CR re-dress

#1
Need some advice please guy and gals, just had by far the worst CR of my 17 year career, some things my boss wrote about should never be mentioned in a CR, whats the offical line not to sign it and have it re-dressed.
cheers.
 
#5
Have you had a 6 monthly appraisal which identified any supposed weaknesses in your performance? If not then your boss is on thin ice anyway.

PM me for advice.

(If I'm not booted off by tomorrow!)
 
#6
Unknown_Callsign said:
WhiteHorse said:
Have you spoken to the boss?
Yes had a doors closed chat for twenty mins and he still refused it change it.
You have to sign the report: it means that you have read it, not that you agree with it.

Then have a chat with the Chief Clerk about putting in a formal redress: he/she will have all the details about how to do it.
 
#7
Was there once - signed it but then spoke to the G1 gadger at Bde. They didn't want a redresses and the case was put to the 2RO. This, after all, is the important bit. All worked out well in the end.
I'd be interested to hear the outcome.
 
#8
Stick to your guns, if they have mentioned specific failings, make them put it in writing giving examples with DTG of supposed failings. They have to follow the MS guide to writing CR's. You can't redress an opinion, you can however redress incorrect procedure (No 6 Monthly), incorrect facts (The b*stards lying)and improper motives (He wants to put you down to improve the chances for one of his favorites).

If it is an unfair report, don't accept this, go all the way, and ensure that the CoC know what a C*ck your boss is. Who knows, maybe you will get justice by f*cking up HIS career!!

Top Tip, invest in a dictaphone for future conversations.
 
#9
Thought_Criminal said:
Top Tip, invest in a dictaphone for future conversations.
Of course, you ought to declare to the person you are recording that you are doing so, otherwise you could up in even more bother (making a recording in a military establishment where importent secrety type things are discussed etc, might work against you), and you could p*ss the 1 RO off even more and then your problems start to spiral....................
 
#10
Speak to the MS officer above the 1RO. At Bde this is the DCOS. Get a view from him. Then take the AR to an independent person, preferably of similar rank and ask for a view. You may need to blank out some names. Be sure of your ground before you take any drastic action. Not for nothing is the redress and the SO's statement option in the AR known as a 'suicide note'in Glasgow....

Some ARs can be challenged, but if they can then it is best done on procedural grounds. If the procedures are wrong then the CoC will back you. If it's pure opinion then it's harder and sometimes you are better off just taking it and hoping to bury it in the future. If it is so bad that it looks out of place with 17 other ARs then you are likely to be ok in the long run.
 
#11
Thanks for the advice all round, this is by far the most helpful forum. Just to interest some of you the bits I'm really pi**ed off at is twice he stated " I felt that he felt ", how on earth can he write on a opinion on how I felt?, not only should it not done but he was totally wrong in his presumtion.

Rant over
Cheers.
 
#12
Redresses procedures are available but they are very difficult to use without causing un-intended damage to your career in other ways. The best approach is always to get another person of same rank as 1RO to view it (as von-ryan suggests) and give you their honest opinion, providing you trust it, as the subject of the report you will obviously be disappointed if its not what you expected.

If said person agrees then it makes it more likley that others in CoC will as well.

As a generalisation most soldiers will push redress as the answer to everything, be carefull in listening to others wind you up, it doesnt always have the result you want, and if you enrage the 1RO (ego's and careers play a much greater part for some officers than you might expect) he/she may seek to "redress" the percieved slight in some other under the counter way. Just an opinion mind, hope it helps.
 
#13
There is another option - you can put in a letter - called something like a 'comment on CR' (speak to G1 people for the right name). Basically, you get to write a comment on your CR, this letter is then kept on file, next to the CR in question and is viewed on all promotion / posting boards along with the CR.

It was an option I had, but didn't take, when I had some 'fun' with an old OC.

In the end, my next CR simply destroyed the comments on the previous CR, which may be a better option for you. I was promoted on time, even though I had a shocker of a 1st CR.

Is this your first CR in Rank?
 
#14
You do not have an option not to sign. By signing you are simply acknowledging what is said in the report not your agreement to it.

Key factors to your situation are: Did you have a mid period review or any form of consultation? Was the point of concern discussed with you at any time before the report was delivered? If it was, were you given an opportunity to make amends/improve/prove your Boss wrong?

I agree with others who have recommended the following course of action:
1. Get the opinion of someone of equal rank to the 1st RO.
2. Insist on an interview with the 2RO.
If no satisfaction by that stage – 3. Request interview with your local head of Arm/Service (if 1 and 2 RO are not same cap-badge as you).
4. Request interview with Bde/Div/Next HQ MS Rep.

If you are still uncomfortable with what is being said (and more importantly, written) go for either a redress or exercise you right to comment. In a redress you have to justify what you want to be changed. The comment simply allows you to record your side of things. Although there may be unforeseen effects in submitting a redress it is better to act now than to wish you had later. Good luck.
 
#15
The procedure for redress is seriously flawed, it's the equivalent of a rapist investigating his own crime! The system is designed to protect the reporting officer. As mentioned, you can damage your career prospects by trying to save your career.

Bear in mind if you don't redress (Or as mentioned submit a representation) this report will carrer foul you for at least 3 years. His remarks that "He felt that you felt" would in fact constitute an unfair remark and not an opinion.

As mentioned, if you have not had your alleged failings identified to you in a six monthly appraisal (Thereby denying you the opportunity to rectify any alleged falings) Then this is also a procedural failure and you have grounds or redress.

As for recording someones conversation, this works well with liars, it may not be strictly legal but then again neither is screwing up someones career through false statements. It can also be considered in the public interest if due process is being abused so bear that in mind.

At the end of the day, if someone is being honest there is no need to take such drastic action. People who abuse their rank and position, cease to deserve our loyalty and are fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Too many decent soldiers have been f*cked over by these *******. No wonder there is a retention problem.
 

Flyingrockdj

War Hero
Moderator
#16
Sadly I tried this as a SNCO. I redressed over a crap AR with a glaring lie in it, the 1RO stated that he knew me well, in fact he had met me back at base location for one day then I had nipped off for a two month detachment then got posted elsewhere, Redressed as I had cast iron grounds, new OC wrote me up just as badly after 6 months, turns out the other OC was his bestest mate etc, soooooooooo redressed that one on that fact.

OC 2 left anyway the next year , OC 1 gets promoted! I get squat until I leave four years later. No promotion for me due to these two CR's "lowering my grade profile"

I would sue but can't be bothered, much more fun in my new life to have had to work with OC 1 in an official capacity where his job was to work very closely with me and my kind.......I so stitched him up!

And one day probably next year at the corps BDay I will stick it all over the lying cheating turd!
 
#18
This case, that still has a few worried up top involved Redress CR, career foul, and the closed ranks so much seen when soldiers submit redress. Morally He won and did grind them down but it took a long time under the present system. There is a book due to be published on the subject that should turn a few heads
Think what BAFF could do :wink:
Any help you need PM me.


http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/03/week_1/03_army.html

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/05/would_baff_work.html

Would BAFF Work? Biddiss: A Case Study
Given some of the comments on this blog with regard to the formation of a British Armed Forces Federation I have again agreed to give space to a guest blogger Dave Howels, who worked as a legal assistant to Tom Reah, the solicitor in the Biddiss case which has been mentioned on this blog several times before. So over to Dave Howels

I thought about not posting on this blog as it was getting heated, however there are some here who appear to believe from reading the press or this blog that the Biddiss case is all cut and dried and that he won and that everything is now ok. My involvement in this case was in helping Tom Reah, Cpl Biddiss’s solicitor, to collect information on this and other cases in which Tom was involved. I am also involved with helping Mrs Debbie Biddiss compile her book on the case, (working title - A Father’s Love), so for this reason I will not go into detail or name officers involved, I will leave that for the book. What I would like to do here is first point out some facts and then demonstrate where a third party "sticking their nose in" as one soldier put it, could have helped from the very start. At each stage I will first present the problem and then the possible solution.

1.The Problem.
Cpl Biddiss was ordered to sign a contract called an S-type contract as part of the so-called Manning Control process. He was told that this was his only route to staying in the army and that if he did not, he would be kicked out in less that 12 months. It also became apparent that Cpl Biddiss had been mismanaged by his company commander, as evidence showed that he had been left out of the battalion promotion board consideration list for over 12 months. I am talking about the list on which possible candidates for promotion are prioritised and put forward at the promotion board. Again this was due to his company commander’s failings. Cpl Biddiss refused to sign the S-Type Contract, and asked why his reports – reports that would have been considered for promotion boards – had not been completed and submitted by his Company Commander on time and were still unsigned.

The result of Cpl Biddiss refusing to sign the contract was nothing other than victimisation. Cpl Biddiss's wife was heavily pregnant and expecting their son around the same time as the deployment to Northern Ireland. A month before this Cpl Biddiss had just returned from a successful operation in Kosovo. On this basis he, along with most of those who had deployed to Kosovo, was not being sent to Northern Ireland for the first three months. This was to conform with promises by ministers to the House of Commons on the length of intervals between operational deployments. But because Cpl Biddiss refused to sign the S-Type contract he was ordered to go and his attempts to draw his commanding officer’s attention to these matters were thwarted by his company commander. Cpl Biddiss had his hands tied, as he had to work within the rules and regulations applicable in his battalion at the time, which included an order prohibiting soldiers from entering the battalion HQ unless permission was given by the their company commander.

Possible solution.
Cpl Biddiss would have been able to make a telephone call to the third party to explain his circumstances. The third party could have made the appropriate calls to the Army Personnel Centre (APC) in Glasgow, his battalion commander and his regimental HQ. Cpl Biddiss’s late reports, the failures by his Company Commander and the deliberate attempts to delay Cpl Biddiss from voicing his concerns to his Commanding Officer would have been brought to the surface within a week of his initial telephone call to the third party, not after three months, and after further terrible things had happened to Cpl Biddiss and his family. It was admitted by APC Glasgow months later that based on his reports and record of service Cpl Biddiss should never have been subject to Manning Control in the first place. The involvement of the third party would have ensured that this became clear much earlier. The subject of Manning Control would have been looked at in more detail as it was obvious that there were no logical reasons for Cpl Biddiss being placed on the S-Type contract. It must be noted that APC Glasgow at first agreed with the recommendations of Cpl Biddiss's company commander, These recommendations turned out to be false and the decision reversed. The involvement of a third party would have ensured the use of Manning Control was examined more closely, by means of parliamentary questions and letters to the heads of the Armed Forces.

2.The Problem.
Cpl Biddiss's child was to become very seriously ill with meningitis while he was serving in Northern Ireland, His wife was diagnosed with depression and there were four other children to consider. This should have prompted the immediate return of Cpl Biddiss to the mainland. Again Cpl Biddiss had to work within the rules and regulations set by his battalion at the time, which meant that only his wife could call the compassionate cell to ask for the return of her husband. She was unwell and not in the right state of mind to do this, Cpl Biddiss could only go through his chain of command – ie the same company commander who had been attempting to pressure him into signing an S-Type contract. That was where his request would stop. There was no welfare support by the Unit Families Officer back in Colchester because the company commander had convinced the families officer that Cpl Biddiss was pulling the wool over people’s eyes, an allegation that was again proved to be false. The company commander had in fact given Cpl Biddiss a choice, telling him "it’s in your best interest to sign the new contract" at the same time as Mrs Biddiss was watching her son fight for his life. The health visitor, who had contacted the families officer in an attempt to get Cpl Biddiss sent home to help his wife, told Mrs Biddiss that the families officer had said that "if your husband gets back, his career and your future will be in jeopardy". This same threat was repeated to Cpl Biddiss’s platoon commander, who was also trying to get him sent home and was being put in his place by the company commander. It took nearly four days before the compassionate cell was called by Cpl Biddiss’s company commander and only after Cpl Biddiss had taken drastic action, storming into the battalion headquarters and telling the CO that if he was not allowed home to help his wife he would “f*** you and this regiment”. In this time, complications with the meningitis that would not have occurred had Cpl Biddiss been allowed home to help his wife had created serious health problems.

Possible solution
Again one call to the third party would have set the wheels in motion. Again appropriate calls would have been made to APC Glasgow, His battalion commander, his regimental HQ, and now the compassionate cell and Army Welfare at brigade level. Cpl Biddiss would have been on his way within an hour of that action, plus his platoon commander could also have called the third party with his concerns. It is worth noting that Cpl Biddiss should never have been sent to Northern Ireland in the first place as his child was still unwell.

