Chapter 1: Department of the Navy

Department of the Navy

Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska

Category: Operational Air Stations
Mission: Support for Anti-Submarine Warfare Surveillance Mission
One-time Cost: $9.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $108.8 million
Annual: $26.0 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during the 1993 round of base closure and realignments, since DON force structure experiences a reduction of over 10 percent by the year 2001, there continues to be additional excess capacity that must be eliminated. In evaluating operational bases, the goal was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support the future force structure without impeding operational flexibility for deployment of that force. In the case of Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska, the Navy’s anti-submarine warfare surveillance mission no longer requires these facilities to base or support its aircraft. Closure of this activity reduces excess capacity by eliminating unnecessary capabilities and can be accomplished with no loss in mission effectiveness.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions of concern from the local community. The U.S. Coast Guard, however, expressed concern about the closing of NAF Adak because of its use as a support base for their law enforcement, search and rescue, and navigation aid maintenance operations. Without NAF Adak’s support facilities, the Coast Guard would be forced to obtain support for their operations at a greater distance from their patrol areas which would increase their overall operating costs.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense. The closing of NAF Adak, however, caused the Coast Guard to voice concern about losing a base from which they can stage some of their operations. The Commission recognizes that the use of NAF Adak is important to the Coast Guards missions of law enforcement and search and rescue. This operational need, however, is not sufficient to justify keeping the facility open.

Commission Recommendation

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland CA

Category: Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers
Mission: Supply Support
One-time Cost: $23.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $29.7 million
Annual: $12.6 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

None. The Commission added this military installation to the list of bases to be considered by the Commission for closure or realignment as a proposed change to the list of recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense.

Community Concerns

FISC is located in three jurisdictions: Oakland, Alameda, and Richmond, California. Alameda and Richmond would like to have the land in their cities closed under base closure rules, which would expedite the land transfer. Initially, Oakland was concerned that any base closure action would prevent implementation of special legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to sign long-term leases with the City of Oakland, the Port of Oakland and the City of Alameda for $1. The Port of Oakland and the Navy recently signed leases for two parcels of FISC land. The Port was originally concerned that closure of FISC as a BRAC action would delay their large port development plan. The Port recognized that closure would allow the Port to acquire the land and would not interfere or prevent ongoing lease negotiations.

Commission Findings

The Secretary of the Navy removed FISC Oakland from the list of recommendations presented to him because of excessive job losses in California. The Commission added FISC Oakland for consideration. The Commission found employment levels and workload at FISC decreasing as the bases it supported were closed. FISC’s primary function would be to operate office space for Government tenants.

The Commission agreed with the Richmond and Alameda communities that the closure of FISC land in their communities would facilitate transfer of the land. To clarify that these were distinct parcels of land the Commission addressed these parcels in a separate closure motion. The Commission and the Oakland community ultimately agreed that the closure of the main FISC compound in Oakland would not interfere with their ongoing lease negotiations or previously signed leases, and would facilitate transfer of the property. The proposed closure actions received the endorsement of the Port of Oakland and the mayors of Oakland, Alameda, and Richmond. The Commission also found that additional savings would result if the two major tenants at FISC, Military Sealift Command and Defense Finance and Accounting Service, move to other Government-owned space.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 5 and 6. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland. Close Point Molate Naval Refueling Station, Richmond, California. Close Navy Supply Annex, Alameda, California. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Commission Recommendation II

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 5 and 6. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland. Relocate Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Military Sealift Command to Government-owned space. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California, and
Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California

Category: Operational Air Stations
Mission: Support Aviation Operations
One-time Cost: $90.2 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $293.0 million
Annual: $6.9 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect (amended)

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving sites for “squadrons and related activities at NAS Miramar” specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-18) from “NAS Lemoore and NAS Fallon” to “other naval air stations, primarily NAS Oceana, Virginia, NAS North Island, California, and NAS Fallon, Nevada.” Change the receiving sites for MCAS Tustin, California, specified by the 1993 Commission from “NAS North Island, NAS Miramar, or MCAS Camp Pendleton” to “other naval air stations, primarily MCAS New River, North Carolina; MCB Hawaii (MCAF Kaneohe Bay); MCAS Camp Pendleton, California; and NAS Miramar, California.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation furthers the restructuring initiatives of operational bases commenced in BRAC 93 and also recognizes that the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan further reduced force levels from those in the FY 1999 Force Structure Plan applicable to BRAC 93. These force level reductions required the Department of the Navy not only to eliminate additional excess capacity but to do so in a way that retained only the infrastructure necessary to support future force levels and did not impede operational flexibility for the deployment of that force. Full implementation of the BRAC 93 recommendations relating to operational air stations would require the construction of substantial new capacity at installations on both coasts, which only exacerbates the level of excess capacity in this subcategory of installations. Revising the receiving sites for assets from these installations in this and other air station recommendations eliminates the need for this construction of new capacity, such that the total savings are equivalent to the replacement plant value of an existing tactical aviation naval air station. Further, within the context of the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan, the mix of operational air stations and the assets they support resulting from these recommendations provides substantial operational flexibility. For instance, the single siting of F-14s at Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia, fully utilizes that installation’s capacity and avoids the need to provide support on both coasts for this aircraft series which is scheduled to leave the active inventory. This recommendation also permits the relocation of Marine Corps helicopter squadrons in the manner best able to meet operational imperatives.

Community Concerns

The MCAS El Toro, MCAS Tustin, California redirect affects numerous communities, several of which expressed concerns. There were no formal expressions, however, from the communities near the following bases: MCAF Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; NAS North Island, California; NAS Fallon, Nevada; NAS Miramar, California; MCAS Camp Pendleton, California; and NAS Lemoore, California.

The NAS Oceana community is willing to accept the F-14 aircraft. An airport zoning ordinance was passed preventing certain types of incompatible development, and thus helping the NAS Oceana preserve their AICUZ (air installation compatible use zones). Approximately $25 million has been slated by the local government to move two schools away from the air station, and out of the accident potential zones. The community believes overcrowding is not an issue for the air station and that the actual levels of aircraft assigned after the redirects will be less than were assigned in 1991.

The March AFB, California community, although not involved in the DoD recommendation, submitted a proposal to move the Marine helicopter assets to March AFB. They cite savings for DoD and operational improvements as the major reason for their desire to have the helicopter assets assigned to their base. March AFB is located in Riverside County, California. The community asserts the cost of living is less than that in the San Diego, California area and the Marines could use the over 700 family housing units available at March. The community also asserts that location of helicopters away from fixed wing aircraft offers more training opportunities for the helicopters. In addition, the community believes separate basing of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft eliminates safety and operational concerns.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that redirecting the F-14 and E-2C aircraft from NAS Lemoore to other naval air stations eliminates the need for $345 million in construction costs at NAS Lemoore. Additionally, the Secretary’s recommendation takes advantage of already existing capacity at NAS Oceana.

During final deliberations, the Commission debated other receiving sites for the Marine Corps helicopter squadrons, including March AFB, California. Although relocating helicopters to March AFB might be operationally attractive, operating costs, according to the Marine Corps, would be significantly more expensive. The Commission was assured that the collocation of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft at NAS Miramar can be safely accomplished through careful base and flight operations planning. The Commission believes, however, that the recommendation for redirect to specific airfields may restrict the service to a location that may not be desirable after detailed implementation planning. Therefore, the Commission recommended the language be changed to other air stations to allow greater operational flexibility including the ability to locate the helicopter squadrons at March AFB or other locations if appropriate.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving sites for squadrons and related activities at NAS Miramar specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-18) from NAS Lemoore and NAS Fallon to other naval air stations, primarily NAS Oceana, Virginia, NAS North Island, California, and NAS Fallon, Nevada. Change the receiving sites for MCAS Tustin, California, specified by the 1993 Commission from NAS North Island, NAS Miramar, or MCAS Camp Pendleton to other air stations consistent with operational requirements. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Air Station, Alameda, California

Category: Operational Air Stations
Mission: Support Aviation Operations
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission for the closure of Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-35) for “aircraft along with the dedicated personnel, equipment and support” and “reserve aviation assets” from “NAS North Island” and “NASA Ames/Moffett Field,” respectively, to “other naval air stations, primarily the Naval Air Facility, Corpus Christi, Texas, to support the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence, Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

The decision to collocate all mine warfare assets, including air assets, at the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence at Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas, coupled with the lack of existing facilities at Naval Air Station, North Island, support this movement of mine warfare helicopter assets to Texas. With this collocation of assets, the Navy can conduct training and operations with the full spectrum of mine warfare assets from one location, significantly enhancing its mine warfare countermeasures capability. This action is also consistent with the Department’s approach for other naval air stations of eliminating capacity by not building new capacity.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that locating mine warfare aviation assets to NAS Corpus Christi enhances training by collocating the full spectrum of mine warfare assets near the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence in nearby Ingleside, Texas. The Commission also found that directing Marine Reserve aviation assets to other naval air stations, affords the operational commander more flexibility in placing these assets. Because all costs and savings were realized in the original recommendation, no additional savings are claimed in this redirect.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission for the closure of Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-35) for aircraft along with the dedicated personnel, equipment and support and reserve aviation assets from NAS North Island and NASA Ames/Moffett Field, respectively, to other naval air stations, primarily the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, to support the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence, Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas.

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering West Coast Division, San Diego, California

Category: Technical Centers/Laboratories
Mission: Electronic In-Service Engineering
One-time Cost: $1.8 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $19.3 million
Annual: $4.3 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the In-Service Engineering West Coast Division (NISE West), San Diego, California, of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center (NCCOSC), including the Taylor Street Special Use Area, and consolidate necessary functions and personnel with the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, either in the NCCOSC RDT&E Division spaces at Point Loma, California, or in current NISE West spaces in San Diego, California.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that personnel efficiencies could be realized through elimination of duplicative workload between NCCOSCs R&D and in-service engineering divisions.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish the In-Service Engineering West Coast Division (NISE West), San Diego, California, of the NCCOSC, including the Taylor Street Special Use Area, and consolidate necessary functions and personnel with the NCCOSC RDT&E Division, either in the NCCOSC RDT&E Division spaces at Point Loma, California, or in current NISE West spaces in San Diego, California.

Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, California

Category: Technical Centers and Laboratories
Mission: Biomedical Research
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain Open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC), San Diego, California, and relocate necessary functions, personnel and equipment to the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) at Memphis, Tennessee.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The community asserts that the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) should be located in close proximity to a fleet concentration in order to have a ready source of test subjects. It argued that realigning NHRC to Memphis would seriously affect NHRC’s ability to perform its mission, and would result in inordinate travel costs to bring subjects to the Center or to send researchers out to the field. An attendant concern was expressed that NHRC was identified in a joint study to become an armed forces research unit under the auspices of a new agency, the Armed Forces Medical Research and Development Agency (AFMRDA). The community contends that NHRC’s utility to AFMRDA is based upon its proximity to test subjects as well as its potential status as the only research unit located on the west coast of the United States. The community raised questions about the suitability of realigning a medical command with a personnel administration command. Finally, the community maintained that the vast majority of NHRC’s work is biomedical, and while some of NHRC’s research may see applications in personnel programs, it should remain in a medical chain of command for tasking and funding.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that NHRC’s work is overwhelmingly biomedical, not personnel research. The Commission was concerned that placing NHRC under the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) pursuant to the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense would have a detrimental effect on its biomedical research. NHRC has been chosen to become a research unit under Armed Forces Medical Research and Development Agency (AFMRDA). If NHRC were moved to BUPERS, its access to the medical research community would be curtailed and its utility to AFMRDA would be questionable. The Commission found, therefore, that NHRC should remain within the chain of command of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, and at its present location. Severing well-established operational research ties in San Diego would have a deleterious affect on NHRC’s mission performance not sufficiently offset by the proposed savings.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC), San Diego remains open and is not disestablished. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Navy Personnel Research and Development Center,
San Diego, California

Category: Technical Centers and Laboratories
Mission: Personnel Research
One-time Cost: $7.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-4.3 million (Cost)
Annual: $1.9 million
Return on Investment: 2004 (4 years)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, California, and relocate its functions, and appropriate personnel, equipment, and support to the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Memphis, Tennessee, and Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The community believes the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center should be in close proximity to a fleet concentration in order to have a ready source of test subjects. It argued that realigning NPRDC to Memphis would seriously affect NPRDC’s ability to perform its mission, and would result in inordinate travel costs to bring subjects to the Center or to send researchers out to the field. Concerns were also expressed over the number of personnel positions that DoD claims would be eliminated in the realignment. The community claimed some positions were eliminated through force level reductions and would have occurred regardless of whether NPRDC relocated. The relative operating costs at Memphis and San Diego were also questioned, and the community contends that those at Memphis are too low. Finally, the community believes that military construction costs at Memphis were arbitrarily reduced in DoD’s analysis.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that NPRDC is the Navy’s manpower and training research laboratory and should be collocated with the Navy’s personnel headquarters, the primary user of NPRDC products. While access to a concentration of ready test subjects in San Diego is certainly convenient, the central location of Memphis provides access to an equally large number of test subjects. Although the Navy underestimated construction costs at Memphis, the Commission found relocation of NPRDC to Memphis was still cost effective.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, California, and relocate its functions, and appropriate personnel, equipment, and support to the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Memphis, Tennessee, and Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida.

Naval Recruiting District, San Diego, California

Category: Administrative Activities
Mission: Personnel Support
One-time Cost: $0.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.1 million
Annual: None
Return on Investment: 1997 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving site for the Naval Recruiting District, San Diego, California, specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-39) from “Naval Air Station North Island” to “other government-owned space in San Diego, California.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

The North Island site is somewhat isolated and not necessarily conducive to the discharge of a recruiting mission. Moving this activity to government-owned space in a more central and accessible location enhances its operations. Additionally, with the additional assets being placed in NAS North Island in this round of closures and realignments, there is a need for the space previously allocated to this activity.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of the Navy that relocating NRD from a remote location at NAS North Island to a more centrally located site in San Diego would enhance its ability to attract new recruits. This redirect will create space to accommodate the relocation of other commands to NAS North Island, resulting from other Commission recommendations.

Commission Recommendation

Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California

Category: Naval Shipyards
Mission: Repair and Maintenance of Naval Ships
One-time Cost: $74.5 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $725.6 million
Annual: $130.6 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Shipyard Long Beach, California, except retain the sonar dome government-owned, contractor-operated facility and those family housing units needed to fulfill Department of the Navy requirements, particularly those at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California. Relocate necessary personnel to other naval activities as appropriate, primarily Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach and naval activities in the San Diego, California, area.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated. Force structure reductions by the year 2001 eliminate the requirement for the Department of the Navy to retain this facility, including its large-deck drydocking capability. As a result of BRAC 91, the adjoining Naval Station Long Beach was closed, and some of its assets were transferred to the naval shipyard for “ship support functions.” Of those transferred assets, only those housing units required to fulfill Department of the Navy requirements in the local commuting area will be retained after closure of the naval shipyard.

Community Concerns

The community argues that closing Long Beach reduces the least amount of excess capacity and does not address the 37% excess nuclear capacity estimated to remain. The community maintains that the Navy capacity analysis is based solely on peacetime workload, with no consideration of drydock capacity for contingency, mobilization, and future force requirements. They believe the Navy closure process, with respect to drydock facilities, is not in conformance with United States Code Title 10, Section 2464, which requires DoD activities to maintain a logistics capability to respond to a mobilization or national emergency. The community questioned this process, noting the high percentage of drydock usage throughout the Department of the Navy. The community also maintains that the Navy process did not properly consider the current or future force-structure with regard to large-deck vessels in the Pacific Fleet.

The community argued that Long Beach could support homeporting of up to three nuclear carriers at less cost to the Navy than San Diego. Alternatively, they argue homeporting at least one carrier, and making Long Beach Naval Shipyard a detachment of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, would reduce overhead, maintain the large drydock, and eliminate some of the expense of homeporting ships in San Diego.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Department of Defense that the Navy has excess shipyard capacity. The Commission found that although the number of large-deck ships has not decreased, a general decrease in force structure has resulted in an increased flexibility to accommodate unscheduled maintenance. The Commission acknowledged closure of Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and closure of Drydock 1, is not without some risk, but concluded that the risk is manageable, given the availability of the carrier-capable drydocks at Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyards. The Commission agreed with the Navy’s contention that the closure of the Long Beach Shipyard would benefit west coast private shipyards. The Commission found that the savings and return on investment resulting from closure supported the Department of Defense recommendation, even with an increase in the original cost to close estimate. Although the community asked the Commission to pursue the possibility of homeporting carriers at Long Beach, the Commission believes the assignment of ships to homeports is an operational, not base closure issue, and thus not appropriate for inclusion in its recommendation.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Shipyard Long Beach, California, except retain the sonar dome Government-owned, contractor-operated facility and those family housing units needed to fulfill Department of the Navy requirements, particularly those at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California. Relocate necessary personnel to other naval activities as appropriate, primarily Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach and naval activities in the San Diego, California area.

Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN,
Long Beach, California

Category: Supervisors of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair
Mission: Administration of DON shipbuilding, conversion, modernization and maintenance contracts with the private sector
One-time Cost: $0.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.8 million
Annual: $0.3 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Long Beach, California. Relocate certain functions, personnel and equipment to Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, San Diego, California.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Because of reductions in the fiscal year 2001 Force-Structure Plan and resource levels, naval requirements for private sector shipbuilding, conversion, modernization and repair are expected to decrease significantly. The combined capacity of the current thirteen SUPSHIP activities meaningfully exceeds the DON requirement over that Force Structure Plan. Additionally, with the closure of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the future requirement for this work in this region is anticipated to be quite nominal. The predicted workload can be efficiently absorbed by SUPSHIP San Diego.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the closure of Long Beach Naval Station in 1991, and the relocation of the homeported ships had significantly decreased the need to overhaul ships in privately owned shipyards in Long Beach. The Commission found closure consistent with the Navy’s decreased needs.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Long Beach, California. Relocate certain functions, personnel and equipment to Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, San Diego, California.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, New London Detachment, New London, Connecticut

Category: Technical Centers / Laboratories
Mission: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
One-time Cost: $23.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $14.3 million
Annual: $ 8.1 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, New London Detachment, New London, Connecticut, and relocate necessary functions with associated personnel, equipment, and support to Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island. Close the NUWC New London facility, except retain Pier 7 which is transferred to the Navy Submarine Base New London. The site presently occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard Station, New London, will be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Navy Submarine Base, New London, Magnetic Silencing Facility will remain in its present location as a tenant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Naval reserve units will relocate to other naval activities, primarily NUWC Newport, Rhode Island, and Navy Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The community believes the Secretary’s closure recommendation is significantly flawed, and asserts: (1) military value is compromised, (2) costs are understated, and (3) savings are overstated. The community’s primary concerns relate to the rationale and costs associated with the BRAC 91 recommendation to close the New London Detachment. Overall, the community contends the 1991 realignment has significantly overrun estimated one-time costs and, as a result, the payback period now exceeds 100 years. The community believes because of inaccuracies and discrepancies in data submitted in 1991, the Commission should stop the 1991 decision, and reject the 1995 recommendation to complete the relocation of the New London Detachment to Newport, Rhode Island.

Commission Findings

Closure of the New London Detachment completes the undersea warfare center consolidation begun in BRAC 91. The Commission found that closure of this activity reduces excess capacity, consolidates research and development functions, and reduces cost. The Commission found that no significant losses in technical capabilities or delays in ongoing research, development, test and evaluation would result from this action. Buildings at the receiving site are suitable to host equipment moved from New London. Furthermore, the Commission found the Navy adequately supported its cost and savings estimates.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, New London Detachment, New London, Connecticut, and relocate necessary functions with associated personnel, equipment, and support to Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island. Close the NUWC New London Facility, except retain Pier 7 which is transferred to the Navy Submarine Base New London. The site presently occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard Station, New London, will be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Navy Submarine Base, New London, Magnetic Silencing Facility will remain it its present location as a tenant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Naval reserve units will relocate to other naval activities, primarily NUWC Newport, Rhode Island, and Navy Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut.

Naval Recruiting Command, Washington, D.C.

Mission: Personnel Support
One-time Cost: $ 6.5 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $ 1.1 million
Annual: None
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving site for the Naval Recruiting Command, Washington, D.C., specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) from “Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois” to “Naval Support Activity, Memphis, Tennessee.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

This relocation permits the single-sitting of the Department’s personnel recruiting and personnel management headquarters-level activities, enhancing their close coordination, and supporting the Department’s policy of maximizing the use of government-owned space. It also reduces the requirement to effect new construction, and reduces resulting potential building congestion, at NTC Great Lakes.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that changing the relocation site for NRC from NTC Great Lakes to the Naval Support Activity, Memphis would avoid military construction costs at the already congested NTC Great Lakes. The Commission found that the recommendation increases the efficiency of the NRC by collocating it with the Navy’s recruiting and personnel management commands.

Commission Recommendation

Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac,
Washington, D.C.

Category: Naval Security Group Activities
Mission: Space Surveillance
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving site for the Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac, Washington, D.C., from “National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, Maryland” specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) to “Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

The mission of this activity requires that it be collocated with space surveillance hardware. This can most effectively be accomplished by housing this activity at the Naval Research Laboratory. By this redirect, the cost of moving this activity to Fort Meade can be avoided.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that permitting the Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac to remain in its present location at the Navy Research Laboratory incurs no additional cost and preserves the commands access to space surveillance equipment essential to mission performance.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving site for the Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac, Washington, D.C., from National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) to Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida

Category: Operational Air Station
Mission: Support Aviation Operations
One-time Cost: $66.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $303.6 million
Annual: $11.5 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-20) from “Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina; Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia; and Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina” to “other naval air stations, primarily Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia; Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina; Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida; and Naval Air Station, Atlanta, Georgia; or other Navy or Marine Corps Air Stations with the necessary capacity and support infrastructure.” In addition, add the following: “To support Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, retain OLF Whitehouse, the Pinecastle target complex, and the Yellow Water family housing area.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during the 1993 round of base closure and realignment, since DON force structure experiences a reduction of over 10 percent by the year 2001, there continues to be additional excess capacity that must be eliminated. In evaluating operational bases, the goal was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support the future force structure without impeding operational flexibility for deployment of that force. This recommended redirect achieves several important aims in furtherance of current Departmental policy and operational needs. First, it avoids the substantial new construction at MCAS Cherry Point that would be required if the F/A-18s from NAS Cecil Field were relocated there, which would add to existing excess capacity, and utilizes existing capacity at NAS Oceana. This avoidance and similar actions taken regarding other air stations are equivalent to the replacement plant value of an existing tactical aviation naval air station. Second, it permits collocation of all fixed wing carrier-based anti-submarine warfare (ASW) air assets in the Atlantic Fleet with the other aviation ASW assets at NAS Jacksonville and NAVSTA Mayport and support for those assets. Third, it permits recognition of the superior demographics for the Navy and Marine Corps reserves by relocation of reserve assets to Atlanta, Georgia.

Community Concerns

The MCAS Cherry Point community feels the DoD recommendation for the redirect of F/A-18 assets originally based at NAS Cecil Field is flawed. They contend the costs used for the redirect to NAS Oceana, Virginia were based on a significantly smaller number of aircraft than was used for the 1993 DoD recommendation. Therefore, the figures should be adjusted to account for the current force structure and construction standards. Since the 1993 Commission report was released, the Cherry Point community claims that significant money has been spent in and around the base to accommodate the additional aircraft. New schools have been built and the private sector has invested in community services anticipating execution of the 1993 Commission recommendation. The community also believes this redirect would eliminate inter-servicing of aircraft at Cherry Point. The community believes Cherry Point is a better area for these additional aircraft because it is less populated, and can accommodate an additional 60 aircraft with little or no construction. The community asserts there are no environmental problems at Cherry Point, and severe water and air quality issues at Oceana. The community believes that the redirect was prepared to keep Oceana from being closed. They feel that this action is a deviation from the selection criteria.

