AIR FORCE AUDIT AGENCY AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT AUDIT REPORT

AIR FORCE AUDIT AGENCY AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT AUDIT REPORT F2009-0008-FC2000 4 September 2009

Executive Summary INTRODUCTION Configuration management is the detailed process of recording and updating information that describes the functional and physical characteristics of aircraft and commodity components. This process is an essential part of monitoring and managing the Air Force s efforts to comply with regulations, meet safety requirements, minimize maintenance costs, and optimize asset life. The Air Force uses the Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS) to document and maintain configuration management control over aircraft and commodity components. Logistics and engineering personnel use the data to verify completion of modifications and related inspections; identify aircraft reliability and improvement areas; and plan, program, and budget for possible future modifications. The Air Force implements aircraft and commodity configuration changes through Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) modifications. As of September 2008, REMIS contained 8,940 aircraft and 12,073 commodity TCTO modifications that rescinded between January 2003 and June 2008. OBJECTIVES We performed this audit because configuration management is important to the effective maintenance and operation of Air Force weapons systems, equipment, and related components. The objective was to determine whether Air Force personnel effectively managed aircraft configuration and commodity component modifications and inspections. Specifically, we determined whether Air Force personnel: Properly planned and budgeted for modification requirements. Effectively completed aircraft and commodity modifications. CONCLUSIONS Air Force personnel could improve management of aircraft and commodity modifications and inspections. While personnel properly planned and budgeted for modification requirements, personnel did not effectively complete aircraft and commodity modifications and inspections. Specifically: i

Executive Summary Weapon system program managers did not effectively manage compliance of aircraft and commodity TCTOs and verify REMIS contained complete and accurate information. Accurate REMIS data allows management personnel to verify aircraft and commodity TCTO modification compliance to ensure all aircraft and components meet applicable standards for safety and technological improvements. (Tab A, page 2) Installation-level personnel did not always document completion or perform reconciliation of modification and inspection actions. As a result, there were over 61,000 incorrect aircraft configuration records in REMIS. Properly documenting and reporting modification actions reduces unnecessary re-inspections and safety risks. (Tab A, page 4) RECOMMENDATIONS MANAGEMENT S RESPONSE We made three recommendations to improve the control and management of aircraft and commodity TCTO modifications and inspections. (Reference the individual Tab for specific recommendations.) Management officials agreed with the issue, and actions planned are responsive. DON H. KENDRICK Associate Director (Maintenance Division) SHARON K. PUSCHMANN Assistant Auditor General (Acquisition and Logistics Audits) ii

Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i TAB A TCTO Modification Management 1 APPENDIX I TCTO Status Codes 9 II Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage 11 III Locations Audited/Reports Issued 15 IV Points of Contact 17 V Final Report Distribution 19

Tab A TCTO Modification Management BACKGROUND A TCTO provides technical guidance and instructions for implementing a required modification or inspection on aircraft, support equipment, and associated components. The Air Force Directorate of Logistics, Policy Division (AF/A4LM), provides guidance for establishing, tracking, and reporting aircraft and commodity TCTO modifications and inspections. The REMIS is the primary Air Force repository for collecting and reporting TCTO compliance status information. Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Sustainment Engineering Branch (HQ AFMC/A4UE), is responsible for developing aircraft and commodity configuration management supplemental guidance. Weapon system program managers, located at Air Logistics Centers (ALCs), have overall responsibility for ensuring REMIS configuration management data is complete and accurate. As specified in Air Force guidance, 1 modification managers 2 assigned to weapon system program offices develop and publish TCTO master records in REMIS. Modification managers enter start and end dates into REMIS, which then transfers maintenance requirement data to installation-level personnel through the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS) for fighter aircraft or the Core Automated Maintenance System for Airlift (G081) for transport aircraft. Further, modification managers are responsible for monitoring TCTO status in REMIS to ensure TCTO completion prior to the rescission date. 3 Air Force guidance 4 provides the basic guidance on implementing and documenting TCTO modification actions. Installation-level maintenance personnel document aircraft maintenance actions on historical records 5 and enter this information into IMDS or G081. This data then flows back to the REMIS so TCTO monitors, program managers, and higher-level managers have visibility over completion status. TCTO data rejects may occur when transferring data from IMDS or G081 to REMIS. Applicable major command, ALC program management, and installation-level maintenance personnel must actively monitor these rejects and take timely action to clear them before the IMDS or G081 purges the rejects. 1 Technical Order (TO) 00-20-2, Maintenance Data Documentation, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.5.1.5, 15 June 2003. 2 Depending on the ALC, modification managers may also be referred to as technical content managers, production management specialists, equipment specialists, TCTO managers, or REMIS monitors. 3 REMIS automatically rescinds TCTOs at the initial documented end date unless the modification manager extends this date. 4 Air Force Instruction (AFI) 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management, 29 June 2006. 5 AFTO Forms 95 (Significant Historical Data) are hard-copy documents maintained in aircraft jacket files. 1

Tab A TCTO Modification Management Additionally, Air Force guidance 6 requires installation TCTO monitors to perform a TCTO Status Review annually to reconcile information recorded in IMDS or G081 with REMIS and report discrepancies to the appropriate program manager for correction. AUDIT RESULTS 1 MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT Condition. Weapon system program managers at the ALCs did not effectively manage aircraft and commodity TCTOs and verify REMIS contained complete and accurate compliance information. To illustrate: Aircraft. For 141 rescinded aircraft TCTOs, 26,743 aircraft records showed no status, partial compliance, or non-compliance 7 in REMIS (Table A-1). For example, TCTO 1C-130-1530E (rescission date of 1 February 2004) still included 313 aircraft showing a status code indicating no status, no previous action. Another TCTO 8 instructed units to inspect wing barrel nuts on all C-130 aircraft prior to the next flight. Although modification managers confirmed inspection completion on all but one C-130 aircraft in G081, 125 aircraft still showed no status, partial compliance, or non-compliance in REMIS. Number of Number of Aircraft Records Weapon System TCTOs Reviewed No Status Partial Compliance Non- Compliance Total A-10 19 1,136 5 1,286 2,427 C-130 30 3,792 123 4,237 8,152 F-15 29 1,237 3 3,548 4,788 F-16 23 343 0 3,546 3,889 KC-135 40 2,795 142 4,550 7,487 Totals 141 9,303 273 17,167 26,743 Table A-1. Rescinded Aircraft TCTOs Status in REMIS. 6 TO 00-20-2, Maintenance Data Documentation, Chapter 9, paragraph 9.15, 15 June 2003. 7 See Appendix I for a complete list and explanation of TCTO status codes. 8 C-130 aircraft TCTO requiring immediate action: TCTO 1C-130-2018. 2

Tab A TCTO Modification Management Commodities. For 99 rescinded commodity TCTOs, 9,647 serialized commodity components showed only partial or non-compliance in REMIS (Table A-2). For example, one rescinded commodity TCTO 9 managed at the Warner Robins ALC listed 690 component items in a non-compliance status in REMIS even though the TCTO rescinded 1 July 2003. Number Number of Commodities Managing ALC of TCTOs Reviewed Partial Compliance Non- Compliance Totals Ogden 36 48 2,757 2,805 Oklahoma City 12 0 467 467 Warner Robins 51 76 6,299 6,375 Totals 99 124 9,523 9,647 Table A-2. Rescinded Commodity TCTOs Status in REMIS. Cause. This condition occurred because modification managers: Did not actively track and monitor aircraft and commodity TCTO completion status in REMIS. Instead, managers allowed TCTOs to rescind without verifying personnel had completed all required actions. Recorded incorrect data in REMIS TCTO master records when publishing TCTOs. Incorrect data included inaccurate and incomplete errors such as aircraft tail numbers, serial/part numbers for commodities, associated TCTOs, and commodity kit information. For example, modification managers incorrectly included 295 aircraft in the TCTO master record when those specific aircraft were not included in the hard copy TCTO. Impact. Complete and accurate REMIS data allows management to verify aircraft and commodity TCTO modification compliance to ensure aircraft and components meet applicable standards for safety and technological improvements. Recommendation A.1. The Director of Logistics, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC/A4), should direct weapon system program managers to: a. Track and monitor REMIS TCTO status relative to rescission dates to verify completion of all required maintenance actions. b. Establish procedures to verify modification managers enter complete and accurate TCTO data in REMIS TCTO master records. 9 TCTO 14D3-10-517, Rework of Four-line Release Lanyard on Parachute Canopy Assembly modification. 3

