CIA-RDP96-00788R002000110001-8

Approved For Release 2000/08/0
SECRET9
P96-00788RO628GONGOPER
29 April 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT :
DOD GRILL FLAME Committee Meeting, 28-29 April 1981 (U)
1. (U)
This MFR outlines the major topics discussed or covered during the
2-day DoD GRILL FLAME committee meeting hosted by INSCOM on 28-29 April 1981.
2. (C) The following personnel attended the meetings as indicated:
5011
SG1J
DIA: 28-29 Apr 81
DIA: 28-29 Apr 81
Dr. Hal Puthoff, SRI-I: 28 Apr 81
Dr. Ed May, SRI-I: 28 Apr 81
SG11
29 Apr 81
LTC Murray Watt, INSCOM: 28-29 Apr 81
3. (C)
Purpose(s) of the meeting:
a.
Review progress of current contract work, to include any problem
areas.
b.
To discuss future goals and contractural efforts that might be necessary
to support the overall program.
4. (€) I duscussed the ACSI message of 11 Feb 81 which transferred overall
management of the Army Grill Flame effort from OACSI to HQ, USAINSCOM. I pointed
out that ACSI still retained control over policy matters but that most matters
pertaining to Army involved in project Grill Flame should come through this office
and, as appropriate, we would forward actions to ACSI as needed.
SG1J
5. (C) MAJ O'Keefe explained the reason behind the delay in the transfer of
Army monies (120K) in support of project Grill Flame to DIA. Basically, the Army
General Council (GC) has requested that the DoD General Council re-examine their
position regarding the "Human Use Issue." DoD GC has stated that the program
does not involve human use while the Army GC feels that it is. The ACSI has
been advised by the Army GC not to transfer any funds until the issue is resolved.
ACSI has agreed and so we wait.
strongly objected to the Army
delay and felt we (Army) were being very unreasonable in not following the "latest
orders" (i.e., initial DoD GC decision) that we had received. This point has
caused considerable hard feelings and some embarrassment and needs to be resolved
rapidly.
SG1J
6. (C)
announced that he needed to have statement of work prepared
by 1 Jun 81 in order to let contract for FY 82 beginning in Oct 82. I told him
that there was no way that INSCOM would be prepared to give him solid input by
1 Jun 81. I pointed out that INSCOM was undergoing change of command and that
new commander would not be taking over until 7 May 81. I stated we would try
and get .on his calendar soonest, but they had to appreciate the many problems
facing a commander of a MACOM.
AFORET
CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, DAMI-ISH
051630Z Jul 78
Approved For Release 2009/08/03 ICIA-RDP96-00788R00200011000018
NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS
original in MER file

-
Approved For Release 2000/00100 ..
DD96-00788R002000110001-8
SG1J
SG1J
7. (U)
then ran through the briefing slides he had prepared for
Thursday (30 Apr) briefing to MG Thompson and Dr. Vorona, DIA, Many questions
were left unanswered and when we (O'Keefe/Watt) asked for further data we were
informed that a complete packet would be provided at the briefing answering
all our questions. I asked that
bring copies to our Wednesday meeting
so that the Army action officers could review the material prior to the meeting.
He assured me he would do so. (NOTE: He didn't.)
SG1J
8. (S) On Wednesday, 29 Apr 81,
presented the following as his
recommended program for DIA/Army consideration for FY 82:
a.
(S) DIA Program (Recommended)
100K-intelligence assessment (review Soviet/Chinese efforts,
duplicate Soviet efforts)
60K-Operational RV tasks
60K-RV countermeasures
60K-Assessment & utilization of psychotronics.
SG1J
b. (S) Army program (as recommended by
195K-RV reliability enhancement (training)
100K-Data Base Management
100K-Targeting-follow on of FY 81. program
SG1J
stated that SRI could train four people of any given time. That
Ingo Swann left SRI in Dec .80 and has only been back once. He left because
SRI had no money left to continue developing his training program. This is
one of the many "confusing" conditions existing between SRI and DIA. In
Dec 80,
asked me if we could get money to continue the training program.
SG1J
SG1J
SG1J
SG1J
After I briefed OACSI on this request MG Thompson directed MAJ Hay and myself
in
to study the situation and give him a recommendation. MAJ Hay called
mid-December and was told that
could handle Swann and the training program
needed no additional funds. Yet, we now find out that Swann left SRI in late
Dec because the "pot ran dry."
9. (S) I then responded to
recommended Army program and offered some
additional plans.
a. First, our total budget for FY 82 is only 159K.
Hence, the proposed
plan is way beyond our currently planned effort. A rough planning figure would
be that approx 140K would be available for contracts
b. And, I stressed not necessarily with SRI and that I was not making any
commitments of any kind at this time.
c. We did agree that training was the number one priority. However, we
wanted a clarification of the status of the current training program or were we
being asked to fund the continued growth of the training program which does not
appear to be on track.
2
Approved For Release 2000
A-RDP96-00788R002000110001-8

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R002000110001-8
d. The targeting follow-on packet I recommended be tabled and perhaps
considered for FY 83. At least, let's see what they do with the FY 81 targeting
package wihich they (SRI) haven't even begun.
e. Data Base Management (DBM): We do not concur with this aspect of the
program. INSCOM ASA element has looked at their proposal and has recommended
against it. I did suggest that perhaps DIA/Army could help SRI put together
hardware package for handling their own in-house data base.
f.
Recommended that some funds might be used in support of developing
tracking procedures.
65K.
g. Recommended that DIA/Army team make necessary field trips to visit
organizations involved in research.
h.
(C)
Recommended that physiological monitoring program be started if
appropriate contractor can be uncovered.
10. (S) DIA reps clearly feel that SRI is the only organization fully accredited,
properly organized, and ready to respond to DoD taskings and, therefore, it is
not necessary to expand scope of work beyond SRI. If we find something of
interest and needed for the program ..... fine, tell DIA and they will have SRI
build a program for us (that is the prevailing attitude of
as I "read him").
SG1J
MURRAY B. WATT
LTC, MI
Project Manager
3
Approved For Release 2000/08/085/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000110001-8