Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search

       
         basis. They exempted PIM personnel from their call-up and then
         found qualified replacements. This information was not provided to
         AFMPC in a timely manner.
       
               DISCUSSION: The granting of delays in such a manner resulted
         in the staggering of PIM personnel over several different report
         dates in a given month. This caused individuals to report in small
         batches or singularly, instead of in large numbers. The PIM
         processing as well as the assignment process is set up for batch
         processing not one by one processing. We were never notified on a
         reoccurring basis of PIM personnel being exempted or delayed and
         therefore could not appropriately predict how many or when
         individuals were reporting to Lackland AFB for processing. We never
         knew where we stood as far as HQ ARPC filling all the specialty
         requirements that were levied through the Push-Pull Filler Levy
         System because we never knew if substitutions were notified and
         given a report date.
       
               RECOMMENDATION: HQ ARPC needs to focus their delays into three
         pre-selected report dates a month (i.e., 5, 15 and 2S). HQ ARPC
         needs to develop procedures to notify AFMPC, HQ ATC and Lackland AFB
         of all delays and exemptions at a minimum of twice a week if not
         more often. A mechanism should be developed, in advance of any
         future contingency, to track and notify the appropriate agencies of
         delays, exemptions and substitutions in a timely manner.
       
         8. OBSERVATION: PIM personnel were called to active duty with out
         full knowledge of their specialty proficiency or credentials to
         practice. Furthermore individuals were sent on to their PCS
         assignment without a prescreening of their credentials.
       
                DISCUSSION: A statement was included on back of the orders or
         with the notification letter instructing medical officers to bring
         certain credentialling documents and provided a 800 number to call
         if there was problems with their license or credentials to practice.
         This procedure still allowed numerous individuals to report for
         active duty, who were unable to practice in their given specialty.
         Some individuals had not even practice in the last 6 - 8 years.
         Initially these individuals were sent on to their PCS assignments
         from Lackland AFB without any prescreening of credentials. It
         became the responsibility of the gaining MAJCOM and MTF to review
         the members credentials and then request through bureaucratic
         channels authorization to separate the member if they could not
         perform duties or practice in their specialty. Later, AFMPC gained
         approval to have WHMC perform prescreening of credentials if there
         was a obvious problem with a members proficiency or credentials. Do
         they have an obligation to remain proficient? If not, what do we do
         with them. Since they still have a service obligation, How do they
         serve it!
       
             RECOMMENDATION: Include prescreening of credentials in the PIM
         processing at Lackland AFB (support provided by WHMC) and give them
         the authority to separate PIM personnel found to be unsuitable for
         active duty.
       
         9. OBSERVATION: AFMPC/DPMM could not account for those medical
         officers deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. The
         manning documents still showed all active duty officers assigned to
       

Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search