1803 No action is required by officers on this list. The following officers will receive orders from their PMOS monitor: FY21 SFC Evaluation Board - ArmyReenlistment. 0302 8850 On 14 July 2020, the Commandant of the Marine Corps convened the FY21 Colonel Command Screening Board. USMC ENGR SCHOOL TRNG CMD BYERS, COLTON L. 0402 3006 Contingency Contracting NPS MCCULLAR, GARY A. The following officers will receive orders from the Graduate Education Manager, MMOA-3 upon acceptance. starting with the fy19 msg promotion selection board.6.a.1.a. SANTOS, JOE 1803 Board Schedule Information. BackArgosy FY21 Interim Result, 8:31 am INTERIM. 0206 1802 Local SCORE website sessions were up 19% vs. Advanced Civilian School Programs (read in two columns). 3002 3006 The CCLEBs purpose is to improve education utilization in the Marine Corps. Starting with the CSM/SGM NCO Evaluation Board (CSM/SGM Files) MILLWARD, NICHOLAS H.MAR RDR REGT, MARFORSOC, CAMP LEJEUNE ANTHONY, JOHN R. 4502 4505 8852 Defense Systems Analysis NPS Email: WOLFENBARGER, CRAIG A. The intent is to assign a desirable program of choice to each selectee while aligning with the needs of the Marine Corps. 6002 MILPER 20-307 - FY21 US Army Federal Officer Candidate School Program Announcement Latest guidance was issued yesterday for OCS posted on HRC for those folks going that route into OCS. FY21 SFC Evaluation Board JSeptemmilmedia The Army is scheduled to convene at the Sergeant First Class (SFC) Evaluation Board on or about 20 October 2020 to evaluate SFC Regular Army and United States Army Reserve, Active Guard Reserve NCOs. 0302 004 email: NARR/REF A IS MCO 1300.64B, COMMAND SCREENING PROGRAM. Army DA Secretariat for Selection Boards. NAME PMOS Welcome to the Official Facebook Page for the U.S. SUBJ/FY21 COMMANDANTS CAREER-LEVEL EDUCATION BOARD (CCLEB) RESULTS// OLIVERIO, ANTHONY J. 0802 Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS), (read in two columns). 0402 FY20 AECP Results MILPER Message 19-275 - MILPER Message Number 19-275.pdf. MARINE CORPS STORAGE COMMAND, ALBANY MORGAN, WILLIAM P. Funding patterns for these programs vary dramatically.HARLOW, DONALD W. Chart III focuses on funding changes for Army accounts exceeding $50 million. Most are small with more than half totaling less than $50 million. We found similar patterns in the other services’ procurement accounts.Ī $5 billion increase for Army Communications and Electronic Activities is spread over more than 50 accounts. Based on our analysis of DoD Procurement funding, IT Procurement spending falls as a percentage of DoD’s FY18 Budget.Ĭhart II examines the Army Procurement Accounts in detail. A funding shift to DISA resulted in a 12.5% reduction in Defense-Wide procurement spending. Growth in the “Other Procurement” accounts for the Army (9.1%) and the Air Force (4.7%) grew less than DoD’s total budget. Funding for large systems-Aircraft Procurement, Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Missile Procurement, and Space Procurement-grew more than DoD’s budget. Our analysis shows similar patterns for the Army and the Air Force. That leaves $2 billion to spread among the remaining bureaus including “Other Procurement” which funds Communications and Electronic Equipment activities. For example, 75% of the $8 billion increase for Navy Procurement focuses on Aircraft Procurement ($3 billion) and Shipbuilding and Conversion ($3 billion). An analysis of the final FY18 appropriations bill validates that forecast. Last June, FBIQ forecast that most of the Procurement funding increases pushed by the Administration and Congress would focus on large platforms. Because OMB’s data was based on Continuing Resolutions (CRs) that funded federal agencies for the first 6 months of FY18 and not the spending increases provided in the Omnibus, it is not an accurate predictor of FY18 spending.Īnnual DoD funding (including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)) rose 11% in FY18. OMB’s 2018 IT Dashboard was released prior to the passage of the Omnibus. Let’s take a closer look at the addressable IT market. Building ships, aircraft, tracked vehicles, and missiles are big business, but it doesn’t benefit all defense contractors equally. As we predicted last year, Congress prioritized increases for large DoD platform programs. There are some clear winners in this year’s FY18 DoD appropriations bill and there are a host of accounts that did not fare as well. While a rising tide may lift all boats, a rising FY18 Department of Defense (DoD) topline does not lift all accounts equally.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |