120 Planning for the July 1984 orientation visit to the USSR was much less complicated than that required for previous trips, because rather than relying on the directorate’s resources and those of the U.S. embassy in Moscow, most of the arrangements in both the United States and the Soviet Union were done by travel agencies. Two agencies in New York were involved and one in Washington, 0.C., through which the trips were pooked 45 The first tour, 14 duly - 29 duly, was to Leningrad, Kiev, and Moscow and was made by Lt. Co}. James Simpson, Capt. David Moore, and Mr. Michael Barry. The second tour, 11 July ~ 28 duty, was to Moscow, Samarkand Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Irkutsk, Transiberian Railroad, Moscow, and Leningrad. Capt. Swider and Capt. Wilson made the latter trip, In addition to the basic familiarization mission, participants were charged with obtainiag Soviet posters, books, and pictures to support the mission of the Directorate of Soviet Affairs. The following are excerpts of reports on personal impressions of the Soviet Union by members of the directorate who made the trip there in July. . Lt. Col. Simpson: After my formal study of the Soviet Union and two years of service on the Soviet Awareness Team, | expected no major surprises in visiting the country. Indeed I found none. What 1 did find was an additional dimension and depth to what had been an educated but still two dimensional picture of the country before the trip. Some of my notions were dispelled, some modified, and others confirmed. More importantly i can sow read or re-read others’ accounts with more understanding of what they're trying to say. Gf course any visiter fo the Soviet Union sees on}y what the authorities want you to see but even that is enough for this purpose. The trip coujd fardly be termed enjoyable but, ft was very educational and is necessary for anyone whe discusses Soviet society. lt is important to note that the very fact that the Team was there adds tremendous credibility to what we say. This fs not so much because of what we saw, but because of the mind set of the average American audience. = Capt. Swider: My impressions of the visit are mixed. Wany of the pre-conceived notions J had of Soviet society based on previous study were confirmed and many were dispelled. (Things I saw on this trip will help the team correct some factual errors, but more importantly to give more precise definition to what until now have been “always” or “never” statemants). The single overriding impression that I fave is how
untidy, disorderly, and chaotic the country is. It is $o big and so poorly managed, so backward looking, So drab, so plain that it's no wonder the people feet inferior to the West and the developed ‘orld. Obviously, this is at least part of the source of feelings of inferiority, xenophobia, fear, paranoia, and insecurity. The Russian and Soviet culture experience can only intensify these feelings. If they weren't so stubborn and did not have such misdirected pride, they could almost be pitied. I guess I could best express these impressions by relating an experience with our Leningrad intourist guide. She was telling the story of the "storming" of the Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks during the October Kevolution of 1917. She readity admitted that no great battle had occurred and that the bloodless coup hed only 4 or § casualties. When I asked how that squared with the Soviet film director Sergei Eisenstein’s movie “Ten Days that Shook the World,” in which a valiant Bolshevik army stormed the bouregois forces within the Winter Palace through shot and shell, she stopped and thought a moment. The pause was brief and her answer was to answer my question with a question. She said her version was correct and that the film was meant to impress; was | impressed? The Soviet facade is impressive, but it is usually just that, @ facade. Like the facade on many of their bulidings, it cracks and falls alot.4/ Capt. Wilson: While I wholeheartedly support Intourist arrangements over our previous method of travel, i.e. through the embassy, for reasons already enumarated, I believe one risk must be understood by inc personne! making such a trip, We are members of the United States Intelligence community and we are traveling in the USSR without diplomatic protections. Fortunately this posed no problems fer our groups this summer; in fact, our Intourist guide gave no indication whatsoever that she was aware of any connection between us and the military, let alone the intelligence field. However, realistically one must understand that the potential for complications does exist and the decision for taking that risk must be @ personal one. (Some INC personne! whose visas had been approved for this summer chose not to go for this very reason). Mr. Barry: The Intourist package tour, a5 we had expected, proved to be a tight schedule, with most every minute planned for. To my somewhat surprise, however, we were quite able to break off at any time, 12)
122 alone or in small groups, and proceed most anywhere according to our own desires. Not once did I, or anyone else notice any surveillance. Gur freedom to go out on our own and meet people seemed to be dependent on no more than our own stamina. For myself, atmost ati the essential insights that I gained from my trip came about off the beaten Intourist track.  Intourist repeated) showed us museums and restored {though inactive churches and palaces. One or two of these is more than sufficient. I was jeft with the impression that in the atheist, worker state, how ironic it was their pride in showing the outside world their beautiful churches and lavish palaces. The point is that you see nothing but the splendors they want you to see. The key is to see some, get off the beaten track and see today’s USSR, note the irony, and realize the deception.49 Gn my trip we saw the three largest cities in the (Moscow, Leningrad, and Kiev) at the best time of the year (summer}. My strongest suggestion for improving this invaluable program would be to include smal} cities and different seasons and as much of rural USSR as possible. Such expanded experience would be of great value in broadening the Soviet awareness of directorate personnel.» ‘ AFA “CITATION OF HONOR At a special luncheon at its annual convention in September, the Air Force Association presented its “Citation of Honor” to the Wirectorate of Soviet Affairs. Attending the lunchean were numerous dignitaries of aviation history and the U.S. government. Wl was originally subcitted for the AFA’s Vandenberg Award, but was finally selected for the “Citation of Honor. "51 *
CAPTAIN WILSON OF AFIS/INC STANDING IN FRONT OF THE PETER AMD PAUL FORTRESS, LENINGRAD, USSR, JULY 1984. SEATED (LEFT TO RIGHT) CAPTAIN MOORE AND iT. COL. SIMPSON, AFIS/INC, AT A LENINGRAD RESTAURANT, JULY 1984.
DIRECTORATE OF ATTACHE AFFAIRS MISSION OF THE DIRECTORATE The principal mission of the Directorate of Attache Affairs (INH) was to develop capabilities for Air Force participation in the Defense Attache System (DHS}, to monitor performance and resuits of that participation, and to exercise cognizance over Air Force aspects of the Attache program, The Defense Attache System was a joint military service activity, which since 1965 operated under direct control of the Defense lateltigence Agency. In 1984 the distribution of positions in the system was as fultows:2 SERVICE HO. OF POSITION PERCENTAGE OF DAS Army 260 4a Air Force 185 Jie Navy Lis 20% Marine Coros 2h 4% Total 289 100% HISSION OF THE AIR ATTACHE MB The Directorate of Attache Affairs was located within AFIS, because a primary mission of an attache was the overt collection of intelligence information. The directorate described the four primary missions of an Air Attache as follows :3 1. The overt collection and reporting of military and politico-military intelligence information. The Attache has been the first link in the U.S. strategic warning system regardifg an outbreak of hostilities, and collections and reporting is his primary mission. 2. Representation of the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force to the host country air force. The Attache is the key to the representational systen, suitably placed to influence another country’s air force to “marry” into U.S.A.F. equipment, tactics, doctrine, etc. 3. Foreign military sales. This part of the Air Attache mission is performed in a selected number of countries that have no U.S. military advisory group or mission. Qua to the reductions in manning of military 125
124 New Positions advisory groups and mission, there is a growing trend to shift more of this responsibility to the Attache. 4, Advisory role to the ambassador. In world crises and conflicts, Attaches are not only the Defense Department's eyes and ears, they are aiso heavily depended upon for their military expertise in the coordinated execution of U.S. policy, working with the presidential representative -~ the ambassador. POSITIONS WITHIN DAS There were ninety-two Defense Attache Offices around the wortd, and because some Attaches were accredited to more than one nation, they had responsibility for over one hundred countries. The Air Force positions in the OAS were assigned to sixty-three embassies, In twenty-one countries, the Air Attache was also the senior service Attache and wes designated the "Defense Attache”, commonly referred to as the DATT. jefense Attaches who were Air Force officers served in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Srazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Honduras, Israel, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, Soviet Union, Sweden, Thatiand, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. In three countries. Brazil, China, and the Soviet Union, the BATT position was filled by an Air Force officer for two of every six years. The positions Afr Force personne! were assigned to in the DAS were Defense Attache (QATT}, Afr Attache {AIRA), Assistant Air Atteche (AAIRA}, operations coordination (OPS CO} «+ similar to NCGIC position -- intelligence assistant, and aircraft mechanic. z In 1984, the Defense Intelligence Agency established four new officer positions within the Defense Attache System to be filled by Air Force personnel: Air Attache in Somalia and Nicaragua (actually filled in December 1983) and Assistant Air Attache in Bolivia and Indonesia, Atso, the Defense Intelligence Agency switched one enlisted intelligence assistant position from Peru to the Dominican Republic, The Defense Attache in Peru had requested the change in order to provide a Navy intelligence assistant to coordinate ship visits.6 The four new officer positions brought the number of authorized Air Force attache positions to 98:
Attache Manning Rates ¥o. Authorized Ho. Assigned Percent cya4 98 96 98% cYé3 94 92 98% PERSONNEL Cot. James €. Steinmiller, Director of Attache Affairs, retired from active duty in the Air Force on 31 March 1984, and Col. Gon B. Kincaid was appointed as the new director, effective 25 dune 1984, Colonel Kincaid came to INH after being assigned as the Air Attache in Japan, His appointment was in accord with the policy of the Assistant Chief of Statf/Inteltigence which was to assign former Attaches to the INH director's position.8 Prior to Colonel Kincaid's appointment, the last three directors were former Attaches. ad Lt. Col. Edward 0. Gitlapsy continued as the Chief of the Officer Selection, training, and Support Bivision, white SMSgt Kenneth £, Pool continued as Chief, Enlisted Selection and Administration Divisjon. The directorate was manned according to authorized strength: Author ized Assigned Percent Officers & 4 100% Enlisted 3 & 100% Civilians as i 100% TOTAL 13 13 100% ATTACHE SELECTEES In 1984, in coordination with Headquarters USAF and the Air Force Manpower and Personne? Center, the INH directorate reviewed, evaluated, and nominated thirty-five officers to the Defense Intelligence Agency for service in the Gefense Attache System. The following is_a comparison of officer selection statistics for 1984 and 1983:10 OFFICER SELECTION STATISTICS C¥i984 £41983 Total Panels 35 4G Approved 33 37 leo
126 Disapproved 2 3 Withdrawn 1 2 Total sominated to DIA 35* 3 Approved 35** 36 Disappreved 0 G Pending as of 31 Sec 84 7 & * Includes three prior Attaches approved for return tours into the UAS. for these officers and current Attaches requesting consecutive tours, the pane! was usually waived. Formai nomination to DIA, however, was required. Therefore the total nominated to DIA exceeded the total approved by panels. There were no requests for consecutive tours in 1984. «(BP includes eight left pending in December 1983. Of the officers approved by the panets in 1984, ten colonels were for befense Attache; nine colonels, two lieutenant colonels, and three majors were for Air Attache; and one lieutenant colonel], one major, and nine captains were for Assistant Air Attaches.+} Attache Selection Pane} ee SE a . The directorate again used panels during the process of selecting personne! for nomination to the Defense Intelligence agency and the Uefense Attache System. The officer panels consisted of six mambers: the chairman, who was the Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence or his designated representative, and representatives from the Defense Intelligence Agency, HQ USAF /HPX, HQ USAF/CVAL, ang HQ USAF /XOKX 12 The directorate brought the potential Attache and spouse to Washington to appear before the selection panel, the purpose of which was to determine if the husband and wife could work es a professional team and creditably represent the U.S. government, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, and ambassador, while acting independently for 4 highly visiple officia) and social mileav. while in Washington, the candidate also had an opportunity to jearn more about the Attache program and pase questions about the befense Attache System and particular assignments and living conditions. Attache Selection Criteria The panels interviewed officers who were selected according to the following five criteria: 1, GRAVES + Captein through brigadier general.
2. REAL PROMOTABILITY - Gutstanding record with no passovers. 3. AOQVANCED DEGREES - Preference for degrees in -nter~ national affairs or foreign languages. 4. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY - Proficiency rating of $-3/R-3 required for most positions. 5, WELL-ROUNDED AIR FORCE CAREER ~ Volunteers encouraged, but officers must meet requirements. ENLISTED SELECTEES Enlisted personne} nominated for duty within the Defense Attache System were usually staff sergeants through master sergeants, who were assigned as “intelligence assistants", and senior and chief master sergeants, who were assigned for administrative specialists and aircraft mechanics. As with fellow officers, selection panels interviewed enlisted candidates and their spouses. The panels consisted of seven members: the director of Attache Affairs, the chiefs of the two divisions within the directorate, three senior NCOs from within the Air Force intelligence community, and a representative from the Uefense Intelligence Agency. The following is @ comparative summary of the panels conducted in 1984 and 198321 ENLISTED SELECTION STATISTE cs C3984 C¥1983 Total Panels Conducted 22 22 Approved by Panels 22 22 Disapproved Panels 0 1 Nominated to DIA 47* 46* Withdrawals before DIA Approval 2 2 Approved by DIA 46 « 42 Bisapproved by DIA i 0 Approved by DIA but Returned because of Incumbent Extension Q 1 Consecutive Overseas Tours 45 13 Prior Attache Team Members Selected 4 5 fon-Votunteers Nominated** 3 o a The number nominated to BIA exceeded the number approved by the panels because some persons were nominated for consecutive overseas tours or had prior Attache service experience and no pa interviews for them were required, ” The nmon-volunteers were two staff sergeants for Zaire and Honduras and one senior master sergeant for Argentina.
128 @ Although the directorate had in other years nominated non-volunteers to the DIA, Lieutenant Colonel Gillaspy noted that such nominations in 1984 might be the start of a trend. He thought that terrorism was responsible for keeping some qualified personne! from applying for duty in the Defense Attache System. Individuals already in training for the OAS had indeed experienced concern about the terrorist violence. Also, the colonel thought that recruitment for countries such as the Sudan, where starvation was widespread was difficult because Air Force personnel were reluctant to bring their families inte such tragic conditions of ife. TRAINING PROGRAM After the selection process, the directorate designed a training program for the Attache-designated, which was taflored to his needs, taking into consideration his background and the country to which he might be assigned. As a rule, each individual attended a twelve-week course at the Defense Intelligence College in Washington, G.C. Spouses were encouraged to attend the entire course and to join tours and attend seminars sponscred by the State Department. If necessary, an Attache-designate and spouse attended a five to ten-month language course. Some officers required additional specialized training such as that involved with the C-12 aircraft. In those countries where the government was considering the purchase of an aircraft as sophisticated as the F-5, F-15, or F-16, or had already purchased such aircraft, the directorate arranged for a series of specialized briefings with the aircraft system's project officer and with factory representatives at the production line. The Attache also attended a series of specialized briefings and consultations at the Defense intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Pentagon. Prior to arriving on statiog Attaches received briefings at the appropriate unified command, 5 * Lanquage Tutor Prograt : Because of the critical importance of language fluency to the Attache mission, the directorate funded a language tutorial program for the designates who had a significant period of time between completion of formal language training and estimated arrival on station. In 1984, languages were tutored for 338 hours at a total cost of $4,873, an average expenditure of $14.50 per hour. The fanguages were: Tag alog, & weeks; Russian, 11 weeks: Indonesian, 8.5 weeks; Korean, 1] weeks; Chinese Mandarian, 5 weeks; French, 15 weeks; Norwegian, 9 weeks; Italian, 15 weeks; and Turkish, 2 weeks.
In-Country Language Training Some designate Attaches also received In-Country Language Training {ICLT), which was language training conducted within various countries and was designed to supplement the formal language training at the Foreign Service Institute or Defense Language Institute. It allowed the designate Attache to become totally immersed in the language and culture of the host country. The main emphasis of the program was to increase speaking proficiency and daily tanguage use. In 1984, five officers were sponsored for this training: Two in Mandarin Chinese for twenty~ three weeks; one in Italian for four weeks; one in Japanese for twenty-eight weeks; and one in Portuguese-Brazilian for seven weeks. The total cost of the program was $57,603. In addition, under the auspices of the ICLT program, the designated Assistant Air Attache for Brazil attended the Brazilian Air Command and Staff course, which was taught in Portuguese-Braztlian.20 Naval Postaraduate Schoo! To improve the qualifications of the Attaches, the INH directorate sent some designates to the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, for enrollment in a master’s degree program sponsored by the Air Force Institute of Technology. The academic phase of the program Jasted twelve: months. Language training then followed, conducted by the Defense Language Institute, which lasted from six to twelve months, depending on the difficulty of the language. Upon completion of language training, the officers were awarded master's degrees is national security affairs.é1 In 1984, the directorate sponsored four students at the Naval Yostgraduate School. It also funded a guest lecture program there, for the benefit of attache designates. There were forty- three speaker presentations during the year, at a cost of $9,525.78, 22 v On Station Lanquage Use During his staff visits to Africa and the Middle East in 1984, SM5gt Kenneth £. Pool, NCOIC, Attache Affairs, reported the following about language use on station: Monrovia, Liberia: The AIRA said French language 15 essential for the Attache and desirable for the spouse. Presently, French language is not required for the AM, but both Major Underwood and MSgt Rauscher believe the language capabflity is highly desirable. MSgt Rauscher is a native French speaker and he said the language has helped him tremendously in his deatings 129
130 with airport officials throughout the country. It is my understanding future AM requisitions will call for French language qualification ($/2, 8/2). = Lagos, Nigeria: Language training is not required as English is spoken locally. However, the AIRA has had formal French language training as part of his degree program through the Nava} Postgraduate choot, Cairo, fgypt: Language training is not required for enlisted personne}. Attaches are required to attend Arabic language training and both the AIRA and AAIRA said it was very beneficial, particularly in showing the capability and desire to speak Arabic when talking to senior Egyptian officials. Amman, dJordan: Arabic language js 2 requirement for the AIRA position, The AIRA said he doesn’t feel the language is necessary to do the job. He clarified fis comments by saying that unless an officer is completely proficient in the Arabic language, he is better off to use English as most all government officials and officers speak the English Janguage. Based on our limited yisit to Amman, I didn’t have any problems communicating as most people did speak and understand English. Tel Aviv, Israel: Language training is not required for support personnel as English is commonly spoken throughout the country. Hebrew is required for Attaches and they commented even though not absolutely required to do the job, the effort and ability to speak Hebrew with senior Israeli officials is nighly regarded. . SUPPORT OX STATION The directorate continued to provide support to the Attaches on station, assisting them with information items or referrals to those who were best able to provide the required answers. The following filustrate the type of assistance the directorate provided in 1984:24 In February, the Air Attache in Korea requested permission in advance to accept invitations for orientation rides in Royal Korean Air Force aircraft. The directorate contacted HQ
USAF /XOOTD, HQ  USAF/CVAIT, and GIA/AT-3 and obtained the permission. In February, the Oefense Intelligence Staff Division of the Ministry of Defense Malaysia asked the Attache there to provide a list of Attaches with ranks and dates who were accredited to Malaysia since independence in 1957. The directorate provided the list back to 1963 and stated, "We believe that based on the documents available that prior to 1963 the Air Attache in Singapore was accredited to Malaysia.” The Commander of Southwest Composite Air Division (Japan} wes awarded the Legion of Merit by the Commander Fifth Air Force {U.S. Air Force} when he departed his position. He had been trying to obtain extra ribbons to display on his uniform. In March, INK obtained the ribbons and forwarded them to the Air Attache for presentation. In April, the Air Attache in China requested ten 8 x 10" color photos of 25 different NASA subjects, such as the space-iab and space shuttle, and three color wall posters of the same. INH obtained the negatives from NASA, arranged for the reprints to be made, and forwarded them to the Attache for presentation to the Chinese. In August, the Air Attache in Peru sent INH 2 message Saying he had been contacted by @ women who said that she was the divorced wife of a retired Air Force Brigadier General and was requesting to know if she was eligible to use U.S. military medical facilities. The directorate researched the request and found that according to Public Law 97-252 of the U.5S."Code, the woman was net eligible because she had not been married for 20 years as required. STAFF VISITS TO Bads basics From 10 to 27 September 1984, SMSgt Pool, the N of Attache Affairs, and Maj. Gen. Walter R. Longanecker, {USAFR), retired, Special Assistant to the ACS/E (HQ USAF/IN}, made a staff support visit to the Befense Attache Offices (DAQs} im Monrovia, Liberia; Lagos, Nigeria; Cairo, Egypt; Amman, Jordan; and Tel Pat
132 Aviv, Israel. From 1 to 2G November 1944, Colone} Kincaid and SeiSgt Pool made a staff support visit to the DAQs in Hong Kong {Gefense Liaison Office); Beijing, China; Manila, Philippines, Seoul, Korea; Kuala tumpur, malaysia; and Jakarta, Indonesia. The purpose of the visits was to enable these key personne] to become personally knowledgeable of the living and working conditions, dependents’ environment, school facilities, travel and cultural opportunities, and family considerations at the Attache posts in order to enable the directorate to better match candidates with Attache offices and to realistically brief the designates about what to expect at their stations. Another important purpose of the visits was to show the NCOs and officers that the Air Force had not forgotten them and was still vitally interested in their morale and welfare, em In Africa and the Middle East, the cost of living for the DAG persenne] presented some sharp contrasts:20 The overall cost of living is high and the CULA was averaging $10-15 per dey for our families, depending on rank and number of dependents. Most of the families are ordering their grocery items from the commissary at Charleston AFB and it then comes on the C- 14 MAC Flight. The MAC flight fs bi-weekly and it is a ged send for our people, but it too requires & tremendous outlay of money at first because all ordering is by case lots only. Most of the OAO personnel said between the COLA and the commissery Support they were living within their means and providing s good standard of living for their families. am Lagos, Nigeria: The food cost in the Embassy Cooperative Commissary is very expensive and the shelves are bare sometimes because shipments hayen‘t arrived or they have been tied up in Nigerfan customs. Tne COLA im Lagos for an £-7 with three dependents was approximately $14.00 per day and thds extra allowance is allowing our folks to live a decent standard of living. The AIRA didn't feel the COLA was high enough, and I reminded the AIRA and OPSCO that they should stay on top of food increases hoth on the economy and in the commissary so they could make their COLA increase requests to the Travel and Perdiem Committee, All ia att, the COLA is a necessity for Lagos and ft fs definitely helping our Attache personnel, Cairo, Egypt: Cairo kas a DGD commissary, APO, and excellent government quarters. The local economy shopaing is very reasonable and generally ati personnel were living a good standard of Jiving with little or no financial burdens. Al? in alt this fs an economically sound assignment.
Amman, Jordan: The local economy in Amman is very expensive and the rute of thumb according to the AIRA and OPSCO was most items and services are three times the cost compared to stateside. 1 did note, for example, 2a decent evening meal in the hotel we stayed was 525 ~ $30 per person. The DAO members are receiving a COLA and it is offsetting some of the costs, which is a big help. see rae Tel Aviv, Israel: The local economy in Israel is expensive as compared to Stateside. However, there are many inexpensive outlets for our folks ff Igrae}] such as sightseeing and visiting many historical institutions. Restaurants are expensive in genera? and night club activities are very expensive. Most of the enlisted personne} do in-home entertaining anc they indicated this as preference, ot only financial. Overall, OA personnel are living comfortably without financial difficulty. AIR ATTACHE INCENTIVE SUPPLY PROGRAMS The Air Attache Incentive Supply Program was 2 program whereby tasteful yet inexpensive items were given to individuals, organizations, or groups who were in positions to assist in developing social contacts. The program in 1984 operated on @ budget of approx imately $22,000, with INH requesting that for 1985 the budget be doubled.<? HEWSLETTER The directorate continued to publish the newsletter Attache Affeirs. During the year, three editions were published, in April, September, and December. They reported information on such topics as changes in personnel poticies, follow-on assignments of those departing station, consecutive tour assignment options, personne} changes, and convening dates of promotion and professional military education boards. MID-TOUR REPORTS The directorate's policy of requesting that Attaches submit’ mid-tour reports continued in 1984. The reports were used to improve the lot of the Attaches for the last half of their tours and were invaluable sources of information for the Attache designates. The candid reports covered such topics as quality of life, family considerations, costs, Air Force support, probtem areas, pleasurable aspects of the assignment, and recommen- dations 2% 133
i34 PROMOTION STATISTICS Promotion rates for Attaches as a group were 15 to 40 perce igher than line of the Air Force over the last two years. The statistics were as follows: ATTACHE PROMOTION STATISTICS X AIR FORCE T_ATTACHE WO. ELIGIBLE NO. SELECTED €Y84 £01 43.6% 66.6% 3 2 LtCot 62% 80% 10 8 Major 78% 100% & 8 CY84 Cal 43% Og 4 G Lttot 60% 83% 12 10 Major 77% 100% & 8 Qver the years, the captains eligibie for promotion to major have fed the best promotion rate, with everyone eligible consistently being promoted, a Statistics for enlisted promotions were as foltows:31 ENLISTED PROMOTION STATISTICS &_AIR FORCE + ATTACHE NO, ELIGIBLE NO. SELECTED cyga CHS gt 234 0% 6 9 SHS gt 12.8% 17.6% v7 3 Sgt 29% 28% 21 6 TSat 18% 33% oS 5 cys3 CHS gt 17% 20% 10 2 SHSgt 15% 33% 15 5 Sgt 26% 87% 22 z TSgt 138 29% v § “a Over the two years, the enlisted personne! in the Attache ystem were usuglly promoted or at higher rates than their counterparts in the line Air Force, URSCHEOULED RETURNS FROM STATIONS Two officers and four enlisted personnel returned unscheduled from their duty stations in 1984, The GATT in
Venezuela was curtailed for reasons pertaining to personality conflicts within the DAO and the DATT position changing to an Army position. Upon his departure, he had served fourteen months of the three year tour. The DAT? in the United Kingdom requested and was granted curtailment for personal reasons involving his family. Upon his departure, he had served thirteen months of the three year tour. A staff sergeant and a technical sergeant stationed in Israel were returned because of dependents’ medical problems, A tectnical sergeant in China and a staff sergeant in Hong Kong were returned to the Air force for reassignment because of unadaptability to the Defense Attache System.3: 135
137 CHAPTER I€ INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT DIRECTORATE OF SECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE RESERVE FORCES DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE GATA MANAGEMENT (See AF/INY CY1984 HISTORICAL DATA RECORD) © LJ May dv1d wer” Pie WE ane.
the general officer Jevel when they intertwined management headquarters with non-management headquarters activities. Directorate Structure During the year the directorate continued to operate with 1s three subordinate divisions: Personne? Security Divisien (INSB), Management Division (INSC}), and the Special Security Office (SSQ} HG USAF (INSG}. The Personne] Security Givision (1NSB} was divided into three Branches, Adjudication, Billets, and For Cause/Due Process. in 1984 white the INSB branches remained the same, an administrative team was established in August to more effectively use administrative personnel .> Ld The basic three-branch organizational structure of the Management Division {INSC} remained the same in 1984: Operations and Policy Branch, Administrative Support Branch, and the Facilities Branch. There did occur, however, @ functional reorganization within the diviston to enhance its capability te provide overall direction and supervision to the Atr Force Sti program. Officers of higher rack were assigned to INSC, and the division requested and had approved the conversion of @ clerk- “stenographer position to a security position. In the latter part of 1984, the SCI Product Validation Branc { ENSDR ) was disestablished, and the duties, responsibilities, and two manpower positions were transferred to the Management Division (INSC), Tre branch was transferred to INSC as part of an effort to divest AF/INSO of “worldwide” items of responsibility, leaving INSD responsible for Air Staff and Jocal support only. Since the Management Bivigion CINSC) was responsipie for the management of the “wortdwide" SC] security program within the Air Force, the tragsfer more clearty defined jocal and worldwide responsibilities among INS divisions. The two manpower authorizations from the disestablished branch were incorporated inte the Operations and Policy Branch of the Management Division, The Gperations and Policy Granch was responsible for the general overall management of the Air Force SCi security program, except far physical security and TEMPEST accreditations, so it was the logicet place to locate Air Force product validation, bad After the transfer, the Special Security Office HQ USAF {INSD) consisted of only two branches: Special Security Education and Training Granch (INSOE) and Special Security Operations Branch {IRSO0}. The transferral action pertzined to only departmental SC} product responsibilities; SC1 product responsibilities that affected Air Force activities within the National Capita} Region 139
140 remained with INSD. As a result of the transferral, a new one person section was created within the Special Security Operations Branch (INSDO). This was the SCI Product Management Section {INSDOM) and was responsible for SCI product management and data base management for both the Requirements Management Distribution Systen a{REMADES) and the planned XEROX Message Processor (XM) ystem, HANPOSER Key Personne} Col, Robert &. Huey, Jr., continued as director of INS. Lt. Cor, Raymond E. Abel, Jr., continued as the deputy director. Two division chiefs, Colleen M. Cornwell and Maj. Richard P. Viau, also continued to head the Personnel Security Division and the Special Security Office, HQ USAF {INSD), respectivety, Gn 22 November 1984, Maj. Fred Allen, III, a former operations officer, replaced Lt. Col. William R. Burton as head of the Management Division (INSC).9 Manning Strength As of 31 December 1984, the manning strength of the directorate was as follows: . NO. AUTHORIZED HO. ASSIGNED PERCENTAGE OFFICERS it 3 82% ENLISTED 46 45 98% CIVELIANS a7 20 74% TOTAL 84 7a 88% Manning Requirements Throughout the year, the directorate was continuously involved with activity ta realign and upgrade positions within INS, eSpecially the Management Division (INSC}. In danuary, an O- 3 captain's position was transferred from INS resources to INSC.1! The justification for this was as follows:4¢ Mission requirements for USAF sensitive compartmented (SC1) physical security oversight and review are increasing at an annual rate of 14%. Duties require site inspection, evaluation of  axtensive gocumentation, accreditation, review and evaluation of waiver requests, exercise evaluation and representation
of the ACS/1 to national level agencies. Since 1979, the number of SCI facilities (SCIFs) has increased 64%. The growth of the SCIFs has severely strained the one deep GS-12 physical security specialist position. The incumbent simply cannot be both in the fleld on an inspection/staff assistance visit and at the Air Staff responding to queries. GD on 24 danuary 1984, INS requested that the AFIS Directorate of Personnel and the AFIS Manpower and Organization Division implement a reorganization for INSC involving fifteen positions, all within INS control and supervision. The reorganization was approved. 13 In February, Colonel Huey, the director of INS, requested that AF/INYR approve the conversion of two enlisted authorizations, in strategic operations/policy and communications areas, to civilian authorizations, one a 6$-7/11 and one a G5- 9/12.14 In justifying the request Colonel Huey explained the following: 19 There is great disparity between rank and responsibility within AFIS/INS when you consider the scope of tasks assigned to satisfy the ACS/Intelligence responsibilities for Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCi) system management. The SCI system is worldwide, cuts across every Air force major command, and requires total involvement with and direction from the ACS/I. However, manpower authorizations within the Directorate are unusually "enlisted intense" (by authorizetion, 568 enlisted; by assigned 513 enlisted: with 16 of 21 assigned civilians enlisted equivalants). For whatever reasons,, the Directorate's authorizations have teen allowed to stagnate over the years to the point where they provide an operationally unacceptable mix of maturity, insight, experience, training and rank to accomplish our mission. The problem becomes one of appropriateness for exercising authority necessarily inherent with assigned responsibilities. od a. Gn a number of occasions, necessity dictated The use of TSgts and MSgts a5 Air Staff Action Officers, simply because there was no one else avaliable to do the job. a. This has caused @ general expression of concern from a1] involved since their authority to 14i
142 act calls into question the appropriateness of the NCO's function. Fortunately, 1 have had NEO's who were expertenced in the “ways” of the Air Staff because of the length of their assignments and their innate sense of survival. Nonetheless, they have always been out of their “depth" and routinely staffed actions where their counterparts were Majors or Lt. Colonels. In an attempt to rectify these shortcomings, I have reorganized, realigned, reviewed and modified all possible and conceivable actions. A thorough review of Air Staff intelligence manpower allocations revealed that AFIS/INS accounts for 17% of all enlisted personne! assigned to AF/IN“-AFIS, and 47% of alt enlisted personne? assigned to AF/IN. I am competted to initiate action that will have long-term impact and bring some sense of correlation between grade and responsibility. a This report was approved. 16 Gn 17 May 1984, the directorate again requested to and rece? approval from the AFIS Directorate gf Personne? and the AFIS Manpower and Organization Bivision te realign six INS positions, involving the grades of senior master sergeant, master sergeant, and technical sergeant. The purpose of the realignment was to place a senior _master sergeant's authorization from INSB resources within INSc.t Also with regard to manpower assignments, Colonel Huey requested that Maj. Fred Allen, II], who was head of the Management OSivision (INSC}, be removed from his proposed assignment to Air Force Systems Command. Major Allen was a volunteer for an assignment with AFSC, but was not identified as a mandatory reassignment resource. The circumstances of INS‘s request were discussed with Major Allen, and he supported the request.48 The justification for the request was as follows:49 = In his position within the Directorate of Security ag Communications Management (INS}, Major Allen is the principal involved in developing Air Force Sensitive Compartmented Information {SCI} policy, directing 000 projects for speciai Access Programs in the “black/white” community, and Teading the Air Force MAJCOM SCI inspection staff assistance teams. in addition, the evaluation of Air Force Defense Special Security Communications System/General Service telecommunication center {TCC} consolidation, and the initiatives to defend, fund, schedule and construct selected Air Force Special Security Offices {AFSSOs}
and TCCs. These projects are phased for implementation through late 1985. At the mid-point of these projects, the loss of Major Allen would be gravely disruptive mot only to INS but to the Air Force by removing the essential element of continuity. Major Allen is fully trained and uniquely qualified with his Electronic Security Command background, previous multi-level AFSSO assignments, telecomunications training and Air Staff experience. Presently, there is nc replacement for Major Allen and no realistic alternative. = INS has only eleven officer positions authorized with nine officers assigned. Of these nine officers, six were assigned within the past nine months. Couple this fact with the retirement of our senior civilian SCY policy expert (Mr. Roger Smith} in March 1984, and you can plainly see that the reassignment of Major Allen could not have come at a more inopportune time. The AFIS Directorate of Personnel approved the request. PROJECT MOVE . @ On 13 duly 1984, Maj. Gen, Pfautz, the ACS/I, announced that atter careful study he had decided that AFIS/INS (except the AFSSO} would vacate its space in the Pentagon and move to the second floor of building $20, Botting AFB, to space which had been vatated by the Directorate of Soviet Affairs. The move was to occur 25 soon as renovations in building 520 were finished, estimated to be in February 1985.20 The reason for the move was to open up space in the Pentagon for the Directorate of Estimateys General Threat Division {AF/INEG). The division's location at Bolling AFB often prectuded its personnel from making timely responses to taskings from the Air Staff and impeded their day-to-day working with the Force Structure Comittee, AF/RD, AF/SA, and AF/x0.2% e From duly through Gecember, INS held numerous meetings with Bolling base civil engineers and an architect/engineering firm, discussing requirements for INS, INS8, and INSC to move to bufiding 520. Special and regular telephones had to be relocated, cable service had to be expanded, and terminals and equipment for communications security had to be removed and re-installed. By December, the estimated date for the move to building 520 was October 1985. 143
144 PERSONNEL SECURITY The personnel security function of the directorate was the sponsibility of the INSB division, which managed the worldwide SCI personne? security program for Air Force military, civilian, consultant, and contractor personnel who required access to SC. The division administered and initiated special background investigations (S81s) for the five-year update program. It administered code "B" and “S" programs in accord with AFM 300-4 and administered “due process" procedures for SCI denials. ~ It maintained the master personnel security files and the master copy of non-disclosure agreements. The division certified SCi clearances and authorized the indoctrination and debriefing of Air Force personnel for SCI information. It approved Air Force SCI _ billets and managed the entire Air Force SCI biltet structure. It supported the Air Staff and AFIS for all SCI billet actions and maintained the master Air Force SCI billet rosters. It also maintained liaison with Military Department Intelligence agencies and other members of the intelligence community regarding SC1, personnel security, and billet matters. The division staffed al} Congressional and inspector general inquiries which were related to the SCI program, and it also managed the “For Cause” discharge program.¢4 Statistics bacd The management of the SCI Personnel Security Program consieted of an annual workload of 28,614 personnel/security cases adjudicated; 2,871 cases microfilmed; 26,618 file searches conducted; over 8,000 SCI billet requests processed; and 294 For Cause discharge actions processed, There were 15,978 special background investigations ($81) processed 7,261 periodic reinvestigations (PR), and 176 PRs backlogged. 24 Polygraph Use “Test” . In 3984 Congress authorized a “test" under which 3,500 pop ‘civilian and military personnel and defense contractor employees were to undergo a counterintelligence (CI) potygraph examination by 30 September 1985 as conditions for employment in jobs with access to sensitive information. The Air Force was allocated a quota of 1,500 individuals to be polygraphed by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. The congressional decision to allow the test program had no major impact on the INS directorate, compared with the impact caused by the decision to use the polygraph on all military personnel assigned or detaited to any National Security Agency organization. The INS directorate personne} hoped that the test in 1984-1985 would lead to congressional approval of Ci polygraph use for all individuals currently in SCI status and future candidates nominated for SCI.¢5
For Cause Discharge Program On 3 January 1984, Maj. Gen. Pfautz, the ACS/I, rescinded the authority granted to the Electronic Security Comaand (ESC) on 25 May 1973 to close “for cause" cases under the Vance memorandum. The ESC had had limited authority to close such cases, limited to those of a routine nature. The ACS/1 determined that delegating closure authority of Vance/Duncan “for cause” did hot support the intent of current guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and that the rescinding action would enable the Air Staff to provide standardized application of OSD/SAF policies across the Air Force. Request for Limited TS Clearance Authority On 3 February 1984, the ACS/I requested that the Air Force Inspector General assist with granting the ACS/1 limited authority for granting TOP SECRET clearance in conjunction with SCI access for retired general officers. The justification for the request was that DOD S200.1-R/AFR 205-1 permitted the granting of persons outside the Executive Branch access to classified information if doing so was advantageous to the government. Within the Air Force, the vice chief of staff was the only person authorized to grant such access. The procedures established in DOD $200.1-R/AFR 205-1 required 120 days advahce notification for processing such requests. The processing consisted of checks of the Defense Central Index of Investigations ({DCII}, Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO), and a_name check conducted through the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The inspector general did not approve the proposal. stating the following: “O00 policy (para 7-107, DOD §200.1-R)} specifies that access to classified be approved by the head of the component or a ‘single designee.‘ OSAF originally was reluctant to name a designee below the Secretariat level. For these reasons, an effort to designate the ACS/I as an approving authority is not likely to succeed." The inspector general went on to suggest an alternate arrangement. He authorized the ACS/1 to submit requirements involving general officers directly to the AF/CV, thos fp iminating the time-consuming process of going through AFOSP.¢? Conversion to 4€ System The Air Force conversion inte the CIA sponsored Community-wide Computer Assisted Compartmented Control (4C} System was completed in dune 1984 with a total of approximately 40,000 billets and 85,000 personne! records being converted. At the time of the conversion, the SABRE system which had been used hy the Personnel Security Division for record maintenance was stil? in 149
He use. This system, however, was discontinued in October 1984 when Air Force fata Services Center stopped processing key punch cards. By Gecember, the conversion of records inte the 4¢ System for the Alaskan Air Command, Air University, and Space Conmand was completed. The quality control and update of records for the Air Staff was near completion. The estimated time for the completion of the 4C conversion was late 1985.4! All nondisclosure agreements signed through December joge™and in the SABRE data base were transferred to the 4€ System on 12 June 1984. They were put on tape and boxed for shipment to a permanent storage area. Nondisclosure agreements after 1982 were filed and periodically added to the 4¢ System.31 Microfilming of Records During the year and immediately after the adjudication of esses, ail cases containing derogatory information were microfilmed, resulting in a centralized location for these files. As of Qecember, the microfijm data base contained over 150,000 personnel security dossiers.* Interpretation of DSM-[}! Lard In dune 1984, Maj. Richard Bloom, a ticensed clinical psychologist, began conducting weekly seminars on how to interpret mental health diagnoses relative to SCI eligibility. Major Bloom reviewed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-If1) and discussed selected cases. AS a result of his tutelage, a greater understanding of the DMS-IIE assisted adjudicators in making informed decisions concerning individuats and their eligibility for Sc1,34 MANAGEMENT ° The Management Division continued to manage the worldwide Air Force Spectai Security Office {SSO} system and coordinated the use of SCI in special access programs. tt formulated, promulgated, and interpreted SCI policy for admini- strative, informational, communications, and physical and personne] security. It researched, wrote, and acted as the office of primary responsibility for USAFINTEL ZO1-xx, AFR 200-7, and AFR 205-19. It advised and assisted SC1 security officials in their day-to-day operations and validated and accredited Air Force Sct facilities (SCIFs}. It also managed SCI contractor and consultant security programs. The division represented the ACS/I on the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Security Committee and represented the ACS/I on other standing and ad hoc committees and panels of the intelligence community. it developed and
recommended Air Force poticy on the Air Force use of the Uefense Special Security Communication System ({OSSCS) and dedicated communications support for intelligence systems. It also managed and participated in the worldwide SCI security management inspection program.3 = One addition to the mission of the division occurred in November 1984 as a result of “Project Move" requirements. The division assumed responsibility for Air Force-wide SCI product validation and dissemination of policy formulation.?> Publication Management Tne division continued its effort to improve the quality of UF SC] security publications in the USAFINTEL 201-XX series. These publications, issued in accordance with AFR 8-3, were used to promigate Gepartment of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence SC1 security policies by establishing standardized USAF procedures. The sensitivity of these policies and procedures precluded their incorporation into standard Air Force regulations. A change in the format of these documents occurred with the decision to rewrite the USAFINTEL 201-XX regulations, by incorporating the sight regulations currently in the series into two. The two new documents included USAFINTEL 201-1, dealing with basic SCI policy and procedures, and USAFINTEL* 201-2, dealing with TK guidance. In September, USAFINTEL 201-1 was in initial draft form, and by December, USAFINTEL 201-1 was in the final stages of preparation for printing. Stemming Unauthorized Disclosures A. QOD forware priority DSSCS message to AFSSC USAF/INS and provide the data listed in para 5 below. Classify according to content but at least confidential to prevent further disclosure. The information requested is required by the DCI Security Committee and SSG/TCO/GCO/BCG Air Force to determine the degree of exposure in the media and for damage control. B. Circulate a security advisory to subordinate SUL indoctrinated personne! (and others at the direction of the SiG) that an apparent compromise has occurred resulting in intelligence information appearing in the media. Personnel should be reminded 147 peleted pet 5 U.S.C. $52¢b) (4)
148 not to comment on the information and that, unless otherwise advised, the information remains classified. 3; Procedures for special security review situations: A. If an item is submitted for security review by person not now or previously indoctrinated for SCI, and the inquiry or information is found to contain SCl or other sensitive intelligence which is based solely on sources in the public domain, forward an immediate precedence DSSCS message to SSO USAF/INS providing the information noted in para 5 betow. Upon receipt, the AF rep to the SECOM will notify the chairinan of the SECOM for guidance. If immediate action is required, the person will be discreetely requested to delete the sensitive portions or to express the information in only the most general of terms so as not to further disclose intelligence sources or methods. Under no circumstances should the person who submitted the item or who made the inquiry be threatened with any legal action or antagonized. Every effort should be made to foster a cooperative negotiating environment while emphasizing the potential risk to national security. fnsure you include the propesed publication date or go to press date. 4, ae Procedures for a media inquiry: AL oe Any inquiry from the media must be handled fAW AFR “1, Public Affairs Policies and Procedures. if contacted directly by a member of the press, decline the interviex and notify both the PAG and $10/SS0. Under no circumstances, should @ person comment on, confirm or refute any inquiry related to U.S. intelligence activities. A report Punder AFR 205-57 may aiso be required. B. Forward an immediate precedence O55SCS message SSQ USAF/INS providing the information outlined in para 5 below. 5. QD Forward the following message as noted above. Modify as necessary. . . . Classify according to content {at least CONFIDENTIAL) SUBU: Gisclosure in Public Media (U)} 1. Date of Article/Leak: 2. tiame of Publication and article:
3. Author of Articte: 4, Author's Source of Info: (If known) S. Distribution of Info: 6. General Subject Matter: 7. Classification of Info: 8. Classification Authority: $. Originator of Classified Info: (If known} 10. Initial Damage Assessment: Be As a reminder, intelligence information appearing in the public media does not constitute declassification and may not be cited as a source in any article, paper, speech or other forum by a person who has had access to intelligence information by virtue of his or her official capacity. Unclassified or declassified official information not approved for release under AFR 190-1 may not be released to the public domain or to foreign nationals. Inspection Program The Management Division revamped and reemphasized its inspection to ensure completion of the ACS/I’s responsibilities for inspecting major commands' SCI security management programs and all new sensitive compartmented information facilities accredited during the previous year, For the fiscal year 1984, the division budgeted $58,000 to make ,inspection trips to SCIFS worldwide, operated by both Air Force elements and defense contractors. Procedures were also implemented to monitor the correction of deficiencies noted during the inspections.4° To help strengthen the inspection program, the directorate made a concerted effort to obtain knowledgeable, experienced, and mature personnel for the division. The new personnel, along with a few others, were sent to the Air Force inspection School to improve their understanding of inspection procedures. @ During 1984, a1] the major command SCT security anagement offices were Inspected. Seventy SCIFs were inspected during the year, representing 27 percent of USAF SCIFs, As of December, there were 280 SCIFs accredited, 47 of which belonged to 149 Petered per 5 U.S.C. $$2(b} (1)
contractors (compared to 248 and 42 in 1983). There were also 434 pending actions for construction or major modification of SCIFs. a _ oN vy rd ot a “w 4 a“ > “ be e ra ” 2 oy o “ i) a
AMHS Installation > The target date, 31 August 1984, for the installation of the N Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) was missed, because of probiems with the acquisition of communications equipment from vendors and circuit problems which resulted from the deregulation and divestiture of vendors providing service to the federal government, The estimated cost of the installation was $100,000 and in February, 15 percent of the overall project was completed, The AMHS was to connect the AF/IN and AFIS analysts at the Pentagon and Bolling and give them access to national intelligence data bases at GIA, NSA, and CIA. in addition, AtsriS was to provide message traffic to intelligence analysts significantly faster.47 : Committee Members and Instructors During the year, personnel from the Management Division continued their participation in the Central Intelligence Agency's Security Committee {SECOM} subcommittee and working groups, including the  Compartmentation Subcommittee, Unauthorized Disclosure Subcommittee, Physical Security Working Group, and Telephone Security Panel. The division also provided instructors to the SCi Security management Course and SCI Security Managers Conference, sponsored by the INS directdtate, and to the Physical Security Seminar, sponsored by the Security Comnittee.49 SPECIAL SECURITY OFFICE ad The Special Security Office, HQ USAF, was responsible for @ security of sensitive compartmented information (5C1} within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, HQ United States Air Force, and the Air Force Intelligence Service. The INSO division operated on a seven-day, twenty~four-hour basis to provide the necessary security facilities for the receipt, storage, protection, distribution, and destruction of al} SCL and SCi-related materials for the offices it serviced,70 The division also provided privacy communications support’ for senior staff officers, managed highly restricted SCi Delered per 5 0.5.0. $$2¢b) (2) ant
programs, and supported a variety of Special Access Programs at HQ USAF. The Special Security Office (SSO) inspected (with augmentees from AFIS/INSB, INSC) the sensitive compartmented 4nformation facilities (SCIFs} within the National Capital Region and investigated SCI security violations and possible compromises. The division conducted ali SCI tndoctrinations and debriefings for OSAF, HQ USAF, AFIS, and other selected activities. If also reviewed and validated a1] requests for SCI products received from Air Force units within the National Capital Region.51 Security Education During the year, much activity within INSD concerned security education. SCI Security Management Course Four times during the year, im March, May, duly, and November, NSD sponsored its four-day SCI Security Management course. Approximately 105 persons attended. The AFIS O02 course was included in AFM 50-5, USAF Formal Schools Catalog; the Air Training Command assigned code OP2 to it. The course was first offered in 1983 and was designed for those filling duty positions as an ASSO special security officer, secure vault custodian, or automatic switching center representative or as a staff member in these offices. Contractor special security officers under the ACS/I's sponsorship were also invited, >¢ Some of the topics discussed in the course were the following: physical security accrediatation, SCI communications, SCI billet management, security incidents, personnel security, counter-intelligence, and ADP security. SCI Security Manager's Conference & The Special Security Education and Training @ranch {INSOE) managed the second Air Force-wide SCI Security Manager‘s Conference, 5-8 November. The four-day conference afforded SCI security management personnel an opportunity to discuss and review key SCI security policy issues which would assist AFIS/INS Yn its final preparation of USAFINTEL 201-X directives. Forty-nine field spacial security officers and other SCI security management personsel attended the conference, which was held at the Analytical Services (ANSER) Corporation, Arlington, Virginia. o¢ Some of the topics discussed at the meeting were Defense Intelligence Agency product dissemination; USAF SCI indoctrination and education program; and personnel security. Some of the speakers were from the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation.
