Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search
File: 970207_aadcl_003.txtRECOMMENDATION: 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