A Look BackCivil Engineers in the Gulf War

FR

OM

TH

E T

OP

Civil Engineering AfCivil Engineering AfCivil Engineering AfCivil Engineering AfCivil Engineering After the Gulf Wter the Gulf Wter the Gulf Wter the Gulf Wter the Gulf War:ar:ar:ar:ar: A New F A New F A New F A New F A New FocusocusocusocusocusMaj Gen Earnest O. Robbins II

Air Force civil engineering has undergone many changes in the 10 years since theGulf War. By the time the cease-fire was declared in February 1991, Prime BEEF andRED HORSE teams had provided crucial combat support at more than 25 sites inSouthwest Asia, in addition to multiple sites in Europe and at locations stretching fromEngland to Diego Garcia. While our mission was achieved with great success, it alsogenerated some important lessons learned.

The Gulf War was a wakeup call for contingency training. When it began, many inCE had never trained on bare base equipment. Our �readiness� focus was on a ColdWar scenario that concentrated our efforts on rapid runway repair and base recoveryafter attack. After DESERT STORM, the focus of contingency training shifted dramatically,and since then we�ve made continuous improvements in both training and equipment.Our success today is linked to those investments.

Our deployments continued to increase after the Gulf War. We left troops inSouthwest Asia, then sent more to the Balkans. We executed support operations inKorea and Latin America. At the same time, the U.S. military reorganized anddownsized. Our military engineer force dropped almost half in size. The increased pacein operations took a high toll on both those who deployed and those who covered theextra workload at home.

Our Cold War concepts were ill suited to the demands of smaller scale regionalconflicts and peacekeeping operations. And so, the Expeditionary Aerospace Force(EAF) concept has evolved to allow the Air Force to adapt to its changing mission. TheEAF is our direction for the 21st century � we must be extraordinarily �agile� whilemaintaining high-quality service at our home bases.

On this 10th anniversary of the Gulf War, the basics we require to be anexpeditionary force are in place, and we are ready to adapt quickly to variousdeployments and contingencies. We deploy quickly and effectively, and we are ready todo the job when we get there � from building and sustaining bare bases to deliveringhumanitarian supplies.

Our transformation to the EAF has not come without growing pains, and we stillhave much to do before we have it �exactly right.� However, I�m 100 percent confidentthat no matter what task might be levied on us, Air Force Civil Engineers are fully readyto provide commanders in the field the full spectrum of engineering support they need.History has shown that we are ready, we are agile, and we are very, very good!

�If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that afuture war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that itwill be so utterly different that we can afford to ignore all thelessons of the last one.�

— Former RAF Marshal, Sir John Slessor,Air Power and Armies, 1936

Gulf WarRetrospectiveA look back at the role of andcontributions made by Air Forcecivil engineers during the Gulf War.

On the cover ...

Departments

Interview

Technology

Education & Training

CE World

CE People

7

The Civil EngineerMaj Gen Earnest O. Robbins II

Air Force Civil Engineer Spring 2001 Volume 9, Number 1

AFCESA CommanderCol Bruce R. Barthold

Air Force Civil Engineer is published quarterly as a funded newspaper by the Professional Communications staff at the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, Tyndall AFB, Fla. This publication serves the Office of The Civil Engineer,

HQ U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. Readers may submit articles, photographs and art work. Suggestions and criticisms are welcomed. All photos are U.S. Air Force, unless otherwise noted. Contents of Air Force Civil Engineer are

not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, the Defense Department or the Department of the Air Force. Editorial office: Air Force Civil Engineer, AFCESA/PCT, 139 Barnes Drive Suite 1, Tyndall AFB,

Fla., 32403-5319, Telephone (850) 283-6242, DSN 523-6242, FAX (850) 283-6499, and e-mail: cemag@tyndall.af.mil. All submissions will be edited to conform to standards set forth in Air Force Instruction 35-301 and The Associated

Press Stylebook. Air Force Civil Engineer is accessible on the Internet on AFCESA’s home page: https://www.afcesa.af.mil.

Chief, ProfessionalCommunications

Lois Walker

EditorLetha Cozart

Graphics/Production EditorDemetress Lovett-West

411162530Also in this issue:

262829323233

The CE AwardsUnit Spotlight: 52nd CESUnit Spotlight: 92nd CESLieutenant Colonel-SelectsSenior Master Sergeant-SelectsCivil Engineer Chief Master Sergeants

Please send story ideas, articles,photos, comments and suggestions tocemag@tyndall.af.mil

Bedding Down theX-Band RadarNew National Missile Defense Systemfacilities are on tap for Eareckson AirStation.

20

Conserve Now orPay LaterCalifornia�s energy crunch is forcingincreased conservation measures atAir Force bases.

23

Prime BEEF and RED HORSE troopsbedded down Air Force operations atmultiple sites in Southwest Asiaprior to Operation DESERT STORM,including Shaikh Isa Air Base,Bahrain (pictured). Story page 7.

4

Interview

The CE: From your travels around the major commands,how do you perceive morale to be among the troops?

Chief Doris: The morale of our civil engineers is gener-ally good. I�ve found that our folks demonstrate their �Cando, Will do� attitudes daily.

There are valid concerns out there, the major onesbeing pay and entitlements; funding, in terms of having theresources available to do a job properly; and quality of life.There are a lot of variables involved, but we are activelyworking these at all levels of the Air Force.

For those out there with issues, we need to listen toand determine the validity of their concerns. If it�s a matterthat can be addressed at local levels, they should give theirleadership a chance to work it; if it�s an issue that needs to

be addressed at higher levels, theyshould elevate it up their chain ofcommand for the right people towork.

Unfortunately, there are thosewhom I call the �disgruntledemployees.� They have issues witheverything and don�t recognizewhen it�s time to move on. Weexperienced this several years agowith reorganizing our squadronsand multi-skilling our specialties.There were many who resistedchange, but fortunately we haveovercome most of those issues andmoved on to become productive inour restructured organizations andspecialties.

The CE: According to the Air Force Personnel Center,over half of the enlisted force will be eligible to make areenlistment decision between fiscal years 2001 and 2004,and with a robust economy the potential exists for largenumbers to migrate to the private sector. How do CE�senlisted retention percentages compare to the Air Force�sas a whole?

Chief Doris: Most of our AFSCs [Air Force SpecialtyCodes] are close to the Air Force averages. We do have afew that are dangerously low, but we have many folksworking to make them better.

Fortunately, retention is being addressed at every levelof Air Force senior leadership, up through the Chief of

Staff. General [Michael E.] Ryan directed a RetentionSummit in January 2000 that brought together experts onall types of personnel and compensation matters. As aresult, there were a significant number of recommenda-tions and initiatives developed to attack our retentionchallenges. Many of these are being implemented today,while others have been programmed over several years, toimprove overall retention rates.

One of those initiatives establishes Career Advisorpositions back at our wings. We should capitalize on thisby establishing a CE liaison to the Career Advisor. Perhapsappointing a sharp, energetic, technical or master sergeantfrom within the CE organization as an additional duty, torelate to our folks specifically, might prove beneficial inassisting our personnel with their re-enlistment decisionsand aiding our declining retention rates.

On a more immediate note, each of our CE AFSCsreceives a first term, zone A, reenlistment bonus and 10 ofour specialties receive a zone B bonus. We�ve also insti-tuted a zone C bonus for four CE career fields. During thelast selective reenlistment bonus review in January of thisyear, we requested increases to the bonus for 11 of the 13CE specialties. Unfortunately, those increases did notreceive funding so we�ll re-evaluate our career fields thissummer and try again, if needed.

We are also working to increase quality of life in ourworkplaces. So, we�re addressing the retention issue fromseveral different avenues.

The CE: What do you think keeps the young enlistedtroops motivated to stay in CE, despite the current climateof privatization initiatives and base closures?

Chief Doris: Some of it is job satisfaction, learning thetrades and being involved in every aspect of what goes onat an installation. We�re probably the only functional areathat impacts every single person at an installation on a dailybasis. There aren�t many others that can say that, and someof our folks recognize this.

I�d be naïve if I didn�t say money has something to dowith it � we�re paying people to come in the Air Forceand paying people to stay in the Air Force. But then there�sthe sense of pride and accomplishment that comes withlearning a skill, learning a trade, going to work and gettingsomething done so they can stand back and point to othersand say, �I did that,� and be proud.

We will always have a job for Air Force blue-suit civilengineers, in spite of competitive sourcing and privatiza-

Trained and Ready Airmen �Fundamental to CE mission success

An interview with CMSgt Michael F. Doris, Chief of Enlisted Matters,Office of The Civil Engineer, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Pentagon

CMSgt Michael F. Doris

5

CE Magazine Spring 2001

tion, drawdowns, base closures, or whatever adverseactions people perceive are happening to our community.We�re not giving a pink slip to any blue suit military civilengineer, and we�re doing our very best to take care of ourcivilian work force at those locations that are affected.

The CE: In your opinion, how healthy are CE trainingprograms?

Chief Doris: If I were a doctor, I would have to say thatour training programs are in stable, but guarded, condi-tion. Our squadron leadership supports training extremelywell. The supervisors just need to capitalize on that supportand execute their programs. At higher levels, there isconsiderable support for training, however quite oftenthere is not funding.

We�ve just finished a complete round of Utilizationand Training Workshops where we addressed trainingrequirements for every civil engineer AFS. The review wasled by career field managers at the Air Force Civil Engi-neer Support Agency with assistance from subject matterexperts representing the major commands, plus thetraining development staff from our CE schools. It tookabout two years to complete. The CE schoolhouses andAFCESA �s training division are now implementing theresults. This will take some time because we can�t get theresources overnight. For everything to come to fruition,we�ve got to source the instructor positions, the equipmentitems, and the student man-years to correctly size thecourses and implement the curriculum.

Individually, our units are struggling to meet trainingrequirements because of our operations tempo. Many folksaren�t finding the time necessary to accomplish skills andcontingency training requirements because they�re work-ing their backsides off maintaining our bases and meetingour AEF [Aerospace Expeditionary Force] deploymenttaskings, while being undermanned themselves. I attributethis to one of our Air Force core values, one that CEdisplayed long before the Air Force put it on a poster �Service Before Self. While other organizations on basemay �close for training,� CE rarely closes for anything.

The other thing I�ve discovered is there are those whodon�t know what all the training requirements are, orwhere they can find out. For example, some still don�tknow that AFQTPs [Air Force Qualification TrainingPackages] are mandatory for upgrade and often miss thatessential training.

It�s easy to find the requirements for every CEspecialty because they are listed in the CFETPs [CareerField Education and Training Plans] and posted on theAFCESA web site. If our folks haven�t visited that site,they�re missing a great tool to help them do their jobs.

The CE: How does today�s civil engineer training com-pare to that of 10 years ago, prior to Operations DESERT

SHIELD and DESERT STORM?

Chief Doris: We�ve come a long way since DESERT SHIELD

and DESERT STORM. Those who�ve been around since thencan see a little of how things today are better and brighter.

When we first entered the Gulf War, a lot of people inCE had never seen or touched bare base equipment. We�vesince made major strides in exposing them to theirwartime duties and equipment. A special thanks goes tothe training programs at the CE schoolhouses, Silver Flagand the 49th Materiel Maintenance Group�s mobiletraining teams for making this happen. We�ve also revisedour home station training programs over the past decade.Today they are more focused and targeted toward specificskills for certain AFSCs. Our Silver Flag eligibility criteriareflects this fact by having those in critical UTC [unit typecode] positions attend training.

The one thing we can do better, in my opinion, iscapitalize on all the lessons learned from DESERT SHIELD

and DESERT STORM. We�ve not always had the resources toimplement new programs supporting those lessons in thepast. Our future initiatives should follow our CE CoreCompetencies and be integrated within our CE StrategicPlan. All of our personnel should be familiar with thedirection we�re moving toward for 2025 so we aren�t�relearning� those lessons. Our people need to know thatthere�s a plan and we�re going to do our best to follow it.

The CE: Utilities privatization initiatives could result insystems and equipment not being available for training. Inthat case, what alternatives are available to commanders toensure their personnel can meet training requirements?

Chief Doris: First of all, utilities privatization will notresult in lost opportunities for training our folks unless welet it. There are several different avenues that can beexplored to meet training requirements at an installationwhen a system or piece ofequipment is not available.We�re in the process ofupdating the utilitiesprivatization RFP [requestfor proposal] template that�sbeen developed by AFCESAfor use by the bases. This will allow for contracting someof the training in conjunction with the privatizationmeasure.

Specialty training locations run by Air Force ReserveCommand and regional training sites run by the AirNational Guard are available to provide some of this typeof much-needed training. And there are other avenues topursue as well, including local vocational or technicalcolleges and nearby military installations.

There is a Commander’s Procedural Guide for obtainingtraining in support of utilities privatization that�s beendeveloped by AFCESA�s training division and posted onthe AFCESA web site. It offers great guidance on howcommanders can execute their programs in light of the

As chief of enlisted matters for The Air Force CivilEngineer, Chief Doris advises Maj Gen Earnest O.Robbins on matters affecting CE’s enlisted and wagegrade civilian work force, especially readiness,morale, retention, training and work force utilization.

6

privatization occurring at many of our bases. The key is tocontinually place emphasis on training.

The CE: Has meeting EAF obligations presented CEunits with training challenges as well?

Chief Doris: The EAF [Expeditionary AerospaceForce]obligations and training requirements haven�tchanged. But we now have a specific reason for executingtraining programs in a timely fashion. Many of theinstallations could not execute, for whatever reason, someof their training at home station. In order to meet ourEAF obligations, those training requirements must besought out or accomplished sooner rather than later atother locations. We do a pretty good job of meeting ourEAF obligations. At last count, about 90 percent of CE isobligated to the EAF. I would wager that�s more thanmany other functional areas. I think we�re also veryeffective at posturing and preparing our folks to meet ourtraining requirements.

As I travel, I make it a point to speak with ourenlisted personnel about their deployments and EAFcommitments. Most of our personnel know what AEF�bucket� they�re in and that�s a big plus for the predictabil-ity and stability part of the concept.

All indications from the leadership at deployedlocations reflect positive results; so our folks are alsomeeting the mission requirements. Additionally, those whoremain behind at home station face challenges and highops tempo as well, so it�s important we remember bothsides of the EAF equation.

The CE: How should CE training be postured over thenext five years? What types of changes do you foresee?

Chief Doris: A lotdepends on influencesoutside our control, butin the next five years,CE training should be

postured to capitalize on technology. We should see moreuse of the Internet, DVDs, electronic testing measures,and things of that nature. When the Air Force portalcomes online we�ll be better able to do this. Anotherconsideration in implementing this is whether the pro-grams that AFCESA and the Air Staff work are fullyfunded, including base-level funding.

For example, if we provide a DVD for training, willthe unit have a DVD-capable computer? When we starttalking about electronic testing in our career developmentcourses or promotion testing, do the base and unit havethe hardware to support that? I suspect that is funding theunits and wings don�t currently have to make this happen.

