DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Work Statement Runway

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT RUNWAY CONTINUOUS FRICTION MEASURING INSPECTION JOINT BASE CHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared by: 628 CES Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina April 2021 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this requirement is to provide the 628th Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) contractor services for inspecting aircraft runways using Continuous Friction Measuring Equipment (CFME), as listed in FAA AC 150/520-12-6 change 8, on Joint Base Charleston (JB-CHS), SC. 1.1. Background As a joint civil-military airport, Joint Base Charleston shares its two runways with Charleston International Airport for commercial airline aircraft operations on the south side of the airfield and general aviation aircraft operations on the east side. There are two concrete runways: the main runway (15/33) measuring 9,001 x 150 ft. and runway (3/21) measuring 7,000 x 150 ft. Additionally, the geographically separated North Auxiliary Field (NAF), located approximately 92 miles North-West of JB-CHS is included in the scope of this PWS. North Auxiliary Airfield contains two asphalt paved runways: the main runway (6/24) measuring 12,000 x 150 ft. and runway (5/23) measuring 3,000 x 90 ft. 1.2. Scope of Work All work shall be performed in accordance with (IAW) this Performance Work Statement and shall conform to the terms, standards, and conditions outlined in the Tri-Service Pavements Working Group Manual (TSPWG M): Determining the Need for Runway Rubber Removal, June 6, 2019 (or most recent changes). Specific items include, but are not limited to: • Test Scheduling • Calibration Records • Scheduled Testing Event Coordination • Response Time • Inspection and Friction Testing • Retesting • Final Report 2. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 2.1. Test Scheduling The Contractor shall submit an annual schedule for testing within 30 days of the contract start date. The schedule shall reflect a minimum of four quarterly testing dates with alternate dates to be used if needed. If testing is indicated in both locations (JBC-AB and NAF) all tests shall be scheduled to be completed on the same date. If two separate dates are needed, they must be within a two week period. 2.2. Calibration Records A current CFME calibration certificate must be sent or presented to the COR prior to each test and dated within thirty days of the testing date. Calibration must be within tolerances set by the manufacturer for the specific piece of equipment used. No tests will be completed without current calibration records being presented to the COR. If the CFME used has changed or will change, the contractor must inform the COR at least 7 days prior to any testing event and deliver manufacturer information to the COR. 2.3. Scheduled Testing Event Coordination The contractor shall contact the COR by e-mail or phone three weeks prior to any scheduled testing event in order to coordinate an agreed upon work schedule between the Contractor and the COR. Prior coordination is essential since the number of test required may be adjusted based on landing frequency. The COR will inform the Contractor prior to each scheduled testing the number of runways that require testing. 2.4. Response Time If contacted by the COR via e-mail/phone the contractor shall respond within 72 hours. A minimum of 72 hours’ notice is required to cancel or reschedule a testing event by both the Government and the Contractor at no additional cost. 2.5. Inspection and Friction Testing A test will include use of the CFME at both 40 mph and 60 mph in each direction on each numbered runway. 40 mph testing will be conducted 10 feet (3 m) to the right of the runway centerline. 60 mph tests will be conducted 20 feet (6 m) to the right of the runway center line. A testing event is defined as completion when all necessary tests are performed within 14 days, written reports are submitted within 7 days, and test results are received and accepted by the COR. The Contractor will be accompanied by the COR or government representative during all testing events. 2.6. Retesting A specified runway or all runways shall be retested if test results cannot be explained or are not consistent with a visual inspection. Any significant anomalies noted at testing shall be visually inspected and retested at that time if necessary. Retesting shall occur if any CFME equipment deficiencies are experienced at the time of testing. Retesting shall be performed immediately or within 14 business days of the original scheduled date. 2.7. Final Reports 2.7.1. Prior to the contract start date, the Contractor shall provide a sample format of a test report for acceptance by the government. The accepted format will be the standard format used throughout the life of the contract. Any changes to the format shall be reviewed and accepted by the government prior to implementation. 2.7.2. The reports shall include recommendations whether rubber removal is necessary, interpretation of results; to include Mu values, any anomalies noted accompanied by their cause for each numbered runway tested, along with test data results in bar and graph format. The report shall include a copy of the certificate of calibration (section 2.1). Runways not tested shall be indicated in the report as “Not Tested” and the reason specified. 2.7.3. The contractor shall submit a final report of each tests finding’s by e-mail within seven (7) calendar days after the completion of work. 2.7.4. Review and acceptance/rejection will be accomplished within 5 business days. Unapproved reports shall be re-submitted for approval within two (2) business days of return to the contractor from the COR. 2.7.5. Upon notification of accepted reports, the Contractor may then invoice. No invoices will be accepted prior to notification of accepted reports. 2.8. Mobilization Pricing The contractor shall provide separate mobilization pricing that is incidental to the performance of the runway friction testing services. Mobilization pricing shall include transportation, lodging, meals, and incidental expenses associated with travel to and from the places of performance identified under section 5.2. of the PWS. Only one (1) mobilization charge will be authorized per testing event. 3. SERVICE SUMMARY The service summary includes Performance Objectives that describe the desired end result or outcome the Contractor shall achieve. The performance thresholds state the minimum acceptable level of performance in terms of quality, timeliness, and quantity in realistic achievable standards. These thresholds are critical to mission success. The PWS paragraphs reference the details of the performance objective in the PWS. PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE STANDARD THRESHOLD Scheduled Testing Event Coordination Coordinate the work Notify COR of upcoming schedule that is agreed upon 3 weeks prior to scheduled scheduled testing between the Contractor and test date the COR Section 2.3 Response Time Respond to COR calls/e- mails within the specified Provide notice of cancel of Within 72 hours time rescheduled test Section 2.4 Inspection and Friction All runways tested All tests are completed Testing completed with no within 14 days of scheduled Provide CFME runway discrepancies within testing day friction testing at 40 mph scheduled due date(s). and 60 mph Section 2.5 Safety and Security Complete Flightline Driver’s No more than 1 minor Stay in compliance with all training; Unescorted in violation per month Safety and Security controlled area’s; Report on No more than 0 major regulations suspicious behavior violations per year (in (OPSEC) accordance with AFI 13- Section 6 213) Required Deliverables Turned-in within specified All deliverables will be Provide complete, accurate, time listed under section 7 of accurate and submitted on- and timely Deliverables the PWS time 91% of the time. Section 7 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY AND SERVICES The government shall provide basic utilities to include electricity and water as well as a radio for use contacting the control tower during runway operations. There is no other government furnished property or services in this contract; materials, equipment, vehicles, labor, and supplies necessary for the successful performance of this contract shall be provided by the contractor. 4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS This section describes the general requirements for this effort. The following sub-sections provide details of various considerations on this effort. 4.1. Place of Performance Work shall be performed at the following locations; Joint Base Charleston – Air Base Charleston, SC 29404 North Auxiliary Airfield North, SC 29112 North Auxiliary Airfield is located 92 miles northwest of Joint Base Charleston - Air Base. 4.2. Hours of Operation. The contractor shall establish a work schedule through the COR. This may include day/nighttime testing during flight hours. Work schedules may be established during days/times of normal runway closure. 4.3. Non-Personal Services The Government will neither supervise Contractor employees nor control the method by which the Contractor performs the required tasks. Under no circumstances shall the Government assign tasks to, or prepare work schedules for, individual Contractor employees. The Contractor shall be responsible in managing its employees to guard against any actions that it perceives as personal services. If the Contractor perceives that an action is a personal service, they shall notify the Contracting Officers (CO) immediately. The work performed shall not include any policy/decision making or management of any nature, i.e., inherently Governmental functions. All decisions relative to programs supported by the Contractor shall be the sole responsibility of the Government. 4.4. Contract Management The Contractor’s management shall maintain continuity between the support operations at the 628 Contracting Squadron, 628 Civil Engineer Squadron and the Contractor's corporate offices by providing a contact list of all key members (management and employees) that will be responsible in the performance of this contract.
Recommended publications
  • Department of Defense Office of the Secretary

