A little information needed ....

[jim panse]

Where and how many aircraft/personnel are stationed by the USA in Germany? I know about Ramstein and Velden. Any other locations? Any other ideas?

PS: Stats from the end of the Cold War (1990/91) are enough.

Thanks you in advance.

[Dr Kellogg]

Air Bases in Germany + Europe (in German)

[jim panse]

Thank you very much, Dr Kellogg!!!

[Panag]

hi ,

here is a list of all the german bases ;



Anderson Barracks
Ansbach
Argonner Kaserne
Armstrong Kaserne
Aschaffenburg
Babenhausen Kaserne
Bad Aibling Station
Bad Kreuznach
Bamberg
Barton Barracks
Baumholder
Bismarck Kaserne
Campbell Barracks
Cambrai-Fritsch Kaserne
Coleman Barracks
Coleman Barracks
Coleman Barracks
Dagger Complex
Darmstadt
Dexheim
Daenner Kaserne
Faulenburg Kaserne
Fliegerhorst Kaserne
Francois Kaserne
Friedberg
Funari Barracks
Garmisch AST
Giessen Depot
Griesheim Compound
Grossauheim Kaserne
Grafenwoehr
Hammonds Barracks
Hanau
Harvey Barracks
Heidelberg
Hutier Kaserne
Idar-Oberstein
Illesheim
Kaiserslautern
Katterbach Kaserne
Kelley Barracks [D]
Kelley Barracks [S]
Kilbourne Kaserne
Kitzingen
Kleber Kaserne
Landsthul
Larson Barracks
Leighton Barracks
Mannheim
Marshall Kaserne
McCully Barracks
Nachrichten Kaserne
Nathan Hale Depot
Neubruecke Kaserne
Panzer Kaserne [B]
Panzer Kaserne [K]
Patch Barracks
Patton Barracks
Pendleton Barracks
Pioneer Kaserne
Pulaski Barracks
Ray Barracks
Rhein Barracks
Robinson Barracks
Rose Barracks [BK]
Rose Barracks [V]
Schweinfurt
Shipton Kaserne
Smith Barracks
Spinelli Barracks
Storck Barracks
Strassburg Kaserne
Stuttgart
Sullivan Barracks
Taylor Barracks
Tompkins Barracks
Turley Barracks
Underwood Kaserne
Vilseck
Vogelweh
Warner Barracks
Wiesbaden
Wolfgang Kaserne
Wuerzburg
Yorkhof Kaserne




have a nice day

[Panag]

hi ,

here is pdf with all the overseas personel , socom and temp duty is not included

have a nice day

[Panag]

hi ,

and here is a good website >>> http://www.usarmygermany.com/

do you need anything else , .....

some info ;


Germany

From 1945 to 1950, the primary mission of the United States military units stationed in the American zone of Germany was occupational. By 1950, however, that concept changed to emphasize the defense of Western Europe. Unlike US Army Military Communities, US Air Bases tend to be more rural and centralized.

Germany is the best overseas assignment possible. The United States Army, Europe (USAREUR) provides a wide support base, and Germany's modern infrastructure, quality housing, highways, and friendly people all contribute to a great tour. The travel opportunities are endless: Germany's central location in Europe puts all of Europe within easy reach.

Germany is a land of fascinating contrasts. There are villages that retain their medieval character complete with peaked roofs, picturesque windows with featherbeds airing over windowsills, church steeples piercing the sky, and massive walls and towers of bygone castles looming in the distance. These villages are often only a few kilometers from large cities. The countryside is quite intriguing. Forests, mostly evergreens, cover more than one fourth of the country. Strips of cultivated land give the countryside a patchwork appearance. There are usually no solitary farmhouses; instead farmers live in small villages and go out to work in the surrounding fields. Central and Southern Germany is mountainous with the Alps rising to 8,000 and 9,000 feet above sea level. The eight principal river systems and their thousands of tributaries and lakes add to the beauty of the country. However, early winter ice can be a problem. Rainfall measures approximately 25.5 inches a year.

