[A-1] Aerospace Education
[B-1] Cadet Programs
[D-1] Education and Training
[D-2] Chaplain
[D-3] Finance
[D-4] Administration
[D-5] Personnel
[D-6] Public Affairs
[D-7] Supply (pending)
[D-8] Transportation (pending)
[E-1] Command (pending)
[E-2] Safety (pending)
Tips and tools for Inspectors General. Use the menu to find something to help you, or check out the info below about what inspectors should look for during subordinate unit inspections (SUIs).
The worksheets that we use for Compliance Inspections at the Wing and Subordinate-Unit levels are as transparent, and intuitive as the rest of the Civil Air Patrol publication universe. So it’s easy to understand that there might still be some confusion about what the worksheets (also known as “Tabs”) might be asking for. This article is the third of a series that describes what we’ve been inspecting in the Oregon Wing, in the hopes to provide clarity to what’s been unclear, and share what have seemed to be successful practices to us. Recommendations on how to improve the process are totally welcome, and the really good stuff will be shared in continuing articles, along with updates to worksheets that are published.
Worksheet Grading:
Discrepancies/Repeats: These will be entered for the convenience of the Team Chief after the inspection items are reviewed and identified using:
- Y – for “Yes” this inspection item is being met.
- N/A – This inspection item or worksheet does not apply to this unit (for example, units have not been required to demonstrate compliance with meeting schedule/contact hours requirements for items 7 & 8 on the B-1 worksheet during 2021 because of COVID-19 restrictions).
- N – This inspection item is not being met and a discrepancy is warranted.
- R – This inspection item is not being met, a discrepancy is warranted, and this same item was discrepant on the previous inspection.
[A-1] Aerospace Education
Position – Director of Aerospace Education (DAE) position held: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned unit Aerospace Education Officer) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously that discontinuous tenure is not necessarily accounted for, because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment. Note, the position is listed as Director of Aerospace Education on the worksheet (presumably a template error from wing-level compliance inspection worksheets). The duty position that should be used to complete this information for units below the wing level is the Aerospace Education Officer.
Aerospace Education Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Aerospace Education Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
A-1, Item 2: Does the unit have an internal Aerospace Education program?
I’ve heard questions and comments like, “What’s this item really asking?” and, “That doesn’t apply to our squadron, we’re a Senior Squadron.” This item applies to all CAP Groups, Squadrons, and Flights that don’t have some sort of waiver (In-Writing!) to ignore this requirement. The scale and scope of the requirement isn’t indicated in the regulation, only the subject matter. With a little tolerance for tangentially related information, the unit needs to demonstrate that they have had some sort of resource/training/class/workshop on, “basic aerospace knowledge,” or “the societal, economic, and national security impact aerospace, cyberspace, and STEM have on our country” (CAPR 50-1 Paragraph 5).
A-1, Item 2 Validation: Unit will submit examples of AE events (presentations, workshops, other activities, etc) agendas which will include date and topic presented, activity done, etc.
This could include an Aerospace Education Officer’s Log, email announcements, attendance rosters, or any other document that shows what was accomplished and when. In the case of having completed the requirement, but not having the documentation, a pre-inspection memorandum for record from the unit with those details can be considered equally valid as contemporaneous documentation.
A-1, Item 3: Does the unit have an external Aerospace Education program?
Similarly to Item 2, all units are expected to have an external Aerospace Education program. This includes outreach and provision of CAP Aerospace Education collateral. CAPP 50-1 has details for anyone who is interested in learning more, but this program can include a wide variety of activities and external stakeholders.
A-1, Item 3 Validation: Unit will submit examples of cooperative events with either schools or community organizations, such as civic or youth groups, which resulted in the promotion of Aerospace Education. NOTE: If unable to provide documentation then provide documentation of attempts to establish cooperative events to promote Aerospace Education.
Compliance for this item is also verified with any contemporaneous documentation, or documentation prepared for the SUI (such as a memorandum for record). As a matter of technique, if a unit provides documentation of unsuccessful attempts to establish cooperative events to promote Aerospace Education, this would not be a discrepancy, but it would be annotated as an Area of Concern for the wing commander and headquarters staff to be aware of the challenges for the external Aerospace Education program in the area that unit operates in.
A-1, Item 4: Did the unit complete an AE Annual Activity Report IAW CAP regulations?
Submission of the AE Annual Activity Report is completed using the eServices “AE POA and Activity Report” utility. The latter part of this item asks whether this was done in in accordance with (IAW) CAP regulations, which specifically means no later than 30 October for Squadrons, and 30 November for Groups.
A-1, Item 4 Validation:Unit will submit a copy of the AE Annual Activity Report.
The unit is expected to provide a copy of this report as part of their pre-inspection documentation upload. If this does not occur for any reason, the report can be found in eServices, using the “View Unit Activity Report” tool.
A-1, Item 5: Are AEOs assigned to the duty position enrolled in the AE specialty track, unless they have already achieved the AE master rating?