    Department of Defense Office of the Secretary

    Monday, May 16, 2005 Part LXII Department of Defense Office of the Secretary Base Closures and Realignments (BRAC); Notice VerDate jul<14>2003 10:07 May 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16MYN2.SGM 16MYN2 28030 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 93 / Monday, May 16, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Headquarters U.S. Army Forces Budget/Funding, Contracting, Command (FORSCOM), and the Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Office of the Secretary Headquarters U.S. Army Reserve Customer Services, Item Management, Command (USARC) to Pope Air Force Stock Control, Weapon System Base Closures and Realignments Base, NC. Relocate the Headquarters 3rd Secondary Item Support, Requirements (BRAC) U.S. Army to Shaw Air Force Base, SC. Determination, Integrated Materiel AGENCY: Department of Defense. Relocate the Installation Management Management Technical Support ACTION: Notice of Recommended Base Agency Southeastern Region Inventory Control Point functions for Closures and Realignments. Headquarters and the U.S. Army Consumable Items to Defense Supply Network Enterprise Technology Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish SUMMARY: The Secretary of Defense is Command (NETCOM) Southeastern them as Defense Logistics Agency authorized to recommend military Region Headquarters to Fort Eustis, VA. Inventory Control Point functions; installations inside the United States for Relocate the Army Contracting Agency relocate the procurement management closure and realignment in accordance Southern Region Headquarters to Fort and related support functions for Depot with Section 2914(a) of the Defense Base Sam Houston. Level Reparables to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and designate them as Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as Operational Army (IGPBS) amended (Pub.
  • U.S. Army North in the Hurricane Maria Response

    U.S. Army North in the Hurricane Maria Response

    U.S. Army North in the Hurricane Maria Response ERIC V. LARSON, BRYAN BOLING, DEREK EATON, SUZANNE GENC, DAVID KRAVITZ, KRISTIN J. LEUSCHNER, ANDREW LEWIS, JASON LIGGETT, LINDSEY POLLEY Prepared for the United States Army Approved for public release; distribution unlimited ARROYO CENTER For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2967 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project entitled “Lessons from USARNORTH’s Response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico,” sponsored by U.S.
  • Crowded Skies

    Crowded Skies

    Crowded Skies US Air Force Air National Guard Flying Activities In Central South Carolina Mid-Air Collision Avoidance Program Published by: 169th Fighter Wing, McEntire Joint National Guard Base, SC 20th Fighter Wing, Shaw Air Force Base, SC DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 169th & 20th Fighter Wing McEntire JNGB / Shaw AFB 5 January 2021 To: All Flyers Who Share the South Carolina Skies More and more of us have discovered the joy of flying, and our shared airspace is subsequently becoming increasingly crowded with military, general aviation, and commercial aircraft. This ever-increasing mix of high and low-performance aircraft raises the potential for a mid- air collision. One way to mitigate the danger posed by the crowded skies is for the military to provide South Carolina’s civilian aviators, awareness about the types of flying the military does to train for our national defense missions. This booklet is developed jointly by Shaw Air Force Base and McEntire Joint National Guard Base personnel. This booklet will give you a basic understanding of military operations and Air Traffic Control services available in our area. Our objective with this booklet is to promote a mutual understanding with our neighbors in the South Carolina skies. If you have questions about our operations, please do not hesitate to call the phone numbers listed on the back cover. The people in these offices will be glad to discuss your concerns and will do their best to provide a satisfactory answer to your questions. We in the business of military aviation are happy to work with you and do our part to keep the South Carolina skies mishap-free for everyone! Stephen Kaminski, Lt Col, SCANG Chief of Sagety Nathaniel Halley, Lt Col, USAF Chief of Safety SECTION 1: ---- SHAW AIR FORCE BASE LOCAL AREA Shaw Air Force Base (SSC) is located near the city of Sumter in central South Carolina, approximately 35 miles east of Columbia.
  • WRP Military Asset List (MAL)

