MAJ Meaghan Burnes receives a coin from the Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN James C. McConville, for her support to Project Convergence 2022. (Photo courtesy of author)
Court Is Assembled
Army Futures Command
An Overview
By Colonel Christopher M. Ford
When the Army established Army Futures Command (AFC) in 2018,
it was the first new four-star command since the establishment of Forces
Command (FORSCOM) and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in
1973.1Despite this sea change in Army organization, AFC’s history, purpose, and mission are little understood. Perhaps equally as opaque is the nature of legal support within AFC. This article seeks to provide some understanding of AFC: its history, purpose, and how the AFC Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA) is structured to support the command.
History of AFC
On 6 October 2017, Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy directed “the establishment of a task force . . . to explore all options to establish unity of command and unity of effort that consolidates the Army’s modernization process under one roof.”2
This process resulted in the establishment of AFC on 4 June 2018.3
The stated purpose of AFC was to “improve future readiness by ensuring
Soldiers have the weapons, equipment, and tools they need, when they
need them, to deploy, fight, and win future conflicts.”4
This was, and remains, unobjectionable. The devil, as ever, is in the
details. Two subsequent Army directives delineated the initial roles and
responsibilities of AFC.5 The most critical aspect of standing up AFC was establishing its relationship to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions, Logistics, and Technology (ASA(ALT)).
The 2018 Army directive vested the commanding general of AFC with responsibility to “lead[] the Army future force modernization enterprise,” making the general “the Army’s chief futures modernization investment officer.”6 The ASA(ALT) was responsible for “overseeing the acquisition, logistics, and technology matters of the Department of the Army.”7 The roles and responsibilities remained unchanged until the Secretary of the Army issued Directive 2022-07 on 3 May 2022.8
Acknowledging previous directives and the importance of AFC “in accelerating our modernization efforts,” the Secretary issued Army Directive 2022-07 to better define and clarify “the roles and responsibilities for Army modernization.”9
This directive sought to address two issues: first, ambiguity regarding
“civilian oversight and control of acquisition matters,”10
and second, “the shifting roles and functions as requirements move into
development as programs of record through production, fielding, and
sustainment.”11 In short, this directive reestablished ASA(ALT)’s primacy in the Army’s transformation, and clarified that AFC is “responsible for force design and force development and is the capabilities developer and operational architect for the future Army.”12 Critically, the directive omitted references to AFC “leading” modernization.
AFC Organization and Mission
The priorities of AFC are threefold: prioritize people, design the Army of 2040, and deliver the Army of 2030. Army Futures Command functions include describing the future operating environment, developing concepts of employment, conducting research, conducting experimentation, and developing requirements. This article considers these priorities and functions in turn.
Prioritizing people has two meanings. First, the term relates to the internal management of AFC personnel: investing the time, resources, and initiatives necessary to recruit, retain, and develop AFC employees. The term also refers to AFC’s personnel-related initiatives that have Army-wide applications, such as the Army Software Factory, discussed below. In both meanings of the term, legal support remains the same and is focused on labor counselor issues with support, as necessary, from other legal specialties. Two initiatives are worth highlighting.
The first is an ongoing initiative to move all AFC Civilian personnel into a prototype personnel management structure known as a Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL).13
Federal law provides the authority for STRLs, which allow for enhanced
personnel management flexibilities.14
These laboratories are complex from a labor law perspective and have
limited application (for example, to federally designated laboratories).
But they can provide an interesting and effective personnel management
option for some commands.
The future operating environment—contested, multi-domain, and
technologically laden—will likely place a high demand on skilled
Soldiers who can rapidly scope, troubleshoot, and code solutions to
myriad challenges that commanders face. The Secretary of the Army
recognized this need as a capability gap, and, in 2020, in accordance
with 10 U.S.C. § 4022 (which authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD)
to execute prototype projects), directed AFC to “build and sustain an
organic software development capability at the lowest echelons of the
Army.”15 The resulting enterprise is known as the Army Software Factory. The Software Factory trains Soldiers and DA Civilians in agile and secure software development processes, with a focus on Soldier-centered design, to solve Army problems. The end state is a sustainable, organic, software development capability. Most critically, however, the Software Factory serves as a prototype for future force design, which could result in future Army-wide force implications.
In order to understand the latter two priorities—design the Army of 2040 and deliver the Army of 2030—it is important to briefly consider current Army doctrine and the background that led to its development. The 2018 Army Strategy established the framework for current Army modernization and transformation and demonstrated the need to establish a command to drive change.16 The strategy established 2028 as the year in which the Army “will be ready to deploy, fight and win decisively against any adversary, anytime and anywhere, in a joint, combined, multi-domain, high-intensity conflict, while simultaneously deterring others and maintaining its ability to conduct irregular warfare.”17 To achieve this vision, the Army published The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations in 2028, which first articulated the concept of multi-domain operations
(MDO).18 This concept became doctrinal with the recent edition of Field Manual 3-0.19
While a full examination of MDO is beyond the scope of this piece, it is important to understand the central tenant of MDO. At its core, MDO requires “rapid and continuous integration of all domains of warfare” to enable competition below the threshold of armed conflict; and, in conflict, “maneuver to defeat enemy systems, formations and objectives and to achieve our own strategic objectives.”20 There are three “core tenants” of MDO: calibrated force posture, multi-domain formations, and convergence.21
To achieve “transformation”—an MDO-capable force—the Army established
AFC “to realign elements of the modernization enterprise and bring unity
of effort to the future force development process.”22
Accordingly, various Army elements were reassigned to AFC, including the
Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM), Medical Research and
Development Command (MRDC), Joint Modernization Command, and the Army
Research and Analysis Center (TRAC).
Additionally, AFC contains the Army’s capability and development
directorates (CDIDs). Army Futures Command then established eight
cross-function teams (CFTs). The CFTs are organized around the Army’s
six modernization priorities: long-range precision fires;
next-generation combat vehicles; future vertical lift; network, air, and
missile defense; and Soldier lethality.23
The “CFTs bring together the major stakeholders—requirements,
acquisition, science and technology, testing, and logistics—to work
together to develop requirements in support of MDO in a timely
manner.”24 The CFTs focus on certain “signature efforts” such as the Precision Strike Missile and Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, while the CDIDs serve a similar function for other transformation initiatives.
Project Convergence 2022 experimentation incorporates technologies and concepts from all services and from multinational partners, including in the areas of autonomy, augmented reality, tactical communications, advanced manufacturing, unmanned aerial systems, and long-range fires. (Photo courtesy of author)
The third AFC priority is to design the Army of 2040. To this end, AFC builds requirements and concepts against forecasted challenges and adversary capabilities. Army Futures Command Pamphlet 525-2 describes the Army’s future operating environment (FOE).25 The intent of this publication is to consider “what could be” in the context of two factors: “(1) concentration of global power, and (2) global technological innovation.”26 Of particular interest from a legal perspective is the latter, which impacts future weapons systems and related technologies. The FOE considers technological development broadly. While “the trajectory of innovation remains uncertain and nonlinear . . . all hegemons and ascendant states will adopt any accessible technological innovation and employ it to its fullest military potential.”27 These innovations will unquestionably concern certain key technologies, including artificial intelligence, autonomy, synthetic biology, additive/adaptive printing, and robotics.
Army Futures Command develops and refines concepts and requirements through, in part, a series of experiments. This includes the Future Studies Program (FSP), Focused Excursions (FEs), and Limited Objective Experiments (LOEs). The capstone AFC experiment is Project Convergence, which is a “campaign of learning” that “leverages a series of joint, multi-domain engagements to integrate artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomy to improve battlefield situational awareness, connect sensors with shooters, and accelerate the decision-making timeline.”28
Legal Support
Since the Army established AFC, the nature and organization of legal support to AFC has been challenging and dynamic. Several factors have driven the complexity. Army Futures Command is, by mission and organization, unique within the DoD; there is no organization to compare it against. The initial AFC OSJA composition and organization was, at best, a guess: a guess that evolving Secretary of the Army directives have upended on several occasions.
