GRILL FLAME (U)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001700280017-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 23, 1998
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: September 12, 1980
• Content Type: PAPER

Approved For Release 2003/0
-007ll~L7tId19LE70
FOi C:G J I ATIONALS
INFORMATION PAPER
DAMI-ISH
12 Sep 80
CT: GRILI, FLAME (U)
P I? P0 SE, (S/NO ORN) To inform ACSI DA of a potential situation
with regard to GRILL FLAME and offer recommendations that will
prevent possible embarrassment to the Army.
FACTS.
1. (5/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 with , Torr
proposed contract t with SRI (TAB 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 Inci) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave,
rr representative from his organization, LT Fred Atwater, was
invited to attend the 18 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's
r ccomn-iended changes to the proposed draft documents. After the
m et.ing, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and INSCOM
c'0uld concur with the proposed changes made at the meeting.
LT Atwater replied he thought they would.
1-). (S/NOFOIIN) MAJ Hay met with LTC Watt on 27 Aug 80 and he
informed MAJ Hay that he and INSCOM
could not concur with. the MOU. MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted
ns proposed MOU (TAB A) which we plan to table at a proposed GRILL
F"I,AMB Committee meeting at DIA during the next meeting, date unknown.
C. (S/NOFORN) INSCOM's major objections, and MAJ Hay agrees,
are as follows:
(1) (`>/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
v,ra /nn"~ Reason: 2-301.c.3
~Ap rv@1 for,
W2
ftM
00 P96-(~b$$I6(1'0108117 -7
 Approved For Release 2003/09/16: A-RDP96-00788 R001700280017-7
NOT REL.EASACLE TO
N Ei,GN rya
ric,NALs
I.I,M I - I S H
:,UBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U)
- can be determined can meet INSCOM's requirements at the least
I,c>ssi.ble c(ast.ZW~i
iesi.r-?as_icSvO~'re.n.
cc) ncc~?~t:xatiaaa. armetrs . -Cost _ of- t -~-rzcrC'
t~-'- ~~T.ihe .? (NOTE: DIA proposal states $120K from Array INSCOM
:I.l to be funded for an SRI effort. DIA maintains that Army had
I?a'eviousi.y agreed verbally to provide $150K, then $120K and now
possibly even less than $120K. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
(tis.agree and LTC Watt has a Memorandum for Record to back up
$;{:.atement. )
(2) (S/NOFORN) DIA Made a unilateral decision to send
t.Tae DIA primary contract monitor to SRI, Menlo Park, CA on Thursday
:'.l.st or Friday 22d of August. This was done prior to the MOU being
,approved by Director, DIA; Army, and Air Force ACSIs. NOTE:: DIA
ates no one objected to the primary contract monitor going to the
'lost Coast at the 18 Aug 80 meeting. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
have gone on record. previously objecting to the need for the contract
mt>n i for to physically locate himself at SRI for the following
ea rotas .
(a) (/NOFORN) If the GRILL FLAME Committee is in
i wt joint, t;he DIA has no right to make a unilateral decision such
.13 they have prior to the MOU being signed. NOTE: DIA feels since
5j ",a', is funding Salyer's move it is no one else's problem. We feel
t' this decision is critized, DIA, Army, and Air Force will jointly
held responsible since we are a joint committee.
(b) (?,/NOFORN) If the primary contract monitor is
:,~c:',rt.ed on the West. Coast with SRI, we question how he can best
monitor all additional contract efforts elsewhere. NOTE: DIA
t-elg since SRI' is best qualified in this project they will now,
.+ ad probably ccnt..irnue to receive most of t;Iie contracts, therefore,
makes s,,nse to maintain the contract monitor at that location.
(c) (S/NOPORN) The move of the primary contract monitor
'.:> `CHI totally disregards the recommendation of the Department of
,e l\rmy 0111.1, PT 11MI} Scientific Evaluation Comrnit.tee Report, dated
iai>cOmber 79, page 1.0, para :3b. "Dependence on the SRI approach
anal r.I be phau.;ed out . " NOTE: DIA feels the Gale Report is biased
,Ad GRILL, FLAMES was doomed before it started, therefore, no one is
e,:'ing to accept: it.,., recommendations (especially when we are using
':-ogram III funds vice Program VI.
i~ ro', r T
DP96 -7P,&~P91,7O,Q SJPj17-7
FORE Gil WA 'a 16 +ALS
 Approved For Release 200
I).;MI-ISF!
h'.7F3JECT: GRILL FLAME (U)
P96-0c177
FG1EGN NATIONALS
(d) (S/NOFORN) The move of the contract monitor to
S;,I potentially decreases the operational security of the project.
Ii-tl. Puthoff and Russ Tarq lire well known as so-called experts in
tine PSI area. To move a DIA contract monitor to work closely with
Uiem makes it difficult to deny DOD interest in PSI. NOTE: It
SG1 J `:a'.'pe gars D1A believes both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner "have it in"
f -)r Dr. Verona ` s office, Spec' Y and all of these
SG1J o.,;ect;ions are directed at At Me risk o : being accused
of parochialism, MAJ Hay does no believe this to be the case.
I3cxt is LTC Wat and MAJ Stoner, believe that Salyer from the vt ry
bec'nning con +tructed imself a position at S I for perso ..l gains,
ar,d that he s i.ll.fuil,/ sold the idea that he hould be tty "man" at
:3 F? I . " co JJ_ I U t N % :i rc U,~, +, c 1 vo w3 A/ P,
(U) IMPACT:
a. (S/NOFOIRN) If our proposed draft MOU is approved, INSCOM
will likely fund $70K for contracts with SRI. SRI initially felt
I 'iat; it would be necessary to fund $500K to maintain an adequate
proclram in PSI but; reduced that figure to $650K. That figure was
I'L.rt.her reduced to $39OK for FY 81 by the GRILL FLAME Committee.
R , c?e'rd i ng to D'f.J1, this will cause SRI to reduce the number of per--
.: raraerl working the project. If Army INSCOM further reduces the
d~~l l ar figure }t SRI' may pull out of the program. DIA firmly
be I a eves SPI, as configured with current personnel, is a national
ls!-set. MAJ Hay thinks that is stretching things a bit far, but
cI e ; believe SRI efforts should continue if they can produce DOI.)
requirements better than any other contractor at the least possible
cost to DOD. If SRI did pull out, DIA's primary contract monitor
wcOul d be left on the West Coast to monitor nothing,D,W-ssibly causing
I he contract monitor to bring civil suit. against 13D for creating
i roily hardships, loss of funds, etc. This would cause an embarrass-
rlq situation for LTG Tighe and Dr, Verona. Although Army and Air
I erce are riot formally a part of the Joint Services GRILL FLAME
"cammlttee (no signed MOU) we have been very informally involved
i nce 1978. This could cause some embarrassment to Army/Air Force.
I) . (S/NOFOUN) If RI does not "pull. out" and the DIA monitor
remains at SRI, there may be at a later date some question dealing
i i t.b the objections listed in paragraph 2 (a) (b) (c) (d) above.
i',.cldi t.ionally, there is the potential for questions to arise dealing
t~Jth possible conflict of interest, e.g., other contractors question
f ho D"CA pri.mar,r contract; monitor located at SRI offering work to
I her contractors without bias.
t~orlp`? ~20~ _ ~Cfl
bP96-0078 p1 m62$ '( -A ()
er GN A IONALS
 Approved For Release 2003/09/1cp
v.
DAMI -I SH
SSUBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U)
(U) CONCLUSION:
788R001700280017-7
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIOrALS
a. (S/NOFORN) Dr. Verona is angry because he believes Army
3-NSCOM is backing out of its commitment of $120K. His main concern
appears to be the loss of the $120K from Army to go with the SRI
program for FY 31. He feels strongly SRI will pull out if Army
reduces the $12OK further.
b. (S/NOFORN) The changing of the proposed MOU does not appear
to bother Dr. Verona, except he does not feel, as program manager,
he has to clear through the GRILL FLAME Committee before talking
with Congress or anyone else about the program.
G1 ?
(U)
a.
OPTIONS:
(S/NOFOI?N)
Advanta(les
Army withdraw from the Joint Service Program.
Disadvantages
(1) Freedom to spend Army money (1) We get less for our money
when and where we desire. as Joint Service contracts
provides benefits fro-m.DIA/USAF
programs, i.e., exchange of
information.
(2) Manage our program without
coordination/approval of DIA. effort.
(3) If SRI as presently staffed
should be considered a very
valuable asset to Army, the
program would suffer if there
is no joint service contract.
1). (S/NOFOHN) Army remain in the Joint Service Program as it
I 4J o "*1&t n v_
$?'"cl /'V dey ea A/ ltirtiU~
Advant