AR 5-21 RAND ARROYO CENTER

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN10780_R5_21_Final.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED
Army Regulation 5–21
Management
RAND
Arroyo
Center
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
29 June 2018
SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 5– 21
RAND Arroyo Center
This regulation is certified current as of 29 June 2018. Aside from the following administrative changes, no other changes
were made to certify the currency of this regulation—
o Updates Department of the Army signature authority and the history, applicability, and distribution statements (title
page)
o Updates references and explanation of abbreviations and terms paragraph verbiage (paras 1–2 and 1–3, respectively).
o Updates hyperlinks (app A).
o Removes obsolete reference: DA Pam 5 – 5 (app A).
This major revision, dated 25 May 2012—
o Changes the title from Army Policies and Responsibilities for the RAND Arroyo Center to RAND Arroyo Center
(cover).
o Identifies new members of the RAND Arroyo Center Policy Committee (para 1 – 4).
o Establishes the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, as the lead agent for the RAND Arroyo Center Policy
Committee (para 1–4b(1)).
o Defines staff years of technical effort (para 2–2e).
o Establishes a plan to avoid duplication of study effort (para 2–2i).
o Describes the RAND Arroyo Center Fellows Program (para 2 – 4).
o Makes administrative changes (throughout).
*This regulation supersedes AR 5–21, dated 14 October 1994.
AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018
UNCLASSIFIED iii
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
*Army Regulation 5–21
29 June 2018 Effective 24 June 2012
Management
RAND Arroyo Center
History. This publication was certified
current on 29 June 2018. Aside from ad-
ministrative updates, no other changes were
made to certify the currency of the regula-
tion. The portions affected by this certify
current are listed in the summary of change.
Summary. This regulation covers the
policies and responsibilities for the man-
agement and administration of the RAND
Arroyo Center, the U.S. Army's federally
funded research and development center for
studies and analyses. It describes the
RAND Arroyo Center and its mission, es-
tablishes the membership of the RAND Ar-
royo Center Policy Committee, designates
the Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 8 as the lead
agency for the RAND Arroyo Center, de-
scribes the RAND Arroyo Center Fellows
Program, and explains the relationship be-
tween the sponsor and the RAND Arroyo
Center in developing and executing the
RAND Arroyo Center annual program.
Applicability. This regulation applies to
the Regular Army, the Army National
Guard/Army National Guard of the United
States, and the U.S. Army Reserve, unless
otherwise stated. It also applies to the U.S.
Army National Guard when using Federal
funds for study efforts.
Proponent and exception authority.
The proponent of this regulation is the Dep-
uty Chief of Staff, G– 8. The proponent has
the authority to approve exceptions or
waivers to this regulation 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 regulation
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 their higher head-
quarters to the policy proponent. Refer to
AR 25 – 30 for specific guidance.
Army internal control process. This
regulation contains internal control provi-
sions in accordance with AR 11 –2 and
identifies key internal controls that must be
evaluated (see appendix B).
Supplementation. Supplementation of
this regulation and establishment of com-
mand and local forms are prohibited with-
out prior approval from the Deputy Chief of
Staff, G– 8 (DAPR– DPD), 700 Army Pen-
tagon, Washington, DC 20310– 0700.
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 Headquarters, De-
partment of the Army, Deputy Chief of
Staff, G– 8 (DAPR– DPD), 700 Army Pen-
tagon, Washington, DC 20310– 0700.
Committee continuance approval.
AR 15 – 1 requires the proponent to justify
establishing/continuing committee(s), co-
ordinate draft publications, and coordinate
changes in committee status with the U.S.
Army Resources and Program Agency, De-
partment of the Army Committee Manage-
ment Office (AARP – ZA), 9301 Chapek
Road, Building 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA
22060– 5527. Further, if it is determined
that an established "group" identified
within this regulation, later takes on the
characteristics of a committee, as found in
the AR 15 – 1, then the proponent will fol-
low all AR 15 – 1 requirements for establish-
ing and continuing the group as a commit-
tee.
Distribution. This regulation is available
in electronic media only and is intended for
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
Responsibilities • 1 – 4, page 1
Chapter 2
RAND Arroyo Center, page 3
Contents—Continued
ii AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018
Overview of the RAND Arroyo Center • 2 – 1, page 3
Development of the annual program • 2 – 2, page 4
Dissemination of RAND Arroyo Center reports • 2 – 3, page 5
RAND Arroyo Center Fellows Program • 2 – 4, page 5
Appendixes
A. References, page 6
B. Internal Control Evaluation, page 7
Glossary
AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1– 1. Purpose
This regulation defines Army policies and responsibilities for the RAND Arroyo Center. It describes the development of
its annual research agenda and establishes the framework for managing and directing RAND Arroyo Center efforts. It also
describes the RAND Arroyo Center Fellows Program.
1– 2. References
See appendix A.
1– 3. Explanation of abbreviations and terms
See the glossary.
1– 4. Responsibilities
a. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 8. The DCS, G– 8 will—
(1) Oversee all responsibilities for the RAND Arroyo Center, its annual program, and the RAND Arroyo Center Fellows
Program.
(2) Serve as lead agency for the RAND Arroyo Center.
(3) Delegate all lead agent responsibilities of the RAND Arroyo Center to the Director, Program Analysis and Evalua-
tion (PA&E), DCS, G– 8.
b. Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation. The Director, PA&E will—
(1) Serve as the lead agent for the RAND Arroyo Center Policy Committee (ACPC) and will ensure the committee—
(a) Consists of general officers or senior executive service representatives from Headquarters, Department of the Army
(HQDA), Army commands, and select Army service component commands, and direct reporting units.
(b) Establishes overall objectives for the RAND Arroyo Center.
(c) Provides broad supervisory and policy guidance to the RAND Arroyo Center management.
(d) Meets at least semi-annually with the RAND Arroyo Center management to review and evaluate the current and
planned annual research programs.
(e) Provides guidance to the RAND Arroyo Center management on Army needs, interests, and priorities.
(f) Provides the RAND Arroyo Center with access to Army and other agency information and other support needed to
conduct research.
(g) Reviews and approves the annual RAND Arroyo Center research agenda.
(h) Provides annual program evaluation guidance to the RAND ACPC lead agent.
(i) Confirms selections of Army officers to participate in the RAND Arroyo Center Fellows Program.
(2) Serve as the Army point of contact for the RAND Arroyo Center.
(3) Oversee and monitor the performance of the RAND Arroyo Center and recommend changes to RAND Arroyo
Center policy guidelines to the RAND ACPC.
(4) Evaluate and present to the RAND ACPC information provided by sponsors and the RAND Arroyo Center man-
agement on individual projects and the RAND Arroyo Center research agenda as a whole.
(5) Conduct an annual evaluation of the program. For each study, ensure individual sponsors—
(a) Conduct initial, interim, and final reviews with the RAND Arroyo Center.
(b) Complete a final evaluation for the lead agent.
(6) Develop, coordinate, and justify the Army requirements for the RAND Arroyo Center during the planning, pro-
gramming, budgeting, and execution process.
(7) Develop statements of work and fund obligation instruments for the continuous operation of the RAND Arroyo
Center.
(8) Appoint a contracting officer’s representative (COR) to act as the liaison between the Army and the contracting
officer for the contract with the RAND Corporation. The COR is the primary representative of the lead agent and is re-
sponsible for ensuring the RAND Arroyo Center and the Army meet all contractual requirements, follow regulatory guid-
ance, and operate according to the directives of the RAND ACPC.
(9) Serve at their discretion as a member of study advisory groups formed for RAND Arroyo Center efforts.
(10) Implement program management procedures to ensure full coordination of project proposals and the annual RAND
Arroyo Center research agenda.
2 AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018
(11) Ensure appropriate Army officials review RAND Arroyo Center reports in a timely manner.
(12) Provide information on the RAND Arroyo Center to Army, Department of Defense, and other Government agen-
cies. Review requests for information on the RAND Arroyo Center and release information to non-Government individuals
or organizations, as appropriate.
(13) Periodically inform potential Army users of the capabilities of the RAND Arroyo Center.
(14) Provide proper guidance to agencies outside HQDA when they request or sponsor RAND Arroyo Center projects.
(15) Design, implement, and maintain internal controls for the Army for the oversight of the RAND Arroyo Center.
(16) Approve additional add-on work outside of HQDA RAND Arroyo Center core funding.
(17) Set schedule and agenda and provide all administrative support for ACPC meetings.
(18) Ensure all provisional and approved RAND Arroyo Center projects have a sponsor. Sponsors must be HQDA or
Army command general officers or senior executive service civilians under whose authority a particular analytical effort
is formulated and administered. Sponsors may be a member of the RAND ACPC. Each sponsor will—
(a) Designate an action officer to be a point of contact to work with RAND Arroyo Center personnel and the lead agent
to ensure complete and continuous project coordination. The action officer will staff research products to appropriate
internal agencies or offices for classification review.
(b) Designate a study coordinator to provide advice on all matters related to studies and analyses. The study coordinator
may also be the appointed action officer.
(c) Directly commission projects outside the annual core research agenda approved by the RAND ACPC. Sponsors will
provide funding for such add-on projects and log them in the Army Study Program Database. The RAND ACPC lead agent
approves add-on projects for addition to the annual research agenda.
(d) Advise and assist the lead agent in all technical and administrative matters related to the effort.
(e) Ensure adequate participation of their staff during the project development phase of RAND Arroyo Center efforts.
RAND Arroyo Center researchers will identify subject matter experts and the sponsor will identify points of contact within
the Army. Informal meetings will be scheduled between RAND Arroyo Center project personnel and Army points of
contact to exchange information and affect project coordination and performance.
(f) Confirm to Army activities the RAND Arroyo Center’s authorization to have access to information (including clas-
sified material) required to complete provisional and approved projects. Following sponsor or COR authorization, Army
activities will release required classified, privileged, proprietary, or sensitive material directly to the RAND Arroyo Center.
(g) Conduct appropriate project evaluations within 90 days of project completion and in support of the annual program
evaluation led by the RAND ACPC lead agent.
(h) Coordinate feedback on RAND Arroyo Center studies with co-sponsors.
(19) In coordination with the Director, RAND Arroyo Center, will—
(a) Establish and apply policies for initiating annual program development.
(b) Approve all modifications to the annual program between RAND ACPC meetings.
Note. Major changes will be coordinated with the RAND ACPC.
(c) Provide written notification to the lead agent within 30 days after initiation of any provisional effort. This written
notification will identify the sponsor, the action officer, and the RAND Arroyo Center point of contact and will provide a
preliminary description of the project.
(d) Appoint a project director for each provisional and approved project.
(e) Ensure close and continuous coordination with each sponsor or appointed Army action officer throughout the life-
time of the approved research effort.
(f) Coordinate changes in the nature or scope of the provisional and approved projects with the sponsor.
c. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. The VCSA will chair the RAND ACPC with the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) (ASA (ALT)).
d. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). The ASA (ALT) will chair the RAND
ACPC with the VCSA.
e. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). The ASA (M&RA) will serve as a member
of the RAND ACPC.
f. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller). The ASA (FM&C) will serve as a
member of the RAND ACPC.
g. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The ASA (CW) will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
h. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment). The ASA (IE&E) will serve as a
member of the RAND ACPC.
i. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 1. The DCS, G– 1 will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
j. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 2. The DCS, G– 2 will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018 3
k. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 3/5/7. The DCS, G– 3/5/7 will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
l. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 4. The DCS, G– 4 will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
m. The Surgeon General. TSG will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
n. The Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. ACSIM will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
o. The Chief Information Officer/G– 6. The CIO/G– 6 will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
p. The Provost Marshall General. The PMG will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
q. The Chief, Army Reserve. The CAR will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
r. The Chief, National Guard Bureau. The CNGB will serve as a member of the RAND ACPC.
s. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces Command. The CG, FORSCOM will serve as a member of the RAND
ACPC.
t. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. The CG, TRADOC will serve as a member
of the RAND ACPC.
u. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command. The CG, AMC will serve as a member of the RAND
ACPC.
v. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. The CG, USASOC will serve as a member of
the RAND ACPC.
w. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Accessions Command. The CG, USAAC will serve as a member of the
RAND ACPC.
x. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Command. The CG, MEDCOM will serve as a member of the RAND
ACPC.
y. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. The CG, USASMDC will serve as a
member of the RAND ACPC.
Chapter 2
RAND Arroyo Center
2– 1. Overview of the RAND Arroyo Center
a. The RAND Arroyo Center is the Department of the Army’s (DA) Federally Funded Research and Development
Center (FFRDC) for studies and analyses. It is a division of the RAND Corporation dedicated to supporting the U.S. Army.
RAND Corporation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation performing research and analysis in the interest of national
security and the welfare of the United States. RAND research is funded primarily by contracts, grants, and contributions.
In addition, RAND conducts programs that provide graduate training. The RAND Arroyo Center—
(1) Furnishes the Army with information and findings derived from analyses of Army technical and policy issues. Its
efforts are generally focused on policy-oriented issues and are designed to assist the Army in improving its efficiency and
effectiveness. A special quick-response capability is maintained to provide rapid analysis on key Army issues as they
emerge.
(2) Maintains both a technical and nontechnical capability in a broad range of matters of concern to the Army. This
includes the ability to address, through formal studies and analyses, a variety of problems potentially affecting Army
missions and organizations, including threats, strategy, doctrine, operations, technology, logistics, manpower, health, and
resource management.
(3) Represents one of the Army’s major investments for analysis of Army policy issues. To foster innovative and ob-
jective work, the RAND Arroyo Center management is encouraged to recommend new studies for inclusion in the annual
program approved by the RAND ACPC.
(4) Is entitled to broad access to Army information not generally accorded to commercial contractors. Accordingly, all
Army organizations, agencies, and units will provide the RAND Arroyo Center with prompt support and systematic access
to pertinent documents, data, and briefings consistent with security provisions and need-to-know, to be used in analytical
efforts. The Army will provide relevant materials so that the RAND Arroyo Center can maintain current knowledge of
Army goals, objectives, and ongoing study efforts.
(5) Promotes a board distribution of study results to achieve maximum benefit, to permit widespread peer review, and
to increase awareness of issues identified by Army leadership.
(6) Undertakes projects for which it has special competence, when the required capabilities do not exist in the Army’s
internal analytical organizations, when it would be inappropriate for organic Army or other contractor organizations to
perform the project, when a conflict of interest exists, when sponsors deem a second analysis of a subject important to the
decisionmaking process, or when the Army would benefit from an independent outside analysis.
4 AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018
(7) Maintains analytic expertise across the full range of the Army’s policy issues. General characteristics for work
assigned to the RAND Arroyo Center include the following:
(a) Unique expertise. Tasks that require competence in specific fields, close working relationships with other Govern-
ment agencies, or interdisciplinary policy analyses.
(b) Long-term analyses. The RAND Arroyo Center provides the capability to sustain a multiyear research and analysis
program.
(c) Proprietary and restricted information. The RAND Arroyo Center is an independent, nonprofit source of objective
studies for the Army. RAND Arroyo Center researchers have access to proprietary data, competition-sensitive data, or
restricted data as authorized by applicable Federal statutes and regulations, such as the Federal Acquisition Regulations
applicable to FFRDC institutions.
(d) Objectivity. Advice on alternative programs and courses of action only where the nonprofit analytical organization
has no organizational conflict of interest in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
(e) Special, quick-response support. Ability to deliver short notice products derived from sustained research on a wide
range of issues of concern to the Army.
b. All Army work for the RAND Arroyo Center will be ordered through a single contract between the Army and the
RAND Corporation. Individual Army organizations will not execute separate contracts with the RAND Corporation for
RAND Arroyo Center studies and analyses.
2– 2. Development of the annual program
a. The annual program is an evolving agenda. It specifies thematic thrusts, ongoing projects, proposed projects, and
potential projects. The annual program will be developed through a continuing process involving top Army leaders, Sec-
retariat and Army Staff sponsors, the RAND ACPC lead agent, study coordinators of Army sponsor agencies, and RAND
Arroyo Center management. This process will identify and clarify policy issues seen as critical by the Army leadership.
The program will be prepared annually by the RAND Arroyo Center for lead agent and RAND ACPC approval.
b. Army activities as well as RAND Arroyo Center management may recommend projects for inclusion in the RAND
Arroyo Center annual program.
c. During the preparation of proposed projects, RAND Arroyo Center personnel, members of the requesting agency,
the Army Study Program Management Office (ASPMO), and other interested individuals work together to ensure that the
RAND Arroyo Center research agenda is aligned with the Army Study Program.
d. Projects are categorized according to three stages of development—
(1) Exploratory. Efforts in this stage have been selected by the RAND Arroyo Center for preliminary analysis.
(2) Provisional. This stage contains more mature research activities. Efforts have been formulated as projects and have
identified sponsors and objectives, but have not yet been submitted to the RAND ACPC for review and approval.
