MSN

But the department of the army is asking ME to do a serialized inventory of everything.

So I had the fun trying to inventorying items that went through a systems change of property software only to find out that items that previously didn't have a serial number were required to have one. So the supply NCO's just made one up, and that there were character limitations on said serial numbers so items with too long of serial numbers were randomly truncated by the person that originally entered the items.

Then there are items that are components of larger systems that have their own line items without indicating they are part of a larger system.

So as a prior banker, database analyst, and financial professional all I see is a vast void of data that is unreconcilable.

So it's clearly obvious that when the little guys at the individual item accountability have a broken system problem there is no chance in hell that is going to magically roll up into an institutional wide audit with any confidence.

****************
What I've learned is OK, that part of my career is behind me. Don't do that again. The personal and professional risks are not proportionally balanced with the position of responsibility.

I did pause, and ask myself, OK, what could I have done to make a success of it. Going forward (as a reservist) one needs to be in a position to drive to the unit at a moments notice and given whatever time is needed to attend to the problem and fix it. By fix it, I mean exhaust all means within my position and kick the hot potato right back where it came from.

The question CPT Lesher posted is really outside the scope of the article here. The audits are mostly about whether or not specific processes are in place, how quickly the results of each process are accomplished, and similar issues.

No one is asking SecDef to perform a serial number inventory of all the sensitive items in the defense department -- but they are asking if those serial number inventories are being conducted and how long that paperwork takes to bubble its way to the top.

For better or worse, there is no way the DoD could ever pass a proper audit. There are simply too many requirements and too few people. The audits aren't looking for whether someone misplaced a HMMWV, but they are looking to see if the 15-6 for the lost HMMWV was done right and completed on time. The standards don't care that the 15-6 investigating officer is an additional duty and that everyone involved in every step of the process has a full-time job doing something that is probably more important than the 15-6.

Also, keep in mind that most of the processes that the audits are checking are either additional duties (as above) or are performed by people in TDA assignments where the unit is lucky if their present-for-duty strength is 80% of the authorized strength, and the authorized strength is 80% of the "required" strength.

Everyone at every level needs to strive to correct the deficiencies identified in the audits, but in the real world no one is ever going to get a perfect score if a proper audit is conducted.