8-9. 24. See note above. 25. 500-2 and Deception, Winter-Spring 82 His AFIS/INO, CY 1982, pp. 8-9; USAFINTEL » subj: Camouflage, Concealment » Jun 82 (SD-125). 26. Hist QD, ArIs/ino, cy 1982, pp. 10-11. 27. Ibid; Ltr CI, AF1S/1NOA to AF/INES, et_al., subj: CC& Briefing - After Action Rpt QB. 15 Dec 82 (SD-127). 28. Hist QB, ArIS/INo, CY 1982, pp. 11-12. 29. Ibid; Ltr QB, LTTC/TIMNAO to AFIS/INOA, subj: CC&D Training Materials QB, 11 Jun 82 (S0-128); Ltr » AFIS/IN AF/INE, subj: CC&D Briefing QB, 18 Mar 82 (SD-129); Ltr AFPE/XRY to AF/INES, subj: Request for Briefing@, 14 May 82 (S0-130); Memo AFIS/INOA to AF/INE, subj: Briefing to Scientific Advisory Board QB, 2 Sep 82 (SD-131); io AFIS/INOA to AF/INE, Ltr subj: NSC Briefing QJ. 8 Oct 82 (SD-132); » AFIS/INOA to AF/INE, et al..subj: Trip Report @p, 15 Dec 82 (SD-133); Ltr » AFIS/INOA to AF/INE, et_al., subj: Presidential Foreign Intel Advisory Board (PFIA8)@B, 29 Dec 82 (SD-134); Memo QM, AFIS/ INOA to AF/INE, subj: ACDA Brief QB}, 28 Dec 82 (SD-135). 30. See note above. 31. See note above. 32. Hist WMD, AFIS/INO, Cy 1982, pp. 12-14. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibi Qa. e
3€. 37. 38. 40. 4). 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 4g. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Hist QE, Ibid. ibid. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, ps. 15-16. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, pp. 16-17. Ibid. Ibid, p. 18. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, p. 19. Ibid, p. 20. Ibid, pp. 26-21. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, p. 22. Ibid, p. 23. Ibid. Ibid, pp. 24-27. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, pp. 28-29. Ibid 167 Notes to Pages 47-53 AFIS/INO, CY 1982, pp.12-14.
168 Notes to Pages 53-58 61, Hist, Gai,. AFIS/INO, CY 1982, pp.28-29. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid, p. 32. 66. Ibid, p. 33. 67. Ibid, p. 36. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid, p. 44. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid, pp. 44-45. 73. Ibid, pp. 46-48. 74. Ibid, p. 49. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid, pp. 49-50. 77. Ibid 78. Hist QD. AFIS/INT, Cy 1982, pp. 1-2. 79. Ibid; Msc@QMM, AF/IN to HQ ADCOM/J-2, et _al., 181900Z Nov82, subj: AF/IN-AFIS Reorganization @(S0-136). 80. See note above. 81. See note above. 82. See note above. 83. See note above. 84, See note above. 85. See note above.
169 Notes to Pages 58-61 oo. vis QQ, arissint, cy 1982, pp. 1-2; Msg WD. AF/IN to HQ ADCON/J-2, et al., 1819002 Nov82, subj: AF/IN-AFIS Reorganization ($0-136). 87. _Hi » AFIS/INT, CY 1982, p. 2; Rpt » AFIS/INT, subj: Proceedings of 1982 USAF Target » 2 May 82 (SD-137). e8. 1st a, AFIS/INT, CY 1982, p. 3; Extract @®, AFIS/INTB, subj: Executive Summary QP, undated (SD-138). 89. Hist GD, Aris/INT, Cy 1982, p. 3. 90. Ibid. | Intel Conference 91. Ibid; Ltr, AF/MPCRPQ to AF/INE, subj: Request for Occupationa} Survey, 27 Jan 82 (SD-139); Memo, AFIS/INTB to INTB, subj: Project In- itiation Workshop-Cartographic and Geodetic Specialties (AFSCs 57XX and 222XxC), 30 Jun 82 (SD-146). o2. Hist QD, AriIs/INT, cy 1982, p. 3; Staff Summary Sheet, AFIS/INT to AF/IN, subj: Cartographic/Geodetic Officer Participation in Engineering Scientist Continuing Education Program, 9 Mar 82, Ltr, AF/IN to HQ ATC/ED, subj: Cartographic/Geodetic Officer Participation in Engineer/Scientist Continuing Education Program, 16 Mar 82, Ltr, HQ ATC/ED to HQ USAF/INOTB, subj: Cartographic/Geodetic Officer Participation in Engineering/Scientist Continuing Education Program, 11 May 82 (SD-141). 93. Hist QQ, aris/int, cy 1982, p. 3; Staff Summary Sheet, AFIS/INOTB to AF/INY, subj: Proposed Functional Mgmt Inspection on MC&G Support Within MAJCOM Staffs and RDT&E Organizations, 11 Aug 82, w/1 atch, (SD-142); Ltr, AFISC/IG to AF/INY, subj: Proposed Functional Mgamt Inspection of MC&G, 26 Aug 82 (SD-143); Point Paper, ‘epeaaaye” subj: Proposed Functional Mgmt Inspection of MC&G, 3 Nov. 82 S$D-144). 94, Hist eT AFIS/INT, CY 1982, p. 4; Ltr, AF/INT to AFMPC/MPCKPQ, subj: Change to AFR 36-1, Cartographic Geodetic Specialty Descriptions, undated (SD-145); Briefing, AFIS/INOTB, subj: Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) Briefing on the Status of Their Actions Regarding the Cartographic Geodetic Officer Career Field, 13 Aug 82 95. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/IND, CY 1982, p. 3. 96. Hist, AFIS/IND, CY 1982, pp. 3-8. 97. Ibid.
