tig brief - Air Force Inspection Agency

The Official Magazine of the Air Force Inspector General 

TIG BRIEF 

Summer 2011 

SERVING THE 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

SINCE 1943 

SUMMER 2011 

1

TIG BRIEF 

THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE AIR FORCE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Upcoming AFIA Training 

Basic Inspector Course 11/29/11 8 hrs 

NSI Inspector Course 11/30/11 20 hrs 









The Inspector General Brief, AFRP 90-1 

Summer 2011 [Jul 2011 - Sept 2011] Vol. 63, Number 3 

MR. MICHAEL B. DONLEY 

Secretary of the Air Force 

GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force 

LT. GEN. MARC E. ROGERS 

The Inspector General of the Air Force 

COL. PAUL W. TIBBETS IV 

Air Force Inspection Agency Commander 

MRS. ELEANOR HARRIS 

Editor 

2 Summer 2011 

Airmen 1st Class David Jack, 

28th Civil Engineers Squadron 

emergency management 

journeyman, is fitted in a level 

A suit before participating in 

an emergency management 

exercise at Ellsworth Air Force 

Base, S.D. In real world incidents, 

level A suits are donned 

when emergency responders 

are in contact with an unknown 

variable in a chemical, biological, 

radiological, or nuclear 

environment. (U.S. photo by 

Airman 1st Class Corry Hook) 

TIG BRIEF (Air Force) (ISSN 8750-376X), is published 

quarterly by the Air Force Inspection Agency, 9700 G AVE 

SE, STE 340, Kirtland AFB, N.M. 87117-5670. TIG Brief 

delivers authoritative guidance and information for Air 

Force commanders and supervisors to meet mission requirements 

and to improve unit performance during inspections. 

Periodicals mailing privileges postage paid at the United 

States Post Office, 1135 Broadway Blvd., Albuquerque, 

N.M. 87101-9651 and additional mailing offices. 

Send correspondence and address changes to postmaster: 

TIG Brief Magazine, AFIA/PIT, 9700 G Ave SE, Ste 340, 

Kirtland AFB, N.M. 87117-5670 or email to tigbrief@kirtland.af.mil 

No payment can be made for manuscripts submitted for 

publication in TIG Brief. Contributions are welcome, as are 

comments. The editor reserves the right to make editorial 

changes in manuscripts. Air Force organizations are authorized 

to reprint articles from TIG Brief, provided credit is 

given. Distribution is via direct mail. 

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation 

Title of Publication: TIG Brief 

USPS Publication No: 8750-376X 

Frequency of Issue: Quarterly 

Publisher: Air Force Inspection Agency 

Editor: Eleanor Harris 

Owner: None 

Office of Publication: HQ AFIA/PIT 

9700 G Ave, SE, Ste 340 

Kirtland AFB, N.M. 87117-5670 

Total Copies Printed: 13,000 

Copies Distributed: 12,975 

Copies Not Distributed: 25 

Total Copies Distributed and 

Not Distributed: 13,000

FROM THE TOP 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Col. Paul W. Tibbets IV, Commander, AFIA.........................4 

The Commander and Nuclear Surety....................................5 

Inspector General Act of 1978................................................6 

The 2011 SAF/IG Worldwide Training Conference..............8 

IG FOCUS 

Health Services Inspection Way Ahead...............................10 

Nuclear Inspection Analysis – Refocusing the 

Nuclear Enterprise................................................................12 

Air Force Enterprise Dashboard...........................................13 

Inspector General Evaluation Management System...........14 

Evolving ATSO Inspection ...................................................15 

Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection Oversight .............16 

IG BITS AND PIECES 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell .............................................................18 

Electronic Records Management .........................................19 

AFMC Inspection Efficiencies Progress ..............................20 

CTIA – The Wireless Association ........................................21 

SAF/IGI 2011 (CY 2010) Flynn and Leaf Awards ..............22 

History: Enola Gay Pilot and The Tibbets Legacy..............24 

NUGGETS FOR COMMANDERS 

Deficiencies, Trends, Complaints, and Discrepancies.........26 

Summer 2011 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

2011 SAF/IG 

Worldwide 

Conference 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

3

FROM THE TOP 

AFIA changes commanders 

Marie Vanover 

Public Affairs 

Kirtland AFB 

The Air Force Inspection Agency (AFIA) had a 

change of command ceremony July 27 at the 

Mountain View Club, where Col. Heraldo B. 

Brual relinquished command to Col. Paul W. Tibbets IV. Lt. 

Gen. Marc E. Rogers, the Inspector General of the Air Force, 

was the presiding officer. 

After thanking the community leaders in attendance, 

the general lauded the accomplishments of Brual and 

spoke to the Agency’s statute as a center of excellence to 

strengthen the Air Force missions. 

The general recognized Brual’s accomplishments by 

presenting him with a Legion of Merit for his achievements 

while commander. 

After the official passing of the flag, Tibbets said he was 

honored and appreciative of the opportunity to command 

and continue the excellence the Air Force Inspection 

Agency is known for and also acknowledged the attitude of 

excellence he had seen displayed all over Kirtland AFB. 

He addressed the men and women of AFIA specifically 

and said, “AFIA has evolved over the years, but one thing 

has not changed … the commitment by each and every 

(AFIA) member to make our Air Force better for everyone.” 

The colonel closed by saying he would serve with passion, 

Col. Paul W. Tibbets IV 

Commander, AFIA 

Kirtland AFB 

It is an honor for Angelle and me to join the talented group of men and women of the Air Force Inspection Agency (AFIA). 

We are respectfully appreciative of this great opportunity and responsibility, and will strive to continue in full throttle the 

excellence for which AFIA is known and build on previous successes while looking to the future and maturing our mission 

and its processes for the long term. 

From the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Sandia National Laboratories, and 

AFIA, Kirtland AFB certainly comprises a large part of the nuclear family. Additionally, The Inspector General of the Air Force, Air 

Staff, MAJCOM/IGs, STRATCOM, and functional communities are integral to the success of our business. The true professionals of 

AFIA will maintain close formation with The Inspector General (TIG) and all our partners as we collectively continue to strengthen 

our nuclear enterprise. 

Since 1927 with the establishment of the inspection division under the Chief of the Air Corps, our business has been about 

improving the Air Force so it remains poised to preserve peace and provide Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power for today’s fight 

and for generations to come. As our Air Force revitalizes its thinking about crisis stability and 21 st Century deterrence dynamics, 

we too are charged with constantly evaluating our processes to ensure that, as a tool for commanders, we are providing the best 

service to our customer. I pledge that I will give all the skills and devotion at my command to create an environment for all AFIA 

personnel to continue doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. Together we will reach TIG’s vision of a “highly respected and 

credible Inspector General system that inspires and promotes improved performance, military discipline, command effectiveness, 

and management excellence.” 

4 Summer 2011 

Photo by Elizabeth Martinez 

Lt. Gen. Marc E. Rogers, Inspector General of the Air Force, left, 

passes the guidon July 27 to Col. Paul W. Tibbets IV, the new 

commander of the Air Force Inspection Agency at Kirtland AFB. 

humility, courage, and respect. 

Tibbets comes to AFIA from the 379 th Air Expeditionary 

Wing in Southwest Asia, where he served as vice commander. 

He received his commission through the U.S. Air Force 

Academy in 1989. His previous assignments include: B-1 pilot at 

Ellsworth AFB, S.D.; B-2 instructor pilot, director of operations 

for the 325 th /13 th Bomb Squadron; director of staff for the 

509 th Bomb Wing; commander of the 393 rd Bomb Squadron at 

Whiteman AFB, Mo.; executive officer for the Eighth Air Force 

commander at Barksdale AFB, La.; and chief of the nuclear 

policy branch at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. He is a command pilot with 

more than 3,800 flying hours.

The Commander 

and Nuclear Surety 

Commanders set the 

tone for nuclear 

surety at their units. 

Commanders at all levels set 

the example by demanding a 

level of proficiency by Airmen 

within their unit that will 

assure safe, secure, and 

reliable nuclear weapons and 

weapon systems. As such, 

mediocrity and complacency 

are your enemies. 

Most Airmen are proud 

of the work they do and feel 

rewarded when their sense of 

ownership in their nuclearrelated 

programs or duties 

are recognized by senior unit 

leadership. Therefore, be 

visible among your Airmen– 

trust but verify that their 

responsibilities are executed 

in a manner that exhibits high 

levels of proficiency. 

As always, actions speak 

louder than words. For 

example, wing inspection 

preparation exercises provide 

an excellent venue whereby 

wing commanders can watch 

their Airmen in action. Prior 

to a recapture exercise, hand 

over the reins of command 

to your vice commander, and 

then, from a non-intervention 

standpoint, watch your troops 

in the field perform their 

duties. Observing first-hand 

can give you direct insight on 

U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Michael J. Velox 

George E. Parrott III 

AFIA Technical Advisor 

Kirtland AFB 

what improvements may be 

necessary, and it also makes 

the point to your folks that you 

care about how they do their 

job. 