DAG Hessages = INSD was responsible for disseminating Defense Address Groups (DAG) INS originated messages within the Air Staff and AFIS, AG ODANS was the primary DAG used to disseminate SI policy guidance. DAG CILAH was the DAG used to disseminate TK policy guidance. DAG OSSIZ was limited to disseminating major SCI policy and information to Air Force major commands and separate operating agencies when wider dissemination to subordinate SCI security offices was not considered prudent. DAG JUGBY was used: for disseminating changes to the HQ USAF SCI Consolidated Product Catalog. DAG ROXAD was the primary DAG used for SCI security education and awareness and for providing information on existing SCE policy. In 1984, the following numbers of messages were issued: 51 ODANS, 7 OILAN, 12 OSSIZ, 19 JUGBY, and 94 ROXAD.97 Participation in DIA Security Program = * ae Special Security Education and Training Branch {INSO! managed Air Force participation in the Defense Intelligence Agency's $S0/TCO Security Enhancement Program. Ten . Air Force mambers attended the program 22-26 October 1984. The program was not planned as a preliminary orientation, but instead was for increasing and expanding the knowledge and expertise of individuals already performing SSO/TCO duties. The session was for security managers, not inteiligence users, Further, it was intended that the session provide an opportuaity for the attendees to obtain answers to questions which wobld assist in the solution of specific problems related to their commands.2? Major topics in the program included SCI security management and sanitization; physical, computer, telephone, and TEMPEST security; electronic and physical security threats; locking and intrusion alarm devices; SCI document control and dissemination; and conmmunications.©| Participation in DC] SECOM Activities AFIS/INSD represented the Air Force on the DCI Security Committee's (SECOM) Security Awareness and Education Subcommittee. The major input from INSO to the committee were 1.) the listing of the INS directorate’s audiovisual products for incluston in the subcommittee's “Catalog of Security Awareness Materials" and 2.) support for the Security Education Seminar 01 peteted per 5 0.8.0. $52(d} (1) 15:
Ss a Through INSDE, the Air Force participated in the Security Educators Seminar sponsored by the Security Committee of the Director of Central Intelligence. fight Air Force personnel were nominated to attend, The seminar was conducted at the collateral SECRET level and was designed for government employees who had security education responsibilities. The goals of the seminar were to improve the attendee's knowledge on relevant security subjects; improve communication and briefing skills, and provide the understanding and materials necessary to maintain a strong security education program, The seminar was held at‘ the Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland, 62 Support for CORONA Conferences Quring the year, the AFIS/INSD participated in two worldwide Air Force Commanders’ Conferences ({CORONAS): CORONA SOUTH at Homestead AFB, Florida, 13-19 February 1984 and CORONA FALL at the Air Force Academy, 1-6 October 1984. intelligence communications and privacy traffic support was provided to ati CORONA conferees 63 CORONA SOUTH HE/CVS tasked AF/IN to provide Special Security Office {SS0) support for CORONA SQUTH os 8 December 1983.  AFIS/INS provided two commissioned officers and one senior NCO communicator te support the conference. in preparation, INS coordinated with BIA, NSA, COMNAYSECGRU, ESC, AFCO, AF/CVS, SS0s worldwide, and the USAF Conference Center at Homestead AFB. On 2 February, AEIS/INSDS advised SS0s, executive officers, and telecommunication center OICs that SCI support would be provided general officers. Instructions for communicating with AFSSO CORONA were provided. On 9 February, SSO OIA was provided with special instructions for forwarding high precedence privacy traffic intended for the chief of staff of the Air Force. Similar expagded guidance was provided to SSO HQ USAF personnel. On 9 february, the BIA Lebanon Intelligence Task Force was requested to add AFS5O CORONA to their electrical distribution, SHAPE, EUCOM, and USAFE were also requested to include AFSSG CORCNA to their Lebanon retated messages. Petered per $ ULS.C. $52 (b> (4)
| teenie a eel CORONA FALL The Special Security Office, HQ USAF (AFIS/INSD} deployed four individuals to Colorado Springs to support CORONA FALL 84. The team departed 1 October via military airlift, 7-39, On-site coordination was accomplished on 30 October and continued until departure for Washington, B.C. on 6 October.66 No major problems were experienced, There were, however, some “lessons learned,” which were as foltows:67 1. Oeparture for the conference site two days in advance of the general officers was essential for arranging necessary support. 2. A four person $50 team was essential due to the long hours required of the team (0230-1900 hrs) and the extensive driving distance between the Air Force Academy and NORAD Cheyene Mountain Complex, twenty-five miles away ~- one hundred miles to complete the courtier circuit. 3. Two staff cars were essential for team logistics and a@ mobile hand-held radio. 4. Pick-up of non-duty hour GENSER traffic through the AFR Telecommunications Center (TCC) was tasked to the SSO teax. The TCC and CORONA FALL command post called the $50 numerous times between 1700-0800 hrs on immediate traffic for conferees, Several of these messages had “Deliver During Duty Hour” instructions. Others were readdressals (monthly EuUCOM} that were not urgent. No TYMEDIATE precedence message required non-duty hour delivery, Comnunications and Privacy Support The AFIS/INSD provided SCI communications and privacy DSSCS message support for the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and other high level USAF officials during their official travel outside of the Washington, D.C. area. Secretary Verne Orr traveled throughout the Pacific area, and General Gabriel made three trips to 1.) Germany, Spain, and France, 2.} Central and South America, and 3.) the Pacific theater, The SSO HQ USAF contacted numerous SS0s worldwide to arrange for the communications support,65 deleted pet 5 U.5.6- 552(b) (2) an wn
156 Support for USAF $10 Conference For the USAF Sentor Intelligence Officers’ ($10} Conference at Homestead AF8, Florida, 4-9 March 1984, the AFIS/INSL provided support for the transmittal of intelligence communications and privacy traffic through a temporary DSSCS Tet established for the conference.69 The INSD issued clear instructions to various command SS0s and telecommunications centers about sending messages to preclude delays: Request ail “personne? for* privacy messages have clear delivery instructions {e.g., Deliver lomediately-Interrupt Conference, Deliver at First Convenient Opportunity}. Unless otherwise stated in the delivery instructions, al}! messages received wilt be delivered in the morning at the beginning of the conference and at the end of the day after the Tast presentation, if a response is required, to your message, $o indicate to preclude any confusion. Termination of MREMADIS Qn the recommendation of the AFIS Directorate of Intelligence Data Management (IND), the INS directorate terminated ali actions on the development of Micro-Based Requirements Management Vistribution System {MREMADIS}. The action occurred because MREMADIS had 2 Jimited scope in improving overall S50 message processing; required unique custom-made software pnly applicable to the AFSSO USAF; and would easily become outdated. /2 In its place, AFIS/IND recommended that AFIS procure a commercially available system from XEROX, known as the XEROX Message Processor {XHP}. Personne? from INS observed the XP at the Department of State and Defense Intelligence Agency. The advantages of XMP were that it was commerically avaflable, 100 systems previously installed; existing data base could easily be modified for DSSCS use; TEMPEST accreditable as a DSSCS terminal; and reduced message delivery times. Action was initiated to participate in an existing AFCC contract with XEROX to procure a XP system for AFIS/INSU. Funds ($650,000) were obligated and a contract to procure the AFIS/INSD XMP System was in final contract stages at the end of 1964, Installation of, the XMP System was expected during the 2nd/3rd quarter of Fvigas.73 Roteted per 5 U.S.C. $$2(b} (1)
Automated SCi Docunient Control Ouring the year, initial action was begun to establish a requirement for an automated system to support INSO's SCI decument control responsibilities. This was crucial because the new Air Force Information Systems (AF/SI) mandated that punch cards were to be eliminated from the Air Force. Personnel from the INSD examined the use of an automated system within SAF/SS, the Hewlett-Packard 1000, and concluded that it would meet INSD's needs. An estimated $80,000 was required to procure the hardware for the system. The software was owned by the government, available from SAF/SS. The option of obtaining maintenance from SAF/SS on a cost reisbursable basis was being considered./4 Statistical Summary A statistical summary of the operations of AFIS/INSO follows:7> Incoming Messages Processed: 253,210 Total Message Reproduction Count: 2,646,420 Total Reproduction Count: 2,713,034 Outgoing Messages Processed: 14,612 Number of Courier Actions {Air Staff}: ‘ 17,622 fiumber of Courter Cards Issued/Canceltled: 290/135 incoming Kardcopy Documents Received: 38,236 Outgoing Hardcopy Documents Dispatched: 43,074 Number/weight ARFCOS Packages Received: 580/3,083 Number/Weight ARFCOS Packages Dispatched: 958/4,198 Number Sessions/Persons indoctrinated: 187/1,310 Number of Desk-Top Briefings: 404 Number of Persons Gebriefed: * 445 Number of SCI] Security Manager Courses/Persons: 5/152 Number of SCI Requirements Validated/Cancelled: 615/957 Number of CONCAT Changes Issued: 27 Number of SCI] Releases to Contractor Validation Actions: 46 tiumber of Entries Into REMADIS Data Base: 663 Number of GAMMA Requests Received/Approved: §37/526 Number of Security Violations Investigated: 25 157
158 DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE RESERVE FORCES KISSIN cad The Directorate of Intelligence Reserve Forces (RE) giraffes the Air Force Intelligence Reserve (AFIR) Program and ceveloped a combat ready reserve force to support active force intelligence operations during peacetime contin encies or wartime mobilization. It managed the individual mobilization augmentee (IMA) positions, which were established by major commands and agencies, validated by the Air Staff, and transferred to the Air Force Intelligence Service {AFIS} for centralized contro}. ORGANIZATION During the year, there were 10 changes in the organizational structure of the directorate. The Administration Management Office (REA) continued to provide typing support for the entire directorate and managed travel orders, correspondence, classified material, distribution, equipment, and supplies. The Operations and Readiness Diviston {REO} was divided into the Readiness Branch (REGR) and the Operations 8ranch (RE00}. A Training Section (REORT) existed within the Readiness Branch. The Yersonnel Management Division was divided inta the Manning Branch (REPM), Security Granch (REPS), and Quality Force Branch (8! PQ).2 The Board of Advisors continued as a committee comprised of senior members who had served as area directors, commanders of detached training sites, or in key enlisted positions. The members individually and collectively advised the directorate commander on policies and other areas of importance to the AFIR program. They were tasked by and reported to the commander. The Retired Reserve Representative {RRR} Program continued as an unofficial voluntary group of retired former AFIR members who were requested to continue supporting the AFIR program by acting in _ areas of public relations, recruiting, and information. They were provided current program handouts and rosters and were invited to participate in events convenient to their attendance, such as area workshop reorganization dinners. Their activity was voluntary and coordinated through the director. PERSONNEL & Effective 16 danuary 1984, the commander of the RE directorate, Col, John x. Gberst, was transferred to the POW/MIA Affairs Oivision of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Lt. fol. dames A. Warner, who was head of the Gperations and Readiness
Division, was appointed the new director, until June 1984 when Col. Donald W. Swain assumed command responsibility. Colone? Swain had been the commander of the 3400th Technical Training Wing at Lowry AFB, Colorado. Lt. Col. warner retired from the Air Force in October 1984. In December, Lt. Col. Charies 8. Doyle replaced Warner as chief of the Operations and Readiness Division. Lt. Col, James 4. Blauch, the chief of the Personne] Management Division, was transferred to the Defense Intelligence Agency in Setaber 1984, to ba replaced by Capt. Mark R. Bayer that. ‘same month. : As of 1 October, the mobilization assistant {MA} to the- AcS/M was Brig. Gen. Arthur W. Green, Jr., USAFR, The MA to the DACS/1 was Col. dacques P. Kiein, USAFR, The reserve forces advisor te the ACS/I was Col. Edwin Sapp. Directorate Manning Strength As of 31 Oecember 1984, the directorate’s manpower strength was the following: NO. AUTHORIZED NO. ASSIGNED PERCENT OFFICERS 9 a, 78% ENLISTED oe 18 95% CIVILIANS 4 4 100% TOTAL 32 23 91k EMA MARPOWER STATISTICS As of 1 October 1984, there were 1,911 authorized positions for individual mobilization augmentees (IMAs) -- reserve personne} -+ and 1,311 IMAS were assigned. Thus, 69 percent of the authorized positions were filled. the manpower and personnel manning statistics by command are as follows 8 OFFICER EXLEISTED COMMAND = PSH ASG PSN SEN AAT 16 6 100 1 Q ie FUSAFE 133 107 89 139 a2 30 SPACECOM 16 16 109 8 Q fa} Includes EvCOM, EUDAC, NATO 17
f20 OFFICER ENLISTED COMMARD PS ASCH =X PSH ASG AFIS/AFSAC 115 87 81 a4 42 50 AFLC 28 13 46 2 i 50 DIA 226 179 73 6i 38 62 MAC 198 180 91 48 18 38 **PACAF 180 145 81 268 107 40 SAC 83 73 88 83 46 55 AF/IN 46 a4 96 3 2 67 TAC 29 23° 100 22 7 77 DAL 75 68 91 CENTCOM 14 ? 50 6 3 50 ICELAND DEF 2 i 50 REDCOM 3 2 67 2 ~¢ 100 SOUTHCOR ? 7 100 8 6 7S USCARIB 2 2 100 3 i 33 LANTCOH g 7 73 7 i 14 AZORES 3 2 _2 wi ° Wi Wo TOTAL 1163 gaz BA 748 329 44 **Includes PACON AFSC Officer Manning Statistics The Air Force Specialty Codey (AFSCs} with the highest number of officers were the following: AFSC TETLE POSITIONS ASSIGNED PERCENTAGE* 8075 Intelligence Applications Officer 458 435 87% 8016 Intelligence Systems Staff Officer 157 130 83% 8085 Intelligence Targeting Officer 98 72 76% 8045 Imagery Intelligence Officer 1h 62 61x
8035 2275¥ 2895 *The THTLE POSITIONS ASSIGNED PERCENTAGE* Human Resources Intel}i- gence Officer Air Attache Intelligence Sirector Signals intelligence Officer Air Ops Officer, Nav, EW Project Engineer 84 56 Giz 56 30 54% 34 26 76% 26 26 77% 15 14 93% i4 13 93% percentage is the number of IMAs comparison with the total number of IMAs assigned. AFSC Enlisted Manning Statistics AFSC 20170 70270 20370 20150 20670 20199 20600 23171 20650 702508 *The percentage {s the number of The Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs eumber of enlisted personne! were the following: assigned by AFSC in } With the highest TITLE POSITIONS ASSIGNED PERCENTAGE* Intelligence Operations Technician Agministration/Technician Linguist/Interrogater Tech Entelligence Ops Spec Imagery Interpreter Tech intelligence Ops & Targeting Supt intelligence Ops & Exploitation gr Graphics Technician Imagery Interpreter Spec Staff Supt Admin Spec 219 §2 23% 61 62 102% 84 33 39% 53 2 55% 4a" 16 36% 16 16 100% 13 10 72% 9 9 100% 28 9 32% 32 8 25% IMAs assigned by AFSC in comparison with the total number of IMAs assigned. 161
162 FLIGHTS ESTABLISHED AND DEACTIVATED eS Detached training sites {D1Ss} and remote flights (Fits) were established by the commander of the directorate, after a site survey determined thet a valid training opportunity existed with a host base in an area where sufficient numbers of AFIR reservists lived in a common geographicat tecation. In 1984, two new remote flights were established. There were no new DISs. Flight 27A.was established at Seymour-dohnson AFB, North Carolina, on 1 May 1984; it supported the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing. Flight SA” was established at Camp Smith, Hawaii, on 1 February 1984, in support of PAC. Due to a loss of personne}, Flight 23A at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, was deactivated. * had supported the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing. INTELLIGENCE RESERVE DETACHED TRAINING SITES BY AD AREA INTELLIGENCE AESERVE DETACHED TRAININE SITES 8Y AD AREA ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF IARF PERSONNEL @ The RE directorate's Air force Intelligence Reserve {AFIR} program was one of five programs in the Intelligence Air Reserve Forces (IARF} assesssed by commands and separate operating agencies in 1984. There were over 3,000 IARF personnel, of which approximately 40 percent were in the AFIR program. In the
aggregate, the assessments attested to effective peacetime employment of IARF personnel. A few problems were also noted. & predominant complaint was an insufficiency of funded mandays for peacetime support. Other items of concern were loss of field grade assignees due to promotion out of position, need for compartmented clearances, and overseas limitations on return tours, permitting reservist travel only once in each three years.* Colonel Edwin G. Sapp, the reserve forces advisor to the ACS/T, analyzed the assessments and responded to the highlighted problems. With the funding for the IARF IMA programs, there were eleven progran element codes, four panets within the Air Staff board structure, and several program ejement monitors and package monitors involved, so the problem's solution was complex. He and Air Force Reserve budget personnel were working the problem, The issue of the loss of field grade assignees was being studied for submitting supplemental responses to the 1984 Wartime Manpower Planning Exercise. With the access issue, the comnands were told that if they had a compelling wartime need for one or more of their IARF personne! to have compartmented access, they should detail the requirement and send it to Colonel Sapp for resolution. Cost reductions were causing the restrictions on overseas travel, and some relief was provided by special. tour actions. In December, the RE directorate was study ing the problem to see how the limitations were reducing readiness.24 USC 678 Positions Positions Approved In December, the deputy to the chief of the Air Force Reserve and the deputy assistant secretary for Reserve Affairs approved the RE directorate’s request to convert existing active duty positions within the directorate to USC 678 positions. The positions were in the following grades and AFSCs: major, 8016 and 7324; captain 8924 and 8054; master sergeant, 73270; technical sergeant, 70270; and technical sergeant, 73270.14 Background In accordance with AFR 26-1, statutory tour authorizations were established to account for members of the Air National Guard of the United States (AHGUS} and United States Air Force Reserve {USAFR} voluntarily serving on extended active duty or active duty {other than for training), for a specified time, usually over 360 days. Pay and allowances for officers and airmen serving on statutory tours of active duty were justified and funded through reserve component personnel appropriations. The basic authority under which ANGUS or USAFR members were Oo
164 yoluntarily ordered to active duty for any purpose was 10 United States Code (USC) 672d. The specific statutery tour authorization for the AFIS/RE positions was 10 U.S.C, 678.15 The basic rationale for 10 U.S.C. 678 positions in the RE directorate was to acquire a better -active Syty and reserve staff mix. According to Majer Parkinson, AFIS/REP: 6 Experience has demonstrated that reserve forces are most effectively managed by a total force team mix of regular — and reserve personnel. Reservists particularly complement staff integration. They are knowledgeable of the reserve force structure, regulations dealing with reserve personnel, unique program requirements, and personnel problems associated with being a reservist. They help tailor reserve programs to meet active force readiness and production requirements, while aise considering the reservist's point of view. They often relate better to feltow reservists in the field who perceive that these individuals understand their problems and represent their interests. An additional advantage is that reservists who serve statutory tours acquire first-hand knowledge of, amd experience in, reserve force administration, When they, complete their tours and revert to reserve status, they contribute effectively ta field operations of reserve organizations. OPERATIONS Annual and Soecial Tours baad During the year, the RE directorate scheduled over 2,400 annual and special tours. The 21,700 man-days committed to these tours equated to approxtmately 60 man-years of active force support and training, Statistics on the support provided to each M-Day command during 1984 are as follows: ANNUAL RPA® HPAe* TOURS MAN-DAYS TOURS MAN-DAYS TOURS MAN-DAYS AAC 8 96 2 86 1 61 ADCOM 2 24 AFIS 166 1919 563 1618 14 248 AFLC 23 276 19 133 10 113 AFRES t 42 i 2 AFSC 8 96 43 8g ATC 7 206 6 42 1 30 US CENTCOM 1 12 1 12 3 13 DIA 309 3710 186 785 76 603
ANNUAL APA* wate TOURS HAN-DAYS TOURS MAN-DAYS © TQURS MAN-DAYS o00 3 6 US LANCOM 5 60 i 12 Mac 151 1832 98 679 9 109 PACAF 101 1243 63 1838 3 50 US REDCOK 5 60 2 57 SAC 110 1310 39 255 5 69 SPACECHD 20 240 1 2 US SOUTHCOM 7 86 7 58 TAC 82 977 78 433 3 134 USAF 54 650 23 280 } 1 USAFE 83 1047 14 168 2 136 OTHERS 3 36 16 a4 4 136 TOT. 1,253 13,962 1,157 6,206 133 1,699 TOTAL TOURS 2,433 TOTAL MAN-DAYS 21,831 *RPA: Man-days funded from reserve personnel appropriations which paid reservists while in training status or while providing training support. PA: Man-days funded from active force military personne] appropriations which pay reservists on temporary tours of active duty in support of a critics}, temporary active force mission requirement. Allocation and Reduction of Man-Days At the end of fiscal year 1984,0n 1 Gctober 1984, the RE directorate had not achieved a 100 percent utilization of its fiscal year KPA man-days. Only 88.7 percent of the man-days were utilized, with over 6,000 man-days unused. This occurred because the training opportunities with the major commands and special operating agencies, which were forecast in FY82 for FY84, did not materialize. Since there were no training opportunities available which directly related to assigned wartime skilis, RPA man-days were not obligated, resu ting in less than 100 percent utilization. Therefore the Air Reserve Personne) Center (ARPC) “reclaimed” come RPA man-days from the RE directorate’s fiscal year 1985 allocations. The two allocations were as fotlows:18 165
{06 TOUR_CATEGORY CODES ist ALLOCATION 2nd ALLOCATION {TC} @FICER AERHAN OFFICER AIRMAN 38 245 130-233 (-32} 44 {+86} 46 4,858 1,748 4,740 eal 1,473 ee BE 5,203 1,878 4,953 (+156) 1,517 °(-361 The RE program was not seriously affected by the reduction, because it had previously requested an additional allocation of 400 officer man-days. This additional allocation compensated for the initial FY85 man~day reduction. The final fiscal year 1985 RPA and MPA maneday allocations were as follows: 19 RRA wa OFFICER AIRMAN OFFECER ENLISTED Requested 16,99% 10,576 10,023 4,730 Received §,103 1,878 2,000 490 Final allocation 4,953 1,91? 2,800 409 Geployment to Panama ‘ . From 15 November 1984 to 14 December 1984, Lt. Marco G. Parlato and CHSgt Efrain Lozane, Jr. deployed to Panama to work on a document exploitation project with the Army's 470th Military Intelligence Group. They worked in civilian clothing, translated documents, and produced intelligence information reports.* TRAINIRG Course Cancellations and Cutbacks The directorate training progam recelved a jolt during the year when the Air Training Comnand (ATC) cancelled several Air Intelligence Processes {AIP} courses, because of a flack of instructors. Instead of three courses, AIP I, HI, IIi, each being offered six times a year, each course was offered only three times a year, and the enroliment quota for each was reduced. Then AP and AIP i] were further reduced to only two offerings a year. The cancellations dismayed several reserve officers who had to meet upgrade time requirements within AFSC 8071, the entry level field for intelligence application officers. The ATC reduction of attendance quotes affected reservists scheduled to attend later *For a datailed discussion of the deployment to Panama see the chapter in this history on the Air Force Special Activities Center,
classes. Wonetheless, the RE directorate was able to process school applications and fi} a1? quotas for the later classes, and in several cases requested additional quotas.20 Curriculum Revised for AFSC 8075 As a result of the realignment of officer intelligence AFSCS" in 1983, the RE directorate had to revise Air Intelligence Process {AIP} I, 1, and III to accurately reflect the change in the 8075 career field, intelligence applications officers. Each of the AIPs was a two-weex course taken by the Air Force Reserves and the Air National Guard to qualify intelligence officers and NCGs in the 8075 career field. Mr. Ralph Whitebergh, the.chief of the RE directorate’s Readiness Branch, ind Capt. Richard C. Ourand drafted proposed changes to the AlPs. In late March 1984, Captain Ourand met with members of the Armed Forces Air Intelligence Training Course {AFAITC) at Lowry AFB, Colorado, and presented the AFIS/RE proposals. The AFAITC accepted the draft proposals, with minor changes. In August, the National Guard Bureau and AF/REP reviewed the proposals and approved them. The new AIP I, II, and Ili were scheduled to go into effect in early 1985.21 HUMINT Traiaing BTS 10 Evaluation Responsibilities The RE directorate designated the HUMINT flight of Oetacned Training Site {BTS} 16, March AFB, California, as the evaluator of OTS HUMINT training, which included the use of interrogation approaches, questioning techniques, and intelligence reporting. Maj. Kenneth £. Munson commanded the Flight. He performed a two-week active duty tour with AFIS/REOR in guly to familiarize himself with evaluation concepts and precedures.¢é OTS management and evaluation, of OTS HUMINT training became effective 1 Gctober 1984. Since then BTS 10 formalized the evaluation process by developing a comprehensive guide for OTS use. The directorate sent the guide to other OTSs and flights. Oversight responsibility for HUMINT training at OTSs wes considered a necessary adjunct to formal training since it reinforced knowledge gained in the AFIR basic and advanced interrogation courses.2 Revised Interrogation Training Gn 8-9 September 1984, Oetached Training Site 3 at Castle AFB, California, implemented a new HUMINT training concept, which focused on each segment of the HUMINT exploitation process. Personnel from seven Pacific Area DTSs participated in the training: BTSs 3, 10, 20, 24, 31, 46, and 49, OTSs 3, 10, and 44 167
jés assumed principal responsibilities for academic training and practical exercises. @ DTSs 3, 10, and 44 also planned and organized the source screening/ assessment exercise. Previous DTS HUMINT exercises had covered the entire HUMINT process ranging from source Screening to termination and reporting. This was the first time that an exercise was devoted entirely to exploring one segment of the process.2 The scenario was NATO-WARSAW Pact oriented. Two organizational elements functioned throughout the exercise, the control team and the interrogation center. The control team presented and discussed the following topics: 1, Purpose, significance, and principles of source screening/ assessment 2. Examination and evaluation of avatlable data, Such aS capture tag, personal items, and identification documents 3. Visuel observations of sources in detention and behavioral indicators 1 4. Source contro? factors and the importance of recognizing undeniable knowledge that the source possesses S. Looking for body language and reading indicators during screening and interrogation 6. Proxemics, which is that space, large or suall, which everyone neads, to be used to advantage by interrogators + Eight source screening/assessment exercises were performed, and knowledgeability briefs were produced. Interragators used approaches — and questioning techniques, previousty learned at the AFIS/RE Basic and Advanced Interrogation courses and fron repeated practices at the OTSs.¢ Mr, Whitebergh, the chief of the RE directorate’s Readiness Branch, and the exercise control team evaluated the entire exercise, Whitebergh concluded the following: “The Source Screening/Assessment exercise proved an unqualiffed success. Principal credit goes to OYS 3, 10, and 44 for sound planning and preparation. We found that the new HUMINT training concept will provide a thorough understanding of each segment of the HUMINT exploitation process thereby increasing and reinforcing individual skill proficiency. follow-on exercises are being planned.”
"Total Force" Attendance at AIC and BIC ad In July at the Armed Forces Reserve Training Center, Los Alamitos, California, the AFI Advanced Interrogation Course (AIC) was conducted, The attendees represented the “total force.” Four active duty personnel from the Air Force Special Activities Center and two from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations attended. Both organizations indicated that they wanted to send more active duty personnel to the AIC. Not to be outdone, the Army decided to send ten interrogators to the 1985 AIC, On the other fand, the Navy expressed an interest in sending reserve officers to the AFIR Basic Interrogation Course. The RE directorate allocated ten quotas to the Navy for the 1985 Bic, also conducted at Los Alamitos, California. The BIC was not offered in 1984. The low number of responses for BIC attendance did not warrant the time and expenditure for the course's preparation. Advanced Interrasation Seminar By December 1984, an advanced or post graduate interrogation seminar, jointly developed by AFIS/REOR and OTS 47, was nearing completion. The seminar featured sophisticated methodology selected from the special interrogation course of the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Tel Aviv. Originally envisioned as a five-day program, the seminar was reduced to two days, limtting content to only new material. It was programmed as a "road show" for advanced HUMINT reservists. A test program was tentatively scheduled for April 1985.30 Foreign Language Training Total Immersion Training 4 A workshop held 26-28 October 1984 at the Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, California, marked the fourth year of total immersion foreign language training. A pre-workshop analysis of total iemersion activities in fiscal year 84 revealed improved language test scores, timely emphasis on pre-planned area study-related topics, motivation, advancement in military terminology and its application to interviewing ang interrogetion, and various innovations in teaching techniques. Having gained an additional year of experience, team leaders were ready to formalize afd standardize total immersion training. The team leader working groups produced data which was to be incorporated in a "Team Leaders Guide. “#1 169
{70 AFIR FLP as Model The ou. S. Army FORSCOM invited Mr. Whitebergh, AFIS/REOR, to be a guest speaker at the Army Reserve Component Language Training Conference, held at the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California, 1-3 May 1984. Sponsored jo ntly by FORSCOM and OLI, the conference was intended to formulate an action plan for training thousands of Army Individual Ready Reserves {IRR} and members of reserve units. It appeared that the Army was under congressional and OOD pressure to implement a viable foreign language training program. To assist in this endeavor, representatives from the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and efense Intelligence College were in attendance. Mr. Whitebergh’s presentation on the AFIR Foreign Language Program (FLP} generated interest in the concept and methods being used, The key features of the AFIR FLP, total immersion and tutorial training, emerged in recommendations of workshop groups. Moreover, the Army was considering the establishment of military intelligence reserve units similar to AFIR total immersion language teams 3¢ HAP Reserye Annex In February, Mr. Whitebergh of the Readiness Branch submitted information for the reserve annex of the Air Force HUMINT Architecture Plan (rAP}. HAP was one of the major components, along with IMINT and SIGINT sections, of the Air Force Intelligence Plan. it stated requirements for intelligence Support from the perspectives of the major commands, capabilities fron the perspectives of functional managers, and shortfalls and associated guidance.23 GD Sone of the information provided was as follows :34 Question: “Is each MA billet that requires a specific language qualification documented in the applicable Unit Manning Document?" What percentage of HAs in these billets are language qualified?" Answers: "Our M-Day gaining commands/agencies (except BIA) do not tte Tinguistic requirements in OPLANS, by language, without ran: consideration. This method facilitates recruiting and manning. Although most command dedicated fil} HUMINT positions in AFSCs 8025 and 203X%, some Tinguists have support AFSCs such as 8075, 8016, 201XX, etc. Seventy-one percent of reserve linguists filling command requirements are qualified at the 3-5 levels.* Questions: “How and how often are MA’s language credentials evaluated?”
Answers: “The Oefense Language Proficiency Test {DLPT) plus a telephone test in the spoken language are administered at least every three years. Combined test results provide a precise and reliable measurement of capabilities and progress." MOBILIZATION AND READINESS Exercise PALACE READY & Air Force Exercise PALACE READY 84 was conducted during the period of 23 duly ~ 17 August 84, The purpose of the exercise was to test the use of the Automated Personne! Data System (APDS) in calling up and mobilizing reservists during progressive levels of conflict. The &€ directorate had not transmitted mobilization data over the APUS since the Exercise PROUD SABER 83 (at which time the computer system went dawn}. PALACE READY 84 proved a useful retearning experience. In addition, RE initiated a test of world-wide alert notification system on 23 July 1984 at 1000 hrs. Within 43 hours, a contact rate of 93.5 percent {1240/1346} was achieved. Considering the alert notification system was exercised during the peak vacation period, the RE directorate thought that the contact rate achieved was surprisingly high. Exercise POWDER RIVER GCS Exercise POWDER RIVER 84 was held from 15 Setober - 26 October 1984. Gn its own initiative, AFIS/RE devised aa exercise to test the procedures which reservists assigned to APIS or individual mobilization augmentees (IMAs} would utilize if they were called up/mobilized. Four bases in California were chosen where AFIS/RE detached training sites were collocated. The chosen base and the respective O7Ss were: Seale AFB, OTS 20, Castle AFB, DTS 3, McClellan AFB, OTS 29, and Trayis AFB, DTS 4,36 The test involved two IMAs on each base. One IMA had written orders and the other was told to report on verbal orders of the commander (VOCO}, At 0800 Ars on 15 Gctober the eight IMAs reported to their respective base CBPOs for in-processing. This phase of the exercise assumed the loca} base was the -Oay assignment for each IMA. After completing the C3PO phase, the eight IMis reported to the base transportation management officer {THU), The second part of the exercise assumea the IMAs’ M-Day assignment was somewhere in PACAF, The results of the test were mixed. The CBOs had no trouble in-processing IMAs, The CBPOs did not worry about whether the IMA had written orders or were on yOCO. The IMOs did treat the IMAs differently. An IMA with written orders received help while the IM4 on ¥OCO received none. The RE directorate’s Readiness Branch was to discuss this dilemma at the IMA Qperational Management Group Workshop. Tt was 17
important for all AFIS Its to be helped by base TMOs when travelling on VOCG orders. All AFIS IMAs were instructed to be prepared to begin travel to their M-Day assignments within twenty- four hours of notification. Most, if not a3], of these IMAs travelied on ¥OCO. A solution to this problem myst be found, but at the end of Uecember, the problem was unsolved.3 Exercise ULCHI FOCUS LENS Fifteen reservists participated in Exercise ULCHI FOCUS LENS, command post exercise sponsored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United Nations Command, the Republic of Kerea (ROK), and the ROK/US Combined forces Command ({(FC). The reservists augmented active duty personnel in administration, the Air Force Special Security Office, the CFC scripting cell, and other elements in the Air Component Commend's Intelligence Directorate. They were also in combat intelligence and exercise scenario controllers 38 MOA with ARPC In an effort to clearly define the separate responsibilities of the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) and the RE directorate for handling intelligence Category 3@ reservists, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) was drafted and circulated through AFIS/RE. The agreement was necessary because AFR 35-41, Volume I}, “Reserve Personne? Potictes and Procedures, Reserve Training,” did not delineate the specific responsibilities of the single manager of category 8 reservists, thus no document existed which dafined the role of AFIS/RE in revation to the function of ARPC. In December, the directorate sent the draft MOA to ARPC/XP for review and comment. In 1985, the MOA was expected to be finalized and signed by the ARPC and AFIS comaanders.? Inteitigence Support Projects * The Readiness Branch's OTS Projects Section monitored over locally and remotely tasked OTS intelligence projects in support of 30 major commands, special operating agencies, the Air National Guard, the Navy, and joint comands. Through the projects, the reservists received proficiency training and the active force and reserve force users received intelligence support. Some of the projects were the following: Nicaragua Country Brief, DTS 1, McGuire AFB, for 2ist Air Force; Advanced X- Ray Astorphysics Studies, DTS 4, Lowry AFB, for Foreign Technology Bivision; Heapon System Reference Aids, OTS 5, McChord AFB, for 62d Military Airlift Wing; Soviet telepracessing analysis, OTS 7, MacDill AFB, for Foreign Technology Division; Brazilian Nuclear Bevelopment, DTS 8, Glenview NAS, for Defense Intelligence Agency;
Enemy Threat to Selected PACAF Air Bases, OTS 9, Hickam AFB, for Pacific Air Forces. The RE directorate managed the OTS projects through the training weekend reports submitted by each DTS. The report data included project numbers, descriptions, tasking organizations, estimated completion dates, and time reservists devoted to them. The data was compared with previousty submitted data and was analyzed in terms of viability of training value and on-going status, Area directors and directorate staff also managed the projects through staff assistance visits. Users assessed projects by submitting evaluation reports.4 WORKSHOPS Two joint and three area director - OTS commanders workshops were held during the year. These workshops, chaired by the respective area directors, provided a forum for DTS commanders to review areas of management, operations, and personnel with an sbjective to further refine and improve the existing Air Force Intelligence Keserve Program. The commander and staff of the RE directorate, the mobilization assistant to the ACS/I, and the reserve forces advisor to the ACS/I attended .these workshops. In conjunction with the Enlisted Promotions Selection Soard, an Area Enlisted Advisors {AEA} Workshop was held on 7 August 1984 at Fort Belvoir, Issues Some of the issues discussed at the  doint Southeast/Centrai DIS Commanders Workshop, 23-25 March 1934 at McDill AFB, Florida, were the following:43 ISSUE; Selective Retention Boards ¢« COMMENT: “We all understood the current necessity for selective screening for retention. Most agreed to retaining the unit vacancy option as an incentive for our people. We discussed what we a$ managers can/should do to retain our ood people, * CTION: "“AFIS/RE requested to provide immediate feedback to the area staffs on results of board actions.” ISSUE: Continuation of Travel Problems COMMENT: "The field commanders were asked to document problems and recommendations. ACTION: “BTS/CCs plus AFIS/RE oversight responsibility. “ ISSUE: Reserve Tours at AFIS/RE 17
(74 COMMENT: "AFIS/RE should consider using some of our experienced reserves at Ft. Belvoir for annual tours if MAJCOM AD tours are unavailable. Overseas IMA's are logical candidates.” ACTION: AFIS/RE Le Some of the issues discussed at the Pacific Area Directors/OTS/Commanders Workshop, 2-3 June 1984, were the following:44 ISSUE: “Because M-Lay assignments can be, and often are, changed, is it possible to make a blanket requirement that ail AFIR members be required to take the CBW training?” RESOLUTION: “The regulation states that the training is for individuals assigned to high-threat areas. This item will be recommended for a3} Cat "BY individuals." ISSUE: “Could more data be provided on the select~-out process?" RESOLUTION: "The same process is used as the one at ARPC, Board is comprised of 1/2 active and 1/2 reserve personnel. Ttesthe process-~is done reluctantly." ISSUE: “Space division cuts its own ¢rders. Why was it decided that AFIS cannot?" RESOLUTION: "AFIS has been cutting its own orders for the last 2 years on the MPA side of the house. RPA orders number some 3000 sets annually, requiring a stringent audit trail. ARPC is charged by AF/RE to handle the RPA account.“ ISSUE: Exercise participation often excludes the reservist's presence during the pre-exercise training/orientation, Can this be remedied?” RESOLUTION: “Reservist can help by educating people who are requesting individuals for exercisas.“ The annual Area Oirectors' Workshop took piace at Fort Belyoir on 20-21 October 1984. Participants were the mobilization assistant to the ACS/1, the mobilization assistant to the DACS/I, the RE directorate staff, the seven area directors, and the five members of the Board of Advisors. The workshop was a forum for discussing items of mutual concern among the leaders of the AFIR program, reviewing achievements, and determining management objectives for the forthcoming year. Some of the issues discussed at the Area Directors‘ Workshop were the following: ISSUE: "Organization, charter, and meaningful tasks should be identified for BOA members as well as portraying BOA as
an honorable service organization which should exist for DIS/CCs and ADs who have contributed to AFIR.” RESOLUTION: "BOA is tasked to provide an GI input for BOA organization and tasking in three weeks.” ISSUE; "Duty description in O&R for a particular individual contained more additional duty than IMA duty description." RESOLUTION: “AFIS/RE policy concerning duty descriptions - rater will describe the ratee's individual mobilization augmentee duties. These duties constitute the majority of the description. Additional duties should be mentioned but emphasized to a lesser degree.” ISSUE: “Reservists returning from oversees AU tours can return priority 2 on MAC air flights in order to get back to civilian employment without oenalty.* RESOLUTION: AFR 75-2 outlines entitlement and procedures for requesting a priority 2 return. ISSUE: “IRIS updates are slow and redundant. Should we continue to submit by Tw report? Individgal call in? or annotated reports?“ RESOLUTIUN: “Continue {to send in changes by TW report, individual calling and annotated reports, You can speed our ability to find and update new data in TW reports by highlighting on a roster what changes are effective vs attachiag unmarked roster designated as containing new info.” PERSONNEL SECURITY Buring the year, the Security Branch {REPS} processed 71 special background favestigations (SBIs) and 201 S81 periodic reiavestigations {P&s). The tetal of 272 represented a 33 percent decrease from the previous year due tor the leveling off of the number of periodic reinvestigations required an an increase in the number of individuals entering the AFIR program with current investigations. In addition, approximately 1075 separate actions were initiated for reserve tours requiring sensitive compartmented information (SCI) access.47 The Securtty Branch also recommended changes to AFRs ip- 7, 205-1, and 205-32 to enhance the procedures for processing security clearances for IMAs. As a result of staffing the recomendations at ARPC, changes were approves to these regulations. Their intent was to expedite valid security clearances at the units of attachment and to insure correct investigations were initiated. The regulations previously had not taken into account. the complexities associated with the IMA acctanment narooram.4o 17
i PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Statistics As of 31 December 1984, the RE directorate managed 1,365 reservists: 1,30? assigned and S& attached for training. This represented 71 percent manning of the authorized strength (84 percent officer ard 45 percent enlisted) of 4,931 positions.4 Management Actions One of the major changes during 1984 was the moving of positions from HQ Tac to commands LANTCOM, USCARIB, CENTCOM, ICELAND DEF, &eDCOr, SOUTHCOM and AZORES. Each of these commands now has position sumbers for the RE directorate. Also, the 203X0 AFSC (Linguist/Interrogator} was identified with a Special Outy Identifier of 99606 which was awarded secondary AFSC for the 203X0 career field, SUE 99606 was identified as Linguist/Oebriefer/Interrogator and was awarded to all personnel holding AFSC 203X0. During the year, the directorate had several overages in the grades of lieutenant colone} and major.  Secause of these averages (a first for AFIS/RE), a total of, thirteen lieutenant colonels and fourteen majors were reassigned to HQ ARPC (NHRPS ) Denver, Colorado, or ta other programs. On the enlisted side of the house, the directorate witnessed several overages in career field 702X0 in the grades of master sergeant and above. As a result of this, two personnel were reassigned to ARPC {NNRPS) and twelve individuals were offered secondary utilization in career fields 201X0 {Intelligence Gperations} or 203X0 (Linguist). fs a result of this action, two personnel were maintained as 702X0s and ten individuals applied for secondary utilization in the two other AFSCs.92 The Manning branch (REPM) developed and used 3 new form, somewhat resembling the active duty AF Form $0 and AF Form 392, AFIS asked al} IMAs to complete this form to provide a duty history for future use, DTS transfer requests, AFSC change requests, and M-Day command changes .°3 The Reserve Air Attache Program got a big boost this year with twelve personne! being assigned to attache positions. This was an increase of over 300 percent from 1983.94 Recruiting Recurring advertisements in the Airman and Air Reservist magazines proved to be an effective source in reaching eligible
candidates. Word of mouth from other reservists already in the program was also useful. The detached training sites acting recruiters continued their local advertising initiatives by the use of newspaper” daily bulletins, and other publications. During the year, «iz applications for assignment to the AFIR program were received. By year end, of the 293 applicatfons approved, 44 were currently pending publication of c.ders by Air Reserve Personnel Center or other agencies, and fourteen were pending additional information to accurately request orders. Of the 412 applications, 63 were incomplete and were missing required documents necessary for processing.°9 Quality Force Issues Spectal Actions and Records The Quality Ferce Branch (REPQ) continued to be responsible for all special actions and records maintenance functions for the directorate. it precessed 995 officer effectiveness reports {(GERs} 274 reserve airmen performance reports {APR(R}s} and 1,300 letters of evaluation. Although many GER/APR {R}s received from the OTSs had to be done again or corrected, they were reaccomplished virtually error-free, and resulted in a final acceptance rate of better than 99 percent. @ The AFIS/RE 1984 Outstand‘.g Officer and Enlisted IMA of the Year Screening Soard convened on 30 November and evaluated seven officer and seven enlisted candidates. The officer selectee was Lt. Col. Donald &. Woodman, NCA, and the en isted selectee was TSgt Mary R. Threlkeld, Swa. They were submitted to ARPC for the Outstanding IMA of the Year Board which was to convene 27 January 198s. Capt. grika C. Steytermas, SWA, was the selectee for the Air Force Reserve Uutstanding Junior Gfficer of the Year 1984. She was submitted to USAF/REP for the 1984 Air Force Keserve Outstanding Junior Officer Board which convened st Hg USAF/REP, Washington, Us, 27 December 1984, Tre AFIS/RE RACP Screening Board evaluated eleven reserve enlisted candidates on 13 June, and recommended three to the ARPC/RACP Soard.5 Statistics The Reserve Won-Extended Active Duty (HONEAD) Officer Unit “Vacancy {U¥) and Permanent Mandatory Promotion {Reserve Officer Proniotion Act {ROPA} function experienced @ busy year as indicated in the following promotion statistics:o% 177
ROPA ww ELIGIBLE/SELECTED NOMINATED/SELECTED DATE/GRADE © AFIS/RE AE /RESERVE AFIS/RE AE /RESERVE Oct 84/Col N/A NA N/A Jun B4/ite 65/46(71%) 2/2{100%) 163/94 (58%) Mar 84/Maj $5/49(89%} 988/686 (69%) 3/3{100%) 89/65(73%) Aug 84/Capt 19/19(100%) 399/355 (89%) 7/6 (86%) 24/15 (63%) The Reserve NONEAO Enlisted Promotion Screening Soard met ugust. The following statistics represent the number of personne! considered, recomnended, and promoted as of 31 December:59 GRADE CONS 1DERED/RECOMMENDED PROMOTED AS OF 31 DEC eMSGT 13/6 2 SMSGT 31/16 2 MSGT 38/25 6 TST 31/20 . 7 SSGT 11/11 rea SRA/SGT 0/0 2 TOTAL 124/67 38 L) Ouring the year, reservists were recognized for their accomplishments and support by way of awards and decorations: TYPE OF AWARD AWARDS APPROVED AWARDS DISAPPROVED Legion of Merit 2 ° 0 Meritorious Service Medal 26 5 Air Force Commendation Medal 42 9 Air Force Achievement Medal A4 oO TOTAL 108 5 The Quality Force Branch was also responsible for the daily operation, saintenance, management, and control of the computerized Intelligence Reserve information System (IRIS) and the Officer and Enlisted Personnel Information Files (PIFs) for approximately 1,370 personnel. Considerable time was spent in the development and design of a better, more functional, computerized IRIS system. Approximately 400 hours were logged in maintenance and update of mechanized data pertinent to the IRIS Computer Program. Also, 1,325 scheduled reports were processed in addition to many umscheduled reports. Computer preduct support was
if? provided by USAF Gata Services and the Pentagon for the Abbreviated Master Report, Incumbent Roster, and Security Roster generated from IRIS.61 Deleted per 5 U.S.C. §52¢b3 (8)
80 DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL MISSION & The Ofrectorate of Personnel (DP} provided the AFIS commander with assistance and recommendations on a3] matters that pertained to AF/IN and AFIS military and civilian personnel acquisition and assignment, career development and training, the Air Force Nanpower and Personnel Center, and PALACE SENTINEL, It also monitored Air Force intelligence personnel resources and programs to facilitate harmony of interests and efforts. ORGANIZATION On 6 February 1984, the AFIS Manpower and Organization Bivision approved the directorate's request for an organizational change, which was implemented immediately. The change was to consolidate OP's three divisions: 1) Civilian Personnel, 2) Military Resources, and 3) Career Bevelopment, into two divistons: 1) Civilian Personnel {AFIS/OPC) and 2) Military Personnel {AF IS/DPR), Within the new Military Personnel Division, the former Career Development Division became the Personnel Pragrams Branch (OPRT) . No changes occurred within the Civilian Personnel Division. : There were two reasons for the organizational change: first, the crossover of functions among military education, training, and assignment functions highlighted the need for unifying management below the level of director, and second, the creation of the new position of chief of the Military Personnel Divisfon promised to provide the director with the needed support to work coltone? matters for AF/IN and AFIS and for Air Force intelligence service-wide. Transfer of Position to OPC . The dtrectorate’s organizational change request of February indicated that there would be no change in the Civilfan Personnel] Division (DPC). By summer, however, certain modifications to the division's functional organization were impiemented for purposes of streamlining operations and clarifying roles and responsibilities. In duly a civilian was detailed fram the Personnel Programs Branch of the Military Personnel Division to the DPC to work training matters for AF/IN and AFIS civilian personnel and to continue development of a civilian Intelligence Career Gevelopment Program. At the same time, the Civilian Personnel Division requested 2a classification and recruitment action to fill, on a permanent besis, the position to which the civilian employee was transferred. These actions, in effect,
11 resulted in the permanent transfer of these and other associated functional responsibilities to the BPC. PERSONNEL Key Personnel Cot. Ronald J. Skerepa continued as the director of the OP directorate, a position he held since 1 Apri? 1982. On 23 May, Lt. Col. John $. Oolan assumed responsibilities as chief of the newly established Military Personne] Division. Maj. Stephen D. Broyles was chief of the Military Personne! Resources Division until 15 danuary 1984, and it. Cynthia 0. VanEvery was chief of the Education, Training, and Career Development Division. Ms. Marilyn Hoopes continued throughout the year as chief of the Civilian Personnel Division, Manning Streagth ad As of 31 December, the directorate's manning strength was Ry Hows: AUTHORIZED = ASSIGNED PERCENTAGE OFFICERS 4 4° 100% ENLISTED 8 8 100% CIVILIANS § 5 100% TOTAL s¥ $7 100% MILITARY PERSONNEL Personne) Programs The primary mission of the Pegsonnel Programs Branch was to emsure that the personne} in AF/IN and AFIS were properly trained ta meet mission requirements, The following statistics show the growth of AFIS training. EDUCATION AND YRAENING MILITARY CIVILIAN FUNDS ($000) 24.0 33.0 44.5 $0.0 52,1 $.0 14.0 15.5 15.0 17.0 QUOTAS = 70 154 260 230 227 62 65 75 63 72 *FY85 Projected
“ieZe Professional Military Education (PME} opportunities for AFIS personnel also increased in some areas: PME_OPPORTUNITIES FY8i 9 FY82 Fya3 F¥84 «= FY85 = FY86 SQUADRON OFFICER SCHOOL 3 3 id $ * * NCO ACADEMY 3 4 12 10 13 13 NCO LEADERSHIP SCHOOL 2 & 15 4 & 3 *Quotas for Squadron Officer School were provided four months ahead of a class start date. By Oecember 1984, OP had received eight quotas. kithin the directorate, the Intelligence Training Programs was a section established in 1983 to be the single point of contact in the Air Force for selected intelligence training and research programs. Throughout 1984 it sought to sustain growth, refine procedures, and expand support. An advertising campaign was conducted to cultivate interest in intelligence training and to clarify the nature of the programs available to intelligence analysts and managers. . Gn 19 October, the ACS/I sent a letter about inteTli- gence training to over thirty-five addressees wor Idwide, informing them of the three basic programs, 1} Defense Advanced Language and Area Studies Program, 2) OCI Exceptional Intetligence Analyst Program, and 3) Quality of Analysis. The first program was sponsored by the OIA and was open to Air Force mid-career officer and civilian Third World intelligence specialists. Its purpose was to improve Third World analysis and language expertise through full-time study. Selection priorities for fiscal year 1985 were Sub-Sahara Africa, Middle,East (emphasis on Gulf States}, North Africa, Southwest Africa, Southwest Asta, Turkey, South and Southeast Asia and South and Central America. The OC1 Exceptional Intelligence Analyst Program was open to Air Force mid-career officer and civilian intelligence analysts for the purpose of conducting a professional enrichment project around analysts’ interests and skills, The Quality of Analysis program was open to professional Air Force officers, enlisted personnel, and civilians engaged in journeyman-level general intelligence or science and technology analysis. On 29 November, the Personnel Programs Branch convened a board of intelligence officers to review applications and recommend nominees for the intelligence training programs. The M1A-sponsored Quality of Analysis program showed the fastest growth in popularity, and the thirty-three applications had to be carefully scrutinized to ensure equitable distribution and to stay
within the limits of the budget. DIA had provided $125,000 to the AFIS tudget to fund the program, a considerable increase over funds allocated for it in fiscal year 1984.10 The board which convened or 29 November also considered the two applications to the BCI Exceptional Intelligence Analyst Program and the three applications for the Defense Advanced Language and Area Studies Program, The limited number of applications received for these lengthier programs suggested to the RE directorate that commanders were reluctant to release their best people for one to two years of training. Manpower concerns played a part in interested organizations’ decisions to take advantage of these unique training opportunities. For example, manpower authorizations were not provided for personnel participating in the OCI Exceptional Analyst Program, so selectees were expected to occupy billets in their parent organizations for whatever period of time they were in training which could be as Yong as two years. Despite this limitation, AFIS/OPRT was able to enroll a qualified Afr Force officer during 1984, with a projected completion date of May 1936.12 ba The Defense Advanced Language and Area Studies Program {DALASP} was another program which involved a lengthy commitment. lasting as long as two years in some cases.. The situation with regard to billets was somewhat better than for the DCL program since manpower authorizations were provided by DIA to AF/IN for each DALASP student selected. Nonetheless, this still meant that an organization had to give up 2 well qualified person and request and train a replacement. There were two military DALASP billets available in 1984 and both were filled, A third DALASP billet became available on 1 October 1944 when BIA approved the conversion of a civilian billet to a military one for the FYa5 program. @ The board found that applicatéons for ai] of the long- term training programs were of top quality and, despite the limited competition, experienced no difficulty in selecting candidates for al} FY85 openings. Another intelligence training progran, the Area Specialist Program (ASP}, underwent some important developments in 1984. By 3 August, AFIS/OPRT published a new edition of the governing regulation for the program (AFR 36-16) which incorporated a number of changes, the most significant of which involved the following: 12 1. Established HQ AFIS/OP as the ASP program manager for the Air Force. 2. Transferred te MPC resource advisors the authority to select officers for AFIT area studies training. 183
1o4 3. Simplified the application procedure and modified the qualifications for ASP applicants. & Meanwhile, the Directorate of Personnel Programs, Education Programs Division (HQ USAF/MPPE) began to study the ASP as a result of an AF/CVA suggestion to use AFROTC scholarships far Chinese tanguage training and the resultant AF/M# tasking to Took into the possibility of accessing officers with language proficiency to develop a broader base of support for the ASP. n 3 August, AFIS/DPRT participated in a USAF Area Specialist Conference hosted by AF/MPPE to discuss problems and possible solutions. Following this conference, AF/MPP proposed to the ACS/I that AF/MPP be established as overall ASP program manager to establish a program that would be fully integrated into the personne? system and better equipped to manage the careers and maximize the training of ail area specialists, The ACS/1 concurred with this proposal on 4 September, with AF/MPP acknowledging receipt on 17 September. At the end of December 1984, there were thirty-four intelligence officers enrctied in the Area Speciatist Program. Twenty-nine of these were attending the Naval Postgraduate School, and the remaining five were attending various civilian institutes. HQ AFMPC PALACE SENTINEL resource advisors selected another twenty-one intelligence officers in the latter part of ige4 to enter training in 1985.- Assignments Officer Nanning The Officer Assignment section of the Assignments Branch once again experienced problems with the manning of Human Resource Intel}igence (HUMINT) officers for the Air Force Special Activities Center (AFSAC). With the gddition of thirteen new officer HUMINT billets at the end of the fiscal year 1984, the problem was expected to continue, although PALACE SENTINEL worked diligently in i284 to provide high calibre officers to fill these key positions. Air Staff manning for 1984 was 100 percent; AFIS manning was 90 percent. AF manning for the 80XX career field was 87 percent for 1984. AF/IN-AFIS experienced a high turnover in leadership during the year. New directors were assigned to five of the eight AF/IN-AFIS directorates. Five new division chiefs were also installed into AF/IN-AFIS billets. Realignment of officers within AF/IN-AEIS staff elements created manning problems in 1984. With the addition of new positions and units, AFMPC and AFIS/DPRRO
continued te work closely to fill a1] requirements. AF/IN Staff alaments received Prigrity One fill requirements, AFIS/IKC and AFSAC raceived Priority Two fill requirements. eS in May i984, the alignment of manpower spaces for the Directorate cf Estimates {AF/INE) reorganization was completed. Korking closely with AF/INE, AFIS/DPRRO was able to alfgn the required manpower changes and create 2 workable situation by July. In a related move, AFIS/INQA (Special Studies Division} transferred from Bolling AFB ta Washington Navy Yard on 18 October. This reorganization was, accomplished to bring all of AFIS/INOA together at one location.38 Eatisted Manning Airmen assignments within AF/IN~AFIS continued to be filled at a high on-board strength in 1984 with Air Staff manning averaging 100 percent and HQ AFIS manning averaging 97 percent, Effective 1 October 1984, AFSC 203X0 (Linguist/Inter~ rogator Helper} was converted to Special Duty Identifier 99606. This action made ft easier to fill these- positions since a candidate's experience in this Jine of work was readily identifiable in the personnel system. An unusual case, which arose in 1983 and was resolved in 1984, invelved an Air Reserve senior enlisted member assigned to AFIS who erroseousty re~enlisted in the regular Air Force. Since the erroneous enlistment adversely affected fiscal year end strength, career progression, and promotion opportunity within the individval's career field, the case was reviewed at levels up through the secretary of the Air Force, A discharge board convened in 1984 recommended immediate discharge, but in 1964, the mesber's appeal was approved. 4s a result, the individual yas allowed to stay on active duty until he retired on 1 dune 1986.2 e Promotions b al The following promotion statistics were recorded in i984: OFFICER CATEGORIES IN PRIMARY ZONE ABOVE PRIMARY ZONE SELOW THE ZOME CON SEL ZSEL CON SEL SEL L1G SEL XSEL COL AF/IN 3 3 100 6) 68 9 3 2 22 AFIS 2 1 30 1 o v 14 G 9 185
IN PRIMARY ZONE ABOVE PRIMARY ZONE GELOW THE ZONE GON SEL XSEL CON SEL XSEL ELIG SEL XSEL LIC AE/TH 13 40 7? 2 i 50 ? o S AFAS 8 § 63 be 1 8 35 t 2.9 MAS AF /iN 7? 7 i890 a G o 7 9 cu AFIS g 7 i 0 8 we 0 Q cer Baa AFIS 12 10 «90,9 0 9 9 - - . 848 ASTS $ 9 100 i i 100 - - . ENLISTED CATEGORIES AF JIN AFIS fle SEL Et. ELlG = SEL XSEL cvs 1 9 0 RB 4 3h sis 3.08 Q 31 re) 32 MG 2 1 50 48 20 44 156 @ 0 0 a2 u 13 S36 2 1 50 20 10 $0 During the year, the directorate processed for AF/IN and AFIS ? Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and 325 Airman Performance Reports (APRs). Year-end figures far AF/IN and AFIS were a3 follows: 43 TOTAL PROCESSED OK TiME = PERCENT MBER LATE PERCENT AF /TR: SERS 124 78 &2 * 46 38 APRS as 20 60 § 20 AFIS: GERS 293 2aT 84 46 i6 APRS 300 277 92 23 8 Military Decorations The following were the number of military decorations submitted during 1984:
AF /IR SUBMITTER APPROVED PERCENT SUBMITTED BSM 0 7 -- 6 LOM 1¢ 4 40% 2 oH 29 20 683 69 AF CH 6 6 100% 51 AF aM 2 2@ 100% 34 NOTE: D3M - Distinguished Service Medal Ls + Legion of Merit HSM « Meritorfous Service Medal AFCM ~ Air Force Commendation Meda? AFAM - Air Force Achievement Medal AF/IN-AFIS Recognition Program BD for 1989, recognized as follows: AFIS Company Grade Officer of the Year t Cynthia &. Vane very AFIS Senior NCO of the Year MSgt Bobty F. Carter AFIS/NCO of the Year gt Seborah &. Groves the AFIS Twelve Outstanding Airmen of the Year gt Booby F. Larter ¢ STEP Promotion gt Larry S. Brown ~ Promoted to TSgt on } Jan 84 Outstanding MASCOM Personnel Superintendent gt Clizabath J. Paulk CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Civilian Manning outstanding military AFIS APPROVED PERCENT i 50% 2k 30% §9 98% 30 88x personnel were Unit ArY$70P HQ PSAA AFIS/OA HQ PSA AFIS/IENOA AFIS/OP Op 31 December 1964, the AF/IN-AFIS civilian status was as fallows:¢5
138 AUTHORIZED ASSIGNED PERCENT AF/IN 38 33 86% AFIS 218 163 78% = During the year, AFIS was able to stay within its authorized high grade ratio (20.16}; fowever, declining strength figures was expected to impact negatively on this ratio in the future. As of 31 Becember, the high-grade control picture for AFIS was as follows: ON BOARD HIGH GRADE HUGH GRADE STRENGTH AUTHORIZED ASSIGNED 169 34 35 To satisfy the management headquarters drawdown levied upon AF/IN, four Air staff civilien positions were realigned from AF/INE to AFIS/INOL. The positions were incumbered. Reduction- In-Fopge was not administered during 1984 for either AF/IN or AFIS. Program for General Intelligence Personne} For several years, the Air Force and OIA fad been working to find a way to make the DOD Intelligence Career Gevelopment Program (ICDP) compatible with Air Force procedures and systems. Toward this ead, Air Force and DIA concentrated in 1984 on accomplishing the automatic tape transfer of Air Force civilian persennel data inte the Defense Intelligence Special Career Automated System. Gn 25 April 84, a meeting was held at Randolph AFB, with representatives from OPO, IDS, AFMPC, and AFIS, where it was proposed that AF form 2674, Individual Development Plan {IDP} be used by Air Force employees who were covered by the 000 Intelligence Career Program instead of the DD 1917, Employee Appraisal/Development Plan.2 All parties agreed that other actions were needed to make possible the flow of information from the Air force Data System to the OIA system. These were the fotlowing:29 l. AF/CCPO‘S assigning those positians/employees covered by the ICOP a special code designator which would automatically flow data to the DLA. 2. Adding additional intelligence courses to POSE table 188 to make them available for use on AF Form 2674, Individual Qevelopment Plan {IDP). TOPs and the necessary
information would then be able to flow thru a tape transfer to BIA for use in ICDP. In order to get this action underway, Colonel Skorepa, the head of the OP directorate, met with a representative of OCPO on 16 October at Randotph AFB and provided him with a tist of courses for inclusion into table 188 which fad been previously agreed on Sy DIA, HQ AF/MPX, and AFIS. Inclusion of these courses into table 188 was expected to take place in February 1965, with the whole system being in operation by August 1985. Review of DALASP had The Defense Advanced Language and Area Studies Program (DALAS was established in fiscal year 1982 to promote advanced language training and area studies for intelligence analysts who specialized in the production of priority intelligence about the Third World. Beginning in March 1984, a review of the DALASP was initiated by DIA with service participation to determine why the DALASP was being used at only one-third of its capacity. As a result of that review, refinements designed to make the program more responsive te service and DIA needs were authorized in November 1984. The major changes in the ‘DALASP which were expected to positively affect civilian participation were the following: ‘ @B 3. Part-tine training and area studies authorized. 2. Civilian billets used as training or replace- ment/augmentation billets, depending on service and DIA requirements. These long sought changes were expected to enable the Air Force intelligence community to make better use of the DALASP, The new procedure was to be implemented by the Air Force during fiscal year 95,30 . OPM Evaluation On 28 March, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted a one day on-site visit to HQ AFIS at Fort Belvoir. The purpose of this visit was to: 1) gather line information and assess the status of personne? management at the installation and 2} collect information on a random sample of AFIS headquarters appointment actions. As part of the evaluation, the OPM evaluator also spent time at the Andrews AFB CCPO,32 The evaluation contained findings that had been of concern to AFIS management for some time, and which included the following subjects: 1. Personnel problems which developed as a result of Air Staff positions being serviced by the 1947th RSG, and 189
199 AFIS positions in the OC area being serviced by Andrews AF8 & 2. €merging trend in the upgrading of AFIS positions. a 3. Position Management 4. The inordinate length of time necessary to fil} & pos Ptton 5. Inadequacy of Andrews AFB CCPO vacancy announcements - 6 Establishment of a Performance Management evaluation system & A copy of the evaluation report was forwarded to HQ Air Force. No comments or requests for any corrective action were received from HG AF .33 AFR 46-452 Performance Management Program Effective 1 duly 1994, the Air Force implemented a new civi}tan performance management program. The governing regulation for this new system (AFR 40-652, Performance Management Program) incorporated Air Force, regulations 40-450, 40-451, 40-527 and portions of AFR 30-335.34 Also, a single form (the AF Form 860, Civilian Performance and Promotion Appraisal}. was introduced which replaced the following three existing forms: 3 @ 1, A® Form 128i ~ General Manager Appraisal (GMAS} @ 2. AF Form 1282 - Job Performance Appraisal {(JPAS} GP 3. AF Form 1287 - Civilian Potential Appraisal (CPAS) ca AFR 40-452 called for establishment of a quality control procedure for review of plans at the beginning and end of the appraisal period. To comply with this requirement, the following members of the AF/IN-AFIS Merit Pay and Incentive Awards Committee were designated to act as Quality Review officials for civilians under their jurisdiction:3® DACS/1 (AF/IN Exec Officers) ~ AF/IN, AF/ING, AF/INA {AFIS} Director or Oeputy - AF/INE (to include AFIS/INO) Director or Deputy - AF/INY (to include AFIS/IND & AFIS/INZY)} AFSAC/CC or CV Directer AFIS/INS AFIS/CV (Remainder of AFIS organization)
AFIS /DPC provided administrative ang technica? assistance guidance to Quality Control Officials throughout the implementation of the system, Buring duly and August 1984, AFIS/DPC conducted training on the new Performance Management Program. Tratning sessions were held at Ft. Belvoir, Bolling and the Pentagon. 80th management officials and empioyees attended the training.37 Merit Pay and Performance or Incentive Awards Qn 23 duly, the ACS/1 appointed his deputy, Brig. Gen. Paul fe Martin, to serve as the AF/IN-AFIS Merit Pay unit official. From 1981 through 1983, Col. dack Morris, the ACS/I executive officer, had served as the unit official, The Merit Pay unit consisted of twelve AF/IN employees and twenty-five AFIS employees. The Merit Pay unit committee met on 26 duly to review General Manager (G&) employee appraisals and recommendations for cash awards. The committee consisted cf the director or deputy director, AF/INE; the director or deputy director, AF/INY; the director, AFIS/INS; the AFSAC/CC or CV, and the AFIS/OP or DPC as executive secretary, non-voting. Twenty-four GM employees received cash awards, ranging from 1 to 4 percent of their salaries. The Merit Pay Performance Awards for ratings given on 30 dune 1984 »-"¢ paid according to instructions received by the Central Civitian Performance Office on 14 October 1984 ,38 For 1984, seventy-eight individuals received Performance or Incentive Awards; the cash awards ranged from i to 4 percent of employees’ salaries. PROGRAMS MANAGED BY DP DIRECTORATE Intelligence Youth Employment Program In 1983, AFIS instituted a yolith employment program to encourage well-qualified students to pursue federal careers in the intelligence field. The program continued in 1986, with a total of three students Aired. One was placed in AFIS/INC, and the other two were assigned to AFIS/INOZBEG. AFIS/DPC planned to continue recruiting for the Youth Employment Program in 1985.40 Suggestion Program Throughout the year, the OP directorate managed the AFIS Suggestion Program. The Suagestion jog book revealed, in part, the following informatton:4 i7t
192 FIMAL ACTION/ TITLE GPR REMARKS Exceeding Safe Time Limits mm Not Processed through DP Distribution of AFIS/ AFSAC Pubs AFSAC/BA Not Approved Parking Signs near Ent 586 iG Not Approved Self-Help Graphics Support ENOZD Not Approved Yards & Grounds Vetail Duties & Rspns ccr Not Approved Chag of App? Proc - Wef Attache Outy Ins Not Approved Proc Exist Background $ook OAu NPTOP Not feasible admin AFIS Compound Telephone Lines AC dot Elig-Appy non-cash Copy Machines AFIS Compound Ft. 8elyoir DASAC NF due to current actions Specific Building Names CVE Not Approved - AFR 900-9 Stripes of Exep Perf ‘ {STEP} for AFIS/RE RE Not Approved Sates Tax Exemption for Airline Tickets L7Q0TRS/ LgT PENDING AT OPR Retrieval of Airline Mileage Club incent T7DOTRS/ LGT Not Approved HUMEKT Intern Pragram AFSAC Interim Reply New & Revised Depart- mental Foras Pend at DPF Weight & Control Program Pend at OPF After Hours Access to Alarmed Areas -- 100th DPF Supply Delivery Location Change * il Yotuntary Fitness Test The OP directorate sponsored two physical fitness tests this year, the first of which was on 7 dune, and the second on 11 October. Both were condycted from the Kelis Field house on Fort Belvoir. Courses were set to accommodate both runners who did the
1.5 miles and walkers who did the 3 miles required by Air Force standards, “Brown Bag" Lunch Program In January 1984, Mrs. Alta Gardeer of AFIS/OP initiated @ series of Yunchtime “brown bag* familiarization sessions for the civilians and military personnel working in Fort Betvoir's AFIS compound. These luncheons were scheduled throughout the year, and provided informal and informative learning experiences for ‘the AFIS employees who attended. Same of the speakers and subjects were Lt. Col. Rowe on AFSAC functions and duties; Colonel Webb on his experiences as 4a POW during the Yietnam conflict; Claude Watkins on terrorism; Lt. Col, Garner on the budget process; Diane Putney on the origin of AFIS; Linda Sowers of the Red Cross on the uses of blood; Lt. Cot. Wilder on targeting: Major DAguiar and Major Roser on deployment to Grenada; Major Oussault on debriefing of Navy pilot held by Syria, and Phyllis Pickard, Mary dane Gantzler, and Alta Gardner demonstrating crafts. 43 DATA PROCESSING INITIATIVE The OP directorate continued efforts to increase in- house data processing capability throughout 1984. HQ AFMPC approved the directorate’s request to hook its Philips MICOM 2002 word processing system into the Advanced Personne? Data System {APOS). This action provided additional terminal capability to retrieve data from APDS. To date, however, the directorate was able to obtain information only on personnel assigned to AFIS -- a limiting factor on the directorate's ability to retrieve and manipulate data,4 Concurrent with USAF’s changeover to the Honeywell computer system for the APDS, the directorate requested that HQ AFMPC expand its world-wide access to include the MICOM system in addition to the main Honeywell CRT. approval of this request would enable AFIS/DP to obtain and disseminate data as previously conceived, and vastly assist in making timely assignment and career management decisions. Another development which occurred during the year involved receipt and installation of twa additional MICOM terminals and two more printers, which further expanded the system's accessibility. The new 2 X 2 system was approved for purchase during Fras .4 . 193
195 CHAPTER V HUMAN RESOURCE INTELLIGENCE AIR FORCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CENTER* HQ AFSAE DETACHMENTS 21, 22, 23 ESAA PSAA *This is a condensed version of the CY1984 AFSAC History. For @ complete version, see the separate CY1984  AFSAC History, consisting of one narrative yolume and five volumes of supporting documents. ~ AP 0 biel thin L Scle taocleel” ur Prt. verer :
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CENTER OPERATIONS AFSAC HISSION ea Emigre, refugee, and defector briefings AFSAC ORGANIZATION As a4 line organization of the Air Force Intelligence Service, AFSAC consisted of a headquarters located at Fort Belvoir, Virginta, with subordinate field units in the continentat United States and overseas in the European Special Activities Area {£SAA}, the Pacific Specia! Activities Area (PSAA}, and Panama. Establishment of Detachment 23 g per 5 D6So> 53240) ) netsh 19% Deleted per 5 US bs $52(b){E)
Detachment 23 was the third detachment to the AFSAC headquarters as seen in the following organization chart. HEADQUARTERS. ALR FORCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CEKTER DETACHRENT 2 SETADINT [OPERATING LOCATIONS 2 ps [rfc Tas bacdor boo bw To Je Te J HEADQUARTERS HEADQUARTERS PACIFIC SPECIAL ACTIVITIES EUROPEAN SPECIAL ACTIVITIES AREA REA, DETACHAENT DETACHMENT a Hn p | Se | = . SETAGENT talclofe te [sletute begs | bad AFSAC MANHING At the end of 1984, the manning strength throughout AFSAC was the following: AUTHORIZED ASSIGNED «= PERCENT Officers 324 80 64% Unlisted 5 10% 87% Civilians 302 29 77% Total 347 260 76%
HUMINT POLICY GROUP AFSAC was under the command of the Air Force Intelligence Service. The assistant chief of staff, intelligence (acs/1). acting through the Air Staff HUMINT Policy Group {AF/INYSH}, provided AFSAC with HUMINT program resource management, operational oversight, and policy direction.§ HQ ORGANIZATION The AFSAC headquarters consisted of a command section and te sions: Gperations (INO) and Plans, Resources, and Support X). HAST Ra aes es HQ. PERSONNEL Key Personnel Col Nick Yankowski continued as commander of AFSAC, a position he held since 1 October 1981. On 5 March 1984, Col} Charles R. Piver replaced Col William F. Bale as vice commander, fo) Bale became the director of Intelligence Plans and Resources, Space Command, and Col Piver had been the commander of the security police unit at the 375th Aeromedical Airlift Wing. Lt Col dohn W. Doxey was promoted to colone} and continued to head the Operations Division. &t Col Clarence L. Fairbrother replaced Lt Col Stephen H, Rowe, who retired from the Air Force on 1 August and who had been head of the Plans, Resources, and Support 199
42g 0 Division, Lt Col Fairbrother came to AFSAC from the Directorate of Intelligence Plans and Systems, HUMINT Branch {AF/INYSH). Maj Charles fF. Pugh continued as executive officer, a position he held since } June 1983.10 HQ MANNING As of 31 December 1984, AFSAC headquarters was manned st 76 percent of its authorized strength. 1 AUTHORIZED ©ASSIGRED =«=—- PERCENT. Officers 29 i] 65% Entisted 20 19 O55 Civilian pre 2 70% Total 86 50 76% OPERATIONS The Operations bivision managed and directed the HUMINT operational activities of all AFSAC fiald elements and coordinated USAF HUMINT collectton operations, projects, and programs at the national-level, while gpattoring such coordination with unified and component commands} Division eorganized On 29 August the Operations Division, which consisted of three branches, Collection Management (INOA}, Security (NOB), and Gperations Support {INGC}, was reorganized. The Operations Support Sranch was redesfgnated Ha, and the Security Branch was abolished. The reports officers within the Security Branch ware reassigned to the various regional edesks within Collection Management (INOA}, The abolition occurred because it was pgtieved that the desks themselves could perform the [NOB functions. 4 Branch Responstbitities The Collection Management Branch consisted of the European Section (INOAA}, the Pacific Section (INGAS}, and the Western Hemisphere Section {INOAC}. The ranch provided operational guidance to the headquarters of each special activities area and the CONUS-based detachments and maintained contact with nationat-leve} analytical and production elements, The branch conducted operational development planning, all-source research, and mission target analysis in support of current and future USAF HUMINT activities. The branch also conducted programs
to assess the significance, impact, utility, and value of AFSAC products.14 The Operations Support Branch served as the Air Force HUM] requirements control authority and HUMINT reporting and evaluation program manager. In accordance with current directives and regulations, INOB implemented intelligence oversight policies to insure the propriety and legality of Afr Force HUMINT activities. The branch administered the Foreign Disclosure, Freedom of Information, and Privacy Act Programs for AFSAC, maintained at? source files for Afr Force HUMINT, and handled source administration.25 Validated Projects During 1984, the Defense Intelligence Agency {DIA} validated seventeen projects; none were disapproved. DIA had the management authority to validate projects, and CIA/D00 had the approving authority. It was necessary for al] AFSAC projects to be validated by OIA and coordinated with CIA. For a project to be validated, it had to comply with al? ingg}iigence oversight regulations and with directives in DIAM 58-11,46 2d} Deleted per 5 U.S.. $52(b)(D
Unilateral Withdrawal from Project ANALYSIS OF FILES In the latter part of the year, the ffles of the Evropean Specia Activittes Ares (ESAA} and the Pacific Special Activities Area (PSSA) were updated or analyzed. Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 592(b) {2} REPORT PRODUCTION STATISTICS Deleted per 5 0.8-C. $52(b) (1)
a FTO IIRs t Report Program Generator « On 36 January, CMSgt Kenneth Watts and AIC Mark Kaczmarek created a Report Program Generator {RPG} on the Oefense Intelligence Agency On-Line System {DIAOQLS) in order to retrieve IIs by project number in approximately ten to fifteen minutes. This new, capability was to assist case officers with case reviews .2 NEW DOCEX INITIATIVE Deleted per 5 U.S.C, 352{b} (2) Deleted per $ U.S.C. 552(b}(1}
Subsequent to the AFSAC team’s departure, the 470th HI Group sent a message to AFSAC concerning the activity ef the AFSAC team. In part, the message stated: “We were very pleased with the professionalism of the AFSAC personne? who were TOY to the 470th in Nov and Sec. After an initial orientation, they were receptive to our system and proved to be skflled and productive assets to our program. . . . The quality of personne? and thefr level of performance was excellent. We hope to continue this program as long as funds and personne? are availabie." ACO FIELS OFFICES Transfer of Bitlets sd per $ U.8.0. 552d) (2) eUue g.t. 35200) 0) peieted pet 9 Us
objectives for FTO, an operational capability priority chart, and a collection objectives priority chart.40 Regulations Qn 10 December, AFSAC Regulation 23-11 published, which stated the mission, responsibilities, and relationship of the detachment 23,42 ; was organization, newly established a The following regulations were updated: AFIS Regulation 23-2, “Organization and Functions, Air Force Special Activities Center (AFSAC) (U}," 20 December 1984. References were updated; the basic wartime mission was declassified; division responsibilities were updated to include commmications and ADP functions; personnel functions transferred from OA to INX were accounted for; and the AFSAC organizational chart was updated. AFSACR 200-4, "Foreign Intelligence Operations Involving US Persons" and AFSHCR 200-12, "Dossiers" were also revised.43 HUMINT Highlights On 6 dune, AFSAC Pamphlet 200-27, “Air force HUMINT Highlights,” was distributed to the field. This publication was deSigned to demonstrate the USAF HUMINT contribution to the national defense The topics dealt with were the following: the Defense Liaison Program, Communist Bioc military capabilities, scientific and technical matters, the Third World, and Soviet missiles and space. Photographs and a bibliography of intelligence information reports (11Rs) were included. AFSAC sent copies of the highlights to eighty-six recipients, some of which were the Office of Naval Intelligence, tha US Army Intelligence Security Command, nine DIA offices, HQ EUCOM, USCINPAC, HQ LANTCOM, COMUSKORCA, COMUSJAPAN, and three AFIS reserve detached training sites.44 g.t. 39200) 0) peleted per 5 U-
eiv : a: 1 November, the AFIS/INS granted approval for the WANG compu er to be used in the SCIF. During the week of 10-14 December, CMSgt Watts conferred wt DIA/REM-G, the C&P Telephone Company, and the Air Force Telecommunications Office (AFTCO), Scott AFB, to preclude a disconnect of the 9.6 high speed digital circuit between the SCIF and the Defense Intelligence Analaysis Center (BIAC), Bolling AFB. The AT&T divestiture brought about new procedures which did not allow use of the 49 DSPM foo4 Circuit from Arlington Halt Station {AHS} to Bolling AFS, Chief Watts was successful in having the Jine re-routed through INSCOM, AHS to Bolling AFB, thus preventing an interruption. of service. New AUTOSEVCOM Doctrine Intelligence Oversight
Support Requests Processed The following are statistics on the support requests processed during the year, 55 Freedom of Information Reports Foreign Oisctlosura Requests Significant Change Reports Quarterback Operations 5 - One-Time Sources wt te MW RS eaga Deleted per 5 0.8.C. 95206) (1) K
le PLANS, RESOURCES ANO SUPPORT AER FORCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CENTER = “Wartime readiness” was a key theme throughout the Plans, Resources and Support Division during the year, espec tally since the deployment of twenty-four men to Grenada during Cpera- Yon eiROENT FURY had revealed some wartime planning deficien- cies. BRANCH RENAMED Formerly known as the Plans and Policy Branch, INXA changed its name to the Plans and Readiness Branch on 18 July 1984 to better define the focus of its duties. It dropped “policy” froa the nate because AF/TNYSH agiually had the responsibility for HUMINT policy, not AFSAC/INXA, 5? AFSACtS WARTIME POSTURE aa During the yaar, Maj Robert H. Reser worked on the pre- paratron and staffing of a comprehensive study of Air Force HUMINT wartime readiness, documenting the strengths and weaknesses of AFSAC'S wartime posture. Roser focused on five specific areas: force levels, training, language capability, planning, and mobil- ity equipment 58 2 eee Peteted per 5 U.S.C. 352(b) (1)
The study made the following recommendations :6% Mt g. Request the opening of the fnterrogation training at OSDIC for Air Force personnel, 9. 2 Take greater advantage of the interrogation course offered by tne AFIS Directorate of Intelligence Reserve Forces. 16. 2 with the Defense Intelligence Agency, devise 3 formal doctrine for the operation of jofnt interrogation centers and strategic special interrogation facilities in wartime. in addition to these recommendations, the report in- cludee six specific directives that fnvolved the AFIS Directorate of Intettigence Reserve Forces {AFIS/RE}. The entire study was complete at year's end awaiting gply receipt of coordination from AFIS/RE before final publication.S% MOSELETY ERHANCEMENT field Unit Proposals eleted per $ 0.5.0. 952¢b) (2) Deleted per $ U.S.6. 552(b) (i
The concept paper recommended adoption of Solution C. By year's end, however, the commander had not yet made a firm decision on which course to take. Later in the year, he tasked Detachment 21 ta take another look at the mobility unit proposal; the detachment’s study was still not complete at the end of this reporting period. Unit Type Codes Also regarding mobility enhancement, a great deal of effo as expended during the year on ensuring that the Unit Type Codes {UTCs} for AFSAC HUMINT augmentation teams were manned and property organized. As the year went on and more mobility equipment was acquired, it became clear that the UTCs required changes to include equipment as well as personnel. The update had not been begun by the end of the year, but was slated for earty 1985. UTC changes were also an ongoing aspect of the review of ESAA OPLAN 4102, and the question of the wartime use of emergency- 2} peleted per 5 0.5.6, 59406) ())
216 essential civilians prevented final approval of ESAA's proposed changes .65 Coordination With 525th MI Group Communications Initfatives Wartime and Contingency Communications QP the leading contender for a MITCOM system at the beginning of the year was the PACER SPEAK (AN/GRC~206) tactical radio, identified in 1983 as a candidate. This system was assessed to possess more capability than that required to meet AFSAC'Ss Needs, and throughout the year many other systems were studied, with no final decision being reached on a suitable substitute,©9 feleted per 5 U.S.G. 592(b){1) Deleted per 5 0.5.6. 352(d) (1)
Other Communications DP ire expanding scope of the JCF relocation/upgrade pra~ gram also made it clear that an approved program management direc- tive (PMO) would be required to provide gufdance and direction for the project. A draft PMD was prepared by AF/INYSH is December; INXA reviewed the draft and made several recommended changes, and the AFSAC commander indicated his approval of the document on 21 December.?3 At the end of the year, the PMO was being forwarded to various Air Staff, AFCC, ESC, Army, and other affected offices for review and commeats, 21 peleted per 5 U.5.C. 552(b) (2)
AQP initiatives = in 1984, AFSAC tnfitiated a series of actions designed to increase office efficiency through automation. Early tn the year representatives of the INCO Corporation, working under an AFIS contract, began an in-depth survey of AFSACts automatic data pro- cessing {ADP} requirements and by May had produced an initial functional description of the system proposed for HQ AFSAC and Det 21. By September, the study had progressed to the system specifi- cation stage for INX, and a draft system specification report was published for review,” The first phase acquisition of ADP equipment was compteted by year’s end, with the second phase purchase scheduled for December and the third for summer 1985, By 31 December, initial WANG Alliance System terminals and Portmasters were in place and operational in the AFSAC/AFIS SCIF, AFSAC/ACF and LG, and Det 22. Delays, however, were encountered in the second phase purchase due to NSA contractural problems. A funding shortfall of $750,000 had to be overcome te complete the third phase purchase 4 related problem dealt with the training of AFSAC per- sonneF to use the new WANG equipment. The cost of training and defining who would pay for {t caused delays and confusion. By the end of the year it appeared that only three people would receive actual training from WANG -~ one each from INX, Det 76, and Det 22. These individuals would, in turn, train other personnel in use of the new equipment, ADP and the AFSAC Gperational Communication System - A long-Standing problem for AFSAC had been the lack of a dedicated, secure operational communications system for sensitive HUMINT traffic. The commander had long objected to the fact that AFSAC's Most sensitive operational traffic had to be processed through ex- ternal communications facilities, a Yess than desirable security Situation, The acquisition of AUP equipment AFSAC-wide, which began in 1984, gave the first real fope of acquiring a dedicated communications system through the networking of AUP terminals vie tne Defense Data Network (DUN), Reserve Captain Laura L, Smith, ducing her tours at HQ AFSAC, researched the possibility of WANG interconnectivity via the DUM, and prepared proposals for an Air Force HUMINT Bata Net. The basic proposal was announced to the area commanders in a 5 September letter, and was updated an 15 November with Instructions on how to work the networking issue at Deleted per 5 U.S.C. $52(b} 1)
the theater levels, The soft target date for system interconnec~ tivity was set for December 1985.7 Also on 15 November, the first six requests for service {RFSs} for the Air Force HUMINT Data Net were submitted to the director of the Army Information Systems Command, offictally beginning the interconnectivity push. By the end of the year the project was wel! under way, although expected delays of WANG equipment and the need for physical modification of some facilities to provide the required security for the equipment caused the soft target date for interconnectivity of December 1985 to look very untikely.78 WHR Secure Voice Upgrade - The upgrading of AFSAC's secure voice capabilities began in 1983 and continued into 1984 with re- distribution of existing K¥-3 secure telephones and prograsming for new devices via the Secure ¥oice Improvement Program (SVIP). AFSAC*s original SVIP input had been submitted in October 1953, and in May 1994, AFCC/SIMS tasked at] secure voice customers to review the final SYIP data base, AFSAC's review and recapitulation was Submitted on 31 May.80 e RESERVE AFFAIRS SP ire Plans and Readiness Branch {INXA) made great strides s32th) (1d feteted per 5 U.S.C. s57/5) (i) Scisavl ger $ 219
220 in the management of the reservists during 1984 with a number of new initiatives and with more communication with the AFIS Direc- torate of Intelligence Reserve Forces {AFIS/RE} and the Plans and Programs Division (AFIS/XP) on training and wartime utilization of Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs}.82 IMA's Wartime Positions and Qualifications Early in the year, the INXA branch began reviewing reservists serving annual tour assignments at HQ AFSAC. The purpose of the review was toa ensure IMAs were used in their wartime positions whenever possibie. For example, reservists assigned to Unit Type Code (UTC) PFIB9, which augmented HQ AFSAC in wartime, were assigned to the offices they would occupy in wartime. Reservists assigned to other UTCs generally could fot occupy actual wartime positions; fowever, the offices of assign- ment were asked to give them fobs which would apply to their wartime duties. Also, when reserve augmentation was sought for exercises, INXA attempted to obtain IMAs who would deploy te the area of the exercise scenario in wartime, Mobility Training and Equipment The provision of mobility training (chemical defense, smali arms, and driver’s training} to reserve IMAs had long been a problem, with no systematic program estaflished by AFIS/RE to see that personne? received the required training, To ensure AFSAC IMAs were truly wartime ready, ENXA initiated a change to AFSAC Regulation 28-1 “HUMINT Augmentation Teams,“ which tasked INXA to identify training requirements for reserve IMAs, and tasked INXC to schedule these personne? for required training during their annual tours. Although this represented an extra burden on the AFSAC staff which, according to INXA, should probably have been borne by AFIS/RE and the individual reserve OTSs, {it was an expedient and necessary measure expacted to significantly improve the wartime readiness of AFSAC IMAs, Close contact was also maintained throughout the year with and PSAA to identify and, where possible, resolve re- serve program problem areas. ESHA provided a very detailed input Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 552(d) (1)
in a dune 1984 message which outlined deficiencies and recommended corrective actions in seven areas relating to reserve management: authorizations, manning, records, assignments, qualificattfons and training, tour management, and program guidelines. Other ESAA inputs provided information about problems in the reserve program and addressed both individual IMAs and problens inherent tn the reserve management system. 86 a Another significant limitation affecting the wartime use of r@eervists was the st{ll unresolved problem of provision of mobility gear for reserve IMAs. Although the Air Force War and Mobilization Pian and Air Force Regulation 28-5 placed the respon- sibility for providing mobility gear on the major command {MAJCOM}, the cost of this equipment and the attendant problems of storage, upkeep, and accountability led most commands to avoid the issue. United States Air Forces, Europe (USAFE) agreed to provide equipment for reservists mobilized in theater, but insisted that IMAs arriving from CONUS bring equipment with them. The issue of mobility gear for reserve augmentees proved to be a major stumbling block to finalizing the Jong overdue update of the ESAA memorandum of understanding (MOU), The issue remained unresolved at year's end, but for the first time was being seriously addressed at the MAJCOM level. AFSAC/INXA, rather than AFIS/RE, was the driving force behind the new attacks on this problem, 7 ‘ Management Issues 22! Deleted per 5 U.5.0- $52(d) (1)
in October 1984, INXA prepared the consolidated AFSAC input to the Annual Assessment of the Inteltigence Air Reserve Forces, addressing both the strong and weak aspects of the pro~ ram, The most pressing issue rafsed was securing mobility bags ‘or reserve IMAs. This issue, however, was omitted from the final assessment report prepared for the ACS/I by hfs reserve forces advisor. EXERCISE ACTIVITY Participation in Exercises, 1982-1934 As the office of primary responsibflity for planning, scheduring, and monitoring AFSAC’s participation in exercises, the Plans and Readiness Branch (INXA) attempted to strike a balance between the need to exercise the wartime misston and the need to minimize disruption of the peacetime mission caused by active duty personnel participating in exercises. This Toss of working time was @ source of particular concern to supervisors, detachment commanders, and the AFSAC commander, and prompted INXA to prepare and present a special briefing on the AFSAC exercise program to the commander and key staff. This briefing, presented on 1 October, outlined the purpose of AFSAC's exercise participation, the nomination pracess for participants, and included a review of AFSAC exercise participation from 1982-1984: it compared the numbers of personnel actually tasked for exercises to the number of mobility-tasked personnel, thereby muting criticism of the exercise prograt as too manpower-intensive or targeted too much agains? any one office or detachment, MEP ne vviefing disclosed the fol fowing:$t EXERCISE LENGTH PLAYER? 3962 9 FLINTLOCK - GERMANY 14 2 (UCS-USCINCEUR Sponsored} 7 TEAM SPIRIT + KOREA 18 3 (JCS-UNC Sponsored} GALLANT KNIGHT - CONUS iz 1 (USCENTCOM/USCENTAF Sponsored} 1983) FLENTLOCK ~ GERMARY 14 2 TEAM SPERIT ~ KOREA 18 2 BOLD EAGLE - CONUS (Bieanial} 2 2 (USREDCOM/AFRED/AFLANT Sponsored}
EXERCISE (Cont'd) LENGTH PLAYERS 1983 BRIM FROST - ALASKA (Biennial) 6 2 {USREDCOM/AFREG Sponsored) GALLANT KNIGHT - CONUS 12 1 1984 GALLANT KNIGHT - CONUS 12 3 OCEAN VENTURE/SOLID SHIELD - CONUS 7 1 (USREOCOM/AFREO/AFLANT Sponsored) TEAM SPIRIT ~ KOREA 18 2 FLINTLOCK ~ GERMANY i¢ 1 FOAL EAGLE - KOREA 20 2 (CINCPAC-UNC Sponsored) The briefing further revealed the following data:92 EXERCISES - CONUS PARTICIPATION - 1982-PRESENT PERSONNEL AVAILABLE PARTICIPANTS — NON-PARTICIPANTS AFSAC 34 8 (24%) ° 26 (76%) Det 21 20 5 (25%) 15 (75K) Det 22 9 4 (45%) 5 (55%) Exercises in 1934 SP ic AFSAC personnel participated in six exercises in 1984. « Exercise TEAM SPIRIT ~ This exercise was a combined forces operation employing joint service elements of both the Republic of Korea and the United States Armed Forces inc luding both active and reserve forces. Approximately 100,000 personne participated to demonstrate to aggressor nations, particularly North Korea, the ability end resolve of the United States and the Republic of Korea to deter hostile actions directed against South Korea, TEAM SPIRIT 84 was held in Korea, with the HUMINT por- tion fasting from 14-3] March. Captain McKethan and Captain Catrantzos (Minneapolis and San Francisco NCD representatives) were the AFSAC augmentees. Some of the more valuable lessons learned included: 223
224 a. (BR the need for rapid, secure HUMINT comnunications.. b. The need for HUMINT command and contro} at the ACC/A-2 Jevel. c. GR the need for improved language and interrogation capabilities of AFSAC personnel. 32 Planning for follow-on exercise TEAM SPIRIT 85 began late in the year, but PSAA envisioned a greatly scated-down exer~ cise requiring only limited ovt-of-country augmentation. Another major Korean exercise, FOAL EAGLE, was viewed by PSAA as a better vehicle for wartime interrogation operations training.95 Deleted per 5 U.8.%. 3526) (1) FLINTLOCK/FLEET DEER 84 ~ FLEET DEER was the escape and evasion subexercise of the annually conducted dS _ sponsored FLINTLOCK exercise. The interrogation phase of FLEET DEER was con- ducted at Eisberg Kaserne near Nagold, Federal Republic of
Germany, from 29 Apri? to 21 May. HQ ESAA was the executive agent for the operation of the Interrogation Facility (IF). Overall operational responsibility for FLEET OFER 84 rested with the exercise director, it fot Huston from HG SOCEUR 99 FLINTLGCK/FLEET DEER 84 ~ FLEET BEER was the escape and evasion subexercise of the annually conducted JCS sponsoredoint readiness exercise served as the largest test of AFSAC*’s wartime mission in the European theater. Augmentation from HQ AFSAC and its Western Hemisphere elements, however, proved to be a sertous problem. Two of the three scheduled augmentees were removed from the exercise roster without replacements, and, as a result, only MSgt Manuel Leos (OL-P) participated.100 This created problems for ESHA because the two scrubbed augmentees (Captain Dymond from Oet 22 and Captain Bordas from INXA} were German linguists slated to fill shift leader positions in the Interrogation Facitity (IF). In Spite of this set-back, ESAA helfeved the exercise was worthwhile, allowing it to practice its wartime mission while providing resistance te interrogation training to US and NATO evaders 10% Eritigue of Exercise WM in discusaing problems and solutions of FLINTLOCK 84, Major Krause, in part, stated the following: GMB Propten: Debriefing of evaders by IF personnel 225 petered per 5 U.S.C. 552£d) (1) Deleted per 5 U.S.¢. 552d) (1)
AFSAC/INX reviewed Major Krause’s after-action report, ajor Robert Roser made the following comment concerning the debriefing of evaders.103 and i most strongly disagree with Major Krause’s recommendation. I havea worked very closely with AFIS/INU to smooth over objections they have had to this exercise (and FOAL EAGLE in Korea) over the percetved disconnect between our objectives {training interrogators) and their objectives (training resistance). This year was the first time ever that AFIS resistance instructors participated at my insistance. Their main objection was that interrogators are not trained in resistance tech- niques or objectives. Resistance instructors should be assigned (two per shift seems excessive due to the size of the facility; one should suffice or even two per exercise two week session}. Let them do the debrief with the inputs from the interrogators. Threatening to #ith- draw from the exercise is counterproductive. AFIS/IAU has the Dou charter for resistance training. I have good rapport with them and think we can work this out. Among other points, Major Roser also reviewed the exercise and made the suggestion that persons able to render medi- cal assistance be “on hand at all times.” We told planners at ESAA, “Recommend you plan for at least two medics (£-4 - E-6) wha can stay in the barracks,"104 Beletion of Exercise Component On 24 October, ESAA notified HQ AFSAC of the SOCEUR decision to delete the resistance-to-interrogation phase of FLINTLOCK {and thus ESAA's interrogation activities) from FLINT~ peleted per $ 1.8.6. 552(b) (1)
LOCK 85, Both ESAA and USAFE strongly opposed this move; however, at year's end, it appeared that FLINTLOCK was to be, for the fore- seeabie future, a dead issue for AFSAC‘'s trainfng purposes.405 GALLANT KNIGHT 84 - This was an exercise directed by the doint iefs of Staff (JCS) and sponsored by the US Readiness Command. It was conducted 2-13 May 1984 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. As @ command post exercise, its primary objective was to test the joint readiness {command and contro}) of personnel and equipment {communications}. Total active participants numbered 2,300, plus an additional 3,500 support personnel, Major forces playing fn the exercise were USCENTCOM, USREOCOM, USPAACOM, FMFPAC, SAC, MAC, and JCS.107 , Major Michael 0, Rodrianko of Detachment 21 and it dacqueline C. Sklenar of AFSAC/INXA were selected to provide AFSAC representation to the exercise, Both were asSignad to the doint Exercise Control Group (JECG), 3-2 staff, responsible for contral- ling the interrogation of prisoner of war (IPW} scripting cell. Rodzianko and Sklenar believed that little was accom plished during the six-day pre-exercise phase of GALLANT KNIGHT 84. During that time, no information was presented on administra- tive procedures, exercise HUMINT objectives, or how exercise player elements were dependent on other contro! celts. Guring the exercise itself, there were serious problems, including a complete electrica} record communications failure and failure of units to relay iP generated PW capture notifications through the chain of command. 10! POWDER RIVER 85 - This JCS-directed command post exercise (CPX) served as AFSAC's major mobilfty exercise of the year. Most AFSAC activity took place on 15 October; however, ENYA representatives continued to serve on the AFIS Alert Staff until the end of the exercise. Planning for POWDER RIYER began severa} months ahead of the exercise, and on 18 Sqgterier, INKXA published implementing instructions for the exercise. 110 The exercise began with a telephone recall of al? HQ AFSAC, Det 21, Oet 22, and NCD insert personnel at 0500 hours on eef Deleted per 4 U.S.C. 552¢d) (2)
228 15 October. Militery personne? reported for duty and were processed through an inspection of their persona! mobiiity Stems required by AFSAC OPLAN 1-84 and AFSAC Regulation 28-1, A unique feature of this mobility processing was a team from DeWitt Army Hospital who reviewed shyt records and administered required jomunizations on the spot. Following processing, personne? received & serfes of briefings by AFSAC snd AFIS personnel on the exercise scenario, wear of mobility gear, and the contents of administrative mobility kits. Personne! assigned to teams deploying to the exercise scenario area recefved a briefing from Botting AFB Disaster Pre- paredness personnel on the wear of Constant Shelter gear, and then donned the entire chemical defense ensemble for @ three-hour heat stress test, required by AFR 355-1. These tests gave personnel their first real experfence in workitig in the restrictive ger~ ments. POWDER RIVER was a test of AFSAC's recall and mobilization procedures, 42 . In addition to managing AFSAC's participation {tn 1984 exercises, the Plans and Readiness Branch also worked on planning for exercises coming in the spring of 1985. These were: 2 5 2 FS § z 8 a se} a Fy £ z id e a peleted per 5 0.8.0. 5520b} 0)
Although AFSAC exercise participation was heavy in 1984, 4t was becoming clear by year’s end that the smali size of the unit made {it impossible to support too many exercises. The INXA staff was concentrating on identifying those few exercises which would provide the most realistic training for the smallest investment of manpower and time. Exercise participation planned for 1985 was less than half of that carrted out fn 1984,116 PLANS The preparation and review of all types of planning doc- uments was a major focus of the Plans and Readiness Branch (HUA) throughout 1984, and improvements were made fn both the quality of AFSAC's own plans and the quality of INXA's reviews of other command plans. Revision of AFSAC OPLAN 1-84 A major effort was made to make AFSAC plans simpier, shorter, more realistic, and to coordinate them more thoroughly with external agencies. A key lesson of Operation URGENT FURY was that the assumptions made jn AFSAC plans were of limited value if not coordinated with other affected units -- espectally the Army units with which AFSAC teams would deploy in wartime. As & resuit, AFSAC OPLAN 1-84, the key AFSAC mobilization and deploy- ment plan, was published on } August in an fmproved form. Key changes in this new plan were: A detailed listing, by geographical erea, of the con- tents Gf administrative mobility kits. . ¢ A complete revision and standardization of the contents of mobility bags. WAR Updated deployment and redeployment action checklists. 2 Updated and coordinated pians for the employment of reserve augmentees to HQ AFSAC, and a detailed plan for the structure of the AFSAC headquarters in wartime. Plans Reviewed in 1984 The following operations plans were prepared or reviewed during 1984: 218 2 N \O peleted per 5 U.5-6- 592(b) (2)
230 AFSAC OPLAN 1-84, 1 August 1984 - This was the key AFSAC mobilization and deployment pian. PSAA OPLAN 5600/5001 ~- This plan was published by HQ PSAA on i September after a preparation and coordination process lasting over two years. Like AFSAC OPLAN 1-84, it was extensively coordinated with external agencies and reflected planning for the employment af limited resources .119 = PSAA OPLAN S027 - This plan was published by HQ AFSAC on 1 duly, Following publication, in accordance with the recom~ mendation of the AFIS/I16, responsibility for the plan was transfegred to Hg PSAA/INX,120 ESAR OPLAN 4102 - Responsibility for this plan was transferred to ESAA/INX in dune, and INXA forwarded extensive comments on required changes; however, by year's end, the pian had still not been finalized and reissued. Among the factors holding up final gpordination and publication of the plan were the followings? Questions on the wartime employment of emer~ gency-essentia! civilian personne}.  INXA had ratsed this problem to the Air Staff leve? earlier in the year, but other, higher priority actions kept AF /INYSH from completing staffing before the end of the year. Lack of definitive wartime planning by Army OPRs. Im most cases, wartime planning for PW interroga- tion by HQ ESAS was far outstripping planning actions by the various Army units with which ESAA would operate in wartime, jn-turn prohibited finalization of plans for wartime locations of ESAA personnel. Small size and heavy workload of the ESA plans Staff, For most of the year anly Captain Haney was present to work the full spectrum of INX functions. At year's end, ESAA QPLAN 4102 was stil] far from completion, and the overdue annual review was anticipated to be & problem in the ME1 scheduled for late 1985. teleted per $ H.S.0- §$2¢b) G1)
The preparation of these appendices led to concern on the part of the AFSAC commander that available AFSAC resources would be spread too thin or be overcommitted in wartime. To respond to this concern, INXA prepared a briefing on HUMINT wartime planning for presentation to the commander and key staff. The briefing covered the reasons for increased inclusion of HUMINT in MAJCOM/ACE wartime planning, the reasons for preparation of supporting HUMINT appendices to OPLANs, and the degree. to which AFSAC'S resources were committed in wartime. The briefing was represented to the commander on 1 October, 123 = HUMINT Appendices for USCENTAF OPLANs ~- These appendices were prepared as an INXA initiative in respense to expanded contacts with USCENTAF. Actually, only one appendix was written; however, if was prepared so it could be used with USCENTAF OPLAN 1002, and with only minor changes, with, Sphere plans. The appendix was forwarded to USCENTAF on 29 dune.t24 In addition to wartime and contingency operations plans, INXA reviewed and prepared AFSAC coments on many other plans of various types.. These included: The AFSAC Emergency Notification Plan - This AFSAC recall plan was updated quarter ly. The Air Force HUMINT Architecture Plan (AFHAP}- INXA led the AFSAC review of this crucial plan and provided consolidated AFSAC comments on the draft plan to AF/INYSH in February, including a complete revision of Annex 0 (AFSAC}.125 Major Roser, along with Lt Co} Jacobs (INGC) and Mr. Nehlig (INOT) attended the AFHAP conference at Scott AFO, I)4inois in March. The final draft of the AFHAP was passed to AFSAC tn late December and INXA recommended minor changes. The draft was awaiting the AFSAC Conmander’s approval at year's end. The 00D HUMINT Plan ~ This plan was reviewed, and AFSAC comments on the draft forwarded to AF/INYSH on 31 October.4¢6 A second draft was received in tate Decem-ber, and INXA was preparing comments at the end of the year. Publication of the final plan was expected in early 1985. Tre AFIS War and Mobilization Pian {WP} « Througnout 1984 INXA reviewed successive drafts of this hm ab pelered per 5 U.S.t. 552(0)()
