Commanders Need To Know -
CW4 Pablo A. Brown
The document called the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) is the end product of the Armyís combat development process. The TOEs move through their own developing and processing system from concept approval through documentation, publication and final distribution. The TOE is the requirements document, not an authorization document, and serves as the basis for developing the Modification TOE (MTOE). The MTOE document is a modified version of a TOE approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army that prescribes the unit organization, personnel and equipment necessary to perform an assigned mission in a specific operational or geographical area.
The difference between the authorized and the required columns on an organizationís MTOE is most likely a reflection of its ALO. For instance, if a unit is an ALO 2, the number of personnel assigned should be capable of maintaining and operating all major end items of equipment listed in the MTOEís required column. As a result, the unit will normally be authorized 100 percent of major end items designated with an Equipment Readiness Code (ERC) of "A," "B" and "C" items except in some cases of individual items such as weapons, masks and bayonets. Refer to AR 71-32 (Force Development Documentation-Consolidated Policies), paragraph 8-5.
Units structured at ALO 3, less critical than ALO 2, may suffer the capability to maintain and operate some major end items of equipment listed in the required column of the MTOE. In this case, the authorizations for major items may be reduced (AR 71-32, paragraph 8-5). Bottom Line: The lower a unitís ALO, the more likely the authorized quantity in the MTOE will be reduced for major end items.
A commander can upgrade or downgrade his Unit Status Report (USR) by comparing the unitís overall number of major end items at the "C" level with the Mission Accomplishment Estimate (MAE). Refer to AR 220-1, Chapter 8, that instructs every unit commander to complete an MAE and take into consideration resources such as personnel, equipment and training. The commander should weigh the importance of such resources against other factors that may affect the unitís ability to perform its overall mission (paragraph 8-3). The commander expresses his estimate in terms of the percentage of the wartime mission that the unit could perform if alerted or committed (paragraph 8-1). Estimates of mission accomplishment are described as bands of effectiveness in paragraph 8-6.
The commander then conducts a subjective evaluation based on his personal experience and the resources of personnel, equipment and training. The commander compares the MAE percentage and the overall C-level. If the MAE percentage does not equal the overall C-level selected, he has the option of upgrading or downgrading the unitís overall C-level (AR 220-1, Chapter 8, paragraph 8-8). What does this mean to a commander? There is nothing wrong with subjectively upgrading his unitís overall C-level rating based on the MAE evaluation.