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]