{"id":1727,"date":"2008-05-22T17:34:34","date_gmt":"2008-05-22T21:34:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=1727"},"modified":"2008-05-22T18:27:41","modified_gmt":"2008-05-22T22:27:41","slug":"interview-the-fort-bragg-barracks-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=1727","title":{"rendered":"Interview:  The Fort Bragg Barracks Controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Shortly after the US invasion of Panama in 1990, several staff officers of SOUTHCOM were strongly encouraging General Max Thurmond to engage the media that were clambering for information.  Finally in frustration, Thurmond said \u201cSend out the Public Affairs guy!  He doesn\u2019t know shit and is trained to say even less.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Army has gotten a lot smarter with media relations and we have some extremely well trained and dedicated soldiers who fight the media fight on a daily basis.  It is a very difficult and often thankless job but they are a great resource.<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019m sure you have all read and seen the video of the substandard barracks conditions that some paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne recently returned to at Fort Bragg.  Naturally this situation created an uproar and just as naturally politicians started chiming in.<\/p>\n<p>The video was pretty damning but I wanted to get the real story.  So, I reached out to Major Angela Funaro of the 18th Airborne Corps Public Affairs Office.<\/p>\n<p>In spite preparing for All American Week and a visit by the President, she was gracious enough to give me an interview.<\/p>\n<p>1.  How many soldiers were living in the specific barracks in question?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Approximately 100<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>2.  What unit (s) were the soldiers assigned to?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>C Co., 2-508th Infantry Regt., 82nd Airborne Div.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>3.  Was the chain of command or installation support folks aware of the<br \/>\nproblem before the film hit the internet?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Yes.  Work began in January of 2008, but was uncompleted.  In addition, the unit returned three weeks early from their 15-month deployment from OEF in Afghanistan on 13 April 2008, and the rear detachment had only 72 hours notice of their early arrival.  Outstanding work orders had not been completed and were ongoing as they arrived home, which was when the pictures were taken.<\/p>\n<p>While the conditions were unacceptable under any reasonable standard, at no time was the life, health or safety of any of the Soldiers in jeopardy.  Our Preventative Medicine department inspected the paint (no lead content) and found traces of mold but reported no health hazards were present.  By the time Mr. Frawley posted his video on 24 April, many of the repairs had been completed.  The flooded latrine that was pictured occurred after troops clogged a couple of the toilets with baby wipes, and an emergency work order was called and closed out within two hours of initial report to DPW.  The bottom line is that these barracks have long outlived their usefulness and are no longer acceptable by today&#8217;s standards.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4.  How many of the old barracks are still occupied?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>a.  21 Korean War era &#8220;hammer heads&#8221;<br \/>\nb.   4 late 1960&#8217;s\/early 70&#8217;s &#8220;rolling pins&#8221;<br \/>\nc.   3 late 50&#8217;s &#8220;H-style&#8221;<br \/>\nd.   8 late 80&#8217;s &#8220;ARHOC and 2+2&#8221;<br \/>\ne.   6 early 70&#8217;s &#8220;rolling pins&#8221; renovated to 1+1 standard<br \/>\nf.   2 mid 50&#8217;s renovated to 1+1 standard<br \/>\ng.  62 interim modulars<br \/>\nh.  43 late 80&#8217;s through present 1+1 standard<br \/>\ni.  19 late 70&#8217;s\/early 80&#8217;s &#8220;LBC&amp;W&#8221; style<br \/>\nTOTAL:  168 barracks.  However, only the Korean War era barracks<br \/>\nare slated for complete reconstruction<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>5.  Has anyone been held responsible, administratively or otherwise?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I cannot speak if administrative action was taken by the Division.  As a result of the incident, the garrison command for Fort Bragg under Installation Management Command (IMCOM) is now charged with conducting regularly scheduled maintenance inspections.  Unit leaders are still required to enforce good order and discipline in their assigned barracks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6.  What has been done in the short term to get these soldiers in alternate quarters?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>All but three (out of 21) repairs have been made, and the Soldiers still reside in those barracks.  The Secretary of the Army, a Congressional staff delegation, and soon the President himself have toured those very rooms to find them in satisfactory condition.<\/p>\n<p>Within 24 hours of Mr. Frawley&#8217;s YouTube video being posted, we invited local media to a press conference by the Garrison Commander, COL David Fox, and a tour of the barracks with their cameras.  Unfortunately, some outlets have not shown the new photos and instead have reported on our corrective actions while rebroadcasting the photos from Mr. Frawley&#8217;s video which has not helped with the public&#8217;s understanding of the situation today.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>7.  What is the long term schedule to have all of these old barracks<br \/>\nvacated?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This particular unit is scheduled to occupy new barracks in the summer of 2009.  By 2013, all Korean War-era barracks are planned for complete replacement with new barracks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.  Has additional resources been allocated to address the barracks issue?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Yes.  After an Army-wide review subsequent the Frawley video, IMCOM allocated $3 million to Fort Bragg to be used for Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>9.  Are there any further projects at Fort Bragg ongoing or planned that will enhance the soldier&#8217;s quality of life?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Absolutely.  Ft. Bragg is one of five Army posts chosen to participate in a pilot project approved in 2007 called the Army&#8217;s Residential Communities Initiative.  It entails privatizing housing areas for single Soldiers of certain ranks (E-6 and above).  We have turned over on-post family housing to Bragg Communities, LLC, the public-private partnership between Ft. Bragg and Picerne Military Housing.  While the housing exists on post, it is owned by an independent company.  The cost of this housing is based on square footage, not the Soldier&#8217;s Basic Housing Allowance (BAH) rate.  The rent for single Soldier housing will not exceed the BAH rate for an E6\/SSG.<br \/>\nEach housing area is part of a residential community that includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness and business center, and pretty much everything you would find in a high-quality apartment community or home owner&#8217;s association.  The new single Soldier apartment community will be completed early next year.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>10.  Please feel free to add any additional information.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I just want to summarize that a great deal has been done here at Ft. Bragg to improve the living conditions of our single Soldiers.  The construction efforts and funding for them is unprecedented.  In the past two years we&#8217;ve completed construction on five barracks complexes on post providing them with 3,435 modern, spacious accomodations.  Currently we have an additional 2,238 barracks spaces in various phases of construction.<\/p>\n<p>Eighty percent of the 82nd Airborne Division has been moved out of the Korean War era barracks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Shortly after the US invasion of Panama in 1990, several staff officers of SOUTHCOM were strongly &hellip; <a title=\"Interview:  The Fort Bragg Barracks Controversy\" class=\"hm-read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=1727\"><span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Interview:  The Fort Bragg Barracks Controversy<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-support-the-troops"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}