ARMY AL&T
Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley inserted the commanders into the co-chair seats start- ing in FY19, a change that makes them both more involved in budget decisions and more accountable for them.
By virtue of its role as co-chair of the equipping group, for example, Army Futures Command channels the spending priorities that have been formally reviewed and set in conjunction with its eight cross- functional teams into the Army’s budget request.
Contrary to what one might expect from the budget process, most of the actual horse-trading happens at a higher level inside the Pentagon during a separate but related process to develop the five-year program objective memorandum, well before the Army’s budget request goes to Congress. Te program objective memo- randum is the primary document on which the services base decisions on program scope and spending, with supporting information on missions, objectives and alternatives.
Te National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 brought about a major shift in how these trades take place. Previously, the chief of staff delegated the verification of requirements to the deputy chief of staff, G-3 (operations and plans). With the passage of the legislation, Milley reinvigorated the approval process with the direct involvement of his office and the vice chief ’s.
“Now you’ve got the deep dives by the chief of staff of the Army. And so the horse- trading is done by him,” said Passero, who shepherds the budgeting and executes spending for combat systems and Soldier equipment through the program objec- tive memorandum cycle. “He’s got all the information he needs ... and he does the horse-trading,” asking the G-3 such
questions as, why are we still pursuing this capability? Is this a valid need? To which the G-3 might respond, no, and recom- mend putting the money elsewhere; or the answer might be, we don’t need this many, our force structure has changed since the acquisition plan started.
“So there’s renewed energy at finding effec- tiveness in how we spend our money,” Passero said.
Te negotiating typically continues, to a lesser extent but also at a high level, on Capitol Hill after Congress has received the president’s budget submission, which usually happens in February, but not always. “Sometimes a general will be sent to the Hill to do a little horse-trading or explaining,” Miller explained. For example,
“[Lt.] Gen. [Paul A.] Ostrowski [principal military deputy to the ASA(ALT)] carries a lot of the mail on priorities.”
If senior Army leadership holds sway in the development of the program objec- tive memorandum, where does the power reside in determining which Army acquisi- tion programs should receive what money in DOD’s budget request? Miller listed the five most powerful entities in his view:
• ASA(ALT), represented primarily by John Daniels, the DASA PPR.
• The Army Budget Office, headed by the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for budget in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.
• The Force Development and Program Analysis and Evaluation directorates under the deputy chief of staff, G-8. Force Development has a leading role in developing the five-year program objective memorandum to support
the fighting force and the capabilities it needs in the near, mid and far term. Program Analysis and Evaluation’s self-described role focuses on setting priorities and supporting their funding.
• The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), specifically its Office of Cost Assessment and Program Eval- uation (CAPE). After ASA(ALT) crafts its budget request during the summer and fall, it sends the request through the Army Budget Office to CAPE, whose issue teams look at all the requests from across the military services to see how the services’ budgets reflect the priori- ties of the secretary of defense. Those priorities drive the “directed changes”— budget revisions, typically in the nature of, “You’re going to pay more for this, less for that, give up some money to pay OSD bills,” Miller explained—that go back to the services in November and December.
INSIDE THE J-BOOK A good J-book is way more than a USA Today article, but way less than “War and Peace”—and typically nowhere near as riveting, though an engaging narra- tive can only help a program’s chances of approval. Technically a compilation of what are known as “procurement and R&D forms,” the J-book justifies to Congress why a program needs the money that the PEO and, in turn, ASA(ALT), is asking for. “J-books lay out descriptions of what the program does, its accomplish- ments over the prior year, its plans for next year,” Miller said. “Tey typically include a schedule.”
Within the pages of the J-book, which collectively is the bedrock of the Army’s budget request, is where a program and its managers have an incomparable oppor- tunity to shine. A J-book can be three to four pages long, or 30 to 40 pages, Miller
https://asc.ar my.mil 55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