    WRP Military Asset List (MAL)

    WRP Military Asset List (MAL) The Western Regional Partnership (WRP) has compiled the Military Asset List (MAL), a set of summaries describing the history, missions, and importance of installations in the WRP region. These fact sheets include installations from all of the Services and the National Guard. The summaries provide overviews of the military installations and ranges throughout the WRP's region. Their purpose is to better inform WRP Partners on the importance of these installations and ranges and Installations, such as Naval Base their missions by providing brief, accurate, uniform surveys of our assets Point Loma, often encompass vital and their missions from a single source. natural habitats. (U.S. Navy photo) These summaries use only publicly available information and are written WRP VISION STATEMENT for the policy maker new to military issues and the military savvy person WRP will be a significant resource to needing specific military information. It is our hope that WRP Partners proactively address common goals, identify emerging issues and develop use these summaries as a tool for future land use and environmental solutions that support WRP Partners policy and planning efforts throughout WRP's region, ultimately using and protect natural resources, while them to help prevent or mitigate encroachment. promoting sustainability, homeland security and military readiness. WRP MISSION STATEMENT WRP provides a proactive and collaborative framework for senior- policy level Federal, State and Tribal leadership to identify common goals and emerging issues in the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah and to develop solutions that support WRP Partners and protect natural resources, while promoting sustainability, homeland security and military readiness.
  • American Airpower Comes of Age General Henry H

    American Airpower Comes of Age General Henry H

    American Airpower Comes of Age General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold’s World War II Diaries Edited by MAJOR GENERAL JOHN W. HUSTON USAF Retired Volume 2 Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama January 2002 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Arnold, Henry Harley, 1886-1950. American airpower comes of age : General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold’s World War II diaries; vol 2 / edited by John W. Huston. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-58566-094-9 1-58566-093-0 1. Arnold, Henry Harley, 1886-1950––Diaries. 2. World War, 1939-1945––Per- sonal narratives, American. 3. United States. Army Air Forces––Biography. 4. Generals––United States––Diaries. 5. United States. Army Air Forces––History. 6. World War, 1939-1945––Aerial operations, American. 7. Air power––United States––History––20th century. I. Huston, John W. II. Title. D811.A7318 A3 2001 940.54'4973'092––dc21 2001041259 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the editor and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Air University Press 131 West Shumacher Avenue Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6615 ii This volume is dedicated to my wife Dorothy Bampton Huston and my children Ann Huston Faris and John B. Huston. All of them lovingly tolerated my preoccupation and ill humor while this was being completed. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii DEDICATION . iii FOREWORD .
  • Misconceptions About the Tuskegee Airmen

    Misconceptions About the Tuskegee Airmen

    MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN Dr. Daniel L. Haulman Air Force Historical Research Agency 22 October 2015 By May 1947, Colonel Noel F. Parrish was a student at the Air Command and Staff School at Maxwell Air Force Base, after having served as commander of the basic and advanced flying school at Tuskegee Army Air Field, and commander of that station, for about five years. During that time, he had become an enemy of racial segregation within the Army Air Forces, and he wrote a thesis to explain why. A quote from that thesis is instructive: “Each establishment of a ‘Negro unit’ project was finally covered with a smoke screen of praise which clouded the issues and obscured the facts.”1 In another part of the same thesis, Parrish noted that the black units “gathered more than necessary praise,” and that “military men showed an overwhelming tendency to believe, repeat, and exaggerate all the stories.” He commented, “Such a situation [segregation] leads to an exaggeration of both the honors and the defamations.” Philosophically, he wrote, “When it is difficult to tell which praise is merited, it is certainly difficult to determine what blame is deserved.”2 Having been deeply involved in the training of Tuskegee Airmen pilots, and having kept up with their performance during World War II, Parrish was aware that there were some misconceptions regarding what they did and did not actually accomplish. He was unquestionably supporting of their success, but he opposed segregation, preferring that blacks be integrated into the Army Air Forces without so much concern about race or what one race did as opposed to another.
  • Myths About the Tuskegee Airmen

