1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 64 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:
61
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
69recommendation states, and the determination
is to move the school somewhere else, then the
base has no mission, and a closure would be
smthing the Commission might want to
consider.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: I
understand.
Any further questions? BilL,
do you have anything else?
MR. BERL: Just one last
point, that since commissioners already
visited New London, if the recoinndation to
change the classification is approved, there's
not a requirement to revisit it.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Any
questions by the panel?
COMISSIONER BCh4AN: Is the
question that -- and I'm really looking for
this for clarification. Is the reason that
you brought it up so that, if we were to
recommend Naval Submarine Base New London for
a closure versus real igrment, we would have
to, at this forum today, vote to place it in
such a category?
MR. YELLIN: That was the
direction to me.
MR. BEHRMANN: Mr. Bowman, if
you're going to increase the scope of a
realignment action or upgrade it to a closure
status, you have a positive obligation to give
notice to the community in the Federal
Register.
COMMISSIONER BOWAN: I just
wanted to clarify that. I wasn't doubting it
or questioning it.
MR. BEHRMANN: Yes, sir.
That's exactly what this is for.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Any other
further discussions or questions by the panel?
(Mo response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Being none,
is there any motions with respect to New
London?
GEM JOHNSON: I move the
Comission consider Naval Suase New London,
Connecticut, for a proposed increase in extent
of realigrment recommended by the Secretary
and/or as a proposed addition to the
Secretary's list of military installations
recommended for closure.
I further move that the
Commission consider Naval Hospital Fort
Groton, Connecticut, as a proposed addition to
the Secretary's list of military installations
recomee for closure or realignment.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Is there a
second to the motion?
CO MISSIONER COX: I'll
second.
CHtAIRMN COURTER: There is a
second to the motion. Any discussion on the
motion?
(Mo response.)
CHA IRMAN COURTER: No
discussion on the motion.
Caimissioner Peter Roa.
COMMISSIONER BGA: No.
CWI SSlONER COX: Aye.
COMMI!SSIONlER MCPHERSON: No.On the map on your left, hichW
CHAIRMAN COURTER: No.
GEM JOHNSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: No.
MS. CHESTON: On the motion
that the Comission consider Naval Subbase Mew
London, Connecticut, for a proposed increase
in the extent of real igrment recomended by
the Secretary and/or as a proposed addition to
the Secretary's List of military installations
recosmanded for closure, and further, that the
Commission consider Naval Hospital Groton,
Connecticut, as a proposed addition to the
Secretary's list of military installations
recommended for closure or real igrment, the
vote is two in favor, four against; the motion
fails.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Mr. Yellin,
you can proceed.
MR. YELLIN: I would Like to
go onto inventory control points. Please put
up 30 ard 31.
On my Left is David Epstein.
He is the analyst for this category and
several that follow.
The current DOD proposal is to
close the aviation fly office in Philadelphia,
ASO, to close the compound there and move that
group to SPCC, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
And that map on 31, we describe that proposal.
And I think what we should do is take down 30
and put up 32, and I would like to have David
go through the alternatives.
MR. EPSTEIN: First, in
discussing the map on 31, 1 would like to 14
describe some of the key features that are
involved. It involves moving approximately 7
and-a-half to 8,000 people. There are two
compounds in Philadelphia, currently. The
people at the southern compound, which is near
the Navy yard -.
CO1MISSI OWNER MCPHERSON:
David, could you speak a tittle louder?
MR. EPSTEIN: Sure. The
people at --
CHAIRMAN COJRTER: Ihat you
may want to do is move your mike over if you
can Look in that direction.
MR. EPSTEIN: The personnel at
the Defense Personnel Support Center would
move to Mew Cinerland in Central
Pennsylvania. Some of the positions at that
ccsound-would disappear. Personnel at the
northern compound at aviation supply office
would move to Hechan icsburg.
Their primary tenant is the
Defense Industrial Support Center, and it
would move to New Cumberland. There are some
other tenants whose fate is not specifically
called for. And the other fairly important
tenant is NATSF, which is a technical pubs and
forms faci l ity, and i t would move to Patuxent
R iver, Maryl and.
Also, as part of the national
capital region realignment, N aval supply
Systems Comand would move from Crystal City
to Nechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and would be,
thus, cotllocated wi th its two inventory
control points.U
rr
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/m1/64/?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.