Instill in your subordinate 

commanders a sense of 

purpose to identify and 

correct discrepancies–to 

hone unit individual levels of 

proficiency to a razor’s edge. 

Accept no excuses. Factual 

principles of adhering to 

policy, technical data, and 

procedures assure success; 

emotional appeals and blameshifting 

don’t. If in doubt about 

policy or procedure, officially 

query higher headquarter 

authorities. Don’t wait for an 

inspection team to do it for 

Summer 2011 

you, because by then, your 

unit has a degree of culpability 

in accepting the enemies 

of surety–mediocrity and 

complacency. 

It’s essential that you, your 

subordinate commanders, and 

your Airmen understand the 

potential “coffin-corners” that 

could result in unsafe, nonsecure 

or unreliable nuclear 

weapons, weapon systems, 

or environments. Don’t let 

your maintainers, defenders, 

operators, and support 

personnel get wrapped in a 

mentality that the end justifies 

the means if those methods 

are counter to established 

and tested Air Force policies, 

procedures, and discipline. 

Understand 

the governing 

directives for 

nuclear surety. 

These are the 

tools in your tool 

box for success. 

In the final 

analysis, you, the 

commander, must 

lead your unit 

to establish and 

maintain nuclear 

surety. 

Former Air Force Global Strike Command Commander Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, and former 

Command Chief Master Sgt. Jack Johnson speak with Airmen from the 791st Missile 

Security Forces Squadron Dec. 13, 2010, during a missile alert facility tour at Minot Air 

Force Base, N.D. General Klotz visited with Minot AFB Airmen to show his appreciation 

for their hard work and dedication to the nuclear enterprise. 

5

organization of the air force 

inspector general 

Fulfilling the Mandate of the Inspector General Act of 1978 

Lt. Col. Michael J. Andersen 

AFIA/JA 

Kirtland AFB 

The Office of The 

Inspector General 

has existed in the 

United States military in one 

form or another since Colonial 

days. More recently, Congress 

established the Office of 

Inspector General within the 

various departments of our 

government to include the 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

Enacted in 1978, Public Law 

95-452 1 provides the framework 

for an independent body within 

each department. Commonly 

known as The Inspector General 

Act of 1978, 2 its purpose is to 

create an independent and 

objective office that is charged to 

investigate and audit programs 

and operations within their 

respective departments. In 

short, their jobs are to inspect, 

investigate, and report. 3 

By derivation, each of the 

military departments within 

the DoD is authorized an Office 

of The Inspector General. 

The mission of the Inspector 

General (IG) of the Air Force 

(SAF/IG) is to “independently 

assess the readiness, discipline, 

and efficiency of the Air 

Force. SAF/IG is responsible 

to the Secretary and Chief of 

Staff for Air Force Inspection 

Policy, Intelligence Oversight, 

Criminal Investigations, 

Counterintelligence Operations, 

Complaints program, Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse (FW&A) 

program, the Air Force 

Inspection Agency (AFIA), and 

the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI).” 4 

How then is the Air Force Inspector 

General organized to carry out the 

mandate of The IG Act of 1978? 

The wiring diagram depicts 

the current organization of 

SAF/IG. 5 At the pinnacle, the 

IG directs a diverse group of 

experts who assist in meeting 

the mandate to inspect, 

investigate, and report. 

AFIA: The Air Force 

Inspection Agency supports 

the IG in meeting his legal 

mandate by training inspectors 

and conducting oversight of the 

inspection process. In addition, 

AFIA provides independent, 

timely inspections and 

facilitates process improvement 

and integration to advance 

readiness, compliance, and 

efficiency for the Air Force. 

Inspections carried out by 

AFIA include Health Services 

Inspections, Compliance 

Inspections, and Nuclear Surety 

Inspections. 6 

AFOSI: The Air Force 

Office of Special Investigations 

is a field operating agency 

under the direction and 

guidance of the SAF/IG. It 

performs as a federal law 

enforcement agency with 

6 Summer 2011 

responsibility for conducting 

criminal investigations, 

counterintelligence activities, 

and specialized investigative 

and force protection support for 

the Air Force. 7 

SAF/IGE: The Executive 

Services Division supports 

the IG in interpreting and 

implementing administrative 

policy and managing the 

security and travel programs for 

the SAF/IG staff. 8 

SAF/IGI: The Inspections 

Directorate develops policies, 

planning, and program 

evaluation for the Air 

Force Inspection Program; 

represents the IG and AFIA 

on policy, planning, and 

program evaluation matters 

for inspection issues at the 

Air Staff, Secretariat, and 

Office of the Secretary of 

Defense levels, as well 

as with the Government 

Accountability Office, DoD/IG, 

and other agencies external 

to the Air Force; manages 

the intelligence oversight 

program for the Air Staff and 

Secretariat; performs special 

assignments; and provides 

management and advisory 

service to the IG of the Air 

Staff, and Secretariat. SAF/ 

IGI also prepares, coordinates, 

and recommends changes 

to the DoD, Air Force, and 

IG policy directives relating 

to inspections; prepares, 

executes, and oversees

Air Force Inspection Agency 

(AFIA) 

resources, plans, and 

programs for accomplishing 

the inspections portion of the 

SAF/IG mission to include: 

preparing and coordinating 

reports and recommended 

changes to Air Force resource 

planning and program 

directives impacting the IG 

and AFIA. 9 

SAF/IGQ: The 

Complaints Resolution 

Directorate supports the 

IG as the focal point for 

administrative investigations, 

complaints, and FW&A 

resolution. The Air National 

Guard Inquiries Directorate 

is integrated into SAF/IGQ 

to provide a “Total Air Force” 

perspective to the Air Force 

Complaints Program. 10 

SAF/IGR: The Reserve 

and Air National Guard 

Advisors manpower 

authorizations include specific 

positions for Air Reserve 

Component (ARC) Affairs 

to advise directors of higher 

staff levels and take part 

Executive Services 

Division 

(SAF/IGE) 

Directorate of Complaints 

Resolution (SAF/IGQ) 

Directorate of 

Senior Official Inquiries 

(SAF/IGS) 

The Inspector General 

(SAF/IG) 

Directorate of 

Inspections 

(SAF/IGI) 

Reserve 

and ANG Advisors 

(SAF/IGR) 

Directorate of Special 

Investigations 

(SAF/IGX) 

in preparing and managing 

policies, plans, programs 

and regulations affecting the 

ARC. 11 

SAF/IGS: The Senior 

Official Inquiries Directorate 

supports the IG in developing 

policy on and conducting 

inquiries of complaints and 

allegations made against 

senior Air Force officials 

(active, reserve, ANG, and 

retired) in the grade of O-7 

select and above; current 

and former civilians in 

grades above GS or GM-15; 

current and former Senior 

Executive Service and civilian 

Presidential Appointees; and 

other matters as directed by 

the SECAF, CSAF, or the IG. 12 

SAF/IGX: The Special 

Investigations Directorate 

supports the IG in developing 

and overseeing policies, 

plans, programs, and 

budgets for the Air Force 

Security and Investigative 

Activities Programs, the 

Counterintelligence Program, 

Summer 2011 

Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI) 

and portions of the Force 

Protection Antiterrorism 

Program. 13 

Taken together, this small 

but diverse group is aptly 

organized to support SAF/ 

IG in meeting the primary 

mandate of The Inspector 

General Act of 1978, i.e., 

to inspect, investigate, and 

report. 

1 Public Law 95-542, 

October 12, 1978 

2 Id. at sect. 1. 

3 Id. at sect. 2. 

4 SAF/IG Website 

5 HAFMD 1-20, Atch 2, 23 

Apr 2008 

6 AFIA Website 

7 AFOSI Website 

8 HAFMD 1-20, Atch 2, para 

A2.2.1., 23 Apr 2008 

9 Id. at para A. 2.2.2. 

10 Id. at para A. 2.2.3. 

11 Id. at para A. 2.2.4. 

12 Id. at para A. 2.2.5. 

13 Id. at para A. 2.2.6. 

7

The 2011 SAF/IG Worldwide Training 

Conference 

State of the IG Community 

Lt. Col. Lori J. Stender, SAF/IGI 

CMSgt. Johnny L. Collet, SAF/IGI 

Carmen F. Perone, SAF/IGQ 

Washington 

A call for change started in October 

2007 as part of the Nuclear Enterprise 

Inspection system reinvigoration effort, and 

continues today following further guidance 

from a June 2010 CORONA session. 

Inspectors General (IG) from across the 

Air Force and Department of Defense 

(DoD) assembled at the National 

Conference Center in Lansdowne, Virginia, in 

May for the 2011 SAF/IG Worldwide Training 

Conference. For the second consecutive year, 

the conference brought together the combined 

expertise of inspection and complaints 

resolution personnel. A total of 285 major 

command and installation IGs, complaints 

resolution case officers, and sister service IGs 

participated and made this one of the highestattended 

conferences on record. 

The Air Force Inspector General, 

Lieutenant General Marc E. Rogers, kicked 

off the event by presenting the 2010 Flynn 

and Leaf Awards (pages 22-23). During his 

keynote address, General Rogers explained 

that while the previous year was a busy one, 

2012 would be even more challenging. “The 

Air Force continues to make changes to the 

size, scope, and mission focus of our force to 

become more agile and expeditionary and 

the IG is no different. We need to transform 

and make the changes necessary to provide 

commanders the tools needed to ensure the 

8 Summer 2011 

economy, efficiency, readiness, and state of 

discipline of our force.” 

Not since 1948, after the Air Force 

emerged from its days as part of the Army 

Air Corps, has the inspection system been 

under such scrutiny. A call for change started 

in October 2007 as part of the Nuclear 

Enterprise Inspection system reinvigoration 

effort and continues today following further 

guidance from a June 2010 CORONA session. 

During that CORONA, senior leaders called 

for continuation of previous “whitespace” 

improvements and focused on changes 

needed to ensure the right scope, focus, 

and frequency of our compliance inspection 

system. Following CORONA, Gen. Rogers 

directed the stand-up of an Inspection System 

Improvement Tiger Team (ISITT), which was 

given a charter to conduct a top-to-bottom 

review of the entire Air Force inspection 

system. 

The ISITT team began working on the 

daunting challenge of validating more than 

100 separate inspections, eliminating those 

no longer valid and proposing integration 

or synchronization efforts into the IG

system. ISITT recommended creation of 

a new inspection called the Consolidated 

Unit Inspection (CUI), transferring by-law 

inspection requirements to the Air Force 

Inspection Agency (AFIA), and the standup 

of a more robust self-inspection program 

across the Air Force. The basis of the new 

CUI will be to integrate or synchronize 

existing inspections, assessments, and 

evaluations into one inspection to be executed 

at the wing level. This would enable wings 

to maximize whitespace and return critically 

needed training time to units to focus on 

daily operations, readiness, deployments, 

and training. AFIA will now complete bylaw 

inspections using a sampling process 

much like the Army and Navy IGs use 

in their inspection systems. The new 

self-inspection system will be called the 

Commanders Inspection Program, and it 

is designed to be a self-assessment tool for 

commanders to critically evaluate their unit’s 

compliance, readiness, culture, and state of 

discipline. MAJCOM IGs are in the process 

of implementing this new inspection across 

their commands, with some MAJCOMs 

implementing the new CUI this year. 

Things are changing dramatically on the 

complaints resolution side of the IG business 

as well. 2011 saw the release of the latest 

version of AFI 90-301, Inspector General 

Complaints Resolution, which introduces 

a number of new reports and analysis 

tools designed to assist IGs in complaints 

resolution matters. 

The Referral Completion Report, modeled 

closely after the Hotline Completion Report, is 

a one-page document which is required from 

all agencies in which an IG refers a case. This 

report will allow IGs to close cases with much 

more fidelity knowing complainant’s issues 

have been addressed by the appropriate 

agency. 

Originally a pilot program within Air 

Education and Training Command, the 

Report of Preliminary Inquiry (RPI) is now 

approved Air Force-wide as an alternative 

format to the Reprisal Complaint Analysis 

(RCA) when examining reprisal complaints. 

Less repetitive and redundant than the RCA, 

the new RPI provides logical ways to address 

the content of protected communications, key 

decision points when examining personnel 

actions, and a detailed chronology which 

describes the facts in a concise manner. 

Another plus when considering the new RPI 

is that it is similar in format to what DoD/IG 

has been using for some time. 

General assembly and small group 

training focused on areas unaddressed in 

previous conferences. HQ AF/JA provided 

updates on the Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

and the Air Force Fitness Program and how 

this could impact IGs in the coming months. 

Also, new to this conference were 

presentations from USAF Suicide Prevention 

Program Managers from HQ AF/MSA, who 

provided unique training to IGs on how to 

deal with distraught plaintiffs. IGs were 

trained to spot signs of acute distress in 

members, how to respond accordingly, and 

what types of mental health resources are 

available to assist Wingmen in distress. 

The new AFI 90-301 is providing specific 

guidance on the content of an installation’s 

Fraud, Waste and Abuse program, and 

detailed training was provided on the new 

requirements. 

Finally, training was provided on juggling 

Self Inspection and Exercise Control Team 

duties along with the complaints resolution 

mission; handling congressional complaints 

and the mission of the Secretary of the Air 

Force Legislative Liaison office; and witness 

interviewing techniques. 

The conference was a huge success for 

those who attended, as surveys indicated 

attendees appreciated the group discussions, 

training, and networking opportunities. For 

those who were unable to attend, briefings 

from this year’s event can be located on the 

SAF/IGQ Air Force Portal page, located 

at http://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af/USAF/ep/ 

globalTab.do?channelPageId=s6925EC1351F 

50E044080020E329A9, under the “Training” 

tab. Attendees also indicated they enjoyed 

the joint interaction between both inspections 

and complaint resolutions personnel, and 

this trend will continue for 2012. Mark your 

calendars for next year’s conference, which is 

scheduled for May 1-3, 2012. 

Summer 2011 

9

IN FOCUS 

Maj. Teresa G. Paris 

AFIA/SG 

Kirtland AFB 

In June 2010, The 

Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force (AF) 

directed all inspection 

agencies to: map the 

current AF inspection 

system with emphasis on 

identifying 

primary 

consumers 

of wing 

“whitespace;” 

reemphasize 

and 

reinvigorate 

the role of 

Gatekeepers; and develop 

and implement actions to 

increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the entire 

AF inspection system. The 

Inspector General (TIG), 

Lt. Gen. Marc E. Rogers 

stated, “We owe it to our 

commanders in the field 

to combine and focus our 

inspection system. The AF 

inspection program needs 

to adequately provide 

readiness, discipline, 

and compliance status of 

the force yet must allow 

Health Services 

Inspection Way Ahead 

field units time to train, 

prepare for, and execute 

their missions.” To achieve 

these goals, Gen. Rogers 

established the Inspection 

System Improvement 

Tiger Team to review 

the current inspection 

process and to provide 

recommendations on 

how to increase the wing 

commanders’ “whitespace” 

on their calendars. In May 

The Air Force Inspection Agency, Medical 

Operations Directorate, has been hard at 

work towards the Inspection Efficiency 

Conference Goal 

of 2011, representatives 

from the functional 

communities in all the 

MAJCOMs assembled 

in Washington, D.C., at 

the Inspection Efficiency 

Conference (IEC). The 

mantra of the IEC was to 

“Reduce, Synchronize, and 

Integrate.” 

The Air Force 

Inspection Agency, Medical 

Operations Directorate 

(AFIA/SG), has been hard 

at work towards the IEC 

goal. So far, we have 

10 Summer 2011 

reduced the number of 

elements by 25 percent 

and reduced the number 

of criteria by 50 percent 

within the Active Duty, Air 

Reserve Component, and 

Aeromedical Evacuation 

Health Services Inspection 

(HSI) Guides. This has 

been accomplished by 

eliminating low-value 

criteria, combining 

criteria, moving some 

items to 

the Unit 

Compliance 

Inspection, and 

eliminating 

items that 

are being 

evaluated 

by civilian 

accreditation agencies. The 

AF Medical Operations 

Directorate has been 

coordinating closely with 

our counterparts at the 

AF Medical Operations 

Agency, AF Medical 

Support Agency, AF 

Reserve Command, and 

National Guard Bureau to 

ensure functional experts 

have adequate input into 

these changes. The AF 

Surgeon General, Lt. Gen. 

C. Bruce Green stated, 

“We are moving in the

ight direction and the 

new criteria will better 

emphasize continuing 

education and upgrade 

training. The medical 

mission is integral to the 

wing mission and this 

system will test them 

together.” 

Beginning in 2012, the 

HSI will be synchronized 

with the Consolidated 

Unit Inspection (CUI) 

Phase 0. The CUI, 

Phase 0 will be headed 

up by the MAJCOMs. 

This synchronization 

and integration will 

require the AF Medical 


to decouple from The 

Joint Commission and the 

Accreditation Association 

for Ambulatory Health 

Care, Inc., to decrease the 

inspection frequency to 

every four years. “This is 

a significant change on 

how the HSI team used 

to inspect both inpatient 

and outpatient military 

treatment facilities,” 

said Col. John C. Sell, 

AFIA, Director of Medical 

Operations. “Our goal is to 

have proactive and open 

two-way communication 

with each MAJCOM IG 

and Command Surgeon. 

This will enhance our 

alignment with the 

MAJCOMs when they 

inspect their respective 

AF wings. As we start this 

process in 2012, all parties 

will need to be patient and 

Summer 2011 

provide feedback to help us 

get it right.” 

As AFIA Medical 


transitions the HSIs to 

the new CUI schedule, 

some active duty medical 

groups which had an HSI 

during 2011, may also be 

inspected as part of a CUI 

in 2012. “We are looking at 

various options for those 

medical groups who scored 

well in 2011 only to have 

an additional inspection in 

2012,” added Col. Sell. “We 

will use common sense and 

work with our customers 

to make this a relatively 

smooth transition for our 

medical groups.” 

