FRAtoday April 2021
comunicaitons
FROM THE FANTAIL	3
SHIPMATE FORUM	5
On & Off captol hill	8
FEATURE  STORies	
MEMBERSHIP MATTERS19
SHIPMATE NEWS20
TAPS21
AUXILIARY OF THE FRA25
FINANCE MATTERS26

COMMINICATIONS

Operation SHUFLY 
One of the most important tasks of U.S. Marine activities in South Vietnam during the early 1960s occurred after the creation of the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. In mid-April 1962, a Marine medium helicopter squadron was deployed to the Mekong Delta to provide support to Vietnam forces fighting communist guerrillas. The significance of the squadron’s arrival went beyond helping Vietnamese units hold the rice producing delta region. Coinciding with the increase in the number of Marines serving on the MACV staff and under the Military Assistance Advisory Group, the helicopter squadron’s arrival indicated the Marine’s role would expand as the U.S. effort to defend the Republic of Vietnam grew.
Military measures were taken to strengthen the airfield’s defenses. With the idea that the Viet Cong might attempt to infiltrate the Marine position, a 40-man security unit was formed to protect the inner camp and flight lines. The unit was composed of Marines from MABS-46 and HMM-362 who were responsible to a permanent sergeant-of-the-guard, that maintained roving patrols and security posts during the night. A network of concertina wire, trip flares and machine gun emplacements provided additional protection around the helicopters and living area. Attack alerts were conducted periodically to coordinate the Army of the Republic of Vietnam’s outer defenses and the Marine guard within the perimeter.
Within less than two weeks after the first Marines had arrived at Soc Trang, the camp had been adequately prepared to support sustained combat helicopter operations. In addition, defenses had been established and the lines of logistical support from MACV had been opened. Food and water were readily available. All necessary liaison with the Vietnamese units had been accomplished. Pilots and crews had gained a basic knowledge of the area in which they would fly and SHUFLY’s entire command structure had undergone a successful one-week shake down.
Operation SHUFLY was the first U.S. Marine Corps engagement in combat operations leading to the Vietnam War. In fact it was the only U.S. Marine tactical command assigned to South Vietnam and continued its combat support operations in the semi-isolated northern provinces throughout 1963.
Marine Task Unit 79.3.5, code-named SHUFLY, was the Marine Task Unit that represented the first large unit commitment of a Marine unit to Vietnam.        FRA

In Loyalty, Protection and Service,
William D. Stevenson, Editor-in-Chief

Return to Table of Contents

FROM THE Fantail

COVID, Chaos and the Convention
This past year, we have learned how to adapt to local, state and national restrictions due to COVID-19. As more people receive the vaccine, many of these restrictions are being lifted.  
Another victim of COVID was the 93rd FRA National Convention that the national board of directors voted to postpone until this year. The plan was to hold the convention on similar dates at the same venue scheduled for 2020, the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel in Portland, Oregon.  The site was on the airport property and several miles away from the city of Portland.
Social unrest in several cities, including Portland, escalated throughout 2020 and many Shipmates requested not to hold the convention in Portland.  Unrest in Portland continued, so at the beginning of the year leadership was concerned attendance would suffer, and the association would take a large financial loss if we stayed at the Sheraton.  
National President called upon the national board of directors to decide whether to proceed with the convention in Portland, with the potential of a lack of attendance, or to change the venue.
The board discussed the penalty the FRA would have for cancelling the contract in Portland.  Hotel contracts usually have clauses, which allows both sides to cancel the contract and walk away.  These contracts prorate potential revenue from room nights and food and beverage sales, which would be lost by canceling the event.  The decision to cancel the contract was more than 180 days in advance of the event so the loss to the FRA was minimal. The board decided to cancel the contract with the Sheraton and change the venue.
Since the decision was made to move on from Portland, leadership and the Northwest Regional National Convention Committee, started looking for hotels that meet the criteria to hold a national convention: available dates, cost and convenience to airports and food venues.
The nation-wide search focused upon trying to centralize the convention for the convenience of membership. Due to the timing of our search, there were not many options available.
One location that met our needs was the Mirabeau Park Hotel and Convention Center in Spokane Valley, Washington.  The site was available for the dates stated in the FRA C&BL. Since the hotel could not offer a Sunday through Sunday dates, this year’s convention will shift one day sooner than the normal.
Before signing the contract with the Mirabeau, the national board requested a reduced room night and food and beverage minimums over concerns with lower attendance. The NBOD surveyed Shipmates to get a count of who would attend the national convention. The Auxiliary was also asked about their attendance with the new venue. 

Who, What, Where, When and Why?
Who: FRA and LA FRA National Associations
What: The 93rd FRA and 88th LA FRA National Conventions
Where: Mirabeau Park Hotel and Convention Center, 1100 N. Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, Washington. Room rates are:  $114 per night plus 12.2% tax and $2.00 per night tourism fee. Cutoff date for reservations is Thursday, September 9, 2021.  Phone number is: 509-924-9000, or you can use their website:  www.mirabeauparkhotel.com and use reservation code:  FRAV21
When: October 2-9, 2021 (Opening ceremonies will be on Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.)
Why:  To do the business of our associations, to meet with our Shipmates and auxiliary members and to FINALLY get out of the house enjoy being around others (safely, of course).
There will be much more coming out as we get closer to the convention dates.  Many regions are planning their conventions. For more information and a complete convention listing, please refer to the “Events Listing” at www.fra.org, under the “Events & Programs” tab.                  FRA
In Loyalty, Protection and Service, 
Chris Slawinski
Chris is the national executive director of the Fleet Reserve 
Association and may be reached at: NED@FRA.org.

Return to Table of Contents

sHIPMATE FORUM

New and Fresh Ideas for Our Branch 
I just wanted to touch base briefly to compliment you and your staff regarding the work that all of you do with planning, preparing, and presenting the FRAtoday magazine each month — a monumental task!
I enjoy gliding through the magazine each month and I often find new and fresh ideas for our branch to consider. I would like to suggest that perhaps you consider including a section featuring the activities and events being presented at the branch level throughout the eight (8) regions of FRA. Perhaps feature two or three regions each month; with the respective branches in the region providing you with a brief overview of the activities the branches are doing in their respective geographical area.
Ideas for maintaining membership, presenting the essay contest, presenting Americanism and Patriotism, providing VSO services, sustaining the various required committee members and the work they do, etc. NETWORKING is always the key component when attending a conference.
This may provide individual branches with new, fresh, innovative ideas.
Include pictures and contact information, so the information shown in the magazine can be shared with branches throughout all of the FRA viewing audience. 
Take Care, Be Safe
Bill Nixon, Branch 115 in snowy New Jersey 

FRAtoday: That is a great suggestion. We do publish photos every month in the Shipmate News section of the magazine that serves that very purpose, but some more in-depth articles would be well received from our readers. I shall reach out to leadership and see if we can get some traction on your idea.

Why I Joined the Fleet Reserve Association
The Fleet Reserve Association is a unique group of people who are serving or who have served in an enlisted capacity in the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps or in the United States Coast Guard.
Since I have served in two different branches of the military, I think I’m qualified to say that the sea services have a very special group of people. We go out to sea for months on end and we are in a unique situation. These ships are like little towns or cities and everyone has to work together to get the military mission completed on time.
At home, the Fleet Reserve Association has our back. The branches, regions and our national headquarters provide us support that is second to none. If the law needs to be changed or if we need help on the state and local levels, the Fleet Reserve Association is always willing to engage the problem to get us results. For our family members, most of the branches have auxiliary units and our dependents can get the support or advice that they need when our Shipmates are away from home or deployed around the world. Shipmates are always getting together and discussing sea stories or even sharing their experiences. There is always a special bond that military people have with similar backgrounds and the Fleet Reserve Association puts those backgrounds to good use. In the Fleet Reserve Association, a lot of us serve on special committees and we engage in the local communities to help our military families and veterans.
Because the Fleet Reserve Association was designed to help members who served in the sea services, they understand the unique requirements for members who are currently serving or have served in the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps or in the United States Coast Guard.
Northeast/New England Regional President
Abe Zino

USS Bowfin (SS-287) 
The article about the USS BOWFIN (SS-287) was a fascinating account of a remarkable submarine’s transition from state-of-the-art WW II war machine to modern museum. However, there was one factual error that cannot be overlooked. 
James Michener’s “Tales of the South Pacific” is a very successful narrative of life in the Pacific Theater. However, “War and Remembrance” along with the first novel of the series, “Winds of War,” were written by Herman Wouk. Wouk’s attention to detail and vivid descriptions of historical events is remarkable. James Michener’s “Tales of the South Pacific” is a very successful recounting of aspects of the war in the Pacific and hit Broadway play. Michener is one of my favorite authors, but he did not write “War and Remembrance.”
The Pacific War is an event where sea power muscled the Allies across a vast ocean culminating in VJ Day. For those who are interested, I suggest they read Ian Toll’s “The Pacific War Trilogy.” It is a lengthy three-volume tome, but provides the reader with fascinating details about the Pacific Theater and those who fought there.
Sincerely, 
David G. Blood, Mays Landing, N.J.

FRAtoday: Hello Shipmate, thanks for your email. We’re glad that you enjoyed the article about the submarine-turned-museum. The author, Ann Norvell Gray, first touched on the Bowfin in a story that looked at the Pearl Harbor area. I know she wanted to spend more time on a feature that focused only upon the museum.

MAL and Branches
I really appreciated your recent article on the above subject. I have been a MAL since I joined the FRA. I joined to support the FRA and its objectives. I am not averse to joining a branch. In fact, I have often felt guilty about not being a member of one. I probably should join the local branch to provide financial support if nothing else. 
Branch 269 in Goose Creek, S.C. is the one nearest to me and from what I read in FRAtoday, it is a good one. However, it is 25 miles from where I live, and I didn’t make the effort to go there. Although I am still able to go and do what I want to, when I want to now, at 92, I am cutting back on my meetings, especially at distances away from home at night.  I probably will be eliminating them or reducing them drastically, possibly in a year or so because my wife is in the early stages of dementia, and I won’t be able to leave her alone. 
I could possibly attend a special branch event now if I knew when they were scheduled. It would help if people like me received info about planned branch events. I have never been approached about joining a branch. 
This isn’t intended to be a criticism of the FRA. Just wanted to thank you for your comments. The Branch probably doesn’t know that I live near them. 
Keep up the good work,      
Bob Knight, CDR, USN (Ret.)

FRAtoday: Hi Bob, thanks for reaching out and sharing your experience as an MAL. I agree with you, that you should do whatever you want, whenever you want. You have earned that right in my humble opinion.

Enlisted Personnel are Advanced 
I have read in the magazine FRAtoday that an enlisted person in the Navy was promoted to a higher rank/rate. In the Coast Guard enlisted personnel are advanced. Officers are promoted. The advancement of enlisted personnel were authorized on a Coast Guard wide Enlisted Advancement Authorization Message. I don’t know if it is the same for the Navy but I thought that I should advise you of the Coast Guard policy. Thank You!
Very respectfully,
Tony De Mello, Jr.
Command Master Chief USN (Ret.)

FRAtoday: Hi Tony, thank you for reading the magazine and you are correct, the navy does follow the same advancement process and ratings as the U.S. Coast Guard for their enlisted. This was caught by several readers and was a mistake on our part. We did not catch the wording of promoted versus advanced.       FRA

Letters published in Shipmate Forum reflect the opinions and views of individual FRA members. They do not reflect the position of the FRA. The FRA is not responsible for the accuracy of letter content. Submit letters to FRAtoday, 125 N. West St., Alexandria, VA 22314 or to fratoday@fra.org.

Return to Table of Contents

ON AND OFF CAPITOL HILL

Budget Battles Delayed with New Administration and COVID-19 Relief
In a normal budget cycle, the White House administration releases its annual budget, in early February for the upcoming fiscal year (FY2022) that begins Oct. 1, 2021. When a new president is sworn into office, the administration usually takes longer to submit a budget. In addition, the impeachment and passing of a COVID relief package has further delayed the budget process. Four years ago, the Trump administration did not submit a budget until the last week of May. 

As FRAtoday goes to press, the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package (Sen.Con.Res.5, H.Con.Res.11) is moving through the legislative process. That package includes a $1,400 check for many people, and enhanced unemployment benefits. The bill also provides added funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (see the following story for more details). The Senate parliamentarian has ruled a provision that increases the minimum wage to $15 an hour violates Senate rules for the fast-track budget process, which is being used to pass the measure without committee hearings. The bill is also exempt from Senate filibuster rules that require 60 votes for passage. The FRA has been monitoring the COVID-19 relief legislation as it moves through process. 

The FRA wants to thank the members who participated in FRA’s pay and benefits survey online. The results will be shared with Capitol Hill staff, legislators and the House and Senate military personnel subcommittees. Your input and feedback helps bolster the FRA’s position on various issues. 

FRA and Others asks SecDef Not to Raise TRICARE Fees
The FRA and several other groups have dispatched a joint letter to the newly appointed Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, urging him not to include a TRICARE fee increase in his FY2022 budget request for the Department of Defense. The letter reminds Austin that health care is one of the most important elements of the military compensation and benefits package. It is also a key benefit to retention. 

After two decades of unprecedented demands on the all-volunteer force, the cohort that served nearly their entire careers during wartime, is approaching retirement or have recently retired. At the same time, TRICARE fee increases have diminished the value of the health care benefit, particularly for retirees. Since major changes in the Military Healthcare System were passed into law with the FY2017 NDAA, beneficiaries have faced a series of out-of-pocket cost increases. In 2018, copays for outpatient visits more than doubled. In 2018 and 2020, pharmacy copays increased, and biennial pharmacy copay hikes are programmed in statute through 2027. As of January 2021, Group A retirees on TRICARE Select have a new monthly enrollment fee and a higher catastrophic cap. 

The letter also urges SecDef to reconsider scheduled cuts to medical billets that were delayed due to the pandemic. FRA members are urged to use the Action Center online  to ask their legislators to oppose any proposed TRICARE fee increases. https://www.votervoice.net/FRA/campaigns/79235/respond

Concurrent Receipt Legislation Introduced
The FRA-supported legislation to expand concurrent receipt has been introduced in the House and Senate. Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fla.) has introduced legislation (H.R.303) that extends Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments eligibility to retirees who are rated less than 50 percent disabled. Rep. Sanford Bishop (Ga.) has introduced the Disabled Veterans Tax Termination Act (H.R.333), which is comprehensive concurrent receipt legislation that includes the elements of H.R.303 and would also give concurrent receipt to CRDP retirees whose disability ratings are below 50 percent as well as to Chapter 61 retirees with less than 20 years of service.

Rep. Bilirakis (Fla.) and Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.) have introduced the Major Richard Star Act (H.R.1282, S.344 respectively) that expands concurrent receipt to include Combat Related Special Compensation beneficiaries who are medically retired with less than 20 years of service. 

Members are strongly urged to use the FRA Action Center and ask their legislators to support these bills. https://www.votervoice.net/FRA/campaigns/81358/respond

Military Retiree Survivor Comfort Act
Rep. John Garamendi (Calif.) will introduce the Military Retiree Survivor Comfort Act at the FRA’s request. This bill would allow for the retention of the full final month’s retired pay by the surviving spouse (or other designated survivor) of a military retiree for the month in which the member was alive for at least 24 hours.

Surviving spouses who are unaware that the Defense Finance and Accounting Services should be notified immediately on the death of the military retiree are surprised to learn of this requirement. Those who had joint bank accounts, that retirement payments were made electronically, did not consider that DFAS could recoup any overpayments of retirement pay from their accounts. This action could easily clear the account of any funds remaining whether they were retirement payments or money from other sources. Instead of withdrawing the payment all at once, the bill would allow a gradual repayment over 12 months. The legislation also gives the Secretary of Defense the option to forgive the over payment all together.

Members are strongly urged to use the FRA Action Center to weigh in on this issue. https://www.votervoice.net/FRA/campaigns/62805/respond

House MilCon/VA has Oversight Hearing on Military Housing

The House Appropriations Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies subcommittee (H. MilCon/VA) held an oversight hearing on the quality of privatized military housing. Mr. Paul Cramer, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for sustainment (installations) and Ms. Elizabeth A. Field, director, defense capabilities and management government accountability office were the only witnesses. 

A series of Reuters News articles in August of 2018, focused on deplorable conditions in military privatized housing that included faulty wiring, exposed plumbing, poor water quality, vermin infestations, mold and lead contamination, raw sewage and other toxic exposures that have had negative health impacts for all residents — many of whom are young children. In response Congress passed the Tenant Bill of Rights (18 separate provisions) for service members and their families who are in privatized housing that was included in the FY2020 NDAA.

It was later determined that only 14 of the 18 provisions were ever implemented. H. MilCon/VA Chairwoman Debra Wasserman-Schultz asked why there was no one person at the Department of Defense who was solely responsible for the quality of military housing? She claimed that was the intent of recently passed legislation. It was also noted that the FY2021 NDAA requires an inspector general report on the quality of military housing within 90 days of enactment of the FY2021 NDAA, which will be available in about five weeks. Members of the subcommittee asked about the financial consequences for companies that allowed housing to become substandard. The FRA welcomes these oversight committee hearings to help ensure that the bureaucracy follows through with legislative mandates. 

HVAC Approves VA Portion of COVID-19 Relief Package
The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee approved key provisions of the COVID-19 relief package that provides additional funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bill passed on a partisan roll call. The committee approved the following provisions: 
• $272 million for the VA to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on the benefits claims and appeals backlog. 
• $13.5 billion for the VA to provide health care services and related support to eligible veterans, including COVID-19 vaccine distribution, expanded mental health care, enhanced telehealth capabilities, extended support for veterans who are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless, and PPE and supplies for clinical employees.
• $100 million for accelerated deployment of the VA’s supply chain modernization initiative to improve the department’s preparedness and response to public health emergencies. 
• $750 million for the VA to support COVID-19 response, staff and veteran safety, and preparedness at state veterans homes through one-time payments to support operations and additional construction grants to support shovel-ready projects.
• $10 million for the VA Office of inspector general to provide oversight.
• $386 million for up to 12 months of retraining assistance for veterans who are unemployed due to COVID-19 and do not have other veteran education benefits.
• Providing VA health care copayment relief by waiving medical debts and billing during the pandemic, as well as costs for COVID-19 testing, treatment and vaccination services at the Department. 

The FRA will continue to monitor the COVID-19 relief effort as it moves through legislative process. 

Disenrolled from TRICARE Select? 
If you are no longer enrolled in TRICARE, here is how you may reinstate your coverage. As of Jan. 1, 2021, TRICARE Select Group A refers to; if a beneficiary or their sponsor’s initial enlistment or appointment occurred before Jan. 1, 2018, they are in Group A. TRICARE Select retirees (NOT TRICARE-for-Life beneficiaries) are required to pay a monthly enrollment fee. According to the Defense Health Agency, 26 percent of TRICARE Select beneficiaries have NOT set up method to pay the monthly enrollment fee. If beneficiaries did not set up your enrollment fees for TRICARE Select coverage last year, they were disenrolled from their plan effective Dec. 31, 2020. Remember that TRICARE Select replaced TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra in 2018. Beneficiaries wanting TRICARE Select coverage this year, must request reinstatement with their TRICARE contractor (Health Net or Humana) at: https://www.tricare.mil/regions. The DHA has informed FRA that contractors have been sending notices and making telephone calls to disenrolled beneficiaries. TRICARE Select beneficiaries have until June 30, 2021 to make a reinstatement request. 

Senate Confirms McDonough as VA Secretary
The Senate approved Denis McDonough as the next secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. According to Military Times, he will be the second non-veteran confirmed to lead the VA. McDonough served as White House chief of staff under former President Barack Obama. McDonough received a unanimous vote from the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee following his testimony before the committee and was easily confirmed by an 87-7 vote. 

In related news, the Senate also confirmed Kathleen Hicks as deputy secretary of defense. She will be the first woman to serve in that position. 

SecDef Makes Masks Mandatory on All Military Installations
Newly appointed Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin has ordered all service members and civilians on U.S. military installations — whether indoors or outdoors — to wear a mask to try to limit the spread of COVID-19, with limited exceptions. The memorandum issued by the secretary states that; “Individuals must wear masks continuously while on military installations except: (1) when an individual is alone in an office with floor-to-ceiling walls with a closed door; (2) for brief periods of time when eating and drinking while maintaining distancing in accordance with CDC guidelines and instructions from commanders and supervisors; (3) when the mask is required to be lowered briefly for identification or security purposes; and (4) when necessary to reasonably accommodate an individual with a disability.”

First Lady Jill Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to President Biden, attempted to alleviate military-connected families’ fears surrounding COVID-19 vaccines during an American Red Cross webinar. “The fight against COVID is a battle we can win, and brighter days are close, but we need your help,” Jill Biden said. “That’s why we’re encouraging everyone to mask up, socially distance, and get the vaccine when it’s your turn. We can beat this together.”

VA Provides COVID Vaccine Update
The FRA staff participated in a Zoom conference call with Veterans Health Administration to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Steven Lieberman, acting principal deputy undersecretary, claimed infection control remains a high priority for the VA. The agency has given more than 1.3 million tests and the VA telehealth usage has increased by more than 1,400 percent. According to Military.com, 121 VA employees and 9,200 VA patients have died from COVID-19. Since December 2020, the VA has provided more than 500,000 vaccines for high-risk veterans at 258 sites. In January 2021, the VA gave permission for veteran caregivers to also receive the vaccine at no charge. 

Vaccinations will be offered in accordance with the VA’s phased risk stratification framework and will build upon elements outlined in the 88-page COVID-19 Vaccination Plan for the Veterans Health Administration. Veterans and their caregivers can get the latest information and sign up to receive updates on the VA’s COVID-19 vaccine webpage at: https://www.va.gov/health-care/covid-19-vaccine/stay-informed. For a caregiver to get a vaccine they should contact their local Caregiver Support Coordinator. A list of Caregiver Support Coordinators can be found online at: https://www.caregiver.va.gov/support/New_CSC_Page.asp. 
FEATURE  STORY

The Distant Early Warning Radar Line
The Attempt to Provide North America a Radar Safety Net 

By W. D. Stevenson

The first postwar American air defense efforts were launched in 1948, in response to the Berlin blockade and early public display of Soviet bombers. The defense efforts had limited funding and used mostly obsolete equipment. 
The first defense system covered the Seattle and Hanford, Washington, areas. Hanford was considered a critical area because that was where atomic weapon production took place and was also within range of Soviet bombers. This initial radar network system was expanded into an air defense system called LASHUP that also covered California, a training facility in the upper Middle West, and the Tennessee Valley where the Atomic Energy Commission facilities were located. 

From 1949 to 1954, LASHUP included early warning patrols conducted by Navy radar picket destroyer escorts and PB-1W and PO-1W airborne early warning aircraft to guard the seaward approaches to the northeastern United States. The desire to have appropriate air defenses for the continental United States only intensified after the Soviet nuclear test in 1949. Before LASHUP became operational in 1950, studies had begun on a system that would defend the entire continental United States. 

Coverage from Coast to Coast
The first air surveillance radar system covering the entire northern approach to the United States was called the Pine Tree Line, which stretched across southern Canada and became operational in 1951. The second radar line called the Mid-Canada Line ran somewhat north of this. Pine Tree Line was later considered insufficient because it provided inadequate advance warning of a Soviet attack. Early warning LASHUP patrols by Navy ships and aircraft off the northeastern United States continued after the Pine Tree Line was established. The DEW Line was the northernmost and most capable of three radar lines in the far northern Arctic region of Canada, with additional stations along the North Coast and Aleutian Islands of Alaska, in addition to the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland.

DEW Line Concept
The concept of having defense radar stations became known as the Distant Early Warning Line or DEW Line project. It was discussed during a gathering of eminent scientists and engineers called the Lincoln Summer Study Group. In the summer of 1952, a special assessment of the overall U.S. air defense system was conducted that brought together Project LINCOLN scientists with analysts from other research centers. The LINCOLN summer study recommended a fast-moving program to build a line of early warning radars across northern Canada. Two of the scientists who wanted to examine air-defense issues were J. Robert Oppenheimer and I. I. Rabi, both Manhattan Project veterans. These were men accustomed to thinking big and solving intricate problems. 

The armed services, especially the Air Force, were reluctant to endorse such an ambitious project due to its cost. The project’s demands would compete with other budget priorities at the time that newly elected President Dwight Eisenhower said he was going to hold the line on defense spending. Nevertheless, the Eisenhower administration quickly initiated a program known as Project 572, to build the DEW Line. 
Soviet technology improved and rendered the Pinetree Line and Mid-Canada Line inadequate to provide enough early warning so on Feb. 15, 1954, the Canadian and American governments agreed to jointly build a third line of radar stations, to run across the high Arctic, roughly along the 69th parallel north, or about 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle.

The construction of the DEW Line was made possible by a bilateral agreement between the Canadian and U.S. governments, and by collaboration between the U.S. Department of Defense and the Bell System of communication companies. As a result, several radar stations were built across the Arctic coasts of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to detect Russian planes flying over the North Pole. It was a significant engineering feat for its time.

Bomber Gap
The Cold War became more serious in 1954 when the United States learned of the powerful new Soviet bombers that had the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon at intercontinental ranges. This and other intel received over the next 18 months ignited the concern about alleged Soviet superiority in long-range bombers, which came to be known as the bomber gap. It was, however, put to rest by 1957 with photographic intelligence on Soviet bomber production that revealed the Soviets were not rapidly building a fleet of long-range bombers at all. The accelerated U.S. B-52 production had actually outpaced the Soviets. 

The gap crisis faded, but a new one arose on Oct. 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite into orbit. Sputnik, the Soviet missile program, and Moscow’s boasting about their missile capabilities created fear in the United States that the Soviets had gained a significant lead in fielding long-range missiles. This supposed “missile gap” became the primary concern in U.S. defense planning as well as in the American political arena.
The U.S. Air Force stood by the mission of having superior offensive air power and pressed for faster production of the B-52 bomber, but reluctantly endorsed an expanded air defense system. The United States took comfort in having superior military technology — being the only country able to deploy nuclear weapons. The U.S. had an arsenal of long-range bombers and carrier-based naval aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. 

A target date for completing the DEW Line and having it in operation was set for July 31, 1957. This provided only two short Arctic summers adding up to about a six-month window with passable conditions. Much of the work would have to be completed in the long, dark, cold, Arctic winters. The DEW Line was completed across Alaska in 1953 and across northern Canada in 1956 and was declared fully operational in 1957.

DEW Line Organization
The 60 sites that made up the original continental part of the DEW Line were categorized into three types of sites — six main sites, 27 auxiliary sites and 27 intermediate sites.

Each main and auxiliary site had ground-to-ground, air-to-ground and site-to-site communications systems. Every main site and auxiliary site also had been equipped with a rotating, back-to-back, two-beam, pulsed, search radar that was considered the most important equipment. There were 29 search radar units across the length of the line at approximately 100-mile intervals and each had a 160-mile range.

Located halfway between each pair of main and auxiliary sites, were the intermediate or “I” sites. Each of the 27 I Sites had one operational purpose — to provide coverage of the gaps under the doughnut pattern of the search radars at the adjacent main and auxiliary sites. The I Sites housed a pair of continuous wave (as opposed to pulsed) Doppler radar transmitters, one pointing east and one to the west. The corresponding receivers were at the adjacent main and auxiliary sites. These transmitter-receiver combinations, also known as gap fillers, provided a fixed, multi-level electronic fence, or trip wire, between adjacent sites.

Main Sites
The largest of the three types of sites were the six main sites that were located 500 miles apart. Each had a permanent staff of about 150 (mechanics, riggers, logistics and maintenance personnel, catering staff, general help, including a varying number of Eskimo families), subcontracted aircraft crew and, of course, a team of radicians — the name given to a radar technician. This work force would substantially increase during the brief arctic summer when additional temporary personnel involved in construction, outside maintenance, re-supply etc., would be on site.

Operationally, each main site was responsible for a 500-mile sector or in other words approximately 250 miles either side of the site. There were two sectors in Alaska and four in Canada.
•	POW Main - Point Barrow, Alaska
•	BAR Main - Barter Island, Alaska
•	PIN Main - Cape Parry, in the District of Mackenzie, NWT, Canada
•	CAM Main - Cambridge Bay, in the District of Mackenzie, NWT, Canada
•	FOX Main - Hall Beach in the District of Franklin, NWT, Canada
•	DYE Main - Cape Dyer in the District of Franklin, NWT, Canada
The senior civilian among the main site management was the station chief. There was also the sector management team: sector superintendent, the senior civilian in each sector, sector chief communications & electronics and sector chief building & outside plant. There were also specialist teams available for support with issues that arose in their sector that were beyond the expertise of the local site personnel.

Most main sites were staffed by seven radicians and a lead radician but the BAR Main and DYE Main had more staff due to the rearward links and northern links to Thule. The radicians and their equipment were the reason for the DEW Line and everyone else was there in support but no less critical to the success of the operation.
Nearby each main site was a 5,000-foot-long gravel runway with full hangar and refueling facilities suitable for most any piston engine aircraft of the time. There was also a garage for vehicle maintenance, warehouses, fuel storage tanks and accommodations for transient personnel.

Auxiliary Sites
Between each main site at intervals of 100 miles, depending on the geography, were four to five Aux Sites. There was a total of 27 auxiliary sites in Alaska and Canada. Each designated by the prefix of its western main station followed by a sequential number.
•	LIZ – 2, 3, the two auxiliary sites west of Point Barrow (POW Main)
•	POW - 1, 2, 3
•	BAR - 1, 2, 3, 4
•	PIN - 1, 2, 3, 4
•	CAM - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
•	FOX - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
•	DYE - 1, 2, 3, & 4, all in Greenland
Operationally (electronically) the auxiliary site was equipped almost identically to the main site and, again, staffed by seven radicians and a lead radician who was usually the station chief. Since the search radar had a 160-mile range there was approximately a 60-mile overlap with the adjacent main or auxiliary station. As with the main site, each Aux Site housed the east and west Doppler radar receivers for their adjacent Intermediate sites.

Physically, the auxiliary sites were much smaller than main sites. The total staff was usually 20 to 25, which included all the same types of job skills as a main site but fewer staff. Again, that number would increase during the summer months when temporary personnel involved in construction, outside maintenance, resupply and more would be on site. One or two Eskimo families were also housed in separate accommodations on each site. As on the main sites, the Eskimo men operated the heavy equipment (bulldozer and grader) to maintaining the runways and roads for hauling fresh water and removing waste. The list of their jobs was long and varied.

Each Aux Site was equipped with a 3000-foot runway that was suitable for DC3/C47, C46 or smaller aircraft. There were no hangar facilities other than for refuelling. In addition, there was the mandatory garage, fuel tanks for the diesel generators and some accommodations for transient visitors.

Intermediate Sites
As the name implies, the I Sites were located approximately halfway between each auxiliary site and main site, creating a 50-mile distance from one or the other. There were 27 of them in Alaska and Canada. Just like the auxiliary sites, each I Site was designated by the prefix of its western main station followed by a sequential letter.
•	LIZ - A, B, C
•	POW - A, B, C, D
•	BAR - A, B, C, D, E
•	PIN - A, B, C, D, E
•	CAM - A, B, C, D, F
•	FOX - A, B, C, D, E
•	DYE - There were no I Sites in Greenland.
The I Sites were the smallest of the three and were typically staffed by a radician, an inside mechanic, and outside mechanic and a cook. One of the mechanics or the radician was usually the station chief. Sometimes the father of an Eskimo family was the outside mechanic but there were numerous variations in I Site staffing. Each site had a mandatory garage, separate from the main complex, with a backup generator and disaster transmitter. All the sites but one (FOX C) had a 3,000-foot runway with limited refueling capability. FOX C was serviced with a helicopter from FOX Three.

The sole function of the I Sites was to house a pair (east and west) of Doppler radar transmitters for which the adjacent auxiliary or main site had the corresponding receivers. The I Sites proved to be ineffective and unreliable, so they were all taken out of service around the middle of 1963.

Out with the Old, in with the New
The purpose for building the DEW Line was to be able to detect aircraft up to an altitude of 50,000 feet — specifically the Soviet Bear and Bison strategic bombers, which were the counterpart of the U.S. B-52. Detecting and reporting Soviet aircraft was the primary mission but it did not have the capability to detect high-trajectory ballistic missiles coming over the horizon. 

Because the ability and range of the newly designed intercontinental ballistic missile created another attack scenario that the DEW Line could not defend against, the U.S. Federal Government authorized construction of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) in 1958, at a cost of $28 billion. This was the role of the new system, tracking objects 3,000 miles over the horizon. There were three BMEWS stations:  Clear in Alaska, Thule in Greenland and Fylingdales Moor in Yorkshire, England. BMEWS was the fourth radar warning system built during the decade of the 1950s in response to the Cold War with the former Soviet Union. It supplemented the Pine Tree Line, the Mid-Canada Line and the DEW Line that were all designed to track bombers. None of these warning systems ever detected a bomber or ballistic missile attack.

In 1985, the U.S. military decided that some of the DEW Line stations could be to be upgraded with the GE AN/FPS-117 radar systems and merged with newly built Canadian-American stations that made up the new North Warning System. The upgrade was completed in 1990, and with the end of the Cold War and the breaking up of the Soviet Union, the U.S. withdrew all its personnel and relinquished full operation of the Canadian stations to Canada. The costs for the Canadian sector were still subsidized by the U.S. The American flags were lowered at the Canadian stations and only the Canadian flag remained. The U.S. retained responsibility and all operational costs for North Warning System stations located in Alaska and Greenland.

Cleanup and Closure
The DEW Line was in the news recently because the disintegrating buildings and materials that were used at the tine are making a rather negative impact on the environment. Some of the materials that were used were lead paint, asbestos insulation and a large quantity of materials contaminated with PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl). An estimated 30 tons of PCBs were used in radio equipment and generators.

The remains were not just contaminating the Arctic landscape, but also its indigenous regional population. The coastal Inuit experienced permanent changes to their way of life within an extremely short period of time. 
The U.S. defense department launched a clean-up plan in 1989 with estimates for the total cost of cleaning up and removing the chemicals left behind at approximately $575 million dollars. Each site had the demolition of infrastructure, removing contaminated materials and soils, stabilizing landfill sites and the construction of new landfills designed to stand the test of time. This very costly and extensive cleanup project lasted until 2014 and includes a 25-year monitoring program to ensure they are environmentally safe.    FRA

FEATURE

Feeding the Navy
From Hard Tack to Hollandaise
By Ann Norvell Gray

Picture this; you board your 18th century warship, headed for weeks at sea, where you will scamper up and down the masts, swing through the rigging, and haul the rough lines with your weathered hands. In the hold are venerable casks packed with layers of meat and salt, piles of hard tack, the biscuits baked repeatedly to extract every wisp of moisture; sacks of oats, barrels of dried pea beans and some fruit, if you are lucky. There might be a few goats and some chickens, kept for the ranking members of the crew. For you, a ration of that salt beef or pork will be tied in a net and towed behind the ship for a day to rehydrate it. Even the sharks won’t eat it. You will have it made into a boiled pudding with the peas and some of the ship’s biscuits, and a little extra protein from the weevils that invariably are proliferating therein. Mercifully, you will be given a generous ration of beer.

Today’s Galley
Fast-forward four hundred years; and there is at least one full commercial kitchen on your ship, cranking out three or four high-volume meals every day in round-the-clock shifts for you and your crew members. Your menus are chosen by balancing what nutritional science says your body needs, and what behavioral research says you probably like to eat. Preparation and service is carried out by disciplined teams of trained food service specialists. The foods that fill the big reefers and freezers, the dry goods, the canned foods, and the other less perishable staples like spices and sauces are delivered as needed by way of some of the best supply chain management science in the world. 
If you are aboard a carrier, more than a hundred Culinary Specialists work in teams to feed upwards of 4,500 people three or four meals a day, which works out to something like 17,000 meals. A modern carrier is, as Shipmates know, more like a town than a vessel, and requires oversized commercial grade kitchens producing a continuous stream of a wide variety of good food. The key to success is a well-planned combination of organization, discipline and teamwork. Just getting the supplies from storage into the hands of the preparers is a full day’s job. An experienced Shipmate says, “My job was in ‘Breakout.’ [We] were tasked with breaking out and bringing to the galley all the food they needed to prepare. We brought cases of meat, milk and fresh produce from the ‘reefers’ down on the 7th deck up to the 3rd deck. Canned goods and bread were on the 5th and 6th decks… . When we pulled into port, we usually brought aboard 1,500 or so six-gallon boxes with plastic bags of milk inside, lots of fresh produce, eggs, and fresh bread and rolls. We also brought fresh stores aboard during UNREPS ... I was probably in the best shape of my life after working on that team for 3 months!”

Bubbleheads
If you are on a submarine, it’s very different. The galley on your ship is commercial grade, but must be extremely compact. Counter space, says one veteran, is “microscopic.” A typical fast-attack submarine galley measures about ten by fourteen feet, and might be equipped with an industrial mixer, a pair of convection ovens, a microwave, a deep fryer, a basic grill top and a couple of large bolted-down soup pots with tight-fitting lids. A tiny sink and storage space fit in somewhere. A team of six spends 18 hours feeding four meals to the 110-person crew. Most of the fresh food lasts ten to fourteen days, and then you have to get creative. Describing one supply issue, a retired submariner said, “First, you run out of fresh milk. Then you run out of fresh fruits and vegetables. Then you run out of fresh eggs. Then you run out of frozen food. And if your mission gets extended …, you run out of most of the canned food. … In the first day … of turning the boat over to the next crew, a typhoon turned our way, and the other crew had to go [right back out] to sea with our dregs and crumbs …”

Providing Nutrition
How did we get from salt meat and hard tack to here? The answer is, in a nutshell, committed and creative problem solving. John and Carol Fisher, authors of “Food in the American Military: A History,” describe the perpetual challenge of providing sufficient nutritious food to military forces, a challenge complicated by distance from sources and the difficulties of preservation and preparation of food. During the American Revolution, soldiers of the brand-new Continental Army, many of whom were barely more than farm boys with pitchforks, faced vicious winters with hardly anything to eat and a desperate need for adequate clothing. Stories of misery and hardship dominate the correspondence of Civil War troops, and the diaries of combatants on all sides of WW I record the inadequacies of supply lines. As the Fishers note in their introduction, “The element of distance … coupled with numbers has challenged the military feeding effort … [and] the food offered soldiers and sailors could be no better than the preservation and packaging technology at any given time.” 
By the entry of the United States into the second World War, rapid growth in communication and engineering technologies supported by the national commitment to the war effort brought more effectiveness to production and supply chain management. Every disfunction encouraged a solution. An example from the Battle of Tarawa in the Pacific recounts the experience of Marines who were dependent on supplies of canned foods. During unloading, the cans got wet, the paper labels came unstuck and disappeared, and the cooks were flying blind. Lesson learned. From then on, the cans themselves were stamped with what was in them, and nobody got corn instead of spam in his breakfast. 

UNREP 
Perhaps the most effective of the Navy’s innovations in support of the war in the Pacific was the establishment of what is now known as the Combat Logistics Force. Supply lines had to be established at great distances and kept there. The result was Underway Replenishment, a process well known to modern Shipmates. During the Korean War, the need for underway replenishment of ammunition and provisions meant that ships had to return to Japan every few days. Auxiliary ships began to be deployed again, and the provisioning soon returned to the routines that had serviced the fleet during the war in the Pacific less than a decade before. Now, thanks to the modern Navy’s sophisticated logistics, the Military Sealift Command’s 125 civilian-crewed ships can resupply a surface ship on the open ocean anywhere in the world. The process by which the MSC transfers supplies during UNREP’s Connected Replenishment at sea is choreographed like a classical ballet. Watching the precise wrangling of pallets of crates by forklift drivers positioning the supplies, the timing of the civilian crew’s attachments to the cables; the slow, graceful rise of the STREAM system’s cable elevator; and the transfer of the pallets across the water from the UNREP vessel to the crew on the deck of the waiting ship while the suspended pipeline hoses deliver fuel and other liquids is a beautiful thing to see.
Throughout the 50s and 60s, the Navy continued to work on the improvement of the facilities, the food, and the systems of getting a crew of hundreds or thousands of personnel aboard fed properly. Remembering the 70s and 80s, Vietnam veterans tell wildly varying stories of the quality of what they ate, and how they worked out some meals for themselves. One such story comes from a river patrol boat. “We would pick out the C-rations that we wanted … and put them on the manifold so that the main meal would be hot ...” says the crewman. “I picked out a can of spaghetti and meatballs one day. … As we were on patrol, the can blew up and the boat captain thought that we were taking fire. The engineman found burnt spaghetti all over the engine. I was not allowed to do that anymore …”
In the modern Navy, reports of the food aboard all manner of ships still vary from “barely edible” to “some of the best I’ve ever had.” The reason is that, no matter how good the systems in place are, the quality of the product is in the hands of the teams that get the food on the table. LTJG Jason Thomas and Culinary Specialist Chief (CSC) Brandon Ramos lead the food service team on the submarine USS JEFFERSON CITY, and believe in leading by example, keeping the focus on flavor and the morale of the crew. “It’s paramount the food be right every time,” Thomas says. “My team has to get it right. We’re only limited by provisions.”
Years ago, a U.S. Navy ship’s commander was asked who among his crew were the most important. Without hesitating, he said, “The cooks. A well-fed crew is a happy crew.” Good chefs understand the personnel have to be fed well, and feel the duty to see that they are fed nutritious food, on a tight schedule, three or four times a day, in a space that is kept clean, and operated efficiently. And on the other side of the counter, Shipmates know that, on sea or land, aboard ship or at home, you don’t want to get on the wrong side of the people who feed you.     FRA

Return to Table of Contents

MEMBERHSIP MATTERS

Your Voice Can Be Very Powerful

One of the most powerful things shipmates can do is create a voice at the local level.  
I recently got an email from Jack Fogel, of Cumberland County in Tennessee. That story ran on Page 37 of the March issue of FRAtoday.

He explained what he had done to organize the Cumberland County Veterans Organization, a nonpartisan nonprofit group, registered with the IRS. It operates as a coalition of other Veterans Organizations located in Cumberland County, including the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the FRA, the Korean War Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the VFA, the Vietnam Veterans of America, Elks Lodge, and the Marine Corps League. 

Advocates at the County Level
 Their goal is to be a productive advocate in Cumberland County, targeting donors and interested parties in the immediate area who might have some affinity for one of the member groups.  They aim to provide monetary support when needed, and manpower to assist with administrative and other tasks if a member doesn’t know how to proceed.

What is remarkable about Shipmate Jack’s efforts, beyond their breadth of relevance, is that they were entirely grassroots-driven.  Jack didn’t wait to get funding from another group, or approval and blessing prior to proceeding.  He and his colleagues in Cumberland County simply got organized and chose to move forward.  

In Loyalty, Protection and Service
My hope in sharing this information is to make it clear that this kind of advocacy is the essence of a service-minded approach. Service isn’t waiting for someone to give you permission.  It’s not responding when the SOP tells you it’s OK.  Service is about seeing a need and making an effort to put the people and tools in place to respond, particularly when you know that others will see an immediate benefit.

The FRA has long tried to represent that way of thinking. We recognize that there are times when the distance between what we do on Capitol Hill and how it impacts Shipmates in a distant region may be hard to fathom. We understand that it’s not always clear when the path between effort and benefit is long and potentially convoluted.  

We don’t make a point of choosing paths to service which look that way. We want to find opportunities to make a difference which are immediately obvious; immediately helpful; and immediately welcome.  But sometimes we have to choose to pursue the longer path, even if Shipmates won’t recognize the effort at the beginning, and we have to make an extra effort to keep them informed.

This is why efforts like Shipmate Fogel’s are so welcome.  He saw an opportunity to make an immediate improvement to the situation for veterans in his immediate area, and he moved on it without hesitation. This is the essence of the volunteer military force in our country — we take action because we feel the need to serve, the need to make a difference.  

Keep It Simple
It doesn’t need to be complicated.  It doesn’t need to feel like an inconceivable effort.  It simply needs to respond to a need.  Shipmates and their families and friends don’t always have the perspective necessary to take actions in their own interests, but that doesn’t mean others can’t help them along.  Shipmate Fogel saw such an opportunity, above and beyond the immediate scope of his shipmates, and he acted on it.

What are you or your branch able to do to act on your own ideas?        FRA
Yours in Loyalty, Protection and Service,
Christina Hitchcock

Christina is the FRA’s director of membership. She can be reached at ChristinaH@fra.org or 703-683-1400, ext. 123.   
Shipmate News

1. Branch 99, Virginia Beach, Va.
Branch and Unit 99 collected new unwrapped gifts for Toys for Tots from our members in December of 2020. The toys were delivered to the Virginia Beach Toys for Tots location. Shipmate Paula Falu delivered the toys to the active-duty Marines who were collecting them.

2. Branch 197, Modesto, Calif
Shipmate Mickey Ganitch, currently a MAL, was previously the treasurer for branch 10 San Leandro. The 101-year-old CPO and Pearl Harbor Survivor still works at the DAV office in the senior center in downtown Oakland, California. He is a great guy and still sharp as a tack.

3. Branch 186, Hernando, Fla.
The Citrus Branch’s Shipmate Jane Mundis, who is also the branch president and a past national chaplain, at the Female Veterans’ monument unveiling in January. (L to R) Female Veterans Network President Cynthia Henderson, holding a paper replica of the monument, Historian Joanne Hirst and Shipmate Mundis who is part of the Female Veterans Network of Citrus County. They have been trying to get the monument erected for three years. The monument is dedicated to all American female veterans, from the Revolutionary War and into the future.

4. Branch 197, Modesto, Calif.
JrPRP Shipmate Steve Matthews met with the Wreaths Across America event organizer Gaylene Ramos for the event that has always been focused on fallen veterans. More than fifty wreaths were placed on grave sites of veterans in December at the San Joaquin Valley National Veterans Cemetery. 

5. Branch 182, Bethesda, Md.
Branch members, including Shipmate Mark Allen, and other patriots posted National Ensigns and Coast Guard Standards on USCG veterans’ graves at Arlington National Cemetery in November, 2020. More than 190 people attended. The flags were provided by the USCG Flags Across America program, sponsored by the DC Chapter of the USCG Chief Petty Officers Association. Photo by BMCS Theresa Joyce, USCGR.

6. Branch 29, Bremerton, Wash.
The branch kitchen crew served more than 100 free takeout meals for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners to local veterans. M & EZE Home Cooking did all the cooking and plating of these meals. (L to R) Branch Vice President Gary Reed, Shipmates Elnora Ross, Keith Ross, Anthony Smith and Branch President Kenneth Barrett.
7. Branch 89, Atlanta, Ga.
Our Branch supports the food pantry for American Legion Post 160, where we meet. Branch President Rose encouraged Shipmates to bring  food to a meeting where Legion Post Adjutant, Denise Watkins (2nd from left) accepted the donations. Watkins also serves as branch secretary.

8. Branch 208, Jacksonville, N.C.
Branch President Raymond Applewhite presented an FRA membership pin to CMDCM (SS/FMF/SW/AW) Graham P. Luby, who submitted his Lifetime Membership application. Luby will soon retire after 28 years of service to the United States Navy.

9. Branch Unit 269, Goose Creek, S.C.
Branch and Unit donated money and toys for the Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots program and set a record of 584 toys. (L to R) Linda Cox, John Tharp, Marilyn Tharp, RPSE LA FRA Gal Nathan, PRPSE LA FRA Gail Bolz, Sergeant D’Mitry Lawrence, Harry Nettles, Jr. Past RPSE Laurie Bailey, Lee Nettles, RCSE LA FRA Trish Chilton and Theresa Milligan.

10. Branch 301, Greenville, N.C.
Shipmate Bill Schroeder (branch Essay Contest chairman) (R) presented a $100 dollar prize and certificate to the first place local level Essay Contest winner to Carter Lewis as his Mother Jennifer Lewis looks on.

11. Branch 192, Fallon, Nev.
Branch President PRPWC Larry Briggs (Ctr.) presented Branch 192 donations to Toys for Tots, along with the program coordinator “JR” Wempner (R) and Chris Hansbury (L).

12. Branch 269, Goose Creek, S.C.
The U.S. Submarine Veterans, Charleston Base (USSVI-CB) and the FRA recognized Stacy Power CSCM(SS), USN, (ret.) (L) for 65 years of continuous membership. Power, a WW II veteran, was presented with a certificate and pin by Branch Vice President Harry Nettles QMCM(SS), USN, (Ret.) (R) during the USSVI-CB January meeting. Power’s served from 1943 until 1969.

13. Branch 115, Lehigh Valley, Pa.
Harry Newhard, part of the Black Diamond Branch’s American Flag Folding team, was present during the flag folding (13 folds) ceremony held during the branch’s Americanism Essay Contest awards, Aug. 20, 2020 at Veterans Rally Point and Memorial in Lopatcong Municipal Park, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

TAPS
Name	Rating	Branch
Abiera, Deogracias P.	SKC, USN	84
Adair, Gerald	POC, USN	MAL
Atkins, Jimmie D.	ADRC, USN	MAL
Azar, Louis,	MCPO, USN	90

Babine, Harold C.	EMCM, USN	117
Bankert, Cecil L.	GMG1	MAL
Barton, George E.	PO1, USN	269
Beates, Chester L.	MACS(SW), USN	MAL
Beck, Wallace R.	ATC, USN	MAL
Beck, Richard P.	CTCM, USN	MAL
Becker, Ronald W.	PNC, USN	117
Berry, Bobby L.	STCM, USN	89
Bloomingdale, George	EMC(SS), USN	MAL
Boesendahl, William J.	BM2, USN	MAL
Bohn, Larry A.	OSCS	MAL
Bourke, James J.	HMCM, USN	207
Bowman, Richard L.	CW04, USN	MAL
Britts, Haven J.	CWO4, USN	261
Bugay, Domingo P.	MSCM, USN	99

Carmichael, David L.	AKCM, USN	40
Carney, Carl E.	USN	60
Casselman, Richard L.	AQCS, USN	38
Cassidy, Donald L.	HM1, USN	MAL
Chilson, Paul J.	AFCM, USN	42
Clark, Ray L.	LTJG, USN	101
Cleeve, Richard W.	EMCM(SS), USN	269
Collins, Aloysius R.	AZ1, USN	MAL
Combs, Jack	GMG1, USN	MAL
Courtney, Francis D. 	CTRCM(SS), USN	24
Creeden, John	AMSC, USN	MAL
Crocker, Henry	ATCS, USN	MAL
Cukrowicz, Chester E.	MSGT, USMC	259
Cunningham, Loman D.	SKCS, USN	MAL

Dawson, Duane	PNCM, USN	MAL
Decker, Billy W.	CTRC, USN	364
Dillon, Lewis B.	USN	MAL
Dockery, B. W.	CAPT, USMC	208
Dufrain, Larry E.	HMCS, USN	MAL
Durbin, James C.	MMC, USN	MAL
Dvorcek, Carl P.	E-7, USN	MAL

Eckert, Alton J.	1N, AEC, USN	219
Eisler, John P.	S/SGT, USMC	117

Farr, Gerald L.	QMC(SS), USN	269
Faulhaber, Duane M.	MSCS, USN	MAL
Feddon, Thomas F.	AFCM, USN	269
Flaningam, James D.	LCDR, USN	22
Forssell, Charles F.	BTC, USNR	57
Fosen, John W.	AT3, USN	93
Francisco, Rolando S.	SH1/E6, USN	MAL
Fuqua, Dennis	QMCS(SS), USN	269

Garcia, Pat E.	SKCM, USN	MAL
Gardner, Jerry	BTC, USN	MAL
Gensler, Robert L.	LCDR, USN	24
Gillum, James P.	EN1, USN	18
Gunn, George I.	DTC, USN	MAL

Hapgood, Lyle M.	AOC, USN	70
Hardy, Floyd V.	MMCM, USN	106
Hellwig, Louis H. 	RM2/c, USN	18
Hill, Ralph A.	CWO4, USN	210
Honke, Charles B.	POC, USN	24
Hylland, Charles P.	AE1, USN	276

Jimmerson, John L.	MS-1, USN	290
Johnson, John E.	ICC, USN	22
Justice, Harry E.	AK1, USN	MAL

Kendzierski, John P.	ENCS, USN	185
Koeppen, David E.	ETCS, USN	20
Kurzawski, Carl R.	BMC, USN	01

Lanning, Gail	CWO4, USN	145
Leonard, Euin C.	RM2, USN	89
Lovorn, Wade H.	AKCM, USN	MAL
Luttrell, William M.	YNC(SS), USN	269
Lux, Francis D.	STCM, USN	MAL
Lysik, Richard J.	EO1, USN	MAL

Madigan, Albert W.	PHM, USN	24
Magnussen, Clifford M.	TMCM(SS), USN	104
Matthews, Sonny	SHC, USN	MAL
McGarvey, Joseph W.	BTC, USN	187
McMillen, James R.	SKCM, USN	166
McNeive, Francis T.	USMC	208
McPhaul, William	ACCS, USN	MAL
Milan, Larry J.	RMC, USN	161
Miller, Robert J.	PNC, USN	MAL
Miller, James W.	CSC, USN	MAL
Miltenberger, John M.	MR, USN	115
Modica, Giro	EN3, USN	MAL
Morrin, David M.	FTCS(SS), USN	269
Morris, Charles W.	PO1, USN	MAL
Mullins, Ernest C.	YNCS, USN	MAL

Nath, James T.	AC1, USN	166
Null, Charles H.	CSC, USN	MAL

Odle, Ted W.	AZCS, USN	MAL
Olson, Sherman L.	PNCM, USN	307
Orkish, John M.	GYSGT, USMC	302

Parsons, Harry L.	PNCS, USN	61
Patterson, George W.	MSCS, USN	166
Patterson, Gordon L.	ADR1, USN	89
Patterson, Robert G.	PO1, USN	MAL
Powers, Stephen	AEC, USN	MAL
Prchal, Michael J.	ATCS, USN	44
Putala, Michael P.	EMC(SS), USN	290

Richards, Thomas R.	EO2, USN	89
Ritmire, Charles L.	CPO, USN	136
PRP EC Robertson, Duane E. RMC, USN	182
Rogers, Paschal A.	SGT, USMC	24
Roselle, Ramona T.	SK3, USN	67
Rosenberger, James R.	YN1, USN	MAL

Savell, Morton H.	ETC/SS/DV, USN	166
Sawdey, Kenneth G.	SH1, USN	258
Shreves, James L.	EO1, USN	MAL
Slack, Melvin L.	CSCS(SS), USN	161
PNP Smith, Richard B.	 AVCM, USN	70
Snyder, Frank E.	ETCM(SS), USN	86
Sones, Eugene T.	ADCS , USN	MAL
Stallkamp, Joseph E.	SSGT, USMC	MAL
Steele, Robert D.	EMCM, USN	269
Stewart, Harry R.	BM1, USN	166
Sullivan, Roy L.	HMC, USN	MAL

Templin, Don L.	HMC, USN	MAL
Thompson, Richard H.	HTCM, USN	269
Ticknor, Owen E.	ATC, USN	MAL
Tucker, James B.	EMCS, USN	23

Varcados, James E.	RM1, USN	MAL

Walford, James D.	SH1, USN	302
Walker, Bevy E.	PO1, USN	44
Wheeler, Marlin D.	AMH2, USN	161
Wilbur, Laurence D.	ENC(SS), USN	08

Return to Table of Contents

Greetings from the Northeast/New England Regional President

As I write this column for the Auxiliary, the weather near me is cold and snowy. Well, at least there are only 36 days until Spring and with that brings hope. Thankfully, the governors of the states in my region are beginning to lift some of the social restrictions and the vaccine is becoming more available. Maybe we all will soon be able to get back to a more normal life or at least some kind of a “new normal.”

COVID-19
The pandemic has certainly made it very difficult to conduct face-to-face meetings or to participate in all those activities that we love to do. We have been unable to provide in-person support, like we have in the past, to our communities or to the Shipmates who may be in nursing homes or hospitals. 
However, it amazes me how innovative and resourceful our members can be. They continue to send cards, write letters, make telephone calls or send emails. But they also hold drive-by ceremonies to celebrate milestones like birthdays or anniversaries. Members have provided ditty bags, gift baskets and care packages. In the past, they may have also been known to provide meals or hold clothing drives. Now they raise money or donate gift cards instead. Members in my region and beyond, now can communicate with each other through Zoom meetings and video chats. Just think about how many of us at the LA FRA and FRA who were at one time social media challenged, are now able to navigate through it. And most importantly, we send virtual hugs — socially. We are truly in this together!
Be sure and check out the websites: www.la-fra.org and www.fra.org. Information is posted daily to the Facebook page; Fleet Reserve Association, Northeast/New England Region. 

Regional Meetings
The Northeast/New England Midyear meeting will be held in Peabody, Massachusetts (that’s pronounced PEE-baa’dee) the weekend of April 16 to 17 at the Lakeside Inn in Wakefield, Massachusetts. We are thrilled to announce that we will be instituting a new unit at Branch 31. The Northeast/New England Regional Convention is scheduled to be held from August 6 to 7, 2021 at Hilton Garden Inn in Albany, New York.      FRA
Stay safe.
In Loyalty, Protection and Service,
PNP Cindy Rodham-Tuck 
   
Cindy is the LA FRA regional president of the Northeast/New England Region.

Four Things to Know About Risk
Whether you are already investing or are just thinking about it, you should understand risk and the role it can play in a portfolio. And although it may seem simple enough on the surface, risk can be one of the most difficult concepts to grasp — especially for new investors. To help clear things up, here are four things you should know:

1. Risk has many faces.
Usually when people talk about risk, they are referring to investment risk: You purchase a stock at $50 a share, for example, and a year later it is worth only $25. Investment risk is relatively easy to understand, and it is measurable based on the ups and downs in an investment’s price. The more volatile it’s been, the more risky the investment is considered to be.
Unfortunately, investment risk is only one type of risk that investors face. There are plenty of others that may not be as easy to understand or measure. For example, there’s:
Market risk. While investment risk has to do with a specific investment, there is also the risk that the entire market will decline – remember what happened to stocks during the Great Recession — and pull your investment down with it. That is market risk.
Inflation risk. Inflation is the overall increase in prices in an economy. It creates the risk that an investment’s return won’t be enough to overcome its impact. For example, if inflation runs 2% a year and your investment returns only 1%. That means you have lost “purchasing power.” As a result, even with your returns, it would buy less at the end of the year than at the beginning.
Opportunity risk. Some investors believe you can avoid risk by investing conservatively. However, there’s opportunity risk, which is the possibility of missing out on the chance to earn better returns by being more aggressive. 
This is just a small sampling. There are other risks, including some specific to certain types of investments. For example, bond investors face default risk — the risk the issuer will fail to make interest payments or repay the bond’s par value at maturity.

2. It’s Usually Linked with Return 
Possibly the most important thing to understand about risk is its relationship with return. The two generally go hand-in-hand:
•	 If you put money into a low-risk investment, you should probably expect lower returns.
•	 If you choose a higher-risk investment, you possibly could anticipate better returns.
Of course, things don’t always work out that way. When you put money into a high-risk investment, you may not get better returns. In fact, you could end up losing your entire investment. But many investors continue to include riskier investments in their portfolios, often for higher return potential.

3. You Should Determine Your Tolerance
Your risk tolerance is simply how much risk you can comfortably live with in your portfolio. It sounds simple enough, but determining your risk tolerance can be challenging. There are tools, like questionnaires, available to assist you. In addition, one indicator that you have exceeded your risk tolerance is when you find your investments’ performance is keeping you awake at night — especially when there’s market volatility.	
You may have a relatively low risk tolerance, and that is OK. However, staying within it and having a reasonable chance of reaching your goals may mean you need to adjust your objectives (having, say, $750,000 at retirement instead of $1 million). You may also need to lengthen your time horizon, which is how long you have until you need to tap into your investments. For example, you may decide you need to work until 68 instead of 65 so you have longer to invest. 

4. Help Is Available
Because risk is complicated, and it is only one aspect of investing, you may need a professional Financial Advisor to help with building your portfolio. Look for one who will take the time to get to know you, including your risk tolerance, before recommending an investment plan.  FRA

This article was written by/for Wells Fargo Advisors and provided courtesy of Carl M. Trevisan, Managing Director-Investments and Stephen M. Bearce, First Vice President- Investments in Alexandria, Virginia at 800-247-8602.
Investments in securities and insurance products are: NOT FDIC-INSURED/NOT BANK-GUARANTEED/MAY LOSE VALUE
Wells Fargo Advisors is a trade name used by Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, Member SIPC, a registered broker-dealer and non-bank affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company.
© 2020 Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC. All rights reserved