The colon in that sentence is key and being ignored.

As I like to explain in my presentations about the IG program, we (IGs and associated folks) have to follow the regulations concerning our program jsut like everyone else.

Quote from: CAPR 123-3 para 2(c)
Inspectors General and inspection team members. During IG inspections it is the responsibility of IGs at all levels, as well as members of IG inspection teams, to take immediate action (up to and including stopping operations) to prevent personal injury, damage to equipment or the release of sensitive information should a potential/actual safety issue or security violation be observed. The inspector will promptly notify the respective commander of actions taken.

So the team has the standard responsibility to call "Knock it off" on Safety and the added one for OPSEC (or more specifically INFOSEC)

Quote from: CAPR 123-3 para 12(f)(3)
The SUI will focus attention on items contained primarily in the published SUI checklist, but may include, as necessary and determined pertinent to CAP mission accomplishment by the headquarters staff: CAP Corporate policy and guidance; Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, CAP and CAP-USAF directives and instructions. The requirements found in directives published after the issuance of a SUI checklist take precedent over the content of the SUI Checklist.

That opens up a lot of territory. I think it implies that if you're going to cover additional territory you should give notice to the units, but it's not mandated.  The new SUI report has a category of (HHQ - Discrepancy): which would appear to be used in these situations.
Under the old system I sent the RI Wing Squadrons a modified SUI list that included 3 or 4 additional items covering specific NER or RIWG policies. The new worksheets are not so easily modified.

This thread has given me something to think about and I plan to raise some of these issues at my next NER IG Conference Call.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 07:08:26 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 06:51:14 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 06:46:17 PM
We're going to just have to disagree. NHQ's intent is very clear on this.

My advice, when an inspector asks an off-list question, simply polity decline to answer and suggest he move on.

And if you do that with me as an inspector, you will receive a discrepancy, because if I'm asking the question it's not a "wouldn't it be nice if you...", it's a regulatory requirement.

So?

It'll just be removed on the first round of responses as inappropriate.

That would involve you showing that you were in compliance with the regulations.  Which you weren't, so it's entirely appropriate.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 07:08:26 PMYou going to make up the standard of substantiation and remediation as well?  If you want to provide notes
on something you are concerned about, that's one thing. You can't just make up discrepancies on a whim.
The only things that can be discrepancies are those things which are specifically on the list, and only if they
aren't substantiated in the way indicated.

"Unit has an internet operation and could not provide any evidence of Wing or higher commander or designee approval IAW CAPR 110-1, para 11.  Unit must seek and receive Wing or higher commander approval for site or cease operations of website to close this discrepancy."  Was that so hard?  The regulation is actually incredibly clear, and that's just one example.

FYI, here's the cited reg:

Quote11. Approval to Conduct CAP Internet Operation.
a. CAP units conducting CAP internet operations (including cap.gov domains) must obtain and
maintain a record of approval from the CAP/CC or applicable region, wing commander or their
designee. The NHQ/CO or designee approves CAPNHQ.gov domain delegations.

Or take the PD one for not being enrolled in the Specialty Track:  "Member assigned as the Communications Officer is not enrolled in the Communications Specialty track IAW CAPR 35-1., para 1b.  Member is not assigned any other duty positions, and does not possess a Master rating qualifying him for any of the exceptions.  To clear this discrepancy, the Communications Officer must be enrolled in the Communications Specialty Track, or removed from the duty position of Communications Officer."

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on November 24, 2014, 07:29:49 PM
The new SUI report has a category of (HHQ - Discrepancy): which would appear to be used in these situations.

Actually, I would put a HHQ discrepancy as something arising out of the SUI but that the unit cannot correct themselves, but need HHQ to cover.  Take for instance a Commander not being assigned to the Command Specialty Track.  Unlike other tracks, members cannot be enrolled in that track below Wing level, so while it should show as a discrepancy under Tab E-1, Question 10, it's a HHQ Discrepancy, particularly if the unit shows evidence of requesting to be enrolled.

And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

QuoteTab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on November 24, 2014, 07:29:49 PM

Quote from: CAPR 123-3 para 2(c)
Inspectors General and inspection team members. During IG inspections it is the responsibility of IGs at all levels, as well as members of IG inspection teams, to take immediate action (up to and including stopping operations) to prevent personal injury, damage to equipment or the release of sensitive information should a potential/actual safety issue or security violation be observed. The inspector will promptly notify the respective commander of actions taken.

So the team has the standard responsibility to call "Knock it off" on Safety and the added one for OPSEC (or more specifically INFOSEC)

Quote from: CAPR 123-3 para 12(f)(3)
The SUI will focus attention on items contained primarily in the published SUI checklist, but may include, as necessary and determined pertinent to CAP mission accomplishment by the headquarters staff: CAP Corporate policy and guidance; Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, CAP and CAP-USAF directives and instructions. The requirements found in directives published after the issuance of a SUI checklist take precedent over the content of the SUI Checklist.

That opens up a lot of territory. I think it implies that if you're going to cover additional territory you should give notice to the units, but it's not mandated.

