Another Three years? But won't that mean...

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by TaffYorkie, Mar 10, 2005.

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. Got a query for the guys in the know. One of the bods from my unit recently got mobilised, on getting to Chilwell he was asked to re-engage for another three years, cos his run-out date was one month before his deployment was due to end. Now that he's re-engaged he's worried that he'll be mobilised again, with the 2 year rule. His intention was to serve his deployment, and then discharge from the TA. I guess he's worried that Glasgow will have him by the g0nads now for another deployment.
     
  2. msr

    msr LE

    Not if he signs off.

    msr
     
  3. Brilliant. That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation
     
  4. I think Chilwell have lied through their teeth to him - sorry, I mean a misinterpretation of the regulations. My investigations into this very area revealed that if called up your engagement is automatically extended to the end of your mobilisation if it would otherwise end before that date. There is no need to sign up for a further term as they will not send you home halfway. You simply leave the TA on demobilisation.

    They could also have offered him the option to sign on for 1 or 2 years - or even 4 for that matter. Frankly it sounds like he was stitched up - remember that while he can apply to resign the Army does not have to accept. Usually though they do as there's no point keeping him on the books if he's not going to turn up and they can't make him. However, donning my tin foil hat this does mean they'll get another tour out of him.
     
  5. They'll only get another tour out of him if he keeps up the training-if he was a waste of time then chilwell may bin him (apparently they're stepping up their act haha!). Manning may also catch up, no MTD's for three years might get noticed... ?
     

  6. Can't speak for the TA but this is true for the regs, whole bunch of us where getting out when Kosovo kicked off, I was the only one who didn't get extended mainly because I had recently returned from Bos. Everyone else litterly returned dropped off thier kit and buggered off
     
  7. He'll not like that then. Bit of a grey area me thinks. I doubt that if he returns and jacks it in that they'd send him anyway, but it would be a rather big slap in the face if he returned only to be mobilised again.
     
  8. The rule applies to both TA and Regs. There was no need for your mucker to sign up for another three years.

    It would be a little unusual for him to be remobilised straight after the end of his period of mobilisation, although there is nothing in the law books to prevent it (apart from the maximum one-year period of compulsory mobilised service in any three-year period).
     
  9. Hi Just to let you Know the 1 in 3 Rule has changed. MCM Div are now applying the 1 in 5 years rule. It changed at the back end of 2004. got this from a chatty bird at APC Glasgow. AKA Space City...
     
  10. MCM Div are now applying the 1 in 5 years rule...

    Afraid to say that this won't work with current tempo of ops - particularly in AMS where certain trades are already up to the 1 year in 3 rule already. Foresee a drastic rethink, methinks... :?
     
  11. Quite right.......

    This is why you are now seeing a Drastic (or desperate) Recruiting Drive for the TA.............

    The MOD IS Spending a fortune on getting fresh "DEPLOYABLE ASSETS" To re-inforce our regular counterparts......................................

    Sounds like a bit of Egg On Face For Hoon....

    Also for the FAS cuts and reorganisation to work the TA must Be Fully Manned BY 2010....... I WONDER WHY????????????????
     
  12. Fully manned by 2010 ? Ho ho ho. Given that it takes about 5 years to train someone up in my particular speciality, given that we're currently undermanned, given that the establishment is set to rise with FAS we need to see new recruits right now to meet that - and we're not.

    The 5 years is another lie, sorry I mean aspiration. It's always written down with the caveat that operational need will override it, so if you're in demand then it's three years for you.

    Of course we could always recruit enough regular soldiers to handle peacetime commitments and leave the reserves as, well, a reserve for crises.