If I had a crystal ball, where would I see us going?This probably won�t happen in the next five years, buteventually training will be accomplished electronically from

any location. If we have people who are in training, orrequire training, when they deploy they will still be able toconduct their training from the middle of nowhere,electronically. And at home station, we will have theavailability to provide training, or receive training, fromlocations in our workplace and where we reside, such aslearning resource centers in the dormitories. We�re gettingthere, but it�s a slow process.

The CE: What other training issues are you currentlyworking?

Chief Doris: The Chief of Staff has directed aninitiative called �Developing Aerospace Leaders.� There�sa DAL office in the Pentagon, working for the DeputyChief of Staff, Personnel, which we have a civil engineerofficer assigned to. The DAL program started withlooking at how we develop our officer corps. They�ve nowexpanded to the enlisted force, and they�ve hired a chiefmaster sergeant to shepherd that effort. We in CE, throughour CE Chiefs� Council, are the first support functionactively involved in the DAL.

One of the things we�re looking at is how we groomand grow our enlisted leadership to support our missionand requirements. We�re looking all the way down to thestaff sergeant level to determine what training and specificdevelopment a person needs to eventually become a chiefmaster sergeant in CE.

We�re also looking at how we employ our people, sothat they will have the opportunity to become chiefs. As webecome narrower at the top of the pyramid � mastersergeant, senior master sergeant and ultimately chiefmaster sergeant � we also narrow the types of positions inour objective CE squadrons that folks can aspire to fill. Soif one wanted to become the chief of heavy repair, forexample, there�s only a select group of AFSCs that theoreti-cally grow into that position. The same is true for the chiefof infrastructure or other superintendent-level positions. Sowe�re looking at opportunities for opening that up a littlefor our most qualified personnel.

The Chiefs� Council is also working to solve thedisparity in the employment of our people, specifically inthe 3E5 (engineering) and 3E6 (operations management)AFSCs. We want to expand the focus of how they areemployed, so that their training and skills are used to mostbenefit them and the Air Force.

We�re also looking at are improving our processes andthe mechanisms by which training is made available, andimproving quality of life standards, not just at home stationbut also in the deployed environment. We�re looking atthings like our overseas rotation index. For example, howmuch of a burden is it on our power production careerfield, which historically rotates back and forth overseasquite a bit. Through these types of initiatives, we want toinfluence our folks that CE is a good place to stick around,a good place to stay for the long haul.

Chief Doris chairs the AF Civil Engineer Chiefs’ andAirmen’s Councils. The councils review issues affectingthe work force, communicate ideas, and developrecommendations for senior leadership consideration.

7

by Lois WalkerHQ AFCESA Historian

Operation DESERT SHIELDAir Force civil engineers were one of the most

important combat support elements deployed to theMiddle East during Operation DESERT SHIELD. Theyplayed a critical role in preparing and sustaining thenetwork of air bases that supported the application of airpower. Thanks to Air Force civil engineers, Lt GenCharles A. Horner, commander of U.S. CentralCommand Air Forces (USCENTAF), could plan anddirect the air campaign from multiple bases withconfidence and flexibility.

Prime BEEF and RED HORSE troops performedbeddown operations for 55,000 people and more than1,500 aircraft at 25 sites throughout Southwest Asia(SWA). Overall, within seven months nearly 100 projectsvalued at $78 million were completed at U.S. deploymentlocations in SWA through troop or contract labor.

The pace of the deployment was fast. To meet theprimary goal of deterring Iraqi aggression against SaudiArabia, aircraft and crews deployed to the region first,and the support tail had to catch up. Engineers begandeploying on August 7, 1990, some with little notice.Once on the ground, they scrambled to bring facilities online as quickly as possible.

Their first tasks were to prepare runways, runwaylighting and arresting barriers; establish fire protectionand utilities; plan where facilities would be sited; andprovide latrines. Next on the agenda was erecting livingand working facilities, preparing ammunition storageareas, and erecting aircraft revetments, followed byenvironmental and sanitation concerns, facility hardening,and road construction.

Harvest Falcon equipment flowed in fromprepositioning sites in the region. Engineers establishedadditional supply lines through contracting officersdedicated to each base. Obtaining heavy constructionequipment was a priority. Transportation was scarceduring the deployment�s first weeks, and much of theequipment that arrived from prepositioning sites wasinoperable or soon broke down because seals and beltshad dry-rotted in storage. The solution was to borrow orrent equipment from host nation engineers and heavyconstruction companies to grade areas for tent cities and

Ten years ago Air Force civil engineers responded to the crisis in Southwest Asia as Iraq invadedand occupied Kuwait. Prime BEEF teams and RED HORSE squadrons provided crucial support toOperations DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM and made lasting contributions to stability and peace inthe region, as reviewed in this

Gulf War Retrospectivecarve out roads between living and working areas.

DESERT SHIELD saw the first real-world use of HarvestFalcon assets, mobility basing sets developed in the 1980sthat gave the Air Force the capability to deploy to basesand establish flying operations within 72 hours. Thisambitious mobility concept presented unique problemsand challenges to engineers, planners and developers.They developed a comprehensive Bare Base ConceptualPlanning Guide to help formalize the new system andaddress how it would be employed.

Most engineers had never trained on the equipmentbecause Harvest Falcon was a new program and trainingassets were not yet available. When TEMPER tents(Tent, Extendable, Modular, PERsonnel) and utilitysystems began appearing, many without TechnicalOrders, engineers were uncertain what constituted acomplete set, how they were to be assembled, or how torepair the equipment. With ingenuity and flexibility,engineers quickly laid out the pieces, determined whatwent where, and began putting up tents. The first tenttook about four hours to construct. Shortly thereafter, anexperienced crew of four could assemble a four-section,20x32-foot tent for 12 people in about an hour.

Harvest Falcon also used Harvest Bare structuressuch as Expandable Personnel Shelters with accordion-like walls that could be used as billets, office space,exchanges or storage areas. Expandable Shelter/Containers were erected as flightline shops, industrialshops and power plant control rooms. General Purposeshelters were hardwall structures designed to be aircraftengine shops and aircraft readiness spares storage areas,and also served as gymnasiums, clubs, warehouses andexchanges. One of the most interesting looking structureswas the 125-foot Harvest Bare Aircraft MaintenanceHangar, known as a clamshell hangar due to its uniquefabric-end closures. Members of the 4449th MobilitySupport Squadron from Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.,accompanied the hangars to help erect them.

The harsh environment made it nearly impossible todo heavy work during the day. Nighttime work shiftspermitted troops to be as productive as possible whileavoiding the midday heat, which often reached 120° F.

Electricity was critical to Air Force operations. A fewsites had adequate commercial power, but generatorswere required at most. Initially, small 60 or 100kW lowvoltage mobile electric power (MEP) emergency

8

generators were used to power tent cities, aircraftmaintenance shops and logistical areas. They were proneto failure from continuous use in the harsh environmentand their roar was almost deafening to tent occupants.The solution was to install more efficient high-voltageMEP-12, 750kW generators and cables that allowedpower plants to be placed greater distances frompersonnel cantonment areas.

Power delivery to end users required industrial-gradedistribution equipment. The Air Force was in the midstof a transition from the contactor control cubicle (CCC)to the primary distribution center (PDC). Only threePDCs and no CCCs were available in SWA. In a matterof days, CEMIRT (Civil Engineering Maintenance,Inspection, and Repair Team) technicians designed asimple and reliable PDC using off-the-shelf components.They constructed 35 of them at Kelly AFB, Texas, andshipped them to waiting sites. CEMIRT also establisheda depot-level repair function in theater and providedhands-on electrical training for Prime BEEF troops.

Another critical issue was water � how to obtain it,purify it, distribute it and dispose of it. Water wastrucked in and stored in rubber bladders. It was thenchemically treated or processed through reverse osmosiswater purification units (ROWPUs). Wastewater wasdistributed to underground storage tanks and pumped outby contractors or piped to a gray water pond. Where soilpercolation conditions, together with stifling humiditylevels, did not permit absorption, engineers constructedlagoon systems farther from cantonment areas to reducehealth hazards. Entomology experts worked to minimizethe spread of disease and reduce annoying insects androdents.

Requirements at each base varied, but the workaccomplished by the Prime BEEF team at King FahdInternational Airport, Saudi Arabia, in the first month ofthe deployment was typical. The team laid more than4,000 tons of asphalt for roads, parking, helicopter pads,dining halls and the air transportable hospital. Theyerected more than 370 tents; set up shower/shave units,latrines, potable water and electric distribution systems,and a camp revetment system; designed and installed abunker system; provided wood floors for administrativeand shop tents; and constructed a mall complex. Theysectioned the base for bomb damage repair purposes andset up their own logistics operation to acquire scarcematerials and tools.

At Riyadh, the Saudi government offered the use ofEskan Village, a housing compound originally built forthe region�s Bedouins (who preferred not to live there).

Air Force engineers and contractors prepared thebuildings for occupancy by cleaning up the complex,installing air conditioning and repairing broken pipes.

Firefighters provided crash-fire rescue and structuralfire protection services to all Air Force sites in the region.They often integrated with host nation firefighters,sharing equipment and working areas. In-flight andground emergencies kept them constantly busy, while thehigh number of patrol and training sorties generatedthousands of hot refueling standbys.

In November, President Bush ordered additionalforces (Phase II) to the Persian Gulf region to provide anoffensive capability. This meant another push to beddown deploying forces. This time, however, engineerswere already in place and prepared before aircraft andtroops arrived. The presence of 823rd and 820th REDHORSE Squadron personnel in theater providedadditional capability to undertake the major beddowntasks.

From October to March, a combined 435-personRED HORSE squadron was involved in more than 25major projects, valued at more than $14.6 million. Theseincluded bedding down the largest air base in theater (interms of number of aircraft) at Al Kharj Air Base, SaudiArabia. They constructed aircraft hardstands and taxiwaysat Shaikh Isa AB, Bahrain; a theater munitions storagedepot at Al Kharj; aircraft parking ramps at Al Minhadand Al Dhafra ABs, UAE; and integrated combat turnpads at King Khalid Military City. They also built an 800-person tent city, erected 29 K-span structures, placedmore than 7 miles of paved roads at a U.S. Armyammunition supply point, and installed berms for Patriotanti-missile batteries and petroleum dikes.

Al Kharj, one of the sites selected to receive Phase IIaircraft, was a classic bare base location. It had beenprogrammed as a massive Saudi military installation, butonly basic pavements had been constructed. REDHORSE, augmented by the 4th CES from SeymourJohnson AFB, N.C., and contract personnel, hauled200,000 cubic yards of clay to build a foot-thick clayfoundation for tent city. Eventually, they erected a tentcity, set up four kitchens, an air transportable hospital, sixK-span structures, and support facilities. They builtmunitions storage areas and bladder berms, completedutility distribution systems, and installed mobile aircraftarresting systems. The base was ready for aircraft in earlyJanuary and by the beginning of the war was home tonearly 5,000 Air Force personnel.

Another RED HORSE team built a forwardoperating location 50 miles from the Iraqi border at King

9

Khalid Military City. Contract employees were prohibitedfrom this site because of security concerns. Initiallyplanned as an 800-person site with limited turn capabilityfor flying missions, the base continued to expand until itspopulation reached nearly 2,000 in February 1991.

In December 1990, CE forces from Europe begandeploying to bases in Turkey as the coalition opened asecond front to monitor and contain Iraq. Engineersplanned and executed buildup of three bases for JointTask Force PROVEN FORCE. At Incirlik they constructed�Tornado Town� and helped bed down deployedpersonnel. A 50-person Prime BEEF team from BitburgAB, Germany, also deployed to Batman AB, Turkey, tosupport search and rescue operations.

Aside from the Middle East, civil engineers deployedto Spain, England, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, DiegoGarcia, and to other bases in the United States. Theyconstructed tent cities at transit bases, supportedStrategic Air Command tanker and bomber forces atmultiple sites, and helped open contingency hospitals andaeromedical staging facilities across Europe.

Operation DESERT STORMCivil engineers at HQ USCENTAF said they could

tell the air war had begun because the phones stoppedringing. At sites in the Middle East, CE was ready �forces were bedded down, equipment and materiel weredispersed, and personnel and structural protection werecomplete. Many went out to watch the aircraft launch ontheir first missions. Firefighters started working full-throttle. Integrated combat turns with hot pit refuelingoperations required continuous fire protection. Ascombat sorties increased, so did in-flight and groundemergencies, barrier engagements and explosiveordnance disposal response to malfunctioning ordnance.

In the busy days before the formal cease fire wassigned, Prime BEEF moved into Kuwait to assist inrestoring Kuwaiti facilities. Some went to Kuwait CityInternational Airport to help restart the power plant.

In February, General Horner tasked RED HORSEto deny two air bases in southeastern Iraq to preventfuture use by returning Iraqi forces, and the work had tobe completed before the signing of a cease fireagreement. Working with EOD personnel, two teamscompleted the job within four days. At Tallil AB, REDHORSE used approximately 40 tons of explosives tomake cuts in the runway and taxiway every 2,000 feet. AtJalibah AB, engineers denied a concrete runway and twoasphalt taxiways with 72 craters up to 40 feet wide and12 feet deep.

Operation PROVIDE COMFORTShortly after the war ended, Kurdish refugees began

fleeing into Turkey to escape the Iraqi military. Becauseof their outstanding support to the U.S. Army in Turkeyduring Operation PROVEN FORCE, Air Force civilengineers were tasked to provide base support to themultiservice, multinational forces under the direction ofCombined Task Force PROVIDE COMFORT. Theyestablished and maintained base camps at five locationsin Turkey and Iraq from which the other services andallies could operate, including the major HumanitarianService Support Base at Silopi that served as the center ofactivities for the region.

Engineers had just dismantled Tornado Town atIncirlik when they received orders to rebuild it tosupport the influx of allied personnel. The Prime BEEFteam from Bitburg was recalled to Turkey after beinghome only a few weeks. They were joined by engineersfrom several other USAFE bases.

At Sirsenk airfield, engineers and EOD personnelcleared a dumping ground for unspent munitions fromcoalition aircraft and repaired the runway for C-130aircraft to deliver supplies.

RedeploymentRedeployment of people and equipment and

reconstitution of Harvest Falcon assets was a big job. CEwas responsible for dismantlingand repacking tents and relatedequipment.

As some troops redeployed,additional personnel continued toarrive in March and April.Reserve and Air National GuardPrime BEEF teams deployed to AlKharj and King Fahd, respectively,to help close down the sites.

In summary, civil engineers played a crucial role inOperations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM byproviding the basing and support that gave pilots andaircrews the best chance for success. They set the stagein record time and demonstrated once again that air baseavailability and performance are critical factors in acommander�s ability to employ aerospace power. DuringOperation PROVIDE COMFORT, they tried their hand athumanitarian relief and clearly showed that engineershave a useful role to play in this type of civic action. Tenyears later, the scope of their contributions and theexcellence of their performance are still impressive.

