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 mmeridit@hotmail.com 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 michelle.abell@pentagon.af.mil. 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

reports@pentagon.af.mil. Certain government users may

download copies of audit reports from our home page at

www.afaa.hq.af.mil/. Finally, you may mail requests to:

Air Force Audit Agency

Operations Directorate

1126 Air Force Pentagon

Washington DC 20330-1126