Enabling Component & PULHHEEMS

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by polar, May 17, 2006.

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. A fellow ARRSE member has just been medically discharged. He's employed in the TA in an enabler slot in new TA terminology.

    According to the medical board he would be unfit for mobilisation but as an enabler he wouldn't be mobilised. His discharge causes more problems than it solves, my unit will probably have to put someone into his slot thats poorer at the job than him (probably me :D ). His injury doesn't stop him from doing the job, he's being doing it very well for months, he's well liked and his enthusiasum motivates others. His discharge will have a bad effect on others moral.

    So why do enablers have to meet the same standards as those that would deploy?
  2. What is an "enabler" ?
  3. I believe the intention is that a part of the TA will be classed as enablers, e.g. SQMS/CQMS, they do their jobs keeping TA units running but would never get mobilised.
  4. So are they like NRPS?
  5. IMHO:

    1. The future of the TA/Reserves is that you join in the 18-25 age bracket, pass CIC etc, and become fit for mobilisation in 12 - 18 months.
    2. 2/3 deployments in the first five years.
    3. Having developed skillset now elegible to remain in the TA without deploying (but on lower bounty) training the next iteration (enabling the cycle to continue)
    4a. More deployments or 6 month S type attachments (in which case max bounty)
    4b. Local/unit training team (on reduced bounty) as an enabler
    5. After five years at stage 4 move to regional TT for 2/3 years as trainer (enabling et cetera)

    Natural selection and external pressures (career/family) will ensure that the manpower pyramid naturally fits. i.e. few will make it all the way to stage five.

    Of course if Tony stops picking fights or sucking up to Dubya then this might now be the best model. OTOH it does provide lots of IRs and allow individuals who don't want to live in condemmed barracks to have a sort of 'military lite' experience in their formative years. It's a better model for providing a reserve, but needs more work around the regular support interface and a move from the TA battallion structure.
  6. please say to the old structure
  7. I think you answer your own question here ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

    The aspiration is to have an enabling component and a deployable component but as far as I am aware to date this is still an aspiration and no chnages to LSN's have been made to carry out the policy.

    Whilst it may have been short sighted to bin the individual in this case, until such changes are made then there are few reasons why he would be able to continue (Should add I have no personal knowledge of the case or the indiidual or unit concerned so all comments are based entirely on what you have stated).

    There are many factors involved here. You hint at the post being a CQMS type post. If this is the case then is it right that one person should be given that post indeffinately and prevent others from progressing through the ranks if that is the only slot available at the time?

    I often hear the argument that 'no-one else wants the job' what generally turns out to be true is that either a. the job is not explained to people and therefore they have preconceived ideas about what is involved which are generally far from the truth. or b. Person responsible for finding someone to fill the post thinks that the job is undesireable and therefore expects everyone else to have the same opinion so doesn't bother to find out if anyone else actually wants the job...

    {edited by H_de_T to get rid of unintentional smilies!}
  8. All a great idea except for the fact that the average age of a trained private is 28. The average age of recruits is 23. source. This number includes the OTC so I'd guess that the average age of people coming through te door of the average unit is higher.

    For whatever reason, the TA doesnt currently appeal to the age group that you are suggesting, and so without that starting point I'm afraid the plan doesnt work.
  9. ^thanks for the info, I wondered what was happening with the enabling component.

    Its not a matter of holding people up, Telic, Bosnia and other factors has created a vacum in Cpl->SSgt ranks (we now have 3, one in each rank).
  10. In which case shortsightedness and blind obedience of the rules step into play :x maybe the med reason was extremelly serious but I know from my own unit there are many with med problems which should have really led to discharge but instead they have been downgraded to Home Service (Not NI), doesn't stop them carrying out those enabler jobs (Which although they don't officially exist yet, have existed since time began) provided they do so on the understanding that should the situation arise where they are blocking the only chance of promotion for someone else who still has further to go that they should step aside.

    Lets face it, there is always the odd spare LSN kicking around to move these people into. anyone from MOD / LAND know when the enabler concept will be implemented??
  11. There is already a pulheems grade for personel who are fit for home service, not for mobilisation. I presume he was kicked out because he failed to achieve even this grade. Not all soldiers have to be fighting fit to stay in, but they do have to be fit for their role, otherwise they are a liability.
  12. I believe the grade wasn't too good, just seems strange he can work as a mobile engineer with an IT firm but the Army won't let him sign 1033's in the stores. He's probably better off leaving anyway, he was injured while mobilised so he gets a ?disability? pension off the MoD.
  13. They obviously consider this person to be a liability somewhere within the unit. Not heard of many med-boards being reversed have you ???
  14. Because they wear green. Sorry, but I have litle sympathy. We need to improve the overall level of fitness/usefullness of the TA, not invent a pile of jobs that can be filled by the unfit. Medical exemptions would be the first bit of the wedge, followed by general fitness/ability, end result, 5 years time a TA filled with elderly fat knackers and no recruits - who would want to join ? - and as for the ammo that it would give the ARAB "Bin the TA" mob....

    Says he, having got back to P3 LE and a letter from the doc saying I'm deployable - after 6 months on P7 Home Only. I'm going for P2 next.... just got to find an on-side doc....
  15. ooooh get you, lets hope you remain fit and well for the rest of your career or what ever you do...Ive seem positions in the regular army taken up by what i can only discribe as severely disabled people, so the army does have a policy somewhere on duty of care..