COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

Transcription

1 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION NOVEMBER 2017 Law THE ARTICLE 6 INSPECTION SYSTEM COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available for downloading or ordering on the e-publishing web site at RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication OPR: AF/JAI Supersedes: Air Force Instruction , 2 January 2014 Certified by: AF/JAI (Col Taralynn Olayvar) Pages: 24 This document has been produced under the Secretary of the Air Force's 11 August 2017 guidance to make all directive publications current by 1 September Although published, it will be reviewed again prior to 1 September , to ensure it is clear, concise and consistent in accordance with the Secretary's Directive Publication Reduction Initiative. This instruction implements the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Air Force Policy Directive 51-1, The Judge Advocate General s Department. It defines the Article 6 Inspection Process pursuant to Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This instruction further establishes the requirements for all Article 6 Inspections. It includes several references to an inspection checklist for use during Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI, as well as additional inspection requirements. Unless otherwise prescribed, this instruction applies to all active component Air Force installation-level legal offices, Numbered Air Force or Servicing General Court-Martial Convening Authority legal office equivalents, and Major Command legal offices. Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) legal office s inspection requirements will be addressed in subsequent instructions. This instruction applies to all inspections conducted by The Judge Advocate General, pursuant to Title 10 of the United States Code, Sections 806 (Article 6, Uniform Code of Military Justice) and For all other inspections and for clarification of issues not covered by this instruction, refer to Air Force Instruction , The Air Force Inspection System. Major Command Staff Judge Advocates may supplement this instruction only with the prior, written approval of the Office of The Judge Advocate General, Inspections and Standardization Directorate (AF/JAI), 1420 Air Force

2 2 AFI NOVEMBER 2017 Pentagon (Room 4D284), Washington DC ; Defense Switched Network voice , 5648, Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with Air Force Manual , Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with Air Force Records Information Management System Records Disposition Schedule. Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility using the Air Force Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route Air Force Forms 847 from the field through the appropriate functional chain. The authorities to waive wing/unit level requirements in this publication are identified with a Tier number ( T-0, T-1, T-2, T-3 ) following the compliance statement. See Air Force Instruction , Publications and Forms Management, for a description of the authorities associated with the Tier numbers. Submit requests for waivers through the chain of command to the appropriate Tier waiver approval authority, or alternately, to the Publication Office of Primary Responsibility for non-tiered compliance items. SUMMARY OF CHANGES This document has been substantially revised and needs to be completely reviewed. Major changes include: eliminatingarticle 6 Part I and Part II Inspections; adding distinction between Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI and Article 6 Inspection AF/JA; renaming AF/JAE to AF/JA and modifying associated responsibilities; renaming AF/JAI to Inspections and Standardization Directorate and modifying responsibilities; modifying responsibilities of Major Command Staff Judge Advocates for the Article 6 Inspection process; adding Article 6 Inspections JAI requirement to Numbered Air Force General Court-Martial Convening Authority level legal offices; modifying tiered requirements for base-level legal offices; modifying definitions under compliance items; and revamping five-tiered designations for Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI scoring. Further, parts of the instruction have been reorganized for clarity.

3 AFI NOVEMBER Chapter 1 THE ARTICLE 6 INSPECTION SYSTEM 1.1. O verview. The Article 6 Inspection System provides an unparalleled opportunity for The Judge Advocate General to evaluate how effectively Air Force legal professionals promote good order and discipline within the military justice system through fair and candid advice provided to commanders. It also serves as a tool to assess compliance and measure the quality of legal services supplied to commanders, personnel, and organizations throughout the Air Force. Moreover, Article 6 Inspections provide a mechanism to standardize the delivery of legal services and the support provided by the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps. The Article 6 Inspection System also provides The Judge Advocate General and the Judge Advocate General s Corp s senior leadership with real-time information from the field through the evaluation of interest items identified in Air Force Instruction , The Air Force Inspection System, specifically Attachment 3 and Self-Assessment Communicators maintained in the Management Internal Control Toolset. Items on Attachment 3 and in the Management Internal Control Toolset are evaluated in coordination with Major Command Inspector Generals and with clarification and support provided by HAF/JA and Air Force Legal Operations Agency Authority and Background. Title 10 U.S.C. 806(a) (Article 6, Uniform Code of Military Justice) requires: The Judge Advocate General or senior members of his staff shall make frequent inspections in the field in supervision of the administration of military justice Congress enacted this provision to ensure the Air Force military justice system is administered properly; supports good order, morale, and discipline; and operates free from unlawful command influence. The success of the military justice system and the mission of the Air Force depend in great measure upon the legality of its actions and the ability of legal professionals to satisfy command requirements for full spectrum advice and legal services. The Article 6 Inspection System serves as an invaluable resource to gauge the overall legal health of our installations by affording The Judge Advocate General a comprehensive, firsthand assessment of legal personnel and the legal support provided to commanders, personnel, and organizations The Judge Advocate General is the senior judge advocate and is vested with the statutory authority to conduct frequent inspections of the field pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 806(a), commonly referred to as Article 6, Uniform Code of Military Justice Additionally, The Judge Advocate General is required by law (10 U.S.C. 8037(c)(2)) to direct the officers of the Air Force designated as judge advocates in the performance of their duties. The Article 6 Inspection System facilitates The Judge Advocate General s compliance with this statutory provision by providing the opportunity to evaluate the duty performance of judge advocates in the field and to provide timely guidance and direction, as appropriate The Deputy Judge Advocate General or other members of the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps may be appointed by The Judge Advocate General to serve as a senior member of his staff for the purposes of conducting an Article 6 Inspection AF/JA, consistent with The Judge Advocate General s statutory authority.

4 4 AFI NOVEMBER Article 6 Inspections are conducted under the authority of The Judge Advocate General and scheduled at the sole discretion of The Judge Advocate General. All Article 6 Inspections constitute a separate and distinct inspection process and are not integrated into any other inspection process. Whenever possible, Article 6 Inspections, as conducted by AF/JAI on The Judge Advocate General s behalf [Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI], are synchronized with a scheduled Major Command Inspector General Unit Effectiveness Inspection Capstone Event. However, The Judge Advocate General can direct an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI at any time. All Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI are coordinated with the appropriate Major Command Inspector General Gatekeeper AF/JA is the office responsible for coordinating all Article 6 Inspections conducted by The Judge Advocate General or Deputy Judge Advocate General [Article 6 Inspection AF/JA] with the respective Major Command legal offices and the appropriate Major Command Gatekeeper. In accordance with Air Force Instruction , paragraph , Gatekeepers do not have the authority to approve/disapprove Article 6 Inspections; however, Gatekeepers have the most comprehensive view of unit activities and can facilitate optimum scheduling Objectives. The Judge Advocate General s statutory responsibility to conduct frequent inspections in the field and direct the activities of judge advocates ensures that: Legal offices comply with all legal, statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements The military justice system is administered properly, effectively, and fairly, with a specific emphasis on maintaining a justice process free from unlawful command influence The quality of legal services remains consistent, and the delivery of legal services is standardized across the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps Commanders at all levels are afforded an opportunity to communicate directly with The Judge Advocate General regarding the administration of military justice, as well as the effectiveness with which legal services are being provided to support the Air Force and installation missions Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s leadership understands the Air Force operational climate and can effectively advocate command issues requiring changes to laws, Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force instructions and policies, or other directives, to better support command prerogatives and mission objectives The Judge Advocate General is able to evaluate legal professionals in the field, providing an opportunity for personal discussion about issues affecting Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s members and their families, and facilitating The Judge Advocate General s ability to make informed decisions about their professional development and overall force development within the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps The Judge Advocate General and senior leadership observe firsthand the challenges facing Staff Judge Advocates, their staffs, and their commands Legal offices and Air Force legal professionals receive timely feedback and guidance directly from The Judge Advocate General, as appropriate.

5 AFI NOVEMBER Innovative legal programs are showcased, best practices identified, and ideas and concerns are appropriately addressed, enabling the cross-flow of useful information Air Force and Judge Advocate General s Corps-wide The Judge Advocate General is able to evaluate legal office relationships with critical mission partners, including but not limited to security forces investigators, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator Roles and Responsibilities The Judge Advocate General will: Establish policy, direction, and guidance for judge advocates, paralegals, and civilian professionals to ensure readiness and standardization in the delivery of legal services and timely advice to command in support of command prerogatives and the Air Force mission Conduct Article 6 Inspections of Air Force legal offices Direct scheduling of all inspections conducted under Article Designate members of the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps to serve as senior members of The Judge Advocate General s staff for the purpose of carrying out inspection responsibilities pursuant to Article Direct oversight responsibility, pursuant to Air Force Instruction , of all 51-series Self-Assessment Communicators in the Management Internal Control Toolset to the specific Air Force Instruction Office of Primary Responsibility within the Judge Advocate General s Corps The Deputy Judge Advocate General will: Carry out delegated responsibilities and administrative duties of the Office of The Judge Advocate General as directed by The Judge Advocate General Conduct Article 6 Inspections AF/JA of Air Force legal offices, as required The Mobilization Assistant to The Judge Advocate General and the Air National Guard Assistant to The Judge Advocate General will: Conduct Article 6 Inspections of Air Force installation-level Air National Guard and Reserve component legal offices, as required Nominate Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps Reserve members to serve as Article 6 inspectors Executive Officer, Office of The Judge Advocate General (AF/JA) will: Exercise management oversight of the Article 6 Inspection AF/JA process Provide appropriate updates to AF/JAI on changes in requirements concerning Article 6 Inspections Coordinate Article 6 Inspections AF/JA pursuant to The Judge Advocate General s authority, with the Major Command Inspector General Gatekeeper through the appropriate Major Command Staff Judge Advocate.

