29 May 1998
Source: David Sweigert
See related documents: http://jya.com/dgsfiles.htm
[Docket No. 18, May 26, 1998]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maryland
DAVID G. SWEIGERT (PRO SE) )
)
Plaintiff )
)
Vs. ) AMD98-654
)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY )
)
Defendant )
_________________________________)
PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pro Se Plaintiff David G. Sweigert hereby seeks this honorable
Court's consideration to AMEND the INITIAL COMPLAINT, filed 3/3/1998
[Doc. No. 1], the Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed March 16th,
1998 [Doc. No. 9], the Plaintiff's SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed March
23rd, 1998 [Doc. No. 13], the Plaintiff's THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed
April 17th, 1998 [Doc. No. 14].
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff has conducted a review of documents furnished to the
Plaintiff by the Defendant Department of Labor via the Department's
4/24/1998 response to the Plaintiff's 2/10/1998 Freedom of Information
Act request.
Plaintiff ADDS the following allegations. For clarity and
continuity the allegations are numbered to follow the sequence established
in the Plaintiff's THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 14].
ALLEGATIONS
COUNT ONE:
VIOLATION OF 5 USC SEC. 3109
INCONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all paragraphs contained in the
3/3/1998 initial complaint [Doc. No. 1] and the 4/17/1998 third amended
complaint [Doc. No. 14] under the same sub-heading as if fully restated
herein.
2. Plaintiff alleges that James H. McBrayer acted as the Chief
Information Officer for U.S. Army STRICOM, Orlando, Florida.
3. Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Army STRICOM, Orlando was compelled
to follow Department of Defense policy and guidance as outlined in (1) a
March 9th, 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS,
and in (2) a message dated R 191615Z DEC 95 From Headquarters Department
of the Army, and in (3) a message dated R 221945Z FEB 96 From
Headquarters Department of the Army, and in (4) a message dated R
101330Z MAY 96 From the Headquarters Department of the Army [Attached as
EXHIBIT A].
4. That the March 9th, 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY
DEPARTMENTS states in relevant part:
". . .All electronic messaging (AUTODIN and legacy electronic mail)
within the Department of Defense must migrate to DMS-compliant messaging
(attached) as rapidly as possible. This includes messaging capabilities
integrated into larger systems or applications. To ensure optimal use
of dwindling defense resources, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, a moratorium is
imposed on the acquisition of non-compliant electronic messaging
components unless a transition path to full compliance can be
documented.. . ."
5. That on August 10th, 1996 the Plaintiff transmitted an electronic
mail message to the Chief of Staff at the U.S. Army STRICOM, Colonel
Overstreet, expressing disappointment in the lack of progress toward
procuring a DMS-compliant messaging system and quoted the March 9th,
1995 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
word-for-word [Attached as Exhibit B].
6. That as stated in [Exhibit C] "SHERIKON POSITION STATEMENT",
submitted to the Department of Labor during the course of the
Department's investigation of the Plaintiff hiring practice allegations,
the Plaintiff's former employer states:
". . [page 10]. . .The incident that caused STRICOM to totally withdraw
support for Mr. Sweigert and the Webmaster position was when they
discovered that he had implied and/or promised that STRICOM would buy a
product from a vendor. When Mr. Sweigert found out that the procurement
was not going to happen he became very upset. He E-MAILED a message,
without first consulting his supervisors, to several people at STRICOM,
including the Chief of Staff. STRICOM was understandably upset by his
actions and contacted our Division Manager, M. David Tolliver, and told
him that under the terms of the Time and Material Contract they would no
longer support Mr. Sweigert's position. . ."
7. That the Plaintiff was ordered out of the STRICOM and/or SHERIKON
building on August 12th, 1996, the day the message of August 10th, 1996
was read by STRICOM management.
8. That message [Exhibit A] Z 221945Z FEB 96 From the Headquarters of
the Department of the Army stated in relevant part:
". . .3. IT APPEARS THAT SOME ARMY ORGANIZATIONS ARE CONTINUING TO
PROCURE AND INSTALL ELECTRONIC MAIL/MESSAGING PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT
POSTURE THEM FOR MIGRATION TO DMS COMPLIANCY AS DIRECTED BY REFERENCES
1A AND 1B.. . ."
9. That the U.S. Army STRICOM was indeed ". . .continuing to procure and
install electronic mail/messaging products which do not posture them
[STRICOM] for migration to DMS compliancy. . .".