.jpg?ver=v3pQiJOuFjDhMT-WW5mP0w%3d%3d)
SPC Mitchell Mcneil, assigned to 3d Brigade Combat Team, 82d Airborne Division, trains with the Integrated Visual Augmentation System as a part of Project Convergence 2022 at Camp Talega, CA. During Project Convergence 2022, the Army tested many systems to determine how future command-and-control capabilities can be integrated with all-service multinational partners. (Credit: SGT Thiem Huynh)
The OSJA was initially structured with robust fiscal and acquisitions law support. As AFC has evolved, the need for fiscal and acquisitions law support has diminished to some degree, and the need for national security law (NSL) support has increased. Given the changes in the AFC roles and responsibilities, the AFC OSJA recently restructured. The Acquisition, Personnel, and Ethics (APEL) branch has remained largely unchanged, while the Concepts and Military Law Division has become the National Security and Administrative Law Division (NASL). This recognizes the increased importance of NSL at the AFC headquarters and reflects a closely related change with respect to how the AFC OSJA provides NSL support.
The FOE represents AFC’s evaluation of “what could be” and presents “several plausible alternative views of the future out to 2050 . . . to develop capabilities that will deter potential adversaries and, if necessary, fight and win the Nation’s wars.”
The NASL branch is comprised of judge advocates and a Civilian command national security law counsel. Previously, NSL support was focused on the CDIDs and CFTs. The AFC NSL support is currently arrayed against the six AFC functions: describe the future operating environment, develop concepts of employment, conduct research, conduct experimentation, develop requirements, and manage integration.
The FOE represents AFC’s evaluation of “what could be” and presents “several plausible alternative views of the future out to 2050 . . . to develop capabilities that will deter potential adversaries and, if necessary, fight and win the Nation’s wars.”29 This function implicates two legal roles. First, the AFC OSJA works closely with the AFC directorate charged with developing the FOE—the Directorate of Intelligence and Security—to ensure the FOE incorporates and accounts for anticipated changes in law and regulation that might affect future operations. Limitations on the use of autonomy in armed conflict, for example, whether through domestic or international law, would dramatically impact future operations. Secondly, a better understanding of the FOE helps the AFC OSJA identify potential changes to current statutes and regulations that would enable future operations.
From a legal support perspective, “develop concepts of employment” and “conduct experimentation” are closely related. Army Futures Command executes more than 100 experiments a year. Experiments test and evaluate new equipment or technology in order to determine their viability. Exercises, on the other hand, employ already-existing equipment and personnel, and AFC uses them for training or evaluation purposes. Project Convergence is the most prominent AFC experiment, testing several technologies in “speed, range, and decision dominance to achieve overmatch and inform . . . [the MDO] and Joint All-Domain Command and Control.”30
AFC experiments more broadly consider both materiel (for example, can radio A talk to radio B?) and concepts (what is the result of employing defeat mechanism X in scenario Y?). Both types of experiments present tremendous opportunity to provide substantive legal support. The AFC OSJA has arrayed NSL practitioners against these experiments to provide legal support generally, and policy support (such as legal, regulatory, and political policy) to each experiment.