170 Notes to Pages 61-65 98. Hist, AFIS/IND, CY 1982, pp. 3-8. 99, Ibid. 100. Ibid. 191. Ibid. 102. Ibid. 103. Ibid. 104. Ibid. 105. Ibid. ii Be 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; nists QD AFIS/INS, CY 1982, p. 4. 107. See note above. 108. Hist CI, aris/ins, cy 1982, pp. 5-6. 109, Ibid. 110. Ibid. 111. Ibid. 112. Ibid. ._ AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist FY quit. AFIS/INS, CY 1982, pp. 7-8. 114, Ibid; Background Paper, AFIS/INS, subj: Continuing CIA Pressure on O0SD-Personnel Scty Matters, undated (SD-147); Background (epeid SISUINS» subj: Defense Select Panel Seminar 28 Jan 82, undated SD-148). 115, Hist QQ arissins, cy 1982, p. 8; Background Paper, AFIS/INSB, subj: Scty Actions Pertaining to 6940 ESW Personnel, Ft Meade, MD, 19 Mar 82 (SD-149); Staff Meeting Item, AFIS/INS, subj: Scty Actions Pertaining to 6940 ESW Personnel, Ft Meade, MD, undated (SD-150); Ltr, Dir Scty NSA to Col G.J. Mercuro, subj: Military As- signees to NSA, 22 Mar 82 (SD-151); Memo, Dir Scty NSA to Dir Counter- intelligence and Scty Policy (ODUSDIP), subj: Military Assignees to NSA, 22 Mar 82 (SD-152); Memo, AFIS/INS, subj: Meeting with NSA and HQ OSI Representatives on Polygraphing of AF Personnel Assigned to NSA, 15 Sep 82 (SD-153).
171 Notes to Pages 65-68 116. Hist SMD, arissins, cy 1982, p.8; Back- ground Paper, AFIS/INSE, subj: Periodic Reinvestigation Procedures for Individuals Cleared for SCI, 12 Aug 82 (SD-154); Memo, Frank Carlucci to Secretaries of Military Departments, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and Directors of Defense Agencies, subj: Degradation of Operational Readiness/Mission Accomplishments Due to Personnel Scty Investigation Shortfalls, 6 Aug 82 (SD-155); Background Paper, AFIS/INS, subj: Periodic Reinvestigation Procedures for Individuals Cleared for Access to SCI, undated (SD-156). 117. Hist QD, aris/ins, cy 1982, p. 9; Ltr, AFIS/INSB to AFIS/INS, subj: 1982 Objectives, 11 Feb 83 (SD-157). 118. See note above. 119, See note above. 120. See note above. 121. Hist QI, aris/ins, cy 1982, p. 10. 125. Ibid. 126. Ibid 127. Ibid 129. Ibid, pp. 12-13. 130. Ibid. 131. Ibid. 132. Ibid 133. Hist QB, aris/Ins, cy 1982, pp. 14-17; Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: 1982 Goals and Objectives, 4 Jan 82 (SD-158); Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: 1982 Accomplishments, 9 Feb 82 (SD-159). 134, See note above. 135. See note above.
172 Notes to Pages 69-73 136. Hist QMS, Arissins, cy 1982, pp. 14-17; Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: 1982 Goals and Objectives, 4 Jan 82 (SD-158); Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: 1982 Accomplishments, 9 Feb 82 (SD-159). 137, See note above. 138. See Note above; Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: Trip Report (SSO Huachuca), 28 Jul 82 (SD-160). 139. See note above. 140, i; st a . AFIS/INS, CY 1982, pp. 17-18; Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: Trip Report (Corona South 82), 13 Mar 82 (SD-161); Ltr, AFIS/INSO to AFIS/INS, subj: Trip Report (Corona Fall 82), 2 Nov 82 (SD-162). 141, Hist QM, AFIS/INS, Cy 1982, p. 18; Ltr, AFIS/INS to AF/INE, et al., subj: SCI Orientation Course, 22 Apr 82 (SD-163); Ltr, AFIS/INSD to AFIS/INS, subj: Space Requirements, 14 Dec 81 (SD-164); Memo, AFIS/INSB to AFIS/INS, subj: Space Allocations, 11 Jan 82 (SD-165). ~ CHAPTER IT] 1. AFR 23-45, subj: Organization and Mission-Field, Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, subj: Organization and Mission Field, Organization and Function of Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS), 15 Jul 82. 2. See note above; Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 4. 3. See note above. 4. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, pp. 4-5; Ltr, AFIS/RE to AFIS/CC, - et al., subj: AF Intel Reserve (AFIR) Plan, FY 1982-1986, 23 Jun 82 (SD-166). 5. See note above. 6. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/RE, Cy 1982, p. 6. 7. See note above. 8. See note above. 9. See note above.