The NAS Oceana community strongly supports the redirect. An airport zoning ordinance was passed preventing certain types of incompatible development and thus, helping the NAS Oceana protect their AICUZ (air installation compatible use zones). Approximately $25 million has been slated by the local government to move two schools away from the air station and out of the accident potential zones. The community believes overcrowding is not an issue for the air station and the actual levels of aircraft assigned after the redirects will be less than were assigned in 1991.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the accelerated retirement of the A-6E aircraft at NAS Oceana creates a vacancy in existing facilities. This redirect uses this capacity and avoids substantial new construction at MCAS Cherry Point, NC. The recommendation also provides several operational advantages including the collocation of carrier-based anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft with land-based ASW aircraft at NAS Jacksonville. It also bases active duty Navy carrier based jets with similar Marine Corps units at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, and sends two reserve squadrons of F/A-18s to NAS Atlanta. In addition, the Commission agreed with the need to retain OLF Whitehouse, the Pinecastle target complex, and the Yellow Water family housing area to support NAS Jacksonville. The Commission believed that MCAS Cherry Point should be considered for additional missions in the future.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-20) from Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina; Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia; and Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina to other naval air stations, primarily Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia; Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina; Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida; and Naval Air Station, Atlanta, Georgia; or other Navy or Marine Corps Air Stations with the necessary capacity and support infrastructure. In addition, add the following: To support Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, retain OLF Whitehouse, the Pinecastle target complex, and the Yellow Water family housing area.

Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida

Category: Operational Air Stations
Mission: Support for aviation training
One-time Cost: $0.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $8.2 million
Annual: $1.8 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realignment

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida, to a Naval Air Facility and dispose of certain portions of Truman Annex and Trumbo Point (including piers, wharves and buildings).

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the proposed realignment of NAS Key West will allow the Navy to continue to access needed airspace and ranges while at the same time reduce excess infrastructure. The original recommendation was changed to reflect the Navy’s request to allow them the option to divest additional property.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Naval Air Station, Key West to a Naval Air Facility and dispose of all property not required to support operational commitments, including certain portions of Truman Annex and Trumbo Point (including piers, wharves and buildings). The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, Florida

Category: Naval Aviation Depots
Mission: Aviation Maintenance
One-time Cost: $1.5 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $2.4 million
Annual: $0.2 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at pages 1-42/43) by striking the following: “In addition, the Commission recommends that the whirl tower and dynamic components facility be moved to Cherry Point Navy or Corpus Christi Army Depots or the private sector, in lieu of the Navy’s plan to retain these operations in a stand-alone facility at NADEP Pensacola.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated. Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, was closed in BRAC 93, except for the whirl tower and dynamic components facility. Subsequent to that decision, no requirement for the facility has been identified within either the Army or the Navy, and insufficient private sector interest in that facility has been expressed. Additionally, the Depot Maintenance Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG-DM) examined these functions in response to Congressional interest in reexamining the BRAC 93 action. The JCSG-DM determined that the Pensacola facilities could not independently fulfill the entire future DoD requirement, but that the Army facilities at Corpus Christi Army Depot, combined with the Navy facilities at NADEP Cherry Point, could. This recommendation will allow the disposal of the whirl tower and the rehabilitation of the dynamic components facility buildings for use by the Naval Air Technical Training Center.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at pages 1-42/43) by striking the following: In addition, the Commission recommends that the whirl tower and dynamic components facility be moved to Cherry Point Navy or Corpus Christi Army Depots or the private sector, in lieu of the Navy’s plan to retain these operations in a stand-alone facility at NADEP Pensacola.

Naval Research Laboratory, Underwater Sound Reference Detachment, Orlando, Florida

Category: Navy Research Lab
Mission: Sets standards and calibrations for underwater sound measurements
One-Time costs: $8.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $3.7 million
Annual: $2.8 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the Naval Research Laboratory, Underwater Sound Reference Detachment (NRL UWSRD), Orlando, Florida. Relocate the calibration and standards function with associated personnel, equipment, and support to the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island, except for the Anechoic Tank Facility I, which will be excessed.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The Orlando community expressed the concern that the cost to move this facility from Orlando to Newport, Rhode Island would be prohibitively high, and the missions operations would be jeopardized. In addition, the community maintained the Lab utilizes a nearby lake that has unique properties that would be difficult to duplicate, and there could be a large cost associated with accommodating calibrations at different locations. Moreover, the community maintained the Navy did not fully consider consolidation of similar test facilities in Orlando. The community believes that the professional staff at Orlando will not move to Newport.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the Secretary’s recommendation. The Commission found that while this facility has a long history and a unique lake nearby, advances in technology have obviated the need for the Lab.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish the Naval Research Laboratory, Underwater Sound Reference Detachment (NRL UWSRD), Orlando, Florida. Relocate the calibration and standards function with associated personnel, equipment, and support to the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island, except for the Anechoic Tank Facility I, which will be excessed.

Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center,
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida

Category: Naval Training Center
Mission: Training of Officer and Enlisted Personnel
One-time Cost: $146.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $41.5 million
Annual: $8.7 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-38) for the “Nuclear Power School” (or the Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center) from “the Submarine School at the Naval Submarine Base (NSB), New London” to “Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

The decision of the 1993 Commission to retain the submarine piers at Naval Submarine Base New London, Connecticut, meant that some of the facilities designated for occupancy by the Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center were no longer available. Locating this school with the Nuclear Propulsion Training Unit of the Naval Weapons Station, Charleston achieves an enhanced training capability, provides ready access to the moored training ships now at the Weapons Station, and avoids the significant costs of building and/or renovating facilities at New London.

Community Concerns

Community concerns were received from both New London, Connecticut and Orlando, Florida. The New London community expressed concern over whether they were fairly evaluated. The community argued the cost estimates for New London construction were greater than in Charleston because the projected student load used was higher for New London. Additionally, the community asserted the Navy added unnecessary costs for the school in general when they decided to move the school to a new location. The New London community questioned the decision to create new infrastructure in Charleston, and also questioned whether the Charleston cost estimates included all new infrastructure expenses. Finally, the New London community believes synergy would be lost between the Nuclear Power School students and the Sub School in New London if the redirect was accepted.

The Orlando community expressed concern that the Navy had not considered retaining the school in Orlando following a change in the situation that necessitated the redirect in the first place. The Orlando community argued no large military construction costs would be necessary to keep the school in Orlando and that this represented the best scenario for the Department of the Navy.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that even after considering possible variances in the original cost estimates, the final analysis still supported the recommendation to redirect the training center from New London to Charleston. The Commission found the recurring savings associated with the Charleston site overcame cost avoidance and cost of construction at the New London and Orlando sites. The recurring cost savings at Charleston derived from both lower base operating costs and Permanent Change of Station (PCS) cost avoidances. The PCS savings occur because the Navy Nuclear Prototype Trainer, a follow-on school attended by one half of each graduating class, is already located in Charleston. Other causes of cost variance reviewed by the Commission included updated bachelor housing requirements which raised the amount of space per person from the original standard and student base loading which decreased from the 1993 recommendation baseline. The Commission also found that there was sufficient room for development at the Charleston site without encroaching on any wetlands or explosive arcs from the Naval Magazine.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-38) for the Nuclear Power School (or the Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center) from the Submarine School at the Naval Submarine Base (NSB), New London to Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina.

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Guam

Category: Supply Center
Mission: Supply Support
One-time Cost: $17.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $128.8 million
Annual: $27.8 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Guam.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers (FISC) are follower activities whose existence depends upon active fleet units in their homeport area. Prior and current BRAC actions closing both Naval Air Station, Guam and a portion of Naval Activities, Guam have significantly reduced this activity’s customer base. The remaining workload can efficiently be handled by other activities on Guam or by other FISCs.

Community Concerns

In addition to the concerns mentioned in the Naval Activities Guam section, Guam’s community expressed concern that the fuel farm the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) owns and operates could not be turned over to a private organization because of its age, as well as a possible requirement to store DoD fuels. Additionally, the community expressed concern the language in the recommendation was not specific enough for Guam to be assured it would be able to reuse the facilities for economic revitalization.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the requirement for the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) was tied to the location of its largest customer, the Military Sealift Command (MSC) vessels. If the MSC ships remain on Guam, a supply center would have to be retained by the Navy. Retention of the FISC would eliminate most of the savings projected by the Navy and the Commission.

The Commission agreed with the Commander in Chief United States Forces, Pacific that appropriate assets, the fuel farm and associated facilities should be retained given the strategic location of Guam.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Guam. Retain appropriate assets and the FISC fuel facilities, including piers D and E, tank farms, and associated pipelines and pumping systems, under DoD operational control to support military service fuel requirements. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Activities, Guam

Category: Naval Station
Mission: Support Homeported Ships
One-time Cost : $93.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $66.2 million
Annual: $42.5 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Naval Activities Guam. Relocate all ammunition vessels and associated personnel and support to Naval Magazine, Lualualei, Hawaii. Relocate all other combat logistics force ships and associated personnel and support to Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Relocate Military Sealift Command personnel and Diego Garcia support functions to Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Disestablish the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanographic Center-WESTPAC, except for the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, which relocates to the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanographic Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Disestablish the Afloat Training Group-WESTPAC. All other Department of Defense activities that are presently on Guam may remain either as a tenant of Naval Activities, Guam or other appropriate naval activity. Retain waterfront assets for support, mobilization, and contingencies and to support the afloat tender.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The Guam community expressed concern on a variety of issues. Foremost was the issue of reuse. The community believes it should be given every opportunity for full use of the facilities and property for economic revitalization. The community believes this is essential in light of the unique difficulties Guam has experienced since the end of World War II.

The Guam community argued two other related scenarios should be looked at instead of the proposed recommendations: First, the reference to the receiving site should be removed from all recommendations. This would give the Navy more flexibility in properly stationing the assets to meet operational requirements.
Second, all accepted recommendations should be executed on the last day of the two year implementation period. This would allow a two year transitional period and permit more time for economic revitalization planning.

In addition to the alternative scenarios, the community voiced concern over the land disposition process. During the turnover process associated with Guam Land Use Plan 1977 (GLUP 77), lands were tied up in legal proceedings for decades, thus removing any chance for revitalization. The community asked that all lands marked as excess during GLUP 77 and 94, which had not been turned over for reuse, be included in the Commissions recommendation.

The community also asked the Commission to direct the Navy to bring to full, efficient, working order any facilities that were to be closed before being turned over to the community. This included Piti Power plant, fuel farms and any piers damaged by the last earthquake.

Finally, the Guam community asked the Commission to close the Naval Magazine and that its associated water reservoir be turned over to the Government of Guam. The magazine would then be consolidated with the magazine at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the key to all of the Guam recommendations was the disposition of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) vessels. The Commission concurred with the Secretary of Defenses position that shifting deployment patterns in the Western Pacific (WESTPAC) have lessened the requirement for the MSC ships to be stationed out of Guam. This changing requirement impacts the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) mission and HC-5 helicopter squadron because this support needs to be located wherever the MSC vessels are to be stationed. Concurrently, the Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that Guam would continue to be of strategic importance and require continued access to the facilities and harbor.

The Commission also agreed with the request of the operational commander to allow flexibility in locating the Military Sealift Command vessels and their support. If a decision is made to retain the MSC vessels on Guam, then most of the savings projected in the above figures will not occur.

The Commission reviewed the 1994 Guam Land Use Plan (GLUP) implementation process at the community’s request. The Commission found including the release of GLUP lands in the Commissions recommendation would allow a more rapid transfer of lands and property. The Commission also analyzed the possibility of closing the Naval Magazine on Guam or consolidating it with the magazine on Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB). With the assistance of the Navy, the Commission found closing or consolidating the magazine was uneconomical, unsafe, and would mean the loss of irreplaceable training capabilities.

