Official Stands by Base Closure Report : Military: Pentagon’s deputy inspector general defends study, which recommends closing Point Mugu site despite criticism.

Despite a barrage of congressional criticism, the Pentagon’s internal watchdog stands by his staff’s recommendation to shut down the Point Mugu Navy base and says there is no reason that military leaders should ignore the report.

The comments from Deputy Inspector General Derek J. Vander Schaaf came in response to growing complaints that the report is plagued with errors and should not be considered by Defense Department officials developing a list of bases to recommend for closure.

In a letter to Rep. Elton Gallegly released Tuesday, Vander Schaaf wrote that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the audit of Point Mugu that was not supposed to be released outside the Pentagon.

But he wrote that his office has never received a 43-page Navy memo that rebuts many of the facts in the audit and that concludes its recommendation to close Point Mugu is based on “inaccurate data and assumptions.”

“We have requested that the Navy provide the memorandum for our review to determine if there is any basis for amending the audit report,” Vander Schaaf wrote. “In the meantime, we respectfully disagree that there is cause to withdraw the report.”

Gallegly said he was disappointed that Vander Schaaf did not withdraw the report, as the congressman requested.

“The guy is a classic bureaucrat who has a real knack for pulling kiss-off letters out of his database,” said Gallegly, a Republican from Simi Valley.

Gallegly has already requested a meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch, the Pentagon’s No. 2 official. “The time has come to stop dealing with underlings and start dealing with people who are more responsible,” he said.

Defense Department spokeswoman Susan Hansen on Tuesday said the inspector general’s office would have no further comment at this time.

The congressional criticism focuses on a report issued in June that contends the Navy could save $1.7 billion over the next 20 years by moving most of Point Mugu’s missile-testing operations to its sister base at China Lake in the upper Mojave Desert.

The inspector general’s auditors project no savings in the first six years because of $518 million needed to move equipment and 3,000 of the 9,000 employees from Point Mugu.

The report suggests that consolidating overlapping functions at the two bases would eliminate 1,049 jobs; however, it does not address the fate of the 3,000 employees of defense contractors who work at Point Mugu. A few positions would remain to operate the airfield, while the rest would be dispersed to other bases.

So far, Gallegly, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) have written Pentagon officials to defend Point Mugu and to complain that the inspector general unfairly singled out the base.

Beilenson, who represents the Conejo Valley, has also sent letters to top Pentagon officials pointing out the military value of retaining the Point Mugu and Port Hueneme Navy bases.

In a letter to Defense Secretary William Perry, Beilenson wrote that he supports the Defense Department’s need to scale back. “However, it is my view that Ventura County’s Naval bases are vital assets in maintaining our national security and force readiness.”

Meanwhile, Gallegly said he is considering introducing legislation to postpone next year’s scheduled round of base closures. First, he wants to assess the support for such a move in Congress and determine the progress of shutting down bases ordered to be closed in previous rounds in 1988, 1991 and 1993.

“I don’t like to throw legislation around,” Gallegly said. “But should we be ordering the closure of bases in 1995, when we haven’t funded the cleanup and closure of bases in 1988? I want to see if we are moving too fast.”

Gallegly said he is aware that similar legislative efforts failed miserably in Congress last year.

Congress passed the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act in 1990 as part of the effort to scale back the nation’s military and save tax dollars following the end of the Cold War.

Navy and Pentagon officials are now scrutinizing which bases they plan to recommend for closure or consolidation. Defense Secretary Perry, who wants to cut 15% of the nation’s bases in this round, is scheduled to release a hit list of bases in March.

At that point, an independent federal commission will review the list and come up with its own set of recommended closures.

In an effort to insulate the process from politics, President Clinton and the Congress can reject the entire set, but cannot remove individual bases from the final list.