173 Notes to Pages 73-77 10. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/RE, Cy 1982, p. 6. Half subj: Mobil 11. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 6. 12. | med bi a. e nd o 13, id; Rpt, AFIS/RE, subj: AF Intel Reserve Factbook, ist FY82, 1 Apr 82 and 2nd Haif FY82, 1 Oct 82 (SD-167); Rpt, AFIS/RE, AF Intel Reserve Handbook, Apr 82 (SD-168) 14, Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 10. 15. Ibid. 16, Ibid. 17. Ibid; pp. ll-le. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid 24. Ibid, p. 13 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid, pp. 14-16. 27. Ibid e 28. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/RE to all OTSs, et al., subj: Individual —— ization Readiness, 1 Feb 82.(SD-169); Ltr, AFIS/RE to all DTSs, et al., subj: Individual Mobilization Readiness, 22 Mar 82 (SD-170); Memo , AFIS/RE to AD and AFIS/RE Staffs, subj: Field Readiness Assess- ments, 11 May 82 (SD-171); Ltr, AFIS/REO to all DTSs, et al., subj: Individual Mobilization Readiness, 14 May 82 (SD-172). Subj: 29. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 15; Ltr, AFIS/RE to AFIS/XP, Proud Saber 83 After Action Report, 23 Nov 82 (SD-173); Ltr, AFIS/REOR to AFIS/XP, subj: Participation in Exercise Proud Saber 83, 14 Jun 82 (SD-174); Ltr, AFIS/REOR, to Ha USAFE/INO, subj: Indication and Warning Ctr Mobilization Point of Contact, 11 May 82 (SD-175); Extract, AFIS/RE, subj: Telephone Alert Response for Exercise Proud Saber &3, undated (SD-176).
174 Notes to Pages 77-81 30. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 15; Ltr, AFIS/RE to AFIS/XP, subj: Proud Saber 83 After Action Report, 23 Nov 82 (SD-173); Ltr, AFIS/REOR to AFIS/XP, subj: Participation in Exercise Proud Saber 83, 14 Jun 82 (SD-174); Ltr, AFIS/REOR to Hq USAFE/INO, subj: Indication and Warning Ctr Mobilization Point Of Contact, 11 May 82 (SD-175); Extract, AFIS/RE, subj: Telephone Alert Response for Exercise Proud Saber 83, undated (SD-176). 31. See note above. 32. See note above. 33, Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, pp. 15-16; AFR 35-34, subj: Mili- tary Personnel-Individual Mobilization Augmentee Program, 9 Aug 82 (SD-177). 34. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 16; Extract, AFIS Productivity Plan, Directorate, Intel Reserve Forces (AFIS/RE), undated (SD-178). 35, Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 17; Hist, AFIS/RE, DTSs, CY 1982 (SD-179). 36. See note above. 37. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY i982, pp. 18-19. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/RE to all DTS, et_al., subj: Intel Projects for AFIS/RE DiSs, 22 Feb 82 (SD-180); Ltr, AFIS/RE to Hq AAC/INX, et al., subj: Intel Projects for AFIS/RE DTSs, 3 Aug 82 (SD-181). 40. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, pp. 18-19; Ltr, AFIS/RE to all ADs, et_al., subj: Inactive Duty Training (IDT) in DTSs, 2 Aug 82 (SD-182). 41. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, p. 19; Hist, AFIS/RE DTSs, CY 1982 (SD-179). 42. See note above. 43. See note above. 44, See note above. 45. Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, pp. 20-22. 46. Ibi a 47. — Qa. bid. 48. Ibid.
175 Notes to Pages 82-88 Hist, AFIS/RE, CY 1982, pp. 20-22. a Loa ea . t L~ pe) a od o perry oO -— Lo = Qa. one Cr per \° a. i) Lo per a — ao id; pp. 23-24. | — o —d a — log = Qa E — > te Qa | me) Lo ~ a ° pp. 25-26. m— or wy a _ Lom aw a ro] Los ~~ a — oe a a _— i ie rv) pp. 27-29. r— oOo ade Oo mm Lo pry ou. mg Ce pars a — o per) a. ot = par) 5 a, . E bong Lo ar Qa. E Ibi a. » p. 30. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist GD AFIS/INH, CY 1982, pp. 1-3.