Finally, the Commission found that it was in the best interests of both the Navy and the community to work together for economic revitalization. The Commission supports the Navy’s position, as stated in Assistant Secretary of the Navy Piries April 21, 1995 letter to Delegate Robert A. Underwood of Guam.

It is our objective to convey, through long-term leases, outright transfers, or any other mutually agreeable arrangement, as much of the land and facilities as possible from the affected activities on Guam so as to stimulate local economic growth while, at the same time, providing us [the U.S. Navy] with the strategic flexibility to maintain the necessary operational access to Guam port facilities.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Naval Activities, Guam. Locate all Military Sealift Command assets and related personnel and support at available DoD activities or in rented facilities as required to support operational commitments. Disestablish the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanographic Center-WESTPAC, except for the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, which relocates to the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanographic Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Disestablish the Afloat Training Group-WESTPAC. All other Department of Defense activities that are presently on Naval Activities may remain either as a tenant of Naval Activities or other appropriate naval activity. Retain waterfront assets for support, mobilization, contingencies, to support the afloat tender, and to support shared use of these assets consistent with operational requirements if appropriate. Dispose of property owned by Naval Activities declared releasable under the 1994 Guam Land Use Plan with appropriate restrictions. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam

Category: Naval Air Station
Mission: Support Naval Aviation Operations
One-time Cost: $43.8 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $213.8 million
Annual: $21.7 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-21) for “the aircraft, personnel, and associated equipment” from the closing Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam from “Andersen AFB, Guam” to “other naval or DoD air stations in the Continental United States and Hawaii.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

Other BRAC 95 actions recommended the partial closure of Naval Activities, Guam, with retention of the waterfront assets, and the relocation of all of the vessels currently homeported at Naval Activities, Guam to Hawaii. Among the aircraft at Naval Activities, Guam is a squadron of helicopters performing logistics functions in support of these vessels. This redirect would collocate these helicopters with the vessels they support. Similarly, regarding the other aircraft at the closing Naval Air Station, the Fleet Commander-in-Chief desires operational synergies for his surveillance aircraft, which results in movement away from Guam. This redirect more centrally collocates those aircraft with similar assets in Hawaii and on the West Coast, while avoiding the new construction costs required in order to house these aircraft at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, consistent with the Department’s approach of eliminating capacity by not building new capacity.

Community Concerns

In addition to the concerns mentioned in the Naval Activities Guam section, Guam’s community expressed concern that while the redirect of the VQ-1 and VQ-5 squadrons is understandable, the redirect of the HC-5 helicopter squadron would leave Guam with no organic Search and Rescue (SAR) capability.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the fixed wing air squadrons originally planned for relocation from NAS Agana to Anderson Air Force Base are more appropriately located at other locations. The Commission found the HC-5 helicopter squadron should be located near the homeport of the Military Sealift Command ships currently on Guam. Movement of HC-5 aircraft off the island will eliminate the only current helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) capability on Guam.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-21) for the aircraft, personnel, and associated equipment from the closing Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam from Anderson AFB, Guam to other naval or DoD air stations. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Public Works Center, Guam

Category: Public Works Centers
Mission: Public Works Support
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Community Concerns

In addition to the concerns mentioned in the Naval Activities Guam section, the community expressed concern over the proposal to retain the officer housing at the former Naval Air Station (NAS) Agana, Guam, and over the status of the Piti Power Plant. The community believes the officer housing should be turned over to the community because it is the only part of the former NAS that was retained. In addition, the community believes that because the housing is in a separate area, retaining it would not be consistent with the Guam Land Use Plan (GLUP), which stated consolidation of facilities was a primary goal. The community further believes there is sufficient housing available for military officers. The community is worried that the Navy would not maintain the Piti Power Plant prior to turning it over to the Government of Guam. Additionally, the community believes that because the closings or realignments will not reduce any PWC functions, closing it would not make sense.

Commission Findings

The Commission found it was not economical to entirely close the Public Works Center but the Navy should be allowed to reduce workforce and facilities as workload decreases. The Commission also found, there was no need to retain the officer housing on the former Naval Air Station Agana, Guam, because the number of officers on Guam has been reduced.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds that the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Public Works Center, Guam, to match assigned workload. Close the officer housing at the former Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Ship Repair Facility, Guam

Category: Naval Shipyards
Mission: Maintenance and Repair of Naval Ships
One-time Cost: $8.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $171.9 million
Annual: $37.8 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Ship Repair Facility (SRF), Guam, except transfer appropriate assets, including the piers, the floating drydock, its typhoon basin anchorage, the recompression chamber, and the floating crane, to Naval Activities, Guam.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated. While operational and forward basing considerations require access to Guam, a fully functional ship repair facility is not required. The workload of SRF Guam can be entirely met by other Department of the Navy facilities. However, retention of the waterfront assets provides the DON with the ability to meet voyage repair and emergent requirements that may arise in the Western Pacific.

Community Concerns

In addition to the concerns mentioned in the Naval Activities Guam section, the community expressed concern Guam was being penalized under the Navy’s interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 7309, which has prohibited performance of any non-voyage repair work on U.S. Navy vessels other than those homeported in Guam. If Guam is prohibited from bidding on U.S. ship repair work, then a major potential source of income would be excluded from any economic revitalization efforts. The community also argued the best way for the facilities and equipment to be maintained at the SRF would be for them to be used by the private sector because the high humidity and heat would deteriorate the equipment if it were left idle.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that large reductions in workload, present excess capacity at the facility, and the possible departure of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships from Guam, justified closure. The Commission also found that if the MSC ships remain on Guam, then a private sector ship repair capability must be developed. The Commission was concerned about a current Navy policy which does not allow Guam repair facilities to bid on certain U.S. ship repair work. The Commission believes that this policy should be modified to allow more work at private repair facilities on Guam.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Ship Repair Facility (SRF), Guam, except transfer appropriate assets, including the piers, the floating drydock, its typhoon basin anchorage, the recompression chamber, and the floating crane, to Naval Activities, Guam.

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii

Category: Naval Air Stations
Mission: None; Base Closed
One-time Cost: $ .04 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $17.6 million
Annual: $0.1 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding items excepted from the closure of Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii (1993 Commission, at page 1-19) from “Retain the family housing as needed for multi-service use” to “Retain the family housing as needed for multi-service use, including the following family housing support facilities: commissary facilities, Public Works Center compound with its sanitary landfill, and beach recreational areas, known as Nimitz Beach and White Plains Beach.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

While specific mention was made of retention of family housing in the BRAC 93 recommendation relating to NAS Barbers Point, certain aspects conducive to supporting personnel in family housing were not specifically mentioned, which is required for their retention. Quality of life interests require either that these facilities be retained or that new ones be built to provide these services. Another advantage of retaining these facilities to support multi-service use is the avoidance of the costs of closing the existing landfill and either developing another one on other property on the island of Oahu or incurring the costs of shipping waste to a site off-island.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found retaining the requested portions of the Naval Air Station would avoid costs in developing replacements and would improve Quality of Life issues in the affected area.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding items excepted from the closure of Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii (1993 Commission, at page 1-19) from Retain the family housing as needed for multi-service use to Retain the family housing as needed for multi-service use, including the following family housing support facilities: commissary facilities, Public Works Center compound with its sanitary landfill, and beach recreational areas, known as Nimitz Beach and White Plains Beach.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division,
Indianapolis, Indiana

Category: Navy Technical Center
Mission: In-Service Engineering for Avionics and Electronics
One-time Cost: $77.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $7.8 million
Annual: $39.2 million
Return on Investment: 2001 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC), Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, Indiana. Relocate necessary functions along with associated personnel, equipment and support to other naval technical activities, primarily Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana; Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland; and Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, California.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The Indianapolis community believes that the military value calculation performed by the Navy for integrated capabilities does not accurately reflect the integrated value of the installation. They also expressed concern that many more employees than projected would not transfer to the receiving locations with the workload. The City of Indianapolis has proposed a public-private partnership as an alternative reuse of the installation if the recommendation to close is approved. The community is concerned that a recommendation not interfere with its proposal.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that the Navy excluded $8.6 million in costs for a duplicative EP-3/ES-3 system capability that would have jeopardized fleet support during the estimated moving time to NAWC China Lake, California. The Commission also found that the Navy excluded $38.6 million in closure related moving costs. The Commission believes that these exclusions would raise the one-time closure cost to $125 million. The Commission found that the Navy under-evaluated the military value for the integrated capabilities that currently exist at NAWC Indianapolis. The Commission found that the avionics and electronics systems engineering functions at Indianapolis are consistent with operational requirements, and that collocation of these engineering functions, with the prototyping functions performed at the facility, has contributed substantially to the effectiveness of the facility in serving the Department of the Navy. These integrated engineering and prototyping capabilities, along with NAWC Indianapoliss consistent level of $330 million in reimbursable funding, lead the Commission to conclude that the NAWC Indianapolis is a prime candidate for privatization. The Commission strongly urges the Department of the Navy to allow privatization of these assets.

The Commission found that if the Community proposal for privatization of NAWC Indianapolis is successful, the costs and savings estimated by DoD could be different. As a result of this uncertainty, and because the Commission is prohibited from considering reuse planning when making its recommendations, the Commission has accepted and used the DoD cost and savings data in its deliberations. The Commission has also identified uncertainties in the Navy’s cost to close but these are speculative because the future of this facility is unknown. The Commission adopted the DoD costs in making its final recommendation. The Commission also adopted the DoD recommendation to close NAWC Indianapolis, but provided the Navy discretionary authority to implement fully the Community’s proposal.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 4. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis. Transfer workload, equipment and facilities to the private sector or local jurisdiction as appropriate if the private sector can accommodate the workload onsite; or relocate necessary functions along with necessary personnel, equipment and support to other naval technical activities, primarily the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana; Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland; and Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, California. To the extent that workload is moved to the private sector, such personnel as are necessary should remain in place to assist with transfer to the private sector; to perform functions compatible with private sector workload, or are necessary to sustain or support the private sector workload, and to carryout any transition activities. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment,
Louisville, Kentucky

Category: Navy Maintenance Depot
Mission: In-Service Engineering for Naval gun systems
One-time Cost: $103.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-39.4 million (Cost)
Annual: $28.6 million
Return on Investment: 2003 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment, Louisville, Kentucky. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other naval activities, primarily the Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia; the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, California; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. Consistent with the Department of the Navy’s efforts to remove depot level maintenance workload from technical centers and return it to depot industrial activities, this action consolidates ships’ systems (guns) depot and general industrial workload at NSYD Norfolk, which has many of the required facilities in place. The functional distribution of workload in this manner offers an opportunity for cross-servicing part of the gun plating workload to the Watervliet Arsenal in New York. System integration engineering will relocate to NSWC Port Hueneme, with the remainder of the engineering workload and Close-in-Weapons System (CIWS) depot maintenance functions relocating to NSWC Crane. The closure of this activity not only reduces excess capacity, but relocation of functional workload to activities performing similar work will result in additional efficiencies and economies in the management of those functions.

Community Concerns

The Louisville community believes that $240 million of closure related costs were improperly excluded from the one-time closure costs by the Navy. The community is concerned about the economic impact and has made a proposal for a public-private partnership involving two private companies, the Navy, and the City of Louisville. This proposal would be implemented as an alternative reuse of the closed facility. The community is concerned that a recommendation not interfere with its proposal.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that the Navy did not estimate the necessary Technical Repair Standard (TRS) costs at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and that implementation of this transferring workload could require an additional $18 million in TRS costs. The Commission also found that the Navy did not include $13.4 million in closure related moving costs. The Commission found that these additional costs would increase the one-time cost to close to $136 million. A Naval Audit Service Report was conducted as a result of allegations about improper handling of data call information from Louisville to the Base Structure Analysis Team. The Commission found that the Naval Audit Service Report would have no impact on the Navy’s decision to recommend closure of NSWC Louisville. The Commission found that the gun systems engineering functions at Louisville are consistent with operational requirements, and that collocation of these engineering functions with the maintenance and overhaul functions performed at the facility has contributed substantially to the effectiveness of the facility in serving the Department of the Navy. These integrated engineering, maintenance and overhaul capabilities, along with NSWC Louisville’s plating facility, led the Commission to strongly urge the Department of the Navy to allow privatization of these assets.

The Commission found that if the Community proposal for privatization of NSWC Louisville is successful, the costs and savings estimated by DoD could be different. As a result of this uncertainty, and because the Commission is prohibited from considering reuse planning when making its recommendations, the Commission accepted and used the DoD cost and savings data in its deliberations. The Commission has also identified uncertainties in the Navy’s cost to close but these are speculative because the future of this facility is unknown. The Commission adopted the DoD costs in making its final recommendation. The Commission adopted the DoD recommendation to close NSWC Louisville, but provided the Navy discretionary authority to implement fully the Community’s proposal.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 4. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment, Louisville. Transfer workload, equipment and facilities to the private sector or local jurisdiction as appropriate if the private sector can accommodate the workload onsite; or relocate necessary functions along with necessary personnel, equipment and support to other naval technical activities, primarily the Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Hueneme, California; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana. To the extent that workload is moved to the private sector, such personnel as are necessary should remain in place to assist with transfer to the private sector; to perform functions compatible with private sector workload, or are necessary to sustain or support the private sector workload, and to carryout any transition activities. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana

Category: Navy Research Lab
Mission: Conducts biomedical research on the effect of motion on military personnel
One-time costs: $0.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $14.1 million
Annual: $2.9 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana, and relocate necessary personnel to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, and Naval Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the Secretary’s recommendation or justification. The Commission understands this capability will not be lost and will be assumed by the University of New Orleans.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana, and relocate necessary personnel to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, and Naval Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida.

Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

Category: Navy Research Lab
Mission: Conducts biomedical research in support of combat forces
One-time Cost: $3.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $19.0 million
Annual: $9.5 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI), Bethesda, Maryland. Consolidate the personnel of the Diving Medicine Program with the Experimental Diving Unit, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Coastal Systems Station, Panama City, Florida. Relocate the Infectious Diseases, Combat Casualty Care and Operational Medicine programs along with necessary personnel and equipment to the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research at Forest Glen, Maryland.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and of the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. This closure and realignment achieves a principal objective of the DoD by cross-servicing part of this laboratory’s workload and furthers the BRAC 91 Tri-Service Project Reliance Study decision by collocating medical research with the Army. Other portions of that workload can be assumed by another Navy installation with only a transfer of certain personnel, achieving both a reduction in excess capacity and a cost savings by eliminating a redundant capability in the area of diving research.

Community Concerns

The Maryland community generally supports the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, with the exception of the part that concerned the Diving Medicine Facility. The community supported cantonment of the Diving Medicine Facility, because of its unique facilities and research. The community believes the COBRA data were flawed and the cost to move overstated. In addition, the community expressed a concern that the hyperbaric chambers used for animal research, not just the manned facilities, should be retained for future studies.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the Department of Defense recommendation or justification. The movement of all but the Diving Medicine Facility to Walter Reed had been planned before the Secretary’s recommendations were submitted to the Commission, and has the universal support of all parties concerned. The Commission found this part of the recommendation consistent with the DoD-wide goal of interservicing.

While the Diving Medicine Facility at Bethesda has a long history in its field, the Commission found the Navy Experimental Diving Unit in Panama City, Florida was well-equipped to include this mission in its large spectrum of activity.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI), Bethesda, Maryland. Consolidate the personnel of the Diving Medicine Program with the Experimental Diving Unit, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Coastal Systems Station, Panama City, Florida. Relocate the Infectious Diseases, Combat Casualty Care and Operational Medicine programs along with necessary personnel and equipment to the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research at Forest Glen, Maryland.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment,
Annapolis, Maryland

Category: Technical Centers/Laboratories
Mission: RDT&E Fleet Support
One-time Cost: $24.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $23.8 million
Annual: $11.7 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis, Maryland, including the NIKE Site, Bayhead Road, Annapolis, except transfer the fuel storage/refueling sites and the water treatment facilities to Naval Station, Annapolis to support the U.S. Naval Academy and Navy housing. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment and support to other technical activities, primarily Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Naval Surface Weapons Center, Carderock Division, Carderock, Maryland; and the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. The Joint Spectrum Center, a DoD cross-service tenant, will be relocated with other components of the Center in the local area as appropriate.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the Department of the Navy budget through 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. The total closure of this technical center reduces overall excess capacity in this category of installations, as well as excess capacity specific to this particular installation. It results in synergistic efficiencies by eliminating a major site and collocating technical personnel at the two primary remaining sites involved in hull, machinery, and equipment associated with naval vessels. It allows the movement of work to other Navy, DoD, academic and private industry facilities, and the excessing of some facilities not in continuous use. It also collocates RDT&E efforts with the In-Service Engineering work and facilities, to incorporate lessons learned from fleet operations and to increase the technical response pool to solve immediate problems.

Community Concerns

The community expressed concern and believes the Navy underestimated costs related to base overhead, facility moving, alternative testing procedures, tenant relocation, and loss of skilled staff. The community believes that the proposal would eliminate two major test facilities and would require the substitution of extensive live testing at greatly increased costs or risk to personnel. They pointed out that other vital projects would be delayed, perhaps unacceptably. For example, the community identified a delay in testing systems, which might make them unavailable for installation on the lead ships in their respective classes. More serious, the community identified a potential delay in the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) replacement program. The Clean Air Act and an international treaty, the Montreal Protocol, halt all U. S. production of CFCs by the year 2000. Production of the materials used by the Navy has already ceased. The community also noted that NSWC Annapolis is surrounded by water, as well as Naval Station Annapolis, which is not closing. Thus, overhead costs would remain and reuse of the land would be highly problematic.

The community expressed concerns about the movement of much of their R&D mission to NSWC Philadelphia which has in-service engineering, not research, as its primary function. They pointed out significant differences between research experience and educational levels of the employee populations at the two commands. They suggested that the number of positions the Navy said could be eliminated was questionable and that the scenario eliminated, instead of relocating, some critical personnel, such as those conducting CFC work.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that closing NSWC Annapolis and relocating key facilities and personnel would achieve cost savings through the elimination of overhead and efficiencies associated with the collocation of R&D with In-Service Engineering. The Commission accepted the Navy’s position that it was willing to assume the risk associated with the closure of two research facilities in Annapolis. The Commission found that even after considering possible increases in the original cost estimates relating to moving costs, facility closing date, and elimination of billets, the savings from the recommendation remain attractive.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis, Maryland, including the NIKE Site, Bayhead Road, Annapolis, except transfer the fuel storage/refueling sites and the water treatment facilities to Naval Station, Annapolis to support the U.S. Naval Academy and Navy housing. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment and support to other technical activities, primarily Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Naval Surface Weapons Center, Carderock Division, Carderock, Maryland; and the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. The Joint Spectrum Center, a DoD cross-service tenant, will be relocated with other components of the Center in the local area as appropriate.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment,
White Oak, Maryland

Category: Technical Centers and Laboratories
Mission: Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation Support
One-time Cost: $2.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $28.7 million
Annual: $6.0 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, Maryland. Relocate the functions, personnel and equipment associated with Ship Magnetic Signature Control R&D Complex to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock, Maryland, and the functions and personnel associated with reentry body dynamics research and development to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. Closure of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, Maryland, reduces this excess capacity, and its consolidation with two other major technical centers that already have capability will result in further economies and efficiencies. This closure also eliminates unnecessary capabilities, since a few Navy facilities were left at NSWC White Oak only because Naval Sea Systems Command was relocating there as a result of BRAC 93. However, those facilities can be excessed, and the Naval Sea Systems Command can be easily accommodated at the Washington Navy Yard.

Community Concerns

The community expressed concern that the DoD recommendation makes no provision for the continued operation of a number of facilities at NSWC White Oak, which the community believes are critical national assets. These assets, the community argues, see joint, interagency, and commercial use. Two facilities were of the greatest concern: the Nuclear Weapons Effect Test Facility and the Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel. The community felt there is a clear ongoing need for these facilities, and because no comparable assets exist elsewhere, they must remain operable. The community believes any savings from the closure of NSWC White Oak would evaporate when the costs to continue to operate these facilities, to move them, or to duplicate them in another location are added to the analysis.

Commission Findings

The Commissions primary concern regarding this recommendation was the final disposition of the technical facilities located at White Oak, especially the Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel and the Nuclear Weapons Effect Facility. The recommendation of the Secretary of Defense contended that these facilities were no longer critical, however, there was ample data that pointed to a continuing need. The Commission concurred with the Secretary of Defense that if a sponsor desired to continue to operate the facilities, they could acquire them in the reuse process. In its analysis, the Commission was unable to identify a potential DoD user willing to take over the facilities. The Commission found that the facilities were excess to the Departments needs, and thus the White Oak detachment could close with no adverse impact on DoD operational requirements.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, Maryland. Relocate the functions, personnel and equipment associated with Ship Magnetic Signature Control R&D Complex to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock, Maryland, and the functions and personnel associated with reentry body dynamics research and development to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia.

Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, Massachusetts

Category: Reserve Air Station
Mission: Support for Reserve Units
One-time Cost: $17.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $50.8 million
Annual: $27.4 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, Massachusetts. Relocate its aircraft and necessary personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine. Relocate the Marine Corps Reserve support squadrons to another facility in the local area or to NAS Brunswick. Reestablish Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, and change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-64) for consolidation of Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Lawrence, Massachusetts; Naval Reserve Center, Chicopee, Massachusetts; and Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, from “NAS South Weymouth, Massachusetts” to “Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

As a result of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s actions in BRAC 93, the Department of the Navy retained several naval air stations north of the major fleet concentration in Norfolk. Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during BRAC 93, the current Force Structure Plan shows a continuing decline in force levels from that governing BRAC 93, and thus there is additional excess capacity that must be eliminated. The major thrust of the evaluation of operational bases was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support future force levels while, at the same time, not impeding operational flexibility for the deployment of that force. In that latter context, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANTFLT), expressed an operational desire to have as fully-capable an air station as possible north of Norfolk with the closest geographic proximity to support operational deployments. Satisfaction of these needs both to further reduce excess capacity and to honor CINCLANTFLT’s operational imperative can be accomplished best by the retention of the most fully capable air station in this geographic area, Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, in lieu of the reserve air station at South Weymouth. Unlike BRAC 93, where assets from Naval Air Station, South Weymouth were proposed to be relocated to three receiving sites, two of which were geographically quite remote, and where the perceived adverse impact on reserve demographics was considered unacceptable by the Commission, this BRAC 95 recommendation moves all of the assets and supporting personnel and equipment less than 150 miles away, thus providing most acceptable reserve demographics. Further, the consolidation of several reserve centers at the Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, provides demographics consideration for surface reserve assets. In addition, this recommendation furthers the Departmental preference to collocate active and reserve assets and personnel wherever possible to enhance the readiness of both.

Community Concerns

NAS South Weymouth is the only operational Naval Air Reserve activity in the New England/New York area. The community believes closure would preclude active participation by aviation qualified Naval Reservists in the northeastern United States, because reservists are geographically connected to their homes and civilian occupations. The community noted the Navy ranked NAS South Weymouth fourth of six in military value, well ahead of NAS Ft. Worth and NAS Atlanta. The community emphasized that the highly educated technical workforce and large population of qualified veterans in the Boston area support recruitment for both the current mission and any expanded role.

