Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search
File: 970207_aadcl_003.txt
RECOMMENDATION: Use the PIM PAS Codes established for
Push/Pull processing. All actions should be based on individuals
assigned to/from that PAS code(s). This would eliminate any
confusion as to where to-assign PIM personnel.
6. OBSERVATION: Entitlements of PIM personnel were unclear, both
to the member and the respective agencies responsible for in/out
processing them.
DISCUSSION: Messages outlining how much pay, promotion
opportunities, reenlistment opportunities, PCS entitlements and
others were addressed in a number of separate messages but not to
all needed users. For example, the fact the CBPO needed to ensure
the individuals orders were to reflect they will be paid TDY per
diem from O&M funds was addressed in a message whose subject
concerned IMA personnel but did not state the information also
applied to PIM personnel. This was very confusing and led to many
misunderstandings by the MAJCOM and base personnel responsible for
the members entitlements. Information was provided by HQ
USAF/CSS-MPRC AND DPXEC on the entitlements for mobilized personnel
and statements for PCS orders for those PIM personnel processing
through Lackland AFB. The guidance was provided 5 days into the
processing of the first batch of PIM personnel. The terms PCS in
TDY status was confusing and seemed to be new to all personnel
involved with the Push-Pull system. It seems policies were made on
mobilized personnel entitlements as we went along and had never be
tested or implemented in previous exercises (i.e., Proud Eagle 90).
Other entitlements were addressed in various messages but only to
SOA/MAJCOMS and not CBPOs and AFOs. It was the CBPOs and AFOs who
deal directly with personnel and seemed to not get the information
in a timely manner if at all. Some IRR personnel were charged leave
for the travel time from their home to their PCS location. This was
contrary to the guidance provided by HQ USAF DPXEC. It seemed the
orders were accomplished on the initial IRR at Lackland prior to the
entitlements guidance being handed down and therefore were not
changed or amended. It seemed in our contacts with IRR personnel
during assignment drops, they were not receiving full entitlement
briefings nor were the various OPRs available to answer questions.
RECOMMENDATION: Standardized policy and procedures need to be
established for all CBPOs and other agencies involved (DFAS).
Institute assignment action codes in AFR 36-20 for the different
mobilization authorities and/or address the entitlements in AFR
28-5. It is much easier to look for information from one source than
to read numerous messages to find the appropriate answer. It would
also make it easier to implement and reference if the information
was already provided in an Air Force Regulation instead detailed in
a message. Also all OPRs will have a copy of the AFR and would not
have to worry about loosing various messages. Policies concerning
assignments, entitlements, hardship requests, etc. should be
provided to all agencies up front in hard copy to assist the
decision process. PIM processing procedures at Lackland AFB need to
be reviewed. An entitlements briefing (i.e., TMO, Travel Pay,
Military Pay, etc.) should be provided on day one and
representatives should be available for questions during processing.
7. OBSERVATION: HQ ARPC granted delays to PIM personnel according
to the number of days individuals requested, on a case by case
Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search