DEFENSE DlVlSlON llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll LM095610 i e rr3ble The Secretary of Defense t Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) ft report on the 180 million emergency and Air Fame report we state8 of ~lbcentral authority im%Korea eon- efficjbent % entation and mamgement -the earlie rgeleacy mil3tary eoamkmao- ly. We pointedl aeat in controls with your stated Jlicy that the faeihities to be d be uniform ia quality the military Belinesestablished by the housing in Korea vague and, therefore, em3 g-uihce issued enswe cxmstruction of minimum ilities on an aus the Serviees. Act theet~s of housing rxmstrwtion--concrete block, t of space to be provided. With respect to authorized, to provi&e an indefinite amount of sqmre feet for the livimng area of each plmed mxupant was not exceeded. 50 TH ANNIVERSARY 1921- 1971 draft report that, while the standard6 of %ng fn Korea may asot have exceeded the standards p the t%$t6 ad 6iZ@6 Of troop h0~6in$ cOn6tPUcted varied etveen the Amy and the ASP Force. Tl-OOp hOU6iUg t206t6 cer6 were about 9 percent higher pep mm than for Air Force Cost6 for enlisted men were about J.9 for Air Fo enlisted men. These cost fs cometmctioa by the Army of concrete which contained about 52 percent more square feet per officer e square feet per enlisted man tha.u the relocatable meted by the Air Force. scm of tkw arawfngs for the isted aen barracks and dormitories show 9 in addition to areas the Army provided space for non-colpnnftssioned p lobbies, arms loom, and dressing room. fieers' quarters, we mted that, in addition provided qxce fop guest d vestibules. We concluded in our draft repoti that the differences in designs between the d Air Force tr htIXSdl$ eoXI6tIXICtion ilo p~~ogrtm demmstrated the re elemly define terba for use isa future over6ea6 0 We al6o concluded that while 1970 provided some clarification 86 to constructed by specifying the maxim gross living LBP for officer6 floor area for enlisted men, the use of the6e criteria 6 in comtruction by the of txwap hQUSi WM.& is no% miform a6 to cost and delay6 in pre iag detsiled con6truct8on plans. erefar-e, we aug ted that the Secretary of Defense e6tabRish and de definitive dance for emergency troop housing construction over6ea6 whit d include (1) IIES.IC~ gros6 livin area6 to P man for officers and enlisted persomel, and f 2) clearly allowances for 6Uch areas as lounges, mail rooms, and dressing room6. We a%ss suggested that consideration be given to preparing &l.ld i66ti definitive drawings shoving the total 6pace, functional layout, aa f3~1f”i atfem of the POO~B to be provided in the housing. ted October 19, 1970, the Deputy AIsaietant Secretary of latfm6 and Lk,gi6tic8) fmi6hed c?omments on our findings We vere advised that the lack of uniformity in troop housing betwe the Service6 resulted primarUy from the difference in mi%itary Ugits of the two Services involved, rather ieney in g&lance. -2 - It W'W pointed out by the Deputy Assistant Secretary that, as discussed in our draft report, guidance by your Office set two sta.Mards of constmetion--"t orary" for those military units assigned to Korea "transient" for units assigned to Korea only The "temporary" standard authorized concrete etures or relocatable units. The "tramlent" standard author- ized relocat~~b3.e arn1t.a or tents erected on wood frames with wood or concrete floors. The Deputy Assist Secretary further stated that the Air Force units requiring troop ing were deployed mder-a plan which called for the use of the "transient" standard of construction annd, therefore, le units wer troop housirng wm required to nrelwate e?xistiag ace existing inadequate and deteriorated houe %sqmary" stemlard constmetion utiliaced for the Secretary stated t iteria issued in rovided defi&t%ve gPq3ssliving ar@as dbyals. 1x11 with the above comments, however, t Secretary indicated that no addBtio&I. action was ated ia 2x2s e to oar suggestion. regarding improved gufdanee c emergency plmgr We be'lieve further 6 sideratio& sh d be given to our sweetion for the foUowiHlg Peasom: ty Assistant Seeret~'s e nts attributing een Army and Air Force troop housing to a of the units assigned to Korea, our review indicated that the Air Force decision to vse relocatable houeiag was based primarily on the tentierl for erecting such housing faster than eonurete block housing could be built. 2. The DQD criteria no distim betwe- concrete b.Zl.oekor relocatable wnits in speci space all ees for troop housing. Thus, a8 regards y of space, it would e little difference whether the h is provided under the rary" standard or the "transient" s 3* !Phe Deputy Assistant Secretary was incorrect in stating that the J I!370 criteria already provided guidance for maximum gross living area for both offieers and enlisted men, as we bad suggested. These criteria did include such a mxximm for officers but for enlisted men they specified maximum gross floor area. Floor mwa inuludes the -3- re being sent t to the D tar 9 Offi ee d. to the Secret s of the ?ma Air -5-
Results of the Review of the Management of the $100 Million Emergency Military Construction Program To Expand and Upgrade Army and Air Force Facilities in Korea
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-07-01.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)