air force audit agency - wikispacescomm705.wikispaces.com/file/view/af+fitness+audit.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
A I R F O R C E A U D IT A G E N C Y
4 March 2010 HQ AFAA/DO 1126 Air Force Pentagon Washington DC 20330-1126 Capt Michael Meridith 1582 Eglin Way, Unit E Bolling AFB DC 20032 [email protected] Dear Capt Meridith, On 1 March 2010, we received your Freedom of Information Act e-mail request for a copy of the recent fitness audit that led to the adoption of new fitness standards across the USAF. We have one report that matches your criteria, F2009-0004-FD4000, Air Force Fitness Program, 11 December 2008. In response to the request, we are providing you with the report. Please note the attached report describes deficiencies that existed before the issue date and discusses actions taken or planned at the time of issuance. As a result, the report may not represent current conditions. The search and duplication fees for responding to your request are not assessed. This completes our work on your request; therefore, I am closing your file in this office. Direct questions regarding this response to Ms. Michelle Abell, HQ AFAA/DOO, (703) 696-7907 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely
MICHAEL V. BARBINO Assistant Deputy Auditor General Attachment: Audit Report
AIR FORCEAUDIT AGENCY
AUDIT REPORTF2009-0004-FD4000
11 December 2008
AIR FORCE
FITNESS PROGRAM
Executive Summary
i
INTRODUCTION The Air Force Fitness Program policy requires Airmen to
meet fitness standards by maintaining a healthy lifestyle
and through participation in unit physical activity. The
program goal is to motivate Airmen to participate in
physical conditioning emphasizing total fitness, including
aerobic conditioning, strength, and flexibility training.
Further, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Chief Master
Sergeant of the Air Force (CMSAF) advocate Airmen be
“fit to fight” and in January 2008 made fitness assessment
results a mandatory element of Airman Performance
Reports. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, the Air Force spent
approximately $100 million on fitness activities, base
gymnasiums, and health and wellness centers to support the
fitness program.
OBJECTIVES The CMSAF requested this audit to evaluate fitness
program effectiveness. Specifically, we determined
whether:
Unit commanders consistently implemented the
fitness program.
Unit-based fitness programs effectively promoted a
healthy lifestyle.
CONCLUSIONS The Air Force Fitness Program could be improved. At
the 13 locations reviewed, unit commanders did not
consistently implement the fitness program and unit-based
fitness programs did not effectively promote a healthy
lifestyle. Specifically:
Commanders did not consistently allow individual
physical fitness activity during duty hours, take
administrative action for members not meeting
standards, adequately support exemptions, or
properly perform fitness assessments. Consistently
implemented fitness programs provide year-round
physical conditioning and fair and equitable Airman
Performance Reports. (Tab A, page 2)
Unit-based fitness programs did not effectively
influence Airmen to make fitness a year-round
commitment. Of 321 Airmen recently completing a
fitness assessment, 35 percent had a significant
increase in abdominal circumference (AC) and
Executive Summary
ii
weight within 60 days of the assessment. Fitness
programs must establish an environment conducive
to healthy lifestyle choices year-round to support
the Air Force “fit to fight” objective and improve
readiness. (Tab B, page 9)
RECOMMENDATIONS We made two recommendations for the Air Force Surgeon
General (AF/SG) and the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower and Personnel (AF/A1) to improve the fitness
program. (Reference the individual Tabs for specific
recommendations.) MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE
Management officials agreed with the audit results and,
although management nonconcurred with recommendation
A.1.c., the alternative corrective actions planned are
responsive to the issues addressed in this report.
RONALD M. JENSEN
Associate Director
(Manpower and Personnel Division)
JAMES W. SALTER, JR.
