Resolution Island

14 May 1956

ADI

SUBJECT: Report of Annual Inspection, FY 56, 920^th AC&W Squadron, Resolution Island Air Station

THRU: Commander
920^th AC&W Squadron
Resolution Island Air Station

THRU: Commander
6606^th Air Base Wing
Goose Air Base

TO: Commander
64^th Air Division (Defense)
Pepperrell Air Force Base

I. GENERAL

Under the provisions of AFR 123-1, the Annual Inspection, FY 56, of the 920^th AC&W Squadron, Resolution Island Air Station, was conducted by representatives of this office during the period of 24 April – 1 May 1956. This inspection was conducted under the direction of Lt. Colonel Richard H. Cole, Inspector General, Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense).

Major George A Middleton has commanded this organization since 17 November 1955.

This organization is assigned to the 64^th Air Division (Defense) for normal command control and attached to the 6606^th Air Base Wing, Goose Air Base, for specific administrative and logistic support outline by NEACR 400-3, 20 May 1954, as amended. Detachment 9, 6631^st Radio Relay Squadron, consisting of fifteen (15) airmen is attached to this organization for administrative and logistic support.

The last inspection of this organization by this headquarters was conducted during the period of 22 – 25 March 1955.

Except for limited visits by postal clerks, Chaplains, and recent visits by a veterinary inspector and dentist, they have been inadequate staff visits by both the 64^th Air Division (Defense) and the 6606 Air Base Wing to insure an intimate familiarity with existing practices and conditions and to provide assistance. It will be noted that during the period of this inspection a dentist completed a dental survey of all assigned and attached personnel and provided necessary dental treatment. During the same period, a veterinary inspector from the 6606^th Air Base Wing completed a sanitary inspection of the site.

II. MISSION

The organization and required capabilities of this unit are generally outlined in pertinent Manning Documents, 64^th ADDR 20-5, 21 may 1954, 64^th ADDM 55-2, November 1954, 64^th ADDM 55-4, July 1954, and 64^th ADD Operations Plan 1-55, 10 may 1954. It is considered that inadequate guidance and direction have been provided by higher headquarters relative missions and training directives; however, these problem areas are recognized by Headquarters, 64^th Air Division and coordinated staff actions are in the process of being affected toward their resolution. The two broad areas of inadequacy of direction consist of the following:

1. Mission directives provide only a general statement of the required unit tactical capabilities. Only by reference to many other directives and references is guidance obtained relative other unit functions, command responsibilities, Unit-Support Base relationships and organization. This lack of direction results in the capabilities achieved being subject to each individual commander’s initiative, experience, planning ability and personal determination. This in turn results in lack of continuity and standardization of capabilities within units of this command. The provision of required guidance relative unit objectives and capabilities are considered to be a responsibility of Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense).
2. Training directives provided this organization generally fail to provide individual general military and unit training objectives and qualitative standards of proficiency. With few exceptions, standards of proficiency are quantitative in nature and fail to provide the means by which training completed may be adequately evaluated. In the resolution of this lack of guidance and direction, both individual general military and unit training objectives and qualitative standards of proficiency must be developed by Headquarters, NEAC in the form of Training Objectives to be implemented by Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense) Unit Training Programs.

With the following exceptions, the Commander, 6606^th Air Base Wing, is considered to have adequately fulfilled his responsibilities to this organization as prescribed by NEACR 400-3.

1. Excessive intervals between visits of the M-Site Base Exchange supervisor to this unit depreciates the adequacy of support of this activity.
2. Present supervision of medical activities is confined to a review of the bi-monthly Report of Preventative Medicine and sporadic visits by a veterinary inspector. There is no record of a doctor ever visiting this site. This is not considered adequate supervision of medical activities.
3. The recent visit by a dentist was the first in the memory of personnel of this unit. Adequate support in this respect requires regularly scheduled periodic visits.
4. Inadequate assistance is provided to insure prompt receipt of various forms, records, publications, manufacturers manuals and parts catalogs.
5. Inadequate staff visits are made to provide assistance and to insure familiarity with existing conditions.
6. Inadequate Support Base supply action is evidenced by the magnitude (572) of items coded "shipped" but not yet received by the unit. Many of these items were coded "shipped" six (6) months ago.

This organization presently demonstrates generally satisfactory capability of effectively performed its directed missions. Significant limiting factors consist of the following:

1. Ineffectiveness of manning, particularly in the supervisory skill levels.
2. Lack of practical capability in the implementation of passive and active base defense plans.
3. Lack of preplanned actions necessary to immediately implementation of EASA directives.
4. Inadequate performance of directed secondary mission.

In general, there is evidenced a necessity for greater effort to be made to preserve continuity of operation and to preclude repetitive trial and error learning. It is considered that the preparation and use of supervisor’s checklists of responsibilities requiring supervision on a periodic basis (daily, weekly, monthly, etc) would appreciably reduce oversight and neglect of significant functions, activities, and facilities. Significant deficiencies depreciating unit effectiveness and efficiency in various unit functions and activities commented upon in detail in subsequent paragraphs.

III IRREGULARITIES AND/OR DEFICIENCIES PREVIOUSLY REPORTED BUT NOT CORRECTED AT THE TIME OF THIS INSPECTION

Irregularities and/or deficiencies previously reported and not corrected at the time of this inspection consisted of the following:

1. Special Orders are not being properly annotated when amendments are published.
2. NEAC Form 126, Security Certificate, had not been accomplished for all personnel having access to classified material and filed in individual records and duty section.
3. NEAC Form 139, Test; "Safeguarding Military Information", had not been administered to all personnel having access to classified material.
4. DD Form 502, Locator Card, had not been accomplished for all assigned and attached personnel.
5. An operational crew training program had not been initiated.
6. Technical publication indices were not current
7. Some items of Air Force property, spares components, and test equipment were not tagged as to serviceable or repairable condition in the Radar Maintenance and Motor Pool Sections as required by AFM 67-1.
8. Activation Orders were not on file.
9. Locally reproduced issue receipts were being used.
10. Some property authorized was neither on hand nor on order.
11. AF Forms 538-A were not on file for some airmen
12. A diagram of the storage building was not being maintained
13. A familiarization chart was not being maintained.
14. A supplemental sheet of inspections was not being maintained.

IV. SPECIAL SUBJECTS

Inquiry into the effectiveness of compliance and the degree of emphasis and effort placed upon pertinent Special subjects revealed the following conditions:

1. NEAC Letter 121-4, Development and Maintenance of Unit Authorization List, 20 April 1955. Unsatisfactory progress has been made in compliance with this subject.
1. Authorized equipment was neither on hand nor on requisition.
2. Unit property records were improperly maintained.
3. Property in use exceeded authorizations
4. Air Force Forms 601-A were not being submitted to reflect changes in requirements.
5. Property record cards had not been established for each line item.
6. Postings were not made to show the results of the last inventory.
7. Correct authorizations were not posted, particularly for Class 17-B non-power hand tools.
8. Shipping tickets for Arctic clothing in the possession of personnel were not being posted to the property record cards.
2. Air Force Letter 121-15, Communications Economy, 6 December 1955: Generally satisfactory progress has been made in compliance with this Special Subject. The following are considered to depreciate the effectiveness of the unit’s efforts to comply with this Special Subject.
1. The practice of the 6606^th Air Base Wing and Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense) requesting acknowledgement of receipt of messages of a routine nature is creating an excessive transmission of messages.
2. The practice of requiring negative reports to routine reports increases the use of electrical messages. During the period of 1 January 1956 to 26 April 1956, thirty (30) negative reports were transmitted electronically to 64^th Air Division.
3. Due to the remote location of this unit and the sporadic nature of transportation, the effectiveness of communications economy is depreciated unavoidably by the necessity of transmitting electrically reports to meet established suspense dates.

While no longer current Special Subjects, the following functions are of such significance and have received such emphasis within this command as to warrant special consideration and evaluation.

1. Fire Prevention Measures: Unit plans, familiarity of personnel with prescribed procedures incident to fire prevention and protection and the response of personnel to an unannounced fir alarm revealed generally satisfactory capability in this subject. Deficiencies observed dictate the necessity of increased emphasis and effort in inspection activities and orientation of personnel to achieve and maintain desires standards.
2. On the Job Training: This program reflected marginally satisfactory administration and evidenced a lack of aggressive, centralized supervision, direction and control. Responsible personnel failed to demonstrate adequate familiarity with prescribed procedures incident to their duties relative this program.
3. Maintenance of Publications: Unsatisfactory progress has been made in that indices are improperly and incompletely posted; there is no evidence of a responsible officer having periodically inspected the files, changes to publications were not posted to the basic directive, publications were not on hand although on requisition and Publication Requirement Tables were not on file to permit determination that all required publication series were on order for automatic distribution.
4. Control, Accountability and Safeguarding of Classified Material reflected unsatisfactory conditions. Significant deficiencies consisted of inadequate implementation of established procedures, procedures have not been established to insure periodic inventories to promptly detect lost material, procedures did not ensure proper transfer of accountability for classified material upon change of custodians, central control log did not account for all classified material possessed by the several section custodians, personnel having custody of classified material were not accountability for some material; test, "Safeguarding Military Information" had not been administered to personnel having access to classified material, and inadequate procedures were established for the emergency destruction and/or evacuation of classified material.

V. PERSONNEL CONFERENCE PERIOD

Personnel conference periods were conducted 25 and 26 April 1956 to provide all personnel with the opportunity to present complaints and/or request for information. Two (2) complaints were received from attached personnel and processed. No significant trends were reflected in processing these matters.

VI. COMMENTS

Personnel activities and functions generally reflect marginally satisfactory standards of efficiency and effectiveness. With the exception of minor deficiencies, the following functions were previewed and considered satisfactory: Maintenance of Officer’s Records, preparation of Military Pay Orders, maintenance of Health Records, library facilities, classification procedures, Re-enlistment Program, individual military training, and test control procedures. The basis of the overall evaluation consisted of consideration of the above in conjunction with marginally satisfactory preparation and maintenance of the Morning Report and associated documents, marginally satisfactory maintenance of Unit Personnel Records (AF Forms 4 and 7), unsatisfactory preparation of PERAMs, marginally satisfactory utilization of personnel in conjunction with severe ineffectiveness and shortage of manning in certain critical functional areas, minimal adequacy of Personal Services and theatre facilities, lack of aggressive off-duty educational program and marginally satisfactory administration of the OJT program. These conditions are attributed to ineffective supervision resulting from diversion of supervisory efforts to the performance of routine duties; unfamiliarity of supervisory personnel in certain specific instances, with prescribed duties incident to their responsibilities; and inadequate Support Base assistance in insuring prompt distribution of required forms and records.