CE...demonstrated onceagain that air base avail-ability and performanceare critical factors in acommander’s ability toemploy aerospace power.

What changes have occurred in civil engi-neering since the end of the Gulf War? Some areobvious. Manpower cuts over the past 10 yearshave resulted in a civil engineer active duty forcethat is much smaller than it was in 1991, downfrom 30,600 to about 17,500. Sweeping restruc-turing of the Air Force during the 1990s broughtabout a standardized civil engineer structure,with broader career fields and a multi-skilled,multi-talented force.

The focus of civil engineer contingencytraining has shifted dramatically from fighting inplace and preparing for base recovery afterattack, to an expeditionary posture, prepared forrapid emergency response to wartime or contin-gency situations, while employing a highlydeveloped arsenal of engineering skills.

Engineers in the Gulf War found themselvesperforming beddown operations with equipmentand mobility basing sets most had never seenbefore. Today�s civil engineers can draw from adecade of beddown experience in locations suchas Somalia, Bosnia, Hungary, Italy, Albania,Central America and the Middle East. Fire-fighters and EOD technicians have responded tothe same contingencies, and now have an arrayof new tools, equipment and protective gear tomeet current and future challenges.

Contingency training has also been incorpo-rated into the earliest stages of Air Forcetraining, in the form of Warrior Week duringbasic training, and at the Air Force Academythrough the Global Engagement program.

We�ve seen major improvements in the typesand quantities of equipment available for PrimeBEEF and RED HORSE training. Readinesstraining moved from Field 4 at Eglin AFB to thenew Silver Flag Exercise Site at Tyndall AFB in1993, and Silver Flag is now on the initialreceiving end for new war reserve materiel-typeassets.

We�ve also made significant improvementsto the Bare Base Conceptual Planning Guide andpublished a comprehensive set of pocket guides(10-222 series handbooks) for use in the field.

Computers have changed forever the way wegather and manage information, control work,train and test. Most Prime BEEF training is nowconducted at home station via interactive CD-ROM technology.

Gulf War engineers suffered from a lack of

communication and rapport with their logisticscounterparts. Today, CE is involved with thelogistics community through the Bare BaseSystems Working Group and various readinesspanels and boards, ensuring we are aware of thelocations and conditions of our assets.

We�ve seen increased emphasis on weaponsof mass destruction preparedness in the wake ofbombings in Oklahoma City, at Khobar Towers,and at two U.S. Embassies in Africa. CE isbetter prepared today due to research anddevelopment initiatives that improved forceprotection construction standards, equipment andprotective gear.

Through the Air Force Contract Augmenta-tion Program (AFCAP), CE has developedstrong partnerships with commercial firms toaugment our efforts where needed. This contractcapability ensures we make the most strategic useof military resources, especially in the sustain-ment phase of operations.

Interservice cooperation is more importantthan ever. Air Force CEs now train at jointservice schools, and engineers from all servicesparticipate in Joint Chiefs of Staff and regionalexercises, especially in Europe and the Pacific.

International cooperation remains essential tosuccess, and progress has been made at all levels.From the annual International Engineer meetingsthat The Civil Engineer attends with his counter-parts from other countries, to internationalparticipation in Readiness Challenge and indi-vidual national exercises and competitions, AirForce civil engineers are breaking ground andcementing relationships every year.

Humanitarian and disaster response opera-tions have provided engineers with opportunitiesto practice many of the same skills they will needin wartime. Each emergency produces additionallessons learned to add to the corporate CEplanning book. We�ve become the acknowledgedexperts at deploying to a contingency location,setting up to survive and operate, and caring forour customers so they can execute the mission.

With continuous improvements in trainingand equipment, Prime BEEF and RED HORSEengineers are trained and ready � an integralpart of today�s Expeditionary Aerospace Force.They have the mindset and the determination, theenergy and the discipline, to get the job done.CAN DO, WILL DO, HAVE DONE!

Changing TimesCivil Engineering Since the Gulf War

Joint Service Training

International Cooperation

Improved Equipment & Protective Gear

R & D Initiatives

AFCAP

10-222 Handbooks

Silver Flag Exercise Site

Home Station Training

Equipment for Training

Bare Base Systems Working Group

by Lois WalkerHQ AFCESA Historian

11

CE Magazine Spring 2001

by TSgt Mitch Shimmel332nd ECES

Although 10 years have passed since the Gulf War,there is still a very real and significant danger fromunexploded ordnance, known as UXO, on SouthwestAsia air bases.

Explosive ordnance disposal personnel assigned tothe 332nd Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron areexcavating the UXO that still endangers coalition forces.Their current task is a 2-foot subsurface clearance of 50acres of land, which will enable the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers to construct a cargo aircraft parking ramp.

Special metal detectors are being used to revealburied UXOs. In the first two days of searching, theEOD team located a cluster bomb unit (CBU-87)designed to contain 202 anti-personnel and anti-materielbomblets � one of the most dangerous bombs in theU.S. arsenal.

When the CBU was dropped from the deliveryaircraft, it was probably either too close to the ground forthe dispenser to open or it was not properly preparedbefore takeoff. Whichever the case, the CBU was literallyripped open upon impact with the ground, which buriedthe partially consumed UXOs up to six feet.

Upon discovering the buried dispenser, the team wasconfronted with the very dangerous and challengingproblem of how to excavate and dispose of the armedUXOs. To tackle the problem, the operation was splitinto two phases: first the excavation and then the dis-posal.

To excavate the UXOs while limiting the danger to

personnel, only one option stood out � the team em-ployed the newest, largest and most advanced roboticsystem available: the All-purpose Remote TransportSystem, or ARTS.

ARTS is a kevlar-tracked, remote-controlled 3.5-tonloader. Various tools can be attached to the platform,transforming it into a forklift, a backhoe, a UXO clear-ance vehicle for post-attack airfield recovery, or a vehicleused for deploying several specialized EOD tools sup-porting force protection responses.

With this ace in the hole, the EOD team preparedthe ARTS platform for backhoe operations. Without theARTS, the only option would have been to hand-excavatethe site and endanger the lives of several U.S. Air ForceEOD technicians.

The team set up the control station more than 500feet away from the hazardous operations site. From thissafe location, they were able to observe the radio-controlled ARTS as it excavated the CBU impact site.

After only four buckets of dirt were moved, the first

A Clearing in the DesertEOD personnel are still finding, excavating remnants of the Gulf War

Continual platform improvements and new attachments for the ARTS,which was developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory in the mid-1990s, allow it to support surface and sub-surface unexplodedordnance removal in addition to its primary function of force protectionoperations and weapons of mass destruction response.

Technology

A1C Jamie Erickson operates the All-purpose RemoteTransport System (ARTS) from a safe area using the OperatorControl Unit. (Photos by MSgt Robert C. Hodges)

TSgt Robert Odell places a C-4, plastic-explosive charge neara hazardous BLU-97 submunition as part of the explosiveclearance operation.

12

by Capt Todd Graves31st CES

The 31st Civil Engineer Squadron Explosive Ord-nance Disposal Flight, Aviano Air Base, Italy, and theU.S. Air Forces in Europe Construction and TrainingSquadron (CTS), Ramstein AB, Germany, performed alittle magic last summer with the help of some battle-proven technology.

The 31st Munitions Squadron (MUNS) at CampDarby, Italy, had been experiencing structural problemswith the ceilings in eight munitions storage structures(aboveground magazines or igloos) that contained high-explosive missiles, rocket warheads, projectiles and fuzes.The 22-year old facilities� structural problems had beenprogressing for years. Engineering studies were done in1981 and again in 1995.

In the mid-1980s, a steel mesh was anchored into theceiling and a coat of shockcrete (a type of concrete)sprayed into the mesh. But by last May, the weight of thecoating had finally caused large pieces of the shockcrete,mesh and some of the original ceiling to separate in oneof the igloos.

The 31st MUNS called in the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers to perform an engineering evaluation on all

Explosive ordnance disposal teams are putting the latest in robotics technology to good use atlocations world-wide. A U.S. Air Forces in Europe team proved their ability to rapidly deploy with theARTS and perform hazardous remote operations when the ceiling began to collapse in a munitionsstorage structure at Camp Darby, Italy.

Moving MunitionsEOD steps up to the task using new robotic platform

bomblet was discov-ered. This part of theoperation was verydangerous due to thesensitivity of theexplosives and becauseliquid had seeped outand crystallized on theoutside of the case.Due to the sensitivecondition of thebomblets, the teamdecided to detonatethem in-place.

Performing anexplosive detonation at the excavation site required theentire civil engineering team to go into overdrive. Sincethe area was located only 100 feet from a paved taxiwayand 200 feet from aircraft maintenance buildings,extensive protective works had to be put in place.

All known buried utilities were identified, and aspecial crane was leased to place the 10-foot barrier

A portion of the collapsed ceiling in a munitions storage structure at CampDarby, Italy. (Photos courtesy 31st CES)

revetments. Coordination with all base agencies wasconducted. With the base in increased security condi-tions, any unplanned detonation could have causedconcern or panic on the installation.

Emergency response personnel assembled early onthe morning of the disposal and received the sequence-of-operations briefing. Security forces members preventedaccess to the site by establishing a 700-foot cordonextending well into the flight line and coalition campboundaries. The on-scene commanders, fire department,medical and EOD personnel assembled at the entrycontrol point for the operation.

A sandbag coffin was placed around the items,providing additional protection from the bomblet�sfragmentation. The explosives were then placed anddetonated by the order of the commander. This broughtan end to the submunitions and eliminated their potentialto maim or kill.

TSgt Mitch Shimmel is an explosive ordnance disposaltechnician with the 332nd Expeditionary Civil EngineerSquadron at Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base, Southwest Asia.

A sandbag bunker and concrete revetmentsprovided additional protection from the bomblet�sfragmentation.

13

CE Magazine Spring 2001

eight igloos. The results raised serious concerns regard-ing the structural integrity of the facilities. As a result, the31st MUNS disconnected power to the facilities andprohibited access to the eight igloos � including thestacked-to-the-ceiling munitions still stored there.

The 31st MUNS, working through the HQ USAFEstaff, coordinated with the USAFE Civil Engineer to useEOD�s latest robotic acquisition, the All-purpose RemoteTransport System, known as ARTS, to move the muni-tions out of the igloos. SSgt Rusty Mills and SSgt WalterMoss from the 31st CES EOD Flight accomplished aninitial site survey and determined the operation wasfeasible.

The only ARTS in command were at Ramstein�sCTS site. TSgt Robert Hannan, a CTS EOD member,arranged to transport an ARTS to Aviano. As the com-mand technical expert on the system, he accompanied theARTS to provide additional training to the Aviano EODteam and to offer expertise and advice for the CampDarby operation. The team spent one day training on theARTS, then loaded it on a flatbed for the trip to CampDarby.

Sergeant Hannan and the 31st CES EOD team (SSgtBenny Beach, Sergeant Mills and SrA Lenny Eckstein)traveled to Camp Darby on August 9. For two days, theyworked with safety personnel and the 31st MUNS tocoordinate the removal plan and perform an operationalrisk management review. They collectively developed amission-oriented, prioritized munitions removal plan.With their task laid out for them, it was time to get towork.

The EOD team downloaded the ARTS and con-firmed it was operational, then each team memberpracticed lifting and moving munitions pallets. This typeof operation was different from the normal EOD missionand use of the ARTS, but the team had little difficultymastering the necessary movements for �munitionsstorage and re-warehousing.�

Once everyone was comfortable with the system, theteam moved to the igloos. The goal of the first afternoonwas to orient the team to the spaces in the igloos and tohow the ARTS needed to be maneuvered to properlymove items.

The team also used the Mk 3 Remote OrdnanceNeutralization System (RONS) robot for additionalmonitoring capability. Because of the tight spaces in theigloos, the extra �eyes� of the RONS ensured big brotherARTS did not contact any munitions while trying toremove items. The RONS was also used to move smallboxes from within the tight spaces that the ARTS couldnot maneuver to.

The team fine-tuned their procedures as the opera-tion progressed. One member controlled the ARTS whileanother monitored with the RONS. Another teammateensured each system had sufficient cable, while keepingtrack of each so that no cables were run over, possibly

tearing them. The last team member was assigned assafety observer to oversee and ensure the overall safety ofthe entire operation.

As the EOD robots brought the munitions out of theigloos, 31st MUNS personnel transported them toanother storage area. The team methodically proceededfrom facility to facility for 12 days, removing more than100,000 items with a net explosive weight of over 53,000pounds.

Although not designed nor purchased for thisscenario, the ARTS proved its flexibility and worth byperforming this bit of peacetime engineering magic.

Capt Todd Graves is the 31st CES EOD Flight commander,Aviano AB, Italy.

SrA Lenny Eckstein directs the ARTS� movements using joysticks and amonitor at the control station.

The RONS robot was used for both monitoring the ARTS andpicking up small packages.

14

by TSgt Michael A. WardAFCESA Public Affairs

In the beach community of Panama City, Fla., sits theAir Force�s snow and ice control manager. The sun maybe shining brightly, but SMSgt Clyde Young is lookingforward to snow. The reason? Like a kid with a new sled,he wants to try out his new toys.

For years, the Air Force�s snow removal program wasstuck in the Ice Age; straddled with a fleet of old, unreli-able equipment that had either seen better days or simplydidn�t work. Young helped convince the Air Force tocommit millions of dollars to new equipment and training.

�You�ve got to remove the snow and ice to launchand recover aircraft,� Young said. �It�s the same on thecommercial side. What they�re doing works for them, soit should work for us. That�s what I had to convincepeople of.�

Young, a heavy equipment operator who has workedsnow removal at Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D.;Osan Air Base, Korea and RAF Alconbury, UnitedKingdom, knew the first step was to replace the 50-year-old snow plows that are standard equipment at everysnow base.

�We have a fleet of about 340 airfield snow removal

plows in the inventory and more than half of them are therollover WT-series trucks that are considered obsolete,�he said. The plows, which initially had a life expectancyof about 13 years, were discontinued by the company in1965.

�In the late 70s, when the plows were ready to bereplaced, the Air Force opted for a rebuilding programinstead,� Young said. �We gave the trucks back toOshkosh, who rebuilt them and sold them back to us. Itwas cost effective, however, we lost a lot of technologybecause even rebuilt, they are still 30-year-old trucks.�

The new H-series trucks cost approximately$185,000 each, and will be phased in to replace theWT-series rollovers over the next 8-10 years.

Also on the chopping block is the Air Force�s snowbroom. It came into the inventory in the 1950s as arotating broom towed behind a truck and eventuallybecame a rotating broom mounted to the front of a dumptruck. Either way, it wasn�t very effective. �It was anotherinitiative started to save money, but it�s not industrystandard either,� Young said. �The front-mounted broomwas a good idea, but had poor application.� At FairchildAFB, Wash., the broom fleet had only a 24 percent in-userate in 1999. �Basically they were hangar queens waitingaround for parts.�

Let It Snow �Air Force program comes out of the Ice Ages

Technology

The new snow removal equipment has many featuresthat will improve operator performance and streamlinemaintenance.

