Which of the following best describes the primary reason that organizations develop contingency plans for their EP operations?

Chapter 2, Security Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Case Manager Responsibilities, Security Assistance Planning and Survey Teams, describes the responsibilities of Foreign Military Sales and Security Cooperation Case Managers, and Security Cooperation Organizations (Department of Defense elements located in a foreign country to carry out security cooperation (SC) and security assistance (SA) management functions); and provides policy and guidance for SA survey teams and SA planning.

C2.1.1. Authorities.

C2.1.1.1. Security Cooperation Organization (SCO). Section 515(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. §2321i), authorizes the President to assign U.S. military personnel overseas to manage security assistance (SA) programs administered by the Department of Defense (DoD). The generic term SCO encompasses all DoD elements, regardless of actual title, located in a foreign country to carry out security cooperation (SC) and SA management functions under the FAA and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) of 1976, as amended. The SCO also manages DoD security cooperation (SC) programs under the guidance of the Combatant Command (CCMD).

C2.1.1.2. Senior Defense Official/Defense Attaché (SDO/DATT). DoD Directive 5205.75, Department of Defense Operations at U.S. Embassies, creates the position of SDO/DATT as the principal DoD official in U.S. embassies and establishes the SDO/DATT as the diplomatically accredited defense attaché and chief of the SCO. As such the SDO/DATT is responsible for advancing U.S. foreign policy goals under the Ambassador, promoting the Combatant Commander’s (CCDR) theater campaign plan objectives, and complying with DoD Directive 5205.75 and DoDI C-5105.81, "Implementing Instructions for DoD Operations at U.S. Embassies."

C2.1.2. Key Relationships. The SCO is responsible for the development and maintenance of professional working relationships that advance U.S. strategic objectives. Key relationships include:

C2.1.2.1. The Country Team. The SCO falls under the direction and supervision of the U.S. Chief of Mission (COM). The SCO Chief’s ability to form positive professional relationships with the Chief of Mission (COM) and other members of the Embassy Country Team is critical to DoD success in synchronizing priorities and efforts with other agencies.

C2.1.2.2. The Combatant Command. The SCO falls under the command and supervision of the CCDR in matters that are not functions or responsibilities of the COM. The SDO/DATT ensures compatibility of DoD and Department of State (DoS) policies, and promotes complementary use of resources.

C2.1.2.3. The Partner Nation. The DoD relies upon the SCO to effectively interface with partner nation counterparts and leadership. SCO personnel must understand partner nation national and military objectives and strategies, be familiar with partner nation capabilities and requirements, and have access to appropriate partner nation counterparts and leaders.

C2.1.2.4. U.S. Defense Industry. It is in the U.S. national security and economic interests that if a country intends to purchase a defense article it be of U.S. origin. Consequently, SCOs provide assistance to U.S. companies while maintaining strict neutrality between U.S. competitors. See Section C2.1.8. for more details on SCO support to industry.

C2.1.3. Planning.

C2.1.3.1. Participation in Development of Strategies and Plans. The SCO’s responsibility for evaluating partner nation capabilities and conducting necessary planning to meet requirements is specified in FAA Section 515(a) (22 U.S.C. §2321i), and is central to the military assistance planning and budget cycles of both DoD and DoS. The SCO Chief plays a central role in SA strategy development and program planning and an important role in the development of all other DoD, CCMD, Component Command, and Military Department (MILDEPs) activities to ensure these activities are supportive of U.S. regional and country-specific military strategies; are appropriate to partner nation needs and political and cultural sensitivities; and promote rationalization, standardization, and interoperability within the partner nation forces and with the United States.

C2.1.3.2. Theater Campaign Plans (TCP). TCPs implement the CCDR’s Theater Strategy and provide a comprehensive framework to integrate SC activities, ongoing operations, and contingency plan “Phase 0” shaping activities. TCPs serve as the integrating framework that informs and synchronizes all subordinate and supporting organization planning and operations toward the achievement of DoD Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF) end-states. The SC portions of Theater Campaign Planning (TPC) is directed by the CCMD J5 and typically involves a series of Regional and Country-focused Theater Security Cooperation Working Groups. The SCO and/or SDO/DATT, and DoD and Interagency representatives participate in these working groups.

C2.1.3.2.1. SCOs focus upon the country-specific component of the SC plan, commonly called the Country Plan, which specifies the CCDR’s near and mid-term objectives and desired end-states for SC with a given country and describes the methods to be used in obtaining them. CCMDs and other DoD agencies refer to Country Plans when formulating input into Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) budget requests, and when determining activities and projects to support using Title 10 funds.

C2.1.3.2.2. SCOs shape development of Country Plans via regular contact with CCMD J5 country desk officers, and through the CCMD J5-sponsored regional and country-focused working groups scheduled throughout the year. A firm understanding of the CCMD TCP is essential to the SCO in advocating DoD and CCMD priorities and strategies to the Embassy Country Team and partner nation, and in planning and budgeting resources to support TCP country-specific objectives. Ideally, CCMD SC planning events are scheduled such that SCOs are well-prepared to provide input to the COM’s Mission Strategic Resources Plan.

C2.1.3.3. Integrated Country Strategy/Mission Resource Request (ICS/MRR). The ICS is the four-year strategy that articulates the U.S. priorities in a given country and is led by the Chief of Mission (COM). The ICS develops a common set of Mission Goals and Objectives through a coordinated and collaborative planning effort among Department of State and other U.S. Government agencies with programming in-country. Higher-level planning documents and strategies, such as the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, the State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan, and Department regional and functional bureau strategies inform the ICS.

C2.1.3.3.1. Once completed, the ICS frames and informs the annual MRR and Mission-level performance management requirements. Once approved by the COM, the quadrennial ICS is submitted for DoS and Interagency review.

C2.1.3.3.2. For countries eligible to receive foreign aid, including military assistance, the annual MRR is the first step in the State and USAID budget formulation process. Each Mission uses the MRR to describe the Diplomatic Engagement and Foreign Assistance resources required to advance the nation’s foreign policy goals and make progress on the Mission Objectives articulated in their ICS.

C2.1.3.3.3. The SCO Chief's participation in ICS/MRR development is key to securing the COM’s support for any DOD executed, Title 22 funded activity/engagement with the partner nation.

C2.1.3.4. FMF/IMET Budget Requests. For partner nations receiving U.S. military grant aid, the SCO will submit annual FMF/IMET budget requests. The preparation and submission of these requests is a coordinated effort between SCO and CCMD Staff. See Chapter 14 for FMF/IMET budget process, tools, guidance, and timeline for budget submissions.

C2.1.3.4.1. Consistency with MSRP. SCO FMF/IMET budget requests and justifications are used by DOD representatives in DoS-led interagency discussions during the final stages of development of the DoS budget submission. DOD FMF/IMET proposals not consistent with the COM’s ICS/MRR will be at-risk for exclusion from the final budget.

C2.1.3.4.2. Unconstrained Submissions. When drafting budget submissions, the SCO includes all identified requirements of the partner nation regardless of historical FMF/IMET allocations for that country. Although a particular project may be prioritized well outside FMF/IMET budget estimates for that country, the CCMD may retain the SCO’s total budget request in the automated system so that the original SCO submission will be visible to all DoD and State participants in the budget allocation process. By identifying all partner nation requirements in the request, the SCO establishes priorities and alternatives should additional funds become available.

C2.1.3.4.3. Uncommitted Funds. Funding provided under FMF grant-aid is obligated upon apportionment and the funds remain available in the country’s FMF Trust account indefinitely. However, annual budget submissions must explain the accumulation of uncommitted funds in the trust account. Uncommitted funds can weaken SCO justification for future FMF. SCOs should monitor and manage SA programs to insure against the accumulation of uncommitted funds.

C2.1.3.5. Javits and FMS Forecasting. SCOs provide input into two related FMS sales forecasts:

C2.1.3.5.1. Javits Report. The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), section 25 (22 U.S.C. §2765), requires the President to submit an annual report to Congress identifying potential sales of defense-related goods and services to foreign governments. Javits is a calendar year (CY) report consisting of anticipated FMS, direct commercial sales, and Excess Defense Articles (EDA) transfers. The Javits report has a dollar threshold, with reporting required for sales and licensed commercial exports of $7M or more for Major Defense Equipment (MDE) and $25M or more for support or services. SCOs list all possible sales meeting the dollar thresholds, even if the probability is not considered high.

C2.1.3.5.2. Sales Forecast Report. Each year, DSCA (Directorate for Security Assistance (DSA)) prepares an estimate of the total amount of sales expected to be made to foreign nations from the United States. The Director, DSCA, approves the Sales Forecast. These estimates are published in the annual Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations (CBJFO) for the upcoming fiscal year and the next fiscal year, and they include all highly probable (which DSCA defines as 90 percent likelihood) sales of weapon systems or weapons-related defense equipment, services, or training. See Section C14.1. for more information on Sales Forecast.

C2.1.3.5.3. The FMS forecasting report is a fiscal year (FY) report consisting of projected FMS sales for the next two FYs, with no dollar thresholds. DSCA uses the information to anticipate potential changes to budget and manpower allocations. SCOs list sales considered highly probable.

C2.1.3.5.4. Consistency with other planning documents. SCOs must ensure Javits/FMS Forecasts, the CCMD TCP and Country Plan, and SCO grant aid budget requests (where applicable) are in consonance.

C2.1.3.5.5. Additional information on Javits and FMS Forecasting reports is in Section C14.1. See Table C14.T1. for submission timelines.

C2.1.3.6. Partner Nation Interface.

C2.1.3.6.1. Partner Nation Strategic Planning. Whenever possible, the SCO assists the partner nation in strategic planning and informs partner nation decision-making with regard to procurement of U.S. equipment, training, and services. SCOs encourage pursuit of U.S. military equipment and training appropriate to the partner nation's strategic environment, technical capability, and ability to reasonably afford and maintain this equipment.

C2.1.3.6.2. Avoiding False Impressions. SCOs must avoid creating false impressions of USG readiness to make available military materiel, technology, or information. Without specific existing authority, the only information that may be shared with a partner nation is that which has been cleared for public release. Therefore, planning and coordination with foreign governments concerning programs that might involve the eventual disclosure of military information may be conducted only if such action is coordinated with a designated disclosure official from the DoD organization with purview over the information or materiel. Further, SCOs must ensure partner nation representatives understand and acknowledge that no U.S. commitment to furnish information or materiel is intended or implied until disclosure has been approved. Finally, SCOs must also avoid creating false impressions of USG willingness or ability to provide resources to the partner nation (e.g., appropriated funds such as FMF or equivalent support such as an Exercise Related Construction project) before receiving official notification of approval through USG channels.

C2.1.3.6.3. Disclosure of Classified Information. Disclosure of classified information relating to defense articles and services is evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with National Disclosure Policy (NDP)-1, DoD Directive 5230.11, and MILDEP regulations. Specifically designated foreign disclosure officials in the MILDEPs and defense agencies must authorize disclosure of information originated by or for those departments and agencies.

C2.1.3.6.4. Existing Bilateral Agreements. SCOs must be familiar with all U.S.-partner nation agreements, treaties, and diplomatic exchanges related to the provision of SA.

C2.1.4. FMS Case Development.

C2.1.4.1. Letters of Request (LOR). SCOs often have the opportunity to provide input to, or otherwise inform development of, partner nation LORs. A clear, comprehensive, LOR can help ensure the USG is able to rapidly respond to the partner nation request with a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). When made aware of partner nation plans to submit an LOR, SCOs should coordinate with CCMDs, MILDEP component commands, and the appropriate MILDEP to identify any known issues with the procurement under consideration and to obtain information that may assist the partner nation in drafting a thorough LOR. More detailed information on LORs can be found in Section C5.1. LOR evaluation criteria are provided in Table C5.T3.

C2.1.4.1.1. Significant Military Equipment (SME)/Major Defense Equipment (MDE). SCOs must be able to determine whether a requested item is SME/MDE and should be prepared to explain to partner nation representatives the significance of the SME/MDE designation as it relates to partner nation requests for U.S. equipment. See Section C4.4. for information on SME/MDE.

C2.1.4.1.2. Unique Review Requirements. SCOs must be prepared to discuss with the partner nation any unique or non-standard equipment LOR review requirements that may be associated with the equipment being requested. See Section C5.1.8. for unique review requirements.

C2.1.4.1.3. Routing of LORs. As necessary, SCOs assist the partner nation in routing LORs to the appropriate IA. Contact information for IAs authorized to receive LORs is in Table C5.T2. See Section C5.1.5. for a more detailed discussion of LOR routing.

C2.1.4.2. Country Team Assessment (CTA). CTA must accompany any LORs that are within the criteria cited in Section C5.1.4. The SCO is responsible for drafting the CTA, coordinating it with the Country Team, and transmitting the CTA to DSCA (Integrated Regional Teams (IRT)) and the appropriate DoD Component. See Table C5.T1. for a description of CTA information requirements.. Depending upon the situation, the SCO may choose to forward the LOR, CTA, and any other relevant documents to the IA as a single package – or send the CTA as a follow-on document to an LOR previously transmitted by the SCO or partner nation.

C2.1.4.3. LOR Responses. Section C5.2. provides a detailed discussion of U.S. responses to LORs.

C2.1.4.3.1. Monitoring Progress. SCOs ensure U.S. responsiveness to the partner nation by monitoring correspondence related to each LOR and following up with U.S. Government agencies as required. See Section C5.1.7. for LOR processing steps.

C2.1.4.3.2. LOA Document Preparation Time. The actual time required to prepare LOA documents (LOAs, Amendments, and Modifications) varies with the type and complexity of the sale. See Section C5.4.2. for established standard timeframes for specific categories of LOA documents. SCOs should be familiar with case development standards and, when necessary, explain them to partner nation counterparts.

C2.1.4.3.3. LOA Format and Content. SCOs should examine offered LOAs and be prepared to explain LOA format and content to partner nation representatives. See Figure C5.F3. for a sample LOA, Figure C5.F4. for Standard terms and conditions included in LOAs, Figure C5.F5. for an explanation of information and codes used in each section of an LOA, and Figure C5.F6. for step-by-step instructions for preparing an LOA.

C2.1.4.3.4. Changes to an LOA Prior to Partner Nation Signature. SCOs should understand the circumstances and conditions under which the partner nation may request changes to, or reactivation of, an LOA. Both minor and major changes can be made to an LOA after it has been countersigned by the U.S. and offered to the partner nation as long as the LOA is still in an “Offered” status, the purchaser has not yet signed the LOA, and the OED has not yet expired. Under certain circumstances, a cancelled LOA may be reactivated. Descriptions of what constitute minor and major changes to the LOA and how those changes are made, as well as the process for reactivating cancelled LOA, are located in Sections C5.4.14. through C5.4.15.

C2.1.4.3.5. SCO Actions after LOA Signing. Once an LOA has been Accepted or Rejected by the partner nation, the SCO should advise the IA and DSCA. In countries where LOAs are routinely signed without direct SCO involvement, the LOA includes a note requiring the partner nation signature authority to notify DFAS Denver and the MILDEP of the acceptance date. SCOs in these countries should maintain an updated case status through regular contact with the appropriate Case Manager.

C2.1.5. FMS Program Management and Oversight.

C2.1.5.1. Case Information and Monitoring via Security Cooperation Information Portal (SCIP). SCOs should maintain a SCIP account and use SCIP to obtain routine case information, monitor execution, and communicate select information to other users. The SCIP is a web-based system that provides both USG personnel and international customers with access to FMS case-related data. The data is drawn from MILDEP case execution systems and other financial and logistics sources. International customers can access SCIP via secure electronic “tokens.” SCOs are required to identify and maintain contact with the primary and alternate host nation administrators for SCIP tokens. Information and guidance for the SCO concerning SCIP access by the host nation is found in DSCA Policy Memorandum 14-11, "Security Cooperation Information Portal (SCIP) Electronic Token Distribution and Replacement Policy".

C2.1.5.2. Case Files. While not necessarily as extensive as MILDEP Case Manager case files (See Section C6.2.4.), SCO case files should contain copies of LORs, CTAs, technology release documents, LOAs and any amendments, shipping documents, title transfer documents for BPC cases, DD Form 645, notes and spreadsheets produced during important meetings such as Case Management Reviews, and Financial Management Reviews (FMRs), and case closure documents.

C2.1.5.3. Partner Nation Involvement in Contracting. SCOs should be prepared to address common partner nation requests associated with sole source selection, participation in contract negotiations, requests for contract data, payment of contingent fees, and offsets. See Section C6.3.

C2.1.5.4. Transportation. SCOs are not normally involved in the receipt of FMS articles shipped via a partner nation’s own freight forwarder. However, in some cases, whether by host nation choice or USG policy, items are shipped using the U.S. Defense Transportation System (DTS). In such cases, the SCO may have responsibilities, particularly if the materiel being shipped is classified, or sensitive Arms, Ammunition, and Explosive (AA&E). SCOs should use the Enhanced Freight Tracking Systems (EFTS) located in the Security Cooperation Information Portal (SCIP) Case Execution application to maintain awareness of these incoming shipments to the partner nation.

C2.1.5.4.1. DTS Shipments. When items are shipped DTS, SCOs ensure successful transfer of DTS-routed shipments to the purchaser's Designated Government Representative (DGR). SCOs must ensure the purchaser is prepared to receive materiel shipped. Actions the purchaser should be prepared to take include: checking the materiel against manifests and shipping documents; signing receipts for ocean or air carriers; clearing the shipments through the purchaser's and third country Customs; reporting discrepancies; and having the proper equipment in-place/on-contract to handle the cargo as may be required. SCOs should not be involved in overseas Customs matters for FMS shipments, to include payment for release of cargo. See Section C7.6. for information on DTS shipments, to include documents the SCO should have prior to arrival of a shipment.

C2.1.5.4.2. Shipment of Classified Materiel. Before classified FMS materiel can be shipped, the procedures for safeguarding it must be spelled out in a detailed transportation plan by the IA preparing the LOA, in cooperation with the FMS customer. The transportation plan is an integral part of all official copies of the LOA, and should be maintained in SCO case files. Transportation Plans for SA shipments are discussed at length in Section C7.15. See Figure C7.F1. for a list of transportation plan information requirements and sample.

C2.1.5.4.3. Supply Discrepancy Reports (SDR). Valid supply discrepancies are reported by the country to the appropriate MILDEP’s Integrated Logistics Control Office (ILCO) using a Standard Form (SF) 364. SCOs should understand SDR procedures and, in some cases, be prepared to assist the partner nation in determining whether a valid supply discrepancy exists and with preparing an SF 364. SCOs can find detailed instructions for SF 364 completion, DoD processing timeframes, and SDR responsibilities in DLM 4000.25, Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Standards, Volume 2, Chapter 17. See Section C6.4.10. for additional information on SDRs.

C2.1.5.5. SCO Participation in Case Reviews. Attendance at SA reviews involving all active FMS cases for the partner nation, or all cases for a particular MILDEP, is an appropriate FMS Admin expense for the SCO. However, travel or attendance at case-specific reviews, such as Program Management Reviews (PMRs), is not an FMS Admin funded function for the SCO. The MILDEP Case Manager determines whether SCO representation is required at a case-specific review. See Section C6.5. for additional information on Case Reviews, to include guidance on frequency, attendance of the SCO and other organization representatives, and funding.

C2.1.5.6. End Use Monitoring (EUM). The AECA requires a comprehensive EUM program for arms sales and transfers to verify a recipient’s compliance with USG export controls. The DoS Political-Military Bureau Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (DoS (PM/RSAT)) monitors, reports, and addresses unauthorized arms transfers and diversions in accordance with the AECA, section 3 (22 U.S.C. 2753). See Chapter 8 for EUM information.

C2.1.5.6.1. Golden Sentry. The SCO is normally assigned responsibility for in-country activities in support of the DoD EUM program, called Golden Sentry. The DoS manages a similar program, called Blue Lantern, for items transferred through the DCS process. SCOs work with partner nation counterparts to ensure compliance with EUM requirements and coordinates activities with the in-country Blue Lantern program manager within the Embassy. SCOs should be prepared for a DSCA led in-country Compliance Assessment Visit (CAV) every 18 to 24 months. See Table C8.T2. for a comprehensive list of SCO EUM responsibilities and Figure C8.F2. for EUM related forms.

C2.1.5.6.2. SCIP EUM Community. SCOs use the SCIP EUM Community to track defense articles transferred to the partner nation, to conduct periodic reporting, and to capture SCO costs associated with the execution of the EUM program.

C2.1.5.6.3. EUM Compliance Plan. SCOs work with the partner nation to develop a combined EUM control plan that spells out procedures to ensure requirements specified in the appropriate transfer documents are met. EUM Control Plans should include: partner nation internal accountability procedures, procedures for reporting required inventories and inspections, procedures for record keeping on the part of the host nation and the SCO, procedures for reporting possible violations, and procedures to be followed for EUM visits. When necessary, DSCA (Integrated Regional Teams (IRT)) can assist with Control Plan development, contact .

C2.1.5.6.4. Change of end-use. Examples of possible changes of end-use include demilitarization and scrapping, disposal, use of U.S.-provided equipment as displays or targets, and transfer to civil government, police, or educational institutions. These change of end-use actions all require prior approval from the USG, specifically, DoS (PM/RSAT). If the partner nation has been granted approval to dispose of materiel by the DoS, its disposal procedures must follow in form and content those used by DLA Disposition Services, as described in DoDM 4160.21 Vol 1, the DoD Defense Materiel Disposition Manual. SCOs are responsible for ensuring DoD disposal procedures are followed by the partner nation. In some cases, this may mean personally witnessing demilitarization/disposal actions or coordinating with the appropriate MILDEP to have a subject matter expert witness demilitarization/disposal. A disposal process that fails to meet U.S. demilitarization standards should be reported through the appropriate DoS and DoD chains of command to DoS (PM/RSAT). If environmental agreements exist with the partner nation, the SCO must ensure “before” and “after” conditions are recorded. Disposal procedures are discussed further in Section C8.7. and Section C8.8.

C2.1.5.6.5. Third Party Transfers. Foreign Governments may not transfer title or possession of U.S. origin defense articles or services to anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of that country without prior written consent from the USG. Requests for re-transfer are submitted to DoS (PM/RSAT). SCOs are often called upon to explain U.S. third party transfer policies to partner nations and assist in submitting partner nation third party transfer requests. See Section C8.8. and Table C8.T7. for information requirement on third party transfers request to DoS. Templates, samples, and points of contact can be found at the PM/RSAT web page.

C2.1.5.6.6. Violations. When an indication of unauthorized end-use is found and the discrepancy is not resolved locally, the Country Team forwards the information to DoS (PM/RSAT) to determine whether an investigation and report to Congress is required. Section C8.6. discusses violations and reporting procedures.

C2.1.6. Training Management. Detailed guidance on planning for International Training is discussed in Section C10.5. and the Joint Security Cooperation Education and Training (JSCET) regulation (AR12-15, SECNAVINST 4950.4B, AFI 16-105).

C2.1.6.1. Training Programs.

C2.1.6.1.1. IMET. IMET allocations are the result of the DoD-DoS FMF-IMET grant aid budget development process.

C2.1.6.1.1.1. Priority Codes. Training priority codes are critical to proper SCO financial management of the IMET program and in obtaining quotas for training. Because actual IMET allocations are often less than the amount requested by the SCO and are announced well after the start of the fiscal year, and because additional funds can be obtained in an end-of-year reallocation of funds, SCOs must prioritize training during planning and then be prepared to revise plans and re-prioritize training requests late into the fiscal year. See Section C10.6. for training priority codes and Table C10.T6. for End-of-Year reallocation process and timeline.

C2.1.6.1.1.2. Selection and Post-Training Use of IMET Students. The SCO is responsible for ensuring those students trained under the IMET program are selected from career personnel likely to occupy key positions in the foreign country's defense establishment. SCOs must also obtain appropriate assurances that personnel trained under IMET are properly and effectively used. See Section C10.6.6.1. and Section C10.6.6.2. for more information.

C2.1.6.1.2. Expanded IMET (E-IMET). Under E-IMET, foreign civilians are trained in managing and administering military establishments and budgets, in promoting civilian control of the military, and in creating and maintaining effective military justice systems and military codes of conduct, in accordance with internationally recognized human rights. E-IMET is not a separate allocation in addition to IMET, but rather a portion of a country's standard IMET allocation designated to be spent on E-IMET courses. Additional information on E-IMET can be found at the JSCET Manual (AR 12-15; SECNAVINST 4950.4B; AFI 16–105).

C2.1.6.1.3. Regional Defense Fellowship Program. The Regional Defense Fellowship Program (RDFP) is a special operations education and training program with policy oversight provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict (OSD/SOLIC), and program management by the Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU). SCOs submit nominations for the RDFP to the CCMD RDFP manager (usually the same office responsible for other Security Cooperation training and education). Once the CCMD approves the nomination it is forwarded to DSCU and OSD/SOLIC for final approval. The entire nomination process is accomplished online via the Security Assistance Network (SAN). SCOs must conduct screening in accordance with SAMM Section C10.8. All RDFP students must be vetted for human rights violations before final approval.

C2.1.6.2. FMS Training.

C2.1.6.2.1. Initial training in support of major weapon system purchases is usually procured either as part of the FMS equipment case or in a separate supporting training case. Follow-on sustainment training or other training for leaders, operators and maintenance, logistical, and other support personnel may be acquired via separate FMS case (national funds or FMF) or other training sources. The SCO must continuously work with the partner nation, the MILDEP, and CCMD to ensure synchronization of training activities is accomplished as early as possible and alert DoD and partner nation stakeholders to circumstances that may require changes to the training program plan.

C2.1.6.2.2. As with IMET, FMS-funded training requests are entered into the MILDEP training activities computer system (DSAMS-TM). The FMS implementation procedures are similar to those for IMET. However, FMS cases do not normally include Temporary Living Allowances (TLA) as that is the responsibility of the country and is provided to the International Military Student (IMS) directly without U.S. involvement. FMS training cases may also include a medical services line to cover medical costs incurred by the IMS. Alternatively, the country may decide to have the bills for such services sent to the country's embassy for payment, or the IMS may obtain health insurance. SCOs must ensure arrangements are made in advance to cover costs such as special clothing and personal equipment either by including such items in the FMS case or having the IMS or IMS’s government pay for them upon issue at the training installation. IMS health insurance is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.

C2.1.6.2.3. A Blanket Order case is the preferred vehicle for providing FMS training because it provides flexibility in defining training requirements, can accommodate the numerous changes that often occur, and does not require a definitive listing of training items or quantities.

C2.1.6.2.4. Chapter 10 discusses FMS training in more detail.

C2.1.6.3. SC Education and Training (SCET) Teams. U.S. military training conducted in-country is provided by SCET teams consisting of U.S. Military, DoD civilian, or contractor personnel deployed on Temporary Duty or Permanent Change of Station status. These teams provide advice, training, technical assistance, or support to personnel of the host country. See Section C10.22. for information on SCET teams; and Table C10.T20. for a list of SCO’s support responsibilities for SCET.

C2.1.6.4. Other Training Programs. A description of other SC Training Programs can be found in Section C10.7. of this manual and Chapter 3, paragraph 3-6 of the JSCET Regulation. SCOs should be familiar with programs, their intended purpose, and legal authorities.

C2.1.6.5. Screening of Students. See Section C10.8. International Military Student (IMS) Screening Requirements for all DOD Provided Training.

C2.1.6.6. Invitational Travel Orders (ITO). The SCO is responsible for the preparation of each IMS’s ITO. See Section C10.11.1., for additional information regarding ITO development and issuance.

C2.1.6.7. Pre-Departure Briefing. SCOs must ensure IMSs selected for training receive a comprehensive pre-departure briefing. The briefing must cover information listed in JSCET Chapter 10. A standard Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU) pre-departure brief, meeting JSCET requirements, can be downloaded from the International Training Management web site. SCOs should supplement the basic brief with specific training location information listed on the Training Management System (TMS) and SAN, as well as any SCO-specific information.

C2.1.6.7.1. Arrival Notification. Prior to the international student’s arrival at a U.S. training site, the SCO provides all pertinent arrival information to the International Military Student Officer (IMSO) at the receiving installation. The information is provided via the Training Management System (TMS) and SAN at least 16 days prior to the arrival date of an unaccompanied student and 30 days prior to the arrival date of an accompanied student. Information provided will include: estimated time of arrival, mode of travel, flight number, number of dependents, age of any children, and any other pertinent travel information.

C2.1.6.7.2. Post-Training Interview. SCOs conduct post-training interviews with returning IMSs to obtain insights on the relevance and quality of training, the sufficiency of student preparation, and the adequacy of SCO and IMSO support to the student.

C2.1.6.7.3. Instructional Material and Academic Reports. SCOs are responsible for providing the student with any retainable instructional material shipped by the training organization to the SCO for forwarding to the student; and for providing the country and student copies of the student’s academic report.

C2.1.6.7.4. Reporting Requirements.

C2.1.6.7.4.1. Positions of Prominence (PoP). SCOs will identify key Ministry of Defense (MOD) personnel who attended DOD training in the past or are currently attending DOD training and have risen in rank or assumed positions of significant importance, such as political leadership, military command above the Brigade level or general staff responsibility. The PoP list will assist current and future SCOs and DOD leadership to build and transition relationships that may lead to greater military cooperation and support between our nations. The SCO will update PoP data during the preparation of the annual Combined Education and Training Program Plan (CETPP). The CCMD submits consolidated information to DSCA (Building Partner Capacity Directorate (BPC)) following execution of its regional SCETWG. PoP data is used to assess the effectiveness of programs. See Section C10.21.1., and Figure C10.F1. Sample Combined Education and Training Program Plan (CETPP) for information on military and civilian positions of prominence, reporting format, and reporting timeline.

C2.1.6.7.4.2. Joint DoS/DOD Foreign Military Training Report (FMTR). The FMTR is a congressionally-mandated requirement for the DoS and DOD to submit an annual report on all U.S. military training provided to international personnel whether funded by DoS or DOD. The report covers a two-year period: the fiscal year just ended and the one in progress. SCOs must provide detailed information on training, virtually all of which should be accessible within TMS. See Section C10.21.2. for information on FMTR reporting.

C2.1.7. Title 10 Programs and Activities.

C2.1.7.1. Building Partner Capacity Programs.

C2.1.7.1.1. Congress provides authorization and appropriations for certain DoD military assistance programs using DoD funding. Examples of Building Partner Capacity (BPC) programs include programs executed under Section 2282 of the National Defense Authorization Act and country or region-specific programs such as the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF).

C2.1.7.1.2. Because BPC cases are initiated by the USG and do not involve a request from the partner nation, SCOs generally play a greater role in planning for BPC programs; in obtaining partner nation agreement to accept and sustain articles and/or training provided; in tracking transportation schedules and making arrangements to notify the partner nation of impending delivery; and in receiving and transferring possession and title of shipments to the partner nation.

C2.1.7.1.3. Chapter 15 provides comprehensive information on planning, developing, and executing BPC programs.

C2.1.7.2. International Armaments Cooperation (IAC).

C2.1.7.2.1. The term IAC covers a multi-faceted area in which the U.S. cooperates with other countries and international organizations to research, develop, acquire and sustain military systems. IAC includes the Information Exchange Program (IEP), the Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program (ESEP), Foreign Comparative Testing, Cooperative Research, Development and Acquisition, Defense Trade, and Cooperative Logistics.

C2.1.7.2.2. While oversight for the FMS and other traditional SA is the responsibility of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)), IAC is the responsibility of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment who also serves as the U.S. National Armaments Director (NAD).

C2.1.7.2.3. In-country personnel dedicated to IAC usually fall under the supervision and oversight of the SCO Chief (or DATT in the absence of a SCO). If there are no Armaments Cooperation personnel assigned to the SCO, the SCO chief is responsible for IAC support functions to the degree that resources permit.

C2.1.7.2.4. SCOs with IAC responsibilities should maintain and review the OSD (A&S) International Armaments Cooperation Handbook. Chapter 10, Section 10.4 of the handbook addresses the role of the SCO in IAC.

C2.1.7.3. Humanitarian Assistance (HA) Programs. DoD humanitarian-focused programs and activities include HA, Humanitarian Assistance Program - Excess Property (HAP-EP), Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA), Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA), Denton (Space Available) and Funded Transportation, and Foreign Disaster Relief/Emergency Response (FDR/ER). Chapter 12 provides a detailed description of HA programs and processes. As with all SC programs, the SCO should, to the greatest degree possible, integrate HA activities into GCC Security Cooperation planning.

C2.1.7.4. Other Non-SA Duties. The SCO performs other non-SA functions required by the CCDR and JCS, such as exercise planning and coordination, port visits, coordination of bilateral meetings, coordination of the National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP), and coordination and implementation of Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSA). CCDRs exercise oversight responsibility for in-theater execution of these activities and provide information and direction to SCOs as necessary. If such duties are to be executed on a continuous basis, CCMD should conduct a review to determine appropriate funding categories and ensure that the SCO is adequately staffed and funded to perform the added functions.

C2.1.7.4.1. Administrative Support to Non-SA Missions and Personnel. The SA-funded members of the SCO may provide standard administrative support for non-SA personnel assigned/attached/TDY to the SCO performing SC and DoD functions until such support detracts from the primary SA mission. The SDO/DATT determines when additional administrative support is required and coordinates with the respective CCMD to request temporary augmentation or the addition of a non-SA funded billet. For some activities, the SDO/DATT may request that the executive agent for a planned or ongoing activity provide temporary augmentation.

C2.1.7.4.2. General Advisory and Training Assistance. SA-funded personnel may provide advisory and training assistance to the host nation military establishment. However, this assistance must be minimal and cannot interfere with the primary performance of SA management responsibilities. Actual military training must not be performed.

C2.1.8. SCO Support to Industry.

C2.1.8.1. General. The SCO, rather than the Commercial Attaché, is the principal point of contact in U.S. missions for most U.S. defense industry representatives marketing defense equipment. SCOs support the marketing efforts of U.S. companies while maintaining strict neutrality between U.S. competitors. The SCO facilitates the flow of U.S. systems information, subject to releasability and export licensing considerations, while avoiding advocacy of a program with a specific U.S. producer.

C2.1.8.2. Country Information. SCOs should be well informed about and responsive to U.S. defense industry interest in the host country. The SCO should draw on resident Embassy experts (e.g., Commercial, Economic, or Political Officers) to inform industry representatives of the country’s financial position, any International Monetary Fund controls and restrictions on credit, and the relationship between the MOD and other government branches. Upon request, but subject to factors such as availability of resources and country sensitivity to release of specific data, the SCO provides industry representatives the following types of unclassified information:

C2.1.8.2.1. Data on the defense budget cycle in the host country including the share of the budget devoted to procurement. Industry representatives may also be informed of the country’s current FMS, FMF, and defense budgets.

C2.1.8.2.2. Information on the national decision making process, both formal and informal, and on decision makers in the MOD and MILDEPs.

C2.1.8.2.3. Information on the national procurement process, to include bidding procedures, legal or policy impediments to procure from U.S. sources, and other information needed for the U.S. commercial competitor to work with the country.

C2.1.8.2.4. Information on current and future partner nation defense requirements and, when appropriate, procurement plans for equipment.

C2.1.8.2.5. Information on the marketing efforts of foreign competitors.

C2.1.8.2.6. Information on the major in-country defense firms and their products. This can assist U.S. firms with identifying possible subcontract support services, or teaming, licensing, and other cooperative arrangements.

C2.1.8.3. Reciprocal Procurement Agreements. Countries that have reciprocal procurement agreements with the DoD (covering mutual cooperation in R&D, production, procurement, and logistics) have agreed to provide equal access to each other’s defense markets. Based on these agreements, SCOs should have a working knowledge of the host country’s acquisition system. In conjunction with the embassy commercial attaché, the SCO should have a process for obtaining procurement information on bid solicitations. Such information should be obtained at the same time as bid solicitations are provided to in-country suppliers. Reciprocal agreement and host country solicitation information should be provided to appropriate U.S. industry representatives. The exchange of information between the SCO and the industry representative is used to monitor host country compliance with the reciprocal agreement. If the SCO suspects that U.S. companies do not have equal access to the host country defense market or if U.S. industry representatives can provide information that indicates an agreement is not being honored, the SCO works with the Embassy Commercial Attaché to resolve the issue and advise the host country procurement officials and appropriate OSD offices. Existing reciprocal procurement agreements can be found on the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy's website: Reciprocal Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Memoranda of Understanding.

C2.1.8.4. Appointments. The SCO should assist industry representatives with visit appointments in the Embassy and, as time and circumstances permit, with host country MOD and services (e.g., provide appropriate country individuals or office POCs). Industry representatives make appointments with country officials to avoid the impression of SCO endorsement of a given item or service. The SCO makes the appointment only if the host country desires that appointments be made through the SCO. The SCO may attend key meetings to help assess defense requirements and the extent of U.S. industries’ ability to meet those requirements, if requested by the industry representatives and the host government. Thirty days in advance of initial visits, defense industry representatives should provide SCOs: a synopsis of equipment and services proposed for sale; current export license information, including restrictions and provisos; dates of planned in-country travel; non-proprietary information already provided to the host country, or other contacts concerning this equipment or service; and specific support (briefings, appointments) requested. To help ensure program continuity, industry representatives should also brief SCOs before departing the host country.

C2.1.8.5. United States' Competitors. Unlike most countries that sell defense equipment, the United States is likely to have more than one weapon system manufacturer. The SCO must maintain neutrality between U.S. competitors. When more than one U.S. competitor is involved, the SCO should explain to host country personnel why a U.S. system would be to the country’s advantage. If asked by a representative of one U.S. company, the SCO can acknowledge whether and when other U.S. vendors have come through the country, but should not divulge any marketing strategy or other proprietary information of any U.S. competitor. In cases where it is clear that there is only one U.S. source or producer marketing a system, the SCO may generally endorse a specific American product to the host Government. If it has not already been communicated to the SCO that a specific product or capability is to be supported, the SCO may inquire from DSCA whether the DoD can actively participate in supporting a specific sale.

C2.1.8.6. Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) Versus FMS Sales. Generally, the DoD supports fulfillment of foreign countries’ defense needs through either FMS or DCS channels. Unless the host country requests the purchase be made through FMS, the DoD tries to accommodate the U.S. contractor’s preference for DCS. In addition, normally the DoD does not provide price quotes for comparison of FMS to DCS. To avoid any pricing discrepancies and to ensure that the SCOs provide accurate Price & Availability (P&A) data, inquiries on pricing are referred to the appropriate MILDEP and/or DSCA (See Chapter 5). All sales, either FMS or DCS, may include differences in delivery schedules, equipment modifications, spare parts, and training packages, and the recipient should exercise caution in comparing FMS and DCS data. The SCO assists a broad spectrum of U.S. defense industry marketing efforts and the SCO is expected to provide adequate support to vendors regardless of the complexity or price of the item.

C2.1.8.7. Follow-Up. The SCO Chief should encourage visiting U.S. contractors to debrief the SCO Chief and other relevant members of the mission staff on their experiences in country. The SCO Chief responds to follow-up inquiries from industry representatives with respect to any reactions from host country officials or subsequent marketing efforts by foreign competitors. The SCO Chief alerts embassy staff to observe reactions of the host country officials on U.S. defense industry marketing efforts. As appropriate, the SCO Chief can pass these reactions to the U.S. industry representatives.

