Approved For Release 2000/08107 : Cl 6 0078BROO1200020013-4 NOT RELEASARE TO FOREGM NATIONALS INFORMATION PAPER DAMI-ISH 12 Sep 80 t~) T3J 1~ ICT: GRILL FLAME (U) PURPOSE, (S/NOFORN) To inform ACSI DA of a potential situation with regard tp GRTLL FLAME and offer recommendations that will prevent possibl(-.~ embarrassment to the Army. 1-11M-Ts. 1. (S/NOFORN) BACKGROUND: In response to LTG Tighe's 7 Aug 80 1,--tter to MG Thompson, a GRILL FLAME Committee meeting was held on 18 Aug 80. The purpose of the meetinq was to approve the Joint 1--rvice GRILL FLAME Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Mission a%'Id Objectives Statement, and proposed contract with SRI (TAB C). (U) DISCUSSION: ,a. (S/NOFORN) In order to ensure support of Army INSCOM's i.riterest in this matter, MAJ Hay provided the proposed draft docum(--~nts at TAB C to LTC Watt's organization at Fort Meade for review and comment. This resulted in a response from MG Rolya (letter with 1 Incl) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave, a representative from his organization, LT Fred Atwater, was j~ivited to attend the 18 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's Y,~-comr-.-iended changes to the proposed draft documents. After the m,~-cting, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and INSCOM could concur wit-h the proposed changes made at th(,-- meeting. ur Atwater replied he thought they would. b. (S/NOFOYIN) MAJ flay met with LTC Watt on 27 Aug 80 and he i~iformed MAJ Hay that he d4csagp~~4 "irth tT fttvvcttei---az1d he and INSCOM cokild not concur with the MOU. MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted ;t proposed MOU (TAB A) which we plan to table at a proposed GRILL FLAME' Committee meeting at DIA during the next meeting, date unknown. (S/NOFORN) INSCOM's ma or objections, and MAJ Hay agrees, are as follows.. (1) (S/NOFORN) INSCOM has $1.50K total to fund the FY 81 G-911A, FLAME effort. INSCOM needs $30K to fund the operational offort. This would leave $120K for external contracts with whomever Classified by DIA-DT Review 12 Sep 2000 Reason: 2-301c.3 N 0 1' V- E LUS, A;, Ii. k T 0 vo FOREi"G'N NAT10i NALS Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00788 ROO 1200020013-4 `~~ I C (o Mi NOT RELEASABLE TO Vy/ Ltz~.V U U L= UFOREIGN NATIONALS INFORMATION PAPER DAMI-ISH 1, 5 Sep, 80 .JJBJECT: GRILL, FLAME (U) I I `% J11-1 1-10 SE .(S/NOFORN) To inform ACSI DA of a potential situation ~,,ltth regard to GRILL FLAME and offer recommendations that will. prevent possible embarrassment to the Army. " IA, C9., S . i. (S/NOFORN) BACKGROUND: In response to LTG Tighe's 7 Aug 80 '-etter toMG Thompson, a GRILL FLAME Committee meeting was held On 18 Aug 80. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the Joint ;ervice GRILL F'LAME Memorandum of Under.%+-anding (MOU), Mission Objectives Statement, and proposed contract with SRI (TAB C). (U) DISCUSSION: El. (S/NOFORN) In order to ensure support of Army INSCOM's i.riterest in this matter, MAJ Hay provided the proposed draft documents at TAB C to LTC Watt's organization at Fort Meade f--r -eview and comment. This resulted in a response from MG Rolya (letter with I Incl) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave, representative from his orqanization, LT Fred Atwater, was i.rivited to attend the 1-8 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's recovtmendE,d changes to the proposed draft documents. After the ireelling, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and TNSCOM -ClUld conc, C -ur with the proposed changes made at the meeting. 1,T Atwater replied he thought they would. 1). (S/NOVORN) MAJ 11jy met with LTC Watt on 27 Aug BO and he i.nformed MAJ Hay that lie and INSCOM could not concur with the MOU. MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted a proposed MOU (TAB A) which we I-,Lan to table at a proposed GRILL FLAME Committee meeting at DIA (luring the next meeting, date unknown. C. (U) ENSCOM's major objections, and MAJ Hay agrees, are ris follows: (1) (S/NOFORN) The original MOU is that it identifies ioi. contractor by name and commits DOD funding to a specific organi- -ation (SRI) prior to ascertaining if the contractor can accomplish Classified by DIA-DT Review 15 Sep 2000 Reason: 2-301c.3 1~c '' 0171 I r-,rr") 11 NOT RW1-:ASV;LE TO runtkuN Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 rp---3 MOT RELEASABLE TO -.1-FOREIGN NATIONALS DAMT -1511 U 1, 3 11 E CT GRILL FLAME (U) 1'-ie required work. The MOU should be the instrument that estab- I ishes the DOD Joint effort and not one which commits DOD funds a specific contractor. (2) (.13/NOFORN) INSCOM has $150K total to, fund 'the FY 81 (~iilLi, FLAME effort. INSCOM needs $30K to fund the operational offort. This would leave $120K for external contracts with whom-- ever it can be determined can meet INSCOM's requirements at the Ir-ast possible cost, (NOTE: DIA proposal states $120K from Army 'NSCOM all tcy be funded for an SRI effort. DIA maintains that Army had previou.sly agreed verbally to provide $150K, then $120K atid now possibly even less than $120K. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner Jisaqree and LTC Watt has a Memorandum for Record to back up state- ~ttcnt. ) (3) (:3/NOFORN) DIA made a unilAteral decision to send ~Iie DIA primary contract monitor to SRI, Menlo Park, CA on Thursday -1 This was done prior to -the MOU being _st of Friday 22d of August. z ,,pproved by Director, DIA; Army, and Air Force ACSTs. NOTE: DIA ,es no one objected to the primary contract monitor going to the 'Aest Coast at the 18 Aug 80 meeting. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner halve (lone (-,in record previously objecting to the need for the con- Lraol. monitar to physically locate himself at SRI for the following Y OaSOTAS: (a) (S/NOFORN) If the GRILL FLAME Committee is in foct joint, the DIA has no right to make a unilateral decision ~,uch as they have prior to the MOU being signed. NOTE: DIA feels SG1J ~;JI_nce DIA is funding move it is no one else's problem. Wo feel if this decision is critized, DIA, Army, and Air Force wi-11 jointly be. held responsible since we are a joint committee. (b) (S/NOFORN) If the primary contract monitor is !;located on the West Coast with SRI, we question how he can best m,:)nitor all additional contract efforts elsewhere. NOTE: DIA ~7~,els since SRI is best qualified in this project they will now, .Uid probably continue to receive most of the contracts, therefore, it makes sense to maintain the contract monitor at that location. (c) (S/NOFORN) The move of the primary contract toSRI t.otally disregards the recommendation of' the Depart i1,_-n1:, of' the Army GRILL FLAME Scientific Evaluation Committee Report, December 79, page 10, para 3b. "Dependence on the SRI Apprcach should be phased out.." NOTE: DIA feels the Gale Report i:, h1ased arid GRILL FLAME was doomed before it started, therefore, (,w~? is (J(,7>1r1(J to accept it's recommend at i ons (especially when ire usi.nq Fly,oqrllm III ftitids vice Program VI. 2 V, (0 NOT HELEASABLE TO ';6N NATIONALS L U\\L-, HI U, Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 :,~ 88R001 Y~k NOT R T? ATIcTAALS F 0 R EM N T! i\1141 - 1. SH f~;IJBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U) (d) (S/NOFORN) The move of the contract monitor to :~'?T T30tentially decreased the operational. security of the project. 11~31 Puthoff arid Russ Targ are well known as so-called experts in (,Ih~- PSI area. To move a DIA contract monitor to work closely with t h--2m makes it diff icult -to deny DOD interest in PSI. NOTE: it ,ioppars DIA believes both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner "have it in" for 1)r. V(-rona's ofJ ' if ically and all of these 11ce, spec SG1J (oi)ject.ions are directed at~~ ic, r sk of being accused SG1J of. parochialism, MAJ Hay does not believe this to be the case. SG1J Both I.TC Watt, and MAJ Stoner believe that'd has continually misrepresented Army/INSCOM positions and facts to Dr. Verona. (U) IMPACT: a. (S/NOFORN) If our proposed draft MOU is approved, INSCOM d(jrees to fund $70K for immediate contraqt work at SRI for aud.io ,iiialysis, and once LTC Watt can determine the status of SRI advanced 1,,'V training program, INSCOM would take action -to fund additional motiles available. (Ingo Swann stated SRI will not be prepared for 'Civanced training for one year, however SRI's Hal Puthoff told P4,"iJ Hay on 12 Sep 80 that SRI is ready and Swann as a consultant (,.irinot; speak for SRI.) SRI initially felt that it would be necessary lo fund $500K t-o maintain an adequate program in PSI but reduced that figure to $450K. That figure was further reduced to $390K for, FY 81 1.),v the GRILL FLAME Committee. According to DIA, this will cause SRI to reduce the number of personnel working the project. If Army INSCOM fi-irther reduces dollar figure as planned, SRI may pull. out of -the proqram. DTA f-irmly believes SRI, as configured with current per- sonnel, is a national asset. MAJ Hay thinks that is stretching t.1iinq_s a bit far, but does believe SRI efforts should continue if 1.hey can produre DOI) requirements bet-ter than any other contractor d1L. U-1E, least po!-,sible cost -to DOD. If SRI did pull out, DIA's Y)Tlfflary contract monitor would be left on the West Coast to monitor riothiriq, Possibly Ci3USinq the contract monitor to bring a claim ~tqairistl DIA for, creatinq family hardships, loss of funds, etc. This could cause an crubarrassmerit situation for LTG Tighe and Dr. ",(,ronc I. Although Army and Air Force are not formally a part of t.he Joint Services GTRILL FAME Committee (no signed MOU) we have been very informally involved since 1978. This could cause some c-ribarrassment to Army/Air Force. 1,-). (S/NOFO]RN) If SRI does riot "pull out" and -the DIA monitor r,-mains at SRI, there may be at a later date some question dealing with the objections listed in paragraph 2(a)(b)(c)(d) above. A(iditionally, there is -the potential for questions to arise dealing i.~iit-h possible conflict of interest, e.g., other contractors question I-11c DIA primary contract monitor located at SRI offering work to (,I,,: h e rcontractors without bias. :3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 1~~ffMJQ Q,01200020013-4 Vf~ DAMI.-ISH SUBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U) el 4 (U) CONCLUSION: (S/NOFORN) Dr. Verona and SRI are very angry because they believe Army INSCOM is backing out of its commitment of $120K. V,-,~ronals main concern appears to be the loss of the $120K from Army t.rN qo with the SRI program for FY 81. He feels strongly SRI will pull out if Array reduces the $120K further. b. (S/NOFORN) The changing of the proposed MOU does not appear bother Dr. 'Verona, except he does not feel, as program manager, h,~:~ has to clear through the GRILL FALME Committee before talking wi th Congress or anyone else about the program. SA, 1> T (S/NOFORN) MAJ Stoner feels we should trust SRI and INSCOM si,iould be forced to spend -the FY 81 contract budget'-6-f $120K with 1'1~1. Stoner states "it would be wrong t(a stop the $120K from going as soon as possible. I say this while pointing out my own (-.~I:i.reme bias against what I consider to be the high-handed, unethical, SG1J cin.1 unprofessional actions by Verona and ~~in secretly assigning SG1J ~~ to SRI as contract monitor. SRI should continue to play a valuable role. Despite what INSCOM feels SRI is capable of further pioneer work if, they have more time, money and non--interference by .;~)orsors. d. (S/NOFORN) LTC Watt is strongly opposed to spending any money with SRI or anyone else until tlie formal MOU is signed and INSCOM is tui.ly aware ot wh7t they are getting for the $120K. N (S/NOF('T-1 ) MAY [lay believes the whole GRILL FLAME Committee has been poorly managed which has resulted in bad decisions based on an attempt by all concerned to speed up (for whatever reason) a very sensitive and complicaLed project. Since DIA made the unilateral &-c-ision which may cause them embarrassment, they should be asked to LIP with the fur-ids -to make up the difference that INSCOM wishes ~,p(_-nd elsewhere (about $50K). If DlA feels SRI is a national this wou-1 Id "keep SRI in business." The GRILL FLAME Committee ~-,I-iould then be forced to mect, and air out all the personal problems ho~.ween the act-ion officers, and get on with the business at hand o~-; cluL'lined in the proposed MOU at TAB A. If that is not possible, -that the Project management be moved to DC-4 in DIA, romove all action officers From the project and start over with a i)(2w team that can look at this situation in an objective manner for 1he good of the DOD. 4 ;0 rp ry-1) Fr ~2_ -77 CT RELEASABLE TO _qgl~q U'~ I I I , __ - . - I -U~ i I E ~ (,'A N A Tl 0 N A' L S Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 t~)) L -TO 'ALS DAMI.-ISH I S UBJECT: GrRILL FLAME (U) (u) 01"I"101\1s: a. (S/NOFoRN) Army withdraw from -the Joint Service Program. Ld.Ka,,n t a (. Disadyarjl_,~2e~j (I) Freedom to spend Army money (1) We get less for our money wf-ten and where we desire. as Joint Service contracts provides benefits from DIA/USAF (2) Manage our program without programs, i.e., exchange of coordination/approval of DIA. information. (2) Prevents duplication of effort. (3) ,If SRI as presently staffed should be considered a very valuable asset to Army, the pro- gram would suffer if there is no Joint Service contract. (4) Army will be critized by DIA. b. (S/NOFORN) Army remain in the Joint Service Program as it j-, p~-oposed in the original MOU, and as is now operating. Aqy~antaqes Disadvantag~~s (1) Most, (.--ost effactivc if a (1) Army cannot spend money where Service contract is ever they feel it can obtain best results. achieved. (2) Appears to be bet-ter managed/ orqanized (at 'Least on paper). Keeps the SRI. effort qoing as currently staffed which may or may not provide DOD with long term benefits. (4) Should al-Iow for audio anal, ysis work for INSCOM with SRI team. (2) DIA makes unilateral decisions without regard to Service needs. Decisions could prove not in best interest of Army. (3) Army would formally accept part of the responsibility for a poorly managed effort with DIA, and could be subject to criticism and embarrassement. 5 (4) Cdr INSCOM would have to spend $120K at SRI and not know what results he will receive. V N, Wr P TO qrl RiT Li R Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 F0! T P".."'"'i-r' L U D)"~ M I -- I S H IJBJECT.: I GRILL FLAME (U) S C". (S/NOFORN) Army remain in the Joint Service Program but tw)dified as follows: (1) (S./NOT"ORN) As stated in our proposed MOU (TAB A). (2) (f;//NOFOnN) Go on record to object to DIA's unilateral docision for sending the primary contract monitor to SRI for riasons listed i-n paragraph 2a,b,c,d. (71) '013//N0FORN) Ask DIA to make up -the difference in funds (,A)out, $50K) that INSCOM wishes -to spend elsewhere. Disadyant~122.~~ Keeps the Joint Service (a) '0 Will anger DIA and cause Program alive at least for one themosome internal DOD embarrass- year and force better management. ment. b) Should be more cost ef f ect- (c) Should be better managed/ (,rciari i. zed. (i) Should elifflinate duplica- ion of effort. (b) Cause a short delay in order to get a formally signed MOU and contracts for FY 81. GRILL FLAME efforts. (c) Should provide better ex- ~~hanqe of ~information. ( J') Should eliminate unilateral. 0(,cjsions by DIA. (q) Should allow Army INSCOM to traininq from con-tractors ,her than SRI (h) Should allow for audio analysis work for INSCOM with the SRI Team, J~ [7 [,he SRI Team rE~mains. 'i) Should allow the SRI Team as Currently staff to remain in business 10r one more year. ilj) Possibly prevent embarrassment i,or LTG Tighe and Dr. Verona from otitside DOD. F1, fbl[L~Ll 0% "'~Zj Lim kO U ~\ LL-i U RU 6 NOT RLELEASf".,P)LE TO FOREIGN N'Krioi~~ALS Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 1~~78RQQII.. LS V~A!14I--ISH .1, U 8,3 ES C TGRILL FLAME (U) (U) RECOMME`NDATj,ON: Option C; if DIA refuses, go with Option A. MAJ Hay/50114 7 13"T 0 L-FfISAPILE TU 4.1 6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200020013-4