Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 31, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 5, 1994
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8.pdf107.47 KB
Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ARMY SCIENCE BOARD (SARD-ASB) RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND ACaUISITION 103 ARMY PENTAGON WASHINGTON. DC 20310 0103 JUL Defense Intelli ence Agency SG1J ATTN: PAG-TA Washington, DC 20340-5100 I,1I,1111131,ll,,l.,ills11ii,h.sll hI..iilntt(;lli Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8 JUL 05 '94 07 26AM HQ_DA_(DAMI-FIT)_WDC P.1/2 Approved For Release 2001/04/02: CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8 Facsimile Cover Sheet SG1J SG1A From: COL HERB GALLAGHER Organization: ARMY SCIENCE BOARD Phone: 703-695-0781/0782 Fax: 703-697-0206 Date: Pgs including cover: Comments: 0,& '{w y Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8 REPLY to ATTRNTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION 103 ARMY PENTAGON WASHINQTON GC 20310.0103 June 30, 1994 SARD-ASB MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF, OFFICE FOR GROUND FORCES, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340-5100 SUBJECT: STAR GATE Program (U) In reference to your letter, subject as above, dated June 20, 1994, the Army Science Board (ASS) must decline your offer to participate on the proposed Scientific Evaluation Panel (SEP). Because our Board members lack the prerequisite background knowledge of the STAR GATE technology area, it is felt that the ASS could not provide an individual who could review the program's R&D objectives in a 1-2 day time frame and determine if the objectives are viable and executable. It is feared that such an attempt would result in the individual "voting his/her initial prejudices" which would in all probability be unfair to the program. It is felt that a rigorous scientific and technical review of the program should involve an effort by a 5-10 person panel over a more extensive period of time. Unfortunately, due to existing and proposed taskings from Army customers, it would be extremely difficult for the ASB to commit to support such an undertaking. As an alternative to utilizing representatives from the Service Scientific Advisory Boards to review the program, you may went to consider tasking the DIA Scientific Advisory Board to perform a detailed program review and ask the Service Boards, along with the Defense Science Board, to comment on their findings and recommendations. This may be more manageable to the Service Boards from a resource and expertise perspective. Herbert JL.+allagher COL, GS Executive Secretary Approved For Release 2001/04/0 CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8 Printed On Recycled Paper