This item is slightly complicated to address as strictly “Yes,” “No,” or “Not Applicable,” on the worksheet. If we refer to the regulatory requirement this item is based on (CAPR 50-1, Paragraph7.2.), the words, “will,” “shall,” or “must,” are not apparent in this paragraph. Furthermore, CAPR 35-1, Paragraph 1-2.b. specifies that a member will only be required to be enrolled in the specialty track of what they (and presumably their leadership) believe is their primary duty, if they are assigned to multiple positions in the unit. Conceivably, a member could be the primary or only Aerospace Education Officer in a unit, but that could be secondary to another duty (unit deputy commander, for example). This would mean that the plain language answer to this item would be a negative response, but the inspector should enter “Yes,” or “Not Applicable,” instead.
A-1, Item 5 Validation: Unit will provide a list of AEOs enrolled in the AE specialty track from Member Reports.
In addition to a list that contains unit Aerospace Education Officers and their specialty track status, it may be important to include whether the position is that member’s primary or collateral duty position (not to be confused with the person who is the primary Aerospace Education Officer, versus an Assistant Aerospace Education Officer).
A-1, Item 6: Did the AEO and the commander discuss future AE activities for the upcoming year?
There is no set requirement for the topics this discussion should include, but if such a discussion did not include points relevant to both the internal and external Aerospace Education programs, that might be justification for an Area of Concern to share with the wing commander and headquarters staff.
A-1, Item 6 Validation: AEO will provide notes or audio/video record of discussion between AEO and CC about future AE activities. The reference for this requirement specifies that this discussion is recorded using, “the AE Notebook or digital record.” This leaves a wide array of options for documentation, with creativity on the part of the unit being the deciding factor.
[B-1] Cadet Programs
Position – Deputy Cmdr for Cadets position held: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned person) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously, then that is not necessarily accounted for because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment.
Cadet Programs Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
B-1, Item 5:Does the unit have at least two graduates of the Training Leaders of Cadets program assigned?
The Cadet Programs directorate makes regular updates to the way we accomplish this mission, and require that there be at least 2 members of each unit that have completed this course within the past 4 years to be current. While more graduates more recently may arguably be optimal, this is the minimum requirement we’re looking for during the SUI.
B-1, Item 5 Validation: eServices > Member Reports > TLC Progression
This report generates a list of personnel and if/when they have most recently graduated from several courses. We download the report, and highlight any dates that are less than 4 years prior to the date of the on-site inspection. If one or both of the minimum required graduates will expire between the SUI’s 60-Day Notification and the on-site portion, I would have a discussion with the Director of Cadet Programs and/or the Wing Commander to my understanding of current OPR and commander’s intent. In that case, perhaps we would document that the unit is compliant, but include an “Area of Concern” note if the unit needs to promote the course, or a “Higher Headquarters Area of Concern” note if the wing has not provided the course within the past year.
B-1, Item 6: Has the unit adopted a set of annual goals?
a) Are the goals specific and measurable?
b) Does the document indicate that goals are being reviewed quarterly?
It’s been our experience that units struggle meeting this requirement. We can refer Cadet Programs Officers to the Cadet Staff Handbook, Page 10, “Goal Setting & Planning” for clarification on what SMART goals are, to ensure their goals are specific and measurable. We also partnered with the ORWG/CP to develop a template that units can use that helps them stay compliant, though they may need coaching on how to complete it. http://www.girdwoodsquadron.com/miscellaneous-resources/
B-1, Item 6 Validation: Squadron uploads unit’s goals document to eServices. (a & b) Review goals document.
The goals can be on a worksheet, in a memo, or on an email that’s saved and uploaded into the IG Documentation utility for the inspection team to review.
The required documentation indicating that the goals are being reviewed quarterly is not identified in the regulation. This means that we can accept staff meeting minutes, notes written onto the goal-setting worksheet, a memorandum for record, an email, or any other mechanism that shows each goal’s progress and any adjustments made are captured each quarter.
B-1, Item 7: Are squadron meetings guided by a written schedule?
a) Do squadron meetings fulfill the minimum monthly content requirements?
Prior to the COVID-19 waiver for this requirement, CAP directed each unit to meet the below content requirements:
TABLE 4.2. MONTHLY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
| Topic | Sample Activities | Minimum Contact Hours |
| Leadership | Classroom instruction, drill and ceremonies, team leadership problems, and similar activities | 1.5 hours Two 45-min. sessions suggested |
| Aerospace | Classroom instruction, “AEX” activities, tours, rocketry, cyber defense, and similar activities | 1.5 hours Two 45-min. sessions suggested |
| Fitness | Classroom instruction, fitness games and activities, fitness testing, and similar activities | 1 hour |
| Character | Character activities using approved resources only | 1 hour |
B-1, Item 7 Validation: Provide the SUI team with schedules for the previous three months of weekly meetings.
These schedules are reviewed to ensure minimum contact hours are met each month. If any of these are not met, for example if the unit only schedules 1 hour of Aerospace Education in May but meets the 1.5 minimum in the other reviewed months, then this is a discrepant item. Be sure to ask for clarification from the unit staff about what they believe meets the requirements, or if they have deviated from the above guidance because of a holiday, inclement weather, special activity, or similar authorized reason.
