oversight

Program for Redistribution of Defense Materiel in Europe--Opportunities for Improvement

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-03.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                                   llllilllllll1llllllllllIlllllllll
                                          LM095728




The Program For R-edistri-
bution Of Defense Materiel
In Europe-- Opportunities
For Improvement         8-740389




Department of Defense




BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
                      CDMPTROLLER     GENERAL     OF   THE      UMITED   STATES
                                    WASHINGTON,    D.C.      20548




    B- 140389




    To the      President      of the Senate  and the
c   Speaker       of the    House of Representatives

              Thisis our report       on the program     for redistribution     of
    Defense    materiel     in Europe --opportunities         for improvement--
    Department       of Defense.       Our examination      was made pursuant
    to the Budget       and Accounting      Act,  1921 (31 U.S.C.      53), and the
    Accounting      and Auditing      Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C.      67).

             Copies  of this report    are being sent to the Director,      Office
    of Management        and Budget;    the Secretary  of Defense;     and the
    Secretaries     of the Army,     Navy,   and Air Force.




                                                       Comptroller           General
                                                       of the United         States
         COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S                       THE PROGRAMFOR REDISTRIBUTION OF
         REPORTTO THE CONGRESS                      DEFENSEMATERIEL IN EUROPE--
                                                    OPPORTUNITIESFOR IMPROVEMENT
                                                    Department of Defense B-140389


I
          DIGEST
          ------

I
          WHYTH.EREVIEW WASMADE

                The Department of Defense (DOD) has substantial      inventories of mate- r
                riel for use by the U.S. Armed Forces overseas.       To obtain maximum
                use of materiel in the European theater, a program was established
                for transferring    materiel held but not needed by some services to
                others that needed it.      The program, managed by the Materiel Asset       ,. -\
                Redistribution    Center, Europe, precludes the procurement of an item i;z'"
                by one service at the same time a similar     item is being scrapped by
                another.     Needed items can be obtained faster and with savings in
                transportation    costs.

                The General Accounting Office (GAO) review was directed       toward ex-
                amining the effectiveness  of the program in Europe.


          FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

                The program has involved $199 million  worth of excess materiel during
                the period July 1967 through October 1969. Materiel,   valued at about
                $3 million, excess to the needs of the services that had the materiel
    I
                was ordered to be shipped to the services that needed it.

    I            In addition the Center ordered $17 million     worth of excesses trans-
    I
                 ferred among Air Force activities,   The rest of the materiel was re-
                 leased back to reporting activities  after screening, was being
                 screened, or was withdrawn from redistribution      by those activities.
                 (See p. 6.)
        3 br-
          ,      Not all Navy organizations    and none of the Air Force contractors  in I, ' i
                 Europe reported their excesses to the Center or used the Center to
                 obtain their stock requirements.      An audit of the program by the Of-
                 fice of the Secretary of Defense in late 1968 noted that only one
                 Navy organization  was participating.

                 The Navy command in Europe accepted the audit recommendation that the
                 Navy increase its participation.     However, at the time of GAO's field-
                 work, early in 1970, the Navy still    had only one organization   partic-
                 ipating in the program. GAO estimated that, if the Navy organizations
                 and Air Force contractors    in Europe had participated  fully,  an addi-
                 tional $684,000 worth of excess materiel could have been used in

          Tear
          --   Sheet
                                                                  .FEii     32971
                                                1
    the Euro;-can area during    the 12-month period ended December 1,                       I
    1969,

    Because the annual level of activity  is relatively constant, GAO
    believes that comparable amounts could be saved each year.    (See
    P. 8.)
    Excesses were being released by the Center to the owning organization                 i
    for disposal even though some of the items could have been used by                    I
    another organization     and in fact were needed shortly after they were              i
    released.     This was caused by inadequate screening and the failure                 :
    to resolicit    the organization   that had originally  reported the excess          ;
    to determine whether the excess materiel was still       available  for re-          II
    distribution.      (See p. 14.)
    Substitute   and interchangeable       items were not considered     even
    though

      --the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimated in 1968 that                    I
                                                                                                 1
         redistribution    of excesses could have been increased by about
         iAJ.i million  if substitute  and interchangeable  stocks had been              !
                                                                                         II

      --computer equipment capacity was doubled to include information                   II
         on substitute and interchangeable items. (See p. 15.)                            I

    Shipment of excesses to Army requisitioners   to meet permissive
    overstockage resulted,  in some instances, in the same stocks sub-
    sequently being reported as excess by the Army. Moreover this
    could result in the materiel not being available   to organizations
    with a more urgent need for it.    (See p. 16.)
    GAO believes that the effectiveness    of the program can be increased
    but recognizes that the potential   for this program may be limited
    because many of the items involved are not necessarily    used by more
    than one service.


RECOMMENDATIONS
              OR SUGGESTIONS
    The Secretary   of Defense should

      --require  full participation        in this   program by the military     ser-   /
         vices and contractors,                                                         I /

      --reevaluate   the screening     cycle to prevent     premature disposal     of
         needed items,

      --require    the resolicitation     of organizations that had reported ex-         i
         cess materiel recently released from the screening process to                  I,
         determine whether the excess has been disposed of or is still                  I
         available    for redistribution,                                               I


                                       2
                 --ensure that the program to consider substitute    and inter-
                    changeable items is carried out as previously   recommended
                    by the Department of Defense audit, and

                 --establish   procedures to hold requisitions   for permissive
                    overstockage in abeyance so, if requisitions    for current
                    operating stocks are received during the screening period,
                    they can be filled   first.  (See pp. 11, 13 and 17.)


        AGENCY
             ACTIONSANDUNRESOLVED
                               ISSUES
              DOD stated that it concurred in general with     GAO conclusions    and
              recommendations.   (See pa 23.)
             DOD believes that there are potential   problems concerning the par-
             ticipation  of contractors in the Center program and has agreed to
             the Air Force's studying this aspect of the proposal further.     GAO
             has been promised a firm position on this
                                                   .      matter in February 1971.

              The Navy believes that activities    that must use the mails, rather
              than use a rapid communications system, to carry on its supply
              transactions  should not participate   in the Center program. DOD
              did not agree with this position and requested the Navy to make
              every effort to participate   fully in the program.

              GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Defense maintain close
              monitorship over the Air Force study of contractor participation
              in the Center program and the Navy's actions to bring about full
              participation by its activities.   GAO asked the Secretary to keep
              it advised of the results of the actions taken.   (See p. 13.)

              GAO will give close attention  to actions taken by DOD concerning
              final resolution  of the Air Force and the Navy positions   on partic-
              i pation in the Center program. This case is an example of the need
    L
              for the Secretary of Defense to exercise strong centralized    man-
.   I
              agement in certain matters.


        MATTERS
              FORCONSIDERATION
                            BY THECONGRESS
              GAO is reporting    this matter to the Congress because of its con-
              tinuing interest    in the adequacy of DOD efforts    to ensure effec-
              tive use of military     inventories   and to achieve economies in sup-
              plying the U.S. military      services overseas.




        Tear Sheet
                                                                                                                                                                         -._----.   -.   .   __-
                                                                           --.   --   ------m   ----   -------   -   -   ----       ----   ----   -_   __-----   -   -                             ----
_--   _r-   ___-.   _-_.   __-   -_-_   L_,   --   ----.   -.   -   -.-.




                                                                                                                                .
                           Contents
                                                               Page

DIGEST                                                           1

CHAPTER

  1         INTRODUCTION                                         4

  2         RESULTS OF THE PROGRAMFOR REDISTRIBUTION
            AND UTILIZATION OF EXCESSMATERIEL IN EU-
            ROPE                                                 6

  3         INCREASING PARTICIPATION IN MARCE PROGRAM            8
                Potential   benefits     from Air Force con-
                   tractors  participating     in MARCE          8
                Incomplete participation       by Navy          10
                Conclusion and agency comments                  11
                Recommendation                                  13

  4         IMPROVING THE SCREENING PROCESS                     14
                Need to prevent premature disposal of
                  needed items                                  14
                Need for considering     substitutes and
                  interchangeables    in matching process       15
                Need to ship materiel     to satisfy oper-
                  ating requirements                            16
                Conclusions                                     17
                Recommendations                                 17

   5        SCOPEOF REVIEW                                      19

APPENDIX

        I   Letter dated October 13, 1970, from the Dep-
              uty Assistant    Secretary of Defense (Instal-
               lations  and Logistics)   to the General Ac-
               counting Office                                  23

   II       Letter dated November 10, 1970, from the Dep-
              uty Assistant    Secretary of Defense (Instal-
               lations  and Logistics)   to the General Ac-
               counting Office                                  24
                                                                   Page
APPENDIX

  III      Designated      MARCE participants                       26

      IV   Principal     officials     of the Department of
             Defense and the Departments of the Army,
              Navy, and Air Force responsible         for ad-
             ministration        of activities  discussed in
              this report                                          28

                               ABBREVIATIONS

CONUS      Continental      United   States

DOD        Department      of Defense

FSN        Federal    Stock Number

GAO        General    Accounting     Office

MARCE      Materiel      Asset Redistribution   Center,   Europe
COWTROLLERGENERAL'S                                 THE PROGRAM FOR REDISTRIBUTION OF
REPORTTO THE CONGRESS                               DEFENSE MATERIEL IN EUROPE--
                                                    OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
                                                    Department  of Defense B-140389


DIGEST
------


WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADE

     The Department        of Defense       {DOD) has substantial          inventories    of mate-
     riel     for use by the U.S. Armed Forces               overseas.       To obtain   maximum
     use of materiel         in the European       theater,      a program was established
     for transferring          materiel     held but not needed by some services              to
     others       that needed it.        The program,       managed by the Materiel        Asset
     Redistribution        Center,      Europe,  precludes       the procurement       of an item
     by one service        at the same time a similar              item is being scrapped        by
     another.         Needed items can be obtained            faster    and with savings      in
      transportation       costs.

     The General       Accounting      Office    (GAO) review   was directed          toward     ex-
     amining  the      effectiveness        of the program    in Europe.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

     The program  has involved   $199 million    worth    of excess materiel                     during
     the period  July 1967 through    October   1969.     Materiel,   valued                   at about
     $3 million,  excess to the needs of the services           that had the                   materiel
     was ordered  to be shipped    to the services     that needed it.

     In addition       the Center     ordered       $17 million       worth of excesses        trans-
     ferred    among     Air Force activities.              The rest     of the materiel       was re-
     leased back       to reporting      activities         after    screening,     was being
     screened,    or     was withdrawn       frr:#.q i*edistribuiion         by those activities.
      (See p. 6.)

     Not all Navy organizations              and none of the Air Force contractors      in
     Europe reported       their      excesses   to the Center   or used the Center   to
     obtain   their    stock     requirements.        An audit of the program  by the Of-
     fice   of the Secretary          of Defense    in late 1968 noted   that only one
     Navy organization        was participating.

     The Navy command in Europe accepted            the audit     recommendation  that      the
     Navy increase    its participation.          However,    at the time of GAO's field-
     work, early    in 1970, the Navy still         had only one organization       partic-
     ipating   in the program.        GAO estimated     that,   if the Navy organizations
     and Air Force contractors          in Europe had participated        fully, an addi-
     tional  $684,000    worth of excess materiel          could have been used in
     the European area during     the 12-month period        ended December 1,
     1969.

     Because the annual level of activity  is relatively constant, GAO
     believes that comparable amounts could be saved each year.    (See
     PO 8.)
     Excesses were being released by the Center to the owning organization
     for disposal even though some of the items could have been used by
     another organization     and in fact were needed shortly after they were
     released.     This was caused by inadequate screening and the failure
     to resolicit    the organization  that had originally   reported the excess
     to determine whether the excess materiel was still       available  for re-
     distribution.      {See p. 14.)

     Substitute   and interchangeable       items were not considered     even
     though

       --the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimated in 1968 that
          redistribution    of excesses could have been increased by about
          i$,i nariilion if substitute  and interchangeable  stocks had been


       --computer equipment capacity was doubled to include information
          on substitute and interchangeable items. (See p. 15.)

    Shipment of excesses to Army requisitioners    to meet permissive
    overstockage resulted,  in some instances,  in the same stocks sub-
    sequently being reported as excess by the Army. Moreover this
    could result in the materiel not being available    to organizations
    with a more urgent need for it.    (See p. 16.)

    GAO believes that the effectiveness    of the program can be increased
    but recognizes that the potential   for this program may be limited
    because many of the items involved are not necessarily    used by more
    than one service.


RECOkfMENDATIONS
               OR SUGGESTIONS
    The Secretary    of Defense should

       --require  full participation        in this   program by the military    ser-
          vices and contractors,
       --reevaluate   the screening     cycle to prevent premature disposal        of
          needed items,

       --require    the resolicitation    of organizations that had reported ex-
          cess materiel recently released from the screening process to
          determine whether the excess has been disposed of or is still
          available   for redistribution,


                                        2
       --ensure     that   the program   to consider substitute           and inter-
          changeable     items is carried    out as previously          recommended
          by the Department       of Defense  audit,  and

       --establish     procedures       to hold requisitions      for permissive
          overstockage     in abeyance      so, if requisitions        for current
          operating    stocks    are received      during    the screening    period,
          they can be filled        first.     (See pp. 11, 13 and 17.)


AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED
                           ISSUES

    DOD stated     that   it     concurred  in   general   with   GAO conclusions       and
    recommendations.           (See p. 23.)

    DOD believes    that there    are potential        problems   concerning        the par-
    ticipation   of contractors       in the Center       program  and has agreed to
    the Air Force's     studying    this     aspect  of the proposal       further.       GAO
    has been promised      a firm   position      on this matter     in February        1971.

    The Navy believes      that activities          that must use the mails,       rather
    than use a rapid     cotnnunications         system,    to carry    on its supply
    transactions   should     not participate          in the Center     program.     DOD
    did not agree with this         position       and requested     the Navy to make
    every effort   to participate          fully    in the program.

    GAO is recommending       that the Secretary     of Defense maintain            close
    monitorship    over the Air Force study of contractor             participation
    in the Center     program    and the Navy's actions       to bring     about full
    participation     by its activities.       GAO asked the Secretary            to keep
    it advised    of the results      of the actions   taken.      (See p. 13.)

    GAO will     give close attention        to actions taken by DOD concerning
    final   resolution    of the Air Force and the Navy positions            on partic-
    ipation    in the Center      program.     This case is an example     of the need
    for the Secretary       of Defense     to exercise  strong centralized      man-
    agement    in certain    matters.


MATTERSFOR CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGRESS
    GAO is reporting        this   matter    to the Congress     because   of its con-
    tinuing      interest   in the adequacy       of DOD efforts     to ensure effec-
    tive    use of military      inventories      and to achieve     economies   in sup-
    plying     the U.S. military       services     overseas.




                                           3
                               CHAPTER1

                             INTRODUCTION

        In November 1966 the Secretary of Defense authorized
the Air Force, in collaboration     with the Army, the Navy and
the Defense Supply Agency, to develop a procedure for
screening all assets in Europe not needed by one service
against the needs of the other services.      The Air Force ac-
complished this by expanding its own intraservice     excess
redistribution    program in Europe LO include the excesses of
the other services.

        As a result     of these actions,   the Materiel      Asset Redis-
tribution       Center, Europe, (MARCE) was created under the
management and control          of the Headquarters,    U.S. Air Force
in Europe.         MARCEbegan operations    in July 1967. The pur-
pose of MAKE is to provide a central             point for the inter-
service screening of excess materiel           in Europe to ensure
that
        --existing     materiel   in Europe is utilized     to the maxi-
           mum extent possible,

      --concurrent    procurement and disposal        actions   for    the
         same items   are prevented,

      --expenditure    of transportation  funds to ship items to
         Europe are precluded when similar     items are already
         available  from another service,    and

      --useful   data are obtained and provided         to inventory
         managers for item management.

        The basic concept of operation      of MARCE is that each
participant      determines and reports   its excesses and require-
ments to WCE.          MARCE then screens the requirements      against
the excesses by means of automatic data processing           equipment,
If MARCE can fill       the requisitions  from reported excesses,
a redistribution       order is issued.   At the end of the screen-
ing cycle, materiel        that has not been redistributed    is re-
leased back to the holding activity         for disposal,  if appro-
priate.
       The Air Force generally     forwards all its stock requisi-
tions to MAKE.        If excesses are not available     to fill the
requisitions,     they are passed on to normal supply sources
in the continental      United States (CONUS). It is MARX's
objective     to process unfilled    requisitions within   12 hours
after receipt.

        All Army organizations     in Europe process requisitions
and reports of excess to the U.S. Army Materiel          Command,
Europe which then deals with MARCE. The Army and MARCE
have established       special procedures for screening excesses
against most Army requirements.          Under these procedures
MAFXE furnishes      the Army each month with automatic data
processing     cards representing    all Air Force and Navy excesses
available    for redistribution.      These cards are then matched
against Army stocks, and all items needed to fill          operat-
ing, project,      and reserve and most retention    levels are req-
uisitioned     from MARCE.

       U.S. naval shore activities      in the European theater
were directed,      in March 1968, to participate      in MARCE.
Participation,      however, has been limited     to the submission
of requirements       for certain  backup spare items.      MARCE
matches these requirements        against available    excesses on a
periodic     basis,

      As of January 1, 1970, there were about 60 activities
designated as participants     in the MAFXE program.   A listing
of those activities    and their locations  is included as
appendix III.

        In addition, we have brought to the attention     of local
officials    several other matters which require    their action
to improve the effectiveness     of the program.    We recently
issued a report (B-169427, August 14, 1970) in which we
noted problems in the Pacific     area similar   to those that
IMRCE was experiencing.

      The scope of our review is discussed on page 19. A
list  of the principal officials    of the Department of De-
fense and the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force
responsible  for the administration    of activities  discussed
in this report is shown as appendix IV.


                                   5
                           CHAPTER2

                        RjZSULTSOF THF,

        PROG,?AM
        --      FOR REDISTRIBUTION AND UTILIZATION

                 OF EXCESSMATERIEL IN EUROPE

       Since its inception   in July 1967, a total of $199 mil-
lion1 worth of excess materiel      were reported to MARCE
through October 31, 1969. The following         graph shows the
disposition    of these excesses.




                                        EXCESSES      RELEASED       BACK
                                        TO REPORTING        ACTIVITY
                                        BECAUSE      NO REQUISITIONER
                                        WAS IDENTIFIED       BY THE
                                        SCREENING       PROCESS
                                                  ($114 MILLION)

            EX
            RE
            TO
            PE
            RE




                         CESSES    BEING
                            ENED   AS 0




                                           EXCESSES     F&R WHICH     MARCE
                                           ISSUED   REDISTRIBUTION
                                           ORDERS    TO THE REPORTING
                                           ACTIVITY     ($20 MILLION)




1Prior to our review, MARCE recorded all Air Force excesses
 which were held for interservice   screening as a withdrawal
 and again as a reported excess when in fact no action had
 taken place.   We excluded such transactions  from the above
 amounts.


                                    6
     The value of redistribution     orders issued by MARCE
amounted to $20 million    during the 27 months ended Octo-
ber 31, 1969, of which about 85 percent was for intraser-
vice transfer between Air Force installations.        The follow-
ing schedule of materiel    ordered redistributed   through the
MARCE program shows the intraservice      nature of MARCE.

                    MARCE Redistribution          Orders

                                                    Transfers  to
Transfer   from                          r!!Ex        Air Force              Navy
                                          (000 omitted)
  hY                   $       733   $ (a>                 $       720       $13
  Air Force                19,384     2,000                    17,300         84
  Navy                          35         2                        32        -1
       Total           $20,152       $2,002                $18,052

aArmy performs all intraservice           redistribution           before   re-
 porting excesses to MARCE.

       We recognize that the potential       for the program may be
limited,    since many of the items involved are not necessar-
ily used by more than one service.          We believe,    however,
that the success of the program could be enhanced through
increased participation       in the program by the Navy and by
commercial firms using Government-furnished           materiel   under
contracts    with the Air Force.     Moreover the process now
used for matching excesses with requirements            under the pro-
gram could be improved by keeping materiel          available    longer
for potential     users to prevent premature disposal of needed
items, to ensure redistribution       of substitute      and inter-
changeable items (see p. 15) and to ensure redistribution
of materiel     to the requisitioner    that has the highest prior-
ity for it.

      The subjects of increasing participation  and improving
the screening process are discussed in the following   chap-
ters.




                                     7
                               CHAPTER3

                     INCREASING PARTICIPATION

                          IN MARCEPROGRAM

       We noted that not all Navy organizations         and none of
the Air Force contractors       had reported their excesses to
MARCE or had used the MARCE machinery to obtain their              stock
requirements.       We estimated that, if the Air Force contrac-
tors had participated       in the MARCEprogram, a possible ad-
ditional   $546,000 of excess materiel       could have been uti-
lized during the 12-month period ended December 1, 1969.
We estimated      also that, if all Navy organizations       had par-
ticipated    fully,   at least $138,000 worth of excess materiel
possibly   could have been used annually by them, We did not
examine the operation       of Army contractors    since they ob-
tained supply support from the U.S. Army Materiel           Command,
Europe.    Because the annual level of activity         is relatively
constant,    we believe that comparable amounts could be saved
each year.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM AIR FORCE
CONIRACIORS PARTICIPATING IN MARCE
       At the time of our fieldwork,          there were seven Air
Force contractors      in Europe that used Government-furnished
materiel    in their operations        and kept large inventories    of
Government-furnished        materiel.     Those contractors    have not
been designated to participate           in the MARCE program and in-
stead submit requisitions,          estimated at several million     dol-
lars annually,     directly    to CONUS sources of supply.        Those
contractors    also generate a significant          amount of excess
materiel.     The contractors       use standard military    forms to
requisition    and report excesses through regular military
supply channels.       The excesses are either returned to CONUS
supply sources or disposed of locally.

      One of the largest  Air Force contractors in Europe is
CASA Getafe, Madrid, Spain, which performs maintenance and
repair of Air Force aircraft.

       In fiscal year 1968, CASA Getafe used about $3.7 mil-
lion   worth of Government-furnished  materiel. It is

                                   8
currently   operating     at about the same level.    During the
12-month period ended December 1, 1969, CASA Getafe de-
clared about $900,000 worth of Government-furnished             mate-
riel as excess and requisitioned        about $1.1 million      worth
of materiel   from CONUS supply sources.       Our examination        into
a selected number of transactions        showed that about 30 per-
cent of the items of Government-furnished         materiel-requisi-
tioned by CASA Getafe were items which had been reported
to WCE as excess by other activities          in Europe.      If our
sample is indicative       of the nature of the rest of the requi-
sitions   CASA Getafe sent to CONUS supply sources, then it
is possible that about $330,000 worth of requisitions               could
have been filled      from excesses available    at MARCE.

       Also we noted that, of $96,000 worth of excess mate-
riel which CASA Getafe either returned to CONUS supply
 sources or turned over to the disposal office      for local
 sale, almost $23,000 worth, or about 24 percent,       could have
been redistributed     in Europe by MAKE if the excess mate-
riel had been reported.      On the basis that the random sample
used was representative     of all excesses generated by CASA
Getafe, we estimate that $216,000 worth of such excesses
could have been utilized      in Europe if reported to MAFKE.

      Although we did not review the operation        of the other
six contractors,     we noted that Israel    Aircraft  Industries,
Ltd., requisitioned      $910,000 worth of Government-furnished
materiel    and declared $350,000 worth of Government-furnished
materiel    excess during fiscal   year 1969 and therefore       could
conceivably    have utilized    MARCE advantageously.




                                      9
INCOMPLETE PARTICIPATION BY NAVY

       Headquarters,      U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, directed
shore activities      in Europe to participate        in MARCE but lim-
ited the participation         to submitting   requirements    to MARCE
for backup spare items which normally would not be pur-
chased until     actually     needed. We were told that these
shore activities      were not directed      to send requisitions     to
MARCE for regular       operating    stocks.   Rather, each shore ac-
tivity   has the option of sending such requisitions             as well
as reporting     excesses to MARCE.

        Only the Naval Station    at Rota, Spain, out of 19 Navy
shore activities      in Europe, participated   in the MARCE pro-
gram on a continuing      basis.   We found only partial   partici-
pation,    however, by the Rota Naval Station.       For example,
Rota Naval Station reported requisitions        and excesses of
Navy-managed items to inventory        control points in CONUS and
not to MARCE. Excesses of items which are managed by De-
fense Supply Agency or General Services Administration           are
reported    concurrently   to,MARCE and the inventory    control
points in CONUS.

      We were told that Navy-managed items had not been re-
ported to MARCE because, in the opinion of the Rota Naval
Station personnel,   these items were not common to the Air
Force and Army.

       We noted, however,     that about 32 percent of Navy items
reported   as excess to a     CONUS inventory   control    point in
January 1970 could have       been used to fill   requisitions    re-
ceived by MARCE or were       similar  to items in the MARCE data
bank or in the Air Force        stock catalog.

      We noted also that 11 percent of all requisitions              sent
by the Rota Naval Station      to CONUS inventory     control    points
were still   outstanding   at the end of February 1970 and
could have been either wholly or partially        filled     from
MARCE excesses.     We randomly selected 100 of the requisi-
tions and examined them in detail      and concluded that,        if
they were representative     of all the 1,709 requisitions           for
which MARCE had stocks on hand, $137,884 worth of excess
materiel   could have been transferred     to the Rota Naval Sta-
tion.

                                  20
     The applicability     of Navy-managed items to other ser-
vices is further     demonstrated by the Federal Supply Catalog
which shows that 31 percent of Navy items are common to an-
other service.

       An audit of MARCE by the Office of the Secretary    of De-
fense noted in late 1968 that the only Navy organization
participating   in MARCEwas the Naval Station    at Rota, Spain.
The Navy command in Europe accepted the audit team's recom-
mendation that the Navy increase its participation      in MARCE.
At the time of our,fieldwork   early in 1970, however, the
Rota Naval Station was still   the only Navy organization
participating   in MARCE.

CONCLUSIONAND AGENCYCOMMENTS

      We believe that the program cduld be enhanced through
increased participation      by the Navy and by commercial firms
using Government-furnished      materiel   under contracts with
the Air Force.     We therefore    proposed that the Secretary  of
Defense take the necessary actions to ensure full partici-
pation in this program by the military        services and Air
Force contractors.

     The Deputy Assistant       Secretary   of Defense (Installa-
tions and Logistics)     commented on our findings       and recom-
mendations by letters      dated October 13, 1970, and Novem-
ber 10, 1970.    (See apps. I and II.>         In his replies   the
Deputy Assistant     Secretary   stated that the military      depart-
ments and the Office of the Secretary          of Defense concurred
in general with our conclusions         and recommendations.

     The Deputy Assistant     Secretary   stated,     however, that
he believed that there were potential        problems concerning
the participation     of Air Force offshore     aircraft   mainte-
nance contractors     in the MARCE program.      He indicated    that
his office    had agreed to the Air Force's       studying this as-
pect of our proposal further      and that a firm position       on
this matter would be furnished      to us at a later date.

       The Deputy Assistant     Secretary stated in his letter    of
November 10, 1970, that it appeared relatively        certain  that
additional   contractual    costs would be incurred by requiring
contractors   to implement item excess reporting,      to prepare
required     excess reports,    and to process individual        redistrib-
ution shipments to or from military          activities      in Europe.
He further     stated that it appeared that the savings in
transportation      costs in effecting    redistribution       might not
offset   the costs which would be incurred           in implementing
contractor     excess reporting    and processing       to the MARCE sys-
tem.

       The contractors   are already using military    forms and
procedures to obtain supplies from and report excess mate-
riel to CONUS locations.       It seems logical   that transporta-
tion costs would be reduced if some supplies were obtained
through MAKE and if excesses already in the European
theater were redistributed       through MARCE rather than shipping
from and to CONUS locations.

       We agree that some additional       costs would be incurred
by contractors,but       our review indicates    that substantial
savings can accrue through contractor          participation   in the
MARCE program,      We agree with the Deputy Assistant       Secre-
tary of Defense that a study should be made of the costs
and savings so that decisions       concerning participation       by
individual    contractors    can be made on an economically       sound
basis.

        Concerning the lack of participation      by Navy installa-
tions in the MARCE program, the reply stated that the Navy
had indicated     that nine of its 24 installations       must use
the mails to carry on its supply transactions.            For that
reason the Navy believed that participation         should not be
required    of those activities.     The Office of the Secretary
of Defense does not agree with this position          and has re-
quested the Navy to make every effort        to participate     fully
in the program.       The Navy agreed that the other 15 instal-
lations    should participate.

       We are going to give close attention   to the actions
taken by the Office of the Secretary     of Defense concerning
the final resolution   of the Air Force and Navy positions     on
participation   in the MARCE program.    These are examples of
the need for the Secretary   of Defense to exercise strong
centralized   management in certain matters.




                                    12
RECOMMENDATION

       We recommend that the Secretary of Defense maintain
close monitorship    over the Air Force study of offshore   air-
craft maintenance contractors'      participation in the MARCE
program and the Navy's actions to bring about full partici-
pation by its activities.       We request that he keep us ad-
vised of the results      of the Air Force study and Navy's ac-
tions.




                                13
                                CHaPTER 4

                  IM'ROVING THE SCREENING PROCESS
                  --I
       Utilization       and redistribution      of excesses can be in-
creased in Europe if the FARCE screening process would (1)
keep materiel        available    longer for potential       users to pre-
vent premature disposal of needed items,                (2) adequately   con-
sider substitute         and interchangeable       items, and (3) ensure
transfer     of materiel       to the requisitioner      that has the high-
est priority       for it.
                                                                                I

NEED TO PREVENTPREMATURE
DISPOSAL OF NEEDED ITEMS
                                                                                *

      We found    thatexcesses were being released by MARCE af-
ter the screening period, which is generally      90 days from
the date a base first    reports an item of stock excess, even
though some of the items still had a potential    for redis-
tribution and in fact were needed shortly   after   they were
released.

        We screened a number of released items against requisi-
tions received by MAKE which could not be filled            and found
that many requisitions        could have been wholly or partially
filled    by the released items and that the recurring         daand
for some of these items was significant          during the period
they were held by MARCE. For instance,          MARCEhad 154 units
of a widely used item available        for redistribution.      MAKE
redistributed     88 units and released 66 for disposition        by
the reporting     organization.     We noted, however, that 46 addi-
tional    units could have been redistributed        within the week
after the item was released.

        In another instance,   185 units of an item were reported
to MARCE. During the screening period,        100 units were re-
distributed     and the remaining 85 were released to the report-
ing activity     for disposal.   We found, however, that 25 addi-
tional    units could have been redistributed    in the following
week.

     The current procedures also allow MARCE to release
items after screening them less than 90 days.  For example,


                                      14
    we found that an organization      had reported     1,013 units of
    an item to MARCE. Eight days before the end of the go-day
    screening period,  this organization       reported    an additional
    2,000 units as excess.    After    the go-day screening period
    for the 1,013 units initially      reported,    MARCE released all
    3,013 units even though 2,000 of those units had been
    screened for only 8 days.      Within 7 days of this release,
    MARCEreceived a requisition      for 2,000 units of the item
    which could not be filled     and therefore     had to be sent to
    the slupply source in CONUS.

           We believe that,         in situations     such as we noted, the
    redistribution        and utilization        of excesses in Europe could
    be enhanced by (1) preventing              premature disposal   and (2)
    resoliciting       the organization        that had originally   reported
    the excess to determine whether the- excess materiel               was
    still    available     for redistribution.

    NEED FOR CONSIDERING SUBSTITUTES
    AND INTERCHANGEABLESIN MATCHING PROCESS

          We found that,   as early as August 1967, the Air Force
    in Europe observed that the addition      of a capability.to
    screen substitute    and interchangeable    items in MARCEwould
    produce significant    increases   in excess redistributions.

            The audit of MARCE by the Office of the Secretary             of
    Defense in late 1968 noted that MARCE could have increased
    redistributions      of theater    excesses by an estimated
    $1.5 million     during the 15-month period ended September 30,
    1968, if substitute        and interchangeable      items had been con-
    sidered during the redistribution           process.     At that time it
    was determined      that the MARCE computer capacity would need
    to be doubled to accommodate such a program.               Although the
    computer capacity        at MARCEwas doubled in July 1969 to pro-
    vide sufficient       capacity   to establish    a substitute    and
    interchangeable       program, we noted that such a program had
    not yet been implemented at the time of our fieldwork                in
    March 1970.
t




                                        I5
NEED TO SHIP MATERIEL TO
SATISFY OPERATIiL'GREQUEENTS

       Substantial  amounts of the materiel   requisitioned  from
MARCE by the Army were above the amounts needed for its op-
erating   level requirements  and in some instances resulted
in the same stock being subsequently     reported as excess
by the Army.

       Army activities      are authorized    to have on hand suffi-
cient quantities       of stock necessary for normal requirements
and a certain     amount of overstockage.          A normal operating
level requirement       for most Army organizations         is enough
stock on hand to last 6 months --representing             that needed for
1 month of operations,         1 month for safety,     and 4 months for
ordering   and shipping replacement        stocks.     Army organiza-
tions in the European theater are permitted             to keep six
times more than the normal operating            level requirement     or
enough stock to last an additional          3 years.      The additional
stock is referred       to as permissive    overstockage.

       We found that, for about one third of the items in-
cluded in our random sampling of the Army's requisitions
from MARCE, the quantities     requisitioned on an average were
excess to the Army's needs 43 days later.      We believe that
this results    in unnecessary handling and transportation
costs.    Several examples follow.

      The Army ordered 12,300 boxes of machine screws, Fed-
eral Stock Number (FSN) 5305-045-3181,  for permissive over-
stockage from MARCE on December 16, 1969. By February 3,
1970, the entire quantity  was reported back to MARCE as ex-
cess.

       In another instance,  the Army ordered 290 aluminum
universal   heads, FSN 5320-239-1287,  from MARCE on Decem-
ber 16, 1969. As of January 28, 1970, these units were ex-
cess and had to be reported back to MARCEby the Army.

      Moreover, organizations with a more urgent need for the               c

materiel  could be denied supply because materiel    had been
shipped to the Army for its permissive   overstockage.    For
example, the Army ordered 158 spacer sleeves, FSN 5340-203-
8967, which were over and above its Tllrrent operating    needs.

                                   16
Subsequently MARCE received and could notfilla       requisition
from an Air Force installation    for four units of the same
item.   Thus the requisition   to fill  the Air Force operating
requirement  had to be sent to the supply source in GQNLJS.

        We believe that the most effective       program for utiliza-
tion of excess materiel    in Europe should ensure the redis-
tribution    of excesses to satisfy    requirements     for operating
level needs before filling    requisition      for permissive    over-
stockage.

CONCLUSIONS

      We believe that interservice       redistribution       of more
materiel    could be attained   if the process now used for
matching excesses with requirements-were           improved to (1)
prevent premature disposal of needed materiel            (2) ensure
consideration    of substitute    and interchangeable       items, and
(3) ensure redistribution      of materiel     to the requisitioner
that has the more immediate need for it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

      We recommended that     the Secretary    of Defense:

      --Reevaluate  the screening cycle       to prevent     premature
         disposal of needed items.

      --Require    the resolicitation       of organizations   that had
         reported excess materiel        recently   released from the
         screening process to determine whether the excess is
         still   available   for redistribution.

      --Ensure that the program to consider substitute     and
         interchangeable  items is carried out as previously
         recommended by the Department of Defense audit.

      --Establish    procedures to hold requisitions      for permis-
         sive overstockage     in abeyance so that, if requisi-
         tions for current operating      stocks are received dur-
         ing the screening period,     they can be filled     first.




                                  17
      The Deputy Assistant    Secretary  of Defense (Installa-
tions and Logistics)    in his letters   dated October 13, 1970,
and November 10, 1970 (see apps. I and II),       concurred in
general with our conclusions     and recommendations.




                               18
                                CHAPTER5

                            SCOPEOF REVIEW

        Our review was directed         primarily      toward examining
into and evaluating        the effectiveness         of the DOD program for
utilization      and redistribution        of materiel       in Europe.    We
reviewed the management and operation                of the Materiel      Asset
redistribution      Center, Europe, and our work there and at
other activities       included reviews of the determination                and
reporting      of excesses,    the   identification         of requirements,
requisitioning      practices,      matching of needs with excesses,
and the reporting       of redistribution         activity.

      Our work was performed during           the period       November 1969
through March 1970 at the following             locations.

               Activity                                       Location

Air  Force:
     Materiel   Asset Redistribution
       Center, Europe                               Wiesbaden, Germany
    Ramstein Air Force Base                         Ramstein, Germany
     Detachment 14, Headquarters,
       Air Force Logistics     Command              Getafe,     Spain
Army:
    Headquarters,    U.S. Army
       Materiel   Command, Europe                   Zwiebrucken,         Germany
Navy:
    U.S. Naval Activity                             Rota,     Spain

     We also discussed the operation  of MARCEwith officials
at Headquarters,  U.S. Army, Europe; Headquarters,  U.S. The-
ater Support Command, Europe; Headquarters,   U.S. Air Forces
in Europe; and Headquarters,  U.S. Naval Forces, Europe.

       During our review we utilized       sampling techniques         when-
ever possible     in reviewing  MARCE and participating          service
records.     The  samples  were selected    by   statistical     methods
that ensured randomness of selection.            Generally    we selected
sample sizes which would provide information              on significant
portions    of the data being sampled, but because some of our
samples were not scientifically        selected,     we have not made


                                      19
unqualified  projections.   We believe that the sample t-e-
sults provide valid indications    of the situations disclosed.

      The Assistant   Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)   per-
formed a review of MARCE in the latter    part Df calendar
year 1968.    Our review included a follow up of some of the
matters discussed in that report.




                                                                  ,




                               20
APPENDIXES




             c




  21
   i
 ‘1
_:
                                                                                               APPENDIX I


                                            ASSEJAMT    SECRETARY        OF DEFEPdSE
                                                  WASHIWGTOPJ,    D.C.   20391




                                                                                         13 Ott      1970
           SP
JHSTALLATIONS   AND   LOGlSTlCS




           Mr.     C. M. Bailey
           Director,     Defense   Division
           General     Accounting   Office
           Washington,       D, C.   20548

           Dear       Mr.         Bailey:

           The Secretary       of Defense      has asked me to reply           to your letter      of June 18,
            1970 which    transmitted       copies  of your Draft        Report    entitled   “Opportunities
           for Improvement          in the Program      for Redistribution         and Utilization       of
           Materiel    in Europe,”        (OSD Case #3131).

            We and the Military            Departments         have reviewed         the report      and concur
            generally       with your conclusion           and recommendation.                Howeverp      we believe
            that there       are potential      problems       concerning        the participation       of Air Force
            offshore      aircraft   maintenance          contractors         in the MARCE         Program,      There-
            fore,     we have agreed         to the Air Force           studying    this aspect      of your proposal
            further    ,, A firm     position      concerning       this portion       of your recommendation
            will be forwarded          on or about November                15, 1970.

            The Navy has indicated           that fifteen     installations     in Europe       have AUTODIN
            capability   while     nine installations        do not,      and must   resort     to mail.      The
            Navy believes       that participation        in the ALARCE        Program       should    be limited
            to those activities        with AUTODIN         capability.       We do not agree        with this
            position   and are requesting           the Navy to make every            effort   to participate
            fully in the program.

                                                                            Sincerely,




                                                                 23
                APPENDIX II
                    Page 1
                                                     ASSISTANT    SECRETARY       OF DEFENSE
                                                           WASHIIYGTON,    D.C.    20301




                                                                                                            10 Nov 1970
INSTALLATIONS    AAiD LOCISTIeS




            Mr.     C, M. Bailey
            Director,     Defense   Division
            General     Accounting   Office
            Washington,       D. C,    20548

            Dear          Mr.     Bailey:

            This is in further     reply    to your letter      of June 18, 1970 which      transmitted
             copies  of your Draft     Report    entitled   “Opportunities      for Improvement         in
            the Program     for Redistribution          and Utilization    of Materiel   in Europe”
            (OSD Case #3131).

            As indicated            in our letter           of October          13 there         is a general           concurrence
            with the conclusions                  and recommendations                      contained           in your report.
            However,           the lack of pertinent                 information            and statistical            data regarding
            the impact           of full participation               by the Air Force                 offshore        aircraft        mainte-
            nance       contractors           in the Materiel             Asset       Redistribution               Center,        Europe
            (MARCE)            program          precludes          an informed           judgment            at this time,           without
            further        evaluation,           as to the economic                 advantages           or feasibility           of such
            participation.              It appears          relatively        certain        that additional             contractual
            costs would be incurred                     by requiring            the contractor                to implement            item
            excess        reporting,          prepare         required        excess        reports          and process           individual
            redistribution             shipments          to or from         military           activities        in Europe*             It
            appears         that the savings             in transportation               costs in effecting                redistribution
            might       not offset        the costs which              would       be incurred            in implementing                 con-
            tractor        excess       reporting         and processing               to the MARCE                system,          Ad-
            ditionally,          the small         number         of contractors              (four),       the limited         type of
            aircraft        involved,          and the limited            number         of bases using the aircraft
            might       adversely          affect     the potential          utilization           by these bases.

            For these             reasons    the Air Force     Logistics     Command    has been directed
            to evaluate             the GAO recommendations            in depth so that fully  supportable
            conclusions               can be reached  regarding:

                     a,         The   contractors’          capability         to interface         with     MARCE.

                     b,         The   magnitude          of contractor            excesses       generated.
                                                                          24
                                                                                       APPENDIX II
                                                                                           Page 2
       co The degree    of item          commonality   between              the     contractors        and
the   DOD agencies   participating           in MARCE,

         d,   The   suitability   of MARCE      generated           materiel         to contractors*
needsr

         e,   The   additional    contractual    costs      which      may        be incurred,

A firm     position    concerning    this recommendation       is expected   to be
formulated        by February     1971,   and will be provided    you at that time.

                                                     Sincerely,




                                                                     Glen         V. Gibson
                                                 &q&y        Assistant            Secretary       of DeP@W




                                                25
APPENDIX III
     Page 1

                     DESIGNATED MARCEPARTICIPANTS


          Activity     or installation               Location

ARMY:
   U.S. Army Materiel        Command, Europe
      (note a)

AIR FORCE:
    7101st Air Base Wing                            GMlll~~
    36th Tactical     Fighter Wing                  GelTIBIly
    26th Tactical     Reconnaissance Wing           Germany
    7310th Tactical      Airlift  Wing              e-Y
    50th Tactical     Fighter Wing                  Germany
    7149th Tactical      Fighter Wing               GEDEUIY
    7350th Support Group                            Germany
    601st Tactical     Control Wing                 Germany
    6915th Security Wing                            Germany
    513th Tactical     Airlift   Wing               England
    66th Tactical     Reconnaissance Wing           England
    48th Tactical     Fighter Wing                  England
    20th Tactical     Fighter Wing                  England
    7500th Air Base Group                           England
    10th Tactical     Reconnaissance Wing           England
    81st Tactical     Fighter Wing                  England
    6950th Security Wing                            England
    401st Tactical     Fighter Wing                 Spain
    7473d Combat Support Group                      Spain
    6917th Security      Group                      Italy
    40th Tactical     Group                         Italy
    32d Fighter    Interceptor    Squadron          Netherlands
    6931st Security      Group                      Greece
    7206th Support Group                            Greece
    6937th Communications Group                     Pakistan
    TUSLOG Detachment 116                           Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 3-l                           Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 3-2                           Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 10                            Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 30                            Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 95                            Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 4                             Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 171                           Turkey
    TUSLOG Detachment 27                            Turkey

                                     26
                                                             APPENDIX III
,                                                                 Page 2

                          DESIGNATED MAKE PARTICIPANTS (continued)


               Activity      or installation                   Location

    AIR FORCE (continued):
        TUSLOG Detachment         29                          Turkey
        TUSLOG Detachment         30                          Turkey
        TUSLOG Detachment         10                          Turkey
        TUSLOG Detachment         116                         Turkey

    NAVY:
       U.S.    Naval      Security    Group ACT               Germany
       U.S.    Naval      Security    Group ACT               Germany
        U.S.   Naval      Air Facility                        England
       U.S.    Naval      Activities                          England
       U.S.    Naval      Communications Unit                 England
        U.S.   Naval      Communications Station              Ireland
       U.S.    Naval      Radio Station                       Scotland
       U.S.    Naval      Station                             Spain
       U.S.    Naval      Security    Group ACT               Scotland
       U.S.    Naval      Communications Station              Spain
       U.S,.   Naval      Support Activity                    Italy
       U.S.    Naval      Air Facility                        Italy
       U.S.    Naval      Air Facility                        Sicily
       U.S.    Naval      Facility                            Cyprus
       U.S.    Naval      Communications Station              Greece
       U.S.    Naval      Training    Command                 Morocco
       U.S.    Naval      Communications Station              Morocco
       U.S.    Naval      Communications Station              Ethiopia
       U.S.    Naval      Control of Shipping Officer         Bahrein

    aAl Army activities      in Europe participate       in MARCE through
     the U.S. Army Materiel     Command, Europe.        There are a total
     of 1,105 such activities.




                                           27
APPENDIX IV
     Page 1                                                            .

                     PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF

       THE DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSEAND THE DEPARTMENTSOF THE

                    ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

          RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ACTIVITIES

                    DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT


                                        -.-_I_Tenure of office
                                             From             To
                      DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE

SECRETARYOF DEFENSE:
   Melvin R. Laird                      Jan.   1969     Present
   Clark M. Clifford                    Mar.   1968     Jan.    1969

ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF DEFENSE
  (INSTALLATIONS AND WGISTICS):
     Barry J. Shillito                  Feb.   1969     Present

U.S.    E-UROP'EANCOMMAND:
       Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster        &Y     1969     Present


                      DEPARTMENT
                             - OF THEARMY
SECRETARYOF THE ARMY:
   Stanley R. Resor                     July   1967     Present

ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE ARMY
  (INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS):
     J. Ronald Fox                      June   1969     Present

U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMANDCOMMAND-
  ING GENERAL:
     Lt. Gen. Henry A. Miley      Nov.         1970     Present
    Gen. Ferdinand J. Chesarek    Mar.         1969     Oct.    1970




                                   28
                                                          APPENDIX IV
                                                               Page 2

                      PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF

    THE DEPARTMENTOF'DEFEtiSE AND T& DEPARTMENTSOF THE

                ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE
                 z-. z
       RESPONSIBLE FOR ADkINISTRATION'OF ACTIVITIES

                  DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT (continued)
                .T I , I*  I
                                              Tenure of office
                                              From             To
                          DEPARTMENTOF THE ARMY (continued)

COMMANDERIN CHIti,  U.S. ARMY,
  EUROPE:                      ;
    Gen. J. H. Polk                      I June   -1967    Present
                  -   !




                      DEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY

SECRETARYOF THE NAm:
    John H. Chafee                         Jan.   1669     Present
                            _ .    -.
ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE ‘NAVY
  (INSTALLATIONS AND mIsTIcs):
     Frank P. Sanders                      Feb.   1969     Present

U.S. NAVY MATERIEL COMMAND:
    Vice Adm. J. D. Arnold                 Aug.   1970     Present
    Vacant                                 July   1970     Aug. 1970
    Adm. Ignatius J. Galantin              Mar.   1965     July    1970

COMMANDERIN CHIEF, NAVAL FORCES,
  EUROPE:
    Adm. Waldermar F. A. Wendt             July   1968     Present


               DEPARTMENT
               --       OF THE AIR FORCE

SECRETARYOF THE AIR FORCE:
   Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.              Jan.   1969     Present

                                    29
APPENDIX IV
    Page 3

                 PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF

   THE DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSEAND THE DEPART?IENTSOF THE

                ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

      RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ACTIVITIES

                DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT (continued)


                                    --_- Tenure -of--. office
                                         From                 To
                                                              -
              DEPARTMENTOF THE AIR FORCE (continued)

ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE AIR FORCE
  (INSTALLATIONS AND ZXX;IsTIcs):
     Phillip N. Whittaker         &Y         1969      Present

COMMANDER,AIR FORCE LOGIST'ICS
  COMMAND:
    Gen. Jack G. Merrill            Mar.    1968       Present

COMMANDERIN CHIEF, U.S. AIR FORCES
  IN EUROPE:
    Gen. J. R. Holzapple           Jan.      1969      Present




                             30