176 Notes to Pages 89-93 74. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist Qi AFIS/INH, CY 1982, pp. 1-3. 75. See note above. 76. See note above; Extract, AFIS/MO, subj: Extended Unit Man- power Document (AFIS/INH), 22 Dec 82 (SD-183). 77, Hist QD, arisstnn, cy 1982, pp. 1-3. 78. Ibid. 79, Extract, Annex to AFIS Objective Plan, Directorate of Attache Affairs (INH), undated (SD-184); Ltr, AFIS/INH to AFIS/MO, subj: Preo- aration of FY AFIS Productivity Plan, w/l atch, 1 Sep 82 (SD-185). 80. See note above. 81. See note above. 82. See note above; Ltr, AFIS/CC to Editor, AF Magazine, Subj: Carticle-air attaches answer the questions}, 22 Nov 82, Extract ot AF Magazine, subj: Air Attaches Answer the Questions, Sep 82 (Sh 193). 83. See note above. 84. See note above. 85. See note above. 86. See note above. 87. See note above. 88. See note above. 89. See note above. 90. List, AFIS/INH, subj: Csummary of officer and enlisted attache selection panels conducted during 19823, undated (S0-186). 91, List, nee ae subj: C summary of officer and enlisted pro- motions during 19821, undated (SD-187). 92. List, AFIS/INH, subj: Csummary of 1982 naval postgraduate school guest lecture program], undated (SD-188); List, AFIS/INH, subj: Csummary of 1982 tutor program], undated. 93, Memo, AFIS/INHO, subj: Trip Report to the DLI and NPS, 12-13 Aug 82, 2 Sep 82 (SD-189).
177 Notes to Pages 93-95 94, Memo, AFIS/INHO, subj: Trip Report to the DLI and NPS, 12-13 Aug 82, 2 Sep 82 (SD-189). 95. Ibid. 96. Ibid. 97. Ltr, AFIS/INH to AF/IN, subj: Proposed Travel Plan, 17 Mar 82, Ltr, AFIS/INH to AF/IN, subj: Proposed Travel Plan, 22 Apr 82, Msg, Hq AFIS/INH to USDAO Sofia Bulgaria, et al., 0319302 Nov 82, subj: Visit of Director and NCOIC, AF Attache Affairs, ot a AFIS/INH, subj: Visit to Eastern European Defense Attache Offices (DAO) @B, 25 oct 82 (sp-190). 98. Ltr, AFIS/INH to AF/IN, subj: Visit by Brig Gen William B. Webb to NPS and DLI, 1 Oct 82 (SD-191). 99, Ltr, AFIS/INHOP to AFIS/INH, subj: Trip Report, DATT Con- ference in Garmisch, Germany and Visit to DAO in Belgium and France, 12 Oct 82 (SD-192). 100. Ibid. 101. Ltr, AFIS/INH tc AF/IN, subj: FY83 Area Specialist Selec- tion Board, 23 Nov 82 (SD-194); Msg, Hq USAF/IN to ali MAJCOM-SOA/CV, 2913582 Oct 82, subj: Area Specialist Program Update (SD-195); Ltr, AFIS/INH to AF/IN, subj: Area Specialist Training Program Selection Board, undated (SD-196); Ltr, AFIS/INH to Hq USAF/MPPE, subj: FY83 Area Specialist Training Requirements, 4 Jun 82 (SD-197); Memo, AFIS/ INHO, subj: Working Group Meeting on Establishment of Linguistics and Area Studies, 22 Jul 82 (SD-198); Ltr, AFIS/INH to AF/INYX, subj: DALASP Application Procedures-Final Recommendation Authority, 4 Jun 82 (SD-199). 102. Msg, USDAO New Dehli IN to DIA, 2208222 Jan: 82, subj: Re- quest for Info-Air Race (SD-200); Msg, DIA/AT-3 to USDAO New Dehli IN, 252304Z Jan 82, subj: Air Race Info (SD-201); Msg, USDAO New Dehli IN to DIA, 2806552 Jan 82, subj: Air Race Info (SD-202); Msg, Hq AFIS/INH to USDAO New Dehli IN, 291730Z Jan 82, subj: Air Race Info (SD-203); Ltr, D. Berliner to Sgt Harland (AFIS/INH), subj: [material on handicap air racing}, 1 Feb 82 (SD-204); Msg, Hq AFIS/INH to USDAO New Dehli IN, 022139Z Feb 82, subj: Air Race Info (SD-205). 103. Msg, USDAO MUSCAT OMAN to Hq AFIS/INH, 2711302 May 82, subj: Request for Assistance (SD-206); Msg, Hq AFIS/INH to USDAO MUSCAT OMAN, 2820302 May 82, subj: Request for Assistance (SD-207). 104. Ltr, AFIS/INH to 1361st AVS/DOCS, subj: Space Shuttle Photos, 3 Jun 82 (SD-208); Ltr, AFIS/INH to NASA HQ, subj: Space Shuttle Photos, undated (SD-209); Msg, Hq AFIS/INH to USDAO Budapest Hungary, 0819302 Jun 82, subj: Space Shuttle Photos (SD-210); Msg, Hq AFIS/INH to USDAO Budapest Hungary, 122136Z Jul 82, subj: Space Shuttle Photos (SD-211).
