force development and documentation …...3/5/7. the proponent has the authority to approve...

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of the Army Pamphlet 71 – 32

Force Development

Force Development and Documentation Consolidated Procedures

Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 21 March 2019

SUMMARY DA PAM 71 – 32 Force Development and Documentation Consolidated Procedures

This new Department of the Army pamphlet, dated 21 March 2019—

o Extracts all procedures from AR 71 – 32 and places them in this new DA Pam 71 – 32 (throughout).

o Establishes DA Pam 71 – 32 as the guide to carrying out policies in AR 71 – 32 (throughout).

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

UNCLASSIFIED

i

Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC

Department of the Army Pamphlet 71 – 32

21 March 2019

Force Development

Force Development and Documentation Consolidated Procedures

History. This publication is a new De-partment of the Army pamphlet. Summary. This pamphlet captures the procedures for developing and document-ing organizational requirements and author-izations, and for establishing certain force

development functions in the Headquarters, Department of the Army Office of the Dep-uty Chief of Staff, G – 3/5/7. Applicability. This pamphlet applies to the Regular Army, Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve, unless oth-erwise stated. Proponent and exception authority. The proponent of this pamphlet is the Dep-uty Chief of Staff, G – 3/5/7. The proponent has the authority to approve exceptions or waivers to this pamphlet that are consistent with controlling law and regulations. The proponent may delegate this approval au-thority, in writing, to a division chief within the proponent agency or its direct reporting unit or field operating agency, in the grade of colonel or the civilian equivalent. Activ-ities may request a waiver to this pamphlet by providing justification that includes a full analysis of the expected benefits and

must include formal review by the activ-ity’s senior legal officer. All waiver re-quests will be endorsed by the commander or senior leader of the requesting activity and forwarded through higher headquarters to the policy proponent. Refer to AR 25 – 30 for specific guidance. Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recom-mended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) directly to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FM), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 – 0400. Distribution. This pamphlet is available in electronic media only and is intended for commanders of the Regular Army, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve.

Contents (Listed by paragraph and page number)

Chapter 1 Introduction, page 1 Purpose • 1 – 1, page 1 References • 1 – 2, page 1 Explanation of abbreviations and terms • 1 – 3, page 1 Leadership oversight • 1 – 4, page 1

Chapter 2 Force Management Overview, page 1 The Army Organizational Life Cycle Model • 2 – 1, page 1 Force management • 2 – 2, page 3 Army force management model • 2 – 3, page 4 Force development • 2 – 4, page 4

Chapter 3 Force Design Updates and Tables of Organization and Equipment, page 5

Section I Force Design Updates, page 5 Overview • 3 – 1, page 5 Concurrent force design updates and tables of organization and equipment processes • 3 – 2, page 6 Timeline for concurrent force design updates and tables of organization and equipment processes • 3 – 3, page 6

Contents—Continued

ii DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Linking the unit reference sheet to the table of organization and equipment development • 3 – 4, page 6 Force design updates • 3 – 5, page 7

Section II Seven Steps of the Force Design Update Process, page 8 Step 1: Training and Doctrine Command staffing of a force design update • 3 – 6, page 8 Step 2: Training and Doctrine Command force design update review board • 3 – 7, page 9 Step 3: Packet accepted into the official force design update process • 3 – 8, page 9 Step 4: Worldwide field staffing • 3 – 9, page 9 Step 5: Requirements determination • 3 – 10, page 9 Step 6: Requirements approval briefings and TOE approval briefings • 3 – 11, page 10 Step 7: Implementation • 3 – 12, page 10

Section III Force Integration Functional Area Analysis, page 10 HQDA force integration functional area analysis • 3 – 13, page 10 Functional area rating definitions and assessment • 3 – 14, page 12

Section IV Tables of Organization and Equipment, page 12 Table of organization and equipment overview • 3 – 15, page 12 Table of organization and equipment development and approval procedures • 3 – 16, page 12

Chapter 4 Basis of Issue Plan, page 13 General • 4 – 1, page 13 Basis of issue plan feeder data • 4 – 2, page 15 Basis of issue plan feeder data coordination process • 4 – 3, page 15 Basis of issue plan development phase • 4 – 4, page 16 Propagation • 4 – 5, page 16 Pre-area of interest review • 4 – 6, page 16 Area of interest review • 4 – 7, page 16 U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency branch review • 4 – 8, page 16 Basis of issue plan staffing phase • 4 – 9, page 17 Basis of issue plan approval phase • 4 – 10, page 17 Organizational requirements documentation approval board overview • 4 – 11, page 17 Organizational requirements documentation approval board council of colonels procedures • 4 – 12, page 17 Organizational requirements documentation approval board general officer steering committee proce-

dures • 4 – 13, page 18 Army Requirements Oversight Council procedures • 4 – 14, page 18 Basis of issue plan development schedule • 4 – 15, page 18 Exemptions from the basis of issue plan process • 4 – 16, page 18

Chapter 5 Modified Table of Organization and Equipment, page 19 Background • 5 – 1, page 19 Force modernization guidance • 5 – 2, page 20

Chapter 6 Table of Distribution and Allowances Change Management Processes, page 22

Section I Table of Distribution and Allowances Change Management Plans, page 22 Overview • 6 – 1, page 22 Thresholds and definitions • 6 – 2, page 22 Staffing of table of distribution and allowances’ change management plan submissions • 6 – 3, page 23 The table of distribution and allowances’ change management plan approval process • 6 – 4, page 25


DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 iii

Table of distribution and allowances change management plan guidelines • 6 – 5, page 27 Tables of distribution and allowances change management plan submission preparation guidelines • 6 – 6, page 27 List of required supporting enclosures • 6 – 7, page 29 Table of distribution and allowances’ approval briefing process • 6 – 8, page 29 Exempt from submitting table of distribution and allowances change management plans • 6 – 9, page 30

Section II Mobilization Table of Distribution and Allowances, page 30 Mobilization table of distribution and allowances and augmentation table of distribution and allowances documentation

guidance • 6 – 10, page 30 Equipment requirements • 6 – 11, page 32

Section III Manpower Management, page 32 Table of distribution and allowances change management plan manpower studies • 6 – 12, page 32 Manpower analysis work load data preparation guidelines • 6 – 13, page 32 Mission directive • 6 – 14, page 33 Army command, Army service component command, or direct reporting unit role • 6 – 15, page 36 Manpower management guidance • 6 – 16, page 37 Manpower model guidelines • 6 – 17, page 38

Section IV Cost Benefit Analysis, page 38 Cost-benefit analysis guidance • 6 – 18, page 38 Below the threshold • 6 – 19, page 39

Section V Tables of Distribution and Allowances and Augmentation Tables of Distribution and Allowances Equipment Proce-

dures, page 39 Procedures pertaining to tables of distribution and allowances change management plans • 6 – 20, page 39 Command equipment requests • 6 – 21, page 40

Chapter 7 Force Structure Data Elements, page 40

Section I Unit Identification Codes, page 40 Types and composition of unit identification codes • 7 – 1, page 40 Notional unit identification codes • 7 – 2, page 41 Carrier unit identification codes • 7 – 3, page 42 Notes unit identification codes • 7 – 4, page 42 Army pre-positioned stocks unit identification codes • 7 – 5, page 42 Requesting unit identification codes • 7 – 6, page 42 Unit activations that are cancelled or significantly postponed • 7 – 7, page 43

Section II Troop Program Sequence Number and Element Sequence Number in Structure and Manpower Allocation Sys-

tem, page 43 Use and structure of troop program sequence number • 7 – 8, page 43 Element sequence number • 7 – 9, page 50

Section III Other Data Elements, page 50 Effective date establishment • 7 – 10, page 50 Standard requirements code • 7 – 11, page 50


iv DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Chapter 8 Manpower Requirements Criteria, page 52 Manpower requirements criteria overview • 8 – 1, page 52 Manpower requirements criteria studies • 8 – 2, page 52 Manpower requirements criteria impact statement • 8 – 3, page 53 Manpower requirements criteria studies submission and approval procedures • 8 – 4, page 53 Manpower requirements criteria computations • 8 – 5, page 54 Manpower requirements criteria documentation in tables of organization and equipment • 8 – 6, page 54 Manpower requirements criteria deviations • 8 – 7, page 56 Manpower requirements criteria documentation in modified tables of organization and equipment • 8 – 8, page 57 Rounding rules for workloadable manpower requirements criteria computations • 8 – 9, page 57 Application of manpower position management and identification • 8 – 10, page 57

Chapter 9 Multiple Component Units, page 57 Multiple component units: concept • 9 – 1, page 57 Multiple component units: procedures • 9 – 2, page 57 Planning for multiple components units • 9 – 3, page 58 Multiple component units: documentation • 9 – 4, page 58 Multiple component units: unit identification code convention • 9 – 5, page 59 Multiple component units: force registration • 9 – 6, page 61 Multiple component units: utilization and documentation of full-time support positions • 9 – 7, page 61 Multiple component unit: permanent orders procedures • 9 – 8, page 62 Multiple component units: budgeting and execution • 9 – 9, page 62 Multiple component units: personnel processes • 9 – 10, page 63 Multiple component units: logistics processes • 9 – 11, page 63 Multiple component units: operational procedures • 9 – 12, page 63 Multiple component units: training procedures • 9 – 13, page 64 Multiple component units: legal issues • 9 – 14, page 64 Multiple component units: mission command • 9 – 15, page 64

Chapter 10 Total Army Analysis, page 64

Section I Total Army Analysis Overview, Generating Force, page 64 Total Army analysis overview • 10 – 1, page 64 Generating force Total Army analysis • 10 – 2, page 66

Section II Operating Force Total Army Analysis, page 67 Phase 1—capability demand analysis • 10 – 3, page 67 Phase I—Capability demand analysis review and approval • 10 – 4, page 68 Phase II—Resourcing and approval • 10 – 5, page 68

Section III Total Army Analysis Products, page 69 The products of a Total Army analysis overview • 10 – 6, page 69 Full range of demands • 10 – 7, page 69 Best mix of forces • 10 – 8, page 69 Army structure memorandum • 10 – 9, page 69

Chapter 11 Equipment Procedures, page 69

Section I Common Tables of Allowances, page 69


DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 v

Common tables of allowances • 11 – 1, page 69 Common tables of allowances procedures • 11 – 2, page 70 Common table of allowance 50 – 909 add request for common table of allowance non-standard line item num-

ber • 11 – 3, page 73 Common table of allowance 50 – 900 add request for non-standard line item number • 11 – 4, page 73

Section II Joint Tables of Allowances, page 74 Joint tables of allowances • 11 – 5, page 74 Submissions of Joint tables of allowances • 11 – 6, page 74 Equipment not to be documented in tables of organization and equipment, modified tables of organization and equip-

ment, tables of distribution and allowances, and Joint tables of allowances • 11 – 7, page 77

Section III Documenting Equipment, page 78 Letter of exemption • 11 – 8, page 78 Letter of authority • 11 – 9, page 78 Type classification (logistics control code changes to F, S, or O) • 11 – 10, page 79 Substitute line item number • 11 – 11, page 80

Section IV SLAMIS, page 81 SLAMIS cyclic line item number validation review process overview • 11 – 12, page 81 Cyclic line item number validation reviews • 11 – 13, page 82 Pre Organizational Requirements Document Approval Board – line item number validation review • 11 – 14, page 83 Line item number validation review recommendations • 11 – 15, page 84 Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS – LIN retirement • 11 – 16, page 85 Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS – MTOE to CTA • 11 – 17, page 86 Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS – TDA only to CTA • 11 – 18, page 87 Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS – MTOE to TDA) • 11 – 19, page 87 ZLIN add request • 11 – 20, page 88 ZLIN delete request • 11 – 21, page 90

Chapter 12 Change Management, page 91

Section I Command Plan, page 91 Command plan overview • 12 – 1, page 91 Baseline • 12 – 2, page 91 Force management changes • 12 – 3, page 91 Schedules 8 submissions • 12 – 4, page 92

Section II Changes to Documents outside the Command Plan Process, page 92 Out-of-cycle and administrative change thresholds • 12 – 5, page 92 Out-of-cycle process • 12 – 6, page 92 Administrative change process • 12 – 7, page 93 Administrative change procedures for modified tables of organization and tables of distribution and allow-

ances • 12 – 8, page 93

Section III Equipment Requirements and Validation Board, page 94 Submitting requests to the equipment requirements and validation board • 12 – 9, page 94 Schedule • 12 – 10, page 95 Equipment requirements and validation board procedures • 12 – 11, page 96 Equipment requirements and validation board council of colonels • 12 – 12, page 97


vi DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Equipment requirements and validation board general officer steering committee • 12 – 13, page 97 Cost-benefit analysis • 12 – 14, page 97 Timeline and submission • 12 – 15, page 97 The automated Equipment Review and Validation Board cost benefit analysis tool • 12 – 16, page 98

Chapter 13 The Force Management System Website, page 98 About the Force Management System website • 13 – 1, page 98 What the website provides • 13 – 2, page 98

Chapter 14 Determination and Management of Army Acquisition Objective, Army Procurement Objective, and Re-

tention Objective, page 99 General • 14 – 1, page 99 Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, Defense Acquisition System, and basis of issue plan pro-

cesses • 14 – 2, page 99 Army acquisition objective, Army procurement objective, and retention objective reviews • 14 – 3, page 100 Army acquisition objective, Army procurement objective, and retention objective stakeholder roles • 14 – 4, page 102

Appendixes

A. References, page 108

B. Concurrent development processes, page 113

Table List

Table 3 – 1: Approval levels, page 7 Table 3 – 2: Force integration functional area analysis definitions and worksheet, page 10 Table 4 – 1: Basis of issue plan feeder data timeline, page 15 Table 6 – 1: Input-Process-Output analysis sheet, page 34 Table 6 – 2: Functional analysis sample (add the organization’s name and the work center’s name, page 35 Table 8 – 1: Manpower requirements criteria codes for table of organization and equipment headers, page 55 Table 8 – 2: Basic manpower requirements criteria for annual military occupational specialty availability factors, page 56 Table 9 – 1: Augmentation table of distribution and allowances hypothetical illustration, page 58 Table 9 – 2: Multi-component modified table of organization and equipment unit identification codes, page 59 Table 9 – 3: Augmentation table of distribution and allowances, position 5 and 6, page 60 Table 9 – 4: Multi-component table of distribution and allowances unit identification codes, page 60 Table 9 – 5: Component definitions for notional unit identification codes, page 60 Table 9 – 6: Example of notional unit identification codes for positions 2 and 3, page 60 Table 9 – 7: Example of notional unit identification codes for position 4, page 60 Table 9 – 8: Multi-component units, page 61 Table 9 – 9: Notional multi-component units, page 61 Table 11 – 1: List of common tables of allowances and their proponents, page 70 Table 12 – 1: Levels of approval for table of distribution and allowances document changes, page 94 Table 12 – 2: Equipment Review and Validation Board Schedule, page 95 Table B – 1: Execution timeline for concurrent FDU and TOE development processes, page 113

Figure List

Figure 2 – 1: Army Organizational Life Cycle Model, page 3 Figure 2 – 2: Force Development Process, page 5 Figure 3 – 1: Force design update development, page 8 Figure 4 – 1: Basis of issue plan feeder data development, acceptance, and amendment process, page 14 Figure 5 – 1: Modernization guidance process overview, page 21 Figure 7 – 1: Unit identification codes, page 41 Figure 7 – 2: Notional unit identification codes, page 42


DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 vii

Figure 7 – 3: Troop program sequence number with standard requirements code 2 and table of distribution and allowances functional codes, page 44

Figure 7 – 4: Troop program sequence number with standard requirements code-2 and table of distribution and allowances functional codes, page 45





Figure 7 – 9: Table of organization and equipment/standard requirements code number rules, page 51 Figure 8 – 1: Annual military occupational specialty availability factor, page 53 Figure 8 – 2: Manpower requirements criteria development/study approval process, page 54 Figure 10 – 1: Total Army analysis “end-to-end” shaping process, page 66 Figure 11 – 1: Example, common table of allowance adjustment memorandum, page 71 Figure 11 – 2: Example DA Form 5965, Basis of Issue for Clothing and Individual Equipment Request, page 72 Figure 11 – 3: Common table of allowance 50 – 900 request for non-standard line item number, page 73 Figure 11 – 4: Common table of allowance 50 – 900 add request for non-standard line item number, page 74 Figure 11 – 5: Army staffing process for joint tables of allowances, page 77 Figure 11 – 6: Type classification of chapters 2, 6, and 8 line item number (logistics control code change to S, F, or

O), page 80 Figure 11 – 7: Substitute line item number, page 81 Figure 11 – 8: Pre-organizational documentation approval board line item number validation process review, page 82 Figure 11 – 9: Pre-Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation process recommenda-

tions, page 84 Figure 11 – 10: Post Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation review process flow;

line item number retirement, page 85 Figure 11 – 11: Post Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation review process flow—

modified table of organization and equipment to common table of allowance, page 87 Figure 11 – 12: Post-Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation review process—modi-

fied table of organization and equipment to table of distribution and allowances, page 88 Figure 11 – 13: Initial ZLIN/national stock number type classification, page 89 Figure 11 – 14: Z line item number add request module, page 90 Figure 12 – 1: Comparison between command plan, out-of-cycles, and administrative changes, page 94 Figure 12 – 2: Equipment review and validation board schedule, page 98 Figure 14 – 1: Army acquisition objective and basis of issue template, page 104 Figure 14 – 2: Army acquisition objective and basis of issue template, page 105 Figure 14 – 3: Army acquisition objective and basis of issue template, page 106 Figure 14 – 4: Army acquisition objective, Army procurement objective, or retention objective adjustment tem-

plate, page 107

Glossary

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1 – 1. Purpose This Department of the Army pamphlet (DA Pam) consolidates all force development and documentation procedures into a single-source ready reference document and is a companion document to Army Regulation (AR) 71 – 32. This includes Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 3/5/7, Force Management Directorate (DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM) memorandums of agreement, stand-ard operating procedures, and standard practices within the force management community. It augments AR 71 – 32 and is to be used in conjunction with referenced documents throughout this DA Pam and its governing AR.

1 – 2. References See appendix A.

1 – 3. Explanation of abbreviations and terms See the glossary.

1 – 4. Leadership oversight The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is responsible for oversight of all matters pertaining to Total Army Analysis (TAA), command plan, force integration, force management and documentation. The United States Army Force Management Support Agency (USAFMSA) implements documentation decisions in accordance with DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM guidance.

Chapter 2 Force Management Overview

2 – 1. The Army Organizational Life Cycle Model a. Managing change in any large, complex organization requires management of many interrelated processes. The

Army manages from an organizational life cycle view using the context of developing operational organizations with highly trained personnel, led by confident leaders. The Army also considers the use of technologically advanced equipment to provide a capability, when needed, for the combatant commander (CCDR). The Army Organizational Life Cycle Model (AOLCM) graphically captures the continuous cycle of developing, employing, maintaining, and eliminating organizations (see fig 2 – 1). The Army management approach recognizes the need to understand modernization and change as a complex adaptive system. The Army Plan and The Army Equipment Modernization Strategy mandate the Army transformation and modernization efforts to produce relevant and ready combat power that is strategically agile and expeditionary. The AOLCM provides a conceptual framework to both analyze and assess Army change efforts.

b. The AOLCM shown in chapter 2 reflects the stages that organizations and their personnel and equipment will expe-rience at one time or another (and often concurrently) during their service in the Army. The functions performed in these stages develop, field, sustain, and modernize operational units and their supporting organizations; maintain their viability and effectiveness; and remove them or their assets (personnel and materiel) from the force as requirements change. Each individual asset (a Soldier, a DA Civilian, or materiel) required by a unit or activity will be managed at some stage of the model beginning with the establishment of the need and entry into the Army to ultimate separation or disposal. The model details the critical stages through which an organizational resource will move, at some point, during its life span. Generally, the model depicts the life cycle of Army organizations from their development and their clockwise progression to separa-tion. The dynamic of the model, displayed by the interconnecting lines, illustrates that the Army leadership must resource and manage all of the functions simultaneously, since Army assets will be in each functional stage at any one time. Any change to a resource in a functional stage will affect resources in most, if not all, of the other functional stages. In other words, if you influence or change something in one functional node, the response will impact the entire model affecting other nodes to some degree.

c. The AOLCM is an interrelated model. Based on decisions made in the force development (FD) process, each of the nodes of the AOLCM needs to be investigated for changes in requirements, resources and impacts in manning, equipping, organizing, stationing, recruiting, and training. The nodes are:

(1) Force management. As the first phase of the AOLCM, force management becomes the key activity underlying all other functions. The process involves decision-making, and execution of activities encompassing conceptual development,

2 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

capabilities requirements generation, force development, organizational development, force integration functions, and re-sourcing. Force management results in the development of a capable operational force within available resources to meet CCDR requirements.

(2) Acquisition. After the Congress authorizes, and the Department of Defense (DOD) provides the budget and the end strength guidance, the Army must then acquire the people and materiel specified in the requirements and authorizations documents necessary to accomplish specified missions. From a materiel acquisition perspective, the acquisition function extends beyond the principal item being fielded and must consider other essential requirements such as the availability of associated support items of equipment/personnel (ASIOE/P), technical publications, repair parts, trained personnel, and facilities. From a human resource (HR) acquisition perspective, the acquisition function must consider recruiting and ac-cession missions in concert with the overall manpower management program and the influences of personnel life cycle functions.

(3) Training. The training function encompasses the processes for accomplishing the transition from civilian status to military service. In this context, the training function is somewhat different from what most Army leaders think of when discussing training. At this point in the life cycle, consider training from the aspect of initial entry training or the require-ment to provide Soldiers with initial new equipment training or familiarization training on new or displaced equipment. In other words, this aspect of the training cycle imparts new skills to the Soldier or converts the Civilian into a Soldier. It most often results in award of a military occupational specialty (MOS) or additional skill identifier (ASI). The training function also includes the transition of U.S. Military Academy (USMA), Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), and Officer Candidate School (OCS) graduates into officers through the Basic Officer Leaders Course (BOLC). Traditional collective training and professional educational and leader development fall under the “development” phase of the AOLCM.

(4) Distribution. Having produced or procured the resources necessary to form and sustain units they must be distrib-uted according to established requirements, authorizations, and priorities. The distribution function includes the assigning people from entry-level training to their initial unit and delivering new materiel from the wholesale level to the user. This activity is primarily managed and synchronized through the Army’s current force generation process that focuses equip-ment and personnel distribution when available.

(5) Deployment. Units, the individuals, packages, or materiel become available to support worldwide operations once trained or prepared. An individual Soldier, Civilian, unit, or item of equipment may be subject to some, if not all, of the mobilization, deployment, redeployment, demobilization, and reconfiguration processes of this function. Deployment rep-resents both a planning and operational function involving agencies on the Army Staff (ARSTAF), other levels of DOD, and the civilian transportation structure. Like many other AOLCM activities, unit deployments are managed on a cyclical basis with the Army’s current force generation cycles.

(6) Sustainment. In peace or war the presence of people and materiel in units establishes a requirement for sustainment. People, skills, capability, and equipment must be maintained to the standard set for mission accomplishment by replace-ment, rotation, repair, and training operations. From a personnel perspective this function covers Soldier reassignments throughout a career or obligation period, quality of life and well-being programs, as well as other aspects of the personnel systems influencing retention. Repair parts and maintenance provide the sustainment process for materiel. Training in units covering the process of sustaining common Soldier skills that maintain unit or individual proficiency falls under this func-tion as well. The manning priority level, the Dynamic Distribution System (DDS), Dynamic Army Resourcing Priority List (DARPL), basis of issue plan (BOIP), 10 classes of supply, the authorized stockage lists (ASL), and prescribed load lists illustrate some of the systems or techniques used to manage authorizations and priorities within the sustainment func-tion.

(7) Development. The Army must constantly develop and improve. We develop individuals through civilian, enlisted, and officer education programs that include character and leader development activities. Education and training programs range from individual self-development, including graduate-level degree programs, to the entire range of branch- and skill-related institutional training. These culminate at either the senior Service college for officers and civilians, or the Sergeants Major Academy for enlisted Soldiers. Units develop through collective training processes that include individual training in units, home station training, and deployments for training. Examples are collective training tasks (CTT), leader training, live-fire and maneuver training, external evaluations such as those under the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP), deployment exercises, and training rotations to the Combat Training Centers (CTCs).

(8) Separation. Finally, there comes a time when people and equipment separate from military control. People may separate voluntarily by not extending service, after completing an obligated service period, or by retiring. Involuntary separation may occur due to reduction in force actions or qualitative reasons. The Army normally separates materiel through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) process or through foreign military sales actions.

d. There are two categories of external influences that affect the model.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 3

(1) The first category is the availability of resources. Resources include tangible objects in the form of funds, materiel, or personnel as well as intangible resources such as time, information, and technology.

(2) The second category is the influence of command, management, and leadership in planning, organizing, directing, controlling, and monitoring the multitude of inputs, decisions, and actions to ensure that functions at each stage of the model execute effectively and at the appropriate time. These command and management activities are synchronized within the Army force generation process, to ensure the timely allocation of scarce resources and to maximize the availability of trained and ready Army forces to meet CCDR Army force requirements. These activities are planned to ensure efficient allocation and use of Army resources.

Figure 2 – 1. Army Organizational Life Cycle Model

2 – 2. Force management a. As stated above, the first phase of the organizational life cycle model, force management, becomes the key activity

underlying all other functions. b. The capstone process establishes and fields mission-ready Army organizations. The process involves organizing,

integrating, decision making, and executing the spectrum of activities encompassing requirements definition, force devel-opment, force integration, force structuring, combat developments, materiel developments, training developments, re-sourcing, and all elements of the AOLCM.

c. Force management results in the development of a capable operational force within available resources.

4 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

2 – 3. Army force management model a. To aid in examining specific force management systems and their interactions, the Army has adopted the force man-

agement model. b. This model reflects a system-of-systems approach, each of which provides an essential force management function,

and, more importantly, how these functions relate to each other. c. In this network, strategic and senior leadership guidance, the processes for determining warfighting capabilities re-

quirements, conducting research and development, and providing resources all provide input to the force development process.

d. The resulting products of force development, in turn, provide the basis for the force integrating functions of acquiring and distributing materiel, as well as acquiring, training, and distributing personnel.

e. This widely used model highlights key aspects and relationships of force management. f. To view the Army Force Management Model in its entirety, please refer to the digital library that is available at

http://www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil/files/publications/armyforcemanagementmodel1dec15.pdf.

2 – 4. Force development a. The force development process has its roots in the process of developing operational concepts to meet the future

functional needs of the Joint force (figure 2 – 2). As the conceptual change in organizational structure becomes recognized and codified, the organizational design process captures the organizational personnel and equipment requirements. The combat development community develops the proposed organization, as well as its mission and functions, to meet the required mission capabilities.

b. Force development starts with the operational capabilities desired of the Army as specified in national strategies and guidance such as the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, Defense Planning Guidance, and the Army Strategic Plan, as well as joint and Army concepts with a view to the needs of the CCDR. It then determines Army doctrinal, organizational, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facility capabili-ties-based requirements, translates them into programs and structure, within allocated resources, to accomplish Army mis-sions and functions.

c. Force development brings together people and equipment, forms them into operational organizations with the desired capabilities for the CCDR. Force development uses a phased process to develop operational and organizational concepts, and then combines them with technologies, materiel, manpower, and available resources to produce combat capability.

d. The force development process interfaces and interacts with the Joint strategic planning system (JSPS), the materiel systems acquisition management process, the Joint Operations Planning and Execution System (JOPES) and the DOD planning, programming, budgeting and execution (PPBE) process.

http://www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil/files/publications/armyforcemanagementmodel1dec15.pdf

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 5

Figure 2 – 2. Force Development Process

Chapter 3 Force Design Updates and Tables of Organization and Equipment

Section I Force Design Updates

3 – 1. Overview a. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) develops and provides force design updates (FDUs) to the DCS,

G – 3/5/7 Director, Force Management Directorate (DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FMZ)) to develop new organizational require-ments or changes to existing table of organization (TOE) organizations to meet current and evolving doctrinal require-ments. DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FMZ) is the single point of entry to receive the FDU from TRADOC, staff it with the ARSTAF in a force integration functional area (FIFA) analysis, and provide HQDA oversight of the FDU process.

b. TRADOC submits FDUs to DCS, G – 3/5/7, Force Management Directorate (DAMO – FMZ) semiannually. Special out-of-cycle FDUs may be conducted to handle complex design issues or issues of special emphasis, such as those directed by HQDA. In addition, force modernization proponents can submit an FDU junior issue at any time. FDU junior issues involve minor adjustments that normally do not impact other proponents, and do not cause personnel growth including manpower requirements criteria (MARC) growth.

6 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. TRADOC prepares FDU cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for submission to DASA – CE for validation. All FDUs and other force structure initiatives requiring an increase in resources must be offset to result in zero personnel growth (includ-ing grade) in the overall authorized force levels for each component. Any potential increase in equipment requirements must be reviewed for resource ability and supportability, or include appropriate levels of funding to cover unbalanced growth.

d. This pamphlet outlines the process for the approval of all FDUs and TOEs by the DCS, G – 3/5/7; Director, Force Management (DFM); Vice Chief of Staff, Army (VCSA); or the Chief of Staff, Army (CSA) for new structures, or signif-icantly changed organization designs, to compete in the TAA process.

e. These processes also inform the DFM of force structure changes and impacts of TOE, or modified TOE and equip-ment (MTOE), implementation and reduces the need for exceptions to the MTOE approval process.

3 – 2. Concurrent force design updates and tables of organization and equipment processes a. Both the FDU development process and the TOE development process combine to produce new organizations or

redesign existing organizations to overcome capability shortfalls and to obtain HQDA approval. The three methods of addressing organizational shortfalls are the FDU regular cycle, FDU out-of-cycle, and force design update junior (FDU Jr.).

b. An FDU is the primary method for changing designs of existing organizations and creating new designs. c. Both a regular cycle and out-of-cycle FDU provide the same packet of information and require the same process.

The difference in these two methods is the timing within force management and force development over-arching processes. d. An FDU Jr. is the method for changing designs of existing organizations that impact only one or a very limited suite

of standard requirement code (SRC); does not increase personnel or moderately decrease personnel; does not modify multi-component status; does not significantly increase or only generates a small equipment bill (less than $100,000 per organi-zation).

e. The FDU packet includes a unit reference sheet (URS) for USAFMSA to build a draft approval level (AL) 5 TOE for new organizations or to change existing designs for FIFA analysis.

f. The FDUs have resourcing implications if they include changes to a proposed base TOE (BTOE), or if the FDU is for a completely new organization.

3 – 3. Timeline for concurrent force design updates and tables of organization and equipment processes

a. The execution timeline for concurrent FDU and TOE development processes establishes timelines for the FDU and TOE/MTOE processes. The timeline reflects FDU and TOE/MTOE development, staffing and approval timelines with general comments on the seven steps in section II.

b. The goal to process an FDU is 272 working days: 177 working days for TRADOC submission to HQDA (concurrent 117 days for USAFMSA TOE development following the Force Design Directorate (FDD) review board) and 95 working days for HQDA to render a decision. See appendix B for the FDU and TOE/MTOE processes’ HQDA staffing timeline goals.

c. This deliberate process and timeline will vary by the complexity of the proposed organizational design and/or urgency of operational requirements dictated by senior leadership.

3 – 4. Linking the unit reference sheet to the table of organization and equipment development a. The URS links the FDU to development of the TOE. b. The components of a URS are— (1) The narrative Section I of the TOE (as found in Force Management System (FMS) Web (FMSWeb)) that reflects

operational and administrative information such as mission, assignment and dependencies, employment, basis of alloca-tion, capabilities, and so forth.

(2) Section II of the URS details the unit’s personnel (MOS and grade) and equipment (line item number (LIN)) at paragraph and line number level of detail.

c. Ideally, URSs are developed by capability developers within FMS. If this is not possible, a paper URS is required in PowerPoint and Excel formats. Both PowerPoint and excel sheets are required. Contact DCS, G – 3/5/7, Force Management Directorate (DAMO – FM) for the current format for both documents.

d. The capability developers coordinate with USAFMSA prior to the FDD review board and work closely together throughout the FDU, TOE, and MTOE processes to ensure requirements are documented accurately.

e. Draft TOE development starts when the issue is accepted by the FDD review board. USAFMSA continues draft TOE development through the end of step four.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 7

f. Following field staffing, FDD provides the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMD and USAFMSA a copy of the revised FDU packet (includes URS) to finalize the draft TOE. The document integrators (DIs) use the URS as their initial detailed record document, and ensure that all mission, equipment personnel detail records are correct, in accordance with MARC, SOG, and BOIP/modernization paths.

g. USAFMSA posts an AL3 TOE on FMSWeb concurrently with FDD transmittal of the requirements to HQDA for approval and implementation (step 5). The approval-level definitions are at table 3 – 1.

h. USAFMSA updates the TOE to AL2 when the DFM approves the TOE. i. The objective is for HQDA to approve the TOE and FDU simultaneously, and develop MTOEs at the earliest practi-

cable date. Table 3 – 1 Approval levels — Continued

Approval level Document status

AL6 Draft in USAFMSA

AL5 Working in USAFMSA

AL4 Staffing in USAFMSA

AL3 FMSA approved

AL2 HQDA approved

3 – 5. Force design updates a. TRADOC manages the overall FDU process for the Army and has requirements-determination responsibility for the

Army. The FDU process is depicted in table 3 – 1. b. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is the Army gatekeeper for TRADOC FDD to transmit FDU proposals for HQDA partici-

pation in the review board (step 2), worldwide field staffing (step 3), and TRADOC-validated FDU requirements (step 4). DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is also the gatekeeper for the receipt of FDUs from TRADOC for HQDA staffing and processing (steps 5, 6, and 7). TRADOC forwards the FDUs directly to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM.

c. The FDU process is conducted semi-annually in order to systematically review issues on a cyclical basis. d. Special out-of-cycle FDUs may be submitted to handle complex design issues or special issues directed by senior

leaders, Department of the Army (SLDA). e. FDU juniors, which contain minor adjustments to designs that normally do not impact other proponents and do not

contain personnel bills, are submitted at any time. f. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is the HQDA agent for force management policy and is responsible for oversight of all matters

related to the HQDA FIFA and FDU approval process to include— (1) Approving authority for regular cycle and out-of-cycle FDUs is VCSA and/or CSA. (2) Approving authority for FDU junior is the DFM. The DFM may defer FDU juniors with DCS, G – 3/5/7 interests to

the DCS, G – 3/5/7 for approval.

8 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 3 – 1. Force design update development

Section II Seven Steps of the Force Design Update Process

3 – 6. Step 1: Training and Doctrine Command staffing of a force design update a. Doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, education, personnel, and facilities and policy (DOTMLPF – P)

analyses are developed by capabilities development and integration directorates (CDID) within the TRADOC Centers of Excellence (CoEs). Non-TRADOC capability developers remain in Army Materiel Command, Army Medical Department Center and School, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC), Judge Advocate General (JAG), or Public Affairs.

b. Capability developers within TRADOC, CoEs and non-TRADOC organizations develop FDU packets based on in-put received from the field and develop a capabilities based assessment(C – BA) to support the organizational change. The CoE CDID (or non-TRADOC capability developers) submits this packet to TRADOC, Army Capabilities Integration

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 9

Center (ARCIC), FDD. FDD provides the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FDU coordinator an issue-packet for USAFMSA to begin draft TOE development and for HQDA functional review prior to the FDD review board.

c. FDU packets should include— (1) Transmittal letter signed by the CoE commander or their designated representative (normally the CDID director),

(or non-TRADOC capability developer); (2) Concept paper addressing the proposed operational and organizational change. (3) Organizational design paper. (4) URS, created in FMS or displayed on a spreadsheet and wiring diagram with pictures. (5) A viable bill-paying methodology for personnel and equipment. (6) Justification for any increase in personnel grade. (7) Explanation of equipment growth that is not programmed because it could delay implementation. (8) Draft or refinement to the rules of allocation card catalog. (9) Stand-alone briefing packet. (10) Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for personnel and equipment changes. The CBA enables senior leaders to make re-

source-informed decisions that contribute to the Army’s overall mission effectiveness. The purpose of the cost-benefit analysis process is to achieve resource-informed solutions for each requirements determination and to build a force within the Army’s approved end strength, while meeting the Army’s strategic and operational requirements.

d. When new capabilities address a significant strategic shortfall and the trade-off analysis results in no offsets, the requirements determination transmittal must include a statement requesting HQDA approval to compete for resources in the next applicable TAA.

e. TRADOC develops the quality of the organization, accounts for upstream and downstream impacts, and provides concepts, doctrine, and architectures.

3 – 7. Step 2: Training and Doctrine Command force design update review board a. Each CoE or capability developer briefs their issue(s) to the FDD review board. b. The board members include: Headquarters, TRADOC and other CoEs or CDIDs; HQDA principal officials

(CIO/G – 6, DCS, G – 1; DCS, G – 2; DCS, G – 3/5/7; DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8; the Army Budget Office (ABO); the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM); and functional area proponents); U.S. Army Combined Arms Sup-port Command; Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Requirements Management Office (TWVRMO); Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) Force Management Division; Army National Guard (ARNG) Force Management Division; and U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Force Management Division.

3 – 8. Step 3: Packet accepted into the official force design update process a. The FDD review board accepts the packet as an official FDU or returns the packet for further work. b. Upon acceptance into the FDU process, the proposal transitions from the CoE, CDID, or capability developer to

headquarters, TRADOC. c. HQDA principal officials (CIO, G – 6; DCS, G – 1; DCS, G – 2; DCS, G – 3/5/7, Training (TR) & FM; DCS, G – 4; DCS,

G – 8, Force Development; DCS, G – 8, Program Analysis and Evaluation; ABO; ACSIM; OCAR; ARNG) and applicable HQDA functional area proponents provide comments, and USAFMSA continues work on a draft TOE.

3 – 9. Step 4: Worldwide field staffing a. FDD dispatches the FDU proposal for field staffing. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM Directorate, as the gatekeeper for HQDA

staffing, consolidates comments from HQDA stakeholders (CIO, G – 6; DCS, G – 1; DCS, G – 2; DCS, G – 3/5/7 TR & FM; DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8 FD; DCS, G – 8, Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E); ABO; ACSIM; OCAR; ARNG) and applicable HQDA functional area proponents.

b. The HQDA gatekeeper or the OI sends the consolidated comments to TRADOC for adjudication and response. c. TRADOC resolves all critical and substantive comments received from field staffing, and prepares the packet for

requirements determination.

3 – 10. Step 5: Requirements determination a. FDD forwards each TRADOC validated requirements-determination FDU packet to the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for final

requirements approval and implementation instructions. b. HQDA gatekeeper assigns the FDU to the appropriate OI. c. The organization integrator (OI) coordinates a FIFA analysis with FIFA team members. This team is comprised of

HQDA representatives from CIO, G – 6; DCS, G – 1; DCS, G – 2; DCS, G – 3/5/7 TR & FM; DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8, Force

10 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Development (FD); DCS, G – 8, PA&E; ABO; ACSIM; ARNG; OCAR and applicable HQDA functional area proponents; FORSCOM and appropriate Army service component commands (ASCCs), Army commands, and direct reporting units (DRUs) to address stationing, conversion, inactivation, and activation issues.

d. HQDA conducts FIFA analysis on all requirements determination documents including the USAFMSA-produced approval level 5 (AL5) TOE. During FIFA analysis, ARSTAF determines whether the capability of the proposed organi-zation can be manned, equipped, trained, and stationed.

e. The FIFA analysis produces one of the following recommendations: (1) Approval to implement the change with the proposed bill payer strategy for personnel and equipment. (2) Approval to implement the change with HQDA force structure resourcing solution. (3) Compete the issue for resources in the next TAA. (FDU may be approved, but should not be implemented until

TAA allocates resources to execute.) (4) Return the issue to TRADOC for a more acceptable bill payer strategy. (5) Return the issue to TRADOC for further analysis.

