Equipment used on a sortie

[Robborsari]

This came up for me today.  If a crewmember on a sortie is going to take pictures on the 1 hour sortie, does their picking up the camera off the shelf and using it for an hour constitute an issue of the equipment to them requiring a CAPF37?

174-1 says:
Issue/issued/issuance – Allocation of property to a specific individual for use in conducting CAP business or missions.

If you are not using the capf37 for cameras and such, how do you keep track of who has what equipment and make sure it gets back where it belongs? 

I am looking for a best practice way to handle this.  In the past we had been using a note on the 104 indicating the equipment used on the sortie.   

[EMT-83]

As a rule, any time equipment leaves the building, a Form 37 should be filled out.

It only takes a minute, and it's also an SUI compliance item. Keep the forms on file or throw them into your SUI binder.

[Major Lord]

a. CAPF 37, Temporary Issue Receipt. Used for temporarily issuing property to individuals. It is intended to serve as a short-term record of issuance to be held until the transaction can be posted in ORMS. Property issuance should be entered into ORMS within 7 days. Short-term issuance of property that lasts less than 7 days does not need to be entered into ORMS

A F37 anytime gear leaves the property? Hmmmmmm.

Major Lord

[RADIOMAN015]

a. CAPF 37, Temporary Issue Receipt. Used for temporarily issuing property to individuals. It is intended to serve as a short-term record of issuance to be held until the transaction can be posted in ORMS. Property issuance should be entered into ORMS within 7 days. Short-term issuance of property that lasts less than 7 days does not need to be entered into ORMS

A F37 anytime gear leaves the property? Hmmmmmm.

Major Lord

This form is available ONLY if you have access to ORMS. BTW at this time squadrons do not have the capability to issue equipment in ORMS (at least I can't seem to get it to work).
RM

[davidsinn]

a. CAPF 37, Temporary Issue Receipt. Used for temporarily issuing property to individuals. It is intended to serve as a short-term record of issuance to be held until the transaction can be posted in ORMS. Property issuance should be entered into ORMS within 7 days. Short-term issuance of property that lasts less than 7 days does not need to be entered into ORMS

A F37 anytime gear leaves the property? Hmmmmmm.

Major Lord

This form is available ONLY if you have access to ORMS. BTW at this time squadrons do not have the capability to issue equipment in ORMS (at least I can't seem to get it to work).
RM

I do it all the time. It works great. I can even do it from my phone to issue a radio to someone.

[EMT-83]

a. CAPF 37, Temporary Issue Receipt. Used for temporarily issuing property to individuals. It is intended to serve as a short-term record of issuance to be held until the transaction can be posted in ORMS. Property issuance should be entered into ORMS within 7 days. Short-term issuance of property that lasts less than 7 days does not need to be entered into ORMS

A F37 anytime gear leaves the property? Hmmmmmm.

Major Lord

Yes. The property doesn't need to be entered into ORMS for 7 days, but that doesn't mean a receipt shouldn't be issued. You don't need to log into eServices to get the form; you can print them out in advance.

This is still an SUI item under Tab C2, item 10.

[arajca]

a. CAPF 37, Temporary Issue Receipt. Used for temporarily issuing property to individuals. It is intended to serve as a short-term record of issuance to be held until the transaction can be posted in ORMS. Property issuance should be entered into ORMS within 7 days. Short-term issuance of property that lasts less than 7 days does not need to be entered into ORMS

A F37 anytime gear leaves the property? Hmmmmmm.

Major Lord

This form is available ONLY if you have access to ORMS. BTW at this time squadrons do not have the capability to issue equipment in ORMS (at least I can't seem to get it to work).
RM

Property Managers (Logistics, Supply, and Communications Officers) and Commanders can issue property in ORMS. Others cannot.

[Major Lord]

A plain-language reading of the reg would seem to indicate that a Form 37 should be issued ( by someone with the authority to actually issue, it , I will happily concur) when a piece of CAP property is going to be assigned to an individual or other entity in anticipation of the property being entered into ORMS. Using a Form 37 to send your cadets to wander the neighborhood and look for a practice beacon seems........excessive.

Major Lord

[Thom]

A plain-language reading of the reg would seem to indicate that a Form 37 should be issued ( by someone with the authority to actually issue, it , I will happily concur) when a piece of CAP property is going to be assigned to an individual or other entity in anticipation of the property being entered into ORMS. Using a Form 37 to send your cadets to wander the neighborhood and look for a practice beacon seems........excessive.

