FORT BELVOIR, Va. –
The apparent clarity of the Defense Logistics Agency’s name belies the messiness that created it. The agency started as the Defense Supply Agency, debated whether to change that name and finally settled on a replacement that wasn’t universally accepted.
Recognizing that the agency was receiving more and broader missions, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics Barry J. Shillito asked Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Wallace H. Robinson Jr., DLA’s fourth director, if the agency should be renamed. Robinson ultimately recommended retaining the name “Defense Supply Agency” because it was “descriptive of … current and conceivable future missions” and “easily recognizable” to “Congress, the military services and the public.” Robinson’s replacement, Army Lt. Gen. Woodrow W. Vaughan, thought differently, however, and proposed “Defense Services Agency.”
Further input – likely from Deputy Defense Secretary William P. Clements Jr. – changed Defense Services Agency to Defense Logistics Command. The issue seemingly decided, Vaughan informed service logisticians. Admiral F. H. Michaelis, the Navy Materiel Command commander, objected to the “logistics” being in the title, which he felt implied “greater responsibility for … operational readiness” than DSA was chartered for, and “command,” which signaled a reporting chain through the military services. After discussing the issue, Vaughan and the assistant secretary went to Clements with a compromise: “logistics” would replace “supply” but DSA would remain an agency.
While “Defense Logistics Agency” approximates the agency to outside audiences, it’s important for another reason. Robinson had argued in the early 1970s against renaming the agency partly because employees were still referring to subordinate commands by their service names. He knew it took time for people to accept change. With almost half a century of stability, DLA’s current name provides not only a shorthand for outside audiences but also identity for inside ones.