Program Objective Memorandum

Program Objective Memorandum
Name	Program Objective Memorandum
Abbreviation	POM
Type	Planning document
Jurisdiction	United States Department of Defense
Created	1960s
Parent	Office of the Secretary of Defense

Program Objective Memorandum

The Program Objective Memorandum is a multi-year planning and programming instrument used by the United States Department of Defense to translate strategic guidance into budgetary proposals, force structure choices, and acquisition priorities. It links defense planning documents such as the National Security Strategy, Quadrennial Defense Review, National Defense Strategy, and Budget of the United States with resource allocation processes involving the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of Management and Budget. The memorandum frames capability trades among services such as the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, and United States Marine Corps while informing congressional committees like the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Overview

The POM is part of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) system administered by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, guided by strategic documents including the National Security Strategy, the National Military Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review. It serves as an input to the Defense Budget of the United States, the President of the United States's annual budget submission, and hearings before the United States Congress, notably the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. Service chiefs such as the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps submit POM proposals that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff helps reconcile.

Purpose and Functions

The memorandum's primary function is to align capability requirements from the Joint Staff, combatant commanders such as the United States Central Command, United States European Command, and United States Indo-Pacific Command with resource constraints set by the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. It supports force development across acquisition programs like the F-35 Lightning II, Virginia-class submarine, M1 Abrams, Zumwalt-class destroyer, and Colossus-class hypothetical programs by establishing programmatic funding profiles, procurement schedules, and modernization priorities. The POM also informs sustainment decisions affecting logistics systems like the Defense Logistics Agency, readiness metrics reported to the Congressional Budget Office, and long-term investments reflected in the National Defense Authorization Act deliberations.

Preparation and Approval Process

Preparation begins at service headquarters—Department of the Army (United States), Department of the Navy (United States), Department of the Air Force (United States)—and involves integrated planning with the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and defense agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Missile Defense Agency. Draft POMs undergo internal review by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Deputy Secretary of Defense before the Secretary of Defense issues final guidance. The President of the United States's budget review, consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, and testimony before congressional panels including the United States House Committee on Armed Services finalize program choices and may result in reprogramming actions or rescissions enacted under the Antideficiency Act regime.

Contents and Format

A typical memorandum contains programmatic narratives, program element budgets, procurement quantities, modernization timelines, and metrics for capability attainment tied to strategic objectives from the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. It includes annexes covering research and development lines managed by agencies such as the Office of Naval Research, Air Force Research Laboratory, and Army Research Laboratory, plus sleds for acquisition milestones referencing programs like the Joint Strike Fighter and Zumwalt-class destroyer. Formatting conventions coordinate with systems used by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and reporting requirements for the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office.

Role in Defense Budgeting and Planning

The POM bridges strategic guidance from documents like the Quadrennial Defense Review with budgeting instruments such as the Future Years Defense Program and the President's budget request to Congress. It enables programmatic trade-offs among procurement, operations, and personnel accounts affecting pay and benefits governed in statutes like the Armed Services Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The memorandum informs congressional authorization and appropriation cycles overseen by the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations and shapes multiyear procurement decisions considered in hearings of the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

History and Evolution

Originating in planning reforms of the 1960s and 1970s that followed reviews like the Sullivan Report and the establishment of PPBE reforms under secretaries such as Robert McNamara and Caspar Weinberger, the POM has evolved alongside acquisition reforms embodied in laws including the Goldwater–Nichols Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. Changes in threats after events such as the September 11 attacks and operations like Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom prompted shifts in POM priorities toward counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and networked capabilities like those pursued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics, including watchdogs like the Government Accountability Office and analysts from think tanks such as the Rand Corporation, have argued that the POM process can be susceptible to stovepiping, optimistic cost estimates exemplified in programs like the F-35 Lightning II, and political influence from presidential administrations and congressional delegations such as those from Virginia or Texas. Controversies have arisen over practices like cost-to-complete adjustments, unfunded priorities lists submitted to Congress, and the interplay between acquisition reform advocates and entrenched program offices, generating debates in venues including the Senate Armed Services Committee and publications from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Category:United States Department of Defense