B-1, Item 8: Does the unit offer at least one “Saturday” activity per month, on its own or in cooperation with another unit?
Prior to the COVID-19 waiver for this item, CAP directed each unit to ensure that each Cadet had the opportunity to participate in a non-meeting activity each month. Units are not necessarily required to organize or be responsible for these, but need to make sure the Cadets in the unit have the opportunity to participate.
B-1, Item 8 Validation: Visit unit website and review web calendar.
Be sure to include the wing’s calendar, the AE log, and any other clarifying documentation to verify at least one activity each month between January and October (not required for November or December). Clarify with the unit staff to ensure accurate information is captured before documenting a discrepancy, just because of the wide variety of non-meeting activities that meet this requirement.
B-1, Item 12: Does the unit maintain a web based calendar of cadet activities?
Unit website calendars are required in order to provide sufficient time for families to review the calendar and consider unit activities in the context of their family’s plans. Because of this, units that only maintain information about their activities on social media platforms that require an account and password to access might generate an Area of Concern. Inspectors should obviously discuss this with unit staff and use their discretion when deciding whether or not to do this.
B-1, Item 12 Validation: Visit Unit website
Units may not maintain their own website. If they choose not to, this may be an Observation to clarify the situation for the wing commander and headquarters staff, and the unit should be asked where their publicly-accessible calendar is, in order to review it. If there is not one, then this would be a discrepant item.
B-1, Item 13: Did the unit conduct any high adventure activities (HAAs) in the past two years, without proper authorization?
This question is worded negatively, so respond thoughtfully. If a unit conducted a high adventure activity (e.g., a 20+ mile backpacking trip) and had proper authorization, then the answer to the question as-written would be “No.” For the purposes of this inspection, the response on the SUI worksheet, grade resolution calculator, and report could either be “Yes,” or “N/A,” since there is no discrepancy generated by conducting properly authorized activities.
B-1, Item 13 Validation: Visit unit website, examine unit calendar
If the unit maintains an up-to-date calendar, then this is easy to review. If the unit participated in an activity hosted by another CAP unit, then the hosting unit would be responsible to obtain authorization. If the activity the inspected unit participated in was hosted by an outside organization (e.g., a Scouting group), then the unit would still need approval from within CAP per CAPR 60-2.
B-1, Item 14: Does the school squadron have on file a CAPF 60-88 MOU endorsed by CAP and the school administration? Is the MOU current? Was it endorsed fewer than 36 months ago?
This is required for all school-based Cadet units per CAPR 60-3.
B-1, Item 14 Validation: Unit uploads the completed CAPF 60-88 to eServices (IG report upload section) prior to the SUI’s start. Examine the endorsement date on the signed CAPF 60-88. Units are responsible to provide a copy of this for the inspection team. However, if a unit fails to furnish this, then the inspection team/IG can request a copy from the wing headquarters in order to verify compliance. In Oregon Wing, if a unit failed to provide a copy of this MOU, but (a) the MOU was properly authorized less than 3 years ago, (b) the MOU is valid for the current period of the inspection, and (c) the other worksheets and documentation provided by the unit were provided, we may consider alternatives to a discrepancy on this item. Perhaps providing a copy to the unit for their records, and then identifying an appropriate Area of Concern/Discrepancy for either the Administration worksheet (i.e., for file maintenance concerns), or Command worksheet (i.e., for SUI documentation provision).
[D-1] Education and Training
Position – Director of Professional Development held position: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned person) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously, then that is not necessarily accounted for because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment. Note, the position is listed as Director of Professional Development on the worksheet (presumably a template error from wing-level compliance inspection worksheets). The duty position that should be used to complete this information for units below the wing level is the Professional Development Officer (or Education and Training Officer when the duty position title changes).
Professional Development Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Professional Development Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
D-1, Item 4:Does the unit maintain hard copy testing materials IAW CAP regulations?
a) Are all hard testing material stored in a lockable (key or combination) cabinet or container?
b) Does the TO conduct a test materials inventory at least every six months and whenever the TO or Assistant(s) TO changes?
This item only needs to be inspected if a unit “maintains” hard-copy testing materials and stores them. If they print tests for one-time use and destroy them afterwards, this can be N/A. In Oregon Wing, all units have transitioned to this process, rather than accept the burden of properly maintaining tests or the risk of test compromise.
D-1, Item 4 Validation:
a) Hard copy storage location will be inspected on site ONLY if testing materials are stored.
b) Unit will provide copies of the TO inventory logs for the past 2 years (if tests were stored during that time).
If a unit does store tests, we need to look at the storage cabinet or container to make sure it’s secure. This means, does it have a lock (key, combination, biometric, etc) to prevent doors or drawers to be opened enough to remove a test without authorization. We ensure nothing besides tests, test inventory, and the test inventory log are secured by the same lock. If the container is not secure, or if anything else is stored alongside these materials, that would be a discrepancy in violation of part A, referring to CAPR 40-2, Paragraph 6.7.1.
The inventory must show counts of controlled hard-copy tests at least every 6 months (if testing materials are stored). If a unit does not store tests at the time of the inspection, but did since the previous SUI, then they will have to provide a copy of the log for review. In the case where a unit does not maintain hard-copy test materials at the time of the on-site inspection, but did for a period between SUIs and cannot provide their test inventory log, I would recommend documenting this with an N/A for D-1 Item 4, and use an “Area of Concern” note to describe the situation in greater detail. A discrepancy here would be challenging to resolve, since the unit has already taken an action that would prevent this type of discrepancy from happening again.
D-1, Item 5: Do composite and/or cadet squadrons which use paper tests have a TO appointed?
This is asking about units that use paper tests, and would include units that print tests for one-time use without storing them. Even if Item 4 is N/A, we still need to identify whether or not the unit has appointed a Testing Officer if they administer tests (i.e., all units with Cadets assigned are required to have this capacity, and Senior-only units may do this at their discretion). We also need to verify the unit commander is not assigned as the primary testing officer. Per CAPR 40-2, paragraph 6.5., commanders are allowed to be Assistant Testing Officers, but not allowed to be assigned as the primary individual in this position.
D-1, Item 5 Validation: Using eServices Testing Officer duty assignment report for Composite and Cadet subordinate units verify that a TO is appointed. To determine whether a unit is a Composite or Cadet squadron, use the eServices organizational report.
Inspectors likely already know what category the Subordinate Unit they’re inspecting is (i.e., Cadet Squadron, Composite Squadron, Senior Squadron, Group, or Flight). Using the duty assignment report, the inspector for this area can verify that the unit has a Testing Officer. If there is a Testing Officer assigned (and it’s not the commander) then the response to this item a Y. If this a Cadet or Composite Squadron, and there is no Testing Officer Appointed or the primary appointee is the unit commander, then the response to this item is N, indicating that this is not done in accordance with the regulation. If this is a Senior Squadron or a Group and there is no Testing Officer appointed, then the item can be answered with N/A. If the unit is a Flight, clarifying information may be required, such as identifying if the unit has no Cadets assigned (treat it like a Senior Squadron for this item), if another unit has a Testing Officer supporting the flight (then a Y would be appropriate), or if the Wing Commander and Region Commander have decided to not inspect this area for the unit as part of the SUI.
D-2, Chaplain
Position – Chaplain held position: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned person) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously, then that is not necessarily accounted for because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment. Note, if the unit does not have a chaplain or character development instructor (CDI) appointed, the entire worksheet is N/A.
Chaplain Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Chaplain Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
D-2, Item 1: Does the unit have a chaplain and/or CDI assigned? (Chaplains or CDIs may hold duty assignments in multiple units.)
If a unit has a chaplain and/or CDI assigned, these personnel will be properly approved via the procedures in Attachment 6 of CAPR 80-1. NOTE: Units are not required to have a chaplain or character development instructor (CDI) assigned. If they have no personnel in these duty positions, then this worksheet is N/A, rather than responding to this item with a “No” that seems to be indicated by the wording of this item.
D-2, Item 1 Validation: Unit will provide a “Membership By Duty Position” report of chaplain and/or CDI duty assignments from Member Reports in eServices.
This report appears to query the same information as the “Duty Assignment” report for the entire unit. If the inspection team can check both of these reports, but the “Duty Assignment” report will be more inclusive of information that can be used to inspect all the worksheets covered during an SUI. If you choose to use the “Membership By Duty Position” report instead, you can find it from the eServices Main page and selecting: “Menu,” > “Reports,” > “Member Reports.” From the Member Reports Main Menu you’ve now navigated to, choose: the red “Member Reports,” > “Member Reports,” then select “Member Reports By Duty Position” from within the dropdown.
D-2, Item 2: If the unit has a chaplain and/or CDI, have required entries been made to the online CAP chaplain Corps Activity Reporting System (CAPCCARS)?
Chaplains and character development instructors are required to report “all CAP activities.” When asking about “required entries,” this inspection item is referring to ongoing documentation of any CAP-related activity or event that a member of the Chaplain Corps participates in.
D-2, Item 2 Validation: Provide a current CAPCCARS Submission report (Detail). Note: An ‘‘inactive’’ report counts as a submission.
The chaplain or character development instructor assigned to the unit should provide a copy of this report for themselves for the period since the previous inspection. Inspection team members should review the report and interview the chaplain/CDI to identify if they have been active in any CAP activities or have represented CAP to outside groups at any time that is not included in the report. If all activity is captured on the report, the unit is compliant. If there are weekly meetings, ES activities, engaging in Chaplain-recruiting conversations, etc., that are not on the report, then this would be a discrepancy.
D-2, Item 3: Are cadet Character Development Forum lessons taught using approved materials IAW CAP regulations?
