Infantry Officer Redundancies

#1
Anyone else think this is not being managed too well?

The Infantry intends to sack 140 officers next June. These will be from years of birth 1960 to 1974 (why does the Army still work on years of birth, when all new contracts are based on length of service?). However, 1970 - 74 is heavily over strength, so this will be where the axe falls heaviest. Conveniently, this is also the area that offers the best financial saving (under the rules, a 1970 major made redundant will get approximately £110,000 lump sum and an immediate pension of around £10,000 per year. A 1974 major will receive a lump sum of approximately £35,000.)

At the same time, officers on short service commissions in 1970 - 74 are being told they will not be extended (so will leave in the next few years) and those on Intermediate Regular Commissions are being told they will not be converted (so will also leave).

On top of all that, Officers in the brackets are being encouraged to look at alternative employment just in case. I wonder how many will look and suddenly realise that life outside the Army is not so bad and will leave with their pensions regardless of redundancy?

The Infantry produces many of the best officers in the Army, head and shoulders above the corps, yet they are facing the biggest chop. Less capable officers will remain and fill important jobs.

So, in outline:

Who was responsible for allowing officer manning to get in such a mess? (some years are 30% over manned!).

Would it not be more sensible to look at officer manning as a whole, not just Infantry?

Is this not just a badly managed knee jerk reaction in a similar vein to Options for Change - cuts from which the Army never recovered?

Just to really cheer me up, the whole thing shifts to soldiers next year - I perish to think how many we will lose then!
 
#2
I'll post my thoughts tomorrow when the Infantry conversion of commision board results are published...

...I can tell you're intrigued

...no, really, I can.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
Yorkie said:
The Infantry produces many of the best officers in the Army, head and shoulders above the corps, yet they are facing the biggest chop. Less capable officers will remain and fill important jobs.
Contentious. Very contentious.

<Ex-Corps senior NCO leans back, lights cigarette, anticipates frothing Sappers>
 
#4
Yorkie said:
Anyone else think this is not being managed too well?

The Infantry intends to sack 140 officers next June. These will be from years of birth 1960 to 1974 (why does the Army still work on years of birth, when all new contracts are based on length of service?). However, 1970 - 74 is heavily over strength, so this will be where the axe falls heaviest. Conveniently, this is also the area that offers the best financial saving (under the rules, a 1970 major made redundant will get approximately £110,000 lump sum and an immediate pension of around £10,000 per year. A 1974 major will receive a lump sum of approximately £35,000.)

At the same time, officers on short service commissions in 1970 - 74 are being told they will not be extended (so will leave in the next few years) and those on Intermediate Regular Commissions are being told they will not be converted (so will also leave).

On top of all that, Officers in the brackets are being encouraged to look at alternative employment just in case. I wonder how many will look and suddenly realise that life outside the Army is not so bad and will leave with their pensions regardless of redundancy?

The Infantry produces many of the best officers in the Army, head and shoulders above the corps, yet they are facing the biggest chop. Less capable officers will remain and fill important jobs.

So, in outline:

Who was responsible for allowing officer manning to get in such a mess? (some years are 30% over manned!).

Would it not be more sensible to look at officer manning as a whole, not just Infantry?

Is this not just a badly managed knee jerk reaction in a similar vein to Options for Change - cuts from which the Army never recovered?

Just to really cheer me up, the whole thing shifts to soldiers next year - I perish to think how many we will lose then!
Well for a start, the DCI was produced by DM(A) whom we all love to bits :roll: if you want confirmation of this just as MS5 :D

Second, the redundancy board (which will select individual officers for redundancy) will be a No 4 Board (promotion and appointments Lt Cols) It will operate in reverse, to some very strict criteria set by the Deputy Mil Sec.

So, what I mean is, this is not be an "inf only" decision making process.

That said, as per No 4 Board, Colonel Inf MCM Div will be required to submit 3 names for every redundancy slot, so there will be inf pre-boards.

I am in regular contact with most of the Inf desk offrs at the APC, and can assure you that they are working hard to get their initial staff work completed by the deadline set by DM(A) in the DCI(A) and the Deputy Mil Sec.
 
#5
barbs said:
I'll post my thoughts tomorrow when the Infantry conversion of commision board results are published...
Come on then, they were 'clear' on 3 March :roll:

The list of those who failed ran to 2 pages; we had 4 officers on the failures page - and they are all worth retaining imho.

Message from Inf MCM Div to those who failed is:

Keep applying.

Next Board is in July with a full board in October 8)

Advice from yr friendly helpful MS_Rep to all those still applying....>

Get an e copy of Annex N to ACR 99, this will allow space for proper comment by yr CO and Fmn Comd.

regards

MS_Rep
 
#7
Another thing that crossed my mind: Isn't is agist (age-ist/age discriminatory) to select people for jobs and careers based on years of birth?
 
#8
MS Rep - sorry - got confused between Infantry forum and Officer Forum - the thread there is now quite long.

IMHO it is arrse the way people are being mucked about:

Option 1 - selected for promotion and move straight into the zone!
Option 2 - attend ICSC(L) and not get your commission converted - potentially with only 2 years left to push.

The advice I received from APC was to wait until selected for promotion and the conversion list is littered with BL Capts and ICSC Majors without Reg Cs!
 
#9
Yorkie said:
Another thing that crossed my mind: Isn't is agist (age-ist/age discriminatory) to select people for jobs and careers based on years of birth?
Definitely. But DM(A) set the quotas by YOB, so your Redress of Complaint should be addressed to them :D :D
 
#10
barbs said:
MS Rep - sorry - got confused between Infantry forum and Officer Forum - the thread there is now quite long.

IMHO it is arrse the way people are being mucked about:

Option 1 - selected for promotion and move straight into the zone!
Option 2 - attend ICSC(L) and not get your commission converted - potentially with only 2 years left to push.

The advice I received from APC was to wait until selected for promotion and the conversion list is littered with BL Capts and ICSC Majors without Reg Cs!
Yes I know it's a real bummer! :(

A fruitful and caring relationship with your desk officer at the APC will help matters - some are very good indeed, some are average - its pot luck really.

If you think you are getting a bad deal on career management buying your MS_Rep :) a beer or 2 could get him/her to look into your case on the QT.

I'm a male MS_Rep, for the record :)
 
#12
I have just had an interesting conversation with a bod out of DMA. His take on the matter is that the main slice will be the older generation specifically 64-67 but with a few places outside. No real arguement for it other than it was to make way for the younger generation. This doesn't really tie up with what I have seen published and the comments so far published.

Is anyone better placed to comment on what is going on in the backrooms?
 
#13
in_the_cheapseats said:
I have just had an interesting conversation with a bod out of DMA. His take on the matter is that the main slice will be the older generation specifically 64-67 but with a few places outside. No real arguement for it other than it was to make way for the younger generation. This doesn't really tie up with what I have seen published and the comments so far published.

Is anyone better placed to comment on what is going on in the backrooms?
Just look at the DCI to see the numbers.

regards
 
#14
Yorkie said:
Anyone else think this is not being managed too well?

The Infantry intends to sack 140 officers next June. These will be from years of birth 1960 to 1974 (why does the Army still work on years of birth, when all new contracts are based on length of service?). However, 1970 - 74 is heavily over strength, so this will be where the axe falls heaviest. Conveniently, this is also the area that offers the best financial saving (under the rules, a 1970 major made redundant will get approximately £110,000 lump sum and an immediate pension of around £10,000 per year. A 1974 major will receive a lump sum of approximately £35,000.)

At the same time, officers on short service commissions in 1970 - 74 are being told they will not be extended (so will leave in the next few years) and those on Intermediate Regular Commissions are being told they will not be converted (so will also leave).

On top of all that, Officers in the brackets are being encouraged to look at alternative employment just in case. I wonder how many will look and suddenly realise that life outside the Army is not so bad and will leave with their pensions regardless of redundancy?

The Infantry produces many of the best officers in the Army, head and shoulders above the corps, yet they are facing the biggest chop. Less capable officers will remain and fill important jobs.

So, in outline:

Who was responsible for allowing officer manning to get in such a mess? (some years are 30% over manned!).

Would it not be more sensible to look at officer manning as a whole, not just Infantry?

Is this not just a badly managed knee jerk reaction in a similar vein to Options for Change - cuts from which the Army never recovered?

Just to really cheer me up, the whole thing shifts to soldiers next year - I perish to think how many we will lose then!
 
#16
Biscuits_AB said:
Why copy someone's post? Haven't you anything to add here?
I think his finger slipped whilst multi-tasking (completing his application for redundancy at the same time)? :wink: :wink:
 
#17
Having just found this thread today and read Yorkie's initial rant, he probably deserves to be on said list for first suggesting that the quality of Inf officers is far above that of the Corps (we all have our muppets and we all have our flyers - I'd suggest overall that we come out about even in the 'who's best' stakes), and secondly in failing to identify that the Big Man's changes are to the Inf Arms Plot and therefore include very few non-Inf types.

That said, there is an Army-wide shortage of Majors so why are we binning anyone ?
 
#18
Glad_its_all_over said:
Yorkie said:
The Infantry produces many of the best officers in the Army, head and shoulders above the corps, yet they are facing the biggest chop. Less capable officers will remain and fill important jobs.
Contentious. Very contentious.

<Ex-Corps senior NCO leans back, lights cigarette, anticipates frothing Sappers>
...But being completely honest, I catch his drift. Remember those blokes who couldn't get a spot anywhere else at the Selection Boards? Okay, many of them joined the QRL, but they don't factor anyway.
 

Latest Threads