On these, I think the difference in standard is quite appropriate.  A safety issue is of immediate importance, and I think it's wholly appropriate that a representative of a higher HQ has the authority to halt an unsafe condition.  As an IT Guy, if I were on an inspection and someone showed me a public web page with member SSNs on it (for example), things would VERY rapidly come to a halt while that was fixed.

But for the vast majority of regulations, writing up a discrepancy puts simply puts the unit on notice and directs them to return to compliance with the regulations, not a massive burden, as the unit is supposed to be in compliance with the regulations in the first place.

There are some other implications of SUI reports.  If you receive a "Marginally Successful" or "Unsuccessful" in Logistics or Communications (as it relates to property management), you go on logistics freeze as a unit.  There's no discretion, the Wing Commander shall impose a property freeze.  So, while IGs and Inspectors are, generally, fact finders and lack authority to impose their will, there are exceptions, and appropriate ones.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:40:37 PM
"Unit has an internet operation and could not provide any evidence of Wing or higher commander or designee approval IAW CAPR 110-1, para 11.  Unit must seek and receive Wing or higher commander approval for site or cease operations of website to close this discrepancy."  Was that so hard?  The regulation is actually incredibly clear, and that's just one example.

Under what auspices do you think you even get to >ask< that question?

You aren't allowed to randomly dig around the regs and ask whatever you feel like.

There's a difference between a follow-up question and something NHQ doesn't intend to be inspected.

In your example, this topic isn't even covered in the SUI, therefore it is not something open to an SUI inspector.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:53:38 PMThere are some other implications of SUI reports.  If you receive a "Marginally Successful" or "Unsuccessful" in Logistics or Communications (as it relates to property management), you go on logistics freeze as a unit.  There's no discretion, the Wing Commander shall impose a property freeze.  So, while IGs and Inspectors are, generally, fact finders and lack authority to impose their will, there are exceptions, and appropriate ones.

Um, no.

IGs have no authority whatsoever.  Freezes are implemented by commanders, not inspectors.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:46:30 PM
And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

QuoteTab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

The OP stated the issue raised was the person in the duty position had a None rating which in E-Services equals enrolled, but had not progressed to the Tech rating.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 07:53:50 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:40:37 PM
"Unit has an internet operation and could not provide any evidence of Wing or higher commander or designee approval IAW CAPR 110-1, para 11.  Unit must seek and receive Wing or higher commander approval for site or cease operations of website to close this discrepancy."  Was that so hard?  The regulation is actually incredibly clear, and that's just one example.

Under what auspices do you think you even get to >ask< that question?

You aren't allowed to randomly dig around the regs and ask whatever you feel like.

There's a difference between a follow-up question and something NHQ doesn't intend to be inspected.

In your example, this topic isn't even covered in the SUI, therefore it is not something open to an SUI inspector.

Is CAPR 110-1 a directive from CAP?

If yes, CAPR 123-3 permits an inspector to review compliance therewith.

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on November 24, 2014, 07:55:06 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:46:30 PM
And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

QuoteTab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

The OP stated the issue raised was the person in the duty position had a None rating which in E-Services equals enrolled, but had not progressed to the Tech rating.

Which could be indicated as an AOC, but that's as far as it goes, conversation over. It's not a discrepancy because it's not a requirement,
and it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation since it's compliant.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:55:54 PM
Is CAPR 110-1 a directive from CAP?

If yes, CAPR 123-3 permits an inspector to review compliance therewith.

Please.  You're going to hurt yourself with that mental leap.

123-3 does not give an SUI carter blanche.

Just ask the questions and move on.  You're not there to "fix" a unit or make political points,
you're there to ascertina whether a unit is bare-minimum compliant and can keep the doors
open.  NHQ has made a list of what they think is important and CLEARLY indicated
inspectors should stay on the list.

Just do it.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 07:56:35 PM

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on November 24, 2014, 07:55:06 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:46:30 PM
And that brings back to the original question...enrollment in specailty tracks IS on the checklists for the Commander to answer for.

QuoteTab E-1, Question 10:
Are all members assigned to an authorized duty position enrolled in the appropriate specialty track?

The OP stated the issue raised was the person in the duty position had a None rating which in E-Services equals enrolled, but had not progressed to the Tech rating.

Which could be indicated as an AOC, but that's as far as it goes, conversation over. It's not a discrepancy because it's not a requirement,
and it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation since it's compliant.

Agree 100%

I like that they moved the enrollment question out of the individual sections. Personally I'd have it in PD / Personnel. I don't think I'd even do an AOC unless it looked like a pattern of NONE and no progress.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 07:58:44 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 07:55:54 PM
Is CAPR 110-1 a directive from CAP?

If yes, CAPR 123-3 permits an inspector to review compliance therewith.

Please.  You're going to hurt yourself with that mental leap.

123-3 does not give an SUI carter blanche.

Just ask the questions and move on.  You're not there to "fix" a unit or make political points,
you're there to ascertina whether a unit is bare-minimum compliant and can keep the doors
open.  NHQ has made a list of what they think is important and CLEARLY indicated
inspectors should stay on the list.

Just do it.

Wait, now the inspector can ask questions...I thought commanders should tell them to go pound sand if they ask anything not on the list?

If a unit talks about their website or Facebook page or twitter feed, I'll ask them about it.  123-3 permits inspectors wide latitude to deal with any "CAP directives", and that includes anything that's prefixed with "CAPR". 

Are inspectors encouraged to go trolling?  No.  But if a potential discrepancy comes up, then asking a question is entirely within the discretion of the inspector, and if the unit cannot show compliance, then that's a discrepancy.  Pure and simple.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
Wait, now the inspector can ask questions...

Yes, they ask the questions on the checklist, nothing more.

SUIs are not, BY DESIGN, an invitation to do a D-Check on a unit.  CAPRs cover a wide swath of operations
that NHQ has no interest in because they are not critical to a unit's operations, safety, or resources.

Compliance in those areas is not the concern of an SUI inspector.

By.

Design.

We recently had a SUI done and the same question about specialty track came up. We did NOT get a discrepancy as the NONE rating just means that they have not met the requirements for the TECH rating. That officer was only appointed to his duty position a couple of months before the SUI and could not have gotten to TECH if only for the Time-In-Grade requirement.

On the other hand, we did have a "funny". We did get a discrepancy for NOT having the van's records in the van. As it happened, the reason they were not in the van, was because the SUI inspector asked for us to give them to him and he was standing outside the van!  It made for a fun response to the discrepancy finding!

Another episode also has me questioning how much training the inspectors receive before performing a SUI. The topic was the personnel records. The regulations state that they are maintained by the Admin Officer unless they delegated to the Professional Development Officer. The inspector asked the PDO where he maintains his records. When told that they were maintained by the Admin officer, the inspector asked for the letter of delegation from the PDO to the ADMIN!  It took a quick trip to e-services to produce the regulation to show the inspector that his interpretation was 180 degrees off. It must have convinced him though, as we did not get any discrepancies due to this.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 06:38:01 PM

Quote from: Grumpy on November 24, 2014, 06:25:43 PM
Our inspectors were concerned that we might have somebody assigned to a duty assignment that didn't correspond with their specialty code.  We simply entered them into training for that specialty. Problem corrected.  People are in training for their specialty and haven't made the Tech level yet.  Gotta start someplace.

The delete button has been there all along.  In this paperless system it makes it easy to remove someone from training who either can't or won't progress.

A member is required to be enrolled in the PD track for their duty position with two exceptions:
1)  The member has multiple duty positions, they must be enrolled in accord with their "primary" duty position.  Secondary are optional, but encouraged
2)  The member already has a "MASTER" rating.

The regulations nowhere require people to progress in the tracks, simply to be enrolled.

Part b of your statement is exactly what I was trying to say.  Per chance I supplied too much info

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 09:17:37 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
Wait, now the inspector can ask questions...

Yes, they ask the questions on the checklist, nothing more.

SUIs are not, BY DESIGN, an invitation to do a D-Check on a unit.  CAPRs cover a wide swath of operations
that NHQ has no interest in because they are not critical to a unit's operations, safety, or resources.

Compliance in those areas is not the concern of an SUI inspector.

By.

Design.

Yet the regs disagree with you.

So, you seem to think that some regulations are optional.  Aren't you the one always complaining about people treating the program like a menu, yet you believe the regs are a menu.

The last CAP wing SAV I was on as an AF inspector we were specifically told to only evaluate and record only areas specifically mentioned on the checklist.  No more.  Yes units are required to be 100% compliant with CAP regs, but only those areas specified are inspected as part of an SUI.  The HHQ block is meant for if there are regional or wing specific directives that may apply only to the effected units ( vs everyone else nationally)
The closest you get outside of the checklist is the last section with commendables, weakness etc.  If you come across something that is "iffy", you can add a comment, but is just that: a comment.  It does not register as a deficiency. And may or may not make it in as part of the official report.

MK

Quote from: JeffDG on November 24, 2014, 06:16:59 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 24, 2014, 05:52:46 PM
No - the inspector is supposed to stay on the list and move on.

The regulations disagree with you.

QuoteCAPR 123-3, 12(f)
(3) The SUI will focus attention on items contained primarily in the published SUI
checklist, but may include, as necessary and determined pertinent to CAP mission
accomplishment by the headquarters staff: CAP Corporate policy and guidance; Air Force, Air
Education and Training Command, Air University, CAP and CAP-USAF directives and
instructions. The requirements found in directives published after the issuance of a SUI checklist
take precedent over the content of the SUI Checklist

The checklists are a guide, they are not the be-all-end-all.

They are, however any other areas to be inspected should come from written policies formulated from wing (or through the wing/cc from above).  Unit commanders should fully know what they are to be inspected on.  Inspectors should not be given "latitude". SUI's are supposed to be a straight forward process.  The purpose is to gage a unit's effectiveness and preparedness; not a game to find fault in minutia. Just sayn'...

Quote from: MacGruff on November 24, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
It took a quick trip to e-services to produce the regulation to show the inspector that his interpretation was 180 degrees off. It must have convinced him though, as we did not get any discrepancies due to this.

We shouldn't have to convince the SUI inspectors that we're following regulations and policies. They should be the ones proving that we're not.