1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 38 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69Carolina, in the numbers you see indicated.
All of the aLternatives which
we'll address involve the closure of either
NAS Oceans or MCAS Beaufort or both.
MR. YELLIN: Mark, please
Leave up 10 and put up 11.
In this chart, we have the
comparative issues for Oceana and Beaufort as
alternatives to the closure of Cecil Field.
Mote that we have also included a column here
for Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point
that's not for consideration because it's
involved with a number of these scenarios as a
receiver. We put that on for comparative
information.
I would like Rich to go
through the chart, please.
LTC RICHARDELLA: In this
chart, sir, what I have reflected in the Left
column is eight of the criteria that were
considered both in the development of the DOD
recommendation and in the analysis by the
Cominssion's staff. In the case of military
value, which is on top, where there was a
difference between what the community thought
military value should be and what the Navy
thought it was, we have reflected that in
parentheses.
Base Loading is reflected for
the years 1993 and 1999, which will result
from the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: Rich,
excuse me. The Marine Corps military values
were assigned by the Navy?
LTC RICHARDELLA: When I say
the Navy, Mr. McPherson, I mean the Navy
commission that put together a recomendation
which was comprised of both Naval and Marine
officers.
CCIISSIONER MCPHERSON: My
question was whether the same people who
assigned a military value to Cecil Field and
Oceans assigned one to Beaufort and Cherry
Point.
LTC RICHARDELLA: The answer
is yes, the same people.
MR. YELLIN: And they went
through the same set of questions. All these
air stations went through the same set of
military value questions, which we have showm
before to you in the matrixes of all the
questions and the Os and Os and is and the
different weighting. They're all graded
against the same set of questions.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: But
were the graders the same people?
MR. YELLIN: Yes, the same
group, the BSAT and the BSEC, which
represented the Navy Department.
GEM JOHNSON : But i sn' t i t
true that it comes from the installation
commander that actually does the grading?
MR. YELLIN: No. There was
data calls sent out, questiornaires, in
essence, sent out, a niater of them by the
Navy working groap out through the chain of
command, and came bck, really, to the
through the chain of command that answered
questions in a standardized way of all air35
stations.
GEN JOHNSON: So to answer his
questions, the Marine ones cm through the
Marine chain of command, and the Navy came
through the Navy chain of coimnd.
MR. YELLIN: But one of the
issues that we in the process was the
questions that were used to determine the
military value grades were, in som cases, not
a one-to-one question to the field, so they
required some assessment and evaluation on the
part of the Navy's group, the Navy
Department's group in Washington, so that
there was interpretation required of the data
call information provided by the field in
order to get the grades.
GEM JOHNSON: Would it be fair
to say that the Marine relative rankings among
the Marines is accurate and the relative
ranking among the Navy is accurate, but not
necessarily across the two?
LTC RICHARDELLA: ALL of the
air stations, General, were ranked together as
one type of an air station, both Marine Corps
and Navy. ALL of the answers that were
submitted by both the Marine Corps and Navy
were audited by the Naval Audit Service, and
aLl of those answers were, again, treated the
same by the commission, which was comprised of
both Navy and Marine Corps officers.
GEM JOHNSON: But we found in
the Navy in some of the visits that scores
were different in East Coast and West Coast,
just a different way of looking at it.
Relatively, that was correct, but going from
one coast to the other, it didn't necessarily
match up.
LTC RICHARDELLA: Sir, the
answers were subject to the jg t of
whatever commander was responsible for the
data call.
CHAIRMAN CCXRTER: Before we
continue, Commissioner Rebecca Cox is
recognized.
COIHISSIONER CoX: Yes. I
wanted to make sure, Mr. Chairman, on the
record that it was clear that I'm recusing
myself from Naval Air Stations Agana, El Toro,
Tustin, and Miramar.
CHAIRMAN COUNTER: Thank you
very much.
You may proceed, Rich.
LTC RICHARDELLA: The next on
the list, we have listed miles to Marine
division for the reason that any alternative
which involved a location of Marine
helicopters or close air support aircraft
needed to be close enough to the Marine
division to be able to suprt it without the
cost or time involved in flying there being
proh ibi tive.
The next what I would consider
major issue is encroachment, both in air and
on the ground. I f any existed, we have
addressed that, and I can discuss any of those
answers.
CHAIRMAN CWURTER: With ..
rsetto air encroachment and: grourxi'/
encroachment, could you walk through that a
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/38/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.