Assistant Auditor General
(Support and Personnel Audits)
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TAB
A
B
Fitness Program Implementation
Unit-Managed Programs
1
9
APPENDIX
I Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage 13
II Locations Audited/Reports Issued 17
III Points of Contact 19
IV Final Report Distribution 21
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
1
BACKGROUND
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-248, Fitness Program, 25 September 2006, directs unit
commanders to issue written policy detailing a unit-based fitness program providing
three sessions of group exercise (specifying the required frequency of participation) and
allowing Airmen 90 minutes of duty time a week for individual fitness activity. Wing
commanders appoint fitness program managers (FPMs) to oversee the program and train
designated unit FPMs to administer the program, conduct unit fitness assessments, and
accomplish annual reviews.
To pass the fitness assessment, members must complete a composite test1 annually. In
addition to evaluating total fitness, supervisors use the results to accomplish annual
Airman Performance Reports. Unit FPMs enter the annual fitness test results into the
Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS) to update and track fitness status,
including fitness assessment scores and test dates, and members can view the results on
the Air Force Portal.
Airmen scoring below 75 on the fitness assessment are subject to a variety of intervention
programs and administrative actions such as attending the Healthy Living Program, docu-
menting exercise activities, and submitting exercise logs to the unit or wing FPM for
review.2 Airmen not meeting standards must retest within 90 days after attending the
Healthy Living Program and monitored exercise activities. If an individual fails two or
more consecutive tests, unit FPMs must schedule a fitness review panel to evaluate
progress, determine if additional intervention is required, and submit the review panel
results to the commander for potential administrative action.3
Commanders may grant fitness assessment exemptions for a limited time if members are
unable or unavailable to train or test for reasons beyond their control, such as catastrophic
events or deployments. Commanders may also grant medical exemptions to individuals
with duty-limiting restrictions documented on an Air Force Form 422, Notification of
Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, 15 October 2007.
1 The composite test includes aerobic fitness, muscular strength, and body composition (AC, height, and
weight) assessments.
2 Members attend the Healthy Living Program at the installation health and wellness center for nutrition,
exercise and behavioral counseling.
3 Administrative actions available to commanders include verbal and written counseling, administrative
demotion, and separation.
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
2
AUDIT RESULTS 1 – POLICY COMPLIANCE
Condition. Unit commanders at the 13 locations reviewed did not consistently imple-
ment the fitness program. Specifically, commanders did not always allow individual
physical fitness activity during duty hours, take intervention and administrative action for
members not meeting standards, adequately support exemptions, or properly perform fit-
ness assessments. In particular:
Fitness Activity Policy. Of the 50 units reviewed, 16 units (32 percent) either did
not have written unit policies4 allowing time for unit/group fitness activities, such
as aerobic conditioning and strength training, or comply with Air Force policy
allowing time for individual physical fitness activity during duty hours (Table 1).5
ORGANIZATION/
LOCATION
NUMBER OF UNITS
REVIEWED
WITHOUT
WRITTEN
UNIT POLICY
NOT COMPLYING WITH
FITNESS ACTIVITY POLICY
AF/A3/5 4 3 4
AF/A8 4 1 4
HQ AFSPC 4 0 0
Barksdale AFB 4 0 1
Carswell JRB* 4 0 0
Edwards AFB 4 0 0
Elmendorf AFB 4 0 0
Grissom ARB** 3 0 3
Kadena Air Base 4 0 0
RAF Lakenheath*** 4 0 0
Luke AFB 3 0 0
McGuire AFB 4 1 4
Seymour Johnson AFB 4 1 0
TOTAL 50 6 16
* Joint Reserve Base ** Air Reserve Base
*** Royal Air Force
Table 1. Unit Fitness Program Requirements.
For example, none of the eight Air Staff units reviewed participated in group
exercise sessions, and only three of them allowed members duty time for individ-
ual exercise. In another example, a unit at Barksdale AFB only required members
to participate in one group exercise session per week and did not allow any duty
time for individual exercise. Conversely, a unit at RAF Lakenheath allowed
4 We reviewed written fitness policies for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and
Requirements (AF/A3/5), the Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Programs (AF/A8),
Headquarters Air Force Space Command (HQ AFSPC), and 38 installation-level units. 5 Group exercise three times per week equates to fitness activity every other duty day in a 5-day work
week. For Reserve units, we considered one group exercise session during monthly 2-day unit training
assemblies an equivalent level of exercise.
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
3
90 minutes of duty time for individual exercise three times a week and held three
group exercise sessions weekly, requiring members to attend each session.
Intervention and Administrative Actions. Commanders did not intervene and use
administrative action when necessary. Of 491 members with substandard fitness
scores, 222 (45 percent) did not attend the Healthy Living Program. Further,
161 (80 percent) of 202 members failing twice or more consecutively did not
meet a fitness review panel, and 146 (72 percent) individuals did not receive any
administrative action (Table 2).
ORGANIZATION/
LOCATION
UNITS
REVIEWED
NUMBER OF MEMBERS
SCORE
LESS
THAN
75
NOT IN
HEALTHY
LIVING
PROGRAM
FAILED
TWICE
OR
MORE*
WITHOUT
FITNESS
REVIEW
PANEL
WITHOUT
ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION AFTER
TWO OR MORE
FAILURES*
AF/A3/5 4 7 0 2 2 1
AF/A8 4 4 1 3 0 0
HQ AFSPC 4 4 1 1 0 1
Barksdale AFB 4 56 10 19 16 9
Carswell JRB 4 30 6 9 3 0
Edwards AFB 4 5 5 4 4 4
Elmendorf AFB 4 14 0 7 1 0
Grissom ARB 3 39 0 0 0 0
Kadena Air Base 4 43 14 15 13 13
RAF Lakenheath 4 33 3 12 8 6
Luke AFB 3 70 60 28 28 28
McGuire AFB 4 119 92 73 67 69
Seymour Johnson AFB 4 67 30 29 19 15
TOTAL 50 491 222 202 161 146
*Consecutive failures
Table 2. Intervention and Administrative Actions.
For example, an Airman at Edwards AFB failed the fitness assessment 12 con-
secutive times without meeting a fitness review panel or receiving any administra-
tive action. Conversely, a unit commander at Seymour Johnson AFB issued 16
unsatisfactory performance reports for fitness and took administrative action such
as demotions and cancelled assignments for 9 individuals.
Exemptions. Generally, commander and deployment exemptions were effectively
managed; however, 17 (13 percent) of 129 medical exemptions reviewed did not
have current AF Forms 422 supporting the exemptions. For example, an Airman
at McGuire AFB was reported as medically exempt in January 2008 even though
the AF Form 422 duty limiting restriction expired in June 2007. In another case,
an Airman at HQ AFSPC was medically exempt from the entire composite test
even though the medical provider stated the Airman was not exempt from the
body composition portion of the assessment.
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
4
Fitness Assessments. Some commanders did not properly perform unit fitness
assessments. Specifically:
Of the 9,206 members requiring fitness assessments, 476 (5 percent) were not
accomplished by the due date and 190 (40 percent) of these were overdue by
60 days or more. For example, as of January 2008, the fitness assessment for
an Airman at Grissom ARB was overdue by 993 days and the assessment for
an Airman at Kadena AB was overdue by 311 days.
Of 321 randomly selected Airmen recently performing the fitness assess-
ment,6 56 (17 percent) had an average change in AC measurement of more
than one inch since the last test without a corresponding change in weight,
indicating the tests were either improperly performed or inaccurately
documented in AFFMS (Table 3).
ORGANIZATION/
LOCATION
NUMBER OF
AVERAGE CHANGE IN AC
MEASUREMENT
MEMBERS
RESULTS
REVIEWED VARIANCES
INCREASE
(INCHES)
DECREASE
(INCHES)
AF/A3/5 4 0 0 0
AF/A8 10 0 0 0
HQ AFSPC 38 5 2 0
Barksdale AFB 30 8 3 0
Carswell JRB 30 7 2 2
Edwards AFB 30 9 3 0
Elmendorf AFB 24 2 3 0
Grissom ARB 22 5 4 2
Kadena Air Base 30 6 3 2
RAF Lakenheath 23 1 3 0
Luke AFB 20 1 0 2
McGuire AFB 30 5 4 2
Seymour Johnson AFB 30 7 2 0
TOTAL/AVERAGE 321 56 3 1
Table 3. AC Measurements.
For example, the actual AC measurement for an Airman at Barksdale AFB
was more than 5 inches higher than the measurement recorded in AFFMS,
even though the Airman lost 6 pounds since the fitness test. Also, the actual
AC measurement for an Airman at Grissom ARB was more than 3 inches
higher than the measurement recorded in AFFMS, even though the Airman
lost 1 pound since the test.
6 We randomly selected 30 (or all if less than 30) Airmen from each organization reviewed who completed
the fitness assessment 60 days before obtaining the scores from AFFMS on 18 January 2008.
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
5
Cause. Commanders did not properly implement the fitness program because
AFI 10-248 did not require wing FPMs verify unit written fitness policies complied with
Air Force fitness program requirements during annual quality control reviews. Further,
the AFI did not include adequate intervention procedures or identify specific unit fitness
program annual review requirements. Specifically:
Intervention Procedures. The AFI did not require unit fitness policies identify the
education and intervention actions unit FPMs should initiate when members did
not meet fitness assessment standards. In addition, commanders assigned unit
FPMs to conduct and monitor intervention actions without the authority to
enforce the actions. Overall, less than half of the unit fitness policies reviewed
identified consequences for not passing a fitness assessment. Further, the AFI did
not clearly require unit FPMs to notify unit commanders when members did not
pass assessments two or more consecutive times. Therefore, not all commanders
took administrative action for substandard scores.
Review Requirements. The AFI did not identify specific unit fitness program
annual review requirements such as fitness testing timeliness, unfit member
intervention actions, and program exemptions. However, the five locations7
taking the initiative to conduct such reviews had fewer fitness-related discrepan-
cies. For example, the Elmendorf AFB wing FPM conducted thorough reviews
resulting in only three intervention-related discrepancies. Conversely, the
Seymour Johnson AFB wing FPM did not conduct fitness record reviews and had
62 intervention-related discrepancies.8
Impact. A properly implemented fitness program provides year-round physical
conditioning required for Airmen to be physically fit to support the Air Force mission.
For example, proper physical conditioning is essential to work in the diverse weather
conditions required to support global contingency operations. Further, implementing
the program consistently Air Force-wide will help ensure fair and equitable Airman
Performance Report assessments. In particular, it is unfair and potentially demoralizing
when some units hold members to higher fitness standards than others and could put the
Air Force at risk for legal action if members’ Airman Performance Reports include
fitness assessment scores based on inconsistent program implementation.
7 The five locations were HQ AF/A8, RAF Lakenheath, and Edwards, Elmendorf, and Luke AFBs.
8 Intervention-related discrepancies included members not attending the Healthy Living Program,
documenting exercise activities, or submitting exercise logs to the unit or wing FPM for review.
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
6
Recommendation A.1. AF/SG, in coordination with AF/A1, should revise AFI 10-248
to require:
a. Wing FPMs verify unit written fitness policies comply with Air Force fitness
program requirements. As a minimum, wing FPMs should ensure unit policies allow
time for unit/group fitness activities, such as aerobic conditioning and strength training,
and comply with Air Force policy allowing time for individual physical fitness activity
during duty hours.
b. Unit fitness policies identify education and intervention actions unit FPMs should
initiate when members do not meet fitness standards.
c. Commanders give unit FPMs the authority to enforce fitness program intervention
actions.
d. Unit FPMs notify unit commanders when members do not pass fitness
assessments two or more consecutive times.
e. Identify specific unit fitness program annual review requirements to include
fitness testing timelines, unfit member intervention actions, and program exemptions.
Management Comments. Management concurred with recommendations A.1.a., A.1.b.,
A.1.d., A.1.e., and nonconcurred with recommendation A.1.c., and stated, “AF/A1
believes additional action is required and formed a General Officer level working group
with A1, JA, SG, and CMSAF to work the issue further. In addition, AF/SG, with
AF/A1 will revise AFI 10-248 to:
a. “Require FPMs review and report compliance of unit fitness policies to appro-
priate Wing staff personnel. FPMs lack the position and authority to enforce commander
compliance with AFI 10-248. Commanders’ enforcement needed to ensure unit fitness
policies are followed. Estimated completion date: 16 April 2009.
b. “Require unit fitness policies clearly identify education and intervention actions
UFPMs should take when members do not meet fitness standards. Estimated completion
date: 16 April 2009.
c. “Emphasize that commanders are ultimately responsible for the fitness program
and should take administrative action on members who fail to adhere to intervention
requirements. UFPM is often the most junior enlisted member of the squadron and it
would be difficult to delegate enforcement authority to this level. Estimated completion
date: 16 April 2009.
d. “Ensure commanders are notified of all fitness assessment failures. Estimated
completion date: 16 April 2009.
Tab A Fitness Program Implementation
7
e. “Require the identification of additional specific requirements to include fitness
testing timelines, unfit member intervention actions, and program exemptions. A1
additionally recommends requiring FPM brief quarterly metrics to Wing leadership.
Estimated completion date: 16 April 2009.”
Evaluation of Management Comments. Management officials agreed with the audit
results and, with one exception, concurred with the recommendations and planned actions
are responsive to the issues and recommendations in this Tab. While management non-
concurred with Recommendation A.1.c., management’s response acknowledged correc-
tive action was necessary and proposed alternative action. Specifically, management’s
plan to revise AFI 10-248 to emphasize commanders’ responsibility for enforcing fitness
program administrative action satisfies the intent of our recommendation and, if adequate
controls are implemented, should correct the problem. We will plan a follow-up audit to
evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed alternative action.
8
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Tab B Unit-Managed Programs
9
BACKGROUND
In a 2001 study, the U.S. Surgeon General associated overweight individuals and obesity
with a wide array of ailments including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and breathing
problems.9 A subsequent DoD study found almost 60 percent of active duty Airmen were
overweight.10 The Air Force implemented the current fitness program in January 2004,
assessing members annually on aerobic fitness, muscular strength, and body composition.
The body composition assessment includes AC, height, and weight measurements.
According to DoD Instruction 1308.3, DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs
Procedures, 5 November 2002, the AC measurement is most strongly associated with
health risks and corresponds to healthy exercise habits. To help improve overall fitness,
the policy made unit commanders responsible for incorporating physical conditioning
into the daily work schedule. Unit fitness policies must identify a unit-based physical
training program at least three times a week and specify the frequency of required
individual participation.11 In addition, unit policies must allow active duty members
90 minutes of duty time 3 days a week for individual exercise with the exception of
Air Force Reserve commanders who determine the frequency of exercise during duty
time based on mission requirements. AFI 10-248 requires individuals to maintain a
healthy lifestyle by participating in unit physical training and meeting fitness standards.
AUDIT RESULTS 2 – PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
Condition. Unit-based fitness programs did not effectively promote a healthy life-
style or influence Airmen to make fitness a year-round commitment. Specifically,
111 (35 percent) of the 321 Airmen reviewed gained an average of 3 inches in AC and
a corresponding 9 pounds within 60 days of the annual fitness test (Table 4).12
9 From the December 2001 Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and
Obesity. 10 From the December 2006 DoD Survey of Health Related Behaviors Among Active Duty Military
Personnel. 11 Supervisors must notify the commander or the first sergeant if mission requirements prohibit members
from participating in physical training at least three times a week.
12 Contrary to the results presented in Table 3, we considered the AFFMS data for the 111 members with
measurement variances sufficiently reliable to support the audit results because the data indicated a positive
correlation between AC and weight change.
Tab B Unit-Managed Programs
10
ORGANIZATION/
LOCATION
NUMBER OF MEMBERS AVERAGE INCREASES IN
REVIEWED
WITH
MEASUREMENT
VARIANCES*
AC
MEASUREMENT
(INCHES)
WEIGHT
(POUNDS)
AF/A3/5 4 0 0 0
AF/A8 10 3 2 12
HQ AFSPC 38 10 2 7
Barksdale AFB 30 12 4 10
Carswell JRB 30 14 3 7
Edwards AFB 30 7 4 10
Elmendorf AFB 24 10 3 10
Grissom ARB 22 6 5 14
Kadena AB 30 8 3 8
RAF Lakenheath 23 9 4 15
Luke AFB 20 0 0 0
McGuire AFB 30 19 4 11
Seymour Johnson AFB 30 13 3 10 TOTAL/AVERAGE 321 111 3 9
*Refers to members with an AC increase of more than one inch with a corresponding change in weight of more than
two pounds. We used a two-pound rule because the majority of uncorrelated changes in AC and weight in opposing
directions involved weight changes of less than two pounds.
Table 4. AC and Weight Measurement.
For example, an Airman at RAF Lakenheath gained 7 pounds and 3.5 inches in AC
and an Airman at Kadena AB gained 7 pounds and 3 inches just 2 months after a
December 2007 assessment. For all 111 individuals reviewed, the average weight gain
and AC increase ranged between 2 and 55 pounds and 1.5 and 12.5 inches respectively.
Cause. This condition occurred because Air Force guidance requiring unit commanders
issue policy emphasizing year round individual fitness was not an adequate control, in
itself, to hold members accountable for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Specifically, unit-
based fitness policies did not include adequate management controls, such as conducting
unannounced random body composition assessments and related intervention actions, to
hold members individually accountable for year-round physical fitness. Instead, unit
FPMs accomplished annual assessments at predetermined intervals allowing Airmen to
prepare just before the test, thereby promoting a “fit to test” culture contrary to the
Air Force total fitness objective.
Impact. Fitness programs must establish an environment conducive to healthy lifestyle
choices year-round to support the Air Force “fit to fight” objective and improve
readiness.
Recommendation B.1. AF/SG, in coordination with AF/A1, should revise AFI 10-248
to:
a. Include management controls such as unannounced random body composition
assessments year-round in addition to the annual fitness assessment.
Tab B Unit-Managed Programs
11
b. Initiate intervention actions when individuals do not meet standards during
unannounced body composition assessments.
Management Comments. Management concurred with the audit results and
recommendations and stated, “AF/A1 believes additional action is required and formed a
General Officer level working group with A1, JA, SG, and CMSAF to work the issue
further. In addition, AF/SG, with AF/A1 will revise AFI 10-248 to:
a. “Recommend Commander-directed out-of-cycle unofficial/non-reportable testing
in addition to official annual FA. Abdominal Circumference is a health indicator rather
than one of fitness. Out-of-cycle testing, at the commanders discretion can include, but is
not limited to, UCI, pre-deployment, dress and appearance, etc. This ensures a fit and
healthy culture with year-round physical conditioning. Estimated completion date:
16 April 2009.
b. “Require intervention actions if member’s out-of-cycle testing results do not meet
standards. Estimated completion date: 16 April 2009.”
Evaluation of Management Comments. Management officials agreed with the audit
results, and actions planned are responsive to the issues and recommendations included in
this Tab.
12
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage
13 Appendix I
AUDIT SCOPE
Audit Coverage. We performed this audit at 15 locations13 (Appendix II) from
August 2007 to June 2008 using documents such as AF Forms 108, Physical
Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, 20 August 2007; AF Forms 422;
AF Forms 1975, Fitness Improvement Activity Log – Aerobic Training, 1 January 2004;
AFFMS automated reports; and unit fitness policies dated from 21 January 2004 to
15 May 2008. We issued a draft report to management in September 2008. To
accomplish the audit objectives we reviewed:
Fitness Program Implementation. Unit fitness policies, intervention and admin-
istrative actions, exemptions, and fitness assessment results. In particular:
Policy. Fifty unit fitness policies and evaluated whether commanders
complied with program requirements by establishing written unit fitness
policies, providing duty time for individual or unit exercise, specifying the
level of required participation, and monitoring the results.
Intervention and Administrative Actions. Fitness program case files,
AF Forms 108, AF Forms 1975, and AFFMS automated reports to identify
whether unit FPMs scheduled members for education and intervention actions
when required and whether commanders took appropriate administrative
actions.
Exemptions. AF Forms 422 and fitness program case files for fitness
assessment exemption support such as physician-documented medical
conditions, commander memorandums, or supervisor approval for other
conditions warranting exemptions.
Fitness Assessment Results. AFFMS fitness assessment results as of
18 January 2008 to identify members with overdue fitness assessments. We
also interviewed FPMs on fitness assessment procedures and validated AC
and weight measurements recorded in AFFMS by measuring and weighing
randomly selected Airmen at each location.
13 Appendix II lists 15 locations because it includes HQ AMC and the 375th Airlift Wing (375 AW) at
Scott AFB. However, we did not obtain audit results from HQ AMC on fitness program implementation
(Tab A) or verify member AC and weight measurements (Tab B) because the required data was not readily
available for review. In addition, we accomplished audit work at the 375 AW in conjunction with
HQ AMC and reported these results as one location.
Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage
Appendix I 14
Fitness Program Effectiveness. Written fitness policies to evaluate individual
responsibilities for maintaining fitness year-round, the importance of fitness to the
success of the unit's mission, and specified the consequences of fitness assessment
failures. We also analyzed fitness assessment metrics as of January 2008 to
determine if there was a correlation between increased written emphasis on
individual responsibility for fitness and improved performance on the Air Force
fitness assessment. Finally, we validated AC and weight measurements recorded
in AFFMS by measuring and weighing randomly selected Airmen at each
location.
Sampling Methodology. We used the following sampling methodologies and computer
assisted auditing tools and techniques to conduct the review.
Sampling. We used a two stage sampling methodology. First, we judgmentally
selected two Air Staff organizations, two major commands, six active duty wings,
and four reserve wings based on geographic location to obtain results from a
diverse mix of climates and weather conditions.14 We then selected units or
directorates from operations, maintenance, mission support, and medical organ-
izations conducting fitness assessments as of 18 January 2008 for review.
Second, we randomly selected 30 Airmen (all if less than 30) for review from
each organization completing the fitness assessment within 60 days of our sample
selection date.
Computer-Assisted Auditing Tools and Techniques. We used ACL data analysis
software to match AFFMS data to FPM fitness rosters to help identify members
assigned to the organizations reviewed. We also used the Excel Sort function to
identify members scoring less than 75 on their most recent fitness assessment
within 60 days of our sample selection date.
Data Reliability. We extensively relied on computer-generated data contained in the
AFFMS. Comparing output data to manual documents and performing physical valida-
tion tests to verify data reliability showed an error rate that casts doubt on the data’s
validity. Specifically, AC and weight measurements recorded in AFFMS were not
always correct, and education and intervention actions were not always supported. While
we identified discrepancies in the AFFMS data, we determined the data was sufficiently
reliable to support the audit conclusions and recommendations when viewed with other
available evidence because the inaccuracies resulted from internal control deficiencies
external to the system rather than deficiencies in the system itself.