The new Oshkosh H-Series high-speed reversibleplow truck offers several operating advantages over theold Oshkosh P-Series rollover plow truck. The all-wheelsteer feature reduces the turning radius and reducesmaintenance on the tires and driveline. The cab-forwarddesign with reverse slope windshield enhances operatorvisibility, while the rear engine design provides a quieterenvironment, eliminating the need for hearing protectionand allowing the operator to easily monitor the radio. Thecounterweight is mounted on the center of the chassis,which displaces 56 percent of weight to the front axle andenhances maneuverability, traction and pushing capabili-ties.

Two types of plows will be offered, both with similardesign and performance characteristics. Evaluations atMinot Air Force Base, N.D., through the ManagementEquipment Evaluation Program (MEEP), and at theCombat Readiness Training Center in Alpena, Mich.,

proved the high-speed reversible plows are superior to therollover plow in terms of performance and maintenance.

The Oshkosh H-Series runway broom trucks offerseveral operating advantages as well. Unlike the agingdump truck-mounted snow broom, they are specificallydesigned for heavy-duty snow removal applications. Thetrucks are equipped with a 27,000-pound front axle versusthe much lighter axle rating commonly found on mass-produced trucks. The rear engine design provides naturalballast for improved traction and offers a much quieterenvironment for the operator. Like the plow truck, thebroom trucks feature cab-forward design with reverseslope windshields that significantly enhance operatorvisibility.

Three types of snow brooms will be offered. Allsimilar in design and performance characteristics withvarious options available for each broom, including broomheads with cassette steel brush systems.

For more information contact SMSgt Clyde Young,HQ AFCESA, at DSN 523-6368, or e-mailclyde.young@tyndall.af.mil.

Upgrading the Fleet

15

After about 10 years of �floundering around with it,�the final straw came when a slightly redesigned version ofthe same broom truck proved to be equally inefficient andtroublesome. �We got the first ones in 1999 and sentthree to Elmendorf AFB, Alaska,� Young said. �Theystayed in the barn practically all winter long.�

The new brooms are state-of-the-art, industry-qualityequipment, but they aren�t cheap, coming in at about$300,000 each, nearly twice as much as the old brooms.But, Young said, you get what you pay for. �By spendingthe money up front and buying what works, we�ll savemoney down the line.� The Air Force expects to purchase10-15 snow brooms each year for the next five years.

The next change had nothing to do with inefficiency,but rather cost and environmental concerns. About fouryears ago the Air Force switched from urea as an airfielddeicer to more environmentally friendly chemicals. Whilethe new chemicals are less toxic and cause less damage tothe environment, they cost about three times more.

�With urea, we could do blanket coverage of anairfield because it was fairly cheap,� Young said. �Butbecause of the cost of the newer chemicals � about$5,000 an application � we just can�t afford to dothat.�

What was needed was a way to precisely determinewhen to apply deicer, where to apply it and how muchto apply. The solution came from the Canadian AirForce and its computerized deicing system called SNIC� snow and ice control integrated system. The systemuses computers and precision sprayers to control therate of chemicals being applied.

The Air Force purchased 12 SNIC systems last yearat $240,000 each and hascontracted to buy up to 10more.

The final piece of thepuzzle is a new trainingvideo. �I was at FortLeonard Wood, Mo.,recently and the studentsthere were watching thesame video I watched as anairman basic. It�s got a lot ofantiquated equipment and a

(Above) The new H-series runway broom truck in use atElmendorf AFB. (Photo by Scott Anderson) (Right) A videocrew shoots footage at Fairchild AFB, for a new snow and icecontrol training video, slated for release this fall. (Photo bySMSgt Clyde Young)

lot of the processes have changed,� he said. Young and avideo crew went to Fairchild and Elmendorf in January toshoot a new training video. The video will be in distribu-tion before next snow season.

In the meantime, all Young can do is wait for thesnow to fall. �We�re hoping to get a lot of it this year sowe can get a lot of good data.�

Indeed.

Editor’s note: Sergeant Young is assigned to the Air ForceCivil Engineer Support Agency, Tyndall AFB, Fla. Thepreliminary reports he has received from bases using thenew equipment have been very positive, showing greaterefficiency and effectiveness, and monetary savings as well.

The spreader (left),grip tester (bottomright) and sprayer(bottom left) are thethree components ofSNIC, the newlyadopted snow andice control integratedsystem, which usescomputers andprecision sprayers tocontrol the rate ofchemicals beingapplied. (Photos byJerry Adamietz)

16

CE Education & Training

by TSgt James DinsmooreCommunity College of the Air Force

More than 2,000 Air Forceenlisted personnel attend initial skills(three-level) training each year atArmy, Navy, or Department ofDefense schools not affiliated withthe Community College of the AirForce (CCAF). While there arecertainly advantages to attendinginterservice schools, this scenario hascreated some confusion and misinter-pretation regarding the type ofcollege credit students will receive.

There are several issues involvedin receiving CCAF credit for attend-ing non-Air Force technical schools,including whether the school isaffiliated with CCAF and whether theindividual has completed residencyrequirements and five-level training.

Why InterserviceTraining?

When DoD determined thatconsolidating two or more sisterservice schools into one could savevast amounts of money, a shuffling ofschools took place that ultimatelyresulted in some Air Force schoolsfalling under the umbrella of otherservices. For example, the StructuralApprentice course moved fromSheppard Air Force Base, Texas, toGulfport, Miss. This presented adilemma in that many students werenot receiving credit for completedcoursework because the coursechanged hands from the Air Force tothe Navy. This realignment changedthe way CCAF could award credit toAir Force students because the schoolwas no longer owned by the AirForce.

Affiliated vs.Non-Affiliated Schools

The Air Force is the only service

granted authority by public law toestablish a community college. Allschools �affiliated� with CCAF mustbe owned by the Air Force. Coursesdelivered by the Air Force have anAir Force course number. Moststudents attending technical school atAir Education and Training Com-mand bases such as Sheppard orKeesler will attend an �ABR� course.ABR is an abbreviation for �AirmanBasic Resident.�

Courses with an ABA or ABNprefix are not owned by the AirForce. These are abbreviations forAirman Basic Army and AirmanBasic Navy, respectively. Air Forcestudents attending these courses at�non-affiliated� schools are issued AirForce certificates of training, butboth public law and accreditationrules prevent CCAF from recogniz-ing them as resident courses.

Meeting ResidencyRequirements

CCAF is accredited through theSouthern Association of Colleges andSchools (SACS). This accreditationdictates several internal collegepolicies. In order to maintainaccreditation through SACS, alldegree programs must meet mini-mum acceptable standards. Onestandard established by SACS is thatof residency.

Residency, in regards to a degreeprogram, is the amount of creditdelivered by the degree awardinginstitution. Colleges and schoolsaccredited by SACS must ensure that25 percent of the credit is taken fromand delivered by the degree grantinginstitution.

Each CCAF degree programconsists of 64 semester hours. Thismeans that CCAF must deliver 16semester hours of resident course-work. The fact that the initial

skills-awarding courses do not meetthe residency requirement doesn�tmean the student will never be ableto complete a CCAF degree, itsimply means it may take a littlelonger than it does some of their AirForce counterparts.

The residency requirement canbe fulfilled through several differentsources. In fact, every Airman earnsfour semester hours of residencycredit in physical education with thecompletion of basic training andparticipation in the Air Forcephysical fitness program. AirmanLeadership School is currently worthan additional eight semester hoursand five-level internship is currentlyvalued at four semester hours. Thecumulative total of these three itemsis 16 semester hours � the mini-mum residency requirement.

Applying theProficiency Credit

When course ownership trans-ferred from the Air Force to our sisterservices, CCAF obtained applicablecourse documents, evaluated, thenassigned an appropriate semester hourvalue for initial skills courses.Whereas credit earned as a result ofthis process could not be consideredCCAF degree applicable residentcredit, CCAF determined the creditcould be considered proficiency credit(P-credit).

P-credit is based on demonstratedknowledge and task competency thatis validated by the award of the five-level skill level code. Once thefive-level skill code is obtained,P-credit can then be applied towardcompletion of a CCAF degree.

Getting it on RecordGraduates of civil engineer

interservice training courses arereported through the 366th Training

Interservice Technical TrainingAvoiding the proficiency credit pitfall

17

CE Magazine Spring 2001

Squadron at Sheppard AFB to the AirForce Training Management Systemand ultimately to CCAF. This credit isnormally reflected on students� CCAFrecords and can be applied towardfulfillment of the related specialtydegree program.

Some students may have tosubmit a copy of their trainingcertificate through their base educa-tion office to have the credits loadedto their records. This is either becausethey completed the course before theschool began automatic reporting ofgraduates, or because their recordswere incorrectly updated.

If you have questions regardingyour education records, please contactyour base education office or theauthor, TSgt James Dinsmoore, civilengineer degree programs manager,CCAF, at DSN 493-6449, or e-mailjames.dinsmoore@maxwell.af.mil.

Pavement Maintenance/Construction EquipmentOperator ApprenticeFt. Leonard Wood, Mo.24 semester hours

Engineer ApprenticeFt. Leonard Wood, Mo.26 semester hours

Structural ApprenticeGulfport, Miss.31 semester hours

Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Phase I & Phase IIEglin AFB, Fla.50 semester hours

The CCAF MissionCCAF degree programs are aimed at enhancing the occupational competency of

career non-commissioned officers, as opposed to first-term airmen who are busylearning their Air Force jobs, preparing for their journeyman skill level, and becomingproductive members of the Air Force team.

CCAF’s charter is to offer job-related Associate of Applied Science degreeprograms that enhance mission readiness, contribute to recruiting, and assist inretention of Air Force enlisted personnel. The program is structured so that the degreeis earned on the second or subsequent enlistment — which supports the retentionand readiness part of the mission statement. Currently, the average CCAF graduate isa staff sergeant with 13 years of service.

Apprentice courses, traininglocations and their respectiveP-credit value: (Course creditvaries depending on comple-tion date.)

Airmen, soldiers, sailors and Marineslearn structural design in the EngineeringApprentice course at Fort Leonard Wood,Mo., one of two interservice coursesoffered by Det. 7, 366 Training Squadronthat provide proficiency credit. The otheris Pavements & Equipment Apprentice.(Photos courtesy Det 7, 366 TRS)

18

CE Education & Training

by MSgt Austin CarterAFSPC Public Affairs

Airman 1st Class Adam Johnsonof the 21st Civil Engineer Squadron atPeterson Air Force Base, Colo., leanedoutward from the utility pole as far ashis 6�3� frame and the boot spikesembedded into the wood would allowhim. His ascent up the wooden poleat the Colorado Springs Utilities�(CSU) �Pole Farm� was to refresh hisfamiliarity with heights and his agilityin climbing laden with a fullyequipped electrician�s tool belt.

�C�mon, you can reach outfarther than that,� someone kiddedhim.

�Gimme a break. It�s been a longtime since I�ve done this,� he said tothe watching group 20 feet below.�Not since tech school.�

Dave King, head trainingcoordinator with CSU and a certifiedlinesman, buckled his tool belt,

strapped his linesman spikes to hiscalves and scampered up to AirmanJohnson with the surety of a mountaingoat traversing a steep Alpine slope.They worked in tandem at the top ofa 40-foot training pole to remove andreplace a cross beam which, accord-ing to their simulation, was severelystorm damaged.

Both men disengaged the beamquickly, King working with alacrityborn of years of experience andAirman Johnson showing a new senseof confidence with the unfamiliarsurroundings.

Although there was little fanfareawaiting them when they descendedthe pole that day in January, bothairman and veteran linesman hadformed the first tenuous bond in anew era of training � one that couldaffect thousands of Air Force CEtrainees in the future.

Air Force installations were oncecities unto themselves, complete with

their own water, waste water, electricand natural gas utility systems. CEmaintained all of it. Then, in 1998,the Department of Defense issued adirective to the services to privatizeutility systems at almost all militaryinstallations by September 2003. AsAir Force engineers began developingplans for executing the DoD programdirective, it became apparent thatonce under private ownership, utilitysystems would no longer be a resourcethat the Air Force could use fortraining.

According to CMSgt Jim Reps,Air Force Space Command functionalmanager for CE, the potential loss oftraining and hands-on expertise wouldrepresent a step backward in currentefforts to improve the quality oftechnical training available to crafts-men. It could also bring newchallenges to performing criticalcombat support roles.

�The CE community is visiblycommitted to providing training that�sright in-step with cutting edgetechnology. The utility privatizationeffort provided the catalyst for us tofocus our vision on new strategies formaintaining our high level of techni-cal competency in the utilityinstallation, maintenance and repairbusiness,� he said.

The next step was to replace thehands-on experience that CE workersnow enjoy, but may soon disappear.Utility companies, with their experi-ence, modern training equipment andfacilities, and accessible locations,have been effectively training theirown people for years. It made themthe natural choice to help train themilitary�s CE troops.

�Our search for cost-effective,high-quality, industry-standardtraining in a safe, controlled environ-ment led us to a likely partner �those activities looking to assume

Keeping the PromiseNew Strategies for providing quality technical training to utilities craftsmen

Dave King, Colorado Springs Utilities head training coordinator, trains A1C Adam Johnson, 21stCES, Peterson AFB, Colo., at the �pole farm.� (Photos by Rob Bussard)

19

CE Magazine Spring 2001

operational responsibility for oursystems,� Reps said.

Air Force leaders asked SpaceCommand to spearhead the programto see if it would work. Soon after,the command began working with thelocal utility company in ColoradoSprings in a test program to providetraining.

�We had a great deal of confi-dence from the very start of thisinitiative that it would be a success.Our shared vision for what we neededto accomplish, and how best to do it,really made the difference,� the chiefobserved.

It didn�t take long for utilityofficials to share their optimism aswell.

�It�s the smart thing to do,� saidTrent Wright, the CSU trainingprogram coordinator and a former AirForce CE troop. �When I first heardabout it, I was stoked. When I wastraining others in the Air Force Inever got to see the impact my workhad on the customer. Now, I willactually get to see good training forgood people.�

It only took two months after thefirst meeting between the local utilityand U.S. Air Force to bring the firsttrainees to the utility traininggrounds: Airman Johnson, represent-ing the upgrade phase of careerdevelopment and SSgt JohnathonJohnson (no relation) representing therefresher phase.

�We�re exploring ways to create atemplate that others can use. We�recomparing our Career Field Educa-tion and Training Plans with theirtraining documents and seeing wherethey�re different. We�re going to takeour training guides, their guides,shuffle them up and see what fallsout,� the chief said.

The two CE troops� first lesson ofthe day was how to properly prepare acable section for attaching a newlyfabricated connection device used inoverhead electric systems. Thesergeant and the airman understoodthe principles and adroitly preparedthe cable after watching a demonstra-tion. This new method, they said, was

slightly different than how they weretaught in technical school.

Since all major electric cables areunderground at Peterson, there islimited opportunity to work onterminal connections for overheads.Now, for the first time since arrivingat Peterson, they are getting a chanceto receive high-quality technicalinstruction at a facility dedicated totraining electricians.

�One of the factors that makesthis so easy for us to do is thatelectricians are an established techni-cal trade,� Reps said. �The Air Forcealready provides training that mirrorsthe private sector because we bothreference sources like the NationalElectric Code, a standard from whichwe both build our training programs.Our two programs actually have agreat deal in common.�

This new training approach withindustry, he continued, will provideCE troops expanded opportunities towork on the latest equipment withfully licensed master electricians. Itwill also hone their wartime skills.These include specialty skills theyneed to operate successfully indeployed environments.

�We�re going into a partnershipwith private industry with eyes wideopen,� Reps said as he watchedAirman Johnson scale the utility poleoutside on his last exercise of the day.�We have a great opportunity hereand the more we use it, the better weget.�

Airman Johnson acknowledgedthat staying up-to-speed would beeasier by training on the new equip-ment at the utility�s training center.

�I think it�s something thatshould have been done long ago,� hesaid. �These guys do what we onlytalk about.�

Besides, the chief added, there�san obligation imperative to consideras well.

�We�re able to keep a promise toour troops; the one we made whenthey signed up. It�s a promise thatsays we�re totally committed to theprofessional development of ourpeople.�

A1C Adam Johnson, SSgt Johnathan Johnson (norelation), and Colorado Springs Utilities trainingadministrator Todd Thomas discuss the proper way tocut the jacket of an electrical cable.

Utilities privatization initiatives have forced theCE community to look hard at all available trainingopportunities. The Air Force Civil Engineer SupportAgency worked with major command and unittraining representatives to compile a list of theseopportunities and guidelines for their use. The result� A Commander’s Procedural Guide: ObtainingTraining in Support of EAF and Utilities Privatization� is now available on the training division page ofAFCESA�s website (www.afcesa.af.mil).

The guide provides CE commanders, supervi-sors and training managers with informationnecessary to meet training objectives lost or obscureddue to utilities privatization initiatives. Additionally,the guide provides suggestions on obtaining expedi-tionary engineer training in support of worldwideExpeditionary Aerospace Force deployments,including resources provided by Air National Guard,Air Force Reserve Command and non-DefenseDepartment educational sources.

Units with training obstacles other than utilitiesprivatization or EAF challenges will find the guideuseful, as well (for example, when a base has onlyunderground electrical distribution systems andelectrical personnel must still certify on overheaddistribution core tasks).

The recently developed Worldwide ContingencyTraining Locator is also on the AFCESA website. Theguide provides commanders, supervisors, uniteducation and training managers, and trainees aquick, concise reference to the locations and pointsof contact for multiple CE expeditionary engineeringcourses and equipment.

For more information, contact SMSgt GlennDeese, HQ AFCESA, DSN 523-6392, or e-mail,Glenn.Deese@Tyndall.af.mil.

Training Obstacles?Help is Available

20

by Col Patrick M. CoullahanEleventh Air Force Civil Engineer

Eareckson Air Station is locatedon Shemya Island, a diminutive pieceof real estate near the tip of thewindswept Aleutian Islands inAlaska. At 1,500 air miles fromAnchorage, the island is actuallycloser to Russia and Japan than toAlaska�s largest city. It is Shemya�slocation that makes the island soimportant in the National MissileDefense (NMD) strategy.

The NMD system is intended toprotect all 50 states from an incom-ing missile. While the primary threatto the United States no longer comesfrom a calculated strategic nuclearattack by the Soviet Union, ourmajor concerns are accidental orunauthorized missile attacks byestablished powers and calculatedstrikes by �rogue nations� such asIran, Iraq and North Korea.

The need for and timing of an

NMD system has been the subject ofmuch debate and intense scrutiny.Even so, many people in the UnitedStates believe we have a missiledefense system already in place.Nothing could be further from thetruth. In fact, putting such a systemin place will require five years ofconstruction and the efforts of severalmilitary and contract organizations.

A New MissionComponents of the NMD system

include: ground based interceptors(GBI), battle management commandand control (BMC2), an in-flightinterceptor communications system(IFICS) data terminal, upgradedearly warning radars (UEWR) andan X-band radar (XBR).

The GBI is the weapon of thesystem. It is designed to interceptincoming ballistic missile warheadsoutside the earth�s atmosphere anddestroy them on impact. The GBIswould remain in underground silos.Launches would occur only indefense of the United States from aballistic missile attack � there wouldbe no flight-testing of the missiles atthe NMD deployment site. The GBIsite would contain launch silos andrelated support facilities. Up to 100GBI silos could be deployed. GBIsare not planned for basing atShemya, but could be based at FortGreeley, near Delta Junction, Alaska,or in northeastern North Dakota.

The BMC2 is the �brains� of the

NMD system, and the IFICS DataTerminal ground stations providecommunications links between thein-flight GBI and the BMC2.

The NMD system will require anupgrade to existing early warningradars at Clear AS, Alaska, Beale AirForce Base, Calif., and Cape Cod AS,Mass. These early warning radars,also referred to as �PAVE PAWS,�are phased-array surveillance radarscurrently used to detect, track andprovide early warning of sea-launched ballistic missiles. They alsotrack satellites and space debris.Hardware and software modifica-tions are planned for these existingradars, in conjunction with the NMDsystem, to allow the acquisition,tracking and classification of smallobjects near the horizon and providedata to other NMD elements usingimproved communications.

The NMD system�s XBR will bea ground-based, multi-function radarcapable of performing tracking,discrimination and kill assessments ofincoming ballistic missile warheads.The XBR site at Eareckson willinclude a radar and associatedsupport facilities.

Any deployment may requireelements of the system to use existingfiber optic lines, power lines andother utilities, so modifications maybe required. Some locations mayrequire the acquisition of new rights-of-way and installation of new utilityand fiber optic cable. Potential new

Bedding Down the X-Band Radar:A New Mission Proposed for Eareckson Air Station

The National Missile Defense construction andbeddown at Eareckson has generated muchhigh-level interest, leading to briefings to theVice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff andDeputy Secretary of State. The Chairman,Senate Appropriations Committee; theDeputy Secretary of Defense; and the NASAAdministrator on National Missile Defensehave visited Eareckson and been briefed bythe 611th Air Support Group. National newsmedia interest in the island and the uniquesupport role it may have in this program hasincreased as well.

Implementing a National Missile Defensesystem is one of the U.S. DefenseDepartment�s top priorities. Once the official�go-ahead� is given, DoD will be on the fasttrack to deploy the system�s powerful newtracking radar at one of the toughest localesin the Air Force.

21

CE Magazine Spring 2001

land fiber optic cable line locationsinclude those along the AleutianIslands to Eareckson. In addition,redundant fiber optic cable lines maybe required in some locations forsecurity purposes.

The 611th Air Support Group isdeeply involved in preplanningactivities for this new and importantmission, which will require severalmillion dollars in military construc-tion (MILCON) facilities at ShemyaIsland alone.

Challenges AheadThe island of Shemya may be a

perfect location for the antiballisticmissile radar, but it is a terrible placeto try to build anything. But once thePresident says �go,� the Pentagonplans to build the new 10 story-highradar there. The plan is to have thewhole system up and running in lessthan five years, which, on thisremote island, translates to a waragainst the elements and a logisticalnightmare.

The weather on Shemya posesquite a challenge as it is very unpre-dictable � changing by the hour,and sometimes by the minute.Although average precipitation isonly 2 to 4 inches per month, someform of precipitation occurs on anearly daily basis.

The average low temperatureduring Shemya�s coldest month(February) is a relatively mild 28degrees Fahrenheit, but it is notunusual to witness hurricane forcewinds, enormous waves from themeeting of the Bering Sea andPacific Ocean, and blizzards through-out the long winter months.

With construction on Shemya,we face monumental logistics issuessuch as barge sailings and unloadingin rough seas. Equipment andsupplies for the project, nearly all ofthe construction materials and heavyequipment, are not found on theisland and will have to be hauledfrom Seattle � 3,000 miles away.This means hiring enormous bargesto make the trip, then lining them upat Shemya�s one dock to unload.

Erecting a 108-foot-high inflat-able radar dome in an area withalmost no respite from high windsposes a tremendous engineeringchallenge. In addition, Shemya hasbeen rocked repeatedly by earth-quakes over the years, requiringsignificant seismic design efforts toovercome the forces of MotherNature and to prevent or keepdamage to a minimum.

A 1965 earthquake in the nearbyRat Islands measuring 8.7 on theRichter scale caused cracks inShemya�s asphalt runway and createdcrevasses with as much as 16.5meters of vertical displacement.Landslides occurred, water tankstwisted and underground water pipesbroke. Many aftershocks were feltduring the following weeks, and thequake generated a tsunami onShemya reported to be about 10.7meters high.

To counteract the effects ofanother earthquake of that magnitudethere, the foundation planned for theradar alone will be over 25 feet thickand require more than 9,000 cubicyards of reinforced concrete toconstruct.

Reliable and cost effectiveprimary power is another challenge

in a place as remote as Shemya. Toensure continued mission success, adedicated diesel generator powerplant with high energy magneticpulse (HEMP) shielding will beconstructed to provide mission-critical power to the NMD system.

While construction of the NMDfacilities on Shemya is very feasible,the effort will not be successfulwithout a great degree of coordina-

tion and preparation. The manyfacilities now standing at Earecksonare a testament to DoD�s ability tomarshal the resources and talentneeded to effectively build in theAleutians.

If We Build It, They Will ComeThe latest in living amenities for

assigned NMD personnel will beincluded in the package. Eventhough Shemya is sometimes referredto as the �Black Pearl of the Pacific,�one could say it is not exactly aPacific island paradise. Attractingand keeping quality people with the

(Opposite) A conceptual drawing of theproposed X-Band Radar at EarecksonAir Station. (Above) A satellite photo ofShemya, an 8-square-mile island inAlaska�s Aleutian Island chain.(Courtesy 611 ASG)

22

On June 3, 1942, Japaneseforces attacked U.S. Army and NavyForces at Dutch Harbor, in Alaska�sAleutian Island chain. Four days later,the Japanese landed on Attu andKiska islands, on the western end ofthe Aleutian chain. The AleutianIslanders, known as Aleuts, living onAttu were taken to an internmentcamp on the island of Hokkaido,Japan. In response, the U.S. forcedAleut villagers on other islands toevacuate to southeast Alaska. Attuwas recaptured by U.S. forces inMay 1943.

By late May, U.S. forces beganconstructing an airfield on Shemya tosupport B-29 bombers for raids onnorthern Japan. The B-29s nevercame to Shemya, rather, B-24s flownby the 404th Squadron (Eleventh Air

Force) operated from Shemya AirStation, raiding Paramushiro and theKurile Islands between 1943 and1945. The remains of World War IIbatteries and bunkers are stillscattered across Shemya, as arefoundation berms from other shelters.

Between 1946 and 1949,activities and personnel at ShemyaAS were reduced. The Korean Warbrought renewed activity, as Shemyaserved as a refueling stop on theGreat Circle Route between the FarEast and North America. In 1954 thebase was deactivated, and facilitieswere transferred to the Civil Aero-nautics Authority and leased toNorthwest Orient Airlines for use asa refueling stop.

Soviet rocket tests to Kamchatkaduring the late 1950s increased

interest in Shemya as alocation for monitoringmissile tests from the farnortheastern SovietUnion. Old facilities wererehabilitated and newones constructed on theisland, including a largedetection radar (AN/FPS-17), which went intooperation in 1960. In1961, an AN/FPS-80tracking radar wasconstructed nearby. Theseradars were closed in the1970s when the CobraDane phased array radarwas built to monitormissile tests. Meanwhile,

A Brief Military History of Shemya Island

talent and savvy needed to run acomplex that provides for our firstmeasure of defense from roguenations will certainly be impacted bythe quality of life found at Shemya.

General Ronald R. Fogleman,former U.S. Air Force chief of staff,said at the Defense Forum Founda-tion in Washington D.C. on Jan. 24,1997, that Shemya was �a God-forsaken place if you want to know

Shemya was redesignated from anAir Force station to an Air Forcebase in 1968.

The 1980s also saw increasedinterest and many new projects onShemya Island. In 1986, the Armyconstructed Queen�s Match, a StarWars missile defense research facility,on the northeast side of the island.

Most World War II facilities andequipment were dismantled anddisposed of during the 1980s. In1989, a massive military constructioneffort called �Fix Shemya� was usedto build replacement facilities andrepair existing facilities.

In 1993, Shemya AFB wasrenamed Eareckson AS in honor ofCol William O. Eareckson. In 1942and 1943, Colonel Earecksonpersonally led the difficult missionsagainst the Japanese on Kiska andAttu, and helped plan the successfulretaking of Attu. In 1995, EarecksonAS went through a draw down phaseand converted to contractor supportand maintenance for operation of theCobra Dane radar.

The future holds still moreactivity for Shemya Island, as it isnow the proposed site for construc-tion and operation of an X-bandradar for the National MissileDefense Program. More than 50years later, the 8-square-mile island ofShemya continues its military service.(Compiled from reports by the EleventhAir Force History Office by KarleneLeeper, 611 CES/CEV.)

the truth.� However, despite thatassessment and knowing the formi-dable challenges we face, we believewe can go a long way towardenhancing quality of life on Shemyawith the advent of this new andimportant mission.

Col Coullahan is the Eleventh Air ForceCivil Engineer and the 611th AirSupport Group Deputy Commander,

Eleventh Air Force, Elmendorf AFB,Alaska. As 11 AF Civil Engineer,Colonel Coullahan provides policy,oversight and advocacy for Air Forceinstallations throughout the state ofAlaska for civil engineering anddevelops long-range facility plans for theMILCON program to fulfill require-ments for mission beddowns, baseinfrastructure, community support andfamily housing.

23

by TSgt Michael A. WardAFCESA Public Affairs

Last November, an odd story appeared in anAssociated Press news report. It said residents in parts ofCalifornia were being asked to cut back on Christmaslighting due to energy shortages.

Most people outside of California probably didn�tpay much attention to the story at the time, but it�s nownational news and California�s energy problems arethreatening to spread outside the state�s borders assummer approaches.

The problems began innocently enough as anattempt to give California residents greater control overtheir utility bills, which were some of the highest in thecountry, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

An appealing solution was deregulation of utilities,and in 1996 the California Legislature signedderegulation into law (deregulation began in 1998). Keycomponents of the legislation included a 10 percentreduction in electrical rates for the approximately 27million residential customers of the state�s big threeutilities and a customer rate freeze until March 31, 2002,(or until utility companies paid off all their pastinvestments), according to attorney Lt Col Bill Wells,chief of the Air Force�s utilities litigation team.

