The Threat From Within DoD: April 2011

CSM Mellinger claims he has never heard of anyone requesting MILITEC-1 during his several years in theater. He supports the systems preformance 100%, supports CLP's use in a desert environment and also claims that there were no shortages of materials (troops requesting gear) during the war in Iraq and said during a AUSA luncheon -- don't listen to reports that say otherwise.

I provided the CSM with hundreds of emails from the front lines that he discounted because no one told him personally about any problems with guns jamming. Does the CSM think soldiers on the front lines are lying in their emails, or they do not know what they are talking about?

The folks that stay in the rear (or on stateside bases) will seldom agree with the front line troops. If the system would listen to the troops and adopt lessons learned, then Gen Fuller and the rest of PEO would have a hard time to justify their existence. Billions are being wasted by Gen Fullers group which is evident by all of the upgrades to backpacks, boots, Velcro, uniform patterns, helmets, and dozens of upgrades to the CLP lube and the countless upgrades to the M-16's, which still jams today, unless they are spotless and few rounds expended.

The army's rules are to keep the weapon clean at all times or it will jam. So I guess CSM Mellinger blames the soldiers when weapons jam for not keeping them clean, which is the same position as Augustine Funcasta at Picatinny-ARDEC. When the 507th was ambushed in 2003 all of their weapons had jammed. Augustine Funcasta said it was due to inadequate individual maintenance in a desert environment. In other words its the soldiers fault for not keeping their weapons clean. But wait a minute Mr. Augustine Funcasta, their weapons were never fired prior to being ambushed, so how could it be the soldiers fault for not keeping their weapons clean, if they were never fired after they were cleaned?

The army wants soldiers to clean guns that have not been fired since their last cleaning. Why would anyone clean a gun that was just cleaned? The reason is, the army's CLP lube is used wet and this wetness allows sand and dust to stick to the wet oil on the gunmetal. It is impossible to keep guns clean that have not been fired when there is excess oil on the moving parts in a desert environment.

MILITEC-1 weapons can be fired for over one-thousands rounds without cleaning and cleaning can be preformed when it's safe and their weapons are not on ready. Would you rather have a weapon that does not need to be cleaned, or a weapon that requires multiple cleanings each day, even though they have never been fired? AMC-ARDEC does not understand that a weapon is only as effective as the applied lubricant. The same holds true for a battle tank that needs a synthetic oil to operate properly. The army for some unknown reason feels that a 149 degree minimum flash point is appropriate for a lubricant that is applied to weapons in hot desert environments. The person that manages this specifications should be fired as well as the related activities that turn a blind eye when a combustible lubricant is mandated in combat.

If the army's CLP lubricant worked properly, there would not have been millions and millions wasted on trying to get more performance from the M-16 by upgrading specifications constantly. The net result from PEO is they need a better carbine for increased performance because the jamming problem will not go away when CLP lube is used. The M-16 and M-4 work perfectly if a proper lubricant is used and not a combustible oil that everyone except the army has rejected. The original manufacturer of CLP would not even produce the formula that the army insists on using.

Inferior technology helps keep the revolving door greased, makes sure nothing changes to quickly and keeps folks in demand who otherwise would not have a job. When products work properly, the USG needs less people to support programs.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Mellinger, Jeffrey J CSM MIL USA AMC
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:20 PM
Subject: THANK YOU FOR YOUR MESSAGE TODAY.DIANA DAWA WOULD NOT REPLY TO THIS LETTER CONCERNING YOU. PERHAPS WOULD LIKE TO REPLY? RESPECTFULLY BRAD P. GIORDANI

11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf, Maryland 20602 USA
Phone (301) 893-3910   Fax: (301) 893-8354
Internet: www.militec-1.com

AMC/PAO                                                                                          December 1, 2009
Attn: Diana Dawa

9301 Chapek Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5527

Subject: CSM Mellinger Meeting

Dear Diana,

Thank you for your letter dated November 20, 2009. I was surprised by the fact that CSM Mellinger did not accept my apology and there was no reference to what he told Militec (email attached) prior to his new assignment at AMC. The CSM heard of MILITEC-1 weapons lubricant during his three year tour in Iraq (no issues) however, after immediately going to work at AMC weeks later, new issues developed and we were not welcome.