The community questioned the Navy’s recommendation to close South Weymouth despite the continued high value as borne out by the Navy’s military value matrix. Further, the community believes the decision to close South Weymouth, which links a reserve facility with an active facility, is without analytical support. In addition, the community believes the operational requirement expressed by the Navy for a fully capable base north of Norfolk represents a last minute methodological shift on the part of the Navy.

The community conducted its own independent analysis of the distance of Naval Air Reserve Stations to the nearest major population centers. The community argues that relocation of South Weymouth reserve units to Brunswick, Maine would place them more than twice as far from a major population center as any of the other Reserve Air Station. The community believes when the increased distance required for reservists to commute is coupled with a sparse population base from which reservists can be recruited, the result will be understaffed units that are not ready to perform their missions.

Commission Findings

The Commission found closing NAS South Weymouth will alleviate excess capacity at both a reserve air station and an active duty air station. In addition, closing NAS South Weymouth will generate substantial savings. The Commission considered several options to closing NAS South Weymouth, however, they were less cost effective than the South Weymouth closure.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, Massachusetts. Relocate its aircraft and necessary personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine. Relocate the Marine Corps Reserve support squadrons to another facility in the local area or to NAS Brunswick. Reestablish Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, and change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-64) for consolidation of Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Lawrence, Massachusetts; Naval Reserve Center, Chicopee, Massachusetts; and Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, from NAS South Weymouth, Massachusetts to Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts.

Naval Air Facility, Detroit, Michigan

Category: Reserve Air Station
Mission: Support for Marine Corps Reserve Unit
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: $9.4 million
Annual: None
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-25) for the Mt. Clemons, Michigan Marine Corps Reserve Center, including MWSG-47 and supporting units, from “Marine Corps Reserve Center, Twin Cities, Minnesota” to “Air National Guard Base, Selfridge, Michigan.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

In addition to avoiding the costs of relocating the reserve unit from this reserve center to Minnesota, this redirect maintains a Marine Corps recruiting presence in the Detroit area, which is a demographically rich recruiting area, and realizes a principal objective of the Department of Defense to effect multi-service use of facilities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-25) for the Mt. Clemons, Michigan Marine Corps Reserve Center, including MWSG-47 and supporting units, from “Marine Corps Reserve Center, Twin Cities, Minnesota” to “Air National Guard Base, Selfridge, Michigan.”

Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi

Category: Training Air Station
Mission: Undergraduate Pilot Training
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain Open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi, except retain the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy facilities which are transferred to the Academy. Relocate the undergraduate strike pilot training function and associated personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas. Its major tenant, the Naval Technical Training Center, will close, and its training functions will be relocated to other training activities, primarily the Navy Supply Corps School, Athens, Georgia, and Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island.

Secretary of Defense Justification

The 1993 Commission recommended that Naval Air Station, Meridian remain open because it found that the then-current and future pilot training rate (PTR) required that there be two full-strike training bases, Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas, and Naval Air Station, Meridian. In the period between 1993 and the present, two factors emerged that required the Department of the Navy again to review the requirement for two such installations. First, the current force -structure plan shows a continuing decline in the PTR (particularly in the decline from 11 to 10 carrier air wings) so that Navy strike training could be handled by a single full-strike training base. Second, the consolidation of strike training that follows the closure of NAS Meridian is in the spirit of the policy of the Secretary of Defense that functional pilot training be consolidated. The training conducted at Naval Air Station, Meridian is similar to that conducted at Naval Air Station, Kingsville, which has a higher military value, presently houses T-45 assets (the Department of the Navy’s new primary strike training aircraft) and its supporting infrastructure, and has ready access to larger amounts of air space, including over-water air space if such is required. Also, the Undergraduate Pilot Training Joint Cross-Service Group included the closure of Naval Air Station, Meridian in each of its closure/realignment alternatives. The separate recommendation for the consolidation of the Naval Technical Training Center functions at two other major training activities provides improved and more efficient management of these training functions and aligns certain enlisted personnel training to sites where similar training is being provided to officers.

Community Concerns

The community argued the Navy’s training plan did not provide enough capacity to accomplish needed strike pilot training without NAS Meridian. The community believes NAS Meridian is needed to meet the requirement. The community also claimed the Navy’s military value ranking of NAS Meridian was too low. It argued Naval training requires primarily over-ground airspace, but the Navy’s military value matrix was heavily weighted for over-water airspace. Since Meridian has considerable over-ground airspace but no over-water airspace, the community believes its military value ranking was unfairly diminished.

Commission Findings

The Commission found excess capacity existed in the Naval Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) base category. The Commission, however, reviewed the specific capacity requirements for carrier-based aircraft pilot training when considering this facility. The pilot training rate (PTR) for the strike pilot training subcategory was increased by the Navy in May 1995, above the level used for the closure analysis, because of a new mission and additional planned squadrons. In addition, if the requirement to train all carrier airplane pilots using the Navy-proposed single-sited T-45 trainer is implemented, the PTR would increase further. If the Navy’s 20% surge requirement is added to the increased PTR, the Commission found the Navy could not meet its UPT training requirements, without NAS Meridian. The Commission recognized that keeping a second strike pilot training base open resulted in excess UPT capacity, but found the risk associated with having only one UPT strike pilot training base to be unacceptable. The Chief of Naval Operations also expressed his personal concern about the difficulties of meeting this surge based requirement with only one strike pilot training base.

The Commission believes that the Secretary of Defenses decision not to base its recommendations for the UPT category on a cross-service analysis significantly limited opportunities for more efficient usage of pilot training bases. The Commission urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue joint training opportunities in the future.

See the separate discussion concerning Naval Technical Training Center (NTTC) Meridian.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 3. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Naval Air Station, Meridian remains open. Its major tenant, the Naval Technical Training Center, also remains open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Technical Training Center, Meridian, Mississippi

Category: Naval Training Center
Mission: Training of Enlisted Personnel
One-time Cost : None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain Open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Technical Training Center, Meridian, Mississippi, and relocate the training functions to other training activities, primarily the Navy Supply Corps School, Athens, Georgia, and Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Projected manpower reductions contained in the DoD Force Structure Plan require a substantial decrease in training-related infrastructure consistent with the policy of collocating training functions at fleet concentration centers when feasible. Consolidation of the Naval Technical Training Center functions at two other major training activities provides improved and more efficient management of the these training functions and aligns certain enlisted personnel training to sites where similar training is being provided to officers.

Community Concerns

The Meridian community expressed concern the Naval Technical Training Center (NTTC) was being included in the Naval Air Station, Meridian closure recommendation and was not evaluated on its own merits. They felt the surge capability the school provided, as well as its modern facilities, demonstrated the need to keep the school at its present location. Additionally, the Meridian community argued it would be more cost effective to keep the school at its present location and avoid the one-time costs at the gaining facilities.

Commission Findings

The Commission found when the Naval Technical Training Center (NTTC) Meridian was analyzed separately from NAS Meridian, the economic results of closure were not favorable. The modern facilities, a need for large military construction at receiving locations and the Commission recommendation not to close NAS Meridian contributed to the Commission finding that the NTTC Meridian should also be left open.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: the Naval Technical Training Center, Meridian remains open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division,
Lakehurst, New Jersey

Category: Navy Technical Center
Mission: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, and In-Service Engineering for carrier catapult and related functions
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain Open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, except transfer in place certain facilities and equipment to the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland. Relocate other functions and associated personnel and equipment to the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, and the Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, Florida. Relocate the Naval Air Technical Training Center Detachment, Lakehurst, to Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Relocate Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 21, the U.S. Army CECOM Airborne Engineering Evaluation Support Activity, and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office to other government-owned spaces.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. The closure and realignment of this activity permits the elimination of the command and support structure of this activity and the consolidation of its most critical functions at a major technical center, allowing synergism with its parent command and more fully utilizing available capabilities at major depot activities. This recommendation retains at Lakehurst only those facilities and personnel essential to conducting catapult and arresting gear testing and fleet support.

Community Concerns

The Lakehurst community is concerned that costs to close were excluded improperly from the DoD recommendation. They identified problems with the capabilities of the recommended receiving installations, to accommodate the incoming missions for the costs used in the COBRA analysis. The community also expressed concern that by splintering the interdependent catapult RDT&E, prototype manufacturing, and support capabilities, the performance level of fleet responses would decrease. The community further argued that Lakehurst should not be closed, so that the current tenant activities may remain.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that the DoD’s recommendation will dismantle interdependent functions at NAWC Lakehurst and relocate them to other naval facilities. The Commission found this recommendation, by splintering these interdependent functions would result in a loss in industrial, economic and performance advantages. The Commission found that the catapult research, development, and test and evaluation functions depend upon collocation with prototyping and manufacturing functions. The Commission found splitting these interdependent functions would increase the time needed to respond to carrier fleet emergencies because of the travel time for parts and personnel between NAWC Lakehurst and NADEP Jacksonville. The Commission found overall response time to carrier catapult emergencies would be unacceptable if the DoD recommendation was implemented, and efficiencies resulting from collocation would be lost.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst remains open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Air Technical Services Facility, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category: Technical Centers/Laboratories
Mission: Technical Publication Support
One-time Cost: $5.7 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $1.5 million
Annual: $ 2.2 million
Return on Investment: 2001 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Air Technical Services Facility (NATSF), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and consolidate necessary functions, personnel, and equipment with the Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, California.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The Philadelphia community believes its ties to Aviation Supply Office (ASO) are stronger than those with Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), North Island. NATSF already has a Memoranda of Understanding to reduce overhead costs by having personnel, computer, mail, and other services provided to it by ASO. The community pointed out its employees did not travel to NADEP North Island in 1994, and only a relatively small percentage of its work supports the NADEP. They also cite evidence which suggests they may be moved to a San Diego location other than the NADEP.

The community stressed that in 1993, the Commission found compelling the potential cost savings and reduction in workload among the Services of establishing a joint organization under the auspices of NATSF. There were no indications, however, that this concept has been pursued.

The community also asserted the significant difference in housing costs between Philadelphia and San Diego, and thus, most employees will be unable to afford to make the move, and few will actually move.

The community also asserted there is more commonality with ASO, and that more positions can be eliminated by leaving NATSF in Philadelphia. Finally, the community maintained that substantial travel to Naval Air Systems Command would be required, greatly increasing per diem and personnel costs. They also asserted that moving from a fully loaded urban base in Philadelphia to another well loaded base will not generate substantial savings.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that NATSF is a Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) activity and that moving to NADEP, North Island, California will facilitate the implementation of NAVAIR’s reorganization of its field activities. The Commission recognized that NATSF had very strong ties to ASO, where NATSF is a tenant, but concluded its relationship with NAVAIR is more important.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Air Technical Services Facility (NATSF), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and consolidate necessary functions, personnel, and equipment with the Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, California.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division,
Warminster, Pennsylvania

Category: Technical Centers / Laboratories
Mission: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
One-time Cost: $8.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $33.1 million
Annual: $7.6 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, Pennsylvania. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other technical activities, primarily the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline in the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. The closure of this activity reduces excess capacity with the resultant efficiencies and economies in the consolidation of the relocated functions with its parent command at the new receiving site. Additionally, it completes the process of realignment initiated in BRAC 91, based on a clearer understanding of what is now required to be retained in-house. Closure and excessing of the Human Centrifuge/Dynamic Flight Simulator Facility further reduces excess capacity and provides the opportunity for the transfer of this facility to the public educational or commercial sectors, thus maintaining access on an as-needed basis.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, Pennsylvania. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other technical activities, primarily the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Open Water Test Facility, Oreland, Pennsylvania

Category: Test and Evaluation
Mission: Test and Evaluation
One-time Cost : $0.05 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.03 million
Annual: $0.02 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Open Water Test Facility, Oreland, Pennsylvania.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

Naval Aviation Engineering Service Unit, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category: Technical Centers/Laboratories
Mission: Aviation Field Engineering Assistance
One-time Cost: $2.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $5.3 million
Annual: $2.4 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Aviation Engineering Service Unit (NAESU), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and consolidate necessary functions, personnel, and equipment with the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), North Island, California.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The Philadelphia community believes its ties to Aviation Supply Office (ASO) and Naval Aviation Technical Services Facility (NATSF), (an ASO tenant), are stronger than those with NADEP North Island. NAESU is presently negotiating a Memoranda of Understanding to reduce overhead costs that resulted from its June, 1995 move from the closed Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to the ASO compound. The community pointed out that the employees rarely traveled to NADEP North Island in 1994, and only a relatively small percentage of NAESU work supports the NADEP. They also cite evidence that they say suggests they may be moved to a San Diego location other than the NADEP.

The community pointed out the significant difference in housing costs between Philadelphia and San Diego. Most employees will be unable to afford to make the move, and thus, they believe fewer than 10% of the employees will actually move.

The community also asserts there is more commonality with NATSF and ASO, and that more positions can be eliminated by leaving NAESU in Philadelphia. The community believes the closure scenario would eliminate fewer jobs than reflected in the Navy position. Finally, the community pointed out that substantial travel to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) would be required, greatly increasing travel, per diem, and personnel costs.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the NAESU’s strongest ties are to NAVAIR. The Commission recognized that NAESU can be situated in Philadelphia as readily as in San Diego, but concluded its relationship with NAVAIR is more important. The Commission also concluded that the personnel movements were not correctly presented in the Navy’s COBRA due to issues relating to NAESU’s San Diego detachments. The Commission found that the DoD costs and savings are uncertain; savings may have been overestimated and costs underestimated. In making its recommendation, however, the Commission adopted the DoD costs while recognizing the uncertainties.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Aviation Engineering Service Unit (NAESU), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and consolidate necessary functions, personnel, and equipment with the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), North Island, California.

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E
Division Detachment, Warminster, Pennsylvania

Category: Technical Centers / Laboratories
Mission: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
One-time Cost: $8.4 million *
Savings: 1996-2001: $33 million *
Annual: $ 7.6 million *
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close
* Combined with Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, PA.

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division Detachment, Warminster, Pennsylvania. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other technical activities, primarily the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, San Diego, California; and the Naval Oceanographic Office, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. The closure of this activity reduces excess capacity with the resultant efficiencies and economies in the management of the relocated functions at the new receiving sites. Additionally, it completes the process of realignment initiated in BRAC 91, based on a clearer understanding of what is now required to be retained in-house. Closure and excessing of the Inertial Navigational Facility further reduces excess capacity and provides the opportunity for the transfer of these facilities to the public educational or commercial sectors, thus maintaining access on an as-needed basis.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense. Some employees of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania detachment of Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center (NCCOSC) in San Diego, California told the Commission they report to a different NCCOSC organization not specifically mentioned in the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and therefore should not be included in the recommendation. Navy provided information indicating it was their intention to move the Philadelphia detachment to San Diego in accordance with an organizational restructuring begun in 1991 with the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. The Commission accepted the Navy’s explanation that the Philadelphia Detachment is appropriately part of the planned move to San Diego.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division Detachment, Warminster, Pennsylvania. Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other technical activities, primarily the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, San Diego, California; and the Naval Oceanographic Office, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category: Naval Shipyards
Mission: Repair and Maintenance of Naval Ships
One-time Cost: $0.03 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $51.9 million
Annual: $8.8 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendations

Change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission relating to the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (1991 Commission Report, at page 5-28) to delete “and preservation” (line 5) and “for emergent requirements” (lines 6-7).

Secretary of Defense Justification

Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated. The contingency seen in 1991 for which the facilities at this closed shipyard were being retained no longer exists, and their continued retention is neither necessary nor consistent with the DON objective to divest itself of unnecessary infrastructure.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The 1991 Commission closed the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, a non-nuclear capable yard. At the Navy’s request, the Commission retained the propeller shop and deep-draft drydocks and associated facilities as surge assets. The Navy also retained facilities to accommodate two tenants. Given the private sectors ability to meet surge workload and the existing excess capacity within the remaining active naval shipyards, the Navy recommended closure of the retained drydocks and associated facilities. The Commission found the recommendation consistent with the Navy’s goal to divest itself of unnecessary infrastructure.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission relating to the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (1991 Commission Report, at page 5-28) to delete and preservation (line 5) and for emergent requirements (line 6-7).

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina

Category: Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers
Mission: Supply Support
One-time Cost: $2.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $2.3 million
Annual: $0.9 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers are follower activities whose existence depends upon active fleet units in their homeport area. Prior BRAC actions closed or realigned most of this activity’s customer base, and most of its personnel have already transferred to the Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering, East Coast Division, Charleston, South Carolina. Further, in accordance with the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan, force structure reductions through the year 2001 erode the requirement for support of active forces even further. This remaining workload can efficiently be handled by other FISCs or other naval activities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the Secretary of Defenses recommendation.

Commission Recommendation

Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas

Category: Training Air Station
Mission: Undergraduate Pilot Training
One-time Cost: $13.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $61.1 million
Annual: $5.1 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, as a Naval Air Facility, and relocate the undergraduate pilot training function and associated personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, and Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Reductions in force structure have led to decreases in pilot training rates. This reduction has allowed the Navy to consolidate maritime and primary fixed wing training in the Pensacola-Whiting complex while retaining the airfield and airspace at Corpus Christi to support the consolidation of strike training at the Kingsville-Corpus Christi complex. The Corpus Christi Naval Air Facility is also being retained to accept mine warfare helicopter assets in support of the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence at Naval Station, Ingleside, and to provide the opportunity for the movement of additional aviation assets to the NAF as operational considerations dictate. This NAF will continue to support its current group of DoD and Federal agency tenants and their aviation-intensive needs, as well as other regional Navy air operations as needed.

Community Concerns

The NAS Corpus Christi community would like the base retained as a major shore command, Naval Air Station status, rather than reduced to a Naval Air Facility. The community agrees with the Navy’s recommendations to single cite T-45 training aircraft at NAS Kingsville, T-34 training aircraft at NAS Whiting Field, and the redirect of MH-53 mine warfare helicopters to NAS Corpus Christi. The community, however, opposes the transfer of T-44 maritime aircraft training to NAS Pensacola, claiming that NAS Corpus Christi has the capacity to accept T-45 operations as well as continue maritime training. Although the community would like to retain the Chief of Naval Aviation Training (CNATRA) Headquarters at NAS Corpus Christi, they realize that the recommendation to relocate CNATRA to NAS Pensacola is an internal Navy decision and they support that decision.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the NAS Corpus Christi pilot training mission at NAS Pensacola and NAS Whiting Field. The Commission did not believe, however, the receiving sites specified offered sufficient flexibility to accommodate future training requirements. Therefore, the specified training sites were removed from the recommendation. The Commission found that the Navy must move training functions to achieve the cost benefits of this recommendation. The Commission also found that the Navy had the authority to realign the Naval Air Station to a Naval Air Facility without the requirement for action by the Commission.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi remains open and realigns as necessary. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering East Coast Detachment, Norfolk, Virginia

Category: Navy Technical Center
Mission: In-Service Engineering for Naval Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence functions
One-time Cost: $4.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.1 million
Annual: $2.1 million
Return on Investment: 2002 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close the In-Service Engineering East Coast Detachment, St. Juliens Creek Annex, Norfolk, Virginia, of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, except retain in place the transmit and receive equipment and antennas currently at the St. Juliens Creek Annex. Relocate functions, necessary personnel and equipment to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Community Concerns

The Norfolk community is concerned about the mission disruption of NISE East caused by the BRAC 93 transfer of personnel and functions to Charleston, South Carolina, and the BRAC 95 recommended transfer of personnel and functions to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The community believes that the savings of $2 million does not justify the potential disruption to the mission.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that after implementation of the 1993 Commission recommendation was complete, there would be an excess of 130,000 square feet at the Norfolk Naval Shipyards St. Juliens Creek Annex. The relocation of Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center In-Service Engineering, East Coast Detachment to 28,100 square feet of space within the Norfolk Naval Shipyard would result in a recurring savings of $2.1 million for the Department of the Navy.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close the In-Service Engineering East Coast Detachment, St. Juliens Creek Annex, Norfolk, Virginia, of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, except retain in place the transmit and receive equipment and antennas currently at the St. Juliens Creek Annex. Relocate functions, necessary personnel and equipment to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia.

Naval Information Systems Management Center, Arlington, Virginia

Category: Administrative Activities
Mission: Information Management
One-time Cost: $0.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $.3 million
Annual: $0.1 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Relocate

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Relocate the Naval Information Systems Management Center from leased space in Arlington, Virginia, to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Secretary of Defense Justification

The resource levels of administrative activities are dependent upon the level of forces they support. The continuing decline in force levels shown in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan coupled with the effects of the National Performance Review result in further reductions of personnel in administrative activities. This relocation reduces excess capacity and achieves savings by the movement from leased space to government-owned space, and furthers the Department’s policy decision to merge this activity with the Information Technology Acquisition Center which is already housed in the Navy Yard.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that moving the Naval Information Systems Management Center from leased space to the Washington Navy Yard saves money and furthers the overall effort to move military commands in the National Capital Region to Government-owned space. In addition, it permits consolidation with a similar command, the Information Technology Acquisition Center, already located at the Navy Yard.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: relocate the Naval Information Systems Management Center from leased space in Arlington, Virginia, to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Naval Management Systems Support Office, Chesapeake, Virginia

Category: Technical Facilities/Laboratories
Mission: Information Systems Support
One-time Cost: $2.2 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $ 9.0 million
Annual: $2.7 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish the Naval Management Systems Support Office, Chesapeake, Virginia, and relocate its functions and necessary personnel and equipment as a detachment of Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, California, in government-owned spaces in Norfolk, Virginia.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. The disestablishment of this activity permits the elimination of the command and support structure of this activity and the consolidation of certain functions with a major technical center. This recommendation also provides for the movement out of leased space into government-owned space, a move which had been intended to occur as part of the DON BRAC 93 recommended consolidation of the Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Centers in Portsmouth, which the 1993 Commission disapproved.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense that NAVMASSO should relocate from leased to Government-owned space. The Commission was concerned, however, that appropriate Government-owned space in Norfolk might not be available. Accordingly, with the concurrence of the Navy, the Commission modified the recommendation to expand the receiving location to the entire Tidewater, Virginia area. The Commission found no other reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish the Naval Management Systems Support Office (NAVMASSO), Chesapeake, Virginia, and relocate its functions and necessary personnel and equipment as a detachment of Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, California, in Government-owned spaces in the Tidewater, Virginia area. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia

Category: Administrative Activities
Mission: Personnel Support
One-time Cost: $160.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $50.6 million
Annual: $10.1 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) for the relocation of the Naval Sea Systems Command, including the Nuclear Propulsion Directorate (SEA 08), the Human Resources Office supporting the Naval Sea Systems Command, and associated PEOs and DRPMs, from “the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia; Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.; 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia; or the White Oak facility, Silver Spring, Maryland” to “the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. or other government-owned property in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

The resource levels of administrative activities are dependent upon the level of forces they support. The continuing decline in force levels shown in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan coupled with the effects of the National Performance Review result in further reductions of personnel in administrative activities. As a result, the capacity at the White Oak facility in Silver Spring, Maryland, or at the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia is no longer required to meet DON administrative space needs. This change in receiving sites eliminates substantial expenditures otherwise required to rehabilitate both White Oak and the Navy Annex. The net effect of this and the White Oak recommendation is a decrease of excess administrative space by more than 1,000,000 square feet.

Community Concerns

The community expressed a number of concerns regarding this redirect, all of which centered on the relative cost to move the Naval Sea Systems Command to either White Oak or the Washington Navy Yard. Independent analysis of the certified data was conducted by the community. Based upon this analysis, the community believes military construction costs were not accurate. The community felt that the estimates for White Oak were overstated and those for the Navy Yard were understated. Relative square footage numbers, as well as construction costs per unit, were questioned. The community also felt that site-specific costs to build at the Navy Yard had not been accounted for in the DoD analysis. Foremost among these costs were floodplain considerations and historical preservation requirements. Additionally, the community contends that improvements needed to convert the Navy Yard from an industrial to an administrative facility had not been included in the Navy’s costs. The community felt that the costs of facility improvements, other than office space, should be included in the analysis. These costs, outlined in a Master Plan, are designed to enable the Navy Yard to support a base population of ten thousand. Finally, the community voiced a concern over quality of life issues. White Oak, it claimed, offered a far superior working environment.

Commission Findings

The overriding concern of the Commission was the cost of this recommendation. The Commission compared construction costs at NSWC White Oak to those at the Washington Navy Yard. At White Oak, costs were based on a project which had already been extensively engineered. At the Navy Yard, costs were based upon similar projects already completed at the Navy Yard. The Commission concluded that the costs projected by the Navy were accurate. Although the military construction costs were higher at the Navy Yard, the Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the higher construction cost was offset by personnel eliminations and lower overhead costs.

The Commission also examined the ability of the Washington Navy Yard infrastructure to accommodate an influx of over four thousand people. The Commission found that the existing facilities and planned improvements would allow the Navy Yard to support the added population. The availability of parking also concerns the Commission, but the planned parking allowance was found to be sufficient for an installation located in an urban setting with good access to public transportation.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) for the relocation of the Naval Sea Systems Command, including the Nuclear Propulsion Directorate (SEA 08), the Human Resources Office supporting the Naval Sea Systems Command, and associated PEOs and DRPMs, from the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia; Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.; 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia; or the White Oak facility, Silver Spring, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. or other Government-owned property in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.

Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia

Category: Technical Centers and Laboratories
Mission: Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: $5.2 million
Annual: $-1.4 million (Cost)
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at pages 1-59/60) by deleting the Office of Naval Research from the list of National Capital Region activities to relocate from leased space to Government-owned space within the NCR.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Because of other BRAC 95 actions, space designated for this activity pursuant to the BRAC 93 decision is no longer available. Other Navy-owned space in the NCR would require substantial new construction in order to house this activity. Permitting the Office of Naval Research to remain in its present location not only avoids this new construction, but also realizes the synergy obtained by having the activity located in proximity to the Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. Further, this action provides the opportunity for future collocation of like activities from the other Military Departments, with the attendant joint synergies which could be realized. While this action results in a recurring cost, the cost is minimal in light of the importance of these two significant opportunities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that some benefits accrue from ONRs present location in close proximity to the National Science Foundation and the Advanced Research Projects Agency. In addition, the Commission found the recurring cost associated with remaining in leased space is outweighed by the potential advantage of coordinated research efforts that would result from the collocation of all of the Services research offices with ONR. If ONR were to move to the Navy Yard, there would be insufficient space to accommodate the other research offices.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at pages 1-59/60) by deleting the Office of Naval Research from the list of National Capital Region [NCR] activities to relocate from leased space to Government-owned space within the NCR.

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia

Category: Administrative Activities
Mission: Systems Command Headquarters
One-time Cost: $24.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $120.0 million
Annual: $25.3 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the recommendation for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia, specified by the 1993 Commission (Commission Report, at page 1-59) from “[r]elocate…from leased space to Government-owned space within the NCR, to include the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia; Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.; 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia; or the White Oak facility, Silver Spring, Maryland” to “Relocate…from leased space to Government-owned space in San Diego, California, to allow consolidation of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, with the Space and Naval Warfare Command headquarters. This relocation does not include SPAWAR Code 40, which is located at NRL, or the Program Executive Officer for Space Communication Sensors and his immediate staff who will remain in Navy-owned space in the National Capital Region.”

Secretary of Defense Justification

The resource levels of administrative activities are dependent upon the level of forces they support. The continuing decline in force levels shown in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan coupled with the effects of the National Performance Review result in further reductions in administrative activities. Space available in San Diego resulting from personnel changes and work consolidation permits further consolidation of the SPAWAR command structure and the elimination of levels of command structure. This consolidation will achieve not only significant savings from elimination of unnecessary command structure but also efficiencies and economies of operation. In addition, by relocating to San Diego instead of the NCR, there will be sufficient readily available space in the Washington Navy Yard for the Naval Sea Systems Command.

Community Concerns

The community believes the proposal does not reflect the significance of a Washington location to their mission performance. Most of the other organizations that Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) works with are either in the local area or in easily reached East Coast locations. The community believes the very small staff proposed for retention in Washington would not be able to continue their current activities. The community believes this would result in major increases in travel costs and lost staff time that were not included in the Navy analysis. They also stated that equivalent personnel savings could be made without a move through reorganization of the subordinate commands currently in San Diego, and elimination of excess overhead personnel at SPAWAR Headquarters, possibly through consolidation with Naval Sea Systems Command. The community also noted that the cost of renovating office space in San Diego was not included in the Navy’s cost estimates for this proposal.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the movement of SPAWAR to San Diego would enable the Navy to eliminate management layers and to enhance productivity by collocating headquarters with the majority of its subordinate staff. The Commission was concerned about the small size of the staff retained in Washington to maintain contact with the many organizations regularly interacting with SPAWAR, and with the absence of office renovation costs in San Diego. The Commission found, however, that even if the Washington-based staff were substantially increased and renovation costs added, the savings from the recommendation remain attractive. The Commission also agreed that increased travel costs could be minimized through the use of modern communication methods such as computer networks and teleconferencing.

The Laboratory Joint Cross Service Group recommended consideration of a joint Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) acquisition organization. The Commission found that the implementation of a joint C4I organization was incompatible with the Secretary of Defenses recommendation to relocate SPAWAR headquarters to San Diego. Because the Secretary of Defense did not submit any recommendations in support of a joint C4I organization, the Commission concluded that implementing this recommendation was consistent with the Departments plans.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia, specified by the 1993 Commission (Commission Report, at page 1-59) from [r]elocate…from leased space to Government-owned space within the NCR [National Capital Region], to include the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia; Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.; 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia; or the White Oak facility, Silver Spring, Maryland to Relocate…from leased space to Government-owned space in San Diego, California, to allow consolidation of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, with the Space and Naval Warfare Command headquarters. This relocation does not include SPAWAR Code 40, which is located at NRL [National Research Laboratory], or the Program Executive Officer for Space Communication Sensors and his immediate staff who will remain in Navy-owned space in the National Capital Region.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport, Washington

Category: Technical Centers
Mission: Test, evaluation, in-service engineering, maintenance and repair and industrial base support for undersea warfare systems
One-time Cost: $2.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $ 9.8 million
Annual: $2.1 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport, Washington, by moving its ships’ combat systems console refurbishment depot maintenance and general industrial workload to Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound, Bremerton, Washington.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001. Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders. However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities. This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable. Consistent with the Department of the Navy’s efforts to remove depot level maintenance workload from technical centers and return it to depot industrial activities, this action consolidates ship combat systems workload at NSYD Puget Sound, but retains electronic test and repair equipments at NUWC Keyport, as well as torpedo depot maintenance, thereby removing the need to replicate facilities. The workload redistribution also furthers the Pacific Northwest Regional Maintenance Center initiatives, more fully utilizes the capacity at the shipyard, and will achieve greater productivity efficiencies within the shipyard.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found that the realignment was consistent with the Navy’s goal to reduce infrastructure and to shift depot-level maintenance from technical centers to depot industrial activities.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport, Washington, by moving its ships combat systems console refurbishment depot maintenance and general industrial workload to Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound, Bremerton, Washington.

Naval Training Centers
(Orlando, Florida and San Diego, California)

Category: Naval Training Centers
Mission: Training of Officer and Enlisted Personnel
One-time Cost: $5.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $24.8 million
Annual: $0.2 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-38) concerning the closure of Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida, by deleting all references to Service School Command from the list of major tenants. Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-39) concerning the closure of Naval Training Center, San Diego, California, by deleting all references to Service School Command, including Service School Command (Electronic Warfare) and Service School Command (Surface), from the list of major tenants.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Service School Command is a major component command reporting directly to the Commanding Officer, Naval Training Center, and, as such, is not a tenant of the Naval Training Center. Its relocation and that of its component courses can and should be accomplished in a manner “consistent with training requirements,” as specified by the 1993 Commission recommendation language for the major elements of the Naval Training Centers. For instance, while the command structure of the Service School Command at Naval Training Center, Orlando Florida, is relocating to the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois, the Torpedoman “C” School can be relocated to available facilities at the Naval Underwater Weapons Center, Keyport, Washington, and thus be adjacent to the facility that supports the type of weapon that is the subject of the training. Similarly, since the Integrated Voice Communication School at the Naval Training Center, San Diego, California, uses contract instructors, placing it at Fleet Training Center, San Diego, necessitates only the local movement of equipment at a savings in the cost otherwise to be incurred to move such equipment to the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois. Likewise, the relocation of the Messman “A” School at Naval Training Center, San Diego, to Lackland Air Force Base results in consolidation of the same type of training for all services at one location, consistent with Department goals, and avoids military construction costs at Naval Air Station, Pensacola.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found economic and operational advantages in collocating certain component schools of the Service School Command with existing facilities or with similar schools of other military branches.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-38) concerning the closure of Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida, by deleting all references to Service School Command from the list of major tenants. Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-39) concerning the closure of Naval Training Center, San Diego, California, by deleting all references to Service School Command, including Service School Command (Electronic Warfare) and Service School Command (Surface), from the list of major tenants.

Reserve Centers/Commands

Category: Reserve Activities
Mission: Reserve Support
One-time Cost: $1.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $43.0 million
Annual: $8.5 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Recommendation

Close the following Naval Reserve Centers:

Stockton, California
Pomona, California
Santa Ana, Irvine, California
Laredo, Texas
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Cadillac, Michigan
Staten Island, New York
Huntsville, Alabama

Close the following Naval Air Reserve Center:

Olathe, Kansas

Close the following Naval Reserve Readiness Commands:

Region Seven – Charleston, South Carolina
Region Ten – New Orleans, Louisiana

Secretary of Defense Justification

Existing capacity in support of the Reserve component continues to be in excess of the force structure requirements for the year 2001. These Reserve Centers scored low in military value, among other things, because there were a fewer number of drilling reservists than the number of billets available (suggesting a lesser demographic pool from which to recruit sailors), or because there was a poor use of facilities (for instance, only one drill weekend per month). Readiness Command (REDCOM) 7 has management responsibility for the fewest number of Reserve Centers of the thirteen REDCOMs, while REDCOM 10 has management responsibility for the fewest number of Selected Reservists. In 1994, nearly three-fourths of the authorized SELRES billets at REDCOM 10 were unfilled, suggesting a demographic shortfall. In addition, both REDCOMs have high ratios of active duty personnel when compared to SELRES supported. The declining Reserve force structure necessitates more effective utilization of resources and therefore justifies closing these two REDCOMs. In arriving at the recommendation to close these Reserve Centers/Commands, specific analysis was conducted to ensure that there was either an alternate location available to accommodate the affected Reserve population or demographic support for purpose of force recruiting in the areas to which units were being relocated. This specific analysis, verified by the COBRA analysis, supports these closures.

Community Concerns

The community believes the data presented by DoD in justifying the recommendation for the Naval Reserve Center Laredo, Texas closure is unconvincing, and that travel costs incurred by reservists in the event of closure would exceed the operating costs of the center. There were no formal expressions from the other communities.

Commission Findings

The Commission agreed with the Secretary of Defense that the recommended Reserve Center closures would reduce excess capacity and preserve reserve support and effective recruiting demographics.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Naval Reserve Centers at Stockman, California; Pomona, California; Santa Ana, Irvine, California; Laredo, Texas; Sheboygan, Wisconsin; Cadillac, Michigan; Staten Island, New York; and Huntsville, Alabama. Close Naval Air Reserve Center, Olathe, Kansas. Close Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Region Seven, Charleston, South Carolina. Close Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Region Ten, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Share this: