o> at ant Approved For Release SEG PET” TAF M-OPS-HU-SA 14 August 1980 SUBJECT: INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding re. GRILL FLAME: Program. 1. (U) Reference: DIA Letter, S-1922/DT+~1, 7 August 1980, subject: GRILL FLAME Program. 2. (S/NOFORN) Comments re. basic letter. a. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2: It is INSCOM's understanding at this time there is little liklihood SRI will be prepared to administer "new" training technique during FY 81. SRI has done little formal experimentation in "tracking" and is ill equipped to examine physiological functioning. SRI, at the present time, can- not comply with "full year's effort" regarding some aspects of Statement of Work. b. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2: INSCOM funds are limited and are directed toward sustaining an intelligence operational evaluation of psychoenergetics. INSCOM cannet MIPR funds to DIA without knowing individual costs of those elc- ments of the program that are in support of INSCOM needs, and without knowing which elements SRI can realistically fulfill during FY 81. c. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 3: Nonconcur that entire first year effort should be at SRI. In areas of tracking and physiological monitoring, SRI offers no meaningful advantage, particularly during critical first year. INSCOM funds are intended to be employed where they can best benefit INSCOM's evaluation effort, regardless of source of external support being sought. d. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 5: A meeting of Action Officers was scheduled for 11 Aug 80. IGFP was never notified of such intent. : 3. (S/NOFORN) Comments re. Mission and Objectives Statement. a. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph la: Functions related to development of a US ORV capability have been placed behind the overall objective of threat assessment. Elsewhere in proposal, threat is antecedent to development of a US capability. Recommend para la become para lh, and objectives pertaining to development of a US capability be moved forward in priority. b. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph le: Recommendations re. GRILL FLAME Program should be last objective in series. Recommend para le become para li. c. (S/NOFORN) Paragraphs lh and 1j: Recommend combining these objectives in para ig,:as they are similar and must occur prior to final recommendation and threat assessment functions. d. (S/NOFORN) Paragraphab: Milestones for year #2 mention establishment of a cadre of fully trained ORVs, but does not address prospect of other non- SRI sponsored training. Exploration of alternative possibilities must be a year #1 function, and a continuous process throughout follow on years. It is presumptuous to assume SRI has all there is to offer and that SRI training is the only prerequisite to achieving "full qualification." Such pursuit of qualification must be a continuous and dynamic process, not limited to sole source procurement of training and development services at SRI. INSCOM recommends Msq Dani-ise yD! OSH“ DE JUL” Incl 1 Approved For Release oobaydert § dre top sp-00788R001700280021-2 Aug 2000
PENT he ER ROMER Sie? TNE OS RAS eee ee mR F Approved For Release 2003/09/16; Fay pomp-covesncorroozo0z, ~ TAFM-OPS-HU-SA 14 August 1980 SUBJECT: INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding re. GRILL FLAME (U) term "fully trained" be deleted. The term "cadre" is vague. Recommend a mini- mum level of personnel be cited to lend substance to this milestone. e. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2c: Milestones for year #3 include "apply all ORV personnel to real intelligence programs". Who will provide these personnel? Who will coordinate collection priorities and tasking of ORV groups? Are~such per- sonnel to be trained only in new SRI methodologies or are they to include those previously trained? What is proposed saturation rate of tasking to be- ‘levied by DIA? Will Military Services lose control of their assets during this and the preceding year #2 data acquisition effort? por ple | , f. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2c: If Military Service ORV personnel are to par- ticipate in "real intelligence" collection activities from year #2 onward, it would appear the milestone "training programs for ORV monitors..." is more ap- propriately a year #1 or year #2 milestone. Otherwise, data acquired during year #2 and year #3 upon which final evaluations/ judgements are based, will be data provided by "trained" ORV personnel functioning under the guidance of "untrained" monitor personnel. g. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 3: All experimental/testing design, reports of progress and experiment results should be cleared by joint approval of Action Officers at the GRILL FLAME Committee level, not the COTR. COTR should monitor ‘day to day activity of SRI, but not have the authority to unilaterally approve/ disapprove basic initiatives or interpret results. This procedure would be in more direct compliance with responsibilities of the COTR outlined in the pro- posed MOU. h. (S/NGFORN) Comment Overview: As far as INSCOM.is concerned, the ob ject- ives and milestones as proposed by DIA represent a step backward. The IGFP has been training personnel for two years, has been working on real. intelligence operational tasks for nearly one year, and has been examining "variables" impact- ing on ORV collection for nearly two years. IGFP has directed considerable effort toward determining guidelines for "best use" of ORV since its inception, and currently has a data base of over 500 ORV sessions of both training and operational categories. SRI was tasked during an earlier contractual agreement to develop a meaningful selection criterion (ORV profile) and essentially was capable of providing little which was not already known and already utilized by the IGFP in its early stages of development (refer report entitled "Special Orientation Techniques", SRI, June 1980) — 4, (S/NOFORN) Comments re. Memorandum of Understanding. a. (S/NOFORN) Unnumbered introductory paragraph 1: In this paragraph, deter- mination of hostile ORV threat is placed antecedent to the goal of determining whether a useful ORV capability can be developed. This ordering of objectives supports rationale cited in paragraph 3a above. raph be included in introductroy paragraph 1, with wording as follows: Ms b. (S/NOFORN) Unnumbered introductory paragraph 2: Recommend this para- 4 g Approved For Release panel Ha RDPIE -00788R001700280021-2 2k we
Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001700280021-2 Hy ; e eyed te Boke 4 IAFM~OPS-HU-SA ; 14 August 1980 SUBJECT: INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding re. GRILL FLAME (U) — ".,.SRI International. The GRILL FLAME Committee will seek throughout the first year, and continually during follow-on years, to examine capabilities developed by potential contractors other than SRI. DIA and the Military Services will maintain "state of the art" continuity with psychoenergetics research within the US with a view toward diversification of external assistance support if, and when, required by operational needs of participating agencies/services." c. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph @: Recommend addition of function: "(4) Maintain continuity with stabever the art developments @\ XX in psychoenergetics research in efi and elsewhere to, ident- iv ify alternative training opportun a cok B20 US py Na WW" pee d. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph b: Recommend addition of following function iff comments of paragraph 3d, 3e, and 3f above apply: AR "(5) Provide ORV (and/or) ORV monitor personnel support to SRI experimentsyas required during years #2 and #3." - Whe~ a e. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph c: If comments contained in para 3e above apply, recommend addition of the following task: Seager ot OW Adi soe "(§) Eeteblish-intettigence collection {priorities} for ap- plication of ORV technique to real targets (commencing in year #2), insuring that the intelligence needs of each participating service are met." f. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph d: If comments conained in para 3e above apply, recommend addition of following task: "(9) Provides verbatim transcripts of all experimental a ORV sessions directed against real intelligence targets to: 7 \\ (a) The GRILL FLAME Committee, and (b) the participating Military Service against whose EEI or intelligence "gap" the session was directed, and (c) the participating Military Service whose | ORV personnel was employed." ‘AL g. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph d: Responsibilities of the COTR listed here do not agree with statements contained in Mission and Objectives Statement, para 4 (refer to INSCOM Comment, para 3g above). INSCOM concurs with duties outlined 3 fh . PEs ae pp Cond 4 ed Approved For Release 2003/09/16 { C\A-FROR96-po788R001700280021-2 Nes 5 a 5 B
Ee ————— Approved For “SEC PET! 700280021-2 TAFM-OPS-HU-SA 14 August 1980 SUBJECT: INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding re. GRILL FLAME (U) in MOU with single exception that the GRILL FLAME Committee should be respon- 3 sive to inquiries from other services/agencies, vice the COTR as stated in por para d(8), MOU. a 5. (S/NOFORN) Comments re. Statement of Work. >. a. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2.1: Army already has trained ORVs. Is pro- LAS posed training to be in "new" SRI technique? If so, indications are the "new" or if technique will not be ready for another year. SRI therefore will probably be ¥/¥ ob NX unable to achieve FY 81 training goal. Refer comments para 2a above. If oe A training in "old" SRI technique is intended, it appears Army funding commit- ment should be reduced, since training of that type during FY 79 was signifi- WY cantly less manpower intensive for SRI than the "new" technique appears. o LP b. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2.2: A valid Army requirement for SRI to pursue. Sys RO However, what is independent cost figure? If training of 2 ORVs in "old™ tech- aE 6 nique and audio analysis are inteyded during year #1, Army funding contribution xy should be adjusted downward. Or c. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2.3: Refer to comment para 2a above. Again, no a %: formal training program exists. It is unlikely SRI could honor such a year #1 Te, 5 gi commitment with a quality program. Other contractor possibilities should -be ri at , explored. Recommend Army contact USMC regarding Vietnam era employment of ealava u dowsers, a function apparently related to tracking. Recommend that FY 81 task ion — be. to develop a formal training program, and that training of Army personnel be. moved to FY 82. : d. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2.4: SRI expertise does not appear to include 4 7, \ physiological monitoring capability. Recommend consideration be given to 4 1a diversifying contractor support by examining expertise of other organizations. ,,f@_ ( The Maimonides Institute and the Meninger Foundation have made significant\ |) AD. inroads into this area. The technical expertise of such organizations far out-m\ : weigh that available at SRI, insofar as bio-physical evaluation is concerned. ae Xb e. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 2.8: Quick reaction tasks should be avoided b> “13 a whenever possible. Not only do they detract from the effort at hand and lead — |... Pa, ) to numerous scheduling and production problems, but more importantly, there is} a a great security risk in involving uncleared personnel in sensitive intelli- ENO? ence situations. — ens fl ° i wyor i f, (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 6: Security Requirements. Sufficient SI/SA0 C d Ke billets should be identified to properly support the program. If and when pe [y SRI-L commences work on operational situations, then it would be wise if all ee personnel. connected with operational matters possess the necessary clearances.£™ A \ VA g. (S/NOFORN) Paragraph 7: Monthly Status Report. Not needed. The COTR Aue if ‘is there to insure that work is flowing smoothly and the quarterly technical - a reports should be sufficient to enable everyone to keep abreast of current 4, developments. ee es Approved For Release 2003/09/16': PARDEE -yreaR001700280021-2 Noy en O72 Ae Oe