FINAL - USAFA Inspection Report - Redacted (2), 9 March 2015

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNITED STATES
AIR FORCE
ACADEMY
Commander's Inspection
Program Report
Athletic Department
USAF Academy, CO 80840
18 Aug 2014 - 22 Sep 2014
This report may be protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Do not release or publish, in whole or in part, outside official
DOD channels without express approval of the Director, SAF/IGI.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 2
DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 5
INSPECTION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Table: Athletic Department Unit Grade / Aggregate Totals .......................................................................................... 7
CCIP INSPECTION RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 9
ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 9
MANAGING RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Adequacy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Manpower ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Funds ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Stewardship .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Manpower ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Funds .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Equipment ................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Facilities and Environment .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Guidance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Airmen's Time ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
LEADING PEOPLE ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Communication ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
Discipline ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Compliance ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Accountability .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Attention to Detail........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Training ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Individual ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Development ............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Professional ................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Quality of Life Engagement ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Unit Morale .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
IMPROVING THE UNIT .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Strategic Alignment ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
Strategic Planning ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Performance Metrics ................................................................................................................................................... 22
Process Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Key Work Processes .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Risk Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
Commitment to Continuous Improvement .................................................................................................................. 25
Data-Driven Decision .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Decision Processes..................................................................................................................................................... 27
EXECUTING THE MISSION ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Primary Mission .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Right Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 28
REPLY INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 29
SUPERIOR PERFORMERS ........................................................................................................................................... 30
TEAM COMPOSITION .................................................................................................................................................... 31
DISTRIBUTION LIST ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
KEY PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................... 34

DRU:CCIP.USAFA.34127
2 of 34
DEFINITIONS
This inspection was graded IAW AFI 90-201 and applicable governing guidance.
5 Tier (CCIP) Item Level grading scale definitions
Outstanding:
Given for a CCIP score between 85 and 100, this rating indicates the Wing meets/exceeds the
criteria for a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE rating AND most or all of the following are consistently true:
Mission activities, programs and processes are executed in an increasingly cost-effective manner;
Results of long-term commitment to continuous process improvement are evident; Leaders'
decisions and priorities demonstrate genuine care for their Airmen; Leaders are engaged to help
Airmen achieve their own goals as well as the unit's goals; Widespread evidence of high
proficiency, unit pride and cohesion; Programs and processes are institutionalized and produce
highly reliable results; Programs are nearly deficiency-free, and efforts to benchmark and share
lessons learned with other Wings are evident; Effective Management Systems are in place and
are used to maximum effectiveness at all levels.
Highly Effective:
Given for a CCIP score greater than 65 and less than or equal to 85, this rating indicates the Wing
exceeds the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating AND most or all of the following are consistently
true: Mission activities, programs and processes are executed in a highly effective and efficient
manner; personnel demonstrate high proficiency; CCIP is institutionalized, used to measure
and report improvements in all 4 MGAs, and provide actionable feedback to HHQ on policy,
guidance and resource adequacy; Continuous process improvement efforts are widespread and
have improved efficiency; Most programs and processes are measured and repeatable, and
produce reliable results; Risk-based criteria are habitually applied when allocating resources and
making decisions; Programs have very few deficiencies and necessary waivers are in effect;
Deliberate efforts to train, communicate, and engage Airmen are evident; Effective processes are
in place to improve Airmen's quality of work and home life; Management Systems are mature and
continuous improvement crosses across multiple programs.
Effective:
Given for a CCIP score greater than 35 and less than or equal to 65, this rating indicates most or
all of the following are generally true: Requirements are met in all mission areas (Primary, AEF,
Mission Assurance C2) and personnel are proficient; CCIP provides the command chain an
accurate, adequate and relevant picture of unit performance; Resources are managed in an
effective and compliant manner; Leaders treat Airmen with respect and provide a healthy and
safe work environment; Continuous process improvement efforts are evident; Critical programs
and processes are measured and repeatable; Risk-based criteria are often considered when
allocating resources and making decisions; Programs have few significant deficiencies and many
necessary waivers are in effect; Management Systems are present and continuous improvement
occurs.
Marginally Effective:
Given for a CCIP score greater than 15 and less than or equal to 35, this rating indicates the Wing

3 of 34
does not meet the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating, and some or all of the following are
consistently true: Requirements are met in some but not all mission areas (Primary, AEF,
Mission Assurance C2); Unit personnel meet minimum performance criteria but with limited
proficiency; CCIP provides the command chain an accurate, though limited, picture of unit
performance; Some key processes and activities are not carried out in a competent or compliant
manner, or are personality-dependent; Little to no evidence exists of continuous process
improvement efforts; Resources and programs are not well managed; Risk and resource
scarcity are not deliberately considered in decision-making processes; Deficiencies exist that
significantly increase risk to Airmen, the mission or the Air Force; Management systems have
some elements by are not working in a cohesive process.
Ineffective:
Given for a CCIP score between 0 and 15, this rating indicates the Wing does not meet all of the
criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating, and some or all of the following are consistently true: Wing
does not demonstrate ability to meet mission requirements; Evidence exists of systemic
non-compliance or widespread disregard for prescribed procedures; The number and severity of
deficiencies preclude or seriously limit mission accomplishment; CCIP does not provide an
accurate, adequate or relevant picture of unit performance; Leaders do not treat Airmen with
respect or do not provide a healthy and safe work environment; Resources and programs are
grossly mismanaged; Management systems are not evident.
BEST PRACTICES:
Validated superior methods or innovative practices that contribute to improved performance.
DEFICIENCIES:
A validated deficiency assessed as CRITICAL, Significant, or Minor.
a. CRITICAL:
Any deficiency that results or could result in widespread mission impact or failure.
b. Significant:
Any deficiency that has or could have significant mission impact.
c. Minor:
Any deficiency that is procedurally incorrect but has only modest mission impact.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT AREA (RIA):
An identified process, product, or capability which could be improved by a suggested course of
action.
STRENGTHS:
An area that far exceeds compliance directives or mission requirements and/or expectations.
SUPERIOR PERFORMERS/TEAMS:
An organized group or dedicated individual whose knowledge, perseverance, and professionalism
contributed greatly to the unit's compliance with directives and high state of mission success.

