1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 83 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:
U
PageSaver
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE COMMISSION - OPEN MEETING:Friday, May 21, 1993CHAIRMAN COURTER: Why don't we just hold the
discussion until we finish your review of the large bases.
MR. CIRILLO: Right after this slide would be the4 time; yes, sir.
5 Again, if you look at the row titled the "Air
6 Force grouping," you can get a better picture of the
7 direction of the Air Force process. The bases were grouped
8 and listed within each group from 1 to 3, with group 1 being
9 the most desirable to retain, and group 3 being the least
10 desirable to retain. In this case, 3 is bad, i is good,
11 because we're going to maybe confuse you a little bit in the
12 next series of numbers.
13 They did put them in groups. In all cases, the
14 groupings were made as the result of polling senior Air
15 Force leadership of the Base Closure Executive Group. Note
16 that the bases were not grouped by the Air Force's mobility
U Vases -- you can see that on the chart on your right -- but
18 rather any of three of their primary mission category areas,
19 such as bomber, airlift, or tanker.
20 As far as being evaluated as an East Coast
21 mobility base, they are assessed by issues such as those
22 shown on the left-hand side of your chart. To assist you in
Page 694 of 880 Pages
I your review, the staff has performed a preliminary analysis
2 of the bases shown using Air Force provided issues and
3 subelements as related to the airlift and tanker missions
4 that are part and parcel of the mobility concept.
S The staff operational scores are preliminary
6 indications and do not reflect subelements where staff is
wvtill assessing Air Force data and ratings. These scores
8 reflect factors related only to the first three militaryI
%W39
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22Page 695 of 880 Pages
1 comment that you're f-ne tuning pretty exactly when you come
2 in with scores that are so equivalent. Is there no way you
3 could get a greater differentiation?
4 MR. CIRILLO: What I would like to do -- this
5 would be a good opportunity for Major Kurt Dittmer to
6 explain the process that we use to lay out to you how we
7 went about coming upon these scores. Maybe you could get a
8 better feeling for that, Commissioner Stuart. And what
9 he'll do -- I think the best way to show this is we have a
10 series of slides that happen to be on the fighter area, but
11 they're all about the same.
12 Kurt?
13 MAJ DITTMER: Could you give me backup slide 17?
14 What we did is, using our military reason,
15 military judgement -- what we have done is went through the
16 questionnaires that were provided by the Air Force and allDiversified Reporting Services, Inc. - (202) 296-2929
value criteria and do not consider cost factor.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, the higher the score,
the better, as shown in the column showing staff operational
score. As you can see, we have rated them both in the
airlift area and the tanker area.
We'll be glad to discuss any of the issues on the
chart and discuss these with you. And I'll give you an
indication on the first area, in the airlift area, 190 is
the maximum number of points, and the preliminary scores
show McGuire with 144; Griffiss with 164; Plattsburgh with
161.
We'll be glad to address any of the other issues
on the chart at your discretion.
COMMISSIONER STUART: Frank, I've just got toPang III f ?nl aoo
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/m1/83/?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.