INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH CRIMINAL ffiSTORY DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS -·~ INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202 FEB I 0 SIT MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTORS OF THE ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE AGENCIES SUBJECT: Evaluation of Department of Defense Compliance With Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements The subject final report is provided for your use. It responds to Section 555 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The Act required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the consistency with which fingerprint cards and final disposition forms are reported by the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Management comments on a draft of this report were considered in preparing the final report. As discussed in Part I, Evaluation Results, of the report, the evaluation indicates a need for the Department to improve reporting requirements. On November 14, 1996, I issued a memorandum to the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies that provides clear guidance on procedures for reporting criminal history data to the FBI. In addition, we are in the process of staffing a new DoD instruction which will improve compliance and will be applicable to all DoD law enforcement agencies conducting investigations meeting the requirements for reporting data. We appreciate the courtesies extended to our staff during this evaluation. Should you have questions, please contact me or Mr. Charles W. Beardall, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Criminal Investigative Policy and Oversight, Office of Assistant Inspector General for Policy and Oversight, at 703-604-8804, Room 1037, 400 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-2884. 0 ~~ ~ Eleanor Hill Inspector General I ·~ Office of the Inspector General, DoD Evaluation of Compliance With DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements Executive Summary Introduction. This evaluation was performed as a result of a requirement in the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996." The Secretary of Defense was directed to provide a report to Congress on the consistency with which fingerprint cards and final dispositions are reported by the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations (DCI0s) 1 to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for inclusion in the Bureau's criminal history identification files. Evaluation Objectives. The primary objective was to evaluate whether the DCIOs are reporting criminal history data to the FBI in compliance with DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10 (CPM No. 10), Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements, March 25, 1987. The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) was not included in the evaluation because Service members committing offenses reportable to the FBI are in most cases under the jurisdiction of the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations (MCI0s)2 . Fingerprint submission within the DCIS is limited because most cases involve fraud and white-collar-type crimes. In these types of cases, the U.S. Marshal's Office usually does the fingerprinting and submitting of the final disposition re~rt. Another objective was to evaluate whether or not other law enforcement activities of the Services collect and report information to the FBI and, if not, determine whether they should be reporting. Evaluation Results. The MCIOs are not consistently submitting criminal history data to the FBI criminal history files. Based on the results of statistical sampling, the Army failed to send FD-249, Suspect Fingerprint Card, to the FBI in approximately 82 percent of its cases; the Navy 83 percent; and the Air Force 38 percent. Failure to submit the R-84, Final Disposition Report, in the Army was 79 percent; the Navy 94 percent; and the Air Force 50 percent. In addition to the MCIOs investigating offenses described in CPM No. 10, other Service law enforcement organizations conduct investigations described in CPM No. 10 and do not consistently report that data. 1The DCIOs are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS). The DCIS is the criminal investigative arm of ~e Inspector General, DoD. The MCIOs are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which services the Navy and the Marine Corps. The MCIOs are responsible for investigating most major crime in the Military Departments, including general crime and fraud. 30ther law enforcement activities include Army Military Police, Air Force and Navy Security Police, and Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division. As a result, the lack of reporting to the FBI criminal history files prevents civilian law enforcement agencies from having significant information on military offenders. The evaluation identified two conditions warranting management action. o DoD CPM No. 10 lacks adequate policy and implementing instructions, and the MCIOs have placed little emphasis on reporting to the FBI criminal history database. Further, oversight with follow-up and validation has not occurred (Finding A). o Other Service law enforcement organizations conduct criminal investigations that fall under DoD CPM No. 10 reporting criteria. These organizations have no policy or implementing procedures for reporting into the FBI Criminal History Data Files except the Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division, which implemented an interim policy in January 1996 (Finding B). Recognizing the high level of noncompliance and the need for other law enforcement organizations to report, this office issued a memorandum to the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of Department of Defense Agencies recommending suggested reporting procedures while this office develops and issues a new DoD Instruction. The new DoD Instruction will be applicable to all DoD law enforcement organizations conducting investigations meeting requirements for criminal history data reporting. Summary of Recommendations. We recommend that the Military Departments and Defense Agencies law enforcement organizations investigating serious offenses as described in CPM No. 10 develop interim policies and implementing procedures for reporting to the FBI criminal history data files while awaiting a new DoD Instruction. Management Comments. The Army and Air Force concurred with Finding A and the recommendation. The Army stated that policy guidance will be established requiring submission of the FD-249 and the R-84 within 10 working days of a triggering event. The Air Force agreed to use the procedural guidance issued in the Inspector General, DoD, memorandum, November 14, 1996, until a new DoD Instruction is developed. The Navy nonconcurred with Finding A and the recommendation, stating that submission numbers for reporting purposes could not be accurately ascertained because of the FBI backlog and the potential for cards being rejected when plain language is used for reporting purposes. Navy also stated that Navy policy adequately addresses procedures for submission and disposition purposes. The Army, Navy, and Air Force concurred with Finding B and the recommendation and agreed to develop procedures for their law enforcement organizations for reporting purposes. A summary of management comments is at the end of each finding. The text of the Army, Navy, and Air Force comments is in Part III. Concurrences, no comments, negatives, or statements stating that investigations are referred to the cognizant MCIO for action and adjudication were received from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Investigative Service, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Special Weapons Agency, Defense Security Assistance Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Defense Protective Service, Washington Headquarters Services, responded stating it conducts investigations and reports to the FBI Criminal History Data files. Responses were not received from the Directors of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, and the On Site Inspection Agency. ii Evaluation Response. The Navy comments to Finding A are not responsive. The Act required a survey for a 24-month period. To ensure having accurate FBI data, our scope was limited to cover an 18-month period without backlog, beginning with 1994. Although Navy policy provides procedures for reporting requirements, the high level of noncompliance indicates procedures were not followed and follow-up and validation did not occur. We request the Navy and the Directors of the Defense Agencies listed in the Management Comments who did not respond to the draft report provide comments to the final report by April 11, 1997. iii Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Part I - Evaluation Results Evaluation Background Evaluation Objectives Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Finding B. Other Service Law Enforcement Organizations Conduct Criminal Investigations That Have Reportable Outcomes 2 3 4 14 Part II - Additional Information Appendix A. Scope and Methodology Scope and Methodology Statistical Sampling Methodology Appendix B. DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements Appendix C. Inspector General, DoD, Memorandum, November 14, 1996 Appendix D. Evaluation Results Appendix E. Organizations Visited or Contacted Appendix F. Report Distribution 20 20 21 24 29 32 34 36 Part ill - Management Comments Department of the Army Comments Department of the Navy Comments Department of the Air Force Comments 40 43 47 Part I - Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Evaluation Background This evaluation was performed to satisfy a requirement in Public Law 104-106, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996" (the Authorization Act). Section, 555, "Report on the Consistency of Reporting of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Forms to the FBI," states: (a) REPORT.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a Report on the consistency with which fingerprint cards and final disposition forms, as described in Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum 10 issued by the Defense Inspector General on March 25, 1987, are reported by the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the Bureau's Criminal history identification files. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.-In the report, the Secretary shall­ (1) survey fingerprint cards and final disposition forms filled out in the past 24 months by each investigative organization; (2) compare the fingerprint cards and final disposition forms filled out to all judicial and nonjudicial procedures initiated as a result of actions taken by each investigative service in the past 24 months; (3) account for any discrepancies between the forms filled out and the judicial and nonjudicial procedures initiated; (4) compare the fingerprint cards and final disposition forms filled out with the information held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history identification files; (5) identify any weaknesses in the collection of fingerprint cards and final disposition forms and in the reporting of that information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and (6) determine whether or not other law enforcement activities of the military services collect and report such information or, if not, should collect and report such information. (c) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.--The report shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. United States Code, title 28, section 534, states the Attorney General shall "acquire, collect, classify and preserve" criminal history information and shall "exchange such records and information" with other law enforcement officials. The Criminal Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, is designated for compiling and disseminating criminal history record information. 