7 borne by the participating air commands. Pe . ° This determination was made by the Director of the Budget, USAF, and concurred in by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. A short time later, this decision was reversed by Headquarters, USAF and Joint Task Force SEVEN notified Task Group 7.4 that commands would not bear all the costs and that Headquarters, USAF was preparing a funding procedure for the rehearsal. The message from Headquarters, USAF establishing.this funding procedure rescinded all pre~ vious instructions and stated that each command required to participate in support of Task Group 7.4, at the call of the Commander, ARDC would finance such support from its own financial resources within the scope of the McNeil memorandum in the sams manner as in past years, Contrary to information contained in a previous communication from Headquarters, USAF no provision was made in the approved ARDC (AFSWC) annual financial plan for centralized funding. Accordingly, the Commander, ARDC was not required to provide funds in connection with total Air Force participa~ tion in the ZI rehearsal, but was required to fund for AFSWC participa- tion. ‘ 3. During Operation IVY, supplies and equipment.were issued by the Army and Navy units to the Air Task Group and reimbursement therefor was effected with funds made available by the Joint Task Force. For Opera- tion CASTLE, Joint Task Force SEVEN issued Administrative Order No. 2-53, which stated briefly that housekeeping equipment and supplies, special purpose vehicle spare parts common to both Army and Air Force, and other items of common supply would be furnished by Task Group 7.2 to Task Group 7.4 on a reimbursable basis. Joint Task Force SEVEN ruled that funds from Joint Task Force SEVEN would not be used for such reimburse- ment. Reimbursement for this purpose had to be assumed by ARDC (AFSWC), AFWLHO 48S