178 Notes to Pages 96-101 105. MsCQQMID., uSdAO Bucharest Romania to DIA, 280737Z Jan 82, subj: IR 6 883 0009 82/Romania/Surveillance of Attache (SD-212). 106. Mso QB, usvAo Budapest Hungary to DIA, 030738Z May 82, subj: Possible Vehicle Harrassment (SD-213). 107. HistQMMMD, aris/inr, cy 1982, pp. 1-5. 108. Ibid. 109. Ibid; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82. 110. See note above. 111. Hist QD, aris/inr, cy 1982; pp. 1-5. 112. Ibid. 113. Ibid. 114. Ibid. 115. Ibid, p. 20; Ltr, AFIS/INR to AFIS/XP, subj: FY85-89 Joint Programming/ Budge t Data Call, 20 Oct 82 (SD-217). 116. Ibid, pp. 16-17. 117. Ibid. 118. Ibid. 119. Ibid. 120. Ibid. 121. Ibid, pp. 6-8; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82. 122. Hist QM, AFIS/InR, CY 1982, pp. 6-8. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Ibid. 125. Ibid. 127. Ibid. 128. Ibid; Rpt, AFIS/INR, subj: [ schedule of events exercise ridge runner 82 4, undated (SD-214).
129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 13€. 139. 1490. PW Director 141, 142. 179 Notes to Pages 101-105 Hist QD. arisinr, cy 1982, pp. 7-8. 1c. ome = = og a a. o— o ae OT — bent el 4 so Log i~ 9 sr par ote = — a a. a. a e e 2 » bot Ss ahs a. wo pp. 9-15. L > pars Qa. ome bi a. 1 mH bid; Extract, AFIS Productivity Plan Evasion and Escape/ ate (INR), undated (SD-215). See note above. See note above. Hist QD, AFIS/INR, CY 1982, pp. 9-15; Article, Virgil Reng, "Q.C. Circles Are They Worth It?" AFIT School of Systems and Logisti 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. cs, undated (SD-216). Hist QED. AFIS/INR, CY 1982, pp. 9-15. 1 4 o a. pane o par a. on oc parts a one o ~ a. — 1 ~ a — ao par a pont 1° pa \. Qa | e . tome oe = Qa.
180 Notes to Pages 106-110 153. AFR 23-45, 10 Jun 74; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82; Hist, AFIS/ INC, CY 1982, p. 1. 154, See note above. 155. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, pp. 2-3. 156. Ibid. 157. Ibid. 158. Ibid. 159. Ibid. 160. Ibid. 161. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/DAPS to AFIS/INC, subj: AFRP 200-1, Soviet Press Selected Translations, 30 Nov 82 (SD-218). 162. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, pp. 2-3. 163, Ibid. 164. Ibid. 165. Ibid; List, AFIS/INC, subj: Soviet Awareness Program Schedule (Jan-Jun 82), 25 Mar 82 (SD-219). 166. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, pp. 4-5; Ltr, Chairman Reserve rovicy Board to Col G. Wish, subj: "TINC presentation ], 28 Jun 82 $D-220 167. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, pp. 4-5; Ltr, Dir FBI to ACS/I. subj: Soviet Awareness School, 21 Jan 82 (SD-221). 168. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, pp. 4-5. 169. Ibid. 170. Ibid. 171. Ibid; Ltr, AFIS/INCR to AFIS/INC, subj: Trip Report - Soviet Awareness Orientation Visit to USSR, Jul 82 (SD-222). 172. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, p. 7; Ltr, AFIS/INC to AFIS/INH, subj: Annual Quota for Area Specialist Program (USSR), 13 9ct 82 (SD-223). 173. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, p. 7; Ltr, AFIS/INC to AFIS/XP, subj: FY85-89 Joint Programming/BSudget Data Call, 21 Oct 82 (SD-224).
18] Notes to Pages 110-115 174. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, p. 7; Ltr, AFIS/INC to AFIS/XP, subj: FY85-89 Joint Programming/Budget Data Call, 21 Oct 82 (SD-224). 175. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, p. 7; BCE Work Request, AFIS/INC to l1O0ABWG/DEMRC, subj: Work Order No. 20787, 22 Jun 82 (SD-225). 176. Hist, AFIS/INC, CY 1982, p. 7. 177. Hist, AFIS OL-AF, CY 1982, p. 1; Memorandum of Agreement Between ACS/I and AFTEC/CC for Inte? Support to AF Operational Test and Evaluation Program, undated (SD-226); Msgs, AFIS OL-AF to Hq USAF/INW, 0616452 Feb 82, 022240Z Mar 82, 022300Z Apr 82, 0616302 May 82, 081420Z Jun 82, 0115002 Jul 82, 0319302 Aug 82, 3112052 Aug 82, 0816002 Oct 82, 0921052 Nov 82, 0324 00Z Jan 83, subj: Monthl y Activity Reports, Jan- Dec82 (SD- 227); Trip Reports, AFIS OL-AF, ty 1982 (SD-228). 178. Hist, AFIS OL-AF, CY 1982, pp. 1-4; Msgs, AFIS OL-AF to Hq USAF/INW, 0616452 Feb 82, 0222402 Mar 82, 022300Z Apr 82, 0616302 May 82, 081420Z Jun 82, 0115002 Jul 82, 0319302 Aug 82, 3112052 Aug 82, 0816002 Oct 82, 0921052 Nov 82, 0324 00Z Jan 83, subj: Monthly Activity Reports, Jan-Dec82 (SD- 227); Trip Reports, AFIS OL-AF, CY 1982 (SD-228). 179. See note above. 180. See note above. 181. See note above. 182. See note above. "183. See note above. 184. See note above. 185. See note above. 186. See note above. 187. See note above. 188. See note above. 189. See note above. 1990. See note above. 191. See note above.
182 Notes to Pages 115-121 192, osc: AFIS OL-N, CY 1982, pp. 1-27; Msgs » AFIS OL-M to Hq USAF/INW, 0113272 Feb 82,0413 r 82, 0613322 Apr 82, 071349Z May 82, 0415022 Jun 82, 021353Z Jul 82, 051451Z Aug 82, 0319192 Sep 82, 0619462 Oct 82, 0318182 Nov 82, 031904Z Dec 82 and 051529Z Jan 83, subj: Monthly Activity Reports, Jan-Dec82 @(SD-229). 193. See note above. 194. See note above. 195, See note above. 196. See note above. 197, See note above. 198. See note above. 199, See note above. 200. See note above. 201. See note above. 202. See note above. 203. See note above. 204. See note above. 205. See note above. 206. See note above. . 207. See note above. 208. See note above. 209. See note above. 210. See note above. 211. See note above. 212. See note above. 213. See note above. 214. See note above.
215. 1-27; Msgs Hist 183 Notes to Pages 121-127 » AFIS OL-N, CY 1982, pp. » AFIS OL-N to Hq USAF/INW, 0113272 Feb 82, 0413142 Mar 82, 0613322 Apr 82, 0713492 May 82, 0415022 Jun 82, 021353Z Jul 82, 0514512 Aug 82, 0319192 Sep 82, 061946Z Oct 82, 0318182 Nov 82, 031904Z Dec 82 and 0515292 Jan 83, subj: Monthly Activity Reports, Jan-Dec 82 @R(Sd-229). 216. 217, 218, 219. 220. 221, 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. pp. 1-18; Memorandum of Agreement on OL-F Operations, undated; Msgs Between Hq USAF/IN and He TAC/CC » subj: wae, Activity Reports, Jan-Dec82 s Trip Reports 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. See note above. See See See See See See See See See See note note note note note note note note note note Hist , AFIS OL-F, CY 1982 QB. See See See See See See See See note note note note note note note note above. above, above. above. above, above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. » AFIS QL-F, CY 1982,
184 Notes to Pages 127-131 236. Hist QD, AFIS OL-F, CY 1982, pp. 1-18; Memorandum of Agreement Between Hq USAF/IN and Hq TAC/CC on OL-F Operations, undated; a Monthly Activity Reports, Jan-Dec82 Trip Reports fF AFIS OL-F, CY 1982 Qi os 237. See note above. 238. See note above. 239. See note above. 240. See note above. 241. See note above. 242. See note above. 243. See note above. 244. See note above. 245. See note above. 246. See note above. 247. See note above. 248. See note above. 249. See note above. 250. See note above. 251. See note above. 252. See note above. 253. See note above. 254. See note above. 255. See note above. 256. See note above. 257. See note above. 258. See note above. 259. See note above
260. 1-18; Memorandum of Agreement OL-F Operations, undated; Msgs Between Hq USAF/IN and Hq TAC/CC on subj: uae Activity Reports, Jan-Dec82 ; Trip Reports 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. Hist 185 Notes to Pages 132-137 » AFIS OL-F, CY 1982, pp. , AFIS OL-F, CY 1982 Q. See note above. See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See See note above. note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above.
