What "exactly" is required to be in a Personnel Record?
CAPR 39-2, 1-7 Active Records. Personnel records should consist of training records... Many achievements/training are recorded in...eServices... Units may use this information to supplement the information maintained in the physical file at the unit level. The online record cannot be used as the only personnel file since all information concerning the member is not currently tracked online.
"Should" means preferred method, but not mandatory. One could interpret that the items listed need not be in the Personnel Record, including the Master Record. I'm a big fan of keeping documentation of things that aren't recorded in eServices like: awards, ribbons, decorations, flight officer grade promotions, duty assignments (not available on eServices), activities, etc. But I dislike creating work for ourselves by duplicating eServices applications and records.
I'm not advocating or endorsing not having anything in the Personnel Files, but the way I read it, it's not mandatory because of that one one little word, "should". (except CAPR 50-17 still requires the CAPF 45)
I want somebody that really understands regulations to answer this question. Please don't spout out a bunch of stuff that you think to be gospel that's actually just speculation based on how things have been done for the last 10 to 20 years.
The last time I did this dance with Wing and NHQ, the only thing we could come up with as "required":
Copy of the original application
CAPF 45.
Everything else was a "should".
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2014, 01:27:08 AM
The last time I did this dance with Wing and NHQ, the only thing we could come up with as "required":
Copy of the original application
CAPF 45.
Everything else was a "should".
Even the original application is preceded by the "should", which means not mandatory. Does Natl HQ still return them with the stamp? When did you last do this "dance"? Was it after the "should" appeared in the current version of CAPR 39-2? It wasn't in the previous version.
Probably about 1 year or year and a half - part of a larger conversation
related to retention of records in general, including pilot files (no longer required).
And then about 6 months ago, as prep for the CI next month, the wing Admin Officer
sent out a request that all members of wing staff submit an updated CAPF 45, and less
then a day later the CS sent a "don't bother it's not required any more" message.
As you say, even retaining the original app is "iffy' at best from a required standpoint.
The 45, while referenced in a number of places, is only shown as "required"
on the KB, as far as I can tell. You could infer it's required, but I can't find anywhere it
actually says you have to have it in a reg.
A lot of the references as to what is supposed to be annotated on the 45 have been superseded
by electronic systems.
What do you mean "duty assignments not available in eServices?" It is available in eServices for both cadets and senior members. This is relatively new, a few years or so for seniors, less so for cadets.
I am not sure when these were implemented. Does any reader here have a better grasp as to when the duty assignments were implemented?
These questions "should" be directed to your wing Personnel Officer and/or wing IG as they are the ones who are going to be doing the inspections.
The SUI guide....while not perfect....will keep you out of hot water 98% of the time.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on September 27, 2014, 02:45:21 AM
What do you mean "duty assignments not available in eServices?" It is available in eServices for both cadets and senior members. This is relatively new, a few years or so for seniors, less so for cadets.
I am not sure when these were implemented. Does any reader here have a better grasp as to when the duty assignments were implemented?
I was referring to when some unit commanders feel the need to make up duty assignments, which they then document with a CAPF 2a or PA. These are duty assignments which don't exist in CAPR 20-1, which also means they can't be assigned on eServices. I don't think it's a good idea, nor is it okay without higher echelon approval, but it happens.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 27, 2014, 03:24:53 AM
These questions "should" be directed to your wing Personnel Officer and/or wing IG as they are the ones who are going to be doing the inspections.
The SUI guide....while not perfect....will keep you out of hot water 98% of the time.
I agree that these questions should be directed to wing DP and IG. I tried unsuccessfully to reach my wing DP for the couple weeks. I try not to bug the IG until I've researched it as much as possible myself, which is what I'm doing here and now. I just wanted to find out if anyone here was "in the know" of what this regulation means nowadays. Curious, were you meaning that you don't think this is an appropriate discussion for CAP Talk, or were you simply reminding me to ask wing DP and IG?
I mean it makes no difference what I or any one here thinks on what should be kept in the personnel file as none is us are going to be inspecting your files. If you want to know for sure ask you IG. If you want to know what we keep in our files that's a different question
An IG has no say in this. They aren't magic OPRs of the program.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2014, 07:54:13 AM
An IG has no say in this. They aren't magic OPRs of the program.
The IG conducts the SUI.......so as I said before.....if your goal is to stay out of hot water on the SUI......
Quote from: lordmonar on September 27, 2014, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2014, 07:54:13 AM
An IG has no say in this. They aren't magic OPRs of the program.
The IG conducts the SUI.......so as I said before.....if your goal is to stay out of hot water on the SUI......
so use the latest SUI for your source. IG has enough to do, and will refer you to SUI.
The SUI and CI guides and checklist provide zero assistance, nor should they.
In this case you're talking about SUI Worksheet D5: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/SUI_WS_D5_0C96BFFDB7AE8.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/SUI_WS_D5_0C96BFFDB7AE8.pdf)
In that respect it asks exactly two question, both of which refer to the ambiguous regulations:
"Has a personnel record been established for each member of the unit?" (Refer to 39-2) and that's a Yes / No.
"Is the PO maintaining CAPFs 45 IAW CAP regulations (N/A if delegated to PDO)?Is professional development training recorded on the
CAPFs 45 for each of the members of the unit?" (Refer to 50-17).
Again we need to remind people that the IGs are neither the stasi of CAP, nor OPRs, or even SMEs. They ask and answer questions
and the only person(s) in these cases who have any authority or decision making ability as to whether a unit is compliant or
not is/are the three commanders in the Wing's chain (I promise you no one above the Wing CC cares about a member's personnel records).
