Enlistment age goes up to 33 for ALL Arms & Services.

#1
CHANGE TO THE MAXIMUM AGE ON ENLISTMENT TO THE REGULAR ARMY

The maximum age for enlistment, onto the Open Engagement, is now 33 years of age for all Arms and Services.

The exception to this policy change will be CAMUS who will retain the maximum limit of 36.11 years.

Current policy regarding the maximum age for enlistment to the Regular Army varies, at the discretion of individual A&SDs. With the introduction of age legislation and the drive to seek greater uniformity across the 3 Services, a review of Army policy has been conducted.

There is a lack of convincing evidence to support a case to continue with current differences in policy, more especially in light of Royal Marines policy which allows entry up to 33 years of age, and there is little confidence that current restrictions are either sensible or helpful in manning the Army.

For the majority, maximum ages range from 26.11 in the case of Inf to 33 in the case of certain AMS CEGs.

Exceptionally CAMUS have a limit of 36.11 years. MPGS limit is 50 but they are employed on different ToS.

________________________

I personally believe that this is a step in the right direction.

Comments?
 
#4
Ronnie8781 said:
Is this for definite??
I've got the document in front of me as I type this, it was released yesterday.

It is about time as well, I personally know many high calibre civilian men aged 31-33 who will certainly take advantage of this.

With age comes experience of life.
 
#5
Oh no, I totally agree with you, I think it can be only good for the Forces that the upper age limit is increased. At last a sensible decision!!
 
#6
what about re-enlisting, one of my muckas got out 5 years ago, (only 36) they said he was too old to sign back on as he wouldn't have enough residual service to have a decent career,sounds total pishh to me , saurely if they have extended enlistment age then why not extend resigning on age????/
 
#7
u_didnt_c_me_i_wasnt_ther said:
what about re-enlisting, one of my muckas got out 5 years ago, (only 36) they said he was too old to sign back on as he wouldn't have enough residual service to have a decent career,sounds total pishh to me , saurely if they have extended enlistment age then why not extend resigning on age????/
Re-Enlistment. This age limit applies to re-enlistments. Those wishing to re-enlist and are over the age of 33, may at the discretion of A&SDs, be offered a Type S Engagement that does not take their service beyond the normal retirement age of 55.

Re-Entry from the Regular Army Reserve. This age limit does not apply to those who re-enter from the Regular Army Reserve who are to be treated in accordance with the conditions laid down in QRs 9.113.
 
#9
Just out of interest does anyone know the limit for the TA. I have just joined the Australian reserves and their limit is 55, there was a guy of 54 on my basic training, not ex regs he was a school teacher.
Apparently they lost an age discrimination case recently and had to up the limit.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#11
If Armies need soldiers and able bodied people want to be soldiers and there's a shortage of soldiers....see where this is going?

I don't think that the age 55 thing should be an issue anymore. Other Armies happily get on with it and at a time like this for the UK(and it's not going to improve) if you can pass the training, why the f*ck not join up.

Good luck to anyone who takes it up.
 
#12
Spot on. 22 years then your out mate should be stopped and people who want to remain in uniform and can still cut the mustard to should be kept in. The amount if experience that has been lost over the years due to the 22 year rule has always baffled me.
 
#13
[posted elsewhere, so excuse the duplication]

Does this increase in the age limit effect the upper age limit for entry to Sandhurst? (currently under 29 at start of the Commissioning Course)
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#15
THESUNJOCK said:
Spot on. 22 years then your out mate should be stopped and people who want to remain in uniform and can still cut the mustard to should be kept in. The amount if experience that has been lost over the years due to the 22 year rule has always baffled me.
I wouldn't do it again, but I certainly wouldn't put anyone else off doing so. If it's your thing, fill your boots. As you say, if a soldier can cut the mustard as an old fart, then why not.

The 22 yr thing is a bit of a waste as well, but despite the arguments for and against, I reckon that beggars shouldn't become choosers. Yep, if they ever remove it carte blanche, it'll slow some promotions down, but slower promotions for longer term job security? I now which one I'd rather have.

Who knows eh, it might be the best thing to hit the Army since RAOC sliced bread?
 
#16
RAOC sliced bread when fresh from the bakeries was excellent, yummy and not spoilt by those chaps from Hovis !!
 
#17
Folks,

This has nothing to do with seeing the opportunities and benefits of bringing more mature heads in to the forces.

It is all to do with a growing desperation that we can't meet the recruiting and retention figures and if they don't widen open the pool, there won't be an Armed service in 10yrs time.
 
#18
in_the_cheapseats said:
Folks,

This has nothing to do with seeing the opportunities and benefits of bringing more mature heads in to the forces.

It is all to do with a growing desperation that we can't meet the recruiting and retention figures and if they don't widen open the pool, there won't be an Armed service in 10yrs time.
Totally agree with what you say about it being a method to help the recruiting problem, however, at the same time upping the age limit in such a way is without doubt, going to bring a substantial amount of life experience into the Armed Forces.

In my personal opinion, it could have been "Upped" a little further than what it has been. Maybe not for Teeth Arms, almost definately for Support Arms.

All in all, good news, we are stepping into the 21st Century, slow steps, but at least they're steps in the right direction.

Edgey
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#20
in_the_cheapseats said:
Folks,

This has nothing to do with seeing the opportunities and benefits of bringing more mature heads in to the forces.

It is all to do with a growing desperation that we can't meet the recruiting and retention figures and if they don't widen open the pool, there won't be an Armed service in 10yrs time.
Absolutely. There's no way they would have even considered this 'gesture' had they been able to recruit. I do hope though, that it goes full pelt and that a good number of older lads join up and further that the current and foreseeable manning situation, forces them to kick the 22yr shite into touch as well.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top