(3) Approved. Efforts in this stage are mature projects that have been formally reviewed and approved by the RAND
ACPC (core projects) or by the lead agent (add-on projects).
e. Prior to submitting provisional projects for approval, the sponsor and the RAND Arroyo Center management will
develop mutually acceptable work summaries that define the research efforts. This will include a description of the ana-
lytical techniques, supporting analyses, anticipated benefits and impacts, an estimate of the required level of effort (staff
years of technical effort), and research milestones against which progress will be measured.
f. The sponsor and the RAND Arroyo Center Director will finalize and sign project descriptions for core projects within
90 days of RAND ACPC approval of the annual research agenda.
g. The RAND Arroyo Center may devote up to 25 percent of its annual budget for exploratory and supporting analytical
efforts. The RAND ACPC lead agent may serve as the sponsor for these efforts if required.
h. An Army activity may, at any time, discuss policy issues and potential projects or seek information concerning
completed or ongoing RAND Arroyo Center projects.
i. Prior to the lead agent review, the RAND Arroyo Center Director or a designated representative will review the
proposed annual research agenda for the upcoming fiscal year (FY) with the ASPMO to prevent unnecessary duplication
of study efforts with other research efforts.
j. Prior to the lead agent review of proposed add-on projects that emerge throughout the FY, the RAND Arroyo Center
Director or a designated representative will coordinate the proposed projects with the ASPMO. The ASPMO will confirm
the proposed project is not redundant with previously conducted studies or with ongoing efforts performed by the Army’s
major internal study activities. If redundancy is identified, they will verify with the lead agent that the study sponsor desires
an independent evaluation.
AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018 5
2– 3. Dissemination of RAND Arroyo Center reports
a. The RAND Arroyo Center will provide Army project sponsors with written reports and/or other products as specified
in project descriptions for completed projects. Project sponsors will review reports to confirm their classification and fac-
tual accuracy within 30 calendar days of receiving a completed document accompanied by a request to publish.
b. A master distribution list will be maintained by the RAND ACPC lead agent and the RAND Arroyo Center.
c. With appropriate authorization, the RAND Arroyo Center is encouraged to make presentations to military operations
research symposia and to publish reports and articles in Department of Defense official publications.
d. Sponsors will review RAND Arroyo Center documents to identify classified, proprietary, or sensitive information
not authorized for release. Project sponsors will ensure that the RAND Arroyo Center has properly addressed the overall
classification of the report. Unclassified reports that do not contain proprietary or sensitive information may be made
available to the general public subsequent to receipt of release authority. Sponsors will not preclude public release of a
RAND Arroyo Center publication because the publication contains material critical of the Army or because it contains
findings and recommendations that are not in agreement with those advocated by the sponsor or Army leadership. Sponsors
will approve RAND Arroyo Center publications for public release unless:
(1) The publication contains classified, proprietary, or sensitive information not authorized for public release.
(2) The project sponsor identifies uncorrected factual errors in the publication.
e. RAND Arroyo Center analysts are encouraged to write unclassified articles based on Army research for publication
in professional journals. These articles will not contain classified, proprietary, or sensitive information and will be submit-
ted for publication only after the Army sponsor and the Office of the Chief of Public Affairs have conducted appropriate
security reviews. Disclaimers will be used to indicate the articles do not represent Army policy or Army viewpoints.
f. Army organizational security managers will clear any classified material for release. Clearance for release of any
industry, or other privately-owned, privileged, or proprietary materials will be obtained from the source of the data by the
RAND Arroyo Center. Army data released to the RAND Arroyo Center as described herein must contain appropriate
protective markings and nondisclosure warnings. Such data generally will not be released outside the RAND Arroyo Cen-
ter.
g. Once cleared by the Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (subject to the conditions specified above), final reports
resulting from research projects will be submitted by RAND Arroyo Center to the Defense Technical Information Center
and/or other appropriate reporting archives as determined by the sponsor.
h. Army organizations receiving RAND Arroyo Center publications are encouraged to review them and send construc-
tive comments to Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 8 (DAPR– DPD), 700 Army Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20310 – 0700.
2– 4. RAND Arroyo Center Fellows Program
a. A research and study fellowship is established at the RAND Arroyo Center. This program—
(1) Provides DA officers the opportunity to study and work on critical policy issues being addressed in the annual
RAND Arroyo Center research agenda.
(2) Enhances the center’s understanding of current Army policies and doctrine through the assignment of highly qual-
ified DA officers to RAND Arroyo Center projects.
(3) Promotes understanding of the RAND Arroyo Center in the Army community.
(4) Provides career enhancing development of analytical and operations research skills and techniques.
b. The RAND ACPC lead agent will coordinate the annual nomination and selection of all active component Fellows
for RAND ACPC confirmation in the fall. Volunteer Army officers (grades O– 4 and O– 5) will be screened and selected
annually by the RAND ACPC lead agent. The RAND ACPC lead agent may coordinate separate selection boards for
specialty branches or functional areas.
c. Criteria for selection will be developed annually by the RAND ACPC lead agent. The program will be announced in
the second quarter and the selection process will begin in August for the next FY participants.
d. The normal tour of duty at the RAND Arroyo Center will be 1–year with a 3–year utilization tour on a senior-level
Army or Joint staff.
e. The RAND ACPC lead agent will coordinate the Fellows’ administrative actions and follow-on assignments to en-
sure maximum benefit to the RAND Arroyo Center and the Army.
6 AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018
Appendix A
References
Section I
Required Publications
This section contains no entries.
Section II
Related Publications
A related publication is a source of additional information. The user does not have to read it to understand this regulation.
AR 5– 5
Army Studies and Analyses
AR 5– 14
Management of Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services
AR 380– 5
Department of the Army Information Security Program
FAR 35.017
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (Available at http://www.acquisition.gov/far/.)
Section III
Prescribed Forms
This section contains no entries.
Section IV
Referenced Forms
Unless otherwise indicated, DA Forms are available on the Army Publishing Directorate website
(http://armypubs.army.mil).
DA Form 11 – 2
Internal Control Evaluation Certification
DA Form 2028
Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms
AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018 7
Appendix B
Internal Control Evaluation
B– 1. Function
The functions covered by this regulation are the management and administration of the RAND Arroyo Center.
B– 2. Purpose
The purpose of this regulation is to assist Army leadership and study personnel in evaluating the key internal controls
outlined below. The regulation contains internal control provisions and identifies key internal controls.
B– 3. Instructions
Answers should be based on the actual testing of key internal controls (for example, document analysis, direct observation,
sampling, and simulation). Answers that indicate deficiencies should be explained and corrective action indicated in sup-
porting documentation. Certification that this evaluation has been conducted should be accomplished on DA Form 11 – 2
(Internal Control Evaluation Certification).
B– 4. Test questions
a. Is an annual research program established and implemented?
b. Has the study program undergone an annual review by the RAND ACPC?
c. Are research agendas and/or project descriptions sufficiently detailed to describe study requirements to include de-
liverables?
d. Are final study evaluations submitted to the COR or retained on file with local command when studies deemed
sensitive?
B– 5. Supersession
Not applicable.
B– 6. Comments
Help to make this a better tool for evaluating internal controls. Submit comments to Headquarters, Department of the
Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 8 (DAPR– DPD), 700 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 – 0700.
8 AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018
Glossary
Section I
Abbreviations
ACPC
Arroyo Center Policy Committee
ACSIM
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
AMC
U.S. Army Materiel Command
ASA (ALT)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
ASA (CW)
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
ASA (FM&C)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)
ASA (IE&E)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment)
ASA (M&RA)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
ASPMO
Army Study Program Management Office
CAR
Chief, Army Reserve
CG
Commanding General
CIO/G – 6
Chief Information Officer, G– 6
CNGB
Chief, National Guard Bureau
COR
contracting officer’s representative
DA
Department of the Army
DCS, G– 1
Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 1
DCS, G– 2
Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 2
DCS, G– 3/5/7
Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 3/5/7
DCS, G– 4
Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 4
DCS, G– 8
Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 8
FFRDC
Federally Funded Research and Development Center
AR 5–21 • 29 June 2018 9
FORSCOM
U.S. Army Forces Command
FY
fiscal year
HQDA
Headquarters, Department of the Army
MEDCOM
U.S. Army Medical Command
PA&E
program analysis and evaluation
PMG
Provost Marshall General
TRADOC
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
TSG
The Surgeon General
USAAC
U.S. Army Accessions Command
USASMDC
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
USASOC
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
VCSA
Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
Section II
Terms
Staff years of technical effort
Direct professional and consultant labor, performed by researchers, mathematicians, programmers, analysts, economists,
scientists, engineers, and others who perform professional-level technical work primarily in the fields of studies and anal-
yses, systems engineering and integration, systems planning, program and policy planning, program and policy analysis,
and basic and applied research.
UNCLASSIFIED PIN 060406–000

Read More

ARMY DIR 2018-07-11 PRIORITIZING EFFORTS-READINESS AND LETHALITY (UPDATE 11)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_c/ARN10877-ARMY_DIR_2018-07-11-000-WEB-1.pdf

Read More

AR 10-82 ARMY NATIONAL GUARD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN4020_R10_82_Final.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED
Army Regulation 10–82
Organization and Functions
ARMY
NATIONAL
GUARD
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
18 June 2018
SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 10– 82
Army National Guard Information Technology
This major revision, dated 18 June 2018—
o Changes the title from “Army National Guard Computer Center” to “Army National Guard Information Technology”
(cover).
o Articulates the information management and technology mission and responsibilities in delivering information
technology to the Army National Guard (paras 4 and 5).
o Defines mission and functions and prescribes command and staff relationships and communication channels of the
Army National Guard Chief Information Officer/G–6 (paras 5, 6, and 7).
*This regulation supersedes AR 10-82, dated 21 January 1981.
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018
UNCLASSIFIED i
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
*Army Regulation 10–82
18 June 2018 Effective 18 July 2018
Organization and Functions
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
History. This publication is a major revi-
sion.
Summary. This regulation defines the
mission and supporting functions of infor-
mation technology services within the
Army National Guard.
Applicability. This regulation applies to
the Army National Guard. It does not apply
to the Regular Army or the U.S. Army Re-
serve.
Proponent and exception authority.
The proponent of this regulation is the
Chief, National Guard Bureau. The propo-
nent has the authority to approve exceptions
or waivers to this regulation that are con-
sistent with controlling law and regulations.
The proponent may delegate this approval
authority, in writing, to a division chief
within the proponent agency or its direct re-
porting unit or field operating agency, in the
grade of colonel or the civilian equivalent.
Activities may request a waiver to this reg-
ulation by providing justification that in-
cludes a full analysis of the expected bene-
fits and must include formal review by the
activity’s senior legal officer. All waiver re-
quests will be endorsed by the commander
or senior leader of the requesting activity
and forwarded through their higher head-
quarters to the policy proponent. Refer to
AR 25–30 for specific guidance.
Army internal control process. This
regulation contains internal control provi-
sions in accordance with AR 11–2 and iden-
tifies key internal controls that must be
evaluated (see appendix B).
Supplementation. Supplementation of
this regulation and establishment of com-
mand and local forms are prohibited with-
out prior approval from the Army National
Guard G–6, Arlington Hall Station, 111
South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA
22204.
Suggested improvements. Users are
invited to send comments or suggested im-
provements on DA Form 2028 (Recom-
mended Changes to Publications and Blank
Forms) directly to Army National Guard
G–6, Arlington Hall Station, 111 South
George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA
22204.
Distribution. This regulation is available
in electronic media only and is intended for
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)
Purpose • 1, page 1
References • 2, page 1
Explanation of abbreviations and terms • 3, page 1
Responsibilities • 4, page 1
Mission • 5, page 1
Functions • 6, page 1
Channels of communication • 7, page 3
Appendixes
A. References, page 4
B. Internal Control Evaluation, page 6
Glossary
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018 1
1. Purpose
This regulation sets forth the mission and functions of the Army National Guard (ARNG) Chief Information Officer/G–6
(CIO/G–6) in managing and delivering information as an ARNG resource and the information technology (IT) that sup-
ports the information requirements. It also describes command and staff relationships and channels of communication.
2. References
See appendix A.
3. Explanation of abbreviations and terms
See the glossary.
4. Responsibilities
In accordance with DODD 5105.77, the Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB) is responsible for the organization and
operations of the National Guard Bureau (NGB). Accordingly, the Director, Army National Guard (DARNG) assists the
CNGB in carrying out the functions of the NGB as they relate to the ARNG and the Army National Guard of the United
States. The CNGB, as the channel of communications between the Department of the Army (DA) and the 50 States, three
Territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), and the District of Columbia, appoints the DARNG as the
lead agent for GuardNet. As lead agent for GuardNet, the DARNG delegates the management and sustainment of infor-
mation management (IM) and technology to the ARNG CIO/G–6.
5. Mission
The mission of the ARNG CIO/G–6 is as follows:
a. Provide Federal and ARNG State-level command, control, communications, computers, and information manage-
ment (C4IM) to meet the dual State and Federal mission of the ARNG.
b. Manage information and information technology for the NGB and the 50 States, three Territories (Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the District of Columbia.
6. Functions
a. Information resource management.
(1) Oversees the implementation of IM and IT capital planning and investment-control strategies, as well as, resource
planning, programming, budgeting, and execution.
(2) Participates in, and provides representation for, the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process de-
cision group and exercises centralized oversight of IT expenditures for all appropriations.
(a) Leverages command, control, communications, computers (C4) metrics to substantiate funding requirements that
are essential to meet the dual State and Federal mission.
(b) Provides program objective memorandum oversight to the IT Management Decision Package (MDEP).
(3) Oversees functional processes within respective functional portfolio areas to maximize end-to-end enterprise pro-
cesses and reduce redundancy in systems and local processes.
(4) Manages the organization’s implementation of the ARNG’s IT investment strategy, IT infrastructure changes, ac-
quisition strategy, cybersecurity prerequisites, and information assurance (IA).
(5) Generates the Congressionally mandated ARNG Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Report.
b. Information technology strategy, policy, and governance.
(1) Utilizes legal, fiduciary, and statutory authorities to achieve short- and long-term tactical, operational, and strategic
objectives.
(2) Recommends and coordinates new standards and ensures IT system compliance to the approved Department of
Defense (DOD) IT Standards Registry.
(3) Manages IM and IT requirements for the ARNG enterprise and participates in related governance and advisory
board activities.
(4) Administers enterprise governance through policy, indoctrination, and execution portfolio management.
(5) Maintains compliance and provides strategic oversight in C4IM policy.
(6) Mission command governance—
(a) Provides broad guidance to the ARNG Mission Command Assessment Team while coordinating their activities and
reporting results.
2 AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018
(b) Deconflicts all schedules impacting tactical signal echelons at all levels and facilitates risk and impact identification
to Signal Soldiers.
(c) Coordinates with, and disseminates information to, multiple echelons within the ARNG tactical signal community,
the NGB, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), and other DOD agencies to facilitate modernization in support
of State and Federal missions.
(d) Aligns with the ARNG General Staff and Joint Staff to represent the tactical signal community in process, proce-
dural, training, and equipping forums to ensure sustainable readiness across the tactical signal formations.
c. Information technology architecture.
(1) Oversees system architecture design and IT resources that impact the ARNG enterprise/State network and enabling
technologies.
(2) Incorporates doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities and policy
(DOTMLPF–P) standards to ensure information policy and functional requirements are reflected in architectures and plans
across the ARNG enterprise, as a means to ensure information sharing, visibility, assurance, and interoperability.
(3) Develops the enterprise C4 and IT architecture in conjunction with C4IM requirements using existing acquisition
strategy and procedures.
(4) Enhances ARNG enterprise capabilities that enables support to ARNG Federal and State-level missions.
(5) Manages plans and develops standard operating procedures for the ARNG enterprise architecture.
(6) Identifies, collects, analyzes, maintains, and monitors data elements used in approved information systems, in ac-
cordance with DA Data Strategy.
(7) Performs as a central design activity for analysis, design, integration, programing, documentation, testing, installing,
maintaining, and modification of assigned information systems in response to ARNG functional requirements.
(8) Develops information systems specifications for acquisition of IT resources.
(9) Provides resource impact assessments and cost estimates for proposed functional changes.
(10) Deploys approved technical and functional software changes.
(11) Maintains and distributes information systems software and related operating procedures and instructions, concur-
rently, with distribution of functional user manuals to ARNG system users and support personnel.
(12) Provides technical assistance and orientation of new information systems and applications to the 50 States, three
Territories, and the District of Columbia.
d. Cybersecurity.
(1) Provides oversight and sustainment of the ARNG Cybersecurity mission.
(2) Directs ARNG-wide cybersecurity policy, mandates procedures for policy compliance/enforcement, performs real
time cyber threat detection, and ensures ARNG communications are conducted in a manner that ensures confidentiality,
integrity, and availability while mitigating potential risk.
(3) Supports DOD's vision of effective operations in cyberspace where DOD missions and operations continue under
any cyber situation or condition and where the DOD has ready access to its information and command and control channels
and its adversaries do not, while securely and seamlessly extending to mission partners.
(4) Prescribes the operational aspects of information protection and data security, including processes that enforce
ARNG-wide compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA of 2002) and the OMB
Circular A–130.
(5) Identifies and analyzes threats to the ARNG enterprise network and its enabling technologies.
(6) Measures ARNG compliance with cybersecurity requirements and prescribes an IA program operational execution
activities, processes, and practices per AR 25–1.
(7) Oversees the management of records of respective functional areas to appropriately secure, maintain, and preserve
them throughout their life cycle in accordance with AR 25–2, AR 25–400–2, and DA Pam 25–1–2.
e. Enterprise operations.
(1) Provides resources (people, process, technology, projects, and infrastructure) and end-to-end management for ser-
vice delivery, service operations, infrastructure management, IA, and network defense.
(2) Oversees the development of DOD compliant and secure IT capabilities and services across the ARNG IT enter-
prise.
(3) Maintains timely responses to changing operational requirements for ARNG, Joint, and State-level missions.
(4) Minimizes the introduction of vulnerabilities and system interoperability performance problems by controlling and
approving changes to the ARNG’s authorized IT baseline.
(5) Governs the implementation of structured, controlled, repeatable, and measurable processes that drive accountabil-
ity and compliance for the management of the ARNG’s IT enterprise.
(6) Provides ARNG enterprise network services and capabilities, including enterprise architecture, cloud services, net-
work connectivity, and computer network defense.
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018 3
(7) Establishes standards for the operation of the ARNG data processing installations.
(8) Coordinates IT requirements relevant to ARNG continuity of operations plans and systems that support survival,
recovery, and reconstitution and ensures essential information services are available and operational, in support of the
ARNG continuity of operations (COOP).
7. Channels of communication
The ARNG CIO/G–6—
a. Communicates directly with HQDA agencies, the State Adjutants General, U.S. Property and Fiscal Officers, ARNG,
and other Government agencies on matters of mutual interest.
b. Maintains liaison with other DOD and Government agencies in matters of mutual interest.
c. Collaborates with the Joint Force Headquarters-States Directors of Information Management, who are responsible
for network enterprise center-like responsibilities for their respective States, as outlined in DODD 8000.01.
4 AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018
Appendix A
References
Section I
Required Publications
This section contains no entries.
Section II
Related Publications
A related publication is a source of additional information. The user does not have to read the publication to understand
this regulation.
AR 11–2
Managers’ Internal Control Program
AR 25–1
Army Information Technology
AR 25–2
Information Assurance
AR 25–30
Army Publishing Program
AR 25–400–2
The Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS)
Clinger–Cohen Act of 1996
40 USC, Subtitle III
DA Pam 25–1–1
Army Information Technology Implementation Instructions
DA Pam 25–1–2
Information Technology Contingency Planning
DA Pam 25–403
Guide to Recordkeeping in the Army
DODD 5105.77
National Guard Bureau (NGB)
DODD 5144.02
DOD Chief Information Officer
DODD 8000.01
Management of the Department of Defense Information Enterprise (DOD IE)
DODD 8500.01
CyberSecurity
DODI 8510.01
Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DOD Information Technology (IT)
DODI 8530.01
Cybersecurity Activities Support to DOD Information Network Operations
FISMA of 2002
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002
OMB Circular A–130
Management of Federal Information Resources
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018 5
10 USC 10541
National Guard and reserve component equipment: annual report to Congress
Section III
Prescribed Forms
This section contains no entries.
Section IV
Referenced Forms
Unless otherwise indicated, DA forms are available on the Army Publishing Directorate (APD) website
(https://armypubs.army.mil).
DA Form 11–2
Internal Control Evaluation Certification
DA Form 2028
Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms
6 AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018
Appendix B
Internal Control Evaluation
B–1. Function
The function covered by this evaluation is the administration of the ARNG IT organization. This includes key controls for
Chief Information Officer management, IA, and C4/IT support and services.
B–2. Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to assist the ARNG CIO/G–6 in the configuration and control of GuardNet and GuardNet
Services. It is intended as a guide and does not cover all controls.
B–3. Instructions
Answers must be based on the actual testing of internal controls (such as document analysis, direct observation, sampling,
and simulation). Answers that indicate deficiencies must be explained and corrective action indicated in supporting docu-
mentation. These key internal controls must be formally evaluated at least once every three years. Certification that this
evaluation has been conducted must be accomplished on DA Form 11–2 (Internal Control Evaluation Certification).
B–4. Evaluation
a. Responsibilities. Have C4/IT plans, programs, and requirements been coordinated with the appropriate IM and IT
managers?
b. Army information technology management.
(1) Are the duties and responsibilities of the senior information management official clearly designated in the organi-
zation’s mission and function?
(2) Has the organization analyzed (and documented the analysis of) its mission and revised mission-related and admin-
istrative work processes, as appropriate, before making significant IT investments in support of those processes?
(3) Does the organization have a strategic plan that is linked to its mission? Is it periodically updated?
(4) Has a forum been established to develop and implement C4/IT procedures, requirements, and priorities?
(5) Does the organization have a clearly defined process for submitting and screening new IT investment proposals for
management consideration?
(6) Does the IT investment screening process include addressing the questions in this checklist, resolving all issues
prior to making an IT investment, and initiating any process analysis or improvement?
(7) Does the process support core or priority mission functions?
(8) Can the process be eliminated?
(9) Can the process be accomplished more effectively, efficiently, and at less cost by another Government source (for
example, DOD or other Federal agency) or the private sector?
(10) Does the IT investment process clearly establish who in the organization has the responsibility and authority for
making final IT-related investment decisions?
(11) Are exceptions to the IT investment screening process clearly documented?
(12) Does the organization require that management evaluations for the IT investment screening process, as well as
scoring, ranking, and prioritization results, be documented (either manually or through the use of automated applications
such as a decision support tool)?
(13) Are IT investment decisions a part of the organization’s integrated capital planning process or are IT projects
separated out?
(14) Does the organization have a process in place to conduct periodic reviews (in-house or via outside consultant or
expert) of its current IT investment portfolio to assess alignment with mission needs, priorities, strategic direction, or major
process reengineering?
(15) Does the organization have a process for documenting and disseminating results of this review?
(16) Have functional managers developed a set of goals and objectives (with performance measures) to gauge overall
functional mission improvement? Have accomplishments been reported to enterprise-level managers?
(17) Have performance measures been developed for each IT investment that supports the organizational mission before
execution of that investment?
(18) Have IT investments been synchronized to overall DOD and ARNG mission priorities?
(19) Are performance measures linked to management-level goals, objectives, and measures?
(20) Are financial, logistics, facilities, human resources, contractors, and other senior ARNG leaders held accountable
for ensuring business processes comply with financial audit standards?
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018 7
(21) Does the policy minimize the number of IT devices per employee and provide the least amount required for the
assigned mission?
c. Information assurance (see AR 25–2).
d. Information Technology architecture (see para 5c).
(1) Has the organization developed the appropriate architecture for the ARNG to support the DOTMLPF– P components
as mapped to net-centric data and services?
(2) Has the organization developed the appropriate architecture for the Army Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA)
to support current systems infrastructure, enterprise application integration, and business-process modernization; and align
with the following DOD BEA Core Business Missions: materiel supply and service management, real property and instal-
lations life cycle, human resources management, and financial management?
e. Installation information technology services and support.
(1) Is a process in place for acquiring IT and ensuring all required licensing and registration are accomplished?
(2) Are periodic reviews of current IT being conducted to ensure they are still required and meeting user needs?
(3) Are evaluations being conducted of existing systems for obsolescence?
(4) Is an accurate inventory being maintained and validated annually for IT equipment?
(5) Are COOP plans and procedures documented, distributed, and tested at least annually?
(6) Has guidance been provided to ensure all software is checked for viruses before being loaded?
(7) Are existing capabilities and assets considered prior to upgrading, improving, or implementing local area networks?
(8) Are uneconomical IT service contracts identified and terminated?
(9) Have the acquisition of licenses been coordinated with the Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software Solutions of-
fice prior to entering into an agreement with a commercial off-the-shelf vendor?
(10) Are spare capacity and functional expansion of IT being considered or used when new requirements are identified?
(11) Are measures being taken to ensure that hard drives are disposed of properly?
(12) Are criteria established for justifying and approving the acquisition of cellular phones?
(13) Has guidance been provided to review and revalidate cellular telephones every 2 years?
(14) Do procedures require the establishment of a reutilization program to identify and turn in cellular phones that are
no longer required or seldom used?
(15) Is there a requirement for cellular phones to be recorded in the property book?
(16) Have accountable billing procedures been implemented ?
(17) Have maintenance and support strategies been devised to minimize overall systems life cycle cost at an acceptable
level of risk?
(18) Do safeguards exist to ensure that computer users do not acquire, reproduce, or transmit software in violation of
applicable copyright laws?
(19) Are private sector service providers made aware that written assurance of compliance with software copyright
laws may be required?
(20) Are users of the ARNG publicly accessible Web site provided with privacy and security notice prominently dis-
played or announced on at least the first page of all major sections of each Web information service?
(21) If applicable, does the Web site contain a disclaimer notice for links to any site outside of the official DOD Web
information service (usually the .mil domain)?
(22) Is the Web site free of commercial sponsorship and advertising?
(23) Is the Web site free of persistent cookies or other devices designed to collect personal identifiable information
about Web visitors?
(24) Is the operational information identified below purged from the ARNG publicly accessible Web site?
(a) Plans or lessons learned that would reveal military operations, exercises, or vulnerabilities.
(b) Sensitive movements of military assets or the location of units, installations, or personnel where uncertainty regard-
ing location is an element of the security of a military plan or program.
(c) Personal information about U.S. citizens, DOD employees, and military personnel, to include the following: Social
Security numbers; dates of birth; home addresses; directories containing name, duty assignment, and home telephone
numbers; names; locations; or any other identifying information about Family members of DOD employees or military
personnel.
(d) Technological data such as weapon schematics, weapon system vulnerabilities, electronic wire diagrams, and fre-
quency spectrum data.
(25) Are operational security tip-off indicators in the following categories purged from the ARNG publicly accessible
Web site?
(a) Administrative. Personnel travel (personal and official business), attendance at planning conferences, commercial,
support contracts, and for official use only information.
8 AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018
(b) Operations, plans, and training. Operational orders and plans; mission-specific training; exercise and simulations
activity; exercise, deployment, or training schedules; unit relocation or deployment information; inspection results, find-
ings, and deficiencies; unit vulnerabilities or weaknesses.
(c) Communications. Spectrum emissions and associated documentation; changes in activity or communications pat-
terns. Use of Internet and email by unit personnel (personal or official business); availability of secure communications;
hypertext links with other agencies or units; and Family support plans, bulletin board postings, or messages between Sol-
diers and their Family members.
(d) Logistics and maintenance. Supply and equipment orders and deliveries; transportation plans; mapping; imagery
and special documentation support; maintenance and logistics requirements; and receipt or installation of special equip-
ment.
(26) Are existing infrastructure capabilities and assets considered prior to upgrading, improving, or modernizing?
(27) Are the Web servers IA vulnerability alerts-compliant and placed behind a reverse proxy server?
B–5. Supersession
This is the initial internal control evaluation for AR 10–82.
B–6. Comments
Help make this a better tool for evaluating internal controls. Submit comments to ARNG G–6, Arlington Hall Station, 111
S. George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204.
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018 9
Glossary
Section I
Abbreviations
AR
Army regulation
ARNG
Army National Guard
BEA
Business Enterprise Architecture
C4
command, control, communications, computers
C4IM
command, control, communications, computers and information management
CIO/G–6
Chief Information Officer/G–6
CNGB
Chief, National Guard Bureau
COOP
continuity of operations
DA
Department of the Army
DARNG
Director, Army National Guard
DOD
Department of Defense
DOTMLPF–P
doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities and policy
HQDA
Headquarters, Department of the Army
IA
information assurance
IM
information management
IT
information technology
MDEP
Management Decision Package
NGB
National Guard Bureau
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
USC
United States Code
10 AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018
Section II
Terms
Cloud services
Cloud services are services made available to users on demand via the Internet from a cloud computing provider's servers
as opposed to being provided from a company's own on-premises servers.
Cybersecurity
Measures that protect and defend information and information systems by ensuring their availability, integrity, authenti-
cation, confidentiality, and non-repudiation. This includes providing for the restoration of information systems by incor-
porating protection, detection, and reaction capabilities.
DOTMLPF–P
An analysis framework used by DOD in a problem solving construct for assessing current and future force capabilities
while managing change.
Information assurance
Measures that protect and defend information and information systems by ensuring their availability, integrity, authenti-
cation, confidentiality, and non-repudiation. This includes providing for the restoration of information systems by incor-
porating protection, detection, and reaction capabilities.
Information management
Planning, budgeting, manipulating, and controlling information throughout its life cycle.
Information system
An integrated set of components for collecting, storing, and processing data and for providing information, knowledge,
and digital products.
Information technology
a. Any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis,
evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of
data or information.
b. Includes computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary
for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer,
software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources (see 40 USC Sub-
title III (Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996)).
Information technology architecture
Is the process of development of methodical information technology specifications, models, and guidelines, using a variety
of Information Technology notations within a coherent Information Technology architecture framework, following formal
and informal Information Technology solution, enterprise, and infrastructure architecture processes.
Infrastructure
The shared computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware, and similar procedures; and services, people, business
processes, facilities (such as building infrastructure elements) and related resources used in the acquisition, storage, ma-
nipulation, protection, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data
or information in any format (including audio, video, imagery, or data) whether supporting IT or national security systems
as defined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
MDEP
An integration of requirements to ensure that the Army is properly resourced. To accomplish this task, the Army aggregates
all requirements into a set of Management Decision Packages (MDEP).
OMB 300 Report
A DOD report for Congress that ensures IT systems conform to the requirements of OMB Circular No. A–130.
Service operations
Service operations consists of: incident management, event management, problem management, spectrum management,
and database and Internet Web management.
AR 10–82 • 18 June 2018 11
Section III
Special Abbreviations and Terms
This section contains no entries.
UNCLASSIFIED PIN 048040–000 

Read More

ARMY DIR 2018-07-9 PRIORITIZING EFFORTS-READINESS AND LETHALITY (UPDATE 9)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_c/ARN10035-ARMY_DIR_2018-07-9-000-WEB-1.pdf

Read More

ARMY DIR 2018-10 AUTHORIZING USE OF DA FORM 1059-2 (SENIOR SERVICE AND COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE ACADEMIC EVALUATION REPORT) FOR THE U.S.ARMY WAR COLLEGE

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN10253_ad2018_10_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2018-10 (Authorizing Use of DA Form 1059-2 (Senior
Service and Command and General Staff College Academic Evaluation Report) for the
U.S. Army War College)
1. References:
a. Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 4 November 2015.
b. Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System),
10 November 2015.
c. AR 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), 12 December 2017.
d. AR 600-9 (The Army Body Composition Program), 28 June 2013.
e. AR 621-7 (Army Fellowships and Scholarships), 8 August 1997.
f. Memorandum, U.S. Army War College, CSWC, 12 December 2017, subject:
Request to Use Revised DA Form 1059-2 (CGSC/USAWC/SSC) for U.S. Army War
College Class of 2018.
2. This directive prescribes use of DA Form 1059-2 for resident students currently
enrolled at the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) who will graduate in academic year
2018 and thereafter.
3. The new DA Form 1059-2 will only be rendered for all Regular Army, Active Guard
Reserve, U.S. Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve resident students,
physically located and enrolled at USAWC.
4. The Commandant, USAWC will ensure each DA Form 1059-2 is completed in
compliance with prescribed policies and procedural guidance associated with this
directive. Completed DA Form 1059-2s will be forwarded error-free to reach
Headquarters, Department of the Army no later than 90 days after the “THRU” date
of the duration of the course.
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2018-10 (Authorizing Use of DA Form 1059-2 (Senior
Service and Command and General Staff College Academic Evaluation Report) for the
U.S. Army War College)
2
5. USAWC will coordinate the submission method for the completed forms with
U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Evaluations Selection and Promotions
Division, Evaluations Policy Branch.
6. Students who separated or departed from USAWC before implementation of this
directive will be assessed on the current DA Form 1059 and in accordance with policy
prescribed in AR 623-3. Separation or departure is defined as a student being released
early from USAWC, either through no fault of the student or because of a condition that
prevented the student from fulfilling course requirements. Students who separate or
depart USAWC on or after the effective date of this directive will be assessed on the
new DA Form 1059-2.
7. Human Resources Command’s Evaluations Selection and Promotions Division,
Evaluations Policy Branch is the point of contact for all policy and procedural inquires
related to this directive. The branch can be reached at 502-613-9019, DSN 983-9019,
or usarmy.knox.hrc.mbx.tagd-eval-policy@mail.mil.
8. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 is the proponent for this directive and will ensure its
provisions are incorporated into AR 623-3 and DA Pamphlet 623-3. The Deputy Chief
of Staff, G-1 will coordinate required revisions to AR 350-1 and AR 621-7 with the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7.
9. This directive is rescinded upon publication of the revised publications.
Encl Mark T. Esper
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2018-10 (Authorizing Use of DA Form 1059-2 (Senior
Service and Command and General Staff College Academic Evaluation Report) for the
U.S. Army War College)
3
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Army Directive 2018-10 Enclosure
PROCEDURES FOR USING DA FORM 1059-2 FOR STUDENTS
AT THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE
1-1 Rules for Designating an Academic Rater for DA Form 1059-2. The academic
rater may be military or civilian and, if military, will normally be senior to the rated
student by grade or date of rank. An academic rater is designated by the commandant
and is the person who directly oversees and is most responsible for directing and
observing the student’s progress through a military course of instruction that requires a
DA Form 1059-2.
1-2 Rules for Designating a Reviewing Official for DA Form 1059-2. The reviewing
official for DA Form 1059-2 will be the commandant or a designated official above the
academic rater. The reviewing official is the authorized individual responsible for
ensuring the accuracy of the DA Form 1059-2 the academic rater prepared. Reviewing
officials will ensure timely submission of the completed DA Form 1059-2 to
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and the rated student. An additional
documented review, identified as a supplementary review, is required for academic
failure evaluation reports (see paragraphs 1-3 and 1-4).
1-3 Reviewing Official Requirements for DA Form 1059-2
a. The reviewing official will perform the final review to ensure that:
(1) evaluation rating chains are correct and provide a realistic evaluation of the
rated student.
(2) evaluations rendered are examined and discrepancies are clarified or
resolved.
(3) all parties have complied with this directive and the DA Form 1059-2
Procedural Instructions.
(4) the communication process between the academic rater and rated student
has taken place and is documented properly in accordance with academic counseling
standards the commandant established.
(5) all comments are consistent with counseling or other communications
between rating officials and the rated student during the duration of the course.
(6) all DA Form 1059-2s are submitted to HQDA, along with any comments the
rated student provided in response to a referred report and the reviewing official’s letter
of referral.
b. In addition, a “Did Not Graduate” selection in part I, block l (Reason for
Submission) and/or a “Non-Graduate” selection in part III, block a (Overall Academic
Army Directive 2018-10 2
Achievement) on DA Form 1059-2 requires a documented supplementary review (see
paragraph 1-4).
c. In certain situations, persons other than the reviewing official will conduct
supplementary reviews. The reviews will be accomplished after receipt of a completed
DA Form 1059-2 (that is, the form was authenticated by the academic rater, reviewing
official, and rated student and includes the rated student’s comments, if provided).
d. The supplementary review will be conducted by the person in the chain of
supervision above the reviewing official, unless the commandant is the reviewing
official. Supplementary reviews will go no higher than the school commandant.
e. School commandants may delegate signatory or approval authority to the
registrar to perform supplementary review functions. The commandant’s delegation
must be filed locally and rescinded or updated when a change of commandant occurs.
1-4 Mandatory Review of Academic Failure. When a “Did Not Graduate” selection
in part I, block l and/or a “Non-Graduate” selection in part III, block a is selected on
DA Form 1059-2, a supplementary review is required. The form will be referred to the
rated student as described in paragraph 1-9. The requirements of the referral process
will be completed before the supplementary review.
a. Supplementary reviewers of “Did Not Graduate” and/or “Non-Graduate”
selections on DA Form 1059-2 will:
(1) ensure that the narrative portions of the form contain factual information
that fully explains and justifies the reason for the failure.
(2) verify that any derogatory information has been accurately portrayed.
(3) ensure that the evaluation report has been prepared as this directive
prescribes.
(4) make sure the evaluation report has been returned to the rated student for
comment.
(5) review the student’s referral comments, if provided.
(6) provide comments as an enclosure to the form (see the DA Form 1059-2
Procedural Instructions).
b. DA Form 1059-2 reports that include a “Did Not Graduate” selection and/or a
“Non-Graduate” selection require a supplementary review by the next individual above
the reviewing official in the chain of supervision, unless the reviewing official is the
school commandant. Supplementary reviews will go no higher than the school
commandant.
Army Directive 2018-10 3
1-5 Loss of a Rating Official or Rated Student. Special rules apply when a rating
official is eliminated from the rating chain or is unable to render an evaluation of the
rated student. These situations occur when a rating official dies, is declared missing, is
relieved of his or her position or duties for cause, or becomes mentally or physically
incapacitated to such an extent that he or she is unable to render an objective or
accurate evaluation. When a rating official is officially relieved or determined to be
incapacitated, he or she will not be permitted to evaluate his or her subordinates. This
restriction will apply to evaluation reports with “THRU” dates before the relief or
incapacitation of the rating official that have not yet completed processing to the rated
student’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The following rules apply:
a. A new academic rater and/or reviewing official will be designated by the
commandant of the school in the event of loss, relief, or incapacitation of the designated
rating official.
(1) When the academic rater is eliminated from the rating chain for any reason
cited above, the commandant will designate a qualified rating official with adequate
knowledge of the rated students’ academic performance that will qualify them to render
an evaluation in place of the removed academic rater.
(2) When the reviewing official is eliminated, a new reviewing official will be
designated by one of two options. The commandant can:
(a) designate the registrar or a new qualified reviewing official to perform
responsibilities.
(b) act as the reviewing official to perform review responsibilities.
(3) In cases when both the academic rater and reviewing official are eliminated
from the rating chain, the Commander, U.S. Army Training Doctrine Command will
designate a local official qualified to serve as both academic rater and reviewing official.
b. The death of a student does not require a DA Form 1059-2 to be prepared for
submission to HQDA. Any previous DA Form 1059-2 having a “THRU” date before the
date of a student’s death can still be submitted for processing to the student’s AMHRR.
Submission and processing must be accomplished within 6 months of the student’s
death.
1-6 Commandant, Academic Rater, and Reviewing Official Responsibilities
a. Commandants will ensure that:
(1) a copy of this directive is available to the student and rating officials.
(2) each rating official is fully qualified to meet his or her responsibilities.
Army Directive 2018-10 4
(3) the DA Form 1059-2 is properly prepared.
(4) each rating official knows how the students performed.
(5) each student receives a copy of the completed DA Form 1059-2.
(6) a referred DA Form 1059-2 is provided to the student for acknowledgment
and comment before it is sent to HQDA for processing to completion.
(7) schools submit the completed DA Form 1059-2 to the appropriate address
at HQDA to arrive within 90 days after the “THRU” date of the DA Form 1059-2.
(8) the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and height and weight screening is
administered in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 350-1.
b. Academic raters for DA Form 1059-2 will ensure that:
(1) all applicable fields in parts I, II, and IV are accurate and complete.
(2) when “NO” is selected in part II, block a, comments are entered in part II,
block j when there is substantial finding that the rated student violated the Army’s Equal
Opportunity, Equal Employment Opportunity, or Sexual Harassment/Assault Response
and Prevention Programs.
(3) APFT performance entry and date, height and weight requirements, and
verification of compliance with AR 600-9 are entered in part II, blocks b and c.
(4) overall grade point average is entered in part II, block d (when applicable).
(5) skill identifiers and codes are entered in part II, blocks e1 and e2 (when
applicable).
(6) joint education credit is selected in part II, block f (when applicable).
(7) comments are entered for part II, blocks g through j. Comments will
address accomplishments and/or deficiencies for areas evaluated.
(8) the academic performance box is selected in part II, blocks g through i to
indicate the quality of the student’s course work, performance, and classroom
contributions.
(a) If the quality of course work displays expert comprehension and integration
of concepts, exhibits performance at a level that significantly exceeds standards, and is
an exemplar of excellence, the academic rater will place an “X” in the “Distinguished
Performance” box.
Army Directive 2018-10 5
(b) If the quality of course work displays exceptional comprehension and
integration of concepts and an impressive performance that is clearly above the norm,
the academic rater will place an “X” in the “Superior Performance” box.
(c) If the quality of course work displays a solid comprehension and integration
of concepts, the academic rater will place an “X” in the “Performed to Standards” box.
(d) If the quality of course work lacks a solid command of concepts, the
academic rater will place an “X” in the “Did Not Meet Standards” box. When this occurs,
the DA Form 1059-2 will be referred to the student (see paragraphs 1-4 and 1-9).
(9) the title of completed special projects (for example, white papers, thesis
topics, decision papers) are listed in part II, block k.
c. Reviewing officials for DA Form 1059-2 will ensure that:
(1) content within parts I, II, III, and IV of the evaluation are completed in
compliance with this policy and procedures prescribed in the DA Form 1059-2
Procedural Instructions.
(2) all respective fields in parts III and IV are completed.
(3) the box selected in part III, block a best describes the rated student’s
overall academic performance.
(4) the selection in part III, block a indicates the level of performance for the
student compared against course standards and the student’s performance when
compared to all other students initially enrolled at the start date for that specific class.
This assessment will compare the rated student against all students for the entire class.
It is not a stand-alone comparison of the student to a particular “section” or “small
group.”
(5) use of the top two assessment boxes in part III, block a does not exceed
allowable limits established for the graduating class.
(a) A “Distinguished Graduate” is limited to the top 10 percent. This
percentage is derived by using the total number of students enrolled at the start date for
that specific class. A “Superior Graduate” is limited to the upper 11–30 percent of total
students initially enrolled at the start date for that specific class. The combined total for
“Distinguished Graduate” and “Superior Graduate” selections will not exceed 30 percent
of all students initially enrolled at the start date for that specific class.
(b) In part III, block a, the student’s overall academic achievement
performance is gauged by the total population of the class. If the student:
Army Directive 2018-10 6
(i) met all course requirements and demonstrated skills and abilities that rate
him or her in the top 10 percent of all enrolled students in the class, the reviewing
official will place an “X” in the “Distinguished Graduate” box. (The number of ratings in
this box cannot exceed 10 percent of the total number of students initially enrolled at the
start date for the class.)
(ii) met all course requirements and demonstrated skills and abilities that score
him or her in the upper 11–30 percent of the total number of students initially enrolled at
the start date for the class, the reviewing official will place an “X” in the “Superior
Graduate” box. (The total number of ratings in the second box combined with the total
number of ratings in the first box cannot exceed 30 percent.)
(iii) met all course requirements and achieved the overall acceptable course
standards, as identified in the course grading plan, the reviewing official will place an “X”
in the “Graduate” box.
(iv) fails to meet course requirements, as identified in the course grading plan,
the reviewing official will place an “X” in the “Non-Graduate” box. See paragraphs 1-4
and 1-9 for guidance on academic failure evaluation reports and paragraph 1-11 for the
referral process.
(Note: All ratings in part III, block a will be processed with an HQDA electronically-
generated label corresponding to the overall academic achievement indication when
processed at HQDA.)
(6) may list up to three future assignments that are relevant to the student’s
demonstrated aptitude.
1-7 DA Form 1059-2 Requirements. DA Form 1059-2 will be used to document the
performance, accomplishments, potential, and limitations of students while attending the
U.S. Army War College (USAWC). The rating officials will be responsible for the
qualitative and quantitative assessment of students’ abilities and the accuracy of the
information on the completed form.
a. Academic performance counseling for students attending USAWC will be
conducted in accordance with procedures established at the local level by the
commandant or the Commander, Training and Doctrine Command.
b. Students attending USAWC are expected to meet the Army’s physical fitness
and body composition standards in accordance with AR 350-1 and AR 600-9.
1-8 Adverse Actions. Adverse actions encompass a variety of situations that are not
in accordance with Army Values, Leadership Requirements Model, or good order and
discipline, and need to be addressed appropriately on the DA Form 1059-2. See
AR 623-3, paragraph 3-25 for more guidance on adverse actions that should be entered
on the DA Form 1059-2.
Army Directive 2018-10 7
1-9 Referred DA Form 1059-2. The following entries on the DA Form 1059-2 are
considered to be referred or adverse reports. The reviewing official will refer the form to
the rated student for acknowledgment and an opportunity to comment before submitting
the form to HQDA (detailed instructions and the process for handling referred forms are
in the DA Form 1059-2 Procedural Instructions):
 Any “NO” response.
 Any “DID NOT MEET STANDARDS” rating.
 A “DID NOT GRADUATE” reason for submission.
 A “Non-Graduate” rating. If “Non-Graduate” is checked in part III, block a, the
reviewing official will clearly explain the deficiencies contributing to the selection in
part III, block b. Examples may include assessments on the character or behavior
of the rated student, or a lack of aptitude in certain academic areas (these
examples are not all-inclusive). All “Non-Graduate” entries require an additional
review (see paragraph 1-4).
 Any comments so derogatory that the DA Form 1059-2 may adversely affect the
student’s career.
 Any DA Form 1059-2 with a “FAIL” for the APFT indicating noncompliance with
the standards in AR 350-1 and/or a “NO” entry after the height and weight
indicating noncompliance with the standards in AR 600-9 (see the DA Form
1059-2 Procedural Instructions).
1-10 Early Release From a Course. Students who are separated or depart USAWC
before the effective date of this directive will be assessed on the current DA Form 1059
and in accordance with policy prescribed in AR 623-3. Separation or departure is
defined as a student being released early from USAWC, either through no fault of the
student or because of a condition that prevented the student from fulfilling course
requirements.
1-11 Referral Process for DA Form 1059-2. The referral process ensures the rated
student knows that his or her DA Form 1059-2 contains negative or derogatory
information and affords him or her the opportunity to sign the form and submit
comments, if desired. See the DA Form 1059-2 Procedural Instructions for referral
procedures.
1-12 Submission Requirements for DA Form 1059-2. All completed forms will be
submitted to U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Evaluations Selection and
Promotions Division, Evaluations Policy Branch as a batch. Submission delivery will be
the completed DA Form 1059-2 (the fillable Adobe .pdf document), saved on a disc or
other electronic means of storage, to be extracted and uploaded at a later date when
Army Directive 2018-10 8
the supporting processing system comes online. Authentication for signature sequence
is addressed in AR 623-3, paragraph 3-33k.
1-13 Authorized Enclosures. No enclosures, other than the following, will be
attached to DA Form 1059-2s:
 Reviewing Official’s letter of referral (retained by HQDA only).
 The rated student’s acknowledgment of referral (retained by HQDA only).
 Comments from the student regarding a referred DA Form 1059-2 (see
paragraphs 1-9 and 1-11 and the DA Form 1059-2 Procedural Instructions).
 Comments from the supplementary review.
1-14 Modification to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports. Guidance on how
to request modifications to both completed DA Form 1059-2s that are filed in a Soldier’s
AMHRR and those that are being processed at HQDA before completion is in AR 623-3,
paragraph 3-36.
1-15 Newly Received Favorable Information. See AR 623-3, paragraph 3-37 for
steps to take when a rating official becomes aware of newly obtained favorable
information that would have resulted in a higher evaluation after the DA Form 1059-2
has been processed to the rated student’s AMHRR and is a matter of record.
1-16 Newly Received Derogatory Information. Rating officials will submit an
addendum to a previously submitted DA Form 1059-2 when they become aware of new
information that would have resulted in a lower evaluation after the DA Form 1059-2 has
been processed to the rated student’s AMHRR and is a matter of record.
a. The first commander or commandant in the rated student’s current chain of
command who receives new information will ensure that all members of the original
rating chain for the DA Form 1059-2 affected by the new information are aware of it and
are allowed to comment. If none of the original rating officials want to change or add to
the original DA Form 1059-2, no addendum will be prepared.
b. The addendum will contain the rated student’s name, grade, Social Security
number, type of evaluation report, and period covered by the evaluation report the
addendum applies to. The addendum will also state that all members of the rating chain
were allowed to add or change comments, and it will list those who did not want to
comment.
c. Upon completion of this action, the commander or commandant will refer a
copy of the addendum to the rated student for acknowledgment and the opportunity to
submit comments before sending it (and any signed comments) to HQDA.
Army Directive 2018-10 9
d. No changes will be made to the original evaluation report in the rated student’s
AMHRR, but the addendum will be appended to the original DA Form 1059-2, along
with any comments from the rated student.
e. If the commander or commandant is not a member of the original rating chain,
their only responsibility is to coordinate the submission of the addendum. The
commander or commandant may not add comments to the addendum unless they were
a member of the original rating chain.
f. If any of the rating officials have been reassigned, released from active duty,
incapacitated, or are otherwise unable to complete their part of an addendum before an
investigation involving the rated student, the commander or commandant will so
indicate.
g. If the rated student cannot be contacted for review, the commander or
commandant will comment on the action taken and the inability to contact the rated
student before submitting the addendum to HQDA.
1-17 Service School Academic Evaluation Report DA Form 1059-2. USAWC
students who are awarded the Master of Strategic Studies degree or Master of Military
Art and Science degree will have an entry entered on the DA Form 1059-2 part III,
block b (see the DA Form 1059-2 Procedural Instructions).
1-18 Reasons for Submitting a DA Form 1059-2. The DA Form 1059-2 will be
rendered for the following reasons:
 Course Completion. The form will be submitted after successful completion of a
DA Form 1059-2 producing course. For courses consisting of multiple phases,
the form will only be completed for the course phase that finalizes the completion
of all requirements of a multiphase course. Course completion academic reports
that signify advancement to a military education level must annotate the military
education level achieved.
 Released Early (No Fault of Student). A DA Form 1059-2 will be submitted for
students who do not meet course requirements and are released early from the
course of instruction or degree program through no fault of their own.
 Did Not Graduate. The form will be submitted for students who fail to meet
requirements needed to complete a course.
1-19 Evaluation Report Redress Program. See AR 623-3, chapter 4, for policies,
procedures, preparation, and submission of an appeal to an evaluation report and
requests for a Commandant’s Inquiry.

Read More