Military Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Process Explained

Last updated 2 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) undertakes a significant process known as Military Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to ensure its infrastructure remains modern, efficient, and aligned with the nation’s defense needs. This process serves as a mechanism for the DoD to reorganize its military installations, enhancing the effectiveness of its support for the armed forces.

By adapting to the ever-changing landscape of national security, BRAC plays a role in improving resource allocation and ensuring the military is prepared for future challenges.

What is BRAC?

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is officially defined by the Department of Defense as the process it has previously used to “reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively support its forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business.”

This definition underscores the fundamental aim of BRAC: to ensure that the DoD’s physical assets are best positioned to support the current and future requirements of the military. By strategically realigning and closing certain facilities, the DoD can better match its infrastructure to its evolving needs.

Why BRAC is Necessary

The necessity for BRAC arises from the dynamic nature of military requirements and the global security environment. The DoD must continually assess its base structure to ensure it remains relevant and effective in the face of:

• New threats
• Evolving force structures
• Technological advancements
• Changes in military doctrine
• Organizational shifts
• Modifications in business practices and existing facilities

This ongoing evaluation allows the DoD to “better match existing facilities to changing military requirements.”

The BRAC process enables the DoD to eliminate facilities that are no longer essential, thereby reducing excess physical capacity and rationalizing the base infrastructure in accordance with contemporary defense strategies.

Furthermore, BRAC can foster greater collaboration and efficiency through the consolidation of functions and the facilitation of joint activities among the various branches of the military.

History of BRAC Rounds

The United States has implemented five rounds of BRAC to date, occurring in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. These periodic assessments have led to the closure of over 350 military installations across the country. The cumulative effect of these closures and realignments is estimated to generate annual savings of approximately $12 billion.

The consistent use of the BRAC process over several decades highlights a sustained need to adjust the military’s infrastructure footprint in response to evolving strategic demands and the realities of a post-Cold War world.

Each of these BRAC rounds was authorized through specific legislative action, underscoring the importance of congressional oversight and approval in this significant undertaking:

• The initial 1988 BRAC round was authorized by the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), enacted on October 24, 1988. This legislation marked the beginning of the formal BRAC process by establishing a special commission to provide recommendations on base realignments and closures directly to the Secretary of Defense.
• The subsequent 1991, 1993, and 1995 BRAC rounds were authorized under the Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), which constitutes Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, enacted on November 5, 1990. This act refined the BRAC process by establishing an independent commission appointed by the President. This commission was tasked with ensuring a timely, independent, and fair evaluation of potential base closures and realignments.
• The most recent 2005 BRAC round was authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107), which amended the 1990 act. This round was notable for its scale and complexity, with a significant emphasis placed on enhancing military value and facilitating the transformation of military capabilities, in addition to achieving cost savings.

The need for specific public laws for each set of BRAC rounds demonstrates the legislative branch’s crucial role in granting the executive branch the authority to implement these substantial infrastructure changes. The evolution of these authorizing legislations also reflects the lessons learned from previous rounds and the shifting priorities in national defense strategy.

The BRAC Commission

A cornerstone of the BRAC process is the involvement of an independent commission responsible for reviewing the recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense regarding base closures and realignments.

This commission typically comprises nine members appointed by the President. Its primary function is to conduct a thorough evaluation of the DoD’s proposals, which includes:

• Taking testimony from various stakeholders, such as community leaders, military personnel, and elected officials
• Conducting site visits to the affected military installations
• The authority to not only accept or reject the DoD’s recommendations but also to add military bases to the list of potential closures or realignments

Ultimately, the commission compiles its findings and submits a comprehensive set of recommendations to the President for approval.

Presidential and Congressional Review

Upon receiving the commission’s report, the President has the option to either approve or disapprove the entire package of recommendations. This “all-or-nothing” aspect is a key feature of the BRAC process.

If the President approves the recommendations, the list is then forwarded to the United States Congress. Congress has a limited window, typically 45 legislative days, to review the recommendations.

During this period, Congress can only disapprove the entire list by enacting a joint resolution. If Congress fails to pass such a resolution within the specified timeframe, the BRAC Commission’s recommendations become law, and the Department of Defense is mandated to proceed with their implementation.

The establishment of this independent commission serves as a critical mechanism to depoliticize the often-contentious issue of military base closures, aiming to ensure that decisions are based on objective criteria and reduce the influence of parochial interests.

The BRAC Process

The BRAC process unfolds through a series of well-defined stages:

Strategy and Inventory

It typically commences with the Department of Defense formulating a long-term strategy for its force structure, coupled with a detailed inventory of its existing infrastructure.

DoD Recommendations

Following this, the Secretary of Defense develops preliminary recommendations for potential base closures and realignments. These recommendations are guided by a set of established criteria, with a primary emphasis on military value. The proposed list is then submitted to the independent BRAC Commission for thorough examination and analysis.

Commission Review

The BRAC Commission undertakes a comprehensive review, which includes:

• Conducting public hearings to gather input from affected communities and other interested parties
• Analyzing extensive data
• Often visiting the military installations under consideration to gain firsthand understanding

Based on this rigorous evaluation, the commission has the authority to modify the Secretary’s initial recommendations. The commission then compiles its final list of recommendations and submits it to the President for review.

Presidential Review

The President must either approve or reject the entire package of recommendations as presented by the BRAC Commission. If the President approves the list, it is transmitted to Congress for its consideration.

Congressional Review

Congress has a specific period, often 45 legislative days, to review the recommendations. During this time, Congress’s only option is to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to reject the entire set of recommendations. If Congress does not enact such a resolution within the allotted time, the BRAC recommendations become legally binding.

Implementation

Following the approval of the recommendations, the Department of Defense enters the implementation phase. The DoD is required to initiate the closures and realignments within a specified timeframe, typically two years, and complete all necessary actions within six years.

This implementation process involves several key steps:

• Collection of detailed data about the installations
• Physical closure or realignment of the bases
• Environmental cleanup and the preservation of cultural resources
• Disposal of the surplus property

This multi-stage process, involving the Department of Defense, an independent commission, the President, and Congress, with checks and balances at each level, underscores the significance and complexity of the BRAC undertaking.

Selection Criteria

The criteria used for selecting military bases for potential closure or realignment are legally mandated, with military value serving as the foremost consideration.

Military Value

This primary criterion of military value encompasses a range of factors crucial to the effectiveness and readiness of the armed forces. These include:

• The current and projected mission capabilities of the installation
• Its impact on the overall operational readiness of the military
• Its contribution to joint warfighting, training exercises, and the preparedness of joint forces
• The availability and condition of the land
• The quality of existing facilities
• The suitability of associated airspace, including designated training areas that can accommodate diverse military maneuvers across various climates and terrains
• The ability of an installation to support contingency operations, mobilization requirements, potential surges in activity, and the future needs of the total force
• The cost of operating the installation and the manpower implications associated with its continued operation

Additional Considerations

While military value takes precedence, the BRAC criteria also incorporate other significant considerations:

• The potential for cost savings resulting from the closure or realignment, as well as the projected timeline for these savings to outweigh the initial costs of implementation
• The environmental impact of any proposed action, including the costs associated with environmental restoration, waste management, and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations
• The potential economic impact on the communities surrounding the military installations, both those that might experience closures and those that might see an influx of personnel or missions
• The ability of the infrastructure within both the existing and the receiving communities to adequately support the forces, missions, and personnel affected by the proposed changes

Although military value is the primary driver, these additional criteria acknowledge the broader economic, environmental, and community implications of base realignment and closure decisions.

Impacts and Outcomes

The implementation of BRAC rounds has historically generated a range of impacts and outcomes, affecting both the military and the surrounding communities.

Economic Impacts

While the initial announcement of a base closure can cause concerns about job losses and potential economic decline, many communities have demonstrated remarkable resilience in the long term. In some instances, these communities have successfully redeveloped the former military properties, leading to new economic opportunities and even growth.

Social Impacts

BRAC can lead to significant disruptions for military personnel and their families due to required relocations and changes in their assignments. Furthermore, the closure or realignment of a military base can impact the social and cultural identity of communities that have long-standing ties to these installations.

Financial Benefits

The BRAC process has yielded substantial financial benefits for the Department of Defense. The first four rounds alone are estimated to have generated net savings of approximately $29 billion by fiscal year 2003, with projections of continued annual savings thereafter.

These savings can be reinvested in critical areas such as enhancing military readiness, modernizing equipment, and improving the quality of life for service members and their families.

Community Transitions

Many communities that have experienced base closures have successfully transitioned by redeveloping the properties for various new uses, sometimes resulting in even greater economic activity than was present before the closure.

The overall impact of BRAC is multifaceted, presenting both challenges and opportunities for the military and the communities involved.

Successful Base Reuse Examples

Numerous examples exist of successful base reuse following BRAC closures, illustrating the potential for positive transformations in affected communities:

• The former Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin, Texas, now serves as the bustling Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, a significant economic engine for the region.
• Similarly, Williams Air Force Base in Mesa, Arizona, has been redeveloped into a thriving international aerospace and technology center, creating a substantial number of jobs and educational opportunities.
• Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire has been transformed into a successful business park and international airport, with employment figures now exceeding those of its military past.
• While not a traditional BRAC closure, the Presidio in San Francisco offers another compelling example of a former military installation that has been successfully converted into a national park and a valuable community asset.

These instances highlight the fact that with strategic planning, community engagement, and a focus on leveraging the unique assets of the former military installation, affected areas can often achieve successful and sustainable redevelopment.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

Despite the successes, the implementation of BRAC has also encountered various challenges and provided valuable lessons:

• The process can be inherently complex, requiring meticulous coordination across different branches of the military and numerous locations.
• Accurately estimating the full costs and long-term savings associated with BRAC actions can be difficult, with initial projections sometimes deviating significantly from the actual outcomes.
• Personnel-related issues, such as the relocation of civilian employees who may be unwilling or unable to move, can also present considerable hurdles during the implementation phase.

Experiences from past BRAC rounds have underscored:

• The critical importance of clear and consistent communication
• Thorough and detailed planning
• The use of accurate and reliable data
• Proactive engagement with the concerns and needs of the affected communities from the outset of the process

The 2005 BRAC round, with its focus on military transformation and the establishment of joint facilities, further highlighted the added complexities involved in realigning missions and integrating different service branches.

The history of BRAC demonstrates that while it is a valuable tool for optimizing military infrastructure, its effective implementation requires careful attention to detail, proactive problem-solving, and a commitment to addressing the needs of all stakeholders involved.

Future Prospects

The potential for future BRAC rounds remains a subject of ongoing discussion. The Department of Defense has frequently expressed the need for additional rounds to address what it perceives as remaining excess infrastructure and to realize further cost savings.

However, the authorization of new BRAC rounds has often faced significant political headwinds in Congress. These challenges are largely rooted in concerns about the potential negative economic impacts on local communities that host military bases and the inherent political sensitivities associated with base closures.

Some analysts have suggested that any future BRAC initiatives should be closely aligned with evolving national defense strategies and force structure plans to ensure that the military’s infrastructure effectively supports its current and anticipated operational needs.

Despite the absence of BRAC rounds since 2005, the debate over the necessity for further infrastructure adjustments continues, reflecting the persistent challenges of balancing the military’s pursuit of efficiency with the well-being of local communities and the complexities of political considerations.

The decision regarding the future of BRAC will likely hinge on the ability of policymakers to navigate these intricate factors and build consensus on the best path forward for the nation’s defense infrastructure.

BRAC Rounds Summary

Note: Figures are approximate and represent net annual recurring savings.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.