14 Climate and weather conditions at some locations may affect individual exercise routines.
Audit Scope and Prior Audit Coverage
15 Appendix I
Auditing Standards. We accomplished this audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards and, accordingly, included tests of fitness program
management controls. Specifically, we reviewed controls over proper execution of
transactions and events, appropriate documentation of transactions, segregation of duties,
establishment and review of performance measures and indicators, controls over
information processing, and management reviews.
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
We did not identify any Air Force Audit Agency, DoD Inspector General, or Government
Accountability Office reports issued within the past 5 years that addressed the same or
similar objectives as this audit.
16
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Locations Audited/ Reports Issued
Installation-Level
Organization/Location Reports Issued
17 Appendix II
Headquarters United States Air Force
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans F2008-0037-FDN000
and Requirements (AF/A3/5) 16 September 2008
Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans F2008-0024-FDN000
and Programming (AF/A8) 5 September 2008
Air Combat Command
2d Bomb Wing F2008-0062-FDS000
Barksdale AFB LA 17 July 2008
4th Fighter Wing F2008-0066-FDM00
Seymour Johnson AFB NC 4 August 2008
Air Force Materiel Command
412th Test Wing F2008-0051-FCI000
Edwards AFB CA 23 June 2008
Air Force Reserve Command
301st Fighter Wing NONE
Carswell ARB TX
434th Air Refueling Wing F2008-0021-FCW000
Grissom ARB IN 2 May 2008
514th Air Mobility Wing F2008-0041-FDN000
McGuire AFB NJ 18 September 2008
944th Fighter Wing F2008-0048-FBS000
Luke AFB AZ 14 July 2008
Locations Audited/ Reports Issued Installation-Level
Organization/Location Reports Issued
Appendix II 18
Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)
Headquarters AFSPC F2008-0044-FBM000
Peterson AFB CO
14 May 2008
Air Mobility Command (AMC)
Headquarters AMC NONE
Scott AFB IL
375th Airlift Wing F2008-0067-FBL000
Scott AFB IL 17 June 2008
Pacific Air Forces
3d Wing F2008-0040-FBN000
Elmendorf AFB AK 1 April 2008
18th Wing F2008-0058-FBP000
Kadena Air Base, Japan 5 September 2008
US Air Forces in Europe
48th Fighter Wing F2008-0067-FDE000
Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom 10 July 2008
Points of Contact
19 Appendix III
Manpower and Personnel Division (AFAA/SPP)
Support and Personnel Audits Directorate
2509 Kennedy Circle
Brooks City-Base TX 78235-5116
Mr. Ronald M. Jensen, Associate Director
DSN 240-2280
Commercial (210) 536-2280
Ms. Annie L. Faircloth, Program Manager
Mr. Bret M. Whigham, Audit Manager
We accomplished this audit under project number F2007-FD4000-0691.000.
20
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Final Report Distribution
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
The disclosure/denial authority prescribed in AFPD 65-3 will make all decisions relative
to the release of this report to the public.
21 Appendix IV
SAF/OS
SAF/US
SAF/FM
SAF/IG
SAF/LL
SAF/MR
SAF/PA
SAF/XC, AF/A6
AF/CC
AF/CV
AF/CCC
AF/CVA
AF/A1
AF/A8
AF/RE
AF/SG
NGB/CF
AU Library
DoD Comptroller
OMB
ACC
AETC
AFISR
AFMA
AFMC
AFOSI
AFRC
AFSOC
AFSPC
AMC
ANG
PACAF
USAFA
USAFE
Units/Orgs Audited
22
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
To request copies of this report or to suggest audit topics
for future audits, contact the Operations Directorate at
(703) 696-7913 (DSN 426-7913) or E-mail to
[email protected]. Certain government users may
download copies of audit reports from our home page at
www.afaa.hq.af.mil/. Finally, you may mail requests to:
Air Force Audit Agency
Operations Directorate
1126 Air Force Pentagon
Washington DC 20330-1126