BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

    0. Statement of fact that constitutes the solution.
    1. Here's the issue
    2. The solution is X because (preview of analysis.)
    3, 4, 5, 6. This is how we determined that.

Example:

BLUF: CONCUR, WITH CONDITIONS- The civilians may participate in the breacher training, but there are requirements to meet.

You asked whether civilian law enforcement agencies (CLEAs) may participate in breacher training on a space- and time-available basis. I have no legal objection, provided the CLEAs certify that receiving the training from commercial or other non-DoD sources would be impractical due to cost or time, and provided the request is routed for concurrence through the chain of command for approval by ASN(M&RA). Additionally, anything beyond marginal costs must be paid by the CLEAs.

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 273

(b) DoDI 1325.21

(c) SECNAVINST 5820.7C

(d) DEPSECDEF Memo of 29 Jun 96, DoD Training Support to U.S. Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies

(e) 10 U.S.C. § 2012

Authority. Reference (a) grants authority to SECDEF “to train . . . civilian law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of equipment.” In paragraphs 1.f and 5.c of enclosure (3) to reference (b), SECDEF granted approval authority to the service Secretaries. SECNAV issued guidance in reference (c), including the requirement for cost reimbursement beyond marginal costs. Under references (b) and (c), ASN(M&RA) – in consultation with ASD(HD&GS) – may authorize the use of up to 49 DoD personnel for training; installation commanders or commanders of unit training centers may authorize the use of DoD equipment and facilities.

Analysis. CLEAs may participate in training if all of the following criteria are met:

- Extent. The training cannot be large-scale, elaborate, or advanced military training. Advanced military training, defined in reference (d), is “high intensity training” pertaining to interactions with a “criminal suspect” or “when the potential for a violent confrontation exists.” The breacher training will satisfy this requirement.

- Resources. Non-DoD training must be unfeasible or impractical due to cost or time, and the training cannot compromise military preparedness. You indicated that we have sufficient “depth” to accommodate the CLEAs without compromising preparedness, but the CLEAs must show that non-DoD options are unfeasible or impractical.

- Role Limitations. DoD personnel must not directly participate in fundamentally civilian law enforcement operations, and there must be no reasonable likelihood of confrontation between law enforcement and civilians during the training. This is standard military training, not fundamentally civilian law enforcement-related in nature. Additionally, it is unlikely that unaffiliated civilians will be present.

Alternatives. Reference (e) authorizes “Innovative Readiness Training”; however, subsection (i) of reference (e) precludes using that authority for “civilian law enforcement purposes.” There is very little guidance as to whether that might apply for a mere training program; however, the legally safer course of action is to avoid using this authority.

Conclusion. References (a) through (d) authorize us to permit civilian law enforcement participation in our breacher training, but we must first receive a request from the civilian law enforcement participants explaining why alternatives are not feasible or practical. Additionally, the request for authorization for the training must be routed to ASN(M&RA).

I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue.

One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...

I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.)

I get that there is no single standard that works everywhere all the time. But I've personally found it very helpful to realize that low context culture is not somehow "socially worse" than high context culture. Viewing it that way implicitly promotes xenophobia, which ends up being justification for things like white supremacy -- ie "You people who are not like us are fundamentally Doing It Wrong because you are doing it different from how we would handle it."

It was helpful to me to realize this is a legitimate form of communication that faces specific pitfalls in the world and not some sort of character defect on my end. That helps me make judgment calls about when to approach things one way versus another and also helps me make my peace with "You can't please all of the people all of the time."