eThe ssecurity status board to reflect current security status of posted sentries, restricted areas, and security alert teams was not utilized. (Para 37a(2), AFM 207-1/7AF Sup 1)

f. There were no written instructions on when the alternate CSC would take over as the primary CSC.

3. The sentry dog section was satisfactory. No discrepancies or serious deficiencies were noted in the design or construction of the new sentry dog kennels. Construction shold be completed within two weeks. The following operations discrepancies were noted:

a. The assigned kennel master was not formally trained (para 7b(2), AFR 125-9.)

b. Routine semi-annual physical examinaations were not recorded on sentr dog medical records (para 55, AFM 1225-5.)

c. Proposed utilization of sentry dogs between the active runways (as reflected on small map at security operations) would be detrimental to the continued effectiveness and efficiency of the dogs. More affective utilization could be realized by deploying them to the North of the new runway where they could be subjected to a lower noise level.

d. Reference 377th Security Police letter dated 16 Mar 67, Subject: Sentry Dog. This letter states that accelerated runway construction has resulted in a reduced requirement for sentry dogs. However, at the time of this staff visit, the kennel master was not aware of where the remaining sentry dogs were to be deployed. It appears that there has been a lack of communication between the sentry dog section and security operations.