During Project Convergence 2022, Soldiers from C Company, 2d Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, trained alongside the Infantry Trials and Development Unit and tested equipment such as the SkyDIO unmanned aerial system and variants of the remote piloted vehicles. (Credit: dvidshub.net)
In the context of the AFC functions, “research” is a term of art related to the budget activities delineated in the research, development, testing, and evaluation appropriations.31
Budget Activities 6.1 (basic research), 6.2 (applied research), and 6.3
(advance technology development) specifically apply to AFC. Basic
research refers to the “systematic study directed toward greater
knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of
phenomena,”32 whereas applied research “is systematic study to understand the means to meet a recognized and specific need.”33 Advanced technology development refers to developing “prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated environment.”34
Federal law authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of military departments to engage in research and development (R&D) projects.35 The DoD may perform R&D directly, or it can enter into contract, cooperative agreement, grant, or mutual agreement with other Federal agencies.36 Within the Department of the Army, the Secretary of the Army has overall statutory authority and responsibility for the R&D function.37
Each year, the Department of the Army funds over $10 billion in basic and applied research to generate scientific discoveries that will ensure the technological superiority of the future Army.38 While Department of the Army scientists working at one of AFC’s sixteen laboratories conduct some of this research, U.S. universities carry out a significant portion of the total effort via Army-funded grants.39 This “extramural” research program is managed by the Army Research Office (ARO), an element of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), one of eight Army laboratories within AFC’s DEVCOM.40 The ARO mission is to fund high-risk, high-payoff basic research, principally at universities, to generate new scientific discoveries that serve as the “pool of knowledge” for future Army technologies and capabilities.41
The other avenue of research is through cooperative research development agreements: R&D collaborations between Federal labs and nonfederal parties to conduct specified research and development efforts consistent with the mission of the lab.42 Attorneys in the DEVCOM Office of General Counsel provide direct support to AFC labs and ARO. Army Futures Command and DEVCOM attorneys collectively provide legal support to AFC and DEVCOM cooperative research development agreements.
Legal support to research includes extensive intellectual property and contract/acquisition support. Less intuitively, there is an aspect of research that has a significant NSL component. This is an issue worth highlighting in detail for the broader Judge Advocate General’s Corps—an issue commonly referred to as “Tech Protect.”
In recent years, Congress, the Executive, and the DoD have become increasingly concerned that foreign adversaries are seeking to exploit the open and collaborative relationships between U.S. research labs and their academic partners to access U.S. science and technology (S&T), and thereby erode U.S. competitive advantage in S&T and military systems. To counter this threat, several recent statutory and regulatory measures protect U.S. S&T from foreign exploitation.
Enacted as part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act,43 42 U.S.C. § 6605(a)(1)(A) requires “covered individuals” applying for Federal R&D awards to disclose the amount, type, and source of all other research funding they have received, or expect to receive, at the time of the disclosure.44 The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act,45
as amended by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act,46
directs the Secretary of Defense to take certain actions to protect
critical national security technologies from foreign exploitation.47
National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 33 requires that
academic researchers who participate in the U.S. R&D enterprise
“fully disclose information that can reveal potential conflicts of
interest and conflicts of commitment,” in order to “enable reliable
determinations of whether and where” such conflicts exist.48
Disclosures required under NSPM-33 are broader than those imposed by the
statutes and DoD policies cited above.49
In January 2022, the National Science and Technology Council issued
guidance to executive agencies regarding their implementation of
NSPM-33.50 Finally, DoDI 5000.83 requires that S&T managers take certain actions “to mitigate adversary threats to technology and programs.”51
In furtherance of these mandates, AFC is implementing a program to protect the critical technologies associated with Army research projects from foreign exploitation. Under this program, AFC will conduct risk assessments of all proposed senior/key personnel applying for ARO basic research grants or cooperative agreements. The process involves a review of information reported in the grant application, any accompanying or referenced documents, publicly available information, and other Army databases. Using this information, AFC assigns a risk assessment rating ranging from “low” to “very high” for each research proposal based on the amount, type, and timing of foreign associations or affiliations.
.jpg?ver=qEF3RSuHX7VLvyGxIeB_Pw%3d%3d)
A U.S. Army Origin autonomous weapons system uses a tethered unmanned aerial system to help Soldiers perform reconnaissance during Project Convergence 2022 experimentation at Fort Irwin, CA. (Credit: SPC Jaaron Tolley)
Although AFC appears to operate cyclically, in practice, the development of requirements is the culmination of the other AFC functions. Requirements originate in AFC’s CDIDs and CFTs. After research and experimentation, requirements go through a lengthy staffing process that finishes with AFC commanding general validation. Next, the requirement enters the Army Requirements Oversight Council for formal adoption. Within the AFC staffing process, the Requirements Integration Board is the principle organizing element. An AFC acquisitions attorney and NSL attorney both participate in the Requirements Integration Board to ensure requirements are not legally objectionable from either an NSL or acquisitions perspective.