4 of 34
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
06 October 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR USAFA/AD
USAFA/CV
USAFA/CC
FROM: USAFA/IG
SUBJECT: Athletic Department Inspection Results
HQ USAFA/IG completed a vertical unit inspection of the Athletic Department (AD) in
accordance with AFI 90-201, The Air Force Inspection System, 02 Aug 2013 incorporating
Change 1, 10 Mar 2014. The purpose of the inspection was to provide the Superintendent an
independent assessment of the effectiveness, compliance, discipline and resources of the
department. The Superintendent directed our inspectors to focus on accountability, resources
and culture/climate. The inspection occurred from 18 Aug 22 Sep 2014.
The overall grade for this inspection was EFFECTIVE which indicates the unit performed its
mission effectively and efficiently. Inspectors observed 5 Significant and 14 Minor deficiencies.
Furthermore, inspectors observed 2 Superior Performers, 5 program Strengths and
17 Recommended Improvement Areas (RIAs). Grades and background information for each
major graded area (MGA) are listed below:
(b)(5)
Managing Resources: EFFECTIVE
(b)(5) Adequacy of funds, equipment and facilities was deemed sufficient to accomplish the
mission. AD leadership decided to apply headquarters-directed fiscal reductions to manpower
across the department rather than eliminate intercollegiate sports programs. Inspection results
suggest the consequences of that decision are being felt in intercollegiate programs, physical
education, logistical support and the amount of employee work time. Some teams whose
appropriated funded assistant coach positions were eliminated are exploring avenues to contract
coaches. AD operating instructions are out-of-date and need revisions given the establishment of
the Air Force Academy Athletic Corporation. The department has an extremely effective
government purchase card program especially given the thousands of transactions per year.
(b)(5)
Leading People: MARGINALLY
EFFECTIVE
(b)(5) While pride in the AD mission remains very high, some areas require attention. There was
no evidence of internally-directed formal investigations despite several examples of alleged
misconduct. This resulted in a negative perception of a lack of accountability for permanent party.
The civilian personnel folders' documentation suffered from a lack of attention to detail.
Completion of Air Force-mandated training courses needs to improve. Unit morale has seriously
suffered from various external and internal factors. Responses suggest members lost a sense of
belonging, shared values, trust and cooperation. The NCAA compliance section was a notable
strength. NCAA standards are communicated and understood, consistently applied and
non-selectively enforced and documented.

5 of 34
Improving the Unit: (b)(5)

EFFECTIVE
AD
leadership
and employees rely on personalities and relationships to effectively
(b)(5)
accomplish the mission rather than up-to-date, codified operating guidelines for its key processes:
personnel (recruiting, permanent party), operations (intercollegiate athletics, physical education,
intramurals, fitness testing), logistics (facilities, equipment, events, transportation, security,
support) and finances. AD possesses a strategic plan with metrics but should operationalize the
plan into daily processes. Data should be collected and reviewed for decision-making in all rather
than some key processes. Additionally, leadership should incentivize members to continually
improve its processes and use Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century to help solve its
biggest challenges. The department's effective and efficient use of military air transportation is
noteworthy and the money saved is redistributed to non-forecasted emerging requirements.
(b)(5)
Executing the Mission: HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE
AD
is
excellent
at
executing
its mission. All cadets are afforded a competitive experience
(b)(5)
in a physically demanding environment. Department employees exceptionally plan, orchestrate
and execute hundreds of annual events. Intercollegiate coaches are continuously considering
cadets' time, especially when balancing the desire to train for competitions while being
appreciative of the other rigorous demands of the Academy (academics, military and leadership
training). The intramural program is a department strength. This program is principally led and
executed by cadets and offers both leadership opportunities and physical competitions on a
minimum budget.
KUENZLI.DAVID.
(b)(6)
PAUL.10762443
80
Digitally signed by KUENZLI.

DAVID.PAUL.1076244380
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government,
ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USAF,
cn=KUENZLI.DAVID.
PAUL.1076244380
Date: 2014.10.06 16:19:11 -06'00'
DAVID P. KUENZLI, Col, USAF

US Air Force Academy Inspector General

6 of 34
INSPECTION SUMMARY
Table: Athletic Department Unit Grade / Aggregate Totals
Org
Inspected
Abbrev Organization
Unit Grade
Athletic
Department
AD
Deficiencies
Strengths RIAs
Severity
Unit
HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A
Identified
Critical Significant Minor SII CII
0
(b)(5)
Effective
14
17
Table: Athletic Department Unit Item Grades / Summary Table

Index
SII
/
CII
Item
Grade
Deficiencies
Severity
Strengths RIAs
HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A
Unit
Identified

1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.1.1
Commander's
Inspection
Program
(CCIP)
Managing
Resources
Adequacy
Manpower
(b)(5)
Not Graded
(b)(5)
0
0 0
Effective
0 0
Not Graded
0 0
Effective
0 0
1.1.1.2
Funds
Effective
0 0
1.1.1.4
Facilities
Highly Effective
0 0
Stewardship
Not Graded
Marginally
Effective
Effective
0 0
0 0
0 0
Effective
0 0
Not Graded
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1.2
1.1.2.1
Manpower
1.1.2.2
Funds
1.1.2.3
Equipment
Facilities and
Environment
1.1.2.4
1.1.2.5
Guidance
1.1.2.6
Airmen's Time
1.2
Leading People
1.2.1
Communication
Marginally
Effective
Marginally
Effective
Marginally
Effective
Effective
Discipline
Not Graded
0 0
1.2.2.1
1.2.2
Compliance
0 0
1.2.2.3
Accountability
0 0
1.2.2.5
Attention to
Detail
0 0
0 0
Individual
Effective
Marginally
Effective
Marginally
Effective
Marginally
Effective
Not Graded
0 0
1.2.4
Development
Not Graded
0 0
1.2.4.1
Professional
Effective
0 0
1.2.3
1.2.3.1
Training

7 of 34
Index
SII
/
CII
Item
Grade
Deficiencies
Severity
Strengths RIAs
HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A
Unit
Identified

1.2.5
1.2.5.2
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.1.2
1.3.1.3
1.3.2
1.3.2.1
1.3.2.2
1.3.2.3
1.3.4
1.3.4.2
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.1.2
Quality of Life
Engagement
Not Graded
(b)(5)
Unit Morale
Marginally
Effective
Improving the
Effective
Unit
Strategic
Effective
Alignment
Strategic
Not Graded
Planning
Performance
Not Graded
Metrics
Process
Not Graded
Operations
Key Work
Effective
Processes
Risk
Not Graded
Management
Commitment to
Not Graded
Continuous
Improvement
Data-Driven
Effective
Decision
Decision
Not Graded
Processes
Executing the
Highly Effective
Mission
Primary Mission Highly Effective
Right Quality
Not Graded
Totals:
0
(b)(5)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
14
0 0
17

8 of 34
CCIP INSPECTION RESULTS

ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE
MANAGING RESOURCES
(b)(5)
EFFECTIVE
Adequacy
(b)(5)
Manpower
Effective
Comments:
DoD-directed Civilian Workforce Review reductions were laid in for USAFA beginning in FY16
thru FY18. Hence, mission elements were tasked to develop and identify position level
reduction options.
(b)(5)
Funds
Effective
Comments:
Athletic Department members stated they had sufficient funds to execute the mission. Many
members voiced their displeasure with federal funding declines and the negative personal
and morale impacts of sequestration and furloughs.
(b)(5) Highly Effective
Facilities
Strengths:
The Athletic Department benefits from some of the best athletic facilities in the Mountain West
Conference. The department is completing an $85 million renovation of the Cadet Gym.
Stewardship
(b)(5)
Manpower
Marginally Effective
Comments:
AD leadership reviewed several options to cut manpower to meet anticipated DoD budget
reductions. The first option was to cut one or more intercollegiate sport programs, thereby
saving money in both manpower and operating costs. The second option was to keep all 27
intercollegiate programs but cut 30 manpower positions from across the department. AD
leadership chose the latter and cut the positions of 11 coaches, 8 fitness/trainer staff, 6
support staff and 5 admin staff. Some of these positions were vacant. This decision
resulted in several consequences. First, the Physical Education (PE) department lost 13
instructors so the course load was distributed among the remaining faculty/coaches. As a
side note, none of the AFAAC-contracted coaches teach PE. Second, AD decided to cut
some of the support staff for the 27 teams. So while the department expected to continue to
field 27 programs, the positions and people expected to support the planning and execution of
those programs were eliminated. None of the revenue-generating sports programs suffered

9 of 34
manpower cuts.
(b)(5)
The 2013 UCA, 2014 Faculty Survey, as well as individual interviews prior to the inspection
(b)(5)
suggested
a nepotistic hiring practice within the Athletic Department. Inspectors reviewed
the qualifications of hired employees with the civilian position minimum requirements and
determined AD had hired qualified candidates. However, the minimum requirements for an
intercollegiate coach are not based upon coaching experiences and documented skills, rather
on the ability to teach physical education. These minimal qualification requirements give
wide latitude in who is selected for a position. (b)(5)
Some interviewees expressed displeasure
when
(b)(5) employees were hired with apparent lower coaching qualifications than other
applicants. However, other interviewees explained that the ability to develop cadet-athletes
within the constraints of the Academy environment were more important than a traditional
NCAA Division I coaching resume.
Deficiencies:
F.34127.1692303: Minor
The Athletic Department wrote guidance that either contradicts or is less restrictive than
HHQ guidance. Specifically, guidance published in ADOI 36-801 and the USAFA
Curriculum Handbook contradicts with USAFAI 36-802.
- ADOI 36-801 and the Curriculum Handbook allowed faculty members not to teach PE
classes as stated in their job description. A review of AD internal records revealed that 17
AD faculty members did not teach a PE class, which is stated in their job position
description. The records review consisted of assigned faculty staff (AD-21 thru AD-24)
that taught PE classes the prior year (Aug 13 thru Sep 14) to determine if assigned civilian
faculty members were fulfilling the teaching requirement of their position descriptions as
required in USAFAI 36-802. Faculty coaches assigned to the 5 major sports (Football,
Men's/Women's Basketball, Women's Volleyball, and Ice Hockey) are not expected to
teach PE as their coaching duties fulfill that requirement. However, 10 FSS/FSMC
(Civilian Personnel Office) indicates all faculty coaches, regardless of sport, are required to
teach PE as a condition of their appointment in the USAFA Faculty Program.
Reference: Unit Manpower Document (UMD), Personnel System Records (military,
civilian, and NAF), PE Instruction records, AFI 38-201, USAFAI 36-802 & AFI 33-360 para
2.11.5.1.
F.34127.1685353: Minor
Athletic Department Director failed to match the operating organizational structure to the
formally approved organizational structure. The standup of the Air Force Academy
Athletic Corporation and recently programmed manpower reductions have created a need
to reorganize which AD has done via the internal creation of office symbols and personnel

10 of 34
details. USAFA/A1M has been presented draft proposed organization charts and has
provided necessary advice and guidance.However, AD has not submitted their formal
Organization Change Request to USAFA/A1M for final review, USAFA/CC coordination,
and transmittal to AF/A1M for approval. Once approved by HAF, USAFA/A1M will update
the manpower system which will in turn update the various personnel systems, enhancing
personnel accountability as well as improving various military and civilian hiring processes.
Reference: UMD, & AFI 38-101
F.34127.1692320: Minor
(b)(5)
Recommend that duty titles be aligned to match the intent and purpose of how they have
been
(b)(5) allocated. Additionally, personnel should be located in their actual work centers with
which they work. Examples are as follows:
(b)(6) should be realigned to the
- Positions 000251370B (Pasieta)
and 000244590B (Senn)
(b)(6)
work centers where they actually work by submitting a manpower change request to
USAFA/A1M.
(b)(6) appears to be utilized as an executive officer versus the
- Position 000151890B (Vasta)
intended purpose of a strength and conditioning instructor. Execs are only authorized at
the Wing level, which AD is similar to in comparison, however AD does have an Exec
(b)(6) AD should eliminate the responsibility from
position which is now filled by Capt Sturm.
(b)(6) return the member fully to strength and conditioning duties, and work with
Capt Vasta,
USAFA/CSS to change his duty title accordingly.
Reference: AD Unit Manpower Document (UMD), Personnel System Records (military,
civilian, and NAF), AFAAC Cooperative Agreement, AFI 38-201, USAFAI 36-802
Recommended Improvement Areas:
Recommend
codifying the roles and responsibilities of the Vice Athletic Director. Interview
(b)(5)
responses suggest this position does not have a clear role in the department. Of note,
military members were more willing to coordinate information/actions/decisions with the Vice
than the civilian members.
Recommend that the AD organizational structure be stabilized to support the full
implementation of the AD strategy by aligning senior leadership positions with key AD
processes. Currently, 4 senior leaders oversee "operations" while the head of
communications oversees "support." This results in a lack of advocacy for those employees
and sections that support the "operations" of intercollegiate athletics, physical education,
intramurals and fitness testing. One possible organizational structure could be to parallel a
typical military staff: Personnel, Operations & Plans, Logistics & Facilities and Budgeting.
Additionally, a senior administrator over logistics, who is on the same level as the 10

11 of 34

(b)(5)
MSG/CC, would help facilitate support services from 10 ABW.
(b)(5)
Funds
Effective
Comments:
Team travel processes were reviewed. It was determined from the 3 team travel expense
forms and Citibank statements provided at the review that it is unclear that a complete
reconciliation is occurring IAW USAFAI65-103. During this review, the inspectors found that
there is not a clear audit trail between the Intercollegiate Post-Trip Team Travel Expense
Form and the monthly Citibank statement. There were minor discrepancies noted: illegible
receipts, missing receipts, more meals paid for than number of travelers on expense form
(Men's Basketball New Mexico); possible duplicate charge on Citi Bank statement payment
due date 5 Jun 14 (Hy Vee $197.67) only one receipt in package (Men's Baseball South
Dakota).
Strengths:
Government Purchase Card (GPC) program has 9 cardholders that executed 1151 credit card
transactions totaling $645,984.25 during Oct 2013 through Aug 2014. 10 CONS GPC office
inspects unit managing accounts for compliance annually. A review of the 9 managing
accounts demonstrated 1 discrepancy identified through their inspection process in April and
May of 2014.
(b)(5)
Recommend that the AFAAA Funds Custodian ensures a better accountability of funds.
desk drawer is not considered an approved storage container per AFI 31-101.
Recommend that to ensure a well-defined audit trail that a manifest is provided to

validate/verify the accompanied blanket travel roster. Also, it is recommended that birthdates
are removed on blanket travel orders as it is only required for dependent travel per JTR Chap.
5
Recommend 10 CONS train AD staff on authorized vs. unauthorized commitments. Since
FY 2012, the 10th Contracting Squadron has processed (or is currently processing) two
ratification actions on behalf of USAFA/AD. Ratifications involve review of an unauthorized
commitment (e.g., agreements entered into on behalf of the government by an
individual/group lacking the authority to do so).
Equipment
Effective
(b)(5)
Recommend publicizing specific requirements for salient characteristics submittal associated
(b)(5)
with brand name or equal purchases Salient characteristics need to be measureable in order

12 of 34
(b)(5)
to evaluate potential "or equal" items offered by vendors - "or equal" items can also increase
potential competition and thus, potentially, lead to better value procurements. For instance,
included among the salient characteristics for the purchase of athletic tape were the following:
- High tensile strength tape prevents breakage during athletic practices, games and weight
training. Measurement of high tensile strength is not specific and manufacturers' claim of
"high tensile strength" is subjective. Specify requirement to state tensile strength of X
number of pounds per inch.
Consider the gold standard Elastic tape in College and Pro sports. (Is there only one "gold
standard" in elastic tape in college and pro sports? If so, you are limiting your requirement to
one brand only - potentially unnecessarily limiting competition and paying higher prices.
Who determines what is the gold standard, etc.)
Facilities and Environment
Comments:
Most new physical education and training equipment is dependent upon fall out money.
department leadership attributed a 50% decline in physical fitness testing failures and
deficiencies due to the upgraded athletic facilities.
PE
(b)(5)
Guidance
Deficiencies:
F.34127.1692381: Significant
Athletic Department Publications Manager did not accomplish a periodic required review
every 4 years as prescribed by Air Force guidance for publications. 29 of 36 Athletic
Department Operating Instructions (ADOIs) are overdue this review. Additionally,
"Program Guidance Letters" (PGL) are currently being used to establish AD functions while
transitioning to the AFAAC. A PGL is an internal HQ USAF document and is not for use
at the Wing or unit level (AFI 10-501). The correct mechanism is Guidance Memorandum
(GM). This document issues interim guidance to prescribe new procedures when there is
insufficient time to revise or publish publications. Additionally, if the GM is tasking
agencies outside the Athletic Department then all tasked/required coordinators will be
required to review.
Reference: AFI 33-360 Para. 5.4.2. & Table 4.1 Para. 7 AFI10-501 Para 4.
Recommend that USAFA/AD work in coordination with USAFA/A1, USAFA/DS, USAFA/CV to
(b)(5)
rewrite the superintendent's administrative authorities memorandum dated 23 May 2014 to
meet the superintendent's intent while creating a more efficient and expeditious audit trail
ensuring compliance. Currently there is no evidence of an audit trail ensuring that all
mandatory coordination has been accomplished. Additionally, recommend the use of the

13 of 34

(b)(5)
automated Evaluation Management System (EMS) in lieu of the current mandated use of the
antiquated and laborious Staff Summary Sheet process.
(b)(5)
Airmen's Time
Deficiencies:
(b)(5)
Some General Schedule (GS) employees responded they work more than 40 hours per
week or 80 hours per two weeks. Most admitted that they felt that came with the job.
However, some expressed concern that the manpower cuts caused a situation where
employees had either to decide to work greater than 40 hours/week or accept that
necessary work would not be completed.
Reference: AFI 1-2, 3.3.6.

(b)(5)
LEADING PEOPLE
MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE
(b)(5)
Communication
Effective
Comments:
The Athletic Department uses several regularly scheduled venues to disseminate information.
These include a weekly senior staff meeting, a weekly coaches meeting, quarterly director's
call, and as needed personnel and culture/climate meetings. Nearly all interviewees felt
communication from these meetings was good and had improved significantly in the last
several months. Additionally, nearly all interviewees stated senior leadership had an "open
door" policy that enabled easy access. Many
(b)(5) interviewees expressed displeasure with the
communication
surrounding the proposed athletic program cuts or implemented cuts. AD
(b)(5)
leadership explained they were directed by USAFA senior leadership to not disclose or
discuss specific details of the proposed cuts. AD leadership discussed the sensitivity of the
changes at Director's Calls and answered questions they believed they were authorized to
answer. Additionally, many respondents stated there was a barrier to communication
between "4th Floor" senior leadership and other employees. One stated cause was the
physical separation between those AD members residing in the FAC and those residing in the
Cadet Gym. Another stated cause was the apparent lack of senior leadership being present
and visible in areas outside of the 4th Floor or premier sports venues. AD leadership
instituted an Administrator of the Day program in December 2013 in order to rectify this
perception.
Discipline
(b)(5)
Compliance
Effective
Comments:
AFI 36-3501 para 2.12.5.2. directs the Athletic Director to comply with NCAA and governing

14 of 34
athletic conference rules so long as consistent with Department of Defense or Air Force
Directives. In the event of a conflict between these directives and NCAA rules, the Athletic
Department and AFAAA must follow the DoD and AF directives or obtain a waiver from the
appropriate Air Staff office or agency. Job performance standards for both government
employee coaches and AFAAC-contracted coaches support this requirement.
Strengths:
The Athletic Department maintains a rigorous process to ensure its teams and coaches are in
compliance with NCAA rules. The NCAA compliance division is thorough and reliable in
enforcing and documenting NCAA's very detailed and numerous rules. Several alleged team
violations were brought to the IG's attention prior to the inspection and in each case the actual
NCAA rule violation was documented in the coach's civilian personnel folder. Furthermore,
the communication and dissemination of NCAA requirements is exceptional. The NCAA
requires only one compliance meeting annually, but ADWC holds 7 meetings annually and
weekly coach meetings.
Deficiencies:
F.34127.1692390: Minor
Chief of intramural Division (ADPAM) failed to ensure that all safety briefings were
accomplished and personnel protective equipment was worn by participant's intramural
championships. ADOI 36-3505 Para 2.9.5.2 states "Require all players to wear prescribed
equipment and ensure the equipment is properly fitted. Players not in proper uniform will
not participate until the proper uniform is worn. Officials will validate that participants are
wearing the proper attire and (or) equipment."
- Cadet was observed not wearing shin guards during entire soccer match
- Safety briefings were not accomplished prior to soccer or flag football championship
Reference: ADOI 36-3505, 2.10.3.1./2.10.6. & 2.10.3.2
(b)(5) Marginally Effective
Accountability
Comments:
Athletic Department coaches are in a unique position with their cadet-athletes regarding
accountability of USAFA standards. Coaches are not in the cadet chain of command yet
when on-season, they spend many more hours with their cadet-athletes than the official chain
of command. Therefore, they are in an ideal position to mentor, develop character and
uphold cadet standards.
All government employee coaches have the following Performance Standard in their Air Force
Core Personnel Document and they are evaluated on this measure annually:

15 of 34
"Maintains the professional and ethical standards of the Academy. Proactively enhances the
Academy Core Values, Officer Development System, and USAFA regulations and operating
instructions. Actively accepts responsibility as a positive USAFA role model and mentor to
the cadets in their course and programs."
The AFAAC-contracted coaches have the following statement in their contracts:
"Character and Leadership Role Model. The Employee is responsible for creating the best
possible environment for cadet character development. The Employee will encourage and
facilitate the development of moral maturity among cadets by evidencing a personal code of
conduct that puts integrity first, service before self and excellence in all that the Employee
does. The Employee will provide cadets with an opportunity to engage in dialogue that
stresses the importance and challenges of sound moral character in leadership by sharing life
experiences of their own character journey. These character lessons form an important part
of a cadet's transition to active duty service by enhancing their sense of responsibility to
others through participation as a member of a team focused on accomplishing team goals
over personal objectives."
AFAAC leadership understands that there is not a clear enforcement mechanism in the
current contracts for the Character and Leadership Role Model standard. AFAAC leadership
could terminate an employee's contract for committing "any act that violates the moral and
ethical standards of the United States Air Force Academy" but that is open to interpretation
regarding the Character and Leadership Role Model standard. AFAAC leadership did state
that they were reviewing enforcement options for new contracts.
Nearly all interviewed coaches stated they were prepared to uphold cadet standards. Many
gave examples of how they have removed cadets from their intercollegiate rosters due to
multiple probations. However,
nearly all admitted that they had not (until only recently) read
(b)(5)
the Cadet Sight Picture.
(b)(5)
AD leadership, coaches and cadet-athletes have initiated many positive culture and climate
initiatives. These include the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, Cadet Athletes Against
Sexual Violence, Mentors in Violence Prevention, community service projects and earning
NCAA sportsmanship awards.
(b)(5)
Deficiencies:
Many interviewed members have the perception there is a lack of accountability for
misconduct. Individuals stated employees have resigned their positions rather than be
part of an environment which is perceived to not hold people accountable. Two situations

16 of 34

(b)(5)
in particular suggest the department failed to thoroughly investigate the facts or did not
follow through with administrative or disciplinary action. Inspectors found no records of a
formal investigation for either case.
- An employee was allegedly stealing Nike apparel for personal use. Employee was
allowed to retire and depart.
- An employee allegedly threatened another employee. Not all witnesses were
interviewed.
In another case, results from a CDI were not documented in an employee's civilian
personnel folder. In May 2013, the 10 ABW/CC directed a CDI on allegations of sexual
discrimination and harassment. The investigating officer substantiated both allegations
but no record of counseling, administrative action, or discipline exists in the suspect's
civilian personnel folder.

Recommend USAFA/AD and 10 ABW/CPO develop and write guidance to determine
(b)(5)
appropriate process concerning civilian disciplinary and adverse actions in regards to NCAA
discipline actions and requirements. Points that need to be considered in determining
process:
- NCAA requires and in cases determines level of punishment that is acceptable unlike Air
Force process where supervisors determine actions. See AFI 36-704 Para 33.
- Letters of Admonishment and Reprimand meanings may differ in level of severity between
NCAA and Air Forces guidance
-- Recommend using alternate language to LOA/LORs for 1st and 2nd minor NCAA
infractions then proceed with Air Force Guidance if determined by supervisor manager
Supervisors observe the principle of "like penalties for like offenses in like circumstances."
Apply penalties as consistently as possible considering the particular circumstances of the
cause for disciplinary action. AFI36-704 Para 32.1
Select penalties that aren't disproportionate to the offense and contribute to the solution of the
problem and to the attainment of an effective management environment. AFI36-704 Para
32.1.2
- Review Burden of Proof is there an impact on the efficiency of the Air Force? AFI 36-704
para 10.2
Attention to Detail
(b)(5)
Deficiencies:
USAFA/AD Human Resources Program Advisor did not effectively oversee and
administers HR programs. Specifically, AD Supervisors failed to maintain and annotate

17 of 34
civilian employee records in accordance with published Air Force guidance.

The following discrepancies were noted of the initial 79 records reviewed an additional 47
records were reviewed resulting in the same consistent pattern of discrepancies but not
reported:
- 1 occurrence of a civilian core doc not being maintained in the record
- 16 occurrences of civilian position descriptions not being signed
- 23 occurrences of civilian position descriptions not being reviewed annually
- 2 occurrence that no appraisals were accomplished
- 8 occurrences of appraisals not being signed by the employee
- 12 occurrences of appraisals not being signed by the rater/appraiser
- 15 occurrences of additional appraisal documentation errors
- 11 occurrences of supervisors not performing a midterm feedback
- 1 occurrence of no notice of furlough
- 17 occurrence of entire folders not containing the required forms
Reference: AFI 36-106 & Civilian Position Description
F.34127.1692348: Minor
USAFA/AD Human Resources Program Advisor failed to effectively oversee and
administers HR programs. Specifically, Supervisors were not held to task in regards to
following maintenance and disposition instructions on 68 of 79 civilian records reviewed.
Multiple instances of outdated USAFA policy letters dating back as far as 1988 and other
AF documents were not maintained or disposed of in accordance with Air Force guidance.
Reference: AFMAN 33-363, Air Force Records Disposition Schedule & Civilian Position
Description
F.34127.1692393: Minor
PE Fitness Test and Evaluations Chief (ADPVT) did not ensure required testing was
administered during the Cadet PFT. The IG inspector followed 3 separate groups from the
waiting lines on the outside of the track through all PFT events and did not witness the
accomplishment of the sit and reach portion at any time during the event.
Reference: ADOI 36-3504, 2.20.1.1.
F.34127.1692352: Minor
The AD Records Custodian and Supervisors did not ensure that the Civilian Supervisor
Records Folders were marked in accordance with the Air Force Records Management
program or the Privacy Act Program. Additionally, suggest training and periodic reviews
be accomplished by the Human Resource Program Manager to ensure compliance.
- Approximately 15 records reviewed had PII stickers affixed to the outside of the folder

18 of 34
Folders this is not authorized in accordance with Air Force guidance.

- Approximately 25 records review had PII cover sheets affixed to the on the outside of
the folder this is not authorized in accordance with air force guidance
- Civilian Supervisor Records were not marked in accordance with Air Force Records
Management Guidance
Reference: AFI 33-332 Para 1.1.11.8., 2.2.3. 9.4.4. & AFMAN 33-363
F.34127.1685394: Minor
Human Resources Program manager did not ensure that supervisors did not maintain
personnel notes in the Civilian Supervisor Records. Air Force personnel or supporting
contractors shall not file personal notes in a System of Record SOR, as personal notes will
be considered part of the SOR.
Reference: AFI 33-332 Para 1.1.11 & 1.1.11.10.
Recommend that the USAFA/AD Human Resource Program Manager in coordination with the
(b)(5)
10 FSS/CPO educate Athletic Department supervisor on maintaining and disposition of
Civilian Supervisor Records.
Training
(b)(5)
Individual
Effective
Comments:
New AD faculty members are required to attend the faculty orientation program. Nearly all
interviewees found this training useful in preparing them to teach and coach within the
Academy environment. The PE department reviews expectations and standards prior to
each semester. Government employees must complete mandated DoD and AF training
courses via the Advanced Distance Learning System. Employees contracted through the
AFAAC only take the courses required to gain access to the USAFA network. Other
human-relations courses are encouraged but not mandatory at this time. AFAAC leadership
is reviewing employee contracts to determine what training should be mandatory.
Deficiencies:
F.34127.1685398: Minor
Athletic Department Director did not ensure proper safety briefings, standards and
trainings were properly accomplished or documented.
- 1 occurrence of a missing form 55 or equivalent
- 17 occurrences of supervisor accomplishing annual reviews this action is no longer
required

19 of 34
- 18 occurrences of Job Safety Training Outlines (JSTO) not reviewed annual or JSTO
outdated
- 52 occurrences of personnel not completed mandatory Fire Extinguisher Training
Reference: AFI 91-202 Para 1.5.20. & Attachment 5 & 91-203 Para 6.2.2.1.
F.34127.1692354: Minor
USAFA/AD Athletic Director did not ensure that all required Ancillary training was
accomplished. The following is the number of personnel by program that has not
accomplished mandatory training.
- 51 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on No Fear Act Training
- 30 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on the Free Exercise of Religion Training
- 18 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on Suicide Prevention Training
- 15 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on Human Relation Training
- 12 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on Force Protection Training
- 31 of 181 personnel assigned are not current on Information Protection Training
(includes contractors)
- 24 of 181 personnel assigned are not current on DOD IAA CyberAware Training
(includes contractors)
Reference: AFI36-2201 Para 7.3.
Development
(b)(5)
Professional
Effective
Quality of Life Engagement

Comments:
Athletic Department leadership received results from a 19 Dec 13 Unit Climate Assessment
(b)(5)
(UCA). Only 46 members (24.3%) responded to the UCA which is not statistically
representative of the entire unit. However, the UCA reported that Cohesion and Pride were
favorable (85.5%) but Motivation and Morale was a negative factor (23.3% Neutral, 25.1%
Unfavorable). Additionally, the areas of Perceived Discrimination and Overt Discriminatory
Behaviors are "zero tolerance" areas and respondents stated 8% and 6.5% unfavorable
conditions in those areas respectively. On the other hand, 10 ABW Equal Opportunity had
no substantiated work environment cases in the past since Jan 2011. Also, members of the
Athletic Department participated in the 2014 USAFA Faculty and Staff Climate Survey. 52
members (32%) responded to this survey which again, is not statistically representative of the
entire unit. The 2014 USAFA Faculty and Staff Climate Survey results were similar to and
supported the 2013 Unit Climate Assessment. Inspectors interviewed 31 individuals
regarding the culture and climate of the Athletic Department. Collectively, their answers also

20 of 34

(b)(5)
supported the UCA and Faculty Climate Survey. Responses suggest that due to various
external and internal threats, employees lost a sense of belonging, shared values, trust and
cooperation.
(b)(5) Marginally Effective
Unit Morale
Deficiencies:
(b)(5)
Nearly all interviewees stated department morale was extremely low due to the following
reasons:
- Threat to cutting sports and actual manpower cuts
- Federal budget declines resulting in sequestration and furloughs
- Instability caused by transitioning from NAFI to AFAAC
- "4th Floor" gap between senior administrators and coaches/instructors/support
personnel
- Negative perception of athletes caused by media focusing on misbehavior of only a few
cadets
- Lack of accountability for perceived and/or alleged wrong-doings
- Past USAFA senior leadership making AD personnel decisions and (perceived) placing
their favored people in senior positions
- Favoritism in hiring ("Good ole boy network")
- A lack of understanding how the AFAAC operates
- A resources and advocacy gap between the 5 premier and 22 other sports
- An advocacy gap between intercollegiate athletics and the other mission sets:
intramurals, PE and testing
- Government employee coaches were required to teach PE while AFAAC-contracted
coaches did not

IMPROVING THE UNIT
(b)(5)
EFFECTIVE
Strategic Alignment
(b)(5)
Effective
Strategic Planning
Comments:
The AD vision statement encourages individuals (permanent party) in the AD to be their best
to produce outstanding officers.
The mission statement has four main areas. Area 1 provides leadership through a
challenging environment. Area 2 is designed to prepare cadets for a life of service through
athletic training and competition. Area 3 is focused on revenue generation to support

21 of 34
multimillion dollar athletic program. Area 4 is focused on promoting USAFA to the nation
through athletics. This mission statement aligns and supports the USAFA mission statement
in Areas 1, 2 and 4. Area 3 is confusing and may be a byproduct of the transition from
(b)(5)
government only entity to government/non-profit entity (AFAAC). Recommend the
removal
of(b)(5)
Area 3 as it is captured within the AFAAC mission statement. AFAAC should be
concerned about generating revenue. Individuals in AD understood the importance of
mission statement areas 1, 2 and 4. They also acknowledged that Area 3 was out of place
with the advent of the AFAAC.
The AD Strategic Plan was published in September 2013 and addressed a 5-year span of
time. The plan is aligned to the vision and mission and provides key assumptions and links
to USAFA as a whole. The plan consists of 6 strategic goals with 17 supporting objectives to
achieve the goals. Each objective is supported by a set of initiatives with a designated
metric. Based on the assessment of the Strategic Plan, it is well designed to support mission
achievement.
Recommend AD leadership implement oversight and strict review of the Strategic Plan. The
(b)(5)
Strategic Plan states, "Successful implementation of the Strategic Plan will involve aggressive
oversight by Athletic Department leadership. Strict review cycles are critical to check the
progress of the group toward accomplishing the INIs. Monitoring and reporting on the
progress of the Strategic Plan will help maintain the focus required for success. As such, the
Athletic Department will review the status of all INIs on a quarterly basis at a minimum, but
this will be a vibrant living document and as such will be reviewed at weekly staff meeting and
adjusted accordingly" (AD Strategic Plan, 30). Inspectors did not observe that there was
either aggressive oversight or a strict review of the Strategic Plan.
Performance Metrics
Comments:
The AD Strategic Plan supports its strategic goals and objectives with initiatives that are
designed to collect metrics over designated periods. Interviews indicated that data was
being collected and presented to AD leadership. Data were collected and analyzed by a
dedicated metric developer and monitor. In some areas such as Strategic Plan objective 1.1
and 1.2, it was evident that data were collected and were used to make improvement to the
cadet physical education and reconditioning program. It was also evident that cadet Physical
Education Average (PEA) data were being used to better forecast the success of cadet's
physical success. Discussion of the PEA indicates that it is the best proxy available of
individual cadet athletic success. Cadet athletic success as measured by PEA was one
indicator of AD mission success.

22 of 34
There were concerns expressed that intramurals (IM) needed to be included somehow in the
cadet PEA and that intercollegiate coaches did not vary the physical education scores
allocated them by AD for the players in their program. A discussion should take place
covering these two concerns.
Unlike the metrics that are collected by the PE section, the intercollegiate (IC) sections
metrics are less direct in regards to cadet growth. While all IC cadets receive PE inputs
indirectly from their sports team, direct feedback beyond the athletic field is limited. Direct
feedback comes from the Form 94, but this event happens during the senior year and is late
in the cadet to officer development process. An
AD official explained that USAFA graduates
(b)(5)
have
(b)(5) told him that their IC experiences were critical to their development and growth beyond
USAFA. When asked if IC cadets express this same sentiment, he explained that the
question hasn't been asked.
It was expressed by members of AD that much of the performance metrics were captured in
the AD history report. After reviewing the 2013-2014 AD History Report, it is evident that AD
has a process in place to capture the critical events that happen across the AD enterprise.
However, it is also evident that many of the 35-performance metrics designated in the AD
strategic plan are not being captured and codified on a regular basis (quarterly). Based on
discussion with members of AD, most if not all of the 35-performance metric are occurring on
an ongoing basis, but the codification of the results has been inconsistent.
Given the tacit nature of the IC athletic experience (practice and competition); recommend
(b)(5)
that AD work with the CCLD to develop a reflection program for IC cadets. In this program,
IC cadets will document their IC experience. The rich data will be useful to support the
strengths that are reported from athletic experience, but difficult to codify. The AFAAC
should be used to collect post USAFA data from former IC cadets.
Recommend that the performance metrics for the 35 initiatives be kept in a centralized area
and be viewed on a quarterly basis as a designated in the AD Strategic Plan. Additionally,
the AD History Report should be kept as well as it provides a qualitative view that may not be
captured in the quantitative measures. Finally, a thorough review of the metrics should be
accomplished to determine if all 35 measures are needed (i.e. many of the measures reflect
the same concept).

23 of 34
(b)(5)
Process Operations
Effective
Key Work Processes

Strengths:
The majority of interviewees stated the Athletic Department relies heavily upon military air (Mil
Air) transportation for team travel. This is a cost-effective travel method but long term use is
questionable if AF Reserve and Guard participation decreases. Each year, AD saves
approximately $600K by using Mil Air. Ms.
(b)(6)Keleen Brown very effectively manages the Mil
Air program. Interviewees stated that if their team used Mil Air, the money saved was
aggregated at a higher level to be used for un-programmed emerging requirements. For
example, if athletes qualified for NCAA national competition, funds for this opportunity came
from money saved from Mil Air travel. Only two of the 27 teams did not historically use Mil
Air. In the future, all athletic teams should use Mil Air when it meets requirements.
Recommend submittal of Purchase Requests stay within the proposed timelines from the
(b)(5)
annual 10 CONS' Purchase Requests deadlines letter. Late purchase requests put
significant pressure on the 10 CONS' ability to successfully execute awards and secure the
best value while meeting mandatory federal regulations and acquisition timelines. In
addition, late purchase requests result in overtime expenses and/or compensatory time
expenses on behalf of 10 CONS' employees. The AD resource advisor could work with 10
CONS' Contracting Officers/Specialists to project purchase requirements and submit
purchase requests/planning purchase requests prior to deadlines (can also submit prior to
receipt of funding).
Recommend a review be accomplished and process established for AFAAC held Prospect
Camps by the following organizations: USAFA/A1, 10 ABW/FSMC, USAFA/JA & USAFA/AD
- Legal review of the following:
-- Can a position that were cut during 703 or 720 cuts be replaced with a contract position
-- Are all participants, coaches, volunteers, trainers covered under insurance
-- Are Air Force facilities & equipment authorized to be used
-- Who is being tasked to support the event
- SFS/contractors allow participant access onto installation
- Mil/DAFC/NAF being utilized for event support
- Ensure Civilian Coach Volunteers are not earning comp/overtime
- Ensure USAFA Events Program Management Process is used to coordinate all events
-- Reference: USAFI 36-3525
-- Determine if Prospect Camps are External or Internal events IAW USAFAI 36-3525

24 of 34
Risk Management
Comments:
The unit has an informal, undocumented risk management process. Leadership has
determined that its greatest risk to mission is caused by manpower cuts. With the loss of
assistant coaches, the potential development of the cadets' athletic performance is reduced,
thereby implying a lower level of competition. Leadership stated their was a risk to people
because they cut athletic trainers so fewer were available to mitigate/care for cadet injuries.
Leadership also identified a lack of appropriate guidance for the profit/non-profit cooperative
agreement. In order to minimize this risk to mission from the loss of manpower, employees
have had to assume more responsibilities. For example, coaches have to conduct more
logistical planning rather than focus on training plans. Furthermore, some head coaches are
examining donor funding streams to contract for and hire a replacement second assistant
coach.
Recommend
field safety cordon be established and enforced for spectator and player safety.
(b)(5)
Rational, two collisions were witnessed during the soccer championship between spectators
and players. Cadet EMTs evaluated both spectators and neither person was injured.
Furthermore, the cadet Sabre and Rifle Drill teams were performing within 3 yards of the back
of the end zone of the football game. Cadets were carrying squadron charges (6' plastic
composite beams) between fields and placing them close to the fields to watch the games.
All of these activities that are not related to the Intramural activities increase the potential for
injuries
Recommend additional medical support from cadet EMTs to observe hallways during the
PFT. Sports Medicine Athletic Trainer was providing coverage on the track/testing floor but
once test was completed, cadets were instructed to head upstairs and recover in the hallway
without escorts to monitor cadets' wellbeing (i.e. in case cadets faint, get sick, etc.).
Commitment to Continuous Improvement
Deficiencies:
(b)(5)
F.34127.1641224: Minor
Interviewees responded there is a lack of commitment to continuous improvement.
(b)(5)
Answers included a philosophy that things were always done a certain way so why change
it. Key processes were either not documented or the associated AD Operating Instruction
were out-of-date. Personalities and relationships tended to drive processes rather than
documented, repeatable processes.
Reference: AFI 1-2, para. 3.4.2.

25 of 34

Recommend
AD work with USAFA/A1M to leverage Continuous Process Improvement (CPI)
(b)(5)
programs to help encourage and incentivize employee innovation to streamline its operations
as it begins to cope with recent manpower reductions. Interviews revealed that no formal
CPI program exists in AD, although staff meetings are used to discuss ways to solve
problems/issues. USAFA's CPI program, administered by USAFA/A1M, is now being
repurposed to better leverage the AFSO21 process as well as the new Airman Powered by
Innovation Program to help USAFA streamline its processes and look for efficiencies as a
way to offset resource reductions and fund new requirements.
Reference: USAFA/CC direction to continuously improve processes, AFSO21 Playbook, AF
Airman Powered by Innovation Program guidance
Data-Driven Decision
Effective
(b)(5)
Comments:
End of course data (written and verbal) were used to make decisions and improve operations.
PE has collected data through a variety of methods over the last 15-years including 4-years of
using the CEE online instructor feedback system. While electronic feedback was desirable,
the response rate was too low to provide useful feedback to the PE section of AD. The
response rate was low under the electronic system because of the following reasons: 1) no
wifi in athletic venues, 2) cadets don't bring laptops to athletic classes and 3) response rate
decreases when cadets leave the classroom environment (i.e. return to their dorms). As a
result, PE return to the manually collection of course feedback. AD would like to collect
electronic feedback, but dedicated resources in the form of tablets and wifi will need to be
added. Another example of data driven decision making is in regards to the implementation
of Yoga this semester. Based on cadet feedback, Yoga was requested as an option;
however, AD was unable to support the addition of another class without a class being
removed. AD used cost analysis to determine that Scuba served a limited number of cadets
and was an expensive course to operate. As a result, AD saved money while meeting the
desires of the cadet wing.
PFT and AFT data were used to change PE curriculum to provide cadets the tools to be
successful in the fitness endeavors. Specifically, data from BCT PFT were used to vector
"fitness at risk" cadets into a specialized healthy living course to empower the cadets to make
better choices. This initiative is aligned to Lt Gen Johnson's effort to empower cadets by
providing the needed information early in their cadet career. Another example of data driven
decision making is in regards to the cadet intramural program. Feedback from the cadet wing
showed that the IM season was too long and cadets were not motivated to compete.
The IM program received this feedback and worked with cadet wing leadership to develop an
accelerated IM season that returned more time to the Cadet and increased cadet motivation
to compete.

26 of 34

Recommend
AD fully utilize its existing employee exit interview process to determine why
(b)(5)
individuals are terminating their employment, analyze this information for any trends, and to
take corrective actions as warranted. An analysis of civilian personnel losses records (2011
thru 2014) indicates AD is experiencing a high 18% annual civilian employee attrition rate.
Decision Processes
Comments:
The Athletic Director made major policy decisions, including until recently, hiring decisions.
Senior sports supervisors made the majority of decisions for intercollegiate athletics. These
decisions included daily operations, disbursement of funds to their specific teams and travel
modes. Decisions were made informally rather than through a formal corporate process.
(b)(5)
EXECUTING THE MISSION
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
Comments:
All interviewed members appreciated that their mission was to produce leaders of character
by providing opportunities for cadets to compete in a physical environment. The Athletic
Department does this through intercollegiate athletics, intramurals, physical education classes
and fitness testing. Few interviewees mentioned the other elements "Generate revenue
necessary to operate a multi-million dollar athletic program" or "Promote the Academy to the
nation through Athletics."
(b)(5)
Primary Mission
Highly Effective
Comments:
Inspectors observed the event set-up and execution of various mission-related venues.
These included an intercollegiate game, intramurals and the cadet physical fitness test.
Members remarked numerous times about the duality between the cadet immersive
experience and competing at the highest level. In other words, one can come at the expense
of the other. The primary example was the amount of athletic training time. Other NCAA
Division I programs spend many more hours preparing for competition. Another aspect was
the tension between NCAA rules interpretations and Department of Defense directives.
In
the event of a conflict between directives and NCAA rules, the Athletic Department must
follow the DoD and AF directives. This was particularly evident in travel restrictions and
pre-competition entitlements. It's important to note that most coaches were not upset by this;
many realized this was a fact of life for Air Force Academy intercollegiate programs because
the institution's primary mission was to develop cadets into officers for the United States Air
Force.

27 of 34
Right Quality
Strengths:
ADP Intramural Team fulfilled the AD mission of providing all cadets realistic leadership
experiences in a mentally and physically challenging environment. The intramural program
is cadet executed and provides leadership opportunities through planning, administration and
participation. ADP Intramural Team enables additional cadet opportunities and rewards
through the extramural program. ADP Intramurals Team accomplishes excellent
cross-communication with other agencies to include sports medicine, human performance
lab, facilities, equipment and transportation.

28 of 34
REPLY INSTRUCTIONS
USAFA/AD director will appoint an Inspector General Evaluation Management System (IGEMS)
Administrative Manager NLT 10 Oct 14 via the USAFA/IG Org Box. The IGEMS Administrative
Managers will be the focal point to update all root-cause analysis, deficiency cause codes and
corrective action plans NLT 21 Nov 14. USAFA/IG will manage the reported deficiencies within
IGEMS and provide progress updates to the USAFA/AD. Minor deficiencies will be closed upon
approval by the USAFA/AD Director or designee. Critical and significant deficiencies will be
closed upon approval by the USAFA/IG and local Functional Area Managers.

29 of 34
SUPERIOR PERFORMERS
The following have been recognized as Superior Performers:
NAME
Linda
(b)(6) Huggler
Capt Douglas Sturm
TITLE
Chief, Compliance Division
Executive Officer

30 of 34
TEAM COMPOSITION
DRU Inspection Division Chief
DRU Inspection Team Chief
DRU Inspection Team Inspector
Col David Kuenzli

Mr. Scott Anderson
(b)(6)
Lt Col Gerry Gonzalez
Lt Col Eric Tucker
Maj Carlenn Trunkhill
SMSgt Eva Roberts-Madrid
SMSgt Jason Malec
SSgt Kristopher Basgall
Mr. Albert Bryson
Mrs. Kim Diercks
Mr. Dale Hogue
Mrs. Lisa Lucero
Mrs. Marci Sekutera
Mr. Scott McLauthlin

31 of 34
DISTRIBUTION LIST
USAFA/CC
USAFA/CV
USAFA/AD

32 of 34
KEY PERSONNEL
Lt Gen Michelle D. Johnson
Dr. Hans J. Mueh
Col David P. Kuenzli
USAFA/CC
USAFA/CW
USAFA/IG

33 of 34
ACRONYMS
AD
ADOI
AFAAA
AFAAC
BCT
CA
CCLD
CDI
CEE
CPI
DAFC
EMS
EMT
FAC
GM
GPC
GS
HHQ
IC
IM
INI
JSTO
JTR
NAF
NAFI
PE
PEA
PFT
PII
PGL
SOR
UCA
WG
UMD
Administratively Determined
Athletic Department Operating Instruction
Air Force Academy Athletic Association
Air Force Academy Athletic Corporation
Basic Cadet Training
Cooperative Agreement
Center for Character and Leadership Development
Commander Directed Inspection
Center for Educational Excellence
Continuous Process Improvement
Department of the Air Force Civilian
Evaluation Management System
Emergency Medical Technician
Falcon Athletics Center
Guidance Memorandum
Government Purchase Card
General Schedule
Higher Headquarter
Intercollegiate
Intramural
Initiative
Job Safety Training Outline
Joint Travel Regulation
Non-appropriated Fund
Non-appropriated Fund Instrumentality
Physical Education
Physical Education Average
Physical Fitness Test
Personal Identifiable Information
Program Guidance Letters
System of Record
Unit Climate Assessment
Wage Grade
Unit Manning Document

34 of 34

FINAL - USAFA Inspection Report - Redacted (2), 9 March 2015

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FINAL - USAFA Inspection Report - Redacted (2), 9 March 2015

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

18 Aug 2014 - 22 Sep 2014

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Improving the Unit: (b)(5)

Digitally signed by KUENZLI.

DAVID P. KUENZLI, Col, USAF

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Table: Athletic Department Unit Item Grades / Summary Table

HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A

Critical Significant Minor SII CII

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A

Critical Significant Minor SII CII

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

CCIP INSPECTION RESULTS

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Recommend that to ensure a well-defined audit trail that a manifest is provided to

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Reference: AFI 1-2, 3.3.6.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Recommended Improvement Areas:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

civilian employee records in accordance with published Air Force guidance.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Folders this is not authorized in accordance with Air Force guidance.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Quality of Life Engagement

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Reference: AFI 1-2, 3.2.5.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY