Air University Review, July-August 1969
Major General Joseph R. Deluca
Much of the military success enjoyed by our armed forces in past conflicts has been due to the emphasis that the military establishment has placed on the ability to provide logistical support to the field units. Part of this success, of course, is due to the unequaled industrial base existing in the United States. A maximum effort is constantly under way in the search for better and more reliable weapons and equipment, faster and more responsive transportation and communications, improved training, and more cost-effective management. This logistics emphasis has resulted historically in our armed forces being the best equipped, trained, and sustained of any fighting force in the world.
Logistics planning and performance are now almost on a par with operational strategy, since operational, and logistical capabilities are inextricably linked together. The supply function, within the overall structure of logistics, supports all the other functions of our mission forces. A fleet of airplanes without fuel, munitions, or needed equipment is an impotent force, as is a maintenance activity without necessary repair parts. The cargo planes comprising our substantial airlift capability would soon be grounded without replacement parts. Our communication and warning systems would soon be silenced. This is not to minimize the essential contributions of other logistics functions; all are vital. Accomplishment of our logistics missions is dependent upon the effective and integrated operation of all functions. Our intent, however, is to demonstrate the decisive importance of having materiel in the proper place, at the time it is required, and in the quantities required. This, oversimplified, is the AFLC supply support mission -in integrated operation with procurement, maintenance, engineering, transportation, communications, construction, and resources management.
Significant strides have been made in the supply support function since World War II, many of them accomplished out of expediency. After World War II the major portion of our national resources was again diverted to peacetime uses, and the armed forces had to apply more intense management to the limited resources in order to make them responsive to mission requirement.
In the early 1950s, more sophist weapon systems began phasing into the Force inventory, bringing with them increasing complexities of supply management, item identification, requirements, distribution, repair, maintainability, reliability, engineering, and supportability. These phenomena provided the impetus to the evolution of supply management from its World War II status to the current posture of highly automated processes, utilizing at base and depot levels high-speed computers, communications, transportation, materials handling, and improved movement and management techniques to optimize use of available resources. An indication of what improved logistics management has accomplished is the fact that the dollar value of inventory investment is approximately the same now as it was a decade ago despite the fact that the number of different types and models of weapons has risen from approximately 160 to 294.
Before delving into the role of supply in the overall logistics process, a quick review of the scope of the supply operation is in order. AFLC currently manages a stores inventory of approximately $12 billion worth of spare and repair parts, including munitions, engines, and ground-support equipment, and another $12.5 billion of in-use equipment and installed assets such as engines. The Air Force is a user of 1.7 million items of supply, and AFLC centrally manages approximately 900 thousand of these items. The remaining 800 thousand items are managed by the Defense Supply Agency, General Services Administration, and other military services. The AFLC procurement authority for spare parts, equipment items, and services for fiscal year 1969 is approximately $3.2 billion. An operation magnitude presents many, varied, a complex management problems.
There are two distinct echelon of supply management in Air Force logistics: the retail or base level, where most demands for spares and parts originate, and the wholesale or depot level. This article will deal primarily with the wholesale level, since this is where AFLC’s major internal responsibilities are concentrated at this time. However, it is the Air Force target to develop closed-loop supply management, linking bases, depots, and contract production and repair into one visible total pipeline system. The most important advance so far toward making this possible is the Air Force-wide program standardizing and automating the base-level supply system on a controlled design basis, which has provided the management plateau conducive to advancing. We are now working to system-link the depot computers with the standard base-level supply computers.
Until 1952, all supply management responsibility was centralized in AFLC headquarters at Wright-Patterson AFB. Since that time supply management has been decentralized to the present five air materiel areas, which, under the Air Force direct-supply concept, receive requisitions and fill them direct to users on a worldwide basis.
system and commodity management
Supply management is divided into two general overall categories within AFLC: system management and commodity management. A system manager is responsible for total logistics support for all the items of supply needed to keep systems such as the F -4, F -111, and C-130 in a mission-performing posture, irrespective of whether the items are managed by AFLC, Defense Supply Agency (DSA), or General Services Administration (GSA). The system manager manages directly those items that are peculiar to his system. Each peculiar airframe and related subsystem item is materiel-management-coded to his weapon system management regardless of its Federal Supply Class. For example, those bearings that have a peculiar application to the F-4 would be assigned the materiel management code “BF” at the end, to show this condition of peculiarity and enable requisitioners to route requests to the proper manager.
