Protection Professonal Bulletin

*This article was edited with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Final review and editing were conducted by authorized DoW personnel to ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance with DoW policies and guidance.

*The contents of this article do not represent the official views of, nor are they endorsed by, the U.S. Army, the Department of War, or the U.S. government.



Published 12/31/2025
By Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Anderson 

 

Note. Although popular with some engineer and maneuver units today, the use of the term “Engineer Coordinator” does not have a long history and can create confusion as a nondoctrinal concept. 

Occasionally, a doctrinal topic generates strong feelings among writers and the military community. This article addresses one such case—the Engineer Coordinator (ENCOORD)—and discusses its history and why it should not be considered a doctrinal term. Simply put, “ENCOORD” is vague and redundant. Two key points help explain why. 

 

Ambiguity in Defining ENCOORD

 

There is ambiguity in defining who holds the ENCOORD title, which can lead to confusion and misinterpretation of roles. The term ENCOORD could refer to a battalion or brigade engineer commander, the senior engineer on staff, the division engineer, or the assistant brigade engineer. When maneuver commanders use the term ENCOORD, they typically reference a specific individual with an established title in the unit's table of organization and equipment (TOE) and within existing doctrine. In practice, an ENCOORD is simply the person designated by a higher commander to address all engineering questions. However, this lack of specification is ineffective in clearly delineating the roles and responsibilities of the position. 

 

Historical Context of ENCOORD

 
Some people would argue about redefining the term ENCOORD, which remains familiar to today's senior commanders due to its roots in earlier doctrine. A review of past publications shows that the term appeared in the 2004 version of Field Manual (FM) 3-34, Engineer Operations.1 Notably, the doctrine did not define ENCOORD in the 1996 version of FM 5-100, Engineer Operations,2 which preceded the 2004 FM 3-34. Moreover, the term is absent in the 1996 version of FM 5-100-15, Corps Engineer Operations3, and in the 1993 version of FM 5-71-100, Division Engineer Combat Operations.4 Although Soldiers may continue to hear the term ENCOORD—particularly from more senior leaders—there is no doctrinal evidence supporting a long-standing historical use of the term. 


 

Insights from FM 3-34 (2004)

 
An examination of the 2004 version of FM 3-34 provides valuable insights into the designated role of engineer operation and outlines the associated responsibilities. Only a partial list of notable responsibilities from the 2004 FM 3-34 is provided:
 
7-13. The ENCOORD is the senior engineer officer within the force. However, in the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, [modernization focused] organized division engineer staffs, armored calvary regiments, and Army-level staffs, the ENCOORD is also the senior engineer commander in the force. 
 
7-14. Typically, the commander of the organic engineer unit supporting the command or a senior staff officer is the ENCOORD. When an organization has a commander as the ENCOORD, the assistant or deputy ENCOORD is a permanent staff officer, representing the ENCOORD in his absence. 
The ENCOORD's specific responsibilities include the following: 
  • Planning and controlling the engineer battlespace functions of combat (mobility, counter mobility, survivability [M/CM/S]), geospatial, and general engineering.
  • Recommending engineer organization for operations, including combat.
  • Maintaining the engineer common operating picture (COP) of current operations.
  • Planning and coordinating with the operations staff (S-3, G-3, J-3) and fire support coordinator (FSCOORD) on integrating obstacles and fires.
  • Advising the commander on the use of organic and nonorganic engineer assets.
  • Advising the commander on employing and reducing obstacles.
  • Planning and supervising the construction, maintenance, and repair of camps and facilities for friendly forces, enemy prisoners of war (EPWs), and civilian internees. 
  • Assisting the intelligence staff (S-2, G-2, and J-2 in the intelligence preparation of the battlefield.
  • Participating in the targeting meeting.
  • Providing information on the status of engineer assets on hand.5

Given these definitions and responsibilities, there is no definitive guidance on whether the ENCOORD should be a commander or a staff officer. However, the publication appears to favor the position of a commander. Additionally, referencing an assistant ENCOORD within the staff structure can create confusion, particularly when the primary ENCOORD is a commander.


Current Doctrine and Established Titles

 
In contrast, current brigade-level doctrine designates the brigade engineer staff officer as the assistant brigade engineer, while the engineer battalion commander is referred to as the brigade engineer. Applying this logic at the corps level, the engineer brigade commander would become the corps engineer, and the engineer staff officer would be the assistant corps engineer. Such role definitions would align the regiment with the engineering doctrine of the 1990s. This is delineated in FM 5-100-15: 
 
 The corps engineer's role as both a brigade commander and corps special staff officer provides unique leadership challenges. The brigade commander positions himself where he can best command engineer support for the corps commander. In his role as commander, he is at the scene of the engineer main effort. He promotes command presence that enhances the morale of corps engineer forces. The brigade commander is also the corps commander's engineer special staff officer, directly accessible to the corps decision makers. He assists the corps commander by controlling the total engineer fight, anticipating problems, providing timely recommendations, and participating in future planning.6
 
The engineer staff is under the control of the Assistant Corps Engineer (ACE), who integrates engineers into the corps’ planning process.7 

 

Why ENCOORD Is Not Doctrinal

 

ENCOORD is not a formally defined doctrinal term, largely because engineers do not plan and operate the same way that fire support does. Similarly, terms such as “Sustainment Coordinator” and “Protection Coordinator” are also not defined in doctrine. Around 2010, the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate removed all doctrinal references to staff coordination titles ending in “COORD,” with the exception of FSCOORD. 

The FSCOORD is the only coordinator defined in doctrine for two key reasons:

  1. Complexity of fire support. Fire support encompasses a variety of assets, including organic cannon artillery, joint fixed-wing aircraft, and strategic capabilities such as cyber operations and electronic warfare. These assets may be continuously available or allocated by operational lines for defined periods. 
  2. Coordination across echelons. The FSCOORD, typically the fires battalion commander at the brigade combat team, coordinates operations across echelons and services to create effective outcomes for their commander in the operating area.

In comparison, the senior engineer commander is usually the preferred choice for the ENCOORD designation. While engineers utilize various assets, these formations fall under the command of the engineer unit. As a result, the engineer commander exercises control over these assets and bears responsibility for all aspects of their use—from tactical employment to sustainment.  

 

Conclusion

As the Army transitions to multidomain operations and large-scale combat operations, examining historical doctrine becomes essential for identifying and addressing areas of engineer operations that have had limited application during the past two decades in counterinsurgency-focused warfare. However, reestablishing the ENCOORD role does not represent a current doctrinal need. Existing titles for engineer commanders and staffs at various echelons already have historical precedence and clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Utilizing these established titles will assist both engineer and maneuver commanders and staffs in better understanding the employment of engineers on the LSCO battlefield. 
 
 
Endnotes:
 
1 U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 3-34, Engineer Operations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004). 
2 U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-100, Engineer Operations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1996). 
3 U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-100-15, Corps Engineer Operations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1996). 
4 U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-71-100, Division Engineer Combat 
Operations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993). 
5 U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 3-34, Engineer Operations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004). 
6 U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-100-15. 
7 Ibid. 

Lieutenant Colonel Anderson is a Transformation and Lessons Learned Manager at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the United States Military Academy, a master’s degree in engineering management from Missouri University of Science and Technology, a master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Michigan, and a master’s degree in military art from the United States Command and General Staff College.