3.The Problem.
Cpl Biddiss submitted a redress to his commanding officer, and at one point was threatened with jail simply for not agreeing with his commanding officer and the Manning Control procedure. His redress was stalled by his chain of command, and attempts were made to backdate documents to conceal the commanding officer’s alleged lack of proper involvement at the time the Manning Control process was activated. At the same time, Cpl Biddiss was given a scathing report by his company commander and ordered to acknowledge the report. Attempts were made to persuade Cpl Biddiss to drop his complaint with a promise of promotion. His battalion was to move to a new location in the UK, but leave Cpl Biddiss and his family behind with no support from unit welfare authorities or the chain of command. This situation lasted for more than nine months, without the knowledge or permission of higher military command levels, in order to cover up the situation and keep it in house. Far from helping Cpl Biddiss as the MoD claims the chain of command does, it deliberately kept him at arms length, hoping the problems would go away with time and Cpl Biddiss would calm down. Over this period Cpl Biddiss would have to come to terms with the knowledge that his son Chandler was to be seriously disabled, blind, unable to communicate and suffer from epilepsy. At the same time, his wife was suffering from clinical depression and unable to leave the house, and he had their four other children to look after. He was also trying to challenge an evasive chain of command over Manning Control and the treatment of his family.

Possible solution
Cpl Biddiss could have brought in the third party before making his redress of complaint [appeal and complaint process] to the chain of command. His complaint and the reasons for that complaint could be recorded by the third party and a case file number given to Cpl Biddiss, who could then submit his complaint to his chain of command, making them aware of his third party case reference number. Knowing the involvement of the third party, any commanding officer in his right mind would comply to the letter of the redress procedures and time limits. This would have made a very big difference to how the redress was managed by the chain of command, making it a level playing field for both sides. I must point out that I am not suggesting that third party members would be directly involved in the redress investigations. But the third party would have by now been very well informed of the complete situation and if there was any evidence of maladministration in the redress procedure, then it would be possible to have external investigations with recommendations to the correct people taking place on the similar lines of a a complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman. If necessary, procedures in the redress and its interpretation of the law could also be challenged and exposed by third party members. Points like fair disclosure to the complainant, of the brief at each level of the complaint and representation at oral hearings at the Army Board, none of which occurred in the Biddiss case. The proper free legal assistance would also be provided to Cpl Biddiss. It took him months before he could find a solicitor who would take on his case as most that he contacted did not even understand Manning Control. Cpl Biddiss was on his own, with all his other problems, trying to find the right legal advice. Third party involvement would have been able to help him with this extra burden and ensure he obtained the proper welfare and emotional support. Cpl Biddiss may be a paratrooper with all the toughness that entails but he is also like the rest of us only human. His case took nearly five years to resolve, by which time his career had taken a further battering as a result of his redress and legal action. Meanwhile, Chandler had gone through at least three life-saving operations. Tom Reah, Cpl Biddiss’s solicitor, who I know worked tirelessly on his client’s behalf, died before he could properly challenge the case in court.

So to answer the criticisms and questions raised about the British Armed Forces Federation. (I have of course always referred above to an unidentified third party.) Yes of course there is always a possibility that a representative of the third party, voted in by the members it represents, could have had prior history with an officer or non-commissioned officer that the soldier is complaining about. But the initial phone call would be logged and recorded and more then one person would be involved with the handling of the case. The chances of all third party members knowing the officer or non-commissioned officer are nil, as some will have no military background. It should also be possible for any member of the third party to declare an interest in that he knows the officer or non-commissioned officer concerned. Any behaviour that favoured the officer or non-commissioned officer involved because he was known to the third party member should be stamped on immediately and that person dismissed from the third party. There should be a filtering system to ensure the right person is assigned to the case based on such possible factors and experience. This is of course not a definitive answer but it is a possible solution and as I show above, it would definitely have helped in the Biddiss case. I will just end by saying I hope that when Mrs Biddiss’s book is published commanders and MoD civil servants will read it and use it as an aide memoir as to how not to treat soldiers and their families.
 