Administration activities and functions generally reflected marginally satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency. With the exception of minor deficiencies, the following functions were reviewed and considered satisfactory: Preparation and Publication of Order, maintenance of the Report Control system, Correspondence Central and Routing, Ground Safety Program, maintenance of the Bulletin Board, Organizational/Functional Charts, individual job descriptions, Unit Punishment Book, Unit Fund, Unit Mail Room, Infirmary, Sub-Branch Exchange, maintenance of adequate standards of cleanliness and orderliness of Airmen’s BQs, and administration of the Non-Commissioned Officers’ Open Mess. The basis of the overall evaluation consists of unsatisfactory maintenance of publications, unsatisfactory conduct of the Forms management Program, unsatisfactory control and accountability of classified material, marginally satisfactory administration of the Food Services Program, unsatisfactory maintenance of the Duty Roster, unsatisfactory operation of the Barber Shop, unsatisfactory maintenance of desired standards of cleanliness and orderliness of civilian BQs, and substandard orderliness of the Officers’ billets. The above conditions are attributed to shortages of manning, ineffective supervision, lack of familiarity of supervisor and operating personnel with prescribed procedures pertinent to their duties and responsibilities, lack of intimate familiarity of command staff personnel at all levels of command with existing conditions and practices, the necessity of supervisory personnel diverting their efforts from supervisory responsibilities to the performance of routine duties as a result of ineffectiveness and shortage of manning with respect to the Food Service activities and the inadequacy of procedures established to facilitate continuity of operation, clear delineation of responsibilities and specific designation of procedures.

Operations activities and functions generally reflected satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency and demonstrated an adequate capability in support of the unit’s primary mission. This function did not reflect an adequate capability in effectively performing its secondary mission. With minor exceptions, publications, functional SOPs, and operational records were satisfactorily maintained. Alert, telling, and recording procedures were adequately performed. Locally produced calibration charts and Quality Control records were maintained. Personnel evidenced an adequate familiarity in the analysis of date obtained and in the use of these records. Surveillance personnel demonstrated proficiency in R/T procedures and familiarity with communications capabilities and the employment of this facility. 15-J-1C equipment was operational and adequately used as a training aid. Significant deficiencies consisted of the following:

1. Inadequate definition of required capability in providing navigational assistance.
2. Inadequate and/or insufficient materials available to satisfactorily perform the secondary mission.
3. Lack of an operational crew training program.
4. Lack of preplanned actions to effect immediate implementation of EASA directives.
5. Lack of a practical unit capability in the implementation of active and passive base defense plans.
6. Lack of development of significant criteria as basis for a realistic evaluation of the effectiveness of the TPS-502 equipment by 65^th Air Division.
7. Inadequate determination of the effectiveness of the back-up communications due to the lack of control net schedules and limitations imposed upon the use of this facility.
8. Lack of guidance and direction relative rehabilitation of plotting and status boards by 64^th Air Division.

The above conditions are attributed to ineffective supervision, lack of familiarity of supervisory personnel with prescribed procedures pertinent to their duties and responsibilities, lack of intimate familiarity of command and staff personnel at all levels of command with prevailing conditions and practices to prompt recognition of sub-standard conditions and a determination of necessary corrective action, inadequate direction and guidance by higher headquarters, and inadequacy of procedures established to facilitate continuity, clearly delineate responsibility, and designate specific procedures.

Maintenance functions and activities reflected satisfactory standards of efficiency and effectiveness. With the exception of minor deficiencies, Radar maintenance, Communications, Motor Pool, Diesel Power Plant, Heating Plant, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning systems, Roads and Grounds, AIC shop activities, Building minor repair and maintenance, fire prevention plans and practices, Ric-Wil line operation and other miscellaneous activities reflected satisfactory operations, procedures and practices. Significant deficiencies consisted of lack of technical publications and parts catalogs, inadequate stock levels of spares available for some equipment, and limited logistics support and personal supervision by the Support Base. Generally, supervisory personnel are considered to have demonstrated an aggressive sense of responsibility and displayed considerable initiative and resourcefulness in the development of improved procedures, operations and practices. Other operating personnel evidenced satisfactory familiarity with prescribed procedures pertinent to their duties and responsibilities.

Supply activities and functions generally reflect marginally satisfactory standards of effectiveness. With minor exceptions, the following functions were considered satisfactory: Maintenance of the Control Register, Suspense File, Permanent File (active), Service Stock Balance Cards, Turn in and Disposition of property and storage practices. In addition to the above, the overall evaluation considered the marginally satisfactory maintenance of publications, the marginally satisfactory maintenance of Custody and Temporary Issue Receipts, marginally satisfactory maintenance of the Unit Authorization List, unsatisfactory maintenance of Property Record Cards, marginally satisfactory maintenance of Individual Clothing Records, inadequate accountability of 16PT major components, test equipment and hand tools, improper disposition of obsolete records, lack of familiarization chart, inadequate maintenance of status of priority requisitions, and inadequate Support Base supply actions evidenced by the magnitude of items coded "shipped" but not yet received. These conditions are attributed to ineffectiveness and shortage of manning, inadequate Support Base supply action, lack of familiarity of command and staff personnel with existing practices and conditions to insure prompt corrective action, ineffective supervision resulting from the diversion of supervisory efforts to the performance of routine duties, and lack of SOPs, guides and checklists to provide continuity of operation and to insure clear delineation of responsibilities and designation of specific procedures.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. Supervisory personnel be required to prepare and use a checklist of responsibilities requiring supervision on a periodic basis (daily, weekly, monthly, etc) to preclude oversight or neglect of significant activities, facilities and functions.
2. Increased coordination and staff assistance be effected at all levels of command to provide more effective control, direction and guidance.
3. Command and staff personnel at all levels of command maintain a more intimate familiarity with prevailing conditions and practices to insure the prompt recognition of sub-standard conditions and a determination of necessary corrective action.
4. Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense) review EASA files with a view of revising or rescinding obsolete directives, eliminating those that are provided for in other directives such as Operations Plan I-55, and that every effort be made to eliminate the necessity of EASA directives completely by incorporating required actions in appropriate Operations Plans.
5. Every assistance be provided by the 6606^th Air Base Wing in obtaining and expediting distribution of forms, records, publications, manufacturing manuals and parts catalogs.
6. Annual Physicals be accomplished for all food service personnel in pipeline prior to re-assignment to M-sites of this command.
7. More frequent visits of dentists, doctors, Chaplains and other staff members be provided by the 6606^th Air Base Wing to provide assistance and insure intimate familiarity with prevailing practices and conditions.
8. The 6606^th Air Base Wing make every effort to improve present deficiencies existing in logistic support and to provide more effective personal supervision of logistic matters.
9. Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense) provide a more significant criteria, other than hours of operation versus programmed hours, for evaluating effectiveness of TPs-502 equipment.
10. Headquarters, 64^th Air Division (Defense) realistically evaluate requirements for and effectiveness of communications HF back-up equipment in consideration of diversion of effort in maintenance of facilities and equipment, lack of control net schedules, and general unreliability experienced in the past in the use of this equipment.
11. Aggressive, intensive efforts be made to establish necessary training programs to increase the familiarity of personnel with prescribed procedures incident to their duties and responsibilities.
12. The USAF Resident Auditor, Goose Air Base, perform required annual audits of property accounts of subordinate organizations of this command.
13. A system be established by the unit which will insure periodic review of personnel and material requirements versus authorized resources.
14. The 6606^th Air Base Wing publish periodic index of subjective letters and messages amending AFM 171-6 to insure current maintenance of directives.
15. Pipeline personnel reassigned this unit be provided a partial pay by the 6606^th Air Base Wing prior to their departure in consideration of the extended transportation delays encountered at Frobisher Bay.

VIII PROCESSING AND ROUTING

This report will be in indorsed over the signature of the Commander in sufficient copies to provide this headquarters with nine (9) copies of the endorsement and basic report and incorporate specific corrective action taken, or anticipated etc. of completion of contemplated action, to correct reported discrepancies and irregularities and to implement applicable recommendations.

It is requested that processing of this report be completed and forwarded this headquarters not later than ten (10) working days after receipt.

RICHARD H. COLE
LT. COL., USAF
Inspector General

5 Attachments:

I. Personnel
II. Administration
III. Operating
IV. Maintenance
V. Supply

1. GENERAL: Personnel activities and functions generally reflected marginally satisfactory standards of effectiveness.

1. The only deficiency previously reported and not corrected at the time of this inspection was that previously published orders had not been posted to indicate subsequent amendments.
2. Supervisory personnel, with few exceptions, were considered well qualified and familiar with their individual duties and responsibilities. Operating personnel were considered familiar with their duties and responsibilities commensurate with their skill level by AFSC.
3. Job Descriptions, NEAC Form 149, had been prepared for all positions and were current. Functional Job Folders were on hand in the form of Squadron numbered SOP’s and were clear and concise in delineation of responsibilities, designation of procedures, and provision for continuity of operation.
4. With the exception of minor deficiencies, the following functions and activities were reviewed and considered satisfactory: Officers’ Records and 210 files, Preparation of MPOs, Health Records, Library, C&E Training, Classification Procedures and Control of AFPRT material (Personnel Research Tests).
5. Conditions commented upon in detail in subsequent paragraphs are attributed to:
1. Ineffective supervision due to the necessity of supervisory personnel performing routine duties because of low clerical skill levels or shortages of personnel.
2. Inadequate performance of Support Base responsibilities relative prompt distribution of necessary forms.
3. Failure to utilize previous inspection reports as a continuing management tool to prevent recurring discrepancies.
4. Lack of familiarity of staff personnel with prevailing practices and conditions to permit ready detection of sub-standard conditions and a determination of necessary corrective action.

2. MORNING REPORTS AND ASSOCIATED COMMENTS: Preparations and maintenance of the Morning Report and associated documents were considered marginally satisfactory based upon the following:

1. Morning Report, AF Forms 183 and 183A (Chapter 13, AFM 171-6):
1. AFM 171-6 had been posted current with all NEAC and Support Base subjective letters in the file. Due to the large number of letter and TWX Changes to AFM 171-6 and the lack of current recurring index of these changes, a determination could not be made whether or not all current letters were in the file.
2. Changes on the M/R pertaining to entry into the hospital at other bases, specifically Goose Air Base and Pepperrell AFB, were improperly reported on the Part I of the M/R instead of being entered on the Excused From Duty Report. This was due to improper notification by the hospital of changes in duty status from TDY to hospital.
3. Gain remarks for personnel who report for duty after the ? indicates the proper ? but, in many cases, do not indicate the correct date that the individual actually joined.
4. Allotment serial number was not shown for all losses.
5. Remarks for recent gains indicate the proper ZI POE authority in addition to the Support Base P/L authority.
2. Sign-in/out Register, AF Form 1323 (Chapter 5, AFM 171-6):
1. NEAC Form 30-1, which has been superseded, was improperly utilized as the Register for officers.
2. AF Form 1323, which was being maintained for airmen only, was not properly prepared. Specific discrepancies are as follows:
1. AF Form 1323 was not prepared daily as changes occur.
2. Proper codes were not being utilized in Columns C, D, S, and F.
3. In some cases, PAFSN was not entered; incorrect authority was indicated, date and organization of the preparing unit were not shown at the top of the form.
3. Completed Register pages were being filed in a folder separate from the M/R. It is recommended that the completed pages be filed in the same folder as the M/R for the appropriate date.
3. Morning Report Data Record, AF Forms 1123 and 1124 Chapter 7, AFM 171-6):
1. All ? cards had been properly audited and a spot re-audit by the inspector revealed no significant discrepancies.
2. There were no AF Form 1124’s on hand (blank forms) and it had become necessary to locally reproduce the forms in order to keep the card file and M/R current. Requisitions had been submitted and proper follow-up initiated. It is recommended that upon receipt of the new forms from the Support Base, the local reproduced cards be transcribed onto the AF Form for the unit file.
4. Excused From Duty Report, AF Form 183A-1 (Chapter 8, AFM 171-6):
1. Excused From Duty Reports were being properly prepared daily with the exception noted in paragraph 2a (2) above. However, the Unit Commander or his representative was not signing all copies.
2. It is recommended that the EFD Reports be maintained in the M/R file with the M/R for the appropriate date.
3. It is recommended that the person who certified the M/R also complete the Commander’s certification on the EFD Report.
5. There was an adequate 31 day suspense system to insure that items which are not available at the time of submission of an NRDR will be submitted as they become available and that data changes which have an effective date subsequent to the publication date of the confirming orders are reported on that date.

3. UNIT PERSONNEL RECORDS (AF FORMS 4 AND 7): Maintenance of the Airmen’s Military Personnel Records, AF Form 7, and Personnel Records Folders, AF Form 4, was considered marginally satisfactory. All records had been converted to the new Airmen’s Personnel Records System The following specific discrepancies were noted:

1. Airmen’s Military Personnel Records, AF Form 7 (Chapter 2, Section G, AFM 35-12):

1. Summaries in Item 30 for prior service in some cases were not in accordance with AFM 35-12, and NEAC letter, subject: "New Airman Military Personnel Records Systems," dated 23 September 1955.
2. TAFMSD in some cases was incorrect in that it indicated the number of months and days active duty as of a specified date instead of giving the definite service date.
3. There was no evidence of improper determination of UAFSC. However, some records contained the entry pertaining UAFSC but there was no authority indicated.
4. Several airman serving in higher temporary grades than their permanent had no entry on the record by which a determination could be made as to eligibility for the award of the next permanent grade, i.e., Temporary T/Sgt. and permanent A/1C, record contained no entry for the temporary S/Sgt. rating.
5. Some airmen, due to length of time in service, obviously were eligible for medals or decorations not recorded on the AF Form 7.
6. Item 30 in many cases did not contain an entry to indicate time spent at the ZI POE.
7. Records of personnel assigned to the 6631^st Radio Relay Squadron did not indicate their attachment to the 920^th AC&W Squadron for administration.
8. The number of discrepancies noted was not considered of such magnitude as to indicate any trend toward improper records maintenance although they were considered in excess of normal operational error. It was evident that all records were given a good screening prior to the conversion and incoming records are screened prior to being filed.

1. Personnel Records Folder, AF Form 4 (Chapter 2, Section B, AFM 35-12):
1. Immunization Registers were filed in the AF Form 4 of several airmen. It is recommended that these registers be withdrawn and forwarded to the Infirmary for file to insure that immunizations are kept current.
2. Although it is evident that all folders had been well screened at the time of conversion or upon receipt of new records, there was still a great deal of extraneous material in them which should be withdrawn and given to the individuals concerned such as extra copies of orders, certificates of completion of military schools for which entries are made on the AF Form 7, correspondence upon which final action had been taken and which did not lend to a career evaluation of the individual, certificates pertaining to finance which were not required in the folder, ZI command forms which are not of any local value, AF Form 1145 when airman has been granted a final clearance, etc.

4. UNIT PERSONNEL RECORDS (DA AGO M 66’s, DD FROM 380 AF-201 Files): A review of officer’s personnel records revealed no general areas of deficiency. Maintenance of the records was considered satisfactory based on the following:

1. There was a minimum of extraneous material in the 201 files and it was evident that the records had been thoroughly screened. The file was neatly maintained and was separated into temporary and permanent sections.
2. Form 66’s were neatly maintained with no significant discrepancies noted.
3. There was an adequate suspense system in effect to insure that records are maintained current and entries are made on the records immediately as they occur with subsequent submission on the mandatory report of change in accordance with AFM 35-9.

5. PERSONNEL ACTIONS MEMORANDUMS (AFM 30-3): The preparation and maintenance of the Personnel Actions Memorandums files were considered unsatisfactory based on the following discrepancies:

1. PERAMs were reproduced "book" fashion instead of "tumble" fashion in violation of AFM 30-3.
2. It was noted that many personnel date changes were reported on the M/R and the PERAM, which announced the change, was not published until several days later. This was particularly true of duty assignments. It is recommended that PERAMs announcing personnel date changes be published as soon as possible after the effective date and in all cases prior to being reported on the M/R.
3. Previously published orders had not been posted to indicate subsequent amendments. This was a recurring item and is the basis for the unsatisfactory rating.

6. MILITARY PAY ORDERS: Administration of the unit finance activities was considered satisfactory. This evaluation is based on the following:

1. Preparation of PO’s and substantiating documents was satisfactory with minor isolated exceptions noted. A list of these discrepancies was left with the Adjutant for information but were of such minor nature that no significant trends were indicated.
2. Although travel time from Goose Bay Base without exception exceeded 10 hours, travel vouchers had not been submitted on newly assigned personnel to collect travel per diem from Manhattan Beach AF Station to Goose Air Base and from Goose Air Base to Resolution Island as authorized by paragraph 4152, Change 36, Joint Travel Regulations.

7. UTILIZATION AND/OR REPORTING OF PERSONNEL: Utilization of personnel was considered marginally satisfactory. This evaluation is based on the assumption that the UMD accurately reflected personnel requirements.

1. There was no evidence noted of personnel being assigned permanent duties for periods in excess of 30 days who were not reported performing such duties.
2. There were 6 airmen possessing PAFSC’s not authorized on the HMD (47250) who were performing duties outside their primary career ladders with no indication of OJT or request for waiver of Project Guidance.
3. There were 2 airmen, PAFSC 30473, assigned DAFSC 30473 when the HMD authorized only one (1).
4. There were 3 airmen performing duty in AFSC 29170 when the HMD authorized only one (1). One of these airmen held a PAFSC 29370 with DEROS June 1956. Another held PAFSC 29170 with DEROS October 1956. The third held PAFSC 29150, OJT-C for FSC 29170 with DEROS February 1957.
5. The above conditions are attributed to:
1. Unfamiliarity of OJT supervisory personnel with current Project guidance and OJT instructions.
2. Failure of higher headquarters to detect assignment of personnel who cannot be place OJT and due to the mission of the squadron, also cannot be returned to duty in their primary career ladder and subsequent failure to initiate proper reassignment action in accordance with AFR 50-38.

8. MEDICAL RECORDS GROUP: Maintenance of the Health Records portion of the Military Personnel Records Group, was considered satisfactory with the following minor exceptions:

1. Health Record – Jacket, D Form 722, and Dental Folder – Health Record, DD Form 72-1, were not on requisition. Many of the medical records on file were in these folders but they had been received that way from the ZI. It is assumed that the unit was depending on the normal attrition of personnel to complete these files. It is recommended that requisition be submitted for these folders and the medical files completed in accordance with Chapter 2, paragraph 11, AFM 35-12).

9. EFFECTIVENESS OF MANNING: The squadron was manned 95% of UMD authorized strength; however, there was evident a serious ineffectiveness of manning in supervisory and senior level personnel with significant shortages in certain area. The effectiveness of manning in supervisory (7) and senior (5) level airmen was 75% and 62% respectively. The following areas were considered critically short:

* Does not include personnel assigned but carried TDY pending E?CSA on return to the ZI.

10. PERSONAL SERVICES ACTIVITIES: Personal Services Activities were considered minimally satisfactory, based on the following:

1. There was no satisfactory area available for use as a gym other than the Motor Pool which was not available during inclement weather due to the necessity for indoor vehicle storage.
2. There was no hobby shop available. There was a limited amount of equipment in the AIO shop but it could not feasibly be made available for full time use as hobby shop equipment.
3. There was an adequate supply of fishing equipment (except there was no boat), skis, baseball, basketball, shuttlecock, and other equipment. The athletic program during the major part of the year was inadequate due to adverse weather conditions and lack of facilities for indoor participation.

11. OFF-DUTY EDUCATION PROGRAM: The off-duty education program was considered marginally satisfactory due to the non-availability of any specific evidence of participation. However, at the time of the inspection, strenuous efforts were being exerted to survey all personnel to determine which ones did not have High School diplomas with a view toward administration of the GED Test, to establish records of those currently participating in NSAFI, ECI, or other correspondence courses with emphasis on Operation Mid-night Oil, and to encourage those not participating to take a more active interest.

12. REENLISTMENT PROGRAM: The Reenlistment Program was considered satisfactory. Incoming personnel records are screened and personnel who will be returned to the ZI for separation instead of rotation have a card prepared and maintained in a card file to insure that they receive the required reenlistment interviews prior to their departure.

13. LIBRARY: Library facilities, control and accountability of reading materials, and supply of books was considered adequate.

1. Rotating book kits are regularly available from Goose Air Base as transportation permits.
2. There were no magazines available in the library. Instead, magazines purchased from the Unit Fund were distributed among the 3 lounges. Due to this 3-way split, distribution of magazines to all personnel was not considered adequate. It is recommended that magazines purchased by the Unit Fund by maintained in a control location available to all personnel on a first-come, first-served basis. Magazines for each lounge could be purchased by that activity.
3. Control of books was maintained by use of standard card system with a librarian on duty at all times during which the library was open. Hours of operation of the library were considered adequate to insure availability of books to all personnel.
4. Arrangement and pleasant surroundings in the library were considered adequate although there were accommodations only for a very limited number of personnel.

14. THEATER: Theater facilities were considered marginally adequate. Although adequate efforts had been expended by the unit in providing theatre facilities, neither the space for this purpose nor the equipment available lends itself to an attractive, comfortable theatre facility. Support by the Support Base Film Library had been adequate, limited only by available airlift. The only significant problem was the lack of projector bulbs. These bulbs have been on requisition for sometime from commercial sources in the ZI in order to continue showing movies with any regularity.

15. INDIVIDUAL MILITARY TRAINING PROGRAM: The Individual Military Training Program was considered marginally satisfactory. This is based on a satisfactory General Military Training Program, a satisfactory C&E Training Program and unsatisfactory administration of the OJT Program.

1. GENERAL MILITARY TRAINING PROGRAM (NEAC Regulation 50-1, Division manual 50-3, and Division Regulations 50-5, 50-6, and 50-7): Current directives were being maintained with the exception of Division Manual 50-3, which was on requisition; personnel assigned as instructors were considered qualified; Individual Training Records, NEAC Form 14’s (formerly NEAC Form 50-10), were being maintained; lecture outlines were being prepared and all available training aids were being used; when films were used, a short discussion was held in conjunction with them; training received was evaluated by use of a short question and answer period at the conclusion of the lecture. Specific deficiencies are as follows:
1. NCO Leadership Training was not being conducted but the unit was in the process of implementation of the program.
2. There were no records of Base Defense Training or Arctic survival Training.
3. There were no records of Intelligence Training as required by Division Regulation 200-1?.
2. COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS TRAINING (Division Manual 50-2): An officers was appointed custodian of the C&E training and testing material; the best qualified instructor personnel were being used; all assigned radar and communications personnel are required to participate in the program; minimum training requirements were being accomplished as prescribed; required training reports were being submitted; and locally prepared course outlines and testing materials were being forwarded to this headquarters as required.
3. SQUADRON OJT PROGRAM (NEAC Manual 52-1 as supplemented by Division Manual 50-1, AFR 52-2): A well stocked training library was available for all personnel; the Training Officer was accountable for all training material and personnel were required to sign for such material when taking it out of the library; pertinent training directives were on hand and current. Specific discrepancies were as follows:
1. The OJT Officer was not specifically designated on PERAM.
2. There were several cases of personnel eligible for OJT who were not in training. In most cases, this applied to positions at the 7 level which were occupied by A/1C with PAFSC at the 5 level who should have been placed OJT pending arrival of qualified replacements.
3. Copies of monthly examinations were not being forwarded to Division in accordance with current instructions.
4. Maintenance of the OJT Folders was not in accordance with NEAC Manual 52-1 in that they did not contain a copy of the Request for OJT (NEAC Form 16 – formerly NEAC Form 50-13), a copy of the PERAM announcing the OJT, and a copy of the AF Form 623.
5. There were some isolated cases of AF Form 623’s not being signed by the trainee to signify his acknowledgement of his status.
6. NEAC Form 16 was not on hand nor was it on requisition. A locally reproduced form (as show in Division Manual 50-1 but rescinded by the errata sheet) was being used and was maintained in the individual’s AF Form 4.
7. The volume of directive and policy material disseminated by higher headquarters by TWX and letter and pertinent to training was believed excessive and hampered the administration of the program by causing extra research and increased workload in keeping the files current. It is recommended that all policy material be disseminated by use of number changes to establish directives to decrease this workload.
8. Personnel responsible for supervision of the OJT Program evidenced unfamiliarity with pertinent policies and directives. This unfamiliarity was attributed to the fact that duty as OJT Officer was an additional duty of the Squadron Training Officer, which also an additional duty. Due to the fact that OJT is a separate and distinct function from the General Military Training Program and because of its close relationship with the Personnel function, it is recommended that duties of the OJT Officer be assigned to the Adjutant, with the supervision of the General Military Training Program continuing as the responsibility of the Squadron Training Officer.
9. No positive determination was made of the final product upon completion of OJT courses. However, it is believed that the Program is serving its intended purpose, despite the administrative deficiencies.

1. GENERAL: Administrative activities and functions generally reflected marginally satisfactory standard of effectiveness and efficiency.

1. Irregularities and/or deficiencies previously reported and not corrected at the time of this inspection consisted of the following:
1. Special Orders are not being properly annotated when amendments are issued.
2. NEAC Form 126, "Security Certificate", had not been accomplished and filed in individual records and duty section for all personnel having access to classified material.
3. Test "Safeguarding Military Information", (NEAC Form 139) has not been administered to all personnel having access to classified material.
4. DD Form 520, "Locator Card", had not been accomplished on all assigned or attached personnel.
2. Supervisory personnel were not considered adequately familiar with their individual duties and responsibilities. Other unit operating personnel observed, evidenced marginally satisfactory knowledge of prescribed procedures relating to their duties and responsibilities.
3. Functioning memorandum were generally adequate to insure clear delineation of responsibility, specific designation of procedures and to provide continuity of operation. Specific inadequacies existed in implementing procedures for Control, Accountability and Safeguarding of Material, Forms Management and Records Management Program.
4. Conditions commented upon in detail in subsequent paragraphs are attributed to shortage of personnel, ineffective supervision, lack of familiarity of supervisory and operating personnel with prescribed procedures relating to their duties and responsibilities, and, lack of adequate unit directives and guides to provide continuity of operation, clear delineation of responsibility and designation of specific procedures.

2. PUBLICATIONS: Maintenance of the file of administrative publications was considered unsatisfactory based on the following observed conditions:

1. Indexes to AFR, NEACR, 64^th ADDR and Squadron Numbered Memoranda are not being properly posted.

1. AF, NEAC, & 64^th AD (D) publications, received after indexes, are being indicated by line number in the space providing at the end of each series.
2. Black, red and blue check marks are not being employed to indicate status of publications, that is, black for on hand, red for not on hand, required and on requisition, blue for not on hand and not required.
3. Publications superseding themselves (same number – new date) are being listed in the space provided at the end of the index instead of entering new dates in the basic index.

1. There was no evidence of a responsible officer having inspected the publications files to insure proper maintenance.
2. In most cases, changes to publications are not posted to the basic directive and filed immediately in front of the basic.
3. There was no evidence of AF Form 91 and NEAC Form 1 (Publications Requirements Tables) having been submitted to the support base for automatic distribution of publications.
4. Although required publications had been requisitioned, there was no evidence of follow-up action being taken on these publications not received as a result of these requisitions.
5. Squadron Numbered Memorandum 5-3 authorizes publication of Squadron Numbered Memorandum and Squadron Standing Operating Procedures.
1. Squadron SOP’s are published by the individual sections and authenticated by the Adjutant for coordination purposes only. It was recommended that responsibility for authentication of SOP’s be delegated to the preparing activity with coordination by the Unit Commander prior to publication.

3. FORMS MANAGEMENT: Although a Forms Management Officer had been appointed for the unit and the required directives and publications pertinent to the proper administration of the form programs were on hand, the Forms Management Program was considered unsatisfactory. The basis for this evaluation consists of the following observed conditions.

1. A file had not been established for each local form containing a copy of DD Form 67, "Request and Justification for Approval of Form", original and final draft of form and all correspondence pertaining to it.
2. A functional file utilizing codes prescribed by Interim Change #1 to AFM 9-1 was not being maintained.
3. An index to local forms had not been published.
4. In most cases, local forms do not have form numbers, dates, or, supersession notices. Examples of the discrepancies are:
1. Unit Form AH 3.2-1 – no date
2. Unit Form AH 3.53 – revised 27 Jul 53, no supersession notice.
3. Unit Form AH 8.21 – no form number or date when published. Form number added in ink after reproduction.
5. Squadron Numbered Memorandum 9-1, "Assignment of Control Symbols to Squadron Forms", does not conform to the requirements established by AFM 9-1 and 64^th ADDR 9-1.
6. Local unit forms were in use which duplicated higher headquarters forms. Examples of these are:
1. AH 3.21-2, "Reports Due Notice" duplicates NEAC Form 117, "Reports Control Suspense Slip".
2. AH 6.53, "Work Order Request", duplicates AF Form 332, "Work Order Requests".
3. AH 10.46 duplicates DD Form 789, "Unit Punishment Records".
7. AF, NEAC, and 64^th AD (D) Regulation 9-2, on hand in Unit Supply, were not posted to indicate blank forms requirements for the unit.
8. There was no evidence of an informal record of consumption of blank forms to determine appropriate stock levels to be maintained.
9. A system has not been established to periodically screen forms on hand against current or new index resulting in obsolete forms maintained in stock.
10. Requisitions had been submitted for necessary forms but there was no evidence of follow-up action being taken on requisitions not filled or acknowledged.

4. RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. The Records Management Program for this unit was considered unsatisfactory. The basis for this evaluation consists of the following observed conditions:

1. A Records Officer had been appointed instead of an Assistance Records Officer, as prescribed by NEACSUP-1/AFR 181-1.
2. The proper filing supplies and equipment such as guides, folders, etc., as outlined by AFM 181-4 are not on hand for maintenance of files. Supplies were requisitioned Nov 55 with no evidence of follow-up action being taken.
3. Records Control Schedule (AF Forms 296 and 296A) were not on file in each office maintaining files.
4. Squadron Numbered Memorandum outlining specific procedures for the systematic and prompt screening of records and designating sub-offices of record had not been published.
5. The unclassified correspondence files of the Operations, Communications and Air Installations sections were not arranged subjectively in accordance with AFM 181-4.
6. In no instances were the classified correspondence files for the unit arranged subjectively in accordance with AFM 181-4.
7. There was no evidence of systematic procedures established for the periodic disposal of transitory material.
8. There was no indication of the Assistant Records Officer monitoring the prompt and orderly disposition of non-current records.
9. There was no evidence of records being screened for disposal against current Records Control Schedules as outlined by paragraph 22, AFM 181-5.
10. Although in most cases, correspondence to be filed was initialled, there was no evidence that a responsible person was marking the correspondence "FILE" and initialling as authorization for this file action.

5. ORDERS. Administrative orders were being maintained and published in a satisfactory manner with the following exceptions:

1. The first numbered Letter Order for 1956 did not indicate cross the top of the order the last of the series for 1955.
2. Amendments, in some cases, are not being posted to the record copy of the order amended.
3. Orders are not reproduced in tumble fashion (head to feet) when there is more than one page.
4. In some cases, the amending orders do not contain complete information necessary to identify the amended order by omitting identification of action directed, date of order and/or name of individual concerned.
5. Background material, for orders involving actions other than rotation action, is not being maintained. Appointments of boards, fire wardens, and other such actions are being accomplished on orders by verbal requests.

6. REPORTS CONTROL SYSTEM. An adequate system for suspense and control of recurring reports had been established, however, local unit forms were being used in lieu of NEAC Form 116, "Reports Control Card" and NEAC Form 117. "Reports Control Suspense Slip".

7. CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL AND ROUTING. Control and routing of correspondence was considered adequate with realistic suspense dates being assigned, establishment of a system under the control of the Adjutant for the expeditious handling and coordinating of electrical messages and other types of correspondence and the thorough checking of outgoing correspondence for conciseness and format.

8. CONTROL, ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFEGUARDING OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. Although the practice developed by the organization for the control and accountability of classified material are generally adequate, no written instructions have bee issued directing specific procedures to be followed in accounting for, controlling and safeguarding of this type of material and implementing actions observed are inadequate. The following significant deficiencies observed resulted in an unsatisfactory overall rating:

1. An information card was not affixed or current on the inside of the top drawer of the following sages as required by the 64^th ADDR 205-3:

1. Safe #1 – Adjutant’s Office
2. Safe #2 – Operations Office
3. Sub-Branch Exchange Safe – Safe number and priority also missing.

1. Although a supply of NEAC Form 126, "Security Certificate", was on hand, forms had not been accomplished for all personnel handling or having access to classified material and placed in the individuals records and filed in the duty section as required by paragraph 3, NEACR 205-4.
2. DD Form 98, "Loyalty Certificate", had not been accomplished and placed in the Field Personnel Records for the following personnel having security clearance:
1. Captain Nordyke (TOP SECRET)
2. Lt. Lacy (SECRET)
3. M/Sgt. Jamison (SECRET)
4. S/Sgt. Batty (SECRET)
3. There was no evidence of inventories being performed on classified material in the possession of individuals about to be or having been transferred, discharged or separated from the organization.
4. A system established to periodically inventory and correlate central control logs with those maintained by separate sections was not in evidence.
5. There was no evidence of being made in writing for the downgrading or declassifying of classified material originated by the unit as required by paragraph 26c(1), AFR 205-1
6. Procedures had not been established for the continuous review of all classified material, originated by the unit, for possible downgrading or declassifying.
7. Although cover sheets for classified material were available for use, individuals were observed transferring documents between operating sections without covers.
8. Test "Safeguarding Military Information" (NEAC Form 139), had not been administered personnel having access to classified material.
9. Training records and schedules reflect no evidence of security indoctrination lectures being given.
10. In some instances, intra-unit or section classified documents are not being accounted for and controlled by the central control log of classified material maintained by the Custodian of Classified Material.
11. Adequate procedures have not been developed for the emergency destruction and/or evacuation of classified material and implementing actions have not been effected to provide this unit with a practical capability in this matter.
1. No central supervision or control has been exercised over required section implementing actions or status of unit capability to implement plans.
2. Existing plans fail to clearly delineate responsibilities and to designate specific procedures necessary to insure effective implementation.
3. Classified material has not been identified or earmarked for destruction or evacuation dependent upon its essentiality to continued unit functioning.
4. The SOP for Operations, Radar Maintenance and Communications provide no procedures for emergency destruction of classified material.

9. FOOD SERVICE ACTIVITIES. The quality, quantity and attractiveness of meals served, dining hall cleanliness and attractiveness and maintenance of high standards of sanitation by food service personnel are demonstrative of aggressive supervision as well as an intimate familiarity of supervisory and operating personnel with their duties and responsibilities. Despite these noteworthy conditions, the administration of the food service activity is considered marginally satisfactory based upon the following significant deficiencies. The conditions depreciating the effectiveness of this function are attributed primarily to the lack of familiarity of prior supervisory personnel with proscribed procedures incident to their duties and responsibilities.

1. Mess attendants are not provided from the duty roster. (Reference paragraph 13 of this attachment).
2. Although a NEAC Form 9A, "Food Handlers Certificate", was displayed for each of the permanent food handlers assigned to the unit, three certificates reflected overdue annual physicals required by AFR 160-91. Due to the adverse transportation conditions existing at installations of this type and a shortage of qualified personnel, temporary duty for the purpose of annual physicals is impractical. It is recommended that procedures be established for the accomplishment of this type of physical by the 6606^th Air Base Wing for food handlers while in pineline status.
3. AF Forms 1251, "Daily Attendance Record", are not being certified by the Food Service Officer as to the accuracy of the headcount.
4. AF Form 84B, "Service Stock Balance Record", was not being maintained to control subsistence supplies. There was no evidence of these forms having been requisitioned.
5. Storage diagrams were not displayed in the temperature controlled or dry storage warehouses.
6. Disorderly and unsanitary maintenance of the garbage deck. Although wet garbage was properly stored in covered GI cans, accumulations of trash such as cans, empty bottles, papers and cartons, presented an unsightly and unsanitary condition.
7. Food service equipment stored in dry storage warehouse in excess of requirements. It is recommended that this equipment be put in use or turned into supply for disposition.
8. Lack of pertinent publications and required blank forms necessary for the proper administration of the food service activities.
9. During the course of this inspection, a shortage of qualified food service personnel was observed. Following is a breakdown of authorized and assigned strength presently available to perform food service duties:

* 1 – emergency leave/1 May rotatee

10. GROUND SAFETY. Administration of the Ground Safety Program for this unit was considered satisfactory. Minutes of the Ground Safety Council meetings are posted on the unit bulletin board and included ground safety hazards encountered and corrective action taken to alleviate these conditions. Supervisory personnel aggressively support the program and this subject receives vigorous personal participation by the Unit Commander.

11. BULLETIN BOARD. The maintenance of the bulletin board was considered satisfactory. The bulletin board is centrally located and divided into sections for permanent, temporary and immediate reading material. General appearance of the bulletin board was neat and orderly with fire regulations and uniform policies prominently displayed.

12. ORGANIZATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL CHARTS. With minor exceptions, organizational and functional charts generally reflected satisfactory maintenance.

1. Although an adequate supply of NEAC Form 143, "Chain of Command Job Description", was not on hand, existing job description were generally adequate and reflected clear delineation of responsibility, specific designation of procedures to provide continuity of operation.

13. DUTY ROSTERS. Maintenance of the duty rosters for the unit was considered to be unsatisfactory, based on the following discrepancies:

1. Although the unit First Sergeant maintains the duty roster, assignment of mess attendants is accomplished by operating sections with no assurance of an equitable distribution of mess attendants in that the roster was merely a record of details performed for the previous month.
2. Duty rosters were not being disposed of after 6 months as required by paragraph 369, AFM 181-5. Rosters dating back to January 1954 were in evidence.

14. UNIT PUNISHMENT BOX. The maintenance of the Unit Punishment Book was considered satisfactory with the exception of the use of Unit Form AH 10.46 to record non-judicial punishment not involving reduction in lieu of DD Form 789, "Unit Punishment Record". There was no evidence of DD Form 789 having been requisitioned.

15. UNIT FUND. The maintenance of the Unit Fund receipts, Minutes of the Unit Fund Council and inventories of existing property was considered satisfactory with the exception that a copy of the Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Unit Fund Council was not posted on the unit bulletin board.

16. UNIT MAIL ROOM. With the following exceptions, operation of the Unit Mail Room was considered satisfactory with operating personnel displaying adequate familiarization with directives pertinent to this function:

1. Although an up to date locator file was being maintained on all personnel assigned, attached and transferred, a 3X5 card was in use in lieu of DD Form 520. a requisition had been submitted approximately 3 Mar 56 for this form but to date requisition had not been filled.
2. No AF Form 305, Change of Address, were available. DD Form 415 was being used for this purpose.
3. At the time of the inspection a Postal Clerk from Detachment 4, 6^th Air Postal Squadron, Frobisher Bay, was visiting the unit. This unit was paid on the 9^th of April and at that time no Postal Clerk accompanied the paymaster for the purpose of issuing money orders, selling stamps and insuring packages.

17. INFIRMARY. As a result of a review of the security of drugs, narcotics registers, publications and cleanliness, this activity was considered generally satisfactory with the following exceptions:

1. A record of consumption is not maintained to determine required stock levels and annual requirements for reordering purposes.
2. Publications were being maintained in a disorderly manner and changes, in some cases, were not posted to the basic directive.
3. An accumulation of dust was observed in the treatment room on the following:
1. Top of narcotics cabinet.
2. Working stand for treatment table
3. Desk.
4. At the time of this inspection the dentist from 6650^th Air Base Squadron, Frobisher Bay, was visiting this unit for the purpose of accomplishing a dental survey of all assigned personnel and completing the necessary dental work. This being first visit to this site of a dental or medical officer for a period in excess of 12 months, medical support afforded this installation is considered inadequate.

18. SUB-BRANCH EXCHANGE. Availability of health and welfare items, adequacy of display, housekeeping practices and hours of operations of the exchange were considered generally satisfactory with the following exceptions:

1. Security of the Exchange sales room and the stock room was considered inadequate in that the windows of these rooms are not protected by metal bars or heavy wire mesh. Outside area of the buildings affords relatively easy access to these windows.
2. Supervisory support by the parent exchange was considered to be inadequate in that there was no evidence of a visit by the N-Site Exchange Supervisor for a period of 12 months.

19. OFFICERS’ LOUNGE. This activity provides for a comfortable, attractively decorated adequate facility for the leisure activities of the assigned officers. Housekeeping practices were considered satisfactory. The organization of this activity under prescribed directives is not considered practicable by this and other like units in consideration of the few assigned officers as opposed to the complex accounting procedures required, stringent internal controls between operations and accounting functions imposed and the complex organization established by existing directives. It is considered necessary that higher headquarters provide direction which will permit the operation of such informal facilities without the necessity of conforming to the complex procedures established for the operation of non-appropriated funds. Despite the adequacy of services provided by this facility, the administration of the Officers’ Lounge is considered unsatisfactory. The bases of this evaluation consists of the following deficiencies observed:

1. This activity is not organized and established in accordance with NEACR 176-3.
2. Accounting procedures reflecting receipts, disbursements, and financial condition are not as prescribed by AFM 177-4.
3. Inadequate internal controls are established between operations and accounting functions.
4. Inadequate security is provided merchandise and limited bar funds on hand.

20. NCO OPEN MESS. This facility has been organized and established in accordance with NEACR 176-3 on 1 April 1956. This activity provided a comfortable, attractive facility for the leisure activities of its members. While the accounting procedures are not as prescribed by AFM 177-4, generally adequate interim accounting procedures have been implemented pending receipt of required publications. Housekeeping practices, security of merchandise and funds and command supervision were considered satisfactory. The limited period this activity has been organized did not justify the performance of an audit of this fund. The following deficiencies were noted:

1. Transactions of the Mess are conducted on a cash basis in lieu of check.
2. Inadequate storage is available for inventory maintained.
3. The function of the Mess Secretary ad bar tender precludes effective internal control between operational and accounting functions.
4. Vouchers are not maintained in substantiation of expenditures for entertainment and bingo prizes.
5. Separate account is not maintained for entertainment and is included under miscellaneous.
6. There is an excessive overage/shortage in daily cash receipts.
7. Daily inventories are not conducted of liquor inventories.
8. Income withholding tax is not being deducted from wages of employees.

21. AIRMAN’S LOUNGE. Although this activity generally provided adequate leisure time facilities and reflected satisfactory housekeeping practices, the administration of this activity was considered unsatisfactory based on the following observed deficiencies:

1. This activity is not organized or established in accordance with NEACR 176-3.
2. Accounting procedures reflecting receipts, disbursements, financial condition, etc., are not as prescribed by AFM 177-4. Informal accounting procedures employed are not adequate to accurately reflect the financial condition of this activity.
3. Safeguarding of funds is inadequate. Money is stored in locally manufactured, ¾ inch plywood cabinet, secured with small lock and hasp.
4. Inadequate internal controls established between operations and accounting functions.
5. Facilities are not available for the washing of glassware.

22. BARBER SHOP. Facilities and operation of the Unit Barber Shop were considered unsatisfactory based on the following observed conditions:

1. Barber shop is located in a BAQ area in violation of paragraph 4a, AFR 160-14.
2. There was no hot and cold running water available in the Barber Shop.
3. Available razor straps were observed in an unclean condition.
4. Hand tools are wiped with a towel after each use due to lack of water facilities for washing.
5. There is only one set of tools on hand for use by the barber precluding disinfection of tools between successive patrons.

BILLETS. Airmen and NCO billets generally reflected satisfactory maintenance of adequate standards of cleanliness and orderliness. Maintenance of Officers’ billets generally revealed the necessity of additional emphasis, effort and supervision with respect to the maintenance of higher standards of orderliness and cleanliness. Civilian billets generally reflected unsatisfactory maintenance of desired standards of cleanliness and orderliness and presented fire hazards consisting of unemptied ashtrays, cigarette butts in waste paper baskets with combustible trash and evidence of smoking in bed. Conditions necessitating increased emphasis and effort consisted of the following:

1. Accumulations of dust on light fixtures, mirror moldings, and door frames.
2. Disorderly dresser drawers.
3. Exit lights missing or inoperative.
4. Several lights in latrines burned out.
5. Ashtrays with cigarette butts place in dresser drawers with combustible material.
6. Unsightly shower curtains.
7. In several instances, shoes displayed were in unserviceable condition.
8. Inadequate quantities of paint and supplies have precluded painting of the corridors and individual rooms. It is recommended that every effort be made to obtain the necessary paint and supplies and that personnel be encouraged to paint their individual rooms to add to the attractiveness of their billets. It is also recommended that on a time available basis corridors be painted.

1. GENERAL. Operations activities and functions generally reflected satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency. It is considered, however, that there are existing factors that seriously limit the capability of this squadron in adequately performing it’s secondary mission. The significant limiting deficiencies are lack of current navigational aid reference material and the negligible capability possessed by the squadron in implementing active and passive defense plans.

1. The operations officer was not in complete functional control of Radar Maintenance and Communications however the chain of command was well defined with no confusing or contradictory orders of procedures in evidence within the sections.
2. A previously reported deficiency was noted in that an operational crew training program had not been established.
3. Functional SOP’s and plans were generally adequate to insure clear delineation of responsibility, specific designation of procedures and to provide continuity of operations. Exceptions were as follows:

1. SOP on the description, capability and limitation of equipment used was not on hand.
2. There was no internal communications net SOP.
3. Fire and evacuation plans for operations were not readily available.
4. There was no SOP for the emergency evacuation and/or destruction of classified material.

1. With the exception of minor deficiencies, the following functions and activities were reviewed and considered satisfactory:
1. Operational Records
2. Management of personnel and equipment resources with the operations section
3. Recording and telling procedures and the disposition of records.
4. The preparation and adherence to Preventative Maintenance schedule.
5. Weather reporting procedures.
6. Locally produced operational and calibration charts and status boards.
7. Alert procedures.

2. PUBLICATIONS AND REFERENCE MATERIAL. The maintenance of publications and the control and accountability of classified documents in the CIF was considered with the following exceptions:

1. Rules of engagement examination for the ASO was not on file.
2. There were no operations crew training records.
3. Some publications required in the CIF were not readily available.
4. The CIF index was not complete.
5. There were obsolete regulations on file.
6. SOP’s were in the CIF that were not required by 64^th ADDM 55-2 as required for immediate reference by control personnel.
7. The lack of current NavAid reference material seriously limits the unit’s capability to perform its secondary mission. The lack of let-down plates for landing fields in this area. The lack of current maps, supplementary flight data and local topographic features for this locality were considered the basis for this evaluation.

3. SURVEILLANCE. Minor discrepancies of deficiencies noted in this activity were brought to the attention of operations personnel and were corrected during the inspection or action was initiated for correction of compliance at a later date. It was noted that:

1. The physical features of the Operations room did not conform to standard layouts but was so arranged to provide adequate washing and storage space and to facilitate necessary co ordinations in surveillance procedures. 15-J-1C equipment as an internal part of the operations room promoted effectiveness in training and training supervision. Deficiencies reducing the effectiveness of this facility consisted of the following:
1. Lighting and readability of the plotting and status boards was considered unsatisfactory. This condition is based on the difficulty experienced in reading the boards from all positions due to inadequate lighting, the use of grease pencils for lettering and reference lines and the lack of plexi-glass cleaner.
2. It is also considered that insufficient guidance, information and/or assistance has been provided this squadron by 64^th AD (D) relative to the rehabilitation and installation of fluorescent perimeter lights over plotting and status boards.
2. Radio monitoring of specified frequencies was being accomplished with a generally low overall raise level in the operations room. Satisfactory housekeeping practices were observed and operations room security was considered adequate.
3. The lack of an operational crew training program and related records and progress charts, the fact that UPA-37 equipment is not installed, the lack of actual ECM missions against this station and the unfamiliarity evidenced by personnel relative the requirements necessary to effectively perform the secondary squadron mission reflected an unsatisfactory condition and is considered a limiting factor in the performance of the unit’s mission.
4. Supervisory personnel evidenced marginally satisfactory familiarity with their duties and responsibilities. Other operational personnel observed evidenced marginally satisfactory knowledge of prescribed procedures pertinent to their duties.
5. 64^th Air Division had failed to provide the squadron with all USAF interceptor aircraft performance data.
6. TPS 502 equipment was operational and effective up to the practical theoretical range of the equipment. Accurate height information has been limited to approximately 60% of the calculated theoretical range. The present criteria employed in evaluating their equipment in the V-4 report consist primarily of actual hours versus programmed hours. Based on the lack of definitions of height information requirements, the unreliability of line of sight methods employing uncalibrated beams of the FPS 502 and the inherent unreliability of this height finding equipment, the Commander’s estimate of capability for their equipment cannot be realistically evaluated.
7. Quality control procedures were conducted in accordance with pertinent directives and personnel evidenced satisfactory general knowledge of their duties and responsibilities pertinent to this program including, maintenance of records, analysis of data and the employment of this data in conducting the necessary radar maintenance. Quality control data reflected a 98% average of the radar coverage indicator figures. There was no evidence of recent radar evaluation by the 6630^th Rev flight.
8. The Operations Section was manned on a basis to provide continued operations with no significant manning problems noted.

4. COMMUNICATIONS. Supervisory personnel of this activity were adequately familiar with communications capabilities as it pertained to the units mission and their individual responsibilities. Operations personnel were adequately indoctrinated in proper communications usage.

1. Pole Vault communications circuits adequately supported the tactical and administrative requirements of the organization. Lack of net schedules, stringent limitations on usage and lack of specific guidance from higher headquarters relative the use of this equipment precluded realistic evaluation of the effectiveness of this facility.

5. EASA. The Operations Officer was the duly appointed custodian of the EASA file and had an alternate appointee in accordance with current directives. It was noted that all personnel were generally familiar with their responsibilities pertinent to implementation of EASA directives. Delegation of responsibility to individual sections concerned had been made, however, the necessary planning by sections precluded effective implementation of EASA directives immediately upon notification. It was recommended that responsible staff sections review their directives and accomplish the necessary plans for effective implementation.

6. UNIT TRAINING. Passive and active base defense plans were available but a sufficient number of deficiencies existed in the plans and the ability of personnel to successfully implement them to consider this phase of unit training unsatisfactory. This condition is based on the following:

1. Installations nor personnel had been designated categories I, II, or III.
2. Base defense plan did not designate specialized teams.
3. The Base Defense plan did not contain a generalization of passive defense requirements.
4. Civilian employees role in passive defense covered only one squadron activity. (A10).
5. Command Post designations wee too numerous to prove effective.
6. There were no procedures for implementing the passive defense plan independently of complete base defense deployment.
7. Annexes to the base defense plan were not adequate to insure clear delineation of responsibility and specific designation of procedures.
8. Priorities were not established for the evacuation of equipment and personnel in the base defense plan.
9. There were no procedures for the sandbagging or revetting of critical facilities.
10. There was no indication of prescribed equipment other than small arms for designated category I, II, and III personnel during execution of passive and active defense plans.
11. Procedures for the demolition of certain critical facilities have not been established in sufficient detail to insure effective executions.
12. Black-out procedures have not been established.
13. Gas mask have not been individually fitted nor procedures for issuance established.
14. Personnel assigned specialized teams had received no supplementary or specialized training relative their duties.

SECTION 1 – GENERAL. Radar, communications, Motor Pool, and AIO maintenance activities and functions generally reflected satisfactory effectiveness and efficiency.

1. Irregularities and/or deficiencies previously reported and not corrected at the time of this inspection consisted of the following:

1. Technical Order Indices were out-dated.
2. Some items of Air Force property, spare components, and test equipment were not tagged in accordance with AFM 67-1 in the Radar Maintenance and Motor Pool sections.

2. Supervisory personnel generally demonstrated an aggressive sense of responsibility and displayed considerable initiative and resourcefulness in the development of improved operations, practices, and procedures. Other operating personnel evidenced satisfactory familiarity with prescribed procedures pertinent to their duties and responsibilities.

3. Some Squadron functional SOP’s were in the process of revision but other functional SOP’s were considered adequate to insure clear delineation of responsibilities, specific designation of procedures, and continuity of operation.

4. Radar, Communications Maintenance, and Diesel Generating Plant personnel were receiving monthly First Aid instructions and reflected satisfactory standards of training.

5. House-keeping practices generally reflected the maintenance of satisfactory standards of cleanliness and orderliness.

6. The Ground Safety Program in these sections evidenced satisfactory conditions and practices.

7. The maintenance of Fire Protection equipment was satisfactory with no fire hazards observed.

8. A review of Unsatisfactory Reports, required forms and familiarity of responsible personnel with the purpose and procedures of the Product Improvement Program revealed generally satisfactory progress, emphasis, and effort by this unit in the implementation of the Program.

SECTION II – RADAR MAINTENANCE. Radar maintenance activities and functions generally reflected satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency.

9. Publications: The maintenance of technical publications was considered marginally satisfactory. It was noted that generally, amendments had been posted to the basic publications; non-current publications were promptly removed from the files; Publications Requirements Tables reflect the designation of required publications for automatic distribution; and required publications not on hand have been requisitioned. A Publications Familiarization Chart was properly maintained, containing publications pertinent to Radar Maintenance functions, listing assigned personnel and reflecting satisfactory progress in required reading. Although publications on hand appeared generally adequate to meet the technical requirements of this activity, the basis of the above overall evaluation consisted of the following:

1. Technical Order Indices were not annotated in accordance with T.0.00-5-1.
2. There was no evidence of responsible officer inspecting the technical publications files.
3. Technical Order Indices were not current and precluded any realistic evaluation of current technical publications required.

10. Forms and Records: The maintenance of pertinent forms and records was considered generally satisfactory. Radar Daily Logs were properly maintained; PM cards were posted to the PM Schedule Chart and the "Work to be done" Log was being effectively utilized for programming future maintenance and repair; inspections and maintenance performed on the radomes, pressurization and wind indicating equipment were being entered in the maintenance logs as required. The following deficiency was observed:

1. Daily/Weekly Performance Checks and In-Service Observation Cards were not being utilized and readings were not entered in the Daily Log.

11. Preventative Maintenance. A review of in-service observations, measurements, and adjustments to locate potential problems and to initiate necessary corrective action; in-service preventative maintenance using appropriate maintenance and inspection guides and schedules; and out of service preventative maintenance practices and procedures generally reflected satisfactory standards of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of management resources. Maintenance personnel were adequately familiar with normal emergency operation of radome pressurization equipment; a comprehensive and complete SOP has been established with particular emphasis on emergency operation; and frequent inspections and maintenance are performed on radomes, pressurization, and wind indicator equipment. Significant deficiencies observed consisted of the following:

1. Although in-service observations, maintenance, and inspection are being effectively performed, they are not being conducted in accordance with the Daily/Weekly Performance Checks and In-Service Observation Cards.
2. Although spare components generally were properly stored and test equipment was employed and stored in accordance with pertinent Technical Orders, some items of test equipment and spare components were not tagged as to repairable or serviceable condition in accordance with AFM 67-1.
3. No radar personnel had been appointed as Section Inspector on PERAMs prescribed by AFM 67-1.
4. An auxiliary power source, independent of the primary generating equipment and distribution system, was not available for emergency operation of the Sheldon radome pressurization system.

SECTION III – COMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE. Communications maintenance activities and functions generally reflected satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency.

12. Publications. Maintenance of Technical Orders was considered unsatisfactory due to the following deficiencies:

1. A limited number of required Technical Orders were on hand. Other Technical Orders that were required but not on hand were on requisition.
2. An index governing required Technical Orders was not on hand.
3. A Publications Familiarization Chart was not maintained to insure familiarity of assigned personnel with pertinent publications.

13. Forms and Records. This section was maintaining locally devised forms and records in lieu of the forms required by TO 31-1-10. A locally compile Master Maintenance Schedule was being used to perform preventative maintenance. The limited number of AFTO Form 43’s on hand were in use. Other forms and materials to comply with TO 31-1-10 were on requisition. The maintenance of other forms and records was considered satisfactory.

14. Preventative Maintenance. Preventative maintenance was being performed in accordance with the locally compiled Master Maintenance Schedule and was being performed in a satisfactory method.

SECTION IV - MOTOR POOL. Motor Pool functions and activities generally reflected satisfactory standards of operation and maintenance practices with the exception of unsatisfactory maintenance of technical publications.

15. Publications: The maintenance of technical publication files reflected unsatisfactory standards of effectiveness based upon the following deficiencies:

1. An index governing required Technical Orders was not on hand.
2. Only a limited number of required Technical Orders were on hand. Those Technical Orders required but not on hand were on requisition.
3. Technical Orders on hand, Technical Bulletins, and Technical Manuals were not re-numbered with the latest TO number.
4. A Publication Familiarization Chart was not maintained to insure familiarity of assigned personnel with pertinent publications.

16. Forms and Records: A review of forms and records revealed satisfactory maintenance with the exception that the following forms were not on hand nor on requisition.

1. AFTO Forms 4, 4A, 7, 7A, and 11.
2. There was no record of an annual hydra-static test having been accomplished on stationary air compressors as required by TO 3441-1-171. The accomplishment of this test is beyond the capabilities of this squadron in that they aren’t authorized the necessary equipment.

17. Preventive Maintenance. A spot check of seven of fourteen operational vehicles revealing no significant deficiencies in operators’ maintenance practices. The only deficiencies noted were:

1. Items of Air Force property and some spare parts were not tagged as to serviceable or repairable condition in accordance with AFM 67-1.
2. An Inspector had not been designated on PERAM to sign serviceable or repairable tags as required by AFM 167-1.

18. Vehicle Status. Of the authorized vehicles, the following were either VDP or in storage:

1. 1 each, Jeep, ¼ ton, 4X4. VDP for connecting rods and bearings.
2. 1 each, Tractor, crawler, Caterpillar D-8. VDP for master clutch assembly, fuel injection system, starter pinion group and radiator tank assembly. This vehicle is excess to the unit’s requirements and authorization has been obtained to cannibalize for parts.
3. 2 each, Snow-Mobile. Pickled and placed in outside storage.
4. 1 each, Carry-all. Pickled and placed in outside storage.

19. Operator Training: An aggressive Operator’s Training Program is in effect emphasizing defensive driving habits, safety practices, and vehicle operation. Licensing of operators is confined to the minimum required for unit functions as a measure of added control and more intensive supervision.

SECTION V – AIR INSTALLATIONS MAINTENANCE. Air Installation maintenance and operations activities and functions generally reflects satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency.

20. Diesel Power Plant. Diesel Power Plant functions and activities generally reflected satisfactory standards of operation and maintenance practices.

1. Publications. All required publications were on hand but the maintenance of the publications file was considered to be marginally satisfactory due to the following deficiencies:

1. In Index governing required TO’s was not on hand.
2. Technical Orders had not been renumbered to latest TO numbers.
3. Technical Orders were not filed in numerical order.
4. A Publications Familiarization Reading Chart was not being maintained nor were Technical Orders initialled to reflect required reading by all assigned personnel.

1. Forms and Records. Required forms and records were being adequately maintained with the exception that there was no record of a yearly hydro-static test having been performed on stationary air compressor accumulating tanks as required by TO 34 Y1-1-171. The accomplishment of this test is beyond the capabilities of this Squadron in that they are not authorized the necessary equipment.
2. Preventive Maintenance. Operators preventive maintenance was being satisfactorily performed with no discrepancies noted. Maintenance practices was aggressive and effective. Considerable resourcefulness and initiative were displayed in replumbing the complete cooling system to provide the capability of isolating individual units.
1. Three of the eleven installed generating units were in operation, two supplying base power and one supplying "TECH" power. One unit was in-operative awaiting a D.C. exciter which was placed on requisition in October 1955. To date this has received no supply section. 64^th ADDR 65-5 provides for the submission of a report (RCS 64K3) when abnormal procurement time experienced in obtaining necessary supply action. Although this procurement time is excessive this Unit has not reported the condition as prescribed.
2. The unit is encountering considerable difficulty in obtaining required parts for necessary maintenance and no stock level of spares is on land. A parts catalog is not available to this unit and has resulted in inadequate supply action by the Support Base.
3. Parts catalog are unavailable for the Young Radiator Cooling system and the Johnson Control system resulting in comparable conditions indicated above.
4. Of the eleven units installed, five are currently overdue depot overhaul.
5. Due to inclement weather and impassable roads no inspection was made of the overhead power distribution lines to the landing strip, POL pump house, water pump house and dock side warehouse area. The unit has experienced a total of 13 failures between October 1955 and March 1956. All failures have been due to accumulated ice on the lines and high winds. The failures which occur at the line cut outs are caused by improper splices and leads. This unit has limited capabilities of performing such repairs. However, major or extensive repairs required will be subject to technical assistance by the Support Base.

21. Heating Plant. The operational and maintenance practices reflected satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency in operator maintenance. Difficulty was being experienced in obtaining various needed spare parts for replacement for repair to presently installed defective or inoperative parts. The unavailability of these parts is attributed to the unavailability of a parts catalog and inadequate assistance and supply action by Support Base.

22. Refrigeration Plant. Operation and preventive maintenance methods and practices reflected satisfactory standards.

23. Air Installations Shops. The AIO shops was in the general warehouse and provided adequate space for proper working and storage space for electrical, carpenter, plumbing shops, Installations Supervisors office and necessary bench stocks. These shops evidenced satisfactory operation and maintenance practices.

1. Publications. The marked lack of pertinent Technical Orders and Air Force Manuals essential to the effective operation, maintenance and repair of possessed equipment and facilities creates an unsatisfactory condition. Required publications were not on hand, but were on requisition.
2. Forms and Records. A review of forms and records revealed that locally devised inspection and maintenance guides and a D ACO Form 5-34 as being satisfactorily used to perform and record inspections and preventive maintenance on electrical units, plumbing fixtures, blowers, heating, refrigeration and air conditioning units and installed kitchen equipment. Manufacturers Operation and Maintenance Manuals were utilized to devise the inspection and maintenance guides with modifications being made when it is determined that more frequent inspections are required to provide better preventive maintenance and preclude excessive wear or possible break down of equipment.
1. Forms and Records required by AFM 85-2 were not on hand but were on requisition.
2. A work order system was not being used as prescribed by Squadron Memorandum 93-3.
3. Shop machinery and tools on hand showed satisfactory care, preservation and maintenance with adequate safety precautions being observed in their use. Shop machinery and hand tools authorized but not on hand were on requisition.
4. Spare parts on shelves or in bins were neatly stored. The shop area was clean and well arranged reflecting good management practices and satisfactory standards of operation.
5. NEAC Letter. NEIIE: Subject, "Marking Instruction, Posting Diagrams, charts, manuals and SOP’s had been satisfactorily complied with.
6. Building Maintenance and minor repair activities was being performed in accordance with a locally prepared guide which required weekly inspections and minor maintenance checks of doors, windows, corridors, floors and stairways. It also required a bi-weekly inspection of building exteriors (weather permitting). The general appearance of this site reflected satisfactory performance of maintenance and minor repair.

24. Roads and Grounds. Proper maintenance of roads and police of grounds could not be determined due to roads and grounds being covered with snow, however, maintenance and repair of roads presents no anticipated problems.

1. Snow removal was generally adequate from Unit Area to transmitters, landing Strip, and water pump house. There were no requirements for snow removal from roads leading to the dock area and Receiver building. These roads were closed by fifteen to twenty foot snow drifts.
2. Operation and maintenance of snow removal equipment was generally satisfactory. Although a snow removal plan had not been prepared as required by AFR 90-6, procedures employed have generally proven adequate in past experience of the Unit.
3. Due to inclement weather and roads being impassable due to high winds and drifting snow, the POL and water pump houses were not inspected. However, POL pumping operations from the lower to upper storage tanks are not conducted during the winter months. An inquiry into the water pumping system and Ric-Wil line was confined to a review of procedures established for the maintenance and operation of the water pumping system. It is considered that this Squadron has implemented complete Comprehensive Standing Operating Procedures relative to operation of the Ric-Wil line.
4. Although an inspection of POL storage tanks was not made, the unit has initiated the requirement for repainting these tanks and Support Base technical assistance has been requested.

25. Landing Strip. Maintenance and snow removal from that portion of the landing strip used for landing helicopters was considered to be adequate. Snow removal from the remainder of the strip was not being performed because a conventional light plane was not presently operational in this area. The Squadron Standing Operating Procedures on aircraft, handling, refuelling operations and procedures were considered adequate.

26. FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES: Unit plans were generally adequate and in compliance with existing directives, familiarity of personnel with fire preventative duties and the response of personnel to a fire (false alarm) revealed generally satisfactory unit capability in this matter. The following deficiencies observed dictate the necessity of increased emphasis and effort in inspection and orientation of personnel to achieve and maintain desired standards with respect to this subject.

1. Some exit doors unidentified and exit lights inoperative or not installed.
2. Personnel evacuated area without arctic gear during fire alarm.
3. Open windows were not closed during fire alarm.
4. Authorization slip and check off sheet not on hand for appliances in excess of 150 watts.
5. Squadron Memorandum failed to establish requirement for windows to be secured.
6. Inadequate butt cans available.
7. Cigarette butts emptied in waste paper baskets with combustible material.
8. Ashtrays with cigarette butts observed in dresser drawers.
9. Inflammable fluid and combustible materials stored in immediate vicinity of hot water heater in store room adjacent to officer’s latrine.
10. A civilian assigned since November 1955 had not and was not familiar with real unit fire prevention procedures.
11. Deficiencies observed are indicative of inadequate fire prevention inspections by responsible personnel.

1. GENERAL. Present procedural practices and operations of supply activities and functions generally reflected marginally satisfactory standards of effectiveness and efficiency. However, the lack of inactive records such as the UPREAL, AF Form 90-A, control registers, and voucher file preclude evaluation of present property accountability.

1. Irregularities and/or deficiencies previously reported and not corrected at the time of this inspection consisted of the following:

1. Activation orders were not on file.
2. Locally reproduced issue receipts were being used.
3. Some property authorized was neither on hand nor on order.
4. AF Forms 538-A were not on file for some airmen.
5. A diagram of the storage building was not being maintained.
6. A familiarization chart was not being maintained.
7. A supplemental sheet of inspections was not being maintained.

1. The NCOIC of Supply was considered adequately familiar with his duties and responsibilities. In fact, he is to be commended for the job that he is doing with a minimum of help and supervision. The former Supply Officer rotated prior to the inspection and the present Supply Officer has a primary AFS of communications officer. Besides Supply and Communications, he also has the additional duties of Mess Officer, BX Officer, Summary Courts Officer, Assistant Radar Maintenance Officer, and assumes command of the Squadron during the absence of the Commander. It is not possible for one person to properly perform his responsibility of Supply Officer with these additional duties. At present, there are only two other personnel assigned to supply, one 64010 and one 64131 although two 64131s and one 70250 are in pipeline at the present time.
2. Functional SOP’s were generally inadequate to insure clear delineation of responsibility, specific designation of procedures, and to provide continuity of operation. Although Squadron Memoranda pertinent to supply functions were adequate in scope and coverage, there is a requirement for additional guidance and direction with respect to such activities as shipment and receipt of supplies by airlift, paradrop, and water transportation; turn-in of clothing and personal property while on leave, TDY, AWOL, and hospitalization; mandatory clothing allowance inspections, supply responsibilities of various unit activities, etc.
3. With the exception of minor deficiencies, the following functions and activities were reviewed and considered satisfactory: Control Register, Suspense File, Permanent Active File, Service Stock Balance Cards, Turn-in and/or Disposition, and Storage.
4. Conditions commented upon in detail in subsequent paragraphs are attributed to:
1. Ineffective manning.
2. Shortage of manning.
3. Lack of adequate SOP’s, checklists, or guides to provide continuity of operation, clear delineation of responsibilities, and designation of specific procedures.

2. Publication and Authorized Document Files.

1. A review of publications reflected marginally satisfactory maintenance.
1. Activation orders were not on file.
2. Latest tables of allowances were not available.
3. Some applicable EOL’s were not on hand but numerous ones that were not required were in file.
4. Numerous obsolete regulations were in file.
5. AF, NEAC, and Division regulations 5-2 were not annotated.
2. The publications checked included approved UAL, pertinent table of allowance, applicable regulations and directives, Air Force Manual 67-1, applicable stock lists, and equipment component lists.

3. Control Register, AF Form 115A. (Section 7, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1). The maintenance and use of the Control Register was considered to be satisfactory. The only discrepancy noted was that Daily Recapitulation Sheets were not being assigned control numbers.

4. Suspense Files, (Section 4, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1). A review of the Suspense File revealed that it was being satisfactorily maintained and utilized.

5. Permanent Active Files, (Section 7, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1). The Permanent Active Files were being maintained in satisfactory manner.

1. A review of the inactive files revealed that records prior to October 1954 had been destroyed without benefit of audit or certificate of clearance. The records destroyed included the Central Register, UPREAL, AF Forms 90-A, and completed Voucher File. This condition precludes evaluation of adequacy of property accountability.

6. Custody Receipts and Temporary Issue Receipts, AF Forms 46 and 1297. (Section 6, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1)

1. The Custody and Temporary Issue Receipts were being marginally satisfactorily maintained. The discrepancies noted were:
1. Custody receipt property was being issued on locally reproduced temporary receipt forms.
2. Follow-up action was not being taken to insure that property issued on a temporary loan was returned within a specific period.

7. Unit Authorization List, AF Form 601B (AFR 67-83)

1. The maintenance of the UAL was considered marginally satisfactory. The following discrepancies were noted:
1. Changes to the UAL were not being requested as requirements change.
2. Several items in use exceed total authorization.

8. Property Record Cards, AF Form 1120 (Section 7, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1).

1. The maintenance and use of these cards was unsatisfactory. The discrepancies noted were:
1. Property Record Cards had not been established for each line item of property.
2. Postings were not made to show the results of the last inventory.
3. The correct authorizations were not quoted, especially for class 17-B non-powered hand tools.
4. Some items authorized were not on hand or on order.
5. Shipping tickets for arctic clothing in the possession of personnel were not being posted to the property record cards.

9. Service Stock Balance Cards, AF Form 84-B. (Section 11, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1 and NEAC Manual 69-1)

1. The maintenance and use of these cards was satisfactory. The only discrepancy noted was that the forms were not filed in numerical sequence by class and sub-class.
2. An inventory of 50 balances listed revealed 74 percent accuracy.

10. Individual Clothing Records, AF Forms 538 and 538a. (Section 6, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1)

1. The maintenance of these records was considered marginally satisfactory. The following discrepancies were noted:
1. Some airmen were not issued two barrack bags and a field jacket.
2. AF Forms 538-a were not on file for some airmen.
3. It is recommended that a check-list be established for processing incoming and outgoing clothing records.

11. Turn-In or Disposition, AF Forms 46, DP Forms 200 and 362, and SF 1044. (section 5, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1). This function was considered to be satisfactory. The only discrepancy noted was that a "report of breakage" of chinaware, glassware, and plastic tableware was not prepared on the last day of each quarter and upon relief of the responsible officer.

12. Storage (Section 6, Vol. IV, AFM 67-1)

1. Storage of property was being accomplished in a satisfactory manner with the following exceptions:
1. A diagram of the storage buildings or other facilities was not being maintained.
2. Designated smoking areas were not properly posted and marked.

13. Miscellaneous.

1. Supply records were not being disposed of in accordance with AFM 181-5. A request for audit of obsolete records has not been forwarded to the support base.
2. No progress has been made to establish accountability for 16 T major components, test equipment, and hand tools.
3. A supplemental sheet of inspections was not being maintained. The failure to maintain this record of inspection precludes availability of a valuable record in the evaluation of the performance of property responsibilities by responsible officers indicated in AFR 67-10) Informal inquiry revealed that the commander’s inspections of this activity had been adequate to insure fulfilling his responsibility to this account.
4. A familiarization chart was not maintained to indicate the reading of applicable publications.
5. A jacket file has not been established and maintained indicating the maximum yearly droppage allowances.
6. A complete review of the back order suspense file revealed that a total of five hundred seventy two (572) line items of supply had been coded shipped by the support base but had not been received at the Squadron. Many of these items were coded shipped as much as six months prior to the date of the inspection.
7. An emergency requisition for belts (1-16-490) was submitted by TWX the 16^th of January. As of this date, no acknowledgement of receipt or action taken by the organization. It is recommended that a status board of priority requisitions be established and maintained and that aggressive follow-up action be taken on these requisitions.
8. A copy of previous inspections was not on file in the Unit Supply.
9. A functional chart had not been established and maintained.

Squadron 64^th AD (D), ADI, Subject: Report of Annual Insp., FY 56, 920^th AC&W Squadron, 14 May 56

AHA (14 May 56)

920^th AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON, APO 677, New York, New York,
22 Jun 56

THRU: Commander, 6606^th Air Base Wing, Goose Air Base

TO: Commander, 64^th Air Division (Defense), Pepperrell Air Force Base

1. In accordance with Section VIII, paragraph 21 of basic correspondence the enclosed attachments I thru V are forwarded.

2. Reference Section VII, paragraph 19a of basic correspondence, supervisors Check Lists have been initiated at this unit and numerous discrepancies observed by the IG team have been listed. These check lists will be of much help in as much as the small number of officers assigned cannot possibly, from memory, supervise the numerous duties assigned.

3. Reference Section VII, paragraph 19c of basis correspondence. Through the medium of weekly staff meetings, inspections, and supervisors check lists, a more intimate familiarity with prevailing conditions and practices will be obtained.

4. Reference Section VII, paragraph 19k of basic correspondence. A training program is now under way, in the form of daily instruction, in each operating section. All personnel are required to make a weekly check of their respective job description (NEAC Form 143) for the purpose of obtaining a continual remainder of their duties and responsibilities.

5. Reference Section VII, paragraph 129m of basic correspondence. A monthly meeting of all staff personnel will be conducted to insure that every action has been taken regarding personnel and material requirements versus authorized resources.

6. It should be noted that this Annual IO Inspection has been a great advantage to this organization, in that it has brought out various discrepancies unknown to assigned personnel. In addition, it will serve as a guide in the improvement of all sections of this organization.

LLOYD E. NORDYKE
Captain, USAF
Commander

5 Attachments

I. Personnel
II. Administration
III. Operations
IV. Maintenance
V. Supply