New Stuff#2

MEMORANDUM FOR Faculty Advisor, USASMA-NRC, 11291 SGT E. Churchill St, Fort Bliss, Texas 79918

SUBJECT: Eliminating Dining Facilities from Installations

1. PROBLEM. Dining facilities are no longer a viable method of feeding our Soldiers. It is a major financial loss to the government to try to continue operating.

2. RECOMMENDATION. Course of Action 2. This course of action will be the most vital at cutting costs and at the same time leaning toward the new Army. Paying Soldiers, full Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) would provide for the difference in costs with meals provided by the dining facilities and the local economy and the choice to choose better nutritional choices. This will be the cheaper route as it will save money and not waste food that the Soldiers do not eat. We will also support our local economy by allowing our Soldiers a variety of vendors they can choose from to buy.

3. BACKGROUND. Originally, dining facilities were a key asset for the Army. All of the Soldiers had easy access near their quarters for all of their meals. Soldiers are changing with the way they think about nutrition. This affects us financially trying to manage dining facilities that are just not cost effective. Soldiers like variety and meals on the go and that is what the new Army model will have to deliver to be successful.

4. FACTS.

a. The United States has incurred huge costs over the years because of managing numerous dining facilities.

b. Bacevich (2010) asserted that a majority of the United States citizens were in favor to reduce the amount of expenditures that the government incurs in foreign countries.

c. The cost is the biggest reason for reviewing the closure of the majority of the dining facilities.

5. ASSUMPTIONS.

a. Eliminating the dining facilities will ultimately lead to a reduction of the overall budget.

SUBJECT: Eliminating Dining Facilities from Installations

b. Eliminating the dining facilities will also enable the United States government to focus budget allotments on issues that are more pertinent to the citizens of the United States.

c. Eliminating the dining facilities will also enhance the delivery of services by both the national government and also the Soldiers themselves.

d. Eliminating the dining facilities will go a long way in reducing the cost of food for instant breakfast that most Soldiers ignore, yet the government has constantly incurred significant costs on the same over the years (Bernskoetter, 2005).

e. An elimination of the dining facilities aims to ensure that the government can redirect requisite resources and funds to perform more pertinent functions to the government’s operation.

6. POSSIBLE SOLUTION.

a. Course of Action 1. Program intervention. The pentagon through the defense department looked into ways of cutting costs by eliminating the dining facilities and reducing on the number of meals that are available for the Soldiers. The largest focus was on the elimination of hot breakfast and introduction of take away meals since a majority of the Soldiers skipped this meal and, therefore, made it difficult for the defense department to support the meal effectively, as it was a waste of financial resources.

b. Course of Action 2. Shut down the dining facilities and give the Soldiers their full Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), to provide them more nutritional options and help the community, the Soldier, and the loss incurred by the government to run these facilities.

c. Course of Action 3. Government to government support programs (Bacevich, 2010). For the process to be successful, it is imperative to involve all the governments involved including those of foreign countries, since their support will be critical in ensuring that there is a successful elimination of the dining facilities without the emergence of any unprecedented costs that may emanate out of a logistical problem in the foreign country.

7. CRITERIA.

a. Screening Criteria. The COA should provide a significant reduction in cost by eliminating dining facilities from installations.

NGAL-BGA-OPS

SUBJECT: Eliminating Dining Facilities from Installations

b. Evaluation Criteria.

(1) Evaluation Criteria 1 (Cost). The government should provide a framework for the criteria on eliminating the dining facilities in order to reduce costs.

(2) Evaluation Criteria 2 (Implementation). The government should provide a framework on how to implement the program in the shortest time possible.

(3) Evaluation Criteria 3 (Effective). The government must come up with the most effective program specifically tailored for the elimination process in order to reduce costs.

c. WEIGHING CRITERIA. Weighing of Criteria. 1 is the Least amount of Importance with 3 being the Greatest. The higher total weight is the most desirable.

8. ANALYSIS.

a. Screened Out Course of Action. None.

b. COA 1. Reducing the number of meals available to Soldiers.

(1) Advantages. By not serving a hot breakfast and to introduce take away meals it would reduce costs because most of the Soldiers skip this meal.

SUBJECT: Eliminating Dining Facilities from Installations

(2) Disadvantages. Not all Soldiers skip breakfast and you should provide a hot breakfast to those who do.

c. COA 2. Giving Soldiers full Basic Allowance for Subsistence.

(1) Advantages. Soldiers will be able to choose what they want and not waste the food provided by the dining facility. Most Soldiers do prefer a variety of food and like the opportunity to eat what they want.

(2) Disadvantages. In some situations, it may not be effective for the Soldiers depending on the area they are located in order to provide for themselves, especially if they are AIT or Basic trainees.

COA 3. Government to Government, support programs.

(1) Advantages. The government will be able to implement the elimination program in the shortest time possible but also more effectively and efficiently.

(2) Disadvantages. A lack of government support from other countries and more so those where the Soldiers are deployed may hinder the efforts of the government in solving and eliminating the huge costs associated with dining facilities while still providing for the Soldiers.

9. COMPARISON. All of the methods are critical for the successful implementation of the elimination program. The COA 1 method would allow the government to save money by eliminating one meal that most Soldiers do not eat but the overall cost of maintaining a dining facility is not effective. COA 2 is the most cost effective and allows the Soldiers a choice in what and how they want to eat. COA 3 is the best used when the Soldiers are stationed or deployed in other countries, since the government will ultimately require the support of other countries in order to successfully implement the program to eliminate the dining facilities (Bacevich, 2010).

10. CONCLUSION. Dining facilities are incurring a significant cost to the government, which has affected how budgets are allocated to issues that are more pertinent. The move taken by the government in order to eliminate the dining facilities is therefore crucial in eliminating these costs. Implement COA2, pay our Soldiers full BAS and give them more nutritional choices, while eliminating waste and reducing costs.

SUBJECT: Eliminating Dining Facilities from Installations

11. COORDINATION.

ACofS, G-1 CONCUR/NONCONCUR_________CMT_________DATE__________

DPTM CONCUR/NONCONCUR_________CMT_________DATE__________

12. APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL. Course of Action 2. This course of action will be the most vital at cutting costs and at the same time leaning toward the new Army. Paying Soldiers, full Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) would provide for the difference in costs with meals provided by the dining facilities and the local economy and the choice to choose better nutritional choices. This will be the cheaper route as it will save money and not waste food that the Soldiers do not eat. We will also support our local economy by allowing our Soldiers a variety of vendors they can choose from to buy

a. That the (state the approving authority and recommended solution).

APPROVED____________DISAPPROVED___________SEE ME______________

b. That the (approving authority to sign the implementing directive(s).

APPROVED____________DISAPPROVED___________SEE ME______________

13. POINT OF CONTACT.

References

Bacevich, A. J. (2010). Washington rules: America's path to permanent war. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

Bernskoetter, S. A. (2005). Surviving twilight. New York, NY: Booksurge.