J O I NT
Joint Staff J-7
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
Worldwide Joint Training Conference 2004
Closed Issues
and
Subsumed Issues
30 September 2004
CAPT Jeffrey Miller, USN
Chief, Joint Training Division
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 1
J O I NT
Due Outs and Deliverables
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
OPR: OSD
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 2
SOUTHCOM – CX w/04JT-06-BOG 1 J O I NT
CH
IE FF
F S OF S TA
04SOUTHCOM01: Interagency Training and Exercise Participation
Discussion:
– Integration of interagency, intergovernmental, and multi-national (I2M) into
DOD training, operations, and exercises requires identifying and linking
these organizations capabilities and tasks to the JMETL.
– IA integration in SOUTHCOM operational exercises is problematic due to a
combination of lack of IA personnel, inadequate funding, or inadequate
communications to participate.
– To accomplish this, participation in the TIM2 and “UJTL After Next”
processes by COCOMs is essential and should be funded by the Joint Staff.
Impact: Impedes linkage of I2M tasks to JMETL thereby adversely affecting
integration into the training and exercise program and impedes unity of effort
in operations & exercises.
Submitted by: SCJ34, Joint Interagency Training Specialist, Mr. Gary DeKay,
305-437-3059, NIPRNET: dekayg@hq.southcom.mil
Endstate: Fully identified & command linked interagency, intergovernmental,
and multi-national capabilities & tasks included in the UJTL, SOUTHCOM
JMETL, and JTIMS, and Exercises.
8/22/2008 3
USSTRATCOM Issue 04 CX w/04JT-06-BOG1
J O I NT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04STRATCOM04: Improve coordination of command-linked tasks and
fidelity of associated conditions and standards.
Discussion: Establishing the appropriate linkage between combatant
command joint mission essential tasks (JMETs) and the associated
command-linked tasks provides the basis for readiness assessments and
supports effective training.
Impact: If command-linked tasks are not properly coordinated ( with
mutually agreed upon conditions and standards ) assessments may not
accurately reflect readiness issues (DOTMLPF).
Submitted By: USSTRATCOM / OP70, Mr. Pat McVay, (402) 232-7697, DSN
272-7697, mcvaypa@stratcom.mil
Endstate: Combatant Commands and Combat Support Agencies report
readiness and training assessments against agreed upon standards.
8/22/2008 4
Due Outs and Deliverables
J O I NT
COMBINE
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT18: Combat Support Agency specific JTIMS Tools
Issue: Support tools need to be developed to assist CSAs in integration with
combatant commanders. CSAs have not yet adopted/implemented JTIMS as a JTS
support tool.
Impact: Lack of linkage between CSA and combatant command JTS-related activities.
Endstate: Full implementation of JTIMS by CSAs.
Plan of Action: 1) DIA, after coordination with other CSAs, provide recommendation for
JTIMS implementation plan. 2) CSA JTIMS workshops, designed to provide
implementation support.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-4
POC(s): DIA (OPR); Joint Staff J7 JTB, LTC Dunn/MAJ Sullins (OCR)
Status: CX w/04JT-06-BOG1
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 5
J O I NT
Issues CX w/04JT-07BOG1
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04CENTCOM01: Need better horizontal integration of various JFCOM & CJCS
programs/processes.
Discussion: Many JFCOM & CJCS programs share similar goals & way
ahead, but don‟t seem to share analyses, solutions, & funding to COCOMs.
Impact: COCOMs are inundated with trying to keep up with the latest
developments & interim results in JFCOM & CJCS programs, but rarely see
significant information sharing among them or funding to execute at the
COCOM level. COCOMs are spending extraordinary time, manpower, &
money attending meetings & executing: T2, JNTC, JKDDC, JAEC, TCAoA,
ACTD, SJFHQ, JTS, JMETL, UJTL, Assessments, JTFCB, JLLP, TIM2,
DRRS, JQRR, IPL, when a single COCOM office is usually given OPR for all
these programs, but no funding to execute.
Submitted By: Mr. Dennis Pytko, GS-13, CCJ3-E, DSN 651-4082,
pytkodl@centcom.mil.
Endstate: Consolidate programs/processes & share analyses, solutions, &
funding to alleviate COCOM PERSTEMPO/budget problems.