Major Lord

To make the point, who would be the person in authority to issue the receipt for situation A: Aircrew arrives at Squadron building, gets L-Per and Camera, leaves to fly sortie in CAP airplane. There are only three people involved (sometimes two...) and none of them is qualified for ORMS access as a Commander or any of the Logistics roles.

Are we really saying that, for the 2.5 hours of that sortie, someone from the Squadron with ORMS authority, needs to show up and complete this form?

I believe the "less than 7 days" phrase exists in the CAPR174-1 PRECISELY to address the lack of need for this insanity. You would not create a 'Temporary Receipt' for something which will NEVER be logged into ORMS. I agree, the phrasing could be more emphatic, but it seems the intent is clear. Otherwise, you create a receipt, for an action which you are NEVER required to actually enter into ORMS.

Note that the SUI check item actually has a subtask, under the issuance of CAPF37s, it then asks, "Is the property issuance entered into ORMS within 7 days?". I contend that if you actually create a CAPF37 for a short-term issuance, and then DON'T enter it into ORMS, you are in breach of the SUI guide. But, you can't enter in a temporary issuance that actually ceased 6.8 days earlier, can you? Does ORMS allow you to record that someone had Radio #143 from 8AM to 10AM on the previous Wednesday? I'm just saying...

I also can't imagine the extra paperwork involved when we have a large SAREX (think simulated Hurricane...) and launch over twenty sorties from a base, with cameras and L-Pers coming and going across multiple aircrews. Not to get started on the CAPF37s we apparently need for all the handheld radios issued and retrieved during the course of a one day SAREX.

Is anyone out there actually doing this on an operational basis?


Death by paperwork, indeed!


Thom

[EMT-83]

And at the end of the day, when no one knows where the camera went... gee, maybe it's still on the back seat of that plane from across the state, or neighboring Wing.

With all that's involved in releasing crews, an extra minute spent to account for equipment isn't a big deal. You don't need ORMS access or even eServices to fill out a paper receipt.

If something is lost, you can pretty much guarantee the first question asked is going to be about a property receipt. Like most CAP regulations, 174-1 could be less vague. It doesn't say that receipts are not required for items issued for less than 7 days, only that they don't need to be entered into ORMS.

[RADIOMAN015]

A plain-language reading of the reg would seem to indicate that a Form 37 should be issued ( by someone with the authority to actually issue, it , I will happily concur) when a piece of CAP property is going to be assigned to an individual or other entity in anticipation of the property being entered into ORMS. Using a Form 37 to send your cadets to wander the neighborhood and look for a practice beacon seems........excessive.

Major Lord

I also can't imagine the extra paperwork involved when we have a large SAREX (think simulated Hurricane...) and launch over twenty sorties from a base, with cameras and L-Pers coming and going across multiple aircrews. Not to get started on the CAPF37s we apparently need for all the handheld radios issued and retrieved during the course of a one day SAREX.

Is anyone out there actually doing this on an operational basis?

Death by paperwork, indeed!

Thom

There needs to be personal responsibility for equipment.  When someone signs a statement and verifies the equipment is there & operational that is what we need.  Once you get out of this personal accountability, equipment ends up missing or broken and figuring out what the chain of custody was other than the accountable administrator person (likely the comm or supply officer) becomes the issue.

I would say have the form 37's pre completed and also when issued to aircrew or ground teams get the signature on the forms and also annotate the operations log as to name, rank, & CAP ID number.

RM

[Major Lord]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the gear (Especially gear required to maintain actual mission readiness) should be carefully controlled. Our Squadron accomplishes this by keeping the gear locked in the Comm room, and the appropriate people have keys. I think the larger question is whether the use of a Form 37 is actually required by regulation "anytime the equipment leaves the building" (or just seems like a good idea to some), is the issue. I don't think that veto power over a mission should be in the hands of a logistics officer ( Storekeeper) . I don't believe the regulation is as limiting as has been implied, and it should not be an impediment to operational readiness.

Major Lord

[EMT-83]

Why is a logistics officer required? Nowhere on the form is a duty assignment specified. Anyone actually look at the form we're discussing to see how easy it really is?

It's really a simple process - you sign for the equipment when you take it. The last person who signed for the equipment can be held responsible for it.

After being involved in one Air Force investigation regarding missing property, I can honestly say it's something I'd rather not repeat.

[Chief2009]

How about putting it on the CAPF 109 under personal equipment and in the Crew Remarks section on the CAPF 104? Then you know who has it.

DN

[Major Lord]

Why is a logistics officer required? Nowhere on the form is a duty assignment specified. Anyone actually look at the form we're discussing to see how easy it really is?

