Courts Martials

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Andy_Caps_Commando, Oct 26, 2005.

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. Whilst new to this site, i have got some good info and some amusing stories from the site. Cheers all(at least when i'm bored at work i can log on at HM expense)

    Just recently one of my lads (complete cretin) was jailed by the system for going AWOL twice and stealing a credit card off his mate and using it numerous times. Now this was last year, since he was released from MCTC (on remand there after going AWOl), he disappeared at least 8 times, then turned up when he wanted paying (cash paid soldier), the system paid him as he turned up with sick chits, and they were binding that he was sick!!. After being paid he would jump the back fence and go home again(sick with a bad back, my ARSE replied Jim Royle!!) Yes we applied for the Judge Advocate to put him back in remand, but he said NO!!

    Then when he went AWOL again, the judge had the audacity to blame, NO wait not the unit, but Me. Cheers your honour.

    Is the system failing out there or is this a one off, as at the moment the lads from the Tp are proper pi**ed off with the whole episode.

    Not one to moan but please.
    :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :evil: :evil:
  3. If he kept being Sick at Home (SAH) then you could have passed him on to the local MAO(CH) and tried to discharge him as SNLR. He would have also needed a chit from his doctor that he was unfit to travel, if he did not have one of those then you could have insisted that he RTU'd and your MO take over his treatment.
  4. Too true...... I was sat in a nice BUPA hospital after an RTA and the Army made me return to unit and fester in the unit MRS!

    The key (as Paymaster says) is 'unfit to travel' not 'unfit to work'.

  5. Truth be told, it's a bit of both. I handled a very similar situation and it was a learning experience for all concerned!

    Essentially, we have become a bit blase about charging soldiers with the old AF B252 since the AFA 00. What with there being no other formal and official means of seeing to a disobedient soldier, we were slapping them on all over the place and, frankly, it was a right pain in the arrse because every charge meant a sh*t load of paperwork, and when the chargee refused to play ball - like your bloke persistently absconding - the only recourse was to the law, which meant putting yourselves at the mercy of the Judge Advocates.

    Now, having had a fair amount of experience of these chaps, they are, by and large, a sound bunch of men and women who want to see the right thing done and military discipline upheld (with some notable exceptions that shall remain nameless), but they are also committed to seeing the just thing done. And if you take a moment to step outside the situation and look in, what do you see? Answer: an employee who persistently fails to turn up for work and, when he does, claims to be on the sick. Well, would you expect any other employee to thrown into gaol without trial for such an offence? Or would you expect him to be given notice and sacked?

    The system is a bit of an ass here, because once a soldier's been charged, he can't be discharged until the offence has been dealt with. Hence why you need to think twice, cut once when charging someone, especially when we now have good old AGAI 67 Minor Sanctions to fall back on! Apply here to recoup all that fcuking money you keep having to pay this w*nker by removing his leave entitlement.

    The best solution is to have all charges dropped and just bin him. Although, technically, there's a requirement for formal warnings and suchlike, a strong case can be made that appearing before a JA and spending time on remand in MCTC constitutes a pretty firm warning.

    I waved my persistent offender a fond adieu after getting DM(A), PS2(A) and Div Legal on my side to cover my arrse and we saved the expense of CM, too, so even the taxpayer's happy.