INSCOM COMMENTS TO PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE GRILL FLAME PROGRAM

CIA-STARGATE

PDF Scan: PDF

Open AI Summary

Text

Body:  -   Approved For Release 2000/08/0
 IAFM-OPS-HU-SA                                                  14 August 1980
 SUBJECT:  INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding re.
 GRILL FLAME Program.
 1.  (U)  Reference:  DIA Letter, S-1922/DT-1, 7 August 1980, subject:  GRILL
 FLAME Program.
 2.  (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. basic letter.
 a.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2:  It is INSCOM's understanding at this time there
 is little liklihood SRI will be prepared to administer "new" training technique
 during FY 81.  SRI has done little formal experimentation in "tracking" and is
 ill equipped to examine physiological functioning.  SRI, at the present time, can-
 not comply with "full year's effort" regarding some aspects of Statement of Work.
 b.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2:  INSCOM funds are limited and are directed
 toward sustaining an intelligence operational evaluation of psychoenergetics.
 INSCOM cannot MIPR funds to DIA without knowing individual costs of those ele-
 ments of the program that are in support of INSCOM needs, and without knowing
 which elements SRI can realistically fulfill during FY 81.
 c.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 3:  Nonconcur that entire first year effort
 should be at SRI.  In areas of tracking and physiological monitoring, SRI offers
 no meaningful advantage, particularly during critical first year.  INSCOM funds
 are intended to be employed where they can best benefit INSCOM's evaluation
 effort, regardless of source of external support being sought.
 d.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 5:  A meeting of Action Officers was scheduled
 For 11 Aug 80.  IGFP was never notified of such intent.
 3.  (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. Mission and Objectives Statement.
 a.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph la: Functions related to development of a US ORV
 capability have been placed behind the overall objective of threat assessment.
 Elsewhere in proposal, threat is antecedent to development of a US capability.
 Recommend Para la become para lh, and objectives pertaining to development
 of a US capability be moved forward in priority.
 b.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph le: Recommendations re. GRILL FLAME Program
 should be last objective in series.  Recommend para le become para li.
 c.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraphs lh and lj:  Recommend combining these objectives
 in para ig, as they are similar and must occur prior to final recommendation
 and threat assessment functions.
 d.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph ab: Milestones for year #2 mention establishment
 of a cadre of fully trained ORVs, but does not address prospect of other non-
 SRI sponsored training.  Exploration of alternative possibilities must be a
 year #1 Function, and a continuous process throughout follow on years.  It is
 presumptuous to assume SRI has all there is to offer and that SRI training is
 the only prerequisite to achieving "full qualification."  Such pursuit of
 qualification must be a continuous and dynamic process, not limited to sole source
 procurement of training and development services at SRI.  INSCOM recommends
 y"ID: ost6  Z
 Incl  1                                   . LLm %..   !   o     .                            49 Zoooo
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020007-1
 Approved For Release 2000/0&U ?CMA=   P="( 8_EQ01200020007-1
 9
 IAFM-OPS-HU-SA                                                      14 August 1980
 SUBJECT:  INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding
 re. GRILL FLAME (U)
 term "fully trained" be deleted.  The term "cadre" is vague.  Recommend a mini-
 mum level of personnel be cited to lend substance to this milestone.
 e.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2c:  Milestones for year #3 include "apply all ORV
 ~4~kfi"P'V X personnel to real intelligence programs".  Who will-provide these personnel?  Who
 p Su111..ie1  to be trained only in new SRI methodologies or are they to include those
 '0   previously trained?  What is  proposed saturation rate of t
 ki
 as
 ng to be levied
 by DIA?  Will Military Services lose control of their assets during this and
 ~'?   th
 d
 e prece
 ing year #2 data acquisition effort?
 f.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2c:  If Military Service ORV personnel are to par-
 ticipate in "real intelligence" collection activities from year #2 onward, it
 would appear the milestone "training programs for ORV monitors..." is more ap-
 propriately a year #1 or year #2 milestone.  Otherwise, data acquired during
 year #2 and year #3 upon which final evaluations/judgements are based, will be
 data provided by "trained" ORV personnel functioning under the guidance of
 "untrained" monitor personnel.
 g.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 3:  All experimental/testing design, reports of
 progress and experiment results should be cleared by joint approval of Action
 Officers at the GRILL FLAME Committee level, not the COTR.  COTR should monitor
 day to day activity of SRI, but not have the authority to unilaterally approve/
 disapprove basic initiatives or interpret results.  This procedure would be in
 more direct compliance with responsibilities of the COTR outlined in the pro-
 posed MOU.
 h.  (S/NOFORN)  Comment Overview:  As far as INSCOM.is concerned, the object-
 ives and milestones as proposed by DIA represent a step backward.  The IGFP has
 been training personnel for two years, has been working on real.. intelligence
 operational tasks for nearly one year, and has been examining "variables" impact-
 ing on ORV collection for nearly two years.  IGFP has directed considerable
 effort toward determining guidelines for "best use" of ORV since its inception,
 and currently has a data base of over 500 ORV sessions of both training and
 operational categories.  SRI was tasked during an earlier contractual agreement
 to develop a meaningful selection criterion (ORV profile) and essentially was
 capable of providing little which was not already known and already utilized by
 the IGFP in its early stages of development (refer report entitled "Special
 Orientation Techniques", SRI, June 1980)
 4.  (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. Memorandum of Understanding.
 a.  (S/NOFORN)  Unnumbered introductory paragraph 1:  In this paragraph, deter-
 mination of hostile ORV threat is placed antecedent to the goal of determining
 whether a useful ORV capability can be developed.  This ordering of objectives
 supports rationale cited in paragraph 3a above.
 b.  (S/NOFORN)  Unnumbered introductory paragraph 2:  Recommend this para-
 graph be included in introduetooy paragraph 1, with wording as follows:
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020007-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07  ''C";`ci^r)Qr,-n4tA     9#)00020007-1
 1 -
 IAFM-OPS-HU-SA                                                           14 August 1980
 SUBJECT:   INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding
 re. GRILL FLAME (U)
 "...SRI International.  The GRILL FLAME Committee will seek
 throughout the first year, and continually during follow-on
 years, to examine capabilities developed by potential contractors
 other than SRI.  DIA and the Military Services will maintain
 "state of the art" continuity with psychoenergetics research
 within the US with a view toward diversification of external
 assistance support if, and when, required by operational needs
 of participating agencies/services."
 c.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph b:  Recommend addition of function:
 0 1, "(4)  Maintain continuity with state of the art developments A=Llk*
 in psychoenergetics research in the US and elsewhere to ident-
 (A                            ify alternative training opportunities."
 d.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph b:  Recommend addition of following function if
 comments of paragraph 3d, 3e, and 3f above apply:                             '
 "(5)                                Provide ORU (and/or) ORV monitor personnel support to
 SRI experiments as required during years #2 and #3."
 e.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph c:  If comments contained in para 3e above apply,
 recommend addition of the following task:
 "(8) Establish intelligence collection priorities for ap-
 plication of ORV technique to real targets (commencing in
 year #2), insuring that the intelligence needs of each
 participating service are met."
 f.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph d:  If comments coniained in para 3e above apply,
 recommend addition of following task:
 "(9)  Provides verbatim transcripts of all experimental
 ORU sessions directed against real intelligence targets to:
 (a)  The GRILL FLAME Committee, and
 (b)  the participating Military Service against
 whose EEI or intelligence "gap" the session was
 directed, and
 (c)  the participating Military Service whose
 ORU personnel was employed."
 g.  (S/NDFORN)   Paragraph d:  Responsibilities of the COTR listed here do
 not agree with statements contained in Mission and Objectives Statement, pars 3
 (refer to INSCOM Comment, para 3g above).  INSCOM concurs with duties outlined
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020007-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/  1  L?-       Q.Q788RO01
 IAFM-OPS-HU-SA                                                            14 August 1980
 SUBJECT:  INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding
 re. GRILL FLAME (U)
 in MOU with single exception that the GRILL FLAME Committee should be respon-
 sive to inquiries from other services/agencies, vice the COTR as stated in
 para d(8), MOU.
 5.  (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. Statement of Work.
 a.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2.1:  Army already has trained ORVs.  Is pro-
 posed training to be in "new" SRI technique?  If so, indications are the "new"
 technique will not be ready for another year.  SRI therefore will probably be
 unable to achieve FY 81 training goal.  Refer comments para 2a above.  If
 training in "old" SRI technique is intended, it appears Army funding commit-
 ment should be reduced, since training of that type during FY 79 was signifi-
 cantly less manpower intensive for SRI than the "new" technique appears.
 b.   (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2.2:  A valid Army requirement for SRI to pursue.
 However, what is independent cost figure?  If training of 2 ORVs in "old" tech-
 nique and audio analysis are intended during year #1, Army funding contribution
 should be adjusted downward.
 c,   (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2.3:  Refer to comment pars 2a above.  Again, no
 formal training program exists.  It is unlikely SRI could honor such a year #1
 commitment with a quality program.     Other contractor possibilities should be
 explored.  Recommend Army contact USMC regarding Vietnam era employment of
 dowsers, a function apparently related to tracking.  Recommend that FY 81 task
 be.to develop a formal training program, and that training of Army personnel be
 moved to FY 82.
 d.  (S/NOFORN)   Paragraph 2.4:   SRI expertise does not appear to include
 physiological monitoring capability.  Recommend consideration he given to
 diversifying contractor support by examining expertise of other organizations.
 The  Mai.monides Institute and the Meninger Foundation have made significant
 inroads into this area. The technical expertise of such organizations far out-
 weigh that available at SRI, insofar as bio-physical evaluation is concerned.
 e.   (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 2.8: Quick reaction tasks should be avoided
 whenever possible.    Not only do they detract from the effort at hand and lead
 to numerous scheduling and production problems, but more importantly, there is
 a great security risk in involving uncleared personnel in sensitive intelli-
 gence situations.
 f.   (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 6:  Security Requirements.  Sufficient SI/SAO
 billets should be identified to properly support the program.  If and when
 SRI-I commences work on operational situations, then it would be wise if all
 personnel connected with operational matters possess the necessary clearances.
 g.   (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 7:  Monthly Status Report.  Not needed.  The COTR
 is there to insure that work is flowing smoothly and the quarterly technical
 reports should he sufficient to enable everyone to keep abreast of current
 developments.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020007-1
 . Approved For Release 2000/08/07 :
 IAFM-OPS-HU-SA                                                      14 August 1980
 SUBJECT:  INSCOM Comments to Proposed DIA Memorandum of Understanding
 re. GRILL FLAME (Ii)
 h.  (S/NOFORN)  Paragraph 8:  Suggest more appropriate term than "interpret".
 The contract monitor should not try to "interpret" anyone's request but rather
 take requirements as stated to contractor and then serve as interface between
 contractor and primary customer if clarification is needed.
 6.   (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. Miscellaneous Items.
 a.  INSCOM is not prepared to enter into 36 months effort with SRI-I.  Is DA?
 b.  (S/NOFORN)  Monthly Status Report:  Again, this step is not needed.
 SRI-I staff personnel will be spending all their time and efforts in generating
 reports instead of concentrating on the job at hand.
 7.   (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. Funding.
 a.  (S/NOFORN)
 justify.
 Contract should be .for 1 year - renewable if results so
 - b.     (S/NOFORN)    It is not clear where the money is coming from to fund the
 levels indicated.  Is DA going to provide $150K for the Army portion of the
 $450K?   IGFP funds are directed toward INSCOM evaluation project.
 8.  (S/NOFORN)  Comments re. MIPR Control Provisions and Guidance.  Ref item 4:
 Changes in purpose scope or desired results, etc. must. be approved by the GRILL
 FLAME Committee vice the Primary Contractor Monitor.  Refer comment paras 3g and
 4g above.
 r% r
 WNiI                      11
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020007-1