GRILL FLAME

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 19, 1998
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: September 15, 1980
• Content Type: PAPER

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : Cl
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FORE:Gi NATIONALS
DAMI-ISH
12 Sep 80
:: OBJECT : GRILL FLAME (U)
PURPOSE. (S/NOFORN) To inform ACSI DA of a potential situation
With regard tp GRILL FLAME and offer recommendations that will
prevent possible embarrassment to the Army.
FATS.
1.. (S/NOFORN) BACKGROUND: In response to LTG Tighe's 7 Aug 80
letter to MG Thompson, a GRILL FLAME Committee meeting was held
on 18 Aug 80. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the Joint
.service GRILL FLAME Memorandum of Understanding and Objectives Statement, and proposed contract t w with ith), SRI (TAB B C).
(U) DISCUSSION:
a. (S/NOFORN) In order to ensure support of Army INSCOM's
interest in this matter, MAJ Hay provided the proposed draft
documents at TAB C to LTC Watt's organization at Fort Meade for
review and comment. This resulted in a response from MG Rolya
(letter with 1 Incl) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave,
a representative from his organization, LT Fred Atwater, was
i-ovited to attend the 18 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's
r, c?omr-mended changes to the proposed draft documents. After the
meeting, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and INSCOM
ould concur with the proposed changes made at the meeting.
LT Atwater replied he thought they would.
b. (S/NOFORN) MAJ Hay met with LTC Watt on 27 Aug 80 and he
-informed MAJ Hay that he tT he and INSCOM
ceu.71d not concur with the MOU. MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted
,1 proposed MOU (TAB A) which we plan to table at a proposed GRILL
FLAME Committee meeting at DIA during the next meeting, date unknown.
C1. (S/NOFORN) INSCOM's major objections, and MAJ Hay agrees,
are as follows
(1) (S/NOFORN) INSCOM has $150K total to fund the FY 81
GRILL FLAME effort. INSCOM needs $30K to fund the operational
effort. This would leave $120K for external contracts with whomever
Classified by DIA-DT
Review 12 Sep 2000
Reason: 2-301c.3
I101'IE?":11:ihi .E TO
FOfiEECN NA s 1Oii'ALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
` r... 0 U NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
DAMI-ISH
1.5 Sep, 80
;11f3JECT: GRILL, FLAME (U)
P'JHPOSE. (S/NOFORN) To inform ACSI DA of a potential situation
with regard to GRILL FLAME and offer recommendations that will.
prevent possible embarrassment to the Army.
CTS .
(S/NOFORN) BACKGROUND: In response to LTG Tighe's 7 Aug 80
;_etter toMG Thompson, a GRILL FLAME Committee meeting was held
on 18 Aug 80. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the Joint
arvice GRILL F'LAME Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Mission.
ind Objectives Statement, and proposed contract with SRI (TAB C).
(U) DISCUSSION:
V4
a. (S/NOFORN) In order to ensure support of Army INSCOM's
interest in this matter, MAJ Hay provided the proposed draft
documents at TAB C to LTC Watt's organization at Fort Meade for
-eview and comment. This resulted in a response from MG Rolya
(let-ter with 1 Intl) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave,
representative from his organization, LT Fred Atwater, was
invited to attend the 18 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's
recommended changes to the proposed draft documents. After the
meeting, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and INSCOM
~ould concur with the proposed changes made at the meeting.
IT Atwater replied he thought they would.
1). (`,/NOVORN) MAJ Hay met with LTC Watt on 27 Aug BO and he
informed MAJ Hay that he and INSCOM could not concur with the MOU.
MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted a proposed MOU (TAB A) which we
l,Lan to table at a proposed GRILL FLAME Committee meeting at DIA
during the next meeting, date unknown.
c. (U) INSCOM's major objections, and MAJ Hay agrees, are
des follows:
(1) (S/NOFORN) The original MOU is that it identifies
r+. contractor by name and commits DOD funding to a specific organi-
zation (SRI) prior to ascertaining if the contractor can accomplish
Classified by DIA-DT
Review 15 Sep 2000
Reason: 2-301c.3
NOT RELE:SA3LE TO
I OREXiM NATIONALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
tP .\MJrr7
SG1J
'j FOREIGN NATIONALS
D'\I iT--1511
U!3J.E CT: GRILL FLAME (U)
1'-ie required work. The MOU should be the instrument that estab-
I ishes the DOD Joint effort and not one which commits DOD funds
-l a specific contractor.