10. That the Plaintiff's message of August 10th, 1996 [Exhibit B]
expressed disappointment that the U.S. Army STRICOM would not follow
Army Headquarters policy and direction. That the U.S. Army STRICOM and
SHERIKON terminated the Plaintiff for sending the August 10th, 1996
message on August 12th, 1996.
11. That the U.S. Army STRICOM has, and is, currently violating
Department of the Army policy with regards to the DMS [Defense Messaging
System] to include the lack of migration plans and/or compatibility
plans.
12. That the said termination was "arbitrary and capricious".
13. That Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter 92-1, "Inherently Governmental Functions"
states the following in subsection (6), para. (4) ". . .ensuring that
reasonable identification of contractors and contractor work products is
made whenever there is a risk that the public, Congress, or other
persons outside of the Government might confuse them with Government
officials or with Government work products, respectively.. ." [Attached
as Exhibit D].
14. That on June 25, 1996 Plaintiff transmitted an electronic mail
message to a local area network administrator Guy Loeffler concerning
the use of the U.S. Army messaging system for the transmission of
internal Sherikon, Inc. business communications, a violation of defense
use policy, [Attached as Exhibit E]. In fact, Sherikon submitted a copy
of this message to the Department of Labor investigators, with the hand
written comment in the upper right hand corner "DAVE [plaintiff] DECIDED
THAT HE WOULD DEFINE RULES. MCBRAYER HAD ALREADY APPROVED USE OF MAIL
FOR SHERIKON ADMIN ISSUES."
15. James H. McBrayer authorized the use of the U.S. Army STRICOM
network and electronic messaging system, "STRICOM.ARMY.MIL", to be used
by Government employees and Sherikon contractor personnel for the
transmission and receipt of Sherikon INTERNAL business communications.
It is believed that the following individuals in McBrayer's department
-- U.S. Army Government civil servant employees and Sherikon, Inc.
contractors -- held electronic mail addresses issued by STRICOM as of
March 1st, 1998:
Don_Barnes@stricom.army.mil, Doug_Bishop@stricom.army.mil,
Alison_Blayney@stricom.army.mil, Michael_Coble@stricom.army.mil,
Norman_Collins@stricom.army.mil, Christopher_H._Esser@stricom.army.mil,
Beth_Jorett@stricom.army.mil, Dennis_Maher@stricom.army.mil,
Laurie_Mills@stricom.army.mil, Angela_Moreno@stricom.army.mil,
Jeff_Bradley@stricom.army.mil, Dave_Reed@stricom.army.mil,
Paul_Simkins@stricom.army.mil, Al_Nees@stricom.army.mil,
Robert_S._Burch@stricom.army.mil, Leah_McCarrick@stricom.army.mil,
Russ_Milliner@stricom.army.mil, Scott_Shaver@stricom.army.mil,
James_T._Campbell@stricom.army.mil,
Lillian_F._Campbell@stricom.army.mil, Lawrence_W._Cook@stricom.army.mil,
Don_Cruden@stricom.army.mil, Doug_Bishop@stricom.army.mil,
Verna_Davies@stricom.army.mil, Michael_G._Kelker@stricom.army.mil,
Dennis_Kriha@stricom.army.mil, William_Y._Pike@stricom.army.mil,
Joyce_Zappulla@stricom.army.mil, Joe_Balbona@stricom.army.mil,
Cathy_Diplacido@stricom.army.mil, James_H._McBrayer@stricom.army.mil,
Ray_Cox@stricom.army.mil, Oni_Bonifaz@stricom.army.mil,
DeAnne_M._Curto@stricom.army.mil, Doris_A._Kelly@stricom.army.mil,
Karen_G._Becker@stricom.army.mil, Thomas_V._Hagman@stricom.army.mil,
Gabe_Lucas@stricom.army.mil,
Nellie_Mitjans@stricom.army.mil, Steve_B._Overton@stricom.army.mil,
Keith_Osborne@stricom.army.mil, Joe_A._Pennetti@stricom.army.mil,
Joe_Pineiro@stricom.army.mil, James_R._Skamarakas@stricom.army.mil,
Enid_M._Torres@stricom.army.mil, Robert_W._Wunder@stricom.army.mil,
Sarah_L._Wright@stricom.army.mil,
Damon_Yarbrough@stricom.army.mil, Don_Butterfield@stricom.army.mil,
Ann_L._Bruich@stricom.army.mil, Tony_Vitale@stricom.army.mil,
Paul_Neumann@stricom.army.mil, James_R._Clayton@stricom.army.mil,
Steve_Hittle@stricom.army.mil, Dave_Tolliver@stricom.army.mil
16. That the authorization by McBrayer for Sherikon employees to send
and receive INTERNAL Sherikon administrative messages via the U.S. Army
STRICOM network, "stricom.army.mil", and co-mingling both contractor and
Government employees within one U.S. Army network address, violated the
provisions of Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter 92-1, "Inherently Governmental
Functions".
17. That the Plaintiff complained to the Commanding General of
STRICOM's parent command, the U.S. Army Material Command on October 1,
1996 via letter that U.S. Army STRICOM may be violating ". . .intrinsic
functions normally reserved for Government personnel. . ." [at para. 8,
page 3, Exhibit F].
18. That STRICOM's General Counsel Harlan F. Gottlieb, attempted to
investigate the matters expressed by the Plaintiff in the 10/1/1996
letter [Exhibit F]. In a MEMORANDUM FOR HQ, [Headquarters] AMC, [Army
Material Command] [Attached as Exhibit G], dated October 11, 1996, Mr.
Gottlieb comments on the Plaintiff's allegation regarding ". .intrinsic
functions. . .". Mr. Gottlieb states, ". . .Mr. Sweigert swings wildly
in an accusation which is incomprehensible. . .".
19. It is instructive to note that in the 10/1/1996 letter to HQ, AMC,
the Plaintiff also complained that he was aware of ". . .a scheme to
redirect funding for FY97 . . operations from ref (b) [the
N61339-92-D-0018, D.O. No. 2 contract] to a . . vehicle awarded the
Contractor [Sherikon] via the General Services Administration (G.S.A.).
. . .". To this allegation Mr. Gottlieb in his 10/11/1996 letter cites,
". . .That Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Tolliver 'devised a scheme' to shift
D.O. #2 work away from the current contract [N61339-92-D-0018] to a
recently awarded Sherikon GSA Multiple Award Schedule contract. No such
'shifting' has occurred. The Sherikon contract period of performance
runs through FY 97. . .".
20. That when STRICOM's General Counsel Gottlieb responded to the
Plaintiff'' September 5, 1996 F.O.I.A. request with STRICOM's letter of
October 3, 1996 [Attached as Exhibit H]; Mr. Gottlieb listed as an
attachment "Copy of a Purchase Request for $3,500K of labor under
contract N61339-92-D-0018, D.O. Number 2 for FY 97." Attached to Mr.
Gottlieb's 10/3/1998 letter was the "WORK STATEMENT FOR . .NON-PERSONAL
SERVICES . . GSA SCHEDULE ADP SERVICES. ." [Attached as Exhibit I].
There is NO logical reason why the nomenclature "GSA" would appear on a
Statement of Work issued via N61339-92-D-0018 issued by the Naval Air
Warfare Center, a facility adjacent to STRICOM.
21. Plaintiff alleges that there was indeed "a scheme" devised by Mr.
McBrayer [STRICOM] and Mr. Tolliver [SHERIKON] to re-direct funding for
the statement of work to a Sherikon GSA contract. Such conduct on the
part of Mr. McBrayer is "arbitrary and capricious". The fact that the
STRICOM General Counsel did not adequately investigate the matter
articulated in the Plaintiff's 10/1/1996 letter to HQ, AMC is also
"arbitrary and capricious".
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court find
that the U.S. Army STRICOM has, and is, acting in an arbitrary and
capricious manner pursuant to Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 - 706.
Respectfully submitted:
David Sweigert
P.O. Box 390
Annapolis Junction, Maryland 20701
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and accurate copy of the foregoing pleading was hand carried
to the Ass’t U.S. Attorney’s office, room 604, 101 West Lombard Street,
Baltimore, MD 21201 on May 27th, 1998.
Certified under penalties of perjury:
David G. Sweigert
EXHIBIT A
9 March 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES
DIRECTOR, JOINT STAFF
SUBJECT: Electronic Messaging Policy - Implementation Guidance
There will be one, seamless, end-to-end global electronic messaging
service within the Department of Defense. This service, provided by
the Defense Message System (DMS), will meet all Department messaging
requirements as outlined by the Joint Staff and is consistent with
national objectives for interoperable electronic messaging. The DMS
is based upon international standards consistent with Secretary of
Defense guidance to avoid unique military specifications whenever
possible. The DMS will be implemented in all environments (strategic,
tactical, fixed, and mobile). This messaging service is a critical
component of the Defense Information Infrastructure and supports
command and control, administrative, and intelligence information
exchange to enhance readiness and warfighting capabilities.
All electronic messaging (AUTODIN and legacy electronic mail) within
the Department of Defense must migrate to DMS-compliant messaging
(attached) as rapidly as possible. This includes messaging capabilities
integrated into larger systems or applications. To ensure optimal use
of dwindling defense resources, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, a moratorium is
imposed on the acquisition of non-compliant electronic messaging
components unless a transition path to full compliance can be documented.
Military Service and Defense Agency DMS Managers or the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) DMS Program Office will provide
guidance on acceptable messaging and directory components and security
requirements. Exemptions require a waiver from this office. All waiver
requests must have the approval of the appropriate DMS Manager and the
endorsement of the DMS Program Office before submission to this office
for consideration.
The point of contact in the office of my Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Command, Control, and Communications) is Ms. Oma Elliott,
(703)697-7627, DSN 227-7627, Oma.Elliott@OSD.MIL. Please insure further
dissemination to all contracting activities as soon as possible.
/S/
Emmett Paige, Jr.
Attachment
DMS-COMPLIANT ELECTRONIC MESSAGING:
Electronic messaging X.400 and directory X.500 components that have
undergone DMS conformance, interoperability and compliance
certification by the DISA Joint Interoperability Test Center (JITC)
and are on the certified DMS components list for DoD use. Proper
implementation requires the use of the FORTEZZA PCMCIA card for
authentication, integrity, and confidentiality, as well as registration
of organizations and individuals.
R 191615Z DEC 95
FM HQDA WASHINGTON DC//SAIS-PP//
TO Distribution removed for clarity, available on request.
BT
UNCLAS
SUBJ: RECONFIGURATION OF THE ARMY DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS)
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.
1. REFERENCE:
A. HQDA MEMORANDUM, SARD-ZAC, SUBJECT: FY97 PROJECT MANAGER POSITIONS
DATED 13 DEC 95.
B. SECDEC MEMORANDUM, SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC MESSAGING POLICY
- IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE, DATED 9 MAR 95.
2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM ALL ADDRESSEES OF A CHANGE
TO THE ARMY DMS MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE. WITH THE RECENT DMS CONTRACT
AWARD, WE ARE NOW IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, AND THE SCOPE OF THE
PROGRAM HAS EXPANDED TO THE POINT WHERE AN ARMY DMS PROJECT MANAGER IS
REQUIRED.
3. REF A APPROVES A BOARD CERTIFIED DMS ARMY PM POSITION ON 13 DEC
95, TO BE ASSIGNED UNDER THE PM AIS/USAISMA AT FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY.
4. CURRENTLY ASSIGNED AS INTERIM ARMS DMS PM IS COL CARL L. LAMBETH,
DSN 992-7913, THE DEPUTY PM IS MR. TOM SEPKA, DSN 992-7913. THE ARMY
DMS PM SHOP IS THE FOCAL POINT FOR ALL DMS ACTIONS. REQUEST ADDRESSEES
DIRECT ALL ACTIONS CONCERNING THE DMS TO THAT OFFICE.
5. REF B PROVIDES MESSAGING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE AS
FOLLOWS:
A. THERE WILL BE ONE, SEAMLESS, END-TO-END GLOBAL ELECTRONIC
MESSAGING SERVICE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THIS SERVICE
PROVIDED BY THE DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS), WILL MEET ALL DEPARTMENT
MESSAGING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE JOINT STAFF AND IS CONSISTENT
WITH NATIONAL OBJECTIVES FOR INTEROPERABLE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING. THE
DMS IS BASED UPON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE GUIDANCE TO AVOID UNIQUE MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS WHENEVER
POSSIBLE. THE DMS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN ALL ENVIRONMENTS (STRATEGIC,
TACTICAL, FIXED AND MOBILE). THIS MESSAGING SERVICE IS A CRITICAL
COMPONENT OF THE DEFENSE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE (DII) AND SUPPORTS
COMMAND AND CONTROL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
EXCHANGE TO ENHANCE READINESS AND WARFIGHTING CAPABILITIES.
