1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 71 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:
68
~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
W 67
~68
69proposed addition to the Secretary's List of
miLitary instalLations recommended for closure
or realignment, the vote is seven in favor,
zero against; the motion passes.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Do I hear a
motion on Johnstown?
COCISSIONER BIAN: Yes,
sir. I move the Comission consider Naval Air
Facility Johnstown, Pennsylvania, as a
proposed addition to the Secretary's List of
military installations recommended for closure
or reali greent.second?
Second.CHAIRMAN COURTER: Do I hear a
COMI SS I OER MCPHERSON:CHAIRMAN COURTER: It has been
moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER: No
discussion. We' LL start with Mr. Bowman.
COMIISSIONER BOAN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COX: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Aye.
GEM JOHNSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STUART: Aye.
MS. CHESTON: On the motion
that the Commission consider Naval Air
Facility Johnstown, Pennsylvania, as a
proposed addition to the Secretary's List of
military installations recommended for closure
or realignment, the vote is seven in favor,
zero against; the motion passes.
MR. YELLIN: Our next category
is service Reserve centers. 45 and 46,
please.
What we have done here,
because we have a large group of Reserve
centers and other surface or air facilities
that are presented to us as potential
closures, the map is an indication of the
locations of readiness centers, Reserve
centers, and others that are either proposed
for closures or open. There may be some
locations in the country that are missing from
here because of nonBRAC actions or things that
are in the process of being opened, but we
think this is a fairly comprehensive List.
If you could keep 46 up and
add 47.
The issue here is the closure
and consolidation of Naval Reserve Center
Chicopee, Mass.; Navy Reserve Center Lawrence,
Massachusetts; and Naval Reserve Center
Quincy, Massachusetts, at Naval Air Station
South Weymouth. This was an issue that was
also brought up at the visit to South Weymouth
as a proposal to allow consolidation, closure
of excess facilities, but allow, also, their
consolidation into existing facilities at
South Weymouth and al low more effective
utilization of Reservists by using other
facilities at South Weymouth to both provide
messing and berthing for weekends, rather than
being on the community.
Michele?
MS. SISAK: In looking atfirst the map, what I would like to address on
that is we wanted to show the distribution of
the centers that OW had recommended. These
are primarily )laval Reserve centers. Marine
Corps also has a few, but they overlap in some
cases with the Naval Reserve. And as Alex had
mentioned, outside of the BAC considerations,
since all of these facilities are below the
threshold, Naval Reserve Force has taken some
consolidation actions. They have also taken
some closure actions. So this is not a
complete distribution of all centers.
The three centers listed for
consideration, Chicopee, Lawrence, and Ouipcy,
are within a three-hour drive of the South
Weymouth consolidation site. What the Naval
Reserve Force defines as a reasonable ci te
is 100 miles. what in reality happens is,
outside of 50 miLes, you have to provide
messing and berthing for these people. So by
consolidating these centers at a facility that
has government messing and berthing
available, you would save those costs.
That was the ra+tionale behind the proposal.
Again, because they are small
facilities, we're looking at reLatively small
nuser figures in terms of savings, in term
of operating casts. The major issues are
those, again, that would typically be
considered the issues in placement of a
Reserve center. The military values are taken
from the Navy's military value matrix.
Probably the most important
thing on there are the facility sizes and the
age of the facility. Again, Vavat Reserve
Force, in their discussions with me, are
desirous of ridding themselves of older
facilities that require a lot of repairs and
upkeep. One of the things that needs to be
considered in consolidation is the space
available for those Reserve units that have
hardware attached, and I believe Lawrence is
one of those.
Again, the facility at South
IWeymouth would have enough space for the
rolling stock with the unit that has that
particular equipment.
COMISS LONER MCPHERSON: How
many people are we talking about here in these
three facilities?
MS. SJSA: Active duty
personnel, you're talking probably less than
35, total. I would have to go back and get
those specific meters. The dri l ling
population is Listed on the unit macring. If
you Look at the nters given, the first
number in the parentheses is the actual nuter
of Reservists who drill at that Reserve
center. The second nuter is the authorized
billtets for the units assigned.
M4R. TELLIN: We have about
1,000.
COMMISSIONER M CPHERSON: The
first nestr are the Reservists?
MS. SISMK: The actual nutbr
of Reservists there. Typically, a Reserve
center has between 10 and ZO people assigned
active duty Seeport staff and no civilians.
COMMI[SSIlONER MCPHERSON: And
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/m1/71/?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.