Army National Guard AGR Jobs

Do you need a job? Why not work for the National Guard? Go check out the list of AGR available for your state.

Texas Army National Guard AGR Jobs

Are you a member of the Texas Army National Guard? "Texas AGR jobs" are the most searched AGR jobs on Google. Check them out now!

Florida Army National Guard AGR Jobs

Are you a member of the Florida Army National Guard? "Florida AGR jobs" are the second most searched AGR jobs on Google. Check them out now!

California Army National Guard AGR Jobs

Are you a member of the California Army National Guard? "California AGR jobs" are the third most searched AGR jobs on Google. Check them out now!

Thursday, June 27, 2024

PPM CIO-024 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER GUIDANCE ON GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN41285-PPM_CIO-024-000-WEB-1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
107 ARMY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0107
SAIS-ADS (25-1rrrr)
ADS-GOV-AI-024
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Chief Information Officer Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Large Language Models
1. References. See Enclosure 1.
2. Purpose. Issue guidance for the development, deployment, and use of Gen AI,
including Large Language Models (LLM), within the Army.
3. Background.
a. Gen AI models present unique and exciting opportunities for the Army. These
models have the potential to transform mission processes by automating and executing
certain tasks with unprecedented speed and efficiency. Commanders and senior
leaders should encourage the use of Gen AI tools for their appropriate use cases.
b. Gen AI refers to a class of models that autonomously create new content. These
powerful AI-based algorithms have the extraordinary ability to return, humanlike
responses to user-created prompts, derived from the enormous sets of data upon which
they were trained.
c. The output of Gen AI tools is non-deterministic and can be delivered in the form
of text, images, audio, video, or other forms of unstructured data.
d. Gen AI tools have been widely adopted due to their high performance and ease
of use. However, they also present unique challenges in terms of data privacy, security,
and control over the generated content. Therefore, their use should be carefully
evaluated and monitored.
e. Gen AI tools are fallible and can produce “hallucinations” and biased results.
Hallucinations are a phenomenon whereby responses include or incorporate fabricated
data that appears authentic. Therefore, these tools must be accompanied by a robust
review process which may include the critical thinking skills of human expertise.
27 June 2024
SAIS-ADS (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Chief Information Officer Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Large Language Models
2
4. Applicability. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Army Commands, Army
Service Component Commands, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the
United States, and the Army Reserve.
5. Guidance.
a. Gen AI Developers/System Owners who produce a Gen AI tool should:
(1) Be subject to existing legal, cybersecurity, information, operational security,
and classification policies, as well as Gen AI-specific policy (references 1a thru 1h).
(2) Ensure System Users can easily determine which systems rely on Gen AI
and System Users are able to accept or reject the output of a Gen AI model.
(3) Be aware of, and seek appropriate approvals for, processing sensitive and
classified information in accordance with existing software and container security policy
(references 1a and 1c).
(4) Establish processes to document the source and attributes of training data,
and for versioning of the training data, before developing or fine-tuning a Gen AI model.
(5) Ensure that Gen AI tools or applications operating within the DoDIN receive
appropriate Authorizing Official approval, in accordance with DoDI 8500.01 (reference
1h), prior to utilizing Government data for the creation or retraining of Gen AI and LLM
tools to include integration points, access to hardware, software, and interfaces to other
systems. Leverage accreditation reciprocity.
(6) Conduct testing in a controlled environment to ensure Gen AI tools operate
as expected. This testing should address engineering challenges introduced by the non-
deterministic nature of Gen AI. These tools may require system-level guardrails to
ensure that potential anomalies do not negatively impact Army missions, in accordance
with the DoD Responsible AI Toolkit (reference e)
(7) Leverage existing Gen AI models when practical and consider other lower-
cost mechanisms to adopt general purpose Gen AI tools to meet organizational
requirements.
(8) Provide transparency and explainability for model outputs as required. This
can include data lineage, documentation on model training data and specify what
components are leveraging Gen AI.
SAIS-ADS (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Chief Information Officer Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Large Language Models
3
b. Gen AI System Users:
(1) System Users have sole responsibility for their input and acceptance of output
from Gen AI tools and should have no expectations of privacy with respect to those
inputs. Misuse of government software should be treated in accordance with existing
policy (references 1a and 1e).
(2) System Users are responsible for information inputted into publicly accessible
Gen AI tools and are subject to existing legal, cybersecurity, information, operational
security, and classification policies, as well as Gen AI-specific policy. Closed-domain
tools may process information and data in accordance with their accreditation.
(3) System Users are not inherently responsible for Gen AI tool output. However,
System Users are responsible for products and decisions made with the assistance of
Gen AI. System Users should distrust and verify all outputs prior to use.
(4) System Users should label any document that was created—in whole or in
part—with outputs from Gen AI tools. System Users should apply their best judgment
when determining whether to add a citation, based on factors including the importance
of transparency for a particular use case.
c. Commands Using Gen AI Tools:
(1) Commands are discouraged from banning the use of Gen AI tools. Instead,
develop appropriate governance processes that holistically weigh the benefits of Gen AI
tools against potential risks.
(2) Commands are responsible for identifying their Gen AI Developers, System
Owners, and System Users to mitigate residual risk when adopting Gen AI tools into
their workflows.
(3) Commands should ensure Developers, System Owners and Users use
appropriate risk assessment frameworks for Gen AI tools. These include the DoD
Responsible AI Toolkit (reference 1e), the National Institute of Science and
Technology’s Risk Management Framework (reference 1a), and the Defense Innovation
Unit’s Responsible AI Guidance (reference 1d).
(4) Commands should ensure Developers, System Owners, and Users that who
utilize Gen AI tools on commercial networks (including third-party and contracted
capabilities) seek Army CIO approval before utilizing Government data for the creation
or retraining of Gen AI and LLM tools, to include integration points, access to hardware,
software, and interfaces to other systems when operating government data. Requests
for approval should be directed to the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO),
SAIS-ADS (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Chief Information Officer Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Large Language Models
4
Standards and Compliance Division (SAIS-ADS), via Enterprise Task Management
Software Solution (ETMS2). Commands should provide the following documentation
with their submission:
(a) Gen AI Tool Description: Detailed description of the AI tool, including its
Developer/System Owner and System Users, purpose, capabilities, and the type of AI it
uses (for example, machine learning, deep learning, etc.).
(b) Data Usage Plan: Command-approved plan outlining how government
data will be used for the creation or retraining of an AI tool. This should include what
data will be used, how it will be processed, and how it will be protected.
(c) Integration Details: Implementation plan outlining how the AI tool will
be integrated into existing systems. This should include details about required
hardware, software, and interfaces.
(d) Third-Party and Contracted Capabilities: Clearly identify and describe if
utilizing third-party or contracted AI capabilities, to include dependencies on external
software or services.
(e) Cybersecurity Strategy: A description of the security measures that will be put
in place to protect Government data. These could include encryption methods, access
controls, and audit trails.
(5) Commands should track and manage AI tools, articulate what AI tools are
being developed, and how the AI tools will be utilized IAW the 5 DoD AI Ethical
Principles (reference 1i).
(6) Commands should register and/or account for all existing and new AI
investments whether stand-alone, embedded, or treated as applications, in the Army’s
Portfolio Management Solution (APMS) in accordance with AR 25-1 (reference 1j).
d. Data Stewards and Command Chief Data and Analytics Officers (C2DAO) are
responsible for determining and approving the release of data for their respective
functional domain or organization prior to its utilization of data outside the DODIN.
(reference 1n).
6. Effective date.
a. This clarifying guidance is effective immediately and stays in effect until
superseded, rescinded, or incorporated into Army regulation.
SAIS-ADS (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Chief Information Officer Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Large Language Models
5
b. OCIO Standards and Compliance Division will review this guidance annually for
revision by 1 October of each calendar year.
7. Points of contact.
a. CIO Policy Inbox: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-cio.mbx.policy-inbox@army.mil.
b. SAIS-ADS: Dr. Gregory C. Smoots, Deputy Director, Architecture, Data,
Standards at gregory.c.smoots.civ@army.mil.
2 Encls LEONEL T. GARCIGA
1. as Chief Information Officer
2. Glossary
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 Futures Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe and Africa
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
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 Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Corrections Command
U.S. Army Recruiting Command
Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy
(CONT)
GARCIGA.LE
ONEL.T.1186
170411
Digitally signed by
GARCIGA.LEONEL.T.1
186170411
Date: 2024.06.27
11:14:49 -04'00'
SAIS-ADS (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Chief Information Officer Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Large Language Models
6
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
Executive Director, Military Postal Service Agency
Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division
Director, Civilian Protection Center of Excellence
Director, U.S. Army Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office
Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
CF:
Principal Cyber Advisor
Director of Enterprise Management
Director, Office of Analytics Integration
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure 1
REFERENCES
a. NIST (Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)),
26 January 2023. Available at https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
b. Deputy Secretary of Defense (Implementing Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the
Department of Defense), 26 May 2021.
c. DoDI 5200.48 (Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)).
d. Defense Innovation Unit (Responsible AI Guidance) 1 May 2023.
e. DoD (Responsible Artificial Intelligence (RAI) Toolkit). Available at
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3588743/cdao-releases-
responsible-ai-rai-toolkit-for-ensuring-alignment-with-rai-best-p/.
f. DoDD 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System).
g. DoDI 5000.82 (Requirements for the Acquisition of Digital Capabilities).
h. DoDI 8500.01 (Cybersecurity Policy).
i. Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum (Artificial Intelligence Ethical Principles
for the Department of Defense), 21 February 2020.
j. AR 25-1 (Army Information Technology).
k. GAO-23-105850 (DoD Needs Department-Wide Guidance to Inform Acquisition),
29 June 2023.
l. Deputy Secretary of Defense (DoD Data, Analytics, and Artificial Intelligence
Adoption Strategy), November 2023. Available at https://www.ai.mil/references.html
m. Deputy Secretary of Defense (Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and
Implementation Pathway), June 2022.
n. DoD (Data Strategy), 30 September 2022
o. DA Pam 25-1-1 (Army Information Technology Implementation Instructions).
Enclosure 2
GLOSSARY
TERM DEFINITION
Data Steward Establish policies governing data access, use,
protection, quality.
GenAI Generic term for any AI system that generates
content such as text, imagery, or other modalities.
GenAI model An algorithm that learns the pattern and structures of
training data and creates new outputs based on what
it has learned.
GenAI tool A user-facing product that is built around a GenAI
model or system of GenAI models.
Use Case A concept used in software development, product
design, and other fields to describe how a system can
be used to achieve specific goals or tasks. It outlines
the interactions between users or actors and the
system to achieve a specific outcome. 

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

PPM CIO-033 ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN41283-PPM_CIO-033-000-WEB-1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
107 ARMY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0107
SAIS-PRP (25-1rrrr)
PR-GOV-AR-033
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Asset Accountability and Management of Internal Use Software
1. References.
a. CIO/G-6 Armywide Implementation Guidance for Accountability and Auditability of
Internal Use Software, 9 April 2019 (hereby rescinded).
b. AR 25-1 (Army Information Technology).
2. Purpose: Provide additional guidance and procedures that relate to the lifecycle
accountability and management of Army-owned Internal Use Software (IUS) assets.
3. Background.
a. On 9 April 2019, the CIO/G-6 issued reference 1a for Armywide implementation of
guidance to account for the Army’s IUS.
b. The reference 1a IUS guidance was succeeded with IUS accountability
requirements in AR 25-1. The Army CIO has since determined the reference 1a
guidance and the IUS content in AR 25-1 must be updated with a more efficient and
effective solution to account for IUS. The enclosed manual provides detailed policy,
guidance, and procedures for maintaining property management and accountability of
IUS. It also defines roles and responsibilities of Army IUS property managers and other
officials.
3. Guidance. Effective immediately:
a. The reference 1a document is rescinded.
b. All Army organizations must abide by and implement the roles and
responsibilities, policy, guidance, and instructions in the enclosed manual for IUS
accountability and management.
4. Compliance. The Army CIO may coordinate follow up audits with the Army Audit
agency to assess compliance with this guidance.
26 June 2024
SAIS-PRP (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Asset Accountability and Management of Internal Use Software
2
5. Expiration. This guidance remains in effect until superseded or rescinded.
6. Review. The OCIO Policy Division (SAIS-PRP) will review this guidance annually no
later than 1 October of each calendar year.
7. Points of contact:
a. CIO Policy Inbox: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-cio.mbx.policy-inbox@army.mil.
b. IUS lead for OCIO: Ms. Michelle West at michelle.p.west3.civ@army.mil.
Encl LEONEL T. GARCIGA
Chief Information Officer
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 Futures Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe and Africa
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
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 Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Corrections Command
U.S. Army Recruiting Command
Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
(CONT)
GARCIGA.LE
ONEL.T.1186
170411
Digitally signed by
GARCIGA.LEONEL.T.11
86170411
Date: 2024.06.26
16:22:11 -04'00'
SAIS-PRP (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Asset Accountability and Management of Internal Use Software
3
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
Executive Director, Military Postal Service Agency
Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division
Director, Civilian Protection Center of Excellence
Director, U.S. Army Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office
Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
CF:
Principal Cyber Advisor
Director of Enterprise Management
Director, Office of Analytics Integration
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure
U.S. Army Office of the Chief Information Officer
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY
AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
June 2024
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................................................1
2. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 APPLICABILITY......................................................................................................................................................1
2.2 POLICY .................................................................................................................................................................2
3. RESPONSIBLITIES ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 ARMY CIO.............................................................................................................................................................4
3.2 DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-6 (DCS, G-6) ..............................................................................................................5
3.3 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT & COMPTROLLER) (ASA (FM&C)) ................5
3.4 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY (ASA (ALT)) ......................5
3.5 SYSTEM OWNER ..................................................................................................................................................6
3.6 REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MANAGING IUS ASSETS ...............................................................................6
4. PROCEDURES............................................................................................................................................ 7
4.1 IUS ASSET IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................................7
4.2 IUS ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................................................7
4.3 CAPITALIZATION PROCEDURES............................................................................................................................9
4.4 APSR PROCESSES..................................................................................................................................................9
4.5 DATA ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................10
4.6 VALUATION........................................................................................................................................................12
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................13
1
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
1. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
In accordance with issuance from the Deputy Secretary of Defense (reference 1), this
manual—
x Provides additional guidance and procedures for Army implementation of the
requirements of Section 11316 of the Clinger-Cohen Act (reference 2), and the
direction of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Deputy Chief Financial
Officer (reference 3) that relate to the lifecycle accountability and management of
Internal Use Software (IUS), to include documenting IUS lifecycle events and
transactions.
x Provides guidance on IUS criteria consistent with Department of Defense (DoD)
Financial Management Regulation (FMR) 7000-14-R (reference 4), and Army
Regulation (AR) 25-1, Army Information Technology (reference 5).
x Establishes policies, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for
maintaining property management and accountability of Army-owned IUS.
x Defines the roles and responsibilities of Army IUS property managers and other
officials regarding IUS property management and accountability.
x Identifies Army Accountable Property System of Record (APSR) procedures.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
2.1 APPLICABILITY
This issuance applies Armywide to—
2.1.1. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Army Commands, Army Service
Component Commands, and all other Direct Reporting Units (referred to collectively in
this manual as the “Army”).
2.1.2. Property management, accountability requirements and financial reporting for IUS
as defined by this policy. Personal accountability for security-related matters is
addressed by DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8500.01 (reference 6). This issuance does not
issue policy for financial accounting or audit of IUS. Financial accounting requirements
for IUS are addressed by DoD 7000.14-R. Audit readiness requirements are addressed
through the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance (reference 7).
2
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
2.1.3. IUS that is acquired through appropriated or working capital funds including those
transferred to the Army for implementation but not developed by the Army.
2.2 POLICY
The Army—
2.2.1 Defines IUS as having both of the following characteristics: (1) the software is
acquired, internally developed, or modified solely to meet the entity’s internal needs;
and (2) during the software’s initial development or modification (post deployment
development), no substantive plan exists or is being developed to market the software
externally.
2.2.2. Manages all software including IUS to ensure resources are used efficiently and
effectively, in accordance with Subtitle III of the Clinger-Cohen Act.
2.2.3. Maintains accountability over IUS as defined in this policy until formally relieved of
accountability when IUS is removed from use per DoD 7000.14-R.
2.2.4. Performs fiduciary reporting of expenses and capitalization of IUS defined in this
policy in accordance with DoD 7000.14-R and the Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards Number 10 for the DoD (reference 8).
2.2.5. Maintains property management and accountability of IUS system records,
financial cost evaluation, authoritative asset tracking as authoritative data in Army
business systems and transactional ledgers with auditable accounting using APSRs.
2.2.6. Applies the following criteria to software for determination of what software shall
be defined as IUS consistent with law and DoD Policy:
x Embedded Software in Weapons Systems (see reference 9: AR 71-9,
Warfighting Capabilities Determination): IUS does not include software that is
integrated into and necessary to operate military equipment. For the Army, this
includes all software required for an operational force to execute a warfighting
function that is not linked to a Defense Business System. Criteria for this
category include software acquired in support of an Army Requirements
Oversight Council approved requirement as defined in AR 71-9 and is operated
by a deployable unit or a unit apportioned to Combatant Commands. Frequently,
but not always, such software operates on equipment identified with a Line Item
Number (LIN) on military unit Mission Table of Organization and Equipment
(MTOE).
x Offensive and Defensive Cyber Operations: IUS does not include software
developed for the Cyber Mission Force mission. Offensive and Defensive cyber
3
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
operation tool development has been approved by the Army Requirements
Oversight Council and are directed by U.S. Cyber Command. These tools
represent Military Equipment for the Cyber Mission Force and their supporting
organizations and so are exempt.
x Defense Business Systems (DBS) (see reference 10: AR 5-1, Management of
Army Business Operations): All Defense Business System (DBS) as defined by
AR 5-1 are covered IUS. The methods for how the DBS are acquired will
determine if financial reporting and asset accountability are required, such as, an
accounting determination will be required to enumerate which DBS costs should
be capitalized or expensed.
x Network Common Services (AR 25-1): All software utilized to provide network
common services to provide the Army Information Technology Service Catalogue
services are not IUS. They are embedded software for the operation of the
network. Such software includes Software Defines Wide Area Network software
controllers, cloud common services, and communication capabilities.
x Perishable Software: IUS does not include software acquired or internally
developed that is perishable in nature as measured by no validated Army
requirements processes in accordance with AR 5-1, AR 25-1, or AR 71-9. For the
Army, this includes all software developed as part of episodic training, tools
created for demonstration purposes only, or Science and Technology research
that do not produce software for operational use.
x Low code/No code Activity within an Approved Software Platform: IUS does not
include Low-code/No Code activity within a software platform approved by the
Army Chief Information Officer (CIO) for this purpose. As long as the activity
does not expand the scope of the approved platform, the activity is utilization of
software for its intended purpose as in not new.
x Infrastructure as Code: Infrastructure as code is the ability to provision and
support a computing infrastructure using code instead of manual processes and
settings. Examples of low code/no code activity include utilization of macros
within common office products, open source data transformations within a data
platform, employing machine language automation within the core capabilities of
the environment, or scripts within an Artificial Intelligence training suite.
Infrastructure as Code: IUS does not include low-code/code activities (e.g.,
scripts) for direct management of the network, operating systems, and system
infrastructure. These are inherently embedded software for the system the
activity controls.
x Army Working Capital Fund (AWCF): Capital IUS that is funded by the AWCF will
be reported on the AWCF Financial statements. This will be purchased as part of
4
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
the Capital Investment Program. All other capital IUS will be reported on the
General Fund statements.
2.2.7. Applies the following criteria for IUS reporting purposes, in particular those IUS
requiring the reporting of expenses and capitalization as defined in DoD 7000.14-R and
the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Number 10:
x As-a-service acquisition: Software acquired through commercial offerings of
Software as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Infrastructure
as a Service (IaaS) are by their nature not owned by the government and are
only licensed. If the license is annually renewed, they are expensed items and so
do not require capitalization financial reporting.
x Annual licenses: Software acquired through annual licensing is by its nature
expensed as the software is not a government asset with enduring value.
x Annual maintenance fees: Annual software maintenance fees are by their nature
an expensed activity. Conducting life cycle maintenance on a software based
capital asset where the activity does not require development funding is also by
its nature an expensed activity as it does not add value to the software asset.
However, if the underlying software being maintained was purchased with
ownership rights by the government, the software may require capitalized
financial reporting per 2.2.5–6 above and in accordance with DoD 7000.14-R.
3. RESPONSIBLITIES
3.1 ARMY CIO
The Army CIO—
3.1.1. Establishes Army policy and guidance for all information technology (IT) including
definition, management, accountability, and audit of IUS assets.
3.1.2. Develops, approves maintains and oversees Army IUS policy in accordance with
the Clinger-Cohen Act and AR 25-1.
3.1.3. Oversees Army IT resource management (ITRM), IT Portfolio Management
(ITPM), IT reporting and IT accountability through the Army Portfolio Management
Solution (APMS) and the Defense IT Portfolio Reporting (DITPR) system via the
Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DoD CIO).
5
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
3.2 DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-6 (DCS, G-6)
The DCS, G-6 implements policies and strategies related to Army unified network
operations, cybersecurity and ITRM, to include assisting IUS fiscal documentation in
Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) systems.
3.3 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT & COMPTROLLER) (ASA (FM&C))
The ASA (FM&C)—
3.3.1. Provides accounting and financial management policy and guidance for IUS,
including, but not limited to, valuing, depreciating, and reporting of IUS in accordance
with the requirements outlined in DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 4, Ch. 27.
3.3.2. Establishes resource management, execution and cost accounting guidance on
software acquisition, development, and implementation.
3.3.3. Establishes policy, guidance and functional data management oversight for Army
financial systems and designation of the APSR for IUS.
3.3.4. Ensures accounting level detail and data elements identified in this policy to
achieve consistency between business processes including the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Cost and Economics) (DASA (CE)) developed cost positions,
program evaluations, alignment through contracts at the CLIN/SLIN level, use of
standard Army accounting codes and development of the Army IUS financial statement.
3.4 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION,
LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY (ASA (ALT))
The ASA (ALT)—
3.4.1. Is the HQDA authority for oversight and policy for all Army acquisition. Executes
and manages the Army-wide Procurement Management Review Program.
3.4.2. Serves as senior Army enterprise level staff for providing management, oversight,
and evaluation of Army software procurement, contracting and acquisition activities.
3.4.3. Ensures compliance of procurement and contracting responsibilities assigned by
statute and regulation (references 11–16).
6
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
3.5 SYSTEM OWNER
The system owner—
3.5.1. Is responsible for ensuring IT investments and IUS are accounted for in APMS.
All IUS cover by this policy that require cationization must be registered in APMS and
have a unique Army IT Resource (AITR) number assigned.
3.5.2. Ensures contracts written for the acquisition, development, and life cycle
maintenance of IUS are written to the level of specificity that allows for clear
classification and work breakdown structure (WBS). Validates alignment to financial
execution and reporting requirements for both a capital expensed and expensed
activities for IUS asset.
3.5.3. Ensures development of IUS-related Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) and
Sub Line-Item Numbers (SLINs) structure. Provides guidance for both requesting
activities and contracting officers to clearly segregate capital from non-capital costs.
3.5.4. Identifies the Program Manager and/or Resource Manager and the Authorizing
Official for the system and ensures that system scope and boundaries are consistent
across financial, property, and cybersecurity management systems.
3.6 REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MANAGING IUS ASSETS
System owners identify the Program Manager (PM) and/or Resource Manager (RM) to
perform these reporting responsibilities—
3.6.1. Review program documentation to ensure proper accounting classification and
accounting treatment, to include WBS or Performance Work Statement (PWS), Cost
Breakdown Structure (CBS) or Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).
3.6.2. Review and structure software requirement deliverables to separate activities for
software development from other activities, in accordance with DoD FMR 7000-14R,
Volume 4, Chapter 27 guidance.
3.6.3. Register the capitalization date of IUS in APMS as a mandatory part of “go/no go”
decision criteria for deployment and updated annually.
3.6.4. Obtain the dated record of technical acceptance test, placed in service date,
contractor deliverables, and invoices, and provide these to the appropriate Army or DoD
APSR.
3.6.5. Supporting documentation must be retained to address financial reporting
responsibility and right to recognize and record. This will meet financial reporting
7
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
requirements when Army transfers in an IUS asset from another component of
Department of Defense (DOD) or Agency.
3.6.6. IUS asset inventory capitalization procedures are outlined in documentation that
defines methodology used, how verified capital IUS asset is still in use, and which
documentation demonstrates existence. Perform IUS asset inventory procedures and
provide evidence upon request.
3.6.7. Maintain property management and accountability of Capital IUS records and
performs fiduciary reporting of capitalized IUS, using approved accountable property
system of record (APSR).
3.6.8. The system accountable records are validated to ensure the associated auditable
information is available for examination. This may include substantiating documentation,
validating the completeness of records, and proving the IUS exists. Guidance for
required IUS data elements is found in Section 4.5 Data Elements.
4. PROCEDURES
4.1 IUS ASSET IDENTIFICATION
4.1.1. Internally developed software refers to software that employees of the entity are
actively developing, including new software, and existing or purchased software that are
being modified with or without a contractor’s assistance.
4.1.2. Contractor-developed software refers to software that a federal entity is paying a
contractor to design, program, install, and implement, including new software and the
modification of existing or purchased software.
4.1.3. Software associated with Department of Defense Information Network–Army
(DoDIN-A) operations are part of U.S. Cyber Command Mission (USCYBERCOM) set
and so are not considered IUS.
4.1.4. System owners will use the criteria identified within Section 2.2.6–7 of this
document for IUS determination and as required an assignment of a system PM or RM
for proper IUS accountability.
4.2 IUS ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY
4.2.1. All IUS will be registered in APMS and will be assigned a unique AITR number.
The Army will establish accountable records in an APSR for all capitalized IUS,
expensed software, and expensed software lifecycle management activities.
8
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
4.2.2. IUS that meets the definitions in this policy and has an initial capitalization
threshold of $250,000 and have a useful life of two years or more in accordance with
FMR 7000.14-R. IUS meeting these criteria will be recorded as a capitalized asset in an
APSR.
4.2.3. A single record will be created in APMS for each IUS purchase or acquisition and
all costs incorporated in accordance with the DoD 7000.14-R guidance.
4.2.4. A single record for must be created for each distinct manufacturer part number on
each purchase order for a bulk license purchase for COTS software. The quantity field
on the IUS record will represent the total sum of all licenses with the corresponding
manufacturer part number on the record. License information associated with the
quantity of licenses will be included in the record for the purchase or acquisition, as
applicable.
4.2.5. The Army will maintain accountable records for non-capital IUS expenses in an
APSR or managerial system.
4.2.6. The Army will maintain accountable records for the life of the asset and will retain
the records in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration’s
(NARA’s) standards, as described in NARA Directive 1571 and supplemented by
Chapter 9, Volume 1 of DoD 7000.14-R.
4.2.7. Accountable records will contain the data elements defined in Paragraph 4.5. The
IUS property records will provide a system transaction history suitable to support an
audit and act as the authoritative source for validating the existence and completeness
of the IUS inventory.
4.2.8. The system PM/RM is responsible for maintaining supporting documentation or
evidentiary material suitable for audit. The PM/RM will maintain such documentation
(hard copy or electronic copy of original documentation) in a readily available location,
during the applicable retention period. This will permit the validation of information
pertaining to the IUS, such as purchase cost, purchase date, license entitlements,
evidence of delivery of developed IUS, and cost of improvements.
4.2.9. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, purchase invoices,
procurement contracts, receiving documents, technical documents, and licensing
agreements. Acceptable supporting documentation information is prescribed in the
FIAR Guidance.
4.2.10. The Army will maintain records and supporting documentation in accordance
with DoDI 5015.02 and Chapter 9, Volume 1 of DoD 7000.14-R.
4.2.11. At any point in time, the Army will report an IUS property record in a single
APSR for fiduciary purposes. Fiduciary reporting consists of capitalized IUS information
9
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
to be used in the Army accounting systems. IUS property records may exist in multiple
systems for management purposes, to include configuration management or license
management.
4.2.12. The Army will maintain accountable records for IUS provided by the Army on
contracts funded through the general fund and the AWCF. These records will document
software changes, requirements, and architectures.
4.3 CAPITALIZATION PROCEDURES
Instructions for the capitalization process—
4.3.1. Follow the guidance in DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 4, Ch. 27.
4.3.2. Use Army standard accounting codes and ledger accounting procedures as
defined for IUS by ASA (FM&C).
4.3.3. Follow FMR on development versus modification consistent with fiscal law
definitions for use of research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) and
operations and maintenance (O&M) determination.
4.3.4. The PM/RM will utilize the criteria in Section 2.2.6–7 to assist with identification of
expensed items given Army software policy.
4.3.5. For RDTE appropriated in Budget Activity 8 (BA8) the Army will use fiscal law
definitions as they apply to the software lifecycle to account for capital costs and what
should be expensed.
4.4 APSR PROCESSES
A single Army implemented APSR for IUS will—
4.4.1. Act as a sub-ledger to the accounting system of record for the Army in
accordance with Chapter 6, Vol. 4 of DoD 7000.14-R.
4.4.2. Be updated by the Army, as required, to keep information timely.
4.4.3. Contain (at minimum) the data required for an accountable property record, in
accordance with Section 4.5.
4.4.4. Perform accountability functionality, as required of an APSR.
10
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
4.4.5. Synchronize data with DoD CIO repository systems (e.g., SNaP-IT, DoD
Information Technology Portfolio Repository (DITPR)), as directed by the Army CIO.
4.4.6. Hold the complete inventory of capitalized IUS assets purchased or developed by
the Army in APMS.
4.4.7. Hold non-capitalized IUS unless a managerial system(s) with sufficient controls in
place is implemented. The Army Primary APO may approve, in writing, such a
managerial system only if it meets the requirements of this issuance when used for non-
capitalized IUS accountability and includes appropriate managerial controls.
4.5 DATA ELEMENTS
As per DODI 7500.76, the Army’s APSR will maintain the following data elements, at a
minimum, for IUS accountable property records. The elements are divided into “general”
and “capital” categories for applicability purposes. Both “general” and “capital” elements
are required for capital IUS property accountability in the Army’s APSR. Only the
“general” data elements are required for non-capital IUS property accountability in either
an APSR or approved managerial system. The responsibility for the accuracy of the
data in APMS and GFEBS, respectively, resides with the full end-to-end business
process and internal control environment. An overview of the source system and
functional responsibility for each required IUS data element can be found in Figure 1:
IUS Source System.
4.5.1. General Data Elements:
(1) DoD Unique Software Identifier.
(2) Item name or software title.
(3) Item description.
(4) Software type (COTS, modified COTS, modified government off-the-shelf,
custom).
(5) Original manufacturer part number or original manufacturer Stock Keeping
Unit number (if applicable).
(6) Software developer (publisher).
(7) Version (if applicable).
(8) Quantity of licenses (if applicable).
(9) Hosting environment (i.e., cloud-based, client/server, local).
(10) National stock number or catalog equivalent (if applicable).
(11) Location (e.g., of the hosting server, network, COTS license agreement,
purchase order terms and conditions, installation media).
(12) Status (e.g., active, pending disposal, transferred).
(13) IT budget UII.
(14) PSC (if applicable).
11
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
4.5.2. Capital Data Elements:
(1) Requiring (i.e., reporting) DoD Component’s DoDAAC.
(2) Parent system (e.g., Enterprise Resource Planning system) by DoD Unique
Software Identifier number (as applicable).
(3) System Sub-system (e.g., Enterprise Resource Planning module) DoD
Unique Software Identifier (as applicable).
(4) Placed in service date (i.e., acceptance date, FDD).
(5) General Ledger Classification.
(6) General Ledger Accounting Code.
(7) Gross asset value (i.e., full cost, acquisition cost).
(8) Useful life.
(9) Accumulated amortization.
(10) Obligating document number or posting reference.
(11) Accountable or responsible party.
(12) Standard Line of Accounting.
(13) Transaction type.
(14) Transaction data
Figure 1: (U) IUS Data Element Source System
IUS Data Element Source System Functional Owner
DoD Unique Software Identifier APMS APMS Owner
Item Name or Software Title APMS APMS Owner
Item Description APMS APMS Owner
Software Type APMS APMS Owner
Original Manufacturer Part Number/Stock
Keeping Unit Number
APMS APMS Owner
Software Developer APMS APMS Owner
Software Version APMS APMS Owner
Quantity of Licenses APMS APMS Owner
Hosting Environment APMS APMS Owner
National Stock Number or Catalog Equivalent APMS APMS Owner
Location APMS APMS Owner
Status APMS APMS Owner
IT Budget UII APMS APMS Owner
PSC APMS APMS Owner
Requiring DoD Component's DoDAAC GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
System Sub-System DoD Unique Software
Identifier
GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Placed in Service Date GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
General Ledger Classification GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
General Ledger Accounting Code GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Gross Asset Value GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Useful Life GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Accumulated Amortization GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Obligating Document Number or Posting
Reference
GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Accountable or Responsible Party GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Standard Line of Accounting GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Transaction Type GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
Transaction Data GFEBS ASA(FM&C)
12
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
4.6 VALUATION
IUS will be capitalized at full cost, which is comprised of the acquisition cost and other
applicable costs. When acquisition cost is unknown, reasonable estimates of the
historical acquisition cost may be used. See DoD 7000.14-R for IUS valuation
procedures.
13
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
REFERENCES
1. Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum (Establishment of the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment), July 13, 2018.
2. The Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C., Subtitle III, Section 11316 (1996).
3. Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Deputy Chief Financial Officer
memorandum (Accounting Policy Update for Financial Statement Reporting for Real
Property Assets), September 30, 2015.
4. DoD 7000.14-R, (Financial Management Regulation), date varies by volume.
5. AR 25-1 (Army Information Technology).
6. DoDI 8500.01 (Cybersecurity).
7. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
issuance (Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance),
April 2016.
8. Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards Number 10: Accounting for Internal Use Software: Technical
Release 5), May 14, 2001.
9. AR 71-9 (Warfighting Capabilities Determination).
10. AR 5-1 (Management of Army Business Operations).
11. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
12. DoD FAR Supplement (DFARS).
13. Army FAR Supplement (AFARS).
14. AR 70-13 (Management and Oversight of Service Acquisitions),
15. AR 715-30 (Secure Environment Contracting)
16. AR 715-31 (Army Competition Advocacy Program)
17. NARA Directive 1571 (National Archives and Record Administration–Part 1234:
Electronic Records Management), February 21, 2006.
14
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF
INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE
18. DoDI 5015.02 (DoD Records Management Program), February 24, 2015, as
amended.
19. DoDD 5144.02 (DoD Chief Information Officer (DoD CIO)), November 21, 2014, as
amended.
20. DoDD 8000.01 (Management of Department of Defense Information Enterprise
(DoD IE)), March 17, 2016, as amended.
21. DoDI 5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System), January 7, 2015, as
amended.
22. DoDI 5000.64 (Accountability and Management of DoD Equipment and Other
Accountable Property), May 19, 2011, as amended.
23. DoDI 5230.24 (Distribution Statements on Technical Documents), August 23, 2012,
as amended.
24. DoDI 8320.03 (Unique Identification (UID) Standards for Supporting DoD Net-
Centric Operations), November 4, 2015, as amended.
25. DoDM 8910.01 (DoD Information Collections Manual: Procedures for DoD Internal
Information Collections), Vol. 1, June 30, 2014, as amended.
26. DoDM 4160.21 (Defense Material Disposition), October 22, 2015, as amended.
27. ASTM International E-2131 (Standard Practice for Addressing and Reporting Loss,
Damage, or Destruction of Tangible Property), current edition1.
28. ASTM International E-2132-11 (Standard Practice for Inventory Verification:
Electronic and Physical Inventory of Assets), current edition1. 

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

PPM CIO-028 EXPANDED GUIDANCE ON THE MANDATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF ARMY DATA SERVICES REQUIREMENTS—ARMY DATA CATALOG

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN41190-PPM_CIO-028-000-WEB-1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
107 ARMY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0107
ADD-GOV-DS-028
SAIS-ADD (25-1rrrr) 11 June 2024
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Expanded Guidance on the Mandatory Implementation of Army Data
Services Requirements—Army Data Catalog
1. References. See Enclosure 1.
2. Purpose. This memorandum provides policy details with respect to registering
metadata in the Army Data Catalog (ADC).
3. Background.
a. The Secretary of the Army issued the Mandatory Implementation of Army Data
Services Requirements (DSR) memorandum (reference 1a). It specifies in Principle
DSR-3 that metadata about all Army data assets must be registered in an enterprise
data catalog or repository. The Army Data Stewardship Roles and Responsibilities
memorandum (reference 1b) designates the ADC as the Army’s centralized metadata
registry for all Army authoritative data. ADC will be used to store and publish metadata
to meet the Army’s data-sharing vision and comply with the visible, accessible,
understandable, linked, trusted, interoperable, and secure (VAULTIS) goals. Metadata
already present in the Catalog will remain available for Army data community discovery
and usage.
b. Army Data Stewards manage enterprise and domain specific data by
establishing guidelines; ensuring compliance with legal and policy requirements, and
conformance to data policies and standards; ensuring application of appropriate security
controls; and analyzing and improving data quality. They provide guidance to Functional
Data Managers (FDMs). FDMs work with system owners and others that work with data
to ensure that enterprise and Data Steward policies are implemented.
4. Scope. The policy in this memorandum applies only to data products and
authoritative data assets intended for Armywide or cross-command use, and their
hosting systems. Data that is not authoritative does not need to be registered in ADC.
5. Policy/Guidance.
a. All FDMs, with the assistance of system owners, are required to register and
SAIS-ADD (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Expanded Guidance on the Mandatory Implementation of Army Data
Services Requirements—Army Data Catalog
maintain all identified authoritative system and data asset metadata in the ADC with the
exception of those granted exemption by their Mission Area Data Officer (MADO) or
Data Steward. All exemptions granted by MADOs and Data Stewards will be
communicated to the office of the Army Chief Data and Analytics Officer (CDAO). The
metadata registration includes systems, data dictionaries, data models, data sets, data
products, system interfaces, and other supporting assets. Terms as they apply to ADC
are defined in Enclosure 2. Registration of APIs and access control policies may be
included as appropriate.
b. Data Stewards and FDMs must execute their responsibilities as identified in
reference 1b in order to identify, register, and approve data products and authoritative
data sets for their domains via the ADC so that Army data products and authoritative
data sets are discoverable across the Army enterprise.
c. Data products will be authoritative once registered in the ADC. Details of these
ADC processes can be found within the “ADC FAQs” and “ADC Knowledge Center”
tabs of the ADC (reference 1c). MADOs, Data Stewards, and FDMs, with their point of
contact (POC) information, are listed in the ADC.
d. An FDM determines whether a data set meets a prescribed documentation
standard to achieve the Data Steward-approved guidelines for quality, clear mission
support, and ease of use for consideration as a data product. The FDM then initiates
designation using the Data Product Designation workflow in the ADC. The workflow
prompts the Data Steward to assess quality and purpose and affirm that the
requirements for a data product are met.
e. Once new systems are registered in ADC, system owners are required to register
their data dictionaries in ADC.
6. Compliance.
a. Responsibilities are specified in the Army Data Governance Roles and
Responsibilities Memorandum (reference 1b, Enclosure 2).
b. The Army CIO is the proponent for this augmenting guidance as well as oversight
mechanisms to ensure compliance.
c. The ASA(ALT) supports the implementation of this memo across software
development and acquisition actions.
7. Intended Effect. Easily discoverable Data products and Authoritative Data Sets will
help to achieve common situational understanding across commands and Armywide.
2
SAIS-ADD (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Expanded Guidance on the Mandatory Implementation of Army Data
Services Requirements—Army Data Catalog
8. Duration. This guidance is effective upon signature and stays in effect until
rescinded or superseded.
9. POCs:
a. OCIO Policy Inbox: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-cio.mbx.policy-inbox@army.mil
b. Office of the CDAO: usarmy.data.management@army.mil
c. OCIO Data Division: Mr. Alfred Hull, (571) 279-1690, alfred.hull2.civ@army.mil
Digitally signed by
GARCIGA.LE GARCIGA.LEONEL.T.1
ONEL.T.1186 186170411
Date: 2024.06.11
170411 16:43:22 -04'00'
Encls LEONEL T. GARCIGA
Chief Information Officer
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 Futures Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe and Africa
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
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 Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Corrections Command
U.S. Army Recruiting Command
(CONT)
3
SAIS-ADD (25-1rrrr)
SUBJECT: Expanded Guidance on the Mandatory Implementation of Army Data
Services Requirements—Army Data Catalog
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
Executive Director, Military Postal Service Agency
Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division
Director, Civilian Protection Center of Excellence
Director, U.S. Army Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office
Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
CF:
Principal Cyber Advisor
Director of Enterprise Management
Director, Office of Analytics Integration
Commander, Eighth Army
4
REFERENCES
URLs to access the references are provided in the table on the next page.
a. HQDA, SECARMY and Chief of Staff of the Army memorandum (Mandatory
Implementation of Army Data Services Requirements), 10 April 2020.
b. HQDA CIO memorandum (Army Data Stewardship Roles and Responsibilities
(Fiscal Year 2024)), 2 April 2024.
c. HQDA CIO website (Army Data Catalog), “ADC FAQs” and "ADC Knowledge
Center" tabs of the ADC.
d. HQDA CIO website (Army Data Management and Analytics Lexicon), on the Army
Data Body of Knowledge site. (Available upon request: see the table below.)
e. Information Technology: Additional Responsibilities of Chief Information Officer of
Military Departments, 10 U.S.C., Section 2223(b) (1998).
f. Agency Chief Information Officer, 40 U.S.C., Section 11315 (1996).
g. Federal Agency Responsibilities, 44 U.S.C., Section 3506 (2006).
h. Chief Data Officers, 44 U.S.C., Section 3520 (2006).
ENCLOSURE 1
1a https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/04/21/2ee1f1fe/mandatory-
implementation-of-army-data-services-requirements-memo.pdf
1b Available at the CIO Policy Library, at https://armyeitaas.sharepoint-
mil.us/sites/HQDA-CIO-SAIS-PRP/Policy%20Library/Forms/Subjects.aspx
1c https://datacatalog.army.mil
1d https://armyeitaas.sharepoint-mil.us/:f:/r/teams/
ADBOKArmyDataBodyofKnowledge/Shared%20Documents/General/Army%2
0Data%20Management%20and%20Analytics%20Lexicon?csf=1&web=1&e=y
jkSx6
1d, link to
request
access
https://dod.teams.microsoft.us/l/team/19%3adod%3a6a243ca767d547c0ac06
471e5c0bac9f%40thread.skype/conversations?groupId=14bfd003-b0c4-44fb-
a20d-996df2481681&tenantId=fae6d70f-954b-4811-92b6-0530d6f84c43
1e https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title10/subtitleB&edition=prelim
1f https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title40/subtitle3&edition=prelim
1g https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title44&edition=prelim
1h https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title44&edition=prelim
2
KEY ADC LEXICON DEFINITIONS
Terms as they apply to ADC are defined in Table 1 below. These definitions are meant
to be brief ones for the context of ADC. This enclosure is not the authoritative source of
definitions for these terms. For that, refer to the Army Data Management and Analytics
Lexicon on the Army Data Body of Knowledge (ADBOK) (reference 1d). There is a
spreadsheet template there to provide feedback on those definitions. Note: the ADBOK
lexicon is to be transferred into ADC as a glossary asset in the near future.
ADC Lexicon
Term Definition
Data Dictionary
Contains descriptions of the physical and logical characteristics
of all the data that is present in, and ideally accessible from, a
given data source.
Data Model
Depicts and enables an organization to understand a data
asset. Models comprise and contain metadata essential to data
consumers.
Data Product
A pre-packaged set of data and metadata produced to satisfy
consumers' mission or business demand. Data products are
designed to be high quality, easy to use, self-describing and
computationally governed.
Data Set A subset of related information which originates from one
system, many systems, or other sources.
System
A discrete set of information resources organized for the
collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing,
dissemination, or disposition of information to accomplish a set
of specific functions; provide a capability or satisfy a stated need
or objective; or produce, use, transform, or exchange
information.
System Interface
A record in ADC that represents an actual exchange of data
between systems and describes how information flows between
systems.
Table 1: Key ADC Lexicon Definitions
ENCLOSURE 2 

Monday, June 10, 2024

ARMY DIR 2024-05 AGGREGATING AND REPORTING SOLDIER RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN41191-ARMY_DIR_2024-05-000-WEB-1.pdf

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON
1 0 JUN 2024
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2024-05 (Aggregating and Reporting Soldier Race and
Ethnicity Data)
1. References.
a. Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity; Federal Register Volume 62, page 58782; 30 October 1997; amending Office
of Management and Budget (0MB) Statistical Policy Directive 15
b. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 7730.68 (Uniformed Services Human
Resources System), 1 September 2023
c. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records
Management), 29 June 2023
d. AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy), 24 July 2020
2. Purpose. This directive prescribes the Army's policy for aggregating and reporting
Soldier race and ethnicity_ data.
3. Applicability. The provisions of this directive apply to the Regular Army, Army
National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve.
4. Policy.
a. The Army will aggregate and report Soldier race and ethnicity data in accordance
with 0MB Statistical Policy Directive 15.
b. Army race and ethnic data will be maintained in the Army Personnel System (APS)
system of records. Army personnel will retrieve Soldier race and ethnic data from the
APS system of records using the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A).
No other source of Army race and ethnic data is authoritative.
c. Soldiers will use the IPPS-A to validate their racial and ethnic identification
annually.
5. Proponent. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) is
the proponent for this policy. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 will incorporate the