#19
Hi
Do not get your hopes up if you redress your CR, as i can say from experience that the redress system dos not work for most of the SNCO, and remember you are up against the Officer Corps.

Below is copy of my CR, i was givan this in Jan 2004, part 1 from the Adj & the RSM, as i was the Provost Sgt, & then I was moved to a job in the rehabilition Troop. The grading was A/Y

In March 2003 I was downgraded, and seing a Psychiatrist for problems i was having with PTSD(one of my jobs in the past was on the Army War Graves unit). The C o C was informed i was seeing a psychiatrist, and had reguler feed back from the MO, Psychiatrist,(with F/med 8 to CO) & Me.

In Feb the CR was then back for me to sign, part 1 & 2, the CO had done hes bit,( The CR should have been done in Oct 2003 only 4 Months late). this is part 1

As Provost Sgt he was responsible for the day-to-day running of the Regimental Detention Centre and Guardroom, in this he was extremely proficient and knowledgeable. As SNCO IC Rehabilitation troop he is responsible for the maintenance of morale for up to 15 phase 2 soldiers and the continuation of their military training. In this role he is required to show inspired leadership and training ability which he has done excellently.

++++ has shown dedication and compassion in his role as welfare member on the WO & Sgts Mess committee, additionally he has contributed to wider Regimental life through his organisation of Battlefield tours to France for both the trainees and permanent staff.

++++ provides an excellent example to the trainees through his bearing and dedication to personal fitness.

++++ Has performed highly over the reporting period and is well equipped for the next rank. He is strongy recommended for promotion.


That was part 1 from my CR, the write up was done by the Adj with input from the RSM. I had no problems with this part of the CR, on the front of the CR is your PES box, my PES was HO(UK)NNI, also at part 8" are there any special factors which restrict this soldiers next posting was my PES, M2 S7 PES HO(UK)NNI.

The next part of the CR was part 2, the write up was by the CO.

This CR is probably the most difficult to write that i have experienced as a CO. ++++ is currently downgraded and under medicatuion for his medical condition. As a result++++ performance has been erratic for the majority of the reporting period. When performing to his maximum++++ is a first class SNCO. He contributes widely to the life of the Regiment and runs a superb guardroom. He has personally run many small initiatives to improve the life of the young soldiers and he has made the guardroom a friendly place for the young soldiers, an exceptionally difficult achievement. When ++++ lets his standards fall they fall swiftly and they fall far. It is this inconsistency of performance that is so worrying and at times difficult to address.

++++ is a man who has all the qualities necessary for further promotion and to still contribute to military life. What is required is a consistency of performance and a real effort to raise his standards to the next highest level.

He also market down the CR from a A/Y to a B/Y.

This was a shock to me, the CO knew i was seeing a psychiatrist. And has i had not had a mid year appraisal, I asked the Adj to have a word or i would put a redress in, the CO was not going to change his mind.

So I put in a redress in on the 30th Jan 2004, this is from the CO to the Adj

To Adjutant
Formal complaint from ++++

Thank you for ref: A & B which arrived in the post this morning.

I have read ref: A which is ++++ letter to Lt Col ++++. I cannot identify which part of my report of ++++ CR that are actually being objected to as a matter of fact.

I made it clear in my opening sentence that this was probably the most difficult CR I had to write as the CO, I stand by that remark. For some of the reporting period ++++ was ill and additionally he did let his standards of performance fall. These are matters of fact. It was the inconsistency of peformance that I draw attention to.

The COs report contains my honest professionalk assessment of ++++. It was written to be an accurate report of his performance in this reporting period and to indicate future potential and how future performance could be enhanced.

In re-reading this part 2, I remain of the opinion that it was a fair, honest and accurate report, written with a degree of tact and compassion.



After i had place a formal complaint in it took until 21 April 2005 before Headquarters 4th Division write back with there findings, before this thay had said i would have to resubmitt the complaint, it was on the wrong form.

This is the letter from HQ 4th Div.

Redress Of Complaint

1. The GOC 4th Div has considered your applications for redress of complaint and he has directed that I write to you to convey his findings.

2. Your first complaint is against your confidential report covering the period 2 Oct 2002 to 1 Oct 2003. The GOC is satisfied that you have grounds for redress. He is prepared to direct that all the disputed comments in the 2nd reporting officer's report are either removed or changed and your assessment grade upgraded from a B to an A.

3. The GOC agrees that you should have received an appraisal at the mid year point and this should have been conducted by your 1st reporting officer. He also agrees that the comment by your Commanding Officer to apply for your discharge for raising a complaint was inappropriate.


The letter go's on with how i should submitted any complaints in the correct format and through my current chain of command.

Then in July i was givan a copy of the GOCs Direction and recommendation.

GOC Direction and Recommendation on Redress of Complaint

Reference:
A. AGAI 70

General.
. Sgt ++++ was serving with +++ when he submitted two applications for redress of complaint. The first complaint was against his CR covering the period 2 Oct 2002 to 1st Oct 2003 and the second against a breach of medical confidentiality. I am only giving direction on his first complaint.

Background
On 30 Jan 2004 Sgt++++ made a formal complaint to his CO by way of a letter, against part two of his CR. This was investigated at unit level but the findings of the investigation were not to the satisfaction of Sgt ++++. He raised the complaint again on 27 May 2004 which has now been the subject of furthsr investigation.

Comment
The matters raised by Sgt ++++ in his first complaint are supported. Firstly, he has complained that he did not receive a mid period appraisal report, and my staff have confirmed that this is correct. By not receiving a mid period appraisal report Sgt ++++ has been denied the opportunity to correct any failing that might have been brought to his attention.

The second matter relates to being shown the pen picture by the first reporting officer; it clearly showed he had been given an A grade. However, when he was given his completed confidential report to sign, his grade had been changed to B. This was clearly wrong as there was no explanation for the change written in the report. If there was to be a change it should have been crossed out in red ink and the CO should have provided an explanation in his comments. I am satisfied that Sgt ++++ expectations had been raised and he was perfectly entitled to expect an A grade report.

The last matter raised by Sgt ++++ in this complaint was that after submitting the formal complaint he was given an inappropriate warning by his CO that he would apply for his discharge. Sgt ++++ considers this has tainted the CO view of him over the reporting period. Whilst I consider the remark by the CO to be inappropriate, my staff have investigated this matter and confirmed with the CO that this was not the case.

Direction on Complaint

I have given careful consideration to this complaint and in my opinion Sgt ++++ has been wronged in the matters he has raised. My deputy chief of staff has written to him informing him of my decision that i would direct changes to his CR if he considers they are acceptable. Although he has replied to this letter he has failed to give confirmation. I consider that his application should not be delayed further and the changes to his report should proceed. I therfore direct that under the authority of Ref A the following changes are to be made to Sgt ++++ CR.

A. Delete Grade B.

B. Insert Grade A.

C. Delete the second sentence that reads "Sgt ++++ is medically downgraded and under medication for his medical condition"

D. Insert "Sgt ++++ is medically downgraded, and therefore has not always been able to give his best during this reporting period.

E. Delete the third sentence that reads " As a result Sgt ++++ performance has been erratic for the majority of the reporting period".

F. Delete the seventh and eighth sentences that read " When Sgt ++++ lets his standards fall they fall swiftly and fall far" and "It is this inconsistency of performance that is so worrying and at times difficult to address".

G. Delete the final sentence in the report that reads " what is required is a consistency of performance and to raise his standards to the next highest level".

H. Insert the final sentence to read "He now requires a real effort to raise his standards to an even higher level".

I. Sgt ++++ has now been approached to withdraw his complaint.


So if you go down this route make sure you remember the officer's look after each other, and thay will never back down to a ranker.
 
#20
Nige said:
There is another option - you can put in a letter - called something like a 'comment on CR' (speak to G1 people for the right name). Basically, you get to write a comment on your CR, this letter is then kept on file, next to the CR in question and is viewed on all promotion / posting boards along with the CR.

It was an option I had, but didn't take, when I had some 'fun' with an old OC.

In the end, my next CR simply destroyed the comments on the previous CR, which may be a better option for you. I was promoted on time, even though I had a shocker of a 1st CR.

Is this your first CR in Rank?
Cheers Nige, just found a MS guide and Chapter 5 explains the process of Representation( NOT amounting to a complaint )Think I'll go down that route

ps. Third CR in post, other two were fine.
 

Similar threads


Top