Plain old exercise delayed my move
I HAVE been trying to transfer to REME since October 2007, but my initial interview proforma was ignored for six weeks and it was not until I terminated my service last December that I finally got interviewed.
Nothing happened until, after much ringing around and having to organise my own selection test and medical records, I was given a transfer date of June 2. I made arrangements for married quarters and schools and my wife gave notice on her job.
I also informed my chain of command, only for my RCMO to ring Glasgow and have the date put back by four weeks to June 30 so I could go on a battalion exercise on Salisbury Plain.
Am I right in saying that a transfer shouldn’t be delayed except for operational reasons? My family and I have been shafted for the sake of one exercise. – LCpl Edge, 1st Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment.
Maj Tristan Halse, Army Manning, responds: Current transfer policy states that the receiving cap badge, in this case REME, should make a fair offer based on your experience, training and suitability. It also states that once a soldier has been accepted and an offer agreed to, the soldier should be posted to a unit of his new cap badge as soon as possible (paras 4d (1)-(4) of Army Transfer Policy (D/DM(A)/311) dated March 15, 2006). The delay so you can go on exercise is unacceptable and DM(A) has contacted APC and MS Soldiers Infantry to ensure that they expedite your transfer request in line with current policy.
Using a dodgy DII password isn’t on
I AM a great fan of JPA but the problem lies in finding a DII (Defence Internet Infrastructure) terminal to access it.
I requested a DII account to access JPA to process expenses incurred in moving to my new unit but was told no more DII(C) accounts were being created and I would have to wait for DII(F) in another two months at the earliest. By then my claims would be three months old and could be invalid.
Beg, steal or borrow a DII user name and password seemed to be the default answer in the unit, including among my AGC (SPS) staff. I was told they were too busy to help process my claims.
Using someone else’s account is a breach of security and given the proliferation of sensitive data security breaches this is unacceptable. An audit of those using JPA without holding a valid account would be revealing. – Name and address supplied.
Maj Graham Ingram, Infra Coherence, HQ Land Forces, responds: The mitigation team delivered six additional DII(C) machines to the correspondent’s barracks to meet their stated needs for JPA Interim Operating Capability (IOC). In a subsequent review to assess the need for approach-and-use kiosks, the unit stated that no further terminals were required.
This was the right decision at the time
as DII(F) delivery was anticipated in time for JPA infrastructure reasons. If the length of slippage had been better understood further mitigation could have been provided.
Limitations on the growth of legacy accounts and the lack of JPA clamped kiosks at the site have caused local “work-arounds” which may have infringed security rules.
The problem has gone away with the final arrival of DII(F) on site. The chain of command has been collecting examples where DII(F) slippages and JPA mitigation plans are out of step. These have been few but the correspondent is thanked for raising this unsatisfactory situation. It has been noted at the highest levels.
Non-Regular staff do deserve X-factor
I WAS interested to read the response from Mark Ryan (Sp Pol) in the May issue on why Non-Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS) in the Territorial Army do not get an X-factor.
He says, in effect, that they do not meet most of the criteria. This may be true, but on numbers of factors considered I would take issue. The NRPS meet several of the criteria.
NRPS are military personnel and subject to military law. From the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) 2008 report, and recent guidance from MoD on staffing cases, it can be seen that the X-factor comprises the following (in addition to danger, turbulence and separation, which the NRPS do not suffer to anything like the same degree as their Regular counterparts):
Advantages: Job security; adventure and travel; trade training; promotion; travel to work; variety.
Disadvantages: Subject to military discipline; on duty at all times; working hours; no negotiations on pay; stress; no trade union representation.
It could be argued that few, if any, of the advantages apply these days while all of the disadvantages listed do. So why no X-factor? Job security has been eroded and promotion is unlikely for NRPS personnel.
Although those recruited before April 1, 2007 receive travel-to-work allowance -, this is to cease in 2010.
There has certainly been much variety in work recently with the introduction of a myriad new systems, but can this be described as an advantage? Perhaps the NRPS are being undervalued. – Name and address supplied.
LOYAL PEOPLE WHO ARE MISSING OUT ON BONUS
I AM a senior NCO in the Infantry and would like to ask why we are missing out on another bonus. I have been in the Army for 16 years and have never qualified for one.
I know the MoD is trying to retain soldiers with between four and eight years’ service by offering a bonus but what incentive is there for SNCOs?
Is it that once we pass the 12-year point we fall into the pension trap and so the MoD knows most of us won’t leave? What does this tell the soldiers below us? If they don’t see SNCOs being looked after why would they want to stay? When soldiers want to leave the Army SNCOs are expected to talk them into changing their minds.
This feeling is expressed by so many of my colleagues and I know has been passed on to the briefing teams that used to visit all Army units.
In a recent survey more than 50 per cent of dependants said want their partners to leave the Armed Forces. This just adds more fuel to an already burning fire. – Name and address supplied.
Maj Julia Park-Robinson, DM(A) Responds: You are right to raise this issue and not alone in your view. The introduction of a Financial Retention Incentive (FRI) for Infantry soldiers was deliberately targeted at those between the four and six-year point, the area of greatest need.
That is not to say that we do not value the vital role our SNCOs play, not just in the Infantry but across the Army. SNCOs, and the warrant officers’ and sergeants’ messes to which they belong, provide the backbone to our units, formations and the Army’s structure, and it would not be far from the truth to say that the Army would fall apart without them.
We acknowledge that there has been a noticeable lowering of morale in WOs’ and Sgts’ messes in recent years; this point has been made clear at the annual RSMs’ convention attended by the Adjutant General.
Indeed, Gen Viggers wrote to every RSM in the Army personally to acknowledge their concerns and, more importantly, tell them what we the Army are doing about it.
Some soldiers will always narrowly miss out when an incentive such as this is developed. It is hoped that the FRI will reduce the manning deficit in the Infantry, reducing the frequency of backfilling to support operational tours, while also better supporting in-barracks commitments.
As a SNCO, your role is key in the retention of our young soldiers, and while you are not being financially rewarded for this, the influence and motivation that you provide does not go unnoticed. It is also a reality that there is no shortage of SNCOs as the Army promotes to liability.
Were you or one of your contemporaries to resign, there would be any number of thrusting soldiers vying to take your place. Harsh but true, particularly in the Infantry.
To emphasis our commitment to this, last month’s RSMs’ convention, with its predominant theme of recruiting and retention addressed this very issue. We recognise the fact that you are not alone in making this fair and honest point; it is being echoed across the Army.
We could not do what the Army is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo without you. We value your opinion and we acknowledge your concerns. You are, and will remain, highly valued.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES NEED SOME FINE TUNING
I COULD not agree more with the letter from the staff sergeant (“New bonus is insult to our loyal service”, June).
He or she makes interesting comments about the money potentially being thrown away each year and challenges the idea that the Financial Retention Incentive (FRI) may not be as effective as intended.
I too question these initiatives. Logic dictates that the more loyal the soldier in terms of commitment to service, the more payment they should receive as a bonus,throughout a career.
But to position the reward at such a point in one’s career, with four years to find another career at the critical 12-year “half-pension point” is ridiculous.
Anybody on the fence about leaving the Army will surely leave at either the 12-year point or after a year has elapsed following the receipt of £15,000 (or £22,000 in the case of REME vehicle mechanics)t.
This is a classic case of people being at no disadvantage whatsoever, and yet feeling unappreciated because soldiers joining up after them seem to be better off. I have been paid exactly as I was told I would be paid throughout my career so neither I nor the staff sergeant is in a position to complain about any kind of financial retention incentive.
It is also valid that as the staff sergeant and I have both had significantly long careers, we didn’t need an incentive – otherwise we could both be civilians now.
It is far to say that we, along with all other “old-timers”, have to accept that in this case we are not in the right place a the right time. Many will be all too familiar with the fact that those who joined just before January 1991 missed out on the five- and eight-year commitment bonuses.
These are events that, if left unchecked, can cause resentment among equals in an organisation that prides itself on its team ethos. Those who feel unappreciated have to recognise that at no point have they been disadvantaged.
I would like to see a structured FRI plan that introduces these bonuses at critical points in a soldier’s career. For example, £15,000 could be spread across 18 years with the larger sums being paid towards the end of the scale. Suddenly, soldiers will find themselves at the 18-year point staying on just that extra few years to get the lump sum. I would be interested to see how many people share my view. – SSgt Paul Martin, 7 Air Assault Bn REME.
HEADLIGHT RULE MAKES GOOD SAFETY SENSE
IN response to the letter “Headlight regs are ‘farce’ (April), the change in BFG policy was not taken lightly and only brought our regulations into line with what should have been applied since headlights with a mechanical device to eliminate the kick-up were introduced.
The writer’s statement that only BFG vehicles are required to have a kick-up to the right is incorrect as conventional European headlights, which are tested and EU Type Approved for use in Right Hand Traffic (continent), all provide a kick-up to the right.
Conventional headlights given an EU Type Approval for use in Left Hand Traffic (UK) provide a kick-up to the left. This is designed to provide extra illumination to the front, the nearside pedestrian pavement and roadside signage, so increasing road safety.
Few manufacturers provide headlights suitable for permanent use for both right and left-hand traffic (continent and UK) as there is little demand for this capability and they are expensive to produce.
Interestingly (and sensibly) the new Man SV (Cargo) truck is fitted with such lights.
The flattening of the projected beam is achieved by a mechanical version of placing a shaped sticker on the glass of older conventional headlights. Stickers and mechanical masks are classed as a tourist solution and are temporary measures which were designed for holiday-makers or personnel on short business trips.
The acceptance of this within BFG in the past was wrong and the change in BFG policy now makes our vehicles compliant with EU legislation and German StVZO regulations. More importantly it provides a driver with a greater chance to see hazards in the dark earlier than he or she would have done with a flattened beam.
The acceptance of a flattened UK headlight beam by a TUV examiner will only occur if the vehicle being examined is not German registered and is used temporarily on the continent (tourist). BA(G) personnel are not classed as tourists because they are resident in Germany.
A full investigation report can be viewed on the ES Branch HQ UKSC(G) website at http://cn5rsts007.dii.r.mil.uk/UKSCG/G4/ES/. – WO1(ASM) N Black (SA GGVS) ES Branch ESS(G.
WHY DOESN’T THE ARMY WANT MY HARD-WON EXPERIENCE?
COMING to the end of my 20th year of service as a Regimental Catering Warrant Officer in the Royal Logistic Corps last year, I applied for Continuance of Service (CS) and, to my delight, was offered two years continuance and a job to go with it.
But I turned down the job as it wasn’t suitable and also about the same time the policy on residual service changed and I was informed that I was now back in line for promotion and would be on the next WO1 board.
RLC MCM Div Glasgow then informed me I was no longer getting my continuance.
I was also unsuccessful at the WO1 promotions board, but my disappointment was short-lived as the New Versatile Engagement (VEng) policy was due to come into effect in January and I intended to take advantage of it instead.
However, it became apparent that I was not eligible for this either as I was not going to be a serving soldier in 2010. In a nutshell I have served too long, although I thought VEng was meant to stem the loss of experience of those who had completed 22 years.
In February I was advised to reapply for continuance, but was turned down again. So, if I am a valued soldier, please tell me why I am being allowed to go. It is a sorry state that when a soldier is eager to carry on they are declined. – WO2 W C W Gibson-Williams, 2 Signal Regiment.
Lt Col Gavin Collinson, SO1 MS Sldrs CSS, responds: WO2 Gibson-Williams has had an extremely successful career and I accept that his skills, experience and knowledge will be lost when he leaves the Army.
However, continuance is a career management tool employed to fill gaps in trade structure and not a reward for excellent service. It would be inappropriate to extend WO2 Gibson-Williams’s career and block a WO vacancy in the chef trade if there is a suitably qualified, recommended and able staff sergeant available to promote.
We use continuance sparingly and only when we have difficulty filling an appointment or rank. Currently, we have no such need in the chef trade at this rank. In addition, the RLC decided not to offer V Eng Full Career to soldiers completing their service before December 31, 2009.
The purpose of was to ensure that promotions continued during the transition into V Eng Full Career and it was important that soldiers in their final two years of service left leaving an opportunity for more junior soldiers to promote into their vacancies.
This policy does not in any way denigrate WO2 Gibson-Williams’s valuable service. He has been an excellent soldier but must now make way for the next group of ambitious and highly capable SSgts keen to promote into his position.
MY LONG WAIT TO TRANSFER TO THE AIR CORPS
I AM writing in regard to my transfer from the Military Provost Guard Service to the Army Air Corps. I have now waited nearly 15 months.
After a year in the MPGS I decided to re-enlist in general service and in January last year submitted a transfer request. In all I made four transfer requests, three of which were lost or not received.
On the fourth occasion I told my platoon commander I wanted to make a formal complaint. This was passed up the chain of command and resulted in an interview with the AAC last November.
Having passed the interview with a recommendation for the AAC, I was told I would be issued a provisional offer before Christmas, which didn’t happen. I wrote another complaint letter and a few days later was told I had been allocated a course at Middle Wallop in April. My provisional offer and joining instructions would be sent shortly.
When I returned in March after compassionate leave the paperwork had still not been sent. I was told that MCM Div had been given a priority tasking and my transfer was not a priority.
The process has left me depressed, demoralized and angry. – Pte Rogers MPGS, ATR Lichfield.
Maj Pat Wright, Change of Engagement, APC, responds: Pte Rogers submitted an application to transfer to the RLC in March 2007. Unfortunately, there is no record of this application being received by Colour Service Section (CSS) at the Army Personnel Centre. It was subsequently re-sent in September.
In October the then AGC MCM Division approved Pte Rogers’s release on transfer from MPGS. His application was forwarded to the then RLC MCM Division but was refused by the RLC due to lack of vacancies.
His application was then forwarded to, and approved by, the AAC, his second choice. In November CSS loaded the soldier on to the next available course, commencing on 23 April 2008 (as he was long leave between February and March).
|
