Army Pension for service at 17

Discussion in 'Armed Forces Pension Scheme' started by jimmyoc, Jan 2, 2010.

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. If he retired last year then he was eligable to choose the option to take AFP 05 which would of recognised his service at 17 years old.

    Not really a story for the outrage bus in my opinion.

    Respect to his service though!
  2. Under AFPS 75 only service from 18 counts (21 for officers). This is known by all at enlistment.

    Under AFPS 05 ALL service counts. If you were in at around this time you had the option to change pension schemes.

    Sorry, but this is a non-story. Nothing against the bloke in question.

    (Speaking as someone who joined at 16, thus I'll have done nearly 24 years when I am 40. But only pensioned for 22, unless I chose to go on the AFPS 05 in which case I'd get 24 years of pension.

    Not sure why it is 'ironic' that he could have been sent to the Falklands but not NI at the time :?
  3. 75 pension has always been from 18th birthday or later if joining - every service pension nearing their 22/24 and beyond knows that

    05 pension starts from the day you serve.

    I joined at 16, I elected to stay on the 75 pension, my choice, Sgt Southall had the choice to go to the 05 pension but obviously elected not to (assuming he commuted)

    So why the outrage? You a journo?
  4. I have to agree with those above I am afraid (without disrespecting his achievments).

    It’s not as if the rule was introduced during his service and he had the option to change to AFPS 05 that would have recognised this.

    Incidentally those who go on to become LE’s under AFPS 75 have their pension TOS changed to their 21st birthday.
  5. It's the rules im afraid, all credit to his service though. But dems the rules. Total and utter non-story.
    Still it's got Falklands Veteran in the story so it got our attention, which lest face it, was the point.
  6. Fcuk me mate, you want to do some post searches for Jimmy OC!

    Journo? I reckon he's been called somethings in his past but never a journo.

    Maybe just maybe he's also ex 3 Para and maybe he got quite badly wounded on Longdon....just a guess mind.
  7. well whatever the rules are if your fighting and dying at 17 you should be paid. and if they don't want to pay you at 17 they should not put you in the line of fire,
  8. Mate, I am not trying to get into a p*ssing match I am well aware that some guys on here have personnel attachments to the Falklands and those that never came back.

    I am merely stating my opinion of the facts, however unpalatable that they are in this case, they are still the facts
  9. He was paid, every month no doubt. His wage slip would have been those crisp white tracing paper type forms stapled by the clk.

    He just wasn't in the pension scheme age brackets. He would also have been covered by the war pension and compensation coverage of the time, should he have been injured.

    Who knows, he might even have been getting paid at the 17 - 17 1/2 age bracket, which was less than the 17 1/2 and over bracket.

    These TACOS were well known by those who joined up and served at the time. It wasn't a secret, nor was the ability to have this time recognised by the simple expedient of switching to the 05 pension scheme... which some appear to believe this bloke had the option of doing.

    IIRC he would have some extra rules covering him for leaving the Army, prior to 18, and of course his 3 years wouldn't start until his 18th either, so his three years finished on his 21st, not his 20th.

    If Pension 05 hadn't been brought in I'd probably back his fight, but as it is I don't understand why he is pursueing this.
  10. Which is why under 18's either have to get parental permission to deploy or stay on rear party, your point is that I should trawl through all his posts, not my job fella.
  11. Joined at 16, so did two years service which did not count for pension purposes. Then got LE comission, so pensionable age adjusted from 18 years of age to 21 (in line with officers pension date), so in total lost 5 years service for pension purposes. Not complaining, just stating fact.
  12. And it's not your job to say someone is a journalist just because he inititated the thread without at least spending about 30 seconds checking some of his previous posts FELLA.
  13. It actually says at the bottom of the story that the pension was changed in 2005. If he was serving at this time (and I'm guessing he was) he will have been given some sort of brief and paperwork explaining the differences between the AFPS 75 and AFPS 05.

    He decided to stay on AFPS 75 for what ever reason and it was his choice to make so he can't blame the government or the MOD.
  14. I'm pretty sure my pensionable service stated at 17 1/2, when I came to transfer it to my current scheme I was credited with starting pensionable service at 17 1/2 anyway. I best not shout too loud in case it was a mistake!