Army Adjudication Officers - Mental?

Discussion in 'Officers' started by jockistani, Aug 11, 2006.

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. I'm a TA officer and have just had my callout for sunny places revoked.

    Seems they are upholding/revoking all callups for absolutely everyone who has appealed (Employer or Individual).

    I'm a Platoon Commander, they will be sending a SNCO in my place - now they have 1 Pl Cmd for the Tour and 2 SNCO's filling in for my Coy.

    I just find it a bit mad that the crazy Civies at the Army Adjudication Centre seem to uphold any appeal from any employer - I have a 19 year old, newly employed, shop assistant who is a private soldier in my platoon, who has also had his callout revoked because "his employer cannot replace him". What a load of bollocks!!!

    So, now, even with a really strong appeal from my HQ, I'm told not to go and my Jocks go off into harms way with hardly any officers (no jokes regarding them being safer without us please!! :wink: ) around to assist, look after welfare and LEAD their men.

    So how did they come to the conclusion that I'm not needed overseas? Why is there a soldier who owns a dog, who has nobody to look after it also released from service .... Crazy.

    The answer is that Army Adjudication Officers are Mental.
  2. I thought Army Adjudication Officers were teachers.

    Oh well.....
  4. MoD is trying not to annoy employers unnecessarily, and therefore being more sympathetic to employers who claim hardship. It's not like TELIC 1, where the Army needed everyone they called up.

    If too many employers start to treat membership of the TA as a barrier to employment, there'll be a lot more TA soldiers signing off. TA service does not pay the bills.

    Where you should be directing your annoyance is your employer - they should have given you some clues that they'd appeal, and given you the opportunity to argue your case.

    Are you prepared to resign from your civilian job and go? Because that's your other option. And then find another job when you get back.

  5. My understanding is, that the general line on 'smart mobilisation' is to do just that, allow both individual and employers' appeals.

    The reason why, is that this, in effect, allows the compulsory mobilisation of only volunteers with minimal welfare / personal / employment issues.

    It also helps keep employers sweet, which given that the continuous use of TA soldiers on ops is now a reality is important.

    The reason why it is important to subject volunteers to compulsory mobilisation is that this enables them and their employers to receive the financial benefits and employment protection that is available to those who are mobilised.

    This of course applies only when the number of volunteers is greater than the number of LSNs to be filled. In some CEGs (eg medics, VMs etc) I think you'll find that the adjudication officers are less generous.

    You didn't say (I think) why your mobilisation has been revoked - employer objections?

  6. Maybe worth closing the loop with your UESO on this one. Most the big retail firms have a supportive (national) policy towards mobilisation, if your soldier's employer is one of these, it maybe that his line manager is unaware of the policy, or (assuming your soldier wants to go) may think he is doing the soldier a favour. The UESO organisation can often sort some of these problems.
  7. msr

    msr LE

    Or because his employer "doesn't agree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan"?

    This is the step prior to "Leave the TA or leave my employment".

    And where does that leave us?


  8. Fair point, but:

    1. The adjudication process has decided to uphold the the protest for the reasons given in previous posts. (ie the employer does not have a veto).

    2. The major retail companies are, in general, supportive of the reserves amd mobilisation.

    3. Shop assistant jobs aren't exactly difficult to get (unless this guy is a real specialist in something) and not well paid, so the soldier may be better off resigning, mobilising and getting another job on return (if he/she is keen to go).

    4. If he/she works for a small company that is not supportive of reserve service (for whatever reason), then he/she is probably going to have to make a choice sometime about changing jobs or leaving the TA. No matter how much legislation is passed, there must be a reasonable employee/employer/TA relationship for the new reserve service concept to work.
  9. Firstly, you don't state what your employment is. Secondly your response regarding the private soldier/shop assistant is quite patronising-how do you know this patricular employer doesn't value his staff (in the same way that you should value your jocks...) and really doesn't want to incur the penalties (both time and financial. Would the employer actually get replacement staff or just carry the shortfall-in which case a shop assistant in a small business is quite a burden!)
    Whilst most people, and many employers, are supportive of the TA, a good proportion do not support Iraq, as pointed out above. At the end of the day, depending on who you listen to, the TA is facing a recruitment shortfall. Forcibly conscript them and things can only get worse, and HM govt does not have the political will for this; nor should they.
    However, the present system is a compromise-on TELIC 1/2 my unit was augmented by TA. The problem arose not from the quality of troops provided (overall very good) but from the number of senior ranks who volunteered/mobilised as against juniors
  10. What problems did you experience NM?
  11. As stated above. I can't remember the numbers, but the proportion of seniors to juniors was too high, including officers. Troops on the ground was what was required, and this isn't what happened as a result of the voluntary mobilisation.
  12. Thanks. Can't blame peopel for tying to get involved in ops, but I did hear that there were some problems, as regular units were trying to get to WE.

    My belief is that since the warfighting phase of Telic was completed, individual reinforcements are now provided on an LSN basis along the lines you describe.

    This of course is raising questions within the TA about what the role of officers and seniors is, when the IRs that the regular army largely ask for are JNCOs and ptes.
  13. The expression you're looking for is "intelligent mobilization". The principle is that all stakeholders in an individual should be fully informed and aware of the process and planning behind the mobilization of a TA soldier or officer. This includes units, individuals, families and employers.

    If Jockistani was so keen to deploy, he should have been engaging early with his employer (as should his unit) to ensure that there would be no barriers or objections.

    Often employers are unaware of their rights and entitlements under RFA96 and simply appeal as a knee-jerk reaction. Early engagement by units and individuals can ensure that HR departments

    (a) understand the benefits of TA service and deployment to their organization,

    (b) understand the process of mobilization, their entitlements and rights as employers and

    (c) have a policy in place to respond efficiently and effectively to formal notification of a mobilization.

    If units find their "sure-fire volunteers" suddenly being black-balled by their employers, then 9 times out of 10 then have only themselves to blame.

  14. Loyalties mean I must try to satisfy both TA and my employer. My emploer would have appealed no matter what. My situation is fairly unique(I'm an Air Traffic Controller), and due to the cost of my training(I'm bonded for the cost hence I didn't consider leaving) my company were more than reluctant to let me go - the Operations Director appealed in person.

    Fred Cat, my company has found a big problem finding Platoon Commanders really, not so much with the lower ranks.

    I take on all your points and quite agree that intelligent mobilization is Strategically the best way to go. Operationally however, it does get frustrating for units and soldiers alike.

    To All, I was possibly - read probably - firing off some frustration in my initial post. But where do we draw the line between service commitment and civilian employment.

    And for those up for a good old arguement - Dash and darn those Army Adjudication Officers!! etc. etc.
    Northern Monkey, I don't want to get too involved in specifics, but suffice to say that this soldier would most likely not be missed. I do agree that each case must be inspected and can only really be commented on specifically and not in the general.
  15. Ideas Factory has this quite right. The actual direction on mobilisation is that a mobilisee should have the agreement of his employer before he goes; some units are betting on the fact that employers won't appeal to fill the unreasonable numbers they have been asked to supply (Herrick was under 30% recruited last time I looked). The problem is that the Army has decided to continue to tell employers that their employees were compulsarily mobilised when they were in fact volunteers- the semanticists having decided that you could be voluntarily called- out but compulsarily mobilised. For my money, this is at best a little bit Alan Clark and at worst likely to lead to litigation.
    The real problem is probably the shift to supply led mobilisation with little apparent change in the requirement from the theatres for troops. There is a nice line going in trawls that ask for TA initially and then go for Regular when they can't get a volunteer- surely if it wasn't important enough to need a guaranteed fill to start with, it can be gapped?

    An addition- the real losers in this are the likes of the original poster who trys to keep the Army happy only to find that they won't support him when its needed.