{"id":{"repo_id":"nps","oai_identifier":"oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/26181"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/nps/oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/26181","repository":{"repo_id":"nps","name":"Naval Postgraduate School","base_url":"https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Program budgeting within the Department of the Navy.","abstract":"This thesis examines the Department of the Navy's budgetary process. It describes how the budgetary process works and analyzes the actions of the budget reviewing authorities. The Operations and Maintenance (0&M,N) , budgets submitted by the Major Claimants are examined to determine budget strategies and their effects on the reviewing process The data base used was the 0&M,N, FY1990 records from the Comptroller of the Navy's (NAVCOMPT) office. This analysis found that: Claimants who requested small (0-4.9 percent), increases, were the most successful at gaining budgetary increases. The most successful strategy was to minimize the initial NAVCOMPT cut, and aggressively use the reclama process to restore cuts. This appears to have been achieved through a strategy of aggressive line item justification. The OSD/OMB review was essentially a mechanical, across the board cut, which was modest in size. Most of the review adjustments were pricing changes, or reflected program changes. Some of the Major Claimants are consistently better than others at achieving budgetary success.","abstract_html":"This thesis examines the Department of the Navy's budgetary process. It describes how the budgetary process works and analyzes the actions of the budget reviewing authorities. The Operations and Maintenance (0&M,N) , budgets submitted by the Major Claimants are examined to determine budget strategies and their effects on the reviewing process The data base used was the 0&M,N, FY1990 records from the Comptroller of the Navy's (NAVCOMPT) office. This analysis found that: Claimants who requested small (0-4.9 percent), increases, were the most successful at gaining budgetary increases. The most successful strategy was to minimize the initial NAVCOMPT cut, and aggressively use the reclama process to restore cuts. This appears to have been achieved through a strategy of aggressive line item justification. The OSD/OMB review was essentially a mechanical, across the board cut, which was modest in size. Most of the review adjustments were pricing changes, or reflected program changes. Some of the Major Claimants are consistently better than others at achieving budgetary success.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Marks, Robert A."],"institution":"Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Administrative Sciences","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["McCaffery, Jerry L."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1989,"date_issued":"1989-06","date_published":"1989-06","updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:24:57Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en_US"],"rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10945/26181","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["McCaffery, Jerry L."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Administrative Sciences"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Marks, Robert A."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["June 1989"]},{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2013-01-23T21:56:37Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2013-01-23T21:56:37Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1989-06"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en_US"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/26181"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis examines the Department of the Navy's budgetary process. It describes how the budgetary process works and analyzes the actions of the budget reviewing authorities. The Operations and Maintenance (0&M,N) , budgets submitted by the Major Claimants are examined to determine budget strategies and their effects on the reviewing process The data base used was the 0&M,N, FY1990 records from the Comptroller of the Navy's (NAVCOMPT) office. This analysis found that: Claimants who requested small (0-4.9 percent), increases, were the most successful at gaining budgetary increases. The most successful strategy was to minimize the initial NAVCOMPT cut, and aggressively use the reclama process to restore cuts. This appears to have been achieved through a strategy of aggressive line item justification. The OSD/OMB review was essentially a mechanical, across the board cut, which was modest in size. Most of the review adjustments were pricing changes, or reflected program changes. Some of the Major Claimants are consistently better than others at achieving budgetary success."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Program budgeting within the Department of the Navy."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["McCaffery, Jerry L."],"dc:contributor.department":["Administrative Sciences"],"dc:creator":["Marks, Robert A."],"dc:date":["June 1989"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2013-01-23T21:56:37Z"],"dc:date.available":["2013-01-23T21:56:37Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1989-06"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis examines the Department of the Navy's budgetary process. It describes how the budgetary process works and analyzes the actions of the budget reviewing authorities. The Operations and Maintenance (0&M,N) , budgets submitted by the Major Claimants are examined to determine budget strategies and their effects on the reviewing process The data base used was the 0&M,N, FY1990 records from the Comptroller of the Navy's (NAVCOMPT) office. This analysis found that: Claimants who requested small (0-4.9 percent), increases, were the most successful at gaining budgetary increases. The most successful strategy was to minimize the initial NAVCOMPT cut, and aggressively use the reclama process to restore cuts. This appears to have been achieved through a strategy of aggressive line item justification. The OSD/OMB review was essentially a mechanical, across the board cut, which was modest in size. Most of the review adjustments were pricing changes, or reflected program changes. Some of the Major Claimants are consistently better than others at achieving budgetary success."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/26181"],"dc:language.iso":["en_US"],"dc:publisher":["Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School"],"dc:rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"dc:title":["Program budgeting within the Department of the Navy."],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:24:57Z"}