The reason I wrote my email dated December 7, 2007 to the CSM was because of what he said (during the AUSA sponsored luncheon) about everything being fine in Iraq and don’t believe what you hear otherwise about equipment/supply problems. I was stunned by this statement! I have thousands of soldier’s emails stating shortages and other problems. How can this be possible? Has AMC ever seen thousands of soldier’s emails all requesting a single critical item, such as MILITEC-1? This is unprecedented for a lubricant and proves a need for soldiers.

I left a troop email book (with hundreds of messages) dated December 2, 2005 and shared some confidential and very specific emails from theater that the CSM said he would read. Emails from soldiers should be taken seriously, even though the emails are not sent directly thru their chain of command due to fear of retribution. Soldiers still face retribution (for going against regulation) when they email and use MILITEC-1.

I have pasted below (points 1-15) from your letter dated November 20th; your rebuttals remain in Italics and my responses will be in bold. After my rebuttal to point 15, I will expand on my letter in normal font.

1. The CSM started the meeting off by citing the GAO report on MILITEC-1 where he said we failed 7 out of 10 tests (all lab testing). I replied by saying, the GAO report is essentially accurate; however, GAO failed to incorporate favorable USG documents (Material Omissions) and used a double standard. I also provided the CSM with my GAO rebuttal document dated July 9, 2009, related rebuttal documents, Convoy Leader Training Handbook, Email book dated December 2, 2005 and various Army emails and letters. I also said we are protesting the report and going to submit a complaint to the GAO IG. I also apologized to the CSM if my above referenced email upset him. I said my frustration was at RDECOM and not you. He seemed to accept my apology.

An acceptance of apology was never given. The CSM did not give a response.

He shrugged his shoulders after my apology so I thought he may have appreciated it. I am sorry if I was wrong in assuming my apology was accepted. I only apologized to mend fences and not for what I said in my two year old email. Soldiers’ lives are more important than hurting a system bureaucrat’s (or anyone else’s’) feelings by challenging the status quo of conforming MilSpec’s versus what works better in out of parameter conditions (found in combat) and not in a controlled laboratory environment.

2. The CSM said on more than one occasion, I have never heard of MILITEC-1 being requested by anyone in the three years I spent in Iraq. He further stated, “I have never heard of guns jamming unless a part broke.” I said what about jams due to neglect and not proper cleaning? He replied by saying, he had received no complaints ever of guns jamming. This is consistent with the PEO Soldier position of being unaware of any problems associated with jammed weapons, or problems with the Army endorsed CLP weapons lubricant. The Stars and Stripes did a series of articles on what may cause jammed weapons. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/StarsAndStripes.html

CSM Mellinger stated he has never received one email from senior noncommissioned officers in theater stating there was a problem with the current lubricant, nor has he received any emails stating that soldiers are using, or wish to use, the MILITEC lubricant. According to CSM Mellinger, the Stars & Stripes article series was filled with speculation and he refused to comment on it.

I mentioned the Stars and Stripes article to prove to the CSM that weapons’ jamming does in fact occur in theater and in large numbers. The article also discussed over-lubing and under-lubing which maybe why the CSM is calling the articles speculation.

3. The CSM suggested we go to the DCD at Ft. Benning since they start the requirement process and this is how the system works. We tried to meet with the DCD before, without success. The base commander, MG Wojdakowski, in his letter to Militec, Inc dated September 10, 2007 stated, “I have decided not to include Militec among this year’s vendors.” The CSM admitted we have made allot of enemies. I said we have made enemies because we are a providing a popular service to our troops that aggravates many in the system that insist the status quo must be upheld and continue to report that they are unaware of any problems with jammed weapons.

The CSM never admitted that statement. MILITEC asked the CSM if he could provide a sense of their (MILITEC’s) reputation, and CSM Mellinger explained that while he had heard nobody reference the company specifically, the appearance was that MILITEC was simply trying to push a product that did not meet Military Specifications. MILITEC never mentioned MG Wojdakowski during this meeting.

It is a known fact that within the AMC circle of influence; Militec has been claiming the MilSpec for CLP is defective (is why we do not and never will meet the spec) for a wet oil specification for use in a desert environment and also the flammability hazards. It is also a known fact that the following people do not like me for personal reasons: The Ombudsman for AMC, Lew Ashley, MG Nadeau, CG ATEC, LTG Thompson (army acquisition), Augustine Funcasta (and others) at ARDEC/TACOM/RDECOM. I have made these enemies (and many more) as a result of going to congress repeatedly seeking help and using the internet to expose a pattern and practice of abuse. I mentioned MG Wojdakowski as background information only (in my email) as to why the DCD will not meet with us.

4. The CSM mentioned if there was a problem with weapons jamming (or anything else the warfighter needed) that Gen Odierno would make a request and things would move. The CSM said several times that he has never heard of any requests for MILITEC-1 weapons lubricant from Gen Odierno or anyone else in the three years the CSM was stationed in Iraq.

The CSM posed a rhetorical question, “If there was a problem with weapons in theater don’t you think we would have heard from senior leaders in theater such as General Odierno? “

MILITEC-1 has been blocked from the supply system by MG Nadeau since the spring of 2005. There have been thousands of requisitions (and attempted requisitions) thru DLA by soldiers since 9-11. Since MILITEC-1 has not been authorized for purchase for over four years, (I believe) the requests are squashed before they ever reach the higher ups, especially when it’s discovered the NSN’s are blocked or cancelled from ordering. If the blockage was disregarded, and the higher ups were reached, the request would still be squashed for not meeting MilSpec which distracts from the real reason -- the personal vendetta that MG Nadeau has against Militec, which he has even admitted to in public and by refusing to shake the hand of a Militec consultant (former Army officer) on Capitol Hill in 2006.

To find a problem with jammed weapons, follow the money trail at DLA. AMC could verify the number of army requisitions (including cancelled orders) thru DLA as proof of soldier demand which should be of interest to the CSM and Gen. Odierno. I left a list of DLA FOIA’d requisitions (also proving soldier demand) for the CSM’s review.

5. I mentioned MG Nadeau’s position on cleaning weapons up to eight times a day http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/Army_stands_by_CLP.html (fired or not) and the new over-lube requirement by RDECOM. I mentioned the reluctance of confronting MG Nadeau (CG ATEC and former RDECOM CDR) on this subject. The CSM said, no one in combat ever heard or cares about MG Nadeau’s position. Question: whose maintenance instructions do the troops follow for the proper application of CLP in a desert combat environment?

The CSM never stated, “No one in combat ever heard or cares about MG Nadeau’s position. “ The CSM, speaking of soldiers the third person, meant soldiers who are in the field, or combat aren’t thinking of reports or senior leaders, they’re thinking of their mission. The CSM made this statement in reference to his position as the AMC CSM and how it is his business to provide soldiers with what they need. Soldiers have never emailed him personally requesting the MILITEC product. The CSM added, even in his position as the Multi National Forces-Iraq CSM, and now as the AMC CSM, he has never received a request from senior leaders nor soldiers even asking to use the MILITEC product.

This is an untrue statement. CSM Mellinger did reference the troop’s opinion against following MG Nadeau’s advice of constant cleaning. CSM Mellinger knows the average soldier will not complain to higher ups in an email for a variety of reasons. As everyone knows, soldiers do not get praised when they criticize the system.

6. The CSM said he only uses lubricant sparingly (on his weapons) and sometimes not at all when in the Middle East. I produced the Army’s press release (linked above #5) citing MG Nadeau stating to lube your weapon up to eight times per day, or it will jam. The CSM brushed aside a direct response and said he only cleans his weapon once a day at most. When I mentioned the new over-lubing recommendation because of the APG dust test that found over-lubing is better at preventing jams, he did not comment. Question: Why would the Army conduct several dust tests if weapons were not jamming? Either there is a problem with weapons jamming, or the testing was done to placate congress.

The CSM never said he never lubricated his weapon. He did give examples that types of environments require a different type of maintenance lubricate. For example - in the Arctic – you would lubricate and wipe dry so the oil doesn’t freeze. If it’s raining, you use a lot of oil so there is no rust. During his time in Iraq – the CSM said he typically cleaned his weapon every day and sometimes more than once, but certainly as needed. As for “brushing aside a direct response” the CSM made no response.”

This is incorrect. I heard the CSM clearly on this point and even challenged him.

7. The CSM dismissed CSM Adams of the Stryker Brigade’s exclusive use of MILITEC-1 for the Stryker Brigades first tour and a respected CSM that CSM Mellenger knows. He did not comment on CSM Adams but he did suggest the other CSM was not an expert, without saying it.

This is an untrue statement. The CSM not dismiss CSM Adams. The CSM stated he (CSM Adams) was entitled to his opinion. Both Mr. Giordani and Mr. Logan indicated that CSM Aubain at the Army G4 told them he hates CLP and loves MILITEC. CSM Mellinger informed them that CSM Aubain was certainly entitled this opinion, but the Army still had requirements that MILITEC has previously failed to meet. The CSM never suggested anything.

This is also incorrect. I never said CSM Aubain hated CLP and loves MILITEC. I shared a confidential email with the CSM (and may have left it by accident) where the author of the email wrote that he hates CLP and loves MILITEC. Russ Logan may have quoted the email, but I would never and did not say that. Further, the CSM shrugged when I mentioned CSM Adams of the Stryker Brigade using MILITEC-1 exclusively on their first tour; however he said CSM Aubain was entitled to his opinion.

The requirements that MILITEC-1 “failed to meet” are laboratory testing (against a flammable MilSpec) and simulation dust testing that the Army admits does not correlate with existing conditions. However, the army uses the results of this dust testing (which is opposite to the last 15 years) to prove over-lubing works better in a dusty environment. The Army needs real-world range testing (over time) of lubricants to insure laboratory accuracy and the weapons ability to perform at its maximum in uncontrolled conditions.

8. The CSM mentioned that AMC works for the taxpayer and congress has a role. I provided the recent letter from Rep Hoyer to Sec.Gates and related congressional correspondence.
9. The CSM said several times that no one ever told him there was a problem with any weapon ever jamming, unless a part broke I cited the CNA study that interviewed over 2600 soldiers and found nineteen percent of soldiers reported a jammed weapon. The CSM dismissed the CNA report (that the Army paid over $900,000 for), even though many Army activities cite the CNA report to prove overall satisfaction of the M4. There are positive mentions of MILITEC-1 (in the same report) that AMC and others dismiss for unknown reasons. Question: Is the CNA report valid?

The question referring to the CNA report being valid was never asked during this meeting. The CSM expressed many of those malfunctions were probably typical stoppages which is easily reduced through the application of immediate action procedures.

You are correct; I never asked the question during our meeting if the CNA report was valid. I asked the question (in my email to you) after our meeting since the CSM discounted the CNA report. I will ask the question again, is the CNA report valid based on the PEO Soldier, ATEC, ARDEC and other army activities that cite the CNA report to prove overall soldier satisfaction with the M4 at around 90%? The Army should not cherry pick portions of the report that favor their position of soldier satisfaction, while discounting the fact that 19% of soldiers reported a jammed weapon. This is the reason why the army paid The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) over $900,000.00 to conduct over 2,600 independent soldier interviews -- to prevent bias. The pending Wanat Report will back up the CNA.

