DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ATTN: PAG-TA (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002600010023-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 31, 2000
• Sequence Number: 23
• Publication Date: July 5, 1994
• Content Type: MISC

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