SECRET Additional Copies (U) To obtain additional copies of this repmt, contact the Secondary Repmts Distribution Unit at [email protected]. Suggestions for Audits (U) To suggest or request audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing at [email protected] or by mail. Depmtment of Defense Office of Inspector General Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing ATTN: Audit Suggestions/13F25-04 4800 Mark Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22350-1500 OEPARTI.IEHT OF DEFENSE To report fraud, waste, mismanagement, and abuse of authority. Send written complaints to: Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301 ·1900 Phone: 800.424.9098 e-mail: [email protected] www.dodig.mil/hotline (U) Acronyms and Abbrevi ations AMCR Aircraft Material Condition Repmting AMSRR Aviation Maintenance Supply Readiness Reporting CJCSM Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual CNAF Commander, Naval Air Forces DECKPLATE Decision Knowledge Programming for Logistics Analysis and Technical Evaluation DRRS-MC Defense Readiness Reporting System-Marine Corps GSORTS Global Status of Resources and Training System MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCO Marine Corps Order MCR Mission Capability Rate MCRT Marine Corps Readiness Tool NAMP Naval Aviation Maintenance Program NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command OIMA NALCOMIS Optimized Intermediate Maintenance Activity Naval Aviation Logistics Command Management Information System PMA-275 Program Manager Air-275, "Joint Advanced Vettical Lift Aircraft (V -22) Osprey Program" VMM Marine Medium Ti ltrotor Squadron SECRET 8~CIY;T INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE ALEXANDRIA, VI RGINIA 22350-1500 October 23, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR COMI'vlANDER, MARINE F RCES COMMAND COMMANDER, MARIN E rORCES PACIFIC NAVAL INSP ECTOR GENERAL SUBJECT: MV-22 Squadrons Could Improve Rep011ing of Mission Capability Rates and Readiness (Report No. DODIG-20 14-00 I) (U) (U) We are providing this report for review and comment. MV-22 squadron commanders computed the mi ssion capability rates for five of six squadrons reviewed using erroneous aircraft inventory reports and work orders. In addition MY -22 quadran commanders submitted incomplete or inaccurate readiness report for the six quadrons. As a result, the mission capability rates were unreliable and senior DoD officials could have deployed MV -22 squadrons that were not prepared for missions. (U) We considered management comments on a dra ft of this report when preparing the fin al report. DoD Directive 7650. 3 requires that recommendations be resolved promptl y. Comments from the Commander, Naval Air Force, Pacific and the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, responding for the Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations; the Commander, Marine Forces Command; and the Commander, Marine Forces, Paci fie were partially responsive. Therefore we request additional comments on Reco mmendations I, 2.a, 2.b.(l ), 2. b.(2), 2.c. 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c by November 26,2013. (U) Please provide comments that conform to the requirements of DoD Directive 7650.3. If possible, send a PDF fil e cont aining your comments to---a duJi · .~m i l. mi l. Copies of management comments mu st co ntain the actt~e authorizing official. We cannot accept the /S igned/ symbol in place of the actual signature. If you arrange to send classified comments electronically, you must send them over the SECRET Internet Protocol Router Network (SfPRNET). (U) We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at (703) 604-8866 (DSN 664-8866). I I ) Alice F. Carey Assistant Inspector Genera l Readiness, Operations, and Suppm1 SECRET SECRET SECRET Report No. DODIG-2014-001 (Project No. D2011-DOOOLH-0170.000) October 23, 2013 Results in Brief: (U) MV-22 Squadrons Could Improve Reporting of Mission Capability Rates and Readiness • (U) place a continued emphasis on the (U) What We Did reliability of data critical to the MCR. (U) Our overall objective was to evaluate the accuracy of the aircraft inventory reports and work (U) As a result, the MCRs were unreliable, and orders used to compute the MV-22 mission senior DoD and Marine Corps officials could have capability rates (MCR) from October 1, 2008, deployed MV-22 squadrons that were not prepared through September 30, 2011. In addition, we for missions. evaluated readiness reports to determine whether MV-22 squadrons repotied accurate and complete (U) What We Recommend equipment condition (R-Ievel) and category (U) We recommend the Commander, Naval (C-leve!) information for the MV-22. Air Forces, revise the Commander, Naval Air Forces Instruction 4790.2A, "Naval Aviation Maintenance (U) What We Found Program," November 10, 2009, to include detailed (U) From FY 2009 through FY 2011, MV-22 procedures for maintenance officers to verify the squadron commanders computed the Naval Aviation accuracy and completeness of aircraft inventory Maintenance Program MCR for five of the six . repotis and work orders before submission. squadrons using erroneous aircraft inventory repotis and work orders. Squadron maintenance personnel: (U) We recommend the Commander, Marine Forces • (U) improperly recorded MV-22 aircraft Command and the Commander, Marines Forces status information 167 of 200 times on Pacific: aircraft inventory repotis for • (U) require MV-22 squadrons track and out-of-reporting periods; and report on the accuracy and completion of • (U) did not adequately prepare 112 of 907 aircraft inventory repotis and work orders; work orders that we reviewed. and • (U) require subordinate MV-22 (U) In addition, MV-22 squadron commanders organizations and activities, at all levels of submitted incomplete or inaccurate readiness reports the command, to cetiify the accuracy of for the six squadrons. For example, squadron readiness reports submitted. operations personnel provided incomplete or inaccurate R-level information for 199 of265 (U) Management Comments and readiness reports. Furthermore, 5 squadrons did not Our Response provide complete C-leve! information for 127 of265 (U) Comments from the Commander, Naval Air readiness reports. Force, Pacific, responding for the Commander, Naval Air Forces, were patiially responsive. (U) This occurred because MV-22 squadron Comments from the Deputy Commandant for commanders did not: Aviation, responding for the Deputy Commandant • (U) adequately train MV-22 maintenance for Plans, Policies, and Operations, the Commander, personnel to prepare aircraft inventory Marine Forces Command, and the Commander, repotis and work orders nor MV-22 Marine Forces Pacific, were partially responsive. operations personnel on readiness repotis; Please see the Recommendations Table on the back • (U) verify the accuracy of aircraft inventory of this page. reports, work orders, and readiness reports; or SECRET SECRET Report No. DODIG-2014-001 (Project No. 02011-DOOOLH-0170.000) October 23, 2013 (U) Recommendations Table Management Recommendations No Additional I I Requiring Comment Comments Required I Commander, Naval Air Forces II Deputy Commandant for Plans, 12.a, 2.b.(l), 2.b.(2), 2.c Policies, and Operations Commander, Marine Forces 1 3.a, 3.b, 3.c Command Commander, Marine Forces 13.a, 3.b, 3.c Pacific Please provide comments by November 26, 2013. SECRET II SJ;CRF;T (U) Table of Contents (U) Introduction (U) Objective 1 (U) MV -22 Program 1 (U) MV -22 Mission Capability Rate Requirement and Calculation 2 (U) Historical Mission Capability Rates 3 (U) Readiness Reporting Guidance 4 (U) Review of Internal Controls 5 (U) Finding. MV-22 Squadrons Should Improve Recordkeeping for Mission Capability Rates and Readiness Reporting 6 (U) Better Recordkeeping Could Improve the Accuracy of the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program Mission Capability Rate 6 (U) Training on Preparing Maintenance Documentation Needed Improvement 9 (U) Maintenance Personnel Needed to Verify Data 10 (U) Readiness Reports Adversely Affected Decision Making 10 (U) Training on Preparing Readiness Reports Needed Improvement 15 (U) Squadron Commanders Did Not Verify Readiness Data 16 (U) Emphasis on Data Reliability Needed Increased Focus 17 (U) Accurate Data Should Improve Decision Making 18 (U) Management Comments on the Finding and Our Response 18 (U) Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response 18 (U) Appendixes (U) A. Scope and Methodology 25 (U) Use of Computer-Processed Data 27 (U) Use of Technical Assistance 27 (U) Prior Coverage 28 (U) B. MY-22's Organizations and Squadrons 29 (U) C. Management Comments on the Finding 31 (U) Annex. Classified Information Used in the Preparation of This Report 34 (U) Management Comments Naval Air Force, Pacific 35 U.S. Marine Corps 37 SECRET SECiffiT (U) Introduction (U) Objective (U) Our overall objective was to evaluate whether the V -22 Osprey's performance met the mission capability rate (MCR) requirements. Specifically, we intended to evaluate how the frequency of repairs and the replacement of supply parts affected the V-22's mission readiness from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2010. On January 12, 2012, we reannounced the audit objective to include FY 2011. Although DoD procured two variants of the V-22 (the Marine Corps' MV~22 and the Air Force's CV -22), for the purpose of this report, we focused on six Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadrons (VMMs) that operate the MV-22 variant. See Appendix A for a discussion of scope and methodology. (U) This repott does not address whether missions were undertaken or completed. In the report, we use the MV-22 MCR to define the "V-22 Osprey's performance." The MCR measures the availability and capability of the aircraft to perform a designated mission. During the audit, we identified systemic errors associated with repair and supply parts data used to compute MV-22 MCRs. As a result, we evaluated the accuracy of aircraft inventory reports and work orders used to suppott the computation of the MCR. By improving the accuracy of the data used to compute the MCR, the Marine Corps will obtain better information about the mission readiness ofthe MV-22.