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?