11

IN FOCUS 

Nuclear Inspection 

Analysis - Refocusing the 

Nuclear Enterprise 

Lt. Col. T. Michael Fitzgerald 

AFIA/PI 

Kirtland AFB 

Those members of any 

Inspector General 

team who have not 

read ‘Reinvigorating the Air 

Force Nuclear Enterprise’ 

prepared by the Air Force 

Nuclear Task Force, read it. 

For those who have, read it 

again. The publication, referred 

to as a “road map” identifies 

actions to overcome deficiencies 

and sets the conditions for 

excellence across the nuclear 

enterprise. The Nuclear Task 

Force developed the road map 

through a disciplined root 

cause analysis process that 

resulted in approximately 

100 action plans. From the 

beginning, the road map 

emphasizes the loss of focus 

on the nuclear mission and 

identifies enhancement of 

nuclear inspection processes 

as a major key action. In fact, 

an entire chapter is devoted to 

the nuclear inspection process 

and directs the implementation 

of independent oversight, a 

centrally managed core team 

and inspector training. Those 

actions are done; however, 

the document also states, 

“inspection is not the end 

state—it is a means to provide 

the feedback necessary to 

continuously improve processes 

and performance.” This is not 

a groundbreaking thought, but 

makes a tremendous point that 

emphasizes a capability that 

is often overlooked—analysis. 

Analysis is the feedback 

that informs leadership 

about where to focus efforts 

to improve processes and 

performance. 

For the past two years, 

the Air Force Inspection 

Agency (AFIA) has collected 

and analyzed Nuclear Surety 

Inspection (NSI) data and 

reported the results to the 

Secretary, Chief of Staff, and 

other senior Air Force leaders. 

Since Mar ‘09, AFIA has been 

providing analysis through 

the Nuclear Oversight Board, 

Nuclear Issues Resolution 

and Integration (NIRI) Board, 

and other nuclear leadership 

forums. In addition, AFIA 

provides inspection results and 

deficiency trend analysis on 

the recently developed Senior 

Leader Dashboard used by 

SECAF, CSAF, and other 

Air Force senior leaders. This 

information has highlighted 

negative trends that focus 

efforts on the most critical 

areas for improvement. For 

example, deficiency analyses 


of fourteen NSI Major Graded 

Areas were provided to 

senior leaders at the Oct ‘09 

NIRI Board resulting in the 

formation of Security and 

Technical Operations Tiger 

Teams. These teams identified 

thirty-eight root causes and 

seventy-eight countermeasures 

for implementation throughout 

the nuclear community. 

Critical issues such as outdated 

technical orders and mental 

fatigue were identified as root 

causes and assigned to specific 

organizations for corrective 

action. AFIA is now analyzing 

all deficiency and root cause 

data for senior leaders and 

will soon significantly revise 

AFI 90-201, Inspector General 

Activities, deficiency codes 

to further improve unit root 

cause analysis and trending 

efforts. Additional process 

improvement efforts are 

scheduled to improve reporting 

of higher headquarters 

deficiencies and track root 

cause analysis. 

Even with these results, 

the inspection analysis 

capability within the Air Force 

still remains underdeveloped. 

Currently, AFIA is working 

to provide inspectors with 

tools that will give them 

the capability to streamline 

and standardize inspections 

and provide analysis tools 

to be used at the base and 

MAJCOM levels. The 

Inspector General Evaluation 

Management System (IGEMS) 

is currently funded and used 

by five MAJCOMs for nonnuclear 

inspections. Once a

classified version of the tool is 

completed later this year, the 

nuclear MAJCOMs will be able 

to use it for NSIs as well. This 

tool will also provide a central 

database for all inspection 

results and deficiencies and 

provide units with a tool to 

conduct Eight-Step Problem 

Solving for root cause analysis 

Air Force Enterprise Dashboard 

Thomas J. Stark 

AFIA/PI 

Kirtland AFB 

The Air Force Enterprise 

Dashboard (AFED), formerly 

called the AF Senior Leader 

Dashboard, is a single source of information 

for AF senior leaders, including all general 

officers and senior executive service 

civilians. The AFED is located on SIPRNet 

and includes metric data that is manually 

submitted by Functional Area Managers 

and metric owners. All metrics align under 

the AF’s strategic priorities and are used 

by the Air Force Council for quarterly 

performance reviews. AFED is a tool for 

strategy alignment and performance 

management and provides situational 

awareness to enable senior leader discussion 

and action. 

There are several Inspector General (IG) 

measures of performance on the AFED to 

include inspection results and IG System 

Health metrics. The Air Force Inspection 

Agency works closely with SAF/IG and the 

MAJCOM IGs to collect and analyze IG data 

to update and design new AFED metrics. 

Currently, Nuclear Surety and Health 

Services Inspection metrics are updated and 

posted on the AFED. In addition, inspector 

manning and training metrics are used to 

assess IG System Health. 

and corrective actions. Besides 

IGEMS, AFIA is working 

on further standardization 

of data and data formats to 

improve our analysis methods. 

Standardization of inspection 

processes, grading criteria, and 

checklist items are essential 

to trend analysis across the 

enterprise. 

To help assess AF efforts to strengthen 

and maintain the nuclear enterprise, Nuclear 

Surety Inspection (NSI) metrics include 

inspection pass rate, number of deficiencies 

per NSI, and number of critical/significant 

deficiencies per NSI. The nuclear IG System 

Health metrics include a quarterly snapshot 

of nuclear inspector and key nuclear billet 

manning and training status. The training 

status of NSI augmentees is also monitored 

and reported. 

Finally, several additional IG metrics are 

used on the AFED to assess how well the AF 

analyzes, addresses, and reviews systemic 

weaknesses. Key metrics includes NSI 

deficiency root cause analysis accomplished 

and reported and the number of repeat and/ 

or recurring NSI deficiencies. A key IG metric 

currently under design is Deficiency Fix Rate 

(DFR). DFR will track how long it takes to 

close (i.e., fix) a nuclear critical/significant 

deficiency. 

In summary, IG metrics appear on the 

AFED and are used by AF senior leaders 

to assess the performance of AF strategy 

and objectives. The quality and value of 

these metrics depends, in large part, on the 

quality of IG inspections, reporting, corrective 

actions, inspection analysis processes, and the 

subsequent data derived from these processes. 

A strong and effective IG system facilitates 

the design and use of the right IG metrics 

needed by AF senior leadership to keep 

visibility and to act on strategic AF priorities. 

Summer 2011 

In summary, the inspection 

system has drastically 

improved over the past two 

years to increase focus on 

the nuclear mission and 

reestablish a culture of 

compliance. Analysis is the 

feedback for these tasks but 

must continue to be developed 

and improved. 

13

IN FOCUS 

Lt. Col. Sekou T. Billings 

AFIA/PI 

Kirtland AFB 

U.S. Air Force photo 

The Inspector 

General Evaluation 

Management 

System (IGEMS) is the 

Air Force Inspector 

General’s (IG) web-based 

application tool that 

provides the capability for 

MAJCOM IGs to manage 

formal inspections by 

standardizing the planning, 

scheduling, conducting, and 

report writing processes. 

Additionally, this system 

records inspection results, 

monitors unit’s progress 

to address observations 

discovered by IG teams 

and enables analysis of 

inspection data to identify 

performance trends across 

the Air Force. 

IGEMS was initially 

fielded in October of 2008 

and is presently utilized 

by more than 2,100 users 

within AFIA, AFMC, AFRC, 

AFSPC, AMC, and USAFE. 

A classified-capable version 

of IGEMS (IGEMS-C) is 

on track for deployment 

and use in December of 

2011. This will allow the 

MAJCOMs IGs to capture 

inspection data from Nuclear 

Surety Inspections, Nuclear 

Operational Readiness 

Inspections, Operational 

Readiness Inspections, and 

Compliance Inspections in a 

secure environment. 

Both IGEMS and 

IGEMS-C are comprised 

of a single database and a 

single interface for input 

and output of IG 

observations from 

discovery to closure 

at the strategic, 

operational, and 

tactical levels of 

the Air Force. Both 

systems use an 

open architecture 

to facilitate Air 

Force-wide trending 

analysis and enable 

cross communication 

of inspection and 

analysis results by 

using normalized data 


INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EVALUATION 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

and standardized reporting. 

The Air Force 

Inspection Agency, 

Process Improvement and 

Integration Directorate 

has lead responsibility 

for the classified and 

unclassified versions of 

IGEMS, while the Air Force 

Program Executive Office 

for Enterprise Information 

Systems, Acquisition 

Support Systems Division, 

Business Support Systems 

Branch has program 

management responsibility 

for IGEMS and IGEMS-C. 

Photo by Eleanor Harris 

SMgt Phil Sanchez from AFIA oversees IGEMS software 

maintenance release; conducts IGEMS training sessions 

for MAJCOM/IG teams; and is the Air Force liaison to all 

MAJCOM/IG administrators.

EVOLVING ATSO 

INSPECTION 

SMSgt. Daniel C. Simpson 

HQ AFSOC/IGIS 

Hurlburt Field 

The threat facing our 

forces today is far 

different than it was 

20 years ago. In today’s world, 

we are confronted with regional 

conflicts involving insurgent 

forces or terrorist threats to our 

installations as opposed to major 

conflicts with nation-states. As 

the likelihood of major conflict 

with a nation-state lessens, so 

does the threat of traditional 

chemical weapon employment. 

Our most recent conflicts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan show the threat 

of chemical weapon use was 

overestimated. Does this mean 

chemical weapons are no longer 

a threat to be reckoned with? 

Absolutely not, but today and in 

the foreseeable future there are 

threats far more likely and deadly 

to our forces. This being said, 

perhaps it is time for the Inspector 

General (IG) to rethink how we 

inspect a unit’s ability to survive 

and operate (ATSO) during an 

Operational Readiness Inspection 

(ORI). 

According to Air Force 

Instruction 90-201, Inspector 

General Activities, ATSO 

“evaluates the unit’s ability 

to conduct the full range of 

contingency operations, either in 

a stand-alone, joint, or coalition 

forces operating environment, 

while simultaneously responding 

to or recovering from enemy 

attack, state/non-state use of 

chemical, biological, radiological, 

and nuclear (CBRN) weapons, 

major accidents, natural disasters, 

or HAZMAT incidents using the 

Air Force Incident Management 

System (AFIMS).” Key to this is 

the idea that the units must be 

capable of conducting operations 

while responding to or recovering 

from a myriad of possible incidents. 

Although our governing instruction 

provides some flexibility in the 

inspection of ATSO, in practice 

we still use “Cold War” scenarios 

at the expense of scenarios much 

more likely to occur in today’s 

operating environment. 

The inability of our inspection 

process to adjust to the evolving 

threat results from years of linking 

chemical attacks to ATSO that it 

is part of the ORI culture and has 

proved difficult to let go. Where 

we fail is assuming any ATSO 

scenario must include CBRN and 

it must take place during the 

employment phase of the ORI. 

Aircraft crashes and natural 

disasters occur at any time; 

consequently, we should consider 

including them during all phases 

of the ORI. Units with primary 

missions conducted from the 

CONUS, such as bomber or missile 

wings, should not be expected to 

respond to chemical attacks with 

tactical ballistic missiles (the 

only scenarios which drive mass 

populations to don ground crew 

ensembles). Continuing to conduct 

their mission under elevated 

terrorist threats or after an aircraft 

crash is much more realistic and 

effective for evaluating their state 

of ATSO readiness. Of course, if 

units have forces that are tied to 

Operations Plans which support 

CBRN threat areas, they should be 

evaluated under the appropriate 

scenario. 

Key to changing the ORI 

culture and how we inspect ATSO 

is to revise the ATSO graded subareas 

documented in AFI 90-201. 

Currently, ATSO sub-areas and 

their supporting descriptions are 

Summer 2011 

almost exclusively 

tied to CBRN 

attack criteria, 

particularly 

“protection” and 

“contamination 

avoidance 

and control.” 

Redefining the 

sub-areas to align with the Air 

Force Incident Management 

System phases of response 

(prevention, preparedness, 

response, recovery, and mitigation) 

will allow the IG and unit 

commanders to create scenarios 

that test a unit’s ability to respond 

and recover in the context of their 

assigned mission and locale. These 

broader areas capture universal 

activities conducted prior to, 

during, or after any incident 

regardless of type. In essence it 

will allow ATSO scenarios to be 

scalable in scope and variety, while 

inspecting against the threats most 

likely to impact the unit’s mission. 

The time has come for the 

inspection process to align itself 

with the threats facing today’s 

Air Force. In order to provide 

commanders an accurate snapshot 

of unit readiness, we have to 

change our way of thinking 

and, in turn, change how we 

inspect ATSO. To do this we 

must incorporate a full spectrum 

threat concept into our inspection 

process. Only then we will truly 

be inspecting a unit’s ability to 

survive and operate. 

Photo: Team Dover members take a break 

between exercises during the Ability to 

Survive and Operate training April 20, 

2011, at Dover Air Force Base, Del. ATSO 

tested Team Dover Airmen on changing 

from Mission Oriented Protection Posture 

2 to MOPP 4 during the course of the 

training. (U.S. Air Force photo by Steve 

Kotecki) 

Editor’s note: SAF/IGI is 

reviewing these proposals to 

consider revising AFI 90-201. 

15

IN FOCUS 

Nuclear 

Weapons 

Technical 

Inspection 

Oversight 

Col. Scott Edwards 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Kirtland AFB 

Over the last two years, the Air Force 

Inspection Agency (AFIA) and the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA) have conducted oversight inspection 

programs to ensure inspection programs across 

the Air Force and Department of Defense 

continue to 

be valuable 

to the nuclear 

mission. 

Recently, both 

agencies took 

a step back 

from their 

demanding 

inspection schedules to conduct a joint AFSO 

21 Rapid Improvement Event (RIE). The 

RIE focused on improving communication 

and coordination between oversight teams to 

identify opportunities to optimize independent 

processes and to improve leadership’s 

confidence in the nuclear enterprise oversight 

programs. Over the course of a week, key 

members of AFIA and DTRA oversight 

inspection teams carefully analyzed every 

aspect of both agencies’ oversight inspection 

processes. 

The RIE concentrated on improving and 

optimizing the oversight inspection process 

by addressing potential improvements in 

inspector training, clarifying higher guidance, 

identifying obstacles to communication, and 


establishing a 

clear avenue 

for sharing 

information 

while 

conducting 

independent 

assessments. 

The RIE team 

identified 

“communication triggers” in both agencies’ 

oversight processes to establish a common 

framework of information that would enhance 

their independent assessment processes. In 

short, AFIA and DTRA will talk more often 

at certain points in the process to establish 

the facts of an inspection event and submit a 

coordinated request to external sources. This 

will improve the oversight inspection process 

tremendously by establishing a common 

baseline of information for each inspection, 

thus reducing the chance of differences 

between teams when assessing the same 

situation. The new target for each oversight 

inspection will be to: 

• Request information from the same source 

• Coordinate requests between AFIA and 

DTRA 

• Refine guidance and resolve ambiguous 

items 

After establishing common baselines of 

information, AFIA and DTRA will springboard 

into separate deliberation methods to maintain 

the independent nature of both agencies’ 

processes. 

The hard work was not finished—the team 

also codified the arrangements needed to 

execute this process through an action plan. 

The action plan addresses the issues identified 

and enables the oversight inspection processes 

of AFIA and 

DTRA to 

evolve into 

the desired 

state of 

establishing 

common 

baselines of 

inspection

facts during each Nuclear Surety Oversight 

Inspection. Ultimately, the improvement 

team developed an executable action plan that 

provides a credible road map to improve the 

oversight inspection processes for DTRA and 

AFIA. 

In summary, improving the nuclear 

mission is not just a phrase on a slide; AFIA 

and DTRA will improve the nuclear mission 

through the oversight inspection process. For 

one week in 

early August 

2011, AFIA 

and DTRA 

conducted 

a process 

review just 

as the units 

do because of 

an inspection. 

Training 

T3 Advanced Insp Crs w/OPRs 

T2 Include DTRA process in NSI Crs 

T1 NWTI new Exec T/C Crs 

Interpretation 

I1 Discussions 

Obstacles/Barriers to Communication 

NWTI Fishbone.igx 

OB1 Lack of Insp time for staff work C-1 OV/OI Friction Hotwash 

OB2 Insp schedule too short 

OB3 SME Mindset 

I3 Appropriate Source Validation 

OB4 Perceptions--footprint, whitespace, timing 

OB5 Command influence 

OB6 Non-consolidated AF/Navy front 

OB7 Inspector Experience/Knowledge 

I2 Func Staff Multi-Hat 

Conflict (SAVs) 

Guidance 

G6 AFIA CONOPS Hotwash 

G5 Change MOAs for validation 

G4 Improve AFI 90-201 

G3 Service Applicable Definitions 

G2 Imprv CJCSI Guid/Defs 

G1 DTRA ROE Hotwash 

C-2 AFIA/DTRA Mtg between PRGs 

C-3 Focus on Fact Discovery @ AFIA NSIC 

C4 Comm Concerns w/SME Response to Staffs 

C5 Codify OV Comm Points in ROE & CONOPS 

C6 Strengthen MOAs -- Responsibility (Who?) 

The RIE yielded an improvement plan for the 

oversight inspection process forged by both 

agencies that will benefit the nuclear mission 

well into the future. For AFIA and DTRA, 

it was a historic moment in time when two 

different agencies came together and improved 

the nuclear mission through the use of a Rapid 

Improvement Event (or Eight-Step Problem 

Solving Methodology) … not an oversight 

inspection. 

Communication 

Summer 2011 

Improve and Optimize 

AFIA and DTRA 

Oversight Processes 

Photos by Eleanor Harris 

17

IG Bits & Pieces 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

As I was going through my Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell repeal Tier I, II, and III 

training, a few of us were discussing 

the impact of this change during a break. 

Someone wondered aloud “will this change in 

policy result in more Inspector General (IG) 

complaints, do you think?” and “are you ready 

for your first IG complaint involving sexual 

orientation?” 

No and yes, I think, respectively. I don’t 

think IG complaints 

I will actively listen to the 

complainant allowing them to 

describe the wrongdoing 

will increase as a 

result of this policy 

change, at least not 

initially. One reason 

is, sadly, I don’t believe 

that gay Airmen 

will automatically turn on a switch to trust 

“the system” right away enough to bring 

any complaints that involve this kind of 

discrimination to light. My sense is that it’s 

going to take time for gay Airmen who have been 

told up to now that they can be gay as long as 

they don’t act gay to submit complaints about 

repercussions from them acting gay. Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell has been part of the military since 

1993, so for the past eighteen years, gay Airmen 

have known that to identify themselves as gay 

could quite possibly bring discharge. I just don’t 

think gay Airmen are going to start trusting the 

IG complaint system that quickly. I hope they’ll 

give the IGs the opportunity to demonstrate our 

core values and show that we are there to search 

for and identify the truth behind any complaint, 

no matter where that search for the truth may 

lead us. And not only IG staff members need 

to demonstrate this; commanders, supervisors, 

first sergeants, and EEO staff need to show they 

are capable of dealing successfully with sexual 

orientation discrimination complaints so that 

gay Airmen have confidence in bringing this type 

of complaint to light. 

Another reason I don’t believe a change in 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will increase IG complaints 

is because of the children who are involved. 

While exact numbers are hard to come by, the 

2000 U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that 


Lt. Col. Blair Webster 

ANG, 107 HQ/IG 

Keesler AFB 

less than 1 percent of children in the U.S. are 

being raised in gay households. There aren’t 

as many children involved in gay relationships 

as there are in straight relationships, and I’ve 

noticed children can be a source of conflict that 

spills over into official IG complaints. When 

military members get involved in relationships 

that produce children, and those military 

member parents are not married to each other, 

sometimes this causes situations that trigger 

people to make work- 

related IG complaints. 

I’ve handled complaints 

about dependent care 

plans, felony assault, 

and perceived hiring 

discrimination, where 

the root cause of the complaint was a dispute 

over the raising of a child when the parents are 

not married to each other. I don’t foresee that 

situation increasing with the repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell. 

Whether or not there will be more 

complaints, I am ready for my first complaint 

brought on by a change to the Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell policy. First it’s going to take active listening 

to the complainant to allow them to describe the 

wrongdoing. Then, I’m going to ask them some 

questions, for example: 

• What, specifically, is the AFI, law, or 

guideline they believe is being violated? 

• What would they like to see done about their 

situation? If I had that big “make everything 

better,” magic wand, what would they like 

me to do? 

• Have they talked to their chain of command 

about their concern, and if not, why not? 

Then, after discussing the issue with the 

complainant, I’ll attempt to verify the truth 

surrounding their complaint and let the facts of 

the case lead me to the appropriate response. 

This is the way I handle all complaints, and I’ll 

handle those generated by the repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell the same way, should those 

complaints come my way.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT 

SMSgt. Shelly Bownes 

AETC/IGISS 

Randolph AFB 

Twenty-years ago, 

records management 

was a huge 

undertaking. What I recalled 

as “File Friday” consisted 

of file coding hundreds of 

papers located in my brown 

“in-box.” My memory also 

included visuals of hard 

steel file cabinets and my 

fingers abused by paper 

cuts. Those days were long 

gone when the Air Force 

introduced Electronics 

Record Management (ERM). 

According to AFMAN 33-363, 

Management of Records, para 

6.1.1.2.7, “ERM compliance is 

mandatory” and to help you 

out, the Air Force Records 

Management Program office 

published the ERM Solution 

Guide in September 2007. 

This guide is an excellent 

tool that explains the basic 

principles of ERM and lays 

a road map for “preserving, 

protecting, and disposing of 

official records in electronic 

media.” 

Even though records 

management has been 

around for years, the concept 

of ERM has yet to be fully 

understood. We regularly 

identify several deficiencies 

and observe a culture of 

Airmen who either “do not 

comply” or “comply with 

comments” when it comes 

to ERM. Here are some key 

points to having a successful 

- an AETC Inspector’s Perspective 

program (this list is not allinclusive): 

a. ERM should be fully 

utilized, not just before 

the Inspector General 

(IG) arrives. A good 

records custodian (RC) 

should consistently be 

filing. When is your “File 

Friday?” 

b. Read the ERM Solution 

Guide. It provides 

screenshot examples 

of how your file plan 

structure should look. 

c. Remember, files are 

maintained and 

destroyed according 

to their disposition. 

Files must be moved to 

inactive status according 

to their cutoff (i.e., 

calendar or fiscal year). 

d. The Chief of Records 

(COR) is ultimately 

responsible for records 

under his/her purview. 

They should be actively 

involved as well as their 

assigned/designated 

RCs. 

e. It takes strong 

commander leadership 

involvement to ensure 

success. 

f. The Base Records 

Manager (BRM) is the 

holder of the key. An 

active BRM explains the 

ERM process to base 

leadership and trains 

appointed designees on 

their responsibilities. 

Summer 2011 

Also, the ERM performs 

Staff Assistance 

Visits as if they were 

the IG. In addition, 

the BRM should 

collaborate with their 

local communications 

squadron to ensure 

permissions are assigned 

correctly to file folders to 

allow appropriate access. 

Finally, BRMs should 

“sell” the program and 

advocate its advantages. 

These keys were evident 

at the 314th Airlift Wing 

in January 2011. First, the 

inspected units and the 

host wing BRM exemplified 

strong working relationships. 

Second, training sessions 

included all key players, to 

include CORs. Third, CORs 

took personal interest and 

ownership in their files. 

Finally, ERM was fully 

utilized; it was the standard, 

not the exception. 

Records management 

is not a new process, and 

ERM is not a bad “fourletter” 

word. In the last few 

years, we have removed the 

steel cabinets and replaced 

them with an invisible 

electronic storage medium. 

Additionally, we have 

evolved to the terminology 

saying “e-file box” and “drag 

and drop.” From my many 

years in the career field 

and compared to how we 

did filing historically, I am 

convinced that ERM is here 

to stay. Besides, compliance 

is mandatory and the IG is 

looking! 

19


AFMC 

Inspection 

Efficiencies 

Progress 

This is an update on what AFMC 

has accomplished and where we are 

headed in response to the Chief’s 

CORONA Tasker for Inspection Efficiencies. 

In particular, AFMC has made efforts to 

consolidate and synchronize inspections 

and increase whitespace for organizational 

commanders, 

while reducing our 

inspection footprint, 

redundancies, costs 

and manpower, 

thereby ensuring 

a more value-added inspection process. Our 

Inspector General (IG) is the Gatekeeper for all 

inspections, assessments, and staff assistance 

visits in the command. 

We transformed our inspection methodology 

last fall via an AFMC Inspection CONOPS. 

Beginning in January 2011, we combined our 

IG led Compliance Inspections and A4 Logistics 

Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP) and 

synchronized our inspection schedule. We 

now have one inspection footprint, a single 

notification process, and one finding resolution 

process while remaining compliant with AFI 

90-201, Inspector General Activities, and AFI 

20-111, Logistics Compliance Assessment 

Program. 

To date, we have conducted integrated 

inspections of the: Air Force Research 

Laboratory at Rome, NY; munitions 

maintenance at Vandenberg; weapons storage 

area at Whiteman; and the Aeronautical 

Systems Center and 88 Air Base Wing at 

Wright-Patterson. So far, we have reduced total 

TDY costs by 14 percent and given back unit 

commanders 20 percent more whitespace. 

We’re now taking the next logical step; 

realigning our LCAP under the IG as it was 

Col. Thomas A. Schneider 

HQ AFMC Inspector General 

Wright-Patterson AFB 

AFMC has made efforts to 

consolidate and synchronize 

inspections. 


U.S. Air Force photo by Scott Ash 

originally established in 1999, when it was 

known as the Maintenance Standardization 

and Evaluation Program. This will allow 

us to fully integrate, cross-utilize skill sets, 

and reduce total core team size from 95 to 

68. Realignment will free up 27 inspector 

positions for other AFMC priorities while more 

effectively and efficiently accomplishing the 

inspection mission. We published a CONOPS to 

assure the integrity of both inspection types, to 

include AFMC/A4 retaining technical oversight 

and ensuring requirements of AFI 20-111 

continue to be met. 

Lastly, I think in this era of efficiencies, 

we have room to do even 

better. We can gain even 

more efficiency by examining 

disconnects between AFI 

90-201 and AFI 20-111 

regarding an agreement on 

common terms, categories of findings, grading, 

frequency of inspections, and standardization 

of IT systems for housing checklists, reports, 

and data storage. Going forward, AFMC/IG 

is committed to partner with the inspection 

community to realize all inspection efficiencies. 

The Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, and Secretary of 

the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, led the four-star session of CORONA 

Top back in June 2009 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. This 

was the fifth successive year CORONA Top had been hosted at Wright- 

Patterson.

21 

CTIA - The Wireless Association 

MSgt. Charles E. Godfrey 

HQ AFSOC/IGIL 

Hurlburt Field 

What Have I Got in My Pocket? 

