https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36808-AR_5-22-000-WEB-1.pdf
*This regulation supersedes AR 5–22, dated 28 October 2015 and rescinds Army Directive 2019–25, dated 1 August 2019.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023
UNCLASSIFIED
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
*Army Regulation 5 – 22
13 June 2023 Effective 13 July 2023
Management
The Army Force Modernization Proponent and Integration System
History. This publication is a major revision. The portions af fected by this major revision are listed in the summary of change.
Authorities. This regulation implements authorities outlined in 10 USC.
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.
Proponent and exception authority. The proponent of this regulation is the Deputy Chief of Staf f, G – 3/5/7. 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 authority, in writing, to a division chief within the proponent agency or its direct reporting uni t or f ield
operating agency, in the grade of colonel or the civilian equivalent. Activities may request a waiver to this regulation by p roviding
justif ication that includes a f ull analysis of the expected benef its and must include f ormal review by the activity's senior legal of f icer.
All waiver requests will be endorsed by the commander or senior leader of the requesting activity and f orwarded through their higher
headquarters to the policy proponent. Ref er to AR 25 – 30 f or specif ic requirements.
Army internal control process. This regulation contains internal control provisions in accordance with AR 11 – 2 and identif ies key
internal controls that must be evaluated (see appendix B).
Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recommended
Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) directly to the Deputy Chief of S taf f , G – 3/5/7 inbox at usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-
3 – 5 – 7.mbx.ssp@army.mil.
Distribution. This regulation is available in electronic media only and is intended f or the Regular A rmy, the Army National
Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 i
Contents (Listed by chapter and page number)
Chapter 1
Introduction, page 1
Chapter 2
Responsibilities, page 2
Chapter 3
Army Force Modernization Proponents, page 6
Chapter 4
Headquarters Department of the Army Process Managers, page 10
Appendixes
A. References, page 11
B. Internal Control Evaluation, page 12
Table List
Table 3 – 1: Center of Excellence Force Modernization proponents, page 6
Table 3 – 2: Branch proponents, page 6
Table 3 – 3: Specified proponents, page 7
Table 4 – 1: Process managers, page 10
Glossary of Terms
Summary of Change
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1–1. Purpose
This regulation establishes the Army Force Modernization Proponent and Integration System (see Army
Directive 2022 – 07). The Secretary of the Army (SECARMY) identifies Army force modernization propo-
nents for the purpose of determining solutions to gaps in the Army’s ability to provide joint and Army -spe-
cific capabilities required to conduct military operations. The Army Force Modernization Proponent and
Integration System is a strategic-level process for assigning responsibility for integrating doctrine, organi-
zation, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and pol icy (DOTMLPF – P) solu-
tions to transform the Army into the desired future force. AR 5 – 22 establishes policy, responsibilities, rela-
tionships, and procedures necessary to execute the Army Force Modernization Proponent and Integration
System, to include determining DOTMLPF – P requirements with regards to a particular Center of Excel-
lence, branch, or specific proponent. The Army manages modernization over the time horizons and func-
tions of force design, force development, force employment, force sustainment, and strategic divestiture.
Force design is the design of operational and functional concepts that addresses the conditions of a fu-
ture operational environment and its anticipated threats, and generally focuses 5 – 15 years into the future.
Force development is the maturation of operational and functional concepts into force design updates that
seeks to fully integrate DOTMLPF – P, and generally focuses 2 – 7 years into the future. U.S. Army Futures
Command (AFC) is the supported command for force design and delivers future concepts, requirements,
and conceptual organizational designs based on its assessment of the future operating environment. AFC
is the supported command for force development. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command ( TRADOC)
supports AFC force development by conducting DOTMLPF – P integration to provide capabilities to the
operational force. Force employment is the generation of ready forces to meet the needs of the Joint
force, and generally focuses 0 – 3 years into the future. U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) trains
and prepares combat ready, globally responsive forces. FORSCOM is the supported command for force
employment. Force sustainment is the management and care of materiel equipment after a capability
transitions to sustainment, and before the Army divests the capability. U.S. Army Materiel Command
(AMC) is the supported command for force sustainment. AMC is the supported command for strategic di-
vestiture. Various Army processes manage force modernization across the time horizons outlined above.
Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G – 3/5/7 is the Army’s lead integrator and synchronizer, and captures mod-
ernization activities and decisions in the Army Campaign Plan (ACP) and then tracks these activities and
decisions in execution through the Army Synchronization Meeting. AFC, TRADOC, FORSCOM, U.S.
Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), and U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
(USASMDC), along with other Army force modernization proponents work together on requir ed capabili-
ties for presentation to the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) process managers for review,
integration, and funding.
1–2. References, forms, and explanation of abbreviations
See appendix A. The abbreviations, brevity codes, and acronyms (ABCAs) used in this electronic publica-
tion are defined when you hover over them. All ABCAs are listed in the ABCA database located at
https://armypubs.army.mil/abca/.
1–3. Associated publications
This section contains no entries.
1–4. Responsibilities
Responsibilities are listed in chapter 2.
1–5. Records management (recordkeeping) requirements
The records management requirement for all record numbers, associated forms, and reports required by
this publication are addressed in the Records Retention Schedule–Army (RRS – A). Detailed information
for all related record numbers, forms, and reports are located in Army Records Information Management
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 2
System (ARIMS)/RRS – A at https://www.arims.army.mil. If any record numbers, forms, and reports are not
current, addressed, and/or published correctly in ARIMS/RRS – A, see DA Pam 25 – 403 for guidance.
Chapter 2
Responsibilities
2–1. The Secretary of the Army
The SECARMY approves and authenticates departmental policy, unless otherwise delegated to the Ad-
ministrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army (AASA).
a. SECARMY designates the HQDA principal officials process managers responsible for managing
one or more of the DOTMLPF – P processes within the Army.
b. Pursuant to 10 USC 7013, SECARMY is responsible for, among other matters, the modernization
and the equipping function of the Department of the Army (DA).
2–2. The Chief of Staff, Army
a. The CSA assists the SECARMY in developing requirements for equipping the Army, balancing re-
sources and priorities, and ensuring that associated trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility,
and performance are made on major defense acquisition programs.
b. The CSA is responsible for all performance requirements for the Army, except for performance re-
quirements specified in 10 USC 181. Such performance requirements do not need to be validated by the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
2–3. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
a. The ASA (ALT) is responsible, under 10 USC, for the overall supervision of Army acquisition, logis-
tics, sustainment, and technology matters, and the management of the Army Acquisition System. This re-
sponsibility includes the oversight of Army research and development, including science and technology
efforts and associated resourcing decisions.
b. The ASA (ALT), as the Army Acquisition Executive, carries out all authorities, functions, and duties
of SECARMY with respect to the acquisition workforce. This responsibility includes the direction, assign-
ment, and supervision of the Army's acquisition workforce.
2–4. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment)
The ASA (IE&E) is the proponent for installation modernization and will set the strategic direction, provid-
ing the overall supervision for installation facilities, programs, and services across the Army.
2–5. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
The ASA (M&RA) will set the strategic direction, providing the overall supervision for manpower, person-
nel, and Reserve affairs across the Army.
2–6. The Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army
The AASA acts for the SECARMY in authenticating departmental policy, with few exceptions. AASA also
advises SECARMY on policy and management matters affecting the civilian workforce.
2–7. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 1
The DCS, G – 1 is responsible for planning and supervising the execution of manpower policies and pro-
grams. Prescribes duties and responsibilities for personnel life cycle of Army officer branches and func-
tional areas, warrant officer branches, enlisted career management fields, and Civilian career fields under
their respective personnel management systems, except as otherwise set forth in this regulation. The
DCS, G – 1 is the HQDA process manager for personnel (see table 4 – 1).
2–8. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 2
The DCS, G – 2 is responsible for Army staff (ARSTAF) modernization oversight of intelligence require-
ments and approval of processes, strategies, program development, and DOTMLPF – P implementation.
DCS, G – 2, in coordination with DCS, G – 1 and ASA (M&RA), develops, implements, manages, and evalu-
ates the DA Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 3
2–9. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 3/5/7
a. The DCS, G – 3/5/7.
(1) The DCS, G–3/5/7 is the Army's lead integrator and synchronizer across force modernization time
horizons. The DCS, G – 3/5/7 captures and manages force modernization activities and decisions in the
ACP and tracks these activities and decisions in execution through the Army Synchronization Meeting.
(2) As the proponent for AR 5 – 22, the DCS, G – 3/5/7 manages the Army Force Modernization Propo-
nent and Integration System and is delegated authority by SECARMY to designate Army force moderni-
zation proponents.
(3) As HQDA organizational process manager, responsible for developing and implementing policies
for ARSTAF management structuring, documenting, and accounting of Army organizational changes
within the force development and force integration processes (see table 4 – 1).
(4) As the HQDA training process manager, establishes policy and resource priorities for mission com-
mand training center operations, training support center operations, range operations, training support
systems, and training area management (see table 4 – 1). DCS, G – 3/5/7 also establishes policy and re-
source priorities for the Training Support System that includes training information infrastructure, mission
training complex operations, Training Support Center operations, range operations, and integrated train-
ing area management.
(5) Coordinates Army force modernization proponent designations with AFC, TRADOC, FORSCOM,
and other Army organizations with force management and DOTMLPF – P integration responsibilities.
(6) Resolves DOTMLPF – P issues affecting Army force modernization proponents.
(7) Validates operational needs associated with Army modernization requirements and DOTMLPF – P
solutions.
b. The Director, U.S. Army Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Agency.
(1) The Director, USANCA (DCS, G – 3/5/7) provides oversight, advice, and guidance on countering
weapons of mass destruction, biodefense, and nuclear operations strategy, plans, policy, readiness, and
operational issues across the Army. Identifies and support DOTMLPF – P integration for biodefense, coun-
tering weapons of mass destruction functions, and nuclear operations (conventional nuclear integration,
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) survivability, and the Army Reactor Program) in
close coordination with the U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School
(USACBRNS), Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, and the U.S. Army Medical Center of Excellence
(MEDCoE).
(2) The Director, USANCA is the Army force modernization proponent for Functional Area, FA52, Nu-
clear, and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction.
c. The Commander, U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency.
(1) The Commander, U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency is lead for Army airfields and heliports,
and develops policy, procedures, and oversight for Army airfield and heliport operations.
(2) The Commander, U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency will approve and establish priorities,
validate requirements, manage resource allocations, and resolve Army airfield and heliport DOTMLPF – P
issues with affected force modernization proponents.
2–10. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 8
The DCS, G – 8 develops Army policy and procedural guidance for materiel capabilities developments pro-
grams. This includes the capability requirements, determination process, and its staffing timelines, prioriti-
zation, resourcing, and integration of materiel and non-materiel warfighting capabilities. Integrates sup-
porting Army processes, specifically the Army Requirements Oversight Council and the Strategic Portfolio
Analysis Review, and associated Army Senior Leader decisions into the ACP and the Army Synchroniza-
tion Meeting.
2–11. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G – 9
The DCS, G – 9 is responsible for ARSTAF integration and synchronization of facilities and installation in-
frastructure processes and requirements in support of Army modernization. In coordination with ASA
(IE&E), responsible for ARSTAF management of facilities as part of DOTMLPF – P analysis. Provides fa-
cility related advice and analysis to the capability and materiel developer and assists with the identifica-
tion of supporting infrastructure requirements to support materiel solutions and the associated lifecycle
costs to support modernization efforts. DCS, G – 9 is the HQDA process manager for facilities (see table
4 – 1).
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 4
2–12. The Chief of Chaplains
The CCH develops and coordinates DOTMLPF – P requirements associated with the Chaplain Corps and
its capabilities to provide religious support and advice on religion, morals, ethics, and morale. On behalf
of the CCH, the Commandant, U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School develops and coordinates with
AFC and TRADOC DOTMLPF – P requirements associated with the Chaplain Corps and branch. In turn,
the CCH approves doctrinal and training publications and policies pertaining to personnel, chaplain min-
istrations, distinctive faith requirements, professional qualifications, Chaplain Corps-specific equipment
requirements, and all religious support functions. The CCH certifies for approval all changes in force
structure for chaplains, religious affairs specialists, directors of religious education, and req uired equip-
ment. The CCH supervises all organizational changes within the force development, force management,
and force integration processes within the CCH purview. The CCH forwards Chaplain Corps table of or-
ganization and equipment (TOE) and table of distribution and allowances force structure to DCS, G – 3/5/7
for inclusion in the force management process.
2–13. The Commanding General, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School
The CG, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School develops, coordinates, and integrates
DOTMLPF – P requirements associated with The Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC) and branch
with TRADOC and AFC on behalf of The Judge Advocate General (TJAG). In turn, TJAG approves Army
doctrinal and training products and policies pertaining to JAGC professional qualifications, personnel pol-
icy, and JAGC-specific equipment requirements. TJAG further certifies for approval of the JAGC TOE for
force management requirements. TJAG forwards the JAGC TOE and force structure to the DCS, G – 3/5/7
for inclusion in the force management process.
2–14. The Director, Army Public Affairs Center
The Director, Army Public Affairs Center develops and coordinates DOTMLPF – P requirements related to
the public affairs function with AFC and TRADOC on behalf of the Office of Chief Public Affairs (OCPA).
In turn, OCPA approves doctrinal and training products and policies pertaining to public affairs profes-
sional qualifications, recommends specific equipment requirements, and operations policy. The OCPA
provides supervision for all organizational changes within the force development, force management , and
force integration processes within the OCPA’s purview. The OCPA forwards public affairs TOE and force
structure determinations through the force management process to the DCS, G – 3/5/7.
2–15. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Futures Command
The AFC is an enduring command and the CG, AFC is responsible for force design and force develop-
ment, and is the capabilities developer and operational architect for the future Army. AFC assesses and
integrates the future operational environment, emerging threats, and technologies to provide warfighters
with the concepts and future force designs needed to dominate a future battlefield. CG, AFC is responsi-
ble for operation of the laboratories and centers in the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Com-
mand, the Army Artificial Intelligence Integration Center, the Army Applications Laboratory, the U.S. Army
Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, and the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Lab.
2–16. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command
The CG, AMC is responsible for ensuring that sustainment and logistics issues related to acquisition pro-
grams are addressed throughout the acquisition lifecycle. CG, AMC is responsible for operating a portion
of the Army's organic industrial base.
2–17. The Commanding General, U.S. Forces Command
The CG, FORSCOM is responsible for training, mobilizing, and deploying combat ready Total Army forces
to build and sustain readiness and support combatant command requirements. FORSCOM helps to iden-
tify the evolving training, equipment, and other support needs required by Army forces. FORSCOM also
helps to facilitate Soldier and unit feedback throughout the acquisition process, ensuring that require-
ments and capabilities are informed by the user.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 5
2–18. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
The CG, TRADOC is responsible for recruiting, developing, educating, and training Army forces, and de-
veloping new operational doctrine as the Army modernizes its formations. The Combined Arms Center
and Centers of Excellence, within TRADOC, support AFC in force development.
a. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Recruiting Command.
(1) The CG, USAREC develops and coordinates selected DOTMLPF – P requirements for recruiting for
CG, TRADOC, and with the Chief, U.S. Army Reserve and Chief, National Guard Bureau. In turn, CG,
USAREC approves command level publications, training products, and policies pertaining to recruiting
professional qualifications, and recruiting material requirements.
(2) CG, USAREC certifies for approval all changes in force structure for recruiting and forwards actions
through TRADOC to DCS, G – 3/5/7 for approval. CG, USAREC supervises all organizational changes
within the force development, force management, and force integration processes within the recruiting
purview.
b. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Center of Excellence.
(1) The CG, MEDCoE develops and coordinates DOTMLPF – P requirements for AFC and TRADOC
Combined Arms Center, on behalf of Army Medicine. CG, MEDCoE has the responsibility and coordina-
tion authority to assist the U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD) branch and other functional propo-
nents in determining and integrating DOTMLPF – P requirements and solutions. CG, MEDCoE, through
TRADOC, AFC, and the Office of the Surgeon General approves Army doctrinal, qualification, personnel
policy, policies pertaining to AMEDD professional qualifications, and AMEDD-specific equipment require-
ments. The CG, MEDCoE forwards AMEDD TOE and force structure determinations to the CG, Com-
bined Arms Center, for inclusion in the force management process.
(2) The CG, MEDCoE is the Army lead for all medical countermeasures, medical treatment, medical
diagnostic capabilities, and medical equipment for CBRN related actions. CG, MEDCoE is responsible for
medical force development and medical force integration for all medical CBRN activities.
c. The Commandant, U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School. The Com-
mandant, USACBRNS is the lead for CBRN operations by enabling the Army’s posture to fight and win in
CBRN environments. The Commandant, USACBRNS develops, coordinates, and integrates CBRN
DOTMLPF – P requirements with TRADOC Combined Arms Center, Maneuver Support Center of Excel-
lence, MEDCoE, and AFC. The Commandant, USACBRNS is responsible for force development and
force integration for all CBRN activities, except medical.
d. The Executive Director, Center for Military History.
(1) The Executive Director, CMH develops and coordinates DOTMLPF – P requirements associated
with Military History Detachments with TRADOC and AFC. Executive Director, CMH approves doctrinal
and training support packages, training, and policies pertaining to field history collection, professional
qualifications, personnel policy, and Military History Detachments specific equipment requirements.
(2) The Executive Director, CMH certifies for approval all changes in force structure for Military History
Detachments positions and required equipment. Executive Director, CMH supervises all organizational
changes within force development, force management, and force integration processes within CMH's pur-
view, and forwards TOE force structure to the designated authorities for inclusion in the force manage-
ment process.
2–19. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Operations Command
The CG, USASOC, as the Force Modernization Proponent for Army Special Operations, and conventional
force Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Branches, has primary duties and responsibility relative
to DOTMLPF – P requirements development and integration. CG, USASOC will collaborate with AFC and
TRADOC to facilitate conventional force–special operations interoperability and coordinate service com-
mon DOTMLPF – P requirements. CG, U.S. Special Operations Center of Excellence, through CG,
USASOC, has primary duties and responsibilities for Army special operations forces doctrine, training,
leader development and personnel, and will submit service common requirements through TRADOC
Combined Arms Center. The USASOC Force Modernization Center, thru CG, USASOC, has primary du-
ties and responsibilities for Army special operations forces modernization, and submission of service
common requirements through AFC Futures and Concepts Center.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 6
2–20. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
The CG, USASMDC develops and integrates space, high altitude, and global missile defense
DOTMLPF – P requirements. USASMDC collaborates and coordinates requirements with AFC and
TRADOC. CG, USASMDC also serves as the Army operational integrator for global missile defense and
conducts mission-related research and development in support of Army strategic, operational, and tactical
missions.
Chapter 3
Army Force Modernization Proponents
3–1. Types of proponents
Army force modernization proponents are commanders, directors, and chiefs of Army Centers of Excel-
lence, branches, and specified functions designated as advocates with primary responsibility for specified
Army functions.
a. Center of Excellence proponent. Center of Excellence Army force modernization proponents, have
primary duties and responsibilities to provide and integrate DOTMLPF – P requirements for a particular
function (see table 3 – 1). Branch and specified Army force modernization proponents normally provide
their requirements and support to Center of Excellence proponents and AFC for capability development
efforts guided by the Army Modernization Strategy (see table 3 – 1 for relationships of Center of Excel-
lence Force Modernization proponents).
Table 3 – 1
Center of Excellence Force Modernization proponents — Continued
Designated area Army Force Modernization proponent
Command and Control CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Aviation CG, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence
Maneuver (Brigade and below) CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence
Intelligence CG, U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence
Fires CG, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence
Protection CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Sustainment CG, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence
Medical CG, MEDCoE
Cyber/Signal CG, U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence
Space/High Altitude Capabilities CG, USASMDC
Special Operations CG, USASOC
b. Branch proponent. The commandant of an Army branch school or the chief of the Army branch is
an Army force modernization proponent responsible for DOTMLPF – P and supports materiel capability
development within their designated branch (see table 3 – 2). Some branches (for example, aviation and
intelligence) are also a Center of Excellence proponent. Branches typically do not have full Capability De-
velopment and Integration Directorate (CDID) capabilities and require assistance in determining
DOTMLPF – P requirements (see table 3 – 2).
Table 3 – 2
Branch proponents — Continued
Designated area Army Force Modernization proponent
Adjutant General Commandant, U.S. Army Adjutant General School
Aviation CG, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 7
Table 3 – 2
Branch proponents — Continued
Air Def ense Commandant, U.S. Army Air Def ense School
Armor Commandant, U.S. Army Armor School
Chemical Commandant, USACBRNS
Chaplain Commandant, U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School
Civil Af f airs CG, U.S. Army Special Operations Center of Excellence
Cyber (to include electronic warf are) Commandant, U.S. Army Cyber School
Engineer Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School
Field Artillery Commandant, U.S. Army Field Artillery School
Finance Commandant, U.S. Army Finance and Comptroller School
Inf antry Commandant, U.S. Army Inf antry School
Judge Advocate General Medical Commandant, Judge Advocate General Legal Center and School
Medical CG, MEDCoE
Military Intelligence CG, U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence
Military Police Commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School
Ordnance Commandant, U.S. Army Ordnance School
Psychological Operations CG, U.S. Army Special Operations Center of Excellence
Quartermaster Commandant, U.S. Army Quartermaster School
Signal Commandant, U.S. Army Signal School
Special Forces CG, U.S. Army Special Operations Center of Excellence
Transportation Commandant, U.S. Army Transportation School
c. Specified proponent. The Army recognizes there are functional overlaps between the Centers of
Excellence and branch proponents. As such, the Army may designate specified proponents for functions
or missions where requirements may exist between Centers of Excellence and branch proponents. These
specified proponents are responsible for identifying and integrating requirements across the Army. For
example, targeting is an intelligence function closely related to the fires warfighting function, and as such,
the Army has designated the CG, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, as a specified proponent for the
targeting function (see table 3 – 3). Like Army branches, these specified proponents typically do not have
exclusively dedicated CDID capabilities and require the establishment of supported/supporting relation-
ships and assistance from other Army modernization proponents and AFC in executing their
DOTMLPF – P responsibilities. In some cases, specified force proponents may be assigned t o an Army
capability manager that enables DOTMLPF – P integration of their specific functional responsibility (see
table 3 – 3 for relationships of specified proponents).
Table 3 – 3
Specified proponents — Continued
Designated area Army Force Modernization proponent
Adjutant General/Human Resource Management CG, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence
Aerial Delivery CG, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence
Airborne Operations (Military Free Fall) CG, USASOC
Airborne Operations (Static Line) CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 8
Table 3 – 3
Specified proponents — Continued
Air Def ense and Theater Missile Def ense CG, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence
Army Acquisition ASA (ALT)
Army Airf ields and Heliports Commander, U.S. Army Aeronautical Service Agency
Army SHARP Program CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Army Base Camps/Engineering Operations CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Army Prof ession, the Army Ethic, and Character Development CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Airspace Command and Control CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Army Knowledge Management CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Biological Def ense Director, U.S. Army Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Agency
Biometrics CG, U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence
Biosurveillance The Surgeon General of the United States Army
CBRN Def ense CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Civil Works Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Director, U.S. Army Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Agency
Combined Arms Operations (echelons above brigade) CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Communications Networks and Data Services CG, U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence
Counter Unmanned Aircraf t System CG, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence
Counter Small Unmanned Aircraf t System CG, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence
Cyberspace Operations CG, U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence
Data and Analytics CG, U.S. Army Mission Command Center of Excellence
Electronic Warf are CG, U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence
Explosive Ordnance Disposal CG, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence
Finance and Comptroller Operations CG, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence
Foreign Languages DCS, G – 2
Foreign Disclosure DCS, G – 2
Forensics CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Health Services CG, MEDCoE
History, Heritage, Museums, and Historical Collection Executive Director, CMH
Holistic Health and Fitness CG, U.S. Army Center f or Initial Military Training
Geospatial Inf ormation and Service CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Global Ballistic Missile Def ense CG, USASMDC
Inf ormation Advantage CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Inspector General The Inspector General
Irregular Warf are CG, USASOC
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 9
Table 3 – 3
Specified proponents — Continued
Integrated Joint Special Technical Operations DCS, G – 3/5/7
Joint Matters, Strategic Plans, and Policy DCS, G – 3/5/7
Military Construction Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Military Deception CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Mission Command CG, U. S. Army Combined Arms Center
Mission Partner Environment CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Mortuary Af f airs CG, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence
Multidomain Operations CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Multidomain Task Force CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Nonlethal Weapons (minus cyber operations, electronic warf are,
military deception, and military inf ormation support operations)
CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Director, U.S. Army Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Agency
Nuclear Operations Director, U.S. Army Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Agency
Obscuration CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
Operations Security CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Operational Contract Support CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command
Operational Research and Systems Analysis DCS, G – 8 (DAPR – PAE)
Personnel Recovery CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Prevention of Harmf ul Behaviors CG, U.S. Army Center f or Initial Military Training
Public Af f airs Chief , Public Af f airs
Robotics CG, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence
Recruiting CG, U.S. Army Recruiting Command
Saf ety & System Saf ety Engineering Management CG, U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center
Security Force Assistance CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Simulation Operations DCS, G – 3/5/7
Space/High Altitude Capabilities CG, USASMDC
Targeting CG, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence
Unif ied Land Operations CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Unif ied Action Partner-Interoperability CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
U.S. Military Academy Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy
3 – 2. Supporting relationships that ensure Army modernization efforts
a. Army proponents may lack the full range of capabilities, development organizations, and personnel
to independently perform their DOTMLPF – P integration responsibilities.
b. Therefore, supporting relationships exist among AFC, AMC, FORSCOM, and TRADOC to ensure
Army modernization efforts and DOTMLPF – P integration are synchronized in support of the Army Mod-
ernization Strategy.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 10
Chapter 4
Headquarters Department of the Army Process Managers
4–1. Managers of doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leadership, education, personnel,
facilities, and policy processes
HQDA principal officials with primary responsibility for managing and integrating one or more of the
DOTMLPF – P functional processes are designated in table 4 – 1. Although DCS, G – 3/5/7 is the lead inte-
grator and synchronizer across the force management time horizons, the entire HQDA staff participates in
coordinating and integrating DOTMLPF – P processes (see table 4 – 1 for a list of HQDA DOTMLPF – P pro-
cess managers).
4–2. Process Managers
See process managers in table 4 – 1.
Table 4 – 1
Process managers — Continued
Functional processes Process Managers
Doctrine DCS, G – 3/5/7
Organization DCS, G – 3/5/7
Training DCS, G – 3/5/7
Materiel ASA (ALT)
Leadership and Education DCS, G – 3/5/7
Personnel DCS, G – 1
Facilities DCS, G – 9
Policy SECARMY and Principal HQDA Of f icials (in accordance with AR
25 – 30)
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 11
Appendix A
References
Section I
Required Publications
Unless otherwise indicated, all Army publications are available on the Army Publishing Directorate web-
site at https://armypubs.army.mil.
Army Directive 2022 – 07
Army Modernization Roles and Responsibilities (Cited in para 1 – 1.)
Section II
Prescribed Forms
This section contains no entries.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 12
Appendix B
Internal Control Evaluation
B–1. Function
The function covered by this regulation is the management of Army force modernization proponents.
B–2. Purpose
The purpose of this regulation is to designate Army force modernization proponents. The regulation con-
tains internal control provisions and identifies key internal controls for designating Army force moderniza-
tion proponents.
B–3. Instructions
Answers to the questions below should be based on the actual testing of key internal controls (for exam-
ple, document analysis, direct observation, sampling, and simulation). Answers that indicate deficiencies
should be explained and corrective action indicated in supporting documentation. These key manage-
ment controls must be formally evaluated at least once every 5 years. Certification that this evaluation
has been conducted should be accomplished on DA Form 11 – 2 (Internal Control Evaluation Certifica-
tion).
B–4. Test questions
The following questions assist in determining whether to designate an Army force modernization propo-
nent for a particular function. Army force modernization proponent designations are not funding man-
dates:
a. Does the Army require an advocate to propose and integrate changes (DOTLMPF – P) capabilities
related to a specific modernization function across the Army?
b. How many DOTMLPF – P processes are required by the function?
c. Does the proposed proponent possess the capabilities development resources to support force pro-
ponent DOTMLPF – P development responsibilities?
d. Are there unique overlapping relationships between the designated Army force modernization pro-
ponent and other Army force modernization proponents? If so, do they need to be outlined in AR 5 – 22?
e. Does the new area being proposed for force modernization proponent designation truly lie outside
the advocacy of a current force modernization proponent? If yes, explain why no other Army force mod-
ernization proponent can provide advocacy for this proposed area?
f. Do all current force modernization proponents concur with the proposal to designate another Army
force modernization proponent? If not, why not?
B–5. Supersession
This evaluation replaces the evaluation previously published in AR 5 – 22, dated 28 October 2015.
B–6. Comments
Help to make this a better tool for evaluating internal controls. Submit comments to the DCS, G – 3/5/7 in-
box at usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-3 – 5– 7.mbx.ssp@army.mil.
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 13
Glossary of Terms
Branch proponent
The commandant of a branch school or the chief of a branch of the Army with assigned responsibilities for
that branch.
Capabilities development
Capability developers identify, assess, and document capability requirements related to functions, roles,
missions, and operations, and then determine if there are any capability gaps which present an unac-
ceptable risk and warrant further action in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System.
Identification of capability requirements and associated capability gaps begins with the proponent’s or-
ganizational functions, roles, missions, and operations, in the context of a framework of strategic guid-
ance documents, and if applicable, overarching plans. These changes occur in DOTMLPF – P areas that
collectively produce the force capabilities and attributes prescribed in approved concepts, concept of op-
erations, or other authoritative sources.
Center of Excellence
Designated by HQDA, a Center of Excellence is a organization that creates the highest standards of
achievement in an assigned sphere of expertise by generating synergy through effective and efficient
combination and integration of functions while reinforcing unique requirements and capabilities.
Force design
The design of operational and functional concepts that address the conditions of a future operational envi-
ronment and its anticipated threats, and generally focuses 5 – 15 years into the future.
Force development
The maturation of operational and functional concepts into Force Design Updates that fully integrate
DOTMLPF – P and generally focuses 2 – 7 years into the future.
Force employment
The generation of ready forces to meet the needs of the Joint force, and generally focuses 0 – 3 years into
the future.
Force integration
The synchronized, resource-constrained execution of an approved force development program to achieve
systematic management of change, including the introduction, incorporation, and sustainment of doctrine,
organizations, and equipment in the Army, coordination and integration of operational and managerial
systems collectively designed to improve the effectiveness and capability of the Army, and the knowledge
and consideration of the potential implications of decisions and actions taken within the execution process
(see AR 71 – 32).
Force management
The capstone process to establish and field mission-ready Army organizations. The process involves or-
ganization, integration, decision making, and execution of the spectrum of activities encompassing re-
quirements definition, force development, force integration, force structuring, capability developments,
materiel developments, training developments, resourcing, and all elements of the Army Organizational
Life Cycle Model.
Force modernization proponent
The HQDA principal official or the commander, commandant, director, or chief of a center, school, institu-
tion, or agency with primary duties and responsibilities to provide and integrate DOTMLPF – P require-
ments for a particular function (TRADOC Critical).
Force sustainment
The management and care of materiel equipment after a capability transitions to sustainment, and befor e
the Army divests the capability. It includes the maintenance, targeted modernization, and recapitalization
of enduring platform capabilities the Army must retain.
Materiel
All items (including ships, tanks, self-propelled weapons, aircraft, and so forth, and related spares, repair
parts, and support equipment, but excluding real property, installations, and utilities) necessary to equip,
AR 5–22 • 13 June 2023 14
operate, maintain, and support military activities without distinction as to its application for administrative
or combat purposes.
Specified Proponent
Proponents responsible for identifying and integrating requirements for a specified function across the
Army.
Strategic divestiture
The elimination of legacy platform capabilities the Army no longer requires to accomplish i ts mission
through a variety of programs (for example, foreign military sales or destruction).
SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 5 – 22
The Army Force Modernization Proponent and Integration System
This major revision, dated 13 June 2023—
• Adds U.S. Army Futures Command roles and responsibilities (para 2 – 15).
• Adds a table of Center of Excellence Force Modernization proponents (table 3 – 1).
• Adds a list of specified proponents (table 3 – 3).
• Incorporates and rescinds Army Directive 2019–25 (Establishment of the Office of the Chief Army
Enterprise Marketing), dated 1 August 2019 (throughout).
• Incorporates Army Directive 2020 – 15 (Achieving Persistent Modernization), dated 16 November 2020
(throughout).
• Incorporates Army Directive 2021 – 08 (Implementation and Sustainment of Army Medical Department
Individual Critical Task Lists), dated 19 March 2021 (throughout).
• Incorporates Army Directive 2022 – 07 (Army Modernization Roles and Responsibilities), dated 3 May
2022 (throughout).
UNCLASSIFIED PIN 060844–000