232 plan, which replaced most of the AFIS F-series support plans. Initial INXA comments were forwarded on 27 July, and ESAA comments were passed to AFIS/XP on 2 August. Qn 3 October, INXA requested inclusion of specific guidance on reserve language requirements ta assist AFIS/RE in recrufting suitable Jinguists for HUMINT augmentation. Publicaties of the final AFIS WHP was stil? being awaited at year’s end,127 USAF War and Mobilizatton Plan, Yo! 4, Annex I INSA reviewed this key plan in early 1984 and forwarded consol idatgg AFSAC comments to AF/INYXM on 2 February. In addition, INXA also reviewed numerous lesser inte}ligence plans and formilated AFSAC positions on command plans which mentioned or tasked Air Farce HUMINT. Plans review constituted the largest single element of the INKA workload. MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS IWSPECTIONS wv The Plans and Readiness Branch was the AFSAC OPR for Management Effectiveness Inspections (MEI) preparations and for the consolidated responses te MEI reports. Only two inspections were conducted during 4s Detachment 21, AFSAC, was {nspected by the AFIS/IG petween 9-33 January, and was rated EXCELLENT overall. INXA pro-vided guidance to Det 21 in a 24 October 1983 letter, and replied to the [6 on 20 March. The only item which remained open following the original reply was closed out in a 7? Novenber update, and HQ AFIS/IG certified the inspection report as closed on 14 fovember 129 * HQ AFSAC received its MEI from the «FiS/16 between 17-27 April, and received an overall rating of EXCELLENT. The MEI report did potnt out several shortcomings in AFSAC planning functions, and INKA took aggressive action to correct these problems. i recommendations included: transfer responsibility for ESAA and PSAA OPLANS to OPS at those locations, re- prioritize the massive workload in INXA to allow more time for planning activities, and improve planning training {attendance et the Joint Operations Planning System (dJOPS) course) for INXA plans officers. Swift actions were taken on all of these recommendations, and by year's end INXA was, for the first time, enjoying currency in al} plans.t3
HQ £SAK was scheduled to receive its MEI between 9-30 October, and in a 3 August message to HQ ESAK and its detachments, INXA provided comprehensive EI preparation guidance. However, because of personne’ turnovers within HQ AFIS/IG, the MEI was tadefinitely postponed. At year's end, no firm dates had been set, but an October 1985 timeframe seemed most Tikely. Ia the meantine, items from the 1982 ESAA MEI stilt remafned open; updated comments wera provided to HQ AFIS/I& on 8 dune, 27 August, and 29 November, HQ PSAA received its last MEI between 11-28 October 2983, and during 1984 work continued to close out items remaining open. The initial reply to the report was sent to HQ AFIS/Ie on 29 February; updates were provided on 3 August and 13 December 132 WP ine NCO Insert Program was inspected by HQ AFIS/I1& between $-13 May 1983. Since {items remained open, an updated reply was provided to the 1G on 4 May 1964; on 8 June, the report was considered closed. Detachment 22, AFSAC, was inspected between 14-18 March 1983, and INXA forwarded updated consents to HQ AFIS/IG on 30 May 1984. The MEI report was certified closed by the IG on & June. 134 ‘ AFSAC SRIEFING PROGRAM The Plans and Readiness Sranch was the OPX for devetop- ment and presentation of the AFSAC overview briefing, the wartime mission briefing, the Quarterly Management Analysis Review (QMAR), and other specialized briefings. A total of over eighty various briefings were presented to a wide variety of audiences during the year. v INXA also provided regular briefing support to the Defense Intelligence College, presenting Air Farce HUMINT briefings to the Intelligence Collection Managers Course (ICMC} once eath quarter, to the Symposium for Strategic Intelligence, and to the Seminar on Human intelligence. In at] cases, these briefings were presented at the request of the DIC staff. 136 At the direction of the comeander, the AFSAC Overview Briefing was again revised and updated to purge it. of the poor quality graphics obtained from Det 4, 136}st Audiovisual Squadron at Bolling AF8 in 1983. The return of Mr. Keith Boyce, AFIS/INOVB, to the compound graphics shop from an extended TOY to the Pentagon, and the augmentation of his shop by two additional personnel, helped alleviate the severe lack of graphics support 233
234 available to HQ AFSAC, aithough the timeliness of the support continued to leave much to be desired. Two optfons were under consideration in INXA for improving the graphics situation: the acquisition of an organic graphics shop to service the needs of HQ AFSAC, Det 21, end Det 23 (viewed a extremely unlikely because of resource constraints}; and the acquisition of a computer graphics package for the new WANG ADP equipment being procured for AFSAC, No decfsions had been made by the end of the year, and graphics Support was tii being acquired on an “as-availabie” basts from AFIS/INOVE 13 The AFSAC wartime mission briefing was also extensfvely revised and upgraded in 1984, with the previous two separate briefings (Ptans and Mobility) being combined into one presenta- tion oriented toward the individual on mobility status. The sew briefing deemphasized plans and command relationships and empha- sized information of valve to a1] AFSAC personnel, such as personal clothing, equipment reggirenents, mobilization proce~ dures, and training requirements. The Quarterly Management Analysis Review {QMAR) briefing was presented four times to the commander and key staff, Procedures for the preparation and presentation of the QMAR were codified in a new AFSAC regulation (178-1) published on 1 January 1984; however, by the end of the year it was hecoming obvious that procedures required another revision, Field units complained that QMAR data calls requested information already avatlable in thefr monthly activity reports end the data retrieval capabilities of the new SCIF made field inputs Jess necessary for preparation of Statistical portions of the Q4AK. At year's end, APSACR 178-1 was under extensive revision, and $h§ mechanics of QMAR preperation were being completely rethought.13 RESQURCE MANGEMENT . ’ og The Resource Management Branch (INXB} was responstole for AFSAC-wide fiscal and logistics planning, programing, account ing and management. The branch was composed of a Fiscal Programs Section, a Budget Section, and a Logistics Section. The branch chief's position, vacated by Mr. Wesley H. Pogge on 30 July 1983, remained unfilled throughout 1984, Two other billets were acquired during the year: a communications billet transferred from INXA on & June and filled by SMSgt Thomas A. Mann until his retirement on i September, and an officer ADP billet gained on 1 October but not fflled before the end of the year. i4
FISCAL PROGRAMS & major problem facing AFSAC's fiscal programming activitses in 1984 was actually a holdover from 1983 -- the lack of a branch chief. This fact was documented as an observation by the AFIS inspector general fn the 1984 AFSAC MEI; however, the position was stil? vacant on 31 December, nearly one and a half years after the retirement of Mr. Pogge.l4t as a resyit of this vacancy, AFSAC Programming activities in the General Defense Intelligence Plan {6DIP}: and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) were accomplished by Lt Coil Clarence Fairbrother {INX) and Major dohn Caulfield {AF/INYSH -- the HUMINT Program Element Manager}. Field inputs were consolidated by INX, approved by AFSAC/CC, and placed in final format by Major Caulfield. Lt Col Fairbrother defended AFSAC’s POM and GoiP proposed programs at the AFIS program prioritization/consolidation meetings held in December, 142 Ne eel eel Establish 2 two-instructor element at the planned DOD Tactical interrogation Course, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. One billet to establish an tnstructor position at the proposed Dod HUMINT Management Course. WEP Seneral Defense Intelligence Plan (GDIP) FY B7-91 = INX began the FY 87-9) GUIP program in September by establishing a 23: Deleted per 3 U.S.C. $52(b} (1)
236 schedule for the field elements to follow. This was followed by 2 detailed guidance package explaining the do's and don'ts of GDIP programming. Initially, field inputs were not due until December; however, AFIS placed’ a 23 November suspense on the AFSAC input requiring a new suspense of 17 November. All AFSAC elements responded admirably providing excellent “@nguts to INX by the required suspense date. 144 « “9, . Deleted per 5 0.8.6. 55206) (2)
GF tre Budget Section (ACB) was officially created in October 1984 as part of a breakout of functions within INXB, separating programming, communications, and budget activities, SMSgt James S. Jinks, Jr., headed the section from 1 January 1984 until his reti ent on 30 April 1984; he was replaced by MSgt Connie R. Moss.18? The Budget Section was responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and allocating AFSAC‘'s Operation and Maintenance {O&M) and Intelligence Contingency Fund (ICF) resources by documenting, preparing, and executing the AFSAC budget and financial plans.} 23 petered per § v.g.c. 952d)?
238 The FY 1985 Financial Plan - In March, AFIS/AC issued the call for the FY 85 inancial plan, which determined the dollar distribution of approved funding. The FY 85 AFSAC financial plan represented an increase primarily due fo the addition of 32 new manpower authorizations of $448,200 over the FY 84 fundin tevel, the plan was approved by AFSAC/CC and submitted to AFIS/AC in arch. FY 1985 Initial Distribution of Funds ~AFIS/AC ‘{ssued the official Operating Sudget Authority documents on 22 October. These documents provided the official notification of funding for FY 85. Hessages were sent to the servicing accounting and finance offices for atl AFSAC units notifying them of the ap- proved funding amounts. The amount of $5,736,600 was provided for the operation of AFSAC for FY 85. The FY 1967 Operating Budget (08) - AFIS/AC {ssued the call for the FY 87 on 18 October, and messages were sent to #3} field units requesting their inputs. The consolidated AFSAC budget, submitted on 9 November, represented an increase of $864,700 over FY 85 funding levels, again due primarily to the cost of 31 additional manpower authorizations. < WR Restructure of Detachment 21 Accounting Records - In June, modified the funds management procedures established for Det 21, AFSAC. With the cooperation of AFSAC/LG, AFIS/AC, the Bolling AFB Accounting and Finance Office, and the Andrews AFB supply branch, Det 21's accounting records were completely realigned to separate the costs of Oet 2% operations from those of HQ AFSAC. This involved identifying and realigning the accounting procedures which tracked civilian personnel costs, equipment rental costs, communications and contract maintenance costs, and establishing separate supply and equipment accounts at Andrews AFB. This change provided immediate access to the obligations and expenses of operating Det 21 independenteof HQ AFSAC and provided 2 useful history of costs for future budget and financial planners. The AFSAC Financial Management Board {FMB) ~- The FM, chaired by the vice commander, met quarterly to ormitate fiscal policy and te review and monitor the execution of spproved funding, AC& provided the funds analysis for each of the four meetings held in January, April, July, and October, g.c. 35200) erered por 3 Ue
Within AFSAC, the ICF program was managed by ACS, Per- sonnel directly invelved with the program were: 25 Col Yankowski MSgt Ransom Disbursing Agent MSgt Mass Paying Agent {HQ AFSAC, HQ PSAA, GL-P, Bet 21 and Det 23) SMSgt Schindel Paying Agent (Det 22} SMSgt Franklin Paying Agent (Det 31) TSgt Brachold Paying Agent (Det 32) MSgt Moncrief Paying Agent (Bet 12) + Mr, Lanoue Paying Agent (HQ ESAA} ICF Manager The total 1CF expenditure for FY 84 was $1,014,500 -~ an increase of $97,000 over the previous fiscal year. Major categories of FY 84 ICF expenditures were:t Deleted per 5 U.S.C. 392(6) (1) 234 $$2(b) ) pelered pet 5 B.SC,
eau @# Annual fund targets fSsued to AFSAC units for FY 84 were:153 TOTAL. $1,046,000 Catendar Year 1984 ICF Audit ~ The CY 84 audit of FY 83 and Ist Qtr of FY 64 Subvouchers was performed by Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) auditors. The audit of HQ AFSAC was performed by the AFAA ‘area office at Andrews AFB; other audits performed were Det 32 and Det 32 (AFAA area office, Hickam AFB, HI}, HQ ESAA, Det IE and Oet 12 (AFAA area office, Ramstein AB, Germany). Six reports of audit were issued within AFSAC. Of these, five raports reflected that management concurred and teok corrective actfon. There were 24 “findings AFSAC-wide, most of which were adwinis- tratiyg in nature and could be placed into four main categor- es: (2} @ Lack of documentation 2) Inadequate inventory contrels oF tacentive supplies and ICF eqWipment {3} a improper self-inspections {4} wa Untimely settlement of advances The sixth gudit report contained four findings, three of which were non-concurred by management. The report was elevated for adjudication of non~concurrences in accordance with AFR 178-4, and no problems were @ncountered in the adjudication process. AFIS/AC personne! worked with MSgt Ransom and the AFAA-AFIS Liaison Office te resolve the non-concurrences. LOGISTICS The Logistics Section (L&) provided O2M and ICF supply and equipment to HQ AFSAC and its CONUS detachments snd handled the procurement and storage of war readiness materia! and mobility equipment. The section was also heavily fhvolved in the procurement of WANG equipment fn support of the AFSAC automation {nitfative. The chief of the Logistics Section was SHSgt Philip a. ghgson, who was promoted to chief master sergeant on 1 dune, site 35200) peleted pet $a.
———— MOBILITY The Logistics Section, in close coordination with the Plans and Readiness Branch (INXA), made strides fn 1984 ta equipping AFSAC to carry out {ts mobility misstan. Problems and shortfalis long viewed as insurmountable obstacles were attacked and gvercome, and by year's end AFSAC, although not 100 percent wartime ready, was in {ts best mobility state since its formation in 1961, The mobility upgrade was carried out across the spectrum of supply and equipment issues. Uniforms - Following the change to AFR 35-10, AFIS Sup- plement {, which authorized AFSAC personne] to wear camouflaged fatigues (battle dress uniforms - BOUs) in wartime and contingency operations and during exercises, 1G set to work to provide the required number of uniforms.157 Originally, the intent was to “tariff-size" the uniforms, that is, to order various numbers of uniform parts in various sizes to equip all personnel at the beginning of a deployment. However, because of AFSAC’s small size, it was finally decided simply to issue the BDUs directly to mobility personnel as a unfit-issuye item Each person was pro- grammed to receive three BDU shirts, three pairs of BDU trousers, one cap, a field jacket, and two pair of hot weather boots, cThe sets were assembled and issued as items were received; by the end of the year 87 percent of AFSAC's mobility personnel had received their full issue of BGus. ‘ Personal Nobility Equipmant - Colonel Piver, the new AFSAU’ vice commander, had served aS commander of the Air Force security police element on Grenada during Operation URGENT FURY, and had a strong background and interest fn mobility planning. He and Chief Johnson contacted other units with mobility missions in an effort to identify what additional types of mobility equipment AFSAC should obtain, and what a standard HUMINT mobility bag should contain. As a result of these contacts, many new items were ordered and stocked. In an 8 November message to HQ PSAA (with information copies to al} other units}, dG specified the content of the AFSAC standard mobility bag.158 The list of newly acquired equipment included: Field packs and frames Pocket knives Flashlights Entrenching toats Poncho liners Camouflage face paints Water purification tablets Sun/dust goggles Two-quart canteens Folding cots Chemical light sticks
Weapons ~ Operation URGENT FURY in 1983 had pointed out AFSAC's total Tack of self-sufficiency in weapons, and 1964 saw & great deal of work in planning for the storage of the weapons [H- 16 riftes and .38 caliber pistols) which had been obtained to cor- rect that deficiency. The weapons were stored at Andrews AFB, but AFSAC studied the feasibility of bringing them back to Fort Belvoir for storage. The Fort Belvoir MP Storage Branch performed a courtesy inspection of the warehouse area in Suilding 1929 and recommended a number of security upgrades to permit storage of weapons. By the end of the year, act all of the required changes had been made, and the weapons remained at Andrews AFS.159 The question of which weapons te issue to which personne] resulted in a dectsion to fssue the .38 caliber pistol te ati interrogators -- officer and enlisted ~~ and the M-16 rifle to ali} support personnel, A change was submitted to Table of Allowance (TA) 538 to authorize this revised weapon issue policy; the change was approved on 27 December, 160 Vehicles - The tack of vehicles ta support the mobility mission was a long-standing problem which was seriously addressed for the first time in 1984. After considerable staff study by LG and INXA, an order was placed for two four-wheel drive vehicles which would serve dual uses as mobility and as day-to-day adminis- trative support vehicles. The vehicles had not been received by the end of the year, l6l As a result of the tremendous growth in mobility equipment stocks, LG had by the end of the year nearly outgrown its warehouse space, even though the warehouse fad been expanded in December 1983. To maximize the limited space available, thirty sc. 992) Deleted per 5 Be Deleted per 5 0.9.0, 3520b} 01}
Rew $torage bins were procured to provide neat storage and rapid access to individual mobility bags and equipment, as well as to Standard supply items. Additional bins were on order at ygan's end to further increase the storage capacity of the warehouse. 163 STAFF ASSISTANCE VISITS Chief Johnson performed staff assistance visits (SAYs} to£ tween 24 June -~ 3 duly and to PSAA between 9-20 October. These visits were important, as they were the first such logisttics SA¥s to the overseas area in several years and provided an oppor- tunity to discuss critical areas such as the ADP program, mobility equipment, and, in Europe, the JCF upgrade, 164 OMS REVIEW Chief dJotnson attended the FY 86 Oepat Maintenance Schedule Review (DMSR) for comnunications-electronics equipment at McClellan AFB, California, 18-20 September £984. Among the agenda items of interest to AFSAC were: validation of command maintenance requirements for FY 8&6; identification of appropriate sources of repairs repair schedules; and revisions/additions to TO 00-25- AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT As part of the mobility build-up in 1984, AFSAC had ordered various items of audiovisual equipment (cameras, monitors, etc.) for use ia interrogation activities. Problems arose, however, because of the Jack within AFSAC of a dedicated audiovisual manager to moniter and process the requirements fn a more timely manner. On 14 November, AFIS/CV requested Det 11, 1361 AVS to appoint Chief Johnson as primary and MSgt Frasher {AFIS/CVE} as alternate Audiovisual Managers for AFIS/AFSAC at Fort Belvoir. This was approved by the commander of Det 11, 1361st AVS, on 28 *Yovember, aliowing AFSAC to requisition and receipt for its own audiovisual supplies and equipment. Also on the topic of audiovisual equipment, LG requested a change to Table of Allowance (TA) 069 ta altow AFSAC and its overseas ares headquarters to order one camera and related equfpment set per headquarters (for an AFSAC-wide total of three). The change was approved and the equipment ordered, but it had act been received by year's end} TASPECTIONS Numerous taspections of the logistics area were conducted in 1984, The AFIS/le ME] of HQ AFSAC rated logistics management as OUTSTANDING, and Chief Johnson recetved two lauda- tory comments ~~ one for his management of the mobility bulid-up Nm
and one for his management and contro? of O&M and IF supplies and equipment. In addition to the MEL, quarterly ICF inspections were conducted, none of which uncovered any discrepancies, and an Air Force Audit Agency auditor inspected the ICF account on 22 June. The auditor checked ICF supplies and equipment and reviewed the procedures for {ssuing incentive gifts. No discrepancies were noted. CAREER MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING we Career Managetent and Training @rench (INXC} - was respansible for all actions dealing with personae} management, 4ncluding officer and enlisted accessions, operational and fon operational training, O&R and APR quality control, awards and decorations, and civilian personnel. 16 a The branch chief was Major George A. Nalesich: his gear ry and chief of Operationa} Training was Mr. Elmer T. Knudsen. Four-Year Personnel Management System @ Upon Lt Col Fairbrother’s arrival to the division in dune, ne immediately began designing and implementing a computer assisted four year personne] management system. The long term objective was to increase AFSAC manning to néar iG0 percent with qualified and trained personnel. The process began by resolving discrepancies between AFSAC's Unit Personne! Roster (uPR} and the AFIS Unit Manning Document {UMD}. Both documents were found to be in error, and by September, with the assistance of Major Caulfield, INYSH, both documents were in accord--probably for the first time since AF HUMINT amalgamation, A second step was the placement of the UPR by Lt Col Fairbrother on hfs home computer so updated products could be provided to AFSAC field units on 2 monthly basis instead of semiannually, Additional data elements were added, such as required languages a assignment preferences, to make the document more useful to the field elements. Concurrent with tevision of the UPR format, Lt Col Fairbrother priefed the AFSAC commander on the proposed personne! management system and received approval to place outyear personne! projec- tions against billets.1/0 A second phase of the Personnel Management System was to merge personnel selection data with the GDIP Program Management Files and AFSAC position descriptions to form a complete body of information from history, programmatic implications ‘and selectton criteria to a file containing detai}ed personatfa on past, current, and projected AFSAC employees. A long range goal was to use computer aqsistance in selecting personne! dased on position requirements.+