Show description

From highest to lowest ranking, they were McAlester, Lone Star, Radford, Holsten, Milan, Pine Bluff, Lake City, and Iowa. None was recommended for further study; hence, none was recommended for closure. Ammunition Storage Stationing Strategy. The stationing strategy for ammunition storage facilities was straightforward: maintain a core storage capability for peacetime training and readiness requirements and for wartime needs, and maintain the capability to act as ammunition executive agent for DoD.

Each strategy has four parts: 1. , provide a home for the institutional component of the Army’s training system) How the Army Has Approched Recent BRACS 35 2. an explication of the operational requirements for such installations, described in more detail below 3. , retain a separate school for each branch) 4. , retain the unique facilities at Ft. Bragg). More needs to be said about part 2, operational requirements. As described in the Army’s report of its 1995 process (TABS, Vol. 9. While TABS asserts that these 13 requirements were translated directly from the strategic requirements of the then-current Bottom-Up Review (Aspin, 1993), a reading of the Bottom-Up Review leads to the conclusion that the Army drew inferences from that document that are not entirely straightforward.

It results in a subjective reranking of installations within each category and a recommendation as to which installations should be further studied for closure or realignment. From the further studies come the development and evaluation of specific alternatives and, finally, specific recommendations from the Army to the Secretary of Defense. Note that the Army leadership selects the alternatives to be evaluated and approves the recommendations. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans develops an Army stationing strategy (the second step of the process) for each category of installation, and TABS applies it.