Hineman, Thomas MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:35 AM To: Holbrook, Randal! COL USARMY NG MEARNG Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: 251st En Co and 86th IBCT Gents it?s time to re?engage on formally affiliating the 251st w/the BCT. Please reach out to Procopio and company in VT and re~start the conversation. I mentioned it to MajGen Cray this morning and he said that he hadn't heard about our earlier discussion but was interested. Thanks Hineman, Thomas MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Thursday, July ?18, 2013 6:23 PM To: Hofbrook, Randall COL USARMY NG MEARNG Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) cc: Watts, Earl David SFC USARMY NG MEARNG Bondole, Frederick Bofete CPT USARMY NG MEARNG Bell, Robert ll CPT USARMY NG MEARNG Tinkham, Blair LTC USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: Emerging Force Structure Impacts to the States We may want to re?engage with VT ref. alignment to the IBCT Original Message From: Holbrook, Randall COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2613 16:21 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Campbell, James 86 USARMY Watts, Earl David SFC USARMY NG MEARNG Bondole, Frederick Bofete CPT USARMY NG MEARNG Bell, Robert II CPT USARMY NG MEARNG Tinkham, Blair LTC NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: Emerging Force Structure Impacts to the States (UNCLASSIFIED) BB is about out of juice, the BCT alignment doc is a reissue of the BCT conversion plan sent out about a year ago that covers most of what is in COL B's message below. The BCT impact doc is a one slide summary of that memos and the items COL 8 email laid and the BEB State doc is one slide roll up showing where NG BCTs and their respective supports slices are located. There?s nothing here specific such as potential donor states but COL T's message certainly provides a clear statement as to what may be on the table. Will dig out COL B's original message, must be buried in my in?box and start digesting this. Original Message From: Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2613 65:39 PM To: Holbrook, Randall COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Cc: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: Emerging Force Structure Impacts to the States (UNCLASSIFIED) Randy, I can't open the attachments on my bb. what do you know about this message? Are there opportunities/impacts for Maine? Original Message From: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY N6 NGB ARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2613 69:34 PM Coordinated Universal Time T0: N6 NCR NGB List NG STAFF NG NCR ARNG List NGGB 035 ALL Subject: Emerging Force Structure Impacts to the States (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Chiefs: Message next under was forwarded by ARNG FM to your 635 and FIROS to provide information on force structure impacts resulting from BCT Reorganization. Intent is to provide transparency and allow proper analysis by your teams prior to the GB Conference being held 12-16 August 2613. Understand there may be some consternation with impacts, especially with regard to the Engineer units selected to inactivate in order to build the Engineer capability within the Brigade Engineer Battalion. It has been some time since this was last vetted with the states - but my team is committed to working through these issues in consonance with pending force structure change that will occur as a result of sequestration in the next several months. would ask that you work these issues through COL Berglund and allow the force management process to catch up with the short flash to bang time associated with Army Senior Leader decisions and actual execution of these changes. As always, thanks for your continued support. r/ Paul COL Paul C. Thorn Chief of Staff, ARNG 783~667?7618 (0) 571?887-5795 (as) From Chief Force Teammates: Wanted to get some information out prior to publication of the Army Structure Message or actual documents published in FMS WEB so you would have an understanding of where we are headed in the near term and would not be caught off guard. Under normal circumstances we would have had more time for collaboration and discussion on these issues, however given the current budget realities, sequestration of information, and the flash to bang time between decisions and execution that was just not possible. That being said, we will continue to work through issues in the near future. Recently approved BCT Reorganization MTOE documents for FY 14-15 are now being published in FMS HEB reflecting BCT 2626 redesign. As a result of the re?design, some states may lose spaces due to the conversion and donor organizations differ from State to State based on ARNG leadership guidance, equipment and personnel requirements, and the natural dispersion of our force structure. Additionally, some capabilities will migrate from the BCT to EAB in capabilities that are not resident within the impacted state. That being said, we will work to mitigate any losses in force structure and capability in consonance with future budget decisions associated with sequestration and our rebalancing efforts in TAA 16.1 which will commence within the next few months. BCT conversions begin in FY 14 following the reset year in the ARFORGEN Cycle and will be complete by FY 18. Some of the changes you will be seeing are highlighted below and annotated in the Reorganization Impacts" attachment: 1. The new BCT design adds the Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB), converted from the existing BSTB in the I and ABCTs and is pure growth in the SBCT. The added engineer capability from a Space and equipment perspective was taken from the impacted state and decisions were driven based on state input, overall EAB engineer requirements, Senior Leader Guidance, and the need to limit/eliminate an engineering equipment bill. Every effort was taken to meet state desires, however at the end of the day this requires decisions that can't accommodate every 2 request. State by state EAB Engineer Impacts are highlighted in the State Summary? attachment as vetted with the states and approved by M6 Carpenter. 2. Addition of a 3rd Maneuver Battalion (MB). These Battalions (17) will be drawn from our existing TCF force and include the 166-442 USAR BM in Hawaii. These BN5 will be aligned to the BCTs for training as annotated in the attached Alignment AUG 12" Memorandum. 3. Removes the MP Platoon from the BCT. This was a TRADOC capability decision and will not be re?invested within the EAB structure based on the sufficiency of the remaining MP structure to meet requirements. Where this removes the only MP capability within a state, steps will be taken to mitigate the capability loss as per CNGB Essential Capability directives- 4. Moves capability from the 858 of the BCT and migrates to EAB, commonly referred to as the Division Aligned CSSB. a. IBCT Organic Infantry Transport; b. a Distribution Haul, Water Production, and Fuel Distribution and Storage. 5. Conversion of the Fires Battalion from a 2X8 to a 3X6 design to support the additional Maneuver Battalion, and migration of Fire Supporters from the Maneuver Battalions back to the fires Battalion. Within the IBCT, one of the Batteries will convert to an M777 design, commonly referred to as a Composite Fires Battalion. The Sustainment Concept of Support proposed by CASCOM to fill the capability gaps created by Army 2628 BCT Redesign will begin implementation in FY15. The Division Aligned CSSB (taken from our existing CSSB structure) will be distinct from the traditional CSSB, as the new Division Aligned CSSB design is a modular organization that consists of a Headquarters, Composite Supply Company, Composite Truck Company (Heavy or Light) and Support Maintenance Company capable of providing flexible and responsive sustainment throughout the Division Area of Operations. Most of these capabilities already exist within the ARNG and will manifest themselves through simple conversion. Based on the diverse force structure needs of all states, some of these Divisional will not reside in the same state as the Division Headquarters they support and some of the companies may be split to other states. At the end of the day, Divisional provide EAB support for both BCTs and the EAB force as a whole and the DSCA and training requirements of each State and Territory are a consideration in conversion/stationing decisions. Some of these structure decisions were made up to three years ago (BEB) and have just now become available for implementation. understands the decisions made three years ago impacting the force may be resolved or have created new concerns. Although Force structure decisions for FY 14?15 are complete, will help mitigate FY 14~15 disconnects in future years for affected states. FY 16?18 force structure decisions continue to be developed and will be addressed in the future. Please keep in mind the current budget situation and POSSIBLE changes to the ARNG force structure. Until a final budget decision is made, we will be challenged to effectively mitigate all issues. However, over the next several months there will be opportunities to work issues within the FM community and adjust our structure to meet most concerns. Please begin reviewing these impacts prior to the 63 conference so we can begin working/resolving issues in preparation for TAA 16.1 Thanks and looking forward to working with you. COL Mark Berglund Chief, Force Management ARNG 763 687~ 7881 mark.berglund@us.army.mil Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hineman, Thomas MAJ UEARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Bilodeau, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:16 PM To: Artis, Shirley CIV NG NGB ARNG (US) Cc: Campbell, James BG USARMY Mosher. John COL USARMY Decker, Jack Jr MAJ USAF NG MEANG (US) Subject: JFHQ-ME State of State Brie?ng (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: JFHQ-ME State of State 2013.pdf Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Shirley, Enclosed is the slide deck for Maine's State of the State next week. Thank you LTC Jeffrey Bilodeau LTC, DCSIM, 6-6 Office: 207-439-5948 Cell 267-629-0674 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE smnu?srm ?In. . ,1 YON ETS, FO Brigadier General James D. Campbell The Adjutant General Buruners, Forward! - "f3 1 Outline - Key Achievements - 2015 Force Structure Vision - Force Structure Analysis - Functional Area Backup Slides Bayonen?. Furwurd.? Key Achievements - Strength - Training ~Facm?es Bayonen. Forward! . g' . 2015 Force Structure Vision 2014 FSA: 2125 2015 189So diers Standardized Troop Command Delta: +65 Pending lnfantry BN MTOE 84 Soldier Qty 39 Soldiers . 69 Soldiers ,3 694 Soldiers Av Dots 168801diers 117 Soldiers 144So dlers GSSoldiers I> Subject: 133rd Engineer Battalion All I understand that some of you or your offices may have been contacted with questions regarding a plan to change the 133rd Engineer Battalion to an Infantry battalion. I expect people from my staff to answer any questions you might have about this initiative. A brief word of explanation. First of all, I apologize for sending this message from my blackberry I'm currently out of the country, in Saudi Arabia. The Maine National Guard has been seeking an opportunity to get an Infantry Battalion in the state since 2668, and it has been on our State Command Plan since then the official document we submit to the National Guard Bureau each year with the outline for what we want our force structure to consist of. I have spoken about this issue with the Governor and he agrees with it, and my predecessor MG Libby and I have also spoken about it he initiated the original addition to the Command Plan and continues to think it is the right thing to do for the state. we have wanted an infantry battalion for several reasons. First and foremost, such units are more flexible for both state and federal missions, and the changing demographics of the state lend themselves to having an infantry battalion as opposed to a more complex and difficult unit to recruit for, train and maintain. Second, an infantry battalion would be affiliated with a Brigade Combat Team, the basic unit structure of the Army and one which gives us better funding and training opportunities, as well as more security for our structure in this time of fiscal uncertainty. Infantry units are easier to train given our weather and terrain, and require less expensive maintenance. Last, the 133rd Engineer Battalion was an infantry unit, the 163rd Infantry Regiment, from 1766 until the mid?1969's, when it changed to engineers. 266 years of Maine's infantry heritage resides with that unit, including the 1 lineage and honors of all of Maine's 32 Civil War Infantry Regiments, and the 163rd Infantry fought in both WWI and WWII. Changing the unit back to Infantry is a good fit and returns it to its historic heritage. Leadership of the National Guard and the Army have all told us that it would be a good thing overall to have such an historic organization returned to the Army's Corps of Infantry. If we make this change we will still retain sufficient engineering unit capacity in the state to support civil authorities, although such a capability is rarely used extensively in state emergencies more flexible, general purpose units like infantry are more generally valuable in that they provide masses of trained Soldiers with organic transport, communications and leadership. Our only current infantry unit in the state, a company of 156 soldiers in Brewer, has been at roughly 128 percent strength now for years - we often have a waiting list for recruits to join it, whereas some of our engineer units continue to struggle to maintain strength and readiness. we have been in discussions with a couple of states about making a swap for some time now, and nothing has been decided. The National Guard Bureau has also recently proposed to us that we swap units with PA as part of their planning in case they are required to make the dramatic cuts the Army has asked for, and our staff is still examining this course of action along with others. Again nothing has been decided or finalized. it is highly likely at this point that we will seek to make a change with another state, regardless of whether or not the cuts we are fighting against actually happen again, we have been looking for an infantry unit for some years now. There will be some in the State who will have an understandably emotional reaction to such a change if it occurs. However, we will proceed with what we feel is the best decision given our current and anticipated needs, and our future ability to maintain the best force possible in our state. I remain ready to answer any questions you or any of the delegation might have about this issue, and the staff, as always, is available to you as well. As we move forward with our analysis and arrive at any potential decisions, we?ll keep you informed. In any case, any change that may occur would not be for at least a couple of years. As I?m sure you understand, we are trying very hard to minimize any turmoil surrounding this 155ue, as it may adversely affect the members of the 133rd who are currently deployed in Afghanistan. I hope this helps to address any questions or concerns you have. Thanks for all that do for us. Best regards 86 Campbell Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell. James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:55 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: 133rd Battalion See below - who was it? Also - how did it go w/Sen King? From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 16:44 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Who was the reporter? I don't need to ask who contacted the From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 09:57 PM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Cc: Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion We have spoken to each member of the CODEL using the same talking points 36 Campbell used with the Governor. They understand the situation. This reporter has not talked with any member of our Guard leadership apparently taking his innacurate perspective from a secondary source. MAJ Steinbuchel has contacted him to correct the narrative. we'll see what he actually reports. From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 66:42 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Cc: Mosher, John COL USARMY Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Fw: 133rd Battalion See below; I have spoken with Jim Pineau and COL Mosher has called to speak with Willy Ritch. MAJ Steinbuchel is corresponding with Peter Steele to ensure that they are abreast of the situation as well. Evidently several other Maine Congressional personnel have been contacted by Press about the situation. Daniel P. Goodheart Deputy Commissioner Department of Defense, Veterans And Emergency Management Illegitimi non carborundum 297?436-5161 207-557-3670 From: Willy Ritch (Pingree) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:25 PM To: Pineau, Jim; Goodheart, Daniel Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion I?ll just tag on to Jim?s email?the first thing it would be good to know is: Is there a plan under consideration to move the 133d to PA and put an infantry unit here in Maine? If it takes longer to get additional info I wanted to make sure we get Congresswoman Pingree an answer on that basic fact ASAP. Thanks Dan. Hilly Ritch Senior Advisor Communications Director Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (ME-91) (Maine) 262-225?6116 (Washington) 267-841-8400 (cell) From: (jamesggineau@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:22:23 ~6466 To: "Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Cc: Willy Ritch Subject: 133rd Battalion Hi Dan, I hope all is well. Just wanted to give you a heads up that Rep Pingree was just asked by a reporter about the possibility of the 133rd Engineering Battalion being relocated to in return for an infantry unit from that state. Rep Pingree expressed some concerns with the proposal but also said she?d need more information before she took any Final positionwshe?s asked me to reach out and request any information you may have on this topic? Thanks Dan Jim Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:57 AM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion I noted with particular interest that in the PPH story the writer said that the 133rd embodied a history of combat engineering units in Maine dating back to somebody lied to him, or he's an idiot. From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: wednesday, April 36, 2814 61:12 PM To: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion He was listening very carefully and our points were resonating. But I get the sense he is heavily influenced by staffers. He said that there is still a long way to go on this and he will continue to listen to the points that TAGS specifically are making. General Grass and this entire JCS position is now openly acknowledged as counter productive to our cause in that the Chief of NGB and the TAGS appear to be at odds: hence General 0 is the only one with his shit together. He asked a lot of questions about the 133d and of course attributed the entire 98 Ice Storm recovery to them, which we know wasn't the case at all. I countered with the simple fact that we had FA and IN out with the power companies and pulling security for the crews. He had always been told in Augusta that it was EN that saved the day. He asked, of course, what MG Adams thought of the move and I said that MG Libby had endorsed it, but was not sure if you had spoken with him about it during your recent meeting on force structure. The Senator said he would call Adams and ask him. When I got back to my hotel, I phone MG adams to let him know of our meeting and that the Senator would likely be calling him. MG Adams spoke very highly about your meeting with him and has an excellent grasp of the Force Structure issues. when we spoke of the 133d he mentioned that he was actually was in the Guard during the original conversion of the 163d to EN and lamented that it would be a shame to have to go back. I explained our rationale and he repeated the mantra of how the EN saved the day during the Ice Storm of 98 and what heroes they were with all their capability. His nostalgic frame of reference was difficult to break down as it is a summer camp era point of view of building ball fields and playing softball. He was TAG almost 28 years ago. It was a good conversation that ended well as I gently reminded him that the roles of the Guard have changed considerably in the past 66 years, which he agreed was true. He shocked me by telling me that we ?gave away" by choice the FA and just need to move cautiously forward as we staff this out. Forwarded him your message to the CODEL after we hung up. Sir, we knew that there would be a predictable backlash in converting "Maine?s most storied unit" and we are into it now. we will stay on message and continue to break down the being perpetuated as they come. I will keep you informed as we progress with staffing. From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2014 93:32 AM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Did you get any sense of which way he's leaning? From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 64:36 AM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Good meeting with Senator King. It was a great idea to include MG Adams in your initial discussion with MG Libby. Sen King always asks what MG Adams thinks. From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 12:54 AM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: i33rd Battalion See below - who was it? Also how did it go w/Sen King? From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 16:44 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Who was the reporter? I don't need to ask who contacted the From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 69:57 PM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Cc: Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion we have Spoken to each member of the CODEL using the same talking points 86 Campbell used with the Governor. They understand the situation. This reporter has not talked with any member of our Guard leadership apparently taking his innacurate perspective from a secondary source. MAJ Steinbuchel has contacted him to correct the narrative. We'll see what he actually reports. From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 66:42 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Cc: Mosher, John COL USARMY Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: FM: 133rd Battalion See below; I have spoken with Jim Pineau and COL Masher has called to speak with willy Ritch. MAJ Steinbuchel is corresponding with Peter Steele to ensure that they are abreast of the situation as well. Evidently several other Maine Congressional personnel have been contacted by Press about the situation. Daniel P. Goodheart Deputy Commissioner Department of Defense, Veterans And Emergency Management Illegitimi non carborundum 267*436-5161 287-557?3676 From: Willy Ritch (Pingree) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2914 2:25 PM To: Pineau, Jim; Goodheart, Daniel Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion I?ll just tag on to Jim?s email?the first thing it would be good to know is: Is there a plan under consideration to move the 133d to PA and put an infantry unit here in Maine? If it takes longer to get additional info I wanted to make sure we get Congresswoman Pingree an answer on that basic fact ASAP. Thanks Dan. Willy Ritch Senior Advisor Communications Director Congresswoman Chellie Pingree 2e7-774?5919 (Maine) 262~225-6116 (Washington) 267?841-8469 (cell) From: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2614 14:22:23 -B468 To: "Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Cc: Willy Ritch Subject: 133rd Battalion Hi Dan, I hope all is well. Just wanted to give you a heads up that Rep Pingree was just asked by a reporter about the possibility of the 133rd Engineering Battalion being relocated to in return for an infantry unit from that state. Rep Pingree expressed some concerns with the proposal but also said she?d need more information before she took any final position~she?s asked me to reach out and request any information you may have on this tOpic? Thanks Dan Jim Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:58 AM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Afghanistan I?m going to now. Original Message From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 63:56 PM To: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Cc: Mclaughlin, Michael COL USARMY Goodheart, Daniel NFG N6 MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: Afghanistan wouldn't it be great if all our officers were professionals like LTC Preston. Sir, have you responded to his message to explain the article? Original Message From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 12:37 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Mclaughlin, Michael COL USARMY Goodheart, Daniel MFG N6 MEARNG (US) Subject: Fw: Afghanistan See below from LTC Preston. I'm now even more pissed at the irresponsible and unprofessional snake who went to the Press Herald. Original Message From: Preston, Dean A LTC USA CMRE 133rd EN EN CDR Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 63:31 PM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Cc: Mclaughlin, Michael COL USARMY (US) Subject: RE: Afghanistan OFFICIAL USE ONLY 36 Campbell, Thanks for the note. It is great for you to be able to get to theater and see what is going on. If you can drop me a note letting me know what window and building (complex) you will be located while in Kabul, I might be able to stop in and chat for a minute. If that is at all possible drop me a note and I will make it happen. Yes, Sir; I have spoken with both COL Mosher and COL Mclaughlin about the most recent information. The news was very surprising and as equally disappointing. Especially for a career Engineer Officer, who has deployed as a Company Commander and a Battalion Commander like myself. COL Mosher did take a few minutes to discuss the DOD looking at adjustments to the force structure and the impacts to the National Guard nation wide. I know and understand the challenges of a changing environment and the changing force structure of our Army as a whole. The Post Iraq/Afghanistan military will look a lot different and these differences will be reflected not only in our Active component but also in the Guard as well. I discussed with COL Mosher the timing of me briefing the staff about potential changes and to discuss the limited information that I did know. I briefed my staff Sunday about the information with the tone 0% understanding changes beyond our control and the importance of professionalism and direction. I also instructed them to keep close hold for the sole purpose that we do not really know enough intormation to answer questions of the Soldiers. Nell, three days later as you can imagine, the Soldiers are reading an article in the Portland Press about the potential changes. So, I am now holding a meeting (tonight) with the Maine Soldiers to explain the situation. My message will be simple: we as Soldiers need to be patient with the process and support our senior leadership as they navigate through this situation. At the end of the day the Maine Army National Guard senior leadership is going to do what is best for the organization and its Soldiers in the long run. I am holding this quick meeting to circumvent any silly rumor mill. It is important to control (shape) the narrative on this, especially for the Engineer community. Sir, I will keep our Soldiers here focused on the mission at hand. We will finish our mission and return home with honor. I will continue to answer questions about this situation the best I can. Sir, I hope you have a great trip and I look forward to the opportunity to dropping into Kabul to chat if possible. To The Last Man!! LTC Dean A. Preston 133rd EN EN (CMRE) "Task Force Black Bear? Commander ?Chamberlain 6? NIPR: (318.481.1348) SIPR: (388.431.1782) CENTRIX: Message??~?~ From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 38, 2814 5:57 AM To: Preston, Dean A LTC USA CMRE 133rd EN EN CDR Cc: Mclaughlin, Michael COL USARMY (US) Subject: Afghanistan LTC Preston - hello From Saudi Arabia. I?m traveling in the CENTCOM AOR with the CAPSTONE course for the next two weeks, and will be in AFG for two days starting Sunday pm. We have meetings most at the day in Kabul, and given the nature of the trip, untortunately I won?t be able to get to Bagram to visit the battalion. If anyone from the unit is going to be in Kabul, please let me know so I can try to see them. I know COL Mosher has spoken to you about the recent turn of events regarding potential changes to the battalion. As soon as I can, I?d like to talk to you as well. At this point nothing is decided for certain, but given the dramatic overall changes coming to the Guard nation?wide, eSpecially if we lose the current fight in Congress about reductionscase of "transform or die." I will not allow the lineage of the battalion to be lost under any I apologize that you have had this added to your plate on top of everything you are doing in the Fight. The way this thing is developing, I thought that it would be best to tell you sooner, rather than later. I continue to rely on your leadership and your great people as we navigate through the next several weeks and months. Let me know if there's anyone going to be in Kabul on Monday or Tuesday. I'm incredibly disappointed that I can't see the unit GEN Dunford and the Ambassador had other plans for Best regards 36 Campbell OFFICIAL USE ONLY Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:13 AM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Many of the same bs talking points that Harvey Cotta fed to the Governor's Chief of wonder why that is? From: Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 64:66 PM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Both. Its rife with inaccuracies and inflammatory and erroneous information. From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: wednesday, april 36, 2614 12:57 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion I noted with particular interest that in the PPH story the writer said that the 133rd embodied a history of combat engineering units in Maine dating back to somebody lied to him, or he's an idiot. From: Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 61:12 PM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion He was listening very carefully and our points were resonating. But I get the sense he is heavily influenced by staffers. He said that there is still a long way to go on this and he will continue to listen to the points that TAGs specifically are making. General Grass and this entire JCS position is now openly acknowledged as counter productive to our cause in that the Chief of N68 and the TAGS appear to be at odds: hence General 0 is the only one with his shit together. He asked a lot of questions about the 133d and of course attributed the entire 98 Ice Storm recovery to them, which we know wasn't the case at all. I countered with the simple fact that we had FA and IN out with the power companies and pulling security for the crews. He had always been told in Augusta that it was EN that saved the day. He asked, of course, what MG Adams thought of the move and I said that MG Libby had endorsed it, but was not sure if you had spoken with him about it during your recent meeting on force structure. The Senator said he would call Adams and ask him. When I got back to my hotel, I phone MG adams to let him know of our meeting and that the Senator would likely be calling him. MG Adams Spoke very highly about your meeting with him and has an excellent grasp of the Force Structure issues. When we spoke of the 133d he mentioned that he was actually was in the Guard during the original conversion of the 163d to EN and lamented that it would be a shame to have to go back. I explained our rationale and he repeated the mantra of how the EN saved the day during the Ice Storm of 98 and what heroes they were with all their capability. His nostalgic frame of reference was difficult to break down as it is a summer camp era point of 1 View of building ball fields and playing softball. He was TAG almost 26 years ago. It was a good conversation that ended well as I gently reminded him that the roles of the Guard have changed considerably in the past 66 years, which he agreed was true. He shocked me by telling me that we "gave away" by choice the FA and just need to move cautiously forward as we staff this out. Forwarded him your message to the CODEL after we hung up. Sir, we knew that there would be a predictable backlash in converting "Maine's most storied unit" and we are into it now. We will stay on message and continue to break down the being perpetuated as they come. I will keep you informed_as we progress with staffing. From: Campbell, James 66 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 63:62 AM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Did you get any sense of which way he's leaning? From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 64:36 AM To: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Good meeting with Senator King. It was a great idea to include MG Adams in your initial discussion with MG Libby. Sen King always asks what MG Adams thinks. From: Campbell, James 6 BG USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 12:54 AM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: 133rd Battalion See below who was it? Also how did it go w/Sen King? From: Campbell, James 66 USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 16:44 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion Who was the reporter? I don't need to ask who contacted the From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 69:57 PM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Campbell, James 66 USARMY (US) Cc: Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion We have spoken to each member of the CODEL using the same talking points 86 Campbell used with the Governor. They understand the situation. This reporter has not talked with any member of our Guard leadership apparently taking his innacurate perSpective from a secondary source. MAJ Steinbuchel has contacted him to correct the narrative. We?ll see what he actually reports. From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 96:42 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Campbell, James 0 BG USARMY (US) Cc: Mosher, John COL USARMY Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY N6 MEARNG (US) Subject: Fw: 133rd Battalion See below; I have spoken with Jim Pineau and COL Mosher has called to speak with Willy Ritch. MAJ Steinbuchel is correSponding with Peter Steele to ensure that they are abreast of the situation as well. Evidently several other Maine Congressional personnel have been contacted by Press about the situation. Daniel P. Goodheart Deputy Commissioner Department of Defense, Veterans And Emergency Management Illegitimi non carborundum 287?436?5161 297-557-3678 From: willy Ritch (Pingree) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2914 2:25 PM To: Pineau, Jim; Goodheart, Daniel Subject: Re: 133rd Battalion I?ll just tag on to Jim?s emailnthe first thing it would be good to know is: Is there a plan under consideration to move the 133d to PA and put an infantry unit here in Maine? If it takes longer to get additional info I wanted to make sure we get Congresswoman Pingree an answer on that basic fact ASAP. Thanks Dan. Willy Ritch Senior Advisor Communications Director Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (ME-61) 267-774?5619 (Maine) 202-225n6116 (washington) 267-841-8489 (cell) From: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2814 14:22:23 ~6466 To: ?Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Cc: willy Ritch Subject: 133rd Battalion Hi Dan, I hope all is well. Just wanted to give you a heads up that Rep Pingree was just asked by a reporter about the possibility of the 133rd Engineering Battalion being relocated to in return for an infantry unit trom that state. Rep Pingree expressed some concerns with the proposal but also said she?d need more intormation before she took any Final positionushe?s asked me to reach out and request any information you may have on this topic? Thanks Dan Jim Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Fitzgerald, Bruce [BruceFitzgerald@maine.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:22 PM To: Cc: Milier, Lynette Rogers, Peterd Subject: RE: 133m! Engineer Battalion Thanks Jack, this is helpful. we have received a call from the Portland Press Herald reporter who wrote today's article. Lynette and I will be talking with him this afternoon. We are comfortable with what we need to say to support the Maine Guard and to reassure that Maine as a whole will be prepared to respond to disasters. Peter Rogers is over at Camp Keyes assisting Dan and MAJ Steinbuchel with your public response. Thanks Bruce Bruce Fitzgerald Director Maine Emergency Management Agency Main: 267.624.4486 Mobile: 267.557.9171 Web: From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 39, 2614 12:14 PM To: Fitzgerald, Bruce Subject: Fw: 133rd Engineer Battalion Bruce. See the TAGS remarks below. Flying back from DC now. Give me a call if you need more info. Jack 267 668 5922 Original Message From: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2614 97:36 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: 'schneidersenate?msn.com' 'Matt dubois@mail.house.gov' Cc: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Masher, John COL USARMY Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG 'Jonathan.Nass@maine.gov? Subject: 133rd Engineer Battalion All - I understand that some of you or your offices may have been contacted with questions regarding a plan to change the i33rd Engineer Battalion to an Infantry battalion. I expect people from my staff to answer any questions you might have about this initiative. 