2 Evaluation Results Procedures for reporting criminal history record information are delineated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at 28 CFR 20.30 et. seq. Agencies use two forms to submit information to the Criminal Information Services Division: FBI Form FD-249, Suspect Fingerprint Card (FD-249), and FBI/Department of Justice Form R-84, Final Disposition Report (R-84). On March 25, 1987, the Deputy Inspector General, Department of Defense, issued Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10 (CPM No. 10), Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements. This memorandum establishes the policies and procedures under which the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations (DCIOs) within the DoD report offender criminal history data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The memorandum requires that DCIOs submit offender criminal history data to the FBI on all Service members they investigate for commission of any offenses listed in Enclosure 1 of the memorandum (See Appendix B) and who are the subjects of any resultant judicial or nonjudicial military proceeding. Reporting is accomplished through submission of the FD-249 and R-84. Evaluation Objectives The overall objective was to evaluate whether the DCIOs were reporting criminal history data to the FBI in compliance with CPM No. 10. Another objective was to evaluate whether or not other law enforcement activities of the Services collect and report information to the FBI and, if not, whether they should be reporting. Appendix A discusses the evaluation scope and methodology, sampling methodology, and summarizes prior coverage related to the Air Force evaluation of missing records that includes reporting criminal history data to the FBI. Results of matters to be included in the report are discussed in Appendix D. 3 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports The Military Criminal Investigative Organizations (MCIOs) are not consistently submitting FD-249, Suspect Fingerprint Card, and FBI/DOJ Form R-84, Final Disposition Report, to the FBI criminal history data files. The Army failed to send FD-249s to the FBI in 82.1 percent of its cases; the Navy in 83.3 percent, and the Air Force in 38.3 percent. Failure to submit the R-84 in Army cases was 78. 7 percent; in Navy cases 94 percent; and in Air Force cases 50 percent. In addition, implementing procedures on when to take fingerprints and when to submit the forms are not being followed as required by DoD policy and the MCIOs implementing instructions. This level of noncompliance occurs because CPM No. 10 lacks adequate procedural guidance; the MCIOs have placed little emphasis on reporting to the FBI criminal history data files; and oversight with follow-up and validation has not occurred. As a result, the absence of reporting military offenders' records has deprived other federal and state law enforcement personnel of significant information. MCIOs Policies and Procedures for Implementing DoD CPM No. 10 U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC). USACIDC Regulation 195-1, "Criminal Investigation Operational Procedures," Chapter 5, October 1, 1994, establishes USACIDC policies and procedures for collecting and reporting criminal history data to the FBI. In 1995, two amendments made to the regulation clarified submitting the FD-249 to the FBI. The regulation requires two sets of fingerprints be taken at the earliest opportunity, normally during the initial interview and processing of the individual. The FD-249 is to be submitted to the FBI when court-martial charge sheets have been served on the individual or non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), has been completed on the individual. A card should also be submitted if a subject accepts an administrative discharge in lieu of a court-martial. For individuals having non-judicial punishment imposed, the FD-249 is not to be submitted until the punishment is announced in writing by the commander. When disposition is reflected on the FD-249, the R-84 is not required. The FD-249 is not to be delayed pending completion of court-martial action. If the disposition is not reported on the FD-249, the R-84 is to be submitted to the FBI as soon as disposition is known. 4 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and F"mal Disposition Reports Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). SECNAV Instruction 5520.3B, "Criminal and Security Investigations and Related Activities within the Department of the Navy," establishes NCIS policy for implementing CPM No. 10. NCIS Manual, Volume 3, Chapter 6, establishes implementing procedures within the NCIS for collecting and reporting criminal history data to the FBI. Navy policy is to fingerprint the suspect at the time of interrogation for an offense or at the time of initiation of military proceedings by the disciplinary authority of the suspect. The FD-249 is maintained in the investigative case file until the case control agent determines that charges have been made against the suspect. At that time, the FD-249 is sent to the FBI. After a judicial or non­ judicial military proceeding, disposition is reported on the R-84 and sent to the FBI. Disposition may be filed on the FD-249 if the disposition is known at the time of that submission. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). AFOSI Regulation 124-102, "Reporting Criminal History Data to the Federal Bureau of Investigations," August 1987, establishes policies and procedures for collecting and reporting criminal history data to the FBI. In November 1995, Headquarters, AFOSI, issued by electronic message an interim change (95-1) to AFOSI Regulation 124-102 to clarify procedures for submitting fmgerprint cards to the FBI. The regulation requires agents to coordinate with the Staff Judge Advocate (SIA) to determine the best time to fmgerprint a subject for submitting criminal history data to the FBI. The FD-249 is to be sent to the FBI immediately when the SIA confirms that court-martial charges have been preferred or non-judicial punishment was formally offered. Disposition may be annotated on the FD-249 if known immediately. The FD-249 is not to be held more than 7 days while waiting for disposition. If the disposition is not reported on the FD-249, the R-84 is to be submitted to the FBI as soon as disposition is known. Reporting Requirements to FBI Using two statistical samples, our evaluation revealed a high level of noncompliance in MCIO reporting of fmgerprint cards and fmal dispositions to the :?Bl. Universe Represented. The Authorization Act specified that DoD review actions taken for a 24-month period. Discussions with FBI personnel revealed that the Bureau had a significant backlog on entering records into the criminal history files database. Although it has had a backlog for some time, the Bureau is in the process of moving the criminal history identification files to new facilities in West Virginia. The move resulted in a loss of personnel and contributed to an even greater backlog. Not having access to all 1995 files submitted by the MCIOs to the FBI, the evaluation was limited to an 18-month period beginning with 1994. To derive the number of individuals for whom reporting to the FBI was required, data were collected from each MCIO. Those data were compared with the FBI criminal history data files. 5 I I !l Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Sampling Design. The statistical samples estimate the extent of failure by MCIOs in complying with reporting requirements to the FBI. Separate analyses were performed to measure compliance of each MCIO for sending fingerprint cards and reporting of final disposition to the FBI. Stratified samples were designed for each population by calendar year. Each sample size was based on three characteristics: an error probability of 0.5, a 95-percent confidence level, and a desired sample precision of 0.05. Evaluation Results Statistical results on the sample data for Army, Navy, and Air Force are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Army. The population size for Army soldiers for whom fingerprint cards should have been submitted to the FBI was 3,100 and the population for final disposition reporting was 916 during the 18 months. Our sample sizes were 346 for determining fmgerprint card compliance and 272 for final disposition accountability compliance. Table 1. Army 95-Percent Confidence Interval Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound Fingerprint Cards Not Sent To FBI 2,424 78.2 % 2,545 82.1% 2,660 85.8% Final Disposition Not Reported 683 74.6% 721 78.7% 757 82.63 The evaluation results indicate the Army failed to send fmgerprint cards to the FBI in 82.1 percent of its cases and failed to report the fmal disposition to the FBI in 78. 7 percent of its cases. Navy. The population size for Navy Service members for whom fmgerprint cards should have been submitted was 790 and the population for fmal disposition reporting was 150 during the 18 months. Our sample sizes were 263 for determining fmgerprint card compliance and 115 for final disposition accountability compliance. 6 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Table 2. Navv 95-Percent Confidence Interval Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound Fingerprint Cards Not Sent To FBI 628 79.5% 658 83.3% 686 86.8% Final Disposition Not Reported 136 90.9% 139 93.0% 142 94.9% The evaluation results indicate the Navy failed to send fingerprint cards to the FBI in 83. 3 percent of its cases and failed to report the final disposition to the FBI in 93 percent of its cases. Air Force. The population size for Air Force Service members who should have fingerprint cards was 3, 128 and the population for final disposition reporting was 196 during the 18 months. Our sample sizes were 355 for determining fingerprint card compliance and 128 for final disposition accountability compliance. Table 3. Air Force 95-Percent Confidence Interval Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound Fingerprint Cards Not Sent To FBI 1,057 33.8% 1,198 38.3% 1,354 43.3% Final Disposition Not Reported 89 45.2% 98 50.0% 109 55.4% The evaluation results indicate the Air Force failed to send fingerprint cards to the FBI in 38.3 percent of its cases and failed to report the final disposition to the FBI in 50 percent of its cases. t I I ! I I i r ! With 95-percent confidence, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have not followed criminal reporting requirements with the FBI on Service members from each lower bound to each upper bound range of error, respectively. In addition, the overall confidence level for reporting fingerprint cards and final disposition simultaneously is 90 percent. Still, the point estimate is the most likely value or percent in the analysis. 7 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Policy Gaps CPM No. 10 was issued by the Deputy Inspector General (IG), DoD, on March 25, 1987. Procedures for DoD reporting requirements are delineated in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 CFR 20.30 et. seq. The DoD policy to obtain fingerprints when a command determination is made to initiate judicial or non-judicial military proceedings is not always the most effective timing. Field personnel expressed their belief that the DoD policy should allow for flexibility in the timing of taking the fingerprints to provide DoD law enforcement organizations the opportunity to establish operationally efficient implementing guidance. Submission of the FD-249. The DoD policy does not provide a specific time frame for submitting the FD-249, Fingerprint Card. Inconsistencies in MCIO policies were discovered regarding when the card was submitted. Some agents submitted the FD-249 when the Report of Investigation was given to the Command, whereas others awaited the Command's decision. Review of case files at the installations showed that in many cases the fingerprints had been taken, but cards remained in the files. It was also determined that the announcement of this evaluation initiated a review of the files at the activities we visited, and many 1994 and 1995 cards had recently been submitted to the FBI in anticipation of our visit. Submission of the R-84. DoD policy on the submission of the R-84 is unclear. It states the R-84 should be sent on "conclusion" of the court-martial, but does not define "conclusion. " The memorandum states that final disposition for purposes of the system does not include appellate action. Clarification as to when to submit the R-84 is needed. This evaluation also identified that MCIOs are not consistent in implementing their own policies. For example, the Navy's policy addresses the use of the R-84. It states the R-84 is to be forwarded at the Naval conclusion of the judicial or non-judicial military proceeding. installations we visited, however, preferred to hold the fingerprint card for final disposition and not use the R-84. Although Army and Air Force installations provided policies and procedures for using the R-84, its use was limited. The preferred method for all Services was to hold the FD-249 and provide final disposition on it. Entries on the FD-249. Discussions with FBI personnel revealed that the FD-249 may be rejected without being processed if not properly filled out. Data fields on the FD-249 that must be completed properly in order for the fingerprint card to be processed include: Name (NAM); Date of Birth (DOB); Of Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) Number; and Charge/Citation. particular note was that the Charge/Citation field must be expressed in literal terms, e.g., murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. The FBI does not enter criminal code citations; therefore, if only citations are shown, e.g., Article 118 of the UCMJ, the card will be rejected without being processed. Our field visits showed many cards only reflected the UCMJ article for which the Service member was being investigated without literal terms being used. We found that literal terms were not consistently used for disposition on the FD-249 and the 8 I Fmding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports R-84. It is important that criminal history data information is provided in literal terms to ensure that data is processed and available for use by other law enforcement agencies. MCIOs Implementation Lack of Emphasis on Fingerprint Submission. Before the IG, DoD, announced the CPM No. 10 compliance evaluation, the MCIOs placed little or no emphasis on submission of fingerprint cards or final disposition reports to the FBI. When asked, MCIO headquarters officials and field agents said a higher priority had not been placed on submitting the required fmgerprint cards and fmal disposition reports to the FBI because, historically, the FBI has been at least a year behind in entering new data into the criminal history data files. Consequently, in their view, little benefit in solving cases is achieved by providing timely information. Poor Records Maintenance. Review of case files during field visits identified unsatisfactory recordkeeping on submission of the FD-249 and R-84 to the FBI. Each MCIO had procedures in place for recording and submitting fmgerprint cards; however, the procedures were not always followed. For example, case files reviewed showed the following problems: o No record copy (photostatic copy of fmgerprint card) to show that fmgerprints had been taken and cards sent to the FBI when no other written documentation was shown in the case file. o Documentation showed fmgerprint cards had been sent to the FBI with no record to confirm that fmal disposition was reported. The absence of fmal disposition records is significant because command action could result in charges being dropped or the accused being found not guilty. Not submitting a fmal disposition report to the FBI, in such a case, could result in an innocent military member appearing to have a criminal record. o Case files showed that investigations had been completed and the case closed for more than a year before the FD-249s were forwarded to the FBI. At one field site, a review of 52 cases closed in 1994 indicated that 49 cases that required fmgerprints cards be sent to the FBI were sent following the announcement of our visit. o Article 112a - Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances requires reporting under CPM No. 10. This evaluation identified numerous cases of Service members charged with Article 112a; however, case files were annotated indicating that fingerprint cards were not required, with no additional explanation. 9 ____._._.........................................Lil Lb I Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Factors Affecting Reporting Requirements. Interviews with agents in the field and officials at the MCIO headquarters identified factors that influence the submission of the fingerprint cards and final disposition reports. These factors include the following: o Heavy case workload and cutbacks in personnel have resulted in a lack of detailed attention to administrative tasks. Agents expressed their concern over the amount of time they spend on entering data into the computer and accomplishing administrative tasks. The Anny and Navy assign case file reviews to their administrative employees, but resource losses have shifted roles and responsibilities, and accountability is lacking. The Air Force assigns those responsibilities first to the case agent and then to the detachment commander or special agent in charge or their designee for a final review. Although all agents interviewed expressed that they have more cases to investigate than in the past, they must accomplish them with less personnel. o Downsizing has caused restructuring that in some cases has eliminated middle level supervisors and affected the quality of case file reviews. o Untimely feedback regarding Command decisions contributes to the need for more agent follow-up and consumes time. All MCIOs expressed problems with receiving feedback regarding proposed actions and final dispositions from commanders. Although mechanisms are in place to receive this information, follow-up is usually required. Oversight Processes DoD Oversight. This evaluation is the first oversight review by the IG, DoD, to determine compliance on reporting requirements to the FBI criminal history database. Based on the high level of noncompliance identified in this evaluation, the IG, DoD, initiated a memorandum on November 14, 1996 (See Appendix C), to the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Defense Agencies. The memorandum provides suggested guidance for improving reporting procedures while this office develops and issues a new DoD Instruction applicable to all DoD law enforcement organizations. MCIOs Oversight. The MCIOs use two different approaches for oversight of their field agencies. o The Office of the Inspector General, USACIDC, uses compliance inspections that assess investigative standards by measuring timeliness, thoroughness, and timely reporting .(the "3Ts"). Inspector General, USACIDC, teams inspect each USACIDC activity annually. o Inspector General representatives of AFOSI and NCIS validate unit self-assessments to measure field activities. AFOSI Detachments complete a unit self-inspection every 18 months to 2 years, and Headquarters, AFOSI, 10 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports inspection teams validate the self-inspection as part of the AFOSI Quality Air Force Assessment every 3 years. The NCIS field offices are required to conduct self-inspections biannually, and Headquarters, NCIS, conducts validation every 3 years. While each MCIO developed an implementing policy to comply with CPM No. 10, none developed and implemented adequate oversight mechanisms to measure compliance or make the reporting requirements to the FBI a high priority. Only the Air Force had conducted a compliance evaluation to determine whether required documents were missing from investigation case files (See Appendix A). At each field activity visited, we reviewed the most recent Inspector General, USACIDC reports; Headquarters, NCIS, Command Inspection reports; and AFOSI Quality Air Force Assessments. These reports identified deficiencies in submission of Form FD-249 and R-84 at 8 of the 11 field activities. Although the reports identified noncompliance with reporting requirements, they were not presented as significant findings and did not impact the overall inspection rating. As a result, no requirement for follow-up action to complete and forward the missing criminal history data to the FBI was required or accomplished. MCIOS Improved Oversight Mechanisms. Based on discussions with representatives of the Inspectors General of the MCIOs, significant progress is being made to place more emphasis on submitting the FD-249 and the R-84 to the FBI. All Inspector General, MCIO, Inspection Guides used to prepare field activities for command inspections have added submitting required FD-249s and R-84s to the FBI to their inspection checklists. The Inspector General, USACIDC, has added submission of the required fmgerprint cards and fmal disposition reports as one measurable standard to determine timely reporting under the "3Ts." To emphasize awareness for reporting purposes, the Air Force has added a data element to its criminal investigations database to validate that fmgerprints, if required, have been taken. Implementation of these oversight mechanisms should improve compliance with reporting requirements; however, they have not been in place long enough to assess their effectiveness. Reporting Accessible to All L~w Enforcement. Inclusion of criminal histories for any serious military offender into the FBI criminal history data files is essential and significantly contributes to nationwide law enforcement efforts. Military law enforcement and criminal justice authorities have a responsibility to provide information that is easily and efficiently acce~sible to civilian counterparts regarding military offenders. Serious crimes and offenses as identified in CPM No. 10 (including Article 112a, Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances) are reportable. The timely availability of military criminal offender records to civilian agencies is of significant benefit to law enforcement agencies. *The U.S. Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reports identifies seven crime index offenses that are considered serious: murder, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and larceny-theft. Four of the offenses (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) are considered violent crimes. 11 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Summary The indicated level of the MCIOs noncompliance in the submission of fingerprint cards and final dispositions is high and consistent throughout the MCIOs. Inadequate implementing procedures, lack of emphasis by the MCIOs on reporting, and lack of sufficient oversight focusing on this issue have contributed significantly to the noncompliance. Definitive and comprehensive guidance with management emphasis is needed at all levels to improve reporting. Implementation of the new DoD Instruction should improve reporting compliance. Recommendation, Management Comments, and Evaluation Response A. We recommend that the Commander, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service; and the Commander, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, implement the Inspector General, DoD, suggested procedural guidance as outlined in the November 14, 1996, memorandum to the Military Departments and Defense Agencies while a new DoD Instruction is being developed. Army Comments. The Army concurred with the recommendation and stated that policy guidance will be established requiring the submission of reporting documents within 10 working days of a triggering event. The Army also stated that compliance on reporting requirements would be an inspected item during assistance visits to all field units. Additionally, training on reporting requirements will be added or emphasized at training courses for all agents and as in-service training at all offices during 1997. Navy Comments. The Navy nonconcurred with the finding, stating statistical data are questionable because an FBI backlog in data entry exists and the requirement for the use of plain language on the FD-249 may have resulted in the FBI not processing submissions. In addition, the Navy nonconcurred on the recommendation and stated that NCIS has policy and implementing procedures already in place that adequately address CPM No. 10 and reflect the guidance of the IG, DoD, memorandum, November 14, 1996. Air Force Comments. The Air Force concurred with the recommendation and stated that procedural guidance in the IG, DoD, memorandum of November 14, 1996, would be used until a new DoD Instruction is developed. The AFOSI issued a memorandum December 9, 1996, informing its field units of the suggested IG, DoD, policy and emphasized that reporting requirements are a mandatory inspection item for all AFOSI self-inspections and AFOSI Inspector General inspections. I I '' 12 Finding A. Compliance With Requirements for Submission of Fingerprint Cards and Final Disposition Reports Evaluation Response. We consider the Army and the Air Force comments fully responsive. The Navy comments are not responsive. The facts in the report correctly present an 18-month timeframe where data entry was current. The Act required a survey for 24 months. In January 1996, our discussions with FBI personnel revealed an 8-week backlog in data entry. Knowing that a backlog existed, we limited the scope by reviewing data for 1994 through the first 6 months of 1995. FBI personnel indicated that plain language should be used on the FD-249 to ensure that cards are entered into the database since not all FBI personnel are familiar with Articles of the UCMJ. The FBI "Guidelines for Preparation of Criminal Justice Information Services Division Fingerprint Cards" has always required literal terms. In publishing a new DoD Instruction, the FBI suggested that we emphasize using literal terms. Although Navy policy provides procedures for reporting requirements, the high level of noncompliance indicates procedures are not being followed and follow­ up with validation is not occurring. The IG, DoD, memorandum, November 14, 1996, provides suggested procedural guidance while a new DoD Instruction is being staffed. The memorandum to the Service Secretaries and the Directors of the Defense Agencies emphasizes DoD policy for reporting requirements while the Instruction is being staffed. We request the Navy reconsider its position on the finding and recommendation and provide additional comments in its response to the final report. 