So the answer here is, "Check with the Wing DPO." And absent a definitive answer (or even the courtesy of a response), have your CC
note the lack of guidance in memo form to the Wing CC, make a decision and move on.
IMHO, based on the regs refereed to in the inspections, the only document apparently still required, is the 45.
While not exactly what I might consider regulatory, the advice I received from the person on the IG team that did our last SUI was to go into eServices and print off the printable version of the personell file for each senior member and stick a copy in their personell file. This satisfies the requirement to maintain the file and anything extra is just that, extra.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on September 27, 2014, 02:45:21 AM
What do you mean "duty assignments not available in eServices?" It is available in eServices for both cadets and senior members. This is relatively new, a few years or so for seniors, less so for cadets.
I am not sure when these were implemented. Does any reader here have a better grasp as to when the duty assignments were implemented?
There are some duties that aren't in eServices and are unique. For example, we just did a major renovation of our Wing Headquarters. The Wing Commander appointed an officer as the Project Manager for the renovation, and did so on a PA, as that doesn't exist within eServices.
Quote from: Dracosbane on October 01, 2014, 07:11:17 PM
While not exactly what I might consider regulatory, the advice I received from the person on the IG team that did our last SUI was to go into eServices and print off the printable version of the personell file for each senior member and stick a copy in their personell file. This satisfies the requirement to maintain the file and anything extra is just that, extra.
Not aimed at you, specifically, but this is ridiculous and a waste of time and trees. If the only thing you have
for the member(s) is this printout, then why not generate a .pdf out of this, and call it your files?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 02, 2014, 01:21:25 AM
Quote from: Dracosbane on October 01, 2014, 07:11:17 PM
While not exactly what I might consider regulatory, the advice I received from the person on the IG team that did our last SUI was to go into eServices and print off the printable version of the personell file for each senior member and stick a copy in their personell file. This satisfies the requirement to maintain the file and anything extra is just that, extra.
Not aimed at you, specifically, but this is ridiculous and a waste of time and trees. If the only thing you have
for the member(s) is this printout, then why not generate a .pdf out of this, and call it your files?
Before I quit CAP I scanned in every members membership application, copies of items not reflected in eservices (Wing Conference Attendance, etc) and created a folders for each person. These folders were updated monthly, copied to flash drives provided to the commander and personnel officer and swapped monthly. Once everything was organized and scanned it did not take much effort at all to keep up. During the SUI the IG team had no problem with this at all.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on October 02, 2014, 01:17:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 02, 2014, 01:21:25 AM
Quote from: Dracosbane on October 01, 2014, 07:11:17 PM
While not exactly what I might consider regulatory, the advice I received from the person on the IG team that did our last SUI was to go into eServices and print off the printable version of the personell file for each senior member and stick a copy in their personell file. This satisfies the requirement to maintain the file and anything extra is just that, extra.
Not aimed at you, specifically, but this is ridiculous and a waste of time and trees. If the only thing you have
for the member(s) is this printout, then why not generate a .pdf out of this, and call it your files?
Before I quit CAP I scanned in every members membership application, copies of items not reflected in eservices (Wing Conference Attendance, etc) and created a folders for each person. These folders were updated monthly, copied to flash drives provided to the commander and personnel officer and swapped monthly. Once everything was organized and scanned it did not take much effort at all to keep up. During the SUI the IG team had no problem with this at all.
One of the things I like about Google Apps is that we have set up a "Unit Files" folder for each unit in the wing where files can be stored. The smart units have done something similar to the "flash drives" concept, except taking advantage of the 30 GB of storage we have per user and accessible from anywhere. Security rights are set off of eServices, so the Unit Personnel Officer and Commander have automatic access to it, and to give someone else rights, they simply have to be assigned to that duty position. When they cease to hold said duty position, their access terminates.
Bravo. Very nice.
A unit CC so inclined could share a members records to the member with a click (view only).
Need a copy for yourself. Click.
Transferring? Click.
Properly implemented on a wing-level, there are no issues of file ownership, lost documents, none of
the nonsense that puts unneeded drag on the organization and member initiative.
Dear NHQ - please read the above and scale nationally.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 02, 2014, 02:15:49 PM
Dear NHQ - please read the above and scale nationally.
Never happen. Wasn't invented there.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 02, 2014, 01:21:25 AM
Quote from: Dracosbane on October 01, 2014, 07:11:17 PM
While not exactly what I might consider regulatory, the advice I received from the person on the IG team that did our last SUI was to go into eServices and print off the printable version of the personell file for each senior member and stick a copy in their personell file. This satisfies the requirement to maintain the file and anything extra is just that, extra.
Not aimed at you, specifically, but this is ridiculous and a waste of time and trees. If the only thing you have
for the member(s) is this printout, then why not generate a .pdf out of this, and call it your files?
I'm not saying that I'm following it. I'm just saying that this was the advice.
We have a small active senior cadre, but it's growing. Up to a certain point, there were only 4 or 5 of us on any regular basis. It wasn't hard to get them all to help keep their files updated. Take a test and get a new certificate? Drop a copy in. New award earned? Printed, copied, signed, and dropped in. Take a course? Bring back your info and we'll copy and drop it in.
Anything done online was in eServices. Apparently that wasn't enough for that member of the inspection team.
Not the first time I've had an issue with an inspection team member not thinking that eServices and the record keeping there was enough. If it's not, then what's the purpose?
I don't have a problem with scanning and keeping electronic personnel files. I'm actually in the process of updating our records and files as I bring in a new member to take over admin and personnel. This will probably become the process.
One member has forty-two years of records to scan. That's going to be a task.