Career Foul - can anyone help?

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Sgt_Monium, Apr 12, 2007.

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 would appreciate a bit of advice on this one, I believe that I have been wronged severely, and have been advised that, procedurally, I have been deliberately misinformed.

    A couple of years ago I was the subject of a very hastily conducted AGAI 67 investigation. I will not go into the precise details, but basically an allegation was made against me while I was serving at my Corps Depot. Within 36 hours of the initial accusation I had been removed from post, and notified that I would be posted (my posting order was dated ten days prior to the official AGAI 67 investigation and 14 days prior to the announcement of its findings). Another of many issues was that the Adjt returned my application for a commission to me with a note from the CO to the effect that he could not consider the application in the light of the fact that I had committed an offence under AGAI 67. This was prior to the investigation and award, which, despite all the peripheral effects, was an informal verbal rebuke. Despite the fact that the removal from post and posting was seen by many to be a knee jerk reaction, it caused a great deal of personal stress, disruption and upset to my family, and meant that I went to my new unit under a considerable cloud. I endeavoured to submit a Redress of Grievance at my new unit, but could not redress the award, which was unofficial and did not appear on my file at MCM Div, nor could redress the posting, which, I was informed could be justified by the exigencies of the Service.

    My question is basically that I requested a copy of my CR book, and was surprised to see the annotation "applicant for a commission" at the top of the relevant CR. I queried this, as this aspiration was only true for a few days, before my application was refused by the CO and returned to me. I was told by MCM Div that they had been notified that I had withdrawn my application. This was not the case at the time, and I have been told subsequently that the CO did not have the right to refuse it, but must either endorse or officially refuse the application, and that an audit trail should be in place.

    Obviously these things are subjective, but I think that the case was an immediate knee jerk, and that certain steps were taken (removal from post and posting), and that subsequently, when the facts of the case became clear, sense prevailed and the award was negligible and minimal in terms of its impact, ie informal. The longer-term effects have been significant, each of my subsequent COs and OCs have been aware of this issue, and it has been brought up on two subsequent commissioning interviews.

    I believe, though, that my application for a commission has been intentionally put under the radar, and in such a manner that it allowed the CO not to commit, officially. At the time of application, my predecessor had been commissioned from WO2 from the same post as I occupied, and at the time I was applying with an "O" graded CR, with three previous "O's".

    I believe that I have been deliberately misinformed at the time of the investigation, and that subsequently, MCM Div have been deliberately misled, to explain the absence of the relevant documentation in the commissioning process. The net result at the time enabled the CO, and Adjt to smokescreen the original hastily-conducted investigation. I want to do something about this via civilian channels now, but it is outside the period permitted for formal redress, despite the fact I have only just discovered the apparent inequity. I'd appreciate a bit of advice, will not refer to any individual in this, and will happily provide further information via PM, if pertinent.
     
  2. I have read your post in entirety and to my mind this is the only bit that matters.

    Firstly the AGAI system of reporting does not apply to informal minor rebukes - if it did then the rainforest would have been depleted some months ago. To that end, action taken, such as you have described could not have been a result of an informal verbal rebuke.

    Extracted from AGAI 67

    Records

    67.021 It is important that accurate records are maintained and retained in every case no matter how minor the sanction awarded. The recording procedures set out in this AGAI are designed to meet the minimum reasonable requirement. The process must be transparent, accountable and open to scrutiny at all times.

    If there is no record then it did not happen, if it did not happen, then there are no grounds. If there are no grounds etc.......
     
  3. Just to muddy the waters a little more, the current AGAI 67 only came into force relatively recently (Jan 05?), so you may need to dig a little further to get answers.

    The current AGAI sets a time limit of 3 months from date of being wronged to submit a Formal Complaint, so for example if you only recently found out some vital information then you may be able to pursue the matter.

    You might try contacting BAFF, sounds like the sort of thing they may be able to help with.

    Good luck.
     
  4. Thanks for the prompt reply, STC. The matter took place prior to the Jan 05 amendment to AGAI 67. The interview was documented and recorded, I have copies of the investigation. The award, at the time, was an informal verbal rebuke, and as such did not demand any follow-up action (Reprimand, Severe Reprimand, Displeasure, etc) and was dealt with in-house. Consequently none of this was promulgated to MCM Div.

    The main issue for me in this is the fact that my application for commissioning was stopped, and that I was deliberatedly misinformed at the time. Basically I just want to establish a way forward on this, cheers.
     
  5. Sgt Monium. I may be wrong and of no help. however I had lots of dealings with AGAI 67 (Not by me I may add!) at my last unit. I believe that all AGAI's need to stay in unit for 5 years so any findings in the past should be documented. I don't know the in's and out's of your case so it's hard to go any further, but I do know that a lot of orifices on the LE's board (whatever the capbadge) know of any descrepincies that are in the past.
     
  6. If you are claiming that the treatment that you have submitted to is based on a misrepresentation of the facts, and that this misrepresentation would not have otherwise occured if the initial investigation was conducted diligently, and this treatment has caused a loss of chance that would not have otherwise come about but for this misrepresentation - then yes you have suffered as a result of someone elses conduct and there may be scope for a redress.

    Whether that conduct was reasonable in the circumstances is a question of fact - these facts should be laid out by you in a redress under current regulations (bearing in mind the time limits) and submitted using the accepted procedure.
     
  7. Sammy, great post, however I must admit after drinking with a RE bloke since 1100 GMT that didn't come off the board today like myself it's still ambiguos?

    Untill we know the unique status of the details aren't we just guessing?

    (Or is that the wrong way round?)
     
  8. That's exactly the case with this one. I have had two officers who were quite caustic with me over this issue, one when I was originally posted "under a cloud" and one comparatively recently, who made a very cutting and personal remark socially. Nothing is forgotten, and people have a longer memory for potential scandal than for good deeds.
     
  9. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request, you can request ALL information in regards to yourself at your former unit, all letter's and forms (although you may want to specify that issue, if you dont want every thing with your name on it.) Also send one to MCM DIV to request all data in your files there.

    Enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. And they have 40 days in which to comply, or you can take them to Court.