6
USSTRATCOM Issue 01 CX w/04JT-07BOG1
J O I NT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04STRATCOM01: Broaden the dialogue with and participation of the
Combatant Commands in Training Transformation Management and
Oversight
Discussion: Combatant Commands are currently represented by CJCS
(DJS at T2 Executive Steering Group and DJ7 at T2 Senior Advisory Group).
These two governing bodies oversee the resolution of issues and manage
the T2 process for the Department, yet there has been no routine opportunity
for combatant commands to directly engage at this level.
Impact: To transform the total force and meet combatant commanders‟
needs, combatant commands should be actively involved in the process at
the highest levels - not just within the three core capabilities.
Submitted By: USSTRATCOM / OP70, Mr. Pat McVay, (402) 232-7697, DSN
272-7697, mcvaypa@stratcom.mil
Endstate: Formal processes and procedures established that provide
combatant commands the opportunity to provide flag level input to DJS and
DJ7 regarding T2 ESG and SAG agenda items.
8/22/2008 7
Due Outs COMBINE w/04JT-20
J O I NT
BOG3
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT19: Assessments of Headquarters Staffs, Apportioned Forces, and Command Linked
Tasks
Issue: Clarify policy that requires combatant command assessment to include their staff,
apportioned forces, and command linked tasks. DRRS and T2 guidance imply combatant
commands will be responsible for readiness reporting for apportioned forces and supporting
activities. However, greater clarification regarding those responsibilities is needed.
Impact: Without clarification, each command may pursue different and possibly incorrect
approaches to DRRS and T2 implementation.
Endstate: Full compliance with DRRS and T2.
Plan of Action: Request OSD clarify reporting requirements and responsibilities. Report
clarification at WJTC03.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-1
POC(s): OSD P&R (OPR); Joint Staff J7 JTB (OCR)
Status: JAEC initiated under T2
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 8
Due Outs COMBINE w04JT-20
J O I NT
BOG3
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT20: Allocated/Apportioned Forces Training Readiness Reporting Tools
Issue: Between JTIMS and the ESORTS, supported commanders must have adequate
visibility on the training readiness of allocated/apportioned forces to determine the impact on
training readiness for their JMET.
Impact: Current JTS support and readiness reporting tools may not be currently capable of
supporting reporting requirements on allocated/apportioned forces.
Endstate: JTIMS and ESORTS serving as effective training readiness support and reporting
tools.
Plan of Action: JFCOM chair training readiness support workshop, focusing on JTIMS and
ESORTS capabilities needed to support allocated/apportioned forces training readiness
visibility. Requirements will then be forwarded to OSD for resourcing.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-1
POC(s): OSD P&R (OPR); JFCOM (OCR), Joint Staff J7 JTB, LTC Dunn (OCR)
Status: DRRS and JAEC initiatives are addressing this. (T2/DRRS)
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 9
Due Outs COMBINE W 04JT-11
J O I NT
BOG 2
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT03: Joint Professional Military Education for all Joint Headquarters Staff Officers
Issue: Some Officers are assigned to Joint billets without sufficient knowledge in joint matters.
Impact: Negatively impacts COCOM’s ability to conduct operations
Endstate: 100% opportunity for all Officers to complete Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) I
(Resident or Non-resident).
Plan of Action:
Main Effort:
• Continue implementing AJPME course that educates RC/NG officers beyond JPME I.
• Ensure RC/NG instructor billets supporting the AJPME course are filled.
• Conduct study of joint billets to accurately identify which positions should be annotated as “critical billets” and therefore should
complete JPME II level schooling (AC officers) and AJPME (RC/NG officers).
• Sponsor legislative initiative to reduce duration of JFSC Course (JPME II) from 12 to 10 weeks.
• Establish the Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS) for select joint planners.
• Sponsor legislative initiative to allow Senior Service Schools to award JPME II credit vice JPME I credit.
• Leverage pertinent JKDDC programmed courses that meet COCOM individual training requirements for assigned officers.
Supplemental Effort:
• Adjust personnel assignment policies so officers attend JPME I or II, as appropriate, prior to assignment to a joint billet.
Submitted By: Joint Staff J7, LTC Smith
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 and J1 (OPR); Joint Forces Staff College (OCR)
Status: J-7 Congressional Initiatives, JKDDC, and AJPME Program. UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 10
SOUTHCOM COMBINE w/04JT-11 BOG 2 J O I NT
CH
IE FF
F S OF S TA
04SOUTHCOM02 – Lack of Staff Officers assigned with JPME I&II
Discussion:
– Lack of assigned staff officers with JPME I&II and lack of interagency
personnel educated in DOD operations impedes integration
– Alternative programs are required to educate senior officers, staff
officers and interagency personnel.
