ITEM # 5:                Tan Son Nhut

SUBJECT:            Law Enforcement

DISCUSSION:      1. Command supervision of the Law Enforcement Section was substandard. The following discrepancies were noted:

a. Incident reports contained the following discrepencies:

(1) Barracks or billets thefts were not being reported to commanders or billeting officers.

(2) Thefts of government property were not being forwarded as requing action and reply by responsible commanders to preclude future losses.

(3) Some reports of government property lost did not indicate a dollar value which might determine, OSI interest or a possible Serious Incident Report.

(4) Incident reports were not being processed properly, some had taken from 9 to 21 days to process.

(5) Unit commanders were not meeting established suspense dates in replying to incident reports.

(6) The majority of incident reports did not reflect that the BJA, BSP or APL had reviewed the reports.

b. The majority of accident reports reviewed indicated very little action taken by unit commanders other than the manditory assessment of points.

c. Law Enforcement Operating Instructions were not dated and contained obsolete material and reference.

d. A remedial drivers school had not been established. (Paragraph 11a, AFR 125-14.)

2. The following discreencies were noted in the on base protection of funds.

a. The on base protection of funds program was not in full compliance with PACAFR 125-4. The following discrepencies were noted:

(1) Single duress alarms were not installed in cashier cages where large sums of money are handled. (Paragraph 4a(6) PACAFR 125-4.) This is a repeat discrepancy.