CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
NOT RELEASABLE TO
YLONL I
FOREIGN NATIONALS
INFORMATION PAPER
SUBJECT :
GRILL FLAME (U)
DAMI-ISH
12 Sep 80
PURPOSE ,
(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.
FACTS.
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 (MOU), Mission
and Objectives Statement, and proposed contract with SRI (TAB C) .
2. (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
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
could 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 disagreed with LT Atwater and he and INSCOM
could not concur with the MOU. MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted
a proposed MOU (TAB A) which we plan to table at a proposed GRILL
FLAME 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)
( 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
KELL, FLAME (0)
TUMLDMAND CARRY
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
INFORMATION PAPER
DAMI-ISH
15 Sep 80
SUBJECT :
GRILL FLAME (U)
PURPOSE.
( 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.
FACTS.
( S/NOFORN)
BACKGROUND :
In response to LTG Tighe's 7 Aug 80
Letter toMG 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 (MOU) , Mission
and Objectives Statement, and proposed contract with SRI (TAB C) .
2.
(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 ]. Incl) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave,
a 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
could concur with the proposed changes made at the meeting.
LT Atwater replied he thought they would.
(S/NOFORN )
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 a proposed MOU (TAB A) which we
plan to table at a proposed GRILL FLAME Committee meeting at DIA
during the next meeting, date unknown.
1 *
c.
(U)
INSCOM's major objections, and MAJ Hay agrees, are
as follows :
(1)
( S/NOFORN)
The original MOU is that it identifies
a 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
I FLAME (0)
SE MALO/HAND CARRY
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
SPODET
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
DAMI-ISH
SUBJECT :
GRILL, FLAME (U)
the required work. The MOU should be the instrument that estab-
Dishes the DOD Joint effort and not one which commits DOD funds
to a specific contractor.
(2)
( 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 whom-
over it can be determined can meet INSCOM's requirements at the
least possible cost. (NOTE: DIA proposal states $120K from Army
INSCOM all to be funded for an SRI effort. DIA maintains that
Army had previously agreed verbally to provide $150K, then $120K
and 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-
ment. )
(3) (S/NOFORN) DIA made a unilateral decision to send
the DIA primary contract monitor to SRI, Menlo Park, CA on Thursday
21st of Friday 22d of August. This was done prior to the MOU being
approved by Director, DIA; Army, and Air Force ACSIs. NOTE :
DIA
slates no one objected to the primary contract monitor going to the
West Coast at the 18 Aug 80 meeting. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
have gone on record previously objecting to the need for the con-
tract monitor to physically locate himself at SRI for the following
reasons :
SG1J
(a) (S/NOFORN)
If the GRILL FLAME Committee is in
fact joint, the DIA has no right to make a unilateral decision
such as they have prior to the MOU being signed. NOTE: DIA feels
since DIA is funding
move it is no one else's problem.
We feel if this decision is critized, DIA, Army, and Air Force
will jointly be held responsible since we are a joint committee.
(b)
(S/NOFORN)
If the primary contract monitor is
located on the West Coast with SRI, we question how he can best
monitor all additional contract efforts elsewhere. NOTE: DIA
feels since SRI is best qualified in this project they will now,
and probably continue to receive most of the contracts, therefore,
it makes sense to maintain the contract monitor at that location.
(c) (S/NOFORN) The move of the primary contract
monitor toSRI totally disregards the recommendation of the Depart-
ment of the Army GRILL FLAME Scientific Evaluation Committee Report,
dated December 79, page 10, para 3b.
"Dependence on the SRI
approach should be phased out. " NOTE :
DIA feels the Gale Report
is biased and GRILL FLAME was doomed before it started, therefore,
no one is going to accept its recommendations ( especially when
we are using Program III funds vice Program VI.
2
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 ; CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-40
CALVINL !
FOREIGN NATIONALS
DAMI-ISH
SUBJECT :
GRILL FLAME (U)
(d)
( S/NOFORN)
The move of the contract monitor to
SRT potentially decreased the operational security of the project.
llal Puthoff and Russ Targ are well known as so-called experts in
the PSI area.
To move a DIA contract monitor to work closely with
them makes it difficult to deny DOD interest in PSI. NOTE:
It
appears DIA believes both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner "have it in" for
Dr. Verona's office, specifically
and all of these
SG1J
SG1J
SG1J
objections are directed at
At the risk of being accused
of parochialism, MAJ Hay does not believe this to be the case.
Both LTC Watt, and MAJ Stoner believe that
has continually
misrepresented Army/INSCOM positions and facts to Dr. Verona.
3.
(U)
IMPACT :
a.
( S/NOFORN )
If our proposed draft MOU is approved, INSCOM
agrees to fund $70K for immediate contract work at SRI for audio
analysis, and once LTC Watt can determine the status of SRI advanced
RV training program, INSCOM would take action to fund additional
monies available. (Ingo Swann stated SRI will not be prepared for
advanced training for one year, however SRI's Hal Puthoff told
MAJ Hay on 12 Sep 80 that SRI is ready and Swann as a consultant
cannot speak for SRI. ) SRI initially felt that it would be necessary
to fund $500K 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. DIA 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
at the least possible 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
against 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
embarrassment to Army/Air Force.
b. (S/NOFORN)
If SRI does not "pull out" and the DIA monitor
remains at SRI, there may be at a later date some question dealing
with the objections listed in paragraph 2(a) (b) (c) (d) above.
Additionally, 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
other contractors without bias.
WIRD/HAND CARRY
3
DOT RELEASAMA TO
OILGILI FORRIGE MATI MALY
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07
R96-00788R001200020013-4
NOT RELEASADLE TO
1
DAMI-ISH
SUBJECT :
GRILL FLAME (U)
4.
(U)
CONCLUSION :
History han, again, proven
them (DIA, SRI ) wrong.
AF pulled out & DIA
found " he's to
continue .
*
a.
( S/NOFORN )
Dr. Verona and SRI are very angry because they
believe Army INSCOM is backing out of its commitment of $120K.
Verona's main concern appears to be the loss of the $120K from Army
to go with the SRI program for FY 81. He feels strongly SRI will
pull out if Army reduces the $120K 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 FALME Committee before talking
with Congress or anyone else about the program.
Nobody SAID THAT
C.
(S/NOFORN) MAJ Stoner feels we should trust SRI and INSCOM
should be forced to spend the FY 81 contract budget of $120K with
SRI. Stoner states "it would be wrong to stop the $120K from going
to SRI as soon as possible. I say this while pointing out my own
extreme bias against what I consider to be the high-handed, unethical,
and unprofessional actions by Verona and
in secretly assigning
SG1J
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/NOFORN )
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.
( S/NOFCRN) MAY Hay 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
decision which may cause them embarrassment, they should be asked to
come up with the funds to make up the difference that INSCOM wishes
to spend elsewhere (about $50K). If DIA feels SRI is a national
asset, this would "keep SRI in business." The GRILL FLAME Committee
should then be forced to meet, and air out all the personal problems
between the action officers, and get on with the business at hand
as outlined in the proposed MOU at TAB A. If that is not possible,
recommend 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
the good of the DOD.
4
SF PELO/HAND CARRY
ICT RELEASABLE TO
TULUINL I FOREIGN NATIONALS
:
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
JEUNIC I NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN KATIONALS
DAMI-ISH
SUBJECT :
GRILL FLAME (U)
5.
(U)
OPTIONS :
a.
( S/NOFORN )
Army withdraw from the Joint Service Program.
Advantages
(1)
Freedom to spend Army money
when and where we desire.
(2)
Manage our program without
coordination/approval of DIA.
(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
is proposed in the original MOU, and as is now operating.
Advantages
(1)
Most cost effective if a
Joint Service contract is ever
achieved.
(2) Appears to be better managed/
organized (at least on paper) .
(3) Keeps the SRI effort going
as currently staffed which may
or may not provide DOD with long
term benefits.
Disadvantages
(1) Army cannot spend money where
they feel it can obtain best results.
(2) DIA makes unilateral decisions
without regard to Service needs.
Decisions could prove not in best
interest of Army.
(3) Army would formally accept
part of the responsibility for a
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.
5
AS EU LA/HAND CARRY
CEODET
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
Disadvantages
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4
@CODICT NOT RELCASALE TO
VISOMIS T FOREIGN JATIUNALS
DAMI-ISH
SUBJECT:
GRILL FLAME (U)
c.
(S/NOFORN )
Army remain in the Joint Service Program but
modified as follows:
(1)
(S/NOFORN)
As stated in our proposed MOU ( TAB A) .
(2)
(S/NOFORN )
Go on record to object to DIA's unilateral
decision 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
( about $50K) that INSCOM wishes to spend elsewhere.
Advantages
--
(a)
Keeps the Joint Service
Program alive at least for one
year and force better management.
(b)
Should be more cost effect-
ive.
(c )
Should be better managed/
organized.
(d) Should eliminate duplica-
tion of effort.
(c)
Should provide better ex-
change of information.
(f)
Should eliminate unilateral
decisions by DIA.
Should allow Army INSCOM to
obtain training from contractors
other than SRI.
(h) Should allow for audio analysis
work for INSCOM with the SRI Team,
J. F the SRI Team remains.
( i)
Should allow the SRI Team as
currently staff to remain in business
for one more year.
( j )
Possibly prevent embarrassment
for LTG Tighe and Dr. Verona from
outside DOD.
Disadvantages
(a) Will anger DIA and cause
them some internal DOD embarrass-
ment.
(b) Cause a short delay in order
to get a formally signed MOU and
contracts for FY 81 GRILL FLAME
efforts.
BILI FLAME (U)
LOSE HOLO HAND CARRY
CEODET
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
6
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4 -0
SECRET
` RATIONALS
DAMI-ISH
SUBJECT:
GRILL FLAME (U)
6. (U)
RECOMMENDATION :
Option C; if DIA refuses, go with Option A.
MAJ Hay/50114
7
( 1)
SE BALD/HAND CARRY
NOT DELFASABLE TO
JILLUNNIGT FOURGON NATIONALS
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200020013-4