In today’s society, nearly everyone has 

a cellular phone. These handy items 

have become virtually ingrained in our 

technological culture. According to CTIA, “The 

Wireless Association,” there are nearly 303 

million cellular phone subscribers in the United 

States alone (as of December 2010). This number 

represents 96 percent of the population and has 

increased nearly tenfold in the past 15 years. 

While cellular phones have a myriad of useful 

functions, varying from personal communications 

to relaying vital official information, they do pose 

a significant threat to the security of our classified 

information systems. Every Air Force member 

must make a conscientious effort to adhere to 

published guidance and be aware of “what is in 

my pocket” when reporting for duty. 

In accordance to AFSSI-7702, Emission 

Security Countermeasures Reviews, paragraph 

5.4.5, cellular phones used for operational 

necessity must be separated from classified 

information by at least 3 meters. If the cellular 

phone is a personal 

asset, it must be 

disabled from 

receiving calls. Also, 

cellular phones 

with an integral 

digital camera are 

strictly prohibited 

in classified 

processing areas. 

Local authorities may 

enact more restrictive 

guidance to meet the needs of their particular 

mission or environment. If you do not know your 

particular base’s policy on cellular phone usage 

in your office, you should seek the advice of your 

supervisor or base COMSEC/EMSEC office. 

Working around classified equipment means 

we must step-up our awareness, not just for 

ourselves, but for our 

Wingmen as well. 

We are human and 

make mistakes, but 

constant diligence 

and public reminders 

will help everyone 

keep their office 

secure. If you realized 

you forgot your 

cellular phone in your 

pocket or backpack, 

immediately turn it off and remove it from the 

restricted area. 

There are many grumblings about these 

security measures. Though people have grown 

accustomed to immediate communications at their 

CELLULAR PHONES WITH AN INTEGRAL DIGITAL CAMERA ARE 

STRICKLY PROHIBITED IN CLASSIFIED PROCESSING AREAS. 

Maj. Amato, AFIA/PIT, demonstrates 

proper storage of cellular phones 

when entering a classified area. 

convenience with family members and friends, we 

must make alternate means for communications. 

Let family and friends know your office number. 

Recent inspections performed by the Air Force 

Special Operations Command Inspector General’s 

office have revealed a possible lapse in attention 

to detail regarding use of cellular phones in and 

around classified information processing areas. 

It is the duty of every Airman to expand their 

awareness of security violations that risk our 

information assets. 

Remember, the USAF is nearly 65 years 

old, and the modern cellular phone has only 

been around for roughly the last 20 years. 

Our predecessors were able to fulfill their 

critical mission before this era of enhanced 

communications, so let’s not let these wonders of 

technology undo the world’s greatest Air Force. 

U.S. Air Force photo 

Summer 2011 

Remove cellular phones from 

restricted areas and place them into 

a proper storage location. 

Photos by Eleanor Harris 

21


FLYNN AWARD 

Named in 1986 for Lt. Gen. John P. Flynn, Air Force Inspector 

General (September 1976 to October 1978), the annual 

awards go to the outstanding complaints and investigations 

program offices in four categories. General Flynn lived an amazing 

life. He had the highest IQ in his class, but the lowest grade point 

average. However, that didn’t keep him out of the cockpit. He flew 

in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The North 

Vietnamese shot him down and he served five years as the ranking 

prisoner of war in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. 

Wing/Installation Level Flynn Award Winner 

CAT I - Left to right: Mr. Jim McLain and 

Mr. Matt Taylor (Not pictured: Mr. Steve 

Wisenewski) 

673 ABW, PACAF 

Joint Base E-R, Alaska 


SAF/IGI 2011 (CY 2010) 

ANG/AFRC Wing-Level 2011 Flynn Award 

Winner 

CAT II - Left to right: Capt. Agapito Hernandez 

and Lt. Col. Patrick Albrecht 

908th Airlift Wing 

Maxwell AFB, Alabama 

NAF/FOA/DRU Level Flynn Award Winner CAT III - Top Left to right: Mr. Barry Vanderpool, 

SMSgt. Nicole Anderson, MSgt. Jack Spann - Bottom Left to right: Col. (then Lt. Col.) Kathleen 

Mikkelson, Lt. Col. Christopher Senkbeil, and Lt. Col. Deborah Pharris 

AFCENT, Shaw AFB, South Carolina

Flynn and Leaf Awards 

MAJCOM-Level Flynn Award Winner 

CAT IV- Left to right: Mr. Curtis Watkins and 

Mr. Paul Ellingson 

Air Force Space Command 

Peterson AFB, Colorado 

LEAF AWARD 

Named in 1986 for Lt. Gen. Howard W. Leaf, Air Force 

Inspector General (May 1980 to July 1983), the Leaf 

Awards go to the outstanding inspectors in the categories 

for officer or civilian equivalent and enlisted or equivalent. 

General Leaf served as TIG before capping off his career with an 

assignment as assistant Air Force vice chief of staff, retiring in 

1984. General Leaf began his long and varied career as an F-80 

pilot in South Korea in 1952. He then became a test pilot and a 

geophysicist. The general then commanded two fighter wings and 

the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center before becoming TIG. 

Leaf Award Winner for Outstanding 

Enlisted/Civilian Inspector in the USAF 

CAT I - MSgt. Michele Graves 

Air Force Inspection Agency 

Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 

JFHQ-State-Level Flynn Award Winner 

CAT V- Left to right: MSgt. Matt Feit, 

Capt. Brent Russell, Col. Mark Vanus, 

Lt. Col. Rob McCullers, and Sgt. Shawna 

Witt (Not pictured: Maj. Eric Kampwerth and 

MSgt. Jason Benhart) 

Joint Forces HQ, Illinois/IG 

Leaf Award Winner for Outstanding Officer/ 

Enlisted Inspector in the USAF 

CAT II - Ms. Christine Shearhouse 

Air Education and Training Command 

Randolph AFB, Texas 

Summer 2011 

23

History: ENOLA GAY PILOT who led first 

nuclear strike group over Hiroshima 

Fred L. Borch 

Robert F. Dorr 

Air Force Times 

Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., 

piloted the B-29 

Superfortress that 

dropped the atomic bomb on 

Hiroshima, Japan. 

But Tibbets, who died at 

age 92 at his home in Columbus, 

Ohio, on November 1, 

2007, is already known for 

that. 

What you may not know 

is that, more importantly, 

Tibbets joined the Army Air 

Corps in 1937. His first military 

airplane was the PT-3 

biplane, ancient even by the 

standards of the day. But he 

mastered it, as well as the 

BT-9 monoplane basic trainer, 

and earned his wings in 

1938. When the U.S. entered 

World War II, Tibbets was a 

B-17 Flying Fortress squadron 

commander. He flew 25 

missions to include the first 

American daylight raid on 

German-occupied Europe on 

August 17, 1942. 

The next year, Tibbets 

joined the B-29 program as a 

test pilot. He was a 28-yearold 

lieutenant colonel with 

3,000 hours of flying time. 

In his autobiography, 

“Return of the Enola Gay,” 

Tibbets wrote that he 

learned about the atomic 

bomb in September 1944. 

That happened when he was 

selected to lead the B-29 

combat group that would 

drop the weapon. 

In this extraordinary assignment, 

Tibbets received 

authority to requisition anything 

he needed. He asked 

for, and received, 15 new 

B-29s designed by Boeing but 

built by the Glenn L. Martin 

Co. in Omaha, Neb., as well 

as 1,800 support personnel. 

The planes were modified 

to fly longer, higher, and 

farther than other B-29s and 

The Tibbets Legacy by former Chief of Staff 

of the Air Force 

On November 6, 

2007, General T. 

Michael Mosely, 

retired Chief of Staff of the 

Air Force, wrote. “I know you 

are all busy providing our Air 

Force’s critical capabilities in 

service to our great nation. 

I appreciate the sacrifices in 

time and effort you make on a 

daily basis. Please take a moment 

from your busy day and 

reflect with me on the recent 

passing of a great American 

who did his duty when our 

nation needed him most. 

America lost a remarkable 

Airman on November 


were configured to carry a 

single heavy bomb. 

The 509th Composite 

Group, called “Tibbets’ Individual 

Air Force” by some, 

was on Tinian Island, in the 

Marianas, when President 

Truman authorized the assault 

that ended the war. 

Tibbets appropriated another 

pilot’s plane, named it 

Enola Gay after his mother, 

and took to the air, dropping 

its single 9,000-pound 

uranium, gun-type atomic 

bomb over Hiroshima. On 

August 9, another B-29 from 

Tibbets’ group dropped a 

plutonium-type atomic bomb 

on Nagasaki. Tibbets saw his 

destructive mission as part 

of his duty and insisted he 

had no trouble sleeping at 

night. The nation agreed. 

He received the Distinguished 

Service Cross and 

several other awards before 

retiring from the Air Force in 

1966 as a brigadier general. 

1, 2007 when retired Brigadier 

General Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., 

passed away. We all know Gen. 

Tibbets as the pilot of the Enola 

Gay when it dropped the first 

atomic weapon on Imperial Japan, 

but there’s more to the man 

and his legacy for us to consider. 

The consummate Airman, Gen.

Tibbets was a warrior and 

leader, renowned for his flying 

prowess and for always 

leading from the front. He 

piloted the lead bomber on 

the first Eighth Air Force 

bombing mission in Europe 

on August 17, 1942, later led 

the first heavy bombardment 

mission in conjunction with 

the invasion of North Africa, 

and commanded the 12-man 

crew of the Enola Gay on its 

courageous mission over Hiroshima 

in August 1945. 

This single sortie opened 

a new chapter in air power. 

It established air power as 

America’s strategic sword and 

shield by clearly demonstrating 

air power’s ability to hold 

targets at risk anywhere in 

the world. 

Today, the 509th Bomb 

Wing...the wing Tibbets 

himself once commanded... 

continues to deter and dissuade 

America’s enemies, 

flying the mighty B-2. While 

the size of our 21-aircraft 

B-2 inventory pales in comparison 

to the 47,500 bombers 

America had built by the 

end of World War II, unlike 

their predecessors, these 

strategic assets can flexibly 

launch from our own soil, fly 

half a world away, penetrate 

a country’s defenses undetected, 

and precisely deliver 

lethal payloads. 

But such equipment 

is nothing without you... 

the Airmen that employ it. 

You continue to build on 

the legacy of Gen. Tibbets, 

not only fighting the current 

long war, but also opening 

new chapters in air, space, 

and cyber power. Your daily 

efforts provide our nation 

with Global Vigilance, Global 

Reach, and Global Power 

now. Your foresight and innovation 

will also carry the 

asymmetric strategic advantages 

of our Air Force across 

the 21st Century. 

Today let us remember 

the Tibbets legacy...the 

United States Air Force is a 

better combatant organization 

because of Gen. Tibbets! 

Let us also never forget the 

disciplined combat focus 

required to fly, fight, and 

win for the United States of 

America. Thank you for your 

continued dedicated service 

to our great country.” signed, 

T. Michael Mosely, General, 

USAF, 18th CASF. 

Editor’s note: Fred L. Borch, the author of “History, The Enola 

Gay” was written for the Air Force Times on Nov.19, 2007. He is 

also the author of “The Silver Star,” a history of America’s thirdhighest 

award for combat heroism. 

Summer 2011 

Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. 

February 23, 1915 - November. 1, 2007 

Retired General Michael T. Mosely sent out “The Tibbets 

Legacy” via mass email on Nov. 6, 2007. 

Above: Gen. Tibbets and grandson Col. 

TIbbets, in “Fifi,” the only flyable B-29 

left in the world, while airborne during an 

actual flight on Oct. 2, 1998 at Midland, 

Texas (photo is courtesy of Col. Paul W. 

Tibbets, IV). 

Left: Col. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. standing next 

to the B-29 Enola Gay at Roswell Army 

Airfield, Roswell. N.M. Photo taken after 

the Hiroshima mission (photo is courtesy of 

USAF). 

25

NUGGETS FOR COMMANDERS 

MAINTENANCE—MUNITIONS MANAGEMENT 

Recent inspections show a requirement for greater emphasis on munitions 

management procedures affecting Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) aircraft. 

Live missile inspection dates are not properly tracked and missiles with 

overdue inspections are loaded on aircraft. Also, live missiles are loaded on 

ASA aircraft and not placed in proper environmental category code. Finally, 

training/expendable munitions are loaded on ASA aircraft versus using current 

operational assets. Failure to properly manage and maintain munitions may 

lead to loss of life, serious injury or mission degradation supporting Homeland 

Security. You can refer to AFI 21-201, TO 21M-AIM9X-2 and TO 21M-AIM9M-2. 

SUPPORT—CRANE AND HOIST MANAGEMENT 

Civil Engineers are responsible for the management of the base crane and 

hoist program, but owners and users of the equipment perform most of the 

work and are the keys to a successful program. Typically, the program manager 

understands inspection and documentation requirements, but equipment 

operators are not as informed. Typical deficiencies include: failure to properly 

perform inspections; maintain documentation; and report damage. Recent 

inspections show a need for greater emphasis on training equipment users on 

proper management requirements. Failure to properly inspect cranes and hoists 

poses a significant risk to personnel and equipment. Civil Engineer commanders 

should understand that the crane and hoist program manager is responsible 

for all cranes and hoists on the base, and as such, all related deficiencies 

are assigned to base civil engineering. Non-compliance by equipment users 

throughout the base must be addressed by the program manager and elevated if 

necessary. For additional details, you can refer to AFSTSTD 91-46, Paragraphs 

5.2.3 and 9.4.1. 

OPERATIONS—TRAINING PROGRAMS 

Compliance Inspections demonstrate a lack of appropriate documentation and 

implementation of effective training programs. Issues include: an external 

threat awareness program was not developed; Force Protection was not 

taught during annual continuation training; and installation Force Protection 

Priority Intelligence Requirements were not established. Additionally, 

Operational Readiness Inspections demonstrate there is a growing trend in 

inadequate support to commanders and the Threat Working Group. Specifically, 

adequate Force Protection threat research is not being conducted, and rapid 

dissemination of threat information by classified means is not always done. 

Ultimately, failure to understand and adhere to Force Protection conditions 

and requirements may place an increased risk against the installation and 

personnel. AFI 14-119, AFI 14-105, and AFI 14-202 provide guidance. 

26 Summer 2011

MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION REFERRAL DO’S AND DONT’S 

• As a commander, DO get involved in EVERY potential mental health evaluation 

scenario…DON’T delegate this responsibility. 

• DO make sure your subordinate commanders, supervisors, and SNCOs know 

your policy and get you involved…DON’T leave things to chance. 

• DO know the requirements of DoDD 6490l.1 and DoDI 6490.4…DON’T leave 

the details to someone else. 

• DO educate frontline supervisors on mental health evaluation referral 

requirements and procedures…DON’T count on someone else to do it. 

• DO consult a mental health provider in every situation…DON’T let the desire 

to help the Airman lead you to violate statutory requirements. 

• DO safeguard the Airman and others while you take care of the administrative 

requirements…DON’T forget that safety and care for the Airman are paramount. 

• DO the paperwork and follow due process requirements…DON’T take shortcuts. 

• DO take advantage of the experts at Mental Health, JA, and the IG…DON’T 

ignore the law. 

• DO refer Airmen who need assistance…DON’T let the process keep you from 

doing the right thing. 

• DO it right the first time…DON’T wind up on the wrong side of an IG 

investigation. 

PROBLEM SOLVING APPLIES TO ALL AIRMEN 

The IG team just left your unit and left you with a few significant write-ups. 

Your squadron worked hard for months preparing for the inspection and you 

didn’t get that EXCELLENT or OUTSTANDING that you just knew you’d get. 

I’ve been there and know the feeling. However, it’s up to you on how you react to 

the inspection. Use it as good honest feedback and correct the problems by using 

our greatest resource, our innovative Airmen. It’s almost ironic how our Airmen 

can turn a problem around and make it a benchmark or command standard by 

the time the next inspection comes around. In AFI 90-201, “Problem solving 

should be applied through the AF Eight-Step Problem Solving model...to assist 

in identifying root causes and solutions to deficiencies.” Now, I know you’re 

busy and Eight-Step Problem Solving events take time. I’m fully aware of that, 

but the payoff for the time and effort is more than worth it. Read the AFSO21 

Playbook available on the AF AFSO21 Community of Practice. Understand the 

Eight-Step Problem Solving process and the OODA loop decision making process 

developed by one of our own Air Force pioneers, Colonel John Boyd. Genuinely 

apply the Eight-Step Problem Solving process to your own organization, and I 

know you’ll be surprised at the results. 

Summer 2011 

27

TIG Brief’s primary audience consists of commanders, 

inspectors general, inspectors, and other Air Force leaders 

at all levels of command to include supervisors and project 

managers throughout the Air Force. TIG Brief deals with 

overall leadership suggestions, important Air Force topics 

for planning purposes, timely matters covered by laws or 

regulations, changing policies and procedures, and encompasses 

all Air Force functional areas. Four editions are 

prepared yearly (Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter). 

Steps for Submitting Articles: 

1. An article must be coordinated and approved at the 

organizational level. 

2. Once an article is submitted to the TIG Brief editor, it 

will be reviewed for content. 

3. Editor has the right to edit article as needed. 

4. Average length of published article is one page (400- 

600 words). Featured articles may run two pages in length 

(600-1000 words). 

5. Provide charts, graphics, and photos via separate file 

and clear enough to make their message understandable. 

6. Include author’s name, rank, and duty station. 

7. Articles will be prepared in order to fit the magazines’ 

specification. 

For more information, call (505) 846-0300/ 

DSN 246-0300 or e-mail to tigbrief@kirtland. 

af.mil 

Read past copies of TIG Briefs: 

https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/tigbrief 

TO SUBSCRIBE AND TO SUBMIT AN ARTICLE 

PLEASE E-MAIL TIGBRIEF@KIRTLAND.AF.MIL 

Photo is courtesy of Eleanor Harris

tig brief - Air Force Inspection Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?