    Myths About the Tuskegee Airmen

    NINE MYTHS ABOUT THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN Dr. Daniel L. Haulman 21 October 2011 The members of the 332d Fighter Group and the 99th, 100th, 301st, and 302d Fighter Squadrons during World War II are remembered in part because they were the only African-American pilots who served in combat with the Army Air Forces during World War II. Because they trained at Tuskegee Army Air Field before and during the war, they are sometimes called the Tuskegee Airmen. In the more than sixty years since World War II, several stories have grown up about the Tuskegee Airmen, some of them true and some of them false. This paper focuses on nine myths about the Tuskegee Airmen that, in light of the historical documentation available at the Air Force Historical Research Agency, and sources at the Air University Library, are not accurate. That documentation includes monthly histories of the 99th Fighter Squadron, the 332d Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group, the 332d Fighter Group’s daily narrative mission reports, orders issued by the Twelfth and Fifteenth Air Forces, Fifteenth Air Force mission folders, and missing air crew reports. I will address each of the following nine myths separately: 1. The Myth of Inferiority 2. The Myth of “Never Lost a Bomber” 3. The Myth of the Deprived Ace 4. The Myth of Being First to Shoot Down German Jets 5. The Myth that the Tuskegee Airmen sank a German destroyer 6. The Myth of the “Great Train Robbery” 1 7. The Myth of Superiority 8. The Myth that the Tuskegee Airmen units were all black 9.
  • History of the Tuskegee Airmen

    History of the Tuskegee Airmen

    MOTON FIELD/TUSKEGEE AIRMEN SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OCTOBER 1998 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ATLANTA, GEORGIA Cover: Jim Butcher, The Legacy, Courtesy of the Tuskegee Airmen National Museum, Detroit, Michigan. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS .......................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................x Study Process .......................................................x Definition of Significance, Suitability, and Feasibility .........................x National Historic Landmarks .......................................... xi Background .......................................................xii Study Recommendations ............................................ xiii National Significance (xiii) Other Findings (xiv) Management Alternatives .............................................xv OVERVIEW: HISTORY OF THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN .........................19 Introduction .......................................................19 I. Setting the Stage: African Americans in the Military .......................22 II. African Americans in Aviation .......................................60 III. The Tuskegee Airmen Experience, 1941-1946 ..........................84 Conclusion .......................................................130 THE RESOURCE: MOTON FIELD .........................................139 Location .........................................................139 Current Land Use
  • Strategic Plan of the Military Base Task Force, 2017

    Strategic Plan of the Military Base Task Force, 2017

    South Carolina Military Base Task Force: Enhancing South Carolina’s Military Value Strategic Plan of the Military Base Task Force, 2017 ENHANCING SOUTH CAROLINA’S MILITARY VALUE Strategic Plan of the Military Base Task Force, 2017 GOVERNOR’S LETTER ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 4 IMPORTANCE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO THE MILITARY ......................................................... 5 JOINT BASE CHARLESTON .............................................................................................................. 5 COAST GUARD SECTOR CHARLESTON ....................................................................................... 6 FORT JACKSON .................................................................................................................................... 6 ARMY RESERVE .................................................................................................................................. 6 AIR FORCE RESERVE ......................................................................................................................... 6 SC NATIONAL GUARD ......................................................................................................................
  • (CUWS) Outreach Journal Issue 1302

    (CUWS) Outreach Journal Issue 1302

    Issue No. 1302 16 February 2018 // USAFCUWS Outreach Journal Issue 1302 // Feature Item “Navigating Dangerous Pathways: A Pragmatic Approach to U.S.-Russian Relations and Strategic Stability”. Written by James N. Miller Jr. and Richard Fontaine, published by the Center for a New American Security; January 30, 2018 https://www.belfercenter.org/node/103186 The ongoing integration of new technologies by U.S. and Russian militaries – particularly cyber, space, long-range strike, missile defenses, autonomous systems, and big data analytics – is creating new and growing strains on strategic stability between these two great powers. The inherent difficulty of managing these strains is exacerbated by the overall deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. A previous report offered a framework for understanding the strains on strategic stability in this context of rapid technological change and difficult U.S.-Russian relations. This framework described the linked and changing dynamics of three interrelated pathways to crisis or conflict: (1) the future course of U.S.- Russian relations; (2) potential slippery slopes from peacetime to crisis and conflict; and (3) the possibility that conflict could escalate to attacks against each other’s homeland and even nuclear war. This report builds on that framework by offering concrete recommendations for managing each of the three pathways. A key insight that arose from earlier work is that stabilizing U.S.-Russian relations requires actions along each of the three pathways, conducted in parallel. Shaping and managing the overall relationship is fundamentally important. But whatever the course of U.S.-Russian relations in the future, there will remain a possibility (one, we argue, that is growing over time) of sliding into crisis and even armed conflict.
  • Fifty-Two Misconceptions About the Tuskegee Airmen

    Fifty-Two Misconceptions About the Tuskegee Airmen

    FIFTY-TWO MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN Dr. Daniel L. Haulman Air Force Historical Research Agency 13 April 2018 The members of the 332d Fighter Group and the 99th, 100th, 301st, and 302d Fighter Squadrons during World War II are remembered in part because they were the only African-American pilots who served in combat with the United States armed forces during World War II. Because they trained at Tuskegee Army Air Field before and during the war, they are sometimes called the Tuskegee Airmen. In the more than seventy years since World War II, several stories have grown up about the Tuskegee Airmen, some of them true and some of them false. This paper focuses on fifty-two misconceptions about the Tuskegee Airmen that are not accurate, in light of primary source documents at the Air Force Historical Research Agency, and other repositories, as well as among reliable secondary sources at the Air University Library. That documentation includes monthly histories of the 99th Fighter Squadron, the 332d Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group, the 332d Fighter Group’s daily narrative mission reports, orders issued by the Twelfth and Fifteenth Air Forces, Fifteenth Air Force mission folders, missing air crew reports, histories of Tuskegee Army Air Field, and many other primary source documents. I will address each of the following fifty-two misconceptions separately: 1. The misconception of inferiority 2. The misconception of “never lost a bomber” 3. The misconception of the deprived ace 4. The misconception of being first to shoot down German jets 1 5. The misconception that the Tuskegee Airmen sank a German destroyer 6.
  • For Non-Military Social Workers

    For Non-Military Social Workers

    MILITARY FACTS For Non-Military Social Workers Joanna Kadis, LCSW Deborah Walls, LSW VHA Social Work Service Staffing and Clinical Practice Committee Revised July 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Chapter 1 Organizational Chart – Department of Defense 6 Chapter 2 Army 7 Chapter 3 Air Force 12 Chapter 4 Navy 17 Chapter 5 Marine Corps 21 Chapter 6 Coast Guard 26 Chapter 7 Medals 30 Appendix I Helpful Websites 34 2 Appendix II Map of US Military Bases 36 Appendix lll Determining Combat Veteran Eligibility 47 Appendix IV Periods of Wartime 55 Bibliography 56 3 Introduction The Social Work Staffing and Clinical Practice Committee has developed this handbook to assist social workers in understanding the intricacies of the armed forces. The hope is that this information will be helpful in addressing the Seamless Transition goals for VHA, and to meet the educational needs of a large group of social workers who frequently have not had personal experience with the military. Today, the combined United States armed forces consists of 1.4 million active duty personnel along with several hundred thousand each in the United States Army Reserve and United States National Guard. There is currently no conscription. The United States Armed Forces is the most powerful military in the world and their force projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other singular nation or organization (e.g. the European Union). The United States Department of Defense is the controlling organization for the U.S. military and is headquartered at The Pentagon. The Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.