Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search
File: 970207_aadcl_004.txtbasis. 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