In a covered wagon incident not involving USSTRATCOM or Alert E-4B, who has termination authority?

In a covered wagon incident not involving USSTRATCOM or Alert E-4B, who has termination authority?

• A. DFC
• B. NAOC commander
• C. Installation commander
• D. FPCAM

Answer: (A)

The ability to terminate a Covered Wagon incident, when USSTRATCOM and Alert E-4B are not involved, is assigned to the DFC. This role is the designated decision-maker who can declare the incident complete and shift back to normal operations, providing centralized, clear control over when the continuity effort ends. This keeps termination decisions from being muddled across multiple commands and ensures a coordinated wrap-up. The other options aren’t the source of termination authority in this scenario because they either oversee broader base operations (installation commander) or are tied to the NAOC’s mission when its specific assets or higher-level commands are involved (NAOC commander), or they refer to a process/organization rather than an individual (FPCAM).

The ability to terminate a Covered Wagon incident, when USSTRATCOM and Alert E-4B are not involved, is assigned to the DFC. This role is the designated decision-maker who can declare the incident complete and shift back to normal operations, providing centralized, clear control over when the continuity effort ends. This keeps termination decisions from being muddled across multiple commands and ensures a coordinated wrap-up.

The other options aren’t the source of termination authority in this scenario because they either oversee broader base operations (installation commander) or are tied to the NAOC’s mission when its specific assets or higher-level commands are involved (NAOC commander), or they refer to a process/organization rather than an individual (FPCAM).