Devil Dogs

By Walter Pincus, Washington Post.

In 1996, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command determined that its expeditionary forces needed an agile and mobile weapon to fire over the enemy’s front lines, a concept quickly dubbed Dragon Fire.

More than 11 years later, full production of the system that officials chose still has not been approved and the decision has been delayed yet again, until spring. In the intervening years, its cost has risen modestly but could increase much more.

The tale of the project, officially named the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS), provides a short course on how new and costly weapons systems evolve. Its journey through the bureaucracy is described in a Dec. 21, 2007, Government Accountability Office report prepared for Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

In 1999, the Marines conceived of the EFSS as one vehicle towing a 120mm mortar and another towing an ammunition trailer. Both would be transportable aboard the CH53E helicopter, as well as the V-22 Osprey vertical lift aircraft, which itself was being developed.

The idea was that with its four- to 12-mile range, the 120mm mortar would give a mobile Marine expeditionary force the ability to fly deep into enemy territory and carry on fighting without long-range artillery support.

After years of study and design competitions, the Marine Corps Systems Command authorized a plan in 2003 to acquire test models of the EFSS. The Pentagon sought contactors who could provide a single vehicle capable of towing the mortar or its ammunition carrier and fitting inside the CH53E or the Osprey.

In 2004, the Marines approved initial cost and schedule estimates — roughly $670 million for the system and a 2006 operational capability — and a $12 million initial contract for test models was signed with the competition winner, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems.

Delays and cost increases began shortly thereafter, according to the GAO. Delays occurred because “the Marine Corps was optimistic in its belief that using commercial off-the-shelf systems with some modifications could provide a solution to meet the need for an internally transportable system.”

Marine Corps officials had asked for a quick production schedule because they wanted the EFSS ready for deployment with the first Marine Expeditionary Unit that got the Osprey. But the Osprey itself ran behind schedule.

Design changes required to fit the vehicle inside the Osprey at the correct weight took place at the same time the first models were being delivered to the Marines. The additional developmental work required the Marines to take more risk and change from a fixed-price contract to one that promised reimbursement of the contractor’s costs, the GAO said.

In addition, what the GAO called “noncritical” changes in requirements were made. They included reducing the trailers’ basic ammunition load from the original 50 to 100 rounds to 34 rounds. The Marines told the GAO that the initial load was “a concept,” not a “requirement.” Another costly change was raising the vehicle’s on-road speed to 35 miles per hour.

In 2007, the EFSS received flight certification for both aircraft, and by July operational testing was completed. Although the system met its key performance parameters and 13 of 14 critical requirements, it also “experienced several safety, performance and reliability problems during testing,” the GAO reported.

The GAO noted that after the contract was awarded, the Marines reduced the required sustained rate of fire “from four rounds per minute to two rounds per minute.” The Marine program office said that change was due “to a typographical error found in the requirements documentation,” according to the GAO. But during testing, “it did not meet the critical requirement related to maximum rate of fire,” the GAO added.

The GAO also noted that EFSS vehicles carried all required equipment, “but not securely.” Three incidents occurred during testing that involved potential risk of injury to a crew member riding in the rear seat of the ammunition trailer, the GAO said. The vehicle’s cooling system did not work well and no extreme cold weather testing was conducted.

As a result of the deficiencies, the director of the Marine Corps Operational Test and Examination Activity termed the EFSS “a ‘niche’ capability.” He recommended that the deficiencies be addressed and more testing be done before deploying the system.

The initial cost of the EFSS has so far increased just $15.5 million, to $691.2 million in 2007. But as the GAO noted, the final costs are not in. Under the current contract, the government is at risk because there is little incentive for the “contractor to control costs until the terms of the work are finalized,” according to the GAO.

The cost of 20 years of ammunition is projected at more than $501.7 million, making the EFSS a program costing more than $1 billion.

The need for further testing will delay initial operational deployment to spring, according to the GAO. If all goes well, the EFSS will still be deployed with the first Marine Expeditionary Unit to have the Osprey, because initial deployment of the aircraft “is currently projected to take place in the fall of 2008,” according to the GAO.

National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines — but should.

By Dane Schiller, Houston Chronicle

Five former Marine recruiters punished for fraudulently enlisting recruits from the Houston area said they were part of a web operating with tacit approval of some superiors.

The men confirmed they helped would-be recruits sneak past an exhaustive test by using a tactic established before they’d joined the Corps, served in Iraq or hit the streets as recruiters.

“I love the Marine Corps; I don’t want to be spitting on the Marine Corps,” said a former sergeant, who said he left the service after seven years to avoid facing military justice and the possibility of a bad-conduct discharge.

Eight others were removed from recruiting duty, according to Marine Corps officials, and were handed punishments including fines.

“The people in charge of me while on recruiting duty didn’t stand up for me,” he continued.

The scandal comes as the Marine Corps and other military services are under increasing pressure to find recruits as wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines are aiming to bulk up from about 184,000 troops to 202,000 by September.

The former sergeant acknowledged his own actions were improper but insisted higher-ranking Marines share the blame.

The Marine Corps said late Tuesday that a Marine with supervisory responsibilities over some of the disciplined recruiters was recently removed from recruiting duties, but it remains to be seen whether he will face any charges.

A staff sergeant “has been relieved of his recruiting duties and has been assigned administrative duties,” said Capt. Beatriz Yarrish, a spokeswoman for the 8th Marines Corps District, which is based in Fort Worth and includes all of Texas and other areas.

“The investigation with regard to (the sergeant) has been completed, and the commanding officer is currently deciding what course of action he will pursue.”

Yarrish wouldn’t share details of the case.

Not implicated at first

All were apparently snared in an investigation that began in the spring and was made public in November after the Houston Chronicle learned nine Marine recruiters were snared for using stand-in substitutes to take a military entrance exam for potential recruits who might not otherwise qualify for service.

During the initial inquiry none of the nine disciplined recruiters implicated their superiors in the scam, said Capt. Carlos Sotomayor, who investigated the recruiters last April through June.

Any violation of the rules was unacceptable, Sotomayor said, and the recruiters had the chance to tell what they knew.

“We teach them the right way,” he said. “If they choose to do it the wrong way, the Marine Corps will hold them accountable.”

The Marine Corps punished four recruiters nationwide in 2006 for testing irregularities, said Maj. Wesley Hayes of the Marine Corps Recruiting Command in Virginia.

“It is extremely rare that these incidents happen,” said Hayes.

The Marines are not alone in such problems.

In an entrance-exam scandal involving the Army National Guard in Arizona, test examiner Christine Thomas was sentenced to probation in July 2007 for a scam in which she conspired with recruiters to falsify results for about 70 applicants, according to court documents.

The Department of Defense is developing a system relying on electronic fingerprint readers as part of an effort to prevent potential recruits from using test takers to stand in for them.

The original investigation that snared the nine Houston-area recruiters was launched when someone noticed a signature on a test form didn’t match with a signature on other recruiting documents, Sotomayor said.

Marine officials would not disclose the time period during which the stand-in test takers were used.

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, known as the ASVAB, is a lengthy test used to place recruits in military jobs to which they are best suited.

Results could determine whether a person meets a minimum threshold to enter the service, as well as whether that person marches and fires a weapon, sits at a desk or takes up other duties.

Unsure how widespread

The Marine Corps declined to release the names of the recruiters or discuss specific details of the scheme, which resulted in eight recruiters being disciplined, a ninth leaving the service, and an unclear number of people entering the military based on test scores that weren’t their own.

Although officials said they are unsure how widespread the practice was or where the recruiters learned of the technique, the fraud was traced to at least 15 incidents that went through the Military Entrance Processing Station in downtown Houston.

Of the nine recruiters, four worked at the Memorial City substation; two in Baybrook; two in Houston; and one in Lake Jackson, according to the Marines.

“We have pursued all individuals involved in the incident,” said Sgt. Robert Jones, a public affairs spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Station headquarters in Houston, which includes the men’s superiors.

Yarrish said Marines who served as enlisted supervisors at the recruiting substations and their supervisory office when stand-in test takers were used have been advised not to talk to the news media at this time. A Chronicle request to interview them was denied.

‘Wink, wink, nod, nod’

Five former recruiters contacted by the Chronicle confirmed stand-in test takers were used with the approval of higher-ups. Two who spoke at length asked their names not be published to avoid possible retribution.

Interviewed separately, they said they wanted to make it clear they didn’t act alone or without approval.

The man who left the Marine Corps said he was a recruiter for more than two years and put about 65 people in the service but used test takers six times.

“It was one of those, ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’ — they knew,” he said. “It was not an isolated thing — it is something that was going on for years and they all knew about it.”

He said loyalty stopped him from reporting other Marines. The Marine Corps has declined to release any portion of its investigative report.

The other person who spoke with the Chronicle at length said he was fined and removed from recruiting duties but stayed in the service.

He recalled an incident in which a higher-ranking enlisted Marine said a “tester” was needed to get a recruit into the Corps.

When looking for a tester, sometimes they would find someone who had already been recruited and previously passed the test, or a friend or family member of a potential recruit, he said.

“I wouldn’t say it was ordered, but it was like, ‘Hey, this is the way things are done,’” the former recruiter said.

“If you are out there recruiting a lot, you are going to come across kids that this is the only push they need, and it is easy to do something,” said the Marine, noting that anyone who enters the Corps still has to complete boot camp and an advanced training school.

By Campbell Robertson, New York Times

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — Adam Driver, former Marine lance corporal, First Battalion, First Marine Regiment, Weapons Company, 81st Platoon, remembers two shows he saw while stationed here on this sprawling base north of San Diego. There was a skateboarder who performed tricks. And a performance by the San Diego Chargers cheerleaders.

As entertainment for grown men, it was — well, here’s how Mr. Driver put it: “I mean, how dumb do they think we are?”

Which is why Mr. Driver, current third-year drama student at the Juilliard School, was here this week with a jazz trio and five actors for an evening of music and monologues by contemporary playwrights like Lanford Wilson, John Patrick Shanley and Jane Martin. He is hoping to prove to reluctant officials that serious theater — viewed by some in the military, Mr. Driver said, as “sissies running around stage in tights” — would not only work at Camp Pendleton but also be excellent for troops in war zones, where the entertainment options are much scarcer.

Which is why this 24-year-old student in one of the most intensive acting programs in the country has struggled, largely on his own, to pull together successful Juilliard alums like Laura Linney, Tracie Thoms and David Denman to put on something completely out of the ordinary at Camp Pendleton.

On a bare stage under the Marine Corps insignia, the five actors, some of whom had never been on a base before (Ms. Linney said she had been expecting something more like “F Troop”), were sitting in folding chairs before an audience of around 100, composed of reluctant men on dates; older couples; a handful of brawny men with shaved heads, some of whom had been actors or musicians in high school; and others who were not quite sure what this Juilliard was. They were scattered around the front rows of the otherwise yawningly empty auditorium built to accommodate 1,500. (The event’s competition happened to be the college football championship game on televsion.)

This was, as several audience members said beforehand, an opportunity for some culture. After a little jazz, the show began with Mr. Driver putting a baseball cap on his head backward and delivering a hilarious, profanity-laced lament by a would-be rapper from a play by Danny Hoch. The Juilliard staff member who was accompanying the show laughed conspicuously, as if to give permission.

“This is the first time I’ve seen something like this” on the base, said Sgt. David Ells, who arrived at the theater in a camouflage uniform.

Mr. Driver, tall, sinewy and seriously driven, was visibly nervous before the audience began trickling into the Marine Corps Base Training Center, as the theater is called, a space reserved for training exercises and movies but not, at least recently, straight plays for adults.

But it was here at Camp Pendleton a few years earlier, when a potentially fatal miscommunication at the mortar range inspired a moment of self-reflection, that Mr. Driver decided he was going to become an actor.

He had applied to Juilliard before he enlisted but not out of any serious ambition. He was desperate to get out of his hometown, Mishawaka, Ind., and he had acted in a couple of plays in school. But mainly he liked that Juilliard did not check grades.

When Juilliard rejected his application, he turned to the Marines, training as a mortar man and set on going to Iraq or Afghanistan. “Otherwise,” he said, “it’s all a waste of time.” But while mountain biking one afternoon, he broke his sternum.

Mr. Driver insisted he was fit for deployment, loading up on painkillers and working out strenuously to prove it. But the doctors disagreed, and he was honorably discharged in 2004.

After a year at the University of Indianapolis, Mr. Driver applied to Juilliard again and was accepted. The transition was not easy.

“I’m going from the Marine Corps,” he said, “to being a penguin and getting in touch with my feelings.”

Later his friends in the Marines kidded him for the tights wearing, and made him do his penguin bit over beers. The Juilliard students, said Gabriel Ebert, a classmate and a participant in the Camp Pendleton production, were intimidated at times by Mr. Driver’s intense personality. Mr. Driver said he frequently considered dropping out and joining the fire department.

But in some ways, in their rigor and discipline, the Marine Corps and Juilliard were oddly similar.

Mr. Driver continues to do 1,000 push-ups on most mornings, he still calls practically everyone ‘Sir,’ and he remains set on going overseas.

Originally his plan was to take a production of Sam Shepard’s “True West” to the troops stationed in the Middle East, but on the advice of James Houghton, the director of the drama program at Juilliard, Mr. Driver scaled it down. He came up with a series of monologues that showcased “manly characters” that marines might not associate with theater.

A passage from David Mamet was included and several from Mr. Shanley, a former marine. The monologue by Mr. Hoch was added, as well as a speech by Mr. Wilson. After a round of letter writing, Mr. Driver piqued the interest of actors like Dianne Wiest and Kevin Spacey.

But the USO passed. In an interview Bernie Rone, the director of celebrity entertainment recruiting at the USO, said his main concern was that the project did not involve enough high-profile names for the military to be interested.

“They have to be celebrities, acts that the troops are requesting,” Mr. Rone said, mentioning recent appearances by the country singer Toby Keith and the actor Wilmer Valderrama.

Mr. Driver said he was told the USO simply did not think theater would work, an objection echoed by Mark Phillips, a spokesman for the organization. “Look at the demographics of American service members,” Mr. Phillips said. “You’re talking 18 to 24 years old, predominantly male. If you look at what it is they’re interested in, in terms of entertainment, that’s what we’re focusing on.”

Mr. Rone suggested that Mr. Driver look up Armed Forces Entertainment, a government agency that books acts for the military. But Mr. Driver wanted the USO stamp of approval.

After a year of back and forth Mr. Driver finally decided to bypass the USO, and in October he called Camp Pendleton. Officials there accepted the production, despite voicing some of the same skepticism that USO officials did.

“If someone was a singer from the Met Opera, it might not find an audience here, if you know what I mean,” said Pete Elkin, who is in charge of activities and entertainment on the base. He cited Justin Timberlake and Brooks & Dunn as the kind of acts that would draw big audiences. But, Mr. Elkin said, “base leadership thought it would be an honor.”

Mr. Driver had to edit the pieces for vulgarity reasons; the Mamet speech had to go altogether. But much of the profanity, sexuality and aggression were left in, and the marquee at the theater read: “Juilliard Performance. Adults Only.”

“I was shocked when I read this,” said Ms. Linney, referring to the frank sexuality in her monologues. “That’s maybe coming from my own ignorance about who these people are.” The whole event, which was financed by Juilliard, was in some ways a serious culture shock for the actors, she said.

Mr. Driver, in his opening remarks, raised the objections that he had heard, the idea that “Marines don’t fit the demographic of a theater audience,” and said, “This performance is meant to prove otherwise.” It began.

Laughter came slowly at first. A row of marines squirmed, appearing to debate whether to leave. But they did not. Nobody did. People began laughing loudly. When it was over, after less than an hour, some even complained that it was too short.

Cpl. Richard Moulder, 21, who was dragged to the performance by his wife, said he was baffled at any suggestion that marines would not take to a show like that. “I mean these are the kinds of people marines are,” he said of the characters that were portrayed. “About everybody who is in the Marines is in it because they have a broken home or because they’re out to prove something.”

At an off-base pizza parlor afterward, the cast members were back on familiar territory: industry connections, Manhattan real estate. But Mr. Driver was already thinking ahead. He turned to the drummer in the jazz band. “What would you think,” he said, “about doing this in the Middle East?”