AToS/LToS and Service Beyond 55 to Maximise Pension

Discussion in 'Officers' started by why_am_I_here?, Mar 12, 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. This is an issue which DM(A) tell me, when I asked them, actually affects quite a number of officers; unfortunately they weren't particularly helpful (ie: read 'unhelpful') with their response. However, it seems that either few are aware of it, don't care/accept it, or that it just hasn't been aired yet (or of course perhaps it has and I've been daft enough to miss it, which will be somewhat embarassing).

    As you all know the basis of the officer career is commencement at age 21. As a DE officer it is disavantageous to be commissioned either before or after age 21. Too early and your pensionable service won't have started (ignoring for a minute the provisions of the new pension scheme); too late and you will not be able to max-out with 34-yrs service.

    I joined on AToS (the age-based ToS) as a non-grad back in the bad old days, but for a variety of reasons I was 23 when I started and 24 when I left Sandbags. Theoretically this means that I can only serve 31-yrs and comensurately only get 40-something % of pension, as opposed to 50%. The LToS (length of service-based ToS) was introduced in 2000 - yes it's been with us nearly a decade now - and those on this structure (I believe) can serve a full career from a max commissioning age of 27 (or is it 31?). This means that they will be able to serve until well after age 55. I feel disadvantaged.

    While I appreciate that you could all say "Well, you knew what you were signing-on for", there should be no moral reason why AToS officers could not serve under the same terms (ie: LToS proves that there is nothing 'magic' about age 55).

    Are there others out there who are affected similarly, and have the same concerns? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

    Does anyone know what the exact rules are that govern this, and if they can be/have been successfully challenged?
  2. C'mon guys; let's have some discussion here. 241 veiws (so far) and not one comment. I can't believe that there is no interest in this issue, seeing as (straight from the horses mouth) it potentially affects so many of us.

    So you're all happy to leave with a sub-optimised pension then, are you? Right!
  3. Fair point - many views and no replies and it is a worthy subject for discussion. I think that there are many folk on LTOS who are unaware that they will have to serve beyond 55 to garner maximum pension - as I understand it the retirement age will effectively be different for all LTOS Officers because it will come after 34 years service and not at age 55 as with ATOS.

    On a personal note it wont affect me but it doesn't stop me having a passing interest in the matter.
  4. Thanks. Not many people actually appreciate that the Army currently allows officers to serve until they are 63, assuming that they joined at the latest age allowable under LToS, which is 29. Therefore anyone that previously thought that the Army considered age 55 to be a 'magic number' (or glass ceiling) is now mistaken. Similarly, the Army will increasingly find that their ability to use this argument will diminish accordingly.

    I remain interested to get hold of anyone else who has previously pursued - or is interested in pursuing - this line of enquiry.
  5. The Army's solution may be to introduce Manning Control Points to control the flow of numbers through the system. Technically it already achieves this through the SSC/IRC/Reg C system which will either force a decision from a waverer early or force out someone who is perceived not to have the potential to have a full career.

    Age? Age 55 has never been a concrete barrier to service: CGS is 59, CINC 57 etc., Continuance is used fairly extensively by APC already. Some of the conventions of the Army which are accepted but 'wrong' are the 2 jobs rule for Maj Gens. Here you have the irony of someone getting promoted to Maj Gen early, at say 48, but faces being made redundant, if not promoted before he is 55, but someone promoted to Maj Gen at 53 able to serve on to 65 if he is promoted. The fact that they are not accruing pension, suggests that not only are our most talented officers committed, and the system is committed to them, but they are effectively taking a pay cut once they pass the age of 55!