The reason DA Form 2397 looks the way it does is that a file has to speak for itself. Officially TECHNICAL REPORT OF U.S. ARMY AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT PART I - STATEMENT OF REVIEWING OFFICIALS, it serves to technical report of us army aircraft accident part i - statement of reviewing officials, and the record it produces outlasts the people and the circumstances behind it. Edition February 2009, status not stated, is the version published here: 1 page(s), close to 44 fields, each one present because some later reader will need that fact without being able to ask for it.
Behind any Army form sit two separate decisions. What the document asks is settled by OCSA, which maintains and revises it. Whether you raise it, and where it goes once signed, is settled by PAM 385-40. That division is the reason a form can outlive several changes in the process it serves.
The heading blocks come first because the record is retrieved by them, not read into. Name as official records spell it, identification number, unit, date of preparation — those four are the index, and everything below them is content that only surfaces once the index has done its work. A form filed under a name written casually is not lost in principle, only in practice, which amounts to the same thing.
Tab order is not a convenience feature; it was fixed when the form was built and generally traces the page, so following it produces the sequence the designer intended and leaves fewer gaps than a mouse. Exclusive option groups clear the previous selection because the record is not permitted to hold two contradictory answers. Single-line fields do not wrap for the same reason the layout is fixed: the printed page has to fall in known positions, so text past the field width is cut at the margin even though the screen still shows it whole. Overflow belongs in remarks or on a continuation, where there is room designed for it. And an inapplicable field is marked rather than skipped, since a blank tells a later reader nothing about whether the question was considered.
Signing is the act that makes the document evidence, and until it happens the entries are only a proposal. Additional signatures — reviewer, approver, witness — each stand for a separate judgement, dated when applied so the record shows who accepted what and in what order. The common faults all damage that record in the same way: a blank mandatory field breaks the chain of required answers, swapped digits in an identification number detach the document from its subject, an inverted day and month misplaces it in time, and stale data from a reused copy states things nobody meant to state.
The Privacy Act statement is on the page because collecting personal information requires the collector to disclose the terms first — the authority relied on, the purpose, the routine uses, and whether an answer is required or may be withheld. That order is the point: the statement is read before the entries it governs, since consent given afterwards is not consent. Once completed, the copy is a personal record and carries the handling obligations that attach to one.
Download the form
The published formats — PDF, XFDL — reflect the range of places a form gets filled in. Where there is a computer, the fillable pdf supplies live fields that keep entries positioned and readable. Where there is not, the printable pdf gives the identical page as flat artwork for pen entry. The distinction is one of setting rather than of authority; the page is the same document in both.
Software determines whether an entry lasts. A browser viewer is designed for reading, and several will take typed input into fields without any means of writing it back — the text is simply absent when you reopen. A standalone reader handles the form structure properly. The xfdl file is IBM Lotus Forms, carried in Army systems for the routing and signature support it provides, which is why the Lotus Forms Viewer is its only reader.
Downloads are free and unregistered. The material was published for general use, and the files are passed on unaltered.
What the form asks for
- Aircraft_SN
- Army_Review
- Army_Reviewer
- Case_Date
- Case_Time
- ContentArea1
- Initial_Review
- Page1
- R25
- R26
- R27
- R28
- R29
- R30
- R31
- R39
- R40
- R41
- Rectangle1
- Reviewing_Authority_Comments
- Reviewing_Authority_Signature
- Signature_Initial_Review
- T10
- T11
The routing in PAM 385-40 decides where the document goes — a named office, the administrative channel, or the individual's file — and the records schedule for the series decides how long it stays. Neither is a local judgement, because a record system loses its meaning if each office keeps things for its own preferred interval. Copy the form before submitting it.
Forms cluster by series and number for the same reason files do: shared proponency and a shared prescribing directive usually mean a shared process. So a document in the DA series referenced on the face of another is generally part of the same transaction, and continuation sheets, cover sheets and transmittals belong to the package from the outset rather than arriving after a query.
Revision follows the process, which is why editions appear without a fixed interval, and the printed date rather than any version number identifies them. Nothing on a stored copy signals that it has aged; the check is manual. Work already completed under a superseded edition stands as filed, because the record was made under those terms and is properly interpreted under them.
It is worth being plain about what this page is within all of the above. The files are reproductions of published Department of the Army documents, offered for download by a site with no official standing and no part in issuing anything. That matters because the machinery described here — proponency, prescribing directives, records schedules — runs entirely elsewhere. Nothing written here is legal advice, and no statement can be made about whether an office will accept a given document. OCSA and the administrative office servicing your unit answer questions of entry, requirement and eligibility, and they are the ones positioned to.
Questions and answers
- What is DA Form 2397?
- TECHNICAL REPORT OF U.S. ARMY AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT PART I - STATEMENT OF REVIEWING OFFICIALS
- Which edition is current?
- February 2009
- Who is responsible for this form?
- OCSA
- In which formats can it be downloaded?
- PDF, XFDL