Operationalizing a Budget

By CPT Patrick M. Dickman and MAJ Garrett C. Chandler

Article published on: August 1, 2025 in the July-September 2025 Edition of the Aviation Digest

Read Time: < 5 mins

Soldiers assigned to the supply support activity team of the 404th Aviation Support Battalion, 4 CAB, 4th Infantry Division, assists a customer with an order. U.S. Army photo by SPC Brenda Salgado.

Rapid, accurate, and reportable data are essential for successful organizations. In the Army, there is a high demand for data designed to inform senior leader decision-making. However, overlapping systems of record and translating data between military occupational specialties can disrupt efciency. While accounting might be the “language of business,” (Stanford Business, 2024), operations are the Army’s language. The use of customer fund codes (CFC) establishes a common language, enabling formations to operationalize fnancial planning. This improves cost tracking for emergencies and contingencies, enables cost sharing during equipment transfers, and allows units to capture costs for training and operations, supporting future forecasting and auditing.

Customer fund codes are two-digit, alphanumeric tags aligned to unit Department of Defense Activity Address Codes and storage locations. When classes of supply are ordered in the Global Combat Support System–Army (GCSS-A),1these CFCs associate orders to funded programs in the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS), obligating the dollars against those requirements. Generally, users in either GFEBS or GCSS-A solicit the systems they primarily use for data with specifc variants. This causes errors, diminishes tracking accuracy, and impedes efective data analytics, because these data do not incorporate all the variables in both systems unless deliberately built to do so.

Cost Tracking

Unexpected contingencies disrupt data collection and complicate reporting. Disruptions cause challenges in tracking outbound expenses, complicating routine procurement and accounting. On August 1, 2024, the 4th Combat Aviation Brigade (4 CAB) experienced a weather microburst that damaged two battalions’ worth of aircraf. Within 24 hours, a small team consisting of brigade leadership, the budget team, and the aviation materiel officer created a CFC-based concept to link Class IX repair parts2orders to specifc aircrafts associated with the weather event. While maintainers focused on completing inspections of the damage, maintenance managers placed orders in GCSS-A the same way they ordered all other parts; however, they used the custom CFC to separate weather damage-related expenses from routine expenses. This enabled the brigade to seamlessly manage contingency repairs separate from the routine ordering and echelons above brigade to track progress using the CFC as a common variable within the systems of record. Most importantly, it allowed us to calculate the exact cost of repairs using GCSS-A order pricing and enabled rapid prioritized purchase of repair parts as funding became available over time. During weekly operational planning team meetings, leadership at brigade, division, corps, and above could discuss data-driven solutions to logistical problems. This rapid sharing of information allowed the unit to regenerate combat power more than three times faster than projected. All echelons could examine the specifc parts and cost required to restore each aircraf throughout the entire process.

Cost Sharing

A constantly changing Army presents unique challenges in accounting, prioritization, and maintenance management. In Fiscal Year (FY) 24 into FY25, 4 CAB received AH-64D Apaches from the 25th CAB. The 25th CAB (Hawaii) experiences challenges with corrosion not found in the dry mountains of Colorado. During the aircraf transfer, 4 CAB utilized another unique CFC to isolate the cost of corrosion-related maintenance from routine maintenance. These data allowed leaders to request additional funding to recoup the corrosion-related maintenance costs. Critically, this allows a commander to proceed with transfers, even if the equipment does not initially meet transfer criteria during joint inspections. These cost sharing arrangements reduce friction between units during equipment transfers, support budget stability, and allow the losing unit to fund repairs without having to perform the maintenance.

Classes of supply. Table taken from Army Techniques Publication 4-42.2 (2024).

Cost Capture

This same concept applies to other signifcant costs, including combat training center rotations, pre-deployment activities, cyclical gunnery, or range activities. When units task organize for various missions, they align equipment to different supply support activities. When a smaller portion of their unit supports another mission (e.g., an aviation or artillery task force assigned to a ground maneuver brigade), it can be difcult to align funding appropriately from the higher headquarters. Assigning a CFC leaves no doubt as to which mission the requirement supports and achieves data by mission as opposed to unit or equipment type. This enables accurate accounting for missions and training, which improves budgeting and auditing.

Conclusion

Establishing a unique CFC improves cost tracking for specifc emergencies or contingencies, enables cost sharing during equipment transfers, and allows units to account for training and operations. This supports rapid data collection that is reportable and auditable, which can enable leaders to make better decisions faster. The ability to analyze historical CFCs will improve fnancial planning throughout the brigade. Ultimately, something so minor as generating unique CFCs can exponentially improve the quality of decision-making for an organization in a fiscally constrained environment.

Notes