Conclusion
The Army established AFC to address the fact that Army “requirements and capabilities development practices take too long.”52 While the problem is simply stated, it is complex to solve. Near-peer capability improvements and rapid technological advances have made the timeliness of the acquisitions process all the more important. Recent Secretary of Army guidance has clarified roles and responsibilities—particularly with respect to ASA(ALT)—posturing AFC to move forward in concert with ASA(ALT) to deliver the Army of 2030 and design the Army of 2040. TAL
COL Ford is the Staff Judge Advocate of Army Futures Command in Austin, Texas.
Notes
1. Army Futures Command Task Force, Army Futures Command, U.S. Army (Mar. 28, 2018), https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2018/03/28.
2. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Dir. 2017-33, Enabling the Army Modernization
Task Force
para. 1 (7 Nov. 2017).
3. Headquarters, U.S. Dep’t of Army, Gen. Order No. 2018-10 (4 June
2018).
4.
U.S. Dep’t of Army, Dir. 2018-15, U.S. Army Futures Command Relationship with the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology)
para. 3 (27 Aug. 2018) [hereinafter AD 2018-15].
5. Id.; U.S. Dep’t of Army, Dir. 2020-15, Achieving Persistent Modernization (16 Nov. 2020) [hereinafter AD 2020-15].
6. Army Directive 2018-15, supra note 4, para. 4.a.
7. Army Directive 2018-15, supra note 4, para. 5.a.
8. U.S. Dep’t of Army., Dir. 2022-07, Army Modernization Roles and Responsibilities
(3 May 2022).
9. Id. para. 2.
10. Id. para. 4.c.
11. Id. para. 4.b.
12. Id. para. 5.c(1).
13. Personnel Demonstration Project at the Army Futures Command Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL), 87 Fed. Reg. 62801 (Oct. 17, 2022).
14. 5 U.S.C. § 4703 (Demonstration projects), 10 U.S.C. § 4121 (Science and technology reinvention laboratories: authority and designation).
15. Army Futures Command, Army Software Factory, U.S. Army (Aug. 21, 2020), https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2020/08/21.
16. General Mark A. Milley & Mark T. Esper, The Army Strategy
(2018).
17. Id.
18. U.S. Army Training & Doctrine Command, Pam. 525-3-1,
The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028
(6 Dec. 2018) [hereinafter Pam. 525-3-1].
19. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Field Manual 3-0, Operations
(1 Oct. 2022).
20. Pam. 525-3-1, supra note 18, at iii.
21. Pam. 525-3-1, supra note 18, at iii.
22. Pam. 525-3-1, supra note 18, at iii.
23. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 2021 Army Modernization Strategy: Investing in
the Future 4
(2021).
24. Id. at 8.
25. Army Futures Command, Pam. 525-2, Future Operational Environment: Forging the Future in an Uncertain
World
2035-2050 (2020) [hereinafter
Pam. 525-2].
26. Id. at 1.
27. Id. at 4.
28. Argie Sarantinos, DEVCOM at the Forefront of Building the Army of 2030, U.S. Army (Oct. 14, 2022), https://www.army.mil/article/261128/devcom_at_the_forefront_of_building_the_army_of_2030.
29. Pam. 525-2, supra note 25, at 1.
30. Project Convergence 22 Main Video, DVIDS (Oct. 12, 2022), https://www.dvidshub.net/video/860618/project-convergence-22-main-video.
31. John F. Sargent Jr., Cong. Rsch. Serv. R44711, Department of Defense
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E):
Appropriations Structure 1 (2022).
32.
U.S. Dep’t of Def., 7000.14-R, DoD Financial Management
Regulation
vol. 2B, ch. 5. para. 1.5.1 (Nov. 2017).
33. Id. para. 1.5.2.
34. Id. para. 1.5.3.
35. 10 U.S.C. § 4001.
36. Id. § 4001(b).
37. 10 U.S.C. § 7013(b)(4).
38. U.S. Dep’t of Def., Department of Defense Budget: Fiscal Year
2024, at 4 (2023).
39. See U.S. Dep’t of Army, Army Rsch. Off., ARO Year in Review 2021, at 5 (2021) [hereinafter
ARO Year in Review 2021].
40. Who We Are, U.S. Army DEVCOM Army Rsch. Laboratory, https://www.arl.army.mil/who-we-are (last visited Feb. 22, 2023).
41. ARO Year in Review 2021, supra note 39, at 5. “Basic research” includes:
systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind. It includes all scientific study and experimentation directed toward increasing fundamental knowledge and understanding in those fields of the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences related to long-term national security needs. It is farsighted high payoff research that provides the basis for technological progress.
32 C.F.R. § 272.3 (defining basic research); accord U.S. Dep’t of Def., Instr. 3210.1, Administration and Support of Basic Research by the Department of
Defense
para. 3 (16 Sept. 2005) (C1, 15 Oct. 2018).
42. See 15 U.S.C. § 3710a (Cooperative research and development agreements); U.S. Dep’t of Def., Instr. 5535.08 DoD Domestic Technology Transfer
Program (22 Sept. 2022);
U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 70-57, Army Technology Transfer (2 Mar. 2022).
43. William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388 (2021).
44. The term ‘‘covered individual’’ means an individual who contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of a research and development project proposed to be carried out with a research and development award from a Federal research agency; and is designated as a covered individual by the Federal research agency concerned. 42 U.S.C. § 6605(d)(1).
45. John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232, § 1286, 132 Stat. 1636, 2078 (2018) (Initiative to Support Protection of National Security Academic Researchers from Undue Influence and Other Security Threats).
46. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-92, § 1281, 133 Stat. 1198, 1704 (2019) (Modification of Initiative to Support Protection of National Security Academic Researchers from Undue Influence and Other Security Threats).
47. The Department of Defense implemented this requirement in a 29 June 2020 memorandum. See Memorandum from Under Sec’y of Def. for Rsch. and Eng’g to Under Sec’y of Def. for Acquisition and Sustainment et al., subject: Collecting Assistance Award Information as Required in Section 1281(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (29 June 2020).
48. Presidential Memorandum for the Vice President of the United States et al., subject: National Security Presidential Memorandum – 33 §§ 1, 3(i) (14 Jan. 2021), https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-united-states-government-supported-research-development-national-security-policy. National Security Presidential Memorandum–33 defines a conflict of commitment as a:
[s]ituation in which an individual accepts or incurs conflicting obligations between or among multiple employers or other entities. Many institutional policies define conflicts of commitment as conflicting commitments of time and effort, including obligations to dedicate time in excess of institutional or funding agency policies or commitments. Other types of conflicting obligations, including obligations to improperly share information with, or to withhold information from, an employer or research agency, can also threaten research security and integrity, and are an element of a broader concept of conflicts of commitment.
Id. § 2(d). A conflict of interest, by contrast, is a “situation in which an individual, or the individual’s spouse or dependent children, has a financial interest, or financial relationship that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, reporting, or funding of research.” Id. § 2(c).
49. These disclosures include organizational affiliations and employment; other support, contractual or otherwise, direct and indirect, including current and pending private and public sources of funding or income, both foreign and domestic; current or pending participation in, or applications to, programs sponsored by foreign governments, instrumentalities, or entities, including foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment programs; and positions and appointments, both domestic and foreign, including affiliations with foreign entities or governments. Id. §§ 4(b)(ii)(1)-(4).
50. Nat’l Sci. and Tech. Council, Guidance for Implementing National
Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33) on National Security
Strategy for United States Government Supported Research and
Development (2022).
51.
U.S. Dep’t of Def., Instr. 5000.83, Technology and Program Protection to Maintain Technological Advantage para. 3-3 (20 July 2020) (C1, 21 May 2021).
52. Memorandum from Acting Sec’y of the Army to Principal Offs. of Headquarters, Dep’t of Army et al., subject: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force) encl. 1, para. 1 (7 Nov. 2017), https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6391_AD2017-33_Web_Final.pdf.