United States Department of Defense United States Department of Defense

BRAC

Base Realignment And Closure

BRAC, which stands for Base Realignment and Closure, is the congressionally authorized process DoD has used to reorganize its base structure to more efficiently and effectively support our forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business.

BRAC Commission

The BRAC Commission recommendations for reshaping the Defense Department's infrastructure and force structure became official on November 9, 2005 and are available at www.brac.gov/finalreport.html

For public and media inquiries, call OSD Public Affairs at (703) 697-5332.

Section 2907 Report

Section 2831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2006 amended section 2907 of the BRAC Act by adding new reporting requirements pertaining to: actions performed since closure was approved ...

The Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual (BRRM)

The Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual (BRRM), DoD 4165.66-M, describes the "process" that will be followed in implementing the BRAC 2005 recommendations. It has been updated to reflect statutes ...

Whats New

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Issue Paper to the BRAC Commission (August 16, 2005)


DoD's Response to Chairman Principi's July 1 Letter (July 14, 2005)


DoD's Response to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) final report, GAO - 05-785, "Analysis of DoD's 2005 Selection Process and Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments," dated July 1, 2005 (July 15, 2005)

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is BRAC?

A1. "BRAC" is an acronym that stands for Base Realignment and Closure. It is the congressionally authorized process DoD has previously used to reorganize its base structure to more efficiently and effectively support our forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business. (The original legislation actually states that the title of the process is Base Closure and Realignment.)

Q2. What are some of the major elements of the BRAC 2005 process and what will ensure it will be fair?

A2. The process began with a threat assessment of the future national security environment, followed by the development of a force structure plan and basing requirements to meet these threats. DoD then applied legally mandated selection criteria to determine which installations to recommend for realignment and closure. The Secretary of Defense will publish a report containing his realignment and closure recommendations, forwarding supporting documentation to the independent commission.

Q3. What is transformation?

A3. According to the Department's April 2003 Transformation Planning Guidance document, transformation is "a process that shapes the changing nature of military competition and cooperation through new combinations of concepts, capabilities, people and organizations that exploit our nation's advantages and protect against our asymmetric vulnerabilities to sustain our strategic position, which helps underpin peace and stability in the world."

Q4. Why is DoD transforming?

A4. Over time, the defense strategy calls for the transformation of the U.S. defense establishment. Transformation is at the heart of this strategy. To transform DoD, we need to change its culture in many important areas. Our budgeting, acquisition, personnel, and management systems must be able to operate in a world that changes rapidly. Without change, the current defense program will only become more expensive in the future, and DoD will forfeit many of the opportunities available today.

Q5. How is BRAC transformational?

A5. BRAC provides a singular opportunity to reshape our infrastructure to optimize military readiness. The 2005 BRAC process will help find innovative ways to consolidate, realign, or find alternative uses for current facilities to ensure that the U.S. continues to field the best-prepared and best-equipped military in the world. BRAC 2005 will also enable the U.S. military to better match facilities to forces, meet the threats and challenges of a new century, and make the wisest use of limited defense dollars.

Q6. What benefit does the Department anticipate from a future BRAC round?

A6. The Department will be able to divest itself of unnecessary installation infrastructure and use the resultant savings for improving fighting capabilities and quality of life for military forces. This will allow the Department to rationalize installation infrastructure with 21st century national security imperatives.

Q7. How will BRAC 2005 be different from past rounds?

A7. BRAC 05 is dramatically different from previous rounds. Because we are on our 5th round of BRAC, the nature of the excess capacity has changed. Most of the excess capacity today is more fragmented, and often in the form of underused facilities. This suggests that savings can be achieved by sharing facilities to a greater extent. Excess capacity is defined as underused or unused facilities an/or infrastructure. Today, greater emphasis is being placed on reshaping the Department as opposed to simple cost cutting. There also is greater emphasis on jointness--selecting the appropriate organizations from two or more services to share facilities in the right location can significantly improve combat effectiveness while reducing costs. It also generates a more powerful military through appropriate basing. Jointness at every level will play a much greater role in this round of BRAC.

Q8. What's the timeline for this BRAC round?

A8. There are several significant events taking place throughout the remainder of 2005. The following is a general timeline of significant events.

  • May 16, 2005: Not later than this date, the Secretary of Defense must publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congressional Defense Committees and the Commission, a list of the military installations that the Secretary of Defense recommends for closure or realignment.
  • July 1, 2005: Not later than this date, the Comptroller General shall transmit to the Congressional Defense Committees, a report containing a detailed analysis of the Secretary of Defense's recommendations and selection process.
  • September 8, 2005: Not later than this date, the Commission must transmit to the President a report containing its findings and conclusions based on a review and analysis of the Secretary of Defense's recommendations.
  • September 23, 2005: Not later than this date, the President shall transmit to the Commission and to the Congress, a report containing the President's approval or disapproval of the Commission s recommendations. If the President approves the recommendations, the recommendations are binding 45 legislative days after Presidential transmission or adjournment, unless Congress enacts joint resolution of disapproval.
  • October 20, 2005: If the President disapproves the Commission's initial recommendations, the Commission must submit revised recommendations to the President not later than this date.
  • Nov 7, 2005: President's Approval or Disapproval of Revised Recommendations. The President must approve the revised recommendations and transmit approval to Congress by this date or the process ends. The recommendations become binding 45 legislative days after Presidential transmission or adjournment, unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.
  • April 15, 2006: Commission terminates.

Q9. Why do we need a BRAC round?

A9. The Department's position that significant excess capacity remains in the defense infrastructure is supported by independent agencies. The specific level of excess is very dependent on the assumptions used in the analysis. Past experience indicates that more extensive study of joint basing use and cross-Service functional analysis could further increase the level of excess through better utilization of the remaining infrastructure.

The Department estimates that a future BRAC round, based on the costs and savings experiences of BRACs 93/95 and a reduction in installation infrastructure of approximately 20 percent, could generate approximately $7 billion if annual recurring savings in today's dollars. Resources currently being spent on excess installation infrastructure could be allocated to higher priority requirements, such as efforts to modernize weapons, enhance quality of life, and improve readiness.

Additionally, another BRAC round will afford the Department a significant transformation opportunity. September 11, 2001, reinforced the imperative to convert excess capacity into warfighting ability. The performance of our forces in Iraq underscores the benefit of transformational war fighting. The Department must be allowed to reconfigure its infrastructure to best support the transformation of our warfighting capability. The Department must be allowed the opportunity to assess its installation infrastructure to ensure it is best sized and placed to support emerging mission requirements for our national security needs.

Q10. Which installations will be looked at in this round?

A10. All military installations within the United States and its territories will be examined as part of this process.

Q11. How many installations will be closed?

A11. It's too early to say and there are no specific numbers or "targets." Using specific selection criteria that emphasize military value, DoD must complete a comprehensive review before it can determine which installations should be realigned or closed. In 2005, an independent Commission will review the Secretary of Defense's recommendations, hold public hearings, visit various sites, and ultimately send its recommendations to the President.

Q12. Why would we close U.S. installations before we close overseas installations?

A12. BRAC, of course, only applies to our military facilities in the United States. As we transform the Department, we didn't think it made much sense to look just at our domestic facilities so we coupled the BRAC process with our Global Force Posture Review, which in essence is a BRAC process for our internationally based forces. The result is the relocation of troops to the United States from abroad and several other related changes made domestically to ensure unit cohesion, as well as realignment for the twenty-first century. (Dollar amounts will be available when the Secretary's recommendations are announced.)

Q13. How much has been saved through previous BRAC rounds?

A13. The four previous BRAC rounds have eliminated approximately 20 percent of DoD's capacity that existed in 1988 and, through 2001, produced net savings of approximately $17.7 billion, which includes the cost of environmental cleanup. Recurring savings beyond 2001 are approximately $7 billion annually. In independent studies conducted over previous years, both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office have consistently supported the department's view that realigning and closing unneeded military installations produces savings that far exceed costs.

Q14. What is the BRAC Commission?

A14. The commission is an independent body responsible for reviewing the Secretary's recommendations for BRAC 2005. The Base Closure and Realignment Act specified the selection process for commissioners. The President was required to consult with the congressional leadership on nominations to serve on the commission.

Q15. Who was selected as the Chairman of the BRAC 2005 Commission?

A15. Anthony J. Principi has been appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Commission. Secretary Principi has had a distinguished career in the public and private sectors and recently served as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He is a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., saw active duty aboard the destroyer USS Joseph P. Kennedy, and later commanded a River Patrol Unit in Vietnam's Mekong Delta. Mr. Principi earned his law degree from Seton Hall University in 1975 and was assigned to the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps in San Diego, Calif. In 1980, he was transferred to Washington as a legislative counsel for the Department of the Navy.

Q16. Who are the members of the BRAC 2005 Commission?

A16. On April 1, 2005 President George W. Bush used his recess-appointment power to approve the nominations of eight individuals to be Members of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission:

  • James H. Bilbray of Nevada
  • Philip Coyle of California
  • Admiral Harold W. Gehman, Jr., USN (Ret.) of Virginia
  • James V. Hansen of Utah
  • General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.) of Florida
  • General Lloyd Warren Newton, USAF (Ret.) of Connecticut
  • Samuel Knox Skinner of Illinois
  • Brigadier General Sue Ellen Turner, USAF (Ret.) of Texas

Q17. Who is James H. Bilbray?

A17. Former Congressman Bilbray was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1955 to 1963.

Q18. Who is Philip Coyle?

A18. Mr. Coyle is a Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information. He served as Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Department of Defense.

Q19. Who is Admiral Harold W. Gehman, Jr., USN (Ret.)?

A19. Admiral Gehman served on active duty in the U.S. Navy for over 35 years. His last assignment was as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Q20. Who is James V. Hansen?

A20. Former Congressman Hansen was a member of the Armed Services Committee. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1951 to 1955.

Q21. Who is General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.)?

A21. General Hill served in the U.S. Army for 36 years. His last assignment was as Combatant Commander of the U.S. Southern Command.

Q22. Who is General Lloyd Warren Newton, USA (Ret.)?

A22. General Newton served in the U.S. Air Force for 34 years. His last assignment was as the Commander of Air Education and Training Command.

Q23. Who is Samuel Knox Skinner?

A23. Mr. Skinner served as Chief of Staff and as Secretary of Transportation for President George H. W. Bush. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1960 to 1968.

Q24. Who is Brigadier General Sue Ellen Turner, USAF (Ret.)?

A24. General Turner is a member of the American Battle Monuments Commission. She served in the U.S. Air Force for 30 years, most recently as the director of nursing services in the Office of the Air Force Surgeon General at Bolling Air Force Base.

Q25. What authority does the commission have?

A25. The commission has the authority to change the Department's recommendations, if it determines that the Secretary deviated substantially from the force structure plan and/or selection criteria. The commission will hold regional meetings to solicit public input prior to making its recommendations. History has shown that the use of an independent commission and public meetings make the process as open and fair as possible.

Q26. What is the role of the Installation Commander in the BRAC process?

A26. A primary role of installation commanders in the BRAC process is to certify information used to conduct the analyses. To enhance fairness in the BRAC process by treating all installations on an equal footing, all information submitted to the Secretary of Defense and the 2005 BRAC Commission for use in making recommendations for base closures and realignments must be certified by the submitter as accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. Much of this information regarding installation facilities and operations will be gathered in data calls initiated by the Military Departments and sent to installations for processing. Installation commanders will have the ultimate responsibility for certifying that information before it is used in the BRAC process.

Installation commanders may attend meetings, in a liaison or representational capacity, with state and local officials, or other organizations that may seek to develop plans or programs to improve the ability of installations to discharge their national security and defense missions. However, DoD officials may not manage or control such organizations or efforts. In their official capacity, DoD personnel may not participate in the activities of any organization that has as its purpose, either directly or indirectly, insulating DoD installations from closure or realignment. This guidance is aimed at ensuring the fairness and rigor of the BRAC process.

Q27. Can local communities request that DoD installations in their area be considered for closure during BRAC 2005?

A27. Yes. The BRAC Act of 1990, as amended, addresses this issue with the following guidance: "The Secretary of Defense shall consider any notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a military installation that the government would approve of the closure or realignment of the installation."

Q28. Will communities or states that were impacted by past base closures be protected in future base closure rounds? Would their past losses be calculated in determining "cumulative economic impact?"

A28. The Department must consider all military installations equally, without regard to whether the installation has been previously considered or proposed for closure or realignment. Additionally, the Department will do adhere to the statutory requirements regarding the selection criteria that will be used in the BRAC process, of which military value is the primary consideration. In doing so, the Department will consider "the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations." Application and evaluation of economic impacts will be consistently and fairly applied.

Q29. How have local communities affected by installation closures fared overall?

A29. Base Realignments and Closures cause near-term social and economic disruption. However, there are many success stories from previous closures. A base closure can actually be an economic opportunity, especially when all elements of a community work together. While each closure or realignment has different consequences and/or results, some recent examples include:

  1. Charleston Naval Base, S.C. -- The local community, assisted by DoD, was able to create approximately 4,500 new jobs. Approximately 90 private, state and federal entities are currently reusing the former naval base.
  2. Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire More than 185 operating tenants currently established at the Pease International Tradeport (PIT). The PIT has been designated a Foreign Free Trade Zone by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and has developed an air cargo access capability via an 11,300 foot runway. There is in excess of 3,800,000 square feet of new, or newly renovated space, that has supported the creation of over 5,000 jobs, in bio technology (Lonza Biotechnics), education (Southern New Hampshire University), in addition to a wide variety (Pan Am, Marriott, Redhook Brewery) of retail and professional service availability day-to-day.
  3. Fort Devens, Mass. -- More than 3,000 new jobs have been generated and 2.7 million square feet of new construction has occurred. With 68 different employers on site, redevelopment ranges from small business incubators to the Gillette Corp., which occupies a large warehouse/distribution center and manufacturing plant.

Q30. What impact does BRAC have on the implementation of NSPS, particularly those activities in Spiral One?

A30. BRAC will not affect the overall implementation of NSPS. NSPS is also critical to the Department's transformation and the Department will not delay its implementation as a result of BRAC. No activity on the BRAC list will automatically be excluded from Spiral One. Components will assess whether inclusion of a BRAC site in Spiral One is appropriate, considering such factors as the anticipated time frame for the closure/realignment and impact on the mission and the workforce.

2005 BRAC Definitions

BASE CLOSURE LAW

The provisions of Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Pub. L. 100-526, 102 Stat.2623, 10 U.S.C. S 2687 note), or the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 100-526, Part A of Title XXIX of 104 Stat. 1808, 10 U.S.C. S 2687 note).

BRAC

"BRAC" is an acronym which stands for base realignment and closure. It is the process DoD has previously used to reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively support its forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business. DoD anticipates that BRAC 2005 will build upon processes used in previous BRAC efforts.

Closure

All missions of the installation have ceased or have been relocated. All personnel positions (military, civilian and contractor) have either been eliminated or relocated, except for personnel required for caretaking, conducting any ongoing environmental cleanup, and disposal of the base, or personnel remaining in authorized enclaves.

COBRA

Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA), is an analytical tool used to calculate the costs, savings, and return on investment, of proposed realignment and closure actions.

Commission

The Commission established by section 2902 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended.

Community preference

Section 2914(b)(2) of BRAC requires the Secretary of Defense to consider any notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a military installation that the government would approve of the closure or realignment of the installation.

Data certification

Section 2903 (c)(5) of BRAC requires specified DoD personnel to certify to the best of their knowledge and belief that information provided to the Secretary of Defense or the 2005 Commission concerning the realignment or closure of a military installation is accurate and complete.

Force structure

Numbers, size and composition of the units that comprise US defense forces; e.g., divisions, ships, air wings, aircraft, tanks, etc.

Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC)

One of two senior groups established by the Secretary of Defense to oversee and operate the BRAC 2005 process. The Infrastructure Executive Council, chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and composed of the Secretaries of the Military Departments and their Chiefs of Services, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)( USD (AT&L)), is the policy making and oversight body for the entire BRAC 2005 process.

Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG)

The subordinate of two senior groups established by the Secretary of Defense to oversee and operate the BRAC 2005 process. The Infrastructure Steering Group, chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) (USD(AT&L)), and composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department Assistant Secretaries for installations and environment, the Service Vice Chiefs, and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) (DUSD(I&E)), will oversee joint cross-service analyses of common business-oriented functions and ensure the integration of that process with the Military Department and Defense Agency specific analyses of all other functions.

Military Departments

The Military Departments are the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, and Department of the Air Force.

Military installation

A base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, including any leased facility. Such term does not include any facility used primarily for civil works, rivers and harbors projects, flood control, or other projects not under the primary jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Analysis

An analysis conducted to evaluate an installation's disposal decisions in terms of the environmental impact. The NEPA analysis is useful to the community's planning efforts and the installation's property disposal decisions. It is used to support DoD decisions on transferring property for community reuse.

Realignment

Includes any action that both reduces and relocates functions and civilian personnel positions, but does not include a reduction in force resulting from workload adjustments, reduced personnel or funding levels, or skill imbalances.

Redevelopment authority

In the case of an installation to be closed or realigned under the BRAC authority, the term "redevelopment authority" means an entity (including an entity established by a State or local government) recognized by the Secretary of Defense as the entity responsible for developing the redevelopment plan with respect to the installation or for directing the implementation of such plan.

Redevelopment plan

In the case of an installation to be closed or realigned under the BRAC authority, the term "redevelopment plan" means a plan that (A) is agreed to by the local redevelopment authority with respect to the installation; and (B) provides for the reuse or redevelopment of the real property and personal property of the installation that is available for such reuse and redevelopment as a result of the closure or realignment of the installation.

Secretary

Secretary of Defense.

Transformation

According to the Department's April 2003 Transformation Planning Guidance document, transformation is "a process that shapes the changing nature of military competition and cooperation through new combinations of concepts, capabilities, people and organizations that exploit our nation's advantages and protect against our asymmetric vulnerabilities to sustain our strategic position, which helps underpin peace and stability in the world."

United States

The 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

Questions & Responses (Databases)

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Questions

The capacity questions were sent to all installations and included questions developed by the three Military Departments, six of the Joint Cross-Service Groups, and the Environmental Joint Process Action Team. The military value questions were targeted to installations that performed a specific function and were developed individually by each group, including two of the Joint Process Action Teams. The military value questions that the Military Departments asked can be found in their databases.

Capacity Questions

Supplemental Questions

Joint Cross-Service Group Questions

Joint Process Action Team Questions


Responses (Databases)

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Department of the Air Force

Defense Agencies

Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA)

COBRA Software Application Instructions

The Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model was used to calculate costs, savings, and payback of proposed realignment and closure actions. In order to successfully operate the COBRA economic model used in the BRAC process, you must install the COBRA application from the link below and follow the specific instructions.

The accompanying COBRA Users Manual provides specific instructions in Chapter 2. Any technical questions regarding how to open or operate the model should be addressed to alevesque@rkeng.com or johnd@rkeng.com.

The Department of Defense has provided recommendation books with justification data for the recommendations to the BRAC Commission. The Commission has included this data in their E-Library available on their website (www.brac.gov). This data contains copies of the COBRA output reports for each recommendation. The data also contain additional files, denoted with a .cbr suffix, that are the COBRA Scenario Data files used to prepare the COBRA reports included with each recommendation.

BRAC 2005 Guideance

DoD guidance to the services and the Joint Cross-Service Groups on how to conduct the BRAC 2005 process.

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Infrastructure Steering Group


Military Departments

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Department of the Air Force


Joint Cross-Service Groups

Education & Training

Headquarters & Support Activities

Industrial

Intelligence

Medical

Supply & Storage

Technical

Secretary of Defense Weekly Updates

The Secretary Of Defense Weekly BRAC reports provided information on the status of the BRAC process including overviews of candidate recommendations, issues, and financial considerations.

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Joint Process Action Team Products

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Cost of Base Realignment Action (COBRA)


Economic Impact


Community Infrastructure

Community Infrastructure Reports


Environmental Impact

Cumulative Summaries

Installation Profiles

2005 Minutes

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Infrastructure Executive Council


Infrastructure Steering Group


Military Departments

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Department of the Air Force


Joint Cross-Service Groups

Education & Training

Headquarters & Support Activities

Industrial

Intelligence

Medical

Supply & Storage

Technical

Scenario Data Calls

The information below provides the scenario data calls, COBRA data files, and all other supporting information used in formulating DoD's BRAC recommendations. Additional justification data is provided in DoD's recommendation books which are posted on the BRAC Commission's website at www.brac.gov

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Optimization Model

In accordance with BRAC Policy Memorandum One, the Military Departments and the Joint Cross-Service Groups (JCSG) had the option to use an analytical tool known as the optimization model to array potential basing configurations. The analytical handbook below describes the optimization model and provides examples. Use of the model by the Military Departments and the JCSGs is documented in their information provided on this website. For technical questions, about the optimization model please call or email Dr. Ron Nickel at 703-602-6523 and ron.nickel@navy.mil.


Military Departments

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

  • Redacted Activity Data Calls-Final Certified Answers (Capacity) Download 1 | Download 2 | Download 3 | Download 4
  • Redacted Activity Data Calls-Final Certified Answers (Not Capacity) Download
  • Redacted Scenario Data Calls-Final Certified Answers Download
  • Final Certified Answers Cleared for Release to Public Download
  • Capacity Data Call CGE Calculation Guidance Download

Department of the Air Force

(The Air Force did not do scenario data calls, however it did generate scenarios and recommendations.)


Joint Cross-Service Groups

Education & Training

Headquarters and Support Activities

Industrial

Intelligence

Medical

Supply & Storage

Technical

BRAC Red Team

In the latter stages of the BRAC analysis, the Department engaged a small group of executive-level former government officials. Called the "Red Team," this group was asked to provide an independent assessment of candidate recommendations.

The Red Team met with each Military Department and JCSG. It reviewed candidate recommendations, report drafts, and supporting materials. The team's insights provided valuable feedback and suggestions for improving the quality of the candidate recommendation packages relative to the standard by which the Commission may alter the Secretary's recommendations.

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Additional Documentation

DoD guidance to the services and the Joint Cross-Service Groups on how to conduct the BRAC 2005 process.

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Military Departments

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Department of the Air Force

Joint Cross-Service Groups

Headquarters and Support Activities

Industrial

Education and Training

Scenario Tracking Tool

Document Notes

Many documents contained in the files contain headers and footers that describe the documents as "Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA." These markings were only applicable during the development of DoD's closure and realignment recommendations. Policy memorandum 1 in DoD's Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2, indicates that these markings are no longer applicable upon the Secretary of Defense releasing his recommendations. Please consider these markings as void.

Scenario Tracking Tool

The Scenario Tracking Tool was used during the Infrastructure Steering Group's (ISG) de-confliction process. For this purpose, a scenario was defined as "A proposal that has been declared for formal analysis by a Military Department/JCSG deliberative body. The content of a scenario is the same as the content of a proposal. The only difference is that it has been declared for analysis by a deliberative body. Once declared, a scenario is registered at the ISG by inputting it into the ISG BRAC Scenario Tracking Tool". The ISG BRAC Scenario Tracking Tool is provided below. It shows all scenarios and those that eventually became candidate recommendations.

A candidate recommendation was defined as "A scenario that a JCSG or Military Department has formally analyzed against all eight selection criteria and which it recommends to the ISG and IEC respectively for SecDef approval. A JCSG candidate recommendation must be approved by the ISG, IEC, and SecDef before it becomes a recommendation. A Military Department candidate recommendation must be approved by the IEC and SecDef before it becomes a recommendation".

A recommendation was defined as "A candidate recommendation approved by the SecDef".

Prior Brac Rounds

Prior Brac Rounds

BRAC 1995

BRAC 1993

BRAC 1991

BRAC 1988

Reuse Former Bases

Other Documents

Joint Cross-Service Group Reports


Supply & Storage

Appendix A - Final Capacity Analysis Report

  • Section 1: Introduction
  • Section 2: Functional Organization of the Capacity Analysis
  • Section 3: Identification of Activity Inventory
  • Section 4: Provide the Capacities for Assigned Functions
  • Section 5: Identify the Excess Throughput Capacity

Appendix B - Final Military Value Analysis Report

  • Section 1: Introduction
  • Section 2: Approach to Military Value Analysis and Scoring Plan
  • Section 3: Data Questions
  • Section 4: Issues Impacting Analysis

Additional Links

Stay Connected