Tab A TCTO Modification Management Management Comments. AFMC/A4 concurred and stated: a. Concur. AFMC/A4 will prepare a letter to the program offices clarifying the requirements in TO 00-20-2 and the importance of monitoring the REMIS TCTO status relative to rescission dates to verify completion of all required maintenance actions. Estimated completion date is 1 November 2009. b. Concur. AFMC/A4 will establish a Logistics Compliance Assessment Team checklist to verify modification managers enter complete and accurate TCTO data in REMIS TCTO master records. Estimated completion date is 31 January 2010. Evaluation of Management Comments. Management officials agreed with the issue and recommendations, and actions planned are responsive. AUDIT RESULTS 2 MODIFICATION DOCUMENTATION Condition. Installation-level personnel did not properly document completion or perform annual Status Reviews of TCTO modifications and inspections. Documentation. Air Force installation-level maintenance personnel did not effectively complete and document TCTO status information in IMDS or G081. Specifically, a review of rescinded TCTOs for 160 aircraft at four bases 10 disclosed: Fifty-eight (36 percent) aircraft were identified as not applicable by base maintenance personnel, but were listed as applicable in REMIS causing the transactions to reject. Twenty-nine (18 percent) aircraft did not have supporting aircraft maintenance action documents to substantiate whether base personnel actually accomplished the TCTO modifications or inspections. Thirteen (8 percent) aircraft had a TCTO status code of not complied with canceled in IMDS or G081 indicating that the TCTO was no longer valid; however, REMIS did not reflect the TCTO cancellation. 10 The four locations are Davis Monthan AFB, Little Rock AFB, Nellis AFB, and Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base. 4

Tab A TCTO Modification Management TCTO Status Reviews. Air Force TCTO monitors did not annually reconcile configuration information between G081, IMDS, and REMIS. To illustrate, REMIS reported over 10,000 data record rejects that occurred on five weapon systems at four locations as of 2 January 2009 (Table A-3). For example, over 5,000 records for A-10 aircraft TCTOs rejected when data flowed from IMDS to REMIS. Weapon System Number of Rejects A-10 5,363 C-130 1,196 F-15 1,125 F-16 2,892 KC-135 82 Totals 10,658 Table A-3. TCTO Data Rejects by Weapon System. Cause. This condition occurred because: Technical order guidance does not provide specific instructions on how to resolve issues involving TCTO modifications that are not applicable to a given aircraft, or how to report not applicable TCTO status information in IMDS or G081. Further, AFI 21-101 does not provide this information or reference the technical order. Technical order guidance requiring personnel to accomplish an annual TCTO Status Review is vague and does not clearly specify the installation-level data systems or elements personnel should reconcile with REMIS information. Additionally, AFI 21-101 does not reference the technical order or require installation-level maintenance personnel to accomplish an annual TCTO Status Review. Program managers had not established a process to coordinate with major command (MAJCOM) and installation-level maintenance activities to correct aircraft configuration TCTO status mismatches between G081, IMDS, and REMIS. Impact. As a result, on 2 January 2009 there were 61,764 aircraft configuration TCTO status mismatches between IMDS/G081 and REMIS (Table A-4). Properly reporting of modification actions reduces unnecessary status follow-up, re-inspections, and safety risks. 5

Tab A TCTO Modification Management MAJCOM REMIS Mismatches Air Combat Command 23,088 Air Education & Training Command 9,205 Air Force Materiel Command 1,354 Air Force Reserve Command 1,946 Air Force Space Command 75 Air Force Special Operations Command 1,374 Air Intelligence Agency 424 Air Mobility Command 278 Air National Guard 16,453 Pacific Air Forces 4,189 United States Air Forces in Europe 3,378 Totals 61,764 Table A-4. TCTO Status Mismatches. Recommendation A.2. The Director of Logistics, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC/A4), should: a. Revise the TCTO Implementation Flow Diagram in TO 00-5-15 to include a requirement for installation-level maintenance personnel to contact the applicable TCTO modification manager and obtain specific instructions on how to report not applicable information in IMDS or G081. b. Revise TO 00-20-2 to clarify how personnel should accomplish the annual TCTO Status Review and clearly specify the installation-level data systems or elements personnel should reconcile with REMIS information. c. Direct weapon system managers to establish a coordination process with MAJCOM and base-level maintenance activities to correct aircraft configuration TCTO status mismatches between G081, IMDS, and REMIS. Management Comments. AFMC/A4 concurred and stated: a. Concur with intent. AFMC/A4 agrees that providing the instructions in the TCTO will reduce unneeded delays in reporting. However, this will require a change to TCTO format as it adds different reporting instructions; therefore, it will have to be reflected in MIL-PRF-38804, and TO 00-5-15. This will have to be vetted through the Air Force Centralized Technical Order Management (CTOM) Committee. Once approved by the Air Force CTOM and incorporated into MIL-PRF-38804 in time, the change would be added to the next version of TO 00-5-15. Estimated completion date is 31 August 2010. 6

Tab A TCTO Modification Management b. Concur. AFMC/A4 will revise TO 00-20-2 to clarify how personnel should accomplish the annual TCTO Status Review. In addition, the policy needs to be added to TCTO Documentation and Tracking section of TO 00-5-15 at the next revision after being approved by the Air Force CTOM. Estimated completion date is 31 August 2010. c. Concur. Policy exists in TO 00-20-2, Chapter 9, paragraph 9-7, for error correction. The responsibilities of the TCTO Monitor and the single managers will be expounded upon in the next update to TO 00-20-2. Additionally, AFMC/A4 will request weapon system managers to establish a coordination process with MAJCOM and base-level maintenance activities to correct aircraft configuration TCTO status mismatches between G081, IMDS, and REMIS. Further, an Information Technology System Requirements Document will be submitted to update REMIS edits to coincide with evolving business rules and redundant compliance codes which causes REMIS to reject TCTO records. Currently, REMIS rejects status codes that are compliant but, in reality, have either been previously complied with or not applicable TCTOs. This problem creates approximately 20 percent of the rejects. Another avenue to keep the rejects down is error reports that can be obtained from REMIS on a monthly basis. This will be a topic in the letter that AFMC/A4 sends to the program offices, per A.1.a above. Estimated completion date is 31 August 2010. Recommendation A.3. The Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, Director of Logistics (AF/A4L), should: a. Revise AFI 21-101 to provide instructions on resolving TCTOs that are not applicable to a specific aircraft or reference the instructions in TO 00-5-15 regarding the reporting of a not applicable status in IMDS or G081. b. Revise AFI 21-101 to require personnel accomplish the annual TCTO Status Review or reference the instructions in TO 00-20-2. Management Comments. AF/A4L concurred and stated: a. AF/A4L concurs with this recommendation. In order to avoid duplication and possible conflicts if future changes are made to either document, A4LM will provide a pointer to TO 00-5-15 in AFI 21-101. Estimated completion date is 1 November 2009. b. AF/A4L concurs with the recommendation. In order to avoid duplication and possible conflicts if future changes are made to either document, A4LM will provide a pointer to TO 00-20-2 in AFI 21-101. Estimated completion date is 1 November 2009. Evaluation of Management Comments. Management officials agreed with the issue and recommendations, and actions planned are responsive. 7

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 8

TCTO Status Codes TCTO STATUS CODES Code Status Description 00 No Status, no previous action 1 Completely complied with 2 Previously complied with 3 Complied with by record check or inspection. No modification required 4 Not complied with canceled 5 Lost from AF inventory (Aircraft terminated) (REMIS & CEMS only) 6 Partially complied with, ready for work 7 Partially complied with, kits, part, test equipment on order 8 Not complied with, condition inspection needed Not complied with, held in abeyance. Can only be assigned at the direction 9 of TCTO issuing authority 10 Not complied with, placed in work, or reported complied with in error 11 Not complied with, kit/part/tool on order and not received 12 Not complied with, prior compliance of a field or depot TCTO needed 13 Not complied with, test or support equipment not available 14 Not complied with, equipment not available for compliance 15 Not complied with, event type TCTO 16 Not complied with, depot level TCTO 17 Not complied with, TCTO ready for work 18 Partially complied with, depot level 19 Not released by system program manager or item manager 20 TCTO Not Complied with, Kits on Hand, Parts on Order TCTO Not Complied with, Established in CEMS CDB with Release and 21 Rescission date. Applies to organization/intermediate level TCTOs. 22 TCTO not applicable to this equipment Not applicable. This is an error code to tell the equipment IM/SPM this specific piece of equipment should not have been included in the TCTO. This 23 code is not to be used to report compliance. (REMIS & CEMS only) 24 Not complied with, in storage at AMARC. (REMIS & CEMS only) 9 Appendix I

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 10

Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage AUDIT SCOPE Audit Coverage. We performed this audit at Headquarters Air Combat Command, Air Force Materiel Command, and 14 other locations (Appendix III). We conducted the audit from November 2008 through March 2009 using documents dated from November 1996 to February 2008. We provided management a draft report in July 2009. To accomplish audit objectives, we performed audit work and conducted tests as follows: Modification Requirements. To determine whether program office personnel properly planned and budgeted for kits supporting TCTO modifications, we discussed the process for procuring kits with the modification manager or responsible individuals. Additionally, we identified the quantity of kits personnel procured to support each aircraft TCTO modification selected for review. We then compared the procured kit quantity against the adjusted aircraft affectivity quantity for each selected modification. Monitoring of Aircraft and Commodity Modifications. To determine whether program office personnel validated TCTO compliance and results in REMIS, we discussed TCTO status codes depicting no status, partial compliance, or no compliance in REMIS with modification managers for both weapon systems and commodities. Additionally, we discussed the reasons personnel allowed TCTOs to rescind without full compliance and how personnel tracked and monitored TCTO compliance. Installation-Level Aircraft Modification Documentation. To determine whether installation-level maintenance personnel effectively completed and documented aircraft TCTO modification and related inspection results, we discussed compliance and non-compliance REMIS data for specific aircraft tail numbers with responsible TCTO monitors. We then determined whether personnel completed modification and inspections for selected aircraft tail numbers, and entered compliance information in required maintenance (IMDS/G081) database systems. Sampling Methodology. To accomplish audit objectives, we selected the following judgmental and random samples: Modification Kits. We judgmentally selected 24 TCTOs from a universe of 1,388 aircraft TCTOs that rescinded between 1 January 2003 and June 2008. We also selected 40 TCTOs from a universe of 416 active TCTOs published during or after January 2006 with rescission dates after September 2008 involving A-10, C-130, F-15, or F-16 weapon systems. We selected TCTOs with less than 100 percent compliance in REMIS, no status or no previous action 11 Appendix II

Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage (status code 00), 11 partial or non-compliance (status codes 6-17), and entries indicating cancellation or not applicable (status codes 4, 5, 22, 23, or 24) in order to determine whether program management personnel properly planned and budgeted for modification kits. Aircraft. We judgmentally selected 143 TCTOs from a population of 8,940 aircraft modifications that rescinded between 1 January 2003 and June 2008 involving A-10, C-130, F-15, F-16, or KC-135 weapon systems. We selected TCTOs with less than 100 percent compliance in REMIS, no status or no previous action (status code 00), partial or non-compliance (status codes 6-17), and entries indicating cancellation or not applicable (status codes 4, 5, 22, 23, or 24). We used this sample to determine whether program management personnel ensured compliance of TCTO modifications and results were documented in REMIS. Commodity. We judgmentally selected 99 TCTOs from a population of 12,073 serialized commodity items that rescinded between 1 January 2003 and June 2008 managed at the Ogden, Oklahoma City, and Warner Robins ALCs. We selected TCTOs with less than 100 percent compliance in REMIS, partial or noncompliance (status codes 6-17), and entries indicating cancellation or not applicable (status codes 4, 5, 22, 23, or 24) in order to determine whether program management personnel ensured compliance of TCTO modifications and results were documented in REMIS. Installation-Level. We randomly selected 160 aircraft tail numbers from a population of 1,962 that showed compliance, and an additional 160 aircraft tail numbers from a population of 465 that showed non-compliance status codes for rescinded TCTOs that pertained to A-10, C-130, F-15, F-16, or KC-135 weapon systems. We determined whether base-level maintenance personnel completed TCTO modifications and documented the results in required maintenance database systems. Computer-Assisted Auditing Tools and Techniques (CAATTs). We used CAATTs to identify TCTO universe data and sample select aircraft and commodity TCTO modifications and inspections. We used Microsoft Excel COUNTIF, SORT, SEARCH, and SUM functions to identify, compare, and combine TCTO data by type, location, and weapon system. We used FILTER and SORT functions to identify TCTO status codes occurring within a specified timeframe. Data Reliability. We performed this audit using data from REMIS, Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS), Core Automated Maintenance System for Airlift (G081), and the Comprehensive Engine Management System (CEMS). We did not 11 See Appendix I for complete list and explanation of TCTO status codes. Appendix II 12

Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage evaluate the general or application controls of the systems. To establish data reliability, we validated data accuracy by comparing data to physical source records. Additionally, we reviewed output products for obvious errors, reasonableness, and completeness. Based on these tests and discussions, we concluded that aircraft and commodity TCTO data maintained in the systems were sufficiently reliable to support audit conclusions and recommendations. Auditing Standards. We conducted the audit in accordance with generally-accepted government auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of internal controls as considered necessary under the circumstances. Specifically, we examined processes, procedures, and controls used to manage and ensure effective documentation of compliance information for aircraft and commodity TCTO modifications and related inspections in REMIS. PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE We did not identify any Air Force Audit Agency, DoD Inspector General, or Government Accountability Office reports issued within the past 5 years that addressed the same or similar objectives as this audit. 13 Appendix II

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 14

Locations Audited/ Reports Issued Organization/Location Installation-Level Reports Issued Air Combat Command (ACC) HQ ACC Langley AFB VA NONE 57th Wing F2009-0035-FBS000 Nellis AFB NV 22 May 2009 355th Fighter Wing F2009-0043-FBS000 Davis Monthan AFB AZ 22 July 2009 Air Education & Training Command 314th Airlift Wing F2009-0052-FBL000 Little Rock AFB AR 5 May 2009 Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) HQ AFMC Wright-Patterson AFB OH NONE 84th Combat Sustainment Wing F2009-0052-FCI000 Hill AFB UT 18 June 2009 327th Aircraft Sustainment Wing F2009-0047-FCT000 Tinker AFB OK 22 July 2009 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing F2009-0056-FCR000 Robins AFB GA 20 August 2009 448th Supply Chain Management Wing F2009-0037-FCT000 Tinker AFB OK 3 June 2009 498th Missile Sustainment Group F2009-0032-FCT000 Tinker AFB OK 5 May 2009 15 Appendix III

Locations Audited/ Reports Issued Organization/Location Installation-Level Reports Issued Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) (Cont d) 508th Aerospace Sustainment Wing F2009-0057-FCI000 Hill AFB UT 13 July 2009 542d Combat Sustainment Wing F2009-0059-FCR000 Robins AFB GA 26 August 2009 638th Supply Chain Management Group F2009-0058-FCR000 Robins AFB GA 24 August 2009 748th Supply Chain Management Group F2009-0044-FCI000 Hill AFB UT 20 May 2009 Air Mobility Command 19th Airlift Wing F2009-0056-FBL000 Little Rock AFB AR 20 May 2009 Air National Guard (ANG) 121st Air Refueling Wing F2009-0043-FCW000 Rickenbacker ANGB OH 30 June 2009 Appendix III 16

Points of Contact Maintenance Division (AFAA/QLM) Acquisition and Logistics Audits Directorate Building 280, Door 1 4170 Hebble Creek Road Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-5643 Don H. Kendrick, Associate Director DSN 986-3305 Commercial (937) 656-3305 Roger A. Scheidt, Program Manager Milford Brumfield, Jr., Audit Manager We accomplished this audit under project number F2008-FC2000-0021.000. 17 Appendix IV

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 18

Final Report Distribution SAF/OS SAF/US SAF/AQ SAF/FM SAF/IE SAF/IG SAF/LL SAF/PA SAF/XC, AF/A6 AF/CC AF/CV AF/CVA AF/A4/7 AF/A8 AF/RE NGB/CF ACC AETC AFISR AFMA AFMC AFOSI AFRC AFSOC AFSPC AMC ANG PACAF USAFA USAFE Units/Orgs Audited AU Library DoD Comptroller OMB FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT The disclosure/denial authority prescribed in AFPD 65-3 will make all decisions relative to the release of this report to the public. 19 Appendix V

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 20

To request copies of this report or to suggest audit topics for future audits, contact the Operations Directorate at (703) 696-7913 (DSN 426-7913) or E-mail to reports@pentagon.af.mil. Certain government users may download copies of audit reports from our home page at www.afaa.hq.af.mil/. Finally, you may mail requests to: Air Force Audit Agency Operations Directorate 1126 Air Force Pentagon Washington DC 20330-1126