Public Document - Report outlining economic ramifications of suggested realignment of National Guard HQs elements in JP-1 (NGB, ARNG and ANG) and co-location with the Army National Guard Readiness Center in Arlington, VA and the Air National Guard Readiness Center at Andrews AFB, MD.

Public Document - Report referencing costs and economic impact of reliagnment for bases and hospitals.

Disregard Header and Footer Restriction: Economic Impact Report Criterion 6 that depicts the economic impact of the following scenarios EIR DONCR-0002R Pascagoula to Mayport.

Disregard Restriction of Header and Footer: DON-0033B Close SUBASE New London Connecticutt; Subs to Norfolk & Kings Bay.

Disregard Restriction of Header and Footer: Economic Impact Report that depicts economic impact in area around New London Submarine Base. The data in this report is rolled up by Region of Influence.

Summary of Base Visit to Naval Facilities Engineering Field Activity Navy Crane Center, 11 July 2005

Base Visit Trip Report - Naval Support Activity Philadelphia PA

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Field Activity Northeast

Base Visit Trip Report - Lambert Field, St. Louis, MO. Discusses the base's current misison; SECDEF's recommendations; key issues identified and, installation and community concerns.

Base Visit Trip Report - Nashville Air National Guard Station, TN. Discusses the base's present mission, SECDEF recommendation and justification, key issues identified, and installation and community concerns.

Base Visit Trip Report - Detroit Arsenal, MI. Discusses current mission, SECDEF recommendations and justifications, key issues identified, and installation and community concerns.

Disregard Header and Footer Restriction: IJCSG Ship repair and overhaul capacity report that has total current capacity, total current usage, maximum capacity, capacity requierd to surge, cpacity available to surge/excess capacity.

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, The Army Basing Study Group Review of Military Value Assessment Attributes-Interim Report # 12 (Project Code: A-2003-IMT-0440.000)

Memoradum for Director, The Army Basing Study Group Sampling Plan for Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Data Validation-Interim Report # 10 (Project Code: A-2003-IMT-0440.000)

Memorandum for Director, The Army Basing Study Group Evidentiary Matter-Interim Report #9 (Project Code: A.-2003-IMT- 0440.000

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, The Army Basing Study Group Inventory of Army Installations for Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Review and Analyses-Interim Report #5 (Project Code: A-2003-IMT- 0440.000)

FW AFAA Draft Report 2005 BRAC - AF Internal Control Plan

Memorandum in reference to: BRAC Facilities Analysis Capacity tool Report 6 May 05

Disregard restriction header and footer - The Director, The Army Basing Study (TABS) asked that we evaluate the Army’s process for collecting certified installation and leased facility military value data as part of our audit support for TABS 2005. We focused our effort on determining whether: The 2005 Army Basing Study Group had a sound process in place to collect certified military value data that was adequately supported with appropriate evidentiary matter and was accurate. Management controls were in place and operating for the military value data call.

Memo Response to Interim report AFAA SEP 03 rev 3

Memorandum in reference to: AFAA Draft Report of Audit 7 April 05, BRAC Cueing and Analysis Tools, F2004-FB2000-2375.000

Memorandum in reference to: AFAA Report F2003-FB4000-0924-00, yr memo dtd 5 May 04

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, The Army Basing Study Group Army Corporate Database Update Schedule, Survey of Base Realignment and Closure 2005-Interim Report #2 (Project Code: A-2003-IMT- 0440.000)

Disregard restriction header and footer - We audited the procedures, data, and controls that the Reserve Component Process Action Team used to develop Army Reserve Component proposals for inclusion in the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 process. Although we identified some areas where the Process Action Team needed to strengthen procedures, the team took corrective actions during the audit, and we concluded that the team had appropriate procedures for identifying candidate facilities and functions to study for possible closure or realignment. Our review of the support for the critical data elements for 59 Reserve Component proposals identified differences in amounts reported and what was supported by documentation or audit results. However, the team took actions to mitigate the risk of using incorrect data and established procedures to correct and recertify the data. Specifically, the team: