1. 1 BRAC 2005 September 14, 2005

2. 2 BRAC 2005 Process and Strategy

3. 3 Key Imperatives Further Transformation Rationalize infrastructure to force structure Adjust footprint to maximize capability and efficiency Maximize Joint Utilization Reduce overhead Improve efficiency Facilitate joint training and operations Convert Waste to Warfighting Unnecessary capacity diverts DoD resources

4. 4 Process Timeline SecDef initiates BRAC 05 Process (establish organization, process, and initial policy (Nov 02)) SecDef Approves and Forwards Recommendations for Realignments and Closures to Commission (May 16, 2005) Commission Process (May 05 - Sep 05) Presidential Review and Approval (Sep 05) Congressional Action (Sep 05 + 45 Legislative Days) NOV 02~DEC 05 SecDef BRAC Report and Certifications (Delivered March 23, 2004) Selection Criteria Published (Feb 04) Commissioner Nominations (15 Mar 05) Threat Assessment/Revised Force Structure Plan (15 Mar 05)

5. 5 SecDef’s Kickoff Memo: Analytical Construct—Two Categories Service-Unique Functions Analyzed by each Military Department Common Business Oriented Support Functions Analyzed by Joint Cross Service Groups that include representatives from each Service

6. 6 BRAC 2005 Leadership Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG) Chair: USD(AT&L) SEC ARMYSEC NAVYSEC AIR FORCE Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC) Chair: DEPSECDEF SECDEF Membership: (10) Military Department Secretaries and their Chiefs of Services Chairman, JCS USD (AT&L) DEPT OF ARMY ANALYTICAL TEAMS DEPT OF NAVY ANALYTICAL TEAMS DEPT OF AIR FORCE ANALYTICAL TEAMS Industrial JCSG Chair: PDUSD AT&L Supply & Storage JCSG Chair: Director DLA Education & Training JCSG* Chair: PDUSD (P&R) Headquarters & Support JCSG Chair: Deputy G-8, Army Medical JCSG Chair: AF Surgeon General Technical JCSG Chair: D,DR&E Membership: (10) Vice Chairman, JCS Military Department Assistant Secretaries (I&E) Service Vice Chiefs DUSD (I&E) *Joint Cross-Service Group Intelligence JCSG Chair: DUSD (CI&S)

7. 7 BRAC 05 Process Overview Military Value & Other Data Calls & Issuance Capacity Data Call Dev & Issuance Capacity Analysis Scenario Development Scenario Analysis/ COBRA Recommen- dations to Commission Analytical Approach Military Value Analysis Key Aspects of Process CAPACITY MILITARY VALUE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ANALYSIS Finalize Recommen- dations Inventory What Where How Big Usage Surge Selection Criteria 1 - 4 What’s important How to measure How to weight Rank order 20-Year Force Structure Plan Capacity Analysis Military Value Analysis Transformational Ideas Guiding principles ) Selection Criterion 5 – Potential Costs & Savings (COBRA) Criteria 6, 7, 8 – Economic, Community, & Environmental Impacts

8. 8 Army Vision for BRAC 2005 DOD Selection Criteria Title X Responsibilities DOD Strategic Planning Guidance The Army Plan Army Campaign Plan Army’s Focus Areas Senior Leaders MACOM Commanders Strategic Readiness System Transformation “A campaign quality Joint and Expeditionary Army positioned to provide relevant and ready combat power to Combatant Commanders from a portfolio of installations that projects power, trains, sustains and enhances the readiness and well- being of the Joint Team.”

9. 9 Department of Navy Overarching Strategy Continue to rationalize infrastructure capabilities to eliminate unnecessary excess Balance effectiveness of fleet concentration with AT/FP desire for dispersion/redundancy Leverage opportunities for total force integration and joint basing Accommodate changing operational concepts Facilitate evolution of force structure and infrastructure organizational alignment

10. 10 1.Maintain squadrons within operationally efficient proximity to DoD- controlled airspace, ranges, MOAs, and low-level routes 2.Optimize the size -- # of aircraft / crew ratios -- of our squadrons 3.Better meet needs of the Air Force by maintaining/placing ARC units in locations that best meet the demographic and mission requirements unique to the ARC 4.Mobility basing that optimizes proximity to mission 5.Ensure long-range strike bases provide flexible strategic response and strategic force protection 6.Retain enough capacity to bed down worldwide AF forces 7.Ensure joint basing realignment actions (when compared to the status quo) increase the military value of a function, or decrease the cost for the same military value of that function Air Force Strategies - Principle-Driven Identify “Best of Breed” Bases Judge Remaining Bases for Overall Military Utility

11. 11 JCSG Overarching Strategies Industrial - Joint solutions, regionalization, and follow the fleet. Education & Training – Joint centers of excellence, private sector reliance, joint combat and undergraduate flight training, preserve Service acculturation. Supply & Storage - Transition from linear to networked processes. Force focused with regionalized distribution. Headquarters & Support - Joint solutions, regionalization, and consolidation of NCR, pay, major HQs, prisons, and leased space. Medical – Proficient and jointly trained medical forces ready to deploy. Size treatment facilities to beneficiary population demand. Consolidate, co-locate, and partner with civilian/VA. Technical - Align and consolidate Research, Development, Acquisition, Test, & Evaluation Centers for functional and technical efficiency and synergy.

12. 12 Combatant Command Involvement Process changes from previous rounds Shift in role of Joint Cross Service Groups Solicitation of COCOM input CJCS has statutory responsibility to consult with and seek advice from Combatant Commanders Chairman and Vice Chairman representation on IEC and ISG, respectively, achieves this consultation role Joint Staff representation on each JCSG Joint Staff channeled CoCom concerns through scenario review process Chairman’s concurrence on candidate recommendations included CoCom coordination Established Reading Room

13. 13 BRAC 2005 Results

14. 14 SECDEF Recommendations 222 Recommendations (CR) 842 Installations affected  33 Major closures (>$100M PRV)  29 Major realignments (400 or more net reduction in mil/civ personnel)  780 Other actions 274 Minor realignments (26% leased) 506 Minor closures (12% leased) $5.5B Annual Recurring Savings, $48.8B NPV With overseas: $6.7B Annual Recurring Savings, $64.2B NPV Adjusts the U.S. base structure to receive 47,000 Army personnel returning from overseas Realize two dollars in savings for every dollar spent comparing one-time costs to net present value savings.

15. 15 Comparing BRAC Rounds (TY $B)Major Base Closures Major Base Realignments Minor Closures and Realignments Costs 1 ($B) Annual Recurring Savings 2 ($B) BRAC 881611232.70.9 BRAC 912619325.22.0 BRAC 9328131237.62.6 BRAC 952722836.51.7 Total976526122.07.3 3 BRAC 05252678322.84.4 Note 1: As of the FY 2006 President’s Budget (February 2005) through FY 2001. Note 2: Annual recurring savings (ARS) begin in the year following each round’s 6-year implementation period: FY96 for BRAC 88; FY98 for BRAC 91; FY00 for BRAC 93; and FY02 for BRAC 95. These numbers reflect the ARS for each round starting in 2002 and are expressed in FY 05 dollars. Note 3: Does not add due to rounding.

16. 16 Strategies to Outcomes Force Protection realities Leased space (H&SA) Re-deploying force structure/Combining Arms Army UA (USA) Relieves stress on the Force +18K additional troops/more MPs Less PCS Better Guard/Reserve training opportunities oRecruiting/Retention Centers of Excellence/Expertise Walter Reed National Medical Center Joint Transportation Management Trng Optimization of Military Value Surge Annual recurring savings $5.5B Savings Jointness Installation Management (H&SA) Transformation Joint Strike Fighter (E&T) Integration of overseas actions Fort Bliss (USA) Business Transformation Supply Chain management (S&S) Depot Level Reparables (S&S) Technology and Lab consolidation RDAT&E Fixed Wing (TECH)

17. 17 Results of Commission Review Accepted about 65% of DoD’s 222 recommendations (discounting minor changes the acceptance rate is 79%) Of the Department’s proposed 33 major closures and 29 major realignments, the Commission approved 76 percent and 90 percent respectively Financial changes: Report and recommendations forwarded to the President on September 8, 2005 ($B)DoD SubmissionCommission ResultChanged One-Time Costs $24.4$22.8($1.6) Annual Recurring Savings $5.5$4.4($1.1) 20 Year Net Present Value $48.8$36.5($12.3)

18. 18 Way Forward The Commission submitted recommendations to the President on September 8 th. President has until September 23 rd to approve or disapprove. Approval – President sends to Congress. Disapproval – President sends back to the Commission for reconsideration. Commission has until October 20 th to resubmit recommendations. President has until November 7 th to approve or disapprove. Unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval before the earlier of 45 days* or adjournment sine die, the Department must close and realign the installations so recommended. The Department must begin implementing the recommendations within 2 years and complete within 6 years. If Congress adjourns for more than 3 days, the 45 day countdown is suspended.