I am respectfully challenging the CSM on his statement that, “malfunctions were probably typical stoppages which is easily reduced through the application of immediate action procedure”. Two points, (1) I never heard him say this, and (2) to reach a conclusion about malfunctions as being “easily reduced”, is speculation. Even if what the CSM is saying is true (easily reduced), does this mean a jammed weapon under this circumstance is acceptable? I submit that any stoppage is not acceptable, because the bad guys may escape in those few seconds the soldier needs to clear the weapon.

10. The CSM asked if the Marines officially use our product. I replied by saying no since the Army is the lead agency for weapons lubricants. BG Catto, the former CG for the Marine Corps System Command, said to me during our meeting three years ago, that once MG Nadeau approves the product they will take a look at it. Russ Logan mentioned BG Catto’s comments at a Picatinny function (in NJ) where BG Catto called Marine Corps Captains pinheads for requesting supplies outside of official channels and told businesses; not to send anything to these Captains that request supplies for combat operations. Question: Does AMC want Militec Inc to stop responding to soldiers requests for our weapons lubricant?

This question was never asked of CSM Mellinger during this meeting.

This is incorrect. The CSM looked right at me when he asked the questions if the Marines use our product. If you are referring to my second question about soldiers requesting our lubricant, then it’s true. I asked the question after the meeting to seek a reply to our eight year old company policy of never refusing a soldiers request for our dry lube. I have spent millions (of my own money) supplying all troops with needed gear for combat. I am proud of this, even though, the system does not like me doing this. With over one million bottles shipped to theater, you would think there would be a complaint somewhere on this 21 year old product that has protected (since 1992) the last four U.S. Commanders in Chiefs.

11. I gave the CSM a copy of the NY Times article dated November 3, 2009. (Attached) The article said in part, “So how to square the official results with the accounts from war?” Command Sergeant Major Jeffrey Mellinger of the Army Materiel Command said his constant queries to deployed units have never yielded complaints like he has seen in news accounts. As recently as last week, he said, he asked the sergeant major of a major command in Afghanistan to give him details of malfunctions. “I said, ‘Tell me all of your weapons problems.’” he said. “He came back, ‘We aren’t having any.’” When he does investigate complaints, Sgt. Maj. Mellinger said, “They are usually minor. I have no reports of a weapon that went down and couldn’t get started again,” The Stars and Stripes did four articles on the subject of thousands of jammed weapons being fixed @ http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/StarsAndStripes.html

Both Mr. Both Mr. Giordani and Mr. Logan asked CSM Mellinger about his NYT quote saying that CSM Mellinger had no reports of weapons failing to function. The CSM reiterated that he had no reports of weapons failures, and was in constant contact with senior NCOs in theater, and they had not reported any problems, either.   The CSM further clarified – just because he did not get a report, does not mean that weapons did not malfunction. The CSM said when we do get a report of a problem we investigate the situation. (As quoted in the NYT)

I trust the CSM will follow up with the soldier’s emails I provided asking for help with their weapons performance.

12. I asked the CSM if he was to ask the question (to his people in combat) if a better lubricant might be needed as an alternative to CLP for dusty environments. Since the CSM has never heard of a jammed weapon before (unless a part broke) this could be effective in soliciting different responses from warfighters without fear of being punished for speaking ill against the Army’s 30 year old small arms lubricant. The CSM did not comment on my suggestion to ask the question differently.

I’m surprised at your implication that the CSM does not know the difference between a weapons stoppage or a weapons malfunction, or that he is incapable of asking soldiers the right questions regarding their weapons, further, that senior NCOs won’t contact him when they have problems or needs with their weapons. I know CSM Mellinger stays in continuous contact with soldiers and senior NCOs and leaders in the field and in theater. He would be the first person to respond to a problem if one was reported.

I am also surprised the CSM is taking my idea of asking the question another way is insulting to his intelligence. I was not suggesting anything, other than trying to help the CSM get to the truth. It appears if the CSM has not heard of any negative reports, (from his trusted group in theater) then all is fine. MG Nadeau even said during a Hill meeting involving Militec, “If I haven’t already heard about it, it does not exist.”

Since there is no clear application instructions (for desert environments) on how much lube to use and how often to lubricate weapons allows for serious problems to go undetected. When problems occur, such as jammed weapons, the soldiers are blamed for not keeping their weapons cleaned and not for a flammable wet-lube that caused the frictional seizure. The ambush and capture of the 507th maintenance company was blamed on inadequate individual maintenance in a desert environment (all weapons jammed) according to Augustine Funcasta (ARDEC), who blamed the soldiers for not keeping their weapons clean. These soldiers were based out of Ft. Bliss and knew desert environments.

The Army must realize that constant cleaning in a desert environment is an impossible standard to meet and a dangerous one. The current army requirement is to clean weapons several times a day that are fired or not. Why take weapons and soldiers out of commission to clean weapons that are not fired and may be needed at a moments notice? This also proves that jams occur, if vigilant cleanings are required for unfired weapons.

13. I explained the problems with the combustible flash point for the CLP lubricant being applied to hot gun-metal. The gun-metal exceeds the flash point of the lube. I then asked who we should contact to address this problem, the authors at ARDEC? (Our historical enemies) The CSM replied, yes. When I asked the CSM if a combustible flash point is a good idea for a weapons lubricant in a hot desert environment, he suggested it was not, but did not say it was not.

The CSM reiterated the proper venue for them to address that is through the DCD or the originator of the Military Specifications requirement.

I have tried this since day one and my public track record proves I have tried to work with certain AMC activities without luck. Since the army will not admit too (or is unaware) of any problems with the use of CLP after 30 years, makes their job more difficult when evaluating a competitive product that is used dry for testing, versus wet oil testing. ARDEC would not, or could not, incorporate Militec’s dry lube testing protocol since all of their testing involves wet oil testing.

14. CLP was developed based on wet conditions found in Vietnam and jungle environments. CLP was never intended to be used in SW Asia, which is why the flash point is still combustible (even after eighteen upgrades) for the same product, which supports my position that the specification is faulty for desert environments.

15. I mentioned to the CSM that no one except for the Army uses laboratory testing as final proving grounds to certify a weapons lubricant effectiveness. The Army does not incorporate field testing to insure the accuracy of laboratory testing. Unfortunately, lab testing (including simulation) cannot duplicate out-of parameter conditions found in combat environments. This is why AMC and Militec are still at loggerheads over the efficacy of lab testing versus field testing as the final proving ground for weapons lubricant testing.

CSM Mellinger recommended MILITEC research the current MilSpec requirement, perhaps speak with the owner of the current requirement in order to convince them the requirement is dated or nor longer relevant. Furthermore, the CSM recommended the best way to reengage is to ensure MILITEC meets the MilSpec requirement or work with the originating agency of the MilSpec to effect change.

I have made repeated attempts to challenge the efficacy of the MilSpec for CLP. The owners (ARDEC) insist that the weapons lubricant, cleaner and preservative (CLP) is state-of-the-art and MILITEC-1 is defective because it does not meet MilSpec. I contend that the MilSpec is faulty due to the combustibility of the lubricant and the fact that over-lubing (since the dust testing at APG) is required, which is dangerous in a hot and dry desert environment where wetness should be avoided. AMC needs to establish specific application instructions for the quantity of any lubricant being applied (light/dry coat vs. heavy lubing) and the frequency of application that should be based on the number of rounds fired versus how many times a day to clean certain weapons that are fired or not.

A weapons ability to properly function is only as effective as the applied lubricant

The M4 will perform flawlessly if a dry impregnated lubricant is used in a desert environment. Militec has demonstrated this fact by receiving thousands of unsolicited soldier’s emails, numerous army reports stating MILITEC-1 works better than CLP in a desert environment, and soldier demand thru DLA that resulted in a Gold Medal award to Militec in 2004.

The M-1 Tank engine requires high flash point synthetic oils because of heat transfer and lubricity extremes. Helicopters also require the same high flash point synthetic oils for successful engine/transmission operation. However, for some unknown reason, the army only requires a 150 degree minimum lubricant flashpoint for small arms and crew served weapons that reach temperatures comparable with tanks and helicopters. The low flash point of CLP (which contains volatile paint thinner) is ineffective at reducing and transferring frictional heat.

The M4 has already been upgraded sixty two times and now the Army wants to completely change the standard design and go to a gas piston operating system with other upgrades as well. This undertaking will take years, cost billions and will not solve the weapon jamming problem in desert environments.

Military.Com reported on October 12, 2009 that BG Fuller of PEO Soldier said, Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of Soldiers are satisfied with their M4s. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal. Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said. If the M4 worked properly, no improvements would be required. CLP has been improved 18 times (still combustible) and the M4 62 times (still jams).

BG Fuller quoted the 90% Soldier satisfaction numbers from the CNA report, the same report that is favorable to Militec and appears to be discounted by the CSM. This is why I asked you the question (#9 above) if the CNA report is valid, especially since the army paid for it.

Two points: (1) The problem of jammed weapons will not be completely reduced with a new design, because the wet CLP lubricant will still hold particles/dust to the gunmetal’s finely machined parts and the flammability and wet-oil hazards remain. (2) The only way to solve the weapons jamming problem is to use a dry lubricant which does not attract/hold debris and will maintain adequate dry lubricity to the gunmetal for over one-thousand rounds between cleanings.
The Army should allow weapon manufacturer input regarding what is the best lubricant to be used on the manufactured weapons. Most manufacturers do not allow or recommend the use of the MilSpec CLP. The Army insists that the weapons that are being built to specification must work properly (per TDP) with CLP. This rule limits the full potential of the weapons ability to operate at its maximum potential and conceals defects in workmanship. Instead of trying to make weapons conform to the lubricant, the army needs a lubricant that will conform to the weapons.

In addition to the ongoing M4 problems, the Army also has other troubling issues with body armor testing anomalies and the continuing threat from IED’s. There will now be a new group heading up the IED’s and outside experts being called in for body armor testing at APG. What do these three programs have in common? Answer, these programs are under close scrutiny.

Certain Army laboratories have failed in their testing and evaluation practices due to the status quo of using favored contractors (or technologies) which limits outside competition. Because of these limitations, there are still problems with, (1) The M4 jamming, (2) body armor testing and (3) IED prevention. AMC may want to reevaluate their position surrounding the MilSpec for CLP (that Militec has been contesting), since the series of lab failures at ATEC and ARDEC.

When soldiers have a choice to use MILITEC-1 or CLP, they choose MILITEC-1. No secret - DLA official orders prove this. When competition happens, the CLP product is not ordered anymore. What happens when a 30 year old stocked product is no longer being ordered? Answer, you eliminate the competition (to maintain the statue quo), which MG Nadeau did (during high soldier demand) by blocking our NSN’s to prevent soldiers from ordering our product during combat operations; cancelled the pending ID/IQ five year contract (awarded on soldier demand) for MILITEC-1; then killed our NSN’s by claiming MILITEC-1 does not meet MilSpec. We have always claimed MILITEC-1 does not meet (and never will meet) the Military Specification for CLP (as for the reasons cited above). Millions of dollars worth of contracts calling for MILITEC-1 was still awarded to Militec Inc, by DLA without meeting MilSpec.

Over this Thanksgiving weekend, Militec has received over 50 requests from Soldiers and Marines totaling 10,000 bottles of MILITEC-1. Militec has been providing this free service to all troops since 9-11. This program has cost my small company millions of dollars by responding to soldiers and their family’s requests for needed war supplies.

All we are asking AMC is to stop punishing us and allow Militec an opportunity to fairly compete in the weapons lubricant business.

Sincerely,

Brad P. Giordani
President

The Threat From Within DoD

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

My Twins: Marygrace and Donald Giordani @ 13 Months And Our Pets

CSM Mellinger Attacking MILITEC-1

Jeffrey J. Mellinger (CSM-AMC) Is Not Aware of Guns Jamming In Iraq

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Simulation Testing Requires Field Verification--- Not So Fast says ARDEC and GAO