AGAI 67 detail

Discussion in 'Military Discipline' started by ta_old_guy, Feb 17, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Quick one this:

    AGAI 67 - Formal Warning

    When it states (twice I may add) that the Deciding Officer has 14 days to return a decision on the 3 month Formal Warning is that normal days or working?

    On the report template for a Formal Warning it states 14 working days, but that is not what it says in the actual rules. Therefore is this:

    a. A mistake on the part of the Army.

    b. Or my mistake.

    I have spoken with a solicitor on the matter as an initial consultation and he believes that it means 14 days and 10 working days.

    Has anyone else seen or been a part of a case like this? Advice is needed!!!!
  2. Pending a reply from someone who has direct knowledge of this issue:

    Point taken. There is a contradiction between the regulation and the form, and therefore a drafting error.

    Para 67.046 has a footnote defining 48 hrs as 2 working days. This looks like an afterthought, although I have not compared with earlier versions. No such footnote defining 14 days.

    As a multiple of seven days, a period like 14 days would normally mean just that. In other words, a continuous calendar period of 14 days, corresponding to 10 working days, NOT 14 working days. (I am not aware of the service law definition of "working days" but I assume that an accepted or specified definition exists.)

    One argument for the longer period is that the Formal Warning Notice itself says 14 working days, and that the serviceman has signed to acknowledge that notice. However, I would argue that the actual provision - i.e. para 9 of Annex E to the AGAI - takes precedence over the form.

    As I say I have no direct knowledge of the issue. My comments are based on AGAI 67 edition 3.1.
  3. There is no recognition of "working days" in QRs! Every day is a working day...these days even Wednesday afternoons!
  4. ;) Indeed but joking apart, the phrase "working days" is right there in the AGAI and is presumably intended to mean something.
  5. Also judging by his avatar being TA guy. Is that 14 working days in the TA? food for thought?
  6. I'm not in the TA.
  7. Further to this what if an Assisting Officer has not been appointed at any stage? And I've not refused one.
  8. I was under the impression that we now referred to leave (sorry Authorised absence) in working days.

    For example if you took leave from AD Fri to FP a week on Monday (9 days) you would only have 5 days taken from your entitlement

    Apologies if this has always been the case, but I can’t remember it always being that way (I am getting old though :oops: )
  9. Yes, there's much relevance in that post...
  10. Extremely glad to be of assistance
  11. If anyone on the site has ever been a recipient or part of the process in regards to a formal warning could they please PM me!

  12. I wouldn't get wrapped in the timescale, remember AGAI 67 is administrative action rather than disciplinary and the timescales are guidelines, not absolute; that was advice to me from legal. The assisting officer should be appointed when the originating officer determines that an investigation is warranted and conducts the initial interview. If a sanction is applied and you haven't been appointed an assisting officer then i guess you could ask for a review but I'm not sure what could happen beyond that. As long as you get sight of the investigation report and are appointed an assisting officer beforehand, there's not a lot you can do. You could always ask for an assisting officer or are you hoping that a procedural omission will give you grounds for appeal / defence? That might be a risk strategy as i said earlier - it's not a disciplinary process in the Summary Dealing / legal sense where you have to be procedurally correct
  13. Good answer.

    I am concerned about the motives of the FP to be honest. An FW is an administrative opportunity for the subject much like any other. My advice to any FW subject is to address the allegations set to him rather than try and pursue a dismissal of those allegations on the grounds of technicality.

    IMO, if an FW subject cannot see what is wrong with trying to contest an FW decision because of technicality, he/she cleary hasnt addressed the allegations and deserves to be 130a'd or worse. This is the Army not some branch of the Civil Service; the Military Covenant works both ways you know.
  14. So that would mean that the 14 day rule could be ignored completely and anything could be processed at anytime?

    I am trying to establish how the argument for '14 days' being '14 working days' can be continued when my Formal Warning began on a weekend and ended on a weekend. In this case what is a working day? And how can the Formal Warning start on a weekend (as signed by the OC) if that is not a working day?

    Where does the ambiguity end?