It's really a simple process - you sign for the equipment when you take it. The last person who signed for the equipment can be held responsible for it.

After being involved in one Air Force investigation regarding missing property, I can honestly say it's something I'd rather not repeat.

Are you suggesting that any person taking the gear fills out a form 37? Or just a sign out log?

Major Lord

[RADIOMAN015]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the gear (Especially gear required to maintain actual mission readiness) should be carefully controlled. Our Squadron accomplishes this by keeping the gear locked in the Comm room, and the appropriate people have keys. I think the larger question is whether the use of a Form 37 is actually required by regulation "anytime the equipment leaves the building" (or just seems like a good idea to some), is the issue. I don't think that veto power over a mission should be in the hands of a logistics officer ( Storekeeper) . I don't believe the regulation is as limiting as has been implied, and it should not be an impediment to operational readiness.

Major Lord

I think that form should be signed.  Leave it in the locker/room in a designated place.  The problem though is IF a team is relieved and another team takes possession away from the unit.  I guess the team chief could carry some additional 37's and get a new signature and then return that 37 to the unit account/supply/comm officer
RM

[Major Lord]

My understanding of the reg is that only Commanders or "Property managers" can issue a Form 37. There is no self authorized form to do this. I don't think that just going out to the field with corporate gear warrants an "issue" of gear within the scope of the regulation, and that no form 37 or ORMS updates  are required or necessary. I am not suggesting that you don't control the gear; I just don't see how this is the right way to do it. I am sure that we must have at least one bona fide Logistics Master out there who can clarify this. Using the right form for the wrong reason won't help you with an Air Force investigation. ( Although it will help identify suspects)

Major Lord

[cap235629]

assign the equipment to the vehicle/aircraft.

[Thom]

Why is a logistics officer required? Nowhere on the form is a duty assignment specified. Anyone actually look at the form we're discussing to see how easy it really is?

It's really a simple process - you sign for the equipment when you take it. The last person who signed for the equipment can be held responsible for it.
<snip>

Without a competent authority, this is useless, to wit:

1. I arrive at unoccupied Squadron building for sortie, sign out camera, sign out L-Per, go to airplane.

2. I come back (successful!) from sortie, return camera, sign it in, return L-Per, sign it in.

3. Maj. Screwup comes in the next day, takes camera to photograph kid's birthday party, does not sign it out.

4. Camera is missing, and somehow I'm on the hot seat since I was the last to properly sign it out and back in! The supposition being, that I falsely signed it back in without physically returning it.

If you don't have a person with authority to sign the equipment out and back in, you are no better off than having a simple sign out log. Certainly no need to keep track of dozens of extra forms. We keep track of this today on the CAPF109 and CAPF104, and it seems to work just fine without generating reams of extra paper to keep track of. Honestly, once the camera has been checked out to someone else, do we care who had it earlier that week? I suppose we could use the info to track back to who broke something, but absent patent physical abuse, we likely couldn't hold anyone accountable anyway.

It seems likely to me that the intention there is that CAPF37s would be completed by Logistics types (or Commanders) for actual Issuance of gear, not mere temporary possession. The CAPR174-1 certainly seems to read that way, but then again, I suppose we must use whatever interpretation generates more paperwork.

I'll kick this one up to my Wing Logistics guy, see what he thinks.


Thom

[Robborsari]

Just found this in the brand new 174-1.  Paragraph b is the new part.  It would seem to support the idea that using something is not the same is being issued it.

2-2. Command Accountability.
a. Commanders are responsible for proper assignment, issuance, control, care, use, and protection of all property assigned to their units. Authority to manage property and responsibility for accurate recordkeeping may be delegated to property management officers. Commanders must perform all property management functions when no property management officer has been appointed.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
b. Commanders and property management officers will ensure that property (i.e., aircraft, vehicles, communication or other equipment and supplies) is assigned with applicable tables of allowance in mind. Property will be transferred in ORMS to the unit where the property is actually located and used. In circumstances where property is used temporarily at a location or in an activity other than that of assignment, property need not be transferred in ORMS (i.e., encampments, mission training exercises, weekend activities, etc.).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2-3. Applicable CAP Forms (CAPFs).
a. CAPF 37, Temporary Issue Receipt. Used for temporarily issuing property to individuals. It is intended to serve as a short-term record of issuance to be held until the transaction can be posted in ORMS. Property issuance should be entered into ORMS within 7 days. Short-term issuance of property that lasts less than 7 days does not need to be entered into ORMS.