By KEVIN DENNEHY
STAFF WRITER
The Pentagon scored a critical victory over state governors yesterday in the ongoing struggle over which of America's military bases should be closed - and who should have input in those decisions.

The Department of Justice ruled that defense officials are not obligated to consult with state leaders before closing or reducing National Guard units, a decision that undercuts efforts in dozens of states where Guard bases are threatened.

State reserve units are subject to the authority of the Base Closure and Realignment Act, as are active duty units, wrote C. Kevin Marshall, deputy assistant attorney general, in a letter to Anthony Principi, chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC).

And while there are two statutes under which federal authority over state facilities would be limited, he continued, neither is pertinent in this situation.

''We understand that all of the current round are located on land either owned or leased by the Department of Defense,'' Marshall wrote.

''Such installations are included within the definition of 'military installation' and are thus presumptively subject to closure or realignment under the Act.''

The decision comes just weeks before an independent commission is scheduled to make a recommendation to President Bush on the latest base closure plan, a sweeping proposal that would eliminate 180 bases.

Among those is Otis Air National Guard, the Cape-based fighter wing recommended for closure by the Air Force.

Leaders in Pennsylvania and Illinois have already filed lawsuits against the federal government, insisting that laws governing the BRAC process require input from governors before state Army or Air Guard units are reduced or eliminated.

Bay State officials have not filed a lawsuit. And while Gov. Mitt Romney is battling the Otis closure, the state has no plans to take the Defense Department to court, said Felix Browne, a Romney spokesman.

However, National Guard Association officials said yesterday that other legal minds have different opinions. The issue will eventually be decided by litigation, insisted John Goheen, a spokesman for the association, which lobbies for better Guard resources and benefits.

''There are going to be states who disagree with this,'' Goheen said. ''Ultimately, it has to be decided by the courts.''

The recommended closure or reduction of nearly 30 Air Guard bases has emerged as one of the more controversial aspects of the latest round of recommended base closings.

The BRAC Commission, which is reviewing that plan, has held numerous public hearings and visited bases across the nation, including Otis, home of the 102nd Fighter Wing that patrols the skies over the Northeast for threats from abroad.

According to the Department of Defense proposal, the unit would be dissolved and its F-15 fighter jets relocated to units in New Jersey and Florida.

Like other states, a coalition of Otis supporters from Massachusetts had their hopes raised earlier this summer when a BRAC commission lawyer questioned whether the Pentagon could reconfigure state Guard units without input from the state's commander-in-chief - the governor.

To clarify the issue, the independent commission requested more input from the Justice Department.

During a BRAC hearing Thursday, some members of the independent commission expressed concern that the plan would leave holes in the defense of some states.

Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com.

(Published: August 13, 2005)