C2.1.8.8. Exceptional Circumstances. If the SCO believes that the marketing efforts do not coincide with overall U.S. defense interests or have potential for damaging U.S. credibility and relations with the country, the SCO should relay these concerns, along with a request for guidance, to the MILDEP and DSCA (Integrated Regional Teams (IRT)).

C2.1.9. Security.

C2.1.9.1. Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP). DoD Directive 5205.75, Department of Defense Operations at U.S. Embassies, assigns responsibility for AT/FP. For most U.S. missions, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on AT/FP responsibilities is in effect between the COM and the CCDR. The MOA delineates whether the COM or the CCDR has AT/FP responsibility for the various DoD personnel and dependents in country. Individual MOAs in U.S. Embassies worldwide are implemented pursuant to DoD Issuance 5210.84, Security of DoD Personnel at U.S. Missions Abroad. This document includes, as an enclosure, a 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DoS and DoD concerning overseas security support for DoD personnel. The DoS and DoD signed a second universal MOU in 1997 to clearly define the authority and responsibility for the security of DoD elements and personnel in foreign areas not under the command of a CCDR. The implementing MOAs usually assign responsibility and authority for SCO security to the COM, rather than the CCDR. SCOs coordinate with SDO/DATT (if the SCO is not the SDO/DATT), the embassy’s Regional Security Officer (RSO), and the AT/FP points-of-contact at the CCMD to ensure all SCO personnel and dependents understand AT/FP procedures.

C2.1.9.2. Safeguarding Classified Material. The SCO is responsible for safeguarding U.S. SC-related classified information located in foreign countries. Except for classified information authorized for release to a foreign government or international organization pursuant to DoD Directive 5230.11, and under the security control of that government or organization, the retention of U.S. classified material is authorized only if it is necessary to satisfy USG mission requirements. This includes classified material temporarily transferred into a foreign country via USG personnel authorized to escort or carry such material.

C2.1.9.2.1. Storage of Classified Material. Whether permanently or temporarily retained, classified material must be stored under USG control as follows:

C2.1.9.2.1.1. At a U.S. military installation or a location where the United States enjoys rights of inviolability, such as an embassy or consulate.

C2.1.9.2.1.2. At a USG activity located in a building used exclusively by USG tenants, provided the building is under 24-hour control by USG personnel.

C2.1.9.2.1.3. At a USG activity located in a building not used exclusively by USG tenants or under host government control, provided the classified material is stored in security containers approved by General Services Administration (GSA) and is under 24-hour control by USG personnel.

C2.1.9.2.1.4. At a USG activity located in a building not used exclusively by USG tenants but which is under host Government control, provided the classified material is stored in GSA-approved security containers that are further secured in a locked room or area to which only USG personnel have access.

C2.1.9.2.2. Segregation of Classified Material. When host government, including locally hired foreign national USG employees, and USG personnel are co-located, U.S. classified material that has not been authorized for release to the host government pursuant to DoD Directive 5230.11 must, to the extent possible, be segregated from releasable classified material to facilitate physical control and prevent inadvertent compromise. However, U.S. classified material that is releasable to the host nation need not be subject to the 24-hour U.S. control requirement provided the host government exercises its own control measures over the pertinent areas or containers during non-duty hours.

C2.1.9.2.3. Safeguarding Classified During Foreign Visits. SCO personnel must escort foreign nationals in areas where non-releasable U.S. classified material is present. However, when required by operational necessity, foreign nationals may be permitted, during duty hours, unescorted entry to such areas provided the non-releasable information is properly stored or is under the direct personal supervision and control of cleared USG personnel who can prevent unauthorized access.

C2.1.9.2.4. Access to Classified by Locally Employed (LE) Staff. LE staff employed by the USG in SCOs or in other U.S. installations may not have access to U.S. classified information unless specifically authorized under a Limited Access Authorization (LAA) issued in accordance with DoD Manual 5200.01 Vol. 1. LAA will not be issued merely as a convenience or to avoid the requirement to control access by LE staff members to areas and information. The LE staff member must demonstrate a unique skill or expertise in support of a lawful and authorized government function, require access to classified information in performance of the job, and there is no cleared or clearable U.S. citizen available. As the LAA is issued under the condition that access is consistent with a determination of releasability to the country of which the individual is a citizen, the requirements for control of non-releasable U.S. classified information also apply to LE staff members employed by the United States.

C2.1.9.2.4.1. All LE staff are required to undergo five-year background investigations. The investigations are conducted by the Embassy Regional Security Officer.

C2.1.9.3. Foreign Clearance. SCOs process requests for foreign clearance (also known as country clearance) and coordinate security, logistical, and administrative support for official DoD visitors and aircraft.

C2.1.9.3.1. In addition, SCOs may be responsible for assisting with negotiation of blanket clearances to support peacetime missions such as humanitarian assistance operations, exercises, or contingency operations. The SCO must understand and enforce compliance with the DoD Foreign Clearance Guide (FCG) and local Embassy and CCMD policy on foreign clearance issues.

C2.1.9.3.2. SCOs are also responsible for ensuring the FCG is current for the country of assignment. The FCG contains instructions for SCOs and other organizations to submit changes, such as additional restrictions or increased lead-time requirements.

C2.1.10. Other Administrative and Logistical Responsibilities.

C2.1.10.1. SCO Administrative and logistical guidance is provided by the tri-service regulation, Administrative and Logistical Support of Overseas Security Assistance Organizations, AR 1-75, SECNAVINST 4900.49, and AFI 16-104(interservice). These duties include:

C2.1.10.1.1. Administrative Management. Supervise submission of required reports, correspondence, meeting and workshop attendance, PCS and travel arrangements, travel orders, SCO message and correspondence distribution, files and management procedures, required teleconferences/videoconferences, and conduct command inspections and self assessments.

C2.1.10.1.2. Budgeting. Formulate and manage SCO budgets, aligning financial resources with mission and functions, analyzing accounting reports, and writing budget justifications.

C2.1.10.1.3. Financial Management. Supervise and administer fiscal accountability for SCO financial management programs including budget preparation and execution, government purchase card programs, Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests, Temporary Duty/travel programs, government travel card programs, personnel time/attendance/leave, housing support, supply/purchasing, Authorized Accounting Facility functions, International Cooperative Administrative Support Services budget.

C2.1.10.1.4. Personnel Management. Exercise general supervision of personnel (Military, Civilian, Foreign Service Nationals, and Personnel Services Agreements), provide and meet the overall provisions of human resources services, morale/welfare/recreation, performance management, awards, urinalysis, and sponsor programs for all types of personnel.

C2.1.10.1.5. Professional Development. Coordinate and conduct required general and professional development training for SCO personnel.

C2.1.10.1.6. Property Management. Manage SCO property and supply activities, providing property accountability, property book management, periodic inventories, and required vehicle maintenance.

C2.1.10.1.7. Information Technology Administration. Coordinate network security, installation of new applications, distribution of software upgrades, monitoring of daily activity, enforcing licensing agreements, developing a storage management program, and providing for routine backups.

C2.1.10.1.8. Visitor Support. Provide visitor support and escort as required.

C2.1.10.1.9. Representational and Public Affairs Duties. Perform all DoD representational and liaison activities with the host nation defense and security establishments, attending HN ceremonies and observing host nation exercises. Assist with Embassy protocol functions and perform representation duties for the U.S. ambassador as tasked.

C2.1.10.1.10. Information Support. Develop reports, forecasts, informational papers, and briefings for the Country Team, CCMD, and DSCA, as required.

C2.1.10.1.11. Translation Services. The host nation is responsible for translating documents. For purposes of communicating between the USG and host nation purchaser representatives only, SCOs may provide “informal translations”, using the same practices as the U.S. Embassy, when the SCO determines an informal translation of an English text is in the best interests of the USG. Translators must clearly mark the translated document “Informal and unofficial translation - English text governs.” The SCO must ensure that a forwarding letter accompanies each contractual document (e.g., LOA) emphasizing that the English text is the official binding document. Translation assistance is limited to USG and host nation officials.

C2.1.10.2. Establishment and Manning of SCOs.

C2.1.10.2.1. In accordance with DoD Issuance 5132.13 and DoD Directive 5205.17, the Director, DSCA, in coordination with the CCDRs and the Chairman, JCS, has approval authority for establishing SCOs and for making staffing changes.

C2.1.10.2.2. SCOs are staffed by U.S. military, U.S. civilians, and LE Staff. LE Staff are composed of either Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs) or Personal Services Agreement (PSA) hires. FSNs require a National Security Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-38) approval by the COM, and are included on the CCMD SCO JTDs. PSAs may be host nation or third country nationals, eligible U.S. family members of U.S. Embassy staff, or Americans present in the country but not affiliated with the USG. PSA positions require COM approval, but do not usually require a NSDD-38.

C2.1.10.2.3. As a general rule, if the duties associated with a position require an employee to spend more than 50 percent of his/her time performing SA management activities, the position must be DoS funded. Similarly, if the duties associated with a position require an employee to spend more than 50 percent of his/her time supporting non-SA activities, the position must be funded using DoD authority (e.g., Operation and Maintenance funds), or other sources. The SDO/DATT is responsible for periodically reviewing staffing requirements and submitting change requests to the CCMD.

C2.1.10.2.4. Because SCO personnel serve under the authority of the COM, the CCMD must obtain, through the NSDD-38 process, the approval of the COM and the DoS for establishment of new SCO positions in an embassy and for changes to the size or composition of the SCO, or for significant changes to the scope of SCO responsibilities.

C2.1.10.2.5. Temporary duty personnel may be assigned to an SCO by the CCDR when new or additional SA and SC requirements detract from permanently assigned SCO personnel performing their primary SA management duties. Permanently assigned SCO personnel should not be dedicated to a single project for which the host nation should be responsible, such as the establishment and management of a logistics center.

C2.2.1. Definition. The Implementing Agency (IA) assigns a Case Manager to each Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to assist with case development, and to guide execution of the case after implementation. The IA is responsible for establishing case management functions and determining the organizational level at which these functions will be performed and/or managed.

C.2.2.1.1. The term "Case Manager" may differ contingent on the organization-i.e., Country Manager, Command Country Manager, Security Assistance Program Manager, Program Support Manager, Line Manager, etc., but all perform case management functions. Case management responsibilities vary by type of LOA and IA. Case management responsibilities may change as the case evolves through stages, to include case reconciliation and closure. The IA is responsible for maintaining current information regarding the Case Manager in DSAMS.

C2.2.1.2. FMS cases vary in dollar value and complexity (e.g., a $25 million sale of a major weapon system is extremely complex compared to a $10 million LOA for off-the-shelf replacement spares. Although the two differ in dollar value and complexity, they both require special attention (even a very low value case may involve many different functional activities), and should be managed in accordance with well-defined guidelines. The level of case management will depend on the purchaser's expertise and previous experience with the weapon system, budget constraints, familiarity with FMS, etc.

C2.2.1.3. Management begins during Price and Availability (P&A) and LOA preparation and continues throughout the life of an LOA.

C2.2.2. Responsibilities. The Case Manager is the focal point for case activities and manages all aspects of the FMS case. Tasks listed in Table C2.T1. are examples of functions that may be assigned to individuals at various organizational levels depending upon the complexity and type of case. Not all functions are applicable to every case, and complex cases may include functions not listed in the table.

C2.2.3. Accountability. The Case Manager works to accomplish the program objectives of the assigned case while adhering to applicable laws and regulations and working within the organizational structure of the military department or defense agency. The Case Manager achieves successful performance when the case objectives are met. These objectives are to: provide all articles or services included in the case on schedule, within the stated value; and close the case in a timely manner.

Table C2.T1. Case Manager Responsibilities

C2.2.4. Authority. FMS cases require concentrated management effort. The Case Manager has a role in each of the major elements of the case: acquisition, programming, logistics, and finance, and is involved in every aspect of planning and executing assigned cases. Effective case management depends on the performance and interaction of many organizations. The Case Manager must have the authority to take action and task other organizations in the day-to-day management of a case.

C2.2.5. If any situation arises that puts at risk the USG’s ability to meet a commitment made to an international partner or that results in an operational, political, or readiness impact to the international partner or COCOM priority case, the Case Manager is responsible to forward the matter through the appropriate Military Department/Defense Agency FMS channel to alert the DSCA CPD/CFM in writing. The purpose of this communication is to inform the broader Security Cooperation enterprise in advance and coordinate a unified response to the international partner. However, if the situation also poses an immediate safety risk (to include safety of flight, safety of use, etc.) to the international partner’s use of delivered defense articles, instead of prompting a fully coordinated response, the Implementing Agency will immediately notify the international partner of the safety risk with an information copy sent to the DSCA CPD/CFM and appropriate MILDEP/Defense Agency FMS channel. See Section C6.2.3.

C2.2.6. Case Reporting and the Master Plan. The Case Manager coordinates actions required for successful execution of the case, and uses established channels to convey information to higher authorities, supporting activities, and the purchaser on how the case is progressing. The Case Manager serves as the central point of contact, and acts as the U.S. representative to the FMS customer for questions and problem resolution. To this end, the Case Manager develops a program Master Plan that separates the case into management components, indicates significant activities in the execution of the case, and establishes an implementation schedule. The plan is drawn from more detailed program planning documents used by the program office - and is tailored to fit the complexity of the case. A program Master Plan is required for "major sales" as described in Section C5.4.12. This includes sales that trigger AECA section 36(b) (22 U.S.C. 2776) ("36(b)") thresholds and proposed sales that represent an increase of more than fifteen percent to the FMS purchaser's current active program. A program Master Plan may also be required for other sales as determined by the DSCA (Directorate of Business Operations (DBO) Country Portfolio Director (CPD)) and/or the Implementing Agency (IA). The Master Plan can be in any format, such as a quad chart or Plan of Action and Milestones. Depending on the size or nature of the case, the plan covers: case description, key milestones (contract status, transportation plan, delivery schedule, training, contractor support, etc.); status, issues/risk; along with key points of contact and responsibilities. The Case Manager provides the Master Plan to higher authority and to the FMS customer to forecast events and track progress. The Master Plan will be updated and reissued after significant project milestones, prior to Program Management Reviews, and as part of the development of amendments to the FMS case.

C2.2.7. Case Manager Training. Organizations must ensure that individuals assigned as Case Managers receive training. The following Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU) courses are recommended as a part of a training plan for Case Managers:

C2.3.1. General. Long-range SC planning assists friendly and allied governments to identify and assess their military capabilities and requirements. The U.S. Government (USG) welcomes consultation with friends and allies regarding planning to meet their defense needs or to undertake research, development, production, and logistics support programs of mutual interest. Information obtained through consultation is important in the planning process and helps ensure orderly program implementation.

C2.3.1.1. The necessary planning for follow-on support, training, and other elements of continuity should accompany the transfer of end-items. The “total package approach” ensures items can be operated and maintained in the future.

C2.3.1.2. DoD SC planning activities must be consistent with U.S. military strategic plans and objectives, policy guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense and policy guidance issued by the Secretary of State. See DoD Directive 5132.03, DoD Policy and Responsibilities Relating to Security Cooperation.

C2.3.2. Planning Considerations for Security Cooperation. SC planning capability varies from country-to-country. Crises, conflicts, and other events may change program direction and overall financing options.

C2.3.2.1. SC plans consider the economic capabilities of the foreign government, the support provided by third parties, and the overall U.S. and regional conventional arms transfer policies. The amount and type of military equipment that a country can support is also considered. SC plans emphasize the country’s capabilities to organize, employ, and manage national resources allocated to defense. Plans should be consistent with overall political, economic, technological, and national security goals of the United States.

C2.3.2.2. A “needs assessment” is a critical part of long-range SC plans. The assessment lists items that the country team believes necessary to maintain the country’s defense.

C2.3.2.3. Discussions and correspondence between DoD representatives and foreign officials on the development of plans, programs, and related data are conducted with the mutual understanding that the discussions do not constitute or imply any commitment on the part of the United States.

C2.3.3. Planning Activities and Tools. Several tools exist to aid the SC planning process.

C2.3.3.1. Military Assistance Budget Process. For the purposes of this section, military assistance is defined as Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET). The Military Assistance Budget is under the direct purview of the Department of State (DoS) and is included in its International Affairs Budget request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Secretary of State is the final authority on what funding levels are included in the DoS budget request. Military assistance funding, appropriated by the U.S. Congress, is provided to DoD by DoS to execute the authorities in Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), section 503(a) (22 U.S.C. 2311 (a)) and Section 541 (22 U.S.C. 2347) and Arm Export Control Act (AECA), Section 23 (22 U.S.C. 2763) Military assistance funding is administered by Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Annual preparation of military assistance budgets are for funding, if realized, to be executed two years in the future.

C2.3.3.1.1. Military Assistance Budget Call. Within the Department of State, Bureau of Political and Military Affairs (DoS (PM)) is the focal point for the Military Assistance Budget. PM sets the deadline for the DoD budget submission. DSCA (Directorate of Business Operations (DBO)) is responsible for preparing and releasing the budget call to the SCOs and Geographic Combatant Command (GCC)s.

C2.3.3.1.2. Strategic/Fiscal Guidance and Priorities. The Secretary of Defense’s Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF) serves as the overarching guidance for FMF and IMET Budget development. Approved regional Theater Security Cooperation Plans are also used in developing the annual FMF and IMET Budget recommendation. FMF and IMET Budget requests should reflect the Secretary of Defense’s strategic priorities and fiscal guidance issued for the annual budget build.

C2.3.3.1.3. Mode of Military Assistance Budget Submissions. Budget requests are submitted and maintained using the FMF and IMET Budget Web Tool. The web tool provides a central, on-line repository of FMF and IMET budgetary data that provides a timely, efficient, and visible method for budget development and subsequent reporting.

C2.3.3.1.4. Scope of Military Assistance Budget Submissions. Military Assistance funding is a key tool in promoting foreign policy and national security objectives. As such, it is imperative, based on the congressionally mandated National Security Assistance Strategy (NSAS) reporting, that DoD incorporates a long-term strategy into the Military Assistance Budget process. Therefore, budget submissions must incorporate the following elements: out-year program requirements; objective-oriented input detailing what needs to be accomplished and why, the capability being created, enhanced, or maintained, how long it will take to achieve the objective, and the desired end state; justifications that detail what is required in the way of materiel and/or services and why this is critical in meeting the stated objective; prioritization of requirements; and funding requests that are consistent with the purpose of the source of funding being sought. Funding requests for countries that maintain high uncommitted FMF balances are highly scrutinized. Therefore, a general plan on how this funding will be used and a timeframe for the timely commitment of these balances must also be provided.

C2.3.3.1.5. Military Assistance Budget Call and the DoS ICS/MRR. The SCO's FMF and IMET Budget requests should reflect the DOD’s views. The ICS/MRR reflects the COM’s views on required funding, which may differ from the SCO's views. The MRR input is tasked separately by the DoS. The Security Cooperation Office (SCO) should use the data it compiled for the DOD FMF and IMET Budget call as the basis for input to any tasking received for the MRR in accordance with the CCMD guidance.

C2.3.3.1.6. Factors Influencing Final Military Assistance Budgetary Funding Recommendations. There are many factors that impact decisions that result in the final DoD funding recommendations provided to DoS. They include fiscal constraints, policy and political concerns, sanctions, schoolhouse capacity, effective and efficient use of previously provided funding, and availability of other SC funds.

C2.3.3.1.7. Program Baseline of the Military Assistance Budget. Upon submission of the President’s Budget to Congress and the allocation of the current execution year funding, a program baseline is prepared outlining how FMF funds will be used. This DoS-approved document further justifies the budget year request for funding, sets the baseline for congressional program content notification for execution year funding, and outlines a spend plan for prior year uncommitted FMF funds. The FMF program baseline must be followed when submitting Letters of Request (LORs) and executing Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOAs) unless a deviation is sought from the DSCA (Directorate of Business Operations (DBO) Country Portfolio Director (CPD)) and approved by the DoS.

C2.3.3.1.8. Channels and Notional Timeline of Military Assistance Budget Submissions. Table C2.T2. outlines the organizational chain and notional timeline for budget submissions. An actual timeline is provided via electronic mail (e-mail) and posted on the FMF/IMET Budget Web Tool site as each annual budget cycle approaches. Organizational submission dates must be met in order for the annual DoD funding recommendation to arrive at DoS by the deadline.

Table C2.T2. Channels and Notional Timeline for Military Assistance Budget Submissions

C2.4.1. When requested by a country, Security Assistance Survey Teams are organized to conduct surveys in-country to review military capabilities and to make recommendations for meeting SC objectives. These teams generally are funded by a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) case and can include a combination of USG personnel, representatives of the host nation, and commercial contractors. A comprehensive survey of a country’s military capabilities may be requested to provide a baseline for a new program. Surveys may also be conducted as part of an ongoing program to address specific needs. Types of surveys include defense requirements surveys, site surveys, general surveys or studies, and engineering assessment surveys. Figure C2.F1. provides information regarding survey teams, their roles, and reporting requirements. Logistics conferences for program definition are excluded from these requirements.

C2.4.2. Expeditionary Requirements Generation Teams (ERGTs).

C2.4.2.1. DSCA organizes and deploys ERGTs to augment CCMD staffs and SCOs with SC expertise in support of planning and execution of capability-building efforts. ERGTs assist CCMDs and SCOs with translating partner nation capability needs into well-defined and specific requirements for use in the preparation of high-quality partner nation Letters of Request (LORs) and subsequent USG Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOAs).

C2.4.2.2. Upon receiving a CCMD request for ERGT support, DSCA coordinates with the requesting CCMD, appropriate MILDEPs, DoD agencies, and Interagency stakeholders and then organizes and deploys ERGTs to support and augment CCMD staffs and SCOs on a temporary, as-needed, basis.

C2.4.2.3. Though ERGTs may be formed to meet a wide spectrum of CCMD and SCO needs, ERGTs primarily focus on assisting SCOs to define requirements and develop comprehensive solutions. ERGT size and composition are based on the situation and objectives described by the CCMD in the request for ERGT support, and can be built around either a country or regional focus, and may be deployed to a partner nation, to the CCMD headquarters, or can provide “virtual” augmentation from Washington, D.C. using the full spectrum of information and communications technologies.

C2.4.2.4. In some cases, ERGT may be viewed as a type of Security Assistance Survey Teams but an ERGT is neither synonymous with, nor a replacement for, Security Assistance Survey Teams. Questions on ERGTs should be directed to DSCA (Operations Directorate).

Figure C2.F1. Security Assistance Survey Teams

PDF Version of Figure Web Version of Figure

C2.5.1. Materiel Notices inform countries of events that impact their ability to acquire or support an item through Foreign Military Sale (FMS). They normally call for submission of a LOR officially requesting the items or associated support. IAs prepare notice messages or letters when U.S. production of an item is scheduled to end, or the United States is making a periodic buy of items that may have foreign demand. The IA coordinates proposed notices with the involved DoD Components and then with DSCA, which in turn coordinates with the DoS prior to release. Correspondence should include a rationale for issuing the notification, the deadline for receipt of an LOR, and the final date for acceptance and subsequent implementation of the LOA Notices are sent only to countries that have shown interest in the items and are eligible to purchase the items under the National Disclosure Policy (NDP) as implemented in DoD Directive 5230.11, Disclosure of Classified Military Information to Foreign Governments and International Organizations. “Interest” includes previous purchase (via FMS or commercial), request for Price and Availability (P&A) data, or purchase of related weapon systems that use the items.