To encourage competition in power generation, thestate strongly urged utility companies to sell off at leasthalf of their power plants. Legislators believed thatwould create numerous new power plant owners, noneof whom could single-handedly influence the price ofelectricity. They were wrong on both accounts. Sellingoff their power plants left utilities exposed andvulnerable. Not only were they unable to produce theirown energy, they were also at the mercy of power

wholesalers, including those whopurchased their plants.

At first deregulation worked, butthe dominoes for failure were set inmotion in early 1999 when demandbegan to outstrip supply. No new majorpower plants had been built in the statefor 10 years; yet electrical demand hadsurged dramatically upwards because ofan increase in hi-tech industries and agrowing population. Compounding theproblem, California imports up to 25percent of its electricity from outside thestate. Neighboring states were alsoexperiencing increased demand fromtheir own customers, meaning lesspower available for export, Wells said.

Prices paid by utilities companiesfor electrical power suddenly beganskyrocketing as wholesaler market rates jumped from aslow as two cents per kilowatt-hour to more than a dollar.Since the price increases could not be passed on tocustomers because of the previously imposed price freeze,the utilities companies� debts rose at an incredible rate. Injust a few months, PG&E and Southern CaliforniaEdison, two of California�s largest utilities, fell billions ofdollars into the red. At one point, some suppliers stoppedselling power to them because of their declining creditrating.

California and the federal government have recentlystepped in to prevent the utilities from going under,enacting emergency measures requiring wholesalers tocontinue selling power to the utilities and allowingutilities to enter into long-term energy contracts whichoffer lower prices. In addition, the state allowed PG&E

Conserve Now or Pay LaterEnergy Crunch Forces Greater Conservation Measures

California, as well as thenation, is also dealing with ashortage of natural gas.Extremely cold weather,particularly in the northeast,combined with decreaseddrilling has forced prices upalmost 300 percent in the pastthree months. Drilling hasresumed, but prices areexpected to remain high forseveral years. Crude oil andgas prices are also expected toincrease by summer, driven inpart by the March announce-ment by the Organization ofPetroleum Exporting Coun-tries that it would reduce itscrude oil production by onemillion barrels a day.

24

and Southern California Edison to raise rates by 15percent for large commercial and industrial customersincluding military installations.

Because of the state�s problems, bases have had todust off long-dormant contingency plans and step-upexisting energy conservation measures. DoD is lookingat ways to reduce the electrical demand at Californiainstallations by 10 percent over last summer�s peakbaseline and by a 15 percent reduction by next summer.The Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, inconjunction with the major commands and affectedbases, has developed several options to reduce demand,including greater conservation and producing powerindependently through Air Force-owned generators.

by MSgt Stefanie DonerAir Force Flight Test Center Public Affairs

As the California energy crisis continues, EdwardsAir Force Base, Calif., is stepping up efforts to conserveelectricity and natural gas.

�While utility providers haven�t requested that we cutenergy consumption by a specific amount yet, it�simportant that we all do our part as good neighbors toconserve energy resources and keep the base�s utility costslow,� said Capt Amy Hoffer, 95th Civil EngineerSquadron.

Those efforts are paying off. In the first month ofthe new year, main base operations cut natural gasconsumption by 12 percent over that used in the sameperiod last year, a $75,000 energy savings.

Additionally, Air Force Research Laboratory�sPropulsion Directorate cut their natural gas use by 11percent, saving the base another $10,000.

Continuing to conserve electricity remains a hottopic on Edwards and throughout the state. The currentconservation initiatives on base include shutting downlights on streets and in parking lots. To ensure safety,however, intersections remain lit. The base loweredtemperatures on thermostats to 68 degrees this winter,and increased the summertime temperature to 78degrees. Hot water heaters to restrooms and thecompressed natural gas station have been shut down toconserve energy.

Base employees and housing residents have beenencouraged to shut off all lights not in use, to ensuretheir desktop computers are completely shut down at theend of the day, and to take other measures that will saveenergy without significantly impacting quality of life.

Edwards officials are formulating contingency plansshould the situation worsen. These include partially ortotally shutting down natural gas service to the mainbase, which could last from a few hours to a few days.

Although flight line operations haven�t been seriouslyaffected to date, the base is examining the possibility ofshortening shift lengths and workweeks to help cutenergy use should the problem escalate.

To help people become more involved in theconservation effort, Edwards established an energyhotline and an e-mail account for people to report areaswhere energy may be wasted or to offer suggestions forimproving conservation efforts.

Edwards Shoulders Share of Energy Crunch

So far, the periodic rolling blackouts throughoutCalifornia have not had a major effect on any installation.However, the state�s energy problems are far from overand government officials believe other states will soon beaffected as demand increases and supplies dwindlenationwide. With summer coming, officials are worried.Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recently comparedcurrent energy problems to the energy crisis of the 1970sand warned that California�s problems are not isolated ortemporary.

�We�ve told other bases it�s not too early to thinkabout conservation; smart, long-term conservation,� Wellssaid. �We�ve already seen rates increase in all westernstates and it�s spreading eastward.�

SSgt William McDaniel, 95th CES, maintains ceiling lightingunits as part of an energy conservation push at Edwards AFB,Calif. (Photo by TSgt Chris Ball)

25

CE Magazine Spring 2001

CE World

Construction began in Januaryon a new $18.1 million, 55,000square foot, corrosion control facilityat Charleston Air Force Base, S.C.Construction is scheduled for comple-tion in early 2002.

The facility is being realizedunder a new contracting conceptknown as design-build. In the past,one firm designed a project andanother firm built it. With the newdesign-build concept, one firm is

now responsible for all phases ofconstruction, including design. Theproject was awarded to the AustinCompany, a firm that recentlydesigned and built a facility at TinkerAFB, Okla.

The base also completed renova-tions on 20 military family homes inthe Hunley Park housing area.During renovations, the homes werecompletely gutted, floor plans wererearranged and energy-efficient

appliances were installed.�Hunley Park renovations have

been a labor of love for a number ofyears; a great success story and anaward-winning project,� said Lt ColJon Roop, 437th Civil EngineerSquadron commander. �It�s a greatthing for the families that live here.�(SrA Donald Church, 437th AW PublicAffairs)

Design-Build Project Underway at Charleston

A team from the 819th REDHORSE Squadron, Malmstrom AirForce Base, Mont., deployed toSouthwest Asia in October to pave amunitions supply road at PrinceSultan Air Base.

The dirt road serving thewestern munitions storage area therewas in need of constant repair. Rutsand soft spots were making traveldifficult. Rather than allow the roadto deteriorate and become unstable

and unusable for munitions opera-tions, RED HORSE was called in topave it.

The initial design for the projectwas complete in September, but onceconstruction crews arrived on site ithad to be modified due to equipmentshortages. Repairing the road surfaceand preparing it for asphalt pavementrequired about 20,000 cubic meters

of fill material. The crew straight-ened curves in the middle of theroad, removed hills and filled lowspots to level the overall road surface.Drainage was provided for on andaround the road, and all sand piles onboth sides of the road were removedor leveled.

The crew placed about 9,500cubic meters ofbasecourse andused about 3,200

RED HORSE Paves at Prince Sultan

The western munitions storagearea road at Prince Sultan AirBase before (top, left), during(left), and after (above) 819thRHS construction crewsarrived on-site. (Photoscourtesy 819 RHS)

tons of asphalt to pave 7,000 feet (24foot wide, or 34 foot including theshoulder) of dirt road.

The 17-member team finishedthe road in December, after honingtheir wartime readiness skills andproviding a quality product to thecustomer. (Capt Matt Benivegna,819th RHS)

26

2000 Air ForceCivil Engineer Awards

Lt Gen Michael E. Zettler, Deputy Chief of Staff forInstallations and Logistics, Headquarters U.S. Air Force,has announced the recipients of the 2000 Air Force CivilEngineer Awards. The awards were presented duringNational Engineers Week, on Feb. 21, at the 39th annualCivil Engineer Awards Luncheon at Bolling Air ForceBase, Washington, D.C.

Following are the winners and runners-up.

Unit Awards

The Air Force Outstanding Civil EngineerUnit AwardLarge Unit Category52 CES, Spangdahlem AB, Germany (USAFE)Runner-up — 96 CEG, Eglin AFB, Fla. (AFMC)

Small Unit Category92 CES, Fairchild AFB, Wash. (AMC)Runner-up — 8 CES, Kunsan AB, Korea (PACAF)

Outstanding Unit Award winners also receive TheSociety of American Military Engineers Curtin Award for2000. The SAME award is named for Maj Gen RobertH. Curtin, Director of Air Force Civil Engineering from1963 to 1968.

Minton �Best Author� Award to be Re-establishedThe Air Force Civil Engineer Awards Program will

increase in scope next year by re-instituting an award toacknowledge contributors to the Air Force Civil Engineermagazine.

The Major General Augustus M. Minton Award,named for the former Director of Civil Engineering,Headquarters U.S. Air Force, from 1957 to 1963, willrecognize the most outstanding article published in themagazine. All Air Force military personnel, civilianmembers and contractors who contributed articlesduring the award period are eligible and will automati-cally be considered for the award. Articles published inthe Fall 2000 through Summer 2001 issues will beconsidered during judging for the 2001 award.

The purpose of the award is to encourage greaterparticipation in the magazine and foster increased

excellence in coverage of CE programs and activities.Entries will be judged on how well they communicateprofessional ideas and information and provide timelycoverage of civil engineering activities and events.

General Minton founded the magazine in 1960,transforming it from an in-house newsletter for the AirForce Civil Engineering Center at the Air ForceInstitute of Technology to an Air Force-wide profes-sional military engineering periodical. The generalestablished a �Best Author Award� which existed from1960 until 1989 and was co-sponsored by the Directorof Civil Engineering and the Aerospace EducationFoundation of the Air Force Association. The awardwas re-named for General Minton in 1973.

Brigadier General Michael A. McAuliffe Award(Housing Flight)355 CES, Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz. (ACC)Runner-up — 66 CES, Hanscom AFB, Mass. (AFMC)

Major General Robert C. Thompson Award(Resources Flight)31 CES, Aviano AB, Italy (USAFE)Runner-up — 16 CES, Hurlburt Field, Fla. (AFSOC)

Brigadier General Archie S. Mayes Award(Engineering Flight)8 CES, Kunsan AB, Korea (PACAF)Runner-up — 48 CES, RAF Lakenheath, U.K. (USAFE)

Major General Clifton D. Wright Award(Operations Flight)35 CES, Misawa AB, Japan (PACAF)Runner-up — 9 CES, Beale AFB, Calif. (ACC)

Chief Master Sergeant Ralph E. Sanborn Award(Fire Protection Flight)35 CES, Misawa AB, Japan (PACAF)Runner-up — 436 CES, Dover AFB, Del. (AMC)

Senior Master Sergeant Gerald J. Stryzak Award(Explosive Ordnance Disposal Flight)52 CES, Spangdahlem AB, Germany (USAFE)Runner-up — 2 CES, Barksdale AFB, La. (ACC)

27

CE Magazine Spring 2001

Colonel Frederick J. Riemer Award (Readiness Flight)27 CES, Cannon AFB, N.M. (ACC)Runner-up — 90 CES, F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo. (AFSPC)

Air Force Outstanding Civil EngineerEnvironmental Flight Award354 CES, Eielson AFB, Alaska (PACAF)Runner-up — 366 CES, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho(ACC)

Individual Awards

The Society of American Military EngineersNewman MedalCol David W. DeFoliart, HQ USAF, Washington,D.C. (USAF)Runner-up — Col Louis K. Lancaster, HQ PACAF, HickamAFB, Hawaii (PACAF)

The Society of American Military EngineersGoddard MedalActive DutyMSgt Anthony J. Michels, 56 CES, Luke AFB, Ariz.(AETC)Runner-up — SMSgt Bobby L. Burns II, 554 RHS, Osan AB,Korea (PACAF)

Air Force ReserveMSgt Jeffrey T. Jarvis, 916 CES, Seymour JohnsonAFB, N.C. (AFRC)

Air National GuardMSgt Douglas J. Gilbert, 202 RHS, Camp Blanding,Fla. (ANG)

Major General Joseph A. Ahearn EnlistedLeadership AwardCMSgt Victor P. Jones, 65 CES, Lajes Field, Azores(ACC)Runner-up — CMSgt Thomas Martone, 66 CES, HanscomAFB, Mass. (AFMC)

Major General William D. Gilbert Award(Staff Action Officer)OfficerLt Col Charles G. Emmette, HQ USAF, Washington,D.C. (USAF)Runner-up — Lt Col James E. Welter, HQ AMC, Scott AFB,Ill. (AMC)

EnlistedSMSgt Calvin E. Dickens, HQ AETC, RandolphAFB, Texas (AETC)Runner-up—SMSgt Paul L. Hicks, HQ AFCESA, TyndallAFB, Fla. (AFCESA)

A student finds out just how heavy an explosive ordnance disposalprotective suit really is at the annual Engineers Week Family Night, Feb.21,in Washington D.C. SSgt Joe Rodriquez, 325th EOD Flight, Tyndall AFB, Fla.(left), and SSgt Harry Bounds, 52nd EOD Flight, Ramstein AB, Germany,help the unidentified youth don the suit. Approximately 2,000 peopleattended the event, held in conjunction with National Engineer�s Week.

Brig Gen L. Dean Fox, director of Civil Engineering, Air Mobility Command, andLt Col Juan Ibanez, commander, 92nd CES, (fourth and fifth from right,respectively) with 92nd CES members after receiving the Outstanding CivilEngineer Unit Award and SAME Curtin Award at the Civil Engineer AwardsLuncheon Feb 21.

Lt Col Kim Traver, commander, 52nd CES, accepts the Outstanding CivilEngineer Unit Award from Maj Gen Earnest O. Robbins II (left). The OutstandingUnit Award winners also receive the SAME Curtin Award, named for Maj Gen(ret.) Robert H. Curtin (right).

28

�Can Do�Can Do�Can Do�Can Do�Can Do, W, W, W, W, Will Doill Doill Doill Doill Do, Have Done!�, Have Done!�, Have Done!�, Have Done!�, Have Done!�

CivilianJohn N. Williams, GS-13, HQ ACC, Langley AFB,Va. (ACC)Runner-up — Dana S. Bouley, GS-14, HQ USAF,Washington, D.C. (USAF)

Harry P. Rietman Award (Senior Civilian Manager)Udo Stuermer, C-9, 52 CES, Spangdahlem AB,Germany (USAFE)Runner-up — George H. Franklin Jr., GS-15, HQ USAF,Washington, D.C. (USAF)

Major General Eugene A. Lupia Award(Military Manager)Capt Frank K. Miyagawa, 96 CEG, Eglin AFB, Fla.(AFMC)Runner-up — Capt AnnMarie Halterman-O’Malley,31 CES, Aviano AB, Italy (USAFE)

Unit Name: 52nd CivilEngineer Squadron Parent

Unit: 52nd Fighter Wing (U.S. Air Forces in Europe)Location: Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany Com-mander: Lt Col Kim C. Traver Assigned Personnel:403 military, 315 German National, 15 U.S. civiliansMission: Plan, build, maintain and protect premiermilitary installations in peace and war for the 52ndFighter Wing and its people.

Unique Requirements: Spangdahlem AB occupiesapproximately 1,374 acres on the site of a former WorldWar II German Panzer supply and staging site. The 52ndFW is responsible for locations geographically distributedthroughout the Eifel region of Germany and geographi-cally separated units in Belgium, the Netherlands,Denmark, Bavaria and Northern Germany.

The 52nd CES maintains more than 10.4 millionsquare feet of real property and 4,116 facilities on 2,478acres at Spangdahlem and the geographically separatedlocations, and services more than 12,000 customersincluding military, civilians and dependents. The squad-ron deployed more than 250 people last year in supportof operations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Slovakia,Ecuador and Peru.

Recent Accomplishments: One of the 52nd CES� most

challenging tasks is completing more than $200 millionworth of construction in support of the Rhein MainTransition Program. This program, scheduled forcompletion in 2005, transfers operational capability fromRhein Main AB to Spangdahlem and Ramstein AB. It isone of the largest construction undertakings in USAFE,but one that the squadron�s innovative people are morethan capable of handling.

Another squadron success story is the SpangdahlemWork Order Allocation Program, or SWOAP. Thisprogram provides group and squadron commanders theability to set priorities and focus civil engineer capabili-ties on their most critical requirements. It gives controlof resources to those closest to the wing�s mission, butallows CE to determine the best means of execution.

In 2000, the 52nd CES took home four Air Force-level awards: The Society of American Military EngineersCurtin Award (Outstanding Civil Engineer Unit, largeunit category), the SMSgt Gerald J. Stryzak Award(Outstanding Explosive Ordnance Disposal Flight), theHarry P. Rietman Award (Outstanding Senior CivilianManager), and the Lance P. Sijan Air Force LeadershipAward, junior officer level. In addition, the squadron won10 USAFE-level CE awards, doubling the previous year�slist of accomplishments. These awards and the winningteam spirit of the 52nd CES embody the unit�s motto�Can Do, Will Do, Have Done!�

Major General Eugene A. Lupia Award(Military Technician)TSgt Thomas Deville Jr., 90 CES, F.E. Warren AFB,Wyo. (AFSPC)Runner-up — SSgt Vandiver K. Hood, 86 CES, RamsteinAB, Germany (USAFE)

Outstanding Civil Engineer Senior MilitaryManagerLt Col Thomas J. Schluckebier, 66 CES, HanscomAFB, Mass. (AFMC)Runner-up — Maj Gregory J. Rosenmerkel, 92 CES,Fairchild AFB, Wash. (AMC)

Outstanding Civil Engineer MilitarySuperintendentMSgt Michael A. Schreck, 15 CES, Hickam AFB,Hawaii (PACAF)Runner-up — SMSgt Glenn L. Deese, HQ AFCESA, TyndallAFB, Fla. (AFCESA)

29

CE Magazine Spring 2001

Unit Name: 92nd CivilEngineer Squadron Parent

Unit: 92nd Air Refueling Wing (Air Mobility Command)Location: Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash. Commander:Lt Col Juan Ibanez, Jr. Assigned Personnel: 200 militaryand 177 civilians Mission: Provide combat engineer forcesin support of global operations, while delivering the fullspectrum of real property and emergency services to the92nd ARW, an Aerospace Expeditionary Force LeadMobility Wing, and other base units.

Unique Requirements: Fairchild AFB is home to four airrefueling squadrons and 19 associate units, including the AirForce Survival School (Air Education and TrainingCommand), the 2nd Support Squadron (Air CombatCommand), and the 141st Air Refueling Wing (WashingtonAir National Guard).

Recent Accomplishments: The 92nd CES has a strongrecord of sustained excellence, winning the Air ForceOutstanding Civil Engineer Unit Award, small basecategory, in 2000 and in 1998, and placing second in 1997.

Teamwork and taking care of its people provided thefoundation for success. A deployed spouses� sponsorprogram and a �Hearts Apart� facility allow familymembers to keep in touch. Thanks in part to a new trainingcenter, the 92nd is the only CE unit to have won theFifteenth Air Force Training Award, and has won it four

Outstanding Civil Engineer Civilian ManagerJohn E. Fluharty, WS-12, 81 CES, Keesler AFB,Miss. (AETC)Runner-up — Donald R. Ballard, GS-8, 347 CES, MoodyAFB, Ga. (ACC)

Outstanding Civil Engineer Civilian SupervisorMireno Polo Del Vecchio, U-4, 31 CES, Aviano AB,Italy (USAFE)Runner-up — Janice M. Patterson, GS-7, 43 CES, Pope AFB,N.C. (AMC)

Outstanding Civil Engineer Civilian TechnicianKenji Taneichi, MLC 2-6, 35 CES, Misawa AB, Japan(PACAF)Runner-up — Michael G. Meyer, WG-10, 56 CES, LukeAFB, Ariz. (AETC)

Outstanding Civil Engineer Individual MobilizationAugmentee Officer ManagerMaj Leslie L. Welter, HQ AMC, Scott AFB, Ill.(AMC)Runner-up — Lt Col Bernard J. Grivetti, 20 CES, ShawAFB, S.C. (ACC)

Outstanding Civil Engineer Individual MobilizationAugmentee Enlisted ManagerCMSgt Terry N. Thacker, 65 CES, Lajes Field, Azores(ACC)Runner-up — MSgt Leonard B. Howard, HQ AFCESA,Tyndall AFB, Fla. (AFCESA)

times. The unit�s hard chargers also won the 2000 FairchildCommander�s Trophy for sports excellence. The squadronsupports the community as well, winning the coveted�Golden Hammer� award from Habitat for Humanity.

Facility excellence shines throughout the base. Therecent winner of two Air Force Design Awards, anaggressive $51 million construction program in 2000produced a new education center and library, squadronoperations facility, 14 new housing units, $1.6 million inneighborhood upgrades, and more. The first performance-based maintenance contract in AMC keeps housingtop-notch.

The unit won the 2001 White House �Closing theCircle� award for waste prevention. Last year, the 92nd wonthe AF General Thomas D. White Award for EnvironmentalQuality and was the only federal agency, and only repeatwinner, to earn the Washington State Governor�s Award forpollution prevention. Winter operations can be difficult inthe Great Northwest, but winning AMC�s Balchen-PostAward for snow removal four of the past five years showsthe unit knows how to meet the challenge.

As combat engineers, the unit proved its mettle when itdominated at AMC�s first Expeditionary OperationalReadiness Inspection. The entire engineer team was named�exceptional performers� by the AMC Inspector General andcontributed to the wing�s overall �Excellent� rating.

The unit�s unofficial motto is �Lead the Charge!� �and that�s what it does every day.

�Lead the Char�Lead the Char�Lead the Char�Lead the Char�Lead the Charge!�ge!�ge!�ge!�ge!�

30

CE People

The National Society of Profes-sional Engineers has named thewinners of its �Air Force Engineer ofthe Year� awards.

Lt Col Jared A. Astin, Head-quarters Air Force Center forEnvironmental Excellence, BrooksAir Force Base, Texas, and Larry W.Smith, 45th Civil Engineer Squad-ron, Cape Canaveral Air ForceStation, Fla., were among 34engineers from 14 federal agencies tobe recognized by the society.

Colonel Astin, chief of AFCEE�sEnvironmental Restoration Division,

managed the Air Force�s largest andmost politically sensitive environmen-tal cleanup program at theMassachusetts Military Reservation.AFCEE officials said that Astin hasmaintained a close working relation-ship with key community membersand federal and state regulators tostrike a balance between purelytechnical solutions and the desires oflocal communities around theinstallation.

Larry Smith is an environmentalengineer in the 45th CES� CCAFSdetachment. Among his recent

NSPE Air Force Engineers of the Year

Capt Michael A. Geer, a civilengineer at Spangdahlem Air Base,Germany, is a recipient of the 2000Lance P. Sijan U.S. Air ForceLeadership Award. The Sijan awardrecognizes people assigned to wing-level organizations and below whohave demonstrated outstanding

CE Captain Selected for Sijan Award

leadership abilities. It is presentedannually to four Air Force membersrepresenting the senior and juniorofficer and enlisted corps.

�I was surprised when I wasnominated by the squadron, let alonewinning at Air Force,� said the 52ndCivil Engineer Squadron winner inthe junior officer category. �Thereare such tremendous people doinggreat things at this base and in thiscommand.� The captain�s supervisor,though, wasn�t surprised by hisselection.

�We�ve had a huge constructionand design program during the pastcouple of years. Without Capt MikeGeer�s superb management skills, wewould not be able to support addi-tional initiatives such as the RheinMain Transition Program and theMilitary Family Housing RenovationProject,� said Udo Stuermer, engi-neering flight commander. �TheRMT program alone is a 333 millionDeutsche Mark program consistingof 23 projects which have to bedesigned by September 2001 andconstructed by June 2005. The MFHinitiative is calling for an improve-ment of all unrenovated housing unitsby 2010. Here we�re talking aboutanother investment in the amount of$160 million.�

Geer is currently the design and

construction chief for the 52nd CES.�That means that just about anythingbuilt or repaired by someone otherthan an Air Force unit is done in mysection,� said Geer. �Our big effortsright now are the design for theRhein Main mission transfer, a waterproject and family housing renova-tions.�

There are 29 people working inGeer�s section � ranging fromengineers and project inspectors tosurveyors and drafts people. Thegroup is about evenly split betweenmilitary and civilians.

Geer graduated with a bachelor�sdegree in civil engineering fromMassachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy and was commissioned throughits Reserve Officer Training Corpsprogram. Through an Air ForceEducational Delay program, he wentstraight to graduate school for amaster�s degree in civil engineeringat Penn State, and then back to MITfor doctoral studies. He enteredactive duty before completing hisdoctorate, but still hopes to finish it.Geer is married and has a 1 year-olddaughter. �My family supports memuch more than I deserve,� he said.(From an Eifel Times report by 1st LtAngela Johnson, 52nd Fighter WingPublic Affairs)

achievements, he managed a $5million safe drinking water project ata CCAFS satellite launch facility fromresearch through construction. Healso saved the Air Force $2 millionon a landfill closure project anddeveloped a vegetative barrier systemresearch pilot project to reducegroundwater contamination byplanting trees.

Awards were presented duringan Engineers Week luncheon Feb. 22at Ft. Myer, Va. (HQ AFCEE PublicAffairs contributed to this report.)

Capt Michael Geer (right) and SSgt SandraButler, 52nd CES, review sight plans for newwater storage tanks at Spangdahlem AB,Germany. Geer is a 2000 Lance P. Sijan AirForce Leadership Award recipient. (Photo bySrA Esperanza Berrios)

31

CE Magazine Spring 2001

Brigadier General (ret.) Henry J.�Fritz� Stehling, USAF, died Feb. 2at a Fort Worth, Texas, hospital. Hewas 82 years old.

General Stehling served AirForce civil engineering from itsbeginnings in the late 1940s throughthe height of the Vietnam War. Hismilitary career began in 1942, whenhe graduated from Officer CandidateSchool (U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers). He served as an instructorand a company commander duringWorld War II.

In 1948 he transferred to thenewly formed Air Force, holdingpositions at Tyndall and PinecastleAir Force Bases, Fla., and RandolphAFB, Texas. From March 1954 untilJune 1955, General Stehling served

as chairman of a field group for theU.S. Air Force ad hoc board thatdeveloped integrated managementcontrols within civil engineeringfunctional areas that were laterimplemented Air Force-wide.

His next assignments wereoverseas tours as deputy districtengineer for the Joint ConstructionAgency at Nancy and Paris, France,and staff engineer for SeventeenthAir Force at Wheelus Air Base,Tripoli, Libya.

He returned to the United Statesin 1958, attending Air War College atMaxwell AFB, Ala. His next assign-ments were in the Directorate ofCivil Engineering, HeadquartersU.S. Air Force, as deputy chief,Programs Division then chief, Base

Maintenance Division.General Stehling is perhaps best

known for the outstanding supporthe provided to field engineers duringthe Vietnam War when he served asDirector of Civil Engineering,Headquarters Pacific Air Forces,from 1964 to 1967. His last twoassignments were as the DeputyChief of Staff for Civil Engineeringat Air Training Command and as theDirector, Real Property MaintenanceDirectorate, Office of the AssistantSecretary of Defense (Installationsand Logistics), Washington D.C.

The general retired from activeduty in August 1970. He was therecipient of The Society of AmericanMilitary Engineers Newman Medalin 1961.

Brigadier General Henry J. Stehling1918 - 2001

Outstanding Air Force efforts topreserve and enhance the environ-ment were recognized recently withthe presentation of the fiscal year2000 General Thomas D. WhiteEnvironmental Awards. The cer-emony was held May 1 at thePentagon.

This year marked a change inthe environmental awards program.Instead of presenting awards in 20categories annually, as had been donein the past, awards were presented in10 categories this year with thesecond 10 to be presented next year,making the awards biannual. Thischange was driven by the samechange made in the Department ofDefense Environmental SecurityAwards. All White Award winners(with two exceptions where nocorresponding category exists) goforward as Air Force nominees to theDoD award competition.