186 Notes to Pages 137-142 284. 1-18; Memorandum of Agreement B OL-F Operations, undated; Msgs etween Hq USAF/IN and Hq TAC/CC on subj: ae Activity Reports, Jan-Dec82 ; Trip Reports , AFIS OL-F, CY 1982 @. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. Hist See note above. see. See See See See See See See see See See See see See see see See See See See See note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note note above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above, above. above. above. above. above. above. above. above. AFIS OL-F, CY 1982, pp.
icf Notes to Pages 142-146 308, vist QQ Ho arsac, 8 Apr 81- 31 Dec 82. 309. Ibid. 310. Ibid. 311. Ibid; AFISR 23-1, 15 Jul 82. 312. vist QD Hq arsac, 8 Apr 81- 31 Dec 82. 313. Ibid. 314. Ibic. 315. Ibid. 316. Ibid. 317. Ibid. 31&. Ibid 319. Ibid 320. Ibid 321 Ibid 322. Ibid. 323. Ibid 324. Ibid. 325. Ibid. 326. Ibid. 327. Ibid 328. Ibid. 329. Ibid. 330. Ibid. 331. Ibid. 332. Ibid
188 Notes to Pages 147-151 334, Hist QD . ig ArSAC, 8 Apr 81- 31 Dec 82. 335. Ibid. 336. Ibid. 337. Ibid. 338. Ibid. 339, Ibid. 340. Ibid. 341. Ibid. 342. Ibid. 343. Ibid. 344. Ibid. 345. Ibid. 346. Ibid. 347. Ibid. 348. Ibid 349. Ibid. 350. Ibid. 351. Ibid. 352. Ibid. 353. Ibid 354. Ibid 355. Ibid. 356. Hist QED. Hq AFSAC Det 21, 8 Apr 81- 31 Dec 8&2. 357, Ibid. | 358. Hist QIN, iq AFSAC Det 22, 8 Apr 81- 31 Dec 82.
359. 81- 31 Dec 360. 31 Dec 82. 361. 362. 363. 31 Dec 82. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 31 Dec 82. 369. 370. 189 Notes to Pages 152-154 Hq AFSAC Det 22, 8 Apr +is ED 9 sv, 8 Apr a vist ED. 1 ese, 2 aor e1- Hi st SE 1, asec. & apr 81-
190 APPENDIX I LINEAGE AND HONORS DATA Unit Designation: Air Force Intelligence Service (AFIS) Previous Designation: Same Higher Headquarters: Headquarters United States Air Force Commander: Brigadier General Schuyler Bissell, 22 Jul 6&1 - Present Vice Commander: Colonel William B. Sherman, 1 Nov 82 - Present Chief of Staff: Colonel Alfons Broz, 1 Oct 81 - 31 Oct &2 (Position merged with Vice Commander, eff: 1 Nov 82) Assigned Units: Air Force Special Activities Center (AFSAC) Operating Location - AF, Kirtland AFB New Mexico Operating Location - F, Eglin AFB, Florida Operating Location - N, Kelly AFB, Texas Operating Location - M, Alexandria, Virginia Assigned Units Gained or Lost: None Units Attached: None Attached Units Gained or Lost: None Station: Fort Belvoir, Virginia Aircraft Flown: None Awards and Decorations: Air Force Organizational Excellence Award for period: 1 Feb 80 - 31 Jan 82 (Auth: SO, Hq USAF, GB-455, 14 Jul 82) Emblem: Same
APPENDIX I1 ROSTER OF KEY PERSONNEL POSITION Commander Vice Commander Chief of Staff Dir of Security and Com- munications Mgmt Dir of Intel Data Mgmt Dir of Operational Intel Dir of Targets Dir of Soviet Affairs Dir of Evasion, Escape and POW Dir of Intel Reserve Forces Dir of Personnel Dir of Attache Affairs Dir of AF Special Activities Center (AFSAC) Administrative Division Comptroller Division Logistics Division Manpower and Organization Plans Division Hq Sq Sec Comdr Senior Enlisted Advisor NAME Brig Gen Schuyler Bissell Col Col William 8. Sherman Jack Morris Col Alfons Broz Col George J. Mercuro Col Col Col Col George King Arnold L. Mabile William B. Sherman John S. McKenney Col George V. Wish Col Ronald Webb Coi John R. Oberst Col Ronald Skorepa Lt Col Michael Turoff Col James E. Steinmiller Col Nicholas Yankowski CMSgt Robert R. O'Toole Maj Lloyd S$. Garner Lt Col Lynn Thompson Lt*Col Ronald Rush Maj John S. Follrod Lt Col Alden R. Guy 1LT Terrence £. Giroux CMSgt William H. Strickland 191 DATE ASSUMED 22 Jul 82 1 Nov 82 1 Aug 81 1 Oct 81 15 Jun 81 27 Jul 82 2 t 9st 87 24 Sep 81 1 Oct 80 1 Nov 82 15 Oct 80 1 Apr 82 15 May 79 1 Apr 81 1 Oct 81 1 Aug 79 15 Aug 79 1 Oct 82 1 Oct 81 16 Aug 81 31 Jul 81 18 Feb 82 1 Feb 82
192 APPENDIX I1 ROSTER OF KEY PERSONNEL (Cont'd) DATE POSITION NAME ASSUMED Inspector General Lt Col C. Wayne Burridge 31 Aug 80 Public Affairs TSgt, Barry L. Bahler 12 Feb 8&2 Historian Mr. Jerome Enneis 5 Dec 82 TSgt Jack L. Krahulec 10 Sep 82 Vacant 26 Mar 82 MSgt Brendan O'Donovan 1 Oct 81 Chief, OL-AF Lt Col Donald N. Walker 1 Mar 81 Chief, OL-N Col Clinton M. Glenny 15 Aug 81 Chief, OL-F -Lt Col Thomas J. Smith 15 Aug 81
APPENDIX IIT | AUTHORIZED AND ASSIGNED STRENGTH 1 * SO ED EE ED 6 ES TO «ES TT Officer Enlisted Civilian — Total Unit Auth Asgnd Auth Asgnd Auth Asgnd Auth Asgnd AFIS CMD SEC 2 2 5 5 1 1 8 8 ATIS/CCQ 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3. AFIS/DA 0 0 9 9 4 4 (13 13 AFIS/AC 2 2 5 5 1 1 8 OR AFIS/IG 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 3 AFIS/HO 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 AFIS/LG 1 1 3 3 0 0. 4 4 AFIS/MO 1 1 6 6 0 o- 7 7 AFIS/XP . 3 2 0 0 5 5 8 7 AFIS/PA “0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 AFIS/INS 11 11. 50 44 29 21 90 7 AFIS/IND 25 19 13 9 8 5 46 AFIS/INO 66 43 46 40 41 32 153 — AFIS/INT 13 13 3 2 6 -.§ 22, AFIS/INC 18 17 8 8 4 4 30 AFIS/INR 7 5 5 5 9 8  j§21- AFIS/0P 3 3 5 6 _§ 5 13 AFIS/RE 9 8 17 20 4 3 30 AFIS/INH 4 3 8 8 1 on 13 AFIS/ OL-AF 3 - 2 0 0 0 0 AFIS/ OL-F 3 3 3 3 - 3 ar po AFIS/ OL-N 1 5 : nf 20 TOTAL 184 | 149 197 ist 127 104 $08. AFSAC 92 76 100 99 90 77 282, TOTAL 276 223 297° 3 217 Beets: * As of 31 December 198 - Cn ee. 1. List, AFIS/MO, subj: init Nanpower Document. Bt Dec 82; List, A AFIS-AFSAC c Agente Ss sul Unit Average Strength Data, 31 Dec 7 a eae
194 APPENDIX IV LIST OF PLANS REVIEWED/REVISED DURING Cy 62 ! (Logistics Division) AFIS CONPLAN - AFIS SUPPORT Sept 82 AFIS OBJECTIVE PLAN (FY 83-FY97) Jul 82 USAF SUPPORT FORCE SIZING EXERCISE - Jul 82 PACIFIC SPECIAL ACTIVITIES AREA (PSAA) OPLAN 5027 Sep 82 AFIS OPLAN F-134 Mar 82 AFIS OPLAN F-133 Mar 82 USAF WAR AND MOBILIZATION PLAN, VOL 1 Jul 82 CINCAFLANT/CTF 146 OPLAN 2150-A-82. ' Jul 82 AFIS EXPLAN 0022 | Sep 82 AFIS. PRODUCTIVITY PLAN . Sep 82 ANNEX A TO JOINT STRATEGIC CAPABILITIES PLAN FOR FY83 Jun’ 82 1, Hist @, arisyic, cy 1982, page 7.
APPENDIX. V LIST OF AGREEMENTS REVIEWED/REVISED IN Cy82 1 HOST TENANT SUPPORT AGREEMENTS COMMAND HOST UNIT AFIS TENANT UNIT DATE REVIEW REVISED PACAF iSth ABK PSAA June 82 x PACAF - Slst Comm Wo Det 32 July 8&2 x MAC . 76 ALD Bolling Elements Sep 82 x MAC 60th MAW DTS 24 Dec 82 x MAC 76 ALD BO AFIS June 82 x esc 6960 ES Wg OL-N May 82 x SAC 93 BM Wg DTS 3 Nov 82 x ot MAC 62 MAW DTS 5 Dec 82 x , MAC 436 MAW DTS 6 Nov 82 x SAC 22 ARW DTS 10 Nov 82 x MAT 76 ALD ‘prs ll May 82 x TAC i TFW DTS 12 Apr 82 x SAC 7 BMW DTS 14 Oct 82 x AFSC 3245 ABGP pts 15 Sep 82 x sac - 3902 ABW pts 18 Sep 82 x TAC 67 TRW oTs 25 Sep 82 x MAC 317 TAN eS 27 Sep 82‘ X INTERSERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENTS US Army Ft Lesley J. McNair HQ AFIS | Nov 82 x US ARMY Ft Belvoir, VA -—s-HQ. AFIS. Oct 82 Pending
Vet.icle Make Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Dodge Chevrolet Dodge APPENDIX VI LISTING OF AFIS VEHICLES 1 Vehicle Type Sedan Unmarked Sedan. Unmarked Sedan Sedan Station Wagon Carryall Carryall Pickup 3 Ton Registration Number 80B3264 8083276 8053277 7888728 7885386 0B298 8184398 79B1029 1, Hist QM aris/ic, cy 1962, page 8. Mileage 33521 43754 41706 50792 47593 28822 20607 - 27106