AF Trying to Move Unit in Defiance of Law

The Air Force is quietly seeking a legal way to move its Ballistic Systems Division out of San Bernardino, The Times has learned, even though Congress enacted a law earlier this year specifically saying that it should remain at its present location.

The division--the Air Force’s headquarters for developing land-based intercontinental nuclear missiles--has been in San Bernardino for 19 years and employs a civilian and military work force of about 950, including many engineers, scientists and high-ranking officers.

Because the law bars the Air Force from simply moving the division, attorneys for the service have devised a complex plan to merge the organization with another Air Force unit and then transfer the ballistics division to Vandenberg Air Force Base, near Lompoc, according to internal Air Force documents obtained by The Times.

The maneuver is sure to be controversial. Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), in whose district the division is situated, termed the effort “a subterfuge.” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said it appeared to him to be “Machiavellian.”

The Air Force was restricted from moving the operation by the 12-member President’s Commission on Base Realignment and Closure, a powerful organization whose report was adopted as law by Congress earlier this year. Under the law, 86 military installations across the country will be closed, including Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino County.

The law, citing “the high cost of relocation and the functional requirement . . . to remain in the local area,” requires the Ballistic Systems Division to remain in San Bernardino.

However, an internal Air Force memorandum dated Oct. 31 indicates that Air Force lawyers are evaluating the idea that the division, often referred to simply as BSD, could be “merged out of existence” as a way around the legal requirement.

In a remarkable outburst of bureaucratic candor, Grant C. Reynolds, the Air Force’s assistant general counsel, warned in the memo that, unless the service strictly follows established rules and procedures, “the decision will be considered a ruse that could damage the credibility of the Air Force.”

“No doubt there will be a great deal of public and congressional criticism,” Reynolds continued. “This entire scenario will have to be precisely planned and executed in order to avoid proving the critics right--that we are evading the commission decision to leave (the Ballistic Systems Division)” in San Bernardino.

Reynolds, through an Air Force spokesman, refused this week to discuss the memorandum, saying that it “consisted of legal advice to a client.”

Under the legal maneuver evaluated by Reynolds, the Air Force would merge the Ballistic Systems Division with the Los Angeles-based Air Force Space Systems Division, which develops space-launching vehicles, spy satellites and communications satellites. Then the Air Force would transfer the Ballistic Systems Division part of the operation to Vandenberg.

In his memo, Reynolds told Air Force officials that nothing in the report of the Base Closure Commission or the resulting law “requires BSD to continue to exist . . . . Since we are satisfied that BSD can be merged out of existence, it follows that there is no bar in the Act to moving the merged organization to Vandenberg AFB.”

But Brown and Aspin expressed outrage that the Air Force is undertaking such a maneuver to get around the law.

“The Congress is going to feel this is just what it looks like, a subterfuge, and we don’t like the military dealing with Congress that way,” Brown said. “I think they are very ill-advised to try this course.”

Aspin said, “It sounds awful Machiavellian. I would counsel the Air Force to just come up straight. They don’t have to go through all this rigamarole.”

Aspin, who has taken a strong interest in the military base-closing issue, said he is not necessarily opposed to moving the division’s headquarters out of San Bernardino if the Air Force can demonstrate that it would save money and that the new location would provide the best environment for the operation.

But Brown said he is strongly opposed to the proposed move, especially with the looming loss of Norton Air Force Base and its several thousand jobs. Norton was one of the military installations that was singled out for closure by the commission.

The ballistic unit is near--but not a part of--Norton and draws support services from the base. When the base closes, the division will have to obtain those services elsewhere, which is apparently one of the Air Force’s reasons for wanting to move it.

“I didn’t like having Norton closed to begin with, and I lost on that,” Brown said. “But in losing that, we got a clear statement that BSD remains. Now, it is the Air Force’s turn to try to change the law, not mine.”

Brown said Thursday that he had learned earlier this year that the Air Force was considering moving the division out of San Bernardino but was assured by senior officials that they were only evaluating how the organization would function once Norton is closed. He added that it appears that there has been some “deception.”

“They are absolutely right about one thing: They are going to have one substantial amount of public and congressional criticism, and it will not be just from me,” he said. Aides to Brown said they would mount a full-scale effort to block the move.

The entire base-closing issue has generated national controversy because each time the Defense Department sought to close down an unnecessary or surplus military base, local congressional coalitions would block the move.

In an effort to break the political logjam, the base-closing commission was formed and drew up a list of military bases to be closed. The list had to be either accepted in full or rejected by both houses of Congress.

If the Pentagon now attempts to undermine that compromise, it could open the door to congressional efforts to block a large number of base closures, Capitol Hill sources said. So far, Aspin said, there have been few attempts to undo the compromise. One exception involves the continued political opposition to closing the Army’s Presidio in San Francisco.

The Air Force refused to discuss whether senior officials have already decided to move the Ballistic Systems Division. A service spokesman issued a lengthy statement saying that the Air Force “is absolutely serious about complying with existing laws, rules and regulations” but also wants to comply with a current management review to improve efficiency.

But the documents obtained by The Times, which include a so-called “point paper” and a “talking paper,” suggest that the Air Force has already gone to great lengths to facilitate the move.