Environmental Quality Award(Industrial)Vandenberg AFB, Calif. (AFSPC)

Environmental Quality Award(Overseas)Aviano AB, Italy (USAFE)

Environmental Quality Award(Reserve Component)Minneapolis-St. Paul Air ReserveStation, Minn. (AFRC)

Natural Resources ConservationAward (Large Base)Eglin AFB, Fla. (AFMC)Honorable Mention — Patrick AFB/Cape Canaveral AS, Fla. (AFSPC)

Cultural Resources ManagementAward (Installation)611th Air Support Group,Elmendorf AFB, Alaska (PACAF)Honorable Mention — 56th Range

2000 Air Force General Thomas D. White EnvironmentalAwards

Management Office, Luke AFB, Ariz.(AETC)

Cultural Resources ManagementAward for Individual/Team ExcellenceVandenberg AFB, Calif. (AFSPC)

Restoration Award (Installation)Offutt AFB, Neb. (ACC)

Pollution Prevention Award(Non-Industrial)Offutt AFB, Neb. (ACC)

Pollution Prevention Award(Individual/Team)R. Michael Willard, Patrick AFB/Cape Canaveral AS, Fla. (AFSPC)

National Environmental PolicyAct AwardPatrick AFB/Cape Canaveral AS,Fla. (AFSPC)

32

Lonny P. BakerGerard A. CastelliJoseph E. CastroGary D. ChesleyDarren R. DanielsMartin E. GranumLance C. HafeliJeffrey A. JacksonRichard S. JarvisCarl V. JerrettHarold W. Keck Jr.Walter J. KingGalen P. KirchmeierJerry G. Kline

William A. AmburgeyKelvin M. AndressGary A. AshmoreJoseph F. BalcerSteven M. BerryRobert M. BuchananMark A. CampbellAlfred K. CasaleDavid C. CherryLeroy E. CoonceScott E. CornellAnthony CottonCharles A. DewarAlvin L. DouglassRocky D. DunlapJames R. FerrellKeith D. FinneyDale D. FowlerFederico GarabitoWillie Graves Jr.Robert E. GreeneGarth H. HallenbeckFloyd L. HarveyJeffrey L. HawkinsMichael A. HelmsDwight HendersonEric D. HesterRobert D. HobartRobert C. Hodges

William F. HuffRobert J. HulbigJohn J. KahlerMichael J. KaneDwayne E. KelchSteven D. KellyJames A. KindlerClaude F. LiethDouglas E. LindseyScott R. LohmanMaurice A. LopezWade F. MackenstadtJoseph E. MarshallJake B. MathewsAdrian P. MayJohn W. McDuffie Jr.Anthony J. MichelsBrian L. MosierBrian L. MunleyBradley NicholsonRobert A. OrrillMichael P. ParsonsRian S. PeacemanTimothy J. PitmanAllen B. PoseyJohn J. PowersLloyd M. PuckettKevin N. RemediesBonnie Richardson

Jeffrey L. SchleyMichael A. SchreckKarl R. SchulzMary B. SmithKevin M. SorensonGary StuckenschmidtJohn D. ThomasMichael A. TrevinoTerence TrierDouglas A. WheelerDavid R. WilliamsWilliam C. Young Jr.

Lieutenant Colonel-SelectsCongratulations to the following Air Force civil engineer officers on being selected for promotion tolieutenant colonel.

Jose A. MataKevin L. MattochRobert A. McCaughanMichael P. RitsCraig A. RutlandRaymond A. SableStephen E. SheaTerrace B. ThompsonPhillip C. Triplett Jr.Terry WatkinsJerry K. Weldon IIRobert T. WynnDavid L. Yang

Senior Master Sergeant-SelectsCongratulations to the following Air Force civil engineer NCOs on being selected for promotion to seniormaster sergeant.

33

CE Magazine Spring 2001

Aitken, Ronald L. 690 SPTS (ACC) Kelly AFB, TexasAllen, Raymond F. III HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiAlt, Jeffrey HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Ambelang, David A. 5 CES (ACC) Minot AFB, N.D.Armstrong, William D. 821 SG (AFSPC) Buckley AFB, Colo.Aton, Mark A. 22 CES (AMC) McConnell AFB, Kan.Auld, Richard G. 56 CES (AETC) Luke AFB, Ariz.Barker, Brian R. HQ USAFE Ramstein AB, GermanyBarnes, Dann E. 820 RHS (ACC) Nellis AFB, Nev.Bender, John S. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Berube, Marc P. 3 CES (PACAF) Elmendorf AFB, AlaskaBinggeli, Kerry C. HQ AMC Scott AFB, Ill.Blackburn, Billy 737 TRG (AETC) Lackland AFB, TexasBock, Jerry L. 786 CES (USAFE) Ramstein AB, GermanyBragg, Karen S. 78 CES (AFMC) Robins AFB, Ga.Brautigam, Donald R. 62 CES (AMC) McChord AFB, Wash.Brock, Danny M. 721 CES (AFSPC) Cheyenne Mtn. AFS, Colo.Burney, Garrick 81 CES (AETC) Keesler AFB, Miss.Bushnell, Gary D. USAFE CTS Ramstein AB, GermanyCain, Eddie N. 820 RHS (ACC) Nellis AFB, Nev.Caldwell, James R. 51 CES (PACAF) Osan AB, ROKCarson, Wayne T. 97 CES (AETC) Altus AFB, Okla.Carter, George 366 TRS, Det. 7 (AETC) Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo.Cassidy, Patrick A. 30 CES (AFSPC) Vandenberg AFB, Calif.Challis, John V. HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiChambers, George J. III 52 CES (USAFE) Spangdahlem AB, GermanyClark, Douglas P. 99 CES (ACC) Nellis AFB, Nev.Clark, Stephen B. ETSS (AFELM) Jiyanklis AFD, EgyptColburn, Timothy D. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Coleman, Rodney E. HQ AFSPC Peterson AFB, Colo.Cote, Donald L. 66 CES (AFMC) Hanscom AFB, Mass.Couch, Marvin L. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Davis, Vincent E. 820 RHS (ACC) Nellis AFB, Nev.Deese, Glenn L. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Delay, Terence L. 86 CES (USAFE) Ramstein AB, GermanyDersarkisian, Paul C. 823 RHS (ACC) Hurlburt Field, Fla.Dickens, Calvin E. Jr. HQ AETC Randolph AFB, TexasDixon, Larry D. 823 RHS (ACC) Hurlburt Field, Fla.Dixon, Mary L. 90 CES (AFSPC) F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo.Dodson, Daniel S. HQ AMC Scott AFB, Ill.Doorbal, Norma J. HQ USAFE Ramstein AB, GermanyDoris, Michael F. Jr. HQ USAF Pentagon, D.C.Earley, Gregory C. HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiEstep, Donald A. 305 SVCS (AMC) McGuire AFB, N.J.Ethington, William M. II 305 CES (AMC) McGuire AFB, N.J.Ezell, Michael J. HQ AETC Randolph AFB, TexasFairey, Robert C. 5 CES (ACC) Minot AFB, N.D.Fedarko, Deborah J. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Fennigkoh, Allen 20 CES (ACC) Shaw AFB, S.C..Fisher, James H. 49 CES (ACC) Holloman AFB, N.M.Foltz, Arthur B. Jr. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Fones, Craig A. HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiForce, David G. 16 CES (AFSOC) Hurlburt Field, Fla.Ford, Linnard F. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Ford, Terry G. HQ USAFE Ramstein AB, GermanyFox, Roger J. 366 CES (ACC) Mountain Home AFB, Idaho

CivilEngineerChiefMasterSergeants

34

Francis, Antonio J. 796 CES (AFMC) Eglin AFB, Fla.Fuller, Steven 37 CES (AETC) Lackland AFB, TexasGentz, Gary A. 374 CES (PACAF) Yokota AB, JapanGillin, Kerry B. HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiGlover, Carl B. Jr. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Godsey, Edward O. 82 CES (AETC) Sheppard AFB, TexasGrau, Brian G. 366 TRS (AETC) Sheppard AFB, TexasGray, Richard W. 3 CES (PACAF) Elmendorf AFB, AlaskaGray, Thomas L. 100 CES (USAFE) RAF Mildenhall, U.K.Groover, Leander W. 347 CES (ACC) Moody AFB, Ga.Guidry, James M. 92 CES (AMC) Fairchild AFB, Wash.Gustafson, John M. 796 CES (AFMC) Eglin AFB, Fla.Gutknecht, Richard G. HQ AETC Randolph AFB, TexasHackenberger, Dennis J. 4 CES (ACC) Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C.Hannan, James J. 366 TRS, Det. 3 (AETC) Eglin AFB, Fla.Harrison, Winfred B. Jr. 374 CES (PACAF) Yokota AB, JapanHartman, Jackie K. 9 CES (ACC) Beale AFB, Calif.Heath, Dennis R. 4 CES (ACC) Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C.Henry, Trevor A. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Hill, Jeffrey L. 341 CES (AFSPC) Malmstrom AFB, Mont.Hinegardner, William L. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Hinners, Keith P. HQ AMC Scott AFB, Ill.Hodges, Carl P. HQ AMC Scott AFB, Ill.Hosburgh, Wayne R. 45 CES (AFSPC) Patrick AFB, Fla.Howard, Larry J. 42 CES (AETC) Maxwell AFB, Ala.Huckabee, Robert L. 43 CES (AMC) Pope AFB, N.C.Hughes, Jimmey M. Jr. 778 CES (AFMC) Robins AFB, Ga.Ishmael, Tommy L. D. HQ AMC Scott AFB, Ill.Jackson, Larry L. 100 CES (USAFE) RAF Mildenhall, U.K.Jackson, Timothy A. 823 RHS (ACC) Hurlburt Field, Fla.Jefferson, Lenward Jr. 20 CES (ACC) Shaw AFB, S.C.Johnson, Richard N. 30 CES (AFSPC) Vandenberg AFB, Calif.Jones, Douglass P. 422 ABS (USAFE) RAF Croughton, U.K.Jones, Randy F. 823 RHS, Det. 1 (ACC) Tyndall AFB, Fla.Jones, Ricky A. 78 CEG (AFMC) Robins AFB, Ga.Jones, Victor P. 65 CES (ACC) Lajes Field, AzoresKarls, Jeffrey A. 52 CES (USAFE) Spangdahlem AB, GermanyKeller, Bruce E. 28 CES (ACC) Ellsworth AFB, S.D.Kembel, Steven W. 819 RHS (ACC) Malmstrom AFB, Mont.Kibbe, Myrl F. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Landolt, Robert H. 795 CES (AFMC) Edwards AFB, Calif.Lichtenberger, Russ L. 52 CES (USAFE) Spangdahlem AB, GermanyLivingston, Gary E. 75 CEG (AFMC) Hill AFB, UtahLopes, Daryle L. 96 CES (AFMC) Eglin AFB, Fla.Lozano, Gilbert 51 CES (PACAF) Osan AB, ROKLubbers, Edmond H. 355 CES (ACC) Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz.Martone, Thomas 66 CES (AFMC) Hanscom AFB, Mass.Maynor, Roger D. 1 CES (ACC) Langley AFB, Va.McClain, Charles O. 18 CES (PACAF) Kadena AB, JapanMifsud, Michael D. 951 RSPTS (AFRC) Tyndall AFB, Fla.Miller, Alfred H. Jr. 11 CES (11 Wing) Bolling AFB, D.C.Monell, Dane R. 60 CES (AMC) Travis AFB, Calif.Montoya, Ricardo V. 21 CES (AFSPC) Peterson AFB, Colo.Moore, Bobby G. HQ AFRC Robins AFB, Ga.Morris, Thomas M. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Mortenson, Kevin L. 5 CES (ACC) Minot AFB, N.D.Naas, Thomas G. 436 CES (AMC) Dover AFB, Del.Niswonger, Robert W. 509 CES (ACC) Whiteman AFB, Mo.

35

CE Magazine Spring 2001

Noel, Gilbert HQ AFSPC Cheyenne Mtn. AS, Colo.O�Donnell, Michael J. 92 CES (AMC) Fairchild AFB, Wash.Olson, Steven T. 31 CES (USAFE) Aviano AB, ItalyOrozco, Carlos HQ USAFE Ramstein AB, GermanyPainter, Dwayne E. 48 CES (USAFE) RAF Lakenheath, U.K.Papineau, Douglas L. 36 CES (PACAF) Andersen AFB, GuamParks, Jesse F. 1 CES (ACC) Langley AFB, Va.Person, Antony J. Det 1 PACAF CES Kadena AB, JapanPitrat, Paul L. 16 CES (AFSOC) Hurlburt Field, Fla.Podolske, James E. Jr. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Poliansky, Walter 89 SPTG (AMC) Andrews AFB, Md.Pope, Susan A. 819 RHS (ACC) Malmstrom AFB, Mont.Powell, Gary W. 554 RHS (PACAF) Osan AB, ROKPratt, Rhea A. 43 CES (AMC) Pope AFB, N.C.Quattrone, Wayne E. II 314 CES (AETC) Little Rock AFB, Ark.Rabonza, Anthony M. 18 CES (PACAF) Kadena AB, JapanRamos, Ercilia H. 12 CES (AETC) Randolph AFB, TexasRausch, Gene A. HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiRawls, Brian K. 37 CES (AETC) Lackland AFB, TexasRay, Steve M. 796 CES (AFMC) Eglin AFB, Fla.Reps, Jameson D. HQ AFSPC Peterson AFB, Colo.Rivera, Joseph W. HQ AFCESA Tyndall AFB, Fla.Roberson, Alvis G. Jr. HQ PACAF Hickam AFB, HawaiiRomig, Gerald D. 375 CES (AMC) Scott AFB, Ill.Runnels, Larned E. III HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Saulnier, Dennis E. OSD Pentagon, D.C.Savo, Antonio 820 RHS (ACC) Nellis AFB, Nev.Scheide, Thomas J. Jr. 2 CES (ACC) Barksdale AFB, La.Seeley, John D. 48 CES (USAFE) RAF Lakenheath, U.K.Seeloff, Jeffrey A. HQ AFMC Wright-Patterson AFB, OhioSemenuk, Michael S. 99 CES (ACC) Nellis AFB, Nev.Sharman, Carla F. 437 CES (AMC) Charleston AFB, S.C.Sharpe, Brad A. 35 CES (PACAF) Misawa AB, JapanSilas, Earl D. 6 SPTG (AMC) MacDill AFB, Fla.Smith, James K. 42 CES (AETC) Maxwell AFB, Ala.Smith, Peter K. 9 AF (ACC) Al Kharj AB, Saudi ArabiaSteele, Timothy P. 50 CES (AFSPC) Schriever AFB, Colo.Stewart, Darryl R. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Stone, Randy A. 60 CES (AMC) Travis AFB, Calif.Stoye, Kirk E. 48 CES (USAFE) RAF Lakenheath, U.K.Tabor, Martin B. 823 RHS (ACC) Hurlburt Field, Fla.Taylor, Steven A. 778 CES (AFMC) Robins AFB, Ga.Tedford, Patrick A. 49 MMS (ACC) Holloman AFB, N.M.Thompson, Cleveland A. 50 CES (AFSPC) Schriever AFB, Colo.Tiggs, Charles E. 88 CES (AFMC) Wright-Patterson AFB, OhioTrack, Frederick J. Jr. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.VanSteenburg, George W. 8 CES (PACAF) Kunsan AB, ROKVanWinkle, Mark HQ AETC Randolph AFB, TexasVogel, Daniel L. 31 CES (USAFE) Aviano AB, ItalyWalker, Curtis N. 42 CES (AETC) Maxwell AFB, Ala.Walker, Eppie L. 18 CES (PACAF) Kadena AB, JapanWhitehorn, Jimmie E. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Wiitala, Troy C. 375 CES (AMC) Scott AFB, Ill.Wilkins, Clyde E. HQ AFRC Robins AFB, Ga.Winward, James A. 786 CES (USAFE) Ramstein AB, GermanyWright, Paul E. HQ ANG Andrews AFB, Md.Wuilliez, Raymond M. HQ ACC Langley AFB, Va.Wynn, Susan K. HQ AFRC Robins AFB, Ga.

Civil Engineers in the Gulf War