There are two sources for this information that inspectors should be familiar with. First, CAPR 80-1, paragraphs 6.1.5. and 6.2.1. restrict chaplains and CDIs to using approved Character Development materials from https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets/library/character. Second, CAPR 60-1 authorizes commanders delivering character development instruction to use these materials, but also specifies that the Cadet Wingman Course will be used in lieu of a character forum for Achievement 1 (paragraph 5.4.6.1.).
D-2, Item 3 Validation: Compliance is verified using CAPCCARS, reports from the Cadet Promotion module, unit logs, or after-action reports.
An inspector will have to request a copy of the CAPCCARS report (or alternative form of documentation), and compare the reported topics to those authorized on the national website. If each of the topics listed under Character Development Facilitation corresponds to an approved lesson, then this would be marked as “Yes” or compliant. If the Character Development forums are being delivered by a unit commander, then they may not be reported in the same fashion, so instead of the report generated in eServices, a comparative review of other documentation will be required.
[D-3] Finance
Position – Director of Finance held position: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned person) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously, then that is not necessarily accounted for because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment. Note, the position is listed as Director of Finance on the worksheet (presumably a template error from wing-level compliance inspection worksheets). The duty position that should be used to complete this information for units below the wing level is the Finance Officer.
Finance Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Finance Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
D-3, Item 3: Does the Finance Committee meet IAW CAP regulation?
a) The Finance Committee must meet at least once per quarter.
b) A written record of these minutes must be saved.
Finance Committees are required to meet once per quarter. CAP follows the US Government fiscal year, from 1 October to 30 December. That means Quarter 1 is October, November, and December. Quarter 2 is January, February, and March. Quarter 3 is April, May, and June. Quarter 4 is July, August, and September. A meeting is required to be held each quarter, though no required agenda is in the regulation. If a unit provides minutes that merely state, “Committee met, no business discussed or action taken,” or something to that effect, that would be sufficient. The important thing is to actually see minutes from the 7 or 8 quarters that have transpired since the last SUI (depending on meeting timing, and SUI timing).
D-3, Item 3 Validation: a & b) Review Finance Committee meeting minutes.
We make a grid like the one below to verify compliance. For each set of minutes provided by the unit, the inspector plugs the date in the proper quarter, and any quarter left empty is a discrepancy. If the unit intends to hold the finance committee meeting for the current quarter after the SUI is complete, this is acceptable.
| Q1 (OCT-DEC) | Q2 (JAN-MAR) | Q3 (APR-JUN) | Q4 (JUL-SEP) | |
| Fiscal Year 2020 | N/A prior to SUI | N/A prior to SUI | 7 MAY 20 | 3 AUG 20 |
| Fiscal Year 2021 | 8 OCT 20 | 30 MAR 21 | 1 APR 21 | No minutes |
| Fiscal Year 2022 | 9 OCT 21 | 6 JAN 22 | N/A after SUI | N/A After SUI |
If the unit is able to locate their meeting minutes reasonably close to the end of the on-site inspection (generally the same day or the next day), we accept this in Oregon as sufficient to close the discrepancy without the other requirements listed in the Inspection Knowledge Base.
D-3, Item 5: Has the unit appointed all necessary members of the Finance Committee IAW CAP regulation?
- The Unit Commander must appoint a finance officer in writing within 30 days of assuming command.
- The Unit Commander must appoint a finance committee in writing within 30 days of assuming command. The committee will be composed of the unit commander as the chairperson, the Finance Officer, and at least one other senior member.
If the Commander of the unit was appointed more than 30 days prior to the previous SUI, the original committee appointment was a part of that previous SUI, and is not inspected as part of the current SUI. Otherwise, corrected discrepancies might follow the unit around for years with no way to avoid double-jeopardy for the same “crime.”
D-3, Item 5 Validation:
- Review eServices Duty Assignment report.
- Request documentation of Finance Committee appointment and review for accuracy.
The primary and easiest way to appoint the Finance Committee is by using the Duty Assignment/Committee Assignment utility in eServices. The unit must also complete a CAPF 172 which is sent to the wing Director of Finance.
In Oregon Wing, both of these are reviewed to ensure:
- They have the same information,
- That the unit commander is assigned as the committee chair,
- That the finance officer and at least one other CAP member are both appointed as a committee member, and
- That the listed personnel are currently active with the unit.
It’s important to note that a unit may choose to appoint a committee using means outside of the eServices tool. It is appropriate to use either a CAPF 2a for each appointed member, or a properly prepared personnel authorization for the whole committee to appoint a Finance Committee under CAPR 35-1, paragraph 1-3. In the absence of any supplemental requirement identified by a higher echelon, units may choose to use either of these methods instead to remain in compliance with CAP regulations.
[D-4] Administration
Position – Director of Administration: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned person) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously, then that is not necessarily accounted for because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment. Note, the position is listed as Director of Administration on the worksheet (presumably a template error from region-level compliance inspection worksheets). The duty position that should be used to complete this information for units below the region level is the Administrative Officer.
Administration Specialty: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Administration Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
D-4, Item 1:Are publications managed IAW CAPR 1-2?
a) When publishing supplements and OIs, does the unit ensure the content does not conflict with higher headquarters directives?
b) In the anniversary month of each supplement or OI, has the OPR certified it is still current and essential and did administrative officers inform CAP/DA of the certifier’s name and the date the certification was made?
c) Have supplements, OIs and pamphlets been forwarded to the next higher headquarters IAW CAPR 1-2 paragraphs 8.3.3. and 9.
d) Are unit supplements and OIs revised and re- approved or rescinded within 6 months of the parent regulation’s revision?
Units generally do not have an essential need to develop and manage local publications. The publication management program that administrative officers are obliged to follow has several moving parts that we need to review, if an echelon below the wing level chooses to do so.
D-4, Item 1 Validation:
a) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website.
b) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website.
c) Unit will provide email traffic or other documentation showing the publication was forwarded to the next higher headquarters.
d) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website.
For part ‘a,’ the inspection team needs to review each local publication to ensure it does not conflict with higher headquarters directives. It may be advisable to have the appropriate wing-level OPR review local publications to advise the inspection team on whether or not this is so prior to the on-site (or hands-on) portion of the inspection.
For part ‘b,’ the inspection team will ensure each local publication includes a dated certification of review by the unit OPR that is less than a year old as of the date of the unit’s notification of this inspection. This may need to be reviewed as part of the on-site portion of the inspection, if the annual review was conducted after both the 60-day notification and the upload of documentation into eServices by the unit in preparation for the inspection.
For part ‘c,’ the unit needs to substantiate that the group/wing above the unit has been sent the publication. As a matter of technique, I would accept an email to the next higher headquarters, and recommend that such an email be sent to that headquarters’ administrative officer.
For part ‘d,’ the inspection team will review supplements and operating instructions are dated with a review that shows that any change in the parent regulation is addressed within 6 months. If the parent regulation changes between inspections, the supplement or OI needs to demonstrate they were
D-4, Item 2: Are unit OIs published IAW CAPR 1-2? Do unit published OIs apply only to their unit (charter xxx)?
An Operating Instruction (OI) is a locally-developed directive publication. It should be related to specific “how-to” instructions that the unit leadership requires be followed.
D-4, Item 2 Validation: Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website.
The Inspection team will look at the unit Operating Instructions. If a Group publishes an OI, that OI can only apply to the personnel assigned to the Group Headquarters, and not to the squadrons/flights within that group. If a directive publication is written to apply to multiple separately-chartered units, it is likely this should be written as a supplement, or submitted to higher headquarters as a recommended change to a directive publication at the national level.
D-4, Item 3: Are unit forms published IAW CAPR 1-2?
There are a few procedural details that the inspection team will be looking at to grade this item.
D-4, Item 3 Validation: Unit will provide access to online forms or copies of unit forms for review. All forms, regardless of the issuing headquarters, must be prescribed in a directive publication.
- A new form and its prescribing publication must be published and distributed simultaneously. Revised forms may be published and distributed independently.
- The prescribing publication states the purpose of the form and directs when to use the form, when to complete it, and how to submit it.
The dates of the form and the directive publication that is related to the form are checked to verify that the publication date of the form is the same or more recent than the publication date of the directive publication. For example image Anytown Cadet Squadron has published a local OI associated with CAPP 60-31 that prescribes a locally-customized Uniform Inspection Scorecard. This OI, let’s call REG-WG-123 OI 60-31, and the scorecard we can call REG-WG-123 Form 6031. If the publication of this date of this form is 1 December 2019, and the original publication date (not the annual certification date) of this OI is 1 February 2020, then this would be a discrepant item. CAPR 1-2 paragraph 8.4.1. indicates that our notional Form 6031 must be the same published on the same date or since OI 60-31 was published, but not earlier.
In addition, the inspection team will review the directive publication to make sure it clearly explains when and how to use the form.
D-4, Item 5: Are cut-off instructions followed IAW CAP regulations?
Publications, personnel authorizations, meeting minutes, and all other records saved by the unit may relate to Calendar Year (January through December) or Fiscal Year (October through September) requirements. Whichever of these two applies, that is the categorization that dictates how items are filed, and when they are destroyed. If there is a file with more than 12 months of records, generally this indicates that the cut-off date was not used, and the unit has not complied with this requirement.
D-4, Item 5 Validation: Compliance is determined through on-site inspection.
In Oregon Wing, we verify this by looking at electronic or hard-copy files for a couple of factors:
- Are finance records flagged with fiscal year (1 October through 30 September) dates?
- Are personnel and administrative documents (such as Personnel Authorizations) flagged with calendar year (1 January through 31 December) dates?
- Other documents can be checked against the tables in CAPR 10-2 to verify calendar/fiscal year cutoffs.
If the unit doesn’t indicate these cutoff dates on the files themselves, then we interview the administrative officer and check the destruction of records related to Item 6 to see how it’s tracked.
Though file plans are no longer inspectable as a compliance element, a sample file plan that shows cut-off dates can be found at http://www.girdwoodsquadron.com/miscellaneous-resources/.
D-4, Item 6: Are records destroyed properly IAW CAP regulations?
Records destruction is sometimes overlooked, and can lead to overwhelming amounts of unnecessary documents taking up space.
D-4, Item 6 Validation: Compliance is determined through on-site inspection.
Simultaneous to checking cut-off instructions, inspectors can review the dates of files to ensure they have been cutoff and destroyed using the suspenses in CAPR 10-2 Attachment 1.
D-4, Item 7: Are frequent back-ups of electronic files made IAW CAP regulations?
This requirement exists to prevent the loss of records if an individual device is damaged or no longer accessible for another reason.
D-4, Item 7 Validation: Compliance is determined through on-site inspection or provide screen shots of on-line back up system if applicable.
Within the Oregon Wing, as with several other Pacific Region wings, we have started using Microsoft Office 365 and its associated suite of tools. If a unit is using Teams, OneDrive, or SharePoint to maintain their electronic files (or even all of their files!), then this requirement is met automatically through the decentralized system of server backups that Microsoft provides. The inspection team would only need to be shown the file structure within Office to ensure compliance.
If a unit is using another method to save their electronic files, such as local machines/servers, then they must show that they have cloud-based or off-site locally managed backups (e.g., a portable hard drive maintained by the Administrative Officer at their home). As a matter of technique, I would recommend that the unit identify where the backup is generally kept in ORMS, by adding the backup device and issuing it to the member responsible for it.
D-4, Item 9: Are unit supplements and OIs properly coordinated and approved?
a) Have all supplements and OIs pertaining to AFAMs or federally provided resources been coordinated with the CAP-USAF liaison region and CAP region?
b) Have all supplements and OIs been approved by the NHQ OPR as verified by their posting on the CAP publications website?
c) Has the unit issued any supplements or OIs to CAPR 1-2?
d) Did unit OPRs provide compliance elements, as defined in CAPR 1-2, para 7, as Attachment 1 to each supplement and OI issued by their headquarters?
These sorts of publications must generally be reviewed by and/or provided to higher headquarters.
D-4, Item 9 Validation:
a) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review and will show record that the coordination was completed.
b) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website.
c) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review.
d) Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website.
For part ‘a,’ the inspection team will review supplements and OIs related to flight operations, emergency services, finance, vehicles, aircraft, and others, in order to verify whether or not they are related to Air Force Assigned Missions or federally provided resources. If so, then we verify proper coordination with the region headquarters and CAP-USAF.
For part ‘b,’ the inspection team will review the unit’s supplements and OIs, and compare them to approved publications on the Civil Air Patrol national website.
For part ‘c,’ the inspection team will verify that the unit has not published a (prohibited) supplement to CAPR 1-2. As a matter of technique, the inspection team will also look for prohibited supplements and OIs to other regulations, and if found, they would be recorded as an Area of Concern.
For part ‘d,’ the inspection team will review unit publications to identify any instances of directives starting with the words, “will,” “shall,” or “must.” If these are found, evaluation of whether or not these are compliance elements and verification that these have been included in each supplement or OI will then be completed.
D-4, Item 10: Are all documents that direct requirements or procedures either a supplement or OI?
CAPR 1-2 makes the distinction between directive publications that dictate requirements, and nondirective publications that provide information.
D-4, Item 10 Validation: Unit will provide access to online publications or copies of unit publications or other directive documents for review. Note: All approved directive publications will eventually be posted on the CAP publications website. The inspection team will review unit publications for words like, “will,” “shall,” or “must.” If these are found, inspectors evaluate whether or not they accurately reflect the type of directive that needs to be in an approved supplement or OI. In cases where another phrase should have been used, such as “can” or “may,” the inspection team can coach the unit staff on ways to refine their publication to better fit the way CAP has outlined.
[D-5] Personnel
Position – Director of Personnel: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned person) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted. If a person has held the position previously, then that is not necessarily accounted for because we don’t audit member search reports to add up previous periods of assignment. Note, the position is listed as Director of Personnel on the worksheet (presumably a template error from wing-level compliance inspection worksheets). The duty position that should be used to complete this information for units below the wing level is the Personnel Officer.
Personnel Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Personnel Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
D-5, Item 1:Are unit positions updated in eServices/CAPFs 2A upon appointment by Unit CC?
This item refers to personnel being appointed to the positions they hold. For some time there was a perception that this compliance item was written to ensure all unit positions were filled. This is not the case, and rather the inspection team discussed senior members’ roles and verifies their duty position is correctly identified in eServices or on a CAPF 2A.
D-5, Item 1 Validation: Compliance is determined by reviewing the Duty Assignment Report from eServices and the personnel records during the onsite interview.
As the inspection team reviews this information, if there are questions about assignments (for example, an Assistant Historian being appointed in the unit with no primary Historian assigned), that can be discussed with unit leaders to verify accuracy. This Historian example would not be a discrepancy, if the member showed in this role in eServices, but might be an Area of Concern.
D-5, Item 2: Has a personnel record been established for each member of the unit?
These can be hard-copy or electronic personnel records. They cannot be just the eServices Member Search utility, since there are many items that are not entered into or maintained in eServices.
D-5, Item 2 Validation: Compliance is determined through on-site inspection.
Inspectors can use the most current unit roster to compare to personnel records that the unit provides for review. This can also be done while inspecting the Administration area, to verify cut-off and destruction requirements at the same time.
D-5, Item 3: Are inactive personnel records maintained for 5 years unless otherwise directed IAW CAP regulations?
As with the previous item, this can accomplished while inspecting the Administration area, to verify cut-off and destruction requirements at the same time. This is 5 years from the individual’s membership expiration or transfer from the unit, if it is known.
D-5, Item 3 Validation: Compliance is determined through on-site inspection.
Unit Administrative Officers and/or Personnel Officers are encouraged to add a note or sticker to the file to identify when the individual’s membership has expired or transferred out of the unit. If this has not been done, a review of documents in the personnel record to identify a likely time period for the membership lapse, and whether or not it is within the 5 year retention period. As a matter of technique, it may show the most respect to the former member of the unit to offer to send the personnel record to them rather than destroy it at the end of the 5 years.
[D-6] Public Affairs
NOTE: At the time this article is written, it is the author’s understanding that this worksheet is being marked N/A until additional guidance is provided by the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) at the National Headquarters.
Position – Public Affairs Officer held position: In Oregon Wing we use the number of whole years and whole months from the date of appointment (as the Primary-assigned Public Affairs Officer) on the eServices Duty Assignment Report, to the date of the on-site inspection being conducted.
Public Affairs Specialty Track: Can be found on the unit Specialty Track report, or in the individual member’s record. The drop-down options are self-explanatory, and include: “Not Enrolled” [in the Public Affairs Specialty Track], “Enrolled No Rating,” “Technician,” “Senior,” and “Master.”
Mission and Staffing Notes: These are infrequently used in the Oregon Wing, since we use the Duty Assignment Report and the Specialty Track Report to verify information shared by unit-prepared worksheets. Notes taken here are not necessarily carried-over onto the SUI report, so units and inspection teams can use this area for note-taking and information sharing.
D-6, Item 3: D Does the unit PAO or Commander have a current copy of the wing’s Public Affairs and Crisis Communications plans?
The unit does not need to create this plan, they just need to have a current copy (including being able to find the current copy if it’s posted online by the wing’s PAO).
D-6, Item 3 Validation: Show the inspector the plans.
This is as simple as it appears, with either the unit commander or PAO pulling the current plan up on their computer fully meeting this requirement.
D-6, Item 4: Is the unit conforming to the applicable sections of the wing’s Public Affairs and Crisis Communication plans?
The inspector reviewing this area must be familiar with the wing’s Public Affairs and Crisis Communication Plans, in order to identify what the applicable sections of it the unit must conform to.
D-6, Item 4 Validation: Show the inspector where the unit is conforming to the wing’s Public Affairs and Crisis Communication plans. The unit will have to explain when and how they’re conforming to the wing’s plans. The inspector will need to use their familiarity with the plans to verify that what the unit is doing is necessary and sufficient.
Non-Standard Situations
For non-standard situations identified by an inspection team that cannot map neatly onto a worksheet item, we can use labels to categorize information we want to share with leaders. In Oregon Wing, we use:
- Observations – Typically clarifying information or something that is neutral to mission accomplishment.
- Area of Concern – A situation that is not a discrepancy, but may warrant discussion or consideration by the chain of command so that it does not negatively impact mission accomplishment.
- High Headquarters Area of Concern – A situation where mission accomplishment is potentially negatively impacted by action or inaction at the wing level or higher.
- Commendable – Per the instructions on the worksheet these must:
- Apply directly to one or more of the already vetted mission‐critical worksheet questions
- Be process-oriented (that means it is based on a fully implemented continuous improvement‐type cycle)
- Include results over time from designated process points (ex: input‐output; before-after) that are measurable and quantifiable (i.e. performance metrics)
- Clearly substantiate the improvements made by instituting the process in terms of money, manpower/man‐hours saved and present benefits to members and/or mission
Because we do not inspection individuals as part of the SUI program, we use different tools to share when our CAP Airmen do exceptionally well. Superior performers are discretely mentioned to unit leaders as people that might be considered by their commander for recognition using the awards program (for instance, an Achievement Award for someone that instituted a Commendable practice). They are also identified by-name during the out-brief as having demonstrated commitment, skill, and/or some other aspect of their meritorious work.
In situations where the unit may not be meeting the standard set by the SUI worksheet, we can take tremendous advantage of our role on the inspection team to provide advice, support, coaching, and/or mentoring at the end of the inspection interview and during the out-brief. Obviously if we see something that is unsafe or otherwise unacceptable, we should bring it to the attention of that unit’s commander right away, and such coaching might not be appropriate in such a situation. Feedback and recommendations for further additions to this series can be sent to edward.bos@orwgcap.org.