Marine Corps Times
May 23, 2005
Pg. 44
Body Armor Debate
I make no apologies for my decision to field any outer tactical vests to keep Marines out of harm’s way and to help save lives.
Your article in the May 16 issue, "Flawed body armor," had some factual information, but it was presented in a sensationalistic way. I applaud the Natick, Mass., staff members on the Marine Corps contract team who consistently want to ensure Marines receive the very best product possible. I do, however, take exception to the way Marine Corps Times presented the facts.
The OTVs, including the ones we are recalling, do what they are designed to do, verified by testing — act as a fragmentation vest with the ability to stop 9mm pistol rounds and shrapnel. Together, the OTV small-arms protective insert plates and armor protection enhancement system (neck, arm and groin protection), make up the Interceptor body armor system, capable of also stopping 7.62mm rounds.
When faced with the choice to send Marines into combat with the old personnel armor system for ground troops, or PASGT, flak jacket or the Interceptor system, the decision was easy: Field the best available body armor at the time — the Interceptor. To say that the Corps rejected advice and fielded vests with life-threatening flaws, as Marine Corps Times suggests, is blatantly false. The OTVs that are being recalled never had material standards lowered below the 9mm pistol level, which is what they were designed to protect against.
We recalled the 5,277 OTVs in question only to allay any concerns caused by your article.
This is clearly a success story for the Marine Corps — outfitting Marines going into combat with the best body armor available in a timely manner. Marines would expect nothing less from their Corps.
Brig. Gen. William Catto, Commanding general, Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va.
***
You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. It was clear from the beginning that your story was not one searching for the facts, but one that would create sensationalism and sell papers. The vests you questioned in the article did meet the requirements. You were given all the information to write a factually correct article. Instead, you decided to use creative writing and selectively formatted information that would meet your agenda.
I will not address the personalities involved that led to your report; your readers will come to their own conclusions. What I want to address are specific omissions of information you were given but did not use, as it would not substantiate your claims.
Your use of the words "production lots that did not pass muster at Natick" is an interesting way of avoiding using the words "pass" or "fail." You could not say they failed because that would be factually wrong, but you also did not have the courage to say they passed, as it would have removed the steam from your article. Instead, later in the article, in an unrelated paragraph, you mention the fact that these lots (69-9 and 69-12) passed independent testing. Your use of the word "muster" implies there was some other standard these items needed to meet. I had one standard to meet: the Marine Corps standard, not the "Natick muster," whatever that means.
The facts are that the lots you specifically mention in your article (69-9 and 69-12) did pass independent testing at H.P. White Laboratories, a world-class facility that tests for the same standard and procedures required by the Marine Corps.
Further, these lots were also recommended for fielding by the Defense Contracts Management Agency after the retest. In the same form (of which you have a copy), DCMA also agreed that these lots should be removed from the waiver once testing issues were resolved. Every lot mentioned in your article passed either at Aberdeen Test Center, Md., or H.P. White. Your readers should know that many of these lots for which I signed waivers were simply caught in personality disputes while Marines were waiting for vests.
I never "pointed the finger at Aberdeen’s test procedures" as your article states. I simply asked for a second opinion from a world-class ballistics organization and told my staff to look into the situation and find out why the testing inconsistencies were occurring. My exact words at that meeting were "guys, let’s not bury our head in the sand and assume that our facility does not have issues; look at everything." I had a duty and responsibility to do so and did.
I am very proud of my team and our accomplishments over the past several years to provide Marines with the best gear available in the world today. I have a clear conscience on all the decisions I made and have the utmost confidence in the performance of the gear we have fielded to Marines. I would make the same decisions again today.
All the gear fielded met or exceeded the requirements, and I would personally take any vest and plates in the inventory and deploy to Iraq today. The daily accounts of lives saved by the Interceptor body armor system are undeniable, and I am very proud of the incredible work ethic of’ people who were on my team. Military, civil servants, contractor support personnel and industry members all contributed to what I believe is the best force-protection program fielded to warriors in decades.
Many people who contributed to such a successful program will never get the credit they deserve, primarily my team in Quantico, Va.; Albany, Ga.; and Natick, Mass. There are also at least a dozen other Marines and civilians who worked on the program from its early days in the mid-1990s to the beginning of fielding around 1999-2000. They deserve all the credit for being forward thinking and seeing the value of such a system when others did not.
Lt. Col. G.R. Patricio (ret.), Stafford, Va.
Editor’s note: Lt. Col. Patricio was the program manager for the Interceptor outer tactical vest at Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va.
Current News Editor's Note: The article referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, May 7, 2005.
Author
Topic: USMC Body Armor in Iraq... (Read 684 times)