AR 1-1: Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution

Army Regulation 1-1 is the Department of the Army’s governing document for the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process — the system the Army uses to decide how it spends its money. It prescribes policy and assigns responsibilities for planning long-range resource needs, building multi-year spending programs, submitting budgets to Congress, and tracking how appropriated funds are actually used. It applies to every organization that receives funding from Headquarters, Department of the Army, including Army commands (ACOMs), Army service component commands (ASCCs), and direct reporting units (DRUs).¹

AR 1-1 is the Army’s implementation of a Department of Defense-wide framework. DoD Directive 7045.14 defines the PPBE process across the military departments and defense agencies; AR 1-1 takes that framework and applies it inside the Army.² The Secretary of the Army’s authority to issue it comes from 10 U.S.C. § 7013, which makes the Secretary responsible for all affairs of the Department of the Army and specifically authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations to carry out those functions. The same statute holds the Secretary accountable to the Secretary of Defense for the “effective and timely implementation of policy, program, and budget decisions.”³

The Four Phases AR 1-1 Governs

The regulation splits the Army’s resource management into four connected phases. Each has a designated lead, specific products, and a handoff to the next.

Planning

Planning identifies long-range, midterm, and near-term requirements. Inside the Army, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans manages this phase and produces documents such as the Army Long-Range Planning Guidance, the Army Modernization Plan, and The Army Plan. At the DoD level, planning is led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, whose Defense Planning Guidance sets the Secretary of Defense’s force-planning priorities for each service.⁴⁵

Programming

Programming turns planning decisions into a structured resource program. The Army’s Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation runs this phase, and the central product is the Program Objective Memorandum (POM), a multi-year plan describing proposed forces, manpower, and funding across the five-year Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).⁴ Each DoD component submits a combined POM and Budget Estimate Submission to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in August each year.⁶ The POM must address significant force structure changes, major new program starts, and any shortfalls in meeting the Defense Planning Guidance or combatant commander objectives.⁷

Budgeting

Budgeting converts the approved program into formal estimates. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management manages this phase, developing the Budget Estimate Submission for the first year of the FYDP and translating programmatic decisions into the dollar figures that will move through the Office of the Secretary of Defense and, ultimately, the President’s annual budget request to Congress.⁴ The President’s budget request is submitted on the first Monday in February.⁸

Execution

Execution covers the actual management of appropriated funds — their apportionment, allocation, allotment, and obligation — together with formal evaluation of program performance. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management also manages this phase. During execution, officials may adjust resources through transfer and reprogramming actions, which typically require notification to or prior approval from Congress.⁴⁵

Who AR 1-1 Puts in Charge

AR 1-1 spreads the work across the Army’s integrated Secretariat and Army Staff structure. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management) oversees the entire PPBE process, issues Army-wide policy, sponsors most appropriations, and leads the budgeting and execution phases. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans determines force-related requirements, validates combatant commander requirements, and serves as the operational link between Army headquarters and the Joint Staff. The Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation is the authoritative source for the Army’s FYDP resource position, manages the Management Decision Package architecture used to track resources across fiscal years, and leads the programming phase.

The regulation also establishes Program Evaluation Groups that stay active throughout the cycle, tracking programs from planning through execution. These groups pull together functional proponents, programming analysts, and representatives from both the Secretariat and Army Staff.⁴

Which Version of AR 1-1 Applies

AR 1-1 has been revised over the years, and the title itself has shifted. The January 30, 1994 edition described the system as the Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) and applied to the Active Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve, expressly implementing DoD Directive 7045.14 and DoD Instruction 7045.7.⁴ The edition dated May 23, 2016 renamed the regulation “Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution” (dropping “System”) and reflected the reorganization of Army commands into ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs.¹ Check the effective date on any copy you are working from before relying on specific responsibilities or terminology.

What May Change Under PPBE Reform

The framework AR 1-1 implements is being reviewed at the DoD level, and any significant change would push down into the Army regulation. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 established a Commission on PPBE Reform to study whether the system still suits modern defense needs.⁹ The Commission’s March 2024 final report, Defense Resourcing for the Future, went as far as recommending that PPBE be replaced with a new “Defense Resourcing System” over three to five years.¹⁰

DoD published an implementation plan in January 2025 targeting full implementation by 2028, and the FY 2025 NDAA directed a cross-functional team to oversee that effort.¹¹ Many of the proposed changes — increased reprogramming flexibility, longer availability periods for operations and maintenance funds, and mitigation of continuing-resolution disruptions to new program starts — require legislation.¹² If those reforms are enacted, the processes and policies AR 1-1 currently codifies will be rewritten to match.

1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Army Regulation 1-1, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
2
Department of Defense. DoD Directive 7045.14, The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process
3
Cornell Law Institute. 10 U.S. Code § 7013 – Secretary of the Army
4
GovInfo. Army Regulation 1-1, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System
5
Congressional Research Service. Defense Primer: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process
6
Army War College. Program Objective Memorandum
7
Congressional Research Service. Defense Primer: The PPBE Process
8
Department of Defense. Nuclear Matters Handbook, Chapter 16
9
Congressional Research Service. Defense Primer: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process
10
Congressional Research Service. PPBE Commission Final Report
11
DoD Comptroller. PPBE Reform
12
Department of Defense. PPBE Reform Implementation Report