V20140101-1.0.0

Validation 

Validation is the process used to confirm a deficiency exists and its impact. It is a two-

way communication between the inspection team and the inspected unit to make sure the

deficiency actually exists and to accurately describe the deficiency. The following excerpt from

AFI 90-201 provides the overarching guidance for validation.

“2.20.5. Validation. MAJCOM and Wing IGs will establish a validation process that

 provides the inspected unit the opportunity to clarify and/or rebut in a timely manner any

 potential deficiencies identified during the inspection. The IG Team Chief, in coordination

with the unit under inspection, will coordinate with the appropriate FAMs on critical and

significant deficiencies identified during the inspection. This process applies to deficiencies

levied against other Wings, MAJCOM units or HHQ organizations. (T-1)

2.20.5.1. When the IG determines the need for external validation of a potential

deficiency, inspectors will validate with the appropriate subject matter experts

(SME) at the lowest possible level, but no higher than the appropriate FAM at the

IG’s organizational level: Wing IGs validate with Wing FAMs if available;

MAJCOM IGs validate with MAJCOM/NGB/FOA/DRU or organizations with

whom the IG team has a memorandum of agreement. MAJCOM/NGB/FOA/DRU

FAMs will consult with the appropriate HAF Functional as required to ensure

 proper interpretation of Air Force (or higher) policy. (T-1)

2.20.5.2. FAMs or other SMEs will clarify policy and procedures, or validate that a

 potential deficiency does/does not comply with policy, and will not provide

input/comment on the severity of a validated deficiency; that responsibility resides

with the IG.

 

V20140101-1.0.0

2.20.5.3. Oversight Deficiencies. IGs are not required to validate deficiencies

 beyond the appropriate FAMs or agencies with which the IG has

MOA/Memorandum of Understanding for validation support. If an external

oversight team independently validates with the HAF Functional and receives

contradictory information, a deficiency may be levied against the MAJCOM and/or

HAF Functional.

2.20.5.4. All validated deficiencies will be documented in the IG’s report and

entered in IGEMS.” 

During the validation process, the unit may disagree with the inspector ’s assessment or

offer additional evidence to try and eliminate or mitigate the deficiency. As an inspector, you

can never let any disagreement during validation to become unprofessional. You must always

stay professional even if the inspectee doesn’t. Never let it get personal, stick to the facts.

Don’t get into a long argument over the issue. Once it becomes clear that further discussion

would be counter-productive, just agree to disagree and up channel the issue through the

appropriate chains of command.

 

V20140101-1.0.0

The inspection isn’t over until the team chief says it’s over. Units may provide additional

evidence during the validation process. When additional evidence is provided, you responsibility

as an inspector is to:

1. Validate the authenticity of the evidence through primary and/or secondary sources.

2. If the evidence is authentic, determine the impact to the original deficiency.

a. Does the original deficiency as written not exist in light of this new evidence?

 b. Does the evidence lessen the severity of the original deficiency?

c. Does the evidence create a different type of deficiency?

3. If the evidence is not authentic, then the original deficiency stands. However, be

 prepared to defend why you think the evidence isn’t authentic.