US military vehicles that require host nation approval to operate on public roads must submit movement requests through the area Highway Movement Control Team (HMCT). HMCTs are subordinate elements of the Transportation Battalion (MC) Highway Traffic Division and are responsible for coordinating with the appropriate host nation authorities to process movement bids and pass march credits back to the requesting units. The HMCTs in Germany work directly with, and are normally colocated with the Wehrbereichskommando (WBK). The WBK is the military district command that controls movement by all military forces throughout it’s area of responsibility. An approved march credit grants the requesting unit permission to move over a specified route at a fixed time as provided in the movement instructions issued with the march credit. March credits and routings are binding and are an order of the Commander in Chief, USAREUR. USAREUR units should understand that the final approval or disapproval for movements requiring a march credit rests with the host nation movement control authorities (WBK). Units cannot begin movement until the march credit is granted.

The Department of Defense announced on September 12, 2002 plans for the transfer of four U.S. Army Europe facilities located in Germany back to the German government. The facilities affected are the Oberdachstetten family housing area in Ansbach, the Regensburg housing area in Regensburg, the Rheinau Coal Point D1 in Mannheim, the Johnson Barracks in Nuernberg and a portion of the Garmisch Shopping Center. These transfers continue the process of returning facilities to Germany. The last such transfer occurred in January 2001 when the Rheingrafenstein Training and Storage Area in the city of Bad Kreuznach and the Quirnheim Missile Station near Mannheim were returned to the German government. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army continually review force structure and facilities around the world to identify the most efficient means of operation. The process for reviewing and adjusting the stationing of forces has always involved close cooperation with appropriate U.S. and host nation officials. There are no plans to reduce the number of U.S. Army soldiers in Europe below the current 62,000 figure.


US European Command Facilities

During the Cold War, USAREUR had 213,000 personnel with 64 brigade equivalents. Today there is one third of that structure: 62,000 active component troops and 3,000 reserve component troops in 19 brigade equivalents, supported by 11,000 civilians and 11,000 local national employees; with 100,000 family members and 4,000 retirees. This structure equates to a Total Army population of 199,000 (of which 180K are in Germany, 8K Italy, 6K BENELUX, 5K elsewhere). USAREUR has also reduced its installations and square footage to one third of what they were in 1989, retaining 259 installations in five countries. As an agent of change in the Army, USAREUR is examining future force structures to align with the Chief of Staff of the Army’s new Vision Statement.


have a nice day

[jim panse]

do you need anything else , .....

@ panag: Poah, i think this will last for some time. Thank you very, very much for that information!

@ All others: Please refer to my Map Chekc Thread (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=93264)!

[Stefan Härtel]

Does anybody by chance know which one is closest to the Erlangen-Nuremberg (by chance Bamberg) region? The reason I'm interested is because I see lots of US soldiers on local highways etc.
I figure Würzburg would be, but there must be a closer one.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Stefan Härtel
Does anybody by chance know which one is closest to the Erlangen-Nuremberg (by chance Bamberg) region? The reason I'm interested is because I see lots of US soldiers on local highways etc.
I figure Würzburg would be, but there must be a closer one.

hi ,

there are several bases in the bamberg area , ....

tip , take a look at some maps at high scale that they sell in the fuel stations along the highway , .....


if you travel frequently in germany on the highway you get to see these huge white plates ,
a couple miles before the exit , .... they relate to the base in the neighborhood , .....

however due to security reason's many of them have been removed , .....

have a nice day

[Stefan Härtel]

if you travel frequently in germany on the highway you get to see these huge white plates ,
a couple miles before the exit , .... they relate to the base in the neighborhood , .....

Yes, I've seen one of those near Bamberg quite a few times (I think there's one on the route from Berlin to Erlangen), but I thought that was closed down. OK, I'm not very smart when it comes to this kind of things, but since all US facilities in this area are closed down, I just figured...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Stefan Härtel

if you travel frequently in germany on the highway you get to see these huge white plates ,
a couple miles before the exit , .... they relate to the base in the neighborhood , .....

Yes, I've seen one of those near Bamberg quite a few times (I think there's one on the route from Berlin to Erlangen), but I thought that was closed down. OK, I'm not very smart when it comes to this kind of things, but since all US facilities in this area are closed down, I just figured...

hi ,

well there are still some open there , .....

there is talk now of moving a couple units more east , poland , romania , etc , ......

there is a great deal of restructuring going on right now , .....

tip , use the link above , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Forbes.com July 17, 2003

Don't Fight It

In-Depth Coverage

By Emily Lambert

Closing a military base hurts, but there may be opportunity in it.

That news may be hard to believe in U.S. military towns facing possible base closures, some of which are already suffering economically during long troop deployments.

The Pentagon has said that the military is bloated and needs to be trimmed by 23%. In 2005, it wants to roll some functions of small bases into bigger ones and possibly move others overseas. It's scary news for communities that depend on income from those bases, which collectively pump billions of dollars into local economies. The Department of Defense hasn't indicated how many or which bases will be affected, but it has plenty to choose from: There are about 400 big and medium-sized bases and thousands of small ones in the U.S. and its territories.

If the Pentagon gets its way, this will be the fifth wave of base closings since 1988, and communities are desperately lobbying to be spared. In Tucson, Ariz., groups of business leaders are making regular trips to Washington to help protect the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, which is the third-biggest employer in Tucson behind the University of Arizona and defense company Raytheon. Florida Chamber of Commerce President Frank Ryll says military bases have a $30 billion impact on the state and that he'd like to have more of them, not fewer. Florida also has defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, which is in Orlando, to think about. In California, the Department of Defense spent $36 billion in 2002, and $10 billion in the San Diego region alone. In Texas, the military spends $18 billion a year, but economists calculate the total impact to be $43 billion.

States and communities are spending millions of dollars lobbying, and lawmakers are listening. In May, the House Armed Services Committee proposed poison pill amendments to a bill that could block the closures. But it may a losing battle. John Pike, director of the military research group GlobalSecurity.org, says there will almost certainly be fewer troops and facilities in the U.S. in the future. "That's been a continuous trend ever since the end of World War II," he says.

Closures can be devastating. Shuttered bases can leave behind not only dependent communities but environmentally devastated sites. But in some cases closures let communities move forward, especially in urban areas where bases are hogging prime real estate. Don't expect to hear it from local officials because fighting for base closings is political suicide. "Can you imagine North Carolina without the Marine Corps? That's beyond their psyche," says Christopher Hellman, an analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

But Cameron Station in suburban Alexandria, Va., for years the home of the Defense Logistics Agency, now has 1,600 townhouses for sale at prices up to $500,000. In Texas, Bergstrom Air Force Base, which was tapped in the 1991 round of closings, reopened as the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in 1999. John Almond, the project director, says the timing was ideal because Austin had outgrown its municipal airport. Dell Computer, 3M and Motorola are some of the companies that use the expanded airport.

In North Charleston, S.C., the community recently took over a navy base that ceased operations in 1996. The city and developers plan a massive redevelopment project that will take 20 years, $1 billion and include 3,000 acres. "All the political and business leaders tried to keep the base from being closed," says developer John Knott Jr.

"You can't imagine life without the military base, but you manage," says John Allen Williams, a professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago. He recalls Fort Sheridan on Chicago's North Shore being turned into upscale condos ("barracks loft condominiums" go for $500,000) and Newport, R.I., falling back on its tourism. "Sometimes creative things come out of necessity," Williams says, "I don't see the military as a public works program."

Some towns, like those surrounding Fort Benning in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Carson in Colorado, and Fort Drum in New York are almost completely supported by military installations. But even there, entrepreneurs might benefit from a proposal made by Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe. Last Tuesday, Snowe proposed--as part of the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act--a provision that would give small businesses near shuttered bases the chance for preferential treatment when vying for government contracts. The program this falls under has a budget of just $2.5 million, but the message is clear: Economic life goes on.

[Panag]

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
References


In July 2001, the Department of Defense announced an Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI). This consolidation was projected to save an estimated $3.5 billion annually. EFI will enable the US military to match facilities to forces. EFI ensures the primacy of military value in making decisions on facilities and harnesses the strength and creativity of the private sector by creating partnerships with local communities. All military installations will be reviewed, and recommendations will be based on the military value of the facilities and the structure of the force. The EFI will encourage a cooperative effort between the President, the Congress, and the military and local communities to achieve the most effective and efficient base structure for America's Armed Forces. It will give local communities a significant role in determining the future use of facilities in their area by transferring closed installations to local redevelopers at no cost (provided that proceeds are reinvested) and by creating partnerships with local communities to own, operate, or maintain those installations that remain.

In mid-December 2001 House and Senate negotiators authorized a new round of military base closings, but delayed any action until 2005. While the Bush administration and the Senate had wanted the base-closing process to begin in 2003, the House had been opposed. Under the compromise plan, the Secretary of Defense will submit a force structure plan and facility inventory, with a certification that proposed closings were justified by the force structure plan and and that they would produce net savings. The closings would also consider environmental costs and community impact. Seven of the nine commission members could vote to add bases to the Pentagon's proposed closure list, but a simple majority would suffice to drop bases from the closure plan. The Bush administration has estimated that 20 percent to 25 percent of military bases are surplus, and that the Pentagon could save $3 billion a year by eliminating surplus facilities.

In August 2002 Phil Grone, principal assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and the environment, estimated the next round of base closures in 2005 could save $6 billion a year, even if it cut only 12 percent of DoD's military infrastructure. One 1998 study suggested that 20 to 25 percent of the military's infrastructure could be considered surplus. Grone indicated that an analysis to "shed excess capacity" would be completed in 2004, before the Pentagon decided how many bases must be closed in the 2005 BRAC round.

The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process had its origins in the 1960s. Understanding that the Department of Defense (DOD) had to reduce its base structure that had been created during World War II and the Korean War, President John F. Kennedy directed Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to develop and implement an extensive base realignment and closure program to adjust to the realities of the 1960s. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) subsequently established the criteria to govern the selection of bases without consulting Congress or the military. Under McNamara's guidance DOD closed sixty bases early in the 1960s without Congress or other government agencies being involved.

In view of the political and economic ramifications of the closures, Congress decided that it had to be involved in the process and passed legislation in 1965 that required DOD to report any base closure programs to it. However, President Lyndon B. Johnson vetoed the bill. This permitted DOD to continue realigning and closing bases without congressional oversight throughout the rest of the 1960s.

Economic and political pressures eventually forced Congress to intervene in the process of realigning and closing bases and to end DOD's independence on the matter. On 1 August 1977 President Jimmy Carter approved Public Law 95-82. It required DOD to notify Congress when a base was a candidate for reduction or closure; to prepare studies on the strategic, environmental, and local economic consequences of such action; and to wait sixty days for a congressional response. Codified as Section 2687, Title 10, United States Code, the legislation along with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitted Congress to thwart any DOD proposals to initiate base realignment and closure studies unilaterally by refusing to approve them and gave it an integral role in the process.

As economic pressures mounted, the drive to realign and close military installations intensified. In 1983 the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the Grace Commission) concluded in its report that economies could be made in base structure and simultaneously recommended the creation of a nonpartisan, independent commission to study base realignment and closure. Although nothing came of this recommendation, the defense budget that had been declining since 1985 and that was predicted to continue to decrease in coming years prompted the Secretary of Defense to take decisive action.

In 1988 the Secretary of Defense recognized the requirement to close excess bases to save money and therefore chartered the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure in 1988 to recommend military bases within the United States for realignment and closure.

Congress has enacted two laws since 1988 that provide for the closure, in part or in whole, and the realignment of facilities. Since 1988, there have been four successive bipartisan Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions (BRAC) that recommended the closure of 125 major military facilities and 225 minor military bases and installations, and the realignment in operations and functions of 145 others. The principal mechanism for implementing the policy in both statues has been an independent, bipartisan commission. Two of the most pressing issues are providing assistance to local communities economically impacted by base closures and establishing a cost-effective program of environmental clean-up at bases prior to their disposition.

During the decade of the 1980’s, no major military bases were closed, largely because of procedural requirements established by Congress. After several legislative efforts to break the deadlock failed, Congress introduced a new base closure procedure in P.L. 100-526, enacted October 24, 1988. The original base-closing law was designed to minimize political interference. The statute established a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Defense on closures and realignments. Lawmakers had to accept or reject the commission´s report in its entirety. On December 28, 1988, the commission issued its report, recommending closure of 86 installations, partial closure of 5, and realignment of 54 others. The Secretary of Defense approved its recommendation on January 5, 1989.

Since the commission approach adopted by Congress was successful, new base closure legislation was introduced which also relied on the services of an independent commission. Congress refined the process in 1990 with another law (PL 101-510) that charged the Defense Department with drawing up an initial list of bases for consideration by the commission. This commission, in accordance with a statutory provision, met in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510 established the process by which Department of Defense (DOD) installations would be closed and/or realigned.

From 1989 to 1997, the Department of Defense reduced total active duty military end strength by 32 percent, and that figure will grow to 36 percent by 2003 as a result of the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR]. After four base closing rounds, only 21 percent of the military installations in the continental United States have been reduced. By 1997 the Department of Defense had already reduced its overseas base structure by almost 60 percent. Before the first base closure round, there were approximately 500 domestic military bases. When all of the bases from the first four BRAC rounds are closed, there will be about 400 bases. Ninety-seven major bases have been closed in the United States. The overseas basing structure has been further reduced, ceasing operations at over 960 facilities. The Army in Europe alone has closed the equivalent of 12 United States major maneuver bases.

The 1997 QDR concluded that additional infrastructure savings were required to begin to reduce the share of the defense budget devoted to infrastructure. Retaining excess base infrastructure is unnecessary with a smaller military force, and wastes scarce defense resources that are essential to future military modernization. Base closings are an integral part of this plan. The QDR found that the Department has enough excess base structure to warrant two additional rounds of BRAC, similar in scale to 1993 and 1995. The Department estimated that two additional base closure rounds would result in savings of approximately $2.7 billion annually.

The BRAC 1995 commission recommended that the Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001, giving military services time to complete the current closures in an orderly fashion. Implementing the BRAC actions in the first four rounds would result in $23 billion in one-time implementation costs, offset by savings of $36.5 billion, for a total net savings of $13.5 billion between 1990 and 2001 when the implementation of the first four rounds was supposed to be concluded. DOD has not included the total cost of environmental cleanup beyond 2001 in the net savings figures. Approximately half the savings which DOD assumes will come from BRAC during the implementation are due to assumed savings in operation and maintenance costs. Much of those assumed savings are due to reductions in civilian personnel.

Under the BRAC process, the Secretary of Defense makes recommendations to a commission, nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. The commission, after being confirmed by the Senate, reviews these recommendations and makes their own recommendations to the President. The President then reviews the recommendation, either sends those back to the commission for additional work or forwards them, without changes, to the Congress, and then the recommendations of the commission go into effect unless disapproved by a joint resolution of the Congress.

In 1995 the BRAC commission recommended closing two maintenance depots - McClellan Air Logistics Center near Sacramento, CA, and Kelly Air Logistics Center in San Antonio, TX. As an alternative to shutting the depots in the two politically powerful states, President Bill Clinton proposed having private contractors take over maintenance work at the sites. The 1995 Base Closure Commission did not recommend or authorize `privatization-in-place' at Kelly or McClellan. Concern was raised about the integrity of the BRAC process in light of this attempt to privatize-in-place the work at the Air Logistics Centers at Kelly Air Force Base in Texas and McClellan Air Force Base in California. Republicans charged that Clinton could not be trusted to respect the apolitical nature of the process.

Following Clinton´s action, lawmakers did not agree until 2001 to schedule another round of base closings. Before it was resolved, the dispute held up a conference agreement on the fiscal 2002 defense authorization bill (PL 107-107) and led Bush to threaten to veto the bill if it did not allow a new round in 2005.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee in July 2001 that the Pentagon maintained 25 percent more facilities than it needs, even after four rounds of base closings in the 1990s. By some accounts, the excess military bases annually cost taxpayers an estimated $3.5 billion.

[Panag]

1988 Commission
16 Major Closures
Army Material Tech Lab, MA
Cameron Station, VA
Chanute AFB, IL
Fort Douglas, UT
Fort Sheridan, IL
George AFB, CA
Jefferson Proving Ground, IN
Lexington Army Depot, KY
Mather AFB, CA
Naval Station Brooklyn, NY
Naval Station Lake Charles, LA
Naval Station, Galveston, TX
Norton AFB, CA
Pease AFB, NH
Philadelphia Naval Hospital, PA
Presidio of San Francisco, CA


1991 Commission
26 Major Closures
Bergstrom AFB, TX (Active Component Only)
Carswell AFB, TX
Castle AFB, CA
Chase Field NAS, TX
Eaker AFB, AR
England AFB, LA
Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN
Fort Devens, MA
Fort Ord, CA
Grissom AFB, IN
Hunters Point Annex, CA
Loring AFB, ME
Lowry AFB, CO
Moffett NAS, CA
Myrtle Beach AFB, SC
NAV ElecSysEngrCtr, San Diego, CA
Naval Station Long Beach, CA
Naval Station Philadelphia, PA
Naval Station Puget Sound, WA
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA
Richards-Gebaur ARS, MO
Rickenbacker AGB, OH
Sacramento Army Depot, CA
Tustin MCAS, CA
Williams AFB, AZ
Wurtsmith AFB, MI


1993 Commission
28 Major Closures
Charleston Naval Shipyard, SC
Defense Per. Support Center, PA
Gentile Air Force Station, OH (DESC)
Homestead AFB, FL
K.I. Sawyer AFB, MI
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, CA
MCAS El Toro, CA
Naval Air Station Agana, Guam
Naval Air Station Barbers Point, HI
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL
Naval Air Station Dallas, TX
Naval Air Station Glenview, IL
Naval Airs Station Alameda, CA
Naval Aviation Depot Alameda, CA
Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk, VA
Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola, FL
Naval Hospital Oakland, CA
Naval Station Charleston, SC
Naval Station Mobile, AL
Naval Station Staten Island, NY
Naval Station Treasure Island, CA
Naval Training Center Orlando, FL
Naval Training Center San Diego, CA
NESEC, St. Inigoes, MD
Newark AFB, OH
O'Hare IAP ARS, IL
Plattsburgh AFB, NY
Vint Hill Farms, VA


1995 Commission
27 Major Closures
Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, NJ
Bergstrom Air Reserve Base, TX
Defense Dist. Depot Memphis, TN
Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, UT
Fitzsimoms Army Medical Center, CO
Fleet Industrial SU. Center, Oakland, CA
Fort Chaffee, AR
Fort Holabird, MD
Fort Indiantown Gap, PA
Fort McClellan, AL
Fort Pickett, VA
Fort Ritchie, MD
McClellan AFB, CA
Naval Air Facility, Adak, AK
Naval Air Station, South Weymoth, MA
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, IN
Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, CA
NAWC, Aircraft Div., Warminster, PA
NAWC, Crane Division Detachment, Louisville, KY
NSWC, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, MD
Oakland Army Base, CA
Ontario IAP Air Guard Station, CA
Resse AFB, TX
Roslyn Air Guard Station, NY
Savanna Army Depot Activity, IL
Seneca Army Depot, NY
Ship Repair Facility, Guam


1988 Commission
11 Realignments
Fort Bliss, TX
Fort Devens, MA
Fort Dix, NJ
Fort Holabird, MD
Fort Huachuca, AZ
Fort McPherson, GA
Fort Meade, MD
Fort Monmouth, NJ
Naval Station Pugent Sound, WA
Pueblo Army Depot, CO
Umatilla Army Depot, OR


1991 Commission
19 Realignments
Aviation Systems Command/Troop Support Command, MO
Beale Air Force Base, CA
Fort Chaffee, AR
Fort Polk, LA
Letterkenny Army Depot, PA
MacDill Air Force Base, FL
Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, PA
Naval Air Engineering Center, Lakehurst, NJ
Naval Air Propulsion Center, Trenton, NJ
Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN
Naval Coastal Systems Center, Panama City, FL
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, MD
Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, KY
Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak, MD
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, WA
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA
Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, IN
Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, CA
Rock Island Arsenal, IL


1993 Commission
13 Realignments
Anniston Army Depot, AL
Fort Belvoir, VA
Fort Monmouth, NJ
Griffiss Air Force Base, NY
Letterkenny Army Depot, PA
March Air Force Base, CA
Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, CA
Naval Air Station Memphis, TN
Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, RI
Naval Surface Warfare Center (Dahlgren)
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA
Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, UT
Tooele Army Depot, UT
White Oak Detachment, White Oak, MD



DoD RECOMMENDATIONS REJECTED BY PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS

1988 Commission

Because the 1988 Commission was the sole authority for recommending closure and realignments to the Secretary of Defense there were no recommendations made that were not accepted by the Secretary of Defense.

( the first close or open means what the recommended action was , the second open or close means the commision action )

1991 Commission


Installation Recommended Action Commission Action
Army
Fort McClellan, AL Close Open
Fort Dix, NJ Close Realign
Fort Chaffee, AR Close Realign
Army Corps of Engineers None Realign

Navy
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA Close Open
Naval Training Center Orlando, FL Close Open
RDT&E & Fleet Support Activities Close 10/Realign 16 Close 7/Realign 17

Air Force
Moody AFB, GA Close Open

1993 Commission
Army
Fort McClellan, AL Close Open
Letterkenny Army Depot, PA Realign Open
Presidio of Monterey Annex, CA None Realign

Changes to Previously Approved 88/91 Recommendations Affecting Army

Presidio of San Francisco, CA Send 6th Army to Keep 6th Army at
Ft Carson Presidio of SF

Letterkenny Army Depot, PA Send functions to Realign
Rock Island Keep Functions
at Letterkenny

Navy
Naval Air Station Agana, Guam None Close
Naval Air Facility Martinsburg, WV None Close
Naval Air Facility Johnstown, PA None Close
Naval Hospital, Charleston, SC Close Open
Naval Air Station Meridian, MS Close Open
Naval Air Station South Weymouth, MA Close Open
Naval Supply Center Charleston, SC Disestablish Realign
Naval Supply Center Oakland, CA Close Open
Naval Submarine Base New London, CA Realign Open
Aviation Supply Office, PA Close Open
Naval Air Technical Services Facility, Close Open
Philadelphia, PA
Naval Electronic Security Disestablish Open
Systems Engineering Center, Charleston, SC
Naval Electronic Systems Receive Close
Engineering Center, Portsmouth,VA
Naval Surface Warfare Center-Carderock, Disestablish Open
Annapolis Detachment, Annapolis, MD
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center, None Close
Lawrence, MA
Naval Reserve Center, Chicopee, MA None Close
Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, MA None Close

Changes to Previously Approved BRAC 88/91 Recommendations

Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, CA None Realign

Air Force
Plattsburgh AFB, NY None Close
Homestead AFB, FL Close Realign
McGuire AFB, NJ Realign Open

Changes to Previously Approved BRAC 88/91 Recommendations

Bergstrom AFB, TX Redirect Open

Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Industrial Supply Center, PA Relocate Open
Defense Reutilization & Marketing Service, MI Disestablish Open

[Case]

www.globalsecurity.org also has all sorts of good info on the US military.