(2) (S/NOFORN) INSCOM has $150K total to fund the FY 81
(ti1LL FLAME effort. INSCOM needs $30K to fund the operational
effort. This would leave $120K for external contracts with whom--
ever it can be determined can meet INSCOM's requirements at the
least possible cost. (NOTE: DIA proposal states $120K from Army
'NSCOM all tcY be funded for an SRI effort. DIA maintains that
Army had previously agreed verbally to provide $150K, then $120K
arid now possibly even less than $120K. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
disagree and LTC Watt has a Memorandum for Record to back up state-
tent. )
(3) (;3/NOFORN) DIA made a unilateral decision to send
`iie DIA primary contract monitor to SRI, Menlo Park, CA on Thursday
71st of Friday 22d of August. This was done prior to the MOU being
,pproved by Director, DIA; Army, and Air Force ACSIs. NOTE: DIA
tes no one objected to the primary contract monitor going to the
invest Coast at the 18 Aug 80 meeting. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
hslve done can record previously objecting to the need for the con-
l eadi; monitor to physically locate hi.mse.lf at SRI for the following
r eason> :
(a) (S/NOFORN) If the GRILL FLAME Committee is in
foci. joint, the DIA has no right to make a unilateral decision
eerich as they have prior to the MOU being signed. NOTE: DIA feels
m makes it difficult to deny DOD interest in PSI. NOTE: It
(1unears DIA believes both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner "have it in" for
1)r. Verona t s of fi ce, specifically and all of these
SG1J > ject:::ions are directed at - t re risk of being accused
SG1J of. parochialism, MAJ Hay does not believe this to be the case.
SG1J Both ILTC Watt, and MAJ Stoner believe that- has continually
misrepresented Army/INSCOM positions and facts to Dr. Verona.
(U) IMPAC ;' :
a. (S/NOFORN) If our proposed draft MOU is approved, INSCOM
dgrees to fund $70K for immediate contract work at SRI for audio
.iiialysis, and once LTC Watt can determine the status of SRI advanced
HV training program, INSCOM would take action to fund additional
m orui es available. (Ingo Swann stated SRI will not be prepared for
,s:ivanced training for one year, however SRI's Hale Puthoff told
Pi,; J Hay on 12 Sep 80 that SRI is ready and Swann as a consultant
(,.irlnot; speak for SRI.) SRI initially felt that it would be necessary
fund $5OOK to maintain an adequate program in PSI but reduced that
figure to $450K. That figure was further reduced to $390K for, FY 81
by the GRILL FLAME Committee. According to DIA, this will cause SRI
to reduce the number of personnel working the project. If Army INSCOM
further reduces dollar figure as planned, SRI may pull. out of the
program. ILIA firmly believes SRI, as configured with current per-
sonnel, is a national asset. MAJ Hay thinks that is stretching
things a bit far, but does believe SRI efforts should continue if
they can produce DOD requirements better than any other contractor
the least pot-ssible cost to DOD. If SRI did pull out, DIA's
primary contract monitor would be left on the West Coast to monitor
nothing, possibly causing the contract monitor to bring a claim
iqairrst DIA for creating family hardships, loss of funds, etc.
This could cause an embarrassment situation for LTG Tighe and Dr.
Verona. Although Army and Air Force are not formally a part of
the Joint Services GRILL FAME Committee (no signed MOU) we have
been very informally involved since 1978. This could cause some
c ormbarrassment to Army/Air Force.
b. (S/NOFORN) If SRI does not "pull out" and the DIA monitor
r,-mains at SRI, there may be at a later date some question dealing
with the objections listed in paragraph 2(a)(b)(c)(d) above.
TAcdditionally, there is the potential for questions to arise dealing
with possible conflict of interest, e.g., other contractors question
the DIA primary contract monitor located at SRI offering work to
o;,::her contractors without bias.
R-E
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
 l- JNI VVCU UVI RCICQ.JC LVVV/VV/V/ - p RVV ILVVVLVV IJ
K-0) I L,
S ~9
~o- P ,'
DJ1MI -IS1-I
SUBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U) 4 ets
4. (U) CONCLUSION:
a. (S/NOFORN) Dr. Verona and SRI are very angry because they
believe Army INSCOM is backing out of its commitment of $120K.
Ve>rona's main concern appears to be the loss of the $120K from Army
trL go with the SRI program for FY 81. He feels strongly SRI will
pull out if Array reduces the $120K further.
b. (S/NOFORN) The changing of the proposed MOU does not appear
w bother Dr. Verona, except he does not feel, as program manager,
h.? has to clear through the GRILL FALME Committee before talking
with Congress or anyone else about the program.
tvo SA, 1> ' I
(S/NOFORN) MAJ Stoner feels we should trust SRI and INSCOM
s,,ouIcl be forced to spend the FY 81 contract budget o $120K with
:;,1 . Stoner states "it would be wrong t(t stop the $120K from going
to in: as soon as possible. I say this while pointing out my own
cer:i;reme bias against what I consider to be the high-handed, unethical,
SG1J ain.1 unprofessional actions by Verona and in secretly assigning
SG1J - to SRI as contract monitor. SRI should continue to play a
valuable role. Despite what INSCOM feels SRI is capable of further
pioneer work if, they have more time, money and non--interference by
sponsors .
d. (S/NOFO1=tN) LTC Watt is strongly opposed to spending any
money with SRI or anyone else until the formal MOU is signed and
INSCOM is fully aware of what they are getting for the $120K.
e.: e. (S/NOFCRN) MAY [lay believes the whole GRILL FLAME Committee
has been poorly managed which has resulted in bad decisions based
on an attempt by all concerned to speed up (for whatever reason) a
very sensitive and complicated project. Since DIA made the unilateral
dT.rcislon which may cause them embarrassment, they should be asked to
>!aac= up with the funds to make up the difference that INSCOM wishes
spend elsewhere (about $50K) . If DIA feels SRI is a national
a:sFt, this would "keep SRI in business." The GRILL FLAME Committee
s=,I-iould then be forced to meet, and air out all the personal problems
1h4tween the action officers, and get on with the business at hand
ri ; cli.zt;lined in the proposed MOU at TAB A. If that is not possible,
omii:end that the project management be moved to DC-4 in DIA,
remove all action officers from the project and start over with a
new team that can look at this situation in an objective manner for
I he good of the DOD
l Ei V NA` IONA'LS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
DAMI-ISN
:UBJECT : GRILL FLAME (U)
(U) OI"I"IONS:
E1`'T('.
r`t_a TO
t) AWLS
a. (S/NOFORN) Army withdraw from the Joint Service Program.
Adwanta (. es
I} Freedom to spend Army money
when and where we desire.
(2) Manage our program without
coordination/approval of DIA.
Disadvantages
(1) We get less for our money
as Joint Service contracts
provides benefits from DIA/USAF
programs, i.e., exchange of
information.
(2) Prevents duplication of
effort.
(3) ,If SRI as presently staffed
should be considered a very
valuable asset to Army, the pro-
gram would suffer if there is no
Joint Service contract.
(4) Army will be critized by DIA.
b. (S/NOFORN) Army remain in the Joint Service Program as it
proposed in the original MOU, and as is now operating.
Advantac es Di sadvantaes
(!) Most. cost effective if a (1) Army cannot spend money where
Service contract is ever they feel it can obtain best results.
achieved.
(2) DIA makes unilateral decisions
(2) Appears to be better managed/ without regard to Service needs.
organized (at 'Least on paper). Decisions could prove not in best
( )) Keeps the SRI. effort doing
interest of Army.
as currently staffed which may (3) Army would formally accept
or may not provide DOD with long part of the responsibility for a
t.o.r rn benefits. poorly managed effort with DIA,
and could be subject to criticism
(4) Should allow for audio analysis and embarrassement.
work for INSCOM with SRI team.
(4) Cdr INSCOM would have to spend
$12OK at SRI and not know what
results he will receive.
N, 0"r P
Li UEGH
fYlt a7
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
I)I\MI?- ISH
SUBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U)
C'. (S/NOFORN) Army remain in the Joint Service Program but
tw)rlified as follows:
(1) (`5/ NOFORN) As stated in our proposed MOU (TAB A).
(2) (5/NOFORN) Go on record to object to DIA's unilateral
dcci sion for sending the primary contract monitor to SRI for
reasons listed in paragraph 2a,b,c,d.
(3) `(S/NOFORN) Ask DIA to make up the difference in funds
,czt $5015.) that INSCOM wishes to spend elsewhere.
(~,) Keeps the Joint Service
Program alive at least for one
year and force getter management.
k_) Should be more cost effect-
ve.
c ) Should be better managed/
(,rcianized.
((a) Should eliminate dupl.ica-
on of effort.
(v) Should provide better ex-
hanqe of ~infor-mation .
(S) Should eliminate unilateral
r+i'ci sions by DIA.
(q) Should allow Army INSCOM to
btairi training from contractors
-',,her than SRI.
(a) ,Will
them''some
meat.
Disadvantages
anger DIA and cause
internal DOD embarrass-
(b) Cause a short delay in order
to get a formally signed MOU and
contracts for FY 81 GRILL FLAME
efforts.
(h) Should allow for audio analysis
work for INSCOM with the SRI Team,
f- k.he SRI Team remains.
(i) Should allow the SRI Team as
currently staff to remain in business
for one more year.
)) Possibly prevent embarrassment
or LTG Tighe and Dr. Verona from
outside DOD.
0,0
4
NOT f'EEEASP f! E TO
FOREIGI NACfi ALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
 DAMI--ISH
::UBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U)
~8R0012QpQ4 TO
'?,A a ,yiai:t-.J
. (U) RECOMMENDATION: Option C ; if DIA refuses, go with Option A.
MAJ Hay/50116
lilf~t~L
LSABLE TO
i F4~ ~I)i'ifLS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4