naval inspector general command inspection of reading room... · records management . nlsc’s...

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMAND INSPECTION OF NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 01-12 December 2016

THIS REPORT IS NOT RELEASABLE without the specific approval of the Secretary of the Navy. The information contained herein relates to the internal practices of the Department of the Navy (DON) and is an internal communication within the Navy Department. The contents may not be disclosed outside original distribution, nor may it be reproduced in whole or in part. All requests for this report, extracts therefrom, or correspondence related thereto shall be referred to the Naval Inspector General.

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out

2016 Command Inspection of Naval Legal Service Command


Background The Naval Inspector General (NAVINSGEN) conducted a command inspection of Naval Legal Service Command (NLSC) from 01-12 December 2016. The last inspection of NLSC was conducted in 2011. The inspection team was augmented with subject matter experts, including personnel from the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy for Policy (DUSN(P)); Naval Safety Center (NAVSAFECEN); Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS); and Department of the Navy Assistant for Administration (DONAA).

Prior to the inspection, we queried regional commanders about the support they receive from the Region Legal Service Offices (RLSO); and, despite a few comments about Judge Advocate General (JAG) manning and support to remote locations, their feedback was largely positive. Although Staff Judge Advocates (SJA) are not part of the NLSC structure, we also queried fleet and strike group commanders, soliciting input about the performance of their SJAs. Their feedback was overwhelmingly positive, especially regarding the provision of ethics advice. We inspected NLSC’s execution of its echelon 2 missions, functions, and tasks as specified in OPNAVINST 5450.189C, Mission, Functions, and Tasks of the Naval Legal Service Command. We also inspected security programs, facilities, safety and environmental compliance, resource management programs, and Sailor programs. Additionally, we conducted pre-inspection anonymous surveys and on-site focus groups to assess the quality of work life (QOWL) and home life (QOHL) for Navy military, civilian personnel, and their families. A detailed listing of all areas inspected is provided below.

Inspected Areas/Programs Mission, Functions, and Tasks

• Defense and Trial Counsel Services • Worldwide Legal Services • Non-Judicial Punishment Advice • Legal Support for Administrative

Separations • Ethics Counseling Services • JAG Manual Investigations • Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction Advice • General Legal Advice to Commands • U.S. Attorneys’ Office Support • Law Enforcement Liaison • General Legal Advice to Individuals • OCONUS Personnel Legal Assistance • Citizenship and Immigration Legal

Support • Regional Tax Assistance Centers • Short Notice Mobile JAG Teams

Headquarters Functions • Command Managed Equal

Opportunity • Continuity of Operations Plan

• Equal Employment Opportunity • Human Resources • Manning/Manpower • Training • Records Management • Strategic Communication • Strategic Planning

Security Programs • Information Security • Personnel Security • Antiterrorism/Force Protection

(ATFP) and Physical Security • Operations Security (OPSEC) • Counterintelligence (CI) Training

and Support • Personally Identifiable Information

(PII) • Insider Threat

Facilities, Environmental, and Safety • Facilities Management • Energy Conservation • Environmental

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



• Safety & Occupational Health Resource Management

• Financial Management/Comptroller • Government Commercial Purchase

Card • Government Travel Credit Card • Personal Property Management

Prevention and Response Programs • Casualty Assistance Calls Program • Navy Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Prevention • Overseas Screening • Sexual Assault Prevention and

Response (SAPR) • Suicide Prevention • Victim Witness Assistance Program

Command Oversight Programs • Command Individual Augmentee

Coordinator • Deployment Health Assessment • IG Functions • Individual Medical Readiness • Legal/Ethics/FOIA • Manager’s Internal Control • Physical Readiness • Voting Assistance

Sailor Programs • Command Sponsorship • Command Indoctrination • Career Development • Sailor Recognition • CPO 365 • Transition GPS

Observations and Findings Overall, this was an above-average inspection. We observed the NLSC staff to be a group of hard-working people dedicated to the mission. Prior to the inspection, NLSC invested time in a detailed self-assessment process, and we believe these efforts had a direct positive impact on their success. The self-assessment was started months in advance of the inspection, went through several cycles, and had leadership involvement. NLSC critically reviewed their programs, and many showed improvement over time. In most program areas, our inspection findings validated the NLSC Commander’s self-assessment.

MISSION, FUNCTIONS, AND TASKS In accordance with OPNAVINST 5450.189C dated 15 May 2012, NLSC’s mission is to provide legal services worldwide to support the fleet, and we believe NLSC is effectively executing that mission. The legal landscape is different today than it was ten years ago, largely due to statutory changes surrounding SAPR and the increased complexity of other special victim cases. We believe NLSC has evolved to meet that changing landscape, to include creation of the Victims' Legal Counsel Program, but are concerned with the unintended consequences of this shift. Nearly all of the deficiencies from the previous inspection have been corrected; and the newly-created JAG Consolidated Business Office (JCAB) in Bremerton came as a direct result of the last inspection.

The NLSC staff structure is different from other echelon 2 commands. Since the 1970s, the staff has been a blend of personnel from NLSC and the Office of the JAG (OJAG) with purposely-shared areas of responsibility. While this structure achieves economy of resources due to the smaller staff size, it also introduces risks to mission execution, unity of effort, and completion of command functions. We recommend Commander, NLSC continue to pay close attention to this dynamic. Alignment with Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority Based on our observations and the vision outlined in the Navy JAG 2025.1 Strategic Planning document, we believe NLSC is well aligned with Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority. Furthermore, we believe NLSC is a learning organization, fully embracing CNO’s second line

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



of effort, Achieve High Velocity Learning at Every Level. NLSC has evolved to meet changing demands of SAPR cases, improved the training of First Tour Judge Advocates, established Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) and Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) to address the increased complexity of cases, and improved the data-management and delivery of ethics advice. Further, NLSC created the JCAB as a result of deficiencies cited during the previous command inspection. Based on our assessment, JCAB is now a high-performing team with positive climate ratings and compliant programs.

Court-Martial (Trial and Defense) Services NLSC separates the provision of court-martial counsel services through RLSOs and Defense Service Offices (DSO), which provide trial and defense services respectively. The nine RLSOs and four DSOs are echelon 3 commands reporting directly to Commander, NLSC. Daily coordination is handled through separate chiefs of staff. The NLSC headquarters staff employs effective oversight of these subordinate commands, and we were especially impressed with the detailed tracking of high-profile court cases throughout the Navy.

Impacts of SAPR The legal landscape is different today than it was ten years ago, largely due to statutory changes surrounding SAPR and the increased complexity of other special victim cases. We believe NLSC has evolved to meet that changing landscape, to include creation of the fully compliant Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, but we are concerned with the unintended consequences of this shift. Senior NLSC staff self-reported that 60-70% of the current caseload involves SAPR, which begs the questions: how are Commanders handling disciplinary cases previously handled at court-martial prior to the increase in SAPR cases? What are the impacts to mission readiness and/or good order and discipline if these cases aren’t being handled at court-martial? During the course of the inspection, we were unable to collect data to answer these questions, and it remains an area for further exploration.

Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel Assistance Programs NLSC implemented the TCAP and DCAP programs to mitigate the effects of increased complexity in court-martial cases and to provide better legal service to the Fleet. The increase in complexity is due to numerous factors, such as modern forensic science, computer crimes, cell phone and internet evidence, etc. TCAP/DCAP personnel are experienced litigators who support the prosecution and defense of complex and high-visibility cases. TCAP litigators may even be assigned “second chair” to the assigned counsel in select cases.

First-Tour Judge Advocate Training As the legal field grew more complex and specialized, NLSC developed the First-Tour Judge Advocate (FTJA) training program to ensure new JAG Corps attorneys were receiving proper training and exposure in multiple areas of practice. This training program exposes each first tour JAG to the four main legal practice areas: command services, prosecution, legal assistance, and defense. Each JAG completes a six month rotation in each specialty area. RLSO commanding officers assign FTJAs as recorders for administrative boards and other administrative proceedings as part of their development. These additional training opportunities provide a diverse background for the JAGs and give them a strong foundation to continue their development.

NLSC self-reported they no longer perform one of their functions specified in their Mission, Functions and Tasks (MFT) instruction: to provide legal assistance for physical evaluation boards. This function is

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



now performed by personnel from OJAG. This transfer of authority should be codified in the revised NLSC MFT.

HEADQUARTERS FUNCTIONS The following three programs and functions are compliant with governing directives: Command Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO), Strategic Communication, and Strategic Planning.

Human Resources Human Resources is not fully compliant due to a lack of annual performance plan reviews and appraisals within the prescribed timelines. Additionally, Individual Development Plans (IDP) are not completed for all civilian employees.

Equal Employment Opportunity NLSC’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program is not fully compliant because civilian employees were not completing federally-mandated EEO training in previous years; however, since 01 October 2016, the program has been compliant.

Training Military and civilian training is not fully compliant. While military training is being completed and documented, civilian training is neither being completed nor documented at the same rate as the military training. Additionally, while historical military training records were kept for the previous two fiscal years, historical civilian records were not being kept as required. NLSC has implemented new procedures to ensure civilian training is completed and tracked for FY17 and future FYs.

Manning Military billets are 73% filled (16 of 22 billets authorized) and civilian billets are 79% filled (27 of 34 billets authorized). These levels are significantly lower than Navy-wide shore command averages (82% military officer, and 96% civil service), and may be a root cause(s) of the deficiencies in several programs. Additionally, this data corroborates one of the NLSC Commander’s top concerns, and confirms the numerous comments expressing frustration about deficient manning levels in the survey and focus groups.

Records Management NLSC’s Records Management program is not fully compliant with governing directives. NLSC has not conducted required annual inventories or triannual self-assessments, and the command does not have a process to inform senior leaders of their records management responsibilities during check-in/check-out. In October 2017, NLSC hired a new civilian employee focused exclusively on records management.

Continuity of Operations Plan The NLSC Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) was not fully compliant. The COOP instruction is out of date, there are no written agreements with the organizations at the relocation sites, and essential records that are kept in the relocation sites are out of date.

SECURITY NLSC security personnel support the headquarters staff and provide oversight of subordinate echelon commands. While these personnel are dedicated to the mission, several factors introduce risks to this

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



important mission. Security personnel are also assigned duties in multiple OJAG codes (Code 67 and Code 60), which makes mission prioritization and unity of effort more challenging. Prior to the inspection, NLSC requested a security assist visit, and we believe this was beneficial in improving several security programs. However, our inspection findings were more critical than the NLSC self-assessment.

The NLSC personnel security program is among the best we have seen, particularly in the maintenance of current investigations and security clearances. PII and cyber security programs are also compliant with governing directives. However, most other security programs require improvement. The commander’s critical information list (CIL) is not specific to NLSC. The command lacks required servicing agreements with supporting and supported organizations, and the information security instruction is missing key elements. Building 33 was not surveyed in FY16,

. NLSC has not promulgated a required security plan to echelon 3 commands, and the Insider Threat program lacks required supervisor training. NLSC did not fully exercise its emergency action plan in FY16, as required

.

FACILITIES, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Facilities The NLSC facilities program is compliant, and it enables the command to adapt to changing requirements during a time in which the Navy has significantly cut Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) minor construction funding levels. The program, however, is non-standard and falls outside the governance procedures for Navy facilities projects as established by OPNAVINST 11010.20H. We recommend formalizing NLSC standard operating procedures for the program and identifying it as an assessable unit in the managers’ internal controls (MIC) program.

Environmental NLSC meets the requirements for an exemption from environmental management system audit requirements, but the OPNAV Field Support Activity Budget Submitting Office (BSO 11) has not documented an exemption for NLSC, as required. We intend to submit a separate issue paper recommending OPNAV N45 revise its Environmental Readiness Program Manual to exempt all BSOs that support only administrative functions and therefore pose little risk to the environment.

Safety The NLSC Safety & Occupational Health program is not compliant. Multiple deficiencies exist in the program, including one repeat finding from the previous inspection – that NLSC does not use qualified inspectors to conduct safety and occupational health management evaluations (SOHME). We assess these deficiencies as being relatively low risk to mission, due to the administrative nature of both the deficiencies and the nature of the work being performed at NLSC and subordinate echelons.

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS NAVINSGEN assessed four programs and functions, all of which are compliant with governing directives: Financial Management/Comptroller, Government Commercial Purchase Card, Government Travel Credit Card, and Personal Property Management.

To correct deficiencies from their 2011 command inspection, NLSC created JCAB in Bremerton, WA. Personnel assigned to JCAB perform travel and procurement functions at a high level for the headquarters staff and multiple subordinate echelon commands.

PREVENTION AND RESPONSE The Prevention and Response Team assessed six programs and functions. The following four programs and functions are compliant with governing directives: Casualty Assistance Calls, Navy Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Overseas Screening, Suicide Prevention, and Victim Witness Assistance.

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response The NLSC SAPR program is not fully compliant. While NLSC is committed to maintaining an environment free of sexual assault (SA), there are minor deficiencies requiring correction. Senior leadership did not receive the required Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) brief and Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) 514 brief within 30 days of assuming responsibilities. SAPR training is documented for military members, but there was no evidence of FY15 or FY16 SAPR training completion for civilians. Finally, NLSC did not conduct the required review of Field Code (FC) 91 of the Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF).

COMMAND OVERSIGHT NAVINSGEN assessed the following seven programs and functions, all of which are compliant with governing directives: Deployment Health/Command Individual Augmentee Coordination, Inspector General, Individual Medical Readiness, Legal/Ethics/Freedom of Information Act, Manager’s Internal Controls, Physical Readiness, and Voting Assistance.

SAILOR PROGRAMS NAVINSGEN assessed six Sailor programs and functions. The following five programs and functions are compliant with governing directives: Command Indoctrination, Career Development, Sailor Recognition, Chief Petty Officer (CPO) 365, and Transition assistance.

Command Sponsorship The Command Sponsorship program is not fully compliant. Personnel assigned as sponsors have not completed the required training, and the Command Sponsor Coordinator has not established the required one-year file record to show program effectiveness.

SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUPS Both QOHL and QOWL ratings at NLSC are higher than the historical echelon 2 command averages. Rated on a 10-point scale, the NLSC QOHL and QOWL are 8.58 and 6.81, respectively; the corresponding echelon 2 command historical averages are 8.04 and 6.68. The most-discussed topics in focus groups and interviews included internet/corporate tools, organizational structure and manning/manpower.

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Deficiencies and Recommendations A comprehensive list of deficiencies and recommendations will be forwarded to the inspected command under separate correspondence. Additionally, three separate Issue Papers address topics that are outside the control of the inspected command, and therefore require additional coordination from the office of the CNO (OPNAV).

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out

2016 Naval Legal Service Command

1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Enclosure (1)

Deficiencies

MISSION, FUNCTIONS, AND TASKS

Deficiency 1. Naval Legal Service Command’s (NLSC) Mission, Functions, and Tasks instruction, dated 15 May 2012, is outdated and requires updating. Reference: OPNAVINST 5400.44A, Chapter 1, Section 3, paragraph 131.c(1).

SECURITY PROGRAMS

Command Security Overview

Deficiency 2. The Command Security Manager (CSM) is not identified by name on organizational charts, telephone listings, rosters, or other media. References: SECNAV M-5510.30 Section 2-3, paragraph 4; and SECNAV M-5510.36, Section 2-2, paragraph 3.

Deficiency 3. JAG/CNLSCINST 5510.30 does not identify the chain of command for the security organization. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Exhibit 2A, paragraph 2.b.

Deficiency 4. JAG/CNLSCNST 5510.30 does not cite and append Security Service Agreements. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Exhibit 2A, paragraph 2.d.

Deficiency 5. JAG/CNLSCNST 5510.30 does not describe procedures for internal and subordinate security reviews and inspections. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Exhibit 2A, paragraph 2.e.

Deficiency 6. JAG/CNLSCNST 5510.30 does not specify internal procedures for reporting and investigating loss, compromise, and other security discrepancies. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Exhibit 2A, paragraph 2.f.

Deficiency 7.

Deficiency 8. JAG/CNLSCINST 5510.30 does not assign responsibilities for security briefings and debriefings. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Exhibit 2A, paragraph 2.h.

Deficiency 9. JAG/CNLSCNST 5510.30 does not establish procedures for the review of classified information prepared in the command, including identification of sources of security classification guidance commonly used. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Exhibit 2A, paragraph 2.j.

Deficiency 10. JAG/CNLSCNST 5510.30 does not assign responsibilities for final preparation of investigation requests. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.30, Appendix C, paragraph 1.b.(8).

Deficiency 11. NLSC does not have security servicing agreements or memoranda of understanding with subordinate commands to provide information and personnel security support. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Section 2-10, paragraph 1.c.

(b) (7)(E)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out

shaun.servaes

Sticky Note

Unmarked set by shaun.servaes



Personnel Security

Deficiency 12. Information Technology position determinations are not recorded in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.30, Section 5-2, paragraph 6.

Information Security

Deficiency 13. NLSC has not implemented procedures for Security Manager and OPSEC Manager participation in security reviews of official DoD information intended for public release. References: DoD 5205.02-M, Enclosure (5), paragraph 1.a; SECNAV M-5510.36, Section 8-8, paragraph 1; OPNAVINST 3432.1A, Enclosure (1), paragraph 5.n.(3).

Physical Security

Deficiency 14. NLSC does not have a security servicing agreement or memorandum of understanding with Naval Facilities Engineering Command for access control, physical security, and other security services provided to NLSC. Reference: SECNAV M-5510.36, Section 2-10, paragraph 1.a.

Deficiency 15. The open storage secret secure room has not been designated as a restricted area in writing by Commander, NLSC. Reference: OPNAVINST 5530.14E CH-2, Enclosure (1), Article 0210, paragraphs g.(1) and g.(6).

Deficiency 16.

Deficiency 17. Commander, NLSC, has not made a written security in-depth determination for the NLSC open storage secret secure room in building 33. Reference: DoDM 5200.01-V3, Enclosure (3), paragraph 3.b.(3).

Deficiency 18. NLSC does not conduct semiannual key and lock inventories. Reference: OPNAVINST 5530.14E CH-2, Enclosure (1), article 0209, paragraph c.

Deficiency 19.

Antiterrorism/Force Protection (ATFP)

Deficiency 20. The NLSC antiterrorism plan does not address the eleven areas that provide additional support to AT current operations. Reference: DoDI O-2000.16, Volume 1, Section 3, Standard 7.

Deficiency 21. The NLSC antiterrorism plan for building 33 has not been fully exercised. Reference: DoDI O-2000.16, Volume 1, Section 3, Standards 7 and 23.

Deficiency 22.

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

shaun.servaes

Sticky Note

Unmarked set by shaun.servaes

shaun.servaes

Sticky Note

Accepted set by shaun.servaes

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Operations Security

Deficiency 23. The NLSC OPSEC Officer did not conduct an annual self-assessment in FY16. Reference: OPNAVINST 3432.1A, Enclosure (1), paragraph 5.e.

Deficiency 24. NLSC is not evaluating the OPSEC programs of its subordinate commands during inspections and other oversight activities. Reference: DoD Manual 5205.02-M, Enclosure (2), paragraph 6.a.(9).

Deficiency 25. Critical information, as approved by Commander, NLSC, has not been made visible for use by all personnel to identify unclassified information requiring application of OPSEC measures. References: OPNAVINST 3432.1A, Enclosure (1), paragraph 5.c; and DoDM 5205.02-M, Appendix 1 to Enclosure (3), paragraph 2.a.(5).

Deficiency 26. The NLSC OPSEC Officer does not ensure contract requirements properly reflect OPSEC responsibilities. References: OPNAVINST 3432.1A, Enclosure (1), paragraph 5.d; and DoDM 5205.02-M, Enclosure (6), paragraph 1.a.

Counterintelligence (CI) Training and Support

Deficiency 27. NLSC does not ensure that it provides counterintelligence awareness and reporting training to its personnel within 30 days of initial assignment and every 12 months thereafter. Reference: DoDD 5240.06 CH-1, Enclosure (3), paragraph 3.a.

Deficiency 28. NLSC does not maintain counterintelligence training records for a period of 5 years. Reference: DoDD 5240.06, Enclosure (3), paragraph 3.e.

FACILITIES, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Safety and Occupational Health (SOH)

Deficiency 29. The NLSC safety manager did not have the required qualifications. Reference: OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1, Sections 0204 and 0602.d.(2).

Deficiency 30. The NLSC safety manager did not have an Individual Development Plan. Reference: OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1, Section 0602.d.(1).

Deficiency 31. The NLSC safety manager does not report directly to the Commander. Reference: OPNAVINST 5100.23G, CH-1, Section 0302.

Deficiency 32. NLSC did not submit its 2014 and 2015 consolidated reports on safety self-assessments to the Navy Executive Safety Board via the Executive Safety Committee by 1 May of the calendar year. Reference: OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1, Section 0505.d.(3).

Deficiency 33. NLSC personnel conducting SOH Management Evaluations did not have individual development plans for completing core courses. Reference: OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1, Sections 0602.d.(2) and 0902.b. (Repeat finding)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Deficiency 34. NLSC did not report recordable/reportable mishaps using the Web-Enabled Safety System. Reference: OPNAVINST 5102.1D CH-2, Section 3007, paragraph 1.

Deficiency 35. NLSC does not maintain a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for all hazardous materials issued, received, or brought into its facilities. Reference: OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1, Sections 0702.g.(6) and 0702.g.(10)(b).

COMMAND PROGRAMS

Prevention and Response

Deficiency 36. Overseas civilian screening is not included as an assessable unit (AU) in the NLSC Managers Internal Control Program. Reference: SECNAVINST 5300.39, paragraph 4.a.(3).

Deficiency 37. SAPR training required for civilians and for civilians who supervise service members was not completed for FY15 or FY16. References: DoDI 6495.02 CH-2, Enclosure (10), paragraphs 1.b, 2, 3.e and 3.f; SECNAVINST 1752.4B, Enclosure (3), paragraph 2.d; OPNAVINST 1752.1C, Chapter 2, paragraphs 1, 15.ac, 22.f, and Appendix 2B, page 2B-3, and Chapter 10, paragraph 1.

Deficiency 38. Commander, NLSC did not receive the required SARC Brief and MRE 514 privilege brief from the SARC and SJA within 30 days of assuming responsibilities. References: DoDI 6495.02 CH-2, Enclosure (5), paragraph 3.b; SECNAVINST 1752.4B, Enclosure (5), paragraph 3.b; OPNAVINST 1752.1C, Chapter 2, paragraph 15.b and Appendix 2B (page 2B-1).

Deficiency 39. NLSC has not completed the required command review of all NAVPERS 1070/887 or FC 91 documents in the Official Military Personnel File within 30 days of newly reporting permanently assigned personnel. Reference: OPNAVINST 1752.1C, Chapter 2, paragraph 15.ab, and Appendix 2B (page 2B-1); NAVADMIN 025/15 JAN15.

SAILOR PROGRAMS

Deficiency 40. The NLSC Command Sponsorship Coordinator (CSC) is not ensuring sponsors have completed sponsor training prior to being assigned as a sponsor. Reference: OPNAVINST 1740.3C Enclosure (1), paragraph 2.g.(3).

Deficiency 41. NLSC CSCs are not establishing and maintaining monitoring files for a minimum of 1 year to ensure (command sponsor) program effectiveness. Reference: OPNAVINST 1740.3C, Enclosure (1), paragraph 2.g.(5).

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Recommendations

SECURITY PROGRAMS

Command Security Overview

Recommendation 1.

Recommendation 2. That NLSC expand the scope of JAG/CNLSCINST 5530.2C to include NLSC headquarters and subordinate echelon commands.

Physical Security

Recommendation 3.

Operations Security

Recommendation 4. That NLSC evaluate criteria contained in DoD 5205.02-M Enclosure (3) in order to improve the OPSEC program required for its mission.

Recommendation 5. That NLSC follow the process in NTTP 3-54M for identifying critical information.

FACILITIES, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Facilities

Recommendation 6. That NLSC formalize standard operating procedures for its facilities program, since OPNAVINST 11010.20H does not apply.

Recommendation 7. That NLSC identify its facilities program as an assessable unit in its Managers’ Internal Control program.

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

OPNAV FORM 5040/2 (11-68) S/N-0107-774-1000 OPNAV REPORT 5040-1

STATUS AS OF (DATE) REPORTED BY (ACTION OP/BUREAU/COMMAND)

ACTION OFFICER (NAME AND EXTENSION) COORDINATING ACTION (OP/BUREAU/COMMAND)

IDENTIFICATION OF REPORT (NAVINSGEN/COMMAND INSPECTION/AUDIT/AREA COORDINATION INLCUDE SERIAL AND DATE

IDENTIFICATION OF ACTION ITEM (RECOMMENDATION NUMBER/PARAGRAPH NUMBER)

RECOMMENDATION :

CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (IF ACTION CONSIDERED COMPLETE, SO STATE.)

NEXT STEP IN IMPLEMENTING ACTION (INCLUDE ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETED ACTION

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Summary of Key Survey Results

PRE-EVENT SURVEY

In support of the Naval Legal Service Command (NLSC) Command Inspection held 1 to 12 December 2016, the Naval Inspector General (NAVINSGEN) conducted an anonymous online survey of active duty military and Department of the Navy (DON) civilian personnel. The survey produced 62 respondents (25 military, 37 civilian). According to reported demographics, the sample represented the NLSC workforce with a 4 percent margin of error at the 98 percent confidence level. Selected topics are summarized in the sections below, followed by a frequency report of specific questions.

Quality of Life

Quality of life was assessed using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is worst and 10 is best. The overall NLSC average quality of work life (QOWL), 6.81, was slightly higher than the historical echelon 2 average, 6.68 (Figure 1). The overall NLSC average quality of home life (QOHL), 8.58, was significantly higher than historical echelon 2 average, 8.04 (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Distribution of QOWL from the pre-event survey. The x-axis lists the rating scale and

the y-axis represents the number of survey respondents. Response percentages for ratings are

shown at the base of each bar. Counts for each rating are shown above each bar. The most

frequent rating is shown in blue.

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out

NAVINSGEN

Line



Participants were asked to rate their perceptions regarding leadership guidance; specifically, “I have adequate leadership guidance to perform my job successfully.” Thirteen percent of the participants responded negatively to this question. There was a follow-on question which asked those respondents who reported a negative on leadership guidance to elaborate on their response. The dominant theme expressed was communication from direct supervisors. Examples of participants’ comments include: “My director does not communicate with me, and attempts to silence me by telling me not to communicate externally.” “My [supervisor] sits on products for days and slows down the flow of information…” “Too many supervising the same people and they do not speak to each other. Conflicting information is common from different supervisors during the day.” “I’ve met with or spoken to my boss once in the last five months”

The “Awards and Recognition” factor also included a follow-up question for those who reported a negative impact. Some examples of the comments include: “I have never seen or even heard of a member of my code being put in for any employee of the year award.” “Awards are still based on favoritism.” “The awards board pays no attention to the actual PARS write up and instead bases the awards on personality and perception.” “Term and Temp employees appear to be disposable, not worthy of awards, recognition or even retention.” “No transparency.” “The award recognition program has not been fair and equitable.” “Civilians are not given the recognition deserved.” “There is little consideration for civilian employees.”

Morale & Command Climate

The survey asks participants to expand on their perceptions of morale and command climate. Considering the above analysis suggests that 24 percent of the civilian participants rated climate as contributing to their negative rating on QOWL, a deeper dive into command morale and climate is presented. Participants were asked to rate their perceptions to questions concerning job importance to command, command safety, communication up and down chain of command, treatment of respect by superiors, fairness of performance evaluation, military-civilian relations, command equal opportunity program, resolution of climate issues, fraternization, discrimination, sexual harassment, and hazing. Figure 5 illustrates the results of these ratings. Only three factors are significantly above the 20% baseline indicating a negative impact on command morale and climate; favoritism, communication down the chain of command, and communication up the chain of command.

The survey had a follow-up question for those (only 5%) who reported a negative impact on the question “My command Equal Opportunity Program is effective.” There was not a dominant theme. Some example comments include: “TERM and TEMP GS employees are treated different than PERM employees…TERM and TEMPs are afraid to say anything due to the fact that they were told that they could be terminated without justification…So we say nothing, and take the abuse because we don’t want to lose our jobs.” “Responses to requests for help in handling a problem employee are glacially slow.” “The Equal Opportunity is geared towards protecting the command’s interest and not the best interest for the employees and their quality of work life.”

The last question on the survey asks participants to submit comments about other impacts on their QOL. The dominate themes in the comments concerned the hiring process and IT issues. Sample hiring process comments: “DON HRO/HROC is a horrific stumbling block…” “Civilian personnel hiring – process seems inefficient and overly cumbersome. Civilian hiring issues negatively impact mission accomplishment (gaps in positions being filled), job performance (time spent seeking information/trying to resolve issues) and quality of life for those who fill in…”

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Sample IT comments: “IT issues frequently negatively impact work efficiency (lost work hours seeking assistance to resolve issues and downtime of IT equipment while awaiting IT assistance).” “I think about leaving military service because I know that my time at work would be much more efficient if I had access to faster internet and better software.”

Figure 5. Distribution of Command Morale and Command Climate questions from the pre-event

survey. The x-axis represents the percentage of survey participants and the y-axis lists the

questions. The red shows the percentage of negative ratings for each question and green the

number of positive ratings. The black horizontal line represents the 20% baseline. Any red bars

that are at or to the right of the baseline represent a significant impact.

Comparison between females and males, and military and civilian survey participants on their ratings of QOHL did not show any significant differences. In order to get a clearer understanding of the drivers of survey participant QOHL rating, participants were asked to indicate whether the following factors have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on their QOHL rating. These factors included:

quality of home

quality of the school for dependent children

quality of the childcare available

shopping and dining opportunities

recreational opportunities

access to spouse employment

access to medical/dental care

cost of living

Factors of potential concern were identified by distributional analyses, where 20% negative responses served as a baseline. The aggregate of all survey participants indicated cost of living (37 percent) was the only factor that participants indicated had a negative impact on QOHL. Comparisons between

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



demographic groups yielded more specific results. Military participants indicated that access to medical/dental care (32 percent) and cost of living (56 percent) impacted their QOHL rating.

Mission Tools & Resources

Participants were asked to identify tools and resources that they believe are inadequate to accomplish the command’s mission. The items include: people, training, workspace, computers, software, internet, intranet, equipment, materials & supplies. Again, 20 percent negative responses served as a baseline. There was one area identified that was significantly above the baseline: people (42 percent). There were four factors that were above the baseline: software (29 percent), computers (24 percent), internet (23 percent), and equipment (23 percent).

SURVEY RESPONSE FREQUENCY REPORT

Numerical values in the following tables summarize survey responses to forced-choice questions as counts and/or percentages (%). Response codes are listed below in the order that they appear.

SD Strongly Disagree

D Disagree

N Neither Agree or Disagree

A Agree

SA Strongly Agree

- Negative

N Neutral

+ Positive

N Never

R Rarely

S Sometimes

F Frequently

A Always

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Participation in Survey.

Military Civilian

Male Female Male Female

Count 12 13 21 16

% 19% 21% 34% 26%

On a scale from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), please rate your Quality of Work Life (QOWL). QOWL is the degree to which you enjoy where you work and the availability of opportunities for professional growth.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Count 2 2 7 4 2 4 7 17 10 7

% 3.23% 3.23% 11.29% 6.45% 3.23% 6.45% 11.29% 27.42% 16.13% 11.29%

For each of the factors below, please indicate whether they have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on your QOWL rating.

+ N -

Job satisfaction 74% 16% 10%

Leadership support 71% 18% 11%

Leadership opportunities 60% 31% 10%

Workload 44% 37% 19%

Work Hours/Schedule 60% 23% 18%

Advancement opportunities 37% 31% 32%

Awards and recognition 40% 39% 21%

Training opportunities 45% 34% 21%

Command morale 50% 32% 18%

Command climate 52% 32% 16%

Quality of workplace facilities 48% 35% 16%

On a scale from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), please rate your Quality of Home Life (QOHL). QOHL is the degree to which you enjoy where you live and the opportunities available for housing, recreation, etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Count 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 15 12 25

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.29% 3.23% 1.61% 24.19% 19.35% 40.32%

For each of the factors below, please indicate whether they have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on your QOHL rating.

+ N -

Quality of home 84% 11% 5%

Quality of the school for dependent children 48% 47% 5%

Quality of the childcare available 34% 65% 2%

Shopping & dining opportunities 90% 10% 0%

Recreational opportunities 85% 15% 0%

Access to spouse employment 47% 45% 8%

Access to medical/dental care 65% 23% 13%

Cost of living 26% 37% 37%

My command gives me sufficient time during working hours to participate in a physical readiness exercise program.

SD D N A SA

0 1 3 8 13

0% 4% 12% 32% 52%

My current workweek affords enough time to complete mission tasks in a timely manner while maintaining an acceptable work-home life balance.

SD D N A SA

0 3 4 13 5

0% 12% 16% 52% 20%

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



My position description is current and accurately describes my functions, tasks, and responsibilities.

SD D N A SA

3 5 3 16 10

8% 14% 8% 43% 27%

I work more hours than I report in a pay period because I cannot complete all assigned tasks during scheduled work hours.

N R S F A

8 5 9 7 8

22% 14% 24% 19% 22%

The Human Resource Service Center provides timely, accurate responses to my queries.

SD D N A SA

10 6 15 5 1

27% 16% 41% 14% 3%

My (local) Human Resources Office provides timely, accurate responses to my queries.

SD D N A SA

9 8 13 5 2

24% 22% 35% 14% 5%

The DON civilian recruitment process is responsive to my command's civilian personnel requirements.

SD D N A SA

15 15 20 6 5

25% 25% 33% 10% 8%

During the last performance evaluation cycle, my supervisor provided me with feedback that enabled me to improve my performance before my formal performance appraisal/EVAL/FITREP.

SD D N A SA

2 2 9 24 13

4% 4% 18% 48% 26%

I am satisfied with the overall quality of my workplace facilities.

SD D N A SA

6 3 5 33 15

10% 5% 8% 53% 24%

My command is concerned about my safety.

SD D N A SA

0 1 4 25 32

0% 2% 6% 40% 52%

My command has a program in place to address potential safety issues.

SD D N A SA

0 0 9 32 21

0% 0% 15% 52% 34%

My job is important and makes a contribution to my command.

SD D N A SA

0 0 3 20 39

0% 0% 5% 32% 63%

__________ is occurring at my command.

SD D N A SA

Fraternization 41% 26% 30% 3% 0%

Favoritism 25% 23% 23% 23% 7%

Gender/Sex Discrimination 43% 30% 20% 8% 0%

Sexual Harassment 52% 25% 23% 0% 0%

Race Discrimination 56% 26% 16% 2% 0%

Hazing 61% 30% 10% 0% 0%

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



The following tools and resources are adequate to accomplish the command's mission.

SD D N A SA

People 10% 32% 2% 27% 29%

Training 6% 8% 11% 45% 29%

Workspace 10% 10% 5% 45% 31%

Computer 13% 11% 10% 35% 31%

Software 11% 18% 10% 31% 31%

Internet 13% 10% 10% 37% 31%

Intranet 11% 6% 18% 32% 32%

Equipment 13% 10% 15% 39% 24%

Materials & Supplies 8% 10% 8% 50% 24%

I have adequate leadership guidance to perform my job successfully.

SD D N A SA

3 5 4 19 31

5% 8% 6% 31% 50%

Communication down the chain of command is effective.

SD D N A SA

3 13 11 19 16

5% 21% 18% 31% 26%

Communication up the chain of command is effective.

SD D N A SA

3 5 15 25 14

5% 8% 24% 40% 23%

My performance evaluations have been fair.

SD D N A SA

0 6 13 16 27

0% 10% 21% 26% 44%

The awards and recognition program is fair and equitable.

SD D N A SA

4 10 16 18 14

6% 16% 26% 29% 23%

Military and civilian personnel work well together at my command.

SD D N A SA

1 3 13 21 24

2% 5% 21% 34% 39%

My command's Equal Opportunity Program (EO - to include Equal Employment Opportunity & Command Managed Equal Opportunity) is effective.

SD D N A SA

2 1 23 17 19

3% 2% 37% 27% 31%

My command adequately protects my personal information.

SD D N A SA

0 2 4 26 30

0% 3% 6% 42% 48%

My superiors treat me with respect and consideration.

SD D N A SA

1 4 5 16 36

2% 6% 8% 26% 58%

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



My command attempts to resolve command climate issues.

SD D N A SA

3 8 12 17 22

5% 13% 19% 27% 35%

I have adequate time at work to complete required training.

SD D N A SA

2 11 8 30 10

3% 18% 13% 49% 16%

Do you supervise Department of the Navy (DON) civilians?

Yes No

22 39

36% 64%

When did you receive civilian supervisory training?

<12mos 1-3 yrs >3 yrs Never

12 9 0 1

55% 41% 0% 5%

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Summary of Focus Group Perceptions On November 29 and 1 December 2016, NAVINSGEN conducted focus groups and interviews with various active duty military (23) and civilian personnel (23) for a total of 46 participants. Each focus group lasted 60 minutes and interviews lasted 20 minutes; both included one facilitator and two note takers. The facilitator followed a protocol script: (a) NAVINSGEN personnel introductions, (b) brief introduction to the NAVINSGEN mission, (c) statements about privacy, non-attribution, and basic ground rules, (d) participant-derived list of topics having the most impact on the mission, job performance, or quality of life (QOL), and (e) subsequent discussion of participant-derived topics with an emphasis on refinement and understanding of perceived impact. Focus group and interview participants were asked to characterize as major, moderate, or minor the impact on the mission, job performance, and/or quality of life for each topic using a standardized Impact Matrix (See Matrix 1 below). Note takers transcribed focus group proceedings, which were subsequently coded by the NAVINSGEN staff to protect the confidentiality of participants.

Matrix 1: Command Inspection Impact Matrix

IMPACT

Table 1 lists the focus group topics that were expressed as a major impact on the mission, job performance, or QOL. The overall tone of the focus groups and interviews was professional, with participants bringing up their concerns regarding quality of life, job performance, and mission accomplishment. Participants seemed to be forthcoming with their participation and discussions were enthusiastic.

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Table 1. Participant-Derived Focus Group and Interview Topics Expressed as a Major Impact on the mission, job performance, or quality of life.

Impact

Topic Major Moderate Minor

Internet/Corporate Tools Organizational Structure Manning/Manpower Command Climate Culture Workload Funding Leadership Active Duty-Reserve Integration

Notes. Descending order of the number of focus group/interview topics that were expressed as a major impact on the mission, job performance, and/or quality of life in at least two military or civilian interviews or focus groups; colored arrows indicate active duty military () and civilian WNY(). An arrow pointing up indicates a positive impact. An arrow pointing down is a negative impact.

INTERNET/CORPORATE TOOLS

The most discussed topic was internet/corporate tools. The topic was discussed in all three focus groups and in three interviews at the Navy Yard. Participants expressed various levels of negative impact on the mission, job performance, and quality of life related to computers, electronic devices, and access to corporate technologies and internet sources. Participants indicated concerns about network speed, bandwidth, lost productivity, data systems, and time to replace equipment. One interview participant expressed a positive moderate impact from the use of Share Point. Below is a sample of the comments from participants.

Civilian comments: “We had to walk down a flight of stairs for every piece of paper for three months because our printer was broken.” “Sometimes I use my personal phone to do my work because it's so much faster than my government laptop.” “Bandwidth is an issue. I'll log into the system ten times a day because it keeps kicking me out.” “It is difficult to download and process the forms I have to use for my job.” “We have had to wait 8-9 months for some of the equipment we ordered for our customers. This degrades our ability to accomplish our mission.” “We are served by DON-AA, and service is very slow.” “Shifting announcements and certain forms to SharePoint has streamlined many processes and eliminated the need to forward a lot of emails.”

Military Officer comments: “I have considered leaving the Navy just for this.” “Been here for 12 months and scanner never worked.” “Loose about 10 hours per week due to slow network speed.” “During trial I only have 15 minutes to look up a case. The internet is too slow to allow time.” “Impacts communication, DCS, and VTC connectivity.” “Our data system to make decisions continues to fail us.”

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The senior participants in the focus groups and interviews expressed negative impacts on mission, job performance, and QOL as a function of the general organizational structure of NLSC. Specifically, participants in one focus group and five interviews indicated moderate to major impact of the organizational structure of NLSC. Their comments included making the organization more flat, the OJAG/NLSC combined structure, and “confusion” regarding who to talk to in what code. One senior civilian interviewee indicated the success of the “Bremerton reorganization.” Below is a sample of the comments recorded.

Civilian comments: “I feel like I'm being pulled in multiple directions - toward my staff, toward senior management, and toward my customers.” “Because of the split it causes a very "hard environment" (i.e. a high pressure environment).” “If I were just doing NLSC work my workload would be manageable.” “I know senior leadership is aware of our workload, but they still make comments about our lack of responsiveness.” “The Bremerton reorganization has been beneficial and given us some efficiencies.”

Military comments: “We could be a little bit more matrixes and less functional.” “The RLSO reach back to us at NLSC…weird structure.” “We need to do a wholesale review. HQ has muddled through with all changes that have come in last few CNO's.” “A review of how functions and roles match up with how the structure should be.” “OJAG versus NLSC is a challenge even as a division director.” “Some of the codes don't make sense.” “Some core functions need to be separate; Code 16 should be in NLSC. This confuses the field they don't know who to talk to.” “Triad is working at Pentagon away from [deleted] work location. I want a closer physical location of triad.” “Biggest adjustment has been not having readily available access to communicate conveniently anytime with the triad.”

MANNING/MANPOWER

Focus group and interview participants expressed both major and moderate positive and negative impacts on mission execution and quality of life as a function of the manning of NLSC personnel. One focus group indicated a moderate negative impact from the lengthy hiring process. Another focus group discussed the impact of staff size and workload requirements. Senior interview participants discussed issues related to mandatory staffing cuts and job fit. One senior participant expressed a major positive impact regarding the recent improvements in the IT staff. A sample of comments are provided below.

Civilian comments: “They [NLSC Leadership] think Admin can survive on the people we have, and that isn't so. It's why I'm so bitter.” “You know you will be there 9 hours/day and still feel like nothing gets accomplished. We can't do our jobs in just 8 hours/day.” “I recently got an extra person to support us, and I just hope they don't scare him off.” “Every day I take my laptop home and work without recording my hours.” “The mandatory staffing cuts are getting ridiculous. You can only play this so long before it becomes untenable.” “Because of the mandatory staffing cuts we have had to have different UICs support other UICs in order to do our job.” “Civilian agencies are taking our people away. They go on details to other agencies and never come back.” “If dynamics don't change we are going to have an untenable dysfunctional workplace.” “Things have improved in recent years. The IT group was understaffed, but they have increased manning to the point we can accomplish the mission.”

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Military comments: “Hiring civilians is lengthy.” “Civilian side is difficult to fill due to the external OCHR process.” “A GS-14 is doing mail runs due to gaps.” “We have amazing civilians at our RLSO; there is no upward mobility.” “Do we have the right fit and fill in jobs?”

COMMAND CLIMATE

There were four interview participants who discussed command climate. Two of the participants indicated that command climate had a major impact on mission, job performance, and quality of life. A senior military participant indicated the climate is very positive. While a junior military participant indicated a very negative impact. Below is a sample of their comments.

Civilian comments: “The people are great and the Admiral is great. People are ambitious and hard working.” “When we have issues we take the time to work them out collaboratively.”

Military comments: “Surprising how bureaucratic it is for a small organization.” “A lot of low level friction for the civilian workforce.” “Being "reprimanded" [reason deleted to protect identity of participant] when I make simple mistakes.” “First interaction with [first line supervisor] upon checking in was rough.” “[First line military supervisor] uses [deleted pronoun] rank to get tasks completed.” “I’ve not been treated with respect and dignity from [military supervisors].” “I created a grievance letter for hostile treatment but I did not formally release. I do not speak to anyone outside of job related issues with exception of a few people because of lack of trust.”

CULTURE

One focus group and three interviews discussed positive and negative impacts concerning the topic of NLSC’s culture. The positive comments indicated a culture of professionalism, and challenging work positively impacting mission, job performance, and quality of work at the Navy Yard. One focus group indicated a moderate negative impact as a result of JAG Corp officers working with non-JAG officers. The focus group suggested that JAG Corps officers sometimes have a hard time communicating to non-JAG Corps personnel. A junior enlisted who was interviewed expressed concern about a culture of “bashing the other[s]…” behind closed doors and showing disrespect between enlisted and officers. Below are samples of the comments recorded in the interviews and focus groups.

Military comments: “We [JAG Corps Officers] sometimes don’t work well other communities.” “I like my job; it is challenging but rewarding.” “I have overheard officers bashing other officers behind closed doors and other members of command disrespecting others.” “People in relationships are respectable and focus on work mostly.”

WORKLOAD

Two interview participants indicated workload having a major negative impact on mission, job performance and quality of life. Participants discussed burnout and stress. Below are sample comments:

Civilian comments: “In terms of burnout, the rescue can't come quick enough. I just want my life back.” “My first year here I worked every weekend just so I could keep up.” “I have been with the command two years, and I've never worked so hard in terms of volume of work.” “I am stressed to the point that it impacts me physically. At one point my entire arm went numb. The feeling came back, so I kept

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



working.” “I know people are authorized 15 minute breaks, but they never take them because of their workloads.” “My people don't take lunch because the workload is so high due to the manning cuts.” “I know the stress is manifesting itself in my staff, with some of them diagnosed with anxiety and depression and other stress-related issues.”

LEADERSHIP

One focus group and one military interview participant brought up the topic of leadership. The focus group participants indicated concern that house hunting leave was not equally applied across the organization. The interview participant indicated that his/her direct supervisor had major positive impact on mission, job performance, and quality of life. A sample of comments is captured below.

Military comments: “There is variation among codes in regards to leave/time off awarded for house hunting.” “More time is required to settle household and family.” “I love what I do. [supervisor] has had a huge impact in my career. [Supervisor] wants to help me.”

ACTIVE – RESERVE INTEGRATION

One focus group and an interview participant indicated the topic of active duty and reserve community integration had a major impact on mission, job performance, and quality of life. Below is a sample of the comments recorded:

Military comments: “Reservist support works well with long periods of work support, but the one week-end drop-in drill integration is difficult.” “If we lost all of the RC support we would feel it.”

CHILDCARE SERVICES

While childcare services is not represented in Table 1, the topic was discussed in all three focus groups as having an impact on mission, job performance, and quality of life. Below is a sample of the concerns expressed in the focus groups.

Civilian comments: “I would like it if they had childcare at the Navy Yard. I have to take my child to Fort Washington.”

Military comments: “No childcare here.” “There are long waiting lists at Fort Myers. Navy needs to expand program.” “JBAB means more traffic for you. I am losing work time or home time due to traffic.” “Nanny's cost between 30K per year.” “The lack of daycare impacts employees with no children due to non-availability of personnel who must leave to pick up their children.” “It [childcare] factors into the commute and parking situation.”

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



Issue Papers

Issue Papers address topics that are outside the control of the inspected command, and therefore require additional coordination. Request the below listed command submit a response to this Issue Paper via OPNAV Form 5040/2 (Implementation Status Report (ISR)) no later than April 30, 2017 with quarterly updates thereafter, if necessary.

NAVINSGEN point of contact for ISRs is

Table 1. Action Officer Listing for Implementation Status Reports

COMMAND RECOMMENDATION NUMBER(S)

OPNAV (FSA and N45) 022-16

OPNAV N09F 023-16

OPNAV N4 024-16

(b) (7)(C)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



ISSUE PAPER 2016-2: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS

Reference: (a) OPNAV M-5090.1 of 10 Jan 14

Background: Chapter 17 of reference (a) provides policy guidance on environmental management systems (EMS) requirements and responsibilities. The manual allows exemptions from EMS audit and compliance audit requirements for commands that serve only administrative functions (which typically have minimal environmental requirements and therefore pose little risk to the environment) when the cognizant budget submitting office (BSO) has documented the exemptions in the external EMS audit schedule.

Discussion: Naval Legal Service Command (NLSC) serves only administrative functions and

poses little risk to the environment, but BSO 11, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Assistant for Field Support Activity (OPNAV (FSA)) - has not documented the exemption from EMS audit requirements.

Recommendations: 022-16. That OPNAV (FSA) document NLSC’s exemption from EMS audit and

compliance audit requirements, or that OPNAV N45 revise OPNAV M-5090.1 to exempt BSOs that support only administrative functions (which typically have minimal environmental requirements and therefore pose little risk to the environment) from having to document exemptions for their supported commands and activities.

NAVINSGEN POC:

(b) (7)(C)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



ISSUE PAPER 2016-3: RESPONSIBILITIES OF, AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR, SAFETY OFFICIALS AT HEADQUARTERS COMMANDS

Reference: (a) OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1 of 21 Jul 11

Background: The glossary for reference (a) defines a headquarters command as an echelon 2

organization assigned primary support responsibility for subordinate activities or commands. Chapters 2 and 3 define the duties of designated safety officials at headquarters commands. Chapters 2, 3, and 6 define the qualifications for such officials. Chapter 3 also distinguishes between shore activities that do not receive base operating support (BOS) safety services from their host Navy Regions, and it subsequently distinguishes between “unique and integral” mission safety requirements and BOS safety functions. It also identifies minimum core safety program areas for regional organizations and commands “with their own safety staffs”. The minimum core requirements include, but are not limited to, conduct reviews; conduct inspections; abate hazards; and investigate, report, and record mishaps.

Discussion: The instruction does not clearly articulate whether headquarters commands that

do not have safety requirements associated with unique mission functions and that receive BOS safety services from host regions are required to perform minimum core safety program areas. Furthermore, the instruction establishes core training requirements for safety officials regardless of their responsibilities. Some of those training requirements are not applicable to headquarters commands that do not have safety requirements associated with unique mission functions. Examples of such training requirements are Electrical Standards, A-493-0033; and Machinery and Machine Guarding Standards, A-493-0073.

Recommendations: 023-16. OPNAV N09F revise its instructions to more clearly distinguish between

safety program responsibilities inherent to Navy commands and base operating support safety services provided by Navy Regions, and to establish separate qualifications and training requirements for safety officials performing those separate functions.

NAVINSGEN POC:

(b) (7)(C)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out



ISSUE PAPER 2016-4: REQUIRED FREQUENCY OF PHYSICAL SECURITY SURVEYS FOR BUILDINGS OCCUPIED BY TENANT COMMANDS ON AN INSTALLATION

Reference: (a) OPNAVINST 5530.14E CH-2 of 23 Sep 14

Background: Enclosure (1), section 0101.A of reference (a) assigned responsibility to

commanders of tenant activities for internal security functions intrinsic to their organizations and missions, which include but are not limited to physical security (PS) of facilities. The same enclosure in section 0201 requires installation commanding officers (ICOs) to ensure that PS surveys of their activities are conducted annually and stipulates that surveys be conducted on all normally inhabited facilities.

Discussion: The stated annual PS survey requirement applies to ICOs and “their activities”.

The reference instruction does not establish a required frequency for PS surveys for normally inhabited facilities that do not belong to the ICO but rather are the responsibility of tenant commanders.

Recommendations: 024-16. That OPNAV N4 revise OPNAVINST 5530.14E to establish a required

frequency for physical security surveys for normally inhabited buildings occupied by tenant commands on an installation.

NAVINSGEN POC:

(b) (7)(C)

NAVINSGEN

Cross-Out

naval inspector general command inspection of reading room... · records management . nlsc’s...

Documents