– Distance learning methods need to be developed and provided COCOMs
for educating military and interagency personnel.
Impact: Military and interagency personnel assigned to SOUTHCOM are
not prepared for joint, IA planning and operations.
Submitted by: SCJ34, Joint Interagency Training Specialist, Mr. Gary
DeKay, 305-437-3059, NIPRNET: dekayg@hq.southcom.mil
Endstate: All military staff officers receive JPME prior to assignment to
SOUTHCOM. A Goldwater-Nichols type program is established for the IA
to provide trained IA personnel as JIACG members or liaisons.
8/22/2008 11
WJTC-04 Issue COMBINE w/04JT-11 BOG2
•04SOCOM01: Staff Training
•
•Issue: USSOCOM loses a significant portion of staff officer productivity due to the
“spin up” time upon arrival, the timing of attendance to the Joint Forces Staff College
(JFSC), and the “spin down” time prior to departure.
•Discussion: A significant portion of staff officers do not have the required
skills/knowledge upon arrival. By the time we are able to send them to JFSC, the
“pay back” on the investment is minimal.
•Impact: The significant portion of the action officers are not productive for a large
portion of their tour of duty. With the relatively small staff compared to the nature of
the command‟s responsibilities, every day we can gain productive use will increase
our ability to fulfill our command missions.
•Submitted By: USSOCOM/SOKF-J7-T. POC Lt Col Chris Reams, (813) 828-
8050/DSN: 299-8050, reamsc@socom.mil
•Endstate: Adequate funding to provide an effective internal training program to
reduce the “spin up” of new action officers and develop a program where the
knowledge gained at JFSC is available early in the action officers tour.
1 Sep 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 12
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
02JT02: JTIMS Funding
Issue: JTIMS must be fully funded to reach its potential as a JTS support tool.
Impact: Current funding approaches have not permitted full JTIMS development and
implementation.
Endstate: Full implementation of JTIMS for combatant command and CSA JTS activities.
Plan of Action: Establish JTIMS funding requirement, OSD support resourcing.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-3/1
POC(s): OSD (OPR); Joint Staff J7 JTB, LTC Dunn/MAJ Sullins (OCR), JFCOM (OCR)
Status: Funding resource provided by T2 Implementation Plan. (T2/JTIMS)
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 13
J O I NT
Due Outs and Deliverables
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
OPR: JS, J7
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 14
CENTCOM Issue COMBINE w/04JT-01 BOG1 J O I NT
CH
IE FF
F S OF S TA
04CENTCOM03: Need more JWFC training support & CJCS training funding
to COCOMs for operations/exercises.
Discussion: JWFC provides operational train-up & exercise support to
COCOMs. Historically, this support has been provided to two major
COCOM events per FY. COCOMs typically execute 4-5 events per year that
require JWFC support, but have to compete with other COCOMs and
JFCOM Components for support. COCOMs are not resourced to provide
internal assets for operational train-up & exercise support & are forced to
do so “out of hide” to ensure events are executed successfully.
Impact: COCOM operational train-up events & major exercises are not as
efficient or effective & would benefit from JWFC support for each event.
Resources taken “out of hide” to execute events is a training distractor.
Submitted By: Mr. Royce Smith, GS-13, CCJ3-E, DSN 651-3428,
smithrl@centcom.mil.
Endstate: JWFC provides COCOMs up to five supported events per year
with operational train-up events taking priority. CJCS provides COCOMs
training funding for additional staff training required above what JWFC can
support.
15
J O I NT
Due Outs COMBINE w/04JT-01 BOG1
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT14: Centralized and Decentralized Joint Training Support and Resources
Issue: While combatant commands have asked for additional support, they have not yet fully identified what resources
are required to fully execute the JTS and support DRRS/T2. Commands should identify additional support requirements
to be resident at their headquarters and components to support the JTS, to include identification of Joint Training System
Specialist (JTSS) support needs. In addition, combatant commands should identify what centralized support (JFCOM)
requirements are needed, to include the option of JFCOM providing permanent “on-site” support at COCOM locations.
[Included for reference only: While acknowledging some benefits of centralized training support, some aspects of T2 may
require more decentralized approaches. The level of support offered by JWFC may not be substantial and persistent
enough to fully support T2. The JTSS program has proven to be a highly effective approach to enhancing JTS
implementation at the combatant commands, recommend fully program implementation. Some combatant commands
noted importance of on-site training support versus current episodic approaches. One mitigating approach might be
assignment of JWFC personnel to commands to fulfill some training support roles.]
Impact: Combatant commands are enabled by the right mix of on-site organic (decentralized) and JFCOM-sources
(centralized) support required to execute the JTS, DRRS, and T2.
Endstate: Fully implemented and sustainable DRRS, T2 and JTS. Once resources are identified, specific requests may
be forward to OSD for funding. Complementary and efficient support between organic (at combatant commands) and
centralized (JWFC), resulting in an effective JTS.
Plan of Action: Commands determine requirements, forward to JS J7 for compilation and JS/OSD action.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-1/2/3
POC(s): OSD P&R (OPR); Joint Staff J7 JTB (OCR); combatant commands (OCR)
Status: Commands have submitted resource requirements to the JS. TC AoA validated the commands requirements.
JS have requested resources in the FY06 POM to support COCOM requirements. JFCOM needs to continue to support
COCOM, CSA and Service Component training requirements.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 16
USSTRATCOM Issue COMBINE w/04JT-01 BOG1
J O I NT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04STRATCOM02: Establish combatant command controlled training funds,
separate from the CJCS Exercise Program, to address unique joint force
headquarters training requirements.
Discussion: Combatant Commands have staff (individual and collective)
training requirements that address command-specific needs and priorities.
Impact: Individual and collective staff training requirements that are not
met are readily visible during command exercises. This detracts from the
command exercise training value and leads to a less capable force.
Submitted By: USSTRATCOM / OP70, Mr. Pat McVay, (402) 232-7697, DSN
272-7697, mcvaypa@stratcom.mil
Endstate: Programmed training funds, separate from CJCS Exercise
Program, that allow each Combatant Command to exercise discretion on
focus and weight of training effort.
8/22/2008 17
WJTC 04 COMBINE w/04JT-01
BOG1 J O I NT
CH
IE FF
F S OF S TA
04SOUTHCOM03: Funding for SJFHQs
Discussion: COCOMs were directed to stand up and implement the SJFHQ
without the necessary resources to properly train, equip, or employ this
new organization. Requirement to be identified in FY 07-11 POM.
Impact: CDR USSOUTHCOM‟s ability to fully employ the SJFHQs
capabilities is encumbered due to the lack of necessary resources
(Personnel, Equipping, & STRATLIFT).
SubmittedBy: SCJ34, Ms. Karen Castleton, 305-437-3588,
castlek@hq.southcom.mil.
Endstate: COCOMs resourced with necessary personnel and funding to
provide for SJFHQs equipping, training, and STRATLIFT requirements.
8/22/2008 18
WJTC 04 COMBINE w/04JT-01
J O I NT BOG1
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04JT-10 (BOGrp 2): Inadequate resources at COCOMs to implement
individual command-specific training
Discussion:
1. COCOMs must implement theater-specific, functional-specific, and
continuing education and training for assigned joint staff officers
2. The education and training programs require qualified instructor
personnel, facilities, courseware, IT, and supporting tools.
3. Currently, COCOMs are not resourced to accomplish additional
individual joint education and training requirement.
19
J O I NT
Due Outs COMBINE w/02JT03
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT21: Refine the UJTL
Issue: A high quality UJTL is fundamental to credible JMETL. Geographic commands are
concerned that the current UJTL and its revision process falls short of its original intent of
simplicity, universality, doctrinal purity, and applicability.
Impact: A growing, diluted UJTL frustrates command JMETL build task selection
Endstate: A simple, universal, doctrinally pure, and applicable UJTL
Plan of Action: JS and JFCOM co-host a UJTL workshop as part of the UJTL 5.0 process
attended by appropriate subject matter experts. Include this requirement in UJTL 5.0
requirements document.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-2
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 JTB, LTC Dunn (OPR); JFCOM (OCR); Combatant Commands and
CSAs (OCR)
Status: UJTL is being automated. UJTL 4.3 out in FY 05. J-7 is conducting a UJTL after next
content/taxonomy study. UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 20
J O I NT
Due Outs COMBINE w/03JT21
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04T??: Require new UJTL tasks be placed in UJTL 4.3 by APR 05
Issue: There are 200+ new tasks that need to be vetted, coordinated and placed in a
new UJLT version
Impact: The Joint Community cannot develop METL with old UJTL list
Endstate: New automated UJTL that is constantly being updated with current joint tasks.
Plan of Action: JS and JFCOM vet and approve new UJTs and publish UJTL 4.3 by
APR 05 .
Submitted By: COCOMS/CSAs
POC(s): Joint Staff JTB, LTC Brian Dunn (OPR); JFCOM (OCR)
Status:
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 21
CENTCOM Issue - COMBINE w/04JT-17
BOG3 J O I NT
CH
IE FF
F S OF S TA
04CENTCOM05: More lessons learned requirements exist than resources
are available to execute.
Discussion: COCOMs need to be resourced to meet CJCS and COCOM
Commander requirements for enhanced COCOM Joint Lessons Learned
Programs (JLLPs). Requirements include passive collection and limited
active collection, analysis, findings, remedial actions, & database
management for operations & exercises for US military, interagency, &
coalition forces & staffs.
Impact: COCOMs are not able to create or maintain the type of JLLPs
required by CJCS & COCOM Commanders.
Submitted By: Mr. Larry Underwood, CCJ3-E, DSN 651-3384,
underwml@centcom.mil.
Endstate: JFCOM/CJCS provides resources to COCOMs to execute
enhanced JLLPs.
22
DCMA Issue COMBINE w/ 04 DTRA01 J O I NT
CH
IE FF
F S OF S TA
04DCMA01: Lack of policy and doctrine addressing CSA support
roles/functions in supporting COCOM mission training requirements.
Discussion: Existing policy/guidance addresses small slice of the CSA
mission (combat support) and ignores the majority of the CSA's mission
(i.e. contractor support on the battlefield, contractor requirements during
contingencies, indirect support). If CSAs are expected to provide
capabilities to the COCOMs appropriate doctrine should be in place to
justify the support requirements.
Impact: How to capture indirect support (i.e. in-plant reach back);
leadership uncertain of CSA expectations; slows JTS development
Submitted By: John Parker, DCMA Combat Support Center, DSN 325-1836,
john.h.parker@dcma.mil
Endstate: Considerable learning curve with evolving expectations;
addressing internal education but guidance needed from JS & OSD
8/22/2008 23
J O I NT
Due Outs COMBINE w/ 04DTRA01
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT12: Combatant Commands and Combat Support Agency Capabilities
Issue: JTF HQs and Components knowledge and training in the application of CSA capabilities require initial and
continual training due to turnover. Combatant command staffs, notably JTF staffs and components, lack sufficient
knowledge of CSA capabilities. Combatant command requirements may not always be effectively linked and
communicated to CSAs. CSAs are not always involved in command deliberate planning and CSA AMETLs need to link
directly to command JMETLs.
Impact: Lack of staff knowledge may negatively impact combat and training planning/execution activities. Linkages
between combatant command JMETL and CSA METL may be weak or non-existent, possibly negatively impacting plan
efficacy and ability of CSAs to provide required support.
Endstate: Staffs possess current and suitable knowledge of CSA capabilities. Fully integrate combatant command
(JMETL) and CSA (AMETL) planning and training support linkages.
Plan of Action: Increase CSA LNO focus and engagement with respect to combatant command staff education.
Possibly provide courseware and education support. Each CSA report on specific actions taken and progress made at
WJTC03.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-4
POC(s): CSAs (CSA Liaison Officers (LNO)) (OPR); Joint Staff J7 JTB (OCR)
Status: JS J-8 is addressing through CSART/AMETL initiative. The CSAs, working with COCOMS are
addressing command linked tasks. The commands and agencies are continuing to enhance lines of
communication. The “Next Generation UJTL” initiative will address CSAs essential tasks.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 24
USSTRATCOM Issue
J O I NT (COMBINE W/04JT-21 BOG3) J O I NT
CH
CH
F F IE FF
IE
F S OF S TA F S OF S TA
04STRATCOM03: Improve training and exercise coordination between
USSTRATCOM and JFCOM / JWFC.
Discussion: USJFCOM visit in Aug 04 identified emerging areas of
support across multiple mission sets. Follow-up is needed to ensure
these efforts are effectively coordinated.
Impact: USJFCOM / JWFC expertise and support will help
USSTRATCOM improve its ability to integrate Strategic National Tasks
and Global Mission Tasks into Joint Force Headquarters exercises.
Submitted By: USSTRATCOM / OP70, Mr. Pat McVay, (402) 232-7697,
DSN 272-7697, mcvaypa@stratcom.mil
Endstate: Formalize and establish relationships with JFCOM / JWFC on
issues relating to USSTRATCOM missions and training / exercise
requirements.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 25
J O I NT
Due Outs and Deliverables
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
OPR: JS, J8
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 26
DCMA Issue COMBINE W/04DCMA03
J O I NT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
04DCMA02: Joint Staff/J-8 feedback from the J-8 sponsored AMETL
Workshops
Discussion: Feedback from J-8 led JMETL-AMETL workshops and how
that impacts future mission planning. Purpose of the workshops is to
identify command-linked tasks, but will results be used to correct CSA
resource imbalances? Disconnect: JS combat requirements, OSD
resourcing.
Impact: Task linkage seen as „new‟ requirements stretching already thin
resource, i.e. limited active military for deployable CCAS missions; how to
account for wartime requirements in peacetime focused resource process
Submitted By: John Parker, DCMA Combat Support Center, DSN 325-1836,
john.h.parker@dcma.mil
Endstate: Contingency Contract Administrative Services (CCAS) is
agency‟s deployable combat function; agency resourcing aligned with OSD
8/22/2008 27
J O I NT
Due Outs COMBINE w/ 04DCMA03
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT13: Matrix Linking Combat Support Agency AMETL and JMETLs
Issue: Currently, no formal process linking AMETs to combatant command JMETLs is in
place. To ensure AMETLs support combatant command requirements, CSAs will publish
matrix linking appropriate AMETs to JMETLs.
Impact: CSA METL may be developed in isolation from or may not properly support
combatant command requirements.
Endstate: Combatant command JMETs are fully supported by appropriate CSA METs.
Plan of Action: DTRA, with assistance from other CSAs, will develop a model matrix for
Joint Staff review NLT Mar 03.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-4
POC(s): DTRA (OPR); CSAs (OCR); Joint Staff J7 JTB LTC Dunn (OCR)
Status: JS J-8 has conducted AMETL workshops with the CSAs and scheduled visits
with the COCOMs to review CSA command linked tasks. Additionally, the JS/J-7 in
concert with OSD, and the Joint Community is revising UJTL to help streamline the
process. UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 28
J O I NT
Due Outs and Deliverables
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
OPR: JFCOM
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 29
Due Outs COMBINE w/ 04JT-16
J O I NT
BOG3
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT15: Joint Training System Support Team for Combat Support Agencies requirements
Issue: CSAs have requested Joint Training System Support Team (JTSST) visits to
support JTS and T2 activities. Like combatant commands, CSAs require initial
training/implementation support provided by JTSST. In addition, CSAs would benefit from
JTSST standardization activities.
Impact: Without JTSST support, CSAs will not possess required skills and knowledge to
implement and support T2 and the JTS.
Endstate: CSAs possess trained personnel and supporting policies/programs/tools to
execute JTS.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-4
Plan of Action: JWFC allocate training support to CSAs.
POC(s): JFCOM (OPR); CSAs (OCR)
Status: JFCOM offers a sidebar on this
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 30
J O I NT
Due Outs and Deliverables
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
OPR: COCOMs
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 31
Due Outs COMBINE w/04JT-18
J O I NT
BOG 3
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT17: JTSS support for Combatant Command Service components
Issue: JTSS resources at Service component level are needed to fully implement DRRS, T2,
and the JTS.
Impact: Service component linkage to DRRS, T2, and JTS activities is inconsistent at best; the
increased linkages required by DRRS and T2 will require higher fidelity interaction and
alignment.
Endstate: Assignment of required JTSS support at Service components.
Plan of Action: Services determine JTSS requirements. Services brief status of funding
initiative at WJTC03.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-2
POC(s): COCOMs (OPR); Services (OCR); Joint Staff J7 JTB LTC Brian Dunn (OCR)
Status: JTSS Support for Combatant Command Service components is a COCOM
responsibility in support of their Service Components.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 32
J O I NT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
Joint Training
Document Revision
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 33
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT05: SIPRNET Access, a Requirement for JTIMS Use
Issue: All JTS participants need access to JTIMS on the SIPRNET. JTIMS access on
SIPRNET is inaccessible to many CSA users, constraining JTIMS’ overall utility for these
organizations. Concurrently, the combatant commanders are using JTIMS more than
ever, thus CSAs often cannot develop and share supporting tasks with the combatant
commands via an interoperable system.
Impact: Limited CSA implementation of the JTS/JTIMS.
Endstate: CJCS JTP will specify access to JTIMS on SIPRNET for combatant
commands, CSAs, service components, education institutions.
Plan of Action: CJCS Joint Training Policy will specify access to JTIMS on SIPRNET for
combatant commands, CSAs, service components, and education institutions. Revise
Joint Training Policy published NLT July 2003.
Submitted By: DTRA
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 JTB, LTC Brian Dunn (OPR)
Status: The draft JTP&G provides language to support the SIPRNET requirement.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 34
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT06: More clearly depict relationship of Joint Training System Phases in JTS Documents
Issue: Joint Training System supporting documentation insufficiently explains the linkage
between JTS Assessments (Phase IV), Requirements (Phase I), and Planning (Phase II).
Current JTS depictions do not fully explain/accurately represent intent of assessment’s role in
JTS.
Impact: Lack of clarity may cause confusion, reduced use, and inaccurate assessment among
joint users.
Endstate: Clearly understood JTS, especially with respect to assessment process and linkage to
other JTS processes.
Plan of Action: Modify Joint Training Policy and Manual as required.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-1
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 JTB LTC Brian Dunn (OPR)
Status: The JTP&G has been rewritten to include CJCS guidance once addressed in the
Master Plan. The instruction addresses linkage between Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, and
Phase IV. The JTM will provide detailed guidance about the linkage between the various
Phases. UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 35
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT07: Assessments as First Element of Joint Training Plans
Issue: Emphasize training assessment activities as first element of the Joint Training Plan. Current
JTP, and to a lesser extent other JTS documentation, relegates assessment activity to tertiary role, and
may imply assessment results and subsequent inputs are not an important training plan development
activity.
Impact: Emphasizing assessment activities within JTP and JTS documentation may enhance their
efficacy.
Endstate: Assessment inputs are recognized as crucial JTP/JTS input.
Plan of Action: Adjust Joint Training Plans, Joint Training Manual and Policy (as required) to make
commander’s training assessment part of commander’s guidance (Joint Training Plan Tab A). Include
this guidance in Joint Training Policy.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-3
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 JTB LTC Brian Dunn (OPR for Joint Training Policy and Guidance, Joint Training
Manual); COCOMs/CSAs (OPR for Joint Training Plans)
Status: The Joint Training Policy has been rewritten to include CJCS guidance once addressed in the
Master Plan. The instruction addresses linkage between Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, and Phase IV.
The JTM will provide detailed guidance about the linkage between the various Phases.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 36
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT08: Combat Support Agency Specific Sections for Joint Training Documents
Issue: JTS documentation does not address specific characteristics, issues, and concerns of CSAs. CSAs
possess unique characteristics which are not fully reflected within current JTS documentation and supported by
combatant command training plans/activities. Joint Training Policy and Manual should have CSA enclosures to
address common aspects and unique nature of how they implement the JTS. In addition, documents should
emphasize need for creation of CSA-specific training objectives within the JTS and encourage their participation
early in the Joint Exercise Life Cycle.
Impact: Current JTS guidance is not suitable for CSA adoption, or would require significant organization,
resourcing, mission adjustments. CSA training and AMETLs are typically not considered during combatant
command Joint Training Plan development, possibly negatively impacting plan efficacy and ability of CSA to
provide suitable support.
Endstate: JTS fully executable/supportable within all CSAs, sufficient CSA training provided to reflect support
tasks at combatant commands.
Plan of Action: Develop JTS document CSA enclosures and robust CSA training requirements guidance.
Encourage inclusion of CSA-specific training within combatant command Joint Training Programs. The next edition
of each of Joint Training Policy, Joint Training Master Plan, and Joint Training Policy will include a CSA enclosure
with an appendix for each CSA addressing their specific issues.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-4
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 JTB LTC Brian Dunn (OPR); CSAs (CSA Liaison Officers (LNO)) (OCR)
Status: CSA requirements have been enhanced throughout the draft JTP&G. Detailed instruction will be provided
in next version of the JTM. UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 37
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT09: Clarify Readiness Assessments Verses Training Assessments in Joint Training Documents
Issue: Clarify difference between readiness assessment and training assessment in joint training
policy/manual to include clarifying purpose and benefactor(s) of JTS assessment. Current JTS documentation
is at times contradictory and does not fully clarify differences between training and readiness assessment.
Current JTS documentation may not fully explain intent and focus of assessment efforts.
Impact: Lack of clarity regarding JTS policy, master plan, and manual intent may make JTS (especially
assessment) implementation more difficult. Current efforts to develop and implement training assessment
activities are hampered by incomplete understanding of how and why such assessments are conducted.
Especially important is the need to clarify who the final assessment product customer/users will be.
Endstate: Standardized, consistent, complete readiness and training assessment descriptions. Consistent
language regarding same in supporting JTS documents. The next edition of Joint Training Policy and
Guidance, and Joint Training Manual.
Plan of Action: Review/revise appropriate documents. Clarify training verses readiness assessments in the
next editions of Joint Training Policy and Guidance and Joint Training Manual.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-3/1
POC(s): Joint Staff J7 JTB LTC Brian Dunn (OPR)
Status: Joint Staff and OSD have been working together to ensure CJCS instructions and manuals reflect
up-to-date information. DRRS is still in development. The JTP&G addresses training assessment, it’s linkage
to DRRS through JTIMS.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 38
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT10: Ensuring Directive Language in Joint Training Documents
Issue: Current JTP policy implies voluntary or optional participation for JTS activities, which may make
resourcing and implementation activities more challenging.
JTP is currently non-directive or advisory in nature, language should be adjusted to be directive,
requiring compliance by the joint community and for joint related activities.
Impact: Some organizations selectively apply JTP statements, believing policy is simply advisory in
nature.
Endstate: Consistent and directive JTP language, leading to consistent policy implementation.
Plan of Action: Adjust Joint Training System documentation by replacing terms such as “may” with
“shall,” where appropriate in the next editions of Joint Training Policy and Manual.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-1
POC(s): Joint Staff, J7, JTB LTC Brian Dunn (OPR)
Status: Draft JTP&G has been written to be authoritative in nature.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 39
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT11: Multinational Coordination and Planning in the Joint Training System
Issue: Multinational participation in combatant command Joint Training Events is not
adequately addressed in Joint Training Documents, is not uniformly coordinated, and
tends to be “ad hoc.“
Plan of Action: Revise Joint Training Policy in the next edition of Joint Training Policy
and Guidance, and Joint Training Manual to emphasis and facilitate multinational
participation in joint training -- particularly in the planning and coordination process
Submitted By: Canadian LNO to NORAD
End State: Joint training that more fully includes multinational participation
POC(s): JS J7 JTB, LTC Dunn (OPR)
Status: The Joint Training Policy and Guidance has been updated to support multination
participation in COCOM Joint Training events. It is the responsibility of the COCOMs to
engage their multinational, interagency, CSA partners, and include them in their Joint
Training Program.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 40
J O I NT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
Resources
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 41
J O I NT
Due Outs CLOSE OUT
CH F
IE F
F S OF S TA
03JT04: Training Assessment Workshop
Issue: Given the relatively basic level of training assessment programs/staff expertise, a workshop
focused on training assessment activities may enhance staff capabilities. Hence, a training
assessment workshop for the combatant commands should be developed and executed.
Impact: Combatant commands, often lacking the wherewithal to develop assessment programs,
either do not do so, or do not develop effective programs.
Endstate: Staff ability to develop and execute training assessments.
Plan of Action: Develop, with Joint Staff participation, assessment workshop curriculum and
products; then, after Joint Staff approval, deliver to commands and CSAs.
Submitted By: WJTC02 Breakout Team-3
POC(s): JFCOM (OPR); Joint Staff J7 JTB (OCR)
Status: JFCOM conducted an assessment workshop in FY03 to educate members on JTS process
and to solicit change recommendations. Changes to JTIMS are in work to embed JRAT functions to
assist capturing data in Phase I, Phase III (Exercise), and Phase IV. The revised JTM will reflect
detailed instruction on how to input data into JTIMS to support training assessment requirements.
UN
20 August 2004 UNCLASSIFIED 42