A commodity manager manages items that have a wide degree of commonality. Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, for example, is commodity manager for all types of bearings in Federal Supply Classes 3110 (bearings, anti-friction, unmounted), 3120 (bearings, friction, plain, unmounted), 3130 (bearings, mounted). These items would include all items not materiel-management-coded to a system such as the F-4 or C-5A and not managed by DSA or GSA. DSA and GSA activities for the most part manage common and commercial items that are used in large enough quantities to warrant centralized procurement and management.
materiel categories
In addition to the general categories of system and commodity management within AFLC, three basic categories of materiel are specified for management purposes. These materiel categories identify item characteristics warranting specialized and differential management attention.
Recoverable. The most important materiel category in terms of spares inventory investment, and the most complex from a management standpoint, is that classified as “Recoverable.” Recoverable items have a high unit cost, can be repaired by base or depot maintenance facilities, and have a long service life. Because of their high cost and predominance in terms of our total spares inventory investment, these items are afforded intensive management. The Air Force Recoverable Assembly Management System (AFRAMS), implemented in November 1967, provides constant worldwide visibility of assets by linking the retail or base-level systems to the depot or wholesale supply systems. This constant worldwide visibility of recoverable spares gives our inventory managers greater capability to compute requirements, distribute assets, direct reparable carcasses to repair activities, and detect supply trends on their assets. AFRAMS features daily asset reporting, from every Air Force base, for each recoverable item centrally managed by AFLC that had activity in the preceding 24-hour period. AFLC manages some 75,000 recoverable items, comprising some $5.3 billion of inventory or approximately 44 percent of the total worldwide Air Force inventory of $12 billion for supplies. So the magnitude of the system and the essentiality of giving it maximum management effort are apparent.
Replacement. The second major materiel category relates to replacement or equipment-type items. These items are nonexpendable, reparable at base or depot, and require formal authorization in table of allowance documents for an organization to acquire them. This category includes such diverse items as test equipment, vehicles, hand tools, training equipment, organizational clothing, parachutes, ground radar and communications equipment, and the ground equipment used by maintenance activities, such as engine test stands, ground generators, compressors, heaters, etc. Unlike recoverable items, which have established depot stock levels and are designed to have materiel on the shelf when a requisition is received, stock levels for replacement items are not normally maintained, except a very few specially approved levels held for initial issue, lengthy replacement time, or contingency. AFC ages approximately 84,000 of these items, which represent some $600 million inventory and $7.5 billion of equipment in use by Air Force organizations.
EOQ. The third major materiel category relates to Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) items or expense items (repair parts and other items consumed in use). These items for the most part are lower in cost and are expendable. The derivation of the name for these items is from the associated stockage and procurement philosophy which relates the quantity ordered or procured to the order or procurement costs. The level of management intensity applied to this type of item is not as great as that applied to recoverable items. They are managed under EOQ techniques. High-demand items and items used primarily for depot overhaul get further selective management treatment beyond normal EOQ procedures. The number of EOQ items centrally wholesale-managed by AFLC is 750,000, representing $1.6 billion in inventory at depot and base levels. Additionally, our bases secure supply support for the hundreds of thousands of EOQ items that are common and commercial in nature and managed by DSA or GSA or locally purchased.
Effective in July 1968, the management of these AFLC centrally managed EOQ items came under the purview of the System Support and General Stock Fund concepts. Under these stock fund concepts, management control is exercised over the dollars used to procure these items and the dollars of inventory on hand and on order as related to sales. Users forecast their usage and ideal inventory positions, and monthly reviews of progress toward these objectives are made. Under certain conditions base users can return excess materiel to the stock fund for credit. The stock fund concept is designed to minimize inventory investment, optimize inventory turnover, accelerate the reporting and utilization of excesses, and serve as a link in the Department of Defense Resources Management System.
Thus, AFLC manages three different basic categories of items, each of which requires selective management methodology, requirements techniques, and distribution control. All three categories are managed through automated systems, and tailored computer logic applies to meet the specialized needs of each type of item.
In addition to the basic categories discussed above, AFLC has adapted special management techniques to some other highly specialized categories, such as engines, fuels, conventional ammunition, and nuclear ordnance commodities, mainly because of high dollar costs, peculiar management requirements, and security considerations. For example, a special management system is used for engines, primarily for investment and support effectivity reasons. Installed engines represent an investment of $5 billion, with spare engines representing another $1.9 billion. Unlike most recoverable items, the extremely high unit cost, relatively small number, and basic character of engines make practical the tracking of each engine at all times. Not only is an engine’s location known but also its condition during various stages of overhaul, time of installation or removal from a specific aircraft, and number of operating hours since last overhaul. Management through daily visibility is maintained on each engine by serial number as it changes status, location, or condition.
Currently, most customer support is strictly on a “pull” basis from the base level whereby the base computes a stock level and requisitions direct on AFLC depots. However, our high-priority missile systems are supported under a “push” system called the Automatic Resupply Logistic System (ARLS). Under this concept, the AMA system manager centrally computes stock levels for all the operational organizations based on daily transaction reporting from the using activity, and he pushes materiel to them as usage warrants. Engines are on a “push” system; so are some munitions in special circumstances. In summary, within AFLC the supply management techniques employed are tailored to operational support effectivity, the economics of inventory investment, the peculiar characteristics of the item, its repair characteristics, security classification, or other characteristics of control specified by higher headquarters.
item introduction and management
The function of supply support begins with the transitioning of systems from research and development to production and operational status. AFLC supply activities become involved early during this stage of the acquisition process as a part of the AFLC team or system manager working with the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) System Project Office (SPO) that is responsible for the design, development, test, production, and introduction of the weapon into the Air Force operational inventory. An AFLC system manager is designated and AMA personnel are assigned to work with the contractor and the System Project Office. Under an agreement between AFSC and AFLC concerning newer Air Force weapons being introduced, an AFLC officer actually serves as the director of logistics for and within the organization of the SPO. The purpose of this is to assure that both weapons performance and support logistics are fully considered in the many important trade-off decisions made upstream in the design/development phases. Paramount considerations are reliability, maintainability, repair-level decisions, test equipment, ground-support equipment, technical data, operational concepts, maintenance concepts, procurement concepts, and supply support. Follow-on logistics support effectivity and economy are key decisions influenced by the design of the weapon. Thus, considerations of logistics effects now enter into the trade-off decisions that influence design and performance of the weapon or equipment.
With procurement of the end item, spares and repair parts are procured in nominal quantities intended to support the end item during its early existence or until accurate usage data can be acquired to justify larger procurements. This selection of initial spares is referred to as the provisioning process. During provisioning, engineering estimates of items needed to repair the system are provided by the contractor. From these data AFLC technical and supply personnel, with the assistance of contractor personnel and DOD files, screen the items to make sure an identical or acceptable item is not already in the system, determine the degree of recoverability, determine the quantities to be procured, assign management responsibility, acquire maintenance and technical data, and catalog the items selected for procurement. Practically all items managed by AFLC enter the inventory through the provisioning process.
AMA Director of Materiel Management
The brain and heart of our supply management system is the organization of the Directorate of Materiel Management at the AMA in which the system and commodity managers are located. These managers report to the Director of Materiel Management.
Items entering the inventory are assigned to a system manager or commodity manager, who has full responsibility for the support of a system or commodity to the operating forces of the major commands. Assisting the system or commodity manager in the execution of his responsibilities are individual item managers, technical managers, and production managers, backed up by the managerial and technical services of other functions such as engineering, materiel services, data products, and management systems.
The item manager has the preponderance of direct control over the management of items, working in close coordination with the technical and production managers. He is primarily responsible for the computation of requirements, distribution of assets, effective support to the operating commands, and accountability for his items in all or various stages of their use. In accomplishing these central tasks, the item manager triggers a wide range of activities such as procurement initiations, repairs schedule development, processing of assets to disposal, etc. He also directs redistribution of assets from user, provides shipping instructions for return of reparables when necessary, and otherwise attempts to optimize the use of his items in support of mission requirements on a worldwide scale.
The technical manager works with the item manager and is an expert in all technical aspects of the item. He participates in provisioning and reliability conferences; provides technical assistance to using activities and repair facilities regarding the operation, maintenance, or modification of his items; studies patterns of failure rates to determine if design specifications are being met; initiates technical orders on the items if necessary; and develops the maintenance factors for use by the item manager in computing requirements.
The production manager plans, schedules, and monitors organic, interservice, or contract repair and modification programs. In this capacity he negotiates repair workloads with maintenance activities, assists in resolving parts support problems, expedites reparable carcasses through the repair line, and maintains essential production surveillance to meet the repair schedule and changes set by the item manager.
The item manager, technical manager, and production manager, backed up by other managerial and engineering support people, are the key decision-makers in an AMA for supply management and support. They continually deal with the changing programs, resources constraints, dynamic user needs, advancing technologies, materiel defects, contract variances, trade-off considerations, and decisions on lead time away.
responsiveness
A primary necessity of the supply function today is rapid responsiveness to needs of the operating forces, especially those performing combat missions, such as our Pacific Forces or sustained readiness postures of other commands. Having the item on the shelf when a requisition arrives is important; equally important is its delivery to the customer by the time he needs it. Because of limited resources, it is also important that materiel not capable of repair at base level be returned promptly to the depot. This urgency has necessitated increased use of airlift, quick communications, and efficient materials handling, to reduce pipeline times and ensure optimum utilization of materiel resources.
Flexibility and adaptability also are essential for effective and efficient supply operations. The current emphasis on development of conventional war capability necessitates increased mobility to minimize the costly construction of permanent facilities, minimize the outflow of gold, and still provide close air support for our ground forces. The supply system has to be flexible and adaptable to keep pace with the new mobility concepts,
As an example, it became apparent early in the Southeast Asia (SEA) conflict that existing airfield facilities in South Vietnam were insufficient to handle the amount of air traffic needed to support American and South Vietnamese forces. A technique was developed to provide temporary supply support in the form of “Harvest Eagle” sets to new airfield construction projects. The purpose is to establish an operational air base in a short time where a runway may already exist or can be quickly made ready to handle traffic until more permanent facilities are constructed. A Harvest Eagle set usually consists of field kitchen, sleeping gear, auxiliary electrical generators, water purification units, bath and laundry units, and other housekeeping items—over 700 different line items totaling some 75,000 units of supply, weighing about 323 tons, and comprising some 44,000 cubic feet in aggregate mass. Several of these sets are maintained in storage in a state of immediate readiness to meet all emergencies and contingencies. The SEA conflict was the first time that AFLC was asked to deploy these sets, and many lessons were learned with respect to climatic conditions, personnel needs, construction, transportation, reutilization, and control.
A close companion of the Harvest Eagle set is the War Readiness Spares Kit (WRSK), containing “selected spares and repair parts needed to sustain operations without resupply at a base which is to be deployed or to be in a dispersed location for the first month of activity in USAF War Plans.” It contains direct support items; i.e., those parts required to keep aircraft in a mission-performing condition. Kits are available for many types of aircraft: bombers, fighters, transports, etc. One of the desirable features of these kits is that they are tailored to the peculiar needs of each command; i.e., by weapon, flying hour program, and war commitment as outlined in USAF War Plans. Thus, the WRSK’s provide supply support for the mission aircraft and, in combination with the housekeeping support provided by Harvest Eagle sets, enable the Air Force to better achieve mobility. Much work is being done in this area for better readiness and sustainability. New concepts in equipment design, packaging, setup, utilization, and relocation have been developed and are scheduled to be tested at North Field, South Carolina, this year. The outcome of these tests is most important to the Air Force, since they will have far-reaching influence on logistics support concepts for bare-base operations, mobility, readiness, sustainability, and quick-reaction capability.
An example of current supply-system response to emergency needs can be illustrated by an incident that occurred earlier this year. A warehouse containing electronic and engine spares was completely destroyed through enemy action in SEA. Prompt consultation between PACAF and AFLC resulted in the assignment of a project code that would provide a special priority for the requisitions covering replacement of the items destroyed. Within 24 hours after the warehouse was destroyed, the base had placed approximately 10,000 replenishment requisitions to AFLC AMA’s and other sources of supply such as DSA. All sources of supply were requested to assign a monitor to these special project requisitions to ensure prompt action. Seventeen days after input of the requisitions, 94 percent of all requirements had been received by the base in SEA.
Another example of our response to emergencies can be seen in our supply support of the escalation of munitions activity in Southeast Asia. It was necessary that our capability to produce, deliver, maintain, and store munitions be significantly increased within a period of a few months. Expenditures for munitions procurement increased tenfold to more than $1 billion per year. Requests, procurement, engineering, and production were expedited. Also, AFLC devised and implemented a unique floating storage and support concept to provide munitions to the combat forces. Called “Special Express,” the 19 oceangoing vessels involved successfully supplied the forces until storage facilities were built and a regular transportation system established. Special Express demonstrated the capability of delivering in excess of 100,000 tons of munitions to Southeast Asia per month.*
Assurance that the supply systems can react is provided by a wide range of responsiveness indicators continually monitored by AFLC supply management. Among the most widely recognized are NORS (Not Operationally Ready, Supply) rates on selected weapon systems, ENORS (Engines), status of War Readiness Spares Kits, processing time frames within the AMA’S (depot processing time), fill rates, back-order rates, and pipeline time, i.e., total time elapsed between the time a requisition is initiated by a mission organization until receipt of the materiel. Performance standards are determined for each of these indicators, to establish degrees of achievement required, corrective actions, and management system improvements.
challenges
Significant advanced management concepts and techniques are under development or in early stages of implementation that will have major impact on logistics and supply managers, challenging them to an exciting future. The central theme in these new challenges is to integrate the logistics functions into better defined, structured, and working processes, so as to bridge the gaps between the weapon and equipment design/ performance considerations, logistics effectivity considerations, and cost constraints. Much analysis, work, trade-off studies, alternative choices, coordinated compensating initiatives across functions, and evaluative techniques will be required to make progress on this now better illuminated path towards integrated logistics.
Among the many advanced managerial concepts, techniques, and challenges are six key ones:
· Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)
This concept calls for positive management actions integrating all support elements to optimize availability of weapons/equipment and support costs. It states that achievement of integrated logistic support is dependent upon the integration of logistics considerations into the systems engineering and design process. There is a vital and dynamic interface between weapon design and support. It requires the early integration of support criteria into design considerations. In an oversimplification, one might say the old approach was “Logistics, support the design”; now, the approach is “Design for performance and support.” ILS also identifies the interrelated elements of logistics: reliability, maintainability, maintenance support, supply support, test equipment, support equipment, transportation and handling, technical data, manpower, training facilities, funding, management data, etc. ILS demands that these elements be core or compositely programmed and managed, to ensure effective and economical support of a system or equipment.
· Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
Closely allied to ILS is the concept of Life Cycle Costing. The objective is to consider fully from the government’s standpoint both the cost of acquisition and the cost of follow-on logistics support of an item, in order to make competitive procurement awards on the basis of the lowest total cost of ownership. It is something of a departure from current practices in that as we “tool up” progressively to do it, greater emphasis will be placed on the latter part of the procurement policy, which states “award to the responsible bidder whose bid will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.” These other factors (operation and logistics support) must be calculated to provide information so that the competitive award will result in the lowest ultimate total cost to the government as distinguished from acquisition price alone. Thus, we will have to evaluate the acquisition price, the initial costs (item costs to introduce into our inventory, data, cataloging, etc.), and recurring costs (to support the item during its life for management, operation, maintenance, supply, etc.). Different items, reparable or nonreparable, will require different evaluative measures, such as performance criteria, tests; contract clauses, decision formulas, etc. AFLC is currently developing a manual on this complex subject.
· Integrated Materiel Management (IMM)
Another management thrust towards bridging operations, support effectivity, economics of investment, and efficiency of management is Integrated Materiel Management (IMM). IMM is the intensive management of selected high-cost and high-investment items through controlled cycles of use, repair, and movement—items such as the Guidance and Control Package used on the Minuteman missile, the inertial navigation assemblies used on the F-4 or F-111, and the TF-39 engine to be used on the C-5. Each of these items has a unit cost in the multihundred-thousand-dollar range. Again, reliability and maintainability are front-end logistics design considerations. For these items, the operational concept, procurement concept, maintenance support concept, transportation/handling concept, and supply support concept must be planned and executed on an integrated basis to ensure optimum readiness/performance and support. These installed items and spares are procured and managed by serial number, with knowledge of status, location, and changes reported on a near real-time basis. Base, depot, or contractor maintenance and support thereto are on an engineered performance and time control basis. As a departure from Hi-Value management, depot and base-level supply stocks are not procured. Management and support focus on effective use of installs and spares controlled on a tight maintenance turnaround cycle. This concept definitely links the pipeline under central closed-loop management between levels of operations, base maintenance, depot maintenance, and contractor support (if required). It also integrates the functions of operations, maintenance, supply, transportation, communications, and procurement. The inventory manager is at the hub of the system, requiring responsive data and information systems to provide full visibility and program direction. By the end of calendar year 1969 the Air Force will have 21 major items under Integrated Materiel Management-through “brute force” manual/telephonic management control with automated management systems under development.
· Advanced Logistics System (ALS)
Right alongside the development and implementing of the above challenging techniques is the building of the Advanced Logistics System. The objective of ALS is t update and integrate AFLC’s functionally oriented management data subsystems from current second-generation sequential computers to third-generation computer management. Here, too, the data, information, and decision-making management systems will process logistics events across functions on an integrated basis. Interfaced closed-loop system design is essential, linking functions and levels (bases depots, contractors) into an integrated logistics support matrix. The key objective is visibility and management for effective, economical, and efficient utilization of resources for logistics support to the operating forces. It is programmed as a four-year task to be achieved incrementally through 1972.
· Supply Distribution Through Marginal Analysis
Within ALS, we are developing a significant improvement in the distribution of recoverable items. Visibility provided through ALS will enable the Air Force to establish stock levels centrally at bases for recoverable items and direct planned distribution under a “push” system for these important resources. This concept derives from a technique of marginal analysis in a model originally suggested by the RAND Corporation. Now with Air Force bas-level standard supply systems on centrally programmed computers and with further refinements to the technique possible through testing and ALS design, both requirements aspects and distribution are being developed. Through use of current-type information for setting levels, employing demand probability tables, and marginal analysis, both levels and assets are “pushed” to user bases. Distribution of available assets will be made between bases and the wholesale system in such a way that back orders across the system are minimized to secure the optimum readiness/operations posture. This differs from the current system wherein individual bases compute their own levels and direct demands for assets to the depot. The Air Force will establish on a weapon basis the effectivity rate (i.e., how many back orders are acceptable), traded off against the required investment in inventory to support the flying hours and designated major command operating program. Assets will be distributed or rationed, based on availability, to their best use for weapons up-time and readiness. Stock levels are considered optimum in the sense that the expected number of back orders measured at base level would be at a minimum with total assets specified. Of course, NORS and crucial requirements would be handled through expedited “pull” or redistribution actions. Continuing simulation, test, and development work is under way. Major command understanding and approval, as well as Air Force policy decisions in this vital logistics support area, will be major milestones in the near future.
· Joint Logistics Review Board (JLRB)
Telescoping the recent logistics past into a future perspective of major import will be the work of the Joint Logistics Review Board established by Office of the Secretary of Defense in March 1969. The board is chartered to review worldwide logistics support to combat forces during the Vietnam era so as to identify strengths and weaknesses and make appropriate recommendations for improvement. The board consists of senior general/flag officers representing each military service, DSA, and the Joint Staff. The Chairman of the Board reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the JCS. The board has broad authority in its review and evaluations and is also charged to give particular attention to the major functional and commodity areas of logistics. Definitely, the findings will be a signal event in our business.
Hq Air Force Logistics Command
* “Special Express” was the subject of a story by Lieutenant Colonel Ruskin M. Bland in Air University Review, XVIII, 5 (July-August 1967), 36-42.
Major General Joseph R. DeLuca (M.S., George Washington University) is Deputy Chief of Staff, Supply, Air Force Logistics Command. Commissioned from OCS in 1942, he served in the European Theater (1943-46) as Supply Officer, Eighth Air Force, and Deputy Chief of Supply, Ninth Air Force Service Command. Postwar service in various supply/logistics assignments has been with Air Materiel Command at Holloman AFB, New Mexico; Hickam AFB, Hawaii; Ogden AMA, Utah; and Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. In Washington, D.C., 1952-56 and 1958-64, he was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Supply Management Agency, Armed Forces Supply Support Center, Defense Supply Agency, and the final two years as Director, Office of Supply Management Policy, OASD(I&L), and Cost Reduction Program Coordinator, DOD. He has been at Hq AFLC since 1965. He is a 1957 graduate of Air War College.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor