Thread: 1,500 injured soldiers face discharge

Following on from this thread

MOD PLANS ‘AMPUTEE BATTALION’ TO CUT COSTS.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=140607.html

we find today

MoD memo reveals plan to get rid of the severely wounded instead of finding them other army jobs

Although senior army officers have previously suggested that those injured would be found alternative roles, moves are being made to release large numbers of injured who are deemed unfit to be redeployed to the front line.

With the army nearly at full strength for the first time in a generation, as the recession boosts recruitment, officials believe that releasing injured troops will allow the recruitment of more fit troops. Until that happens, sources suggest that the number of soldiers who cannot be deployed means the army will be operating below strength at a time of war.

The MoD paper also shows the true toll of injured soldiers in the army, by revealing that 5,000 personnel are currently injured, many after service in Afghanistan and Iraq, with 3,500 unable to return to the front line because of the severity of their wounds.

The memo states: "It is estimated that the cohort of injured currently total approximately 5,000 personnel, of these roughly 70% are employable but unable to deploy. It is assessed that there are around 1,500 personnel in the army who may not be able or wish to retain."

Pledges by the army to honour its duty of care to injured troops by offering them new jobs, regardless of the severity of their injuries, have led to a dramatic fall in the number of those discharged in recent years. Defence sources indicated that, while they would once have expected 200 medical discharges a year, this year that figure is understood to have fallen to 40.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...discharge-plan

Should those discharged be offered a place in the MoD CS, each injured veteran taken releasing two existing civilian CS's for re employment?

I was warned off that soldiers who are injured or unfit would be released from service over six months ago, when i commneted on this I was laughed at and flamed.

It's a fair point how many storeman and non deployable disabled soldiers can the Army hold onto ?

If they are holding slots that need to be filled then they must be let go so the Army and they can move on

It's (I assume) Infantry units which are being hit hardest and unfortunetly if they can't get the soldiers injured back on track then what do we do with them?

I should imagine a fair amount of units must be holding onto quirte a pecentage of disabled and non deployable soldiers

Sad though it is I don't see what else can be done

Although I would also get rid of the slackers and non deployable war dodgers who always find something to stay at home with

DASA stats show that 2849 pax were aeromeded out of Afghanistan since 2006, and that of them, there were 322 VSI/SI pax since 2001. Now I know that neither of those figures maps across directly to number requiring downgrade. But it is an illustration of how many of the 5000 this piece mentions would have had disabling injuries from non-operational incidents.

This is exactly where the Military Covenant should come into play. The army has identified these indivduals so why can't the Treasury take on the funding for these soldiers and remove the onus from the MoD? Thus the army can recruit to full strength in both senses of the word, numbers and fitness to deploy. Those injured could be employed as per the previous thread.

This would mean that the Government, not MoD, were held accountable for those injured because it was the Government which sent them to get injured.

Now I realise that this is a rather naive suggestion and that there is little chance of the Government actually taking responsibility for their actions, but it could work with a little application and ingenuity.

MoD budget, Govt budget - all the same really. But like the idea that a halfway house could be created: something not requiring fitness criteria, but more than a serpant. Could occupy civilianised jobs, but stay in uniform and with their capbadge. Add real expertise with specialized welfare support (who can fix things both on mil sites and in civvie street), be pro-active in finding suitable posts, and ease discharge procedures should all else fail.

Just don't call it an amputee battalion.

Originally Posted by armchair_jihad

Should those discharged be offered a place in the MoD CS, each injured veteran taken releasing two existing civilian CS's for re employment?

Just two? Would the injured squaddies only be required to work 10 hours a week?

"
Should those discharged be offered a place in the MoD CS, each injured veteran taken releasing two existing civilian CS's for re employment? "

To do what exactly - I've seen this suggestion come up a bit recently and have bitten my tongue until now. As I've said many many times here, the CS is not full of pencil neck drones in Whitehall - it is a very broad range of people and skills, many of which are hugely technical and specialist in nature.

Now suggesting that we get rid of them - well what do you want the injured soldiers to do? There is no point making them do admin jobs, as they are given to the most junior staff for being menial work - we'd have soldiers going out of their minds with boredom. Similarly, the average infanteer is an amazing person, but its unlikely they have the specific qualifications needed to do many CS jobs - are they trained project managers, accountants, auditors, atomic bomb scientists, intelligence analysts, boat crew, dockyard workers etc? Chances are that they're not, so immediately they're not qualified to do any of these jobs.

This means we have a significant retraining bill in hand, to get the guys to the point where they can compete on equal terms for jobs in the CS that they can do. We also have the problem that any career for "disabled service persons" will be limited in nature, as you either have to discharge them from the army and make them career civil servants (at which point the average infantry sgt will take a nearly £20K pay cut to do a job at equivalent level) or you reserve certain posts for them. Reserving posts is an issue as you don't know how long tthe person wants to do the job and stay in the army, how long it will take to train a successor and how long it will be gapped for.

The end result will be a very messy compromise where injured persons would be thrown about the system into random jobs which are either very unfulfilling, or totally outside their area of professional competence. Either way leads to stress and further unhappiness, and would be a recipie for disaster.

Far more sensible to discharge and then give them an automatic offer of employment at equivalent level within the MOD CS, where they can get a proper career structure mapped out for them and their skills.

Presumably those discharged will receive a suitable pension?

MSR

Overhaul of compensation and pensions on medical discharge needs an overhaul (other threads refer). There are rules about abating pensions when other public sector employment is started after early departure from one dept, which I should imagine would kick in for transfer to MoD (unless potential new structure secured new rules) or any other public sector post.

Originally Posted by vampangua

Overhaul of compensation and pensions on medical discharge needs an overhaul (other threads refer). There are rules about abating pensions when other public sector employment is started after early departure from one dept, which I should imagine would kick in for transfer to MoD (unless potential new structure secured new rules) or any other public sector post.

I can't see that applies to AFPS as there are loads of ex mill in the MoD CS drawing their pension.

Does it mean those that are injured on Herrick or those that we all know that have that mystery injury sufficient for a downgrade to avoid PT but not bad enough to preclude them doing anything else.

Is there an HR specialist in the house? Is it right that one can routinely draw a full public sector salary whilst in receipt of a public service pension? IIRC one or t'other is abated, or there is a seniority threshold in second career. Waivers to this were possible, but were very rarely used, even before the age discrimination legislation changed all pensions/retirement/reemployment rules.

Why can't the medically discharged be offered the industrial CS posts that are currently not filled or about to be made vacant or permanently written out (these jobs are storemen, drivers, fitters)

Keeps the TA ticking over, keeps the injured close to the services and maintains the duty of care to the injured :o

Simples

Fine to offer those industrial jobs on two grounds - one that those taking them accept that industrial CS are very menial posts, with very poor pay. The highest level you can get to is to an E1 equivalent, so max salary of about £21K after 10 years service - anyone above the rank of private will be taking a huge pay cut to do these posts.

Secondly - do they want to, or can they do, these posts? Will their injuries prevent them from carrying out their role, and do they have the skills to do industrial work?

Happy to see them in the CS, but it should be on the grounds that they are the right people to do the job that needs doing.