DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
[ORGANIZATION NAME]
[STREET ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP CODE]
[OFFICE SYMBOL] ([record number]) 3 November 2026
MEMORANDUM FOR Department of Force Management
SUBJECT: Closing the Army's New Equipment Readiness Gap Through Training and Policy
1. FOR DECISION.
2. PURPOSE. To obtain approval to forward a proposed training-readiness standard for Army-level review.
3. RECOMMENDATION. Endorse a six-month pilot proposal for review by the responsible Army officials. The proposal combines the Training and Policy domains of DOTMLPF-P. Training would verify critical operator and maintainer tasks and sustain those skills after fielding. Policy would define the evidence that officials need to document readiness, accept authorized risk, and close shortfalls. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, should coordinate the pilot with acquisition leaders and gaining commands. The pilot would retain existing materiel-release authority and begin only after the responsible officials approve funding and the evaluation plan.
APPROVED __________ DISAPPROVED __________ SEE ME __________
4. BACKGROUND.
a. Documented gap. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that, as of November 2023, each of six priority equipment items reached its first unit with at least one incomplete planning element. Most had three or more. Training, facilities, and policy were the elements most often incomplete. These findings support concern about fielding preparation across the Army. They do not show that every fielding lacked training or that training caused every readiness shortfall. See Army Modernization: Actions Needed to Support Fielding New Equipment (GAO-24-107566, 15 July 2024, pp. 20-21).
b. Existing training duties. The Army already requires new equipment training (NET), qualification assistance, and support for sustainment training. AR 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development (1 June 2025, chapter 7, pp. 82-84), assigns these duties and requires documented NET plans. The pilot would add common evidence criteria and a 90-day proficiency check within existing NET plans and fielding reviews.
c. Practical fielding lessons. The Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) publication Leader's Guide to Equipment Fielding (25-02 [706], January 2025, chapter 8, pp. 89-90 and 96) describes sustainment training, synchronization of fielding and training, and use of Soldier feedback. These lessons support checking both initial performance and retained skills. The guide provides practical context; the 2025 AR 350-1 supplies the training-policy baseline.
d. Current release policy. The Army's 13 July 2026 materiel-release announcement reports that release approval now rests with the respective Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE). The new framework tailors requirements to risk and uses early Materiel Release Agreements to identify needed evidence. Safety, suitability, and supportability remain central. This approach supports integrating training evidence into existing decisions, rather than adding another universal approval gate. That integration is the recommendation in this memorandum, not a requirement that the announcement establishes.
5. DISCUSSION.
a. Fit the standard to the equipment. The pilot would test whether common task evidence and assigned corrective-action owners shorten the gap between receipt and demonstrated proficiency. It should tailor evidence to system complexity, operational urgency, scale, and intended use. The training proponent, NET manager, program office, and gaining command should agree early on the critical tasks, evaluators, support, and completion dates. They should reuse the NET plans that AR 350-1 requires and existing fielding records. Minor equipment changes should not trigger the same training burden as an unfamiliar, complex system.
b. Validate performance. Before delivery, existing reviews should identify training resources, personnel, and schedule conflicts. During NET, designated operators and maintainers should demonstrate tasks appropriate to their duties under approved conditions and standards. Evaluators should record results and assign retraining to Soldiers who fall short of the standards. Equipment receipt, training attendance, and demonstrated proficiency should remain separate entries. Commanders would use the performance evidence to identify what their Soldiers can do and what support or restrictions remain necessary.
c. Sustain the skills. Building on the CALL guide’s sustainment-training approach, units should identify primary and alternate instructors and verify they can perform and teach the assigned tasks. Before the NET team leaves, the unit should confirm access to current technical references, lesson materials, and applicable training aids. For the pilot, commanders should schedule a refresher and proficiency check within 90 days, with additional training after significant configuration changes or personnel turnover. The 90-day check is a proposed pilot measure. Program offices and gaining commands must resource Reserve-component participation, including any added duty periods.
d. Document risk and close shortfalls. The pilot instruction should identify the evidence owner and criteria for closing each training deficiency. For urgent fielding with incomplete preparation, the responsible authorities should document the operational need, remaining risk, authorized use limits, interim support, corrective-action owner, and deadline. The pilot coordinator should elevate overdue actions through existing reviews. Any pilot-specific exception should have a review date. The pilot must preserve PAE release authority and existing safety, qualification, and waiver requirements; it would grant no new exception authority.
e. Test the proposal. G-3/5/7 should coordinate a six-month pilot using already scheduled fieldings in more than one equipment category. The Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve should participate where schedules allow. Participating units must finish NET early enough for a 90-day assessment. A G-3/5/7-designated pilot coordinator should compare results with similar fieldings that use current NET procedures, accounting for complexity and training time. Measures should include days from receipt to task validation, initial and 90-day proficiency, overdue actions, use of exceptions, added training hours, and cost.
f. Decide from the results. Pilot sponsors should approve baseline values and success thresholds before execution, including limits for added cost, training hours, and fielding delay. Soldiers and instructors should identify confusing materials, tasks needing more practice, and unnecessary paperwork. G-3/5/7 and acquisition leaders should recommend expansion only if the evidence shows improved proficiency or faster validated readiness without unacceptable delay, cost, or risk. If the results do not support expansion, they should revise the standard. The expected benefit is earlier correction of training shortfalls. The proposal assumes neither cost savings nor readiness improvements.
6. IMPACT.
a. Resources. The pilot affects NET managers, program offices, training proponents, gaining commanders, and Soldiers. Added costs may include evaluator time, instructor preparation, travel, training aids, and additional duty periods. Program offices and gaining commands should identify funding responsibilities and prepare estimates before execution. They should verify whether existing NET funding and resources can cover the pilot and use them within existing authorities. The proposal requires no new permanent organization or separate information system.
b. Tradeoffs and risk. Performance checks and refresher training take time from other requirements. Excessive documentation could slow delivery without improving readiness. Reusing records, matching evidence to risk, and reviewing workload would limit that burden. Existing release authorities must retain flexibility to respond to urgent needs. This training-focused proposal also cannot resolve every personnel or facilities shortage that officials identify during fielding. Commanders should refer those issues through existing processes.
7. COORDINATION. Proposed coordination includes Headquarters, Department of the Army, G-3/5/7 for training policy. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, affected PAEs, and program offices would review release decisions and support. Army Materiel Command would review sustainment. Capability and training proponents would review task standards. Gaining commands, the National Guard Bureau, and the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve should assess schedules and resources. Legal and safety staffs should review authorities and limits. This proposal identifies potential coordination; it does not record concurrence.
8. POC information withheld in this anonymized copy.
[NAME REDACTED]
[RANK REDACTED]
[POSITION REDACTED]