B. ALL ELECTRONIC MESSAGING (AUTODIN AND LEGACY ELECTRONIC MAIL) WITHIN
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MUST MIGRATE TO THE DMS-COMPLIANT MESSAGING AS
RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES MESSAGING CAPABILITIES THAT ARE A
SUBSET OF BROAD SYSTEMS OR APPLICATIONS. TO ENSURE OPTIMAL USE OF
DWINDLING DEFENSE ESOURCES, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, OSD HAS IMPOSED A
MORATORIUM ON THE ACQUISITION OF NON-COMPLIANT ELECTRONIC MESSAGING
COMPONENTS UNLESS A TRANSITION PATH TO FULL DMS COMPLIANCE CAN BE
DOCUMENTED.
C. ARMY PM DMS IS DESIGNATED AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR ACQUIRING DMS
COMPONENTS (CUSTOMERS IDENTIFY REQUIREMENTS AND MIPR FUNDS TO PM).
HE WILL ALSO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON ACCEPTABLE MESSAGING AND DIRECTORY
COMPONENTS AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS WILL
REQUIRE A WRITTEN WAIVER TO THIS OFFICE. ALL WAIVER REQUESTS MUST BE
ROUTED THROUGH THE ARMY DMS PM FOR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION.
D. DMS COMPLIANT ELECTRONIC MESSAGING IS DEFINED AS ELECTRONIC
MESSAGING X.400 AND DIRECTORY X.500 COMPONENTS THAT HAVE UNDERGONE DMS
CONFORMANCE, INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION BY THE DISA
JOINT INTEROPERABILITY TEST CENTER (JITC) AND ARE ON THE CERTIFIED DMS
COMPONENTS LIST FOR DOD USE. PROPER IMPLEMENTATION REQUIRES THE USE OF
FORTEZZA PCMCIA CARD FOR AUTHENTICATION, AND INTEGRITY.
6. REQUEST YOU CONTINUE TO EXPEDITE YOUR TRANSITION TO THE DMS TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE OFF AUTODIN BY FY00 AS DIRECTED BY OSD.
7. USAISC WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE STAFF OVERSIGHT ROLE FOR THE
ARMY DMS PROGRAM.
8. MY POC FOR THIS ACTION IS MR. HEININGE, DSN 225-3031.
BT
R 221945Z FEB 96
FM HQDA WASHINGTON DC//SAIS-PP//
TO: Distribution removed for clarity, available on request.
BT
UNCLAS
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON DMS MESSAGING
1. REFERENCES:
A. SECDEF MEMORANDUM, SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC MESSAGING POLICY -
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE, DATED 9 MAR 95.
B. HQDA MESSAGE, SAIS-PP, DTG 191615ZDEC95, SUBJECT: RECONFIGURATION OF
THE ARMY DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.
2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO ALL
ADDRESSEES FOR TRANSITIONING THEIR INDIVIDUAL E-MAIL USERS TO DMS
COMPLIANT ELECTRONIC MESSAGING.
3. IT APPEARS THAT SOME ARMY ORGANIZATIONS ARE CONTINUING TO PROCURE
AND INSTALL ELECTRONIC MAIL/MESSAGING PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT POSTURE THEM
FOR MIGRATION TO DMS COMPLIANCY AS DIRECTED BY REFERENCES 1A AND 1B.
4. MACOMS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ONLY PROCURE THOSE PRODUCTS WHICH WILL
EVENTUALLY BECOME DMS COMPLIANT. DMS PRODUCTS ARE CURRENTLY
UNDER-GOING
COMPLIANCY TESTING AND ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BECOME AVAILABLE UNTIL LATE
FY 96/EARLY FY 97. DESPITE THIS, VENDORS HAVE COMMITTED TO UPGRADING
THOSE PRODUCTS PROCURED NOW THROUGH THE APPROVED DMS CONTRACT. WHEN
PRODUCTS BECOME DMS COMPLIANT, UPGRADES WILL BE PROVIDED AT LITTLE OR NO
COST TO THE USER.
5. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL ARMY ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFY THEIR
ANTICIPATED INDIVIDUAL USER MESSAGING REQUIREMENTS AND STAFF THEM WITH
THE ARMY DESIGNATED FOCAL POINT FOR DMS AS STATED IN REFERENCE 1B AND IN
PARAGRAPH 6 BELOW.
6. RECOMMEND ALL MACOMS WORK AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE WITH PM,DMS TO
INSURE THAT THEY HAVE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED ALL THEIR DMS SOFTWARE,
HARDWARE AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (SUCH AS: USER AGENTS, PERSONAL
COMPUTERS, FORTEZZA CARDS, CARD READERS, E-MAIL SERVERS AND OTHER
HARDWARE PERIPHALS). PM, DMS-ARMY IS COORDINATING TO FORM A MACOM LEVEL
WORKING GROUP (MACOM-WG) IN ORDER TO CONTINOUSLY WORK/COORDINATE DMS
ACTIVITIES. THE MACOM-WG'S FIRST MEETING IS BEING PLANNED FOR MID-MARCH.
FURTHER DETAILS WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY PM,DMS IN THE NEAR FUTURE. I
ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION IN THIS MACOM-WG.
7. PM, DMS IS READY TO RENDER ASSISTANCE AND INSURE ARMY'S FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS OVERALL DOD EFFORT. MACOMS SHOULD USE THIS VALUABLE
RESOURCE. PM, DMS POINTS OF CONTACT ARE COL CARL LAMBETH OR MR. TOM
SEPKA, AT COML: (908) 532-7913/DSN: 992-7913, DSN FAX: 992-3333.
8. PLEASE INSURE THE WIDEST DISSEMINATION OF THIS GUIDANCE.
9. MY POINTS OF CONTACT AT ODISC4 ON THIS ACTION ARE MR. JAMES HEININGE
AT COML: (703) 695-3031/DSN: 225-3031 AND LTC RICHARD R. PEREZ AT COML:
(703) 695-9893/DSN: 225-9893.
BT
R 101330Z MAY 96
FM HQDA WASHINGTON DC//SAIS-PP//
TO Distribution removed for clarity, available on request.
BT
UNCLAS
SUBJECT: SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FOR ARMY MESSAGING SYSTEMS
(LEGACY SYSTEMS)
REQUEST ADDRESSEES ENSURE WIDEST DISSEMINATION OF THIS MESSAGE.
A. MEMO ASD(C3I) SUBJ: ELECTRONIC MESSAGING POLICY - IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDANCE 9 MAR 95.
B. UNCLAS MSG HQDA (SAIS-PP) DTG 221945Z FEB 96 SUBJ: ADDITIONAL
GUIDANCE ON DMS MESSASING.
C. SHRINK WRAP DEFINITION: "SHRINK WRAP" IS THE TERM USED TO
INDICATE THAT SOFTWARE WILL BE FROZEN WITH NO ENHANCEMENTS, AND WITH
ONLY MINIMAL EMERGENCY SOFTWARE SUPPORT AVAILABLE TO KEEP IT RUNNING
UNTIL REPLACED BY DMS.
1. BY REF A, OSD DIRECTED THAT ALL ELECTRONIC MESSAGING WITHIN DOD
MIGRATE TO DMS COMPLIANT MESSAGING AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE AND THAT ALL
NEW E-MAIL ACQUISITIONS WOULD BE DMS-GOSIP COMPLIANT. REF B EXTENDED
THIS POLICY TO SPECIFY THAT ANY FUTURE E-MAIL SYSTEMS OR COMPONENTS
SHOULD BE ORDERED FROM THE DMS LORAL CONTRACT.
2. THE DMS GOSIP PROGRAM WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING LEGACY SYSTEMS TO
COINCIDE WITH AUTODIN PHASE OUT IN CY2000. IT WILL ALSO MODERNIZE
EXISTING E-MAIL SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE ARMY AND WILL PROVIDE COMPONENTS
FOR USER LEVEL ACQUISITION AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR ALL INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
REQUIREMENTS. EFFECTIVE FY97 LEGACY SYSTEMS WILL BE PLACED IN A SHRINK
WRAPPED STATUS.
3. THIS MESSAGE IS TO ALERT THE USER COMMUNITY OF THE PHASE OUT PLAN
FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING ARMY MESSAGING SYSTEMS (LEGACY
SYSTEMS) AS WE MIGRATE TO THE REFERENCED OSD AND HQDA POLICY:
A. PC MAX-E-MAIL: SHRINK WRAP CURRENT VERSION. HELP DESK SUPPORT ENDS
1ST QTR FY97. REPLACE WITH A USER AGENT PRODUCT OFF OF THE DMS LORAL
CONTRACT.
B. MULTICHANNEL MEMORANDUM DISTRIBUTION FACILITY II (MMDF II): SHRINK
WRAP CURRENT VERSIONS. HELP DESK SUPPORT UNTIL CY2000. MACOM
REPLACEMENT WITH A MAIL TRANSFER AGENT/USER AGENT PRODUCT, I.E.,
MICROSOFT EXCHANGE OFF OF THE DMS LORAL CONTRACT.
C. AUTODIN MAIL SERVER (AMS): SHRINK WRAP CURRENT VERSION.
HELP DESK SUPPORT UNTIL CY2000. MACOM REPLPCEMENT WITH A DMS
"GATEWAY", I.E., THE MULTIFUNCTION INTERPRETER, OFF OF THE DMS
LORAL CONTRACT, WHEN AVAILABLE.
D. DESKTOP INTERFACE TO AUTODIN HOST (DINAH): SHRINK WRAP CURRENT
VERSION. HELP DESK SUPPORT UNTIL CY2000. MACOM REPLACEMENT WITH
CLASSIFIED PRODUCTS OFF OF THE DMS LORAL CONTRACT, WHEN AVAILABLE.
E. AUTOMATED SPECIAL SECURITY INFORMATION SYSTEM TERMINAL (ASSIST):
SHRINK WRAP CURRENT VERSION. HELP DESK SUPPORT UNTIL CY2000. MACOM
REPLACEMENT WITH CLASSIFIED PRODUCTS OFF OF THE DMS LORAL CONTRACT, WHEN
AVAILABLE.
4. AS INDICATED IN PARA 2, BY FY 97 THE LEGACY SYSTEMS WILL BE IN A
"SHRINK WRAP" STATUS, WITH NO FURTHER SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR LEGACY SYSTEMS WILL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:
A. EMERGENCY PROBLEM (FUNCTIONAL FAILURE) RESOLUTION.
B. TROUBLE CALLS/PROBLEM RESOLUTION.
C. SYSTEM TRAINING (REIMBURSABLE).
D. ON-SITE ASSISTANCE (REIMBURSABLE)'
5. MMDF II AND AMS HAVE A MILLENNIUM 2000 (M2K) SOFTWARE PROBLEM
RENDERING THESE SYSTEMS VIRTUALLY INOPERABLE BEGINNING JAN 00. THE
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION, BASED ON ECONOMICS AND TIMELINE, IS TO MIGRATE TO
DMS PRODUCTS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LORAL CONTRACT.
6. THE ARMY DMS PROGRAM WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING MESSAGING SYSTEMS BY
FIELDING ORGANIZATIONAL USER COMPONENTS BY CY2000. THE ORGANIZATIONAL
FIELDING WILL ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN PERCENT OF THE ARMY
MESSAGE USERS. ORGANIZATIONAL USER EOMPONENTS INCLUDE THE FORTEZZA
CARD, CARD READER, AND MAIL USER AGENT THAT RESIDES ON A DMS-COMPLIANT
PC. FOR THE REMAINING INDIVIDUAL USERS, THE MACOMS MUST ENSURE
SUFFICIENT USER AGENT FIELDING IS ACCOMPLISHED WITH PRODUCTS AVAILABLE
THROUGH THE DMS LORAL CONTRACT IN PREPARATION FOR CY2000, WHEN MMDF II
WILL NO LONGER OPERATE.
7. ALL SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT PHASE OUT OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT OF THE ARMY
AUTODIN MESSAGING SYSTEMS IS DEPENDENT UPON DMS BEING FIELDED ON
SCHEDULE. PRODUCT AVAILABILITY, CERTIFICATION AN DEVELOPMENT OF MISSI
PRODUCTS IS KEY TO THE SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO DMS FOC.
8. POINTS OF CONTACT ARE: MR BOB GRIFFITHS FOR USAISC AT DSN 879-6749,
MR MIKE BOMBA FOR USAISEC AT DSN 879-7800, LTC KEVIN GREANEY FOR THE
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTER - HUACHUCA (SDC-H) AT DSN 879-6458, AND MR
JAMES HEININGE FOR HQDA AT DSN 225-3031.
BT
[End Exhibit A]