1 A brief word of explanation. First of all, I apologize for sending this message from my blackberry I'm currently out of the country, in Saudi Arabia. The Maine National Guard has been seeking an opportunity to get an Infantry Battalion in the state since 2668, and it has been on our State Command Plan since then a the official document we submit to the National Guard Bureau each year with the outline for what we want our force structure to consist of. I have spoken about this issue with the Governor and he agrees with it, and my predecessor MG Libby and I have also spoken about it - he initiated the original addition to the Command Plan and continues to think it is the right thing to do for the state. We have wanted an infantry battalion for several reasons. First and foremost, such units are more flexible for both state and federal missions, and the changing demographics of the state lend themselves to having an infantry battalion as opposed to a more complex and difficult unit to recruit for, train and maintain. Second, an infantry battalion would be affiliated with a Brigade Combat Team, the basic unit structure of the Army and one which gives us better funding and training opportunities, as well as more security for our structure in this time of fiscal uncertainty. Infantry units are easier to train given our weather and terrain, and require less expensive maintenance. Last, the 133rd Engineer Battalion was an infantry unit, the 163rd Infantry Regiment, from i?66 until the mid?1966?s, when it changed to engineers. 266 years of Maine's infantry heritage resides with that unit, including the lineage and honors of all of Maine's 32 Civil War Infantry Regiments, and the 163rd Infantry fought in both WWI and WWII. Changing the unit back to Infantry is a good fit and returns it to its historic heritage. Leadership of the National Guard and the Army have all told us that it would be a good thing overall to have such an historic organization returned to the Army's Corps of Infantry. If we make this change we will still retain sufficient engineering unit capacity in the state to support civil authorities, although such a capability is rarely used extensively in state emergencies more flexible, general purpose units like infantry are more generally valuable in that they provide masses of trained Soldiers with organic transport, communications and leadership. Our only current infantry unit in the state, a company of 156 soldiers in Brewer, has been at roughly 126 percent strength now for years we often have a waiting list for recruits to join it, whereas some of our engineer units continue to struggle to maintain strength and readiness. We have been in discussions with a couple of states about making a swap for some time now, and nothing has been decided. The National Guard Bureau has also recently proposed to us that we swap units with PA as part of their planning in case they are required to make the dramatic cuts the Army has asked for, and our staff is still examining this course of action along with others. Again nothing has been decided or finalized. it is highly likely at this point that we will seek to make a change with another state, regardless of whether or not the cuts we are fighting against actually happen again, we have been looking for an infantry unit for some years now. There will be some in the state who will have an understandably emotional reaction to such a change if it occurs. However, we will proceed with what we feel is the best decision given our current and anticipated needs, and our future ability to maintain the best force possible in our state. I remain ready to answer any questions you or any of the delegation might have about this issue, and the staff, as always, is available to you as well. As we move forward with our analysis and arrive at any potential decisions, we'll keep you informed. In any case, any change that may occur would not be for at least a couple of years. As I?m sure you understand, we are trying very hard to minimize any turmoil surrounding this issue, as it may adversely affect the members of the 133rd who are currently deployed in Afghanistan. I hope this helps to address any questions or concerns you have. 2 Thanks for all that do for us. Best regards 36 Campbell Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Fitzgerald, Bruce [BruceFitzgerald@maine.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:14 PM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Mosher, John COL USARMY Holbrook, Randall COL USARMY NG MEARNG Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Cc: Rogers, Peter Subject: FW: impact of potential Maine National Guard changes on emergency management Gents, for your info Bruce Fitzgerald Director Maine Emergency Management Agency Main: 207.624.4400 Mobile: 207.557.9171 Web: New meme (hug; 1 - mai .09. From: Miller, Lynette C. Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:35 PM talking points for emergency management about potential future changes Guard force structure. in Maine National 1. MEMA and the Emergency Management community in Maine will be able to adapt to any changes that are made in the Maine National Guard force structure. 2. The Maine National Guard is part of a Maine Emergency Response Team that consists of most State agencies, the American Red Cross and the US Coast Guard. Emergency response assets are available from all those entities. Liaisons from all these agencies come together in the Emergency Operations Center, and when a resource request is made, it is determined what agency can best supply the resource. If another State agency resource is available, it is generally deployed before Guard resources, for reasons of both speed of response and cost. 3. Use of National Guard resources for emergency missions is dependent upon determining that no private sector or other State resources are available. MEMA has an MOU, and a Strong working relationship with the Maine Association of General Contractors. we are able to quickly locate, execute emergency contracts with and deploy a wide variety of private sector resources generators, emergency lights, heavy equipmentxoperators, etc.). 4. The Maine National Guard?s administrative structure and the people MEMA and the EMA community deal with on a daily basis will not change (other than the normal rotation we see periodically already). The individuals who are our liaisons will stay the same, as will regional contacts for County EMAs. It is often the training, knowledge and experience of those individuals that is the greatest asset for emergency management. 5. In recent emergencies, we have not relied specifically on the 133rd or other engineering assets. Typical deployments have been for traffic control, scene security, Emergency Operations Center support and other logistical or administrative functions. 6. In the Ice Storm of 1998, many different units were mobilized, including infantry. Though it was a record deployment of Guard resources in terms of numbers, it was not heavily reliant on the 133rd or other engineering assets. 7. The 133rd has been deployed and unavailable at times since 2061. The assets remaining in the state were able to support all emergency management needs. Therefore although we understand overall staffing in Maine and all state Guards may decrease to some extent over the next several years, the emergency management community would be able to adapt to changes similar to the current proposal. 8. In the last several years, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact has matured into a very efficient ?force multiplier? allowing states with major emergencies to request specialized resources from other states. We have been fortunate to be a resource provider to other states, but the process of requesting assistance from another state is very straightforward and very fast. Were there a need for additional Guard resources from another state, they could be here very quickly. (A similar Mutual Aid arrangement is in place between Maine and eastern Canadian provinces.) 9. All these changes to the Maine National Guard are still in the planning stages. If and when a change is definite, we will better know the future configuration of Guard assets available for emergency reSponse. We will then be able to assess what resources will be immediately available in the State, and when we might look to another State for support. Any changes will also be made in a long enough time frame to ensure that plans can be adapted to the new configuration. 16. The unit of the Maine National Guard that EMA works with most closely day to day is the list CST, a full-time hazardous materials and NMD response team. CSTs are not part of this proposed change. Lynette C. Miller Director, Communications and Special Projects Maine Emergency Management Agency 72 State House Station Augusta, Maine 84333?9672 297~624?4426 868?452?8735 Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James .88 USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:48 PM To: Steinbuchei, Michaet MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG Masher, John COL USARMY Goodheart. Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Press release For any potential press release, please feel free to use my note to the CODEL as a start point. It should be direct and factual, and dirextly address the fact that this is all pre? decisional and that we have been working toward this since 2998. We may also want to correct some ot the statements made in the Portland Press article. Maybe we should have MAJ Cotta assist in writing it. Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:59 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: FW: Morning Report for Wednesday, 30 Apr 14 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack, ref the below up? asked for the conversion. Just Jerry COL 3L Wood GB, ARNG 763.697.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (BB) ME: Portland Press Herald (Regional) Maine on verge of losing key National Guard unit -- by Matt Byrne The Army National Guard is nearing the final stages of a plan to reassign the 133rd Engineer Battalion of the Maine National Guard to and replace it with a less specialized combat infantry unit, the Portland Press Herald has learned. If the plan is approved, Maine will lose a battalion that handles vital engineering and construction duties during civil emergencies such as severe storms, flooding and other natural disasters, and combines training for soldiers with community service to build school athletic facilities, youth camps, nature trails, municipal sand and salt sheds, rural fairgrounds and other projects. The engineering unit also has provided significant training opportunities for women, which likely will be diminished if a transition is made to a combat battalion. Michel Steinbuchel, spokesman for the 133rd Engineer Battalion, said Tuesday that introducing infantry to Maine?s Army National Guard has been part of the statewide plan for the National Guard since 2898, and that recruiting for the specialized engineer positions has been harder recently than filling the ranks of the unit?s infantry. Steinbuchel said the infantry will be a more versatile, agile force, whereas engineers need heavier, more expensive equipment and are slower to respond in times of disaster. ?What we need is units that are flexible for both state and federal missions,? Steinbuchel said. ?when the governor calls for state~supported civil authority, the majority of that support in terms of heavy engineering equipment is rarely used extensively. A more flexible general?purpose unit, they tend to be more useful.? Steinbuchel said the reorganization would reduce the overall number of enlisted Guard members, but he did not know by how many. About 2,166 soldiers are now in the Maine National Guard. There are now 161 soldiers from the 133rd deployed to Afghanistan, to dismantle the equipment and facilities that supported combat operations there for more than a decade. The majority of U.S. military forces are expected to be withdrawn from the country by the end of 2614, according to the Department of Defense. The shift would also mean a reduced capability for civil-service missions in times of peace, such as an annual federally funded training program in which soldiers from the 133rd do community service?type work, including recent projects at the NinthrOp YMCA, in the windham school system?s athletic department, and at the Cumberland and windsor county fairs. Maine Army National Guard soldiers have set up a display of heavy equipment and recruiting tables at the Cumberland County and windsor fairs each September for more than a decade. Their presence will be missed, said Mike Timmons, president of the fair. The soldiers usually spend the entire week at the fair, manning their exhibit and helping vendors with setting up displays or other chores, Timmons said. have never had anything but positive encounters with them,? he said. Also reduced will be the job options for women, who have a far broader range of opportunities in engineering units than in infantry units, where they are restricted to non?combat support roles. Steinbuchel could not provide exact numbers for how much the reorganization would save the National Guard, or what a potential new force level would be. About 128 engineer~capable soldiers would remain after the reorganization, Steinbuchel said, a group that he said is sufficient to address the needs of the state during emergencies or natural disasters. ?We are looking at different options, but none of this has been finalized yet,? he said. Gov. Paul LePage?s office did not respond to requests for comment. Members of Maine?s congressional delegation reacted with concern. U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree said she worries about the potential loss of a unit that has made significant contributions in the face of natural disasters in Maine and along the eastern seaboard. ?People are really attached to them, (and) they made some very big sacrifices during the Iraq war,? Pingree said. ?We will certainly voice our concerns, send a letter, meet the people who (make those decisions). I have to look at all the facts.? If finalized, the shift could occur between 2617 and 2619, said Pingree?s spokesman, Willy Ritch. He said Maine?s National Guard unit would be one of at least three to be dissolved as part of a wide-ranging reduction of the military after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the three units to be dissolved, five light?infantry brigades would be formed. The swap of duties would end a tradition of combat engineer service in Maine that dates back to the mid?17895. U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, who is running for governor, said through a spokesman that he will soon seek answers from the unit?s commander, Brig. Gen. James D. Campbell. Campbell was in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday and unreachable for comment. ?While I understand that these changes are part of a national force restructuring effort, I look forward to speaking directly with Brigadier General Campbell to get a clear sense of how exactly this will impact the men and women serving in Maine?s Army National Guard,? Michaud 2 said in a written statement. ?It is critical that we maintain a Guard structure here that is capable of responding quickly to a variety of situations across the state.? Asked to comment on the plan, U.S. Sen. Angus King?s office issued a statement saying, ?Senator King met with a representative of the Maine National Guard (Tuesday) evening and is working to understand the issues surrounding this matter.? In January 2612, Pentagon leaders introduced the outline of a plan to shrink the nation?s military after the costly engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision by senior military leaders includes a smaller, leaner Army that is agile, flexible and rapidly deployable, according to a report in February prepared for members of Congress by the Congressional Research Service. In February, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that he would recommend reducing Army personnel levels to 446,666 to 456,666 soldiers, and if sequestration level?funding is to be imposed in 2616, a drawdown to 426,666 soldiers is possible. While no major reductions have been proposed for the Army National Guard, some units are set for restructuring to more closely mirror the make?up of the active?duty Army. Six of the Guard?s 28 Brigade Combat Teams are expected to be reorganized this year, with others to follow through 2618. The reorganization will add about 1,666 soldiers to each Guard combat brigade, making them equal in size, at about 4,566 soldiers, to active?duty brigades. Plans call for six more brigades to be reorganized before Sept. 36. genum=1 agenum=1> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:20 PM To: Steele, Peter Bennett, Adrienne Cc: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Campbell, James BG USARMY Subject: Pubiic Affairs Guidance APRIL 2014 CHANGES (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Public Affairs Guidance APRIL 2014 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Peter and Adrienne, Per the Deputy Commissioner and the Army Chief of Staff, please see the attached document. Thank you, MAJ Michael Steinbuchel State Public Attairs Officer Maine National Guard (297) 436?5759 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Public Affairs Guidance: Change of Force Structure Opening Statement: ?We understand all discussion of possible force structure changes are incredibly emotionally charged,? he said. ?The leadership of the Maine National Guard will ensure that the citizens of the State of Maine and soldiers are fully protected and cared for through any change in Maine's force planning. Maine will retain engineering capability for our communities and the historic lineage of Maine?s rich military history will be preserved and canied forward. Our emergency management capabilities will not be diminished and we will prepare for the prOper placement of all of our soldiers with their families as a ?rst priority as we continue the staff analysis process.? Infantry battalions are more flexible for both state and federal missions. An infantry battalion would better mirror the Army?s basic structure, and allow us better funding and training opportunities. Infantry units are easier to train given our weather and terrain and require less expensive maintenance. The state will retain engineering unit capacities to support civil authorities in case of emergency. Infantry units in Maine currently have a waiting list to ?ll positions. whereas recruiting and retention has been dif?cult for engineer units. The Maine Anny National Guard priorities are to support those deployed or preparing to deploy, and to sustain critical Soldier and Family programs The National Guard understands the ?scal challenges facing the nation and the Department of Defense and intends to be part of the solution. We understand the decisions in this budget plan are driven by current ?scal realities and a more volatile and unpredictable security environment abroad. We are con?dent that the unique dual role of the National Guard as a federal reserve of the Army and Air Force and as the first military responder in support of our nation?s Governors, during domestic emergencies, will not be overlooked in these ongoing budget discussions. Key Points: This proposed force structure reduction is a result of Congress and the Department of Defense attempting to lower our military budget. We understand the decisions in this budget plan are driven by current ?scal realities and a more volatile and unpredictable security environment abroad. The Maine National Guard has been seeking an opportunity to get an Infantry Battalion in the state since 2008, and it has been on our State Command Plan since then - the of?cial document we submit to the National Guard Bureau each year with the outline for what we want our force structure to consist of. We have been in discussions with a couple of states about making a swap for some time now, and nothing has been decided. The National Guard Bureau has also recently proposed to us that we swap units with PA as part of their planning in case they are required to make the dramatic cuts the Army has asked for, and our staff is still examining this course of action along with others. Again - nothing has been decided or ?nalized. If we make this change we will still retain suf?cient engineering unit capacity in the state to support civil authorities, although such a capability is rarely used extensively in state emergencies more ?exible, general purpose units like infantry are more generally valuable in that they provide masses of trained Soldiers with organic transport, communications and leadership. The l33rd Engineer Battalion was an infantry unit, the 103rd Infantry Regiment, from 1760 until mid-1960 when it changed to engineers. Two hundred years of Maine's infantry heritage resides with that unit, including the lineage and honors of all of Maine's 32 Civil War Infantry Regiments, and the 103rd Infantry fought in both WW1 and WWII. Changing the unit back to Infantry is a good fit and returns it to its historic heritage. The Maine Army National Guard despite any changes will remain trained and fully prepared to respond to any of the state and nation?s needs. We are prepared for emergency management, security and immediate response. Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 10:40 AM To: Subject: RE: Morning Report for Wednesday, 36 Apr 14 (UNCLASSIFEED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack, I'm crushed saw another article this a disconnect b/w a couple of senior try to call enroute to a promotion. 3 COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 763.667.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (88) -?~??Original From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 4:61 PM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY N6 N68 (US) Subject: Re: Morning Report for Wednesday, 36 Apr 14 (UNCLASSIFIED) Jerry, call me at 267 666 5922 Original Message From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2614 67:58 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: Morning Report tor Wednesday, 36 Apr 14 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack, ref the below up? asked for the conversion. Just Jerry COL 3L wood 63, ARNG 763.667.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (BB) ME: Portland Press Herald (Regional) Maine on verge of losing key National Guard unit by Matt Byrne The Army National Guard is nearing the final stages of a plan to reassign the 133rd Engineer Battalion of the Maine National Guard to and replace it with a less specialized combat infantry unit, the Portland Press Herald has learned. It the plan is approved, Maine will lose a battalion that handles vital engineering and construction duties during civil emergencies such as severe storms, flooding and other natural disasters, and combines training for soldiers with community service to build school 1 athletic facilities, youth camps, nature trails, municipal sand and salt sheds, rural fairgrounds and other projects. The engineering unit also has provided significant training opportunities for women, which likely will be diminished if a transition is made to a combat battalion. Michel Steinbuchel, spokesman for the 133rd Engineer Battalion, said Tuesday that introducing infantry to Maine?s Army National Guard has been part of the statewide plan for the National Guard since 2688, and that recruiting for the specialized engineer positions has been harder recently than filling the ranks of the unit?s infantry. Steinbuchel said the infantry will be a more versatile, agile force, whereas engineers need heavier, more expensive equipment and are slower to respond in times of disaster. ?what we need is units that are flexible for both state and federal missions,? Steinbuchel said. ?when the governor calls for state?supported civil authority, the majority of that support in terms of heavy engineering equipment is rarely used extensively. A more flexible general?purpose unit, they tend to be more useful.? Steinbuchel said the reorganization would reduce the overall number of enlisted Guard members, but he did not know by how many. About 2,188 soldiers are now in the Maine National Guard. There are now 161 soldiers from the l33rd deployed to Afghanistan, to dismantle the equipment and facilities that supported combat operations there for more than a decade. The majority of U.S. military forces are expected to be withdrawn from the country by the end of 2614, according to the Department of Defense. The shift would also mean a reduced capability for civil?service missions in times of peace, such as an annual federally funded training program in which soldiers from the 133rd do community service-type work, including recent projects at the Winthrop YMCA, in the Windham school system?s athletic department, and at the Cumberland and Windsor county fairs. Maine Army National Guard soldiers have set up a display of heavy equipment and recruiting tables at the Cumberland County and Windsor fairs each September for more than a decade. Their presence will be missed, said Mike Timmons, president of the fair. The soldiers usually spend the entire week at the fair, manning their exhibit and helping vendors with setting up displays or other chores, Timmons said. have never had anything but positive encounters with them,? he said. Also reduced will be the job options for women, who have a far broader range of opportunities in engineering units than in infantry units, where they are restricted to non-combat support roles. Steinbuchel could not provide exact numbers for how much the reorganization would save the National Guard, or what a potential new force level would be. About 126 engineerwcapable soldiers would remain after the reorganization, Steinbuchel said, a group that he said is sufficient to address the needs of the state during emergencies or natural disasters. ?We are looking at different options, but none of this has been finalized yet,? he said. Gov. Paul LePage?s office did not respond to requests for comment. Members of Maine?s congressional delegation reacted with concern. 2 U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree said she worries about the potential loss of a unit that has made significant contributions in the face of natural disasters in Maine and along the eastern seaboard. ?People are really attached to them, (and) they made some very big sacrifices during the Iraq War,? Pingree said. ?We will certainly voice our concerns, send a letter, meet the people who (make those decisions). I have to look at all the facts.? If finalized, the shift could occur between 2617 and 2619, said Pingree?s Spokesman, Willy Ritch. He said Maine?s National Guard unit would be one of at least three to be dissolved as part of a wide~ranging reduction of the military after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the three units to be dissolved, five light?infantry brigades would be formed. The swap of duties would end a tradition of combat engineer service in Maine that dates back to the mid?17665. U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, who is running for governor, said through a spokesman that he will soon seek answers from the unit?s commander, Brig. Gen. James D. Campbell. Campbell was in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday and unreachable for comment. ?While I understand that these changes are part of a national force restructuring effort, I look forward to speaking directly with Brigadier General Campbell to get a clear sense of how exactly this will impact the men and women serving in Maine?s Army National Guard,? Michaud said in a written statement. ?It is critical that we maintain a Guard structure here that is capable of responding quickly to a variety of situations across the state.? Asked to comment on the plan, U.S. Sen. Angus King?s office issued a statement saying, ?Senator King met with a representative of the Maine National Guard (Tuesday) evening and is working to understand the issues surrounding this matter.? In January 2612, Pentagon leaders introduced the outline of a plan to shrink the nation?s military after the costly engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision by senior military leaders includes a smaller, leaner Army that is agile, flexible and rapidly deployable, according to a report in February prepared for members of Congress by the Congressional Research Service. In February, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that he would recommend reducing Army personnel levels to 446,666 to 456,666 soldiers, and if sequestration levelefunding is to be imposed in 2616, a drawdown to 426,666 soldiers is possible. While no major reductions have been proposed for the Army National Guard, some units are set for restructuring to more closely mirror the make?up of the active-duty Army. Six of the Guard?s 28 Brigade Combat Teams are expected to be reorganized this year, with others to follow through 2618. The reorganization will add about 1,666 soldiers to each Guard combat brigade, making them equal in size, at about 4,566 soldiers, to active?duty brigades. Plans call for six more brigades to be reorganized before Sept. 36. genum=1 agenum=1> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Original Message From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 61:21 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N63 (US) Subject: Fw: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) Jack, SA. Already included you on a previous email. Robert, internal political issue w/in ME ref below. Believe you should contact COL Mosher direct for clarification. Jerry COL JL Wood 63, ARNG 703-667-7322 (0) 571-451-6288 (BB) Original Message From: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N63 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 91, 2614 11:29 AM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N63 (US) Cc: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 Bouchard, Michael COL USARMY NG N63 Larrabee, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG N63 Gilbert, Daniel LTC USARMY NG (US) Subject: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) COL Wood - We are working a media query concerning plans to reassign the 133rd Engineer Battalion of the Maine National Guard to The reporter is interested to know the approval process for such moves. LTC Jeff Larrabee (NGB-PA Historical Services) believes there may be confusion about what is really going on (ie. Unit being re-missioned, converted, re-organized or moving. Appreciate your help figuring this out. There are two outlets reporting on this story. The latest thread is that the ME Governor was caught off guard. Guard for key governorrl.28688/ LTC ROBERT L. DITCHEY II PA Advisor to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2T5231) Arlington VA 22264-1382 Desk 703-667-2582 BB 571-243-9268 Original Message From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG NGB (US) Sent: Thursday, May 81, 2614 11:62 AM TO: Matt Byrne Cc: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG NGB Webster, Jeremy CIV NG NGB Debany, Walter CIV (US) Subject: RE: Maine National Guard questions Matt, My team and I are working it now. Rick From: Matt Byrne Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 10:52 AM To: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG NGB (US) Subject: Maine National Guard questions Hey Rick, Matt Byrne at the Press Herald in Portland, Maine. I?m following up on my query from yesterday regarding how force redistribution decisions are made at the national level. This is of course regarding the apparent plan in the works to trade Maine?s 133rd Engineer Battalion to in exchange for an infantry battalion. Here is a link to today?s story. kvy battalion -rtm?> Thanks, Matt Matt Byrne Staff Writer I Portland Press Herald Office: 791-6303 Cell: 210-3078 Twitter: Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 1:19 PM To: Berglund, Mark COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Way, Gary CIV NG NGB ARNG (US) Go: Ellis, Brian LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG Brady, Bryan MAJ USARMY NG NGB ARNG Rose, Douglas Jr COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Sharp, Scott COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG DITCHEY, Robert LTC USARMY NG NGB Mosher, John COL USARMY Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: Re: Media Query: Maine 133rd question (UNCLASSIFIED) Team, I spoke w/ COL Jack Mosher, MEARNG Cos. It?s an internal ME issue not related to the N6. N0 issue from ME Gov or ME TAG. MEARNG and the ME Gov support the current conversion of their En Bn to an Inf Bn. COL Mosher is available to discuss it needed. From ARNG GB perspective, we see this as a closed issue. Jerry COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 763-667?7322 (0) 571?451-6288 (BB) Original Message From: Berglund, Mark COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, May 81, 2614 11:38 AM To: Nay, Gary CIV NG NGB ARNG Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Cc: Ellis, Brian LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG Brady, Bryan MAJ USARMY NG NGB ARNG ROSE, Douglas 3r COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Sharp, Scott COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: Re: Media Query: Maine 133rd question (UNCLASSIFIED) All Keep in mind this torce structure change is at the request of MEARNG in fact we have that in writing from the TAG to the DARNG. This is MEARNG issue to resolve. Our answer would/should be this action was taken at the request of the TAG. In addition this press is putting in Jeopardy the growth of 5 additional IN BN5. MB Original Message From: Way, Gary CIV NG NGB ARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2914 63:27 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Cc: Ellis, Brian LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG Brady, Bryan MAJ USARMY NG NGB ARNG Rose, Douglas 3r COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Sharp, Scott COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Berglund, Mark COL USARMY NG use ARNG (US) Subject: Fw: NGB-PA Media Query: Maine 133rd question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE COL Wood, NGB Public Affairs pushing for an answer to the reporter's questions (last email below): "I?m looking to find out who makes this decision what is the process ahead? Where in the process is this engineers?for?infantry swap? Who has final say? Can congressional delegates reverse the decision, i.e. do civilian elected officials have a say?" we, ARNG-FM, have not provided any information to the media or the Public Information Branch as we do not have permission to release info. From my view, force management decisions are still FOUO and prendecisional. My response to Public Affairs, at this point, would be "no comment" to the reporter's questions. This is shaping up to be an internal issue in Maine (communication between Governor and release of info to the media, political maneuvering, etc.). Request your guidance. Please include LTC Ellis and Brady in your response (I?m heading to the Pentagon for TAA). Thank you. Vr, Gary -?-?-0riginal From: Brady, Bryan MAJ USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 11:68 AM To: way, Gary CIV NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: FN: NGB-PA Media Query: Maine 133rd question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Sir, I just got off the phone with this gentleman. I stated I was not the apprOpriate level of authority to discuss this issue. He asked to speak with you. I indicated that you may offer the same response. I recommend giving him a call. Additionally, I think this needs to get up the chain so we can get clarification as to what the DDARNG or even the CNGB wants this office to discuss with the PAC. With that said, we could assist in describing the generic TAA process, but what I believe the ME reporter is trying to extract deals with pre~decisional and sensitive information. After reading the article, I think they have this thing all wrong. The capability is being replaced with infantry, the lineage remains but again, this is pre? decisional. ?Bryan From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 16:59 AM To: Brady, Bryan MAJ USARMY N6 NGB ARNG (US) Subject: Fw: Media Query: Maine 133rd question Respectfully, RICK E. BREITENFELDT, 65?14, DAC Chief, Public Information Branch National Guard Bureau Public Affairs Office: 763*667?2575, DSN (327) BB: 571-286?6454 Email: Message?-?-? From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV N6 N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 91, 2814 7:15 AM To: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY N6 N68 (US) Cc: Melnyk, Les A LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG Larrabee, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG N68 Maxon, Eric COL USARMY Anderson, Jon CIV NG N68 Minnick, CIV NG N63 Webster, Jeremy CIV NG N63 Debany, Walter CIV (US) Subject: RE: Media Query: Maine 133rd question LTC Ditchey, This is big news again this morning. Any word from your SME (COL Berglund)? We owe the reporter a response of some kind today. ME: Plan for key National Guard unit to leave Maine surprises governor by Matt Byrne The governor, commander of Maine's National Guard, asks the Press Herald how it learned his 133rd Engineer Battalion is poised to relocate to Gov. Paul LePage, commander in chief of the 2,166?person Maine Army National Guard, says he was unaware of a plan to reassign Maine?s 133rd Engineer Battalion to in exchange for an infantry unit until details of the plan were published Wednesday in the Portland Press Herald. governor?1.286887 orw.html 133rd/8525165/ Message?--?? From: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 39, 2914 3:19 PM To: Berglund, Mark 3 COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Cc: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 Melnyk, Les A LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG Larrabee, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Subject: Media Query: Maine 133rd question COL Berglund Can you or someone in your shop provide us some background info on plans to reassign the 133rd Engineer Battalion of the Maine National Guard to We 3 received a media query reference the approval process for such moves. I'm not very familiar with this and would like to know more. More on the specifics of the reporters query is below. Reporter cites this article -- would like to understand process. LTC ROBERT L. DITCHEY II PA Advisor to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2T5231) Arlington VA 22264w1382 Robert.L.Ditchey.mil@mail.mil Desk 763-667?2582 BB Original Message From: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N63 (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 39, 2814 02:55 PM To: Breitenteldt, Rick CIV N6 N68 Melnyk, Les A LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG Larrabee, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Cc: Anderson, Jon CIV NG N63 Maxon, Eric COL USARMY Minnick, CIV NG N68 Webster, Jeremy CIV N6 N63 (US) Subject: Re: Maine 133rd question Rick I?m doing some checking. Jeff Larrabee might have some good SA on this. Jeff Do you have SA on plans to reassign the 133rd Engineer Battalion of the Maine National Guard to Rich has a media query wanting to know about the approval process for such who might be a good SME to discuss that. LTC ROBERT L. BITCHEY II PA Advisor to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2T5231) Arlington VA 22284~i382 Robert.L.Ditchey.mil@mail.mil Desk 783-667?2582 BB 571-243?9268 Original Message From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N63 (US) Sent: Wednesday, April 36, 2914 82:42 PM To: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N63 Melnyk, Les A LTC USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Cc: Anderson, Jon CIV NG N68 Maxon, Eric COL USARMY Minnick, CIV NG N63 Webster, Jeremy CIV NG N68 (US) Subject: Fw: Maine 133rd question Gentlemen, Any idea on where to start with this? Someone in ARNG Rick Message??~~- From: Matt Byrne Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2614 2:38 PM To: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N63 (US) Subject: Maine 133rd question Rick, So here is a link to today?s story. I?m looking to find out who makes this decision what is the process ahead? Where in the process is this engineers?for?infantry swap? Who has final say? Can congressional delegates reverse the decisiond1 i.e. do civilian elected officials have a say? Also, what unit is involved? Thanks, Matt Matt Byrne Staff Writer I Portland Press Herald Office: 791~6363 Cell: 219-3978 Twitter: _Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: DITCHEY, Robert LTC USARMY NG NGB (US) Sent: Thursday, May 01. 2014 2:19 PM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG NGB (US) Subject: Re: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) Copy, Sir. We are completely on-board with deferring questions concerning the Maine. We just got off phone w/Maine PAO -- they have been asked by the Gov, to defer queries to Gov's office. 0n the process (in general terms) we would like to offer the reporter something. Something to educate the reporter/reader how these decisions are made and push back on the idea that these decisions are made without anyone knowing. Maybe something along these lines; (Proposed email response to reporter) Dear Matt 0n the specifics of the 133rd in Maine, we're going to defer you to the Maine PAO. As far as the decision process is concerned it is important to note that Army force structure and stationing understand that Army transformation is ongoing. The process decisions are made is a careful and deliberate, and is aimed at making sure we are organized, manned and equipped for the future. The decision process incorporates input from individual States, the Army, Combatant Commands, as well as Force Structure Guidance, modeling, analysis, community input and more -- to ensure these decisions are right for the Total Army and America; If you are interested, we can schedule you an interview with who can provide you more background on the process. Respectfully; Rick Breitenfeldt, NGB-PA Spokesperson LTC ROBERT L. DITCHEY II PA Adviser to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2T5231) Arlington VA 22264?1382 Robe r11; [21: 9h impel 1. .9111. Desk 703-697-2582 BB 571-243-9268 I also spoke at length with about their using the Engineer Battalion as a divestiture model for any possible reduction in ARNG End Strength in COSAC discussions and they assured me that both Maine and New Mexico would be secured with Engineer Force Structure as border states, especially with your MEB being at risk. At any rate, it was great to meet you and I hope you have safe travels back to New Mexico. I'll give you a call maybe on Monday before I head back to my next Operation work group on Tuesday in DC. Have a great weekend, Jack Colonel Jack Mosher Chief of Statf Maine Army National Guard 297 666 5922 Hineman, Thomas MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Hineman, Thomas MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Sent: Monday. March 02, 2015 2:23 PM To: Subject: FW: A couple of things From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 12:39 AM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: A couple of things Dan let's make sure the governor knows that as I discussed with him, we will not make any final moves on force structure without going back to him for approval. No change there. The Press Herald guy is all over the place today, calling me the commander of the unit and saying my name is John R. Campbell (who is the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army). He also referred to the moshe as the second in command of the battalion. He says in his story today that we cancelled the press conference because we failed to notify the governor that the unit was "leaving the state." I think it might be useful to have a chat with Jon Nass today to dispell any misconceptions and clear the has fundamentally changed since I spoke to the governor several weeks ago, except that N68 has told us that if the Army Guard gets cut to 335k or 315k, they will ask us to make a swap with PA. It?s also important to reiterate that the Guard doesn't exist as a jobs program, a free community service construction outfit, and that nobody from Maine is going to be sent to another state. Please emphasize that the Guard's sole purpose for existence is to fight and win the nation's wars, and support civil authorities at home in case of emergency. Period. Our paramount concern right now is that this reporter is stirring this up with no grasp of facts or reality, that he has not paid much attention to the information we've given him, and that all of this is making LTC Preston's job in AFG much, much harder. Thanks and have a great day! Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Pooler, Michael COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:27 PM To: Cookson, Jon MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG Hayes, Douglas CSM USARMY NG MEARNG Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: FW: Force Structure Staf?ng (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE This is the most current information regarding the force structure issues. As you know the previous drafts send out by MAJ Stienbuchel had some inaccuracies. Have you teams disregard those and replace them with the below. Michael Pooler COL, FA, MEARNG Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel office: 207 430-5915 bb: 207 344-9962 From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2614 16:35 AM To: Pooler, Michael COL USARMY NG MEARNG Brock, Herbert IV LTC USARMY NG MEARNG Holbrook, Randall COL USARMY NG MEARNG Mclaughlin, Michael COL USARMY Richards, Hamilton COL USARMY NG MEARNG Pelletier, William COL USARMY NG MEANG Leimbach, Gregory LTC USARMY NG MEANG Bilodeau, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG MEARNG King, Aaron LTC USARMY NG MEARNG Dunn, Diane LTC USARMY NG MEARNG Darveau, Richard LTC USARMY NG MEARNG Drummond, Dwaine COL USARMY NG MEARNG Lagace, Donald 0 Jr COL USARMY NG MEARNG Veneziano, Brian-J LTC USARMY Dionne, William LTC USARMY NG MEARNG Cookson, Jon MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG McKenney, John COL USARMY Lyon, Darryl LTC USARMY Harmon, Sean LTC USARMY NG MEARNG Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Force Structure Staffing Leaders, Over the past few days there have been several media outlets reporting on possible changes to Maine Army National Guard Force Structure as a result of national level Force Planning and existing Force Management Plans. The leadership of the Maine National Guard will ensure that the citizens and property of the State of Maine remain protected and that our soldiers and families are cared for as we examine multiple planning tracks. Maine will retain full capability to support our communities and nation, while the historic lineage of Maine's rich military tradition will be preserved and carried forward under any scenario. As leaders, your primary responsibility remains the manning, equipping and training of our soldiers. Questions or concerns may be addressed through the chain of command and all media inquiries will be directed to MAJ Michael Steinbuchel at 436 - 5759. Colonel Jack Mosher Chief of Staff Maine Army National Guard Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (U8) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:59 AM To: Lengyel, Joseph LTGEN USAF NG NGB (US) Cc: Dean, Garry MAJGEN USAF Lyons, Judd MG USARMY NG NGB ARNG Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 Masher, John COL USARMY Berglund, Mark COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: Hot Media Query: Maine 133m! Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE SirJ The F5 change was a request from TAG ME to DARNG. ME COS has said there is no issue between the governor and the TAG. PA ARNG and ME ARNG have partnered and have an effective message and require no Further assistance from us at this time. ME intends to stick with the FS plan. V/r, Paul COL Paul C. Thorn Chief of Staff, ARNG 783~687w7618 (0) 763-887-5765 (BB) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 16:57 AM To: Cc: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2014 Set up an appointement to speak with him ASAP. Original Message From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 67:38 PM To: Campbell, James 66 USARMY (US) Subject: RE: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Sir, I'm not sure that he actually said that he would fight to keep the 133d. That was not in his talking points last night. What I do know is the following: My inability to speak with the Governor directly on Monday to inform him of the shift to a national plan (including PA) has left him unaware of the intent and details of specific unit designations for divestiture. He did not know of or understand the N68 plan and had not heard of the multiple moving parts under TXXPA, etc, so he shut down all communication on the subject, which then became a runaway story. Since we could provide no alternative narrative to the bashing we took in the media this week, the entire CODEL is now at risk of backing away from a fully communicated concept that was accepted and supported on Tuesday. N68 has liaison officers and TAGS trooping the halls in DC, so they were going to be aware of the granularity of the N68 plan to include the 133d regardless, most likely ahead of the governor. Being there on Tuesday to shape their understanding with explanations of command plans and national strategy completely diffused their knee jerk reaction on the 133d, which is why they have been so patient with their media responses up to this point. If the CODEL or Governor LePage do not support the N63 plan and there is a reduction to 335K or 315K that forces them to completely go back to the drawing board because of Maine, we will never get another option for Maine again and we will ride our and strength into the ground as Engineers. I pulled and studied all of our command plans back to 2668, studies, etc, and they collectively point to an Infantry future, but that doesn?t matter with controlling our message with direct communication to reporters, Facebook and hearsay. I need to explain the plan to Governor LePage in detail (probably too late at this point) that if he does not allow the multiple planning tracks to develop as the national situation becomes more clear, and N63 pulls our options, he will have saved a life boat by sinking the ship. Jack -??~?Original Message?~??~ From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 9:52 AM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG Steinbuchel, Michael MAJ USARMY MG MEARNG (US) 1 Subject: Fw: PA Update, 3 May 2614 See the first story from Bangor Daily. Not good. From: ORTIZESCOBAR, Maribel LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 66:26 PM To: NG NCR ARNG List NGGB PA Update Subject: Fw: PA Update, 3 May 2614 ALCON- Good morning; below the PA update. w, LTC Maribel Ortiz Escobar Branch Chief, Plans and Policy NGB, Oftice of Public Affairs COMM: ?63-664?8677 BB: From: Maxon, Eric COL USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 6:67 AM To: ORTIZESCOBAR, Maribel LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Cc: Harrison, John C. (Jack) CIV NG N66 Anderson, Jon CIV NG N66 (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Thanks Maribel. Formatting seemed a bit oft. Might have been my computer. From: ORTIZESCOBAR, Maribel LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 61:63 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Grass, Frank GEN USARMY NG NGB (US) Cc: Maxon, Eric COL USARMY (US) Subject: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Good morning Sir- Below today's PA Update, due to technical issues w/ the internet the report is late today. Today in the Department 0? Defense, Saturday May 3, 2814 Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Acting Deputy Secretary of Detense Christine H. Fox and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey have no public or media events on their schedules. 1. ME: Bangor (Maine) Daily News (Regional) Governor: Maine's 133rd Engineer Battalion isn't going anywhere By Mario Moretto In an interview Friday, Gov. Paul LePage said reports that the Maine Army National Guard?s 133rd Engineer Battalion would be relocated to had been ?blown out of proportion.? As commander in chief of the state?s National Guard, LePage said he would fight to keep the SEQ?member battalion in the Pine Tree State. He also expressed confidence in Brig. Gen. James Campbell, the adjutant general of the Maine National Guard. 3 anywhere-1.281311 FULL STORY BELOW 2. MS: Mississippi News Now (Regional) - - Budget cuts proposed for National Guard By Courtney Ann Jackson Soldiers with the Mississippi National Guard put some of the first boots on the ground after a disaster. They were in Louisville Tuesday moving debris and helping other first responders with searches. Meanwhile, they've become the tocus of a money debate in Washington. Some 2915 budget proposals would put the National Guard funding back to a pre-9/11 level. 3. AK: -Anchorage (Regional) - National Guard responds to Criticism By Bonney Bowman Alaska National Guard leaders are responding to criticism they?re not doing enough to assist the victims of sexual assault. In the last five years, there have been 37 reported sexual assaults where the victims were National Guard soldiers. FULL STORIES 1. Me: Bangor (Maine) Daily News (Regional) - - Governor: Maine's 133rd Engineer Battalion isn?t going anywhere By Mario Moretto In an interview Friday, Gov. Paul LePage said reports that the Maine Army National Guard?s 133rd Engineer Battalion would be relocated to had been ?blown out of proportion.? As commander in chief of the state?s National Guard, LePage said he would fight to keep the 598-member battalion in the Pine Tree State. He also expressed confidence in Brig. Gen. James Campbell, the adjutant general of the Maine National Guard. ?The general is doing his job, and he?s looking into all options, but there?s nothing there,? LePage said. make the final decision, and I?m telling you, there?s nothing there.? Congressional staffers for U.S. Rep. Cbellie Pingree, D~Maine, were briefed Tuesday by Maine Army National Guard Col. Sack Mosher, who allegedly said a plan had been Floated to save money by consolidating Army Guard units nationwide. Under the plan, engineer units in and Texas would be dissolved. The 133rd would be relocated to and replaced in Maine with an infantry battalion. If the restructuring proposal goes forward, the 133rd would be moved to sometime between 2617 and 2619, said Pingree spokesman Willy Ritch. Reports of potential changes or downsizing of Maine?s Army National Guard are not new. In March, Campbell told lawmakers during his annual address to the Legislature that efforts in Washington, D.C., could result in changes to the Maine Army National Guard. Some powerful figures in the Pentagon were attempting to use the current fiscal climate in the capital to force downsizing of the National Guard. During closed~door meetings, Campbell said, senior leaders in the active Army were attempting to convince the National Guard to ?unnecessarily cut its program.? Said Campbell: ?If these plans are allowed to pass, our current Maine Army National Guard of 2,122 soldiers already reduced by more than 566 soldiers since 2667 will potentially be reduced by another 266.? Campbell said that would be the smallest National Guard contingent since Maine was granted statehood in 1826. LePage also suggested Friday that reports intimating that Maine was losing its i33rd Battalion were political in nature. ?It?s a total fabrication,? he said. ?It?s a political year.? Pingree has long been a vocal supporter of the National Guard and has co-Sponsored a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to maintain current Guard levels in the wake of proposals in D.C. to draw down the number of military personnel, which would reduce the number of both active Army members and the Guard. There are 167 members of the 133rd deployed in Afghanistan working to downsize and consolidate bases there as the United States prepares to withdraw its remaining military forces from the country. anywhere-1.281311 2. MS: Mississippi News Now (Regional) Budget cuts proposed for National Guard By Courtney Ann Jackson Soldiers with the Mississippi National Guard put some of the first boots on the ground after a disaster. They were in Louisville Tuesday moving debris and helping other first responders with searches. Meanwhile, they've become the focus of a money debate in Nashington. Some 2815 budget proposals would put the National Guard funding back to a pre?9f11 level. "Making cuts to the National Guard is the wrong place to start cutting,? said Mississippi Lt. Governor Tate Reeves. Reeves signed off on a letter to the President Tuesday. 46 other leaders from across the country added their signatures. "we've got a need to get our fiscal house in order at the national level, just like we?ve done in Mississippi," Reeves said Friday. "But there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. And starting by cutting our National Guard, it's bad for our country. And it?s bad for our state. "The Guard has now completed their mission in the storm damaged areas. But the Governor says they were there since before the storms hit. ?The National Guard, as I said, was deployed on Sunday afternoon as I issued an executive order to begin the authority to deploy the Mississippi National Guard." 56 soldiers were in Tupelo and another 56 in Louisville. But it took resources from across the state to make it happen, including Black Hawks from the Combat Readiness Training Center in Gulfport. 3. AK: -Anchorage (Regional) - National Guard responds to Criticism - By Bonney Bowman Alaska National Guard leaders are responding to criticism they?re not doing enough to assist the victims of sexual assault. In the last Five years, there have been 37 reported sexual assaults where the victims were National Guard soldiers. Eleven of those were solider?on~solider violence. It?s a much smaller percentage than the number of assaults in the civilian population. But Sen. Mark Begich says he?s been hearing complaints for years, ranging from abuse of power to assault and sexual assault. He?s asked the National Guard Bureau, an independent third party, to investigate the issues. The commander of the Alaska National Guard, Brig. Gen. Mike Bridges, says they?ve put numerous tools in place over the last couple years to ensure victims have protection and support. The Guard has added three sexual assault response coordinators and 42 victim advocates. But Begich says he still hears problems. ?There hasn?t been an aggressive approach to look at these individuals, look at the systematic problem within the Guard as I hear it on a regular basis. So if my staff is hearing it, I?m hearing it, then it?s for our staff to look at it and investigate it,? Begich said. Bridges says unlike the Army, the National Guard doesn?t have the power to prosecute crimes. They rely on local law enforcement to bring charges and arrests. ?If they don?t find something to prosecute, we?re going to look at it using military good order and discipline standards anyway and we may apply discipline through those processes,? Bridges said. The Guard can pursue administrative action, including discharging soldiers who commit crimes. w, LTC Maribel Ortiz Escobar Branch Chief, Plans and Policy NGB, Office of Public Affairs COMM: 793-664-8677 88: 571~395-6529 10 Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 1:30 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: Update I just sent this to Dan. More context on how I think about the Original Message From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 16:25 PM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: Update Dan - Please speak to Russell and any others from the committee that express an interest I'll leave it to you to square that with the Governor's office. I asked COL Mosher to see if he can speak to the Governor and ensure that he has all the facts and context, and a true sense of how time-sensitive this imperative really is. Whether it helps or not, we should try. Believe me, if I were able to I would have done so already. Ultimately, it will be decided by us - we can choose to transform on our terms and ensure our viability into the future, or we can remain static and have our future dictated to us in what is likely to be an unfavorable way - much as we have done for the last 26 years. Regardless of the outcome in DC, the Guard will take cuts and will change, because the National Military Strategy is changing the entire 000 enterprise. What this debate is about is not periodic community service projects or even training 6 people a year as Carpenter- Masons, but our lasting relevance as part of the Operational Combat Reserve of the Army. without that relevance, we have no future. The Army no longer needs or wants large numbers of construction Thanks for handling this. This is painful for me. Original Message From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 68:68 PM To: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update BDN article not that bad actually is one of the more accurate I have read. Mosh just called and he wants to brief governor. Claims he can explain this to him. I feel it is a moot point now. This will pass eventually. Noone in Maine is going to decide this issue. That will come from DC. I can speak to Russell if you wish. I think I can help her along. Original Message From: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 66:54 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Goodheart, Daniel Subject: Re: Update She sent an e-mail that had your name on it forward it. Not sure how to respond. 1 Original Message From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 63:26 PM To: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update Glad it is going well. I did not see anything from Diane Russell? Original Message From: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Sent: Friday, May 62, 2614 68:46 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Goodheart, Daniel; Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update Greetings from Pakistan. I had no bb all day yesterday, and so am just now seeing e-mails and news stories. Thanks for holding down the fort. We clearly have much to discuss when I get back to CONUS. It's difficult to answer news stories when the people writing them don't listen to Speaking of that, Dan - did you ever respond ro Dinae Russell? I will not. Hopefully this will go away, but I suspect that it will be a stink in the air for some time to come. On a more positive note, we had some really good meetings yesterday with essentially the entire senior leadership of the Pakistan Armed Forces. Its interesting to get their view, and then put it into context knowing that Bin Laden was killed less than 56 miles from here. I return to DC next Friday night, and we have Saturday free. I'll try to call. Enjoy the thrill of drill. -BG Campbell Original Message From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Friday, May 62, 2614 11:39 PM To: Campbell, James BG USARMY (US) Subject: Update Almost time to leave for the weekend. All has been mostly quiet today and I hope will continue for the weekend. Governor supposed to speak to the NG issue from papers today saying again it is a non- issue. Not out to date. You probably will get a copy on your BB as a Gov alert. Hope you are keeping your head down and that the sun is shining. More rain for the next week. Blah! Life is good on the home front and I purchased a used vehicle this week. Daniel P. Goodheart Deputy Commissioner Department of Defense, Veterans And Emergency Management Illegitimi non carborundum 267-436-5161 267-557-3676 Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 1:36 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2014 Rgr. Thx. COL JL Wood 63, ARNG 763-667-7322 (0) 571?451?6288 (BB) From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 12:67 PM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Meeting with the Governor Monday morning. Call you Monday after. From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY N6 N63 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 64:63 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Jack, thx. Hepefully this will die down this weekend. Jerry COL JL Wood 63, ARNG 763-667-7322 (0) 571?451?6288 (BB) From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 16:59 AM To: wood, Jerry COL USARMY N6 N66 (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Roger, Jerry. Again, drive on. We have no plan to back away From the N66 national strategy. From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N66 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 62:48 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: PA Update, 3 May 2614 Jack, sa. Jerry COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 763?667~7322 (0) 571?451?6288 (BB) From: ORTIZESCOBAR, Maribel LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 2914 99:26 AM To: NG NCR ARNG List NGGB PA Update Subject: Fw: PA Update, 3 May 2914 Good morning; below the PA update. Vr, LTC Maribel Ortiz Escobar Branch Chief, Plans and Policy NGB, Office of Public APfairs COMM: 783?664?8677 BB: 571-395-6529 From: Maxon, Eric COL USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 93, 2614 6:67 AM To: ORTIZESCOBAR, Maribel LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Cc: Harrison, John C. (Jack) CIV NG N68 Anderson, Jon CIV N6 N68 (US) Subject: Re: PA Update, 3 May 2814 Thanks Maribel. Formatting seemed a bit off. Might have been my computer. From: ORTIZESCOBAR, Maribel LTC USARMY NG N66 (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 81:83 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Grass, Frank GEN USARMY NG N63 (US) Cc: Maxon, Eric COL USARMY (US) Subject: PA Update, 3 May 2914 Good morning Sir? Below today?s PA Update, due to technical issues w/ the internet the report is late today. Today in the Department of Defense, Saturday May 3, 2614 - Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine H. Fox and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey have no public or media events on their schedules. 1. ME: Bangor (Maine) Daily News (Regional) Governor: Maine's 133rd Engineer Battalion isn't going anywhere By Mario Moretto In an interview Friday, Gov. Paul LePage said reports that the Maine Army National Guard?s 133rd Engineer Battalion would be relocated to had been ?blown out of proportion.? As commander in chief of the state?s National Guard, LePage said he would fight to keep the EBB?member battalion in the Pine Tree State. He also expressed confidence in Brig. Gen. James Campbell, the adjutant general of the Maine National Guard. anywhere?1.281311 isn?t?going?anywhere?l.281311> FULL STORY BELOW 2. MS: Mississippi News Now (Regional) - - Budget cuts proposed for National Guard By Courtney Ann Jackson Soldiers with the Mississippi National Guard put some of the first boots on the ground after a disaster. They were in Louisville Tuesday moving debris and helping other first responders with searches. Meanwhile, they?ve become the focus of a money debate in Washington. Some 2015 budget proposals would put the National Guard funding back to a pre-9/11 level. 3. AK: ?Anchorage (Regional) - - National Guard responds to Criticism - By Bonney Bowman Alaska National Guard leaders are responding to criticism they?re not doing enough to assist the victims of sexual assault. In the last five years, there have been 37 reported sexual assaults where the victims were National Guard soldiers. FULL STORIES 1. Me: Bangor (Maine) Daily News (Regional) Governor: Maine's 133rd Engineer Battalion isn't going anywhere By Mario Moretto In an interview Friday, Gov. Paul LePage said reports that the Maine Army National Guard?s 133rd Engineer Battalion would be relocated to had been ?blown out of proportion.? As commander in chief of the state?s National Guard, LePage said he would fight to keep the battalion in the Pine Tree State. He also expressed confidence in Brig. Gen. James Campbell, the adjutant general of the Maine National Guard. )1 ?The general is doing his job, and he?s looking into all options, but there?s nothing there, LePage said. make the final decision, and I?m telling you, there?s nothing there.? Congressional staffers for U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D?Maine, were briefed Tuesday by Maine Army National Guard Col. Jack Mosher, who allegedly said a plan had been floated to save money by consolidating Army Guard units nationwide. Under the plan, engineer units in and Texas would be dissolved. The 133rd would be relocated to and replaced in Maine with an infantry battalion. If the restructuring proposal goes forward, the 133rd would be moved to sometime between 2617 and 2819, said Pingree spokesman Willy Ritch. Reports of potential changes or downsizing of Maine?s Army National Guard are not new. In March, Campbell told lawmakers during his annual address to the Legislature that efforts in Washington, D.C., could result in changes to the Maine Army National Guard. Some powerful figures in the Pentagon were attempting to use the current fiscal climate in the capital to force downsizing of the National Guard. During closed?door meetings, Campbell said, senior leaders in the active Army were attempting to convince the National Guard to ?unnecessarily cut its program.? Said Campbell: ?If these plans are allowed to pass, our current Maine Army National Guard of 2,122 soldiers already reduced by more than soldiers since 2887 will potentially be reduced by another 268.? Campbell said that would be the smallest National Guard contingent since Maine was granted statehood in 1828. LePage also suggested Friday that reports intimating that Maine was losing its 133rd Battalion were political in nature. ?It?s a total fabrication,? he said. ?It?s a political year.? Pingree has long been a vocal supporter of the National Guard and has co?sponsored a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to maintain current Guard levels in the wake of proposals in D.C. to draw down the number of military personnel, which would reduce the number of both active Army members and the Guard. There are 167 members of the 133rd deployed in Afghanistan working to downsize and consolidate bases there as the United States prepares to withdraw its remaining military forces from the country. anywhere-1.281311 2. MS: Mississippi News Now (Regional) Budget cuts proposed for National Guard By Courtney Ann Jackson Soldiers with the Mississippi National Guard put some of the first boots on the ground after a disaster. They were in Louisville Tuesday moving debris and helping other first responders with searches. Meanwhile, they've become the focus of a money debate in Washington. Some 2915 budget proposals would put the National Guard funding back to a pre?Q/ll level. "Making cuts to the National Guard is the wrong place to start cutting, said Mississippi Lt. Governor Tate Reeves. Reeves signed off on a letter to the President Tuesday. 46 other leaders from across the country added their signatures. "We?ve got a need to get our fiscal house in order at the national level, just like we?ve done in Mississippi," Reeves said Friday. ?But there?s a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. And starting by cutting our National Guard, it's bad for our country. And it's bad for our state. "The Guard has now completed their mission in the storm damaged areas. But the Governor says they were there since before the storms hit. "The National Guard, as I said, was deployed on Sunday afternoon as I issued an executive order to begin the authority to deploy the Mississippi National Guard." 56 soldiers were in Tupelo and another 56 in Louisville. But it took resources from across the state to make it happen, including Black Hawks from the Combat Readiness Training Center in Gulfport. 3. AK: ?Anchorage (Regional) National Guard reSponds to Criticism By Bonney Bowman Alaska National Guard leaders are responding to criticism they?re not doing enough to assist the victims of sexual assault. In the last Five years, there have been 37 reported sexual assaults where the victims were National Guard soldiers. Eleven of those were solider?on?solider violence. It?s a much smaller percentage than the number of assaults in the civilian population. But Sen. Mark Begich says he?s been hearing complaints for years, ranging from abuse of power to assault and sexual assault. He?s asked the National Guard Bureau, an independent third party, to investigate the issues. The commander of the Alaska National Guard, Brig. Gen. Mike Bridges, says they?ve put numerous tools in place over the last couple years to ensure victims have protection and support. The Guard has added three sexual assault response coordinators and 42 victim advocates. But Begich says he still hears problems. ?There hasn?t been an aggressive approach to look at these individuals, look at the systematic problem within the Guard as I hear it on a regular basis. So if my staff is hearing it, I?m hearing it, then it?s for our staff to look at it and investigate it,? Begich said. Bridges says unlike the Army, the National Guard doesn?t have the power to prosecute crimes. They rely on local law enforcement to bring charges and arrests. ?If they don?t find something to prosecute, we?re going to look at it using military good order and discipline standards anyway?and we may apply discipline through those processes,? Bridges said. The Guard can pursue administrative action, including discharging soldiers who commit crimes. Vr, LTC Maribel Ortiz Escobar Branch Chief, Plans and Policy NGB, Office of Public COMM: 793?634-8677 BB: 10 Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 8:40 PM To: Subject: Re: Update Make sure that when you talk to him you bring up the idea of deployment frequency as an indicator of future viability other than the R56, the major units in the state which have deployed the least are, in order, 185 EN, 251 EN, 136 EN, 262 EN, and 152 CRC. Is it any wonder that we are concerned about their futures and are seeking opportunities to restructure them? Cross-leveling to reach deployment readiness standards is another topic which I?m sure you can present to 46 percent of the currently deployed Soldiers in the 133 EN were cross?leveled from other units, as I recall. And the fiasco of 2608 is another data point worth discussing, as is the current personnel status of 262 EN. I want him to be in a place where he accepts our best military advice and absolutely trusts our judgment to make these decisions. what some uninformed hack says in a newspaper should not be a determining factor. Thanks I made a mistake in not sending you to brief him last week. Hopefully we can recover from it. Original Message From: Masher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 11:63 PM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update Sir, you are correct in your assessment. And dan is probably right too. Still, it is good to close the gap with your boss and ensure he has both context and confidence in the fact that we know what we are doing. I have garnered reams of docs showing that this is both routine and well studied. Its dying, but I want to ensure we are tight with our boss and I promise a positive, brief meeting will allow this to fall off the political table and back into Our laps where it belongs. Again, I know this is distressing as you travel, but other stories are already leading and we are all working for you and our soldiers here in Maine. Learn all you can and we?ll talk this through when you return. Original Message From: Campbell, James 66 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 93, 2614 85:29 PM Coordinated Universal Time To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Fw: Update I just sent this to Dan. More context on how I think about the Original Message From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 93, 2014 19:25 PM To: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Re: Update Dan Please speak to Russell and any others from the committee that express an interest I'll leave it to you to square that with the Governor's office. I asked COL Mosher to see if he can speak to the Governor and ensure that he has all the facts and context, and a true sense of how time?sensitive this imperative really is. Whether it helps or not, we should try. Believe me, if I were able to I would have done so already. Ultimately, it will be decided by us - we can choose to transform on our terms and enSure our viability into the future, or we can remain static and have our future dictated to us in what is likely to be an unfavorable way much as we have done for the last 26 years. Regardless of the outcome in DC, the Guard will take cuts and will change, because the National Military Strategy is changing the entire 000 enterprise. What this debate is about is not periodic community service projects or even training 6 people a year as Carpenter? Masons, but our lasting relevance as part of the Operational Combat Reserve of the Army. Without that relevance, we have no future. The Army no longer needs or wants large numbers of construction Thanks for handling this. This is painful for me. Original Message From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 68:68 PM To: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update BDN article not that bad actually is one of the more accurate I have read. Mosh just called and he wants to brief governor. Claims he can explain this to him. I feel it is a moot point now. This will pass eventually. Noone in Maine is going to decide this issue. That will come from DC. I can speak to Russell if you wish. I think I can help her along. Original Message From: Campbell, James 66 USARMY (US) Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 66:54 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Goodheart, Daniel Subject: Re: Update She sent an e~mail that had your name on it forward it. Not sure how to respond. Original Message From: Goodheart, Daniel Sent: Saturday, May 63, 2614 63:26 PM To: Campbell, James 6G USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update Glad it is going well. I did not see anything from Diane Russell? Original Message From: Campbell, James 36 USARMY (US) Sent: Friday, May 62, 2614 68:46 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Goodheart, Daniel; Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: Re: Update Greetings from Pakistan. I had no bb all day yesterday, and so am just now seeing e?mails and news stories. Thanks for holding down the fort. We clearly have much to discuss when I get back to CONUS. It?s difficult to answer news stories when the people writing them don't listen to Speaking of that, Dan did you ever respond ro Dinae Russell? I will not. Hopefully this will go away, but I suspect that it will be a stink in the air for some time to come. On a more positive note, we had some really good meetings yesterday with essentially the entire senior leadership of the Pakistan Armed Forces. Its interesting to get their View, and then put it into context knowing that Bin Laden was killed less than 56 miles from here. I return to DC next Friday night, and we have Saturday tree. I'll try to call. Enjoy the thrill of drill. -BG Campbell Original Message From: Goodheart, Daniel [mailto Daniel.Goodheart@maine.gov] Sent: Friday, May 62, 2814 11:39 PM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Subject: Update Almost time to leave for the weekend. All has been mostly quiet today and I hope will continue for the weekend. Governor supposed to speak to the NG issue from papers today saying again it is a none issue. Not out to date. You probably will get a copy on your 88 as a Gov alert. Hope you are keeping your head down and that the sun is shining. More rain For the next week. Blah! Life is good on the home front and I purchased a used vehicle this week. Daniel P. Goodheart Deputy Commissioner Department of Defense, Veterans And Emergency Management Illegitimi non carborundum 267-438?5161 267-557?3676 Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Campbeu, James so USARMY (US) Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:02 AM To: Subject: Fw: Follow up See below FYSA. Original Message From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Monday, May 65, 2914 95:47 AM To: Grass, Frank 3 GEN USARMY N6 N68 (US) Subject: Follow up Sir - I didn't answer your question about my intent if we have to go to 335k. I would want to swap for an infantry battalion and have it be the third maneuver bn For the 86th IBCT. I?ve talked to Steve Cray and he supports that as well. I briefed the Governor on our desire to swap units two days before I left for CAPSTONE at the time I had been contacted by New Mexico about making an ENIIN swap independent of any reductions we may take, and the Governor supported me going forward with mutual discussions and planning. I haven't spoken to him since this latest press oust-up, and so I don't know where he is on this right now. It's still absolutely the right thing for us as a state, in terms of relevance, training, recruiting and all other reasons I can think of. We have had a terrible time sustaining readiness in the engineer bn - in 2889 we had to ask N68 to oft~ramp them 99 days out from a deployment because we couldn't get them to P2 without breaking the entire state. The HQ and FSC are currently here in Afghanistan, and we had to cross level almost 40 percent of the Soldiers into the unit just to make our 165 required strength number. Conversely, our one infantry company from 3-172 IN in Vermont, has been at over 118 percent strength For most of the last ten years, and has always been one of our most ready units. At times our recruiters have had to maintain a waiting list for people wanting to get into the unit, including in the year just prior to their last rotation to Afghanistan in 2616, With a swap we would still retain an Engineer Support Company for that ESF, which for us is historically more than adequate. My EMA director is totally behind this as well. Thanks again, Sir, for any help you can give us on this issue! Jim Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG NGB (US) Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:22 PM To: Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133ml question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack, believe we are good as long as Paul/Fl/LZ understand that your Gov is supporting the Inf Bn at your request. Dang media is running us in circles. COL 3L Wood G3, ARNG 783.687.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (BB) Message??~?~ From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Monday, May 85, 2814 1:41 PM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Just talked to Paul with great detail and he forwarded a note to M6 Lyons. I briefed he and your FAQ in detail. Do I need to call anyway? Met with the Governor today and he has every intention of supporting NGBs plans. ??~??0riginal Message-??-~ From: Wood, 3erry COL USARMY N6 N68 (US) Sent: Monday, May 85, 2814 12:59 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133Pd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack, believe you should call 86 Fountain. .he is briefing GEN Grass at 1488 on the issue. Jerry COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 783.687.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (BB) ?-~--Original From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Monday, May 85, 2814 12:56 PM To: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N63 wood, Jerry COL USARMY N6 N68 (US) Cc: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) If one of you could give me a call, I can update you on this situation. I just left the Governor's office and can shed light on this request and our response. 287 668 5922 1 From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 (US) Sent: Monday, May 65, 2614 9:37 AM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY wood, Jerry COL USARMY no N66 (US) Cc: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY N6 N68 (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Gentlemen, received an official request from the Portland Pressterald "for copies of the 2668, 2669, 2616, 2611, 2612, and 2613 Maine Army National Guard statewide Command Plans" I'm not sure if these are available or releasable, but need to at least ask so I can provide a response to the reporter. Reporter's email request attached. Standing by for guidance. Thanks! Respectfully, RICK E. BREITENFELDT, 65?14, DAC Chief, Public Information Branch National Guard Bureau Public Affairs Office: 763u667-2575, DSN BB: 571w286?6454 . Email: From: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 2:56 PM To: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N68 Wood, Berry COL we N68 (US) CC: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Good statement. Thanks. ??e--0riginal From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 2:47 PM To: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N66 Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N66 Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Thank you all for the inputs. Here is how we are going to respond. I?m going to hold on offering any interview for now. Dear Matt 0n the specifics of the 133rd in Maine, we're going to defer you to the Maine PAO. As far as the decision process is concerned, it is important to note that Army force structure and stationing is a part of the larger Army transformation. The process by which decisions are made is careful and deliberate and is aimed at making sure we are organized, manned, and equipped for the future. The decision process incorporates input from individual states, the Army, combatant commands, as well as force structure guidance, modeling, analysis, community input, and more to ensure these decisions are right for the Total Army and America. Rick From: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2914 2:42 PM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 Masher, John COL USARMY (US) CC: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY N6 NGB ARNG Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N63 (US) Subject: Re: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Perfect, Sir. I appreciate you saw through my incoherent second product of two thumbs banging the BB. We would like to offer COL Mosher as our subject matter expert with the understanding not today. LTC ROBERT L. DITCHEY II PA Advisor to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2T5231) Arlington VA 22264?1382 Robert.L.Ditchey.mil@mail.mil Desk 763-687?2582 BB 571?243-9268 Original Message From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 62:34 PM To: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY N6 N63 Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) CC: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 (US) Subject: RE: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Robert, I made a few revisions to below cut line me know if this doesn?t work. COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 763.667.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (BB) Message??m-- From: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N63 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 2:19 PM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N63 Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG Breitenteldt, Rick CIV N6 N68 (US) Subject: Re: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) Copy, Sir. we are completely on-board with deferring questions concerning the Maine. We just got off phone wIMaine PAC they have been asked by the Gov, to defer queries to Gov's office. On the process (in general terms) we would like to offer the reporter something. Something to educate the reporter/reader how these decisions are made and push back on the idea that these decisions are made without anyone knowing. Maybe something along these lines; (Proposed email response to reporter) Dear Matt On the Specifics of the 133rd in Maine, we're going to deter you to the Maine PAO. As Far as the decision process is concerned it is important to note that Army force structure and stationing is a part of the larger Army transformation. The process that decisions are made is careful and deliberate, and is aimed at making sure we are organized, manned and equipped for the future. The decision process incorporates input from individual States, the Army, Combatant Commands, as well as Force Structure Guidance, modeling, analysis, community input and more to ensure these decisions are right for the Total Army and America. If you are interested, we can schedule you an interview with who can provide you more background on the process. Respectfully; Rick Breitenfeldt, Spokesperson LTC ROBERT L. DITCHEY II PA Adviser to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2TSZ31) Arlington VA 22264?1382 Robert.L.Ditchey.mil@mail.mil Desk 703-697-2582 BB 571?243?9268 Original Message From: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N63 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 81, 2614 61:21 PM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) CC: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Subject: Fw: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) Jack, SA. Already included you on a previous email. Robert, internal political issue w/in ME ref below. Believe you should contact COL Mosher direct for clarification. Jerry COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 763?667~7322 (0) 571?451?6288 (BB) Original Message From: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2914 11:29 AM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Cc: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 Bouchard, Michael COL USARMY NG N68 Larrabee, Jeffrey LTC USARMY NG N68 Gilbert, Daniel LTC USARMY NG (US) Subject: Hot Media Query: Maine 133rd question (Governor interest) COL Wood - We are working a media query concerning plans to reassign the 133rd Engineer Battalion of the Maine National Guard to The reporter is interested to know the approval process for such moves. LTC Jeff Larrabee Historical Services) believes there may be confusion about what is really going on (ie. Unit being re?missioned, converted, re?organized or moving. Appreciate your help figuring this out. There are two outlets reporting on this story. The latest thread is that the ME Governor was caught off guard. governor?1.286887 LTC ROBERT L. DITCHEY II PA Adviser to the Director, ARNG 111 South George Mason Drive (2T5231) Arlington VA 22264?1382 Robert.L.Ditchey.mil@mail.mil Desk 763~687?2582 BB 571-243-9268 Original Message From: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N63 (US) Sent: Thursday, May 61, 2614 11:82 AM To: Matt Byrne Cc: DITCHEY, Robert II LTC USARMY NG N68 Webster, Jeremy CIV we N63 Debany, Walter CIV (US) Subject: RE: Maine National Guard questions Matt, My team and I are working it now. Rick Message??e~u From: Matt Byrne Sent: Thursday, May 91, 2614 18:52 AM To: Breitenfeldt, Rick CIV NG N68 (US) Subject: Maine National Guard questions Hey Rick, Matt Byrne at the Press Herald in Portland, Maine. I?m following up on my query from yesterday regarding how force redistribution decisions are made at the national level. This is of course regarding the apparent plan in the works to trade Maine?s 133rd Engineer Battalion to in exchange for an infantry battalion. Here is a link to today?s story. _.html> Thanks, Matt Matt Byrne Staff Writer I Portland Press Herald Office: 791?6383 Cell: 218-3678 Twitter: Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 7:34 AM To: Wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Subject: RE: ME F8 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack unless there's a change I?ll talk with Jerry. Just confirm no change. V/r, Paul COL Paul C. Thorn Chief of Staff, ARNG 793?697~7918 (0) 763?887~5765 (BB) From: wood, Jerry COL USARMY NG N68 (US) Sent: Monday, May 19, 2914 7:32 AM To: Mosher, John COL USARMY (US) Cc: Thorn, Paul COL USARMY NG NGB ARNG (US) Subject: ME FS (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Jack, . Know you are tracking this comment from Gov's office about not making a decision for a long will need to know if this is the case as Mark needs to have UIC level of detail by 29 May, FS Swap meet. 2nd and 3rd order effects For PA and others if you keep the En Berry 1. ME: Portland Press Herald (Regional) Bill Nemitz: Infantry proposal fuels insurgency within ranks of Maine?s 133rd - Staft Reporter Recently, in the wake of my previous columns about a quiet effort to swap Maine?s 133rd Engineer Battalion for an infantry unit in another state, I?ve received signed comments from more than two dozen soldiers at all levels within the Maine Guard. To a man and woman, they say they feel betrayed not only by the plan, but by the two senior otficers who hatched it Brig. Gen. James Campbell and his chief of staft, Col. Jack Mosher. Fearing reprisals, all asked that their names not be used. As one high~ranking officer put it, ?The environment at Camp Keyes (the Maine Guard?s Augusta headquarters) right now is absolutely toxic. There is a poor command climate, lack of transparency and general intimidation from senior leaders. I haven?t seen anything like it in the 28-plus years I?ve been in the Guard.? At the same time, the soldiers are imploring Gov. Paul LePage, at whose pleasure Campbell serves, to do something about it. have the utmost respect for Governor LePage,? wrote a noncommissioned officer currently serving with the 133rd in Afghanistan. ?And I trust that if (Campbell and Mosher) are trying to blindside the State of Maine with a bitter pill to suit their own perSonal desires, that the Governor will do what is right and relieve them with quickness.? Take it from someone who has embedded with the Maine Guard five times in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade: This is serious business. Rarely do soldiers speak ill of their higher-ups even in private, let alone in emails to the state?s largest newspaper. And never have they been so unified in their message that Maine?s proud military tradition is coming apart at the seams. The problem, based on the soldiers? messages, appears to be threefold: First and foremost is Campbell?s vision of a Maine Guard that gives up its longstanding focus on engineer units in favor of the infantry world upon which he?s built his career. ?At the leadership conference under his command, General Campbell stated, KILL PEOPLE, WHAT WE wrote one chief warrant officer now serving in Afghanistan, ?Just how much ?Killing? do the citizens of Maine need?? Rather, he and many others argue, the 133rd is more valuable to Maine, particularly in peacetime, than an infantry unit ever could be. ?In 1998, I spent 2 weeks working with line crews during the ice storm,? recalled a senior noncom also in Afghanistan. ?Myself and numerous other soldiers of the 133rd have been called upon or volunteered numerous times through the years to not just serve our country in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to serve our state and others during the floods in the southern part of Maine, Hurricane Katrina (and) the floods in Vermont, to name a few.? Added another senior NCO: ?What will the infantry do when they come upon a collapsed bridge or washed out road? Grab their entrenching tool (miniature shovel) and rebuild?? Next on the soldiers? list of grievances is the impact a switch to infantry would have on female soldiers, who currently are not allowed to serve in infantry units. Seven female soldiers in all voiced their alarm that swapping out the 133rd could mean the end of their military careers. ?The leaders of my organization i.e. 86 Campbell and COL Mosher are basically telling me that I bring nothing to the fight. My contributions do not mean anything,? wrote one female officer. have never felt so undervalued and unappreciated in my entire life.? She continued: ?What are we telling young women a maybe that same girl who remembers that Engineers fixed the Girl Scout Camp Pondicherry in Bridgton and wanted to join to help her community? We are saying join the Active Duty, join the Army Reserve or even the Marines or Navy, but sure as hell do not join the Maine Army National Guard, we have nothing for you.? Another female soldier wrote that she deployed with the 133rd to Mosul, Iraq, in 2664-95 and is now with the battalion?s Headquarters Headquarters Company at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. ?After dedicating so much time to this organization and putting its needs before my own, it concerns me that my service is unappreciated by the MEARNG leaders at the highest levels,? she wrote. feel disposable.? Finally, there?s wideSpread disenchantment with Campbell himself. He?s been in Saudi Arabia, reportedly on a fellowship, since the story first broke on April 36 and is expected to return to Maine sometime this week to a headquarters that sounds anything but welcoming. ?It?s a very paranoid environment right now,? reported an officer who is assigned to Camp Keyes. ?There need to be wholesale changes in the senior leadership of the Maine Guard very soon or morale will continue to plummet. This is an assessment shared by many senior leaders in the organization.? A senior noncommissioned officer in Afghanistan, speaking of both Campbell and Chief of Staff Mosher, wrote: ?They have both spoken in public about how the National Guard needs to have more killers and managers of violence, rather than domestic response and community involvement. The fact that they would attempt to do this while a healthy portion of the Battalion is overseas is deplorable.? Several soldiers noted that the mission of the engineers benefits Maine economically in two ways: the three dozen or so full-time maintenance positions needed to keep the 133rd?s equipment in good working order at armories around the state, and the easily transferred skills that many of these ?citizen soldiers? bring to their civilian occupations. Noted one female enlisted soldier: ?The Governor has done some amazing work when it comes to painting Maine as ?business friendly.? To replace the skill sets brought to the state by Engineers with those of Infantry is counterproductive. The skills of Engineers are much more beneficial and relevant to the civilian job market than those of Infantry.? A male commissioned officer wrote that Campbell?s and Mosher?s plan reflects ?their dream of having a gunslinger boys club fill the state.? ?It will set us backwards, reduce or eliminate our capacity to perform anything beyond directing traffic during natural disasters, displace women veterans, and disenchant troops who are enamored with learning a job skill that serves them in their civilian careers,? he predicted. Added a Senior noncommissioned officer in Afghanistan: ?Whatever integrity we had in our Command is lost. Many of my Soldiers question whether our own Governor was in this plan as well.? In an email Friday, LePage Communications Director Peter Steele wrote that the governor received ?a very brief overview of this scenario? from Campbell in early April. ?No decision had been made a nor will it be for some time,? Steele wrote. ?And any proposal is still in the exploratory stage.? That view contradicts several reports out of the Maine Guard that Mosher gave the senior staff at Camp Keyes a PowerPoint presentation last month, including a timetable that had the 133rd?s assets leaving the state by next summer. Also at that meeting, according to one highly placed source, Masher directed a senior officer to travel to Arizona and meet with Guard leaders there to discuss an engineer-for-infantry swap. Previous reports also had the Maine Guard leadership discussing such a deal with its counterparts in Steele also repeated LePage?s contention that ?this issue is being pushed by his political opponents, who are trying to stir up a controversy and pin the blame on him for something that hasn?t happened yet.? Yet in an email to Maine?s congressional delegation late last month, Campbell wrote, have spoken about this issue with the Governor and he agrees with it.? Still, a veteran officer at Camp Keyes expressed doubt that LePage knows the whole story. ?It is not a surprise that 86 Campbell would keep this attempt from the Governor, as surely Gov. LePage realizes what an asset the Engineers are to the State of Maine, and the skill sets the training provides to its citizen soldiers,? he wrote. As for the loss of confidence in Campbell?s leadership, the officer added, ?36 Campbell tolerates only ?yes men? in his senior staff. Those who try to candidly tell him facts, or offer advice contrary to his own arrogant views are brushed aside, and learn quickly it is better for their careers to remain silent. The command climate on Camp Keyes is currently one of fear.? The 133rd?s Headquarters Headquarters Company, a force of about 175 soldiers, is scheduled to return home to Maine next month after a nine?month deployment to Afghanistan. Their homecoming, several soldiers noted, will not be the one they expected when they shipped out last fall. ?So my Soldiers and I are expected to return to Maine, look General Campbell and Colonel Mosher in the eyes and shake their hand?? asked one senior noncommissioned officer. Added another: ?The deal (Campbell) is trying to pull behind the Governor?s back is bad. If you lie to your boss, can you be trusted? If I lied to my boss or commander in chief I?d be replaced.? al.html COL 3L Wood 63, ARNG 763.667.7322 (0) 571.451.6288 (BB) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Steinbuchel, Michaet MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:17 PM To: Campbell, James 86 USARMY Mosher, John COL USARMY Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: FW: Governor Reaffirms No Decision to Reduce Maine National Guard, Sends Letter to President Obama (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page MEGOV/bulletins/b999dd> . Governor Reaffirms No Decision to Reduce Maine National Guard, Sends Letter to President Obama May 22, 2914 For Immediate Release: May 22, 2914 Contact: Adrienne Bennett, Press Secretary, (297) 287?2531 AUGUSTA Governor Paul R. LePage today reaffirmed his commitment to the Maine Army National Guard under his watch as Commandermin~Chief. Governor LePage this morning met with Adjutant General of the Maine National Guard, Brigadier General James Campbell, who provided a another briefing on the federal government?s scheme to reduce the National Guard across the country. ?Once again, no decision has been made, nor will it be for years,? said Governor LePage. ?This issue has been mischaracterized in the media and politicized by liberal Democratic Representatives Chellie Pingree?whose office leaked the information to reporterseand Mike Michaud, who are trying to make it a campaign issue. It is shameful they would use the Maine National Guard members as pawns in their election-year tactics. I will say it again: While I am Commander-in-Chief, I will not do anything to harm the dedicated men and women of the Maine National Guard.? On Thursday, Governor tePage sent a letter to President Bareck Obama renewing requests to reconsider cuts to the Army National Guard. Under the President?s plan, the Guard would fall from about 355,999 to 335,999 personnel by 2917. Further reductions will take place if sequestration remains intact during fiscal 2916, dropping the Guard to 315,999. am writing as the Commander?in?Chief of the Maine National Guard to express grave concern with your Administration?s proposal to significantly cut National Guard forces across the country,? the Governor stated in the letter. believe these cuts will harm national security and dramatically reduce the State of the Maine?s homeland security and emergency management capabilities.? Governor LePage calls the cuts irresponsible, advocating that National Guard units are a cost-effective way to maintain combat capability while providing each State with a reliable and capable force to help maintain public safety and security. understand fiscal restraints facing the federal government,? the Governor wrote. ?Growth of welfare and entitlement programs and federal government bureaucracy have so consumed government that it is now forced to cut back on core government functions, like defense of the homeland. This proposal, however, is penny wise but pound foolish.? The full letter is here . In January, Governor LePage wrote a letter to the 49 other governors, urging them to contact their Congressional delegations and object to the federal government?s plan to reduce the National Guard. In February, all 56 governors signed a letter to President Obama opposing the cuts to the National Guard. CONNECT WITH GOVERNOR LEPAGE: Sign up for email updates EGOV/subscribers/new> Twitter YouTube Flicker This service is provided to you at no charge Questions for Governor LePage? Contact Us STAY CONNECTED: Sign up for email updates EGOV/subscribersinew> Twitter YouTube Flicker Bookmark and Share SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences Unsubscribe I Help MAINE.GOV: The official website of the State of Maine Home Online Services ces/index.html> Privacy Policy vacy.html> This message was sent to peter.j.rogers@maine.gov by Maine.gov the official website for the State of Maine - 45 Commerce Drive, Suite 16 - Augusta, ME @4339 Powered by GovDelivery ed-by> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hineman, Thomas MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (US) From: Hineman, Thomas MAJ USARMY NG MEARNG (U8) Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:35 PM To: Corbett, Hugh COL USARMY NG MEARNG (US) Subject: FW: Update ?--?eOriginal From: Campbell, James 86 USARMY (US) Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2614 3:36 PM To: 'Jonathan Nass@maine.gov' Cc: Goodheart, Daniel NFG NG MEARNG (US) Subject: Update Jon I?m still in the N68 VTC regarding Army force structure. We have just been briefed on slides 14 and 15 in the packet I sent you earlier. Regardless of the outcome of the Fight to preserve the size of the Guard, the Army?s strategy shift coming out of the war is driving changes to the number and type of units in the force. Units like Battlefield Surveillance Brigades and Maneuver Enhancement Brigades are being eliminated over time, and the Intantry Brigades are growing as we discussed. Again, separate from any cuts, the Army is adding 5 Infantry battalions to the Guard in order to grow its Brigades, using resources gained from eliminating other types of units. Slide 15 lists the number and type of ?Enabling Forces" being removed from the Guard, whether we get cut or not. 29 percent of the engineer construction companies will be cut, and 13 percent of the construction battalion headquarters. In other words, as I said in my now famous ewmail to the CODEL, it is "highly likely" that, given the Army's strategic direction, and regardless of whether or not we have to make major cuts, we would lose our Engineer battalion. Because we have such a high density of Engineers relative to our other units, and other states do not, in order to ensure that all states have some capability we would likely be directed to lose some. VT, NH, RI, and CT all only have one Engineer company. We have 5. Replacing some of them with one of the newly formed infantry battalions, which would complete the growth of the Brigade in VT, is a way for the National Guard to solve a problem and save our unit's lineage and honors. These tacts are what we have to tace. I do not wish for these dramatic changes, eSpecially if they come along with these drastic potential cuts. But keeping slots tor Soldiers, staying relevant and protecting our historic unit lineage have to be factors driving our approach to this problem. I can explain further if you need me to. ?86 Campbell OF DEFENSE. AND EMERGENGY MAW more ammo. moo 33 STATE notion storm. AUGUSTA. its arm-Bozo 9 DECEMBER 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR CFM, ATTN: ARNG-FM, 111 South George Mason Drive, Virginia 22204?1382 SUBJECT: JFHQ-ME Force Structure Strategic Plan Memorandum 1. Purpose: To provide the Force Management Of?ce justi?cation for the Maine Anny National Guard force structure changes re?ected in this document and on tho enclosed FY15 MEARNG Force Stronturo Strategic Pian (FSSP). 2. Background: The infantry Battaiion identi?ed as our first priority itnprovoo the State?s balance between maneuver and maneuver support units, improves the oommond and control (CZ) ratio between our battalion and company structures, and addresses both Of?oor and Enlisted DMOS issues. in addition to the aforomontioned prioritized force requests. the MEARNG is pursuing opportunities to exchange our ourront Legacy Force Structure for modernized capacity. This will enable tho State to provloo more operational support to Combatant Commanders (060R) during Contingency Operations and provide optimal support to MEARNG forces during State missions. The MEARNG will negotiate Force Structuro buhpayor to facilitate a zero sum gain, if required. 3. Requested Force soucturo Changes: The foiiowino provides the MEARNG prioritized force struoturo requests, Maine is prepared to present a bill-payer strategy if required. All data for requested force structure comes from the Form Management Reserve ?omponoot Automation Systems (RGAS) Command Plan FY15. a. First Priority: infantry Battaiion 6?.215Ri390180} mTho MEARNG requests the transition to this force structure as tho 3"1 Maneuver Battalion for tho 86*? This foroo structure is more conducive to the demographics for Maine and increases the effectiveness of our recruiting program. Recently Maine voters approved a 14 million dollar bond issue to improve our facilities and ranges. Maine will build a new mo?iuoampiox range facility to support an infantry battalion. In the interim, Maine (to coordination with Vermont) continues to take advantage our historical pammhip in operations and support to ready our units. Furthermore, the historical of ostabiishing the 1433"" EN underthe 863' cannot be understated. The 86?? originated from Maine in 1923 as the 38?? BDE, paired with the original 172*? IN Regiment and transitioned to Vermont following WI. it is historically imperative that the lineage of the 20*? Maine remain in our state and align as the 3? Monomer Battalion for the 86m lBC'i'. This reestablishes alt the lit Bits in the 36m IBCT in New England, mirroring the unit designation as they existed in Wit. SUBJECT: Force Structure Strategic Plan Memorandum b. 32de Priority: Sapport Maintenance CO (Recap SR6 43479R0601GO) Thie force structure {196 authorize?one) replaces our Legacy Compenent Repair CO (CRO) Force Structure {195 authorizations). Hills are marked for diveeture and ME loses all maintenance capability. The exchange of Legacy Force Structure enhances the stale maintenance eupperl: capabilities and previdee the Amy a modem relevant mehIIenance force structure capable of eupperihg bath CONUS and GCGNUS messens. 6. Third Priority: Cempe?eite Truck Company (HEAVY) MEARNG requires a modernization ef our current force structure (Transportation Medium Truck Co {Cargo} - (174 pex) with either 3 Composite Truck Company (HEAVY SRO 5572R?i 501%) (168 authorizations} er SRC 55719R06) (156 eutharizetiens}. The will accept either a Heavy or Medium Composite Truck Company. There Is a decrease of six authorizations to the MEARNG in {hie exchange. Fourth Priority: HHD. Support Group The MEARNG will negetlete Force Structure bill-payer to facilitate zere sum gain, if required. The MEARNG requests the transition to this force structure to previde more relevant CZ capability for requirements. MEARNG is willing to divest the 1213 Regional Support Group (RSG) 84 eutharlze?ene}, to gain a Sueteinment Brigade (64 authorizations). 4. Strategic Coneeme: The MEARNG is reluctant to anew proposed unit Hawaiian from our FY15 State FSSP to be posted on GKO- The infomatien contained on the. end Within this document is TAGlevei strategic planning guidance? and hes the potential to negatively impact iden??ed bill payer units. 5- Conclusion: The enclosed FSSP articulates our recommended fame structure changes. My intent is to exchange legacy force structure for modem, relevant, operational fome structure, while investing in farce structure that improves essential 13 capabilities, farce structure mix within the State, and improves MEARNG readiness. 6. Point cf Contact: Questions may be directed to the Director of Operations. COL H. Jay Brock at commercial 2074306273 or 2 Encle 2 a. c: MPBELL 1. MEARNG FY15 Brigadier General, MENG 2- TM 18-22 "Buy Back? The Mutant General 2016 ammw Fm Submissim- Data from PLAN FY 15) at?. um I ma ?Hall Damnation W85 F?ndty sac 12 magMon {m?m m} ?11 W100 Hm REG mm 055? Rm comv - . and mum-imam ma. Fm mm SM: 12 Digit Rem ninjas mm for cmp?m- 26d. mm 3411 mm 1mm will?a' I86