6 6 AFI NOVEMBER Headquarters Air Force /Air Force Legal Operations Agency Directors will: Appoint, in writing, primary and alternate Management Internal Control Toolset Functional Area Managers for specific directorates Author and regularly update, as applicable, Self-Assessment Communicators in the Management Internal Control Toolset for all directorate-owned Air Force Instructions in accordance with Air Force Instruction Monitor, through the Management Internal Control Toolset, compliance with applicable Self-Assessment Communicators and regularly analyze entries to assess if strategic support is needed to correct identified Air Force-wide deficiencies Provide inputs to The Judge Advocate General, or his or her designee, as part of the The Judge Advocate General s Article 6 visit Accompany The Judge Advocate General, or his or her designee, on the Article 6 AF/JA visit when requested Director, Inspections and Standardization Directorate (AF/JAI) will: Support The Judge Advocate General and Deputy Judge Advocate General in satisfying all statutory responsibilities pursuant to Article Manage the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI program consistent with The Judge Advocate General s direction and this instruction Establish Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI guidance, policy, and requirements under the direction and with the approval of The Judge Advocate General Develop, maintain, and update this instruction and Article 6 Inspection Checklists, as required Act as primary point of contact, on behalf of The Judge Advocate General, between AF/JA and SAF/IG in regards to all Air Force Inspection System matters, to include updating Air Force Instruction , Attachment 3, and AF/JA functional oversight of the Management Internal Control Toolset Attend Major Command/Inspector General Gatekeepers inspection scheduling conferences to synchronize, where appropriate, Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI with the various Inspector General Unit Effectiveness Inspection Capstone Events Coordinate with the appropriate Inspector General Gatekeepers and communicate with the Major Command Judge Advocate point of contact in synchronizing all Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI with Inspector General Unit Effectiveness Inspection Capstone Events Lead Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI teams and provide training to designated Article 6 AF/JAI inspectors as needed Provide inspection data and trends to the Strategic Plans and Programs Directorate (AF/JAZ) for dissemination to the appropriate Subject Matter Experts for action.

7 AFI NOVEMBER Finalize a comprehensive Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI report documenting a legal office s performance to address issues and brief The Judge Advocate General on findings Provide Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI identified deficiencies to the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate and Major Command Judge Advocate designee for deficiency oversight and closure Host the official Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s Knowledge Management System on the AF/JAI Webpage and disseminate timely information, innovative ideas, and lessons learned Establish, communicate, and validate inspection requirements to the field under the direction, and with the approval, of The Judge Advocate General Conduct post-article 6 Inspection AF/JAI hot washes with The Judge Advocate General, and other senior staff, as directed by The Judge Advocate General Appoint, in writing, Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI enlisted augmentees Major Command Staff Judge Advocates and Command Paralegal Managers will: Provide oversight and direction regarding all required training of judge advocates, paralegals, and civilian professionals within their Major Command Nominate qualified candidates for designation by The Judge Advocate General as Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI augmentees Appoint an Article 6/Air Force Inspection System Inspection point of contact to coordinate Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI logistics and provide an interface between AF/JAI and their respective Major Command Inspector General Actively monitor the Air Force Inspection System and Article 6 self-inspection programs within the Major Command, to include providing subordinate units direction, guidance, and continuous evaluation pursuant to Air Force Instruction Exercise authority to close deficiencies identified during Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI Forward all concerns about the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI process, to include proposed changes to the Article 6 Inspection Checklists and identified needs and Judge Advocate training issues, to AF/JAI for resolution. If a training issue should be handled by another office within the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps, AF/JAI will forward the issue to that office for resolution Ensure legal offices within their command are prepared for inspections. This includes monitoring the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s calendar, responding to Article 6 Inspection AF/JA notifications, and communicating regularly with AF/JA. Major Command Staff Judge Advocates and Command Paralegal Managers will also accompany The Judge Advocate General or Deputy Judge Advocate General on Article 6 Inspections AF/JA Article 6 Inspectors will:

8 8 AFI NOVEMBER Be appointed by The Judge Advocate General to conduct Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI as senior members of The Judge Advocate General s staff and under the direction of AF/JAI. Once properly appointed, AF/JAI will designate which Law Office Superintendent /paralegal support serve as AF/JAI augmentees for Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI based on availability and scheduling. Any request for Law Office Superintendent/paralegal support should be properly routed through the individual s supervision for approval Receive AF/JAI training prior to conducting an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI Serve at the discretion of The Judge Advocate General once properly qualified Comply with all requirements and procedures contained in this instruction, to include all responsibilities of a trusted agent Major Command Judge Advocate Inspection Point of Contact will: Serve as the primary liaison between AF/JAI and the Major Command Inspector General Perform any inspection under the Air Force Inspection System, pursuant to Air Force Instruction A Major Command Judge Advocate inspector s primary responsibilities are owed to the Major Command Inspector General. With approval of the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate and Major Command Inspector General, the Major Command Judge Advocate inspectors may assist AF/JAI, to include the validation and verification of a sampling of Self-Assessment Communicators and overall assessment of The Judge Advocate General s Special Interest Areas (see paragraph below) Serve as the primary point of contact for the Major Command Inspector General for pre-inspection scheduling, coordinating inspection activities, and handling various administrative matters in coordination with AF/JAI Close any deficiencies identified during an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI, when directed by the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate Comply with all requirements and procedures contained in this instruction, to include the responsibilities of a trusted agent Numbered Air Force Staff Judge Advocates and Paralegal Managers, or Servicing General Court-Martial Convening Authority Legal Office Equivalents will: Facilitate inspections and accompany The Judge Advocate General or Deputy Judge Advocate General on Article 6 Inspections AF/JA on behalf of the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate or Command Paralegal Manager, as required by the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate. (T-2) Conduct self-assessments every six (6) months using the Article 6 General Court-Martial Convening Authority Inspection Checklist posted on the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s Knowledge Management System (AF/JAI Webpage). (T-2) Provide any pertinent information concerning the findings of the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI to AF/JAI inspectors during daily out-briefs.

9 AFI NOVEMBER Close out any deficiencies identified during an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI with the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate, in accordance with this instruction. (T- 2) Base-Level Staff Judge Advocate and Law Office Superintendent/Non- Commissioned Officer In Charge will: Educate personnel on the statutory requirements of inspections conducted pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 806(a) and 8037(c)(2) and the office s responsibilities to the Commander s Inspection Program under the Air Force Inspection System. (T-2) Conduct self-assessments every six (6) months using the Article 6 Inspection checklist posted on the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps Knowledge Management System (AF/JAI Webpage). (T-2) Satisfy all pre-inspection requirements consistent with this instruction and Air Force Instruction (T-2) Coordinate all Article 6 Inspection requirements with command and Judge Advocate supervision. (T-2) Provide any pertinent information concerning the findings of the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI to AF/JAI inspectors during daily out-briefs Close out any deficiencies identified during an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI with the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate, in accordance with this instruction. (T- 2) Forward all concerns about the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI process, to include proposed changes to the Article 6 Inspection Checklist and Judge Advocate training issues, through the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate to AF/JAI for resolution. If a training issue should be handled by another office within the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps, AF/JAI will forward the issue to that office for resolution. (T-1) The Staff Judge Advocate and the Law Office Superintendent/Non- Commissioned Officer In Charge of the inspected office should normally take the lead in planning and coordinating an Article 6 Inspection AF/JA both locally and with higher headquarters legal offices. If more than one legal office is inspected, or other Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps activities on or near an installation are inspected/visited, unless otherwise directed, the senior judge advocate and the senior paralegal assigned to the senior staff will assume responsibility for planning and coordinating the entire Article 6 Inspection AF/JA. This provision includes inspections conducted at the Major Command and Numbered Air Force levels, as well as other legal offices or activities colocated or located near the inspected office.

10 10 AFI NOVEMBER 2017 Chapter 2 ARTICLE 6 INSPECTIONS AF/JAI 2.1. Purpose. Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI serve three main objectives. The first objective of an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI is to ensure legal offices comply with all legal statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements. The second objective is to properly assess the leadership, health, effectiveness, and efficiency of a legal office in meeting the needs of command and in supporting the installation s programs, people, and mission. The third objective is to identify in detail an office s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies; to afford an office the opportunity to remedy any outstanding issues; and to highlight an office s accomplishments. The success of a legal office is ultimately recognized within the framework of the controlling legal and regulatory authority, consistent with the oversight responsibility and direction of The Judge Advocate General Organizations to be Inspected. Article 6 requires The Judge Advocate General or a senior member of his staff to conduct frequent inspections of the field in the supervision of the administration of military justice Operational Legal Offices. The Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI process is primarily designed to inspect offices providing a full-range of legal services and support at an active duty Air Force installation, to include advising a command and subordinate leadership on military justice issues Direct Reporting Unit and Field Operating Agency Legal Offices. Direct Reporting Units and Field Operating Agency legal offices are subject to Article 6 Inspections AF/JA at the discretion of The Judge Advocate General and are evaluated on their support to the command s mission Major Command Legal Offices. Major Command offices are not subject to Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI. However, Major Command offices are subject to an Article 6 Inspection AF/JA in conjunction with an Article 6 Inspection AF/JA of a co-located operational legal office Numbered Air Force and Other Legal Offices. In addition to an Article 6 Inspection AF/JA, any legal office performing a significant military justice supporting function, to include a Numbered Air Force legal office, or other Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps organization supporting a General Court-Martial Convening Authority, is subject to Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI. Any Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI will, whenever possible, coincide with the host installation s Unit Effectiveness Inspection Capstone Event Synchronization with Major Command/Inspector General. Article 6 Inspections are separate and distinct from all other Air Force inspections and, as such, are not directly linked to any other inspection process. The Judge Advocate General may direct an Article 6 Inspection JAI at any time. However, whenever possible, Article 6 Inspections - JAI are synchronized with a Unit Effectiveness Inspection Capstone Event conducted by the Inspector General, as outlined in Air Force Instruction All Article 6 Inspections JAI are coordinated with the appropriate Major Command/Inspector General Gatekeeper.

11 AFI NOVEMBER Notification. Notwithstanding Major Command independent notification practices, the base-level legal office to be inspected will receive a memorandum from AF/JAI approximately 30 days prior to a scheduled Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI. This Notification Memorandum includes the names of the AF/JAI inspectors, a list of required items, and general guidance pertaining to the inspection process. The Major Command Staff Judge Advocate will be copied on information sent from AF/JAI to the installation, as appropriate Article 6 - JAI Inspectors and Enlisted Augmentees. AF/JAI is responsible for all administrative and substantive issues surrounding the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI process, to include assigning and managing Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI inspectors All Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI teams will, at a minimum, include one judge advocate and one paralegal inspector designated by The Judge Advocate General. Whenever possible, at least one inspector is from AF/JAI Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI enlisted augmentees are selected annually in writing upon recommendation of each Major Command Command Paralegal Manager. Minimum requirements for augmentees include holding the rank of either MSgt or SMSgt, at least one (1) year experience as a Law Office Superintendent, and a Key Leadership Position designation identified by the annual Enlisted Developmental Team Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI augmentees are contacted well in advance of an inspection to determine their availability to serve as AF/JAI inspectors. Once selected, AF/JAI will forward additional guidance on using the checklist and interviewing process, grading the compliance portion of the inspection, and drafting the report The senior inspector appointed by The Judge Advocate General serves as the team lead for all Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI. AF/JAI will work directly with the Major Command Judge Advocate representatives prior to any scheduled inspection. The senior Major Command Judge Advocate Inspector General augmentee and representative will normally function as the primary liaison with the inspecting Major Command Inspector General lead for pre-inspection requirements, coordination of activities, and the handling of various administrative matters during the inspection process All inspectors and augmentees must be familiar with the Article 6 Inspection Checklists The Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI process ensures a legal office is responding to the needs of command, maintaining Air Force standards, complying with the appropriate laws and regulations, and meeting the goals and objectives established by The Judge Advocate General. To this end, it is critical that inspectors identify all deficiencies. However, it is equally important that inspectors provide constructive comments, specific guidance, training, and feasible solutions to assist the inspected office in eliminating problems, improving processes, and preparing for a subsequent Article 6 Inspection All appointed Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI inspectors are treated as trusted agents in relation to the inspection of a particular installation or office. With the exception of related communications to members of AF/JAI and the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate of the inspected legal office, and unless otherwise stated within this instruction, inspectors are prohibited from releasing any information pertaining to an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI without the approval of the AF/JAI Director. This instruction places a continuing duty on all

12 12 AFI NOVEMBER 2017 trusted agents to protect inspection information on a strictly need-to-know basis following the completion of an inspection Although Article 6 Inspections AF/JAI are conducted pursuant to The Judge Advocate General s statutory authority, Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI inspectors will work to the greatest extent possible with Inspector General team members to further the overall objectives of the Air Force Inspection System and to minimize any adverse effects on the mission or the unnecessary duplication of effort or use of installation resources Access to Records. Inspectors are granted full access to all records within the control of the inspected legal office and relevant to the areas on the Article 6 Inspection Checklist, as well as any records needed to provide a full assessment of the inspected office. Under no circumstances should records be redacted. AF/JAI will not retain substantiating documents. If pertinent records are held by other base agencies, the inspected office will work with those agencies to obtain access to the records. Inspectors are permitted access to classified materials, subject to their possession of the appropriate clearance. Any issues regarding access to materials during an inspection will be elevated to AF/JAI for resolution Preparation. Given the general purpose of an Article 6 Inspection and the standing requirement for regularly conducted self-assessments of the legal office s support to missions, the actual preparation time required for an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI should not be onerous. An office's thorough and honest assessment of the inspection items over the entire inspection period, coupled with appropriate documentation, allows the inspection team to quickly evaluate items, giving the team more time to spend with personnel in the office and increasing the overall value to the inspected office. Offices should take a proactive approach in identifying and addressing deficiencies through their self-assessments, as opposed to trying to address deficiencies immediately preceding an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI. All pre-inspection requirements are contained in the Notification Memorandum Comprehensive Checklist. The Article 6 Inspection Checklist is divided into sections to allow an office to distribute questions to the appropriate section or personnel within an office Checklist Questions. The checklist contains two types of questions that are labeled as either major items (identified by bold typeface) or minor items (distinguished by standard typeface). The nature of the question (i.e. potential scope or impact if the requirement is not met) determines whether it is designated a major or minor inspection item, not the finding (i.e. actual scope or impact of the given deficiency upon mission accomplishment) Responding to Questions. Article 6 Checklist questions/items are drafted to elicit a compliant or non-compliant response. However, responses should be accompanied by a short narrative explanation of the office s compliance over the entire inspection period, as well as any documentation that supports the response. If the supporting documentation is too voluminous to be included with the response, the response should identify where any source or supporting documents can be located. The applicable inspection period is provided in the Notification Memorandum Not Applicable Questions. Some items contained on the Article 6 Checklist may not be applicable to a specific legal office. For example, overseas bases may have

13 AFI NOVEMBER additional operations and international law responsibilities that do not apply to installations in the United States. If a checklist item refers to a program that is not the responsibility of an inspected office, the acronym N/A may be used in the response. The office should also include a brief statement as to why the particular item is not applicable to the inspected office. Any questions should be forwarded to AF/JAI prior to the inspection Completed Checklists. No later than 10 calendar days prior to the scheduled Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI, the inspected legal office will forward the Article 6 Checklist responses to AF/JAI. This will allow responses to be viewed by the inspection team prior to the inspection. This requirement is limited to answers on the checklist. Source documents and supporting information need not be forwarded to inspectors prior to their arrival, unless requested by AF/JAI Source Documents. Frequently, questions on the Article 6 Checklist reference a larger body of documentation, such as court-martial records. Any source documents referenced in responding to the checklist questions should be available for inspection. It is recommended that all source or supporting documents be staged prior to the inspection. Given the self-assessment requirements, offices should not create extensive documents for an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI, but should spend minimal time staging already existing documentation. All documents should be organized by sections and easily accessible for inspectors. For larger record sets, like military justice files, bases are directed as to what materials need to be available. However, inspectors are not limited to the samples provided and may request additional information or records. Documentation may also be presented electronically, provided all inspection team members have easy access and the information is readily available. Additional guidance on presentation of documentation is provided in the Notification Memorandum Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI Logistics Responsibilities. Prior to beginning the inspection process, the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI team will review the checklist and determine how the inspection responsibilities should be divided among the inspectors in relation to checklist items and interviews. Some areas of the checklist may need to be reviewed by more than one inspector. The inspection team should meet with the inspected legal office early in the process to introduce the team as a group and briefly outline the purpose and plan for the inspection Facilities. Inspectors do not require separate offices for each inspector. Normally a shared conference room, deliberation room, or an office library is preferred by the inspection team. Interviews will be conducted in a private office. Provided adequate transportation exists, inspectors can also meet individuals at a separate location to conduct interviews outside the legal office. Inspectors are prohibited from accepting any free food or drinks. However, they may purchase items from a unit snack fund available to others in the office. No special meals or social gathering should be scheduled during an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI Coordination. The inspection team should discuss potential deficiencies, substantially corrected deficiencies, recommended improvement areas, strengths, or potential best practices identified over the course of the inspection. These discussions should include sufficient details to internally identify any findings. At the close of each day, the inspection

14 14 AFI NOVEMBER 2017 team will communicate with office leadership to provide their observations and potential findings. These sessions serve as an avenue for an office to identify any additional documentation or to clarify a specific issue. Barring an extension granted by the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI team lead, all additional documentation or information to either explain or dispute a finding must be provided to the inspection team lead prior to the conclusion of the inspection. Once all relevant information is received, the team should discuss each issue and reach a consensus on how to handle potential deficiencies. Any issues the inspection team cannot resolve are referred to AF/JAI for final resolution Interviews of Legal Office Personnel. In addition to covering the Article 6 Checklist, inspectors typically interview office personnel to further assess the climate, morale, and leadership within an office, as well as to define the strengths and weakness of any programs Interviews of Non-Legal Office Personnel. Speaking with commanders, first sergeants, customers, and office personnel is an integral part of the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI. Frequently, these discussions will provide insight regarding the effectiveness of office leadership, eliminate process ambiguity for the inspectors, and highlight the quality and quantity of work being accomplished in an office. Individuals selected to speak with the inspection team should demonstrate sufficient contact with the inspected office and/or knowledge of the specific programs to be discussed, to make the interview meaningful. The Notification Memorandum will identify potential candidates to be interviewed. Inspectors may request to speak with additional individuals as the inspection progresses Office Out-brief. The inspection should close with a brief meeting with the inspected office to explain the next step in the inspection process, to share any observations the team may have for the office, and to answer any questions office personnel may have about the inspection process. Inspectors will provide a five-tiered grade only. The AF/JAI Inspection team should remain available to meet with the installation commander, if requested Grading the Inspection. Upon completion of an Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI, the legal office Staff Judge Advocate receives a preliminary inspection report with a five-tiered rating for the inspected legal office, along with a copy of all deficiencies, substantially corrected deficiencies, Recommended Improvement Areas, and identified strengths and best practices (see paragraph ). This preliminary report may be provided to the installation commander directly from AF/JAI, or it may be forwarded through the inspected legal office. A more detailed written report with the numeric score is completed following the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI and forwarded to The Judge Advocate General. Upon The Judge Advocate General s approval, the report is sent to the installation commander, the legal office Staff Judge Advocate, the Numbered Air Force Staff Judge Advocate, and the respective Major Command Staff Judge Advocate. The numeric scoring methodology, as well as the process employed to reach the initial five-tiered rating, will be determined by The Judge Advocate General and posted on the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s Knowledge Management System (AF/JAI Webpage) Compliance Items. These are items identified as key areas to further successful mission accomplishment or legal process execution, including, but not limited to, items where non-compliance could result in denial of due process, excessive cost, litigation, or impact to system and process reliability. The compliance items may be mandated by law,

15 AFI NOVEMBER policy, Executive Order, and Department of Defense (DoD), Air Force and Major Command publications or as directed by The Judge Advocate General. Article 6 Inspection compliance items require direct evaluation and are identified in the Article 6 Inspection Checklist. Compliance items represent a minimum standard. Accordingly, differing practice/focus areas will have no effect on the maximum score Applicable Definitions Deficiency. A validated inspection discrepancy, finding, inadequacy, or non-compliant observation. One of the main purposes of the Article 6 Inspection is to ensure legal offices are meeting the needs of commanders and delivering consistent, top quality legal services to clients. Deficiencies should be used as avenues to improve processes and programs, not as an avenue to punish an office Major Deficiency. A validated major deficiency is a discrepancy, finding, inadequacy, or non-compliant observation on a compliance item that has, or has the potential to have, impact to: the installation s mission, the legality of advice provided by an office, program level requirements, or an individual s legal rights Minor Deficiency. A validated minor deficiency is a discrepancy, finding, inadequacy, or non-compliant observation on a compliance item that has, or has the potential to have, impact to: legal office operations, effective program execution, or system reliability Repeat Deficiency. A recorded deficiency from a previous Article 6 Inspection (or compliance inspection) and/or a deficiency resulting from a failure to comply with the same guidance that has been noted on a previous Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI or compliance inspection of the same legal office. An issue with the same basic process or program is not necessarily a repeat deficiency. To properly constitute a repeat deficiency, the previously identified issue was not corrected or the catalyst for the deficiency is the same as that previously identified. If an office is reinspected per paragraph , any recorded deficiency identified during the initial Unsatisfactory inspection will be considered a repeat deficiency if not deemed compliant during the next regularly scheduled Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI Substantially Corrected Deficiency. Compliance items identified in a prior self-assessment as deficient and corrected far enough in advance of the inspection as to demonstrate the deficiency in the program or process has been remedied Recommended Improvement Area. An identified process, product, or capability that could be improved by a suggested course of action. Frequently, inspectors are faced with a process or program that is on the cusp of constituting a deficiency, but which could be remedied by some simple adjustments or an improvement to the current process or program. A Recommended Improvement Area is one tool available to inspectors to appropriately capture the issue. However, Recommended Improvement Areas should never be used in lieu of a deficiency when the issue is properly defined as a deficiency The Judge Advocate General Special Interest Areas. These areas, designated by The Judge Advocate General, represent the fundamental principles and programs essential to the success of a legal office, with a special emphasis on dedicated leadership, foundational

16 16 AFI NOVEMBER 2017 principles, and legal services provided in support of commanders and clients seeking advice from a legal office. The Judge Advocate General Special Interest Areas may also address emerging areas of law affecting operations Scoring. Inspectors assess the special interest areas. The assessment includes a review of the pertinent checklist items, feedback from interviews conducted, and personal observations over the course of the inspection. Inspectors should consider the guidance provided by AF/JAI and whether the analysis of the special interest areas clearly supports the points awarded. All scores must be clearly supported by a narrative. The point value for the special interest areas may be changed with The Judge Advocate General s approval. The current scoring information, including the point values for the special interest areas, will be available on the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s Knowledge Management System (AF/JAI Webpage). The final numeric score for the special interest areas is determined by AF/JAI based on the rating provided by the inspectors, the strength of the supporting narrative, and how the inspected office compares to previously inspected installations of comparable size Additional Considerations. It is critical to understand that while the items listed on the Article 6 Checklist can influence the special interest score, it is not a controlling factor. For example, an office could be deficient on several regulatory compliance items, but effectively advise and educate commanders; promote a productive and cooperative relationship with installation investigative agencies; expertly train its trial counsel and case paralegals; and aggressively pursue the fair and impartial administration of military justice. These factors would positively influence the office s overall score in the special interest area of military justice Best Practices. An important piece of the Article 6 Inspection process is to highlight those programs that enhance the quality and efficiency of legal services and the advice provided by an office, recognize judge advocates, paralegals, and civilian professionals who are making a difference, and cross-feed useful information across the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corps Definition. Best practices are innovative programs or practices that significantly contribute to improving a process or greatly enhance the quality of legal services provided by an office. Many programs may represent strengths of an office, but best practices enhance leadership, streamline the use of resources, or improve the delivery of legal services. Best practices should have utility outside the inspected office or be of such quality that it clearly stands out as having a major impact in a given area at the inspected installation Additional Considerations. Best practices may be identified by an inspection team as noteworthy and included in the inspection report. It is possible to accrue additional points for identified best practices. Any points awarded for identified best practices will be added to the legal office s final score. Best practices will be made available on the Air Force Judge Advocate General s Corp s Knowledge Management System (AF/JAI Webpage) for other offices to incorporate or use as a resource to improve any existing programs Strengths. A strength identifies those personnel or programs within a base legal office making a significant contribution to morale, the working environment, or a program or

17 AFI NOVEMBER service within a legal office. Strengths may also apply to those programs that fall just short of best practice identification Outstanding Performers. Individuals who make a significant contribution to the legal office mission, enhance the relationship between the legal office and other base agencies, or make a difference on the installation may be recognized at the discretion of the AF/JAI Inspection team The Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI Report. One of the goals of the Article 6 Inspection System is to standardize how legal offices are assessed and ensure the uniform delivery of quality legal services. This is accomplished by providing commanders and Staff Judge Advocates timely feedback on the results of an inspection. There are several steps in the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI process before the report is finalized Preliminary Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI Report. Prior to concluding the Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI, a preliminary report may be provided to the installation commander, the inspected legal office Staff Judge Advocate, and the respective Major Command Staff Judge Advocate, and, when appropriate, to the Major Command Inspector General, containing the deficiencies, substantially corrected deficiencies, Recommended Improvement Areas, strengths, and best practices identified during the inspection. The preliminary Article 6 Inspection AF/JAI report includes the item number from the Article 6 Inspection Checklist, together with a short explanation for each deficiency, the severity of the deficiency, and the applicable reference to the document or standard mandating compliance. In order to provide an overall assessment of the inspection, the report will contain a fivetiered rating for the legal office Five-tiered Designations Outstanding. This rating indicates that the office leadership, operations, and/or legal services far exceed mission requirements and are of an extremely high quality, noticeably superior to almost all other base-level legal offices. Every aspect of leadership and inspected special interest areas are executed at the highest level of performance. Further, people and/or resources are superbly managed, and programs are of exceptional quality. An outstanding rating is extremely rare, one not easily achieved, and clearly supported by the inspection findings Excellent. This rating indicates that the office leadership, operations, and/or legal services clearly exceed mission requirements, are of a high quality and are superior to most other base-level legal offices. All aspects of leadership and inspected special interest areas are executed at a high level of performance. Further, people and/or resources are efficiently managed, and programs are of high quality. While the standards for achieving an excellent rating are less rigorous than that of an outstanding rating, an excellent rating should only be given when clearly warranted and supported by the inspection findings Commendable. This rating indicates that the office leadership, operations, and/or legal services meet mission requirements, are of acceptable quality, and are comparable to the majority of other base-level legal offices. The leadership and the majority of legal services, programs, and processes are executed at the required level of performance. Moreover, people and/or resources are adequately