Internal Controls

Air Force Correcting Weaknesses in Its Property Disposal Practices Gao ID: NSIAD-88-106 April 20, 1988

In response to a congressional request, GAO assessed Air Force controls over property disposal practices to determine whether the Air Force: (1) implemented actions to address the major problem areas that the Inspector General identified; (2) revised its controls and procedures to ensure that it no longer sent needed items to disposal prematurely; and (3) should reimpose the disposal moratorium.

GAO found that the Air Force took specific actions to address the problem areas, including: (1) changing policies at wholesale levels to require retention of usable items for the life of the weapon system or other end items they support; (2) increasing retention requirements at the retail level from 12 to 30 months; (3) changing computer programs to reflect the revised retention policies; (4) requiring item managers to initial their disposal authorizations and supervisors to review the authorizations before disposal; (5) developing improved and automated procedures to identify and recall usable items from disposal yards; and (6) developing procedures to prevent premature disposal of noncataloged items. GAO also found that, since the Air Force lifted the moratorium it: (1) has experienced sporadic improper disposal actions; (2) disposed of some documentation of noncataloged items during the required 30-month retention period; (3) has no oversight of retail disposal decisions; and (4) has not conducted supervisory reviews of wholesale item managers' and base supply officials' decisions.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.