3 – 11. Step 6: Requirements approval briefings and TOE approval briefings a. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM force integrator (FI) or OI prepares requirements approval and TOE approval briefings with an

for the appropriate approval authority b. Approving authority for FDUs is the VCSA or CSA and DFM for FDU juniors. c. DFM is the approving authority for organizational requirements documents (TOE, BOIP, and MARC). (1) The TOE approval is provisional pending FDU approval by the VCSA or CSA. (2) DAMO – FM OI/FI conducts an approval recommendation brief to the DFM. (3) Once the DFM endorses the FDU, the packet is forwarded to the VCSA or CSA for approval.

3 – 12. Step 7: Implementation a. The objective is for HQDA to approve the TOE and FDU simultaneously and develop MTOEs in accordance with

implementation strategy, or compete in the next TAA process, as directed by the approval authority. b. On receipt of an approved FDU and TOE approval, USAFMSA administratively updates the affected BOIPs to

reflect the decision and rolls affected TOE and BOIPs to AL2. If disapproved, USAFMSA terminates AL3 TOE records. Those FDUs approved to compete in the next TAA will be placed on hold until the next TAA cycle and the TOE records will remain AL3 until such time a decision is rendered to roll TOEs to AL2.

Section III Force Integration Functional Area Analysis

3 – 13. HQDA force integration functional area analysis The force integration functional area analysis (FIFA) reviews force structure issues and the impacts of force structure decisions on the total Army. To articulate the nature of change and to assess the execution ability and supportability of change, all factors affecting organizations must be considered. The definitions of the nine FIFA provide the standard to be achieved in transitioning organizations from one level of capability to a higher level. They prescribe the correctly struc-tured, manned, equipped, trained, sustained, deployed, stationed, and funded end state to be achieved at the culmination of modernization as well as the required readiness level.

Table 3 – 2 Force integration functional area analysis definitions and worksheet — Continued FIFA Analysis Lead

Structuring -Accuracy of URS to inform requirements documents development. -Accuracy of manpower bill/savings based on year of implementation. -Regular documentation within cycle or justification for out-of-cycle documentation.

DCS, G – 3/5/7 DCS, G – 1 assist

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 11

Table 3 – 2 Force integration functional area analysis definitions and worksheet — Continued Manning -Requirements identified (officer, warrant officer, enlisted) by grade,

MOS and additional skill identifier (if necessary). -Can the Army man the proposed organization by the year of MTOE/unit identification code (UIC) activation/conversion by compo-nent (COMPO)?

DCS, G – 1 DCS, G – 3/5/7 assist

Equipping -Determine equipment (and cost) feasibility. -Accurate and complete identification of major items requirements (modernization) to include associated support items of equipment. -Assess equipment fielding plans and funding in program objective memorandum (POM) (suitable for MTOE, not TOE). Equipment avail-able for redistribution (suitable for MTOE, not TOE). -Equipment new purchase (unfunded requirements (UFR) - $ compete in POM (example: POM 08 – 13). -Bottom line up front: Can the Army equip the proposed organizations (Regular Army) by the intended year of implementation (suitable for MTOE, not TOE)?

DCS, G – 8 DCS, G – 4 assist

Training -Operational tempo (OPTEMPO). -Institutional Training Resource Model and other Institutional training costs (manpower, equipment, funding). -Ammunition. -Training aids and devices.

DCS, G – 3/5/7

Sustaining -Does the new organization have adequate organic assets for sustain-ment? -Impacts of new organization to the Combat Service Support system.

DCS, G – 4 DCS, G – 8 assist

Funding 1. -Identify all known organizational costs, and develop timeline to de-termine unknown costs. -What MTOE full time support (FTS) is funded currently in the POM to support the redesign? NOTE: Coordinate with ABO for year of execution or supplemental funding, and Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate for program years.

DCS, G – 8, PA&E/ ABO DCS, G – 3/5/7 assist

Deploying -Is new organization more strategically relevant or less? -Identify any special deployment requirements. -Does it fit into the Army’s current force generation model?

DCS, G – 4 DCS, G – 3/5/7 assist

Stationing -Effects and impacts of MTOE unit’s stationing. Identify stationing alter-natives based on site selection criteria (for example, National Military Strat-egy (NMS), Military Value Analysis (MVA), CBA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), facilities/military construction (MILCON) programming, statutory requirements for informing Congress, base operations cost, local community impacts, joint base support).

DCS, G – 3/5/7 ACSIM and IMCOM assist

Readiness Assess the ability of the proposed organizational change to achieve readiness levels in accordance with AR 525 – 29.

DCS, G – 3/5/7

12 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

3 – 14. Functional area rating definitions and assessment a. Green. The organizational issue is suitable, feasible and acceptable with minor HQDA reprogramming of resources. b. Amber. The organizational issue is suitable, feasible and acceptable with moderate HQDA reprogramming of re-

sources. c. Red. The organizational issue is not suitable, feasible and acceptable without major HQDA reprogramming of re-

sources. d. Suitability. It must accomplish the Army’s mission and comply with VCSA and CSA guidance on transformation.

(Is this something the Army needs to do?) e. Feasibility. The proposed organization design (unit, branch, echelon) must have capability to accomplish the mission

in terms of available resources. (Is this something the Army can do?) f. Acceptability. The transformational advantage gained by executing the organizational design must justify the in-

creased cost in resources. (Is this something the Army is willing to do?) g. Bill payer methodology. Implemented by all ARSTAF members.

Section IV Tables of Organization and Equipment

3 – 15. Table of organization and equipment overview a. TOEs are doctrinally-based requirement documents used to develop MTOEs and to generate future program require-

ments for organizations, including personnel and equipment, and are approved by the DFM. b. The TOE consists of two sections: (1) Section I. Section I of the TOE provides a concise description of a unit’s organization and function, including

mission, assignment, capabilities, basis of allocation, mobility, doctrine, and dependencies. (2) Section II. Section II of the TOE provides a listing of personnel and equipment by paragraph. c. TOEs are developed and maintained in Force Management System (FMS). d. USAFMSA approves TOE changes resulting from administrative maintenance updates and SB 700 – 20. Changes

that result in any equipment growth, or otherwise are not the result of an HQDA decision, must be staffed with the DCS, G – 8, FD.

3 – 16. Table of organization and equipment development and approval procedures a. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM (OI/FI) initiates staffing for action by DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8, FD; OCAR; ARNG, and other

affected ARSTAF proponents with a suspense of 25 working days. b. The OI furnishes an email copy to DCS, G – 8, FD as the single entry point into G – 8. c. The email from the OI to the DCS, G – 8, FD and the tasker must, at a minimum, include the following information: (1) A base (BTOE) and objective (OTOE) comparison report (current to proposed) aggregated at the battalion/AA level

reflecting reasons for change in spreadsheet format (USAFMSA) at AL 3. USAFMSA provides personnel and equipment compares at the aggregate level. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. designates the fiscal years (documentation planning filter) to be used in comparison. Compares are generated in the Army FMS with the planning filter determined by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. Compares are generated at the “approved to propose” level of detail. Exceptions to the compares standard are coordinated by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and DCS, G – 8, FD.

(2) The number of like-type units in the Army by COMPO based on latest approved ARSTRUC, as well as the proposed years of application to the force. This information allows the DCS, G – 8, FD to access the correct structure and classifica-tion system (SACS) to determine the total impact on the Army.

(3) Explanation of the new or revised TOE changes (DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM). d. A LIN can be moved to the BTOE when the AAO is fully met and/or there is no authorized substitute in SB 700 – 20,

Appendix H, and the next LIN in the modernization path (MODPATH) has an approved BOIP. The objective LIN in a TOE is most modern basis of issue plans (BOIP) documented in the TOE for a given MODPATH.

e. TOEs involved in large scale design reviews are staffed by HQDA, DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM using the abbreviated ten (10) working days staffing process, followed by a TOE approval council of colonels (CoC) and, if necessary, a general officer steering committee (GOSC). The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM will establish CoC and GOSCs as appropriate.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 13

Chapter 4 Basis of Issue Plan

4 – 1. General a. Basis of issue plans are requirements documents. BOIPs support equipment acquisition and materiel development

by identifying and documenting both personnel and equipment requirements. They are developed for new or improved items of equipment, describing in detail the item, its capabilities, component major items of equipment, where the item is to be used, and the associated support items of equipment (ASIOE) and personnel. BOIPs may include personnel changes caused by the introduction of new items into the Army inventory, including the MOS needed to operate and maintain the equipment and any required ASI. BOIP personnel changes may impact or be impacted by notifications of future changes. The BOIP includes the following elements: Army prepositioned stocks (APS) activity set, Army war reserve sustainment stocks, war reserve stocks for allies, repair cycle float, operational readiness float, operational projects stock, other TDA requirements and all other requirements.

b. The BOIP process begins in one of two ways, either as an initial submission or as an amendment. When the BOIP feeder data is submitted, reviewed, and accepted by stakeholders, USAFMSA develops/amends the BOIP.

c. The BOIP process identifies minimum mission essential wartime requirements (MMEWR) for inclusion into organ-izations based on changes of doctrine, personnel, or materiel.

d. A BOIP provides: (1) Detailed description of the equipment. (2) Capabilities. (3) Where equipment is required (TOE/TDA institutional training bases). (4) When it is required. (5) Support equipment needed. (6) Support personnel needed, including operator and crew. (7) Equipment and personnel no longer needed. (8) Provides AAO elements. e. There are two types of BOIPs: (1) Initial. The first BOIP developed for a new capability. (2) Amendment. A change to an already-approved BOIP. f. The accepted BOIP feeder data (BOIPFD) submitted by the program manager in SLAMIS is the foundation for initial

and amended BOIPs. g. The approved BOIP is documented to the OTOE in applicable SRCs and is identified for TDAs to capture institu-

tional and combat training facility requirements. h. A BOIP is typically applied to unit MTOEs when recommended by the DCS, G – 4, G – 8, FD and approved by the

DCS, G – 3/5/7 via force modernization guidance or quarterly documentation guidance. i. Prior to fielding, the Army Materiel Command (AMC) lead materiel integrator, materiel developer and gaining com-

mands must validate that the new materiel is reflected on an HQDA-approved authorization document and if not, the PM must obtain and provide the gaining command a letter of authorization prior to fielding of new materiel.

j. The overarching BOIP feeder data development and approval process is illustrated in figure 4 – 1, the timeline in table 4 – 1.

14 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 4 – 1. Basis of issue plan feeder data development, acceptance, and amendment process

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 15

4 – 2. Basis of issue plan feeder data a. BOIPFD is generated by the PM, Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC), or materiel developer, and contains

all of the necessary elements to develop a BOIP. It is submitted using SLAMIS, as shown in figure 4 – 1. Prior to submission in SLAMIS, the materiel developer (MATDEV) develops BOIPFD in coordination with the product support management integrated process team (PSMIPT) and invites USAFMSA and other HQDA stakeholders in accordance with AR 700 – 127. This is intended to ensure timely and accurate submission of BOIPFD.

b. The materiel developer summarizes information obtained from valid requirements documents and applicable infor-mation obtained from the product or project manager.

c. BOIPFD is the foundation for initial and amended BOIPs and contains information on the functions, capabilities, intended use, initial cost estimate, BOI, personnel, and equipment requirements as well as other information necessary to supply, maintain, and transport the materiel and support requirements.

d. The materiel developer initiates BOIPFD for initial and amended BOIPFD for changes to approved BOIPs and iden-tifies systems required for institutional training locations

e. The BOIPFD requires significant coordination by the materiel developer with the institutional schools, combat train-ing facilities, and capability developers, to develop the data that will provide the necessary input for accurate documenta-tion. Table 4 – 1 Basis of issue plan feeder data timeline — Continued

Coordinating organization Initial submission – ZLIN (upon SB publication date)

MATDEV/PM/LCMC Submit 60 days

MATDEV/PM/LCMC review 7 days

TRADOC CAP DEV review 7 days HQDA G8 (affordability matrix) 14 days

HQDA Staff (CIO/G – 6, G1, G4), USAFMSA MARC Data, TWVRMO, USASOC, ARNG, FORSCOM, HQ TRADOC FDD, TRADOC – TOMA, OCAR

14 days

TRADOC CAP DEV 7 days

PM Adjudication 7 days

USAFMSA Coordinate 2 days

USAFMSA Final Acceptance 14 days

Total 132 days (business days)

4 – 3. Basis of issue plan feeder data coordination process a. USAFMSA assesses accuracy and completeness of BOIPFD prior to accepting documents for development. b. The BOIPFD must be submitted in accordance with DA Pam 700 – 27. c. Stakeholders review the BOIPFD to confirm completeness and affordability. d. SLAMIS validates the MOS and duty titles based on monthly updates received from the DCS, G – 1. e. The Army Manpower Requirements Criteria Maintenance Database (AMMDB) manager for MARC reviews the

maintenance data and coordinates maintenance issues related to the maintenance MOS(s) listed and/or the maintenance man-hours using the SLAMIS “BFD” module.

f. The DCS, G – 8, FD ensures that all PM data interchange requirements associated with the program are integrated with applicable staff synchronization officers (SSOs).

g. The DCS, G – 8, FD reviews BOIPFD to assess affordability across the Future Years Defense Program/Plan (FYDP) and uploads affordability matrix to the BOIPFD request in SLAMIS.

16 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

4 – 4. Basis of issue plan development phase a. BOIP development phase begins with USAFMSA acceptance of the BOIPFD and development of the BOIP narrative

guidance (BOIPNG). b. The BOIPNG provides the reader an easy to understand description of the capability. It describes its physical char-

acteristics, capabilities, employment, basis of issue, power and transportation requirements, operator and maintainer re-quirements, replaced LINs, ASIOE, personnel replaced, and other special information as required. The capability devel-opment document (CDD) or capability production document (CPD) should be reviewed for additional information not found in the BOIPFD.

c. During the BOIP development phase the document integrator (DI) digitally links the ASIOE to the primary LIN. d. Once the ASIOE (if any) is added to the BOIP the BOIP is inserted into the appropriate MODPATHs.

4 – 5. Propagation a. Propagation provides the power to document a decision once and use automation to push changes out (propagate) to

affected documents, rather than manually applying the decision to each affected document. b. Propagation is initiated when the responsible USAFMSA division sends a request to the Policy, Standards and Inte-

gration (PSI) Team stating the fiscal year (FY) in which the propagation is to occur, the BOIP and RFC requiring propa-gation, all actions requiring propagation (for example, any ASIOE MODPATHs), MODPATH headers that need to be promoted to AL2 when the BOIP is propagated, and a statement that preliminary AOI staffing is completed.

4 – 6. Pre-area of interest review a. Prior to propagation, the USAFMSA divisions should submit the BOIP for a pre-area of interest (AOI) review to all

affected divisions. b. The email should contain the draft BOIPNG, BOIPFD, and list any MODPATHs where propagation will occur, as

well as the planning year impacted. c. The purpose of this pre-review is to give impacted USAFMSA branches a chance to determine if there are any errors

or omissions in the BOIPNG or BOIP. d. Impacted branches should have a DI review the BOIPNG to ensure it references currently approved force structure

and is understandable and in the correct format. e. Coordinate with the OI and SSO to address any specific questions/concerns as needed.

4 – 7. Area of interest review a. Impacted documents are updated in accordance with the BOIP. b. The responsible USAFMSA division sends a request to any affected USAFMSA divisions requesting they ensure

the item is documented correctly in their assigned TOEs. Throughout the area of interest (AOI) review, coordinate with the OI and SSO to address any specific questions or concerns with the BOIP force impact as needed

c. At the completion of AOI review any records associated with the BOIP in development should be at AL5.

4 – 8. U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency branch review a. The branch review provides the responsible branch an effective means to quickly review all aspects of the BOIP, to

include: (1) BOIPNG. (2) BOIP/ MODPATHs. (3) Correct documentation. This could be that usage of BOIP matches the BOI, all AL9 records have been accepted,

and ASIOE is correctly documented. Ensure reason for change is correctly utilized. (4) Force impact report. This report provides the required number of systems based on the Army’s projected force

structure at the end of the POM. The numbers on the report reflect requirements based on the TOE. The TDA training base (institutional schools and combat training centers) requirements are manually determined from the data provided in block 26 of the BOIPFD. Once the report is generated in FMS export it as an Excel spreadsheet for inclusion in the staffing packet.

(5) Draft briefing slides. Ensure slides are in accordance with the most recent HQDA format. (6) Throughout the branch review period, coordinate with the OI and SSO to address any specific questions/concerns

with the BOIP force impact as needed. b. Once the branch review is complete, the division requests PSI promote the BOIP to AL3 and then, transmit packet

to the DCS, G – 3/5/7, DAMO – FMD without any funding and procurement information.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 17

4 – 9. Basis of issue plan staffing phase a. Following USAFMSA branch review, the packet enters the HQDA staffing. This review is intended to ensure the

BOIP is accurate and changes are coordinated prior to the ORDAB. b. Upon receipt of a USAFMSA “approved for staffing” BOIP staffing packet (initial or amendment) from USAFMSA,

the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMD tasks stakeholders in the tracking system with a 20-working-day suspense. c. The tasking must include: (1) BOIP narrative guidance. (2) SRC/UIC force impact extract (Excel file format). (3) Draft BOIP approval brief. (4) PLIN TDA Requirements and Authorization (Excel file format). d. BOIP impact in the draft BOIP approval brief includes: (1) Objective table of organization and equipment quantity by COMPO. (2) Training base (institutional schools and combat training centers) requirements. (3) Army pre-positioned stock (APS) unit sets. (4) APS activity set. (5) Army war reserve sustainment stocks. (6) War reserve stocks for allies. (7) Repair cycle float. (8) Operational readiness float. (9) APS operational projects stock. (10) Other TDA requirements. (11) Other requirements. e. Staffing comments are adjudicated by G – 3/5/7, DAMO – FMD. Comments may be elevated to the CoC or GOSC as

necessary.

4 – 10. Basis of issue plan approval phase a. Following HQDA review staffing and coordination, BOIPs enters the approval phase. b. There are two types of BOIP approval— (1) USAFMSA-level approval of amendments resulting in administrative changes (see para 4–10c). (2) ORDAB approval by CoC or GOSC (see para 4 – 11). c. Criteria for USAFMSA-level administrative approval (1) No equipment increase (that is, ASIOE and replaced LINs) (2) No personnel growth (that is, MOS or grade). (3) BOIP changes impacted by an approved FDU.

4 – 11. Organizational requirements documentation approval board overview a. The organizational requirements documentation approval board (ORDAB) meets at the colonel and general officer

levels, to validate all new or amended capability BOIPs and associated personnel growth or reductions associated with MARC.

b. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMD has oversight responsibilities for the BOIP process and participates as a member of the CoC and GOSC in order to provide functional area assistance to the co-chairs.

c. The assigned OI and SSO for the BOIPs present the approval brief for decision at both the ORDAB CoC and ORDAB GOSC.

d. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM coordinates the annual CoC and GOSC schedule with DCS, G – 8, FD before publishing—not later than 1 December of each year—and posting on FMSWeb for viewing.

e. The ORDAB CoC convenes monthly to review BOIPs. f. The GOSC convenes every 2 months, following a CoC, or as needed. g. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM publishes the ORDAB COC or GOSC read-ahead at least 3 days prior to the scheduled event.

ORDAB minutes are published on FMSWeb following the CoC or GOSC. h. The ORDAB has been expanded to include review and validation of the Army acquisition objective (AAO) per

EXORD 165 – 17, available at https://g357.army.pentagon.mil/od/sitepages/home.aspx.

4 – 12. Organizational requirements documentation approval board council of colonels procedures a. The ORDAB CoC is tri-chaired by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMD; Commander, USAFMSA; and the DCS, G – 8, FDP.

The ORDAB CoC is comprised of the following members:

https://g357.army.pentagon.mil/od/sitepages/home.aspx

18 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(1) CIO/G – 6. (2) DCS, G – 1. (3) DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM & TR. (4) DCS, G – 4. (5) DCS, G – 8/FD. (6) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) (ASA (ALT)) Integrated Logistics Sup-

port (ILS). (7) OCAR. (8) ARNG. (9) USAFMSA branch representatives. b. Additionally, ORDAB CoC advisors (DCS, G – 2, TRADOC proponent, TRADOC ARCIC FDD, USASOC,

TWVRMO, TRADOC G – 3/5/7 Training Operations Management Activity (TOMA), MATDEV, HQDA proponent, and others as required) are invited to attend.

c. The ORDAB CoC is responsible for reviewing all new or amended BOIPs and personnel growth or reductions asso-ciated with MARC to ensure force structure, personnel, materiel synchronization and affordability prior to the GOSC.

d. The CoC has approving authority of the below thresholds: (1) One-for-one exchange with no personnel or equipment growth. (2) Fully funded and no personnel impacts. (3) Greater than 95 percent funded without personnel impacts. (4) The CoC recommends to the GOSC whether to approve the BOIP, or refer it to the Army Requirements Oversight

Council (AROC). (5) Unfunded requirement (UFR) exists that exceeds $1 million. e. Issues that cannot be resolved by the CoC are elevated to the GOSC.

4 – 13. Organizational requirements documentation approval board general officer steering committee procedures

a. The ORDAB GOSC is chaired by the DFM and is comprised of the same members who attends the ORDAB CoC. b. The ORDAB GOSC is responsible for validating and approving all new or amended BOIPs and personnel growth or

reductions associated with MARC deferred by the CoC. c. The GOSC reviews a BOIP if the CoC cannot reach consensus, the BOIP requires additional personnel, the BOIP is

less than 95 percent funded, or an UFR exists that exceeds $1 million. d. The GOSC completes one of the following actions: (1) Approves the BOIP. (2) Returns it to the CoC with additional instructions and guidance. (3) Sends it to the AROC, via the AROC Process Review Board (APRB).

4 – 14. Army Requirements Oversight Council procedures The AROC determines one of the following:

a. The BOIP should be fully resourced due to its high priority and recommend potential bill payers. b. The BOIP should be resourced at a lower level and the BOI reduced (AROC, in connection with TRADOC, provides

an operational impact assessment and changes the CPD BOI). c. The BOIP should not be resourced, because it is disapproved or the requirement is validated, but is no longer ap-

proved.

4 – 15. Basis of issue plan development schedule a. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM solicits recommended priorities from ARSTAF and establishes BOIP priorities to

USAFMSA via quarterly documentation guidance. b. The BOIP Development Schedule spreadsheet is available on FMSWeb, which tracks the status of in-progress

BOIPs. c. USAFMSA maintains current BOIP status information in the BOIP development schedule and maintains the BOIP

development schedule report on FMSWeb.

4 – 16. Exemptions from the basis of issue plan process BOIPs are not required for these items:

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 19

a. Equipment listed as authorized by supply bulletins, supply catalogs, component listings, technical bulletins, and technical manuals, unless it will be a separately type classified standard LIN logistics control code (LCC) A.

b. Nonstandard items (items not type classified standard). If the equipment is required beyond the contingency or spec-ified date and the item is needed for Armywide use, for a CDD, CPD, or other capability requirements document, then a type reclassification standard action and a BOIP are required.

c. End items that are components of sets, kits, and outfits (SKO) and assemblages that are not required to be authorized and issued separately.

d. Class IV supplies (construction materials). e. Military construction, Army, and Army Reserve constructed facilities (see AR 70 – 1). f. Class V (ammunition) items including nuclear and nonnuclear training ammunition. g. Modifications, including materiel change management, to equipment that may change the national stock number

(NSN) and model, but not the generic nomenclature, LIN, or standard study number. h. Heraldic items included in AR 840 – 10 and Army Uniform Board items. i. Fixed plant equipment included in AR 415 – 16. j. Equipment to be installed on aircraft or in watercraft, unless the item will be type classified as a separate LIN. k. Commercially available items needed only by joint table of allowances (JTA) or TDA units as follows: (1) If the mission assignee agency concurs in the exemption, and HQDA does not program and budget the acquisition. (2) If repair parts and maintenance services are obtained from local sources, other than the Army wholesale supply

system, for the life of the item. l. Nonmilitary administrative items (such as file cabinets, office furniture, installation laundry equipment, and musical

instruments) for which the General Services Administration (GSA) establishes government-wide standards, or provides or requires federal supply schedule contracts or stores stock catalogs under which items may be procured.

m. Locally fabricated training aids. n. Items procured with non-appropriated funds. o. Expendable items not required to be type classified. See common table of allowances (CTA) 8 – 100 and CTA 50 – 970. p. Clothing and individual equipment items for CTA 50 – 900 not having personnel, maintenance, or training impact. q. BOIPs with personnel, maintenance, or training impact are not exempt from the BOIP process. r. Durable and expendable medical equipment is not required to be type classified when authorized by CTA 8 – 100 or

as components of medical material sets, such as vaccines and medicines. s. Simulators and training devices with contractor maintenance exempt from type classification and required for TDA

organization. t. Commercial equipment meeting criteria for SB 700 – 20, exempt from type classification and required only for TDA

organizations. u. Army-developed software systems that involve hardware buy and developmental software systems for current Army

equipment. v. Visual information (VI) equipment, provided that: (1) Procurement is under the provisions of AR 25 – 1. (2) Authorization is in TDA or JTA units only. (3) Personnel requirements and authorizations are not added, reduced, or deleted. w. TDA-only items that are added to TDA documents, based on command requests and approved by DCS, G – 3/5/7,

FM at the Equipment Review and Validation Board (ERVB).

Chapter 5 Modified Table of Organization and Equipment

5 – 1. Background a. A modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE) is a UIC-specific and effective date (EDATE)-specific,

resource-informed authorization document derived from a TOE through the application of HQDA-directed guidance and personnel changes at billet and LIN level of detail. It establishes the personnel and equipment authorizations to resource the Minimum Mission Essential Wartime Requirements (MMEWRs) to execute the organization’s doctrinal mission, as documented in the TOE. USAFMSA builds, and DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM approves, MTOEs. USAFMSA publishes MTOEs for the current year, budget year, and first program year. MTOE organizations are primarily in the OF, but can be in the GF.

b. An exception MTOE deviates from the TOE and its applicable BOIPs. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, DFM, is the approval authority for all exception MTOEs. These exceptions will be re-validated every 3 years.

20 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. An equipment-only MTOE authorizes a set of equipment, pre-positioned for use by a rotational or deploying unit for a specific mission in a specific theater. This authorization document contains only equipment and does not provide re-quirements or authorizations for personnel. Current examples of equipment only MTOEs Army pre-positioned stocks (APS), the European Activity Set (EAS), and the Korean Enduring Equipment Set (KEES).

5 – 2. Force modernization guidance a. Modernization is the process by which the Army acquires and fields new capabilities across the force. The Army

cannot procure quantities of equipment to field the entire force the newest capability. In an era of limited resources, the Army will acquire and field equipment in a spiral fashion resulting in multiple variants of a capability simultaneously in use (mixed modernization). We modernize the force incrementally over time by fielding new capabilities to units in priority and cascading the older, now displaced equipment to lesser modernized units while, in the end, divesting the oldest equip-ment from the force.

b. Modernization of the force occurs annually as part of the Command Plan process. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM develops equipment modernization guidance (figure 5 – 1) at the UIC level of detail informed by available production quantities provided by G – 8/FD. Army equipping priorities are applied based on the DARPL. USAFMSA applies basis of issue plans along established modernization paths for each impacted LIN to UICs in priority and generates updated MTOEs. The EDATE is used to identify the date of any changes in a unit’s status (activation, conversion, inactivation).

c. EDATEs are coordinated with Army commands and will be informed by the sustainable readiness (SR) process to facilitate synchronization of new equipment training and fielding. SR is predicated on discrete three-month readiness mod-ules that correspond with varying mission requirements and readiness levels, and align unit mission and training calendars. The three modules are prepare, ready, and mission. The model recognizes units may have different readiness, resourcing, and modernization levels along the SRM module continuum. Because of that variance, a unit’s schedule may be pro-grammed with two or more consecutive modules corresponding with a unit’s current or future mission. Of the three mod-ules, the prepare module is the preferred module for all modernization and equipping requirements. However, due to other factors such as production schedules, resource constraints, equipping complexity, or changing mission requirements, equipping may occur during the other modules as well. The intent is to conduct major system modernization and equipping (deliberate fielding) during the prepare module(s) with smaller, less resource intensive fieldings (in-stride) potentially occurring during other phases and modules.

d. Deliberate modernization and fielding is a complex process involving fielding or replacement of a major system or piece of equipment (tank, capability set, combat systems, and so forth), requiring significant materiel integration, extensive new equipment training or new equipment fielding (NET/NEF), or causing significant impacts to unit training. Deliberate fielding is accomplished during prepare modules and may require one or more prepare modules to complete. In-stride modernization and fielding is a less complex process compared to deliberate fielding characterized by a short fielding duration, less significant impacts on training, and few materiel integration dependencies. The NET/NEF can generally be completed during any module (prepare, ready, or mission in some cases), though with all fieldings, the preference being within a prepare module.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 21

Figure 5 – 1. Modernization guidance process overview

22 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Chapter 6 Table of Distribution and Allowances Change Management Processes

Section I Table of Distribution and Allowances Change Management Plans

6 – 1. Overview a. The table of distribution and allowances change management plan (TDA CMP) replaces both concept plans and

command implementation plans; mobilization expansion plan guidance remains in effect. TDA CMP procedures pertain to all augmentation table of distribution and allowances (AUGTDA) and TDA organizations assigned to the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve regardless of whether the UIC is categorized as an operating or generating force unit. The procedures that follow outline Army Force Management policy for the TDA CMP process, thresholds for change management submissions, staffing procedures, HQDA and command responsibilities, MOBTDA guidance, Assistant Sec-retary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA)) guidance on workload data, manpower management, models, and CBA guidelines. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM retains authority for the management and direction of the out-of-cycle process and documentation guidance. Updates to the TDA CMP process will be addressed in the annual command plan guidance as approved by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, DFM.

b. The term “commands” pertains to all HQDA staffs, ASCCs, Army commands, and all designated DRUs to HQDA. The command definition is further defined as a type unit code (TYPCO) 2 (TDA augmentation unit or 3 TDA unit) organ-ization that is programmed under a specified operating agency code as defined by DFAS – IN Manual, 37 – 100. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is executing TDA CMP approvals and disapprovals under the policy oversight of the ASA (M&RA). This guidance applies to TDA and AUGTDA structure.

6 – 2. Thresholds and definitions In accordance with AR 5 – 10, commands are to consider stationing requirements early in the planning stages of the TDA CMP. As the Army initiates force structure changes, adequate facilities, environmental considerations, and congressional interest are vital areas that must be addressed. The three categories that will drive the type of TDA CMP that is submitted by commands and their thresholds are defined below in paragraphs 6 –2a through c.

a. Category 1. (1) CAT1 submissions are used for requests that result in no programmatic changes (management decision package

(MDEP), Army management structure code (AMSCO), civilian type (CTYPE), reimbursable source (REIMS), reimburs-able command (REIMC), resource operating code (ROC) and no stationing actions). No HQDA staffing is required, with the exception of staffing changes to military grades with HQDA G – 1. Commands submit change requests to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for analysis, processing, and out-of-cycle coordination.

(2) No CBA or U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA) review is required. (3) A CAT1 change request is submitted via an email from the command headquarters O6/GS – 15 level, or their desig-

nated representative. Submissions will not be accepted directly from the command’s subordinate organizations. (4) The submission must include a brief summation of the nature of the requested changes and a Section II personnel

file formatted in the FMS 1.0 format from FMSWeb for submission to USAFMSA for documentation (contact USAFMSA for the current format). Approved position description (PDs) are required for civilian position title and grade changes.

(5) TDA documents must be changed to reflect these requests during the next available monthly out-of-cycle process, as per DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM guidance.

b. Category 2. (1) A CAT2 request is used to internally realign structure within Command UIC(s), and between Command UICs so

long as it has no programmatic impact (no request for new resourcing, no change to the current ROC, MDEP, AMSCO, CTYPE, REIMS, and REIMC and no nominative CSM branch codes (00Z)). Commands submit change requests to HQDA FM for analysis, processing, and out-of-cycle coordination.

(2) It allows for changes to paragraph data, lift and shifts of requirements and authorizations, changes to position titles, changes to military and civilian grades, changes to branch, position code, military occupational specialty, and manpower mix criteria code.

(3) Lift and shift of requirements and/or authorizations is defined as moving a requirement and/or authorization from the current approved document within a UIC to another location without changing the programmatic elements of the po-sition.

(4) A CAT2 submission must be submitted via an email and requires a command memorandum signed by an O6/GS – 15 representative. The memorandum must define the changes requested.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 23

(5) Submissions are not accepted directly from the command’s subordinate organizations. The submission must include a brief summation of the nature of the requested changes. This submission requires limited HQDA staffing as determined by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, such as DCS, G – 1 or Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM), DCS, G – 2, and so forth. No CBA submission or USAMAA review are required.

(6) If the requested changes occur between UICs a schedule 8 must be submitted to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for review and to update the SAMAS. A TDA Excel crosswalk (contact USAFMSA for the current format) from FMSWeb is needed for submission to USAFMSA for documentation. Approved position description (PDs) are required for civilian position title and grade changes.

c. Category 3. (1) A CAT3 submission requests new manpower requirements. A CAT3 submission is used to request organizational

changes to a TDA organization’s mission or functions that result in placing increased demands on HQDA for resources, personnel, equipment, and/or facilities.

(2) This submission category is used to request new requirements to existing structure, add new structure requirements, add new structure requirements and authorizations with associated existing command bill payers, and change existing UIC, paragraph and line level of detail. These submissions require a wider level of HQDA staffing than CAT12 submissions. Commands must submit changes to HQDA Force Management (FM) for staffing and coordination. The HQDA FM force structure command manager determines the appropriate staffing level.

(3) The command headquarters’ designated O6/GS – 15 representative will submit a CAT3 change request via an email. Submissions are not accepted directly from the commands subordinate organizations. The submission must contain a memorandum signed by a GO/SES that briefly describes and endorses the mission directive or mission mandate and the organizational change. Additionally, the submission must include an executive summary describing the nature of the re-quested changes, and validate that the requested requirements are work-load based. An FMSWeb TDA Excel crosswalk (contact USAFMSA for the current format) from FMSWeb, appropriate schedules 8, and approved position descriptions must accompany the submission.

(4) Any reprogramming of existing resources, to include transfers of manpower between commands must be linked with the requisite funding and be processed and approved through the PPBE process.

(5) USAMAA Workload Analysis is required for command submissions that are for new or emerging concepts, major directed reorganizations.

(6) A CBA is required if the dollar amounts and criteria are within the CBA thresholds as defined in the most current Army Program Guidance Memorandum. Submissions of $10 million (or more) in any 1 year of the POM or $50 million (or more) over the POM period require a CBA, unless approved by a HQDA Program Evaluation Group (PEG). The dollar amounts include but are not limited to all costs for manpower, equipment, supplies, training, facilities, construction, or contracts. Proposed reprogramming moves or realignments that cross appropriations require a CBA. Commands submit the CBAs via the Army Cost and Performance Portal (CPP), at https://cpp.army.mil.

(7) Thresholds that will require a CAT3 submission follow: (a) Introduction of a new unprogrammed TDA organization into the Army force structure. (b) A change to a TDA organization’s mission or functions that involve placing increased demands on HQDA for

personnel, equipment, funds and/or facilities. (c) Establishment or reorganization of an Army Management Headquarters Activity (AMHA) that leads to growth in

the current programmed AMHA requirements or authorizations. (d) Movement of a mission, function, or unit from one command to another that is not addressed as an intercommand

transfer during the POM schedule 8 submission. (e) Requests for additional paid parachute requirements and authorizations that exceed a command’s existing ceiling. (8) For HQDA-directed increases in specified number of requirements and/or authorizations to support HQDA guid-

ance or regulation (for example, equal opportunity advisors), TDA CMP submissions must be prepared by the HQDA proponent directing the increase.

(9) The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM conducts a compliance and capability review prior to implementation and documentation. Depending on the nature of the HQDA guidance to add an Army wide capability, the Generating Force Working Group chaired by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM may direct implementation and documentation of the change through the out-of-cycle process.

(10) Requests for military technicians must be submitted and processed by USAR and ARNG, in accordance with AR 135 – 2.

6 – 3. Staffing of table of distribution and allowances’ change management plan submissions a. Command submissions.

https://cpp.army.mil/

24 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(1) Commands submit all TDA CMP submissions to the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for HQDA and command staffing. All command submissions, regardless of category must state which category (CAT1 – 3) is being submitted.

(2) The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM’s force structure command managers are responsible for staffing and coordination of issues concerning TDA CMP submissions. Since each TDA CMP submission is unique and functionally oriented based on the mission parameters of each command, DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM force structure command managers determine which particular command and HQDA offices need to review the submission.

(3) Staff only to the ARSTAF or command elements that are impacted by the submission. All TDA CMP submissions involving Active Guard Reserve (AGR) are staffed with the USAR and ARNG. The intent is to streamline the staffing process and speed up the time it takes to get responses to the submission, process the submission for approval, and docu-ment the approved TDA changes.

(4) TDA CMP submissions must include a sufficient level of detail to permit analysis of the proposed organization and its manpower and equipment requirements by the applicable ARSTAF or impacted command.

(a) For CAT1 and CAT2 that level of detail includes TDA crosswalk spreadsheets from current HQDA-approved TDAs to the proposed organization; schedules 8 are required for CAT2 if the changes occur between UICs.

(b) For CAT3, detailed work-load data as defined by USAMAA, mission directive, TDA crosswalk spreadsheets from current HQDA-approved TDAs to the proposed organization (including manpower mix criteria), schedule 8 and, CBAs formatted in accordance with Assistant Secretary of the (Financial Management and Comptroller) (ASA (FM&C)) Deputy Assistant Secretary of the -Cost and Economics (DASA – CE).

(c) For all categories the crosswalks must be accompanied by a schedule 8 as applicable to ensure expeditious updates to the SAMAS budget module. Command managers will return TDA CMP submissions to the command if they lack sufficient information for staffing.

b. HQDA staffing. (1) After DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM reviews TDA CMP requests for CAT3, changes are sent to USAMAA and DASA – CE for

initial screening of work-load and CBA data. This screening process will have a 2-week suspense. (2) Upon response from USAMAA and/or DASA – CE, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM either sends the TDA CMP request to

the ARSTAF for formal staffing, or formally returns it to the command for additional work and analysis. (3) If the request is returned to the command, the command will work with USAMAA and/or DASA – CE to correct the

shortcomings in the submission. After the command has completed its review and has resubmitted the TDA CMP request to the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, the TDA CMP is sent to the ARSTAF for formal staffing.

(4) To help avoid any workload or CBA issues that may hold up the staffing and final approval of a TDA CMP request, commands are encouraged to informally request USAMAA and DASA – CE to review their TDA CMP request prior to submitting it to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for formal staffing.

(5) When determining which ARSTAF or command element a TDA CMP submission will be staffed, the force structure command manager considers the impact or applicability of the following organizations: appropriate Program Evaluation Groups (training, manning, equipping, sustaining and installation); ASA (M&RA); ASA (FM&C); ASA (ALT); the DCS, G – 1 Plans and Resources Directorate; DCS, G – 2; DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM; DCS, G – 4, G – 48 Resource Management; DCS, G – 8, PA&E; OCAR, and ARNG; U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA); U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency (USAFMSA); U.S. Army Center of Military History (USACMH); and DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, program budget guidance (PBG) command managers.

(6) Depending on the nature of the submission a limited number of these organizations may receive the staffing package for input. Within their functional areas of expertise, HQDA elements will evaluate a TDA CMP request based on the mission, function, organization, workload, mission directive, capability, proposed manpower and equipment requirements and resourcing.

c. HQDA change management plan staffing responsibilities. (1) ASA (FM&C) is the Army lead that provides budgetary assessments and impacts of implementing future Army

budgets. This leader also validates the CBA for TDA CMPs requiring a stationing plan, and CAT3 TDA CMPs. (2) ASA (M&RA) provides oversight of manpower, personnel, training, mobilization, force management, Army organ-

ization, and force structure functions for all components of the Army. (3) ASA (CW) provides policy oversight of the Civil Works program. (4) ACSIM provides policy and program guidance on all matters relating to the overall management and resourcing of

installations worldwide. ACSIM also reviews the availability of efficient, effective base services, programs and facilities. This leader is also responsible for coordination with the installation PEG.

(5) ASA (ALT) is the lead for the acquisition workforce (military and civilian). ASA (ALT) is a member of the Panel for Documentation of Contractors and supports contractor inventory review processes, which it enforces through the Sec-retary of the checklist for inherently governmental functions. In addition, this leader serves as a co-chair for equipping and

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 25

sustaining PEGs. The ASA (ALT) retains principal responsibility for all DA matters and policy related to acquisition, logistics and technology. This leader also develops policy and oversees PEOs and PMs.

(6) The DCS, G – 1 is the lead for review of military and civilian manpower requirements and authorizations, as well as all military grade plate adjustment reviews. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM submits all TDA CMPs to DAPE – PRP – OA, the central point of contact in the DCS, G – 1. The DAPE – PRP – OA is responsible for coordination with the manning PEG and also Management Headquarters Account (AMHA) control and review. Additionally, G – 1 determines and coordinates which actions need staffing input from Civilian Human Resources Agency (CHRA). CHRA input provided through the lens of the Army's initiative to mold human resources functions into a corporate structure enables equitable, efficient and effective management of Army Civilians worldwide.

(7) The DCS, G – 2 is the Army lead for issues involving intelligence organization and operations, Army language skill programs and skill identifiers, security clearance and background investigation coding, National Intelligence Program, Military Intelligence Program, and security resourcing.

(8) The G – 3 Operations, Readiness, Mobilization Directorate is the Army lead for issues involving readiness, current operations and mobilization operations.

(9) DCS, G – 3/5/7, TR is the Army lead for issues involving institutional training, unit training (including OPTEMPO, ammunition, and training support systems), civilian and military leader development, civilian training implications and the Army’s force generation decisions. Responsible for coordination with the Training PEG.

(10) DCS,G – 3/5/7, SS is the HQDA lead for assessing strategic policy, war plans and Joint doctrine for Army Strategic Plans implications to include force development.

(11) DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMPBG command managers validate the availability of military and civilian manpower in across the POM; and identifies impacts on Controlled Manpower Programs. Validates correct MDEP and AMSCO application.

(12) DCS, G – 4 is the Army lead for issues involving sustaining operations, equipment, and materiel readiness. Respon-sible for coordination with the Sustaining PEG.

(13) The CIO/G – 6 is the Army lead for the strategic direction, objectives and oversight of all Army command, control, communications, and computers (C4) and information technology functions.

(14) The DCS, G – 8, PA&E is the Army lead to access, integrate, and synchronize the Army Program over the POM. (15) The DCS, G – 8, FD is the Army lead that provides equipment resource implications and impacts through coordi-

nation with the Equipping PEG. (16) OTJAG is responsible for reviewing TDA CMPs for compliance with relevant statutory, regulatory and policy

concerns. (17) OTIG is the lead for all Inspector General positions. It provides policy oversight of IG personnel, functions, and

capabilities. (18) OCAR plans, programs and budgets for resourcing of USAR FTS requirements and troop program units (TPU)

requirements. (19) ARNG plans, programs and budgets for resourcing of ARNG full time support requirements and M-day require-

ments. (20) USAMAA provides strategic level analyses of major programs and initiatives, and utilizes models, performance

metrics, and on-site analysis to determine workload requirements based on validated missions. (21) USAFMSA manages the Army's documentation processes to include compliance with AR 570 – 4. Reviews focus

on transitioning from the current, approved document to the proposed FMSWeb document. USAFMSA generates a TDA compliance report and conducts a quality assurance assessment, during the staffing process, for submission to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM command managers.

(22) Center of Military History (AAMH – FPO) approves official unit designations and coordinates with DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for implementation in SAMAS and Defense Readiness Reporting System-Army (DRRS – A).

(23) PEGs, as part of the resourcing strategy for civilian requirements, should comment on the Army’s ability to re-source the requirement and the correct application of MDEP and AMSCO.

6 – 4. The table of distribution and allowances’ change management plan approval process a. Staff review. (1) Each staff section has 2 weeks to review a TDA CMP submission and return it to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM with a con-

currence, a concurrence with comment, or a non-concurrence with comment. (2) If a staff section requires additional time to resolve issues then the force structure command manager may grant an

additional 2 weeks for issue resolution. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM attempts to resolve all issues or non-concurrences prior to sending forward a TDA CMP submission to the leadership for decision.

(3) To speed up the adjudication process, the force structure command manager forwards any non-concurrences directly to the command that submitted the TDA CMP submission.

26 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(4) Commands should coordinate directly with the non-concurring staff element to resolve the issue that caused the non-concurrence. Once the non-concurrence is overcome, the command forwards documentation to DCS, G – 3/5/7/FM showing the non-concurrence has been overcome.

(5) If reconciliation is not possible DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM hosts the command and the non-concurring staff element(s) to attempt to work out the non-concur. If reconciliation is not possible DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM outlines the command’s, or HQDA’s, position and sends the TDA CMP submission forward for decision to the Director, FM.

b. Approval authority. (1) The approval authority for a TDA CMP submission will depend on its complexity and the nature of the change. All

TDA CMPs are submitted to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. TDA CMP submissions are normally approved by the DFM. For TDA CMP submissions with wide ranging implications or changes, or senior leader interest, the DCS, G – 3/5/7 or the VCSA will be the approval authority.

(2) Based upon HQDA staffing, DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM recommends, and the DFM makes a decision on, an organization or unit’s structure, manpower and equipment requirements. The Generating Force will be working inside an assigned military limit or cap and a Department of the Army Civilian authorization ceiling, as determined by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The cap or limit on the number of DA Civilian authorizations must be managed to budget and fall within the OSD mandated ceiling.

c. Military requirements and authorizations. The DFM can approve or disapprove all or some lesser number of military requirements and authorizations.

(1) If the TDA CMP submission is resource neutral (any resourcing bills to the Army) for military manpower, the DFM will review and either approve or disapprove the command’s bill payer strategy.

(2) If the TDA CMP submission is requesting additional military manpower, the DFM will review and either approve or disapprove the submission. Prior to forwarding the command submission to the DFM for final decision, FM coordinates with the command to determine an appropriate resourcing strategy for unresourced requirements. If the submission is approved, the DFM has several options for a resourcing strategy as outlined below:

(a) The requirement will be recognized as an Army priority, and the military authorization will be allocated across the POM, with no bill to the command.

(b) The requirement will be recognized as an Army priority, however it is acknowledged that it will result in over-structure. Therefore, the authorization has a sunset clause which will direct the authorization to expire after a period of time. Again, the authorization will be allocated for a period of time with no bill to the command. The sunset clause is documented by intentionally entering zero for manpower in SAMAS and Cloud Program Optimization and Budget Eval-uation (cPROBE) after the sunset year.

(c) The requirement will be recognized; however, the Army will not allocate an authorization to support the require-ment. The requirement would then compete in the next TAA for resourcing.

d. Department of the Army Civilians manpower requirements and authorizations. The DFM can approve or disapprove all or some lesser number of Department of the Army Civilians (DAC) requirements. Approved DAC requirements must then compete in the POM process for funding and authorizations. In most cases, civilian manpower will be positioned to compete for resourcing against the Army’s priorities during the next PPBE process. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM cannot approve funding or DAC authorizations. The requirement can be recognized; however, the Army will not allocate an authorization to support the requirement. The requirement would then compete in the next TAA for prioritization and passing to HQDA G8 PAE for a resourcing decision.

e. Table of distribution and allowances equipment. TDA equipment requirements that meet HQDA review thresholds will either be approved as part of the TDA CMP submission or be referred to the HQDA TDA unit ERVB. Any equipment changes resulting from the TDA CMP process require submission of a "batch upload" spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel for-mat). This is in addition to the already provided equipment crosswalk that accompanies the initial submission. The batch upload spreadsheet includes only the approved equipment. All commands must complete the spreadsheet and forward to HQDA force structure command manager. The Command is responsible for upload into the FMSWeb 4610 – R Automated TDA Equipment Request Tool (4610 – R Tool).

f. Post approval. Once a TDA CMP submission is approved, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM force structure command manager sends the TDA CMP submission approval memorandum to the appropriate command and provides an information copy to appropriate ARSTAF POCs and USAFMSA. The force structure command manager coordinates SAMAS entries and FMSWeb documentation of the approved TDA CMP submission. Changes to civilian end-strength and work years that require Army Program Executive MDEP, or CTYPE reprogramming are submitted during the POM as part of the com-mand’s schedules 8, in accordance with the Command Program Guidance Memorandum (CPGM) or the Resource Formu-lation Guide (RFG). General orders are generated at HQDA level by the proponent for the action and permanent orders are published by the command.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 27

6 – 5. Table of distribution and allowances change management plan guidelines a. TDA CMP submissions may be submitted at any time. However, to be considered for resourcing during the next

budget cycle or TAA cycle, they must be approved by 1 December. b. TDA CMP CAT3 submissions should be received by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM no later than 30 September in order to be

included in the resourcing cycle that begins in the December timeframe each year. c. In accordance with the CPGM, the command may compete un-resourced civilian requirements for funding in the

POM and budget process; the DCS, G – 3/5/7 can approve civilian requirements only, not funding. d. The Command Plan process normally documents the Army force 2 years out, but may document 1 year out by

exception. The Command Plan process includes a review of all approved TDA CMP submissions for implementation compliance. (Compliance in terms of the instructions given in the TDA CMP approval memorandum, documentation guidance and Command Plan guidance).

e. A successful TDA CMP submission results in the approval of an organization or unit’s structure, manpower and equipment requirements. A decision is provided for the allocation of military manpower, or the command is provided a way-ahead.

f. TDA equipment requirements that meet HQDA review thresholds are either approved or referred to the HQDA TDA unit ERVB for a resourcing and documentation decision. Civilian manpower requirements are positioned to compete for resourcing against the Army’s priorities, during the next PPBE process, or to be paid internally by the command.

g. The key to success is increased standardization and efforts to support the development and validation of models that are responsive to mission and workload change. These initiatives will decrease the number of TDA CMP submissions and will apply a systematic approach to TDA organizational design. However, the diversity within the Generating Force is one of its most striking features. Unlike operating forces, most TDA organizations vary significantly from others in size and structure and perform unique complex functions across a broad expanse of activities not duplicated elsewhere (with minor exceptions). As a result of this diversity, TDA organizations generally are not subject to “one size fits all” kinds of change, except at the highest level, where common policy and procedures govern all Army organizations.

6 – 6. Tables of distribution and allowances change management plan submission preparation guidelines

a. Submitting electronically. Organizations must prepare TDA CMP submissions in an electronic version using MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint and submit them through their higher Army command, ASCC or DRU offices, or appropriate command channels to HQDA, DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM via email. HQDA staffs must submit their TDA CMPs to OA – 22 for review. OA – 22 then submits the TDA CMP to DAMO – FM. Army Staff TDA CMP changes are formatted and submitted, in accordance with approved delayering design principles, unless otherwise directed.

(1) The FMS1.0 format for personnel, equipment, and paragraph header can be created in FMSWeb by selecting the spreadsheet option for exporting data and then subsequently selecting the FMS 1.0 format box. (Consult your USAFMSA Document Integrator for more specifics.)

(2) Manpower Schedule 8 is submitted in an SAMAS format using the latest manpower position from the Planning, Programming and Budgeting Business Operating System Data Warehouse. This ensures that applicable programming data bases are updated with the approved changes.

b. Category 1 and category 2 submissions requirements. (1) A CAT1 submission that defines the change requested can be an email or a command memorandum signed by an

O6/GS15 or command designated representative. Include Section II personnel file (FMS 1.0 Excel) from FMSWeb, for submission to USAFMSA for documentation once the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM provides documentation guidance to USAFMSA. Approved civilian position description must be included for civilian grade changes.

(2) A CAT2 submission that defines the change requested can be an email or a command memorandum signed by an O6/GS –15 or command representative. Include the FMSWeb crosswalk in FMS 1.0 format for submission to USAFMSA for documentation once the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM provides guidance to USAFMSA. Provide a manpower Schedule 8 in SAMAS legacy format. Approved civilian position description must be included for civilian grade changes.

c. Category 3 submissions will include a concept mission paper with the information below. (1) Key facts. No more than a two page memorandum signed by a general officer/SES in addition to the information

outlined below. Provide key facts in the memorandum. (2) Subject. Provide a short, descriptive title of the action, which includes the name of the unit and its proponent com-

mand or ARSTAF agency. (3) Detailed mission analysis. Is the mission required by law or regulation, HQDA or higher command directed, com-

mand/agency initiative or assumed (should it be performed by some other unit/organization)? Provide the reason or thresh-old for proposing the TDA CMP (that is, correction of deficiency, new requirement, restructuring, and so forth). The

28 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

mission directive can include those missions received from CCDRs as well as Headquarters Department of the Army regulations, policies, and so forth. The analysis should be presented in the following format—

(4) Mission statement. An active statement of the mission to be performed by the organization. (5) Mission source. Cite the official mission source (that is, Title X U.S. Code, DA General Order No. xx, AR yy para

1, and so forth.) The mission source is also referred to as a mission directive, or mission directive. (6) Mission functions. List a limited number of functions to be performed by the organization. This should be from

3 – 5 functions, not a list of tasks. These functions will be used as the basis for your workload analysis part of the manpower analysis requirement of a TDA CMP.

(7) Execution. Discuss briefly how the TDA CMP will be executed to include requested EDATEs and justification. Describe measurable efficiencies and improved capabilities resulting from the TDA CMP Include an organizational effi-ciency review or a business process review if completed. Describe the command and control structure if the TDA CMP recommends a new TDA organization.

(8) Manpower analysis. Detailed workload data and analysis and crosswalk spreadsheets from current HQDA ap-proved TDAs to the proposed organization are mandatory. They enable complete analysis of military and civilian grade and skill requirements and facilitate review of the manpower resourcing strategy. This analysis will trace bill payers, identify shortfalls and ensure compliance with standards of grade and manpower policies. CAT3 CMPs must contain a proposed bill payer strategy, or provide an explanation as to why the command cannot pay the entire bill internally. De-scribe method used to determine existing and proposed requirements (HQDA manpower survey, command delegated man-power requirements certification authority or a logical justification for manpower requirements). The TDA CMP should contain sufficient workload data that validates the requested requirements and should ensure that the requested require-ments are for expanded and authorized missions. What workload is specifically generated to support accomplishment of this mission? Is this an increase or decrease from past performance? If an increase, is it a short-duration increase or long term? Review AR 570 – 4 for further details. Questions to consider for various types of personnel are:

(a) Active Component military. Is it an essential military function? Does it require unique military knowledge and skills? Provide job description and workload data to support the requirement.

(b) Reserve Component military. Is it an essential military function? Does it require unique military knowledge and skills? Provide job description and workload data. Reserve Component Soldiers from the ARNG and the USAR must be addressed by the component and particular categories impacted AGR or TPU. ARNG and /or OCAR must approve any AGR positions as appropriate. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM staffs the TDA CMP with OCAR and ARNG; however, it is recom-mended that the command complete coordination prior to submission. NOTE: Any FTS requirements approved in a TDA CMP must compete for resourcing with all other FTS requirements.

(c) Civilians. Is it an inherently governmental or closely associated with inherently governmental or personal service? Is it required for continuity of operations? Provide job description and workload data to support the requirement.

(d) Summary of changes. CAT3 TDA CMP submissions must contain a proposed bill payer strategy for requirements if validated (bill payer strategy could include one or a combination of the following: internal command resourcing, compete for resourcing of military in the TAA, compete for resourcing for civilians in the POM).

d. Personnel. A summary of personnel requirements (additions, changes, reductions) divided by one of three catego-ries: Active component military to identify internal authorized command bill payers; Reserve component military by spe-cific category (ARNG, USAR) to identify internal authorized command bill payer(s); and civilians to identify internal command bill-payers.

e. Controlled programs. Address impacts. f. DOD manpower mix criteria. MMC coding must be classified in accordance with the manpower mix criteria defined

in DODI 1100.22 and subsequent guidance. g. Equipment. List all additional equipment required, including controlled items in SB 700 – 20 Chapter 2 and 4, and

the HQDA-managed LIN list posted in the SLAMIS. These will be staffed with the TDA CMP. If approved as part of the TDA CMP, there is no requirement for them to be submitted to the HQDA TDA Unit ERVB. If the DCS, G – 8, FD requires further justification or further review, then the command will have to submit the required LINs to the HQDA TDA unit ERVB through the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM force structure command manager before they can be documented.

h. Facilities requirements (by funded project and FY programmed). Provide an assessment of facilities required to support the TDA CMP and how those facilities will be funded. State if current facilities will be used. If facility require-ments are unknown, provide an estimate and ACSIM can help develop the requirements.

i. Funding. State the appropriation funding requirements for each affected fiscal year, status of funding, availability and any known/expected shortfalls. State the organizational or standardization impact of the initiative based on funding levels.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 29

j. Organizational or standardization impact. Discuss any deviation from organizational or standardization policy or guidance. Also state whether this is directly in support of an approved FDU or HQDA-directed action (GDP, BRAC, and so forth).

k. Recommended EDATE and justification. Specify EDATE, for example 1 Oct 2012, not “as soon as possible.” l. Readiness impact. Identify any readiness effects of either not approving the TDA CMP or delaying it past the rec-

ommended EDATE. m. Other units affected: List UICs and names of units impacted by this TDA CMP, and their command if outside the

submitting command. n. Stationing packages. Commands initiate the stationing package, in accordance with AR 5 – 10, and coordinate the

package with HQ, Installation Management Command prior to submittal to HQDA, DCS, G – 3/5/7/FM. Ensure appropriate draft notification to Members of Congress and public correspondents is included in the stationing package. Prior to HQDA processing a stationing package, the appropriate TDA CMP must be approved by HQDA.

o. Political sensitivities: Describe any known or possible political sensitivities that should be made known to HQDA. p. Point of contact. Provide name, office symbol, email address, and DSN number of the point of contact.

6 – 7. List of required supporting enclosures a. Proposed FMSWeb document (Sections I, II, III, IIIS) for each affected organization required in FMSWeb (FMS 1.0

format). b. Excel spreadsheet (no .PDF files) with manpower paragraph or line level of detail crosswalk from the latest approved

FMSWeb document to the proposed structure as an Excel file. Clearly identify bill payers, new positions, and account for every personnel requirement and authorization. Data for civilians must include commercial activities function code (CAFC). Spreadsheet must include FY, document number, and CCNUM, UIC, MDEP, AMSCO and CTYPE.

c. Manpower Schedule 8 in the SAMAS non POM template format. Format can be obtained by contacting HQDA G3 FM PBG Command Managers.

d. Spreadsheet crosswalk with equipment paragraph or line level of detail from the latest approved FMSWeb document FMSWeb (FMS 1.0) to the proposed structure. Address any increase or decrease of equipment by LIN with justification/ra-tionale.

e. Summary spreadsheet. This spreadsheet provides a summary of all changes (additions, deletions, transfers, and so forth) that are taking place in the TDA CMP by UIC, unit name, EDATE, personnel structure (officer, warrant officer, enlisted, civilian, aggregate by MDEP and AMSCO).

f. Cost benefit analysis. g. Approved civilian position descriptions. h. Requests for assignment of new UIC (if applicable). If a new organization is created, a UIC request is required. The

following information is required for DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM to process a request a new UIC: (1) Proposed unit designation. (2) Command assignment. (3) Proposed troop program sequence number (TPSN). FM reviews TPSN data for proper application. (4) Station code and/or geographical location code. (5) Specific location (for example, Camp Red Cloud, Republic of Korea). (6) Proposed EDATE. (7) Component (1 Regular Army, 2 National Guard, 3 Army Reserve). (8) Type (1 MTOE, 2 AUG TDA, 3 TDA). (9) Mission statement: A brief description to aid in assignment of TPSN. (10) Proposed ACP DP 99 code and justification. Supporting information (slides and so forth) that can help communi-

cate the TDA CMP in a clear, easily understood manner.

6 – 8. Table of distribution and allowances’ approval briefing process a. The TDA approval briefing process is a newly developed means of changing TDA organizations. DCS, G – 3/5/7,

FM determines when the TDA-approval briefing is used, the level of staffing required, and whether a CBA or stationing plan is required. This process is used to transform existing TDA structure to accomplish missions and functions as directed by the Secretary of the Army and or the Chief of Staff of the Army, DCS, G – 3/5/7, or the DFM. Additionally, the TDA-approval briefing process is used as a means to quickly establish a new organization or capability within an existing or-ganization that is directed by the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army, DCS, G – 3/5/7, or DFM, and is resourced during the TAA or PPBE process.

b. Upon determination to use the TDA-approval briefing process, FM will provide directions and guidance on the data and details needed for the submission of the TDA approval briefing. At a minimum the submission includes an information

30 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

briefing packet that explains the approach needed to document the new or transformed capability. The briefing includes the purpose; overview of current and proposed organization, mission, capabilities, limitations, new operational capability, and a recap of the bill-payer methodology.

c. The command briefs the TDA approval briefing to the DFM. The DFM approves the proposed plan as briefed for implementation and documentation, disapprove the proposed plan, or direct additional work and input, and set a date for re-briefing the plan. In addition to the briefing, the command submits a detailed TDA manpower and equipment cross-walk from the latest approved TDA to the new proposed TDA organization, a justification of any increase in grade, and manpower and dollar schedules 8 that match the proposed TDA cross-walk.

6 – 9. Exempt from submitting table of distribution and allowances change management plans The following command manpower reprogramming actions do not require the submission of a TDA CMP (but must adhere to HQDA guidance):

a. The realignment and/or reprogramming of existing military or civilian manpower authorizations (zero-sum) during the POM build using the Schedule 8 process, in accordance with the annual POM programming guidance and Command Plan guidance is encouraged.

b. The use of the intra-command transfer issues (IT issues) for realignment and/or reprogramming of existing manpower (zero-sum) are highly encouraged.

c. Changes in CAT1 and CAT2, which are in accordance with the CPGM or RFG, can be accomplished during the POM build, through the schedules 8 submission. This will prevent the need for a TDA CMP submission. These submissions are reviewed by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and the PEGs to ensure the realignment supports the stated objective of the change.

d. Documentation of these POM schedules 8 changes will occur as part of the normal Command Plan document build during the appropriate fiscal year. Military grade and MOS changes that are not pre-approved by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM in coordination with DCS, G – 1 will be disallowed during documentation.

e. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM controls all military requirements and authorizations. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM can approve DA Civilian requirements; not authorizations. The Program Budget Advisory Team (PBAT) and/or PEGs can disapprove this action based on related movement of dollars. Pre-coordination with the PEG(s) is a key to success.

f. Changes to Joint or Defense manpower will be based on a Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) Resource Man-agement Directive (RMD), Director of National Intelligence Decision Document (DDD), G – 1 change sheets, or Joint Implementers.

g. Inter-command transfers will be processed during the POM Schedule 8 process. Movement of a mission, function, or unit from one command to another does not require a TDA CMP request; however, DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM does require a copy of the memorandum (memorandum of agreement (MOA) or memorandum of understanding (MOU)) signed by the losing and gaining commands, and the manpower and dollar schedules 8 from both commands.

h. Changes to controlled programs such as Senior Executive Service (SES), Army Management Headquarters Activity (AMHA), Defense Health Program (DHP), National Intelligence Program (NIP), general officer (GO), Title XI, Special Operations Forces (SOF), or counter drug programs are directed actions. Commands must gain proponent approval for changes to authorizations for controlled programs. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM reviews these directed changes for compliance with manpower directives and coordinates the documentation strategy.

Section II Mobilization Table of Distribution and Allowances

6 – 10. Mobilization table of distribution and allowances and augmentation table of distribution and allowances documentation guidance

a. The Mobilization Expansion plan is used instead of a TDA CMP for the establishment of a new MOBTDA or to increase requirements on an existing mobilization document. The request for a new MOBTDA or additional requirements is based on a command’s mission assessment of a contingency plan or mobilization planning that determines that a capa-bility gap exists.

b. Commands must submit to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM an executive summary of the force structure action and two enclo-sures. Enclosure 1 will provide a detailed explanation of the mission expansion request and will focus on the mission directive and the capability gap that needs to be addressed. Enclosure 2 will provide a crosswalk from the latest HQDA-approved MOBTDA or mobilization table of distribution and allowances and augmentation table(MOBAUGTDA) to the new or proposed MOBTDA organization.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 31

c. The proposed MOBTDA will focus on sections I and II, consisting of the proposed mission and personnel require-ments that details the structure at paragraph and line level of detail. Mobilization expansion plans will have a focused, HQDA staffing based upon the complexity of the reorganization.

d. The mobilization expansion plan does not require the submission of a CBA or a manpower review by USAMAA. These plans will be reviewed by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and then be provided to selective members of the ARSTAF for review. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM conducts a final review of each plan and recommend implementation instructions to the DFM.

e. MOBTDAs and MOBAUGTDAs reflect requirements that are in addition to an organization’s primary TDA or AUGTDA requirements. The organization’s primary UIC will be followed with the letters MO, signifying a mobilization document. For example the G – 3/5/7 UIC is W0Z2AA and its mobilization document is W0Z2AAMO.

f. MOBTDA documented requirements are resourced using the funded Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) pro-gram, through the Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) program, or as directed by the mobilization authority. Positions may be filled by IMA personnel assigned to a position on the unit MOBTDA, from Reserve Component unit personnel, the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), or retiree recalls. MOBTDA documented requirements may also be sourced via 10 USC 12302 (Partial Mobilization).

g. The IMA program removes drilling mobilization augmentee as a separate category. The standard remarks code "MD” or DM (see para 6–10h(2)) identifies a position on a MOBTDA/MOBAUGTDA document as funded and available for IMA assignment.

(1) Many of these military manpower requirements must be filled during the initial stages of an emerging crisis and well before a partial mobilization is declared. These requirements must be filled with qualified Soldiers who are able to report to and perform their assigned duties without delay, orientation, or post-mobilization training. This objective is ac-complished by pre-assigning qualified members of the Army’s Selected Reserve to required mobilization positions that have been specifically designated and documented to augment organizations.

(2) The Soldiers selected for assignment to these positions are known as funded IMAs. These Soldiers are trained in peacetime so that they are able to perform their designated duties when ordered to active duty. Funded IMA Soldiers, as members of the Selected Reserve, are subject to immediate, involuntary order to active duty whenever a Presidential Re-serve Call-up (PRC) is invoked under 10 USC 12304 or by Partial Mobilization under 12302.

(3) Funded IMA Soldiers are also subject to call-up if Congress declares war or national emergency under 12301(a). These funded IMA Soldiers must be assigned to an authorized military mobilization position that has been properly docu-mented on an organization’s MOBTDA or MOBAUGTDA.

(4) OCAR determines the number of funded IMA authorizations based on Congressional appropriations for each fiscal year.

(5) DCS, G – 3/5/7, Force Management is responsible for prioritizing the distribution of the U.S. Army Reserve funded IMA allocations for each command with the exception of the Army Secretariat. OSA has the authority to reprioritize Secretariat allocations within its annual allocation.

(6) The commands-funded IMA positions will be documented with remarks code “MD or DM.” Commands will review their funded IMA positions annually during the Command Plan review.

(7) Changes to the funded IMA program must be approved by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM prior to documentation. (8) Commands must request a personnel supportability analysis from Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox,

KY prior to submitting MOBTDA changes. The commands are to contact HRC, G3-Reserve Operations Branch (ROB), and AHRC – PLM – O.

h. All mobilization TDAs will be updated during the annual Command Plan process. MOBTDAs will be prepared by USAFMSA and forwarded to each command in accordance with the annual Command Plan Guidance. Commands will review their mobilization staffing documents and recommend changes to USAFMSA and DCS, G – 3/5/7, Force Manage-ment as required. Once mobilization documents are placed in a HQDA approved status, USAFMSA will extract positions that have been coded with remark code MD or DM (see para 6–10h(2)) and transmit this information to HRC at Fort Knox.

(1) Commands will coordinate the placement of funded IMA positions with USAFMSA. Commands will submit a TDA CMP CAT2 to redistribute requirements. No requirements growth is authorized without an approved MOBTDA expansion plan.

(2) MOBTDAs will be created by using the HQDA approved TDA structure for the fiscal year being built as a template. MOBTDA positions will be coded with the same paragraph structure as the primary TDA to illustrate the role filled by mobilization positions in a given unit or organization.

(a) The Army Authorization Documentation System (FMSWeb) displays a “required” (RQSTR) and “authorized” (AUSTR) column (in FMSWeb). The data entered in the RQSTR columns on the MOBTDA reflects the mobilization requirements for PRC and Partial Mobilization. The AUSTR column on the MOBTDA will reflect zero.

32 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(b) If a position appears on the primary TDA as “authorized,” it will not appear on the MOBTDA. If a position on the primary TDA is required but not authorized the command has the option to place this position on the MOBTDA. Enter the same para/line on the MOBTDA as the position’s para/line on the primary TDA.

(c) A remark code must be annotated for each position on the MOBTDA. The remark code(s) applies to the entire paragraph or line. Mobilization documents will use four primary codes in the remark code 1 column.

i. AGR positions are not to be documented on the MOBTDA. Therefore, remark codes “MS”, “89”, and “92” are not used.

j. All identity codes (IDENT) on MOBTDAs are “interchangeable” (not gender specific), in accordance with current HQDA policy.

k. Contractors are not documented on MOBTDAs or MOBAUGTDAs. l. DACs may be documented on mobilization documents for planning purposes only. Prior to documentation coordina-

tion is required with DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. DACs may not be hired or mobilized using a MOBTDA requirement. An excep-tion to this guidance is indirect hire civilians. When a host nation support (HNS) agreement specifies the need to formally account for indirect hire civilians (CTYPE 204, 205) in support of U.S. Forces during mobilization, they can be docu-mented and coded as "MQ" on the MOBTDA.

6 – 11. Equipment requirements Equipment requirements are not documented using a mobilization document. AMC and the ARNG are granted an excep-tion to this policy and equipment may be documented for mobilization planning purposes only. Mission expansion equip-ment must be sourced through current HQDA processes. Mission expansion is tied to the primary TDA document. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM may approve exceptions to the placing equipment on MOBTDA documents on a case by case basis.

Section III Manpower Management

6 – 12. Table of distribution and allowances change management plan manpower studies a. All studies must be approved by USAMAA and briefed to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for application implementation ap-

proval. This process will be used to add or subtract requirements to either UIC reorganization, or several UICs that were all part of the same manpower study.

b. The briefing to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM consists of a slide presentation explaining the reorganization; the study approval memo from USAMAA, a crosswalk from the latest HQDA-approved TDA to the proposed TDA organization, and a schedule 8.

c. The proposed TDA will have a Section I, II, III, and IIIS consisting of the proposed mission, personnel, and equip-ment requirements and authorizations. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM completes a final review and recommends implementation in-structions to the DFM.

6 – 13. Manpower analysis work load data preparation guidelines a. As specified in DODD 1100.4, a key precept underlying manpower management in the Department of Defense is

that "manpower requirements are driven by workload and shall be established at the minimum levels necessary to accom-plish mission and performance objectives.

b. Changes in manpower shall be preceded by changes to the programs, missions, and functions that require manpower resources." Accordingly, a major element of ASA(M&RA)'s review of a category 3 (CAT 3) TDA CMP is to verify that any requested changes in manpower requirements are in fact supported by mission and workload.

c. Therefore, it’s imperative that the requesting activity ensure the workload rationale, data, and analysis are accurately documented to justify the manpower requirements.

d. USAMAA is the acting agent on behalf of ASA (M&RA) for this part of the review. e. There are two key areas that a CAT 3 TDA CMP must address in terms of mission and workload for requested

changes in manpower requirements: the mission directive from HQDA level or higher that forms the basis for the overall change; and the workload analysis that led to the specific manpower requirements changes.

f. In addition, the proposed military-civilian-contractor delineation of the requirements must reflect the least costly manpower mix able to accomplish the mission and must be consistent with current manpower mix law and policy.

g. Additional information on manpower mix can be found in policies and statutes at the website http://www.asamra.army.mil/scra.

http://www.asamra.army.mil/scra

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 33

6 – 14. Mission directive a. CAT 3 TDA CMPs documenting changes resulting from new mission assignments should cite—and include a copy

of—the specific directive (for example, HQDA memorandum, OPORD, FRAGO, EXORD, and so forth). b. CAT 3 TDA CMPs documenting changes due to workload growth in an existing assigned mission should cite the

official authoritative source for the mission (for example, the specific paragraph in the AR that originally assigned the mission), and provide a complete explanation of the basis for the workload growth. For example:

(1) In a production-type environment (for example, depot, arsenal, installation maintenance activity, warehouse, class-room, training area, and so forth), identify the specific basis for the increased throughput or increased cycle time.

(2) In a customer service environment (for example, ID card office, Army Community Services office, patient-care facility, central issue facility, and so forth), identify the basis for the increased demand or increased customer base. For population-based activities, identify the specific source of any population increases, to include the losing location of any population shifts.

(3) In a staff-support environment (for example, a headquarters staff element, a proponency office, and so forth), pro-vide a clear explanation of the changed or expanded mission which led to the requested change.

c. The CAT 3 TDA CMP must present an analytical workload analysis argument using empirical data to relate the mission essential workload of the organization to the total amount of manpower required to accomplish that workload. Workload is defined as the major output, product produced or service provided by a working element, normally a work center. Any analytically-based method is acceptable as long as it adequately describes the workload, processes and hours that generate the manpower requirements.

d. The following specific guidance applies to presentation of workload analyses in TDA CMPs: (1) Workload analyses must justify the workload performed by the total manpower (military, civilian, contractors) re-

quired within a functional area in the affected work center(s), not just the changes or additional requirements. A work center is defined as the basic working element organized to accomplish a specific function or similar functions. It is nor-mally a TDA paragraph, that is, team, branch, or division. Specifically, workload analysis is required for all existing re-quirements that have similar functions as the new requirements being requested.

(2) If similar functions cross multiple work centers, the entire function should be accounted for at the aggregate level to determine the necessity of additional requirements. This step will provide the work center leadership better visibility of current assets and determine whether requesting additional requirements is indeed the solution. Examples are as follows:

(a) When requesting an additional ammunition specialist, workload should be provided for all ammunition specialists currently supporting the effort rather than workload for the one requested position.

(b) When requesting an additional paralegal, workload should be provided for all paralegal personnel currently sup-porting the effort. Workload for the attorneys, administrative support personnel or legal administrator would not be re-quired.

e. CAT 3 TDA CMPs should develop manpower requirements from a bottom-up mission, function, process, and work-load analysis. This means, based on the validated mission, all major functions required to accomplish that mission must be identified. Subsequently, for each of these major functions, the primary processes and associated tasks must be deter-mined in order to produce the necessary workload. The processes and associated tasks should be comprehensive but not necessarily exhaustive: identify the major tasks within the processes that comprise the bulk of the workload, with sufficient detail to enable an analyst who is unfamiliar with the function to understand the process and associated tasks.

f. Excel spreadsheets can then be used to organize the mission, function, process, and workload analysis and document manpower requirements. A suggested method follows:

(1) Input-process-output analysis sheet. A process map is developed for each function that includes the workload (product). The work center must be able to explain the process or processes involved with each function (see table 6 – 1). The completed Input-process-output analysis (IPOA) sheet should answer the following questions:

(a) What are the major functions? (MAJOR FUNCTIONS) (b) Who provides the information necessary to initiate an action on your part? (Who is your supplier?)(WHO) (c) What is the input (mission mandate) received that drives your workload? (WHAT) (d) What actions are taken to develop the final product? How is the product developed? (PROCESS/SUB – ACTIVITY) (e) What form/product does the process result in? (WORKLOAD/OUTPUT) (f) Who is the workload (output) delivered to/developed for? Who is your customer? (TO WHOM) (2) Functional analysis. For each major function or process sub-activity identified on your IPOA sheet, an estimate is

made (or historical data is used) to determine “how long” it takes to perform each process-sub-activity (task) one time and the frequency (“how often”) each task is performed within a given period of time (normally a year). Alternatively, a work-load driver, a programmable metric that has a meaningful influence on the amount of workload, can be used here. For example, if the task is to respond to and complete work orders, the corresponding workload may be the number of work

34 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

orders that are responded to (in a given year); the workload driver may be the number of assigned customers—the more customers, the more expected work orders.

(3) Functional analysis worksheet. The IPOA data with the functional analysis is recorded on the functional analysis worksheet (table 6 – 2) where frequency, period and per accomplishment time (PAT) are multiplied to determine the total work hours it takes to conduct each particular task in a given time period. The times for all tasks are totaled, and the total is divided by the Army availability factor—normally 1740 hours—and rounded off to determine the man-year requirements necessary for the given function. This procedure must be completed for each major function. Note that the task times, also called PAT and frequencies must be reasonable and/or rationale for each of these numbers must be provided in the TDA CMP. Regardless of the approach taken, no workload analysis spreadsheet can stand alone; it must be accompanied by a full explanation of the mission/regulatory underpinning for each function and task, and the basis for the numbers provided.

g. In instances where the approach described above may not be feasible (for example, a new organization for which no performance data exists), activities may choose to develop manpower requirements by comparing the workload, size, and structure of the proposed organization to the approved manpower requirements of a similar organization elsewhere. When using this type of comparative analysis, the TDA CMP must include a full explanation of the underlying analysis, the basis for selecting the organization against which to compare, an explanation of similarities and differences between the two organizations, and the specific rationale used to determine the size and structure of the proposed organization.

h. When a manpower model (including staffing ratio or allocation rule) is used to justify the requested changes in manpower, organizations should provide a description of the model, a copy of the validation memorandum from USAMAA, and an explanation of how and why it is being applied or reapplied to justify the changes. Note that a model validated by USAMAA for use by a specific organization is normally not appropriate for application by another organiza-tion. Often, the use of an approved and validated manpower model does not require the submission of a TDA CMP, but rather, is handled using other means, directly with DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. Activities contemplating the use of a valid and approved manpower model or manpower study as the basis for computing updated manpower requirements in a CAT 3 TDA CMP should contact their assigned USAMAA command analyst for guidance before proceeding. See USAMAA website at the following for reference: http://www.asamra.army.mil/usamaa/index.cfm.

i. For proposed TDA augmentations (AUGTDA) to MTOE, it is particularly important that TDA CMPs address the rationale for needing manpower requirements beyond those documented in the MTOE itself. It is not sufficient to merely state that the MTOE cannot support the workload. The TDA CMP should provide a clear explanation of the doctrinal workload that provided the basis for the MTOE requirements for the function in question, explain the origin and basis for additional workload not accommodated by the doctrinal MTOE requirements, and include an analysis of the workload of the total work center (combined MTOE/AUGTDA), not just the AUGTDA requirements being requested.

j. In instances where all or part of the workload associated with a TDA CMP is being accomplished through use of overtime, over hires, troop diversions, borrowed labor, contract, or other means, the CAT 3 TDA CMP should provide a full explanation of these circumstances. This information is necessary to identify and clarify the use of “other personnel” to accomplish enduring workload. More importantly, the TDA CMP should reflect the associated man-hours contributed to the work center to develop the workload-to-manpower requirements relationship necessary to support the changes being requested.

k. In instances where long-term unacceptable backlog or unacceptably long cycle times/customer wait times form the basis for requesting increased manpower requirements, the CAT 3 TDA CMP should provide the basis for computing the backlog, identify specific negative impacts resulting from the continuing backlog, and identify the steps that have been taken within the work center to resolve the unacceptable backlog by means other than increased permanent staffing, for example, process improvements.

l. The instances and examples cited above are not intended to be all-inclusive. Activities preparing CAT 3 TDA CMPs may take whatever approach works best in their particular case, but should ensure that they include a full explanation, supporting rationale, all pertinent data, and all applicable computations with the TDA CMP. Regardless of the approach taken, submitting activities should keep in mind that it is their responsibility to make a complete and compelling case for the changes they are requesting. This is best done by linking a specific mission directive to a set of revised manpower requirements using a sound analytical argument, well supported by empirical data, and clearly explained in unambiguous, non-technical, jargon- and acronym-free language.

http://www.asamra.army.mil/usamaa/index.cfm

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 35

Table 6 – 1 Input-Process-Output analysis sheet Major function1 Who2 What3 Process/sub-activity4 Workload

(output)5 To whom6

Manage the Effi-ciency Report Pro-gram for the com-mand

DCS, G – 1 AR 623 – 3 - Assess/analyze programs - Review program guidance - Develop revised guidance - Coordinate revised guidance - Publish guidance

Published policies and procedures

G – 1, HR, command

Monitor the Mili-tary Awards Pro-gram for the com-mand

DCS, G – 1 AR 600 – 8 – 22 Refine program guidance Monthly report G – 1, HR, subordi-nate command

Manage the Inter-nal Control Pro-gram

OSD Assurance of Federal stew-ardship

- Assign and appoint - In-process and train - Evaluate and maintain - Retain and separate - Staff the annual assurance statement - Update guidance for com-mand

Annual assurance statement

SECARMY

Notes: 1 What are the major functions that support your organization’s mission? 2 Who provides the information necessary to initiate an action on your part? (Who is your supplier?) 3 What is the input (mission mandate) received that drives your workload? 4 What actions are taken to develop the final product? How is the product developed? 5 What form or product does the process result in? 6 Who is the workload (output) delivered to, or developed for? Who is your customer?

Table 6 – 2 Functional analysis sample (add the organization’s name and the work center’s name — Continued Steps Major functions

and process subactivities (from “input-process-output” analysis sheet)

Workload

No. of personnel (crew size)

Frequency Period Per accomplish-ment time (hours)

Total work hours

1 Manage the Effi-ciency Report Pro-gram for the com-mand.

Published policies and procedures.

1.1 Assess/analyze pro-grams

Two budget execution reports

1 2 Month 8 192

1.2 Review program guidance

One regula-tion

1 1 Quarter 24 96

1.3 Develop revised guidance

One guid-ance up-date

1 1 Year 80 80

1.4 Coordinate revised guidance

One regula-tion

1 1 Year 20 20

36 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Table 6 – 2 Functional analysis sample (add the organization’s name and the work center’s name — Continued Steps Major functions

and process subactivities (from “input-process-output” analysis sheet)

Workload

No. of personnel (crew size)

Frequency Period Per accomplish-ment time (hours)

Total work hours

2 Monitor the Military Awards Program for the command

Monthly re-port

2.1 Review metrics 1 2 Month 8 192

2.3 Assess/analyze pro-grams

1 1 Year 24 24

2.4 Update metrics 1 1 Year 24 24

3 Manage the Internal Control Program

Annual as-surance statement

Quarter

3.1 Assign and appoint 40 unit evaluators

1 1 Year 160 160

3.2 In-process and train One week-long course taught

2 1 Quarter 40 320

3.3 Evaluate and main-tain

40 metrics 1 1 Quarter 16 64

3.4 Retain and separate 40 unit evaluators

1 1 Year 24 24

3.5 Staff the annual as-surance statement

One report 2 1 Year 24 48

3.6 Update guidance for command

One man-ual

1 1 Year 40 40

1508 1740 Requirements

needed .86~1

Notes: Workload = Output Frequency = How often the workload is generated in the lowest period, such as daily, weekly, monthly, and so forth Period = Provides the multiplier for the frequency: daily * 251, weekly * 52, monthly * 12, quarterly * 4, annually * 1 Per accomplishment time = The hours it takes to generate one unit of workload

6 – 15. Army command, Army service component command, or direct reporting unit role a. CAT 3 TDA CMPs originating in functional staffs or subordinate activities within an Army command (ACOM),

ASCC, or DRU will be thoroughly reviewed by the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU headquarters staff element having responsi-bility for manpower requirements before submission to HQDA. TDA CMP documentation should provide contact infor-mation for both the functional POC and the headquarters-level manpower requirements POC.

b. If, during the course of an ACOM, ASCC, and DRU review, changes are made to the manpower requirements in a TDA CMP, the body of the TDA CMP and all impacted enclosures should be revised to reflect those changes so it remains a complete, stand-alone document fully reflecting the command's position.

c. ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs should keep in mind that CAT 3 TDA CMP approvals—particularly those for changes based on projected workload—often carry with them a requirement that a full manpower review be conducted within a specified length of time following implementation. ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs should be prepared to add such studies to their 3-year schedule (reference 1d), and then execute and forward those studies for ASA (M&RA) review and validation.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 37

6 – 16. Manpower management guidance a. As the Army rebalances its size and workforce mix, there may be functions identified that are critical to preserving

the ability to surge, regenerate and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency. These capabilities may be critical to meet future, unforeseen demands, maintaining intellectual capital, rank structure, and other assets that could be called upon to expand key elements of the force. It may also be appropriate to in-source contractors to an organic capability (military or civilian) where a cost comparison supports the function being performed organically or there is a military essential need. Holistic prioritization of missions and functions performed by the total force (military, civilians and contractors) must be the basis for implementing manpower adjustments in accordance with applicable policies and statutes. All manpower requirements (positions) must be classified in accordance with the manpower mix criteria (MMC) defined in DODI 1100.22 and subsequent guidance. The basis for this classification is not the position itself but rather the function(s) per-formed by a position. Sometimes a requirement may be documented from a labor source which is not the optimal one. For example, a function may be documented for performance by military when civilian performance is the most appropriate. When the manpower mix coding identifies the optimal manpower requirement and not the documented requirement, it indicates a conversion to another manpower type should be considered.

b. Procedures for applying the appropriate MMC code are defined in Enclosure 3 of DODI 1100.22. The codes are listed in order of precedence. If a requirement fits into more than one category, assign the highest appropriate MMC code

(1) In-house versus contracted. (a) Inherently governmental functions are coded as MMC codes A, E, F, and I. These functions may not be performed

by contractors. To determine whether a function is inherently governmental, please refer to the checklist at http://www.asamra.army.mil/scra.

(b) MMC codes B, D, G, H, J, K, L, and M are functions which are critical, closely associated with inherently govern-mental functions, or otherwise exempted from private sector performance due to management decisions and operational necessity. See the checklist at http://www.asamra.army.mil/scra. Special management oversight is required when these functions are performed by contractors. See the referenced checklist section on oversight. Pursuant to 10 USC 2463, special consideration (to the maximum extent practicable) must be given to in-sourcing these functions to civilian government employee performance if they are currently being performed by contractors.

(2) Civilian versus military. (a) MMC codes A, B, D, G, J, K, L, and M may be performed by either military or civilian personnel as appropriate.

Further explanation of the coding is provided in Enclosure 4 of DODI 1100.22. (b) MMC codes F and I identify positions which can only be performed by military personnel. (c) MMC codes E and H identify positions which can only be performed by civilian personnel. (3) Examples of military essential functions. In accordance with DODI 1100.22, examples of military essential func-

tions include: (a) Missions involving operational risks and combatant status under the Law of War. (b) Specialized collective and individual training requiring military unique knowledge and skills based on recent oper-

ational experience. (c) Independent advice to senior civilian leadership in the department requiring military unique knowledge and skills

based on recent operational experience. (d) Command and control arrangements best performed within the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (e) Rotation base for an operational capability. (f) Career progression. (g) Esprit de corps (for example, military recruiters, military bands). (4) Contract logistics support. Contract logistics support and training for major weapon systems are examples of func-

tional capabilities that may be most appropriate for in-house performance. However, building up contract logistics and training support capability may be at the expense of operational capabilities. Accordingly, the relative priority of organic performance of these functions must be balanced against other Army priorities given limited Army end strength. On the other hand, many installation common levels of support are commercial functions best provided by the private sector depending on cost.

(5) Rebalancing. As the Army reduces in all categories of manpower and simultaneously draws down from operations in two theaters, careful consideration must be given to manpower management policies and statutes in order to ensure Army compliance.

(a) Military or civilian conversion to contract performance (outsourcing) is currently prohibited by section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

(b) Contract to military or civilian performance (in-sourcing) is governed by references h and i. Cost savings must be demonstrated when in-sourcing is considered, unless the function is inherently governmental, critical, or military essential.



38 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(6) In-sourcing. In-sourcing is the conversion of any currently contracted service or function to DOD civilian or mili-tary performance, or a combination thereof.

(a) Congressional and contractor notification is required within 20 days of a decision to in-source. Procedures are out-lined in ASD(R&FM) memo dated 29 January 2013, Private Sector Notification Requirements in Support of In-sourcing Actions, which can be accessed at http://www.asamra.army.mil/scra.

(b) Cost savings are not required when in-sourcing functions that are inherently governmental, closely associated with inherently governmental, critical, or military essential in nature. When in-sourcing commercial functions, requiring activ-ities must demonstrate a cost savings of the fewer of 10 percent of the personnel related costs for performance of that function, or $10 million (using DODI 7041.04 methodology to compare the fully burdened costs of each labor source).

6 – 17. Manpower model guidelines a. Using models. The use of ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and HQDA models for manpower requirements documentation is

highly encouraged: However, commands that use a model to assist in the manpower requirements process must adhere to the seven-phase process guidelines:

(1) Phase 1 – 5 Model validation. The USAMAA responsibilities include reviewing all TDA and AUGTDA manpower requirement models, ensuring consistent application of Army manpower policies, and executing validation and accredita-tion functions. Validation includes an assessment of the functional model, as well as an evaluation of the model’s under-pinning data. During model development, USAMAA provides the overarching guidance for the methodology and in-pro-cess feedback to facilitate continuous verification and better prepare the final product for validation. USAMAA provides the validation documentation, which will include the identification of the model’s applicability, as well as the model’s validation period.

(2) Phase 6 Model application. ACOMs, ASCCs, DRUs, and HQDA will apply the model with USAMAA oversight, and develop new or proposed organizations, which will include a baseline (latest approved document) and crosswalk from current to proposed TDA and a Schedule 8 submission to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. The new or proposed organization, baseline, crosswalk and Schedule 8 will be briefed to Chief, Force Management for approval.

(3) Phase 7 Model implementation. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is the HQDA lead for model implementation and organi-zational approval. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM reviews the crosswalk and Schedule 8 submission from the latest HQDA-approved TDA to the new or proposed TDA organization based on model application. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM provides recommendations on model implementation to the DFM, who directs how and when the model will be applied to the SAMAS and FMS data bases during the Command Plan process.

b. Model expiration. Each model will be approved for an explicit period of time, not to exceed 5 years, based on the level of rigor evident in the model and its underpinning data sources. Commands are responsible for keeping their models up to date. Commands, in accordance with USAMAA must monitor their models to be able to apply them during Command Plan. Commands may apply model results to documents that will be approved on or before the model expiration date. The model expiration date and document EDATE are not directly linked.

Section IV Cost Benefit Analysis

6 – 18. Cost-benefit analysis guidance a. Scope: Provides CBA guidance and submission requirements for each of the four TDA CMP identified categories. b. Any new or expanded program proposal, unfunded requirement, initiative, whether large or small, and or resource-

related being submitted to Secretary of the Army CSA, Under Secretary of the Army or VCSA for approval, must include a thorough CBA.

c. A CBA is a rigorous analysis that helps Army leaders and managers at all levels to make resource-informed decisions. CBAs are an essential tool in enabling the Army to ensure that it is making the best possible use of available resources. A well formulated CBA should include a clear problem statement and real alternatives that address the problem. Every CBA should also include well documented backup material that defines all assumptions, facts, constraints, calculations, and methodology on how courses of action (COAs), tradeoffs, and costs were derived.

(1) Based on a structured process, the CBA Guide is designed to assist Army analysts and agencies in identifying, quantifying, and evaluating the future costs and benefits of alternative solutions. It also assists in developing a deliberate analysis to arrive at the optimum course of action for decision-making purposes.

(2) The CBA Guide provides step-by-step instructions, the eight major steps in developing a CBA, and a checklist. The guide, along with other resources and tools, is available at the Army cost and performance portal (https://cpp.army.mil). The guide is located under the “documents” tab of the cost benefit analysis portal.


https://cpp.army.mil/

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 39

(3) While the TDA CMP guidance addresses the need to identify a resourcing and bill-payer strategy, the CBA must also address bill-payers across the FYDP for any costs not resourced in the recommended COA. Exceptions to this rule must be coordinated through the appropriate HQDA PEG integrator. It is strongly recommend that the affected sponsoring command’s MDEP program manager and resource manager coordinate any and all bill-payer issues with the appropriate HQDA PEG integrator.

d. CBAs must conform to Section 2463, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2463) and follow DODI 7041.04, refer-ence 1d. The DODI calls for using fully burdened costs and provides the cost elements to be used when comparing military personnel, civilians and contractor support. Military personnel are not to be treated as sunk costs. They often are the most expensive labor source whose use must be prioritized when force structure demands exceed supply.

e. CBA thresholds and submission guidance for TDA CMPs. (1) Dollar threshold. Only those TDA CMP submissions that meet or exceed this criterion require DASA – CE review

and validation of the CBA. (a) Any proposed new requirement or new funding request that calls for at least $10 million in any one year or $50

million across the FYDP. (b) Any proposed increase to an existing requirement or funding that exceeds 5 percent growth or $10 million in any 1

year or $50 million across the FYDP. (c) Note, an HQDA PEG may require a CBA at its discretion if the threshold doesn’t exceed the criterion in this para-

graph and the proposal is sufficiently important. (2) The dollar threshold amount includes all burdened costs associated with manpower, equipment, supplies, training,

facilities, construction, or contracts. f. CBA requirements for each TDA CMP category--- (1) CAT1 TDA CMP: No CBA is required. (2) CAT2 TDA CMP: Internally realigns structure within a UIC(s) and has no programmatic impact (no request for

new resourcing, no change to the current ROC, MDEP and AMSCO). No CBA is required for DASA – CE review. (3) CAT3TDA CMP: All CAT3 submissions require a CBA for DASA – CE review and validation. g. TDA/AUGTDA mobilization expansion plans require no CBA. Commands will submit CBAs requiring DASA – CE

review via the Army CPP CBA Workflow Tool at: https://acm.army.mil/. h. Commands process the CBA through their side of the CPP CBA Workflow Tool to the HQDA side of the portal.

6 – 19. Below the threshold Notwithstanding the new CBA thresholds presented above, for those CBAs that fall below the threshold, although not required, it is recommended sponsoring commands continue using their internal CBA business rules and process each currently have in place. If nothing else, while a CBA may not require DASA – CE review, it is an excellent tool for use in making command internal resource informed decisions and a PEG Integrator may require a CBA submission. For questions not addressed in the CBA Guide, individuals may send an email to the CBA Help Desk (usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-fm.mbx.army-cost-benefit-analysis@mail.mil).

Section V Tables of Distribution and Allowances and Augmentation Tables of Distribution and Allowances Equipment Procedures

6 – 20. Procedures pertaining to tables of distribution and allowances change management plans a. As noted in TDA CMP, each command provides a detailed TDA equipment cross-walk from the latest approved

TDA to the new proposed TDA organization. The equipment cross-walk must contain a sufficient level of detail that permits analysis of the organizations equipment requirements.

b. Any command equipment changes approved during the TDA CMP must be provided to their assigned HQDA force structure command manager using the FMSWeb 4610 – R Automated Equipment Request Tool’s “batch upload" spread-sheet (Microsoft Excel format). Only the TDA CMP “approved” equipment is to be added to the “batch upload” spread-sheet.

c. Complete the spreadsheet using established batch upload format; detailed batch upload instructions are provided in the “How to Users Guide for the 4610 – R TDA – AUGTDA Documentation Tool.revised.pdf” found on FMSWeb.

d. All commands must forward the competed “Batch Upload” spreadsheet (see below) to their respective HQDA force structure command manager. The Command is responsible for final upload into the FMSWeb 4610 – R Automated TDA Equipment Request Tool. Commands must NOT alter Row 1 of the spreadsheet; this includes hiding spreadsheet rows or columns. The spreadsheet is already formatted for seamless upload into FMSWeb.

https://acm.army.mil/

mailto:usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-fm.mbx.army-cost-benefit-analysis@mail.mil

mailto:usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-fm.mbx.army-cost-benefit-analysis@mail.mil

40 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

e. Once uploaded into FMSWeb, the HQDA ERVB coordinator completes the 4610 – R approval process. The assigned HQDA force structure command manager is responsible for coordinating the documentation strategy, as approved during the TDA CMP process.

6 – 21. Command equipment requests Commands may submit equipment requests separate from the TDA CMP process at any time. All TDA/AUGTDA equip-ment requests not submitted during the TDA CMP process must follow current HQDA ERVB submission guidance. It is important for commands to provide compelling rationale in the narrative justification to facilitate ERVB analysis. The intensive review of automated 4610 – R requests by the HQDA ERVB continues to support the Army vision. In order for the ERVB process to be effective, additional scrutiny of individual requests must start at the command-level. A few keys to success in developing justifications include, but are not limited to the following considerations:

a. Address the bottom-line up front (BLUF) with an explanation of what new capability is needed and why. b. What changed within the unit mission and who directed the change? c. Why already-approved and documented equipment is insufficient to perform the mission? d. What is the impact to mission if the requested equipment is not approved? e. Training-related requests: Provide POI-related information (frequency of use; class size; student to equipment ratio,

and so forth). f. Maintenance related requests: Provide level of maintenance; density of end-items supported; and number of units

supported.

Chapter 7 Force Structure Data Elements

Section I Unit Identification Codes

7 – 1. Types and composition of unit identification codes a. A UIC is a six-character alphanumeric code (figure 7 – 1) that uniquely identifies an organization of the U.S. govern-

ment. OIs request UICs for MTOEs and command managers request for approved tables of distribution and allowances (TDA) units.

b. There are no letter “I”s or “O”s in UICs. c. Center of Military History (CMH) must approve the unit designation and enter the official long name into Defense

Readiness Reporting System-Army (DRRS – A). d. Parent UICs are issued by the HQDA UIC manager in DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. The HQDA UIC manager is the only

authorized creator of parent level UICs. Only HQDA OIs and force structure command managers may request a parent UIC and require approval from the DFM.

e. All Army UICs begin with a "W" in the first position and cannot be used until initially registered in DRRS – A by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, and revalidated by the assigned command. Planning UICs, notionals, are identified by the following protocol:

(1) MTOE UICs. (a) (TYPCO = 1). (b) All MTOE UICs have an alpha character in the second position. (c) CMH must provide unit designation and historic UIC (if available), and enter the official long name into DRRS – A. (2) AUG TDA UICs. (a) (TYPCO = 2). (b) Match the first four positions of the MTOE UICs it supports. (c) Fifth and sixth position of the UIC is 91 – 99 or 9A – 9Z (excluding letters “I” and “O”). (d) AUG-TDAs must have a parent and will carry the same unit designation as the MTOE parent plus “Augmentation”

and the same TPSN and DP99. (3) TDA UICs. (a) (TYPCO = 3). (b) All TDA UICs have a numeric character in the second position. (c) CMH validates unit designation before UIC is issued. (4) Multi-component MTOE UICs. (a) Multi-COMPO MTOE UICs receive new “WN” UICs, and they must contain at least two components.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 41

(b) Parent (AA) is display-only (DO) in Structure and Manpower Allocation System (SAMAS) (not counted in bottom lines) and represent the component of the flag holder.

(c) Component derivatives are registered by Department of the Army (DA), and are display-compute (DC) in SAMAS (count in bottom lines).

(5) Augmentation TDAs for multi-COMPO UICs. (a) Units are assigned a new “WN___99” UIC with the same COMPO as the parent (AA), when approved. (b) The 99 is display-only (DO) in SAMAS (not counted in bottom lines). (c) Component derivatives are registered by DA, and are display-compute (DC) in SAMAS (count in bottom lines) (6) Multi-COMPO TDA UIC. (a) Begin with W5 and must contain at least two components. (b) Parent (AA) is display-only (DO) in Structure and Manpower Allocation System (SAMAS) (not counted in bottom

lines) and represent the component of the flag holder. (c) Component derivatives are registered by Department of the Army (DA), and are display-compute (DC) in SAMAS

(count in bottom lines).

Figure 7 – 1. Unit identification codes

7 – 2. Notional unit identification codes a. Notional unit identification codes (fig 7 – 2) exist only in SAMAS for planning purposes. The strengths in notional

COMPO 1, 2 & 3 subsets count in bottom lines. b. First position indicates which component. Table 9 – 5 shows the codes per COMPO. c. Second and third positions indicate SRC or TDA type (when used). See table 9 – 6 for examples. d. Fourth through sixth positions are sequencing numbers. See table 9 – 7 for examples. e. Multi-COMPO notional UIC for MTOE units. (1) These are used within SAMAS only for planning purposes, and are managed by the OI. At least two components

are required for a multi-component unit. (2) The first position in multi-COMPO display-compute (DC) notional units indicates COMPO. See table 9 – 9 for a list

of codes. (3) Position 2 and 3 represent the branch (the first two digits of the SRC). (4) Position 4 will be the multi-COMPO designator represented with an N. (5) Positions 5 and 6 are numeric, and will be assigned by the UIC manager based upon the sequence of the multi-

COMPO Notional requested by the OI and used to group individual units together. (6) Only one notional per COMPO is available for each notional multi-COMPO unit. Additional derivatives (for ex-

ample X1, X2, R1, R2, and R3) can be requested when the permanent UIC is requested after approval of the TDA CMP.

42 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(7) The display only flag holder, or “roll-up” UIC, is determined by the 4th position designator equal to M. The first position of the UIC will reflect the COMPO of the flag holder (X = COMPO 1, R = COMPO 2, G = COMPO 3). See table 9 – 9 for examples.

Figure 7 – 2. Notional unit identification codes

7 – 3. Carrier unit identification codes a. Provides a means to assign personnel and account for equipment that arrives at the unit location before an approved

MTOE unit activation, up to 1 year before activation. b. A carrier UIC up to 2 years requires approval from DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. c. Upon activation of the MTOE unit, the carrier UIC is discontinued.

7 – 4. Notes unit identification codes a. Match the first four positions of the parent MTOE UIC. b. Exist in SAMAS only, for MTOE units only. c. Must be in the SAMAS UIC table to use. d. Created to support SACS by identifying non-standard TOE formations at sub-SRC level.

7 – 5. Army pre-positioned stocks unit identification codes a. APS UICs are equipment only. b. AMC requests UICs for APS units; DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM assigns UICs. c. APS UICs are included in the Dynamic Army Resourcing Priority List (DARPL). d. APS UICs will receive a “WM” UIC.

7 – 6. Requesting unit identification codes a. OIs and command managers can request approved permanent or notional UICs with the standard templates, available

from the HQDA UIC manager. b. The following elements are required for permanent UICs: (1) Action must be approved to be in the force (approved TDA CMP, TAA, and so forth). (2) Notional UIC if available. (3) Assignment. (4) EDATE. (5) Unit description. (6) SRC 12 positions. (7) Troop program sequence number (TPSN). (8) Station name. (9) Location code (LOCCO). (10) Station code (STACO). (11) Type code (TYPCO).

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 43

(12) Decision point 99 code (DP99). c. The following are required for notional UICs. Action must be approved to be in the Force (approved concept plan,

TAA, and so forth). (1) SRC series (first 2 digits of the SRC). (2) Component. (3) EDATE. (4) DP99 code. (5) Unit description. (6) Notes: (a) Note UIC. (b) TYPCO. (c) Component (COMPO). (d) Unit number. (e) Unit description. (f) EDATE.

7 – 7. Unit activations that are cancelled or significantly postponed a. Cancelled activations. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and UIC managers must be notified as soon as cancellation of activations

are approved. This allows DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM to return the UIC for re-use (for MTOE UICs, re-available for TDA UICs) and cancel the UIC in both SAMAS and DRRS – A.

b. Significantly delayed activations. Contact DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and UIC managers for guidance. DAMO – FM deter-mines if the UIC should be returned to CMH (there may be a shortage of “good” histories for that particular type of unit) and to quickly inform the DRRS – A.

Section II Troop Program Sequence Number and Element Sequence Number in Structure and Manpower Allocation System

7 – 8. Use and structure of troop program sequence number a. The troop program sequence number (TPSN) is a code that groups units by mission, type, and size (figs 7 – 3 through

7 – 8). The TPSN is an instrumental tool in data retrieval in the Structure and Manpower Allocation System (SAMAS) and other selected automated reporting systems in the Army.

b. For TOE units, the TPSN has five basic positions. The TPSN positions group units by echelon (position 1), type (positions 2 and 3), and unit designation (positions 4 and 5). Examples of TOE TPSN are shown below.

(1) Division, TPSN “08082.” First position “0” identifies the category as division; second and third positions “80” identifies the type as division headquarters; fourth and fifth positions “82” identify the unit designation. In this example, TPSN “08082” represents the 82d Airborne Division Headquarters.

(2) Echelon above division, troop program sequence number “31916.” First position “3” identifies the category as echelon above division/functional brigade; second and third positions “19” identify the TOE branch as military police; fourth and fifth positions; “16” identify the unit designation. In this example, TPSN 31916 represents the 16th Military Police Brigade.

c. For TDA units, the TPSN also has five basic positions. The TPSN positions group units by category (position 1), activity (positions 2 and 3), and sequence (positions 4 and 5). Examples of TDATPSNs are shown below:

(1) TDA, TPSN “8T601.” First position “8” identifies the category as generating forces; second and third positions “T6” identifies the special class code as NCO Academy; the fourth and fifth positions “01” identify the sequence. In this case, TPSN “8T601” is used to identify the NCO Academy at Fort Polk.

(2) TDA augmentation, TPSN “08082.” TDA augmentation units carry the same TPSN as the MTOE unit they aug-ment. In this case, TPSN “08082” is used to identify a TDA augmentation to a MTOE unit in the 82d Airborne Division Headquarters.

d. For classified TOE and TPSNs, the third character will be an “A”.

44 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 7 – 3. Troop program sequence number with standard requirements code 2 and table of distribution and allowances

functional codes

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 45

Figure 7 – 4. Troop program sequence number with standard requirements code-2 and table of distribution and allowances

functional codes

46 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019


functional codes

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 47


functional codes

48 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 7 – 7. Troop program sequence number with standard requirements code-2 and table of distribution and allowances functional codes

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 49


functional codes

50 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

7 – 9. Element sequence number a. The element sequence number (ELSEQ) is a two-digit number. It is assigned to certain master units providing a

means of grouping like units together by certain categories. b. As long as a unit’s mission or basic capabilities in a branch remain the same, the TPSN and ELSEQ will not change.

When a TOE change occurs, the TPSN and ELSEQ will either be validated or changed by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM.

Section III Other Data Elements

7 – 10. Effective date establishment a. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM establishes EDATEs through the force development and documentation processes to support

unit readiness and the current force generation process. b. At a minimum, Active Component (AC) EDATEs will occur every 18 – 24 months and nest with the Army’s current

force generation model. c. Reserve Component (RC) EDATEs will normally occur in September of the following training cycle years as fol-

lows: training years 1, 3, and 5 for brigade combat teams; training years 1 and 3 for division headquarters; and training years 1, 2, and 5 for functional and multi-functional brigades.

d. Adjustments to EDATEs occur when documents are adjusted based on the current document change management policies and procedures.

7 – 11. Standard requirements code a. The SRC is a twelve-position alphanumeric code that identifies the type organization, edition, authorized level of

organization (ALO), and exceptions to standard structure, personnel, and equipment. The SRC determines manning and equipping of units, as well as planning. For example, SAMAS compares MTOE SRCs with the SRC reflected in other databases to prevent documentation errors in the force. The Center of Army Analysis (CAA) uses consumption planning factors as the basis for workload allocation rules. Consumption rates for each class of supply are provided by CASCOM for each SRC. Theater demand for each day of the anticipated campaign is calculated by multiplying the consumption factor by the numbers of each type of SRC in the theater during that period. Military orders for modified TOE include the SRC by AR 600 – 8 – 105.

b. The SRC identifies the series, organizational elements or echelon, organizational type, document edition, document variations, authorized level of organization, and sub-paragraph number. The TOE/SRC Numbering Rules are depicted at figure 7 – 9.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 51

Figure 7 – 9. Table of organization and equipment/standard requirements code number rules

(1) Series. A two digit numeric code indicating the branch or major non-branch subdivision of a TOE as described in

AR 25 – 30. The series is the first two positions of the SRC. (2) Organizational elements. A three digit numeric code indicating the organizational elements of the branch or major

subdivision follows the series number. The three digits in positions 3, 4, and 5 are:

52 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(a) Position 3. The digit in position 3 (ECHELON) identifies the type unit within the branch or major subdivision. With the exception of the number 5, TOE developers use this position to designate the specific echelon of the unit. The number 5 denotes detachment, platoon, team or element.

(b) Position 4. The digit in position 4 (UNIQUE) is used to specify the TOE within the categories outlined above. The TOE developer assigns this value.

(c) Position 5. The digit in position 5 (TYPE ORG) identifies the type of organization. (d) Position 6. An alphabetic character in position 6 indicates the TOE edition. (e) Position 7. This position is used to identify variations or teams. When there are variations in a TOE, the number in

position 7 is 0 or greater. The first number assigned in the 7th position of a TOE should be zero (0), for example: 07315K000 infantry battalion. If the TOE developer requires an additional variation of a basic TOE, the developer will change the zero (0) to a one (1), for example: 07315K100 infantry battalion, mountain variant. A through Z will be used in position 7 to designate teams. If additional teams are required they will be identified by a different number in positions 4 or 5. Teams will be further identified by the number 5 in the third position of the TOE number.

(f) Positions 8 and 9. Positions 8 and 9 are reserved for future use. (g) Position 10. Position 10 identifies the authorized level of organization. All units are ALO 1. (h) Positions 11 and 12. Positions 11 and 12 identify if the MTOE is a material exception to the basic TOE. The SRC

is coded with an “E” in the eleventh position. Exception MTOEs are approved by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, DFM.

Chapter 8 Manpower Requirements Criteria

8 – 1. Manpower requirements criteria overview a. Manpower requirements criteria are HQDA-approved standards for determining minimum mission essential wartime

requirements (MMEWR) in tables of organization and equipment and modified tables of organization and equipment (TOE/MTOE) for selected maneuver support and sustainment functions. This section provides guidance for MARC de-velopment, use of annual MOS availability factors (AMAF), and other MARC application policies in establishing wartime personnel requirements for specific maneuver support/sustainment functions in TOEs. If deviations are required, the in-crease or decrease must be fully justified and approved during the TOE approval process.

b. MARC supported positions are documented in accordance with the procedures in HQDA approved criteria published on the Force Management Bulletin Board (FMBB).

c. The DFM approves all MARC standards and deviations. d. All deviations from published criteria are justified in the TOE Section I. (1) If a MARC supported position is deemed unnecessary in the TOE, that position is listed in the TOE Section I with

justification for deleting that position. (2) If an additive MARC deviation is documented, that position is identified with a remark 62 in the TOE Section II

and listed in the Section I with justification as to why it was added. Remark 62 is also appropriate if a deviation reduces, but does not completely eliminate the MARC driven position.

e. Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel requirements under Title X are exempt from MARC. SOF TOE personnel requirements are identified and assessed through the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Force Design Update (FDU) process and then approved by the DFM.

f. Standards not addressed by MARC would be incorporated and clearly quantified in doctrinal publications for each respective proponent. A revalidation of previous MARC standards that addresses wartime personnel requirements and synchronizes them with current force structure remains a viable option. Periodic review of MARC standards against doc-trinal determinations will be conducted by USAFMSA in coordination with TRADOC ARCIC and stakeholders on a 3 – 5 year cycle.

g. Application of MARC is validated in conjunction with TOE cycle reviews.

8 – 2. Manpower requirements criteria studies a. MARC studies produce standards that express the minimum number of wartime personnel requirements needed to

perform specific maneuver support or sustainment functions (both maintenance and non-maintenance) in a sustained com-bat environment.

b. Through continual analysis, studies produce and refine a process that responds to wartime concepts, doctrinal revi-sions, and force modernization.

c. MARC studies produce staffing criteria which provide a complete explanation of the work function, skills involved, and the methodology employed to establish the proposed criterion.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 53

d. The approved MARC standards, study processes, and procedures are published on FMSWeb's FMBB. e. USAFMSA DIs are responsible for producing MARC studies, which provide a complete explanation of the work

function, skills involved, and the methodology employed to establish the proposed criterion. f. The final study output should produce the workload indicator (numerator portion of the MARC equation). Upon

completion of establishing the workload indicator, the MARC proponent uses the AMAF in figure 8 – 1 to develop an impact statement.

g. During the development of the MARC study, the MARC proponent should review and validate the variables used to establish the AMAF to ensure their effect on the proposed standard is correctly applied. Substantive change, which alters the currently approved criteria, requires a new study. Some examples of substantive change are—

(1) Change in doctrine. (2) Change in mission. (3) Change in scope. (4) Change in workload driver. (5) Change in type of study (for example, from standard position criteria to position criteria, or vice-versa). (6) Change in methodology. (7) Change in equipment usage profile.

Figure 8 – 1. Annual military occupational specialty availability factor

8 – 3. Manpower requirements criteria impact statement a. The TOE and force structure impact statement is an integral part of the MARC study document. The force impact

discusses the application of the proposed MARC to TOEs and the ARSTRUC. Discussion should include the basis for any increases, decreases, or status quo in requirements.

b. The required sources for obtaining a force impact is the “personnel retrieval” option in FMS and the latest Total Army Analysis (TAA) master force report.

c. Analysis includes all current approved TOE and also addresses COMPO 1, 2, and 3 TOE requirements.

8 – 4. Manpower requirements criteria studies submission and approval procedures a. Any requests for MARC studies are forwarded through TRADOC ARCIC to USAFMSA Sustainment Division, for

review. In addition, all requests for medical MARC studies will be forwarded through Army Medical Department Center and School prior to submission to USAFMSA.

b. Prior to initiation, the DFM must approve the conduct of all MARC studies. c. A MARC development plan (MDP) prepared in coordination between USAFMSA and the TRADOC proponent that

outlines the administrative and technical requirements (to include funding and personnel) must be submitted for review and approval by the DFM prior to the commencement of any study (figure 8 – 2).

54 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

d. Following approval of the MDP, the MARC study document (MSD) which ultimately recommends the MMEWR staffing criteria for a given function will be prepared in a cooperative effort between USAFMSA and the TRADOC pro-ponent.

e. The requesting proponent must fund and make available subject matter experts for the conduct of the study. f. The DFM approves or disapproves MARC studies after they have been coordinated with affected agencies, propo-

nents, and documentation integrators whose TOE are affected by the function under study. g. When changes to the databases are warranted between MARC studies, an audit trail is maintained by USAFMSA.

Figure 8 – 2. Manpower requirements criteria development/study approval process

8 – 5. Manpower requirements criteria computations a. MARC-supported positions are computed in accordance with the procedures in this chapter and the approved criteria

published on the FMBB on FMSWeb. Deviations from published MARC are justified and documented in the TOE Section I.

b. All deviations must be approved by the DFM. All MARC standards and decisions are posted on the FMBB.

8 – 6. Manpower requirements criteria documentation in tables of organization and equipment a. MARC requirements consist of standard MARC and “workloadable” MARC: (1) Standard MARC includes supervisory and/or nonsupervisory positions where work is not readily measurable. Ex-

amples are Inspector General and field feeding advisor. (2) Workloadable MARC directly relates to the number of man-hours required to perform a specific task. It is deter-

mined using an equation. The formula for workload driven MARC includes the use of the AMAF.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 55

(a) The required hours are determined by using an equation. The formula for work-loadable MARC includes the use of the AMAF. The MARC code is used by document integrators to select the appropriate AMAF. Document integrators use the AMAF as the denominator in the work-loadable MARC equation to determine manpower positions requirements (when required by the approved criteria).

(b) For basic MARC criterion determination, the following applies: In most instances, MARC based on workload pro-duces a criterion similar to the following basic formula: (A x B)/C = R, where— A = productive man-hours required per work unit. B = number of work units. C = annual MOS availability factors. R = manpower requirement.

b. When requirements exist for MARC and no other source material is available, MARC developers may create as-sumptions and propose workloads for Director, Force Management approval, which serves as the basis for MARC until actual experience is gained. Assumptions and proposed workloads are clearly identified as such within the MARC study.

c. The AMAF is the number of hours per year that a Maneuver Support and/or Sustainment Soldier should have in order to perform their MOS tasks in a sustained combat operational environment. The AMAF to be used is selected based on the MARC code that is part of the TOE header data. As in the case of a MARC deviation, any deviation from the annual MOS availability factors requires justification and approval by the DFM. Such actions will be noted in the TOE Section I.

d. The MARC code is a three-character code. The first and second positions are numeric characters, and the third position is an alpha character, either an “A” or a “B”. See table 8 – 1 for an explanation of the three components of the MARC code.

e. To determine the appropriate AMAF for a specific TOE, find the appropriate unit function code/unit location code UFC/ULC (first 2 numerals of the MARC code) in the left column of figure 8 – 2; then read across to the number on that row under the appropriate unit movement code, UMC (third position of the MARC code). That number is the AMAF, which should be used in any equation to compute MARC positions.

f. AMAF for supervisors (enlisted and officers) is 4380 (12 hours per day). g. Requirements developers use the AMAF to determine positions supported by DA-approved MARC studies. The

AMAFs are based on the concept of providing minimum essential maneuver support and sustainment manpower position requirements to perform specific wartime functions in sustained combat. The full personnel requirements developed from appropriate MARC are documented in TOEs.

h. The FDU process estimates the personnel requirements for new or updated TOE designs. This information is then transferred to the unit reference sheet (URS) for design development and approval. Once the URS is approved it is sent to USAFMSA for TOE documentation. The URS contains an initial estimate of MARC personnel requirements. The actual MARC requirements may increase or decrease personnel depending on the final TOE build and MARC calculations on supporting and supported units. Any deviations from MARC not included in the TOE development process will be anno-tated with a standard remark 62 on the personnel line where possible in the Details of the TOE. All MARC deviations, increases and decreases, are listed in the Section I under MARC deviations with a justification for the deviation.

i. Maintenance MARC requirements are calculated on both Base TOE (BTOE) and the Objective TOE (OTOE) using the MARC report calculations in the Force Management System (FMS) database. The report is run using the appropriate MARC planning factors located in Chapter 3-1 TOE/MTOE application located in FMSWeb Force Management Bulletin Board (FMBB). When calculating maintenance MARC on a recap TOE containing different AMAF’s, use the AMAF for the maintenance organization.

Table 8 – 1 Manpower requirements criteria codes for table of organization and equipment headers — Continued Use the following variables to establish the three-character MARC code for the TOE header: 1st position unit function code (UFC)

2nd position unit location code (ULC)

3rd position unit movement code (UMC)

1 – Maneuver

1 – Division/BCT

A – Mobile (unit normally maneuvers or moves to provide support)

56 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Table 8 – 1 Manpower requirements criteria codes for table of organization and equipment headers — Continued 2 – Maneuver support unit 2 – Corps/multifunctional support BDE A – Mobile (unit normally maneuvers or moves

to provide support)

3 – Sustainment unit 3 – Army/EAC/functional support BDE A – Mobile (unit normally maneuvers or moves to provide support) or B – Non-mobile (unit does not relocate following deployment due to the nature of its mission)*

Note: *Unit movement code B applies only to certain maneuver support and sustainment units at echelons above-corps.

Table 8 – 2 Basic manpower requirements criteria for annual military occupational specialty availability factors — Continued

Basic MARC AMAF UFC/ULC

UMC

A B

11 4161 -

12 4380 -

13 4380 -

21 3176 -

22 3760 -

23 4307 4380

31 3230 -

32 3778 -

33 4295 4380

8 – 7. Manpower requirements criteria deviations a. A MARC deviation adds or subtracts personnel from approved MARC standards. Strong supporting rationale is

required for an increase and HQDA’s acceptance of risk is required for a decrease in personnel. b. All MARC deviations identified during the TOE developmental process are coordinated with the appropriate

USAFMSA and AMEDD C&S Branch Chief who provides a concurrence or non-concurrence with the MARC deviation. Refer to FMSWeb, FMBB MARC tab for detailed guidance on the preparation of MARC deviation requests. The TOE developer prepares the TOE slide for the OI with MARC deviations and all concurrences and non-concurrences identified. The OI presents all MARC deviations to the DFM for approval or disapproval. Upon completion, all requests will be forwarded to USAFMSA, Sustainment Division for tracking purposes in Chapter 21, MARC Deviations on FMBB.

c. Force design updates (FDU) do not justify TOE MARC deviations except special operations forces SRCs. The FDU approval only approves the MARC deviation. It does not establish new MARC. MARC deviations may be submitted (and should be highlighted) as part of an FDU, but must be approved during the TOE approval process at the conclusion of the FDU.

d. HQDA approves SLDA-directed force design assessments that modify or supersede existing MARC standards which will be documented with Remark 62 and supporting information annotated in Section I of the TOE. Those MARC standards SLDA decisions are then integrated recorded in Chapter 19, Doctrinal Requirements Reference of the approved MARC standards of the FMBB and linked to the current approved MARC. MARC deviations will remain in effect until the MARC standard is either replaced by doctrinal determination or the impacted MARC is changed through the formal MARC re-validation process.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 57

8 – 8. Manpower requirements criteria documentation in modified tables of organization and equipment

a. Every MTOE requires that MARC be re-calculated before approval. Each MTOE has specific BOIPs applied which are considered the modernization level (Mod Level).

b. This modernization level may increase or decrease personnel which may or may not align with the Base TOE or Objective TOE. A change in personnel numbers also requires re-grading of personnel.

8 – 9. Rounding rules for workloadable manpower requirements criteria computations a. A man year requirement of .499 or less rounds down to nearest whole person. b. A man year requirement of .500 or more rounds up to the next whole person.

8 – 10. Application of manpower position management and identification a. Manpower position management and identification policies apply to military and civilian positions in requirements

and authorization documents. b. Efficient management of manpower resources is codified in MARC and TOE development policies and procedures

(for MTOE); AR 570 – 4 (for MTOE and TDA); AR 135 – 2 (for full-time support TDA); and AR 611 – 1 (for MTOE and TDA).

c. AR 570 – 4 contains guidance on delineation of positions in TDA for military or civilian occupancy. Generally, all positions in TDA are considered appropriate for civilian occupancy, except those in which a military occupant is required by specific criteria. Manpower mix criteria for TDA and augmentation table of distribution and allowances (AUGTDA) will be identified and updated annually, including the correct manpower mix criteria codes with HQDA guidance.

d. AR 135 – 2 describes types of active guard reserve (AGR) officer and enlisted positions and related procedures and responsibilities. Each AGR line must carry standard position remarks code “89” (AGR–Guard) or “92” (AGR–Reserve), and will be totaled separately on the document; they will carry a non-add remark code (90). HQDA retains authority to approve changes to AGR positions. Forward requests for changes to the ARNG or to OCAR.

Chapter 9 Multiple Component Units

9 – 1. Multiple component units: concept a. Overview. The intent of the MCU concept is to integrate, to the maximum extent within statutory and regulatory

constraints, resources (that is, provide manpower and equipment) from more than one component into a cohesive, fully capable Army unit. The MCU status will not change the priority of the parent unit, but may change the priority of compo-nent derivatives so that they align with the parent unit. Any change in a unit’s priority continues to be based on Dynamic Army Resourcing Priority List (DARPL) sequence and the resourcing policies of the respective components.

b. Objectives. This is to provide the mechanism to resource and document units with manpower, equipment, and fund-ing from more than one component. Desired objectives of the MCU concept include the following:

(1) Enhance integration of the Army by using resources of more than one component to fill authorizations in units consistent with resourcing policies of the respective components.

(2) Optimize the unique capabilities of each component by encouraging the integration of Regular Army (RA) and Reserve Component (RC) in units while leveraging component strengths.

(3) Improve Army documentation procedures by allowing previously separately documented units to be combined into a single document.

9 – 2. Multiple component units: procedures a. Classified units. Classified units are not authorized to participate in the multiple component unit (MCU) program

and will not be considered for MCU status, in accordance with AR 71 – 32. b. Memorandum of agreement between resourcing components. Specific day-to-day operational issues not addressed

in the TDA CMP, but will be addressed in an MOA between the resourcing components. The sponsoring component is responsible for development of the MOA. The MOA should conform to guidance in AR 25 – 50. Policies or procedures addressed in other guidance may be repeated in the MOA to ensure universal understanding. Signatures for all MOAs will include the Regular Army (RA), Army Commands (ACOM), ASCC, and/or DRU commander, and DARNG and the ap-propriate TAG(s) or Chief, Army Reserve. The MOA will be designed to address agreed upon operational procedures not articulated in the approved TDA CMP. The MOA is a living document that should also be reviewed periodically. The sponsoring component should modify the topics to meet its individual requirements.

58 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. Programming. Programming for MCUs will be accomplished by the respective RA ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and/or the ARNG or USAR, as applicable.

9 – 3. Planning for multiple components units Planning will follow the deliberate force management development process and address the force integration areas of structuring, manning, equipping, training, sustaining, funding, deploying, stationing, and readiness. Specific procedures include the following:

a. Resourcing alternatives for multiple component units. There are three allowable types of resourcing alternatives for MCUs. The ACOM, ASCC, and/or DRU commanders; the Director, ARNG (DARNG); and USAR will each determine how they choose to participate. Careful consideration must also be given to RC career progression, demographics, station-ing, and training. The agreed upon resourcing option must contain an AC element. The key to successfully activate or change a unit to MCU status is the selection of resourcing alternatives that provides the Army a fully functional unit whose mix of AC and RC resources are mutually beneficial to all components. Resourcing components should identify positions that are required for daily operations, planning, or administration for resourcing by the AC or for active guard reserve (AGR) fill, as appropriate. In all instances, ARNG elements of an MCU are designated as “units” for purposes of Federal recognition under 32 USC. Correspondingly, USAR elements are designated as units under 10 USC.

b. Nomination procedures. A sponsoring component will normally nominate units for MCU status during the Total Army Analysis Resourcing Phase and command plan (CPLAN) processes. Both processes are designed and intended to facilitate coordination and concurrence between the components that have agreed to resource the MCU.

c. Staffing approved multiple component unit nominees. (1) The DCS, G – 3/5/7 has delegated the approval authority for multiple component unit (MCU) and exceptions to the

DFM. In this capacity, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM maintains a list of MCU nominees approved by the DFM. (2) The sponsoring component submits a fully coordinated MCU CMP. The CMP for MCU nominees will also address

supportability and execution ability assessments to ensure that the MCU can attain readiness reporting C–Level: C3 (as defined by AR 220 – 1) or better status by the effective date (E–date).

(3) The CMP is submitted through normal channels to the respective the DCS, G – 3/5/7 command manager, or organi-zational integrator, who staffs the CMP with appropriate ARSTAF and obtains concurrence prior to submitting it to the DFM for approval. Approval by the DFM enables the commands to document the MCU during the appropriate CPLAN process.

9 – 4. Multiple component units: documentation a. Section I. The documentation section I (narrative) of MCU documents will contain the following statement: “This

is n MCU.” The narrative will also identify the flag holder, include component derivative unit identification code (DUIC) locations, and specify that Active Guard and Reserve personnel are identified with the standard personnel remark code used on Army authorization documents.

b. Requirements determination. The MCU modification table of organization and equipment (MTOE) requirements will not differ from TOE requirements unless DCS, G – 3/5/7 has approved an exception for the unit.

c. Authorization determination. (1) USAFMSA builds the staffing document based on authorization allocation as identified within the approved TDA

CMP. (2) Only the sponsoring component will recommend changes to the staffing document. (3) The sponsoring component coordinates with the other resourcing component(s) and serves as the primary point of

contact (POC) for providing feedback. Issues that cannot be resolved will be forwarded to the sponsoring component’s DCS, G – 3/5/7 command manager for resolution.

(4) The modernization level for the MCU will be established in accordance with Army priorities, command plan guid-ance and codified in authorization documents While modernization levels will be consistent across the MCU document, as a general rule, organizational elements will not be modernized because the elements become part of an MCU.

(5) If an augmentation to the MTOE is required, one consolidated MCUAUGTDA will be used using the UIC conven-tion in table 9 – 3.

(6) See table 9 – 1, which shows an example of an augmentation table of distribution and allowances.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 59

Table 9 – 1 Augmentation table of distribution and allowances hypothetical illustration

Description MTOE AUGTDA

Display only WNXXAA WNXX99

RA element WNXXX1 WNXX9A

ARNG element WNXXG1 WNXX9R

USAR element WNXXR1 WNXX9J

9 – 5. Multiple component units: unit identification code convention a. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM assigns UICs for MCU elements. MCUs must have at least two components. If they revert to one

component, they will receive a single component UIC. b. For strength accounting in the SAMAS, the parent UIC will show aggregate strength as “display only.” Derivative

UICs (DUICs) will show strength as “display-compute.” The UIC itself will not identify which component owns the flag of an MCU. Consistent with current practice, the “component” field that is present in most Army databases will identify the unit’s component when viewing the parent “flag holder” record.

c. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM assigns one force-level accounting component-specific DUIC in accordance with the guid-ance that follows. The parent and its derivatives will appear on the same document. The sponsoring component (after coordination with other resourcing components) must establish the DUICs it requires based on the MCU CMP to meet operational requirements.

d. The approved UIC convention is as listed below. (1) An “N” in the second character of the UIC denotes an MCUMTOE and/or AUGTDA (see table 9 – 2). (2) A “5” in the second character of the UIC denotes an MCU TDA (see table 9 – 4). (3) The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM assigns each component-specific element one DUIC. Resourcing components assign and

register all additional derivatives. The DUIC will be constructed as follows: (a) The first four characters of the DUIC will be the same as those of the parent UIC. (b) The 5th character of the DUIC will denote the component: “X” for RA, “G” for ARNG, and “R” for USAR for

TDA and MTOE UICs (see table 9 – 3). (c) The 6th character is the responsibility of the flag-holder command and will identify the first occurrence and, as

needed, succeeding occurrences of component-specific elements (for example, WNAAX2, WNAAX3, and WNAAX4). Once the numeric characters are exhausted, alpha characters will be used in the 6th position (WNAARA, WNAARB, and WNAARC). Alpha characters “I” and “O” will not be used. Figure 8 – 1 illustrates the approved DUIC conventions.

(d) The “parent” AUGTDA UIC will have the same first four characters as the HQDA assigned MCU MTOE UIC. The 5th and 6th positions will reflect a “99.” For strength accounting in SAMAS, this UIC will show aggregate strength as “display only”.

e. Augmentation table of distribution and allowances derivative unit identification code naming convention. The UIC convention retains the “9” as the 5th character. The RA uses “A” in the 6th position to denote component-specific elements. Alpha characters “I” and “O” will be not used. ARNG elements will use “R” in the 6th character of the AUG UIC; USAR elements will use “G” in the 6th position).

Table 9 – 2 Multi-component modified table of organization and equipment unit identification codes — Continued Multi-COMPO MTOE UIC

Unit

WN##AA Parent unit/fIag holder (DO)

WN##X# COMPO 1 (Regular Army) portion of unit (DC)

WN##G# COMPO 2 (Guard) portion of unit (DC)

WN##R# COMPO 3 (Reserve) portion of unit (DC)

60 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Table 9 – 3 Augmentation table of distribution and allowances, position 5 and 6 — Continued Component 5th and 6th position

Regular Army elements 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, 9H

ARNG elements 9R, 9S, 9T, 9U, 9V, 9W, 9X, 9Y,9Z

USAR elements 9J, 9K, 9L, 9M, 9N, 9P, 9Q

Table 9 – 4 Multi-component table of distribution and allowances unit identification codes — Continued Multi-COMPO TDA UIC Unit

W5##AA Parent unit/flag holder (DO)

W5##X# COMPO 1 (Regular Army) portion of unit (DC)

W5##G# COMPO 2 (Guard) portion of unit (DC)

W5##R# COMPO 3 (Reserve) portion of unit (DC)

Table 9 – 5 Component definitions for notional unit identification codes — Continued Code Component X COMPO 1

G COMPO 2

R COMPO 3

K COMPO 4 (unresourced from Total Army Analysis (TAA))

Z COMPO 7

H COMPO 8

L COMPO 9

Table 9 – 6 Example of notional unit identification codes for positions 2 and 3 — Continued Example SRC/TDA type (example) 03 Chemical

19 Military Police

T2 AUG – TDA (TYPCO 2)

T3 TDA (TYPCO 3)

Table 9 – 7 Example of notional unit identification codes for position 4 — Continued

Example Sequence numbers (example)

X55001 COMPO 1 Transportation

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 61

Table 9 – 7 Example of notional unit identification codes for position 4 — Continued

G01036 COMPO 2 Aviation

RT2053 COMPO 3 AUG – TDA

K05535 COMPO 4 Engineer unresourced

Table 9 – 8 Multi-component units — Continued Code Component X COMPO 1

G COMPO 2

R COMPO 3

Table 9 – 9 Notional multi-component units — Continued Code (Example) Unit identification (example)

G55M01 (DO) National Guard flag holder, TC unit 01

G55N01 (DC) National Guard total strength for TC unit 01

X55N01 (DC) Regular Army COMPO total strength for TC unit 01

R55N01 (DC) Reserve total strength for TC unit 01

9 – 6. Multiple component units: force registration a. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM provides the parent level UICs and initial force-level DUICs to the DCS, G – 3/5/7 Operations,

Readiness, Mobilization Directorate (DAMO– OD). For initial registration in DRRS – A. b. DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – OD) creates a “skeleton record” in force registration. c. Resourcing components complete the registration UICs and/or DUICs. (1) UIC information officers use established UIC conventions and guidance provided in the AR 220 – 1 and DA Pam

220 – 1, governing force registration, to register DUICs by component. (2) DUICs are registered for subordinate standard requirement codes (SRCs) or subordinate units on the authorization

document. The parent unit identification code (PUIC) for the DUICs is the UIC ending in “AA.” (3) When a subordinate SRC is divided into more than one component, a component specific DUIC will be issued for

each component. The PUIC for the DUICs is the UIC ending in “AA.” (4) When a subordinate SRC is divided (split stationed) an additional DUIC will be registered for each location. The

PUIC for the split stationed DUICs is the component specific DUIC registered for the subordinate SRC.

9 – 7. Multiple component units: utilization and documentation of full-time support positions a. This pamphlet imposes no change to how the ARNG and USAR determine, document, and manage their FTS Pro-

gram requirements and authorizations using separate TDA documents and internal systems. b. There are some considerations that are unique to MCUs. Specific guidance follows: (1) As the initial step for determining FTS requirements for an MCU, the ARNG and the USAR will use the HQDA-

approved FTS requirements determination model. This model will be applied based on the support required for the RC portions of the MCU.

(2) Proposals for increases or adjustments to the model-based requirements will be considered during the development of the MOA between resourcing components. The decision authority for FTS requirements and authorizations remains with the ARNG and the USAR.

(3) Eighteen to twenty-four months after the unit’s EDATE, the ARNG and the USAR will perform an onsite workload validation and make necessary adjustments to the unit’s FTS requirements.

62 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(4) The FTS positions (AGR and military technicians) exist to support RC element(s) of the MCU. They perform the functions of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, and training the RC. In some instances, AGR may perform an expanded role as provided by amended 10 USC 12310(b)(2)(A) that states “support of an operation or mission per-formed or to be performed by a unit composed of elements from more than one component of the same Armed Force.”

(5) The FTS will not be documented in the RC portion(s) of the MCU document but identified on the document by a standard remarks code 89 (USAR) and 92 (Army). Military technicians will be documented in Defense Civilian Personnel Data System for ARNG and on separate FTSTDAs for USAR. AGR positions are aligned against a paragraph and line number of the RC element of the MCU document.

(a) Each year the ARNG and the USAR will review the distribution of authorizations against the approved FTS man-power requirements. Using their respective priority-setting methodologies, the ARNG and the USAR will independently establish the authorized levels of FTS in each MCU. The ARNG and the USAR will consider input from other resourcing components when making these decisions. However, FTS resourcing decisions are the sole domain of each RC chief. Once FTS authorizations are distributed and documented, the ARNG and the USAR will keep the associated manning levels as agreed to on the MCU MOA. All FTS documentation will comply with the Department of the Army documentation process (that is, forecasted 2 years prior to the year of documentation).

(b) The use of FTS personnel in ARNG and USAR elements will not change as a result of being part of an MCU; existing laws and component regulations still apply.

9 – 8. Multiple component unit: permanent orders procedures Permanent military orders are required for documented unit actions described in AR 220 – 5. Special instructions for pre-paring permanent orders for MCUs are as follows:

a. Procedures when the Army command, Army service component command, and/or direct reporting unit is the flag holder. The RA command publishes POs for USAR and RA elements. The RA command also publishes Federal POs for ARNG elements in accordance with AR 71 – 32. Permanent State orders and organization authorities will continue to be published by the appropriate state government, The Adjutant General (TAG), and ARNG, respectively.

b. Procedures when the Army National Guard is the flag holder. The ARNG requests that the appropriate RA com-mand publish POs for RA and USAR elements assigned, as well as the Federal POs for ARNG elements. The ARNG designates an office to determine what is to be stated in the PO, and sends the data to the RA command in template format. The RA command provides the initial template to the designated office at ARNG. Permanent state orders and organization authority will continue to be published by the appropriate state, TAG, and ARNG, respectively, in accordance with ARNG guidance.

c. Procedures when the U.S. Army Reserve is the flag holder (USAR flagged unit with RA and ARNG elements as-signed). The USARC publishes the PO for the RA and USAR elements, and the Federal POs for the ARNG element. State permanent orders and organization authority will continue to be published by the appropriate state TAG and ARNG, re-spectively. If the USAR holds the flag of a unit located overseas, as in the case of the USAR, Europe and USAR, Pacific, OCONUS ASCCs publish the POs for the USAR and RA element.

d. Publication of permanent orders and Federal permanent orders. When the sponsoring component is an RA com-mand with resources provided by the RC, it is imperative that orders be published as soon as practical to allow the RC to requisition personnel, facilities, and equipment. The goal is to provide POs to the USAR 1 year prior to the MCU’s acti-vation date but not later than 9 months prior to activation. Federal POs for ARNG elements should be published using the same timelines.

9 – 9. Multiple component units: budgeting and execution a. Consistent with financial management law and regulation, the MCU commander manages the funds appropriated for

the unit’s organizational training and sustainment. The host installation budgets for base support services through the appropriate resourcing component (for example, RA, ARNG, or USAR). Installations provide a standard level of base support to all units. This does not prevent the host installation from adjusting standard base support levels to its units to meet reduced resource levels. Units are expected to reimburse the host for services requested above standard levels.

b. The host installation and/or supporting Reserve headquarters budget, and monitor, the execution of funds (for exam-ple, pay and allowances, professional military education, and base support) required for MCUs through the appropriate resourcing component.

c. Operational tempo (OPTEMPO) requirements for all units are based upon the combined arms training strategy. The training resource model (TRM) calculates OPTEMPO requirements for each component-specific element of an MCU. There is no change in the way each component of an MCU is funded. Funding is provided through the resourcing compo-nent.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 63

9 – 10. Multiple component units: personnel processes a. General. These processes will remain component-specific. The fully coordinated MCU MOA will address how per-

sonnel actions are processed. b. Manning levels. Each resourcing component will keep manning levels in accordance with component-specific man-

ning guidance and consistent with Army priorities. c. Civilian manpower. Civilian manpower policies and procedures are not changed due to MCU status.

9 – 11. Multiple component units: logistics processes a. Single property book. There is no requirement to combine equipment from the resourcing components of an MCU

on a single property book. Equipment will not be combined on a single property book without complying with the require-ment of DODI 1225.06.

b. Property accountability. Equipment from resourcing components should normally not be mixed within a DUIC. If the resourcing component of the DUIC determines that the unit must be split due to personnel requirements, then the component must submit a document change to correct the authorization document to indicate the split. For example, if B Company, known as “G1” is split, the second portion will be known as “G2,” not “B1.” The document will be adjusted to reflect equipment shown as “G2.”

c. Records, accountability, and organizational clothing and individual equipment. Each component will maintain OCIE records and accountability and Soldiers will have OCIE at their geographical location to the greatest extent possible. The MOA may state that in the event of mobilization, mobilizing Soldiers will be equipped at a specific central issue facility.

d. Accountable officer. One or all of the resourcing components may appoint an accountable officer for property. If one accountable officer is appointed for all property, then each component will appoint a responsible officer to sign for their component’s property.

e. Reporting property. All property assets will be reported under its component DUIC through logistics channels to ensure component visibility of equipment assets.

f. Sustainment operations. Maintaining and supplying the organization is the overall responsibility of the commander, but each resourcing component will adequately fund maintenance and supply to maintain readiness of the unit consistent with that unit’s authorized level of organization. Geographical location will determine support facilities. Units should use facilities closest to the equipment, regardless of location. Equipment maintenance done by one component on another component’s equipment should be limited, consistent with financial management law and regulation, and will either be reimbursed by military interdepartmental purchase request or purchased by General Services Administration smart pay credit card as approved in the MOA.

g. Transfer of equipment. Equipment will not be transferred from the ARNG or USAR to an RA element without following the guidance established by DODI 1225.06. Equipment will not be hand-receipted to another component longer than 6 months. For equipment required longer than 6 months, an equipment transfer must be done. The owning unit will continue to report readiness and on-hand status of the loaned equipment throughout the duration of the loan. Identification of equipment resources early in the nomination process is critical to successfully establishing an MCU that is logistically sustainable.

h. Army Materiel Status System. To ensure credit for equipment usage to the proper component, all MCUs will report Army Materiel Status System by DUIC.

9 – 12. Multiple component units: operational procedures a. Readiness reporting. Each component-specific element will provide the commander’s unit status report (CUSR)

feeder data to the flag-holding commander. The MCU commander (flag holder) will submit a consolidated CUSR that shows the status of the entire unit. Unit status reporting will remain in compliance with Joint Staff policy, AR 220 – 1, and DA Pam 220 – 1.

b. Mobilization and deployment procedures. RC elements of MCUs will be mobilized in accordance with AR 500 – 5 and FORSCOM Mobilization and Deployment Planning System (FORMDEPS) guidance. FORSCOM will update FORMDEPS to provide guidance in those cases where there is no command linkage established to order RC elements to active duty for example, WNA1R1, 3BN, 66th AR, 6 personnel assigned). Mobilization of RC members of MCUs is the same as for any RC unit. Accordingly, FORSCOM and ASCCs must ensure that sufficient time to mobilize the RC is available prior to scheduling the deployment of an MCU. FORSCOM will ensure that RA and RC elements of the same MCU are assigned to installations providing optimal mobilization and peacetime support. Exceptions are those RC ele-ments where the RA flag or RA element are already forward stationed or have deployed early.

c. Dynamic Army Resourcing Priority List. There is no change to the DARPL because of MCU status. The DARPL is determined in accordance with current policies and procedures.

64 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

9 – 13. Multiple component units: training procedures a. Training support for RC units designated as MCUs is available in FORSCOM, ARNG, and/or USAR for RC training,

in accordance with the FORSCOM policy guidance for management functions (Army relationships), and in coordination with the training support structure outlined in the FORSCOM Training Support XXI Implementation Plan. Overseas de-ployment training (ODT) is addressed in accordance with AR 350 – 9.

b. For the purpose of training support, an RC unit retains the same priority after being designated as an MCU as it did prior to designation as per paragraph 9 – 1, unless the unit’s DARPL has been changed. The DARPL for derivatives should be adjusted to be equal to that of the parent unit.

9 – 14. Multiple component units: legal issues a. Commensurate with their positions, and subject to restrictions found in AR 27 – 10, RA and USAR officers exercise

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authority (that is, non-judicial punishment and courts-martial) over RA and USAR Soldiers assigned to their MCU.

b. Authority and responsibility for military discipline over ARNG Soldiers not in Federal status rests with each State. Every ARNG element will have a designated state chain of command for purposes of military justice. Non-ARNG MCU commanders forward recommendations for disciplinary actions pertaining to ARNG Soldiers to the designated ARNG commander from the state of the respective ARNG element. ARNGMCU commanders, whose MCUs include ARNG elements from outside their own State, will forward recommendations for disciplinary actions pertaining to such ARNG Soldiers to the designated ARNG commander from the State of that element. When ARNG Soldiers are activated under Title 10, U.S. Code, ARNG Soldiers’ orders will state they are attached for UCMJ purposes to the MCU they support.

c. For RA and USAR Soldiers assigned to an MCU with an ARNG commander, the RA and USAR attaches these Soldiers on orders, for purposes of UCMJ, to the nearest appropriate RA or USAR command. The ARNG unit commander forwards recommendations for disciplinary actions pertaining to USAR or RA Soldiers to the designated USAR or RA commander.

d. MCU commanders administer adverse administrative actions such as counseling, admonitions, reprimands, and ad-ditional training in accordance with the appropriate regulations; when applicable, copies are forwarded to the supporting personnel office for inclusion in the Soldier’s personnel file.

9 – 15. Multiple component units: mission command Mission command relationships are prescribed in an MOA between components.

Chapter 10 Total Army Analysis

Section I Total Army Analysis Overview, Generating Force

10 – 1. Total Army analysis overview a. TAA is the Army process that shapes the Army’s future force structure and informs the required strength to meet

defense strategic guidance. It is a collaborative process involving all components, commands, and the staff and secretariat in order to determine the best mix of forces within resourcing constraints.

b. TAA communicates strategic risks by illustrating capability and capacity shortfalls. A TAA cycle ends when the Secretary of Army approves force structure changes across the program and the Army Structure (ARSTRUC) Memoran-dum is published. Risk is assessed in two ways: risk to mission and risk to force.

(1) Risk to mission is the ability of the Army to meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy, as operationalized in the Department of Defense’s defense planning guidance.

(2) Risk to force is the risk to the health of the force caused by issues such as increased frequency of deployment with less time at home, or early and extended deployments. It is related, but not equivalent, to risk to mission, because it impacts the effectiveness of units.

c. The approved force structure then informs POM development which includes the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Although the target years for TAA are the FYDP, adjustments to budget years and in rare instances year of execution may be required.

d. TAA incorporates analysis of the generating and operating forces.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 65

e. The generating force and operating force processes bifurcate during demand analysis and merge during the emerging growth GOSC.

f. TAA builds a POM Force which serves as the basis for building the POM submission. TAA objectives are to: (1) Develop, analyze, determine and justify a POM Force, aligned with the strategic guidance and The Army Plan. The

POM Force is projected to be raised, provisioned, sustained, and maintained within resources available during the FYDP. (2) Provide analytical underpinnings for the POM Force for use in dialogue among Congress, OSD, Joint Staff, CCDRs,

and the Army. (3) Assess the impacts of planned and potential alternatives for materiel acquisition, the production base, and equipment

distribution programs for the projected force structure. (4) Assure continuity of demanded force structure within the PPBE process. (5) Provide program basis for structuring organizational, materiel, and personnel requirements and projected authori-

zations. g. The TAA principal products are the: (1) Army's full range of demands for the capabilities necessary to support the objectives of the National Military Strat-

egy and Defense Planning Guidance expected of the Army (unconstrained). (2) Best mix of forces and identified risk, including both operating and generating force capabilities, broken down by

AC COMPO 1, ARNG COMPO 2, USAR COMPO 3, unresourced requirements COMPO 4, and APS COMPO 6 re-sourced against requirements and budgetary constraints.

(3) Army Structure (ARSTRUC) memorandum. h. Figure 10 – 1 depicts the sequence of activities in the TAA process. They are guidelines, not strictly adhered to steps

of the process.

66 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 10 – 1. Total Army analysis “end-to-end” shaping process

10 – 2. Generating force Total Army analysis a. The GF is that part of the Army whose primary purpose is generating and sustaining operational Army units by

performing functions specified and implied by law. b. The purpose of the GF TAA is: (1) Determine the right size and composition of the GF needed to support the OF. (2) Provide senior leaders the opportunity to prioritize capabilities and capacity. (3) Provide a forum for senior leaders to assess feasibility and risk and to make trades in structure and dollar resources. c. The GF TAA conducts a review board comprised of ARSTAF and selected command participants that review, score,

and rank each request and provide a prioritized list to the TAA GOSC for review and endorsement. d. Each command capability submission will be reviewed individually by the board members, receive input from com-

mand, receive a scored from each individual member and then rank ordered based upon the average of the board members. GF TAA GOSC reviews and approves the GF TAA board results, where appropriate direct re-boarding of a particular capability, provide additional guidance, and integrate the GF results with the OF results and forward the combined TAA results to the Chief of Staff of the Army and Secretary of the Army for decision.

e. Conclusion of the GF TAA GOSC marks the end of the bifurcated generating force TAA process.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 67

Section II Operating Force Total Army Analysis

10 – 3. Phase 1—capability demand analysis a. The scenarios are modeled and analyzed. This develops the appropriate OF necessary to support national strategies. b. Accurate planning, consumption and workload factors, threat data, and allocation rules ensure accurate computer-

modeled demands. This demand list, combined with previous TAA scenario demand lists, Combatant Command (CCMD) War-plans and operational deployment data are used to help determine the best mix of forces for the Army within author-ized end strength.

c. The determination of the composition of the Army force structure (shape) is an iterative, risk-benefit, trade-off anal-ysis process. Capability demand analysis is made up of two separate events: force guidance and quantitative analysis.

d. Force guidance and data inputs include— (1) Support to strategic analysis. OSD provides the directed scenarios, surge events (major campaigns) and vignettes

within the support to strategic analysis. Primarily focused on strategic analysis of future force capabilities (force effective-ness and sufficiency).

(2) National strategy. Future force structure requirements are generated through updates to the National Security Strat-egy and National Defense Strategy.

(3) Force sizing and shaping. The Defense Planning Guidance provides guidance on which missions the Army is sized and shaped against.

(4) Scenarios. OSD approved scenarios are modeled by the center for army analysis incorporating parameters, plan-ning and consumption factors, and assumptions. DCS, G – 4; TRADOC; MEDCOM; U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM); the theater commands; and other elements of the ARSTAF (CIO/G – 6; DCS, G – 1; DCS, G – 3/5/7; DCS, G – 4; and DCS, G – 8) provide specific guidance, accurate and detailed consumption factors, planning factors, doc-trinal requirements, unit level rules of allocation, network requirements, weapons and munitions data, and deployment assumptions. The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) then conducts the series of modeling and simulation (M&S) iterations that are analyzed to develop and define the total capability demands for logistical support necessary to sustain the combat force(s) in Army Support to Other Services (ASOS), foundational activities, and each major combat operation (MCO).

(5) Foundational activities. Foundational activities (FAs) develop force demands in support of a range of multiple, simultaneous operations at home and abroad (for example, stabilization, COIN, defeat regional aggressors(s), support to civil authorities in the United States) with the purpose of ensuring each capability is fully exercised across its full ROMO. OSD-approved vignettes are used to model foundational activity demand.

(6) Rules of allocation. Another critical step during the force guidance development is the review and updating of support-force rules of allocation used by the CAA during the modeling process (quantitative analysis). These rules of allocation, developed by TRADOC and the functional area proponents, and approved by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, represent a quantitative statement of doctrine for each type of unit (maneuver, fires, effects, support and sustainment). They are adjusted as necessary to incorporate theater-specific planning factors. The four basic types of rules are validated annually.

(a) Direct input (manual) rules are stand-alone requirements for OF or GF units in a theater (for example, BCTs, divi-sions, corps, and so on).

(b) Existence rules tie a requirement for one unit to another. The allocation of units is based on the existence of other units, or a function of a theater’s physical or organizational structure (for example, for one large general purpose port—one each Harborcraft Company, requires one each Military Police Company, and so on).

(c) Workload rules tie unit requirements to a measurable logistical workload or administrative services in proportion to the volume of those services (for example, one each DS Maintenance Company per 375 daily man-hours of automotive maintenance or one each POL Supply Company per 2200 tons of bulk POL consumed per day.

(d) Workload command and control rules capture the quantity of headquarters based on the number of subordinate elements (for example, one engineer battalion headquarters per 2 – 5 companies).

e. Warfighting capability demands are determined in the quantitative analysis phase. CAA, through computer modeling and analysis, identifies the scenario generated requirements (OF only) for types of units needed to ensure success of the BCTs, support brigades and headquarters commands directed in the different scenarios. CAA accomplishes the modeling through a series of analytical efforts and associated computer simulations. CAA uses the apportioned force provided in the OSD and Army guidance for employment in the MCO scenarios.

f. The CAA develops the unconstrained (minimum risk) demand for enablers to ensure success of the BCTs in the war fight and provides rotational stress metrics for the resourcing phase. There are four primary outputs used in the TAA process—

68 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(1) Joint Integrated Contingency Model. The Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM) re-creates combat forces to determine outcomes such as scenario time phasing, casualties, equipment destroyed, and ammunition consumed, which are used as inputs to the Force Generation model.

(2) Force Generation Model. The Force Generation Model (FORGE) uses inputs such as force designs and apportion-ment of units, scenario specific information from JICM and other sources, ROAs and planning factors to determine the enabling forces needed to support combat forces.

(3) Modeling Army Rotations at Home or Not. Marathon uses FORGE surge scenario output, foundational scenario force lists and SAMAS supply files to determine rotational demands under a set rotational policy.

(4) Early Deployer Time Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) Analysis (EDTA). This model reviews the TPFDDs from multiple CCMD war plans to determine phased demand informed by limitations of strategic mobility.

(5) Staff Synchronization Rehearsal of Concept (ROC) Drill (SSRD). The SSRD is conducted early in the CDA phase. It is a forum by which TAA stakeholders provide additional information regarding the scenarios and vignettes required to inform the modeling process. It is not an opportunity to rewrite doctrine or doctrinal rules of allocation.

10 – 4. Phase I—Capability demand analysis review and approval a. Complete after the CoC/GO-level reviews of the results of the range of demands produced for each capability (CAA

modeling and analysis results, weighted and integrated with applicable TAA ISCs, CCDR War plans and deployment data).

b. The CoC/GO-level forums “review and approve” the warfighting capability as a fully structured and resourced force. Additionally, the CoC/GO-level forums review and reach agreement on the force structure demands supporting HD, Army Support to Other Services and Foundational Activities and the appropriate level of inclusion of contractor support, use of strategic partners, joint capabilities, and other risk mitigation variables to appropriately scope the capability demands within total strength ensuring a focus on shaping the Army and not on sizing the Army. The GO-level review recommends approval of the capability demands to the SLDA.

c. The SLDA reviews and approves the capability demands. The SLDA review and approval is the transition to Phase II of TAA (Resourcing and Approval Phase).

10 – 5. Phase II—Resourcing and approval a. Resourcing and approval is the qualitative analysis portion of the TAA process. The qualitative analysis is the most

emotional facet of the TAA process because the analysis results in the distribution of available resources, impacting every aspect of the Army. Therefore, this phase requires extensive preparation by participants to ensure all force structure tradeoffs are accurately assessed and the best warfighting force structure is developed.

b. Emerging growth marks the beginning of the phase 2 and the merger of the GF and OF TAA process. Emerging growth is submitted to DCS, G –3/5/7 (DAMO – FM) for consideration of resourcing during the TAA process.

(1) Capabilities required to fill a critical gap may be submitted by any TAA stakeholder. Force Design Updates must be complete through the FIFA analysis stage, with an expectation of approval, in order to compete for resourcing.

(2) Emerging growth is prioritized using stakeholder voting results. The voting uses definitions ATP 5 – 19 of probabil-ity and severity of occurrences if the Army does not invest in the requested capability. The individual voting member scores are combined and averaged to produce a 1 – N prioritized list of capabilities with “1” being the highest priority and “n” being the lowest. The submissions are prioritized within one of three categories.

(a) Directed. Those submissions directed for resourcing by SLDA. (b) Compete. Submission competes for resourcing and SLDA consideration. (c) Do not compete. Submission is returned to originator without action. (3) The emerging growth GOSC validates recommendations from the CoC and GF TAA GOSC and provides a priori-

tized emerging growth list for SLDA consideration. (4) The SLDA approves select submissions for resourcing. c. HQDA OIs and their counterparts enter an intense round of deliberations to provide a resourcing recommendation,

by component and risk assessment, for their respective branch SRCs. It is through the OI panels that the “art” of force management is applied to the “science” introduced during the CDA phase.

d. The resourcing CoC provides, validates, or adjusts the recommendation from the OI panels and presents an Army recommendation to the resourcing GOSC. The resourcing CoC integrates generating force issues and requirements, and reviews and resolves issues based upon sound military judgment and experience. The CoC forwards their recommendations and any unresolved issues to the resourcing General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC). The resourcing CoC is typically a multi-day event co-chaired by the DFM and ASA (M&RA) TRM.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 69

e. The GOSC reviews the recommendations of the resourcing CoC and addresses remaining unresolved issues. The GOSC is a series of GO resourcing forums at the two- , three-, and four-star level. The resourcing GOSC validates the force that is forwarded to the SLDA for review and final approval.

f. The SECARMY reviews and approves the POM force.

Section III Total Army Analysis Products

10 – 6. The products of a Total Army analysis overview a. The TAA principal products are the— (1) Army's full range of demands for the capabilities necessary to support the objectives of the National Military Strat-

egy and Defense Planning Guidance expected of the Army (unconstrained). (2) Best mix of forces and identified risk including both operating and generating force capabilities broken down by

AC (COMPO 1), ARNG (COMPO 2), USAR (COMPO 3), unresourced requirements COMPO 4, and APS COMPO 6, resourced against requirements and budgetary constraints.

(3) Army structure (ARSTRUC) memorandum. b. The resourced TAA force (POM force) represents the force structure for POM development, capturing all compo-

nents by type (MTOE, TDA) through the end of the POM years. c. The POM force meets the projected mission requirements with acceptable risk within anticipated total strength and

equipment level. d. The final output should result in an executable POM force. The Army forwards the POM force to OSD with a rec-

ommendation for approval. All approved units are entered into SAMAS to create the POM force. TAA is the proven mechanism for explaining and defending Army force structure for budget submission.

10 – 7. Full range of demands a. Outputs from FORGE. b. Outputs from Marathon. c. Outputs from EDTA (early deployer TPFD analysis).

10 – 8. Best mix of forces a. The product of the TAA and POM processes is the approved force structure for the Army, which has been divided

for resource management purposes into components. b. COMPOs 2 and 3 collectively make up the Reserve Component. c. COMPO 4 is unresourced requirements to meet Army missions outlined in the defense planning guidance. d. Host-nation support agreements guarantee the COMPO 7 and 8 resources. COMPO 9 is an augmentation, not an

offset and represents the contracts for additional support and services to be provided by domestic and foreign firms aug-menting existing force structure.

10 – 9. Army structure memorandum a. The ARSTRUC memorandum is directive in nature. b. It is produced by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, provides an authoritative record of Army’s Senior Leadership final decisions

made during the TAA process, as well as changes made as part of the out-of-cycle process since the last ARSTRUC. c. The ARSTRUC memorandum directs the commands to make appropriate adjustments to their force structure at the

UIC level of detail for the next command plan cycle. d. Publication of the ARSTRUC memorandum completes the TAA cycle.

Chapter 11 Equipment Procedures

Section I Common Tables of Allowances

11 – 1. Common tables of allowances Examples of CTA items that are exempted from type classification include the following:

70 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

a. Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 1-approved heraldic items such as badges and insignia. These items will be assigned SB 700 – 20 Chapter 8 SLINs.

b. Nonmilitary administrative items. Nonmilitary administrative items for which the GSA has responsibility for estab-lishing government-wide standards. These items will be assigned a CTA NSLIN, if required for formal property account-ability.

c. Items adopted by other Services. Items adopted by other Services that are managed by the Defense Logistics Agency, for which the Defense Logistics Agency has responsibility for certifying production, and which are required only by TDA and/or JTA activities. These items will be assigned SLINs.

d. Expendable and/or durable items.

11 – 2. Common tables of allowances procedures a. CTA items include: (1) Army stock funded items, adopted and non-adopted. (2) Commercial items which do not require type classification under provisions of AR 700 – 142. (3) Targets, target equipment, and certain dummy and inert ammunition. (Ammunition has been absorbed into DA Pam

350 – 38 (STRAC Manual).) b. Some items enter the CTA through the BOI process. After the BOI is approved, the item is type classified and

published in a CTA with the approved BOI. Items with no personnel, maintenance, or training impact will be exempt from the BOI process. Such items will be entered in accordance with CTA procedures in FMSWeb.

c. Commercial items are those which can be purchased from civilian sources and may or may not be included in a government contract. These items are not stocked or available from the government supply system and can be purchased locally. Spares, repair parts, and maintenance services must be obtained from local sources or furnished by sources other than through the Army wholesale supply system.

d. Commercial items which do not meet the criteria in paragraph 11 –7 will be authorized and documented in TDA, section III supplement and accounted for on the property book in accordance with appropriate ACOM, ASCC, and/or DRU policy.

e. If a required item does not meet the description of a like item currently included in a CTA and it is not one-of-a-kind requirement, it must be requested in accordance with CTA procedures in FMSWeb. See the FMSWeb CTA Help icon at https://fmsweb.army.mil.

f. Figures 11 – 1 and 11 – 2 are examples of CTA required forms, memorandum in-lieu-of DA Form 2028, and DA Form 5965, for requesting an add, change, or delete to the CTA.

g. Table 11 – 1 provides a list of CTA and their proponents.

Table 11 – 1 List of common tables of allowances and their proponents — Continued CTA No: 8 – 100 Title of CTA: Army Medical Department Expendable/Durable Items Proponents: HQDA Office of The Surgeon General

CTA No: 50 – 900 Title of CTA: Clothing and Individual Equipment Proponents: Program manager–Soldier Protective Individual Equipment

CTA No: 50 – 909 Title of CTA: Field and Garrison Furnishings and Equipment Proponents: USAFMSA

CTA No: 50 – 970 Title of CTA: Expendable/Durable Items (Except: Medical, Class V, Repair Parts and Heraldic Items) Proponents: USAFMSA Note: Proponents should conduct annual review and revision of items documented on the CTA table.

https://fmsweb.army.mil/

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 71

Figure 11 – 1. Example, common table of allowance adjustment memorandum

72 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 11 – 2. Example DA Form 5965, Basis of Issue for Clothing and Individual Equipment Request

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 73

11 – 3. Common table of allowance 50 – 909 add request for common table of allowance non-standard line item number

a. Authorized users can submit a request to add a common table of allowance (CTA) non-standard line item number (NSLIN) to CTA 50 – 909 by using the “common table of allowance” module in SLAMIS (see fig 11 – 3). SLAMIS will move the request to the responsible LCMC.

b. The LCMC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “disap-prove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the decision is “approve,” SLAMIS will move the request to USAFMSA (CTA).

c. The USAFMSA (CTA) POC must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. De-ciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision, however SLAMIS will move the request to the pro-ponent POC responsible for the CTA table.

d. The proponent POC must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision, however SLAMIS will move the request to USAFMSA (CTA). If the proponent has not been identified for the table SLAMIS will automatically forward the request to USAFMSA (CTA).

e. The USAFMSA (CTA) POC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision. Deciding to “disapprove” requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request. If the decision is “approve,” SLAMIS will reflect “approve” and USAFMSA (CTA) will update FMSWeb to reflect the addition requested.

Figure 11 – 3. Common table of allowance 50 – 900 request for non-standard line item number

11 – 4. Common table of allowance 50 – 900 add request for non-standard line item number a. Authorized users can submit a SLAMIS request to add a CTA NSLIN to CTA 50 – 900 (Clothing and Individual

Equipment) by using the “common table of allowance” module in SLAMIS (see fig 11 – 4). SLAMIS will move the request to the responsible LCMC.

b. The LCMC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “disap-prove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the decision is “approve,” SLAMIS will move the request to USAFMSA (CTA).

74 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. The USAFMSA (CTA) POC must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. De-ciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision, however SLAMIS will move the request to DCS, G – 4.

d. HQDA G4 must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision, however SLAMIS will move the request to USAFMSA (CTA).

e. The USAFMSA (CTA) POC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision. Deciding to “disapprove” requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request. If the decision is “approve,” SLAMIS will reflect “approve” and USAFMSA (CTA) will update FMSWeb to reflect the addition requested.

Figure 11 – 4. Common table of allowance 50 – 900 add request for non-standard line item number

Section II Joint Tables of Allowances

11 – 5. Joint tables of allowances a. The process for developing requirement authorization documents in support of joint organizations is outlined in the

Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 4320.01E for joint organizations, joint task forces, standing joint force headquarters, and other joint organizations.

b. The process for developing requirement authorization documents in support of overseas Security Assistances Organ-izations (SAOs) is outlined in the multi-Service publication AR 1 – 75/SECNAVINST 4900.49/AFJI 16 – 104.

11 – 6. Submissions of Joint tables of allowances a. Joint organizations, Theater Special Operations Command (TSOCs), Joint task force (JTF) commanders, or chiefs

of security assistance organization (SAO): (1) Submit establishment, proposed changes, or revision of JTAs with justifications for all equipment (including previ-

ously approved or on-hand equipment) through the operational and logistics acquisitions requirements channels of their combatant command and USELEMNORAD.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 75

(2) Review Service program and budget data required for both acquisition funding Procurement Appropriation (as re-quired) and for Operations and Support (O&S) and Sustainment Support funding for equipment. Program and budget data for Service-common JTA items are submitted to the designated Military Department via combatant commander and USELEMNORAD in yearly program objective memorandum (POM) submission and as UFRs when, or as, needed.

(3) TSOCs obtain geographic combatant command (GCC) endorsement of JTA documents, and then submit to USSOCOM for review and submission to USAFMSA.

(4) For Joint organizations, TSOCs, and JTF commanders review, validate, and submit JTAs in accordance with CJCSI 4320.01E every 3 years.

(5) Chiefs of SAO review, validate and submit JTAs in accordance with AR1 – 75 every 2 years. b. Commanders of combatant commands or geographic combatant commanders: (1) Validate and endorse (or disapprove and adjudicate concerns) by reviewing JTAs to ensure the equipment is appro-

priate and essential for the mission. (a) For special operations units, the GCC validates the JTA supports operational mission requirements to USSOCOM. (b) USSOCOM ensures the designated Service(s) provide(s) JTA requirements, accomplish a review to validate

MFP – 11/SO-peculiar equipment and ensure compatibility with MFP – 2 equipment. (2) Forward establishment and proposed changes for technical review through operational and requirements and logis-

tics channels to USAFMSA. USAFMSA coordinates with the Joint Staff Logistics Directorate (J – 4) for coordination with the Services and provide informational copy to Joint Staff Force Structure, Resources and Assessment Directorate (J – 8) for Joint Organizations, TSOCs, and JTFs. USAFMSA coordinates with the ARSTAF, Navy International Programs Office (IPO), and the Air Force Material Command, Supple Chain Management Squadron for SAOs.

(3) Include the following with the letter transmitting the JTA for technical review and approval: (a) A reproducible copy of the Joint Manpower Program (JMP), including the Joint table of distribution (JTD) and Joint

table of mobilization distribution (JTMD) sections. A reproducible copy of the current Joint manning document (JMD). (b) A description of personnel who can operate and maintain the equipment, and are available or are approved for future

authorization. (c) A Microsoft Word document of the proposed JTA. (d) A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing details for all equipment, Service to support, LIN/NSN number, nomen-

clature, requirement and authorization quantities, on-hand quantity, and justification in enough detail to permit a thorough and objective analysis.

(e) An unclassified Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing details for all additions or increases of HQDA-managed equipment LINs.

(4) Direct and supervise administrative and logistic support provided to the Joint organization or SAO. (5) Submit program and budget data required for administrative and logistic support of the joint organization or SAO.

Review and revise the program and budget data for Service-common JTA items that will be submitted to the designated Service. Facilitate the program and budget data for SO-peculiar JTA items that will be submitted to USSOCOM.

c. Military Departments and USSOCOM for Joint organizations, TSOCs, JTFs: (1) Perform a technical review to ensure equipment catalog data compliance with Service-unique operational require-

ments rules and systems that identify quantitative and qualitative requirements for equipment. (2) Authenticate the JTA by incorporating requirements and authorizations data into Service-unique centralized docu-

ment systems. (3) Facilitate the planning and programming of resources for the acquisition of major end items and associated compo-

nents through the POM process. (4) Direct USAFMSA to review and process any equipment changes required from materiel fielding plans and basis of

issue plans for the Army portion of the JTA. (5) Perform a review of equipment assets that have an estimate fair market value that is equal to or exceeds the DOD

capitalization threshold of $250,000. (6) Update their JTA equipment support based on services plans for materiel modernization and deductions of obsolete

items. d. USAFMSA: (1) Receives requests for establishment or changes of joint organization or SAO JTAs with supporting documentation. (2) Performs a technical review to ensure equipment catalog data compliance with Service-unique operational require-

ments rules and systems that identify quantitate and qualitative requirement for equipment. (3) Creates, submits, and can expedite 4610 – R on behalf of the joint organization for HQDA managed equipment listed

in the joint organizations request, for review, approval, disapproval, and/or comments by the HQDA, ERVB). (4) Processes JTA establishment or changes request as received, assign a JTA number, and publish and maintain the

JTA.

76 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

(5) Aims for a 60-day timeline from USAFMSA receipt of JTA establishment or change request to publication is the objective.

(6) Is encouraged to develop process improvements to reduce administrative burdens. (7) Identifies any major disagreements or policy changes to the Joint Staff for resolution. Matters of routine approvals

and JTA development do not require advanced coordination with the Joint Staff. e. The Joint Staff Logistics Directorate (J – 4) forwards JTA requests for establishment or change received from

USAFMSA to the appropriate Service for review, approval, disapproval, and/or comments. Services then forward, disap-proval, and/or comments to USFMSA. Arbitrate and reconcile differences between the Combatant Commands, USELEMNORAD and Services regarding JTAs.

f. Figure 11 – 5 shows the Army staffing process for Joint organizations, TSOCs, and JTF JTAs.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 77

Figure 11 – 5 Army staffing process for joint tables of allowances

11 – 7. Equipment not to be documented in tables of organization and equipment, modified tables of organization and equipment, tables of distribution and allowances, and Joint tables of allowances Equipment listed below are not documented in TOE, MTOE, TDA, and JTA:

a. Equipment authorized to a unit in another document and used for the same purpose. For example, an item authorized in an MTOE will not be duplicated in the unit’s TDA augmentation document, when it is to be used to accomplish the same task.

b. Equipment on hand through temporary loan.

78 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. Equipment on hand by lease or rental. The exception is non-tactical vehicles (NTVs) leased under AR 58 – 1 to fill TDA shortages. However, nonexpendable equipment initially obtained by rental or lease and later purchased (government-owned) will be documented in TDA or JTA.

d. Research, development, test, and evaluation equipment purchased with research, development, test, and evaluation funds. This includes equipment purchased with other than research, development, test, and evaluation funds but later re-imbursed with research, development, test, and evaluation funds.

e. Maintenance float, sizing float, repair parts, and expendable or durable items. f. Equipment procured from non-appropriated funds. g. Prefabricated (relocatable) buildings (excluded from TDA/JTA only). h. Operational project stocks obtained under AR 710 – 1. i. Real property. j. Commercial medical materiel that is used solely by TDA or JTA activities and that is not required to be type classified

under AR 700 – 142. k. Locally fabricated items for which no known Army-adopted item exists. l. Intelligence equipment exempt from type classification under AR 700 – 142. m. Standard items of equipment used as substitutes pending receipt of preferred items. n. Equipment eligible to be procured with production base support funds (applicable to AMC activities only). o. Items authorized by other authorization documents listed above. p. Equipment procured exclusively for DOD civil defense efforts. q. Equipment purchased with or reimbursed by Military Assistance Program and International Military Educational and

Training Program funds. r. Equipment purchased through Defense Supply Service-Washington by Army activities in the National Capital Re-

gion (NCR) (maybe included in the TDA, section III supplement only). s. Equipment used for experiments and tests (see AR 73 – 1). t. Secondary end items authorized or issued as components of equipment assemblages and SKO (see sections VI and

VII of this chapter). u. Any nonexpendable item of serviceable equipment that is withdrawn from the Defense Reutilization and Marketing

Office and not used for its intended purpose. This equipment must be approved and accounted for on the user’s property book (see AR 710 – 2).

Section III Documenting Equipment

11 – 8. Letter of exemption a. Overview. AR 220 – 1 establishes authoritative policy that governs the exemption of specific LINs listed on the

MTOEs of reporting units from their S-level calculations. LIN exemptions are unit specific. LOEs are not intended to mask unit readiness deficiencies or to obscure valid equipment requirements documented on unit MTOEs.

(1) The requestor can be the ASCCs, ACOMs, DRUs, or the Army G – 8/DOM SSOs. Army commands submit LOE directly to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for processing. The DFM is the Army’s approval authority for LOEs.

(2) The LOE packet with Form 5 must contain the UIC, unit name, quantity of primary LIN, expiration date of the LOE, justification and when possible include supporting documentation to enhance the justification.

b. Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 3/5/7, FM and Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 8 roles in the processes. (1) DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is the lead for staffing LOEs. (2) All HQDA LOE staffing packets are tasked to DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8/FD; and DCS, G – 3/5/7 for coordination via

the HQDA staffing tool with suspense of 10 working days. The DCS, G – 8/FD is the single DCS, G – 8 entry point for all LOE actions.

(3) Following coordination and approval of LOEs by the DFM, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM updates the LOE table on FMS-Web. Log on to FMSWeb to “special function tools” click “Force Mgmt. Bulletin Board” and click on “LIN Exemption“ and run a search for the complete list, or search by a data field.

11 – 9. Letter of authority a. The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is the lead for staffing LOAs and the DFM is the Army ’s approval authority for LOA. b. A LOA is issued by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM authorizing a unit to keep or be issued equipment that has an approved

BOIP, prior to the BOIP being applied to a unit’s MTOE. The LOA will not authorize a unit to have more of an item than

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 79

an approved BOIP (or BOIP amendment) authorizes for that particular type of unit. If a unit determines that they need additional capability, then they should submit an ONS in accordance with AR 71 – 9.

c. The requestor can be the ASCCs, ACOMs, DRUs, or the DCS, G – 8 DOM SSOs. DCS, G – 8 requestors submit LOA packet with an O6-level chop on a DA Form 5 through DCS, G – 8, FD to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM.

d. The LOA packet with DA Form 5 will contain the UIC, SRC, COMPO, BOIP number, quantity required by BOIP, quantity authorized by LOA, LIN, ASIOE LIN(s), quantity of ASIOE fielding, estimated fielding dated by fiscal year, and LOA expiration date. LOAs will include PLIN being fielded and ASIOE, if applicable. LOAs remain valid until the re-quirement and authorization are documented on the next authorization document or the expiration date.

e. All HQDA LOA staffing packets will be tasked to DCS, G – 4 and DCS, G – 8 for coordination via the HQDA staffing tool with 14 working days’ suspense. The DCS, G – 8, FD receives official tasking and reviews the LOA packet for accuracy and completeness relative to the system distribution/fielding plan. Upon review, DCS, G – 8, FD provides DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM with a formal response.

f. The DCS, G – 8 (or in some cases, ARNG or OCAR) provides the distribution quantity desired for the LOA, the distribution quantity in the approved BOIP, the unit type, the projected fielding window for the item, and verify that the projected window for fielding has been updated in the Army Equipping Enterprise System (AE2S) so that it is captured in subsequent Modernization Guidance.

g. Following coordination and approval of LOAs by the DFM, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM announces decision and posts approved LOAs on FMSWeb, under Support Tools, Modularity, click folder marked: Approved Letters of Authority.

h. After the Documentation Guidance is provided to USFMSA, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM reviews existing LOAs to ensure that the proper modernization of BOIPs has been correctly documented.

i. LOAs approved by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM remain valid until the requirement and authorization are documented on the next authorization document.

11 – 10. Type classification (logistics control code changes to F, S, or O) a. Authorized users can submit a request to change the LCC for a LIN to either “F”, “S”, or “O.” SLAMIS will send

the request to the responsible LCMC. Figure 11 – 6 provides the process flow for type classification of F, S, and O LCC changes.

b. The LCMC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “Disap-prove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the decision is “approve” SLAMIS will send the request to ASA (ALT).

c. AS$100A (ALT) must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. SLAMIS will send the request to USAFMSA.

d. USAFMSA POC must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. SLAMIS will send the request to HQ TRADOC.

e. HQ TRADOC selects the TRADOC proponent schools who should review the request. HQ TRADOC selects one or many schools, and can supply comments that will be displayed during coordination. HQ TRADOC also identifies if there is a TOE impact for the ZLIN. SLAMIS then sends the request to the selected TRADOC proponent schools.

f. The TRADOC proponent schools must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. After completing the action, the coordination data will be saved. Once all TRADOC proponents provide their input to the request, SLAMIS then sends the request back to HQ TRADOC to adjudicate and make a final recommendation.

g. HQ TRADOC reviews the input from the TRADOC proponent schools and identifies the final HQ TRADOC rec-ommendation for the request. The user must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. SLAMIS will send the request to ARSTAF agen-cies.

h. The ARSTAF agencies (DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8, FD; and Army National Guard) simultaneously provide their rec-ommendation for the LIN. Each organization must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organi-zation. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. Once all the ARSTAF agencies provide their input, SLAMIS will send the request to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM.

i. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision. Deciding to “disapprove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the decision is "approve," SLAMIS then moves the request to LOGSA to update the SB 700 – 20.

80 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 11 – 6. Type classification of chapters 2, 6, and 8 line item number (logistics control code change to S, F, or O)

11 – 11. Substitute line item number a. Authorized users can submit a request to add, or delete a substitute LIN for an existing LIN (figure 11 – 7). SLAMIS

sends the request to the responsible LCMC. b. The LCMC must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-

concur” requires rationale that supports the decision, however the request will still proceed to the next organization within the coordination process. SLAMIS sends the request to HQ TRADOC.

c. HQ TRADOC selects the TRADOC proponent schools who should review the request. HQ TRADOC selects one or many schools, and can supply comments that will be displayed during coordination. HQ TRADOC also identifies if there is a TOE impact for the ZLIN. SLAMIS then moves the request to the selected TRADOC proponent schools.

d. The TRADOC proponent schools must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. After completing the action, the coordination data will be saved. Once all TRADOC proponents provide their input to the request, SLAMIS then moves the request back to HQ TRADOC to adjudicate and make a final recommendation.

e. HQ TRADOC reviews the input from the TRADOC proponent schools and identifies the final HQ TRADOC rec-ommendation for the request. The user must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. If the decision is “concur,” SLAMIS will send the request to the HQDA Staff.

f. ARSTAF agencies (DCS, G – 4 and DCS, G – 8, FD) simultaneously provide their recommendation. Each organization must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires ra-tionale that supports the decision. Once all the ARSTAF agencies provide their input, SLAMIS will send the request to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM.

g. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “disapprove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and stops the request from continuing further. If the decision is “approve,” SLAMIS will move the request to LOGSA to update Appendix H of the Supply Bulletin 700 – 20.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 81

Figure 11 – 7. Substitute line item number

Section IV Standard Study Number—Line Item Number Automated Management and Integrating System

11 – 12. SLAMIS cyclic line item number validation review process overview a. The SLAMIS Module is the central database that supports the automated staffing of cyclic LIN/BOIP validation

reviews. All users of this system are required to have an active log-on account. USAFMSA conducts cyclic validation reviews of LIN and BOIP files not less than every 5 years from the date of BOIP approval. This ensures they reflect current operational and organizational concepts, doctrine, design of units, and the appropriateness of personnel and equipment to meet current Army needs using the LIN validation module in SLAMIS. BOIP updates associated with this review are implemented administratively by USAFMSA.

b. The cyclic LIN validation review process (see fig 11 – 8) begins with USAFMSA forwarding LINs that have not been reviewed according to policy timeframe to TRADOC for validation on a quarterly basis, and culminates with recommen-dations from TRADOC and ARSTAF coordination of recommendations for decisions by the LIN validation CoC.

c. SLAMIS module can be found at https://www.slamis.army.mil/.

https://www.slamis.army.mil/

82 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 11 – 8. Pre-organizational documentation approval board line item number validation process review

11 – 13. Cyclic line item number validation reviews a. Cyclic validation reviews of LIN files ensure approved BOIPs remain current with operational and organizational

concepts, doctrine, and design of units as well as the appropriateness of personnel and equipment to meet current Army needs. Each review cycle consists of not more than 250 LIN/BOIPs per quarter.

b. The average processing time for each cyclic review in calendar days is 119 (14 for LCMC recommendation to TRADOC, 30 for TRADOC validation; 28 for USAFMSA wrap-up; 14 for HQDA staffing; 3 for adjudication at HQDA; 30 for ORDAB). An email suspense notification for staffing LIN validation requests is released from SLAMIS to key DCS, G – 8, FD personnel.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 83

11 – 14. Pre Organizational Requirements Document Approval Board—line item number validation review

a. Authorized users can submit a list of LINs in SLAMIS to be validated and reviewed (figure 11 – 9). This module has a limit of 250 LIN Validation requests that can be submitted for review during a 90 day period. SLAMIS generates a request for each LIN submitted for validation and review, and sends it to the responsible LCMC user.

b. The LCMC reviews the request and completes two actions: answers questions and provides a recommendation. (1) The questionnaire consists of six questions that are typically asked by the ARSTAF during review of LINs to iden-

tify the current status of the LIN and associated equipment. This is important in order to understand potential impacts on additional Army equipment.

(2) Eight recommendations are identified for the LIN validation process. The LCMC chooses one recommendation for the LIN.

c. The LCMC POC can enter optional comments on behalf of their organization. SLAMIS then moves the request to HQ TRADOC.

d. HQ TRADOC selects the TRADOC proponent schools that should review the request. HQ TRADOC selects one or many schools, and can supply comments that will be displayed during coordination. HQ TRADOC can also identify the TRADOC proponent schools who should complete the questionnaire for the LIN. SLAMIS then moves the request to the selected TRADOC proponent schools.

e. The TRADOC proponent schools are asked to review the LIN by completing two actions: answering questions and providing a recommendation. Not all TRADOC proponent schools will be required to complete a questionnaire, but all must provide a recommendation. After completing the actions, the coordination data will be saved. Once all TRADOC proponents provide their input to the request, SLAMIS then moves the request back to HQ TRADOC to adjudicate and make a final decision.

f. HQ TRADOC then reviews the input from the TRADOC proponent schools and identifies the final HQ TRADOC recommendation for the LIN. SLAMIS then moves the request to U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency (USAFMSA).

g. The USAFMSA POC then identifies the recommendation on the LIN and provides comments for TOE/MTOE and TDA impacts for the LIN. SLAMIS then moves the request to the ARSTAF agencies (CIO/G – 6; DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM; DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8/FD; ARNG; and OCAR).

h. ARSTAF agencies (CIO/G – 6; DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM; DCS, G – 4; DCS, G – 8/FD; ARNG; and OCAR) simultaneously provide their recommendation for the LIN. SLAMIS then moves the request DCS, G – 3/5/7.

i. DCS, G – 3/5/7 adjudicates and identifies the final LIN validation recommendation that will be presented to the LIN validation ORDAB. SLAMIS then moves the request in a queue for ORDAB review.

j. SLAMIS provides a reporting mechanism to review the requests ready for ORDAB review and decision. The recom-mendations are shown for each organization, and the questionnaire is available for review.

k. Authorized users can import the ORDAB decision spreadsheet that identifies the ORDAB decision (that is, recom-mendation) for each LIN validation request. The user is also required to attach the ORDAB meeting memo (that is, PDF file) during the import process.

84 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 11 – 9. Pre-Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation process recommendations

11 – 15. Line item number validation review recommendations a. If an ORDAB Decision of 1 (LIN retirement), 4 (MTOE to CTA), or 6 (MTOE to TDA) is made then type classifi-

cation (TC) requests are automatically created. See below processes for those request flows.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 85

b. Recommendations which may be chosen are as follows: (1) LIN/BOIP is no longer required by the Army or accepted for Army use. (2) LIN/BOIP is valid and no changes are required. Automatic review according to policy timeframe. (3) LIN is valid, but the BOI (and only the BOI) is incorrect. An amended BOIPFD is required. (4) LIN/BOIP is valid, but belongs on CTA rather than TOE, MTOE/TDA. A CTA memo is required. (5) Retain SLIN but consider technical upgrades. (6) Retain SLIN for TDA only. (7) LIN is valid, however, non-BOI changes need to be made to the narrative guidance; action is administratively com-

pleted by FMSA. (8) LIN is valid, BOIP changes need to be made to BOI and any other item in the BOIP; action becomes an amendment

and is initiated by PM/materiel developer. c. LIN validation will include review of AAO (per HQDA AAO EXORD 165 – 17)

11 – 16. Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS—line item number retirement a. If the ORDAB decision was recommendation #1 (fig 11 – 10), SLAMIS generates a LIN retirement request for the

LIN. This request is to update the LCC of the LIN to a value of “S.” SLAMIS moves the request to the responsible LCMC. b. The LCMC must “approve” the request and may enter rationale for this request. SLAMIS then moves the request to

Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA) for execution in the Supply Bulletin (SB) 700 – 20. c. One year following the approval of the previous LIN Retirement request, SLAMIS generates a follow on LIN Re-

tirement request. This request is to update the LCC of the LIN to a value of “O”. d. The follow on request is then sent to LOGSA to update the SB 700 – 20. After this action, the LIN is retired and will

be listed within Appendix E of the SB 700 – 20.

Figure 11 – 10. Post Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation review process flow; line item number retirement

86 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

11 – 17. Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS —modified table of organization and equipment to common tables of allowances

a. If the ORDAB Decision was recommendation #4 (fig 11 – 10), SLAMIS generates an MSR chapter change request. If the request does not have a basis of issue (BOI), SLAMIS will move the request to HQ TRADOC. If the request does have a BOI SLAMIS will move the request to the responsible LCMC.

b. If the request proceeds to HQ TRADOC, the user selects the TRADOC proponent schools who should review the request. HQ TRADOC selects one or many schools, and can supply comments that will be displayed during coordination. HQ TRADOC also identifies if there is a TOE impact for the LIN. SLAMIS then moves the request to the selected TRADOC proponent schools.

c. The TRADOC proponent schools review and upload the CTA memo to support identification of the BOI and allow-ances. The TRADOC Proponent School must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “Non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. After completing the actions, the coordination data will be saved. Once all TRADOC proponents provide their input to the request, SLAMIS then moves the request back to HQ TRADOC to adjudicate and make a final recommendation.

d. HQ TRADOC reviews the input from the TRADOC proponent schools and identifies the final HQ TRADOC rec-ommendation for the request. The user must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding on “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. SLAMIS then moves the request to the responsible LCMC.

e. The LCMC must ensure the CTA and table, BOI, notes, and allowance data is entered as well as ensuring the appro-priate documentation is attached to the request (that is, memo in lieu of DA Form 2028 or DA Form 5965). Since the decision was made by the ORDAB to move the LIN to CTA, the LCMC is only allowed to process the request as a “concur” action. The user may also enter rationale for this request. SLAMIS then moves the request to USAFMSA (common table of allowance (CTA)).

f. The USAFMSA (CTA) POC must review the request and can attach supporting documentation if needed. User can also provide comments for the request. After completing the request, SLAMIS then sends the request to LOGSA to move the LIN to Chapter 8 of the SB 700 – 20.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 87

Figure 11 – 11. Post Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation review process flow—modified table of organization and equipment to common table of allowance

11 – 18. Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS —table of distribution and allowances only to common tables of allowances

a. If the ORDAB decision was recommendation #4 (figure 11 – 11), SLAMIS generates an MSR chapter change request. For LINs that are only documented as table of distribution and allowance (TDA) equipment, and only have TDA authorized quantities, SLAMIS will send the request to the responsible LCMC.

b. The LCMC must identify the CTA and table, BOI, notes, and allowance data, and must ensure that the appropriate documentation is attached to the request (that is, memo in lieu of DA Form 2028 or DA Form 5965). Since the decision was made by the ORDAB to move the LIN to CTA, the LCMC is only allowed to process the request as a “concur” action. The user may also enter rationale for this request. SLAMIS then moves the request to USAFMSA (CTA).

c. The USAFMSA (CTA) POC must review the request and can attach supporting documentation if needed. User can also provide comments for the request. After completing the request, SLAMIS then sends the request to LOGSA to move the LIN to Chapter 8 of the SB 700 – 20.

11 – 19. Processing line item number validation decisions in SLAMIS—modified table of organization and equipment to table of distribution and allowances

a. If the ORDAB decision was recommendation #6 (fig 11 – 12), SLAMIS generates a LIN reclassification request to change the LCC code for the LIN. This request is to update the LCC of the LIN to a value of “F.” SLAMIS will send the request to the responsible LCMC.

b. The LCMC must review the details of the request and edit the information if required. Since the decision was made by the ORDAB to retain the LIN for TDA only, the LCMC is only allowed to process the request as an “approve” action. User can also provide comments for the request. After completing the request, SLAMIS then sends the request to LOGSA to update the SB 700 – 20.

88 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 11 – 12. Post-Organizational Documentation Approval Board line item number validation review process—modified table of organization and equipment to table of distribution and allowances

11 – 20. Developmental line item number add request a. Authorized users can submit a request to add a new developmental line item number (ZLIN) to Chapter 4 of the

Supply Bulletin 700 – 20 (figure 11 – 13). The request will take different coordination paths depending on whether or not the submitter has specified a standard study number (SSN) for the potential ZLIN, if a catalog of approved requirements document (CARDS) number is identified, or if a program executive officer (PEO)/parent organization is identified. SLAMIS will send the request to the responsible LCMC.

b. The LCMC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “disap-prove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the decision is “approve” and the request does not include a CARDS number and/or SSN identified, SLAMIS will send the request to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and DCS, G – 8, FD for coordination. If the request has a CARDS number, SSN, and PEO/parent organization identified SLAMIS will send the request to the PEO/parent organization for further coordination.

c. If the request proceeds to HQDA G3/G8 due to missing data, the responsible POCs must complete the missing data or provide rationale for why the information is not necessary for the ZLIN. Each organization is requested to render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. If either organization decides to “disapprove” the request, rationale that supports the decision will be required and the action will stop the request from continuing further. Both organizations complete the missing data and “Approve” the request. If the PEO/parent organization is not identified, SLAMIS will send the request to ASA (ALT) so a PEO/parent organization can be assigned and entered on the request. If the request does have a PEO/parent organization identified, SLAMIS will send the request to the PEO/parent organization for their coordination.

d. If the request proceeds to ASA (ALT) for coordination, the user must select a PEO/parent organization for the re-quest. Additionally, the user is requested to render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “disapprove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and stops the request from continuing further. If ASA (ALT) decides to select an organization and “approve” the request, SLAMIS will send the request to the PEO/parent organization assigned for further coordination.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 89

e. The identified PEO/parent organization must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organi-zation. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision and will send the request back to ASA (ALT) for edits. If the PEO/parent organization “concurs” with the request, SLAMIS will send the request to LOGSA to add the ZLIN to Chapter 4 of the SB 700 – 20.

Figure 11 – 13. Initial ZLIN/national stock number type classification

90 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 11 – 14. Z line item number add request module

11 – 21. Developmental line item number delete request a. Authorized users can submit a request to delete a developmental line item number (ZLIN) from Chapter 4 of the

Supply Bulletin 700 – 20. SLAMIS will send the request to the responsible LCMC. b. The LCMC must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “disap-

prove” the request requires rationale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the ZLIN has materiel linked to it, the LCMC will be requested to make a decision on what happens to the assets: should the NSN or management control number (MCN) be linked to common table of allowance non-standard line item number (CTA – NSLIN), non-standard line item number (NSLIN), “Do not link to NSLIN” or “NSLIN not listed (new NSLIN will be generated).” If the decision is “approve,” SLAMIS will send the request to HQ TRADOC.

c. HQ TRADOC selects the TRADOC proponent schools who should review the request. HQ TRADOC selects one or many schools, and can supply comments that will be displayed during coordination. HQ TRADOC also identifies if there is a TOE impact for the ZLIN. SLAMIS then sends the request to the selected TRADOC proponent schools.

d. The TRADOC proponent schools must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. After completing the action, the coordination data will be saved. Once all TRADOC proponents provide their input to the request, SLAMIS then sends the request back to HQ TRADOC to adjudicate and make a final recommendation.

e. HQ TRADOC reviews the input from the TRADOC proponent schools and identifies the final HQ TRADOC rec-ommendation for the request. The user must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 91

Deciding on “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. If the decision is “concur,” SLAMIS will send the request to USAFMSA.

f. USAFMSA must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization, and must identify if removing the ZLIN will impact the table of distribution and allowances (TDA) documents. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. SLAMIS will send the request to the ARSTAF agencies.

g. ARSTAF agencies (DCS, G – 8, FD; DCS, G – 4; and ASA (ALT)) simultaneously provide their recommendation for the LIN. Each organization must render a “concur” or “non-concur” decision on behalf of their organization. Deciding to “non-concur” requires rationale that supports the decision. Once all the ARSTAF agencies provide their input, SLAMIS will send the request to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM.

h. HQDA G3 must render an “approve” or “disapprove” decision. Deciding to “disapprove” the request requires ra-tionale that supports the decision and will stop the request from continuing further. If the decision is "approve," SLAMIS will then send the request to LOGSA to remove the ZLIN from Chapter 4 of the SB 700 – 20.

Chapter 12 Change Management

Section I Command Plan

12 – 1. Command plan overview a. The Command Plan (CPLAN) is the annual force management process designed to account for and document force

structure decisions and directives from Army senior leadership which includes changes directed by OSD, changes re-quested by Army commands and changes prescribed in Congressional language. CPLAN guidance is written and published annually by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM and it provides key force structure guidance and milestones for the CPLAN submission, describes procedures, required actions to be accomplished and provides updates to the TDA CMP process.

b. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is responsible for CPLAN which culminates with the approval of the Army Master Force (M-Force) file and publication of authorization documents. The M-Force adjusts the force through the POM, and establishes the “fiscal year after next” documented force structure for MTOE formations and TDA organizations, aligns force structure requirements and authorizations, and reviews military and civilian authorizations while aligning with program and budget guidance. It will implement senior leadership guidance and decisions on a broad range of missions, capabilities, policies and special issues.

c. The CPLAN implements Total Army Analysis (TAA) decisions that support directives to reorganize, increase or reduce the Army’s Active Component (AC), Army National Guard (ARNG), and United States Army Reserve (USAR) end strengths, and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) resource allocation decisions. It will also support Army deci-sions to find budget driven efficiencies and savings to enable deliberate rebalancing of the mission set, size, manpower mix, and cost of the Army.

d. CPLAN documentation will be informed by Army Force Generation, Sustainable Readiness Process (SRP), as out-lined in AR 525 – 30. Sustainable Readiness’s main goal is to inform and influence the Army’s resource planning systems in order to maximize readiness of the force to meet known and contingency demands.

12 – 2. Baseline a. The baseline for the CPLAN submission is the previous Force Review Point. The CPLAN incorporates Total Army

Analysis (TAA) decisions and the President's Program Budget Guidance (PBG). b. The CPLAN focuses on documenting “fiscal year after next” modified tables of organization and equipment

(MTOEs) based upon HQDA-approved TOEs, AUGTDAs, TDAs, and mobilization TDAs (MOBTDAs) and adjusting “next fiscal year” documentation through HQDA directed out-of-cycle authorization document adjustments.

c. Force structure actions include, but are not limited to adjustments to force designs, implementing any additional tactical wheeled vehicle decisions, implementing Army approved structure change decisions, efficiencies, and program-ming the out years for planning purposes.

12 – 3. Force management changes a. Commands may submit force management changes to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM for consideration during CPLAN. b. A force management change is defined as a change to any ARSTRUC or PBG specified action already captured in

the Master Force.

92 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. Examples are changes to EDATES, activations, inactivations, discontinuations, conversions, exceptions to MTOE standardization, and movement or transfer of units or structure among installations or commands.

12 – 4. Schedules 8 submissions a. Commands submit Schedules 8 via the Command Programming module of the Cloud Program Optimization and

Budget Execution (cPROBE) system for review and processing by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. b. Manpower instructions are included in the annual Program Guidance published by DCS, G – 8, PA&E, and the budget

data call for the POM build. c. Commands submit Schedules 8 to align budget and force data for all units, to ensure Army Congressional Justifica-

tion Book submissions are accurate. d. Commands retain maximum flexibility to move authorizations on their TDA/AUGTDA within the same MDEP,

AMSCO, RC, CTYPE, or in accordance with an approved Schedule 8 action.

Section II Changes to Documents outside the Command Plan Process

12 – 5. Out-of-cycle and administrative change thresholds a. Command Plan thresholds. (1) If the documentation change does not negatively impact readiness, mission completion and can be deferred until

the next command plan cycle, the item is tabled and included in the next CPLAN guidance memorandum for action. (2) If an item cannot be deferred, it is then considered for an administrative change. b. There are two administrative change threshold. (1) Minor document corrective changes that do not affect SAMAS information and minimally impact the documented

force and personnel/equipment authorization resourcing (generally does not apply to force modernization). (2) Or, less than $100,000 equipment growth (TOE) (in MTOEs, apply to fix errors with the DCS, G – 8 SSO’s ap-

proval). (3) If an item does not satisfy the requirement for an administrative change, it is then considered for the out-of-cycle

process. c. Out-of-cycle thresholds. (1) Any change to a unit identification code’s approved document information that is also reflected in the SAMAS

documented subset. (2) Or, any proposed change to an approved MTOE document that is validated and nominated by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM

and approved by the DFM. (3) Any new out-of-cycle MTOE document requirement based on changes in guidance, mission requirements, changes

in equipment fielding plans, MOS revisions, and new capabilities or unit designs that do not meet the command plan timeline.

d. Out-of-cycle requirements requiring individually staffed Director, Force Management approval. Meets the thresh-olds in c above and/or:

(1) Increases the strength of a unit (without a corresponding off-set). (2) Changes the effective date of the document to the extent it moves into another FY. (3) Commander, USAFMSA escalated proposed administrative changes. (4) The DCS, G – 3/5/7, Force Accounting and Documentation Division, may grant exceptions to the above policy typ-

ically resulting in a “quick turn” out-of-cycle process. This is a joint process that works simultaneously between the OI/command manager and USAFMSA Division Chief through SAMAS FMS/FMSWeb.

12 – 6. Out-of-cycle process a. Authorizations documents are published no more than two fiscal years prior to their effective date. b. Decisions by senior leadership Department of the Army (DA) priority mission requirements, DFM approved TDA

CMP force structure decisions, DFM approved TDA Equipment Review Board (ERVB) decisions, changes in equipment fielding plans, FM approved grade, MOS, position code revisions, and new capabilities may require an out-of-cycle process in order to update DA-approved documents.

c. Documentation errors can be candidates for an out-of-cycle process, if they negatively impact readiness or other essential operations and cannot be corrected by an administrative change.

d. HQDA’s goal is to minimize turbulence by limiting the number of MTOE out-of-cycle processes to published doc-uments, to only those with significant justification. In order to submit and receive approval for out-of-cycle changes, the

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 93

specific readiness, capabilities, operational, or other reasoning needs to be clearly analyzed and articulated to the out-of-cycle approving authority.

e. DFM, through the quarterly documentation guidance and the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM review process, must approve all out-of-cycle MTOE force structure adjustments to existing documents. Entry point for MTOE requests are OIs. TDA/AUGDTA out-of-cycle approval is an outcome of the monthly TDA/AUGTDA out-of-cycle board, conducted by DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. Entry point for the AUGTDA/TDA out-of-cycle requests are force structure command managers.

f. OIs/force structure command managers identify if the request is a valid and feasible request and whether it can be deferred to the next Command Plan cycle or the monthly out-of-cycle board for TDA/AUGTDAs.

g. Organizations submit issues/changes regarding out-of-cycle documentation requests through command channels to the respective OI for MTOEs (DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM) or force structure command manager for TDAs. Out-of-cycle update requests to the HQDA Staffs (Operating Agency-22) TDA documents will be in accordance with delayered design princi-pals and IRC guidance.

h. OIs and force structure command managers post and manage out-of-cycle requests in the out-of-cycle nomination tool (SAMAS).

i. USAFMSA document integrators (DI) develop and manage the staffing documents in FMS. j. UICs (with EDATE) are nominated to have out-of-cycle documents participate in a monthly or special out-of-cycle

AUTS event. k. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM is the final approval authority of all out-of-cycle requests. l. Out-of-cycle documents must be built in FMS and match the corresponding SAMAS subset. m. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM may grant exceptions to these procedures on a case-by-case basis.

12 – 7. Administrative change process a. An administrative change request is any request to change an HQDA-approved authorization document that does not

meet any of the criteria for change required by the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM out-of-cycle documentation process. b. The administrative change process is more applicable to MTOE corrections, as TDA/AUGTDAs have a monthly

out-of-cycle board process where these type of corrections should be addressed. No administrative changes to TDA/AUGTDAs will be implemented without prior approval of the DFM.

c. HQDA-approved authorization document that is considered outside the mandatory criteria for change requiring im-plementation of the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM out-of-cycle documentation process.

d. DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM provides approved quarterly documentation guidance (QDG) to USAFMSA and the field to codify changes within the command plan cycle. These changes can occur when decisions are made that direct change by a senior leader, Department of the Army (SLDA), priority mission requirements, changes in equipment fielding plans, MOS revisions and new capabilities.

12 – 8. Administrative change procedures for modified tables of organization and tables of distribution and allowances

a. Documentation Branch/DI must identify requirement for an administrative change to an approved MTOE/TDA doc-ument.

b. Documentation Branch/DI must validate administrative change requirement with DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM (OI and com-mand manager); and either DCS, G – 1 (personnel details) or, for equipment not on hand in the unit or authorized on the previous MTOE, DCS, G – 8 (for G – 8 managed LINs) and DCS, G – 4 (for non G – 8 managed LINs).

c. Any administrative change request to TDA/AUGTDA documents must have prior approval from DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. d. Documentation Branch/DI must prepare the FMS MTOE or TDA with the proposed changes at AL 4 for MTOE and

AL 6 for TDA. e. Documentation Branch/DI must produce and submit an FMS detail report (in spreadsheet format) that is filtered to

clearly reflect the proposed change for the approved MTOE or TDA. f. The Info Systems Branch must collect the document admin change reports for the approval briefing with the

USAFMSA Commander. g. Documentation Branch/DI and Information Systems Branch must participate in the administrative change approval

briefing with the USAFMSA Commander. h. Information Systems Branch must update the MTOE or TDA document in FMS by promoting the commander-ap-

proved administrative change records to AL 2, when feasible, by the end of the next business day. i. DI must make a corresponding update to the Section I narrative that an administrative change was approved (on

specific date), and a brief description of what was changed. For TDAs, the Section I update will be included in the AL6 (draft) document submitted to OPS.

94 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 12 – 1. Comparison between command plan, out-of-cycles, and administrative changes

Section III Equipment Requirements and Validation Board

12 – 9. Submitting requests to the equipment requirements and validation board a. Each command must provide a GO or SES signed memorandum (with an executive overview) that provides a stra-

tegic assessment of the overall command submission. b. Additionally, commands must comply with the revised cost-benefit analysis (CBA) business rules to support enter-

prise decision making. c. Command submissions that fail to meet established ERVB guidelines will be returned without action. d. The term “HQDA Controlled Equipment” refers to equipment on the HQDA managed LINs list as determined by

the Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 8; or equipment contained in Supply Bulletin (SB) 700 – 20, Chapters 2 and 4, that are coded as controlled item code (CIC) = C and reportable item control code (RICC) = 2 or equivalent (A, B, C, K, L, M, P, 0 or R, are equivalent to RICC 2 as per SB 700 – 20).

e. The current list of HQDA managed LINs (as managed by G – 4 or G – 8) and their SSO point of contact information can be found in the "lookup tools" portion of the FMSWeb homepage under LINs (managed).

f. All requests for additional HQDA controlled equipment for TDA and AUGTDA organizations must be reviewed and approved by the HQDA TDA/AUGTDA Unit ERVB prior to being placed on a TDA/AUGTDA document.

g. The levels of approval for TDA document changes is listed in table 12 – 1. Table 12 – 1 Levels of approval for table of distribution and allowances document changes — Continued Cost/action 4610 – R

Approval authority Requirements

Non-HQDA controlled Items additions, de-letions, transfers and restructures

Command USAFMSA

- 4610 – R(s) required for additions, deletions and transfers - USAFMSA for survey results and restructures

Transfer of equipment within a single UIC (no ad-ditional requirement) or equipment approved through the application of an equipment model or other HQDA directive.

Command USAFMSA

- Format FMS 1. or higher submitted to USAFMSA

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 95

Table 12 – 1 Levels of approval for table of distribution and allowances document changes — Continued Cost/action 4610 – R

Approval authority Requirements

Transfer of equipment between differ-ent UICs within the same command.

USAFMSA - 4610 – R (s) submitted through "transfer'' func-tion" on FMSWeb. - USAFMSA coordination with DCS, G – 3/5/7/FMP for concurrence

Transfer of equipment between com-mands.

Command ICW DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMP for Concurrence USAFMSA

- 4610 – R(s) submitted through "MOA/MOU Transfer" function on FMSWeb. - MOA/MOU signed by a COUGS – 15 in both commands (NOTE: MOA/MOU equipment list must be in Format FMS 1.0 or higher)

Addition of HQDA controlled items - Total dollar amount of "each LIN" to be added to TDAs within the command at a single ERVB < $1M

ERVB CoC I GOSC

- 4610 – R(s) - GO/SES signed memorandum with executive overview

Addition of HQDA controlled items - Total dollar amount of "each LIN" to be added to TDAs within the command at a single ERVB > $1M

ERVB CoC I GOSC

- 4610 – R(s) - CBA - GO/SES signed memorandum with executive over-view

12 – 10. Schedule a. HQDA TDA/AUGTDA unit ERVB meets ten times a year. It will not normally meet in the months of September or

December. The Director, Force Management can direct a special board to meet at any time due to unforeseen circum-stances.

b. Each command will be reviewed quarterly or semiannually based on the number of new requests submitted within a fiscal year.

c. Commands which routinely exceed 2000 requests within a fiscal year will attend the ERVB quarterly; all other com-mands will attend semiannually.

d. Currently ARNG, FORSCOM, TRADOC and USAR all exceed the 2000 request per fiscal year threshold. e. Joint table of distribution and allowances (JTA) requests may be submitted through USAFMSA for review and ap-

proval at any monthly ERVB. f. Commands with equipment additions considered mission critical for support to overseas contingency operations may

submit a priority request for submission in an ERVB that is not regularly scheduled for their command. g. Generally, the ERVB will follow the schedule of commands listed in table 12 – 2.

Table 12 – 2 Equipment Review and Validation Board Schedule — Continued

Month Command Month Command

OCT and APR ARNG NOV and MAY USAR

FORSCOM TRADOC

ARCYBER

JUL and JAN ARNG AUG and FEB FORSCOM

Army Test and Evaluation Command

TRADOC

INSCOM AMC

NETCOM ASC

96 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Table 12 – 2 Equipment Review and Validation Board Schedule — Continued

OA – 22 MDW

USARSO SMOG

USASOC USARAF

USMA USAREUR

USARPAC

SEP and MAR USAR

Criminal Investigation Division Command

Installation Management Com-mand

MEDCOM

USACE

ARCENT

USARNORTH

All others

12 – 11. Equipment requirements and validation board procedures a. Command or component actions overview. (1) The Requesting activity prepares the TDA/AUGTDA equipment changes in using the FMSWeb 4610 – R Automated

TDA Equipment Request Tool (4610 – R Tool). (2) Each 4610 – R will be forwarded to the appropriate command headquarters for review and approval. (3) There are useful tools available in FMSWeb to assist in the use of the 4610 – R Tool. These tools can be accessed

by clicking on the "4610 – R" button (under the “special function tools" section) and clicking on the "help" button at the top of the webpage.

(4) Download the "4610 – R TDA/AUGTDA Equipment Documentation Guide" PowerPoint presentation for the latest update on functions within FMSWeb and instructions to request equipment changes.

(5) Requesting activities will continue to assign command log numbers as follows— (a) The number will be assigned in sequential order and consist of the command code, the sequence number (four

digits), and the current fiscal year suffix; for example TC 0001 – 12 would be the first request submitted by a TRADOC requester in fiscal year 2012.

(b) All LINs being requested for one UIC in a month are to be given the same command log number. b. Command or component actions prior to submitting to HQDA. (1) The requesting command must prepare any required CBA(s) for LIN requests meeting established thresholds, unless

DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM approves an exemption. (2) When required, the command must complete a single CBA for each LIN, as outlined in paragraph 12 – 9, for HQDA

controlled equipment. (3) The command's submission must be reviewed by a GO or SES-level leader. (a) Based upon the command review, the command will prepare a memorandum (signed by a GO or SES) attach the

CBA(s) and forward to DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM. (b) The GOISES signed memorandum (with an executive overview) is intended to be an executive summary and stra-

tegic assessment of the overall ERVB command submission. The command will ensure that each CBA provides the overall concept to assist in justifying LIN requests.

(4) Command personnel with command approval privileges will approve the submission using the 4610 – R Tool. Com-mands are required to have a representative at all ERVB CoC and GOSC.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 97

12 – 12. Equipment requirements and validation board council of colonels a. Board members will participate in the monthly HQDA TDA/AUGTDA unit ERVB CoC and provide concur or non-

concur recommendations for each request presented. b. Commands will either participate in person, via VTC or telephone conference. c. All ERVB CoC recommendations will be presented to the ERVB GOSC for final approval. d. Chief, Force Accounting and Documentation Division (DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM) will chair the monthly HQDA

TDA/AUGTDA unit ERVB CoC. e. Voting board members include: Chief, HQDA G – 3/5/7 DAMO – FM (Board Chair); DCS, G – 8, FD; DCS, G – 4;

Army Materiel Command/Lead Materiel Integrator; DCS, G – 3/5/7, TR. f. Invitees to the ERVB board may include but are not limited to ACSIM (II PEG), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army – Cost and Economics (DASA – CE), TWVRMO, USAFMSA, command/component (OCAR and/or ARNG). Other organizations will be invited depending on the agenda items. DAMO – FM will invite relevant organizations.

12 – 13. Equipment requirements and validation board general officer steering committee a. Board members will participate in the monthly HQDA TDA/AUGTDA unit ERVB GOSC meeting. b. Director, Force Management will chair the monthly HQDA TDA/AUGTDA unit ERVB GOSC Board meeting. c. An overview of each command ERVB submission will be presented. d. The requesting command is responsible for presenting any unresolved issues to the ERVB GOSC for consideration.

The DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM, in connection with DCS, G – 8, FD; the DCS, G – 4; and AMC provide feedback to other ERVB GOSC in support of ERVB CoC decisions, as required. Commands can either participate in person, via VTC, or telephone conference.

e. Voting Board members include: Director, FM (Board Chair); DCS, G – 8, FD; DCS, G – 4; AMC/LMI; and DAMO – TR.

f. Invitees to the ERVB board may include but are not limited to ACSIM (II PEG), DASA – CE, TWVRMO, USAFMSA, command/component. Other organizations will be invited depending on the agenda items. DAMO – FM will invite relevant organizations.

g. After the ERVB GOSC approves commands requests for HQDA-controlled LINs, the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM approves and implements a documentation strategy.

12 – 14. Cost-benefit analysis a. For every proposed program, initiative or decision point that is presented to decision makers, it is important to provide

an accurate and complete picture of both the costs to be incurred and the benefits to be derived. b. If cost savings are identified during this analysis they must be couched in terms of overall cost savings to the Army. c. A cost savings by one organization that raises costs elsewhere may not be an overall savings to the Army. d. The Senior Leaders, Department of the Army have directed that any decisions involving Army resources be sup-

ported by a CBA. e. A CBA is required based upon thresholds tor each LIN; therefore multiple CBAs may be required tor a command

ERVB. Commands will submit ERVB CBAs based on following cost thresholds— (1) Threshold 1. Command submission includes a request(s) for a single LIN that exceeds $1M per item cost. CBA

required for each LIN that exceeds $1M. (2) Threshold 2. Cumulative command submission cost for a single LIN, due to the quantity requested, exceeds $1M.

CBA required for each LIN that quantity requested results in cumulative cost exceeding $1M. f. Commands may request an ERVB CBA exemption for LIN requests that fall in one of the categories below— (1) Equipment fielding. Equipment LINs already delivered to a command as part of an approved Army fielding plan. (2) On-hand equipment. Command equipment LIN is on-hand with an approved and documented requirement, but

command does not have an approved authorization.

12 – 15. Timeline and submission a. Each command will submit required ERVB CBA(s) not later than the last working day of the month prior to their

scheduled ERVB. b. The command will also provide the command GO/SES executive summary memorandum at this time.

98 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 12 – 2. Equipment review and validation board schedule

12 – 16. The automated Equipment Review and Validation Board cost benefit analysis tool a. The ERVB one-page CBA tool (Microsoft Excel) is located in the HQDA DCS, G – 3/5/7, FM ERVB AKO folder.

Contact the DCS, G – 3/5/7, FMD for the web address. b. HQDA force structure command managers are also available to provide assistance obtaining the ERVB one-page

CBA tool. c. The ERVB one-page CBA tool (Microsoft Excel) is designed to enable the quick and standardized creation of CBAs.

The one-page CBA is a decision-making tool, as it allows for the efficient comparison of the costs and benefits of a proposal.

d. In every equipment request it's imperative that you consider not only the costs of the equipment itself, but the per-sonnel used to operate the equipment and the facilities used for storage.

e. The essence of the CBA process is in comparing the costs and benefits of two or more alternatives (including the status quo - COA 1) in order to select the preferred alternative. As a general rule, the preferred alternative is the alternative that provides the greatest amount of benefits in relation to its cost.

f. Benefits are results expected in return for costs incurred for a chosen alternative. They are the quantitative and qual-itative improvements expected or resulting from the implementation of an alternative.

(1) Quantifiable benefits are benefits that can be assigned a numeric value such as dollars, physical count of tangible items, or percentage change.

(2) Non-quantifiable benefits are subjective in nature and can make a positive contribution to the analysis. Some exam-ples of non-quantifiable benefits are improvement in morale and customer satisfaction.

(3) Trade-offs and bill payers are the funding sources that have been identified which will cover (partially or entirely) the costs of an alternative, for example, commands may identify deletions or equipment already on-hand IOT identify savings to the U.S. Army.

g. Key goals of the one-page CBA tool are to: (1) Clearly list costs and benefits. (2) Show incremental change in cost from status quo. (3) Provide a graphical cost comparison for quick review. (4) Incorporate key cost drivers (equipment, personnel and facilities) to help in consideration of 2nd and 3rd order

effects. (5) Provide a 30-year rough life cycle cost estimate with long term cost impact of decisions.

Chapter 13 The Force Management System Website

13 – 1. About the Force Management System website The Force Management System website (FMSWeb) is an authoritative source for Army requirement and authorization data. It transforms collections of data and processes into an intuitive interface.

13 – 2. What the website provides a. Information on mission, organizational structure, personnel and equipment requirements and authorizations for Army

units and Army elements of Joint organizations for the current year through the second program year. b. Access to requirements and authorization documents including the following: (1) Basis of issue plan (BOIP).

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 99

(2) Tables of organization and equipment (TOE). (3) Modified tables of organization and equipment (MTOE). (4) Tables of distribution and allowance (TDA). (5) Joint tables of allowance (JTA). (6) Common tables of allowance (CTA). (7) A centralized source for reviewing staffing requirements and authorization data to include BOIP, TOE, MTOE, and

TDA. (8) Data distribution for a single authorization document as well as authorization documents for the entire Army. c. Management and analysis support tools and consolidated reports used in force management processes including the

following: (1) Armywide reports. (2) Multiple compare reports. (3) Trend reports. (4) Out-of-cycle process tool. (5) LIN exemptions report. (6) 4610 – R TDA equipment change request tool. (7) Army manpower and requirements criteria maintenance database (AMMDB) report.

Chapter 14 Determination and Management of Army Acquisition Objective, Army Procurement Objective, and Retention Objective

14 – 1. General a. These procedures apply to the Regular Army, the U.S. Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve for man-

aging requirements for equipment over the system line item number (LIN) life cycle. b. This chapter establishes Army procedures for the determination and maintenance of the army acquisition objective

(AAO), Army procurement objective (APO), and retention objective (RO) for major end item of equipment based on the modernization path requirement (MPR).

c. These procedures support force modernization planning and programming for the acquisition of Equipment to meet specified Army requirements. The Army Equipping Enterprise System (AE2S), maintained by the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G – 8, is the official repository for approved AAO, APO, RO, and MPR and quantities. All programming and ac-quisition documents that describe required quantities will use the data reported in AE2S.

d. The Army conducts annual reviews of all major end items (Class 7) and medical materiel (Class 8) in conjunction with production of the Structure and Composition System (SACS) file to revalidate AAO, APO, and RO, in order to inform annual planning, programming and budgeting Activities to support the Strategic Portfolio Assessment and Review (SPAR) and Program Objective Memorandum (POM) development.

14 – 2. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, Defense Acquisition System, and basis of issue plan processes

a. An Army capability development document (CDD) and capability production document (CPD) will include the AAO and its sub-elements, along with AAO-basis of issue guidance (BOIG) in the prescribed format provided in figure 14 – 1. This is done before the force modernization proponent submits through Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to HQDA DCS, G – 8, and to the Army Requirement Oversight Council (AROC) for validation and approval. The full opera-tional capability (FOC) quantity provided in the program summary paragraph of the CDD and CPD will equal the AAO. The basis of issue (BOI) contained in the AAO and BOIG will be written at the level of specificity required for submission of the BOI in the Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data (BOIPFD). The AAO is further refined as the requirement matures through the milestones of the program. The CDD or CPD will provide sufficient detail to support development of the BOIPFD.

b. The AROC forum is the venue through which the AAO and APO are approved. The AROC will validate AAO – BOIG concurrently with the validation and approval of capability documents (that is, CDD or CPD). Following AROC approval, the DCS, G – 8 will document the AAO in the AE2S database based on the CDD and CPD until the BOIP is approved. Maintaining the AAO begins with an approved BOIP and continues throughout the acquisition program's production and deployment phase. The retention objective (RO) is established once the program achieves FOC, signifying completion of procurement or modification.

100 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

c. The Materiel Development Decision (MDD) will inform the initial estimates of AAO to support an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) and affordability analysis. All elements of AAO must be estimated to effectively establish the afford-ability constraints. MDD AAO is reported through G – 3 to G – 8 AE2S with decision documents.

d. Materiel Solution Analysis and Milestone A (MS A) and CDD, if included, must contain the AAO by sub-element to effectively track the requirements and continue to assess affordability and SPAR planning. The MS A and CCD AAO is reported through G – 3 FM to G – 8 AE2S with decision documents.

e. MS B - CDD. The AAO – BOIG included in the supporting documents of a CDD identifies the AAO and sub-elements using associated facts and assumptions for the materiel solution. This AAO is used for planning and programming, but is to be considered an estimate since the BOIP will not be approved until after a MS B decision. The CDD, AAO – BOIG, and other supporting documents are validated by the AROC in accordance with AR 71 – 9. Once approved, DCS, G – 8 (DAPR – FD) updates the AAO data in AE2S. The CDD AAO – BOIG provides estimated quantities for each sub-element and identifies existing equipment to be replaced. The FOC quantity provided in the CDD will equal the AAO.

f. MS C - CPD. The AAO – BOIG is a supporting document of a CPD identifying the AAO and sub-elements using the BOIP force impact from the approved BOIP and associated sustainment and strategic readiness plans. If the need to estab-lish an APO is identified during CPD validation, the AAO and supporting document will also include the APO, described by sub-element, with associated risk mitigation strategies. The FOC quantity equals the AAO. If not affordable, an APO will be established based on the operational risk the Army is willing to assume by not fully fielding the capability across the force.

g. Initial BOIPFD. The BOIPFD is a compilation of information about a new or improved item of equipment. It contains functions, capabilities, intended use, BOI from the AAO – BOIG, and personnel and support requirements. The materiel developer prepares BOIPFD to initiate BOIP upon receipt of an approved CDD or CPD and an approved MS B or C decision. The materiel developer submits BOIPFD in Standard Study Number-Line Item Number Automated Management and Integrating System (SLAMIS) BOIPFD module for acceptance by the Army Staff (ARSTAF) stakeholders and the United States Army Force Management Support Agency (USAFMSA). As the system matures, the materiel developer may submit amended BOIPFD to inform future amendments of the approved BOIP. When the BOI in the initial BOIPFD is inconsistent with the approved AAO – BOIG in a CDD or CPD, the Army G – 8 must render a decision in SLAMIS to either accept BOI deviations or reject and return via the materiel developer with instructions to seek assessment by the force modernization proponent and potential AAO – BOIG update through a CDD or CPD amendment.

h. Basis of issue plan (BOIP). A BOIP is a requirements document that states the planned placement of quantities of new equipment and Associated Support Items of Equipment (ASIOE) and personnel, as well as the reciprocal displacement of equipment and personnel. The BOIP is developed by USAFMSA, staffed and approved by the Organizational Require-ments Document Approval Board (ORDAB) Council of Colonels (COC) or General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) hosted by the DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FM). The BOIP brief provides an overview of the BOIP, AAO, or APO with sub-elements and procurement plan by fiscal year. The approved BOIP represents the total requirement for the Objective Table of Organization and Equipment (OTOE), Army Pre-positioned Stocks (APS) unit sets, and training base along with other AAO sub-elements. As part of the BOIP process, the ORDAB COC/GOSC will review and approve AAO or APO adjust-ments and will refer those BOIP AAO or APO adjustments outside of the ORDAB approving authority to the AROC for decision. Materiel quantity distribution in accordance with an APO is not reflected in the BOIP but is governed through managed application of the BOIP to the Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) through annual command planning guidance and 4610 – R Tool for Table Of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) during the Equipment Requirements Validation Board (ERVB). The BOIP will be developed and approved prior to AROC consideration of the associated CPD in support of the Army’s MS C decision.

i. The ARSTAF stakeholders, Army service component commands, and other special interest stakeholders participate in the staffing of the BOIP packet with AAO sub-elements prior to the decision by the ORDAB COC, GOSC and/or AROC process. Once approved, DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FMD) will publish a decision memorandum with validated AAO and APO adjustments to stakeholders for updating AE2S.

j. The initial BOIP should be consistent with the AAO – BOIG from the AROC validated CDD or CPD. If noted during the HQDA staffing phase of BOIP that the BOI includes outliers, these outliers will be highlighted on the BOI slide and briefed at the ORDAB COC.

k. Once the BOIP with AAO/APO adjustments is approved, the process shifts to maintaining and updating AE2S.

14 – 3. Army acquisition objective, Army procurement objective, and retention objective reviews a. The summer force lock and resulting SACS file is the governing document to conduct annual validation of AAO,

APO and RO for major end items of equipment. Annual review of AAO, APO and RO begins with production of the June SACS file, which establishes the Army’s baseline for Table Of Organization and Equipment (TOE) requirements, as well as MTOE and TDA authorizations according to approved force structure, BOIPs and ERVB authorizations.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 101

b. HQDA stakeholders will review approved AAO, APO and RO during the SPAR to determine whether proposed changes in line item number (LIN) quantities for procurement will result in a 10 percent or greater change in the previously approved AAO or if procurement costs will increase by more than $10 million. The AROC will determine whether LINs falling into these criteria should be fully resourced to procure the AAO or if an APO should be established. Proposed changes to an approved AAO or APO, or initial creation of an APO, will be approved via the AROC. AAOs or APOs that do not experience variance will not be referred to the AROC process.

c. Given approved SPAR results, program evaluation groups will program resources adequate to attain the AAO, or APO if established, within the timeframe specified in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) document or in accordance with SPAR decisions. Upon approval of the AAO or APO change or initial creation of APO, the RO for legacy LINs in this MODPATH will be adjusted to ensure the overall MPR is met.

d. When the materiel developer proposes changes to required Board (CSB) process, an out-of-cycle adjustment request will be prepared and submitted for AROC consideration prior to the CSB. This requirement review process applies to both the annual "de-scoping CSB" and the as-required "trigger CSB."

e. Review of AAO, APO, and RO in conjunction with production of the June SACS file will serve as the annual vali-dation of Army requirements to inform planning, programming, and budgeting activities. Cyclic review of LINS in ac-cordance with the LIN validation process in AR 71 – 32, will not validate or revalidate of AAO, APO and RO quantities (AAO or APO) documented in the acquisition program baseline for approval by the configuration steering committee.

f. Out-of-Cycle AAO and APO Adjustment Request Submission Procedures: (1) Requesting authorities including HQDA leads for AAO or APO sub-elements, TRADOC and other force moderni-

zation proponents (such as U.S. Army Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Com-mand/Army Force Strategic Command, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command) and Army Materiel Command (AMC) are authorized to submit a formal request memorandum with justification under the signature of a General Officer to the DCS, G – 8.

(2) DCS, G – 8 generates an AAO or APO adjustment request when a submitter determines that an AROC-validated AAO or APO requires changes. Adjustments will include any increases or decreases resulting from approved force struc-ture changes not previously considered and approved BOIPs. However, no BOIPFD will be submitted in SLAMIS for processing "new increases" to the BOI of an approved BOIP beyond the approved AAO or without a “bill-payer” until a formal adjustment request is submitted and approved.

(3) DCS, G – 8 prepares and staffs AAO or APO adjustment request packet. The packet includes: HQDA Form 5, mem-orandum of justification on G – 8 letter head with adjustments captured in template figure 14 – 2 as an enclosure along with other supporting documents as needed. An adjustment to any AAO or APO sub-elements will cause all sub-elements to be revalidated by the HQDA leads. During the formal staffing process, the packet will be staffed with all HQDA leads for sub-elements and DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – SSG) via a formal HQDA tasker (HQDA Task Management Tool (TMT)), with a suspense of 14 business days. COL or GS – 15 level concurrence is required on the HQDA Form 5.

(4) Following staffing, the DCS, G – 8 action officer will submit packet with an affordability assessment to DCS, G – 8 requirements integration and assessments (DAPR – FDJ) for AROC approval.

(5) Once approved, the DCS, G – 8 will publish a decision memorandum with the adjusted AAO or APO to stakeholders and will post the approved memorandum to the Capabilities & AROC Management System (CAMS) repository and update AE2S. The decision memorandum will identify the catalog of approved requirements documents reference number and an assigned change tracking number.

g. Out-of-cycle RO adjustment request submission procedures: (1) DCS, G – 3/5/7 DAMO – SSG is the lead for APS unit sets, APS activity sets, AWRS, WRSA, and OPROJ but not

RCF, ORF, OTOE, or training base. (2) DCS, G – 4 generates a RO adjustment request packet when a submitter determines a need to adjust the Army’s RO. (3) DCS, G – 4 prepares and staffs RO adjustment request packet. The packet includes: HQDA Form 5, memorandum

of justification on G – 3/5/7 letterhead, with format enclosure at Annex C capturing proposed changes along with other supporting documentations. The packet will be staffed with all HQDA leads for sub-elements and DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FM/TR/OD/SSG) via a formal tasker in the HQDA TMT, with a suspense of 14 business days. COL or GS – 15 level concurrence is required on the HQDA Form 5.

(4) following staffing, the DCS, G – 4 action officer will submit the packet to DCS, G – 3/5/7 for approval. (5) once approved, DCS, G – 3/5/7 will publish a decision memorandum with the adjusted RO to AMC and other stake-

holders and will ensure the RO is updated in AE2S. The decision memorandum will include an assigned change tracking number.

102 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

14 – 4. Army acquisition objective, Army procurement objective, and retention objective stakeholder roles

a. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) (ASA (ALT)) and materiel developers: (1) Ensure materiel developers reflect the approved AAO or APO (if established), in the acquisition program baseline. (2) Ensure initial program life-cycle cost estimates are updated once a determination is made to acquire an APO versus

an AAO quantity. (3) Ensure the materiel developers participate in the APO determination when requested. (4) Ensure materiel developers use the TRADOC produced AAO and AAO – BOIG supporting document to the ap-

proved CDD or CPD to complete capability developer's portion of their BOIPFD submission. (5) Advise DCS, G – 8, programs and priorities (DAPR – FDR) and G – 8 portfolios when acquisition is within 2 fiscal

years of reaching FOC and 2 fiscal years prior to end of procurement. (6) Provide AAO quantities within the BOIPFD module in SLAMIS, for new and future amendments for LINs that do

not have an AAO documented within the module. (7) Confirm planning quantities for “other requirements” sub-element of the AAO or APO. b. HQDA DCS, G – 3/5/7: (1) Serves as the office of primary responsibility (OPR) for AAO, APO, and RO procedures. In addition, serves as the

OPR for staff review of out-of-cycle AAO and APO adjustments prior to hand-off to DCS, G – 8, DAPR – FDJ, for AROC approval.

(2) Serves as the HQDA lead for prioritization of requirements, BOIPs, and force structure adjustments. (3) Supports AAO, APO, and RO functional forums, AROC forums, and ensure force structure and BOIP changes are

fully integrated into the AROC and SPAR process. (4) Ensures all BOIPs are fully applied to the OTOE position in SACS to support the calculation of the Army’s require-

ments for the modernization path and the determination of AAO for new equipment that is expected to replace currently documented LINs.

(5) Serves as the HQDA lead for AAO sub-elements as part of the BOIP process for OTOE, APS unit sets, and training base, and serve as the approving authority for other APS sub-elements recommendations when presented by DCS, G – 4 for decision.

(6) Provides the force modernization proponents the approved force impact, when requested for completing AAO – BOIG for draft CPDs.

(7) Determines required munitions quantities, in accordance with AR 5 – 13 and prioritization policy. (8) Determines non-system specific training device for AAO, APO, and RO, and provides to AE2S. Updates AAO or

APO annually. (9) Provides additive ASIOE quantities not contained in the SACS file to DCS, G – 8 for inclusion in the calculations of

the MPR or the consolidated TOE update. (10) Assists DCS, G – 8 with maintaining the AAO, APO, RO, and MPR in AES2. (11) Provides DCS, G – 8 with the approved SACS master force file at least annually. (12) Serves as the TRADOC ARCIC and force modernization proponents' single point of contact (POC) for collection,

integration and staffing of all 11 sub-elements of the AAO contained in AAO – BOIG. (13) Coordinates management decision which will affect the RO with DCS, G – 4. (14) Provide DCS, G – 8 (DAPR – FD) with the unit identification codes (UICs) that constitute the training base and any

Regular Army (COMPO 1) unit sets in which equipment to accompany troops (TAT) requirements are not additive to AAO, until the training base identification is the SACS file to automate the process.

(15) Serves as approving authority for BOIPs and as part of the BOIP and LIN validation processes, reviews and ap-proves AAO and APO adjustments, and will defer those adjustments outside of the ORDAB approving authority to the AROC process for decision.

(16) Serves as approving authority for the RO of LINs. (17) Maintains a Share Point portal on the DCS, G – 3/5/7 Bolte portal, to serve as the interim staff coordination and

storage site for annual AAO, APO, and RO revalidation actions until such time as DCS, G – 8 completes modernization of AE2S.

c. HQDA DCS, G – 4: (1) Serves as the HQDA lead for the compiling of the following sub-elements of AAO and APO for Class 7 end items: (a) APS Activity Sets. (b) APS Army War Reserve Sustainment Stocks (AWRS). (c) APS War Reserve Stocks for Allies (WRSA). (d) APS Operational Project Stocks (OPROJ). (e) Repair Cycle Float (RCF).

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 103

(f) Operational Readiness Float (ORF). (2) Gains DCS, G – 3/5/7, DAMO – SSG approval of APS requirements and DCS, G – 8 approval of ORF and RCF re-

quirements prior to forwarding to DCS, G – 3/5/7 (DAMO – FMD) POC for inclusion in AAO – BOIG of capability docu-ments by the force modernization proponents.

(3) Serves as the HQDA lead for staffing out-of-cycle RO adjustment requests for DCS, G – 3/5/7 approval on receipt of recommendations.

(4) Submits divesture recommendations for DCS, G – 3/5/7 and DCS, G – 8 approval as part of the divesture working group initiative.

d. HQDA DCS, G – 8: (1) Integrates AAO and APO into AROC, SPAR, and program objective memorandum (POM) forums, and establishes

metrics for AAO and APO review to include decision points for reviews. (2) Calculates RO by accounting for all LINs projected within the MPR. For the DCS, G – 3/5/7 approval at the conclu-

sion of procurement or modification, in conjunction with DCS, G – 3/5/7 and ASA (ALT), the affordability of the AAO and establishes APO (constrained procurement objectives) as necessary.

(3) Serves as the HQDA lead for the "AAO other requirements" not documented in the sacs, and provides requirements to the force modernization proponents for inclusion in the CDD and CPD, when requested by DCS, G – 3/5/7, DAMO – FMD.

(4) Serves as the HQDA lead for staffing out-of-cycle AAO and APO adjustment requests for AROC processing. (5) Establishes and maintains AE2S as the Army’s authoritative repository for AAO, APO, RO, and MPR quantities

and the sub-elements for each LIN. Documents periodic review decisions in CAMS and AE2S in a timely manner. e. Commanders, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, U.S. Army

Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Force Strategic determine, in command, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, and U.S. Army Medical Command, whether to:

(1) Amend approved AROC CDD or CPD, when applicable. This change may generate materiel developer submission of amended BOIPFD.

(2) Update and maintain the JCIDS writing guides to include templates, shown in figures 14 – 1 through 14 – 4, and add AAO and sub-elements table to CDD and CPD briefing template.

104 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Figure 14 – 1. Army acquisition objective and basis of issue template

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 105


106 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019


DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 107

Figure 14 – 4. Army acquisition objective, Army procurement objective, or retention objective adjustment template

(3) Submit CDD and CPD with AAO – BOIG to DCS, G – 8 for AROC validation. (4) Coordinate with the DCS, G – 3/5/7, DAMO – FMD central POC to collect requirements for AAO sub-elements to

complete the AAO – BOIG for draft CDDs and CPDs. (5) Assist DCS, G – 8, and DCS, G – 3/5/7 to determine the acceptable level of operational risk and suitable mitigation

strategies when the need to establish an APO is identified. f. U.S. Army Materiel Command sustains the Army’s RO for major end items of equipment and submits recommenda-

tions for RO adjustments to DCS, G – 4 when required. g. Office of The Surgeon General: (1) Sustains the Army’s RO for medical materiel and submit recommendations for RO adjustments to DCS, G – 4. (2) Serves as the HQDA lead for the compilation and submission of AAO and APO sub-elements for Class 8 items. h. U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency provides support, as required, to complete initial validation and

annual revalidation of AAO, APO, and RO.

108 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Appendix A References

Section I Required Publications Except where otherwise indicated, the following references are available on the APD website (https://armypubs.army.mil/). DOD references are available on the OSD website (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pub1.html). USCs are avail-able at http://uscode.house.gov/.

AD 2012 – 08 Army Total Force Policy (Cited in para 1 – 1.)

AR 70 – 1 Army Acquisition Policy (Cited in para 4–16e.)

AR 220 – 5 Designation, Classification and Change in Status of Units (Cited in para 9 – 8.)

AR 525 – 30 Army Strategic Readiness (Cited in para 12–1d.)

AR 570 – 4 Manpower Management (Cited in para 6–3c(21).)

AR 700 – 142 Type Classification, Materiel Release, Fielding, and Transfer (Cited in para 11–2a(2).)

AR 710 – 2 Supply Policy Below the National Level (Cited in para 11–7u.)

CTA 50 – 900 Clothing and Individual Equipment (Cited in para 4–16p.)

CTA 50 – 909 Field and Garrison Furnishings and Equipment (Cited in para 11–3a.)

CTA 50 – 970 Expendable/Durable Items (Except Medical, Class V, Repair Parts, and Heraldic Items) (Cited in para 4–16o.)

DA Pam 708 – 3 Cataloging of Supplies and Equipment, Army Adopted Items of Materiel, and List of Reportable Items (Cited in the glos-sary terms.)

DODI 1225.06 Equipping the Reserve Forces (Cited in para 9–11a.)

SB 700 – 20 (DA Pam 708 – 3) Reportable Items Selected for Authorization (Cited in para 3–15d.)

Section II Related Publications A related publication is a source of additional information. The user does not have to read a related publication to under-stand this publication. DOD references are available on the OSD website (http://www.esd.whs.mil/). USCs are available at http://uscode.house.gov/.

AFARS 5145.1 Government Property-General (Available at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/.)

AR 5 – 10 Stationing

AR 5 – 13 Total Army Munitions Requirements and Prioritization Policy

https://armypubs.army.mil/

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pub1.html

http://uscode.house.gov/

http://uscode.house.gov/

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 109

AR 10 – 87 Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units

AR 11 – 2 Managers’ Internal Control Program

AR 15 – 1 Department of the Army Federal Advisory Committee Management Program

AR 20 – 1 Inspector General Activities and Procedures

AR 25 – 1 Army Information Technology

AR 25 – 30 The Army Publishing Program

AR 25 – 50 Preparing and Managing Correspondence

AR 27 – 10 Military Justice

AR 40 – 61 Medical Logistics Policies

AR 58 – 1 Management, Acquisition, and Use of Motor Vehicles

AR 71 – 9 Warfighting Capabilities Determination

AR 71 – 11 Total Army Analysis (TAA)

AR 71 – 32 Force Development and Documentation

AR 73 – 1 Test and Evaluation Policy

AR 140 – 145 Individual Mobilization Augmentation Program

AR 145 – 2 Organization, Administration, Operation and Support

AR 220 – 1 Army Unit Status Reporting and Force Registration - Consolidated Policies

AR 350 – 9 Oversea Deployment Training

AR 380 – 5 Department of the Army Information Security Program

AR 380 – 40 Safeguarding and Controlling Communications Security Materiel

AR 415 – 16 Army Facilities Components System

AR 500 – 5 Army Mobilization

AR 525 – 29 Army Force Generation

110 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

AR 600 – 8 – 22 Military Awards

AR 600 – 8 – 105 Military Orders

AR 602 – 2 Human Systems Integration in the System Acquisition Process

AR 611 – 1 Military Occupational Classification Structure Development and Implementation

AR 623 – 3 Evaluation Reporting System

AR 690 – 11 Use and Management of Civilian Personnel in Support of Military Contingency Operations

AR 700 – 8 Logistics Planning Factors and Data Management

AR 700 – 127 Integrated Product Support

AR 700 – 131 Loan, Lease, and Donation of Army Materiel

AR 700 – 138 Army Logistics Readiness and Sustainability

AR 708 – 1 Logistics Management Data and Cataloging Procedures for Army Supplies and Equipment

AR 725 – 1 Special Authorization and Procedures for Issues, Sales, and Loans

AR 725 – 50 Requisition, Receipt, and Issue System

AR 735 – 5 Property Accountability Policies

AR 840 – 10 Flags, Guidons, Streamers, Tabards, and Automobile and Aircraft Plates

CTA 8 – 100 Army Medical Department Expendable/Durable Items

DA Memo 25 – 52 Staff Action Process and Correspondence Policies

DA Pam 220 – 1 Defense Readiness Reporting System - Army Procedures

DA Pam 350 – 38 Standards in Weapons Training

DA Pam 611 – 21 Military Occupational Classification and Structure

DA Pam 700 – 27 Instructions for Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data Submissions

DA Pam 708 – 2 Cataloging and Supply Management Data Procedures for the Army Central Logistics Data Bank

DODI 4140.01 DOD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 111

DODI 4500.36 Acquisition, Management and Use of Non-tactical Vehicles (NTVS)

DODI 5025.13 DOD Plain Language Program

DODI 8320.02 Sharing Data, Information, and Technology (IT) Services in the Department of Defense

FAR 7.4 Equipment Lease or Purchase (Available at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/.)

FAR 7.401 Acquisition Considerations (Available at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/.)

FAR 7.402 Acquisition Methods (Available at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/.)

FAR 45.000 Government Property (Available at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/.)

10 USC 162 Combatant commands: assigned forces; chain of command

10 USC 165 Combatant commands: administration and support

10 USC 2463 Guidelines and procedures for use of civilian employees to preform Department of Defense functions

10 USC 7013 Secretary of the Army

10 USC 10107 Army National Guard of the United States: status when not in Federal service

10 USC 10171 United States Army Reserve Command

10 USC 12302 Ready Reserve

10 USC 12304 Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members; order to active duty other than during war or national emergency

10 USC 12310 Reserves: for organizing, administering, and so forth, reserve components

31 USC 1341 Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

32 USC National Guard

Section III Prescribed Forms This section contains no entries.

Section IV Referenced Forms Except where otherwise indicated below, the following DA Forms are available on the APD website (https://armypubs.army.mil).





https://armypubs.army.mil/

112 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

DA Form 5 Army Staffing Form

DA Form 11 – 2 Internal Control Evaluation Certification

DA Form 2028 Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms

DA Form 5965 Basis of Issue for Clothing and Individual Equipment (CIE)

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 113

Appendix B Concurrent development processes

B – 1. Function Here is a timeline that shows when, what, and who is involved in concurrent FDU and TOE development processes, in table B – 1.

Table B – 1 Execution timeline for concurrent FDU and TOE development processes — Continued Date

Milestone

Action

Action officer

Start date + 30 working days

FDD announces open-ing of FDU cycle

-Coordinates with USAFMSA on proposed new/changed design. -Announces closing date for receipt of issues. -Announces and conducts FDU training. - ARSTAF participates in training classes; ARNG and USAR are invited to participate.

TRADOC TRADOC FDD

Start date + 30 – 60 work-ing days

Receives issues from proponent

-Receives issue packages from COE/CDID (Transmittal letter, organizational design, briefing, DOTMLPF Analy-sis, O&O Concept, and URS). -Announces the review board schedule, sets agenda for issues being reviewed and distributes issues to review board members. -Requests HQDA participation and comments at review boards.

TRADOC FDD

Start date + 60 – 90 work-ing days

FDU Review Boards

-Conducts review board - OI and HQDA team participate and present initial functional assessment comments of is-sue(s) at review boards. - USAFMSA begins TOE development after issue is ac-cepted by the review board. - AIMD begins the operational architecture for the new design.

TRADOC FDD and HQDA FM FDU gatekeeper USAFMSA, AIMD


-Sends issue(s) for Armywide field staffing

-Gains ARCIC approval to release issues for Armywide field staffing. -Announces issue(s) are now available on Army Knowledge Online (AKO) (includes draft URS(s)). -Coordinates with the ARSTAF to review issue packet and provide comments. -ARSTAF provides field staffing comments and releases comments to TRADOC FDD. -Provides FDU updates to HQDA FM FDU gatekeeper. -Receives FDU packet (URS) updates and provides up-date to USAFMSA

TRADOC FDD HQDA FM FDU gatekeeper TRADOC FDD

114 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019


Milestone

Action

Action officer


Requirements determi-nation decision brief to TRADOC ARCIC End of Army field staffing

-Consolidates field comments and prepares issue(s) for requirements determination brief to DIR ARCIC or Com-mander, CAC. -Conducts the requirements determination decision brief and gains approval to send requirement(s) forward to DCS, G – 3/5/7, DFM.

TRADOC, FDD


Transmits require-ments determination and publishes draft TOE.

-Transmits requirements determination to HQDA and DFM for approval-implementation instructions. -Provides USAFMSA with updated draft TOEs. -Receives FDU packet (URS) with requirements determi-nation decision. -Posts an approval level (AL) 3 TOE on FMSWeb. -Notifies HQDA FM FDU gatekeeper and TRADOC FDD when posted.

TRADOC, FDD HQDA FM FDU gatekeeper USAFMSA

FDU receipt date from TRADOC

Acknowledges receipt

- HQDA FM FDU coordinator/gatekeeper sends receipt notification to TRADOC FDD. -Reviews packages and IDs lead OI. -Forwards requirement packet to the OI for review. -Confirms that the AL3 TOE has been posted to FMSWEB. Updates the FDU/ tracker.

HQDA FM FDU Gate-keeper

Receipt date Initial FDU review -FM receives requirements determination document (RDD) from TRADOC. -In accordance with FMF and FMO; OI, reviews for com-pleteness of FDU packet. -List all requirements. -Determines if acceptable or return to TRADOC.

HQDA FM FDU gatekeeper OI or HQDA FM FDU gate-keeper

Receipt date + 15 working days

Conducts FIFA -OI schedules FIFA meeting. -Conducts initial FIFA briefing to all stakeholders. -Resolves issues. -Tasks FIFA team to gain written function assessments -Coordinates with USAFMSA for AL5 TOE build and initial personnel and equipment compares. -Provides timeline for FDU processing and implementa-tion.

OI and FIFA members (ARSTAFF, ACOM, and proponent)

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 115


Milestone

Action

Action officer


IPR

-Conducts IPR, gains guidance from DFM as required. -Publishes meeting notes/EXSUM as required. -Announces scheduled requirements approval and TOE approval briefings. -Provides timeline for FDU processing and implementa-tion

OI

Receipt date +16 – 60 working days

Brief development and AO level staffing

-Updates the requirement approval brief/CBA and TOE approval brief/pony blanket. -Collects and analyzes written assessments of FDU/TOE/CBA. -Finalizes developing the requirements approval/TOE briefing with CBA and Form 5. -Staffs requirements approval/TOE briefings/CBA/Form 5 for concurrence (G – 8 requires 5 weeks); all others are given 14 days. -TRADOC COE makes any changes to the CBA and gains final review approval. Returns updated CBA to OI.

OI TRADOC COE

Receipt date + 60 to 75 working days

Gains 06-level staffing.

-Tasked in TMT to gain concurrence on DA Form 5 and pony blanket. -Collects responses. -Pre-briefs FMO division chief. -DFM chaired approval briefing, as required.

FIFA team members OI

Receipt date + 76 – 80 working days

Conducts requirements approval and TOE ap-proval briefings.

-Gains DFM recommendation/approval to release DA Form 5 and requirements approval packet (briefing, TOE compares, and pony blanket) through DCS, G – 3/5/7 to the VCSA, for approval of TRADOC requirements, as re-quired. - Gains DFM approval on TOE and sends to USAFMSA for implementation. Drafts MTOEs for impacted UIC. -Informs USAFMSA of MTOE production requirement for impacted UICs. -Approving authority for FDUs is the VCSA or CSA and the DFM for FDU Jrs.

OI

Receipt date + 81 – 95 working days

Gains VCSA approval.

- Enters into TMT and forwards the requirements-ap-proval package through the DCS, G – 3/5/7 to the VCSA, as required.

OI

116 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019


Milestone

Action

Action officer


Receives requirements approval.

-Scans approval documents and sends to stakeholders -Uploads approval documents to FMO FDU folder -Updates status report -Files hardcopy and provides a copy to the OI.

OI

End state

Conducts MTOE ap-proval briefings.

-Gains DFM approvals on MTOE(s). -Updates FMSWeb with MTOE documentation. -Provides approved document to TRADOC (ARCIC).

OI USAFMSA OI/HQDA FM FDU Gate-keeper

B – 2. About the timeline The process and timeline in table B – 1 will vary by the complexity of the proposed organizational design and/or urgency of operational requirements dictated by senior leadership.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 117

Glossary

Section I Abbreviations AAO Army acquisition objective

ABO Army Budget Office

AC Active Component

ACOM Army command

ACSIM Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management

ADOS active duty for operational support

AE2S Army Equipping Enterprise System

AEMS Army equipment modernization strategy

AEOC area of concentration

AGG aggregate

AGR active guard reserve

AIMD Accounting and Information Management Division

AL approval level

AMAF Army management structure code

AMC U.S. Army Materiel Command

AMEDD U.S. Army Medical Department

AMEDD C&S U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School

AMHA Army management headquarters activity

AMMDB Army manpower requirements criteria maintenance database

AMSCO Army management structure code

AOI area of interest

118 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

AOLCM Army organizational life cycle model

APD Army Publishing Directorate

APE Army Program Executive

APO Army procurement objective

APRB AROC Process Review Board

APS Army prepositioned stocks

AR Army regulation

AR2B Army Requirements and Resources Board

ARCENT Army Central Command

ARCIC Army Capabilities Integration Center

ARCYBER Army Cyber Command

ARNG Army National Guard

AROC Army Requirements Oversight Council

ARSTAF Army Staff

ARSTRUC Army structure

ARTEP Army Training and Evaluation Program

ASA (ALT) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)

ASA (CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

ASA (M&RA) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

ASC Army Sustainment Command

ASCC Army service component command

ASI additional skill identifier

ASIOE associated support items of equipment

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 119

ASIOE/P associated support items of equipment/personnel

ASL authorized stockage lists

ASOS Army support to other Services

AUGTDA augmentation table of distribution and allowances

AUSTR authorized strength

AWRS Army War Reserve Sustainment Stocks

BCT Brigade Combat Team

BDE brigade

BOI basis of issue

BOIG basis of issue guidance

BOIP basis of issue plan

BOIPFD basis of issue plan feeder data

BOIPNG basis of issue plan narrative guidance

BOLC Basic Officer Leaders Course

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

BTOE base table of organization and equipment

C4 Army command, control, communications, and computers

CAA Center for Army Analysis

CAFC commercial activities function code

CAPDEV capability developer

CAR Chief, Army Reserve

CARDS Catalog of Approved Requirements Document

CASCOM Army Combined Arms Support Command

120 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

CAT category

CBA cost benefit analysis

C – BA capability based assessment

CCDR combatant commanders

CCMD Combatant Command

CCNUM command control number

CDA capability demand analysis

CDD capability development document

CDID capabilities development and integration directorates

CHRA Civilian Human Resources Agency

CIC controlled item code

CIE clothing and individual equipment

CIO/G – 6 Chief Information Officer/G – 6

CIV civilian

CJCSI Chairman of the Joint Chiefs instruction

CMH Center of Military History

CMP change management plan

CMs command managers

COA course of action

CoC Council of Colonels

CoE Center of Excellence

COIN counterinsurgency

COMPO component

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 121

CPD capability production document

CPLAN command plan

CPP cost and performance portal

cPROBE Cloud Program Optimization and Budget Evaluation

CSA Chief of Staff, Army

CSM command sergeant major

CTA common table of allowances

CTCs Combat Training Centers

CTT collective training tasks

CTYPE civilian type code

CUSR commander’s unit status report

DA Department of the Army

DAC Department of the Army Civilians

DAMO – FM DCS, G – 3/5/7 Force Management Directorate

DAMO – FMD DCS, G–3/5/7 Force Integration and Documentation Division

DAMO – FMF DCS, G – 3/5/7 Force Integration and Management Division

DAMO – FMZ DCS, G – 3/5/7 Director, Force Management Directorate

DAPR – FD DCS, G – 8 Force Development

DAPR – FDP DCS, G – 8 Resource Documentation Division

DARNG Director, Army National Guard

DARPL dynamic Army resource priority list

DC display-compute

DCS Deputy Chief of Staff

122 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

DDD Director of National Intelligence Decision Document

DDS dynamic distribution system

DFM Director, Force Management

DHP Defense Health Program

DI document integrator

DO display-only

DOD Department of Defense

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

DODM Department of Defense Manual

DOTMLPF – P doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy

DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office

DRRS – A defense readiness reporting system-Army

DRU direct reporting unit

DUIC derivative unit identification code

EDATE effective date

EDTA early deployer time phased force deployment data (TPFDD) analysis

EE PEG Equipping Program Executive Group

ELSEQ element sequence

ENL enlisted

EQ4 equipfor

ERC equipment readiness code

ERVB Equipment Review and Validation Board

EXORD execute order

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 123

FA foundational activities

FD force development (FD)

FDA force design assessment

FDD Force Design Directorate

FDU force design update

FDU Jr. force design update junior

FFR force feasibility review

FI force integrator

FIFA force integration functional area

FM force management

FMBB Force Management Bulletin Board

FMS Force Management System

FMSWeb Force Management System website

FOC full operational capability

FORGE force generation

FORSCOM U.S. Army Forces Command

FRAGO Fragmentary Order

FTS full time support

FY fiscal year

FYDP future years' defense program

GCC geographic combatant command

GDP global defense posture

GF generating force

124 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

GO general officer

GOSC general officer steering committee

GPSI Global Positioning System I

GSA General Services Administration

HNS host nation support

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army

HR human resources

IDENT identity codes

IDH indirect hire

IMA individual mobilization augmentee

INSCOM United States Army Intelligence and Security Command

IPOA input-process-output analysis

IRC Implementation Review Council

IRR Individual Ready Reserve

ISC Integrated Security Campaign

IT information technology

JAG Judge Advocate General

JICM Joint integrated contingency model

JOPES Joint Operations Planning and Execution System

JSPS Joint Strategic Planning System

JTA Joint table of allowances

JTD Joint table of distribution

JTF Joint task force

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 125

JTMD Joint table of mobilization distribution

KEES Korean Enduring Equipment Set

LCC logistics control code

LCMC life cycle management command

LIDB logistics integrated database

LIN line item number

LIW logistics information warehouse

LOA letter of authority

LOCCO location code

LOE letter of exception

LOGSA Logistics Support Agency

M&S modeling and simulation

MARC manpower requirements criteria

MATDEV materiel developer

MCN management control number

MCO major combat operation

MCU multiple component unit

MDEP management decision package

MDP MARC development plan

MDW Military District of Washington

MEDCOM Medical Command

MFORCE master force

MILCON military construction

126 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

MMC manpower mix criteria

MMEWR minimum mission essential wartime requirements

MOA memorandum of agreement

MOBTDA mobilization table of distribution and allowances

MODPATH modernization path

MOS military occupational specialty

MOU memorandum of understanding

MS milestone

MTOE modified table of organization and equipment

MVA military value analysis

NCO noncommissioned officer

NDI non-developmental item

NDS National Defense Strategy

NEF new equipment fielding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NET new equipment training

NETCOM Network Enterprise Technology Command

NIP National Intelligence Program

NMS national military strategy

NSLIN nonstandard line item number

NSN national stock number

NSS national security strategy

NTV non-tactical vehicle

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 127

O&S operations and support

OA operating agency

OCAR Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve

OCIE organizational clothing and individual equipment

OCS Officer Candidate School

ODCS Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (ODCS)

ODT overseas deployment training

OF operating force

OFF officer

OI organization integrator

ONS operational needs statement

OPORD operations order

OPROJ Operational Project Stocks

OPTEMPO operational tempo

ORDAB Organizational Requirements Document Approval Board

ORF Operation Readiness Float

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OTOE objective table of organization and equipment

PAE program analysis and evaluation

Pam pamphlet

PAT per accomplishment time

PBAT Program Budget Advisory Team

PBG program budget guidance

128 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

PDM program decision memorandum

PEG program evaluation group

PEO program executive office

PLIN primary line item number

PM program manager

POC point of contact

POL petroleum, oils, lubricants

POM program objective memorandum

PPBE planning, programming, budgeting, and execution

PRC Presidential reserve call-up

PSI Policy, Standards and Integration Team

PSMIPT Product Support Management Integrated Process Team

RA Regular Army

RC Reserve Component

RCF Repair Cycle Float

RDA research, development, and acquisition

REIMC reimbursable code change

REIMS reimbursable source

RFC request for change

RFG Resource Formulation Guide

RMD resource management directive

RO retention objective

ROA rule of allocation

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 129

ROB Reserve Operations Branch

ROC resource operating code

ROTC Reserve Officers Training Corps

RQSTR required strength

SACDB structure and composition system database

SACS structure and composition system

SAMAS structure and manpower allocation system

SAOs security assistance organizations

SB supply bulletin

SECARMY Secretary of the Army

SECNAVINST Secretary of the Navy instruction

SES Senior Executive Service

SKO sets, kits, and outfits

SLAMIS standard study number-line item number automated management and integrating system

SLDA senior leader, Department of the Army

SLIN standard line item number

SME subject matter expert

SOF special operations forces

SOG standards of grade

SR sustainable readiness

SRC standard requirements code

SRM sustainable readiness module

SSA support to strategic analysis

130 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

SSN standard study number

SSO staff synchronization officer

SSRD staff synchronization rehearsal of concept (ROC) drill

STACO station code

TAA Total Army analysis

TAEDP Total Army Equipment Distribution Program

TAG The Adjutant General

TAP The Army Plan

TAT to accompany troops

TC type classification

TDA table of distribution and allowances

TDA CMP table of distribution and allowance change management plan

TIG The Inspector General

TJAG The Judge Advocate General

TOE table of organization and equipment

TPFDD time phased force deployment data

TPSN troop program sequence number

TPU troop program units

TR training

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

TRM training resource model

TSOCs Theater Special Operations Command

TWV tactical wheeled vehicle

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 131

TWVRMO Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Requirements Management Office

TYPCO type unit code

UFC unit function code

UFR unfunded requirements

UIC unit identification code

ULC unit location code

UMC unit movement code

URS unit reference sheet

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USACMH U.S. Army Center of Military History

USAFMSA U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency

USAMAA U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency

USAR U.S. Army Reserve

USARAF U.S. Army, Africa

USAREUR U.S. Army, Europe

USARNORTH U.S. Army, North

USARPAC U.S. Army, Pacific

USARSO U.S. Army, South

USASMDC U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

USASOC U.S. Army Special Operations Command

USC United States Code

USELEMNORAD United States Element, North American Aerospace Defense Command

USMA U.S. Military Academy

132 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

USSOCOM United States Special Operations Command

VCSA Vice Chief of Staff of the Army

VI visual information

WO warrant officer

WRSA War Reserve Stocks for Allies

ZLIN developmental line item number

4610 – R Automated TDA Equipment Request Tool

Section II Terms Army acquisition objective The AAO is the total Army requirement that represents the unconstrained acquisition quantity required for a major end item of equipment that has, or will have, a LIN that reflects the minimum mission essential wartime requirement (MMEWR) needed to equip and sustain the army's approved Master force and to meet other specified approved equipment Requirements.

Army procurement objective The APO is a determined portion of the AAO that is affordable at an acceptable level of risk to Army missions and mod-ernization objectives. The APO represents the total quantity of fully configured end items the army intends to procure during the life cycle of the program. An APO is established when army priorities change or program costs make procure-ment of the full AAO unaffordable. The APO quantity must produce operationally relevant capacity within units across the force. The approved APO, adjusted distribution plan, and the associated risk mitigation plan will be documented in the reigning joint capabilities integration and development system (JCIDS) AAO and BOIG as an enclosure to the supporting document of the capability development document (CDD)/capability production document (CPD) and in the AE2S.

Associated support items of equipment and personnel Equipment and personnel essential to operate, maintain, or transport the principal and ASIOE item(s).

Authorized substitutes Equipment items prescribed by HQDA in accordance with the provisions explained in DA Pam 708 – 3, that, if currently on-hand (available) in the unit, will be reported as on-hand (available) in the USR in place of the equipment items required in accordance with the unit’s formal requirements and authorizations document (MTOE and TDA).Authorized substitutes are listed in DA Pam 708 – 3 (see SB 700 – 20).

Base table of organization and equipment The BTOE is an organizational model design based on doctrine and equipment currently available. It is the least modern-ized version of a type of organization and identifies mission-essential wartime requirements for personnel and equipment.

Capability developer The CAPDEV is the command or agency that formulates warfighting requirements for doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, and education, personnel, facilities and any policy within the context of the force development pro-cess. A CAPDEV is also responsible for representing the end user during the full development and lifecycle process and ensures all enabling capabilities are known, affordable, budgeted, and aligned for synchronous fielding and support.

Component major item An item that has been modified for the major end item; it is a part of the BOIP item configuration. End items used as a component will not be listed separately in authorization documents; they take on the identity of the BOIP item and are included in the total end item cost. Component major items normally will be installed or removed at higher than field level maintenance when the system is being built due to wiring, mounting, and system interface; are the primary item in the

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 133

assembly or set configuration and removal will destroy the identity and integrity of the assemblage or set. An example is a trailer/shelter that is modified and then embedded in the major end item.

Components a. Regular Army. b. Army National Guard. c. Army Reserve. d. Unresourced. e. Prepositioned unit sets. f. Direct host nation offsets. g. LOGCAP.

Components of end items A component is defined as an assembly or combination of parts, subassemblies, and assemblies mounted together in man-ufacture, assembly, maintenance, or rebuild.

Critical mission support items Critical mission support items are selected items of equipment required to refuel, rearm, power, move, recover, provide medical support, or provide direct command and control.

Current force The force that is approved in the annual Command Plan process and codified in the Army Master Force published in the early summer. The Master Force reflects the execution year force structure for the OF and GF, all Army components, and DA Civilians. The current force is reflected in MTOEs and TDAs produced during the Command Plan.

Developmental line item numbers Alphanumeric LINs consisting of the letter Z and five numerals ranging from Z00001 through Z99999. They are assigned to items being developed under HQDA-approved materiel development projects, prior to the type-classified standard.

Effective date The EDATE is used to identify the date of ANY change in a unit’s status (that is, activation, inactivation, conversion) and is published annually with the release of updated MTOEs via the Command Plan process.

Element Sequence A two-digit alphanumeric code that identifies the relationship of units within an organization as either organic or assigned. It is to designate attached and assigned UICs to TPSN organizations.

End item An end item is a final combination of end products, components, and materiels that is ready for its intended use. Examples are rifle, ship, tank, mobile machine shop, aircraft, common tools, TMDE, and special test or other support equipment designed and developed to perform a specific maintenance operation on specific assemblies or sub-assemblies of an end item. The exception to the general rule is an end item that is used as a component of a larger end item.

Equipfor An automated tool used to develop equipment distribution plans to support Army initiatives and the POM.EQ4, a compo-nent of the Army flow model, uses data from logistics integrated databases to give on-hand quantities to the unit identifi-cation code-level of detail and uses the structure and composition system (SACDB), (specifically the LOGSACDB to identify the equipment requirements over time for the Army.

Equipment defense articles Defense articles owned by the Government that are neither procured in anticipation of military assistance or sales require-ments, nor procured pursuant to a military assistance or sales order. Excess defense articles are items (except construction equipment) which are in excess of the approved force acquisition objective and approved force retention stock of all DOD components at the time such articles are dropped from inventory by the supplying agency for delivery to countries or international organizations.

Equipment readiness code P items ERC P items are those items of equipment such as major weapon systems, aircraft, and other items of equipment central to an organization's ability to perform its designated mission. These items are subject to continuous monitoring and man-agement at all levels of command. DCS, G – 3/7 (DAMO – FM), in coordination with TRADOC, establishes and maintains the authoritative listing of pacing items for MTOE units at FMSWeb in accordance with the procedures explained in the net-centric unit status report.

134 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

Equipment readiness codes A and P items ERC P and ERC A items of equipment are principal weapon and/or mission systems and equipment (to include technology automation equipment), which are essential to the accomplishment of primary doctrinal mission tasks and force protection, and critical mission support items.

Equipment Review and Validation Board ERVB is a process through which TDA and/or AUGTDA organizations submit requests (automated 4610 – R tool) for HQDA-controlled equipment authorizations or modernization upgrades. HQDA-controlled equipment refers to the HQDA-managed LIN list, as determined by DCS, G – 8.

Equipment-in-place For the purpose of this regulation, equipment-in-place is movable TDA, JTA, and CTA nonexpendable equipment that has been affixed to real property, but that may be removed without destroying or reducing the usefulness of the facility. It does not include installed building equipment.

Exception modified table of organization and equipment An exception MTOE is an MTOE whose requirements differ from the TOE model, that is, have been increased, decreased, added, or subtracted from the TOE. May be equipment and personnel

Excess defense articles Defense articles owned by the Government that are neither procured in anticipation of military assistance or sales require-ments, nor procured pursuant to a military assistance or sales order. Excess defense articles are items (except construction equipment) which are in excess of the approved force acquisition objective and approved force retention stock of all DOD components at the time such articles are dropped from inventory by the supplying agency for delivery to countries or international organizations.

Force Design Update FDU is used to develop consensus within the Army on new organizations and changes to existing organizations and to obtain approval and implementation decisions. The FDU process addresses organizational solutions to desired capabilities and improvements to existing designs in which other doctrine, training, materiel, leader development, personnel or facili-ties solutions were insufficient. The FDU serves as the link between the development of the URS and the development of the TOE.

Force development The process of determining Army doctrinal, leader development, training, organizational, Soldier development, and mate-riel requirements and translating them into programs and structure, within allocated resources, to accomplish Army mis-sions and functions.

Force file The force portrayed in SAMAS is the force file, with a working view, not yet approved, and a locked position, approved. When the locked file is published, it is either the Master Force, following the CPLAN, or an interim force review point.

Force integration The synchronized, resource-constrained execution of an approved force development program to achieve systematic man-agement of change, includes the following: a. The introduction, incorporation, and sustainment of doctrine, organizations, and equipment in the Army; b. Coordination and integration of operational and managerial systems collectively designed to improve the effectiveness and capability of the Army; and c. Knowledge and consideration of the potential implications of decisions and actions taken within the execution process

Force integration functional area analysis The FIFA analysis reviews force structure issues and the impacts of force structure decisions on the total Army. The FIFA determines the ability for the force to be structured, manned, equipped, trained, sustained, funded, and stationed. The FIFA analysis process analyzes the force to assess affordability, supportability, and sustainability. The FIFA may provide alter-natives based on prior initiatives, unalterable decisions from the Army leadership, or program budget decisions. FIFA can result in one of three recommendations: a. Implement the change and find resources. b. Return to TRADOC for further analysis; or c. Prioritize the issue of resourcing in the next TAA.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 135

Force management The capstone process to establish and field mission-ready Army organizations. The process involves organization, inte-gration, decision-making, and execution of the spectrum of activities encompassing requirements definition, force devel-opment, force integration, force structuring, combat developments, materiel developments, training developments, re-sourcing, and all elements of the AOLCM.

Force review point A locked force file released outside the CPLAN window.

Generating force The part of the Total Army (AC and RC Military, and DA Civilians) whose primary purpose is implementing Army policy, and generating and sustaining Operational Army formations. It performs functions specified in law including designing, organizing, recruiting, training, equipping, modernizing, deploying, and sustaining, to ensure readiness and availability of all Army forces. The GF also provides operational depth to the OF by providing real-time reach back support and by deploying individuals, teams, or entire units to provide specific capabilities and functions for employment by or in direct support of Joint Force CDRs and the OFs

In-lieu-of equipment items The in-lieu-of items are those on hand (available) equipment items, to include nontype classified items and non-standard items, that do not have a valid substitute relationship reflected in SB 700 – 20, but the CDR wishes to report as on hand (available) in place of an equipment item required in accordance with the unit's formal requirements and authorization document.

Installed equipment Installed equipment is an item of equipment that is affixed and built into a facility as an integral part of that facility. Equipment that is an integral part of a facility is equipment that is necessary to make the facility complete, and if removed, would destroy or reduce the usefulness of the facility. Use of the equipment determines if it is an integral part of a facility.

Logistics Control Code The Logistics Control Code is a one position alphabetic code assigned to Army adopted items and other items of materiel authorized in accordance with AR 700 – 142, Table 3 – 1 and Table 3 – 2. These code is used to provide a basis for logistics support and documentation decisions. LCC – A, is designated as standard and classify as mission essential. LCC – B is designated as standard and classify as no longer procurable, not the preferred materiel but acceptable for mission. LCC – F, is designated as standard and classify as used for Contingency/Training/Homeland Defense. LCC – N is designated as exempt and classify as exempt. LCC – O, is designated as obsolete and classify as obsolete. LCC – P, is designated as limited procurement and classify as non-developmental item. LCC – R, does not have a designation and Non-Line Item Number (LIN) related items not appearing in SB 700 – 20. LCC – S, is designated as obsolete and classify as discontinued item; no longer acceptable as minimum mission warfighter equipment. LCC – T is designated as limited procurement and classify as low-rate initial production (LRIP) for operational test and evaluation. LCC – U is no longer applicable.

Manpower requirements criteria MARC studies produce standards that express the minimum number of wartime personnel requirements needed to perform specific maneuver support or sustainment functions (both maintenance and non-maintenance) in a sustained combat envi-ronment.

Master force The MFORCE is the SAMAS output that is approved during the annual Command Plan. The Master Force reflects the execution year force structure for the operating and GF, all Army components and DA Civilians and is reflected in MTOEs and TDAs approved and published during the Command Plan.

Materiel developer A MATDEV is located within the research, development and acquisition (RDA) command, agency, or office assigned responsibility for the system under development or being acquired. The term may be used generically to refer to the RDA community in the materiel acquisition process (counterpart to the generic use of CAPDEV).

Minimum mission essential wartime requirements MMEWR are the minimum personnel and equipment necessary for a military unit to accomplish its doctrinal mission and perform its core functions and assigned universal tasks during sustained combat operations. Level 1 of the BTOE is the MMEWR to structure an effective organization for combat, combat support, and sustainment units. The OTOE includes

136 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

all modernization options (personnel, equipment, structure) beyond MMEWR. A MTOE for a military unit generally re-flects requirements, and associated authorizations, at a level of modernization between the BTOE and OTOE. CTA equip-ment is not considered to be MMEWR.

Modernization Guidance Modernization is the process by which the Army acquires and fields new capabilities across the force.

Modernization Path A modernization path (MODPATH) behaves much like a "container" that groups these BOIPs into a material capabil-ity/solution and is inserted into a TOE. MODPATHs are doctrinally sound groupings of one or more BOIPs that represent materiel solutions for specific capabilities. Unless otherwise specified, the term MODPATH, in and of itself, refers to these materiel solutions. They are used to introduce, replace, or modernize, BOIPs into or within a TOE. A MODPATH may have a single BOIP or it may have many BOIPs that provide a logical sequence of BOIPs that upgrade (modernize) a basic system capability over time. Equipment line item numbers (LINs) are documented in accordance with the Supply Bulletin 700 – 20. All LINs that are materiel solutions for TOE and MTOE documentations are managed through a basis of issue plan (BOIP). In the TOE/BOIP/MTOE production system, every BOIP is assigned a modernization path (MODPATH) which establishes a digital linkage for modernizing equipment. For example, the M48 tank is linked to the M60 tank which is linked to the M1 tank. The MODPATH accounts for modernization of a BOIP’s primary LIN, its ASIOE, and unique personnel requirements like operators. The first BOIP/LIN in a MODPATH is the Army’s base item for the required capability while the last BOIP/LIN is the Army’s most modern item to fulfill the required capability, the objective. All levels of modernization across a MODPATH are available for planning, programming, and data analysis from base TOE (BTOE) to objective TOE (OTOE). Most units are authorized and resourced at a modernization level along the MODPATH between BTOE and OTOE depending on G – 3/5/7 modernization priorities and G – 8 equipment availability. Modernization Paths can be viewed using FMSWeb.

Modified table of organization and equipment An MTOE is an authorization document, built from a TOE requirements document, modified to include only equipment fielded to the unit or units to which it is applied during the reporting period of the MTOE.

Multicomponent unit A MC unit is a unit organized with personnel and/or equipment from more than one COMPO.MCUs will integrate re-sources from more than one COMPO into a cohesive, fully capable Army unit, to the maximum extent within statutory and regulatory constraints.

Nonstandard line item numbers Alphanumeric LINs consisting of a combination of six alphanumeric characters. They are used to identify nonexpendable items with functional capability expressed by the generic nomenclature and to authorize items not eligible for a SLIN.

Objective table of organization and equipment A fully modernized, doctrinally sound organizational model design achieved by applying all of the HQDA-approved BOIPs. The OTOE sets the goal for planning and programming of the Army’s force structure and supporting acquisition systems.

Operating force Those forces whose primary missions are to participate in combat and the integral supporting elements thereof. The OF is Army organizations whose primary purpose is to fulfill global operational requirements. The force constrains globally available rotational structure and a globally available nonrotational structure.

Organization integrator OIs manage TOE and/or MTOE units, by branch, to provide an operational view of change management. OIs are branch assigned personnel who are the focal point for force accounting, documentation, resourcing, readiness of assign units; exercise resource controls for documentation; coordinate and recommend approval or disapproval of all branch specific actions and documentation. The OI is the subject matter expert for branch issues and advises DCS, G – 3/5/7 and G – 3/7 FM on the disposition of branch actions at HQDA. The OI is the focal point for proponent and field access to the larger HQDA force management processes.

Organizational integration Management of change in organizations.

Organizational requirements document approval board The organizational requirements document approval board is the DCS, G – 3/5/7 forum at the colonel and general Officer levels that convenes on a regular basis to review and approve or disapprove new and amended BOIPs for documentation.

DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019 137

Program objective memorandum force (programmed force) The POM force is that force projected to be raised, provisioned, sustained, and maintained within resources available during the FYDP. It includes the operating and generating, all Army components and DA Civilians. TAA is the basis for the Army's POM development and is articulated in the Army Structure Memorandum.

Retention objective The RO is the quantity of major end items of equipment that the army will retain once procurement is complete to support life cycle management. The RO will be established and will replace the AAO/APO when procurement is complete and the program achieves full operating capability (FOC). The RO supports the divestment process by identifying the minimum inventory for items no longer in procurement or being replaced by modernized items. Together the RO and AAO within a MPR support achievement of the total army requirement identified in the SACS OTOE and additional requirements iden-tified through the AAO/APO/RO approval process. The RO will consist of the sub-elements of the AAO or APO, replacing the OTOE requirements with the MTOE, TDA and Augmentation TDA requirement. The calculated RO will be adjusted Based on strategic portfolio assessment review (SPAR) decisions and as modernization occurs. The DCS, G – 3/5/7 is the approving authority for the RO

Staff support agency (or activity) Organization that directly supports only an Army Staff principal, usually with management information, analysis, or com-mand and control support.

Standard line item numbers Alphanumeric LINs consisting of one letter and five numbers ranging from A00001 through Y99999 (except alpha I and O).

Standard manpower requirements criteria Standard MARC includes supervisory and/or nonsupervisory positions where work is difficult to measure or apply a spe-cific unit of measure. Such positions often have no definable or recurring work task that occurs within a Soldier's work day for which measurements can be taken. Examples are inspector general, field feeding advisor, or recovery vehicle operators.

Standard requirements code A twelve-position alphanumeric code that identifies the type organization, edition, authorized level of authorization, and exceptions to standard structure, personnel, and equipment

Standard requirements code The SRC is a twelve-position alphanumeric code that identifies the type organization, edition, authorized level of organi-zation, and exception. The first nine positions of the SRC are the TOE number.

Standard study number–line item number automated management and integrating system SLAMIS is a Web-based application designed to provide Army users easy access to key "chain-of-custody" data relation-ships and management tools for use over the entire life cycle of major items of equipment. Online processes support requirements approval, funding, acquisition, basis of issue planning, authorization, initial fielding, sustainment, property book management, and eventual disposal of weapon systems and/or equipment items.

Table of distribution and allowances A TDA is a workload-based manpower authorization document. It prescribes the organizational structure, the personnel, and equipment requirements, and authorizations required to perform a unique mission for which no TOE exists. However, a TDA can be either an operating or GF TDA. TDAs include military, civilian, as well as standard and commercial equip-ment. TDAs are organized and resourced in accordance with DOD and Army priorities

Table of organization and equipment A requirements document that prescribes the doctrinal mission, organization and MMEWR for manpower and equipment TOEs provide the model for authorization documents.

Troop program sequence number Used to track an organization capability at various echelons by grouping UIC’s under a common field.

Unit Reference Sheet A product of the organizational design process, the URS as part of a FDU provides the basis for development of a TOE. Section I of the URS contains a narrative providing sufficient detail for subsequent development of Section I of the TOE. Section II contains quantities of personnel (MOS and grade) and equipment LIN at paragraph and line number level of

138 DA PAM 71–32 • 21 March 2019

detail. The URS is always a component of a force design update (FDU) package submitted for approval of a new design or significant change to an existing design

ZLIN developmental and/or non-developmental LIN.

Section III Special Abbreviations and Terms This section contains no entries.

UNCLASSIFIED PIN 204091–000