Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall Fact Sheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall Fact Sheet

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall Fort Albert J. Myer, Arlington, VA, Archibald Henderson Hall, Arlington VA, Fort Leslie J. McNair, Washington D.C FACT SHEET as of February 2019 Background: Fort Myer is home for service members working throughout the Military District of Washington and the National Capital Region. Fort McNair is host to the Military District of Washington and National Defense University. Henderson Hall encompasses 22.3 acres of land located in Arlington, VA and dates back to World War II. It provides barracks and support for Marines assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, as well as certain schools and agencies within the DC Metropolitan Area. In 2009, the Fort Myer Military Community and the adjacent Marine Corps Facility Henderson Hall were consolidated into a single facility, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort McNair sits on 28 acres of land, formerly known as Greenleaf Point, where the Potomac and Anacostia rivers join in Washington, D.C. The military reservation was established in 1791, third only to West Point and Carlisle Barracks in length of service. Maj. Pierre C. L’Enfant included it in his plans for Washington, the Federal City, as a major site for the defense of the capital. Names and phone numbers for significant installation points of contact are as follows: Congressional Representative (VA-8th) Don Beyer (D) Congressional Representative (DC) Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) Installation Commander COL Kimberly Peeples (703) 696-3250 Director, DPW&L Bonsok Escobar (703) 696-8104 Local Program Manager (USACE) Bill Tully (703) 806-3015 Area Engineer (USACE) Wes Wright (703) 806-3014 Current Workload FY19 and Prior ($15.9M) Design (Construction Value) Construction (Ongoing) Military Construction (MILCON) $ 0M $15.9M Myer – Arlington National Cemetery Perimeter Security Fence $15.9M Unspecified Minor Military Construction $0.0M $0.0M FUTURE WORKLOAD FY20 FY21 $0M $0M For more information regarding Baltimore District support to Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, please contact Bill Tully, local program manager. Email: [email protected] U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201 http://www.nab.usace.army.mil Page 1 of 1 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

OF GERMANY Public HEALTH and MEDICAL AFFAIRS
MILITARY GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY PUBLiC HEALTH AND MEDICAL AFFAIRS monthly Report of Military Governor U.S. ZONE 20 SEPTEMBER 1945 No. 2 »SMIOOUCCO »T »*»TM fNG» TOP CO MEDICAL AND HEALTH AFFAIRS SYNOPSIS Denazification of German health personnel is continuing although many re- placements have 1)66» found to he inexperienced or too old and inactive. Improved Communications have facilitated hetter reporting from the field which shows an in- crease in communicahle diseases throughout the United Stetes Zone» Venereal dis- eases continue to he the most extensive hazard to American troops. Military Gov- ernment has initiated a program for civilian control of venereal diseases and other communicahle diseases» Constant check is heing maintained on the movement of displaced persons and refugees into Germany in Order to prevent an importation of infectious diseases which might resu.lt in epidemics» Surveys continue to show nutritional deficiency of the vivilian population. Water siqjply distrihuting Systems are heing repaired as expeditiously as possihle to improve sanitation. Efforts are heing made to enlarge hospitalization facilities to meet the needs of the winter months» A system of medical supply, making the maximum use of local civilian supplies hefore utilizing military Stocks» is now in effect, and no ser- ious shortage of civilian requirements is anticipated. SECTION I ORGANIZATION ALLIED HEALTH COMMITTEE A committee of the Internal Affairs and Communications Directorate, Allied Control Authority, met on 28 August and drew up Terms of
[Show full text]
Russia: Background and U.S
Russia: Background and U.S. Policy Updated August 21, 2017 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44775 Russia: Background and U.S. Policy Summary Over the last five years, Congress and the executive branch have closely monitored and responded to new developments in Russian policy. These developments include the following: increasingly authoritarian governance since Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidential post in 2012; Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and support of separatists in eastern Ukraine; violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; Moscow’s intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al Asad’s government; increased military activity in Europe; and cyber-related influence operations that, according to the U.S. intelligence community, have targeted the 2016 U.S. presidential election and countries in Europe. In response, the United States has imposed economic and diplomatic sanctions related to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria, malicious cyber activity, and human rights violations. The United States also has led NATO in developing a new military posture in Central and Eastern Europe designed to reassure allies and deter aggression. U.S. policymakers over the years have identified areas in which U.S. and Russian interests are or could be compatible. The United States and Russia have cooperated successfully on issues such as nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, support for military operations in Afghanistan, the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, the International Space Station, and the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. In addition, the United States and Russia have identified other areas of cooperation, such as countering terrorism, illicit narcotics, and piracy.
[Show full text]
Operational-Strategic Commands
Yeltsin's Latest Military Reform Initiative: OperationalOperational---StrategicStrategic Commands Eva Busza November 1998 PONARS Policy Memo 44 College of William and Mary This fall the Yeltsin administration announced a new military reform initiative: the transformation of existing military districts into operational strategic commands. While the proposed system has been adopted in order to strengthen the ability of the armed forces to maintain order on the territory and the borders of the Russian federation, the new system is likely to hinder state consolidation and undermine democratic governance. Background Russia inherited a system of military-administrative units from the Soviet Union. Until recently the country was divided into eight military districts and one special region. Each district was made up of units of the ground troops, special troops, district rear services, military educational institutions and local military command and control bodies. Air Force and Air Defense Troops units deployed in the region were often also subordinated to the district administration. The district administration was charged with carrying out operational, military-administrative, and mobilizational tasks. It was to supply logistics support to the units on its territory and to provide territorial defense. In the last five years the number of separately functioning military structures has proliferated more than 30 state military organizations are believed to exist). Some have created their own separate district organizational structure. For example, today there are seven districts of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Interior, nine Federal Border Service districts, and nine regional centers of the Russian Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergencies and the Elimination of the Effects of Natural Disasters.
[Show full text]
Enclave to Exclave: Kaliningrad Between Russia and the European Union
Enclave To Exclave: Kaliningrad Between Russia And The European Union Brian Vitunic Columbia University The Kaliningrad region compels questions that neither Russia nor the European Union are ready to answer. Russian territory located outside of Russia’s contiguous borders, Kaliningrad’s unique geographic status stretches both the physical dimensions and conceptual cohesion of the European Union and Russia. When the surrounding countries Lithuania and Poland become EU members, probably in 2004, the 15,100-sq-km region will become a Russian exclave in “Schengenland.” The most immediate problem for the territory will be the impact of the border controls, visa regime, and customs agreements that new EU members must enact under the Schengen Agreement.1 Currently free of visa requirements, Kaliningraders would need Schengen visas for overland transit across Lithuania and Poland in the expanded EU. In addition to isolating with a paper wall the 1.3 million Kaliningrad residents from their own country of citizenship, restrictions on the movements of goods and people would damage Kaliningrad’s weak economy, which is propped by small-scale cross-border smuggling and legal trade,2 and potentially substitute a cordon sanitaire for active solutions to the region’s problems. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ivan Ivanov singled out the four main problems of the Kaliningrad territory at a 7 March 2002 meeting with European Commission officials and Polish and Lithuanian government leaders: visas, transit, energy, and fish.3 He noted that agreements with neighboring countries over fishery quotas address the fish issue; energy supply will be guaranteed by construction of a power-generating station in Kaliningrad as part of a Russian federal program in 2005.
[Show full text]
Russian Army in 2014 and Western Military District
Russian Army in 2014 and Western Military District Andrey Frolov, Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) , 2014 0 Russian army, general data .Russia is the second world military power taking into account its strategic arsenal and the third as a conventional military power. .Russia holds the third place in the world regarding its defense spending. .The “paper” number of enlisted men is 1000000, but real figure is 800000. .Strategic deterrent forces: ~489 strategic launchers and ~1700 nuclear warheads: 311 missiles, 11 SSBNs (180 SLBMs), 66 strategic bombers. .Active units account 2800 tanks, 7500 AIFV, 5500 pieces of artillery, 200 tactical missiles. .Air Force consists of ~100 long-range bombers, 700 fighters, 400 attack aircraft, 400 attack helicopters, 600 utility helicopters (*all figures are estimates). Main guidelines of security &defense policy of Vladimir Putin’s third presidency .Strengthening of international security. .Denial of confrontation. .Resistance to proliferation of the nuclear weapons, local conflicts & crisis, terrorism, drug trafficking. .Reliable defense of Russia in order to maintain it sovereign & independent policy, develop its economy and democratic institutes. .Confirmation of the amount of State Armament Program – 22 trln rubles up to 2020. 2 The main military challenges & threats according to Vladimir Putin .The diminishing of the importance of nuclear weapons due to the low probability of the conflict among nuclear powers. .The development of the new gen weapons based on new physical principles. .Inadequate structure of the Armed Forces Russia inherited from former USSR .The need of dynamic development of the Army structures, nuclear and space industry, military-industrial complex, military education, military science and applied research 3 Russian Army by 2014 .Starting in 2008 the “New Look Army” reform succeeded by 2011 under minister of defense Anotoly Serdyukov.
[Show full text]
DEPARTMENT of the ARMY the Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 Phone (703) 695–2442
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 phone (703) 695–2442 SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 101 Army Pentagon, Room 3E700, Washington, DC 20310–0101 phone (703) 695–1717, fax (703) 697–8036 Secretary of the Army.—Dr. Mark T. Esper. Executive Officer.—COL Joel Bryant ‘‘JB’’ Vowell. UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 102 Army Pentagon, Room 3E700, Washington, DC 20310–0102 phone (703) 695–4311, fax (703) 697–8036 Under Secretary of the Army.—Ryan D. McCarthy. Executive Officer.—COL Patrick R. Michaelis. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY (CSA) 200 Army Pentagon, Room 3E672, Washington, DC 20310–0200 phone (703) 697–0900, fax (703) 614–5268 Chief of Staff of the Army.—GEN Mark A. Milley. Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.—GEN James C. McConville (703) 695–4371. Executive Officers: COL Milford H. Beagle, Jr., 695–4371; COL Joseph A. Ryan. Director of the CSA Staff Group.—COL Peter N. Benchoff, Room 3D654 (703) 693– 8371. Director of the Army Staff.—LTG Gary H. Cheek, Room 3E663, 693–7707. Sergeant Major of the Army.—SMA Daniel A. Dailey, Room 3E677, 695–2150. Directors: Army Protocol.—Michele K. Fry, Room 3A532, 692–6701. Executive Communications and Control.—Thea Harvell III, Room 3D664, 695–7552. Joint and Defense Affairs.—COL Anthony W. Rush, Room 3D644 (703) 614–8217. Direct Reporting Units Commanding General, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command.—MG John W. Charlton (443) 861–9954 / 861–9989. Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy.—LTG Robert L. Caslen, Jr. (845) 938–2610. Commanding General, U.S. Army Military District of Washington.—MG Michael L.
[Show full text]
Dictionary of United States Army Terms (Short Title: AD)
Army Regulation 310–25 Military Publications Dictionary of United States Army Terms (Short Title: AD) Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 October 1983 UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY of CHANGE AR 310–25 Dictionary of United States Army Terms (Short Title: AD) This change-- o Adds new terms and definitions. o Updates terms appearing in the former edition. o Deletes terms that are obsolete or those that appear in the DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, JCS Pub 1. This regulation supplements JCS Pub 1, so terms that appear in that publication are available for Army-wide use. Headquarters *Army Regulation 310–25 Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 October 1983 Effective 15 October 1986 Military Publications Dictionary of United States Army Terms (Short Title: AD) in JCS Pub 1. This revision updates the au- will destroy interim changes on their expira- thority on international standardization of ter- tion dates unless sooner superseded or re- m i n o l o g y a n d i n t r o d u c e s n e w a n d r e v i s e d scinded. terms in paragraph 10. S u g g e s t e d I m p r o v e m e n t s . T h e p r o p o - Applicability. This regulation applies to the nent agency of this regulation is the Assistant Active Army, the Army National Guard, and Chief of Staff for Information Management. the U.S. Army Reserve. It applies to all pro- Users are invited to send comments and sug- ponent agencies and users of Army publica- g e s t e d i m p r o v e m e n t s o n D A F o r m 2 0 2 8 tions.
[Show full text]
Army Family Housing Renovation Program at Forts Mcnair and Myer
Army Family Housing Renovation Program at Fort McNair and Fort Myer: Phase I Fort McNair in Washington, DC and Fort Myer in Arlington County, VA Approval of Preliminary Site and Building Plans Department of the Army 1 NationalMay 7, 2020 Capital | File: Planning 8166 Commission File: 8166 Project Summary Commission Meeting Date: May 7, 2020 NCPC Review Authority: 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) Applicant Request: Approval of Preliminary Site Development Plans Session: Consent NCPC Review Officer: Carlton Hart NCPC File Number: 8166 Project Summary: The U.S. Army Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall (JBM-HH) has submitted preliminary plans relating to the JBM-HH Army Family Housing (AFH) Renovation Program. Included in this program is housing located in both Fort Myer in Arlington County, VA and Fort McNair in Washington, DC. Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall has jurisdiction over both installations. For the purposes of the Program, the buildings are organized stylistically into groups. This proposal includes an undertaking for Quarters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Group 1) and Quarters 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (Group 5) at Fort McNair, and Quarters 426, 427, 428, and 431 (Group 18) at Fort Myer, all of which are proposed to undergo interior renovation and exterior repair to bring these houses back into good repair. JBM-HH contains 53 family housing units built between 1896 and 1935, located at two housing areas: Fort Myer and Fort McNair. JBM-HH intends to update the facilities to a standard that meets occupant and mission needs, accessibility standards, and life safety requirements, in a manner that is consistent with the historic character of the areas.
[Show full text]
General Grant's Headquarters at City Point
National Park Service General Grant’s U.S. Department of the Interior Petersburg National Battlefield 1001 Pecan Avenue Headquarters at City Point Hopewell, VA 23860 In the spring of 1864, after leading the Army of the Potomac through the Overland Campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant transferred the army to the south side of the James River in an effort to seize the Confederate supply hub Petersburg. When four days of bloody frontal assaults failed to capture the city, he ordered the army to begin siege operations against it. For the next nine and one-half months Grant would have his headquarters at City Point, Virginia eight miles behind the siege lines east of Petersburg now referred to as the Eastern Front. A small port town at the confluence of the James and Appomattox Rivers, City Point had been connected to Petersburg by railroad prior to the siege. Its strategic position next to a torn up railroad bed and the rivers offered Grant easy access to points along the front, as well as good transportation and communications with Fort Monroe, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., in the rear. When he arrived at City Point on June 15, 1864, Grant established his headquarters in a tent on the east lawn of Dr. Richard Eppes’ home, Appomattox. In turn, the roots of the Civil War, the war’s cost and scale, and the war’s impact on this nation were woven into this very landscape. Appomattox Built by the Eppes family, this 2,300 acre house and forced his wife and children to first seek shelter in Plantation plantation was over one hundred years old on the eve of Petersburg.
[Show full text]
Jurnal Pertahanan E-ISSN: 2549-9459 Media Informasi Tentang Kajian Dan Strategi Pertahanan Yang Mengedepankan Identity, Nasionalism & Integrity Vol
I Wayan, et.al / The Impact of Radicalism toward National Defense / 1-15 P-ISSN : 2087-9415 Jurnal Pertahanan E-ISSN: 2549-9459 Media Informasi tentang Kajian dan Strategi Pertahanan yang Mengedepankan Identity, Nasionalism & Integrity Vol. 3 | No. 1 The Impact of Radicalism toward National Defense I Wayan Midhio * Ahwan Ismadi ** Ate Ajat Waluyo *** *Universitas Pertahanan Indonesia **Universitas Pertahanan Indonesia ***Universitas Pertahanan Indonesia Article Info Abstract Keyword: This study aims to analyze radicalism impact Radicalism toward national defense. The method used is De-Radicalization descriptive qualitative, data collection techniques such as observation, interviews, documentation, National Defense and literature. Processing of research data according to Miles and Huberman. The results showed that implementation of the Territorial Development by District Military Command 0621 Bogor Regency through territorial management of Planning and Control Systems Development of Territories & Management of Territorial Development were able to map the potential and vulnerability of the area ie geography areas, demographic and social conditions so that development of radicalism could be prevented. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Corresponding Author: dampak radikalisme terhadap pertahanan negara. [email protected] Metode yang digunakan adalah deskriptif kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data berupa observasi, wawancara, dokumentasi, observasi, dan studi pustaka. Pengolahan data hasil penelitian mengikuti proses Miles dan Huberman. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelaksanaan Pembinaan Teritorial Komando Distrik Militer 0621 Kabupaten Bogor melalui manajemen teritorial dalam bentuk Sistem Perencanaan dan Pengendalian Pembinaan Teritorial dan Jurnal Pertahanan Ketatalaksanaan Pembinaan Teritorial mampu Volume 3 Nomor 1 memetakan potensi-potensi dan kerawanan January – April 2017 ISSN 2087-9415 wilayah yaitu bidang geografi, demografi dan hh.
[Show full text]
The Increasing Scope and Complexity of Russian Military Exercises
The Increasing Scope and Complexity of Russian Military Exercises Author- Brian K. Johnston Disclaimer: "Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency." “In Bucharest this week, I will continue to make America’s position clear. We support MAP [Membership Action Plan] for Ukraine and Georgia. Helping Ukraine move towards NATO membership is in the interest of every member in the alliance and will help advance security and freedom in this region and around the world.” This remark was made by President George W. Bush in Kiev prior to his final NATO summit later that week in March 2008.i Less than a decade later, both Ukraine and Georgia were invaded by Russia, indefinitely (possibly permanently) extinguishing any possibility that either country would be granted NATO membership. Russia’s reemergence on the world stage in the last two decades has been a slow but steady progress towards furthering their goals of creating a multipolar world dictated by multiple actors dominating their periphery while vying for global ambitions. Since 2008, Russia has reorganized their military to create more flexible and competent force capable of sustaining multiple military operations simultaneously. Russia has used both Syria and Ukraine as testbeds for 21st century warfare and incorporated these tactics into their annual large-scale military exercises.ii In recent years, Russia has also emphasized incorporating former soviet states and others into its military exercises to legitimize its role more fully in its periphery and potentially serve as a counterweight to the United Nations and NATO to solve global crises.
[Show full text]
A History of the Neisse Garrison
Scientific Journal of the Military University of Land Forces ISSN: 2544-7122 (print), 2545-0719 (online) 2019, Volume 51, Number 3(193), Pages 529-546 DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0013.5007 Original article A history of the Neisse Garrison Tomasz Szulc Faculty of Security Studies, General Tadeusz Kosciuszko Military University of Land Forces, Wroclaw, Poland, e-mail: [email protected] INFORMATIONS ABSTRACT Article history: The Neisse Garrison always held a strategic position starting with its Submited: 26 March 2018 establishment in the Early Middle Ages until the end of the 20th centu- Accepted: 12 May 2019 ry. Its convenient location in the Sudety Foothills meant that it served Published: 16 September 2019 defence functions protecting this area from both attacks from the north and the south. Over the centuries relations between the city and the military underwent numerous transformations depending on who controlled it. In the times of the Bishop’s Duchy and the rule of Habs- burg only small troops stationed in the garrison, and the security of the whole area was provided by bulwarks. In 1741, after Neisse was seized by Frederick II, the town acquired enormous significance. The symbio- sis between Neisse and the military, which lasted for the subsequent 260 years, had a considerable influence on the development and im- portance of the town. As a result of changes which took place in the Polish Army on the turn of the 20th and 21st century, the Neisse Garri- son was closed down. KEYWORDS * Corresponding author Polish Army, military garrisons, Neisse Garrison © 2019 by Author(s).
[Show full text]