ARMY ENGINEERING I - Joint Air To Ground Missile (JAGM) FCA

[The submitted response to the work assignment requested in the emails provided]

This tasker (work assignment) exemplifies much of the retaliation I have maintained that has been employed by Susan Davis and Phil Howard for more than a years against me.  Picked purely at random and because it's my current work assignment. 

Although I have over 10 years of airworthiness experience Phil Howard has forced me onto work I have never done and totally unrelated to airworthiness.  At the same time this tasker embodies the typical bad engineering of the Army at every level.  As I stated in the email exchange with Susan Davis (see below) I will be providing a technical response.  Phil Howard has never responded to a single email sent to him concerning any issue raised regardless of the topic technical or otherwise for over 4 years during which he has been my 2nd line supervisor and now my 1st line supervisor.  Susan Davis is currently my 2nd line supervisor.  Susan Davis has been Chief Software Quality/CM/Safety Division for decades.  Phil is currently over airworthiness which I am not allowed to work and forced under Susan to insure that I will not bring up airworthiness issues as I have done in the past.

1) DB3: 

Currently I am a DB-854-3 Computer Engineer and have brought the excessive levels of technical competency demanded by management both the Air Force and Army of general level engineers to the attention of management for decades.  After about 9 years of overseeing engine controls for three different platforms another engineer was promoted over me to DB4.  This individual had the ability to assign technical work but did not have the technical capability to do the work.  I pointed this out to Dr. Willie Fitzpatrick.  I actually still have a briefing he presented to me and the other individual were he attempted and failed to define my technical requirements vs a DB4 requirements.  Willie and I use to go around and around about this.  She's a lead well then she needs to lead no she's a airworthiness expert well then she need to address these (current) airworthiness issues.  No she's a lead and on and on it went.  He was never able to define what a DB3 was (I do not believe anyone currently in management could define it, nor would they) but I determined what it was at that time. 

I also raised this same issue while employed with the Air Force.  I'll be referencing Ches Rehberg, Chief, Engineering Division, Robins AFB GA. when they assigned someone to ALQ-131 Lead Engineer (GS-13) who could not even turn the system on.  I was a GS-12.  During a significant pod OFP software issue which I was expected to solve I raised the issue with Ches, why isn't he leading.  His statement to me in his office was, "We consider our engineers to be autonomous."  Where upon leaving his office he also threw an insult at me for good measure.  I reached for the doorknob to leave and Ches said, "I respect you technically."  I'm an engineer and dense when it comes to people so it took a long time to realize he was insulting me: I respect you technically but not as a person.  But that another long story about the wonderful engineering of the Air Force.  Same issues as the Army.

A DB3 was at the time I raised this issue with Dr. Willie Fitzpatrick someone with a college degree and 2 years of experience.  That's it.  My contention was and still is that if your assigning work to a DB3 then you should be able to grab any DB3 walking down the hall and they should be able to do it with the information supplied.  Same thing for a GS-12.  Of course this is exactly NOT what management wants or expects of a DB3 working level engineer.  As documented by the statement made by Susan in the Email (below) that "You are a senior engineer."  Which embodies the constant elevated demands made by management.  I am NOT a senior engineer.  This is constant discrimination.  It has absolutely no meaning or relevancy to my government engineering position other than to demand engineering expertise above what would be expected from a DB3 or any other position, engineering or not.  The only meaning.  So of course you could assign this tasker to any DB3 (854) and expect them to fulfill it.  Sorry any "Senior" DB3 walking down the hall that is.  Discrimination.

2) 854 Computer Engineer:

Apparently Susan (DB4, Chief ) took a long look at the data before assigning the work.  This is a FCA, whatever that means [see SOW – 816 provided below], but a  HARDWARE FCA and only addresses issues by dismissing them as hardware failures. So no software issues address by the FCA only hardware failures according to the documentation.  I find it very interesting how many of failures are diagnosed as a "connector" issue.  So going through the data a DB3 854 computer engineer for "software issues" all technical issues are specified as hardware failures.   The deep dive hidden in the crack data not attracted to a connector failure (I'm joking there is like a oscillator failure so no everrrry thing was a connector) "software" issue is listed below in 5) Software Issue.

3) JAGM:

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) FCA assigned to an individual who has absolutely no training or experience with a FCA during his employment with the Army.  On a missile system the individual has absolutely no training or experience with.  The individual has never had any training on any missile system but does has 10 years of airworthiness experience.  Assigned to work they have never done as retaliation for raising these airworthiness issues as they have done in the past.   Makes total sense.  Actually during the last "team" meeting I asked the other two engineers DB3 that are assigned to this work.  Both stated they have no experience on this Missile system.  Three engineered assigned that have no experience on the system.  Army Engineering.

4) FCA:

Only being a DB3, excuse me a "Senior" DB3, from the documentation supplied this is ONLY a Hardware FCA.  I have had no training on an FCA or PCA for that matter but that doesn't matter with Army Engineering.  The beginning of last years right when Susan and Phil started forcing me onto non-airworthiness work they offered me the great "opportunity" to do some other work I had never done.  I declined stating it was not part of my work objectives.  Susan because furious and stated, "No one had ever done this to me before" and that "other duties as assigned" would be added to my objectives to address this in the future.  Essentially setting the stage for them to force any type of work on me in the future.  Like a hardware missile FCA but as Susan stated I am a "senior"  engineer.  Which as I maintain has no meaning other than to force or demand someone into providing a higher level of technical expertise than one would expect from just any DB3.  The only reason and discrimination.

5) Software Issue:

This is a FCA only addressing hardware and all failures are associated with hardware failure, usually a connector.  A deep dive into the documentation only reveals this "software issue" and the only reference to this issue in all the documentation.

FINAL TEST REPORT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTION  QUALIFICATION TEST (EPQT) OF THE JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) INCREMENT 1 - April 2018 PN 13674095-019 [You do not know how hard it was to find just the Part Number listed in the documentation supplied].

ATEC Project No:  2017-DT-RTC-JAGMX-G5020

RTC Document No:  RTC-18-G5020-0088

1.      1.10.1+ Software Bug. Short description about as long as this was here. Removed & replaced it with an equivalent length of nothingness. Thanks for looking!    Fixed in 1.10.6.

Which occurred during Joint-Air-to-Ground-Missile (JAGM) Environmental Production Qualification Test (EPQT).

So one (1) software issue deeply hidden in the documentation supplied elaborately  addressed.

6) Army Contract Technical Requirements - the pièce de résistance

Contract Requirements for FCA:

 [SOW – 816] The Contractor shall verify, through the Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) and Physical Configuration Audit (PCA), the functional and physical characteristics of test and product configurations are IAW the Functional, Allocated, and Product baseline documentation and Attachment 08 – IPTs and Working Groups.

Essentially NO technical requirements specified for the FCA or PCA for the contractor to meet.  The FCA and PCA in accordance to... basely nothing?  So in accordance to the SOW the contractor has basically no technical requirements to meet for FCA or PCA. 

This tasker represents normal day to day ARMY ENGINEERING or rather presented here to show the lack of day to day engineering by the Army.  Which I have pointed out to management multiple times and the reason I find myself continuously retaliated against by Army management.  It doesn't matter what the work is airworthiness or not Army engineering is generally inadequate regardless.  I will be providing another example called EPIC in the future. 

The term "Army Engineering" is kind of a joke anyway because the actual engineering is generally done by contractors not the Army.   Just at the organization I work at the ratio is 1 to 10 for government vs. contractors.

ARMY ENGINEERING!

- Email exchange referenced above - ME is the author yours truly! -

FW: some materiel release review (UNCLASSIFIED)

ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)

Thu, May 2, 11:52 AM

to
"Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)"
"Howard, Phillip CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)"
"Holmes, Marcia B CIV USARMY RDECOM AMRDEC (USA)"
"Christensen, Juanita M SES USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)"

Susan and my chain of command. 

This is documented evidence of excess technical demands constantly made by Susan Davis.  I believe the evidence would show she has even assigned work she was assigned by upper management (and another DB4) on me.   I am a DB3 NOT a senior engineer.  Susan has done this many many times before you are a "senior engineer."

I am a DB3 engineer not a senior engineer which Susan is using now (captured below) and as before to demanding very high technical expertise, excessive technical demands she makes from a DB3 not a senior engineer.  I will look at the technical documentation as always.  I have never refused but yet this mails capture the abuse of authority by Susan Davis.

ME

-----Original Message-----

From: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 9:53 AM

To: ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)

Subject: RE: some materiel release review (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

ME,

You are a senior engineer and are capable of reviewing reports and information.  I am not asking  you to do an FCA. I am asking you to read the data and report back any software issues recorded in the data.   The task is still required.

Susan

-----Original Message-----

From: ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)

Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 9:13 AM

To: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA);

Christensen, Juanita M SES USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA);

Subject: RE: some materiel release review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Susan,

I have absolutely no training on this nor have I ever done any FCA work here:  none.  Airworthiness 10+ years vs FCA none but that's the work I'm provided.

I included you Juanita for FWIW.

Thanks

ME.

-----Original Message-----

From: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA)

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 8:36 AM

To: ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA) ;

Subject: some materiel release review (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

ME,

I would like you to review the FCA data that has been provided for the JAGM software suitability and supportability statement the Division  will be generating.  Please  document any software technical issues which may have been reported in the data.  If the data does note an issue provide in your response where you found the data what the issue was  about, if it is still open or closed if you can let from the report, what the problem report number is etc.  The goal is to help check  that nothing in the software has been left not properly documented and addressed.  We should be able to trace later any open issues  you find to the SVDs  for the version of software they want to release.   Also in the data  your review  and your report back note the version of software used or if the report does not address the version of software used.   

Some of the data/reports are large but address thinks like environmental testing and these do not normally find software problems and simple search on software  may work. 

I would like a simple technical report on what you find. Please be sure to include in the report where you  found the issue noted.   Also  as you go through the data please note the versions of software  addressed or if it is not noted.  We may need to go back and asks questions.

The data I am referring to in on the shared folders under \Projects\SED_Materiel_Release\PEO MS\JAMS JAGM\JAGM FMR S4 1.12.3\TDP First Delivery\FCA

As always if you have questions please let me know as soon as possible.    If you have problems opening any of the files also report that as well as soon as possible.   This is due 15 May.

Susan

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED