2010 Base Realignment and Closure

2010 Base Realignment and Closure
Name	2010 Base Realignment and Closure
Date	2010
Commission	Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Jurisdiction	United States
Outcome	Recommendations for military installation realignments and closures

Contents

2010 Base Realignment and Closure The 2010 Base Realignment and Closure round was a statutorily mandated process that produced a commission report recommending realignments and closures of United States Department of Defense installations, influencing force posture across the United States Armed Forces, United States Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Air Force. The process drew on precedent from earlier rounds such as Base Realignment and Closure (1991), Base Realignment and Closure (1993), Base Realignment and Closure (1995), and Base Realignment and Closure (2005), and it interacted with statutes including the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and directives from the President of the United States and the United States Congress.

Background and Legislative Authority

The statutory authority for the proceedings derived from the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 as amended, which set procedures involving the United States Secretary of Defense, the United States Congress, and an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC). Precedent rounds such as Base Realignment and Closure (1991) and Base Realignment and Closure (2005) established criteria later applied in 2010, while oversight and appropriations involved committees of the United States House Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services. Executive guidance came via the President of the United States and policy memoranda from the Secretary of Defense that referenced national strategy documents like the Quadrennial Defense Review.

The independent commission, chaired by commissioners appointed under procedures shaped by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, conducted site visits to installations such as Fort Bragg, Naval Air Station Oceana, Eglin Air Force Base, Joint Base Lewis–McChord, and Fort Hood to evaluate factors including military value, cost savings, and force structure alignment. The methodology incorporated analysis from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, and considered legal input from the United States Department of Justice and fiscal analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Public hearings included testimony from representatives of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and regional delegations from the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

The commission issued recommendations affecting installations across service branches, proposing actions such as realigning Fort Belvoir, closing certain activities at Fort Monmouth, reconfiguring operations at Naval Station Norfolk, and altering the footprint at Pax River Naval Air Station. Recommendations also proposed consolidations impacting Army Materiel Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Air Force Materiel Command functions, and adjustments to joint facilities like Joint Base Andrews and Joint Base Charleston. Specific recommended actions referenced programs and organizations including Program Executive Office, Defense Logistics Agency, and Space and Missile Systems Center, and sought to consolidate laboratories and research at sites associated with Aberdeen Proving Ground and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Following commission submission, the recommendations were transmitted to the President of the United States and then to the United States Congress under timelines prescribed by the enabling statute, with implementation phases coordinated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and executed by service secretaries including the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force. The schedule outlined milestones for environmental review pursuant to statutes guided by the Environmental Protection Agency, property disposal under the General Services Administration, and personnel actions in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management and military personnel systems. Many actions were phased over multi-year timelines to align with force deployments, construction overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers, and contracting governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

The round prompted debates among members of the United States Congress, state governors, and local officials in jurisdictions such as Virginia, Maryland, California, and Texas, and drew legal challenges involving plaintiffs represented before federal courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Critics cited concerns raised by veterans groups including the Military Officers Association of America and municipalities invoking economic studies from state departments of commerce and regional Economic Development Administration entities. Supporters referenced efficiency goals from the Government Accountability Office and strategic alignment with priorities in the National Defense Strategy, while opponents contested impacts on infrastructure, readiness, and historic installations listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Economic analyses by state economic development agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics examined job impacts in communities hosting installations such as San Diego, Norfolk, Virginia, Huntsville, Alabama, and Dayton, Ohio. Local responses involved redevelopment planning with entities like the Economic Development Administration, municipal industrial authorities, and university partners including Texas A&M University and Ohio State University to repurpose closed or realigned properties. Federal programs administered by the Small Business Administration and grant assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development were invoked to mitigate transition effects, while long-term outcomes continued to be studied by scholars at institutions such as RAND Corporation and think tanks including the Brookings Institution.

Category:United States military installations