Select a different issue
USACHCS Home Page

ORGANIZATION

by SFC Leslie L. Eder

The function of the “Organization” part of DTLOMS in Combat Developments is to ensure that unit ministry teams (UMTs) in the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) from the battalion (BN) to the theater are staffed and equipped to support future missions.

As the Army concept of operations evolves, the organizational structures of current units change and new units are created. The chaplaincy has produced branch concepts that define organizational needs for the future in support of overarching joint and Army concepts. These are documented through a series of connected and related development processes:

In order to effect change, one or all of these processes must be completed.

The Chaplaincy is currently engaged in an organizational change to the unit structure managed by the branch — the Chaplain Support Teams (CST). The concepts that support this initiative call for the Chaplain Support Team A & B to be renamed to Chaplain Support Unit A & B (CSU A & B). The name change facilitates the operational use of these elements as independent units capable of individual deployment and movement on the battlefield.

As a second piece of this reorganization initiative, the Chaplaincy is working toward creating two new teams: a) Chaplain Support Team Corps (CST-C) and b) Chaplain Support Team Division (CST-D). These teams augment the Corps and Division with COMPO 3 assets. The three components (COMPO) that the Chaplaincy documents are COMPO 1, Active Army; COMPO 2, Army National Guard; and COMPO 3, U.S. Army Reserve.

To initiate the required organizational change, a Unit Reference Sheet (URS) must be developed. At a minimum, the URS must contain data related to the personnel requirements by job title, grade and quantity. It must include quantities of equipment requirements to include nomenclature as well as a summary that captures other relevant data such as unit title, design description, mission, assignment, tasks, assumptions, limitations, mobility requirements, and concept of operations. The URS describes the desired organization.

The organizational design is then submitted to the Force Design Update (FDU). The FDU is a semi-annual process used to obtain CSA approval for new force designs as well as changes to existing force designs. FDU issues are organizational solutions to Future Operational Capabilities (FOCs) and other improvements to existing designs in which other doctrine/training/leader development solutions were insufficient.

The FDU is not a resourcing tool. It may have impacts in other DTLOMS domains, however. The FDU serves as the link between the development of the URS and the development of the TOE. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army ultimately approves the FDU issue for resourcing competition in the next TAA and/or implementation by TOE documentation.

The Army is currently in a phase of “no growth” which requires branches to make every effort to have the new organizational design pay for itself. This means that you must convert one officer authorization from another unit to create the new officer authorization in your new unit design. The same is true for enlisted slots as well. And the equipment for the new unit must come from existing organizations, or must be obtained by forgoing older items to pay for newer ones. The way the Chaplaincy “pays” for the two new organizational designs (CST C & D) is through the conversion of five CST B teams that were resourced to be brought into the force in the year 2000.

Once the FDU approves the organizational design, the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) is developed. During this time of spiral development, every action taken to move to a future Army will affect the documentation of warfighting units.

The TOE is geared towards documenting warfighting and support units.
The Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) documents the Army’s garrison units.
Organization in CD focuses on the wartime requirements for the Chaplaincy.

The TOE is a document that prescribes the required structure, manpower, and equipment for several levels of organizational options for a particular type of unit and in discrete evolutionary increments of capability. It begins with the “doctrinally sound” base TOE (BTOE) and progresses through a series of incremental TOEs (ITOEs) leading to a fully modernized objective TOE (OTOE) design. The documents that initiate the changes to the TOE are the Basis-of-Issue Plan (BOIP) and the Incremental Change Package (ICP).

Base TOE (BTOE): An organization design based on doctrine and equipment currently available. It is the lowest common denominator of modernization and identifies the minimum mission essential wartime requirements (MMEWR) for personnel and equipment based upon equipment common to all units of a given type of organization.

Incremental TOE (ITOE): A system that prescribes the organization design, including personnel and equipment requirements, of a type of unit displayed in discrete evolutionary increments of capability.

Objective TOE (OTOE): A fully modernized, doctrinally sound organizational design that sets the goal for planning and programming of the Army’s force structure and supporting acquisition systems primarily in the last years of the program objective memorandum (POM) and the extended planning annex (EPA).

Basis-of-Issue Plan (BOIP): A requirements document that states the planned placement of quantities of new equipment and associated support items of equipment and personnel (ASIOEP), as well as the reciprocal displacement of equipment and personnel.

Incremental Change Package (ICP): Doctrinally sound grouping of personnel and equipment change documents (doctrine, BOIP, MARC, and so forth) which are applied to a base or intermediate TOE for a new intermediate TOE or objective TOE.

Personnel is determined by the Manpower Requirements Criteria (MARC) and the Standard of Grade Authorization (SGA). The MARC studies produce criteria, which define computation of the quantitative wartime manpower requirements needed for the performance of defined functions in a theater at varying levels of activity. The Chaplaincy has two MARC studies — the UMT MARC and the Hospital UMT MARC.

Due to the unique force structure implications of officer and enlisted personnel in a team, the UMT MARC is comprised of two categories of MARC. The variable MARC is used to “workload” the chaplain positions because they are non-maintenance functions that are spiritual in nature. A variable MARC is based on a quantifiable workload, task accomplishment times, task frequencies, annual MOS availability factor (AMAF), and span of control. The chaplain assistant is based on a standard MARC whereby doctrine dictates that a chaplain requires a chaplain assistant to provide support functions.

The results of the MARC study are published on the Force Management Bulletin Board (http://128.190.181.33/afms/chapinde.htm — Chapter 10) and specify the number of chaplains and chaplain assistants required in each generic type of unit. For example, it might say that three 56As and three 71Ms are required in a TAACOM; it will not specify “which” TAACOM. The grade structure is determined by AR 611-101, Personnel Selection and Classification, Commissioned Officer Classification System, for the officers and AR 611-201, Enlisted Career Management Field and Military Occupational Specialties, for the enlisted.

The communication equipment is determined by the Operational Facility (OPFAC) process. The OPFAC process is a combat development process for identifying requirements and establishing rules to govern the allocation/distribution of communication and automation equipment needed to establish or be installed in battlefield operational facilities. The establishment and application of

OPFAC rules ensure that computer equipment is allocated/distributed in the correct quantities and at battlefield locations to support the operational/doctrinal requirements.

The proponent school develops OPFAC rules, identifying and documenting a requirement for an OPFAC rule or change based upon a command and control, communications, or computer (C4) equipment requirement. Doctrine must support an OPFAC rule. This requirement is sent to the U.S. Army Signal Center for validation by the OPFAC review board, which meets (at least) semi-annually. After approval, the Signal Center forwards the rules to TRADOC for approval. OPFAC rules supersede BOI contained in the appropriate BOIP narrative guidance, and may serve as the basis for developing a change to the BOIP. Other equipment, such as the vehicle, is based on regulatory and doctrinal guidance.

A TOE normally contains requirements of three authorized levels of organization (ALO): 100% (ALO 1), 90% (ALO 2), and 80% (ALO 3). These organizational options provide a model for fielding a unit at full capability or at a reduced capability if resource constraints so mandate. A TOE also specifies the capabilities (and limitations or dependencies) the unit has to accomplish its mission. TOEs document the minimum mission essential wartime requirements (MMEWR).

The majority of the Chaplaincy’s force structure in the TOE comes from UMTs embedded in other branch proponents’ TOEs and not from the units we own. Because of this unique situation, combat developments must be extremely vigilant in its review of TOEs. The Cyclic TOE Update is the opportunity to review and make changes to TOE documents prior to the approval process.

Cyclic TOE Update (CTU): BOIPs and TOEs, or changes thereto, are published once a year in the CTU file distributed by the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency Requirement Documentation Directorate (USAFMSA RDD). Information from this file is used by USAFMSA Authorization Documentation Directorate (USAFMSA ADD) to update the requirements information contained in authorization documents for tactical units (modified TOE [MTOE]), and to refine planning program data for the future fielding of new equipment.

Combat Developments carefully monitors the CTUs to ensure the embedded UMTs have the appropriate personnel and equipment required for the type of unit.

All aspects of the TOE development process are reviewed during the CTU as it pertains to the UMT section. The personnel are checked against the MARC and the SGA to ensure the number and grade are appropriate for the unit supported. The BOIP and ICP input is checked to insure the equipment is being modernized and documented for the UMT and the OPFAC Rules checked for inclusion of communication equipment. Although the CTU is the best and last opportunity to check a TOE before it is used as input to the MTOE, changes to the TOE can be requested at any time. But these changes will not be approved for use in the MTOE process until the TOE goes through its next CTU.

The TOE is the base document for developing the Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE). This document determines the unit organization, personnel, and equipment necessary to perform a mission in a specific geographical or operational environment. The authorized force structure is driven by directives and constraints in the National Military Strategy (NMS) and the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for combat units and the Total Army Analysis (TAA) process for combat support and combat service support units.

TAA defines the required support forces, combat, combat service, and combat service support at echelons above division (EAD) and echelons above corps (EAC) — called “below the line” — and those necessary to support and sustain the specified divisions and non-divisional combat forces — called “above the line.”

At the unit level, the MTOE is the base document for:

UMTs must closely monitor the required and authorized numbers for personnel and equipment in their section on the MTOE. Any discrepancies between the authorization and the requirement must be researched by force development personnel to determine if the authorization is programmed into the future force structure. If not, justifications must be sent via DA Form 2028 through the commander to the MACOM.

References:

AR 71-32, Force Development and Documentation – Consolidated Policies, 3 March 1997.

How the Army Runs, U.S. Army War College, 1997-1998.

SFC Leslie L. Eder is the Force Structure and Materiel Division NCO at USACHCS.