eServices audit trail

[a2capt]

Is there a way to tell who entered, who validated, etc. an ES rating?


It seems like the information was visible previously.

[♠SARKID♠]

Hover your cursor over the word "ACTIVE" in the green bar above the task.

[a2capt]

That shows the last action, and yes, I did forget about the hover .. but, it used to show you all the tasks, and who validated them.

.. who validated the rating from the level of submission to Wing.

Can't seem to find any of that anymore, and to make it 'worse', I have no way of seeing how they got there in the first place, because it seems that uploaded documents don't stick always. I know I've uploaded scanned SQTRs, and I can't find any of them in the uploaded document listings, just FEMA certificates, first aid cards, etc.


When I look at someone's scanner rating, all I see are empty boxes. They used to be populated with the current data. The data that was last input, that is still within it's 3 year time frame.

[♠SARKID♠]

Hmm...I'm stumped on that one. I've never seen that, but I was never looking.

[RangerConlin]

When you complete a qual and it goes active, all the tasks clear out so you can enter requal tasks.  Up near the top there is a thing you can click to show the previously signed off tasks.

[a2capt]

Where it shows who approved a rating, on what date, is that the last person to touch the record? Or the one that initially approved it?

When I look at one rating, I see someone at the wing level as the approver.  Because  I figure, yup, I send it from the unit, it goes to the group, and then to the wing.

BUT then I see another one that is a current rating and I am the approver.

MS : Approved by (Wing level ES Officer)
MSA: Approved by (Unit level ES Officer)
MSO: Approved by (Unit level ES Officer)

GES, shows unit level, that one doesn't leave the unit. MSA, maybe, I can see it being a unit level thing too. But MSO?

I don't have a signed worksheet, and I have no way of telling how a member got a rating, that is what I'm trying to figure out. I can get a report that shows when each task was earned, but not by who validated it. I can't tell what mission numbers the two sorties were on, I can't tell anything other than someone at Wing approved the whole rating on such and such a date.  You used to be able to tell everything about all this by looking at this stuff. Now there is nothing useful.

[vento]

What you described is scary and disturbing. Unless the Unit's ES is also a qualified MSO SET, there is no way that Unit ES should be able to approve the MSO rating. It is scary.

I went back to check on my own uploaded documents and luckily all is there. For SQTRs that I've re-qual'd and uploaded a new SQTR, the system shows both the old and the new SQTR in it. So that is still good.

As an approver, can you kick it back and ask the member to upload the SQTR worksheet with the proper signatures?

[a2capt]

That's about what I'm fixing to do, if I can't get to the bottom of it any other way. By having the data of who the evaluator was, the submitter, and approvers, then I can make my case for why I'm going to do it if I don't have supporting documentation.

With the change to eServices, I still like to have the worksheet and while the regulation can be interpreted to say that I can't require it, there's just as many ways to justify me asking for it, and for the life of me, there's not one reason I can think of that would make that an unreasonable request.


It seems you can't view pilot documents either anymore. It says 'view/upload', but you can see the filename, but not click anything to get it back again.


The physical file in the cabinet can be viewed, laid on the table, discussed, copied, etc. This online thing, for all it's advantages, it's not nearly flexible enough anymore when you just plain need to know something.

[Spaceman3750]

What you described is scary and disturbing. Unless the Unit's ES is also a qualified MSO SET, there is no way that Unit ES should be able to approve the MSO rating. It is scary.

I went back to check on my own uploaded documents and luckily all is there. For SQTRs that I've re-qual'd and uploaded a new SQTR, the system shows both the old and the new SQTR in it. So that is still good.

As an approver, can you kick it back and ask the member to upload the SQTR worksheet with the proper signatures?

He can approve the entire rating, just not individual tasks. I'm not a mission scanner SET, and cannot evaluate MS tasks, but I can give group-level approval that a member's MS qualification is complete and ready for final approval at wing.

[vento]

What you described is scary and disturbing. Unless the Unit's ES is also a qualified MSO SET, there is no way that Unit ES should be able to approve the MSO rating. It is scary.

I went back to check on my own uploaded documents and luckily all is there. For SQTRs that I've re-qual'd and uploaded a new SQTR, the system shows both the old and the new SQTR in it. So that is still good.

As an approver, can you kick it back and ask the member to upload the SQTR worksheet with the proper signatures?

He can approve the entire rating, just not individual tasks. I'm not a mission scanner SET, and cannot evaluate MS tasks, but I can give group-level approval that a member's MS qualification is complete and ready for final approval at wing.

As a Squadron ES myself, I just learned of the powers that I didn't know I had.    SCARY.

[a2capt]

He can approve the entire rating, just not individual tasks. I'm not a mission scanner SET, and cannot evaluate MS tasks, but I can give group-level approval that a member's MS qualification is complete and ready for final approval at wing.

..and that is exactly what I'm trying to get a trail on, because if this happened above the unit level I'm going to squeal about it, because the unit is the one responsible for that member's records when the SUI time comes around, or matters related.

I have a policy that I like to follow, and that is to see a worksheet, upload a scan of that, make sure all the dates are higher than the pre-requisites, etc. Basically, it's all IAW the spirit of, and written regulations.  It's better to nip this in the bud before too many things are piled on top of that gateway/entry level rating.


The frustrating part is how much I used to be able to tell vs. how much I can't tell anymore, that happened about the time they changed over OpsQuals to track the evaluator's eligibility.

[JeffDG]

There might be a situation where a Unit ESO also holds a Wing duty assignment (like me...).

I specifically leave unit and group level approvals for others to approve, because if I click approve, it's done instantly (ie. the fact I'm also a wing-level approver make the qualification "ACTIVE" even if it was at the "UNIT" level for approval when I clicked it)

[a2capt]

Interesting, as a Unit ESO, and Wing ESO in eServices, for other duty reasons, I can approve at the unit level, but they still have to get done at the Group and Wing level where appropriate, as well. I do see them un the queue for Wing after group hits it, when that happens. But I do not see them for group, just know that's where it went because of the status where it says awaiting group ..

[JeffDG]

Maybe it's since I became a deputy commander at group too...so I guess I have approval authority at all 3 levels.

I do remember that if I entered a qual before, so long as it wasn't mine, it was insta-approved.

[RiverAux]

Everybody should have received an invitation for a survey about national web sites that does have a box where you can make general comments.  Survey ends March 7th, so speak up about stuff like this if you want it to change.

[Tim Medeiros]

Maybe it's since I became a deputy commander at group too...so I guess I have approval authority at all 3 levels.

I do remember that if I entered a qual before, so long as it wasn't mine, it was insta-approved.

With those three positions, you have have approval authority at all three levels, which explains the insta-active.


As for checking to see who has approved/validated what.  There are a couple of ways, the first was described above, the second involves scouring through CAPWATCH DownLoad files.  These tables have an approver field that will tell you the userid of the person who approved the entry.  From there, you simply have to know the scheme that NHQ uses for generating userids.


Another way to speak up about stuff like this is by using the Help Desk to submit suggestions/issues.

[a2capt]

I did fill out the Web Survey with quite a bit of details, I may go back and do it again with some more, too.

Since ES is a sub of Operations, is Operations an approval authority for ES ratings?

I know Commander and Deputy can do it, and I want to say I think Ops can do it, because we used to have it that way.

[JeffDG]

I did fill out the Web Survey with quite a bit of details, I may go back and do it again with some more, too.

Since ES is a sub of Operations, is Operations an approval authority for ES ratings?

I know Commander and Deputy can do it, and I want to say I think Ops can do it, because we used to have it that way.

By default, Ops, ES, and ESTO get approval authority, in addition to Cc and Cd

[Tim Medeiros]

A quick review of the Duty Position Access by Application report at the bottom of eServices will show you who has access to the approval module in OpsQuals.  At this point in time that report shows:

Commander, Communications Engineering Officer, Communications Licensing Officer, Communications Officer, Communications Training Officer, DCS Communications, DCS Emergency Services, DCS Logistrics, DCS Operations, Deputy Commander, Deputy Commander for Seniors, Director of Communications, Director of Emergency Services, Director of Logistics, Director of Operations, Emergency Services Officer, Emergency Services Training Officer, Green Flag Mission Coordinator, Green Flag Chief Sensor Operator, Green Flag Commander, Green Flag Director of Training, Green Flag National Coordinator, Green Flag National Director of Stan/Eval, Green Flag Stan/Eval East, Green Flag Stan/Eval West, Logistics Officer, Operations Officer, Standardization/Evaluation Officer, Transportation Officer and Vice Commander

Just remember with these positions, some positions can only approve certain items, such as ICUT for Comm, Drivers Licenses for LG/LGT.

[a2capt]

Similarly, along the same lines- the SQTRs used to be labeled "UNIT/WING/REGION COMMANDER OR DATE
AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE'S SIGNATURE " where a signature is required.

Now they just say Unit Commander. Nothing about the designee, (IE, ES Officer et al).

Is this an intention to limit, or a reduction due to text space on the form?

[Spaceman3750]

Similarly, along the same lines- the SQTRs used to be labeled "UNIT/WING/REGION COMMANDER OR DATE
AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE'S SIGNATURE " where a signature is required.

Now they just say Unit Commander. Nothing about the designee, (IE, ES Officer et al).

Is this an intention to limit, or a reduction due to text space on the form?

People still sign the CC approval lines on the SQTR? I didn't even realize there was one any more.

Delegates still approve in ops qual and that's where it counts.

[a2capt]

You use that in the field to keep track of stuff, and then enter it back in so the evaluators can say "yup, that was me, and we did that". Further more, I like to have them with ink on them to create a full paper trail, I have them uploaded. That way if the people at the top of the pile have anything to ask about it.. the ink is right there.

While online it allows multiple people to sign them, the paper says only unit commander, and used to say "or designee". Like the change of the kind of barcode on the card, I wish they would -quit- changing stuff willy nilly.


They = ALL of them. Vendors, contractors, NHQ people. All of them. No passing blame, no passing buck. Just stop it.

[a2capt]

Along the same lines as this, it appears that some of an audit trail is able to be created by CAPWATCH data:

CAPID   TaskID   ID   Status   OriginallyAccomplished   Completed   Expiration   AuthByCAPID   AuthReason   
AuthDate   Source   RecID   FirstUsr   DateCreated   UsrID   DateMod   EvalCAPID   MissionID   CertID   CheckPilot   ORGID   AircraftType
666777   1037   0   NOT APPROVED   9/13/13   9/13/13   1/1/00   777888   Not needed at this time. / Ineligible   
9/26/13   MIMS   1234567   uniqueuser   9/26/13   lastuser   9/26/13   0            1306   '


However .. say Member X submits a request for a certain action that is denied, and then later approved, it appears that approvals replace the current record, as I can not find any occurrence of the same task ID more than once.

[vento]

Along the same lines as this, it appears that some of an audit trail is able to be created by CAPWATCH data:

CAPID   TaskID   ID   Status   OriginallyAccomplished   Completed   Expiration   AuthByCAPID   AuthReason   
AuthDate   Source   RecID   FirstUsr   DateCreated   UsrID   DateMod   EvalCAPID   MissionID   CertID   CheckPilot   ORGID   AircraftType
666777   1037   0   NOT APPROVED   9/13/13   9/13/13   1/1/00   777888   Not needed at this time. / Ineligible   
9/26/13   MIMS   1234567   uniqueuser   9/26/13   lastuser   9/26/13   0            1306   '


However .. say Member X submits a request for a certain action that is denied, and then later approved, it appears that approvals replace the current record, as I can not find any occurrence of the same task ID more than once.

So, there is really no audit trail whatsoever. Unless the member takes a screenshot or retains the e-mail, there is just no way to go back in history. There are times I wish I took a screenshot while I had the mouse over the task.

[a2capt]

Yes, and that's part of the thing, I keep all the emails for this reason, with cadet testing, promotions, etc. We require our staff to put CAPIDs in their calldown/request reports. It makes it drop dead stupid simple to track something and say "you didn't ask when you were supposed to" or "you did, and we screwed up, so we'll fix it." 

It seems to me that the SQTR entries used to retain the previous data, but now do not. Once it's "used" (becomes part of the basis for issuing a rating) it's empty again.