13 Finding B. Other Service Law Enforcement Organizations Conduct Criminal Investigations That Have Reportable Outcomes Service law enforcement organizations, such as the Army Military Police, Navy and Air Force Security Police, and Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division CID (Marine Corps CID), and Defense Agencies with law enforcement organizations conduct criminal investigations encompassed in the reporting requirements of CPM No. 10. Because CPM No. 10 does not apply to these organizations, they do not always report criminal history data to the FBI. These conditions exist because most of these police organizations have not developed policies and procedures for reporting into the FBI criminal history data files. As a result, another portion of military members who commit serious offenses may not be entered into the FBI criminal history data files. Complete and consistent reporting by all DoD law enforcement organizations is essential to nationwide law enforcement efforts. Background National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The Authorization Act required DoD to determine whether or not other law enforcement activities of the Services collect and report criminal history record information into the FBI criminal history data files and, if not, should they collect and report such information. Other Military Law Enforcement Organizations. Each Service has police organizations responsible for law enforcement. These organizations provide investigative support for crimes for which the MCIO has investigative jurisdiction. For the most part, investigative activity of these police organizations is limited to minor or exclusively military offenses (such as, absent without leave, disrespect to a superior, or disobedience of orders). When investigations go beyond the jurisdiction of the police organizations, the case is referred to the Service MCIO. When CPM No. 10 was published, the applicability of the memorandum was limited to DCIOs. Since most police organizations function under the direction of an installation security officer or a military installation commander and not a DCIO, CPM No. 10 does not apply to these organizations. 14 Finding B. Other Service Law Enforcement Organizations Conduct Criminal Investigations That Have Reportable Outcomes Criminal Investigations by Other Law Enforcement Organizations Law Enforcement Organizations. Installation-level Service police organizations were visited during each of the on-site visits made to the MCIOs to determine whether the police organizations also conduct investigations that may fall under the reporting criteria of CPM No. 10. On-site discussions with officials identified the following: o The Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division (Marine Corps CID) investigated serious criminal offenses at Marine Corps installations and had already developed an interim policy memorandum for reporting data to the FBI. o The Army, Navy, and Air Force police organizations conduct criminal investigations of some serious offenses. Some of these offenses meet the reporting criteria of CPM No. 10 and should be reported to the FBI. Marine Corps CID. The Marine Corps CID reports to the local Provost Marshal who reports to the local chain of command at Marine Corps activities. During deployments, Marine Corps CID investigators take over the entire criminal investigative jurisdiction for Marine Corps personnel. We visited two Marine Corps installations and met with an official at Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC). The Marine Corps CID uses Marine Corps Order P5580.2, Marine Corps Law Enforcement Manual, to implement law enforcement procedures. In July 1995, HQMC issued a policy memorandum directing its Marine Corps CID offices to submit criminal history data to the FBI Identification Division on investigations that fall under DoD policy. The official at the HQMC stated that implementing procedures for submitting criminal history data to the FBI would be in the next revision of Marine Corps Order P5580.2. At the two Marine Corps installations that were visited, a review of records identified offenses that met reporting requirements. It was verified that reporting of criminal history data began in January 1996. Lack of Reporting. Police organizations within the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force conduct investigations of military members for offenses that are under the reporting requirements of CPM No. 10. Officials at the different Service police organizations verified they do conduct such investigations and cited robbery, assaults, burglary, housebreaking, and wrongful use of controlled substances as examples. Although the Service police organizations and the MCIOs have policies outlining roles and responsibilities, with specific criteria on investigative jurisdiction, Service police organizations are investigating cases of serious offenses that were previously not within their jurisdiction. After issuance of CPM No. 10, MCIO roles and responsibilities have shifted and certain serious offenses have been delegated to other law enforcement organizations due to organizational restructuring and reduction of resources. Because previous DoD policy did not apply to the Service police organizations, they do not have policy and implementing procedures for reporting into the FBI 15 Finding B. Other Service Law Enforcement Organizations Conduct Criminal Investigations That Have Reportable Outcomes criminal history data files. Without policy and implementing instructions, reportable information from cases investigated by the Services police organizations generally is not submitted to the FBI. Unbalanced Reporting. Submission under reporting requirements in the DoD policy is dependent on which law enforcement organization investigates the offense. For example, CPM No. 10 lists UCMJ Article 112a, Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances, as an offense requiring reporting into the criminal history data files. Such an offense can be investigated by the MCIOs, Service police organizations, or joint drug teams consisting of military police and MCIO investigators. Since DoD policy applies only to the DCIOs, information concerning drug offenders investigated only by the Service police organizations will not generally be reported. Further, drug testing urinalysis results are referred to commanders and may or may not subsequently be investigated by a military law enforcement organization required to make submissions to the FBI criminal history data files. Administrative Discharges. Staff Judge Advocates (SJA) were visited to determine what, if any, reporting is accomplished for Service members receiving administrative discharges when offenses have been committed or those who command officials permit to retire, separate, or resign in lieu of court martial. For the most part, the SJAs did not feel administrative discharges were used when serious offenses were committed. They stated that military offenders are not usually given an administrative discharge for a serious offense without an investigation by their MCIOs. The decision for commanders, with the advice of their SIA, to approve an administrative discharge for a military member is typically based on factors such as seriousness of the offense, prosecution problems, cost of trial, amount of time Service member has served, and the advantage to the Service. Consistent Reporting. The goal of a criminal reporting system is to have the same information regarding the same offenses reported from all law enforcement organizations. The lack of policy and implementing procedures for Service police organizations has caused the omission of criminal history data on certain military offenders being reported to the FBI. As stated in Finding A of this evaluation, including criminal histories for any serious military offenders in a nationwide system is essential aud significantly contributes to nationwide law enforcement efforts. 16 Finding B. Other Service Law Enforcement Organizations Conduct Criminal Investigations That Have Reportable Outcomes Summary This evaluation determined that Service police organizations are investigating some offenses that meet the reporting criteria of CPM No. 10. Not reporting is a result of these organizations not being required to report under CPM No. 10 and not having policies or implementing instructions for reporting into the FBI criminal history data files. This lack of submission is a deficiency that needs correction. Recommendation, Management Comments, and Evaluation Response B. We recommend that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Department of the Army; the Deputy Assistant Director for Law Enforcement and Physical Security, Department of the Navy; Chief of Security Police for the Air Force; and the Directors of Defense Agencies with law enforcement organizations implement the Inspector General, DoD, suggested procedural guidance outlined in the November 14, 1996, memorandum to the Military Departments and Defense Agencies while a new DoD Instruction is being developed. Army Comments. The Army concurred with the recommendation and stated it has already implemented this recommendation with regard to individuals who are convicted of serious criminal offenses and sentenced to confinement at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks and other military corrections facilities. In addition, the Army stated that coordination has been ongoing with the Criminal Justice Information Division, FBI, to develop procedures for Army provost marshals to submit fingerprint cards, maintain written criminal reports required by the Criminal Justice Information Systems and state agencies, and have the record available for use. Navy Comments. The Navy concurred with the recommendation and stated the NCIS Deputy Assistant Director for Law Enforcement and Physical Security has undertaken measures to implement the Inspector General, DoD, suggested procedural guidance in the Navy Law Enforcement Manual, OPNAVINST 5580.1 Air Force Comments. The Air Force concurred with the recommendation and stated that law enforcement agencies should report offenses meeting CPM No. 10 criteria. The Air Force Chief of Security Police has initiated action to develop procedures to begin fingerprinting in applicable cases. The Air Force 17 Finding B. Other Service Law Enforcement Organizations Conduct Criminal Investigations That Have Reportable Outcomes Chief of Security Police will work with the Air Force Security Police Agency and the security police offices at the Air Force's Major Commands to ensure compliance. Defense Agencies Comments. Concurrences, no comments, negatives, or statements stating that investigations are referred to the cognizant MCIO for action and adjudication were received from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Investigative Service, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Special Weapons Agency, Defense Security Assistance Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Defense Protective Service, Washington Headquarters Services, responded stating it conducts investigations and reports to the FBI Criminal History Data files. Evaluation Response. The Army, Air Force, Navy, Defense Protective Service, and the Directors of the Defense Agencies listed under the above Defense Agencies comments are responsive. We request the Directors of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, and the On Site Inspection Agency provide comments on the final report by April 11, 1997. 18 jw?zmm ?mgnm Huxnm.? rm: 7 .TAW ?mvmv rdu' .. nw?x-xa-m ?Wyn. vn :1 'rr as Part II - Additional Information I Appendix A. Scope and Methodology Scope and Methodology Limitations to Evaluation Scope. The scope was limited for two reasons. o The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 required DoD to survey fingerprint cards and final disposition reports for 24 months. The initial plan was to review 1994 and 1995 records. Discussions with FBI personnel revealed a significant backlog on entering records into the criminal history data base. As a result of not having access to all FBI data for 1995, data was reviewed for 18 months, beginning with 1994. o The Defense Criminal Investigative Service was not included in the evaluation because Service members committing offenses reportable to the FBI are in most cases under the jurisdiction of the MCIOs. Fingerprint submission within the Defense Criminal Investigative Service is limited because most cases involve fraud or other white-collar-type crimes. In these types of cases, the U.S. Marshal's office usually does the fingerprinting and submitting of the final disposition report. MCIO policies and procedures were reviewed for MCIO Processes. submission of the FD-249, Suspect Fingerprint Card, and R-84, Final _ Disposition Report. The evaluation selected 11 MCIO field offices for review to determine whether policies and procedures were adequate to comply with requirements to submit fmgerprint cards and fmal disposition reports. In addition, law enforcement personnel and Staff Judge Advocate offices were contacted at those installations to determine whether or not other military law enforcement organizations collect and report such information to the FBI. Use of Computer-Processed Data. Based on DoD policy criteria for the submission of FD-249s and R-84s, the evaluation gathered computer-generated data from the MCIOs to compare with the FBI data. Using this data, two stratified samplings were conducted: one compared fmgerprint cards held by the FBI to the MCIO data runs and the other determined whether fmal disposition reports had been made by the MCIOs on those fingerprint cards that had been submitted to the FBI. The samplings were performed at the MCIO record centers. Evaluation Period and Locations. This evaluation was performed from December 1995 through July 1996. Appendix E lists the organizations visited or contacted. 20 Appendix A. Scope and Methodology Prior Audits or Other Reviews During the last 5 years, the only review covering criminal history reporting to the FBI was the Mission Evaluations Office, Headquarters, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, project action team's review of investigative case files to determine whether documents required by AFOSI regulations were in AFOSI Case Files. Mission Evaluation Office, Headquarters, AFOSI, Evaluation 92-2, "Required Documents in Case Files," March 1993, was conducted to determine whether and to what degree AFOSI had a problem including documents in case files that are required by AFOSI regulations. The evaluation found 84 percent of the investigative case files reviewed were missing at least one required document. The absence rate of required FD-249, Suspect Fingerprint Cards, was 64 percent and the absence rate of FBI/DOI Form R-84, Final Disposition Reports, was 96 percent. The evaluation report recommended that Director of Mission, AFOSI: review applicable laws and DoD and Air Force regulations .to validate the need for AFOSI required documents; standardize regulatory language; revise AFOSI Regulation 4-2, "Processing and Management of Closed AFOSI Investigative Case Files," to include a list of documents required by AFOSI regulations; incorporate required document accountability into the command's self-inspection process and make the document accountability a command interest item for IG inspections; review AFOSI training curriculum to determine whether emphasis is placed on including required documents in case files; and publish the results of Evaluation 92-2 to AFOSI field offices accompanied by a cover letter from the Commander, AFOSI, emphasizing the significant legal aspects of including required documents in case files. Statistical Sampling Methodology Sampling Purpose. The statistical sampling plan estimates the amount of error of each MCIOs criminal reporting requirements to the FBI. The sample results provide data to evaluate the number and percent of Service members who committed offenses listed under Enclosure 1 of CPM No. 10 and were not reported. Separate analyses were performed to measure each MCIOs compliance in sending fmgerprint cards and reporting fmal disposition reports to the FBI. Universe Represented. The evaluation consists of Service members who committed serious offenses in the 18 months from January 1994 through June 1995. The population size for each MCIO of those persons who should have fmgerprint cards and fmal disposition reports was received by computer­ processed data from each MCIO. 21 Appendix A. Scope and Methodology Sampling Design. Stratified samples for each MCIO were designed for each population by calendar year. Each sample size was based on three characteristics: an error probability of 0.5, a 95 percent confidence level, and a desired sample precision of 0.05. Results. Using the stratified samples, evaluation results for each MCIO submission of fingerprint cards and final dispositions reponed are discussed in The following charts represent each MCIOs Finding A of the repon. submission of FD-249s and R-84s cards in percentages. Army Statistical Sampling rin;erprlnt Cards ac Final Disposition Report Navy Statistical Sampling rin;erprlnt Cards ac Final Disposition Report ,. B No Card mCord Only • 22 CClrd. Oispniticm Appendix A. Scope and :Methodology Air Force Statistical Sampling ringerprlnt Cards le Final Disposition Report 23 I Appendix B. DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements _ ____ •KNIERAL _... ......... _p,._.._ .....,---·-·­ INe~IECTOR • s llAll 887 Crl•l-1 1._acl. .clona . .1loir - - r a n d ­ lhnlber 10 - CCialaal •l•cosy Det.a . .port.1ng ....,lr-aU l'ul>11c a.av 9S-4S2. laapecsor oe-r•I. Ace of 1•?a. as _ , . . _ . It)" •·'-· 9'7-252 Cal•• cit•• •• Tlcle I. Dal•d Sucea COde • A11119adla :I) ,., CID> Dlreccl- 11oc.1. ·1-peccor General of ch• Deparcaenc of Def••••·· llarch 14. 198::S Doi> le> Dnlfona Code of K111cary ~usclce. "l'lcl• 10. Dalee• suces cocse. secclona ao1-•::s• A. l'Ultl'OSE 'l'hls --r•n4-. Issued under &tie aachorlc:r of the lnapeccor General. DoD. -••IDliahes . .1lcl•• aDd procedure• for reporclng offen4er crl•la&l tllaco~ co &ti• ldent.lflcaclon Dlvlalon. ft4eral aureau of la-scl9acl- (ftU • lt:r Cite Oefenae crla1aa1 ~vescl9ac1 ... or9aalsaclons. ••ca a. Al'PLICAal:r.Tft AllD 9COPE The p r - l • l - of &Illa - r • n 4 - apply eo .._ Vnlc•• Scace• a-:r CClalaal 1a...acl9acl- c -... &be . . . . 1 8etnlrlc:r and a-•scl9acl ... Ca e-d. CIJ• Air Force Offio• of •pecla1 l••••cl9aclona. a-d ca. Def••- Crlalaa1 l•-•cl•••l•• ••r•ice • ... reln refers. . co -11ectl-17 •• &be Defe-. orlalnal &1nre~cl9ac11sac1. . . . er,.. C. UCS4POO•l:I Dl•la&oa of --. n1 - l n • l - asa au..-ac•• ol .....ce. of olt•. . .r orla1Aa1 •Sacosy •aca. 'ftae ln ..._ a7acea an ........_. I r - 11. . . rprlac oasda a..-1c&•0 It)" Pederal. at.ate . . . :&ocal .&av • • f • r - • c _ . lclal !arl.9dlc•lon• apon arr-& os le41lc-..c of • Mrloua •I . . . .r. f t . . . ca are •••11Att1• u J.aw eafo~c . , . _ , _ Uar-t1h 1...ulrl•• of &Ile •acl•••l. Crl­ saf'oraa~1- ceaces. CS1a1aa1 1tlacos7 ••ca •r-1. . •••tra1. a7aopclc aaO re..SU7 - - l l t l e ialoraacl- a.._t: 1.. . 1.,w-1 c09ar•~D9 ell•-• . . . •&apoal&loa. IMMtked It)" IO•lcl.,. 1. .nUlloaclon &1Jr-9h lla9erpslaca. ••rtlcl. .&1. . It)" U.. Del•-• crta1. .1 l••••cl. .&l­ or9-1aac1. . . vlll ·~ mMI en1aa-. •h• elt!•••I--•• of th• ·~•tea co Cite DOD. aa ...11 aa at.an. local. and ou.r hdesal uw ealoc.-ac ...-1. . . ~ a.eacllloacl- er•tea 1.. 24 ••ca I Appendix B. DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements D. DEl'lNITlONS 1. Judicial or Non1udicia1 Mlllt1rv rrfie•dins. ror purpo••• of this ae110randua, ihi &er• include• inweat~atlon under Article 32, anlfora COde of MUl&ar:r Justice (UCllJ), courca...artlal and nonjucUc1a1 Marl..• conducted ln accordance vlth Article 15. DOU (re&ereace Cc)). 2. •offender Crlalnal Rlnory pata. ror purpoaea of tbla M•randsaa, o!felMier crl•lnai ilator:r iaca ere the lnfonaatlon, iaclu4ln9 Uqerpdats, wblch 1• recorded oa Cb• front and back of • atandard a&aapect f11t9erprlnt card rnr Fora FD 241) and riaal Diapo• hi.on ..port cnl/DO.T rora ll-14 J • &. POLICY The Defense cri•inal lnveatl9a;ive or9aniaatlona will aab•lt to tbe ldentlficatlcm Dlvlalon of tlle nar o&feader cri•Snal hlator1 . .ta for all Military Serwlce .,•bera inveaciy•t•d ~Y th•• for comalaaion of any of tbe oUeaH• &n&a•rated n Encloaure 1 tnd WD are the •&abject• of any reaultsnt judicial or nonjudicial allit1ry procHcUn9. r. HOC:EDUUS 1. Offender crialnal history data records r~uhed under tbla polli=y ••s.orandua are to be laltlated by preparation and au1:1111..1on of a atandard auapect &la9erprlnt card (Baeloaure 2) to th• ldeatlflcation Di•lalora, RI. 2. r1a9erprlnts and all addltlon&1 lDforuUon r••ulred bf &be aundard aupec:t flnterprlnt card vUl be oltUln•IS froa a1U.tary auapects ander b"•tlt•tlon .., &be Defeue c:lalnal lnHatltatlwe organlaatlona for offenses ••-raced la Sacloaue 1. a. ft• flftt!rpr lat cart. will M MUlnet!I vbea a cmaand . .teralnatlon la aade to laltlne jalllelal or .... jadlclal al1lta17 proc:. .dlnt• et•lnst tit• •lllu17 auapeet for tit! offense Mint ilwe•tltat!IS. ft! local imr••tltatl" ofHca v111 aabalt Cb! mpect•• Hnterprlnt ard to tbe ldeatUlcatloa Dl•lalon, ni. at 81IOb tlM. lubaluloa la l!flGll'!IS e•en U claart•• are for dlUereat or ,_. l••••r oueue C•·I·• rape, Mt aal., u eon4uct .a~lnt an officer>. ne &ect tut a aerlou• 0Uu1e la claarf!d and a4ju4 lcatd u • leHer oUeue •lll M re!lected la • tapoa ltloa ceportiq. u.,. .,ia,., lubalaai• of H ...rprlnt cads •111 not M br eoapletlon of jdlclal or aoajudlclal allltar7 proc:eedl.... b. tbe local l•••atlpth• oUlce . . . J. Dlapoaltlon lnforaatlo •111 M reported bf th• Defense erlalnal lnweatltatl,,. or9anla.tlon on tbe rlaal Dlapoaltlon . .port 25 Appendix B. DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal ffistory Data Reporting Requirements r&.cloaon J> on CDftCla•lon of t:h• :ludiclal or nonjudicial •1Uury proc•edin;. rlul dlaposlUon tor p11rpo••• of Cbe •r•c- clou not lnelude appellate action. Diaposltion .lnforaadon uy be entered on tbe fln9erprlnt card In c..ea •b~r• tbe dl•po•ltlon 1• known •l=ost !118ediately after the comaand deteralnatlon referred co in para;raph 2.a. above (e.9 •• - - . aoajud1cia1 •llitary proe. . .1D9•>· DiapoaLUou wblcb are esculpatorr In aatare C•·I·, d1a1aaa1 of aar9H. eccau1tta1) aun alao IM IU.ed. 4. r1n9erpdat car4a, •1apoalU• foraa an4 prea. .reaaed •welopea for atlblllHloa wUl be provided at - coat by U.e ftl. G. AC'lJOll BQUlUD 'l'be -=-anders and dlrectora ,;,f tb• Defeue er La1na1 lmrestl9atlve or9anlsatlona aball develop lllpl. . .ntl. . re9"1ati.uas lor thl• aeaoraad• and aba11 euure tbat: 1. Copies of l•pl...ntla9 docuaenu •111 M forvarded to ctte Office of tbe Aaalstaat zur.ctor Geaeral for Crlaln•, Ja. .a tltatloaa h11cy and Overs 9ht CClPO) , OfUce of tbe zu.-ctor General, DoD, wltbin 120 •aya of tbe laauance of Cbla hllcy llemOrandua. 2. Sufficient aappll•• of foraa and eawelopea nec:eaaary to lap1. . .nt tbla l'ollcr aeaorandua vlU lte olt&a.Laod fr- tbe nI and dlatr lbuted co Held e1-.nu lor ue. J. Wbere aeceuary, Defeue crlalul lnweat11atlve orpnlutlon peraoaael wlU be provided uala1a9 Coffered by tbe ni at ao cost) eaabllnt tbell to take 11.,.rprlata properly an4 ooapl•t• tbe !oraa reqdred ader till• Poller lllllOralld•. 4. t'M protr• •tabll•bed "1 tbl• . .ucr 11e11orand• vUl M fu117 operaUonal ln tbelr ceapecUwe or9anl. .UOA• ao later &ban OCtotter 1. itn. a. Sh&C'llft MTS ftla Cdalu1 Jaweatltatloa l'oller -r...S• I• effectlwe ._..1atelf - ' r. .lu I• •Hect • t l l U.Ctosated l•to a DoD •1rectlwe. lutrac&lon. o U.er r~ loa• ..,...... 26 Appendix B. DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements 1. Ar&lcl• ,. 2. Article IO Atteapta Cpertalalnt to crlaea 11Hed la tllla SllC:loaaH) J. ArUcl• 11 COUplraCJ Cpertalnlnf to er.I.•• luted la tllu &neloaare> 4. Article 10'7 Pala• Offlclal lta-...nta s. Artlcl• 108 Military proper&ys da•a1e, destruction, dlapoal&lon '· '·•• '· Article lUA wro91Jful .... poaaeulon, etc •• of con&rolled auatstaacea Art.I.Cle 11, Murder: Artlcl• Ut 11au1au9Dter Article 120 aape, carnal k•vledt• 10. Ar&lcle 121 Larceny 11. Ar&lcle 122 9Hbery 12. Article 123 Port•rJ lJ. Article 124 14. ArtlCle us ....,. 15. &r&lcle 121 Ar­ 11. &r&lcle 12'7 . .tortlon 1'. Ar&lcl• 121 Auaulta 11. &r&lcle 121 ••rtl•&'J lt. &r&1c1e 130 .....ltreaklllf Acc••ao&'J af&er Cite fact (pertalnln9 &o criM• listed ln &bl• lnclosare> lo••• . .la,. . DCLOSUU: 1 27 I Appendix B. DoD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements 20. Article 131 Perjury 232 rr~uta a9aln1t the United States 22. Tbe follovin9 offenses under Article 134 Aaaault. indecent Aasault 9ollb Uareat or lto•a ldber:r lurnlnt wl~ latent to ••fraud bc:ape fr• correctional custody fala• pretenses. obtalalnv Hr•ic.. llftder C•alue •re &Un 1100) raiae avearln1 rlreara. diac:Jaar1• vUlfull:r to endanter 1a. .n 1Ue Graft llOlllcid•• ..,ll•••t lad.cent ect. llber&lea vltb cblld ladecent acu vitb anotber &idupplDt 11au. taUng. opening. Hcretlq. dHtrorlrat or atHlia9 flails. depoaltlat or cau.ln9 to be depoalt., ••cene utters in &be Klsprlson of • •erlous offense Obstructlnt juatice ••nderint ProatituUon l'roperty. •••tcucuoa. r•cnal or dlapoaal of to preftllt aelsure ..rjury. •tabordlnatlOD of •allc record. alterl.a1. coaceallnt. f990•ln9. •tli.Uag. ol>UteraUnt or •Htro1la1 ..fualat vron9fu1ly to testify Stolen propertf, bowlftllJ recel"1q. IMafl•I or coac:ea11nt (•al. . . .re tJ&aa •100> 'l'breat, -u•lcatlnt Weapon. conceal.,, e&rrflftl 23. Any offeues . . .er &M r . . . ral Anlallatlft Czillea Act Cll v.a.c. 13>, olaar... aa a •lo1atloa of Article 134. vauora c:ode of IUUtaCJ .Jutln, lllllclt ... a - • l • • . . .labaeat of ... rear or •re. 28 Appendix C. Inspector General, DoD, Memorandum, November 14, 1996 • INSPECTOR. GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEfENSE • ADft' NA'n'mr\I& AllUNG10N, 'fDGINIA - - ­ NOV I A 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR DISTllBM'ION SVBJEC'l': Evaluation Of CoJlpliance with DoD criminal Investigations Policy Memorandwa Ho. l.O, criminal History Data bportin; bqW.reaents Section 555 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (AttachJDent 1) requires th• Secretary of Defense to sul:mdt a report by February 10, 1997, to Congress. 'l'b• report is to address the consistency with which fingerprint cards and final disposition forms, as described in criminal Investigations Policy Me111orandum No. 10 (CPM 10), are reported by the Defense criminal Investigative Organizations (OCIOs) to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 'l'h• Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense (DoD), has been conducting an evaluation of compliance with CPM 10 in response to this congressional requirement. Initial rasultS of the evaluation warrant immediate concerns in two areas. First, there is apparently a high level of noncompliance with the reporting requirements by the Military criminal Investigative Organizations (MCIOs). Second, while the MCIOs maintain primary responsibility for cases involving the offenses requiring reporting listed in CPM 10, other DoD law enforcement organizations also conduct investigations of some of these offenses. Title 28, United states Code, Section 534, provides that the Attorney General shall collect and disseainate •criminal identification, crime, and other records.• Consistent with the statutory provisions, CPM 10 (Attacbment 2) established as DoD policy that DoD would report criminal history data to the Department of Justice. The procedures for reporting this data are delineated in the Code of Federal bqulations (CFR), at 28 CFR 20.30 et. seq. To provide clearer guidance regarding the .procedures in the CFR and improve compliance with the DoD reporting requirement, this office will develop and issue a new DoD instruction applicable to DoD law enf orcemant organizations that investigate criau for which criminal history data should be reported. Until we issue this DoD instruction, in order to •ore fully comply with the spirit of the law as well as the policy established in CPM 10, DoD law enforcement organizations conducting investigations of offenses reportable under CPM 10 should report the offender criminal history data. Reports should be made to the criminal Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 29 Appendix C. Inspector General, DoD, Memorandum, November 14, 1996 2 For reportin9 purpo•es, ve su9gut you consider the followinq: submi•sion of the FD 249, Fingerprint card, should occur within 10 days of a tri99ering event (e.9., a command determination to initiate judicial or nonjudicial proceedintJS against a ailitary suspect ))a•ed upon actions by a DoD law enforcement organization). If final disposition is anticipated within 60 days of such command determination, the FD 249 . .y be held and final disposition recorded on the FD 249. If final disposition was not recorded on the FD 249, forward an R-84, Final Disposition Report, within 10 days of final disposition. All comaand authorities should ensure 4i•positions are properly provided to the DoD law enforcement or9anizations •o the FD 249 or R-84 can be submitted on a timely ))&sis. Further vuidelines and supplies of forms and envelopes necessary to impl-ent reporting requirements may be obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Personnel Division, Washington, D.c. 20535. All Military Departments and DoD Agencies with law enforcement components •hould develop interim reporting mechanisms to meet the requirements of the previously cited statutory and requlatory provisions, including CPM 10, until the new DoD instruction is i•sued. If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact Mr. Charles w. Beardall, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for criminal lnvesti9ative Policy and oversight, Office of Assistant Inspector General for Policy an~ersight, at (703) 604-8804. //!~ J .• ~ /WJ ~l lnspector General Attachments cc: Assistant Secretary of Defen•e (Command, control, COJDJDunications and Intelligence) General Counsel, Department of Defense 30 Appendix C. Inspector General, DoD, Memorandum, November 14, 1996 DISTRIB'OTION: secretary Secretary Secretary Director, Director, Director, .Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, of the ArmY of the Navy of the Air Force Ballistic Missile Defense orqani&ation Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense commissary Agency Defense Contract Audit Agency Defense Finance And Accountin9 Service Defense Information systems Agency Defense Intelligence Agency Defense Investigative service Defense Legal services Agency Defense i.oqistics Agency Defense Nuclear .Agency Defense Security Assistance Agency National Imagery and Mapping Agency National Reconnaissance Office National Security Agency on Site Inspection Agency 31 Appendix D. Evaluation Results This evaluation was conducted as a result of a requirement in the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The Secretary of Defense was directed to report to Congress on the following six matters: (1) Survey fingerprint cards and final disposition forms filled out in the past 24 months by each investigative organization. Evaluation Results. The initial plan was to review 1994 and 1995 records. Discussions with FBI personnel revealed a significant backlog on entering records into the criminal history data base. As a result of not having access to all FBI data for 1995, data were reviewed for 18 months, beginning with 1994. (2) Compare the fingerprint cards and final disposition forms filled out to all judicial and nonjudicial procedures initiated as a result of actions taken by each investigative service in the past 24 months. Evaluation Results. Computer-generated data was gathered from the MCIOs using the criteria identified in CPM No. 10. The data contained offender's name, offense charged, and social security number. This data was compared with the data held in the Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history data files. (3) Account for any discrepancies between the forms filled out and the judicial and nonjudicial procedures initiated. Evaluation Results. Based on the data kept by the FBI and the data received from the MCIOs, the number of criminal history records not in the Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history data files was determined and also the number not having a completed final disposition. See matter no. (4), Evaluation Results. (4) Compare the fingerprint cards and final disposition forms filled out with the information held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history identification files. Evaluation Results. The evaluation revealed a high level of noncompliance on the submission of FD-249s and R-84s. The Army failed to send the FD-249 to the FBI in 82.1 percent of its cases; the Navy 83.3 percent; and the Air Force 38.3 percent. Failure to submit the R-84 by the Army was 78.7 percent; the Navy 93 percent; and the Air Force 50 percent. (5) Identify any weaknesses in the collection of fingerprint cards and final disposition forms and in the reporting of that information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 32 I Appendix D. Evaluation Results Evaluation Results. Procedures on when to submit the FD-249 and R-84 are were not being followed as required by DoD policy and the MCIOs implementing instructions. CPM No. 10 does not contain specific procedural instructions. The MCIOs have placed little emphasis on reporting to the FBI criminal history files or conducting oversight with follow-up and validation. (6) Determine whether or not other law enforcement activities of the Services collect and report such information or, if not, should collect and report such information. Evaluation Results. Service police organizations conduct criminal investigations that fall under some reporting criteria of CPM No. 10. They are not covered by the policy memorandum. Therefore, they have not developed policies and procedures for criminal reporting into the FBI criminal history data files. As a result, not all serious offenses committed by military members are entered into the FBI criminal history data files as they should be. 33 ,, Appendix E. Organizations Visited or Contacted Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel. Arlington. VA Department of the Army General Counsel. Department of Army. Arlington. VA Inspector General, Department of Army. Arlington. VA U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. Fort Belvoir. VA Fort Bragg Resident Agency/87th Military Police Detachment. Fort Bragg. NC Fort Lewis Resident Agency/44th Military Police Detachment. Fort Lewis. WA Fort Stewart Resident Agency /30rd Military Police Detachment. Fort Stewart. GA Staff Judge Advocate Offices XVIII Airborne Corps. Fort Bragg. NC Headquarters. I Corps and Fort Lewis. Fort Lewis. WA Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. Fort Stewart. GA U.S. Army Military Police Support Agency. Alexandria. VA Provost Marshal Offices 16th Military Police Brigade, Fort Bragg, NC 1st Military Police Brigade. Fort Lewis. WA Law Enforcement Command, Fort Stewart. GA U.S. Army Crime Records Center. Fort Belvoir. VA Department of the Navy General Counsel. Department of the Navy. Arlington. VA Inspector General, Department of the Navy, Washington. DC Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington, DC Naval Criminal Investigative Service Norfolk Field Office, VA Naval Criminal Investigative Service Puget Sound Field Office. WA Naval Criminal Investigative Service San Diego Field Office, CA Naval Western Photo Laboratory, Naval Station. San Diego. CA Naval Legal Service Office. Norfolk Naval Air Station, VA Staff Judge Advocate Offices Staff Judge Advocate Office. Naval Sub Base. Bangor, WA Staff Judge Advocate Office, Naval Station, San Diego, CA 34 Appendix E. Organizations Visited or Contacted Security Police Security Department, Naval Base, Norfolk, VA Security Department, Naval Station, San Diego, CA Department of the Air Force General Counsel, Department of Air Force, Arlington, VA Inspector General, Department of Air Force, Arlington, VA Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Bolling Air Force Base, DC Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Detachment 201, Langley Air Force Base, VA Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Detachment 215, Pope Air Force Base, NC Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Detachment 305, McChord Air Force Base, WA Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Investigative Operations Center, Waldorf, MD Staff Judge Advocate Offices 1st Fighter Wing Staff Judge Advocate, Langley Air Force Base, VA 62nd Airlift Wing Staff Judge Advocate, McChord Air Force Base, WA 23rd Wing Staff Judge Advocate, Pope Air Force Base, NC Headquarters, U.S. Air Force Security Police, Rosslyn, VA Security Police 1st Security Police Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, VA 62nd Security Policy Squadron, McChord Air Force Base, WA 23rd Security Police Squadron, Pope Air Force Base, NC U.S. Marine Corps General Counsel, Headquarters, Rosslyn, VA Inspector General, Headquarters, Arlington, VA Provost Marshal Offices Criminal Investigations Division, Camp Lejeune, NC Criminal Investigations Division, Camp Pendelton, CA Staff Judge Advocate Offices Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, NC Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendelton, CA Non-Defense Federal Organizations Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC West Virginia Field Office, WV 35 ---------------------·­ Appendix F. Report Distribution Office of the Secretary of Defense Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) General Counsel, Department of Defense Defense Criminal Investigative Service Department of the Army Secretary of the Army Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) General Counsel, Department of the Army Inspector General, Department of the Army Auditor General, Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans Commander, Criminal Investigation Command Commander, Intelligence and Security Command Department of the Navy Secretary of the Navy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) General Counsel, Department of the Navy Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service Inspector General, Department of the Navy Counsel for the Commandant (Marine Corps) 36 ii I Appendix F. Report Distribution Department of the Air Force Secretary of the Air Force Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller) General Counsel, Department of the Air Force Inspector General, Department of the Air Force Commander, Office of Special Investigations Chief of Security Police for the Air Force U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Policies and Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps Inspector General, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps Other Defense Organizations Director, Washington Headquarters Service Chief, Defense Protective Service Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Director, Defense Commissary Agency Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency Director, Defense Financing and Accounting Service Director, Defense Information Systems Agency Director, Defense Intelligence Agency Inspector General, Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Defense Investigative Service Director, Defense Legal Services Agency Director, Defense Logistics Agency General Counsel, Defense Logistics Agency Director, Defense Special Weapons Agency Director, Defense Security Assistance Agency Director, National Imagery and Mapping Agency Director, National Reconnaissance Office Director, National Security Agency Inspector General, National Security Agency Director, On Site Inspection Agency 37 I Appendix F. Report Distribution Non-Defense Federal Organizations Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation West Virginia Field Office, WV Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Following Congressional Committees and Subcommittees: Senate Committee on Appropriations Senate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations Senate Committee on Armed Services Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs House Committee on Appropriations House Subcommittee on National Security, Committee on Appropriations House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House Committee on National Security 38 Part - Management Comments Department of Army Comments I!\ \Will DEPAATMEN'T CW THE ARMY CIA'ICE OF THE DEPUTY CMIS' OF STaF1' l'Olll ONlloCr'IOlll MD PLANS 400 AAt1Y PENTAGON .....aTDN,DC . . . . . . DAMO-ODL ~ 0 DEC (25-30il 1996 ,#11~(, MEMORANDUM THRU"fHE DIRECTOR OF THE ~AFF FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AUDITING, WASHINGTON DC 22202 SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report on Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements (Project No. 60F-9040) This memorandum provides our concurrence, with comment, with findings concerning subject draft evaluation report. our com­ ments include the Headquarters, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC). 1. Finding A. Compliance with requirements for submission of fingerprint card.5 and final disposition reports. The Military Criminal Investigative Organizations are not consistently submitting FD 249, suspect Fingerprint Cards, and Federal Bureau (FBI)/Department of Justice (DOJ) Form R-84, Final Disposition Report, to the FBI criminal data files. Comment. The USACIDC concurs with this finding. Field elements are doing a good job of obtaining fingerprints. How­ ever, there is a recognized problem with timely submission. The USACIDC has established policy and regulatory guidance for the submission of FD 249 and Form R-84 to the Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS), FBI. The guidance does not specify how long the offices have to complete this requirement. Policy guidance will be established requiring the submission of these documents within 10 working days of a triggering event. Com­ pliance with these requests is now an area that will be inspected .~uring assistance visits to all field units. Additionally, ~raining on the requirements will be added or emphasized at the appropriate training course for all agents, and as in-service training at all offices during CY 97. Finding B. Other service law enforcement organizations conduct criminal investigations that have reportable outcomes. Because CPM does not apply to these organizations, they do not always report criminal history data to the FBI. - ................ 40 Department of Army Comments DAM6-0DL SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report on Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements (Project No. 60F-9040) Comment. Both the USACIDC and this office concur that all Service law enforcement organizations should submit fingerprint cards to CJIS. We have already implemented this recommendation with regard to individuals who are convicted of serious criminal offenses and sentenced to confinement at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks and other military corrections facilities. Enclosed is an extract from Army Regulation 190-47, The Army Corrections System, which explains the fingerprint policy. We implemented this policy to help ensure that CJIS criminal history files are created and to receive criminal history from CJIS that may not have been previously known on convicted offenders. A federal liaison officer, for this office, is assigned responsibility to coordinate with CJIS, activities involving the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and with counter parts at the federal, state, and local levels. We are participants · with personnel from the U.S. Army Crime Lab in the development and implementation of the CJIS Program for automated submission of fingerprints cards. 2 ·• over the past several months coordination has been ongoing with CJIS staff to develop procedures for Army provost marshals to submit fingerprint cards, maintain written criminal reports required by CJIS and state agencies, and have the record available for use. Another factor we are addressing is Army provost marshal offices requesting information and receiving the report back from CJIS. This is especially important for the information to be useful in ongoing investigations, safety of law enforcement and corrections personnel, and the military and civilian communities. Fingerprints are used to link an automated CJIS record to a human being. We are developing a two step process that is consistent with findings in the draft report. (1) Fingerprints will be submitted by Army Provost Marshals using their assigned Originating Agency Identifier (ORI), as explained in the enclosure, when a NCIC report is received showing a possible link be~ween a suspect and information contained in CJIS files. This will allow positive identification of the individual and automatically link the provost marshal staff to CJIS and other law enforcement agencies to retrieve all available information concerning the individual. 2 41 I Department of Army Comments DAM6-0DL SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report on Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Nulllber 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements (Project No. 60F-9040) (2) Submit disposition fingerprint Crime Records Center CCRC) ORI and have contributing agency. The CRC maintains is a recognized agency by many civilian cards using the U.S. Army the Center serve as the records for 40 years and law enforcement agencies. 3. On January 7, 1997, we will participate with representatives from the USACIDC and the other Service representatives in a discussion on the proposed Department of Defense guidance for submitting fingerprints to CJIS. We will issue immediate interim guidance based on discussions that take place on January 7. Army provost marshals are aware of our activity in this area as a result of information we convey to them in our ~Provost Marshals Areas of Interest Bulletin.# 4. Point of contact is Mr. Jeffery Porter, (703) 681-5078. FOR THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, READINESS AND MOBILIZATION: Encl as ROBERT W. NEUBERT Colonel, GS Chief, Security, Force Protection and Law Enforcement Division 3 42 \! I Department of the Navy Comments THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 0, THE NAVY IMANl'OWEll ANO llESEllVE AF'F'AlllSI WASHINGTON. O.C. :103110•1000 9Jan 97 MEMORANDUM FOR DEPAR'IMENT OF DEFENSE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE POUCY AND OVERSIGHT SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report on Criminal Investigations Policy Memonndum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements (Project No. 60F-9040) This memorandum is in response to your memorudum of29 Nowmber 1996 (Amcbment 1) which forwarded 1be subject report for review and COllllDCDL The Depanment of the Navy (DoN) response is provided at Atllchment 2. Allbough - qree that substantial room exists for improvement in both reporting and record keeping, - bave c:oncems abe>ut the manner in which the resuhs are being reported, and 1berefore non-concur with some of the report findings and recommendations. As outlined in the mached comments, the DoN has taken specific actions to ensure quality assurance offingerprint card and disposition data submissions and is working towud direct eleclronic submission of data to the FBI. ~~~.~ KAREN S. HE.Am Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of1be Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Copy to: NAVINSGEN (OOB, 02) Office of Financial Operations (FM0-31) AUachments: 1. DAIG for Criminal Investigative Policy and Oversight memo of29 Nov 96 2. DoN response comments on subject draft report 43 I Department of the Navy Comments Depanmmt of the Navy Response to DODIG Draft EVlluation Report of29 Nowmber 1996 Oil Criminal Investigations Policy Memonmdum Number 10, Criminal History Dara Reponing Requinmm&s (Project No. 60F-9040) findjpf A· Page 7 - "'W"rtb 95-pen:eat confidence, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have not followed c:rimiDal reporting requirements with the FBI OD Service members from each Iowa- bound to each upper bound range ofenor, respectively. In addition the overall confidence level for reporting fingetpriDt cards and final disposition simuJtmeously is 90 pe:rcent. Still, the point estimate is the most likely Vlluc or pc::n:e:at in the analysis." DoN Pgajtjon· Non-ccmc:ur. Slatistic:al data is questionable because by FBl'1 own ldmission, a .nous becklog exists in data entry. Additionally, the FBI requirement for emries on the FD-249 to be done in plain language (e.g., murder, npe, possession/use ofcomrolled substances, etc., and not, for instance, indicating the particular UCMJ article violated) bas poteDtially nsulted in numaous instances ofsubmissions which were not processed. It is unclear if submissions which were made and not processed by FBI were counted u submissions or DOD-submissions. Based upon 1bese discrepancies, the reliability of submission numbers cannot accurately be ucenained, and as a JeSUlt final reporting numbers may be significantly skewed. Bc;qunmmdntign A· Page ii - "Sammary of Recommmcladom. It is iec:ommended that the Military Departments and Defense Agencies law emon:cment organimtions investigating serious offenses u descnDed in CPM No. 10 deYelop interim policies and implementing procedures for nponiDg to the FBI c:rimiDal histoJy data files while awaiting a new DoD Instnx:tion." and Page 13 - "'We recoamad that the ('.om!N!!lder, U.S. Army Criminal lnvestiption Command; Commander, Air Force Office ofSpecial Investigations; and the Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Sc:rvic:e, impleme:m the Inspector General, DoD, suuested procedural guidance u outlined in the Nowmber 14, 1996, memorandum to the Military Departments md Defense Agencies while a new DoD Instnx:cion is being developed." 44 Department of the Navy Comments DoN PgsiPgn• Non-concur. NCIS has polic:y and implementing procedures alreldy in place (NCIS-3, Manual for Investigations, Chapter 6, leCtions 21.1through21.6) which adequately address CPM No. 10 and refiect the Interim Guidance of the DoD Inspector General's memorandum ofNovanber 14, 1996. NCIS has formally instituted procedures to ensure quality assurance of fingerprints taken, their submission, and disposition data submissions. Additionally, NCIS is wodcing towud electronic submission ofdispositions data direc:tly to the FBI Identificaiion Division for lntc:rsadc Jdc:nrificatioa Inda. Page 17 - "'This evaluation detamiDed that Service police orpniz.ations are investigating some oifemes that meet the reporting criteria ofCPM No. 10. Not reporting is a result of these organizations not being required to report under CPM No. 10 and not having policies or implementing instructions for reporting into the FBI criminal history data files. This IKk of submission is a dcficic:ncy that needs cmection." Rr&OIDIJlcndntign B· Page 17 - "We ncommend that the Deputy Chief ofStafffor Opezations and Plans, Department of the Army; Chief of Security Police for the Air Force; the Deputy Assistant Din=ctor for Law F.nfon:cment and Physical Security, Department of the Navy; and the Directors ofDefense .Agencies with law enforcement organizations implement the Inspector Gencnl, DoD, suggested procedural guidance as outlined in the November 14, 1996, memorandum to the Militmy Depmtmems and Defense .Agmcies while a new DoD lnstnx:tion is being developed." DoN PgsiPon· Concur. The NCIS Deputy Assistant Din=ctor for Law F.nforcement and Physical Security has midenaken measures to implement the Inspector General, DoD, suggested pocedmal guidance in the Navy Law E.nfarcemmt Manual, OPNAVINST SS80.1. 45 Department of the Air Force Comments DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE • OFFICE OF THE llSPECTOR GENERAL C' 'I JAN 119'1 MEMORANDUM FOR 1HE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING, OFFICE OF 1HE INSPECTOR GENER.AL. DOD FR.OM: SAF/IG 1140 .Nr Force Pamgoa Wasbmgton DC 20330-1140 SUBJECT: Evalua!ion of CompJiaiu with DoD Criminal IDvestigalions Policy Memorandum Number 10, Criminal History Data Reporting ReqidTonents, Project No. 60F-9040 The .Nr Force CODCmS with tbe findings IDd m:ommended ICliODS documellmd in your draft repon dated 29 Nov 96. Comments are amched to Ibis memorandum. Please direct questions OD this maner to Major Nk:t Pultakis. 697-5853. r:.;;>1~ RICHARDT.~ LieateDIDt General. USAF 'Ille IDspeclor General cc: AFOSIICC AF/SP SAF/GC AFflA SAF/FMPF 46 Department of the Air Force Comments EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH DOD CRIMINAL lNVESTJGA.TIONS POUCY MEMORANDUM NUMBER 10, CRIMINAL HISTORY DATA REPOR71NG REQUIREMEN1S, PROJECT NO. 60'F·9040 (DRAFT, 29 NOV '6) ADl FORCE COMMENTS FINDING A: Compliance wltb ReqllfremeD1s for SabmUslon of F1qerprlnt Cards ad 111181 D!spCllldoD Reparls We concur with your fiDdiJlgs of noacompliance. 1be Air Force Office or Special Jnvestip!ions (AFOSI) bas been Wodcing OD this isme since its March 1993 evalua1ioll of ~uired documentation in AFOSI investigative files. Policy re-emphasis and c:omclive .:1ioas have been implemented since llw evaluation and positive trends have been Dared. 1be paragraphs below provide bactgrouDd IDd further explanation. AFOSI published AFOSI Regulation 124-102, Reporting Criminal Hinory DtlllZ ID the FederalBwl.aM Df Investigation (FBI), dm41October1987, to implement tbe criminalbistmy data reponing requirements of DOD Criminal Investigations Policy Memorandum Number 10 (CPM 10). However, AFOSI did not CODduct an evaluation to detmnine compliance with the policy UDti1 1993. Jn March 1993, AFOSrs evalualioa of required documents in investigative files disclosed tbe FBI Form FD-249, S11SJ1tct Fingerprint Card, was missing in 64 percent tbe files reviewed ud that FBllOO.T Form R-84, Final Disposition Report, was missing in 96 percent of the files reviewed. A management IOOl in the flXDl of a case file cbect:list [containin, s list documents required in investigative files] WIS developed and sent to AFOSI field units OD 11 January 1995. Among the required documents on die cbecklist were die FD Form 249 and the Fpies before aendiDg them to tbe AFOSI files repository. When yoa compare the mullS of AFOSl's 1993 ewlualioa (nmcompliance was 64 percent in fingerprint cards and 96 percent in disposition ;:pons) to the results shown in tbe recent DoD IG ewluatioa report (noncompliance was 38.3 percent in fingerpint cards and SO percent in disposi.1ioa reports), you aee a malted improvement. 'Ibis positive trend (SO percent reduction in DODCCmpliance Illus far) occurred because AFOSI field units were made aware of the dr:ficje:nc:jes disclosed by AFOSI's iDlema1 evaluatioD and subsequent deveJopment of a cbecklist DoDIG's RCent eWuation report found llw high DODCOIDpliance levels l'CCUmd because CPM 10 lacks adequate proc:edural guidance. AFOSI found a similar problem with its implementing regulation (AFOSI Regulalion 124-102). To remedy dW problem, HQ AFOSI issued clarifying guidance on 13 Nov 9S ~uiring AFOSI special agents to coardiDate with installation Slaff judge advocaJ.es (SJA) to clelermiDe the best time to fingerprint subjects or a criminal in'Yelligations. 1be guidance ~uires llw die FD-249 (fingerprint card) be sent to the FBI as soon as the SJA confinns llw court-martial charges have been prefetred or non-judicial punis!nne:nt fcxmally offered. Disposition may be llllDOWed OD the fD Form 249 if known 47 Department of tht: Air Force Comments immediately. The Fo Farm 249 is not to be held mere dllD 7 days while wailing for disposmon. If tbe disposition is DOl reported on die FD Farm 249. die Farm R-84 (disposition report) must be submiaed 10 die FBI as soon as disposition is known. By die time DoD IG's CPM 10 evaluation was being planned in die Jauer pm of 1995, AFOSI bad already initialed ICtion to modify its c:rimiDal database [by adding two dala fields] 10 ensme compliance 'wilh die iequirement 10 report c:riminal history to the FBL Since January 1996, AFOSI special agents have been iequiJed to enter into die c:riminal dmbue die fact lbat fingetprints were taken for die UCM1 offenses listed in a>M 10, and to also enter die dale die fingelprints were aent to die FBL These databue en1ries will flciliwe fmme AFOSI management efforts to eumiDe compliance with criminal history data repcring requinments. AFOSI will initisle another inlemal evaluation in June 1997 to measure die meat of field unit compliance 'wilh tbe requiremem to .report criminal history data to die FBL Additional c:amc:tive IClion will be tam if aeeded. EVALUATION REPORT's llECOMMENDATION CONCERNING CORRECTIVE ACl'ION We COllC1lJ' 'wilh tbe recommendation lbat procedural guidance found in DoD IG's 14 Nov 96 memorandum to die Military Departments be used until a new DoD insttuclion is devdoped. Please note !hat AFOSl already has a more reslrictive policy implemem.ed dllD that suggested in tbe 14 Nov 96 memorandum. We do not believe it prudent 11 lhis time 10 Rlax or change our equiraneDts wbidl presmtly appear to be womng well ID a memorandum da1ed 9 Dec 1996, AFOSI informed its field units of die suagested DoD JG policy but awed that AFOSI's c:mrent criminal bisUxy dala reporting policies would not be rdaxed. The memorandum also empbasiz.ed lbat tbe reporting requiremenls are a mandatory inspection item for an AFOSl self-inspec:lions lbat ue cooduc:ted every 18 mombs and during AFOSI Inspector General inspections which are c:onducled eveey three years. Pleaently, AFOSI field units and die AFOSI Inspector Genelal Team use a COIDpJebensive self-inspection cbecklist lbat c:ontaiDs multiple items validaliDg a unit's compliance with c:rimiDal bislory data iepaUng mquift:meDls. 1be Air Force InspectorGeneral's oftice. AFOSI and tbe secarity police haw ISSigned tbe DoD IG working group ieviewing tbe draft DOD insttuclioa OD repcring aiminal history data to tbe FBL We will revise procedures as needed to comply with my new aequirements wbk:h may appear in tbe new DOD imlnx:tion. ~to FINDING B: Olber Serrice Law Eaforc:mlent Orpnlzatlw Coadact CrlmlDal llmsllptlom 1laat Haft Reportable Oatmmes We CODCUr with your finding that aervice law enfon:e:ment agencies. such as om security police. did Dot .report c:rimiDal bisUxy iecord iDfcxmation into tbe FBI aiminal history data files. As you conectly point out. CPM 10 does not apply to them md thus led to Ibis void. 48 Department of the Air Force Comments EVALUATION REPOR.T's RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING CORRECTIVE ACI'ION We concur dlll Jaw enforcement agencies should JqlOl1 offenses meeling (l)M 10 crileria. Air Force leCIJrity police mvestigaloJs often conduct investigations of such offenses and thus should complete fingerprint cards for those maaeis. 1be CUef of Security Police, AF/SP, bas initiated action to develop procedures to begin fingerprinting in applicable cases. An assessment is cumntly undezway to determine the approximate DUmber of applicable cases. and is expected 10 be completed by 31 Jan fJ7. 1be resulu of this assesmient will then be used to determine manpower and equipment mource requirements, and will llso be used to develop appropdate procedures. Following this IClion. AF/SP will amend Air Force Imttuction 31-206, ~cvrity Police lrrvutigations, to require fingerprinting with the appropriaJe training and procedural iequirements. AF/SP will wen with the Air Force Security Police Apq IDd die security police offices at tbe Air Fmte's Maj« Commands to~ compliance. 49